My name's Alphonso Rowley from the 5200 block of Euclid Street. 68 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 There's a hole in the wall, it's a couple of holes with hanging concrete. Part of that wall to me is solid. I was just wondering why the whole wall has to be torn down and be replaced.
I believe that there will be people from the Streets Department here hopefully who could respond to that. I've asked that question over some period of time. I think you will have an answer. May not like the answer, but they do have an answer to that particular question. I've asked that question.
Also 'cause the fact is that it's a lot of people that live on that block. I'm quite sure that they won't even have the money if they have to pay part of that.
Right. It's a major public policy here. There is also a funding issue -- whether it's funding from the government side, whether funding from the residents. 69 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 You'll recall one of the letters I wrote, for instance, I think, to the Redevelopment Authority. They made notes of various loan programs they have that vary by interest rate, depending on income and those kinds of things. I mean, for the moment, at least, I think I've kind of scoured the universe of potential funding sources. There is one last one that we might have some opportunity to access. But why don't we -- are there other citizens who wish to testify? 'Cause I think we want to try to get the Streets Department people on to get to some of the questions that you've asked and get some answers.
Yeah, my name is Michael Moffitt. I really appreciate all that's being done, you know, and I was just thinking along the lines. You know, I travel a lot. And as I go out 70 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 of the city and I come back into the city, you know, I could see that real big sign that says, you know, "Welcome to Philadelphia, the City That Loves You Back." And I tend to think that, you know, when you look at the neighborhoods where this situation is occurring, it's not just the 5200 block of Berk Street and Euclid Street, but it's all over. You know, and I'm thinking along the lines of, you know, it would be a good thing to invest in those neighborhoods because this is all a part of Philadelphia. This is not just the Berks Street area but it's citywide. So and I'm just saying, you know, as a minor thought, you know, to invest. You know, I mean, it's kind of hard to find the money here and find the money there. But when we need to find the money, invest in the neighborhoods.
Alfred Taylor. When you talk about reinvesting like the Chestnut Street adventure they did years ago. 71 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 Now we going to tear it up again. There's money around; why not give it back to the neighbors instead of to big business? Everything is big business. What about us, what about us? If you've got money in one block -- they did sidewalks, they dug the sidewalks up to plant a tree. They dig before, you know, they put the tree there? Why not just cement the whole sidewalk, come back a week later, dig a hole in the sidewalk and put the tree there? Is that wasting money? Spend some of that money on us.
Mr. Lonie from the Streets Department? Who's next? Any other citizens who wish to testify? (No response.)
You're all welcome to stay as Councilmember Nutter mentioned earlier, so if you gentlemen would -- you can sit over here if you'd like or go on the other side of the rail, wherever you're comfortable. In case you want to get back up to. . . 72 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill 990250, authorizing the Department of Streets to take steps necessary to repair the retaining wall in the rear of 5200 Euclid Street. This wall has been in need of repair for many years. It has collapsed and complete restoration is required. The wall was condemned by Board of Health on July 17, 1975. The policy of the City on such matters is to hold community meetings with the abutting property owners. Two meetings were held with the community. At that time, the approximate cost and shared responsible were given to the respective owners. A majority of the property owners did not sign the petition circulated which would have requested the City to contract for the repair of the wall. Our policy was and remains that a majority of property owners must request repairs to be made for the City to proceed further. The 73 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 reason for this policy is that driveways, alleys, and retaining walls all exist within private property and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Streets as rights-of-way. However, Section 11-306f. Of the Philadelphia Code grants the responsibility to the district surveyor to charge fees for furnishing lines and grades to abate nuisances such as alleys, driveways, and retaining walls. The code further outlines in Section 11-506 titled "Alleys, Driveways, and Retaining Walls," the methods that we should use in assessing these repairs. We have reexamined the cost of this will and estimate the cost to repair the damage would be today $237,600. We would also like to share with the Council the possibility that other such walls exist, and the repair of these walls could place a heavy financial burden on the citizens of Philadelphia. We have approximately 1,303,100 linear feet of retaining walls within the city. We know at this time that over 25,000 feet of walls have been identified by request or condemnation as needing repair. The cost of this 74 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 would be approximately $5,040,000. This represents 63 walls, and this does not count the major Manayunk walls. On the average, we process nine complaints a year from 1961 to 1978. Since that time, we only process complaints accompanied by a petition signed by a majority of the property owners. Assuming continuation of the 1961 to 1978 failure rate, we project that 189 walls may have been of may have developed problems since 1978. The approximate cost to repair these walls would $15,1220, totaling $20,160,000. The projected cost of this remediation spread over five years would be $4 million per year, excluding unusual heightened wall and confined circumstances walls, such as exists sometimes in Manayunk. Included in my testimony is a map from our geographic information system that shows the majority of the retaining walls in the city and the respective Councilmatic districts within which they reside and the expected associated costs. Therefore, the Department of Streets asks that Council to weigh the total impact of this legislation before reaching a decision. 75 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250
Thank you. Mr. Lonie, I just want to jump over to another issue. One of the other gentlemen earlier testified that some of the damage that has already been caused was caused as a result of the sanitation trucks. Obviously, it's probably a narrow driveway, and with the size of some of tray's trucks, its maneuverability is difficult. Is there any reason why we're not picking up trash in the front of these houses so that maybe at least temporarily, we can minimize any further damage to the building? Because, I mean it's amazing that given the time that this condition has existed, based on your testimony and the testimony of others, that it is only as bad as it appears in these pictures and not eve worse. I'm just curious about that. I mean, it doesn't get us to where we want on repairing the wall, I understand, but from a safety standpoint, one of the --
Well, obviously, at this point, we can't pick up trash, especially at the bottom driveway in here because it's blocked by the collapse of the wall. 76 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250
The upper driveway -- I do and I'll share with the committee some newer pictures that show the upper driveway. And I'm not sure at this point in time, and the folks in the community could probably answer this better than I. Do they still pick up trash in the driveway? (Community members present respond in the negative.)
No? Okay, that answered that question. We don't have to worry about that then.
But again, like the neighbors stated, we do not, as the Department of Streets, go into any private driveways, because they are private property, to pick up trash unless we are invited by the community.
And the only other suggestion I would offer until we reach some -- and this by no means is meant to be suggested to be a cure-all or a way of not addressing the bigger picture here. Would jersey barriers on the 77 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 upper driveway, which I think is the Berks Street side, be helpful to prevent any further contact with the stone wall to keep that from falling off? 'Cause that's rather inexpensive. I'm looking just for something that --
Yes. But, again, like so many other times in this, we could do that but we don't have necessarily the right to put them up because this is private property.
If we can get past that, then we would have no problem doing that. I mean, obviously, it is a safety hazard.
I mean, I'm looking at this picture here with a huge gaping hole in the lower level which has maybe five or six cores of stones just hanging out there with no 20 support underneath. I mean, if somebody taps that wall, it's going to go, and more would go. And, again, I'm not suggesting that the jersey barriers are the answer to a long-term solution, but maybe from a safety point, even though we don't have, quote/unquote, the 78 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 authority, I think we do have some responsibility when it comes to public safety. And if there's a legal way of getting around that, because in the interest of public safety, we have the right to go in there and put something up as a temporary measure. I think -- and this is Councilman Nutter's issue and since it is in his district, but maybe we can get something at least temporarily. And I just put that out there for discussion. Thank you. Councilmember Cohen?
Could I suggest that we go into a formal hearing and we have a preliminary discussion so that if any Councilmember has to leave, as I understand one has to, Councilman Ortiz, a vote can be left. And then we could get a public meeting and then we could go back to the hearing.
Okay. So 79 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 officially --
All right. At this time, we'll recess the public meeting on Streets and Services and go into the public meeting. We'll recess the public hearing and go into the public meeting. Councilmember Cohen and then Councilmember Ortiz and then Councilmember Rizzo.
I would like to be reported as voting aye, especially on this bill, and all of the other bills that are in the hearing. So that -- and I also will be -- we have established a quorum as such so that -- 'cause I have to leave. Mr. Chairman? I'd like to be recorded as voting aye on this bill and the other bills that are present before the committee. And I would like to be recorded as voting aye on any amendments that are made to any of the bills and obviously anything else. Thank you.
Thank you. Now we 80 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting will recess the public meeting and go back to the public hearing. Thank you. Councilmember Rizzo.
After looking at these most recent pictures, I consider this, what I see here --
Councilman, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Actually, those are not the most recent pictures.
They're the most recent from the Streets Department. If you look at the date on the back of those pictures, I believe it's 1992. These pictures were taken three days ago. But, I mean, they all show the same thing, but. . .
Based on the pictures from '92, if nothing's changed I'd consider this a crisis. If we had an oil spill, we would do whatever it takes to deal with that. If we had a fire, we wouldn't say, Geez, it's expensive, we won't put it out. In my opinion, 81 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 this is a fire and it needs to be repaired before we have someone killed, a child, someone. And I don't want to be an alarmist here but based on those pictures, and I would assume it's gotten worse since 1992, that this is a crisis that needs to be dealt with. And whatever it takes to get it done, let's get it done.
That's true. One of the concerns that, again, the Streets Department would like to share with the Council is that you're right, and Councilman Nutter has brought forth his constituents, as well as he should. But there's a lot of other people out there that are in the same circumstance. I mean, you know, I'm aware of in our testimony that we have 63 walls in that condition out floating around there. And it's just that we -- or I guess this Council really needs to deal with the administration and the policy issues here. The Department of Streets has always been glad to do everything for engineering and anything that's within our charter to do to make these things as painless as possible. But there's only so much that we can do. 82 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204
Are you telling me that the total tab on what you know the number of linear feet of retaining walls, to do all the repairs, involves how much money?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Similar to some of the comments made by my colleagues, Mr. Lonie, and I appreciate your coming over today. I'm sure there was a fight in the office about who was going to end up --
-- about who was going to end up being sent over here to try to deal with this. Obviously, you have upset somebody in the Streets Department. (Laughter.)
I mean, similar to what the Department of Licenses and Inspections does, when I call them and say, you know, there's a house that is possibly structurally damaged, may be falling down, they go out, they make an 83 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 inspection, they slap an orange notice up on it saying the property's imminently dangerous, do not enter. And, hopefully, within a relatively short period of time, which is a private piece of property, we demolish it. It is gone, you don't see it anymore. We go after the people who own the house, we put a lien on it, and we track them down. Many of those people are probably now in our tax lien sale portfolio. But we did it. And I will never just shrug my shoulders at $20 million; $20 million is a lot of money, $198,000 is a lot of money from where I sit and where I come from. But whether it's the 5200 of Berks and Euclid, whether it's 5700 Stewart, whether it's Nassau Road or the others that I'm aware of today in my district, 63 walls is 63 walls. And if there are 63 other blocks in this city that are experiencing the same problem, I mean, you're not arguing at the table that there's not a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people, you're not arguing that people should just learn to live with it. You're not even necessarily making an argument at this point, given what some of these numbers are, that the 84 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 people should just shell out money themselves. Your basic testimony is, We have a lot of walls, they cost a lot of money, we don't necessarily have the money, or have not searched for the money today, and we have some public policy issues to deal with both for the ones that we know and the ones going forward. I mean, that's basically what you're saying.
You're not disputing the need, you're not saying that we shouldn't. You're saying you don't know how you're going to do it based on what your current budget is today and that you don't have $20 million to do this because your dollars are dedicated to other things.
Right. Well, that's one thing. The other thing that I would like to say too is that we in the Streets Department have no 21 enforcement power. We can certify, we can do that. Only Licenses and Inspections can condemn and do things like that. This is private property, and it's not within our charter to go out and basically put red notices around and say 85 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 things like that. We just don't have the legal ability to do that.
What, though, from your perspective, is the condemnation by the Board of Health, is that more in line with the Pennsylvania statute that has to do with retaining walls and the process that has to be established in order for the City, under the previous system, to put the liens against the -- or, I guess, first we actually bill the people if they don't pay, it gets into a lien, and then the lien was then in the past given to the contractor. The problem with that program is that the contractor then had to run around and try to collect the money on their own. MR. LONIE; well, just one thing too. I was around in '78 when the policy basically changed. And when the policy changed, it was --
From when the City could go in and basically say, This is a problem, we're going to go in and give you notice, 30 days. Fix it or we're going to send somebody in to do it, 86 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 and we'll bill you later.
The administration of the department and the City at that time decided that this wasn't fair, that the communities needed to have a say in their own destiny, and that the City was usurping that right. And so that was really what changed that policy. It was more community involvement when some of the people didn't want this to happen.
Mr. Lonie. You know, from my elected service and my community service, I mean, you know, I love community involvement. I believe in it, I live and die by it. But after years of community involvement, 22 I've got a much worse situation than I ever 23 possibly could have imagined. The numbers are way beyond what any person living on the block can deal with on their own. 87 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 And so now I believe that the wheel has come back around and the policy needs to be rethought. And if any other communities are experiencing this level of distress with these walls, we have now reached an impossible situation. The community process now is, people come to the meeting, they hear the numbers that we throw out at them. We tell them, You can organize on your own and collectively put your dollars together and pay for it yourself. Or we can have this community process where you can petition us to basically charge you an astronomical sum of money, which most of you may not be able to pay. Not that you don't want to, but you can only pay what you can pay. Now, under those circumstances, very few people in their right mind are going to sign up for that program. And that's why we're in the condition that we're in. So, I mean, whether it is a new infrastructure fund, whether there is a partnership between citizens and the government, whether it's the use of community block 88 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 development grant funds, for which this particular community does qualify. And it is an emergency condition, it is a blight condition. Based on my review of the federal regulations governing HUD and the CDBG program, I believe this is an eligible activity. And that's where the rethinking needs to go. I mean, we can continue to say technically, and we will be correct, it's private property, we don't have anything to do with it, it's on you. What we are allowing ourselves to do, and I see Mr. Clark is back this, and you know, maybe at the end of the day, it's subject to some judge to decide. But based on just my file -- and I understand Larry Moy has ten times as much information as I do -- if something happens back there, there is an enormous record that has been compiled that demonstrates that this government has been on notice for a long period of time about this. And I'm not so sure that we want to take our chances in State or federal court with all this information on the record. So, I mean, it is what it is, and I'm 89 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 not charging the Streets Department with doing anything. I'm not saying that you don't care 'cause I know you care. And I believe that if you had the dollars and policy changes were made, you'd be out there tomorrow trying to do something about it. I think that your testimony is helpful, I think the statement that you made with regard to Council, City Council and its future actions and its awareness, and if you can get that map in a form that, you know, is a little more user-friendly for us, or even detailed by Council district so that people can see what's going on, you know, we've dealt with a lot of somewhat complicated matters. But somebody has to decide that it's a priority, that it's on the radar screen and that we're going to deal with it in comprehensive fashion. And that's all I'm asking. You know, I've tried to be cooperative on this and not unreasonable. But there are a lot of people who are experiencing this kind of distress and we need to do something about it, and I know we're not going to solve the problem tomorrow, and we do need to get a full assessment 90 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 of what it is that we're looking at. But the next step is for all these other complicated problems that we have solved. When the final decision was on it's a money thing, we have figured that one out, time and time again.
Right. I wish you success, I really do. I hope that this Council does have the wisdom to find and help these people in the best way they can. We, at the Department of Streets, will do everything we can to help in that effort if there is a legal and a funded way to repair these.
I want to add for the record that retaining walls is an issue in the 8th Councilmatic district. And I was wondering, when someone purchases a home, is it made very clear to them that that retaining wall on their property is their responsibility?
Yes, ma'am, it is. There is a clause right after the legal description of a deed that outlines the rights and responsibilities. And it will say also including 91 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 the right maintenance privileged use of an alley, a driveway, a retaining wall. It has to state that in right in the deed.
'Cause, you know, we get a lot of calls, of course, about retaining walls. And most people seem to be unaware that as a homeowner, that's their responsibility. All think it's the City.
Have we identified -- maybe Councilwoman Miller can help with this. Are any of these properties affected being rented that we have not dealt effectively with the landlords to make sure that these conditions are corrected? Have we identify owner-occupied versus 92 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 the --
In the case of municipal assessment like this, we base our assessments on the recorded owner, not someone that's renting it or anything like that. One of the other problem in a situation like this is, this wall might be 250, 300, 400 feet long. And in a lot of cases, maybe only 70 feet of it's collapsed. While State law mandates that we assess all the property owners together, the people on the other end of the block say, That's not my wall, that's their wall up the other end. So they always vote no on these matters. That's what really gets difficult to get a majority of the owners to do this.
You know, historically, we appreciate your willing to be the messenger today and get the blow. But I was in 93 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 City Council in 1968, and that's more than 30 years ago, and the Streets Department historically has always discouraged and looked for every way to discourage people from participating. I took so much of your indications, you know, that the Streets Department tried to help. It's never tried to help. It didn't matter who the commissioner was, but apparently, there's an entrenched bureaucracy that always found reasons like the one you just gave, you know. And the Streets Department always been opposed to it. I was told a number of years ago that the costs -- about 10 or 12 years ago that the cost to the City would not be $20 million. And then, you know, the dollars were worth much more less, but that it would be 500 million or more. Now, this is the first time -- and I want to again commend Councilman Nutter for this, for at least getting a factual statement as to what the exact cost is. And $20 million spread over several fiscal years with some responsibility shared with some contributions from the Community Development Block Grant Fund is, for a city the size of 94 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 Philadelphia, not a major crisis financial problem. It's foolish to describe it that way. And I think we ought to get or find a way to get along with the business of dealing with the most severe -- and this looks to me like it fits that clear category, but this is not a major financial crisis for a city that has a general fund budget of $2.5 billion, that has a surplus of over 69 million -- as a matter of fact, I think that was last year's. I think this budget is well over $100 million this fiscal year. No one wants to throw money away or waste it, but we're talking about saving neighborhoods here. And instead of the City just making speeches how it's interested in the neighborhoods while it does nothing, this is a practical example as how to how you can prevent houses from being abandoned by this. You can all kinds of things that will improve Philadelphia as a wonderful place to live in, and the cost is very low in fact. And I just hope we move ahead. I think we ought to pass this bill. I think Council ought to act quickly. And as we move forward, we can work out the details. 95 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 Again, you deserve a medal for coming here today and being the messenger that's bearing the news, but I have to tell you that my experience is totally different. If you talk to neighbors all throughout the city, you'll find out that at every step, the City objected. Councilman Nutter, the reason this is a matter of public safety is that the technique was for the City to come and examine it. And only when the City found that there was a danger to public safety and public welfare was the property then condemned. That created the legal responsibility for doing something. And here we have on the one hand, the City was condemning this as unhealthy, as dangerous, and then closing the door and getting anything done. Thank you.
Yeah, my name is Michael Moffitt, and I wanted to say, you know, as far as regards to deeds and what's on the deed what the homeowner's responsible for, you know, we've had 96 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 this situation for a long time. And we got in touch with a Channel news reporter, and she 4 took a look at the deeds on Euclid Street, and she 5 couldn't find anything about a retaining wall. 6 Also with Berk Street. So it gives the property 7 boundaries, X-amount of footway driveway and so on 8 and so forth. 9
Thank you. I had asked, and I'd be glad to get you and the neighbors a copy of the memo from just the other day 'cause I wanted to have a fresh document. And I asked Mr. Havey, how did the Streets Department or the Survey Bureau actually determine who was responsible for what, how did they make that determination? And as the previous determination had been made, and I'll read a part of this memo, he says: "For the record, in addition to reexamining the physical site, I've examined all of our internal documents relating to the problem. Please note that the properties on Berk Street predated the Euclid Street properties." 97 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 So first they tried to figure out which properties were built when, because that normally tells you why the wall was built in the first place and who it was built for. "The upper driveway was constructed expressly for Berk Street. Later, the Euclid Street properties were constructed with a driveway along their rear, plus a retaining wall to protect the pre-existing upper driveway from collapsing onto the newer lower driveway of Euclid Street. "My conclusion is that repair and maintenance of the upper driveway is the responsibility of the properties 5200-54 Berk Street. The repair and maintenance of the retaining wall and lower driveway is the responsibility of the properties 5201-45 Euclid Street." So the Berk Street neighbors have responsibility for their driveway; that is their driveway, it was built for them. At a later point in time -- it could have been six months, it could have been a year, you know, whenever it was, 'cause we know that the properties out in Wynnefield are 50, 60 years old. At some point in 98 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204 time, the Euclid Street properties were built, and with that construction, a retaining wall was built, and so that is kind of the line of demarcation as to who is responsible for what. Berks Street has the driveway, Euclid Street has the retaining wall. That is the consistent documentation going back to 1975 and with site visits. So I have not -- if I've seen your deeds, I don't remember that I've seen them. So I don't know what's on your deed or what's not on your deed. But the other method of figuring out what happened and the legal method of doing that is to figure out why was the structure built, who was it built for, and if not for Euclid Street ever being built, apparently, there would have never been a retaining wall. That's the answer to the question. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I have to be asked to excused, although I get the impression we might be wrapping up. I have a young lady waiting for me. She is four years old, and she will be very upset if I don't get her from preschool. 99 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Bill 990204
Okay, thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, this concludes the public hearing. - - -
We will now move into the public meeting. And I do want to state for the record, I thank the neighbors for coming here today and value your input. And we will work with your Councilmember to see if we could find a resolution 19 to this problem. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, on the extension ordinance for Spring Street, I'd like to recommend a waving of the rules, please.
The Chair 100 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting recognizes Councilman Cohen for motion on Bill No. 3 980758.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980758 be reported out with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 980758 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. For the record, five members of the committee are here: Councilmember Rizzo, Councilmember Cohen, Councilmember Miller, and, myself, Councilman DiCicco. And Councilmember Ortiz left his vote in the affirmative for all bills. Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990139.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990139 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for 101 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting the suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990139 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion Bill No. 990143.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990143 be reported out with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990143 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? 102 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990145.
Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 990145 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a request for suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990145 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990151.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990151 be reported out with a favorable recommendation. 103 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990151 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those if favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990159.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990159 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next section of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990159 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? 104 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990165.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990165 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990165 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed, say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990185.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990185 be reported out with 105 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting a favorable recommendation and with a request for suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990185 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990202.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990202 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990202 be reported out of committee with a favorable 106 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed, say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990203.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990203 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a request for suspension of the rules to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990203 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember 107 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990204.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990204 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for suspension of the rules to permit first reading at our next session Council session. (Properly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990204 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990205.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990205 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) 108 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990205 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye? Those opposed, say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990218.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990218 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990218 be reported. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye? Those opposed, say nay? The bill is approved. 109 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990226.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990226 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990226 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed, say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990250.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill No. 990250 be reported out with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been 110 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990250 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990252.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Council Bill 990252 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990252 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye? Those opposed say nay? The bill is approved. 111 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - Pub. Meeting This concludes the public meeting on the Council Committee of Streets and Services, and I want to thank the committee members for attending today. (Adjourned at 3:35 p.m.) - - - 112 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 Monday, May 10, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS & SERVICES BILL NO.'S 990143, 990151 980758, 990205, 990218, 990139, 990145, 990159, 990185, 990202, 990203, 990204, 990226, 990250, 990252 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter