And there are no laws, as far as I understand it, of not being able to have eight children.
Right, except for these aren't your own. That is a distinction that I think most people would recognize.
Many child-care providers, though, consider those children that they are caring for as their own.
Well, hope they do, in terms of taking care of the, but I'm just talking about the fire laws, that's all.
He was specific, he wasn't talking about day care, he was talking about fire laws, and when you got up to seven, you had to do different things. That's all. Thank you.
Thank you. (Applause.) 88 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
I would like to request that Otis Haigler please come back to the witness table. (Mr. Haigler returns to witness table.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the question that I was about to ask was just already raised by Councilman O'Neill. And good morning, Mr. Haigler, and you may have spoken about this earlier. I apologize; we've been doing some conversations here and I may have missed it. You were at my office a few weeks ago with Councilwoman Reynolds Brown and a few other folks. Would there be any change in what the requirements would be based on the square footage of a home today? Let's assume for a moment that -- or let me ask you it this way: What is the square footage that is required today in order for someone to provide a day-care center at a residential property today, four children and the day-care provider? Is there a requirement on the square footage today?
There is a table in the 89 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Property Maintenance Code that deals with the habitable space requirements, whether or not you can overcrowd a habitable space. It's under Chapter 4 of the Property Maintenance Code. I don't know the precise numbers there, but I believe that the numbers that are in that table will accommodate up to six children, based on the habitable space, using the living room, dining room, a combination of both as habitable space where the day care will be provided for.
'Cause they have to meet certain requirements for ventilation.
Okay, let's just assume that a -- without having the actual numbers but by way of example, let's just assume that a -- today the formula is the four children and the day care provided the required space -- living room, first floor, second floor, whatever it is, living room, and the other living-quarter areas is a 90 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 thousand feet, just for the sake of this conversation.
A thousand square feet. If you go to six children and the day-care provider --
No. Based on my recollection, the Property Maintenance Code, and the requirements under that particular table, you wouldn't have a problem there.
I guess without having those actual numbers, I mean, at some point, I would assume that the legal occupancy requirement would come into play. I mean, if it were 800 square feet that you had in your property today, would six still be able to be accommodated in there?
Because when we have a restaurant or a public facility, there is a 91 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 lawful occupancy.
There is a lawful occupancy requirement for any assembly space, and it's based on a calculation of this from the building code. Now, that part of it comes from the building code. They determine the exit requirements, it's based on the exit allowable number of people that could be allowed to exit through the building safely.
Right, and that's what getting at, is a safety issue, and I think we spoke about this in my office. So if you have a provider that has four children of their own that live in the home and then you bring in six more people, now you have ten people occupying a home that once only occupied five -- or I'm sorry, six people, I said ten people, as opposed to the original five people -- or eleven people as opposed to the original five. Doesn't that reduce the legal occupancy space?
No. Under the provisions of the building code, the building code doesn't take into account the number of children that are 92 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 the homeowner's children because basically, it's the total number, period. So in essence, you're not allowed to care for more than six children, period, whether they're the homeowner's children or -- so if the homeowner -- under the City's local code, if the homeowner has four kids, under our local codes, you're only allowed to really care for two more.
Under our local building code, our local building code requirements doesn't specify whether or not they're the homeowner's kids or some outside children. So that says -- we say if you're caring for six children, period, it's classified as a single-family residence.
So if you have six children now of your own, you would not be able to do a day care? UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. 24
Under the -- and I can get a copy of it, I have a copy of it over at my 93 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 desk over here could. Could I get a copy of the requirements that I have?
Well, six is the same. I asked at six or ten, so you were not --
Just one second. (Mr. Haigler leaves witness table then returns.)
I'm reading from the section of the building code, Section B-310.5.12. It relates to the number of children permitted in a single-family residence being cared for. A child-care facility which accommodates six or less children of any age shall be classified as a use group R-3, which is a single-family dwelling. It doesn't mention anything about whether or not the children are the children of the provider. That's a State requirement, that's a State issue related to whether or not the number of children are the children of the provider versus any other children. That's not a City issue.
What's the City's 94 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 position on that?
Well, the City's position is that if you're caring for six children -- if you choose to care for six children, any children other than your own children has to be included as part of that six. And if you're caring for children, under the City's position, if it's more than six, then you fall into a different classification.
Up to six, including your own children, is a family day care, a family day-care home.
Do you have a question? I'll yield to Councilman Cohen.
I just, you know, have a simple question. If I'm a day-care provider and I have four churn of my own, how many children could I have in my home as my day-care provider work? How many in addition? (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Under the City's requirements for safety, for fire safety, it's 95 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 two.
