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.)