We thank both our officers from Philadelphia's finest for being here. Thank you. 53 BILL NO. 000537
You're badge has a couple of words on it, right? OFFICER BRYANT: Yes.
My daughter asked me yesterday whether I knew what those words were, I didn't have the answer; she does. What are those words? I've got to go home and answer this question. OFFICER BRYANT: The top of our badge says Police Department Philadelphia, that's it.
Is there something else? OFFICER BRYANT: The emblem we have says "Honor, integrity and service." That's maybe what you're thinking about.
Is that on the badge? OFFICER BRYANT: No, it's not on the badge. OFFICER HULMES: There's also latin above and below.
Is it Latin? OFFICER HULMES: I believe so. It's not very clear.
What is the Latin 54 BILL NO. 000537 word, do you know? I'll look at afterwards because my daughter asked me last night. She came home and she said, "If you don't know the words, you have to give me $5." I don't want to give her $5, so I've got to find out what those words are. She knows what they are. (Laughter.)
Officer, go ahead. I'm sorry. OFFICER BRYANT: My name is Paul Bryant, Philadelphia Police Officer, assigned to the K9 Unit. I'm currently one the trainers at the K9 Unit. I was called to talk about the training of these dogs. I've heard that word used several times, "training." The thing we have to remember, these dogs are trained to be vicious. Once they're trained to be vicious, that's it; they stay that way. They don't make good pets. They serve no 21 other purpose.
You cannot retrain them? OFFICER BRYANT: My opinion, I've never seen one retrained to be nice. They continue to be 55 BILL NO. 000537 dog aggressive around other dogs and things of that nature. You heard the young man who was chased. The officer was bit by a dog when he was remaining still. He wasn't running from the dog. That was a dog that was trained to be vicious. He wasn't running. His testimony was he was standing still as he had been taught to do. The dog started to sniff him, and what happened? The dog attacked him. There's an instance where that dog was trained. The dog didn't learn that from nature. That was taught to him by human beings how to be vicious towards other animals and other human beings. When these dogs are trained that way, there's nothing we can do with these dogs. Once that happens, all these cases we're hearing about, these dogs do it. They don't need a human to tell them to do it anymore. They'll just do it. You take a dog, and I guess they call them they retire them from fighting, but what happens when that dog gets loose? He'll attack other dogs out there on the street or other human beings.
You heard Councilman Clarke state about the certain physical 56 BILL NO. 000537 characteristics. Just for the record -- OFFICER BRYANT: What it is, is a German shepherd which the Philadelphia Police Department use has about to 800 pounds of pressure in his 6 mouth. A rottweiler has about a thousand.
How much? OFFICER BRYANT: Six to 800 for a German shepherd. A rottweiler has about a thousand. A pitbull has 1200 or more. So that's what we keep talking about the physical makeup of a pitbull. That's what they're trained for.
How much is a rottweiler again? OFFICER BRYANT: A rottweiler has about a thousand. A pitbull is bout 1200 or more. So that's why we keep using the term "lock on." The dog actually has that much jaw pressure. They'll hold and they'll hold until they can't hold anymore. The way they separate these dogs is they stick a metal bar in the dog's mouth and pry the jaw open. You don't train them to let go or anything like that.
Even after you shot them, they won't -- 57 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER BRYANT: He'll let go once he's dead, Councilman, but during an attack or something like that, you hear people say the dog actually locked his jaw on, what it is is the pressure from the dog's jaw. He's just holding on. When they're fighting, the way they separate these dogs, they take a metal bar and actually stick it in the dog's mouth to separate or open his jaws.
A thousand pounds of pressure or more? OFFICER BRYANT: Yes, sir.
That's incredible OFFICER BRYANT: Yes. Those dogs do a lot of damage.
It can just break bones easily. OFFICER BRYANT: Yes, I think the young man testified his arm was broken by the dog, which happens. And people ask me about them in law enforcement. We did a survey. We couldn't find one use for these dogs in law enforcement, not one.
So you cannot -- in terms of the K9, it's not usable? 58 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER BRYANT: We have rottweilers in other departments, but a pitbull we've never trained.
When you have your K9 person with you, the German shepherd or whatever, if you order him to stop, that dog will stop. OFFICER BRYANT: Yes, absolutely.
But you cannot do the same thing with a pitbull? OFFICER BRYANT: No. 12
He will just keep on attacking? OFFICER BRYANT: Councilman, when they fight these dogs, they just fight until the end or submission when they pry them open. I mean, if you listen to both stories about being attacked, like the officer, the dog just kept biting him, went back bit him again, bit him again. He didn't bite and leave. The young man, they ran by him. That's the only reason they stopped. And if you read most of these attacks, they're an ongoing attack. They're not a quick bite and the dog leaves. They're ongoing where there are multiple injuries from these dogs. 59 BILL NO. 000537
Officer, what I'm hearing from you is that -- and I know people say that you can't ban them, but if there are no other basis for having these dogs other than fighting them, why do we allow these dogs to be a part of our society? OFFICER BRYANT: Some people have them as pets, but the majority of them that are out there are used by people in the drug trade and the crime trade. My opinion. There's some people, as anything else, you'll find nice ones out there. But the majority of the ones that we encounter are used for illegal purposes. And those dogs, they're used for illegal purposes. There's no reason to have one of those dogs, none.
If you get one of these dogs as a little puppy and you treat them nice and treat them as a pet, will he be like other dogs? OFFICER BRYANT: It's a chance that he will.
There's chance he won't? OFFICER BRYANT: There's a chance that 60 BILL NO. 000537 he will. But on the same hand, they have a propensity to be more aggressive. And once it's started, and we're talking the training aspect of it, once people start training that dog for that reason, that's what the dog is for.
That's interesting. Officer, it's frightening. I can tell you that every time I see one of those dogs on the street and I'm walking, I cross the street. I'm scared. Even Nacho scares me at times. But what you just said 1500 pounds of pressure. OFFICER BRYANT: Twelve hundred or more.
That's quite a lot of pressure to be put on. It's very much dangerous. It's very enlightening. I'm learning more about these things in one hour here than I've ever wished to know about it. Thank you. Any other questions?
Thank you, Officer Bryant. 61 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER BRYANT: You're welcome.
Thank you. And I've got to get that latin word before you leave. Randall Hirschhorn. Why don't we have Randall Hirschhorn, Director of Environmental Health; and Erik Hendricks at the same time, the SPCA. (Witnesses come forward.)
Mr. Hirschhorn, please identify yourself for the record.
Randall Hirschhorn, H-I-R-S-C-H-H-O-R-N, Director of Environmental Health Services for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health.
My name is Erik Hendricks, I'm the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania SPCA.
I have copies here of my testimony for the members of the Committee if they would like.
What I have are copies, 62 BILL NO. 000537 I have for the entire Council, of the ordinance 3 from Denver dealing with pitbulls as well as the 4 legal challenges and the results of those legal 5 challenges to the Denver ordinance which I hope 6 everyone will read because I think that's sort of a 7 model ordinance for Philadelphia. 8
I think that's what 9 Councilman Clarke was talking about before. 10
Well, he mentioned 11 Boston. I'm not familiar with a Boston one, but the 12 Denver one not only works well, it's withstood the 13 legal challenge which everybody's afraid of for some 14 reason. I also have copies for the Committee of 15 some numbers of stray dogs and cats taken in last 16 year by our shelter as well as unowned dogs and cats 17 turned in to give you a scope of --
We would like to have that. Mr. Hirschhorn, why don't you begin. And then Mr. Hendricks I'd like to discuss a little bit about the Denver ordinance because we might go that way. Yes, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. 63 BILL NO. 000537 Chairperson and members of the Committee on Public Safety. My name is Randall Hirschhorn, Director of Environmental Health Services. I'm here to testify in favor of Bill No. 000537. The department supports all of the proposed revisions to Chapters 10-100 and 10-600. The addition of Sections 10-101, 105, 603 and 606 prohibiting dog fighting and providing sanctions for those engaging in or allowing dog fighting to occur is an important step toward ending the abuse of animals and protecting people from dogs which are by nature vicious or have been made that way by their owners. Although not specifically mentioned, this bill to eliminate dog fighting will have the added benefit of protecting the innocent tame animals used to train fighting animals to kill or maim their opponents. These dogs and cats are even more victimized than the fighting dogs since, unlike the animals they are used to train, they have not the slightest chance of survival. As a representative of one of the City's agencies involved in animal management and protection of the public, I am very much in favor of the provisions of this bill. Adding to the 64 BILL NO. 000537 sanctions against those engaged in or allowing dog fighting is a good start, but more will be needed. More resources will be needed to control and then eliminate this problem. One suggestion I would like to make is to have any fines collected as a result of violations of this bill or other animal nuisance codes be paid to the Animal Control Fund established by City Council in 1986 in. In this way, those who violate animal protection and management codes would help pay for the animal control expenses now being borne solely by the public. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
I don't have a formal statement, but my general comment on the particular bill that we're discussing today is that it is a step in a right direction, but a real baby step, unfortunately. And I think until the City of Philadelphia and the powers that be, which is you, really address this problem with a seriousness that 65 BILL NO. 000537 it really needs and look at it from the standpoint of --
If you are serious, you wouldn't say "Let's not ban pitbulls."
I don't say let's not ban pitbulls. I just don't have all of the information to just make a blanket statement such as that. I think that's what Councilman Clarke also said. We want to be able -- and I think, yes, this is a step, but it's a step in the direction of a problem that we have seen come about in the City of Philadelphia. And we're a deliberative body. That's what it says, we're a deliberative body. We look at a problem and we have to look at all of the issues that are involved. We are very serious about this problem. In our neighborhoods, especially in the Latino community and other poor communities in this City, this is a huge problem. People who own pitbulls and the drug dealers that reside in different poor neighborhoods across the City, this is the dog of choice that they have attained for the protection of their deals, their dealings that they 66 BILL NO. 000537 have and for threatening the neighborhood that they live in. So we are serious about this. Do not underestimate the seriousness or even question it, the seriousness of this body to be able to deal with this problem. We will take whatever steps are necessary and we deem necessary to be able to deal with it. If going the Denver route is the way that we might be see it, that may be it. But we're serious about this. And what you may look at as a baby step I look as a step in which we have to take in order to reach the definite area where we ought to be.
I think you should address the problem the way you addressed the gun problem a couple years ago where you realized that there was mayhem on the streets of Philadelphia because we had weapons of mass destruction in the hand of Philadelphians and you saw no purpose in having these weapons. You said Let's not try to take away the guns because Constitutional allows citizens to have guns, but let's limit the kinds of guns that are our citizens can have.
Exactly. That's the step we might take, but if you looked at that law, 67 BILL NO. 000537 because I wrote that, we were preempted by the State. I don't want to take any steps -- if we take a step forward, I want to be able to take a step that is going to hold and is not going subject to preemption; because different from other states of the nation and cities, it seems like we have a state legislature that tries to prevent us from self-governing. There is violence going on in our streets, not just from pitbulls. But right now we are almost preempted taking some actions that we deem responsible and needed. So if we're going to take an action on pitbulls or any other danger, I can tell you because I spent seven years trying to deal with that gun issue, five years trying to pass a bill, trying to gather the courage of Councilpeople enough to buck the interest that were against it. And we were successful, but we were not successful at the state level.
You have a parallel situation here, I think. Instead of the NRA behind state legislation that prohibits certain activity by your part, you've got another private organization with three initials, the AKC, the American Kennel Club, which is nothing more than a private dog 68 BILL NO. 000537 registry in New York City, putting in a provision in state law in 1996 that is this prohibition against breeds.
Mr. Hendricks, if know anything about me, you know that if I believe something needs to be done, I don't care who it is, the AKC, the NRA, whatever it is, we take it on.
I hope so. Now, getting back to what I was going to say about this particular --
Thank you very much. Might I also say that my colleague who did fight this gun battle and many of us supported him, all the members at this table who were in Council at that time did. We not only attended hearings here, but he took trips to Harrisburg to try to fight this gun lobby. My question to you, Mr. Hendricks, is we responded to your request to us to try to deal with this issue. As the Chairman has said, we are a 69 BILL NO. 000537 deliberative body. We have to conduct hearings in order to try to do what it is we have to do to understand the issue and to get certainly to formally do what our jobs are. Is the problem that you're frustrated with trying to do your job in enforcement? Is the problem that you have budget issue? Certainly, we reached out to you initially this summer and you were not in town and when you came back, we said we wanted to deal with the issue and enlisted your support. All that we have heard about you has been, for the most part, in the press that you don't want to do the job, that you think the SPCA needs to do other things or maybe it takes too much of your time, maybe it's that you don't think you're getting paid adequately. But obviously, we hear -- I hear the undercurrent in your tone and in your response to this body about what we should do. You know as well as everybody in this room that we can't ban pitbulls, per se, you know that. You knew that when you came here. You've seen it in the press and you have continued to indirectly criticize this Council. 70 BILL NO. 000537 Now, what I'm saying to you is, back up. We're serious about what we do. We're a serious body. We're trying to do the right thing. We are entrusted with the public trust. We want to do something about this issue. Did you think we have a young man years old, Greg, that we don't want to 8 try to make life better for him? He shouldn't be 9 afraid. He should not have been attacked. You've 10 heard the officers testify. We're trying to be part 11 of the solution. 12 But I, for one, resent your attitude that we're not serious, that we're not trying to do the right thing and we're not going about it in the right way in order to help resolve this problem. And I resent the fact that you have a contract with the City and that you would, in fact, come here to criticize this body when we're trying to deal with the issue. So keep that in mind when you testify.
We ask the questions here. This is our hearing. We ask questions and we ask that you keep in mind that we are trying to do the right thing to resolve this 71 BILL NO. 000537 problem. We ask that you do the same because you have a contract with us.
At the moment. The question I'm asking is, what does this ordinance do that is not already done by state law?
Well, apparently, you haven't been listening or don't choose to listen. I made a very long opening statement. I have repeated it several times. You've been in touch with my office, and I'm sure you know. You just choose not to respect this body. And we won't take that from you, Mr. Hendricks, or anyone else who comes before us.
I think this bill -- you're taking this far too personally. I think the bill is redundant based on existing state law that makes animal fighting a felony.
Excuse me, sir. It is clear in all of your responses to the press, I've talked to many stations, I've been interviewed several times about the things that you have said criticizing this legislation. You know we are not the State. You know we're doing what we need to do, but yet you've decided that you don't support it. 72 BILL NO. 000537 That's your right as a private individual, but we're saying to you as a person who has a contract with the City that you have no right to come in here -- and certainly deal with your own personal feelings about this legislation. If you don't want to do the job, that's fine. We don't pay and beg you to do your job, too; we don't do both.
Mr. Hendricks, look, we don't need -- I want to paraphrase George Bush. Let us end the bickering. I don't want bickering on this. I want us to be successful in fighting the powers that be in terms of us being able to do our job and putting forward legislation that would withstand any challenge. That's what I'm interested in. And I don't want to just to go through the process. I want to be able -- if we need to challenge the State, let's challenge the State. I'm not afraid of doing that or the interest that are available and around to protect certain things. But we are going to do something about this. This is a first step. I don't think it's redundant. I think it is very -- it's clarifying and putting into the Philadelphia Code a very specific aspect in terms of dog fighting, and I don't think it's redundant and I 73 BILL NO. 000537 think it serves two purposes: One, it goes directly to the activity of dog fighting. But also it begins -- and as you can see that by the lack of people that are around here, although in a lot of communities this is a big problem, I expected to see more people here to talk about the subject. It also educates people. It begins putting forward the support mechanisms that we need to be able to have laws that are sustainable. So what I seek from you is assistance, and you did some of that by bringing this Denver legislation. And my staff and I and Jannie's staff and I know that the rest of the committees are going to study this. And if we can do the Denver legislation or some reasonable facsimile of it, that's what the next step will be. But we do it a step at a time and with all deliberative speed that we can and we want to do it successfully. If you want to be part of the solution to that and helpful in that endeavor, we welcome that. Just as Mr. Hirschhorn's help we will welcome along the same lines. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown, please.
Good 74 BILL NO. 000537 afternoon, sir. I'm Blondell Reynolds-Brown. I do want to echo Councilman Angel Ortiz's comment that it is helpful to have a sense of what other cities are doing across the nation on issues that we're currently dealing with. Recognizing, however, that we do have limitations, recognizing that, as you say, we're taking a baby step, have there been any conversation, any dialog, with members of the Statehouse or the State Senate on this particular issue by you or --
Have you had an opportunity to discuss this matter with members of the Statehouse or the State Senate since they are in the position to best enact what you would prefer to see, which is a complete ban on pitbulls since really the horse starts there?
If you permit me to say something, what you have here is a state law that usurps the power of local municipalities, but I do not see why the State has put that into the law. 75 BILL NO. 000537 You would think that if they were going to say "You can't ban breeds specifically because we, the State, are going to ban them," that's not what they're saying. There is no purpose for that section of the law other than because some Harrisburg lobbyists got them to put that in. So why can't the City of Philadelphia challenge such a bogus section of the law because the City of Philadelphia does have a very easily proven public health reason for having such a ban.
And we will go that way as we see it. That's why these hearings are being held. These are the first hearings we've had on this issue. We've had discussions. But we need to be able to go where we need to go. We need to be able to have every member of this Council or at least a two-thirds majority of this Council along the same lines so that when we do pass something, we are sure that it's going to be the Philadelphia law. And the way we do that is by getting as much information and data as possible so that every member of this Council understands the law that we're trying to pass. Yes, today we were discussing, you heard 76 BILL NO. 000537 and if you go home this evening, Act 46. The State, again, usurping legislative authority away from us, taking authority away from the City of Philadelphia so that the City of Philadelphia cannot legally manage itself in terms of issues dealing with schools' union and the schools of the City of Philadelphia. We have the gun legislation. We've got to look at where it is we're going to go and how we're going to challenge it. Because if we challenge it, I also want to successful. Okay?
Mr. Chairman, may I also state that had we had our bill in effect that we would not have had to wait for a criminal law to certainly protect young Greg based on our legislation would have provided that the dog be seized temporarily right away and that we would have been able to deal with the dog owner immediately. So our legislation gives us another handle where we don't have to wait for prosecution but we can deal with it immediately. So that might have made a difference even in Greg Fox's case.
Mr. Hendricks, with no disrespect to my colleagues, I personally appreciate you letting us know exactly how you feel because this hearing is to gather information. If you don't think -- if you disagree with what we do, I think that's important to me that we know that you disagree. And again, you deal with this issue every day, and I think this is turning into a very critical situation because I know I had a conversation with you --
Excuse me. I am not questioning disagreements. I want witnesses who come in and disagree. What I questioned was the aspect of Mr. Hendricks saying in essence that this was useless what we were doing.
I heard him say that. And if you want, you can read the record. And 78 BILL NO. 000537 that's what bothers me. I don't mind criticism of legislative attempts. If it is too short or too little, fine. We understand that we're limited. This is not an encompassing legislation that will take care of this problem. We all know that. And we know that there are other steps that need to be taken. What I want is help in ways in which we proceed to be able to take those steps as we go forward and information, information as you gave today. Very helpful. I am appreciative that you brought this Denver legislation. We will look at it. I will look at it. If it is adaptable to our circumstances, we will do it. If we need to challenge Harrisburg, we will do it because we have challenged Harrisburg before and I want to challenge Harrisburg again. We will do it. And I don't care what interests are involved. But when you come to this body, talk to it as if we are trying to deal seriously with a situation. And I got the feeling and he made the statement that we were not serious about the situation; and we are. When you question the seriousness, then that's a problem. That's a problem.
I think that Mr. Hendricks has a real vested interest in this because in a conversation that I had with you, and you might want it for the record rather than media reports, you're to the point where this legislation on banning this breed of dog has gotten to the point where you are about to consider not renewing the contract which would then convert to maybe a million, two million dollars in funds being required to do the same job that the Pennsylvania SPCA does. And again, I think it's so important that we resolve this issue that you've told me that what you're doing now is you're basically killing every pitbull that comes in the door and that's not what you want to do. Are you serious -- again, are you still in a position where you might say you're out of the business?
Does the Health Department -- could you comment, sir, on the 80 BILL NO. 000537 ramification. If the SPCA does not renew this contract, I don't know any other organizations that will be bidding on this. This is not like an abandoned car issue. What I'd like to know, what does this convert to dollars? What would it require the City of Philadelphia, the Health Department to pick up what the SPCA does presently?
Sir, three times in the past ten years I have been asked by my department that very question. It would involve a capital expenditure because right now what the SPCA provides us is a physical building in which to bring in animals. In -- or the last fiscal year that 15 closed out this June 30th, the SPCA processed 46,000 16 animals as a result of the City's contract. So 17 that's a lot of animals. 18
Could you associate a 19 dollar amount with that if inherited and were required to do that? You said it would involve capital expenditure. Could you tell us how much?
Well, we'd have to build a building, that's the first thing, a building that could house enough Kennels to be able to hold 46,000 animals coming through it in the course of a 81 BILL NO. 000537 year. And then there's at veterinary suites that have to be associated with that building, the staffing of a veterinarian for rabies control which the SPCA veterinarians now do for us as part of the contract. Then there are the ambulance trucks that go out not only pick up injured animals, but also bring in the strays that they capture, so we would have to have two, three or four vehicles.
And we're talking also about other than dogs, we're talking -- and I know they just handled some raccoons that needed to be dealt with, so we're talking more than just dogs. We're talking about cats. We're talking raccoons rabbits, snakes, you name it.
Since you've done this so many times, could you update your figures to present dollars?
For us to operate without the physical facility would be over a million dollars.
And then you need the building and all the things that make it work.
If I can give a comparison. New York City it was reported in the papers, I can't verify the accuracy myself, but one of the things I read several weeks ago is that New York City, for example, had processed 60,000 dogs on behalf of their contract and they were getting $8.5 million.
According to what the press reported. Now, I can't attest to that accuracy myself --
I can say that that sounds like a reasonable figure considering the five 83 BILL NO. 000537 boroughs and the present shelter system that they have.
I did not hear your answer, but just let me remind you that you are not powerless. There is some value in you or your board, whatever your organizational structure is, to state your case as well with those at the state level since they are the frontline folk who can act or amend the current state law.
But we -- even if we would get them to change that part of the state law, we then cannot be the body that puts in the City ordinance. That's what I'm saying. We can sit there and watch what happens. We really don't have political clout. One of the reasons I think the City of Philadelphia will be better served by it doing its own animal control as all other big cities do is, number 1, they would really see the scope of the problem. I don't think the City of Philadelphia officials realize this. Nobody alive today was around the last time the City of Philadelphia had it 84 BILL NO. 000537 its on animal control department. Many, many decades ago, maybe 60 years. That's number 1. Once you understand the scope of a problem, then I think you would really put the animal control and pitbulls specifically high up in the priority list because I don't think it's even on the list now, much less have a low priority. I think it's just not even regarded. It's just recently that you've taken an interest in it, but it's been a problem for quite a while. And I think if you had to do the work, you would then understand how important it is and how many lives of Philadelphians it affects every single day. I look at our work over the last years as 15 being something like an enabler who allows the 16 alcoholic to keep going year after year because they 17 refuse to really do what has to be done. That's the 18 way I think the SPCA has been used almost. 19
Let me tell you 20 something. I am not disingenuous about the scope of 21 the problem. I think the scope of the problem is 22 huge, as you just stated. I'm interested right now in finding a solution to it. And I think this is the beginning of that trek. So I don't think any one of us remember those remember those days. I 85 BILL NO. 000537 don't think anyone was alive when those days were around, but I don't think we want to go back to those days. Whatever it is, the solution that needs to be done, I think this Committee and the people that you see around here are committed to finding it. I think Councilman Clarke knows what the problem is in his district. I think Jannie Blackwell knows what the problem is in her district. I think Donna Miller knows what the problem is in her district, and so on down the line. I do not, I do not fool myself that we're disingenuous about what is going on right now. I think we absolutely know what the scope of problem is. What we're trying to do is find the right solution to it, one that available and doable for us to be able to do it to get on with it. So any help you can give us on those issues will be deeply appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I do have to leave the Chambers, but I would like to be recorded --
Could you wait a few seconds. I think we are almost finished with the meeting and I want to do the amendment and then get a vote. 86 BILL NO. 000537
I'd like to follow-up. Mr. Hendricks, you said something very significant a minute ago, that -- and I'm going to appeal to you. You indicated that next week -- and if I'm not accurate, please correct me. You said something that next week you may be recommending to your board or to whoever you report to that you do not want to renew the contract with the City of Philadelphia; is that correct?
Would you please consider -- would you reconsider that until we have an opportunity to work a little further, because I could see a very serious --
I'm always open to every suggestion, but, as I said, I don't see how the City is really going to react to this problem the way it should be addressed unless they see the scope of it and the seriousness of the problem and I don't think they'll ever see it as long as they can send every complaint to us and just put it aside and not even give it a second thought. And that's what's been happening for decades.
Mr. Hendricks, could 87 BILL NO. 000537 you please describe if you make this recommendation to your board will they immediately -- what is the process? Will it take them some time to approve your recommendation? What will occur; and is that reversible? Or next week are we without, after next June, I believe --
The end of next June is the end of the current contract. I'm not going to say we're going to say so long it's been nice to know you. I'm suggesting that if we decide not to renew the contract that we do whatever we can to assist the City in the transition to whoever is going to do the animal control and it would not necessarily occur on July 1, 2001. It might occur a year later or might occur at some point between then and some relatively near point in the future. So if this decision is made by us next week, that would give you anywhere from eight months to, say, 20 months to come up with an alternative to our doing it.
Other than the City of Philadelphia -- and I guess I shouldn't be asking you this, but we're here to learn. Is there an alternative, if you do not want to renegotiate this 88 BILL NO. 000537 contract, is there an alternative other than the Health Department taking back this process?
I don't see any other agency at present, a private agency doing it. Nobody else has the size building you need to house the animals, but that doesn't mean somebody couldn't decide to start their own private business if they wanted to and you could have a contract with somebody who is doing it for profit.
This isn't a good business for a pet store to start. I can tell you that.
No. And I don't see anything on the horizon other than the City itself building the facility and staffing ther building and the vehicles.
What percentage of your budget is the City's contract?
We're a state-wide organization, and right now our budget is about 6.8 million. 89 BILL NO. 000537
For the City of Philadelphia? What percentage of your contract is the City's --
It's all. The only contract we have is with the City of Philadelphia. It has nothing to do with our other operations. So it's 790,000 out of a $6.8 million budget. So you no longer exist in Philadelphia --
That's what I'm asking you. What percentage of your budget in Philadelphia -- I'm assuming that there's a budget related to the City of Philadelphia.
I'd make a guess right now. But I would say most of our expenses are in this area, so I would say out Philadelphia area budget is approximately 4.5 to $5 million.
There's an amendment to 000537. Could the clerk read the amendment, please. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming.
The proposed amendment to Bill No. 000537, the first amendment in Section 1 of the bill, amend the definition of dog fighting in Section 10-101(2) as follows: Dog fighting. Engaging in physical violence with another dog or animal. Striking "shall include any description of provoking a ... or dogs to engage." Number 2, delete Sections 2 through 6 of the bill in its entirety. Third amendment, add a new Section 2 that reads as follows: Section 2, Chapter 10-100 of the Philadelphia Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Dog fighting. Section 10-104.1. (1) no 23 person shall intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently allow a dog to engage in dog fighting on public or private property. 91 BILL NO. 000537 (2) No owner of private property shall be allowed to use their real estate for the purposes of dog fighting. (3) The penalty for violation of this section shall be a fine of $300 per violation. (4) The amount required to be remitted in response to a notice of violation issued pursuant to Section 1-112 of the Code to enforce this section 10 is $150. (5) If it is determined by a police officer or an animal control officer that a dog has engaged in dog fighting, the dog shall be temporarily seized and examined by the appropriate agency for injuries, and to ascertain whether the dog has rabies and/or is licensed. The dog shall be immediately returned to the owner upon showing of a license and verification of rabies vaccination. Number 4, renumber Section 7 as Section 3.
Do I hear a motion for the acceptance of the amendment?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the amendments offered Bill No. 000536 be moved. 92 BILL NO. 000537 (Duly seconded.)
The bill has been amended. - - - 93 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Thursday, October 19, 2000 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Safety, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 000537 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ, Chairman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - 94 P R O C E E D I N G S
Now we move to our meeting of the public safety Committee on Bill 4 000537. Do I hear a motion on Bill 000537, as amended, Councilman Clarke?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that Bill 000537, as amended, be reported out favorably of the Committee of Public Safety with a request for suspension of the Rules as to be read on the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Bill 000537, as amended, has been moved with a suspension of the rule. All those in favor, say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing no nays Bill 21 000537 will be reported out of the Public Safety Committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to have first reading in the next session of City Council. 95 PUBLIC MEETING This session of the Public Safety Committee stands adjourned. (Adjourned at 3:55 p.m.) 96 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of October 19, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public