I don't think, sir, you're right, not as interpreted by the Zoning Code.
So today it wouldn't be any, right? If you have four of your own and you're only allowed --
Again, for building and safety code requirements of the building code and the fire prevention code, it doesn't make a distinction between whether or not the children are your own children or somebody else's children.
Well, the square footage of the property classified under a different section of the code. 96 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
I mean, if I have a 3500 square foot house and I have four children of my own that I'm caring for -- my own, my family members, what have you, I'm still not allowed to go to six.
Let's take it out of the square footage classification; let's just deal strictly with the classification of the building -- under the building code requirements. Up to six children, including your own for, building code requirements, for local code requirements, is classified as a residential single-family dwelling. The building code itself does not make the distinction. The City's local code does not make the distinction between your children or children that you're caring for, up to six. Now, once you go beyond six, you would need a certificate of occupancy, which takes into account the square footage and all of the other requirements of the building code, and you would have to meet those requirements if you care for anything above six. But the City's local code, only deals with the number of six children, period. And if 97 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 you choose to care for children that are not your own, then they have to be classified as part of that six children, they have to be included as part of that six children, under the City's requirement. Now, the State has different requirements. I heard that the State has requirements for children that are your own versus children that are not your own, but that's the State's requirement. But as far as for safety purposes and for safety requirements, if you choose to care for children that are not your own, they're included as part of that six.
Question. So your own children, is there a requirement or regulations associated when those children are in the home as it relates to business hours? If you have four children and during the course of the business day, three of those children are in school, are they not counted in that number that's currently four or potentially that six number? I mean, how does that work?
Well, they have to be present. I mean -- 98 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
But I think what Councilman Clarke is saying is that if I had four children that I'm caring for and they're all at school from 8 to 5 -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Right, they're there, but they're out of the home from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. as an example, and I'm doing the day care from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., do you still count the four people who went to school during the day? UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. 19
What if you just 99 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 have ten kids of your own, what do you do with them? I mean, if they're all your kids, do you need a certificate of occupancy for like ten of your own kids? For those families that have ten and twelve children, I mean, what do they need?
I think we're getting confused now because the kids would have to be in the home being provided for during the day to be included as part of that camp. So if they are there and you're caring for a total number of six children at that time during the day, then they count as part of that number. Of course, you could have college kids, you could have kids, you could have kids that are not home, you could have kids that are in school.
Well, we do monitor it because we do annual inspections of this. We; have --
Yes, we do. Yes, we do. Our housing unit. As a matter of fact, I was the 100 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Chief of the Commercial Industrial Fire Unit prior to my current position. As Chief of the Commercial Industrial Fire Unit, it was my responsibility to have my inspectors go out and inspect for the facilities where you have more than six children.
I guess -- and I'll repeat what I said to you and to the other folks who were in my office. Although I support the concept of more day care, I think we need more day-care centers, my biggest issue -- two issues. One is public safety. I'm concerned especially about the little row houses, which I have many of them in my district and it's typical of Philadelphia neighborhoods, where you may have 1,000 square feet or even less to put all of these folks in one building. That's an issue for me. Public safety is primary. And the other issue is -- and I want to support the bill, I want to support my colleague Councilwoman Reynolds Brown -- is contrary to what some people think related to a bill that I did a couple weeks ago, Bill 629, I am a firm believer in a process where the community should be a part 101 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 of the process as to any change in the use of any particular property. So those are the two issues that are paramount in my mind as I deal with the issue before us today. But primarily is public safety. I just have a concern that, with all good intentions, we may be putting people in harm's way.
And I can assure you, Councilman, based on the provisions of this bill, this bill changes nothing in no way, shape, or form related to the safety of the occupants within the facility.
But it does in a sense because you are now allowing two more additional people.
Not necessarily, Councilman, because, again, like what I stated before in my testimony, the determining factor for safety of the children is based on the building code definition for that, for the number of children that you're allowed to care for at one given time within a facility. Now, again -- I will reiterate this 102 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 again: The safety of the children is determined upon, again, the requirements of the building code and the fire prevention code. The building code says you're allowed to have up to six children. The fire prevention code, under Chapter 7 of the fire prevention code, Section 709, I'm familiar with that, again, because I was the Chief Enforcement Officer for the City of the Fire Prevention Code, and it says you're allowed to have up to six children. So, again, there is no safety -- there is no detriment to the safety of the occupants based on those criteria. Once you were to increase it beyond that, the City has provisions in place to address that issue. We address it, again, by certificate of occupancy, and you would have to have your zoning approved prior to getting your certificate of occupancy if you were to increase it beyond seven -- beyond six, beyond six.
I'll yield to Councilman Cohen on that same question, but I do have one other question after that.
Under zoning, any 103 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 question of public safety or safety to individuals becomes part of the considerations of zoning. You can't -- if there is a building code safety requirement for the safety of the individuals in the housing unit, then that becomes a matter of concern for zoning.
So that it seems to me that the question of safety put forth in the building code is a zoning matter and that Councilman DiCicco's question seems very appropriate.
But, again, the building issue, the safety issues are addressed by the codes that we have in place, it is fully addressed. It's addressed even to the point where we have checks and balances within the Department to ensure that. With this type of occupancy, we do conduct programmatic inspections of this type of occupancy on an annual basis because of the nature of the children being there. We inspect it regularly. The State itself requires that we 104 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 inspect prior to -- and make sure that the building is safe prior to them giving them their registration. So we have checks, counter-checks, checks and balances, internal checks just to address the safety issue of the facility.
All right. My final question: Is there any limit to the number of licenses that the City is allowed to issue for day-care centers? I mean, there's some businesses throughout the City that there's a limit on the number of licenses. Do you know of any?
Thank you. No 16 further questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
With respect to eliminating the permit fees or the license fees for day-care centers, your department would have no objection, would it, to the elimination of those fees with respect to day-care centers? 105 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
I can't answer that. But I can say that we have already taken several steps to reduce the fees in the Department for family day care. We have reduced the fees to the Zoning Board for family day care from -- it used to be $200; we've reduced that to $100. Councilwoman Brown just passed a bill related to the food preparation and serving license for a family day care; that's been eliminated totally. So the Department has taken a number of steps to reduced fees to operate a family day care within the City of Philadelphia under the same parameters that we've taken steps to streamline our process for a number of occupancies.
Well, it seems to me for a small business such as day-care centers, that every step ought to be taken by the City to eliminate if possible entirely the costs involved in getting permits and licenses. And if there's any requirement that they file for business profit tax or net profit tax, that ought also to be eliminated. 106 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
It doesn't seem to me to be any justification for a small minimum operation like day-care centers for the imposition of these fees. So please take that back to your department. (Applause.)
Mr. Haigler, I'm just rather curious about one issue. When Councilman DiCicco was questioning you about the number of children in the center, if he has four children and the day that you make your inspection, two of his children are home sick, are they in violation in any way? I mean, we could get very nitpicky about this, but I'm just curious. What happens in a case like that?
They are not being -- they really are not being provided for on a daily basis. I think we have to use a certain amount of discretion in certain areas. In this case, this is outside the scope of what's normally taking place at that facility. If you have children that are home sick, they're 107 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 not normally there, they're normally in school, they're outside of that home. But if on an ongoing basis, you are caring for six children at the facility, including your own children, which may be preschool age, and you're caring for your children in addition to the other children there, they're included as part of that six. And we're talking primarily about preschool-aged children, or children that are not in the normal school system that would be there on a daily basis.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Haigler? (No further questions.)
Pat DiCarlo, Christine Day, Geri Swift, Gloria Guard. And I believe we have somebody from Philadelphia Development Partnership. (Witnesses come forward.)
Miss DiCarlo, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Neither. 108 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
My name is Patricia DiCarlo, and I'm the Executive Director of the Norris Square Civic Association, a neighborhood-based organization in the Latino community, that is having a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a child-care center at tomorrow; 8 you're all invited. 9 Can I proceed? 10 Thank you, Chairperson Verna, for giving me the opportunity to come before the Rules Committee to testify in favor of Bill 010014, which would permit family child-care providers to care for up to six children in their homes. Norris Square Civic Association is acutely aware of the child-care shortage impacting our neighborhood. We're opening our child-care center on Friday to attempt to fill some of the documented need. In developing our center, we initially envisioned providing care to infants through a network of home-based family child-care providers because we saw this care option as one which families sought in our neighborhood. Unfortunately, we're opting to also provide infant 109 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 care because of the lack of licensed child-care providers in our neighborhood given the difficulties of getting this licensing. Though we have opted now to care for infants in our center, our center alone will not fill need for child care slots in the Kensington- Eastern North Philadelphia area and will only offer one model of care. Families in the Kensington-Eastern North Philadelphia area need a wide array of child-care choices to serve their needs. This bill will increase the array of child-care choices available to my community. We need to eliminate the unnecessary barrier posed by the zoning hearing to the creation of home-based family child-care slots. The zoning hearing is an intimidating, time-consuming, and costly barrier. I felt when Norris Square went as if I were facing the Inquisition, so I can only imagine how the process feels to low-income women who hope to serve two more children than she is currently serving. Family child-care homes are typically the only settings in which families can find non-traditional care hours. And yet many, many 110 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Philadelphians work second and third shifts. My community needs child care in various forms. To serve Philadelphia's communities, Council needs to pass this bill and remove this barrier to quality, affordable child care. Just to give you an example, in the little neighbor of Norris Square, there are 2000 children between the ages of 0 to 5. There are less than 500 child-care slots in that community. If we can have family child-care and make it easy, make it affordable for people, then we can have an increase in the number of child-care providers and, therefore, of children being taken care of by family day-care providers.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next witness?
My name is Christine Day. I am both a nationally-accredited family day-care provider and a active member of Cedar Park Neighborhood Association. I'm also a part of Active Block Captain. Cedar Park Neighborhood Association covers a 90-block radius. We see having a good quality supply of child care as important to the quality of life in 111 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 our community. Parents and children alike can work and play is in the community where they live. It allows parents to drop in at their convenience to see their child at play. I'm also a member of the West Philadelphia cluster group that was recently reestablished. Our day care cluster group meets monthly to help establish quality day-care standards. We support Bill 010014, permitting family child-care homes of six or fewer children in residential neighborhoods without a zoning hearing. We feel permitting these homes would be a positive benefit to our community and hope that City Council will pass this ordinance. As a family day-care provider, I can also tell you from firsthand experience that zoning hearings are a major problem. The zoning process caused problems for myself and the parents in the day care and meant paying a substitute to care for the children while I went downtown two times for paperwork and one time for the hearing. The hearing was delayed, and instead of two hours, it turned into an all-day affair. Additional money was spent to pay the sub, and I was stressed 112 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 out, wondering if the children in the day care, being so young, were okay. Just like children grow up, so can quality child care without zoning. Cedar Park couldn't be here today but they sent a letter. Cedar Park covers the area of 46th Street to 52nd Street from Larchwood to Kingsessing Avenue in the University City section 9 of West Philadelphia. About 10,000 people with diverse racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds live in the neighborhood, and our community organization has represented this neighborhood for almost 40 years. As the president of the Cedar Park Neighbors Association, I support City Council Bill 010014, which will stop day care zoning for six children. The bill will allow more quality registered day-care homes in the City of Philadelphia. Our organization supports a strong neighborhood structure where working families have adequate access to nearby day care. We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I have a question to all of the members of the panel. 113 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 I don't find anybody here in the Council or out in the audience opposing day care, opposing -- everybody wants more day care 'cause everybody knows it's needed. There seems to be only one question, and let me raise it with you, and that's the right of the community to know about it in advance and maybe to work out some kind of rules of the game if there are any community concerns. Would you be opposed to a provision that would arrange for a meeting of the community folk, the neighborhood organization, if there is one, or groups of neighbors or a block committee, meeting with the proposed provider if there were no Zoning Board hearing and if there were no 17 Zoning Board phase? Or are you telling us that what you really want is you don't care about what anybody in the community, thinks you just want to have the absolute right to go ahead and set it up? Because that's seems to me to be the sole issue, is the ability of the community to know about it in advance, and if there are concerns, to express them with the provider, have 114 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 a friendly meeting, and try to arrive at an agreement.
Okay. Councilman, can I try to respond to that? I guess what I never understood about the other bill is how all of a sudden, when you go from one child, two child, three child, four child, and you go to six, now you have to go to a zoning hearing. And for anyone who's ever been in a zoning hearing, and your staff person was there the day that Norris Square went, it can be a horrendous experience. And, mind you, I'm not talking about the kind of issues she's talking about in terms of having to get a substitute teacher, taking all day. I mean, these are small, small personal businesses, and we're asking them to go through that process. So I guess my first question was, why between four to six do we need a zoning hearing? But you're asking a second question. If not a zoning hearing if not a zoning hearing, why not neighbor input? In our neighborhood, I'll tell you what happens, 'cause there is neighborhood input. You open a family day home provider thing, 115 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 and if all of a sudden, people are being parked -- you know, double-parking to wait for their kids or they're taking up the parking, folks go to the person and say, Excuse me, can we have a talk? You know, I think this is wonderful, but do you think we can make some arrangements because they're taking up parking. And then people deal with it. That's what neighbors do. And so I would agree with you about people consulting. The only concern I would have is that then it becomes terribly arbitrary if you have a neighborhood association who -- frankly, I don't understand what any issue would be. I just don't, in my head, can't conceive what the problem is that can't be resolved by neighbors in their neighborhood saying, Oh, okay we'll deal with this. So my only concern is to your point, 'cause I think that happens normally anyway, is that's awfully arbitrary to go to have to get permission from a neighborhood association to expand from four to six. So if it were a little clearer, then it's easier to agree to that. (Applause.). 116 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
Councilman DiCicco would like you to yield, I think.
I just want to pick up on that same line of questioning but -- and not to be argumentative, anytime any business, whether it's day care, a grocery store, when someone wants to change the use, expand the use, there's always a requirement. So I don't want anyone to leave here thinking that what we're talking about and discussing as it relates to day care is anything more unusual -- is anything unusual as it relates to any kind of business, because it is a business. So -- and the community -- I mean, with all due respect, I wish I had a community where everybody just agreed and they talked and everything worked out. I have yet to find that in the 34 years I've been in this business; there's always somebody who will disagree. And as an advocate and someone who started a community group, I believe in that process, that people should have a say in what goes on, because it may be one provider today, whether it's four or six, 117 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 as the bill in front of us, has to be dealt with, it could be three houses on that block tomorrow and then it could be four. So there's really no -- this thing could really spin out of control. I'm not suggesting that it will, but we have to, when we look at these bills and have to make the determination of how we legislate, think beyond what the immediate issue is and sometimes try to think what will be -- what the potential in a year from now or two years from now is. So I would suggest that there may not be a problem today but that one provider and the people dropping off the cars because they've figured out a way in which we can all be accommodated, but if you had three facilities, even at today's level of four children in a home, I think you would have a serious upheaval in that community from the residents, saying, How many of these do we have to live with? So, you know, I don't know, and I asked the question of Mr. Haigler earlier. Maybe we need to look further on as to putting a limit to the number of licensees that you can have based on 118 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 per capita or something, because it could spin out of control.
Could I give you a different example? In our community, there is an organization that provides facilities for persons leaving jail with multiple addictions -- you can't get worse than that -- and it's a live-in facility. They now have three properties in one block and so -- and it's a very good program, everybody likes it, 'cause you don't even know, and we asked the organization to please not purchase or rent any more properties on that block or on the square because it was too much of a concentrate, that we would support other parts of the neighborhood, and they agreed.
But if they didn't agree, would they not have to go to Zoning? I believe, if not mistaken, in order to provide that type of facility, there's a requirement -- they need to go in front of the Zoning Board. So the community is a part of the process, whether they agree or not agree. 'Cause I have many of those types of facilities in the northern end of my district along Kensington Avenue, and that was one 119 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 of my first introduction when I became a Councilman dealing with the proliferation of those types of facilities. So -- but there's a process by which the community can participate in it, and that is the Zoning Board, and I think that's what Councilman Cohen has been trying to suggest all this morning, that you don't -- do we really want to remove that participation from the process, community participation.
And I guess my sense is that the zoning hearing is much too formal and time-consuming a process for --
But -- not to interrupt you, but that is the same argument that could be made of any business that wants to start up in a community, whether it's a restaurant, a laundromat, any kind of business. That is a process that allows the public to have a say in what will happen within their community. And I have serious reservations about removing the public from that process.
Let me give you a very precise example. In the 5200 block of North 120 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 15th Street, one homeowner decided she wanted to have a day-care center. It was good for the neighborhood. The street is very narrow, it's bordered on one side by a park and houses on the other side. She decided that she would tell her folks that are dropping off children to use the driveway. And as sometimes happens, she began operating before she had gotten any permits from anybody. Well, that created a terrible commotion. She insisted the driveway is the one place I want them dropped off because that's right where the day-care facility is. The front of the house, she, you know, wanted to maintain for her privacy. Well, that created a great neighborhood dispute. We finally resolved -- it could have been done easier if she would have met with everybody in the neighborhood. We had to get down to a zoning hearing. At the zoning hearing, the chairman said, Go out in the hallway and see if you can work out something. Finally, she decided, Well, I have to talk to the neighbors now, and they agreed on a method that would avoid the headaches the 121 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 neighborhoods talked about. That's what we're trying to do, is to find a way to do both things. We think additional day-care provisions are great, we think they're needed, nobody disputes it; we, in fact, favor it. But at the same time, we're very much concerned about the neighbors having a voice and having a chance to work out any problems before they really fester into very severe problems. And I'd just like to suggest that during this period between now and the next meeting that real efforts be made on both sides to find a way to permit the growth of the number of day-care providers and to permit participation of the neighborhood in their future. People don't like to live there and suddenly find something new that they don't understand and feel is being imposed upon them. And I think if we can find that, we can finally put this to bed. There's been enough years spent on it. Thank you.
In my opinion, there has to be a chance for neighbors to speak, not just to sign a petition. Petitions don't give people a chance to be heard. I think there has been to be some kind of -- it doesn't have to be downtown before the Zoning Board, in my judgment. It could be at a neighborhood recreation center, it could be in a school, it could be in a church or synagogue or a mosque. It could be anywhere where neighbors and people get together. It could be in somebody's living room. But there ought to be an opportunity for the two groups, you know, the provider and the neighbors to get together and iron out any questions that they have, and I think you would find the results would be very productive. And I don't think you ought to have all of those costs imposed that are currently imposed. Maybe they've come down a little, but in my judgment, they haven't come down nearly enough.
I would just like to make a comment and then I would like to -- 123 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014
I'm sorry. I'm Geri Swift, I'm the President of the Women's Business Development Center in Philadelphia. I would like to make a comments to your remarks, Councilman Cohen. And from my perspective, if that requirement was placed on every other home-based business that operates in the City of Philadelphia other than just family child-care businesses, that requirement, because there are a lot of home-based businesses that operate in the City of Philadelphia and they might have more than one employee working in that home-based business. So do we get that kind of feedback from them? (Applause.)
Okay, good afternoon, President Verna and members of the Committee on Rules. As I said, I'm Geri Swift, President of the Women's Business Development Center, a not-for-profit organization in Philadelphia committed to helping all women, but especially those of low and moderate-income means, start and 124 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 expand their own businesses. I'm here to testify in favor of Bill 010014, which is basically asking for two more children to be allowed to be added to the four. I'd like to point out that this bill, as you all know, would make Philadelphia law consistent with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania standards. WBDC has a special interest in this issue because we administer the City of Philadelphia's Child-Care Provider Program, which is aimed at ensuring that home-based child-care programs are licensed and operate in a safe and effective manner. And the clients that we serve, women who operate their own businesses both outside the home and inside the home, are in need of high-quality, flexible, and convenient child care. These women already face many barriers to success, and making child care more convenient increases the odds in their favor, and we all benefit when these businesses succeed. In short, we have seen up close the difficulty in obtaining quality child care is one of the greatest obstacles faced by women who must 125 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 work. And out of necessity or choice, mothers are joining the labor force in greater numbers than before. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, three out of four mothers with children between the ages of 6 and 17 are now employed outside the home, compared to in in 1965. Two-thirds of mothers with children under the age of now work. Women are expected to make up over 60 percent of new entrants to the labor force by 2005. Welfare reform has made the demand for quality child care even greater, and reliable, high-quality child care is critical to these mothers' productivity at work as well as to their children's health and intellectual health and development. Home-based child care is proving an especially popular alternative to center-based care, especially among low- and moderate-income women. And some reasons for this include lower cost, the convenience of nearby locations in the neighborhood, familiarity with the providers themselves, and more flexible hours. I make this point about flexibility because many working women are now employed 126 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 outside the traditional work day when day-care centers are typically in operation. For example, data from the 1990 National Child Care Survey show that one-third of working poor mothers and more than one-fourth of working-class mothers work weekends, and that almost one-half of working poor mothers work on a rotating schedule. And a 1992 California study showed that one-third of children were in multiple child-care arrangements due to parents' irregular work schedules. Yet, despite these trends, very little center-based child care is available outside the typical work hours of to 6 Monday through Friday. Home-based child care, on the other hand, is far more receptive to the scheduling challenges faced by increasing numbers of women. Thus, expanding the number of children allowed in home-based day care will enable more women who work non-traditional hours to utilize this form of child care. But there are other reasons to support this bill as well. There are already a number of homes in this city where child care is being provided to more than four children. The women who operate 127 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 businesses may or may not know that they are in violation of City law and do not obtain licenses for their businesses. Whatever the reason, this jeopardizes the health and safety of the children because going licenseless means going without regular health, fire, and safety inspections.
It also means that countless providers are cut off from access to nutrition programs and various training and technical programs that are only available to regulated programs. So increasing the likelihood that current providers will become licensed directly benefits to children in the programs. And, of course, the City as a whole will benefit because more licensed child-care providers means an expanded tax base. So in closing, I respectfully urge your support for this bill, and I commend Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown for introducing this bill 21 and you, Council President Verna, for convening these hearings and members of the committee who are considering this matter. I would pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 128 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 And I would just like to make one last comment. The City of Philadelphia has a lot of regulations concerning micro-enterprise and home-based businesses, and a lot of it is economy. The taxpayer base is that base. But yet in a lot of ways, our rules and our regulations are way behind the curve in allowing micro-enterprise to thrive. And if we're going to continue in trying to enable the City to survive, it's going to be critical that we look at all issues concerning micro-enterprise and home-based businesses in the City of Philadelphia and come to some reasonable conclusions concerning those regulations that go back to the 1930s. )
Thank you. Excuse me. Before the next witness testifies, as I had indicated in my opening statement, there three members on the committee that have to go to a very important meeting. We are rather late. Councilman Kenney has graciously agreed to listen to everyone here who wishes to testify. And at the conclusion of that, he will make a statement. 129 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 I believe that Councilman O'Neill also has to leave to go to this meeting. Is there anything that you would like to say at this time?
Yes. I've requested a two-week continuance on this bill to see if there's any amendments that could be worked out between those of us that have some constituents with problems with it and the sponsor. And if not, the bill will run on the 9th of May 10 a.m., whether we have amendments or not. I'm not trying to stall the bill; I'm just asking for time. Thank you.
Thank you. And I want to thank you all for the time and patience that you have shown here today. The public hearing will continue and Councilman Kenney will be chairing the meeting. Thank you all again. (Applause.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name's Julia Hinkley, 130 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 and I am presenting testimony on behalf of the People's Emergency Center in support of the bill. People's Emergency Center, founded in 1972, is Pennsylvania oldest agency serving homeless women and children. PEC's comprehensive services, from emergency food and shelter to housing and job training, have evolved in response to the real needs of homeless families as they move from crisis to stability. Many clients enrolled in job opportunities and business skills or the jobs program, PEC's welfare-to-work program for homeless women residing in shelters in the City of Philadelphia face child-care concerns similar to those of Keira (ph.) and Sarah. Keira is the mother of twin infants. She wanted to use a family child-care provider for her child care needs. She cannot leave her children in the home day care of her choice because there is only room for one more child before the provider would be required by law to obtain a zoning variance. Instead of the home environment she prefers, Keira is forced to place her twin babies with a day-care center. If Bill 131 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 010014 passes, she will be able to entrust both of her infants every day to the family child-care provider with whom she is most comfortable. Sarah is the mother of five school-aged children. During the summer months, she will not able to place all of children with the family child-care provider of her choice. Sarah will have to compromise her work schedule to bring her children to providers located in different neighborhoods. Long commutes and inconsistently available child-care services have always been a barrier to steady employment and self-sufficiency for Sarah. If Bill 010014 passes, she will be able to find a family child-care provider close to home who can care for all of her children together during the school break. People's Emergency Center supports the passage of Bill 010014, which will help to positively address the child-care concerns of participants in PEC's jobs program.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 132 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Are there any questions? (No questions.)
There are no 5 questions. Thank you very much. The next people on the list I have are Carmen Marrero, Donna Robinson, and Aleta Chester. Will they come forward, please. (Applause.)
My name is Pri Sebadri, with the Philadelphia Development Partnership.
Okay. Councilman Kenney and members of Council and friends, my name is Pri Sebadri, and I am a manager of the Philadelphia Development Partnership's Community Capital Works Program. The Philadelphia Development Partnership is a ten-year-old nonprofit organization that has an economic development focus. On behalf of the Philadelphia Development Partnership and the Community Capital Works family, I wanted to express our unconditional support for this bill, No. 010014 that effectively amends the City code to expand 133 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 the number of children to allowed in a family child-care home in a Philadelphia residential property from four to six. Community Capital Works is a US Treasury-certified community development financial institution that specializes in deploying micro-finance products and service that serve micro-enterprises and micro-businesses in Philadelphia's low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Hence, our perspective and support of this bill comes from a reasonably intimate relationship with neighborhood-based entrepreneurs and family day-care providers. This is our constituency. As an agency, we are in general advocates of removing any and all unnecessary barriers, barriers that impede and obstruct the development and growth of micro-businesses. Specifically, this bill will enable the optimization of the revenue model that family child-care businesses are based on. Obviously, an enhanced revenue model is good for entrepreneurs, good for family child-care providers, and good for Philadelphia's neighborhoods. 134 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 Hence, as you consider this bill, the Philadelphia Development Partnership urges you to vote for this bill and pass this bill in a spirit of commitment to Philadelphia's neighborhood economy. Thank you.
My name is Aleta Chester. I live at 1620 (indiscernible) Street, and I have been a family day-care provider since 1990 in the South Philadelphia area and presently care for four children. I am registered with the State to care for six children. I am licensed by the City of Philadelphia, so I am inspected regularly for health, fire, and safety concerns. I am part of a child and adult care food program, so I can provide nutritious meals to the children in my care. 135 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 I urge you to support Bill 010014. In the past five years, newly working parents have come to me for child care because they know I am regulated and have a good program. I must then explain to these parents that I cannot care for their children because I can presently only care for four children. They have told me that family members or neighbors are presently caring for kids and that they worry about the kids' safety and care. If I were allowed six children, I could offer these children a fun learning environment with nutrition meals, and their parents could feel confident that their children are safe during their working hours. I am trying to help my community by keeping children in a safe, reliable care in my neighborhood, so I ask you to please support Bill 010014. Thank you.
My name is Donna Robinson. I own and operate a nationally accredited family child-care home in the Nicetown section of Philadelphia. I am associated with child care organizations that include NIM, DVAEYC, and Child Care Matters. Family child-care homes allow parents and guardians to place their children in small-group settings where they can receive personal attention and nurturing, which will then aid in preparing their children for a higher education. Passage of this bill, 010014, will allow family child-care programs to expand the number of children that can be enrolled in a family day-care home the City of Philadelphia from four to six without going through a zoning hearing. There are three reasons why I am in favor of this bill. The first is financial. As you may know, in some parts of the City, day-care fees can be over $100 per week per child. The Nicetown residents that I work with can't afford these type 137 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 of fees. Not only do we provide quality care, we also provide affordable child care. It almost takes a week for me to afford the zoning fee alone, not including having to close the day care or hire a substitute and a legal representation for someone to walk me through the zoning process. This leads me to the second reason why you need to pass this bill: the zoning process. The current zoning process, in my humble opinion, is a waste of time and hard-earned money. The automatic failure and counterproductive -- the child care provider close the day care, which is an inconvenience to my parents and also to me. I may also have to hire a substitute for me to come down here. Also, that's more money that I have to put out. Then I have to go to a municipal building, go for a zoning form, then have to pay for that zoning form and then be turned down. Then I have to ask for legal representation to help me through type of thing. In all due respect, for an additional two children, this process does not make sense to me, and it should be modified or done away with altogether. 138 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 The last reason I believe this bill 3 should be passed is because the State regulations says that a registered child-care home is allowed to enroll up to six children. In other counties in Pennsylvania, there is no zoning process, and a family day-care home is automatically allowed to enroll up to six children. This could be another reason why individuals are leaving the City of Philadelphia and going out. Two more children would mean two more incomes for a child-care business, which would mean business taxes for the City of Philadelphia. It sounds like win-win situation to me. I would like to expand my business to a day-care center, and this would not meet my personal goals. It would also meet the needs of the community and would mean more tax revenue for the City in the long run. Councilmen and Councilwomen, I know child day care matters to you. Passage of this bill will eliminate the hardship on small family-owned child-care business. Do away with the zoning process for only two more children and level the playing field for child-care business 139 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 through the State of Pennsylvania. It will also ensure quality family child-care providers remain compliant with other City and State regulations and give parents and guardians access to safe, reliable child care in their own community. I thank you for this opportunity to voice my concerns, and I thank you in advance for passing Bill 010014. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Chris Volker, Marlene Murray, Tara Bost. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Honorable City Councilmembers and distinguished guests. My name is Marlene C. Murray. I live and work in 140 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 South Philadelphia. I appreciate the opportunity to come here today to tell you why family child-care is important to me. I'm a working mother and it's very important for me to have a sense of peace within myself regarding the care of my child while I am at work. Knowing that my child's being cared for by someone that I can trust and respect is very important. When I began working, I chose to enroll my child in a child-care center. Unfortunately, my child has asthma and could not fight off all the germs he was exposed to in the child-care center. He was often sick, causing me to miss time from work. After a short period of time, I transferred him into a family child-care home. There were many reasons for my decision. Including the illnesses, some of the other reasons were: The location. This was very important for me. I was looking for a provider who was close to my home. Luckily, I was able to find and locate a provider who was two blocks away from my home. 141 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 The setting. I wanted a smaller setting for my child so he could receive more individualized attention. Having him in a family child-care home with the fewer children allows me to feel more comfortable, and he develops more personal relationship with his provider. Flexibility. Family child-care can also offer flexible service to meet non-traditional work hours such as when I have to attend a meeting in the evening. I feel better knowing that he is in a family child-care home and that he is consistently being cared for by one person. I don't have to worry about staff changes or issues such as that. In closing, I would like to say that I am grateful to have the option to have my child in a in a family child-care home in my neighborhood. Thank you for time and your careful consideration of Bill 010014. Thank you, Councilman Kenney.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 142 4/25/01 - RULES - BILL 010014 That will bring us to the end of our witness list. I would like to announce to the people assembled here today and for the record that this committee will be in recess until Wednesday, May 9th, at a.m. in this room. 8 Thank you very much for your 9 attendance. 10 (Applause.) (Adjourned 12:45 p.m.) 143 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 Wednesday, April 25, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO. 010014 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter