Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm sorry, we have one more bill that we did not do. The next bill is 010690, which is an ordinance amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," to require the sponsors of a "planned 56 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 event" held in any premises to obtain a permit for such event if because it is expected to attract significantly more persons than may be accommodated within the safe occupancy limits of the premises. Mr. Haigler, please identify yourself for the record.
Good day, Councilman Kenney and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 010690, which if enacted, will add new a section to Title 9 to regulate planned-event activity in the City of Philadelphia. As the Department which is responsible for enforcing laws relative to public safety, we support the intent of the proposed legislation to ensure that events which will have an impact on the safety of the attendees and the quality of life of the surrounding community are well-planned and also have been approved in advance by the local authority. The goals and merits of this bill are commendable, and with some minor amendments, can be effectively enforced by the Department. 57 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 The following are some suggested amendments which we believe will aid with the enforcement of the proposed legislation. 1. We believe that you should delete from the definition of "planned event" under Section 7 9-2601, subsection 3, delete subsection b. in its entirety since this gives an impression that by gaining approval for the event, it will throughout sponsor to violate existing laws and prior approvals they received from the Department related to the lawful occupancy of the premises. It should be made clear that the planned-event permit does not supersede any prior requirements imposed on the owner governing their certificate of occupancy to legally occupy the premises 2. Under section 9-2603, subsection 1, strike out the phrase "that is verified by all sponsors by oath or affirmation," and insert "at least 30 days prior to the planned event and shall be signed by the sponsor of the event." We believe that this change will make it easier to review and process the applications for the planned-event permit. 58 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 3. Under subsection 9-2603, subsection 2, subsection B, strike out the word "department" and insert "Managing Director's Office," since this office is responsible for the coordination of the City's operating departments and approving the planned-event application with crowd management plan prior to the issuance of the planned-event permit. 4. Under Section 9-2604, subsection 2, insert the word "department" -- insert after the word "department" -- I'm sorry. Insert after the word "department" the phrase "with the assistance of the Police Department." This will make it clear that the Police Department has a role to assist with dispersement [sic], crowd control, and the protection of L&I employees and that they will be on hand to take whatever actions are necessary to enforce the ordinance. With the aforementioned amendments in place, the Department is prepared to enforce the provisions of Bill No. 010690 should it be passed by Council and signed into law by the Mayor. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. 59 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690
I understand from my legislative assistant, Mr. Fitz, that a number of conversations took place that led up to your testimony today.
And reviewing some of your suggestions or recommendations, I will tell you now that we are in full agreement and we believe that we can accommodate with items 1, 2, 3, 4 in your recommendations, but we have a serious concern for the deletion that you referred to in item no. 1. I think it really goes to the heart of what the bill is all about. I don't think it will do some of the things that you're suggesting. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion there. So what we will do tomorrow is make the necessary amendments to the bill, with the exception of the one recommendation for deletion of the planned event under Section 9-26. 60 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690
May I ask if we can possibly maybe work out some wording, though, that might be included? Because the word "premises" itself is all-inclusive. The premises means the building as well as the surrounding parcel, anything within that parcel. Basically under that subsection, by stating that the sponsor should reasonably expect it will attract significantly more people than can be accommodated within the safe occupancy limits of such premises, it almost seems to imply that the person, by getting permission or a permit, can actually whatever violate laws we already have in place related to lawful occupancy of the premises, and we don't want to do that.
Let me make a suggestion with the approval of the sponsor. We're going to move the bill today out of committee. You can have ongoing conversations with staff to try to figure out what amendments are appropriate, but we're going to move, move it along. And the Council sponsor will determine, you know, when it moves finally. But, I think, rather than have this 61 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 discussion now, I think it's more appropriate to have it with staff and the sponsor, and then we'll move on from there.
I wanted to ask you a question. I had actually talked to the sponsor earlier about this. Currently, I sit as a designee for the Council President on the Fairmount Park Commission. And traditionally, when there is an event on the Parkway or other park-owned lands, we currently strongly recommend that particularly for-profit operators who have an event on the park land give a friendly donation. It's a donation, but we actually have categories of what those donations should be.
Better clear that one up. 62 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We suggest certain categories -- I'll say that.
And I'm concerned about the potential effect of that. Whereas, if this bill is implemented and it could somehow have something to do with park land, we may actually be requesting that that event planner be paying double the user fee off of park land. Does park land have jurisdiction over any potential legislation that will be passed requesting a user fee?
I -- I really don't know how to answer that question. I really, really don't know.
I mean, in these types of public venues, don't they have to get a special permit?
They would have to get a special-events permit anyway because under former Mayor Rendell's administration, he signed Executive Order No. 6-93, which was signed in April of 1993, 63 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 and that established a procedure and a process to issue special-events permits for activities that will be taking place in certain areas and certain venues. And Fairmount Park was included. I have a copy of that with me. And Fairmount Park was included as part of the task force to give the approvals for the special-event permit.
So what you're saying is that potentially the individual holding an event on park land under this bill would be required to --
-- get a user fee in addition to our request for a donation.
I believe so. The way I read the bill, it seems like it does not really make that particular type of distinction. The only really distinction that it makes is that if the planned event is held on a premises and it is anticipated that the even will be overcrowding of the premises, or the building itself will overflow into the public area, then that's when this permit will kick in. So Fairmount Park, I don't think, unless 64 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 it's done at Memorial Hall and it overflows Memorial Hall --
The Parkway is traditionally where we tend to have a problem in overflow. As you know, we have several large events where we have upwards of 500,000-plus people, and I happen to get a lot of requests from surrounding residents. And I just wanted to get some clarity on, would there be a distinction on park land, particularly the Parkway and Memorial Hall (indiscernible) but residential areas and commercial areas. What would be the outcome of those particular events as it relates to the adoption of this particular bill?
I believe that's something we will probably have to discuss.
I think the distinction is that this legislation attempts to address the issues concerning a for-profit entity that is promoting an event as opposed to the Greek Picnic, for example, which is a City-sponsored event. And there is an overflow of the Greek Picnic, as we all know, into other neighborhoods, 65 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 including South Street. But the Greek Picnic is not sponsored by the people on South Street, so it wouldn't interfere with the Greek Picnic. I'm just using that as an example 'cause that's one of the bigger events that we have in this city that has a tendency to get out from where the initial event is taking place.
Right. No, I'm just saying that the majority of the events that are actually held on the Parkway tend to be for for-profit corporations. Interesting.
They would still need the special-events permit from the Park Commission. Is Mr. Fader or somebody here to add to that?
Yeah, I'm just 66 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 suggesting that maybe someone --
But it seems the way the ordinance was read, that especially under what a planned event is, the definition for "a planned event," it relates that the sponsor, through advertisement, and in the other parts of it, that the sponsor would reasonably expect that there would be significantly more people that can be accommodated within the safe occupancy limits of the premises. I think when you say something like that, it appears that if you have a building that you already have occupancy limits on and the overflow overflows from that area or that building into another area. So I think that's why we need clarity on that.
I only ask that question because the Fairmount Park has recently actually adopted a special-events policy for the Parkway in particular, so I just wanted to make sure that --
I don't think this 67 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 would supersede that, this would not supersede that.
This is not unlike situations where the stadium district, when the capacity of the crowds in all of the venues exceeds a certain number where there's a need for additional resources that the entities, I think, pick up some of the costs of that. The entities being the teams or the First Union Center.
So it's kind of similar to that, I guess, in the sense that you know by way of advertising that you're going to bring in excess of 80,000 people to the three venues cumulatively, then you'd need more police and other kinds of City staffing personnel there, and somebody has to pay for it other than the taxpayer. Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
Questions to the 68 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 chairman. Are there going to be other witnesses from L&I and the Police Department?
It seems to me that -- I would like to know what the evaluation of those two departments would be with respect to a volunteer enforcement, if that is not an anachronism by itself of the provisions of this bill. Have there been any discussions as to whether something could be worked out amicably, where the police could just do police activities, and L&I could just do the normal L&I activities? Or is it the feeling of both departments that special legislative assistance is required?
Well, I believe the Charter delineates what our roles are and what our functions are. So L&I would only do what we're legally allowed to do under the Charter provision, and the police would do whatever they're legally allowed to do under the Charter division to enforce the ordinance. The police would be responsible for crowd control, keeping the peace. That's what's stated in 69 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 the Charter that the police do. As far as L&, I our jobs are primarily to deal with and life-safety issues and building-code issues and safety and inspections of buildings. So we would, in essence, enforce the provisions of the codes that we are lawfully responsible to enforce, such as our building construction occupancy codes related to the activities within the building and our business compliance codes related to the business activity itself. I hope that answers your question. I don't know if I answered it or not.
Well, let me ask you a question -- I'm not sure whether it does or not. Suppose there's one business owner who's not friendly and says, I'm going to be celebrating Mardi Gras, or whatever occasion it might be, and I'm going to invite everybody down here and I'm going to have a big sale on my property. Everybody else will benefit it, but I'm going to advertise this as much as possible. I think it's good for the community. There may be other business people and residents who have different points of view. How are the costs apportioned to people 70 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 applying to those events, where you cannot get general or overwhelming approval, where there are differences of opinion?
Yeah. Well, say the police reach the conclusion that they need many more officers present. L&I may need many more inspectors present. How are those costs --
Well, I guess that would be something that the Managing Director would have to take a look at based upon what's submitted to the Managing Director. As far as the cost of the additional personnel, the additional service, it would go to the Managing Director, and the Managing Director would, I'm sure, take whatever necessary steps to make sure the City is reimbursed for whatever that cost is. That's not something that the individual department would look at; that's something that the individual department would submit to the Managing Director based on what the costs were, our actual costs were to enforce the ordinance. 71 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690
And, Councilman Cohen, I think it's a good point you raise, and part of what we addressed and part of the discussions creating this legislation had to deal with who would be overseeing the operations of the departments, and it would be the Managing Director that ultimately will make those decisions. And since it's a for-profit entity that will be promoting these events, and in the case of Mardi Gras, as an example, we know from years of experience what to expect in terms of crowd participation, that we have a better understanding for that event than maybe some others that we haven't done yet as to what the additional costs to the City are. As an example, I think, last year -- and we all remember last year and would like not to have it happen again this year, there was in excess of $100,000, I believe, in police personnel and L&I personnel costs involved to that event, not counting the 40 or $50,000 in damages that were created by the participants. So we know going into this year and know even more so that the owner of the establishment who 72 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 promoted Mardi Gras last year has publicly said, If you think you saw big crowds this year -- meaning in 2001 -- wait till you see what you we'll bring in 2002. He's talking 100,000 or more people that he's promoting to come to the City of Philadelphia. And we like to have people come here and spend their money, but we also understand that it is a for-profit entity and I think it should be treated similar to the way we treat the stadium districts, as I said earlier, when you have crowds that will exceed a certain number, to give protection to the residential communities that are adjacent to those commercial corridors.
Would the expense allow for it to be worked out in advance?
That would be determined, I believe, by what the Managing Director would determine based on the Managing Director's discussions with the various departments that will be needed for the day's events -- police, sanitation, L&I, and whatever other departments we need -- to make sure we have orderliness out there and we can provide a safe environment for people who are coming there -- as well as, more importantly, 73 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 which led me to this legislation, the safety of the community, the residential community that is adjacent. In this case, it's the South Street corridor.
Would the payments come to the City in advance or would they be billed?
I believe that's part of what the requirement for the for-profit entity would have to -- based on the determination of the Managing Director as to the cost what the costs are, it would have to be paid in advance. So you won't get a permit to do that until you pay for the permit in advance. And that number's fluid, depending on what we anticipate the level of resources to be needed to provide for the safety of the participants again -- and more importantly, again, for the protection of the residential communities.
Has the Managing Director's Office yet been involved in this?
Yes. And we knew it 74 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 was late, but there were other people who were deputies who have been involved in this from the beginning, so the new Managing Director was able to get a better understanding quickly because, one, she's obviously worked for the City for a number of years, but the deputies were able to inform her of what this is all about. And she agrees with it.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Haigler? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. Bernice? (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. I'm Bernice Hamel, and I'm speaking on behalf of approximately 25,000 residents that are impacted by the South Street Corridor, the chairman of the Community Advisory Council of the South Street Head House District. This is a committee of the district, and 75 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 although I represent 25,000 residents, I have one vote on the board, so I'll read to you the letter that I've written.
And it wasn't long ago that you didn't even have one vote.
That's true. "I am testifying on behalf of the Community Advisory Council of the South Street Head House District. The Community Advisory Council is made up of residents and neighborhoods that are directly affected or impacted by activities and events in the South Street Corridor. As a board director of the district representing residents of these communities, I serve as the Council's chairperson. "The following communities were 1represented at the Council's December 3rd monthly meeting: Bella Vista and Bella Vista Town Watch, Hawthorne and Hawthorne's Empowerment Coalition, Queen Village Neighbors Association, Society Hill Civic Association, South Street Neighbors, and Washington Square West Civic Association. "Prior to the meeting, all representatives had received a copy of Bill 010690 regarding this 76 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 liquor festival planned-event permits legislation. Council representatives considered the bill that ideally would develop with the City a crowd management plan for such events, reimburse the City for any increase in police and fire protection, and pay for any resulting damage to business or neighborhood property secured by a bond. "David Fitz from Councilman DiCicco's office attended our meeting and responded to our many questions and concerns. The consensus of the Council is that although the legislation as currently written may not be perfect, it could help minimize the disruptive effects of Mardi Gras-type events from happening or decrease the size of the crowds that converge on the corridor during such events. "After much thought and discussion, representatives from their respective neighborhoods and/or organizations voted seven in favor of the bill, with one abstention, and no vote of opposition."
Good morning. Please 77 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Colleen Puckett. I'm the President of Queen Village Neighbors Association.
This is not prepared testimony; this is just off-the-cuff remarks. I did want to come here today to show my full support of Councilman DiCicco and also of this bill requiring special permits to promote huge events. I live in Queen Village, about two blocks away from South Street, and I don't think it's a secret that this bill was drafted in response to events that took place last February, Mardi Gras. And it was at the request of the surrounding communities that were greatly impacted by this event that this legislation is sitting here today. That evening and also several days after, I was inundated with phone calls from residents telling me of horrible experiences that had as a result of this event. One resident looked out his window around 10 o'clock that night to see drunks trying to smash his van windows. I had another 78 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 family tell me they were awakened by the sound of drunks outside their home just about two blocks away from South Street, threatening to throw a cement planter through their window. In both these instances, the residents called the police and were told separately that they couldn't do anything, that all of their resources were taken into account on South, that they could not respond. I also know of two families who are moving out of the neighborhood as a direct result of this event. And I'm like you, Councilman Kenney, I take that very personally when someone decides to leave my neighborhood. So is this bill perfect? No, but I feel that a little bit of accountability and planning can go a long way. We're not necessarily saying no to large events on South Street. We love South Street. There's a new chairman of the district, Michael Sanchek (ph.) who has done a lot to reach out to the surrounding communities. We're building a relationship where we can work together to make South Street better for everyone, including businesses. 79 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 And I think this is a good first step. If they want to have large events like this, they need to take responsibility for them. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses?
I want to thank both of you for coming here. It's important that you're here, especially in light of what my legislative assistant informed me yesterday, that there were some people at the district who now feel as though I am anti-business -- that's really a major shift in who I am but -- and I understand that Mr. Tissian (ph.) who was the former president of the Society Hill Civic Association, who is now currently involved with the Center City Residents Association, and also sits on the South Street Head House, says that I'm kissing -- I won't say the exact words that he said -- residents' butts, but --
I really found that to be very strange coming from a man who claims to 80 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 represent residential groups in this case condemning me for being too pro-residential. Things do change in this business rather quickly. But I do want to thank you for being here and I appreciate your support. And I know you put a lot of time in with this legislation, and express my appreciation to the other groups. And I would like to take the time also to thank Councilman Kenney and Senator Fumo, who really helped me get this going back in February when we some press conferences relating to the problems that were there. Had Senator Fumo's office really helped with the legislation and worked with the Law Department to get to us this point. Thank you and have a good day.
Thank you very much. Just one thing. I mean, as far as taking things personally, when people leave the neighborhood, there's about five or six bars that could leave that neighborhood tomorrow, and I wouldn't take it personally at all. (Laughter.)
As a matter of fact, I'd come down and help them pack if they want. 81 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL 010690 But thank you very much.
Thank you. Seeing none, that will bring us to the end of this public hearing. - - - 82 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING
We now convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 010557. All of these bills are being requested to have the rules suspended.
Is Councilman Cohen here? Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 010557 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation recommend that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010557 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 010647.
Thank you, 83 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010647 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010647 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be for made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 010648.
Councilman Cohen moves to report Bill No. 010648 out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. It's been moved and moved and seconded. All in favor? None opposed. 84 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING Bill No. 010648 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 010649.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010649 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of rules so as to be read at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010649 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 010690.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010690 be 85 12/5/01 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN KENNEY:Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010690 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow fir first reading at our next Council session. Thank you very much for your attendance. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. The Committee of the Whole should be beginning shortly. (Proceedings end at 11:50 a.m.) - - - 86 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Council Committee on Rules of Wednesday, December 5, 2001, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Ordinance No.'s 010557, 010647, 010648, 010649, 010690 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)