Committee Hearing, October 3, 2000

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 3, 2000 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 000102 - Being held. BILL 000103 - Amending Chapter 10-100 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Animals," by amending Section 10-105, entitled "Animals Committing Nuisances". . . BILL 000104 - Withdrawn at request of sponsor. BILL 000264 - Withdrawn at request of sponsor. BILL 000278 - To provide for the licensing and registration of nightclub operators. . . BILL 000404 - Amending Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code by amending section which requires owners of vacant buildings to prevent unauthorized entry to the buildings. . . PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 /00 L&I COMMITTEE I N D E X Bill 000278. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Department of Licenses and Inspections: Otis Haigler, Jr., Regulatory Affairs . . . Deputy Commissioner Dominic Verdi . . . . . 8 6 Commissioner Edward McLaughlin, L&I . . . . 21 Police Lieutenant Campione . . . . . . . . . . 36 Bill 000103. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 John Rafes, Assistant Director . . . . . . . . 108 Environmental Health Services, Health Dept. Otis Haigler, L&I Leg. Reg. Affairs Manager 111 Elaine Matheos, Private Citizen. . . . . . . . 124 Linda Mellish, 5th District Council Resident 128 Virginia Barishek, Greater Philadelphia. . . . 131 Dog Fanciers Association Bill 000264. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Larry Victor, Private Citizen. . . . . . . . . 136 Bill 000404. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Otis Haigler, L&I Leg. Reg. Affairs Manager 142 Mr. Lacey, L&I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 (full name, title not indicated for record) Judy Robinson, Private Citizen . . . . . . . . 147 3 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 P R O C E E D I N G S

Good morning. This is a public hearing and we have a quorum. Would the Councilpersons please be seated so we can start. A quorum is present for the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. We have: Councilman DiCicco; myself, Councilman Mariano; Councilman Clarke, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown; and Councilman Rizzo. The clerk will please read the bill.

Bill No. 000278, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Locations, Amusement Businesses," by amending Section 9-703, entitled "Dance Halls," to provide for the licensing and registration of nightclub operators, all under certain terms and conditions.

Anyone here to testify for Bill No. 000278? (Witnesses come forward.)

State your name for the record.

Good Day, Councilman 4 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 Mariano and members of the committee. , Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 000278, which, if enacted, will amend Section 9-703 of the Philadelphia Code to provide for the licensing and registration of nightclub operators, under certain terms and conditions. Accompanying me today are Commissioner Edward J. McLaughlin and Deputy Commissioner Dominic Verdi, and also, we have Lieutenant Campione from the Police Department. Bill No. " This will allow the Department to better license and regulate nightclubs and similar occupancies that have caused community and public safety concern due to the density of population that congregate at the clubs. Enforcement action by the Department has grown significantly over the past few years, paralleling the growth of these 5 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 businesses within the City of Philadelphia. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is very concerned about the life safety and well-being of all persons who frequent these facilities. We are also very concerned with the impact these nightclubs have on the neighborhoods where they are located. It should be noted that in preparing this legislation, we have worked closely with the City's Redesigning Government Initiative Committee, which is comprised of members from the Department and representatives of the City's unions so that we might gain a full perspective on how we could improve the Department's enforcement efforts, and at the same time, conduct our business more effectively and efficiently. A significant item that has come out of the joint union-management of this committee of this joint union-management committee is the change in the Department's approach in regulating nightclub establishments. Where once the Department focussed on regulating the small establishments, the Department will now focus our effort on the types of clubs regulated by the 6 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 bill, which notably coincides with the building code requirements for fire protection and safety under the use group A-2 classification. Under this classification, the individuals would apply where the occupancy is expected to be 50 or more persons, thereby excluding the small mom-and-pop bars. This recommitment of resources will allow the Department to center its efforts on the new wealth of nightclub establishments that have opened in the City over the last couple years. The safety of the patrons and the quality of life in the neighboring communities will be assured as a result of this recommitment of resources. Also, a recognition of the licensing and inspections regulatory process, we have devised the renewal period of this license to a three-year license rather than the current annual renewal. This will enable us to concentrate our efforts on inspecting the larger establishments more frequently, which have, in the past, caused great concerns for the community. Provisions have been made in this bill 25 for the establishment to be in compliance with all 7 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 City requirements, and in order for the owner or operator to have their license renewed, the establishment have must passed a safety inspection within the year preceding the renewal of the license. We believe that other changes in this legislation will significantly increase the Department's enforcement powers over the operators of these clubs. Making changes in this legislation that will enhance our enforcement power include provision for the payment of taxes, controlling illegal use and sale of drugs on the premises, and the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. Under the provisions of this bill, the owner/operator of the club will be held accountable for overseeing the actions of their patrons and employees.

In conclusion, it is our hope that the committee will consider this bill favorably, and we request a suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. At this time, I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. 8 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

Thank you, Mr. Haigler. I have a question, Mr. Haigler. If you don't have a liquor license, that falls under this in here?

Yes.

Yes.

(Inaudible.)

Yes, absolutely. Anyplace where you have an occupant load of 50 or more persons, where they are congregating for this type of activity, they will be subject to this license, whether or not they're selling alcoholic beverages or not.

Like the VFWs and things like that, is there going to be any unspecified burden on them?

No, sir. Again, where you would have an occupant load of 50 or more persons, if it's a one-time event, they would apply for these special events instead of the dance hall license.

Thank you, Mr. Haigler. 9 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 Councilman Rizzo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What impact will this legislation have on clubs that have what are called (inaudible) nights, where the teenagers go, under age, and frequent licensed beverage businesses? Down on Delaware Avenue, they are constantly having these teen nights. Based on this legislation they couldn't do that.

Dominic Verdi, Deputy Commissioner, Councilman Rizzo. Unfortunately, I mean, we can control the nightclub and anything as far as sale of alcohol to minors, but the club itself is responsible to the State under their licenses for how they regulate teenagers go into that nightclub. We have -- when you have a teen night in a nightclub, there's certain provisions under State law that require them to have -- for instance, if they're in a licensed establishment, they have to have one supervisor for every 50 under-aged people in the bar. They have to have, 10 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 if I'm not mistaken, their liquor secured. Unfortunately, we don't control the issue as far as what comes under the State law. This license is basically to direct the nightclub for fire, life, safety, issues and nuisance issues. If teenagers becomes a nuisance issue, yes, we will address that.

And also, I'd like to add that there is a provision in this ordinance that specifically states that if the club operator or an employee of the club were to be found to sell alcoholic beverages to minors, then that will be grounds for us to shut the club down and padlock the club.

Mr. Haigler, I have another quick question, and then I think Councilman Kenney has a question. There's a place on Delaware Ave., and I don't want to say its name, but 20, I guess it's 20. I went there one night. On one side Councilman DiCicco and I could be in; on the other side, he could be in with his friends. And I can walk in that side and see how (inaudible) it is, but the only thing stopping him from walking in 11 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 the other side is the 22-year-old bouncer who might know him. I mean, this doesn't separate that. I thought that's what Councilman Rizzo was trying to find out. Does this separate that? Are they still going to be able to do that? Can they still have that side where there's just a passageway?

What the bill 10 specifically states is that they can probably enter the club but they wouldn't be able to obtain any illegal or alcoholic beverages while they're there.

But there's supposed to be a night that they can have people on the side, where there are really no physical, you know, barriers or anything separating the two crowds.

That's correct. They could do that, but they won't be -- the club operator would still be responsible for monitoring the activities of their patrons as well as the employees that they have at the club. And if it were to be found that the club operator had violated the provisions of this ordinance by 12 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 selling illegal beverages to the minor, then we would padlock the club, we would shut the club down and padlock it.

Just to give you an example, we've done this along with the Police Department and the State Police. If the State Police had given us great information, so has the Police Department. We share information constantly whenever there's any issue of nightclubs. We have closed places down where the State Police and the Police Department documented the sale of alcohol to minors. Unfortunately, again, the teenage factor in the same building with -- and I think I know what you're referring to, the 17- to 24-year-old parties. Basically under this jurisdiction, in the State of Pennsylvania, we don't govern that issue. And if you don't mind, I'll turn it over to Lieutenant Campione, who can give you some insight.

I'm just curious. This doesn't overlap the jurisdiction of the LCB or anything?

Not this ordinance. 13 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

Mr. Chairman, could I just follow up, please.

I think Councilman Kenney, who's not on the committee, had a question. Councilman?.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that I disagree, respectfully, Commissioner, with your assertion that we are not permitted to enforce State law. I mean, we cannot cede what the State law requires us or the State law allows. But we can enforce, as long as we're not exceeding the State law requirement, these 17- to 24-year-old parties. I have a bill that's not going to be heard today (Bill 102), which I hope addresses this issue. This is one of those dangerous problems that we're facing with our young people today. These club owners are constantly pushing the envelope as much as possible to allow the opportunity to make more money and to expose young people at the age 14 and 15 to this night life and nightclub activity. For example, it is almost -- you would 14 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 have to be totally out of it as a teenager today not to be able to obtain an illegal I.D. card -- not an I.D. card necessarily from the PennDOT for their license, but from any photo place or operation along South Street or any type of place where you can go in there as a 15-year-old and get an I.D. there that says you're over 20. And if you go to a university, if you go to Notre Dame, if you go to Villanova, or if you go somewhere else, you can take that card and go into a nightclub on Delaware Avenue that's having a party for 17- to 24-year-olds, what you have is the potential of a 15-year-old girl, who gets a 20-year-old I.D. card, and now in the room, you have 25-year-old and 26-year-old and 24-year-old and even 40-year-old men. She looks like she's 20, she's 15, she's inexperienced, she's exposed to alcohol, she's exposed to the potential use of drugs. And she's exposed and endangered because we're allowing this activity to take place. And although I really do appreciate this bill, I think it's very comprehensive and I think it's very important, but the most important thing in here is not -- and that is the protection 15 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 of these kids. These kids tell their parents they're going out to a club on a non-alcohol night. Now, parents, you know, maybe aren't as my parents were, who questioned you to death to try to find out where I was going, where I was going to be, and I had to call two or three times an evening. But these kids tell their parents they're going out on a non-alcohol night that's been advertised here in the paper, it's advertised here in the newspaper. And then they go into the place and then what they have is a room where there's non-alcohol, and then in the next room over, these guys are drinking alcohol like there's no 16 tomorrow. This is a terrible situation and I can't believe that the State is going to tell us because of the State liquor code, it says no minor should be on the premises of any alcohol or any retail licensed establishment that serves alcohol without being an adult with a parent. I mean, we're just allowing this to go on as if it's normal. I know you yourself have been out there 16 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 in some of these places, and I'll say the names. Baja, for example. They have absolutely no 4 concern (inaudible).

