Right, but there's a lot of life that goes on. There's a lot of disruption. There's a lot of madness during a two-year period.
There's no 8 process in the law if I understand it to take a license prior to the renewal.
If I can just interject for a second, and the state police can correct me, if a licensee is cited for not meeting the physical requirements under the liquor code, typically the penalty will consist of either a fine or suspension and the loss of operating authority until that licensee can establish that they are in compliance. So, again, if the licensee puts those tables and chairs in and they're now back in compliance, whatever suspension may have been in effect at that time goes away.
Which they could then remove the next day and go 151 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 back through the same nonsense.
So, I mean, you're telling us -- and I mean this is quite revealing. One of the premier agencies in the entire government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, absolute money maker, we appreciate it generating revenues for the Commonwealth, providing a legal service, you can issue a license over which you have no ability to revoke other than to deny renewal? Is that what this is?
You cannot take a license away from someone, they can do whatever they want to do in a two-year window and when they come back, you cannot renew it?
That is correct for this agency. There are other -- again, enforcement bureau can issue citations and then it becomes whether the 152 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 tribunal -- the administrative law judge is authorized to revoke the license. The Common Pleas judge is authorized to revoke a license, but that is a penalty that --
Typically it's either going to be the administrative law judge or Court of Common Pleas which has the authority to revoke a license for any violation. I mean, the authority is there under Section 471.
All right. then let me ask you this question: How many licenses have been revoked in Philadelphia during the course of 2005?
If I may explain, we're not involved in the revocation process. 153 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06
I understand that, but you've been tremendously informative so I think we're going to generally be nice but I mean is there any -- I mean, do you have a quest for knowledge? I mean, wouldn't you want to know since you're the issuing agency, wouldn't you want to know on the back end how many of your issued licenses were taken away from people?
We can get that number for you. It's just not a number I happen to know off the top of my head.
Thank you. I just want to go over the testimony. You're saying that you or your board issues all the liquor licenses in Pennsylvania. That includes all the stop-and-go's?
Do you know how many stop-and-go licenses there are in Philadelphia?
I do not know how many licenses stop-and-goes are in the city, but I do know that there are 1,944 retail licenses and 130 --
I'm just looking at the stop-and-go's and there seems to be some neighborhoods that are inundated with them, that have many more than what I think any average person using common sense would allow. And I don't know how in God's name you could allow all of these licenses to go in a certain community. And let me tell you something, for the life of me I don't know what these stop-and-go's do. I really don't. I think in my opinion I think we should close them all because I don't think they add anything to the community at all. I think if people want 155 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 to go into and get a beverage, a takeout beverage, there's ample good restaurants, beer distributors, taverns to go to to take this out. I don't know what they provide other than grief for the community activists. And I just wanted to know is there a cap, is there something that you look at before you issue a license of this type? I imagine it's a different type than a restaurant or tavern; is that true? No difference?
There are two types of retail licenses. What people keep referring to as stop-and-go's here, there's no stop-and-go license. There is a restaurant license which is authorized to sell beer and liquor for both on-premise consumption and beer for off-premise consumption up to 192 fluid ounces. To qualify for that license, you have to have a certain amount of square footage. You have to have tables and chairs and enough food to feed 30 people 156 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 at one time. E licenses or retail dispenser licenses are similar except the square footage is a little bit smaller and they only sell beer. So, you know, it's a term that people banter about, stop-and-go's. We don't have that designation. So when someone applies to us, they merely need to establish that they meet the minimum requirements. And what our Supreme Court has told us repeatedly is, liquor board, you can't refuse an application unless you can point to something specific in the code that this person is violating at the time of application. And that's --
Isn't there a cap, though? There is in the city of Philadelphia I believe that if you want to open up --
Councilman Kelly, when you talk about a cap, you talk about one license per 3,000, you have to 157 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 understand that that law has changed numerous times. And every time the law changed, okay, any licenses that were at the quota, okay, were grandfathered in. So Philadelphia is over quota. There's no doubt about that. There was legislation that was pending --
Is there anything we can do to reduce the numbers other than not renewing their license? And that just brings up another thing. How much input does City Council have in that process, if any?
Of renewing a license. In other words, if we sent a letter to you indicating that there are problems with someone who has a license and wants it renewed.
We will take the evidence when you send the information as we do during every renewal period. We will take the information and if there's substantial information to look at 158 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 objecting to that license, then I will so recommend that to the board.
If I could comment on that, in Mr. Waters' testimony, he related to you that the last renewal cycle, all of our enforcement agencies got together and came up with a list of the worst offenders of all the licensed establishments and the LCB only granted hearings on half of those. So our enforcement community said there were 72 that should not be renewed and they didn't even get hearings on half of them. Now, that's not the City Council writing a letter to the LCB. That's all the enforcement communities coming together and saying these are the problem places, and they haven't cooperated even to the extent of giving hearings for all of them. I'm hoping we're going to get more cooperation down the road.
What was that number again, Steve? 159 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06
Who makes the decision on granting a hearing? Is it the board itself or staff or --
Under the statute, it's the director of licensing. And there's a criteria that we use. Generally speaking, and this is consistent with how Section 470 is written, if an applicant or employee or someone who has an interest in the license has criminal convictions, felonies obviously carry more weight than a misdemeanor, that is something we would look at. If they have a citation history of three or more citations typically which affect the public such as sales to minors during the last two-year cycle, or if there is a pattern of criminal conduct that has been occurring at the licensed premises which the licensee knew, should have known about, and failed to take 160 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 substantial steps to prevent that activity, then we take a look at that as well. What we do in Philadelphia and everywhere else is once we have places identified, we reach out. We testified about getting reports from Fran Healy of the Philadelphia Police Department. We will identify locations and they will identify locations and then they will -- in Philadelphia it's a little bit more elaborate because you do have more licenses. They're cad reports, Fran? Am I saying that right?
We review those and ask for additional police reports. Mr. Healy provided those police reports to us. And then we did an evaluation of each of those locations trying to see whether there's a pattern of criminal activity that the licensee knew or should have known about and wasn't taking any 161 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 steps. And that's how you got from 72 to 42 because sometimes someone will say this is a problem, but there are no 5 incident reports associated with it for whatever reason. Sometimes there's a couple incident reports but there isn't really a pattern there. And we know what the law requires because the Rosing case is a great example which Mr. Waters testified to. No one disputed there was drug activity in the licensed premises. It's a bar in Pittsburgh. The police were making buys there. We refused a license. Common Pleas said no. The police can't stop this, how can you expect a licensee to? We took an appeal to Commonwealth Court which said exactly the same thing. They're not experts. They don't know what drug activity looks like. They didn't know you had police officers there buying drugs. So, you know, we know what the statute says. We also know what's going to fly and what's not going to fly. So 162 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 that in a nutshell is the process. And, again, if there are places you want us to look at, we'll be happy to look at them. It's just we only look once every two years. It's much more effective to maybe deal with some of the people who are also up here with the day to day questions.
Let me ask you a question. You had something you wanted to add?
One other thing, as deputy chief counsel said, we will be happy to look at any locations that are problematic, but if they do not have substantial enforcement information, it makes my job very difficult in objecting to those licenses. Okay?
If I can, I'm not going to sit here and bash the LCB at this point. We worked as a team to coordinate this list. The first year we did it the District Attorney had its 163 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 list, I had mine, L&I had its, and it was over 200 bars. The problem was the LCB couldn't logistically handle that number and asked us to prioritize. That meant I had to prioritize one neighborhood over another. That was problematic. Some neighborhoods are clearly noise, public disturbances, and other neighborhoods are violence, drugs, shootings. You start to see all those nasty bars up in the top of the list but nonetheless those that have community problems no less hectic at the bottom.
Let me just ask as a question far as enforcement is concerned. Is it that clear in the liquor code that Philadelphia Police are not, specifically not permitted to write liquor code violations?
No. And this issue came up. Actually personally I was involved in it with Senator Fumo right after the first Mardi Gras incident in Philadelphia. 164 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06
You have state police officers for four counties. They could use some help. So what keeps us from actually instituting it ourselves?
Historically in the 8 police department in the '80s there was 9 corruption around bars. The police 10 commissioner withdrew all police activity 11 and left it to the state. As a result, 12 when Police Commissioner Timoney came to 13 town, he said that makes no sense. We 14 need to get back involved in policing 15 inside bars. Some of the serious 16 violations under the liquor code, there's 17 a handful of them, are unclassified M 18 misdemeanors, which makes them an M3. 19 There's nothing in state law which 20 prevents the Philadelphia Police 21 Department from enforcing those 22 misdemeanors --
-- and we've taken 165 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 steps to do that.
You can address minors two ways, one under the liquor code, one under the crimes code.
What I'm saying is in an effort to build a citation case, even if it's a two-year window we have, in order to build that case, why aren't our uniformed officers writing liquor violations now along with them --
We're mistaking two things. Liquor violations I have no 17 authority to write.
What specifically does not give you the right or prohibits you from having a uniformed officer go into a takeout beer delicatessen and cite them for not having the chairs, cite them for allowing a 166 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 minor on the premises, cite them for service of alcohol, cite them for overadvertising, which is against the liquor code?
The problem is we don't do administrative regulations. A lot of those you just mentioned are administrative regulations.
They're certified state police officials. Do our police officers have any different standing than they do? They're both state authorized law enforcement.
His office is authorized to enforce liquor code 167 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 administrative violations.
We could have a training class. I mean, here's my point is that this hot potato keeps getting passed around.
See, that's where you're very much mistaken. We've come together to address these things.
I appreciate the efforts of the task force. What I'm saying is practically on the street day to day there's not enough of them, there's plenty of us.
Our units meet together and they go out together. Our police will make arrests. They work as a 168 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 team. They go out together on every other Friday night I believe it is and hit certain things. Because we can't do the administrative stuff, we tag up with the state police so they can.
Lieutenant, are you speaking about taverns, bars, or the stop-and-go?
Everything. Well, we don't separate a stop-and-go. It's a nuisance establishment, bar establishment, period.
We have had conversations as part of the City Council task force on coming up with strategies on how the city police and state police can dovetail and I think there is a willingness. There definitely was a willingness expressed from the state police to take incident reports from the city police and turn them into citations. So if the city police issued some kind of a citation in whatever they want to call it and transmit it to the state police, 169 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 they can change it to be an official liquor code citation and commence it.
In other words, this would be a recommendation by the Philadelphia Police for the state police to write a citation? LT. COMERER: It's not a recommendation. They put down on their report the evidence of the violation. They forward it to us. We then based on information received we may further go out and investigate or based on what they gave us that may be enough to just do a citation at that point. And then we would cite administratively, which then later on they would have to come and testify if need be, the officers from the Philadelphia Police Department. But we've been doing that for quite some time. It's well beyond the City Council hearings. We've been doing that for 170 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 numerous years.
Including stop-and-go's; right? LT. COMERER: That is correct. If they see violations, they would forward it to us. Each district has representatives that do that.
How much such correspondence or requests have you guys had from our people? LT. COMERER: A lot, a lot.
That's one of the major initiatives happening with the task force and before that is that kind of communication. We also have discussions around the different policies and procedures for making citations or arrests for underage drinking. And apparently the state police can simply issue a citation like a ticket on the scene whereas our department it's more of a formal arrest procedure where they have to take the individuals back to the station and book them and it takes 171 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 several hours. And we were exploring whether our police department could change their policies and make it more like the state police of just issuing a ticket for underage drinking as opposed to a three hour ordeal they don't want to do and so we don't have a lot of underage drinking arrests.
Could you talk a little bit about the issue of minors on the premises? It is clear in takeout beer delis -- and I understand the -- what was the restaurant -- Pizza Hut stuff, kids are going in and out of these beer delis on a regular basis buying candy and potato chips and other things through the same window and box where there's alcohol. Isn't there some really clear violation that kids shouldn't be on that premises at all without being accompanied by an adult? Because even in the Pizza Hut thing you need an adult, don't you?
There are basically 172 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 five ways a minor can be on a licensed premises. I'll see if I get them all right here. With a parent or legal guardian, under proper supervision is a different way -- proper supervision simply means someone who's over the age of who's responsible for you. That 9 may include a licensee's employee if 10 they're not doing anything else if 11 they're having an underage night and 12 that's statutory. The Pizza Hut rule, 13 which is referred to -- 14
Again, I'm 15 trying not to be sarcastic, an employee 16 behind the bulletproof glass is a 17 responsible adult as it relates to a 18 minor in a -- 19
No, no, because he's 20 doing something else. He's selling 21 alcohol. This would be -- 22
Hold on. 23 So give an example of who this person 24 would be. 25
An example would be 173 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 perhaps an establishment that's having like a prom night or something where there are certain employees who are not doing anything but watching the kids or teachers --
I can't see one of the areas you've talked about that would relate to a takeout beer deli or an R licensee acting as --
I think deputy counsel is speaking in general to the rules relative to all licensed establishments and could be missing the point if I'm correct on -- if I'm not, please let me know -- what the three of you are at this time trying to drill down to and that's the stop-and-go's. Unfortunately, in the liquor code, a 174 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 stop-and-go is not identified. I know what a stop-and-go is and I would agree with you that there's an issue there. There is an issue there, Councilman Kenney. The issue is that in all likelihood these locations are out of compliance.
I'm saying they cannot meet the test as to the way they are configured, no. The way they were configured when they were licensed and received the liquor license when an application was forwarded to us, they were in compliance, and over time, whatever that time period was, they've changed their configuration. And in all likelihood -- I don't know for a fact because I haven't investigated one of them -- they probably are not in compliance.
Now, if you had the ability through the state liquor 175 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 code to make a decision or to take away a license prior to the two-year period, you would avail yourself of that opportunity?
If the liquor code gave us that opportunity, surely we would avail ourselves to it as well as, you know, since Ms. Abrams or D.A. Abraham mentioned her resources, I think I would be lying to say that all our resources are at some degree whittled.
Lieutenant from the state police -- and I didn't catch your last name. LT. COMERER: Comerer, C-O-M-E-R-E-R.
Okay. I want to address you properly. In the testimony earlier and this has I think been consistent over some time, there are 22 state troopers covering the five counties? 176 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 LT. COMERER: That is incorrect. The State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, the officers who work in the bureau with the exception of the district office commander and section commanders and the command staff are liquor enforcement officers. They are not troopers. They are LEOs. Sergeant Davis is the district office commander here in Philadelphia and I'm based out of Philadelphia as eastern section commander. Our complement is not 22. As in previous hearings, it was testified to that our complement for the Philadelphia office is 31. And that's not including support, clerical, and what not, which brings the number up over 40. In addition to that --
But in terms of the liquor enforcement officers, individuals who can write a liquor code violation -- LT. COMERER: 31, sir.
In 177 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 Philadelphia? LT. COMERER: 31 stationed in Philadelphia but --
What area do they cover? LT. COMERER: They cover Philadelphia, Chester County, and Delaware County. That's the district.
So Philly, Delaware, Chester Counties; right? LT. COMERER: Correct.
And how many liquor licenses are there in those three counties? LT. COMERER: I believe we're at approximately 3,500 total. I might be off by a few. I will tell you this, the majority, well above the majority of work is Philadelphia. Just don't tell the people in Delaware County and Chester County that.
I understand. You love all your children equally. I understand. So at least from 178 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 a numerical standpoint each liquor enforcement officer theoretically is responsible for a little over a hundred establishments; right? LT. COMERER: We don't break it down that way, but if you do the math, that would be correct. I mean, bear in mind a lot of those establishments, the 2,400 or so in Philadelphia, the vast majority of those establishments we can inspect them, work them for numerous complaints and they're always in compliance. Let's face it. Just like on the street when you're working as a police officer, it's the same crowd that always seems to get the most attention.
Now, I may have missed it. I know I went over to the side for a second. This whole issue about what Philadelphia police officers can and cannot enforce under the liquor code, did that get resolved while I was away from the table? LT. COMERER: We're looking at 179 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 administrative charges that are -- the administrative process is conducted by the liquor enforcement officers, but the information that's furnished -- if the Philadelphia Police come upon a situation and they forward that information to us, which we do have that pathway going at this time, we can then take those reports and we can apply them to the administrative citation.
But are you also of the opinion that Philadelphia police officers cannot write an administrative violation to the liquor code? LT. COMERER: That is correct.
Why is that? LT. COMERER: That's just the way the law's written, sir.
Tell me the section. LT. COMERER: Off the top of my head, I don't have that information. 180 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06
It's Section 471 of the liquor code authorizes the enforcement bureau and enforcement bureau only to issue civil citations giving a licensee a hearing before an administrative law judge. It's 471.
Now, would any amendment to that specifically authorizing police officers in the city of the first class to write such a violation, is that helpful to you? LT. COMERER: I don't see how it would be helpful to me only because if they forward us the information, we are writing them up. So I don't see the process being helped by that change.
So you can write up a violation for something that someone else wrote? LT. COMERER: On information received, that is correct, if, in fact, there's evidence supporting it. I mean, obviously, we need the evidence.
I just have 181 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 a followup question to that, Councilman, if I may. You said before that you take the information from the Philadelphia Police and you will write up a citation and then you will go out in some cases and investigate the complaint? LT. COMERER: That is correct.
What happens if the Philadelphia Police are authorized to write these citations? Would you still go out and investigate that citation? LT. COMERER: That is correct, sir. A lot of cases where the Philadelphia Police will go and investigate crimes that happened at an establishment, then we will open up an administrative investigation based on the information they forward to us so that not only -- when we go before the renewal process every two years, not only will we have the Philadelphia Police paperwork but we also have administrative paperwork and hopefully administrative citations 182 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 that come out of it. And then the totality of everything, when we present that, we have an overwhelming evidence that perhaps maybe there will be no 6 renewal. I mean, that's what we try to do with the problem places.
Let me go back to Mr. Waters. I'm going to assume that you were here when the video was on.
So I know we couldn't get the full effect from the sound, but the video was shot last night. If we take at full value the noise issues, in your testimony you mention on example of liquor code violations which the board considers when determining whether to renew a liquor license includes such violations as sales to minors or visibly intoxicated patrons, allowing amplified music to be heard off of the licensed premises, and after hours operation.
Now, you saw the video. You have individuals who shot it. I'm sure you can talk to them. Maybe it's a moot issue now as a result of our earlier discussion, but what you're basically saying is notwithstanding having seen that, there's nothing you can do about that at the moment?
That's correct. There is nothing I can do with that at the moment. If they want to present that evidence to be used, they would have to present that to the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement.
That's over on your side. Now, what do you guys do with that evidence? LT. COMERER: We'll take that evidence, which we've already spoken to her. When we got a copy of that, which she's promised to get us copies of that, based on that we might have to do some 184 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 further investigation, but for the most part based on that without question I think there would be a citation going out to that licensee.
Now let me go back for a second. Mr. Waters, do you get monthly reports of code violations?
So you get just a big report at license renewal time and that's the first you know of what's going on with the licensee?
That is correct. What we do get, we have access to getting -- if there are cases that Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement believes should come before us, they contact my nuisance bar unit, division, and they give us that information and we put that into a candidate pool. So at renewal time, we have the information. Let me at this time take an opportunity to say that I have been 185 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 working very closely with the other agencies here, enforcement agencies here and it has been an ongoing behind the scenes work team that started actually six years ago in trying to come together to come to the table to bring the stakeholders and enforcement together to try and work through this process to identify those locations. Have we failed in some areas? Probably so, but I think we've been productive in trying to use the liquor code and use the tools that we have before us, one, to get the enforcement agencies to understand what the director of bureau of licensing needs to be able to object, for the director to object to that. You know, Councilman, I've worked the investigative unit down here, was the division chief, so when I talk about six years ago, actually we go back to about 1996 when we came together and through the process and give and take we've tried to do the best we could.
Just a 186 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 couple last questions, Mr. Chairman. This issue regarding the number of the licensees apparently in response to their Act 39, it was testified to a number of them decided to close and have been closed for some time. Can you give us on the record what is the statute with regard to if you're out of business for any amount of time what happens?
There's nothing that happens to the licensee or to the license when they go out of business. They put their license into safekeeping or escrow and the board holds it for the statute says three years. And if they do not activate that, the license, or transfer it to another party within three years, effective February 7, 2007, that license would go out of existence. While it's held in escrow, that license as long as it's renewed or validated, that license is a good license. It can be brought out of safekeeping at any time as long as the location it's going to meets 187 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 the statute.
If a license is not operable days, by law they must 7 place that license in escrow. 8
And do we 9 know if any of these licensees did that? 10
To my knowledge, I 11 don't have that information in front of 12 me. I can check on that. 13
Another addendum 14 on that is while we've been focusing on 15 the physical requirements for a location, there's also a requirement in the code that a location to be licensed has to be a location of good reputation, not just the people who run it but the place itself has to be a good reputation. And any location that has been denied a permit to takeout beer and then was selling it illegally while the appeals were going on and finally decided to close I would submit doesn't have a good 188 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 reputation. It certainly doesn't have a good reputation in the community. And it would be helpful to hear from the LCB whether they ever take that code provision into account and simply refuse to return a license in safekeeping if a establishment is not in good reputation or don't take that into account.
We do consider a licensee's reputation when we have, again, an application before us. There may be times when a license is coming out of safekeeping we're going to have an application because depending on how long it's in safekeeping, they may need to submit additional information. Our ability to do so wasn't made clear until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided a case called Street Road Bar and Grill about two years ago where we had objected to the transfer of license to individuals who we thought were not reputable based on their operating history at other locations. The Commonwealth Court had 189 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 said that we could not consider citation history and criminal history, that really the board had very little authority to look at people's past operating history when making a determination as to whether or not they're reputable, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said yes, we can. We've incorporated that authority under regulation. So if we have something we can base it on, we will consider reputation.
Last question. Is it a statutory requirement that all liquor licenses -- licensees, rather, have a valid health license issued by the local municipality?
Putting aside the two-year renewal period, suppose a current licensee's health 190 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 license was revoked by the City of Philadelphia tomorrow. What would happen?
There's very little we can do because there's not an application before us, but we would refer it to state police.
You guys are killing me. You're just killing me. At what point do I just start banging my head on the table?
If we can be perfectly candid, there have been times in the past where we had an application before us and there seemed to be equitable reasons for us to refuse the license and the courts have categorically reversed those decisions. That's why that's a case called Chinese Gourmet, a series of cases where the court kind of tells us you can't consider that. 191 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06
That's correct, but we cannot act unless an application is in front of us. And the only time an application is in front of us is during the renewal period. That's by statute.
What happens if there's an application in front of you and the applicant has no 23 valid health license and you know it?
We do not issue the license. 192 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06
Thank you. Councilman Kelly has a few questions. I just want to let everyone know we're going to at some point in the next few minutes recess this hearing until April 6 at 1:00 p.m. That doesn't necessarily mean we're going to be back here, but I have to keep it alive without having to advertise it. We'll contact everybody, but it's been a long day and I want to bring some conclusion today and keep it open for further discussion.
As relates to the city, one of the complaints the community has made very clear and it's mostly in the takeout beer delis is the advertising and the illegal signage and the advertising of alcohol products on fences, on walls. Why can't we mitigate 193 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 that and just take that stuff down? Is there --
In some cases, we do take it down. I don't have it with me. I'll be happy to get it over to you. There was some issue with the courts approximately six months ago in reference to accessory signage. Unfortunately, and we don't agree with this issue, when you put up signs for Miller beer, Coors Light, Anheuser-Busch, they're accessories to your business.
Based on the size and minimum requirements of these signs, they are in some cases not illegal. Some of the signs we saw there I'd like to get the addresses of those locations because the fence that was there is technically not a fence attached to that property. So, in other words, the fencing that's away from that property line is basically on the sidewalk, which I could have my people go out there and just remove every 194 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 signing along that fence. When it's attached to the building or within a window space of that building, it becomes a little more technical in nature as to whether that is allowable accessory signage or not. The only other thing I'd like to clear up --
Why do we err on the side of total caution and just not take the sign down?
We do in some cases. Other cases that we don't -- we do we normally get sued for.
But we're working closely with the law department in amount of accessory signage. The other issue want to definitely clear up before we leave today is community testimony about locations being closed at 11:00 p.m. That law City Council passed is not in reference to liquor license 195 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 establishments. It's in reference to any business, not just restaurants, any business other than any beer or liquor license establishments that are open after 11:000 p.m. in areas more than 80 percent populated by residential occupancy. It doesn't mean areas such as Germantown area, Ridge Avenue. Any commercial corridor is not under that ordinance. And bars and stop-and-go's, whatever you want to call them, are not under that jurisdiction of that ordinance.
But don't they have a mercantile license giving us -- us giving them permission to operate and sell retail?
Yes. We look into different issues with the nuisance activity and again working closely with the state police and state LCE. But unfortunately that ordinance doesn't cover liquor license.
They're 196 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 exempted then?
From my understanding, it is. And the opinion that we have and I'll get the opinion to you is the fact that they are governed -- their license allows them 2:00 p.m -- 2:00 a.m. We can't -- our jurisdiction doesn't supersede the state's jurisdiction of 2:00 a.m.
In other words, they have the same license so, therefore, they're permitted the same hours as anyone else.
As the LCB said, there is no such thing as a stop-and-go license. It's either a restaurant or takeout location.
I understand. That was one of the questions I did want to ask that the Chairman already asked. An impression I received from all the testimony today is that there seems to be a better track record in regulating and controlling 197 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 taverns and restaurants than there are in the stop-and-go's. I'm just looking at the results and it's pretty frustrating because I'm looking at Mr. Masters, your testimony, you mentioned in it that you had 147 protests on these stop-and-go's and the bottom line is that it comes down to about only five of these businesses went out of business. And that's pretty frustrating for a community. And I think what I know the Chairman and Councilman Nutter and everyone else I'm sure is willing to do is to come together, all of us here, and come up with some new regulations or laws or something that's going to protect the communities in oversaturation of these stop-and-go's, making them tow the line as far as aesthetically and everything else. To me, I just shake my head and say my God, we're really getting frustrated in not being able to control this type of activity that's going on in our neighborhoods. And that's all I have to 198 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Mr. Waters, is there any consideration given to the proximity of other licensed establishments around either a new licensee, for example, or transfer?
There is when we have an application before us. However, we take into consideration if there's -- let me say it like this: The other licensed establishments within 200 feet have a right to protest. And if they protest, we normally have a hearing on why they're protesting. The courts have not really been favorable to our decisions when we have denied a license, an application, the board has denied an application because they look at it as a free enterprise right. And deputy counsel may want to speak to the legalities of that.
As Jerry pointed out, a licensee within 200 feet is what 199 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 the statute says can form the basis for the board to refuse the application. The other thing is if it's a new application, if there is an adverse effect on the neighborhood within 500 feet, that is also the basis to refuse a license. And there have been situations where neighbors say, look, we're oversaturated, these are the problems. It's a very high standard in terms of what the courts want to see before they refuse this application. And the reason is it's perspective. You know, we don't know that this person's going to be a problem. We don't know because we haven't seen this person operate. What some neighborhoods in Philadelphia have done, and you had some of them testify, is they've become very proactive. They have filed petitions to intervene or protest when it goes to a new location. They've met with the licensee and they've entered into or have gotten them to agree to conditional 200 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 licensing agreements which they then send to us, and that puts additional conditions on the license. So it depends. Some groups we deal with all the time. Other groups we don't hear from at all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two quick things. Mr. Verdi, one, do you know what the schedule is for renewal on a health license? Is that on a --
Would you give some thought or consideration based on the conversation we've had -- this won't apply to all the food and beverage or at least food establishments all across the city, but we might want to give some consideration to changing the 201 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 cycle on the health license for those establishments that have liquor licenses. And one of the reasons I would recommend that is if they're getting their license on a calendar year, which I assume is a December 31 --
I think based on that kind of schedule, establishments will always have a health license when they go for renewal in October if they have one.
Not all the time. What we've been doing is together and with the LCE, when we revoke a food license for whatever reason, health department will contact our department in reference to revocation of a license. We automatically send a copy over to liquor control enforcement. Also, the 202 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 investigators that are dealing with LCB will contact us during times of renewal and request information on liquor licenses -- I mean on health licenses or food licenses. Our food licenses are not restricted to -- we don't have -- there's no way for me to pull out all good licenses and say which ones are tied into a liquor establishment or not.
I understand that, but the applicant -- I mean, I think there are at least a couple ways to get the information. One, you could require the applicant to tell you; right? I mean, they have to renew. Do you have a liquor license? Second, you can get a file from our good friends over at the LCB. They'll tell you.
I'm sorry? We have different licenses for different kinds of business. I mean, everyone has the same food license whether you have a 203 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 restaurant or you got a cart out on the street.
Generally, the guy or lady or whatever with the cart on the street probably doesn't have a liquor license. It's a different kind of establishment. It's a different kind of license. I mean, we can have this debate another time, but it seems to me that if the health license of those establishments, about 2,400 of them, are being reviewed at the same time that the gentlemen over there on a two-year basis are reviewing their liquor license, then sometimes you would end up with an applicant in front of the LCB on renewal that might not have a health license.
That's a question you have to ask the health department. My understanding, Councilman, there is no 23 inspection for renewal of the health license. That's a renewal yearly.
So you just 204 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 get it? I go to a lot of restaurants. That's a really comfortable thought.
Those licenses are renewable based upon application. I mean, the health department unfortunately is not here.
Right. Mr. Waters, one last thing. You said you know what a stop-and-go is. Based on your experience with the LCB, do you have any knowledge of this similar type of establishment proliferating all over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Are there many other jurisdictions that have these types of entities?
The answer to you, Councilman, would be no. However, in all areas of the Commonwealth there are what 205 Legislative Oversight - 3/13/06 we could classify as stop-and-go's, but I guess I should use the word the proliferation of those establishments is unique to the city of the first class Philadelphia, sir.