COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LICENCES AND INSPECTION - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 16, 1999 9:55 a.m. - - - BILLS: 980711, 990158, 990182, 990223 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chairman COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL NO. 980711 JOHN P. CAMPBELL, Dept. of Licences and Inspections ............................. DOMINIC CERMELE, Office of Administrative Review .................... BILL NO. 990158 RICHARD FELDGUS, Dept. Of Licenses and Inspections .............................. BILL NO. 990182 JOHN CAMPBELL, Dept. of Licences and Inspections............................... 22 PHYLLIS WATTS, Resident, East Oak Lane .......... 23 - - - 3 Bill No. 980711
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Council Committee on License and Inspection is now in session. We have a quorum present. Council President Anna Verna, Councilman Michael Nutter, Councilman Frank Rizzo. First, I want to apologize to all in attendance, both witnesses and guests, for this late start. It is predominately my fault. I was at an event that I could not get away from. I seek your indulgence and apologize for your waiting. The first bill today is Bill No. 980711, which is an Ordinance amending Title 1 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "General Provisions," by providing a general procedure for the issuance of "notices of violation" and the payment of a specified amount in response to a notice of violation, in lieu of a code enforcement complaint being issued and fines being imposed in the full amount provided by particular sections of the Code or regulations adopted under any provision of the Code; all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record and explain what this means because I have no idea from reading the title what this attempts to do. 4 Bill No. 980711
Good morning, Councilman. I'm John P. Campbell, legislative regulatory affairs manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And I had prepared testimony, but I guess like my old algebra homework, the dog ate it, so I wasn't able to provide it today. What this bill will do, I guess sometime back in the 1950s early 1960s, the City of Philadelphia started issuing sanitation violations primarily police officers would go out if your sidewalk wasn't swept, if there was trash not bundled properly, or if you didn't remove the snow from the sidewalk you would get a ticket for one of -- they refer to them as sanitation violations. In the early 1980s, the city starting with animal nuisance laws, expanded the use of the sanitation tickets. Because they were doing more than sanitation items, they changed them to Code violation notices. So that you would handle the normal sanitation items, but you would also deal with the animal nuisance violations, unleashed dogs, whatever dogs do on the sidewalk, et cetera. In the early 1990s, with the beginning, really, I guess 1992, as we started to make other 5 Bill No. 980711 Code changes in the regulation of business, individual conduct, health code, et cetera, we started to write in each Code section the provision that in lieu of -- basically what you write in the title, in lieu of a court appearance of code enforcement complaint and appearance in municipal court, we would deal what is basically a negotiated plea. We would hand you the ticket because we caught you for that unique or discrete violation. The scattering of handbills on the sidewalk or selling cigarettes to minors, and in working with about the Bureau of Administration adjudications, we decided -- and this is really a great way to go -- to go to the first chapter of the General Code where all the administrative provisions are and say, hey, let's do for the whole General Code so that what this bill in fact does will give us permission to write violations, to write those CVNs, Code Violation Notices, tickets for those one-time-only minor type violations.
"Us" being anybody who is permitted to issue these tickets which would be always police, Licenses and Inspections, Health 6 Bill No. 980711 Department, Streets Department people.
Are there specific violations that you're not permitted to write tickets for now?
Are there violations of these nuisance ordinances that you're not permitted to write tickets for now.
There are over a number, for example, vendors, the vendor who opens the stop cock on his food truck and lets the greasy water fall, what we do now is we give them a violation notice. They have to go to municipal court. Here, we can cite them, give the ticket right there. It's a negotiated -- if they agree the to pain the money, that takes care of the violation. What we're trying to do with this it is modify behavior, conduct.
So you're Code enforcement issues into the realm of administrative adjudication issues?
That's correct. This will be particularly good for us in areas like we have before you start construction activity with 7 Bill No. 980711 building permit, you're required to call us to have a pre-inspection. Contractors don't call. We write the violation. By the time it gets to court months later, it's a laborious process. The judge looks at it and it's so minor that nothing ever happens. Here, you can cite them up front. It also deals with those quality of life issues that we all suffer under. There are, when you look through the various sections, repairing cars on sidewalks. This is like a immediate enforcement. And as I had said, to modify behavior to get people to comply with the Code. Ultimately, we want people to comply with the Code.
Judge Cermele, could you please give your testimony, and then we'll open questions. JUDGE CERMELE: Good morning, Councilman Kenney, Members of the Council I am Dominic Cermele, Deputy Finance Director and Executive Director of the Office of Administrative Review. Unlike John Campbell, I'm not going to retire in two days so I actually prepared testimony and it is before. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on Bill 980711 which would add the Title of the Bill No. 980711 Philadelphia Code a provision for the issuance of Code Violation Notices in lieu of Code enforcement Complaints. As you know the, units that currently handle the processing, the collection, adjudication and prosecution of unpaid Code Violation Notices are under my jurisdiction. CVNs are simply tickets. They allow the violator the option of paying or requesting an administration hearing at the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication to resolve the violation. We use CVNs now for a variety of Code Enforcements, primarily those violations that are discrete in nature which do not lend themselves as readily to prosecution by Code Enforcement Complaint. We typically they are written for sanitation code, for false burglary alarm violations, tobacco sales, and storage legislation and other prohibited public conduct. Our closure rate for CVNs varies by the type of in fraction, but they generally range in the 65 percent closure rate. CVNs for tobacco infractions have a closure rate in excess of 75 percent, and based on studies by TEACH, the Tobacco-free Education and Action Coalition for Health, the City's partner in this enforcement Bill No. 980711 effort, the issuance of CVNs for tobacco sales to minors has been very successful in deterring vendors from further behavior of that type. There are a number of other advantages to the use of CVNs for the enforcement of quality of life type violations. In many instances a ticket can be issued on the spot to the violator giving him or her immediate notice of the prohibited condition or behavior. Even when these CVNs are mailed, they can readily executed in a moment by a competent enforcement officer. And that prompt notice improves our ability to the get the violation corrected, the behavior changed, and the corresponding fine collected. If the responsible party has an explanation to offer which he or she believes will exonerate them from the fine, they simply check the hearing request box and return the ticket to obtain a hearing date. As you know, we're open from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 on Saturdays. The use of CVNs can aid in reducing the amount of resources necessary for enforcement and/or allow enforcement resources to be spread further. SEPTA police recently began to write CVNs for the Bill No. 980711 enforcement of the smoking prohibition on their trains and stations and other facilities, thereby relieving their officers of the need to leave their patrol duty to cite someone for this in fraction. Philadelphia Police use CVNs on parade routes and at the stadium complex or other places of assembly accommodating 2,000 or more for disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, and failure to disperse.
Excuse me. That's done now, right? JUDGE CERMELE: That's correct, that part's done now, things that we do now. CVNs replace criminal citations on these occasions depending on the nature of the nuisance and it removes if they're minor offenses the criminal stigma and the criminal repercussions which are very unlikely to be invoked in any case. CVNs can be issued by non-police enforcement agents, agents of the Streets Department issue CVNs, as do agents of the Health Department, L & I, and other departments. The Health Department employ CVNs for animal-related violations. L & I uses it for handbill distribution law. Fairmount Park rangers use CVNs to maintain compliance with park rules and regulations. 11 Bill No. 980711 No enforcement device is a panacea. CVNs not more likely to deter the most uncivilized among us, but we recommend that the infractions which are selected for CVN enforcement be chosen carefully and that the criteria and procedure for CVNs be clearly determined by the enforcing agency in advance. I and my staff pledge to work closely with those agencies interested in using this tool, and I would urge the Council to enact this legislation and to support its implementation.
Thank you. Let me question about what happens when the person ignores the violation? For example, you have an individual at Veterans Stadium, creates disturbance, foul language, public drunkenness, and exited from the building and given a violation for that misbehavior for disorderly conduct or public drunkenness. And while he's out in the parking lot and on the way home, he rips up the ticket and throws it away. What happens ultimately to that person? JUDGE CERMELE: Initially, we send that person a letter telling him that he an owes us $25. When he fails --
Well, actually, it would 12 Bill No. 980711 be $300 in this case. JUDGE CERMELE: Okay. We then add the appropriate penalty to it depending on the violation. And if he chooses to ignore or notices, we via the computer file with the Municipal Court a Code Enforcement Complaint and we take the responsibility of prosecuting those CECs in Municipal Court.
Give me an example. Walk me through his misbehavior, the issuance of a ticket, his ignoring it. Is there an ultimate penalty in the end? Certainly not jail time, but is there some inconvenience to that individual's credit rating, is there some potential scofflaw status? JUDGE CERMELE: When we bring -- as you know most of the individuals who get that type of violation do not live in the City of Philadelphia. So we serve those people by First Class Mail and by Registered Mail. We then notify them of their responsibility to attend a hearing at our offices, and failing in that, we notify them by Code Enforcement Complaint summoning them to Municipal Court. When they fail to show up at Municipal Court, we move for and receive a default judgment 13 Bill No. 980711 against the individual, file that judgment of record, and notify the National Credit Bureau of the status of that individual. It's much harsher than our notification of parking violations to the Credit Bureau because these actually result in finality by being actual judgments which are a severe detriment to a person's credit rating.
What is the length of time between the issuance of the ticket and CVN and the ultimate status as default judgement? Just average. JUDGE CERMELE: About six months.
On the smaller types of infractions, the vendor who lets his water go or the person that lets their dog go anywhere, what ultimately happens? Is that a $25 fine for that kind of activity? JUDGE CERMELE: For the --
For the vendor situation, for the dog. JUDGE CERMELE: Yes, most of these violations start at 25. It's only when Council specifically request in some areas that there's a particular need that there's a higher fine. 14 Bill No. 980711
What happens to the person on the lower end fine who ignores the ticket? JUDGE CERMELE: Typically, they pay.
The ones who don't pay. JUDGE CERMELE: They end up with a $300 judgment the same as the others. Because of their continued ignoring of the process, they end up becoming a scofflaw just like the other person who may have started at 300, they end up at 300.
An individual who creates or causes repeated violations, the same vendor, for example -- and I'm not picking on vendors. But the same vendor who is now cited for the fifth time for dumping his greasy down the sewer, down the storm drain, what happens? Is he then moved from there to the Code Enforcement. JUDGE CERMELE: Yes. This is a dual path process. You can go CVN process or the department judges that this is a type of violation or repeated violation that requires judicial intervention, then they have the option of going directly to a Code Enforcement Complaint and have a judge order the person to cease and desist.
Are there interest 15 Bill No. 980711 penalties applied to late paid fines or fines that have been disregarded? JUDGE CERMELE: There are penalties, not interest. But once a matter becomes a judgment, then there's interest added on top of the penalty.
And the judgment limit is 300. JUDGE CERMELE: That's correct.
Based on the Charter requirement. JUDGE CERMELE: In Philadelphia, although state law would allow to us go to a thousand.
Are there any other out of county sanctions as a result of not paying? Is there intercounty cooperation when it comes to driver's licenses or other types of things that, for example, as we've learned 75 percent or so or more of our miscreants at Veterans Stadium, our suburbanites? Is there any other sanctions that follow them into their county area. JUDGE CERMELE: None that I know of. In Pennsylvania, of course, judgment is state wide and is enforceable state wide, so we actually could have 16 Bill No. 980711 the constable execute upon those judgments in the counties. We do not -- we could have the constable execute through the district justice and through the counties surrounding us, but that is an option that we do not do at this stage.
Thank you. Could you describe -- I've heard recently of a scenario, underage drinking at Veterans Stadium does not come under what you just described; is that correct? JUDGE CERMELE: Underage drinking is governed by state law. That is an area that is preempted from us. Underage drinking -- now I'm going to recall when I was a traffic court judge -- but essentially what it does is impose a fine through the court system and also provides a penalty of denial of the issuance of a driver's license, if you don't already have one, at the time that you do request one. Or if you have one, a suspension of your driver's license privilege even if the underage drinking had nothing to do with driving.
So this process that we're discussing today -- 17 Bill No. 980711 JUDGE CERMELE: That would not change that.
I guess the only situation where it would occur is if the an underage drinker was drinking in the parking lot at Veterans Stadium then they can be cited for public drunkenness. JUDGE CERMELE: But it is not mutually exclusive.
But the potential considering the inebriated state of the individual, could be a penalty that could be issued by us as it relates to alcohol. So what my point is is that alcohol is not totally eliminated from our ability to cite because we do it with the public drunkenness. My question is then since we're not preempted from a public drunkenness issuance of a ticket, why are we preempted from underage? JUDGE CERMELE: Because the state -- under the Sterling Act, the State took over that issue.
The theory is that an adult who is publicly drunk in a public place like 18 Bill No. 980711 Veterans Stadium can be issued $300 fine, and that is not preempted by state statute. Why is then underage drinking -- JUDGE CERMELE: Actually, I believe the State sanction is to be more onerous than our sanction would be in that there is a fine and there is a suspension of the driver's license privilege. As you know, a young person values his driver's license considerably. I would really consider their sanction to be more onerous.
But where I'm leading to in this is that under our current City ordinances, we have parental responsibility in addition, and my argument would be in addition to the driver's license and in addition to the aggravation that that child has to go through, the parents would be likely to be cited and have to pay for -- JUDGE CERMELE: Obviously, this would be something you would want to check with the Law Department, but I do not believe that we are preempted from issuing citations to the parents on that basis.
Could we examine that? JUDGE CERMELE: Yes, we could. 19 Bill No. 980711
Thank you. Who are the people permitted to issue such CVNs? Can you give me the list of those? JUDGE CERMELE: We do have a list. It's by department. It is those individuals in the various departments who are authorized by their commissioners to have enforcement power. They are sworn in. From time to time I've had the privilege of swearing some of the sweep officers in. In fact, I think there's a ceremony next week where a new class of sweep officers are going to be sworn in. L & I, of course inspectors have always have had law enforcement capability. Remember, these are civil matters, so it's really within the department and in an accordance with the City Charter they are granted this. Even Public Property would have the ability. Although I don't think we have Public Property issuing any citations at this point. There actually is a provision in the Charter that would permit Public Property to issue CVNs based on violation of City regulations, like not smoking in City Hall.
What is your opinion of the cooperate of the Police Department in the issuance of these citations? For example, we've had 20 Bill No. 980711 our discussions about Vet Stadium. The Eagles seem to do it on a regular -- the police and the Eagles security seem to do it on a regular basis. The Phillies are a little more lax up until opening day, and I think they've stepped up their enforcement. Do the police view this as more a demeaning process for them? They don't want participate? JUDGE CERMELE: Initially, when we started using CVNs and developed ticket books for CVNs, the police under a prior commissioner decided that they would reserve the use of CVNs to a certain designated group of officers. That is, those officers assigned to each district as the --
Sanitation or abandoned auto? JUDGE CERMELE: They're usually the same, the sanitation and abandoned vehicle officer. So those were the only ones trained in using CVNs. However, with the advent of the sidewalk behavior bill enforcement, that has been spread out to all police officers now have the ability and the training to write CVNs. Until opening day this year of the Phillies, I would have said, had you asked the 21 Bill No. 990182 question before, why tickets are issues at the Eagles games and not the at the Phillies, until opening game this year I would have said it's because the bad behavior occurs at the Eagles and not at Phillies game. But I was at opening day and saw those students from your alma mater.
They'll find no solace with me, believe me. I will not be defending anyone in that circumstance. Are there any other questions for these witnesses?
Councilman, I would just ask that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit First Reading.
It's a blanket request today for the end of our session for the summer.
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, we will now move to Bill 22 No. 990182, which is an Ordinance amending Section 23 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to Sidewalk Sales by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales on Godfrey Avenue from Fifth Street to Broad 22 Bill No. 990182 Street, both sides. Please identify yourself for the record. Before you do that, just for anyone who is here, Bill No. 990223 will be held at the request of the sponsor. So anyone here to testify on Bill 7 No. 990223, there will be no testimony taken today. Thank you. Please identify yourself for record.
Thank you, Councilman. I'm John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I'm here to testify on the provisions of Bill No. 990182, which is a sidewalk sales bill 15 that would ban vending and sidewalk sales on Godfrey Avenue on Fifth Street to Broad Street. As always, on the sidewalk issues, the Department has no objection to the enactment of this bill and will enforce its provisions. There are currently two vendors located in the 1200-block of Godfrey Avenue and I believe it's near a school. When this legislation is in enacted, we will notify the vendors to move. I guess the discussion Councilman Nutter and I have had over the years is with so many sidewalk prohibitions, how can you 23 Bill No. 990182 enforce them all. And really for the most part after the initial legislation -- after the initial movement of the vendors, we rarely get called back. There are areas that I can think of right off the top of my head near where I live where eight years we put in vending prohibition in, like, four or five different areas in my immediate neighborhood, and nobody has ever be back there. Although it's on the books and there are five separate sections, we rarely don't get that much of repetitive call for people vending there illegally. We get calls for, of course, illegal vending actions, other violations of the Code, things that we will now be able to solve with the CVN.
Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Campbell? I think there's one witness to testify on in favor of this bill. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
As a resident of East Oak 24 Bill No. 9901158 Lane since 1980 and as an active individual trying to do whatever I can do to increase the quality of life in my community, I'm hear to testify on behalf of not having any vending on Godfrey Avenue. It affects our quality of life, our property values. You have noise pollution. You have congestion. You know pedestrians. You have their cars blocking driveways and double parking. So it's something we're fighting because we don't want any vending in East Oak Lane, period.
I'm only kidding. Thank you for taking the time to come in and for waiting. Any questions for this witness? Thank you very much.
Anyone else here to testify on this bill? Seeing none, we will now move to Bill 23 No. 990158, which is an Ordinance amending the provisions of Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code ("The Philadelphia Building and Construction Occupancy 25 Bill No. 9901158 Code") by revising the fees that must be paid for issuance of licenses for multiple-family dwellings, rooming houses, and residential rental properties, including, among other things, providing that owner-occupied dwelling units in a multiple-family dwelling will now be included in calculating the fee for the multiple-family dwelling license; by exempting from the need to obtain a residential rental property license a dwelling or rooming unit located in a building for which a multiple-family dwelling license has been issued; and by providing that no person may offer a dwelling or dwelling unit for rent unless the person obtains a business privilege license; all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for record and proceed.
Councilman Kenney, I am Richard Feldgus Administrative Services Director for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I'm here today to testify in favor of Bill 990158. This legislation will amend the housing license fee charges imposed by the City of Philadelphia on multiple-family dwellings and Bill No. 9901158 residence rental properties. To be noted that while the Department is not taking any action to change the amount of the base fee that is currently being charged, we are altering the housing license fee for some multiple-family dwellings and some residential rental properties. Heretofore, based on a decision made by Municipal Court, all owners of residential rental properties wishing to take action in Municipal Court are required to produce a residential rental property license. This included investor/owners of condominiums in multi-family dwelling where the multi-family dwelling was otherwise licensed. Legal action was taken against the City challenging this licensing practice. Judge Levin of Common Pleas Court has now issued an order stating that the City can no longer require invester/owners of condominiums to obtain a residential rental property license in multiple-family dwellings. The judge's order is reflected in Section PM-102.3. In discussion of this case, Judge Levin made it clear that he believed the City's licensing practice should no longer allow two identical buildings to be charged different license fees based 27 Bill No. 9901158 on whether one building is a condominium and a second a rental apartment building. Accordingly, we are now establishing a license schedule we require all multiple-family dwellings to pay for all units. To accomplish this, we propose elimination of provision which granted a waiver of the license fee for owner-occupied dwelling units in multiple-family buildings. We believe that by changing both of these provisions, we will be creating a situation where no one is double charged or exempted from paying for our inspection services and at the time the City will receive all monies needed to cover cost of conducting inspections, licensing, and related housing services for multi-family dwellings. We anticipate this bill will be revenue neutral. Additionally, we are adding a new section PM-102.8 requiring no person shall offer for rent any dwelling or dwelling unit without first obtaining a business privilege license. This provision will enable Municipal Court to ensure that those persons seeking redress before the Court are properly licensed and paying taxes in the City of Philadelphia. The department request a suspension of the Rules. 28 Bill No. 9901158
I thought that the requirement to have a business privilege license in rental property business was a requirement that's been in existence for quite sometime.
We have not had a specific provision relating to housing licenses. We would agree that, yes, people who are in any business would have to have a business privilege license. This puts it specifically into this license. This was an agreement we reached with Municipal Court so that now when people come into the Municipal Court, instead of asking for the residential rental property license, they will now ask for the business privilege license.
So what this legislation does is formally place the requirement of the BPL in Title 4.
Yes, sir. It's in Chapter 23 19-2602 dealing with the business privilege license.
Mr. Feldgus, can you give us some examples of what the problem is that you think you've solved here?
Well, where this all comes from, there was a suit filed, in fact, I have copies of it if you want it, Allan Dom versus the City of Philadelphia. Allan Domb being the, quote, condominium king. Mr. Domb felt that the City was improper double charging investor-owned condominiums a double fee because the way the legislation was written, in a condominium building, the owner-occupied units were exempted. The investor-occupied units had to pay both the multi-family license fee and the residential rental property fee. They were being charged twice.
Were being charged twice. Now that had grown up over a period of years. The department never intended that to be the case.
Why would a 30 Bill No. 9901158 condominium end up in a rental license fee situation in the first place?
Well, condominiums came into being in the mid-seventies. Before that time, basically, multi-family buildings were essentially rental buildings. Condominiums came as a form of ownership at that point in time, and a lot of buildings started converting over to condominiums. Initially, they were owner-occupied. Eventually, people decided, well, we can buy them and rent them out and they and they became investor-owned units. Over that period of time, the Department has maintained that the only thing we want to do is make sure that those buildings pay their fair share of the cost of L & I conducting its business. So that we basically took the position and have taken the position that we just want our money. What has happened is that Municipal Court got involved in this thing and started requiring the residential license which caused the second license to have to be purchased. As a way to redress that problem, Council adopted an exemption provision for certain condominium units, and the situation just got to this point where, quite honestly, we were not 31 Bill No. 9901158 achieving what we wanted to achieve. We got into a much more complex situation than we saw that was necessary. All we wanted do is make sure that these entire buildings are properly licensed, the City is getting its money to provide its housing inspections services in those building. What we're doing with this legislation is bringing us back to that point. As I said, the complicating factor here was a decision handed down by Judge Silverstein in the eighties where now he required everybody to start buying these residential rental property licenses in addition to the multiple-family license and then the exemption that was later granted. By changing that whole thing, by eliminating both of those, going back to the original intent of the Department's legislation, we are now going to simplify the matter. We will collect our money, and as far as we're concerned, we have now come to the point where the judge is happy that we will not be having two buildings side by side, one charged one fee, and an identical building charged a different fee both building charged the same fee. Both buildings will now be charged the same fee, and that will make everybody happy, at 32 Bill No. 9901158 least the courts.
So one thing the legislation does is you now have to get a multiple-family dwelling license PM-102.3, if you have one of those, you don't have to get a residential rental property license?
Correct. You always had to get the multiple-family license if you had a multiple-family building. The question was how much of a fee you paid. There was an exemption given to owner-occupied units in lieu of the other amount of money we were collecting for the residential property license. By knocking both of those out, now you just have to pay the one license fee and that will cover the entire building.
And that's now based on just a pure mathematical number of units times $25?
Correct. And that simplifies life for us because the way this current system works, every year we send out a bill to these 33 Bill No. 9901158 condominium multi-family buildings. They have to come back to us and tell us how many of the units in that building are owner-occupied, how many are tenant-occupied, and then we have to recalculate license fee and all this is done by hand. It's time consuming, it's expensive, and to be honest, it really is unnecessary. This way we will be able to just do it based on the number of units in the building, send out the bill, they would pay it. It would go through the Revenue Department. We wouldn't have to hand process it. It will be a much more efficient process for the Department.
Two last questions. What if any impact does this have on colleges and universities with their student housing?
None they're not affected at all. They do have to pay the either rooming house license or the multiple-family license depending on the number of units in their building, and they've been doing that.
And do I understand PM-102.3 again THAT if a person just -- let's say a person owns their house and they go and buy another house and they decide to, either because they 34 Bill No. 9901158 couldn't sell their first house or they just want to keep it but they've kind of moved up into wherever else they want to live. They decide to rent their house out to another family, put it in the newspaper under the homes for rent section. By way of this particular section, that person has to get either a residential rental property license? In the one-family dwelling, they would only have to get that one, I guess.
They would only get that, yes. That part of the law is not changed. Today, before we adopt this legislation, somebody wanting to rent out a single-family home would have to get the residential rental property. What this changes is where you have a multiple-family building and it's a condo. The individual owners heretofore all had to get license. Now they won't have to do that.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for the witnesses? Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? 35 Bill No. 9901158 Seeing none, I just want to make one final comment. Mr. John Campbell has pulled the plug on us and his last day Friday with City Government. How many years?
I want to personally thank you. You've been appearing here at least the length of time I've been Chairman of this Committee. You've always been on time, not to say we are always on time. Very efficient and very pleasant in the way you've dealt with us. You've been pleasure to deal with, and I just want to wish you good luck and put your Phillies hat on and get on that first base line.
Third base, I'm sorry. And enjoy your retirement. We wish you very good health and happiness and success in the future, and we want to thank you for all your service. (Applause.)
This is your chance for 36 Bill No. 9901158 your parting shot.
Thanks. You guys have been great. I mean, the last eight years has been really great. I thank you for your cooperate, the respect, the way you've treated me. And additionally, we've had a lot of fun. And I guess, you know, one of the advantages of sitting here is, you know, we're really government at grass roots. Everybody talks about the government, the federal government is remote, the state government is remote, but we're here every day in the trenches. I've come to admire yourself, Michael, and the other members just the way that you're there for your constituents, and I don't think anybody over the years who have seen it close as I have because I've dealt with you all the time. And thank you.
Mr. Campbell, I would only add that I certainly echo the comments of my colleague, Councilman Kenney. We have gotten to know you well and work with you, and we will miss you tremendously, your advice and good counsel. But as occurs in the Government it really has been a 37 Bill No. 9901158 pleasure dealing with you. And who's taking your place? That was actually a joke.
Come on up front, Otis. We'd like to introduce Otis Haigler. He's going to be our new Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager beginning on Monday.
Thank you very much. That will conclude the public hearing for the License and Inspection Committee. - - - 38 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON LICENCES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Wednesday, June 16, 1999 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Licences and Inspections, held in Room 10 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 980711, 990158, 990182 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chairman COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - 39 PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene the public meeting in the License and Inspection Committee. Again, let the record show that Bill No. 5 990223 will be held at the call of the Chair. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter of Bill No. 980711.
Mr. Chairman, I move the Bill No. 980711 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 980711 will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for the Rules of Suspension to allow for First Reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Rizzo for a motion on Bill No. 990182.
I move that this bill 25 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable 40 PUBLIC MEETING recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 990182 will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for the suspension of Rules to allow for First Reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 990158.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990158 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 our next session. (Properly seconded.)
Moved and second. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 990158 reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation and a 41 PUBLIC MEETING request will be made for Rules suspension to allow First Reading at our next Council Session. That will conclude of the business of the Licenses and Inspections Committee. The Public Property Committee will begin as soon as we obtain a quorum. Thank you very much for your attendance. (Council adjourned at 10:40 a.m.) - - - 42 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of June 16, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LICENCES AND INSPECTIONS ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public