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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Mr. Verdi, you're quite familiar with Wow, the skating rink?
Now, there are children that are in there till or in the morning.
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.
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 --
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.
(Inaudible) to the people who are operating these places for children.
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.
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 --
That has people or children or whatever you want to say in there past 12 at night.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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. 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.
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."
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 --
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.
(Inaudible.) (Unintelligible, parties speaking over each other.)
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 --
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.)
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.
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.
104 is the number of the bill on limitation. That's not on the calendar today, but I'm requesting that it be withdrawn.
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
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.)
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 --
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.
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.
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?