COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 1, 2009 11:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ BILL 090780 - An ordinance amending Chapter 14 10-700 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Refuse and Littering," to require certain property owners to pay a fee for City waste hauling or to demonstrate that the business or property owner has a private provider of waste and recycling disposal services; all under certain terms and conditions. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good morning. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. We have a quorum. To my extreme left is Councilman Green. Next to Councilman Green is Councilwoman Maria Quinones-Sanchez, and to my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I know you rushed in, Commissioner. Whenever you're ready. And in the meantime, I'll ask Mr. Abernathy to read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 090780, an ordinance amending Chapter 10-700 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Refuse and Littering," to require certain property owners either to pay a fee for City waste hauling or to demonstrate that the business or property owner has a private provider of waste and recycling disposal services; all under certain terms and 3 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 conditions. ) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good morning again, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good morning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When you're ready, proceed with your testimony. We have a copy. If you'd like to shorten the testimony, that's your call. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Okay. Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But we don't have but one witness, so we have some time. It's up to you. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Okay. Good morning, Councilman DiCicco, Chairman of the Committee, and members of the Committee. I am Clarena Tolson, Commissioner of the Streets Department. I am here with Deputy Commissioner Carlton Williams to present 4 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 testimony on behalf of the Department's support of Bill No. 090780. " The bill would authorize the City to assess a fee for City refuse collection from all properties eligible for City refuse and recycling collection under the regs for collection services, but not including single-family residences or condominiums or cooperatives, which would not be charged. The Streets Department currently provides curbside collection of rubbish and recycling to approximately 550,000 households on a weekly basis. The Department also collects refuse from commercial properties and multi-family properties up to six units. While the fee is a departure from a longstanding policy of providing curbside collection services at no charge, we believe that the proposed fee represents only a modest 5 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 change that still offers a less expensive alternative to private collection services that most businesses in the City must secure. The proposed bill would assess an annual fee of $150 to the owners of single-unit commercial properties and multi-unit properties housing small commercial establishments or residential units that qualify for City collection, which generally means properties with six or fewer units. Property owners that demonstrate to the Department that they receive private collections will not be charged for services. The proposed fee approximates the unit cost to the City for providing these services. The Department, with the assistance of other agencies, has identified approximately 50,000 properties that contain either one commercial establishment or two to six units with commercial or residential usage that also meets the Department's 6 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 standards for eligibility for collection of curbside materials. 5 million annually. The Department has been incurring these costs while providing collection services to all properties throughout the City. While the Streets Department, like every other City agency, has made significant cuts to many of its services through these difficult times, this is one service that can be sustained by assessing the fee, thus avoiding a major degradation of services. We recognize that the previous revenue structure presented by the Department met with some opposition from certain constituencies because it placed the burden of fees in this area primarily on small commercial businesses. We have worked hard, in tandem with Councilman DiCicco, to come up with a solution that will spread the fee structure to a much 7 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 broader segment of property owners. Consequently, the fees for individual properties have dropped significantly. Given the budget problems that continue to challenge the City, we will have to continue to examine our ability to provide services as we currently provide them.
If we are unable to collect fees for service, we will be faced with substantial budget -- with a substantial budget gap that will require a far more serious examination of services we are able to provide. As you are aware, the revenue anticipated for the service has already been incorporated into the City budget and going forward into the future for the Five-Year Plan. We thank you for the opportunity to collaborate with City Council and are here to answer any questions that you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Thank you. 8 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 I'm just curious, what is the total cost of trash collection, just trash collection in the Streets Department budget, taking into account savings from recycling in terms of dumping fees, just net cost? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The total net cost, that's collection and tonnage? I'm sorry. My name is Carlton Williams, Deputy Streets Commissioner. Right now we are looking at -- our budget is about $90 million.
Ninety million dollars? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
And that's just trash collection, that's not plowing the streets, that's not -- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all trash and sanitation services, yes, that's correct.
I'm asking about home trash collection. 9 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just home trash collection? The collection fees are $27 million to collect and about $38 million for the tonnage disposal fees. So the combined just for trash collection alone is about $65 million. That's correct.
Okay. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not including those ancillary services that we also do with enforcement and PMBC and those things.
Right. So really if we charged every homeowner in the City a hundred bucks, we'd pay for trash collection. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. We would be -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Close. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- close to it, yes, because there are about 550,000 households.
A hundred bucks a year just added -- 10 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It wouldn't be a hundred. A hundred would bring you a lot more --
It would be 55 million, roughly, wouldn't it? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Five hundred fifty thousand times a hundred. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those costs just include sanitation services. It doesn't include the cost for Fleet Management and all those other services that follow as well.
Right. Fleet Management is not in the Streets Department. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. That's correct. Yes, sir.
So is there a reason we didn't consider that? Was that one of the things considered? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think certainly there had been discussions when we first entered these very difficult times about having fees for all 11 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 households, and other alternatives were looked at instead.
Okay. When we met on the hearing where we were talking about repealing the bill that we passed that allowed you to pass regulations that resulted in the $500 fee, I asked whoever testified at that hearing -- I can't remember -- to come back and let me know how much the City estimates, the Administration estimates that the dumpster new fee for licenses and permits and fine structure would result in, because that's not currently in the City budget. Do you have an estimate for me today of that amount? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Councilman, though I do not have an estimate, I do know that any funds that are collected on behalf of the dumpsters would be used to further improve the dumpster situation. It does not come to our department. It goes to another department. But I would understand that 12 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 if funds are collected to support better enforcement within our dumpster community or dumpster efforts, that if we don't support that, then we will not have improved dumpster conditions.
So it's your testimony that the Administration intends to use all dumpster revenue and fees to improve enforcement of dumpsters and that money will not be used for another purpose? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The monies that are raised for fees for certain services that then apply to those services, yes.
So you're going to spend $5 million on cleaning up dumpsters in the City? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Whatever the revenues are from dumpsters for those fees, that is then used to support the dumpster process, everything that's involved in the administration and enforcement of dumpsters. 13 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilwoman.
Thank you, Councilman and Commissioners, for testifying today. I just wanted to put on for the record, I know that one of the concerns that I had expressed -- and I wanted you guys to put it on the record for us -- was multi-family units owner occupied. Can you for the record state how we're going to regulate those? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The multi-family units that are owner occupied that do not rent another property will not be assessed the fee.
Do you have an estimate of what that number is? I know we talked about at some point getting what we thought that -- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did receive some -- Councilwoman, we received some data from L&I about active 14 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 licenses for -- I can give you for example. Out of the 35,000 properties that we've identified, 31,000 have active licenses, which we're still under the assumption that people are going through the licensing procedure and process and that they are getting a license to legally rent to consumers. That number seems to be somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 from units. So those are the ones that we identified and included in our projections.
Who will be able to submit verification and then this fee would be waived? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. Our plan is to send notices and bills to all units and also attach an exemption request form stating that the person does not -- lives in the property, it's owner-occupied property, it's occupied by a private resident and they do not rent any other unit out for profit. We would then take that 15 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 information and go to L&I and verify whether they have the data or a license, and once it's verified, then they will be exempted from paying a fee.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Just so I'm clear, so every homeowner is going to get a notice; is that what I'm hearing? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. 16
Every multi-family. So you're going by the zoning? You're going to cross-check with the zoning file? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
So it's not just people who have a rental license that will be getting notices; it will be 16 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 anybody that's more than one family? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. Yes.
And then they, if they're not renting, they would have to apply for the exemption? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
Just so I'm clear. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions? Would you mind waiting -- I'm sorry. Councilman Green.
Thanks. I am very pleased with what you guys just said about what you're going to do with the dumpster revenue, but it seems to me that my estimate is about $5 to $7 million. At current dumpster 17 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 population that we have in the records, it's about two and a half million dollars. I'd be very interested in your providing the Chair with a business plan essentially. Tell us where you're going to hire SWEEPs officers and what neighborhoods you're going to put them in, because essentially there'll be a lot of money around for either CLIPs or SWEEPs in neighborhoods around the City to do the enforcement with this extra revenue and I'd like to see a plan for that come up in the next budget cycle. That's something that I'm going to be looking for. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Thank you, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions from this Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you both for your testimony. 18 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Zaslow. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Darrell Zaslow, Z-A-S-L-O-W. I am legal counsel to HAPCO. HAPCO is the Homeowners Association of Philadelphia. I apologize for not having written testimony, but we did not find out about a potential change and what is occurring here until my conversation with Mr. Abernathy late yesterday. Members, Mr. Chairman, as Councilman DiCicco knows, we had the great privilege of having the Councilman appear at our HAPCO meeting just about a week and a half ago. I had the honor of sitting next to the Councilman and the 19 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 greater honor of protecting him from my members who wanted to accost him on the way out of the meeting with all kinds of inane questions about City government. The Councilman appeared before us, as he always does, in good faith, and our members were there, several hundred of our several thousand members were there that night just to hear the Councilman -- primarily to hear the Councilman talk primarily about this issue of this fee for trash. We represent the mom-and-pop owners of small properties. My members do not own apartment buildings. They own single-family rental units, duplexes, triplexes, maybe a four-unit or a five-unit. Some of them own a number of units, but the majority of our several thousand members own just a single property or perhaps two. Perhaps they inherited a property. Perhaps they bought it. They're small owners. When the fee was $500 for 20 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 commercial units, it was not a happy time for the owners of those units, obviously. Some of our members actually do own properties which had a commercial unit in the building, and they weren't happy about it. The concept now, which is, to use Councilman DiCicco's correct words, to spread the pain -- I think that's what he stated directly to us -- we understand that, but the pain is being spread to the people that I represent. We are the individuals in the City who are bearing the entire burden of this new concept to have a lot of people pay something as opposed to just the commercial owners pay $500. I'd like to let the Committee know that as a result of the Councilman's appearance at our meeting the other night -- and, again, his good faith presentation to us, which was well received and witty and informative, but he was very clear in stating his 21 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 intention to introduce an amendment to the bill today which would eliminate duplexes from the bill. And by virtue of his statement that he had this intention to eliminate duplexes from the bill, I sit here in an empty Chamber instead of being surrounded by 1,000 of my closest members of my organization, who would want to rant and rave and clap while I'm telling you what I'm telling you. So I'm here alone because it wasn't until yesterday afternoon that Mr. Abernathy, much appreciated, called me and e-mailed me saying that, no, Councilman DiCicco was not going to be introducing an amendment to the bill because the numbers, as I understand it, had changed and that the budget hole that this Council seeks to fill couldn't be filled if he removed duplexes from the bill. If duplexes were removed, the small mop-and-pops who own a small number of rental units would not feel as grossly impacted by this bill. If duplexes were 22 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 removed, as had been our thought until yesterday, we would be here saying nobody likes to pay more money, but, quite frankly, our members -- and the Councilman can vouch for it, because he stood there and took an hour's worth of questions. Our members understand your job, your problems, your difficulties, what you face as our representatives. We're not looking in any way to minimize it. In coming before you today, I'm not sure what I hope to accomplish.
I would like to ask the members of the Streets Department to provide some hard numbers on these duplexes. The census figures that we used to find the $7 million that you're looking for were vastly different than the numbers which the Streets Department is presenting based upon their information. I don't know whose information is accurate, but the census figures, which are available of course publicly, shows that there's 23 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 some 111,000 units consisting of duplexes, businesses and three- to six-unit buildings, and if you took out just the duplexes, which we understand to be about 50,000, it still leaves an ample number of real multi-family units, three, four, five, six and businesses, to share this $150 pain. So I don't know. Perhaps it was in the testimony they presented to you, but we don't see the math as they are presenting it. We're using the census figures, which should be accurate. If the federal government census of the number of properties in this city is not accurate, then I don't know what would be accurate. So the first thing I would request of you is that you truly confirm and ask the Streets Department to compare the census numbers of the number of properties in our city to whatever source material they are using to ascertain the number of units. That would be my first 24 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 request. My second request would be on a very minor item, and Councilman -- Mr. Abernathy permitted me to e-mail him yesterday on this issue regarding vacant units. As, of course, the Council well knows, there is a requirement that if you have a property which is vacant, that you obtain a vacancy license. I'm not sure if that requirement is honored in the breach or if people really do it to a large extent. It is a requirement of the City Code, and I would ask that you amend the bill to provide that if a person has in fact fulfilled that responsibility to obtain a vacancy license and paid the fee for that license, that they should likewise be exempted from payment of whatever trash fee you may be imposing as a result of this bill. The third point of my being here is to urge upon you a sense of the value to Philadelphia of private property owners. Our members are struggling in 25 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 the current climate of finances. Our members are struggling with an overwhelming increase in fees and permit fees and license fees all over the board. And, of course, it's not just us, and we know that. You're doing a job to find money. But we ask you to recognize that providing private rental properties is very important to the City. If our members disappear -- and some of them are disappearing, because the vacancy rate in the City is very high. People are not buying houses, and when you're in the lower to middle-class property rental business, which is what my organization is, people also don't have the money to start moving, finding a new apartment, putting up security deposits. The vacancy rate is becoming very burdensome. And you couple with that the grossly increasing costs of every maintenance responsibility, the taxes are starting to go up with the BRT issues, it's becoming difficult to survive as a private 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 property owner, and the result will be that you'll be burdened with providing public housing for all of the tens of thousands of residents that we now service.
When you have good property owners -- and our members try -- we insist that they be good, and I think most of them are -- get licenses, make repairs, be available to tenants, be available to the City, when those good people are trying to make a modest living out of a small property and this fee is $150 and the license fee goes up and you have a SWEEPs person walk by three, four times a year and hurl fees for trash bags, which is another issue, which is a very difficult one to deal with, but everything goes up and the rentals are low and you have a tenant that doesn't pay the rent for two months of the year and you're not making the profit anymore and you have vacancy and you have abandonment of properties and you have 27 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 worse problems than we have now. It's kind of a generic request of you. It's not impacting upon this bill, but I ask you, in all of your dealings with our industry, the private property rental industry, that you have some sense that we are a value to the City. We are a value to the clients that we service, the tenants. We are a value to the City because of the taxes that we pay. We're a value because we provide a service that government, the federal government, the state government, the city government, cannot do, and, trust me, cannot do at the cost that we do it. Every bit of public housing costs two, three times the amount of money that it costs us to provide a unit. Now, my members, when I asked them, Well, what would you want me to tell the honorable committee when I'm in front of them, and they have all great ideas. Well, tell them to stop spending so much. They e-mail me, Well, tell them 28 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 they're spending too much money and they're paying everybody too much money and this and that. I'm not going to burden you with platitudes on how to run the City. You know it and you're doing it. But if you're hearing from my members today, that is what they're asking for, that you not turn to private property owners to kind of be the ones to have to pay. Every time you're looking for an extra several hundred thousand dollars, a million here, a million there, it seems that we are the ones that get burdened with it. The regulations is burdensome. Dealing with the City is so difficult. You probably know in your own affairs, you don't just walk in and get licenses and permits. It's very difficult. So I would ask of you in conclusion -- again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear. I thank Councilman DiCicco again for your appearance before our group, and I ask 29 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 you, number one, to consider exempting truly vacant properties which are so licensed. I urge upon you recognition of lessening the burden on the private rental market and not seeking to increase it when you have the opportunity. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Zaslow, for your testimony. Let me first start out by saying that if I can take back that statement I made at your membership meeting about my offering the amendment, I certainly would. I wish I had never said that. But when I spoke, I spoke with all honesty and my intentions were to do such an amendment based on the numbers that I had available at that time. Subsequent to that general membership meeting, I was given a different set of numbers. I'm not faulting anyone, but the numbers that I have now lead me to believe that it's necessary to include duplexes. Because I did say that night that I didn't think duplexes should be in, because I had a 30 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 different set of numbers. I think those numbers I believe I mentioned that night were coming from the BRT, and we could all understand we shouldn't accept numbers from the BRT, but that's the only thing I believe at the time that I had available.
And I didn't tell you those things and your membership what you wanted to hear to sugarcoat my comments, because I knew I was walking into a very unpopular audience when I first got there. Subsequently it turned out to be a good meeting after all, and I appreciate your moderating the meeting and, at the end of the night, saving me from the issue of the tickets for trash on everybody's sidewalk and all the other issues. So I just -- you can bring that back to your members. If there's fault in what was said, I take responsibility for that. I accept that responsibility. I don't know how else to get to this number. You heard Councilman Green 31 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 talk about the dumpster fee. You heard the City say that those monies they expect to be used for the regulation of the dumpster bill. When I break it down -- and I know there are a lot of fees and licenses that you have to pay for, but when you break it down and you use a duplex as an example -- my numbers I believe are accurate -- on a daily basis, it comes to cents a day per 12 unit. 40 a week. 13 It gets you to $75 a year per unit if you 14 got a duplex. The more units you have 15 that you work your way up to six units, 16 that 20 cents a day gets reduced 17 significantly. Does it make the case for 18 you to say, Well, we're already paying a 19 licensing fee, another 150 is going to be 20 a lot, for some of us, you're probably right, but I don't know where else to go. We have a 7-plus million dollar hole in our budget. We need to provide those basic city services. And as one of your members who stood up and acknowledged 32 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 that he lives in my district said, I understand the dilemma you're all in, we need to pull together, and he didn't think it was such a bad idea. He didn't think that was that exorbitant a price to pay. And maybe some day we can figure out a better way, but at the moment, I don't know how else to do that. And that's why I am, I'll say, reneging on my original statement.
Well, you qualified it adequately. I mean, you didn't shake anybody's hand per se. We understand that. We are concerned when numbers change in the course of a week -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, it actually was longer than the week and a half ago I was there, but that's insignificant. It doesn't matter if it was three weeks ago or last week. It is what it is. And I knew that we would have a public hearing, so any change or deviation in what I had presented could be challenged at the public hearing. So 33 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 I didn't do it with the intention of figuring everybody would go away.
Are we sure that the Streets Department is right and the BRT is wrong? Is that like -- are we sure about that? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, if I was betting, I'd say the BRT was wrong, but that's just a personal opinion of mine. They haven't been right on too many things in the last 40 years, but that's my opinion. And I can only go by the numbers, again, that are being submitted to us, to me as the Chair of the Committee and share with my colleagues on this Committee, by the Streets Department. And they tell me that the majority of the multi-family units are duplexes. That makes up the largest population of the multi-family dwellings in the City of Philadelphia. I didn't think it was that. I had it as triplexes or above triplexes. Councilman Green. 34 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780
I'd actually like to hear from the Streets Department as to exactly where they got their numbers and how they think it breaks down and what data-sets they used, what was the source of the data. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Before they come up, are there any questions from this Committee for Mr. Zaslow?
I may after. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you would wait after the --
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Thank you. (Witness approached witness table.) COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Council, thank you. Clarena Tolson, Streets Department. I think that we have an agreement with Mr. Zaslow about the 35 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 number of units. He mentioned that his source was the U.S. Department of Census, and we are using the Department of License and Inspection licenses and also the BRT data. But I think we have a semantics difference that is causing a little bit of confusion. Mr. Zaslow mentioned 111,000 units. We were talking about properties. So when we say 47,000, 50,000 properties, 22,000 of those properties are duplexes. That would be 44,000 units. When we add up the units the way that we counted them, our number is -- I got to stretch my arm here. I can't see without my glasses -- 109,000 units. So we're not very far off. A little over a one percent difference, which is, I think, very close when you consider anybody counting numbers these days.
Thank you. I'd just like to hear back from Mr. Zaslow. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 36 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 Mr. Zaslow, please come back up. Commissioner, just in case there are any questions. (Witness approached witness table.)
I think that makes sense, what she just said about the units and the properties. That may in fact be the mathematical issue. Just one parting comment, if I may. The other concept I'd like to leave you with is that the property owners are not the only ones impacted. The other people impacted are the tenants. When you have a property owner who suddenly he has another $10 -- it is not a lot, Councilman. I understand that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, in all honesty, to some people $10 a month is a lot of money. I understand that.
You have a tenant who is paying $450 a month rent and -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So it goes to 460. 37 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780
-- and it goes to 460, well, that means something to the tenants. I'm in contact with my good friends at TURN. I deal with them all the time, the Tenants Union. I went to law school with Phil Lord and I know him, he's my friend, and he is on board with us to try to do something here as well, although he's not here because we didn't enlist him to come with his constituency to complain about the $10. Because you're right, Councilman, our group and our Board of Directors especially -- which you didn't see. You saw the rabble of our members, not the dignified Board of Directors that we hope that we are. Our members, a few say, How dare they charge us for anything, but the majority vocalized what you heard one of our Board members say to you specifically, and, that is, We want to help, we want to do our part in the City. We have a responsibility, we're going to meet it, and it's not a million dollars. It's 38 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 $150. So we are with you on that, but if you take into consideration, especially in the lower-income housing market, this $10, $11 a month, which property owners eventually will shift to a tenant, means something. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not going to debate you on all the numbers, but just again, if we use the duplex at the cents a day, it's $5.60 a month 13 per unit. 14
That's per unit. 15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which gets 16 you to about $75 a year for the unit. 17 It's 5.60. It's not 10, but it is 5.60 18 more than they're paying today, I'll 19 grant you that. 20
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilwoman Sanchez.
You mentioned the other issue around the exemption with folks who are paying or 39 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 have a vacant property license fee, and I wanted the Commissioner to comment on that. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Those properties that are vacant and not active are not receiving service. So they too would not pay a fee if there was a vacant property not receiving service. Those that don't receive our service do not pay a fee.
Do you get that, Mr. Zaslow? What she's saying is, so when you get your bill, if you have a vacant property license and they submit that, then you will be exempt.
That's good to hear. Any way of having it in black and white in the bill? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, it will be part of --
It's part of the regulation. We're putting it on the record here for you now.
Okay. 40 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And one other point I want to make, Mr. Zaslow, again getting back to the increase. You can pass it on to the tenant or the owner could absorb it him or herself. I'm not an accountant, but I believe you get the deduction, because it's an expense.
Twenty cents is now 16. You're right. I hear you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Will there be a published regulation, may I ask, which is going to specifically say that if the unit is -- because we're all going to get the bills. If you have a vacant property, you're going to get a bill, from what I understand. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: If it's vacant and not receiving service.
How do you know, if I may ask, if it's vacant or not? When the trash people drive down the street, how do you ascertain if it's -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: There 41 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 will be no trash outside.
And then the trash man is going to tell somebody to take it off the charge?
No, no, no. You will have to submit that when you get the bill, that you got a vacant property license fee, which, by the way, in another hearing, we will be increasing that fee, so that you know, which is why I am pushing this issue. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're back up to cents a unit. There goes that 15 48 cents I just saved you. 16
That's 17 why I want to go on the record, because 18 obviously this is important, but it kind 19 of balances itself out, that the fact is 20 if people are submitting their vacant property license fee, which I believe is going up to $300 a year, if you pay that fee, then you will be able to submit that over to them and will get exempt.
Councilwoman, my 42 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 legal antenna has to go up and suggest to you that the increases in these fees, not to put too hard a spin on it, are not legal. As you well know -- not you, Councilwoman, but as Council knows, you cannot charge a fee for a license more than it costs for you to process that license. That's the law. You can tax to the sky, you can fine to the sky, but with a license, you have to show that there's a correlation between the license fee and what it's costing our city to process that piece of paper.
We will make sure to invite you to the hearing and you can testify, and I'm sure L&I will be happy to respond to that. I just wanted to just for the record so that you know -- and obviously your members are looking at this. I believe we had several briefings and we asked all the membership organizations to be present to be able to have this dialogue. But just so that you know, because it was one of 43 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 the three items that you mentioned, that there is -- you will be able to get an exemption.
I appreciate the notice, but, again, just to make my appearance here worthwhile, my members say to me all the time, Sue them, sue the City. Now, on the rental suitability license, I did just that, I sued the City. I had no choice. It went to Commonwealth Court, and we won the case. That's what happened with the rental suitability license. And I don't want to be the lawsuit guy suing my fair city. I don't want to do it and my members don't want to do it, but when they come to me and say, Can they charge $300 to process a piece of paper that says your property is vacant, they can't. You can't just raise the fee to $300 as a revenue source for a license fee. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let's hope it doesn't cost more than 300.
Thank you. I just wanted to do some quick math and then make one point, and, that is, with respect to dumpster license fees as opposed to permits or fines and penalties, the fees themselves, of course, have to be spent enforcing the law, as was just pointed out, and we can do that with more SWEEPs officers, more whatever. Of course, what will be available to the City for any purpose are the penalties from people writing tickets, things like that. So there is going to be significant revenue from the dumpster bill that will be available in the General Fund to any specific purpose. If we're not going to use it for this because that's not what you want to do, 45 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 I'll accept that, but I'm going to find a place to spend that money. So I'm just putting people on notice that maybe we ought to get together and figure out what you think it's going to be and come up with a plan for it together, because otherwise my staff and I will come up with our own set of priorities, in consultation with my colleagues. The other thing is, did you say there were 44,000 properties? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Duplex units. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Duplex units.
So how many total properties were there? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We were saying that with duplexes --
No; total properties. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Total properties is 49,727. 46 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780
So we're really talking about 27,000 non-duplex properties. So to raise seven and a half million bucks, it would have to be $300 a property. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct. Close, very close.
So I just wanted to ask you a question. Would your members prefer that? I'm not saying that we'd do it. I'm just curious. It's 300 bucks. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman, no matter how you cut it, something is -- I mean, if you have a two-unit property, one is residential and the other is commercial, doing it the other way, that commercial property is going to now pay 500, because it's commercial.
Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, again, spreading the pain, we came up with this $150. 47 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780
My members personally would probably rather pay more for triplexes and up, because we don't own triplexes and up. I wouldn't want to be sitting there when the business owners hear back from you that you're up to $300 for them, but my members, singles and duplexes are what they own, so they would prefer no fee on that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But if they own a duplex and one unit happens to be commercial --
They're still going to pay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- they're going to pay the 500 under the original proposal.
That is a question I have, Commissioner. A commercial property, even if it has no 24 other units, is still going to pay this or is this only -- 48 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct.
So what do you do if there is, like in many commercial corridors throughout the City, there's a first floor store and three apartments upstairs? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: They would still pay the fee.
But it would only be 150? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: One fifty. This is per property.
So how many commercial properties are there that are not multi-family at all? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Fifteen thousand. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Commercial, right, that are not multi-family? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Wasn't that the 15? I'm sorry to interrupt, but wasn't that the 15,000? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: But he 49 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 said not having the residential piece too as well.
Right. No 5 residential piece. Commercial properties. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, just straight out commercial.
Because we're taxing them. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We'd have to find that number to find out exactly no residential. The 15,000 may have had some residential with it, but to find with no residential, I'd have to go back and confirm that number.
I will bet that's a much bigger number than 15,000. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That we collect?
No; purely commercial properties. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Right. It's either all up or a subset of the 15,000. It is not more. 50 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order. There are different types of commercial. You have the small commercial and then you have the larger commercial.
Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you got to back out the small commercial, where we started this discussion in the first place.
Most commercial have private haulers. This is only the commercials where we're providing curbside. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mop-and-pop.
Well, we're taxing everybody whether or not they have a private hauler. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. No. 23 This is only for those that we provide the service.
So you can 51 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 choose not to pay the fee if you're a small -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's correct.
If you can prove that you have a private hauler, you're exempt.
Oh, okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But in reality, it's going to cost you a lot more than $5.60 a month to get a private hauler. This is actually -- it turns out to be a bargain.
The $500, though, was going to be charged regardless of whether or not you had --
No, no, no. 20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. Five hundred dollars was for commercial properties -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner -- who did not have a commercial pick-up. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's 52 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 correct, that the City collected it.
So with respect to how -- are you going to write regulations on this after we -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
With respect to the regulations you're going to write, it's your testimony that if someone has commercial pick-up and provides you evidence of that, that they will be exempt? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct.
And it's your testimony that if someone has a vacancy license, that you will write into the regulations that they will be exempt? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I'm not sure about -- when you're saying vacancy license, just let me explain what I mean. A vacant property that's not receiving any service, not putting out any trash. So if that means that you get a vacancy license -- I'm just personally not familiar, so I don't want to testify to 53 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 that --
Well, they're required to have a vacancy license. So if they don't have that license, they shouldn't be exempt. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: They shouldn't be. Then with that condition, I will say yes then. Correct.
Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: And, Councilman, just for clarification for you, Councilman DiCicco, the reason why I said -- I was hesitant to say just commercial was 15,000, because if they had one unit above, they would have been included in that 15,000, not the duplex. So to say just commercial -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It was the Johnny the barber, right? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Barber shop first floor, he lives upstairs. 54 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quick on the commercial piece that Councilman Green was talking about. You've already sent out notices to people, to commercial properties, right? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We sent out notices --
Based on the $500 issue, right? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct. Yes.
Now, are you keeping that information or are you -- because you asked for that information, for people to provide the private hauler. That's why they wouldn't have to pay the $500, right? The name of the private hauler, right? 55 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COMMISSIONER TOLSON: There was two parts of what we had done. One, we certainly asked the ancillary part, the smaller piece, to say that there was a future fee that was coming into play, but what was the focus of our mailing and notice was to tell people they need to file their recycling plan or their solid waste plan so we'd know what they were doing with their recycling, and then we were asking them about how they were taking care of their materials.
And if this bill passes, would you be sending another notice to those same people again? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
With the same question? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes, to some of the same. Some of them are purely businesses, because we sent out notices to all business, all sizes regarding the recycling plan. But there 56 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 is a subset of that that is the small commercial that we collect where they would list "who is your hauler," and they would say "the City of Philadelphia."
But if they've already responded to that, are you sending them another notice? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: With regard to the small commercials that we collect from, we'll now have to send them a notice with regard to this new fee and how that will work.
Okay. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Because we have not given out any notice regarding the new fee.
Just from our last experience, obviously you're going to be now mailing out 49,000 notices, right -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct.
-- to 57 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 folks? One of the issues last time was payment schedules and so forth. In light of the fact that now we are spreading the pain, I'm a multi-family unit, what are you going to be proposing in terms of payment arrangements? Only because these notices are going to be going out when their property taxes are due now in the beginning of the year. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We will be looking for payment, I think, within -- payment will be within 30 days. We're not looking to doing bills obviously until after we have our regulations posted, which is another -- which is 30 days and then a mailing.
Thirty days is -- and I'm going to say that for the record -- is not sufficient time. Penalties, are we going to be putting penalties along with this? I need to know that now. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me get 58 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 clarification. Is that 30 days after they receive the 30-day period you said for the regulations to be drafted? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We have to have the regulations set for 30 days, and we'll do public notice then, and then we'll do billing, and then after the billing, another 30 days. So you're looking at 60 days easily -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Minimum. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: -- that people would have notice. Easily 60 days.
He has 30 days after the bill. So in your timeline, your notification is going out when? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Our notification will go out with the regulations being posted. We're going to give people notice that we have a new --
So that's the first week of January. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The 59 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 question is, when do you anticipate that notice to be sent? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Let me just confirm. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Approximately. If you don't have the date, just... COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The first week of January. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we got from today 20-something days, then you got the 30 days. So you're almost at 80 days roughly; is that -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: From today.
What are going to be your penalty schedules? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The Department of Revenue has a penalty schedule. I don't remember the exact -- we don't know the rates, Councilwoman, but we will get that. It's whatever the Department of Revenue uses now as their 60 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 penalty schedule.
We may have an issue with that, because we're having hearings on that issue separate of this. So I'm going to ask that you submit what your proposed penalty rate is going to be, because this may be a burden, and I don't want to end up in the same situation where we vote for something, then we're writing regulations, we ask the Department to work with us because the regulations may not apply, because one shoe des not apply across the board, and then we don't have an opportunity to impact that. So I just want to go on the record right now, because the trash fee penalties in some cases are outrageous. In this particular case, in light of the fact that this is a new fee and a new regulation, I would hope that we don't feel the need to do it the same way and allow ourselves a couple of years for people to adjust appropriately on this, 61 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 because it's going to be an issue. You know that. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: And your concern is that we make sure that people have plenty of time to know that there's going to be a fee and that there's a need to pay something?
Yeah, but there was a lot of hoopla around the business fee. The amount was enormous. Now we're going to spread this around to thousands of more people. I'm just saying that we really need to look at those regulations, and unless we're legally binded to follow that penalty fee, in light of the fact that this is a new fee, we may want to adjust that for the first year or so. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Thank you.
Is there any way to get more than 30 days to pay that bill 24 general year to year? I mean, 30 is like a credit card already. You own six 62 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 properties. That's your whole livelihood. You got to come up with a thousand dollars within 30 days. Can't there be a three-month notice, you have 90 days to pay the bill, send out the bill in January, pay it by March or something and penalties after 90 days? It's just another heavy-handed thing for property owners. You're going to have a lot of people, real residents, with just a duplex and their cousin is paying rent downstairs. To pay within 30 days is a very short time. I would ask that the regulation should be 90 days. You should get a bill and have 90 days to pay the bill and then penalties start heaping on. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Real estate tax is, what, 60 days? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I do not know.
It's 90. March 31st. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But you 63 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 get your notice in October.
Then you have to pay by March. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe we can find something that's consistent to the way we do the real estate tax. Again, something like that. Does that make more sense?
I'm just asking the Department not to give me the one shoe, because this is going to be a heavy burden. So that rather than we have then a discussion about repealing again because the regulations are not the penalty schedule, I think they can come up with something that is fair as we adjust people to this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Is there any reason not to allow people 90 days to pay? That still gets it in before the end of the fiscal year. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We can 64 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 certainly look at that, Councilman. We will look at that, what the implications are with other bills people may have.
Could you -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I do know there's expense with additional mailings and notice, and sometimes people when it's further out, you have to reiterate your --
But this year is the first year, and I think that a good point is made that people are not going to be used to pay it. They certainly may not have saved the money up for it. It will be right after the holidays. Property taxes are due, and giving people 90 days I think makes a lot of sense. If you would please provide a copy of the regulations -- I recognize that will be a draft -- to the Chair prior to final passage of this bill so we can have a chance to review it and discuss with you, we'd appreciate it. 65 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Surely. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, all.
Thank you very much. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Hearing none, this concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now move into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes the Vice-Chair of the Streets and Services Committee.
Thank you. I move that Bill 090780 be moved out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow first 66 12/1/09 - STREETS - BILL 090780 reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 090780 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor? (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The ayes have it. The bill passes. Thank you all again for attending today's hearing. (Committee on Streets and Services concluded at 12:15 p.m.) - - - 67 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 1, 2009, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)