COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:20 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 080853, 080854, 080855, 080856, 080857, 080858 and 080859 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 080853, 080854, 080855, 080856, 080857, 080858 and 080859. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080853. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 11 amending Sections of Title 4 (The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code), 6 (Health Code), 9 (Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions), 14 (Zoning and Planning), (Finance, Taxes and Collections) of 17 The Philadelphia Code related to license 18 and permit fees and other charges by 19 modifying the amount of such fees, under certain terms and conditions. And our first witness is the Commissioner of L&I, Fran Burns. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good 3 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Committee of the Whole. I am Fran Burns, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. To my left is Otis Haigler, Director of Legislative Affairs for Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 080853, which, if enacted, will amend the fees that the City charges for the issuances of certain permits and licenses that are administered by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The fees governing services provided by the Department of Licenses and Inspections in this bill have not been raised in years, the longest being 18 years since an increase. For a good majority, it's been eight years since an 4 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. increase and the most recent four years ago. I believe that an adjustment to the fees is justified to adequately cover the costs of the Department. The license and permit activity under consideration in this bill include licenses to regulate residential rental properties, last amended in 2003; vacant properties, both residential and commercial, last amended in 2003; certain retail food establishments, last amended in 2004; sidewalk and street vending activity, last amended in 1992; electrical contractors, last amended in 2003; hazardous chemicals in regulated facilities, last amended in 2003; commercial building permit activity to determine compliance with the City's Building Code and enforce State-mandated provisions of the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code, last amended in 2003. In addition, we propose an adjustment to the fee schedule that is found in the Zoning Code, which was last 5 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. amended in 2000. The activity governed by this amendment includes permits for zoning and use registration for commercial properties, accessory and outdoor advertising signs, preliminary zoning application and plan reviews, requests for administrative reviews that are conducted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, requests for reviews of zoning plot plans, requests for the reposting of zoning notices, requests for the issuance of a certificate which states a zoning permit is not required because there were no change in use, and requests for appeal hearings, including accelerated hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. We are proposing that an adjustment be made to the fees charged for the one-time issuance of the business privilege license, which was last amended in 2003. I am also proposing an amendment to the original introduced legislation. The fee for the 6 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. certification statement will remain at $100 rather than the original proposed increase to $125. Also included with the testimony today is a chart illustrating the current fee, the proposed fee and the last year of the increase. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony on Bill 080853. I respectfully request that the Committee approve the bill with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. I am happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you. Commissioner, can you tell us why has the Department waited so long before adjusting rates? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Possibly the -- I think the Department, even 7 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. though we want to recover our costs, whenever we do increase a fee, it is seen as a cost to doing business in the City. And so right now when looking at the finances, you really -- it draws you to take a closer look at when have you last increased your fees. But my presumption is that there is a real desire to keep the costs as low as possible.
Thank you. Can you tell us the amount that is now collected from the imposition of the fees that we are being asked to increase and how much will be collected if the increases are approved? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. We currently annually collect about $45.3 million, and from this increase, we expect to raise an additional 5.7 million annually. That's based on construction permits remaining at the rate that we saw in Fiscal Year 2007. And so some of this is based on the economy. 8 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
What are the costs that your department incurs that are related to the issuance of permits, licenses, plan reviews, et cetera? COMMISSIONER BURNS: The costs actually depend based on the license or the permit, but I'll give you some examples of what we look at when we look at our costs. In, for instance, a food license permit, we have a service representative that actually produces the license. We have supervisor and manager costs at a smaller rate. We think about the cost of the health inspector doing the inspection or the Licenses and Inspections inspector doing the inspection. We consider costs of benefits, employee costs. We look at the hourly rate and then the time spent by employee to actually produce the service. We include in the cap which is an administrative cost. We look at, as part of the administrative cost, supplies and 9 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. equipment.
Specifically, what costs are associated with the issuance of a business privilege license? Are there any enforcement costs, and, if so, for doing what? COMMISSIONER BURNS: The cost for the business privilege license, again, there's a clerical cost for actually producing the license. There's a cost for -- we consider a cost for the manager as a small percentage. We have an information technology support cost. We have a supply cost. We have a monthly billing and -- well, actually, the billing for the business privilege is a one-time cost. We have supply costs. And in terms of the inspection for the business privilege license, much of that for the BPL is complaint driven.
Is? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Complaint driven. 10 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
So is there a cost to holding hearings to revoke licenses, and, if so, can you tell us how often do licenses get revoked? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't have the information with me now on how often licenses get revoked. I also actually don't have that cost for the hearing. But there is a cost for an administrative hearing around licenses since we do have our personnel that conduct those hearings.
Could you forward us that information, please. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Certainly.
Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon. 11 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Just two quick questions. First, was there any particular reason -- and I'm not against it -- that the cert statement fee was kept at 100 as opposed to your changing it to 125? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. We recently actually increased that cost to $100 in June 2008 and that was overlooked when we -- in the first --
So you didn't want to do it again that quickly? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Correct.
I understand. And the other question, a little more general. With all these fee increases, do you see the prospect of having services move a little quicker, particularly like say the issuance of permits or the time frame that it takes to get certain things, or is this more to just sort of tread water and stay even where we are now? 12 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't think as a result of this increase in cost that we're going to see necessarily, just based on increase in cost, a difference in productivity, but we are looking in the City on a few things to increase productivity as it relates to two of the things that you mentioned. One is the permits. We're looking at the entire development process throughout the City, L&I's role in that development process, where are there redundancies, where are there efficiencies, and we expect through that to be able to produce a better turnaround time. Right now our standards for permits are, we produce residential reviews within 15 days and commercial reviews within 25. Then for the licensing, on the licensing side, what we're looking at is how can we automate for online purchase a lot of our licenses and also how can we hopefully streamline -- we have 170 licenses -- the number of licenses that 13 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we actually issue. And through those efforts, I think that we'll come out in a better place to service to the customer.
Because obviously -- and I'm sure you've heard it too -- at least some people will be willing to pay these -- or less opposed to these increases if they thought the services were going to come at least a little faster. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. But I believe that we're going to get better in our service.
Okay. We'll remember you said that. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, 14 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Madam President. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon.
And Mr. Haigler. I want to ask a question about the permits relating to construction. I know there are some of these that relate directly to that. Traditionally you talked about some concerns about the cost of doing business in the City of Philadelphia, and particularly construction. One of the issues that I was wondering as it relates to affordable housing -- which we're always trying to keep at a certain level in terms of the costs associated with that, because it directly affects the City subsidizing these developments -- is there any thought or has there been any thought given about possible waivers to affordable housing developments where there's these very tight budgets, the 15 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. limited ability to raise the cost of the housing because the cost is mandated by both federal and state government to remain at a certain cost in terms of sales and in terms of rental, so there's not the ability by the developer, say, for instance, the Housing Authority, to increase the cost of the rents or increase the cost of sale, because the federal government won't allow it, but yet the cost of construction may increase as a result of the increased fees. And the only thing what ends up happening is, they come back to the City or the government and say, Hey, you got to give us more money. And that's kind of counter to what we're attempting to do. If we're increasing fees, it costs more money to build, then they come back to the City or the State for more money. That's really not getting us anywhere. So is there any thought about in instances where there's certain affordable housing components or agencies 16 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. that develop affordable housing for some waivers? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I haven't --
A different fee structure for those type of developments. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I haven't been in any conversations around that. I will say that these increases I don't think, in terms of affordable housing, while they are an increase to cost, I don't think they really have a, when you look at it, a great impact on it. I mean, a one-time permit fee that's increased by $50 for a project that's possibly millions or even just hundreds of thousands isn't a significant impact to the cost.
All right. I must say for the record that this question comes indirectly from developers who build affordable housing. I do know that the fee is not substantial, but 17 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. those questions were posed. And I guess the question is, per development how many of these fees apply as you relate to pulling permits? But if it is substantial, I guess the question would be relevant and I'm just -- I'm not a developer or contractor, but that issue did come up. So if you can kind of look at that and see if potentially -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for a point of information.
For the benefit of the Commissioner, since she's new, during our budget discussions, in addition to that cost, because depending on who you ask, some permitting fees, costs related to construction could be almost one percent of construction costs, depending on what we're doing in terms of the water, sewer storm management, and we 18 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. had posed that question during the budget as it related to even our Capital Office, who budgets a certain amount of money in the work that we do in the City, our Capital Office to our facilities, who pay fees, permitting fees, for construction work. So that's something that you could look at. It was a discussion that was had during the budget process. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. One follow-up question, Madam President. The new Administration still hasn't given us a definitive answer on the inclusionary housing proposal that we put forth last year. We're kind of halfway through it. One of the issues that the BIA, the Building Industry Association, talked about was in the event that they cooperated in an inclusionary housing program in the City of Philadelphia, therefore creating a percentage of the units be affordable, 19 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. they would like to have seen the ability to have reduced fees associated with the affordable housing component of that development. We are obviously not doing that in this proposal. We're actually going in a different direction. So when you continue to have a review of what you're proposing, could you take into account that we're going to be asking as soon as that inclusionary housing, Part 2 of it gets prepared, we're going to be asking that the City consider some reductions in costs associated with the fees for the affordable housing component in the inclusionary housing program. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. I'll be mindful of that. I do sit on an advisory board with the BIA every month.
I mean, they were adamant about getting, as they call them, cost offsets, so if they're going to build the affordable housing, they really would like to see a reduction 20 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. in fees. And maybe in this case we can say, Well, you know what? We won't raise the fees for the portions of your development that we're going to do affordable housing. So just please take that into account. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, could you please describe a process in the Department of Licenses and Inspection. I see here listed "accelerated hearing." Could you describe the process where employees at the Department of Licenses and Inspection take home work with them for review and 21 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. get paid an hourly rate and how that's managed for -- how that process is managed to make sure that it's working properly. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. People have the ability when they apply for a building permit or a zoning permit to also apply for an accelerated review, and there's a cost for the accelerated review, and that cost is directly correlated to the cost of overtime, to do the review on overtime. Our employees, actually our plan reviewers and our zoning reviewers, do that review on overtime. The contract with the union stipulates that we pay four hours overtime for permit reviews -- actually, for overtime for a building plan and zoning examiners. So right now what happens is, we get a request. We have a list of examiners, both building and zoning. If we have an accelerated fee, we make sure we get the fee first before 22 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we assign the overtime. We then assign the overtime. And, actually, if the review takes less than the four hours, the plans examiner is required to do other work to fill the four hours. But that's how the program works.
I see here there's a charge for an accelerated hearing. Could you tell us what the overtime rate is for an accelerated review? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I think the -- I don't have the -- just to clarify, the fee for an accelerated building review is $440 for four hours of work. What's in this legislation as an increase for the hearing is an accelerated hearing in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
So there's no change to the accelerated review? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. 24
So tell me, how much does the employee get for -- in 23 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. other words, where is the profit, for lack of a better word, for the City to do an accelerated review? In other words, I want to know what the hourly rate that the employee gets. Is it standard or is it based on their position at L&I? I'm curious why we would do this if there's no bang for the buck when it comes to -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: The bang for the buck actually comes in the ability to manage a large workload. So that we charge a cost for the actual overtime and then we do the accelerated review on overtime, which means that during the day, a regular day of work, we can handle the regular workload. So it helps us be able to meet those standards of 15 days review for residential, 25 day review for commercial. And then for folks, just residents and developers that want an accelerated review, we can get that turnaround time within four days of that review for them because of the fee that they're willing to pay. So the 24 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. actual -- we recoup -- it's cost neutral. It's a benefit. It's actually an incentive to an employee because they have a salary increase.
And they work at home. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Some work at home, yes.
My final question on this is, this has not -- this price is not going to increase, and has this program been affected by the overtime cut? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, because --
Has your department been affected with overtime restrictions? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We are looking at a reduction in overtime, but I think it's rightfully so. I think some of our overtime use has been extravagant possibly in the past and that there's some management around it that we need to 25 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. make. With the accelerated review overtime, that's not impacted, because we recoup our cost.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon.
You're proposing to increase the fees from 500 to 600 for an expedited -- 500 to 625 for an expedited hearing and raising the fee for regular hearings by $25. What is the current waiting time for a variance hearing before the ZBA and what is the waiting time for an expedited hearing before the ZBA? 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Currently we're four months to get a regular hearing and ten weeks for an accelerated hearing.
Four months for a regular hearing and ten weeks for an accelerated hearing. COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's correct.
And how many variances are you doing per meeting compared to, say, historical norms? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Right now the Board hears about 40 cases per session or, I should say, per day. There's actually two sessions. So 40 cases a day. That is a reduced number from historically, actually a year or two ago, where we were hearing closer to like 75. I think there is a sincere effort to allow citizens to voice their opinion at hearings and for all parties to be heard, and there is a conscious 27 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. effort by the Zoning Board to be very deliberate in the proceedings and in the decision, and I think that that's added some time to the process. We are currently working on a process to take cases away from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. That could fall into -- we're going to set up different criteria of cases and model it on our Malt and Brewed Beverage Board where we allow protests -- we ask for protests to come to L&I, and then we'll have a full hearing if there's a protest. But if there's not a protest and cases are of such a magnitude of criteria that we develop, what we're going to do is have City Planning Commission review and understand if there's any community opposition and then hopefully handle a certain -- a consent calendar, like other large cities do, to relieve the burden on the Zoning Board and the number of cases that are heard at a full hearing.
So right now 28 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. it's fair to say, though, that we're increasing fees for something that takes months longer than it took two years ago, and so the question is, are increasing the fees, are they really going to generate savings or can we move people through the ZBA and L&I quicker? And the reason I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if the Department has done an analysis of what the lost opportunity cost in uncollected wage taxes, BPT, et cetera, do to developers and citizens having to wait four months to do construction on a project, where we need those jobs in the City of Philadelphia as quickly as possible as long as a variance can be easily given. What is the impact on our local economy of a one- or two-month delay in not getting projects done and people working, and do we need to use the extra revenue to speed things up to put people to work? 29 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Sure. Actually, the regular hearing is a month's difference from where it was before. It used to be at three months to get a hearing and now it's running about four months for a regular. And for the expedited, it was about eight weeks and now it's running at about ten weeks. I haven't looked at the costs associated to that delay from the wage side. I do know we have heard -- and I mentioned that we work with the Building Industry Association. We are working with the Building Industry Association on identifying the cost of doing business in the City, and through that, we look to identify the cost of that with the Appeal Board. I do think we also very much recognize the problem right now with having the hearings, which is why we're looking for the alternative to -- what we're naming it -- and we're working internally, but a quick track process and 30 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. a consent calendar to really get at the issue.
