Committee Hearing, December 3, 1999

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, December 3, 1999 10:15 a.m. - - - RESOLUTION NO. 990615 - Authorizing the City Council Committee's on Public Safety to hold a public hearing to investigate the possibility of changing the existing procurement process for salvers that pick up abandoned automobiles to a procurement process that creates a request-for-proposal system for each police district. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRYL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 I N D E X Police Commissioner John Timoney . . . . . . . 5 John Gallgher, Special Advisor . . . . . . . . 34 to Police Commissioner Timoney 6 State Senator Shirley Kitchen. . . . . . . . . 42 7 Third Senatorial District 8 State Representative Dwight Evans. . . . . . . 42 203rd Legislative District 9 Stephanie Franklin-Suber, Esquire. . . . . . . 79 10 Philadelphia City Solicitor Louis Applebaum, Procurement Commissioner. . . 86 Commissioner Lawrence Moy, Streets Department 92 Father John Halloran, Pastor . . . . . . . . . 109 Incarnation Church, Olney Janet Torres, EPOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Carmen Maria Lebron, EPOP. . . . . . . . . . . 109 Helen Brown, Community Organizer . . . . . . . 109 Project H.O.M.E. Vicki Thompson, EPOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 George Groves, City Salver . . . . . . . . . . 134 Ruth Birchett, President, Founder Heritage . . 142 Community Economic Development Corporation Maria Dirkson, Committee Person. . . . . . . . 150 North Philadelphia 3 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 P R O C E E D I N G S

Could all members of the Public Safety Committee come to the chambers; we're ready to begin. Please make it down to Council chambers. - - -

Good morning. The meeting of the Public Safety Committee is opening. We have present in the audience today State Senator Shirley Kitchen, State Representative Dwight Evans, Commissioner John Timoney, and other individuals from different groups that are ready to testify. Will the clerk please read the title of the resolution, please.

A resolution authorizing the City Council Committee's on Public Safety to hold a public hearing to investigate the possibility of changing the existing procurement process for salvers that pick up abandoned automobiles to a procurement process that creates a request-for-proposal system for each police district.

And that's 4 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 resolution the 90615. Abandoned cars have been one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problems that each and every one of our offices faces. It seems that the abandoned cars in Philadelphia breed. It seems that they have a mating season. And in certain neighborhoods of our city, these cars breed much faster than in other neighborhoods. If you go through Kensington, if you go through North Philadelphia, you will always see abandoned cars. And if you remove them and if you remove them today, they seem to appear as if by magic the next day. They seem to be replaced. And they seem to have countless and countless of numbers. Sometimes I believe that either we have people transporting cars into the City of Philadelphia, or that we have cars that magically reproduce themselves. And, obviously, we need a plan. During the spring, we had hearings on abandoned cars in this Council. We asked the Commissioner then to develop a plan to bring forward how is it that we are going to move forward with this blight that affects the quality 5 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 of life in our neighborhoods. Obviously, it is one of the biggest problems that we have. I know crime and drugs are present every day, but there is no bigger source of complaint in my office -- and I know there's no 7 bigger source of complaint in any other district person's office -- than abandoned cars. I have gone to Dwight's district, and the issue that came up during the summer was abandoned cars. It wasn't about criminals; it was about abandoned cars. We need, obviously, to do something about this. The Commissioner, I know, has a plan. I believe the Police Department probably are not the office or the department to begin taking care of this. Dwight Evans and other individuals in the House and in the Senate are prepared to put forth a package to deal with this to give certain tools to the City of Philadelphia to be able to manage, and we welcome that help. So today, working on the Councilman's -- my colleague, my new colleague's -- resolution, we will be investigating and looking for solutions, because we know the problem, we 6 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 know the problem, and what we want to go forward on is what the solutions are. Darryl? Councilman Darryl Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, this is a problem that is ever-increasing. This morning on my way to work, I had the pleasure of riding down 33rd Street, as I do every day, and there were 10 abandoned vehicles in a 2-block area. And it's gotten to the point that enough is enough. During the last several months, members of this Council have been looking at different ways to alleviate this problem. We've been talking to residents throughout the community about these issues. And I was, frankly speaking, very happy to see that this past week, the Mayor, Commissioner Timoney, Representative Evans, State Senator Fumo, some members of this Council -- I believe Councilman DiCicco, Mariano, and Kenny had a press conference to talk about a number of issues a number of programs that they felt would alleviate this problem. 7 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 There were probably touched on base with everything, with the exception of two of the issues that we felt needed to be put as a part of this package to resolve this issue. And one of them was this process of RFPing to make sure that we had a specific entity designated and obligated to remove these vehicles. And I think that the other issue had something to do with the cost or the amount of money that was -- the cap that was put on the vehicles that were listed as junkers. I believe this current cost is 250. And my understanding, from talking to a number of police officers who actually provide that service, that they feel that if that cap was raised up to approximately 750 to $1,000, it would give them an opportunity to designate probably 95 percent of those vehicles junkers; therefore, being able to queue them and sell them as salvage. So today, one of the things, as the Chairman, Angel Ortiz, indicated, we would like to get to some resolution. We would like to, hopefully, today have this be the final piece of the puzzle, put this together. Then when we reconvene after the end of this session, we would 8 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 like to have an extremely comprehensive program so when we traverse the streets during the spring of this year, that will not be an issue in our communities. And I see some of the residents from some of the areas that I represent, and I want to thank you all. I understand we have some representatives from both the east and west of Broad, where this is an extremely difficult problem. So today, we will be hearing testimony. I think the majority of it will be probably information talking about the horrors of this abandoned-vehicle situation, but we would like to leave here today with some resolution to this issue. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Clarke. Like Councilman Clarke said, we know the problem. I have seen people come in here during the last hearing we had in the spring. We had a lady come in with pictures of a car with Christmas trees in it, Christmas trees. And it 9 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 was not from just one Christmas; it had been there for like two Christmases. So we know what the problem is. What we want is -- the system we have, obviously, is not working. And what is it that we need to do to begin resolving this issue? Does it need to be put in another department other than the police? Does it need to go to Sanitation, does it need to go to the Managing Director's Office? And from the State Representatives that are here, what is the significance of their legislation to us here in the city, and what are the tools that they bring to this City Council to be able -- and this city government to be able to take care of this problem. Commissioner Timoney, can you please come forward, please. (Commissioner Timoney comes forward.)

Councilman DiCicco --

I want to --

Excuse me, Councilman. We have Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Clarke, and Councilman DiCicco with us. A quorum 10 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 of this committee is present.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, in your opening statement, you mentioned that one of the principal concerns from constituents are abandoned cars in any particular district. I'm not certain if it was always the number-one complaint in my office but recently, since the Streets Department has taken the position to begin cleaning streets in the southern portion of my district on a weekly basis, the biggest complaint I get out of South Philly now is that their cars are being ticketed because we're doing something good by cleaning the streets. So no good deed goes unpunished, as they say. But the interesting thing about that is, I've noticed in the target area where we do the weekly sweeping, a number, a significant number of vehicles have been removed that were formerly abandoned, and in many cases those cars, we didn't know were abandoned; they were cars that may have been owned by a resident on that block, an older car, figured some day they would get 11 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 around to fixing it up or repairing it. And we find that because of the sweeping unit, the sweeping program, they have to remove their car. And on that particular day, they were left in a spot, they were ticketed, and then eventually they were towed. So I think it's something probably through this conversation today, through these hearings, there might be some cooperation between the Streets Department and the Police Department and maybe the Managing Director's Office. So I think we can accomplish a few things, one of getting rid of abandoned cars in the same process while we're doing the street-cleaning. It's interesting how that turned out.

Efficiency. Commissioner, please identify yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Good morning. I'm Police Commissioner John Timoney, Commissioner of Philadelphia.

Wendy Staten (ph.), legal counsel for the Police Department. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Councilmembers, 12 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 thank you for the invitation to testify this morning. As you're well aware, we do have a promotions ceremony scheduled at Community College at o'clock. 6

Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: And so my 8 written testimony has been submitted. 9 (Commissioner Timoney's testimony not 10 submitted to stenographer.) 11 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I'll go through it quickly and then be ready to answer any questions, and then hopefully get out of here by quarter to, 10 to 11, if that's okay with you, sir.

No problem, sir. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: During my tenure as Police Commissioner, I've attended hundreds of community meetings and, just as you said, Councilman Ortiz, no matter where it is, no matter what time, no matter how tough the neighborhood, the number-one issue at every community meeting -- or almost every community meeting -- is the issue of abandoned cars.

I remember the 13 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 summer, remember? The 10th Ward? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yes, exactly. And the Police Department's worked very hard to remove as many abandoned vehicles as possible from the streets of Philadelphia. However, major changes in the legislative framework are necessary in order to make our efforts more efficient. The Police Department has taken extraordinary steps to remove abandoned vehicles over the past two years, as I've been here. Through the end of last week, we've removed 32,356 abandoned vehicles. This is a 50 percent increase over last year's total and an 80 percent increase over the number of abandoned vehicles removed in 1997. However, these numbers are meaningless if you have an abandoned vehicle in front of your home. Quite frankly, even with all of our efforts, the Police Department is still barely able to keep ahead of the calls for removal of additional abandoned vehicles. In fact, I have assigned a chief, a full chief, to oversee the Department's effort to remove abandoned vehicles. 14 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Presently, there is at least one abandoned vehicle officer assigned to each district. Some districts have up to three. The sole job of these officers is to facilitate the removal of abandoned vehicles from within the district. Furthermore, the Police Department engages in roving sweeps throughout the City to target areas with high concentration of abandoned vehicles. And so, for example, just probably about two weeks ago, we hit the 25th District, one of the more problematic ones, and removed 1200 vehicles.

And I bet you that a week later, in those same areas, you had 1200 more. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I wouldn't disagree with that, sire. There are more pre-tow and post-tow waiting periods that exist before an abandoned vehicle can be removed and disposed of. By State law, PennDOT regulations and consent decrees, an abandoned vehicle cannot be removed from the street for a minimum of 10 to 12 days. This waiting period ostensibly exists to allow for 15 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 notice to the owner of the abandoned vehicle for an opportunity to claim said vehicle. This waiting period exists, even if the vehicle is a burnt-out hulk once. Once the salver removes the abandoned vehicle from the street, the salver is required by law to keep the vehicle in their lot up to three months, while the last known owner is again notified before PennDOT authorizes the destruction of the vehicle. During this post-tow waiting period, the vehicle takes up space on the salver's lot, and ultimately, the salver's ability to remove additional abandoned vehicles is halted. This past September, I notified the City Council that the Police Department had a leading role in the task force established by Mayor Rendell to address the issue of abandoned vehicles. The City has worked hard to identify the legal and procedural obstacles that hamper our efforts to remove abandoned vehicles. I am pleased to report that many of our recommendations have been adopted and enhanced in legislation introduced by State Representative Dwight Evans. Most fundamentally, this 16 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 legislation will change the very definition of abandoned vehicles. Many abandoned vehicles are no more than burned out shells. These hulks are the most dangerous and most offensive of all the abandoned vehicles, and they should be treated as any other trash found in the city streets. The legislation will distinguish between a derelict vehicle with only nominal value and abandoned vehicles. Derelict vehicles will be eligible for immediate removal, with no waiting period. Others abandoned vehicles will be marked with a bright sticker that will serve notice to any interested parties that the vehicle will be removed within three days. Once the vehicles are removed by the salver, the waiting period imposed upon the salver will be reduced to 10 days for the derelict vehicles, and 20 days for other abandoned vehicles. Other provisions will increase the fees paid by the State to salvers from the current $15 to $72 per vehicle, while reducing the payment period from 6 months to 30 days. These changes will stimulate 17 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 competition among our salvers, and combined with reduced time periods that the vehicles must be stored in the lot, it will allow salvers to remove many more vehicles in the same period of time. The Police Department will continue our efforts under the current framework, but we are hopeful that the new legislation will allow us to manage abandoned vehicle programs once and for all. Mr. Councilmember and Councilmembers, I thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you, and I'm prepared to answer any questions. Good morning, Mr. Kenney.

Good morning.

We have been joined by Councilman Nutter and Councilman Kenney. Commissioner, one question, which is, I find it a waste of resources that we have the Police Department in charge of removing abandoned vehicles. If we get the tools from the State legislature -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yes, sir.

-- to be able to 18 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 move on forward, is it your recommendation that we remove -- or would you prefer that that not be one of the law enforcement duties that you look over? Because I believe that it should be either the Sanitation Department, the Parking Authority, or the Managing Director's Office, and we should be able to structure an agency of abandoned vehicles -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Right.

-- to be able to move forward, instead of wasting the resources of three individuals in the 25th District. I imagine in Philadelphia, we have two or three individuals when we have crime and drug dealers in each of these areas. I'd like your reaction to a proposal of that sort. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, the one thing that I want to point out is that the officers that are assigned to the Abandoned Vehicle Program are doing a good job. We're doing it more than ever. And so my sense is, I don't want to leave the impression that some of the fault is the Police Department's. There are 19 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 clearly structural obstacles to getting these abandoned vehicles off the streets. But I think it's up to Council to make that decision. We are fully prepared with the new recommendations put forth by State Representative Dwight Evans and a whole host of other reforms, which we think will go far in removing this problem -- whether it's done by the Police Department or some department within Sanitation. You know, I have -- would I like to get rid of it? You know, unlike police officers -- when you hire a police officer and you ask the average man or woman, What do you hire them for? And they'll tell you, I hired them to be out on the street to lock up the bad guys. It's kind of a basic thing. And anything other than that, one could argue, is clearly going away from your core mission. However, however, let's go back to my opening statement. Every single meeting I go to, I get beat up on abandoned autos, and so right now, I --

Because right now it's the responsibility of the Police Department. 20 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Right.

Councilman Clarke?

Yeah, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last night, I was at a community meeting in the 22nd Police District in -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I spoke to the chief this morning and he said he was with you, yes.

And Captain (unintelligible) and Officer Braxton were getting beat up. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yes.

And I actually had to tell the community that it wasn't their fault, and that they were actually doing a good job given the tools that they had. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, thanks very much.

And as Councilman Ortiz indicated, I've asked that question on several occasions about using a very valuable resource such as a police officer when we have some of these other issues relating to crime, that 21 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 we think that they're better off doing that, in addition to this whole issue about police officers writing sanitation tickets. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Mm-hmm.

So we will probably, in the future, be making some formalized proposal to change that. One of the questions that I would like to ask with respect to that, would the change of such a designation have to do with the bargaining units with the unions? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, that's some of the questions that we would have to discuss with Council, and we would have to discuss it with the new administration coming in. I mean, there are some issues that I'm sure Mayor Street will want to get his feelings heard on and his new administration's feelings heard. And so while we can hopefully discuss things here, there's no firm commitment on my part or on the part of the Department's, 'cause there are such issues. If the past is any indication of the ruling of arbitrators, my sense is that the abandoned vehicle officer is a thing that will be 22 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 in Philadelphia, even if Sanitation takes over that function. You'll have some mindless arbitrator saying, No, that's been a police official's job for the last ten years, and you can never get rid of it. And so I'm not as sanguine as Mr. Ortiz is as far as getting it from -- removing it from -- to move it from the Police Department over to the Sanitation Department. My sense is that the FOP and the arbitrators will not look so kindly on that.

Yeah, that's what we were just trying to get a sense of, and I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place to ask you what your position would be, if such a public hearing were held. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Oh, I have no 19 problem voicing my opinion on those things.

All right, so you are forthright, Commissioner. And I'm assuming that at some point in time, that question will be posed to you officially. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Good. 23 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

So we look forward to getting your response on that. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Great.

Councilman Rizzo?

Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Councilman Rizzo.

No matter what occurs, if it does move to the Streets Department, there's always times, I'm sure, where there's a confrontation, where a police presence is good if it's a person that doesn't want their car towed away. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Sure.

So I'm sure there could always be a way to work together in the event that there's a situation where the police presence would be needed. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Right.

Commissioner, my question is more so about the magnitude of the problem. You've given us some numbers on how many vehicles you removed. 24 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Right.

Yesterday, while visiting someone at Temple Hospital, right at Broad and Sedgley. There's a vehicle burned out. You could tell it's been there -- right on Broad Street -- for months. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.

How many abandoned vehicles -- do we know how many? Councilman Ortiz indicated that they're continually being dropped. And you, coming from New York, indicated that you just couldn't just believe what occurs here in Philadelphia. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.

Do you have a number, a possible number, an approximate number of how many abandoned vehicles? If you had the ability to go get them all, how many are out there? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: You know, it is extremely difficult. We've tried and we've gotten an account from the various -- and it's a fluid account, understandably. But anywhere from, you know, I think at any one time, we're anywhere, you 25 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 know, from 8 to 12,000. But it's always in a state of flux. So it's an extremely difficult number to pin down. And even the record-keeping is not the best, which is why we put together this whole comprehensive program.

So if we were asked as of December 1st, how many abandoned vehicles are out there in process to be removed from the streets of the City of Philadelphia, you could come up with a number? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Oh, yeah, absolutely, but --

Do you have an estimate? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, here's the problem with the estimate. And let me just give you a practical problem. At the meeting I was at with Councilman Ortiz up in the 35th Police District, that was the week we had completed a sweep, our abandoned vehicle officer in the 35th had called in 850 vehicles. We had the logs in. So now you have to go back around and check. Out of the 850 that were called in, only 175 had been removed. 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 A couple weeks ago, in the 25th, we called in, I think it was 1800, of which, when we went back around, 1200. I mean, they did a great job in the 25th. But it's a constant effort of -- even when you log them in and you know they're coming in, it's extraordinarily -- it's a fungible number that constantly moves, so it's hard to get a grasp of it. I mean, the best estimate is your own. It's -- if you look at the magnitude, it's 32,000 so far for one month, an estimate for one month. That's floating, which is -- if you look at the 32,000 so far this year, we estimate that there will be around 36,000 for the year that were removed. You just do a quick math. If you divide it by 12, it will give you around 4,000 every month coming in new into the system. If you -- we've actually mapped out -- and if you look at the map, we estimate 4600 per month. And this is a map which I'll share with you.

Do you have a map? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah. 27 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

You can stay there, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: But, again, it's constantly moving. But there's a new, we estimate, 4,000 each month coming in. How many are on the street at any given time? Again, hard to estimate. But we know -- we are clear that it's about 36,000 by the end of the year.

Commissioner, I've heard something that isn't consistent with what I thought I knew. Today you said something about burned-out vehicles that are considered intimately (sic) dangerous. I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you said the were burned-out hulks. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Right.

And that you still had to follow process. I was under the impression that you didn't have to follow a process. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: You have an emergency excusal (sic), and that's true. But we need in the law the definition, because when you leave discretion into it, your discretion, your idea of what's a hulk or what's 28 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 valued at $2500 or what's valued at $250 if different than Mr. Kenney's, is different than mine. And with part of the legislation, what we're trying to do, one, is to jack up the value of these cars, that no apparent value needs to be -- I forget the figures. I think it's less than $600, number one. Number two, automatically describing a burnt-out shell as "a derelict vehicle," which is processed in a completely different manner, so that you don't have to look up and articulate emergency exception to the abandoned vehicle. When you start doing that, you run into all sorts of problems. It's not only a problem with the salvers. I'm sure they'll testify that when they get there and there's garbage in there -- and I can understand there are bricks and everything else and Christmas trees. And they say, I'm not picking up that up, I'm not the Streets Department. And so you have this argument going back and forth. And so we think all the proposed legislation and regulations that we proposed last Monday, along with anything else that comes out of 29 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 this committee, we think will clear up the problem.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman.

Is there a priority about schools and hospitals and that sort of thing? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Oh, for me, there is, yeah. I mean think -- and anytime I meet school members, for example, over at the 25th just a couple of weeks ago, we dedicated a lot that had been cleaned out that the principal brought to my attention. And when we sent the officer, right then and there, there were three cars in front of the school. I mean, kids should not be facing that as you're walking out to the sidewalk to get the bus or meet your parents. You should not.

Councilman Kenney?

Thank you very much. I know your time is short, you have another appointment. Often when I see vehicles abandoned in my own neighborhood, there's no wheels, they're 30 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 stripped, and they are sometimes burned. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Right.

And I always said to myself, How come nobody ever sees someone taking that car apart? And then I realize that the car is being taken part somewhere else and being dumped there. Isn't that not a problem that we're dealing with a lot of tow truck operators who are paid to perhaps remove a car or have some involvement with a chop shop or some operation where, once the car has been dissected, that it is dumped on a city street, probably by a tow truck. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.

And have we found that there are -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No, actually, we've had some complaints of that. We actually set up -- and I can disclose it now 'cause it's in the past. We actually set up at certain locations pole cameras and we found no evidence of it. It was -- that they were --

My point is, how do they get there? 31 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, this is the $64,000 question. I mean, do they fall out of the sky? I think you started out that way. I mean, it's just -- you drive by, there's nothing there, you drive there the next day and there's two. How in God's name do they get there? I mean, it's --

But my point is, when there's no wheels on it, it's got to be brought there by some other method. And in some of the places I've seen them dropped, people would see someone stripping a car. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.

It's not a desolate neighborhood where no one lives; there's people right across the street. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.

I mean, even if they were doing it at 3, 4 in the morning, at some point in time, somebody will call 9-1-1, saying there's something going on out there. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.

So it seems to me to be a very quick operation of a drop and then 32 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 they move on. Have we been able to determine the origin of the automobile when we do whatever research we do? Are they coming from inside the City, are they registered outside the City? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: That's part of the problem. We've done a small study of a sample going back, and part of the problem is -- and this is why we need to deal with this in a wholistic fashion. We wound up going back, in some cases, to five or six past owners. One of the real problems is -- and I've met with Councilman Ortiz and Ben Ramos on this. I mean, we have been lax, the Police Department, in enforcing traffic regulations, insurance regulations, licenses and requirements. I mean, we have been. We have been, over now the last six or eight months, racheting up that pressure. You just can't allow folks to drive. I mean, I understand that it costs a lot of money, but if you can't afford it, then you can't have the car. I mean, that's a simple of fact. If you can't afford the assurance, you just can't have the 33 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 car. If you don't have a driver's license, you can't drive. And so we're in the process of enforcing those laws. But there is an issue of, Okay, what are you going to do with the car? There's an issue of capacity that's completely outside the purview of the Police Department. All of those issues of stepped-up enforcement, and then if you confiscate the car, what are you going to do with it? The issue of capacity. My sense is, they're all going to be dealt with in that whole series of proposals that the Mayor put forward on Monday.

But the question I have is, have we been able to determine through the chain of ownership the origin of the car, where it may have come from? Are they all City-registered -- are they not registered or are they registered in the City, or have they been registered somewhere else? I'm trying to determine -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah. John, do you have --

I mean, don't think 34 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 the suburbs have the same problem that we have, obviously. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. 5

So I'm wondering whether or not, again, we're becoming the dumping ground for vehicles that may have been registered in surrounding areas. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, John's been working on this for months and so maybe he 11 can give further insight into that. 12 (John Gallagher comes forward.) 13

Good morning. John 14 Gallagher, special advisor to Police Commissioner 15 Timoney. 16 Councilman Kenney, not to give you too 17 brief of an answer, but it's the nature of these 18 vehicles they're not registered. I mean, you don't abandon a registered car. So tracking the last registered owner is really an exercise in futility, for the same reason that the current state of the law, where we notify the last registered owner, not once, but twice, by certified mail while the car stays on the street and then while it takes up space on the lot. It 35 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 doesn't make any sense. The problem with these cars is, in many instances, these are unregistered, uninsured cars today; and then tomorrow, they're abandoned cars because they broke down, and no one's going to put another five cents into saving this piece of junk. So it's nothing scientific, but it's our belief that most of these cars are being stripped on the spot where they break down. To go back -- and we have done this and are doing more studies with Chief Bullock (ph.), who couldn't be here today for a family emergency. But his staff is doing these types of studies. And what we're finding is, finding out who the last registered owner is is useless because that person says, Well, I sold it to so and so-and-so, and there's obligation on the last registered owner to make sure that the new owner registers the vehicle. And there's no way to check whether he's telling the truth. You know, he can make up a name, or he can be the one who dumped it.

Right. Just in one other area. Are all 36 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 officers required, while on patrol, to be looking for these vehicles and to be writing them up? Or is it just the abandoned vehicle officer? I would imagine that -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, I mean, that was my -- when I first got here, that was my great question. Because when I looked at the different staff positions within each district, abandoned vehicles -- I said, Why would you need an officer for abandoned vehicles? That's everybody's responsibility. Well, it turns out it is, and as a result of a consent decree and a whole host of procedural steps, you need one specific officer to handle it. So the officer gets a report of an abandoned vehicle on day one. He walks out and says, Yep, that vehicle looks abandoned. He goes back in, goes out the next day, and if the vehicle's still there, he then begins the process of paperwork, of notifying that owner. That takes ten days. If the owner hasn't responded, the officer now goes out on day 12 and says, Yep, that's the same abandoned vehicle and then institutes the process. And so you need for 37 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 continuity, because of these silly regulations, a consent decree, which we've made steps now to get out from underneath that consent decree. And so we've created this bureaucratic maze that you wind up having to have a specialist to handle this. It should be that if any cop who's working his beat or sector finds an abandoned auto, if it's a derelict vehicle, he should be able to call, whatever it is, the Streets Department or somebody else and say, Get it out of there. Or if it's a regular abandoned vehicle, set up a pretty simple process of a three-day notification and notify the owner, Come get your car or else it's going to be towed away.

But does the uniformed officer on patrol have the requirement to begin that process? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. He -- it's a joke. He notifies the abandoned vehicle officer.

But at least they're doing that. They're -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: But here's the problem you're under, here's the practical 38 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 problem. They drive down the street and they see an abandoned vehicle; they assume somebody else has done it. We we're now coming up with a -- the sticker to show that at least somebody started that process. People argue against the sticker. You say, But if you put the sticker on, people are going to think it's abandoned and they'll start stripping it. Yeah, that's what they've been doing anyway, so what's the problem? At least we'll be alerted with a day-glow sticker that, Listen, the process of notification has been begun.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman?

Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, just one quick follow-up on Councilman Kenney's reference to chop shops. Are you telling us -- and correct me if I'm wrong. Are you telling us that the chop shops are not somehow affecting this abandoned vehicle problem? 'Cause it -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Oh, no, no. 39 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

I hear it's just the opposite. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No, I'm sure they are. I'm saying there are two or three locations -- and I can't disclose those locations -- where we get information that they were taking them in, stripping them down, and then throwing the hulks in nearby streets. We actually set up pole cameras at two of those locations that were there overnight, and we didn't observe those cars coming after these particular -- they were body and fender places, rather large, coming out and depositing them in nearby streets. We did not observe that. I was just talking about three specific instances where that complaint was made to us and we set up pole cameras monitoring streets and we were not able to prove that case.

Okay. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No, I guarantee that's what's happening. Proving it is another matter, however.

Commissioner, I know you have to go. Jim, I actually witnesses, with the 40 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 fire marshal, Ben Ramos and I, on Third and American Streets, a car being abandoned. And like ten minutes later, four people were coming in and trying to strip it. And they looked around, they saw the fire marshal, they looked, seemed surprised, and they kept on going, they kept on stripping it. Thank you, Commissioner. I know that you have to go. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.

And I know that if you can give us, in terms of what we have discussed before in the spring, something that this committee can, with the Council, can then begin to look at as to what it is your recommendations have been, what the plan has been, so that then we can begin adding to our recommendations as a committee and moving forward. I know the union problematics that may be involved in removing this from the Police Department, but I really, really believe that this is not a law enforcement issue, that policemen should be going out and catching the bad guys, and 41 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 that we should have a department that takes care of abandoned vehicles in an efficient manner in the neighborhoods. Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Thank you, sir.

State Representative Evans and State Senator Shelly Kitchen. By the way, the map that you gave us, Commissioner, it looks like the locusts have invaded the City. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Sometimes it's easier to put the streets up where there are no 14 abandoned vehicles.

But north-central and east of Broad and west of Broad seem to be being attacked much more forcefully than the rest of the City. (State witnesses come forward.)

Thank you. Would you please identify yourself for the record and decide who wishes to begin. Beauty before -- STATE REP. EVANS: Always.

Yes. STATE SEN. KITCHEN: Good morning, 42 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of Council. I'm State Senator Shirley Kitchen, representing the Third Senatorial District. STATE REP. EVANS: I'm State Representative Dwight Evans of the 203 Legislative District.

Kimberly Turner, staff of Representative Evans. STATE SEN. KITCHEN: Last June, I amended Act 75 of the Motor Vehicle Code, which did enact the changes that the Commissioner spoke of, which largely involve shortening removal time. Since that time, I planned to introduce a bill with much off the content and language of Representative Evans' bill, except that I do not know about the fines, the amount of fines. Right now, I think it's $50 per violation for a fine. And if we're talking about an increase in fines, I hope it's progressive because we do not want to burden people with fines that they cannot pay because of the implications it will have upon a person's life. Now, in the case of abandonment, as we 43 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 all know, most vehicles are abandoned because they aren't insured or they are not in repair. So if we are going to burden a person with fines equaling $500, they're not going to be able to pay it. In addition to that, they may not even be eligible for certain training programs. And also piggybacking off of what the Chairman said and also Councilman Kenney, is that it is a dumping problem in north-central Philadelphia. Some of the vehicles are being dumped from outer-lying counties, as opposed to just being abandoned. So the ownership will be in question. So it would not even be fair if we got off into such a punitive measure, charging $500 fines to a poor person who have abandoned the car in the first place. They won't be able to get into training to even pay the fine. So I just want to caution you how punitive we be in solving this matter. And in terms of the language of my bill, I'll turn it over to my distinguished senior colleague, who is the Appropriations Chair. And my language is identical to House Bill 2004. 44 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Distinguished colleague? STATE REP. EVANS: I want to, one, thank the members and Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee. As Senator Kitchen has indicated, that she, along with a number of other members, I'd like to do a couple things. First explain the specifics relating to House Bill 2004 and then talk a little bit about the politics of this particular issue and share some of those thoughts with you. Senator Kitchen indicated to you, correctly so, I think it was last year, that she made some changes in the Motor Vehicle Code, and there's no question that the changes that Senator Kitchen introduced certainly helped move the problem and deal with it in some way. Obviously, we have to go a lot more further than just some of the changes. During the summer, I worked along with Mayor Rendell, President Verna, and along with other members in the House in terms of coming up with House Bill 2004. House Bill 2004, as you see, the first thing you heard the Commissioner talk about was speeding up the process to remove 45 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 vehicles, as was indicated in his testimony, which has been a problem, moving it from seven days to immediate. The second aspect is abandoned cars from seven days to three days, and then changing the notification to place the vehicles, instead of certified mail, making it much more direct. The second aspect is speeding up the process of disposing the vehicles, reducing the days' notice, from 30 to days for vehicles, as 11 well as what you call "valueless vehicles," from 12 the 45 days for the salvagers to speeding up that 13 process. 14 In addition, we talked about increasing 15 the incentive for the salvagers. The Commonwealth 16 of Pennsylvania right now pays $15 per vehicle for 17 a salver to remove it. That was established back 18 in 1964. If you go based on inflation, it would 19 be about $72 today, looking from 1964 to 1999. 20 And that's why it's $72 in the bill, based on inflation, using that as incentive. In addition to that, yes, there are some penalties for individuals who dump vehicles, and those are something else that are a part of it.

In addition in this legislation, we talk 46 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 about the idea of empowering City government in a way be a salvager. One of the reasons we expressed that that option should be available -- and this would be up to you as Council and to the next mayor to make that determination, was, we think that there needs to be some competition in the system. There needs to be competition in the system in terms of private versus public, because my experience has been that the private-sector system has not resolved the problem. That not to say that there's not good salvagers out there, but currently the way the City's operating, they have salvagers. And that, in my view, is not 16 solving the problem. 17

But, State Representative, one of the problems has been that the salvagers have operated, as you said, on the market principle. As the price of metal has gone 00 if it goes up, they're out there removing vehicles because they can make a profit. If the price of metal is down, as it has been during the last period of years, they are not as quick to be out there removing vehicles because the profit 47 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 margin is not as great. And that I got from the Commissioner in a previous hearing and the City Department. STATE REP. EVANS: You are correct, Mr. Chairman. However, explaining that to a constituent who lives on Bouvier Street, they frankly could care less about what happens in terms of the salver making money or not make money, that's not the issue for them.

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: I think what I attempted to do in this legislation is basically to induce some sort of competition in the system, that where a salvager may not be responding to a particular problem, once you get a chance to read the legislation, which I've passed onto the President of City Council, my understanding is that she passed it out to everyone. You'll get the general sense that we're trying to induce a system which the bottom line is, the car will be removed -- may it by the salvager, may it be by the City. That decision -- and I heard some of your discussion earlier -- may be the Police Department, may be the Sanitation Department, the 48 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Parking Authority, whatever entity that you and members of this Council and the mayor decide, that's your decision. I think that the only thing we attempted to do in this legislation in the State is basically to empower you. Let me just tell you where the bill 8 is. There are 73 three cosponsors on the bill. The bill is in the Transportation Committee currently. Every Philadelphian has signed on to the bill. The Majority Leader, John Perzel, is for it. As Senator Kitchen indicated, she, along with Senator Tina Tartaglione, Senator Salvatore, and Senator Fumo, all of them are also on their side of the ledger, working on the same effort. So it is a collective effort. One thing I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that we can pass the best legislation in the world, but it really comes down the question of execution and delivery, and that is ultimately what the issue is about. The words on this paper are useless if we're going to make the changes in the system and actually not follow through on what we say that we're going to do. One last thing that I'd like to say to 49 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is not a problem unique to Philadelphia. I have a letter of support from the police chief of Pittsburgh, Erie, York, Lancaster. They also have this kind of a problem. As a matter of fact, to your point when you asked about the police issue, in Erie, the police commissioner made a recommendation that salvers, rather than using police officers, are empowered to do what police officers do here. Where police officers in Erie basically do the same thing, what the police commissioner suggested in Erie is that you empower the salvers. However, you also may have some sleazy individuals. There's a statement in this bill 17 that if a salver should just try to, for some unfortunate reason, just pick up a car that doesn't belong, they can easily be penalized, the authority can be taken away from them. So when you read in there, there's a section in there that talks about the aspect of empowering salvers so that you don't have this issue dealing with the police force. That came from the chief in Erie, because he felt that he 50 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 didn't have the manpower in order to have police officers doing it.

That's interesting. STATE REP. EVANS: So I'll be open to any questions that you may have.

Councilman Clarke?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, State Senator Kitchen and Representative Evans. STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you.

As my two senior colleagues. (Laughter.)

The statement about cosponsorship of the bill. You mentioned you had 73 cosponsors? STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.

And in order to get -- I'm assuming that this would be an increase in the State funding required to bring this up to $72. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct, $72, correct. 51 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

So -- and my understanding is we need how many votes? STATE REP. EVANS: You need 102 in the House.

102? STATE REP. EVANS: And you need in 8 the Senate. 9

So the lack of the 10 102 number probably has more to do with your 11 inability to get the 102 to sign this, or do we 12 anticipate a problem? 13 STATE REP. EVANS: No, I would have had 14 the 102, but since I wanted to introduce it, it 15 was there. 16 This -- I don't foresee this as a 17 problem once it comes up on the floor. What's 18 amazing about this is, though we talk about it as 19 a problem in Philadelphia, as I indicated to you, 20 from Erie and York, they also have the problem -- 21 not to the degree that Philadelphia has it as a 22 problem, but they realize that something that 23 needs to be done also. 24 To your question that you asked about 25 the increase of costs, that comes from the Motor 52 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 License Fund.

Okay. STATE REP. EVANS: Which is no cost to local government; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would be paying that.

So we fully anticipate we'll be able to get the additional dollars for this? STATE REP. EVANS: Correct, correct.

Great. The other issue, you mentioned -- you talked about how sometimes, it's the private versus public sector. This particular hearing happened as a result of a resolution that members of this Council cosponsored, and it talked about the RFP process essentially creating an environment where an entity, or entities, could create a proposal that would basically give us an opportunity to select the person that could do the job the best. Is that kind of what you're kind of talking about as related to creating some competition? STATE REP. EVANS: My experience is that the City at one time used to tow the cars 53 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 themselves. I think it was under the Bill Green administration that it changed and that it went to the private sector. I think the problem has been that no 6 one has evaluated the system, first; and, secondly, no one has held the system accountable. So what happens is, over the last, in my view, eight or nine years, the problem has gotten out of control. And now we're at this particular point where people are now starting to ask questions about it, 'cause no one's on top of it. The Police Department is overburdened, the Streets Department doesn't focus on it, L&I doesn't. But I want to give you an example, Councilman Clarke. There was an abandoned house in the 12th Division of the 10th Ward. And this house was abandoned for 15 years. There were two abandoned cars on the back of the property, in the back of the driveway. The Police Department could not remove the cars because the house was abandoned, and it was L&I. So then I go to L&I, and L&I says, We can't remove it. So here you got two cars on an abandoned property, and we go back and forth in terms of trying to get this car 54 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 moved. That is ridiculous. I mean, the people who lived in that block did not want to hear the jurisdiction battle between Licenses and Inspections and the Police Department. Now, fortunately, through the creativity of the Police Commissioner and some other people, we eventually got 'em moved, but that shouldn't have to happen.

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: So I'm just saying to you that there are problems like that. And what we're trying to do is, we're trying to -- we have some language in here that even deals with the issue about public property in terms of letting people be more aggressive about dealing with these particular issues. Because, again, the people in the neighborhood don't want don't want to hear this jurisdiction battle between the Police Department and Licenses and Inspections or the Parking Authority or the State not doing what it needs to do to --

It's red tape, the red tape. 55 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

Yeah. STATE REP. EVANS: Exactly. They don't want to hear that.

Yes. Senator Kitchen, your district encompasses a larger area, larger than any of our Council districts. And if I'm correct, you probably have upwards of five police districts, and a lot of those police districts have been inundated with vehicles. Have you noticed a pattern in terms of the level of response that you get per police district based on the, frankly speaking, the captain of the district or the abandoned vehicle officers? Has it differed based on who's in charge of that police district, or is it pretty much uniform? STATE SEN. KITCHEN: It differs in terms of blocks and neighborhoods where there's a great deal of abandonment of vacant houses and vacant cars. And if a committee person calls, then it's a slow response, but if it's abandoned in front of an occupied, fully intact block, then it appears to be a faster response. 56 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

Okay, so -- STATE SEN. KITCHEN: So it's more or less by what condition the block is in, how many calls, you know, are being received by the Police Department. In the areas where this is a great deal of vacancy, there is a great deal of dumping. And I don't think it's so much as abandonment by neighborhood residents, because there's no 11 residents on the block, but rather, the abandonment from outer-lying areas, and it appears to be right outside of Philadelphia.

It's some of that squeaky wheel theory. STATE SEN. KITCHEN: Yeah, the squeaky wheel theory.

All right. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilman Rizzo?

Thank you. Senator, Representative, in Philadelphia County, we have roads that are designated State highways, and I know you talk 57 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 about jurisdiction, about who fixes them and who removes the snow, and I know we have an arrangement with the State when it pertains to snow. Do you -- could you explain what responsibility the Commonwealth has in helping pay for the removal of abandoned vehicles that may be dropped on a State highway, the ones that we have identified? Could there be some financial help in removing vehicles that are on State highways? STATE REP. EVANS: Well, the Commonwealth already does pay the $15 to the salver in the first place. What I'm suggesting is that the $15 be increased to $72, first. Secondly, it's up to the local jurisdiction to decide how exactly you want to remove abandoned vehicles. I mean, either you do it through salvers or you do it through your Parking Authority or you do it through your Police Department. But basically, the State government pays the $15, which I hope, through some negotiations, I will get it to be $72, which, in itself, will be an added incentive for the salvers 58 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 to do what they have to do.

But you see no 4 additional support or funding from the State on vehicles that are on State highways, like Broad Street, which -- Commissioner Moy can shake his head -- is a State highway? Yesterday, on my way to Temple Hospital, I said this earlier, at Broad and Sedgley, there's a totally burned-out vehicle there, and it's obviously been there for a long time. On that particular instance, couldn't, since it's a State highway, the State be responsible or help fund the removal of that vehicle? STATE REP. EVANS: Councilman, what I'm saying to you is that the State pays already. I'm trying to get it increased to $72.

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: So, are you saying that --

So bump it up a little. STATE REP. EVANS: Are you saying that because it's on top on a State road that you think 59 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 it should be more than $72?

I'm just looking for a way for us to get more support from the State. STATE REP. EVANS: Well, I don't think that --

Well, I think that's in process now. If it's now and it's going to 9 go up to 72, I think that's a huge increase in 10 terms of support. 11

That's non-state 12 highways. Understand -- 13 STATE REP. EVANS: No, that's 14 anywhere. 15

Anywhere. STATE REP. EVANS: That's anywhere -- that's a City highway, that's a State highway, that's a federal highway. It's anywhere in the Commonwealth.

I'm looking for 150 on a State highway. STATE REP. EVANS: Oh.

Thank you.

Well, you're never going to get that. 60 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Councilman Nutter?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Representative Evans and Senator Kitchen and your good friend at the table there. Representative Evans, I have had a chance to read through the legislation, and one of the things I wanted to ask about was with regard to -- I know you have a fines and penalty section 11 stating that it's a crime to abandon a vehicle, and I think there's also some provisions for license suspension. What I wanted to ask was with regard to the ability of that person to subsequently register another vehicle, is there a way to track that once a person has been -- I'll kind of use the vernacular -- "popped" for abandoning a vehicle, and if you have license suspension provisions, is there anything that you can do about that person's ability to either register the new car when they haven't taken care of the previous car that we actually keep track through PennDOT, that when that person's name or, I guess, his license number comes up, it tells PennDOT that 61 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 this is a person who has abandoned a previous vehicle, And we impact their ability to re-register a new car. STATE REP. EVANS: Councilman Nutter, the answer is yes to your question. The way that it would probably be the most efficient way to do it would be coordinating in terms of regulations within the Department of Transportation, versus actually detailing that in the legislation. I do agree with you that, you know, you can find people who are very creative in trying to find new way to how to manipulate the system.

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: So although my colleague and I -- and we haven't finished having this debate, this discussion. The attempt to be punitive or some aspect is really to see how we can, you know, slow this process down.

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: I mean, as the Chairman indicated and the Police Commissioner, 1200 cars was removed. And as Councilman Kenney raised, those cars are coming from somewhere.

Right. 62 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 STATE REP. EVANS: So I think we have to have a two-pronged approach. Yes, we got to have a much more efficient system to remove them, but we've also got to say to those individuals, and I think you heard the Police Commissioner talk about the whole culture of the Police Department not enforcing the traffic laws, so I think there has to be a coordination between what the Police Commissioner talked about, what we're going to talk about with some penalties. It's not the idea that you just want to be punitive for the sake of being punitive, but you do want to say to people that you just can't just go around leaving these cars laying all over the streets of the City of Philadelphia.

Just one financial inquiry, and I'm assuming the legislation passes and the increase from $15 to $72 on the salvers' fee. Did I read maybe either in the legislation or in the newspaper that those increased dollars are coming from either the License Fund or some other fund within the State? STATE REP. EVANS: It comes from the Motor License Fund. 63 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

Okay. So that's when you renew your license, and I guess it's $36 now or thereabouts. STATE REP. EVANS: Well, the Motor License Fund consists of money that comes from gas tax, license, all of that.

Okay. STATE REP. EVANS: And it's a fund that's off budget. So basically, that's a fund that's independent, and it pays for anything that's related to other license issues.

One last question. There was the big announcement last week, and maybe it's not a part of this particular package of legislation, but I do understand that the State is also proposing to move forward with getting the stickers, registration stickers off of the plate. And do you anticipate a now third sticker on the windshield, or that one of the two stickers that -- you currently have a regular registration sticker and you have an emissions sticker, most cars. Or people with the older cars, like me, have two stickers on their vehicle. Do you anticipate it being incorporated 64 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 into that, or is there now going to be a third sticker on the windshield? STATE REP. EVANS: I couldn't speak to specifically the legislation that Senator Fumo is introducing in terms of how does he see the configuration. But what he basically wants to do is, you know, individuals have been removing the sticker off the back of the car, like 20,000 in the City of Philadelphia.

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: There was a task force, my understanding, that Senator Fumo's staff was a part of that task force in terms of PennDOT. There's a little of what I should call "a family internal battle" going on between the legislature and the Department of Transportation around this issue about where the sticker should go. My general sense is that PennDOT is saying no, that --

Could you tell me why? Why do they care? STATE REP. EVANS: Well, it's very similar, Councilman, to -- for example, when the City does sweeps for removing abandoned cars, 65 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 PennDOT only has two people. When the Police Department submits this form that has to have a VIN number on it, there's only two people who have that responsibility. There's one to deal with the City of Philadelphia and one to deal with the rest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But for us, we can use both of them. So it becomes a bureaucratic thing. So we have to kind of use our political muscle by using legislation. We have tried to convince the Secretary of Transportation and others that this is a problem. And just because it's a problem in Philadelphia, we don't want them to take the attitude that, Well, it's not important. So, in other words, they look at it around the tag issue that you just described. Well, it's only in Philadelphia, so why should we deal with it? So that's why I do agree with Senator Fumo and the Mayor in terms of that change. One other thing I want to add to this point. What we tried to do with the announcement that the Mayor made, and I've had some conversations with Mayor-elect Street, is I think 66 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 for the first time, we're trying to have a collective agenda on the whole vehicle, quality of life initiative, something which I don't think we've had collectively. And when I met with the Mayor and the Mayor-elect, as well as meeting with President Verna, I indicated that we need to collectively work with you here in Council so we can kind of know what the right and left hand is doing, because basically, historically, we haven't done that. And I think that the issues around vehicles in general, we got a lot of work to do. We need to -- you know, don't want to duplicate anything already that you're doing, we don't want duplicate it; we just want to figure out how we can make it look more efficient, how we can make it a little bit more effective.

Last question. Is there anything in the legislation that would be a barrier to the proposal and what is essentially the main component of today's resolution, as proposed by Councilman Clarke, that would interfere with the City's ability, if we chose to go into that direction, of having at least one, 67 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 and some districts may have two, the kind of RFP process, you know, "Salver XYZ" works for me at the 19th District. STATE REP. EVANS: Right.

That's their area, that's their responsibility. I mean, it's almost kind of like a franchise. But if there's an abandoned car out there and it hasn't been moved, then either the captain, some civilian, whoever's in charge of the program get in Salver XYZ's case that you haven't picked up these cars, and it is your responsibility. Is there anything in the legislation that impacts our ability to either do that or have people who are salvers, whose business is located outside the City of Philadelphia, to participate in any of these programs? STATE REP. EVANS: The answer is no. I made sure, Councilman, that I, the chairman, in no 22 way wanted to have the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania micro-manage direct as the City or the Council or the Mayor in any way. So we're not interested, Michael. 68 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Anything we wanted to do was to basically empower and streamline the process, add a little bit of money. Sorry to Councilman Rizzo that left, but we wanted to add a little bit of money and some incentive. So no, we're not trying to tell you how you want to set it up; we're not even trying to tell you what agency that you want to decide -- if it's L&I, Streets Department, Sanitation, whatever department you want to do, that's up to the local government to decide. The only thing we're trying to do is limit the days, add some money, empower the people who do what's necessary, but we don't want to micro-manage it in any way. That's not my position.

We've got the legal tools needed in order to be able to expedite the process, and we've also got the responsibility to establish the regulations, the process, and the qualifications for salvers. And through that legislation, if I'm correct, we are the entity that will establish qualifications for salvers. We are the entity 69 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 that would put the regulations together as to how they do it, when they do it, and in what process and through which agency. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.

That comes down to local entity and local government to be able to put forward. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.

And that would be through legislation and regulations in City Council. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct. One other thing I want to make mention of, particularly to Councilman Clarke, Mr. Chairman. Right now, you have 17 salvagers. You can actually have salvagers -- what is it, ten miles? About salvagers in a 30-mile radius could actually. Now, those who have been here may get a little upset over a little competition, but, you know, I think our interest has to be the outcome. And the outcome is the car.

Our interest is to 70 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 eliminate the locusts. STATE REP. EVANS: So what I'm saying is, may it be here, maybe within a 30-mile 5 radius, you decide whatever agency it is, and then 6 we increase the dollar amount. You know, at the 7 end of the day, we can actually say to our 8 constituents, In Chicago -- which was just told me 9 top by the EPOP group -- they have kind of a 10 commitment that in an hour and a half -- I mean, 11 it would be nice if we could say to John or Jane 12 Q. Philadelphia that in an hour, or in an hour and 13 a half, if your car's not removed, you're going to 14 get your money back you know, your portion of your 15 wage tax. I betcha that would be some incentive 16 if we said to people, We're going to give 17 something back to them if you don't get the car removed. So I think you -- and I'm very sincere about the level of -- you know, it's great to have laws, but it's the execution.

And I just want to say to you and the senator that usually the relationship between Harrisburg and the City has been one in which Harrisburg tries to take away 71 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 some of our powers to legislate and implement. And here, I would like to thank you for trying to give us some tools to be able to legislate and implement. So I want to thank you for doing that and introducing that legislation, and I hope this passes very quickly. Thank you very much. STATE REP. EVANS: If I could ask something of you Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. STATE REP. EVANS: Maybe you and members of the Council -- and I have not said this to your President of your City Council, but I would appreciate it if you would collectively -- it doesn't have to be a resolution, but sent a nice letter collectively to all of the people. One to the majority leader of the House so that he can have that on record, and the chairman of the Transportation Committee, that you collectively, you know, if you are in support of this legislation --

We will do that, sir. STATE REP. EVANS: Good. The sooner 72 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 the better.

We will do it this week, sir. STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you.

Okay?

I would appreciate it if I could ask a follow-up question.

Councilman Rizzo has a --

I just have one quick follow-up question. I just want to know for the record, when we talk about salvers, could you just explain? One of the problems that we're having is that when a vehicle is first identified as abandoned, that vehicle is a very valuable commodity. What happens after it sits a week, ten days, the windshield gets broken, the starter gets stolen, the air-conditioning compressor gets stolen. The most important -- what the salvers tell me is that if they could get access to these vehicles, they would be more responsive if they could get it with all those components, before the wheels are gone, before the windshield's smashed. 73 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 This legislation will permit how quickly once a vehicle is reported abandoned that the salver can respond and take it away. Because, believe me, a salver can make a lot of money on a car if it's not stripped and they tow it back to their yard and start to dismantle it. A front windshield is worth a lot of money. How quickly can we start moving these cars with this legislation? STATE REP. EVANS: Councilman, that car you talked about on Broad Street that was burned out?

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: Based on the current law, current City law and current State law, that should immediately be removed. The car that you are talking about on Broad Street, under your current City ordinance, and under your current State law, that car should be removed right away. The problem has been historically is that it's not removed right away, 'cause if it's burned out, I could imagine what it looks like. There's no value to it so it's not removed. So I'm saying to you that we could do 74 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 all of these changes, but that car should be removed right now.

But two months ago when, that car first appeared, that car had a value. It was a late model Ford Taurus. Now it has no windshield, now the hood's gone. Now the engine is being dismantled. Three months ago, a salver, if he was able to take away before it got into that condition, had a vehicle, I'll bet, worth a couple thousand dollars. STATE REP. EVANS: Yeah, I understand, but I think -- you know, Mr. Chairman, and I say this to you all very sincerely, 'cause I know you go through the same thing we go through in Harrisburg. It would be nice, and you asked the right question. We don't need to describe the problem, we don't need to rehash it.

Right. STATE REP. EVANS: We need to talk about a solution. It would be nice if we collectively could make a pledge to the people in this city that if there's a car, there's a certain 75 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 period of time that car is going to be removed. If not, if the car is not going to be removed, there has to be some sense of consequence. The problem is there's no sense of a consequence. So, Councilman Rizzo, I mean, we could report it, and the car's reported, but there's no 8 consequence on anybody if a car's not removed.

I want to move on. My point being, with the new legislation, the vehicle that is not burned out, that is not a hulk, right now, we've got the ten-day notification period. When will it change? STATE REP. EVANS: It's seven days, seven days.

We're going to speed it up by three. STATE REP. EVANS: By three days.

But what you say is import, if we do it in a timely fashion, it won't be a hulk, it won't be burnt out. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.

It will have a higher value to the salver, which will give them an incentive to get out there and get it, because 76 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 they can strip it and make a lot of money.

But there has to also be -- if a car is in regular, good condition, what we need to do is have the tools to speed up the process of identification. Because if you, by accident, go out and take a car that belongs to someone that has parked it there, then you got a lawsuit on your hands. STATE REP. EVANS: Correct, correct.

And that's why we have the consent decree -- STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.

-- that we are operating under because a lot of salvers in the 1980s went into poor neighborhoods, specifically in north-central Philadelphia, and took cars that belonged to someone, that were not abandoned, but were just parked in front of a car for like a week or so. And that's why we have the consent decree a. We got to have the speeded-up process, a streamlined process in which we identify the owner, registration, and we're able to communicate with those cars that are intact or in somewhat 77 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 good shape. And those are the tools that you are giving us at this time. STATE REP. EVANS: And the other thing, Mr. Chairman, that we're trying to do, there's the issue around the VIN number, which is a number that usually a police officer has to locate. What we're suggesting under this legislation is that if there happens not to be a VIN number, 'cause it could be a car like that, that we should take the word of the police officer, that they have to, you know, sign something in order to say that they could not locate or identify, rather than, you know, you can't find it 'cause the car's really destroyed. So what we're trying to do is strike a balance. We're trying to strike a balance; we're not trying to have a situation where, as the Chairman just described it, we go too far. We're trying to strike a balance to meet the objectives to get the cars off that street.

And I want to thank you again for the tools, I want to thank you for doing that. And the letters of -- Councilman Clarke, go ahead. 78 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Evans, that vehicle that Councilman Rizzo talked about, isn't, in reality, the reason why that car is still there is because nobody's obligated to pick it up? STATE REP. EVANS: Correct.

All right. That's all. STATE REP. EVANS: I mean, it should be. Technically, if it's been reported, I don't know if the Councilman checked on it. One, if it's reported and then the police officer comes out and validate it and they write down that information and send to it PennDOT, technically, the salver should be picking it up. That's who should be picking it up. But going back to the point that the Chairman mentioned earlier, when you get into the market costs of metal and other things, if somebody don't see the value in it, then nobody's picking it up. So really, truthfully speaking, the salver should be picking that up, but they're 79 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 not. I don't know why, but they're not picking it up.

And I will draft a letter and I will send it out this week. STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Could the City, in mass, come forward. (City witnesses come forward.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Chairman Ortiz, members of the Committee on Public Safety, my name is Stephanie Franklin-Suber. I am City Solicitor for the City of Philadelphia. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the process for removing abandoned vehicles from our City streets. In particular, Darryl Clarke asked me to testify about the federal court consent decree that currently governs the City's procedure for removing 80 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 abandoned vehicles. I'm happy to summarize the procedures in the consent decree, but I think it's very important, before I do that, to inform the members of the committee that at the request of Commissioner Timoney, my office has already reviewed the consent decree and examined the possibility of moving to vacate the consent decree. We believe we have strong arguments in support of that. I have made that recommendation to Mayor-elect Street, and I have been authorized to advise the committee publicly that he supports my plan to go into federal court and to move to vacate the consent decree. We hope that the other parties to the decree would join with the City in its request to vacate, but even if they oppose it, we are prepared to immediately take that action.

I think the problem really has been solved. It was in the '70s, the late '70s when we had really a problem in poor neighborhoods -- specifically in Kensington and in north-central Philadelphia, where the police would just go in with salvers and take people's cars 81 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 that were not abandoned. And Legal Services -- I was in Legal Services at that time, and Jonathon Stein and myself and other folks at that time this case into courts. So, you know, I don't think that we have that type of police department any long are.

I would be happy to summarize the procedures in the consent decree, if the committee is interested in that.

Please do.

All right. By way of background, the consent decree is a settlement of class action litigation. And it was brought by, as Chairman Ortiz, mentioned Community Legal Services on behalf of ten named plaintiffs. And they basically made two claims. Number one, their cars had been towed off the streets by the Police Department, without any notice at all to the owners that the cars were even considered abandoned. And number two, the Police Department then disposed of those vehicles without giving the owners a chance to even reclaim them. 82 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 So in 1981, 1981, in addition to entering into the consent decree, the City also agreed to pay the named plaintiffs a certain dollar-amount by way of monetary settlement, and that was $29,000. Basically, the plaintiffs' claim was based on the right to due process guaranteed by the constitution. Generally speaking, as required by the courts, requires government to give notice and an opportunity for a hearing before you can simply seize someone's property, unless, of course, there's some legitimate or public-safety concern that the government has to address and that precludes us from giving notice. Notice by the government prior to seizing property gives the vehicle owner the opportunity to cure the violation. So, for example, the vehicle owner can move the car. Or to contest the validity of the violation, for example, by explaining why the car is located where it is, that it is not abandoned, etc. But after more than three years of litigation, the parties settled in 1981. The consent decree is still in effect 83 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 today. The consent decree will remain in effect indefinitely unless we take affirmative action by going to the court and asking the court to vacate the decree, modify the decree, or at least give the City permission to be relieved of the restrictions and avoid the consent decree's requirements. Generally speaking, the consent decree governs four different aspects of the process for removing vehicles, abandoned vehicles. Number one, towing without notice. Number two, notice prior to towing when the police are able to identify the owner of the vehicle. Number three, notice prior to towing, where the owner cannot be identified. And, finally, an additional notice after the vehicle has been towed. With respect to towing without notice, the consent decree does allow the Police Department to remove abandoned vehicles without prior notice where there is an imminent safety or health hazard, or when the vehicle has been used in the commission of a crime. But in all other circumstances, the consent decree requires basically two levels, two 84 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 stages of notice -- before towing and after towing.

And is there a period in which a car can be -- that process begins after a car has been notified to the Police Department?

Yes. Where the owner can be identified, the police have to mail notice to the last registered owner, and the owner has to have ten days' notice to remove the car, or else the police will remove it. But notice can't even be mailed unless the Police Department believes the vehicle has been unattended on the street for at least 48 hours. So there has to be, in the first instance, a 48-hour period where the car is left unattended on the street. That makes the vehicle abandoned, under the State Vehicle Code. Then the officer can mail the notice. And in addition, the car is stickered with a, you know, bright-colored sticker that also gives notice. Where the owner cannot be identified, the Police Department, again, has to observe the 48-hour period and then can sticker the car. And 85 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 clearly, because they can't identify the owner, they're not required to mail notice. After the abandoned vehicle has been towed, within 72 hours, if the owner can be identified, the police have to send the owner additional notice. The notice has to explain to the owner that the vehicle has been seized because it's been abandoned, that it will returned to the owner if he or she provides proof of ownership within 30 days, so it allows 30 more days. And the owner is notified that the car may be sold for scrap or destroyed after 30 days. The notice procedures established by the consent decree, certainly from the perspective of the Police Department, are cumbersome, they're onerous, and they at least impact and slow down the process for removing abandoned vehicles from the street. But as I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony, my office plans on requesting that the court vacate the constraints imposed by the decree. Of course, that's not going to remove all the impediments.

When are we doing 86 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 this?

We are prepared to do it immediately.

Why don't we do it immediately.

We will do that.

Thank you. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Good morning. My name is Louis Applebaum. I'm the Procurement Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia. I suggest that the City issue a competitive bid for the towing of abandoned vehicles, in accordance with House Bill 2004. We should make awards by police district and to a sufficient number of towing companies within each district. Towers could bid on only the sections that they desire. The bid document would require prequalification and information such as having all necessary licenses and certificates. They must be engaged in the towing business, they must maintain adequate storage facilities, and they must also have adequate and sufficient equipment. They must submit insurance certificates and attend 87 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 prebid meetings to make sure that all people will understand the process. The bid document should be very specific in identifying the scope of services. These should be in great details, including specific time requirements so that there can be no 8 disagreement of what is required. Salvagers not following the requirements would be defaulted and removed from the list. This competitive document --

Have we ever removed any salvers from the list? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Not that I know of. This document could be very similar to a document --

I assume, then, that every salver has followed the requirements and are -- COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: There are two programs that we have now. One program is salvers for the towing of stolen vehicles. That was issued as a competitive bid, and we have a document covering all of the rules and 88 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 regulations. There is one other document that was issued by the Law Department, which we call a "no-fee agreement" with salvers for abandoned cars.

How many salvers do we have right now in the contract? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: On the abandoned cars, I think there's or 17. 11

16 or 17. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: 16 to 17 13 various -- 14

Are there other 15 salvers other than those 17? 16 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Oh, there aren't many other salvers, but it's very difficult to get people to come to the program when they're only getting paid $15 a vehicle.

And that's because of the price of metal. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, not even the price of metal; it's just that $15 is not sufficient to compensate them for removing the vehicles. 89 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 The documents could, as I mentioned, be similar to the document and bid that we have for towing and storage of recovered stolen vehicles. The City could, within this document, designate the flat fee that will be similar to the fee that eventually will be passed in House Bill 8 2004. So I would recommend that if it's $72, we would indicate in this document that you will get paid $72 for each vehicle, hopefully the State would reimburse the City, and the City would pay the salvers that particular fee. That amount, I think, will bring more people to the party and will get them to respond, and most important, respond in a timely basis that they remove the cars based on the program that we have developed, and they do it within the next 18 hours, or whatever program we can work on. 19

The salvers work 20 directly with the Police Department, the Police Department contacts the salver once an abandoned car has been identified; is that correct? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That's what I understand, yes, sir. That happens after this whole process that was just outlined by the City 90 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Solicitor. They then notify a salver. They have a whole list of --

And the responsibility of the salver is to respond in what period of time? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: As I know it, there is no specific requirements.

So if I'm the policeman in charge of abandoned cars in the 25th District, and I get a notice of an abandoned car on American Street and Ontario or on Third and Ontario. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right.

And I call "Salver A," and I say, Look, I want you to go over there and remove this car. There are two cars over there, and I want to them removed, okay? I have no way, as a policeman, as the policeman in charge of abandoned cars, I have no 21 way of saying to that salver, I need to do that within hours, I need to do that within 48 23 hours. And if I say I need it done immediately or 24 in 24 hours, what happens to the salver if it's not done in 24 hours? 91 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: To the best of my knowledge, the Police Department has no 4 leverage over the salvers to have them perform and respond. If the salver decides not to come or not to come within that day, there are no penalties, there's no leverage at all.

So then let's say the community -- COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: What we're suggesting is that this would be a lucrative contract, and the salvers would be earning 72 --

But I'm talking about right now. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right now, there's no leverage at all.

And let's say, then, that "Community Group X" gets angry and comes back to the Police Department and says something, and the police says, We have no leverage. And then they come down to Councilman Clarke's office and they say, Look, you've got to do this, all right? You got to remove those cars because that's what happens. If nothing happens, what leverage do we have? 92 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: As I mentioned before, basically, we have no leverage.

Do we call, then, Commissioner Moy? Because that's what I would do then. I would say, Can you get one of your trucks to get over and remove that car? And we did that at one point. We went up to Third Street -- and remember, I think we had to remove some cars from up there because the salvers could not do it. (Commissioner Moy comes forward.) COMMISSIONER MOY: We have very limited capability within the Department to do that, but we can do an isolated case. You know, it's just the Police Department on that.

But you have no 18 capacity at the present time to be able to remove any of those abandoned cars? COMMISSIONER MOY: We really don't have any capacity. You know, Fleet Management and the Parking Authority have the iron, the equipment there to handle that, but we have no tow trucks as such. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Now, the 93 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Police Department does have some tow trucks. Whether they call upon their own to do that work or not, I really don't know.

So then, do we then call up the Commissioner and say, Look, we need your tow trucks to be able to go over there and remove those cars? So then, instead of having one police officer removing cars, we have like four police officers removing abandoned vehicles. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: You're exactly right, Councilman. And I don't believe that the Police Department's tow trucks have the capability of removing hulks if they're not on tires. I think you need a flatbed, and I don't believe they have flatbeds.

And the Parking Authority doesn't have those type of trucks either, right? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I -- I don't know. I -- COMMISSIONER MOY: I think they've got more capability than the police in terms of towing them with flatbeds.

But the Parking 94 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 Authority's not under -- according to this City Solicitor, the Parking Authority doesn't have any jurisdiction within its charter, as such, to be an enforcement agency of car removal in the City, of abandoned cars.

It's the Police Department.

It's the Police Department. Councilman Rizzo?

In the new proposal, one of the frustrations that the Police Department's experiencing, and Commissioner Moy, I believe, has tried to cooperate, but I don't know if it's been official developed, where the car that Councilman Ortiz described, with the Christmas trees and debris. How are we going to deal with the salver that pulls up and it's a vehicle full of trash? I know that we've tried to -- we've had to physically coordinate with the Sanitation Division and the salver to go clean the car. Could we formalize that condition, when a salver arrives, how we deal with that, rather 95 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 than the salver expend the time go out there and say, I'm not touching this car 'cause there could be a dead body in it? How are we going to deal with that issue that has frustrated every captain in the Philadelphia Police Department that's responsible for abandoned automobiles? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, I would recommend that the responsibility would be upon the salver to remove that vehicle, no matter what, which, realize, the fee that he's going to earn is really more than they are expecting or anticipate. So this will be a valuable contract to them. And if there are one or two situations that are more difficult than the others, they will have to handle that in order to stay on that contract. And I believe they all would want to be a part of that contract.

Commissioner, in all due respect, I know many of these salvers, and they tell me that they will not touch a vehicle that is full of trash because they don't know what they're dealing with in there. They've found dead dogs, they've found you name it -- I wouldn't even 96 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 want to describe some of the things they tell me they find. If you don't have that formalized in there and identify the responsibility in the process, you're going to have a problem once this is implemented. So my suggestion to you is to address that issue and work it out, because I think the Commissioner has been very supportive. His Sanitation people have coordinated with the salver. Because if they clean that car out two days on a Monday and that salver doesn't get to it by Wednesday, it's full of trash again. Those cars have become waste receptacles. I saw -- I was riding up Fifth Street. I saw a car that had a sun roof, and the occupants in it actually opened the sun roof and tossed the soft drink cup right into the abandoned automobile, and it was almost filled. You might have to put plastic bags in some of these abandoned cars. But if that car is cleaned on Monday and it's not taken away on Monday, by Wednesday, it's a problem again. So, in my opinion, that should be something that's understood, and there's no 97 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 confusion, no gray area when it comes to the salver's responsibility. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, I agree with you. And the specifics and specifications of the bid document will have to be very clear and cover those issues, and it will have to be a joint effort between the Police Department and the Department of Procurement to get together and do it right.

The Streets Department, in my opinion, has gone beyond the call of duty, and I don't think they've gotten any funding for what they do. They've gone out, and I don't know what area salvers stood by while they cleaned them up and took them away. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: And that's the details we'll have to work out.

Councilman Clarke?

Miss Suber, the responsibilities of tagging, so to speak, of these vehicles. Right now, we currently have a system where we use the Police Department to write up abandoned vehicles, and the issue came up about what would be required to possibly get some 98 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 civilian personnel or some other entity in City government to take that responsibility. Legally, can you give us a sense of what's required, if it was based on this program that we're formulating, if we decided that we would prefer to see some other entity in government do the actual writing up of the tickets? Legally, where do we stand with respect to the unions, the bargaining agreement, the whole nine yards as it relates to how we deploy personnel. Can you give us a sense of that?

I'm not prepared to give you a sense of that at the moment, but I'm certainly prepared to do that once I understand the particulars of all of the proposals. I did not have the benefit of hearing all of the testimony. Certainly --

Well, what we asked the Commissioner was -- I don't know if you were here when the Commissioner was here.

I heard part of his testimony.

We asked him essentially, and the Chairman basically said that 99 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 the Police Department is a resource that we need to have out there fighting crime, and I think we all agree to that.

Mm-hmm.

And the Commissioner alluded to the fact that his preference is to have them do that, but he indicated that it would have something to do with the unions as it relates to changing that process. And he also indicated that he thought the FOP would have concerns about officers not having that responsibility anymore, and I'm just trying to get a sense legally of where we would stand if the Council decided that we wanted to change that function.

Yeah. Is there -- and maybe you can give it to us and look at the bargaining agreement between the FOP and the City. Because we're not talking about decreasing the amount of personnel in the Police Department. I just believe that we right now have police that are not doing police work, that could be doing police work, and that perhaps another department -- maybe Sanitation, if we then give them the 100 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 capacity, that would mean giving them some tow trucks and being able to do this to be able to do that task. Is there anything within the bargaining agreement that would prevent this Council from moving forward with the next mayor to say that we are establishing a Department of Abandoned-Car Removal, under the Sanitation Department or under the Managing Director's Department, all right? And that they will be responsible. Is there anything in the bargaining agreement of the Police Department that would prevent us from legislating and putting that forward?

Councilman Ortiz, I'm going to treat your question like Councilman Clarke Clark's question, as a request for advice and an opinion from my office to the members of the committee.

I would like you to do that. Thank you. I would like to see that. I would appreciate that.

Miss Suber, one other follow-up question. 101 12/3/99 PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 990615 With respect to representative Evans' proposal that would have salvers have the ability to go onto privately-owned vacant lots to remove abandoned vehicles, and I know in the past that only the City's Department of Licenses and Inspections has the ability to abate a nuisance on an abandoned, privately-owned lot. Where would we stand legally with respect to the City's governing powers to do that?