COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 9:31 a.m. - - - Bill 060636 - Amending Section 9-605 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Towing," Chapter 12-2400 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Towing and Immobilizing of Parked or Abandoned Vehicles"... Bill 060850 - Amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code" by adopting the 2006 Pennsylvania Uniformed Construction Code... COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel J. Savage, Chair Jack Kelly Joan Krajewski Juan Ramos Blondell Reynolds-Brown Frank Rizzo - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 12/5/06 - Licenses and Inspections BILL 060850 WITNESS Otis Haigler, Jr. ...................... L&I Director of Legislative Affairs David Perry, L&I Chief Code Official.... 9 BILL 060636 WITNESS Lt. Francis Healy...................... Special Advisor, Police Commissioner Johnson 10 Lance Haver............................ 45 11 director Of Consumer Affairs 12 13 3 12/5/06 - Licenses and Inspections
I would like to recognize that a quorum is present. Members of the Committee joining us today are Councilman Rizzo, Councilwoman Krajewski, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown. The Committee on Licenses and Inspections is now in session. Will the clerk please read the bills to be heard today.
Bill No. 060636, an ordinance amending Section 9-605 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Towing," Chapter 12-2400 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Towing and Immobilizing of Parked or Abandoned Vehicles" and Chapter 12-2500 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Snow Emergencies" to provide that owners of the vehicles which have been stolen or which have been illegally without the owner's permission shall not be required to pay the towing, storage, and recovery charges after their vehicle has been towed, all under certain terms 4 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 and conditions. Bill No. 060850, an ordinance 4 amending Title of the Philadelphia Code entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code" by adopting the 2006 Pennsylvania Uniformed Construction Code through adoption of the 2006 edition of certain international codes as published by the International Code Council with amendments thereto, all under certain terms and conditions.
We will have testimony first on Bill No. 060850. Is there anyone from the Administration to testify? (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Councilman Savage and members of the 5 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs with the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 060850, which, if enacted, will amend Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code for the purposes of adopting the 2006 edition of the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code, which incorporates the 2006 editions of model codes as published by the International Code Council. Pursuant to Act 45 of 1999, also known as the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code Act, all municipalities that have opted to enforce the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code locally must enact legislation adopting the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code and model codes adopted thereto by a certain date. In December of 2003, the City of Philadelphia enacted such legislation carrying forward local safety amendments 6 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 that exceeded the requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code or the International Code incorporated within the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code. The carrying forward of these local amendments is permitted under the Act for Cities of the First Class provided the amendments were in place prior to July 1, 1999. Another requirement of the act provides that on a tri-annual basis, those municipalities that have opted to enforce the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code must enact subsequent legislation to adopt successor editions of the Code by December 31st of the year of publication. Hence, purpose of this legislation under consideration today is to fulfill the requirements of state law and adopt the 2006 edition of the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code and model codes adopted thereto with the 7 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 same local amendments that were carried forward in the 2003 adoption. In order to ensure that all amendments were being carried forward and to incorporate amendments that have been made at the state level to Act 45 since its enactment, it was necessary to use the formatting of bold text and strike-through as shown in this bill to denote renumbering, inclusion, and the carrying-forward of state and local requirements since the model codes that are being adopted thereto may contain language different from the state requirements or local amendments. The format used in this bill 18 follows the recommendation of the Law Department, which reviews and approves the ordinance for format and legality prior to submission to Council for consideration. The Department, however, recognizes that reading this document as printed may be confusing for our 8 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 stakeholders that have made plans to have the codes under the Building Construction Occupancy Code published as one merged document incorporating local amendments, state requirements, and the adopted model codes into normal text without the formatting once this legislation has been enacted in order to make it easier for citizens and members of Council to have access to the requirement. We are planning to provide a link on the City's website for general access to the merged code, and we will have hard copies of the reference codes printed and distributed to certain city locations for public use. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony on Bill No. 060850. I respectfully request that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next session of Council, and I will be happy to answer any questions at this time. 9 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 Also, I would like to introduce to my left David Perry from the Department of Licenses and Inspections, Chief Code Official; and to my right, Richard Bailey, Battalion Chief for the City of Philadelphia Fire Department. Thank you.
Thank you. I would like the record to state that Councilman Kelly has joined us. Otis, you mentioned in your testimony that the information about the compliances will be available on line on the L&I website. When do you anticipate this link will be available?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. We're working with the International Codes Council to have the blended code published, and we're hoping as early as late January we can have the fire code available as an online read-only document available to the 10 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 public at no charge.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee?
Thank you. To whoever on the panel: Will we see anything different adopting this code? Will we be doing anything different in enforcement or different requirements? Will the public see any significant changes as a result of the adoption of this Pennsylvania national code? What will we see and what do we have to get ready for here?
This adoption of the 2006 code is -- includes no 23 substantial changes on the 2003 code, so they will really be invisible to the public. There's no new programs or 11 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060850 major changes in our enforcement effort anticipated as a result of the adoption of this new code.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Okay. Bill 20 No. 060636 is being held at the request of the sponsor. If there are no other people here to testify, this concludes our public hearing on the committee of Licenses and Inspections. 12 12/5/06 L&I Public Meeting We will now move into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski for a motion on the Bill, number 060850.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 060850 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Motion seconded.)
All in favor say aye. Aye. The Chair now -- excuse me. This concludes our public meeting and ends our committee meeting on Licenses and Inspections. Thank you for coming. This... Please strike that from the record. 13 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 The sponsor of 060636 would like to strike from the record that it is being held. Is there anyone here from the Administration to testify on behalf of Bill No. 060636? (Witness comes forward.)
For the record, we're going to go back into the public hearing for Licenses and Inspections. Would you please identify yourself. LT. HEALY: Sure. My name is Lieutenant Francis Healy, and I'm special advisor to Police Commissioner Johnson.
Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Before we hear from the witness, I'd like to say a couple of words about the intent of the bill. 14 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 It has come to our attention, as a number of members I remember last year Councilman Rizzo was involved in an issue where, as individuals whose vehicles have been stolen were required to pay a fee both to accommodate the salvers, the individuals that tow the vehicles on behalf of the City, and there was also an administrative fee attached to that particular recovery. We didn't think that it was appropriate that we, the city, essentially benefitted financially on someone's hardship. When an individual's vehicle gets stolen, it's clearly a problem. More often than not, the vehicle has been vandalized, and while they had that burden, we didn't think it was appropriate for us to charge them to recover their vehicle to add to that particular burden. So what we're attempting to do today is to alleviate that particular portion of the -- that particular 15 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 portion of the fee and essentially eliminate the City's administrative fee. That particular fee, based on the numbers, is approximately $400,000 a year. While it may sound like a substantial number, I this think that that amount compared to the City's $3 billion budget versus an individual who just had their vehicle stolen should be something that we can accommodate. There appears to be some questions about the language on portions of the amendment. What I would like to do today is, at a minimum, get that information out on the table so that we can get some clarity as to what direction we should take while still being able to deal with this particular problems for the individuals that find themselves, unfortunately, in the position of having their vehicle stolen.
Thank you, Councilman Clarke. 16 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 Councilman Rizzo?
Is there any consideration of people that may be covered by insurance that could pay that administrative fee? 'Cause I remember the issue that we had, the person did not have -- they had liability coverage, but they didn't have the coverages that would reimburse the City for the service provided.
Yes, that's one of the issues that was pointed out as we discussed this particular bill. Individuals, who, it is my understanding, have full-tort insurance does have a reimbursable for this type of activity, and Mr. Haver from the Consumers Office is going to speak on that. One of the issues is being able 17 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 to craft an amendment that will not be illegal, therefore creating a separate class of individuals but encompassing the goal that we're trying to reach, and that's one of the things that we're trying to wrestle with, about how that amendment should be laid out. I think Mr. Haver actually has some recommendations on how we should do that. But we don't think that if the individual can get reimbursed from the insurance company that, in fact, the citizen should pay (indiscernible) tax dollars, and I agree with you on that one, Councilman.
We will now here testimony on Bill No. 060636. 18 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 Please identify yourself. LT. HEALY: Sure. Again, it's Lieutenant Francis Healy, and I'm special advisor to the police commissioner. First of all, I don't have written testimony because as of late of last night, I was working with the Councilman and his staff on some of these amendments, so I apologize. As a background, let me just explain what happens with the Police Department. Currently, we have what's called "The Stolen Recovered Auto Program," and it was borne out of necessity probably in the early '90s. Back then, when we would recover -- when a police officer would recover a stolen car, we really had no place to take it. We don't have the capacity or the resources to transfer all of the stolen cars that are recovered by the Police Department. 19 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 So back then, what we would do is, we would routinely disable the car on location, notify the owner where the car was at; and more times than not, the owner would arrive on location, the car would be gone, the car would be additionally vandalized. More damage would be done to the car after it was recovered than probably most times before. As a result of that, the Stolen Auto Program came into existence. The purpose of the Stolen Auto Program is to use private salvers to collect recovered stolen autos. It works like this: An officer recovers a stolen car, they go on police radio, and within minutes, one of the salvers that are 20 in our list of acceptable individuals arrives within 20 minutes. Within 20 minutes, that car must be transferred -- I mean, once they're on location, they must transfer the car to a secure lot. So these cars aren't being re-vandalized 20 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 restolen off the street. That was the purpose and the heart and soul behind the Recovered Stolen Auto Program, and it's been working since the early 90s. Now, to fund the program, the salvers would charge the towing and storage fees. However, the City would bill for every time a salver was called by police radion -- I think it's up to $65 today, and that's where the $400,000 comes from. As of last night, there was negotiation about waiving -- originally, it was, Let's just waive all of the fees for these individuals to avoid re-victimization, and I wholly support the Councilman's efforts and intent in that regard. However, unbeknownst to the Councilman at that time was the fact that that money funded the private salvers getting to the lots and taking these cars. We don't have the 21 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 resources. So I wholeheartedly agree, and once he understood the problems the City faced, he was more than willing to mediate, and a part of the mediation process was to waive the $400,000, and I said that's not my call; that would be the city politicians' call. I said, but from my perspective, Police Department- wise, I would have no objections at all. I received a bill this morning with certain amendments trying to accomplish what we talked about, but regrettably, there are some changes that still need to be done in there. Namely, there's some wording -- it calls for that the police must tow to an official towing station; that's a special word of art in the code and it's referring to our impound lot by proxy to the Parking Authority's lot. That's really not what we want to do here. We want to continue to go to the private salver lot; that way, they 22 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 will be able to be maintained and secured, which is very important. Some of the other things involved in here is originally, the objective was to waive all fees so there would be no distinction between individuals with insurance and individuals without. Now, I'm not counsel for the Council or for the City Law Department; I work for the police commissioner.
But there seems to be an inherent problem that needs to be worked out here when you start creating classes of citizens being treated differently. I understand where the City's coming from, but I think we should really sit down with the Law Department to discuss how to better address that issue. Creating separate classes of citizens and treating them differently, it could create different legal problems. Those are my major concerns. 23 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 I'm more than happy to work with the Councilman to help draft anything with the Law Department. I appreciate his intent, I understand where he came from and why this was created, but in its current form, the Police Department would have to object, but do I agree. The Councilman has already reached out to me and we're going to work to help mediate or resolve the problems so everything works and the intent of the Councilman's bill does go through. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Yes. Thank you. Lieutenant Healy, I just want to know the rates that these salvers charge the City. Are they the same as anyone else? LT. HEALY: I believe they're 24 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 set by statute. I think they're a maximum of --
Well, is there anyone from the City that's negotiating for, say, a better deal? For instance, for a high volume, I would think that salvers who are on that list would be able to negotiate with the City as far as giving them a break. A lot of these people -- well, there are a few of these people that probably have their cars stolen that are not even around; they may be away for seven days, ten days or whatever. And, therefore, the bill that they're going to receive is going to be quite substantial. And I was just wondering if perhaps with salvers, the City can negotiate with them, that maybe the first few days or the first five days or whatever, you know, they would just have to bear that cost themselves. And then after that, they would be charging the 25 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 individual. LT. HEALY: Well, the rates they use now or the statutory rates set by Council. They don't negotiate any rates higher or lower. They actually eat their cost on these jobs based on whatever the State-mandated fees are, so we don't make them --
Is that the State-mandated fees or are they City? LT. HEALY: City.
So, therefore, the City could have the right to negotiate a lower cost. LT. HEALY: Well, one of the ideas that I have put forward would be to set a separate -- to carve out a special exemption for recovering stolen autos and reducing the tow rate and storage fees for those autos specifically.
Right. LT. HEALY: I mean, that would be one way to handle it, but that would 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 handle all of them.
Yes, that's right. LT. HEALY: I understand the Councilman wants to make a distinction between those with insurance and those without. Other alternatives -- I believe some of the problems that came here was, when your car is recovered, regardless of where it is, it goes into this system. Apparently, in one instance, a car was recovered around the corner from where it was actually stolen. Rather than the police calling the owner, who lived right around the corner and could come pick it up, it went into the safety -- or the security of the Stolen Auto Program. I've been in discussions with Chief Feeney (sp?), one of my radio people, to see whether or not we could somehow put another step in there where 27 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 if the dispatcher could notify the owners and if the owners could come within a short reasonable period of time within the minutes, it's something 6 that might be feasible that would do 7 away with the whole problem. 8 But the fee issue is something 9 that, Councilman, is a legitimate 10 concern. 11
Lieutenant, 16 how are those fees managed? to follow up 17 on Councilman Kelly. 18 I know recently, there was a 19 situation where tow truck operators 20 increased the fee that was set by statute. LT. HEALY: Right.
Private parking lots. Tow trucks would show up, tow a car that was apparently not 28 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 legally parked in a private parking lot. I believe the fee was originally 50, 75? LT. HEALY: Right.
And they just arbitrarily changed it. LT. HEALY: Right.
And started to charge people $100; let's say that is the number. How do the salvers -- how do we know that they're not overcharging? LT. HEALY: Well, the good thing with the program that we have is, it's monitored by the Police Department. All of the salvers that are selected and chosen are background-checked by the Police Department and the Neighbor Services Unit overseen by Chris Bee. These salvers are basically at our whim. I mean, whatever we decide them to do, they will do because they're a part of our program, and they can be kicked out.
And has that 29 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 other issue that I just described been fixed? Is that back where it needs to be? LT. HEALY: I believe, speaking with people from L&I on other issues, that issue has been resolved. They've gone out -- letters having out, I believe, from L&I, and you will notice that some of the signs have been painted back to the right numbers.
Thank you. I'd like the record to reflect that Councilman Juan Ramos has joined us. Are there any other questions from the members of the committee?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 30 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 Good morning, Mr. Healy. LT. HEALY: Good morning.
I just want to clarify your concerns. One was with respects to the language talking about the location where the salvers would take the vehicle, and that's just a simple amendment to carve that particular language out of the bill. On the second issue, or the next issue with respects to administratively implementing a program, your concern is the fee that is paid by the individuals whose vehicle is stolen it's one set fee; am I correct? LT. HEALY: The fee is paid to the salver himself. So if my car was stolen, I would actually be dealing with the salver. I would pay him the money. And what the City would do is, the City would then bill him, I believe, on a monthly basis. The City bills each individual salver in the program the 31 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 number of times they've picked up tows.
They bill 4 the salver or the -- LT. HEALY: They bill the salver. And so the salver remits $65 per car back to the City, to the Police Finance Unit, and we then deposit it to the General Revenue.
So if an individual -- the question is: At this point, the way it's currently structured, the individual would have to have that administrative function happen at the salver's office; is that correct? LT. HEALY: Correct. They're the ones that collect the money from the individual. That's how the salver makes his money to survive doing the program. And then we bill the salver after the fact for the $65 per towing.
So where does the person get the stolen vehicle report? If your vehicle is stolen, somehow you find out; I don't know how 32 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 you find out. Do the police call you? LT. HEALY: You're notified by the salver. You're notified by the salver that your car is in the program.
That they found your car? LT. HEALY: Yeah. They have to do a telephone as well as, I believe, a written notification of where your car is and when it's been placed in custody and all that type of stuff. So they get notice from the salver. And we monitor that through the Neighborhood Services Unit to make sure they're not notifying them ten days later than they should so they bill the storage time. That's constantly monitored by the Police Department. And we have in cases rejected or turned people out of the program because we didn't like their business practice.
So let me understand this. Does the salver know 33 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 that the vehicle is stolen? LT. HEALY: Oh, yeah. They're a part of the program; they're the only people we call during a rotational wheel at police radio. And as a result, what happens, there's only, I believe, maybe 9 selected for the entire city. And 10 they're very well aware that this is -- 11
So the only 12 vehicles that they take are stolen 13 vehicles. 14 LT. HEALY: Well, they may do 15 other business, but when we call them, 16 they know that it's for a stolen 17 recovered vehicle. Yes, they know that. 18
So we've 19 already determined that these vehicles 20 are stolen. The only question left is whether or not that person has insurance that's reimbursable. LT. HEALY: Well, not from the Police Department's perspective. From our perspective, it's just -- we need to 34 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 ensure that that car gets to secure lots and is not re-vandalized and not restolen.
I understand, but I'm saying: After that's done, after the vehicle is salvaged and taken to the lot, we know this vehicle is stolen. LT. HEALY: Right.
Then the question is whether or not this individual who's coming to recover their car has the insurance that allows them to get reimbursed for the car associated with -- LT. HEALY: Either you pay or you go through your insurance, correct.
So, your concern is that administratively, we would not be able to determine -- LT. HEALY: Well, administratively, if you want to differentiate between those people that have insurance and those that didn't, 35 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 from the Police Department's perspective, I send a bill out every month. Let's say "ABC Towing" had 6 tows that month. I send a bill out for 7 15 times 65; that's what you owe me for 8 the month. 9 Now, I will not, from the 10 Police Department's perspective, be able 11 to determine of those 15 jobs, which 12 ones were reimbursable by insurance and 13 which ones weren't. So I would be 14 hard-pressed to prove which tow I should 15 be billing for and which one I wouldn't be. So it's a administrative nightmare from the Police Department's perspective.
Okay. I think Mr. Haver is going to give language to that. I'll let him testify to that issue. All right. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 36 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636
Thank you, Councilman Clarke. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to get this straight. The City then receives $65 from the salver for administrative costs. LT. HEALY: Correct.
Does that cover the administrative costs? LT. HEALY: It -- it probably does. I can't say for sure that it covers any more -- I mean, we probably have the opportunity to (indiscernible) over the last year.
And what does the administrative cost really -- what is the administrative cost? What's 37 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 the -- LT. HEALY: Pretty much it's the oversight and billing by the Police Department. The oversight is, the Neighborhood Services Unit does a full background investigation not only on the company but all the operators that work within the company or subcontractors it uses.
I just have a problem on this because of -- I thought that the whole issue of police trying to find stolen cars is part of their operation -- I mean, a part of their responsibility. And I just don't know why we're charging people $65 to, you know, have the police find their car. That's what it seems like to me. LT. HEALY: Well, that's the administrative end, and that's where we are with Councilman Clarke. If the City decides to waive that portion of the 38 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 fees, the Police Department would have no objections. If you're going to do it, the City -- or the Police Department -- or I believe personally that it should be done across the board. If you want to carve out a special exemption -- what's important is that you don't waive the fees altogether 'cause that would do away with the whole Stolen Auto Program altogether.
I certainly would look into that, if that $65 could be waived, because I don't see the justification of the City getting $65 for something they should be doing anyway, but that's my --- LT. HEALY: Well, the Police Department has no objection. Our only concern is that the program stay intact, that the private salvers make enough money on their own that they will be willing to participate in this program; otherwise, the Police Department will be 39 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 stuck with a bunch of stolen cars in the street, and we would have no resources to take them anywhere. And that's our biggest concern. We don't want these cars to be re-vandalized or redamaged, which actually hurts the insurance rates.
But I just put myself into the shoes of a person who's just had their car stolen and then, of course, is hit with not only with a $65 fee from the City, but there are going to be additional costs from the salver, and that's really putting salt in the wound, as far as I'm concerned. But I think there should be something done about waving that $65 fee anyway that the City charges. LT. HEALY: Well, across the board, if you just make minor amendments to the fees and charges carving out a specific exemption for recovered is a very real possibility. And, I mean, 40 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 that would waive all fees, and I believe the Councilman wants to recoup those to have insurance to pay, which I understand, but a viable option would be to waive them all. That would be across the board.
Lieutenant, I want to follow up on an idea. Could you provide to the Chair how many stolen cars a year are actually recovered, and the operator, the person that stole the car is arrested at the time. Now, I like your idea. If the police stop a teenager that stole a car, why do we need the salver? If possible, a phone call made to the registered owner or even the sector car going to -- if it's a City resident, going to the location of the person that owns the car 41 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 and let them know that their car was just recovered. In the courts, when a person's arrested and go through the process, isn't there some restitution? Could the judges be made aware that there were fees associated with the recovery of that stolen vehicle and that be part of the judicial process, restitution? LT. HEALY: It could very well be. I can't speak on behalf of the District Attorney's Office, but at sentencing, the D.A. would probably be able to call for restitution or whatever. I'm not a district attorney, so I don't want to speak on her behalf. But that's certainly a viable option, yes, to try to recoup fees from --
If you're on patrol and you stop a car and it's a young boy who's out for a joy ride and he's got a person's new Buick, wouldn't it be a lot easier to try to get the 42 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 person that owns the car to come like you just described? LT. HEALY: Well, what happens was, in the past -- the reason the Stolen Auto Program came into existence was, that's very much what we always tried to do. Our purpose was to get the car back to the owner as soon as possible. But what happened was, you'd be calling people at 2 o'clock in the morning --
Delay. LT. HEALY: No one would answer the phone. And if they did answer the phone, they wouldn't show up until 6 o'clock in the morning. So what we would have is, we'd have a police officer sitting on a stolen car for four hours. And then when they would show up, they'd show up with salves from outside the city Or whatever the case, and then they would complain to the Police Department about 43 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 the fees they were forced to pay. Now, the Stolen Auto Program sets the fees so there's no surprise and everyone knows what the fee is, but a lot of times when cars are recovered from outside the City like Darby -- a lot of the cars get dumped into Philadelphia that are not stolen here but are dumped here, they bring in salvers from outside the City who don't even know about our rates. So oftentimes, those people are paying much higher rates to get their cars recovered back then. The way it stands now, we take control of all the cars.
Okay. LT. HEALY: And we control the costs, and we secure the car, which is the most important thing to us. Now, I do understand that it does make a lot of sense if you could pick up a phone call and have a owner come from around the corner. And that's 44 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 something I am working with Chief Feeney on to see whether or not he can change his operating procedures.
Could you come up with a number of cars that are recovered that actually there's an arrest? LT. HEALY: With a body? I'd have to do a research on that. See, I'm not sure if we track it that way, but I'll try.
Well, I would hope we could because there's a difference if a car, you know, is parked in the parking lot of a business versus one where police actually apprehend the thief. LT. HEALY: Quite frankly, most stolen auto pinches will be with the car; otherwise, I mean, we're doing them with warrants.
Right. LT. HEALY: Most of our stolen auto pinches are most likely done with 45 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 the people in the car, and they jump out of the car.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Lance Haver. I'm Director of Consumer Affairs for the City of Philadelphia. I have formal testimony, which I'd like to enter into the record, but most of the issues have already been 46 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 talked about and brought about so I don't want to waste Council's time. I want to thank Councilman Clarke and his staff for bringing this issue before Council. As Councilman Kelly was saying this, is really one of those outrageous things the City does. This is really a sales tax that we charge when your car is stolen. So if you buy something, we charge you a 7 percent sales tax. If your car is stolen, we charge you a 35 percent sales tax and the cost of towing and storage. It's something to be done away with. It certainly doesn't make any sense to victimize the victim by having an incredible charge on top of what they already have to pay. I know that some of the Councilpeople were curious about what happens with your towing insurance. I have attached to the testimony a document from the Insurance Department 47 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 that talks about the mandatory insurance. To be licensed in Pennsylvania to drive a car you have to have insurance, but you do not have to have comprehensive or towing insurance. I tried to get figure from the State Department. Their estimates are that it's close to 40 percent of us in Philadelphia who do not have comprehensive towing insurance, so the number is relatively large. The issue of whether someone -- we could pass the bill as it stands now. I understand the question about language, but I would like to offer the following concepts: One is, it should be that no 20 one has to pay it. And whether it's waived by the City or collected by the insurance company, people are treated the same. Nobody has to pay a surcharge after their car is stolen. Second, for the actual cost of 48 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 running it, I would strongly recommend that Council have a discussion with the District Attorney, who has a fund that she raises by confiscating stolen goods and confiscating other things. This becomes a victim's compensation fund and would allow for people to pay for the entire cost, not just the $65 surcharge that the City puts on it, but the entire cost of the towing. In that way, someone who has their car stolen is going to have to pay at the very least a deductible if they have that type of insurance. They're probably going to have to -- if they don't have it, they're going to have to pay for the broken windows, the broken steering column, the broken gear shift, whatever the damage is to the car; that they're going to have to pay for. And then to force them to pay for towing and storage and the $65 surcharge seems to me to be too much. So that would be my 49 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 recommendation. And, again, I strongly thank you for your interest and Councilman Clarke for bringing the bill before us. When I have seen this and consumers have complained, I have had to tell them that I'm sorry and that this is status of the law, and I recognize that what I'm telling them is wrong, even though that is the current status of the law.
Are there any other questions from members of the Committee?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to thank you, Mr. Haver, for continuing to do the good work in supporting consumers. And I think that given the minimal problems associated with this particular bill, I think it's probably something that we should move with forward today. If there needs to be 50 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 additional amendments, I think that we can work through it with the Police Department. 'Cause it simply seems like there's a certain administrative function. The question is: Who does the administrative function; should it be done by the salver, or should it be done by the City of Philadelphia? And I agree with your language. Therefore, dealing with the question with respects to the separate casts of citizens if you waive the fee for everyone and then essentially, as an addendum, require that individuals who have reimbursable insurance, in fact, utilize that particular resource to take care of this issue. The District Attorney, as you know, is an independently elected official. I'm sure that it will take some massaging to get her to agree to providing this as a part of her compensation program. 51 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636
The other thing that I neglected to mention is that for those of you that don't follow car insurance, there is a front page called "the declaration page" that everyone who has insurance must have. It's a relatively easy thing to show to whoever we ask them to show it to that will say what kind of insurance they're carrying. It's not a complicated concept to say I have this insurance, here's my declaration page. It's very easy to do. Thank you.
Is there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you very 52 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 much.
Is there anybody else present that would like to testify on this bill? (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself. LT. HEALY: Lieutenant Francis Healy again. I just wanted to clarify so we're clear. It's not a surcharge addition to the -- like say it's $150; it's not another $65 tacked on. The actual salvers that participate in this program actually take a $65 cut from what the average tower would get on the street. So it's not like we tack this on top. The actual -- in establishing this program, part of the program actually makes $65 less. So if we're going to take that $65 out, I have no objection to that whatsoever, but it would be done in the 53 12/5/06 L&I Public Hearing, Bill 060636 fee schedule so that that salver, at least he can make the same money he's making today to participate in the program. That's the only add-on I have.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you for your testimony? Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
If there are no other people here to testify, this concludes our public hearing on the Committee of Licenses and Inspections. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on 060636.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with the 54 12/5/06 L&I Public Meeting understanding that there will probably be some additional amendments, but at this point, I'd like -- in order to keep this on track so we can deal with this matter appropriately, I make a motion that Bill 060636 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension to allow for reading at the next session of Council. (Motion seconded.)
This concludes our public meeting on Licenses and Inspections. Thank you for your time. 55 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 Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 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.)