I was going to say Maui, Councilman, but --

I don't care.

It's the same deal there.

I don't care, I'll say it. Shut them down because they deserve to be shut down. Because you saw for yourself and watched these kids come in with all same age cards, all the same I.D. s from the same college that show seven girls in the room. I mean, why are we -- and I know you and I know how hard you work, but we're allowing these kids to be exposed in our city to this kind of activity, and we're not willing to do anything about it. It's terrible.

Unfortunately, Councilman, we don't control the issue with the age. Again, we've worked with the State constantly in reference to the age of, you know, the occupants and also with the Police Department. 17 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 And maybe Lieutenant Campione could shed some light on this for you.

(Inaudible.) If the State liquor code says that no one under the age of is permitted in a licensed liquor 7 establishment without being accompanied by a 8 parent or adult authority, how are we violating 9 State law by ensuring that we enforce what the 10 legislature intended? 11 All we're doing for our ordinances 12 here, hopefully, would be ensuring that what the 13 legislature intended to do so that these kids are 14 not exposed to drinking, night life, partying, 15 drugs before they're old enough as adults to do it 16 on their own. I mean, it's bad enough when 17 they're 21 and doing it anyway, but why allow them 18 to do it when they're 16 or 17? 19

Again, one of the issues 20 that we've been dealing with and the reason for 21 this -- that this ordinance came up is because we've been treating most of these clubs as nuisances because you know yourself, if you have a 17- or 18-year-old kid, he's going to start drinking and he's going to get really out of 18 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 hand. The Police Department constantly (inaudible) these issues back and forth and are at these clubs every week. One of the things that some of the clubs did, some of the better' clubs like -- I don't want to name the clubs, but they have now recently purchased a new piece of equipment that they're all using it at their door, which is going to tell you if this license that they're handing out is valid or invalid. They've contacted the State of Pennsylvania, given the information, and now stand they at the front door with a hand-held computer to inspect the card.

That's great, that's great.

And that's for any I.D. that comes through that door. They can tell, and if you get a --

I can go to South Street and get a fake I.D. says that I go to St. Joe's University and I'm 20 years old, will that be able to determine that?

That license will come up valid or invalid. 19 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

But that's not a license.

It's a card-reader.

What I understood that machine did was to protect the liability exposure of the club owners, not guarantee that the license was -- that the I.D. was valid, that the reason for the machine, which costs about $10,000, is to create a record to protect the liability of the club owner, while not allowing them in, this kid, in fact this particular I.D. I don't know the owners who have them and I don't know whether or not that determines if the I.D. Is valid. And the problem, in fact, that when you have a 17- to 24-year-old or you've got a 15-year-old who has an invalid I.D., they can come in and party with the 24-year-old crowd. And that's a bad mix.

I agree. That's why -- (Inaudible, parties talking over each other.)

The Law Department needs to tell us that we cannot, in fact, enforce 20 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 what the State law says. And the State law says that you're not allowed to be on the premises. So I don't understand.

Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Rizzo has a question.

(Inaudible.) Going back and forth between the two bills, it clearly states -- let me see if I can find it that no 11 dance hall license which is a possessor of a retail or wholesale liquor license granted by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board shall permit any minor to enter or remain on the premises unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Well how come we can't enforce that?

(Inaudible.)

Well, both of them to me suggest that Bill No. -- since we're back and forth -- 102 and also 103.

I think the Law Department needs to --

Bill No. 278.

Bill No. 278, I'm sorry. 21 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

But the State says we can (inaudible), but they tell us what we can do. But we can certainly enforce what they say (inaudible). That's the State law. Why are we allowing a window of opportunity to allow a minor on the premise when the State says it should be (inaudible)? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Commissioner Ed McLaughlin. Councilman, that's a Police State Liquor Control issue, the issue of minors in those establishments. Where we can come in and where we have come in is when the police or the State liquor people, you know, give us information about those particular violations, we go against their business privilege license because that -- and then if we do that, then if we end up revoking that business privilege license, everything else cascades from that.

Commissioner, there are probably 20 or so State troopers who do liquor enforcement (inaudible). The odds are that the club needs to rise to such a nuisance level that 22 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 the neighbors are crazed, the kids are in trouble, they're exposed to danger (inaudible) so the State Police can get involved. All I'm saying is that there's no 6 reason in the world, unless some State judge tells us we can't enforce what exists in State law today (inaudible), and I just don't think there's a will to do it. You can't say, Well, it's the State's responsibility, let them deal with it; the State is not. The State is either not putting up resources in dealing with it or isn't interested in dealing with it, so we have the responsibility to protect our own kids. And I can't agree that we can't require in some way some restrictions on the age of kids that are allowed in clubs, exposed in a licensed liquor establishment, exposed to alcohol and drugs. I can't believe the State's going to tell us we can't anything.

We do have at least one provision in this bill, in 278, that on , where it talks about "It shall be the responsibility of every nightclub operator or licensee as a condition to receive (inaudible) of their license." Subsection (.1) and (.2) 23 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 specifically mention the last section -- in the last sentence there about forbidding minors to remain upon the premises of said establishment in violation of Chapter 10-300 of the Philadelphia Code, which deals primarily with the curfew issue and minors' responsibilities. So if the minor were to, especially during either a week night or a weekend, were it to be found on the premises in violation of 10-300 of the Philadelphia Code, which primarily deals with minors and their curfews, that means they would be in violation of this ordinance as well.

(Inaudible) 'cause I've introduced this other companion bill, which I think would stop this. This bill, however much better it is, it will not stop these 17- and 24-year-olds, it will not stop a 15-year-old who has an I.D. that says he's 17 from getting into the nightclub, being exposed to alcohol, exposed to something he shouldn't be exposed to at this age. It will not take care of that problem. These are bad operators, and these bad operators continue to make gobs of money off our kids and their exposure to dangerous substances and 24 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 dangerous things. And I don't think we're really (inaudible).

Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Councilman. I wanted to go back and I just wanted to ask you a question about curfew, and I may have asked this question before. And maybe, Dominic, you could clarify this for me. When these advertisements go out from these nightclubs or these clubs advertising a teen night -- and a teen to me is anywhere from 13 to 19, and after that, you're a 20-year-old or whatever. Isn't there some sort of a violation there to begin with? When they advertise a teen night at whatever club from the hours of 8 to 2, I mean, how -- a teen is not supposed to be out after a certain time, there's a curfew violation. So regardless of all the other things we're talking about, they shouldn't be allowed, aside from those who have illegal identification, that club should be basically emptied out at the time of the curfew. 25 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

You're absolutely correct.

And you don't need to deal with the liquor issue.

Absolutely.

If you're a teen and you're advertising from to 2 or 8 to 2, 9 they're in violation right there. I mean, they're 10 encouraging teens to stay out after the curfew. So why don't we just enforce the curfew? And I think we'd get a lot of those issues off the table immediately.

One of the things that we picked up on recently, until bill gets passed and addresses it specifically, the old bill does not specifically address the curfew issues. We have been working with the Police Department, where we have gone in and cited the owners of the nightclubs, along with each child that's in there -- and I'll call him a child, teenager, whatever you want to call him. That when we start having problems in nightclubs -- first of all, I as a parent, won't let me my daughter out after a certain hour. And there has 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 to be a certain parental guide here also. If that child is going out, that teenager is going out to a nightclub, and I've had parents call me and say, "How dare you let my child stay out until 2:00 in the morning." Hey, I didn't.

Well, that's my point.

What this bill does is going to address it better because of the fact that --

If we really address the issue on curfew, that will require the parent or guardian to pick the child up at a certain time, because even if they left at the hour of curfew, they're still en route home, or to wherever they reside, and they're in violation as soon as they step out the door. So maybe we need to put the emphasis on the curfew, not only cite the owners of the club for advertising something that they shouldn't be advertising by encouraging kids to come out, I don't know if you can do that, but you fine the kids for curfew hours and then the parents for permitting to be out there. 27 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

To give you some background on this bill, this bill --

They still shouldn't be in the room where they serve the alcohol.

Oh, I agree, I agree, but I think you can take a large (inaudible) because that's this business. And if they can't keep these kids in there for five hours, it isn't worth it for them to run teen night for two hours. If you got to be home by 10:30 on whatever night you're out and the curfew violation is an hour and a half or two hours after the door's open, they're not going to run these nights. I mean, you just have to take the economic incentive out of this whole thing is really what it's all about. Now, I don't have a problem with teenagers going to dances. I went to dances when I was a kid and they were held in catering halls or whatever, with Jerry Blavat, the Geeter, and all that stuff, but there was never any alcohol, a question of alcohol, because it was a teen dance night, period, end of story. 28 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 This is all economics. They're looking to fill in on nights that they can't get other business happening so they bring the teens in for five hours and encourage them to stay out. Now, the parents have that responsibility. You can't put all of the blame on the establishment owner. But I think there's a question of false advertising.

And one of the things that happens in those clubs, even when there's alcohol on the premises, is they're selling bottled water for $5 a bottle. And the reason they're selling bottled water for $5 a bottle is 'cause the kids are using Ecstasy and one of the problems with using Ecstasy is the need to drink water all night. Now, you mean to tell me that the club owner has no idea that that bottle of water at $5 a bottle is being used for that purpose? I mean, it's obvious.

It is obvious, it is obvious.

And I think, as Councilman DiCicco said, these are teen dance 29 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 nights, and it's hard to have a teen dance night at a place that sells liquor to adults where there's not even a physical barrier. I mean, let's face it, the longer this goes on, and it's going to go on -- when you're years old, you 7 get a fake I.D. to be 21. So if you left them in 8 there at 14 to 17, 12-year-olds are probably 9 getting in there, so there's 12-year-old girls 10 possibly in a place with a fake I.D., where the 11 24-, 34-, 45-year-old men can come through. So 12 that's another problem. 13 I mean, as long as we deviate from what 14 Councilman Kenney and Councilman DiCicco are 15 saying, it's always going to happen. 16 Councilman Clarke? I'm sorry, thanks 17 for waiting. 18

If I could just add 19 something just for one second, Councilman. Sorry for interrupting. But I just wanted to bring up a point related to what Councilman Kenney had said in reference to -- about the sale of water at $5 a bottle because of the drug. We'll we've addressed the drug problem in our bill as well because if the owner on, say, , they have to refrain 30 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 from the sale of drugs, illegal drugs, paraphernalia, drug paraphernalia on the premises. So any of those conditions will be grounds for us to --

Sorry to interrupt you, but this Ecstasy thing, this isn't marijuana where if you're smoking a marijuana cigarette, everybody in the club knows it. People could be in there with -- I don't know anything about this Ecstasy, just from what I read and from what people tell me. It's very hidden. I mean, it's (inaudible) before you get in. You know, you could be the most diligent bar owner or regulator but they're going to get in there with this stuff if they want to, because they're in a place where, like Councilman Kenney said, they're charging $5 for a bottle of water. If I had that club -- like he says, it's business, and you want people to buy the $5 bottle of water. Now, why they buy it is not your concern, to be devil's advocate, so that's what's going on. As long as we put these -- what happened to the day when the dances were in the church or in the rec center? I'm sure they're 31 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 still happening. Why do the 14- to 17-year-olds have to go to places where there's 25-year-old men right next door or in the same building? Councilman Clarke, I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haigler, I have a question somewhat related to this issue but somewhat unrelated. It kind of goes back to the discussion we had some time ago about these stop-and-go's. I did a bill 12 on that last session. And I heard Councilman Kenney talk about the State regs associated with the sale or the serving of alcohol in a facility that prohibits a minor to be in that building. Do you agree with that? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: That's a State (inaudible).

That's a State reg; I just wanted to make sure that you agreed with that. Why do we allow children to go into stores that sell and serve alcohol? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: You're talking about the State authority to sell 32 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 alcoholic beverages. We don't have --

I'm talking about a deli, a stop-and-go, whatever you want to call it, that sells alcohol. They serve -- people sit in there and drink malt liquor, and we allow children to go in there every day, all day (inaudible). Everybody knows it goes on in numerous streets throughout the City. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: I mean those complaints --

Why do we allow that? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Well, those complaints should go to the State liquor enforcement people, and we work very closely with them. The issue that we address there is the business privilege license. We're saying that if you continually violate the law in that place of business, we look at your business privilege license as something that you're maintaining to cover your illegal activity, and we'll call you to a hearing to show cause why we should not revoke your business privilege license. That's how L&I 33 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 comes in to those kinds of issues. We can't regulate. We could walk in in another enforcement capacity next to a child entering a store like that, but we have no 6 authority to do anything about it.

So you're telling me --

Councilman, if the case was that we know for a fact that that deli is selling beer or whatever to that minor, then we have jurisdiction. As far as --

There's usually advertising on the window -- Colt 45 and, you know, all types of liquor. I mean, it's not like they're hiding it.

But what I'm saying is that if know for a fact that a sale was made to a minor.

No, not to a minor, not to a minor.

Okay. In reference to, can they go into the store, the State regulation, as far as I know it, deals with nightclubs and bars. Now, as far as stop-and-go's, that would be 34 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 something that the State would have to address.

I guess the bottom-line issue is that you at L&I can't enforce what State law says. If the State Police has a requirement for the LCB to enforce it, I disagree in that I don't think we can revoke a liquor license, that's what I don't think we can do, and we can't grant a liquor license. But I can't believe that an issue of public safety and public neighborhood calm and stability, that we are not able to do things that do not exceed what the State allows us to do. Our state does not say that only a State Police officer is allowed to go in there and stop an activity that involves alcohol. I mean, for example, if a licensed liquor establishment has a shooting in the bar, our police go in and do their job. So they can't say that we're not allowed to go in there because we're not State policemen.

Just to give you an example of what you're saying, Councilman, I'll give you this example. We did try that twice, on two occasions, where my people saw alcohol being served to minors while they were in the club. We 35 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 contacted the State Police, a violation was written, we appeared, and the judge basically told us, You don't have enough experience to tell me that that was a minor. So they throw us out.

You don't have enough experience?

My inspectors didn't have enough experience to tell a judge that this was a minor. Did you go over, did you get his I.D., did you look to see how old, did you see if he had -- and he asked this guy so many questions, as we were going to trial, after we talked and discussed about this, that we're usually the first ones, the easiest ones to get into a property, into these clubs. Well, when we went before the hearing, once we gave the information to the State Police, we appeared as witnesses before the adjudicator at the State Police hearing, and he basically told us that we didn't have the experience or the information enough to hold this licensed property in violation.

Mr. Verdi, is that a reason to stop doing this, because we have one 36 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 job?

Councilman, we did stop it. We worked with citywide vice. And, again, as soon as Lieutenant Campione is able to speak to you, he'll explain that we tried --

We're saving him for last because --

We tried to go -- knowing that the State had a backlog, the Philadelphia Police Department basically took over, and through citywide services --

Mr. Verdi, I have a question for Lieutenant Campione. Do you have a -- excuse me, Councilman, I want to ask. Do you have the same policing authorities, as a Philadelphia policeman, as a State policeman does? LIEUTENANT CAMPIONE: That's my understanding, Councilman, yes.

So you can do it, right?

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand. State law says that this facility sells liquor, a minor cannot go in that 37 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 property unless supervised or accompanied by an adult, and that's what the law says. In broad daylight, every day, all over the City, young people go into the facilities that sell malt liquor, beer, whatever you want to call it, and we just act like it doesn't happen, because you're saying that the State Police are the only people that can enforce that? LIEUTENANT CAMPIONE: Councilman, my understanding is that the store business owner is regulated as a result of getting that license, and the regulations are that he establish that the individual making the purchase is an adult, not a minor. I'm not familiar with the law from the standpoint that a minor is not permitted to go into a corner store that might be a delicatessen that sells beer or malt liquor. I'm not -- I don't really know if that's correct or not so I can't comment on that. My understanding is that the obligation, the burden of proof, falls upon that shop keeper or his clerk or his employee, whoever's making that sale, to establish that the 38 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 individual making the purchase is in fact an adult. What we've done as far as the enforcement end, is when we've got a complaint, we've gone out and we've taken the appropriate legal action to enforce that law, and on occasions have arrested the shop owner or his clerk or his agent for violating the law. But I do not -- I'm not aware of a provision of the law that says the minor cannot enter that building.

Well, I asked that question earlier and you agreed, Commissioner. I mean, what does the law say? I guess that's what I'm after. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Our answer to that was we don't know what the State law is.

We don't know what the State law is? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: No. And that is a police issue. If in fact, the Philadelphia Police -- I don't think that you're correct. I'll be honest with you, I don't think you're correct that a minor can't enter that establishment 39 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 because there are other things in a stop-and-go that a minor could legally buy.

Like potato chips.

I asked you a question, if the State law says that a minor cannot enter into a facility that sells or serves alcohol, unless accompanied by an adult. I asked you that question and you shook your head and nodded that that was -- COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: I don't know the answer to that. Do you know the answer? LIEUTENANT CAMPIONE: (Inaudible, off mic.).

Can somebody get back to us on that? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, we can get back to you.

Because this is something that we've been talking about for a while, and I don't understand, if that's the law, why we allow it to be happening all over the City, every day, all day.

Councilman DiCicco. 40 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to the issue of hours of operation and discuss a little bit how that, you know, acts with the curfew. I owned a private club many years ago, which was referred to as an after-hours club, membership only, you could run till 3 o'clock in the morning. Whether it's an after-hours club or a typical bar license that the LCB issues to you, I remember when I was out those hours and doing the club scene more or less, 13 minutes, 30 minutes prior to the closing, whether 14 it was a.m. or a.m., the last call, all the 15 lights in the place went off. The police would come periodically and stand at the door to make sure that everyone vacated the premises. Now, when we're dealing with the issue of teen dance night, 'cause the owners really want to have a place for these kids to have fun and dance. I mean, they're not necessarily going to sell alcohol. Why can't we -- and this may be for the police -- enforce the closing of the club in the same manner in which we do liquor license establishments like the Monte Carlo Living Room 41 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 and others that I go to. At o'clock or quarter 3 to 3, all the lights in the place go on, the music stops, the liquor stops being served. So why can't we say 15 to 30 minutes prior to the curfew hour, if it's a week night, 10:30, I think, for 18 and under, and on weekends it's 12, 15 minutes to 30 minutes prior to the curfew hour on the night of that dance, lights all go on, everybody who's under the age, out of the place. And, you know what? All the other stuff that we're talking about might start to go away, because when you keep the music playing, you keep the lights down, it becomes, I think, more difficult from a police standpoint to try to figure out who the people are who operate as opposed to the older folks, and no one wants to serve the young people who shouldn't be in there anyway and (inaudible). So, I mean, maybe that sounds too simplistic, but why don't we go back to the way it used to be? I mean, a cop was at my door every night at 2:45, 15 minutes before it was legally allowed to close to make sure that it closed at 3. 42 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 So, I mean, does that make it easier for us to enforce it? 'Cause once the lights go on, you know, everybody's blinded and they can't wait to get out of the place. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: I think the issue here is that the curfew law, as it is now, requires the police to see the violation, to be there, to respond to a complaint, to see the violation. This bill makes it a requirement and it gets back to your flyer advertising this thing. It makes a requirement -- it puts the requirement on the dance operator to make sure that they prevent violations of that ordinance, and that allows us now for the first time to be able to address ahead of time -- it was your suggestion before that, you know, that we say you can't do this, you can't advertise something at 2 o'clock in the morning.

My point is, if you're advertising a teen dance, "teen" suggests that you're under the age, okay? I don't need any proof that somebody is under age in there because that's what you're selling the ticket for, that's 43 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 teen night. At 11:30 p.m. Friday night, the lights go on and you've got 30 minutes to get out of here. I don't need to know anything else because I don't want you to tell me, Well, some of them are over -- they're not supposed to be there in 8 the first place, it's a teen night. 9

Well, one of the things is, 10 again -- 11

I don't know, is 12 that too simple? This is it. You, the owner, 13 said it's a teen night -- not you, the owner is 14 advertising a teen night. I don't want to hear 15 that somebody's over 21, they're allowed to be 16 here 'cause you said it's a teen night, that's 17 your problem. 18 Now the lights are on and you want to 19 open up at 12:01 a.m. and allow 21-year-olds and 20 older in, that's fine with me. But in the 21 meantime, empty the place out, start a new line for the people who are over 21 to come back in. And I think you'll get take the economic incentive out of this idea that they want to create these fun places for kids to go to. 44 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

That's the exact reason why this was added. Before we went and used curfew as an issue, we had to go through an issue where we had to go after the building being a public nuisance, which took us to the business privilege license, which took us into court and restraining orders and things like that. With this bill, it goes out with the license, and there's a copy of it. The owners are now going to see this has changed. If you have minors there, I don't have to wait for the Police Department anymore; I go there with inspectors of L&I and say this is a teen dance, you're exactly right. At 11:30, my people are outside saying, Okay, you got a half hour to get out.

But the lights are still out and the music keeps going and all because you have people over in there, right? 20

See, this is where these 21 guys will now have to say, how much is this going to cost me to differentiate --

That's exactly what I just said. (Unintelligible, parties talking over 45 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 each other.)

Throw the lights on, and you say this is the hour that the teen dance is ending. Let owner worry about what he has to do after that. To sit there and suggest in the dark, with the music playing and can't even hear who you're talking to -- and that's your choice, but the people who are enforcing it, the police, L&I, I wouldn't put up with that. Turn the lights on, we got to make sure that, you know, this teen night is over, because curfew violations are going to be handed out. And you don't want to be responsible, Mr. Establishment Owner for having to pay the fines. Teen night is over. Good-bye, go home, kids. It's time to go home. And, by the way, my comments are not to be interpreted as all clubs. There are some places I know that really run good teen operations. This is just to get out the bad apples, I mean, the people who are using this as an excuse or an opportunity to make money and not really pay attention to the laws as they're written. I mean, there are some places out there 46 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 that do a good job and they make sure that these young folks are out by a certain time.

I'd like to follow up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to put myself for a moment in the position of an owner and talk about some loopholes. The purpose of requiring chaperones, I believe -- are they considered legally if the club owner wanted to challenge that these teenagers under the age affected by curfew are really under adult supervision and would probably not be in violation as long as they're on the premises that has adults supervising them. And I heard Councilman DiCicco mention that if they had an adult waiting for them at the door, they still would not be in violation. So I think what I can see is there's just a lot of opportunity for loopholes here.

No, the issue with the chaperone is when you have a liquor license establishment with -- when you have 50 -- for each 50 people, each 50 people under age, you need a chaperone. That would not be considered in this issue with teenagers. Even though that 47 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 chaperone's there because of the liquor license, that doesn't mean that chaperone is going to be able to deal with issue as far as being after curfew.

Could, could an owner assume that responsibility as being, while within the club, an adult that would be -- that would protect them from -- if you wanted -- if the police walked into a club and tried to enforce the curfew while they're in that building, would they be in violation if one of them were (inaudible)? LIEUTENANT CAMPIONE: My understanding, Councilman, is if they have a parent or guardian present, or if the parent or guardian drops them off and picks them up, then that would constitute the loophole that you're referring to.

So if an adult, a brother -- I guess a brother would be a guardian -- or just a buddy that's beyond the age of curfew had a minivan and hauled the kids around, you couldn't basically enforce the curfew. I see some loopholes where a sharp lawyer for a club owner would blow it out of the water. LIEUTENANT CAMPIONE: Yes, sir. 48 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Kenney?

Thank you. I just have one more question and it's related to jurisdiction. In a licensed liquor establishment, L&I is permitted or allowed to impose upon that licensed establishment certain things they have to do -- code enforcement for electrical, code enforcement for plumbing, for certain licenses and other types of things the City requires. Why is permitted to have the jurisdiction to impose those requirements and restrictions on a licensed liquor establishment in Philadelphia? What is it about that licensed liquor establishment that is apparently (inaudible)? Why are we then permitted to allow-- to be allowed to do other enforcement things that require them to follow the law of Philadelphia? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Because there a business in the City of Philadelphia. And because we regulate businesses in Philadelphia and they have an extra component -- they sell alcohol, 49 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 which is regulated by the State. That's similar to our regulation of doctors, who are regulated by the State.

So what is it about the issues that we impose upon them now that gives us jurisdiction. Life, health, and safety issues; is that the key? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yes.

Could we then determine that life, health and safety issues, as it relates to our minor children, should be as important as the electrical code or the plumbing code or whether or not they have a business privilege license? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Councilman, we agree with you.

No, no, I'm not arguing (inaudible). What I'm saying is that I think that when it comes to alcohol, there has been this, Well, we're not allowed to do that so we're not going to do that. I can't believe that there's a judge in this state -- and maybe there is -- that would tell you that you would not be required to keep 50 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 minors from entering that premises in the first place because of life, health, and safety issues. I just can't believe that. I mean, Councilman DiCicco's suggestions on curfew and other things I think are absolutely intelligent and important and can be done. Why do we even let them in the building in the first place? What is it about a licensed liquor establishment? I'm not talking about a church hall dance, I'm not talking about the CYO or, you know, the Baptist Church dance. We're talking about a guy who has a (inaudible) or who has a business to sell alcohol and run a nightclub. Why are we allowing these kids in the building in the first place? And what State law requires us to do so, when the State law says that no one under the age of is permitted inside a 20 licensed liquor establishment without the 21 accompaniment of their parent or a legal guardian? What is it about that statement that keeps us from enforcing it, other than the fact that the nightclub owners want to have these dances? I mean, that's the bottom line. They 51 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 want to do what they want to do to make money, and I don't have a problem with that, as long as they're selling their alcohol and exposing their alcohol to people who are years and older. 6 Let me tell you something. I drank 7 underage, I'll admit it. It was a terrible 8 thing. Kids drink under age all the time. But I 9 didn't go to nightclubs to do it; I did it on the 10 highway, in a car 'cause I was afraid of getting 11 caught. I mean, these girls and these guys get 12 dressed up and walk into a place that has alcohol 13 like they're out there in New York somewhere. 14 I mean, to me, we just allow this 15 envelope to be pushed to the point where these 16 young people are exposed to things that they're 17 going to be exposed to anyway when they're 18 adults. We do not need to expose them to these 19 things when they're as young as teenagers. And 20 all I'm saying is, we should be able to put as 21 many restrictions on these places as possible. And when it comes to the sale of alcohol, I don't think there should be any free ride because they're regulated by the State. I think we have the right and the responsibility to 52 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 take care of our kids and to keep them safe and healthy by keeping them out of the building in the first place.

Thank you, Councilman. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We agree with you and we'd like to take it to the Law Department. And we will.

All right. Thank you, I appreciate it. Maybe somebody from the LCB should have been here. Councilman Clarke?

I just have one question. I just need some clarity on the current regulations that are associated with bars and clubs. Right now, we have a o'clock closing of a bar in the City of Philadelphia and o'clock, or is it --

The time of the closing is based upon the type of license that they have. There's also clubs that have after-hours food licenses, and after 2 a.m., technically they can stay open between the hours of 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. and have piped-in music and serve food but no 53 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 alcoholic beverages. Again, the reason why we started to work closely with the State is we didn't realize at the time that there were so many licenses or different types of licenses out there in Philadelphia.

So right now, we enforce -- there's a particular license for a bar that currently closes at 2 o'clock, and we in the City --

First, Councilman, if you look at of the ordinance, down at the bottom, where it talks about the operation of nightclubs, letter b, 3 b, at the bottom, it simply states there that no night club shall operate between the hours of 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. and then notwithstanding the foregoing of special application may be made to the Department for permission for the nightclub to conduct or operate after hours.

Right, and that's our law.

That's our law.

Along the lines of 54 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 what Councilman DiCicco was saying, can we enforce a law that requires that a club that has a teen night, advertises a teen night, that that law -- that the closing of that club be concurrent with the laws that we impose as it relates to 10:30 and o'clock? 8

Yes. What's going to 9 happen is that this ordinance is going to 10 specifically address the curfew. And when this 11 new one does that -- 12

You're saying the closing of the facility?

Yes. We can go in and close it.

(Inaudible.)

Right now, at 2 o'clock, under a particular license, the bar closes at 2 o'clock based on the regulations associated with what the City enforces, right? All right?

Correct.

So that particular club, if it's a teen night, can we impose a law?

We could shut them down 55 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 for the hours of the curfew. And after the hours of the curfew, if the club operator wanted to open that club to allow adults back in there, then he would be allowed to do that up to 2 o'clock in the morning.

Under that particular advertised event, at 10:30, he has to close, everybody out?

All out at 10:30.

The teens have to leave at 10:30? Not only teens. I'm saying that at 10:30 -- COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: He has to cease the operation of that teen night. That doesn't mean he has to close his business.

Right. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: He has to cease having teenagers in that establishment. Then he can go --

Why can't we require that that advertised event cease? Not the individuals in there cease being in there. Why can't that (inaudible)? If there's an advertisement that they're having a teen night 56 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 from to 10:30, all right? And at the end of that advertised event, he has to close. And if he wants to open up later on and bring in adults, that's fine, for that particular advertised event. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah.

Can we do that? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah.

Not then going around and asking who's 21, who's 18, who's 16. We stop that. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)

Everybody out of the pool.

The question is, can we do that with a law that we enforce?

Yes, yes. This is not the current law.

I know that.

It's this legislation.

See, here you're saying that that person's required to have everyone who's a minor leave the facility but he 57 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 can continue to operate. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)

Councilman DiCicco says that he wants to close or cut the lights on, last dance, you're out of here.

Councilman, the ordinance, under enforcement, on , Section c there, it does give the Department the right to promulgate regulations for the enforcement as well. We can propagate regulations that will say that.

Okay.

So we can promulgate regulations to accompany the ordinance that will specifically say that.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? (No further questions.)

Hearing none, anyone else to testify on this bill?

I'm sorry. 58 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

Councilman Nutter.

Good morning, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Good morning.

I have a few questions. One had to do with the -- on the bill -- we're still on 278, right?

Mm-hmm.

Am I reading this correct? Under letter 2, licenses, that the proposal is to extend the renewal period from a year-to-year license to a every-three-year license? Is that my understanding?

Yes, sir, that's correct. I read that as part of my testimony.

I know that. Now, can you tell me what the explanation is, why?

Basically, Councilman, it was a licensing issue. It should not affect --

What does that mean?

In other words, the licensing -- what was happening was, we were under the gun for a year to get all these clubs 59 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 inspected and have all the paperwork and all of the community issues in prior to a year. It's the paperwork and the police approvals and the community approvals that were taking over a year. Licenses were not being issued. The a three-year approval process was basically for the paperwork issue. It's not going to stop an issue as far as if the club has an issue that then becomes a public nuisance.

Right.

It doesn't stop us from revoking that license immediately.

What are the revocation provisions presently and what will they be under this bill?

Well, the revocation provisions, if you look at , it says -- I'm sorry. Under c. on , it says: "It shall be the responsibility of every nightclub operator under the condition to receive the retention of the nightclub operator's license to..." And then there's subsection (inaudible) "refrain from the sale or delivery of illegal 60 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 drugs on the premises, sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, allowing minors to remain on the premises, in violation of Chapter 10-300 of the Philadelphia Code, which deals specifically with minors, refrain from releasing the property to a person or having reason to know that such person are using or intend to use the" --

Mr. Haigler, I'm sorry. I can read it.

Okay, okay.

But what I'm trying to figure out is, when I heard Mr. Verdi's explanation that you're having a paperwork problem, I think you understand that for many of us when we get the list about the dance hall license, and I understand you're changing the terminology "being renewed," did you anticipate the annual renewal period, similar to the changes made a couple of years ago with the liquor licensed establishments, the LCB licensing process used to be every year. So you would look forward to, I believe, October 31st, I think it was the renewal time, that that, quite honestly, was your best shot at making the case that maybe that 61 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 license should not be renewed. We know now that the State has gone to an every-two-year period, and so the practical experience is, you basically now have to wait two years to make your best case at renewal time, which is the one time that you basically kind of have the person's attention, that you might be able to deny the liquor license side. Now, based on that experience is why I ask this question, that my concern now is, we go to a three-year time period, I have to wait with my constituents essentially until the renewal time to make the best case of what we're going to do with this particular person. In addition, what you did read earlier was that -- my next question was going to be, what are the revocation provisions? And then you're going to tell me that on , under Section 4, in the new italics c, that the Department is going to promulgate some regulations as it deems proper to regulate the form and the manner of issuing and revoking nightclub operators' licenses. What I want to know is, what are those regulations today? 62 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: To go back to answering your question about us compared to the State liquor renewal process, you can make your best case with us at any time; you don't have to wait for renewal. If it's a nuisance, we'll address it at any time, and I think you know that we have the authority to implement either hearings within L&I or actually revoking the license.

And what's the revocation provision today and what are these regulations that you anticipate promulgating tomorrow?

Well, one of the issues of this ordinance, it now gives us, over our experience that we've had with some clubs, this ordinance now gives us the power of walking -- I mean, if the club is a nuisance -- and in reference to a nuisance, I'll give you an example. We had one club that had over to 30 21 police calls in 2 weeks. That would be considered 22 a nuisance to us. 23 This ordinance gives us the power now 24 to padlock the club and close it in that fashion, 25 and -- 63 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

What is it in this ordinance that gives you that power?

On , down at the bottom, where it says the Department shall take --

Padlocking and physical closure?

Absolutely. It says: "The Department shall take all steps in determining the business operation of any club that has violated any provision of this subsection."

Let's go back to the earlier discussion. Why does the paperwork take so long?

The paperwork -- first of all, the club has to be inspected for fire and electrical and life safety.

Right.

It then goes -- that end of the paperwork goes there. The community is notified, the building is closed up for 30 days, and we have to wait for police approval, community approval, and L&I approval. 64 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

Right.

When all that paperwork finally comes in, then the Licensing Bureau approves or disapproves it. And then there's an appeal process if it's not approved. And in some cases, some of the violations may constitute us going into an area of cease operations or reinspection. So the paperwork was taking quite some time, over the course of a year, because of that fact that we were dealing with approximately 480 locations. What this bill now does is, it takes some of those locations away, as we discussed earlier, as far as the mom-and-pop locations being under 50 persons occupancy, and let us concentrate on the bigger locations.

But I guess for me at least, it still doesn't get to the heart of why it takes so long. Do you not have enough people to process the paperwork? And what is the fee, and is the fee comparable to the amount of time and effort involved in trying to deal with it? I mean, you have to understand, at least my concern is, if it's a matter of bodies 65 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 and resources, it seems to me that that's a governmental problem and a governmental issue, and that the next immediate response is not, Well, let's just give everybody more time to deal with it. You keep your time period, you increase your resources, and maybe -- what do you (inaudible), from 50 to 100? Maybe $100 is not cutting it anymore, and if people want their license in a shorter period of time, the Department has certainly put forward in other circumstances and other situations significantly increased either license fees or -- I don't want to use a particular (inaudible), but it's an accelerated review and a whole host of things for increasing fees. We never increased the timetable for review; we just said, If you want it in a shorter period of time, you're going to pay for it. So I am very, very concerned, and I believe the Commissioner's testimony -- and I'd appreciate it if you'd just keep the mike on. I appreciate the Commissioner's testimony that you can come in at any time and try to address these particular concerns. I think, though, that there remains a concern in the community that when you 66 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 go with the annual notice period, the community is much more aware of what's going on and what their opportunities are, to pay attention in the neighborhoods to this particular establishment; 2. If you have a licensing problem with regard to timing, it seems to me that you increase the fees, and maybe that gets you a couple extra bodies in the house; 3. I don't know what, if any, role the Managing Director has in this because, obviously, you're dependent on other agencies and departments doing their job, whether it's the Police Department, Recreation, or anybody else, and I don't know how seriously any of them take this piece of paper coming across their desk as compared to other pieces of paper coming across their desk, but someone's got to send a message that if you get a dance hall operator or now a nightclub operator paperwork, you know, process it and get it off your desk and get it back to where it's supposed to be. So, I mean, all of those items are concerns for me, and I understand you're trying to get your process under control. 67 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 And, lastly, I would be much more comfortable if I knew what the regulations were on issuing and revocation today as a component of the bill as opposed to at some later point in time, and, you know, we can kind of check the newspaper and find out what they are. I don't want to stop this process. You must have a reason for trying to move it and get it done in a fairly quick manner. I don't want to slow that down. I'd just like to be more comfortable and be at a point where I could actually support something, as opposed to having to, you know, be in conflict with you guys. You do a tremendous job out there and I know what you're trying to get done here. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you. As far as the regulations, we anticipated no regulations until we came here today and we picked up a couple things that we would put in the form of regulations so that there are no hidden regulations anywhere in back of this --

I'm just reading from the bill. 68 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: The section 3 of the code puts us in a position that when we come over here and we hear the concerns of Council and where we can put that regulation into effect to strengthen up our enforcement or to clarify our enforcement, then we're free to do that. So, you know, the only thing that I think we're going to do now is, we're going to close a place down that advertises for a teen event, we're going to make them close down. And then if they want to reopen again, they can do that.

But you could do that today, couldn't you? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: It's not as clear. We'll put it in -- the issue of -- we're looking at all of our renewal licenses. Our responsibility is to --

I don't want to interrupt you, but unfortunately, I have to. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yes.

It's 12:15 on a Saturday night, Saturday going into Sunday morning. There are 25 teens in the place, it's a 69 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 teen night. What do you do with them? After you hit them for curfew violation, what do you do with them? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Clear 'em out. I mean, they're supposed to be home. Empty the place out. If it's all kids, it empties out. But that doesn't mean that a licensed liquor establishment has to close at that time, that's all I'm saying.

I understand that. They have a right to be open; they don't have a right to have all those teens in there.

Right, right.

(Inaudible.)

I assume if you're emptying them out, you're probably doing lights out, you don't have to go home but you got to get out of here. I mean, I know a little bit about this. And you're gone, right? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yes.

You shut everything down, lights on, clear those folks out. And now if you want to have the 20-, 30-, 50-year-olds in the place, then they can come back in later on, 70 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 right? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Right.

Bill, no bill, you can do that today?

Under --

Under the revisions of this bill, we can. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)

Mr. Chairman?

I'm trying to get you to, at least for myself, I think, to a place where you want to be, but, I mean, don't put in us a position where you say, you know, Well, without this, our entire operation is stymied, you know, folks are doing all kinds of wild stuff out there, there's nothing we can do to them, we can't stop them, and it's just part of the city out there all night long. I mean, it's not -- COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: There's no 22 provision that would prevent somebody from advertising and getting kids into a facility, advertising that they will stay open till 2 o'clock. There's no -- 71 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

They can advertise they're staying open till 6, they can advertise they're staying open for the next two weeks. If you can't be there, you can't be there.

Councilman, if I could just ask a related question or a comment. This is, I think, what I'd like to get an answer to. I believe, I believe that the State's intention was to limit access to alcohol for anyone under the age of by not permitting 12 them to be on the premise at all of a licensed 13 liquor establishment. If you make a decision that 14 they can get a license to sell alcohol, you set up 15 your business, you have agreed that no one under 16 the age of 21 is going to be in here. I should be 17 able to make enough money from 21 to 80; I don't 18 need anybody in here 17. 19 So, Councilman Nutter, the question is, 20 you know, can we regulate these advertisements for 21 teen nights and then clear the place out at 12? I would like clarification on whether or not they're even allowed to be in the building as a licensed liquor establishment in the first place. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: And that's 72 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 what we said we were going to take to the Law Department. I mean, that's a separate issue within curfew. We're not enforcing the liquor code when we respond to the Councilman about the o'clock hour. 7

Technically what happened, 8 Councilman, is the original bill, it addressed 9 minors or it addressed the curfew, but through the 10 Police Department. 11 This bill now makes a provision of this 12 ordinance that is telling the club owners to get this license, the ordinance is telling you that you're not allowed to have a curfew violation at this location. The old ordinance, or dance hall ordinance, did not say specifically that you had to. We had to use an (inaudible).

I understand that. The current curfew law tells business people that they cannot have minors on the premises outside of curfew hours, right?

You're correct. But what it's doing is now giving us some of the enforcement issues instead of just the police. It's actually making a provision of the license to 73 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 work with a dance hall license itself, where it wasn't before.

I understand. Is that specifically mentioned in the bill?

Yes.

It's under b.(4) 8 Minors, 10-300, and those issues relating to 9 curfew. Now specifically in the ordinance, it 10 relates to specifically nightclubs and nightclub operators. So, yes, anybody who had enforcement powers could have enforced 10-300 before of the Philadelphia Code.

Right, including any of these clubs or anywhere else, right?

Absolutely.

I mean, the grocery store is not supposed to have kids in it at 12:15 on a Saturday night. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: That's correct.

That's correct. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Right.

Anybody who had powers to 74 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 enforce Title 10, Section 300 could enforce that provision, including the Police Department or anybody with enforcement powers.

Right.

Even the Health Department.

If I could just add on that, I mean, am I being facetious here? The police always had the enforcement powers for the curfew violators, right?

And we worked along with them, especially in the larger nightclubs.

Down on Delaware Avenue, where Councilman Kenney and I were talking about go, when you go down there at 12 o'clock on a Saturday night, if there's a teen night, or 10:30 on Sunday night, and say, All right, at 10:30 everybody out?

We've done that.

Do you do it all the time?

No. 24

Why? I mean, if we pass these laws, if they're not enforceable, 75 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 what's the sense of doing it?

Councilman, again, these were issues of nightclubs that were becoming public nuisances. LIEUTENANT CAMPIONE: Councilman, from our standpoint, I think what this does is give us an additional pull. This hasn't been enforced, and as Councilman Rizzo pointed out earlier, there's enough loopholes in it that you could drive a truck through it. And I think what this does is eliminate some of these loopholes and gives us another tool we could use to enforce it more strictly.

Mr. Verdi, (inaudible) nightclub owners and new ones and explain this to them when this passes?

When this ordinance passes --

Explain to them the new law?

This will -- I can guarantee you that every licensee, that every person who comes in for a license, this will be hand-delivered and signed off on by every club 76 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 owner. 'Cause that's what we did with every regulation in the ordinance so far we've done: we've made sure that it got to the club owners and they were well aware of this.

Thank you. Councilman Rizzo.

Mr. Verdi and Commissioner McLaughlin, I understand -- I have information that apparently, there is either a process or a relationship that establishments that have liquor licenses that conduct teen nights, I understand that they have to cover the alcohol and have it out of sight or -- and disconnect the beer taps. So, apparently, are we aware that maybe there is a relationship that the club owners have with the enforcement, the State enforcement people, to be able to allow teenagers in these establishments presently, based on what I just said, covering and disconnecting the draft beer and doing all of the things that they need to do to cleanse the place of alcoholic beverages? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, they are the regulations that Deputy Commissioner Verdi 77 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 was talking about when he talked about chaperones. It's all part of the State regulations that apply through the liquor license.

But then they wouldn't be, if they do these things, if these clubs presently cover or remove the beer taps of the keg and do the things that they're required to do, then they'd be operating it properly, and they'd be allowed to have teenagers in the location and not violate the law. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, and that gets back to what Councilman Kenney has been saying. Well, we're going to go to the Law Department and clarify it, get a legal opinion about that.

There's even certain clubs, Councilman, that have, for instance, certain rooms that are licensed and other parts of the club that are not licensed.

But my point being, Deputy Commissioner, is that right now, legally, they're allowed to do what they do if they do the things that they're supposed to do. And I didn't hear that as clearly as I think I would have liked 78 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 to have heard it. We're saying that these people are violating the law when, in fact, they might not be. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We don't think they're violating the law and that's --

Those regulations were established for specific purposes as it related to liquor licenses and restaurants, because the problem was, under the old code, a kid couldn't even go into a restaurant, all right? So what they did was establish these regulations to segregate, clearly segregate, the alcohol from the non-alcohol. But that's not what these places do. These places are definitely in violation because, even as Commissioner Verdi says, they have enough rooms that are unlicensed, where kids can go. Well, that doesn't mean that the 25-year-old guy who's been drinking for four hours can't go in that room with those kids. I mean, this (inaudible) the spirit and often the letter of the law in an effort to continue to (inaudible) the opportunities to bring the young people in there and make more money. 79 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 And all my point is, maybe (inaudible) some judge will tell us absolutely, we can't do this. But I think we have a right under the State law to keep the minors out of the place, period. And I just think we have the right to do it. And if we don't have the right to do it, we should be going to the State and get the State to give us the help we need to keep those kids out of those liquor licensed establishments. It's not like they're going into a wedding establishment where somebody's going into a catering hall where there's a family event. This an event where kids go out at 8 o'clock at night, come home at 2 o'clock in the morning, and they could be as young as 15 or 16 years old. I mean, that's the same thing that Councilman Clarke said about, is that the beer deli license was established so that a place could serve a sandwich and a beer -- not four walls of malt liquor -- and a bag of potato chips. So we're also taking the State law that allows for a beer delicatessen license and expanded it and pushed it as far as they could push it, and it's created havoc in our neighborhoods. And I think 80 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 we've got a responsibility and a right to stop that from happening. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We agree with you about your concern for kids, and we'll take it to the Law Department.

Thank you. Councilman Krajewski?

Mr. Verdi, you're quite familiar with Wow, the skating rink?

Yes, Councilwoman. I spent enough time in there.

Now, there are children that are in there till or in the morning.

Yes.

Now, we have been arguing this case for how many years now? I have to go back to what Councilman DiCicco said: What about the curfew? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: This bill --

I mean, we're going over and over and over this. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: This bill 25 makes it the owner's responsibility to be aware of 81 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 the curfew they're under and to regulate their hours.

Don't we have a --

Excuse me, Councilwoman. Would it interfere with these non-liquor-serving establishments like she's talking about, like that Wow skating rink?

Yeah. This is going to -- unfortunately, the skating rink does not have a dance hall license, it never did. I can't -- the only way I can --

It's a skating rink, there's a difference.

Unfortunately, unfortunately --

There's a violation of the curfew.

We go back and forth with Captain Heath over this. This has become strictly a curfew issue that has to be dealt with through the Police Department. On our end, it becomes a problem with us if the Police Department turns it 82 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 over to us as a public nuisance. Once they get a dance hall license, if they ever get a dance hall license, then I have something to regulate them with. At this point, they're a family fun center. The issue with a family fun center is that there is no regulation on them as far as the time they could stay open or not, because first of all, they don't have a dance hall license, which gives them nothing they can be governed by. They don't have a liquor license, which is the second thing that doesn't give them anything to be governed by. The only thing that they have is the issue with the curfew, and I agree with you. And I was up there and we dealt with that on certain nights, as far as the curfew action was concerned. But the curfew actions were not enough in this case to give us a case for the Law Department for a public nuisance to revoke their business privilege license. So technically, it's not a dance hall. If they are acting in a capacity, which they do on some nights, they have the skating rinks on the outside and the inside hallway area becomes a 83 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 dance floor, then they're acting in violation of the dance hall ordinance. But at this point, they have filed or are waiting for different paperwork to come back, and if they are issued a dance hall license, hopefully, under the new ordinance, then I have much more control over that.

So now it will be three years rather than two, like Councilman Nutter had brought up. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We have a responsibility as the top managers in L&I to operate as efficiently as we can before we come back to you and ask you to raise the fees or to help us get more bodies. This whole issue of multiple-year licenses makes it easier on the business person and makes it more efficient for L&I not to every year get banged with renewal of every single license in the City.

What about the ones that it doesn't make convenient, such as other areas? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We can't --

You're giving 84 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 them an extra year. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We can address any issue in this code at any time. The concern that the Councilman brought up compared Philadelphia regulations with the State. You can't get any hearing, any substantial hearing, on a liquor license from the State. You can certainly get a hearing at any time for L&I. If somebody is operating a business in a nuisance category, it affects their business privilege license, and we can address that at any time.

In this case, with this ordinance, we basically tried to address every issue that we came through with nuisances throughout the four or five years that this ordinance was in effect. So what we now made in part of the new ordinance is that we don't have to wait three years to bring a nightclub into court for violations of this ordinance. We could technically cease operations of the nightclub and bring them in for an immediate hearing. We do not have to wait three years, as in the liquor code.

I have to say there's absolutely nothing in this -- 85 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

No, I can't agree with that. I just feel that it needs more teeth in the bill for on a year-to-year basis.

There's absolutely nothing in --

(Inaudible) to the people who are operating these places for children.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

We're giving them more time. When you're a threat, when it comes to the license --

Yeah, but in here, in this ordinance, it specifically addresses the minor issues. And if this club, for instance, under this ordinance, if this club tonight acted in any way against any provision of the ordinance, I don't have to wait three years to close it down; I can close 'em down tomorrow morning with a letter telling them to come in for an appeal, which then I could bring in the community, the Council people, and the police.

Well, just be 86 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 patient with me for a minute. We'll go back to the curfew.

Right.

Now, places such as Wow, which you are familiar with, they're being allowed to remain there until or in the morning, okay? You're familiar with them. What about the curfew, like Councilman DiCicco stated?

Well, the curfew violations were written by the Police Department. Again, unfortunately, we didn't deal with the curfew issues there, the police did. And when they went in, they threw all curfew violators out of there. All the information from the Police Department that I had on that location, including our inspections that we were there, I think, three weekends in a row until 2 o'clock in the morning, we went all of that to the Law Department. This was not -- these violations weren't deemed as a nuisance case against their business privilege license. What you're confusing at this point is right now, they don't have a dance hall license. 87 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 I have nothing to sink my teeth into them with. And that's why I tried to explain to the community when I was there, there is no dance hall license at that location; therefore, they're not governed by any ordinance that says they have to close at 2 and any issues with the --

I believe I understand what you're --

It is a public place.

Right.

That has people or children or whatever you want to say in there past 12 at night.

I understand what the Councilwoman is saying.

How come that's not enforced?

If they're violating the curfew, you can't take away their business privilege license?

For violating a curfew, it has come -- it has to be multiple infractions of what the nuisance is. 88 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

So if they're going to have one night with people, that's 20 4 infractions? Is that 20 infractions or 5 infraction? 6

Councilman, I have no 7 idea. I said -- what I did was, we gathered up 8 all the police information, all the L&I 9 information, gave it the to the Law Department and 10 said, We need your opinion on this case. In 11 certain cases, I don't need the Law Department's 12 opinion, we know it's infractions of the ordinance 13 or whatever. 14 In this case, there wasn't enough 15 information for us to go on as a public nuisance 16 and do it ourselves. We wanted the opinion of the 17 Law Department due to the fact that it was such a 18 large operation. 19

What Councilwoman 20 Krajewski was saying, and she's correct, that 21 under Title 10, which deals with minors, the minor 22 issue under Title 10, Section 300, it deals 23 specifically with the curfew issue and the 24 minors. Anybody with the ability to enforce codes 25 can enforce that section of the code. But 89 1 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 historically, it's always been under the purview of the Police Department to enforce that section 4 of the code.

Mr. Haigler, has that historically --

Commissioner, are you saying that it would be a police problem; is that what we're saying here? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: It has been accepted as a police problem. The police have written curfew violations. What we're saying to you is that the Law Department has not been sensitive enough to what is happening in that no matter what we do, and we've gone back and forth on this issue, as you know, with your office for the last, what, two or three years? You know, so we're powerless if we can't --

It's a skating rink, it's a roller-skating rink. And a question was asked (inaudible), and we have been on this, as you well know, for years. It's a nuisance place, we get calls constantly on when they leave out, what's happening. Now, they leave out at 90 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 sometimes 2, in the morning on the weekend. 3 Now, I want to know, what do we do as far as the curfew? I mean, are they allowed to be in there till 2, 3 in the morning? Like Councilman DiCicco stated, can't they give a last call, like "In 15 minutes, the skating's over" or what? Now, they come out and they run the streets, but nothing is happening here. And, Dominic, you know it's a major problem. And I've yet to have any answers or any help on this.

On that, explain the story, Mr. Haigler. I mean, that's -- if you have the power to enforce it and we're pushing it up to the police, I mean, does L&I have the power to enforce a curfew, yes or no? Commissioner, do you think you have the power to enforce curfew? Would you feel uncomfortable doing that? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: I don't think we have the power to walk up to somebody and say, "Show me your identification." We certainly do not have that power. So to --

What about the 91 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 license?

In this case, in this license, we will have it. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Or it sounds like we ought to be looking at Title 10, we ought to be going back to that, because while it doesn't get covered by this ordinance, we ought to go back to that. What's the title?

10-300. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: And maybe look at putting some more responsibility on the owner in that section.

Commissioner, back to my original question. Not to walk up in the middle of the street and ask someone for an I.D., you can go to Wow at quarter to 1 and if it's 12 o'clock and there's people in there under the 19 age -- 20

200.

200. The L&I inspector has the right to enforce that? Can I safely assume that? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We don't have the authority one-to-one to require people to show 92 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 their identification. That is a police officer -- a uniformed police officer can do that.

And why is that? Is that written somewhere that it has to be a uniformed police officer? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think there was some wisdom in Council to put that in Title 10, which is the section that the police enforce. I mean, we're entitled to regulating the business.

This issue with this ordinance, again, the issue in here, when we say curfew, if, for instance, like the Councilman said, if we know this is an issue of a teen dance, if we know this is a teen dance, we have then the authority to go in under this with the curfew laws and do this and say to them, Okay, you have a 17- to 24-year-old party, if Councilman Kenney's bill 20 don't pass, to say, Okay, shut it down, you reopen at 11 o'clock, with everybody that's there. But, unfortunately, I don't feel we have the capability of walking in and grabbing teenagers and asking for I.D. one-to-one.

Mr. Verdi, if you 93 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 were to do that, you certainly would have a uniformed officer from the 15th Police District with you.

I'm sure I --

On Saturday night at quarter after 12. Because it's so bad that Councilman Krajewski's jumping out of her seat here. For her to do that, she's bothered, bothered, bothered by neighbors, as I'm sure you have. This is just a general statement. Why does it have to get to a public hearing, it has to get to this point before the District Councilperson can get it solved?

We've had that building -- we've done everything -- basically, I've done everything I done but put skates on and go around with the kids. I mean, don't know what else we could do. We've brought in the D.A.'s office, we've had police officer look at it. I was just on the phone the other day in reference to some issues with the captain of that area. The issue is, it's not -- it may be a nuisance to the Councilperson and to myself, but 94 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 for some reason, it doesn't seem to be coming out of there as a major nuisance, and I don't understand --

Probably after today, it will be. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: I'll just say that --

Excuse me, excuse me. I should be talking to the police captain to enforce the curfew. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Absolutely.

Is that right? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Absolutely.

In the meantime, this bill here will apply to places like Wow? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: No. 20

No? Why? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: Because the community has been effective in stopping them from getting their dance hall license.

I beg your pardon? 95 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

At this point, the dance hall license is sitting and waiting approval, and if goes through then, we'll be able to. . .

What becomes a nuisance? Don't we have any say far as the license?

Yes, yes. We can revoke the license. We went to the Law Department and the Law Department said absolutely nothing.

Why? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We have paid so much attention to this that we've had complaints made against us for harassment at that place. They've gone to the Mayor's Office, people have written letters against us because we've paid so much attention to that place.

We just had a child that was shot Sunday night and that child was paralyzed. This is how bad it is, this is how bad it gets. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: All that stuff can be bundled up --

It just seems everyone is saying we have to go to L&I, the 96 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 Police Department, the City Solicitor. They just seem to be passing the buck. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We're not passing the buck.

In the meantime, we have SEPTA drivers that SEPTA doesn't even want to put on the route there it's so bad. Now, this is and in the morning. Now, what do we do about that?

Councilwoman --

Can any of you answer me on that?

I'll give you the answer. We gave that information, including that child's shooting, and there was also a stabbing there that I know about, and we gave that the Law Department. I can't just inadvertently, without reason, walk up to a club or any place of business and close it for public nuisance without having any good reason or backing from the Police Department or anyone else with paperwork. I just can't do that. We can close it down pending an injunction, but we can't -- we can't -- the Law 97 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 Department would probably want to have me, you know, strung up at City Hall for the reason of doing it without due process. COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: We'll revisit the Wow situation, we'll look at it again. And, believe me, Councilwoman --

I really don't know what it's going to take, Commissioner, to do something about this place.

I think we all ought to go skating there Saturday night at 12 o'clock.

Let me ask a couple factual questions and make sure we're operating from the same base of information.

Everybody at once, everybody at once.

Now, the Philadelphia Code, in Section 10-305, is entitled "Unlawful Conduct of Owners or Operators of Establishments," and it says, "No operator of an establishment or their agents or employees shall knowingly permit any minor to remain upon the premises of such establishment between the hours 98 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 of 10:30 p.m. and a.m. of the following day, official City time, except that on Fridays and Saturdays, the hours shall be from 12 midnight to a.m." 6 Now, does that mean that I can be on the premises of any business establishment in the City of Philadelphia Friday or Saturday after 12 midnight till 6 a.m.? Is that what that means?

That's correct.

Okay. Now, in Section 10-306, number 5, it says: "Any operator of an establishment or any agent or employee of an operator who shall violate the provisions of 10-305 shall be fined not less than $150, nor more than $300 to this violation." Now, does that apply to the situation that we were just talking at?

Yes.

And you have a repeat offender section, and later on in the code, it talks about "Whenever business is being conducted in or on any premises without a required business license ..." Now, are you able in these 99 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 circumstances to revoke the business privilege licenses for these types of violations?

When it's being a public nuisance.

When it's being a public nuisance. And what's the definition of "a public nuisance"?

A nuisance -- a private or public nuisance would be to any three or more -- is that the way the words? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: It's delineated in the code.

Well, let me go back to -- the original discussion was, people are advertising these teen activities and they're extending them for hours beyond the curfew. And in the curfew section, it talks about "Any police officer who finds a minor in violation of the provisions of 10-303(1)," and it lists a whole host of things that the police are supposed to do.

Right.

In the situation that the Councilwoman laid out, are we aware that those types of things happen? 100 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278

My understanding is all the reports that I got from the Police Department was -- and, again, I can't speak for the captain of the 15th Police District. We went and followed everything that we had to follow in the code. And again, we (inaudible) and gave it to the Law Department and said, "We need your opinion."

When was this?

Approximately two months ago.

And the response was. . . ?

There's not enough there for a nuisance. It also went before the District Attorney Nuisances Task Force, and there was not enough affidavits from the neighborhood in reference to nuisance cases, 'cause I went to those meetings also, and they felt it was not enough for a nuisance action from the D.A.'s Office.

Did I understand the response to the Councilwoman's question was that this particular bill would not address those 101 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 issues either?

This particular bill will address those issues. It gives us a little bit more clout on that location as far as it being a dance hall, on the dance hall end of --

But if this is a dance hall --

If they get a license. They don't have a license, they don't have a license there. First of all, they have no dance hall license pending. It's a pending dance hall license. If they had a dance hall license, and I tried to explain this a long time back to the neighbors, if they had a dance hall license, I could hold them to a provision to shut down before 2 o'clock.

The place has been open for over ten years.

(Inaudible.) (Unintelligible, parties speaking over each other.)

They been there for ten years and --

It's not (unintelligible) 102 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 as a dance hall, like -- it's a roller rink and family fun center. This is where it differentiates. It's not a nightclub. If you walk in the place, it has -- it looks like an ice or a roller rink. It's just one big round rink, with amusements and a concession stand and things like that. It's just not a nightclub, and this comes under a different category. If -- when they started the dance in the center, we tried to help the community by having them get a dance hall license, but instead of them getting the dance hall license, the community fought us on them getting the dance hall license, so it gives me less regulatory control on it.

You know the reason why, because they felt that they had enough problems.

The problem, as I tried to explain it to the community, Councilwoman --

I don't understand that.

Councilwoman, it's --

So it's not 103 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000278 that they are happy with what's there.

I understand. If you're not happy with what's there, I'm just trying explain to the community for the last two years, give me the availability of using this, I'll be able to have a little more control. Because without this, I have no control.

Well, I guess I should be addressing my question to the Commissioner simply because of the curfew, because that's not being enforced. If that's the bottom line, then I have to agree with Councilman DiCicco on that. It's all curfew.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other questions from these witnesses? (No further questions.)

Thank you. Any more witnesses on this bill? And we're still on Bill No. 278. (No response.)

Mr. Weiss? Is there a Mr. Weiss here? 104 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 (No response.)

No more witnesses on this bill? Going once, going twice. . . (No response.)

Next bill.

Bill No. 000103, an ordinance amending Chapter 10-100 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Animals," by amending Section 10-105, entitled "Animals Committing Nuisances," by expanding the section to include nuisances committed upon private property of the owner and animal noises which cause unreasonable annoyance, disturbance, or discomfort to a person or persons, all under certain terms and conditions.

Any witnesses on this bill?

Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized for a second?

Councilman Kenney.

When this bill was introduced back on February 24th, along with Bill 24 No. 102 -- I'm sorry, with the companion bill that had to do with the eliminating of the number of 105 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 dogs and cats individuals could own, that bill is being -- at my request today, is being withdrawn this bill. That bill will not be heard, there is no legislation pending at all dealing with the limitation of the number of animals that any individual home or homeowner could own. The only bill we're deal with today is Bill No. 103, which has been worked on through the course of the summer with a number of animal rights advocates and other organizations that are interested in the well-being and the welfare of animals. And for the most part, I understand that there is an agreement that this bill does in fact accomplish that goal, to give the City more ability to ensure that dogs and cats and other pets are treated in the proper manner. And there are also people here from the Department of Health, the Police Department, and some of the advocacy groups who want to testify on this bill, so I appreciate your --

Thank you, Councilman. So you're holding 102 and 103 is.

102 being held and -- 106 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103

So it's testimony on 103, right?

104 is the number of the bill on limitation. That's not on the calendar today, but I'm requesting that it be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman?

Hold on.

104 has been requested to be withdrawn.

All right. And 102?

102 is being held.

So we're going to take testimony on 103.

That's correct.

All right. Is there Anybody to testify on 103? Councilman Rizzo?

In reference to withdrawing Bill No. 104, I think it's safe to say that this means that the existing legislation that's on the books regulating -- nothing changes, right? 107 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103

That's correct, nothing changes.

There are still some regulations --

Correct.

-- on the books?

Part of the problem, for the record, is that the limit is currently 10. There are a number of animal rights groups and individual people who act in a very kind way of sheltering a number of stray cats and dogs, and they wind up taking them off the street to try to nurse them and get them back to health and to give them a better life. And what has happened is that the ten requirement is not the enforcement. Some people have less than 10, some more. But based on the individual complaints that the neighbors may have, they will be investigated separately. There's no 21 requirement and no suggestion that any number be imposed. So this has to do with the way people treat their dogs and cats in the home, in the yard, and those kinds of things. 108 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103

Thank you Councilman. Sir, state your name for the record.

Good morning, Mr. Chairperson and members of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. My name John Rafes. I'm the Assistant Director of Environmental Health Services with the Health Department.

We can't hear you. Could everyone please be quiet in here. Thank you. Especially Councilwoman Krajewski. (Laughter.)

And please speak up so we can hear you.

Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairperson and members of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. My name is John Rafes, I'm Assistant Director of Environmental Health Services within the Health Department. I'm here to testify --

Could you spell your name for the record, please.

It's R-A-F-E-S. I am here to testify in favor of Bill 109 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 No. 103. I do have one comment on the proposed revisions to Section 10-105, subsection 2, entitled "Removal." If enacted, this section will require the immediate removal of animal feces from private property by the owner of the animal. We believe some consideration should be given for residents who work during the day and properly remove that feces from their property on returning from work or school. It has been the experience of the Department of Public Health's Animal Management Unit that nuisance conditions and complaints are the result of failure to remove animal feces over a period of days. Accordingly, affording residents a reasonable amount of time, perhaps 12 hours to, to remove that waste from own private property would not contribute to the creation of nuisance conditions. The Department supports, without comment, all other proposed revisions to Chapter 22 10-105, Section 10-105. I'm happy to respond to any questions you may have at this time.

Mr. Chairman, there 110 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 has been circulated to the committee two amendments. One is dealing with the request of the Health Department to allow for a period of time of between and hours -- I'm sorry 6 between 12 -- to add an ability of 12 hours. The 7 amendments are there. It amends Subsection 2, 8 "Removal." At the top of , line 2, remove 9 the word "immediately" and add the words "within 10 12 hours" between the words "feces" and "from." 11 So we are trying to respond through the amendment 12 to the request of the Health Department to give 13 working people some time and leeway after work get 14 this thing resolved. 15 And also we're amending Section 6, 16 under "Enforcement," subsection b., at the bottom 17 of , by lowering the amount of the fine to 18 $25. I that will be testified to, I think, by the Department of L&I, as a way to get people to respond to the fines prior to going to court. Those amendments have been prepared, the pink copies have been marked, and they are in your possession.

Thank you, Councilman. 111 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 Please proceed.

I'm finished my testimony.

Any other testimony? Councilman Rizzo?

Is there anyone from L&I that's going to be on record in support of the bill?

Yes. My name is Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager of the Department of L&I. The Department has no objections to the enactment of this bill. Title 10 related to animals, just for a point of record, we have a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Health Department, so we have transferred our duties toward in the course of the charter provisions to the Health Department for the enforcement of provisions under Title 10 related to animals, so the Health Department now has all enforcement jurisdiction over animals.

Thank you. I have a question in reference to 112 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 enforcement and maybe you can clear up some misconceptions that I may have. I'd like to discuss the process on enforcement. If you have a dog in your community that's continually barking, what does the citizen do? What is the normal process rather than calling a member of City Council? I've been told that the enforcement process or the investigative process is no longer in the Health Department's jurisdiction, that that has been assumed by the SPCA. And from what I'm understanding, if that's correct, that is not working very well. So could you -- could you please explain to me how a person complains without going to a member of the legislative body to get someone out to investigate a dog that's continually barking?

Councilman Rizzo, you're correct in the sense that the Health Department has contracted with the Pennsylvania SPCA to provide the service, and they regularly accept complaints about animal noise. And their intake number, without question, this bill would help that process in that it would eliminate the 113 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 requirement that the investigator clock minutes of barking within a given hour. And it's a very difficult regulation to enforce at this time, and the provisions of this amendment would help enforce the Department to enforce these regulations tremendously.

I would like to go 9 back. How are we -- since this is contracted out, 10 what is the oversight? 11 I'll give you an example. It's off the 12 barking dog issue, but I had a constituent call me 13 yesterday that apparently had a raccoon that was 14 out during the daylight, foaming from the mouth, 15 so that's something that I think is a signal that that is a sick animal. The person, when she called the SPCA, she was told to go buy a trap and trap it herself. I'd like to know, what oversight do we have with this contract to make sure that when Mrs. Murphy calls complaining about a dog, that she didn't get some type of ridiculous response like that. Who and what -- I'd like to really get into more the oversight of the SPCA's contract. And how much do we pay the SPCA to -- what kind of 114 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 a contract is this, could you explain?

Councilman, it's a professional services in the amount of $767,000. We in Environmental Services of the Health Department oversee the contract very closely.

I would appreciate some information about this contract provided to the Chair on all the services, the hours they'll go out for operation, how many people are involved. Because from what I'm hearing, the services that you describe -- again, I have people tell me that it was almost impossible to get a response in reference to a barking-dog issue since this has been contracted out to the SPCA.

Councilman, I have some personal experience in this matter. Twice this happened to me personally. But since the SPCA has it, only because I'm a Councilman, I got someone to from your department out there. When your Department handled it, it was taken care of. Can you imagine someone working the wrong shift and has to sleep at a certain time, and every day or every night at the same time, this dog barks. When I called before, the Health 115 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 Department person came out and they monitored it and it was taken care of. The SPCA don't answer the phone. Now, I'm a City Councilman, I can call the City Hall switchboard, call your boss, and it works its way down. So within an hour, I have some kind of an answer. Most people aren't able to do that. So the SPCA is totally useless at night, and that's when most of the problems are. So why do we have a contract with them when they don't handle it at night? And I realize it's not you in the contract, but still, it's useless for them to have this contract because they're not there at night.

Councilman, the (inaudible) noise provision by the SPCA is a very, very small provision of the contract.

But it's the most important one when you can't sleep at 2 o'clock in the morning. Now, I don't know about anything else they do, they probably do everything right, but maybe this part should be removed from the contract, and the Health Department can do it like used to do it or something. We got to come up 116 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 with something.

Mr. Chairman?

Councilman Kenney.

One of the provisions of this bill will help in that case. It is the addition of a section which says, "No 8 person having possession, custody, or control of any animal shall knowingly or negligently permit any dog or other animal to make any noise which causes unreasonable annoyance to (inaudible) a person or persons residing within one thousand feet of the owner of said animal." Now, this is the important part of it: "Complainants must be willing to sign a complaint against the owner and agree to testify in court if required." The first offense for this situation, when complaints are by a neighbor to L&I or -- I'm sorry, to L&I, would be a penalty of $100; the second would be a minimum fine of 200, and the third, 300. And after the third violation, with the appropriate court approval, the City would then have the right to remove the animal from the yard or from the possession of the owner. 117 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103

Councilman, not to be facetious, how do we solve that 2-o'clock-in- the-morning part? Does this take that out of the SPCA's hands?

I think it does. I think the removal of the animal, once it's determined that it needs to be removed, there will still be a requirement with the SPCA to remove the animal. This gives people -- and the complaints I've gotten from neighbors, as you receive yourself, is that these people are so frustrated and disgusted with it, that they're willing to sign a complaint themselves. And that's the key here, is that as long as people are willing to step up and file a complaint and sign it, then the City will have more teeth and will ultimately remove the animal.

My question is, who would be in charge of the enforcement under this bill, Councilman?

I think it's a combination of the -- I think it's the Health Department, with agreement from Licenses and Inspections. I believe the gentleman here from 118 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 L&I has testimony on this agreement that L&I (inaudible).

Has it been factored in this -- I'm looking at 2 o'clock in the morning, ready to shoot the dog (inaudible). But I see a guy raise his hand, he's (inaudible) about it, and anybody -- now, we all love animal, but when you got to go to work at 6 in the morning and it starts at 12:30 and it's going on till 2, you start thinking of strange things.

In reality, I don't expect that anybody's going to be out at 2 o'clock in the morning to stop the dog. I think what happens is that the establishment of the complaint and the continuation of the nuisance will be a faster case in getting the dog out of the hands of the people.

Councilman, is that going to establish a call to the police to process, or is it just a record on the 9-1-1 that leads to something?

I would like to follow up and finish up. You indicated that this piece of this 119 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 $700,000-plus contract is a very small piece of what they provide. So, again, I'd like to get information about this contract, the services that they provide, the value of that piece of the enforcement, because as Councilman Mariano said, we use the word "quality of life," but my point is the lack of response from the SPCA. I've gotten other reports where people have had ten kittens that were abandoned in an abandoned house and it took a member of City Council to get the SPCA to respond to that very. It's very difficult, according to the constituents that I talk to, to get a response. So if we're spending $700,000, it sounds to me like in some cases that it's like a gift to the SPCA because I'm not sure we're getting our bang for our buck.

Councilman, I want to go on the record that I don't know if it's proper that we vilify the SPCA because -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)

It's been my personal experience that -- 120 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103

No, no, I just want to say that I have the same experience with the dog phenomenon, but the other stuff -- the SPCA is probably overwhelmed.

Right.

It's in my Council district and we've all been up there. I'm sure they do nine out of ten things perfect, maybe they're trying to do twelve and thirteen things.

I agree.

So I just don't want it to be on the record that City Council's vilifying the SPCA.

I agree with you totally, but $700,000 is a lot of money, and I'd really -- I would like to have that information forwarded to the Chair on exactly what we get for that.

So would I.

Councilman, I would like to add that although $700,000 sounds like a lot of money (inaudible), we spend less on animal control in the City of Philadelphia than any other ten largest city in this country. Some cities are 121 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 spending as much as and $7 million. And the Pennsylvania SPCA performs a great amount of the services at their own cost. Their cost to administer this contract is approximately $1.5 million, of which we only pay --

Excuse me, Mr. Rafes. Could everybody in here at the switchboard -- are these microphones that terrible, or am I going deaf at age 45?

They're that terrible.

Are they that terrible?

Councilman, (inaudible) if we all sat on the perimeter, we'd be able to hear a tremendous (inaudible), but for the folks in the center, we cannot (inaudible).

You will get the contract if --

If you're on the inside, you can't hear.

(Inaudible.)

Again, as what Councilman Mariano said, there's no disrespect to 122 10/03/00 L&I - BILL 000103 the SPCA, but this is business here. If they need more money to do their job, then this could result in possibly additional funds for the SPCA. You indicated it's million, million, $4 million in other jurisdictions, so if we're not providing enough money for them to do what we need them to do in responding to calls, then that itself, that's a problem. And I'm willing to do whatever it takes to be of help there. But I'm tired, to tell you the truth, of hearing these stories about, in some cases, rudely hearing "Go out and buy your own cage to trap a rabid raccoon"?