COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:18 a.m. - - - - BILLS 030671, 030672, 030681, 030683, 030685, 030687, 030688, 030691, 030693, 030694, 030696, 030697, 030712, 030714, 030715, 030720. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILSON GOODE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 I N D E X BILL 030671 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I................ BILL 030672 PAUL LONIE, Dept. of Streets.......... BILL 030681 6 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. BILL 030683 7 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I................ KEITH DAY............................. 17 8 ABDUL SMITH........................... 26 GEORGE JENKINS........................ 31 9 ETHEL DYSON........................... 34 SHARIF FORD........................... 40 BILL 030685 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept........... 42 BILL 030687 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept........... 43 BILL 030688 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. 45 BILL 030691 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 46 BILL 030692 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 49 BILL 030693 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 50 BILL 030694 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 55 BILL 030696 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. 57 BILL 030697 MARK WASHINGTON, Streets Dept......... 58 BILL 030712 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 59 BILL 030714 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. 62 BILL 030715 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept........... 92 BILL 030720 GREG JAMES, Overbrook Farms East Residents Association. ............. 94 JUANITA DANIELS....................... 95 ROBERT SKOMORUCHA, St. Joseph's....... 96 3 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030671
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing on the Committee of streets and services. We have a quorum. In attendance are Councilmembers Donna Reed Miller, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Goode and Councilman Clarke, myself, Councilman DiCicco; I'm the Chair of this Committee. The Clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 030671, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales by restricting the prohibition of sidewalk sales on that portion of the south side of 900 West Nedro Avenue beginning and extending east from the south side of 1000 West Nedro Avenue for a distance of 77 feet, 10 feet from the curb.
Good morning, Mr. Haigler. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee. I am 4 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030671 Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 030671, which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales on portions of the south side of the 900 block of West Nedro Avenue and the south side of 1000 West Nedro Avenue block. The Department offers no objections to the enactment of Bill 030671 and is prepared to enforce provisions of this bill 13 should Council vote for it's passage and the Mayor signs it into law. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Are you aware of an amendment that's being offered by the sponsor of the bill?
Maybe for the purpose of moving this hearing along, we can read those amendments into the record and then we'll have them for the public meeting. 5 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030672
The amendments to 030671 under 9-2058 Subsection P, Subsection .354, it is added "and on the south side of the West Nedro Avenue from 10th Street to a point 75 feet east from Street. 7
Thank you, Mr. 8 Haigler. 9 Any questions from this witness from 10 the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the of next bill.
Bill No. 030672, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance, Bill No. 010268, approved August 31, 2001, entitled an ordinance authorizing the vacating of River Road from a point approximately 10 feet southwest of the Philadelphia and Montgomery County line, northeastwardly to 6 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030672 Philadelphia AND Montgomery County line, as amended.
Goon morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. And the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030672. This is a Councilmanic ordinance 11 requested by Councilman Michael Nutter. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time to authorize the Board of Surveyors to legally close a portion of the street. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, 7 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030681 the Clerk read the title of the next bill.
Anyone who's here who wishes to testify on any of one of these bills, after the bill has been read and the testimony from the various it City agencies has been entered into the record, you're then permitted to come to the witness table and testify as well. Anyone. It's a public hearing. Thank you.
Bill No. 030681, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 24-S by placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for gas main purposes within the lines of former Morris Street from 30th Street to 31st Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager 8 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 for the Department of Streets. And the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030681. This is an Administration ordinance 6 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to create a right-of-way for the benefit of the Philadelphia gas works in the bed of former Morris Street which was stricken and vacated by the Board of Surveyors. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030683, an 9 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales to permit sidewalk sales on Germantown Avenue between York street and Butler street if the vendor inclusively sells goods that are different in kind from those sold by owners or tenants on the abutting property, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Good day, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 18 030683 which, if enacted, will permit sidewalk sales on Germantown Avenue between York Street and Butler Street if the vendor exclusively sells goods that are different in kind from those sold by owners or tenants on the abutting property, under certain terms and conditions. The Department offers no objections 10 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 to enactment of Bill 030683 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill should Council vote for its passage and the Mayor sign it into law. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Haigler, could you please describe the process for enforcement? It's nice that we enact these things, but in the event a merchant starts selling something that does compete with the store owner, how quickly is L&I prepared -- and I'd like a commitment. How quickly is L&I prepared to respond to complaint that a merchant may have.
That complaint would have to be made to the Department by the merchant. We would take that complaint, as we 11 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 would take any other complaint take in, it would be entered into our computer system and then it would be routed to our inspectional unit. Our Inspectional Unit will register or schedule that complaint to go out for investigation to see whether or not the complaint is justified or not. The inspectors would go out, inspect that situation. If the complaint is justified, they would take the appropriate action citing the violator for violating the Code or violating this section of the Code and, if necessary, go further with any other enforcement action.
Could you give me an expectation on the turn-around? A Friday afternoon, a wallet store has a vendor selling wallets out in the front of that store. How quickly is L&I's inspector going to be there to verify that?
I really can't give you a definitive pinpointed time as to how that will take place. I understand that if the complaint were called in and if our 12 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Business Compliance Unit was notified of this, we could act on it immediately if necessary. If necessary, we could send an inspector out immediately to take a look at that.
For the record, what would -- maybe you can come back to the record. I need to know that we're protecting the businesses and what kind of response we can expect L&I to provide a business in the event that there is an inquiry.
I can certainly discuss this with our Deputy Commissioner over our Business Regulatory Enforcement Unit to try to pin down exactly what their response would be. That would be Deputy Commissioner Verdi. I can certainly talk to him about this.
Yes. 13 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Good morning, Mr. Haigler. What about the reverse? Because I know that when we were doing the vendors bill in Germantown, one of the issues that we had to deal with was that vendors would be selling something and the merchant would then start to sell it, too. And, you know, in a sense it works both ways. Has that ever been worked out? It's been years since I worked on that in Germantown.
I'm aware of that situation. But the way this bill is crafted, it indicates that if somebody is already been given a license to sell there, then they can't sell something that's the same as what's being sold in the store. I think probably what might be needed is some sort of grandfathering for people who are already there. I don't know.
We can talk about that later, but that is an issue. I do know it's an issue.
I can't speak to Germantown Avenue issue, but we're able to do this in this particular bill because there 14 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 currently technically is no vending allowed, so in crafting the authorization to vend, we put that caveat in there that if there's a property owner, a building owner whose primary sales is a particular item, say sneakers as an example, that the vendor could not vend if that was their primary sales item in front of that property owner store, and they would have a couple stores down. And that was the biggest complaint that we got from the business owners. But we also wanted to take into account that we wanted to make sure that vendors had an opportunity to make a living, so we felt that that was reasonable compromise authorizing them to vend but not necessarily in front of the store that had a like product. But that's because we did not have --
Well, that's the same way it was in Germantown. And then we put together an ordinance to permit 15 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 vending. But that is one of the issues that kept coming up. I just know it can be an issue.
That was one of the primary issues of the store owners. And I met with the vendors a couple of months ago to talk about some of the issues relating to the operational functions of the vending, and we came to an agreement -- the vendors actually met the elected leadership and I talked to the business owners and the leadership there, and we thought we crafted what was a reasonable compromise. Subsequently, the Department of Licenses and Inspections will then work with venders on a regulatory fashion, not needing legislation but to talk about the operation of the vendors on that particular corridor. But what we wanted to do was get people legalized and get them legalized in a way that it wouldn't create problems for the store owners.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to follow-up. 16 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683
I'd like to follow up with Mr. Haigler. Mr. Haigler, is there any proactive response from the Business Compliance Unit. In other words, what I'm trying to say is rather than have a merchant physically call to complain, does Business Compliance ever visit these locations proactively to make sure that they're in compliance.
Yes, they do. They do periodic program inspections. They do periodic inspections of certain areas of the City. If they're there for some other reason, if they notice that there is a violation, say, if they're there at a business for some other reason, another license purpose, they notice that there is a violation, they can pick that violation up as well.
Thank you. Any further questions from any other 17 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)
Anyone who wishes to testify for or against this bill? If this is the bill you're interested in, now is the time to approach the witness table. Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I was wondering as far as the store owners as they have L&I to represent them, do we have like a person that can come and speak for the merchants' behalf on laws and things that we don't understand?
I'll yield in a minute to the sponsor of the bill, Darrell Clarke, who is your Councilperson. But I would think that if you needed some education, 18 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 if you will, in the area of vending that the Department of L&I -- Mr. Haigler is shaking his head in the affirmative -- would be more than willing to come out and talk to you about what you can and cannot do, what you're permitted to sell, what you're not permitted to sell. And I would request that through your Councilman, Darrell Clarke.
If I had a problem, I would get with Darrell Clarke, the councilman.
You would call him an arrange for a meeting with the Department of L&I.
Okay. Thank you. I understand that they're letting us vend on a place where they said wasn't no 18 vending allowing, which is appreciated but when it says a merchant can't sell the same product as another store owner, but is it permissible for that store owner once he knows you're selling this certain thing, can he sell it now?
I think that was the question that was asked by 19 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Councilwoman Miller of Mr. Haigler. Would you like to hear that answer again?
Actually, your question sounded a little different. You said that if a vender is selling a product, right? And he has a location and then all of a sudden the store owner decides to sell the same product?
As far as I'm concerned, that vendor who has been given that location -- those locations will be given out once you sit down with the Department License and Inspections. That vendor, if that's the primary product, he will not be asked to moved if the store owner all of a sudden decides to sell a different product. But is your question, is the store 20 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 owner prohibited from selling what the vendor is selling?
No. I was just wondering would it fall into conflict under the rules that --
No. If you're selling a product and we agree that you're selling a primary product, whatever it may be. And you're not in competition with the primary store of that store owner. If three weeks out that store owner decides to sell what you're selling, you will not be required to move nor will you be required to change your product. Once it's determined what your primary product is, my understanding working with L&I that would be the --
Councilman, I would ask maybe if that could be possibly indicated in the ordinance, because I don't believe that's basically what it states in the ordinance. It basically states that if the vendor is selling something that's exclusively the same in kind as what the store owner is selling. It doesn't say whether or not the 21 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 store owner sold it first or the vendor sold it first. So I think you probably need to clarify that in the ordinance for clarity purposes.
Okay. Before we get into the public meeting, we will hopefully sit down and craft an amendment that clarifies that specifically. And at the time of the public meeting, we'll amend that to reflect that so it's clear as it relates to the primary product of both the vendor and the store owner.
It's bit ambiguous the way it's written. Any other questions from this Committee? Councilwoman Miller
See, I think that it's important that we keep our store owners, but we also keep our vendors. And vending is a legitimate way to earn a living and support a family. But I know that we had the same kind of circumstance in Germantown where vendors were selling a product different 22 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 from the store owner, and then the store owner decided to sell the same product. And that can just cause a lot of trouble. So I agree maybe it is good to put it in the ordinance 6 because the situation is just going to continue to come up over and over again when vending is permitted.
I'm still struggling with this. I just want to make sure when I leave this hearing I understand. We are now limiting a store owner? In the event I'm vendor and I sell XYZ, you're telling me that the store owner can't sell XYZ?
No, the store owner can. It will not remove the vendor. If I'm a store owner and I sell products -- I'm a vendor, and I sell handbags and store owner doesn't sell handbags but at some point in time decides to sell handbags, that will not exclude the vendor from selling handbags even though the way the ordinance written it says 23 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 you can't same products of the store. It's who was there first, I mean, what came first? Kind of like the chicken and the egg thing.
Who's going to manage this? It sounds to me like a management nightmare. What are we going to do, take photographs of the vendor when he starts handbags to set up a time line. It sounds to me like L&I is not equipped enforce this.
I think what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to, again, meet with the vendors, meet with the Councilman. The vendors may have to identify exactly what they are selling and they may be held to what they are selling at the time that they're licensed. And at that point, they won't be able to change any items that they sell. Once they've been given their locations as to where they are vend, then they're going to be held to vend whatever those items are that they agreed to.
And there should also be a process for them add to that list. 24 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 There should be a way that if they decide some new widget becomes available and they choose to sell it, that there should be a process where they can add that to their inventory. I don't think that they should be limited to six items for the rest of their vending career.
The only time when that will come into play, if that vendor makes a determination that they want to sell a product that's the same as the primary product of the store owner. So we're not limiting the vendor to the product that they're selling at that particular time of the designation of their location. The only issue when this comes into play is if that vendor decides, "Well, I want to sell the same thing as the store owner that I'm in front of, that I abut." But other than that, the vendor has the option to change his product any way that they are comfortable with doing that. But we'll specify via an amendment to make sure that it is clear as it relates to the product and the timing the products. And once that location is selected, that vendor determines 25 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 determines what product their will be, will be grandfathered in.
And I was wondering, as us being street vendors, we have to get a license to set up. Is L&I only for the store owners or they're for vendors? Because we have a license, too. What would L&i job fall in line with that? Can we call them if we have a complaint?
I can answer that exclusively. We're not for anybody. We're a regulatory that enforces the laws of the land equally; vendors, store owners. We enforce laws that are enacted. We're not for any particular group or organization or particular business operation. We're just a regulatory enforcement agency that enforces the laws of the City of Philadelphia.
So if I had a complaint about a store having loud music, could I call L&I?
Absolutely. Any 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 citizens of the City of Philadelphia can call the Department of Licenses and Inspections to register any complaint to have an inspection done for any violation of the City Code.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Abdul Smith. The question I had was concerning L&I about the laws they have presently concerning vendors as far as like if you can by a license to vend, a sidewalk vendors license and then you need more space for your vending stand -- because they give you an 8 by 4. But if you need more space, they say, "Okay, you can buy another license." But if you by another license and your name is the name on the license that you presently have and the license that you're going to buy, then you have to move to another block. You can't sell on the same block. 27 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 That's very -- you're not going to be able do what you were trying to do, which trying to make a stand that holds more items because now you have to separate your other stand totally to a whole other block. They say if you need to try to have a location that's closer to the location you already have established, then you can use someone else's name to try to get that other spot and then you can move 30 feet from the spot that you already have. This is a vendor's nightmare because the vendors don't have the ability to try to structure anything that they need to make a little bigger area, to make the area more presentable. When you're dealing with a 8 by 4 and you have a lot of merchandize, you're making the streets look raggedy, you're making the area look like it's just something thrown together. So if we could have bigger areas --
Yeah, for sure. I mean, we're paying -- not to say the amount of money 28 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 is what I'm saying, but we're paying $500 for every new license. But for every new license we buy, whether it be business privilege license and sidewalk sales license, then we have to move 30 feet from -- it's hard to monitor that kind of activity.
I think that the reason that the limit on the 4 by 8 and the space between the stands was to allow for some other pedestrian movement on the sidewalk so that you don't have kind of a non-break in the stands where people will not be able to either get out of their car, get onto the sidewalk or cross the street. It's not a perfect situation, I understand. But given the experience, I think, that L&I has had over the years with vendors, this is the best that they can come up with at this time. As an example in your case, if you were allowed to continue to add on to the existing stand, where do you draw the line?
No, no, no. It would be a lawn drawn. We wouldn't say we can get 15 licenses and just stretch it all the way out. 29 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 If you're saying 2 or 3, and then even if you need breaks in between so that the people could get out of their car, so forth like this, I could see you saying 5 feet apart, 10 feet apart so that you have breaks, like if a car door opens and needs to get in and out like this. But you're making it real difficult tax-wise because now we have to have different people to go get a license. So now we figure out how we're going to do it tax-wise to say this person sold this, this person sold that, and it's all one business.
Well, I appreciate your comments. Not being disrespectful, it really is not germane to the issue at hand with this bill. I think this is a matter that we might want to talk about going forward because I have many vendors in my district and we always have that continual back-and-forth as to where should they set up, are they exceeding the amount of space, they want to expand. That's a subject, I think, in a hearing for another time. Again, not that your comments are not important, but it 30 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 doesn't reflect what this bill is all about. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we discussed when I met with the vendors is that they form an association, formalize their organization and it would be better in terms of our ability to interact with any changes in legislation, both the Councilmembers and also the Department of Licenses and Inspections so we can have that formalized discussion and talk about problems associated, not only with this particular bill 14 or this particular location, but just in general. So I, again, encourage the vendors to formalize and sit down with us and have that discussion about other issues other than this.
There actually is a vendors association that exists. I hear from them from time to time when I do something that they're not happy with. But there is association. I don't know the name of it off the top of my head other than vendors association. You can, obviously, form 31 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 your own if you'd like for your particular community, but there is a more broader city-wide organization that exists today. Please identify for yourself for the record.
George Jenkins. And I just had a question to reiterate about the personalized items. Who's going to go out to the stores? Let's say the store owner sells sneaks and sweat suits and caps. Who's going to determine what is personalized item is? Or would he be able to say, "I got four different personalized items or primary items. You can't sell this. I'm selling four different primary items. These are all my primary items. " You're saying there's only going to be one?
And who will be able to go to the stores and document the store's primary item? If it's one, who will be in charge of doing that and in what kind of timely fashion will that get done? 32 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683
I would say that the Department would, again, meet with -- we need to meet sit down, we need to meet, we need to go over the logistics of all of this. I hear a lot of things right now that we need to talk about. We are open and available to sit down and meet with the vendors, as well as the Councilperson, to go over the logistics of how this will be set up. That's all I can really commit to at this present time, that we will sit down and go over the complete logistics of how this is going to work out.
Because I had a store owner tell me he sold sneaks, he sold sweat suits. Okay, I had sweat suits. He's telling me, "Listen, you selling sneaks and sweat suits. I got sneaks and sweat suits." So he's telling me basically I can't sell whatever he's selling. And if he has one primary item, say he sells sneaks, then from what I understand, I can come along and sell sweat suits and caps, too, and it shouldn't be 33 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 a problem. But from the store owners point of view, that's a problem. So I'm just puzzled in my mind, who's going to organize and put this thing together? Because it sounds like this is bananas.
You can't have but one primary -- the ordinance says "the primary item." You can't have more than one primary item. So they have to determine, working with the Licenses and Inspections, what their primary item is. That's it. Then that vendor will, based on their primary item -- because you will also be asked to determine what your primary item is and that will then determine the location as it relates to abutting on property owners that sell the primary item. Once they make that determination, that's it. Like I said earlier, they can't just decide, "Okay, well this guy out here is selling sneakers, he's 34 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 doing pretty good. I'm going to start selling sneakers here and then make you move." That's not going to happen. Once that determination is made, that's it. Unless there are any changes in the ordinance. But I doubt that that will happen. Okay?
Good morning, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Ethel Dyson. I just wanted to get back to the issue that brought us here. Are they ever going to -- as far as we prohibited to vend there, is it ever going to when we are not prohibited to vend there? Or is going to be like every so often they're going to ordain us and tell us we have to move or --
No. That's why I'm doing the ordinance, to authorize you to be at those locations. Because in the past, it was a thing where we just kind of looked the other way. It was illegal to vend. 35 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683
And then every now and then, the Department of Licenses and Inspections would go on the scene based on a complaint from a store owner or somebody else and basically issue some violation that you were in violation of the law that was passed, what, years ago. I'm not even sure when 11 the original prohibition was put in place. 12
That's actually what I was going to ask L&I to explain just the history of the law that we've gone through before in Streets and Services hearings. The fact that the way the law was crafted was that vending and sidewalk sales were basically prohibited everywhere. And then you actually had to create a new law to allow it wherever you're going to allow it. And so what Councilman Clarke has done is actually say 36 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 that we're going to allow it here. So once that becomes law, it is the law. But when the law was originally written, it basically just prohibited sidewalk sales and vending everywhere. But if L&I just actually just elaborate on the history of the law and how it actually originated.
I really can't. I think you did a great job. I will defer to the Councilperson.
That's basically our main issue. We're talking about what you're going to sell and this and that, but the main issue is if we're not there to sell it --
What happened historically when the law originally crafted was it was disallowed everywhere. And so basically District Councilpeople would have to decide where it's going to be allowed. In this case, Councilman Clarke has decided that it will be allowed there under these provisions. So once that becomes law, it's disallowed everywhere except District Councilpeople have come back and decided to 37 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 allow it.
Once it's law, it's law. And then that's when it becomes under the regulation of L&I.
We will designate you an assigned location. Once this becomes law, we will set up the process to designate an area for you vend within that boundary area.
I just want to make a comment that you have to make sure that you're legal. Make sure you have your license and all that. When we did the vending law in 38 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Germantown, I think at one point we had about 105 -- we had 90-something, we had lots and lots of vendors and it ended being 55 slots. But there were a tremendous amount of the vendors that were there prior to it becoming legal that was not licensed. So you've got to go get your license and you have to make sure that you are right.
I think that's a good point. If I can just add from my personal experience in my district on South Broad Street. Several years ago, we had a serious problem with the vendors. There's always this contention between the vendors and business owners. And everybody does have rights, and we all want to see people have the opportunity to earn a decent and legal, fair living. But after two and a half years of many, many hours of my time trying to work out an arrangement with the vendors, unfortunately, the vendors in my district at that time did just not want to cooperate. There are rules and regulations for everyone. There are rules and regulations for the store 39 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 owners, and there are rules and regulations for the vendors as well. You're not supposed to selling anything out of a car, a truck parked next to there. I mean, the vendors on South Broad Street were hanging a lot of their merchandise on the parking meters, continually feeding the meters. We can make all the reasons and all the excuses why that's necessary, but there are rules and regulations. And I suspect with this legislation and the amendments that will be attached to it, if everyone follows the rules and does their part, think both the business, folks the storefront owners, and the vendors can all do well and live in harmony and be able to operate under the best circumstances, because I think you do offer the citizens an opportunity for different kinds of products to be able to shop. So there's a lot of different things that people come out there for, and it actually could be healthy to business. But everyone has a certain set of rules. Yours are no greater or lesser than the store owner. And if you follow the rules, 40 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 I think it will be a wonderful thing for everyone. What happened in my case, they just didn't follow the rules. And after two and a half years, which was a considerable amount of time, I just threw my hands up and we made it a restricted area and there's no longer any vending. Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Sharif Ford. And my question is regarding the designated areas. Now, once the law -- if the law it passed about the designated areas, who and what is going to determine where and what designated area each vendor will be? If you're going to be like a licensed vendor, it's just going to be based on seniority, based upon who was there, who had the license and all? What's going to be the regulations to decide how these areas will be designated?
We will sit down and discuss that again. That's part of the logistics after the law is passed, and we'll 41 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030685 have to sit down, meet with the Councilperson, as well as the Vending Association to go over just how that process is going to work out. I can't tell you what the process is now because I don't know it myself. It has been to be worked out. It has to formulated after the law is passed. That's what usually happens. After law is passed, we have to sit down and work out the process as to how we're going to enforce it.
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030685, an ordinance granting permission to Sally Ferry, owner of Sprig's Restaurant, tenant of the property located 3649-51 Midvale Avenue to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe 42 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030685 on the west footway of Midvale Avenue, north of Ridge Avenue, adjacent to 3749-51 Midvale Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz, and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 10 030685 on behalf of the Streets Department: This bill grants permission to Sally Ferry, owner of Sprig's Restaurant, tenant of the property 3749-51 Midvale Avenue to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the west footway of Midvale Avenue adjacent to this property. Eight tables are proposed. No 17 rails will be used. A minimum of 12 foot clear width will be maintained for pedestrians. The Streets Department has reviewed the cafe plan and has no objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) 43 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030687
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030687, an ordinance granting permission to Sandra Davis, owner of Hidden River Cafe, tenant of the property located at 3572 Indian Queen Lane, to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the north footway of Krail Street at the northeast corner of Krail Street and Indian Queen Lane, adjacent to 3572 Indian Queen Lane, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 23 030687 on behalf of the Streets Department: This bill grants permission to Sandra Davis, owner of Hidden River Cafe, 44 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030688 tenant tenth of the property 3572 Indian Queen Lane to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the northeast corner of Krail Street and Indian Queen Lane adjacent to the property. Four tables are proposed for the north footway of Krail Street. No rails will be used. A minimum of eight feet clear width will be maintained for pedestrians. The Streets Department has reviewed the cafe plan and has no objections to the passage of the bill.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030688, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 163 45 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030688 by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a portion of a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and gas main purposes and by placing on the City Plan three additional areas of right-of-way for gas main purposes in the vicinity of Ridge Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard Extension, under certain terms and conditions
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department would offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030688: This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. H. James Tullet (ph) of Winter Investment, Incorporated, Suite 3101 Houston, Texas. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally realign and extend the existing right-of-way to allow for expansion and improvements on this site. The ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable 46 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030691 action.
Any questions from this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030691, an ordinance authorizing the construction of sanitary sewer and appurtenant work in portions of Westview Street, Spring Bank Street, Kitchens Lane, Wissahickon Avenue, in an existing drainage right-of-way in former Park Line Road, and in proposed drainage right-of-way through 1027 Westview Street and from 1027 Westview through Fairmount Park to Kitchen's Lane.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul McClosky, I'm with the 47 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030691 Philadelphia Water Department. In regard to this bill, it was introduced on October 23rd by Councilman Nutter by request. The Water Department submits the following testimony: This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct sanitary sewers in Westview Wissahickon area of the City. The area is bounded by Wissahickon Avenue, Kith chen's Lane, Fairmount Park, and former Park Line Road. The area consist of approximately 37 single family dwellings in the Westmount area section of the City. The properties are currently being serviced by individual cesspools for each property. The systems have out-lived their usefulness and require a total replacement. However, it is doubtful in our current Commonwealth regulations that the systems will be allowed to be rebuilt. The malfunctioning of the septic systems have created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact the residents are serviced by public water, the residents have requested a public sewer. An assessment shall be levied against 48 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030692 the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction that the residents shall be required to connect to the new sewer at their cost in accordance City Code. We recommend that the bill be favorably be reported out of Committee and request a suspension of the Rules in light of the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030692, an ordinance authorizing the Water Commissioner on behalf of the City to enter into an agreement with the owner of 1027 Westview 49 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030692 Street for the grant of a right-of-way to the City for drainage and sewer purposes through the property from Westview Street to Fairmount Park property, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Again, my name is Paul McClosky. I'm with the City Philadelphia Water Department. This bill is was introduced by Councilman Nutter by request by the Water Department on October 23, 2003. It authorizes the Water Department to enter into an agreement with the owner of 1027 Westview Street. The area is bound by Wissahickon, Kitchen's Lane, Fairmount Park and Parkline Road in the Mount Airy section of the City. It serviced by individual on-site cesspools. The cesspools are beginning to fail and the property owners are requesting public sewers. The natural drain is a portion of the area is through the southern undeveloped area of 1027 Westview. The owner of the property has agreed to grant the City a right-of-way through his property from Westview to 50 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 Fairmount Park in order to accommodate the proposed sewer system for the area. We recommend a favorable report out of Committee and request a suspension of Rules in light of the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 18 030693, an ordinance authorizing the construction of sanitary sewer and appurtenant work in portions of Dearnley Street, Flamingo Street, Wigard Street, Fowler Street, Manti Street, Culp Street, Newland Street, Lawn Street, Shaw Street, Edsall Street, Oriole Street, Pawling Street and Hillside Street.
Good morning, Mr. 51 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul McClosky, I'm with the Philadelphia Water Department. The Water Department submits the following testimony: This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct sanitary sewers in the Dearnley Park area of the City. The area is bounded by Dearnley Street, Wigard Street, Silverwood Street and Hillside Street. The area consists of approximately 135 single family dwellings in the Roxborough section of the City. The properties are currently being serviced by cesspools for each property. The on-site systems have out-lived their usefulness and require a total replacement. However, it is doubtful under current Commonwealth regulations the systems will be allowed to be rebuilt. The malfunctioning of the septic systems have created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact that the residents are serviced by public water, the residents have requested a public sewer. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has also requested the City to 52 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 provide a plan to resolve the sanitary issues in this area. An assessment shall be levied against the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction, and the residents shall be required to connect the new sewer at their cost in accordance with City Code. We recommend that the bull be favorably be reported out of Committee and request a suspension of the Rules in light in the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Councilman Rizzo.
I just have a quick question, a spin-off of the issues that we're discussing today. You know I've talked to you in the past about the big picture, city-wide about the on-site systems. And I 53 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 understand there's close to 3,000 of them throughout.
I don't know if it's that high, but there is a large number.
I would hope the Water Department has a big picture plan to address the entire City to eventually deal with the systems throughout the City, because I'm telling you that when out walking that you can tell when you've walked passed a property that's got an on-site system. So I would hope that there would be some big picture plan to look at the City city-wide to start developing an engineering plan to eventually connect all of the sites that are possibly able to be hooked up to City sewerage. And it's revenue also, plus the health consideration. You see Hepatitis A killing people. I think that it's something that we really need to take seriously. And I know it died on the vine 54 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 when I asked about it before, but I would like you to look at that City-wide to see what we can do to at least look at it and what the obstacles are to eventually hook up all of the on-site systems to public sewerage.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 030694, an ordinance authorizing the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City, to enter into an agreement with the owner of the property at 201 through 229 Shawmont avenue for the grant of a right-of-way to the City for drainage and sewer purposes through the property from 55 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 Umbria Street to Hillside Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul McClosky. I'm representing the Water Department. This bill was introduced on October 23rd by request by Councilman Nutter. The bill authorizes the acceptance of a right-of-way for drainage and sewer purposes for the proposed Glen at Manayunk APARTMENT development located at 201 through 299 Shawmont Avenue. The developer proposes to construct a sanitary sewer for his complex in a zig-zag direction up the side of a 100 foot hill from Umbria to Hillside Street south of Shawmont Avenue. The area east of Hillside is Dearnley Park. Dearnley Park has approximately 137 single family houses and are serviced by individual on-site cesspools. The cesspools have failed and a comprehensive public sewer system is required to support the houses in the area. The natural draining of the area is 56 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 through the Glen at Manayunk. The developer of the apartment complex has agreed to build a sewer for the complex at his expense, the City standards. He will then grant the City a right-of-way for sewer and drainage purposes for a new sewer. The City will assume ownership and maintenance of the apartment complex's sewer which will be the much needed sewer system for Dearnley Park area made possible. We recommend that the bill be favorably reported out of Committee and also request suspension of the Rules in light of the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next 57 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030696 bill.
Bill NO. 030696, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Reese Street from Bainbridge Street to Kater Street and reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes and gas main purposes within the bed of Reese Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, and the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030696. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance 19 requested Carlos Asher of Carlos Carpet Service, 515 Bainbridge Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to strike and vacate Reese Street from the City Plan to secure the area and prevent short dumping. This ordinance is supported by the 58 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030697 Department of Streets and is recommended to Committee for favorable action. Economic.
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030697, an ordinance establishing a no parking regulation on Red Lion Road between Norcom Road and Roosevelt Boulevard, both sides.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Mark Washington and I'm the District Traffic Engineer for the Northeast section of the City. I am here today to offer testimony on Bill 030697, a bill establishing a no 25 parking regulation in a tow away zone on both 59 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030712 sides of Red Lion between Norcom Road and Roosevelt Boulevard. The Streets Department has no 5 objections to this bill. We are posting the no parking anytime tow away zone signs under a trial ordinance. We can have the signs posted within four weeks.
Thank you, sir. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030712, an ordinance authorizing the construction of a sewer and appurtenant work, required to alleviate unsanitary conditions, in a portion of McCallum Street.
Good morning. Again, 60 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030712 my name is Paul McClosky. I represent the Water Department, City of Philadelphia, in regards to Bill 030712, this bill was introduced by Councilwoman Miller on October 30th of this year. This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct a sanitary sewer on McCallum Street from Lincoln Drive to Westview Avenue. This block consists of three single family dwellings in West Mount Airy section of the City. The properties are currently being serviced by private sewer. The sewer has out-lived its usefulness and require a total replacement. This area of the sewer has created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact the residents are serviced by public water, the residents have requested a public sewer. Assessments shall be levied against the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction and the residents shall be required to connect to the new sewer at their cost in accordance with Philadelphia Code. I recommend the bill be favorably 61 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 reported out of committee and also request a suspension of the rules in light in the pending recess of Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee. (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030714, an ordinance amending Section 11-505 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Paving and Other Improvements By Property Owners," by revising the process governing the grading, paving, repaving or repair of sidewalks and the setting or resetting of curbs, and by revising the assessment of property owners for the cost of such work, all under certain terms and conditions. 62 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name, again, is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager for the Department of Streets. And the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030714. The blight and decay of broken sidewalks has plagued the City of Philadelphia for many years. A majority of these dangerous cracks and undulations are caused by age or the roots of street trees. Many attempts have been made to remedy this problem, but none recently. The two major challenges that will hamper this effort are the enforcement of the Pennsylvania laws that make the property owner totally responsible for any repairs to the sidewalk and Fairmount requirements that healthy street trees be maintained, not destroyed or damaged. In order to appreciate the enormous scope of this problem and the challenge that it presents, it is important to highlight certain facts and statistics and understand how this impacts the problem at hand. Please 63 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 note the following numbers are only an estimate based on computer mapping. We have 2300 miles of streets in the City. Lining these streets are approximately 4557 acres of sidewalk. The City sidewalks are made up of an estimated 22,154,325 square blocks of concrete. It costs approximately $50 per square block to repair a sidewalk. Using these numbers as a base of calculations, we estimate that a 5 percent of the City's sidewalks need to be replaced. It will cost $55,385,814. Under the proposed legislation, the City would be expected to pick up $38,770,069 in direct funding. Finding a source for the substantial funding burden, almost $39 million, will be extremely difficult in this challenging economic time. In the past, community development block grant funds have been used for streetscape improvements. But this source of funding is at the present no longer available for this purpose. We have also been told that we may not use departmental dollars for this type of 64 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 effort even if it is allocated. In addition to overwhelming cost, proposed legislation also presents other challenges. Presently, the City does not have the number of employees necessary to patrol uniformly the various sidewalks of the City. If we relied on complaints about these problems, unfair enforcement of this effort may result. Further, the legislation leaves out some important guidelines for implementing this effort in a fair and evenhanded manner. For example, it is important to ask whether a property in an area of this City with a great deal of street trees should be eligible for a 70 percent reduction in the cost of repairs subsidized by all the taxpayers of Philadelphia, including those that me live in high-rise condominium or something else that have no street trees at all. Also, should all citizens be eligible for the same amount of government assistance regardless of income? While it is not productive to engage in an analysis of a dollar-per-dollar value of 65 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 taxes paid versus City services received, it is our duty to examine the most responsible way to manage the issues facing the City and determine if a proposed change is the most prudent thing to do. For these reasons, the Department of Streets feels Bill No. 030714 is premature without following questions answered: Can a solid, reliable funding source be identified? Can the issues of caring for street trees pursuant to Fairmount Park guidelines be addressed in a simple and efficient manner? And have neighborhood guidelines been established to prevent abuse of the program? Until these crucial questions are answered, the Streets Department cannot support the proposed legislation.
However, we would be glad to work with Members of this Committee to examine the issues and the questions it presents in the hope that a positive and practical solution can be developed that helps those citizens faced with 66 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 a challenge of damaged sidewalks. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This concludes my formal question. I will now be glad to answer any questions.
Thank you, Councilman DiCicco. I appreciate it. Good morning, Mr. Lonie. How are you?
Thank you for your testimony. Just a couple items. First, let me again say thank you to you for your ongoing efforts to serve the City and work with us on issues like the retaining wall problem throughout the City and the pilot program that we now have going, the work that's being done and specifically a longstanding problem in my own district that I know you're aware of and, I don't know, I guess they're about 50, 60 percent maybe more complete. 67 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714
Hopefully, we'll be finished that project by the end of next week.
And I mention that to you, I guess, in the context that -- I mean I worked on, and many other Members of Council certainly before me, but I started on that particular project and the need to have a program in place to deal with that issue about a month after I got here in 1992. Eleven years or so later, we're actually finally doing something on it, because it is a massive problem, it is a very costly problem, but we overcame a whole host of challenges and now the citizens of the City are starting to see some of the benefit, not in the 4th District, but presently in the 8th and the 9th Council Districts. I think the Streets Department is planning to do even more in the next fiscal year. So that's first. Second, I think literally just yesterday a different department of the government where this Council is very interested in and other significant cost the taxpayers have been required to bear which is 68 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 dealing with the whole sewer lateral situation throughout the City. And the Water Department is working closely with us and the sponsor of that particular bill to make sure that citizens have some relief in that regard. Some of this, as you mentioned, the 2300 miles of street and the 4500 or so acres of sidewalk and million square blocks of 10 concrete are certainly massive if not 11 mind-boggling numbers, the $50 per square 12 block to repair the sidewalk and on and on. 13 Again, I think from your own experience, you 14 would recognize that is there were significant 15 financial numbers presented again when we 16 talked about the retaining wall problem. But 17 through your efforts and research and 18 technology changes, I think you've even 19 demonstrated the ability to significantly cut 20 the cost in that have particular area. 21 Lastly, I think your testimony, 22 which I just received a copy of, talks about if 5 percent of the City sidewalks need to replace, it would cost some astronomical number. I think we don't know at the moment 69 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 how many of the sidewalks would need to be replaced or how many people would make the request. What we do know is that there is a significant problem out in our City. I don't think you would deny that. And if some of our citizens bear that that financial expense, they probably would; some others cannot; some others will not. But just as we take care of the 2300 miles of streets in the City because we repave them on a fairly regular basis throughout the City without regard to whether it's in front of a lower income person's house or higher income person's house, we provide a certain level of service. So I'm not saying that we should go out and massively start taking over all the sidewalks in the City. We obviously have to do a fair amount of evaluation. But again, as I learned from you from the past, when we did the retaining wall project, the first effort was to put forward a bill that talked about how much people would pay. And that's all we did. And subsequently through other pieces of legislation and the identification of funding sources and the 70 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 like, we actually came up with a program. We're going through the same process. Presently, as you know, from the Philadelphia Code, taxpayers are required a hundred percent. And in most instances they don't and sidewalks continue to be a danger to everyone on the block, not just the individual homeowners in front of whose house the danger exists. Certainly, trees are another big issue. The Fairmount Park Commission sometime ago tried to shift its responsibility from taking care of the street trees of the City back onto the homeowners. Again, we in this Council and a previous administration changed that. And now maintenance of street trees is actually a significant component of the NTI program under Mayor Street. So these issues come to us from time to time and we seek to address the problems.
I guess I lastly would that say even if the bill were to pass, the questions that you raise -- and there are others -- are very important questions that need to be resolved. 71 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 And so even with the passage of the bill, it does not mean at the moment that the City is going to come out and make those repairs. There are issues of how do you address the 70 percent? How do you make sure you collect the 30 percent? What can we learn from other cities across the country? You and I have talked on number of occasions about a program in Chicago where they have a specific program called the 50/50 Sidewalk Program where the citizens pay a certain amount, the City picks up a certain amount, low income seniors pay a lesser amount, recognizing their social economic challenge. So I think that if we can put some of our swords back where they belong, this is a long process. It is a start. And it's a first step in trying to have a longer arranging program. So I appreciate the issues that have been raised and certainly we'll use the testimony in a positive way to make sure that we answer all if those questions, but this is a first step in the process. 72 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 I appreciate your testimony, your interest in the issues that are raised and I'm deeply appreciative that you would come and give the testimony and make sure that we're proceeding along the right path. Thank you.
Yes. I just would like to say one thing. There are slight differences between the programs. The way Pennsylvania law is that all people are responsible for a driveway together. A sidewalk, the laws -- Pennsylvania laws, not Philadelphia ones that are specifically that you're only responsible for the sidewalk in front of your property. If there's a damaged sidewalk down the street, that is not your responsibility. Only the one in front of your property is your responsibility. Again, this is State of Pennsylvania law. The difference in Illinois is that Illinois law it was a municipality's responsibility to take care of sidewalks. They actually got the citizens to 73 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 kick in more money in that.
Well, let me also mention to you, though, that even here in the great City of Philadelphia, the City supports a program called the Model Blocks Program. It is supported by grant funds from a foundation as well CDBG funds. It is limited because of the dollars that they have. They happen to be working in one part of my district and I think in another part of the City. But it is a program funded partially by the City where they work with the neighbors on the block, because the reality here is that in many of our neighborhoods, to some extent, the neighbors are fairly equally situated from a financial standpoint. And often they're also fairly equally situated in some neighborhoods by age and the age of the homes. So in the Model Blocks Program, the split actually is 70/30. They figure out the total cost of the work. It is for the entire block. All the neighbors have to sign up or some high proportion of the neighbors, again, similar to the program in Chicago. And when they figure 74 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 out what the cost is, the neighbors split that 30 percent share in accordance with how much frontage they have. There are a lot of ways to develop this. So I would only ask that we keep our minds open. We've gone in many instances from the answer being no on certain things to the answer being yes and life going on. So I don't think at the moment at least -- and I know this is not you -- we don't need to dig our heels in right at the beginning. We have plenty of time for that. But I think if we're creative and we keep out minds open, take different things from different places, this idea from that program and another idea from other program, we can come up with something. Because the reality here is it is something that people do care very deeply about in different parts of the City. And I don't think that we can get away from that. Now, we can't do everything for people and I recognize that, but different neighborhoods have different needs and we should try to be as flexible as possible, reasonable about how we 75 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 expend our resources, but also trying to deliver service because I think that's the business that we're all in.
I agree, Councilman. Again, no where in there did we say that we were totally opposed to any form of this. We said -- and I said and the Department, that we feel that this is somewhat premature. We'd really like to work a little closer with Council and the Administration, develop a really good program that could work. And that's all we're asking for really is that time to take a look at some of these things in a little closer area.
Well, you know as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. We took the first step. Just keep walking. Thank you, Mr. Lonie
I walked with him through Center City. He's tough to keep up with. His steps are much, much larger than mine.
Because I'm usually running late, Councilman. 76 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714
I have a couple questions. When the Water Department does a reconstruction of a street, generally the curbs and a portion of the sidewalk are replaced -- my colleagues and I were just talking this because we all have the same problem -- we then get a call from the property owner saying that the sidewalk is going to look like a checker board, I just had my sidewalk done a year ago, now the discoloration, and the whole variety of reasons why they're concerned. And then what we tell them is, well, if you want rest of the sidewalk done you're going to have to pay for it. And we generally work out a fairly reasonable cost because the contractor is on site and it's not like bringing somebody in. But in any event, the homeowners generally feel that it's something that they should not have to pay for. Does it come out of the Streets Department budget for pay for that sidewalk, or is that part of the --
There's two different 77 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 methods. One, and it really comes down to who's got the money in this contract. There is combined contracts with Water money and Streets money. But most of the time if it's the lateral, since the Water Department tends to sometimes have more money than the Streets Department does, it generally comes out of their budget.
Just this past summer, 2400 block South 12th Street had one of those circumstances, as you know. And I wind up expending about $80,000 of my capital dollars that I'm allocated for my district just to make everybody happy because it was just out of control down there. But that's not the first time that I've had to do that. So in effect, we are spending taxpayers dollars to do someone else's sidewalk. My next question is, when the Water Department does a reconstruction on a street, a block that there's no one living on, I notice that there are new sidewalks and curbs, entire sidewalks are put in place, not one block, it's two blocks or three depending on 78 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 whatever the width was. Who makes that decision? And that is not an unusual situation. I see it happen in many instances. No one even lives there and we're putting sidewalks in where no one even lives.
The standard if over 50 percent of the sidewalks are disturbed then they'll be completely replaced. If it's under 50 percent, then they'll just be repaired.
But I see streets where there was virtually no sidewalk before the new sewers were put in. I understand the sewer needs to get done even though there's no one living there because it may connect with a street or two further away where there are people who live on a block, so the connections have to be contiguous. But -- I mean, this has gone on for years. I go back to the late '70s, early '80s. It was happening everywhere. Streets were totally uninhabited, sidewalks and curbs were being put in. And then the streets where people were living and paying taxes, you couldn't get a sidewalk. 79 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714
Well, that goes back to that Community Development Block Grant money that was there. And believe me, I in those days laid a lot of those out and I by the life of me had no clue in the world why it was decided to be put in a certain place.
Not those types of programs. The only time we replace curbs and sidewalks now is if the Water Department has gone in and basically torn up a street. In South Philadelphia, a lot of the streets are narrow and they damage the whole thing and that has to be replaced.
But I'm talking about streets that have no people living on them, no houses on them. If the Water Department comes in and does more than 50 percent of reconstruction, you will put a sidewalk and curb in?
Point of 80 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 information, Mr. Chairman
Wasn't there some redevelopment money? I remember there was a job on Torresdale Avenue where all the curbs and sidewalks were replaced in the business district. Could you elaborate on that?
Sure. Redevelopment funds are allocated and they can be used for curb and sidewalk. Again, as Councilman we were talking to Councilman Nutter, this all comes down to a matter of funding, this comes down to a matter or prioritizing where the money should go. For every dollar we spend on a sidewalk is a dollar we can't spend on a street. If the Redevelopment Authority has been allocated so much money, when they redo a whole block of houses or apartments or whatever, they'll allocate money for the sidewalk as part of their -- they just did it in, I think it's Councilwoman Miller's district up off of Broad Street. 81 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714
If there's a commercial corridor, it falls under a different category of funding. They do that it's a project that's for the general public as opposed to a residential block and comes out of Capital dollars. It's run through the Commerce Department. So that's a little different, Councilman. That may be what you're talking about.
If it's a commercial corridor then there's a designated category of funding.
I believe that they widened the sidewalk and I think it was Torresdale Avenue near Cottman and they widened the sidewalk and it was totally reconstructed for the business district. And I believe it was Redevelopment dollars that did that.
There are a few different funding sources for that. There's Redevelopment. Some of the CDCs have money 82 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 for that. Center City District has allocated some money for that. But again, it's all streetscape improvements.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I had the whole picture.
But what we're dealing with in this bill is more like a repair, not necessarily an upgrade.
Councilman DiCicco, can I just get my point in that I was going to ask? Councilman Nutter talked about the first step. I remember when a tree would buckle a sidewalk and it was the responsibility after the tree was removed for the homeowner to repair the damage that the tree created. I think that we've stepped forward and we're repairing -- either the Fairmount Park Commission or the Streets Department are making those repairs after the tree is removed. Am I correct on that?
We are? Is 83 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 that true?
No, I mean, it still comes down -- I just had this conversation yesterday with Fairmount Park. What they'd love to see is to be able to take the sidewalks out and put blacktop over that area so as not to kill the tree.
Well, they didn't want to kill the tree. In other words, a lot of times if you have a main root that's buckled the side walk and you cut it out of there, that's an additional $1300 expense to do that if you're going to repair the sidewalk.
Let me go back. We take a tree out. The sidewalk's buckled because the tree. Today, who is responsible for repairing the sidewalk after the tree --
It's not supposed to be. I understood that there was some -- 84 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 Fairmount Park assumed that responsibility to repair that sidewalk.
That was going to be my question too. Who's responsible? If it's Fairmount Park's tree, maybe I don't want it on my sidewalk. Maybe it was there when I moved there.
I believe if we check we'll find that something in the last year or so, two years, may have changed because of the removal of street trees were going to done by the Fairmount Park Commission that the permanent repair to the sidewalk was also done by them. So I think we need to check on that because I believe there is --
You could be very right. Again, that goes back to my original testimony saying that we really need to look at some of these issues that I don't think we've looked at closely enough. And I'd really like to do that because these things come up and it's 85 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 just difficult to --
Because the last thing we should do is take a tree out, break out the concrete to remove the root when they take out the stump and leave a block of concrete missing. I think we have some liability.
We'd have to serve the property owner a notice to tell them to repair.
Could you check and get back to the Chair? I believe that the Fairmount Park Commission is restoring those sidewalks. I believe. I might be wrong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want belabor the point, and I appreciate your accommodation. Mr. Lonie, let me just ask one quick question. From Section 11-505 of the Philadelphia Code, (8), and this is talking 86 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 about street resurfacing, I believe. The Code reads, "Whenever any street is to be paved, repaved or resurfaced and replacement of existing curb and/or sidewalk is a necessary element of the street improvement in the judgment of the Department of Streets, such curb and/or sidewalk replacement shall be at the expense of the City, provided however that the curb and/or sidewalk replacement be for the restoration of the existing curb and/or sidewalk and not in any way for the maintenance of the same." Are you familiar with the section of the Code?
Can you tell me how many times in the judgement of the Department of Streets over the past year, two years, five years or ten years that they've ever determined that it was a necessary element of the street resurfacing that the curb and/or sidewalk need to be replaced?
Many. Mostly dealing with state highways because the dollars there 87 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 are a little bit looser to deal with.
Again, most of the time if it was determined mainly that if you were going to reconstruct a street -- it's mainly in reconstruction. If you're just resurfacing something --
I understand that. This section is not dealing with the reconstruction.
Well, I know, but it is resurfacing. What we do now -- we used to do more of that because we would just overlay. If you only had a one-inch curb and you're going to put two inches of asphalt, you had a problem. Now, almost everything we do we mill. We mill down to the original surface and put it back in, which has cut down a lot on the reconstruction of the curbs and sidewalks.
I would think that this section of the Code was dealing with situations where the curb and/or sidewalk is 88 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 in a deteriorated condition. Now the resurfacing has taken place. So I'm assuming when this ordinance was put into place or at least amended in 1973 that the issue here was, you go out and you're going to do a resurfacing job. You take a look at the street. I know we take pictures, we do the whole thing. What is the criteria for the judgment to be used by the Department of Streets that given the condition of the street and given the condition of the curb and sidewalk adjoining that particular street, that this provision No. 8 would be utilized in places where people live, not on state highways?
If you're milling a street and the curb has seriously deteriorated and it's going to fall over, we're not going to put a street back there with no curb next to it. We always have concern dollars in our contract, small dollars in case this happens. We do not program for any maintenance of existing sidewalks.
I understand 89 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 that. Well, it's not for maintenance, it's for complete removal and restoration. What I'd like to know is on a yearly basis for that last years, I'd like to know where this particular provision of the Philadelphia Code was utilized in normal street resurfacing situations. I'd like to know what streets, I'd like to know when, and what work was done on the curb or sidewalk area. If this particular provision of the Code was utilized, I'd like to know where it was utilized.
Well, the one that comes to my mind first and foremost is Ogontz Avenue. That's basically a resurfacing project. But there are certain bump-outs and different curbs that needed to be replaced to facilitate --
Are you creating the bump-outs or were the bump-outs there?
No, we were creating the bump-outs. We're moving some of the different things like that. But again, that's -- I'll check, but as far as maintenance, I don't 90 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 think I'm going to find anything.
I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Lonie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One other question. Philadelphia Housing Authority developments, when there are streets that are existing streets but new housing is being put in place, who pays for the sidewalks and curbs?
No. And we really would like them to allocate more dollars for that because they'll come in and if they're redeveloping, they're putting all new sewer and water lines in, again, you're going back to the checker board. When they will not allocate dollars for that, we do not have it in our budget. And we would love the Housing Authority to do that.
Because a couple years ago, I had a private developer 91 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 who wanted to build some housing in South Philadelphia, but the cost of the sewer systems being put in and curbs and sidewalks basically caused him not to do the project because it just ate too much into his profits. And at that time -- I'm not saying it was you, Paul. Someone testified that PHA, Streets Department and our Water Department paid for new sidewalks and curbs.
No, City Capital dollars were used, but they were not dollars that were in the Streets Department Capital budget. They were in the PHA housing budget, not ours.
Thank you. Any further questions for this witness? (No response.)
Thank you, Paul. Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next 92 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030715 bill.
Bill No. 030175, an ordinance granting permission to Saint Joseph's University, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation (educational), its successors and assigns to construct, maintain and operate, replace, and remove conduits for electrical power supply and telecommunications purposes under 53rd and 54th Streets south of City Avenue and on a pedestrian bridge over City Avenue between 54th Street and Cardinal Avenue, and electrical and telecommunications cables for private electrical and telecommunications systems in such conduits; all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz and I'm a Construction Engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 22 030715 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill authorizes Saint Joseph University to construct, own and maintain underground electrical and telecommunications 93 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030720 conduit beneath 53rd and 54th Street east of City Avenue an aerial electrical telecommunications conduit attached to the pedestrian bridge crossing City Avenue between 54th and Cardinal Avenue. The Streets Department has reviewed the construction plan for this project and has no objections to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against it? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030720, an ordinance amending Section 12-2409 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Towing Zone Locations and Hours," by providing for additional Towing Zone Locations, under terms conditions. 94 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030720
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Greg James. I am President of the Overbrook Farms East Residents Association. It's very interesting to be back in City Council after my long hiatus. We've asked the Councilman, Councilman Nutter, to write a bill because of the problem we've had with illegal parking in our area. People park in front of driveways, sometimes as much as a week or longer. We have no recourse when this happens other than having a ticket issued which means that the homeowner is held hostage in their own property. We've tried numerous things over the last seven or eight years to relieve this problem. The only thing that we could finally come up with is a tow away zone in our area. We would appreciate you passing this bill. We think it would go a long way to solving a lot of other problems arising through illegal parking in our area. 95 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030720
My name is Juanita Daniels, and I'm a resident of the Overbrook/Wynnefield residence. I'm here to support Bill 030720. As a resident of the Overbrook area, I am experiencing ongoing problem with Saint Joe's students and their friends blocking or encroaching my driveway. I have called Saint Joe's and the police department many times. Most of time, the police do not respond. And when they do respond, they only issue one ticket. The car still remains there creating a problem. I have had my driveway blocked all day before the person finally arrived to remove it. If there was an emergency, I would have been unable to get out. I would like to see this bill passed so my neighbors and I can be relieved of this ongoing problem.
Good morning, Mr. 96 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030720 Chairman, Councilman Nutter, other members of City Council. My name is Robert Skomorucha, S-K-O-M-O-R-U-C-H-A. I'm the Assistant Vice President for Government and Community Relations at Saint Joseph's University, and I'm greatly thankful for the opportunity to come today to unconditionally support this bill. Saint Joseph's University over the last couple of years in particular with guidance and advice from Councilman Nutter has worked very closely, especially with Mr. Greg James in the Overbrook Farms East Residents Association, as well as the Wynnefield Residents Association, as well as Overbrook Farms Club headed up by Mr. Dennis Green. We have written in support of this bill to Councilman Nutter in the springtime. We think it will provide a useful and equitable to address illegal parking that occurs admittedly so primarily with some Saint Joseph's students but also on occasion with others who are not in any way affiliated with Saint Joe's. And we think this would be a fair an equitable way 97 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030720 to address this issue.
I want to maybe ask Councilman Nutter that we also should think about the situation the lady just described about the driveway being blocked. Another thing, I don't think our residents know about how close they can encroach to the driveway. Some people rally make it difficult. They're right there and then there's a car on the other side you you've got to kind of snake your way through the two parked cars. My point being, should there be something in this tow away area that discuss that fact you should park X number of feet back? I think the Motor Vehicle Code is very clear about that.
Councilman, I think you're right. I think believe, though, that there may actually be a provision in Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code, our Title 12, relating to how close you can park to a 98 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030720 driveway, I believe. I'm fairly certain. And I think it may be five feet, but don't hold me to the number. Let me go take a look at that, because I want to make sure at the same time that we're not doing anything that is in conflict with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. But I am explore that issue between now and final passage. Thank you. It is a great idea.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Seeing none, this concludes the public hearing on the Committee on Streets and Services. - - - - 99 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - - Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 030671, 030672, 030681, 030683, 030685, 030687, 030688, 030691, 030693, 030694, 030696, 030697, 030712, 030714, 030715, 030720. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILSON GOODE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO 100 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that the amendment, as read into the record, for Bill No. 030671 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 030671 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 25 030671, as amended, be reported out of 101 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING Committee with favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules.
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 030671, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Bill No. 030762 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 102 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING 030672 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion 030681 be reported out the this Committee favorably and a request for suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 20 030681 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 103 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Bill No. 030683, as amended be approved and reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 16 030683, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The bill is 104 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING approved. Councilman Clarke.
I move that Bill 5 No. 030685 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 11 030685 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I make a motion that Bill No. 030687 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation, and a 105 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 030687 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 18 No. 030688 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 24 030688 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules 106 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 12 No. 030691 be reported out of Committee favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 030691 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 107 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING
I move that Bill 6 No. 030692 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 12 030692 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 24 No. 030693 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for 108 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 030693 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 18 No. 030694 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 24 030694 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules 109 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 12 No. 030696 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 030696 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 110 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING
I move that Bill 6 No. 030697 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 12 030697 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 24 NO. 030712 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for a 111 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 030712 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A request by the sponsor of the bill to move Bill No. 030714 out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 25 030714 be reported out of this Committee with 112 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I'm voting nay until there's further discussion with the Streets Department because I don't want people to think they're going can to get -- the City right now is going pay for curbs and sidewalk.
The bill passes 3 to 2. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 21 030715 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been 113 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 030715 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 030720 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 22 030720 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by 114 11/19/03 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING saying aye. (Aye.)
The bill is approved. This concludes the public meeting of the Committee on Streets and Services. I want to thank all Committee Members for attending and for your participation. (Council adjourned at 11:55 a.m.) 115 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of November 19, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR