Because I don't think we -- I don't think we quite understand exactly what you said. Do you mind trying to elaborate a little more clearly on that?
Okay. Maybe I can help if I can go back to the beginning. The 71 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 Pension Reform Act 589 put an offset on any service-connected disability earnings outside of the City of Philadelphia of $1 for every $2 on a police officer's pension and the police officer would be subject to that offset for his entire life. The other AFSCME District Council 47 and 33 are subject to it to age 65 and they're offset is $1 for every $3 of outside income. The Act 111 arbitration of 1996 was awarded -- the FOP was awarded a reduction in the offset from $1 for every $2 to $1 for every $3. So rather than if you make $100 on outside, rather cutting it by $50 you now would -- this bill would reduce it by $33. So it's a decrease in the reduction, and they capped the reduction at age 65. So a police officer no longer would be subject to the reduction on outside earnings after age 65 if this bill is passed. That was the language from the Act 111 arbitration. In addition, there is a separate new section called Hero Exemption where the circumstances of the employee's disability can cause the offset to be taken away. In other words, for instance, if an officer was shot in 72 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 the line of duty and became disabled, that would be a relatively easy decision. That officer would most likely not be subject to the offset. Each case would then become a fingerprint. The Board of Pensions has set up a mechanism now where we review the facts of the disability, the facts of the case that caused the disability, and a decision is made by the Board -- this is as per the arbitration -- to either maintain the offset or grant a hero exemption to the employee based on the facts of his or her individual case, then they would not be subject to the offset at all. There are 85 officers that we will now review their cases, retired officers. We will then review each and every one of those 85 cases, make a hero exemption determination yes or no. And then prospectively each case, each service-connected disability that comes to the Board, if the disability is awarded, the Board would then make an additional decision on whether or not the facts of the case would qualify the officer for a hero exemptions and then he or she would not be subject to the income offset of their disability benefit. 73 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536
Let me try to rephrase my question. I believe that you have testified that this bill implements an arbitration award that dates back to July of '96.
Since this is the case, will the pension fund be making retroactive adjustments to the pensions of those affected by the ordinance? True, false, 50/50, whatever? I still don't quite understand.
The answer to that is possibly each one of the 85 or so service-connected disabilities will be reviewed by the Board and be granted a hero exemption or not. There are presently there are only three employees who are subject who are paying an offset service-connected disabilities, police officers. Their cases will be reviewed first. We've agreed with the FOP to review their cases first after passage of this ordinance. Their cases would -- they're subject to an offset. Let's say their offset is they make 10,000 a year and their offset is $5,000. The facts of their disability will be reviewed. If 74 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 they are granted a hero exemption, then that offset would cease and it would cease retroactive to the date of their disability. If that 5,000 was to be returned to them, the way we would do it would be to work it prospectively on their future pensions or to grant them a increase in their pension, you know, immediately. We haven't worked out that specific detail. We expect that of those 85, there will be several that will qualify for hero exemption. The FOP believes it. It's only a ball park that it will probably be about 30, ball park. And there'd be, obvious, some arguments about some of them that will be in gray areas.
In your testimony you also testified that in addition, this bill institutes a maximum age of 65. What was the maximum age prior to this bill?
Lifetime. It was a lifetime offset on the police officer's service-connected disability benefit if there was outside earnings. So this bill implements the language of the arbitration that caps the offset at age 65. 75 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536
Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. One is on this particular bill the other is somewhat related, but I don't want to mix the two questions so I'll wait until the end for the second one. On this particular bill, maybe I missed the explanation. I thought I heard the President ask why it was -- I guess why it had taken so long for this to type of bill given that there had been this interest arbitration award back in July of '96. If I missed the answer, I apologize, but could you give me a short version of it?
Sure. The original bill also included the firefighters' arbitration that had a different impact on the firefighters' 76 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 contract. The FOP and the firefighters were combined in the previous bill. It implemented pension reform for the firefighters' contract, basically reducing their benefit, but it increased benefits for the Fraternal Order of Police. That bill has not made it through the legislative process and the FOP has -- it's been a bone of contention for a long, long time. They have gone back to arbitrators and there's actually an award, a grievance award in August that asked for a certain process for implementation for their piece of the previous bill. So the Act 111 arbitration for the firefighters in that particular year has never been implemented. This is the Act 111 arbitration for the Fraternal Order of Police. They were previously together; they are now carved out and this is the FOP piece.
So you're saying that back in '96 or '96 going into '97?
In February of 77 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 '97 you tried to combine the interest arbitration award results out of the '96 contract negotiations?
The first time it was postponed. It wasn't a quorum and it was postponed, tabled. And then my information from our Law Department and our counsel was that the Administration some time early in the fall asked for the bill to be held for rhyme or reason.
Yes, sir. And that's the last time the bill ever -- that particular bill was ever close to a hearing, to my understanding.
No, it never had a hearing. 78 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536
Mr. Herkness, it seems like this is a good bill for the FOP from what you've described. It was not so good for the firefighters, but now that you split off, this was the good part that the FOP liked.
I have not heard from the FOP. They're not here today I don't think.
It's unusual when something is good for the FOP or anybody like the FOP for them not to tell us. Is there something we're missing here?
I don't think so. There was FOP representation at the arbitration award, the grievance award in August that set up a process, and the Administration agreed to push 79 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 the FOP piece, create a process to address the retroactive applications and also to present the bill to Council and ask for a hearing. And the City has done that, and I think the FOP is certainly monitoring it. The attorney for the FOP, Mr. Jennings, was at that arbitration and he has been kept abreast of the process and the movement of this part of the Act 111 arbitration. It's only my opinion, I think they're totally satisfied with the progress since it's just about the framework that we laid out we thought was possible in August of this year. We said, Here's what we can do and here's what we will do. And the Board created a subcommittee of which there's the FOP representative from the Board is on that subcommittee.
Serena Tenant (ph.). And that subcommittee is dealing with the process anticipating passage on, okay, how are we going to approach implementation and examining the cases of all of the 85 officers who are presently eligible for the hero exemption if this bill 25 passes. We have sent letters out to them and 80 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 notified them of the bill being presented to Council. If the bill passes, we have asked them to contact us. And so we agreed to do this at the grievance arbitration in August. We have complied. I think the FOP -- my opinion, I believe the FOP is happy with the progress. And my in my experience, if they weren't, there would be people here.
We sent a copy of the proposed ordinance to them. They called us back and had no problem. We did not get a letter of support.
You mentioned that -- the hero exemption, does that come out of 81 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 the language of the '96 award?
So you start with the service-connected pool and we reduce it to whatever the hero exemption would be under this scenario. Can you give me an example of someone who would be service-connected and one who would be a hero exemption and one who would not.
Well, obviously, a gunshot would be one. If someone was injured in other duties as a police officer, possibly a fall, possibly a car accident, arm slammed with, you know, the back door of the patrol wagon and damages, shattered wrists or something like that, they would most likely not qualify for a hero exemption. Obviously, they're the extremes, and as the facts of the case is, they will come toward the middle. There will probably be some controversy. Our law department has told us that a hero exemption decision by the Board is appealable to court to say, you know, they should receive the hero exemption although the 82 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 arbitration does say that the decision will be left up to the Board of Pensions. However, every decision by the Board can be appealable to the Court the Common Pleas.
Is it different or similar set of criteria that would be used for this exemption that's used for the hero scholarship awards for those?
I would defer to Bill. I really don't know the answer to that.
Okay. So someone could get the hero's exemption or the disability but not necessarily be in the hero scholarship pool for educational benefits and things.
Yeah, there's about 85 83 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 this month.
You mentioned that three would be reviewed right away because they are getting the offset.
Why are the 82 not? That's what I'm trying to find out.
They have not reported outside gainful employment on their -- the process is they submit a copy of their 1040 and we go to Line 7A; and if there's gainful employment, they submit W2s and we offset that. They are required to submit them annually and we review that. There's only three or four. I think there's three that are subject to an offset, the service-connected police officers.
So right now the offset is if, let's say, you make 30,000 in their outside job. Their pension is reduced by 15,000 today.
It would be reduced by 10,000 if this passed. 84 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Herkness, on a somewhat unrelated matter, but since you are here and it is a pension issue, the question was raised with me with regard to pension issues and health and welfare benefits and a number of other provisions for when we have a uniformed employee who is killed on the job and everything that's kind of in the package that happens with that individual's family versus what happens in a situation if a non-uniformed employee is killed while on the job. I've experienced that, unfortunately, a couple of years ago. There was a person in the Streets Department, one of my constituents, was killed on the job. Generally, 85 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 the non-uniformed employees, I think, have a relative expectation of a less dangerous work environment than the uniformed employees. I think that's a given, and there is absolutely no 6 complaint or criticism about what the uniformed officers get because of the nature of their jobs. What I would like to ask you to do, and we can have some subsequent conversation, is if you can take a look at and maybe prepare a matrix for the committee of any of the similarities or distinctions between the benefits, whether it's health an welfare or pension hero provisions and the like, in a comparison between a uniformed employee killed on the job versus a non-uniformed employee killed on the job. Whether they fell somewhere, a truck ran into them or whether they were shot while on the job.
I'm really just trying to respond to a constituent who has, unfortunately, experience that level of distress in their family life. And if you could help me with that, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Does the pension laws in Philadelphia or Pennsylvania ever cover any health an welfare benefits? I heard Councilman Nutter's question.
Our benefits in Pennsylvania, the State has health benefits. I think they might connect back to the General Fund. In the City of Philadelphia, there is a civil service reg and negotiated labor agreements that provide health and welfare benefits for retirees. The costs of those benefits are not paid by the pension system, they're paid by the General Fund of the City of Philadelphia. However, the pension system administers the benefit to the extent that we say a member of a labor organization or a labor organization's group is qualified and eligible to receive the benefit, those monies are then forwarded to the individual organization. The employees who are not represented by a labor organization are 87 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 administered by the Board of Pensions an Retirement. The bill for that benefit is paid by the General Fund.
Could you give me an example of this administration by the Pension Board of a -- I didn't get quite the distinction. Somebody not in the union, say, who gets certain kind of -- what kind of benefits would that be?
Well, each one can be different. There's five years. Recent labor organization agreements, there's five years of retirement benefits that are awarded to the employees. I don't know if that was granted to the non-uniformed -- to non-represented employees. The health and welfare benefits are administered by the individual labor organizations on behalf of the retirees. The City of Philadelphia simply forwards the dollars that is negotiated on a per-month, per-employee basis. We administer -- basically, we say the employee is eligible for the benefit, then finance sends the money for that employee on a monthly basis to the labor organization. If the employee is a non-represented employee, then the 88 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 Board of Pensions and Retirement administers that benefit from its offices.
Well, we say you're eligible, we then send you the packets and you make choices with our employees.
The ordinary where the City administers the personnel department sends out the packets?
Is there anything in the law which would prevent a City ordinance 21 providing for payments from the pension fund for health and welfare benefits of any kind? Are you familiar with that?
Yes, I am. That was looked at during the recodification when we 89 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 looked at the two separate ordinances and then they combined them for the old plan and the new plan. I would defer to our tax attorneys at Blank Rome. However, my recollection was that payments for health and welfare benefits and payments for monthly pension annuity should not be commingled in a defined benefit plan.
You shouldn't pay for both of them from the pension fund. And our situation in Philadelphia is that we do not. Although we might handle the paperwork, the General Fund of the City of Philadelphia pays the vendors.
Is this anything that you know of in the law that requires that separation?
My recollection, Councilman, was that it's an IRS code when they were certifying the board or certifying the pension fund as being in compliance with all of the various federal tax and state regulations. And this was done during the same time period 90 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 that we were rewriting the ordinance and making it year-friendly so to speak. But I would defer to them again to review that again and answer specifically. But that's my recollection around the health and welfare because there was a particular request.
Well, we had an outside tax attorney advising the Board and the Law Department when the committee was doing the recodification of the pension ordinance in the years previous to January '99.
Are they still in existence or was that just for that particular purpose?
No, that committee was a committee of pension personnel, City Council personnel, and the Law Department for the purposes of putting the recodification together that disbanded once the legislation was passed in 91 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000536 January of 1999. But we can easily -- the attorney is on retention on what I call a time and material. You know, if we have a tax question that Law wants to farm out, then we call -- the gentleman's name is John Nixon at Blank Rome. We'd be glad to have that reviewed for you again on that particular topic and give the committee an answer on that.
Thank you. Are there any other questions? (No further questions.)
Mr. Herkness, I know this only dates back to 1996, so my question to you is, are you asking for a suspension of the rules on this bill?
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read 92 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000544 the title of Bill No. 000544.
Bill 000544, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by change the zoning designation of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Lancaster Avenue, 56th Street, Haddington Street and 57th Street. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, Director of Project Planning for the City Planning Commission here to testify today on behalf of Bill 000544. In the interest of time, and I'm sure you're all worn out, I'll depart from the testimony and say that I'm here to -- this bill 21 would seek of rezone approximately three acres of land, Lancaster Avenue from Class G Industrial to partly class -- I'm sorry. Partly Class G2 Industrial, partly Class R9 Residential, partly C2 Commercial, a single classification of C3 93 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000544 Commercial, approximately three acres of land between 56th, 57th Street, Haddington Street, the south side of Lancaster Avenue. The purpose of this bill is to allow the owner of the property, Mr. David Groverman, to redevelop this former industrial property as a commercial property. Back earlier this year, the Planning Commission in conjunction with the District Councilperson and the area residents and area businesses did a Lancaster Avenue study, a strategy for corridor revitalization. An important part of that revitalization is the taking of this derelict industrial property -- not derelict, but this former industrial property and turning it into a commercial use. This bill 18 which was introduced by Councilman Nutter would further that aim. The Commission had seen this item a number of times in different venues, streets bills, the Lancaster study. We haven't considered this particular bill. It's on our agenda for tomorrow as a previous policy item, which means there won't be any discussion of it. 94 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000544 The Commission will be asked to approve it in accordance with previous actions of the Commission. That's our my testimony. Mr. Groverman and his attorney are here. I don't know if they have anything they want to say or answer your questions, and I'm available to answer any questions.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lombardo. Let me just put on the record for the Chair and my colleagues, this particular parcel is virtually dead-center to a larger revitalization strategy for Lancaster Avenue. I believe it is critical to the Lancaster Avenue revitalization project. We've had some meetings with the Planning Commission and other community people about it. I fully and overwhelming support this particular bill and look forward to this project getting underway as well as it being the generator for other redevelopment activities on Lancaster Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Lombardo.
Members of the Committee, President Verna, my name is Stephen Pollock. I represent Mr. David Groverman of 95 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000544 Grover Properties. Mr. Groverman's over by the board. I just want to give you a view of the existing warehouse structure that's about 200,000 square foot. What we will be doing is renovating this, tearing down a portion so that after it's done, what you will be facing is a shopping center that will have about 110,000 square feet. We feel it will generate about 100 jobs. We will be keeping about half the structure, so that we will be using this facility. Mr. Groverman has met with the Carol Park community, the Overbrook Farms community, and also the Overbrook Neighborhood Council, and we believe that they have submitted letters to Councilman Nutter to show their support. We had previously come before Council back in 1997 and Council had passed an ordinance, Bill 970399, which I have copies, which allows -- and we will be back again with this one. To square off the property and take a triangular piece of Lancaster Avenue to give us a squared-off property that will give better site lines for Lancaster Avenue as well as provide additional parking space. 96 10/31/00 - RULES - BILL NO. 000544 I do have, just briefly, a location map, a zoning map, and a subject site plan that shows you this triangular piece and a copy of the previous ordinance for Members of Council we could add to the record.
You don't have to get up; someone will pick it up.
Okay. We were delayed in 1997 due to some site conditions that we've finally worked out. That's why we are back now at this time in the process. The site plan that I have refers back to the ordinance that was previously passed that shows the triangular piece. That ordinance will be making its way through, but we are still in negotiations to finalize a water and sewer easement location with the City Water Department and Streets Department.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
This concludes the public hearing. Mr. Lombardo, is there a need for a suspension of the rules? I'm sorry I didn't hear you.
Yes. If we could, it would be fine. We have another companion bill 15 which is still making it's way through --
This concludes the public hearing. - - - 98 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 000397, 000536, 000541, 000544, 000601, 000607, 000708 - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL - - - 99 10/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill 5 000397.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I make a motion that Bill 8 000397 be reported out with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved seconded that Bill No. 000397 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding Bill No. 000536.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000536 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended to allow first reading at our next 100 10/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000536 be referred out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next public meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 000541.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 000541 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000541 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. 101 10/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding Bill No. 000544.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 000544 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000544 be reported out of committee with favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 102 10/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 000601.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill 000601 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended as to allow first reading on the next calendar. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000601 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding Bill No. 000607.
Madam Chair, I 103 10/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING move that Bill No. 000607 be reported out of this committee also a recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended to allow first reading at our next meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000607 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding Bill No. 000608.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000608 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our 104 10/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING next session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 000608 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. This concludes the public meeting of the Committee on Rules. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned at 12:20 p.m.) - - - 105 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of October 31, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 000397, 000536, 000541, 000544, 000601, 000607, 000608 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter