COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA1 COMMITTEE ON FINANCE2 ROOM 400, City Hall5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 25, 20126 2:00 P.M. PRESENT:9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT BILL GREEN COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL10 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR.11 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILMAN BOBBY HENON12 COUNCILMAN KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA13 COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO Bill 120106 - An Ordinance amending Title 12 of The Philadelphia Code,17 entitled "Traffic Code," by providing for the adjudication of parking18 violations contested by alternative methods ...19 20 Bill 120138 - An Ordinance authorizing The Department of Human Services21 on behalf of the City, to enter into a grant agreement with the Commonwealth22 of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare for a grant to provide funds ...23 24 25 2 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
Bill No.2 120100 which was scheduled for a3 hearing today will be held at the4 request of the Sponsor. So if you5 are here to testify on that bill, we6 will not have a hearing and that will7 be renoticed.8 So we will be hearing Bills9 No. 120106 and 120138. I notice the10 presence of a quorum with Vice Chair11 Marian Tasco, Blondell Brown, Bill12 Greenlee and Mark Squilla. Also13 present is Councilman Bobby Hemon.14 And with that, I will call this15 hearing to order and ask the Clerk to16 read the title of the bills.17 CLERK: Bill No. 120138:18 an ordinance authorizing the19 Department of Human Services on20 behalf of the City to enter into a21 grant agreement with the Commonwealth22 of Pennsylvania, Department of Public23 Welfare, for a grant to provide funds24 for the time-limited, family25 3 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 reunification initiative to the City2 under certain terms and conditions.3
And will4 the Clerk also please read the title5 of the other bill we're hearing? And6 while she's doing that, anyone7 testifying or the people testifying8 on 138 please come to the stand.9
Bill No.10 120106: an ordinance amending Title11 12 of the Philadelphia Code entitled12 "Traffic Code" by providing for the13 adjudication of parking violations14 contested by alternative methods.15
Thank16 you. Please state your name for the17 record and continue with your18 testimony.19
Good20 afternoon, Chairman Green and members21 of the Finance Committee. Commonwealth. 120138, which authorizes the4 Department of Human Services, on5 behalf of the City, to enter into a6 grant agreement with the Commonwealth7 of Pennsylvania, Department of Public8 Welfare for a three-year grant to9 provide funds for the Time-Limited10 Family Reunification (TLFR)11 initiative to the City, under certain12 terms and conditions. 00 for the14 period of October 1, 2011 through15 June 30, 2014. 18 The TLFR grant provides DHS19 with funding for services designed to20 facilitate timely family21 reunification for youth in placement22 through the provision of immediate23 in-home services. 1 provide aftercare services to2 families once youth are reunified to3 ensure successful transition back4 into the home. DHS's target5 population for in-home service are6 families with youth who are entering7 placement for the first time and who8 are placed in group homes (GH) within9 the five-county area: Philadelphia,10 Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware and11 Chester. 2 At the time of a group home3 placement, targeted families are4 referred to TLFR services. A5 thorough assessment is done with the6 youth and the family to determine the7 specific type of service each family8 would need. A TLFR provider case9 worker from one of three agencies is10 contracted to work in collaboration11 with DHS and the family. 7 During the TFLR process,8 the parent's home is evaluated to9 assess the parent's capability to10 provide a safe, healthy environment11 for the returning child. The needs12 of siblings, paramours and other13 household members also are addressed14 in order to help solidify the family15 unit. 1 home. Services continue in the home2 for 12 weeks after the child returns3 home. 5 Family meetings are6 facilitated in order to assist the7 family with problem solving and the8 development of effective9 communication skills. 16 Through this program, DHS17 strives to reduce the length of time18 that children spend in group home19 care to a period of nine to twelve20 months. 1 Aftercare services assist the youth2 and family with the adjustment to3 living together as a family. 8 With this Grant, DHS9 provides services to approximately 4010 families during each year of the11 grant. 15 Thank you for allowing me16 to testify today. 20
Thank21 you, Commissioner. Does anybody have22 any questions for the Commissioner?23 (No response.)24
Seeing25 10 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 none, thank you very much.2
We will4 move to Bill No. 120106 which has5 already been read. So I will ask6 Jerry Connors to come up from the7 Bureau of Administrative8 Adjudications.9 Before we move to that, I10 would like to recognize for the11 record Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell12 who is present, and Councilman Wilson13 Goode and Councilman Kenyatta14 Johnson. Mr. Henon, do you have15 anything you would like to say before16 we hear from the Bureau of Adjustment17 and Adjudication?18 Will you please turn on the19 microphone for Councilman Henon.20 (Microphone turned on.)21
Thank you, Mr.22 Chairman. And welcome to those who23 are here today this afternoon to24 testify. We appreciate it and it's25 11 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 ironic, as what we are trying to --2 and I'm speaking on behalf of the3 Parking Authority, the BAA4 Adjudication bill, specifically Bill5 No. 12106 specifically -- it's ironic6 that, you know, I want to thank7 people for really taking the time out8 to come down here in the City and9 finding parking. I know it's an10 inconvenience.11 So it's my hope that the12 message is that we need to be a13 little more friendlier to not just14 the residents of the City of15 Philadelphia in the sense of parking,16 adjudicating their, contesting their17 parking tickets. I think it's an18 inconvenience.19 I've heard it for the last20 year and several times this year from21 a wide range of not only seniors, you22 know, but professionals, people who23 are working all over the place and24 quite frankly, some family members25 12 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 that visit us that have come into the2 City who used to live here and some3 folks who are visiting the City and4 its rich history which we have to5 offer.6 You know, single parents7 also who have a job, if they're lucky8 enough to have a job in today's job9 environment, it is, I think, a10 challenge to take off from work, to11 put their kid in day-care and to come12 down here to contest the pay for13 parking and to contest a parking14 violation.15 I think other cities across16 the country, especially on the East17 Coast here, have many ways of being18 friendly accessible and means of19 contesting their parking violations.20 So this has nothing to do with the21 violations. This has everything to22 do with people's ability to due23 process in a more accessible and24 convenient way that doesn't disturb25 13 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 their lives and the lives of the2 family and have their voice be heard.3 So as a friendly city as we4 are, you know, it is my hope to5 co-introduce this bill with Chairman6 Green and to move it out of Committee7 today and to give people the due8 process that they deserve in a more9 open, transparent and convenient way10 without disrupting their lives.11 Thank you very much.12
Thank13 you, Councilman. I note for the14 record on the screen to our left is a15 Power Point presentation which has16 the instructions and actual online17 sign-in page for cities such as New18 York, San Diego, Boston and others19 that permit an online appeals20 process, as do Temple, University of21 Pennsylvania, Villanova, et cetera,22 for parking tickets.23 With that Power Point24 running in the background,25 14 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 Mr. Connors, please proceed.2
Good3 afternoon, Chairman Green, Vice4 Chairwoman Tasco and distinguished5 Committee Members. 11 Thank you for the opportunity to12 offer testimony in response to Bill13 No. 1 appeals based on the submission of2 written evidence, telephone appeals3 would require additional expense that4 would not prove effective for either5 us or appellants. Nor are we6 prepared at this time to formalize7 the receipt of written submissions8 electronically. We have suggested to9 the Sponsor amendments to modify the10 bill to limit changes to the appeals11 system that we could support. 14 Thus far in FY12 (through15 March 31st) there have been 1,136,13416 parking tickets issued. 20 Once properly issued, a parking21 ticket is prima facie evidence of a22 violation. 2 Drivers issued violations3 have not been shy about pursuing4 appeals. 10 Through March 31, 145,01911 tickets have been scheduled or12 rescheduled for hearings this fiscal13 year. Though not a direct connection14 in terms of the time frame for15 evaluation of ticket issuance, just16 as a matter of scale, about 1317 percent of tickets issued are18 appealed. 1 suspension, permit renewal)2 respondents are heard on a walk-in or3 "on demand" basis. 11 We work extremely hard to12 provide timely and responsive13 hearings for appellants. 318 percent of ticket appeals resulted in19 dismissal. 8 There are some drawbacks regarding9 the opportunity to submit written10 evidence. 19 We would be prepared,20 however, to support a bill that21 simply formalized the submission of22 written evidence on appeal. 6 We have discussed several7 concerns about the bill with the8 Chairman's staff, however, and have9 proposed amendments to remove certain10 aspects of the bill that in our view11 would be unworkable. More12 specifically, we are particularly13 concerned about the provision of14 telephone hearings, which present a15 number of logistical problems and16 practical problems, both for us and17 for appellants. We also have18 requested amendments to make the19 submission of evidence electronically20 depending on rules the Finance21 Department would establish by22 regulation, as we are not prepared at23 this moment to move forward with24 electronic appeals. 4 Thank you again for the5 opportunity to present this testimony6 on behalf of the Administration. 9
Thank10 you, Mr. Connors. I have a press11 release from the City of New York,12 Office of the Mayor dated March 21,13 2011, "Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker14 Quinn Announce New Program to Allow15 New Yorkers to Contest Tickets16 Online." Speaker Quinn, who I guess17 is the equivalent of our City Council18 president, said: "Once again, we are19 making the City more customer-service20 oriented," by allowing New Yorkers21 and small business owners to contest22 a violation online -- whether it be23 sanitation, health or otherwise --24 it'll save them time and money,25 22 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 traveling to city offices and waiting2 their turn to make their case to an3 administrative judge. My Council4 colleagues and I are proud that both5 our bill and the Regulatory Review6 panel resulted in this great step in7 making the lives of New Yorkers8 easier."9 As I have mentioned, there10 are a bunch of other cities and11 institutions that already permit12 electronic ticketing. And I would13 like to specifically focus in on that14 statement versus the statement in15 your testimony that in your16 experience the opportunity of an17 in-person presentation with give and18 take between the hearing officer and19 offender proves more satisfying to20 members of the public.21 There are in people's22 packages here lots of articles about23 the hours of time that people have to24 wait. "It's Our Money" is a piece25 23 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 after this bill and Councilman's2 Henon's other bill was introduced,3 that described waiting for three4 hours even when you have an5 appointment, et cetera. And I'm just6 wondering why it is that we want to7 say what customer service the public8 wants and limit it because we think9 they'll be more satisfied with a10 particular process, rather than11 allowing the public to make a12 determination as to how they would13 like us to serve them, either in14 person if you feel that's needed,15 online, et cetera.16 Why not make us as customer17 service friendly as we can be and18 leave the choice as to the public19 wants to be satisfied up to them.20
The21 presentation of written testimony and22 physical evidence in an online23 fashion is not what we are against.24 If the idea is for a hearing25 24 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 essentially to be performed in a2 Skype-type of a format, we just think3 that's extremely problematic from a4 practical standpoint in terms of5 trying to execute that. So online6 can be many things these days.7 To my knowledge, at8 least -- I don't pretend to know9 every cite that's in the Power Point.10 But the cities I have been in touch11 with online is the written submission12 along with photographic evidence,13 photostatic copies of documentation14 submitted for a then-later review by15 a hearing examiner.16
Right.17 And then people are usually notified18 via email or mail about the results19 of their hearing. And then you can20 take those results and appeal the21 BAA's decision in court if they feel22 like they need to do so without23 having to come to that first hearing.24 Because as you have testified, there25 25 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 are, you know, most appeals, even2 when they show up, are not granted.3 Only 12 percent. And so you are4 creating a record without having to5 take time off from work or away from6 your children or whatever that you7 can then decide what to do with.8 But in your testimony -- in9 the actual amendment submitted to us,10 you took away and in your testimony11 you said you are not prepared to do12 electronic submission today. And you13 took away the opportunity for14 electronic submission by having the15 BAA at a time it finds convenient16 issue its own regulations for17 electronic submission which could be18 fax only, for example, the way the19 amendments were written.20 So, you know, I think, I21 don't see a reason not to proceed22 with respect to telephonic hearings,23 specifically that we sent around to24 our Council colleagues. And I think25 26 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 it's part of the people's package,2 freeconferencecall.com and 15 other3 server providers that record4 conference calls. And they could be5 used for a record if there is an6 appeal from there with a simple 8007 number for people to call in at8 scheduled times with pass codes, et9 cetera. There are telephonic10 hearings in different contexts other11 than parking appeals in cities and12 states. And I see no reason not to13 make that an option.14 Is there anybody -- I'm15 sorry. Councilman Greenlee.16
Thank17 you, Mr. Chairman. I just -- you18 kind of asked the kind of questions I19 was going to ask about the electronic20 appeals. And just so I am clear, Mr.21 Connors, you said you didn't have any22 problem with electronic appeals that23 just come in like written testimony.24 You have seen that a problem just25 27 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 with the Skype idea? Maybe make that2 a little clearer because I wasn't3 really clear what you were saying.4
I'm sorry. I5 think the first question was:6 Something that could be in a work cue7 that the next available hearing8 examiner can take that case, do that9 case, perform that case, make that10 decision, issue findings, create a11 notification back to the customer.12 We have no philosophical problem with13 that.14 The idea -- you are using15 Skype but I think we know what we16 mean, some sort of a face-to-face17 electronic -- we see that as user18 problematic from a practical19 standpoint in terms of scheduling, in20 terms of being able to put a hearing21 examiner up in front and at the same22 time get the customer on the line.23 It's just a logistical issue that the24 benefit would so far outweigh the25 28 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 pain, it just doesn't seem at all2 practical.3 In terms of making it4 easier -- I don't -- if the chairman5 took that our proposed amendment was6 a disingenuous way to limit this to7 faxed appeals, that was certainly not8 our intention at all and would not be9 our intention.10 We are principally opposed11 to telephone hearings, anything in12 the online venue that would be, you13 know, call it live interactive. We14 just see that's extremely15 problematic.16
And17 it's the problem that you mostly18 refer to scheduling that you seem to19 think that would be a problem?20
Yes, sir.21 It's enormously problematic. We have22 at the moment -- and I know it's easy23 to hear as elected officials the24 horror stories of the time that25 29 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 people wait, an exceedingly long2 amount of time. No one is going to3 call an elected official and say: I4 was in and out of there in ten5 minutes. I want you to know that.6
In7 all fairness, in my opinion I have8 heard many more complaints about the9 time problem over the last year or so10 than we used to. I thought at one11 time, to be quite honest with you, it12 worked pretty well then. But lately13 I have been hearing when people come14 in and they are told even before they15 sit down: Well, you know, it's going16 to be a long time. Maybe you better17 reschedule.18
No. I'm19 disagreeing with what they have been20 told. People are given a reasonable21 estimate based on when they are22 signing in what it's going to look23 like so that they can go to lunch and24 come back. They are not going to be25 30 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 missed. But in other words, people2 prefer to be told: Here's what the3 wait looks like today.4 We have boot and tow cases5 that get thrust upon us. We don't6 know how many of those there are7 going to be. Those tend to be very8 time-consuming. And we do our best9 to take the scheduled people out of10 turn and leave the boot and tows at11 the end. I say boot and tow, any12 on-demand categories of hearings.13 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:14 Wouldn't it be reasonable, then, to15 assume that a lot of those people16 showing up now and being pushed back,17 you know, taking a long time, they18 would do it by written or electronic19 or something like that? I mean, I20 think that's one of the ideas behind21 this whole thing, you know. It would22 cut down on the people coming. And23 then that's their choice. You are24 giving them a choice.25 31 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
And we are2 not against that. But anything we do3 that increases the volume of appeals4 is more cases that have to be5 addressed and they have to be heard.6 Whether it's submitted in writing,7 it's still a measure of work that has8 to be done to provide that hearing.9
But10 people have had to sit and wait, I11 have heard, a couple of hours. I12 have heard that many, many times from13 people. Maybe some of them are14 exaggerating, I don't know, but ...15
Trust me when16 I tell you: We do not enjoy making17 people wait, not even a little bit18 more than they enjoy waiting.19
But20 whether you enjoy it or not -- I'm21 not saying you enjoy it. But I'm22 sure they don't enjoy it.23
I'm sure they24 don't.25 32 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
Why2 not try to take that away a little3 bit, I guess is what I'm saying, you4 know. I think that's what this bill5 does, you know.6
We are not7 against what we think are the poor8 intentions of the bill. We are9 against two specific aspects of it.10 The rest of it is just a case of11 mechanics how we pull it off. We are12 not proposing to delay it or be13 disingenuous. We would be happy to14 do this on a time frame that I think15 everybody agrees would be as16 expeditious as we possibly can.17
Thank18 you. I'm not sure we can agree on19 what is as expeditious as we possibly20 can in large measure, unless there's21 legislation that's moving through22 City Council.23
I'd be happy24 to make a commitment to that effect,25 33 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 if you'd like.2 COUNCILMAN GREEN:3 Councilwoman Brown.4
I want9 to get a handle on what aspects of10 the bill that you believe are11 reasonable. So can you share with us12 the aspects of the bill that you13 believe makes sense for us to proceed14 as a City, given the fact that there15 are a number of other municipalities16 that have figured it out.17
We would be18 more than happy to support19 submissions by email. We would be20 more than happy to support21 submissions of written testimony22 evidence to an upload or Web site or23 filling out a form that some of the24 cities utilize. We are happy to25 34 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 support that.2
Okay.3 And the one piece or the two or three4 pieces you believe are onerous are?5
Telephone6 hearings of anything online that is7 on demand interactive, call it Skype8 or anything of that nature.9
Okay.10 And the reason for that is the11 challenge you believe to be is12 related to the capital investments13 that would be needed to get the14 proper equipment in place to ensure15 an efficient operation of the16 telephone process or what?17
There is that18 aspect of it. But there is also the19 number of hearing examiners we would20 have to add to the mix to be able to21 pull this off. In other words, as22 bad as it is when people are23 delayed --24
-- they have2 been in a waiting room. They see3 everyone else is delayed. They see4 that we are doing the best we can.5 In a telephonic environment, you have6 no context --7
Point8 of information, Mr. Chairman. Are9 there other municipalities that10 actually use the telephone process in11 the way that's being recommended in12 this bill?13
No, of16 the cities that are actually using17 the telephone to handle appeals of18 parking tickets.19
New York20 City did allow telephonic appeals21 until they just updated their whole22 system to do Web sites, to do Web23 site and online. Also, HEMAP allowed24 telephonic appeals. I mean, the25 36 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 issue here to me is -- it's my belief2 based on our conversation with other3 cities, that this will significantly4 decrease the number of people who5 come in.6 And it is much quicker to7 reject an online appeal after looking8 at the evidence and not having to9 engage with anybody, as opposed to10 having a full 6, 12-minute, 18-minute11 hearing with each person that comes12 before you. So the workload can be13 far more efficient. And that's my14 belief as to what will happen when we15 allow things to be more convenient16 for citizens.17 There will be an initial18 uptick and then as people realize19 they are just as likely to get a no20 with that, that will slow down and21 you will have less people in person22 than you are dealing with.23
And so24 the consumer or the citizen still has25 37 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 the last option to come in and do a2 face-to-face appeal. This doesn't3 eliminate that option completely,4 does it?5
If the6 citizen chooses in advance whether7 they want to come in or whether they8 want the appeal. So it's either/or.9 And then with respect -- I'm fairly10 convinced that I can convince you11 over time that the technology exists12 today for people to schedule13 hearings, even telephonically online14 without any resources from the15 Department other than letting people16 know what day or what number of hours17 would be available on a day for one18 hearing examiner to hear appeals19 online, that conference call notices20 can go out automatically from a21 conference call provider. That we22 won't have to build any equipment in23 our system whatsoever, those24 conference calls can be recorded and25 38 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 the record will exist for later2 appeal through the use of modern3 technology.4 And if I can't convince you5 of that, I will consider amending6 that out of the bill at a later date,7 the telephonic hearing requirement.8 But I would like the opportunity to9 demonstrate to you that it is not10 going to cost us money or time or11 anything other than convenience and12 service to our citizens.13
My14 last question, Mr. Chairman, is will15 there be a period for training that16 will allow you prior to, for lack of17 a better word, city-wide effective18 implementation?19
Thank24 you. Councilman Johnson, did you25 39 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 have any questions? I'm sorry.2 Councilman Goode.3
Thank4 you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.5 You said that 80 percent are denied6 on average?7
No. 728 percent -- in the current fiscal9 year, roughly 72 percent have been.10
Do you11 have a study over a longer period of12 time?13
I can go back14 to the last fiscal year. But prior15 to that time, the records that were16 kept of appeal actions were not quite17 reportable.18
So over19 the last year, about 28 percent were20 approved?21
Yes.25 40 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 You said 72 percent were denied.2
No. There's3 two categories of appeals that get4 approved, if you will. One is where5 the respondent is found liable for6 the violation itself. One or more7 late penalties are waived. And then8 the other is an actual finding of9 liable to both the violation and if10 there are late penalties.11
But my12 question is: What percentage of13 appeals were won?14
I'm sorry,20 sir. One second. 12.3 were21 dismissed outright.22
Okay.23 Do they fall in any specific24 category, why the appeals were?25 41 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
That could be2 anything from the issuing officer3 reported the wrong plate numbers.4
But do5 you know what they were? Do you know6 why the appeals were won?7
Why they were8 won is that there was evidence of9 testimony that proved the ticket was10 not valid.11
I get12 that. I'm asking: Did you examine13 specific cases and do you know how14 the appeals were won? That's a15 direct question.16
And a direct17 answer is yes, but it's not18 categorized in any format that I19 could present to you today.20
Do you21 know what evidence was presented that22 won those appeals?23
In each case,24 yes.25 42 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
Can you2 describe the evidence that was3 presented or needed to win the4 appeal?5
In the6 thousand or so, whatever the number7 is, cases per month where they8 prevailed? Each case is different,9 sir.10
So15 there's a thousand different types of16 evidence that's presented?17
Thousand19 different ways for a thousand20 different reasons?21
Any25 43 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 further questions? Council member2 Johnson?3
Thank4 you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a5 couple small questions. And I do6 applaud your efforts in trying to7 make government life a little more8 customer friendly and making sure in9 this particular case the people of10 Philadelphia have an opportunity to11 interact more efficiently with that12 particular agency. But I did have a13 couple of additional questions.14 People still have the15 option to do the face-to-face16 component? Okay. And I also looked17 at the data from the various other18 cities that have this system in19 place. The statistical data talks20 about how customers might have gone21 from a five to a ten in terms of22 those particular government agencies23 as customer friendly: New York,24 Boston. Any information that kind of25 44 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 shows that?2 COUNCILMAN GREEN:3 Honestly, I'm not aware of customer4 surveys in those cities.5
And6 the other component was just on the7 technology side, the system has to be8 in place to make sure that those9 folks who will be administering this10 system, that they will be up to11 speed, be able to use the computer,12 some of them even customer friendly13 on the telephone, how to interact14 with people. You have a system in15 place to get folks up to speed from16 that component as well as on the17 training side?18
We would19 pass a law. The Department would be20 responsible for doing that.21
Thank24 you. Any further questions for this25 45 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 witness?2
Mr. Chairman,3 could I just respond to one question4 that you asked earlier and I never5 got a chance to answer?6 COUNCILMAN GREEN:7 Certainly.8
You made a9 statement that said that this will be10 more expeditious. I want to point11 out that, you know, face-to-face12 setting, explain the decision,13 explain the provisions of law, is14 much more straightforward and less15 time-consuming than writing that out16 to the satisfaction of the recipient17 of that decision. So it is more18 actually time-consuming to do19 something in a written submission20 because you have to provide that back21 or the person has no idea that they22 would actually be doing.23 COUNCILMAN GREEN:24 Councilman Goode?25 46 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
Since I2 don't believe that all appeals that3 were won fall into a thousand4 different categories and since they5 may fall into the category of simply6 the wrong license tag, someone doing7 a job wrong on a consistent basis or8 any number of other things. Maybe9 because someone had access to10 presenting a type of evidence in11 terms of photographing something.12 You don't know whether it's more13 expeditious or not unless you14 actually examine those 12 percent of15 cases where people won. Thank you,16 Mr. Chairman.17
Yes.20 Thank you. Before, we used to have21 evening hours to make that easier for22 people to come in?23
Several years24 ago they extended the hours to one25 47 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 night a week.2
So6 there is no time for somebody after7 work to go. So is it possible that8 we have Saturday hours?9
Nine16 to twelve. Is there a possibility to17 extend that or no?18
Not within19 the current budget constraints that20 we live in.21
If we22 had -- well, like a person works -- I23 guess they don't work one day during24 the week so they would pick up a25 48 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 Saturday time. Is that a2 possibility?3
We schedule4 rotations on Saturdays for senior5 hearing examiners than can perform6 all of the functions that need to be7 performed. It's a support staff8 issue. It's not just a case of9 putting a hearing examiner on. There10 is more to it than that.11
All12 right. How about as far as nighttime13 hours? Is that something that you14 are not able to do?15
It's not16 something that we can support with17 the existing resources that we have.18 COUNCILMAN SQUILLA:19 Wouldn't that make more sense, then,20 to be able to allow it to be online?21 I know you said it takes longer for a22 person to write it out and send it in23 or go on the computer and do it.24 They might not be available for25 49 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 certain times so it would be easier2 for them to actually do that than3 having to go down to the hearing and4 have it heard.5
I know8 you said it's longer for somebody to9 have to write it out and give you all10 the details of their ticket and then11 submit that to -- it would actually12 take the person a longer amount of13 time. But if the times are not14 available for them to go there or for15 some reason somebody came in from16 even out of town, they got a ticket17 and wanted to fight it, would it not18 behoove them to take a little more19 time to submit that through the20 online process?21
Yes. We do22 that now in various forms,23 attachments to emails submitted from24 a Web site, US mail, we do all that25 50 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 now.2
I'm3 sorry. You do that now? And the4 public knows that?5
They6 certainly do, based on the quantity7 that we receive.8
The9 information is available on your Web10 site how to do that?11
We encourage12 the in-person hearing.13 COUNCILMAN GREEN:14 Councilman Henon?15
Thank you, Mr.16 Chairman. I'm just finding it hard17 to believe, Mr. Connors. And this18 is -- I'm just trying to figure out19 when -- you are trying to explain20 what the BAA can live with, you know,21 when your money comes to scheduling,22 uploading and sitting times and23 electronic hearings. When you're24 going through that type of process as25 51 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 opposed to what you're in opposition2 to, I really don't see the difference3 or that great of a difference when4 you compare it to the kind of5 customer service that we are trying6 to provide to people.7 And I agree with Mr. Green8 when he says in the beginning of9 anything that's new -- and that's10 what we are trying to do here. We11 are trying to offer new technical12 opportunities, electronic resources13 for people to adjudicate. You do it14 by mail. And I'm sure that's only15 for certain things. I think most of16 the cases are material things.17 MR. CONNORS. No. Most of18 the cases people do not like the19 fines and they do not have the money.20 That's the predominant defense.21
They don't like22 the fine and they don't have the23 money. They are certainly going to24 hate to pay for parking or taking off25 52 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 of work to come down here in person2 without providing them another3 opportunity to hear the contest.4 I just think initially like5 anything, there is going to be an6 uptick. Then it certainly would7 smooth off in a certain time frame or8 a certain period. I just find it9 hard to believe that it's going to be10 that much different for what you can11 support in this bill to what you12 cannot support in this bill. And if,13 you know -- if you could please14 explain that to, you know, to the two15 sponsors here today.16 It doesn't have to be here17 today. I would appreciate it. I'm18 just having a hard time mentally19 digesting it. Unless there really is20 a thousand different excuses or21 violations that you hear, you know,22 on a monthly basis. I am really23 trying to work together -- I know24 it's not an easy job. Everybody25 53 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 comes and you hear complaints all2 day, like we hear in our offices.3 So we are trying to find4 another opportunity for people to be5 more efficient with the technology6 that we have available. Either we7 change or we don't change. If we8 don't change, we go back to, you9 know, everybody coming in, having10 longer hours, hire more people to11 stay during the night and extending12 our Saturday hours or investing a13 little more in change and, you know,14 little better access and15 transparency. So I hope you will16 consider, you know, what it's all17 about here today. Thank you.18
Mr. Connors.24 Okay. So the issue of the bill is25 54 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 specifically what? There's two2 components, telephone hearings. The3 telephone interview. And the reason4 why is?5
Because the10 ability to get people available to11 hear those cases on demand is going12 to be a real challenge.13
The people16 that don't work there yet. We are17 going to have to add hearing18 examiners. Anything we do that19 increases the volume of hearings --20 we are overwhelmed as it is.21 Anything we do that increases the22 volume of hearings, we are going to23 have to add staff.24
I just want25 55 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 to be clear. So the reason why we2 don't want to use the telephone3 interviewing component is because we4 have to increase hearing examiners to5 deal with the increase in the load of6 people calling on the telephone to7 appeal?8
That's11 one of several reasons. Is that the12 reason from a cost standpoint?13
I'm16 just trying to -- because on the flip17 side -- this is something the public18 thinks would be a great idea, just19 from a convenience standpoint. So20 I'm just trying to get clarity on --21 what's the big deal -- I'm not trying22 to give you a hard time. Again,23 someone calling on the telephone. I24 just want to be clear on the exact25 56 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 reason for it, why the public could2 not get a chance to call in on the3 telephone to appeal their decision.4
I can give5 you three essential reasons. The6 first reason is we believe there7 should be some threshold of8 commitment in order to contest a9 ticket. If you have nothing other10 than the what have I got to lose11 appeals, we get appealed on12 everything. And we drown with the13 frivolous appeals that outweigh or14 overstep our ability to deal with15 legitimate appeals.16 Number two, is that the17 timing to have a hearing examiner18 available for telephone hearings at19 the time frames that that would have20 to happen is extremely problematic.21 If someone is waiting on a telephone22 for five minutes, they believe they23 are waiting too long. If someone is24 sitting in a hearing room, in a25 57 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 hearing/waiting area, they can see2 the volume of activity. They can see3 the people. I'm not saying they like4 it better. But in that five minutes,5 they can see what is happening.6 It's not the same thing in7 a telephone environment where you8 have no visual cue as to what the9 business is. Even if somebody is10 telling you: It will be 5 minutes11 before you get heard, et cetera, et12 cetera, -- you are telling them: It13 will be 40 minutes before you get14 heard in some circumstances, and I15 don't think anybody is going to think16 that's good public service.17 Last but not least, we18 think that there are significant19 problems with the informality of a20 telephone exchange in terms of just21 controlling the hearing and making it22 meaningful, getting the testimony,23 issuing a decision and bringing that24 to close in a reasonable time frame.25 58 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 In a face-to-face environment, it can2 be done. In a written environment,3 it can be done. We think there are4 significant problems in a telephone5 environment.6 We are not dealing with7 attorneys here. We are dealing with8 folks who have a wide range of skills9 and abilities and a wide range of10 understanding and misunderstanding of11 the law. And we think those three12 problems are pretty insurmountable.13 Each and every one of them, not even14 taken together.15
So16 technically you are dealing with a17 legal issue?18
I'm not sure19 I'd call it a legal issue in terms of20 being able to provide a meaningful21 hearing.22
Are23 these the same type of cases that you24 can be arrested in?25 59 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
So if10 you have -- I'm aware of a situation11 where people are arrested and they12 cannot be released until they pay for13 their tickets.14
With all due18 respect, sir, that's not the case.19 COUNCIL: Okay.20
That may21 refer to booting. The vehicle has22 been impounded for overdue tickets23 because of -- is that what you mean?24
There's no2 arrest there. Impoundment of the3 vehicle, there is no arrest involved.4
No,5 from a constituent standpoint. I6 think if you have a certain amount of7 tickets, if you are arrested for8 something else, they will not release9 you.10
Can I suggest11 perhaps if someone gets pulled over12 and gets arrested and their vehicle13 is then live stopped -- then until14 they go to traffic court and clear15 the live stop and if they then have,16 you know, they are eligible for17 parking tickets, the vehicle could be18 held. But you can't be arrested for19 parking tickets. No.20 We can hold your vehicle.21 But we can't hold you personally for22 a parking ticket.23
I24 understand that. But this is where25 61 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 you are under custody of the2 Philadelphia Police Department and3 held based upon you not getting your4 tickets pulled up.5
Thank8 you, Councilman. Just for the9 record, what is the BAA rule about10 allowing people to do mail-in11 appeals?12
Mailed13 appeals are entertained from anybody14 from out of town. Out of towners is15 tried to be described loosely as 3016 miles from City Hall. There is some17 degree of latitude to that. Anyone18 who is elderly is able to submit --19
Mr.20 Connors, I think you should have21 mentioned that the first time because22 we are trying to make it more23 convenient for Philadelphians.24
I'm sorry.25 62 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 I'm trying to tell you what the2 guidelines are. In reality, we3 accept mailed appeals from anybody.4
What9 percentage of mail-in appeals are10 city residents and what percentage of11 all appeals are mailed in by city12 residents?13
I would have14 to do an analysis. I don't know15 right now.16
If you17 could provide that to the Chair, I18 would appreciate it. Councilman19 Squilla.20
Just21 to follow up with that, with the22 mail-in. Is there a certain time23 frame? Because I know people and24 even with the handicapped parking25 63 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 tickets, they could actually put2 their placard, a copy of their3 placard and mail that in. Is that4 correct?5
Yeah, placard6 and placard ID but it has to qualify7 for a violation that that's going to8 exempt them from. For example, if9 they are parked in a no stopping10 zone, handicapped credentials aren't11 going to make any difference. But12 presuming that it's something that13 the HD credentials would make a14 difference on.15
Is16 there a time frame where you would17 have to give an answer for their18 mail-in ticket?19
Technically20 once we have something, it goes on a21 suspend until we get -- I mean, we22 certainly try to get it out within23 five or six weeks.24
And25 64 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 then isn't there a time frame again2 where you start sending notices out3 even though you didn't give them an4 answer?5
No. That can6 happen occasionally when a suspend7 rolls off inadvertently. But that's8 not the case.9
Well,10 what happened at least in some of the11 cases that we have where people12 actually mailed them in, it was five,13 six weeks. Didn't get an answer,14 called back. Still don't have an15 answer, called back again.16 The next thing you know in17 the mail they are getting that you18 now have interest and penalties. So19 you send it in again. You call and20 they said, Well, that has expired.21 The time frame expired. So now they22 have to resubmit another hearing.23 Why would that happen?24
No. That's25 65 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 not correct, sir.2
I would be6 happy to look at a specific case.7 And I could walk you through it in8 great detail, how exactly that9 transaction might have occurred.10
It was11 actually -- it was actually -- I12 would say the time frame was about a13 year and a half and there is still no14 answer on this ticket.15
Well,18 these are some of the problems that19 we are having.20
I would love21 to take a look at the specifics22 because I can show you exactly how it23 went from Point A to Point B.24
The25 66 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 lady ended up paying a $300 ticket2 because it eventually kept getting3 mailed. I can give you the name and4 we can --5
So you9 are saying five, six weeks is a10 normal time for a mail-in ticket to11 get a response?12
Yes. And13 again, I have to deal with people in14 the lobby versus the mail. Sometimes15 the mail gets pushed back.16
I would love19 nothing better than to be able to do20 that.21
Only22 because, too, like you said, you cut23 your nighttimes and we cannot get24 there. And now you said we can do it25 67 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 by mail if you live 30 miles outside2 the city. And I know everybody can.3 And we're going to get a number how4 many people actually mailed in5 tickets, correct?6
Yes, sir. I7 mean, it's an analysis I have to do.8 It's not like it's just a report I9 haven't brought with me. It's an10 analysis we have to do.11
And12 then you also said they can submit it13 online now?14
And16 can we find out how many people17 submitted online appeals?18
I will do my19 level best to figure out a way to20 break that down, yes, sir. All of21 those hearings go into a pile of --22 we call them hearings by mail.23
Is that24 a contest online or is that just to25 68 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 schedule the ticket online?2
I'm5 sorry. Can you point -- your Web6 site has an online form for appeal of7 a ticket?8
The13 parking authority has an online14 complaint. They do not have an15 online appeal system.16
The complaint17 system winds up in appeals that go18 before us.19
And20 that's a formal appeal of your21 parking ticket? And you don't22 continue to get your notices of late23 tickets?24
Once it goes25 69 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 into a cue, it's put on the suspend2 and it gets worked in a cue along3 with everything else. Came in US4 mail.5
Okay.6 At any rate, we have other witnesses7 that are here to testify. So I would8 like, if nobody has an objection, I9 would like to let them go ahead and10 testify.11
I have12 one last comment if that's okay,13 Mr. Chairman. The parking ticket14 versus moving violations. It may be15 the moving violations.16
Dr.21 Horwitz, if you would like to22 testify. While Dr. Horwitz is23 getting prepared, we have written24 testimony by people who couldn't make25 70 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 it in today because of their job or2 other commitments. One is Judy3 Walston. Another is from -- oh, I'm4 sorry. Oh, okay. Thank you for5 coming in today. We have your6 testimony. Another is from the -- I7 think it's the Greater Philadelphia8 Association of Realtors, submitted9 written testimony in favor of online10 and not having to take the time from11 work.12 We also have written13 testimony by Tracy Allen from the14 Camden School District who works out15 of town who can't be here during the16 day and doesn't want to take her17 Saturdays off to come in and appeal.18 We also have testimony -- we'll be19 submitting -- I think about ten20 people tweeted in in response to our21 request for electronic testimony in22 that form and we will submit that23 testimony for the record.24 And I think everybody25 71 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 should have that in front of them.2 And with that, Dr. Horwitz, please3 proceed with your testimony.4
Thank you,5 Chairman Green, members of City6 Council. A special thanks to my own7 councilman, Bobby Henon. My name is8 Ruth Horwitz, Dr. Ruth K. Horwitz. I9 am a livelong resident of10 Philadelphia currently residing in11 the far Northeast on the Delaware12 River. I formally served for over 3813 years in the School District of14 Philadelphia as a teacher,15 administrator and principal of a16 couple of vocational high schools.17 I am also active in many18 community organizations and19 professional organizations where I am20 involved with many concerned21 citizens. At present I'm an elder22 law attorney working with senior23 citizens and families for the needs24 of senior citizens like I am.25 72 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 As you can see, I'm 752 years old and must rely on a walker3 or cane because I have several4 problems with my hip and legs. I5 found it very difficult to get into6 town. I must rely on my husband7 driving me and getting handicapped8 parking where available.9 However, I have never had a10 parking authority problem where I11 needed a hearing but I sympathize12 with those who do. I strongly13 support Council Bill No. 120106. It14 is necessary for us as citizens (and15 visitors) to be able to satisfy any16 violations we might have by the best17 means available.18 The use of alternative19 means of appealing any violations is20 important in today's world, not only21 in today's world, not only for people22 like me but also professional and23 employed people, visitors from24 outside the city, students paying25 73 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 tuition to be present in learning2 environments and stay-at-home parents3 or childcare providers.4 People are simply too busy5 to wait to contest parking6 violations. As other cities have7 shown by the videos that have already8 been done, we advocate for9 Philadelphia starting the use of10 mail, electronic submission,11 including email, Web site or12 facsimile transmissions for13 contesting traffic violations.14 Whether a senior citizen or15 not, as citizens we want to do what16 is right, but need to do so in the17 most expeditious manner available in18 these modern times. This bill is a19 step in the right direction for the20 city's many busy people.21 I thank you for my22 opportunity to speak with you to23 present testimony, and I want to24 thank you all for the great stuff you25 74 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 do for the City of Philadelphia.2
Thank3 you. I will ask Judy Walston to join4 you and testify. And then if there5 are any questions, we will proceed.6 Is there anyone else here to testify7 on this bill or any other bill?8
Good9 afternoon, Councilman Bill Green and10 Members of the Council: My name is11 Judy Walston. I live at 1423 South12 Bouvier Street in Philadelphia. 14 This bill is very important15 to citizens. I would like to thank16 you, Chairman Green, for taking the17 initiative to draft the legislation,18 this bill to require PPA to take19 appeals on parking tickets via mail20 and email and through other21 electronic formats. 1 have jobs and those who have young2 children at home, coming into Center3 City is a hassle. 11 It is also upsetting when12 you have to bring your little ones13 with you, to sit for such a long14 time. 20 I have had my own21 experience with PPA. 1 car. I immediately called PPA and2 they said that my car had been towed3 because of unpaid parking tickets. 8 They did not even want to review the9 tickets that I supposedly had gotten;10 instead, they told me the amount that11 I had to pay in order to get my car12 back. 15 To make a very long story16 short, if I had been able to go home17 and get on my computer and go online18 to look up these tickets and dispute19 the ones that needed to be20 challenged, it would have saved me21 time and energy and, of course,22 money; and I might not have lost my23 car in the process. I think that24 this is an important bill. 4 And also as I see it, this5 bill goes a long way to help people6 stand up for their rights. Your bill7 is customer service friendly. 12 And if I may add something,13 you tell me the telephone. I really14 can't see why that's a problem either15 because I know people that are on16 public assistance. Their case17 workers will give them a telephone18 interview. They send them a letter19 and tell them what time they are20 going to call them. 1 to be available to answer a phone at2 a certain time. So I don't see that3 would be a problem to have a4 telephone. You know, I'm thinking if5 I can take my parking ticket or6 whatever over the phone, you can put7 your phone on speaker phone. 9 Where if I have to wait ten minutes10 but I'm at home in the convenience of11 my home. My children are there. 15 I can pick up the16 speakerphone and say: Okay. I don't17 mind doing that than sitting in, you18 know, an overcrowded place where I19 have to sit and wait. 22 You have to go outside and use your23 cell phone so then you might lose24 your spot. 4
Thank5 you very much for your testimony.6 Council member Henon.7 COUNCIL MEMBER HENON:8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Walston9 and Dr. Ruth, I appreciate your10 taking the time out here and coming11 before the Committee to testify. I12 think with your community service and13 involvement with many people of the14 City of Philadelphia, you have heard15 a lot of complaints and issues16 regarding the opportunity to come17 into town, the hassle, the18 inconvenience for many, many reasons.19 Maybe there's a thousand20 reasons, since a thousand seems to be21 a consistent reason here today on why22 people are looking for or could use23 a little bit of 2012 technology and24 change. And I think you brought up a25 80 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 good point about, you know, having2 other agencies, other governmental3 agency hearings telephonically, you4 know, by phone. And I don't think5 there will ever be a dispute whether6 if someone misses their call. If7 they missed their call and they lost8 their opportunity, they still have9 their due process to come in and10 appeal it in person.11 And so I think it's very12 good. I appreciate your taking the13 time to come and visit with us today.14 Dr. Ruth, it's always a pleasure.15 And I have had the experience of16 working with you in the community for17 many, many years. And again, your18 civic participation throughout the19 city is reputable and I, too,20 appreciate your coming in here and21 testifying.22 But over the many years, we23 certainly can at no cost, I think.24 Is that right, Mr. Chairman? So25 81 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 somebody electronically sets up a2 telephonic hearing. I mean, are3 there companies out there that do4 this at a limited to no cost?5
All right. So7 I think that would be helpful to take8 that to our communities where we have9 this opportunity. Thank you all for10 coming in.11
Thank12 you. Are there any further questions13 for any of these witnesses?14 (No response.)15
Seeing16 none, is there anybody else here to17 testify on Bill Nos. 120106 or18 120138?19 (No response.)20
Seeing21 no one I will adjourn the hearing on22 those bills and move to a meeting on23 Bills 120106 and 120138. I would ask24 the Vice Chairwoman, Councilwoman25 82 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 Tasco, to please offer the amendments2 to this bill.3 COUNCILWOMAN TASCO:4 Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment5 to go, 120106 to be voted out of6 committee with a favorable7 recommendation.8 (Duly seconded.)9
Would15 Councilwoman Tasco move Bill No.16 120106 out of suspension.17
I move18 that Bill No. 120106 as amended be19 voted out of Committee with a20 favorable recommendation.21 (Duly seconded.)22
Thank23 you. All those in favor?24 (Aye.)25 83 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1
Seeing5 none opposed, I will ask the Vice6 Chair to move Bill No. 120138.7
Mr.8 Chairman, I move Bill No. 120138 be9 reported out of Committee with a10 favorable recommendation and that the11 Rules of Council be suspended so that12 this bill can be heard at Council's13 next session.14 (Duly seconded.)15
None22 opposed, Bill No. 120138 is reported23 favorably from this Committee, with a24 suspension of the Rules.25 84 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 With that, this meeting is2 adjourned. Thank you.3 (Meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m.)4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 85 4/25/12 - FINANCE - BILL 120106, ETC.1 2 CERTIFICATE3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the4 proceedings, evidence and objections are5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on April 25, 2012, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 13 _____________________14 LYNDA C. VETTER15 RPR-Notary Public16 17 18 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23 24 25