Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KELLY: I would just like to know -- and I remember this from last year -- that, in testifying, I don't know if it was the Commissioner or someone from the Law Department, and it has to do with licensing fees. Do you know if it is still, I guess, an area that companies, billboard companies, pay licensing fees on a voluntary basis?
They were paying on a voluntary basis. The ordinance that was adopted, among other things, included a new fee. Some of them may be paying the new fee at this point, I'm not sure. But, that is part of the litigation that's being contested.
I am sorry. I was just wondering. The word "suits" was pluralized. There is more than one suit? How about the tax that we imposed last year; has the city been able to collect the tax? Or has that, because of the lawsuit, 116 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 been uncollectible?
It is actually both, Madam President. Some of the companies have been paying tax on a monthly basis; however that is part of what's being contested in the lawsuit, as well. Or in one of the lawsuits, at least.
Mr. Ross, are all companies paying it or just some companies paying the tax on this?
I'm not sure. I don't think every company is necessarily paying it at this point, but I don't know for sure.
Do we know which ones are paying and which ones aren't?
I am told that $770,000 in taxes has been paid to Revenue.
Councilman, are you finished? I have a couple other questions. Are you finished with that one 117 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 line of questioning?
Did I just hear something that you brought up, I think, almost a year ago, about the voluntary payment? Did I just hear we are still collecting these voluntarily?
Well, because the license fee issue is being contested legally, I don't believe that the companies are all paying the fee that was just most recently imposed in the 118 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 current ordinance, you know, until that gets resolved.
Because I remember President Verna was really the one who brought this to all of our attention. And I am amazed. So I would assume just the fact that there is a lawsuit stops our process?
In the past it was a voluntary payment because the law expired and it wasn't getting renewed. And last year, when Council passed it, it no longer was a voluntary payment. But then they filed a lawsuit. And, as Mr. Ross just said, until that's resolved, not all are paying the fee. But, it is not a voluntary fee any longer.
Refresh my memory. What was the amount of the fee that had to be paid? I know it depended on whether it was a single or --
The current ordinance calls for -- the old law required 119 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 $175 per sign face. And, as you know, a pole may have more than one face. And the current law calls for $650 a sign face that was passed last year in Council.
Yes, there was a tax. And that's the number I gave you, the $770,000.
Included what was collected in Revenue for signs. And that's all I know. I was just told that. It is not in our budget; it is in Revenue's budget. We have collected this year in licenses 35,000, last year it was 85,000.
Wait a minute. We are collecting less this year than we did last year? 120 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
Are we going to be able to go back and collect those fines after this suit is settled one way or the other?
Yes. In accordance with the resolution of the suit, depending on the outcome, yes.
When were these suits filed and what is the status at this time?
I do not know exactly when they were filed. I know it was a number of months ago. I don't remember the exact date. It was toward the -- it was toward the latter half of 2005. And the current status is that they are still pending in court, pending either decision by the court or resolution among the parties.
I know that we 121 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 took a great deal of time last year on this topic. And I believe, if my memory serves me, L & I had done an aerial photo shot of all of the billboards. And they were supposed to ascertain whether in fact there were permits that had been issued for those billboards that -- wherever the location was; and, B, if they were illegal, the owner would be notified. And then they also had talked about the possibility of, if in fact -- and correct me, because I remember this clearly -- we had suggested that maybe wherever the billboard was erected, should the owner of that ground be paying property taxes on it. Were any of those questions ever resolved?
We worked -- what we were talking about last year was that PennDOT commissioned a study of all the signs along the state highways within, I believe, 150 feet of both sides of the state highways. And they had an engineering firm out 122 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 there that we worked with, feeding information. They would go out, assess the address, and we were giving them copies of the zoning files so they could determine what was in fact legal. As part of the new ordinance, it calls for the sign companies to give us an inventory of the signs; the location, and the signs they own. And they have not given us that inventory as of yet. When we receive that inventory --
Yes. And, also, there was regulations that we recently had to issue to enforce -- to interpret parts of the ordinance. And they were just -- I believe it became effective March 8. Either voluntarily, if they either comply or per the agreement that's reached by the settlement in the law case, they will give us the inventory. We are going to share that inventory 123 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 with PennDOT. PennDOT has told me that we will get back the database that they have created. They will filter in the information from the sign companies, and then we will be able to run a comparison so we can do the necessary steps to enforce the location of the signs and the legality of the signs. As far as enforcement efforts with eight-sheets, which were, I believe, talked about last year -- I believe there's 900 of them, approximately, in the city. We have, instead of just -- we have been dealing with the Law Department with the company that owns the eight-sheets, who has told us that they wanted to try to reach an agreement with us so they could voluntarily take them down over a period of time. We have decided to also notify the owners of the build the eight-sheets are on, on the sides of the walls. And we -- because of that effort, the owners have completed the removal of about 40 signs from eight-sheet signs. 124 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
Can I make one more correction on something I said earlier?
The Revenue Department, through February, has collected $1,062,000 in revenues through February regarding signs.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
I have a point of information, it is relevant to Commissioner Solvibile's testimony. But could I indulge you to allow me to introduce a visiting class?
That's why I am recognizing you. Because I am not finished with my questioning. 125 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
We would like to welcome a group of students from Temple University who all want to follow in Mike Dunn's footsteps as a radio journalist. And, class, could you all stand up.
They are from Temple University. Don't forget me, now, if you cover City Hall. Madam President, could I ask Commissioner Solvibile a question? Why that money wasn't put into an escrow account? Rather, the Law Department --
Excuse me. I would just like to welcome the students and to let you know what we are doing. We are in the midst of our budget hearings. And presently we are hearing from the Department of Licenses and Inspections. 126 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 So that you are not in the dark, you will know what we're discussing. All right, Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. And Dick Sheeran is a person that, obviously, had a lot of years here.
So are you correcting the record; that we, in fact, did receive the revenues?
I am told that the revenue department has collected $1,062,000 in taxes. That's the tax money, not the sign licensing.
Why can't we put it in an escrow account? Did the court specifically say or did the lawsuit specifically say that we weren't allowed to collect the revenue?
No, there is nothing preventing us from collecting it. 127 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
Does anybody know what the revenue should be? Well, wait a minute. No, that's not the number. That's tax. I am talking about the licenses. We're not collecting that, according to the Commissioner. That was what the point was a year ago that President Verna brought to our attention, that we weren't collecting it. And the lawsuit, couldn't we have structured our response, or the court's, couldn't they structure it that maybe they don't have to pay, but it should go into an escrow account, at least?
I believe when the lawsuit is settled, one way or the other, we will get the money due us. Whatever the settlement calls for, we will then receive. I'm confident of that at that point. That's the only explanation I can give you, Councilman. 128 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
You are welcome. I don't want to belabor this issue. But if L & I discovers that a billboard is illegal, this pending lawsuit does not prevent them from removing that billboard, does it?
And if it does not, my question is, how many illegal billboards have we removed? And if we haven't removed any, my question then is, why not. Why would we have them up there? They are illegal, and we are just ignoring it.
We are still working with PennDOT and waiting for the list.
You told us that last year. 129 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
Billboards. We are talking about all kinds of billboards.
The eight-sheets are clearly illegal, there is no question about that. I think the eight-sheets are clearly illegal. The billboards, there may be some discussion as to whether or not they are legal, they are grandfathered, or not. But the eight-sheets on the wall with the malt liquor and the alcohol and all the other stuff, they are clearly illegal. There is no dispute. And I was listening downstairs. How long was the process of negotiating with these illegal people? And we have removed 40 of them?
The owners have voluntarily, that owned the buildings, removed 40 of them.
How many are there? You said there were 800? 130 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
800. And the owners removed 40. And how many years have we been debating or negotiating with the illegal owners?
Eight-sheets came onto my radar last year for the first time.
So at least a year you have been dealing with it, and probably the department has been dealing with it more.
I have asked this before. I understand the large billboard issue. There is some dispute of ownership, grandfather, big companies. I understand this. We are talking clearly illegal eight-sheets that advertise alcohol in minority neighborhoods. Okay? Mostly 131 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 minority neighborhoods. And we can't just go up with ladders and take them down? I would get a contractor, hire people from the neighborhood, and let them make a day's wages by cleaning up their own neighborhood. To me it is bizarre that we sit with the Law Department and we figure out how we can negotiate with people that are clearly breaking the law. Go get ladders and screw guns and take them off the walls and throw them in the incinerator or wherever we put them, in the landfill. They are illegal. Why are we negotiating? This may not be for you, but for the Law Department. Why are we negotiating it? They are all illegal.
And if you decide not to do it, then you will just get away with it. 132 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
In the meantime, the advertising, which is offensive to everybody, and dangerous to the kids, stays up there while we negotiate with these guys who put them up illegally in the first place. I don't get it. I think the eight-sheets are more insidious and dangerous for the neighborhood than the billboard for the casino on the Walt Whitman Bridge, frankly. I mean, that doesn't even bother me. But those eight-sheets advertising malt liquor and vodka and whatever else they advertise, in neighborhoods where kids are talking to school, we are going to sit down for a year or more and negotiate by people that are illegal anyway? Buy some ladders at Home Depot, get some screw guns, and start taking them down. I don't imagine a judge is going to tell you to stop. And I know you can't do it. Commissioner, I apologize. Because this is 15 years of frustration with the Law Department and the departments who service people saying, 133 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 do you know what, we really need to take it easy here, and we can't offend anybody. What's more offensive than a Vodka ad across the street from a school? Unscrew them, throw them in the trash truck, and take them away. And don't worry what the Law Department says, for once. I am sorry. I apologize. Because this is, you know, this question -- how long have we talked about this? We talk about this every time they come here, and we are still negotiating it. Sorry. I apologize.
I don't think you should be the one apologizing. I think this is crazy.
It is year after year that we have the same discussion. Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to follow up on 134 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 Councilman Kenney. He just Chaired a meeting with Law and Government Committee, I think, the other day. And it is very, very frustrating. I know where he is coming from. I know Commissioner Verdi was there. And we showed slides of West Philadelphia with the stop-and-goes, and it was absolute disgrace. They had signs all over the place. And I know Deputy Commissioner was there. And we were just imploring that something has to be done. I am sure that 99.9 percent of all of those boards were illegal. And I think the Councilman is right when he is saying that, you know, we should stop talking and just do it. Just go out there and remove them. I think they are a blight on the community. And we had community leaders in there, they are almost crying for us to do something. And I think it is very, very frustrating. And I think I know where the Councilman is coming from. And I think all of 135 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 us want to see something done, especially in those communities. Because it is just rips them apart, and it is just a blight on those neighborhoods. Thank you. I just had to get that off my chest.
Can we have some commitment here as to what's going to be done? And I beg you, do not make a vain commitment.
I would venture an estimate that, by this time next year, if not sooner, within the next several months, that the eight-sheets will no longer be an issue, as they will be removed.
There's approximately a little bit more than 700 left now. I said 40 were removed; it is, like, 66 have been removed. And the rest, that would leave about 720 left to be removed. And, as the Councilman said, the majority of them in African-American neighborhoods. 136 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 And within the next several months, I would envision the signs will all be removed.
Can we have from the Law Department a summary of what the lawsuits are, please? Can we get a copy from your office? We want a summary as to what the lawsuits are.
Okay. On of your detail, you are requesting $152,225 for concourse reconfiguration. Can you tell us, what are your plans, who will do the work, and how will they be selected?
At the present time we are working with the BIA, Building Industry Association. And they have volunteered an architect to come and look at our work-flow process in the concourse and help us to 137 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 envision how it should be laid out so it would better serve the public. And then we haven't envisioned who would do it. We would have to, under the new ordinance or law, RFP and select that way under the new regulations, is the way it would be done, if not a bid. We haven't thought how it will actually be bid. We are right now working to see what the plan should be. I can't hear because of the...
So, basically, we will bid it out and/or RFP it, like appropriate, after we have a plan in place as to how we lay it out. We feel that the work flow could be a lot better than what it is now. And we want it done professionally, so we could have people next to each other that need to interrelate with each other. And that's, 138 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 basically, how we had planned to do it. Whatever the regulations call for, it will be bid that way.
Very well. I have one last question. On of your detail, you are requesting $35 million in NTI funds for FY '07. What is the status of that request? What is that used for? I thought that the balance of the NTI proceeds were practically gone.
Basically, it is going to be the carry-over funds for money not spent this year. And that's why the appropriation is there, so it could be spend next year.
Demolition. The carryon, the unfinished demolitions that aren't in the process yet.
So what would be the total of the demolition for '07? It would be the 35 plus the 8 million? 139 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
I'm not at all positive if all 35 million in the NTI budget would be for demolition. As you know, the money comes into L & I's budget, and then is disbursed to people that draw down from it. So I know that the majority of the money would be spent on demolition, but I don't know that all the 35 million would. It depends on the bid packages, working with the District Council people, that are put out.
All right. I recognize Councilman Clarke. I am going to ask the Law Department to please make sure that we get what we asked for. And, Commissioner, I am hoping that next year this time we do not, do not have to have another debate regarding the billboards.
Whose responsibility is it to take those billboards down? If they don't, can you simply go in and 140 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 do it and charge them for removing it?
I envision that as soon as the court -- and I'm not involved in the negotiations. But, as soon as that's over, the decision will be made, and either they will or we will remove the signs. And that I expect in the next few months. The eight-sheet signs, the neighborhood eight-sheet signs.
Thank you, Madam President. Sorry. It is a little inside joke going on over here.
Commissioner, can you tell me what type of licenses are required for home-improvement contractors? There are a series of licenses that are required?
To do business in 141 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 Philadelphia at all, you need a Business Privilege License. And to be a contractor, to do work that requires a building permit, to, you know, build a house, to rehab a house, you need a contractor's license, in addition to that. The Business Privilege License is a lifetime license, and the contractor's license renews yearly. I believe at $150 a year is the cost of that license. Plus, as a part of that license, they give us a copy of their insurance so -- to ensure that they are insured.
If the contractor's license or their insurance expires, how will we know?
On the sheet that we get, there is a statement that says the insurance company will attempt to notify us of the cancellation. They don't obligate themselves to. If they notify us that the insurance is cancelled, we put a hold or cancel the license, the license holder. 142 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 And as one of the improvements we made this year is, all approved licensed contractors are on our website, you look up to see if the contractor is licensed. We would remove his name.
Yes. We would urge any homeowner, though, any homeowner who is hiring a contractor, to check to see if they are licensed, and also to get a copy of the insurance to protect their own interest.
Let me ask you this: Since we have the technology to list on the website the approved contractors that are licensed, do we also have the ability to require or place the insurance carrier of that company?
We were -- I was having a discussion with my staff yesterday about that. And we're going to look into seeing if we can do it and if we have the ability to 143 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 do that. But that might prove a little bit more difficult to do than just the license holder. The licenses are all in a database. The insurance, we just really check off a block that they are insured, and that allows the license to process.
So we don't really know that they are insured; they are just telling us that they are insured?
We know they are insured. Because, if we don't get their insurance back, we void the license.
Why wouldn't we just require that they list the insurance carrier?
Well, we never -- well, they do list the insurance carrier to us. We get a copy -- I am going to call it a dec sheet. That's the wrong terminology. The declaration page, like you get with your auto insurance, it says what you are insured for and the amounts. We get a copy of that that co-names 144 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 the city as -- not additional insured. But we get it for information purposes, that that contractor is licensed to do contracting work. And then we file that. We have it in our file. We keep a file of it, but we don't add the information to the license database.
But I am saying, if we are requiring -- now you are saying -- first you said that you just checked off a box. But if you are saying they are giving you the specific insurance carrier -- in a separate form?
Why can't we simply require it is attached to the same form or part of the same form so, when you list these licensed contractors, you also list the insurance carrier for that licensed contractor, and then have that as a part of the website information?
I'm not sure the effort that would take on our part, if we 145 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 would have the personnel to be able to get that up all at once.
Over a period of years, there's -- I believe there's -- my gosh, there's -- how many contractors' licenses? Over a hundred thousand contractors licensed.
Well, we started years and years ago. And it just gets added on when contractors come in through the years. But to be able to also put the insurance company's name would be an effort that -- I am not sure how long that would take us to accomplish. It would take a long time.
If you start somewhere, eventually you will get there. If we don't start, we will never get there. 146 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 I understand, in spite of the fact that we have advanced technology, there is a human factor associated with that.
Well, I agree, Councilman. We will look into it going forward, and we will give an answer back to Council. It was also, when it was being discussed yesterday, was in that light. We were wondering if it's -- you know, just to scan the sheet on our website, let people look it up. We are going to look into the technology and how we can get it in, and we will get back to you. It is a good idea. Because the more information we can give the public online, that means the less they have to come into the office.
That's what I am saying. Actually, I am asking these questions because of a report I saw last night on the news that your guys were involved with. And we had a contractor who was doing work, 147 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 actually didn't do the work, got a substantial amount of money from some individuals. And he was licensed; but, he apparently had no 5 insurance, so the individuals had no ability to go after the bond of the contractor. So if we have the technology -- and I am glad to hear that; I didn't know we had the ability to list those licensed contractors -- it would be helpful if you also had the insurance carrier so that individual, if they are savvy enough to go to the website to look for licensed contractors, I'm sure they are savvy enough to also look for the insurance carrier when they make a determination.
I agree. I think it is a worthy effort. Like you say, we have to start somewhere. And maybe if we can start it, we can put it actually where it is all there.
Maybe when we are all retired, we might have it done. But if we never start, we will never get there.
I can't disagree 148 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 with you.
On the issue raised by Councilman Clarke. With regard to the website, what kind of treatment is given to the update and currency of the information on the website as described by Councilman Clarke?
Within a week. If it's -- contractors are added and removed on a weekly basis.
We have been doing that since right after Council testimony last year, it's been up on our website.
We can also give out certain permits on our website now, without coming in the MSB Building.
Sorry? 149 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
We can also give us certain permits on our website also through the internet paying, by credit card, building permits; roofing, decking, things like that.
Thank you, Madam President. One last question. Commissioner, in terms of stucco on a side wall after demolition, are there certain standards associated with a private contractor that they must adhere to? I know we have certain standards internally. We contract with someone to do the work. But if a private citizen demolishes a building and they have to place stucco -- the assumption is they have to put stucco on the adjacent wall, particularly if the property is occupied -- I don't know if it is vacant, if they have to do that -- is there a standard that they have to meet in terms of the stucco, or can they just throw anything on 150 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 there?
Yes. In the last several years, Councilman, we have improved the spec. Not just at the treatment of the party wall, and it is not just stucco that you see. Below grade we have them fill all voids and dash it with cement, and then tar it, two coats of voluminous tar that's water-proof, and then backfill, and then protect the wall, trying not to let bricks hit it so it puts a ding in the protection. Then at the roof level, we used to have the tin that was bent as a barge board. We now have a roofer, the spec states it must be a roofer, place a barge board, professionally looking barge board, at the top. This stops water from getting in at the parapet at the top and the bottom. The stucco requires to be wired and then nailed using aluminum nails and diamond mesh wire. And that's an inspection. That's one inspection during the process. Then a scratch coat -- 151 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
That's good. Are you saying that the inspector inspects the work that's being done by the private entity during the course of the stucco, or do you do it after the fact?
Private and city, it would be the same. The demolition spec is the same. We made the spec the same for private demo and city ordered. And the inspector would need to see the waterproofing in the cellar, the barge board at the top you can see at any point in time, the wire. The wire is an inspection and the scratch coat. The first coat -- you can wire and scratch coat the same day. Then you have to let that sit for hours and come back. It 23 doesn't matter if you come back the next day, 24 but come back after 24 hours and do the finish coat, which is the smooth coat. 152 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
You are saying we have inspectors onsite for all of those?
We are there. We see the wire, we inspect the wire. We inspect the scratch coat. And then we go back for -- yes.
Yes. Most of the stucco being done is being done by the City of Philadelphia through the demolition program.
I understand that. Again, I am asking this question because a person a block away from me stops me one morning and tells me that this guy demolished a property, and he left a hole in the ground. That's the second part of my question, are you required to fill the hole in a particular time period. But he also did patch work, stucco job, and now that person is getting damage to the interior of their property. And now the 153 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 chimney is starting to fall because, apparently, they didn't adequately deal with the party wall associated with the chimney. We sent it in to your office, but I am trying to get a sense of the process on the private side.
The private side, you are required to -- we put the same requirement on the private side as we do on the city.
The difference with the private side is that the city will not stucco a vacant building. We will treat the base and we will treat the top, but we won't stucco the wall until someone takes the permit out to start rehabilitating the property. But on the private side, if it is even vacant, we make them stucco.
Hole in the ground has to be filled. Should be filled in a timely manner.
I would say it should be continuous until you have a level lot. And if not -- I'm not sure, Councilman, I have to get back to you if a regulation is called for private demolition to be fenced. On city-ordered demolitions, as you know, it is now ordered that every job be fenced. But I'm not at all sure about the private sector, if we require that in the code. We will get back to Council President on that.
So you are going to check to see if it has to be fenced.
For private jobs. 155 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06
I need to know how long they are allowed to have a hole in the ground.
I would say a period of time -- every circumstance is different, of course. But I would say anything longer than 30 days is not acceptable.
I rather you give me the specifics, instead of speculating. If you can get them to the Chair.
You are welcome. You know, I just want to remind my colleagues, your name can appear on this board. And, once you ask for a point of information, it is removed. So I just want to remind you to put your light on again, if you want to be recognized, because it is deleted once you ask for a point of information. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, 156 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06 Madam President. Question. How long can a person keep a dumpster in front of a property?
A construction dumpster in the street would be regulated by the Streets Department. And there is rules that they get a license or a permit from the Streets Department and that the dumpster have reflective tape. But it is not something that L & I regulates.
I will check with them, then. Thank you. Madam President, that's all for me.
Thank, you Madam President. I just want to get back. I am a little confused on this, about the billboards. You are saying that you collected $1,062,000 for billboards. Was that for tax or is that licensing fees included? 157 FY '07 OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - 3/15/06