COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 6/4/02 2:20 p.m. - - - BILL NO. 020281 - an ordinance amending Title 4 of BILL NO. 020310 - an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, the Philadelphia Building Construction Occupancy Code... BILL NO. 020313 - an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, the Philadelphia Building and Occupancy Code... PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 INDEX BILL 020310 PAGE OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I .................. DAVID PERRY, L&I ........................ BILL 020313 ESTELLE RICHMAN, Managing Director ....... 42 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ................... 58 3
This is the public hearing of the Committee of Licenses and Inspections to consider Bill 020281, 020310, and 020313. Councilman Nutter, it's my understanding that you're withdrawing 020281; is that correct?
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. That bill was introduced prior to Bill 020313, and I wish to formally withdraw that bill. I appreciate you listing it. And I move the bill be withdrawn.
Thank you, Councilman. I want to say we have a quorum. Present is Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Nutter, Councilman Cohen, Vice Chair Councilman Clarke, myself Councilman Mariano, Councilman Ortiz and Councilman DiCicco. Did I miss anybody? Will the Clerk will please read the title Bill No. 020310.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to leave my vote for aye for all business before this committee today and also the amendments. Does that cover it all? 4 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
Bill No. 020310, an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, the Philadelphia Building Construction Occupancy Code, sub-code PM, the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code, by amending Section 9 PM-304.0 entitled, "Exterior Structure," and by amending Section PM-307, entitled "Unsafe and Unfit Structures and Equipment," by adding provisions regulating the maintenance and inspection of piers and other waterfront structures, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good day, Councilman Mariano and Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Accompanying me today would be our Deputy Commissioner, David Perry, our Deputy Commission of Construction Services. 5 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 020310, which, if enacted, will amend Section PM304 AND PM307 of the Property Maintenance Code to regulate the maintenance and inspection of piers and similar structures. The Department fully supports this bill in the interest of public safety and in light of the tragedy surrounding the Pier 34 collapse which happened two years ago. Following this tragedy, the Department requested that the owners of all piers and similar structures submit engineering inspection reports attesting to the structural integrity of the piers for public safety. We have been successful in obtaining reports from the owners of all occupied piers without the code requirement due to the freshness of the Pier 34 collapse. However, in time, this will become more difficult without the legal basis of an ordinance. We have worked diligently to identify and classify all piers in the City and to notify the responsible parties of the City's desire to have their piers inspected for safety. As previously mentioned, we received cooperation 6 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 from a vast majority of the owners to our request for inspection reports and were able to compile a listing of these structures for future reference. The Department thanks Councilman Mariano for his assistance and sponsorship of Bill 020310 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of the bill should Council vote for its passage and the Mayor signs it into law. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Mr. Perry, do you want to testify? Please state your name for the record.
David Perry, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections.
You sure, Mr. Perry? You got your big suit on. Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses?
Yes. 7 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Haigler, you testify that you were able to notify all responsible parties. I assume those are the pier owners?
A large portion of these piers are in my district. Unfortunately, I was not given the opportunity to work with you and Councilman Mariano concerning this very serious issue because, you know, when the piers collapsed, I was one of the first people out there that said we need to do something different about this, the way we either inspect piers or don't inspect piers. Do you happen to know what the cost involved on an average basis would be for these inspections to the owners of the piers? 8 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
For a typical finger pier, the costs are coming in at about approximately $15,000. And that would be an inspection and report that needs to be performed once every three years.
Once every three years. And is once every three years in the opinion of the experts who are the pier inspectors, is that sufficient? Is that a sufficient number of times? Is it ones every three years or should it be even more frequent than that?
Well, we feel based on the research that we've done that once every three years is sufficient, provided that the pier is in good condition. Obviously, if a pier is in poor condition, the engineer providing the report can put provisions in there for more frequent re-inspections.
You do list a number of conditions from very good through critical. And you just mentioned a poor as a possible trigger, if you will, to cause some action. Is that the threshold that we will use 9 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 if the condition is than fair or is it if it's less good or very good for a follow-up or to post a property as potentially dangerous, being dangerous.
There are several conditions that we've determined for the purpose of coming up with consistent definitions of the quality of the pier, and they rate from very good to critical. If a pier's in very good or good condition, basically, it can maintain itself with its current occupancy without the need for additional interim inspections or for any repairs. Once a pier would fall to the fair category, we're asking -- the definition of that is that there would be necessity for certain repairs to be done. And those repairs are required to be done within nine months. If a pier is in worse condition than that, if it falls into the poor condition, there's areas of the pier that would have to be posted for a lower occupancy load or barricaded from use. And as you go down through the categories to critical -- at critical it's a situation where all occupancy on the pier must cease immediately and be 10 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 barricaded until further notice until it can be noted that the pier is safe or dangerous conditions are remedied.
My concern is -- and I appreciate the hard work that went into this. I'm sure it was difficult. My concern is that there may be just too many levels of identifying whether the pier or piers are safe for a human habitation. As an example, without knowing all of the details of Pier 34, just knowing some of the things I read in the paper and assuming that they're accurate, the news reports, it was suggested, I believe, that the engineers who inspected that informed the owners of the pier that the pier was eminently dangerous. It was a matter of the tide or two the pier would collapse. Then there are others who say that the inspection report indicated that the pier had some problems but it was not eminently dangerous. And I think that's my biggest concern is there's a gap between very good and critical which, depending on the circumstances, any one of those things in between may be more critical than fair or poor. And I 11 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 don't know if it could be an either or if very good or critical but I'm wondering if there's just too many layers in between that keeps the door open for potential litigation going forward as to in whose opinion is fair, what does fair mean to some person may not be fair in someone else's mind, and I'm wondering if we should be a little bit more stringent.
When we started receiving the pier inspection reports from the engineering firms, there was an even greater disparity in terms of how the various engineering firms categorized the condition of the pier. What we tried to do with this was be very specific, that if you're going to use certain terminology such as fair, good, critical, or serious, that it be defined in the law as to what those terms mean. At a point where a pier would be in serious or critical condition, there is a provision in this ordinance in which the Department of Licenses and Inspections must be notified within hours so 23 that we can go out there and perhaps close the 24 pier down if that was deemed necessary.
Again, without 12 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 trying to beat up on it too much, I look at "fair," and the definition of "fair," it says moderate defects or deterioration observed, primary structural elements are sound, however, repairs must be completed in order to accommodate the structure's current use and loading conditions. Now, does that mean that you cease and desist using the pier for what it is being used for at that time? And that almost seems to me like it falls in the similar category as "poor."
In that particular circumstance, most of the reports that came into us talked about the need for certain repairs and we wanted to be able to differentiate between repairs that an engineer is recommending, repairs that are needed over time, versus repairs that are needed immediately to prevent is a disaster from happening. That's why we ended up with the number of categories that we have. I think by having more categorizing, we're able to better define whether or not we need to act immediately than if we had a smaller number of categories and 13 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 it was more open to interpretation.
The other question I have is -- and it may be in the bill 5 and I apologize if it's in here for asking the question. When the inspection is made and the information is put forth, what is L&I's role at that time? Do you go out to the individual pier and see certificate? Is it something that gets mailed into L&I? What is the process? I mean, you have an elevator obviously, it gets inspected on an annual or biannual basis -- I'm not sure how they do it -- and there's a certificate posted in the elevator. How does the public know? How will we know that the owners of the piers have complied? What is the mechanism for penalties or relocation of licenses or what have you? If it's in the bill, I apologize. Again, I really didn't get a chance to read it until a few minutes ago.
In terms of the process, the engineers are required to file the report with the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Depending on the findings of the engineer, certain documents, additional documents need to 14 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 be submitted to the Department. In the event that a report isn't submitted to the Department on time, the pier would be deemed to be unsafe and we would begin to pursue enforcement actions against the pier owner.
I see Mr. Haigler ready to point to something. Does it give you the time frame for that?
I mean, if the pier is deemed to have something less than good, the condition is less than good, how do we know, how do we know that? How does your department know that? Is the report submitted directly to L&I? Is it the responsibility of the pier owner within a given time frame to submit that report?
The ordinance has specific dates as to when the first report is due and talks about additional reporting periods. Those reports are --
That's the August 1st and the September and November dates we're talking about?
It would be -- 15 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 the first report under this ordinance would be due January 1, 2003.
Right. And then the subsequent reports would be three years after that.
How much time do we have after January 1, 2003, for that report to be -- again, is it submitted to you? What's the -- what are the mechanics? I own a pier, I get it inspected, it's either very good or one of the other five or six conditions. How does that get to you? How do we know what's going on there, how does the City know?
The reports have been submitted directly to the Commissioner's office. We have a list of all identified piers and waterfront structures in the City and we're keeping running track of which ones have been submitted, which ones are not submitted, which ones have been barricaded from use. The ordinance itself talks about once it defines the conditions as the engineer would determine in part of the investigation, it talks about what 16 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 needs to happen. For instance, if a pier is deemed to be in fair condition, you have nine months to make those repairs. But if it's deemed to be in a less condition, there's other actions that need to take place such as barricading certain areas or decreasing the permitted occupant load.
I just have some concern because this, with all good intentions I'm sure that you had, that it leads to some of the problems that we had at Pier 34 where if the pier owner is given a certain amount of time to make those necessary repairs that the inspector of the piers identifies as being a problem to allow -- we say that we may reduce the number of occupants on a pier. If the pier comes up -- if the condition of the pier comes up as being fair, they got nine months to make the necessary repairs? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I mean, you know, if the occupancy is a thousand people on the pier and one of the conditions less than good comes up on the certification or the certificate, inspection certificate, what do we do? If we say, Okay, you can only have occupancy 17 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 to 500, doesn't that become a burden for your department now to make sure that there's no more than the lawful occupancy of 500 on a pier that was allowed prior to that to have a thousand people? I'm just using people as an example. There's all kinds of weight loads, equipment, machinery. I'm just concerned that we don't leave that window of opportunity where a pier that has some of the integral problems related to it for several months it will take for that pier to be brought up to the code of very good or good, something happens in the meantime, who's liable?
Well, at all times the building owner, the property owner is liable for any conditions that would exist on his or her property. The fair category is talking about the need to make repairs, but repairs that are not necessary to maintain the existing occupancy on that pier. We tried to be specific so that the role of the Department would be well-defined and our enforcement would be as easy as possible, that if there was a need to lower the occupant load, the engineer would define what portions of 18 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 the pier couldn't be occupied and we'd have a definitive answer as to what we're looking for on that particular pier rather than just leaving it wide open. Some of these piers are like Pier 34 where they're well-defined. Other type structures are vast complexes and we needed to be considerate to the property owners that have larger waterfront-type properties in that if there's a small condition on one part of his property, he should be allowed to isolate that condition without jeopardizing the ing occupancy and interfering with the course of business for the rest of that particular waterfront structure.
The only other question I have is, if a pier today is being used as an outdoor entertainment venue with just a small structure on it, a bar, but is occupied by a lot of people, and six months up the road or next year before the certification period in which the inspection has to be resubmitted, the use changes and heavy equipment is now going to be stored on that pier. Obviously, the load bearing is a lot different now. What do we do? I mean, a condition of fair or good with a 19 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 thousand people may not be a condition of fair or good for 500 vehicles.
That's a good question, Councilman. Basically, through other processes that the Department has, if you're to change the occupancy of any building or any pier structure, you're required to obtain a new certificate of occupancy.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure that that still is in play.
That process is still there, and we would require a new assessment that the pier could handle the increased occupant load or live loads.
Let me emphasize again, I'm not being critical of this. These are question if I was a part of the drafting of the legislation which affects a large portion of my district, I certainly would have been able to address those questions at that time. But thank you, thank you for your hard work.
Any further questions? Councilman Cohen. 20 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
Is this an Administration bill or is this a bill drafted by one of our members seeking to correct conditions?
So this is the Administration's answer how to prevent what happened in the pier from ever happening again; is that right?
Was there a time when the City took the position that the safety responsibilities were those of the pier owner and that the City had no responsibility for the conditions on the pier?
It's stilt City's position that the pier owners are responsible for all conditions occurring on their particular piers. What this bill does is force them to submit reports on a regular basis to the Department so that we know that the pier is in fact safe.
I'm not sure whether or not the question and the answer match. 21 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 I was asking whether there was a time when the City officially took the position that it had no 4 responsibility for conditions on the pier and that the pier owners were the sole ones responsible for the safe use on piers.
Councilman, just like with any other property, the property owner is the responsible party for the condition of their property. The City assumes no responsibility for private property of any property owner in the City, whether it be the piers or building or structure, so it's treated the exact same way. What we are attempting to do by this ordinance is to make sure that the owner of the piers adhere to their responsibility to provide the reports to the Department notifying the Department of the conditions that they have for the maintenance and inspection of their piers.
Well, I guess I'm troubled by the same kind of questions that are being raised today about the homeland security proposals before September 11th. When there were pieces of information lying around but government agencies didn't communicate with each other, 22 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 sometimes apparently purposefully withheld information on each other, and nobody applied what I think would be common sense to see, well, there's something going on, maybe we ought to find out about it. But everybody was just busy just checking out the rules in their department. And I sense a situation very similar to that here. Doesn't the L&I look around on its own sometimes and say, There are people going on the pier, it's over water, don't we have a responsibility to make sure that it's safe? It seems to me that's the responsibility of government because I think everybody hat walks onto pier assumes that it's safe and they don't want to rely on a private ownership to give them that guarantee, they're relying on the City taking proper steps. What's your response to that? Because that, to me, is the basic concern.
The degree of expertise that's involved with a pier inspection, there are certain conditions that are not going to manifest themselves on the surface of the pier, requires an underwater inspection, requires very specific technical background. And there's those type of 23 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 items that the Department simply cannot perform those inspections on our own. We have to rely on outside agencies, the engineering community to perform those inspections. And the cost for doing those inspections lie with the property owner.
Well, I don't know that that even comes close to dealing with the question. From what I remember of the incident, had anybody gone on the pier and just used the cane I have in my hand and tapped a few times, they'd find that certain spots there seemed to be something like nothing's underneath the cane, there was just a piece of tin covering an open area. I just find a lot of words, but I don't find of kind of diligence that it seems to me government has to be concerned with to give people a basis for really having confidence that the government's on top of everything and that if somebody advertises a social affair somewhere that it's going to be a safe place to go. That's what concerns me and why I'm raising these issues. 24 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
I understand, Councilman. With all due respect, I believe this ordinance 4 goes a long way to assuring the public that if they're on a waterfront structure that they're safe. What better way than to determine if it's safe than have engineering community do an inspection and provide citizens, the government of the City of Philadelphia with reports on the condition of the particular structure.
Is there going to be a follow-up of these reports? Does somebody examine them, read them question them, say What does this really mean?
The Department will be reviewing the inspection reports that are required to be submitted to L&I. We've reviewed the ones that have come in so far. We followed up on various recommendations and findings that have been brought forth in those reports. If there's any questions on any particular piers, I mean, we're still available to go out and do 25 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 inspections with our own forces. But keep in mind that we're limited to doing a topside inspection rather than doing an underwater inspection.
Well, I'm just troubled by -- I think there ought to be some measure by which citizenry are assured of professional examinations made. And if people pay attention to the reports, question them, and don lay to rely and say, Well, there were indications of problems but they didn't seem to be severe enough to warrant our attention. And that's what I'm concerned about.
That's one of the reasons why we got very specific as to the rating category so that an engineer duly licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania puts his profession on the line by declaring a pier structure to be one of the designated classifications. It's incumbent upon his professionalism, his background, to make that determination for us.
Well, I have to tell you I lost a lot of confidence in Licenses and Inspections when the L&I inspector testified 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 in a court hearing with respect to necessary demolition at Ogontz Manor at Ogontz and Olney Avenue and L&I employees took the stand and testified that four buildings were eminently dangerous, had to be eliminated, there was absolutely no question in their minds they had to move quickly to evacuate the tenants and then a couple of weeks later a private company appeared on the scene and suddenly the danger disappeared. And with a relatively low-cost the four buildings were salvaged for this private operator. And so I'm just very concerned that decisions be made on a professional basis and not on an accommodation basis to satisfy somebody's personal needs. And that's the reason I've begun to question how, to what extent do we use professionalism and common sense in L&I? I certainly hope you're moving in that direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 27 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 You know, going along on the same line, the procedure is going to be that you're going to hire some outside consultant to do the inspection; is that right?
That's incorrect. The pier owner is required to hire the outside consultant.
So the pier owner will hire outside consultant, he will hire the divers, they will make the inspection and they will send you a report.
And there is going to be no individual independent verification of that report.
The engineers in the Department of Licenses and Inspections will review the findings of the third-party engineer, but we will not attempt to recreate an underwater inspection to verify that engineer --
Usually when you inspect a building and you go in for an inspector electrical works that have been done, usually you send an inspector that is a certified 28 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 electrician, he looks at it and he confirms that the contractor has done all of the work that needs to be done according to the specifications that L&I has put forward; is that correct?
Technically, with electrical work, the inspection is made by a third-party inspection agency and the Department's role has been to audit the work done by the third-party agencies, but we do not get out to every single electrical --
But you do get out to projects to verify and visually assure the Department and City that the work has been done in a manner that is required by code.
So you have that verification. And in this case, that is not going to happen? You're not going to have a team of SCUBA divers that are -- and I'm a certified SCUBA diver, so I can -- you're not going to have a team of SCUBA diver go down to inspect and make sure that the work has been done according to the specifications that we require. 29 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
There are no plans for the Department to hire an underwater outfit to go back and check the reports submitted by the independent engineers --
You're just going to take the report, you're going to analyze it, but there's going to be really no visual independent verification of the work that is in that report has been done to the specifications that we require.
We're going to trust this reputation that this person is putting forward and so on that he's going to do the work in the right way.
Thank you. Councilman, I would like to suggest, because I'm sure that many people don't know, Deputy Commissioner Perry and -- you should be aware that there may be a unique opportunity here 30 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 to, in the best sense of the word, have Council oversight in this particular area of inspection and underwater activity. You may not know that Councilman Ortiz is board-certified --
-- in scuba diving, has extensive experience off of the Coral reef of Puerto Rico.
Point of information, Councilman. They don't go in tandem when they do it jus so you know.
This may be an excellent opportunity for the Department to take advantage of vast skill set of many members of City Council. They will provide the certification, and I will gladly watch both of them go down underwater and wait to see if they ever come back up.
The Delaware is too cold. 31 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
You may want to talk to Commissioner McLaughlin about that and have a new Council inspection program.
I appreciate the recommendation of my brother colleague and a former friend. (Laughter.)
Councilman, neither of the Councilmen forementioned by Councilman Nutter have anything to worry about. I'm in charge of the oxygen tanks, so you neither of yous have to worry about anything. (Laughter.)
So you're in essence trusting that the contractor or the engineer is going to give us a very truthful report and we just wait on that.
We're relying on an engineer that's certified and licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -- 32 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
We've had engineers been certified and have cut corners before in the City and with the foregoing tragedies that is occur when that happens. In this situation, and going back in terms -- the fact that there is not going to be at least an independent from our side is quite a little bit troublesome on this. I understand what we're trying to do, but it is -- because of contractors across the history of this country have been known to cut corners at times. And if you cut corners in the type of project of this manner, it's hundreds of lives that may go under.
To try to address your concerns, Councilman, if you look at new construction, there's very specific, very highly technical inspections that need to be done, whether it's doing soil-borne reports to make sure that the foundation of a new building is not going to sink, whether it's doing welding inspection or structural steel inspection, those types of activities, the Department does not have specifically trained inspectors to perform that work. We're forced to, we have to rely on the 33 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 engineering profession to provide us with the expertise, knowledge, and the integrity to do those inspections on behalf of the owner and on behalf of the City. There's really no other way around it.
Was going to be a point of order, Mr. Perry, but maybe this will alleviate Councilman Ortiz or myself. What happens to an engineer that gives you a bad report? They're liable?
There's a professional board, and in the past we have sent complaint cases to the board on engineers that provided us with incorrect information on building plans or otherwise maybe not represent themselves properly.
And if do that are they liable for criminal and civil penalties? It's criminal really.
Depending on the severity of the action. I would assume that it would raise to the level of criminal activity.
In relation to the 34 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 question that Councilman Mariano just asked, those engineers, what has been the result of the complaints and what has been the punishment, if any, or the sanctions that have been taken, if any? A letter of reprimand?
Engineers, doctors, lawyers, these are professions that are regulated at the State level. We can present evidence to go against someone's license but the actual repercussions would happen at the state level.
Well, I know. I'm an attorney and I know what happens along those lines. But you know the results. You said you have referred made some complaint on certain firms or engineers that have tried to skirt our regulations or our contract. All I'm saying is, what, if any, the results of those complaints have been and have any of those individuals that you have referred before, those complaints, have they subsequently been contracted by the City? Or once do that, do we place these individuals, these engineers and contractors in a list that says, "You fooled me once but; you ain't gonna fool me again," and put them aside. 35 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
We've been, in the last several years been have is we have been in the past locally pursuing litigation against contractors that have something the code.
And I would like to know if any of those contractors have been given other contracts later on.
We're not in a position in terms of doing construction review to think about contracts.
Well, I mean whether the City has hired them. Not you, but if the City hired them again.
The ones that I'm familiar with were hired by private owners to do specific jobs, and I would haven't any knowledge if the owner rehired them for new projects.
Do we have any way 36 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 of saying, This individual so many complaints against him, we have referred to him and so on, that we give to independent contractors that say, These individuals are not trustworthy?
When we receive complaints concerning contractors, we'll look at the complaints. And we have an administrative hearing procedure that the Department puts in place to investigate the claims and to make recommendations for specific punitive actions against the contractor.
Thank you. Will this legislation apply to publicly-owned facilities as well as far as inspections, the same criteria, the same calendar and everything?
In the bill, it provides for exceptions in certain situations and one that I finding a little bit disturbing. I'm wondering what the logic behind it was. It says, 37 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 "The reporting requirements shall not apply to pipeline, bridges, dams, utility towers, tram towers, etc." Why secluding bridges and tram towers. The only tram tower is the one that is actually under construction that I know of at, hopefully, the entertainment center if that ever gets built. And I'm a betting man and I'm betting it doesn't get done. That's a switch. I'm sure Tony Romeo will want to talk to me about that later. I was just curious as to why we would not have the same criteria apply to a tram which is basically used to transport people across the River.
We were looking to seclude items that otherwise covered by other statutes, ordinances, or other agencies that already perform those types of inspections. A tram tower in the middle of the Delaware would be outside of the purview of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. It's not an item that we would either permit nor provide ongoing maintenance inspections. 38 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310
But the foundation that supports the tower on both sides of the river, in this case we're talking about the Philadelphia side, the Pennsylvania side, is actually connected to a facility that is part of the Penn's Landing Corporation Authority which is a quasi-government agency and it's basically public land or semi-public land, whatever your refer to it as. I'm not a lawyer. But it's not out in the Delaware, it's connected to a pier that has other and will have other activities on that pier.
In that particular case, we would expect the tram station. We would inspect everything but the actual operation of the tram itself
I know there were piles, I think, that were driven in prior to the concrete foundation of the tram tower, the base of the tram tower. Are they now exposed, those piles?
I'm going to have to check on this. I believe that entire tram project with the exception of the station itself 39 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 that through the Law Department there was an agreement that another agency would be responsible for the safety inspection
Would that be the Delaware River Port Authority since they're paying for it?
I believe it is, but I'm going to have to make some phone calls.
Because I think it's important that some sort of inspection, obviously, apply to that, whether it's through us or the other agency, and I'd like to see that as well. And bridges --
Bridges are inspected by PennDOT, by the Streets Department. They're in the right-of-way. They're not on private property.
To the best of your 40 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020310 knowledge they are.
Girard Avenue Bridge, Schuykill Falls, are they state-inspected as well?
To the best of my knowledge, we've never issued permits or otherwise took responsibility for any public bridge structure in the City. Occasionally, we'll see a private bridge on someone's personal property, but that's very rare. Any of the public bridges are already inspected by other agencies.
And if you can supply that information as well. I mean, I'm sure that there are in various parts of this City where you have streams and creeks which are either a part of our Fairmount Park Commission land, come under the Fairmount Park land management -- Councilwoman Krajewski isn't here, but I have to assume that there may be some places in her district that are up in the Wissinoming Creek area that have some sort of a footbridge. I know they can go on and on forever with these things, but I just have a concern that 41 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 we're not leaving anyone out, any facility out.
All right, Councilman? Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Do we have any other witnesses? Any other witnesses on this bill? (No further witnesses on this bill.)
Seeing none, we'll move to the next bill. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 020313, an ordinance 20 amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, the Philadelphia Building and Occupancy Code, by requiring that special certificates of inspection be issued in connection with structures in Youth Group E, the Educational Use Group on an annual basis in order for such structures to be occupied 42 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 establishing certain reporting requirements regarding the inspections performed in connection with applications for such certificates and making certain lead paint requirements applicable to such structures, under certain terms and conditions.
Do we have any witnesses for this bill? Please come up to the front. (Witness comes forward.) MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Good day, Councilman Mariano and Members of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. I am Estelle Richman, Managing Director for the City of Philadelphia and I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 020313. If enacted the bill will add a new Section A --
Excuse me, Managing Director. Councilman Nutter has a question or a point of information.
Just to ask the Chairman, is there testimony that's available?
Is this any 43 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 testimony to be given out here?
Thank you. MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: It's very hot off the press.
I bet. But it's better at this moment in our hands than in Miss Carolyn's. (Testimony distributed.)
Go ahead. MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: If enacted, the bill will add a new Section A-703 to the Administrative Code to regulate the inspection on an annual basis of buildings classified as Use E, Educational, as defined by the Building Code. The Administration has no 20 disagreement with the spirit and the intent of the legislation and supports having schools inspected regularly to ensure the safety of children and staff. In fact, the Department of Licenses and Inspections currently inspects public and parochial schools annually and 44 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 provides notification to the responsible parties of violations uncovered during our inspections. The School District has a long and consistent history and relationship of working with L&I in addressing code violations to ensure the safety of our schools. For example, L&I in conjunction with the School District just completed inspecting 300 schools and have been redressing the violations based on a priority list. Additionally, the Department of Health works with representatives from the School District to ensure safety in te drinking water. The health and safety of the students, faculty and staff of Philadelphia schools is one of the most fundamental building blocks to overall educational success and, therefore, it is an issue that the Administration takes very seriously. However, I have several concerns regarding the legislation, including the fact that some of the provisions of this ordinance are so broadly drawn that practical enforcement may be difficult and the remedies available to the schools who are unable to obtain a special 45 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 certificate under the proposed legislation. The Administration is currently in the process of fully analyzing the full scope and impact of this legislation. The complexity of the School District governed by the Federal, State, and local policies and codes necessitates that we take our time in analyzing the impact that an annual extensive inspection will have on the School District's ability to comply. Oversight of the School District's building not only a local matter, but also involves the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and industry, for example, conducts extensive annual inspections of all pressure vessels such as boilers and the School District receives is a certificate of inspection before opening each building. I respectfully would propose that members of the Administration and from my office partner with the bill's sponsor, Councilman Nutter, to craft amendments to the legislation that will reach effective and practical solutions 46 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 to our shared interest in promoting the health and safety of Philadelphia's students, faculty, and staff. Even as it is drafted, it must be pointed out additional resources will be needed to ensure that this ordinance is currently enforced. For example, for representatives from Licenses and Inspections to effectively inspect all schools, public, parochial, charter, and private within the allotted time for inspection as prescribed bit ordinance, it is estimated that four additional commercial and industrial inspectors will be needed to maintain service levels and coverage. The initial cost of the four additional inspectors we estimate to be $50,000 per inspector for a total of $200,000 which include salary and benefits. After the initial implementation of the ordinance, the aforementioned positions will have to be incorporated into the Department's Operating Budget to continue inspections as required on an annual basis. The Health Department estimates that anywhere between three and four additional inspectors need to be hired at a cost for $41,000 47 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 per inspector, which would mean a total cost of approximately $124,000 to $166,000 annually.
Additionally, the Health Department estimates that in addition to the new staff, current staff would need to be redirected which would create a loss of revenue of about $67,000. That revenue is currently generated by inspections of commercial food establishments. Like the Department of Licenses and Inspections, after the initial implementation of the ordinance, the aforementioned positions will have to be incorporated into the Department's Operating Budget to continue inspections as required on an annual basis. While the value of the health and safety of Philadelphia's children and teachers could never been measured in dollars and cents, it is important to keep these costs and expenditures in mind as we work to develop a solution that will have a genuine effect on the lives of students, faculty, and staff. I would like to close by, again, respectfully proposing that Members of the Administration and from my office partner with 48 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 the bill's sponsor, Councilman Nutter, to craft amendments to the legislation that will reach effective and practical solutions to our shared interest in promoting the health and safety of Philadelphia's students, faculty, and staff. The sheer complexity of the multiple jurisdictions that oversee the School District requires us to look closely before we act to create a special certificate for school buildings. One avenue I'm exploring is perhaps to institute a comprehensive public safety building safety survey on school conditions to be conducted annually. Evaluation of all major building systems and rating of the building based on overall safety and structural integrity, probably useful life and need for repair or replacement and maintenance. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And I would be happy to answer any questions this Committee would have.
Any questions for the this witness? Councilman Nutter.
Two things, Mr. 49 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 Chairman. One, based on the discussion that you and I had and with at least one other member, there is one amendment that I will seek to put forward during the public meeting to address an issue that you and I discussed. Madam Managing Director, let me ask a couple questions. When do the school buildings get inspected presently? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Throughout the school year.
Throughout the school year. MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Yes.
So when is the start of the inspection period? Does it ever end or is it -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I'm not sure if there's a start and end. I think it's an ongoing process that's probably conducted approximately a year since they've had their previous one. So ones that have been conducted over the past several months, couple of months, may be conducted next April and May and June. So ones that were done in January, maybe would be 50 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 done in January. So it's not a confined period.
Well, it's my understanding that the inspections generally start somewhere around November of a year and go into the next year. That's my understanding. That's why the bill was drafted the way it was drafted, in concert with the people who actually do this work. How often are the buildings inspected and what are they inspected for? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: They are inspected annually, and I can't answer that. I can get back to you.
Now, your testimony says that L&I in conjunction with the School District just completed inspecting 300 schools and they've been addressing the violations based on a priority list. The 300 schools that were inspected... MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Yes.
Are they safe? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I don't have the full report in front of me so I can't give you that. We can certainly get that 51 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 information for you.
Who decides if a school building is safe for school children to attend that building? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: It depends on what factor L&I who determine only on those issues that L&I's responsible for. It's not an integrative comprehensive inspection at this point.
Why is that? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Because the L&I does one part of it, Health would do another part, and there's not one inspection that is done at this point that I would consider integrative.
Well, who is ultimately responsible for the inspections of the school buildings and any kind of certification or comfort level that we can give to parents and teachers that the building that they're either learning in or doing their job in is a safe building? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I don't think there's any one entity at this point that 52 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 does that. And at this point, we're doing public buildings, not private or charter, I believe. So there's not one entity that has overall responsibility. This is why we believe that --
We don't inspect charter schools MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I don't believe we inspect all schools at this point in time. This is why we have no problem with the --
Shouldn't we? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I don't think a problem with either the spirit or intent. We would just like to see it defined further so that we have an integrative report as opposed to a report by five different departments that were done separately.
Well, yeah, I think that's the purpose of the bill because ultimately it ends up in the L&I Commissioner's office and the various entities have to make certain certifications and the L&I Commissioner has to sign on whether -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I would suggest that it be done -- 53 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313
On whether the building meets substantial compliance with the Code. MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: My suggestion is that it not end up within L&I, that it end up in a more integrated fashion either through the Managing Director's Office with the signatures of all the involved parties, but not in any one department but in a place that is responsible for integration of all of the those departments.
Well, I mean -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: But those are the --
Well, that's fine with me. That's -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Those are the kinds of things that --
(continuing) the Administration's prerogative. MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: (continuing) where the bill needs to be refined and detail indeed a little different way.
Let me ask you 54 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 this question: Does the bill require any inspections that are not currently being done? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I can't tell you that off the top of my head.
Why can't the inspection for the special certificate be done at the same time that these -- you've already testified that there are annual inspections that are being done. I don't understand why you have to hire more people. If we have people doing inspections already, why can't they do this inspection? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I'm not sure they're doing every school every year. I know they have explained that to me, but I have not seen it. From my own perspective, I would require that I eyeball all of these to see both their comprehensiveness and their detail before I would agree that they're all doing the same level.
So your testimony is at present, you are not sure -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Right.
-- that every 55 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 school building in our City -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: That's right.
-- is actually being inspected on an annual basis? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: That is correct.
And Why don't you have that comfort level? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I just like to see things for myself.
I understand that. MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: If I haven't seen it for myself, then I usually have to see it for myself to believe it.
Show me. On of the testimony as I was reading through as you were reading it, you said 56 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 that some of the provisions of the ordinance are so broadly drawn that practical enforcement may be difficult and the remedies available to schools who are unable to obtain the special certificate under the proposed legislation. What are the practical enforcement issues? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: One of the issues was the term of water quality. And it was the feeling of both the Water Department and the Health Department as they work together that there needed to be something around plumbing materials and that lead comes from plumbing materials and we need to look more deeply than just water quality and that needed to have a different level of definition. They didn't give me all of the information. But something around plumbing components should be lead-free, but it was that level of detail they thought the term water quality was just too broad to get to the detail of the issues. They felt that ultimately needed to be addressed.
Okay. And on the same , you talk about you need time to analyze the impact that an annual extensive 57 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 inspection will have on the School District's ability to comply. MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Right.
Your perspective is that the bill requires an inspection that is more extensive than is presently being provided? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: I believe so. As I said, I believe there need to be a very integrative process. We have not talked to the School District and we need to be able to have a dialogue with the School District on what needs to be done, how it would be handled, where would the responsibility lie for completion, and what ultimately will happen if a school has to be closed.
Right. Now, what is your testimony with regard to whether we should have a more extensive inspection or a less extensive inspection what's your preference? MANAGING DIRECTOR RICHMAN: Again, the Administration likes the spirit and intent of the legislation and is asking for an opportunity to work with you around some of these issues.
Okay. 58 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313 Mr. Chairman, can I have an opportunity to ask Mr. Haigler some questions, please?
Yes, you can. Mr. Haigler, would you approach the bench, please? (Mr. Haigler comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Can you provide based on you experience, both current and in the past, what's the schedule of inspections for the different school buildings and how often are they done?
Generally, Councilman, we inspect throughout the year all schools. We do have an inspection program that we generally start around November, but we continue that inspection program throughout the year. We also receive complaints periodically on different issues that may come up, and we go back and inspect on those issues as well. We conduct re-inspections on the initial inspections, follow-up inspections. So I would say that the inspection is ongoing. 59 6/4/02 - LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - BILL 020313
Okay. Is it true that many of the school inspections -- I guess you just said that. You usually start somewhere in the November time period?
Generally for the program inspections, we generally start around November. But again, the inspection is ongoing.
I understand. There was concern about somehow that the time of the inspections would be compressed to some extent by the provisions in this bill.
That the inspection time, I guess, would be shortened. If you're doing year-round inspections, I assume that means you're taking advantage of the full 12 months of the year. In this particular provision, what we're basically saying is that the inspection period is November to August.