That has to be a corner lot. I mean, you would not put fencing along a wall, and that if the front and the back of the lot are fenced, the lot is protected. So a fence to run along a wall makes absolutely no sense.
Well, Councilman, I think they meant a corner property, probably a 106 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000025 corner property was --
Well, as long as we understand that we're not talking about fences running down just to protect the stucco wall.
Councilman, I think the issue with the stucco wall was primarily raised by people that you can access the lot either from the front or the back, and the kids stand on the lot and, therefore, bounce the ball up against the wall. But if you can't access the lot primarily from the front or back, the remaining houses usually protect the lot on the sides.
But in the testimony here, it was not specific to corner lots. I listened very carefully. The person did indicate that the desirable fencing was all four sides, and I just wanted to make sure for the record that we're only talking about, other than a corner lot, a fence at the each end of the lot.
The thing I think that's important in this bill and for anyone is that the only thing that's going to work is if there's a plan within that block, within that community as to how they're going to deal with it. Otherwise, no matter what we put there will fail, period.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Solvibile, I have a question about the procurement process. What's the current procurement process for contractors to place fences up?
The City of Philadelphia bids a requirements contract through Procurement that would handle recreation and any fence that the City wants to erect, and we latch on to that. And there's one contractor that basically is awarded that contract through Procurement, where L&I, if we were to put $100,000 108 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000025 worth of fencing up or one fence, we would get a purchase order based upon that requirement, a citywide requirements contract.
So, conceivably, the individuals putting up the fence around a rec center is the same entity that will put up a fence on a corner lot?
Correct, correct. And they do build in like over so many linear feet. It's a linear foot bid -- well, actually, a square foot bid by the height and the length, that they do build in like over so many linear feet, it becomes less the more you go.
So in that particular process, it normally requires a larger contractor be the respondent? Is that the case, have you found that to be the case?
I -- I don't know how large the -- how big this contractor is. He's been doing it for the last two or three years. But, yes, there's different ways they could do it. They could divide the City, quarter it up east and west of Broad. We have a stucco contract, a citywide requirement for stuccoing, 109 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000025 and we divide the City in half, east and west of Broad.
So could we, say, for instance, have one of the local CDCs that are working on new housing developments, could we have the CDC actually bid on the procurement process?
That probably could be worked out with Secretary Wilkerson. I'm sure that we could devise a method of bidding that would more suit the intent that Council has in fencing and how they would be erected.
All right. Let me ask you this: Is it more cost effective, do you think, to do the larger contract? 'Cause I hear that from time to time when the Recreation Department, they do lights, they bid out all of the lights for all of the --
I can only say this, that Miss Parker saved $5 a linear foot; the City would have paid for the fence that she has. 22 I'm assuming it's a six-foot fence. And she told Councilman Nutter that it was $600 and approximately 17 feet wide. So that's 34 foot of fencing with a gate -- I'm assuming she has a 110 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000025 gate. And that comes to 17.50 a foot. We did that and that's why I asked how long the fence was. And the City, for the same fence, would have paid $22 a linear foot.
So if we induce more competition, then we might get a better price.
Either that or we let Miss Parker do the fencing for the City. Miss Parker, do you want to be the fence czar? (Laughter.)
She's a tough negotiator, she's going to get us a good price.
Actually one of the ladies that testified, Miss Jenkins, I think she was the last lady to testify on the left, she works in Licenses and Inspections in our fiscal office and authorizes payments to fencing contractors. So you realize how that really must hurt her every day to, you know --
All right, all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 111 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000025
Any other questions for any of these witnesses? (No further questions.)
I just want to note for the record, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize Miss Inez Parker, who is here with us, but she's going to -- is it my understanding you're going to send some testimony in later or. . .
When I received the material, I didn't know I was supposed to come.
You might as well testify since you're here, Miss Parker.
When I received the material, I didn't know that I was supposed to say anything, and I think Councilman Nutter knows that I'm very concerned about Haverford Avenue, which is considered a State highway, and that's what the sign says. And our block is becoming very poorly taken care of as well as the blocks from 60TH and 112 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000025 Haverford to 54th and Haverford because a lot of the houses, they're knocking them down and we have vacant lots, and nothing is being done. I was so happy for our mayor when he picked up some of the abandoned cars that we have been calling about for seven months, and they just picked them up two weeks ago, but we have a lot of aged persons living in our block. We no longer have a lot of homeowners, and a lot of people are purchasing the properties and we have a lot of vacant landlords. So the block is really going down. I have pictures that I have taken. I wrote the letter, but I hadn't sent it, but I will send it today and the pictures to Mr. Nutter and Mr. Wadell (ph.), okay?
Thank you, ma'am. It looks like no one else is here to testify, so that will be the end of the testimony on Bill 25. We're going to go into Bill 61. Mr. Allen, could you read Bill 61.
An ordinance amending Title 113 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000061 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," requiring the retention of video surveillance tapes in commercial businesses for 30 days after use of those tapes, and regulating the quality of those tapes.
And, Fernando, 9 you're here from the Administration? 10 Now, before we start, let me just say that this was my bill and, you know, to cut to the chase, the reason that we came up with this bill 13 was for the late Russell Byers from the Daily News, and when Mr. Byers was murdered, the tape wasn't very conclusive. I mean, I'm not an expert on that fact, but this pretty much simplifies that, we think.
I can appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. My name is Fernando Gallard. I'm the Acting Director of the Mayor's Business Action Team. Again, I appreciate your point because I actually live in the same block that that incident happened, so I can really appreciate it. I'm going to be very brief. If I may 114 4/25/00 L&I - BILL 000061 read the statement at this point. Good afternoon, Committee Chairman Mariano and members of City Council, my name is Fernando Gallard, and I currently serve as Acting Director of the Mayor's Business Action Team. Thank you for the opportunity to testify Bill 8 000061, covering the use of surveillance tapes in commercial businesses. We have reviewed the bill and the regulations, and the Administration and the Department of Commerce have no objection to Bill 13 000061, as it stands.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? I have one question I think I wrote down before. No, that's fine, no problem. Thank you.
Seeing none, we will go right into the public meeting. We will 115 4/25/00 L&I - Public Meeting close the public hearing and go into the public meeting. First I need a motion to report out Bill 25.
Mr. Chairman, I need to move the amendments on first. 8
Mr. Chairman, I 10 move that Bill No. 25 be amended in Section PM 11 307.6 in the following manner: 12 In the section reading "When the 13 Department proceeds to demolish any structure 14 whether by contract or by its own employees, the 15 contract or the Department" -- strike the word 16 "shall" and insert the word "may" "provide for a 17 fence or other protective devices in the 18 application of environmentally safe treatments to 19 control vegetative overgrowth by the demolition 20 contractor or by Department employees in order to 21 secure the perimeter of the vacant lot, protect 22 the health, safety, and welfare of the community, 23 prevent overgrowth, and deter illegal dumping of 24 trash and debris." 25 Later on, the same section reads, "but 116 4/25/00 L&I - Public Meeting not limited to community development housing, neighborhood gardening, landscaping, play areas, side yards, or any other. . ." insert the word "legal" "uses. Next sentence. "The Commissioner shall have the discretion to determine whether a fence or other protective device is. . ." Strike the word "unnecessary" and insert the word "necessary" "based on a planned reuse of the vacant lot" -- new language "by an abutting or nearby property owner, community development corporation, community-based or block organization;". Continuing on in that sentence "or other unique circumstance." Delete the comma and insert a semicolon. The same amendments should be made in the same locations in Section PM-308.4. And, lastly, a new Section 2 should be added, which should read: "This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2000." Those are the amendments to Bill No. 23 25, Mr. Chairman, and I move the adoption of those amendments.
We have moved the 117 4/25/00 L&I - Public Meeting amendment. And do we have a second? (Duly seconded.)
Okay. All those in favor of the amendment, aye? The amendment passes. So now the motion to report out Bill 8 25, as amended.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 25, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
Councilman Rizzo seconded it. All those in favor, aye? Okay, so it passes.
I need a motion to request a suspension of rules to allow for the first reading of Bill 25, as amended, on the 118 4/25/00 L&I - Public Meeting first-consideration calendar on April 27, 2000. Do I have that motion, Councilman Nutter?
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 25, as amended, with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
A second by Councilman Clarke. All those in favor, aye? Okay, then it passes. Now we go to Bill 61. I need a motion to report out Bill 61 with a positive recommendation. Councilman Nutter?
Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 61 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. Do you want a suspension?
All right. And a further recommendation that rules of Council be 119 4/25/00 L&I - Public Meeting suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
All those in favor of that, aye? Okay nobody's opposed. That's it. Then this closes the public meeting. Do we have anything else? Oh, I'm sorry. There's one thing I forgot. Bills 102, 103 and 104 are being held at the request of the sponsor. This closes the public hearing. Oh, I need a motion to hold those bills?
I make a motion that those bills -- 000102, 000103 and 000104 -- be held at the request of the sponsor. (Duly seconded.)
A second is heard. All those in favor, aye? Okay, that's it. And we can close the public hearing. Thank you. 120 4/25/00 L&I - Public Meeting (Adjourned at 12:12 p.m.) - - - 121 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, April 25, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS BILL NO.'S 000025, 000061 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter