COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 14, 2000 10:28 a.m. - - - BILL 000217 - Amending sections in Philadelphia Code related to animal-drawn carriages and rental and carriage horses. BILL 000348 - Amending Subcode A, Administrative Code, within Building Construction and Occupancy Code. BILL 000350 - Amending Zoning Code section of the Philadelphia Code. (Full title and text of all bills attached hereto.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO 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 2 6/14/00 L&I COMMITTEE I N D E X 000350 Otis Haigler, Jr., L&I. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 000348 Otis Haigler, Jr., L&I. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 David Wiser, L&I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard Felgus, L&I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9 10 000351 Otis Haigler, Jr., L&I. . . . . . . . . . . . 30 11 000217 Edwin Goldsmith, Esq, Counsel . . . . . . . . 32 Philadelphia Carriage Company William Hawkins, Mayor's Animal Advisory Comm. 40 Lou Peluso, Animal Activist . . . . . . . . . 44 3 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000350 P R O C E E D I N G S
This is the public hearing for Licenses and Inspections. We're going to open the hearing. I have Councilman Nutter; Councilman DiCicco; myself, Councilman Mariano; Councilman Ortiz; and Councilman Rizzo. We're going to work on the administration bills first, so you guys can go and make the City more money, all right?
Bill 000350 an, ordinance 12 amending Title of the Philadelphia Code 13 ("Zoning Code") by raising various fees related 14 to permits and miscellaneous administration functions performed by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Any witnesses? (Witnesses come forward.)
Would you state your name for the record and spell it.
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the committee of Licenses and Inspections. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. 4 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000350 Accompanying me today are Administrative Services Director Richard Felgus; and our Director of Planning Code Development, David Wismer. Bill No. 000350 is the companion bill 6 to Bill 000348 and will revise various fees, which, we believe, will simplify our zoning fee charges. The Zoning Code fees are currently scattered throughout the Code in the various sections that address the item related to the fee. This bill places all Zoning Code fees in Section 14-706, which is already titled "Schedule of Fees." Reference to this section from the other affected sections are included as part of our proposal. We have removed the fixed filing fee and inserted language similar to that proposed in the Building Construction and Occupancy Code that will allow us to establish the fee by regulation with the eventual intent of eliminating them. We are proposing a scale of zoning permit fees based on the scope of the property in question, rather than the current one-size-fits- all fee of $80. For example, zoning permit fees for properties containing 1- or 2-family dwellings 5 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000350 are reduced to $25. Currently, the Zoning Board of Adjustment fees are confusing. The proposed fees are simplified and offer a reduced fee to 1- and 2-family dwellings. A number of miscellaneous sign fees are randomly located in sections special controls for various efforts. These fees, which we consider nuisance fees, have not been changed for many years and cost more to collect than the revenue generated. We are proposing to eliminate those fees and have established a single uniform fee in Section 14-706. We are requesting a suspension of the rules of Council to allow a first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. We'll be happy to answer any questions may have concerning this legislation at this time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Any questions from members of the committee for this witness? (No questions.)
Seeing none, we'll 6 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 go into the next witness. Do you want to testify too? You're here just to keep each other company? All right, thank you. Anybody opposed to this? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll go to the next bill. You know, I should have did this bill first 'cause it's actually the companion one but Councilman Nutter told me it doesn't make a difference, and I believe him. 000348, an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code ("The Building Construction Occupancy Code) Subcode A Administrative Code, by revising various fees related to permits and miscellaneous administrative functions performed by the Department of Licenses and Inspections; and further amending Title 11, "Streets," of Philadelphia Code by revising certain sections related to fees for permits issued by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Mr. Haigler?
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the committee of Licenses 7 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 and Inspections. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Accompanying me today are Administrative Services Director, Richard L. Felgus; and our Director of Planning and Code Development, David L. Wismer. The Department is proposing Bill No. 9 000348, which amends various building permit fees to meet the complaints that have been frequently voiced by many persons in the building and development community concerning department fees for rehabilitating and renovating of existing buildings. Our primary purpose of Bill 000348 is to bring equity to the building permit fees related to new constructions versus alterations. Historically, the fees for new construction have been based on the floor area type of construction and use of the building. Fees for alterations have been based on the cost of the work. Typical periodic fee increases are generally percentage increases across the board. The net result of this, over several decades, is that the fees for alterations have risen to three to six times those 8 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 for new construction. This is due, for the most part, to the fact that the cost of alteration rises with the cost of living as a base for the additional percentage increases, while the new construction based on floor area saw only periodic increases. We believe that our new fee structure will be more user-friendly to those persons wishing to renovate or rehabilitate existing buildings within the City. While we are addressing the major revisions listed above, the Department took the opportunity to simplify the whole permit fee process by establishing set fees for many items that are frequently requested by homeowners and other small properties. We reduced the fees for most permits related to 1- and 2-family dwellings. Other significant changes which have been included in this bill are: - We established language for the following fees that allows the Department to set them by regulation with the ultimate goal of limiting. - We have provided language that 9 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 allows the Department to issue prepaid permits for a broad range of projects. This will greatly simplify the permit process for many small jobs and omit the need for applicants to come to the municipal services building to obtain the permits. - We have provided uniformity between the fees for electrical and contractor license fees and eliminated examination fees charged by the City. The applicant already pays an examination fee to the examining agency. - The Streets Code, Title 11, sets an initial fee and an annual fee to be charged by L&I for the erection and maintenance of canopies. This fee has not been changed for 27 years. Similarly, Title 11 sets a fee for marquees to be charged by L&I. This fee has not changed for 19 years. We have removed the fees from Title 11 and 20 established a simple unit in Title 4 for the 21 permit to erect these items and eliminate the annual fee. Since the major construction fee affects the building and contract process, we have established these fees in Section 2 of the bill to 10 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 take effect January 2, 2001. This will allow us to notify the design-build community of the change and allow them to account for the changes in their bidding and contract awards. The remainder of the bill has an effective date of July 1, 2000. We will be happy to answer any questions concerning this bill at this time, and we request a suspension of the rules to allow for first reading at the next Council session on this bill. And also, I forgot to ask that for the previous bill as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haigler, I did have a couple questions about Bill 348. I have a document permit fee cost comparisons, a two-page sheet. I'm going to assume that this was developed by the Department? Do you know what document I'm referring to?
This was a part of the materials. 11 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 You give some hypotheticals, and on project three, it stands out to me that it appears that what you're trying to do is to make it less costly to make this conversion in this hypothetical project three from the 1-family dwelling to the 3-family dwelling, the current building permit fee for those alterations would be $1,035; and under your proposal, it would go to 550. Is that a correct reading of your documents?
I'm going to defer to David Wismer, who developed that document.
My concern about this is, in many neighborhoods throughout the City, the conversion of single-family dwellings to multifamily dwellings is a serious problem, which has a number of compounding factors: One, more oftentimes than not -- and I'm now speaking more for situations in my own district, the 4th District -- the conversions are made illegally; secondly, there's virtually no enforcement -- and I'm not complaining about you guys, you're not on 12 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 the enforcement side of the house, but there's virtually no enforcement on the more than three unrelated people in the household. And so what I have tremendous negative experience in my district is -- oftentimes than not with students, but in some instances, not with students -- people are using the property outside of the Zoning Code. The inspection process is not working particularly well. They don't apply for any permits for anything, and end up, in many instances, destroying the neighborhood either because of their behavioral activity, or because a single-family dwelling, more oftentimes than not, maybe had one car associated with that particular property, three, four, five students or other people, all of them have cars with nowhere to park them, and they basically take over what's going on in the neighborhood and they create a tremendous amount of disruption and negative activity. So my concern, having laid that out, is that we, by our fee structure, are in fact encouraging this kind of conversion, which creates a transient mindset and level of activity in a number of neighborhoods throughout the City, which 13 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 should certainly be addressed by the Zoning Code, but in reality, is not. Can you tell me why we would be trying to encourage from a financial perspective more conversions from a single-family dwelling to a three-family dwelling?
Councilman, the example that was given in number three none of the fees are specific user-related. That was given as an example because that's something that is rather common. None of the fee tables, or fee formulas, identify that conversion specifically. If you took that same size of building and considered it opposite, as being converted to a store, the same holds true. It's a general case of alteration fees being reduced overall from their current state. There's nothing peculiar that would encourage conversion to multiple-family or anything else; the alteration fees are across the board.
Okay. I appreciate the explanation. You understand my concern, though --
And what I would ask is if you could take that information back to the Department. This conversion issue is a very, very serious issue, I believe, not only in the 4th District but throughout the City. We are not paying good attention to it and we are driving some people out of communities because, in the usual case, what happens is, that single-family dwelling is turned into a three- or four-unit apartment building, in essence, for which fairly sizeable dollars are charged, the owner does not stay at the premises, and then you have all that goes with that right under our nose. We then ask people to come out and make the inspection. They can't figure out whether there are three unrelated adults because there's only one person on the lease, you have a number of bedrooms, you've got all kinds of stuff all around, but no one can seem to figure out what's really going on in the premises. Now, it does not take a rocket 15 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 scientist to figure out whether or not you have a family, whether, you know, it's Ozzie and Harriet or a single parent, or whatever, with kids versus, five year-old's from the activity that's going 6 on in the premises, and the place is not zoned for 7 the latter use. 8
Councilman, I am Richard 9 Felgus, Administrative Services Director from the 10 Department. 11
I am Richard Felgus, 14 Administrative Services Director for the 15 Department. 16 I can tell you the Department has been 17 gathering information from all of the local 18 colleges, and we are intending to do an extensive 19 inspection program of all of the housing 20 surrounding the local colleges where there's a lot of college students just for this purpose to make sure that those buildings, one, have not been illegally converted from one-family to multiple-use properties; and, two fire, that they're fire-safe. We've had a lot of problems 16 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 not necessarily in Philadelphia but in other college towns where they've had some fires and loss of life and things like that.
So we are now in the process of setting up an inspection program, and that should be happening probably in the early fall, to make sure that we can start cracking down on some of this from an enforcement standpoint.
I would be glad to lend any assistance to that, and I can also share with you that I am probably about 95 percent done with the legislative initiative to respond to this explosion of off-campus housing as it relates to some of our colleges and universities, which, I don't have anything against them -- they have to find spaces for their students, but what they are also doing, in many instances, is going to apartment buildings and signing long-term contracts, three years, five years, and guaranteeing occupancy in those places for 100, 200-some-odd students at inflated market-rate rents. 17 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 And, again, most of those places were not built for multiple people of adult age in those places; they were usually family-type apartment buildings -- mom, dad, a couple kids, maybe one car. Now you have four students in one apartment, all of whom have cars, the place nowhere near meets any kind of Zoning Code for parking requirements. And that's going on presently in Wynnefield, Overbrook, and in the Manayunk section. So that's that issue. On the bill, on , down in A-901.9, under "Administrative Fees," one of these reads, "For processing a request to have a scheduled hearing before an Advisory Board continued, $50." What I'd like to get is a better understanding of what is your definition of, or what qualifies as, an advisory board, and specifically, is the Zoning Board of Adjustment or the Board of L&I Review considered one of these advisory boards?
No. The two advisory boards are the Board of Building Standards and the Board of Safety and Fire Prevention. 18 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348
Okay. If I picked this up in the code next year, when the supplement is done, how would I know that?
They are identified in the section in the Administrative Code that talks about appeals and variances. The terminology used in that section clearly identifies these as advisory boards.
Okay. On , under A-901.10, "Reinspection Fee," the language is, "An overtime fee of $50 per hour, with a minimum charge of 4 hours, shall be charged to any person requesting an inspection at any time other than normal working inspection hours." Now, do I read this to mean you're talking about inspections of work that someone is doing, for which an inspection is required versus when I call over to the Department or my constituents call and they want a place inspected? Again, for the previous example, maybe they believe that there are more than three unrelated people on the premises, and they want someone to come out and inspect it?
What we're talking about 19 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 here, Councilman, these are the situations that typically come up. A plumber is working on a weekend and he wants a permit finaled out, and he's making a request of our people to come out. This is something that we've never had the ability to do. This is going to be something that we're going to be offering as a service to those people. They're doing an emergency job, they need an inspection. The Department is now willing to do it, but we feel the City has to be compensated.
SO those are the circumstances under which we would be charging that fee.
This would be a voluntary thing, it would be to help the contractor. And, typically, it's to meet a need that we have seen in the Department for a long time, where contractors have requested us to do these special inspections for them.
Let me just understand, though, what -- again, if I were to 20 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 pick this up somewhere, what is the definition of "normal working inspection hours"?
Our normal hours would be considered from a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 6 Friday. 7
And if I were trying to get you to come out to do something, how would I know that? Where would I read that?
We have those posted in the Department. We notified contractors of that in our -- when they've requested inspections, that those are our normal hours.
Maybe I'm being too subtle. Does it assist anyone when people get our documents if they've read in here what normal working hours were?
I think it probably is on the permit documents that those would be our normal inspection hours. It's on the permits.
Okay. On , it reads, "Exception for use group R3 structures, the minimum fee shall be $55." There's a bracket at the end of that sentence. I could not find the starting bracket.
All right. So you're not trying to delete anything, it's a mistake. And I believe lastly, Mr. Chairman, you're very accommodating. On , which is coming out of A-902.2.5 "Miscellaneous Items," but on , it says, "Outdoor advertising devices $250." What is an outdoor advertising device under this and where is that defined?
Those are non-accessory signs, non-accessory to the premises on which they are located.
If you own a piece of property and conduct a business on that property and you have a sign that advertises your business, that's accessory. If you advertise some general product that's not related to your property function, that's an outdoor advertising.
Yes. There's no change in this fee. It was reordered into this table from its previous location and amount.
Okay, so this is the same language, same fee, but it's put in a different location.
Are there any new -- 23 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 in this synopsis of proposed revisions, is there anything new in here? are there any fees that didn't exist prior to this revision that you've introduced that you could identify, please?
There are a few minor items that we put in. The one that was mentioned on the rescheduling hearing before an advisory board, for instance, that's a new fee. Some of the administrative fees, processing permanent extension requests. There aren't any real significant ones. Related to the fast-form permit fees, a flat fee for roll-down security gates and for duct work in a single-tenant space, a simplified fee rather than relying on an overall alteration fee.
It would be very helpful to me if you would provide to the Chair a list of all new fees that will be applicable and what particular date. So if you could provide to the Chair all of the fees, the administrative 24 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 fees, anything that is not currently existing that will become a fee. Second, demolition contractors that are contracted by the Department of Licenses and Inspections, are they required to have permits for their demolition?
No. Several years ago, a change was made that the contract that the City makes with the demolition contractor was the permit to proceed rather than processing additional paperwork.
The purpose of -- I think one of the purposes of a -- of a permit is also to protect the community, to make the community, in some cases, aware of what is going on. In that case, does that take away, in your opinion, anything, including the permit in the contract? Is there something that is missing that a normal permit process would afford?
No. Because all of the provisions that would be required by the permit are required in the contractual language. So in fact, actually, we have greater control over our contractors because we're actually paying them. 25 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 But the posting of the building and all of the notices to the community would be given. The Department is out there inspecting to make that sure all of the work is being done properly. Moreover, what happens in those situations, if there's anything that does not happen properly, the contractor has to be insured and bonded so that we can go against that so that there's added protection. And that's the reason we went to the contract being the document that we would issue rather than the permit, because the contract does provide us and the City and the community with greater protection than a permit would provide.
So a contractor performing a private demolition versus one providing a service for the Department of L&I, the L&I contractor would be even more scrutinized than --
-- a contractor working for -- and the communication to the community --
-- is -- absolutely mirrors what we already have in existence.
That's good to know. Thank you very much for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. I got a couple questions for you gentlemen. Okay, I'm sorry. Councilman Nutter? Go ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I will have to leave the chambers at this time. There's a graduation taking place in my district. I wish to be recorded as voting aye on all of the bills that are voted out of the L&I Committee today. In addition, it is my understanding that Councilman DiCicco may put forward amendments to Bill No. 000217. If Councilman DiCicco puts forward amendments to Bill 217, I wish to be recorded as voting aye on the adopting of those amendments as well as voting aye on the then-amended Bill 217 and voting all of those 27 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 bills out of committee with any rules suspension. Mr. Chairman, it's also my understanding that the Fire Department may request amendments to Bill No. 348. If the Fire Department puts forward those amendments, I'd like to be recorded as voting in favor of the amendments as well as the amended bill, as well as voting that bill out of committee.
Thank you, Councilman. That will be duly noted in the record. I have a couple questions, if we can go on. What, if any, effect would this legislation have on L&I's annual revenue collection? Will it be the same, less, or will it be revenue-neutral?
We've conducted, over the past number of months, some pilot studies of this. We believe -- our intent is to have this bill revenue-neutral. We believe that through this legislation that, if anything, we might see a slight increase in revenue because of the fact that the estimated amounts that we sometime get from persons are, let's say, not fully elaborative of the coasts, so that they're understated and 28 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 they're trying to get around the fee. Under the system we're now adopting, we're using square footage and arbitrary measurements so that they won't be able to do that, but at the same time, the honest people will see a reduction in their fees. So that we really anticipate, based on the pilot studies that we've done, that this language is very good towards making this a revenue-neutral bill.
On that question, do you see any scenario in which additional resources will have to be used to collect these fees to enforce it actually?
Actually, we see lesser resources because the fees are more cut-and-dried, easier to apply, it will be easier for the business people, the industry to know what the fees are. They'll be able to calculate them easily. Our people will likewise be able to do this on an easy measurement thing that we won't have to chase after. We had established an audit unit in the Department, who had as its sole purpose chasing after people and checking up to make sure they 29 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000348 weren't giving us fraudulent information. Their function will diminish as a result of this role. Those people will not be geared towards checking to make sure people have permits rather than to see that the people who applied for permits gave us bad information.
And this is my last question. With this legislation, I know from what you told Councilman Nutter about the plumbers and the things on the weekends, that's just going to make -- those guys will pay because they're just passing it onto their customers. But what about the homeowners? I'm concerned about homeowners seeking to renovate their property. Do you think this system -- the way it sounds, it should make them be a little more honest and want to do more renovation, right?
We would hope so, and that's one of the reasons why we decreased some of the fees for those type of occupancies.
So we still don't have to stand outside of Home Depot and take license numbers plate? I know you do that.
Well, I think there was 30 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000351 more made of that than actually went on.
I seen Dave Perri there dressed as a guy selling hot dogs the other day -- (Laughter.)
All right. Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, we're going to 351 now. 000351, an ordinance amending Section 17 9-1004 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Contractors," to provide for the renewal of licenses issued pursuant to this section, under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Haigler?
Good Day, Councilman Mariano and members of the committee of Licenses and Inspections. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the 31 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000351 Department of Licenses and Inspections. Bill No. 000351 will amend Section 4 9-1004 related to contractors' licensing. When the Department submitted legislation to Council establishing a contractor's license, we omitted a provision in the legislation for the renewal of licenses issued under this section. This legislation will provide for the renewal of contractors' licenses with a three-year license period. Of special note in the change in this license renewal period is that we are reducing the need for business to have to get annual license bills from the City, thereby making us a little more business-friendly. We are requesting a suspension of the rules of Council to allow for a first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Any of the members of the committee have any questions? (No questions.)
Seeing none, 32 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 gentlemen, you're dismissed. Thank you.
Thank you. Bill No. 000217, amending Section 9-402 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Animal-Drawn Carriages," and Section 10-108, entitled "Rental and Carriage Horses," by making various changes to the provisions governing the animal-drawn carriage business and the use of horses in such businesses, and amending the approved routes for animal-drawn carriages, all under certain terms and conditions. We have some witnesses. Mr. Goldsmith, is he still here?
Mr. Goldsmith, state your name and spell it for the stenographer Edwin M. Goldsmith, G-O-L-D-S-M-I-T-H. I represent the Philadelphia Carriage Company. Sitting next to me is Mr. Bashir Ahmed, who is the 33 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 President of Philadelphia Carriage Company. That's spelled B-A-S-H-I-R, A-H-M-E-D. And what we'd like to do is to supplement the testimony that we had previously given by directing our comments to the carriage routes, the proposed carriage routes under this proposed ordinance, and the carriage stands. Now, I would like -- if I may be permitted to hand out two pieces of material. Number one, a letter which I sent to members of this committee on May 19, 2000; and, secondly, a map which will be used as part of the testimony to illustrate what the impact of this ordinance on the routes. Here are the letters and here are the maps. (Copies of letters distributed.)
I appreciate that. Thank you. The letter, of course, was sent to all members of the committee on May the 19th. And the map -- let's talk about this map for a minute. You will notice that it's colored in four 34 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 different colors: black, pink, yellow, and green. This is a blowup of the route map, which is attached to the 1993 regulations, which sets forth the carriage routes that can be taken by the various horse carriage companies. I have made a few changes on this map that I'll point out. First of all, you'll notice arrows on the various streets, which I thought would be helpful in showing which way these streets run because it's highly relevant, these route changes, to understand what that does in terms of the one-way streets and how that throws the traffic onto different streets. Number two, the pink area, which you'll see in the center of the man, that is Independence Hall. North of that, or above that, are the two areas of the mall between Walnut -- between Chestnut Street and Market Street and Market Street and Arch Street. You will notice that there is an area marked in green. That is Third Street. That is the area which this ordinance proposes to eliminate as part of the route. The areas marked in yellow would be the result of the ordinance, as 35 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 we have it now, as has been drafted, which dramatizes the fact that these routes, that the northbound streets, which is a major northbound street on this route, on the carriage route is Third Street. That is where much of the historic material is located for discussion by the carriage drivers. The impact of this ordinance is to move the traffic over to Fifth Street, which is not a particularly interesting street. It, secondly, as you can see dramatically from this, makes the route areas longer. And that seems to be, in our view, self-defeating because the horses are going to be working longer, there is more area of traffic with the horse carriages. I mean, if the goal here is to have the horses work less, or if the goal here is to make the area less -- more confined, that certainly is counterproductive on where these routes are being chosen. Secondly, I would like to address the carriage stand restrictions. At present, because of the construction and based on what is in this ordinance, the original that were stands in front of Independence Hall, on the north side on 36 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 Chestnut Street, have been eliminated. So the areas now for the coaches to wait for customers are on the east side of Sixth Street and on the west side of Fifth Street, which, you can see, is the area directly above the pink block. Now, observation of these areas indicates the following -- that -- and another important fact needs to be added on here the. Average size, or length, of a carriage and horse is approximately feet, give or take. So what 12 the ordinance has done is staged down the staging 13 -- marked down the staging areas so that, for 14 example, on Sixth Street where it was virtually 15 the entire one side between Walnut and Chestnut 16 Street -- I'm sorry, between Chestnut Street and 17 Market Street -- yes, Chestnut and Market, Street 18 it's now down to 150 feet. Well, we can do some 19 simple mathematics to understand that for every 20 100 feet, you have approximately four and a half 21 carriages. In essence, it's about six carriages. 22 If you cut down the staging area, as what this ordinance does, to 150 feet, you're cutting it down to a point where either the carriages are going to be backed up on one another 37 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 or they're going to have to keep moving constantly which, against, is not something that's in the best -- it's not in the best interest of the horses. Speaking on behalf of the horses, it's not in their best interests, and it's not in the best interest of traffic because the horse traffic has to keep moving because the stands have been brought down in size.
Now, we have a similar problem down in the South Street area, which is the -- that's more of the nighttime, that's where the crowds are at nighttime and where these routes start in the evening hours. And, again, you have a problem by eliminating an entire area between Lombard and Pine, which is the Headhouse Square -- which is right where the Headhouse Market is. If you eliminate that and you bring only 150 feet or so between Lombard and South, again, the staging area is so small that everybody is going to be backed up, horses are going to be out in the street that should be standing, waiting. So it just seems -- the reason I --
That's to assume that everyone would use the staging area, which 38 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 they're not using today.
Well, I thought, Councilman DiCicco, that the idea of this ordinance, or what would seem to be the positive idea of this ordinance, is to provide an ordinarily manner for the horses to be standing when they're not being used, for the horses to be in an area where the traffic is in terms of pedestrians. And that's why I'm suggesting that maybe we need to think through these routes a little more carefully, think through the staging areas more carefully, because if the idea is that we don't want backups of carriages, we don't want to create more traffic than necessary on the street. One other point that I do want to raise is that the hours of operation, as pointed out by numerous persons involved in this business, that if you close down the horse traffic at 3:30 in the afternoon, everybody's going to be going back to the stables at 3:30, just at the time when you don't want traffic on the street. See, these are the kinds of things that need attention and analysis so that the ordinance 39 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 can -- everyone, I know, wants to do the best for the City and the best for the City residents, and these are kinds of the things that need some further analysis and attention. Mr. Ahmed, do you affirm the testimony I've just given.
Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman DiCicco?
Do we have some more witnesses? Mr. Hawkins, right? (Witness comes forward.)
I'm here in two capacities: one as a consultant to the Mayor's Animal Advisory Committee, and also as a member of the Society Hill Civic Association, in which -- the area in which most of the carriage trade takes place. I'd like to say that the carriage companies media (unintelligible) so far has been that the legislation will put them out of business, which is not true at all. In fact, the new legislation will ensure that the well-managed, well- taken-care-of companies will prosper very well. Instead, one company has asked that the hours be extended until midnight -- obviously for tourist reasons. And from experience, I would like to say that the residents wouldn't want to see that. If I were a tourist, I wouldn't want to be in a carriage after the bars have closed and I've got a bunch of drivers who are driving at breakneck speed pass me. 41 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 The sanitation of business hours issue directly addressed in the bill -- currently addressed in the bill are positive steps for the carriage industry. However, I must agree with Mr. Goldsmith that Lombard Street and the Fifth Street additions do not make sense from a residential point of view. There is nothing of historic interest on those routes, there's a lot of traffic. Fifth Street is an arterial street out of the City, and it's between Locust and Spruce and it gets backed up in the afternoons anyway, so it would be a big mistake. So I would concur that taking Lombard and Fifth Street off the route would make sense. And I assume that would mean that Third Street would be put back into the routes. And that's where there's an awful lot of historic interest anyway, so that would make a lot of sense, too. We firmly believe that if Bill 217, as currently written, is not passed, the tourism industry is going to get a black eye. It will say that we as a city do not care about the welfare of animals used in tourism, and that the safety of 42 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 tourists is second to revenue generated by the carriage companies. We've been in touch with all of the major tourism groups in Philadelphia and they too want our horse carriage industry to be exemplary, they want it to be the best in the nation. And with the RNC coming in in a few weeks, that makes it all the more important. I've spoken directly with the heads of some of those tourist groups, and they support what we're asking for. A large number of residents are putting in many uncompensated hours over a long period of time to get to this point. We don't have the clout or the influence or the contacts that some of the carriages companies have, which is why we look to you, the L&I Committee. It's up to you to help us help the City do what is right, not only for the residents or the tourists, but equally as important for the horses, who are the core of the horse carriage trade. Councilmembers, thank you very much for your support.
One question. Fair hearing today Mr. Hawkins? Is that, you 43 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 know, in your group of vocabulary, fair?
'Cause last time you didn't think it was fair, and I was personally insulted.
And you hurt my feelings, and I never not want to be.
I mean, you can talk some more if you want to be fair.
Any questions from this committee? Councilman Rizzo? He's at a loss for words. Councilman DiCicco?
I'm never at a loss for words, just no questions. (No questions.)
Anyone else here to testify. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Chairman, Council. My name is Lou Peluso, P-E-L-U-S-O. I am a Philadelphia teacher of years and an 9 animal advocate for 20 years. 10 On February 18, 1986, I sat before 11 Philadelphia City Council and testified for better 12 working conditions for the carriage horses of this 13 city. What animal activists wanted 14 years ago 14 was defeated by a strictly business-oriented City 15 administration, led by former Councilman and felon 16 Jimmy Tayoun. I hope this present City Council 17 will go beyond line and pass legislation that will 18 benefit the horses foremost and have these laws 19 actively and strictly enforced. 20 I will not mince words here as I speak 21 for Bishop, Baby, Lucky, and the rest of the 22 carriage horses that were abused and neglected by 23 the Society Hill Carriage Company. ) and Harry Beck made Bishop work 25 for one year six days a week, ten hours a day, 45 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 with a lame leg, then took this horse to a torture chamber of a stable speaks volumes of these two characters and exposes the failures of our City government concerning animal abuse. The City agencies empowered to inspect and enforce the minimal standards governing this business failed these horses. Then our judicial system fails these horses through Judge Francis Cosgrove's asinine decision that the horses be returned to their abusers. Be they the carriage horses, the geese on Kelly Drive, the stray cats of Valley Green, the abused and abandoned dogs of Fairmount Park, or the deer which inhabit our City parks, it's time this city changes its callous, "they're-just- animals" attitude. Bastawe Ali and Harry Beck are reflexes of this city's indifference when it concerns the humane treatment of animals. Is it any wonder that we are witnessing an explosion of dog and cock-fighting rings in our city. Felons are aware of how the City downplays animal cruelty, as Judge Cosgrove has once again proven. The Chinese have a saying: Beware the wrath of the patient man. Animal activists have 46 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 been very patient here in Philadelphia regarding the indifference shown towards our animal neighbors. Our patience is wearing thin. " Ali should be grateful he's not doing time for his cowardly treatment of these horses. Concerning the maximum temperature limit of 94 degrees in which a horse can work, it was inhumane in 1986, and it's inhumane today. There should be incorporated into this legislation a humidity index and a frigid. When horses are to work during the winter season, they must be properly blanketed and protected from the elements. All of these aspects should be factored into the temperature requirement. The working day for these horses should not exceed six hours, with ten-minute rest periods per hour. These horses should be rested in shaded areas, away from the exhaust of autos, buses, and trucks. Clean drinking water must be available at all time when resting. There should be unannounced stable checks monthly. In 1986, the Women's Humane 47 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 Society called for medical exams of these horses to take place every six months, biannually, as opposed to the present annual exam. I support the six-month veterinary exam, and I urge this Council to do likewise, particular with recent findings of negligence and abuse. These stable and veterinary records should be made public and available to the public upon request. If the public is made aware of any of these carriage companies being negligent and/or abusive to their horses, the public will refuse to patronize that carriage company. Now, if these proposals seem extreme to these carriage operators, then I suggest they retire their horses and go out and find real jobs and stop living off the backs of their horse slaves. This city did fine without this inhumane business prior to 1976 and it will do fine without the carriage trade today.
This summer promises to be profitable for Philadelphia's businesses if the economy doesn't take a downturn. If we find evidence that these horses are being neglected and/or abused, we will organize an active boycott of this industry. 48 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 If we witness the City agencies empowered to enforce these regulations become complacent, then we will take the appropriate measures to make sure our concerns for these horses are heard and acted upon. If Ali and Beck continue their abusive ways, then the entire carriage trade will have to suffer consequences. A. Lynne Abraham, Mr. Randall Hirschorn, Joe Donahue, Mr. Tim Blivins, and especially Miss Sherry Holt and Miss Carol Mattea. Your compassion and fervor to do right by these horses is only surpassed by Judge Frances Cosgrove's callousness and stupidity. Thank you, Councilman DiCicco, for allowing me to speak for these magnificent and beautiful horses.
DiCicco's the smaller one, I'm Mariano, I'm the chairman of the committee. I just -- I just have to say this and it's probably going to get me in trouble. You can't threaten us to do things. I mean, we're here -- and I really believe -- thank you for your 49 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 testimony, by the way, and, you know, I really believe you believe in this.
I mean, what Cosgrove does -- write him a letter and tell him. You know, you mentioned a couple things at the beginning that I'll talk to you off the record that I don't think was necessary. We do legislation by an open line of process. And, believe me, no one's going to be happy when they walk out of here today. You'll be a little happy, you'll be a little said.
Well, I do. I care about everybody and the horses and the people, and I'm sure Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Ortiz cares about all those cowboys he was telling me about.
Chairman, chairman, you 50 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 know, we --
But that's not how you get anything done. You said you were a school teacher?
You come in here, you give us the information, and we make an intelligent decision. Your comments were very threatening at the committee. I mean, what Cosgrove does, he does. That's his thing, he's a judge. And what we do, we do. You're not going to be happy, I assure you this. You won't be mad, but you won't be happy.
There are a lot of people in this city that are not happy about going on in this city, Chairman, okay? I was talking about the animals in this city, all right?
I just gave you a whole list of how the animals in this city are neglected, okay?
Then you should people you get more out of being nice than by coming in and veiling a threat on a committee.
Well, Chairman, if you took it as a threat, I didn't mean it as a threat.
Mr. Peluso, I'm sorry, Councilman Rizzo had a question for you. I'm sorry.
Mr. Peluso, in an effort to keep the record straight, at least keep me straight, is the fact that you reported on an issue about a stable operator, and you named two gentlemen that were, in your opinion, neglectful 52 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 of their animals. I understand that this was a tenant- landlord issue that led to the neglect of the animals, where the owner of the facility would not allow the operator of the facility -- the owner of the horses to get access to that facility, and that led to the neglect. And you said some other things about the horse being lame, but I'd appreciate you telling me more because I don't know the story that way.
I knew the story that the reason the person couldn't get to take care of the horses was because he wasn't allowed to get to the horses. Is that not a correct portrayal of the story?
So you're quoting -- in other words, you're quoting a written report in the newspaper rather than what might -- may be accurate. 53 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217
Well, I think the pictures on the news media and in the papers speak for themselves, of the horse Bishop.
But is it the chicken or the egg here? What was really the cause of the neglect of the horses? Was it because the tenant --
Well, Councilman, if I can, I think the cause of all of the negligence here stems from City agencies that are empowered to inspect these stables were not doing their job. Why is it that employees of the stable company have to go to the news media to get the results of what we see here today? Where are the City agencies that are tax-funded to do these empowerment jobs and inspections? Where are they at?
I hear you. But, again, I just wanted to make sure that I understood the real story here, whether it was what I described or what you described, and I'm not sure.
I guess the real story here is that what the City has witnessed on TV and 54 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 in the papers was negligence, and the negligence led to abuse, and it was brought out by to employees; it was not brought out by the tax- funded agencies that are supposed to do these jobs.
I just want to make a comment about your comments. City agencies always are under criticism, as are most political people. It is my experience in the 33 years that I've been involved in politics that the vast majority of City employees do their job and do it rather well. There are times that I would assume that you would take exception and other people would take exception to think that because these conditions continue to exist or they existed for a certain amount of time that someone from the City was not doing his or her job. I certainly don't think that's the case. I'm not offering this as a debate; just want to make a statement that we have limited resources, and priorities are priorities. 55 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 And if the Health Department needs to go out to see if some senior citizen facility or some senior citizen is in dire need of some health care and making the choice between that and the stable, I would think that, with all due respect to animals, 'cause I'm an animal lover, I had chickens in my yard in South Philadelphia as a kid, and so I know about animals. And I had goats and ducks, so I was raised --
And I mean that sincerely. I've been an animal lover, I took stray dogs off the street as a kid, to the point where my father was going to get rid of me and not the dogs. But I just want to say in defense of the City, these folks who are out there day and night do a marvelous job, given the fact that given limited resources -- it's a tax-driven thing, we can do better, I'm sure.
We could hire more people and that would require higher taxes. 56 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217
Maybe, Councilman, we can allocate some of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be fought for the stadiums --
Let me say that that money has already been absorbed by five other issues that people think the money should go to other than stadiums, so you're about a week late, unfortunately. Every place I've been to in the last two weeks says, Use the money for this as opposed to the stadiums, so that money has already been exhausted.
Councilman, all I'm saying is, and I speak on behalf of the animal advocates in this city, that when you look at the history and how it treats or how it neglects the animal problems in the City, we need a change of mind in this city, okay? We have an excessive amount -- we have an overpopulation of stray dogs and cats, we have pit bull fights growing by leaps --
None of us here condone that type of behavior. There are lots of problems with animals in this city, and a lot of it has to do with the owners who take their pets 57 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 into public parks and recreation facilities and let them defecate with no regard to the health of the general public. That isn't because the City isn't doing their job, that's not because people are irresponsible.
So there's a whole host of things that are always going on at the same time, and to try and stamp out all of these problems is a rather difficult and a very extraordinary problem for us. We are addressing the issue on horse carriages. I've been dealing with this bill 15 since, I think, April of 1998, and it's going to be brought to closure today in some shape or form.
And, Councilman, and that's my point today. This began back in 1985, '86, this issue. And from what I've heard, you've had about four or five hearings already on this issue. I feel that if we were listened to back in 1986, then this time would not be --
I can't answer for what didn't occur in 1986. I'm here, and I started this thing in 1998. 58 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217
I just would like to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman.
I've been dealing with this issue for the last two-plus years. There have been a number of people who have been involved in this process. I'm probably going to get into trouble 'cause I'm certain I will leave someone out, but I just want to recognize for the record the help and input and the concern raised by lots of folks in helping to deal with creating a better piece of legislation, not only for the horse carriage industry and the tourism industry, but also for the general welfare of horses as it relates to the carriage industry. Mr. Bill Hawkins; Mr. Slocum; Mr. Smith, on behalf of the Philadelphia Carriage Company; the Streets Department; the Health Department; the Police Department; and any other department that I've been dealing with for the 59 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 last two years. I really do appreciate your help. All the cards and letters I was sent from as far out as Colorado, all those people -- and France, we had them from Paris, France. I did take the time to read all of those letters, and for those of you who had been at prior meetings, I actually took the time on a couple of occasions to go out to farms and visit people and talk to experts in the field of animal care. I think we have today a piece of legislation that will accommodate as many of the needs as we possibly could. I took under consideration the tourism and hospitality industry. I've listened to the hotel operators and the Convention and Visitors Bureau. I've listened to the horse carriage industry and the impact that this legislation will have on them. Veterinarians and other folks. One of the biggest issues that I had to deal with was temperature. Every time I talked to someone, I got one answer, and the next day, I got a rebuttal on that answer. There was just never any consensus on the folks that I talked to as to 60 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 what the magic number of the temperature should be. The one thing I will say to the industry is, I think a lot of the problems that we have out there are generated -- and it may not be for the guys that are in this room, but you can take it or leave it for what it's worth. Most of the problems that are out there today are caused by the folks you have working for you, their total disregard for the regulations and the Code as it exists today, even before we get into this bill. I was out in Washington Square yesterday with Bill Hawkins and some other people looking at some of the conditions in Washington Square. It was well past 4 o'clock. Carriages were going up Walnut Street, tying up traffic on Seventh Street. There is a total disregard for the rules and regulations. A lot of time goes into the things that we do in City Council. A better part of two years of my life in City Council has been dedicated to this issue. I can assure you, whether you're happy with what we present today or not, this is -- these will be the new regulations. And if we 61 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 continue to see the blatant violation for this new bill, I have no problem coming back here in September and making some drastic changes to this bill. And that's not a threat. I am not going to deal with this ever again, and if I have to deal with it, it will be so such an extent that some of the things that you all think will happen will eventually happen. I want to see it exist, I think it adds a certain amount of charm, even though if you live on Lombard Street or Third Street and a horse urinates at 90 degrees, or whatever the new temperature will, that may not be so charming. But I understand that. And it's something that's been here, and I think we can work together. I implore you to educate the people who work for you to follow the rules, as any other person who uses the streets of Philadelphia is expected to do. And if a violation occurs, there will be strict enforcement.
Same way, a motor vehicle operator who goes through a red light and is observed by a police officer is written up for a citation for going through a red light, those same kinds of enforcement efforts will be 62 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 undertaken. A lot of time, as I said, has gone into this -- not only in my office with me, but all of the people I mentioned and all of the departments -- to try and craft something that we can all live with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman DiCicco. And on behalf of City Council, we thank you for all of the time you put into this, and I'm sure the citizens -- not just in your district, the City. I mean, he really did put a lot more time than I could ever put into it, so whatever happens here, everyone should thank him on both sides. We're going to read the amendment to 000348.
On Bill 000348, the first two amendments are technical amendments from the Department of Licenses and Inspections. On 3, subsection A-902.2, construction, second line, brackets before and after s, in the word sections, delete brackets. The section currently reads: "Permit fees for new construction, additions, 63 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 alterations, demolition, occupancy and repairs shall be set forth in Section A-902.2.1 through A-902.2.14, except as otherwise specified in Sections A-902.2.2 through A-902.2.10. The section will now read: "Permit fees for new construction, additions, alterations, demolition, occupancy, and repairs shall be as set forth in sections A-902.2.1.1 through A-902.2.1.4, except as orders specified sections A-902.2.2 through A-902.2.10. The second is on , subsection A-902.2.1.4, Minimum Fee. Under the exception, delete the bracket at the end of the sentence. It currently reads: "Exception for use group R3 structures, the minimum fee shall be 55.]" It will now read: "Exception for use group R3 structures, the minimum fine shall be $55." Final amendment is , under subsection A-904.3, Assisted Operation Permit. Subsection 3, Fire works display. "$50 plus cost to be assessed by the Fire Department per event" will be deleted, that section will be bracketed. As requested by the Fire Department, and that material is in your materials. 64 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 That's the final amendment for Bill No. 3 000348.
I move that the amendments be approved. (Duly seconded.)
The bill has been amended and properly seconded. All those in favor of the amendment? Okay, the amendment is approved. Okay, now we're going to go -- do you have anymore for the L&I bills?
Okay. The following amendments I'm offering to Bill No. 18 000217: On (3)(f) Routes and hours of operation. (.1) Carriages shall be operated only on the carriage routes approved by ordinance 22 pursuant to subsection 9402(4), except that a carriage operator may apply for a special permit from the Department of Streets to use other routes on a trip-by-trip basis to accommodate a special 65 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 event. An application for such special event setting forth the date, time and nature of the special event and the exact route requested must be filed with the Department of Streets on a form provided by that department at least -- strike ten days, add five business days. (.2)(a)(i) Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 3:30 p.m., to 6 p.m. or after. Strike 9 p.m., add 10:30 p.m. (ii) On Saturdays and Sundays after, strike 9 p.m., add 10:30 p.m. (.2)(b)(i) Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., strike "or after," add from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., or after 9 p.m. (ii) On Saturdays and Sundays after, strike 3:30 p.m., add 9 p.m. On , (2)(b) Owners shall not allow a horse to be worked on a public highway, path or street when the temperature is over -- strike 94, strike 90, add 91 degrees Fahrenheit. . Delete on , delete (a)(i). . Delete (b)(ii), (b)(vi). That last amendment addresses the 66 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 routes that were discussed and offered by the attorney, Mr. Goldsmith, this morning. I move for the adoption of the amendments, Mr. Chairman. (Duly seconded.)
It has been amended and seconded. How about a vote. The amendment has been approved. Now we're going to close the public hearing and go into the public meeting.
We will have copies of the amendments, a cleaner version, 'cause we did make a last-minute adjustment, so for those -- you can call our at office 686-3458, and we will make copies of the amendment available to everyone.
First we're going to go into the public hearing. We just have some technical stuff with the Fire Department's amendment. The public hearing's closed, we're going to open the public meeting. Now, 000348, that's the amendment, 67 6/14/00 L&I - BILL 000217 right?
One last technical amendment on behalf of the Fire Department, through the wonderful Mr. Otis Haigler, from the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
We're going to close the meeting go back into the hearing. The public hearing is back on, and we're at 000348.
All right. Again, an amendment to be offered on behalf of the Fire Department. Through Otis Haigler of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. On , again, Subsection A-904.3, Assisted Operation Permit. The fee for an assisted operation permit shall be 300 per item. 300 per item is currently bracketed, remove the brackets. The section will now read: "The fee for an assisted operation permit shall be $300 per item as follows. . . " Under 904.3, subsection 1, Fire Department assistant testing fire pumps. The item in italics, 300 per pump, is removed. The same under subsection 2, 300 per movement is also 68 6/14/00 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING deleted.
I move for the adoption of the amendments that have just been read into the record. (Duly seconded.)
The amendment has been read and adopted and properly seconded. All those in favor say aye. The amendment passes. Now we can definitely close the public hearing and go into the public meeting. We're going to go to the bills. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on Bill 000348, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 000348, as amended, by reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly seconded. All those in favor. Opposed? 69 6/14/00 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING The bill is approved. Councilman DiCicco, I'll recognize you for Bill No. 000350.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that 000350 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session. (Duly seconded.)
The bill has been properly read and seconded. All those in favor? All those against? Nobody, okay, the bill passes. Bill No. 000351. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 000351 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council.
So moved. Do I 70 6/14/00 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING hear a second? (Duly seconded.)
The bill has been properly moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye? Against, nay? The bill passes. I recognize Councilman DiCicco on a motion on Bill No 000217.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 000217, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
So moved and properly seconded. All those in favor of this bill, as amended? Against, nay? The bill is approved. That's it. Now that concludes the public meeting for Licenses and Inspections. 71 6/14/00 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING Thank you for your patience. (Adjourned at 11:50 a.m.) - - - 72 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, June 14, 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 NO. 000217, 000348, 000351, 000350, __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter