Kelly Andrews, commenting on 130057. (Witness approached podium.)
Mr. President, members of the Council, my name is Kelly Andrews. I live in Fishtown, 610 Gaul Street, and I am a health initiatives representative for the American Cancer Society here in the City. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also known as ACS CAN. ACS CAN is the advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society. With me is Diane Phillips, Senior Director for Policy at ACS CAN. We appreciate the actions taken by City Councilman William Greenlee and the Committee on Public Health and Human Services in proposing Bill 130057. At this time, we are asking you to consider tabling the bill for further consideration. Regulating indoor tanning beds is an important health and safety issue. However, we cannot support the bill as currently drafted because it does not fully protect minors under the age of 18 by preventing indoor tanning bed use. Parental consent is not an effective or reliable barrier to indoor tanning. Parents who do not understand the serious risk posed by indoor tanning beds and who allow their teens to use them will unknowingly put their children in harm's way. The science is clear. Tanning bed use is a risk factor for skin cancer, including deadly melanoma, a type of skin cancer than can be fatal. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified indoor tanning beds as Group 1, the highest level of cancer risk. Minors under age 18 are especially at risk for the damage associated with overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, such as that found in tanning beds, because their skin cells are dividing and changing more rapidly than those of adults. In fact, six different national and international organizations, including the World Health Organization and the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have all issued reports on the adverse health effects associated with the use of indoor tanning facilities and have recommended that minors under the age of 18 not use them. We are all aware of the "tan mom" incident took place in New Jersey last year, but I have another story. Last month, our staff met with Pennsylvania parents who have in the past year lost their beautiful 28-year-old daughter to melanoma. Jen had started using tanning beds in high school. With deep regret, her father acknowledged, We did not think using a tanning bed was a good idea, but we did not think that it could kill her. You can help Philadelphia parents and protect our young people by passing a stronger bill. May is the month for high school proms. Young people are getting ready for the big event by getting the right clothes and, unfortunately for many, getting a tan. They and their parents remain unaware that the incidence of melanoma is increasing rapidly and adult -- in children and adults. Melanoma is now the second most common form of cancer for individuals age 15 to 29. In Philadelphia, minors cannot purchase tobacco products or alcohol. We are asking for consistent health policy. The only way to fully protect teens is to prevent minors from using tanning beds altogether. We hope you will considering strengthening this important bill, and please vote to table Bill 130057 for further consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and we would be happy to answer any questions. (Applause.)
That's the first bill. Good morning, everyone. We came here to ask Council to table this bill. This is about a housing project, affordable housing project, that Councilman Johnson promised for his community. However, there has been no notification. We had -- we met with the Chief of Staff. He said that they were going to do housing for already established housing and rehab. What has happened is -- then we didn't hear any more about it. Then we were personally called to come down here and support Councilman Johnson and his office regarding the affordable housing project, because when the developers were attacking the office and saying about his project was going to stop them from building in the community. So we did. So then after that, then we didn't hear anything more. Then all the sudden, we heard on WURD that a $2.2 million bill was being read and passed, and we heard Councilman Clarke addressing anybody down here to testify, and no one came down to testify. Why? Because nobody knew about it. There was no e-mails that went out. Nothing went out regarding the project. And now the project is being moved forward. We're hearing that now -- and then what happened was -- I'm getting ahead of myself. Then what happened was when we came down and testified, we were testifying to rehabs. Now we find out there's a bunch of lots going on, and the lots are going to turn into these large three-story houses in our area that the community does not want. We're saying by you passing this bill, you give by-right privileges to the City to come down and build what they want. These are the houses that were built by our first NSP money. These were supposed to have been affordable housing for people in the community. They turn out to be three-story houses, decks, garages, and 30 of these houses were built in the Point Breeze area. And then on top of that, these houses do not look like affordable housing for people in our community who can afford. They do not look like it. (Applause.)
And we're saying -we're asking you to table this. We want you to take a look at these houses, because these houses are not -- I don't think President Obama meant this when he put out money for NSP to build houses like this for our community. (Applause.)
And then on top of that, you sit up here. You don't want to give District 33 any kind of raises or anything, but yet you want to build houses that are going 300 and -$300,000. We're asking you to table this bill and have community meetings -(Applause.)
-- have community meetings regarding this bill and go through proper procedure for us. Otherwise, you get by-right policy to the City, and we'll be back with those -- and those particular houses went for $178,000, and they're still sitting empty one year later. They're still sitting empty right there at 20th and Dickinson. So do we want those houses? No, we don't. If you look at underneath, we want the other houses that they built up in Cecil B. Moore, $63,000. They get a ten-year tax abatement -(Microphone cut off.)
Theresa McCormick, commenting on 130395. (Witness approached podium.) MS. McCORMICK: My name is Theresa McCormick and I'm from the Point Breeze area. We have serious concerns. We don't -- we are not just giving you talk. Here are our ten concerns: One, Councilman Johnson, you supported Ori Feibush with 13 luxury apartments at Point Breeze and Titan Street. Two hundred residents came out and told you no, but you gave him a support letter anyway. Okay? Concern No. 2, Councilman Johnson, you signed off on 30 City-owned lots which was used with the NSP money. Again, who was using that again? Ori Feibush. This was March of 2012. Concern No. 3, you refused to discuss the three-story concerns that the community have, but you gave Korman Suites their project in Eastwick. Concern No. 4, Councilman Johnson, you gave a support letter again to Ori Feibush for a whole block at 20th and Federal, which is being built at this time. But in the media, you made a stink that the two of you were fighting and had us to come down to support you against Ori, but in fact you deceived the community because you gave him that support letter. (Audience members yelling.) MS. McCORMICK: Concern No. 5, his office gave a support letter to a known market-rate developer named John Longacre. His staff promised to hold a zoning meeting regarding the recent zoning project, but it never took place, but you gave a support letter to the ZBA. Longtime community residents called Concerns Citizens of Point Breeze tell us that the information about the zoning was never given to us. John Longacre is a person who has came into our community to change the name from Point Breeze to Newbold, but, again, in the Business Journal of 2007, John Longacre states that he is an urban gentrifier. Concern No. 6, Councilman Johnson, you put in a $2 million bond for this housing project, no notification. Your office says that there's three levels of this housing. You have not met with the community of what the project is all about. We found out about it on WURD. And the Council has also questioned why the community is not down here to testify. Because we were not notified. Concern No. 7, no community meeting or notification for zoning reclassification for St. Agnes Hospital from a CMX-3, which allows housing, but people don't know that that has to do with condos. Concern No. 8, no community meeting or notification for Point Breeze for the new housing project -(Microphone cut off.)
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, one second. First, your time is up, but, second, you're not talking about a bill that's on the Calendar. MS. McCORMICK: Our concerns has to do with the housing bill, and because we're concerned about the housing bill is because of the things that has happened.
All right. MS McCORMICK: Why should we -if you let me finish, which I only have two --
Ma'am, your time is up. Ma'am, your time is up. MS. McCORMICK: Councilman.
Ma'am, your time is up. MS. McCORMICK: Give me two minutes.
Ma'am, your time is up. (Ms. McCormick still talking.)
We get your point, ma'am. We get your point. (Ms. McCormick still talking.)
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, your time is up. I didn't ask you anything. Time is up. (Applause.) (Ms. McCormick still talking.)
I didn't ask you a question, ma'am. Your time is up, please. We let you come down. You've been at a number of hearings. Thank you. (Applause.)
Before we proceed, I want to recognize Councilman Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to note just for the record, because I don't mind agreeing to disagree with folks, but about 95 percent of the information put forth publicly -- and I don't have a problem following up with the two individuals -- totally inaccurate. Public record can be researched on any of those positions. I've engaged in several different groups in my neighborhood regarding any projects that we're doing. However, in cases where we agree to disagree, folks decide to take a position, rather it be publicly, from their own perspective, because you're not doing it according to their agenda, how they want things to be done. And that's the neighborhood that I lived in all my life. Anyone that knows me in the neighborhood know that I stand firmly on what I'm advocating for, the actual place my family and I still reside. But nevertheless, it will be addressed. Thank you very much, Mr. Council President, for your time.
Thank you, Councilman. (Audience members yelling.)
Excuse me. Excuse me. All right. Folks, you have an opportunity. If you want to testify, come down and sign up. You can testify at the mic, please. So please no hollering from the rafters. Thank you. Yes, sir.
Thank you very much, Mr. President and Councilmembers. My name is Joseph Levy. I am representing the American Sun Tanning Association. I am Executive Director of International Smart Tan Network, the educational institute for professional tanning facilities all across the United States. I'll be concise and appreciate the opportunity. We support legislation that constructively bolstered the standards that professional tanning salons already have in place, informed parental consent before a minor uses a tanning facility. So we'd like to congratulate Councilman Greenlee for pursuing this approach, educating parents and children that there are risks to overexposure while acknowledging that many in the healthcare field and many parents support the concept of getting a base tan in a moderate and responsible fashion. We have one minor objection, a very easy fix that we'd like to suggest to this bill. While the legislation promotes education for both parents and teenagers, it perhaps unintentionally treats parents like teenagers. It requires a parent to accompany a teenager on every single tanning salon session as opposed to signing an informed consent form on the initial session that acknowledges that there are dangers of overexposure and that the parent allows the child to use the tanning facility. We would support that approach fully. With me are Valerie Lavinia from Hollywood Tans, owns several facilities here in Philadelphia, and Carol Statts, who is a mother of three sons who all use tanning units, who would be inconvenienced by that standard, who doesn't have the time to accompany them on every single session, but has worked with her sons and her family to understand that there are risks to overexposure. She teaches them sunburn prevention. There are many other parents and Valerie has collected letters from many of the parents, from Anne Marie Parker, who has a teenager that she teaches to make these intelligent decisions; from Darlene Horne, who is a 16-year-old who has eczema, who tans after school a couple of times a week to treat her eczema as a low cost way to do this, lower cost than going through the healthcare system, but she cannot attend the sessions with her because she's at work; from Grace Lazia, who is a teenager who says this is an extreme inconvenience. So this change that we would suggest protects the spirit of Councilman Greenlee's bill without driving business outside of Philadelphia, which this bill would do if in fact you required parents to attend every single session, because they would be able to tan in salons outside of the City limits. And it respects the ability of your citizens to make informed choices for their families. So we would support that minor change. We encourage you -- and we spoke with Councilman Greenlee about that. We encourage you to understand the whole facts about this. Thank you.
Thank you. Just very quickly, I think you heard both sides of this argument. I just want to -- as in much legislation, we try to find a middle ground. American Cancer Society, even though they never spoke to me, wanted teens banned totally. The gentleman that just spoke wants a parent just to sign once. We think this is a good middle ground, the parent accompanies the child to each session so he or she can see the effects each time. Melanoma is a very serious disease, often caused by these tanning beds. So I think we've reached a middle ground on this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
Clarc King, commenting on 120118. (Witness approached podium.)
Thank you, President of the Council. Thank you, members of the Council. I come once again to protest the sale of Philadelphia Gas Works to a private entity. I don't see the benefit to the population generally. PGW undergirds the City's economy, and the sale will probably threaten the survival actually of the citizenry. Philadelphia must disentangle itself from too-big-to-fail management, and I reference the Dodd-Frank Act. Public sector finance of government has become warfare conducted by other means, forcing the shutdown of schools, the sell-off of property and assets, and the purging of its workers. I ask once again that the City consider the public bank of Philadelphia. It must become a reality. I'd like to thank the City Council members, the President of the Council in advance to vote no on 13022 [sic] and move Wells Fargo to a month-to-month status while the City pursues the creation of the public bank of Philadelphia. Drexel University is hosting the public bank of Philadelphia organization tonight, and I ask that the members attend. Thank you very much.
Kenneth Walker. Kenneth Walker, commenting on 130428. (Witness approached podium.)
Good afternoon. Pastor Kenneth Walker, the First Born Church.
We honor you. We thank Council President and Councilman Jones for enabling us to finally get to the place where we can be relocated at 51st and Merion Street. The First Born Church was uprooted, moved, promised at the Parkside. We were there since 2000, and after 2008 we lost our church under eminent domain actually. And I just want to say that -- thank Councilman Jones for his response to us and helping us to be relocated. I just want to say that it would be really nice if we could all -during these kind of processes under eminent domain, sometimes we have to move out of the district. And so there's no soon to be no collaboration with the other districts when you move or to get a property or something to be relocated. And so we need that help. I sponsor a prayer for a better Philadelphia every Saturday morning from 6:00 to 6:30 a.m. for one half an hour. We pray for a better Philadelphia. And I believe that it would be easier for the churches -- it's a difficult thing for church and state to be able to work together. I don't know why, but we're just saying people vote, and so we need that kind of understanding. We would have to move. We did not want to move from 52nd and Jefferson Street. We had a nice place. It was a wonderful location, but we gave it up for the mall, and it took so long for us to even get to this place in relocation. We going to yet need your support as we go through to finishing this process, because to build we still going to need some more support. And we appreciate all your support. It's been a long journey trying to get back to church as we knew it. So please. Thank you so very much. Help us in the future that we can do the work that God called us to do as a church and as a neighborhood and as a people. Thank you.
Sylana Christopher, commenting on 130225. (Witness approached podium.)
Good morning, President Clarke and City Council audience. My name is Sylana Christopher. I am a Fight for Philly member and a parent of three. (Applause.)
I'm here today to ask City Council why are you guys so quick to award a City contract to Wells Fargo? Council has spent months working on AVI and weeks trying to find enough money for our schools, but it has spent almost no time in consideration giving lucrative City contract to a bank that has directly harmed our city. Wells Fargo is getting a free pass, just like many other big businesses and big banks in Philadelphia, but Wells Fargo -(Applause.)
But Wells Fargo should be paying its fair share as well. Why are we granting a contract to a bank that engaged in risky swap deals with the City and schools, costing millions of dollars that could be funding teachers and supplies? I worry that City Council's commitment is to getting money from regular people as myself, but not enough to make sure that huge profitable banks pay their fair share. Wells Fargo -- (Applause.)
Wells Fargo has taken money from our schools and our children. We are their executive -- why are their executives not here today? They should be arguing their case if they want the City's business, and they should be repaying money that they've taken. Wells Fargo's contract should be continued on good behavior and fair dealings. There's no reason for the City to be frantically looking for money while it gives the banks big pass. So today I rely on City Council to do what is right and help the City of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'm actually growing tired of fake activism. I'm actually growing tired of people who don't realize what hard work has been done over several years. We're not even here today debating about Wells Fargo. The bill is not coming up for a vote. It is an Administration bill because the Administration selected Wells Fargo. When there's an Administration bill that comes before Council to be introduced, it comes through the Council President. The Council President's Office asked me to introduce the bill to make sure that the work that's been done into this process in terms of fair lending, community reinvestment went through the right process. And so essentially I have not just for the last year but the last several years, maybe a decade or more, established model legislation nationally to look at certain issues. So I don't disagree with the issue of whether Wells Fargo and other big banks have done some bad things. I was against big banks before it was popular to be against big banks. The truth of the matter is, I can still be against big banks. What I'm actually dealing with today is the fact that if we don't want to do business with Wells Fargo, then we can consider Councilman Kenney's bill to just take them off the list. I've actually taken banks off the list several times. When I first came to Council, there were 30 depositories. I whittled it down to eight depositories because of the things that people weren't doing. I consistently take people off the list every year. If we want to take them off the list, we can do it. Secondly, this issue came up last year, and I voted against Wells Fargo. And last year I oversaw the process that the City Treasurer's Office went through to make sure there was a fair process, to make sure that people actually looked at the lending disparity studies that were done, to make sure that community reinvestment goals were set, to make sure that fair lending plans were done to address lending disparities that existed within those studies, and to make sure that everything was done fair and square. I don't care who won or who lost, and there's no voting on it today. If someone is sincere about their activism, then what they're looking for is, one, just to remove Wells Fargo as a bank, period, and we'll vote on that, and/or if you care about swaps, then put that in the criteria for how we select our payroll depositories. But to just do something for the sake of activism to draw attention to an issue that's not even necessarily a real issue related to the City itself. When the issue of swaps came up originally, I brought the issue of swaps, because I was working with a Councilman out of Los Angeles, Councilman Alarcon. At that point, SEIU was working on the issues of swaps. Councilman Alarcon amended his legislation modeled after my legislation to take into consideration swaps. So then we examined the swap issue here. We found that it didn't really apply to the City. It applied more to the School District and the Delaware River Port Authority and some other entities. There have been no swap deals done under the Nutter Administration, period. This is an old issue. And I'll be more blunt since someone tried to boo when I said fake activism. I was actually told by some of the organizers around this issue that when it was pushed last year, it was pushed to help President Obama. That's why I didn't speak about it being a fake issue. But I am not going to jeopardize the work that I've done and had people play around this issue of responsible banking. It's a real issue that we will deal with in several different ways. If you want to add the criteria related to swaps, then let's do that. If you want to go after specific banks, let's do that.
But let's protect a system and protect a process that's been set up over years where what we've seen is there are times when -and, in fact, in testimony on this bill, we had someone testify that other banks should be used because they didn't do swaps. One of the banks they cited that should be used was TD Bank. 3 percent of its home mortgages to African Americans. Did the activists know that? No. So let's just call it what it is. People are using an issue to be against big banks in general, but if you want to hold big banks accountable, do the homework to find out how to do it. Let's amend our laws to say let's take swaps into consideration. And if you take swaps into consideration, then let's have a fair competition, and that's that. I don't really care at the end of the day whether it's Wells Fargo or which bank it is. We're not voting on this bill today. We probably won't vote on this bill at least until the end of the session. You can come here every week and say it shouldn't be Wells Fargo. At the end of the day, I might agree with you, but the question is the same as I asked at the hearing, who should it be? Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Councilman. Mr. Decker. No. We don't have a back and forth. You do that at a public hearing. We don't go back and forth. But thank you for your testimony, ma'am.
There are no other speakers on the public comment list, Mr. President.
All right. There being no other individuals here to testify, we will now consider -- Ms. Green, no, it doesn't work like that. You already testified, ma'am.
Ma'am, you already testified. (Ms. Green still talking.)
Ma'am, you already testified. You have three minutes. You should have gotten all those comments in your three minutes. (Ms. Green still talking.)
Well, I'm explaining it to you now. Ms. Green, if you want to testify in your three minutes, you have to testify on the bills at that time. You can't come back and forth.
Ms. Green, all due respect... (Ms. Green still talking.)
We will consider that. We will consider that. (Ms. Green still talking.)
We will consider your request. Thank you. MS. McCORMICK: Excuse me, Councilman. (Ms. McCormick talking.)
Ma'am, you can't -(Ms. McCormick still talking.)
We're not going to let you -(Ms. McCormick still talking.)
Ma'am, we're not going to let you -- I'm telling you, you've testified. You were given your three minutes, and you can come back to the next session of Council, ma'am. (Ms. McCormick still talking.)
Ma'am, we can talk about this after the Council session. We have to proceed with (Ms. McCormick still talking.)
The bill was not on the Calendar, ma'am. It wasn't on the Calendar for today's final passage. (Ms. McCormick and Ms. Green talking.)
We will discuss it later. We have to proceed, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you very much for your cooperation. We will now consider today's Consent Agenda. I will ask Mr. Decker to read the titles of all bills on the Consent Agenda. After each title is read, any member may object to the inclusion of the bill on the Consent Agenda. Upon such an objection and without debate, the bill will be immediately removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on our regular Final Passage Calendar. Mr. Decker will now read the bills on the Consent Agenda.
Bill No. 120821, entitled "An ordinance continuing the Roxborough District, a neighborhood improvement district, beyond its termination date in an area that generally includes both sides of Ridge Avenue from Main Street to 7220 Ridge Avenue and certain blocks of streets that intersect that portion of Ridge Avenue; continuing the designation of the Roxborough Development Corporation as the Neighborhood Improvement District Management Association for the District"; and Bill No. 130250, entitled "An ordinance amending Subcode 'F' of Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, 'The Philadelphia Fire Code,' the base code of which is the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code published by the International Code Council, with certain amendments thereto, by further amending 2009 International Fire Code and the previous Philadelphia amendments"; and Bill No. 130184, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the Fire Department, as the Sponsoring Agency of Pennsylvania Task Force One, of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System, to enter into multi-year agreements with Participating Agencies for the purpose of developing resources for emergency preparedness"; and Bill No. 130305, entitled "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, Morris Street, 15th Street, and Castle Avenue"; and Bill No. 130326, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the Commerce Director and the Commissioner of Public Property to acquire on behalf of the City an approximately 8.606 acre property located on 1070 Tinicum Island Road"; and 130327, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the Commerce Director and the Commissioner of Public Property to acquire on behalf of the City an approximately 5.61 acre property located on Tinicum Island Road"; and Bill No. 130328, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to acquire certain land along the Schuylkill River between 56th Street (as extended to the Schuylkill River) and 58th Street"; and Bill No. 130057, entitled "An ordinance amending Title 6 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled 'Health Code,' by adding a new Chapter providing for the regulation of tanning facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Decker. These bills having been read on two different days, the question for each bill now is shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk shall call the roll, and upon being called, each Councilmember shall each of the bills, nay on each of the bills or indicate those bills for which the member is voting aye and those bills for which the member is voting nay. Mr. Decker.
Aye on all bills. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative for each of the bills, the bills on the Consent Agenda are passed. We will now consider the bills and resolutions on the regular Second Reading and Final Passage Calendar. 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING Mr. Decker, would you please read the title of 130395.
A resolution authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, without consideration, deeds conveying conditional fee simple title to certain City-owned lots or pieces of ground with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the Thirty-Sixth Ward of the City of Philadelphia.
I move for the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING
The ayes have it. 130395 is adopted. Mr. Decker, please read the title of 130422.
A resolution authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, without consideration, deeds conveying conditional fee simple title to certain City-owned lots or pieces of ground with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the Sixth Ward of the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? (Aye.) 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING
The ayes have it. Resolution 130422 is adopted. Mr. Decker, 130423.
A resolution approving the redevelopment contract of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority for the redevelopment and urban renewal of a portion of the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area, identified by house number and street address as 1314 North Twenty-Eighth Street.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING (Aye.)
The ayes have it. 130423 is adopted. Mr. Decker, 130426.
A resolution approving the redevelopment contract of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority for the redevelopment and urban renewal of a portion of the Grays Ferry Urban Renewal Area, identified by house number and street address as 2545 Wharton Street.
I move for the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? (Aye.) 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING
The ayes have it. 130426 is adopted. Mr. Decker, 130428.
A resolution approving the redevelopment contract of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority for the redevelopment and urban renewal of a portion of the West Parkside Urban Renewal Area, identified by house number and street address as 5100 through 5122 Merion Avenue.
Mr. President, I move for the adoption. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? (Aye.)
5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING Those opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it. 130428 is adopted. Mr. Decker, 130433.
A resolution urging the Pennsylvania Senate to adopt a Discharge Resolution on Senate Bill 12, which would require Pennsylvania to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING
The ayes have it. 130433 is adopted. Mr. Decker, 120054.
An ordinance amending Chapter 19-1300 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Real Estate Taxes," by providing for installment payment agreements and requiring commencement of enforcement action.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the amendment, which has been circulated to everybody, and also want to note that Councilmember Sanchez would like to say a word on this bill.
Thank you. Councilwoman, would you like to speak now or prior to the approval of the amendment?
Yes, please. Thank you, Council President 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING Clarke. I want to publicly recognize Sophie Bryan, who is not with us today, from Councilman Green's office, Jennifer Kates, and from your office, John Christmas for their work on this, who along with what I call the social justice legal community, CLS, and others and the Administration, I believe through this amendment -- and hopefully we'd like to publicly request support for this bill next week by our Council colleagues -begins to provide the City with real tools for the discussion and the debate we've been having around AVI and property tax collections. We believe that this bill and through this amendment, we will have one of the best tax collection strategies and tools this city has ever seen. It protects low-income property owners in a very meaningful way by allowing them to have a very predictable process by which they can enter into a payment plan and an agreement so that we can collect those 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING dollars. That carrot is important, but what's most important in this bill is the stick, the stick that allows the City to go after in a very aggressive way investors who believe they can sit on delinquent properties until they're ready to develop. So I want to thank all of the folks involved in what we believe to be a very, very important piece of legislation to move the discussion about collections and delinquent tax collections in the City. The Administration has worked very hard on this with us, and we believe it is beginning to act on its commitment to collect delinquent taxes. So I ask that all my colleagues not only support this amendment but if they have any questions between now and final passage, that they reach out to Councilman Green's office or mine. Thank you.
5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING Thank you. There was a motion on the amendment for 120054. I wasn't sure if there was a second. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor for the amendment? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. Bill No. 120054 has been amended and will be placed on the next reading passage of City Council at our next session of Council. Mr. Decker, I believe we have 130185.
An ordinance authorizing and directing use of the Fiscal Year 2013 General Fund positive fund balance to increase an appropriation 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING for the Fire Department for the undisputed $66,000,000 of the Fire Fighters' contract.
This bill has been read on two separate days. The question is shall the bill pass finally. Mr. Decker, please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 16; the nays are zero. A majority of all members present voting in the affirmative, the bill passes. Mr. Decker, 130244.
An ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2013 from the General Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; the Community Development Fund, the Mayor Office of Housing and Community Development and the Grants Revenue Fund, the Director of Finance - Provision for Other Grants to the General Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions.
This bill has been read on two separate days. The question is shall the bill pass 5/23/13 - STATED - 2ND READING finally. Mr. Decker, call the roll.