COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:45 a.m. - - - BILL NO. 980022 - An ordinance amending Section 9-206 of Philadelphia Code entitled, "Sidewalk Vendors in the Neighborhood Business District" by designating University City as a neighborhood business district in which sidewalk vending is regulated pursuant to Section 9-206 and enacting special provisions regulating vending, both sidewalk vendors and street vendors, in University City, all under terms and conditions. PRESENT: PRESIDENT JOHN F. STREET, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X Frances Egan, Commissioner. . . . . . . . . Department of Licenses and Inspections John Campbell, Manager. . . . . . . . . . . 6 Legislative Regulatory Affairs Department of Licenses and Inspections 7 8 Carol Scheman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 University of Pennsylvania Richard Dickson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Director, Parking Management Philadelphia Parking Authority 3 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a recessed hearing of the Council Committee of the Whole. Today we will take further testimony on Bill No. 980022, which is an ordinance amending Section 9-206 of Philadelphia Code entitled, "Sidewalk Vendors in the Neighborhood Business District" by designating University City as a neighborhood business district in which sidewalk vending is regulated pursuant to Section 9-206 and enacting special provisions regulating vending, both sidewalk vendors and street vendors, in University City, all under terms and conditions. We appreciate very much the cooperation of our good City folks, Commissioner Egan. This record should note that you and your staff were here yesterday and you were very patient with us. And at our request, you delayed the presentation of your testimony until this morning. And you know how much we appreciate your good work and your testimony in this matter. So, if you will, I would appreciate very much if you would identify yourself for the 4 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 record and proceed with your statement. And I would like to make sure that all Members of Council present have a copy of Commissioner Egan's statement. If there is a Councilmember who does not have that statement, would you please raise your hand. Seeing no hands raised, I can only assume -- does everyone in the balcony have the statement? Okay. (Commissioner Frances Egan comes forward.)
Good morning, Commissioner. Please proceed with your statement. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Good morning, President Street. I am Frances Egan, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. President Street, Councilmembers, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the provisions of Bill 980022, creating an additional neighborhood vending district in University City. The first thing I'd like to do is complement Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell for involving our department in the development and writing of this bill. From my observation point, 5 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 she did a very good job of including all interested parties in the formulation of this ordinance. The Department supports the inclusion of the University City area in the neighborhood vending district program. These districts were created to address the unique concerns and problems which arose as vending activities spread into business districts throughout the City. This program has been implemented successfully in Germantown. Vending activity has been regularized, complaints have dropped significantly, a safer environment has been created for both vendors and pedestrians, and businesses and vendors seem to complement each other's activities. If this program is extended to the University City area, vendors, their customers, and the University should enjoy those same benefits that have accrued to the Germantown community: Vendors will not have a secure location assigned by the Department. Streetscape clutter that now exists will be replaced by an orderly, 6 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 improved placement of vendors, the University community will benefit from the safe placement of vendors, and vending activity will complement University operations. We do have two concerns with the proposed ordinance. The proposed legislation will create a Vendor Advisory Board with administrative responsibilities and duties. We request that all references to the University City Vendor Advisory Board be deleted. The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter provides that the executive and administrative powers of the City are vested in and exercised by the Mayor. And, therefore, only the Mayor can create additional advisory boards. The ordinance also gives the vendor boards certain administrative functions. We believe this violates the City Charter, as these functions can only be performed by this agency, and not by an advisory board. We also request that subsection 9-206(10)(b)(.2)(J) be deleted. This section lets vendors sell their vending spot on the public way to another vendor. The City opposes this 7 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 franchising of the public way; and vendors lack property rights on the public streets and sidewalks and cannot sell interest they do not own. So, given those two changes in the current ordinance, otherwise, we do fully support the bill as it would make our job easier in enforcing the vending laws in Philadelphia. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you Commissioner. Now, I -- the Vending Advisory Board, you are aware of the fact that, as written, the Vendor Advisory Board is just that, advisory. It's only advisory to the City L&I Department, and it's advisory to the University. And it doesn't have any -- at least my understanding that it doesn't have any power to do anything other than to make a recommendation, which your Department can accept or reject. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, that's what -- but our preference would be that it would not be a part of a bill passed by this Council. 8 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 You know, in other words, an advisory board can still be created, just not a part of this ordinance. (John Campbell comes forward.)
Councilman -- Mr. President, John Campbell from Licenses and Inspections. When we originally set up the neighborhood vending districts, we did put a Section 11 in, consultation with neighborhood organizations. And that was put in there anticipating moving this throughout the City and going into various districts where, you know, you could end up with a proliferation of vendor advisory boards. We put in Section 11 originally to deal with that subject. And what the section says is that in implementing and enforcing provisions of this section, the Department shall consult with any organization representing businesses, vendors, merchants, residents within that particular neighborhood district. That's exactly what we did at Germantown and Chelten. We worked with all the 9 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 business organization, the business organizations, a number of community organizations, and the vendors themselves, and in placing. You know, we thought that would really deal with the situation that, you know. . .
I'm looking for -- I see Section 10, Designated Neighborhood Districts.
At the bottom of 18, Mr. President, you'll see it at the very bottom.
Oh, okay, I see it. So it's your fundamental view that that section, that if a vendor advisory board was set up independent of the ordinance, that section would fundamentally require that you take into account recommendations that were made by that board, okay. COMMISSIONER EAGAN: Yes.
We'll take that -- the Committee will take that view under advisement. Now, you talked to us a little bit about your other reservation, and that's the reservation, I believe, that relates to the 10 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 selling of their vendor locations. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, again, what I stated in my testimony is that the vendors don't have the property right to sell that spot. It's not theirs to sell; they don't own it. So we would probably --
Excuse me a second. COMMISSIONER EGAN: I'm sorry. (Brief interruption.) COMMISSIONER EGAN: There have been recent court decisions that back that up. And what we do in the Center City District or in the Germantown area, when spots become available, people can make application for them, and we have a lottery system too.
Is this provision in any of the other ordinances applicable to special vending districts? Neighborhood, business --
I'm sorry. Is this provision in any other -- no, it is not, Mr. 11 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 President. In fact, over -- and I think you talked about the long history of vending yesterday. This has been a constant point of discussion. And in any portion of the vending bill, 9-203, 9-205, which deal with sidewalk sales vending, the Center City District, we specifically say that licenses are non-transferrable, non-assignable. Again, this is a temporary situation; it's not a permanent situation. And for people to trade or sell spots, again, on a public way, gives it something that it really isn't. It's more like -- and I don't want to use the term -- I think that there is a legal term, sort of like squatters, I guess, or people along that line, the tenants of sufferance. And. . .
You're fumbling around for a word, and I think we know what you're trying to say. Does the Law Department have a view on this provision, do you know?
I've had a number of discussions with Mr. Auerbach. There is no formal 12 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 written public opinion that I'm aware of on this particular situation.
Are you aware of whether or not the Law Department has a view in this provision?
All right, we'll find out, I can find out. It's not a problem. Okay, are those the main two objections, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes.
Let me ask you about one other problem, and I may need some advice but. . . This ordinance, as proposed, includes an effective date of April 30th of 1998. Could you comment on the propriety of having an effective date so early? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Of April '98? That would be a tough thing to implement.
What do you think -- and maybe -- and I need the University to pay careful attention to this testimony. And if you have a view on it, I'm going to need you to make 13 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 sure that you tell us. Assuming that some form of this bill is approved by City Council, what is the earliest reasonable date that you think -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: We would need about three months. We can get that in three months to implement fully.
About three months -- April, May. . . So you don't think you would be prepared to be able to fully implement this until the end of July? COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's right. You know, in other words, from date of the passage, three months from date of passage.
I need a representative of the University. COMMISSIONER EGAN: It may be, Mr. President, that with the school being out of session in the summer, we could do something for like, you know, September 1st, or something like that. (Carol Scheman comes forward.)
The question is, when 14 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 does the University believes it would be reasonable to have -- I'm sorry.
The question is, how long will it take the Department of Licenses and Inspections, working in conjunction with the University, in order for them to be able implement the bill? They couldn't do it in one day; in addition to which, it would be unfair --
I would -- the day that Commissioner Egan mentioned strikes me as very reasonable.
With respect to the issue we were discussing, you're saying that there 15 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 shouldn't be any item even like good will? A vendor stays in a spot at the University of Pennsylvania, from the discussions I heard yesterday. Any concept of it being temporary is not realistic. They apparently feel that vending will always in some form be necessary. They don't see any way, from the testimony as I understood it, of having no vendors. They have no facilities for providing for food for all of the people out there without some sort of vending facility. So it's more than -- and I'm sure the same thing exists at Temple. From every appearance I have there, I don't know where they'd ever be, you know, able to provide without vending. Now, it seems to me a business person who invests time and energy and makes a place attractive, worries about good food and so forth, and builds up a reputation, you're saying that because it's in a public spot, the element of good will should be eliminated entirely, that there's no way of anybody building up any value? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, what we're 16 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 saying is that vendor does not have a right to sell his spot to another vendor.
Does he have the right to sell his business to another vendor? COMMISSIONER EGAN: I'm sure he has a right to do that.
Well, I have concerns. I heard what the President said about communicating with the Law Department. I think that would be a very wise thing to do. I'm concerned about saying that --
Councilman Cohen, unfortunately, I have some experience in this area.
Well, I say "unfortunately" because I have had the occasions to deal with people, as a lawyer, who wanted to sell spots and who ran into all kind of -- there was never a day in my life when I believed that I would ever be able to do anything other than use vending as a way of making a living on a daily basis. I mean, I just always understood that 17 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 it was just -- it would just be problematic. I was never, ever thinking about depending on it in this way. I think, in this bill, we're taking about three different kinds of locations. We're talking about locations on the University campus, private locations, locations where people will actually have a lease, and that they will have a stand, the University will authorize their being there, and I don't know how elaborate those locations will be. That's one thing, because the University can do pretty much what it wants to do within reason wit' those private locations. And, of course, if I'm over there, right, I'm trying to get on a private location because now you've got something that you can hold on to. Then there are those locations that are on the street itself. They park at really literally parking meters, which is another whole issue about taking up the parking and the revenue that the City loses, and all of that. But they'll be on the street, and they'll move on a regular basis, daily basis. 18 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 And then there are those people who will be on the sidewalk. Well, part of what this bill 5 contemplates is is that those spots will be -- people will be given a license to vend, right, in a blockface, on a blockface for -- on a kind of seniority basis. And the reason why I raise these legal questions is 'cause this thing is -- these ordinances are crafted in such a way so that when you take a look at, you know, the traffic lights, the stop signs, the furniture, and all the things that are going on in the block, a certain number of spots are available. We are -- we are actually authorizing somebody to conduct this economic activity on someone's private property. Now, when we go -- that's one thing. Now, when we go a step further and say, You now have a right not only to conduct the activity, but if you decide to get out of that business, you can take that business and you can sell it to somebody else, and then the Department has to authorize another person to do business on 19 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 this private part. Now, the problem with some of that is that there are people over -- there are prime spots. And I don't always -- when we first got into this business, I always believed that the people who were vending in Center City, when we were doing the Center City District, and the people were vending in the University of Pennsylvania, those areas, ought to be able to move to the spots that are best, on a seniority basis. So let's just hypothetically say that here that there are 100 vendors over there and there are 100 spots. And if you rank the spots from 1 to 100 -- and the vendors know the best spots -- that those people who were there longer and who couldn't qualify for the best spots, ought to be able to move up and get better spots when other people move out; as opposed to letting a person, who today has a spot, sell it to somebody else, because they are doing this in a public way. So that if and I were both at the University of Pennsylvania, and I had 20 years of seniority and you had 15, right, and this is being 20 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 done, authorized by the City, and the private property agrees with it. Now, when I leave, I think you ought to be able to have a right of first refusal to my better spot; not somebody else coming from the outside. I mean, that's just a preference of mine.
So that once these vendors get ranked, the ones that are there --'cause you got to draw a line on the number of people who are vending in these areas. At some point in time, you draw a line. Part of the reason why we're here is because when we made changes in vending in other areas, people flock to the University of Pennsylvania, they run to Temple, they run to these areas. So if we are going to authorize these spots on the basis of seniority, it would be my preference that we not allow people to sell their spots, but that we establish a pecking order, an order of seniority. And then once one person moves out, other people get a chance to move up. I mean I think that, in my judgment, 21 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 that is a fairer way to do this than allowing me, in some respects, just by the luck of a draw to, you know, kind of 'cause I was over there, now I get a right to bring somebody in who never had anything to do with any of this. You know, he just happens to be somebody who could afford to come up with the $20,000 or the $25,000. And I guess that I feel that way because I care more about those people who are long-term vendors in an area than I do about somebody who happens to be able to get some money together and then maybe will be able to put himself in the vending business. And I also think that it raises additional legal questions insofar as what we're doing when we go so far as to say, And you now generate -- because what we are doing is giving somebody what is tantamount to a property interest in that spot. And I don't really want to do that. I can tell you, I don't want to do that. Will I go along with that? I don't know, I guess I could.
May I raise an issue? It may sound strange coming from me, but I 22 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 hate to see economic value destroyed. It seems to me a vendor builds up a certain value, particularly if he performs in a quality way. I could understand the City having a policy saying that if there is a sale and there is a certain amount of money, the City should have 50 percent interest 'cause the City has also contributed to the buildup of the vendor's business by providing this public area. But just to eliminate, as if it didn't exist, the reputation for, say, good food, quick access, quality service, to just eliminate that as if it didn't occur, it seems to me to be destroying something of economic value. It's economic value. You know, if you were in a store, it would clearly be economic value if he built up a business intended to attract people. So, you know, I'm also seeing it as a source of revenue for the City, and I would just suggest that that may be another way of the City gaining some revenue from these services in addition to the annual vendor's fees. I just hate to see this regarded as being regarded as no use whatever. 23 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 I think it also acts as a stimulus to reaching quality service; you know, sort of rewarding the vendors who do good work over many years. And so I suggest that, you know, for thinking as a means of not vesting any special permanent right in the vendor, but in recognizing the economic value of what good service really builds up to.
They could have an agreement to share 50 percent. The City would get an additional revenue, and we would recognize economic value. I'm not arguing --
Councilman Cohen, I think you've just made a bad idea worse.
Now, you can tell that here's a man -- here are people who have been working together for a long time, right? You have just made a bad idea worse. Now we are going to -- now we are going to get further in it, instead of getting further out of it. 'Cause that's now -- that's now some 24 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 kind of new form of taxation, which I'm not sure we even have the authority to do. How can we tax -- how can we tax the proceeds of this sale? What basis do we have to say that we are entitled to -- we could -- we could -- we could generate money in limited ways. One, we can impose fees; two, we can impose taxes, right? Fees and taxes. Some people characterize our fees as taxes. I don't know what else -- I don't know how else we generate money.
Well, that would fit in. I don't see any problem at all in that because we're taxing public space.
But what tax is it, though? I mean, you're not talking about for the use of the public space; that's a tax on the transaction. If we just tried to capture a certain amount of the money that is transferred pursuant to this sale or lease or whatever it is, right, and that is -- that's got to be a form of taxation. And I don't know if I want the authority we have to tax. And I'm fairly 25 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 familiar, as you are, with most of the basic taxes that we impose,. 'Cause they're already subject to all the business taxes, they're already subject to all the fees because there are a whole long list of taxes and fees that they have to -- that they are subject to filing and/or paying, right? And I don't know how we reach that transaction, I don't know.
I don't see any problem if the policy is general, providing that when a business is terminated, the vendor may go out of business, but if he chooses to sell, that portion of the value attributable of good will shall be shared between the vendor going out of business and the City government.
Well, that's a very interesting comment, Councilman, but we can't -- that's not the way we generate revenue. The difference shall be shared between us. I mean, we really do have to have a little bit more authority than that. All of our taxing authority comes from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, either in some special legislation RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 as the authorization that we have, the State authorization that we have to pose a tax on the retail sale of liquor. Or it's got to be a general grant of taxation that we got under the first class enabling legislation as further adopted by us in the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. We don't have any other way of raising revenue other than that and imposing fees that are based on our cost of providing regulatory and supervisory activity. I mean, for example, if we decide -- and Councilman Kenney has, as the Council Committee Chairman on Licenses and Inspections. And we are doing more regulating of activity today than we did before because of the way situations have changed. There are times when the Administration comes in and says, We're raising all the fees because it's costing us more money to regulate this activity. I -- I just have a reservation about going that far. And, look, I'm a big supporter of sidewalk sales and vending and all of that, and I 27 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 think we will always vend in this city, always. I don't think -- one of the concerns that I had about the testimony is I think that some of those spots might not be viable spots, I really do. I think some of them might be very viable. I can remember a day -- and you all will pardon me. I can remember a day when my brother introduced kosher hot dogs on the campus of Temple. A kosher hot dog was never sold. And we used to go over to 29th and Fletcher Street, at Sandler's, and we bought kosher hot dogs, and we would get anywhere from four to six in a pound. Those hot dogs -- you'd boil those hot dogs, and they would be -- we would have lines -- we'd have 50 people standing in line. You know why? They wanted to get 'em. And then, of course, everybody got them. And part of this is marketing. I'm telling you, part of this is marketing. And I understand the reservations. And I think if you move some these people, it's going to be a little inconvenient. Some people will have to do a better job of marketing. 28 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 But you know what? If you are a person -- if you are a person who wants a certain kind of ethnic food, and that vendor, instead of being on Walnut Street, you find out he's two blocks away. And you life falafels (ph), or whatever it is, you know what you'll do? You'll find a way. And I'll tell you something, I'm impressed by the fact that -- I mean there are these vendors who are -- I mean they're dispersed, but they really are on the campus. I mean, they're on the -- they're all about the campus, and people will find them. That's a part of what it is. That's a part of running a business. I get real nervous, though, when I -- see, I'm nervous about our telling people, You can vend on a particular spot. 'Cause I think you now raise -- nobody is going to tell anybody, You can vend on the sidewalk in front of Councilman Cohen's house. You're not going to do it. They're going to be gone, and you and I know they're going to be gone. We do this in business areas and University areas as a compromise for service to the University, service to the students. We do it 29 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 in vending in Center City and where there are crowds, and all because it's a service. We do not do it in neighborhoods. What we do in neighborhoods is we pass bills. The list of areas where there is no vending in this City is ten times as long today as it was when I first came to this Council. We probably have two or three or four bills right now. You know why?
Because we're doing two things with vending in the City at the same time, we're doing two things. One, we're eliminating it; and, two, we're regulating it in a way that meets the needs and the interests of property owners who are saying, Wait a minute, we're going too far here. And that's what we're doing. You don't ever see any bills eliminating vending from in general from University areas -- Temple, Penn, Drexel, Center City, you know, Germantown and Chelten, because we permit it in business areas. But, I'm telling you, we are going through a transition in this area, and there are some people who don't want any of it. And, 30 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 fundamentally, what we are doing is respecting those interests. That's what we're doing. That's why what is proposed here, although there is an element about it that is draconian in the sense that it is going to make a difference, a significant difference. On the other hand, there will be vending at Penn, and there will be serious vending at Penn. And there will both be private vending on private property, and there will be vending in the public way, both on the sidewalk and in the streets. But I get real nervous about saying, And in addition to all of that, you get to sell those spots. I tell you, I get real nervous. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna.
Thank you, Mr. President. Since we don't have a written form for the proposed amendments, I would ask that Mr. Campbell go through the bill with us, I guess, starting from as to what he's suggesting.
Councilwoman, we can 31 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 do that. I would rather not have them do that now.
Well, I think it's just deleting the bottom of , and I think it's very simple. It's ?
Actually, definition on , and then -- but I can mark up the bill and present it to the Chair.
Fine. We hear about revenues. I would certainly hope that with the regulation, it would make it a lot easier for L&I to really ascertain if the vendors have the proper licenses. It's my understanding that presently at this location, there are approximately 90 vendors, 32 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 and we don't even know if they all have the necessary permits because they're not there every day. I also am told that on Monday, approximately at 4 o'clock, there were still six vehicles that were in the vicinity that we're referring to. Of the six vehicles, four had New Jersey auto tags. I would hate to think that people from New Jersey are coming here, doing their business, and not paying the necessary fees that are required. So, hopefully, with this regulation everybody will pay? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes, Councilwoman, that would be correct. And it is easier to enforce that way.
And that will give you a better handle on it -- COMMISSIONER EAGAN: Exactly.
-- as to who has paid and who has not? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes, absolutely.
Thank you very much. 33 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just one quick comment on the issue of the ability to sell or not sell spots. It's my view that as a vendor, you own the business, which is a legitimate form of commerce, but it's cheaper than buying and running a store. You don't have to pay real estate taxes, you don't have the upkeep of the building, you don't have the other ancillary costs associated what a store owner in corner store or in a shopping strip mall or somewhere else, who owns bricks and mortar, or leases bricks and mortar has. And however legitimate vending may be, there's no way in the world I could conceivably make the jump to selling the City sidewalk. I mean, you are there, you an intrusion. You may be an attractive intrusion, people may enjoy your presence there, but you intrude on the sidewalk, on the public space, and you use the public right of way to make money. And that's fine because you pay taxes 34 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 too, but it does not mean then that you can make the transaction into selling a portion of the sidewalk as if it were real property; it's not your real property. And I could never see making that jump. The question I have is -- and I apologize that yesterday I had to be out of the town -- of the 92, I guess, vendors involved or 95 vendors involved, have we ever been able to determine the residence of those vendors? I mean, I hear from some people at Penn that it's as little as to of them that are 14 City residents. I hear from L&I the possibility 15 that 25 to 30 percent are out-of-towners. Is 16 there any way that we can determine what the 17 residence of these vendors are? And I'll tell 18 you why. 19 If I take a lunch truck and pull it up 20 to the curb at Bucks County Community College, I will be towed from that location. If I take a vending stand or a lunch truck and drive over to Rowan University and park by the curb and start selling hot dogs, they will move me within a half an hour. 35 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 I have a problem with all of this rigmarole and debate and discussion and problem if we're talking about to City residents out of 5 92. From my perspective, I don't care if they go 6 away altogether. Because they're coming into this 7 city, in a place where they're allowed to come, 8 where they wouldn't be allowed to be if they were 9 doing it in the neighborhood or community they 10 lived in. 11 And, I tell you, we could do this as a 12 test case. Councilman Cohen and I could go get a 13 hurdy-gurdy truck and drive over to Rowan and park 14 by the curb, and we'll count how long we're there 15 before the police in Glassboro are there to move 16 us out of that spot. 17 Now, part of the problem -- and I've 18 said this before about this city -- is that we 19 allow things in this city that no other 20 surrounding community allows. So, therefore, we become the magnet for all things that no one else in the region allows. And, from my perspective, if only 15 or 20 of the 92 vendors are City residents and the rest of them are not, as far as I'm concerned, 36 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 they can end vending altogether.
Councilman, I received a phone call today that one person owns five stands on Walnut Street and that this same person has a business in one of the local malls in New Jersey, actually has a business, but also has these five stands over on Walnut Street -- owns five of them and has them kind of under different names and stuff. And I believe Miss Scheman testified yesterday that she had some reason now to believe that some group of these stands are under, you know, some common ownership. And I agree with you; it is a little bit of a problem.
But the issue for me is, I think vending should be disallowed. I think vending's a legitimate retail enterprise. But my argument is, why do we go stand on our heads and do handstands on an issue that we have to debate in this body, that has to do with people that don't even live here. I mean, you know, they go home to their nice cul-de-sac in Washington Township, with their 37 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 vending cart every day. They're not vending in the cul-de-sac in Washington Township, I can guarantee you, because they won't allow it. Now, when I drive through the University of Pennsylvania, I understand how the students and some of the people who are advocates of this continuing activity feel because of the convenience and the price and all the other stuff, but I think it looks terrible. I think those trucks lined up and down those streets look terrible. And we have an ability, a right, I think, as a government, to keep that esthetic -- or to improve that esthetic situation and bring some order to this location. We do it in Germantown and, as the Council President said, in South Philly, in business strips in Center City. So why is this particular area a free-for-all? Why should it be a free-for-all? No other neighborhood in the City's a free-for-all. And, more importantly, no other community around the City, outside the City limits, is a free-for-all at all because more 38 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 times than not, you're not allowed to do it at all. So if you can't do it in your neighborhood, you drive your truck in here to make money in the City. I don't mind them doing that, but what I mind is that they're telling me you can do it any way you want and part it anywhere you want and be there anywhere you want and not pick up the trash if you don't want to and go back home to the suburbs. Now, if someone can tell me my initial question, which is, how many of these vendors are City residents? And it will certainly color and shade my view on how I'm going to vote on this bill. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We don't know how many of the vendors at Penn are City residents. We would just estimate, based on like the percentage in Center City, that it would probably be about the same, but that's just a guess.
What is it? COMMISSIONER EGAN: And that's about 20, percent. But, I mean, we could get that 25 information and provide it to Council. 39 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022
All I want is the same standard of behavior and acceptability of behavior that they have in the suburbs; I want the same standard here in the City. I don't want to be any different, okay? Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you very much. I have contacted the City Law Department and will have information on the legal questions that have been raised here probably by sometime later in today, later in this day. Is there anyone that has anything else for the representatives of the Department of Licenses and Inspections? (No response.)
Thank you very much, Commissioner. We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Thank you very much.
You have always been available to us and we appreciate it. 40 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 - - -
Is there anyone here from the Parking Authority? (Parking Authority representative come forward.)
Good morning. My name is Richard Dickson. I'm the Director of Parking Management for the Philadelphia Parking Authority. First I want to apologize for Rina Cutler, the Executive Director, who had hoped to testify on this bill. She had a previously scheduled meeting at the airport and is unable to be here today. I'll briefly summarize two issues that the Parking Authority has concerning this legislation. The first is that we believe that the boundaries set in this do not adequately address all of the vendor needs in University City; although I do understand Councilwoman Blackwell has begun discussions with Drexel and some of the 41 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 other interests in the area and may be presenting legislation later that would address those concerns. So I would just say that for the record, but it does not really affect our opinion on the bill. The major issue that we believe needs to be addressed is that we believe that it is appropriate that spaces be designated on the streets for vendors. As it currently operates, vendors need to feed meters all day long in order to be legal, and they often play cat-and-mouse games with enforcement officers. We believe that a preferable operating standard would be that they would pay to the Authority $2,750 a year for each metered space, and we would remove the meter, and they would not have to worry about feeding meter all day. They would have a designated space from which to operate their business, and the City get the appropriate amount of revenue that would normally be generated from that meter. I understand from discussions yesterday that Mr. Goldstein, who represents the Vendors Association, believes that this is an acceptable 42 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 proposal to them. And I also believe that the University would agree with this as well.
Based on -- if the meters were filled all day for all of the operations for which they are -- they should be enforced, the total revenue about $3600. We recognize that that is not the case all the time, that they are not there for the full amount of time.
I need you to carry me through, if you can, the calculation. If you have 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, how many --
And so that's $1 43 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 hour, hours a day, 6 days a week? 3
I think the bill 5 contemplates -- the bill contemplates that they 6 would be able to vend more than 12 hours a day. 7 Isn't it from 6 o'clock in the morning till 8 midnight? 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Till 10. 10
That's correct, but the 12 meters are currently only in operation from 8 to 8, so we were only basing it upon the current amount of meter revenue that's generated.
I thought I heard you say that it corresponds with the hours that they were vending. That's why I was --
This is also the same amount that is in place for the vending area at Drexel University on 32nd Street.
Do they actually pay 44 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 it in this way?
They pay $3,000 a year, which includes the $250-vendor license fee. In this section of the bill, we've attempted to separate that out so that everybody's clear about who's paying what for what service.
So let me get this straight. Currently, in an area of West Philadelphia, around Drexel, there are people who are paying $3,000 a year to the Parking Authority for the right to be in a spot that would otherwise be a metered spot, to conduct street vending activity?
Okay. And how do you -- how do you collect the money? Do you just collect it in an annual payment, is it a monthly payment? I mean, how --
The Department of Licenses and Inspections actually collects the money.
All right, Mr. Campbell, tell us how you collect this cash. Maybe we need to see if we can find 10,000 vendors 45 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 at $3,000 apiece.
Quite simply, Mr. President, we bill the vendors. When we established this in 1995, we set up the $3,000 fee, the vendors have paid it. And every year, we bill them a renewal fee of $3,000, and they send us checks.
We made it part of 9-203 for simplicity of collection. You know, the easiest thing -- one bill, one agency. And we keep it in --
I forgot about that. Let me get this straight. We passed a bill in this Council that authorizes the Department of Licenses and Inspections to collect 46 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 a $3,000 fee from a street business or a person operating a conveyance on the public sidewalk, in a spot that would be otherwise metered? We authorized you to collect that money? I see the representative of the Parking Authority shaking his head "no."
Not on the public -- only on the street, not sidewalk vendors.
I said "street." We don't allow motor vehicles to vend on the sidewalk, and we certainly wouldn't charge them for parking there. And the Parking Authority knows about this?
And where does the -- does that money go into the City's General Fund?
That's good. 47 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022
We actually believe that the money should probably go to the Parking Authority, but that's something for the Finance Director to work out.
You took out the meters, and you put -- you posted signs.
All right. Okay, okay. So, now, if we were to do that for the locations in this district from the street, the 48 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 street locations where people would be using trucks, could we just do an amendment to this bill 4 that would reference 9-203?
Yes, Mr. President. In a letter addressed to you the other day, Rina Cutler submitted a proposed amendment to the legislation. I have copies of that.
All right. Can I get a copy of that? It might be in this pile of stuff.
Thank you. While they are bringing that amendment up to you, let me request -- not from Mr. Dickson, but certainly from Miss Cutler. We're going into the third year on this. And if the Parking Authority -- they're a branch of the City, they're a part of us. If they have ideas on legislation, it would be nice if they would work with us. I mean, not to contact us. . . You know, I saw Miss Cutler yesterday, 49 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 and she said, Didn't you get a copy of my fax the night before? I haven't looked at anything since we've been dealing with this in the last day. And so it would be great if City departments could work together. If they try to work with us and contact us, then we wouldn't be here now talking about a possible amendment. Certainly, we in the City have no interest in trying to take any money away that we would normally get. When it came to -- when Bennett Levin was the L&I Commissioner, we went out, as was referred to in the hearings, to an area near Drexel, where we set up such a system, and there was no problem. The problem only exists where one agency of the City decides that they're going to operate in a vacuum and not deal with us, which could create problems for us. I'm certainly in favor of us doing whatever makes it easy. We have no interest in taking any money away from the Parking Authority. But, certainly, I think it's unfair for them to come at the last minute and say, Let's do all of these changes for them. It's just not fair 50 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 and doesn't work in the spirit of cooperation. It's taken us too long to get here, and the Parking Authority has been in it as they chose to from the beginning and have not seen a need to work with us. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. President. You've already asked most of the questions I was interested in concerning the hours. Thank you.
Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions from the Parking Authority representative? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify on the bill? (No response.)
If not, this Committee will stand in recess until 9 o'clock 51 RECESSED HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, BILL 980022 tomorrow morning, at which the time we will have prepared a set of amendments that take into account the testimony that has been given. Thank you very much. (Adjourned at 9:42 a.m.) - - - 52 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, April 15, 1998 were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO. 980022 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR