COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, May 21, 2007, 1:15 p.m. - - - Bill No. 070367 - An ordinance amending Chapter 9-2900 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Take-out Sale of Malt and Brewed Beverages," by creating the Malt and Brewed Beverage Hearing Board... COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel J. Savage, Chair Blondell Reynolds-Brown Darrell L. Clarke Jack Kelly Joan Krajewski - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 WITNESS Otis Haigler, Jr., L&I ................. Director of Legislative Affairs Andrew Ross, City Law Department........ 12 Bonita Cummings......................... 21 Strawberry Mansion Community Concern Vivian Crawford, Counsel, African- ..... 39 American Heritage Coalition First Vice Chair, Neighborhoods Networks L&I Deputy Commissioner Dominic Verdi... 73 Lance Haver, Director, Consumer Affairs 98 * * * 3 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367
Good afternoon. The Committee is now in session. Will the clerk please read the bill to be heard.
Bill No. 070367, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-2900 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Take-out Sale of Malt and Brewed Beverages," by creating the Malt and Brewed Beverage Hearing Board and revising the fee and procedures for the request for City approval of a permit to sell malt or brewed beverages for off-premises consumption; and amending Section 20-304 of the Philadelphia Code to provide for the compensation of the hearing board; all under certain terms and conditions.
I would like to recognize that a quorum is present. Members of the committee joining us today are: To my right Krajewski and Councilman Darrell Clarke; and to my left, Councilman Jack 4 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 Kelly. We will now hear testimony on Bill No. 070367. Is there anyone here from the Administration to testify? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Can you please identify yourself for the record.
Good day, Councilman Savage and members of Council. , Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 070367, which, if enacted, will amend Chapter 9-2900 and Section 20-304 of the Philadelphia Code to establish a new take-out liquor hearing board administered within the Department of Licenses and Inspections, to hear and decide protests to applications for permits, to sell take-out malt and brewed beverages, to 5 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 be issued by the City, pursuant to authority granted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Liquor Code. In addition, the bill provides for the compensation of this board. To provide some background on this matter, in 2005, the General Assembly, at the request of and in cooperation with many members of City Council, Enacted Act 39 of 2005, which created a new permit required in Philadelphia only to sell beer and malt liquor for consumption off promises and granted authority to the City through City Council to determine whether to issue that permit. Counsel established in Chapter 19 9-2900 of the Code a process for applications for the new permit; protests again the applications by elected officials; neighbors' and others' hearings on those protests; and ultimate decision by Council. Unfortunately, in litigation 6 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 challenging the permit procedures, the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court struck down the process implementing Act 39, and we returned to the legislature to address the issues raised by the court. With the leadership and assistance of Senator Williams, Representative Donatucci, Representative Raymond, and other of the legislators of the General Assembly, it enacted Act 155 of 2006 amending Act 39 to transfer responsibility for issuing take-out beer permits to the City upon creation of a new three-member board to make decisions regulating the permits -- or regarding the permits. Members of the board are to be appointed by the Mayor, subject to the approval of Council. Act 155 was signed into law on November 29, 2006. Bill 070367 would amend Chapter 9-2900 to implement the new requirements of Act 155 to create this 7 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 new board and to revise the process for applications, protests, and hearings. It is important to note that in most respects, these procedures mimic the same process originally established by Council under Act 39. And as before, applicants must post their property when they file their application for permits. And as before, again, neighbors of applicants, elected officials representing the district in which the applicant is located, including members of Council and others, may file protest. And also as before, City enforcement records relevant to the applicant's effect on the welfare, health, peace, and morals of the City may be used as evidence. Because the decision-making process now is vested in this new- member board, Council members may work directly with their constituents and 8 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 community groups to protest problems, locations, and appear before this board. Under Act 155, a permit to sell take-out beer and malt liquor must be obtained by October 31, 2007. The board will have 90 days from the date an application is received to decide whether to approve or disapprove the application. To meet this deadline and the other timelines related to the posting of notices, the filing of protests by eligible parties, and the scheduling of hearings by the board, we interpret the statute and the code amendment in this bill to mean that applicants must be able to submit their application to the board no later than August 1st to enable the process to be completed by October 31st. Failure to establish the process for applications and board action by the license expiration date 9 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 may result in the automatic approval of take-out beer permits.
In fact, so as to not force all of hearings within the 90-day period, we hope, with Council's cooperation, that the board will be able to receive applications beginning in June and July. For this reason, it is imperative that Bill 070367 be enacted and that the board is in place prior to Council's summer recess in order to fulfill the mandated requirements of Act 155. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you for your testimony. I'd like the record to recognize that Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown has joined us. For the record, could you 10 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 highlight the ways in which Act 55 differs from Act 39 as it pertains to the role of Council?
Yes. Act 39 was the act was signed into law back in 2005, which first granted authority to City Council specifically to determine whether permits were to be granted and to go through a certain process within City Council prior to the granting of those permits. Act 155 transfers those responsibilities to an independent board. This way, there would be no 16 conflict of interest for Councilmembers; they would be able to fully act for their constituencies. They would be fully able to deal with the protests within their community and bring those protests to the board themselves, without having to adjudicate the process. So Act 155, that's where the major difference is. 11 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 There are some other procedural differences as far as the length of time to determine whether or not to approve or disapprove the applications. Under Act 39, the time length was 45 days; under Act 155, the time is 90 days, and it gives us more time for the community to give their input into the process. There are certain other requirements. Whereas, under Act 39 and the ordinance that City Council adopted amending 9-2900, up to 15 people would be the determining factor to issue a protest. Under the new process, it gives more leeway, down to ten people now can -- if they live within proximity to the applicant's location, they can file a protest.
Okay. Is there any possible conflict between the proposed ordinance and the State liquor laws?
I can't answer 12 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 that. I'll have Andy Ross -- if he's here, he can speak to that, but I don't believe so.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of Council. My name is Andrew Ross from the City Law Department. As far as we're aware, there would be no conflict between this code provision and the State liquor law. The provision is to implement Act 155, which was adopted by the General Assembly and is, of course, limited to these particular permits.
Okay. All right. Do you think that we should get an opinion from the City Solicitor?
I don't believe you need the opinion. Again, as Mr. Ross stated, the purpose of this ordinance is basically to implement what was amended by the 13 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 State law, so it's not something where we're in conflict with State law to implement this local ordinance. As a matter of fact, we can't be; our ordinances would have to be compatible.
Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee members? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haigler, if an applicant is approved by the board, would a permit or a license be provided that person? And if so, does that license have to be renewed each year?
The State grants the actual liquor license. The City has to give their approval or disapproval on the application. And as is stated in the ordinance, a permit would be granted by the City in order 14 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 for the State to give their State liquor license.
Yeah. In other words, it would be issued by the State then?
The liquor license would be issued by the State; that's correct.
And is that a permanent license? In other words, it doesn't have to be renewed every year?
For the permit, for our portion of this. Now, the State license is 15 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 entirely different and, I don't --
I'm not aware of what the State requirements are for their license, but I know the City's requirement is for every two years.
Okay. And that's per two years. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
The three-member board is appointed at the pleasure of the Mayor, and I don't think there's a 16 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 time limit set in the ordinance for the board.
So the Mayor determines six months into the process that to satisfy a member of the board, he can simply replace that person?
The way the ordinance reads is, the board is appointed by the Mayor, subject to the approval of Council, there is no term limits set for how long the board serves.
So when you talk about, quote/unquote, an independent board, wouldn't you say that it's not quite that independent if they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor --
Well, whatever. 17 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 I'm just saying the Council doesn't have to approve the dismissal of a board member, right?
I'm just concerned about having a board that's perceived as an independent board, and there is no set term, so that person could be removed if the Mayor decides, I don't like the way this guy's been voting, he's out of here, or she's out of here. If the Council decides that they like the way that that person's been voting as it relates to the support of the community, there's no 20 process as it relates to Council in terms of dismissal of that person?
As far as I know, most of our boards within L&I, there's no particular term limits on any of our boards; they serve at the 18 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 pleasure of our Mayor.
I understand that, but most of your boards, first of all, aren't created by a State statute and don't necessarily deal with an issue as potentially as volatile as this particular issue, so this is a little different than some of the other traditional boards that are created by municipal statute. Is there a reason why there was a three-member board?
State law specifically, under Act 155, determined that when the Act says that you would have a three-member board appointed by the Mayor subject to the approval by Council, that's specifically taken from the Act.
So any amendments on this particular provision on a local level will require State authorization.
So they basically handed this to us again and said, This is the way that it's set up, this is the process, this is the terms and conditions of this particular --
Well, I'm asking you a question. I mean, are you -- maybe Mr. Ross could -- Is this essentially something again that's been handed to the City in terms of establishing both the process and the board that's basically taken from the State statute and given to us for approval? Do we have any latitude in altering the process to some degree on the board?
We would have some latitude, Councilman. The State law requires that there be a board, and it requires that there be three members, and it specifically sets up that the members 20 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council. The specifics after that are subject to the City Charter; and, in fact, the ordinance makes reference to the board shall be appointed pursuant to, you know, the requirements in the City Charter for administrative boards.
Okay. All right. I'm going to wait till I have some community testimony, then I'm sure I'm going don't have some more questions to ask the illustrious body of the Administration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The next person to testify is Bonita Cummings. (Witnesses come forward.)
I'm a little 21 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 hoarse. So hopefully, I'll come across clear.
Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm Bonita Cummings. I am an elected committee person in the 20th Ward, 13th Division, and I am also the Director of Strawberry Mansion Community Concern. We delivered to Councilmembers and the Mayor a packet pretty much from community residents from a meeting that was held at the Freedom Theater, asking that the Mayor not appoint this three-board -- this three-member board. So the community in and of itself is opposed to this three-board panel 22 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 because it -- I'm just going to basically read my testimony, and then I can explain better why the community is opposed to this matter. In March of 1857, the Dred Scott case that blacks had to rights which the white man was bound to respect. 150 years later, blacks have no rights which the Asian, Dominican, and other ethnic groups are bound to respect. Minorities, particularly African-Americans, are being held hostage in their neighborhoods during the bidding of our new slave owners to our own detriment. We have complained but since we have no rights that any other ethnic group are bound to respect, we have to come before the take-out consumption Licences and Inspections Board to convince them that we are being whipped and chained and killed in our communities. We have to prove over and over again that "Massa's" businesses 23 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 are illegal. We have to prove over and over the Massa's businesses serve alcohol to our minor children, robbing them of their youth and eventually their life. Everyone wants to be politically correct. " Well, your foot is on our neck. Your take-out businesses are illegal. They sell only malt liquor, which has a violent reaction on the black male. Your take-out malt businesses are major contributors to the 156 killings in 2007, not to mention prior years. But yet, we the people have to rise up to tell the take-out consumption board what they already know. Bill No. 070367 is a burden to the community. With our community participation, the bill is not enforceable, and you would still have 24 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 take-out businesses operating in violation of State Law Title 40 and 47, not to mention the Philadelphia Code. I want to give a correlation of how the board would ultimately be ineffective. Councilman Clarke has a Bill No. 040788-AA, hours of operation, which would bring some relief to communities if it were enforced. Well, we the community recently checked with the several of the commandings officers from various police districts in North Philadelphia only to be told that State Representative Joe Williams asked that they not enforce Councilman Clarke's bill. Now, how are we the community to expect that the take-out consumption board won't be under the same duress. Well, let's look at the State Act 39 hearings. Again, State Representative Joe Williams shows up to ensure that the most notorious take-out 25 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 businesses stay in business. We have done due diligence as a community with State Act 39. We showed up, we testified, we gave the facts, and it was all for nothing. Judge Dych. He had no consideration for the truth from the community residents and block captains or their time. We should not be asked to waste further tax dollars on a board nor should we be asked to appear before a board every year or every other year to tell people what they already know, which is: These businesses are operated illegally and are a great nuisance and death traps for the community. I want to read into the record the Pennsylvania State Police Report of violations recently dated March 19, 2007. You have C. Lee, Inc. at 2272 Bouvier Street. Violation: Sales to 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 minors. It's also known as King Kong Deli. , also known as Cold Beer and Seafood, sells to minors and has insufficient seating and is located at 2113 West Dauphin Street. EAP Enterprises, Inc. sells to minors and has insufficient seating.
2001 West York Street. Huong Enterprises, Inc. sells to minors and has signs in excess of 600 square inches without PLCB approval. That's at 220107 Ridge Avenue. 2729, Inc, also known as Lunar Deli. Sign in excess of 600 inches, without PLCB approval. 2729 West Girard Avenue. , also known as New Rave, sells to minors. 2200 North 18th Street. , insufficient seating and a sign in 27 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 excess of 600 square inches, without board approval. 2225 Ridge Avenue. Dong Hung Shin, also known as Shin's Market, sells to minors. 2248 Ridge Avenue. , insufficient seating. , also known as New Restaurant. Insufficient 11 seating. 2501 north 17th Street. 12 And that was ten locations out 13 of thirteen just randomly submitted to 14 the Pennsylvania State Police that are 15 in violation as recent as March 19, 16 2007. 17 With that, I say if people would just stop and listen, there's a better way to do this. Bill No. 070367 will cause many poor families to lose more money, money they don't have if they have to take off from their places of employment just to tell a story that everyone already knows. 28 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 Lastly, if I am fired, maimed, killed, or injured in any way, it will be because of my testimony here today. The people involved in this matter of take-out business play for keeps and anyone they pay or use to do their dirty works also plays for keeps. We submitted over a hundred-plus signatures from residents of the City of Philadelphia to all of the representatives of Council and to our mayor that supported. Us at the Freedom Theater meeting, we had a call to action, and it was also a letter addressed to all -- to the Mayor and Council President and all of the members of Council. We also put a sample of what we put a verification of compliance of existing laws form. The responsibility of this process should not be shifted to the people. We should not have to come out of our homes, leave our employment like 29 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 we had to do with State Act 39. We should not have to be pitted against one another like bulldogs or pit bulls, where the businesses use the alcoholics or drunks or people that were addicted in the communities against those of us who are trying to have a better quality of life or improve the quality of life. This process will be a burdensome process to the residents of Philadelphia. It is also a severe tax burden. We should not have to pay a board that we have had no input. No 16 one has talked to me, and I've done a Herculean job as it relates to take-out laws and take-out consumption. We've investigated these locations, we've turned this information into the Pennsylvania State licensing boards. They're doing their investigations, they've come back with those investigations. Every district in this city, 30 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 every one right now today has businesses in their district that are in violation of the law. And a board, a three-member panel or otherwise, is not going to correct that. We're asking for a real remedy and not some play remedy or some action that is not going to help us, is not going to help us. And it's really disgraceful, it really is. It's disgraceful that if you rode through the City of Philadelphia right now, the State law Guide Title 40 and 47 is in violation. They serve minor children from the same window as drinking patrons they. Have no appropriate seating, there is no 19 ingress and egress, there is no hot and cold running water, there is no 21 bathrooms for use to the public. So what do want to go before this board and tell them that they're going to do? The hearings for State Act 39 ended up getting stuff like with 31 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 conditions. You can't give a business that's running illegally conditions. They have to go back to the drawing board. Many of them are not even properly zoned. They were bars.
They shouldn't even really be selling anything other than alcohol, but they sell clothes, they sell -- So we need to go back to the drawing board and say, Let's look at these businesses and see, are you properly zoned to even be here? And if not, then let's start from there. But to put a board in place that you want to pay $100 a session, a maximum of $22,000 a year at taxpayers' expense is disgraceful. And we've been over this. Our communities are suffering. They're killing our babies; there's 156 murders already. Alcohol, malt liquor is a major contributor to the murder rate in the City of Philadelphia. 32 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 And how many more of these games are we going to have to play, putting board in place and nah-nahs and whatnot that won't correct the problem. This board will not help us at all. Thank you.
Thank you for testimony. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you and thank you for your testimony. If this board or this type of structure is not acceptable, what would you recommend that you believe would serve a better purpose?
The Department of Licenses and Inspections already does inspections. It's their job. They have -- which is what I put in the packet for everybody to review. If they were doing their jobs when their people go into not only just 33 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 do inspections for fire codes, but to also determine if the other conditions that need to be met are met before they even submit or allow them to submit that information to the State, they wouldn't get a license. It can be done through L&I. But to put the burden of having to have me and residents like myself take off from their work -- people are making minimum wage. You're asking people to have to do this every other year. That's a burden to the community. And for what reason? The stores are already running illegally. They don't have 30 seats to tables, they don't comply with the Philadelphia Code, the Philadelphia Code, our Health Department. They're in violation of all of that. And if somebody wants to make it mandatory for the residents to have to run back into these places and to a board that is going to be corrupted by 34 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 whoever reaches into it anyway, we've already had it happen with State Act 39. It's a conflict of interest. We're being pitted against our representatives, we're being pitted against each other in the relationships in the community. I'm being pitted against this process. I work here as well. So if people want to reach into my boss and call her and say, Well, why was she -- I'm saying it because I'm telling the truth. I've done my homework, and they know I've done my homework. Everybody in this room know that these violations are here today. The State Board, the Pennsylvania State Police sent us a letter on the locations that we asked them to investigate. They're all in violation, every district. It's not one district you can go in right now. And mostly because when they 35 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 first go into business, the first thing they violate is the gross floor space.
Because they put those plexiglass so you're already taking up your floor space.
There's already a process in place that L&I already uses. 36 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367
And so you're saying that if the existing process was enforced, there would be no need for this new structure.
You wouldn't need a State Act 39. We wouldn't be pitted against Asian businesses, Asian businesses using the weak of our community to run in here against us once they saw we had galvanized enough energy and people to talk about the conditions of our community. This is really sad. It's a sad testament that people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. We can't tell our children, We want you to have a better education, but at the same time, we send 'em past stores in the morning that give 'em drugs, give their fathers malt liquor on credit so he's sloppy drunk, can't service the families. The black men can't stand up and be black men in their communities 37 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 because of the addition. I mean, it's not fair. It's just -- this is -- this is painful. And I've had to go through -- I've gone through a lot in my life, but I'm telling you, in terms of ancestors and being whipped and chained -- I mean, I feel like that, like I'm having that experience. In 2007, people are killing my people, blood is running deep in the street, and I'm supposed to act invisible, I'm supposed to not talk about it because you know, you got -- you the good little nigga', you got a good little job. Well, I'm not the good little nigga' with the good little job. People are hurting our people. They're killing our babies, they're killing our men. Our men can't stand up for us in our households, they can't protect us from nothing. And now we got to run again 38 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 and galvanize block captains, galvanize our fathers, our mothers, our children, our sisters, and come can sit before the board and say, "Oh, please, don't let these stores" -- come on. It's ridiculous. It's just ridiculous.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Cummings, most of the complaints that you're mentioning in your testimony, are these what they call stop-and-go's more or less than restaurants or taverns?
Those are what are in the neighborhood communities, so people need to be clear. 39 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 Restaurants are in Center City. Stop-and-go's that act as restaurants are in neighborhoods, whether it's the Northeast or whether it's North Philly.
Well, I just want to make -- I think what's in order, Mr. Chairman, if we can hear from Commissioner Verdi about the L&I enforcement of the -- these gas-and-go's and their operations, I think it would be helpful. I think after your testimony, of course, I'd like to --
Vivian Crawford. I am the counsel to the African-American Heritage Coalition. I am also First Vice Chair of Neighborhoods Networks. 40 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 When I hear Sister Bonita's testimony and I listen to her passion, I wonder why we're here two years later complaining about the same thing that we complained about before. Under Act 39, what was foisted upon City Council was the responsibility for oversight for these and to have hearings. There were people that were appointed as hearing officers who, as a result, the owners of these businesses brought in people that they -- I mean, the people were actually inebriated when they came into the hearings. These were people buying that were alcohol on credit from these merchants, which is contrary to the Code; you're not supposed to sell liquor on credit. But these people paraded in, and you had these hearing officers who had no contact with the community whatsoever, sitting there saying, Well, we're going to approve their licenses 41 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 with conditions. Conditions mean nothing if you have no enforcement capability, so that was a joke. Now here we are, some two years later, fighting the same fight with a different act -- actually, a different name of the same ol', same ol'. Now the problem is, we don't have restaurants in the community; we have stop-and-go's, which the Councilman just asked about, Councilman Kelly just asked about. We have stop-and-go's. That's what's in the neighborhoods. And the first thing that these people do is come in and put plexiglass up and have one window. And out of the window that they sell drug paraphernalia, that they sell malt liquor. They also sell chubs and potato chips to children. When bars operated, children were not permitted in bars, so why are 42 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 you having the place under the penumbra of a State liquor license having children come back and forth? This is something that is so ridiculous. I don't even understand why Council has to have their time wasted. Sister Bonita hit on something else. If L&I simply enforced the laws that already exist, we don't need this new board. Why are we creating a board that is a burden to the taxpayers? And let me say something else. Councilman Clarke, when you asked the question, it was very cogent. Here's the question. The Mayor appoints these folks. There's no term limits, they're not elected officials, they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. Now, if you get somebody on that board who is holding these stores to task, how long do you think before there's going to be pressure to get them off? So why would you even create 43 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 a fiction? That's all that it is, that's all that those hearing officers were, were fictions under Act 39. I have a problem with creating a new board to do something that, if the laws that are already existing were enforced, wouldn't be necessary. This is a -- this is fiction that is being created to make it appear that somebody's doing something about our problem. Now, we have brought this problem here. These restaurants are cesspools. I'm going to call it exactly what they are. They're filthy, they serve -- they cook in rancid oil. And this is all of this stuff that happens in the community, but everybody wants to look the other way and then the State wants to say, Well, we're going to create a board. A board of what? a board of whom? and for what purposes? Enforce. Make L&I and the 44 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 Health Department enforce the laws that already exist. Close these places down if, in fact, they do not behave properly and they're not good citizens. This is not something City Council needs to deal with. What City Council needs to deal with is to put the proverbial foot to you know what part of the body and make all of these existing organizations do what they're supposed to do.
And to have us come down here -- for me to have to leave my office to come here to testify before this -- and I appreciate your having this hearing, but the truth of it is, this is not something that solves the problem. You're putting a Band-Aid on a problem with this. And I don't want anybody that's employed by the City to sit here and think that they've done something for our community by putting this in place 'cause you haven't. You haven't 45 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 addressed the problem. You don't treat cancer with a Band-Aid.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you. Could Dominic Verdi, Deputy Commissioner, and Otis Haigler please...
Thank you. Thank you for testimony. Real briefly. And I agree with you that there are a substantial number of existing regulations that would alleviate substantially the existing problems in a lot of operations that are across the City of Philadelphia. 46 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 If -- and I'm going to ask you to follow up with a question from the Administration. If a set of guidelines were established that basically talked about the existing regs in terms of location, and I understand under the State statute, there are limitations in terms of bars, and I don't know if these other things, as it relates to schools and other types of operations that deal with children, actually the number of these operations that are allowed to be within a geographical area, the issues with respects to having the comingling of children and adults in a place that sells alcohol, all of the different things that you indicated earlier. If a set of guidelines were established and those guidelines were used during the process of the issuance of a permit, do you think that that would be a better scenario? So if the people coming in for 47 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 this application, and we're requiring for a permit, then the hearing examiners all have a set of guidelines that people must adhere to, or those particular locations must adhere to so they cannot deviate from that, these are the guidelines, these are the regs; they can't just, you know, use their discretion. Do you think that that would enhance the process? So if that store came and didn't have the appropriate rest rooms, if that place was not in the geographical area in terms of limitations or prohibitions, if they didn't have the things that we earlier talked about, then that automatically would be denied? Do you think --
As I understand as you've articulated it, what's going to happen under your scenario is that there's a possibility of enforcement.
Correct. Well, the enforcement would be if they 48 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 don't comply with the guidelines, as you've indicated, and I agree, that are already in place and are just not being enforced, then you wouldn't get the permit.
I understand that. (Indiscernible; parties talking at the same time.)
I'm asking a very succinct question. If the things that we have indicated -- and I've talked to you all numerous times about this -- that are currently law, if that person comes in and applies for a permit, and this establishment or this application or this applicant does 49 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 not comply with the existing regulations and, therefore, that application is immediately denied. That would essentially be a mechanism for enforcement 'cause it won't even allow for that person to be in place.
But, Councilman, I agree that that would be helpful, but the problem is, what happens when they come in and initially make the application and they do comply; and two months after they've granted the license, they make the changes that we've discussed that they routinely make. I hear you that there should be something that's standard that you either have it or you don't. There's no -- it's not -- with the application process. But the problem happens is that these folk will actually have -- they've now passed the application process. 50 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 We need enforcement beyond that because they're not going to be good citizens. They're going to change and alter the configuration of their businesses in a way that's most profitable.
But that's a possibility with everybody that applies for anything. But my question is: If you're geographically located in an area that's prohibited by law, you can't change the location.
But you can't -- again, Councilman, you cannot man take-out consumption. All of the locations that -- and it was only a few. When we even look at the whole process, 94 percent of those places got through. You're only talking about 4 51 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 or percent of those locations that even the Council took away the ability to have take-out consumption. Every last one of those stores sold alcohol to continue to allow it to be taken out. So, again --
Yeah, but that prior board -- not to cut you off -- was not operating in any set of guidelines; they were just basically -- it's simply based on their discretion based on how many people came in and supported this applicant or opposed that applicant. I mean, there was no 18 standards.
Yeah. They were like just saying, Okay, well I like the way this guy looks, I'll give him --
But I'm talking 52 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 about the actual physical businesses, when they were told that their licenses were not going to be renewed, that they lost their ability to have take-out, they sold take-out anyway.
My contention is that there is an inspection process that should be in place that does not burden the taxpayers; a board or application process is not necessary. If L&I is doing their job, these places are in compliance, period. It does not require anybody to come and get an application to determine if they can take out malt liquor because it doesn't matter whether you say they can't.
Yeah, but what's better than having your application denied so you don't have a permit to sell it? I mean, isn't that the ultimate enforcement? 53 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367
But it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter because it happened with State Act 39, and nothing took place. Don't -- the people --
That was under appeal, and they believed that they were going to win the appeal.
It doesn't matter. Until they won, the people were still taking alcohol out of the stores, irregardless. So what we're saying is, you don't need a board, you don't need an application process; you need to enforce the law. Like with day cares, if they're not on point, if they don't comply, they cannot get the renewed State license. I'm talking about the actual State license.
But, Ms. Cummings, with all due respect, you've just said day care, using that as an example. I know people that are 54 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 denied a permit to have day care, and they still care for children without a license. So I'm saying that if people choose to disobey the law, they're going to do; it doesn't matter what we or anybody else does. But my point is, if a person is denied a permit to carry pursuant to a set of statutes and guidelines, then that person is, for all intents and purposes, out of the take-out business. And it's much earlier to enforce that than it is to insist that we have additional enforcement officers. And based on my review of the budget earlier today, there's a very limited likelihood that we're going been to be able to increase the workforce in the Department of Licenses and Inspections and add additional inspectors.
But they already have -- 55 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367
So if we can terminate it from the beginning, I would think that that enhances your ability to monitor it to some degree if you deny that permit based on those guidelines.
But I don't think necessarily think that we're talking about increasing
You are, you are. Part of the problem with the City of Philadelphia is -- and I can say this as a Councilperson that deals with budgets. Our biggest problem is that we have reduced the workforce in the government substantially. We've reduced the Department of Licenses and Inspections and other enforcement entities. There's just simply not enough people to go around to enforce the laws that we in Council pass. That's our biggest problem. And I'm just saying that it's 56 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 not a very strong likelihood that that's going to change in the foreseeable future.
Councilman, you either are saying that we're sitting here wasting our time and that this committee has determined that this process is going to be in place.
First of all, I'm not the sponsor of the bill. Second of all, as I indicated earlier, this was given to us by State statute.
Well, if you're not saying that, then what I'm saying is: The Department of Licenses and Inspections inspectors already inspect these locations anyway.
What we're saying is -- 57 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367
Yes, they do, because they have to go in for the Fire Code, period. They're in those locations anyway. What they can do is spend maybe five more minutes in them to determine if they're in compliance based on what they would be checking off on the sheet.
I just don't agree with that, and I know you're involved -- I'm telling you, the limitations on the Department of Licenses and Inspections is dramatic. I just don't think that they're --
And I'll get to you. I'm sorry, Miss Crawford. It's just practicality.
Again, it's the same as always. It's been determined that this was a process that somebody 58 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 wants to see in place. What I'm saying to you is, it does not help black folks, it does not help black babies. This committee would be sanctioning them to death, and that's what you would be doing. You're playing games and you would be sanctioning them to death. Their families are being harmed by these locations. These locations are operating illegally. Nothing that you're going to do here, setting up a three-member board is not going to prevent black children from experiencing the killings on their streets from the intoxication and addiction, that's not going to happen. So if you just are saying to us that no matter what we say that that's what you're going to do, then just say that. But in terms of people stopping long enough to listen, people 59 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 stopping long enough to try to put in place something different than what you're proposing, if we can't get there, then just say that. But we can do it better and we can do it different, and it doesn't have to be a tax burden. And if you have $22,000 to spend annually for board members, then I don't know why you couldn't hire some more people for $22,000 annually. They may not be necessarily able to make whatever a normal inspector would make, but maybe that could be a training program; I don't know. But I'm quite sure that we could use $22,000 a year to give to some needy families that really need jobs or put some employment aspects in place that could take advantage of that $22,000, and then everybody benefits from it, and it's not just a burden on the taxpayers to be paying -- we're paying businesses, Councilman, to 60 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 operate illegally in our neighbors, and it's not fair.
So do you suggest that we do nothing and allow the status quo to continue?
I'm asking you a question: Do you suggest that we allow the status quo, where there's no 12 issuance of per -- there's no process to deal with the issuance of a permit and just allow the Liquor Control Board to continue to give out licenses without any input whatsoever? If that's what you're suggesting, then that's okay. I'm just trying to understand what the alternative is.
May I just jump in for a moment, sir? The question is this: When I asked that Licenses and Inspections actually enforce the rules that already 61 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 exist, you said that in looking at the budget, the problem is, Licenses and Inspections, they don't have enough -- the department does not have enough inspectors to do that.
Okay. So my question is perhaps -- and this is not going to get me any popularity points here -- somebody needs to audit Licenses and Inspections and find out how they deploy their workers and what they do. What are their man hours? I think there needs to be an audit of that department because, it seems to me, that perhaps they have enough hours there; they're just not properly deployed. So that would be one suggestion. And the other thing would be, what do they do? We don't know that, because if they don't have time to do this, and this is -- these places are 62 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 breeding grounds for violence so that we have a police department that's on alert trying to do something about violence in the City of Philadelphia, and we have places that literally are feeding, are feeding into this because they sell the drug paraphernalia -- and I know you've heard that testimony from other people. They sell the drug paraphernalia in these places. And I keep arguing, and nobody -- and I've met with Miss Paris from the Health Department, and nobody wants to look at the fact that there's a connection between malt liquor, violence, and this -- and the drugs that these kids are taking. There is a connection, it exists. Now, we are actually allowing these places to stay in business. And malt liquor is not beer, is not what we know. Malt liquor is all chemicals. And you got these young people drinking this stuff and running around here 63 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 crazy. But that's another argument. But what I want to suggest is that, Mr. Councilman, I believe that this august body has the opportunity and the wherewithal to order an audit of Licenses and Inspections and find out what those people do and how they could be better deployed. And also another thing is spot checks. There could be spot checks on these restaurants temporarily on these stop-and-go's. If you just don't announce where you're going and just go in and spot-check, and you're going to come up with a lot of violations. I mean, $22,000 a year could be better spent by employing three people to be the spot-checkers. But to sit someplace on high and pontificate and listen to the communities protest, which has to be organized and brought before them and pontificate about what should be done just does not seem like the right way 64 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 to go.
I hear you and I agree with you, but I think you're, to some degree, mixing apples and oranges. We're talking about a process that authorizes the issuance of a license. The current process clearly doesn't work because it is done by the LCB. This process -- and I don't necessarily like the way it's been done, but the current process localizes that particular application process. And what I'm suggesting is that based on it being localized, if there can be a set of standards -- and I don't even know legally if we can do that 'cause I heard that the State mandated certain things with respect to this bill -- a set of standards and guidelines, criteria could be established as a part of that permitting process, I believe that a substantial number of these operations 65 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 will be deemed ineligible just by virtue of their physical location and other things that I don't think that they can arbitrarily change. So based on this bill, which talks about a permit process, I guess my question, and I'm going to ask it again, is: If we had guidelines and standards associated with this -- and I agree that we need to come up with a better mechanism for ultimately --
-- enforcing the ones that do pass muster, 'cause I agree that people are going to change, right? But in terms of this bill and this process, I'm just trying to make the best out of something that's been put in our lap by the legislature. If there's a way that we can eliminate a number of those stores, those permits, then those are establishments that will never be on 66 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 line selling malt liquor or any of the other problematic goods.
So this is where I'm confused. If indeed you set up an application process, and that application process outlines things 9 that have to be done in order to 10 receive the permit to sell malt liquor 11 -- 12
-- then that's 14 easily accomplished through paperwork. 15 Why does a three-member board need to 16 be -- because the three-member board, 17 as I understood the testimony before, 18 was that they were going to hear from 19 the community. And if there were some 20 objections, then indeed, they were 21 going to be responsive to the 22 community. 23 Well, if it's an application 24 process, then we don't need a 25 three-member board for that. 67 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367
Because based on the current situation, the LCB is not going to have any set of standards or guidelines because it is a State establishment; and, therefore, we cannot impose any local statutes on that LCB. Once this is localized, it's my believe -- and I'm hoping that Law and L&I will concur -- that we can impose a set of standards on a local basis because this process is now local. But if it's at the LCB, the LCB, frankly speaking, doesn't care or is not willing to have those standards apply to any permitting process. See, that's the difference.
But I'm still confused as to why you need a three-member board for that. That's what I don't understand.
I mean, the State made that determination. I 68 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 mean, I was not a part of this. In all honesty, this is the first time I've seen this bill. I mean, I've been a little busy for the last three months.
The Chairman would like to recognize Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up on Councilman Clarke's point. You know, I'm looking over at Mr. Haigler's testimony here. You know, we have to remember that the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted sometime in 2005 Act 39, and this was after -- this was after the Liquor Control Board inundated certain neighborhoods with all of these 69 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 stop-and-go's. This was after the fact. They enacted that. They threw it in Council's lap. We had no say -- well, they tried to give us a say after the fact. We would have never opened most of those stores had we had the authority to do that. But, in any case, it was challenged. And in challenging that, the Common Pleas Court threw out Act 39. Now the General Assembly got Act 155. And what that does, it brings it back into our laps again by creating a board. But Councilman Clarke is correct. It gives us local control. Now, you may have some issues with L&I because they have to enforce this, but I think in speaking with the people from L&I, I think maybe we can direct some attention into that. Maybe they haven't put that on a high priority status; maybe they should. 70 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 It's about time. I, frankly, would like to see most of them closed. I don't think they add anything to a neighborhood; they really don't. If people want to obtain beverages or alcoholic beverages, they can do so in many different ways; they don't necessarily need those stores. But I'd be looking forward to the testimony of Mr. Haigler and Commissioner Verdi to see what they can do with L&I.
I know, but let me just lastly say this: You can't have a three-member board and an application process if you don't have anybody participating in it. The burden is to the community; if they don't come out, you still don't have any process. So that's what I'm saying. So 71 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 we don't need a process in place that burdens the taxpayers and the community that they won't participate in, or it causes us to fight. Bringing us against one another is not a way to resolve this issue, and we will eventually fall away from the process. The stores will eventually be just going through motions. It won't be no opposition from the community 'cause people are afraid. People were threatened the last time with State Act 39. It's not the appropriate way to do it; it's just not. And somebody needs to go back to the drawing board and deal with what would be the appropriate way to do it. Without us, there is no process, period.
Councilman Kelly, I just want to ask one thing because you said that with this new bill, with this new act, that what it does is give City Council authority. 72 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 And my question is very simplistic.
Okay. Because I don't see that you even have input if the Mayor gets to appoint these people. And even though you have to approve them, you can't fire them. Are you satisfied with the --
You brought up some interesting points, and I think the panel is going to look at them.
Yeah, thank you. Dominic Verdi, please, the committee would like to ask you some questions. (Witnesses come forward.) COMMISSIONER VERDI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dominic 73 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 Verdi, V-E-R-D-I, and I'm Deputy Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections.
Okay. And, Otis, if you could identify yourself for the record.
Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. COMMISSIONER VERDI: If I may, I would like to clear up one issue, Mr. Chairman. Under this bill, or any law at this point, the Department of Licenses and Inspections does not have jurisdiction to enforce a liquor license. This permit that's being -- the permit now that's being discussed, these locations have a valid liquor license. This is a permit that's requested by the applicant to have take-out sales. It's not just 74 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 exclusive to a store. A bar could have a take-out license. We have no 4 jurisdiction whatsoever over that license. We do at times send our opinions to the board. These licenses are renewable every two years. As a matter of fact, we have a standing rule that the Nuisance Task Force, which is comprised of the D.A.'s Office, the Police Department, our office, and civic groups, actually get together once a year and go over all of the licenses -- not only the take-out part of them, but the actual license -- and give the LCB a recommendation of 50 or more that we request not be renewed. Unfortunately, all we can do with these locations is request they not be renewed. We have given testimony, we've sent boxes of evidence to the State in reference to these locations. The unfortunate part is, we have no 75 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 jurisdiction over those people getting or not getting the been license. We can only request that they do not get the license. As far as the issue with the nuisance locations, we have a nuisance task force that's designed to work together with the Police Department. As the testimony was here before from the community that the police are striving hard to work at these levels. We have a group of people that work hand in hand with the Police Department. As a matter of fact, before I got here this morning, there was five locations put under a cease- operations for L&I violations. The issue with that is, we can only keep these places closed until those violations are corrected. If they're not corrected, I still can't take their liquor license. We can only advise the State of the cease operations, which we do, which is then 76 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 put on the reported. The unfortunate part is, the liquor licenses are renewed every two years. We have input into what we'd like to see opened or not opened, but unfortunately, the State has the ultimate decision on that license.
Okay. The Chair would like to recognize Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown.
Thank you. Can you tell us what percentage, just to get some insight on it, of those you recommend not be open, the recommendation actually follows and is -- the recommendation is actually followed? COMMISSIONER VERDI: Councilwoman, we -- I'm not quite sure of this year. But prior, if I'm not mistaken, the Nuisance Task Force gave 70 licenses not to be renewed. Out of 70 licenses, mind you, out of 2,000 in 77 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 the entire City, one was not renewed.
Okay. So let me make sure that I understand another point. Persons that are given a liquor license, it is okay then for them to also sell juice and commingle that with juice and sodas so that children have access to those stores? COMMISSIONER VERDI: And, again, the unfortunate part is, that's not a violation of anything that L&I has. That may be a violation of their liquor license. And, again, even if the State, we get -- we turn information over to the State constantly.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER VERDI: We cannot enforce the liquor license.
So if it's a violation of the State, then the State has to enforce it; is 78 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 that what I'm hearing? COMMISSIONER VERDI: That's correct.
And so, in effect, am I hearing that your hands are tied when it comes to enforcing State-related liquor violations? COMMISSIONER VERDI: That's correct. Now, understand, this board that they required us to initiate --
Did you saw "may" require? COMMISSIONER VERDI: That they do require us to initiate. The board is basically for testimony, and it would be our testimony also before this board that we may not recommend the liquor license be issued because of a laundry list of violations that we have or these violations. We'd have to testify ourselves to the board as to why we're asking 79 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 them not to renew that liquor license.
So the board that's up for consideration today, you're suggesting, would have more teeth than L&I as a City agency; is that what we're hearing? COMMISSIONER VERDI: I'm not saying that it would have more teeth.
All right. To Councilman Clarke's suggestions on the provisions and conditions of this application, is it possible that those type of stipulations could indeed be incorporated into this document? And how possible is that? COMMISSIONER VERDI: If I'm not mistaken, after reading the bill 21 itself, there are certain stipulations in here. We're working on one or two changes in the regulations to basically have at least, if I'm not correct, ten different items that would be required 80 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 for that board to recommend to the State their license -- to get their license or not get their license. Again, that board is recommend to the State whether or not it should get a license or not.
But I'm speaking specifically to the recommendations Councilman Clarke raised 'cause they're directly tied to the testimony of the other witnesses.
What Councilman Clarke raised primarily was correct. Council has to basically -- the City has to, not Council, but the City has to issue a prerequisite permit in order for the State liquor license to even be renewed now under this new Act 155 as well as the local ordinance. The board itself makes the determination as to whether or not this permit is either approved or disapproved. If the permit is not approved, they can't even get their 81 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 State liquor license renewed. So this is a process that's necessary in the City. If they do not get their State liquor license approved after October 31st, they will, in fact, not have a State liquor license to operate or to sell liquor.
So in some ways, then, this is like the first stopgap screening level that may or may not dictate whether or not they get the State liquor license; is that correct?
That's correct. COMMISSIONER VERDI: But, again, it's not the entire liquor license that we're dealing with. This issue, even though that person may not get -- if we say to the State we don't -- this license at this location -- or this permit for take-out is not approved by the City, it does not mean that that location loses its entire liquor license. The liquor 82 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 license is still an issue that has to be dealt with.
They just lose the portion. COMMISSIONER VERDI: They just lose the portion that allows them take-out.
The question earlier was, and to some degree you responded to it: Does the City with this board have the authority to issue a set of guidelines and criteria based on the current law on location, prohibition, and, since you've brought it up, comingling of services and sales that, Dominic, you indicated that that's a prohibition on 83 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 the State. Then if we add that as part of our guidelines and criteria, can we do that?
The City has the authority to promulgate regulations pursuant to any law that's enacted for the enforcement of that law, and we would have the authority within our regulations to set certain criteria as long as it does not overstep and go into actually --
Right. We're talking about existing statutes. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
And what about state statutes? If this person is in noncompliance of a State statute -- say the State statute says you cannot have the comingling of sales of juices and potato chips and things the kids will be interested in and liquor? 'Cause if I understand it, the 84 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 State statute says you must have separate stations. You can't sell malt liquor out of the same location as you can --
That I don't think we probably will be able to -- I would have to talk to the Law Department about that because, again, we can write regulations, promulgate regulations to enforce our codes, but I don't think we can write regulations to enforce State law.
But if the State law preempts the City laws, can't we simply adopt the State law?
I believe there's something in there, but I'd have to discuss that with the Law Department and come back to you with an answer. COMMISSIONER VERDI: And, 85 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 Councilman, if I'm not mistaken, the last board hearings, which we attended every one of the protests, the State was also asked to testify. So the violations of the State liquor license were entered into the record during those protests, whether it was within body from the LCE or their paperwork did reach the board members themselves. So I think the question that you're asking is, will their violations be accountable on this liquor license? I would assume at this point, yes.
Right. That's what I'm saying. The State -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
If the State preempts local municipalities, then why wouldn't that be something subject to our prohibition? COMMISSIONER VERDI: We do work hand in hand with the State Liquor 86 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 Control Enforcement people. Our violations -- they take our violation into account when they're also aggrieving a license, as we do theirs on some occasions, when we need to file 7 nuisance actions against certain locations.
As a matter of fact, I believe it's on of the local ordinance. If you look there, where it states who has certain, I guess, standing to appear before the board. And I would surmise that under letter C there, where it talks about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acting through any of its agencies, departments, boards, or commissions, that would also mean if their departments, boards, or commissions have, I guess, any information of relevance to offer, which would be 87 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 violations or any other evidence, they would be able to do that.
Letter C, under 3C, the protests. It starts under 3 where it says that protests may be made by one or more of the following. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It's E. I'm sorry. It's different glasses I'm wearing today. I'm sorry.
I don't have mine on, but I'm seeing the same thing you're seeing. All right. So this just doesn't really give me the clarity that I'm asking. Can you -- COMMISSIONER VERDI: Basically 88 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 the State's violations will be brought before that board.
Right, through their agencies, departments, commissions, they can --
See, it's one thing to say that there's violations, but when you say the violations will be brought to that board, my question is: Can those violations be used to establish the legality or the issuance of a permit? COMMISSIONER VERDI: Yes.
I mean, it's one thing to have a State agency come and say, Well, we say such-and-such in a hearing, but my question is -- COMMISSIONER VERDI: I understand what you mean. It could be made a part of the requirement. The only that we have to check with the Law Department on is, the State doesn't always litigate 89 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 violations. Violations are not litigated like ours, like we have 30 days to comply. Ninety-five percent of those violations go before adjudication. So there may be a violation on a liquor license, and I'm learning this as I go --
I'm not talking about a violation; I'm talking about a State statute that says the following: You must you cannot "boom-boom-boom" the following points. If you do not comply with that, do you not get a license. COMMISSIONER VERDI: I understand.
Can that be incorporated into our set of standards and conditions for the issuance of a take-out permit?
So if you guys can -- 90 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 COMMISSIONER VERDI: The requirements, you mean, for a take-out location itself?
Including all local statues and all State statutes as -- COMMISSIONER VERDI: We should be able to get them incorporated into the regulations that go before the board or requirement that goes before the board for an application.
Thank you. Mr. Haigler, you mentioned in your testimony that failure to establish the process, the process that 91 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 we're contemplating right now, the Act 155, you say that this may result in the automatic approval of take-out beer permits. In other words, if we don't act on this, this could possibly mean that all of the permits would be approved.
That's correct, because the way the State law that was enacted in November, it stipulates it within the Act 155 that if the board does not consider applications within 90 days after they've been submitted to the board, then the applications become automatically approved.
Well, that would also -- what happens if there's no board?
If there's no 92 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 board? Well, State law anticipates that there will be a board, so all applications, all licenses are going to be expired. All licenses are going to expire on October 31st, whether there is a board or not. So if the applicants, say submit, and there's no board in place to consider it, then those applications will be automatically approved.
So they will be automatically renewed for the next two years.
Thank you for testimony. Is there any questions from 93 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
One last question. Can I ask the gentlemen to collect with the Law Department and talk in the amendment form about possibly preparing an amendment to the ordinance that will list the specific limitations, prohibitions that will be subject to the take-out permit process?
I just want to make sure that you all have everything and that we're all on the same page.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would only ask the leadership there, L&I, to 94 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 confer with the previous witnesses, given the important stipulations they've put on the record so that it's as comprehensive as possible since, you know, we may only get one chance at this. So have a conversation with the previous community folk as well. COMMISSIONER VERDI: Sure.
I'm referring specifically to the provisions that Councilman Clarke raised on the comingling of services of milk and beer, you know, to reduce it to its most simplest terms. I think that there is some value in you sharing those kind of stipulations now as the department moves towards the crafting of the amendment for Thursday. So even if it means just putting it in writing and sending it to 95 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 the chair of this committee as well as to the leadership and representatives here of L&i, at least it's on the record.
The stenographer can't hear the response. COMMISSIONER VERDI: Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Can you identify yourself for the record, Mrs. Cummings.
Bonita Cummings. I'm just asking, how is L&I, Otis Haigler and Dominic Verdi, being direct to do confer with the community so that they get a understanding of what the State law violations are that we've outlined as it relates to the guide? I'm just not making stuff up; 96 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 I'm talking about the stuff that's in the State Law Guide, Title 40 and 47, not to mention the Philadelphia Code which, you know, Mr. Verdi explained only that what they can't do as it relates to the State, but he did not talk anything about what they can do as it relates to the violations that relate to the Philadelphia Code. So we're mixing apples and oranges in terms of getting down to what I initially what my testimony is about, because there are things that between the Health Department and L&I that could have been addressed without all of this exercise in futility that are not addressed with the way present inspections are done. And we're not just talking about from the State level; I'm talking about from the City level. Some of these are City violations and not just State violations.
97 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 And what I'm suggesting is, given the action that the Chairman will share with us shortly, given that action, potential action, the time is now to register in writing, as you have done in your testimony, with the leadership at L&I those recommended provisions, restrictions, stipulations that you believe should be in the application that Councilman Clarke has referenced. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. If there are no other people here to testify -- (Witness comes forward.)
Okay, sure. Could you please state your name for the record.
My name is Lance Haver. I'm Director of Consumer Affairs for the City of Philadelphia 98 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 I'm here to support the bill. I think that including the community makes it better. I think that giving the community an opportunity to be included, instead of just relying on L&I, is empowering the community. I don't think that it's the wrong way; I think it's the best way to do it, when government fails, for whatever reason, to give community standing at all of these proceedings is the appropriate way. I would simply like to make the recommendation that once you come up with the list of criteria, that we mail them out to Town Watch and to block captains so that we make these hearings as meaningful as possible, that you include that the hearings can be held at night and can be held in neighborhoods; there's no reason for them to have to be held during the day in Center City; they certainly can be 99 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 held at night in communities to be as accessible to the people as possible. But I think being a citizen, having the right to vote, having the right to have standing, and when City Council protects that right, I think that is the right thing to do. I thank you for your time.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from members of the committee?
Sorry, sorry. It may be Mr. Verdi. I forgot to ask a question.
Mr. Verdi, could you please come up? (Mr. Verdi returns to witness table.)
Mr. Haver 100 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 just brought it to my attention. Mr. Verdi, what's the notification process for these hearings? COMMISSIONER VERDI: From my understanding from the ordinance, the notification is to have 90 days to apply.
I'm talking about public notification. COMMISSIONER VERDI: Public notification would the same as a liquor license. There would be a poster.
A poster? COMMISSIONER VERDI: A green-colored poster that goes along the bar on either side of the store bar, whoever's applying, that would notify the community that the take-out permit is being applied for.
And the posting requirement, I believe, under the ordinance, I believe they have to have it posted for... 101 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 COMMISSIONER VERDI: For days prior.
No, 14 days, 14 5 consecutive days. Have it posted for 6 14 days. 7
So since 8 this is now been localized, when we 9 have a zoning, local zoning hearings -- 10 COMMISSIONER VERDI: Yes. 11
-- we 12 require posting, but we also have a 13 list that's made available to 14 Councilmembers at a minimum, and I 15 don't know -- 16 (Indiscernible; parties 17 talking over each other.) 18
Is that 19 still going to be done, notification 20 sent out to -- 21
That is still planned. COMMISSIONER VERDI: We will also have our inspectors looking at these locations that have requested 102 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 take-out to make sure the posting requirement was followed.
I think you already made a mistake on making the statement. I think the follow-up question from the community is, Well, why can't you have an inspector go out and make sure that these violations are enforced? COMMISSIONER VERDI: Unfortunately, Councilman, we do look at violations.
All right. COMMISSIONER VERDI: Not all violations of City Code are able to shut down a location; it's just --
I understand. COMMISSIONER VERDI: We follow a process.
I understand the process. All right. But there will be both public posting and also, similar to the way we 103 5/21/07 L&I COMMITTEE - BILL 070367 currently do zoning hearings, notification is sent to the elected offices -- COMMISSIONER VERDI: That's correct.
Whatever that mailing list is that they currently have.
Thank you for your testimony. If there are no other people to testify on Bill No. 070367, this hearing will be recessed until 9:00 a.m., Thursday, May 24th. (Proceedings end at 2:35 p.m) * * * 104 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Monday, May 21, 2007, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)