COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Remote location using Microsoft® Teams Wednesday, December 6, 2023 4:35 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA, CHAIR COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR., VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON
The Committee on Commerce and Economic Development for Wednesday, December 6th. I want to apologize for starting a little late as the Education Committee ran over. Before we begin the public hearing, I would like to make the following announcement: Due to the continuing threat to public health from COVID-19, City Council Committees are currently meeting remotely. We are using Microsoft Teams to make these remote hearings possible. Instructions for how the public may view and offer public testimony at public hearings of City Council Committees are included in the public hearing notices that are published in the Daily News, Inquirer and Legal Intelligencer prior to the hearings and can also be found on PHLCouncil.com. I now note that the hour has come. Mr. McMonagle, will you please call the roll to take attendance.
I am present. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues.
Good afternoon. Present. Thank you. A quorum of the Committee is present and the hearing is now called to order. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development regarding Bill 9 No. 230746. Mr. McMonagle, can you please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 13 230746, amending Chapter 9-2300 of The Philadelphia Code to provide greater protections for displaced contract workers.
Thank you. Before we begin to hear testimony from our witnesses we have for today, everyone who has been invited to the meeting to testify should be aware that this public hearing is being recorded. Because the hearing is public, participants and viewers have no 1 reasonable expectation of privacy. By continuing to be in the meeting, you are consenting to being recorded. Additionally, prior to recognizing Members for the questions or comments they have for witnesses, I will note for the record at this time that we will use the chat feature in Microsoft Teams to allow Members to signify that they wish to be recognized. In order to comply with the Sunshine Act, the chat feature must only be used for this purpose. Mr. McMonagle, will you please call the panel we have to testify this afternoon on Bill No. 19 230746. 20
We received 21 written testimony from the 22 Administration but nobody from the 23 Administration to testify. 24 Councilman Harrity, would 25 you like to be recognized before we call the first panel?
I would. Thank you, Chairman, Vice- Chair and colleagues and all the guests here. I have 10 short points about the bill that I'd like to put out there starting with number one, supporting Philly workers. This is a plan to give extra help to workers facing changes in Philadelphia. Number two, plain language and definition. If you hire people for big buildings or services in the City of Philadelphia like janitorial, security or food service, you're a part of this plan. Smooth transition, number three. When a new company takes over, we're ensuring current workers keep their jobs for at least 90 days. It's all about a smooth transition for everyone. Number four, priority job offers. If a place closes, the workers who lost their jobs get first shot at new jobs if the place reopens. Fair chances for everyone, number five. Strict rules, fair play. There's a group making sure everyone plays fair. If not, consequences like paying back wages or giving the job back are options. Agency oversight, number six. An agency is like a referee, making sure everyone follows the plan. They set rules and help people understand what's happening. Clear communication, number seven. Workers won't be in the dark. They'll know exactly what's happening, who's taking over and what their new job will look like. Number eight, protection of Philadelphia workers. The bottom line is this plan is about looking out for the workers in Philadelphia making sure they're treated right during changes. (Background interruption.)
Number nine, fair wages and benefits, ensuring workers get fair pay and benefits so they're not just keeping their jobs but also being compensated properly. Number 10, easy compliant process -- complaint -- I'm sorry. Number 10, easy complaint process. Creating a simple process for workers to raise concerns or complaints if someone doesn't seem right giving them a voice in the process. Did you hear me? Can you hear me?
All right. And just in closing, I'd like to say I know this is a hard vote. But a wise woman told me that the people have sent us here to make hard decisions. That's all I have to say. Thank you for listening.
Thank you, Councilmember, for that. And, Mr. McMonagle, would you like to please read the list for the first panel.
Yes. Can we please have in this order and then if you would not mind being prepared to testify after the person in front of you speaks. Tiffany Cherry, Daisy Cruz, Lyle Rowen and then Keisha Hayes, in that order please.
Okay. We'll start with Tiffany and then we'll proceed after Tiffany's done. We'll please refrain from asking questions until all have testified. Tiffany, just state your name for the record and then proceed with your testimony. (No response.)
Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman. Tiffany, can you hear us?
My name is Tiffany Cherry. I'm here today -- I am a Bellevue worker for 13 years. When I started -- (Background interruption.)
We hear you fine. Please keep testifying, Tiffany. (Background interruption.)
If you're watching it on the screen, try not to watch it on the screen because it is delayed or turn the volume down. Thank you.
Okay. My name is Tiffany Cherry. I am a Bell -- I have been a Bellevue worker for 13 years. When I started, we were making $15 an hour and now making $22 an hour. The Bellevue started transitioning to new management as COVID hit. It fully transitioned early 2022. Half of the building is still the Bellevue Hotel while the side I work on used to have 10 floors of commercial floors. Out of the 10 floors that we have, we have only down four floors. Six of the floors is under construction. It's going up for construction for residential. Before the cuts and the renovations happened, we had 6 workers -- 23 cleaning workers and 7 now we are down to 5 total. One in 8 daytime, four at night. 9 While six is under 10 renovation for residential, before 11 the cuts happened -- did I say 12 that -- I said all of that already. 13 I'm sorry. All right. That means 14 that 18 workers who are no longer 15 at the building. The threat of 16 losing our job isn't just a threat 17 of our wages, it could lead to us 18 losing health insurance, pension 19 and other benefits. 20 The second management 21 company that came in immediately 22 cut the workforce. We have heard 23 that another company took over, which we do have another cleaning company that took over November 1st. The new company that came in I'm not sure what's going to go on. It's early stages right now with the new company coming in. However, we had a new property manager that came in that wanted to get rid of us. But because of the union, she wasn't able to do that. With all of those renovations and new things that's going on as far as the construction and the residential, who knows what the four floors is going to look like in a few years. We can lose those four floors of commercial to residential. If we lose those four floors to residential, I would like to be able to come back and work in the Bellevue. I've been in the Bellevue for a long time. I've created a lot of relationships with tenants. We became a family there. So with the renovations going on and the building shutting down, we would like to be the first ones to be able to come back to work at the Bellevue if that happens. We absolutely need our local elected officials to help protect our jobs so that we can fight and maintain our rights, wages and working conditions that we deserve. In this new pandemic climate, we need to make sure that owners do us -- we need to make sure owners don't use the excuse of renovations and conversions of their buildings to undercut the labor standards that we achieve to help us provide decent living -- decent lives for our families. The world is trying its best to recover from the first global pandemic of our lifetime. It's enough that many of us lost our family and friends. We should do everything we can to avoid additional stress and (inaudible) of us losing our livelihoods as well. I have a picture right here of City Council out supporting us during the time we was fighting for our contract. I'm not sure if y'all see this picture. It's kind of small. So you stood for us in front of a building on 16th and Cherry, which is currently in the middle of a transfer of ownership and possible renovation from commercial to residential. We absolutely appreciate your support then. Please continue to stand with us now to protect what we have earned. I think that's it.
Yes. Just state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Sure. Daisy Cruz. Okay. I'm ready to go. Just like I just said, good afternoon. I just thank you all for giving us the opportunity to be able to give our testimony today. I'm the District leader for SEIU Local 32BJ. I represent over 10,000 workers in Philadelphia and the tristate area. We represent -- and thousands of those actually work in Center City just like Tiffany was referencing earlier. As you all heard, a lot of our members find themselves in danger of losing their jobs due to no fault of their own. Our union members are cleaners, security officers, building engineers who make sure that the buildings are clean, well-maintained and secure so that businesses are able to function properly. In all the years that I've been doing this job, I've come to understand that our workers can easily be taken for granted and are the unseen workers that people don't see every single day. COVID presented the most constant pressing problem we have ever seen. During the pandemic, just like Tiffany talked about, our members became highly recognized in a way that they have never been before. While the rest of the world was quarantined, masked and dealing with things that dealing with death not knowing what was coming next, a lot of people were able to work from home, but not our members. Unfortunately, they -- fortunately and unfortunately they were celebrated and honored as essential workers when it was still unclear how the virus was spreading and what they were actually bringing home to their families every single day. They did all that extra deep cleaning at these buildings, constantly kept the buildings running, helping enforce social distance and mask mandates in efforts to keep us all safe and healthy as possible. Many of them were laid off. They lost hours and some unfortunately lost their lives. Now that we're coming out of the worst of it and entering a time of recovery, we find that the businesses that our members worked so hard to help stay afloat are making adjustments themselves. We expect that as social and economic times change businesses will adapt, but we cannot sacrifice the jobs that our low-wage, hard-working Philadelphia people have been doing this work for so long so that businesses can continue to get richer. We fought for displaced worker laws in the past to close the loopholes that left workers vulnerable to job loss from irresponsible businesses trying to avoid living wages, benefits and our members fought so hard in their contracts for all these years. This new language is not a new concept. It's simply adapting an already-existing law to address the changes and circumstances. Passing these amendments to the existing law will give workers a chance to hold onto their wages, their health benefits, their pensions at a time when they are the ones who need it the most. Businesses should not benefit at the expense of poor, hard-working people who live paycheck-to-paycheck. Just like Tiffany referenced earlier as well, Councilmembers, State Reps, Senators as well as Mayor-elect Cherelle Parker marched with us and stood with us on August 29th of this year at 16th and Cherry for a rally to protect our workers and protect their jobs, workers in that exact building just like Tiffany talked about that are at risk of losing their jobs if this bill does not pass this year. We cannot put businesses above low-wage workers. We ask that you continue to support us by voting yes on this displaced workers bill. By doing so, you will be sending a clear message that we are in this recovery process together. If you vote no, you will be voting no on poor, hard-working people and voting yes for billionaires to continue to get richer. I thank you for the time in letting me testify.
Hey, Lyle. Just state your name for the record and proceed.
Thank you. Lyle Rowen. Good afternoon. My name is Lyle Rowen and I'm joining you as an Associate General Counsel for Local 32BJ. Thank you for your time and attention here on this important matter. I've been working with 32BJ for nearly 12 years providing legal support for 13 the union's organizing and 14 representational work. 15 The union represents 16 membership throughout 11 states and 17 the District of Columbia. I have 18 been focused particularly in the 19 City of Philadelphia and the state 20 of Pennsylvania generally in the past several years, including I work at the Philadelphia Airport and on various representational matters in the City. I just wanted to take a minute to talk a little bit about the substance of the law and how displaced worker laws like this which exist throughout the union's jurisdiction provide a vital source of stability to a workforce that is subject to an enormous amount of disruption based on changes and who their employer is. It's a unique aspect of the building service industry that I think warrants our attention, and this law as it exists provides helpful protection, but the amendments are needed as proposed to strengthen those protections. So I want to just outline generally the industry relies upon sort of two essential employment structures for employees in this industry: First, building service staff may typically be employed directly by a building owner, whether that's a real estate company or a co-op or a condominium board. Alternatively, building service employees may be employed by a commercial contractor that is hired by a building owner to provide services through a period of time. So these are the two basic structures. And within that, there's essentially four common scenarios in which a building employer -- I'm sorry, the employee's employer will change which creates instability in their employment. The first of these is when the cleaning or the building service contractor simply changes, so the builder owner has an existing contractor and they decide to go with different companies and they switch it out and a new contractor comes in and the employees have to go apply for their jobs again. They don't know what they're in for in terms of working. So that's one. Another is when the building owner used to hire employees directly but decides to contract out those jobs and a new contractor comes in. Those two scenarios are currently addressed under the existing law. But what the existing law does not address is two other scenarios which we see some frequency. One is when there is a cleaning con -- or building service contractor in place that employs the workers, but the building owner decides to terminate that agreement and hire the employees inhouse. In that situation, the employees then have to reapply for their jobs directly with the building owner. Again, the terms and conditions of that employment can change based on the demands of the owner who is now the employer. Another would be where the employees are directly employed by the building owner and the building is sold and a new owner comes in and also decides to employ the workers directly. That incoming owner is now a new employer and the employees have to go apply for their jobs again, and that's another scenario that the existing law does not apply to and provides no protection. So without the protection of the displaced workers law, these employees who have many times served in the building for years or even decades could be thrown out on the street. There's no other requirement that requires them to be employed by the new employer that comes in. So for these different scenarios that are currently not addressed in the existing law, we feel the proposed amendments are crucial. In addition, it really needs to be recognized as Daisy mentioned that the COVID pandemic inflicted an enormous and lasting impact on the commercial side of the building service industry that 32BJ feels needs to be addressed.
Specifically, following the act of remote work in certain pockets of the market in our industry we've seen shifts of investment in development from commercial office space to residential properties. In some instances as described, this transition results in the temporary, partial or complete closure of a building while the property is renovated from one purpose to another, resulting in painful displacement and disruption to the lives and economic security of the employees who work there. So while the existing displaced worker law in Philadelphia does provide important protection for many of the City's building service employees, more attention is needed both to close the existing loopholes and to further address new challenges of a changing real estate landscape. This bill we believe will address these needs and there are several important changes to the amendments, but I want to mention three in particular: First, as I described earlier, the existing law only applies when jobs are assumed by a new incoming contractor and not when the building owner acquires the employees directly. The proposed amendment extends the important protection to employees. The second, with the changes in the industry shifting towards residential development, the bill 21 adds job classifications common to residential property management that are not included in the existing law, specifically concierge services and door attendant services. Without these changes, central services within the residential market would not be covered by the law's protection. And finally, the proposed amendments include the new recall protection provision to address what we expect to be a more common problem, which is the layoff of existing building staff in a commercial building due to partial or full temporary closure of the building for renovations necessary to repurpose a property. A shift we expect to see from commercial use to residential use. In these cases, the amendments would provide a minimum measure of continued job protection to grant those displaced employees their right to be recalled to their former building when it reopens in its new form. There will still be hardship endured during this hiatus period and many employees may simply move on to other employment elsewhere. But this provides them a choice to return and resume their service in the future if they so desire. With these comments, I respectfully urge you to consider the importance of these amendments to the working people of Philadelphia and pass them into law. I do want to mention before I close I did have a chance to review a recent memorandum drafted by the Law Department. We provided some very helpful insight into potential problems, legal problems with proposed amendments. The first of those has to do with the separation of powers under the City Charter, and the union certainly has no 21 quarrel with the Law Department's view that the existing amendments essentially contain a lot of prescriptive language, a lot of directives that would be coming from Council to an executive agency. So the union certainly acknowledges that whatever executive agency would be responsible for enforcement, that they would retain their lawful discretion in autonomy in terms of policies that they would implement to ensure compliance. We felt that it was helpful to have an administrative enforcement mechanism in the ordinance just to ensure efficient enforcement. But the lawful executive discretion that would be used to carry that out of course remains solely within the executive agency. And the second had to do with special legislation in that that, that caution did prompt a review of the language and the union did recommend sort of an 11th-hour revision to try to correct that problem, and that had to do with the new provision regarding recall rights for employees that are laid off.
And the definition of an eligible layoff employee was improperly narrow to only include those who had worked during six months of Calendar Year 2023, and that was not the intention. The intention was to create an eligibility formula of working six of the 12 months prior to a layoff regardless of what year that occurred, but it would only be in effect for building closures that occur after January 1st of 2024 following the bill's hopeful passage. So that was just an oversight in drafting in terms of the definition of an eligible employee under that provision and we've proposed a correction, a very short correction that will resolve that problem. So thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate this opportunity.
Thank you for your testimony. Mr. McMonagle, do you have the list of the next people to testify?
Keisha, are you connected? Just state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Keisha Hayes. I've been a cleaner in the Public Ledger Building at 620 Chestnut for 29 years. I would like to speak to you for a moment on the importance of the displaced workers protections currently on the books of Philadelphia and why we have such an urgent need to amend the current language. Our jobs have become the kind of jobs that have changed lives and improved families. Over decades of negotiations and improvements, we have been able to earn the kind of wages and benefits that help us support our families and neighborhoods and communities. But all those gains could be lost if another company takes over and does not hire us and negotiates to keep our union contract. Last year my building switched cleaning companies overnight to a nonunion company. And when I came into work the next day, my coworkers and I were informed that our services were no 24 longer needed. After over 20 years I wasn't even allowed in the building. After calling around and asking for the application to the new company, I was told that I wasn't allowed to apply. I immediately contacted my union because of displaced workers protections and we have fought for -- we have fought and able to keep our jobs and another cleaning company eventually came in fully respecting our rights and agreeing to our contract. And now coming out of the pandemic, we are faced with a new threat. After working through the COVID and being front line and making buildings safe for business, we are facing -- we are facing -- we went from cleaners 19 down to 2. We went down to 2 20 cleaners. And as I'm speaking 21 right now, they are doing condos 22 all around us. They completed one side and we're still working in there while they're completing condos. Tenants have moved out. We maybe got about three tenants left. So may by the end of the year we may even not have a job. So I don't know even how I'm going to feed myself, take care of myself. My life just changed dramatically just like that. I don't think that's fair. I know that I need my job so I'm praying that you guys can take this in consideration and pass this because we need it. Thank you and have a blessed day.
Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Good job. Mr. McMonagle.
Can we please have William Carter on our second panel introduce himself and prepare his testimony.
Will, just state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good evening now. I should have said good afternoon, but good evening. I want to thank Councilman Squilla and members of the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development for the opportunity to testify regarding this legislation. I'm actually testifying on behalf of the Inclusive Growth Coalition, which is inclusive of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber, the African American Chamber, the Hispanic Chamber, the Asian Chamber and the Independence Business Alliance which is the LGBTQ Chamber in the City. And our organization is advocating for job and business growth in Philadelphia through the engagement of diverse partners from every corner of the City to raise the standard of living for all Philadelphians. We know shared prosperity can only be achieved when all Philadelphians are providing access to opportunities. And the IGC is committed to inform local leaders regarding policies that will grow all businesses and increase the number of people working in good-paying jobs in the City of Philadelphia. And particularly, during this recovery period it's imperative that we support business growth and the jobs that come with it. And doing so as we know also benefits our City through an expanded tax base to improve City services, reduce poverty and make our City safer. Regarding the matter at hand, and I've been listening to the testimony and certainly understand the concerns, we must impress upon you however that there's various substantive issues with this legislation. But beyond that, the lack of engagement with stakeholders on a bill that significantly affects the diverse business community has quite frankly been unconscionable. At the time of its introduction, we expressed concerns to the sponsor regarding the form and substance of the bill. At that time we were sure that it wouldn't be listed for hearing until we had further conversation and meaningful interaction with the sponsor on this bill. However, we are now dealing with a bill that was placed on the hearing calendar last minute without notice to stakeholders from the sponsor. Further, the only Zoom we've had on this bill was within the last two days during which no substantive matters were discussed. And I'm certain -- I have known the sponsor for a while -- that his heart is in the right place and that his intentions are great, but we know that City Council and the Administration in particular, but City Council at large represents all sides, should be representing all entities and all interested parties on bills like this. So we fully understand that one of the principle responsibilities of unions like SEIU is to encourage companies to hire the members. We're all a part of member service organizations and work hard every day to provide benefits and increase our respective memberships. Our main expectation I should say, however, is that when public policy matters affect our members, they are likewise considered and properly engaged. The process surrounding this bill 1 has not allowed for such engagement and has denied our membership full opportunity to have their concerns expressed and properly considered. Legislation, especially of this magnitude, and the impact must be thoroughly considered in light of our City's current economic state. Entrepreneurs of all demographics work 24/7 to provide goods and services that benefit the community at large. And when those that succeed grow, they create needed jobs to the benefit of the City and its residents. These business owners and these entrepreneurs, these hard- working individuals significantly rely on healthy relationships and proper support from their government leaders in doing so. However, with this valuable segment of society is not properly engaged by government in policy matters that affect their sustainability and growth, there's immediate erosion of confidence that local leaders represent them equally.
Legislation of this importance must be considered adequately, especially in light of the current state of businesses citywide. We are certainly not here to disparage service unions or their cause. However, we are certain that there needs to be a fair process that does not unevenly tilt favor towards labor over service companies in matters like this. And given the substantive process issues attentive hereto, we ask that you not consider this legislation at this time and allow Philadelphia's hard-working diverse service contractors a proper seat at the table for the issues to be considered. I thank you for your time and I'm open for any questions.
Are there any questions from any members of the Committee for any of the ones who had testified up to this time? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, can you please read the next person to testify.
Good afternoon. Good evening, Councilman Squilla and members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify. Again, my name is Regina A. Hairston and I'm the President and CEO of the African American Chamber of Commerce. Today I testify on behalf of the Diverse Chambers Coalition of Philadelphia which was formed by the AACC along with the Asian American Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia, Greater Philadelphia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, which is the Independence Business Alliance to work collectively as a community to meet the unique challenges diverse businesses and enterprises face when they engage with our local economy. Today we come together to advocate for the diverse small business owners in the City of Philadelphia urging members of Council to engage with our Coalition and the development and implementation of policies and regulations that may impact them. The businesses we represent are the backbone of our neighborhoods, providing essential goods and services and employment opportunities to their fellow Philadelphians. On behalf of the Coalition, I am testifying today in opposition of Bill 230746, which we believe irresponsibly circumvents vital democratic processes, overreaches well beyond legal feasibility and is crafted with total disregard for inclusivity for equity by leaving out the diverse voices of business owners who would be most impacted by its implementation. Substantively this bill 11 creates undue and likely illegal burdens for business owners of all kinds by telling them who and how they can hire as a part of a workforce. One goal for our City on the precipice of new leadership should be to create a business environment wherein all entities, especially the diverse businesses that we represent, can flourish and create meaningful jobs and supported public policy -- supported rather than public policy one where no one wants to operate. We should not aim to create extra barriers and drive enterprise away when our City is already at an economic crisis point. And as we have testified before, quality jobs do not appear without enterprise beyond the substantive matters of the bill, the process by which this bill 9 comes before us. To put it calmly, it's unsettling. It has been hastily cobbled together without concern for the diverse business owners of this City, appears irresponsible in its overreach and represents a dangerous precedent for democratic norms in this legislative body. We are a city that is defined by the democratic process, and we are appalled that the parties most impacted by this legislation have not been included in the crafting of it. Coming as it did, we cannot say with certainty what the direct impact will be on the many businesses we represent. Neither can anyone else, including City Council as there have not been studies or evidence attached to this that empirically state what any impacts to Philadelphia businesses might be. Had there been any considerations or studies on how many Philadelphia buildings would fall under the laws new and sudden auspices, had there been an audit about the multiple types of businesses that are conducting their services in buildings within complexes of at least 50,000 square feet or residential complex of buildings of at least 50 dwelling units, has anyone paused to consider how many diverse-owned businesses like grocery stores, wholesale operations or even nonprofits would be affected by new regulations without warning? The change in the policy proposed is of significant magnitude and requires the engagement of affected parties. From our perspective, businesses who operate in the kinds of buildings cited in the bill have not had a meaningful opportunity to participate in a discussion about the challenges that the legislation would create, after all they were not consulted or even invited to participate in any robust form of debate.
We believe that our elected officials have an informative responsibility to reach out and engage a diverse population of community members and a cadre of business owners to determine how they would be impacted by legislation. We already know that well over a majority of our business owners cite a lack of ease of doing business with the City as a major hurdle to their success and sustainability as indicated in our recent '22, '23 Budget Cycle Diverse Chamber Survey. It is not surprising that they feel this way when burdensome regulations are hoisted upon them without their input and without regard for their lived experience. Small businesses in Philadelphia remain at a very critical juncture and their recovery as well from the impacts of the pandemic and there are causes for concern for our leaders and elected officials. The majority of respondents to our survey indicated that they would not recommend Philadelphia as a place in which to do business, which many respondents cited a lack of ease of doing business, the high cost of doing business and crime and safety concerns as primary detractors. This bill represents yet another burden placed in front of them. As business leaders, as community leaders and as residents of this City, it's imperative that we spend our time planning for a safe, equitable and robust economic environment where businesses can thrive and jobs can be created. The leader, staff and members of the Diverse Chamber Coalition of Philadelphia we are ready to work with you to build a stronger and safer Philadelphia and to have a balanced approach to public policy as it impacts our members and as it impacts all Philadelphians as a whole. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Hairston, and I do hear your concerns. And any time we as electors come up with legislation we do like to have input from all voices. And if you feel that wasn't happening, we will work in the future to do that. Are there any other questions from members of Council? (No response.)
Seeing no questions, Mr. McMonagle, can you please read the next person to testify.
Jennifer, just state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. COUNCIL TECH SUPPORT: I don't see a Jennifer Rodriguez on the list.
Yeah, I don't see anyone, Councilman. Can we have Mr. Andre Del Valle?
Mr. Del Valle, if you're available, state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good evening, Chairman Squilla and members of the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. My name is Andre Del Valle. I'm the Vice-president of Government Affairs for the Pennsylvania Apartment Association representing over 285,000 units and 300 property management companies across the Commonwealth. Locally here in Philadelphia we represent over 38,000 units and 49 property management companies. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill 18 No. 230746, which we oppose for a number of reasons, for procedural concerns to the vague language that leaves this bill ambiguous, potentially opening up members to noncompliance due to how the bill 24 can be interpreted. There's also a tremendous lack of data on the potential impact of this legislation. Over the last two years I've served as Vice-president of the Pennsylvania Apartment Association. I've had the pleasure of working with several of you on bills that have impacted the multi-family housing industry to find common ground on legislation to assist the residents of Philadelphia. We've been part of stakeholder meetings. We've been able to share our concerns and negotiate through those challenges and work with you through a legislative process prior to a final vote. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about this bill, which is being fast-tracked on our final week of session as you will hear today from the members of the business community. A bill of this magnitude that impacts so many different stakeholders should have gone through a proper process and not be rushed at the 11th hour. For months we were not engaged, for weeks we were told the bill were not run, for weeks emails went unanswered regarding the bill and only two days ago were we given a forum with the bill sponsor to share our concerns about the bill. We were told we would receive amendments and even to this day we still have not received any amendments prior to submitting our testimony for today's hearing. We don't know this bill's full impact. We don't know the number of buildings and have several concerns on the reach, scope and even the legality of this bill. This bill, while we know is well-spirited, raises several concerns from the definition of worker and contractor being used interchangeably to handcuffing employers who may decide to switch contractors to hire within and creating a nightmare process for several enforcement and interfering with an already existing process through the collective bargaining process. Simply put, this legislation raises more questions than concrete answers that leaves a number of us still confused on the potential impact and has a number of different interpretations. What we do know is that this legislation before you specifically targets our industry by extending coverage, concierge and door attendant services but limiting it to the workers of buildings of at least 50,000 square feet and residential buildings with at least 50 units, a threshold that specifically targets those buildings that would be prime to convert from office space to residential. While the bill may seem straightforward, this bill has unintended consequences as it's impacting ongoing federal initiatives that promote affordable housing through the conversion of office space to affordable units. As we know, our nation is facing an affordable housing crisis. And while we're working on a number of initiatives federally and even at the state level to reduce the red tape to constructing more multi-family housing, this legislation before you today adds more red tape and disincentivizes owners and simply the business community from wanting to come and convert or even stay in Philadelphia. PAA prides itself on cross-collaborating with our elected officials at all levels of government, including White House officials to find innovative solutions to our nation's housing challenges.
On October 27, 2023, President Biden announced new actions to support the conversion of (inaudible) commercial buildings to residential use, including the new financing technical assistance and sale of federal properties. This announcement will create much needed housing that is affordable, energy-efficient, near transit and good jobs. This initiative peaked the interest of a number of our members, our larger members who have left Philadelphia to return to the City and once again build and create units and create affordable units that we desperately need. We continue to say that there's an affordable housing crisis. Yet those very same housing providers are disincentivized by creating more units through the added regulations like the one before you today. This bill does not only impact those office conversions either. This impacts a number of other sectors and existing buildings which you will hear from today. We're just committed to work with stakeholders that we hear from and have this bill go through a proper process. There is no 11 difference if this bill passes today or if it's the first bill 13 that's introduced next session that helps address concerns from the stakeholders that you've heard from. This bill sets a dangerous precedent for the City of Philadelphia dictating to the private sector who they can and cannot hire and how they can operate business within the City of Philadelphia. We look forward to working with this Committee, the rest of Council, the next Administration on a number of policies and hope that in the future stakeholders will be engaged in the legislative process to ensure that all concerns are addressed prior to the passage of any ordinance of this magnitude. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Thank you, Mr. Del Valle, for your testimony. And like we said earlier, we will ensure that in all new legislation moving forward that all parties feel like they will be involved in that process and apologize if that wasn't the case in this instance. Mr. McMonagle, please read the next person to testify.
Are there any questions from the Committee? (No response.)
Hearing no further questions from members of the last panel and there being no other panels to testify, we'll take a brief break to connect members from the public. Are there any public comments for this legislation? COUNCIL TECH SUPPORT: There is no public comment.
Okay. Hearing no public comment and no 15 further testimony and no further questions from the Committee and no 17 other comments for witnesses to testify, I'll ask if there is anyone else present in the hearing whose name we have failed to call that wishes to offer testimony for the bill being considered today? (No response.)
Hearing none, I want to thank all the panels of witnesses for their participation today as we value your opinions. I now invite all panels of witnesses to please disconnect from the meeting before we go into our public meeting. We will now pause the proceedings briefly as multiple participants leave the hearing. Thank you. That will conclude our public hearing for the Committee and we'll now go into a public meeting to consider the action to be taken on the bill 15 before the Committee today. We are now convening our public meeting. Mr. McMonagle, can you please call the roll to take attendance for the members that are present.
Present. Thank you. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair would like to recognize Councilmember Jones for a motion on the amendment to Bill 22 No. 230746.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 230746. A copy of that amendment has been circulated to all members of Council and I move for its adoption, the amendment to Bill No. 230746.
The Chair notes for the record Councilmember Gauthier seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 230746 be approved. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries and the amendment to Bill No. 24 230746 has been approved. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Jones for a motion on Bill No. 230746 as amended.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 230746 as amended be moved from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and furthermore ask that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
Chair notes for the record Councilmember Gauthier seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 19 230746 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. That will conclude our meeting for today. Thank you all for your attendance in the business before the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. Everybody have a great day and thank you for waiting and being patient during this process. Have a --
Councilmember Squilla, can I be marked present and voted aye?
Councilmember Brooks is recorded as present and voting aye on the passage of the amendment and Bill 1 No. 230746. Thank you. That will conclude our meeting for today. Everyone have a great day.
6 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 Congratulations, 8 Councilmember Harrity. 9
Thank 10 you. 11 (Committee on Commerce and 12 Economic Development concluded at 13 5:37 p.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL