COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, November 13, 1997 3:10 p.m. - - - RES. 970579 - Authorizing the Council's Committee on Public Safety to conduct hearings on the status of the City program for the seizure and impoundment of unregistered vehicles and vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers. RES. 970634 - Authorizing the Committee on Public Safety to hold hearings investigating the implementation of Bill No. 181. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Stephanie L. Franklin-Suber, Solicitor, City of Philadelphia------------------------------ Thomas J. Nestell, Deputy Commissioner, Police Department, City of Philadelphia------------- 6 Richard Zappile, Deputy Commissioner Philadelphia Police Department---------------------------- 27 7 Dominic M. Cermele, Executive Director, Office of Administrative Review, Finance Department, 8 City of Philadelphia------------------------- 37 Rina Cutler, Executive Director, Philadelphia 9 Parking Authority---------------------------- 46 Bernice DeAngelis, Administrative Judge, 10 Traffic Court-------------------------------- 54 Mark Flood-------------------------------------- 70 Ann Cohen, President, AFSCME Local 1637--------- 93 Lance Haver, Educational Director, CEPA--------- 109 John Doubman, Secretary and Counsel, Insurance Federation of America------------------------ 117 Gerald Lamparter, Resident---------------------- 119 - - - 3 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to welcome everybody to this Public Safety hearing on Resolution 970579 and Resolution 970634. A quorum of the Public Safety Committee having been established, I will now ask the clerk to read into the record the title of both Resolutions.
Resolution No. 970579, Authorizing the Council's Committee on Public Safety to conduct hearings on the status of the City's program for the seizure and impoundment of unregistered vehicles and vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers. Resolution No, 970634, authorizing the Committee on Public Safety to hold hearings investigating the implementation of Bill No. 181. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Good afternoon. I bring up to the floor the City Solicitor, Stephanie Franklin-Suber, please. I know that you are pressed for time and you have somewhere else to be, so we are not going to detain you for a very long time. 4 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 So you know the way we do these things. So you can go ahead.
Thank you. Good afternoon, members of Council. I do not have prepared testimony. I am here today simply to provide any additional information, answer questions the Committee may have, with regard to the implementation of Bill No. 10 181. I understand that copies of City Solicitor Judith Harris' 1992 opinion explaining why enforcement of the bill would violate the Constitution, the Home Rule Charter, and applicable state rules of procedure have been circulated to the members of the Committee. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Could you put that into the record, please?
Pardon me? CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Could you put those procedures and why it would violate the constitutionality of the bills and so on. And could you put that into the record?
Yes. To give an outline of the reasoning of the opinion? 5 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Yes.
Yes. I would be happy to do that. Bill 181 was passed by City Council on October 22, 1992. It would add a new provision to Title of the Code. 8 Essentially, there are four aspects 9 of it. One, conduct that violates Section 5-902 of 10 the Crimes Code would also constitute a violation under the Philadelphia Code. Number two, any vehicle used -- CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Excuse me. Councilman Cohen is leaving. Present are Councilwoman Donna Miller, Councilwoman Krajewski, Councilman Mariano, Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Kenney. You can continue.
The second aspect of the bill provides that any vehicle used in the commission of this prohibited conduct is subject to impoundment. The third aspect of the legislation is that a $300 fine is imposed for the release of the vehicle that's been impounded. 6 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 And number four, all fines collected are to be used for enforcement of the bill. On November 17, 1992, after Council had passed Bill 181, City Solicitor Judith Harris issued a legal opinion to Mayor Rendell in which she identified serious legal deficiencies which, in her opinion, rendered the bill invalid. The main legal issue that's raised by the bill, in her opinion, is the impoundment of the vehicle used in the commission of the prohibited conduct. Essentially, she reached the conclusion that this aspect of Bill 181 violates the Constitutional right to due process. There is no notice or hearing required prior to the impoundment of the vehicle. There is no provision for a prompt hearing after impoundment of the vehicle. There is no provision for the release of the vehicle, other than after payment of the fine. So, in effect, what happens is that the individual posts, in effect, his or her vehicle as security for paying the fine. So, in other words, the owner of the 7 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 vehicle is not given an opportunity to challenge the propriety of the impoundment of the vehicle. The opinion also raises a number of other legal deficiencies. For example, City Solicitor Harris concludes that the temporary impoundment of the vehicle is not legally defensible as a punishment for an offense. The Rules of Criminal Procedure do not authorize temporary seizure of property as security for the payment of fines. And she also reaches the conclusion that there is no 14 authorization under state law. I understand that, more recently, it has been suggested that recent state legislation may have cured at least some, if not all, of the legal problems that City Solicitor Harris has identified in her 1992 opinion. I believe specifically Act 149, which was enacted by the General Assembly in 1996, it authorizes the impoundment of vehicles for certain kinds of Vehicle Code offenses, including driving without operating privileges or registration. Act 149, and certainly based on 8 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 additional research our office has conducted recently, it does not authorize the impoundment of vehicles for this particular offense. So, again, the conclusion that City Solicitor Harris reaches in her opinion, that there is no authorization for the impoundment of the vehicle under state law, continues to be a valid one. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: I know, obviously, you are speaking if you are soliciting a woman of the night, that there is no legal authorization for the impoundment of the vehicle. However, if you are participating in a drug sale and you are arrested as the buyer, can the automobile at that point also, between the arrest, can the city, will the city, have the authority to impound and confiscate that vehicle?
I believe that there may be -- and I am speculating at this point -- I believe that there may be authorization under separate state law to seize property for drug-related activity. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: If you are the buyer, you are not the seller. 9 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 If you are the buyer in this case, you are coming into a neighborhood in your BMW, and you are soliciting and you are buying drugs, and I believe that you could be arrested. But do we also have the authority to impound the vehicle and confiscate that vehicle at that time?
Under that statute, I don't know the answer to that question. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Is there under any other statute that you may know? I mean, does the city police department, and the district attorney, have the legal authority to be able, on a drug transaction, not a prostitution action --
Right. I understand. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: -- but on a drug transaction, can we arrest the buyer, but also at the same time impound and confiscate that vehicle? Because if we can't do that, I think it would be a great idea. And I see that we have two deputy commissioners here. And it would be a very good idea to 10 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 begin. Instead of arresting the drug dealer corner, why don't we put out some of our own folks on the corner and start selling drugs and arresting those individuals that we sell the drugs to at that time. I think if we confiscate and arrest a couple of these guys, and we confiscate a couple of BMWs and Mercedes in Kensington, I think it would send a message to, as Kenney would like to say, the guys up there in the suburbs and New Jersey. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS J. NESTELL: Thomas J. Nestell, Deputy Police Commissioner. Councilman, under the state forfeiture law, I believe that we could confiscate those vehicles under the circumstances that you alluded to. The state -- CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: I am talking about not the drug dealer. I am talking about a guy who comes in from the suburbs, or from another neighborhood, to make a buy. They are coming in to make a buy. There was a guy in my neighborhood the other day -- and my wife saw this -- and the guy 11 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 went by in a car, did the buy, and then just sped off. Can we at that point arrest the individual that did the buy and confiscate his automobile at that time? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Yes, we can. What the Narcotics Unit has done is, on some of their operations, working with the District Attorney's Office, what they call their sting operations, that was one of the things that was done on those operations. They would take, confiscate the vehicle, in addition to making the arrest. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: So we can do that. So we could put out our undercover individuals out on the corners, and sell some of these drugs, and arrest some of the guys that we sell the drugs to? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: They are doing that in Chicago, I think, and so on. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: And we have done that. 12 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 We mainly do it on the sting operations, though, not on individual buys. And I believe that it could be done on that, also. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: I think we need to send messages. And I think a message can be sent if we start doing it on individual buys. Because if we do it on individual buys, and that begins to get publicized, I think we could send a very good message along those lines. Councilman Kenney, you have something to say?
Mr. Chairman, I am on the Committee, but there is not room at the table. We can, I think, confiscate cars, despite all due respect to the City Solicitor, for any reason. And I will tell you why I believe that to be true. An individual solicits an undercover police officer for the purposes of prostitution. And that individual is arrested on Kensington Avenue, Frankford Avenue, Broad Street, wherever. And that individual is taken in custody and booked. 13 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 We have the responsibility, in my view, to ensure the safety of that automobile. It is not parked on the curb. We are not confiscating his vehicle or impounding it for the purposes of reselling it. We should be confiscating and impounding it for the purpose of keeping it protected so it is not stolen off our city streets. We didn't then take that car by hook down to the impoundment lot, and we put it in storage for its own safekeeping. Once the miscreant is released from police custody, he is then required to go on his own down to the impoundment lot, pay the towing fee, pay the fee for storage, and take his car back to Jersey. I don't think there is a problem with that at all. It is not an issue of due process; it is an issue of protecting the vehicle from being damaged or stolen. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: What you are saying is, you are not confiscating the vehicle.
The issue for the John, in my experience -- this is not the license 14 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 and registration issue; this is the prostitution issue. This guy, when he comes to town or he comes in from another neighborhood, he wants to get in, do his business, and get out. His arrest delays him. Now he has to explain to his wife where he is at. His, not confiscation, but protective custody of his vehicle takes more time, also. He then has to go down to the impoundment lot, use his credit card or use his cash to pay for the towing and storage fee. He has additional things to explain to his wife when he gets home, as to why he is spending money to get his car out of custody when he was going to buy a loaf of bread at the Wawa. And if it takes him two days or three days to get home -- because on a Friday night, he could get arrested and wind up getting out on Monday morning, with a three-day storage fee and towing fee, have to go to the impoundment lot to get his car -- I will guarantee you that man will not be back to that street again. Because he would never 15 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 want to go through this aggravation anymore in his life. Because the biggest problem for him is exposure to his family and friends and coworkers about his nighttime activities, or, in some instances in the city, his morning and afternoon activities. But I believe that due process is not an issue here because we are not confiscating his car to own it; we are just confiscating it to keep it safe.
Councilman Kenney, I appreciate your comments. And I understand. And we certainly are not taking issue with the intent of the legislation. At this point there is a City Solicitor's opinion that raises Constitutional and other legal deficiencies. And in transmitting the message to City Council, I think the Mayor made it clear that, if I might quote -- and I believe this was also circulated to members of the Committee -- that the Administration will not enforce the provisions of Bill No. 181 pending consultations with members of 16 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Council on ways to design a bill that is not legally objectionable. I am certainly prepared to meet with members of Council to consider any additional information that you may want to provide to my office, to reevaluate and reconsider the opinion, and to see if there are ways that we might be able to address some of the Constitutional concerns and other legal deficiencies identified in the opinion. It may be that, certainly, there are situations in the context of parking and towing violations where vehicles are confiscated. But there is a detailed procedure. And that is covered in the opinion in some detail, which goes back to, at least, the fundamental problem with the fact that there is no 18 due process right incorporated or procedure incorporated into the legislation. That aspect of it, could it be cured? That's certainly something that we could look at.
I just want one comment. Just two comments. First of all, I think the issue of 17 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 due process comes in when we are impounding the car, we are taking possession of the car to take it away from the person forever. I don't think the issue of protective custody of the car is an issue of due process. I think we could do the guy a favor, so his car is not stolen. The inconvenience that he encounters because of that custody, that's his problem. That's not something we should be worried about, because we are not taking the car away from him. My final comment on this issue, we can't sit around -- and, again, I understand your position and where you are coming from and your responsibilities -- but the Mayor has to understand, and the Administration has to understand, that while we diddle around worrying about the Constitutional rights of men who come into our city to do this activity, 450 to 500 people a month are leaving the city. By the time we, quote, unquote, cure the legal problems, there may be no one left to worry about curing anything. And I think that what happens is, if 18 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 we start taking these guys' cars, none of these men, none of them are going to waltz down to the Federal Courthouse at 6th and Market and file a Civil Rights violation because, again, he doesn't want his wife to know what he is doing. He will be happy to get his car and get home. And I think we go beyond the pale of bending over to worry about the rights and Constitutional protections and everything for this guy, when all he wants is his car back. I assure you, he won't be in front of a Federal Magistrate filing any action. And if he does, so what? He exposes himself further. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: But the city can be exposed on a federal action. And that, I don't think, is an exposure that the city wants to be involved in.
I disagree, Mr. Chairman. I disagree. I think that kind of exposure and publicity, that we are taking guys' cars, and federal court actions are necessary to get paid, they will go to the White Horse Pike, where they used to go. 19 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 But now they come here because we are easy-going and worry about their Constitutional protection. So, again -- CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: But Madam Solicitor, that issue in which the car is not confiscated and the car is not impounded, in which the car is simply, at the time of the arrest, the car is also removed from the site of the arrest, and removed to a --
For safekeeping. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: -- to a locale that the city owns, does that, does the moving of the vehicle -- not the taking, because you are not taking property from the individual -- but you are, in essence, you are removing the vehicle from the site of the arrest to a site where the city can keep the car until the owner can get it, does that represent any Constitutional issues in terms of due process? The opinion doesn't address that.
Correct. That is correct. 20 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: The opinion doesn't address that.
That is correct. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: And could I ask you to take that question and address it, and submit to us a reasoning of why or why not that thing cannot be done?
And, also, I think in response to Councilman Kenney's comments, I just recently became aware of Bill 181 and the opinion. And, so, in addition to responding to that question, we would be happy to consider any other information, ideas, or thoughts that you or other members of the Committee may have. It is not simply an issue of protecting the rights of the individuals from a due process standpoint, but working with you to develop and craft legislation that is going to withstand legal challenge. 21 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 That's one aspect of it, and there are other issues that we could work on, as well.
It is an issue of emphasis. While we are trying to craft the perfect bill that will never be challenged, we are not doing anything in the meantime. I don't mean to denigrate the efforts of Judge Cirmelli and Judge DeAngelis, and other people who are working on this. But the wheels of government turn so slowly. You will never craft a piece of legislation that is unchallengeable, ever. And we might as well start doing something, and let some federal judge tell us we have to stop. At least the people in the city will think we are trying. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Can you address those issues --
Yes. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: -- and then get back to us on it? And Councilman Mariano, go ahead. And then Councilman Rizzo. 22 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634
I don't want to overemphasize what Councilman Kenney said. And the Solicitor and I have talked on this. And she graciously promised to work on something. We can always continue this particular of this hearing to figure out -- until we try to do what Councilman Kenney wants to do. And that's what we all want to do. But I just can't let everybody here know how important it is. I represent the 7th Council Distrist, the East Police Division, the El is mine and DiCicco's and Councilwoman Krajewski's, to at least Girard Avenue, and then Frankie picks it up. It is bad. I mean, it is so bad. You know, you may read in the papers and you may see things we are trying to do. It is like an endless game with these people. And Councilman Kenney is right. We need to make sure that these people are -- he didn't totally say it, but I will say it -- we have to make sure they are inconvenienced, that they have to walk back over the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge to Pennsauken, or wherever they are from. That may be what we have to do. 23 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Because when you are coaching a soccer team at North Catholic, and you are walking out, and the prostitutes are soliciting the soccer players that are years old, because this is 6 acceptable behavior under the El. 7 Now, it is better than it was in July 8 because the heat is on there. We have deputy 9 commissioners here; we have judges. The heat is 10 on. 11 But if we stop, if Kenney and I 12 decide to move to Florida, hopefully somebody else 13 will be here to do this -- it would be Jupiter, by 14 the way -- but there will be somebody else here to 15 do this. There are a lot of people in this city. But can you imagine living on Kensington Avenue, and your child comes out every day to walk to the local public store, and there are girls whacked out on crack and there's guys? Besides this issue, the safety. Some of these cars may not be safe. And I understand Councilman Kenney's frustration. We bend over backwards. And I know it is not you. And I know you want to work with us. But we bend over 24 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 backwards to make sure we don't hurt anybody's feelings or get sued. We are going to get sued anyhow. And do you know what, I don't work for the Mayor. And I don't really care about the Mayor, because he doesn't do anything for me. He is great for Phillies tickets, that's great. The Phillies had a bad season. But what we need to know is, they are not standing there in East Falls. They are not in East Falls, they are not in front of his house. But they are in front of the people in the 23rd, 33rd Ward and the 45th Ward. And we have to look at these people. And they say, do you know what, if I call 911, by the times the cops come out, these guys -- I mean, I personally have stopped cars. And I love guys with Jersey tags. I say, "Did you give her any money yet? Because she has AIDS, and you are going to die." And guys throw the money back, throw them out of the car. That's beautiful. But eventually somebody is going to get killed here. Some kid is going to get hit 25 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 because some guy is looking the other way. Some prostitute herself is going to get run over because they are standing out in the middle of the street half naked. It is like a cartoon. People are slamming into the sides of cars. Nobody is paying attention because they have their mind on one thing. We need to craft something. And I am glad you will help us with it. And it would be very important to this Committee if we can do that, because it has to end.
I appreciate your concerns and issues. That's why I'm here personally today, to reaffirm that my office is committed to working with you to see if we can come up with some approach to this. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. My question is to the City Solicitor. Solicitor, maybe you can explain something that I am not clear on. If a person is arrested by the police and they are in a motor vehicle, and the police leave the vehicle on the RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 street and transport the people that were arrested, and that vehicle is stolen or that vehicle is vandalized when it is left on-site after an arrest, is there any precedent? Have we been sued or have we ever been responsible because we have left the vehicle, possibly, not secured properly or locked?
I am assuming that we have, but I would have to check into it. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: I don't have any facts with me. But I am quite certain we have been sued for not protecting the vehicle.
Could you explain the policy? Commissioner, if you arrest someone in a vehicle and the officers don't lock the car, or they don't put it in a legal parking space, and it is damaged or stolen, do you have any responsibility? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Our policy is that unless it is evidence, they lock the vehicle and leave it on the highway.
And what happens if it is vandalized or stolen? 27 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Well, then, it is up to the individual whether or not they want to sue us.
Or if you just tell us where the cars are, we will come and vandalize them ourselves and steal them. But what happens also, Councilman -- and I have heard this on police radio -- is that an officer in uniform is taken out of service to drive the guy's car to the police station, where it is waiting for him at the door when he gets his summary citation and gets let loose. So we have police officers driving cars to the police station to get them off the street. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Is that the policy?
It is happening. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Let's put it on the record. Is that the policy, Commissioner? Let's create a record, then. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARD ZAPPILE: Deputy Commissioner Zupelli, Philadelphia Police Department. The same occurs not only if it is a 28 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 drug deal or prostitution, or even, say, it is a drunk driver. Our police officers are instructed, -- not only by policy, but by practice -- to use due care in doing what any normal, reasonable person would do. Is the car in a safe place? Is it parked legally? Are the doors locked? If the car gets broken into, anybody can sue anybody for anything. But as long as it can be shown that we exercised due care in doing that. There is another side that sometimes, in some districts -- because policy doesn't dictate that we do this in all cases -- that police officers, based on upon the totality of the circumstances, may decide to remove that vehicle to the district for safekeeping. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: What's to stop us, then, from establishing a policy that as we do and take all of the precautions and act in due diligence and due care and so on, that we drive the car down to Spring Garden, Delaware Avenue, and we put it in the city lot? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: That, I 29 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 think, the City Solicitor said that she would address. I don't know all the legal -- CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: No. But I'm saying -- and I am just putting this out -- that in the manner in which we go out and we do due diligence, due care, and we take all of the necessary precautions -- because I agree, we should live by the law. We are a country of laws, and we live by the law. And if the city begins to violate the law, then we cannot begin to talk when other people begin to violate the law, also. So when you speak about violating Constitutional rights of somebody, I don't care whether it is a prostitute or whatever it is, we are treading on very dangerous ground. But if we are going to do due diligence, why cannot we, since we are not impounding, we are not confiscating, and we actually do that as a public policy, as a policy of the police department, why don't we -- and, City Solicitor, maybe you can look at this -- as we do this, why don't we just take it down and put it in the lot at Spring Garden and Delaware Avenue? 30 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: That's part of what she is going to look at. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Very good. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: But there is also a practical side to that, and that's how many cars and how many police officers we have to move them. There are a lot of logistical questions, which I think you are going to address later.
I have to say this. In the 25th and 24th Police Districts, we are trying to build a new station. When I go there, I can't park my car. It gets egged when it is on the street. So if we are going to impound somebody's car -- not impound; wrong word -- take somebody's car for safekeeping, it would be better to take it down to somebody's lot. I mean, the 24th and 25th, even the 2nd and the 15th is bad. The 26th, it is crowded. And they were built 45 years ago. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: But the City 31 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Solicitor will be addressing that. So why don't we just take all of these things into consideration so that we may be able to do certain things that we might be able to implement. But the drug dealer, the drug buyer, that we can take. So why don't we begin a whole series of small, small stings, not a huge one. But, you know, let's put some undercover folks out on 4th and Cambria or 6th and Indiana. And as the marketplace opens up -- or on 3rd and Ontario. And as that happens, we make some selling, and we are able to arrest the buyer right then and there. You know, why don't we begin? And maybe, then, publicize those small, small sting operations, you know, especially with pictures of the cars and the individuals, and so on. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Councilman, I will go back, discuss that with the Commissioner, with our Narcotics Enforcement officers, and get back to you. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Because I think if 32 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 we do it at that level, and instead of arresting the corner dealer, let's put our own dealer out there and let him deal some drugs. And I think if the message goes out -- they have been doing it in Chicago in a small manner. And they seem to have had some success in driving and cleaning up from outside individuals coming into the neighborhood, from outside the neighborhood and outside the city. And, you know, it has had some success. Instead of the nickel-and-dime seller, to let's arrest the nickel-and-dime buyer, and take his BMW along with it. Councilwoman.
Hi. Good afternoon. Councilwoman Miller. One of the concepts that the Guardian Angels used -- and we can either agree or disagree that they were effective -- was that they, you know, took over street corners and they drove away the customers. Because I think that's also a method that works, that you harass the customers enough that they won't return. 33 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 And, for the record, I want to make sure that we note that prostitution and, of course, drug dealing is pretty much a citywide problem. There are lots of corners in the 14th District, 35th District, 39th District, and all those other districts that I represent, police districts. So I think it would be interesting to see some type of legislation crafted to have an impact, a positive impact, on what's happening in these neighborhoods. Because these are real quality-of-life issues for people. I don't really have any questions. I just wanted to say that. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman Mariano.
While I have you three learned people right here at the table, Zupelli, too, what about the motorcycles, dirt bikes, and the four-wheel and three-wheel vehicles? Do we take them? Is it up to the police captain in the district? Where are we with that? Is that illegal, too? CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: They are illegal.
People sell 34 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 drugs on them up and down 5th Street. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: They are illegal, most of them -- and Ortiz knows at the Puerto Rican Day Picnic, we confiscated. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: In the 25th, Captain Colloruto has begun a policy of confiscating as many multiple vehicles, multi-terrain vehicles, as he sees. And the key situation is that they have to catch them in operation. But, they are doing it. And I think we have like now that 14 we have confiscated, or that the district has 15 confiscated, around 20 up there in that area. 16
Let me address 17 that. That's what I wanted to ask you. Two 18 questions there. 19 How do you catch them? And, second 20 of all, when you get them, what do you do with them? You take them down to the 25th, and they sit there and rust out? Do the people get to get them back? Do you auction them off? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: Well, you are right in the first part. We tell our 35 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 officers not to -- because they are inherently dangerous.
You can't catch them. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: Sometimes we use police motorcycles, highway patrol, which will interdict and catch them.
How many highway patrol motorcycles do we have left? Ten. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: For certain events, we do have them. But even our bicycle officers, they are adept at stealth. You have to catch them when you are down, when they are sitting on a highway. And if you catch someone driving them, it is a summary citation. You give them tickets; you confiscate the vehicle. Most people do not have the paperwork to get them back. And they are sent, as in any other city property, into the auction process at some point in time.
Are these items titled? Because I don't think they are titled. 36 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: Most of them aren't. My experience is, most of them are not titled.
I don't think they are. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: They are not titled; they are not licensed. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: The policy is, we just instituted, the captain instituted, a policy in that area, at least, like as of September, really, when he got in there. And it is something that I have been asking for for a long time. And he has been doing it. But if we can do that in the 25th and the 26th, and if we can do that on the 24th, in that area, I think we could have, one, a real effect on the corner drug dealing. Because they are used in terms of messengers and carriers and so on. And I know that we have to catch them. The other day I was up there, and I was on 6th Street, and two guys just went by. And I didn't see a police car at that time. But it would have been just great to just take those two young 37 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 guys and just take their vehicle away. But I think if we continue that policy, and we extend it, I think up there in that area, in the East Division, we would disrupt the drug dealing that goes on. At least we would put some chinks into the armor. Any other questions? Thank you. We have been joined by Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. Thank you. Why don't we have the Honorable Christopher Columbus and Bernice DeAngelis come up. Oh, I am sorry, Richard Cermele. Forget that. Come up as a panel. And I would leave it to the panel, the distinguished panel in front of me, Rina and Bernice and Richard, to decide who begins. JUDGE CERMELE: If everyone doesn't mind, I would begin because I am the person that was in charge of implementing Phase One, and then we can move on from there. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Please identify yourself for the record. JUDGE DOMINIC M. CERMELE: I am Dominic Cermele. I am the Executive Director of the 38 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Office of Administrative Review, an agency of the Finance Department of the City of Philadelphia. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of appearing before the Council to demonstrate the strong record of the city and its agent, the Philadelphia Parking Authority, in enforcing some of the provisions of House Bill 2360 pertaining to the impoundment of vehicles that are unregistered or uninsured or otherwise not in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Code of Pennsylvania or the Traffic Code of the City of Philadelphia. House Bill 2360 was passed by the General Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania on July 2, 1996, and took effect November 2 of that year. On December 2 -- in other words, within 30 days of the effective date -- the city began enforcement of this important piece of legislation. As I reported to all Council members in my memorandum of November 21, 1996, the concept of depriving citizens of their property is fraught with danger. 39 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Further I noted at the time that projects of the scope and vision by that particular legislation had overwhelmingly complex logistical concerns. Perhaps these two reasons explain why the General Assembly later withdrew from the law the ability to immobilize vehicles discovered by the police to be operated without benefit of liability insurance. Nevertheless, Phase One of our enforcement program, carried out by the Parking Authority and the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, has been highly successful. Starting December 2, 1996, the Parking Authority dramatically altered its procedures for the release of vehicles impounded for outstanding parking tickets and other reasons.
From that point to this very day, no 20 vehicle is released to its owner or agent to be driven out of our municipal impoundment lot unless the following are fully complied with: One, proof of registration must be supplied and the same verified through the authority's on-line connection to PennDOT; 40 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Two, financial responsibility must be proven by presenting proof of financial responsibility, or insurance card; And, finally, that the vehicle is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. By this I mean that all vehicles owned by individuals who have driver's licenses suspended because of failure to satisfy outstanding moving violations, they must submit proof from the Philadelphia Traffic Court that all of those violations are now satisfied or they are on an approved Traffic Court payment program. These changes and procedures were not easily accomplished because, quite frankly, many individuals became enraged and angered over the prospect of losing their vehicles. Despite the difficulty in implementing these changes, the program has been highly successful, as the following statistics would show. In the period from December 2, 1996, until the end of October this year, the Authority towed 22,351 vehicles. 41 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Applying those standards that I just read to you, 2,385 vehicles were not released because they did not prove they had insurance. 1,066 vehicles were not released because they were not properly registered. And 107 were referred to the Traffic Court because their licenses had been suspended for failure to respond to a motor vehicle violation. 6 percent of vehicles towed. You will note that the total number of vehicles held is less than the sum of the whole categories. This is so because many of the vehicles are held for more than one defect. You will also note that the percentage of vehicles held is less than 15 percent of all vehicles towed during that period. We find this quite interesting, since we very often hear that 35 to 40 percent of all vehicles in Philadelphia are uninsured, and, thus, those of us who are insured must pay higher rates to make up for this large percentage. We are still analyzing our figures 42 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 and are, as of yet, unable to attribute any particular significance to this. We do find it to be an interesting anomaly. Vehicles whose owners are unable to correct registration defects or the other defects are eventually sold onto the Authority's auction program as authorized by this Council by Bill 747 of 1995. I am happy to report that the results of that auction program have been simply astounding. 7 million. 5 million. Phase Two of the program has also been fraught with some logistical problems, all which, I am informed, have been worked out. This includes the Traffic Court issuing impoundment orders in accordance with the provisions of Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, 75, Section 6309. Under those provisions, the Court has 43 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 appointed the Parking Authority to act as the agent for the Court in impounding certain vehicles. Essentially, these are vehicles determined by the Court to be in violation of provisions of the code relating to registration, insurance, licensing, or other vehicle characteristics for which the outstanding fines are $250 or more. This phase will be fully implemented as of the end of this month. And from that point on those vehicles for which impoundment orders have been issued by the Traffic Court will have their registration tag numbers listed in the database of the Parking Authority. Booting crews, equipped with mobile digital terminals, will search out those vehicles while performing their normal patrol patterns. And, finally, I would say that Phase Three is, as you well know, by law, under the sole authority of the Traffic Court and, as I understand it, will also soon be implemented.
I believe that the successes accomplished under the first phase of this program will spill over into the other two phases, and 44 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Philadelphia will become a model for the rest of the municipalities in this state. Thank you.
Judge, thank you. Thank you for your help. First, as the Councilman introduced these two resolutions, I need everybody to know, this isn't a witch hunt for anybody here. It is just, when you represent the district that I represent, you need to get things done. We need to get this done. And we are glad for everything you did -- and we will probably continue this -- and everything you will do. That goes for everybody here. But I have a couple of questions. Now, I understand -- and all your figures look good -- but everything is real practical to me. Now, in Juniata, in the 33rd Ward, by the golf course you may have visited once or twice, Judge, because I know you are an avid golfer. I 45 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 heard that rumor, that might not be a good enough course for you. But right by the golf course there, it is a public course, at Dungin and Cayuga, there is a group of people that live in the corner house that play this T tag game. And what they do is, they have two or three Temporary tags. And any good cop on the street will tell you, anybody that has been on the street for a while can see that tag and say, "Councilman, see that tag, that is too old to be a T tag. It was issued a year ago." But these guys keep these tags clean. Because they are not paper anymore, they are metal. They shine them, and they still look new. But by the numbers, the police can tell. They keep switching these tags, Judge, about three tags under six, seven, eight cars. Now, when I have a problem with that, I call the captain in the 24th, and he sends some people out. But these same guys could be down that end of the 24th doing some real police work. Can I call you or somebody in the Parking Authority to send like a sweep of different 46 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 neighborhoods? Would you know if these T tags were bad? Would you know what cars are bad? JUDGE CERMELE: I think the Executive Director of the Parking Authority would probably be best able to answer that.
For the record, Rina Cutler, Executive Director, Philadelphia Parking Authority. And I actually may need a little assistance here. I do believe within the boundaries that the Parking Authority currently operates under, that my folks can identify, and do identify, nonvalid tags. So the problem, as I see it, is two-fold. One, depending on the time of day, as you are aware, there are not always available folks to send out. And, two, we generally do not operate outside the purview of even either the neighborhood business districts or the boundaries of Center City as defined, as river to river, Spring Garden to Bainbridge.
River to river, Vine to Pine. 47 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634
Bainbridge to Spring Garden. And so whether or not we have either the authorization or staffing to go there, I would say no on both counts.
No 8 authorization, no staffing. Let me change this question just a little bit. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZAPPILE: If I could just amplify that a little bit. The patrol patterns that the Parking Authority works on, and that is the central business district and those outlying residential business strips, and one block on either side, that is not law, but that is by agreement of Council. We abide by Council's wishes.
And we can change all that. We can add the authority to you. Let me ask this question, and either one of you can answer that. Say it is inside your parameter there to do this. And here is a car -- and since I got my new Council car with the police scanner on there, I spend a lot of time listening to it. It is very 48 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 addictive. And a lot of the police work in the city is nonsense, in the term of it is not serious police work. There is enough serious police work, but it is, "I stopped this car at 10th and Race, and the tags belong to a Chevy, but the car is a Ford. It hasn't been registered." And that's when we get into the third part for Judge DeAngelis. If you see a car parked at 10th and Race and you run the tag and the tag is good, do you know that it belongs to a Chevy, but it is actually on a Ford?
The problem, Councilman, is that I don't know that until I take the car into the tow lot. There is no direct on-line access on the street to the PennDOT system. So once I have the vehicle and it is in the tow lot, then we run all of those things. But not on-street.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco, did you have an answer? 49 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have a question.
Judge Cermele, Phase One, which you have indicated you believe to be a success, all involve cars that are parked by the curb; is that correct? JUDGE CERMELE: That's correct.
Nothing that is moving? JUDGE CERMELE: That's correct.
And in Phase Two, which is in the process of being implemented, soon to be fully implemented, or it is fully implemented now? It is kind of almost there? JUDGE CERMELE: As I understand it -- and Judge DeAngelis and Rina Cutler might answer that better -- they are able to proceed as of the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. But I think they have agreed that that would not be an appropriate day to start this, and so they intend to start it the first of the month.
Holiday staffing issues? Okay. Phase Two and Phase Three, are they moving vehicles? JUDGE CERMELE: Phase Three is.
Maybe you could explain Phase Two, so we know what that is. JUDGE CERMELE: Okay. I think probably Judge DeAngelis can do that.
Thank you, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess my questions were kind of where Councilman Kenney was going. We are discussing these numbers, these 22,351, are related to people who park illegally. JUDGE CERMELE: That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we really don't know if the 35 to 40 percent is accurate. Because when you begin to implement the next phase, where police who stop individuals for alleged moving violations, that number that we all believe to be somewhere between 35 to 40 percent of the people who 51 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 are driving are either unlicensed and uninsured, may be real. JUDGE CERMELE: It may be. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Based on my experience as the former Court Administrator of Traffic Court, looking at the pool of people who are constantly issued tickets, repeat offenders, I think 35 to 40 percent is right on target. And maybe that will come out through other discussions. JUDGE CERMELE: And that may very well be. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But I think it is important that we bring that out. And Councilman Kenney already began to bring it out. We are only talking about people who park at a meter or park illegal. We don't really know what the full impact is going to be on removing people who are driving through the streets of Philadelphia who may park legally, but are driving a car illegally. JUDGE CERMELE: And the other thing is, you remember that the patrol patterns of the Authority do not extend into residential neighborhoods. And, so that you eliminate those 52 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 people, also. All I am saying is that individuals who have had three or more parking violations and have ignored them, and, as a result, have had their vehicles towed or impounded, and, therefore, by definition, are individuals who don't pay particular attention to their debts, we have found that 9 percent of them or less have problems with 10 registration or insurance. 11 But we may be talking a lot of 12 up-standing citizens who just don't happen to have 13 parking tickets. 14
If I may, Councilman 15 Kenney, a lot of what direction I know you are heading in will actually, I am sure, be addressed by Judge DeAngelis. But I think it is important to state the answer to your question, which is that Phase Two is relative to people who are parked on streets, as well. And that even now, within the mission of the agency, we do not do any towing for moving violations. For vehicles that are stopped, under 53 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 the current rules, by the police department, they are towed by the police department's tow trucks.
Would you then explain to me -- and maybe I missed it when you were testifying, Judge Cermele, the difference between Phase One and Phase Two, if they are all involving parked -- JUDGE CERMELE: Phase One involves vehicles that we happen to know because they have three or more violations or they are in a two-away zone. Phase Two would then include vehicles that may be parked illegally, may not have any tickets, but they are wanted by the Court because the Court has issued impoundment orders.
But they are parked. JUDGE CERMELE: Parked, but not necessarily legally.
Either there, or within the district boundaries in the neighborhood business districts.
Thank you. Any other questions? Judge DeAngelis. JUDGE BERNICE DeANGELIS: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Councilpeople. I think, first of all, I have to clear up the issue here as far as phases. Phases are terms used by the Parking Authority for whatever type of operation they are into or not into. First of all, the law for this impoundment law is in two categories. Those categories have absolutely nothing to do with whether a car is parked or not parked. And it is important for you to understand both categories of that law, so that we can go into the implementation and the enforcement of the law. The law has two major categories, the first category being for vehicles whose owners -- key word, whose owners -- have been to court, to Traffic Court. This entire law has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with parking tickets. 55 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Whose owners have been to court, who have been found guilty of moving violations, who have ignored paying their fines that are now in default. And that among those tickets that they were found guilty for, they were either found guilty for one of the following: No insurance, no 9 registration, no license. Those for prior convictions can be impounded on-site, anyplace. The second category are for those vehicles that are being operated by anyone, who belonged to anyone, who are moving on the street. And the owner is not licensed, the vehicle itself is not registered, or the registration has been suspended because of no insurance. At that point the police officer, who for some probable cause -- maybe the fact that he sees one of these tags you talked about, Councilman Kenney -- can stop that vehicle, verify information with Harrisburg, ask the people in the vehicle to leave the vehicle, and to call for a tower to impound that vehicle, call the Court for the Court to impound the vehicle. 56 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 So the two categories of the law are for owners of vehicles that have prior convictions of $250 and more. The Court alone would know who those people are because the convictions and the fines are ours. And it was an enormous job to have our computer, who keeps records by operator number, to translate that information into a tag number so that they can be identified on the street by the Parking Authority, who up front is supposed to help us find some of those cars, for an up-start, for a quick start. The live stop, the second part of the law, is going to be implemented in full effect by January 1. Now, the phases that Judge Cermele talked about have nothing to do with the Court because the Court and its operation with the Parking Authority, in all effects, have not begun yet. And I am going to address that in the statement in chronological order. I know of no Court regulations that allow them to sell any cars, the Parking Authority, to sell any cars, except for parking tickets. 57 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 The joint Court regulation for selling cars, for moving violations, has not begun yet. As Judge Cermele said, 22,000 cars may have been impounded. You also heard him say 107 of those how many thousand came up to Traffic Court. If those 107 were sold, the Traffic Court realized nothing from the sale of those cars. But let me, please, tell you the Court's perspective, and the Court who is responsible for implementing this law. This report that I will now give you will summarize the progress achieved in implementation of procedures of the boot and two law. The law makes provisions for governmental seizure and possible sale of private vehicles. The law was enacted to be an enforcement tool to ensure and guarantee public safety. Since mid January 1997, implementation efforts have been guided by the leadership of Traffic Court. There is documentation and testimony 58 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 here that suggests that other associated city departments assumed the leadership role early on.
But today's end product is a collaborated effort between representatives of the Court, the state agencies, the Philadelphia Police Department, and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. And I would be remiss at this point if I did not thank the President Judge of the Common Pleas Court, and his staff, in the name of Dominic Rossi; the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Court and their staff, Mark Flood; Joe DePrimio, the Office of the Administrator of the Courts, with his staff Lynn Hacking; Commissioner Neal and the Philadelphia Police Department, in giving us Deputy Commissioner Nestell and the services of Cerviano and folks -- Mr. Croft, the Department of Transportation. Without their cooperation, this Court could not be in the position today to tell you we're ready to start implementation -- implementation has been started, but to start towing vehicles. I already explained to you the two sections of the law, so I can pass that. 59 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 The first section of the law that deals with prior convictions, these are people that have already been to court, they have fines, the fines are in default. From the onset, the enforcement of this part of the law was based on a cooperation venture between the Philadelphia Traffic Court and the Parking Authority. The Court asked the Parking Authority to tow automobiles that were identified by the court. And that if they see them in the regular course of their present activities, to pick them up for us. The Traffic Court, on April 3, identified a list of vehicles that could be impounded under this program. Early January, the Court operations expanded to match the hours of the Parking Authority to be open from 8:30 until 8:00 in the evening every day of the week and Saturday from 9:00 to 1:00. A Memorandum of Agreement for a six-month pilot program, spelling out exactly the responsibility of the PPA and the Traffic Court, was signed and sent to the Parking Authority on April 60 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 3. An Impoundment Order, as I say, to identify 4,000 plates was sent to them. And every week after that, an additional 200 plates was added to that list. On July 7, Rina Cutler, the Director of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, signed the Memorandum of Agreement. Notices were mailed out to those people that were eligible, and potentially eligible, to warn them to come into court to pay up their fines before their car was impounded. Common Pleas Court and Traffic Court entered into joint court regulations. But, to date, no cars have been towed. I understand the last hold-up is the computers between Traffic Court and the Parking Authority that are not speaking to one another. I don't know about this November start. No one called to tell me that. That is news to me here today. My court has been open and operational. Revenues are being paid in overtime 61 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 waiting for those cars to come in. That's the update on the first phase. The Court has done everything that we can, everything is in order. We are waiting for the Parking Authority to go out and get them. Now I would like to talk about the second part of the law. That's the law that everyone is waiting to see implemented, and that's the livestock. I have explained the law. As it was first written, a person having to have insurance was a criteria for a stop. And in December of 1996, that particular piece was removed because it was impossible for a police officer on the street to verify the car's authenticity, whether the person was insured or not. But those people are caught under not being registered. Because if you do not have insurance, you cannot get registered. So that population will be addressed in this live stop. It made sense up front, and it confused a lot of people because everyone just figured that the Parking Authority was going to go 62 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 out and get those cars for us, also.
And we did offer to, Rina Cutler, the Executive Director of the PPA, if she would be interested that when the police do identify a car, in the area of her current operation, if she would be interested towing that car into their lot. I got a cautious response from Miss Cutler, and I understand why. Because she wanted to know more about the scope of our procedures. Another thing you have to take into consideration is that the Parking Authority has, what, 15, 16, tow trucks. How can that few tow 14 trucks be available on a 24-hour basis for the 15 entire City of Philadelphia? 16 We took into consideration the outcry 17 from the public and from the Council and from the legislature, why isn't the law being implemented. You remember that this law was directed to be implemented with no funding. We received no money to buy tow trucks, no money to have tow truck drivers operate them, no money to secure lots, and very little money to hire the people in the Traffic Court that we need to go into this operation. 63 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Council, I offer you, I have 120 people on a no-growth budget. They have already been split from one shift, 8:30 to 4:00, to two shifts. The court is now open six days a week. It is going to have to be open seven. How far can I split those same 120 people? Dispatchers and other employees are going to be needed for hours around the clock. 11 Because at any time multiple stops, probably, in 25 12 police districts, police officers will be doing 13 their long-awaited job, taking these cars off the 14 street. 15 Because of all those issues, the 16 Court had no other avenue to go but to ask private 17 towers to come out and tow the cars for us. 18 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Who is going to pay 19 you, if you have no money? Who is going to pay 20 you? 21 JUDGE DeANGELIS: The defendant is 22 going to pay them from his pocketbook, the folks 23 that have it, or from the sale of the vehicle. 24 And if nothing is going to be realized from the sale of the vehicle, then, in the 64 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 bid, the towers understand that they get nothing, either. However, the Court has put a $75 -- assessed a $75 administrative fee to every vehicle that's going to be impounded on the live stop, which means -- let me give you a conservative figure. Up until May of this year, we had no 9 way to estimate how many cars were going to be towed. So we went to the police department, and they began keeping accurate statistics of how many tickets are being written for those violations that would now make these cars impoundable. Taking in the repetitive pattern, that some people may get multiple citations, and giving the most conservative figures, we think that 6 cars an hour, 147 cars a day, 4400 cars a month, 53,000 cars a year, conservatively, can be impounded. Do you know the enormity of that? Now, you put the $75 administration fee, times 53,000 cars, you are looking at $3,000,975. Will we get it? I don't know. We will get some part of it. 65 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 And maybe that will give the Court the monies to start an operation so that all the monies can go to the City of Philadelphia, as the excellent program that the Parking Authority has does send the revenue to the city. An RFP was distributed to secure towing services on October 30, and a bidder's conference is scheduled for tomorrow. This is how the law -- it is very clear how it is going to work. The police officer will identify a car. He will check the information in Harrisburg. If necessary, the car will be immobilized. We're not going to immobilize the car. What we are going to try to do is take the car in custody immediately, as you said earlier, for the safety of the car, for the safety of the property, so that the court isn't left with lawsuits for cars that are damaged or stolen off the streets. The police officer identifies the car. The police officer will call the police headquarters. Police headquarters will notify the Court.
The Court, who has to keep record of 66 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 where these cars are, but, more important, where they are going, will then notify a tower. All this, we hope, will be done within to 30 minutes for the safety of the 6 vehicle, for the safety of the tower. 7 How are they going to be paid? 25 thereafter. 12 If the car can be redeemed, and if 13 the person comes into Traffic Court and does 14 whatever is necessary to get the car back, to either 15 pay their fines, get on a payment plan, whatever, 16 show insurance, show proper registration, whatever, 17 the car will be released. 18 If the car isn't released, then the 19 car will be held to sale. 20 The law says 30 days. But, realistically, it is going to take 40 or 45 days for those cars to be sold. Because the owners have to be notified, temporary court titles have to be prepared, that sort of work. There were many policies in areas 67 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 needed to support implementation. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Judge, can we summarize? I think the Councilpeople have some questions to ask you. JUDGE DeANGELIS: Okay. At any time they can jump in. But I want you to understand the enormity of why this isn't on the street, all the areas that we had to address. And the summary is, we had to change our entire computer base. And our operating procedures for the Traffic Court had to be reprogrammed. Communication links had to be put between the streets, the police, and the Court. For the public benefit, we have to try to provide an advertising campaign for them to understand what's going to happen. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation had to be worked with, to be sure that the integrity of the information that they gave us to the police officer was correct. We had to enlarge security systems. I already gave you the number of cars. 68 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 What we envision is a pilot program on a daytime basis, to see how many cars we get and how they can be disposed of 9:00 to 5:00 in the morning, when the Court and when the police department is fully operational. It is a safer time for those people that will be asked to leave their vehicles. There may be some innocent passengers in those vehicles. After the bidder's conference, we feel we have addressed all the areas and the issues, and we are ready to go January 1. Maybe your questions would be -- if you think the testimony is long, then you can appreciate the enormity of putting this into effect. And I would like to make this last statement: The citizens of this city do have the right to be protected from uninsured and unregistered and unlicensed drivers. They should not be their victims. But they also have the right to be protected from frivolous lawsuits if the Court moved in less than a deliberate manner. Because we would be taking people's 69 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 properties, and we don't want to seize the wrong cars. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Any questions from the Council? Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, how many companies have bid for the right to do the private towing work part of this program? JUDGE DeANGELIS: We will know that tomorrow. The bidders' conference, I believe, is tomorrow at 10 o'clock. I am sure anyone is welcome to go.
How is it envisioned that the bidder will bid? What is the territory the bidder is bidding on? Is he or she bidding on the whole city? Is he or she bidding on a police division or a section of the city? How is it broken down? JUDGE DeANGELIS: Mark Flood is the expert, and he is the gentleman that wrote, actually wrote, the RFP.
You have to use 70 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 the microphone and identify yourself for the record.
My name is Mark Flood. I work for the Administrative Offices of the --
In answer to your first question, Councilman, it appears what we did was, we sent out 276 RFPs to individual towers in the City of Philadelphia that we knew were licensed with the City of Philadelphia. So at this point in time, how many respond to that RFP we won't know until tomorrow. But we sent out 276. We published it in the Inquirer and the Daily News. So everyone knows about it. It is a question of how many towers can respond to that article.
As part of the RFP, are there specific levels of insurance, numbers of vehicles, minimum number of vehicles, size of the impoundment lot that they possess? Are there all minimum requirements? 71 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634
For every idea that you just put forth, there is some requirement in the RFP, in terms of how many vehicles they have, in terms of how large their lot should be.
It is, I believe, $5 million total, $2 million per occurrence. And, again, it is based on information, or figures, we used with the City of Philadelphia previously.
Would you address your answers and questions to the Chair, as well.
It depends on the police division itself. The division itself may have, we have estimated, a thousand for some, 800 for others. We don't know, again, until we actually have some figures that are more legitimate. What we have right now are estimates of tickets, not vehicles.
You are talking 72 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 about the number of spaces in the impoundment lot?
Correct. We have based our number of spaces per impoundment lot on the number of the actual police division, how many spaces in the division we think would be necessary. So we are going to try to divide up the actual area of the city based on the police division and the lots within those divisions.
And the minimum number of tow trucks that a company needs to have?
And the bid will be awarded based on the division, police divisions?
Yes, we hope to award the bid based on police divisions. Now, again we are very concerned about the storage areas themselves, how big they need to be. 73 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 We may come up with another idea of actually centralizing the storage area. But we have not made that final determination at this point in time, until we get responses.
Can a successful bidder successfully bid on more than one police division?
Just for the procedure sake, it is envisioned that an officer makes a car stop, checks the appropriate paperwork, runs the tag, runs the VIN, and for some reason or another, based on the existing law, we need to tow that vehicle, to impound it, take it into custody. That officer would call back to the radio room and request a duty tow to come out? JUDGE DeANGELIS: No. 24
No? JUDGE DeANGELIS: The police officer 74 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 will call the radio room. The radio room will call the Court. The Court will call the tower, so that we can put in our database the information that such and such a car was towed, by who, where it is stored, and keep records.
And you estimate a time for that is between and 30 minutes? 9 JUDGE DeANGELIS: Between 15 and 20 10 minutes. 11
Which is not 12 unlike the average car stop. 13 JUDGE DeANGELIS: Well, the 15 to 20 14 minutes for the tower to get there. 15 These were estimates that actual 16 towers in the business gave us when we sought 17 guidance from them when we wrote the RFP. 18
And have we asked 19 for information or sought guidance from surrounding 20 counties and municipalities? JUDGE DeANGELIS: There are none. This law is not implemented, as far as I know, in any first-class cities. There is no place. We are making history with this law.
January 1, 1998, 75 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 you are anticipating to be ready to go. Is that for every area of the city? JUDGE DeANGELIS: The entire area of the city, on a pilot program. That would be between 9:00 to 5:00 in the morning, 9:00 to 5:00 in the daytime. 9:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon. Because it is impossible to bite off the entire city for hours. We have no idea of 11 volume. We have no idea how our operating 12 procedures will actually work. 13 So we feel, while the court is in 14 full operation, full staff, the police agreed with 15 us that this would be the best time to start and 16 then to see how it goes. 17 We will be living the first 18 experience. 19
I am not sure who 24 I am addressing this comment to. But I have gotten calls from -- 76 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 possibly the police department can step forward on this. I have gotten calls from towers that have indicated that this new licensing process that we require tow trucks to have, the sticker, that there is no enforcement of that. There is supposedly a requirement to have the name of the tower on the tow truck, and in many cases that is not occurring. I would like someone to tell me, before we move forward, apparently the impression is that there is no enforcement. And I have had towers tell me that they are not going to renew the tow license, since there is no enforcement. JUDGE DeANGELIS: As far as our standards, the tower that will receive any of these contracts must have all licensure as directed by the City of Philadelphia. I can give you -- I don't have it with me, and memory doesn't serve me -- the gentleman that is responsible for that program. And I think, Councilman, if you speak with him directly, he can explain to you what is and what is not being done. 77 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634
Judge -- and, Commissioner Nestell, thank you for coming forward. I am speaking on the perspective of the tow operators that, basically, tell me that they have complied with this requirement, but apparently the enforcement to go after the noncompliants isn't there. JUDGE CERMELE: Councilman, that is a function of the Department of License & Inspection. They do those inspections, they put the yellow stickers on, and they do the enforcement.
But, Judge, what I am talking about is, if a tow truck shows up at the scene, a wreck chaser, at an accident, and he is not properly licensed, or he has a license but doesn't have the name of the company that he represents on the vehicle, he is not in compliance. JUDGE CERMELE: Right. But the issuance --
L & I is not going to be out on the scene of the wreck. It is going to be the police department. JUDGE CERMELE: It is a matter that the police would see, if they are at the scene. 78 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 But the actual enforcement of that program lies with License & Inspection.
It is like any other program. It seems as though the police department always gets the responsibility of enforcing these creative programs. Again, I have towers that have called me to tell me that they are unlikely to renew their L & I registration sticker because it doesn't matter whether you have it or you don't. Commissioner? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Tom Nestell, Deputy Police Commissioner. I will go back and look into that issue. And I will guarantee you that there will be enforcement on that. I believe that there is enforcement now, but I will ensure that -- I will look into that. If there is not, there will be. And if we need to work with L & I or with whomever, we will do that.
Commissioner, I have one further comment. It has to do with the monitoring of police radio for gain. There is an Ordinance on the record, 79 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 on the books right now -- I have a copy of it -- that prohibits anyone other than authorized people, news media, from monitoring police radio. I have been at the scene of accidents where three tow trucks are there before the first police cars arrive. Is the monitoring of police radio being enforced by the Philadelphia Police Department, by unauthorized people? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Councilman, I believe that the ordinance prohibits broadcasting, but does not prohibit monitoring.
Monitoring. It does, sir. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Okay. I have to look at that.
Just Councilman Mariano, he has an exception. But my point being that, many cases when you are busy, there are tow trucks on the scene, in most cases, before the police department is there. And the folks are confused, sometimes, when shortly after an accident they hear 80 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 a police radio in the background. They don't understand. And I have had, especially some seniors, very concerned about that. So, in this ordinance, is there any consideration to give the tow truck drivers that ability, the people that are successfully awarded this contract, to legalize this? Because almost every tow truck operator that I know has a police scanner, and they are listening to police radio. Has there ever been any further discussion about that? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: There will be.
Thank you, sir. JUDGE DeANGELIS: As far as our program, Councilman, the tow truck that's identified by the Court will be the only tow truck that can take the vehicle from that stop, regardless of who else may come. And we will have procedures in place to ensure the police officer knows exactly which tow truck is coming in his district. So first one, first served is not the 81 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 issue. The one the Court is sending will be the issue, will be the tower.
Thank you, Judge. I have another question. Councilman Mariano. Let's go through a scenario. Kensington Avenue, we're driving up there, we get stopped -- whoever can answer, I think it is best you do. And if anybody else, the Commissioner might have to jump in. We are driving up Kensington Avenue. A policeman makes a stop of a car. And he runs the car, and the car is bad. The tags are bad. Insurance we can't do anything about, right, because they got out of that? JUDGE DeANGELIS: Not really. Because if you don't have insurance, you can't get registration. So we will nab them on no 20 registration. And they probably don't have insurance because they don't have a license. We can nab them on that one, too.
The car is bad for whatever reason. Now the cop says, "This is a 82 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 bad car. We are going to take care of this." He gets the people to get out of the car, and they stand next to the car. And he calls your people at Traffic Court, correct, through the police radio. He will call Traffic Court, and you will send out whoever you assign. And if he is not available, the next person will go, if you do the private tower. JUDGE DeANGELIS: Exactly.
All right. Now, this takes to 30 minutes? 14 JUDGE DeANGELIS: Perhaps the entire 15 police stop. 16
What I am afraid 17 of is that this is a policeman who may have to 18 respond to a rape down the street, might have to 19 leave that car there. 20 And can he take the keys? Can he immobilize it? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: What we are looking at, Councilman, is letting the air out of the front tires to immobilize the vehicle. We will let the air out of both front 83 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 tires so the vehicle will be immobilized in the event that we have to leave.
You could still drive it with air out of the tires. You can't drive it if you take the coil wire, right? What's easier, the coil wire? I am just saying. So we do this, we call them, they come out, the cop is still there, maybe 10, 11 minutes. 12 The tower takes the car, whoever it 13 is. And he takes it to his own lot, or a big lot? 14 We haven't figured that out yet. 15 I just want for the record to know what we are going to do. So they take it to a lot. And then the person can somehow get from Kensington Avenue to Traffic Court? Will he be able to come right down to ask for the car back, or to at least pay the fine? JUDGE DeANGELIS: And you remember that when we ask for funding for 24-hour employees, and 7 days a week. You remember that.
As long as you 84 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 hire everybody from my ward, that's fine. JUDGE DeANGELIS: You got it. I hear you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would like to follow up on that question. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would like to follow up on that same line of questioning. Has any consideration been given -- I know cost is a factor, as it always is -- has any consideration been given to Club, using the Club, in that kind of scenario? And/or if the person who is stopped, more than likely, in most instances, it will be an uninsured, unlicensed operator, who probably is a scofflaw, so an arrest, in most cases. I would assume from my experience, that 90-something percent of the time that will occur. So it is not a question of just stopping somebody and have to leave them there because the police officer has to go on another call. The police officer, in his or her 85 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 duties, will be making the arrest of the individual as a scofflaw. Is that correct? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: That could be. But we also have situations where the individual is not a scofflaw, where the vehicle was not properly registered, or the individual does not have a license. In those cases, we will give the individual an opportunity to -- we will get that person to a public phone or to a location where public transportation is available. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the other part of my question is, has any consideration been given to the ability to use a Club or purchasing of Clubs for the purposes of immobilizing it, if we don't want the police officer to hang around there for 30 minutes or longer? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: We did look at several alternatives. However, some of the logistical issues with issuing a Club, or some type device like that, to each officer on the street, recovering 86 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 those items, seem to be much too complex for the implementation of this. And at this point the most expedient way to deal with this, to us, appears to be letting air out of the tires.
I have to go on record. It makes me nervous to see cops bending over to let air out of tires in the areas I represent, because who knows what's going on there. That really makes me nervous. I would think the FOP would love to get ahold of that one. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Councilman, with our vehicle investigations, we do provide backup to the officer. We're not going to have the officer bending down and exposing himself. I am very concerned about the safety of my officers, also.
Let me ask this scenario here. Because I know as soon as this happens, it is going to happen. My son Vincent is 13 years old. He takes DiCicco's private car, and he takes it out of 87 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Frank's house. Frank is in Italy. He takes Frank's car and goes for a ride and gets stopped. Now, Frank's car is clean, there are no warrants, but, Vincent is years old. 6 Now, Vincent gets stopped by a cop. 7 It is obvious that he is 13 years old. He doesn't 8 touch Frank's car, right? They just arrest Vince 9 for driving underage and not having a license? Or 10 if he is 18 and has a suspended license, where 11 Frank's car is good, the car doesn't get touched; 12 correct? 13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Under this act, the car does get towed.
Now, what do we do in a case where mommy and daddy are crying to us -- because it is going to happen, and everybody here as a Councilperson knows that -- what do we do? The car is not wrong, and they took the car. JUDGE DeANGELIS: Councilman, this law, the second part, the live stop, says that anyone operating any car, if the operator is not licensed, that car is impounded. 88 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Which means, if you lent me your car, you have a perfect driving record, you are licensed, you are registered, you are inspected, you were good, I show you a piece of paper that looks like a license, and you believe me --
I am going down a different avenue, Judge. DiCicco's car is clean. Vincent takes Frank's car because he stole it. But Frank's car is still getting impounded? Now, Frank is not going to have to pay because his car was stolen; right? JUDGE DeANGELIS: Let me tell you, not only -- the issue of stolen and minor, let me make this point. If a person is driving a car, the person isn't licensed, the car will go. And not only will it be impounded, but it will be held until my fines are paid by the Court. And if I don't come pay my fines, then your car will be sold for my fines. That's not the Court's idea; that's the law. And that's how the law will be implemented and enforced. 89 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634
I understand that. We implement the laws, but we also deal with the phone calls that come after the law. Now, it is not DiCicco's car, and it is not my son. He steals somebody's car, but the car is clean. You are going to impound somebody's car? And this is a rhetorical question, because I know you are going to do that. But they are going to come down, your car gets stolen, you have to go down there on Monday and Tuesday and say, "This kid stole my car. I am not paying any fines, Judge." And they are going to say, "Okay. You don't have to. We understand they stole your car, sir." But you are still going to have to go down there. And I understand all that. But is he still going to have to pay any fines for holding his car as a victim? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Councilman, I think there are two answers to that question. Number one is, if the vehicle has 90 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 already been reported stolen, we are certainly not impounding it under this act. We are making an arrest, we are taking that in as property that we have seized. If the vehicle has not been reported as stolen, but it is the scenario that you just said, then you have hours to get to Traffic Court 9 to make that explanation. 10 If Traffic Court agrees with what you 11 are saying and makes a ruling, the vehicle gets 12 released with no charges to the owner. 13 JUDGE DeANGELIS: The law is 14 specific. And the law says that the car cannot be 15 released until all fines are paid. 16 If that car doesn't belong to you, 17 but belongs to a bank, belongs to a rental agency, 18 belongs to an employer, belongs to you, Councilman, 19 the law tells me, all fines have to be paid of the 20 driver. 21 That's the way you are going to -- 22 forget the tags, whether they are T tags, they 23 belong to that car, they don't belong to that car, 24 you are right, that's a terrible problem. But the way this law is written, it 91 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 doesn't matter whose the tag is or who the car belongs to. If you lend your car to someone that isn't licensed, your car, under the law, cannot be released until all fines are paid. And that will not only cover the innocent folks that, unfortunately, lent their car to the wrong person, but the folks that put seven tags on a car, don't transfer titles, drive around with those T tags and say, "Hey, it is not my car, you can't enforce because I am not the owner." That will get that entire problem.
When the Commissioner answered, I just didn't want victims -- and I trust Traffic Court's judges' judgment. They have to make some calls right from the bench. And in that situation, they would. I just have a couple more questions. When you confiscate a car and say the car is worth $1,000, and you sell it and you don't get quite $1,000 for it, say you get $500 for a car, the city, all the city is going to get out of it is $75? JUDGE DeANGELIS: At this point, 92 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 yes. If we had the operations the Parking Authority has, because they have their own impoundment lots, and the folks are employees of, I guess -- that money goes directly to the General Fund. But in this case, it is only right that the person that's going to be doing the towing, hiring the people to be available, giving up his precious space on the lot, you know, they have to be paid something.
Judge, this is a pilot program. JUDGE DeANGELIS: That's right.
How long do we have to go with this thing before that could happen, that second scenario? Two years, three years? JUDGE DeANGELIS: Oh, no. We are going to have a six-month pilot program. Because it takes 30 to 40 days to sell the first group of cars. Then we have to see if there is going to be -- how many cars up front, whether the numbers will lower. Yes.
And I think the 93 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 important thing here is, now we get it going and it happens. JUDGE DeANGELIS: Absolutely.
We get these cars off the street. JUDGE DeANGELIS: And I apologize for the length of the testimony. But that's how much had to be accomplished before you could actually take that car. What are you going to do with it when you get it, Councilman?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Any other questions? Thank you very much to the panel. Thank you very much. Anne Cohen.
Thank you. My name is Ann Cohen. I am President of AFSCME Local 1637. And with me today is our Business Agent, Fred 94 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Cummings. B. 2360. And I guess it is City Council Ordinance 6 940631. We are here also because our members are involved in exactly the kind of work that is required for the full implementation of this law. We represent employees, over 1600 city and Philadelphia Parking Authority employees. They include civilian employees from the District Attorney's Office, the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Office of Fleet Management, and, most importantly, the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Our members, our dispatchers, they dispatch for the Police Department, for the Fire Department, for municipal radio, and for the Philadelphia Parking Authority. And our members also at the Philadelphia Parking Authority are responsible for the ticketing, booting, towing, and impounding of vehicles. And already our members are involved 95 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 in the first and second phases of the implementation of House Bill 2360. In December of 1996, as you heard from Judge Cermele earlier, our members were the ones who were not -- were holding vehicles at the Philadelphia Parking Authority impoundment lot for lack of registration, lack of insurance. And, as you heard, thousands of tags will be added to a list for which our members scan every day. They will be booting and towing vehicles, I guess, by the very beginning of December. And we believe that it is logical for the next step in the implementation of these laws to occur in the same manner. The Philadelphia Parking Authority has the expertise and the internal structures already in place to perform the towing and impounding functions which were required for full implementation of these laws. Enforcement of these laws are extremely important for the citizens of Philadelphia. Uninsured, unlicensed, unregistered, 96 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 and dangerous drivers shouldn't be on the streets. However, we must understand that these laws have extraordinary punitive measures. Every effort must be made to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected, while the law is enforced. Losing a car, for many, is tantamount to losing the ability to earn a living. The last thing anyone wants to see is the wrong car towed and impounded. The PPA already has sophisticated dispatching, towing, and impounding systems in place. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. They have the capacity to verify registration, traffic violations, and insurance information. And over the last 14 years, they have developed and implemented an impounding release and auction system that is fair and free of corruption. When a public entity has a large measure of control over the lives and livelihoods of many people, as will be the case when this legislation is fully implemented, it should not relinquish its control over the operation. It 97 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 should maintain the highest degree of accountability. Contracting out towing and impounding to hundreds, or I guess might be just scores, of individual contractors, we believe, will inevitably lead to abuse. Let us cite just one current example from a pending grievance we are processing. A private contractor tows illegally parked cars from the roadways at the Philadelphia International Airport. This contractor charges those towed in excess of the amount permitted by law. Multiply this example by 2 dozen or 300, and imagine the chaos that will ensue. Other accountability questions come to mind to us as the city prepares to enforce these laws. Here are just a few. How will we be assured that the fines and fees are collected? How will we will assured that the fines and fees are remitted back to the proper authorities? How will all of these independent contractors verify insurance, registration, 98 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 licensing, and violation information when owners report to get their vehicles?
How will we be assured that contractors won't inflate the towing and impoundment cost, as is currently happening? How will we be assured that contractors won't release vehicles to owners for under-the-table payments, thereby putting the same scofflaws back on the streets? How will vehicle damage claims be adjusted? Who will be liable? Who will assure that individual tow operators are experienced, safe, and properly licensed? What happens if, on appeal, a vehicle is ordered released by the Court, after it has been towed and impounded? How will the contractor be paid in such a situation? How will the contractor interact with a vehicle owner in such a situation? And, most importantly, would you, the City Council of Philadelphia, prefer these matters to be resolved by one experienced and responsible entity, with an excellent track record, or by, you know, scores of unproven private contractors? 99 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 We know that both the Traffic Court's Administrative Judge, the Honorable Bernice DeAngelis, and the Parking Authority's Executive Director, Rina Cutler, have both raised concerns with the Parking Authority's capacity to perform this work. While we acknowledge this is an issue, we believe it should be viewed as a challenge, not as an insurmountable obstacle. We would like to remind City Council that the Philadelphia Parking Authority recently offered to the Philadelphia Police Department their services for towing and impounding of stolen cars. They offered to perform these services in the entire Center City area hours a 17 day, 7 days a week, with a maximum 20-minute 18 response time. B. 2360 and City Ordinance 940631 has been by 21 phase-in, doesn't it make sense to begin the next 22 phase-in under the terms that the PPA has already 23 offered to the police department? 24 We believe that their offer is ample evidence of their current capacity. 100 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 These are important and complicated laws. Let's take it one step at a time. Let's leave the work to the proven professionals. We already do the work. We can do more. Finally, we believe there is significant contractual issue between the union and the Philadelphia Parking Authority if this work is contracted out. It is our intent to see that the contract is enforced through all avenues available to us. At the same time, we will seek to assure that the interests of the citizens and taxpayers of the city are best served. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Councilman Rizzo.
Earlier today, Ann Cohen, you heard that tomorrow, I believe, there is going to be a conference for the award. Were you present when that was --
I heard that there 101 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 is going to be a bidder's conference tomorrow.
I don't know. We certainly didn't receive a copy of the RFP. When we talked to the Parking Authority, I guess, two weeks ago, they had not yet seen the RFP. I don't know if it was ever forwarded to them or if they intend to appear and submit a bid. I don't know.
From experience, is there any action you can take to stop this conference from occurring? Or what does the conference mean to the scenario, since you have an interest in this?
I don't believe that the conference is what we would seek to stop. We would seek to stop the awarding of contracts. We think that -- you know, by the way, the contract language between the Philadelphia Parking Authority and District Council 33 is different from the master contract language between the city and District Council 33. 102 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 And we have very strong contracting outlines, which we think that this work is clearly our bargaining unit work. And we will seek to do whatever we need to do with our attorneys to enforce the contract. But beyond that, it is the right thing to do. It is the logical thing to do. I mean, the reputation of the Parking Authority is that they are aggressive, they are effective. I mean, I don't think there is any question that they are honest, you know, and all the systems are in place. You don't have to hire dispatchers.
To leave it with this, we expect -- or at least I expect -- you to do whatever is necessary to maintain your work.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Any other questions? Councilman Mariano.
As a former business agent from a labor union, I know what it is 103 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 you need to do. That's your job to do that. And you should do that. And I can't tell you what to do. You have to do that, and do it quickly, before this gets out. If this thing gets subbed out, and it probably will -- and I am not an expert on this, but I can see what's happening here -- and Frank looks like he is going to say something here.
You do it, and then it stops. But if it gets subbed out, then maybe after this pilot program -- is it six months we are talking about here?
They said six months. It just seems to me that the logical thing to do is to have the pilot program want to be with the Parking Authority. If you want to try it for six months, you say you -- there is this debate, do you have the capacity, don't you have the capacity. If you had the capacity to do it for the police department, why is it that you don't have 104 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 the capacity to do it --
My problem is, it takes me two years to get a new couch in my office. So I can imagine how long it would take to get some new tow trucks. That's my concern. Because this has to be done now. I would like to see the union do it starting tomorrow, because I think that's right. But it has to be done now. We can't wait.
Okay. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a point of clarification. The RFP conference that will take place tomorrow -- and correct me if I am wrong -- is going to be the RFP that was put out by the First Judicial District in relationship to towing moving violations; is that correct?
You are asking the wrong person. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. To the best of my knowledge, the RFP that goes out -- and this goes to Councilman Rizzo's question -- the RFP that will be out tomorrow, the conference that takes 105 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 place, deals specifically with the implementation of booting and towing of vehicles that will be stopped by Philadelphia police officers, and their cooperation with the Philadelphia Traffic Court. This will not impact in any way, shape, or form on what the business of the Parking Authority has been doing and will continue to do in relationship to towing vehicles that are illegally parked, and may fall under the category of being vehicles that are not properly insured or registered.
I think the best definition I heard was from Judge DeAngelis. And, in fact, beginning in December, we will be booting and towing vehicles that are not moving that have moving violations. And the second, you are right -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I was getting to that point. There will be at some point a combination of the way this process all works. There will be some cars that will be parked against the curb that will be towed for having moving violations, but not necessarily having to accumulate 106 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 the three or four parking tickets. But, primarily, in the law, as it has been written and enacted, will deal with moving violations. I guess the point I am trying to make is, I don't see where this will have any impact on the Philadelphia Parking Authority employees who are now currently towing vehicles. I don't see it taking any work away from them. I understand your position, as a labor leader, looking to enhance the work that is already being done by the Authority, and possibly increasing the work force that will be needed to do that. But they are really two separate entities. And I think if there is any fear that the towing operation, if it is contracted out to private towing services, will in any way jeopardize the employees that currently are under your local, I would be very hard-pressed to think that anybody in Council would look to do that. We are not looking to hurt your membership, take any members away. And, again, I respect your position as a labor leader to try and increase the membership and see if you can bring 107 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 more work in. So I think we really need to see how this thing plays out. I mean, I have my own opinion as to what benefits it may have to privatize it. I may be proven wrong. But I will assure you that as far as this Councilperson is concerned, I will do everything I can to protect the integrity of your local and its members, so that any privatization will not cut into what you are already doing and what your membership is all about.
Thank you. I mean, there is no question in my mind that no one is seeking to diminish the work that we are doing. And we are, quite frankly, looking at new work. But we think that it is in fact bargaining unit work. It is in fact bargaining unit work by its definition. And it is bargaining unit work by the way that the law has already been implemented. And you have assigned this work, this related work, to other members of the bargaining unit over the last year. 108 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I am not an attorney -- and I am not being argumentative -- I don't know if your bargaining agreement is or has any weight to it, because you are now dealing with a new entity, that being the First Judicial District. And, again, I am not an attorney, so I don't know what the answer to that is. There are actually two separate entities here.
I am sure it will be a very interesting -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Court case.
Yes. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Nothing should be privatized. Nothing should be privatized, period. If we can do it, we should be able to do it through government and through the people that are working right now. And if we need more folks, we should be able to do that, and go out and get them. Any more questions? No. 22
My name is Lance 109 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Haver. I am the Educational Director of CEPA, the Consumers Education and Protection Association, a 32-year-old grass-root consumer group founded by the late Max Weiner. I am unequivocally opposed to this Council and the City of Philadelphia helping insurance companies overcharge and discriminate against city residents. And that is exactly what the car seizure bill does. It turns Philadelphia's police force into collection agents for the insurance industry. It is easy to understand that many insured motorists are mad and frustrated. Those paying the exorbitant rates know they are being cheated. Almost to a person they want to end the discriminatory rating practices of the insurance companies that charge city residents two and three times as much for car and home insurance as people who live in the suburbs. What is hard to understand is why insured drivers are more angry at the people who are cheating the insurance companies than they are at 110 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 the insurance companies that are cheating them. Make no mistake about it. Even if every uninsured car is removed, every uninsured driver jailed, there is no guarantee that insurance rates will come down. Just look at what happened to insurance rates when District Attorney Lynne Abraham conducted her war against people who registered their car outside of the city. A. said that one of the reasons why the insurance rates were so high in Philadelphia was that so many people registered their cars outside the city. , thousands of people changed their registration back to the city, paying thousands of dollars more for the very same insurance. As a result of that campaign, not a single insurance company lowered their insurance rates. And no matter how many cars the city seizes, no insurance company will voluntarily lower its rates. 111 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 What seizing cars will do is to take police off the streets, lessen the police protection available to neighborhoods, put police officers at greater risk, all so the insurance companies can continue to discriminate and overcharge. In addition, seizing cars will make the roads more dangerous, not less. If uninsured drivers know that they will lose their cars if stopped, they will take more risks to run away from police, creating more danger, not less. Other uninsured motorists will buy cheaper and more dangerous cars that will break down more often, creating traffic jams and bigger problems. Yes, insured motorists are mad, especially when they are hit by an uninsured driver. The solution, however, is not to seize cars, but, instead, reform the insurance laws so that car insurance is affordable, bought at the pump with every gallon of gasoline, so that there are no 22 uninsured motorists. Until that is done, the wealthy insurance companies that benefit from overcharging us should be forced to create a pool of money to 112 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 compensate drivers who are hit by uninsured motorists. And I wish that everyone who was mad at the uninsured motorists would focus their anger at the real cheaters, the insurance companies that are discriminating against city residents, and stop focusing on the victims of discrimination. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would just like to make a comment. As a former court administrator of Philadelphia Traffic Court, when I left in March of 1995, there were somewhere around $15 million in uncollected moving violations from the three-county suburban region. So it is not that just Philadelphians will be getting their cars impounded or towed. Primarily, obviously, it would be the majority of it, because that is, in fact, where we are enforcing this law. But there are thousands of other individuals who drive through the streets of Philadelphia, who don't live in this city, who are scofflaws and who are not licensed, and uninsured, and unregistered.
113 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 So there is a whole group of people out there, in addition to Philadelphians. And I understand what you are saying, that this may not -- that the insurance company may not voluntarily decide to lower rates. But I believe if we are successful, and we can get the tens of thousands of vehicles off the streets in the City of Philadelphia that are being driven today, as we speak, by unlicensed, uninsured motorists, I think that gives us a good argument. And I would like to join with you in going back to the insurance industry and see what we can do about, if not even getting the rates down, at least stabilizing them. Because I do agree with you, they are using these instances as a tool to keep the rates as high as they are and, in some instances, force people to have to pay more money than they should. So I think that you and I probably aren't really far apart, but we may disagree on the solution to the problem. I think at some point you and I may want to sit down and discuss that. 114 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634
Mr. Haver, just let me warn you. You have been hanging out with a lot of Italian politicians lately. This one, be careful. For the record, just kidding.
I understand the intent is not to help the insurance companies. But I would urge you to look at what happened when District Attorney Lynne Abraham said the same thing. It just doesn't follow. The second thing is, there is a law of unintended consequences, and it is unfortunate. But when people recognize that they are going to lose their cars, their action is not going to be to open the car door, get out of the door, and give their keys to the police officer. They will do one of three things: Some will buy insurance, some will stop driving, some will drive at high speeds to avoid losing their cars, and some will buy cheaper cars. How that makes us all better off is beyond me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know if the question is who will buy cheaper cars and if 115 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 they are going to speed up. I don't know if that's going to happen. All I can tell you is that, we have almost $300 million of uncollected moving violations in the City of Philadelphia. Realistically, probably, to 30 8 million is collectable. 9 I remember when I was leaving, there 10 were about 6,000 entities in the system. An entity 11 in the computer system in Traffic Court represents a 12 stop. 13 Now, at that stop, you may be issued 14 one or more tickets. So it is not the number of 15 citations; it is the stop. 16 At that time, in 1995, there were 17 approximately 6,000 entities that had 20 or more 18 moving violations issued to them, those entities. 19 So that's over 100,000 tickets were accumulated by 20 maybe 6,000 people. I don't think we, as a civilized society, can allow that to happen. Because the burden is being passed on to the law-abiding consumer, rich, poor, middle class, lower class, upper class. It is across the board. We are being 116 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 penalized. When we get our insurance premium notice in the mail, and for those of us who own cars, we see that line item that says, "Uninsured Motorist." We are paying to allow somebody to drive through the streets of Philadelphia uninsured. So I don't think it is fair to the vast majority of people. And I think if any neighborhood or any class of people are affected by this, it is probably the poor and moderate-income people who are most adversely affected by the unenforced way that we have handled unlicensed drivers in the City of Philadelphia to date. Because those people are really forced out of the market to be able to afford insurance. And they may own a home or have a little business or a property, and they can't afford either to have a car, because they can't afford the rates, or they are financially burdened by the premiums they have to pay, because they have no 23 choice but to have insurance or else lose whatever it is that they have worked for, more than likely their home. 117 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 So we really, I think, need to protect that consumer. And, in my opinion, Mr. Haver, there are many, many more good citizens in this city. We are only talking about a small group of people who are causing the rates to go up, creating a situation which is very dangerous on our streets today because they have no responsibility.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? Seeing none. Next witness. Thank you, Mr. Haver. Identify yourself for the record.
I am John Doubman, Secretary and Counsel of the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania.
Let's summarize this, since you have a great, great written testimony. How about you summarize it.
Councilman Mariano and honorable members of Philadelphia City Council, I am appearing this afternoon at the invitation of Councilman Mariano to present the views of insurers on the city's plans to begin enforcing Act 93 of 1996, which authorizes the city to impound and sell 118 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 vehicles found to be operating with an invalid or suspended registration. We have been asked to comment specifically on the possible impact of this program on automobile insurance rates in Philadelphia. I know it is late. My testimony is carefully prepared. I will read two paragraphs. You got questions, I will probably wind up turning to the section of my presentation which addresses that topic. Insurers support compliance with all of the laws of the Commonwealth, and particularly those affecting the safety and security of the driving public. Consequently, our industry supports state and local government efforts to get tough with those who flaunt or violate the Vehicle Code, including its financial responsibility provisions. Moreover, costs imposed by uninsured drivers is one of the costs that keeps auto rates high in Southeastern Pennsylvania. A reduction in the number of uninsured motorists should improve the lost cost experience of insurers in this area. If that 119 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 happens, all other things being equal, it will help reduce rates. Unfortunately, however, while insurers hate to be nay-sayers, the Council and the public should realize that the potential for this program to reduce insurance rates is very limited. The reasons for that are found in the law itself, the structure of this program, and the part which uninsured and underinsured motorists' loss experience plays in the formulation of the auto insurance rates. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, or would like me to address any particular issues, I will be happy to do that.
Any questions from any Council members for this witness? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you for your help.
Gerald Lamparter. I live at 3217 Holyoke Road in Northeast Philadelphia. 120 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 I haven't heard anybody make any arguments against the impoundment law; is that correct?
But I understand there are still some Council members who are not in favor of impounding?
You might find one or possibly two or three that are concerned it is going to affect a certain economic group and keep them from, you know, having vehicles, and not being able to go to work, or send their kids to the schools of their choice. It is already a law. We just want to find out why they're not doing it. It is a law that hasn't been enacted. It is a law.
Most of my testimony was going to be in favor of having the impoundment.
It is a law. The judges you saw here today were just telling us why it isn't done yet. And they told us they will start January 1, 1998. So it is a law.
Okay. One thing I 121 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 would like to bring up here is, I was talking to the school district the other day. And they did a survey, as they periodically do. On October 23, they asked their bus drivers to write down the number of motor vehicles who illegally passed the school buses. In one day, it was 917. 73 of which, which represents 8 percent of that total, 73 drivers passed on the right side of the bus, many of them going up on the sidewalk to do it. They are the kind of people we have to get off the road.
Do you remember when you went for your driver's test? I remember when I was 15 getting on 16, that was the number one question my father used to ring in my head, do not pass a bus, especially a school bus, with the signs out, unless it is a divided highway. That was a question they asked me. Nobody knows anymore. I saw your card here, Advocates for Safer Driving and Safer Highways. The Daily News has been running some stories for the aggressive driving. Councilwoman Fernandez has been having hearings under Transportation -- in fact, I think 122 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 she had one yesterday, I am pretty sure. It is a problem. We see this as a way -- it is a law already. We want to find out why it isn't being done. It has to be done. We just want it done at this point, and we will deal with whoever doesn't. We would like to see it done a certain way. And if the insurance companies don't lower the rates, eventually when we take these cars off the street, we will get our friends in the legislature to do it. We agree with you, and we thank you for coming.
One point I would like to make. Because I did some investigation, I found out -- let me back up. PennDOT had no way of knowing, when someone came in to submit an application for the learner's permit, who that person really was. There is no photo I.D. required.
It is not required. I have met people who were having their friends take 123 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 the question-and-answer test for them. I met people who were taking the driver test for their friends.
Do you have your picture on it by the point when you take your driver's test?
No. There is no 8 picture ID required. I want them to make it law so that when you submit an application for a learner's permit, you must give them a passport-type photograph, and you don't get it back. You can't switch it.
I know I had to go up there with him to Mayfair and swear that I was his father and he was of age. I mean, they are trying to do something. I could have been lying, too.
When I pressed PennDOT, Rebecca Bickley, who is in charge of that, when I pressed her on the issue, she admitted they had a loophole. So they are going to relook at the whole thing.
Great. That's a good issue. Thank you. 124 RESOLUTIONS 970579, 970634 Any questions for this witness? Okay. We are going to recess this Committee to the call of the Chair. Thank you for staying with us this long time. Thanks to the stenographer for putting up with Council DiCicco's long-winded questions. Thank you. (Public Hearing adjourned at 5:10 p.m.) - - - 125 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, November 13, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR