Committee Hearing, December 9, 2009

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 9, 2009 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILLS 090706, 090773, 090774, 090777, 090782 and 090842 RESOLUTIONS 090616, 090617, 090618, 090619, 090620, 090621, 090622, 090623 and 090624 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2

Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 7 090616 -- I'm sorry; resolution. MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 9 reappointing Wayne Fisher to the Board of Directors of the Center City District. Resolution 090617, resolution 12 reappointing Randall Scott to the Board of Directors of the Center City District. Resolution 090618, resolution 15 reappointing George Burrell to the Board of Directors of the Center City District. Resolution No. 090619, resolution reappointing Christopher Terlizzi to the Board of Directors of the Center City District. Resolution 090620, resolution 22 reappointing Larry Howard to the Board of Directors of the Center City District. Resolution 090621, resolution 25 reappointing Ernest Jones to the Board of 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Directors of the Center City District. Resolution 090622, resolution 4 appointing David Marshall to the Board of Directors of the Center City District. Resolution 090623, resolution 7 appointing Ahmeenah Young to the Board of Directors of the Center City District; and Resolution 090624, resolution 11 appointing William Walsh to the Board of Directors of the Center City District.

Are any of the candidates that were mentioned here? Do you want to approach the witness table, please. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning, Mr. Levy. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning. My name is Paul Levy. I'm President and CEO of the Center City District. 4 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. I can be very brief. We're here to request your approval of these resolutions which reappoint six existing members and fill three vacancies. Should you approve these resolutions, the CCD Board will continue to have representatives from all of the diverse sectors of the downtown and from a perspective of business, office, hotel, residential, retail, actual residents of Center City. And from a gender and diversity point of view, should you approve all these Board members, our Board will have percent of its members 16 African American, 22 percent female. 17 I just have a summary here of 18 our existing Board members as well, and I 19 know three of the appointees are here 20 this morning, if they just briefly want 21 to say some things. 22 Ahmeenah. 23

Good morning. How 24 are you? 25

Fine. 5 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Thank you.

I am grateful to be here looking forward to serving on the Council. Of course, you know with the Convention Center and its small little project, it makes so much sense for us to be involved as much as we can. So I'm happy to serve and do what we can to make this a much better Center City District.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam President. My name is Ernest Jones. I am President of the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation. Our offices are right around the corner on JFK Boulevard. I have been on the Board of the Center City District for some time now, and indeed it's an honor to be there. They do great work, and I'm very pleased to be nominated again to continue serving.

6 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Wonderful. Mr. Jones, what will your term be?

I believe it's five years, yes.

Thank you. Are there any questions --

There's one other.

-- from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Good morning. I'm Larry Howard, General Manager of the Gallery at Market East, and I've served on the Board of the Center City District for the past ten years, and I'm looking forward to continue serving on the Board. Like the other members just testified, I think it's a vital service to the City, and I'm just glad to be able to do whatever I can to assist them in their efforts. I'd like to continue doing so.

Thank you very much. 7 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you for all your hard work.

Thank you very much.

I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 090773. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 15 amending Chapter 19-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Amusement Tax," to revise the fee for an amusement license, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning.

8 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Mr. Haigler, we're going to consider each bill separately.

Well, I have my testimony arranged to testify on all the bills at once to expedite time, if that's okay.

It's fine. Mr. McPherson, would you please read the titles of the other bills. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 13 090774, an ordinance amending Title 6 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Health Code," to eliminate licensing requirements and revise fees with respect to certain food establishments; to eliminate licensing requirements for barber and beauty shops. Bill No. 090777, an ordinance 21 amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," to eliminate and revise various licensing and enforcement requirements, and to revise fees for 9 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. various licenses and permits. Bill No. 090782, an ordinance 4 amending Section 11-603 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Projections Over the Street." Bill No. 090842, an ordinance 8 amending Subcode "A" of Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Administrative Code," to revise various fee provisions and provide an exception to certain permitting requirements.

Good morning. Identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Committee. , Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I am here to provide testimony on the bills that have been submitted and introduced for your consideration related to the Department's initiative to reduce 10 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. and consolidate various licenses that it administers for the purposes of improving the service we provide to our stakeholders and also to provide efficiencies through the use of technology, which is in line with the Administration's objectives. The number of the bills under consideration today are 090773, the elimination of the temporary amusement license; 090774, consolidation and revision of requirements for various licenses in Title 6, the Health Code; 090777, consolidation and revision of requirements for various licenses in Title 9, governing certain business operations; 090782, technical amendments to Title 11 governing the issuance of permits for marquees and canopies erected over the right-of-way; and 090842, technical amendments to Title 4, the Administrative Code, governing fees that are charged for certain construction permits and licenses, as well as the 11 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. relocation of provisions from the Electrical Code to the Administrative Code related to certain electrical operations. To provide background with regard to the proposed amendments, currently the Department of Licenses and Inspections administers and issues licenses in 120 categories to individuals or businesses that want to operate in the City. Each license category has its own set of requirements for issuance as well as its own expiration date and period for renewal. Passage and enactment of the bills under consideration will reduce the categories of business licenses the Department administers from 120 to 38. To further place this into context, the reduction to 38 business license categories that we propose is approximately 11 fewer business license categories than is currently needed to operate businesses in the City of New 12 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. York, which is larger in both population and size. The following is a summary of the proposed license consolidation bills. Bill 090773 will eliminate the requirement for the issuance of a temporary amusement license. This license is currently required for amusement activities that are conducted on a limited basis as defined in Section 12 19-602 of The Philadelphia Code. The fee for this license is $5 per day. Based on the Department's records for this license, we have found that there is very little activity and interest with regard to obtaining this license by the public versus obtaining the annual amusement license, which costs $25 per year. Therefore, we are recommending that this license be consolidated into a single license category related to all amusement activities as defined in Section 19-602. The activities in this definition include "any theatrical or operatic performance, 13 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. " Bill 090774 will amend fees and requirements for the issuance of various food licenses in order to consolidate the current 12 categories of food licenses into four general categories that will be linked to any additional licenses that may be required for the premises in order to be consolidated into a single license that can be issued online for the business. In addition, this bill will eliminate the license categories for massage businesses, barber/beauty shops and laser light shows, as these categories are also regulated by the state for licensing purposes. We will be offering amendments to this bill based on recommendations from the Health 14 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Department.

Bill 090777 amends various sections of Title governing matters 5 from sidewalk and street vending to the 6 use of electronic scanning devices for 7 retail purchases in order to standardize 8 certain requirements for uniformity, 9 consolidate various licenses and eliminate those that are duly regulated at the state level or have become obsolete. In many cases where the specific local license has been eliminated with regard to the activity, provisions related to prohibited conduct, governing the activity or business operation have been maintained in The Philadelphia Code and those provisions will continue to be enforced by the Department. We also have an amendment for this bill that we will be offering. Bill 090782 is a very technical amendment to provisions governing the erection of marquees and canopies over 15 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. the right-of-way as found in Title 11 of The Philadelphia Code and is needed in order to denote that the term "permit" mentioned in the provision refers to the issuance of a building permit by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The reason for this technical amendment is to remove confusion that has resulted from the interchangeable use of the terms "permits" and "licenses" where in the past the permit mentioned in Title 11 for canopies and marquees had been issued as a license that required annual renewal. All requirements related to the erection of marquees and canopies are covered in the building permit process, including the requirements for prerequisite approvals to obtain a zoning use permit as well as approval from various other City departments or agencies prior to the issuance of the building permit. The need to require annual licensing for this building appurtenance serves no purpose once the canopy or marquee has been 16 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. erected based on building permit approval. Bill 090842 amends provisions of the Administrative Code governing the issuance of certain trade licenses. The categories are oil burner installer, flammable liquid tank installer, flammable liquid tank tester and transporter of explosive materials, as well as make certain technical amendments to correct errors that were made with regard to fees that are charged for building permits involving alterations and repairs to existing one- and two-family dwellings. Further, this bill 17 amends provisions related to the issuance of a hazardous material license for the purpose of consolidating all materials under one license with a single fee that will be charged for all hazardous materials located at the premises. In addition, Bill 090842 increases the license fees for the issuance of the vacant building and lot license from its 17 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. current $50 to $300 per building or lot. Lastly, this bill maintains provisions that were previously located in the Electrical Code for permit exemptions for the installation of conductors or equipment that are used by public utilities, common carriers or commercial radio or television stations that are under the jurisdiction of the state or a federal regulatory body. The reason for this provision has to be -- the reason this provision has to be moved to the Administrative Code is due to the repeal of the Electrical Code, because it is no longer published by the International Code Council and available for adoption by the City for the 2009 edition of the International Code Council's family of construction codes. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony and I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank 18 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Haigler, your testimony is very clear in some areas and less clear in others. In the areas where you're repealing licenses or eliminating licenses or collapsing things into different codes I think is pretty clear. The thing I'd be concerned about is the raising of fees I think always needs to be tied to the cost of providing the service, and I see no correlation between, for example, the vacant lot license from 50 to 300. It may be what it costs, but I think at some point in time, the record needs to have that back-up information as to why it's being raised, because I don't want anybody to come back and then challenge it and saying we're just raising fees because we're in a fiscal crisis and we need 19 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. money. You can potentially have some of those fees challenged if you can't show what the increased cost does that relates to what you're charging now.

Well, based on what we do with vacant lots --

I'm talking about all the fees. I'm just using that as an example. I mean, why is it 50 to 150 on certain size restaurants? Other than just we need the money, I'd rather have the ability to argue back with someone who says, You're only just raising our fees because you're broke. These fees, I assume, by law have to correlate to the cost of the service being provided.

Exactly.

And the record is not clear to that.

And we can provide any data that you need in order to justify this, but we do have the data.

All I'm 20 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. suggesting is -- not today. At some point in time, as an attachment to these bills, that there's some back-up information across the hall in the Chief Clerk's Office if someone wants to find the rationale as to why they've been raised. And I think the Health Department should do that, L&I. Whoever is asking for the fees, whatever department the fees come under should provide some back-up material to be attached to these bills so people historically can read it and figure out why we did it.

That's fine. That's fine.

The other thing -- and we talked about this, I think, yesterday or the day before, and I would reinforce it. When it comes to issues relative to the Administrative Code governing issuance of certain trade licenses, we have an ongoing problem with unlicensed contractors who come from all 21 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. over the City, all over the region, show up at Home Depot or Lowe's at o'clock 4 in the morning, buy a water tank or buy 5 lumber and do work in people's houses. 6 They're not licensed. They're not paying taxes. They're not even being able to be found if they do shoddy work in someone's home, because we have no record of them. And I think that sending out that enforcement message to the legitimate, licensed, tax-paying contractors, whether they're union or non-union, those that are doing the right thing need to get some back-up from us by trying to make it less attractive for these unlicensed folks to be doing work in our residents' homes.

Can I comment on that? The trade licenses that we are talking about eliminating, these are trade professionals that work under contractors. The contractors will still be licensed and still be required to have licenses. 22 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

I'm not specifically arguing with the license you're eliminating. What I'm saying is that since we go through this licensing process and some people follow the rules and some people don't, we need to be more vigilant on those who don't follow the rules, and you can get a lot of them every morning at Home Depot or Lowe's in the parking lot. I mean, it's almost like a captive audience. Just send somebody in there, start asking for their business privilege license or permits or whatever else it is that makes it clear that we are serious about what we're doing, because it's just not fair to a legitimate businessperson in the City who follows all the rules and pays all the taxes and you got a guy working for cash paying nothing.

I agree.

Okay. Thank you. The handicap placards are 23 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. another whole issue that I've been walking with the Parking Authority on, because I see these folks like at the supermarket, they put the handicap placard in their rear-view mirror and then run to the entrance of the supermarket. That's not for you. That's for another day. Thanks.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

Thank you. Councilman Kenney raised some of the issues. I just want to know, on , you increase the fee for the issuance of a vacant building and lot license. They have to pay fees for having a vacant lot?

Yes, ma'am. Yes, Councilwoman. There is currently on the books -- it's been on the books for years -- a license requirement that all persons who have a vacant building or a vacant lot, they're required to register 24 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. those vacant properties with the City of Philadelphia by virtue of having a license. A license fee currently for this is $50 per building or lot, including walls, piers, docks. All those things are required to be licensed in the City of Philadelphia. And with vacant commercial property, there also is a requirement that they have a bond for the vacant property.

What about vacant housing?

Vacant houses as well. Vacant residential lots, they're required to be licensed.

How is the enforcement of that?

Councilwoman, speak into the mike.

How do you enforce that, and are you enforcing that and how much are we --

Where we can identify the property owner, we do send 25 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. notice to that person that a requirement of the Code is that they do license those properties with the City of Philadelphia, and we do take that through the enforcement process. If they do not comply within the specified time period to get the license, then we proceed to other enforcement -- through the enforcement process, to court, to try to get them to comply.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

On that vein, can you tell us what is the cost basis for their increase, and is it going to be revenue neutral?

Yes, it is revenue neutral. The cost basis is primarily not just L&I's costs, but there's costs involved with the Law Department taking cases to court. There's costs involved with our Clean and Seal Unit that have to go out 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. periodically and clean up vacant lots, vacant buildings, repeatedly the same building, same lots. There's costs involved with our Inspections Unit. There is administrative costs involved, external costs outside of L&I with other departments that are involved in this process. So there's a whole host of costs that can justify the $300 increase fee, and we can provide that to the Chair.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

I just want to follow up and ask about NTI and the fact that a number of properties were demolished during the NTI period and there are a lot of vacant lots available. Are you asking those people where those houses were torn down, are you enforcing the fee on those properties? 27 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

I don't have the information for that, but I think I'm going to ask my Deputy Commissioner to come up and speak to that issue. I really don't know. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: Good morning. I'm Michael Fink, Deputy Commissioner for Licenses and Inspections in the Development Division. Yes. Regardless of the method or process for demolishing the properties and creating the vacant lots, whether it was done by the owner, done through an emergency or done through NTI, the fact that the lot is vacant does result in an enforcement action by the Department to force them to obtain a license for that. The other purpose for the license is, many of these properties 28 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. change ownership through foreclosure processes and we lose information related to the owner. So when it switches from a mortgage company to a bank to a new owner and things like that, the license process helps us keep track of the current owner in the event that weeds begin to grow, trash gets dumped on that property, it's generally unkempt. So that, again, goes towards the reason for the enforcing in that respect for the license.

Well, with all of the demolition that was done through NTI and the number of vacant lots that existed as a result of that, have you all calculated how much money you could collect from those vacant lots? Has that been calculated? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: There are many vacant lots throughout the City, not just through the NTI program. So there is a lot of properties out there that are not properly licensed, and through our regular inspection processes 29 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. and through our demolition process, we plan to institute a more aggressive enforcement effort to get people to obtain and maintain that license so we can contact an owner if something occurs at that property more readily than through normal regular mail arrangements.

Thank you very much.

I'm sure that this has been on the books for probably years. How does a property owner know that they have to pay a license? It's a vacant property. How do they know that a license is required? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: Most people -- unfortunately, most people find out that information through the violation notice, but the violation notice does not immediately impose any fine or inspection fees. It notifies the owner of their obligation to obtain a license, and many people do within that initial 30 to 60 days that they're given 30 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. to comply. The ones that do not -- and there are viable owners -- we pursue through the enforcement process of Municipal Court, Equity Court and things like that.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Madam President. One of the things I learned real quick from Councilwoman Blackwell was a standard policy of taxation which says no way, no how, no tax. I think that that's a real good public policy to follow, but I do and am inclined to want to look at -- and I said this to the Budget Director -- certain fees that we charge as a municipality, and in those fees being justified, as Councilwoman Verna talked about, based on cost to the City to provide that said service or enforce that particular regulation. So 31 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. one of the things I looked at was that broken window law that Councilman DiCicco put on the books, and to say have we done a cost analysis, a benefit analysis to how we use that particular law, fee, fine to, A, move property owners in the right direction to restore the viability of a property; and, B, what kind of revenue has it brought to the City of Philadelphia as we analyze these fees, as we look at to see if their costs are revenue neutral or in fact revenue enhancing to our budget? Have we done any of that type of analysis when it comes to fee structures such as that?

I think we're looking at two different areas there. One is the fines that Councilman DiCicco's bill calls for for broken windows. Those are not fees that are imposed by the City.

Well, let me put it in proper context. Fees or fines. Fees or fines. Have we looked at the 32 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. cost of a service that we provide to justify a fee that we should ask for in the front end --

Yes.

-- and then have we analyzed the fines to take a look at whether or not they are revenue neutral and -- what I mean by that is, if it costs you $17,000 to tear down a property, when we start looking at fines, are we up to date on all of those things to reflect our true costs?

I'm not exactly sure. See, I'm confused by the fine part. I understand the fee part. The fee part has to be justified because they have to reflect the cost of providing service. The fines are fines that are imposed by the courts or the Legislature. The State Legislature gave the City the ability to impose certain fines at a certain amount for violations, and I don't believe the fines themselves -- they're based on the activity. I don't 33 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. believe they have to be revenue neutral. I believe they are what they are. If there is a violation of the Code, the law says that this is the penalty for each violation of the Code.

Let me stick to fees, which you're comfortable with. If you look at -- and I'll go with a case in -- if I look at East Falls or I look at Carroll Park or one of my neighborhoods, certain neighborhoods have gotten to the point where renters have created a tipping point. In some areas 85 percent of my neighborhood there is renters in East Falls, sections of Manayunk, sections of Carroll Park where investors have come in and purchased property. We charge a rental fee. Do we adequately reflect the cost of services that renter communities -- in the case of a student population, for example, there are these annual exits from the neighborhoods where it increases the amount of trash. 34 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Whether it is a vacant property that puts out trash like mattresses, the tonnage goes up. Have we analyzed the cost reflective to the services that we wind up providing for those particular property owners? And that's the kind of cost analysis. If I look at town and gown issues -- let's go there -- the increased calls that we have for partiers and people who have over-occupied a building when they had a license for three and wind up with ten, have we looked at the cost to enforce and reflected that in the fee structure?

I don't believe that what we're saying there is that folks who commit violations, we have to in advance charge them a license fee comparable to everybody, the whole universe, and incorporate what violations might be committed by some into fees that we charge to all. I don't know if we can 35 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. do that.

Well, if you look at a tipping point of a neighborhood and you realize that your neighborhood is a rental community, there are certain costs associated with servicing that population, and what I'm saying to you is if we reflect that and average it out to even the good to the bad, because still it's costs. And so to be a property owner to do that kind of student population, maybe there is an added cost to that that we should reflect in the fee up front. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: Councilman, I believe about a year ago we did an analysis of our housing inspection license fee, tried to look at the overall number of rental properties that we face and the calls that we get associated with them and the inspections that we need to do associated with them, and that was the reason why we needed to come to this Council about a year ago to raise that 36 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. particular fee, because the amount of effort with the number of rental properties in the City was causing us to put more efforts into those types of complaints. So to answer your question, yes, we do that. For this particular bill, we did some analysis for different reasons. It wasn't related to inspections of rental properties, but similar to what we did last year.

Finally, my only point to you is that with the sheriff's sale crisis in the City of Philadelphia, we are finding more investment in rental properties, unfortunately changing the character of neighborhoods to renter versus homeownership. There is a cost to the City of Philadelphia by way of those types of services. So annually, annually we need to evaluate what that cost is and have it reflected in our fee structure and fine structure. 37 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

I agree.

Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

I just have one question. On Bill No. 12 090774, in Section 2 of the bill, that it shall not take effect until the City has the technology in place to implement the proposed changes for the licensing procedures. Can you tell us when you anticipate that L&I will be ready to implement the bill?

I'll have the Commissioner -- the Commissioner is here. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record. 38 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Certainly. Good morning. Fran Burns, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. We currently have a year-long phased project, presuming that we do have passage through City Council, that brings us to this point calendar year 2010. So full calendar year, where the first part of the technological implementation will be to get online a series of questions that either a new business or a current business would go through a series of questions, basically to the extent it can be yes, no answers, and then be told here are your business licensing requirements as a result. And then over the next -- that's the first part of the technological piece. Then over the next year, phased-in pieces of the ability to actually purchase the license online will occur in a phased rollout.

Thank you. 39 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Good morning, Madam President.

Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good morning.

I know that your office, for all the right reasons, has been aggressively going after businesses who operated any way in the past that was not in compliance with your department. I also know that based on a number of small business owners who contacted my office -- and there are 15 sides to every story -- there appeared to be a process lacking by which they could be given time to get in compliance while they keep their business open so that 40 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. they can keep their employees working so that their business could continue. The question becomes, what is your standard operating procedure for helping businesses move towards compliance while you figure out a way to keep them whole so that they can keep their employees working and their businesses can remain open, number one? Number two, I either thought about it or sent a letter to your office -- and I think I pushed the pause button -- wherein I wanted a list of businesses that you shut down last summer broken down by ethnicity. So if I didn't send you that letter, I would like to put on the record now I would like to know where they are, the ethnicity and the type of businesses they are. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. I do appreciate the question and also the acknowledgment that there are a couple sides to enforcement, particularly when L&I gets called as a service request or 41 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. as a complaint to business properties. There are a couple things that -- and the reason I make note of that is because with each instance, depending on the severity or nature of the Code violation, L&I takes different actions, and I'd be happy to go through a couple of very general examples of that.

Please, a couple of examples. COMMISSIONER BURNS: First, we have begun a business district survey of -- which is a proactive or programmed inspections of some business districts. The first thing that we do is, we go out and we give a letter that explains some very basic requirements for operating a business, and we have that in four different languages currently. And then 45 days later, we actually make our initial inspection. So in terms of how can we work with small business, that's one way in terms of our programmed approach that 42 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. we're going out and educating first before we even do the inspection. And then when we do the inspection, a notice of violation standard is 30 days to comply. Now, there are things that in terms of the Department and particularly with our cease operation activity, which I think is basically what your question refers to, where the 30-day notice is sometimes a ten-day notice or we give a ten-day attempt to cease. Places where we would do that, if there were severe fire code violations, if there was food being served. So if we felt there was -- without proper licensing. So if we thought there was a health impact to health and safety. If it was a nuisance activity that we had numerous complaints, and at the same time with a nuisance activity, if there wasn't proper zoning or licensing.

Okay. COMMISSIONER BURNS: So in 43 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. those situations, and it depends where a business falls within the severity of the nature of their violation, what type of action we need to take. We currently actually have a lawyer working with us on developing very standard cease operation activities for the Department.

Okay. COMMISSIONER BURNS: We do have --

That's universally shared across the system and for all businesses? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Exactly. And I think that that also will go a long way. One of the first things I do when I get questions about cease activity by the Department is say, Okay, did we follow our policy, what's our current policy. And the fact that that has to be, I think, codified in writing, because right now we have a very verbal policy on how we proceed in very different situations, we need to get that done. 44 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. The second part of your question, I did receive a letter from you. It wasn't as specific as what you just asked for. We will have -- we don't take down the ethnicity of a business when we take an action against them. So I won't be able to, honestly, provide you with that information, but we can give you the list of our cease operations and map them across the City by district, and you can see if that information provides helpful to you.

Okay. Would it be fair to say that you have upped the Department's activity when it comes to looking to see if businesses are in compliance with L&I? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, we have increased our response to service requests or complaints, which means just basically hopefully that we are building our credibility in terms of getting to the request to do the inspection and the reinspection, and we have begun those 45 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. programmed inspections, which hadn't been occurring for a while. But, again, in the programmed end, we are starting with an education piece first.

How long is the education piece? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's the 45 days. We're going out by hand, delivering the letters of the basic requirements for operating a business, and then 45 days after that, we'll be there for the inspection. Now, if during the inspection there's a violation of the Code, we issue a notice of violation, at which time there's still the ability to comply with that violation.

I may have missed this, but do you have a technical assistance division of L&I where you sort of hand-hold some of these businesses to help them get into compliance? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. Right now our -- that happens either at the inspector on the street or basically the 46 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. supervisor. There isn't a technical unit that you would refer or escalate those type of things to.

Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony, and I look forward to the response to that letter. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. I'm led to believe that amendments will be offered on Bill No. 17 090774 and 090777. Have the amendments been distributed?

Yes, Council President, they have.

For the record, would you tell us what the amendments do?

Yes. On Bill 25 090777, the amendments under Section 47 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. 9-601 of The Philadelphia Code, under Subsection (1), Subsection (b), it deletes "sales lot," "sales showroom" and "valet parking" as activities that were identified. Those sections were also corrected in other areas of Title 9. So basically it's a technical amendment. And also under Section 2 of Bill 090777, it makes certain additions where we see "no change in the license fee." It adds the words "or application fee," and at the end it adds the last sentence, it adds "all other provisions of this ordinance shall be effective immediately."

Thank you.

The amendments for 090774, what it does here under Section 6-301, Subsection (4), it adds the words "the," as well as it adds a few phrases in there, "the issuance of a single license for food establishments selling food is as follows." It's 48 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. basically grammatical changes under the first sentence there. The second part, these are amendments that were requested by the Health Department, and based on their recommendation, we reversed some of the fees that were originally proposed back to its original form. We reversed some of the sections that were struck out before based on recommendations of the Health Department, but it still basically maintains the intent of what the Department would like to do, as well as it complies with some of the requirements of the Health Department for their inspection purposes.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say for the record that I wanted to thank the 49 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Commissioner and her team for working on these consolidations. They have not been easy and they are, by no means, a reflection of more work that we all know is needed as it relates to L&I. But I will say to my colleagues on the record, the issues with L&I as a department, I think we've made some workflow progress. Ultimately it is about funding and allocating enough money for the Department to do some of the issues that impact us and the issues that we get the calls about, whether it's inspectors and some of the other things. But I think that today's presentation is a very good first step in what we all agree has been many complicated issues around L&I's role as a public safety agency. And that's the one piece that I do kind of disagree on the Administration's perspective, about L&I being code enforcement. I look at L&I as a public safety agency. But I did want to thank the 50 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Commissioner and her team for the work up to date and look forward to working with the rest of Council on other issues as we make more reforms in L&I so that we can deal with the issues of quality of life and the public safety issues in our district. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Commissioner. I would ask Mr. McPherson at this time to please read the title of Bill No. 090706. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 18 amending Title 2 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "City-County Consolidation," by abolishing the Board of Revision of Taxes, by creating an Office of Property Assessment which shall have the powers, functions and duties of the Board of Revision of Taxes.

Do we 51 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. have anyone that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.) The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't believe there is anyone here to testify on this bill 10 today.

I did question that, and no one came to the table.

Okay. I have amendments to Bill 090706, the pending Board of Revision of Taxes governance reform legislation, which I would like to offer this morning. The reform legislation we are voting on in committee today was sponsored by the overwhelming majority of City Council members and will bring accountability, professionalism and transparency to a broken assessment and appeals process. 52 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. I'd like to thank my Council colleagues and their staff for significant input in developing both the original bill and the amendments. In addition to input from Councilmembers, the amendments reflect suggestions from witnesses at the October 27th public hearing, including individual homeowners, civic associations, professional organizations, District Council 47, which represents most of the civil service employees at the BRT, the Administration, School District employees and other key stakeholders. Most of the amendments relate to technical issues, but there is one key change I want to highlight. At the suggestion of numerous parties, we have revised the bill to include a date certain, October 1st, 2009, on which the new office -- 2010. Excuse me -- on which the new Office of Property Assessment and Board of Appeals would assume the responsibilities of the BRT. 53 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. We settled on this date because it means that the new Board of Appeals will be in place in time to hear all appeals of assessments related to real estate taxes for 2011. Today, City Council is taking one more step to ensuring that the citizens of Philadelphia will have a property tax system that they can trust, that adheres to the highest standards of professionalism and under which all citizens are treated equally. I move that we approve City Council's bill, with amendments to the bill, with a favorable recommendation. Actually, I think I should just move the amendments.

At this point, we have Councilpeople that want to be recognized.

Oh, yes, ma'am.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. 54 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Thank you, Madam President. This is one of the most important bills we've had to consider in Council, but one that conflicts me almost as much as any bill has that I've had questions about. I've been concerned from the beginning about control from both the assessment and appeal issues by just the Mayor with very little input from us. I understand and I've even -- I mean, as I've said, I would even have gone for an elected person, but there was no sentiment for that. But, again, I'm concerned. I am really concerned about what happens here. Some people feel that it is a step for an increase in taxes, and my bottom line is, we have 84 to 88 people who work for BRT, who are paid by the School District, and those issues are on the table as well. And I don't know maybe if Mr. Dubow can respond. I'd like some assurances that these people that we have 55 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. been fighting to protect are protected, that they won't be affected, that they won't have to take a test, that they are not in jeopardy of losing their jobs through all of this change, and I believe that that concerns all of us in this Council. Before we certainly pass any amendments, I would really like some assurances from the Administration that the workers are protected.

Thank you. Mr. Dubow. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Rob Dubow. I'm the City's Finance Director. I think the question is about the employees at the BRT in general and I guess the ones who are on School District payrolls specifically. 56 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. We do plan to do a thorough analysis of staffing at the BRT and see whether the staffing levels are appropriate. So I can't sit here today and guarantee at the end of that process it will be the same number of employees.

We can't be expected to support amendments if we can't at least protect people in our neighborhoods who send us here. As you know, I'm never afraid to fail. I'm only afraid not to stand up for what I believe is right. I can't support any BRT legislation if we don't protect the workers.

I think --

If you can't commit to that, then I can't commit to you.

The amendments -- I mean, the Councilman can speak to this. The amendments are actually kind of separate from that issue. Under the MOU that the BRT approved today, the 57 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. day-to-day responsibility for the assessments moves to the Administration, and it's under that MOU that we're doing that analysis. So it's separate from these amendments.

All right. Then I will say to my colleagues, it is not with regard to you and your interest in resolving this matter, but I can't support BRT legislation that does not propose to protect, only to investigate and possibly already cut back, workers from our neighborhoods who need their jobs. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Madam President. I take the opportunity to congratulate and to thank Councilman Green and his staff, also members of the 58 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. leadership and all the other Councilmembers that have participated in this process. I do understand the concerns expressed by Councilwoman Blackwell relative to people's futures. I think they're going to try to be as sensitive as possible and try to construct a system or a plan that gets you where you want to be. I also understand and hear Councilwoman Blackwell and others' concerns about the assessment process being in the hands of the Administration. I think going forward, that may be a concern. I'll say tongue and cheek that in this Administration, I'm not sure the Mayor will call anybody to ask them to do anything, so he'll probably be staying out of it, because we have difficulty in that area. So I just think this is probably the best legislation that we have available in front of us to actually change something and to show the citizens 59 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. and taxpayers and homeowners that something has changed, that it's a new system involved, there's a separate appeal process, and I do think in the end it's probably the only way to go. And you can see by the lack of outcry here today that this process that's -- legislative process that's going forward has actually worked. So thank you, and thank the Councilman.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Dubow.

Good morning.

Mr. Dubow, getting back to Councilwoman Blackwell's issue as it relates to employees, and during the course of the conversations, I know it came up a couple of times in the 60 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. leadership meetings about these School District employees, and I think that at one point, a suggestion was made that they be given an opportunity to take tests that will qualify -- qualifiers versus straight civil service. I understand that there was a process that interviewed individuals to determine what their job specs were, what they did in their jobs, and from that, I'm assuming that there was going to be some sort of job specs put together so that -- I don't know. Would it be for civil service or would it be for qualifiers? Exactly how are those people currently working there, who not only may have certain technical experience but actually have work time experience, on-the-job experience beyond what a person would have outside of the particular workforce, how are you going to handle that, or is there some thought going to be given to that, people who are qualified for the positions that --

Right. There's a 61 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. lot of talk about how that would work if it's determined that they're really City employees as opposed to School District employees and that we have responsibility for them, about how exactly that testing would work, and that's something that HR is working on. I'm not sure that they've finalized it. I understand the issues around it, but I don't think --

When do you anticipate that? Because that goes to the crux of the problem. I mean, this whole issue about people being taken who currently work for the School District, and the School District, I'm assuming that within hours of us passing this 18 bill, that they're going to say they're 19 not going to fund those employees 20 anymore. These people are essentially in 21 limbo, and I think it's fair that they 22 have -- some who have worked more than 20 23 years and actually some even 30 years in 24 a job, that they be given a chance to qualify for their own jobs prior to you 62 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. putting this out to the general public for some civil service testing.

Yes. I agree with that. And no matter what happens, there would be -- we would never have a process where one day there's a determination that they're City employees and the next day they're gone, you know. I mean, if that's decided, there's a process and there would be a transition period. So, I mean, you're right --

Mr. Dubow, in all fairness, we have been talking about this for a while, particularly in leadership. It's a simple question. Will you give the people who currently work at the Board of Revision a chance to qualify for their positions and not subject them to a general -- they now have to go take a civil service test based on anybody -- and actually people who don't even live in the City of Philadelphia may have an opportunity to take the test. I don't think that's 63 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. fair.

I understand. I know that's an issue HR -- I don't have that --

When are you going to have the answer, Mr. Dubow? I mean, come on. Rob, we've been talking about this for a while.

We can get you that answer within a day. Just the people aren't here. I just don't know the answer to that.

All right. So can you commit to a timeline on when we can get a response or what the process will be for existing employees who currently work on the School District's payroll?

Yeah. We can have that process for you before you have to vote on this, which is next Thursday, right, final passage, if it comes out today?

Next 64 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Thursday.

Yeah. I don't want to say we'll have it for you within 5 hours and then not deliver, but I know we 6 can have it for you within a week. 7

Okay. 8 Before the final passage? 9

Yes. 10

Okay. 11 Thank you. 12 Thanks, Madam Chair. 13

You 14 know, Mr. Dubow, when we had the CEDA 15 program and that was eliminated, people 16 who worked under the CEDA program were 17 given an opportunity to take a qualifying 18 test and they were hired. I don't know 19 what makes these employees so different 20 that we would even think of having an 21 open, competitive test. 22 Now, you're saying that before 23 final passage of this bill, we will know 24 something definite as to what the Administration intends to do? 65 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Yes.

Thank you. Councilman Rizzo.

Thank you, Madam President. Similarly, I want to join my colleagues that have spoken on this issue. This is important. We're going into the holiday season now and I think people need to realize that we're going to try to do the right thing here. The people that work over there didn't create this bureaucracy. I think, though, at the end of the day, we have to make sure that we do everything we can to treat people that have worked -- and a lot of people don't know this, but most of us do -- that they've worked very hard at the Board of Revision of Taxes, the people in the trenches. So I would hope that before the holiday, that they have a pretty good signal that they're going to be treated 66 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. fairly. In our leadership meetings, it was not suggested or I felt as though that they were going to be, like Councilman Clarke said, put in a situation where maybe their testing skills, maybe their abilities to pass a civil service test, maybe they don't have that capability, some of them. But, again, you just can't throw people away after years or more. 13

I understand the 14 concern. 15

So I'm going 16 to be watching that very carefully, and I 17 hope you do meet that timeline before 18 Christmas. 19 Thank you, Madam President. 20

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. 67 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. I too want to join my colleagues in expressing my concern and sentiment towards making sure that we have some type of very, very fair system that's going to be implemented to make sure that these employees over there at the BRT, the School District employees, are strongly considered to keep their job. Now, I know that you did say that you don't know if the staffing levels will remain the same. However, it's really bad when you've been working somewhere for or 30 years and all the 16 sudden have to take a test to keep your 17 job. I mean, that's just not the way to 18 do it. And I would hope that staff 19 evaluations and other kinds of 20 considerations are given when decisions are being made. Please don't test me after I've been here 30 years. Don't go there. Okay. Thank you.

Thank 68 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

Yeah. I'd just like to say that where there's a will, there's a way, and it's always been the effort of the administrations, particularly past administrations, to protect those people who have been brought on to work in whether they're temporary slots or not. I think what has happened, this outcry about these 88 people, they've been working there for years. They must perform some service. They do work. They have jobs. They have tasks to do. That work has to be done continuously evidently. If they didn't have those assignments, the work probably was not needed. The question becomes, they bring to the position a certain level of experience that you might not get from other people who would come on. So there should be some provision provided, as I 69 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. understand it, when these civil service tests are given, if they are civil service, to get so many points for having the experience, because experience is always one of the parts of the requirements. It says experience. Those who have experience will get so many other points, that is taken into consideration. It's unfortunate that for me this has been, let's get the little people. It seems to me that they have been made to look like they're the problem with the BRT, and I've constantly said they're not the problem. They just seem to be the easy way to get a story about the BRT in the paper. But I don't know too many of the people who work at the BRT, but those who I do know do work. So I think they've been unfairly maligned. I want them to get a fair consideration. And you all are in power, and you can have the power to make it happen. And that's all we want you to 70 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. do, is make it happen.

I meant to say --

In a fair way, that nobody is leaving their job and that they continue to do what they do, because if they don't do it, who is going to come in and do the job? That's my concern.

We agree that they're not the problem. I mean, the problem is that there's an assessment system that people think is unfair. They don't do the assessments. They're not the assessors.

They're not the assessors. They are the clerks. They do the paperwork. The paperwork has to be done, and no one has ever criticized them for not doing it in the manner that it should be done. And so now the fact that the issue to be resolved is whether they stay with the School District or whether they stay with the City, and if they've been hired by 71 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. the School District because they were doing School District work, I mean, all of that has to be taken into consideration. Maybe you don't even have to make that change, you know. They can stay with the School District on their payroll.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a point of information. This is a Council bill, not an Administration bill; is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just take a second 72 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. and agree with Councilwoman Blackwell, Councilwoman Tasco, everybody else who spoke, Councilman Clarke, Council President, all of you who have spoken eloquently about the BRT School District employees. I think what we have to remember is this bill does not deal with that issue, and in fact, even if this bill dealt with that issue, it would not matter because, as Mr. Dubow testified, the Administration today in the person of Rob Dubow is in charge of the BRT, its assessing function and is essentially running -- is in charge of all those employees, School District or otherwise, today, and they're going to do what they're going to do. I have a feeling that they will likely grandstand on the backs of these School District employees, but that's not what this bill deals with or can deal with. What this bill deals with is reforming a broken system and giving citizens confidence that we have a fair 73 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. and uniform tax system. As Charlesretta Meade testified when she was in here at last year's budget cycle, our current assessment system is non-uniform. That makes it illegal in Pennsylvania, and this Council is going to fix it before some judge tells us how to do it. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I think all of the members of Council are keenly aware that, one, this is not an Administration bill, it's a Council bill, and, two, this bill, frankly speaking, cannot fix that particular problem as it relates to employees, but this is a forum and we believe this might be the appropriate context to the bring that issue up. As I said earlier, we have talked about that 74 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. on several occasions, not just in the context of this bill but also in the context of the recently approved MOU. So I think that this conversation should be had in a public way, because people want to make clear their position that we want to treat these employees in some level of fairness. We understand we can't fix it here, and I do believe that that issue can be fixed as it relates to the MOU, because I'm assuming that we are going to move relatively quickly in terms of resolving the issue with the School District employees. And as I said earlier, I think as soon as we pass this bill, I do believe that the School District is going to absolve itself of any financial responsibility for those employees. So personally, I'm just simply trying to get some level of commitment from the Administration in this particular forum, in this context of reforming the BRT, which is sorely 75 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. needed, to move forward in a fair and equitable way as it relates to those employees.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam President. I am very clear that the bill 10 does not deal with the issue. I am not clear that the bill could not deal with the issue. If someone could explain to me why the bill could not deal with the issue, that would be appreciated. And I have no problem with the bill being silent on it.

I would actually like to support a bill that does deal with the issue, but it's not clear to me, based on the conversations that I've had with a number of people, that we can do it in this bill.

Why?

I think we should get a legal opinion. But there 76 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. were informal conversations as it relates to our ability to formally determine how that process is done. Frankly speaking, if we can do it in legislation, I'm more than comfortable supporting that, from a personal perspective.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We did look at this issue and considered specific language. The agreement to have those employees there is basically an agreement between the School District and the City of Philadelphia. We cannot legislate that the School District continue to pay those people, and that is something that is going to be worked -- and continue to be employed. And so with respect to the future of them, it's not something that --

Point of information. 77 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

The point was not who is going to pay for the employees. The point was whether those employees who are currently employed by the BRT have a right to be retained in the changeover and transition and whether it's legal to put that within the legislation, and that's still at this point a question. And I don't mind that the bill is silent. I can vote for the bill with it being silent, but the issue of whether it could go in there I think should not be misleading.

That was an issue that was discussed early on, and the broad consensus was not to directly address it.

But it could be, legally?

I don't think we can legislate it, but it was several months ago and I cannot recall 78 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. how we came to this conclusion.

Thank you.

If the members would like, I will make a call to the Law Department to have someone come over to answer this issue. Is everybody willing to wait?

Yes.

Madam President?

Yes.

Sophie, my Chief of Staff, is helping me recall the discussions around this issue. I don't believe that we can legislate -- we can create -- I don't think we can legislate civil service positions or what the civil service test is going to be. That's the Civil Service Commission. Under the Charter, there are three separate branches that are intended to be co-equal. Believe it or not, the Civil Service Commission is one of them. We can't legislate -- we could 79 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. probably legislate that people automatically have a job when they get in, but the next day, the Administration could lay them all off. There is no -- we have no control with respect to staffing of any department or what they get paid or anything like that. That is totally within the executive purview. So there was a broad consensus with leadership of City Council at the time that we did not want to try to address an issue that we couldn't ultimately control.

Thank you. Councilman Goode.

Point of information. The issue was also not whether we could legislate whether they were civil service or not. The issue is whether -- if there are people who have served within an agency that was controlled by a different branch of 80 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. government are being transferred to the executive branch of government, whether there is some way we could legislate that their experience allows them to continue in that role and transition. And the answer to that question is, yes, it's legal to do so, but if we're going to be silent on it, then that's just the case, we're going to be silent on it.

Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell.

Thank you. I thank Councilman Goode for articulating the issue. This isn't a debate about Civil Service Commission or the rules of civil service. It is, as has been stated, an issue about employees. And I agree, this Council can remain silent if it chooses. Each of us has to follow the dictates of the people who put us here and deal with the God you serve. But in terms of us being able to 81 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. deal with this issue, I believe that we have a responsibility to do so. I think that if we remain silent, we have done a disservice. And it seems to me, Madam President, a lot of people have accepted that these people are going to have to be tested. Nobody has said anything to me on this issue. But a lot of people seem to have accepted that people will be reduced, that people will have to take civil service tests and that they'll go to civil service, and I think that is regrettable. We have to protect the people who send us here and the people in our districts. That's all it is. It's not even -- as we know, they don't even make any money, $23,000, $24,000 a year. Those who retire are only up to 36,000. I think we have a responsibility, Madam President, to protect them, and I think we can do it in this bill.

Thank 82 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. you. I have called Rick Auerbach to come down with the hopes that he may be able to shed some light on this.

Madam President?

Yes. Councilman Green.

Thank you. The bill is not silent on this issue. People may remember that this was a great deal of discussion that was had with leadership and others. The bill in Section 2-207 deals with the transfer of existing employees. The language was very carefully chosen. It says, Those persons employed by or assigned to the Board of Revision of Taxes on the date the Board of Revisions of Taxes ceases to exist shall become employees of or shall be assigned to the Board of Property Assessment Appeals, if they are regularly occupied in connection -- or shall be assigned to the Office of Property 83 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Assessment in connection with the functions and duties transferred to those offices. So we are very clear that that shall happen. It's what happens the next day that we simply have no control over, and the protection of those employees is in the purview of the executive, and what we're asking the executive to do today, I believe, is treat them with respect and dignity and let them keep their jobs. But they are automatically transferred in this bill.

Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam President. The bill is effectively silent on the issue if a Memorandum of Understanding was signed today and the amendment to the Charter cannot take place until May 18th.

Right.

Thank you, 84 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. Madam President.

You're welcome. Councilwoman Blackwell.

Thank you. I agree with my colleague Councilman Goode, and I believe that my colleague Councilman Green supports my position. He just made a whole statement with regard to Civil Service Commission then comes back and says that's not where we are. The bill talks about assessors and the Board of Appeals. So I think that supports my point of view and my debate. Thank you.

You're welcome. Mr. Auerbach, I believe you've been listening to the many questions surrounding the issue of the 80-odd employees that are at the Board of Revision of Taxes. Is there an 85 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. explanation you can give us as to why we cannot add something to the bill before us?

Sure. As I understand, the current arrangement is a cooperative arrangement between the School District and the Administration whereby the School District employees are assigned to the BRT. That's a cooperative arrangement. It could end tomorrow if the School District wishes it to end. It could end tomorrow if the Administration decides they don't want to enter into that cooperative relationship. There's no way to mandate that the School District cooperates with the BRT that way or that the Administration cooperates with the School District that way. If you bring the employees -- the employees of the new agencies that are being created are going to be subject to civil service, to general civil service rules in the Charter. So whatever those civil service rules are 86 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. with respect to hiring of new employees would still apply. And I understand there is the precedent -- I believe you mentioned about the CEDA employees. There is precedent for having a qualifying test as opposed to an open and competitive exam. I'm not sufficiently expert to know if that's something that can be done, but I understand that's something that's being looked into.

Just a minute. Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Auerbach, within this legislation as it's currently crafted, there are qualifications established for certain positions; is that correct?

I believe so, yes.

Is there a possibility to create qualifications established for other positions? 87 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

I'm not sure where that line is. I understand where you're going with your question. I mean, there are qualifications for the chief assessor. I understand there are amendments.

So there could be qualifications established for other positions within the legislation?

I think there could be minimum qualifications.

Thank you. So those qualifications could include experience?

I would think so.

Thank you.

Councilman O'Neill.

Yes, Madam President. I think I understand what Councilman Goode is asking. I understand Councilwoman Blackwell's concern, Councilman Clarke's concern. I think I 88 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. understand Councilman Green's explanation that the legislation says that the employees shall become employees of the new entity and they could be fired the next day or whatever could be done to them that could possibly happen. I just think the worst or the best, depending on how you feel. But with the Memorandum of Understanding in place today, isn't our real concern, will the Administration between now and October, the date --

2010.

-- 2010 honor the intent of the legislation that the employees go off the payroll somehow involuntarily between now and October 2010 since that legislative intent is for these employees to move on to the new group? And I don't know if that's something we can legislate since the Memorandum of Understanding is already in place, but we can certainly establish a record as to the Administration's intent 89 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. between now and October of 2010. I hope I made -- I'm trying to bridge this, because I think that's the biggest gap now that we have, that we can have some control or at least some involvement in it. Mr. Dubow?

As I said before --

Just a moment, please. Councilman Goode.

Maybe Mr. Dubow can further clarify this. I guess the issue is what happens to the Memorandum of Understanding after we pass the bill, it's signed into law by the Mayor, it's approved by the voters, it has an effective date? What happens to the Memorandum of Understanding? The Memorandum of Understanding dies.

The Memorandum of Understanding --

Dies with the agency. 90 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Yeah. The Memorandum of Understanding is a six-month agreement that started October 4th. So it goes through April 4th, with the ability to extend it, I think it's, maybe one month at a time for up to six more months. That would take it to next October when the agency dies. So the longest the MOU could last is essentially until the day the BRT goes away.

So the point I'm making is, the Memorandum of Understanding is temporary. The legislation is meant to be permanent.

That's correct. The MOU between now and whenever it ceases to be in place.

Thank you.

I'm still maybe confused now. I appreciate that clarification. Does the Memorandum of Understanding include a provision that mirrors our legislation that the employees will stay in place until the 91 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. effect of the legislation comes into play, which is they will transfer over to the new agency? Because if we're providing at least hours of job 6 protection with this legislation, it is 7 all for naught if those people don't have 8 24 hours of job protection between now 9 and then, and we will have appeared to 10 have missed that opportunity to get the 11 Administration to agree that those people 12 at least can compete for those jobs 13 because they'll still be in their job 14 come October 2010. 15

As I said to 16 Councilman Clarke, there obviously would 17 be a process -- if it is determined that 18 they should move to civil service, the 19 process for how that will work, I can't 20 answer with certainty what that process 21 will look like, but we'll be able to do 22 that by the time you have to vote for 23 final passage on this. 24

Right, but there's a different question, though. 92 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. And I understand that. That's going to be determined over a period of months. But do we have your and the Mayor's assurance that the people in those jobs right now, the particular people in those jobs, will not be furloughed, laid off, fired, whatever verb you want to use? They'll still be able to enjoy the protections of this legislation for at least that 24-hour period in October of 2010 and compete for the job under whatever civil service requirement there is, whether it's qualifying, whether it's competitive or whatever. I can't be more direct.

And the answer to that is --

There's 11 months. You guys plan on laying off these people or will you give us assurances, on the other hand, that they will stay, I mean, subject to somebody not showing up for work or doing things like that, but doing the same thing 93 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. they've been doing, working for fairly low wages, working hard and that they'll at least get a chance to see this through, switch to the new entity and then deal with the civil service, whatever it is?

No, I can't give that assurance. The first answer I gave was that one of the things that we're doing when we get in there is looking at the organization, seeing whether the staffing levels are appropriate, and if they're not, there may be changes. We're not going with any pre-conceived notion that they're not the right staffing levels, but if they're not, we want the flexibility to be able to change those levels. And I don't want to tell you anything different today and then have us take an action three months from now and you say, Well, that's not what you told us.

Okay. You're not willing to give us the 94 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. assurance that between now and October 2010 for those people that we're giving them come October 2010? They could be gone before those assurances become effective?

That's correct. We want the ability to look at the organization, see how it works and see whether there are changes in staffing that should be made. I think there are two different sets of questions. I think there's are we guaranteeing that there will be no 15 changes in staffing, and that I think the answer is no. The other question is, if they're determined to be City employees, what's the process for how they'd be transitioned from being School District employees to being City employees.

Right.

So what kind of testing will we do. That's the thing that I can get back to you on within a week. 95 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. There are two separate questions, and we can answer the first one within a week. I can't answer the second one with a yes and be honest with you.

You're being very honest.

I'm trying.

I don't think there's any problem with that.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.

Thank you, Madam President. I believe that when we had this discussion on the floor some time ago, we talked about exempting employees, we talked about other issues that have been mentioned today, issues like experience. We talked about exempting current employees. There are ways we can deal with this if we want to do it. I'm not saying it's easy, but we're not always 96 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. elected -- we're not elected because it's always easy. I'm not saying it's an easy issue to deal with, but I'm saying we certainly have a responsibility to do so. And I don't see how we move forward when the Administration is saying they can't make any commitment on anything, on what they'll do. I believe that that is not what we can do, that we have to deal with this issue, as we have tried to in the past, and that the Administration has to at least show that they're willing to meet halfway in this discussion.

Can I make one other clarifying point? We wouldn't make that commitment on any department about a staffing level.

Repeat that.

We wouldn't make that commitment on any department about a staffing level.

Well, 97 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. then we think you're wrong. We don't think the Administration should say blankly that they have a right to treat the citizens who elect them as well any way. People have a right to know how to look at this holiday season, whether they're going to be working next year. People have a right to know. We have a responsibility to at least show that we're being as fair as we can and not to say that we refuse to deal with the issue because it's easy not to. That's unfair. None of us would want to be in that position.

No. I agree, we need to treat them fairly and we need to let them know what the process is going to be like and how we're going to look at their jobs. Remember, the MOU was just passed a couple hours ago, so all we've known, it's coming. In terms of being able to communicate with them and set up a process, we haven't had a lot of time. 98 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. That's a different question from what will the staffing level be in an organization we haven't actually had time to analyze yet.

Madam President, I am requesting a friendly ask, that we hold up until we have these issues resolved.

Madam President?

Councilman Green.

This bill 15 transfers the employees. That's what we can do in this bill. This bill reforms the BRT. It is a City Council bill. Whether or not we pass this bill today, the Administration is going to do the same thing that they're going to do, whatever that is. It's that simple. This bill changes to two different agencies in October 2010, and by then, they will have done whatever they will have done. We can't control 99 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. it. We're not in charge of it. We need to pass this bill today and pass it by the 17th and do what we can through the powers of our office and look at other legislation that is far more important to the Administration in order to try to control the outcome for these employees and others, as City Council often does. They need our votes in the future, and I suggest that that's the leverage we apply in this situation, because there is simply no leverage we have. The Administration can do what it wants between now and 2010. Those employees will be there or not be there whether or not this legislation passes.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.

I might as well weigh in on this. Everybody else is. Mr. Dubow, I think through this 100 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. process, there's been a pretty -- there's an attempt to be a pretty cooperative effort. It's pretty clear where just about every Councilmember is on here. To Councilman O'Neill's question, why can't you understand where we're coming from and give a more affirmative answer to his question as far as some kind of understanding that we're going to try to protect these people, who we all think -- who you admitted are not a problem, are not the problem.

No, they're not.

Who, as Councilwoman Blackwell and others have said, are not getting paid a heck of a whole lot, who obviously are great concern to us. And Councilman Green is very right, maybe we can't legislate it, but since we've had cooperation, why can't we cooperate on this as much as possible anyway and go on record and say, Okay, we understand where you're coming from on this, let's see what the voters 101 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. say in May and then go from there. I mean, it's not that long a time, and a lot of these people have spent a heck of a lot of time in service, again, for not getting paid a lot of money. I guess my question is, why not? Why can't we do that?

I think what we're -- what I said we'll do is -- I think one of the key concerns is about what process we'll use, and that we will have an answer for you on that within a week, and hopefully that will address your concerns.

We hope so. I'd like to hear still a little more definitive, but okay. All right. Thank you.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Tasco is next, then it's Councilman Rizzo. 102 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

I just want to say, I think that we all have expressed our concern about the employees with the BRT. I do agree with Councilman Green, this is our bill, Council's bill, it's not the Administration's bill. By the time this bill is passed and voted on by the voters next spring, the issue will be resolved. To hold this bill up would not be -- would not resolve the issue. So I support his call to move this bill 13 forward.

Councilman Rizzo.

Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dubow, I just can't figure why you, the Mayor and all the people involved in this decision can't get together and -- this is about also relationships. You can tell us exactly where you're going to be, whether it's not what we're hearing here today or something else, that you will look out 103 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. for these folks over there. So why can't you get in a room and come back to us -- this is about relationships. You tell me something and you change your mind. Guess what? Our relationships are over. But I just can't figure why you, the Mayor and other people, the decision-makers of this government, can't come up with a strategy. And if you have to deviate from it, work with us, but I think you hear loud and clear what we want here, and I think that you need to develop your strategy quickly and tell us what you plan to do and not do. Lay them off -- I mean, what a shot that would be to lay people off a day after because of a loophole? I mean, that's disgraceful. Tell us what you plan to do or not do.

Right. And I said that that's our plan, is to be back to you within a week with that plan.

Well, again, I just want to restate the importance of that happening. Hopefully that -- 104 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

It will.

Maybe it should have happened before we came here today. Thanks.

The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.

Yes, Madam President. I agree with the Majority Leader, that this is a Council bill. I know Councilman Green and a lot of other people have put a lot of time into it. I do think that this bill is our leverage. I know there's individual things that happen you can kind of bring back, but it doesn't seem to work out that way. But I think we have a week, and whatever commitment we're going to get, we'll either get it in a week or we won't, and if that means holding the bill over the holidays, we can make that decision on our own, not in this forum but collectively. So let's get it out today. 105 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. I know it's our bill, but we can hold it if we're not satisfied with the response. I don't think we're asking for anything but fairness. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll be real brief. There's absolutely no reason why we should not vote the bill out of committee today, but regardless of when we vote the bill out of committee, as long as it's enough time to go on the May 18th ballot, then essentially the voters will have their say. But regardless of what we do in terms of amending the Charter, the Charter can't be amended before May 18th, and the Memorandum of Understanding is effective today, and so what we do today is really unrelated to the Memorandum of Understanding and should not actually impact our decision one way or the other. 106 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green regarding Bill No. 090706.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the amendments that have been previously circulated to all members of Council be approved. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed?

No. 25

The 107 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. record will reflect that Councilwoman Blackwell voted no, all other members voted in the affirmative, and the motion passes. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we approve Bill 10 No. 090706 with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules to allow second reading and final passage on our December 17th Council meeting, should we choose not to hold this. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 19 090706 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.) 108 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Those opposed?

No. 5

Again, the record will reflect that Councilwoman Blackwell voted no, all other members voted in the affirmative, and the motion is adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco regarding Bill No. 12 090773.

Madam President, I move that Bill 090773 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so that this bill can be read at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 23 090773 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as 109 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco regarding Bill No. 13 090774.

Madam President, I offer an amendment for Bill 16 090774.

Is there a second? (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that the amendment previously introduced be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.) 110 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it, and, again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

Madam President, I move that Bill 090774, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so this bill can be heard at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 090774 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those 111 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco regarding Bill No. 8 090777.

Madam President, I move that the amendment for Bill 090777 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as proposed earlier be adopted. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco. 112 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Madam President, I move that Bill 090777, as amended, be adopted as amended and that the rules of Council be suspended so that this bill can be heard at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 11 090777 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco -- I'm sorry. We neglected to vote. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. 113 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco regarding Bill No. 4 090782.

Madam President, I move that Bill 090782 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so that this bill can be heard at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 090782 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The 114 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. ayes have it and the motion carries. We will now consider Bill No. 4 090842. Councilwoman Tasco.

Madam President, I move that Bill 090842 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so that this bill can be heard at Council's next session. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 090842 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The 115 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc. ayes have it and the motion carries. Councilwoman Tasco, I don't see any reason why we couldn't read all of the resolutions at one time and vote on them at one time. So if you will, just read the numbers.

Madam President, I move that the following resolutions be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation: Resolution Nos. 090616, 090617, 090618, 090619, 090620, 090621, 090622, 090623, 090624. I move that all of these resolutions be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Resolution Nos. 090616, 090617, 090618, 090619, 090620, 090621, 090622, 090623 and 090624 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say. (Aye.) 116 12/9/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706, etc.

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it, the motion carries, and this concludes our public meeting. Thank you very much. (Committee of the Whole concluded at 12:15 p.m.) - - - 117 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 9, 2009, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)