That work is done on overtime. None of it is done during normal 65 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 work hours.
Is the accelerated review fee covering the total overtime costs?
Yes. I believe our multiplier was about 2.4 for last year, meaning that the fees are about almost two and a half times what the actual overtime cost is.
What I would ask is if you would, working with your other staff and through the department, if you could forward to us through the Chair your plans or ideas for how we would seek to significantly reduce the average time that it takes to issue a building permit or some of the other more sought-after permits in a fairly significant way, while not driving up the cost of getting those documents. We really have to drive down the cost of people trying to do business in the City. And I understand that's, to some extent, in conflict with much of the testimony here, because we're increasing a variety of fees. So that will be quite interesting. 66 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 Now, Mr. Prospero, of this testimony talks about expansion and increased fees for code violation notice (ticket) writing program. And I'm particularly intrigued with this sentence: "The expansion program will also require an increase in Housing and Business Compliance inspector ticket writing by percent." 10 Are you now in the process of 11 establishing, for lack of better terms, 12 essentially a quota of ticket writing for your 13 inspectors? 14
Councilman, when 15 we took a look at the number of violations 16 that each of those units issued, in the 17 Housing unit, Business Compliance unit, across 18 the board, it was felt that at least in the 19 first year we started to issue -- at least in 20 the first year, if we started issuing tickets, that there would be greater compliance brought on by the issuance of these tickets.
Okay. You just said that if you started issuing tickets.
In the course of a Housing inspector's duties during the course of the day, he will be asked to look for those situations that require the issuance of a ticket. We assume that that number could increase by approximately percent. 11
And I guess 12 what I'm asking you is, if you're a Housing 13 inspector, aren't you supposed to be doing 14 that anyway? 15
Councilman, Dominic 16 Verdi. 17 They are supposed to -- they will 18 issue tickets for violations that we feel 19 would be better served with a CVN than trying 20 to get the case into court. There are some situations where a CVN, there's no one to write the CVN to. There's absentee landlords, there's absentee owners. But we have sat and talked to the Managers of both Business Compliance and Housing, and they intend to 68 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 increase the use of the CVNs.
Okay. Let's go back to the original question, though. I mean, you're going to leave me with the impression, certainly from reading the testimony, if not listening to some of the responses, that we are, because of our financial issues, we are now moving from a realm of "We go out and do what we do because we're in the public safety business" to "We need money, and now when we go to your house, we're going to look for every possible thing that we can find in order to generate more tickets, because I've now got a percent 16 bump in what I'm supposed to write, because 17 the department is being pushed to generate 18 more revenue." 19
As we saw it in 20 our discussions about doing this, it's a way to put more pressure on the owners to comply with our violations and our public safety, our nuisance violations that we write for high weeds, high grass, trash in our communities that really just tear down the fabric of the 69 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 community. It's just a way to give them more incentive to comply with what we're doing.
I understand. How many tickets do we issue annually or in a fiscal year?
I have that. I'll get that to you. I have it here. It's in these notes.
This year, Councilman, if I'm not mistaken, it's approximately 2,500 to 3,000.
I'm not complaining. If you're one of the people that didn't get one, I guess you'd be happy, but given the number of houses, the number of inspections, I just assumed that, quite honestly, the number would be much higher. 70 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Fiscal year '04 we received from revenue directly from the issuance of CVNs $37,000.
I appreciate that response, but that wasn't my question. My question was, what was the total value of all the CVNs issued?
So is your response the answer to what would have been my next question, which is how much did you collect? $37,000?
37,000 is what was collected fiscal year '04. To date, the information that I have on that number is -- it's not through April. That would be through 71 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 like February.
Well, I understand that. Now, you say it was 10,000. I'm looking at your five-year plan on 122. Your Key Performance Measurements section indicates for Code Violation Notices/Tickets issued for FY04, your original projection was 2,100. Your current projection is 2,600, and I thought you said 10,000.
I'm on of the five-year plan. I asked you earlier how many CVNs you issued in the last fiscal year. You told me 10,000. The five-year plan indicates that you anticipate doing 2,600. I'm trying to understand.
We issued between fiscal year '01 and fiscal year '03 just under 10,000 CVNs.
We issued 9,998. Approximately 3,200 of those were issued for tobacco-type violations. Another 2,400 were 72 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 issued for vacant lots, high weeds, that sort of situation, and the remainder were for licensing issues.
What about just regular CVNs for basically property violations or property maintenance code violations?
Because I know my time probably expired a long time ago. Why don't I, for a moment, take you out of your misery. Why don't you just get us a complete report and give it to the Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Good morning. 73 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
I just have a couple of questions. During the Police Department's testimony on April 19th, Commissioner Johnson stated that the Police Department has allocated funds to provide surveillance of illegal short dumping of trash. How is this initiative coordinated with L&I?
In some cases, Councilwoman, the Police Department refers over to us nuisance businesses or nuisance properties. In some cases, if the person dumping, they'll come to -- the Police Department will discuss issues whether these businesses or people that are dumping are licensed in any way, and at that time, we will look into removing their licenses as a public nuisance.
And also the Police Department under state law can 74 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 confiscate the vehicle used to do the dumping.
The Police Department coordinates with us in various different ways. We coordinate on nuisance locations, bars, businesses. And in this case, they will refer to us on the illegal dumpers. Say, for instance, it's a contracting company that has a legal contractor's license or a business privilege license for other services in the City. If they get caught dumping on a property and they're short dumping, those people are turned over to us and we look into immediate revocation of their licenses to actually do business in the City.
Regarding the CLIP program, I know that you're going to target zip codes in the City. During the discussion with the Managing Director, we looked at the zip code map, which overlaps Council districts. How do you all plan to identify 75 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 whether or not that you will reach a Council district going solely by zip codes?
Our system, whether -- the Managing Director is using the zip codes, but in our system that we're creating, we're created over Council districts. We're aware if it's zip code at 19125 and it's on the cusp of two districts what district it's in. So we would be aware of that. Although they'll set up how we'll make the inspection code, we will be aware and the Managing Director will be aware of what Council district we're in. And as I understand it, they will work with that Council person to insure that the violations being written and the areas picked will be areas that Council person wants us to be active in.
So tell me, what do we get with the CLIP program? What services are there?
It's a program being still developed as we speak by the Managing Director's Office, but as I 76 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 understand it, what we'll get is the nuisance-type violations that are in every community, high weeds, trash in the yard, violations of that sort. We'll be real proactive. We'll write the violation, and if the owner does not comply, there will be an abatement of that situation. And a program overseen -- coordinated by the Managing Director's Office, it will not just be Licensing and Inspections involved in CLIP. It's not now. Or the CLIP expansion. It's the Streets Department, it's the Water Department, the Police Department for towing cars. It's a lot of agencies that come under the jurisdiction of the Managing Director and the program. That's why the program will be coordinated through that office.
And I know that. The organization or the program is not yours, but what impact will it have on service to other communities with no CLIP? We have problems all over this City, and I'm going to be asked to select an area 77 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 for a CLIP program and I'd like to know what impact that has on the other parts of my district in terms of accessing service, particularly for L&I services, and enforcement throughout my district.
If a department receives a complaint, wherever it is, we will answer it and write the proper violations. And the CLIP area expansion, they're being more proactive, and I see that program is eliminating a lot of complaints that we would normally receive. We'll just be able to attack the situation in a more efficient way. From L&I's perspective, that we find the violations before they're complained about, hopefully, and get the enforcement action that's needed or the abatement activity that's needed to satisfy the community's desire to have a better place to live.
Tell me about Logan. How are we going to deal when we finish the demolition over there?
Hopefully by the end of next year, with the plan demolition 78 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 that NTI will take on and the emergency demolition that License and Inspections will take on, the triangle will have no buildings that need to be still demolished. We'll have it all done.
The demolition of the dangerous buildings in the Logan triangle. I'd have to get back to the Council President with the number, but I believe right now it's about buildings, if my memory 15 serves me. Fourteen of the buildings will be 16 done under the program in the Logan area that 17 you're working on with NTI, Mr. McCullough and 18 Pat Smith presently, and that the others will 19 be done by License and Inspections contractual 20 services as emergency -- 21
I think 25 that's all. 79 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe Commissioner Solvibile can help me with this one. The sale of cigarettes to minors, what jurisdictions, if any, do you have on the enforcement of this violation? And this happens a lot throughout the City. I know it happens in North Philadelphia a lot where neighborhood stores sell packs of cigarettes to minors and the loosies, the loose cigarettes to kids as well. Do you have any jurisdictions over that?
Last year alone, I think, if I'm not mistaken, we shut down 13 locations in the City for sale of cigarettes to minors. We have a partnership right now with the Health Partners of the State of Pennsylvania and also the Health Department 80 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 locally where they send in young teenagers to verify the fact that these cigarettes are being sold, and the information comes back to us, which in time an immediate ticket is or a CVN is issued to that location. After two infractions of that ordinance, we then send out a letter to the business explaining to them that if it's done again, their business is in jeopardy of being closed. And any further infractions after that require immediate closure of the business. And the only way those businesses get reopened is through court order and an agreement with the Law Department.
Yes, we are. We just met with the Health Council last week, and our rate throughout the state was at one time percent. I think we're back up to 40 22 percent. And we're looking into further 23 enforcement. 24 What we've asked for is to combine 25 our efforts and concentrate on the areas that 81 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 we know have high rates of sale to minors.
I think this is something that we definitely need L&I and community groups to be of support to the enforcement of this law, because we see this as a major health issue in this City. I have approached at least one group of businesses and I have asked them to help enforce this. They need to make sure that among themselves they are enforcing themselves and making sure that children are not being sold cigarettes. I would like to extend my hand to be of whatever help I can be in the enforcement of this law, and also that we need to shut these places down and maybe we need to consider a campaign where we set some time aside this summer where we go after any store in our neighborhoods in this City and close them down once we have proof that they have, in fact, sold cigarettes to minors, whether loose cigarettes or packs of cigarettes.
Again, Councilman, we've had this meeting last week and the 82 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 Health Promotion Council is now in the process of putting out information, advertising information. Also, they're going to offer all the stores in the City -- if I'm not mistaken, there's over 2,000 or 3,000 stores that sell cigarettes or tobacco products -- classes on what they can and cannot do according to their license.
I think all that is fine and dandy, but I'm not talking about -- they're very complimentary and very needed. What I'm talking about is start closing these businesses down. Once it hits them in the pocket, then they will realize that they have to stop these activities in our neighborhoods in Philadelphia. All that is fine, but unless we launch a campaign, and that's what I'm recommending, that you launch a campaign of a given period of time and do all the exposure and all the media stuff that's needed and promotion to get this message across, because it is happening, and it's probably worse now 83 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 than ever. We have this growing population of young folks in this City and they're being sold cigarettes, loose cigarettes, packs of cigarettes, every minute of the day. I'm of the belief we have to do a whole lot better. And I'm not just putting it on you. I believe that this promotion has to be for the community to get much more involved. Those business associations have to patrol their own people and make sure that they have repercussions if they do not comply by the standards that their business associations have established.
So are you okay with this campaign? We ought to get together and get this campaign going.
If not, I'll start the campaign myself and say you didn't want to be a part of it. 84 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Councilman, being an ex-smoker, knowing how hazardous it is, I fully support it, because it is a habit, an addiction that needs to be kept away from our children.
Thank you. In your five-year plan, you have an item here on in the five-year plan book, it says Code Violation Notices/Tickets Issued. It tells us how many tickets were issued, but I don't know how many of these tickets got paid.
We would have to -- that is not something that's paid to L&I. It's paid to Revenue, I believe, and we'll have to get that information for you.
Thank you. The other question was concerning -- you've had a very long commendable tradition in clean and seal and the demolition of abandoned 85 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 properties in our City. And during these testimonies during this budget hearing, particularly when the representatives of NTI came before us, we posed the question of your workings with NTI. Are you doing more of the work that you have done fairly well over the years for NTI at this point? I know you mentioned something in your report here, in your presentation, but it's not a whole lot. I think the City of Philadelphia, and some of my colleagues have expressed the same concern, that we'd like to see L&I that has done this over the years do more of this in our NTI program. It's probably -- the indication is probably more cost effective. What is your role and has your role been increased in the NTI, particularly the demolition end of the work?
The NTI program has only enhanced our license and inspections effort. A building, we still supply the building inspectors to go out and identify the buildings, working with the Council people and 86 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 the NTI staff, that need to be demolished. We supply the inspector who oversees the demolition contractor to insure that there's compliance that the property is done right. Matter of fact, yesterday there was a statistic at a meeting I was at that the number of claims about damage to the adjacent property under the NTI program has gone down considerably, and I believe the reason, because each demolition project has to have the L&I inspector on site. Whereas, in the past, our inspectors had multiple sites and multiple locations and could not spend every day being at a site. So I see it as being an improvement. The system works. I like the way the planning is done with the Council people, just not reacting to a person's complaint or an individual's, that we sit down and have a plan discussion of what will be demolished. Prior to the demolition package being approved or submitted to Procurement, the Council person whose district that is has to sign off on the demolition that they agree 87 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 these buildings be demolished. And to create that list, we go door to door physically in front of the properties and pick and choose which is the worst of the worst, and they're the properties to demolish. So overall, Councilman, I just see the NTI program as being a great enhancement to what L&I's goal is to public safety.
So you have more involvement with NTI now than at the beginning of the program?
From the beginning of the program, Councilman, I was always involved. "I" representing the department. L&I was always involved from day one and had complete -- a seat at the table in deciding how it would be set up and what we would do. We were never not involved.
You're welcome. 88 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Solvibile, I agree with the fact that L&I has a pretty good record and has over many years and that you've played a very important part in achieving that record.
However, I am mystified by the notion that L&I has been in the midst of the demolition program of NTI since the beginning, because I remember spending long periods of time questioning the Administration on the NTI program and being told that L&I would have nothing to do with it and for good reason, because the Administration didn't think it was good enough, they didn't have enough experience and they needed separate companies dealing with it separately. So apparently somehow or other, the differences were bridged over and a place was 89 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 found for L&I in the program, because we would have had much more confidence in the NTI program from the beginning on had we known of L&I's involvement.
Councilman, the only thing I can say to answer that is that from day one of the NTI program, I represented the Department of License and Inspections sitting at the table. Weekly meetings when Ms. Smith, the director of NTI, I'm not sure if that's her proper title, when she first came on board, I spent two weeks with her touring the City of Philadelphia going from place to place. I just -- I'm mystified by how that could be, because I was always involved and obviously myself representing the Department of Licensing and Inspections.
Because sometimes two different groups get two different stories. We were told that L&I did not have the experience to engage in a large-scale demolition program and that what was needed was a separate commercial 90 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 component, not consisting of government people at all, but a separate company set up. And even though that company may have had no 5 experience in the past, it would be far better than the L&I. But we're delighted that something happened along the way that overcame that. I guess had we had better communication between the Mayor and the Council, we would have learned that sooner and many of our questions might have been relieved. But we were under the impression that a company, I think called the Hill International Company or something like that --
-- was needed to run the show, because it was said L&I had no way of running the show or handling the matter. Were you in agreement with such a conclusion?
I would add that the Hill International has brought to the 91 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 table in working with them a quality and assistance to the department that the department did not have as far as the massiveness of the NTI program. But I would disagree with any notion that we were not involved from the beginning, because as a fact, I sat personally on a panel of about five different -- I think there was six of us, that interviewed various companies that would provide project management, and we graded each company. So it is an involvement from the beginning. And I see the benefit of having Hill to assist us in setting up the different parts of the program that are really -- that L&I would not be capable of doing. We're capable of the bricks and the demolition process and the overseeing of that, but the planning and the creating of maps and all and all the situations that would go into supplying Council people with the information they need to make informed decisions would be beyond what L&I is capable of doing at the present time with the staff we have. 92 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Let me ask you a very specific question. Is it your feeling that the cost would have been as high as it's been now if L&I had handled the matter from the beginning on?
I believe the cost of what it cost to demolish a building is irregardless. Right now presently our average cost on curbside demolitions is $20,012 per house, counting the stucco, the demolition, the removal of asbestos, the investigation if there's asbestos, and the NTI average cost is roughly 22,000. Now, their cost is higher because we in our curbsides do not provide seeding for grass nor fences. We just demolish the building. So that's why their average cost -- our costs are similar, and that's the reason I believe for the driving cost, is just the demolition has -- the cost of providing that and stuccoing the party walls has increased greatly over the last few years. To give you an example, Councilman, stuccoing a party wall, the average cost was 93 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 roughly, three years ago, $4,500 a wall. It is now averaging about approximately $9,000 a wall.
But what puzzled the Council, or at least a number of individual members of Council, was that it would seem to us that with the greater call for more stuccoing and more demolition, we were of the view that the costs were going to go down, not up, and this whole schedule seemed to be in reverse order, and we wondered why was it that instead of volume decreasing the costs, it seemed to be increasing the costs.
I believe that part of the answer is that several years ago, the Philadelphia Police Department in cooperation with L&I and also the District Attorney's office did an investigation of contractors and what they were doing, and found that what they were putting in the holes was not necessarily what we want in the holes, in the cavities created by the demolition. It wasn't all clean debris. Not necessarily 94 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 unclean, but like wood, and you cannot have wood in the hole. And they were filling the holes with that, which would cut their dumping costs. With the DA and the Philadelphia Police Department enforcing that strictly and bringing a few companies to trial and a conviction on one of them, that itself drove up the cost of demolition from that moment on. And then also with the better ability for us to enforce what we're doing, what the specs call for, by having our inspectors on the job, also I would guess drives up the cost, but provides a better service to the homeowner, because if you remember, I just said that the claims of damage to adjacent properties is down dramatically from the past because of the inspector being on the site.
Well, in the days before you became Commissioner, I remember there were many questions by City Council in the old days, before NTI, as to why the costs were as high as they then were, 95 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 because the then costs, which is much less than half of the current costs, seemed very high, and we were told, Well, we can't get contractors to build, to do the work. I think at a time only one contractor was even bidding on City contracts. And if only we could get more contractors working in the field and add more demolition, we could probably get the costs down. So many of us felt very comfortable that with NTI engaging in an expanded program for demolition, that would happen, but exactly the reverse happened.
And not just with NTI, Councilman, but as I said, in our curbsides, which is separate, and I believe there's 15 or 16 contractors on that list, we call it the daily list that we pre-approve -- that we allow to bid on emergencies for us, that that price went up, too. So it's a matter of what the market is calling for the price to be. And that's the part that was unforeseen, at least in my part, because I agree with you, I thought the 96 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 price would come down. But I've been proven wrong.
All right. Now let's go to another area. Tell me, how does a homeowner or homeowners who have seen building taking place, have never seen a permit posted anywhere and they wonder what's being built, how do they find out what it is that's being built, whether it's permissible or not, whether people have a permit?
There's a requirement that the permit is posted, and part of our enhancement of the code violation, CVNs, this coming year and presently will be that we will write violations against the contractors for not or homeowners for not posting the permits so the community is aware of what's allowed to be built there. And if there is a question, they can call us at 215-686-2463 and we will get the information to them as to what is allowable at that site.
All right. Because there's a place on Kemble and 20th Street that used to be called a Baby Doll Bar 97 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 for many years, then it was left vacant, and for the last couple of months, workmen, nobody knows who they are, come in at various hours of the day or night and start working. They don't talk to anyone. Nobody has ever seen a sign posted. People in the community say they have called L&I and got no answer. If you could repeat the numbers again. Should they ask for anybody in particular?
The number is 215-686-2463, and that's our general complaint number, and the customer service representative that answers the phone will make sure that it gets to the right district and the right person. And as far as the address you just gave us, Deputy Commissioner Perri will have it investigated and an answer to Council President Verna and to your office sometime today.
That would be very good. Now, one last series of questions relating to the billboards. On this occasion, 98 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 I think I may have to be giving you some congratulations. I sense over the last period of time, maybe a year, maybe two years, there seems to be a change of attitude and a more law-abiding policy being followed. In other words, apparently the laws against illegal billboards at least seem to be more enforced than they've been in a long time, and I want to congratulate you for that.
Because it's been very embarrassing to have a period of time where there were plain violations and nobody doing anything.
I hope I'm not just wishfully dreaming that this is so and that the facts are bearing it out, but that seemed to be the conclusion.
The first day that I was told by the Managing Director that I'd be Acting Commissioner, I took a crash course in signs, because, as you know, my involvement with signs was very little, it was 99 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 somewhat new, at least to me. And I would say that Deputy Commissioner Perri has done a great job and Deputy Commissioner Verdi, and we have met with the Law Department and we're now awaiting a plan of attack, a further plan of attack. And Deputy Commissioner Perri has some stats that he could give you, but we're going to be proactive in getting the signs legalized and the ones that aren't capable of being legalized or in the owners to be demolished, and that plan is being worked out with the Law Department as we speak.
Well, I'm very pleased to hear that, because one of the embarrassing features was that despite a Supreme Court ruling is the illegality of a group of signs near the bridge, I think, near Ben Franklin Bridge. The City seemed to be taking the position that it didn't matter and they were going to ignore the Supreme Court decision. And that's very embarrassing to the whole legal fraternity, to have a decision of the Supreme Court not enforced. So we want to 100 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 congratulate you and hope that that continues. And one last question on that. Who would know what kind of revenue is derived from the signs? For example, I understood there were a group of delinquent billboard owners, I'm not sure exactly who they were, who were taken to court for either having illegally posted billboards who created them and there was some kind of a hearing, they were fined. Who would know whether the fines were paid? Because in the past when there have been fines, they've also been routinely ignored. Would your department be in a position to determine whether the fines were actually paid?
We would have to ask the Law Department for that input, and we will provide it to Council President so she can share it.
We would be very appreciative. In the meantime, we appreciate very much apparently the changed approach, which we think is a healthy one for 101 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 the City of Philadelphia. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Just to follow up before I get into the questions that I have, sometimes it amazes me when I report construction to L&I and a person is putting an addition or doing something very obvious that is taking -- it's not just a small over-the-weekend sneak-it-in type job, that we call and find out that no 18 one has reported it before a member of City Council. What are you doing proactively to see the things that our constituents see? It amazes me that time after time after time walls being built or a retaining wall or some type of construction, that we're the first person to see it or report it. 102 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 What are the employees of L&I -- I hope as a work force, that you're all the eyes and ears of the City and when you see something, you report it.
Our inspectors in the district, our building inspectors, are assigned areas, and from going to stop to stop and job to job, they know their area. If they see construction, they will stop and put a cease operations on it. We do that frequently. That's part of their job to do that, and I believe that they do it rather well. We can give you the stats of --
Whoa. If a building has a second floor being put on it and a member of City Council calls and they're told this is the first we've known about it, somebody is not doing what they're supposed to be doing here. How a job could go on for two weeks, I'm not going to be specific, and me be the first one to report it, somebody has got sunglasses on. 103 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Deputy Commissioner David Perri. Councilman, just to give you a little bit of background statistics, we have 29 building inspectors for the entire City.
No, no. I'm just talking about question it. If you have something on your way to work that you see being done, I think that you have the inside track in e-mailing or asking the building inspector or the supervisor of the building inspector to check it out to see if there's an appropriate permit. I'm talking about all employees. The Streets Department, when they see a pothole or a stop sign down, they don't wait for an employee that's responsible at the sign 104 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 shop to report the sign down. What I'm trying to say is, if members of Council and members of Council staff are seeing this stuff, all the people that work -- I'm not talking about the secretarial force. I'm talking about the people that are intimately involved in the L&I process. They should see this stuff and report it at least to check it out.
Councilman, to follow up a little bit on that, what we see as a key to making sure that these jobs can be identified readily is the initiative that we're undertaking this year to make sure that people post their permits. I mean, it will enable us to at a glance know if a job is illegal or not without even stopping. So we're going to make a deliberate effort this summer that if we get calls or know about jobs that are working without permits, that they will be getting a $75 ticket for not posting it. If jobs are working with a permit but they're not posting it, there will be a 105 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 $75 ticket assessed to try to encourage contractors and building owners to post their permits so we can at a glance know which ones are legal and which ones aren't.
Commissioner, do you ever have people use an old permit just to try to do what you say, satisfy the person because it's a ride-by, they see the orange sign, it was from two jobs ago? I mean, I think people really have to look to see if it's the real deal or not.
I'll only do this because I love Councilman Rizzo. Is there any way we can put this online so while your secretaries aren't getting in car accidents when they're home looking for buildings falling down? I mean, seriously, if we go on the computer -- don't tell anybody, but I just came from LA. They 106 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 do it in LA. You know how I said LA? I just worked. I was in Los Angeles. They do it there. So if my friend Janice, who works in one of your guy's office, I don't want her to get in a car accident when she's riding home tonight looking for buildings. Now, I know Councilman Rizzo means well. He really means well. And he's right. Everybody should be looking for these things, but that would alleviate fake permits. It could be online. So if I live in a neighborhood, either I'm a Council person or just a concerned citizen, a committee person, a block captain, what are they doing. It's better than clogging up your phones. We talked about that before.
The whole purpose of our computerization is to allow us to collect this data and make it available online. That's one of the goals. That anybody should be able to look up a given address and know if a permit was obtained. I mean, that is one of the goals. 107 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 It's one of the keys of the department becoming automated.
And my further answer to Councilman Mariano is that in LA they're using the same system that we're now implementing and we'll be able to duplicate whatever LA is doing, only we'll be doing it better because it's newer.
There's a new committee here in Council. It's called the Technology and Information Committee, and we're planning to bring you in to talk about technology and where you are, but I'm not finished with the proactive side of L&I. And, Councilman Mariano, I exempted the secretaries in my statement. But my point being is, it's kind of distressing when you're the first after observing something going on for a week, two weeks, ten days and no one else saw it. And 108 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 you know what people sometimes suggest, that we sometimes only see what we want to see. And I know that that's not the case, but many people are very -- that's the conditioning that they've come to accept in some big cities. So I want to make sure that we do have everybody engaged that's the appropriate people, that when they see something, e-mail, voice mail, have somebody check it out.
Absolutely. It's a great suggestion, Councilman, and as Deputy Commissioner Perri has just stated, with the enforcement of making sure that permits are posted that are legal, that this will help us and the counterfeit, people have used counterfeit permits and we pick it up in about two seconds. And with our new system that's coming online, it's going to be more difficult for people to counterfeit and it will be easier for us to catch it, because the inspector in the field will not have to use his or her memory, it will be right there in their hand-held or their computer that they 109 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 have that that building is legally permitted. So we're getting there, and in August of '05 is when we're due to be fully operational in our Hanson system and our new computerization system, and between now and then, we'll have certain phases that come online and will be operational, and we'll obviously share that with Council.
And just one more thing on that. We also have a training class of building inspectors. When we hire building inspectors now, they come in as trainees. They have to pass certain modules in order to become a full-fledged building inspector. But what we have them do is do patrol inspections, looking for illegal work. They go up and down the streets. They go look at the loading docks. They look for work being done without permits. They also look for licenses for contractors. And it's been successful. And we currently have a trainee class that's coming through the department and we're able to use them effectively in doing these type of patrol inspections. 110 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
Also, Councilman, if I could add one thing to that, please. The department, in cooperation with Drexel University, has created a License and Inspections University at Drexel where we've had recently ten individuals who graduated that program and passed the required modules at Drexel to receive a certificate. One of the people that were in that program, Inspector DiPietro from Center City District in making a routine inspection, found that the illegal construction, I might add, on a complaint from within the department that the chimney was blocked and it was an occupied property and there was carbon monoxide poisoning going into the property. He evacuated the property, and that was not an easy part of the inspection to find, saved at least eight people's lives in doing his job. And I would suggest that the men and women in License and Inspections all have that same commitment to public safety and 111 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 they're not trained to look away. We don't want them looking the other way or putting sunglasses on. We want them to be proactive and to stop anything that's illegal and not being done properly.
Well, that's good, because there's nothing more important than being proactive. Something else that I thought was good that I saw in another jurisdiction, a lot of people that do what you do now refer to their operations as code enforcement. I like that. Is that something that we have considered or terminology that we have started to use? Because many jurisdictions throughout the state, New Jersey refer to the people out on the street, the inspectors, as code enforcement. Is that a term that we use at all or considering?
It's a term that we're working into the department. We call them code officials, and that implies a certain amount of impartiality when they're 112 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 doing these inspections and it also implies a professionalism. It's more than just being a building inspector. They're code officials. And even though I slip myself, that's how we want to address the individuals that work for our department.
My last question is, I believe it's to Commissioner Perri, could you give me an update on the conversations with the Planning Commission and the Department of Licenses and Inspection with the proliferation -- we talked about billboards earlier -- the proliferation of wireless antennas that are being attached to everything that's above a few feet off the ground anymore? Everywhere you go, abandoned buildings, smoke stacks, billboards, you name it, wireless antennas to support that technology is everywhere, everywhere you look, around the perimeter, atop of buildings. My initial concern when I met with you was what are we doing to insure the integrity of those installations so some day we don't have one of them coming down on the 113 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 sidewalk and kill someone. And, again, it seems as though we wait until a tragedy occurs until we look at an issue, and then all the sudden millions of dollars are spent, a lot of panic and immediate reaction to work people ten days straight to go inspect every one that's out there. It looks terrible. The Planning Commission, I believe, agreed with that, that the way these things are being nailed to everything that, again, exists -- and for the people listening, I'm talking about these big boxes that are attached to the side of the building to support cell telephones and other wireless communications. They are everywhere. Water towers, 360 degrees around them. I really think that we need to get this under control, A, for safety reasons; two, for anesthetics, and I think it also maybe require a permit to put them up. I know presently it's kind of loose. Could you just bring us up to date on this?
I haven't had any 114 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 recent conversations with the Planning Commission, but we have found that the vast majority of these wireless operations is City obtained permits. They obtained both the zoning and building permit for the installation of these wireless facilities. Most of the ones you're seeing today are basically the antennas with an equipment box. Years ago you were seeing a lot of the larger holes and the erector set type towers. There's very, very few of those going up today, and most of them are light-weight antennas. And the zoning code is quite liberal on where those can be located, because, in general, wireless communications are protected under the Federal Wireless Telecommunications Act.
Well, I really think that even though what you've just stated is correct -- and the reason they're using the buildings to attach them, it's cheaper than erecting a unipole, a monopole or some other way of supporting the technology. So to pay someone 500 a month to attach these 115 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 antennas and put an equipment box -- I believe there was a height restriction of four feet, six feet, couldn't be any higher than that. I can't remember. But I really think that we need to focus on this before the City becomes cluttered with these antennas. It's cluttered already, and I don't think we can dig our way out of that.
Thank you. Councilman Rizzo, I believe Councilman Cohen has a question or a point of order.
It's a question on the same issue, sir? On the same issue as Councilman Rizzo is addressing?
No. It's a follow up on a question I did not ask before.
I'm finished. I just wanted to see if we could get together with the Planning Commission and 116 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 the Department of Licenses and Inspection just to tighten this process up a bit.
Very well. Councilman Cohen, you're not next, but go ahead.
Commissioner, let me ask this: In the event a court finds that a billboard is wrongly posted or your records show and it doesn't go to court, do you have any need for additional legal support to enable you to take down the sign? For example, as soon as a court finds that the sign is illegal or you determine it in the department, you have the right to order the sign removed by the company that put up the sign. You also have the right to impose a penalty. For example, it's getting common these days to prevent stalling by people who don't like the decisions of courts to just appeal cases, because they take time to be heard. So courts increasingly are adding a provision that says you forfeit any 117 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 funds you earned during the appeal time. In fact, some courts are saying you not only forfeit the money, but you have to pay interest because you owed us that money as soon as you earned -- as soon as it became due. And you can't keep it, because otherwise you're profiteering by stalling on appeal. So I'm asking, do you need help? Is there any change in the law you need? The City has always had the right to impose a lien. If a company puts on a sign that's illegal and refuses to take it down, you can lien them for the cost of it if you go ahead and clear it.
I'm thinking of ways to do it without the City having to expend the money in the first place.
I understand. The Law Department, as I said earlier, Councilman, the Law Department and License and Inspections and the Managing Director's Office have met on this very subject, and the Law Department is coming up with a plan of attack 118 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 that legally and enforcement-wise that we can enter into, and I would best ask that question to be answered by them to answer your question. I really feel it's beyond my capability to answer.
I would then like to suggest that you inform them of the suggestion I've made. If they want, I'll be ready to go into it more fully with them.
Because right now, it often takes three or four years to get an appeal through the courts, and all that time the company is illegally collecting payments from it. And to prevent them from using that to their benefit, it ought to be used for the benefit of the City. The City can be entitled to get that money together with interest. And that will discourage the appeals. And then if there's any -- I hope you will also raise with the Law Department, I don't understand why the City can't immediately move, because if a company that 119 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 we're doing business with regularly has put up this wrong sign, you can lien them for this money of removing the sign and demand that they pay for it right away.
In License and Inspections' budget, there's absolutely no 8 money for the removal of signs.
Councilman Cohen, I think that what is being suggested is that this issue be addressed when the Law Department comes before us.
It's not a question. I said I believe that what is being said is that your question would be best addressed when the Law Department comes in to testify.
Well, no. I think it's best addressed by the agency that has the duty under the law to accomplish an orderly procedure of legal signs and preventing illegal signs from occurring. 120 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455
The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano for a point of --
Councilman, not to step on you, but I think the Commissioner just answered that he agrees with you and he just is not a lawyer. Nobody sitting there is a lawyer.
No. All I'm suggesting is that they raise it with the Law Department.
We have and we will, and I'm sure that I will bring your concerns to them and they'll be prepared hopefully when they come here to provide an answer to you as to your question.
Okay. Well, what I'm trying -- I guess I'm not putting it forth yet. I don't believe it appropriate for your department to be quiet and just say, Well, there's an illegal sign, there's nothing we can do with it. I think you've got to 121 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 indicate to the Law Department that you believe something has to be done and you're offering them one opportunity to see whether that works.
Also, Councilman, in our budget, there is absolutely no money for the removal of signs that we could tap into to remove signs. All the money that we have in our department is geared towards removal of dangerous buildings, not the removal of signs.
Well, then you would like an ordinance produced that would give you that power?
Well, then we'd have to budget it, because we'd make a lot of money in return, because we would be getting the profits that the companies get by illegally stalling on appeals.
I personally would prefer that the enforcement process using the courts be used to require owners to 122 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 remove the signs, in that it's a situation where it's not easily -- it seems easy to just say, Well, remove the sign, but it's probably -- it is definitely more complicated than just saying that we'll remove it and everything will be fine.
No, but I think the enforcing department has a responsibility to make clear that the L&I Department, which I say enforces the sign law, has a responsibility for making clear to the Law Department that the current system of enforcement takes many years, isn't there a better way and offering them a suggestion. I'm not saying that you do the enforcement yourself.
Can I speak to a point of order? Councilman, you asked a point of information and I was okay with that. Councilman Nutter's turn, then mine, then we go back to you. I know it's an important 123 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 thing that you're doing here, but we all have things to do and you can ask those questions after we're done. Would that be fair?
Well, then you know what's not fair? That Nutter is next and I'm after him. So you had a turn, so let's do Nutter, then me and then we'll do it. You're beating these guys up for nothing. They agree with you.
They agree with you, Councilman. They agree with you.
We all agree with you, but you got to take a turn. You asked for --
It's very 124 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455 difficult --
My time is important. I got things to do. I got questions just like everyone else and I'm willing to sit here, but not for him to badger these people over a point of information.
It's not the point, Councilman. You're out of order. 125 Whole - 4/28/04 - Bill 020455