Have you performed an analysis of how many people simply skirt the regulatory process because of the long waiting times and proceed without permits or permission? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Could you repeat that for me, please? I couldn't hear you.
Is there any analysis of how many people skirt the process or estimate of how many people skirt the process because of the long waiting times; in other words, don't pay fees that otherwise would if the Department operated efficiently? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Right. No, I don't have an estimate of it.
Okay. You proposed eliminating Weights and Measures Unit within L&I on the grounds that it's a State function. The Rebalancing Plan indicates that the City intends to 31 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. terminate the Memorandum of Understanding and transfer the function back to the State. How many employees work in the Weights and Measures Unit? COMMISSIONER BURNS: There are employees in that unit. 9
How much 10 money is the City saving by eliminating 11 the unit? 12 COMMISSIONER BURNS: This is off the top of my head. On an annual basis, it's close to $450,000.
Four hundred fifty thousand. Has the State been notified that Philadelphia plans to close this unit? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I know I spoke to the Secretary of Agriculture and let him know that this was a serious consideration and, yes, that we were looking to do this.
Is the State 32 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. prepared to assume these responsibilities? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't know yet.
You don't know? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, I do not. I think it's something that's being considered, but I don't have information that it's a definite.
So you'd like us to pass this bill without knowing that the State will enforce the weights and measures laws? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, I think that the safe assumption, when looking at it since we don't know, is to assume that this is a service reduction with the elimination of this unit.
Well, weights and measures is a consumer issue, and what you're saying is, the City of Philadelphia is prepared to have no one perform this function within its borders? 33 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, actually, when we look at our service reductions -- and, actually, this is through Licenses and Inspections -- what we did is, we looked at all of the functions that the Department handles.
I understand the big picture. I'm just asking about this particular cut. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. I think when weighed against life safety and looking at the fiscal state that we're in right now, that I would say, yes, that it's -- there's a willing risk that as the consumer protection myth, this goes away. But we are working with the State still on this discussion.
Working with the State. We've had one conversation with the Agricultural Secretary; is that... COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. On my own behalf, yes. I don't know that there aren't other conversations outside 34 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. of my own that are or aren't happening.
Could you please provide that information to the Chair to let us know if anybody else has talked to the State about this? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Absolutely.
Are you aware that the City has its own code, City Code, regarding weights and measures? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
So we plan to leave the law on the books and not enforce it? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, I have to take a look at it more closely to understand what type of -- if we do need to produce legislation to that effect or --
It's Chapter 23 9, Section 1400. I would think we'd take a close look at these things before we ask City Council to act on legislation. 35 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. How much revenue is generated by the Weights and Measures Unit per year? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, in the last few fiscal years, we haven't seen any revenue from the unit.
And that's because they are not finding mistakes or being able to find people? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't know.
You don't know why there's no revenue? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. 16
Can you find out and report that, provide that information to the Chair? If the City collected money, which apparently it hasn't, does it keep it or revert it to the State? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It stays with the City.
It would keep it? 36 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. That's correct.
Okay. If the State enforces weights and measures, would that revenue then go to the State? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Most likely. I think the State, if that were to happen --
If you don't know, if you could just provide the information to the Chair. COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's fine. Right now there's no State authority to do that, so they would have to get the authority to actually get revenue, and there would have to be some type of mechanism for the City to get that to the State.
You're proposing reducing the Street Vendor Enforcement Unit by eight positions. What revenue did that unit generate last year? COMMISSIONER BURNS: 37 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Absolutely. Actually, there's been a change from the eight positions. It's only five right now. The revenue -- L&I hasn't tracked revenue to a direct unit in the Department. It's actually something going forward that I look to try and get that type of data. But a lot of our revenue comes from -- the majority of our revenue comes from building permits and licenses, and a lot of those licenses that people get from L&I are not a direct result of an inspection and being found to not have it. Going forward, we have some plans on how to educate the business community and then get out and inspect. So we might be able to make a stronger correlation going forward.
So the question was, how much revenue did the unit generate last year. COMMISSIONER BURNS: There's not an answer for that. 38 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
There's no 3 answer? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, because my answer is that the inspectors right now -- it's very hard to correlate an inspection and say that as a result of an inspection, a license came in. It's not something that in terms of data has been tracked, but it is something that as we go forward --
So for the record, we don't know whether or not the elimination of positions will actually cost L&I money or make L&I money, if you can't tell me what the revenue was? Is that an unfair characterization? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, I think it's fair. I think it also needs to be put in the context of five inspectors and a safe presumption that a lot of the revenue from licenses comes in by -- through the door already, and that's a very high amount. So it's almost $8 million. 39 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
The materials provided by the Administration to City Council indicated that the General Fund full-time positions in L&I are being reduced from 374 to 323, a loss of 51 positions. Aside from Weights and Measures and the Street Vendor Enforcement Unit, what other positions are being eliminated from L&I? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, since employees haven't been notified, I prefer not to say that publicly right now.
Okay. If you could provide that to the Chair. Let me just put it this way: Are any of these --
Excuse me, Councilman. There are a number of other Councilmembers that would like to be recognized. We'll have a second go-around.
I have one more question and I won't need to ask -- 40 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
If you'll make this your last question for the first go-around.
Are any of these positions revenue generating; i.e., positions that involve inspection and enforcement of L&I regulations? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't expect -- well, there's the Weights and Measures Unit. There's the Business Compliance, five inspectors there. I don't anticipate -- actually, I don't believe that any of the others bring in revenue. There are three positions that I can't say publicly that may impact inspections.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 41 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon.
I have a couple of brief questions. On these rates for various licenses and permits, how do we compare to other counties, surrounding counties and comparable cities? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, we're extremely comparable. The one area, the business privilege license, a lot of counties have a two- to three-year annual renewable license, where we have a one-time. So there's nuances like that where we're different. Some counties do their building permits based on the cost per square foot 42 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. rather than -- which is what we do, and others do it per the cost of construction or the value of construction. So there are differences, and sometimes when looking at it, it's very hard to compare one municipality to another. But we are, in terms of what we believe, we think we're extremely comparable.
I cite that for reasons that this Council in other fiscal times has always wanted to remain competitive with our competitors in other counties and I don't want to be way above where we should be by way of permit fees and licenses. Second thing is, under the category of Outdoor Advertisement Permits, does that include billboards? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes, it does.
And by way of that fee, how does that compare to, let's say, New York? 43 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Has there ever been a study conducted on what the revenues from billboards and outdoor advertisement has been? COMMISSIONER BURNS: There has. I don't have it with me now, but I know that there's that type of study in the Department. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a point of order. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Along that line of questioning, when you supply the Chair with the comparables on licensing fees for billboards, would you also take into consideration using Manhattan, New York as an example what is permissible in terms of outdoor advertising versus what we would permit? Because I think if you 44 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. use a raw number, I can't imagine that's giving us a true indication, because New York obviously has much more liberal advertisement -- permission for outdoor advertisement. Thank you.
Great minds don't just meet at the library. They meet in Council, because that was on the order of my questioning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, I'm sorry.
That's okay. What I'd like to, along with my colleague, see is where -- I know there's a strong concern about how Philadelphia advertises. I'm aware, keenly aware, of the mission of SCRUB and others, but it seems to me that we would measure what we take in by way of revenue by way of outdoor advertisement as we are on the verge of changing possibly how our City deals with lighting, electronic billboards and others. So to see where 45 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we're going, we need to see where we've been by way of outdoor advertising. It is my understanding that there has been a study done of these potential facilities, buildings, opportunities, and I understand that many people consider outdoor advertisement as a form of pollution. But in tough times, economically tough times, we might want to look at what the revenue potential is for that kind of consideration and in light of all that we are making tough decisions about. So I'm going to say something that I say in budget times and welcome to Council. If it ain't measured, it ain't managed. So I expect that we measure that and then we can manage it, that resource or asset, more efficiently. We are talking about on that fee alone just a $65 increase? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
And this is a one-time fee? 46 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. That's correct.
It's my understanding that these billboards can generate as much as -- depending on location, it varies, but high amounts of money. There was one brought to mind downtown that was almost a $12,000 a month revenue. It's a little higher? It may be even higher. So I would ask if we are really at the point what the market could bear on that particular fee and for us to evaluate what revenue comes out of it and evaluate what the revenue potential for this municipality is. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. We'll do that. There's also, in addition, what you see here for the fees are only fees that we're proposing to increase. I need to get some more information around the signs and the billboards, but there is an annual 47 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. license fee in addition that brings in revenue that's not shown here because we're not suggesting an increase there. But I'll absolutely get you some information around this and the study and information that we have already done.
Okay. The final question I have, Madam President, is -- and we talked about this in our briefing, and I just want to get it on the record -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: I understand.
-- that you are going to take a hard look at what segments of enforcement actually put together enough revenue to warrant additional staff because it is a revenue generator, also compliant with the Philadelphia Code. Now, what I mean by that in the Reader's Digest version is, if inspectors can go into areas that have issues with 48 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. town and gown issues and write tickets and do those kinds of things that warrants in fact a new salary, we need to evaluate where those areas of potential are and, in doing so, maybe solve a major problem that is germane to some areas that you are very familiar with. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the Commissioner. In fact, with both individuals who are here. They do a good job, and they've worked closely with me and my district. Having said that, we are really concerned about these additional fees. I 49 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. have four minority -- I'm sure it's for the first time in the history of the City, but I have four minority developers who are working on the north side of Market in the Mantua area, Mantua, Belmont, Mill Creek. I have four minority developers, first time in the history of the City, I'm sure. But when we come up with these fees, fees like this, fees that we heard about that will allow them to charge developers for striking streets, but all these additional fees, then it's going to take new people who have waited to take their part in the American dream, minority developers who save their dollars, waited all this time, they're not going to be able to participate, Madam President, because they just can't afford it. So after coming so far and especially now with the economy on the downturn, we have new houses that were finally built and new senior citizen units, and we don't know if they're even going to be able to 50 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. sell them. This economy has put so much on hold, and to exacerbate the situation by increasing fees really makes it impossible for the small person to get a break and especially minority developers. As I said, I have four for the first time in the history of the City in the general same area, who have worked hard to get here. I think it is difficult. I think it's unfair, and I myself will have a very difficult time supporting it, in spite of the fact that I enjoy our working relationship. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Commissioner, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Thank you. 51 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill Nos. 080854 and 080855. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 11 080854, an ordinance amending Section 12 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits, alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by raising certain tax rates, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 080855, an ordinance 19 amending Chapter 19-1500 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Wage and Net Profits Tax," by revising certain tax rates and making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions. And our first witness is the Finance Director, Rob Dubow. 52 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. I'm Rob Dubow, the Finance Director. I am here to testify on Bill Nos. 080854 and 080855. 080854 is a proposal to pause reductions of the business privilege tax rate at the current 2008 level, and Bill 17 No. 080855, which would change the schedule of reductions for the wage and net profits tax starting July 1, 2009. As you know, Philadelphia, like many state and local governments around the nation, is facing extraordinary financial challenge because of the swiftly deteriorating economy. The recent disruptions in financial markets 53 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. and subsequent slowdown in economic activity has led to significant losses in our pension fund and dramatic declines in tax collections, particularly from the real estate transfer tax and the business privilege tax. Combined, these factors create an anticipated $108 million shortfall this fiscal year and a $1 billion gap over the life of the current Five-Year Plan. Despite the suddenness and severity of the fiscal crisis, the Administration has put together a strategy to maintain balance while minimizing the harm to Philadelphians today and in the future. To determine the course of action, the Administration focused on three guiding principles: Preserving core services, minimizing the impact on vulnerable populations, and being mindful of long-term financial and economic impacts. The Administration has identified savings through efficiencies, 54 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. revenue enhancements and one-time savings in order to minimize painful program and service reductions. As a part of the revenue enhancement strategy, which includes more aggressive collection efforts and expanded audit activity, we must propose freezing City-funded tax reductions until economic conditions improve, but no later than 2015. Bill No. 080854 pauses planned reductions in the gross receipts and net income portions of the business privilege tax, retaining the tax year 2008 rates until tax year 2014, which is Fiscal Year 2015. I also actually have a proposed amendment to this legislation. We had always intended to restart the reductions in Fiscal Year 2015. We didn't do that in the original legislation. We'd like to amend the legislation to include that restart. Bill No. 080855 changes the 55 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. schedule of rate reductions for the wage and net profits tax beginning on July 1, 2009. 5 percent. 5 percent of the wage tax that is used to secure PICA debt service. The next scheduled reduction under this bill would occur on July 1, 2009 and will be entirely funded by State gaming revenues. Rate cuts supported by State gaming revenues will occur each July 1st. City-funded reductions will resume in Fiscal Year 2015. Until 2015, the proposed wage rate schedule maintains reductions, but much shallower ones than originally envisioned, without sacrificing essential City services during this period of economic turmoil. 56 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. The bill would generate about $151 million over the life of the current Plan. Together, the two bills would increase revenue by about $230 million through Fiscal Year 2013, filling more than percent of the estimated $1 9 billion budget cap without increasing 10 taxes. 11 The Administration remains 12 committed to decreasing the tax burden on 13 Philadelphia residents, employees and 14 businesses in order to attract and retain 15 jobs. We plan to resume reductions as 16 soon as conditions improve, but no later 17 than 2015. 18 I urge your passage of these 19 two bills to ensure that we can meet the 20 needs of our residents, preserve financial stability and speed our recovery. I also request suspension of the rules so that these bills can be considered on the First Reading Calendar at the next session of City Council. 57 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, do any of the bills before us authorize any reductions to any City department?
No, they do not. The bills today are all revenue enhancement measures.
And I'd like this to be made eminently clear. Does City Council have to approve any of the reductions that the Administration has proposed?
No, City Council does not have to approve any of the expended reductions.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, why has the 58 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Administration requested that these bills be passed before we break for the holiday season, and what are the consequences if we wait until January to consider them?
Well, for the fee increase bills, the longer we wait, the longer we go without getting the revenues and the harder it is to fill our budget gap.
Can you tell us if the Administration considered raising City taxes instead of freezing them, and, if so, what was your conclusion?
Our view is that our tax rates already make us uncompetitive, so that they're already higher than they should be, so we did not want to increase them any further.
What 59 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. do you think the message is that the Administration is sending to the business community by freezing the tax cuts through Fiscal 2014, and have you had any discussions whatsoever with the Chamber of Commerce and can you share with us what their reactions were?
Sure. We have had conversations with the Chamber of Commerce. Obviously they're not excited about the step we're taking, but they understand that we are facing a severe fiscal challenge that actions are necessary and that shared sacrifices are necessary, and they have expressed a reluctant willingness to share in that sacrifice, which we appreciate. We think that shows real leadership on their part.
All right. I do have other questions, but I'd like to give my colleagues all an opportunity to also ask questions. Therefore, I guess we're going to have to go on the timer. So each Councilmember 60 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. will be given four minutes. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Rather than reducing or freezing the wage tax cuts, do you believe that there are additional cuts that are possible, not in the first year of the Plan but in later years of the Plan, within the bureaucracy of City government that could make going out to 2015 unnecessary?
When we went through this process, one of the first things we did was look for every efficiency we could find, and if you saw how the budget reductions broke out, about the first 40 percent of what we did was through efficiencies and revenue enhancements. That said, I mean, there's always more you can look for and more we will look for and more that we'll try to 61 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. do. There is nothing else that we had that we thought we had good enough implementation plans or good enough ideas for that we could include in the Plan at this time.
But dollars are fungible within the Plan, so tax increases versus service cuts versus tax freezes, et cetera, are all relevant in terms of determining whether or not this tax decrease or freeze is necessary in the context of the entire Plan and this bill; is that correct?
I think so. If I understood your question, I think that's correct.
I'd just like to take a brief second. Madam President, why don't you move on to somebody else and I'll go on the next round. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 62 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dubow, I just want to get back on to the -- I asked you about the Rebalancing Plan according to the Fire Department-related cuts. The Rebalancing Plan indicates that ten and a half million dollars is going to be the reduction in the Fire Department's budget. Do you know if this amount is for the year 9 or is it annualized savings?
If it is, how much do the proposed cuts save for the remainder of '09?
Half of the amount. Are you familiar with any of the response time that the Fire 63 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Protection Association has given for fire departments in municipalities?
I just want to know, a fire department determines whether it is responding to fire alarms --
Councilman Kelly, I don't mean to interrupt you, but actually I don't think the questions that you're asking are pertinent to the bills before us.
Now, if you have an explanation for it, we'd like to hear it.
Point of information. 64 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Mr. Dubow just testified that in order to determine whether or not these cuts or the freezing of the wage tax is necessary, you have to look at all dollars in the budget, and Mr. Kelly is -- Councilman Kelly is simply questioning one dollar versus another dollar. It certainly is relevant to whether or not we need to freeze wage taxes, which is the question before us in this bill.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have a point of order as well. And I understand what your concern was about the response time, and it might not be the appropriate time, but it is dollars and cents, because I think that's where a lot of -- obviously most of this is about today. I'm going to -- I had a conversation with Councilman Kenney 65 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. earlier today, and I'm going to be proposing something in writing, but I'll say it verbally right now. No one wants to see cuts. No 6 one wants to see fees raised. When it comes to the issue of the Fire Department, the biggest issue for us has always been, at least for me and I suspect for the rest of us, has always been the issue of public safety. I am going to propose that each and every member of City Council figures out how to reduce or somehow come up with $12,000 out of their individual budget, which will give us somewhere around $200,000 so that we would be able then to pay for an independent study within the Fire Department. Now, I've already given up almost $50,000 out of my budget between the five percent pay cut that I've taken and $40,000 in unspent dollars as it would have gone for staffing. If I have to find another ten, I'll look for it. I 66 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. don't know how I'll do it without asking my staff to take a further cut, but absent that, I think it's a very small amount for us as Councilpeople to contribute to an independent study. Let's put our money where our mouth is and let's do that independent study, and from those findings, maybe we will be able to have some ammunition, if you will, to go back to the Administration. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. I didn't hear a point of order in Councilman DiCicco's point of order. What I heard was a proposal and a speech. And the important point for people to recognize is, we're being asked today to consider and recommend a series of bills 67 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. that constitute the Administration's Rebalancing Plan. Accordingly, today is our one opportunity in a public hearing to ask questions, not just about those bills and all dollars involved, but also about the service cuts and the dollars involved in those included in the Plan, including the proposed closure of 10 neighborhood branches -- 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.
-- 68 pools, five engine companies, two ladder companies. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.
Given this Administration's prior willingness to share data, it is surprising that Council is being asked --
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If it was taken as a speech, it certainly wasn't meant to be a speech. I think we're actually on the same page. I'm probably on the same page as Councilman Green. We have an opportunity to make comments, make recommendations, ask questions. I posed my question in the form of a challenge that City Council, each member of City Council, figures how to get $12,000 out of their individual budget to do an independent study, because this rearrangement or reconfiguration of the Fire Department won't take place until the middle of January and I think we'll have sufficient time to do that independent study. I'm only asking that we do something that may allow us to have a significant amount of documentation to counter what the Administration has been proposing in 69 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. terms of cuts within the Fire Department.
I agree we're on the same page, Councilman DiCicco. Point of information.
It is about data. Councilman DiCicco is exactly right. And given this Administration's prior willingness to share data, it is surprising that Council is being asked to endorse these bills without having been provided with crucial requested information related to the other side of the ledger, the underlying cuts. For instance, with respect to libraries, we have asked the information for underlying data about library usage, operating costs, specific data that the Library used for its criteria. It provided check marks, not turn-style counts. In response, we have received check marks. We have not received any of 70 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. the requested information, and this is our one opportunity to ask for this information from the Administration and have them provide it to the Chair prior to these bills becoming law in three Council sessions. The message seems to be that Council doesn't need or deserve access to this data. Rather than looking at the information ourselves and asking hard questions, we should simply trust that the Administration has reached the proper conclusions. This attitude not only evidences disrespect for a co-equal branch of government, it effectively undermines a key vehicle of citizen input into the budget process. Councilmembers, and especially District Councilmembers, hear daily from their constituents about the impact of City services on people's lives. Without access to the information the Administration relied upon in reaching its budget-cutting conclusions, we are 71 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. hard-pressed as Councilmembers to understand the proposed cuts, much less to defend them. I make two additional points. First, the question is not whether the City can afford to keep all our libraries. The question is whether we can afford to close them. Libraries, for each dollar we spend on them, return 5.5 times that amount. We are taking out of our economy $45 million with $8 million of cuts, according to a recent study by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Second, the discussion about proposed budget cuts has been framed, in large part, by using comparisons to other cities. We're told, for instance, that while Philadelphia has 3.37 libraries per 10,000 citizens, the highest ratio of any of the ten largest cities in the U.S., Chicago has 2.89, et cetera. The conclusion we're supposed to draw from this, it appears, is that we 72 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. should engage in some kind of race to the bottom, reducing our number of libraries to fall in line with these other cities. I propose just the contrary, let's be proud of our nation-leading density. And in order to do apples to apples comparisons, we have to know how many school libraries in those cities, how many total librarians work for school districts and this city. These comparisons were not done, and that's the kind of information we deserve and have a right to. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Kelly, I think that was a long point of information, so I'll --
Yes. Madam President, let me go on the record as saying that I agree with much of what was said with Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Green, but I think this could 73 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. be maybe the only opportunity we have to get specific information regarding the cuts in the Fire Department. I think it's very, very important that we look at these cuts, because it may affect response time, it may affect, for instance, cutting down Engine 6. There's a new development going all around that area, such as I-95 and also the SugarHouse casino. Was there any input or any thought about closing those engines when all that new development is occurring? That's the reason why I wanted to get into response time and a lot of other things, because I think it is important. We're not talking about just some buildings being closed or some engines not being used. This could have a direct effect on the safety of a lot of people in those neighborhoods. Thank you, Madam President.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. 74 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Madam President, I think it's irresponsible of this Administration to suggest some of these closures of pools, libraries, eliminating engine and ladder companies. What is the problem? Can the Administration please address why there was an internal study done, but it won't be shared with us? Why would your Administration, this Administration, Mr. Dubow, have an internal study to make decisions and not share it with Council? Could you explain that?
We did share information. We had a four-hour briefing for Council on Monday.
The study. The briefing. Where is the document that led to the decisions to close or eliminate ladder and engine companies? I'd like to see the study.
Okay. There was a binder that we handed out at that meeting 75 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. that we can show you.
Yeah. That has -- that takes you engine by engine, ladder by ladder showing you --
Yeah. We can get the -- the detail was in there. We'll show it to you.
Well, I looked all through that binder and I didn't see the information that I needed.
Point of information. 76 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
That is my point of information. There was not a study in that. That was the Administration's analysis boiled down for easy viewing. The numbers, the raw data behind what was presented, is what we're after, not the report. The data behind it. The bibliography. That's what we want to see in order to make our own determination. The same applies to libraries. I was on the phone with Councilman Greenlee on the 11th -- on 77 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. November 10th talking to Siobhan Reardon. Siobhan Reardon was reading to us from a spreadsheet that said, Turn-style count, circulation, number of students in the LEAP program, et cetera. I want that data from that spreadsheet, not check marks with criteria chosen by the Administration that if a library has under 5,000 kids in the LEAP program, 5,000 children in the LEAP program, then we're going to close it down. So it's 4,900 children who are in the LEAP program who can't walk two miles because they have to go through an unsafe neighborhood that are not going to have a place to go. That's the kind of analysis we need to do, and we want the underlying hard data. We deserve it. We have a right to it. We represent the people of the City of Philadelphia, too.
Thank you, 78 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Madam Chair.
And what I suggest, I suggest that we hold these bills until we have that data. We had the L&I Commissioner tell us that there are certain things that she doesn't know, and I respect her for being straight with us, but if we don't know whether the State is going to assume certain responsibilities, then I think this all should be held, in my opinion. I plan to vote no for a lot of it, but I would rather see it held until we get the information that we need. Thank you, Madam President. (Councilman DiCicco talking without microphone.)
I can't hear you. (Councilman DiCicco talking without microphone.)
We did have a briefing on Monday. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We had an 79 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. opportunity then to ask the same questions.
This is the opportunity here. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But we had it at a briefing. We had two briefings.
You go do your study. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm asking you to put money up so we can do an independent study. I still haven't gotten an answer on that.
I want to see the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why don't you give up your car while you're at it.
I want to see the Administration's study first. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why don't you give up your car, too, while you're at it.
Thank 80 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. you. Thank you, Madam President. I do want to support the request for the hard data as it relates to the numbers that were collected per library, because I agree that we should have had that so we could have a better and full understanding. We're the ones that's being asked to go out to these community meetings, even though I do know that the Mayor is going to have one, which is good.
If I could ask one question. When was that study taken?
It was done, I 81 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. guess, over the last month.
It was an update of information that we had had from earlier years in the Department, and the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety went through that information and put it together as part of this process.
Thank you. And I'm not just talking about the data from the Fire Department, but the Rec, the pools and the Library. But anyway, Mr. Dubow, my question is regarding the tax collection. How much is the City owed in unpaid or debt that people just won't pay? And if we get aggressive collection, as you state here, how much do you anticipate raising in the tax collection, and who does the tax collection and in what specific area right now? 82 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Tax collection is done by the Revenue Department. When accounts become delinquent, after a certain period of time they go to the Law Department. The Law Department contracts some of it out to contractors, who then help with the delinquent collections. As part of our balancing actions, we have some stepped-up enforcement proposals that we think will generate about $8 million a year.
That doesn't include water. That's really mostly business taxes we're looking at with that.
But the real estate taxes, that's not included 83 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. here?
In that, no. Real estate taxes, in February we really started an enhanced collection process there, and those revenues were really already in our base, so we didn't put in more in this Plan.
All right. I'm sorry. You said you expect to collect, what, about 8 million did you say?
Okay. That's it. I just wanted to know a little bit more about how much you anticipated raising with more aggressive tax collection. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Yes. 84 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dubow, I know early on you said this, but I want to make sure that it's clear for the record. In your opinion, if we hold these bills for any period of time, does that endanger deeper cuts?
So anything that we do to hold this up today, because we're not really dealing with cuts, we're really dealing with tax reduction freezes and revenue enhancements, could in fact have the opposite effect of deepening the cuts?
Thank you. Any other questions or comments by members of the Committee? (No response.) 85 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Oh, I'm sorry. Gentlemen. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you. Will the Administration commit today to provide us by the end of the week all of the information that we have requested, including the back-up spreadsheets?
All right. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: The next 86 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. witness is Marc Stier. (Witness approached witness table.
Good afternoon. Welcome. Nice seeing you. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Marc Stier and I'm speaking here today on behalf of One Philadelphia, which is a coalition of community groups, labor unions, non-profit organizations that work on behalf of the common good in the City. The City of Philadelphia faces a serious budget crisis. Balancing our budget this fiscal year and in future years will require us to take steps that are difficult and sometimes painful. And I would like to just set a little context before I get to these bills. While our situation is troublesome, One Philadelphia does not believe we should approach it in a state 87 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. of panic. We should remember that our problems are broadly shared with other cities and states and that, in large part, the product of economic force is beyond our control. This creates a great deal of uncertainty. We don't know, for example, how far the national economy will fall next year and how fast it will recover. We don't know how aggressive the new leadership of our federal government will be in stimulating recovery or in coming to the aid of state and municipal governments. It's often said that crises create opportunities. But those are opportunities for errors as well as advances. So we believe that given the uncertainty that surrounds us, a rational response to our problems should avoid precipitant and permanent actions that we will later regret. And we believe we should approach our budget crisis now in a spirit of openness, inclusiveness and transparency so that decisions we make 88 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. take into account the broader set of ideas about how to deal with the crisis and how to use it to make our city better for all of our citizens. Concretely, that means first we believe the Administration should provide as much information as possible about its plans to Council and the citizens of Philadelphia. It's been slow to do so. We need to see the projections for the economy for tax revenues and federal aid over the next five years. We need to see the various alternative proposals for budget reductions that the Administration has considered, and we need to see the standards and metrics which the Administration has used to choose certain budget restrictions and not others -- better reductions and not others. Secondly, we oppose service reductions that harm the well-being of our citizens, and especially the quarter of our population that lives in poverty, until they are thoroughly examined by 89 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Council and the citizens of Philadelphia. And I understand that the Administration has the authority to make many of those reductions, but we're getting close to the end of the year, and next year you'll have a chance to consider another budget, at which you can, I hope, engage in these debates a little more thoroughly than you can now. We should avoid any permanent decisions until our future becomes clear. So we're troubled by cutbacks and the Administration's proposals to increase support to the Community College and the parks. We're even more troubled by reductions in pools and social services and in the Fire Department. And because they are both permanent and deeper than reductions elsewhere, we are most troubled by cutbacks in our libraries. We believe that these reductions in services have not been justified by the Administration and that permanent closure of branch libraries is an inappropriate 90 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. response to a crisis that may well prove to be temporary. Though we have more libraries per capita than other cities should be a source of pride, not a target for budgetary knives, especially when those libraries replace in-school libraries, after-school programs and adult employment services that are found in other cities, but not our own. Third, we believe that this is the moment to thoroughly reexamine everything the City does so that we can eliminate inefficiencies and bring best practices to Philadelphia.
Reinventing our government will take longer than simply cutting it back, but it will be a much better city in the future. Fourth, while we build a more effective government, we believe that this is a critical moment to look for new revenues from temporary taxes and other sources that can help sustain us over the next few years as our national economy 91 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. recovers. So I am here to speak in favor of the bills that suspend the business tax reductions and the City's contribution to the wage tax reductions. But I also believe we should be considering other revenue measures, perhaps a small temporary increase in property taxes, and should suspend in some part the reduction in the wage tax that will be paid for by gambling revenues. Other possible sources of revenue are detailed in a separate document, which I'll deliver to members of Council. Raising taxes in a recession is a very common practice. It will be happening all across the country in states and cities, and will have little impact on the growth of our economy, as families and businesses are putting off decisions about where to locate and other cities and states with whom we compete are raising their taxes as well. I'll 92 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. just point out, the City of New York will be raising its property taxes eight percent next year. Fifth, this budget crisis provides us with an opportunity how to rethink how we tax in the City. One Philadelphia has long argued that our debates about taxation are too narrow. Instead of just focusing on how much we tax and arguing almost to the point of obsession about minor changes in the business privilege tax, we should be thinking about how smart we tax. We believe that our tax system should meet two criteria that if we are smart enough need not be mutually exclusive. Taxes should be progressive and they should encourage growth in our economy and population. A list of steps that would meet those two criteria are also in a separate document. Madam Chair, American politics is at an inflection point in our history in which opportunities that were once 93 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. closed are now opened and possibilities that seemed part of a distant future loom before us. We are full of hope, hope that we can overcome old divisions, address longstanding economic inequalities, provide healthcare for all and address our energy environmental problems. We have serious difficulties in our country and our city right now, but this is no time to accept the defeat that comes with lowered expectations. While we have to close a budget deficit today, it still is possible we have to look beyond our immediate problems and embrace the better future we can create by working together to create one Philadelphia. And, finally, if I can mention, just make one personal observation. As you all know, I had hoped that I might be sitting in this Council by this point, and I have to say that my disappointment at losing an election is somewhat 94 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. mitigated by the difficulties I all know you have in facing the budget crisis we have in Philadelphia today. And I haven't gotten to know many of you during the course of my campaign. I'm confident that you will address these issues in a thorough and responsible manner. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Brett Mandel. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Would you please identify yourself for the record.
Madam President, members of City Council, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Scott Ziskin. I'm a member of the Board of Directors of Philadelphia Forward. I'm also the President of a company called ZipCo Wine Cellar Services, which 95 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. is a company that designs and builds wine cellars in private residences throughout the United States. Because of Philadelphia's erroneous business tax burden, I moved my company, after years of being in the 8 City, to New Jersey, because after seeing 9 very little or no progress on the 10 business tax in Philadelphia. After the 11 City's Revenue Department employee 12 pointed out how much I could save by 13 moving my firm to New Jersey, we moved to 14 New Jersey, where we already had an 15 existing business. When my firm left, I 16 took ten well-paying jobs with me. 17 Because my workers do not live in 18 Philadelphia, the City now loses not only 19 all of my business privilege tax revenue, 20 but all of the wage tax revenue from my 21 employees. As we grow into the future, 22 Philadelphia will get no benefit from our 23 success. 24
My name is Robert 25 Padulo and I live and work in Center 96 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. City. I'm a business owner of a company that I started nine years ago. I'm also a member of the Board of Directors of Philadelphia Forward, as well as the President of a group of over 40 business owners like myself called the Entrepreneurs Roundtable of the Union League of Philadelphia. As I said, I'm President of my own company, which is called iWorkwell, Incorporated. It's a Philadelphia firm which provides a total human resource solution online designed to make HR easy. We currently employ 11 well-paid workers just down the block, on Walnut Street here in Philadelphia. I very much enjoy operating a business in Philadelphia and look forward to growing in Philadelphia. However, the City's high tax burden makes me rethink every year about the reduced operating costs my company and its shareholders would enjoy if we reduced our tax burden, like he did, by relocating just outside the City limit. 97 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Firms like mine are the future of the City, but as I and other entrepreneurs like myself look to expand, we need to know that the City is working to become more competitive in terms of tax costs or, quite simply, we will take our business elsewhere.
Philadelphia Forward understands the peculiar nature of the international economic crisis -- Scott Ziskin -- and its effects on the City's budget and Five-Year Fiscal Plan. We understand the policy rationale behind making the suspension of the City's successful tax reduction program part of an overall package of spending cuts and revenue enhancements, but in considering the legislation before you, Bill 080854, which would end reduction to the job-killing business privilege tax, and Bill 080855, which would end City-funded reductions to the City wage tax, we hope that you will make an important amendment. While the rhetoric supporting 98 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. this legislation has called for suspension of tax reductions into mid 2015, the language in both bills simply ends the City tax reductions. We hope that legislation can be altered to show that after the suspension, tax reductions will resume, and, of course, we would hope if economic conditions improve, this legislation would be altered to resume those successful reductions even sooner.
Since the City began its tax reduction program more than a decade ago and until the recent international financial woes, we have reduced tax rates, but we have enjoyed increased tax revenues. More important, the gap between national employment growth and Philadelphia's own employment growth has been cut in half since we began the tax reductions. Wharton's Robert Inman concluded about five years ago that the City's tax reduction program has been responsible for saving tens of thousands 99 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. of jobs that we would have otherwise lost had we not made the slow and steady progress toward becoming more competitive. Tax reform is helping when the long-term, all-encompassing battle to make Philadelphia better able to attract and retain residents and employers. By altering this legislation to indicate that our successful tax reduction program will not end but instead will continue after a brief suspension, you will at least be showing current, future and former employers and residents that Philadelphia continues to be serious about tax reform and attracting and retaining businesses and jobs and is serious about becoming a city of growth and opportunity. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Any questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman 100 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. Just a couple of questions. First, I want to be clear. I think the Finance Director said, sir, that he's proposing an amendment to do exactly what you just said, which is to start the cuts.
All right. Just so I'm clear, I mean, I'm not sure if I heard a direct response to this. What is your position on these two bills as of now?
Well, provided that they're putting in a date for when we will resume them, we support that, and we hope that it could also be added that if the financial conditions improve before then, that the tax reductions would be resumed sooner.
Well, I 101 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. don't know if you put that in as part of the amendment. I mean, we are always open to be able to do that if we have to. I don't think that's something you would actually put in the bill. I mean, it's not something I ever saw of that.
Certainly you have to be able to adjust to the circumstances.
Yeah. And that's sort of, I guess, a given, just like we adjusted here. We originally said we were going to continue the cuts, and unfortunately because of the situation, we couldn't. So not to put words in your mouth, so just so I understand this, your position would be with this amendment that the Finance Director has proposed, you support these bills. Am I right to say that?
But can I add just 102 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. one brief point?
As a resident of this city and business owner of this city for ten years now, my belief is that we're actually not doing enough to reduce our tax rates, because as Forbes Magazine just came out last month, this is the number one worst tax city in America. So the idea of raising taxes, do that if you want businesses to flee.
I don't think anybody is talking about raising taxes. None of us are talking about raising taxes that I know of.
-- that trying to 103 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. find ways to cut costs any way you can to get more businesses here will continue the trend of actually increasing taxes by lowering tax rates.
I understand. Not to get into a debate back and forth, but just one last thing. You said about also being a citizen. As the proposals are right now, the citizens of the City are also paying a price. They're going to have less libraries. They're going to have less --
I understand. So as a citizen -- so I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a shared burden here, is what we're trying to --
What the Administration is trying to do and what we're trying to find. We may not be totally agreeing on that, but that's what 104 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we're trying to do, I think.
Councilman, the lack of tax cuts forced my business out of the City.
And the trickle down of what we spend in material, office supplies, things like that, run into tens of thousands of dollars.
I understand, sir, but, again, we also have to pay for stuff, too. I mean --
I don't have a problem paying on my net. I have a big problem paying on my gross.
I understand, but that's money we right now have in the budget. I understand. Look, I think we'd all love to get rid of that gross receipts tax. It is terribly burdensome, but --
I know for a fact of three companies that are getting ready 105 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. to move out of the City specifically because of that.
And they're all companies that make in excess of a million dollars.
I heard that and we've heard that for a long time, and I'm sure it's true, but we also have to pay for stuff, sir.
And I'm a citizen. My kids went to City schools. I own property in the City. I've been born and raised in the City, public schools myself. I'm invested in the City.
Thank you very much. 106 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Any other questions? (No response.)
The Chair calls the next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Bill Madeira.
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. I am Bill Madeira with Public Citizens for Children and Youth.
Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to hold this hearing. No one is claiming that this is not a grim time in the City, in the State, in the nation, in fact all over the globe. And no one is saying that the City's budget does not need to be cut drastically, but this is a time for compromise and innovative leadership. On the periphery of this 107 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. financial dilemma, there are dozens of possible compromises and creative methods of addressing our deficits. What if the local universities were to open their pools in the community? What if information science graduate students could fulfill some basic library functions? What if library landlords -- some libraries are not located in City buildings -- waived part of the rent? What if friends groups and philanthropic organizations could raise some of the funds to cover the cost of keeping library doors open? What if some of the corporate giants realized that a literate population is in their best interest? Business and individual tax delinquents currently owe at least $27 million in delinquent taxes to the City. This number far exceeds the 8 million which closing our libraries would save. What if organizations that currently owe the City money were able to provide the funds needed to save our 108 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. libraries? What if the unions were to broker meetings between their members and community groups around the City? Why is our first step to cut institutions which provide invaluable services to our children and families? It is well known that the Philadelphia libraries keep kids safe and off the streets, assist job seekers in finding employment, educate our children, and provide us all with an opportunity for a better future. The majority of the 11 libraries which are being cut are located in the City's high crime police districts. Cutting these libraries will mean one less safe space for our children and one less activity to keep them occupied, off the streets and out of harm's way. So why is this the first option? "What if's" always take time to explore. Someone needs to ask groups and individuals to step up. Compromises and cooperative actions need to be drafted. 109 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Before we make this rash decision, let's evaluate some other cost-saving options. There are numerous possibilities, and together we as a community can address this challenge to maintain a healthier environment for our city's children and families. I am here today on behalf of PCCY and the young people of Philadelphia to ask the members of this Council to be the diplomates who will rise to the task of preserving the institutions that keep our children safe, healthy and literate. Thank you for taking the time.
Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Amy Dougherty. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. 110 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
I think I'm going to jump right in with the questions, because I agree with Bill 5 Green, I don't understand how we got from check marks to library closures. And I would like to just say that while data and metrics are interesting, they're more interesting for what they did not include. These are the things that it didn't include: Evening hours, how many of the 11 branches slated for closure have evening hours. Only eight of them do. Computer use. There was no 17 metric that I saw that designated computer use at all. Location. How many of the 11 slated for closure are in residential corridors and how many are in commercial corridors, and how does this affect usage. What effect will empty, shuddered buildings have on crime and other factors in the community? 111 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Crime statistics related to the branches slated for closures. I 4 didn't see that at all in the metrics, 5 nor did I see income level in the 11 6 branches slated for closure. 7 percent people 11 live below the poverty level. 7 percent live below the poverty level. 1 percent live below the poverty level, and it goes on and on. The number of high school dropouts, unemployed, single parent households in the 11 branches slated for closure, that was not included. Public schools, how many are there that surround and use the 11 branches slated for closure, how many have their own libraries with accredited librarians and up-to-date materials, including books, periodicals and computer 112 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. terminals. And of those that do have libraries, what kind of assets are there. Are they housed in multi-purpose rooms, in closets or how many have their own rooms? How many have adequate school libraries and how many use the public library as their school library. And then there's charter and parochial schools. How many are there that surround these 11 branches slated for closure, and how many have their own libraries with accredited librarians. Day and home care centers. How many are there that surround and use the 11 branches slated for closures. So there is a lot left out of the metrics. And there's something that's included that I don't understand, and, that is, the building size. Why is building size germane to this discussion at all? Because if we're talking about expanding libraries -- on one hand, the Library administration seems to be 113 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. suggesting that if a library isn't big enough to at some point in the future make it expanded, then we should close it now. I don't really get the connection. It doesn't make sense to me. And there's one other longstanding concern and question that I have, and, that is, it seems as if communities that don't -- are not believed to be utilizing their library enough are being punished. It seems as if it really is not the failure of the community but the failure of the Library administration to not be reaching out to those residents to bring them into the library. For instance, if a police or fire station has statistics that state that crime has reduced or fires have reduced, then everybody is happy. Everybody is -- we figured that it's a success. Library is completely the opposite. To the extent that people are not utilizing the library branch, it is 114 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. to the extent that the Library administration is not doing its job bringing people in. I have a whole lot more to include in my testimony, but just to save time, I thought I would just pass that out. I would like to -- I think what I'm really -- what we're really asking for is to slow down, give us time to really come up with a credible plan, give us time to build some public-private partnerships, give us time to figure out what the real metrics are. I don't see why we cannot utilize the same concept with libraries that is being used for pools and rec centers. Let's talk about temporary service reductions and not permanent closures. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Any questions from -- (Applause.) 115 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
-- members of the Committee? Just a moment, please. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. I certainly want to thank you for being at half of the meetings I've been at. I've been at at least eight meetings in this regard, and thank you for being at them as well. In fact, tomorrow night we have a meeting not on your schedule at the Charles L. Durham Library, 34th and Haverford. We have that tomorrow at 7:00, in addition to two on Saturday, one at Kingsessing at 2:00 and then Friends of the Free Library, the other one, at the Charles L. Durham at 2:00. So it's really become a nightmare, and although this isn't on the agenda for the bills we're voting on today, it's a part of the issue that concern so many of us, because these bills today that deal, two tax bills and the other six other an increase in fees, 116 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. may give the public the impression that we support these other closings, which we don't. Councilpeople support the people who send them here, and we know what's happening in our areas. And, again, we find it unfortunate that we would be put in this position in the first place. But obviously we support you in your stance. I went to a meeting just last night on the library issue, and we have communities who don't have libraries who are supporting the citywide effort to keep them open. So I thank you for your efforts and your support, and we're with you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, 117 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. I'm sorry that we were running around trying to figure out how to deal with this while you were doing so. I turned around and heard your first line, but for the benefit of people who didn't hear it, I was wondering if you could repeat the way you began your testimony, which was something about check marks.
Right. Well, basically I don't understand how we got from check marks on papers to closing 11 branches and why these branches or any branches were chosen.
Thank you. During the PhillyStat session yesterday, Ms. Reardon stated that the City measured the distance between library branches by using Google Earth. Do you think that is sufficient work in order to determine which libraries should be closed and open? 118 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Well, no, of course, I don't. People walk to their neighborhood libraries. Very often there are children walk to their neighborhood libraries from school, seniors walk or take their cars. And the other interesting thing is that while we've heard a lot about, oh, it's 1.9 miles, 2 miles, 2.5 miles, that's only one way. It's not round trip. But it's not just about mileage. It's about crossing large streets, going into completely different neighborhoods. It may be crossing dangerous neighborhoods. It is basically taking the neighborhood connectiveness and capability and ability of a community to utilize its own library. The other thing that wasn't included in these metrics, just for example, did you know that at the Haddington Library there is a growing Latino, Asian, Pakistani, Haitian and 119 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Jamaican population? You're not going to see that in any of the metrics, who are these libraries serving and what are they doing. Logan Library and Ogontz Library service Temple students. I got a call from an administrator at Temple who works specifically with students. He says, All our kids have laptops, but they all visit their library. That's not being captured in the metrics. I could really go on for days about what is not being captured.
Let me follow up with another couple quick questions. Have you requested the underlying data that made up the check mark chart from the Administration or from the Library?
Well, I actually just got the check marks yesterday. So we have not been -- I just wanted, while we're on that subject --
Well, that's 120 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. my next question, if you let me -- during the PhillyStat session yesterday, Ms. Reardon said that the Free Library had talked to the Friends of the Free Library before going public with the cuts. Is that an accurate statement?
Not about this. Basically, the Friends of the Free Library is the major stakeholder to libraries. We've been around since 1973. We've got thousands of members, 47 friends groups. You all know that.
But we have not been part of this discussion at all. We had one conversation in October, and that was because we begged for it. We finally got it, but at that point, we were discussing service reductions, and what 121 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. our position was, we understood that there needed to be service reductions given the financial crisis, but let us please make them equal across the system. We found out the same time the rest of the City found out that we were talking about permanent closures the same day that the Mayor made his budget announcement in November. We were not aware that we were ever discussing, considering that -- they were, not me -- closures, permanent closures.
Thank you. Just one final question. Do you know how many of the 11 libraries slated for closure are in the nine high crime police districts targeted by Commissioner Ramsey's plan?
Seven of the 11 libraries are in the high crime police districts targeted by Commissioner Ramsey's plan. 122 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Except for -- let me see. Durham is not. Except for one. Except for one.
You think ten are? I have seven, but you're saying it's ten are in the high crime?
Yes. What I have is, I'm looking at my -- no. I just have that Durham is the only one that is not, from my assessment.
So do you think it's reasonable to ask elementary and high school children to walk four miles through high crime areas in the winter to get their homework done?
I think it's unrealistic. I don't think they will. I don't think they will do it. I think it will virtually close libraries off to those children.
Thank you for your testimony. 123 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Excuse me. Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Green mentioned that I think seven of the library closings 7 are in high crime districts targeted by 8 the Police Commissioner. Does anyone 9 know whether that crime took place during 10 library hours? Because that's the only 11 thing that would make it relevant. (No response.)
Well, can I respond? My understanding is -- what I have heard is that the high crime hours are from about, particularly in these, are from 3:00 to 6:00, starting from 3:00 in the afternoon onward.
Correct. Not the highest crime, not the only time there's crime, but that's what my understanding is. 124 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
The highest time of crime is not between 3:00 and 6:00. That's a statistic that is used related to young people being involved in incidents, but --
-- when we're talking about the high crime areas in the City, we're talking more hard core crime that happens, not during library hours.
Thank you, Madam President. I know that sometimes when we're in this room, we kind of lose sight of the things that are going on outside in a macro economy. We are in a worldwide financial meltdown, a crisis of 125 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. proportions we haven't seen since the '30s. Every country in the world is dealing with this massive loss of finances and money. New York City I believe is taking a billion dollars out of their operating budget for '09 for one year. These cuts are painful and they're horrible, but what we're discussing here today are not the cuts. They are the revenue enhancements that will soften the cuts and keep us from having to make further cuts. So I understand Councilwoman Blackwell's position, that sometimes if we pass this, it makes it look like we're endorsing the cuts. We're not doing anything of the such in this room today. We are trying to get more money and save more money so that we cannot cut further than we are. So any discussion that perhaps we should hold these to punish the Mayor because he hasn't talked to us 126 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. appropriately is kind of crazy, because we'll be back in this room again talking about more cuts. So I think you have to look at this whole situation as it relates to the entire world, because the entire world is suffering as a result of the financial collapse. There are banks laying off 50,000 people overnight. There are car companies laying off 25,000 and 30,000 employees. We're not laying off anybody. Maybe a couple hundred people, but that's it, and we feel bad about it, but I think this Administration has been doing a great job in trying to hold on and keep their fingers in the dike so the thing doesn't collapse. I think we got to pass these bills, and if we don't pass these bills, we'll be back here next week talking about more fire stations and libraries and everything else. Thank you.
Thank 127 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. And I appreciate my colleague's acknowledgment that this is a worldwide issue and a national issue, and he's absolutely right. But as I look to Washington as we did a $700 billion bailout, that we didn't ask the right questions, because once the check was cleared, they didn't do what they said they were going to do, and they paid who they wanted to pay, and transparency was gone, because we didn't ask the right questions on the front end. So I would urge that we don't act in haste, but just get it right. I would also say that although there is not a direct correlation between maybe the hours that we can document, but there is something that my colleague, Wilson Goode, brought up that I 128 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. remembered as a freshman, that there is a direct correlation between the number of inner city children who cannot read by the time they are four and the number of jail cells that planners build by the time they're 18. And so, yeah, I understand that all -- the global issue is upon us, but all politics is local, and I want to save my library.
Thank you. And I respect Councilman Jones' position, and I understand that a District Councilperson often has a different dynamic than an at-large Councilperson, and I do respect that. But the point that I'm trying to make is that what 129 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we're discussing today has nothing to do with the cuts and, in actuality, we could restore every single thing that the Mayor is talking about taking away and he still doesn't have to spend it, because the cuts are on his administrative responsibilities and these are our responsibilities, to keep the cuts as soft as possible. And that's my point. It's not that the library is not important. It's not that Councilman Jones' concern and representation of his constituents is not important. It is. And I hope that the worldwide financial calamity reverses over the next few years and maybe we can put some of these things back, but in the meantime, this is a tsunami. It's coming, and unless we do something to prepare for it, we're going to get blown over by it. So I do respect Councilman Jones' position. I know he works hard for his constituents, but we got to get this done. 130 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sure we all agree with Councilman Kenney and do understand the point that he's made three times today, but what we're questioning here is not whether or not we need to do revenue enhancements, but the specific priorities that the Administration has made versus those priorities that Council would make. And we cannot be part of that debate, provide the Administration information without the necessary data. I do -- we all completely understand. The Mayor can do, the Administration, can do whatever he wants to do with cuts, but it is our job to provide the oversight that holds the Administration accountable for those decisions. You break it, you bought it. 131 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. But we need the information in order to be able to provide that oversight and to be able to judge whether or not these were the right cuts when we come back in very short order and are looking at a brand new budget and a brand new Five-Year Plan in February. It is not unreasonable for us to ask to have this information, and the only time that we have the leverage to get it is prior to passing something that the Administration wants. Otherwise, we're completely out of the debate. This body has not been given the respect that we deserve and been provided with simple information that exists in spreadsheets at the library and elsewhere. All we want is data. It is not unreasonable for us to ask for it and get it. And, of course, I do agree that we need the revenue enhancements, but that's not the point and that's really not what we're talking about here today. We're talking about respect for this body 132 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. and information, openness, accountability, new day, new way of operating. That's what we expect. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. First to the point of whether there's a correlation between achievement in terms of reading and/or math and whether that is connected to crime, I, of course, agree with that. But the only point I would make related to that is, one of these bills is in fact a revenue enhancer for the School District, and so people should take that into consideration. So the question I will pose out there is simply, if there's a need on certain members' parts to hold a bill or 133 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. some bills as a statement they want to make to negotiate something, still why are we holding all bills? That still doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. I think we're approaching this thing a little bit backwards. The Administration indicated that over $2 billion is untouchable money, and I wonder what exactly that means. Does that mean that we can't look at some of these departments that are classified as untouchable to see if they can't run more efficiently? So I can't be supportive of increasing these fees until I'm confident that the things are running smoothly. So I plan to vote no on a lot of these 134 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. particular issues. Not all of them, but most of them. So that's what -- I appreciate that, Madam President.
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to -- thank you very much.
Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Mike McCrea and Donna Sims. (Witnesses approached witness table.) MR. McCREA: Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm here -- and, again, I agree with some of the Councilmembers here that I think we ought to not vote these out until they get the information that they need to do their job correctly. I agree 135 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. with them 100 percent. And part of the reason why I am, this is clear and transparent. That's all we're asking for. Now, while it may appear to some as griping, grumbling and grandstanding, I think I have a right and a duty to question the validity of the proposed service cuts outlined by Mayor Nutter. It is clearly a matter of perspective concerning the extent of any so-called fiscal crisis. During the previous Administration, we listened to "Chicken Little" tell us that the City was below revenue estimates every October, the lowest revenue month of the year, and the budget would have to be adjusted. Every year he continued with the dog and pony show, and then miraculously after the budget was passed, revenues exceeded estimates and there was a surplus, which he spent on his priorities, ignoring the service cuts imposed during the process. 136 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. While the financial picture is certainly less than promising and some may say even bleak, even a $1 billion shortfall over five years in a city with a $4 billion annual budget is a budget gap of only five percent. That certainly does not qualify, in our mind, as drastic or insurmountable. I think there are many excesses in the budget that can be and should be looked at before we reduce any services or close anything. Specifically concerning the Recreation Department, the volunteer advisory councils and friends groups, during the good times as well as the crisis, continue to provide over 90 percent of the on-site program dollars. As partners, we feel the City is continually taking the delivery of these services for granted. When the Administration talks about after-school programs, summer camps and swimming pools, the fact that each of these quality services are delivered citywide 137 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. at a cost to the City of about $1.65 a day per child is lost in the conversation, rarely if ever brought up. Where in this city's budget do we get a better value for our tax dollar than that? Just imagine 80 children in any of our 130 day camps, 95 degrees and no 10 place to cool off. When they speak about closing pools, it is not just about losing services. There are summer jobs attached to every facility and swimming pool, so when the Administration closes 68 pools, that translates into 700 jobs. And if you include the rest of the seasonal positions being cut, the number is over 1,000 jobs, mostly for teens and young adults. Add these together and we really think Mayor Nutter and the Administration need to work much harder to protect these services and not take the easy way out. We believe that if they spent as much time working on saving these basic services as they did 138 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. defending their position that we have too many rec centers, pools, libraries and fire stations, that we would all be much better off. We understand Mayor Nutter's dislike of being compared to the previous Administration, but it's hard not to when Doug Oliver used the famous Street term "rightsizing" on two occasions in the last several days, and rightsizing by any other name or vehicle is just as offensive. Our message should be clear. We all need to sacrifice. No exceptions. Take care of your business in our own house before you come after our basic services. When you come after our kids, you're coming after us, and that's just simply not acceptable. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. 139 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Donna Sims. First I'd like to thank this Council for allowing us to come and speak on this issue, the Honorable Anna Verna and, of course, my Councilwoman, who is Jannie Blackwell. To every other Council in this room, in this Council Chamber today, we have tremendous respect for all of you and we know your job is very, very difficult. We know this is not something that you're supporting. But I want to get right to the point, because I was told I have a few minutes. Concerning the Laura Sims Skate House in the Park, I want to know who made the backroom deal to try to sacrifice our facility. How in the world can you justify closing all of the rinks that are in the minority-based communities and the only two that are left open are in predominantly white communities? How can you justify that? I feel like I've stepped into a time capsule when we came before Council in 140 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. the 1970s and we were told that black children didn't ice skate and we were offered more money for basketball courts. It feels like the same thought is that black children aren't ice skating. These are the children that are ice skating at Cobbs Creek. These are the hockey teams that we have. The majority of them are coming out of our community. The police district at the 18th District stated to us -- this was under Officer Riles -- that when our facility opened, crime went down in that age group. You don't have a whole lot of things for the girls to do out there, but yet you have girls and families and everyone coming, and they skate. I don't know what people hear, if they think that it's just people from outside of the community. It is not. These are pictures of children who are coming and skating, learning for the 141 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. first time, but they have something to do. They come after school. They have after-school programs. These are pictures of the after-school homework programs. You're going to turn these children out. It is not just about dollars and cents. It's about people's lives, and something has to be done just to find the dollars in terms of what Mike said, but even beyond that, who would have the audacity to say that you're going to close the rinks in all of the minority communities and the only ones you leave open is the Rizzo Rink in South Philadelphia and the Tarken in Northeast? Who has the audacity to put that before the people of Philadelphia and think we're going to accept it? We are not. It is a disgrace that you would even present something like that. It is a disgrace. We have ranked consistently number one or two, or in there, of all the rinks in the City in terms of 142 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. attendance, in terms of revenue. The other thing that I want to put on the table concerning this backroom deal, we know that three or four years ago Ed Snider and his people came to our rink. They came there with film crews. They came there taking film of our mechanics, of our engineering and all of this, and they were escorted by the Department of Recreation. Who made this backroom deal to try to take our rink? You're not going to do it. Somebody is making a backroom deal, and I'll bet you if something like this were to go through, you all would then -- he would jump up, these people would jump up like saviors coming to save our rink, and they'd buy it and privatize it, and then our children would be relegated to one or two days a week. It's not going to happen. So whoever it is that's making this deal, you're on notice. It is not going to happen. 143 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Now, I thank you very much.
Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: There are none.
Do we have anyone else to testify on these bills?
Thank you. I'm taken back to the days of Lucien Blackwell when Laura Sims, who is her mother, came here and Lou would talk about how she called him on the waterfront at 5:00 in the morning and he would pick up the phone and she would 144 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. say, Mr. Blackwell, this is Mrs. Sims. Well, now you know where Donna comes from, and it was her mother who fought so hard and in whose name the rink was renamed. It's called the Laura Sims Ice Rink in Cobbs Creek Park. And it just fills me up to think of how far we've come or maybe we haven't come. But we do thank her for her commitment, because her mother and her father loved West Philadelphia, loved that rink, and we're just proud that she would come to maintain that legacy. Thank you.
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our next bill 22 is Bill No. 080856, an ordinance amending Section 9-305 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Burglary, Theft and Robbery Alarm Systems," by revising the amounts 145 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. of certain fees and penalties and the number of permissible false alarms, providing for collection of fees by alarm companies, providing for administrative adjudication, and making related changes, all under certain terms and conditions. And our first witness is Paula Weiss. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Council President Verna, members of Council. I am Paula Weiss, Executive Director of the Office of Administrative Review, which is a unit in the Office of the Director of Finance. I'm here to testify in support of Bill No. " The Office of Administrative 146 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Review is responsible for maintaining alarm user registration and activation data, as well as for billing, enforcement and collection of annual registration fees and excess false alarm fines. The alarm ordinance in Section 8 9-305 of The Philadelphia Code with its enforcement and fine provisions was enacted in 1992. The current bill seeks to update the fines and fees and to amend enforcement requirements to improve the City's effectiveness. It is based on approximately years of experience with 15 the Alarm Code provisions as currently 16 written. There are three key components that this bill addresses. The first is alarm registration. The ordinance 20 requires that each alarm user in the City register their alarm and provide certain information on an annual basis. This bill raises the annual $35 alarm registration fee that has been in place since 1992 to $50. This annual fee 147 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. covers the cost to the City for the annual billing, the data entry and the management of this information. There are currently over 75,000 registrations in the database that receive a minimum of one billing per year for the registration fee and many of which receive more than one mailing before the fee is received. In addition, in Fiscal Year '08, 8,600 new registrations were processed and added to our database. A recurring problem for the City is attempting to identify unregistered alarm users after a false alarm activation has been reported. There is a large cost to the City in staff time spent trying to appropriately maintain information and bill for excess false alarms at locations where the alarm has not been registered by the user because ownership information is not readily available to us when an alarm activation has occurred. Many false 148 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. alarms that users should be billed for go unbilled because we do not have the responsible party information. This bill provides two mechanisms to address that problem. It will allow the City to require alarm companies who are in possession of the alarm user information to collect and remit the registration fees with the responsible party information to the City, and it will increase the penalty for failing to register an alarm system from $100 to $150. The second component is false alarms. This bill provides for a decrease in the number of annual fine-free false alarms from the current three to two and increases the fine for each excess false alarm from $25 to $75. False alarm activations use valuable police resources and are costly to the City in many ways. An alarm activation that is called into the 9-1-1 system results in a police response to 149 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. the premises. Our experience is that over 97 percent of alarm activations turn out to be false alarms. Obviously these false alarms cause police resources to be pulled from what may be actual crime-related activities. It has been estimated, again, that the direct cost for this police response is as high as $4 million annually. In addition, there are indirect administrative costs that are associated with monitoring and billing accounts with excess false alarms. The purpose of the false alarm fine is twofold. First, it allows the City to recover the direct costs for providing police response, as well as the associated costs for maintaining the information. The current $25 fine was first established in 1992 and hasn't been raised or looked at since. Second, the fine encourages alarm users to modify their behaviors so as to avoid multiple false alarms. It is 150 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
meant to act as a deterrent to incurring multiple false alarms in a year. The third area this bill 5 tackles is enforcement. Critical to improving enforcement of the provisions of our program is the change in the adjudication process from the current code provision that requires the City to file a code enforcement complaint in Municipal Court. Currently, the primary enforcement action is through the Municipal Court process and places a heavy burden on the City. For every excess false alarm violation, a code enforcement complaint must be filed in Municipal Court, served on the alarm user as a precursor to a hearing before a Municipal Court judge for a final determination of the fine that the City can then act to collect. This is a costly, time-consuming and slow process. There are service requirements, court costs and a limited number of hearing 151 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. slots per week that the Court will allow for these matters. Therefore, the City can only pursue judgments for a small number of the approximately 30,000 annual excess false alarm activations, particularly since the Municipal Court slots have to be divided among false alarm activations and other code violations. This bill provides an administrative review process that is far more streamlined and cost effective for both the City and the person or entity cited for a violation. An administrative hearing of record before a hearing examiner will be available and subject to appeal by the person or entity found liable following the hearing process. The responsibility will rest on the alarm user to request and appear at a hearing to contest any false alarm charges. This means that the City will not bear the burden or expense of moving all cases into the Municipal Court arena. 152 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. At the end of the administrative review process, if a further appeal is not pursued by the alarm user, the decision rendered at the hearing becomes a final order, and any fines, fees and penalties are a debt due and owing to the City. The administrative review process will allow cases to move expeditiously through the hearing process so that both the City and the alleged violator will have a final determination in a more timely manner. For those found liable at the end of the hearing process, the City will be able to move more quickly to the enforcement and collection of outstanding fees and fines. The changes offered in this bill will provide more opportunity for the City to recoup the costs associated with the enforcement of the code provisions for burglary, theft, robbery and alarm systems, and provide needed improvements to the enforcement and 153 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. collection mechanisms. We are requesting a suspension of the rules of Council so that this bill 5 may be considered on the First Reading Calendar at the next session of Council. Thank you. I'll be happy answer any questions.
Thank you. Ms. Weiss, you are proposing that the City increase its annual alarm registration fee --
-- from $35 to $50. When do you propose that this increase will take effect?
I believe it will -- I'm not sure what the bill says. I'm sorry.
There is no 24 timetable? I think that our expectation is it would take effect immediately. 154 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Mr. Dubow, could you answer that question? Isn't there a procedure that would have to occur before you said immediately? (Witness approached witness table.)
For all of this legislation, we were looking at getting them implemented by January 1st.
For all of this legislation, we were looking at getting things implemented by January 1st.
In an effort of fairness, are all alarms billed at the same time?
No. Alarm users are billed on a rolling one-year process 155 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. depending on when they first registered their alarm. Each 12-month period -- so we're sending out bills on a monthly basis.
I think in an effort to be fair, some people that renewed now are paying one fee and if you do this immediately, then the rest of the constituents are paying a higher fee. Isn't there a way that we could make sure everybody renews that's eligible at least in this calendar year to be able to renew at the old fee?
Because you're going to have some folks paying 35 and the new fee is 50, correct?
So one month, if you get your bill early, you pay 35. If you're a month late or in January, you're going to pay 50.
That's a good 156 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. point. We will look at that.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dubow. Ms. Weiss, what are the additional revenues that these increases will generate for the current budget and Five-Year Plan?
Well, raising the annual registration fees from $35 to $50 is projected to raise annually 393 --
I'm sorry. Raising the annual registration fees from 35 to 50, we're projecting that that will result in an annual increase in revenue of about $393,000. Reducing the annual fine-free false alarms going from three to two allowable false alarms is projected to add approximately $184,000 in the first year of revenue. And 157 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. increasing the false alarm fines from $25 to $75 is projected to add approximately $305,000 annually.
And for the first year, I would say we'd expect about half of that amount for each one of those.
Ms. Weiss, in your testimony you state that many false alarms that users should be billed for go unbilled because we do not have the responsible party information.
What does your office do to get the necessary party information?
We actually spend a lot of manual research time looking through BRT records, City Revenue records, real estate records in order to attempt, because all of these are obviously property-based, attempting to determine correct property ownership so that we can bill property owners or to determine in some situations business 158 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. owners, because there are certainly times when it's a landlord-tenant situation and it's the tenant who is the responsible alarm user, not the landlord. And so our staff engages in researching available databases that the City has to determine who is at that property, as well as sending out notices.
To the extent that there are alarm systems that are not registered and to which the City nevertheless responds, are costs incurred and who pays?
We all pay them. Costs are incurred every time the police respond to a false alarm, regardless of whether the alarm user is registered or not, and so that cost is incurred by the City, in addition to our incurring costs for the false alarms that we don't charge for. Everyone at this point is provided three false alarms in a given year that we don't charge for but that we 159 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. still incur a cost for, because the police do respond and we do maintain that information in our database.
Thank you, Madam President. The revenue increase or the registration fee increase from 35 to 50, on what basis is that justified?
Well, number one, we haven't -- it's been $35 since 1992, so --
You can't justify something because it's been a long time since we raised it.
That our expenses have certainly gone up since then. And although it may seem at first glance that 160 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. in order to maintain the registration information simply sending out a letter is really all that's involved, in reality we have a lot of research and staff time in locating alarm users that this registration fee can cover. For example, the situation where there's a false alarm activation, we don't know who the alarm user is, before we can even bill that alarm user that $35 or that $50, there's staff time and research in trying to locate who that alarm user is. In addition, though --
Wait a minute. Stop. Stop. There's a lot more important things than this, but this is important. They're all important. I don't follow that you can't -- if I registered -- I've got a burglar alarm. I register with you every year, or I go to prison or something like that. I don't know what it is.
But I 161 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. register. I pay my $35. I have an alarm that goes off. You have trouble looking for me?
No, we don't have trouble looking for you because you've done what you're supposed to do, but there are many, many alarm users in the City who we don't find them until after their alarm has gone off, and so we don't -- we're not able to use their registration information until the alarm has gone off, the police have responded.
See, I don't want -- I don't care if the General Fund pays for people violating the law, but I don't want to be singled out paying for somebody that violates the law on a specific item that I'm complying with the law. First of all, I doubt that $35 is needed to cover my registration fee. Now, when you get into people who are not registering their alarm and you don't know where they are or who they are but 162 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. you know now that your alarm companies that are collecting the money for you under this know who they are, put it on the alarm companies. If they want to be in your collection pool or if you force them, if they want to be eligible, they do it. It seems to me that one of the reasons people might not be paying, because they don't like paying a registration fee for protecting their house and family and protecting their neighborhood. They're giving you information. I don't care how much you charge me if I have two alarms that are bad. I mean, up to a certain point. Whatever your costs are, recover them. Whatever your costs are for the other, recover them. But don't have your costs to me being that four of my neighbors didn't pay the $35 for whatever reason. Fine them when you do find them to pay up for that cost. There's something that we would 163 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. in layman's terms say is rational and reasonable and makes common sense. They're the people that should be paying the cost of evading this registration fee. I just think on the back end, on the behavior modification end, if I violate it, knew what the rules were, no 10 matter what my excuse is, I'll have to pay it. I don't care if you take it to a hundred bucks or whatever. It's hard to argue with somebody who has violated the law. Somebody who is just paying a registration fee, I mean, I could do this online, as I said in the meeting the other day. It really costs us virtually nothing. It's the mail and the postage and stuff and the hours and opening them and the staff time. This investigation thing, though, to me is for another place and another time. Give me another bill 23 that you're going to fine me if I don't register. If it says it on the bottom of my registration fee, you're going to get 164 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. my payment quicker, too, if there's going to be a fine for knowingly having an alarm. I think these companies will -- because they're going to be collecting. They're going to have to decide who they collect and who they don't. No, no, no. 8 I go with a company -- all the companies have to comply with this program or they don't -- they're not part of -- they can't sell alarms in the City if they don't want to be -- however you do it, make it reasonable, rational and adheres to common sense, and I think we can get this worked out.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To follow up on that, I think on the bottom of that form, if it's not registered, the alarm system, a little 165 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. blurb that you might not get service if the alarm is not registered I think would get people's attention to make sure that they're registered. And I think what Councilman O'Neill said is absolutely correct, that most of these alarms report to a central station and then the central station call the police to provide the service. So, in my opinion, we should let them know that the next time they call, we're going to deny service because it's an unregistered alarm. And it's very, very easy to identify alarms that are registered versus not registered.
Well, I guess we haven't made a policy statement as a city to not respond, to not have police response when an alarm goes off.
Well, guess what, if you have an alarm system and the registration process is to pay for the luxury of having the -- what's the purpose of the registration? What are you trying to do? What is your goal? 166 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Well, our goal overall for the program is by having the alarms registered when there are excess false alarms, we know who we can bill in order to recoup the cost to the City so that the public isn't paying for everyone's mismanagement or anyone's individual mismanagement of their alarm system.
You really need to develop a way to communicate with these central stations and tell them the next time they call, they may not get service if they don't provide -- they should be the ones responsible in the event that the consumer isn't being responsible in registering the system. That leads me to ask you the question about the adjudication process. We have many very old senior citizens that have alarm systems, not just for burglary but for their health, the pendants that call for emergency medical care. A 90-year-old person that has 167 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. difficulty with that, even though you're going to reduce it from three to two, there should be some consideration given, and I'm sure in the adjudication process to have to have a 90-year-old constituent come down and say, Look, I fell or I bumped the pendant or I couldn't see to put the proper security code in to disable the alarm, I think we have to be a little sensitive, and I'm sure you are over there, from what I understand, on how you deal with people that may be very, very old or frail and just can't negotiate these sophisticated panels, et cetera, that are associated with central station security systems.
Well, we actually do that currently. Although we don't have a formal administrative review process that creates the final order, we do provide an administrative review process as a settlement hearing, and we hear from those people even today in my office. And for the people who are 168 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. housebound, who are elderly or who having these problems, number one, we're able to, if they cannot come in, use a paper review process. They can write us a letter, they can tell us the situation. We allow them to send a family member or a neighbor, if that's an easier way of having them come in to explain what happened, and we do provide courtesy responses for people who have those extenuating circumstances. So that's actually something we already have in place.
Well, that's good to hear, because just a quick example before I end, a constituent called that the UPS or Fed Ex person came to the door and pounded very forcibly on the door and it tripped the alarm. It wasn't their fault. So there's got to be really a very forgiving, I think, policy when it's not -- the ones that you want to go after are the ones that have an old system that 169 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. malfunctions every other day, not some nice little senior citizen, extremely senior citizen, that might have some difficulty with it.
No. We don't want to penalize anyone who is actually doing their best and making an effort, and that's why there would still be even with this bill two false alarm activations that we wouldn't charge for, by taking into account that there are times throughout a year where someone will accidentally trip their alarm for whatever reason.
And that also needs to be tied into their cycle. If they renewed and they have three, they should have those three until their next renewal.
170 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Real quick. Ms. Weiss, I don't think you said this. Maybe you did. The actual number of false alarms per year, have they gone up, down, stayed about the same?
I would think it did, both because of your enforcement and the system. I was just wondering that. I would think it would. I said I'd be quick. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 171 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Just a point of information for Councilman Greenlee. We actually have 93,000 false alarm activations every single year. Responding to false alarms is the equivalent of 50 full-time police officers doing nothing but responding to false alarms. And so working with the Director of Finance and people in his office and others since April, we have been trying to come up with a comprehensive bill to reduce the number of activations so that we can have people on the street, and we did introduce such a bill and I would like to -- so I guess in answer to -- getting back to Councilman O'Neill's question, really this is simply a revenue enhancement measure and is not intended to have any impact on whether or not there are fewer or more false alarms; is that correct?
Well, actually, we're hopeful that -- well, increasing the fines from $25 to $75 and lowering the allowable false alarms from three to 172 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. two actually we'll have a behavior modification effect. We would really like to see the number of false alarms continue to go down.
Right. And we asked the Finance Department in the spring to conduct a study of what the appropriate fees and different measures might be to reduce the number of false alarms that would have borne that out one way or the other. Can you tell us why we haven't done that study so that we have full information before we act on something?
Excuse me just a second. Well, Councilman, unfortunately, we didn't have the resources to engage in a full study of the question, but in looking at our own experience, as well as doing some looking at other cities, we determined that these were the compromises and the increases that we felt would both help us to recoup 173 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. our increased costs as well as deter behavior in this area.
Excuse me. I'm sorry, Councilman. I don't have that with me, but I'd be happy to provide it to you later.
Please provide that information to the Chair, if it exists.
We did have comprehensive hearings on this in this body in April where we provided a quite detailed PowerPoint presentation from my office, which did include comparisons of other cities, and so you might refer to that. Are you aware that there's a model false alarm code and did you look at it when you were considering modifying this code? 174 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Eileen O'Brien from the Office of Administrative Review. I'm familiar with the model ordinance that's come out of an organization of alarm ordinance 11 administrators throughout the country. They do make some suggestions and they are along the lines that we are suggesting as well, and I don't think our ordinance is widely different from what the model ordinance suggests.
It is extraordinarily different. The purpose of those codes is to reduce the number of activations and not simply to increase revenue. And I submit that this bill is not thoughtful enough. It is designed to increase revenue. I understand we need to do that and I'm going to support it, but hopefully we can work together on the 175 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. kind of comprehensive reforms that we need to reduce the number of false alarms and keep more policemen on the street, which was one of the original intended purposes of our cooperation of working together last spring.
Yes. I understand and I agree, Councilman. The goal of our efforts today is to recover the cost to providing police response, whether it be from the registration fees or the fines alone. We're currently bringing in about $3.2 million, which does not cover the full cost. With these additional modifications, we might be able to get closer to the cost.
But we don't know what our current costs are because we didn't do a new study. We have not done a new study. So we actually don't know if this covers our costs; is that correct?
Yes, I would agree. We're using a figure that was 176 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. obtained from a study done in 1995. That $4 million figure came from a study done by Dr. Simon Hakim, Professor of Economy at Temple University.
Right. And we have not updated that study, so we don't even know if these fees do cover our costs. Really what we're doing is a revenue enhancement measure and then we'll work on the details later; is that correct?
Well, we want to modify behavior as well. I mean, I think it's a combined impact.
Well, it seems unlikely that our costs have gone down dramatically --
Well, those are all my questions, Madam Chair. Thank 177 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I remember when we had these hearings before and company providers came. One of the major ones in the City was one that we used, Lucien and I used, and we found that all they did was continue to give you emergency fines, send the police to your house, which would frighten seniors, and give you all these fines that you pay to the company. So after paying three, five, six times a month, I had to do away with that, after replacing doors and all that. So there's more to this issue than just the registration fee. I think people could understand that. But when companies start billing you three, four, five, six times a month and having the 178 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. police come to your house and they get more revenues, major companies in the City, then the question is a different one, and certainly is for me. Thank you very much.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. One of my constituents called actually. If you have an alarm, if your alarm goes off and twice the police never showed up, is that counted as a false alarm or what?
Well, all the incidents that my database maintains all have what we call dispositions, which indicate the police did respond to determine the alarm activation to either be false or not false. If the police failed to arrive and/or make a disposition, then I would not have that 179 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. record in my database.
Okay. So it's the police that actually helps create your database?
Yes. They determine upon response to the activation whether the incident is a false alarm or a not false.
Okay. All right. Well, that's good to know. I just wanted to make sure that they weren't -- that the two times that it happened, I wanted to make sure it wasn't counted for their three.
I'd be happy to look into the particular incident if you would like me to.
You're welcome. 180 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes. Without prolonging this a lot longer than it has to -- and welcome back into the herd, Ms. O'Brien. I'm glad we didn't lose you forever. If Mr. Dubow could just get a little meeting together at some point in the future. I have another idea about annual -- not annual, but a one-time fee for registration and maybe go through the alarm company, and that only if you change alarm companies or something like that, you would have to -- also, the collection of this fee, if I'm paying the alarm company $35 a month and they charge me $37 a month, or whatever it is, instead and they collect it, we don't have any of that to deal with. Plus, they make you whole. Anybody that they're covering with protection of these devices, they tell them, By the way, in addition to what you're paying us, this 181 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. is what the City charges you, and they just tack it on to their bill. So we do get everybody that has an alarm company dealing in the City of Philadelphia. I think we can really get our arms around this, as well as -- and maybe we can reduce that registration fee a little bit or make it a one-time fee like we did with the BP --
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you. Just a quick point of information related to the most recent discussion. We estimate that about half 182 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. of the alarm companies that do business in the City have not registered with business privilege licenses, and so that is an area that we need to pursue, both on the registration of the companies and also with respect to Councilman O'Neill's suggestion. I will just add that the $35 fee really is for free responses. So were we to eliminate it, we might want to consider providing only one free response and then charging a fine on the second. Thank you.
Thank you. Any further questions? (No response.)
Is there anyone that would like to testify 183 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 7 080857. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 9 amending Title 12 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Traffic Code," to revise the fees for the use of parking meters in certain locations; to revise fees and charges for the immobilization and impoundment of vehicles for parking and other violations; and to revise the penalties for various parking violations; all under certain terms and conditions. Our first witness is Rina Cutler. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Just checking. 184 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
It is. Rina Cutler, Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Utilities. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify for Bill 080857. I have written testimony which I provided the Councilwoman, the other Council Chair and members for the briefing, but I think I'm going to need to read it either way because there were not -- everyone was not present. The problem I'd like to outline. Over the last 15 years, Center City has enjoyed a remarkable revitalization. More than 10,000 new housing units were built since 1997. Vacancy rates continue to decline. Restaurants, shops and hotels have been flourishing with a net increase of 50 retail establishments alone in 2007. An indicator of this success is increased traffic congestion in Center City. 185 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Congestion threatens to make Center City a less desirable destination. As Yogi Berra said, "No one goes there anymore. " Congestion delays buses, bicycles, pedestrians, deliveries and emergency vehicles. It also makes for a less safe environment for all users. Congestion caused by needless traffic unacceptably contributes to air pollution and fuel consumption. Recognize that I am referencing needless traffic. A key cause of needless traffic is vehicles cruising for on-street parking spaces instead of being able to quickly find a space or driving directly into a garage or parking lot. In some studies, around 30 percent of downtown traffic is attributable to cruising for an on-street parking space. The curb space that provides on-street parking is one of the local government's most important assets. For the most part, we can't create more curb 186 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. space, and the number of competing interests that require its use continues to grow. Public transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, deliveries, through traffic, parkers and emergency responders all demand a piece of the street. In addition, sidewalk space for pedestrians is also being constrained by a variety of uses, such as newspaper stands, outdoor dining, trash receptacles, bus shelters and other street furniture. Our outdated parking fees and fines encourage cruising and increase congestion. A recent Philadelphia Parking Authority survey found that as few as two percent of on-street parking spaces are available in Center City during peak periods. A 2000 Planning Commission study on off-street parking showed availability at the time of about 20 percent. So there is capacity in off-street garages and very little currently for on-street parking. 187 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. The irresistibly inexpensive meter rates have on-street spots used for all day and long-term visits while occupants feeding the meter -- with occupants feeding the meter. Ignoring the law and incurring a fine is too often cheaper and easier than abiding by regulations. The Office of Transportation has several initiatives underway to improve mobility, accessibility, livability and sustainability in the City. One key element of this plan is the restructuring of our parking fees and parking fines to encourage parking space turnover and improve compliance with parking regulations. The intent of this legislation is to improve curb space management. The results will have both an economic and environmental benefit for the citizens of Philadelphia. With this legislation we want to encourage more vehicles to use parking garages for long-term visits, 188 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. which will increase availability for on-street parking; reduce cruising for parking, which contributes to congestion and air pollution; encourage people to ride transit into Center City; reduce congestion-causing behavior, such as blocking lanes and bus zones, with an increase in fine; and improve mobility for travelers on all modes. If we're going to decrease our congestion problem, we need to get people to rethink their parking choices.
We should acknowledge that the very best parking spaces that exist are on the street directly in front of where the patron wants to go. They are also the least expensive spaces in the parking inventory. The goal of the parking meter increases is to bring on-street parking rates closer to off-street rates and to make it inconvenient to feed the parking meter all day. The result is to encourage longer-term parkers to move into garages or consider coming into the 189 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. City on transit. Our plan has the following components: Adjust meter rates to match demand. We have identified three zones within the City. We're looking to raise the rates to $3 an hour in the core area of Center City, which we'll call Zone 1, bounded by 4th and 20th Streets, Arch and Locust Streets. Please note that the $3 an hour rate in Zone 1 will not be raised until the purchase of new technology is in place in order for these meters to accept credit cards, debit cards, Smart Cards and cash as payment options. Two dollar an hour in the non-core Center City but equally congested University City district, which would be Zone 2, bounded roughly by the Schuylkill River to 40th Street and South Street to Vine. Rates in the remainder of the City will remain the same. Those would be Zone 3. We would also look to eliminate meter charges for Sunday meter parking because the demand is less. We 190 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. want to increase fines for violations that are most responsible for congestion, such as double parking. We want to increase fines in proportion to their impact on congestion with higher fines in the Center City/University City area and more modest increases outside those areas. We're also looking to increase the towing fees and storage fees to provide greater deterrents and to cover rising costs. These actions are a single component of a broader mobility enhancement initiative which will have the following elements: There will be a pilot program to decrease hourly rates at certain Parking Authority garages to approach an on-street rate to encourage the use of excess capacity in those garages. So the Parking Authority will set the hourly rate to match the on-street rate in front of those garages. Revise and expand loading zones to provide additional short-term parking 191 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. opportunity for delivery vehicles. It has been our experience that the delivery vehicles are the vehicles most commonly double parked on major roadways. On-street bicycle, scooter and motorcycle parking to encourage the use of other modes and to remove parking clutter from sidewalks; increase enforcement of regulations against blocking the box at intersections; evaluating options for improving valet parking operations, with an eye toward moving from individual restaurant zones to multiple user zones; and to continue to explore new technology to allow for electronic payment for parking. S. cities, as well as technology which communicates to the drivers on parking availability. These policies will also complement a reenergized Transit First 192 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Program and a new Complete Streets Program that will further improve the vitality and livability of the City. We expect to have details on those other initiatives within the next several weeks. In conclusion, while these initial efforts alone won't solve the congestion problem, our current approach to managing operations on City streets is simply not acceptable. Current street conditions undermine the attractiveness of Center City as a place to visit or do business. These proposed changes will help us clear our streets of unnecessary congestion and, in doing so, will improve the Center City experience for residents, drivers, transit users and pedestrians.
My office will continue to monitor the best practices of other cities and will continue to import what we believe are the most innovative and effective practices to better manage our streets. 193 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. In closing, I think it's important to reiterate what this program is not. It is not about increasing revenue. It does not assist the City in solving the current budget shortfall. State law dictates that any new parking revenues above the City's payment cap will go to the School District. This does, however, align with the Mayor's support for and emphasis on education as one of his priorities. As I have stated before, we are not trying to get into people's wallets. Instead we want to get into their minds and change their behavior. Our proposed adjustments are aimed at the behaviors that cause needless congestion. Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. I respectfully request that this bill be reported out of Committee and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow first reading at the next session of Council. We will be happy to answer any 194 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. questions you may have.
Thank you, Madam President and members of City Council. The bill before the Committee is part of a larger plan developed by the Mayor's Office of Transportation and the Philadelphia Parking Authority to improve mobility and access in Center City. City Council members have been given other elements of the plan, which include better management of loading activities, providing on-street parking for motorcycles, scooters and bicycles, short-term parking rate reduction in two of the Parking Authority garages and improved intersection control activities. The bill increases the parking meter rates to improve parking availability and increases fines for those violations which contribute to congestion. Recent surveys conducted by 195 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. the Parking Authority staff have demonstrated that there is less than a two percent parking meter rate vacancy in the core of Center City Philadelphia, and turnover rates have dropped dramatically over the last five years. In real life, that means that the odds of finding a parking space near Center City destinations are slim to none. That environment does not help support a vibrant commercial core. Additionally, lower parking meter rates encourage motorists to circle the block in search of that elusive parking space, contributing to increased congestion and increased pollution. It also provides an incentive for people to feed the meter all day rather than parking in an off-street facility. As a result, the most valuable parking for retailers is taken out of the mix in Philadelphia. The Parking Authority is committed to supporting the City's 196 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. proposal to increase the rate to $2 an hour and investing in new technology before moving to the rate to $3 an hour, as permitted under this bill. That new technology, currently in use in the South Street area, will permit flexible rates and time limits and will accept credit cards and dollar bills in addition to coins and Smart Cards, increasing convenience for the customer. In addition, it will allow us to adjust rates and time limits to serve the varying parking demands by time of day or day of week. For example, time limits can be set for two hours to support retail demand during the day and increase it to four hours for restaurant and theatre-goers in the evening. As an additional step to provide additional short-term parking, the Parking Authority will implement a pilot program at our garages at the Gallery and at 2nd and Sansom Streets to reduce short-term parking rates to the 197 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. same level as the on-street meter rates. That will provide another option for shoppers or those who are making short visits. The ticket fine increases are tailored to address the most serious parking violations. They also take into account the penalty for violation should be higher in the most congested areas of the City where they cause the most disruption to other motorists. Therefore, we propose that fines in Center City and University City be higher than those in less congested areas. Without significant fines, we will not deter motorists from parking illegally and we will not create an improved environment for both those who live, work and visit our city. The comprehensive plan to address these issues is an important step towards improving access and management for our scare parking resources. It is designed to be implemented in stages with 198 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. measurable benchmarks, opportunities for feedback and flexibility to adjust as conditions change. The bill to adjust meter rates and some ticket fines is an important element to make the other parts of the plan work. While it is easy to assume that this is just a revenue measure, the reality is that not adequately adjusting these fees and fines has resulted in reduced parking availability and increased congestion.
These changes will create additional revenue for the City and School District. However, more important is the improved economic climate that will be created by increasing parking opportunities, shortening commuting times and reducing pollution and an overall improvement in the quality of life. And as Ms. Cutler said, we are here to answer any questions.
Thank you. 199 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. I have a question in reference to parking enforcement. Here's listed parking at a bus stop. I don't see SEPTA police doing much enforcement, and I understand enforcement of illegally parked vehicles is primarily SEPTA's responsibility. I don't see any system, and I understand talking to some of the SEPTA officers, they never get 9-1-1 calls about vehicles impeding the flow of traffic or parked in a bus stop that would permit the bus from making its turn in one of our Center City streets. And I would appreciate it, since our police are so busy, that the SEPTA police somehow be engaged to do what they're supposed to do, enforce illegal parking in bus stops.
Councilman, the SEPTA Transit Police, as well as SEPTA route supervisors are trained by the 200 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Parking Authority to give tickets, and have that authority to do so. In the districts where -- in the core districts and in the outside business districts where the Parking Authority normally enforces, we do enforce bus zones, trolley zones and all transit stops. We do that hours a day in Center City and 10 we do it on weekends. 11 As how I could engage SEPTA 12 into doing that activity more frequently, 13 I would be glad to contact their Public 14 Relations Office, as well as their 15 General Manager and speak to them about 16 some ideas how we could do that. 17
Add the 18 police chief to that list, SEPTA's police 19 chief. 20
Thank you, 201 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Madam President.
Thank you. Can you tell us what the additional revenues that these increases will generate for the City's current budget and Five-Year Plan?
Okay. Madam President, the Parking Authority works on a little bit of a different fiscal year than the City. We go from April 1st to March 30th. We expect -- we estimate in this current year, which ends March 30th of next year, that we will generate $26,200,000 for the City Fund and $5,541,000 for the School District. We've done some preliminary estimates over the next couple of years and -- excuse me. Did I miss something here? I just went through that. Twenty-six two hundred and 5.5. For further years --
I'm 202 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. sorry. That's 5.5 for the School District?
For this current fiscal year. And then for the estimates for the Parking Authority's next fiscal year, which would be 2010, we would estimate that the City would receive $33,311,000 and the School District would receive $13,164,000. And if we carry that out to 2011 -- and these are very preliminary estimates -- the City would receive approximately $35,984,000 and the School District, $18,724,000. And, Madam President, they are very preliminary predictions.
Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. 203 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. I had an amendment to this bill 5 that I've agreed to hold pending -- I don't support the bill, but I hold the amendments pending the availability of the City to meet with the people in my district, University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University and the Science Center, with regard to the parking issues they complained about. These institutions do not support this. Nobody has ever told us. They told me about students and student blocks who can't afford the increases, and I'm hearing today there's some other issues about students parking and not moving in front of business areas, and information nobody has mentioned before. I've said it each time I've had the opportunity, if we're contacted about these things, we wouldn't have these problems. We work closely with these people. We pass them. We deal with them 204 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. every day. And we don't like to be put in a position where we have to, after we've made agreements with our institutions, to have to change our position. However, if we can have a meeting before next week, because obviously we could be on second reading by then, then I'm willing to hold up posting my amendment. So if I get that commitment, then I will not submit my amendment today. DEPUTY
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. Quick question. I don't know if you can answer 205 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. it, because I didn't give you a heads-up. On part of the district that has the additional fees, that's called the core Center City area -- DEPUTY
Zone 1, okay. There is a part of that area in my district that has a significant residential row home population, not like most of that area that has the high rise and people have off-street parking. To your knowledge -- and I just can't remember -- are there parking meters -- and it's called basically Logan Square community. Are there parking meters within that area? It's essentially from around 20th to 23rd, 24th from, I guess, the --
To my recollection, there's nothing on the side 206 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. streets.
And the residential permit parking, if there are meters within those areas, they are not subject to those regulations? DEPUTY
I just wanted to make sure. I mean, I thought I knew it, but they would have expected me to ask that question.
The only place, Councilman, that there are meters is on the circle.
All right. Okay. Thank you. 207 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
In our first meeting with you, Deputy Mayor, you may recall that we raised this issue and the issue of the Center City District report that talked about traffic congestion. DEPUTY
I'm sorry, Councilman. I can't hear you. Could you speak up.
Usually people don't want to hear me. 208 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. In our first meeting when you were kind enough to come by my office and introduce yourself to me, we raised the issue of increased on-street parking, and so I commend you for looking at that, looking at the Center City District report. And I think some acknowledgment should go to them for the hard work they've done on traffic congestion in this area, in Zone 1, in order to provide some solutions. And also in our meeting, Mr. Fenerty, you and I discussed this. And so obviously I am in favor of it, and I commend you for doing hard work on this. I think this is going to be a great measure to reduce congestion. I just have one question that I didn't understand. Why are we doing this as part of the budget package and rushing it now rather than having different hearings in the actual Committee on Transportation where we could sort of spend more time and look at these issues 209 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. more thoroughly since it really does not impact the City General Fund? DEPUTY
Yes. And, in fact, this bill is not part of the budget package, but for a variety of reasons, all of the fee increase bills went in together. So I'm more than happy to testify in terms of its support. It's not clear that it requires a tremendous amount of additional discussion. I think there are a variety of people that will come next, the Transit First policies, the Complete Streets policies, that I think will be widely applauded by the constituents in the City, but they will be reasonably new for a lot of folks, so I think there will be some opportunities to have some discussions about it. They don't relate to the fee package. So while this isn't part of the City budget fee package, it is certainly a fee increase, and if we're going to do it, we'd prefer to do it the same time the rest of the fees go up, January 1st, 210 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. and we think the providing of an additional almost $5 million to share with the School District makes it useful to move forward with it now.
Are there any other questions of these witnesses? (No response.)
President Verna, if I may just remind the Committee that we've asked for an amendment in order to do this for first reading. Suspension of the rules.
I'm sorry. In my testimony I reference that we're looking for suspension of the rules. My apologies.
211 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. That's all right. Thank you. DEPUTY
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of Nos. 080858 and 080859. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 16 080858, an ordinance amending Title 6 of The Philadelphia Code ("Health Code") by revising permitting provisions and license and permit fees related to asbestos work, under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 080859, an ordinance 23 amending certain Sections of Title ("Air Management Code") and Title ("Health Code") of The Philadelphia Code 212 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. related to license and permit fees and other charges by modifying the amount of such fees, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Thank you. You've been very patient.
Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Certainly. Good afternoon, President Verna and members of the Council. I am Nan Feyler. I'm the Department of Public Health's Chief of Staff. Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony today on our request to adjust the fees for certain licenses, permits and user fees of the Department and to establish two new fees for services we currently provide. Duties of the Department 213 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. related to the portion of our mission to protect and promote the health of all Philadelphians include keeping Philadelphia's air as free as possible from harmful pollutants and maintaining clean and safe environments at food service and other commercial businesses that serve the public. The services of the Department related to air and environmental protection are regulatory in nature, and the real costs of providing these services adjusts frequently as a result of increases in personnel costs and changes in the levels of technological expertise needed to perform them. It follows that the reimbursements for the costs related to the performance of field inspections, tests and reviews of pre-operative plans needed to ultimately bring regulated establishments into compliance must also adjust periodically. The Department recently conducted cost analyses of many of the services we provide, and we have 214 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. concluded that adjustments to certain license, permit and user fees are needed to cover the current costs of providing them. We have also concluded that new service fees are needed to be established to cover the rising costs of providing services in two areas. Fees that would need to be increased to cover the actual FY08 costs of providing the respective services include those for the pre-operative plan review of certain classes of permanent food vending and special event food vending operations, the initial annual inspections of commercial swimming pools, certain air pollution control licenses and certain asbestos removal permits. Establishing a new fee for minor removal permits for small to moderate quantities of asbestos and an additional fee for any asbestos permit that uses an alternate method of removal would also be needed to cover the increasing costs to the Department in these two areas. A listing 215 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. of the existing and proposed Department license permit and user fees is attached, included in your notebook, I believe. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today and for your consideration of these two important bills that will authorize the Department of Public Health to adjust its user fees to a level commensurate with the real costs of providing the respective services. I respectfully request that Bill Nos. 080858 and 080859 be reported out of Committee and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow first reading at the next session of Council. This concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
Thank you. I just have a couple questions. The fees relating to installation permits for boilers, incinerators, crematories, tar and 216 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. asphalt kettles, et cetera, are to be increased substantially.
In some cases, the increase is over 200 percent. Can you tell us why there is such a request? It's a rather large increase.
Yes, they are large increases, and in order to make this recommendation, we not only looked at our costs but also other cities. And while I wasn't here at the time, my understanding is that the fees the last time they were increased were considered sort of artificially low to not cover all the costs. So that at this point, we're looking to capture the costs and be in line with other cities. These are relatively few -- there's about between 30 a year of the boiler permit inspections, and 100 is the maximum of the chemical processing and others. So we felt that in light of 217 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. these being commercial permits, that we were capturing our costs and we felt were fair in light of other cities.
Thank you. Can you tell us what are the additional revenues that these increases will generate for the City's current budget and the Five-Year Plan?
Yes. For the current budget or a six-month -- well, basically each year, assuming that these requests continue to be made, people continue to have special events at our current rate, we expect a total of 231,775 new dollars, of which the Department of Public Health would receive 57,925, primarily the permitting fees, and that the Department of License and Inspections would receive 173,850. And that's for a year.
Immediately. We 218 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. also would be looking at, I believe, January 1st.
Should that be specified for the bill? I don't think it's specified.
Yeah, it probably 219 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. should be.
I can follow up. I don't know the next steps, but we'll make sure it is.
So you're going to amend it at the public meeting. Do we have any questions of this witness? (No response.)
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone to testify on these bills? (No response.)
Seeing no one, that will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our 220 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco regarding Bill No. 4 080853.
Madam President, I offer an amendment for Bill 7 080853. It has been circulated. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Madam President, I move that Bill 080853 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the 221 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. rules of Council be suspended so this bill can be read at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 8 080853 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
-- and the motion carries. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilwoman Blackwell, you're voting no?
I'm 222 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. voting no. 3
Oh. Roll call. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
I would like to vote aye and have all of -- 223 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
I'm sorry. You wanted to be recognized before the vote.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to be recorded as voting aye on this bill and any other bill that may come before the Committee today and ask your leave. I would like the record to reflect that these votes are because obviously we have to do the financially responsible thing for the City of Philadelphia on these revenue enhancement measures, and I trust that as the Administration has indicated today, the information we have requested will be forthcoming by the end of this week.
Leave will be granted. We will do a roll call, but 224 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. before I forget, I would like my colleagues to be informed of very sad news, that Carol Ann Campbell passed away this afternoon. When we get whatever arrangements are made, I'll be more than happy to let you all know. Thank you. Can I have roll call on Bill 10 No. 080853, please. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Greenlee.
Aye. 225 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Miller.
No. 14 MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Sanchez. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Tasco.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: The ayes are 13 and the no's are three.
Thank 226 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. you. The Chair now recognizes Councilwoman Tasco regarding Bill No. 5 080854.
Madam President, I move that the amendment to Bill 080854 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment circulated earlier be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. And, again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Madam President, I move that Bill 080854 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a 227 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so this bill can be heard at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 8 080854 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. We will now consider Bill No. 21 080855.
Madam President, I move that Bill 080855 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the 228 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. rules of Council be suspended so that this bill can be read at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 8 080855 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. We will now consider Bill No. 21 080856.
Madam President, I move that Bill 080856 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the 229 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. rules of Council be suspended so that this bill can be read at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 8 080856 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The record will reflect that Councilwoman 230 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Blackwell and Councilman Jones voted nay. All other members have voted in the affirmative. We will now consider Bill No. 6 080858. MR. McPHERSON: 57.
Madam President, I move that Bill 080857 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended --
I move that Bill 080858 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so that this bill can be read 231 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 080858 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The record again will reflect that Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilman Jones voted nay. All other Councilmembers voted in the affirmative. Therefore, the motion carries. We will now consider the final bill, 080859.
Madam 232 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. President, I move that Bill 080859 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so that this bill may be read at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 11 080859 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Now, 233 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. I was kind enough to ask.
The record will reflect that Councilmembers Blackwell and Jones voted nay on Bill No. 8 080859. All other members voted in the affirmative. Therefore, the motion carries. Thank you all very much. (Committee of the Whole adjourned at 4:40 p.m.) - - - 234 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 19, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)