1681 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 5, 2003 10:05 a.m. - - - BILL 030004 BILL 030008 BILL 030010 - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DI CICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 1682 I N D E X WITNESS PAGE EDWARD MCLAUGHLIN, Commissioner, L&I ....... 1683 ROBERT SOLVIBILE, Licenses and Inspections . 1688 RICHARD FELDGUS, Licenses and Inspections .. 1694 DOMINIC VERDI, Licenses and Inspections .... 1704 DAVID PERRY, Licenses and Inspections ...... 1720 RICHARD FELDGUS, L&I Review Board .......... 1846 RICHARD FELDGUS, Board of Building Standards 1847 RICHARD FELDGUS, Zoning Board of Adjustment. 1849 CLARENA TOLSON, Streets Department ......... 1853 KUMAR KISHINCHAND, Water Department ......... 1935 1683 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
Good morning, everyone. Before we start our proceedings this morning, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's birthday. Councilman Rizzo, Happy birthday. (Applause.)
This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, 030010. The first department to testify is L&I. Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning, gentlemen.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I am Edward J. McLaughlin, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The first thing I'd like to do is sincerely thank all Members of Council for your unwavering support of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And I do that on behalf of all the people in L&I and our customers, because your support will make it easier for our customers 1684 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET to deal with us. Accompanying me today are my First Deputy Commissioner Robert Solvibile and Deputy Commissioners David Perry, Dominic Verdi, and our Administrative Service Director Richard Feldgus. Also with us today are Otis Haigler, Legislative Affairs Director; Bridget Greenwald, Human Resources Manager; Eileen Evans, Contractual Services Director; and Jim Weiss who is our Information Technology Services Director. We appreciate this opportunity to present our Fiscal Year Operating Budget request to City Council and to provide you with information about the Department's recent accomplishments and our plans for the upcoming fiscal year. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is requesting a total Fiscal Year '04 budget of $60,594,635, of which $21,194,862 is in the City's General Fund. In our General Fund budget we have a net increase of $1,386,839 from our Fiscal '03 estimated obligations. This increase is due primarily to additions to Class 200 and 400 funds to purchase the necessary software and software licenses, handheld devices, and professional support 1685 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET services required to fully automate crucial departmental functions. Offsetting this increase is the transfer of $2 million of General Fund demolition appropriations that will be handled in Fiscal Year '04 through the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. This budget supports General Fund staffing of 399 positions versus the Fiscal Year '03 average of 415 positions for the Department. The decrease in positions is due primarily to the transfer of employees to the Department of Public Property for the new 311 call center initiative. Our accomplishments. Public safety. The key to an effective life safety program is getting people out of buildings in an emergency. And L&I has the responsibility to make sure our codes and enforcement programs are designed to do that. As you know, we have the best Fire Department in our country. Our record low in fire deaths can be contributed to our combined efforts. Nightclub inspections. We are currently part of the Managing Director's team who are involved in setting a course of education, 1686 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET inspection, and regulatory review for nightclubs. A final report is due to the Mayor by April 23rd of this year. Our pier inspection bill. The bill 6 requires that piers and similar structures be maintained and periodic inspection reports from a registered engineer to L&I attesting to the structural integrity of the piers. The first reports were due in January of this year. They have all been received. They are now due once every three years. Demolitions. L&I successfully partners with the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Over 50 percent of Fiscal Year '03 demolition spending has been awarded to minority firms. Construction activity. L&I is streamlining and simplifying the construction permitting process. Some of the many major actions taken are decreasing certain permit fees, creation of prepaid roofing permits, and elimination of plan review for single family and small commercial electrical wiring projects. Computerization. We have established a complaint system, a back office process for 1687 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET dangerous buildings. And we anticipate start-up of the dynamic portal by the end of this fiscal year and the use of handheld computers as well. I would also like to thank Councilmembers for approval of the license fees that were needed to accomplish this. Our Drexel University project.
The Department has entered into a partnership with Drexel University in Fiscal Year '02. We are establishing a code administration training program that will provide departmental staff with the knowledge and skills needed to enforce the building codes that have been adopted on a statewide basis. These classes are expected to continue until approximately 180 L&I employees who are required to be state certified, complete their training, and gain the necessary state certifications. Our major changes involve consolidating permits, licenses, and implementation of the State Code. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much, Commissioner. 1688 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET What is the projected cost of an average residential demolition for FY '03?
727. That's just the demolition. We have the asbestos which is 150; the stucco, the average cost is $5,073; barge board average cost is 693. For a total average treatment of that demolition and the adjoining property, $14,643.
Commissioner, in your testimony, you are saying that the average residential demolition for FY '03 is estimated to be approximately $24 million for 2,000 properties. It doesn't add up. That would come to like 12,000 a property.
We're referring to your testimony. Does your testimony refer to NTI or is it L&I? It's the bottom of , the top of .
Council President, that 1689 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET includes the NTI demolitions. The $2 million that L&I will have is for buildings that are collapsing and need emergency curb-side treatment.
Why is it costing that much more for NTI? Commissioner, you didn't identify yourself.
I apologize. Robert Solvibile, First Deputy Commissioner Licenses and Inspections.
Thank you. Why is it costing so much more under NTI? And, Commissioner, your testimony, you really don't identify it as NTI. It's the bottom of of your testimony and the top of .
Council President, this would count the use of NTI money for coming in the next fiscal year. In addition to our money -- this will include the NTI demolitions that will be done working with the Councilperson staff and determining what will be demolished in the districts. In addition, L&I will handle exclusively the buildings that are collapsing and require curb-side 1690 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET demolitions.
Who is actually doing the demolition these days? Is it L&I? Do we have an outside contractor? Let's get everything on the record so that there's no misunderstanding in the future.
The Department of Licenses and Inspections hires private contractors through the Procurement Department to demolish buildings from a list of contractors that's pre-approved. As a matter of fact, we are advertising now for contractors to submit to us an application if they wish to become involved in our curb-side program in the coming fiscal year.
So you're not only addressing the demolition of structurally dangerous buildings, but you're also dealing with the regular demolition that we're going to be doing under NTI?
That's not going to 1691 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET take us very far at the rate we're going with the amount of money that it's costing for demolition per property. Commissioner, you state in your testimony that you cleaned 1,080 vacant lots in FY '02, and 798 in FY '03. And in your performance statement, you project 753 in FY '04. Why has the number of lots declined in each year? How many times do you clean a lot? What happens if the lot has to be cleaned again?
The Department uses for lot cleaning -- which is separate from the Managing Director's program. And the reason it's separate, we use first offenders that work with our clean and seal people, they have for years, to do lots for us. In addition to what the Managing Director's task force for vacate lots is doing, I believe that number is in excess of 31,000 lots in the City of Philadelphia that have been cleaned. And we use our first offenders program to supplement that program, and the figures that we're giving here are figures that the Department of L&I, using the first offenders program, has completed. They're in addition to what the Managing Director's staff has 1692 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET done doing the 31,000 lots in the City.
Well, I think it would have been nice to include that in the testimony. Your performance statement has you cleaning and sealing 3,012 buildings in FY '04, up from 1587 in FY '03. Who will perform these services? Will it be City workers or will it be done through contractors?
City workers. The Department has roughly 55 to 60 personnel in our clean and seal division at 25th and South. Council President, that's roughly 11 crews, 9 to 11 crews we have available if everyone's in work in any given day.
Are they going to be able to do all of these additional clean and seals? Have they been on board with us for a period of time?
The Managing Director has given us an additional 10 personnel that we've hired in the last two years, so that should be able to increase our productivity. Also, we're trying to make them work a little bit more efficiently. We've 1693 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET gotten some better equipment for them than they had. As an example, they used to work out of dump trucks which were hard to load the debris into. We have trucks that they can lock, and it's just better -- we're better equipping and better training and working to get a more productive crew.
The 55 personnel are full-time personnel. We have an additional 10, and that has been for about the last two to two and a half years, Council President.
I don't understand. If you have them and you're not getting -- if you don't have any additional personnel -- are you getting the 10 additional personnel and you're almost doubling what you did in FY '03? How is that possible?
The Chief of clean and seal has said that that's the number he can do because of changes that he's making in his operation to improve it.
What kind of changes? 1694 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
Better deployment of the crews, better planning of the work. If they're on a block and there's one building that they've been asked to clean and seal through a request and they see another vacant building there, they'll seal both, they'll treat both buildings. And it's just more efficient to do it that way because they're there already. They don't have to leave and come about back.
We are doing that now, Council President. We started that in the middle of this fiscal year.
On -28 of the budget detail, you show $1.6 million in FY '02 to Hill International for NTI project management. Is Hill still providing those services or is another firm providing the services? And can you also tell us how they are currently being paid and in what amount?
Hill is still providing the services. This money in 2002 was before the NTI grant monies were available. Now Hill is being paid 1695 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET out of the NTI grant monies rather than through the L&I General Fund budget. I am Richard Feldgus, Administration Services Director for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. So Hill is still involved in the NTI program.
We don't have -- that would be coming out of the NTI grant revenue. We'll get you that information.
Whose budget would that be in? It should be out of your budget, I would think.
At this point, we don't have the information on that. We'll have to get that from NTI as to what they're projecting to pay 1696 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET Hill for this year.
Hill basically is providing oversight over the NTI demolition programs. We work with them in terms of surveying the areas, working with the community. They're actually doing the day-to-day oversight over the demolition project.
Council President, Robert Solvibile again. They sit down with us and Council staff and we go over case house by house what will be demolished or encapsulated when we met with the district councilperson staff to decide what's going to happen in their area. They also hire other organizations to come and provide mapping and go on the surveys with us and they also work with our inspector on managing the demolition site.
Who are the "they" you're referring to. 1697 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
I'm sorry, Councilman Cohen. Hill International is the "they." The question is, what services does Hill International provide NTI and L&I in doing deal demolitions for the NTI program.
Well, aren't they duplicating the same work that L&I does regularly? I don't know why L&I who, to me, seems to be the premiere organization in demolition, why you would be discussing with people knowing much less about the situation than you do what ought to be done. I would trust your judgment far quicker than I would trust anybody else's judgment.
They bring to us expertise that enhances our expertise, and we do work together very well with Hill. It's nice to have another pair of eyes with our inspector while we're doing the demolition. It's a good relationship between the two of us. They enhance our services. They don't replace, they're just assisting us. It's a team concept that we've used, and it's work so far in the two areas that we've surveyed for demolition, and working with the District Councilperson, in Strawberry Mansion and 1698 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET now in Frankford where we are doing NTI demolitions. It's worked out. It's a good relationship. It's worked well and it's helped to serve the community and the Department's needs very well.
Well, on the basis of acknowledging that you're good soldiers in an army, I accept your answer. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome, sir. Commissioner, what is the criteria that a property must meet in order for it to be encapsulated?
We're looking at properties that are located on strong blocks where it would make sense to spend money to keep people from focussing on a bad house and being frightened that that kind of condition is going to spread to the rest of the block. So that if we can treat, one, two, three houses on a block to strengthen that block, to overall strengthen the block -- and then the property itself has to be within the range of reasonableness in bringing that property back to some state of acceptability in the community. 1699 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
Can you tell us how many structures have been encapsulated during FY '03 and how many are anticipated for FY '04?
Council President, the FY '04 encapsulations will be done in concert with the District Councilperson, and I'm not sure -- that's a question that NTI would have to answer as to how much is allocated to that. But there is money in the bond proceeds set aside for encapsulation, and I'm not quite sure of the amount, what the amount is.
Maybe we are of a mis-impression, but don't you contract with PHA for the encapsulation?
It's one of the contractors we would use, yes, Philadelphia Housing Authority.
Yes. We're getting that answer for you now. We have paperwork here that we're looking for.
And while you're checking the paperwork, can you tell us how much the 1700 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET average cost is to encapsulate or give us the ballpark figure?
We've done 48 this year so far, Council President. I believe the average cost is roughly $7500.
I know there are a number of Councilmembers wanting to be recognized. I just have a couple more questions, if I may. Commissioner McLaughlin, one of the initiatives included in the Five-Year Plan is to eliminate clerical staff in L&I and hire 13 additional inspectors. This initiative is projected 14 to generate an additional $2 million over the life 15 of the plan. Will you explain the time frame and 16 what means will the 20 clerks be let go? Will that 17 be attrition, through layoff? Are they in the DROP 18 Program? Can you give us some insight about the 19 reduction of 20 clerks? 20 How many clerical personnel do you have?
I'll get you that answer. The answer -- we started, for example, with Verilaw (ph) which is a partnership between us and the courts. And in the process of doing that, we eliminated the need for two clerks. Now, those 1701 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET clerks went to other places in the organization where we would have had to hire two clerks to fill those positions. The automation that Council has helped us get will do the same thing throughout the system. And we anticipate that happening to such an extent that we will be able to do what we've done in the past. Those clerks will disappear as clerks, hopefully pass tests to become inspectors and move right through the organization in that way. So we don't anticipate layoffs. We do anticipate the automation allowing us to reallocate our personnel and need less clerks. I'll give you another example. Currently in a pilot program, nine of our inspectors are using handheld computers. They're inputting the inspectional data into the system. It goes right into the back office process and violations get printed out and the whole thing takes place. We have eliminated clerks in that process. If you could just think about that process. The old way was the inspector, he or she writes it down on a piece of paper, brings it back and hands it to somebody else. Somebody else types in the violation. Well, that person doesn't have to do 1702 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET that anymore. So that's just an example of the way that we see a real efficiency coming as a result of our operation and then turning those positions into inspector positions that will generate more revenue into the General Fund.
Right now we're contemplating, I believe the Five-Year Plan says five additional inspectors. And the answer to your question before about clerks, we have 80 clerical employees in the Department right now. So we would be planning to reduce that number down to about 60.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners and everyone else. Again, I just want to focus something that you mentioned about Code. I learned that there are certain exemptions that exist that don't require 1703 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET the City of Philadelphia in City buildings to meet the Code. And again, you know what I'm going to talk about here. I hear the Fire Department has a board that allows the City buildings to not conform. Perfect example. This building, there's no panic bars on the doors on the ground floor. They are dead bolted. If you don't have a key, you don't get out of this building. Could you send a report to the Chair explaining all such variances that exist throughout the City at City buildings that do not meet Code pertaining to fire, pertaining to sprinklers, pertaining to whatever we would want a private sector business to do? I see there's a little conversation going on about the panic bars. See this key? This is a key to City Hall. I'm a Councilman, I have the key. A lot of other people that work in this building don't have a key. If there's an emergency, you don't get out of this building other than one corner after 6 p.m. at night; that's the northeast corner. If there's an emergency, smoke, fire, you go northwest corner, you need this key. For years now I've been asking about that, and I'm told that there's a variance that doesn't require the City 1704 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET government to do what the rest of the world does. Could you comment on that?
Dominic Verdi, Deputy Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections. Councilman, we have addressed this before. There is issues, when the building is open publically, all doors have to be not locked. The building is open to the public, my understanding, until 6:00 p.m. We have addressed certain issues in areas of the building that were involved with different sectors that work after hours. There is a variance on this building for sprinkler systems and there is a variance involving the doors, being the building is of historical nature and nature of the building itself. As you requested, we'll get you the copies of the variances. And the statement that City buildings are not required to abide by the Fire Code is incorrect. We have gone through this building and we have been in long talks with Public Property. In reference to your sprinkler system -- and maybe Dave can expand on it. The building is being retrofitted as the building is renovated, not to destroy the nature of the building. If this room 1705 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET were to be renovated tomorrow, it would be required to be attached to the sprinkler system. So there's an ongoing variance that was given from the Fire Department to the City in reference to the building. And as far as the doors are being locked, after 6:00 p.m., the building is closed to the public. Therefore, it's not really required to have that type of locking device due to the variance that was received. But again, we'll look into the variance and if there's any problems, we'll contact Public Property immediately.
Commissioner, I'm not talking about the real sophisticated things that you mentioned like sprinkler systems. But even though it's not open to the public, there's staff working in this building, there are many people, communications working in this building. And in the event of an emergency in this building, to find your way for a block in smoke or whatever to try to get to an actual exit, I would hate to see bodies piled up at the bottom of the staircase and only a few feet to go where they --
I'll get copies of the 1706 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET variances. We'll review them and send you a report.
I just want to understand before we go to another issue. I would bet Independence Hall -- you talk about historical nature, I would bet Independence Hall has panic bars on their doors. So I don't buy the fact that we're not doing that because of historical reasons. But you're telling me if an office building in Philadelphia Center City was shuts their operation down at 6:00 p.m. at night to the public that no 12 panic bars would be required on those doors.
For instance, we'll use the First Union Center. The First Union Center is not required to have -- the locking devices on the doors are locked during days of non-operation. There are issues in that building that we're dealing with now. That building, for instance, most of their doors are locked during the day when there's no occupancy of the building. Again, until I take a look at the variance again to make sure what I'm explaining to you is correct, I'm really not sure as to what was given as a variance by either the Board of Building Standards or the Board of Fire Safety.
Commissioner, I can 1707 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET understand the First Union Center. They have dozens of exit doors because they want people to leave the venue as quickly as possible. So requiring them to unlock all of their doors during the day would be silly to make that requirement. But I think I've been around this block enough times knowing that they fought very hard not to require those doors to be open for another reason, because people were sneaking into the events. Somebody would block a panic bar, and people would come in that shouldn't. And people say about chaining doors shut and things like that -- not at the First Union Center. There's an answer to that. Hire security guards to make sure that those doors aren't blocked. But I don't want to go there. Other than the fact that I would hope that L&I enforces the Code equally. If we're going to require property managers to do the things that we need to get done, I want to make sure that City buildings are as safe as any other building in this town, especially this building, City Hall.
We will submit to the Chair a report on this building as far as the variance goes and the doors that have to be left open. 1708 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET I want to assure you that generally we, right across the board -- I mean, it's a matter of procedure in L&I where City buildings are not treated differently. We don't focus on the building. We don't focus who the owner of the building is. We focus on the people, just like you did. We focus on the people that are in the building and can they get out of the building safely; are they safe when they're in building. So just because it's a City building doesn't mean that they're immune from L&I enforcement. It doesn't make any sense for us to issue violations against the City because, you know, what are we going to do, take the City to court? So that's what we have the Department of Public Property for. We meet with them. We meet with Public Property, not just about this building, but all City properties, recreation centers, police stations, fire stations, everything.
Libraries. So it is something that I want to assure you that we are doing what you would hope that we're doing in reference to life safety.
Commissioner, I know 1709 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET L&I does a great job. You're all over the place, you're spread thin, but you do what you need to do. But my concern is that -- I know that when you send one of these violations -- you just mentioned about taking the City to court. I've tried to get some minor repairs done by Public Property, so that's another story in itself. But when you send one of these violations to Public Property, I'd be curious how seriously they take that. If you send a violation about the panic bars on City Hall doors, you did your part. You're the enforcement part. But I believe you're also the enforcement part to make sure that it is carried through to the fact that panic bars -- I think they don't take it as seriously as I would like them to.
I assure you that on life safety issues everything is a taken seriously. The variances that are given out on this building were given by the Fire Department. They're the people that have to respond to the fires. They gave out the variance. Whatever variance that we find exist on this building, it's not given out by us, it's not given out by anybody but the people who are responsible for fire conditions. 1710 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
I'm not finished, but I'm going to yield to Councilman Nutter's point of information.
Thank you, Councilman. My colleague Councilman Rizzo raises a very important issue about security generally in City Hall. I have said on many occasions, in contrast to other City buildings, in a complete pre-911 environment -- so at the moment I don't want to address post-911 security measures. Prior to that date, City Hall was one of the most non-secure, completely accessible, wide open buildings on a day-to-day basis that presents -- I'm not trying to be too dramatic -- but at times a clear and present danger to most of the people in the building, given the fact that virtually anyone can walk in this building at any time, at least up until 6 o'clock, go virtually anywhere they want to go with virtually anyone carrying anything. I have often said that you could virtually bring a bazooka into this building and no one would say a word to you, and might even help you get it in the elevator. People have left this building with boxes filled with 1711 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET equipment and other things, and no one said a word to them. Anyone can come in this building on a regular basis, unlike MSB, one Parkway, Criminal Justice Center, any other major building of the City. I have had staff confronted by people who either shouldn't be in the building or who do not have the best of intentions or have other issues and problems, because they were able to stay in the building overnight. It is one of the reasons why we're in this room in the first place, because water could run for an entire weekend, damage the northeast side of the building, virtually destroy the Council Chambers, the Mayor's Reception Room and a whole host of other floors in between, and no one ever knew that the water was running. So we clearly have many safety issues and security issues in this building. In a post-911 environment, we were told we were going to have security plan laid out. I believe it's not L&I's sole responsibility, but the Department of Public Property. But on the other hand, other than the communications folks who serve many of us way into the late hours of the night and early morning, I 1712 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET don't know if there are a hundred people or 50 people in this building post o'clock. I think I 4 read somewhere that there may be upwards of 14 5 different access points into this building. And it 6 seems to me that if we have a good evacuation plan for the people who work here after 6 o'clock and they know where to go, because even visitors know now that the only way to get out of this building after hours is on the northeast corner, I cannot imagine that we would have police officers or other security personnel at all of the entrance and exit points at 11 o'clock at night waiting for no one to come through those doors. In addition, if you can exit the building, you can enter the building. So even with the emergency bars and stop bars and all that, we can go back to the wonderful days of Watergate or anything that any of us has done as a child, a little piece of tape, a board, a something can be left to prop a door open at 4 o'clock in the afternoon to later be accessed to 10 o'clock at night. Now, I'm in the building sometimes in the evening and I have staff in the building 1713 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET sometimes in the building, and I'm more concerned about their safety and their ability not to be confronted with some of the strangest, most unusual people that might find City Hall, not just as architecture, but the fact that it is a safe, warm place that you can run around all night long and no 8 one know that you are here. We at least know that if someone's going to try to leave, they have to go from one location. Now, I think as we get our security plan for the building, many of the issues that the Councilman raised can certainly be revisited.
But at the moment, now as just a user of the building, forget about my status, my title as a public servant in this building who is here on a regular basis after 6 o'clock in the evening, I actually feel a certain level of additional safety knowing that any of the nuts that might be running around in here -- and sometimes some of us qualify, or at least speaking for myself -- that they at least have to go out one place and that there are officers down there who are there to serve us and to protect us. So the people who have a need to be in the building and certainly at a responsible level, 1714 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET yes, do have keys. If for some reason you need to access the other side of the building, your car is over there, a person, whatever the case may be -- and I'm not suggesting that we give out a whole bunch more keys. I don't know who has keys. I keep mine, I'm responsible with it. But I'd like to strongly urge us to think about any other changes we might make to access or ingress or egress to this building especially in the nighttime hours. I want the people who work here to be safe; there's no 12 question about that. The Councilman and I are on the same page on that particular issue. And if we need to better educate folks about how to get out of this building, I'm all for that. But opening up those 14 access points at the moment and then having to staff them or secure them or make whatever additional capital expenditures we may make without the comprehensive security plan for the building, I think that we need to give some very serious thought to that. In terms of violations, you know, there are probably violations for the room that we're sitting in. And that doesn't mean that we shouldn't -- I mean, the government should not be 1715 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET the first one breaking the law. And there are many safety issues in this particular building. And it undermines our ability to look citizens in the eye and say that we're looking out for thier interest when in many instances we work in government buildings that are not possibly up to our own standards of the Code. I think leading by example is very important. " I mean, it would be like a police officer giving another police officer a ticket. I mean, it's kind of silly at a certain level. But it doesn't mean that the behavior that you're trying to get at shouldn't be changed. I'm concerned about safety as much as the next person, but this nighttime environment around here can be pretty scary. Thank you, Commissioner.
Councilman, we agree with everything you've said. What you've talked about here spans the Police Department, Public Property, CPO and L&I. So I will bring this up with 1716 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET the Managing Director and we will give you some type of report, I'm sure, on -- we will definitely give you a fire safety report from our fire enforcement side.
Give it to the Chair. Certainly, any additional information that the Councilman asked for he should certainly be able to have. I don't think we have a big dispute. I understand the Councilman's individual concern with regard to how you get in and out of building. I just want to put some additional information on the record.
I appreciate that. And the L&I folks, you don't simply put panic bars on a door. The technology is when there's a door ajar or propped open, it sends a signal to a central control station to let a central security operator know there is a door ajar. There are ways, if you have the will and funding to make these improvements to a building, you can do it. You can overcome many of the obstacles that have persisted for years and years and years, but the technology today, there's 1717 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET wireless technology to show a door is not shut properly. We can do this if we want to. I'll appreciate seeing that report. I have a couple other questions about the Licenses and Inspections responsibilities. It's kind of strange that L&I is in the business of cleaning lots. Even though you do it, it's hard for me to explain to someone why you'd be doing that. I can understand boarding up a vacant building. But that leads to me to, since you do that, there are other issues that we're dealing with right now. A plumber digs a hole in the street. And they are supposed to restore that street to a particular standard that is outlined, I assume, by the Streets Department or some standard that they're supposed to make those repairs. What I'm finding is that many of these excavations -- give you an example. If you've ever driven northbound on either 17th or 18th and you get to one of those number streets at Arch, it looks like it was bombed. You need a utility vehicle to negotiate those northbound streets. Where does L&I fit into this situation where plumbers get a license to do a job, I assume, through Licenses and Inspection, but it doesn't seem 1718 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET that you're in the loop when it comes to the restoration. And what I'm experiencing is that many of these craters that we're dealing with today are the result of improper restoration of our City streets. And it sounds like a no-brainer, it sounds like it's the Streets Department that should be responsible for that. " I mean, they don't go out there and make sure that it was compacted properly. We all drive through the City streets and we see obvious excavations that are sinking in. We see obvious excavations, we call them a pothole, but I think the word "pothole" is handled loosely. I think that many of these obstacles that we're negotiating are the result of improper restoration of those construction sites. Whose responsibility is it? Is it L&I to make sure that as part of the permit process that you close the loop and the job is completed to specification? Is it the Streets Department? I'm confident that nobody is monitoring the restoration work that's done when a contractor 1719 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET opens up a City street. So if you clean lots, then maybe L&I can be more involved in the process of making sure, even if it's spot checking, that contractors are restoring our streets appropriately. Or if the Streets Department should be doing that, if they are doing that -- they're going to be here later today so I'm going to hit them with the same question. The teeny-weeny bit of research I've done on this issue is that basically it's the contractor's word that it's been done properly. And one of the bigger problems -- and I'm not going to go any longer with this -- is the fact that they in some cases don't do anything. A plumber digs up a hole. They're supposed to, according to L&I, I believe, restore the ditch even with temporary material. But you all at that table know that you've hit a hole in the street that all it has is the dirt and the broken up material thrown back it. It rains like it did a week ago, that material dissolves from the street and you have a 6 or 8-inch depression in the roadway. And, believe me, with today's vehicles, you hit that pot hole, you just spent a thousand dollars maybe on an alloy wheel, a suspension part.
And it is a shame to put our 1720 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET constituents in a situation we're setting them up for these incidents to occur. So I don't know the role of L&I and if you could explain what your role is. Let's use the example. A plumber wants to come in, opens up the street. What does L&I do? Could you explain that?
We actually have no 10 responsibility, as you've pointed out, to do anything. This is totally a Streets Department issue. And you're right that there are Code requirements, but the permit is a Streets Department permit and I know from talking to Commissioner Tolson that this is a priority for her. This is something that she has, since she's taken over, moved from wherever it was on the pile to closer to the top. I remember her speaking to the Mayor about this in one of our recent meetings. So I think things are going to be different in the way that that's handled.
So L&I has no 23 responsibility at all even for -- the permit is strictly a -- is there any time L&I is involved in a permit that involves opening the street? 1721 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
Good morning, Council President Verna and Councilpeople. My name is David Perry, I'm the Deputy Commissioner for Licenses and Inspections. In terms of the plumbing permit process, the Department licenses the plumber. We also issue individual permits if a plumber needs to replace a sewer lateral or a water supply to a building or a house. As part of our process, we ensure that the plumber obtains a permit from the Streets Department. It's known as a street opening permit. They pay a fee, they obtain a permit, they notify the Streets Department. The actual ditch restoration becomes the responsibility of the contractor under the guidance and inspection of the Streets Department. So our role in this is to make sure that they get that permit from the Streets Department so that there's notification that there's a condition that needs to be restored.
So I understand, and I'm not going to take another minute on this, you give them a blanket plumbing license which allows them to go to any location in the City and open up the street? 1722 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
No, we license the plumber to be a tradesperson that's shown qualifications that they're capable of performing plumbing work in the City of Philadelphia. At each individual location, there is a separate permit issued. So if you were to replace your sewer lateral at your house, there would be an individual permit issued to that licensed plumber contractor. There would also be a second permit that involves opening up the street, which is a Streets Department permit.
Well, that's good. I better understand that now. So you license the plumber. The plumber then is handed off to Streets Department to get permits for any opening that they -- so anytime we see a plumber digging the street, there should be a permit associated with that unless it's an emergency? There must be something in there to deal with emergencies.
Well, there would be actually two permits, there would be a plumbing permit you should look for and also a street opening permit. And there are contingencies for emergencies. They can obtain prepaid permits that they activate when the job starts to cover 1723 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET situations in which they can't come in and physically pick up a permit ahead of time.
You have enough to do so I'm not going to ask you if you believe that the process works. I'm not even going to put you in that position. I'll wait for the Commissioner to come from the Streets Department to see exactly how that process is brought to closure, because I can tell you after this particular thaw and freeze that most of those locations that I have seen -- and we call them potholes. You can hit a pothole and live. But a vehicle can rarely survive when an excavation, the dirt was just thrown back in and rocks are thrown back in. But I appreciate that and I appreciate the information that President Verna will be receiving in reference to the safety issues that may exist here in City Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Commissioner, whatever responses you send to us, please make certain that we have 20 copies.
Thank you. 1724 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET At this time the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I see on page -- there's no page. In the section where you talk about special inspection programs, the code and violation notice tickets, once you issue a code violation -- and I notice that you say that 85 percent of the tickets are paid -- what follow-up do you see that the violation has been corrected?
We also check to make sure the violation has been corrected on top of the fee being paid for the ticket. The CVN notices have worked to a point where for issues such as overgrown weeds, dog feces in a yard, general clean-up orders, those are easily accessible by our inspectors that also look at a re-inspection or they revisit the property, including making sure that the ticket is being paid.
What about those that are not so easily visible and the return to re-inspect?
Upon re-inspection, if we 1725 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET cannot enter the property, they'll go back within five days, hopefully, and be able to identify any re-inspection necessary. If not, we've been automatically sending the cases to court and trying to get the owner in front of a Municipal Court.
And what happens after that? When they pay the fine, then you go back to see if it's corrected?
Once it's in the hands of the Court, they pay a fine and we also request a re-inspection date from the owner.
You know we had the issue with this company Mutual Industries over at 7th and Grange. They were doing some expansion without the proper permits. It took us almost a year to get you all to do a cease. We couldn't get you to enforce the Code. What was the problem with that?
We did, in fact, cease operations on a certain piece of property that was being used on the side. The specifics of the issue, I'm not -- I couldn't answer that question now until I look into the case. But my understanding is the inspectors did respond. I responded myself 1726 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET personally. There was a section of the property that was legal and was not able to be ceased at the time. We did do the cease operations and we've been following up with your office in reference to neighbors' complaints about drainage and other issues. As a mater of fact, I just asked my staff to look into this the other day to make sure there still wasn't any problems with the zoning on the property that was not adjoining the original piece of the property. The problem that we had at that location, there were three or four different addresses that kept on coming up that we were not able to track until we had someone from Streets Department actually track the property for us.
Unfortunately, Councilwoman, I can't answer why it wasn't enforced at the time it was enforced.
Were you aware that the City was the -- the Commerce Department had worked with that company to start their business there? Do you think that may have had something to 1727 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET do with it?
The complaints that we get from my constituents, Commissioner, is that when we ask for an inspection and we ask for a cease, the time it takes is just too long, and we've talk about this before, in trying to get everything enforced. I mean, that is a major complaint that we get throughout the 9th Councilmatic District. I'm sure it's shared by our district councilpeople in terms of code enforcement.
Regarding the cease operations -- well, first of all, even the initial violation, I don't know how people determine whether they got action or not. I have inspectors that get off buses dressed in plain clothes and go look at a situation, issue violations and --
I guess the constituents don't see any change. They don't know whether it's inspected. They don't see any change in the situation. So to evaluate the results is what time it takes to see a change in the activity?
Yes. The law requires 1728 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET 30 days of notice for most of those property maintenance or neighborhood-type complaints. So people have 30 days to comply. Then there's a re-inspection. That takes place, hopefully, within a reasonable time after that 30 days, depending on the load, depending on the complaint load. And then if it's not re-inspected, if there's nothing else intervening there, that case would be scheduled for court. And then we get into another invisible process, something that we are addressing. Very soon -- I talked about the dynamic portal in my testimony where people will be able to get on-line either at home or in a library whereever they can access a computer and actually with the complaint number that people are now given when they call in and complain, they will be able to see the process. They will be able to see on a certain date an inspection was made. They'll be able to see that there were multiple complaints on that one property. They'll be able to see that it went to court. So people will be able to get a sense. We're not arriving at the location with sirens and lights going on, and that contributes to people not being 1729 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET able to know that they've been serviced and that this is not something that happens overnight. Regarding the cease operations, we handle cease operations -- our authority to cease businesses or other nuisance properties, we handle that very seriously. We don't want to go right out. We want to make sure that people aren't complying and don't intend to comply. And to do that, sometimes it takes time unless it's a life safety type issue and then we don't -- time is not issue; the life safety is more the issue. I expect that we are going to get much better. With the automation that Council has helped us get, in leaps and bounds we're going to get better at doing our jobs. The inspector arriving at a location is going to be able to see all of the violations that exist on a property. Right now, the inspector is going out there, he's got a piece of paper that says go to that address and look for dog feces in the yard. Let me talk a little bit about that. Part of the reason that we started issuing the tickets is that our violations are notices. There's a yard full of dog feces and you call L&I and we 1730 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET come out there and we tell the people in a violation that they're not supposed to do that. Well, we figure most people know that that's a nuisance and that they shouldn't be doing it. So that's why we started issuing tickets. We started to make it an immediate -- if you've got a locked fire door, you know you're not supposed to have a locked fire door. You get a ticket and a violation. So the violation means that we'll come back and re-inspect and make sure that you don't have that door locked or make sure that yard is clean in the future. That's the reason for issuing the violation. But the ticket addresses -- and that has changed the whole issue of compliance. The one issue that constituents are complaining to you about is that the situation isn't changing. So the tickets help in that regard. Arming our inspectors with more information at the scene is going to help in that process. The people are not going to be able to say, "Oh, well I did this or I did that. I have this license or that license." It's right in front of the inspector. So that's what's going to be happening in the near future.
Well, I will tell 1731 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET you I have some very angry constituents who are upset about what has happened with that Mutual Industries. Let me go into another issue. And I don't want to get into a lot of detail of what happened in the past, I just want to talk about what will be a process to address the issue in the future at 13th and Lindley. It's an apartment building where we had some problems getting the families out because the owner wanted to evict them. But at the same time -- the owner, he had code violations. At the same time he was evicting the current residents, he was renting to new residents. I understand the building is vacant. I have to go back and check. But what will be the role, what is the procedure for L&I on this building and any other vacant building prior to the owner renting the apartments again? My opinion is that they should not be allowed to rent the apartment until they correct the code violations and do the rehabbing that the place is habitable. What could you do? What is your department doing about that?
You're right, that he can't reoccupy that. 1732 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
But what is the procedure? What stops him from going back to your department, getting the occupancy -- don't they have to have a license to occupy that building?
What's to stop him from getting a rental license? Will there be any indication in the office that that building has code violations on it?
What happens is -- if you're referring to whether he can reoccupy or not, in the case of that property, the building was ceased, from my understanding. And the cease operation stays on that property until all Code requirements are met. He was ordered to get permits and plans to renovate that property. He cannot reoccupy. If the building is being reoccupied, we'll either get notified from the police or our inspectors will do a periodic inspection of a cease operations. But until that building comes back into full compliance of the Code, he's not allowed to reoccupy the property. 1733 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
So somewhere in your office when he goes to apply for a permit, you have a red flag on that property?
The inspector should be looking for violations. The inspector should be looking for violations on the property before renovations.
That gets -- I hate to sound like a broken record. But right now the red flag is one of them stick-ums on a computer screen. We have no way in our current system to flag a record. You're absolutely right. I talked to Deputy Commissioner Perry about not letting this guy -- avoid clearing the violations before he gets a permit. But in the new system that we will be putting into place, there is the ability to flag for a myriad of different reasons to call our attention to a certain property. And if you think about being able to do that for a lot of the nuisance stuff, it's not just on the building side, a lot of the nuisance stuff that we will be able to do a better job because we'll be able to light up an address.
Is this computer program, is this system in place now? 1734 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
You have given us the methodology to put that into the '04 budget. So we have started on the complaint side. Very soon, within 60 days people will be able to go on-line and look at their individual complaint.
That's part of that system. And we will be able to purchase now more modules, licensing and permitting modules, inspection models, case management modules that we will be able to add to this project. I mean, it will allow us to do a phenomenally better job at addressing complaints.
20th Century is right. COUNCILWOMAN TASCO; 20th Century, right.
Yes. We have a computer system now that I am fond of saying that we would be able to do a better job if we used index cards. That's how bad it is. 1735 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET
Well, it sounds encouraging. Because I will tell you, next to trees, L&I -- and I think maybe L&I more than the tree. Trees may come second in terms of the complaints we get from the people who live in my district in terms of enforcement. Repeat calls about the same problem over and over again. And it just gets to be very frustrating. And I must say your staff over there has been very cooperative. Marian Johnson spends a lot of time in L&I, and I want to say that on record that they have been very cooperative. And I know that we don't -- I'd like to see more inspectors in your place because I think that your department is very crucial the quality of life issues in this City. And if we are able to have the manpower, staffing prior, to do the job that's necessary to do the enforcement, it would help us with a lot of blight that we're now addressing through this bond issue. So I've always believed it's a very important department. I'm going to ask you a very sticky question. You know, we had the Logan sinking home area. And we have just about 99 percent relocated 1736 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET the families. The ones that are existing has another different problem. It doesn't have anything to do anything with you. But we do have of triangle, the little strip there between and it's 6 Councilwoman Miller's district now. But if you go 7 on 12th Street and look at that block, we have to do 8 something about those families. 9 I am told that you all will not go in 10 and inspect the houses. I met a lady at a meeting. 11 She said, "I'm continually putting money into my property, but I'm having problems." And as I understand it in the 1986 Relocation Act, that the triangle was extended so that those people would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis regarding their homes. And then once you go in and you inspect the house, if there's some structural problems, the Logan Assistance Cooperation can settle with those people. But we can't get an inspection. So I tell that. You don't have to answer it now. But I want it is on the record. We are going to have to do something about it. Some of those houses on 12th Street, you can't allow those families to live in that block with all that blight and those dilapidated houses coming down 1737 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET around them. And people should not be allowed to spend money in properties that we know are not going to be any good, that they need to be demolished. So I told the lady not to put anymore money in the property. Because it's just like all those families who lived in the Logan area before. They thought the were broken, they would fix a wall, they would do a kitchen, but they were sinking. So we do have some problems and they are on -- it's not a new issue. They are part of the resolution of the Logan safety home area. So it's not that we have to find new money for them. It's that they're in the process and we need to work Logan Assistance Cooperation to address those families in that triangle. All right?
Commissioner, you and he City of Philadelphia were recently very much embarrassed by the situation with respect to the plumbing inspectors. Could you tell us more about that? Have they been replaced? Because the 1738 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET newspaper gave the impression that the entire unit of plumbing inspectors were charged and convicted in court.
When you say embarrassed, I don't think we were embarrassed --
Well, I think everybody in Philadelphia was embarrass to find that City employees had been violating the law.
Well, that was an initiative that L&I started, L&I with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but primarily L&I created a situation that was successful in ending something that had been going on for a long time. So that's a good thing. That's good thing for the City and it's good thing for the people of the City.
It's a good in the result in cleaning house, but it's an embarrassment to find that the City employees take advantage of their position. And I wanted to commend you for whatever initiatives you took and the Department took to clean up that situation. But I raise it because I find that often departments fail to manage their department. You know, I'm very strong advocate of unionization, but 1739 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET the unions don't have the responsibility of management. That's not their function. And the ones that have to manage are the managers. And if the unions ever feel or a worker feels he's not being treated properly in the management, he has a grievance procedure to go through. But that should never be an excuse for management to fail to manage. That's their responsibility. And unions are not prepared to and should not be expected to take over the function of management. So that I wanted to say that I think the example of the initiative taken by L&I in that case, and I believe it probably even predated your Administration as L&I inspector because for years -- I'm a native Philadelphian, and always these's been whispers out in the community about how inspectors work. It's a terrible thing to have them, even if they thought they were depending on that had a right to do it as part of their livelihood that they accepted lower pay because they were going to make money on the side is no excuse to permit such conditions to exist. So we commend you on it. Have you selected a new unit? Are the plumber inspectors as a unit able to function today?
One of the problems 1740 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET with those plumbing inspectors is that they had no 3 career path. They might have thought that they were justified, incorrectly thought that they were justified in doing what they did because they couldn't go anywhere in L&I. We changed that. We plumber inspectors are now -- registered master plumbers can compete for the construction trades positions within L&I, and that has a career path right up into the highest levels of L&I.
Nine, we have nine inspectors. Nine registered master plumbers who are assigned to various functions throughout the City. They are all in that class. Like several of them are attending Drexel University for the training we're doing at Drexel. The plan is more all encompassing then just saying to a bunch of people, "Look what happened. Make sure you don't do the same thing." It's looking at what might have been the cause and changing that and creating a whole new environment for the registered master plumber to work in within L&I.
I'm wondering also, 1741 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET has the experience L&I in this case has it been utilized by other departments in the City because L&I is not the other department that has inspectors about whom there was a lot of whispering ongoing for many years. The Water Department has inspectors. The Streets Department has inspectors. What does the City do in those cases generally? You have apparently approached it very positively and affirmatively in developing a career path to attempt to reduce the temptation that otherwise might occur. Has the City learned any lessons or is it just L&I has dealt with the problem before it?
I know this issue, the investigation and what happened after the investigation span two managing directors, but both Joe Martz and Estelle Richman spoke at their respective meetings with all of the Commissioners about everybody being aware of what happened to us and being aware that they should be on the lookout for it, and trying to preempt the cause. If in fact we did identify an issue that created an attitude, a wrong attitude in people's heads that they couldn't go anywhere, for people to watch out for that type of situation in their organizations. Those 1742 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET dead-end-type jobs where people's thoughts might start to wonder in other areas instead of what's in the future for them.
Well, I think the City has to be constantly vigilant in that area because whoever has power also has the ability to use that power wrongly. We like to pride ourselves and I like to speak glowingly of the fine work I think Philadelphians who work for the City do. But that means that people have to be very vigilant to make sure that people don't succumb to temptations or any kind; or if they're wrongdoers that get into the system somehow that they're eliminated as quickly as possible. I think it's so important for us in Philadelphia to have confidence in our work force. And I do have it. I thought that was very well done. If the condition like that of corruption existed has to be eliminated at once to restore confidence. That's why when you spoke about serving tickets at same time you serve violation notices, the question comes to mind, is the City doing it because they get better enforcement or were you acting in response to a question of isn't there any 1743 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET way in which the department can generate more money?
I think it's important for there to be a distinct separation because if you're giving tickets out to raise more money, I think you're doing the wrong thing. But if you're giving tickets out to get conformity, then you're obviously doing you job and doing it very effectively. Do you have a comment? What brought the decision to switch to the ticket plus violation notice?
Because every single Councilperson has lamented that, as Councilwoman Tasco did, that nothing happens. And we were trying to figure a way -- what happened with this is we first started using tickets for our tobacco enforcement, in other words, giving tickets to people who we caught selling to under-aged kids. And that was extremely successful process that we entered into.
The point of view about bring about deterrence or income?
The astronomical 1744 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET reduction in kids smoking, I forget what the statistic is, but it's mind blowing; 58 percent to 4 percent. So it was phenomenal, the program was 5 phenomenal. So we thought, well, if the tickets 6 helped us do that, then why not for the person -- I 7 mean, it's ludicrous to say that your dog is going 8 outside and messing up the yard that's affecting everybody else and you not think it's an a problem. So that's like saying that "I didn't know the light was red." So we're figuring, give somebody an immediate penalty and they'll know that they can get one of those single day that the violation exists. And at the time, if they withstand that, because they might not pay the tickets either. So at the same, we are tracking them to court where we can get a judge involved.
I think the department is to commended for those. Now, let me raise one issue where I think Department is not to be commended, and that is my favorite issue of billboards. Yesterday we had wonderful testimony from a young woman in charge of a department that brings about the painting of murals to beautify the neighborhoods. And the 1745 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET erection of billboards, in my judgement, does just the reverse. It makes the City look ugly rather than beautiful. It takes away many of the beauties of living in the City. And I'm drawing reference to the fact that I think the City is still in violation of a Supreme Court order even directing that certain billboards -- found that certain billboards were built he illegally and the Supreme Court so found and the City has thus far refused on different kinds of grounds at various time to take any action. Is anything happening on that score? And what is L&I doing about what I believe the thousands of illegal billboards that exist throughout the City, illegal in the sense too sometimes with respect to content, but more often with respect to where they're placed with respect to the lack of payment of fees and so forth. When are we going to get some action on billboards that involve the inclusion of the neighborhoods and the enforcement so that people standing on the street can act as unpaid inspectors for the Department, for the City, and bring to your attention to the existence of these billboards.
Councilman, first of all, let me tell you that we are not satisfied with 1746 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET the current condition of the billboards. And I for one have been trying to get my arms around this since I was a Deputy Commissioner in L&I. It is a big problem. As you know, you can have legal billboards in the City. We do hold people's feet to the fire to go through the zoning process to involve the community and when people talk about the courts, the way that the billboard issue gets into court in the first place is L&I. The way that the mechanism that puts the case before the zoning board, when we say, "No, you can't put a sign there" or, "No, you can't legalize that sign that we found was illegal," it goes before the zoning board. If the zoning board approves it, it becomes a legal sign. If someone objects to that ruling, that puts it into court. That never would have happened if L&I hadn't started the process of creating a situation that gets it into court. So in fact, we are doing our jobs right across the board on these -- I'd say for the last two or three years that we've drawn the line and made sure that any sign that tries to be legal or that we catch in the process of installing a sign has to go through the process. What we're trying to get our hands on is the myriad of the 1747 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET signs that are out there. There's the issue of taking signs down. I priced taking signs down. It's a very, very expensive process, a couple hundred thousand dollars for each sign to demolish the sign. Now, I don't have any budget for taking signs down. So what we've done, is we've taken -- we talked to the law Department about this. The people that are in the business of erecting those signs have the equipment and they should be made by the courts to take those signs down if they're illegal. The refusal of L&I is to take demolition money, emergency demolition money, take it away from demolition, which I don't even know if I can do, and take down a sign that's not dangerous. So this is the issue of ordering the --
But these companies that have put them on are operating companies with resources. They make huge profits, and it certainly seems to me that the law would provide that the City would have financial recourse against these companies.
I would say that the judges that we have dealt with recently -- I mean, 1748 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET judges are started to get, in my opinion, they're starting to get it with the signs. We have had some heavy fines assigned to these people, to several of these sign companies.
Well, I'm talking about the case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Then I heard at some point it was talk about an amendment being offered to the billboard laws. There's been no amendment offered that I know of, and it's been a long, long time. And the fact that some Councilmember wants to offer an amendment, whoever that Councilmember might be, myself or anybody else, does not change a law that's in effect and has been in effect since 1983 and been un-enforced since 1983. And at a time when we talk about budget crisis, the opportunity of getting the neighborhood people to work in cooperation without getting paid for it but doing it as good citizens to bring the attention to L&I, I think we're losing a great opportunity of developing a wonderful partnership between the people and the communities and L&I in the City of Philadelphia. But certainly, for crass commercial reasons, there's no reason to uglify the City and have the people and City 1749 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET subjected to illegal billboards. When can we expect some progress along these lines? I'm heartened by your words because I haven't heard that attitude expressing before, and I'm delighted that you're expressing it, but we would like to see some action on it. It's just very important that the City of Philadelphia and every area show cooperation with its citizens, invite them to participate and help make these cities quality of life an improving situation rather than one in which people are being subjected to conditions that they ought not to be subjected to.
One thing I'd like to make clear is that I have a high ranking L&I official assigned to do nothing else but work on these sign issues. So we do recognize it as an important community issue. I work very closely with Mary Tracy at SCRUB. Mary Tracy and I only disagree on one point. Mary wants the signs to disappear. I want the signs to be legal. She cringes when I talk about legalizing signs. But the Code does allow for legal signs.
But why should we 1750 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET legalize signs that were put up illegally? Why would you want to make them legal? It seems to me that your job is to enforce it. Why would you want to go into a home that has all kinds of plumbing violations and legalize those violations? You wouldn't do that.
We agree. That's why we're taking them to court. That's why these cases have been in front of the courts. And if you know of any sign now that isn't in our process with us taking action against the sign, I want to know about it.
Well, I know the one about the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court acted and said the signs were illegal. Eight sign faces around FDR Park, south of I-95.
I'll say again. Until I'm told otherwise, I'm not going to take -- and let me qualify it. I don't even know if I can demolition money. I have zero budget.
I didn't ask you to take demolition money. I asked to take action to cause the sign to come down. Have you sent the companies notice that 1751 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET they are to take it down tell them they're going to be subjected to heavy fines, including the cost of demolition?
I don't -- see there's where you're going into an area where I don't have the money to make that kind of a threat. We have notified them to take those signs down. We don't have a court order. That court order shown you now does not tell them to take those signs down.
I think it's implicit when the Court says illegal. I think the Court is directing the government to take the action to take them down. And I think people responsible for those signs can be held in contempt of court and can be fined in advance of the demolition the cost of the demolition I think some people not being creative enough legally not take action. I don't know what it is. I don't whether it's campaign contributions or whether it's just disregard of the interest of the citizens of Philadelphia or they don't care about this issue. I don't know what it is. But there really is no reason for the people of Philadelphia to be subjected to the visibility of 1752 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET these signs at a time when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the legal process is used and we're making a joke out of the legal process. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court decided that the signs were there illegally. Is the City of Philadelphia so weak that we can't do anything? I'm not looking for ways to spend money. I'm looking for ways to do the opposite. But the first thing we've got to do is to protect the quality of life of the people.
Can we give further thought about that. President Verna, the signs are in your district and you were a party to the lawsuit, as I was.
Councilman Cohen, I think you've made your point very clear. I think the Commissioner has answered the best that he could. And we do have a number of Councilmembers that have not been recognized yet .
Would you mind, 1753 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET Councilman?
Madam President, would you tell what the Commissioner answered and I'll be happy --
Councilman Cohen, would you mind concluding this portion of the first go-around so that the other Councilmembers can be recognized. Thank you.
Yes. But let me note the time I've occupied is far less than other Councilmembers have each had this morning. But I'm content because that was my last question. I just want to encourage the Commissioner to do in the billboard cases what he's can done so effectively in the plumbing inspectors' cases.
You're welcome, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you. I'm going to go back. I've been going over contracts that have been let out and given. And I was looking at the year 2002 and this year, but there are many 1754 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET companies here who do asbestos testing. You have like five -- let me go down each one of them. AET Environmental Pre-Demo Asbestos Survey, Asbestos Management Consulting Pre-Demo Asbestos Surveys, Freedom Abstract, Incorporated; Environmental Services, G&C Pre-Demo Asbestos Survey, Synertech Incorporated Pre-Demo Asbestos Survey; USA Environmental Management Pre-Demo Asbestos Survey; West Chester Environmental Asbestos Survey Pre-Demo; USA Environmental again. Why do we have so many companies doing the same thing in the same year? Why not have one company, if we don't have the skills in-house? And that's a lot of money. I didn't even state the figures that we're talking about.
Councilman, Licenses and Inspections avails themselves of four companies to --
Well, we only use four, Councilman, so I don't know if that's all L&I's people using these companies.
This is professional 1755 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET contracts Year 2002, L&I, Licenses and Inspections.
To my knowledge, we only use four, and two of them are MBEC certified companies. As an example, for this year, we'll have roughly a million dollars worth of work for MBEC companies for asbestos surveys and we will give half of that to MBEC. My understand is USA Environmental, G&C; AET, Advanced Environmental Tech; and Synertech are the companies that we use and the only companies we use.
Those companies are not listed in your budget period here. Those companies are not listed in this year's budget. And if you have a million dollars listed for those four companies, I would like to see that listed in the budget.
Councilman, we're asking for an increase in our budget to do surveys for asbestos prior to demolition. Right now we use four companies and two are MBEC certified.
Well, we're learning that having MBEC certification means not a heck of a lot. It's just not proving to be what it should have been. But those companies are not listed in 1756 3/5/03 - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET your budget booklet for this year.
I'm looking at this year's contract, and I don't see any those companies that you just mentioned. I see Drexel Hill International, you some miscellaneous, the Perimeter Group, Diversified, to be determined, various. But I don't see any of the companies that you mentioned. In fact, I don't see asbestos contract listed.
Councilman, with the asbestos removal, we have four companies that we use.