m. - - - BILLS 030248, 030283, 030284, 030286, 030289, 030293, 030294, 030301, 030302, 030303, 030304; BILLS 030285, 030287, 030288, 030290, 030291, 030295, 030296, 030297, 030298, 030299; BILLS 030331, 030339, 030340, 030386, 030389; BILLS 030186, 030187, 030221; BILL 010500. 2670 ¡›î› I N D E X BILL 030186 PAGE THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... BILL 030187 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... BILL 030221 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... BILL 030248 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... 7 CARLA PUPPIN, Queen Village Neighbor Assoc ... 16 CATHERINE SERICK (ph) ........................ 16 8 BILL 030386 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... 17 9 CYNTHIA PHILO, Old City District ............ 18 RICHARD THOM, Old City Civic Association .... 22 10 MIKE NASONS ................................. 23 BILL 030389 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission ..... 24 MICHAEL SAMSCHICK, South Street Head House District ................................ 25 BILL 030339 LYNDA ORFANELLI, Personnel Director ......... 27 DENNIS NORWOOD, Benefits Administration Supervisor ............................. 36 BILL 030340 LYNDA ORFANELLI, Personnel Director ......... 27 LIBBIE BLACKMAN ............................. 39 BOB EDDIS, Fraternal Order of Police ........ 46 JIM WHEELER, Fraternal Order of Police ...... 48 DONALD CRAMP, Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority ................... 52 AUSTIN MCGREAL, ESQ. 54 KATHY SYKES ................................. 54 KAREN LLOYD BORSKI, Fairmount Park Commission 55 JAMES BLOOM, Fairmount Park Commission ...... 58 BILL 030283 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 61 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 65 JOHN CHIN, Chinatown Development Corporation . 71 ANNA CHAN, Chinese Gospel Church ............. 73 BILL 030295 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 67 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 65 3 ¡›î› I N D E X (continued) BILL 030296 PAGE HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ...... 66 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 67 BILL 030298 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 79 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 81 SANDY SALZMAN, New Kensington CDC ............ 81 BILL 030299 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 83 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 84 KATHLEEN MURRAY, Special Assistant to Council President Verna ................ 85 ROB BUSCAGLIA, S. Bodine St. Community Garden. 88 CHRISTOPHER CAPPELLO ........................ 92 MICHAEL LEGACKI ............................. 93 BILL 030284 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 94 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 95 BILL 030285 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 96 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 99 KATHLEEN MURRAY, Special Assistant to Council President Verna ................. 99 EARL PACE, Universal Community Homes ........ 102 CLAUDIA SHERROD, Point Breeze Development Coalition and South Philadelphia Homes.. 103 CHARLENE WILSON-DOFFONEY, Mitchum-Wilson .... 104 ROBBIE MAZE ................................. 104 BILL 030286 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 106 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 107 BILL 030287 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 109 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 110 BILL 030288 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 112 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 114 AIESHA BEY .................................. 119 JAMES RENWICK ............................... 120 CAROLYN THOMAS .............................. 122 MATTHEW ROWAN ............................... 137 AUDREY S. HICKMAN ........................... 146 MICHAEL HORSEY, State Representative ........ 222 4 ¡›î› I N D E X (continued) BILL 030297 PAGE HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 159 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 161 SHIRLEY HAVERFORD ...........................
162 MELISSA LONG, People's Emergency Center CDC.. 165 BILL 030294 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 170 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 172 THERESA BROOMFIELD .......................... 174 PHILIP MILLER ............................... 180 EVA GLADSTEIN, Empowerment Zone ............. 180 BILL 030301 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 183 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 185 MICHAEL KUNTZ, Redevelopment Authority ...... 186 EVA GLADSTEIN, Empowerment Zone ............. 189 MICHAEL KUZMA ............................... 190 KEN KNIGHT, Voters Coalition ................ 207 YIN TANG (ph) ............................... 219 BILL 030302 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 233 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 234 WENDY HUDSON ................................ 241 BILL 030303 MICHAEL KUNTZ, Redevelopment Authority ...... 249 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 253 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 262 MICHAEL KUNTZ, Redevelopment Authority ...... 264 STEVE KAUFMAN, Community Ventures ........... 264 TIM MCDONALD, Onion Flats ................... 267 JAMES MCMASTER, ESQ. 269 ROSEMARY KUVAS (ph) ......................... 275 WILFREDO CARRASQUILLO ....................... 276 CAROLYN BROWN, RDA .......................... 284 KATHY CALAFANO, Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation .............. 288 WALTER TRUE, Councilman Mariano's Office .... 289 CAROLYN SMITH ............................... 296 ROBERT WILLIS ............................... 303 BEATRICE SMITH .............................. 309 ELDRIDGE BROWN .............................. 316 SWEENEY BROWN ............................... 325 5 ¡›î› I N D E X (continued) BILL 030303 PAGE CECILIA SUAREZ (ph) ......................... 332 GEORGE W. DAVIS, SR. 335 ANNIE ALVIN ................................. 338 KEN KNIGHT .................................. 344 THOMAS H. HUGHES, SR. 346 VERA WALLACE ................................ 351 DELORES CARSON .............................. 352 GEORGE MCCLAIN .............................. 353 MONTEZ LAMONE (ph) .......................... 354 VERNETTA SCOTT .............................. 357 BILL FOSTER ................................. 361 BILL 030290 STEVE CULBERTSON, Frankford CDC ............. 362 BILL 030293 RON HINTON, Allegheny West Foundation ....... 365 BILL 030289 SISTER MARGARET TAYLOR ...................... 367 BILL 030293 ED FRANKLIN ................................. 367 DIANNA DUNSUN (ph) .......................... 369 6 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum. City Committee on Rules is now in Session. Before we get started, I want to make an announcement. The RDA bills will not be heard until probably about or 12: 30. So we're going to do a 8 number of zoning bills and some other extraneous 9 matters before the Committee. We'll do all the RDA 10 bills together, probably not until 12 or 12:30. 11 Again, anyone who has dispute relative 12 to a property address should go to the Conversation Hall on the 2nd floor of City Hall now. RDA staff is there to discuss those issues with you. So thank you for your patients. The first Bill 030186, which is an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Clearfield Street, Trenton Avenue, Westmoreland Street and Richmond Street. Anyone from the Administration to testify, please? I'm go to have to request that any side-bar conversation take place in the hallway. 7 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES It's a very crowded room today, and even a whisper multiplied is going to be distracting. Thank you. And I would ask the Administration witness on non-controversial zoning bills we keep the testimony to a bear bones minimum. Thanks. Please identify yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Tom Chapman, I'm the Director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 030186. This Bill re-zones portion of an area bounded by Clearfield Street, Trenton Avenue, Westmoreland Street and Richmond Street. The purpose of this Bill is to more accurately reflect the existing pattern of land use for properties located on Allegheny Avenue that are currently zoned C-2 Commercial. These properties would be rezoned to zoning designation of C-1 commercial. The changing designation would be consistent with the pattern of existing uses on Allegheny Avenue and will allow commercial uses that are more compatible with the existing residential area immediately to the north and south of Allegheny 8 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Avenue. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 20, 2003, considered this Bill and recommended that it be approved.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030187, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Broad Street, Cecil B. Moore Avenue, 15th Street and Oxford Street. Please identify yourself for the record.
Once again, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill re-zones the area bounded by Broad Street, Cecil B. Moore Avenue, 15th Street and Oxford Street. The purpose of this Bill is to change the zoning designation of this area from partly C-2 9 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and partly R-10 Residential to partly C-2 Commercial and partly C-3 Commercial. The prime focus of this Bill is the C-3 portion of the re-zoning. This change will facilitate the redevelopment of these blocks with a proposal that would include the construction of approximately 144,000 square feet of retail commercial space, including a movie theater as well as 125,000 square feet of residential construction. This proposal also includes the construction of a 360-space parking garage. To the best of my recollection, this proposal is known as the Broad Moore proposal. It's had a number of name changes over the recent year. This Bill is consistent with previous redevelopment actions approved by the Commission specifically at its meeting on October 22, 1998. The Planning Commission approved changes to the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area Plan to allow for the construction of this proposal. Accordingly, we recommend that Bill No. 030187 be approved.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? 10 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030221, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Lehigh Avenue, Aramingo Avenue, a railroad right-of-way and the Delaware Expressway. Please identify yourself.
Once again, for the City Planning Commission, Thomas Chapman. This Bill re-zones an area bounded Aramingo Avenue, a railroad right-of-way, Delaware Expressway and Lehigh Avenue. While much of this area is zoned G-2 Industrial, in many instances, the G-2 abuts single family row homes zoned R-10A Residential and occupied as single family dwellings. Considering the proximity of homes to G-2 zoned properties, the community had concerns about the type of uses that would be permitted in the area zoned G-2 that abut their homes. This re-zoning Bill will more 11 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES accurately reflect the existing pattern of land use for these blocks and will give the homeowners some level of protection regarding uses that could instituted next to their home. This Bill recognizes the existing G-2 properties that are primarily owned and operated by the railroad but also institutes changes where the existing property is vacant, under-utilized or used commercially. The Planning Commission at its meeting on May 20, 2003, considered this Bill and recommended that it be approved.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco.
You're familiar with my request for these 030221 and 030186, the purpose of that request or those requests. Are you familiar with why we made the request for these changes? We had a meeting in my office -- I don't 12 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES know if you with there -- several months back.
The general concern, without words in your mouth, was because the community had a growing concern that many of the former industrial buildings where the businesses have left were being purchased by individuals who were converting those properties into repair and auto body shops; is that correct.
That's right. And as I stated, Councilman, G-2 would allow some of those uses right next single family dwellings, and I don't think that that's something that any of us want to see.
I just wanted that for the record because there's a suggestion that this may be an attempt to change it for other purposes, but the real intent was to protect the community from any additional auto body and auto repair shops from proliferating in their community.
There also, Mr. Chairman, will be an amendment to Bill No. 030221.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 030248, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Sixth Street, Randolph Street, Fitzwater Street and East Passyunk Avenue. Please identify yourself for the record.
Once again, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill re-zones the block bounded by Sixth Street, Randolph Street, Fitzwater Street, and Passyunk Avenue. 14 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES The purpose of this Bill is to change the zoning designation of this block from C-2 Commercial to a designation of R-10 Residential. Though this block has been zoned C-2 Commercial for many years, there is not a single commercial use in this block. This change will accurately reflect the existing pattern of land use. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 20, 2003, considered this Bill and recommended that it be approved. I understand that there's also going to be an amendment offered to this Bill. And, Councilman DiCicco, if you'd like, I could read that into the record.
It's an amendment to Section 1 of the Bill, and it adds these words at the end of that paragraph. That paragraph ends with the words "map B set forth below," and what is added is "and by changing the zoning designation of properties fronting on East Passyunk Avenue between Fitzwater Street and Catherine Street to R-10 Residential." What this amendment does is that it will 15 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES change the zoning in this block, which is immediately across the street from the block that I previously described to the same R-10 Residential that's being applied on the other side of the street.
Mr. Chapman, should we not make that R-10A? Because R10 leaves the opportunity for multi-family dwellings. You might rather the process be if someone did want to do a conversion that the community would be part of the process.
I would prefer that the change be made to R-10A Residential.
We'll clean it up in the meeting. Queen Village Neighbor Association. Anyone else to testify on this Bill 16 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES besides Queen Village? Please identify yourself.
Good morning. I'm Carla Puppin, the Director of the Queen Village Neighbors Association. I'm here to express the Association's support for Bill No. 030248 which will reflect the actual residential character of the neighborhood. I also have here e-mails from residents on the 700 10 block of Passyunk, the 500 block of Queen and 11 Fitzwater that express their support for the Bill. 12 And there also, I believe, three residents from the 13 700 block of Passyunk to support this Bill. 14
Thank you very much. 15 Any questions? 16 Please come forward. Good morning. 17 Please identify yourself for the record. 18
My name is Catherine Serick, and I'm a resident of the East Passyunk block. And I'm here to support this Bill and the efforts of the community to get this Bill passed.
Thank you for coming in. Thank you for waiting. Any other witnesses for this Bill? (No response.) 17 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
We will now move to Bill No. 030386, an Ordinance amending Title of 4 the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and 5 Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled 6 "Miscellaneous," by amending Section 14-1610, 7 entitled "Old City Residential Area Special District 8 Controls," by extending the boundaries of the area 9 subject to special controls and by specifying uses 10 not prohibited in this area, under certain terms and 11 conditions. 12 Please identify yourself for the record. 13
Good morning, Mr. Chairman 14 and Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill amends Section 14-1610 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Old City Residential Area Special District Controls. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the district controls to include the area bounded by Market Street, Fourth Street, Chestnut Street and Front Street. The Bill further specifies the prohibited in the newly defined control area which includes cabarets, dance halls, establishment of guests and patrons as a main use, fortune teller 18 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES establishments, nightclubs, palm reads, tarot card readers and other related types of so-called psychic personal services, private clubs, restaurants, take-out restaurants, tatoo and body piercing establishments and telemarketing. The Bill further prohibits the expansion or extension of any of these uses. The Planning Commission has not yet considered this Bill but will consider it at its meeting of June 17, 2003. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.) Seeing none, I call Cynthia Philo and Richard Thom. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Committee members. My name is Cynthia Philo. I'm the Executive Director of the Old City District here in Philadelphia.
As you are aware, the 19 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES district has been in effect now for five years, and we work to keep Old City clean, safe and prosperous seven days a wee. We are soon to welcome the opening of the National Constitution Center in July, look forward to the completion of the Penns Landing Waterfront, and expect that the Independence Harbor plan put forth by the Delaware River Port Authority will bring even more tourists, diners, shoppers, and in the long-run, new businesses and residents to the Old City District community. There are very exciting times that we have. Therefore, the Old City District is committed to keeping the area the best that it can be that it can serve Philadelphia as an outstanding example of what Center City has to offer. I'm here testifying in favor of Bill 18 030386 which will allow us to do this job. Over the past five years, we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of restaurant bar and nightclub establishments located south of Market Street. In the 13 block area, there are 91 types of this businesses. In fact, 72 of them are located south of Market Street. Of these businesses, 67 of them have liquor licenses. In addition, within a smaller 20 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES two-block area there are 56 licensed establishments. A large number of these places have been in the community for a number of years. They operate reputable establishments providing wonderful services for their customers. They are part of the community and they act as good neighbors. The others choose not to act in this way, to the detriment of their neighboring businesses and residents. It is because of this that we are here today for this Bill. The Old City District is committed to having positive economic growth of this area, but not without the concern for the negative impact that some of businesses have on the community at large. We are seeing the change every night in the delicate fabric of our historic community: Large, unruly crowds spilling off the sidewalks into streets, fights breaking out among drunken patrons, public urination, damage to public and private property in the form of paint and acid graffiti, and of course, our first drive-by shooting. This is not what our community, business or residential wants or what the City needs. In fact, there's been a 11 percent increase in the 21 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES arrests in the area of Arch to Chestnut Streets and from the Delaware River to Fourth Street from June 2002 to just the end of last month. This is a disturbing trend which we as a district look to proactively deal with instead of reacting to quality-of-life issues after they've occurred. We've seen an increase in the police presence nightly. It's one thing to have an entertainment area, but to have absolutely no controls over it just leads to the demise of existing business values. Currently, there exists overly protections in other areas of the City that this Bill now sets forth for Old City. This does not prevent restaurants, bars or nightclubs from coming into the area in any way. It does not act as a moratorium on business. This is the same way that Delaware Avenue and South Street have protected their vital commercial corridors for this years. This just gives the community, our Old City community, the opportunity to be heard before the new business goes into the area. This Bill will ensure that the Old City District will continue economically vibrant and safe. It will require 22 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES those who choose to do business in our entertainment area to be willing to play by the rules. It will enable the creation of a positive environment for current and future commercial and residential development. I urge this Committee to approve Bill 8 No. 030386. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of the Bill. I respectfully request a suspension of the Rules and will answer any questions at this time. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record.
Richard Thom, Chair of the Developments Committee, Old City Civic Association. The Old City Civic Association this morning voted to support Bill 030386, as introduced by Councilman Frank DiCicco, recognizing that some sort of legislative and zoning controls on restaurants south of Market Street were necessary. The original zoning overlay that this amends, I created in 1990 in front of Council back in those days. And we recognized as far back as 1990 that 23 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES the proliferation of too many liquor licenses and restaurant activities would be detrimental to the area. And we, therefore, feel that this is a step that must be taken in order to get our arms around the problems that have occurred south of Market Street, and we wholeheartedly support this legislation.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please come forward.
My name is Mike Nasons, the owner of Eulogy Belgian Tavern. I opened four months ago and I voluntarily went through a review process similar to what they're trying to put in place. And I thought what they asked for was very reasonable and I thought it would be in interest of the business community in the neighborhood. And I want to offer up my support for the Bill.
Thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) 24 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, for the record, have in my possession -- I believe copies are being circulated to the members of this Committee -- 2 letters of support for this Bill; one by Mr. Donald Haskin and the other by Lynn Martin Haskin. I will give a copy of these to the stenographer so they can be placed into the record.
Great. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move to Bill No. 030389, which is an Ordinance 16 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 18 14-1612, entitled "South Street/Head House Square Special Services District Controls," by extending the said controls to conform with City Council Ordinance (Bill NO. 010069, approved June 14, 2001), under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Chapman, please identify yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Once again, for the 25 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill amends the existing South Street Head House Square Special Services District Control zoning overlay section of the Philadelphia Code by extending the area that is subject to the controls to conform to the boundaries of the Special Services District. The boundaries of the Special Services District had been extended through the passage of City Council Bill No. 010069, which was enacted on June 14, 2001. However, the boundaries of the zoning overlay were not extended to conform to the boundaries of the Special Services District at that time. Therefore, this request has been made to Councilman DiCicco. The Planning Commission will consider this Bill at its meeting of June 17, 2003. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please identify yourself.
My name is Michael 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Samschick. I'm the Chairman of the South Street Head House Business District.
I would like to first thank Chairman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee for allowing me to testify on Bill 030389. We are requesting that you allow us to expand the overlay to within the boundaries of the district. We have worked feverishly with the neighbors as well as with Councilman DiCicco to try to make South Street a softer, more friendly place to visit and enjoy. We are just starting to see those results by the efforts we put out, and by allowing this Bill to pass, will be able to continue those efforts.
Great. Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030339, an Ordinance amending Title 20 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Officers and Employees," by enacting the "W. Thacher Longstreth Memorial Survivors and Dependents Medical Care Ordinance," providing certain health and medical benefits to the spouse 27 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and dependent children of deceased City officers and employees, all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Councilman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee. I am Lynda Orfanelli, Personnel Director for the City, and I'm here to testify on both Bills 030339 on 030340. And I can't wait until you get back to the Council room; it's less crowded than this. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify. Unfortunately, I have some problems with these bills. I actually have two concerns about them. One is the potential impact on the City's ability to negotiate with labor unions, and the other one is the magnitude of financial impact on the City. Regarding Bill 030339, the Budget Bureau has done a preliminary estimate of the five-year cost using the percentage increases in the Five-Year Plan. If you would look at Chart No. 8 million. However, this does not reflect full participation the first four years of the cost projection. If you 28 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES multiply the fifth year which represents full participation without adding an inflation escalator, the cost would be more than $7 million. We have not been able to determine at this time the universe of individuals who would be eligible for the health and medical benefits under Bill 030340. I'd like to emphasize that beneficiaries of employees who die active are entitled to a greater amount of life insurance than retired employees. And if you look at Chart No. 2, it shows you that difference for each category of employee. This additional life insurance could be used by the beneficiary to offset the health benefits if need be. In addition, when an employee dies active, the pensioned beneficiary automatically is entitled to a more generous survivorship option, which is Option 2, which provides survivorship benefits which equal the members retiree benefit for the remainder of the pensioned beneficiary's life. On the other hand, the pension selection most commonly made by active retirees are Options or which are not as generous for the beneficiary. Option 3 on 4 reduce the survivor's benefit by half. 29 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES And I also a chart there showing three different examples based on different ages of retirees and their beneficiaries, their survivors. The trend is that fewer retirees are receiving health coverage and/or personally contributing more to their coverage. Current trends in the Mercer/Foster Higgins National Survey of Employer Sponsored Health Plans -- and that's all employers, that's both private and public -- show the decline in employers offering retiree health coverage between '93 and 2000. Employers offering pre-Medicare eligible retiree coverage declined from 46 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 2001. And employers offering coverage to Medicare eligible retirees declined in 1993 from 40 percent to 17 percent in 2001. The 2003 Healthcare Cost Survey 18 report of key findings by Towers Perrin shows trends 19 consistent with previous years. Retirees are being 20 asked to take on an even greater proportion of their 21 average monthly cost than their active counterparts. 22 If the City is to remain competitive with the 23 private sector, continuing to implement right-sizing government initiatives and looking to lower tax burdens, we cannot buck a trend that many others are 30 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES now embracing. Of even more concern, however, is that these Bills will compromise the City's ability to effectively negotiate with labor unions. According to current labor law, compensation is subject to monetary bargaining and health and welfare benefits are a part of the City's compensation package. As I am sure you are all familiar with, in the course of collective bargaining, demands are placed on the table and removed based on priorities of the parties. By passing these bills, Council will preempt the collective bargaining process. The current collective bargaining agreements expire June 30 of '04 for District Council 33, District Council 47 ,and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Medical coverage for beneficiaries of employees who are pension eligible and who die active have been included in past amends and will most likely be included in the 2004 negotiations. As you are aware, the fire fighters were awarded this benefit in the most recent Act 111 acquisition award. In order to reach the final package agreed upon, the unions determine what is most important to their members. This legislation would eradicate an 31 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES important tool that the City relies upon when bargaining with the unions. Now is a time when we must make difficult choices in how to spend our very limited budget dollars. I need not remind you of all the fiscal pressures facing the City in the Fiscal Year '04 budget and the Five-Year Plan that was approved by this Council. The City has had to face several unexpected fiscal challenges recently, including the fire fighters' award and the reduction in the State budget and they have resulted in cuts of 85 million in that direct financial support to this City. Together, the Administration and this Council must make the hard responsible fiscally intelligent choices to ensure that the City remains fiscally strong and we can continue offer high-quality services to our citizens and high-quality benefits to our employees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognize Councilmember Nutter. 32 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Let me just ask this question quickly: When did this testimony come over?
This morning. Okay. And the Administration's position is, succinctly, you're against this Bill?
When we do the next Bill, you can add anything you need to add in addition.
So let's go back 33 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES through what drove this. The present City employee plan has a situation where if you are of retirement age -- this is on the survivor benefit Bill.
If you're of retirement age but stay with the City and keep working and die, your family does not get the five-year health benefit package; but if you are of retirement age and retire, leave the City workforce and die the next day, your family does get the five-year health benefit package? Is that the current situation?
Right. And the fire fighters one that in 111 arbitration; and police in prior arbitration.
So let me try to understand the logic of this illogical situation. I reach retirement age and then I say, "Well, I've given my time and I'm just going to go." And something unfortunate happens; my family is taken 34 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES care of. But if I have the audacity at retirement age to stay with the City and I'm not smart enough to anticipate that I'm going to die, or something happens or you're hit by a bus or fall out a window, and on the way down I don't announce that I'm retiring, my family gets nothing?
They don't get the five-year that they would have received if I had been smart enough to retire when I was of retirement age.
However, if you look at Chart No. 3, if that happens to someone who's -- a retiree who dies who is 55 with a 50-year-old survivor, instead of getting the normal pension survivor benefit of 1600, they'll get $2786.98, which is significant.
I understand that. We're talking about health benefits.
I understand that. We're talking about the five-year health benefit that all retirees' families receive if they retire 35 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and then subsequently pass away. So let's talk about in the current situation or what brought us to this point. In the case of our fallen colleague, Councilman Longstreth who was of retirement age; had he retired, his and then passed away, his family would receive five-year healthcare?
That's fairly major consideration. And since he did not retire and passed away, that benefit is not available to his spouse?
Yes, it does, because there are other overriding factors that trump his need for the medical -- his survivors' need. Excuse me.
I just think it is a quirk of a situation. It does not make good public policy. It is certainly not a humanistic policy that the employee, again, having the temerity to stay around and continue to provide service past retirement age now has to decide whether they want to stay or not and factor into their situation whether they think they're going to die in order to ensure the five-year healthcare benefit for survivors. And I think that we should correct it and fix something that at this point in time just doesn't make any sense. So, I mean, I appreciate the City's position. Did the gentleman have something that wanted to say?
Could you please identify yourself, sir. Do you have anything add to this testimony.
My name is Dennis Norwood. I'm the Benefits Administration Supervisor for the City Administered Healthcare Plan. I don't see anything bad in the proposal. The only thing that I would say is that 37 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES we need to be careful to balance generosity with stewardship. We have to manage the available resources. And at this particular time, we all are aware that there are limited resources for --
I understand that. Let me ask this question. In the past year, how many City employees of retirement age stayed in service and passed away?
The dollars are still significant even though it's a small number of people.
I understand. I mean, everything does cost something. But we don't do everything we do just based on the dollars and cents, right? I mean, we have policies -- if that were the case, you probably wouldn't have the five-year benefit. Didn't that change in the past year or two? 38 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Right. Well, we're not in labor negotiations. Many of us are not in that particular class or category. I mean, who negotiates for me? This is not for me. Hopefully, one, I'm not near retirement age. There are some who probably would like me to, but I'm not near retirement age at the moment. So I'm not trying to get anything for myself. But who negotiates for the unrepresented people in the government?
We know that. That's why we have one of the worst health plans. Let's talk about the other Bill.
Let me, for the record, read Bill No. 030340, which is an Ordinance 19 amending title of Philadelphia Code, entitled 20 "Officers and Employees," by providing for certain health and welfare benefits for pensioned employees, all under certain terms and conditions. If there's any additional comment you'd like to make for the record on 030340 you can please do so now so we can maintain the line of question 39 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES with Councilman Nutter.
All my comments were in the single testimony. Councilman Nutter.
Mr. Chairman, why don't we have Ms. Blackman come up and talk about her situation.
I'm Libby Blackman. I'm a retired librarian from the Free Library of Philadelphia. After working and a half years 14 with the Free Library of Philadelphia, I'm now a 15 retired City employee. I worked 14 and a half years 16 first from 1974 to 1989. I left to become an RN. 17 Worked as an RN for 10 years, and I'm a widow. Due 18 to my son's school schedule, I came back to the library in 1989 and worked four more years. When I went to the pension counselor, I was told that I was not eligible for five years of health benefits because I had not worked 10 years on coming back, I had only worked 4 and a half. This means that someone who has worked 10 years and a day is eligible for five years of health benefits; and I 40 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES who have worked and a half years am not. I've asked to be considered to rectify that regulation.
Thank you, Mr. 6 Chairman. 7 So Ms. Blackman, let me make sure I'm 8 understanding here. The current provisions of -- I 9 think this is regarding a Civil Service regulation. 10 You have to have 10 years of continuous service 11 prior to your leaving? 12
If you have left for more 13 than one year when you come back, you have to work 14 ten years, according to the regulation. 15
So if you had worked 16 4 years or 4 and a half years during your first 17 tour, left and came back and worked 14 and a half -- 18
But because you gave 14 and a half years first, and again you -- and I mean this cheerfully -- then had the audacity to go 41 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and do something else with your life, get additional education, training, other experiences and then come back for four years -- you never took your pension, right?
I left my pension, and I was a union member all those years.
So from the pension system standpoint you are an 18-and-a-half-year employees; is that correct?
Yes. They used my pension money for the 10 years that I was not here.
You came back and you only did four more years with the City, therefore, not making you eligible for the five-year healthcare benefit which, again by way of the example, if you had switch your tours of duty, you would be eligible?
Ms. Orfanelli, can you explain the logic of such a system? Why do we care so much when the person does their time or how they do their time, as long as they do their time? What why does the matter?
Well, first, I want to 42 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES mention that the way this Bill is currently written, it's talking about credited time which means it may be time that they bought from prior work, not just work with the City, which is problematic.
Well, the current situation is years of continuous work. 10
No, I understand. That's not Ms. Blackman's situation, right? She didn't buy any time --
She's got and a 16 half legitimate years of City time, right? 17
This provision has been 18 in existence before I even arrived at the City. And it is our belief that it was done for fiscal reasons. There are people that come and go and there was apparently a decision of a long time ago to reward people who worked for the City --
Would you consider Ms. Blackman to be a come-and-go person, 18 and a half years of City service? 43 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Fourteen at one, four at another; is that a come-and-go kind of person?
With the proposed Bill, it would apply to many variations on the theme.
People who come and go. People who work for the City for a couple years and buy the rest of their time and we'd still have to give them medical. You can buy military time. You can buy teaching time. You can buy other governmental time.
You could buy that time now and be credited for pension system, right?
But you get the medical if you have 10 years of service prior to retiring.
My understanding is that you wouldn't get it. You need to have 10 years of active service. 44 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
But your testimony is that if she had done the and a half the first 4 go-round, took a break of however much time, came back and did another 14 and a half, she would get it?
So under that scenario, though, what difference does it make to the City? She did and a half years. We're only 12 now talking about how the time is split up. You 13 can't deny that she performed her time. You can't 14 say that she was an in-and-out person. You can't 15 say that the time is any different than anyone 16 else's time. 17 And is it also true that exempt 18 employees are not subject to that same rule?
Exempt employees are not required to have continuous time.
But I don't know about for medical. Not for vacation and other benefits, but I'm not sure -- medical I think they need 10 45 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES also.
Ms. Blackman, do you have anything else you'd like to add?
Thank you very much for your testimony. Good morning please identify yourself for the record. 46 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Good morning, Councilman. Bobby Eddis, FOP Lodge President. Along with me I 4 have Tom Lamb from our medical health plan and Jim 5 Wheeler also with the FOP and Gene Blagman (ph), our lobbyist is also here.
We're coming here, first off, to thank you for taking on this issue because what has happened over the years is there's been an awful lot of our members who have been eligible to retire and haven't because of wanting to give more dedicated service to the City. And unfortunately, they passed away when they would have had the opportunity to leave sooner and been able to collect the benefit. One of our family members is here today, the Farley family. I'd like to point them out in the courtroom. Dan Farley worked for the Philadelphia Police Department for 34 years and was hoping to continue on and, unfortunately, he had a heart attack and his family was only eligible to have health coverage for one year as a result of that. And that was one of the issues that brought 47 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES us here today. And also the other issue was in regards to trying to have it retroactive back to July 1, 2002 which will basically mirror the fire fighters' contract. And also another problem that we have is sometimes with the way it's written if one of our officers were to die in the line of duty, their children are in a situation that we find that they don't always go to college and they're in their late teens and early twenties and they don't health coverage anymore. We're not talking about a large amount of people. We're only talking about very few. But we think we would be remiss if we didn't come forward and try to dress these issues at this time. The other issue we have is in regards to the mental health issue. Some family members of our officers who've given their lives in later years have problems as a result of them not having their father or in this day and age also their mother present with them. They have problems that arise later on for which we don't have the vehicle to be able to help them. So we're coming in front of you 48 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES today requesting assistance in this area.
Would either of the gentlemen at the table like to add anything like that? Please identify yourself.
Jim Wheeler, Vice President of the FOP. I'd just like to follow up on what Bob Eddis said as far as dying on an active duty status. If Dan Farley had chosen to retire the day before, his family would have enjoyed the benefits of the contract, which is a five-year health coverage for his family. The fact that he was still active duty, they only had one. So I just wanted to clarify that a little bit.
Bob, you may have so in your testimony. How many years did he serve?
Mr. Wheeler, I'm sorry, I missed the tail-end of what you said. You made a distinction between an active-duty officer and a retired officer. Could you go back through that again, please? MR WHEELER: If the active-duty officer 49 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES passes away while still in the active status, the benefit that his family will receive is one year of health coverage from the day of death. If the day before his death the active-duty officer had retired, his family would then --
And of retirement age, his family would have enjoyed the five years that everyone else does that retires. So the one point that Bob is bring out is maybe the inequity there could be cleared up and retroactive to July 1, 2002.
You're looking at the start of the Fiscal Year? Is that what you're --
This weekend I had the opportunity to represent our organization down in Wildwood for a tribute service. And while I was in mass afterwards, I was stopped by one the widows. And she was actually very emotional, and she was 50 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES explaining to me the problem that she has because one of her children has had mental problems ever since their father passed away back in 1992. I think Councilman Kenney is also fully aware of the situation. And she just said to me, "If you could do anything, I would appreciate so much if you could try to help because where do I turn? What is it that I'm able to do?" And it was kind of hard sitting there not able to tell her that we had been able to resolve this. I did tell her how important it was and how much we appreciated that the Members in Council had taken on their own to try to address these inequities. But we know that we're only dealing with a very few amount. And I believe that it's the interest and the concern of the City, as they have shown us all the time in the past, that situations like this they appreciate when we do bring it forward. Because I don't think anybody wants a child who was subjected to losing their parent at an early age not having a support network to help them through the key times. And that's the same thing too. A lot of times their life isn't normal any more so it's not like they graduate from 51 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES high school and they go on to college and they keep their medical for the next few years. A lot of times they feel the burden of helping their parent out. So they may not go to college the standard way that everybody does. Or they may go back to part-time and then it's a matter of a game of justifying by having so many credits and then it becomes confusing. And we're not everyone, we're just asking for the members of the people who gave their life in the line of duty to have the opportunity to have the medical go the same as if it would for any other child who had the ability to go to college. That's all.
Seeing none, thank you. We will now move to Bill No. 030331, an Ordinance declaring that it is desirable for the 52 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES health, safety and welfare of citizens of the City of Philadelphia that the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia undertake a project involving the current refunding of the Authority's Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series of 1993 (Philadelphia MR Project) that remain outstanding, and to issue and sell Revenue Refunding Bonds for the purpose of financing such refunding project; authorizing the Authority to undertake the refunding project; authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City, to enter into a supplemental lease with the Authority providing for such refunding project. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Donald Cramp. I serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Hospitals and Higher Education Authority. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just read for our process, a mere formality, a very short statement inasmuch as this is an entirely refinancing. There's no proceeds, no new construction, but it is necessary for our process to appear before you, and if I may be very quick. 53 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
We do have other person to testify should you have questions. On March 11, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia accepted the refunding application of the Department of Public Health, Office of Metal Health and Mental Retardation. A public Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing on behalf of the Department of Public Health is not necessary since the 2003 project is strictly a refinancing of the 1993 bond project. There will be no new monies raised in this offering. Today we have the privilege together of assisting the Department of Public Health, Mental Health Mental Retardation Office and the many people associated with this successful project. To close, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to express appreciation to each member of the Rules Committee, to Councilman Kenney for his introduction of this Bill, and to the Council on behalf of the Board of the Authority for your important assistance to this meaningful financing. Thank you. 54 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
My name my name us Austin McGreal. I'm Counsel of the Hospital Authority. And I request a suspension of the Rules in the event that you vote this in the affirmative. Thank you very much.