COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 28, 2004, 10:30 a.m. BILL 040255 - An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2005. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Good morning, everyone. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 040255. The first department to testify today will be L&I. Good morning.
Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Robert Solvibile, the Acting Commissioner of License and Inspections, and I have with me today to my far left Mr. Prospero, who is the ASD of the department; Deputy Commissioner Perri; and to my right, Deputy Commissioner Verdi. And we thank you for allowing us to present our department to you today. If you want, Council President, we'll forego reading the budget, because you have a copy, and let you ask questions.
Yes. 3 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 And it will be given to the stenographer. She'll transcribe it in whole, and perhaps you can abbreviate your testimony.
Sure. Our budget request for this fiscal year is $88,343,953, of which $21,450,159 is in the City's General Fund, 65 million is in the Grants Revenue Fund and $1,028,000 is in the Community Development Fund. This budget supports 398 general fund positions. Our major accomplishments: We're working as a department to improve our efficiency by computerization. We, as a team, have a computer consultant and a program manager go through each unit in the department and redefine it. We create an as-is, a to-be, and then we meet as a management team and decide what the future will be and how we'll manage our department. Basically the future will be that the complaint received will go directly to the inspector in the field, who will make the inspection and it be transmitted either through a hand-held computer or via computer 4 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 that they'll have at their home or at their desk right to the -- the violation to be issued. That will cut several days of the process, several days of waiting for a clerk to type it in. We also will have Fast Form permits in our districts where a person in the district offices, our five district offices, can come instead of coming to Center City and get about percent of the permits we issue 12 in the district office. We feel that's a 13 great service to the public. 14
We have been in 17 the north -- in our districts, we've been 18 doing it for the last -- 19
-- at least five years, and when we go live with our system when it's all done, we'll have announcements to the public that it's live. We have made announcements to the 5 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 community who would use us, to the contractors. They all know they can go to the district office and apply for their permit. And it's a well-received program and it works well for us. Now, not every permit, obviously, Council President, but percent 8 of our permits. 9
About 20 12 percent of our permits are doable in the 13 district office. Also, via the Internet, 14 they'll be able to lodge complaints. 15 Now, until this system is completely 16 done, that system will not work perfectly, in 17 that it still will have a human being. 18 Although they lodged a complaint via the 19 Internet, it will still have to have a human 20 being take it off. Whereas, in the future, it will go directly to the inspector. It will be checked through the system to make sure there's no complaint already covering it. And the person making the complaint will get an e-mail back that we've received it. We see 6 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 that as a great improvement. Also, forms and applications that people need to apply for different licenses in the department will be downloadable. And our demolition/encapsulations: Using the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Funds, the department has supported this initiative by performing 495 emergency curbside demolitions from July 2003 to date. Now, what's happening now with that, Council President and Council people, we are handling anything that's an emergency. Collapsing now is handled by the department.
Curbside bids. And the plan process is worked with NTI, L&I staff and Council and community staff who pick what buildings will be demolished as far as the plan demolition using NTI funds. We see this as a real improvement, in that it let's us deal with the emergencies and the plan and how the community will evolve in the hands of the community and the Council 7 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 person that represents the community. We've increased our code enforcement violation notices, where during fiscal year '01 to '03, almost 10,000 tickets were issued for violations ranging from illegal tobacco sales to minors; 3,199 tickets in 32 percent of the total -- which is 32 percent of the total. To quality of life issues, such as high weeds, exterior premises not being kept clean, we're increasing this where we will issue a violation and a ticket to people. So it's a more forceful way of getting the point across that we want our neighborhoods clean instead of just letting reinspection after reinspection happen and not a lot that they see happening.
Inspections of the ballpark, I'm proud to say that the department had issued a temporary CO for the occupancy of Citizens Ballpark. One of the loves of my life is baseball, so I'm very 8 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 happy about that. And I'm also proud of the fact that the management team in South District, your district, oversaw that without a major problem at all. It went well, professionally, and it really is a pride that I have about that we were able to do that. New initiatives: We're going to expand our accelerated plan review. In the beginning of Bennett Levin's term as Commissioner, he created a person who wanted to pay the overtime for one of our plans engineers to have their permit reviewed and approved within three to five days -- or an answer, not necessarily approved but an answer. And the community that uses this really flock to that and they love the service, because as a whole, in their contract they have to start building by a certain date. This allows them to meet that goal and still have all the permit approvals that are required. We find that plan to be successful. Food license: We've asked for a fee increase in licenses with L&I and the Health Department. This hasn't been raised since 9 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 1993. And we're also initiating legislation requiring a second and supplement reinspection fee. As it is now, the department will write a violation and make the first reinspection and the work is not complied. We'd have to go again because we're sending them to court, and sometimes a third and fourth time. We're going to charge a fee for any reinspection past the first one. And I feel, again, that the goal is to get compliance with our violations, and if they don't want to comply, then we're going to charge them for that. And we also have enhanced L&I's services for non-English-speaking customers. L&I will be active in promoting a more customer-friendly environment at its Municipal Services Building intake area by providing translation services for non-English-speaking customers. The department will translate many of its widely requested forms and brochures into Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian, Korean and Chinese. 10 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 And also, we're going to enhance the homeowner access to L&I through creation of a single-family permit center. In fiscal year '05, the department will establish a permit center at a district office at Rising Sun and Benner. It's our easily accessed office with ease of parking and it's the most used office presently as far as customers coming in and making the permit process more accessible to homeowners. If this concept provides productive, the department will start duplicating it in other districts. These are, in addition to the 16 percent of the permits that we can issue Fast 17 Form, this will be permits that were plan 18 review. They will be issued out of that 19 district. And I think it will be a success, 20 and hopefully we'll be able to expand it to the rest of the City. Thank you, and we're here to answer your questions.
Thank you. 11 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 What is the number in job titles of the positions that you are eliminating as a result of the DROP-related work force rightsizing?
What are their job titles? When will they become effective?
Fiscal year '05. Six positions will be coming out -- Jerry Prospero. Fiscal year of '05, the department will be losing six positions to DROP. I can get you the names, if you --
It doesn't matter about the names, but if you would let us know what --
-- 12 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 the positions are.
If they're not handy, just send a letter to me and I'll circulate it. In your testimony, you mention that your department has awarded contracts to perform 318 encapsulations of vacant properties. How many contracts have you awarded and to whom?
The total contracts is roughly -- contractors -- we've awarded 300 and I believe in the testimony --
318. Different contractors, more than a half a dozen, and we could provide the names to you, Council President, to you and your staff. I don't have that with me today.
How 13 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 many employees do you have assigned to the CLIP program both in FY04 and also what do you have in FY05?
We have assigned presently two housing and fire inspectors and a building inspector, are presently assigned. And also there is some clean and seal people, approximately eight clean and seal people that are assigned to that. Roughly two crews, Council President. A crew consists of four people and a supervisor.
We have been told that the CLIP program will be expanded citywide in FY05. What resources have you been given to accomplish that task?
We have met with the Managing Director, myself and Deputy Commissioner Verdi, and we will support that by -- the expansion of CLIP will be coordinated between the Managing Director's Office and the department, and Deputy Commissioner Verdi will be meeting Thursday --
Friday to get more detail of what we'll need to support it. But we're going to keep -- the inspectors will work directly for our Housing Division, who will be doing the surveys. And as I testified when Council interviewed the Managing Director for his testimony, we will incorporate complaints that they've received -- that we receive and that they experience in the field and have the same inspectors doing this work. Which will be about two or three inspectors, Dominic?
And that will be citywide, Mr. Verdi? Why don't you expand on that, because there are now additional resources in the budget for it, so I'm just curious to understand how it would work citywide.
Dominic Verdi, Deputy Commissioner of License and Inspections. Council President, we're meeting on 15 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 Friday with the representatives from CLIP to better understand the expansion and how wide the expansion will be. Based on our meeting, we'll then decide how we're going to handle what resources. If further resources are needed, we'll notify the Managing Director. But in some cases, what we're going to do is, basically CLIP will be the lead in on that area, and the reason why we're doing it this way is, when a complaint comes in, as you know, a lot of these complaints are property maintenance complaints, and the meeting that we're going to have with the personnel from CLIP is to better incorporate the issues that may further the complaint that we see. As it stands now, CLIP handles property maintenance and property maintenance only, but the property maintenance problem may stem from an interior situation. So we're going to work out the details on Friday of how the expansion will take place and how we may expand the inspection further than just the property 16 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 maintenance inspection. If further resources are required after that meeting, we will notify Acting Commissioner Silvibile and the Managing Director's Office.
Also, Council President, presently the department would receive complaints on these property maintenance violations from the community. It will really be a more organized way of attacking the problem of answering these concerns in the community than -- we're presently just waiting for people to call us. We'll be a little bit more proactive.
However that works out, I think we would all appreciate knowing what's going to be done, when it will start, how it will work.
And the Managing Director has told me that that will be provided to you and to Council as soon as the final details are permanent.
We would certainly appreciate that. 17 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 In the Mayor's budget and brief, your department is projected to generate $41.2 million in locally generated non-tax revenues, an increase of $4.3 million from FY04. How will you generate these additional funds?
Jerry Prospero. We've, as you know, raised fees for business -- the business privilege license. We've raised sorted fees to fund the automation project that we're currently involved with. I could tell you that to date, the cash flow situation with regard to that project, we're about $1.6 million ahead of plan projections for all of those fee increases.
And I believe also the permit issuance we feel will somewhat improve and increase, and that's just overall. The Hanson system will allow us to better manage what we're doing, our computerization. I didn't mean to say that word. I'm kidding. But our computerization -- as an 18 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 example, Council President, we were doing how we issue a certain permit, and we found, Deputy Commissioner Perri and myself and his management team, that everybody went to this one person in the process, but nobody knew why. So we were able to eliminate that, which will make us more efficient and be able to spend more time on the more meaningful things, to raise revenue and create public safety to support that.
Are there any fees that are being proposed to be increased, and, if so, what are they, have they been before Council, have they been introduced?
We have proposed increasing -- actually, initiating a fee for reinspections, as Deputy Commissioner Verdi has already alluded to.
And how much will that cost? How much would that cost the individual for a reinspection?
After the first 19 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 reinspection, it will be $75. And then a third --
After the first. So it would be -- that's one way. And also we also ask the health licenses fees be increased.
And when will that come to Council as an ordinance? Because I don't believe we have received that as yet. And if we're to include it in the budget, I would think that we should have gotten it by now.
I will have to get you an answer on that, Council President. We'll supply that answer to you. 20 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Now, you mentioned about reinspections. And I'll just take another second, if I may. There is a property in my district that has absolutely no sidewalk. I don't know how many letters we sent out on this. We know who the owner of the property is. I believe it even made one of the -- I think it was the Daily News wrote an article about it. I don't understand. We go out, we inspect, we cite people, and nothing ever happens. Why? I mean, who is responsible for once a violation or a citation is issued, whose responsibility is it to collect? Whose responsibility is it?
Actually, the sidewalk, Council President, would be under the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Streets Department. But to answer your question on collection, as a department, we create a bill 22 and send it to the owner, and then if the bill 23 is not paid for our various activities for demolition, for clean and seal, for encapsulations, we also copy the Revenue 21 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 Department on that bill.
And they lien the property as a first lien. And that's really the system that's in place now presently for fines and/or costs that we create against properties for abatement of activity.
Okay for the time being. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you to my colleague. Madam President, I'd like to be excused for a little while. Councilman Clarke and I have to go to a formal opening, not too far from here, it's in the Councilman's 22 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 district, of some homes, and we'll be back, but I wanted to thank this department. Our issues are often complicated and there's a lot to do and a lot to know for all the work they do with us, and also to congratulate the Commissioner. He's hired two women, Ms. Evans and Ms. Burns, who will work well with us, and we're always happy to have people of our gender who are brought on board. Thank you very much and congratulations.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
First of 23 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 all, I recognize also all the balls that you have in the air and all of the challenges that you have, and even though sometimes things don't happen fast enough in many of our opinions, many of us are genetically impatient, I think, when it comes to what you do, but I personally understand the challenges that you have every day. I have a question about something that's interested me for a long time and it has to do -- and stop me if this is not your responsibility. When a plumber applies for a permit to open up the street, L&I issues that permit?
Good morning. Dave Perri, Deputy Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections. A plumber does apply for a permit to open the street and also to open the sidewalk. They are permits that we issue down in the Concourse. There's two Water Department personnel that are assigned to L&I. They issue those two permits on behalf of the Streets Department. 24 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
My point is that, and maybe your answer will satisfy me, but I think that we need to do some coordinating here. What I'm seeing is that when a plumber applies for the permit -- and I know that there are a lot of people opening up the street without permits, I just want you to know that we're aware of that and I've talked to the Streets Department about that. But I don't believe that the City is compensated appropriately when a plumber opens a street, digs almost to the center line or wherever they're required to make their repair. I believe that the cost that the City incurs in restoring that street far outweighs the cost of the permit, because I believe the Streets Department has to actually go and make the permanent repair. And lately I have seen some of those repairs, that I can't imagine that the permit paid to restore the street to its original condition. Can you tell me what -- and if you're not prepared, I hope you are, how much does it cost when a plumber applies to rip up 25 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 the street, and did we ever estimate based on the cost of the permit what it really costs to put it back to where it was before they opened it up?
I do not have the fee schedule with me. The permit to open the street, what the plumber is required to do is put a temporary patch. They then contact the Streets Department. There may be additional fees paid directly to the Streets Department to do the permanent repair, but a lot of these repairs that you see are temporary repairs just to get the street back open again and move on to the next project. We can certainly look up the fees and get back to you with a full answer.
I believe that the fee that the plumber, or whoever is excavating, the utility company, whoever, I believe that the fee is calculated to restore the street. That might be incorrect, but I believe that that's the case. You just hit something else that's very troubling to me. I'm sure there is a Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 standard on what the plumber or what the utility is supposed to do when they temporarily restore those ditches. Anyone that's driven through the City knows that what we call a pothole is not a pothole that was created because of the weather conditions or the environment. Many of the obstructions that people hit are the fact that those ditches were not restored properly, and many of them, especially during the winter when the Streets Department can't go out and make the permanent repair, are very, very damaging to vehicles. I don't believe that the people that get these permits are restoring at least temporarily the street to a standard that's acceptable. Because, believe me, every time I see one, I see a pile of wheel covers on the side of the road where some person on a rainy dark night hits one of these temporary repairs that has deteriorated during a rain storm. What I would like to see happen, and today the Streets Department will be here, that we get together to make sure that we're 27 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 not subsidizing a plumber for the work that they're being paid, because I just can't imagine that we're getting compensated in just the permit enough to do all of this work that we're doing. So I think we need to do some coordinating to see if we're being reimbursed appropriately for the work that's required.
We'll certainly make the commitment to work with the Streets Department to make sure that we are recovering the proper fees and that the repairs are being done safely and they're being done in accordance with the proper standards. I will look forward to working with them to tighten up the system. It's a good point you brought up.
Well, thank you. And also the Water Department, when they rip up the street to do a repair, I believe that they refer that repair back to the Streets Department, and months and months and months can go by before the repair is done. I know they have a contract for 28 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 emergencies to do repair. And, again, I don't know whether it's a labor issue or what, who has the responsibility, but many of these obstructions just go on and on and on, damage vehicle after vehicle after vehicle, and I think it really gets people angry thinking that we don't care. I think that really we need to develop a citywide process where the electric, the gas, the water, the plumbers permits are coordinated in a way where a temporary repair is done appropriately until the permanent repair is done. Maybe the permit should require the plumber to hire a subcontractor to do the permanent repair. Again, it could be a labor issue that I'm not aware of, but it can't continue the way it's going, because it's unfair to have all this vehicular damage, people tripping and falling in some of these excavations. I don't want to beat that to death. The next issue that I'd like to ask is about the Accelerated Plan Review Program. 29 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 Could you explain the Accelerated Plan Review Program and how we are being appropriately compensated for those accelerated reviews?
The Accelerated Review Program, we started it in the department in, I believe it was, 1993. And what the program is, there's always contractors, developers, builders that need to get their project started right away. And in the past, they would make phone calls, Can you put my job ahead of somebody else's job. So Commissioner Bennett Levin at the time, he figured out a way. He said, Why don't we try to institutionalize this. If people need service, why don't we figure a way of charging them additional fees and provide them with the service that they're asking for. So what we do with the Accelerated Review Program, if the normal turnaround time is not sufficient for your project, you can voluntarily elect to pay an additional fee. We will then take that job out of the normal cue and assign it to an examiner, who works on it on overtime, and you pay the fee before the 30 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 permit is issued. The customer is satisfied that they were able to get their hot project done in a reasonable amount of time and yet we're not taking away our resources from the regular customers that come in and that don't need to pay for an accelerated service.
Who manages the overtime program? We just went through a fiasco with another operating department where employees were working overtime and we found that the customer wasn't being billed. Do you have some audit trail to make sure that this program is running appropriately where employees aren't being paid and customers -- you hit it. I think you said that they pay in advance. What happens if there's more time required? How do you know in advance how long it's going to take? That's a ballpark, I would assume, and if it runs longer, there's an additional bill? I don't particularly like programs like this, because it's too loose and too easy to go off track.
With the financial condition of the City, the last thing that we need is to pay employees and not recover those expenses. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.
I'm sorry. I agree with you. Actually, I feel it's a necessary evil that we even have the program. In the perfect world, we'd be able to turn everybody's jobs around in two and three days, but it's simply -- we don't have the resources to do that. But the ultimate hook that we have is that before we issue the permit, the customer has to pay those fees. Now, we charge a minimum for four hours of review time, and in some cases, the review goes longer than that. They get an additional bill. The examiner holds the project until all the fees are paid. And that's been pretty airtight. We have a clerk that's dedicated to do nothing but the accounting on this program, to make sure that the employees are being compensated and for each project, that we're 32 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 also receiving the payment from the customer. So we have a dedicated employee that does nothing but manage the program. And ultimately they don't get the permit until they pay the fees.
And we have an employee that's dedicated to do this? Has anyone ever looked to see the entire cost of the administration of this program to see if we're recovering all those expenses? It's nice. From what I understand, many developers or many people that apply for permits use this program now as the way they do business. They just like to be able to have a person available to review their plan, and if they have to pump extra money into the project, they believe that it's to their advantage. Have we really taken a real good hard look to see what this program costs to make sure that the fees that you're charging bring us revenue neutral or we make a few bucks on it? I would hope we're making a few bucks on it, because it sounds to me, and, 33 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 again, I don't want to be critical, that this is a program that could go off track if it's not very, very, very carefully managed. Again, we assume in many cases that these are tight. Whoever would think that this other department that I don't want to mention by name would allow millions of dollars not to be collected. So that's made me very, very gun-shy about programs like this.
Jerry Prospero. Councilman, I could tell you that over the last -- since the program has been in existence, basically for every dollar that's spent on overtime, the City of Philadelphia receives in the General Fund between 2.50 and $3 back. So it's a revenue-generating program.
And it covers any expense that we have created with the inspection, and it's a program that is well-received. And I believe if we tried to take it away, the developers in the City would really protest, because it's beneficial to 34 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 them. As I said in my testimony, a lot of times they have a certain date they have to start in their contract, and if they don't start, they can lose X amount of dollars. So it's real critical to this group of people.
I'm not suggesting to take it away, but I'm making sure that a developer is compensating the City appropriately. Again, the person that you described that's dedicated to it, sometimes we forget to plug all the pieces when we come up with a cost of a service, and I would hate to think that we're having five people support this program that we haven't calculated into the rate that we're charging for the particular service. I'd like you to take a really hard look at it to make sure that you've plugged in all the pieces when you come up with the rate that you're going to charge, the four hour minimum.
Councilman, for 35 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 fiscal year '04, we project generating $1 million in fees associated with accelerated reviews.
Councilman, I think the answer is, it's a program that pays for itself. We will give the Council President the proof of that.
Just because you're telling me you're making a million bucks, I want to make sure you shouldn't be making 5 million. Just because you're coming in here telling me you're making a million dollars on a program, that doesn't mean that all of the pieces are together. That million, if you maybe take a 36 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 real hard look at it, could be million, million, million, million. Just because you're making a couple extra bucks on a program doesn't mean that it's running properly. You could be making possibly more money. I don't want to argue with you. I just want to make sure that you've got all the pieces together and making sure that you're collecting the right amount of money from these developers, not giving them a discount.
We will do that as a team, but I want it to be clear that we can't be making money on what we're doing. It's an expense. We have to make sure that we're collecting the proper amount of money --
-- to cover the costs, the extra costs, that are incurred. And that's what we will do.
And, again, this is one of these deals where you're going to have to show me. I haven't heard you say 37 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 that all of the support is appropriately being billed to the developer. That's all I want to make sure. I want to make sure that two or three pieces aren't being left out. Because, again I repeat, that that million maybe should be 2 million.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President, and good morning. First of all, I want to commend you on your intention to do the increased fines for reinspection. I think that's been long overdue. I just was curious as to how you got to the 75 and the 150. I kind of think that's 38 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 a little bit generous on your part, not being critical. I don't know what the magic number is or should be, but for some reason, I think $75 is not sufficient on a reinspection. And if you pick up on the dialogue that you just had with Councilman Rizzo, the cost of sending an inspector out time and time again, I think this may not even cover those costs.
We looked at the present cost of a code violation notice as being $25 and we felt that the raising -- it's a totally new program, whereas in the past we never charged anything, Councilman, for second and third.
I know. And I do commend you for implementing this. I just --
And also, we feel that it's a starting point as a gauge. We would go $50 more and see if that's sufficient.
Again, I don't know what is sufficient, what people will react to, but generally, I think any time 39 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 you're under $100, I think people kind of just take it rather lightly. It's just an opinion I'm sharing with you.
I kind of like round numbers, maybe 100, 200 and then 300.
Well, Councilman, I'm told that one of the answers to Council President Verna's questions is that when the bills would come to Council, I'm told that our fee increase bills will be sent to Council by the Administration tomorrow.
You spoke earlier about the plan review and that some people take the opportunity to do an accelerated plan review. I think they pay a few extra dollars. One of the complaints that I get from time to time for those folks who may not pay the additional fee for the accelerated review is, when a plan and review officer is out on vacation, out sick time, the applicant generally has to continue to wait for that 40 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 person to return, because that's the only person who had that plan. Is there a way in which someone else can maybe pick up that portion of the review so that the applicant doesn't have to wait two weeks for the plan and review person to return from vacation? They're entitled to vacation. We understand that. But it just adds to the frustration of the public when they continually call and they're calling for Frank DiCicco, he's not in today, or maybe he doesn't get the message that he's on vacation, or even if he does get the message, the applicant, he won't be back for two weeks. They throw their hands up and go, Another two weeks I have to wait. And then to find out when they come back that there's something that needs to be changed, it piles on. It layers on, layers on of the time that it takes. We understand that the review needs to be done and needs to be done thoroughly for a whole host of issues, including public 41 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 safety, but the frustration level of the public just gets to the point where they think, It's the City employees, they don't care about me, my application is probably in a bin somewhere. Is there a plan, a program? Is there some discussion going on how we may be able to give some relief, if you will, to the applicant when it comes to those types of issues?
David Perri, Deputy Commissioner. I understand the frustrations, Councilman. I get the phone calls myself. There's three pieces to this. Number one, I ask the supervisors to keep track of anticipated vacation time, and we try not to give accelerated reviews too close to when a person is going on vacation, because, obviously, that's completely unfair to the customer. Secondly, what the accelerated review is meant to do is meant to get you a read on your project. Now, if for some reason 42 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 your project is not code compliant or you did not submit all the necessary information, we will get a letter out, and at that point, your accelerated review really ends at that point in time. We've done the review. We've given you a written letter of what you need. Now you're basically in the cue with the regular projects. We do have very conscientious supervisors in both zoning and in the building unit, and if we get calls that, I paid for an accelerated review and the examiner is on vacation for the next week, I know personally that those supervisors will take that job, either reassign it or have it done themselves. I've seen them do it on an occasional basis. So we try to be absolutely customer friendly and try to serve the customers to the best of our ability. We try to manage when the vacations come, we try to reassign the projects and we try to give an applicant a complete answer during the accelerated review period.
Also, Councilman, as part of our computer enhancement and study of the department, we purchased a part of this -- when it's up and running in that part of the department, in the permit review part, it's called NAG, where it's made for professional services where the supervisor will be able to see -- it's in the cue. There's a plan in the cue, and that that day that gentleman or engineer is out sick, and it will better enable -- or vacations planned, it will better enable that manager instead of having to use memory or people's memory to tell them to manage the situation, which should improve the situation you're talking about greatly.
Thank you. The other question, I want to go back to the reinspection fees. The other point that I meant to make and I failed to is that while we're talking about increasing fees for licenses for businesses, we are known as a non-business-friendly City for lots of different reasons. Not directly at L&I, but 44 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 just in general, the taxing issues that we have to deal with. I would rather see the fees that we currently have in place for an individual who wants to open up a business either remain the same or slightly increase, if we have to, and make up the difference on the enforcement side where those people are not complying and we have to continually go back to try to get them to come into compliance. I think that's where the increase should be, as opposed to on the initial desire to open up a business, we should be more business friendly. We shouldn't make it as difficult as we have been over the years for people to be able to obtain a license, or anything for that matter. Again, because it all fits into the cost of doing business in the City of Philadelphia. On the enforcement side, I think you know, Guys, how I feel. When people aren't complying, I think they should be hit with the fullest extent of all the violations and all the fees. 45 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 So I think you might want to look at that before the reinspection fees come over. Increase that, keep the other stuff either where it is or if you have to do an increase, make it less than you're anticipating.
And as I said, Council President was out of the chambers for a minute, that the fee increases will come to Council tomorrow for approval, and that can all be done --
So we can make the adjustment if Council agrees on the reinspection fees. The other piece I want to talk about, you mentioned about encapsulation. Give me a brief description of what takes place with encapsulation, very brief, because I have a point that I want to make and just for the record.
Basically, we attempt to make the property weather tight; the roof; your favorite violation, the doors and windows ordinance; and the drainage system, to make sure it's properly flowing so 46 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 it's not causing any damage, further damage, to the property itself or to the adjacent property.
So if we have a building that has open windows and doors, what do we do? What does the City do in terms of encapsulation?
At the present time, we have been, because of budget constraints, sealing the property.
With plywood, painted plywood, to make it less noticeable to the community.
I understand. You want to secure the building. Here's the point I'm making: You and I, we've had a number of discussions over the last few years and more recently about 639-41 Catharine Street. I was in front of the L&I Review Board on Monday afternoon. They voted in the affirmative. You're clapping, I'm applauding. When it's done, then I'll really applaud. 47 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
But the point I'm making is, the owner of the property, Mr. Orapallo, finally came in and he cited a violation that he received a couple of years ago from the department ordering him to seal the property, and his argument was, I did what I was asked to do, I sealed the property. And he sealed it with plywood. My point is, on the Broken Window Bill 000404, we are requiring the property owner to replace all openings with a door, a window, whatever the case is. We are, in effect, when we do the plywood sealing violating the very law that we're asking other people to comply with. So there's a conflict, and I'm just curious, I'm concerned about when these cases get to court, on the one hand, we as the City agency are securing these properties with plywood or other materials and we're requiring everybody else to replace the openings with a door and/or window. 48 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
I wonder if we're going down a slippery slope here for us. I'm just concerned.
With 639 Catharine, the answer to the violation notice that he received originally was prior to the ordinance being passed by Council.
No. No, it's not. I beg to differ with you. It was 2002.
It was in 2002. The ordinance I'm speaking to was passed in the year 2000. And I'm not being critical. I'm just trying to point this out, that we -- and I'm not suggesting that we can afford to do doors and windows on these properties that we want to make secure, but it does raise a serious issue in my mind about legality and who is right and who is wrong in this case.
The department 49 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 will order the owner to put doors and windows. If we have to secure it ourselves, we will put plywood, because it is the owner's responsibility, not the City's responsibility, to comply with that violation. And we will, as we said to you, increase the enforcement of that ordinance and so on and so forth, but the City itself will not do that for the owner. It's the owner's responsibility.
I understand that. Again, I'm not suggesting that we should do it, because I don't think we can afford to do it. I'm just concerned about the conflict of how it's being handled. On one hand, we're saying you have to do -- you can't put plywood up, but in the other hand, we as a City are putting plywood up. And so it can be confusing. It was raised at the hearing the other day.
I understand. And I really believe, though, Councilman, the answer to that is, it's the owner's obligation to care for his property and not the City's.
Again, 50 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 it's just something we have to be aware of and pay attention to. Councilwoman Blackwell mentioned something about the hiring of two new people in your department. I think earlier today in the testimony you testified to Council President that there's a reduction in -- you're losing six people, they're inspectors?
They won't be inspectors. We have not at all lost -- we have not taken from our inspection force for the last five years. We have met and -- it will be people who are non-inspectional will be the ones we --
But your department would be reducing by those six positions?
The two individual positions that are being hired, are they within the department, from out of the department? What is --
One lady, Ms. Evans, is the Present Director of Contractual 51 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 Services. She's right behind you. And the other lady, Ms. Burns, is coming from the Managing Director's Office. The Managing Director has assigned her to License and Inspections. And they will both serve on our executive staff.
Not to be determined, but I believe around 75. It's still yet to be decided on by the Managing Director, but I believe about $75,000 each.
License and Inspections. Ms. Evans is presently in the department's budget, and Ms. Burns will come to --
So it's 52 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 one promotion and one from outside your department coming in; is that correct?
Outside the department from the Managing Director's to our --
So then it's technically only an increase of one position?
It will be an increase of one position and I believe at the end of the day will allow the department to better manage itself and improve. The improvement of both ladies in their experience and knowledge and abilities will more than increase our ability to function as a department.
Yes. Ms. Evans is coming from a civil service to an exempt and Ms. Burns is an exempt now, will come from 53 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 MDO to our staff.
Council President, I think Councilman Cohen is trying to get your attention.
I'm sorry. His light is not on. Oh, yes, it is. I'm sorry. Did you want to be recognized now or your turn? Is there a question that you wanted to ask, Councilman Cohen? You were trying to get my attention, I'm told.
Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions, Madam President.
How many exempt positions are you allowed under 54 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 the Charter in your department?
I would have to supply that answer, Council President. I'm not at all sure of the answer. I believe it's two. It's not two. I believe in License and Inspections we're allowed six exemptions, but I would have to get you exact --
Under the Charter. I would have to get you the exact amount. I'm not positive. Council President, I'm told it's one for each board. And we have the L&I Review Board, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and also the Commissioners Office gets an exempt position and the two Deputies.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, I'd like to go back to a question that was asked earlier about the 55 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 fees, the enhanced revenues the department is supposed to generate. Your testimony talks about inspections and reinspections and a couple other items. Can you give us a rundown on exactly what the revenue enhancements are, which fees are being increased, how many bills are coming to Council and what the process was to determine which fees would be increased?
Councilman, Jerry Prospero. We have five or six revenue initiatives for fiscal year '05. They include expansion of the Accelerated Review Program, which we have estimated will add $366,000 to the General Fund revenue. We've proposed increasing fees in the Accelerated Review Program.
Can you get a little closer to that mic? And I'm sorry. I didn't catch your name.
Got you. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. What's your position?
Acting Administrative Services Director. We propose expanding the Accelerated Review Program. That would add $366,000 to General Fund revenues. We've proposed increasing fees associated with the Accelerated Review Program.
Let me ask you a quick question about that. What's involved in the accelerated plan reviews? What actually happens?
In the Accelerated Plan Review Program, it usually applies to larger projects that the normal review time on, say, to issue the building permit may be three to four weeks. In the Accelerated Review Program --
Commissioner, I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you, but let me try to better understand that. Why would it take three to 57 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 four weeks to issue a building permit?
Well, what happens is, the construction season, it generally runs from the middle of springtime into the early fall, and we have -- you have a bubble of work that comes through during those months. And in order to do -- our review times increase during those times of the year and they get less in the winter months. So during the summer months when we see the most use of this program, it enables somebody to get a review quicker than what our normal review times would be. It has to do with the construction cycles. It has to do with people taking vacation times in the summer.
I understand about the summer, but I thought your earlier testimony was the construction season is, what, March to October, March to November, something like that, people getting permits are trying to get that last bit of 58 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 project done before the frost?
And since you know that, is it that it takes a long time because we don't have enough people doing the work during the peak seasons?
Well, we've compared our review times to other cities, other jurisdictions, and we're pretty much right in where the average would be in a three-week turnaround. It does take time to do a review on a large-scale project.
Well, I understand that. We know each other well enough. I know all the gentlemen at the table, except the gentleman on the corner, so you won't take any of my questions personally or directly, but I do have some questions about this. I mean, given the fact that there was a newspaper story, I guess, recently that Philadelphia lost more population as a county than any other county in the United States of 59 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 America since 2000, can we really afford to be average?
Is there an incentive to build in Philadelphia if it's going to take you three to four weeks to get a building permit?
One thing that I'm actually proud of, if you look at our permit numbers from back in the early '90s, we were issuing about 7,500 permits, and we're issuing close to 13,000 and we're able to do that with an increase in staff. And one of the ways we've been able to do that is to be able to offer these accelerated plan reviews. It pays for the employee overtime. It takes us through the tough times.
I understand that. On the builder's side, though, look, if you want to get your project done, I mean, you're obviously going to pay. But, again, we've been faced at times with being also fairly high cost. 60 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 To get an enhanced service, you're going to pay more to get your thing done, and so the builder says, Fine, I've got to get it done, I'm under whatever my deadline is, I'll do it. They're not paying it really. They're going to pass it on, and it just continues to lift up that cost. I don't disagree that we should have accelerated review programs to help people get things done, but I would suggest that in an effort to make the place a lower-cost place to function and operate as a more friendly place, not that you folks aren't friendly, you're a very friendly guy, but, again, whether it's a citizen doing whatever they're doing or a contractor, I do think that we need to try to get ourselves in a situation where people are not necessarily at additional costs seeing the process move along a little quicker. And if it is a personnel issue, which I pretty much assume that it must be, I'd be interested in hearing how we would -- if you had the opportunity to reduce that time from three to four weeks to one to two, what 61 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 would it take to do that, recognizing that you have a period of time that you know from history this is when this activity happens and so you need more bodies and then in the out seasons, you don't?
Two of the areas in which we're trying to improve service without hiring additional examiners, number one, we have the Fast Form process, which allows people to get their permits out at the district office. They don't need plans for those permits. You basically click off a check box and pay your fee and you have your permit issued instantaneously. The second thing we've done, over the years we've looked at areas in which we can eliminate the plan review. Back in the early '90s, approximately two-thirds of the projects that came in for us to review needed building plans with those projects. We've effectively reduced that in half by coming up with other ways for people to communicate to us what their construction project is all about. 62 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 So we feel that we're doing a lot of efforts to reduce costs for the builders by not having to bring plans in on all kinds of projects and finding other ways of getting projects started and permits out the door, and at the same time, we're not adding staff, which would be a burden to the entire tax base.
Sure. Let me ask this question: For the many positive things that you're doing, I'm going to automatically assume that much of this information is probably on the City's web site. On the other hand, of all of the millions of web sites out there, I make no 17 assumption that people are checking out phila.gov on a regular basis. What kinds of things or is anyone talking with you within the department about how we better publicize the advances that you're making, the enhanced services that you're looking to provide, whether it's services online or things that you don't need to come -- the horror story for most people 63 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 is, I went to the basement of L&I or just to the basement of MSB and I spent four hours down there, I never got out. How do we communicate with the public that we're doing these kinds of things and that you don't necessarily have to spend a few hours down in the basement doing whatever it is that people need to do down there?
We do have a pretty extensive web site that has a lot of information on there about our various building permits and our programs. We made the effort to have some of our literature translated into non-English languages so that we can reach out to groups that otherwise we couldn't reach out to. And I agree. I mean, we need to do a better job with the web site, but the information is there. This afternoon we're holding -- actually, it's taking place now. We've partnered with Drexel University to have a seminar on the new building code, and myself and some other key members will be at the seminar this afternoon. 64 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 We use Drexel to get the word out about this seminar. Commissioner Solvibile has been very proactive in meeting with the media and getting stories out about the department. So we are making a conscious effort to let the people know about L&I and the services that are available.
And we also sent notice to our stakeholders of these improvements we have in our process.
Okay. Mr. Prospero -- I'm sorry; Commissioner Perri, the people who do the Accelerated Review Program, is that work taking place during the normal work hours or is that in a non-traditional work time on overtime?