COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 11/15/00 9:45 a.m. - - - BILL NO. 000102 - an ordinance amending Chapter 8 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code... BILL NO. 000278 - an ordinance amending Chapter 9 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code... BILL NO. 000540 - an ordinance amending 9-702 of the Philadelphia Code... BILL NO. 000545 - an ordinance amending 6-301 of the Philadelphia Code... RESOLUTION NO. 000555 - a resolution authorizing the Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold hearings on vacant, abandon and blighted property in Philadelphia... RESOLUTION NO. 000612 - a resolution authorizing City Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold public hearings to investigate the current methods utilized by the Department of Licenses and Inspections to enforce Section PM 102.6.3 of the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL NO. 000102, 000278 PAGE OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ........................ ROBERT SOLVIBILE, L&I ......................... 9 BILL NO. 000540 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ........................ 41 ROBERT HENON, Pennsport Civic Assoc. .......... 43 BILL NO. 000545 HARRIET DICHTER, Childrens Policy .............. 46 JON DOMZALSKI, Dept. of Public Health .......... 54 OTIS HAIGLER, L&I .............................. 54 REBECCA GONZALES, Early Childhood Collaborative . 58 DEBRA BUTLER, Delaware Valley Assoc. for the Education of Young Children .................. 61 LOLA ROONEY, YMCA .............................. 63 GERRI SWIFT, Women's Business Development Ctr .. 67 ANGELA LOGAN, Citizens for Children and Youth ... 71 BILL NO. 000555 MR. SOLVIBILE, L&I ............................. 82 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ........ 106 DAN QUIMBY, PHA ................................ 117 VINCENT MORRIS, PHA ............................ 130 BENNETT LEVIN .................................. 132 KATE CLARKE, Frankford CDC ..................... 164 ANGEL RECCHIA, Senior Citizens Judicare ........ 172 RICK SAUER, Assoc. Of Community Development .... 177 JOANNE JACKSON, Advocate CDC ................... 183 ANDREW FRISHKOFF, Low Income Housing Coalition . 184 SUSAN SYRNIC, North Light Leadership Team ...... 189 IRENE MADRAK, North Light Community Center ..... 193 JOHN BOYCE ..................................... 194 FRANCES BOYCE .................................. 201 JOHN BOYCE (Sr.) ............................... 204 OTIS HAIGLER, JR, .............................. 209 RESOLUTION NO. 000612 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ......................... 211 3 P R O C E E D I N G S
The Committee on Licenses and Inspections is brought to order. We have myself Councilman Mariano, Councilwoman Krajewski, Councilman Ortiz, Councilman Rizzo, and Councilwoman Blackwell. The Clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 000102, amending Chapter 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Amusement Businesses," by amending Section 9-703 entitled "Dance Halls and Dances," by prohibiting minors from entering or remaining any premises which possess Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board license, all under certain terms and conditions.
000102, is there anyone to testify on this bill? Let him read 000278 since they're both together.
Bill No. 000278, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Amusement Businesses," by amending Section 9-703, entitled "Dance Halls and Dances," to provide for licensing and registration of nightclub 4 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 operators, under certain terms and conditions.
Sir, state your name, spell it for the record. Although, we know who you are, everyone doesn't.
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. At this time, we will stipulate to the testimony that was given at the October 3rd hearing on this bill. And for the record, we would like to read into the minutes amendments to the bill that we have, and I believe that all Councilmembers have been given copies of. You have the amendments? Okay. On of the bill, under the definition, we would insert a new letter B, small letter B in parentheses, to define teen event. And teen event -- it reads as thus: "Teen event shall mean any event or time from which the nightclub is open for use either primarily or exclusively by minors." Also on , under licenses, 5 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 Subsection A.3, we would delete the word "three" for three years and substitute "two," for two years for the renewal period of license so that it would read as thus: "Nightclub operators license shall be renewed every two years upon payment of the renewal fee of $100 subject to the conditions set forth in Subsection 2B herein." On , Section C.1, we would insert under .1 a new subsection .A in parenthesis to read: "To ensure that no 12 nightclub permits a minor to remain upon the premises of said establishment in violation of Chapter 10-300 of the Philadelphia Code, all nightclubs shall conclude all teen events and vacate all minors from the premises no later than one hour prior to the time restrictions set forth in Chapter 10-300 of the Philadelphia Code." That concludes all of our amendments to Bill 000278.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Mr. Haigler, explain that to us without all the L&I legalese. What are we doing here? We're adding the amendments to make sure that these minors are out of the dance halls before 6 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 close their door, right?
We're addressing the concerns of Council raised at the last hearing related to teen events, the curfew issue that was brought up with relationship to teen events. There was questions related to the curfew and minors remaining on the premises after the curfew. Our amendment will address that issue by stating for the record -- in our ordinance that all teens would have to vacate the premises, all minors would have to vacate the premises at least one hour prior to the legal curfew that's established in the Philadelphia Code.
So if the legal curfew, if I remember right, on weeknight is 10:30, am I right, it's 10:30?
I always confuse 10:00, 10:30. Let's say it's 10:30, I'm sure it's 10:30, they got to be out by 9:30?
Could you explain 7 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 the enforcement part of this? How will it work? At 9:30, what will occur?
What will occur is that the owner or operator of the establishment will have to announce that all teens will have to vacate the premises. Since that's in our ordinance now, if that does not take place and we are made aware of it, that will be a condition for L&I to take action against that person's license for violating the ordinance. If we got a complaint against that --
Let's say at 10 o'clock a parent would call 9-1-1 and complain that that in fact had occurred, what would occur at that point?
The police department could be dispatched out there to enforce that provision because that's part of Section 10-300 related to curfew and curfew activities.
Has this been worked out with the police department? Do they understand this additional responsibility?
Well, the police department does have a directive, Directive No. 8 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 104, that addresses all issues related to curfew. I believe you do have a copy of their directive in your packet. That can be worked out with the police department. Again, that will be now a provision that we have in place under our ordinance to state that this is required.
So the police department as of today, they're aware that this responsibility of going to these locations to empty them out, they are in fact aware of that.
I don't know if they're aware of it today because I don't know if they're aware of the amendments.
My point -- so many of these things we implement and they never get carried out or people say, "We don't have a clue what you're talking about. No one ever communicated" This is a perfect example of the enforcement agency other than L&I not being aware of or in the loop of what exactly we're doing here today.
Councilman, I would suspect after these hearings that if there's a problem in my district or in DiCicco's 9 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 district, Councilwoman Krajewski, any district Councilman or anywhere in the City, I would just call the police captain and say "If you don't know, we just passed this thing." I'm on a first-name basis with everyone in my council district, so I know where the clubs are that I'm concerned with. I'm sure the other Council people do.
Robert Solvibile, First Deputy Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections, S-O-L-V-I-B-I-L-E. As you're aware, Councilman, L&I in close cooperation with the police department has a task force that would handle that between L&I and the police department, a task force to ensure these clubs if we have a complaint they would go and investigate and if they found it to be in violation, we would close it down or get the kids out of there.
Let me ask this question because it has to be asked. Either one you may answer this. Someone's found a violation, the police come and it's open and there's minors in there a certain time past the hour, a good time past the hour, maybe an hour 10 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 past there. You come and you cite them. You can take their dance hall license?
Now, it's one of these clubs that we have problems that also serve alcohol to the 21-year-olds and that imaginary part on the other side of the line. Is there any chance that their liquor license would be in trouble even if there were not any liquor violations but because they had dance hall violations in there and in violation of City ordinance?
Also part of the task force, Councilman, is that the State Police on occasion goes to these establishments with us, and as you know, serving to underage would be, you know, a state violation against their liquor license, so it's all-encompassing group of people that go out to investigate these types of complaints.
My question now, I'm going to make it more specific. It's not per se a violation of the liquor license and the liquor code because this is written after the 11 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 liquor code, maybe some day it will be in there, but do you think that possibly that would help us get this big problem, you know, the problem that we talked about last time with the ones that are doing half-and-halfs?
They would lose their dance hall license. We would make the necessary referrals to the Liquor Control Board and it would be up to them to enforce whatever laws that they have to enforce.
The last time in Councilwoman Krajewski's district we spoke about a place that didn't have a dance hall license, therefore, this would not affect that unless they had a dance hall license. The police could still go in and do the minor thing, right?
Any questions for the committee or any Councilmembers in the 12 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 Chamber? Councilman Nutter, do you have any questions? I would hate to have this pass you by without a question.
Mr. Chairman, if you insist that I have a question, I could figure about a half a dozen of them in the course of talking to Mr. Haigler. I never pass up an opportunity to ask him a question.
Mr. Haigler, In response to Councilman Rizzo's question, you seemed to indicate that at the moment the police department was not necessarily aware of the proposed amendments; is that correct?
To my knowledge. I am not knowledgeable as to whether or not they've been informed of the amendments or if they've been given the amendments by either Council or the Chief of Staff's Office. We forward our amendments to the Chairperson of Council as well as the Chief of Staff's Office, and I'm not aware of whether or not both of those parties may have 13 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 shared these amendments with the police department.
And also, Councilman, I added that the task force working with the police department would handle that more than likely. So -- and it's an ongoing thing with us and the police department, cooperating to control these type of establishments.
Okay. I mean, I guess I would just like to encourage under the circumstances there's virtually nothing worse, and I heard the Chair talk about the situation out in the districts. Sometimes it does take a little while for information to filter down from these hallowed halls out into the real world in the street. And for something like this, I would like to encourage -- I think as the department likes to know what we're doing and what we're proposing when we impose new responsibilities on the Department of Licenses and Inspections, it might help if we're coordinating internally in the government that another department would know something that you are either supporting, encouraging, or plan to try to enforce when the 14 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 ultimate responsibility lie with the police department.
What effort will be made to notify these operators since I guess you're proceeding on the assumption that you're going to know who the operators are because they all have licenses; is that correct?
So what specific steps will be taken to notify all of these operators that there's a change in law and that they have a responsibility to turn up the lights, turn off the music, and vacate the premises an hour before curfew?
As was stated at our last hearing, the Deputy Commissioner for that area, Deputy Commissioner Verdi, had stated at our last meeting that he would assure that copies of the ordinance will be submitted along with the renewal license applications to the license operators at the time that they renew their license as well as explanatory material to be 15 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 also accompanying that. Whatever we need to print up in the way of explanation or if we need to even sit down and meet with certain groups, we will do that.
Okay. Let me just ask a couple questions about a couple sections of the bill on . Is it my understanding that there is also a proposed amendment to change the renewal period from the proposed three years now back to two years?
That would be on 2. And yes, there is. Again, I will state that L&I would enforce whatever we would have to enforce regardless of whether the renewal period was one-year, two-year, or three-year. It's the same as if I might just use an analogy here, I've had my driver's license for years and I can 19 recall when my driver's license was first issued 20 to me it was renewed every year. Now the renewal 21 time period for driver's licenses are every four 22 years. And if I were to accumulate points or to 23 violate the traffic laws any time within that 24 time period, I'm sure regardless of whenever my 25 license is renewed, the system will take action 16 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 against that license. So again, this is the exact same. We would take action, our enforcement action, regardless of whether the renewal period would end. There's nothing changed there.
Okay. Can you provide to the Chair a listing of all of the current either in the previous category, dance hall operators or now you're changing the terminology to nightclub operator, can you provide a list with the Councilmatic District breakdown of all the operators citywide? Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
Thank you. On , in small letter d, under 1, it says: "A nightclub operator's license shall be revoked upon a finding of noncompliance with any provision or provisions of this section. And then there's a new sentence that says "A finding of one instance of noncompliance may be sufficient cause to revoke the nightclub operator's license." Can you explain to me how you 17 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 envision this working when you say that the license shall be revoked upon a finding of noncompliance with any provisions of this section? What is that person's recourse? Are you going to revoke the license on the spot? Are you going to temporarily revoke it? Are you going to quasi-suspend it? What is their recourse?
Excuse me one second, please. In preparation for this hearing, Councilman, you had requested that we draft our regulations to deal with the revocation of licenses and we've done so. And on, let's see, Page -of our proposed regulations under the procedure for license revocation, we have indicated it indicated in there that for conditions where it constitutes a criminal activity or it threatens life and safety that we would immediately revoke that person's license. We're given authority to issue cease-operation orders presently by code for conditions that threaten public safety and health. And our cease-operations orders can be either verbal by 18 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 the inspector or written if it constitutes an immediate threat to public safety and health. For conditions that do not constitute an immediate threat to public safety and health under, Section 2 under the procedure for license revocation, we've addressed that by indicating that we would conduct at least two inspections, subsequent inspections of the licensed premises to ensure that violations have been corrected. If the violations have not been corrected after the subsequent inspections, the department shall notify the violator in writing of the department's intent to revoke the violator's licenses and request the violators appear at a an administrative hearing conducted by the inspections unit to show cause as to why the licenses should not be revoked. If the violator fails to appear at this hearing or does not offer a satisfactory explanation as to why the violations have not been corrected, the chief of the inspections unit shall submit a request in writing to the license issuance unit to revoke the violator's license. In short, we will give due process to the operator as we would give due 19 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 process to any license holder of our intent to revoke their license and it would be up to that person to show cause as to why the department should not act.
Is the license revoked at that point or have you technically just issued a cease-operations order?
We can issue a cease-operations order for any violations of the code. After we've issued the cease-operations order we can further -- the cease-operations order is an immediate order that can be issued by the inspector. The inspector, at the time they do their inspection, they cannot revoke the license at that time. They can only issue whatever violations they have against the premises --
I understand that, I understand that. Have you ever tried to have a cease-operations enforced?
Yes. I used to be the chief of the commercial industrial fire unit.
How do you envision a verbal cease-operations order working? 20 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 That's issued, I'm assuming, 10, 11 o'clock at night and how will the police department know about this and aren't they usually the ones that have to subsequently enforce a cease-operations order if people come back?
Under Directive 48 that the police department has, the police department can arrest, they can enforce the cease-operations order after the Department of Licenses and Inspections issues it.
The department enforcing their various codes, we are given the power to issue a cease-operations order under the administrative code. Once we've done that, then we notify the police department that we have issued and enforced that section of the code that are enforceable and the police department, it's up to them to at that point, to execute Directive 38 to enforce what they have to enforce under that directive.
Okay. I appreciate that. I would just share with you, though, for the record that I have encountered 21 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 many instances where cease-operations orders have been issued and the local police district seemed to have virtually no knowledge of the order.
I have a copy, again, of our cease-operations procedure, and part of that is a letter that will be submitted from L&I that goes from L&I to the police department and it requires at the bottom that the police officer put their badge number on that letter as receipt of the notice that we have acted upon a premises.
Well, I wouldn't ask for this as a part of any regulations that you're going to promulgate, but I would ask that as a part of maybe your own internal policies to the extent that you issue cease-operations orders whether for this particular bill or any other bill, I would certainly appreciate it and many of the District Councilmembers I'm sure, if not others, would appreciate getting a direct copy of the cease-operations order so that we would have it and so when there are these instances when people are still engaged in the activity, we call on the police who say in many instances, "I don't know anything about that," I'd at least be able 22 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 to fax it to the district and be able to get enforcement. It would be good to have a copy of a cease-op when it is issued. You don't do that many, I assume.
Councilman Rizzo. Before that, I want to say that Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown has joined us and Councilman Clarke. Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To L&I, I just had a conversation and I want to make sure we clarify something. I recall in our last hearing, L&I, I can't recollect who, I think it was L&I, pointed out that an issue in the Northeast involving --
Wow. There was a 23 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 need to change the way that they were licensed and that would give you more the ability to better enforce the teenage problem at that particular facility. Are we now on track that they will be licensed in a way or be required to license in a way that gives you the enforcement that you hadn't had in the past? From what I remember was that there was a problem the way it was licensed and it prohibited the enforcement at that particular facility and we needed to change the way it is presently licensed to give the police and also give L&I the ability to better enforce.
I can only speak as to what we have in the provisions of our nightclub operator's license. If the facility, as you speak of, if they were to obtain a nightclub operator's license or would be required to obtain a nightclub operator's license, we would enforce the provisions we have under this nightclub operator's license on that facility.
Do you recollect the police pointing out the fact that there were limitations based on the way that it was 24 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 licensed, that they could not and I believe that motivated to us to make some adjustments to this legislation.
I believe the limitations were placed on the liquor license and our ability to enforce the liquor, the LCB requirements. And we have a legal opinion that indicates that we can't do that. We can take action against the establishment, but we can't enforce laws that is out of our jurisdiction to enforce. It's not under our jurisdiction to enforce the Liquor Control Board laws, but if we were made aware by the Liquor Control Board that their laws have been violated as a condition to the retention to our license, we can act upon our license.
Excuse me, Councilman. I have to agree with the Councilman. I don't believe any liquor was brought up into this conversation.
No, dance hall license. 25 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102
It's a nuisance establishment within my district. It's a skating rink.
And we have nothing but problems after problems with the neighbors in that area. Now, what we're asking, if they apply for a dance hall license, would it be more --
(Continuing) enforcement than it would be as a skating rink?
Under the provisions -- a skating rink generally is a general business license, a general business. Under this license, if got a nightclub operator's license under the provisions of this ordinance there's some restrictions in here that deals with --
The dance hall license basically is not going to be -- 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102
This establishment is applying for a dance hall license.
I understand that, but under Section 9703 of the Philadelphia Code this license will replace that license so the terminology will change from dance hall to nightclub operation.
Just give me the bottom line. What will that do by changing that?
The bottom line is there are more enforcement teeth in this bill 15 that L&I can directly enforce certain provisions that we weren't able to enforce before under this bill.
There are more teeth in this bill and it replaces what we currently have in place under 9703 which dealt with dance halls.
How often do we 27 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 inspect?
We will inspect for any complaints that would come. We're mostly complaint-generated so if you were to issue a complaint, we would go out immediately and inspect for that. We would do subsequent inspections for renewal of the licenses. We can inspect at any time. If there are complaints that would come in, we would inspect based on that complaint. I know that's somewhat of a vague answer, but we can inspect at any time for anything.
Does that -- that particular facility that we're discussing right now, it has -- it's a skating rink. Will they be required by this legislation to switch from their present licensing -- is there any way they can avoid getting this dance hall license and avoid the more stringent enforcement?
No, because this is tied directly into the building code requirements as well. And under the building code 28 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 requirements for a certificate of occupancy, if their occupancy classification was classified as a certain use group -- just to try to simply it, but if they were classified as a certain use group, if they changed that use group classification, then that means that they would have to come back into L&I and reapply for another certificate of occupancy for new use which means that they would have submit plans, they would have to go through the whole plan review process. So no, if an inspector were to go out and saw that they were doing something that was -- say ,for instance, they're a skating rink and the skating rink is not an A-2 use group classification which is what we classify nightclubs as, but inspector were to be there and saw that they were meeting the definition or whatever they were doing, they doing it under the definition of a nightclub --
Now, say they want to have rock concerts there, then they have 29 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 to apply for dance hall, new terminology nightclub?
They would fall under the new terminology, which means that they would need a certificate of occupancy to do that.
But they can stay a skating rink forever if they want.
I think colleague Councilwoman Krajewski is confused. This nightclub was associated, especial with us people over 25, with drinking and things.
So you're going to be calling these places nightclubs and technically there's no drinking going on. Like if Wow applied for this new thing, they would consider it a nightclub but without drinking.
It's nightclub, but the 30 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 definition for a nightclub is neutral to alcoholic beverages. It doesn't say anything about alcoholic beverages under the definition. It only basically says they have to meet requirements of the building code for an A2, assembly use group occupancy, so it's neutral to alcoholic beverages.
Is that an over-the-counter application for someone new just coming in?
If they have to change zoning, they got to go through zoning.
Right. And the same thing with this. If they were to use group classification, they would have to still go through zoning process as well to get the certificate of occupancy.
Okay. 31 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102
This is my final question because I want to feel confident that I understand this issue totally. Right now if this organization, this particular club, has teen dances and no problem develops, they could skirt upgrading to the nightclub unless there's a -- what's going to force them into L&I to change from what they presently have to teen dance?
If they have teen dances, then that's a different category and that falls under this -- if there's more than 50 people there, then it falls under this nightclub definition and they would need a certificate of occupancy for that.
But my point being, what's going to motivate that proprietor to come to L&I to do that, his first violation?
If we -- 32 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102
Why can't we go to these folks if we know they're having teen dances and let them know that they're not in compliance?
I believe it was discussed last time when Dominic Verdi was here. It's already being handled, but I will personally check with Dominic to make sure that happens, Councilman.
I mean, we shouldn't have to wait until there's a problem to make sure they understand the rules.
I think there needs to be a little clarification here. And you two correct me if I'm not wrong. This group, this particular establishment was trying to get a dance hall license which you're going to call now a nightclub license, correct? The reason they have it is the 33 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 neighbors stopped it because they thought through the Councilwoman's good graces, they thought that would be the thing to do. Now, if I remember correctly, Mr. Verdi said last time and I think Otis just said this, Mr. Haigler, it's probably better if get this dance hall now we will call this a --
Only if doing something different than roller-skating.
Right. But at this point, because there were no provisions in the previous dance hall license for certificate of occupancy --
Now there is. They would have to go through the whole zoning as well as certificate of occupancy process in order to get this. And with the zoning process, that's 34 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 where the community opposition could come in to pretty much stop that.
Well, the word "nightclub" wasn't injected into our conversation last time; it was dance hall. To the constituents and the public, there is a difference between dance hall and nightclub.
I understand that. Nightclubs, as the one Councilman has mentioned, that nightclubs primarily you think of drinking, you think of an atmosphere such as that.
But under this provision, we more or less made that liquor part of it neutral --
I've never been to a nightclub. Councilman Rizzo told me about it. (Laughter.)
(Continuing) to encompass a large occupancy base, including that it would include any occupancy where you have 50 or more people. 35 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102
Are we paving the way -- by changing this from a dance hall to a nightclub license, are we paving a way for them to introduce alcohol to this location?
What if it did? Would we be paving the way to create an alcoholic environment?
No, sir, not under the definitions of this bill because the bill doesn't mention anything about liquor or serving liquor. It has nothing to do with that. That's purely under the purview of the LCB, the State.
But could they since they will have a nightclub license, if they apply to the LCB --
Councilman, in your packet here, not to interrupt you, but I will, there's a letter from the City Solicitor that explains that says. What it says is we 36 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 can't regulate anything to do with liquor. Once we start doing that, the LCB takes away the rest of the authority they have. That is the LCB's germane and they don't want us involved in that, and probably rightfully so.
I think for the record my point being, are creating an easier application process to the liquor control board --
(Continuing) to introduce a license? In other words, if I'm the proprietor and I go the LCB and I say, "Look, I have a nightclub license., why can't I have a liquor license?"
They know the difference, right? This is a liquor neutral nightclub license.
And again, they can introduce whatever, but if they follow the definition of what we have in our ordinance, our ordinance speaks nothing of drinking being on the establishment.
So why do we have 37 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 to even use the word nightclub? Why can't we come up with a word --
Because the A-2 definition under the building code, we link this closely with what we currently are enforcing under the building code. And if you look under the definition for A-2 occupancy, it specifically relates to nightclubs.
If you said to the majority of the residents of this city "nightclub," the first thing that would pop into their mind is an establishment that serves alcoholic beverage that runs until 2 o'clock in the morning or maybe even later, who knows. Rather than start a fire, fanning a fire, why do we necessarily have to use the word "nightclub"? Can't there be an adjustment to exactly what it is so there's no confusion and we don't start panic in the communities when these people start applying for these licenses? The average folk, when you say "nightclub," guess what? If you were going to open one next to my house, I'd be very concerned or my neighborhood. 38 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102
I think the concern is not so much the name of the establishment, but the type of activity that takes place in that establishment. What we have found with the definition under an A-2 assembly use, you have a large number of people congregating in an establishment for a period of time and alcoholic beverage may or may not be served there. Some of that can cause concern for fire protection purposes. You have low lighting. You have fire protection equipment that needs to be installed on the premises. By linking the definition closely to what we have in the building code, we can address all of those concerns. We can check for the fire protection system. We can check for all of the other requirements to make sure that the building is safe for the occupants who are there during that time period.
I understand that it's simpler to enforce something that's already on the books, but I hope that you just get my message that you have created a situation that could unnecessarily cause concern to the community. I know that in many communities if 39 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000102 word got out that someone was applying for a nightclub license, our phones would be ringing off the hook to find out what is going on. So I'll just transfer them to you and you can explain.
All right, thank you. Any other questions for these? Councilman Clarke? (No questions.)
Seeing no 14 further questions, that will be it for Bill 15 000278, and as I know, Bill 000102 is going to be held at the sponsor's request, okay? 000102 is going to be held. Councilman Kenney called and said he wants to hold 000102, so this will be just be 000278. Anyone else want to testify on 000278? You want to give us a list of your favorite nightclubs, Mr. Haigler?
No, sir. But I would just like to add to my testimony that we would 40 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000540 request that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council.
The next bill we will do will be 000540. Mr. Allen, would you please read that bill?
Bill No. 000540, an ordinance amending 9-702 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Carnivals," by revising the provisions governing the issuance of licenses to hold or conduct a carnival, in particular providing that such licenses shall be issued only for temporary periods and only once per year per location; providing that the licenses shall be issued only if the carnival is conducted to the benefit and on the property of a bona fide religious, educational or charitable institution, society or organization; providing for the notification of the District Councilperson when an application for a carnival license has been received; and conferring standing on certain persons to appeal the issuance of the license and 41 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000540 in related legal matters; all under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Haigler, before we start, let me just say, this is my bill 6 and let me just sum it all up for why we're doing this. We're not trying to take any money-making kind of operation away from any of the churches, Boys Club, anybody that does any good. What we're trying to do here is just regulate these people that come from out of town and pitch their tents here for weeks at a time and disrupt the quality of life in our neighborhoods. We had a certain incident this summer that brought my office to write this bill. So this isn't a shot at any boys clubs or girls clubs or girl scouts, so save the calls; don't call. We'll be able to go to your carnival, we'll spend the money, but we're not going to let people come here and change the quality of life in some of these residential areas just because somebody happens to own a piece of property and they can rent it out as much as they want. Hopefully, this will change that. Thank you, Mr. Haigler.
Good day, Councilman 42 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000540 Mariano and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., legislative regulatory affairs manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 000540, which, if enacted, will amend Section 9-702 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the operation of carnivals in the City of Philadelphia. As amended, the provisions of this section will only apply to temporary carnivals as sponsored by a bona fide religious, educational, charitable institution or organization and the event must take place on the sponsor's premises. The Department of Licenses and Inspections, therefore, offers no objections to the proposed bill. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Any questions from anyone on the committee? (No questions.)
Seeing none, anyone not on the committee? Councilman Nutter in the building? He might want to send questions up. If not, 43 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000540 okay, that's it for this one. Pennsport Civic, where is Pennsport Civic? Didn't I see -- Mr. Hennon, step up to the microphone, you're being shy. (Witness comes forward.)
First time I ever heard you to be you to be shy, Mr. Henon. State your name for the record, spell it, and your organization.
My name is Robert Henon, H-E-N-O-N. And good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Robert Henon and I'm here to testify today on behalf of John J. Dougherty, president of the Pennsport Civic Association in support of Bill 17 000540 that will place regulations on carnivals. I believe this regulation is strong for several reasons: First, it allows churches and benevolent organizations to host carnivals. I think many of us agree that parking lots across this great city should not become Dorney Park. We certainly also should agree that carnivals should benefit the community in which they are being conducted. Bill 000540 achieves this goal 44 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000540 through a requiring that receipts for carnivals benefit bona fide religious, educational, or charitable institutions. Second, I think we can agree that carnivals should not be allowed if they do not meet the City's health and safety standards and if they do not keep up to date on their payment of taxes. This legislation requires that such payment and standards be met prior to opening a carnival. Third, this legislation provides for community interaction in support of carnivals by requiring that the District Councilperson be notified when a permit is applied for and by granting individuals agreed by issuing of the license standing and in any legal matter pertaining to the issuance of a permit. Finally, I believe that as contained in the media reports last summer, during a carnival on Delaware Avenue confrontations, two lawsuits, L&I citations, and was closed for several various reasons. Also, carnivals in the past have led to noise excessive trash, and crimes such as vandalism and stabbings. I 45 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 believe this tightness of the regulations is very necessary. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hennon. Anyone on the committee have any questions for Mr. Hennon? Any other Councilmembers? (No questions.)
That's it. We'll go to the next bill. Mr. Allen, we're going to do 000545?
Bill No. 000545, an ordinance amending 6-301 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Food Establishments," by amending the license fee for family day care homes and certain group child care facilities, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. A brief summary statement, opening statement, if I could. This 46 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 bill addresses what we believe to be a workforce issue for working parents who are looking for affordable and reliable child care setting, often preferred by many parents, group day care and family day care. So this bill speaks to the cost of doing business in Philadelphia and in effect is designed to reduce the cost of doing business in Philadelphia in the child care industry for the two groups initially mentioned, group child care and family child care. And the record should show that this is a part of an overall strategy to encourage unregulated providers to come into compliance. So the bottom line as I see it is to reduce the fees for potential child care providers who desire to enter into this field. Thank you.
Good morning. I am Harriet Dichter, Director of Children's Policy for the City. Estelle Richman is unable to be with us today, but I do have a brief statement from her before my testimony if I could read it into the record. 47 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545
I intended to ask where she is today. I mean, she usually goes to exotic ports.
Here's Estelle's statement: "I'm pleased to offer my support for Council Bill 000545 which will eliminate the food service and preparation license fee for family day-care homes and significantly reduce this fee for group child care facilities. "This legislation is important because it addresses the City's need for a more adequate supply of safe regulated child care settings for children while their parents are at work. As more and more parents are working, it is critical that they have adequate child care choices that go beyond the unlicensed, unmonitored environments in which large numbers of very young children in our city are currently spending their days. 48 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 This bill will help improve parent access to safer city and state regulated child care by reducing fees for City child care licensing as an incentive to bring unregulated providers into compliance with regulations and to encourage those already in the system to continue to operate legal and above-board programs. It protects the City's strong interest in child health and safe because only fees are eliminated or reduced. Health and safety inspections will remain unchanged. I urge Council's support for his valuable bill." And if I could, I also have a statement of mine to read, if you don't mind.
Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to testify in favor in favor of this bill. This bill will amend the food service license to eliminate the fees for the smallest category of child care settings, family child homes serving six or fewer children and establishes a new category of licenses for group day-care homes which serve 12 or fewer children. 49 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 Establishment of a group day-care home license improves the ability of the Departments of Health and Licenses and Inspections to monitor these programs while having a practical effect of lower fees for these micro-enterprises by $125. The inspections that currently are conducted to meet licensure standards will continue to be done to ensure the proper and safe service and storage of food and the protection of children. This seemingly modest piece of legislation represents an important beginning step to address complex problem parents in community face in trying to find safe accessible settings for the care of their children while they are at work. Numerous studies of the barriers to success for families transitioning off of cash assistance have identified child care gaps as one of the most serious problems faced by parents new to the workforce. Preliminary data about the choices these parents are making reveals that a very high percentage are not making their way to regulated child care settings either center or 50 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 home based, but instead their children are ending up spending their days in unregulated, unmonitored setting. Families which must rely on unregulated care miss out on a whole range of services available to children in regulated settings. This includes full participation in the child and adult food program, which is a version of the school lunch program available to kids in child care and after school programs, educational initiatives and scholarships for child care teachers and providers to return to school and improve their understanding of child development, and third, funds for facility and program improvements including the City's very own health and safety program for child care and numerous private and state-funded child care quality initiatives. While parents cite a variety of reasons for the use of unregulated care, one significant factor that we can't overlook in Philadelphia is our low supply of regulated family and group child care relative to the size of our city. We know that our numbers of family 51 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 and group providers are approximately the same as Boston, a much smaller city, and about half of the number of those programs serving Baltimore also smaller in size. While fees are just one of the costs associate with providing this care, we know from efforts such as the Commerce Department's pilot effort to reduce start-up fees for new child care providers that lower fees combined with technical assistance and support can influence a new provider's decision to enter and to continue to operate in a regulated environment. So building the supply of regulated family and group day-care by reducing the City barriers and the fees in this instance to operation makes good sense to us. It will benefit our parents because they will have more and better choices for our children. It will benefit our children because they will have far more direct and immediate access to nutritional programs offered in safe inspected settings and from better trained and qualified care givers. And finally, it will benefit our neighborhoods by giving them more vitally needed child care 52 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 services provided closer to home and by neighbors for their neighbors. So I urge the committee to give the bill your full support as an important first step for the City to be taking to improve access to quality child care, particularly for the city's youngest children. Thank you.
Good morning, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee of Licenses and Inspections. I'm John Domzalski, Executive Deputy and Chief of Staff for the Department of Public Health, and I'm here to convey the department's support for Council Bill 17 000545. Essentially, this bill eliminates the fee for family child care homes and establishes a new license category for group day-care which will reduce the fee for that license category from $175 to $50, and for the first time will establish a mechanism to identify and track the group day-care facilities. The Department of Public Health 53 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 Office of Food Protection has a responsibility for conducting inspections for child care facilities that have this license. We believe these inspections are vital for the safety of the children and for the general health protection. The facilities are inspected for a wide range of environmental hazards related to the proper and safe preparation and service of food. They serve an important preventive function by educating child care providers about proper food storage, sanitation and preparation methods, and by requiring providers to remedy any improper practices or active hazards to children or risk the lose a license. The proposed legislation will have no 17 effect on these inspections. These inspections will continue to be conducted as they always have been on an annual basis and as a requirement for the issuance of a license. However, the department recognizes the importance of reducing barriers to small home-based child care programs to come into the regulated system and to remain regulated. We're in complete agreement with the 54 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 purpose of this bill to reduce these to develop a City system to identify group day-care facilities. We recognize that there's an important public health interest in having a strong supply of regulated child care facilities that are available to parents near where they work and live. With adequate access to regulated care, parents can be assured that providers will have child abuse criminal clearances, their children can access important nutrition programs such as the child and adult food program, and they can be secure in the knowledge that the facilities will receive their regular safety inspections that the Department of Public Health conducts. The department urges the support of Council for this important change in the bill.
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. 55 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 Today, I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 000545, which if enacted, will amend Section 6-301 of the Philadelphia Code by regulating the requirements for group child care facilities by specifically licensing such facilities for food preparation and serving. Currently, the City of Philadelphia does not have a specific licensing mechanism to track the location of where group child care facilities are located within the City of Philadelphia. The license presently issued for food preparation and serving within this type of occupancy is the same license that we issue to restaurant operators with less than 50 persons seating capacity. By developing this license specifically for group child care facilities, the department will be able to better track the location of these facilities for inspectional and statistical purposes. The department has worked closely with Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, the Health Department and the Managing Director's Office of Child policy in drafting this ordinance and respectfully requests that the committee 56 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 favorably report this bill out of committee and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Mr. Haigler, a quick question I have to anyone here. The State still has their day-care regulations, this doesn't -- all these clandestine day-care things aren't going to popping up?
Anyone else on the committee have any questions? Councilwoman?
Always when there is interest or a movement to amend bills that deal with impacting a particular department's budget, the question is what impact will this have on the budget, the revenue that's typically generated from the licensing fees. So 57 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 could any one of you speak to whether or not this is revenue-neutral?
It's revenue-neutral, it's negligible. It will not impact upon our budget significantly.
Same applies to the Department of Public Health, Councilwoman. Those fees do not appear in the Health Department's budget.
Any other committee members have any questions? Any other Councilmembers? (No questions.)
Seeing none, anyone else want to testify on these bills? (Witnesses come forward.)
We will start on the right-hand side. You go first, I guess, right? State your name for the record and spell it. 58 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545
Good morning. My name is Rebecca Gonzales, and I work for the Philadelphia Early Childhood Collaborative. We offer training resources and support to child care providers throughout the City. I'm the parent of two children in child care in Philadelphia and I'm deeply concerned about the quality of child care available in my neighborhood, let alone the City. Currently, family child care providers must pay a $100 in annual city fees, a $50 family day care license and $50 for the food service and preparation license. Although this may not seem like much to many people, it is a significant drain on the provider whose income does not generally exceed the federal poverty line. Yes, family child care is a small business, but unlike other small businesses, family child care is unique in that there's no room for expansion. A family child care provider's income is limited by the number of children they can care for and by the fees parents are able to pay. An overwhelming number of Philadelphia family child care providers are 59 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 located in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This further serves to limit their income potential. Also, unlike other small businesses, family child care is an essential service for parents who work and need flexible affordable care in their own neighborhoods. High fees directly affect the availability of quality child care programs in Philadelphia neighborhoods. These fees are a significant barrier to providers seeking to acquire and maintain regulated status. These fees can impose such a financial burden on providers that many choose to operate illegally or underground to avoid paying these fees. Keeping providers regulated is the most immediate way to ensure quality care. Providers who are able to maintain their regulated status benefit from annual fire safety and health inspections by the City. These providers are also eligible to participate in the child and adult care food program which reimburses them for nutritious meals served to children as well as training and resource opportunities offered to them through 60 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 organizations such as the Philadelphia early childhood collaborative. Underground providers cannot access these important services that help to increase the supply of safe quality child care. Philadelphia annual fees to family child care providers are the highest found in the country. In a 1995 study conducted by the Neighborhood Child Care Resource Program, a partner side of the Philadelphia Early Childhood Collaborative, it was shown that in six cities of comparable size to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington, DC, and Newark, New Jersey and New York City and Hartford, Connecticut, none charged fees as high as those in Philadelphia. In fact, on average, fees equaled much less than half of what Philadelphia currently charges. As a follow-up to that study, Pittsburgh, Washington, DC; Newark, New Jersey; Hartford Connecticut; Boston, Massachusetts; and Chicago, Illinois were recently contacted. Annual fees to family child care providers in each of these cities is zero. What kind of a message is this sending to our providers. Is the quality care of 61 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 Philadelphia children not as highly regarded as the care of children in these other cities? Anything the City can do to encourage providers to stay regulated is an important step for Philadelphia's children. Regulated providers obtain child abuse and criminal background checks, fire safety and health inspections, ongoing training and various resources. These are all good things for children and families. I urge you to support Bill No. 000545 to reduce for annual food service and preparation license fee for home-based providers in our mutual goal to provide quality child care services to the children and families of Philadelphia. Thank you.
Okay. Good morning. My name is Debra Butler and I work for the Delaware Valley Association for the Education of Young Children. My job as organizer for the Worthy Wage Campaign and the Quality Improvement Initiative brings me to close contact with family child care providers in North Philadelphia. I 62 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 work very closely with child care providers who have a variety of needs that need to be fulfilled. One of them to is to see themselves as business people who offer a viable service to families in their community. The care they provide is convenient for the parents who utilize their services and offers the parents a smaller child care setting for the children. These providers are committed to providing quality care that nurtures the child's total development. The elimination or decrease in these fees for family and group child care providers would recognize their contribution to their community and that the local government understands the value of the service they bring to families in the City of Philadelphia. I am here in support of City Council Bill 000545 because I understand that the fees charged to family and group child care providers serve as real barrier to those in our city who would like to become part of the regulated system. According to a 1997 survey conducted by the Delaware Valley Association for the 63 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 Education of Young Children, the average annual earnings for a family child care provider is $9,337. Considering that most of these women work a 60-hour week, their hourly wage translates to less than $3 an hour. And I brought copies of the survey for you today. This bill is an important step in helping business climate in Philadelphia that promotes and encourages regulated child care. I urge you to support it. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Lola Rooney and I'm the Senior Program Director for the YMCA of Philadelphia Family Child Care Network and in past life was a 25-year veteran of the Philadelphia School System so I understand the impact and the effect of a child's environment on whom that child becomes later on in life. Nine years ago the YMCA in Philadelphia realized that even though they were the largest not-for-profit provider of child care services in the City of Philadelphia, there were 64 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 still many parents and homes and families within our own services areas that were not making use of our child care because they could not afford it. So in order to meet needs, particular for infant and toddler care, the YMCA looked at doing a family child care network which consists of family day care homes which are totally there to supply the needs of low-income working families and to meet the growing need of family child care in the City of Philadelphia. Because of our Christian principles an values, the YMCA looks at a family child care network in a sense as a ministry where we are creating a safe nurturing environment that supports the development of children and it also supports the needs of parents who may need to work until 9 o'clock at night or until 6 o'clock the next morning. Just to bring out a point, the average family day care provider starts their work day at 6:30 a.m. in the morning and it may not ends until 6 o'clock at night. And during that time, there are many jobs that they fulfill which they are not paid for. Just a few, they 65 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 become a janitor, a dishwasher, a storyteller, PE teacher, an activity director, a zoo keeper, they can become a therapist, an entertainer, a nurse, a traffic controller, a technician, a diagnician, a beautician, a fire marshal, an analyst, a dentist, a scientist. There are many jobs that they are fulfilling which they do not pay for because on the average a family day care provider who is taking care of an infant or toddler is paid at a rate of $25 a day for 11 and a half hours of work which breaks down to $2.17 an hour. At this rate of pay, you cannot tell me that a family day care home service is not indeed a ministry. Ministries such as this do need our support, and what better way to give them the support they need and to improve the quality and care of our children than by making a change in the fees. In closing, I realize that there are many City businesses that may cry foul or unfair to such a change. However, just to must point out a few things, my husband is a retired licensed contractor. He paid for a license to do 66 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 business in the City of Philadelphia, but no one limited the number of homes he remodeled the bathrooms he could install, or the decks or the kitchen that he could renovate. My nephew paid for license to own a car repair shop. The number of cars that he has repaired over the years has allowed him to become one of the ten businesses in the city that has the new emission system. My niece has a beautician license. When I talked with her, what type of limitations are placed upon you, and depending on the number of clients she chooses to serve and the number of styles they want, her take-home pay for week can be anywhere from 750 to $1,000 for a week. And last but not least, I have a nephew who is working -- a godson who is working in a barber shop in the midst of the University of Pennsylvania campus. At any given time within a two-hour period, all 15 seats in that shop is occupied. These persons have licenses in the City of Philadelphia and there are no limitations placed upon them by the number of people they can 67 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 serve or the amount of money they can make. For each of these, there are no limitations placed. I cannot say the same for family day care providers. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Mariano and members of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. I am Gerri Swift, President of the Women'S Business Development Center located here in Philadelphia. I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to testify in support of Bill 000545. I commend Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and her cosponsors for introducing this bill, as well as the Chair and committee for holding these hearings today. The Women's Business Development Center helps women who their own businesses or who are thinking about starting their own businesses. We provide technical assistance, training, counseling, access to capital to primarily low- and moderate-income women. However, since July of 1998, we have also 68 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 administered the City of Philadelphia's child care provider program in cooperation with six nonprofit child care agencies and City departments involved with child care licensing and regulations. Because of our involvement in this program, we have seen firsthand how needed and invaluable a service family child care is for thousands of families in Philadelphia. We support this bill for many reasons, but in the interest of brevity I will touch on only a few. First, by easing the economic burdens on those who provide this type of child care as well as those who are thinking about it, this Council will be demonstrating its support for an activity that is essential for so many families in this city. Family child care can offer a more relaxed home-like style of care than a day care center with a more flexible and a less formal relationship with parents. Yet family child care providers are much more than just baby sitters. They provide all the safety, warmth, and learning opportunities of centers, but do so in a home environment. 69 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 Second, lowering the cost of providing family child care will reduce the business start-up costs and will help to increase the number of regular providers of this service. Lowering the cost of doing business provides a powerful incentive for unregulated providers to begin to comply with the regulatory process. That in turn will mean safer facilities and services as well as more peace of minds for parents. Third, Council will be promoting jobs in this City. As part of our oversight responsibilities, my agency conducted economic impact study of the City's child care program. The data that we collected clearly demonstrated that family child care generates significant revenue and jobs in Philadelphia. Specifically, 204 providers who participated in the City's program reported creating 228 full-time and 53 part-time jobs and provided services to over a thousand children. We estimate that this generated $1.7 million in the City's economy in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Please note that these jobs and the 1.7 million in revenue arose 70 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 solely out of participants in the City's child care program who respond to our survey. The figures are obviously much higher for all providers in the City. Fourth, family child care makes it possible for thousands of women with no backup child care options to enter the job force. This also serves to boost the local economy in Philadelphia, particularly in an area of job scarcity in many sectors. For all of those reasons, I urge this committee's approval for Bill 000545 as well as adoption by the entire Council. And again, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you, ma'am. We'll get you all and ask you all questions when your done.
Good morning, Councilman Mariano and other members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Angela Logan and I'm the Assistant Childhood Director for Philadelphia Citizens for 71 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 Children and Youth, the advocacy partner for the Child Care Matters Early Childhood Initiative. I am here today to urge you to support Bill No. 5 000545. This bill would affect over 700 family child care programs and about 90 group child care programs which together enroll about 4,000 children in the City. These community-based programs offer a smaller setting for children that are often preferred by many parents because of convenience and ease of accommodation for non-traditional hours. They afford families reliable and consistent care so parent can work with peace of mind that their children are in a legally operating regulated child care program. In Philadelphia, start-up and licensing fees for family child care are some of the highest in the country. Regulated child care providers operate according to local laws and regulations and they pay taxes. Reducing the fee would you an incentive for potential child care providers to enter the field, and in doing so, add increased revenues to the local economy. 72 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 The cost of the annual fee is burdensome to child care providers. A study by the Delaware Association for the Education of Young Children found that on average family child care providers earned an annual net income of $9,337. The fee for a food preparation license is high compared to the relative income an resource of home-based providers. On average, a child care provider would have to work two full days free in order to pay for this fee. Lowering the fees would help stabilize these programs. Any progress City Council can make in reducing the cost of doing business is important. We know that much of the family child care in the City is provided informally without the benefit of fire, environmental, or basic health and safety standards and without criminal or child abuse clearance for caregivers. In many cases, the mounting costs to comply with local zoning laws can be barrier to starting and continuing as a business. This bill will be a great start in reducing City barriers for providers to become regulated. We estimate that there are about 10 73 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 to 20 unregulated providers for every 1 registered child care provider. Making it easier for providers to become regulated would ultimately bring in additional revenue through City wage tax for both providers an parents who are able to work because they have reliable child care. As child advocates, we are pleased that child safety will still be protected through the inspections while providers are given incentives to remain in the regulated system. Eliminating this fee a win-win situation for providers, for the City, and for the community. We urge you to support Bill 000545. Thank you.
Thank you. Let me throw this question out to whoever wants to answer it. My main concern is the poor woman that has two, three kids and it's a choice between working and not making a lot of money or staying home and watching their kids. Maybe she decides, you know, she's off of welfare and she's going to go to work but this child care thing a big expense. Having been through it 74 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 myself, I know it's a big expense. So you dump it on one of these unregulated ones. Do you really think this will help them come above ground become legitimate where they can be regulated by the City and the State? Whoever wants to answer that. Go ahead, Ma'am.
Councilman, I would like to answer that in reference to what we have seen with the start of the City of Philadelphia child care program, that the City itself along with the agencies and many of the people who have testified here today and the City departments worked long and hard to put together, that was one of the reasons, the key reasons, why it was put together is to make sure that women who want to start family day care will have an opportunity to do so. Part of that program currently, what the City does is it actually pays for the business privilege license, their food prep, and their child care license. That has enabled them to begin to start the business. What we'd like to do is take a look at all of those fees and see how we can really either reduce them or eliminate them. And we know from the women that we see 75 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 because they actually come to the center and we meet with all of them and do technical assistance with them that this is giving them an opportunity that they would not have had an opportunity to become self-sufficient through entrepreneurship.
Now, I would imagine, and youse can help me with this one, too, this is a big market from a business standpoint that the bigger child cares in I could say Allegheny because I've had great success with them in my district. You know, you can cringe but they seem to hit the target. Their audiences that I need like the Latino moms in Kensington that I represent and they offer jobs to neighborhood people, but eventually these people that we're keeping from being in business and keeping underground by passing this bill, and I'm sure it's going to pass, they'll be able to be legitimate. You think they will eventually rise to the size of being bigger child care or do you think -- because I don't see any of the big guys down here complaining so this must be such a big market that they figure the constitution -- I haven't even gotten a call about it, so it must 76 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 be so lucrative out there they're not even worried about this.
Well, I don't really think it's going to impact the established child care centers. What we're experiencing with the women that we see is that they would like to go from the four children to six children to group. And what we're really seeing is that there's a lot of issues within the City of Philadelphia from a licensing and regulation perspective that is stopping them from even taking that growth. I mean, a lot of the women who are doing this want to do this within their community. It's community economic development, and they want to be able to help the women in their community and they themselves have dreams to move forward and to build, some of them, bigger day care centers. Other people, like any other business, you know, people decide how big business what they really want. Others, they're fine with exactly where they are. But we want to be able to provide the opportunity to those who want to grow.
Another issue is that 77 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 with family day care, it's particularly good for infants an young toddlers. The larger child care centers, even for the YMCA, we do not do infant care in our centers because it is not an economic boom for us. The requirements from the State side as far as the ratios prohibit us from opening up our rooms and the requirements of having to set up the room to care for the infants and toddlers. So it's much more easier for an infant who is six months, nine months, even thirteen months to be cared for in a family day care home where it's critical where they have that relationship of trust and building that one-on-one attention that they need that is so critical rather than being warehoused, which is what some of our largest centers for profit are actually doing. It's like warehousing children because it is lucrative out here. But if you've got a commitment to seeing that a child has the right start in life and the critical time between the ages 0 to 3, then you're going to look at a family day care home.
Thank you. Go ahead. 78 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545
I just want to respond by saying that to your question of do we actually have issue here if we're trying to reduce barriers to family and group day care home operation competition with the centers. And the answer to that is very squarely no, actually, because we don't have enough regulated supply in the City as a whole. We actually, if count up the number of young children we have, about a 100,000 --
We're constantly having new 0 to 3-year-olds. It just keeps going.
Right. So we're a very, very long way from saturation. And I think actually the task before us still is to be really focused on figuring out as creatively as we can what strategies we're going to use to create enough supply. As people here have testified, that supply has to be family day care homes, group day care homes and centers. Parents are 79 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 going to have different needs and different preferences. And really what we have to figure out is getting enough in each category in the neighborhoods that are convenient and accessible to the families and the kids who need to be using the services. But we are light-years away from a conversation that actions we would take for either family day care, group, or center would somehow set off one of the other groups and say "Hey, this is unfair to my group." All of them need a lot more capacity and a lot more support.
Correct me if I'm wrong. My youngest is 16, but there's got to be a lot of factors where close to home, the age of the child, the money, if you like it or not, and there may be somebody down the street who you've known years that has one and that's 19 even better. 20
The perfect one was my mother, God rest her soul. I was comfortable knowing my 20-year-old when 4 months old that it was my mom. I trusted and knew her. 80 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 000545 That's not available for everyone, unfortunately, so this is good.
In fact, this issue you raised of the grandparents available is increasingly less an option for families, that's increasingly less available to them as means of actually providing care for their kids so that that issue of finding other safe, reliable, quality settings is critical. The other piece, again, with family an group day care homes and centers, too, is that families place a very high premium on convenience. They're using the services to facilitate work, and so that issue is also critical to us in terms of looking at this from a neighborhood perspective; what are we doing close by to where people are living or working to get these services available to them.
Thank you. Any other questions from the committee or other Councilpeople, Nutter, or anybody? Michael? You sure? I like his questions. He's very intelligent. I want everybody to know, and I don't 81 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 want to embarrass her, I think this is Councilwoman's Blondell's first bill as a Councilwoman. This is a great thing and she needs to be commended for this. She did a good job on this. This is good. (Applause.)
I'm looking forward to more of these types of days. I wish that I had a bill on the agenda today.
Councilwoman Krajewski's going to punch me. (Laughter.)
Resolution No. 000555, a resolution authorizing the Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold hearings on vacant, abandon and blighted property in Philadelphia and to take testimony on improving the process of vacant and abandoned property code disposition, 82 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 property enforcement, and demolition of dangerous properties in Philadelphia.
I will, Councilman. Good morning, Councilman Mariano and members of the committee. To my left, you know Otis Haigler, Dan Quin who is the chief of contractual services, and Eileen Evans who is the director of contractual services, newly appointed, which is the forefront of the demolition program in Licenses and Inspections. My purpose today is to provide testimony on Resolution 000555, which addresses the Council and communities' concerns relative to vacant and abandoned properties and the department's treatment of them. Joining me today -- as I already said this. On behalf of the department, I would like to commend Councilman Mariano and the members of the committee for facilitating a dialogue to discuss the issue. Background. As shown in the chart below, the City through the Department of 83 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 Licenses and Inspections has expended approximately $115 million to demolish 14,185 abandoned and imminently dangerous structures throughout the City for the last fiscal years. 6 I might add that of that number, within that 7 number, we demolished 243 -- it's not in my 8 testimony. 243 commercial properties at a cost 9 of $21,409,000. 10 Additionally, we have expended 11 approximately 1.5 million on encapsulation. This is a process that allows to us stabilize properties by sealing all openings, making sure the roof is weather-tight and the drainage system is not clogged and water can flow out through the sewer system. This allows the property to maintain its integrity and the integrity of the neighborhood. To date we have treated approximately 342 properties at an average cost of $3,094 per property. Beginning on August 22, 2000, the City experienced an increase in the number of imminently dangerous building collapses. In response to this increase, under the direction of the Managing Director's Office and with the 84 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 cooperation of the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia Housing Authority, we began reinspecting the 100 census tracks with the most imminently dangerous buildings. The purpose of this was to find the buildings that could collapse and identify any additional imminently dangerous buildings throughout the City. We spent, since August 22nd, over $2 million to demolish 211 dangerous buildings throughout the City, Not just in the 100 census tracks, but wherever there was a failure or a need for immediate demolition. To date, we have completed 95 percent of an aggressive neighborhood reinspection program to identify all vacant buildings throughout the City of Philadelphia, using 18 two-person teams of Philadelphia Housing 19 Authority inspectors along with the Department of 20 License and Inspections inspectors to count the number of vacants in the City of Philadelphia. We are presently 145 census tracks have been completed. When we are done this, we expect to be able to map and give to Councilpeople by Council districts the vacants in their areas in 85 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 the Council district along with the breakdown between vacant lots and imminently dangerous buildings. We've also, with the aid of the police department, have been able to use a police helicopter that was arranged by the Managing Director to identify buildings that were failing at the roof level but weren't obvious from the ground. We have found an additional 450 properties using this method. We have completed about 60 census tracks to date. At the present time, the department -- this survey will be the most comprehensive survey we've ever performed anywhere to identify vacant buildings. And when we're done, we'll have an accurate good count of the buildings that are vacant in the City of Philadelphia which will help the Administration plan how they deal with the blight program. Thank you.
Mr. Solvibile, this census track, can we get that? I'm tired of hearing that, not a shot at you. Can I get the abandoned buildings in my census track? 86 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
When we had that blight briefing I asked, and I'm sure the rest of the District Councilpeople a lot of people would like to have it.
We haven't produced one at this point. We're waiting for the completion of the survey which we expect to be the first week in December, if not before. We're ahead of schedule. We've been pretty productive in getting this done. And the data is entered into the computer and then we'll be able to produce a list by councilmatic district. It will be more up-to-date. To give it to you now, it's a-year-old and not as useful to you.
Thank you. Who wants to go next? You got a question? I'm sorry, Councilman Rizzo has a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 87 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 During the course of the survey, and we're all aware of the many buildings that collapsed throughout the City, it was brought to my attention that there may be a need going forward, just looking back, and I think I've asked this question before but I think it's appropriate today, that it's been pointed out to me that many of the initial deterioration or the failures in the structures were at the roof level and it was pointed out by a few contractors involved that the way we do business, the way we allow multiple roofs to be placed on a residential structure, one, maybe two, in some cases three or more, that the weight of that additional roof has contributed to the actual collapse of the building and it just caved right into the building. Do you think we need some regulation or do you think we need some education? I don't know regulation is necessarily the way to go, but when a building's designed, it's designed to carry a certain amount of load. And I bet after you put the second, the third roof on, you've added a tremendous amount of load to that 88 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 structure. And I also understand the rationale why people want to just place a second roof on an existing roof; it's a matter of money, it's a less expensive way to repair the structure. But, if you're violating all the engineering principles and just allowing more load to be put on the building, something's got to give.
I believe that the public -- the need to educate the public on this is really important and I also believe that any contractor that would have integrity would not do that to somebody, would tell them that, you know, you can't do this that it has to be replaced. Just because you want to do it doesn't mean you should do it. And I agree with you, Councilman. And I believe we don't need legislation 'cause the building code could deal with the situation on what load the roof can carry. We can deal with it through our present building code. And there is presently a permit required if you -- a $55 over-the-counter permit that we would get out of the district for replacement for a roof and you would need a permit -- if you went and took the roof down to its rafters, you would need a 89 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 different permit that you would get from Center City.
So you're telling me that I call a contractor and I want a new roof put on my home and I don't want to remove the existing roof, a permit's required for that?
Yes. In the district, $55 permit. It's right in the district offices. They don't have to come into Center City. That's called an over-the-counter permit.
Do the inspectors when there's a roofing truck parked out a particular house ever check on -- is that something that's done in the enforcing process for permits?
We ask them to check and make sure that if see work to and if they don't have a permit to inquire as to why.
To end this, two very, very critical contractors indicated that many of the structures that they visited, they attributed the collapse of the roof based on the fact that there were multiple roofs on the building. I see you shaking your head there. 90 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
I believe that the roof is the problem in a lot of cases, that it leaks and they're old. Our problem with roofs that we're finding is a lack of a roof. The reason we ask for helicopter to help us, at 29th an Cecil B. Moore, the first collapse or maybe the second, but a big collapse with Councilman Clarke and the Managing Director, the Managing Director said to me, "Well, why couldn't we see this?" And I said, "Director, the building was all sealed and we could see the roof. That when I was on the ground we saw the holes in the roof, we saw the grass growing on it, so it's a matter of the roofs are the problem. The number of roofs on it, I don't know if that was the problem, but definitely the holes and the water penetration into the building is what was causing a lot of these collapse. 99 percent of buildings that collapse other than fire and cars running through them is caused by water damage to the building somewhere.
To end this, what would you suggest we do as a city to educate or at least let many of our citizen know that when 91 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 they have a leak that necessarily just putting an additional roof over an existing roof or a third roof over a second roof, what do you suggest we do to maybe deal with this problem so years 6 from now we don't have -- 7
Councilman, I would 8 like to get back to you in writing and have David 9 Perry who is the chief of our construction 10 section or deputy commissioner in charge of 11 construction section put together a little 12 briefing paper for you to better answer your 13 question. He's much more qualified to deal with 14 this than I would on what to do with homeowners 15 how to educate them and or the point where it 16 becomes critical that you not put an additional 17 roof on. 18
Thank you, 19 Commissioner. 20 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 92 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
Mr. SOLVIBILE, can you tell me how much money we are budgeted per year for encapsulation?
We presently use the grant from the Office of Housing and Community Development, and that grant is for actual contractual work, $500,000, which we use for encapsulation and we can also use some demolition money if run out of the $500,000 grants that we receive from the Office of Housing and Community Development.
Realistically, approximately how many buildings would you be able to encapsulate per year?
3,000 average divided into 5 -- some of that money is used heat abatement and drainage abatement. Let's say $3,000; 3,000 divided into that is -- I'm not -- how much? About 150 buildings, Councilman.
Mr. Wetzel may 93 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 want to respond to this to some degree a little later on when he testifies. Is there any correlation between the development strategy and the encapsulation strategy? Because I know often I've asked you to encapsulate a building and it was not necessarily part of any short-range or long-range development plans.
The idea behind encapsulation is to save a property before its cancer spreads to the rest of the block. Then you go into the structure itself. Is it falling, is it collapsing? By sealing it and putting a roof and doing the drainage system we can preserve the property. If you look at the top of our testimony, we call it vacant property treatment program. It's always when we've come here and people call it the demolition program, the blight program is being worked on by the Administration and the part that I'm involved with the Managing Director is looking at property treatments. Instead of just saying everything would be, quote/unquote, demolished, we're looking at how we'll treat that block. When we begin the 94 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 process of demolishing buildings under the blight program, we would probably demolish more at first. Then at the end, we would probably be more into the encapsulation process. I think that might answer your question.
No. Let me give you an example. Right now we have the Home Start Program in the City of Philadelphia. It's pretty much citywide where PHDC goes out they either acquire through the Redevelopment Authority or it's a publicly-owned property and they rehabilitate it for home ownership.
And my question is, would it be more prudent, given the limited number of dollars we have for encapsulation and Home Start when you determine that you're going to do an encapsulation which is normally on a relatively stable block, and I understand that is also the criteria for Home Start, that if we do any encapsulation, then that should automatically become a candidate for a Home Start like program or a HRP program where the City would then go in and acquire the property if it's privately owned 95 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 and rehabilitate it for home ownership as opposed to -- do you understand where I'm coming from?
Now I understand. Every building -- I mentioned that the funding comes from the Office Housing and Community Development.
Every building we encapsulate, we first ask them if it's an area that we can spend their money in because they have rules and regulations to where you can spend it. And also, the system was set up and I believe still is set up that where the building after we encapsulate it would be washed into the system knowing that this is a good building that's been preserved and to get it into the system. And it's a candidate for our other to use our lien to acquire it from the encapsulation, so, yes, Councilman. That was originally the intent to be used in that regard.
Right. That's 96 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 why I think it's prudent to do something with it since we're making such an investment that we quickly get that property rehabilitated and into somebody's hands. Mr. Wetzel, a little later can you kind of respond to that when you testify because I'd like to know what that system is and how it effective it currently is. Mr. Solvibile, with respects to demolition contractors, and you and I have had numerous discussions over the years about some of our illustrious contractors, what's the capacity right now with the existing contractor list for demolitions?
The existing -- I would say that the existing we have could probably go to about 3,000 a year with the we're doing it now. But the way it's planned and the plan that's being developed as we said at the blight school I think everyone was calling it, we intend to have eight areas at approximately 1500 buildings an area and have a contractor and a two- to three- to four-year period -- three- to four- or five-year period, I'm sorry. Have that 97 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 area and work their way through it.
One contractor per area, eight different contracts. 1500 a year times would be -- 1500 times 8 is 12,000. And 7 if we do it in three years, that would be roughly 8 4,000 a year. If go to 4 years, it's 3,000 depends on the length that we decide that we'll run the demolition in that area. But there will be eight different contractors with the capability of producing at least 3,000 demolitions a year.
Do we have a sense of who those contractors are currently?
I anticipate, Councilman, that when we go public with the blight program -- it will be an advertised bid, it will be different than our regular bids that we do now on a daily basis -- that contractors will be coming from all over because it will be a pretty big game and we'll be getting a lot of different contractors. Our intent there is that contractors need to be pre-approved by the department and this committee the Managing 98 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 Director and the Mayor is setting up. There will be a committee that will manage or at least review and help us manage and run the program on a daily basis, and by "us," I mean the City. That the contractor will have to be pre-approved and show references and qualifications. And also any sub, and I think this will been important to you.
Any sub must approved by us. If we're going to get hurt, we're going to get hurt with the subs doing little-er jobs than with the bigger contractor with the machines.
So will there be subs for that one contractor that has that targeted area?
He'll be allowed to have subs, yes, but not without our approval. If we find them using contractors that aren't approved by us, then it will cease right then and there. I intend that Mr. Quin and Miss Evans will be very busy when this starts. They'll have 99 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 a lot of field time that we'll really be on top of this. Another improvement I think that will help some of the problems you experienced in the district is that each area of the eight areas will have its own inspector dedicated only to working with the contractor. As we presently now have one inspector at two or three council districts at a time. This will be one person dedicated to being in that area knowing the problems, working with the community, and working with the contractor to make it gets done right.
Is there currently any written set of criteria for large-scale demolition contractors and small-scale subs.
It's being developed as we speak. There's going to be standards in that some of it we put down on paper and we're waiting. In discussion is that the contractor has to be in the area every day. It's a big complaint that we have with contractors that once they start the job they're going to stay there and finish that job. We're hoping the time to 100 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 finish a hand demolition in a row home in a typical row home in Philadelphia will be two and a half days under this program.
And last question during this round. Are you also developing a neighborhood participating strategy?
I'm not, but the blight -- Pat Smith, Joyce Wilkerson are definitely putting that package together as to how neighborhood will participate. We intend -- I know one of the things that we're going to require a contractor to do absolutely is to notify that block where he'll be working several days before the demolition starts. And then the Councilperson being notified.
Oh, that's being developed by others. I'm not a part of that. I know that we've met with MBEC, had meetings with them. And as far as the community workforce, I'm not involved with that part of it, Councilman.
Who is? Who's involved with that? Who's developing that 101 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 aspect?
The whole package is being developed under Pat Smith's guidance, so I'm really not sure who's working on that part of it. I know I'm working with trying to develop contractors and how we'll get them. And when the bid comes out, the participation will be worked on at that point or decided what needs to be done.
Okay. Before we go too far down the track on this train, can you get me some information and to the Chair and the members of the committee information on neighborhood participation? And not necessarily through MBEC, but just neighborhood in general because we will be demolishing properties throughout the City of Philadelphia and I'd like to find out if there's some sort of outreach to include -- because we're going to be spending a substantial amount of money and I'd really have that.
I will ask the Managing Director's Office that I've been working with and Pat Smith to give you some input into 102 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 that as to what their thought process is.
Commissioner SOLVIBILE, I want to point out an observation and I think I may have addressed it to some of the executives of L&I, but maybe you weren't there. This question is right down your alley or this observation's right down your alley. In Roxborough I passed a service station on Ridge Avenue that happened to close.
Exactly, that's why I'm pointing it out to you. It's closed, and the day that it closed a few days after it closed the company came and boarded the facility up, put boards on the windows, put boards around the pumps, and it stuck out like a sore thumb. It really looked terrible. A few days later, they came and they painted that plywood a neutral color, a color that just blended in. 103 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
A gray, it's an off-gray. Obviously, you're getting home late at night. (Laughter.)
My family prefers it that way, Councilman; they don't have to put up with me.
But with this racheted up, this wouldn't apply to the demolitions, but with the encapsulations and the ceilings, I don't think anything worse when you drive down the street and you look up and you see boarded up windows. Is there anything that wouldn't add to the expense of the process to do what I just described at that service station near your home that we could buy a construction material that blends in better that doesn't come across as being like there's another boarded up building?
We in the encapsulation program, the wood is painted, absolutely.
It's painted? 104 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
It's painted. When we encapsulate a property, I insist the wood is painted because I agree with you, it looks horrible raw wood plus it really doesn't serve as a good protector because the wood would get saturated and start to rot. I would have to bring that back and discuss it with the commissioner if we would paint the wood on the houses we seal. But to answer your question, it is required to do for the encapsulation program.
Maybe there's an alternative material. And I don't want to solve the problem here.
There's a plastic out there that I saw is a sample of and it looks like a house that's dark, it's like got blinds in it like a window, but it's a cheap plastic and, you know, I got my pen and got the point in went like that and it was gone. That won't even last a minute on the wood so we have to come up with something a little bit better. I think painting will make it blend in. I think the secret with painting, Councilman, is if you look at the rest of the block and see like the colors they have in 105 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 the block or how it would be more neutral to blend in so you wouldn't notice it as you drove by would be a success.
I know we're trying to accomplish in sealing the property, but I think we also have to take into consideration the environment and how it feels to have four or five boarded up homes in your block. You feel bad enough about it, and then just to have them stick out like I described. So maybe there is an alternative material that could be investigated and is as sturdy as you'd like it to be. I'd appreciate you following up with me because that's something personally that I see and that I'd hike to suggest that you try to resolve that problem.
Thank you Councilman on our aesthetic values of the paint and plastic.
And, Councilman, I might add that just because it's up the street 106 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 from my house is not the reason it's painted. It surprised me like it surprised you.
Did you notice the difference? The whole appearance of that property changed the minute they painted that.
Absolutely. When I went by the first time with unpainted wood, I noticed it. And then I didn't notice it, it didn't stand out.
Thank you. Anyone else who want to testify here? Nobody? All right. Any other questions for this little panel here? We still have a lot to go. (No questions.)
Okay. RDA and PHA's is up next. Mr. Wetzel's itchy, I can see him jumping around. Come on, Herb. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee. My name is Herbert E. Wetzel, Executive Director of 107 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 the Redevelopment Authority. I'm here to provide testimony on Resolution No. 000555. The role of the Redevelopment Authority in local government is unique. We are charged with partnering with other government entities and communities to create urban renewal in its various forms which really includes the new construction of housing, rehabilitation of existing structures, and very often facilitating creation of urban gardens and side yards in residential neighborhoods. Through all of this, we are routinely and vigorously engaged in acquiring, disposing and in the interim maintaining large numbers of lots and structures. With regards to improvements in the way government acquires and disposes of properties, I should indicate that I've been appointed chair of the Administration's Vacant Property Transactions Task Force which is comprised of the agency executives who are critically involved in each aspect of the five different types of ways that the City acquires properties and the four ways in which the City disposes of properties. This task force is 108 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 currently meeting twice a month with the subcommittee meeting alternative weeks. And this is a newly created process to review and provide reform for the Administration's Neighborhood Transformations Programs with regards to the acquisition and disposition of real estate. There's a large number of lots and structures, as I mentioned previously, that are owned by the Redevelopment Authority and we take that ownership responsibility seriously. When we're, as government, either the property owner or the landlord, there's a special obligation that we believe to make certain that we behave in harmony with the best interest of the communities in which these properties are located. Though we function under substantial fiscal restraints, we endeavor in all cases to respond to any complaints or issues that arise out of the real estate that the Redevelopment Authority owns and do exactly that, we get out there and we try to correct the situation. With regards to community gardens, the Redevelopment Authority manages the New Kensington Fishtown side yard program where 109 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 vacant lots are acquired for citizens and neighbors in it. And if you recall a couple weeks ago we were here for a resolution to dispose of 63 more properties under that program. The total now is in the hundreds that have taken place under the new Kensington Fishtown side yard program. Also, the Authority is proud of our well-established relationship with the neighborhood gardens around the city in which the authority provides leases to local neighborhood organizations to use the land that it currently owns for gardens. I think it's more than fair to say that that there are substantial challenges that confront us, but it is equally fair to say that we are seriously engaged in a comprehensive and, in my experience, an unprecedented effort to substantially improve the way the City does business, how business is conducted, and as a result, to have a better effect on the lives of the citizens who live in our neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to any of your questions or members of 110 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Wetzel. Any questions for Mr. Wetzel? Councilman Clarke?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. Mr. Wetzel, you have been working with my office recently on some legislation as it relates to acquisition strategies development districts, and I understand that there is some other acquisition processes taking place; one in Baltimore, the quick-take model?
But it appears that every one of those expedited acquisition strategies calls for some State-enabling legislation. Are we currently working with the State, particularly as a part of the suburban sprawl issue? I know that they'll try to discourage development in the outlying counties, in the rural counties, and we're trying to encourage it. Do we currently have a strategy associated with the State's suburban sprawl issue 111 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 that will allow us to do legislatively what we need to do here to encourage development opportunities?
I think what you could say is that we're evolving the strategy at this point in time. The reality here, under current state law, it takes a significant amount of time for the Redevelopment Authority to acquire properties under Urban Renewal Law. What you speak to in Baltimore is that the Maryland legislature recognizing Baltimore's unique circumstances and, again, in a similar situation, over 10,000 vacant structures provided special legislation for the use of and only for the use of the City of Baltimore to establish a system. And there's sort of unique precedence here in you're dealing with a constitutional issue and that is government taking private property, so there's always going to be a lot of protection in that system. However, in Maryland, they took the view of the best way to describe it is the word abandonment. And that if you own property, you bear certain burdens and those are to pay taxes, to maintain the property, to keep it sealed, to 112 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 keep it occupied. Those are the burdens of ownership. And when the current owner of the property walks away and transfers those burdens to the municipality, meaning the City now has to seal the property, the City has to clean the property, there's no taxes coming in. They took the position that if you walk away from a property like that, if you walk away from the burdens of ownership and the municipality has to assume them, then the municipality should be able to quickly own it as well as being responsible for it. I think that's going to be a part of our argument. I think the legislation that we will seek will only be to address Philadelphia's problems. There may be other cities who may want to join in, but it is a powerful change in the law that I don't think legislators around the State would want all the redevelopment authorities to have.
So the rule of law should not apply to individuals who have abandoned the property as it relates to property rights constitutionally, is essentially what you're saying? 113 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
Yeah. What they do and my understanding of is, they give notice and they go before a judge in the City of Baltimore. The intent is to reduce this to a 90-day period. Now, we're understanding right now, and it's a new law, that it's taking about six months, but that's a lot faster than it happens here. And if they can get it down to 90 days, that is exactly where you'd like to be. I mean, ideally to your question is if you go in, you know, the first vacant on the block shows up and nobody can find the owner and gets encapsulated, 90 days or 120 days later --
Mr. Wetzel, Councilman Clarke and I would stand on our head for six months.
I mean, we have some real arcane laws, and most of this is from 1945. I mean, there's not been a lot of reform in the urban renewal legislation, so it dates back to 114 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 just right after the war.
Who's the point person from the state going to be or who is the point person in the state legislature that will do the enabling legislation? Because I have a newly elected state representative and he's looking to do a bill. I'm sure he'd love to sponsor.
