COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thurs., 5/14/98, 12:20 p.m. - - - BILL 970092 - Amending Title of Philadelphia 7 Code entitled "Zoning and Planning" by amending Section entitled "Hearings" to establish fee for 8 accelerated hearings before Zoning Board of Adjustment. 9 BILL 970395 - Amending Philadelphia zoning maps by changing zoning designations of certain areas of 10 land located within area bounded by Elsworth St., Broad St., Snyder Ave., and 16th St. 11 BILL 970778 - Amending Philadelphia zoning maps by changing zoning designations of certain areas of 12 land located within area bounded by Snyder Ave., Broad St., Oregon Ave., and 18th St. 13 RESOLUTION 980251 - Declaring it desirable for health, safety, and welfare of people of 14 Philadelphia, PA, for Quakertown General Authority to undertake certain health-care projects. BILL NO. 970713 - Amending Title 9 of Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulations of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by adding a new chapter, entitled "Agents". . . PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X Page Bill No. 970092 Commissioner Frances Egan . . . . . . . . . . 4 Department of Licenses and Inspections 5 John P. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legislative Affairs Regulatory Affairs Manager Department of Licenses and Inspections Bill No. 970395 Chief Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Project Planning, Planning Commission Marie C. Donato, Private Citizen. . . . . . . 9 Bill No. 970778 Chief Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Project Planning, Planning Commission John Furey, President . . . . . . . . . . . . Broad Street West Civic Association 13 Resolution No. 980251 Tim Hoover, Payne Weber . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Frieda Lee, Presbyterian Foundation . . . . . 27 Bill No. 970713 Commissioner Frances Egan. . . . . . . . . . 40 John P. Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Steven Pollack, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Board of Governors - Philadelphia Bar Assoc. John H. Morley, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 License and Permit Agents Association Former Councilman James Tayoun . . . . . . . 90 Neil Schlosser, Architect. . . . . . . . . . 96 Eric Auerbach, Sr. Attorney, Law Dept. . . . 110 Jody Pessolano, Professional Engineer. . . . 133 Joseph Beller, Esquire . . . . . . . . . . . 133 3 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970092 P R O C E E D I N G S
Ladies and gentlemen, the Council Committee on Rules has established a quorum. Present are Councilmembers Cohen, DiCicco, Nutter and Kenny, who will take a short recess and then come right back. (Short recess taken.)
Good afternoon. The Council Committee on Rules is now in session. Those who are testifying, please take seats behind the rail. We will do a number of bills first dealing with zoning issues. The first is Bill No. 15 970092, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1805, entitled "Hearings," to establish a fee for accelerated hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment good afternoon please identify yourself for the record and proceed. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Thank you, Mr. 4 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970092 Chairman. My name is Frances Egan. I'm the Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. With me is John Campbell, our Legislative Affairs liaison.
Please proceed. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Bill 970092. This process is already in place, but what it does is create a mechanism for accelerated hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Prior to the current fiscal year, the Zoning Board conducted accelerated hearings and paid for them by abating the vouchers against the fees collected. For the current and future fiscal years, the Finance Department has placed funds in the Board's budget to handle these hearings. So this very simply gives us the mechanism in place to account for the change in accounting procedures that have already taken place.
So the need for this ordinance is to formalize a practice that's been going on and also to provide for the accounting of the additional fees that are being 5 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970092 collected as a result of the service. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes, sir.
John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Mr. Chairman, we would request a suspension of the rules so that we could have this legislation enacted as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions of our members for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Hearing none. Is there anyone else in the room to testify on behalf of Bill No. 970092? (No response.) 6 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 970395, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Elsworth Street, Broad Street, Snyder Avenue, and 16th Street. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Richard Lombardo, Chief Project Planning, the Planning Commission, here today to speak on Bill 970395. This bill is one of an ongoing program of zoning remapping embarked on in South Philadelphia with Councilman DiCicco and Councilwoman Verna and yourself. The purpose of this bill basically is to update the zoning maps that reflect the pattern of the development which has existed for -- well, since there was zoning in South Philadelphia, which is basically reflecting the single-family row house nature of most of the housing in these neighborhoods, and also to use where appropriate the C-1 commercial to reflect the neighborhood 7 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395 service type of retail stores on the corners of a number of these streets in this area. The bill involved here involves approximately 40 acres of the City, the area between Elsworth and Snyder Avenue, Broad Street and 16th Street. And as I said, the major changes in this bill would bring about would be the rezoning of the majority of the residential properties from R10 residential, which is a multifamily row house district, to R10-A residential, which is a single-family row house. We are retaining some R10 in this area basically along the Broad Street frontage and around St. Agnes Hospital, but most of the other area is becoming R10-A. There is also C2 commercial and C1 commercial being used. The C2, which is the heavier commercial is basically a heavier commercial, allows the entire use of the property as commercial, is being retained along Broad Street, along Federal Street, west of Broad along -- basically where are those types of commercial properties. The rest of the commercial properties are being changed to C1 commercial to reflect the 8 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395 upper-floor residential above a service type commercial store. For the record, the Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 1997 recommended the adoption of Bill 970395.
This bill was prepared in conjunction with Councilwoman Verna's office and with her and her staff.
Yes. And I would just like to add that we did have several communities meetings, and the area residents are in full support. And Broad Street will be R10-A.
No, no. As I said, there's a little bit of R10 being retained around St. Agnes Hospital. That's the only R10 that's being retained.
Thank you very much 9 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395 for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room to testify? (Marie Donato comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Marie C Donato. I live at 1522 South Broad Street. I've been on Broad Street for 62 years. It's a one-family owner-occupied dwelling and funeral home. The apartments on South Broad Street have made my life very miserable. I'm constantly living in trash, tenants that breed pit bulls, sell dope, prostitutes. They are all absentee landlords. And I think that this bill is long overdue.
Thank you very much. We agree. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill. (No response.) 10 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778
Seeing none, we'll move now to Bill No. 970778, which is an ordinance 4 to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Snyder Avenue, Broad Street, Oregon Avenue, and 18th Street. Please identify yourself for the record, and proceed.
Good afternoon. Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Richard Lombardo, from the City Planning Commission, speaking on behalf of Bill 970778. This bill involves approximately 123 acre of land immediately south and to west of the previous bill. This area is bounded, as you said, by 18th Street and Broad Street from Snyder Avenue to Oregon Avenue. The purpose of this bill was basically the same as I testified the previous bill. It's to reflect that the pattern of development throughout this neighborhood as being predominantly single-family row housing, with quite a few corner stores. As a matter of fact, we were surprised 11 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 -- not surprised, but when we did this area, how many active occupied service commercial stores there were throughout neighborhoods in this area. So you'll see me looking at the map. An awful lot of corner commercial stores. All those C1's reflect active businesses that are still serving the community in this area of South Philadelphia. Once again, along Snyder Avenue, along Passyunk Avenue and along South Broad Street, we're retaining the C2 commercial which is the heavier commercial, reflecting a heavier or a total commercial use of the properties. West of 17th Street, between Ritner and Shunk, we're using some R5 residential to reflect the pattern of the development of that portion of Girard Estates, which is either detached or semidetached houses. The rec. center -- the (unintelligible) Recreation Center is being rezoned from G2 industrial. I don't know why it was G2 industrial, but it's being rezoned from G2 industrial to class-recreational. That's basically the highlights of this remapping. Again, this was done in conjunction 12 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 with Councilwoman Verna's office. And the Planning Commission, for the record, at its meeting of May 7, 1998 recommended adoption of Bill 970778.
Thank you very much. Should this bill, as the other bill and the other bills that have been introduced and passed here, as it relates to South Philadelphia, would require property owners, whether they're resident property owners or, in many cases, nonresident property owners, to display a hardship before the Zoning Board in order to convert a property from a single to a multifamily dwelling.
That's absolutely right. That's the difference between the R10-A and the R10. If it's R10, they can walk into L&I and just get a permit to convert. With the 10-A, they'll need to go to the Zoning Board and prove hardship.
They've been, for years, been walking into L&I and getting a permit to convert without any neighborhood involvement and to the detriment of our community. 13 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778
Mr. Chairman, I do have a petition signed by most of the area residents in favor of this ordinance. And there were some community meetings. I don't know if Mr. Furey would like to testify. He may have some questions that the City Planning Commission may be able to answer for him.
Thank you. The petition will be offered to the record. (John Furey comes forward.)
Mr. Furey, please identify yourself for the record, and proceed.
John, why don't you pull the microphone right directly to you.
My name is John Furey, F-U-R-E-Y, President of the Broad Street West Civic Association. Originally when this remapping was proposed, we had a meeting in the neighborhood and we discussed the various options and this whole proposition with the City planners. We have no problem with the R10 to 14 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 R10-A. We want to see anything that will slow down the multifamily conversions. Our neighborhood is saturated with apartments, we don't need any more apartments. We want to see the emphasis on single-family dwellings. So the R10-A is very helpful because we have a number of three-story apartment buildings that are sitting along the residential streets with single-family homes, but our concern is with the corner properties. The corner properties now have a C2 designation, and a lot of these corner stores are closing up and converting to duplexes. Some of them are three stories and they're zoned C2. So we're concerned that if we go to C1, the way we're reading the code here, C1 will enable a person to convert a building from a store to a duplex without going to the Zoning Board. We need the Zoning Board's input. That's where we catch a lot of problems, and that's where the neighborhood opposes conversions. If we give them access to converting without going to the Zoning Board, that's where we have problems. They are inevitably converting 15 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 stores to duplexes, 'cause the business doesn't work so they convert it to two apartments and they make their income from that. We want to reduce the amount of apartments, so anything that's going to help businesses convert to apartments without going to the Zoning Board has got to raise a flag for us. I understand that the C1 and the C2, there's more restrictions on the use of a C1 property as far as bars. I don't see that many neighborhood bars opening up in our neighborhood anymore. The opposite is true. They're converting these commercial corners to duplexes and triplexes. We had one on the corner of Ritner and Hicks. It was an old dilapidated store for years, 10 or 15 years. It was C2, the guy wanted to put apartments in there, so he had to go to Zoning Board, and we were able to work out a compromise. But I think if that was C1, he could convert easily to a duplex, just make it two big apartments instead of three. And I just ask the City planners if they would clarify that C2 to C1. If it enables a 16 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 store to convert to a duplex without going to the Zoning Board, there's got to be an amendment made there. I'd like to see it read: If you want to convert the store to a single-family home, God bless you, you don't have to go to the Zoning Board. But if you're going to convert it to an income property, then I think you should get some public scrutiny.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask that Mr. Lombardo address this issue?
I'd be glad to answer the question. The reason we use C1, generally speaking, is that C1 limits the use of the property, of the upper floors, to the most restrictive residential properties, which is basically single family. C2, however, is a multifamily district. The only thing that limits your ability to have two, three, four units is how much rear yard you have. So leaving 'em C2 does not take away the right of people who (unintelligible) 17 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 convert that store or the upper floors of the building to apartments. We use the -- C1 used to be exclusively a single-family dwelling but what we found is that a lot of commercial properties, in some past conversion, eliminated the steps that connected the store to the upper floor -- not just in South Philadelphia, this happens throughout the City. So when the goes out of business, you now have a space that is not part of the residential unit, and it winds up either becoming a storage space or a vacant store. And a lot of instances, it's a blighting influence. We did a sort of study of this. And we saw that usually the first instance of blight that starts appearing in the neighborhood is the vacant store on the corner of a little street. So Council and the Planning Commission, about eight, ten years ago, changed C1 to give you a one-time conversion from a store to an apartment. Once you make that conversion, you can't go back to being store. So if the property is a viable commercial property, you, as an owner or landlord, 18 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 have to decide whether you want to give up forever the potential rent as a commercial property in exchange for converting just the area of the store, not but the whole building of the two-family, but what was the store in that building to a single-family. We thought that was a worthwhile trade-off. But to get to the point of this bill, to leave the C2, you're not going to accomplish much in stopping people from having as-of-right conversions of those properties to multifamily. You still can do that under C2. The only alternative would be to make 'em all R10-A. And then every time those stores want to rent to new tenant, they'd have to go into the Zoning Board to get a variance because they would be residential. They would be no longer commercial. And that idea wasn't -- I'm sure the Councilwoman didn't bring that idea before the community or the business people in the community. That would -- I mean, to try to amend the bill that way, you'd have to go back and start from scratch in terms of talking to people again. 19 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 But that's the only sort of way to get at the problem he raised, which is to make every conversion from a store to an apartment have to go to the Zoning Board.
So that's the -- my question is: If it's zoned C1, they can convert from a store to a duplex without going to the Zoning Board.
But it goes to a duplex and is an income-producing property instead of -- couldn't it be easily converted to -- why does the emphasis have to be on an income-producing property and not on a single-family. Are you going to give him an option of --
The question is that because of the C1, as you testified, requires a single-family residence above the store, is that correct? 20 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778
It jibes because, like I said, we changed the C1 about eight or ten years ago to get at this other problem that when you've rezoned the store of the C1, which limited -- the old code only limited you to one family in the building, period, and that store did not get reincorporated back into the single-family dwelling, it just became a vacant store and then became a problem in the neighborhood. And we were looking at a way of finding a reuse for that vacant store is why we changed to C1, to allow the one-time conversion to an apartment.
So you're going to allow them to convert to a residence but an income-producing residence, a duplex. You have to remember there are some of these corners that are not two stories, they are 21 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 three stories.
Then we'd limit it to one family on the second and third floor, and it could convert the store to an additional apartment.
That's right. But today, then C2, that three-story building could have as many apartments as the area of the lot would allow.
By right. C2 allows -- it's a multifamily district. It allows the -- basically, if you have 100 square feet of rear yard for every family. So if you have 300 feet of 22 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 square rear yard, which is, you know, 15 by 20, you could have three families in that building.
Obviously, the corner properties are not working out, and the emphasis is on converting them to residential but still allowing for commercial activities by means of rental properties by income-producing apartments rather than a single-family dwelling. And that's where -- we'd like to see more emphasis on single-family dwellings than trying to make it available to rental incomes. The concern seems to be, Well, the stores aren't working, so we're going to let them convert to a duplex and make their money that way. But we've already stated that we have too many apartments in the area now. We're inundated with apartments. And if we're given that option, I think a lot of these stores are going to convert to duplexes. Right now whenever they do conversations, we wind up with petitions and a lot of discussion at a Zoning Board.
But as they exit now, Mr. Lombardo, don't they have that right to 23 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 convert to a duplex now?
In C2, yes. Or, like I said, as many families as you could fit into the building. If we could for a minute, we sort of lost the focus of one thing. If you look at the two maps, the existing map and the proposed map, there's a lot less corner stores on the proposed map. And that reflects the fact that where we saw a vacant store, where we saw a property that was no longer being used as a store, we rezone that to 10-A residential; we didn't leave it zoned either C1 or C2 commercial. So we -- or where we found a property that was incorporated back into the residence or it was already converted to an apartment, we made it 10-A, not left it zoned commercial. So we did try to get at that --
And above. And also, like I say, these are all very -- you're more familiar than I am with how active this retail is and has been. And the question of whether --
Is there a potential with -- if you were advising or suggesting that we make them all residential, is there a potential action by the property owner by removing its commercial designation in toto?
You probably make it a little more likely that that store will become vacant because a person looking for a commercial occupancy, a lot of people, when they hear they have to go to the Zoning Board, forget -- they're not interested in leasing the property. That's -- one of the things I think we've done years ago in remappings, which we -- now we use C1 more because we found that we didn't do anybody a favor by making commercial properties residential; they just became vacant. As a matter of fact, in Manyunk, that's an ongoing problem. They've come back -- Manyunk 25 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 has come back to us and said put the commercial designations back on the corner because all the neighborhood services have gone away.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a suggestion on that since we have other bills to be heard. Maybe Mr. Lombardo and Mr. Furey can discuss this. And at the conclusion of the public hearing, we'll either vote it out or hold it for further study. But perhaps you could work out details now. Do you have any other bills to testify on?
All right. Would you please -- perhaps you could go into my office with Mr. Furey and discuss this and come back and let us know.
Is there anyone else in the room to testify on this specific bill, 970778, dealing with rezoning of the area bounded RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 by Snyder Avenue, Broad Street, Oregon Avenue, 18th Street? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 980251. This is a resolution declaring it desirable for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Quakertown General Authority to undertake certain health-care projects. (Two new witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, thank you for waiting. Please identify yourself for the record, and proceed. And let me say for the record that Councilwoman Blackwell, who was in attendance here, had to leave and wanted to leave her words of both thanks and support and encouragement for this project. Please identify yourself and proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're here very much here to testify on behalf of Bill No. 980251 to provide funding for local health-care institutions through the Presbyterian Foundation and New Cortland. 27 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 My name's Tim Hoover, with Payne Weber.
Would you move the microphone closer. And just kind of explain, for the record, the project and what's anticipated to happen -- it's in the bill, but it's more for the written record.
Certainly. The project will include the issuance of about $50 million bonds through the Quakertown General Authority in order to fund projects -- in order to fund health-care projects in the City of Philadelphia, the Care Pavilion of Walnut Park, the Cheltenham and York Road Nursing Center, the Cobbs Creek Nursing Home, and Tucker House.
Is there a reason why the Philadelphia Municipal Authority was not used to --
At this point in time, the Quakertown General Authority has funds on hand 28 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 which are allowing the bonds to be issued without the institutions having to pay the up-front cost of issuance, and save them money.
Has this been discussed with the Philadelphia Municipal Authority?
Yes. We went through both Philadelphia Municipal Authority and PAID to see how much it would cost us to issue the bonds through them and did a comparison to see how much it would save these institutions.
All right for now. I think we ought to find out, though, why Philadelphia is not able to be competitive with Quakertown.
Well, it seems to me, from your testimony, that it's an issue of the position of Quakertown General Authority, at this particular time. Due to an excess amount of 29 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 cash.
Yes. It's not just the fees that they charge. They have an excess amount of cash on hand to provide for funding of a pooled bond issue for health-care facilities that is unique to any other issuer that would be available.
Well, I've asked the only questions that I think are pertinent at this point. But to the Chair, I'd just say that I think it would be awfully good if we could find out from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority what its response is. They may very well agree with you.
I assume, because of the fact that they weren't involved in this decision today, they are not here to testify. So, John, if could you get a hold of Mr. Cramp's office and see whether or not they can offer us any information either by letter, faxed over, you know, okay. Thank you very much. Do you have anything to add? 30 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251
Well, it's a resolution, so we'll just be voting it out.
There's no need for a only suspension of the rules on an ordinance 12 today.
If it gets out today, it will be ready for next week -- actually, it's two weeks 'cause we have no session next week.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 980251? (No response.)?
Thank you very 31 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 much. We're going to move to 970713 in one moment. I would ask Mr. Campbell and Commissioner Egan to come to the witness table. (Commissioner Egan and Mr. Campbell come forward.)
Councilmember Cohen has an outstanding question on Bill No. 970092, and the Chair recognizes him now.
Under certain circumstances, I think particularly when permits are issued over the counter, but it may not be limited to just that circumstance, the communities initiate proceedings before the Zoning Board to have the matter reconsidered. Now, it's always been my understanding that when a community files for such a hearing, that there's no fee required. Is that accurate? And would this provision in any way impact on that?
Again, John Campbell, L&I. That is correct, Councilman. That was the change that Council made a number of years 32 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 ago.
And this bill would not impact on that particular situation for community organizations.
Okay. The other question I would have is, do we have any study -- how much use has been made of these accelerated hearings? There again, I'm just concerned whether the use is so great that it holds other hearings. Has there been any effect on the scheduling of cases normally that did do not pay this additional fee?
Well, two things, Councilman. Approximately 300 of the cases in the process of a year, if my mathematics is correct -- yeah, we do about 300. What this does, this is generally for the person who wants to fast-track whatever they're doing and to get ahead or to get in. They're not jumping in front of anybody because what actually happens is the Zoning Board has a special hearing for those particular cases. 33 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 What it does with the regular load of cases, though, it moves them up quicker too because there's nothing in front of them to delay them, so we actually -- it's sort of like a win-win proposition. And that's what we've sort of found in all of the accelerated actions that we take, whether it be a permit review, whether it be a hearing, that you're actually doing -- people are paying for the premium of whatever they have to do to get done to meet budget requirements, to meet, you know time deadlines. And the regular person also gets the advantage of moving up quicker because that person isn't in front of them. You know, they actually move up in line without benefit of having to pay the additional money.
Does members of the boards still get paid per session; and then, as understood the law, the number of payments they can get, or the total amount of money they could get, was capped. Do those two provisions still exist, payment per session up to a cap? 34 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092
They do. Unfortunately, I sort of like have a problem with the flu today. I sort of forget exactly what the cap is, but they are limited to $80 a session. And, as I said, I'm sort of losing it a little, I guess. I can't remember what the cap is right now, but I think we changed that a few years ago to expand the number of meetings before the board. Actually -- yeah, it's -- yeah, we've expanded the number of -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: But the point is there is a per-session and there is a cap. If you need us to tell you exactly what that is, we can get back to you on that.
One effect may be that down the road, we'll be asked to increase the cap to accommodate the additional meetings. But I can understand that they work very hard and they do an excellent job. But I think you've answered my question. I wanted to mainly be certain that the community had -- because communities just don't have cash around, community organizations -- that they had free access to the Zoning Board in the 35 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 same fashion that they've enjoyed for a good number of years. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That is correct.
And that includes, where necessary, the provision of transcripts of testimony to the community without cost, is that right, Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Campbell, I think your testimony has somewhat confused me. Why would anybody pay for an accelerated hearing if they are not really being accelerated, so to speak? You said they don't really jump over anybody who has not paid.
I would like some explanation. 36 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 COMMISSIONER EGAN: What he meant to say was that it just goes on a different track, that's all. It goes on the fast track for people that don't ask for the accelerated track and people that ask for it. There are two separate tracks.
Well, Mr. Campbell's did not indicate that. He just said that they simply do not go up ahead of someone else that has applied who has not obtained an accelerated hearing.
My understanding is that when they first instituted this process, there was overtime work associated with examiners and other people who needed to do work on the expedited cases in off-hours and were being paid overtime, which incurred additional costs. I also understand that because of the rapid pace in which zoning hearings normally are heard in recent times, there are been very little, if any, request for specific expedited hearings because the process has moved relatively quickly in recent years. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Everything you said 37 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 is correct.
Councilwoman, I just -- again, I apologize. I'm having a problem today with feeling --
Well, maybe to compound your illness, and I'm sorry if it has that effect, my understanding is that Councilman Kenney's statement is based upon the general principle that the City does not have a right to charge a fee except in proportion to the cost that the City incurs. We always have to be able prove to the court that the fees, you know, are related to the expenditures that the City has to make. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct.
And I'm always a little bit troubled by this expedited business wherever government acts in a way which gives 38 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 preference to people that are well-heeled financially against people that are not; it's always a disturbing consequence. So that I just think, at some point, this whole procedure ought to be reviewed. And if they're working as efficiently as they seem to be in producing, maybe we don't need the expedited hearings.
I think the genesis of the expedited opportunity was with outside developers who were coming into the City that were -- we were not exactly in a buyer's market-- I'm sorry, in a seller's market for our city to be developed for economic purposes and for job creation and that the larger companies were coming in to do development, who needed things to move quickly in order to do their development, create the tax ratables, create the jobs, were willing to pay this fee to employ the overtime personnel necessary to get their thing done on track and quickly. I think that was the basic genesis of this -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: That is correct. 39 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 And keep in mind, as you stated earlier, it is done on the employee's, you know, overtime; it's not done during the normal working day. They take this work home at night and over the weekends so it's not impacting normal work process flow for everyone else that's in our system.
Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions on this bill? (No further questions at this time.)
You can stay right here because we're going to move into Bill 970713, which amends Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulations of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by adding a new chapter, entitled "Agents," requiring any person who represent or acts on behalf of another person in any matter before the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Board of Building Standards, the Board of Licenses and inspections Review, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Board of Safety and Fire Prevention, or the Accessibility Advisory Board to obtain a license; and setting forth standards for 40 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 the issuance of such licenses requiring such persons to complete entry of appearance forms prior to any active representation, prohibiting certain conduct by such agents, and providing penalties for violations, all under certain terms and conditions. What I would like to ask is for the Commissioner to re-identify herself for the record on this bill, give your testimony, and I understand there are a number of amendments that Mr. Campbell would then be permitted to offer prior to beginning our entire discussion of the issue. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Thank you, Councilman. I don't have a whole lot to say about this bill except that this is legislation that I have been interested in having passed by Council since my accepting the appointment to Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections. And the reason for that is that there is a business activity taking place in the City that is, at this point in time, unregulated. This is a business known, you know -- known and 41 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 performed by people calling themselves "expediters." And what this legislation would do is provide a consumer some protection mechanisms for people who do hire these people to represent them to do business with the Department of L&I. I consider this important for all the citizens of Philadelphia. It's important for my Department to be able to track, regulate and, if necessary, discipline this type of business taking place. And I would just hope that, particularly, elected officials as yourselves, Councilpeople, would recognize that this type of business can be just as easily performed, if the citizens of Philadelphia would take advantage of it, by just simply calling their Councilpeople, relating their problem or business that they need to get done with a department like my department, and utilize the staff of the Councilperson to get this done. I mean, I would love to think, as Commissioner of L&I, that -- you know my vision for the department would be that some day we'd be so efficient and so just well-organized and oiled 42 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that no one would need any type of expedited service or special service by Council staffer or other elected official. But right now, it does seem to be a necessary business to be performed in the City, and it's important for the consumer to have a recourse should they not be treated fairly or be wronged in some way by the business person representing themselves as expediters. And this legislation would put all of that into place. It would regulate this business, it would license their activity, and it would provide recourse for consumers who take advantage of this business should they be wronged or treated unfairly.
For the record -- and I'm asking an obvious question, but I want to make sure the record's clear, this bill -- this legislation that's proposed in no way eliminates the practice of expediting or providing this type of service to the citizens. It simply sets standards and requirements in order to participate in the business. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct. 43 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Okay. COMMISSIONER EGAN: And I guess I would just add, on a personal editorial note, that the timing of this couldn't be better, given the indictments that came down this morning out of the attorney general's office.
Are there any questions for the Commissioner before get into Mr. Campbell's testimony relative to amendments?
Just an explanation. Could you just tie in these indictments? How do they impact on this? We don't have any information with respect to the item the Commissioner just spoke about. Was there an indictment of people who are expediters? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes it, is Councilman Cohen. There was a former L&I employee and now known as an expediter who was indicted this morning by the U.S. Attorney General's Office for activity while he was an employee at L&I and prior, and then post-activity, as an expediter.
All right. I just think the that the record has to disclose the 44 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 relevance. Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner, can you tell us why it's necessary to require error and omission insurance from these agents? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, unlike, you know -- and another reason we need to regulate this group of business people. You know, whether you're a lawyer or a contractor or an architect or engineer, you're required to have certain insurance so that if do you in some way perform unfairly or not to the satisfaction of the customer, the customer then has recourse to recover the money that they paid this person. So this simply would set into place same type of standards that are in place for other types of business in Philadelphia.
And I'm asking you these questions because they've been asked of me, and I think you're the one that should be answering them. Do you have any indication as to how expensive it would be for individuals to obtain 45 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 the insurance? COMMISSIONER EGAN: No, I don't. However, what we propose to do in the bill is ask the City's Risk Management Office to determine what type of insurance would be required for this type of business, so it would be done in a professional and fair way.
May I follow, Mr. Chairperson, that line of questioning?
I know it's been stated that the intent of the bill is not to deny expediters the opportunity to important the functions now perform, that it's only intended to regulate, but sometimes regulation takes the form of denial if the regulation is too prohibitive in costs or otherwise too burdensome. Do we have any statistics at all about the number of expediters, what their income is from this? Because it looks to me like you're applying standards that are generally admissible to, say, attorneys who have to carry malpractice insurance and that kind of thing. 46 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 I don't know how much work is done by individual expediters, and it could be that requiring too many requirements can effectively eliminate them because their income may not be high enough to justify their continuing in the field. And I gather, Commissioner, from what you said, that you do believe that currently, there is the need for the work of expediters. Could you comment with respect to that? Did I accurately understand your statement or did I -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: I don't think any of the provisions which would be required for someone to become a licensed expediter are of an onerous nature whereby we would put them out of business. I mean, you know, if you look through the provisions of the bill, you know, the type of the things we're requiring are, you know, there's an application fee of $200, they have to possess insurance. And, if I could just reiterate, this insurance -- the insurance required would be determined by a professional agency, the Risk Management Agency, which -- that's their 47 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 business. They're going to assess the kind of business that's done by expediters and come up with a fair insurance requirement. Report of criminal history records. There's just nothing that onerous that would -- I don't think that you would be able to then conclude that they would somehow be put out of business because of the some of the type of requirement we have here.
Well, I think we'll want to hear from the persons involved as to how they view these requirements, and we note your comments. If the work is necessary, you know, to make the system work effectively, then I think we have -- maybe have to have some regulations, but they have to be those consistent with that work, you know, being continued. But we won't know that. For example, on insurance, it would seem to me that we would to know -- we should have a pretty good idea as to what the cost of insurance is before we go ahead and enact the bill. We don't really want to delegate a group of 48 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 insurers the right to determine whether or not, you know, it's worthwhile for an expediter to remain in business. They make think a $5,000 insurance fee is reasonable -- that is insurers may, but I'm not sure expediters would feel that. And malpractice insurance, you know can vary. Sometimes it's 1,000 a year, but it could be 100,000 a year in the case of many doctors. So I think we need that information before we were to enact the bill. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, I would just ask you to keep in mind, Councilman, that right now -- in other words, if I had my way, there would be no need for expediters because what I would say to every citizen of Philadelphia is, if you need to conduct business with any City department in Philadelphia, and you don't feel, for whatever your reason is, maybe your homebound, maybe you have a language problem, maybe, you know, you're working during the day so you don't have the time to come down, you can call your City Council person and get that same service that is now provided by an expediter.
Well, we'd like to 49 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 think every City Council office always is prepared to do that, but the judgments's got to be made by the constituent, you know, whether they choose to use our services or whether, choose to use some other service, but I think -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: See, I'm also a realist and a pragmatist -- at least I think I am -- and I recognize, you know, that there are people -- first of all, that there are people who are very resourceful, and when there's a way to make some money. Usually somebody finds a way to do that. And this is a business where, certainly, people have able to stake their livelihood. And that's the way it is, and I recognize that. So given that reality, i it think it's important for us, as protectors of the citizenry, to put in place ways that we can protect the consumer, if this business is going to be conducted in Philadelphia, regulate it so that our consumers that make use of this type of business have recourse if they are wronged.
Well, there's a lot to be said for what you say, but this morning, I spent an hour in a street demonstration. It did 50 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 not involve L&I, but another department where the citizens felt, after a great number of years, you know, the City employees were still not sensitive to their needs, and they finally felt, in desperation, the only way was to take a street action which interfered with the convenience of many other people. So the ideal of the City department being able to meet all the needs is a great ideal, and I think we've got to keep working toward it, but we're not always able to achieve it. But let's -- but I think, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask any more questions. I think we ought to hear from the people directly involved.
Commissioner, can you tell us how many expediters we presently have that do business? Do you have any indication? COMMISSIONER EGAN: I really don't know. I could only give you my, you know, just like an unprofessional guess at it. I mean, I 51 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 just think there's probably about to active expediters working in the Department of L&I -- you know, working through the Department of L&I. You know, I can tell you that I've heard that there's been a trade association formed. Probably one of those people are going to testify today, so you could ask them those questions.
Fine. 11 COMMISSIONER EGAN: I don't know how 12 much they charge, I don't know how much they 13 make. You know, those questions can be answered 14 by those people. 15
Thank you. Just one question before we go to Mr. Campbell. Of all the professions that have interaction with the Department of Licenses and Inspections, going from lawyers, architects engineers, expediters, plumbers, electricians, home improvement contractors, are there any other professions that do not have a license requirement or an insurance requirement or some other type of requirement that's being asked for in this bill? 52 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Councilman Kenney, if I can answer that. Again, with only one exception, and that is contractor license, and you introduced that piece of legislation within the last two weeks, so that that's in the hopper, waiting to be enacted. But no, everybody else -- lawyers, architects, engineers, electricians, roofers -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Plumbers.
Errors and omissions insurance and other types of identifying features that identify the individual for these consumer-protection issues?
That is correct. COMMISSIONER EGAN: For some system of tracking and recourse.
And throughout the code, you'll have a whole group of other areas that we license. Like tow trucks have garage keepers insurance and other requirements. 53 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 So that this is the only group, really, that deals with the Department that has no 4 requirement.
And the only other thing I want to clear up is I think Councilman Cohen was under the impression that there was some trade group of insurance people that would be determining this level. I want to make it cheer from your testimony that the City's Office of Risk Management would be the entity looking, or hopefully would be doing this kind of work in determining the setting levels of insurance that would need to be provided. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct.
Right. But I'm saying that they would be setting the levels of consumer protection, but it would be a City agency, not an --
-- that would be charged. The insurance companies would have to set that, right, we wouldn't have the right to determine the rate of coverage?
Isn't that done now for every other profession? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Mm-hmm.
Well, the other professions, they may have by this time established rates so that the people, before they go into business, know what they're confronted with.
Here we have a group people who are already working, who may be confronted with, you know, a serious change in the amount of rates. I mean, they are the area of my concerns. I don't know what the evidence is going 55 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 to show in any of these areas.
Okay. Mr. Campbell, could you please give your testimony. And I think it's in the form of offering specific amendments to the bill. And are those amendments in writing?
Councilman, with the exception of two drafting errors, everything has been presented to the Chair, and to the --
Hold on one second. Before we start, I'd like to make sure we have it.
Okay. On -- excuse me. The first amendment that I want to make is in Section 1902. And it's just a changing of the initial words which just says, "Except as set forth in Section 919.2" -- I'm sorry -- yeah, 19 19.2 -- 1902 -- (2), excuse me.
Okay, yeah. The first amendment is just a word change in license required. And it's just adding -- instead of starting with the words "No person shall act. . ." it starts with "Except as set forth in Section 56 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 9-1902(2), no person shall act. . ." Again, it's just a drafting language change. The next change is a major change. And with that change, we completely rewrote the exceptions section. Those people who are not required -- or to be licensed under this chapter. The first one, obviously, are attorneys currently licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. Simply the State Supreme Court regulates attorneys, and nobody else. And we changed the language because it wasn't that clear in the original bill. The second exemption are those people who are already professionally licensed, the licensed contractors that we hope this Council would adopt shortly -- architects, engineers, other persons, who, when they perform or supervise work, they already meet the requirements, they already have those codes of ethics and procedures and have the insurance requirements. And this would only be a burden for something that really wasn't required of that group. The next group are -- the provisions would not apply to public officials or their 57 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 employees or City employees in their ministerial duties. And, finally, the provision of this chapter would not apply to those Realtors who are coming in to apply for the certification statements seller certificates.
For just for clarification on the Realtor exemption, that is for the obtaining of real estate certificates only.
That is correct. And the next amendment, which is under Section 9-1904, we put an additional section in to further delineate -- or that clearly defines the Department's right to establish disciplinary procedures for suspension and revocation of licenses. This is something that, you know, we really adopted from the valet parking ordinance 22 that this Council passed some weeks ago, that it was not clearly delineated, so I put that in the bill. I have two other -- 58 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Two others that are not included on the cover -- my understanding of what you gave us this morning is a cover sheet explaining -- or highlighting the specific amendments, and then the following pages are the marked-up bill --
-- which would be the proposed amended ordinance, correct?
Two more on the marked-up bill. The bill of proposed amendments are adopted. Under the definition of "agent," there's a drafting error.
Okay, it would be of the ordinance markup or of the pink bill.
And I am taking out -- the section now reads, "Any person employed or 59 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 compensated for taking action on behalf of any other person in matters before the Department of the Review Boards or before any of their officers or employees. . . " And I am taking out the words in the very first line which say "for taking action on behalf of." That should be the words "to represent."
Okay. The second -- or final change goes to 9-1903, license renewal. And that would be 1-ii.