COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 4/25/01 10:58 a.m. - - - BILL 010014 - Amending Section 14-203 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "R-2 Residential District," to expand the number of children allowable in a family day-care operation, under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 4/25/01 - RULES I N D E X Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. . . . . Paul DiLorenzo, Director of Children's Policy 6 Amy Gendall, Director, Office of Child Care 14 7 Richard Lombardo, Director. . . . . . . . . . 32 Development Planning, Zoning Division 8 Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory 41 9 Affairs Manager, L&I Tom Chapman, City Planning Commission . . . . 46 Lorraine Brill, President . . . . . . . . . . 54 Upper Northwood Community Council Mary Jane Hazel, President. . . . . . . . . . 58 Somerton Civic Association Dominic Ragucci, Zoning Chairman. . . . . . . 63 Somerton Civic Association Al Taubenberger, President. . . . . . . . . . 64 Burholme Civic Association Thomas Sholer, Second Vice President. . . . . 66 East Torresdale Civic Association Reverend Sharon Easterling, Exec. Dir. . . . 68 Del. Val. Assoc. For Education of Young Children Nancy Quaglia, Director of Family Day Care 72 Associated Day Care Service Angie Logan, Asst. Child Care Director, PCCY 76 Marilyn Kelty, W. Phila. Child Care Network 81 Patricia DiCarlo, Executive Director. . . . . 108 Norris Square Civic Association Christine Day, Cedar Park Neighborhood Assoc. 110 3 4/25/01 - RULES (Index, cont'd.) Geri Swift, President . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Women's Business Development Center Julia Hinkley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 People's Emergency Center Pri Sebadri, Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Philadelphia Development Partnership's Community Capital Works Program Aleta Chester, Family Day-Care Provider . . . 134 Donna Robinson, Family Day-Care Provider. . . 136 Marlene Murray, Working Mother. . . . . . . . 139 4 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee Council Bill No. 010004. I would ask Mr. Mezzaroba to please read the title of the bill.
An ordinance amending Section 14-203 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "R-2 Residential District," to expand the number of children allowable in a family day-care operation, under certain terms and conditions.
I believe Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown would like to make an opening statement.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning and thank you, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Bill 010014 has been the culmination of much work and advocacy, advocacy that goes far beyond my tenure here in City Council. I felt it was important to join the coalition of home-based child-care advocates and to promote this bill due to the dire need for quality, above-ground family 5 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 day-care providers -- quality, above-ground family day-care providers. Let me be specific. Quality is best assured when the Departments of Health and the Licenses & Inspections and inspections have oversight over a provider. Quality is more likely to happen when a provider has access to grants that the City provides to promote the health and safety of children here in our city. The City can only help those who choose to be helped. The City can only help those who choose to be legal and above-ground. We as a city do not make it easy for those who want to provide care for up to six children. Although the building and fire codes allow for six children to be cared for, and currently the State regulations allow us to care for six, the Zoning Code is currently stuck at four. Because of that, providers who want at a care for five or six children -- six being the cap -- must go through a barrier that we believe is both intimidating and unnecessary. By removing this barrier, City Council will be sending a clear message that we understand the problem of becoming 6 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 a legal provider and that we're willing to help those in our neighborhoods become legal child-care providers. Finally, let me emphasize that this bill will only impact -- will only impact -- family child-care providers, those who care for six or less children. We fully support the need for a zoning hearing for those that care for more than six. Myself and those who advocate on behalf of children in our city recognize and realize that larger facilities need the protections that the zoning process provides. However, for six or less, it is a burden for advocates and the Zoning Board, as we have recently learned, since the fact is that 95 percent of those cases get approved. There are a number of people who want to speak on this bill. However, I will be here today throughout the hearing to speak both publicly and privately with those who are interested. In conclusion, I would respectfully request that my colleagues today vote in favor of Bill 010114, a much-needed initiative to make Philadelphia pro-family. 7 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 And let me close by welcoming all of those who come as far as Danville, Pennsylvania we have Denise Cressman (ph.) here, who's President of the Pennsylvania Home-Based Child-Care Providers in addition to those right here in our city who care very, very, very much about this issue. I thank you, Madam President.
Before we start with our testimony, it is my understanding that we have at least people who wish to 15 testify. At least three members of this 16 committee, to the best of my knowledge, do have a 17 12:15 appointment today that's very, very 18 imperative that we attend. 19 So with that being said, in order for 20 all of us to hear testimony, perhaps we could 21 limit the testimony of each witness to three 22 minutes. 23 So our first witness is Diane Long of 24 Auditor General Robert Casey's office. Is Miss 25 Long here? 8 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 (No response.)
It is my understand that we do have a letter presented to us from the Auditor General. I would ask Mr. Mezzaroba to please read it into the record.
"Dear Councilwoman Reynolds Brown: I regret that previous commitments prevent me from attending today's hearing on your family child-care bill but appreciate the opportunity to express to you and the other members of City Council my support for expanding the availability of safe child care. "As you know, it is important to increase the number of registered family child-care providers to provide Philadelphia's working families with crucial access to care-givers who meet health and safety guidelines. Your diligence on behalf of Philadelphia's working families are to be commended. "I am very interested in learning more about this issue and would appreciate it if you would forward to me copies of testimony you hear today. I look forward to continuing to work with 9 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 you to improve access to affordable quality and safe child care for all Pennsylvania families."
Thank you and a copy of that was given to the stenographer. Our next witness is Paul DiLorenzo. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Mr. DiLorenzo. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Paul DiLorenzo. I'm the Director of Children's Policy for the City of Philadelphia. By the way, we're providing you also with copies of remarks and testimony for Estelle Richman, the Director of Social Services for the City.
We're providing you also with copies of remarks and testimony from Estelle Richman, the Director of Social Services 10 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 for the City as well.
I'd like to thank the members of the Committee on Rules and Chairwoman Verna for giving me the opportunity to testify today in favor of this bill to permit family child-care homes of six children in residential zones. The Office of Children's Policy has a strong interest in promoting policies and services that support the development of young children. This bill is consistent with our interest in ensuring that parents have a range of safe, supervised, and inspected child-care choices for the care of their children. We believe that the current regulations, which limit the number of children in family child-care settings to four, unless the provider receives a zoning variance, have contributed to Philadelphia's inadequate supply of home-based care without offering meaningful protections to neighborhoods or children. According to the Department of Public Welfare Day Care Licensing Division, as of October 11 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 2000, there were 814 family child-care homes operating in Philadelphia. To offer a comparison, Baltimore, a city one half the size of City of Philadelphia, which does not place zoning restrictions on small family child-care homes, currently has 1,252 regulated family child-care homes. Boston has one-third of Philadelphia's population and 670 child-care homes. Our relatively low numbers of home-based alternatives are of particular concern given the very large number of families who are transitioning off cash assistance and who are taking job during nonstandard hours. Family child-care is often the only regulated option available to families working split shifts or second and third shifts. It is our view that the most significant protections available to children, parents, and neighborhoods come through the city and state agencies charged with regulating child care and not through the zoning process. I'd like to submit with my testimony a review done by the Office of Child Care of the various state and city agencies and departments 12 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 which inspect and oversee family child-care homes. That's attached the testimony. We are fortunate in Philadelphia to have local ordinances that go well beyond state regulations in ensuring that the homes in which children receive care are safe and inspected. Our family child-care licensing system assures that before a provider receives state approval to care for four or more children, she must have been inspected for fire and building safety by the Department of Licenses and Inspections and have a thorough Health Department inspection of the full child-care environment. We've also developed procedures for cross systems communication between the City's Department of Human Services and Licenses and Inspections and the State Department of Public welfare. Finally, I'd like to address the financial ramifications of this bill from the perspective of the City. Passage of the bill 23 could result in a slight revenue gain from the increase in taxable income from existing small business that expand their numbers and the 13 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 potential new family child-care homes which come into operation. In addition, the load on the Zoning Board itself and L&I would be reduced. The more significant impact would be on the economic viability of these important micro-businesses, which provide essential services to families for poverty-level wages. For those existing programs which have functions serving four children, the proposed increase would have the potential to increase their incomes by one-third. For at least some of those operating in the underground, the prospect of a less intimidating regulatory system, stable reportable income, and the benefit of training and other incentives could be enough to encourage the operating (inaudible) on a legal basis, contributing to the tax basis and local economy.
Amy Gandall is the Director of our Office of Child care and is the staff person in our unit who's responsible and who has researched this issue, and she's available to answer questions as well.
Thank you. (Applause.) 14 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
Mr. DiLorenzo, I don't understand. Why do you feel that the zoning requirement is the reason we do not have a sufficient number of centers, as well as why do you think that it is the Zoning Code that is causing people to operate illegally? In other words, are you saying it is your opinion that the majority of illegal day-care centers are compliant to all other regulations except for zoning?
I'm going to let Amy take that since she's done more of the research on this than I have.
Please identify yourself for the record before respond.
Sure. I'm Amy Gendall, the Director of the City Office of Child Care. I would say our view on this proposed regulation is that the Zoning Code is one barrier that's keeping folks from coming from the underground into legal operation. It's not the only barrier; it's one barrier. And the reason we believe that is -- they're several-fold. First of all, we look at 15 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 cities of comparable size. Mr. DiLorenzo had introduced some statistics from Boston and from Baltimore. And those numbers are really reflected around the country. We seem to have a situation between regulations and fees in this city that is suppressing the development of home-based care. Baltimore does not have this kind of zoning barrier. In fact, I was involved in a study about five years ago, looking at about eight cities, none of which had this kind of zoning or local land-use regulation requirement, and each of them had significantly larger or proportionately larger numbers of home-based care. So I do believe it's a barrier. It's not the only one. It's a low-wage job, it's not for everyone, but I do believe that if we can make it as of right for up to six children, that we are going to see a modest increase in our numbers.
What are the other barriers that you're referring to?
One of the -- most the significant other barriers is, we have the highest fee schedule in the country for family day care, 16 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 and I can say that with great confidence 'cause I've called other cities on this. Our start-up costs for these very tiny businesses starts with $200 for the business privilege license. To get zoned, it's another $200, $50 for the family day-care license, and then all of the costs involved in bringing home-based facilities up to City standards. Those are legitimate costs: we want to have safe environments. But the fees are really prohibitive. And in comparison to any other city in the country, they're completely out of line. (Applause.)
Has the Zoning Board been non-responsive to day-care applications?
My understanding is that most of the zoning applications are approved.
Okay. And if in fact this ordinance were to be approved, can you tell me how many adults would supervise the six children?
What would 17 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 the what would the requirement be?
Sure. The ratio set for the supervision of children is actually set by the State Department of Public Welfare, and it would be one adult for six children. That's the State standard.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
One point of clarification. Mr. DiLorenzo, in your testimony on the third page, you said the proposed increase would have the potential to increase income by one-third. Wouldn't that be one-half, 50 percent.
Okay. This first came up about eight years ago, and the testimony was very similar to what it is today. Everyone agrees that this is a good thing; I don't think there's anyone that disagrees with that. Even people against this bill who think there should be community input or contact 18 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 of some kind don't disagree with the need and the program of family day care. The -- most people of surprised that it's four, I mean that there is even a number that is permissible. Eight years ago, I said to those who were pushing the six then that if two of the barriers are fees and zoning fees, you know, the business privilege and other things, there was food, you know, there was a bunch of them that got -- a whole list that got put before us. We as a legislative body control that. We can make all of them zero if that's the right thing to do. It seems to me that when you have -- and eight years later you're in the same position, you have barriers A, B and C. The first two are dollar barriers, the third is a regulatory barrier that really -- or land-use barriers is a better way of saying it 'cause the others are more regulatory. And it involves neighborhood, community, street input, and it could be the far-fetched case that the people are concerned about, the one that hasn't been to the Zoning Board yet, the one where there's already three on the street and that's just more than there should 19 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 be or that's enough.
And the fourth just shouldn't happen as a matter of right. I don't know, it could be the tiny house that's too small. If you remember, when we went from three to four, we took apartments out of the -- as a matter of right, it has to be in a self-contained building now, and that was sort of a compromise from the three to four. But it seems like we're doing number 3 when number and should be tried first. Eight years, we still haven't tried 1 and 2. You're saying it may have a small effect. The other two may have a great effect, and it may not bring us to needing to go into an area of land-use change. There's several members of this Council that are fighting a bill before us that prevents people living outside a community from arguing against or appealing zoning cases in an area, and whether you agree with that or not, the people that don't live in the neighborhood should have a say, and, you know, we can talk about that until the cows come home. 20 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 This bill says that people that live in the neighborhood shouldn't have a say, and I don't know how you can jibe, you know, the two can come together. All it is sitting down with people -- I've never had a family day care, to my knowledge, that asked for a zoning that was turned down. I've had some unbelievable numbers in family day care that have been approved and everyone on the block has agreed to it because of the kind operation that was run and the need that was seen by neighbors. But I've never seen anybody oppose it. But at the same time, I can't find anybody that lives in my district -- and I speak for at least Joan Krajewski's not on this committee, but we spoke again this morning -- that can find anybody who's in favor of having six children run in a day-care business without them having any say on whether that should be done anymore than they would in any other zoning matter in their neighborhood. And I still, especially without the dollar issues being dealt with, jump to the land-use issue and shutting out the community, 21 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 people on the block, people next door. And I know the number -- it's six -- because the State has a totally different regulation after you get past six. And I know we're here because someone at the State didn't say four, they didn't say five, they didn't say seven, they didn't say eight. They said six, 'cause at seven, all the rules change and it becomes group day care.
So it seems like we're in an artificial situation where we're dealing with, Well, the State says we can do anything we want up to six and why is the City not saying the same thing? And we are saying the same thing; all we're saying is that you have to go to zoning and you have to talk to your neighbors.
And for whatever the reason might be that people might object or the Zoning Board might have a problem, I think we'd all agree it's probably one in a hundred cases, but I think people deserve the protection for that one in a hundred. And if you could just explain for the 22 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 record the difference. I know the difference is up to six is family and seven and up is group.
But if someone were at four and wanted to go to seven with their variance today --
-- what is the impact of the state regulations on group seven versus family six?
Sure. And I actually want to address one of your earlier points first.
You asked about fee abatement. There actually have been steps to abate fees. In fact, this Council this fall passed an -- eliminated fees for one category of family day care, $50 food preparation fee. That was a great step in the right direction.
But we talked 23 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 about that eight years ago.
And you did. That was great. And there have been some other changes through the years. So in fact, it's better than it used to be. It used to be 6 to $700 for programs to get started; it's now, I think, in the neighborhood of 4 to 450 if you want to take care of six kids. So we're moving in the right direction on fees, and I completely support any movement downward on fees. I think that's a great strategy. We spent a lot of time, and I worked very closely with Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, in trying to understand, would that solve the problem? and we spent a lot of time talking with the providers and with the agencies that sponsor the providers. And the answer was, it's helpful to have fees reduced; it does not get at the problem. Because to understand the zoning process, people have to lose work time -- several days of work time. They have to show up at the Zoning Board. That's a day off from work, that 24 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 means kids have to be cared for by someone else. They have to come back the zoning hearing. We don't mail out permits in this city. So even if they get through the zoning process, they have to come down a third time, and that's if they're having a good hearing. If it gets continued, they're going to have to come down a fourth time. That burden of shutting down and finding care for those kids, repeatedly we heard from those providers, is a significant burden. And I can tell you since eight years ago, we've had about 100 out of our 800 family day-care providers actually apply for a zoning variance. That means we're having a difficult time getting people to even try it. And there will be testimony today talking about that barrier. In answer to your question about the state regulations, when a provider wants to go to seven, they will need to go from having a family day-care registration to a group day-care license with the state. The standard for that is higher. You have to have a pre-inspection before you can open, you have to have a second staff person on, you're not allowed to open without that second 25 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 staff person. And more importantly and the bigger change for the provider is they have to go through local certificate of occupancy standards, and those are very significant. It means you have to meet Americans With Disabilities Act requirements, you also have to meet a higher level of building code requirements. And I know that Otis Haigler from L&I will be talking later, and you can ask him more specifically about it, but it's a much more significant standard.
Well, Boston and Baltimore, 'cause those two cities were mentioned, although there were several others that were alluded to in a study, do they have any zoning at all for day care in the homes?
They have it for -- in Baltimore I know for sure they have it for over eight. They actually -- in that state, they followed the state standard for up to eight. The state allows eight children in a family day-care home. After eight, they do have a local land-use requirement.
Now, how does a 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 person get a permit for up to four children in a family day care today? How do they go about doing that. Does it get mailed to them?
In person at L&I? My understanding is you apply for a permit the same way you apply for zoning; you're just turned down for the permit.
And that becomes your application. So it seems to me that the same first step is involved either way, whether you're going for a variance or going for a zoning.
And the only time I've ever heard the Zoning Board continue a case is when someone hasn't met with their neighbors and the neighbors are there complaining about it. So it seems to me the only additional thing you're asking someone to do is to come to a zoning hearing. And I think the stakes are high enough when you're putting a business. I mean, it's still a business, even though it's one that 27 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 everyone has a lot of empathy for both need and just in terms of society, but you're now asking someone who -- let's just say they're getting $50 a child, and I don't want to put a number on it 'cause everybody charges differently, but you're talking about somebody getting an extra $100 a week, which is $5,000 a year. It seems to me that's -- we talked about this before, so there's a lot of record on this. It seems like we're not asking too much to come down for, you know, an hour at a zoning hearing. They're so flexible now with the Zoning Board, they meet so often, as opposed to previously. It seems to me that it -- I don't understand why neighbors aren't getting any consideration here to balance off the consideration we're all willing to give the day-care providers.
I was a part of visits that went to a large number of Councilpeople along 28 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 with Councilwoman Reynolds Brown and some of the family day care folks. And what I want to -- I listened very carefully to the kinds of complaints that people were saying were coming into their offices. And what I really want to make note of, overwhelmingly, the complaints that people talked about had to do with facilities that had seven or more children. It was group day care that had gone amok, it was child-care centers locating in a place where neighbors didn't want it did. I not hear in those discussions that I had that there were deep concerns with five or six kids.
And you won't hear it from me either in terms of the general statement, 'cause I haven't had specific problems with it. What you will hear from me is repeating what civic associations have told me unanimously, what individuals, if I ask their opinion 'cause they don't care to go to civic association meetings but they're the average person on the block, what they think, and they're just appalled 29 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 that they can't have any say in something going on in their street like this. And that's all it is. It's really not -- I suspect when we start, you know, going to the Zoning Board, they're going to start turning them down. Nothing's going to change that way. What's going to happen is you got a little better quality of life, with people feeling they're in some sort of control, one less excuse to leave the City, and one more feeling that somebody's looking out for the person that doesn't have a business in their home too. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Certainly at the meeting that took place in my office, and I think you were there, there was a great deal of expression of concern about community input.
And the reason for 30 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 that is this City Council has to balance competitive interests, different concerns. We all empathize very strongly, as Councilman O'Neill said, with the day-care providers, but we also have a strong feeling for the people in the neighborhood and feel that it's not healthy, and that's how the people tell us, for things to suddenly appear in the neighborhood, certain things like day-care centers or any other business in a residential area without the community having anything whatever to say, whether people are concerned about traffic problems or hours of operation or whether there are too many or not enough, whatever the concern is. What we're trying to do -- and I was here also in the original days when this was first discussed, and I also don't understand why there's never been any movement. We've stated consistently if there were any barriers with respect to fees, we would be happy to do whatever had to be done to remove them, but nobody's ever asked us to do anything and that still remains the same. I even suggested that if people found it difficult to come to zoning hearings, maybe we 31 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 could work out some kind of method of meeting in a local recreation center or some local area where the community could participate. And what you do when you get the community involved and you reach an agreement, then everybody is happy; the day-care provider is not seen as somebody suddenly coming in out of nowhere, disregarding the interests of the community and that day-care provider has the support of the community.
And it's in everybody's interest to bring them together, and that's the reason we are concerned when in your testimony, you speak about it as a matter of right. When you say "as a matter of right," it means the community gets put out, you have nothing whatever to say. And that, we think, and we've learned in this and in other areas, that's not a healthy thing for a community to feel. For a community to be healthy, it has to feel involved, it has to feel it has a right to participate. What we're trying to do is bring both interests together. 32 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You're welcome. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Could Mr. Lombardo and Mr. Haigler come up together, please. (Applause.)
And is there a representative here from Estelle Richman's office. He already testified? Thank you very much. Mr. Lombardo, could you please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name's Richard Lombardo. I'm the Director of Development Planning at the Zoning Division of the Philadelphia Planning Commission, and I'm here 33 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 today to testify on behalf of Bill No. 010014, introduced by Councilmember Blondell Reynolds Brown. The Planning Commission, from the very beginning of this whole issue of family day care, has supported that the Philadelphia Zoning Code should match the state regulations, that the number should be set at six and not four. We continue to make that recommendation. For the record, at the meeting of April 19, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended the adoption of this bill. We have also supported a past bill 14 that moved that number from four to five. But consistently, we have really been supporting the idea of making it consistent with state law. If I could step aside just for a second, in the coming year, we will be hopefully opening a dialogue with the Council and we're -- you know, to look at the Zoning Code. We believe that the Zoning Code has become more and more a disincentive for people to invest and reinvest in their neighborhoods. And this is just one issue you could argue either side. Some people are going to say 34 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 that it protects the neighborhoods; other people are saying it's a disincentive for child care to become -- without being sort of a black-market family day care, everybody ought to be regulated and permitted. But this is just one of the number of things we would like to open up a dialogue in the coming years about looking at the Zoning Code. And recognizing the fact that the code -- the uses in the code were originally done in 1932. A lot of uses in there are no longer applicable. There's a lot of things that happen in everybody's lives today that are not reflected in the Zoning Code that's just not permitted. You don't find the word "microchip" or "computer." I don't want to go on because that's not the testimony for today, but I just want to sort of put this into context of why we continue to support bringing the number up into conformance with the state regulation. We think that by and large the code should reflect the way people live today, and we believe that there's a reason, a good reason, to support this bill. Family day care is a fact of life in Philadelphia and across the country. It's 35 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 going to continue to be a fact of life with two people having to work or where it's a single-parent household where a person has to go to work every day. And we -- and we do support that. And I understand, Councilman, what you're saying. You're saying that you, Council, also supports it; it's just a method that you get to the six differs. And all I'm saying to you is that we find in a lot of work we do in the City that people see the zoning variance, the zoning hearing process as a daunting process, and it's a disincentive for people to want to do something with a property when they know they have to go to Zoning Board, or a disincentive to be legal when they're faced with having to go to the Zoning Board. I mean, you deal with it, I deal with it every day. We know it's not daunting, but a lot of folks out there don't understand that it's not daunting and they see it as a daunting thing. And that's why I put it in that context. That's the end of my testimony.
Councilmember 36 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 O'Neill.
One, the idea of not wanting to go to a zoning hearing or not being able to or having it -- or finding it a hardship, if that's the real issue -- and I'm not sure what the real issue is here -- wouldn't the agency -- I mean, in each case, I believe there's an agency, or in most cases there's agencies involved. I think the agencies are actually the ones that have pushed these bills each time, different agencies that deal with day care, with family day care. And couldn't we change the law so that the agency could represent the person at the zoning hearing? I mean, would that be impractical? Then the person wouldn't have to -- I mean, whatever the -- I'm not saying that that reason is sufficient not to have a zoning hearing, as we're asking in this bill, but if it were, we certainly could work with still having zoning. We could remove the fees, that's something totally within our power. We haven't tried it yet.
And we could see about removing -- the person has to go down to L&I 37 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 when they get their permit if they're legitimate anyway, even up to four.
So nothing is needed to change that 'cause that's got to be done anyway . They just apply for the zoning. Well, why couldn't the agency -- is there a reason the agency, if we so legislate here, the agency couldn't represent them at the Zoning Board?
I think the only barrier is -- and this is off the top of my head.
Could you be specific. Would there be a problem if we sent family day care applications to the Zoning Board, and the agency overseeing that family day care could represent the homeowner at the --
I'm saying the only thing that I think would stand in the way of that -- and this is off the top of my head -- are the rulings of Zoning Board.
I mean, the Zoning Board, it would seem to me -- 38 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
Mr. Lombardo, they're legislated by City Council, those rules.
So we could change them. But do you see any problem if we did change them?
Do I see any problem? You're talking about a general change, and I think you're right. And you can improve it by changing the --
Were you here when the previous witness stated that one of the problems is just getting people to take off to go to a Zoning Board.
And you would agree they wouldn't have to take off if somebody else could do it in their place.
Depending on how they change the rules, right. They could change the 39 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 rules to have hearings at night, they could change the rules to have --
It seems to me that would be a fairer way of doing it than saying, Well, it's a problem with people getting down there so we're just going to eliminate zoning. A second question, and I'll try to make this the last. Everyone -- and it's been going on for eight years now -- has tied in the jump to six with not needing zoning as tied into the state regulations. You have yourself today, and I'm sure many other witnesses in favor of this bill 15 will. If the State tomorrow said ten or eight, would you say that we should follow the State regulations and go to eight or ten consistent with your testimony today?
It's a tough question to answer. I'd be assuming that they would be --
That seems to be the biggest basis anybody's given for going to six.
Is that the State 40 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 number for --
And secondly would be, what if they say tomorrow four instead of six? 'Cause I don't think there's another jurisdiction in Pennsylvania that even allows one. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Last time we checked on this, we couldn't find anybody. I don't know if Pittsburgh and Harrisburg -- since this is state-regulated, larger cities in the state, including Scranton where the Auditor General's from, may be good examples for us on this as opposed to Maryland or Massachusetts, that our state legislator doesn't have a whole lot to do with this. And I just wondered, 'cause their reaction might be -- and I've mentioned this -- that, you know, we created this six 'cause we thought that was the right number. We had no 25 interest in doing away with local zoning, and yet, 41 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 our six seems to be the reason that it's being promulgated. Maybe we should go to four. I don't know. Is it a Pandora's Box that we don't have to open?
Mr. Haigler, perhaps you should identify yourself, give your testimony, and then we could have Councilmember O'Neill come back to both of the witnesses.
Again, I have a local rationale for the six. Good day, Councilman Kenney and members of the Committee.
I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 010014, which if enacted, will amend Section 14-203 of the Zoning Code to increase the number of children permitted in a family day-care home to a maximum number of six under certain 42 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 terms and conditions. The Department of Licenses and Inspections fully supports passage of this bill 5 because it is consistent with other requirements that are currently enforced by the Department for this type of occupancy, such as found in the building and fire prevention codes. Based on current requirements of both the building and fire prevention code -- this is the City of Philadelphia building and fire prevention codes -- a family child-care home is classified as a single-family residence where care is being given to six or less children for less than consecutive hours in a single-family 16 home. 17 Under this classification, the 18 determining factor for life safety systems is 19 based on a home having no more six children on the 20 premises, in which case, it does not change the 21 building and fire requirements from the occupancy 22 from a single-family residence. 23 I can assure this committee that the 24 proposed amendment in no way will affect the current requirements enforced by the Department 43 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 related to the safety of the occupants of the family day-care home. In fact, we believe that by making the requirements of the Zoning Code consistent with our other requirements, other enforced requirements, it will make it easier for operators to be -- who may be operating illegally without our knowledge to apply and become regulated, thereby increasing our oversight over these homes to ensure the safety of the occupants. I can also ensure this committee that any attempts to increase the number beyond six allowable will trigger more stringent requirements, which includes zoning and a full application and building plan review that requires securing of the certificate of occupancy from the Department prior to the increase. The purpose of the certificate of occupancy is important because any attempts to increase the number of children beyond the six proposed by Bill No. 010014 will require that the single-family residence meet the full requirements of the building code for safety and accessibility prior to the increase. The requirements are very stringent and 44 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 potential cost-prohibitive to the extent that it will require major alterations to the single-family residence to make the building, fire, and accessibility requirements of the building code -- to meet the building, fire, and accessibility requirements of the building code. These requirements include everything from installing a complete fire alarm to having another accessible exit provided for the occupants and installing additional bathroom facilities, including those for the physically disabled. We will take enforcement action, which includes and posting a cease-operations order on any home in violation of Bill 010014 and our current building and fire requirements governing the allowable number of children for family day-care homes. The Department applauds the work of Councilwoman Reynolds Brown in introducing this bill and will work diligently with the members to Council to address any concerns they have regarding the enforcement of its provision. Thank you. I'll be very happy to answer any questions you may have. 45 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. I wanted to ask some specific questions about the zoning hearing process, and I hope you can answer it. Earlier in the testimony, not necessarily yours but in someone else's testimony, there was mention of prior zoning hearings on this matter, and I think I heard that the overwhelming majority of those zoning applications were improved. Am I correct?
(Indiscernible) actually have specific numbers on that, but you could safely say in Philadelphia, the overwhelming applications of all types are approved. The statistics we keep on that are in the high 90 percentile. So, yeah, I would think the numbers bear that out.
I want to stick to this issue right now. We might start talking about billboards next.
For the record, Tom 46 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Chapman, the City Planning Commission. Councilman Clarke, we've ran this through our computer for -- since October of 1999, there were 56 cases for six or fewer children, meaning three to five or six children, and 53 of those were approved, 53 of the 56.
In the 53 that were approved, to your knowledge, were there any contestants at the hearing? Do you have a record of that?
Do you have a sense of that? Were there any appeals to any of the 53?
Any appeals to those decisions? I'm sorry, I don't have that.
How difficult would it be for you to get that information?
The first question is easy for us to answer. The second question of whether there were appeals would take a (inaudible).
It would be very 47 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 helpful to get that as quickly as possible.
Because I believe we do want to take action on this. If you can get any information on the contestants 'cause I'm just interested to find out how many people actually come down and contest these particular applications. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a follow-up on that one question, Mr. Chapman. How many were refused by the Zoning Board?
Three. Maybe it would be good to find out in the three that were refused, was it just the whim of the Zoning Board or were there legitimate concerns brought by neighbors about that particular situation?
You know, 'cause 48 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Mr. Lombardo said most cases at the Zoning Board generally are approved for variances. And I think the reason is because in Philadelphia, there's a history of community consultation and compromise and stipulation, and people just don't walk in willy-nilly and tell the Zoning Board what they want to do, and the first thing the Zoning Board says is, Did you talk to your neighbors? And that's all we're asking to preserve here. So for those three cases out of -- how many were there in total?
Okay. So for those three cases, I think it would be very important that those neighbors know we're still thinking about their concerns. I just have one question. Mr. Haigler, I don't disagree with anything, I've read that information before, but if the State went to five tomorrow instead of six, as the number, the high number for family day care, and said starting at six, group day care applies all the stringent requirements, we're tailoring everything to the group day care requirements in Philadelphia. 49 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
It doesn't affect the building or fire prevention code, which an enacted local ordinance of the City of Philadelphia. Under the building and fire prevention code specifically, once you increase the number beyond six, you fall into an educational type. We treat it the same as a school.
Right. But I can guarantee you, when that was put in, that was what in because that was what was considered by the State to be the number where we start dealing with this a lot more stringently, and it's where we considered the number of children --
The building code is a model; it's patterned after the BOCA building code, which is a model building code.
The City of Philadelphia building code, with amendments to the building code, we have local amendments, local ordinances that amend the building code, but 90 percent of the building code is based on a safety code, which 50 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 is a model building code, BOCA.
As a matter of fact, the State will -- we will very shortly start enforcing a uniform building code throughout the State, which is patterned after the international building code. So these are all codes that relate primarily to safety, to the safety of occupants. The City's requirement on the building will, I believe, remain the same. You will still need to get a certificate of occupancy for anything above six for safety purposes.
Right. And my understanding is -- all saying is, that's based on -- that's where group day care starts, but somebody at the state made that decision a long time ago, and if they changed it tomorrow, we'd shift everything we have, 'cause that's what it's all based on.
I don't believe so. I believe that the building code itself stands alone.
Okay, we disagree on that. That's fine, I understand. Thank you.
In connection with the review of the records I think records will disclose -- I hope you can find out if this is an accurate statement, but what happens at the Zoning Board is that if there has been no consultation between the community and the applicant, the Zoning Board compels it because the chair says, Why don't you go out in the hallway and see if you can work out your differences. And in every case I've known where there has been a discussion between the community and the day-care provider, an agreement satisfactory to both sides has been arrived at. In communities, I'm familiar with there are efforts often made to have that kind of discussion in advance, and the only time protestants go down is when the day-care provider refuses to engage in any discussion, saying I have a right to use my property for this purpose and I'm going to do it and, you know, it doesn't make herself or himself available for discussions. 52 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 So the Zoning Board provides the arena for this discussion, and when that discussion takes place and ground rules are worked out, in every single case I'm familiar with over many, many years of appearances before the Zoning Board, there has been an agreement. And my best estimate is that of those 53 cases that were approved in that time span, they were all approved because there was an agreement between the community and the provider either before the Zoning Board hearing or after. If there's agreement before, then all that happens is that the community organization sends out a letter to the Zoning Board saying, We have agreed, the following is the agreement for the hours of service, parking, whatever the neighbor problems are, and we are in support of that application. So I would urge that you do go beyond just the computer ultimate tallies to find out whether protestants were present, not necessarily as protestants but merely as people. They're called "protestants" 'cause that's the name the Zoning Board gives people who come down to inquire, and the Zoning Board compels this meeting 53 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 to take place. It would save everybody a lot of time if that meeting took place in the neighborhood, it would save everybody a lot of expense, you know, and loss of other activities if they could agree in the community. But if there can be some provision making it an absolute requirement that there be this meeting on any application for five or six children, I think this matter could be resolved very easily, and day-care providers that have the support of the community always lead a much happier life than where they are resented by the community because the community feels they have been imposed upon. So I'm asking that when you make your study, if you can get that information too, how many of those 53 cases contained stipulations of agreement or other indications that the community was involved in. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Are there any other questions from the committee? (No further questions.).
Seeing none, our 54 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 next witness will be Lorraine Brill. (Witness comes forward.) (Applause.)
I understand there's a panel. Mary Jane Hazel and Dominic Ragucci and Al Taubenberger. (Witnesses come forward.)
And do we have someone here from East Torresdale Civic Association? (No response.)
All right, Ms. Brill, if you would identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony, please.
My name is Lorraine Brill, and I'm President of Upper Northwood Community Council. We represent home and school associations, churches, synagogues playgrounds, libraries, veteran and religious organizations within our boundaries of Cottman Avenue in the north, Roosevelt Boulevard on the east, Oxford Circle on the south and Oxford Avenue on the west, comprising the 53rd and 54th Wards. One of our functions is to monitor 55 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 zoning issues within our community and to review zoning legislation proposed by City Council. Upper Northwood Community Council opposes Bill 5 010014 for the following reasons: 1. Presently, family day-care providers have to apply for a Zoning Board of Adjustment certificate if care is provided for more than four children. The number of children who receive day care is in addition to any children already living in the home. For example, if a day-care provider has three children of her own, she now can care for four more children without a zoning certificate. If the number is increased to six, we could be talking about a total of nine children. 2. All uses allowed in an R-2 residential district is also allowed in all other residential districts except R-1. Therefore, this use currently is allowed in other single-family residential districts such as R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9A, R-10A, etc. What might possibly be feasible in large single homes with surrounding open space might not be feasible in row or twin homes. 56 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 It is important for neighbors in the vicinity of the proposed day-care home to continue to have the ability to present their opinions to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Who better than the neighbors would know about character of the day-care provider as well as the physical characteristics of the proposed day-care home. If a Zoning Board of Adjustment certificate is required, the neighbors have a legitimate complaint process to follow. 3. Currently, there are no 13 restrictions on the number of day-care homes per block and no conditions as to whether the provider owns the home or is renting home. At present, alterations to the building, inside and/or outside, are allowed. Alterations that might be needed for an increased number of children could substantially alter the single-family home, thereby making the property unsuitable for resale as a private home in a residential district. We are fortunate in our community that many day-care facilities are available in religious institutions, recreation centers, schools, and other certified day-care centers. 57 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Allegheny Child Care Academy recently opened a day-care center for 75 children at 6000 Castor Avenue, which provides a much-needed service. Instead of approving this bill, we should continue to work for appropriate day-care centers for children. Teachers and aides should be certified, centers should be properly staffed and supervised and should meet all exists regulations. We need more day-care facilities in schools, at work sites, and/or religious facilities, etc. For all of these reasons, Upper Northwood Community Council urges City Council to oppose Bill 010014. The current Zoning Code regarding family day care is satisfactory; please do not change it. And you were talking about some situations that we have a couple horror situations where -- and this has been going on for years, where we have to call L&I because some people are not in compliance with what they're supposed to do. If you depend on L&I, you can forget it, they never come out, or when they come out, it takes them years to get anything done. 58 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 And in the case of where it's more than six children, we're told that you have to go to the State. Well, there's only one woman in the whole Northeast that has to go to all of the homes who are more than six children, and forget it: she can't get there or they won't let her in, and it's hopeless.
So we've had situations going on for years where the complaint process doesn't really work. Thank you. I'll be glad to answer any questions.
My name is Mary Jane Hazel. I'm President of the Somerton Civic Association, and with me is my zoning chairperson Dominic Ragucci "The Big Ragu," as we call him. I don't have written testimony. The testimony I'm going to give here is from my heart, not necessarily my brain. We have, and I can honestly say, no 23 underground day care or child care in Somerton. The reason for it is we have 30,000 residents in Somerton that our eyes and ears. And I guarantee 59 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 you, if anything, whether it be a sign, whether it be anything that look inappropriate, my phone rings off the wall. We are very fortunate that we have good Council and good Council-at-large that I can follow through with them and ask them to please help us out in this situation. And more than once, more than a hundred times, they have come through for the Somerton Civic Association. The biggest objection, I think, here is not day care; we have a tremendous amount of day care in Somerton. We have a new facility that just opened maybe three months ago. We have -- just the churches, the institutions, and in the homes, we have it. Our organization has never, ever went to the Zoning Board and objected to a day-care facility. We know that it's here to stay, it is a part of the American way. We know that two people today must work -- pardon me -- just to pay their taxes, and so this is all important that a day care be established. My concern is, that's their Constitutional right to open any business; this is the American way. But where does their 60 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Constitutional where does our Constitutional stop? " All of this is our Constitutional right; that too is the American way. Our organization took a vote last week, and it was one person for six children, and the rest of 300 people that were there was totally against -- not against day care, and I want that specifically understood. We are for day care, we think it's appropriate, we think it's a must. But at the same time, I have a Constitutional right to say, Hey, what goes next door to me? I may say, That's wonderful. But maybe the neighbor on the other side doesn't feel that way. She has a Constitutional right to go down to the Zoning Board and say, Geez, I really don't want it. Now, that doesn't mean the Zoning Board's going to listen to her, but at least she has her day in court and I think that's what's important. The other thing I worry about is carpetbaggers. I happen to live in a single home. 61 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 My home happens to be R-2, and if this goes through, I have no choice but to ask our organization and our City Councilman to go ahead and do a whole new comprehensive plan and make everything all right, but I don't want to have to do that. We live in an R-2 home, and if I wanted to do anything in my house, I have to go to the Zoning Board to do it. If I wanted to even open a church, I would have to go for a certificate of use. If I wanted to put a doctor's office there, I would have to go to the Zoning Board for a certificate of use. So all of this is important. This is the American way, and I'm thrilled to live in Philadelphia, that we have these laws. And if Pennsylvania doesn't have these laws, then I'm not too happy to be a Pennsylvanian, but I am happy to be a Philadelphian. There are some solutions. And across some of the solutions is expedite, make this a top priority at the Zoning Board of Adjustment. If a person wants to apply for a day care, make it a top priority; don't make them wait six months. 62 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 They have to do it. The Zoning Board, listen, they have nothing else to do. Give them 30 days in which to get this through. If it's the cost, the City of Philadelphia is having a birthday party at the City Hall. Do you know what? Use some of that money and use it for day care to cut the costs of the Zoning Board. I'm not saying give it free; that's not the American way either.
But at least cut the cost so that people can afford to go down there and get it. As I said before, there are vacant buildings throughout all of Philadelphia, we know that. Use the vacant buildings. If the day care -- if there's a vacant building there and the City is going to go for taxes, give it to someone to use as a day care. What is the big deal. You're not getting taxes from it anyway. There are all sorts of things that could take place. I met with Councilwoman Brown, and I was very impressed that she, you know, was so adamant against this, but at the same time, I told her, we have to keep it in mind. The Somerton Civic Association is not against day 63 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 care. What we are against is our Constitutional right being taken away from us and not being allowed our day in court. Thank you very much.
My name is Dominic Ragucci, I'm a resident of Somerton and I'm the Zoning Chairman of the Somerton Civic Association. My testimony so far has been pretty much covered by the panel, but I would like to reiterate that our concerns that this bill will take away a resident's right to oppose a specific day-care facility for up to six. We have community concerns about the amount of family day-care centers on a city block. Too many family day-care centers in a concentrated area gives the block or area a commercial ambiance. Our concern that the increase in profit potential, going from four children to six, there would be unintended consequences in regards to the potential for absentee owners and absentee operators who could easily function through straw owners or straw managers, which is detrimental to 64 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 any residential community. That pretty much concludes my testimony, and I know it's heavily worded, but they are the true concerns of the residents of the community who do want the ability to come down and oppose a variance that might be requested. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam chairman. My name is Al Taubenberger, and I'm President of the Burholme Civic Association of Town Watch. I've also reviewed my testimony with Camille McCulligan (ph.) from the Walton Park Civic Association, and she is in agreement with what I'm about to say. Also, a separate letter will be coming to the committee via Mr. Jim McNichols, who is the President of the Walton Park Civic Association. Our civic associations and Town Watch are strongly opposed to the bill, which expands the number of children allowable in a family day-care operation from four to sick. We oppose the bill because it denigrates and affects the 65 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 integrity of residential communities by impacting the quality of life to the immediate neighbors. It ignores the rights of neighboring homeowners by making parking difficult at drop-off and pickup time and increased noise live that lessens the quietness that neighbors rightfully expect, particularly when they have recently purchased a home in the neighborhood, that subjugates the rights of tax-paying homeowners to those who turn their properties into income-producing entities, and economics should not be a reason to lower residential zoning. We have concern of the ability to provide day care to more children into existing sites that have already been determined that the appropriate number is four. These concerns include recreation, nutrition, safety, health care, etc. Why not leave the number at four and have the day-care provider obtain a variance, which gives the neighbors an opportunity to be heard, which means leaving the process as is. And why legislate public policy that can negatively affect neighborhoods. 66 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 As far as the children count, it has been testified already, and I know from experience, as we have reviewed these, children in the home are already exempt. If there is to be any staff, their children are exempt. So at six, you could easily be up to ten very quickly. The service that day-care providers provide is no different than any other business that want to operate in a residential area. Why not one dry cleaner, one hardware store, one bank, and one car repair shop in a residential area. Our organizations and community are strongly opposed to this bill. I thank you for your time.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Thomas Sholer (ph.), and I'm the Second Vice President of the East Torresdale Civic Association, here on behalf of our President, Francis Lederer, and our First Vice President, Bernard Ritenberg (ph). 67 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 I also wish to bring to the Council's attention that East Torresdale Civic Association is opposed to this bill for the reasons which my fellows have expressed. And also, I want to echo Councilman O'Neill's objections to the bill 7 primarily based upon the fact that Pennsylvania allows up to six children to be given child care. Just because they have six does not mean that they are progressive. I submit that, in fact, Philadelphia may be much more progressive in having a lower ratio of caregivers to children and that history may bear this out. I think Philadelphia should remain in the forefront of progressive child care by keeping the number at four, and that is the position of East Torresdale Civic Association. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you all very much. Our next witnesses are provider 68 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 advocates Sharon Easterling, Nancy Quaglia, Angie Logan, and Marilyn Kelty. (Witnesses come forward.) (Applause.)
My name is Reverend Sharon Easterling, and I'm the Executive Director of the Delaware Valley Association for the Education of Young Children. I've lived in Philadelphia for twenty years and I have worked in Kensington as a pastor, teacher, literacy educator, nonprofit founder, community development corporation board president, and youth worker. In other words, I have invested a significant portion of my life and resources into improving the quality of life in Philadelphia's neighborhoods. I'm also a homeowner and a taxpayer, and it just so happens that right now, I'm in the market for a new home, so I'm keenly aware of property values and neighborhood stability. 69 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 I come here today to support this bill, not only because I believe it's good for children and families, but because I also believe it is good for our neighborhoods. I understand that some communities are concerned that by opening the floodgates to more businesses in our neighborhoods, blocks will deteriorate, property values will plunge, and the quality of life will further erode in our already-fragile communities. I share their concerns. We cannot afford to destabilize our neighborhoods in any part of Philadelphia. However, what opponents of this bill 15 don't seem to recognize is the difference between good child care and bad child care. Good child care is when the provider understands what they do is early childhood education and views his or herself as an education professional. Bad child care is when the provider holds the view that they are only taking care of kids, no big deal, anyone can do it. Good child care is when the provider understands that there are standards and best practices and strives to achieve higher levels of 70 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 quality, even higher levels than what the State says, through accreditation. Bad child care is when the provider rejects the idea that anyone can or should tell them what to do with the kids in their care. Good child care is where the number of children is kept low. And six is the number -- there's been a number a lot of talk about why six. The number six is based on child development research and our understanding about what we need to take care of kids. And I will say that, yes, I would like the number to be three or four; that's a lower ratio and it is good. The problem is, we're trying to balance the viability of this as a business. And quite frankly, at three or four, people can't afford to stay in business, and they don't. (Applause.)
Six is a number that will work, that has been proven through research to work both for children and for the people who are doing this as teaching professionals. Bad child care is when providers take 71 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 as many children as they can in order to increase their income. I have heard stories of to 4 children in some homes with one adult. This is a 5 tragedy that's waiting to happen. 6 This bill can increase the supply of 7 good child care. Our current policy does nothing 8 to keep bad child care out of neighborhoods; it 9 only drives the honest folks, the ones who want to 10 comply, out of business. 11 If we really want to protect 12 neighborhoods against the blight of bad child care, there are ways to do it. We need to get serious about enforcing the laws already on the books. The woman that just previous testified that having enforcement taken care of is a nightmare, and we sympathize with that. Advocates don't want bad child care, we don't want more children in the homes that are allowable. We need to enforce the laws that we have. If you really want to attract young families with young children to our city and to our neighborhoods, we need to use every opportunity to increase the supply of good child care. Understanding this need, this ever-growing 72 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 need for child care, the State and federal government are making funds available to stimulate the growth of the industry. Philadelphia should be positioned to draw down some of these significant resources. But every time we shut down the growth of good child care, we chip away at our ability to do that and to become a leader in this arena. So I urge you to support this bill. I believe it's good for children, I believe it's good for those who work in child care. And, ultimately, I believe it is good for our neighborhoods. (Applause.)
Good morning. My name is Nancy Quaglia, and I am the Director of Family Day Care at Associated Day Care Service, a nonprofit United Way agency whose sole mission is to provide quality child care for families who are working or in training. Associated Day Care Service supervises over 50 registered family day-care homes in many different parts of Philadelphia and has been doing so for up to 50 years. First of all, I would like to express 73 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 appreciation to Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown for introducing Bill 010014. Family day care is care by a person in their own home for a small number of children while the parents work. Family day care is an important neighborhood child-care resource. Parents who choose family day care are normally from the neighborhood within walking distance of the provider's home. The children cared for are predominantly preschool, usually infants and toddlers. Since they live in the area, automobiles are infrequently used. Many parents prefer to place their children with providers located in their own neighborhood because the familiarity of a neighborhood is reassuring to children of such a young age. Parents also request that siblings be placed in the same home. By expanding the number of children allowed in the home, more often, parents are able to have new siblings or school-agers needing care after school the opportunity of such a placement. As a direct service agency, we have constantly, over a number of years, observed the need for more regulated care. There is a lack of 74 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 it in this city. By allowing providers to care for an additional two children, without the arduous burden of the zoning variance process, more children would be allowed to access safe, affordable care, nutritious meals from the Department of Agriculture Children and Adult Care Food Program, and a more stable learning environment. It also allows -- and most importantly -- parents the peace of mind of being able to go to work, knowing that their children are happy and secure. The neighborhood residential character is not influenced by the operation of a family day-care home any more than the use of a home by a large family. This bill would prove beneficial to neighbors helping neighbors because the family day-care providers are home during the day as a neighborhood watch, thereby increasing neighborhood safety. So many people these days are out of their homes. Neighborhood safety is a huge concern in this city. In conclusion, I urge you to consider this bill, as Associated Day Care Service alone could provide neighborhood-based child-care 75 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 services for an additional 80 children. Again, I thank Councilwoman Brown for her concern. And I'm open to any questions. And I would also like to address a few things that were addressed previously. First of all, not all family day-care providers are agency-sponsored, and so that -- and that is a major concern. The regulations about family day care, it's very strict by the State. You must be a homeowner or have a letter from your landlord stating that you're allowed to do family day care. They are not carpetbaggers; these are people who are established in the community right now, who are taking care of children. They're not using this place and then going home to another family, okay? So, you know, if testimony was brought up about neighborhoods, about community groups -- and I appreciate the fact about neighborhood groups wanting their say. But then, again, my question is, if the law states now that there are four children allowed in a family day-care home, the State says that they're allowed six, and I really question when a family day-care provider gets a 76 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 registration certificate saying that they're allowed up to six, there is major confusion in the City about them only being allowed to have four in the City. (Applause.)
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hi. Yes, my name's Angie Logan. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am the Assistant Child Care Director for Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, the advocacy partner for the Child Care Matters Initiative, and I am here today to urge you to support Bill 010014. Sixty percent of Pennsylvania children have their single parent or both parents in the workforce. Philadelphia is a city of working families, and the percentage of children whose parents work and depend on child care is even higher. For these families, child care is not an option; it is a necessity. It is important that home-based care be more available to meet these 77 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 needs and that the care be safe. This bill would affect over 700 family child-care programs, which enroll about 2,800 children in the City. To put this in perspective, in 1990, there were 1,360 -- I'm sorry 136,597 children from birth to age 5. There are 164,519 children from 6 to 13. This is a total of about 300,000 children. If legislation was enacted, it would be an increase of only one-third of 1 percent in the number of children in Philadelphia neighborhoods. So who are the family day-care providers in our city? Last fall, Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth and the Philadelphia Early Childhood Collaborative surveyed 651 licensed regulated child-care programs to better understand this group of people. We had a percent response rate and we 20 learned important facts about the rates of home 21 ownership, connection with the community, parking, and other demographic information. Home-based child-care providers are homeowners and neighborhoods with an attachment to and investment in community. Fully 84 percent of 78 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 them of our home-based providers in our survey were homeowners. The average length of residency was years, and 61 percent have lived in the 5 same residence for ten years or more. Home-based 6 child-care providers are business people who pay 7 taxes and provide a valuable service so families 8 can work. On average, these providers have been 9 registered for more than 16 years, and 50 percent 10 have been in business 5 years or longer. 11 Fifty percent of providers serve 12 siblings from the same families. Many providers 13 have reported that because they can only legally 14 serve four children, they have to turn away 15 families who want to keep their siblings together. Families use different modes of transportation at various times throughout the day to point drop off or pick up their children. While 47 percent of our surveyed families drove their children to child-care programs, 53 percent either walked or took public transportation. Since parents work varying schedules, it is very rare that everyone picks up and drops off their children at the same time. Bill 010014 is, in fact, about zoning, 79 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 but this bill is not antithetical to community concerns; in fact, it supports communities and neighborhoods. Family child-care programs provide a service to the community; they are a business and they have a vested interest in their community. This bill would be an incentive for potential child-care providers to enter the field, and in doing so, add increased revenues to the economy. Other cities in the Commonwealth, including Pittsburgh, Erie, Scranton, and Harrisburg, all allow family child-care programs to care for six children. Pittsburgh, for example, passed a bill similar to Bill 010014 back in 1993. I have personally spoken with Pittsburgh City Councilman Jim Furlow, who sponsored the bill, and he has not had one single complaint in seven and a half years. We know City Council is concerned with keeping families and businesses in Philadelphia, and child care is one such service that enables parents to work and stay in the City. Philadelphia has lost population over the last 20 years. 3 percent.
Philadelphia has the highest decrease in population of all major Pennsylvania cities. In fact, Erie, Scranton, and Harrisburg have actually increased their population. Although it is true that we heard earlier that on average, 76 percent of zoning cases do prevail, I'd like you to understand that Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth back in December of 1999 did a study of a nine-month period of time. Only 63 family child-care providers during that time even attempted to go through the zoning process; that's less than 10 percent. So although yes, many of them prevail, there's not many of them that are going to attempt to do this. Lastly, child care is important for communities. Child care is a community service just like the residential doctor's office or the neighborhood accountant. They are inspected by the Licenses and Inspections and they have to meet fire code. They have to meet standards that we don't have to meet in our own homes. I don't have a fire extinguisher in my house, I'm guilty of not 81 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 always checking the batteries in my fire detector. Recently, there was a tragedy in an unlicensed boarding house, where several disabled people perished. I don't want to see this happen in an unregulated child care program. )
And I would like to respond to one comment the panel that spoke earlier than us. There is not an adequate supply of regulated child care in the Northeast. There are only 32 licensed regulated family child-care providers in the Northeast. (Applause.)
Our next witness, would you please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Marilyn Kelty. I would like to thank the Rules Committee for allowing me to testify today. My name is Marilyn Kelty and I work for the West Philadelphia Child Care Network, helping providers improve their programs for children. Before this, I was a family child-care provider in Mt. Airy for 82 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 more than ten years. My program was nationally accredited. I have been a mentor to other providers to become accredited. My home was the only legally operating home in my section, and I served mostly families that were local in my neighborhood. At one point, I decided to go through zoning, and my experience going through the zoning process was a waste of time and money. I lost wages, I had to close several days. It was costly and inconvenient to my parents I served. My neighbors were confused because they thought we were moving and turning the home into a business. It was also frustrating and time-consuming preparing for the board. I took the time to explain to my neighbors what was happening. I had to help the parents find child care for the days that I was downtown working on this. Then it was time for me to go before the Board. The actual process wasn't hard, but I knew they did not understand anything about family day-care homes. I explained to them that I was a family day-care home for six children and that I specialized in infant-toddler care. I was given a 83 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 variance, which stated that I was approved for a group day-care home and limited to six children over the age of two and a half years old. Group day care was bigger than family, and they had different rules for the City and the State. And I guess they forgot all about that I told them that I was specializing in infant and toddler because now, I was not allowed to do that. I felt they had made a mistake. When I wrote the Zoning Board to explain it to them, they decided to stick to their decision. I gave up fighting and just cut my program small and serving older children. Then L&I came knocking on the door and told me that I had to bring home up to group the standards. When I explained the mistake, I told them -- they told me that I had to pay again and go before the Zoning Board for them to correct the mistake. At this point, I let it go, knowing it was time for me to close the business. Fortunately, I was able to get a job helping other providers with their program. Now part of my job is helping people prepare for zoning and the same problems are still there. 84 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 This is causing people to go underground, stop coming out to trainings, and not be eligible for the food programs and drop professional memberships because they are not legal. All this hurts is our children, parents, and communities. I feel strongly that the City Council should change this regulation and allow small family day-care homes with six children to operate without zoning. Without this change, I am afraid we will lose providers who, like myself, get frustrated with dealing with the whole process and give up the business. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes O'Neill.
A couple of quick questions, informational. The current allowance up to four is not in any apartments, right? When you say "rentals," you mean rental homes?
Apartment use is not 85 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 allowed.
And in order to even get a permit for zoning, you must have a letter from the landlord stating that they are agreeing that the provider may take care of children in that home.
Okay. The second thing. I've heard two different versions, one today from one of the civic association presidents. If someone has four children that are in their care under the permit and they have four children of their own under six, is that allowed? Or do the four prevent the other four, or do you need a variance? Could you just -- 'cause I've heard different versions of that, and I just want to make sure the regulations are -- at least the information's consistent. Are children of your own counted if you're the family day-care provider?
According to the State regulations, infants are counted, so that you cannot have any more than two infants, which is under the age of 12 months; that's considered an 86 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 infant. They are counted in the count. You -- a provider -- yes, a provider could have four children of their own as long as they were over the age of a year and have four additional children.
However, the State does recognize that if you have one infant, you are only allowed to take four preschoolers or toddlers. If you have two infants, you're only allowed to take three infants or toddlers.
So that you're never going to have more than two infants under the age of a year old and --
My question was just for clarification. Mr. Haigler from L&I was talking about the fire safety and the use and occupancy and all of the different things that happen after six. And it would seem to me that if that were the number, does that apply if someone has four of their own children of child-care age and four children that they're being paid to watch? 87 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
It would be the same as if you had eight children of your own.