He might have to sponsor it with State Representative Elect Angel Cruz because I think he's he on this one, too.
He's actually the representative that I was talking about. (Laughter.)
Actually, before the neighborhoods transformation initiative, George Burrell is chairing the legislative reform, so my since is that it should go through there. I mean, what we're doing, the various committees are feeding information back to that particular group who needs to translate that in the legislation. And let me just say today, too, that although we don't need to be there today, there's 115 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 a legislator from Pittsburgh who's actually trying to gut the Urban Renewal Law and make it impossible, including legislation that would state that if property acquired by redevelopment authorities, they cannot be transferred to private parties. So it's the opposite direction of where we need to head, and he's got a little bug.
Yes, and our lobbyists know about it as well. He had a couple of deals in his area that sort of went sour and he's responding to constituents which many of us would do.
Yeah, yeah. But it is very clear that from my perspective there are two pieces to this. Number one, documenting the way we do business now because people are sort of expert in the piece they handle but nobody's become an expert in the whole system. So we're engaged now in the 116 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 process of documenting every step, who does it, how long it takes, what they do they when pass it onto next person. After doing that, understanding what the existing system is, what changes can we make in the existing system by changing policy, and then what changes to we need legislatively to be able to speed up the process. And then the third element of this is bringing the appropriate technology to the table to manage the system itself.
Can you ask Mr. Burrell to send us a memo documenting what the current strategy is and who he may be working with on a state level?
Jay, you want to testify? You want to testify for PHA?
I'm testifying on behalf of the Housing Authority, but I thought that, you 117 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 know, because we were working so closely together I would have to interject (inaudible).
I just wanted to be sure that if he needed any information --
We have questions for PHA so do you want to testify? Here's my PHA question. Let me start this out. How many vacant PHA properties do we have? Do you have any idea? Say your name for the record. I'm sorry.
Dan Quimby, Q-U-I-M-B-Y, Executive General Manager, Major Systems Maintenance, Philadelphia Housing Authority. Currently we have approximately 1800 scattered sites houses. Approximately 18 months ago months ago we started a plan to demolish vacant units for which we had received permission --
You've got to pull that closer to you, too, you're speaking softly. 118 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
Approximately months 6 ago we began a demolition program where we were 7 to demolish 692 vacant structures. To this 8 date -- 9
PHA-owned properties. 11 We're using federal funds. To this date, we have 12 demolished 301 vacant properties. We have 13 currently 21 additional properties on contract to 14 one demolition contractor. We have an 15 advertisement in the paper for demolition 16 contracts for another 50 properties. When the 17 program is done we will have demolished all of 18 the identified properties that have been approved. In addition, in conjunction with Licenses and Inspections, we've met under their direction we began a program what we call string demolitions. As a result of the problems that have surfaced in the City within the last three or four months, if L&I determines properties that 119 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 are not PHA properties have to be demolished and we have one in the middle or one on the end, we make arrangements for those families to be transferred to another property, then L&I goes ahead and demolishes those properties. Several years ago, we went on a program to address some deficiencies we've had in the maintenance department prior to Mr. Green's arrival. By the way, Mr. Green is presently receiving an award from the National Housing Association as we speak for his efforts in the housing industry in the City of Philadelphia. Upon his arrival, we had 25,500 outstanding work orders in occupied houses. Through their use of structural maintenance and repair teams, we are now down to approximately 3800 work orders today. We decentralized the management and maintenance operations from three areas to ten community-based management offices. Each one has skilled staff in terms of plumbers, carpenters, and electricians and maintenance mechanics to address those needs. Separate from those issues are dedicated personnel to reduce the number of vacant properties that we've had. We're 120 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 averaging repairs on ten vacant properties each week at scattered sites.
Let me ask you this. This might be off the beaten track. Those tradesmen that you're using, is that the arts program?
No, sir. We do have what they call the arts program. That's now called the Renovation and Training Program. Created with the Building Trades Council, each scattered sites area now has carpenters, plumbers, and we have a general staff of electricians due to a shortage of electricians.
These guys that you're using, though, on these jobs, are they those guys or are they your own actual craftsmen, the ones you're talking about?
The scattered sites are actual trades unions coming from the carpenters' union.
That's that started with that arts program, you just changed the name?
What we did was we 121 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 expanded upon that rather than keeping just doing the vacant units. What Mr. Green decided, we needed to put more skilled tradesmen in servicing occupied units.
We were so engaged with the glaziers union. We now have glaziers union, we also have cement masons and plasterers.
Save a spot for me. When this is done, I could possibly be back there.
In addition to these, we've also partnershipped with L&I on several fronts. We've supplied inspectors as they're going through and do the census tracks. But for several years now, we've assisted L&I in emergency support services for the building collapses, cave-in collapses, and we've done some encapsulation for them. 122 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
I've actually seen you guys out there helping on a cave-in collapse about a year ago.
It was very impressive, yes. I just ran into it by mistake and it was really interesting thank. God the guy was fine. Maybe this question may be better for you. State your name for the record.
This is probably a question for Mr. Greene, so if you don't understand it -- my main problem with PHA, and believe me, it's a lot better than it was five, six years ago, I mean, 98 percent better. But it's getting these vacant houses. My number-one problem is someone will come in and say, "You know, there's a house in this neighborhood," and after find out for weeks who it is, we find out, not all the time, but this one's PHA. So some guy comes says "I want to buy that property." 123 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 He's either a speculator or a neighborhood person. It happens with both groups. You know, whoever, I would rather have neighborhood people, but at least the speculator has an interest in my district in a neighborhood where there's definitely an interest to be need. It seems to be hard to get these properties to these people. It just seems it takes so long. Would this all going to the same idea that Mr. Wetzel was talking about with the RDA getting these properties to people, be it speculators. Speculators a loose term. I don't allow any speculators come to me with anything if I don't know them or don't understand what their trying to do and they're not helping the area.
One of the issues that we're looking at is you've got four public entities that own property in the City. The City itself through Public Property, the Redevelopment Authority, PHDC, and the Public Housing Authority. Part of the problem is, and this will relate to your particular example, is a site in which a developer wants to do a project in which all four entities own a piece of that particular 124 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 site. And in this case, Public Housing Authorities at one time were prohibitive of disposing of properties unless they replaced each one they disposed of. It was called a one-for-one replacement rule. So if sold a house, you had to buy a house. Public Housing Authorities have been relieved of that, but HUD still controls the disposition. The Public Housing Authority has to fill out a very complicated application. It goes to a HUD office in Chicago, Illinois; they have to review and approve the disposition and then return that to PHA here in Philadelphia where the Board then can vote disposition of it. One of the strategies that may make sense is that all of us go through -- each party that owns public property, if we create a Philadelphia land bank corporation to own it, that PHA if they said we've got 800 surplus vacant lots right now, goes to HUD with all 800 of them at one time an disposes them to this land management corporation. PHDC does it as well. The Redevelopment Authority does it as well. Then there's one entity that owns all of the property and you don't have to go through -- 125 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 with the capacity to sell that property quickly so that we do the administrative and legislative disposition process up front so the land is sitting there. When somebody wants it, it's available and you can close, like, in 60 days. I mean, that's an objective to get to. But they have their restraints.
That's a good objective. That's what we would like to see. Councilman Clarke.
I just wanted to do add to that issue with respects to disposition of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, is there a current lawsuit that is not allowing you to dispose of properties as a result of, I think, an accessible handicap issue?
There is some litigation now. I'm not quite familiar with it. I can have somebody from our legal department give you the entire break down of it. But there is, I believe, a lawsuit which is influencing the way we handle our properties.
You don't have anybody here that can address that? 126 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
With respects to demolition, I understand every year you submit a number of properties to HUD requesting demolition. Can you tell me how you determine how many properties? Is there a limit on the number of properties that you can request demolition from HUD Central each year? What is it based on?
What we did is we identified the most severely distressed properties in an area that we wanted to concentrate on that we determined were too expensive to rehab in areas that weren't really viable. We prepared a Hope Six Grant based on a -- HUD has a formula for how much money they will give to you develop and to demolish a property. We prepared a Hope Six Grant similar to what we have done in the past and we were fortunate 127 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 enough to get awarded two grants. Hope Six is not a sure thing every year, so we have to plan and hope that HUD will give us the additional monies to see demolish these properties.
So you can only ask for authorization to demolish properties where you have a development strategy; is that what you're saying?
No, a demolition strategy. We got funding to demolish -- and this was several years in the planning. This began probably four or five years ago to demolish these properties in the Ludlow area primarily.
So if there's only funding available for 150 properties but you have 600 that you need authorization to demolish, you can't ask for that authorization; when the funding becomes available, you can then demolish 128 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 those properties?
We submit a proposal to HUD, a Hope Six Grant with a number of properties that we requested. They have an identifiable number, a cost associated with what they consider the cost of demolition which is sometimes lower than what it costs us to demolish them.
Okay. My question is, if you have 600 properties that need to be demolished and they're going to only authorize 150, but these other properties need to be demolished, would it make more sense to get the authorization and as funding becomes available you can then demolish the properties instead of going through that long cumbersome process of asking for authorization to demolish, which takes a year from my experiences. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have authorization to demolish all of the dangerous and vacant properties in your inventory and as funding becomes available you can just demolish those 129 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 properties as opposed to piecemeal?
That's a process that's somewhat involved with HUD. And some of our properties, we can't wait a year or we don't know when they're going to come down.
Some of that is a HUD issue which is a long involved process for approval. But also, as you know, some of our properties, it's in such a state that we don't know when they're coming down. They come down on their own without...
I mean, you know, I've experienced this year after year. You submit a hundred properties to be demolished, and 130 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 you know you have a thousand and we go through this long, cumbersome process to get authorization. I don't understand. If you have a thousand properties that need to be demolished, just go ahead and get authorization an if the Department of Licenses and Inspections may have some additional funds, maybe they can demolish the properties you get reimbursed when funding becomes available. I don't think it makes sense for us to have dangerous properties throughout the City of Philadelphia because you can't get authorization from HUD to demolish the properties.
Councilman, what I have found when I left your office and went over to the Housing Authority is that we have a lot of imminently dangerous --
I may need you back. We want to expand our services. I can't pay you what you're making now, though. (Laughter.)
When I first arrived at the Housing Authority, one of my tasks was to find all of our vacant properties because we 131 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 really had some issues with the census of numbers. I went around the City and looked at a lot of properties that were in a position to be demolished and that we had no plans of fixing because they were just beyond repair. And I found that probably close to 40 percent of those units I had to go and speak to the Deputy Commissioner about because they were to the point where they needed to be demolished and we couldn't wait for approval. So if we have a thousand units and we only submit 600 on a list, the other 400 are probably going fall into Bobby's category of being demolished because they're imminently dangerous and in a position to fall. But I do agree that and I believe that when we submit our package, we submit it for all of the entire properties except what the approval dollar is and work from there.
So you're saying we are asking for authorization for all PHA inventory that is imminently dangerous?
Can you get me 132 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 some documentation to the Chair and the members of the committee to that effect?
No further questions from anybody? Mr. Levin, you've waited with bated breath. (Witness comes forward.)
It's really a great pleasure to be back. It's been five years almost to the day. And I can tell you very seriously that I do miss the opportunity to be a positive force in the City. At the present time, I'm teaching a pro bono course at the College of Engineering. It's a state college at Penn State and I have a lot of satisfaction working with young kids. It's been another very worth while experience, but it really is a pleasure to be back.
It's good to have you back. 133 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
I've prepared a rather lengthy testimony that I'd like to have incorporated into the record.
This testimony came out of a course, a graduate school course in building failures in the Department of Architectural Engineering. And there is an addendum to my remarks in the back which talk about some of the technical issues as well as some of the social issues.
My view of this is somewhat detached having been absent for five years, but I think I'd like to share with you my perspective as to what L&I's abilities were, what they are, and how this ambitious blight program 134 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 should move ahead in the area of demolition and community involvement. Listening to the testimony this morning, it reminded me very closely of the same conversations that were held at the L&I budget hearings in 1993. We talked about the cooperation of the various different agencies, how we deal with the vacant properties, how we get the properties out of private ownership when they've been abandoned, and we're still addressing those properties. I feel somewhat better about it because hearing from the Redevelopment Authority, I see that there is at least a better focus on it. I'm going to try to just go through my remarks in an abbreviated manner to give you time as much time as you need to question me.
The most troublesome aspect of urban life is the question of abandonment of the City's housing stock. Both the war on drugs and the battle against street crime are tied inexorably to ravages of blight and abandonment that is now rampant in most of 135 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 our City's neighborhood. Every vacant structure, residential or otherwise, will soon fall victim to the ravages of abandonment. Sooner rather than later these abandoned structures will have to be demolished unless a comprehensive plan of blight removal and community revitalization is put into place. Every vacant structure, residential or otherwise, is more likely than not a source of refuge for those who deal in drugs and/or otherwise prey on the citizens who are really trapped in the neighborhoods. Philadelphia is a city with an ever-increasing rate of population loss. There are just too many dwelling units when compared to the viable population base. As a result of the population decline, the lack of rational community development, and economic disenfranchisement, neighborhoods die, buildings are abandoned, and ultimately they collapse into tomorrow's headlines. When I was commissioner, I questioned what L&I's real mandate was with respect to its demolition efforts. L&I's original mandate grew out of provisions in the building code that gave 136 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 it the ability to immediately remove an imminently dangerous property so it was no longer a threat to public safety, health, and welfare. The recent application of that, and I say recent, I'm not talking in the past five years, I'm talking about during my tenure as commissioner, prior to my tenure as commissioner and whatever has happened since I am no longer commissioner. That source of funds, I'd say approximately $10 million worth of money that was set aside for demolition, became disbursed for other agendas. And the value that the City thought that they were getting for those dollars in removing the blight and the cancer in the neighborhoods was not the full dollars of the money that was being expended. Let me give you some examples: There were fencing programs, and the fences were done by the anti-graffiti people, by the Horticultural Society, and by L&I under whatever contracts we did. And that reduced the amount of dollars because we compensated the anti-graffiti people. And if we didn't compensate them in cash, we bought them paint. 137 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 And we compensated the Horticultural Society for the fencing that they did under contract to us. And then we started to evaluate it and we found out that we could buy fencing cheaper as a bid item than through these other agencies which we were in essence using demolition money to underwrite some other activities. The question of fencing should have been outside of the department. It should have been an issue for OHCD. Basically, the department should have focused solely on emergency demolition. The other demolition that was required for neighborhood stabilization and for whatever other reason, economic development, for whatever other reason, should not have been in the mandate of L&I because there were too many competing forces looking to get into that $10 million. And a prime example occurred in Logan. I think in the third year of my tenure as commissioner, I got a phone call from the former mayor's former chief of staff directing me to make a payment of $60,000 out of my demolition 138 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 money to a Wade entity who had prepared a proposal for the redevelopment of Logan. " And I refused -- I refused to write the check for $60,000. I was then ordered to write the check for $60,000, and I refused. I was then ordered again to write the check for $60,000 and I was told that the $60,000 of precious demolition money would be replaced by a like amount of money from OHCD.
And when the check came from OHCD into my demolition funding, then, you know, the order was obeyed. Now, it seems to me it seems to me that this might be one of the few jurisdictions in America where you can expend $60,000 and nobody questions it. It seemed to me to be a rather improper use of demolition funds. And I 139 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 had tried to harbor those funds as best I could so that we could get more value. And that came as a result of maybe the first four months of my tenure as commissioner going to Logan with my deputy who is at the zoo now Ken Woodson. And we went into Logan and we saw a house here and a house there and a house over there, and there was tremendous pressure from the clergy to speed up the process. " And what we found out that there was something was wrong and somebody was indicted and we had stopped the process in Logan and then we started again. But we forced the people who were managing the relocation to concentrate on the street face, relocate the people so we weren't doing ones and twos; we are doing 30s, 40s, an 50s. That dropped the net cost of demolition substantially because we didn't have to go back, we didn't have to stucco. We were able to get done and get through. And then we came up with the concept of Jersey barriers because the fences were getting stolen. And we first tried to weld the 140 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 mesh to the pole and still had problems with that and then we started the Jersey barriers because nobody was strong enough to carry away the concrete in the middle of the night. That also brought savings. And we worked closely with the Streets Department. We were able to close entire streets. It stopped the drug traffic. Even though nothing ever came back, the neighborhood was at least stabilized. We didn't have abandoned cars, we didn't have abandoned tires, we didn't have the drug deals in the back seats of cars. It put a different view on demolition. But I was forced as commissioner to undertake something that really should have been done at the Redevelopment Authority or elsewhere in the City. That should not have been emergency demolition under the L&I building code mandate. The problem, and I think it was addressed very well by the gentleman from the Redevelopment Authority earlier, was that there was very little interagency cooperation. In Logan, there were Mrs. Lipschitz drugstore and there was a health clinic next to 141 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 it, and I had spoken to both of those people. And went to the Redevelopment Authority and I said, "Please condemn these properties so we can demolish them and then we can close Courtland Street. We enclosed the entire triangle and there would be something there for somebody to deal with on a big basis. I can tell you I spit blood. Never could get the Redevelopment Authority authority to come to the table. I'm glad to hear that there's a new process in place now because those two buildings are still standing. And even worse, the City of Philadelphia has been sued by Mrs. Lipschitz's estate by violating their civil rights by not making provision to buy them out at the same time the houses were bought out. The City will spend the money with the lawyers and the City will spend the money in a settlement and you may never read about it because that's how business is done. We settle things and nobody knows what goes on. But it will be far in excess what it would have cost to buy them out and demolish the two properties. So you really need a comprehensive plan. 142 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 I will tell you also that I had an instance in Councilwoman Blackwell's district on Alison Street. The hope of something going back or the hope of all of these houses being saved is a cruel hoax on a lot of people. I think the lady's name was Minnie Moore.
And Councilwoman Blackwell, Bobby Solvibile and I went out one night and I walked the streets, and on Alison Street, it must have been two blocks, and it was as bad as anything in this City. I had to sit down with Mrs. Moore and talk to Mrs. " I said, "You're not going to save houses. " But every time Mrs. Moore walked down that street, that hope was reinforced because nobody was willing to say, You know, it's just not going to work. And I found out one thing and I think I found it in my early experience with then-Council President Street that the people in the poor neighborhoods who are impacted by these kinds of problems, the problems of blight and abandonment, don't want a handout; they want to 143 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 be stakeholders and they want to be told the truth. " Very early on we demolished the entire thousand block of Stella Street, and there was a Carter family. One family remained on the street. I tried to get them a house so I could take down the whole street so there wouldn't be just one tooth in the mouth. Rather then a couple missing teeth, here you just have one tooth. I was finally able to get them a house from an agency, I think on Eighth Street, and we moved the Carter family. They were in a neighborhood where they wanted to be. They didn't want to go someplace else. They were happy there. But there has to be that kind of concern and there has to be the infrastructure. And when it's just L&I doing the demolition, you know, it's just focused on the demolition. This is a much bigger problem. This problem, you know, I don't have the wisdom or the experience of what's going on with the $250 million blight program, but there has to be basically a separate agency maybe in the Managing 144 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 Director's Office. Everybody's ego's got to be left at the door. Everybody has to be on the right page. This is just too, too important; because if this fails or if this isn't done properly, the people that are trapped in this City and have no place to go will give up hope. And the only hope is that this Council and the Administration and the bureaucracy that's going to have to deal with this problem if they do the $250 million bond issue, is the last great hope for our people. If not, pardon the expression, it's going to be another Detroit, and that's the last thing we would want to see for this City and its citizens. But the only place the citizens have to go is to City Council because you represent them. And it's incumbent upon you to do the best you can to make sure the money isn't squandered, it isn't tainted by the usual scandals, and that the people see that they are the beneficiaries because they're going to pay. They're going to pay the interest on that money for 20 years, they're going to pay the money back. And if you don't have businesses here and you have a 145 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 declining population base, there's going to be nobody left to pay the money. And I think that's very, very key. This thing has to be done on a clean sheet of paper. It has to be done in a comprehensive manner. And it has to be done rather openly. I just don't think that the use of this money can be sidetracked for other political agendas. I think no matter whether it's in Councilwoman Krajewski's district which has some problems, not as bad as other people, Councilwoman Blackwell's district, Councilman Clarke's district, the problem is systemic and it's only going to get worse throughout the City. And you people are really the only hope that our citizens have and you have to exercise not only the oversight but the initial initiative to make sure that what the administration proposes is workable for your constituents and it is a worthy expenditure of what's very precious in this City is tax dollars.
You know, we just came through in the last two years of the Rendell Administration over half a million dollars was quietly spent out of L&I funds settling fourth-amendment basically 146 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 breaking-and-entering claims. There were three major lawsuits. You never read about it in the newspaper. It's only if you sit there and look in the computer about who's suing who and what the verdicts are, but they're devastating. It's half a million dollars, at least half a million dollars, that could have gone into the neighborhoods. L&I has too many competing mandates. It has to get back to what the City charter says it has to do. The City Charter's very specific, and I don't think that L&I can afford to lose focus or further lose focus in this whole big program. I think there are very good managers at L&I. I can tell you people handle demolition when I was there and I see someone here now were amongst the best, but L&I has to get back to being L&I and this really has to start on a clean sheet of paper separately. The L&I people, if you take them from L&I and put them into this effort, but I would not park that big a piece of the effort at L&I. There are too many problems. The public has lost faith with the department. There is continually questions of integrity and corruption and the department 147 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 has to be refocused onto its original mandate. " And in the case of the conditions of our neighborhood the abject avoidance of our poor neighborhood has brought the problem to the current crisis. We can no longer pay lip service because it's safe. We can no longer ignore waste and profanity that thrives as a result of political expediency and we must face an issue that is not popular because whatever the benefit of the cure is going to be, the medicine that must be taken to save our neighborhoods is going to be expensive and it's also going to be hard to swallow. The right thing is to embark on a comprehensive plan to maintain the fabric of our neighborhoods and at the same time remove the 148 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 cancer of blight. The program must ensure the maximum value for the taxpayers' investment. We're going to mortgage ourselves for the next 5 to 30 years to pay for the effort. It must not 6 be piecemeal. It must not be political. It must 7 be well thought out, and most of all, it must 8 managed without the hint of the scandals that are 9 attached to so many major undertakings in the 10 City. 11 This Council has the power and also 12 the responsibility to exercise real leadership to 13 ensure that the proposed effort is a credit to 14 our City and that the investment that the 15 taxpayers will be asked to make and pay for will 16 be treated as it is a very precious asset. 17 I'll concluded with that and I'll be 18 glad to answer any of your questions. 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to take this opportunity to, in fact, say to my colleagues on this committee 149 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 that now you know why I love Bennett Levin. He and Bob Solvibile and I walked down countless blocks in my district and he's the first commissioner I saw who had a vision who said, if we had house, we could get rid of this one tooth, as he says it, in this block and get this block ready certainly to be developed. In those days when Tim Spencer was still alive and Mantua was against tearing down properties they called it gentrification, Bennett Levin came on board and let people know it's just too expensive; it's not that, but these houses are just too far gone to save. And certainly, his creativeness and his commitment to our people and to our City really I find it unparalleled. I love him. I love Bob by extension and certainly I say we miss you and thank you for coming in, for all that you have done for my district and for our City.
Thank you. 150 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 Again, I want to thank you. I've known you a long time and I know your commitment and I want to thank you for your service to the City. You know, it's interesting, and I hate to have to use this as an opportunity to even bring this up, but you pointed out how many dollars were being mishandled and you reminded me of a situation where many dollars could have been plugged in to do good things in the neighborhoods of our City. And as I speak, we're spending, I hear, $3 million today. There's an authorization to spend $3 million to replace the playing surface at Philadelphia Veterans Stadium for two, three years when the building is going to be ripped down. Can you imagine what 3 million bucks could do in helping the demolition program? I assume that that would be a big help, those dollars. But again, these are just perfect examples of how if we really wanted to focus and do so many good things in the neighborhoods, we could do them. And again, thank you for being that watchdog and making sure that that money gets 151 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 spent properly.
Let me respond to you somewhat if I can. You know, one of the sad things that occurred after I left was the need to shore up the perception that the department was going to lose any revenue base because I was very fortunate. When I arrived, there was million, 9 it wound up at 32 million. I remember the first 10 time I came to Council and Richard Felgus was 11 with me and Richard Felgus said to me, "Tell them 12 if you give 10 more people then we can raise $3 13 million," so I said it. And John Street quickly 14 called David L. Cohen and they came up and it was 15 a whole big issue. But the truth of the matter 16 was, like my grandmother said, was the streets were really paved with gold, you just had to go out and make sure everybody was paying their fair share. And we had a device in place called abatement that if we demolished a building for the Housing Authority or for somebody even privately and that money came in in that fiscal year, I could spend the money twice. The money didn't go into General Fund. The money came in went back into the demolition budget as soon as I 152 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 left abatements were gone because that money had to be counted as revenue so people weren't embarrassed that they weren't keeping up the same kind of revenue stream. And the other thing was, I had a successful arrangement with Mayor Rendell that every time my revenue stream the department's revenue stream exceeded what Council had mandated in the budget ordinance that we in essence split -- and I remember the last year that I was there, there was this tremendous building at 25th and Reed, the Pullman Building, and Councilwoman Verna and it was just like a bone in her throat and it was a million and a quarter to demolish one building. And I went to the mayor and I said "Look, we're 5 million and half; you've got to split it," and he gave me two and a half and of the two and a half, half went to the Pullman Building because it was just a horrible problem in the neighborhood. There were good people, there's a fellow by the name of Robert who was a community activist, and we took that money. But we were aggressive, not only in being custodians of the money, but seeing where other money could 153 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 be obtained to fund the demolition process. Regrettably, when I left, though, a lot of that went away. And the question, I think Councilwoman Blackwell raised about Mantua, you know, we had an informal program where we would give community groups lawn mowers and they would cut weeds and bag them and then Clean and Seal would pick them up on the weekend, but they were stakeholders. It wasn't just throat trash out and L&I was going to come and pick it up. It was rather successful. It wasn't publicized. In October, we took the lawn mowers back and we serviced them over the winter and we gave them back to the people in the community. That's how community people started to bond with the process, but it required some kind of a vision, though, and some kind of a focus.
No, I just wanted to compliment the commissioner because I know when you were there, you literally went out of your way, you walked throughout the areas that 154 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 I had problems with, you sat down with some of my constituents, and I just wanted to say thank you, too.
Thank you. You know, I took the view that after the department's life safety function, the most important thing we did was in our neighborhoods, whatever we could do with what we had in the neighborhoods. Regrettably, that view wasn't shared by the then-mayor or his chief of staff and it was a source of a tremendous amount of friction. But my personal agenda was first life safety and that grew out of the Meridian fire, but secondly, you've got to do something to put the finger in the dike to what was happening in the neighborhoods. I walked the neighborhoods with everybody, everybody who was here at that time, Even your predecessor.
Way back when. When they had the big battles with Mr. Marks, I was the one that was sent to testify at the State Senate 155 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 hearings over conditions in your district. But I was eminently familiar with the district because I was out there. Darrell Clarke came to me one day and said he needed a playground. We got a playground. It didn't cost the city anything. I had a friend, he owed a favor somebody else here. Darryl got a playground where there was demolition before because it was important that those people behind the demolition had something more than a pile of ruble to look at.
Thank you. Councilman Ortiz and then Councilwoman Brown.
How did you go from being the poster boy, right, of the administration to being the sort of the conscience of the Administration of not spending money correctly? I'm interested. We have a huge problem and we have a figure of money to accomplish this problem that we have. How do you see, one, the figure that we are presently projecting, is it doable? What is it -- how should it be structured in terms of spending? 156 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 I know that you're suggest that we structure another division within government in order to be able to handle the problem, but my concern is, one, do we have the vision right now or the plan? And I know you're not privy to -- if you have $250 million, how would you go about putting that to work in terms of removing blight?
Well, I don't know if it's the right number or it's not the right number.
Where do we begin and how do we begin putting certain things together?
You don't have to examine the situation any past Logan. Logan is now maybe in its 15th year. Nothing came back. To make this investment and not have some kind of a comprehensive plan of what you want to see come back and have players on board who want to be 157 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 redevelopers, who want to make an investment in the community, you have to identify that. Harold Hairston, the fire commissioner, Commissioner Hairston and I early on decided that we had a real problem with vacant abandoned industrial structures in the City. They were drug supermarkets. They were a tremendous fire load for the Fire Department to fight and they were interdispersed within the residential neighborhoods. And we made a concerted effort to get rid of a lot of those buildings. If you remember the National Biscuit Building at 13th and Glenwood --
And there were all kinds of problems because everybody had a vested interest that something was going to happen to these buildings and nothing was going to happen to these buildings. So I think what you have to do -- and again, you know, I can't talk about what's happening now, but there has to be a plan. I think the Redevelopment Authority and the Housing Authority and OHCD have to be key players. I think the Planning Commission has to 158 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 be key, but the Planning Commission has to have a plan. At the time I was here there was never plan.
Don't you then have to begin putting all of those agencies that you mentioned under one agent so that they're all functioning and taking this money and spending it in a comprehensive and rational manner?
You need a Department of Community Affairs is what the City needs where these agencies are responsible, not outside of their normal businesses, but they're responsible at a focal point. And they have to have a manager who is strong who can deal with consensus, because if not, everybody's going live their own way with a piece of the pie. And the business of government is so complex in the normal day-to-day functioning of it, I mean there's no time. To be in government, what people don't understand, if you're going to be a good manager in government, you're spending 12 and 14-hour days on the job. This is not an 8-hour a day function. And you have to -- you can't burden that onto people who are already 159 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 committed to hours a day. You have to start rationalizing their work life. That's why I believe it has to be administered, and I'm not one for bigger bureaucracy, but it has to be administered under one umbrella. It can't be part time this guy, part time this lady; it has to be all together and there has to be a boss.
Planning 13 Commission, all have to be with arrows pointing 14 to a central place in which out of that central place mechanisms of expenditures and implementation go out?
Exactly. There has to be a boss. You can't have ten bosses. There has to be a boss. It's like Robert Moses in New York in the '30s. You know, whatever the good or bad of what he did, but there was a boss and things got done. You can't have people fighting over competing mandates.
And there have to be priorities that are set. 160 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
Yeah, the priorities are set by the Administration and by City Council. Everybody marches to the tune of those who are elected to lead the band. You can't have people walk the ranch doing whatever they want. And there has to be a commitment. I think the most promising thing is that this Administration has a commitment to the neighborhoods where previously it was totally lacking. I mean, it wasn't sexy to go to the neighborhood and you couldn't have a fund-raiser, there was nothing to sell in the neighborhoods. I think there's a perception now that Mayor Street, people in this Council are a lot more focused on what goes on in the neighborhoods. We played the game for the last eight years, you know, one year removed, but now we have to focus on the people that live in this City because, you know, the people that get the jobs in all these new hotels, people from poor neighborhoods, they're going to make enough money that they're the next ones to move out. Who's left? 161 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
City workers, that's it. City Council people. (Laughter.)
Remember that street that we blocked off, Second and Indiana, we blocked off a whole series of streets, that's still blocked off.
Well, there's nothing going on but it's still blocked off. I mean, we don't have cars on those lots, but the situation is still the same.
I testified at a budget hearing in 1993 here. It was the same testimony that I heard here today with PHA and the RDA. We talked about how do you get something back and there are people what are willing to invest if you make the process rational, you make it so that they go one place and get it solved. And they'll put their money in the City as long as there's people here to buy goods and to buy services. But the problem is that blight and the School District are the two things that are going to kill this City and they both are interlinked 162 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 because they drive people away, they drive taxes away, they drive School District taxes away. You know what I mean? And the question is, if you have bad schools, nobody's going to want to live in the City unless you're trapped to live here. And nobody's going to want to live in the City surrounded by abandonment and blight. So if we're going to make this investment of $250 million, we have to focus on what it's going to do. And maybe we have to land back certain blocks of land. I mean, I talked in Logan, I talked to the Streets Department and SEPTA to close Courtland Street and close Ninth Street so it could be put back into something significant, and there was consensus on that. But the question is there has to be a vision, but besides a vision, there has to be the political leadership to see that the vision is carried out and that all of the players come to the table and they're all reading from the same sheet of music.
Thank you, Commissioner. Councilwoman Brown. 163 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
Good afternoon. I simply want to join my colleagues in complimenting you on your vision and clear evidence that you -- though you're no longer in city government, it's clear that you still care about what is and is not happening. And though I'm new here in Council, I am not at all new with regards that your reputation of a product of Mantua and worked closely with Tim Spencer and Councilwoman Blackwell and know well of the difference you made in that particular community. So continue to nudge us and beat the drum in helping us do better at this whole issue surrounding blight.
I still have a lot of hope and faith in this City and its ability to deal with the problem. I think we just had a glitch a couple years ago. But, look, I was not born here, but I lived my entire life here. I was educated here. I made a living here. I was glad to come back and contribute to my community 'cause I am a Philadelphian and I have not given hope on the City. I think there's a lot of promise and potential in the City. 164 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
Thank you, Commissioner. We're all done thanking you. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate it.
Kate Clark, Frankford CDC. Thanks, Commissioner. We all appreciate it.
Kate, now you're going to see how it feels to follow like a big --
Yeah, I know. I'm going to talk to Hugh about how he did that.
Good afternoon, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee on License and Inspections. My name is Kate Clarke, and that's C-L-A-R-K-E, and I am presently the Executive Director of Frankford United Neighbors Community Development Corporation and Neighborhood Advisory Council. 165 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 It's my pleasure to appear here today to speak on Resolution 000555, especially with regards to Licenses and Inspections and their lack of response. As the neighborhood Advisory Council for the Frankford community supported by the Office of Housing and Community Development, we're charged with the task of identifying reporting those properties in Frankford that have fallen into disrepair along with identifying vacant plots of land, commonly known as open space. Presently in Frankford, there are 326 areas of open space and 369 properties which have been identified through our agency as vacant and abandoned, and with each passing day, more and more are added to the list. As this list progresses, so does the incidents of crime and vandalism, trash and short-dumping appear allowing those who believe it is right to perform these acts further reason to help in the decay of our neighborhood. While Frankford United Neighbors reports these property to the offices of Licenses and Inspections on a daily basis and monthly to 166 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 OHCD, our reports are often met with frustration and little action, leaving us with the picture that Frankford is a forgotten community. However, this community will not allow that to happen to them. They are taking positive action for our survival as a prosperous community through the Frankford Plan 2000, a community-driven concept for Frankford's revitalization, a community which is empowering itself. Though much of our frustration lies with License and Inspection, it is primarily their slow movement that has us frustrated. Examples of their slow movement include properties such as 1828 and 1830 Church Street. These are two properties which have been boarded up since January of 1995, scheduled for demolition and are still standing today, November 15, 2000. Also another property is a commercial property at 5027 Frankford Avenue which was ravaged by a fire in 1993, finally boarded up, and went through the court systems and is now finally been demolished in early 2000. However, the lot is left in rubble with no expected 167 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 future. I don't have the answers to some of the problems that exist, however, I do have suggestions that eliminates some of the frustrations that arise with L&I. One of the areas that I would like to speak about is to assign an inspector to work within a designated area or zip code, have them form a working relationship with either the neighborhood advisory council or the community development corporation, have the initial reports made to the local CDC on that who in turn would work with the local inspector to determine what properties need to be demolished or boarded up, Possibly having this person assigned out of the Mayor's Office of Community Service. Another way would be to hold absentee owners accountable. Don't allow abandoned properties to drag out in court. Enforce fines on whatever properties that they might have. Enforce the fines on properties that are abandoned through new properties that they're looking go acquire or other properties that they own. Also, helping the CDC enforce fines. Take 168 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 aggressive action with the CDC. Also, destroy the red tape in turning over properties to those persons interested in rehabbing them. Also, in regards open space, again, with this process, cut the red tape.
With this, form a community panel to determine who would receive an open space, possibly turning open spaces into community gardens which we have, but we do need more, working in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society and Philadelphia Green. Many of my ideas aren't new; they're already in place, but the problem lies with, once again, the red tape. It's time to cut it. We need to hire more people with Licenses and Inspections to do the job effectively, to get more money for it, but most importantly, we need to listen to what our community says. Frankford is but one area, but if we allow what is happening to continue in our neighborhoods, what will become of our City? With Mayor Street's blight program begins, we need more cooperative efforts to see this through. Let no voice that wishes to heard go 169 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 unheard. We need to hear, we need to listen, most of all we need to communicate. Hugh, I might need your help here. A little present to help with cutting the red tape.
I don't know, but I'm hoping it will be. (Witness gives a pair of scissors to Councilman Mariano's aide.)
Thank you, Kate, for coming in because it took a lot on your part to be waiting all this time and the job that you're doing down in Frankford.
Let me just say, we're going let everybody in on a big secret. Frankford's the next Manyunk. So all you people who want to speculate, go there buy the properties now, open restaurants and you'll all be rich.
Yes. 170 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
Again, I join in congratulating you and thanking you for hard work. It's interesting, your concept about inspectors. I just about a week ago wrote a letter to the Streets Commissioner suggesting that a position be created or using an existing employee to physically go out into each of the Councilmatic districts. When I ride through the City, I see the stop sign that's knocked down, I see the speed limit sign that's come loose from its fastening, I see the trash that needs to be picked up. And I'm suggesting that we create a position within the Streets Department and also possibly cross-train that person or join hands with L&I to some degree because if we see all of these problems, why can't our government see them? Why do I have to come to work in the morning with two pieces of paper on both sides with all of these discrepancies that I see? I would love to adopt the strategy that I just 171 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 described to you and include what you would like included so maybe we can cut through that red tape because we need somebody out there doing an audit of our street signage, of our broken inlets, fire hydrants that are knocked over. The list goes on. We shouldn't have to depend on the citizens of Philadelphia to have to call in and report every problem that exists in the City. So I'm hoping that maybe we can incorporate that part of the process and my suggestion to the Streets Commissioner to create an inspector that's out there looking for problems that affect your life every day. And again, thanks.
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Miss Clarke. We're going to bring everybody up together next so we can get this out of here because we didn't have lunch.
First panel, Judy Carolon (ph), Low Income Housing Coalition, PHCDC Advocate, CDC, and the Urban Affairs Coalition.
We're sorry this takes so long. It's Councilman Rizzo's long 172 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 questions. He has to take Councilman Nutter's place when he's not here. They're the thinkers, they're the thinkers. They're the thinkers, that's why.
Sorry about that. Some people had to leave. Let's start with lady in the blue, you can go first. State your name for the record. You want to testify, right?
Yes. My name is Angel Recchia, I'm the managing attorney of the Senior Citizen Judicare Project which is an independent nonprofit legal services agency that's been providing legal representation to the low income elderly in Philadelphia for about years. We 19 provide service representation, community 20 education, and so on to about a total of about 21 9,000 seniors a year in many areas, which I won't go into at this point, but the reason that we're here in particular is to talk about cases involving property damage caused by the demolition of neighboring property. So far, most 173 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 of the focus has been on the need of demolition and that's certainly not something that I disagree with, but I do want to focus a little bit on unintended or what can be the unintended results of demolition, which is serious damage to the homes of people who are elderly, who are low income, and who are not in a position to recover from that damage without the assistance of those who caused it or participated in causing it. The homes of many of our residents have been damaged by demolition contractors who is often shoddy and essentially unsupervised work has damaged neighboring properties which then adds to the decay and deterioration of these already tenuous neighborhoods. Despite our many attempts through the years to address this problem, L&I and the City have essentially ignored this problem so far and the resulting damage to the homes of Philadelphia residents. In effect, what's happening is that the City forces innocent neighbors of abandoned properties to bear the burden of often careless and substandard work of contractors. It's also worth noting that most of the people, most of the 174 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 elderly homeowners who this happens to never get legal assistance and, therefore, never get the repairs that they need to stop the accelerating deterioration of their homes. In the cases that we see -- well, in all cases, presumably, L&I contracts with a private demolition company and a stucco contractor to do demolition and post-demolition work. And those companies contract with the City stating that they'll indemnify the City for any damage that's caused, and supposedly inspectors from L&I oversee the private contractors' work. But in the cases that we've seen, seniors are left with poorly performed demolition work and debris is usually left in now empty lots. Although I understand that the City has a fencing program, I also understand that there's no money allocated for that fencing program so we also have lots that are left open to vagrancy, to debris, to sleeping, urinating, et cetera. And then probably more seriously economically to the senior citizen, the home is left with the remains of sometimes very shoddy work, including uneven saw cutting of the party wall, insufficient 175 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 stuccoing, stucco splattered on porch steps, cracked and broken porch steps, porch roofs that are insufficiently supported, and water leakage into basements through walls and so forth that cause serious damage. We file claims with the City's Risk Management Department. The City's position is that the contractor is the only responsible party and they indemnify and therefore we have to go to the contractors. The contractors, I think it's fair to say, have not been particularly cooperative in responding. So what ends up happening is that we sue. We have to sue the City, we have to sue the contractor in order to get any compensation for the damage that's done to these people's homes. Obviously, I don't have time to present this. I do have this photographs which I would be happy to leave if you would like to just look at some of the results of demolition. There's three different cases represented here that are separated. We're talking about damage anywhere from, say, $5,000 in one case.
In one case, the property was City-owned and the 176 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 City-owned property caused several thousand dollars of damage before the demolition. The demolition added an additional $10,000 worth of damage. In the third case, about $5200 worth of damage. We're talking about elderly people in their 80s. Two of these people were home bound. They are essentially being left to deal with these contractors on their own, and it's simply not working. Basically, my message is that City regulations really need to be changed to conform with common sense, practice, and industry standards. If these contractors are not being given specs that are good enough for industry standards, they ought to be. The City needs to enforce their standards at least as vigorously for City contract work as for privately contracted work. The City needs to provide effective oversight of the work of its contractors so that it doesn't destroy homes of innocent neighbors and largely people who really cannot afford to bear the economic burden caused by these contractors. 177 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 It's certainly understandable and laudable that the City wants to take down thousands of abandoned and dangerous buildings. I'm just here to remind you that there are people who live next door to those properties in homes that attached, I mean, physically attached to those properties, and that these people often poor, sometimes elderly and they really are not able to recover economically when their homes are damaged by substandard demolition work that causes damage to their homes. So I'm asking you, basically, don't allow them to be harmed and then abandon them. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you. You want to testify too? Thanks.
Good afternoon, Councilman Mariano, members of the committee. My name is Rick Sauer and I'm the Director of Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, the citywide association of CDCs add other organizations working to revitalize our neighborhoods. Our members have extensive experience 178 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 working throughout the neighborhoods dealing with the blight issue, dealing with abandoned property and demolition. I would like to highlight a few key issues as well as some recommendations based on their experience that we believe would make the implementation of the neighborhood transformation initiative a much more effective in addressing these issues in our neighborhoods. First of all, with regard to demolition, there certainly needs to be increased communication and community input into the process. There has been experiences in the past where our members may be planning to rehabilitate particular homes, only to find out either L&I has posted a sign up there that the property will be demolished or in worse situations, see the contractors there actually demolishing the building or it's too late to prevent the damage that was done. We also need to make sure that properties that are really key to advancing neighborhood revitalization are being demolished. I guess this calls for increased communication between the City and local community groups, including CDCs. I was glad to hear the plan to 179 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 assign contractors and inspectors on sort of a geographic or neighborhood basis. Hopefully, there can be relationships developed so that unintended consequences won't happen. We're optimistic that that can move forward in a positive way. L&I is currently doing a comprehensive survey of properties around the City to, I guess, identify imminently dangerous properties. I think it would be really important for L&I and the City to share that information with local community groups where this property is affected in their neighborhood so they can provide some feedback on properties that are targeted for demolition to make sure that there maybe aren't additional properties that should be on that list or properties that should be removed from that list. Finally, when demolition does proceed, it's important that debris are actually removed from the sight. And I understand that there's some new specs that are being designed to address that. It adds significant cost to a new development coming in when they have to excavate 180 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 a lot of debris that are on there. There's also a need to provide clean fill in those holes and hopefully amend, if the site is going to be left sort of vacant land at least for an interim use, there's a need to put in some top soil and hopefully seed it so that it can be a more appealing lot. Finally, with regards to demolition or more importantly maybe to prevent future need for demolition, the City should implement some type of early warning system to track when properties are more likely to become vacant so that they can see it can prevented or at the very least the properties can be encapsulated before they do deteriorate to a point where they can't be rehabbed. With regards to property acquisition and disposition, this continues to be one of the largest obstacles faced by CDCs as well as for-profit developers in redeveloping our neighborhoods. Clearly, the top issue in most cases is a monetary one and the lack of resources that are available to fund redevelopment projects, but acquiring sites from the City in a 181 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 timely manner has been a key obstacle that continues to confront our members. And there's been some efforts in the last few years to improve coordination of the current process, but the problem is there are too many different actors an agencies involved.
There's a real need to consolidate authority to acquire property and dispose of property in one entity. Have it more centralized so the process can be expedited and properties can be both acquired in timely manner but also turned back out in the community in a timely manner. Whether that's a single lot for a side yard or whether it's a matter of consolidating a bunch of different sites so that a larger development can happen. I think it was alluded to earlier that there certainly needs to be some changes in the State statutes, but even if we are successful in achieving changes, unless we streamline the process here in the City, we're going to be continuing to face this problem. Not only is CDCs are going to have difficulty in moving their projects forward, it will be very difficult to persuade other developers to come into the City 182 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 to undertake projects here. And what was mentioned earlier as well is it's very important that PHA properties be included in this process. Right now, folks are able to work through the RDA in many cases to acquire the properties, but it's a whole separate process for PHA properties. And when those sites are intermingled within a neighborhood and you're trying to do a development that include both sites, it's unbelievably complex to deal with. Finally, I think we can't overlook reuse issue. If we don't want to just end up with a lot of vacant lots in our neighborhood, that if well maintained will be less a blighting influence. If not well maintained, we may have just spent a lot of money and not gotten a lot of improvement in our neighborhoods. We need to make sure that there is adequate neighborhood planning going on to direct the future use of those properties and that there is adequate funding in place to support new housing development, housing rehabilitation, economic development, as well as other community development projects so that neighborhood 183 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 transformation can actually complete the whole cycle. Thank you.
My name's Joanne Jackson, I'm the Executive Director of Advocate Community Development Corporation and I will be very brief. I have stayed this long only because this is such an important issue to us. The first, which many people have spoken about, is the need to convey property more quickly. We have numerous instances in our neighborhood where ACDC in waiting to acquire a property, it has deteriorated to such an extent that it has had to be demolished and we've done new construction rather than rehabilitation. The second is careful planning with demolition. Though it's not well-known, I think that our area of North Philadelphia is definitely on the rebound. We'll see some serious change when we see the 2000 census figures. We have a great change of philosophy at Temple University 184 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 and we are seeing, for the first time in decades, private development. Many of the houses that are now abandon are distinctive architecturally. I've given members of the committee a copy of our Diamond Street corridor plan. These buildings represent capital and should not be demolished without careful, careful consideration. The third and final point I want to make is that ACDC has started a homeowner's counseling program which is geared to prevent future vacancies, both solving problems such as tangled titles. We deal with predatory lending. We deal with estate planning. Anybody who would like to refer people that have these kinds of problems to us, we would be welcome to work with them. Thank you for allowing me to testify.
Thanks. On behalf of the Pennsylvania Low Income Housing Coalition, I want to thank the Councilmembers here today for 185 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 the opportunity to testify. My name is Andrew Frishkoff. I'm the director of the coalition. The coalition is a statewide organization, the largest statewide housing advocacy organization in Pennsylvania, representing more than 300 organizational members throughout the State. In Philadelphia it includes some of Rick's members, community development corporations, housing counselors, Housing Redevelopment Authority, advocates, and other groups working specifically to house the elderly and people with disabilities. For the hearing today, as a statewide organization, we are seeing the same problems in Philadelphia in all of the small cities in one degree or another in Pennsylvania. It's combatting property abandonment which is vitally important whether it's in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or any of the other cities that are being overwhelmed by depopulation and abandonment. We have been watching the process in Philadelphia with great interest and even have provided both formal and informal advice to the members of the current administration and how 186 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 they might proceed. But as our particular interest is in statewide work, we're most interested in what attention Philadelphia will give to working with its legislative delegation in the General Assembly to revise state land use and other laws which would impact the process here in Philadelphia. We have been looking at a number of issues for the last several years, and particularly we think that Philadelphia should be seeking changes in the following laws: Urban renewal law as pertains condemnation and eminent domain, reform state adverse possession law, reform of state tax foreclosure and tax sale law, new law to permit the quick taking of abandoned property which heard about earlier being done in Baltimore and to some degree in Rhode Island, and new law to enable the City to land bank property so they can be assembled, packaged, and disposed in various flexible ways. Again, we've heard this from the Redevelopment Authority in that regard. One thing that Mr. Wetzel from the Redevelopment Authority did not mention 187 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 specifically, but Governor Ridge attempting to deal with brownfield issues throughout state, we've waived liability for a number of different property owners and government agencies. The State has failed to date to remove the liability for Redevelopment Authority. And as all property must pass through the Redevelopment Authority currently on the its way to the end user, this creates additional costs. And within the urban renewal law and the eminent domain and land banking, we would be able to address this issue and allow the Redevelopment Authority to have the benefits that other property owners do regarding brownfield. So far, the legislature and General Assembly has been fairly silent in addressing these issues. As you heard, the only urban eminent domain law currently being debated would have a negative consequence for us. And frankly, what we've seen historically -- I think we're seeing improvements now, but historically, the City Administration has not communicated well, I think, with its own delegation let alone with other legislators in key committees and that's 188 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 been to our detriment. Nor has Philadelphia, I think, worked in alliance with other smaller municipalities to try to achieve these changes in state laws.
The coalition is trying to bridge these gaps, working both with core constituents, the community development corporations and others as well as local government, and we would be very interested in working with Members of Council to try to bridge this gap make sure that in the coming session in Harrisburg that we're able to obtain the proper reforms that will allow all of the end objectives which you've heard from the others who testified today to occur. In too many cases, Pennsylvania's statute get in the way. And we have the opportunity now and I think the interest pursued to get changes that will allow the Administration's and Council's objectives to be achieved. Thank you.
Thanks for that extra information. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. Next panel is North Lights. I hope they're still here. Sorry. Somebody has to be 189 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 last. Sorry it was you. But, you know, first shall be last and last shall be first; somebody said that before me. (Witnesses come forward.)
I'll get to go first. We're here to talk about 000555. And the part that we were mostly concerned about in that resolution was code enforcement.
Especially for rental properties. I'm part of the North Light Leadership Team. My name is Susan Syrnic, and we are all of part of the North Light Leadership Team and that team is part of North Light Community Center. North Light Community Center serves a community of the 21st Ward, Roxborough, Manyunk, Andorra, and Wissahickon. North Light has formally become a part of EPOP. 190 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 A large part of our organizing efforts are around issues and they start with a listen campaign. We listen to our neighbors, and campaign that was done in the last two years, rental properties and the problems that occur around these properties became a recurring theme. We have properties that are zoned single-family dwellings that have more than three unrelated adults living in them. Trash is left outside all week and in some neighborhoods there's loud partying. We have investors that own more than one or two properties, say, approximately 10 properties. North Light Leadership Team is wondering if there's a way to track these landlords, make sure they have rental licenses and business licenses.
Stick around; the next bill we're going to tell what we want to do with them, the next resolution, if you can.
Okay. If the neighborhood knows that these rental properties do exist -- I mean, the neighborhood knows these properties exist. We're wondering if the City knows these properties exist and does the City 191 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 know or care whether properties are owner occupied, which I'm sure the City does care. Because of what we were hearing, we put together a report and David has some copies. I know Councilwoman Krajewski got a copy of this. In this report we show how a large percentage of properties in a very condensed area of Manyunk are changing into more rental properties than families and we make suggestions in this report as to what could be done. We contacted L&I in the past and we gave them a list of 60 houses, it may have been more may have been less, that we as neighbors knew were in violation of the three unrelated persons code. Dominic Verdi of L&I was very willing to help us, but we found in the end it seem that L&I was unable to enforce this particular violation, and in some way we need City Council to enable L&I to be able to enforce this obvious violation.
Well, they would go to the house -- and this is my understanding. They 192 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 would go to the property, they would knock on the door and no one would be there. They would try and come back when someone would be there. A young man would answer the door. L&I would ask him, "Who lives here?" "I live here." But I think neighbors have told me that more than three people, four guys live there.
Yes, yes. "Oh, that's my cousin and that's my brother, he's staying over." L&I has, you know -- they don't have a warrant. I don't know that they can even go in the property.
Well, they're not going to tell them the truth when they do come knocking on the door.
Exactly, they are not going to tell them the truth. Sometimes they do get in the property, they write it up for fire code violations what they can, the submit -- I think they did actually try to find out if they had rental licenses and business licenses if we were able to give them the landlord's name. And 193 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 that's it. That's where it ended. Some of the properties were given violations and some of the properties were not.
Can I just add to that? My name is Irene Madrak and I'm the Director of North Light Community Center. My understanding is also that fines were fairly small compared to what the economic incentive is because the rentals at this point are getting to $1800 11 because they're almost a per-head rental, per 12 student kind of thing. So that, you know, the economic penalty was small and also not very swift, could drag on because a big backlog and they're kind of, you know, sitting there waiting to go to court. So there is not immediate -- there was nothing felt immediately, so in the meantime, the rent is coming in and that is pretty immediate.
I just feel that we should have a department under L&I just to go out on these issues, you know. I have, in 194 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 fact, right in my own block, there's a house across the street. It's an apartment. They made an apartment out of it; it's not a duplex but they're renting it out to different people. But how do you find out? All right, thank you. I think that's something this Council should look into. Someone else?
My name is John Boyce. It's a pleasure to be here to testify as a citizen of the City and from our community, Councilwoman Krajewski and Councilman Clarke.
It's well worth it, I think. Just to give a little background, I think we're preaching to the converted here, but we really need effective City departments to do something to control this problem that's occurring. I'm here with my mother and father. My mother was born in the house that she lives in along with five sisters, one brother. My great-grandfather started a shoe rebuilding you shop in Manyunk over a century ago, so we've been 195 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 in our community a long time. Our neighbors are African-American or have been or still are, African-American, Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish family, they've moved in and out of our community over the years. The thing about it, though, was these people were homeowners. They occupied their homes, they paid taxes, they were citizens, they sent their children to schools, they helped to sustain a community. The people who are moving into our community now are renters, basically college students who are there to study during the week and on the weekends they're there to party. So we no longer or at we're at least threatened at this point the quality of life that we've been able to sustain over the past century is really potentially being threatened. So just let me go into a little bit the detail here from the studies that have been conducted and the results. Population declines are a familiar story to all of us, but what struck us was how the pace of decline in families seemed to be quicker. In 19127 zip code which is basically Manyunk and Lower Roxborough, the real and 196 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 projected decline in families between 1990 and 2002 is 32 percent, from 1800 families to 1200. In Central Manyunk the real and projected decline in families in the same period is percent from 6 1100 to 800. We also looked at real estate 7 bases. Within Central Manyunk, the percentage of 8 homes sold to outside investors for reporting 9 purposes was about 21 percent in 1993 but rose to 10 will 42 percent in 1998, A rapid change and we 11 feel for the worst. 12 Several clear discoveries. The 13 density of non-occupant ownership, a radical 14 departure from the home owner occupied ownership 15 that we've enjoyed over the past century. In an 16 area adjacent to the core Manyunk shopping 17 district there's an average of between 40 an 53 18 percent investor owner rental properties. The 19 concentration of outside ownership is in 20 relatively few hands. Basically we look at these 21 kind of people as speculators, speculator 22 investors, not homeowners, not people invested in 23 the community, not people who even reside in the 24 City and pay taxes. Fourteen investors own 177 25 rental properties. One resides in Manyunk, three 197 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 reside in the City, the rest live in the suburbs, in New Jersey, two live in New York City. Starting in the mid-1990s, one local bank cited here simply here for its representational value awarded 3 percent of its mortgages to non-occupant outside investors. What are the results of this trend, this radical trend over the past ten years? Looking beyond our neighborhood, the implications to our City income factors. Family homeowners generally pay more in the way of taxes. Many landlords don't even have the required licenses, rental permits, and thereby escape paying taxes. Destabilizing neighborhoods, we no longer have the families in place up. When I grew up -- I'm 42 years old -- all my neighborhoods were either elderly or the majority of them were families that sent their kids to school in the neighborhood that paid taxes, that paid property taxes. So we have a decline in community institutions from churches, parochial schools, and community centers. We have exacerbated parking problems. It's an old neighborhood. There are a lot of cars. There's 198 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 a competition for parking.
The more rental properties, the more kids, the more parties, the more density, the lower the quality of life. With the decline of family ownership near to the tipping point, we experience a downturn with an oversupply of rentals and declines accelerate faster. So this seems ironic because we have a boom on Main Street, but really we have a -- but we have a decline at the edges. At the base of the community, the kind of thing -- the institutions that sustain the community where they're being eaten away at. So you can have a boom. You can have speculators, you can people live outside the City, outside the community who can put money in their pocket, and they expect the boom to continue. But we know that over time, that booms peter out. What sustained our community has been the churches, the schools, and the families. We're not against the businesses, but we are against carpet bagger-type businesses, speculators, investors. They are going to erode our neighborhood. We don't need that.
Let me ask you a 199 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 question. How that Umbria and Fountain holding out? Because that's where I was born and my aunt still owns has a house there. Umbria and Fountain, they have parking lot across the street. I was born in Roxborough.
I live at 4822 Umbria. Parm's Store, you know, the little store?
Yeah. My house next to my property was demolished and I had incredible structural damage.
Now I have rods in the house because the walls started to pull away. So the problem that they mentioned earlier about you do have to worry about the person -- okay, take this house down. You have to worry about that person next door. This is not a criticism for L&I. I mean, that house was going to fall down, but there was no consideration of what might happen to my property when they took that property down. And I think my husband, he thinks we've spent close to $30,000 on the house. Now, 200 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 I live in the house that my father was born in. It's a big house, and if I was to try and buy that kind of space, I would spend, oh, five, six times the amount of money I spent buying that house. But I've had to put $30,000 into it because they took the property down next to me.
I just want to conclude, you know, I'm reading a lot of information here and I'm trying to communicate what's been going on in our community, and certainly, we're proud of our community and we want to sustain it. But my mother and father, we live on a block where everybody knows about the First Union bike race. It's been a blessing, but it's also been a curse because what happens is it used to be people drink around there all up and down the bike race, the course, and what happens is it brings the younger out in the people and these college students. And not anything against college, but where we used to have homeowner occupied properties, you don't have that anymore. We have rental two doors up. We have a rental across the 201 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 street of college students. It's a dormitory mentality. It's kids that wouldn't pull this stuff in own homes probably in the suburbs because their parents wouldn't let them get away with it. So we have to deal with it. My mother's going to relate an incident that happened two doors up from our house. Thank you very much.
My name's Frances Boyce. This is my son John. He did a very good job.
So I will just tell you about the incident that happened last weekend 11/11. My neighbor at 321 Lyceum Avenue was broken into by a tenant who lives at 325 Lyceum Avenue. Now, he lives there with his wife, two children, newborn baby in September, and a 2-year-old. This tenant at 325 walked up from the main street because he was too drunk to drive. He went to the wrong house. He knocked at the front door. He went to the back door. When I say knock, he was really banging. He went to the front, back, and then he went to the front door again. When he got to the front door, he 202 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 banged so hard, he broke the wood in the door. The glass is all broken, and right now it's boarded up. So this is the way our lifestyle is going. It's really a shame and I hope something can be done. And how long is he going to stay there, you know?
He does. He's a property owner, the house that was broken into. He's a property owner, but right next to him is a rental and then two doors up is another rental.
Well, is it the rental that's giving the problem?
You don't have to give the name out. 203 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555
See, I have a bill myself and Councilman Mariano that will be coming up with some of the landlords, anyone that purchases or rents here in the City. Now that will be coming up shortly when you're through. They give us an address, a P.O. box number, that's no go. We want addresses.
They're very great in putting pose office numbers or whatever. Then I have another bill that we are working on now that we're going back and forth on. We're going to hear that tomorrow, I believe, or today but we have a little problems here and there. That the landlord is responsible. If they get violation after violation, each year when they come in to renew their rental license, they won't get one. They have to apply for a rental license, but if there's violations, I believe that's when -- I don't think they'll get a license.
Let me tell you 204 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 a little secret. Councilman Nutter's office would probably be glad to help you. Find out where this guy lives in Delaware and you can get your box and you go down there and visit him, you protest on his front lawn in Delaware. I'm sure his neighbors would love to see that.
Let him know what's not acceptable in the suburbs is also not acceptable in Manyunk.
They're responsible for that property, and I wouldn't give up until everyone -- I think Councilman Mariano's got a good point. Just let the neighbors know who he is.
I'm John Boyce, Sr. Actually we have different middle initials so I'm not senior, but in any case, what I wanted to throw out is seems to me that we have worked to 205 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 North Light organization here and we haven't been successful. Would it be possible for us -- we have a particular problem on our block. Can we have a private right of action where we can present the evidence to -- go directly, instead of waiting a year and find out as we have now that we haven't been able to enforce anything.
Mr. Boyce, in short of interrupting you, I think Councilman Nutter wants to tell you, you can do that. This is his district. We've done that successfully. I've done that with Councilman Kenney in parts of my district and he's done it all over the City. The Councilman will tell you how you can do that. It's possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I apologize for being out of the room for a great part of the earlier hearing and I know that we're technically still in the vacant property or the vacant lot resolution 23 hearing. The good folks from Manyunk and North Light Leadership Team, we have been working with them on a variety of landlord issues and our 206 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 original discussions were around their participation in the hearing for Councilman Krajewski's bill and resolution around that particular issue. So that was the primary reason that the group came here today. And they're still interested in the Councilwoman's bill. We have many of the same problems that you're having in the 6th District we're having in some parts of the 4th, and in other parts we're having problems with students housing. We'll have a different day for that conversation. What I wanted to relate for the rest of my colleagues on the committee is that this particular group has done a tremendous amount of research on their own. They've had some cooperation at certain levels with the Department of Licenses and Inspections, but there are various other departments that needs to be involved in this effort. So for the record, what we would like to request and we will send formal notice and I'll work with the Chair on this, is to provide an opportunity for them to meet with L&I, appropriate Law Department representatives, Managing Director's Office, the Revenue 207 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 Department, and a number of other agencies to directly work on the issues that are affecting many of my constituents in the Manyunk section of the City as well as other parts of 4th District. We are looking at the issue of the private right of action as well as nuisance properties, the Nuisance Task Force through the District Attorney's Office and any other resource we can get. On the other hand, we know from earlier testimony today even on other bills that at some levels there's a disconnect between certain units within Licenses and Inspections as well as a difference of opinion about what can be done under certain circumstances. So we're trying to work on those issues. It's been my personal opinion that L&I does not have enough people. They need more cross-training and also better coordination between L&I, the police, and the Law Department to get resolution to these particular problems. So I appreciate the great work of the North Light Leadership Team. We will continue to work with you and also ensure that now a formal request made in the record for this kind of 208 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 meeting with the appropriate agencies that there will be follow up on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Councilman. Is that it? We're running a little late.
I just think earlier Bennett Levin talked about eroding, you know, the fabric of the quality of life in neighborhoods. And that's essentially what's happening and you're hearing about. There are laws on the books around the zoning code and they seem to be unenforceable as they are now through L&I. That's basically what we're asking for, the tools for that to be enforced to slow this down a bit so that the community can continue to be a stable and good place to live.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I know that there is still at least one representative from the Department of Licenses and Inspections here. And what I would like to have on behalf of these 209 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000555 constituents is a commitment by the department to work directly with the organization as well as to better coordinate with Revenue and Law and the others. And if we could have that representative come up and clearly state for the record, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Haigler, would you come up. He's waiting around for the next bill. He'll be glad to help. Very congenial guy, Otis. (Witness comes forward.)
For the record, my name is Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And yes, Councilman Nutter, we will be more than willing to work with this organization and all departments to resolve the issues that have been addressed here today.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. And you know from our previous meetings many of these issues have come up. You and I participated in a meeting not too long around 210 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 these particular topics. Hopefully today we've helped to close the loop. And if you would be sure when this hearing is over to introduce yourself to the rest of the folks there, exchange phone numbers, and we'll be able to get this process moving.
I thank all of you for coming in and being patient as well.
The next bill, would you read this resolution, it's 000612. And Otis, you're going to testify on this one.
Resolution 000612, authorizing City Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold public hearings to investigate the current methods utilized by the Department of Licenses and Inspections to enforce Section PM 102.6.3 of the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code.
Good day, Councilman 211 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 Mariano and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on resolution 000612 addressing the concerns of Council relative to the department's license application process. For the record, I wish to state that it is not the Department's policy to accept post office box information on the applications we process for the various permanent licenses that are issued by the department. To reaffirm this, the manager of the department's license issuance unit has communicated this policy again to the staff under his jurisdiction since Council introduced this resolution. For instances where an event will take place for a temporary period and a temporary business privilege license has to be issued post office box information has been accepted in the past due to the fact that this information was accepted by the Revenue Department at the time the person established their business tax account. 212 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 Also, while working cooperatively with Councilwoman Krajewski and Councilman Mariano since the introduction of this resolution, the department has developed new guidelines --
Just a moment, just a moment. I think a there's a little too much talking going on. (Pause.)
Okay. Also while working cooperatively with Councilwoman Krajewski and Councilman Mariano since the introduction of this resolution, the department has developed new guidelines for our staff concerning the issue of returned mail from persons who have failed to notify us of a change in the responsible party information as require by Section PM 102.6.3 of the property maintenance code. The procedure which has been disseminated to the staff within of our license issuance unit for the handling of returned mail includes a computer records check of the Board of 213 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 Revision and Tax information, business privilege tax information, and any outstanding violation notice which may have been issued by one of the various inspectional units within the department. If after checking all of these sources, an address other than returned address is not found, the license issuance unit will forward all information an correspondence to an inspectional unit to request a physical inspection in order to determine the correct information for that responsible party and to issue a ticket to that person for failing to notify the department as required by Section PM 102.6.3. We will continue to work to improve our internal operations and invite suggestions from the members of City Council on ways that we can improve our service. Thank you.
Well, I'm a bottom-line person. What are we doing with anyone who applies for a license who owns property here about the P.O. box numbers and not giving us the exact address where we can get in touch with these people? 214 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612
Again, as I said, Councilwoman, it's not our policy to accept P.O. box numbers on the applications that we issue for permanent licenses. So if a person were -- and this is what I got directly from our manager of our license issuance unit. He's the manager of the persons who actually process these applications. It's not the policy of his unit to accept P.O. box address information.
Whose responsibility would it be if I come in and I apply for a rental license or business license or whatever it may be, whose responsibility would that be that they get the exact address other than P.O. box? Would that be Revenue? Would that be the Water Department? Would it be L&I? Who?
For residential license and licenses that we issue, our requirements are met for which would be license other than business privilege license, then it's our responsibilities, it's L&I's responsibility.
That's all I want to know. 215 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612
It's L&I's responsibility. But with those licenses it's the Revenue Department because we take the information from the business privilege tax application that they submit for their tax number to come over to L&I and to get their business privilege license. So that part of it really is the information we take from their tax information from the Revenue Department. That's for the business privilege license.
Well, in the case of Councilpeople when we get all of these problems and all of these headaches, just like the people that were here right before you came up with the problems trying to locate a landlord.
It's pretty tough unless we have the exact address.
Now, my question to you is -- maybe I lost it somewhere. What can we do about that to get the right address?
It starts in the 216 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 application process. And again, as I've stated, it's our policy to ask for the correct address. As a matter of fact --
I keep getting P.O. box numbers or a real estate address, not the actual owner.
On the application itself for the licenses that we issue, it's our policy to take the correct address, the numerical address of the person whose applying for the license. Our people also ask for identification. We do ask that they show us proof of for identification at the time they apply. So, again, I'm getting this information from the manager of the unit that handles all of this. He tells me that this is what their procedure is. So, again, I'm not exactly sure where the P.O. box information is coming from, but he's telling me that this is what their policy is and this is what they're doing.
When I look up or my staff looks up -- and I'm sure the other Councilpeople have same problem. To look up the owner of the property, we will find a P.O. box 217 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 number. Am I right? Do you have that problem? I mean, it's impossible to get in touch with the landlord who's causing these problems.
It's just has a P.O box number. And if we send a letter to them to get in touch with us, we're ignored.
But are you looking up the license information or are you looking up --
What type of licenses they have, and the licenses under whatever category is coming up with P.O. box numbers?
License, homeowner, whatever it may be, Taxes, Revenue, it's a P.O. box.
The Board of Revision of Taxes on that issue I'm not able for licensed, but for license information you shouldn't be getting P.O. box numbers. There should be a numerical address. I will take that information back to that manager and we will discuss it 218 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 again.
Thank you. Any questions from other members? Anyone else here to testify? (No response.)
This was an easy one for you. Thank you. I think you can go. Are you able to go now?
That will end the public hearing -- Mr. Allen will read the amendment for Bill No. 000278.
Amendments to Bill No. 19 000278, Subsection 9-703, delete nightclub operators, insert "dance halls" on under Subsection definitions Subsection a. currently reads, "Nightclub shall mean any facility that the Philadelphia building code defines as a use group A-2 structure," delete nightclub. It should read "Dance hall shall mean any facility 219 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. " of the bill under definitions, insert a new subsection, Subsection b. " Again, on under Subsection 2, licenses, currently reads, "No person shall operate a nightclub without first obtaining a nightclub operators license from the department," delete the word nightclub. It should read "No 15 person shall operate a dance hall without first obtaining a nightclub operator's license from the department. 2, it currently reads, "Within five days of filing an application the for a nightclub operators license," delete nightclub operator. It should now read, "Within 220 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. " Subsection b. 3, "Every three years upon payment of the renewal fee," the word three is deleted. , it currently reads, "No nightclub operators license shall be issued or renewed by the department unless the department determines that," delete nightclub operators. 2, it currently reads, "No 22 nightclub operator's license has been denied or revoked for the proposed location within the preceding three months," delete nightclub operators. It shall now read, "No dance hall 221 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 4, currently it reads, "The proposed location is a safe and proper place for the purposes of nightclub," delete the word nightclub. , it currently reads, "It shall be the responsibility of every nightclub operator licensee as a condition to the receipt or retention of the nightclub operators license," delete the word nightclub operator. a) to ensure no nightclub permits a minor to remain upon the premises of said establishment in violation of chapter 10-300 of Philadelphia Code. All nightclubs shall conclude all teen events and vacate all my minors from the 222 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. , it currently reads, "The department shall take all steps necessary to terminate the business operations of any nightclub," delete nightclub. 3, "The initiation of proceedings to enjoying preliminary and/or permanently the further operation of the nightclub," delete the word nightclub. It should now read "The initiation the of proceedings to enjoying preliminary and/or permanently the 223 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. , "Any nightclub operator license under this section who violates the provisions of this section or who agents or employees violates the provisions of this section 7 shall also be subject to immediate revocation of his or her amusement and business privilege licenses," delete nightclub; insert dance hall. " Under subsection 4, enforcement, currently reads, "All nightclubs shall be subject to the inspection by the Philadelphia Police Department," delete the word nightclub. " Under subsection b. under enforcement, it currently reads, "The police department and the Department of License and Inspection shall have the power to order a place vacated and/or closed in events of a nightclub is not in compliance with the terms of this section," delete the word nightclub; insert the word dance hall. It should read, "The police 224 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. " Finally, Subsection 3 under Section 7 4, Enforcement, "The department shall promulgate such regulations as it deems proper to regulate the form and manner of issuing and revoking nightclub operators," delete nightclub operators. "
Is that it? I make a motion to adopt this amendment for the bill. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor, aye. The ayes have it. Any nays? No nays. The ayes have it. It passes. We're going to recess this public hearing and I will open the public meeting of 225 11/15/00 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - RES. 000612 Licenses and Inspections. - - - 226 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on License and Inspection, held in Room 9 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL NOS. 000102, 000278, 000540, 000545 RESOLUTION NOS. 000555, 000612 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - 227 LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS PUBLIC MEETING
The public meeting the public meeting for Licenses and Inspections is open. Bill No. 000602 is being held by the sponsor. Bill No. 000102 is being withdrawn by the sponsor. I recognize Councilman Rizzo. You have to make a motion to move Bill 000540.
I recommend that Bill No. 000540 come out of the committee with a favorable recommendation and suspend the rules also, please. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor? The bill has passes. The ayes have it. Councilman Rizzo, you're up again. I want you to adopt Bill 000278, as amended, and suspend the rules.
I move for the suspension of the rules and this bill come out of this meeting first reading at next session of Council and come out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended. 228 LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
It's been duly moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. That passes, 000278. Councilman Rizzo, Bill No. 000545.
Bill No. 000545, we'd like to have the rules suspended so it can be read at the first reading of next session of Council and move from this committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
So moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, that passes the committee. We will now close the public meeting 229 LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS PUBLIC MEETING of L&I. Thank you. (Adjourned at 2:00 p.m.) - - - 230 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, November 15, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS BILL NOS. 000102, 000278, 000540, 000545 RESOLUTION NOS. 000555, 000612 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter