COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 25, 2010, 3:15 p.m. - - - Bill 080011 - Held. Bill 080012 - Held. Bill 090910 - Held. Bill 090834 - To require owners of certain properties to designate agents for service, managing agents, and property manager, all under certain terms and conditions. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Maria D. Quiñones-Sanchez, Chair Blondell Reynolds Brown Darrell L. Clarke (by special appointment) Bill Green William K. Greenlee - - - 2 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834
Good afternoon. We're going to try to get started. This is the hearing of the Committee of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. A quorum is being established: Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown, Councilman Bill Greenlee, and Councilman Darrell Clarke by special appointment. We are going to be holding Bills 080011, 080012, 090910, but we will be taking testimony on Bill 090834, if the clerk would please read the bill.
Bill No. 090834, an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code," by amending City Code "A," entitled "The Philadelphia Administrative Code," by amending Chapter 23 45, entitled "Violations," and by amending Subcode "PM," entitled "The Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code," 3 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 by amending Chapter 1, entitled "Administration," and Chapter 2, entitled "Definitions," to require owners of certain properties to designate agents for service, managing agents, and property manager, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. We will start with the first person, Mr. Otis Haigler, from the Department of Licenses and Inspections. If you can come forward. (L&I Witness Otis Haigler comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Councilwoman Sanchez and members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 090834, which, if 4 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 enacted, will require residential rental property owners to secure the services of a property manager if such owner resides beyond the regional counties of the Philadelphia area. This bill was introduced on November 19, 2009, by Councilwoman Tasco as a replacement for Bill 080813, introduced on January 24, 2008. As indicated in the bill, absentee landlords with more than three properties, or those with one property containing more than four dwelling units, will have to secure the services of an individual or business to act on the owner's behalf as a property manager for the purposes of maintaining the properties, in compliance with the Philadelphia Code. In addition, the bill would allow the Department to compel absentee landlords with less than the number of properties or units indicated above to indicate someone locally as a property 5 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 manager in order to take responsibility for maintaining the property in compliance with the code, after the Department has determined that the property poses a threat to public safety, health, or welfare. Finally, the bill amends the current definition found in the Property Maintenance Code for the term "agent," which still will be required for all rental properties where the landlord/ owner resides outside of the City and establishes new definitions for the terms "property manager" and "managing agent" in order to provide a distinction of the duties performed under each classification. I understand that there is an amendment, and the amendment addresses certain issued related to the terms "agent" and "managing agent." The penalty provisions of the Administrative Code have also been amended to provide for the issuance of a 6 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 code violation notice in the amount of $150 for failure of landlords to designate a property manager or a managing agent for a property subject to the requirements of the code and to register this information with the Department. With respect to the Department's position on this bill, we offer no objections to its enactment. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Okay. So we will now hear from Officer Mroz from the Second Police District, and I believe we have Mr. Zaslow from HAPCO; is that who's next? Okay. So we'll first hear from the officer and then from Mr. Zaslow. (2nd District Police Officer 7 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 Mark Mroz comes forward.)
Good afternoon. OFFICER MROZ: Good afternoon. My name is Officer Mark Mroz. I am the Community Relations Officer in the 2nd Police District, which is located in Northeast, Philadelphia. My area covers the southbound side of Roosevelt boulevard west to the City limits, and runs from Rhawn Street south to Adams Avenue. My role is as a liaison between the public and the police officers in the Second District. Some of my job descriptions consist mainly of quality-of-life complaints such as abandoned autos, trash, high weeds, nuisance liquor establishments, and the reason that I am here today: nuisance-property owners. I currently serve over 100,000 people in the 2nd District. On a daily basis, I receive at least 10 to 20 calls per day about nuisance properties; in 8 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 particular a rental property. I can tell you that in my particular district, I have numerous rental properties on any given street; most, but not all, of these properties are owned by Asian landlords who reside in New York City. They do not have rental licenses with the City, and are almost impossible to contact. These owners own several properties and use these addresses as their mailing address. But when you go to these homes to address problems with their tenants, these too are rental properties. These properties were bought by many with the presumed intention to be occupied by them, have received special first-time homeowner's and buyer's assistance. These owners then put a for-rent sign out the moment after the settlement is finished and return to New York. These owners do not run any criminal history or background checks or 9 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 credit checks, and this has become a real problem in my community and perhaps yours. I have officers respond numerous times over the course of a year; this is a tremendous strain on police manpower. Over and over again we respond to these locations for parties loud music, fighting or arguing with neighbors, trash, high weeds, failure to clean up their animals' waste, and more. I have properties where the police have been there 57 times in one year, and the landlord states that he can't evict these tenants due to their lease. This needs to change. Yesterday, I addressed Mayor Nutter with Police Commissioner Ramsey about an idea that I had. This is similar to a law that we have concerning alarm systems, where if the police respond more than three times to a false alarm, the owner is subject to a fine of $100 each time it exceeds three times. 10 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 My idea is to fine properties owners a $100 fee for non-emergency calls to police each time the police respond to these nuisance locations. Require property owners to conduct criminal history or background checks and credit checks for potential tenants. Impose a hefty fine on property owners who fail to obtain rental licenses. Require owners to have contact addresses and phone numbers which coincide with their income tax returns so that we can find these owners when we need to. And implement a new lease that includes that tenants may be evicted for nuisance calls to police. I feel that, especially with the $100 fine, which could result in thousands of dollars in fines to a property owner, it will cause a reverse effect on the way property owners handle 11 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 their tenants. No longer will they just collect rent; now they will be more accountable for their tenants' actions. I also believe that this will allow officers more time to handle true police emergencies. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. I represent the other side of the Second Police District, and I know that we couldn't on CLIP a lot, but a lot of these issues have become quite troublesome to us, so I appreciate you taking the initiative and working with Councilwoman Tasco on this measure. I did want to ask Otis Haigler a question in light of your testimony. Otis, if you could come back. (Otis Haigler returns to witness table.)
Can you explain to me how we're going to implement this from the Department of L&I 12 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 for enforcement purposes?
I'll attempt to. This has gone through several different iterations over the last two years, but it appears that the bill 7 itself requires the landlord -- the absentee landlord to register with the Department the name of their managing agent or property manager, also the number of properties that are managed by that particular person. That information includes their telephone number, contact information. The Department -- also the bill 16 stipulates that we're supposed to put this information online so that it is accessible to the public; anybody who would access the website will be able to access this particular information. We're proposing to do that. We haven't worked out all of the particulars as to how that's going to be done yet, but we are geared up to enforce this.
So this 13 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 assumes that when the person comes in to get a rental license because this is for abandoned properties and/or all rental properties?
Okay. So this assumes that when you're coming in to get your rental license, you're going to provide a Philly-based address or property manager.
So we're going to add that to our forms as part of our --
Exactly. Currently we do have that already on our forms for agents. There's already a provision in the Code -- it's been in the Code for years -- to require an agent for anybody who has a one-, two-, multi- family dwelling, rooming house that resides outside of the City, and the Department does have that category on its 14 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 application forms already; we do check for that. We do indicate that information on the -- in the owner's registry information that there is in the care of a person to send out notices to this person. The only difference there is that the property manager will assume more responsibility for the maintenance of the property. The agent -- the requirements for the agent right now is only to receive notices that the City issues; that's their only, sole responsibility. That person can be anybody over the age of 18 years of age, somebody that's designated by the owner.
So does the person assume liability? Again, I'm trying to get to the enforcement. I don't want to set up false expectations for folks in the community about what our hammer's going 15 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 to be here.
As far as liability, liability can only be assessed to the responsible part, which is the owner; the owner can be the only one that's actually responsible for the maintenance and the upkeep of the property. The maintenance -- the property manager's responsibility is that they have a contract with the owner to assume certain responsibilities under whatever contract they have; and part of that responsibility, as indicated in the ordinance, is that they will have to maintain the property.
Okay. So part of our rental licensing agreement already has this option in terms of a rental agent, but you're expanding their duties and their requirements. Are we then going to get all of the information to the person who's responsible for the property? I mean, so 16 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 we're going to put this in our database system?
Okay. So that will be a part of our inspection analysis?
Okay. I have a question as it relates to some of these nuisance properties. Many get cited through CLIP and others. When we have a CLIP violation, is that kind of like our traditional format? There are no additional fines and penalties until we do the 30-day notice and all that other stuff for remediation?
Well, CLIP violations are -- the employees that work for CLIP, they work out of the Managing Director's Office, but they are actually L&I employees --
-- that cite the 17 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 requirements of the Property Maintenance Code, and they cite violations. And there's a time period that's specified in the code as to how long a person is given to comply the violation; if they don't comply within that time, then further action is taken through the enforcement process of taking them to court and to try to seek whatever monetary as well as other remedies.
Just taking -- playing out some of the recommendations from this officer around the false alarms, are there any legal impediments that would limit our ability to fine properties owners? What's the fine now if you don't have a rental license and we catch you renting a property?
If it's a violation notice that written, the fine could be a court-imposed fine of $300 -- of $150 to $300 per day per offense.
$150 per 18 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 day per offense.
So if a priority's a nuisance, CLIP goes out, and if we find out that the person doesn't have a rental license, how do we do that? How does a CLIP call trigger a potential review to ensure that someone has a rental license?
Well, the violation itself. If any violation is written, there should be a automatic cross-check to see whether or not, in the computer system, whether or not there's a license attached to that particular property. Once the property is identified as a rental property, then we determine whether or not they have a license.
So walk 19 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 me through this. An inspector is out in the field, he writes the ticket, he brings it back to the office, we do a cross-check?
Going back about thirty years, when I first started out as a housing inspector myself, I came in under a program where we actually went door-to-door to seek out rental properties. It was called the Tenant Occupancy Inspection Program. I still remember it.
You're aging yourself, Otis. 20 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834
And we went door-to-door to seek out those properties. Now, the premise was that we would go in and we would inspect those properties for property maintenance code violations, fire code violations. And if we found a violation, we would cite that or we would include that in our special report. But when the reports came in, they also did a cross-check to see whether or not that property was legally licensed as a tenant-occupied property. Once you identify the property as tenant-occupied, then there's a requirement in the code that they have to be licensed, and we would check for the license as well.
So Hanson allows you -- our Hanson system, 21 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 once you come in and trigger that, that ticket, to do that cross reference.
Violations, yes. Now, you pose an interesting thing there when you said about the ticket since you brought it up. CLIP, for the most part, when there are certain issues where there's a violation that could be remedied somewhat immediately and for certain non-life- threatening-type violations, a ticket can be issued for that, and the ticket amount is $75.
It's issued on the spot, and you pay that the same way 22 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 you would pay a parking ticket, through the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication.
So that's a separate enforcement mechanism that's utilized for certain types of property- maintenance violations like -- mostly (indiscernible) violations like high weeds, trash outside, that type of thing. I believe CLIP mostly deals with those issues; they don't go into the priority but deal with mostly exterior property maintenance issues.
Mm-hmm. I mean, I share the frustration. My concern always is, and I've learned this from being chair of L&I: that the good guys are the ones that end up paying the bills continuously, and then we still got these absentee landlords who are not here, do not pay any of this stuff, and it's always harder and harder to get to them. 23 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834
I'll ask Tom Conway if he can run up a list of -- particularly in the 2nd Police District of these repeat visits. I just think that after CLIP visits a property two or three or four times, it has to go into a different bucket, and we got to get more aggressive 'cause those are the ones that are problematic.
Mm-hmm, I agree. As I said, for more complex violations that are written by the Department, we use simple mechanisms. One of the first mechanisms is to issue that violation to see if we can get any compliance.
If we don't receive compliance, then we take it into court. Usually the first step is Municipal Court to try to get remedies there. If the violations are severe or 24 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 if, say, like the Municipal Court isn't the proper mechanism, then we can kick it up one step higher to Common Pleas Court, where the fines are a lot higher and the penalties are a lot higher.
In general, most violations end up in Municipal Court first.
Mm-hmm. How many of those, do you know? Do you have a number?
Oh, I can't tell you off the top of my head 'cause we issue so many violations in the course of a year. We issue thousands of violations, but I would say -- if I would give you a percentage of that, probably 80 percent or more end up in Municipal Court.
Wow, 'cause that means that people have ignored our initial citations and -- 25 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834
In a lot of cases, sometimes what happens is, people -- you're given that 30-day window to comply --
When's the reinspect happen once we give that 30-day window?
And then we do another reinspect, we issue another ticket, and then what happens?
We also have a mechanism -- and it's in the code now -- also so that when we do reinspections, we also charge a fee for that reinspection.
Are we liening it? I don't know personally, but I would have to check on that.
Okay. Thank you. Let me hear from Mr. Zaslow. And stick around, Otis, in case we have a couple more questions.
Sure. (Witnesses Darrell Zaslow and Willie Seward come forward.)
Did you 27 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 bring your testimony written? Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Darrell Zaslow. I am legal counsel to HAPCO, the Homeowners Association of Philadelphia. The organization, HAPCO, represents approximately 100,000 housing units, primarily small owners of a limited number of properties and small properties, single-family's and duplexes. It is my great honor to have sitting next to me my dear friend and, frankly, my mentor, Mr. Willie Seward. Mr. Seward has been president of HAPCO and a member of HAPCO and a founder of HAPCO and a driving force for you all of the 33 years that I've had the honor of being HAPCO's attorney, and he was there for decades before I arrived. Madam Chairwoman, Councilwoman, initially allow me to state that I am appalled to hear the testimony from the 28 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 officer about property owners who refuse to abide by the technically mandates of our housing code that they have a license for their property. For some owner to come in and burden one of our police officers with a property that they ignore the law and don't register and don't license causes the kinds of problems that brings us here today needing to defend ourselves on other issues. So we do our best in our organization to mandate, and we make it a requirement of membership in our organization, that you will agree to be a proper landlord, adhering to the requirements of Philadelphia City Code; prime among them, obtaining a license for your property before you would begin to rent that property. At the same time, I need to express our concern over the concept, which is not really before you today, but since our police officer has raised the issue, I'll comment on it, that property 29 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 owners can somehow be the guarantors of the misbehavior of tenants. For an officer to say that he's been to a property 50 times is equally appalling, but to suggest that a property owner can somehow create a solution to this societal problem of misbehaving tenants, tenants fighting, tenants arguing with each other, tenants who are even doing drugs in the property, and think that an owner can correct that problem is very difficult. Even with the severe problem with severe drug allegations in a house, when we go to Municipal Court and try to evict a tenant with your claim, well the next-door neighbor said that he was selling drugs out of the house, and we can't prove that. Well, Your Honor, I wish to evict the tenant because the tenant is constantly loud and bothering the whole street. It's very difficult for us. So this thought about fining 30 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 property owners for tenants' misbehavior does concern us, so we are equally concerned about misbehavior for landlords. For the distinguished Councilman who just walked in, I would like to make sure that they recognize Mr. Seward and myself confirming our strong belief that all properties must be registered and licensed in accordance with the City Code, and we demand that of our membership. As to the specifics of the officer's suggestion that there be fines for landlords where tenants don't behave -- and, again, it's not a part of this bill -- for every --
For the purposes of this bill, I'd love to hear for the record what HAPCO has to say. I mean, clearly, we're talking and debating a broader issue that we will continue and that we're not going to solve today, and we're going to have to 31 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 strongly disagree --
I will do so. Madam Chairwoman, on the bill 8 itself, I want to thank Councilwoman Tasco's office and, in particular, the attorney in her office who has been very helpful in inviting us to participate in reviewing this proposal as introduced and as amended this morning, and even walking in here this afternoon and getting hot-off-the-press yet another amendment. Derek Green has been generous of his time and sharing an interest in hearing from us, which enables us to be partners in a bill such as this instead of being antagonistic, which we do not ever like to be. As to the specifics, we are not here opposing the concept that property owners who are out of our area should be required to appoint a property manager so 32 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 that somebody knows who's responsible for maintaining that property, and we support that. That's the crux of the bill, and we are here in supportive that crux of the bill, that if someone owns this number of properties, they have to have a property manager so the officer can go somewhere to fine somebody when necessary. Some very modest specifics, and I don't want to (indiscernible) with Councilwoman Tasco's office like we're looking for another bite of the apple because we had our chance with her office. And, again, as I say --
But we will. And it's a modest issue. And that issue is, is that in this information that's going to be presented, there's a requirement that 33 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 this property manager give a name and a phone number and an emergency phone number for their office, and that's critical. You have a property manager somebody; needs to be able to contact them. But it goes on to require that there be a name, an address, and a phone number of the record owner. And when I hear our other dear friend, Mr. Haigler, who we deal with all the time as well suggesting the triumph of the City that we're going to put online all of this information. So now you have circumstances where owners, who have a right to an unlisted phone number, especially when there's a property manager who's there to manage their property and be up front and responsible for that property, to require that there be an online telephone number of an owner -- and let's face it, the City owns many property, and whose phone number is going to be listed there? You 34 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 know, are we going to put the Mayor's --
They always call us. Even in these private properties, when there's a problem, we may not own the property, but we own the problem.
I hear you. You are our partner in every problem, and we know that as well. But if you're reviewing it with an aye towards making it work and having happy taxpaying property-owners, that one modest issue of a telephone number for the owner, not for the manager whose number should be front and center, but a telephone number for a record owner is something which we feel would be abused. We apologize that you are abused, and the owner would like to be protected to some extent from that kind of abuse. The name and address of the owner is on record in a dozen places in this city -- on the license itself and on 35 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 the deed. I mean, there are a lot of places to see find that. The telephone number is another bit of information that we prefer not be listed. Having said that little, modest tweak to this, Madam Chairwoman, we appreciate the efforts of the committee in hearing from us. I don't know if my, as I say, mentor, Mr. Seward, has a few remarks as well.
Yes. My name is Willie Seward, past president of the Realtors. Today, I'm here to represent the Philadelphia Metropolitan Board of Realtors, not HAPCO today. We agree basically with what has just been said. This board is a member of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers. We have boards in 38 states. I know a lot of you don't know who the National Association of Real Estate Brokers are. But to reply to this bill and 36 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 my qualification, I was president of the board twice; of course, I was president of HAPCO. And I've been a licensed real estate broker for more than 40 years. I understand what you're trying to do. As was just stated, why would an owner hire me to represent them, collect their rents, manage their property if he wanted his name spreaded all over the City? I am the guy; the contract is with me and the owner. I report anything you want reported. I report it to the owner, not plastering his name all over the City. Now, I was thinking it was three agents. The State -- and as I said, my license -- they always revert just as agents. I had the problem with the with the three; I understand that's two and basically the same. But a managing agent would be sufficient. What we may be a little bit (indiscernible) to think about is when the member of the person delivering the 37 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 message and you say to this person, get that type of information and the other one get the other one, they may not understand who gets what. So if you talk about one agency or one agent, whoever they -- that individual is -- and I'm speaking of L&I. When they report to it that agent, then it's his job, as representing the owner, to get into the right place, see that the work's done. The other thing that we slightly have a problem with, whether we can -- I understand the bill, and you can correct me -- that says you must have these things posted in four units or above. Financing companies, mortgage companies say that one to four units of residential, so could that be five or more units? I'm only throwing it out for informational-wise. That way, the larger units would be required to have this information. 38 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 To be very frank, 90 percent of your tenants that are in one to fours, they know their agent, they know where to report, although I guess you want this posted for yourself.
They don't want us to find their agents; that's why we're here.
We appreciate it. Again, I know the sponsor is not here. They do have an amendment. I think some of your points could be taken back before final passage, and it will be up to the sponsor if she wants to take those kind recommendations, and she has been generous in amending the bill. So I greatly appreciate both of 39 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 you coming forward. I appreciate the work HAPCO does. I am a member, I get your newsletters. And, again, we're trying to go after the bad guys, not the good guys. And sometimes, that policing is very difficult, but as you heard from the police officer in the Second District -- and, again, I represent half of that Second Police District. There is a phenomena, particularly in this area, that has beautiful single homes that are being converted, and they have major, major problems. So we're trying to get at that. This is just one of the many things that we need to do to be better at it.
One short thing: Hopefully, it's recommended that properties are recognized by units and not by height. 40 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834
They took it out? Okay. Thank you. I didn't see that. Thank you very much.
Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of all, I'm understanding as far as the telephone number of the owner, that's just on the application; is that right? What would be wrong with that?
It would be on the application, I think is where the intention is to put it.
Okay. But what's -- I guess what's -- I mean, it's not like everybody sees that, right? I mean -- 41 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834
Right. I've been told by the general counsel to the Majority Whip that that portion of the bill is not up; it was a companion bill. So the bill on hand does not address the phone issue; is that what you're telling me? (Brief discussion held off the record.)
Okay. The posting onsite, that's what I'm getting confused. So we're still talking about putting it on the website is the issue of requiring the posting and the --
All right. That's fine. I'm sorry I was late. But it's a little timely that we were late 'cause we were dealing with a problem property that happens to be in my ward and in Councilman Clarke's district, where the property owner, at least 42 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 previously, was not very responsive. So this sort of fits into what we're talking about. And I guess the only thing I would say is -- I'm sorry, sir. Your name again is?
Okay. You know, I think, unfortunately, when we have to do a lot of legislation, it's against, usually, the minority of people that don't do the right thing. You know, I have no doubt that as an agent, you would do the right thing. But I think one of the reasons eventually we want to be able to contact or get to the owner is maybe sometimes -- and I've had this on my own block -- the agent isn't most responsive person in the world, you know? And eventually, I mean, at the end, its owner's responsibility. So I think there has to be a way at least to -- somehow, some people, and maybe not 43 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 the general public, and we can, as the chair said, the sponsor can work on this. I think eventually at least folks like us and the officer and all has to be able to get to the owner because, ultimately, it's his or her responsibility, you know. And I understand where they might want to try to put somebody else in charge of it, and that -- and, you know, most of the time that maybe works. But the problem properties, oftentimes the agent, if there is one, is as much a problem as the tenant. And, again, that, you know, if it's my property, Bill Greenlee's name on it, and Bill Greenlee is eventually responsible, and I don't think we can let them be totally not reachable.
I don't like to 44 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 support things. But not opposing such a bill, even though it's onerous for our members, we recognize that, except for little tweaks that we talked about, we are here to say we recognize the reason that you think it's necessary.
Is there anyone else here to testify? (No response.)
This concludes the public hearing part of our deliberations. We will now go into the public meeting of the department of -- the Committee of Licenses and Inspections. I will ask Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown for the introduction of our amendment to Bill 25 090834. 45 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 090834 be amended as presented. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? The bill is amended. Councilwoman Brown, if you could give me a motion for the bill.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 090834, as amended, be moved -- reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next scheduled session of Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? Any oppositions? Bill 090834 has been approved, as amended, and will be read at our next public session. 46 3.25.10 - L&I - BILL 090834 This concludes our meeting of the Committee of Licenses and Inspections. Thank you so very much. (Proceedings end at 3:58 p.m.) * * * 47 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Thursday, March 25, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)