COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:15 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ BILLS 090469, 090665, 090669, 090518, 090468, 090572, 090576, 090662, 090569, 090664, 090666, 090670 and 090586 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, everyone. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. My name is Councilman DiCicco. I'm the Chair of this committee. To my far left is Councilwoman Maria Quinones-Sanchez, Councilman Green to my immediate left. Councilman Greenlee just walked out. He'll be back. Councilman Jones to my immediate right, and I believe Councilman Kenney will be appointed to this committee so that we are certain to have a quorum at the end of the public hearing. There are a number of bills that are being held. Bill No. 090469 is being held. Bill No. 090665, as well as Bill No. 090669 are all being held at the request of the sponsors. I'll ask Mr. Abernathy to read those bills that we expect not to have any discussion on because there seems to be an agreement. We'll do those first since we have written testimony, have 3 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. them placed into the record, and then we'll proceed with the two bills that we do know we will have some testimony on. Mr. Abernathy.
Bill No. 090518, an ordinance authorizing the construction of a water main and appurtenant work required to provide public water service, in a portion of Millman Street; and Bill 090468, an ordinance 12 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 55 by striking from the City Plan Duncan Street from Aramingo Avenue to The Delaware Expressway and reserving and by placing on the City Plan, and authorizing City acceptance of, a right-of-way for drainage purposes and public utility purposes within the lines of Duncan Street being stricken, under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090572, an ordinance 24 authorizing Vilna Gaston to construct, own and maintain an open-air sidewalk 4 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. cafe at 5222 to 24 Walnut Street, under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090576, an ordinance 5 authorizing the paving of 26th Street from Penrose Avenue to a point southwardly therefrom, under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090662, an ordinance 10 authorizing Jeffrey Papa to construct, own and maintain an open-air sidewalk cafe at 2400 South 19th Street, under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090664, an ordinance 15 amending Chapter 9-200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by amending Section 9-211, entitled "Boxes for the Distribution of News and Printed Material," relating to the regulation of newspaper boxes on the public sidewalk, by prohibiting the placement of a publishers' box within the vicinity of the National Museum for Jewish American History, all under certain terms and 5 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. conditions; and Bill No. 090666, an ordinance 4 amending Section 9-205 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Sales," to prohibit vending on both sides of Aramingo Avenue and within a one block radius on all streets intersecting Aramingo Avenue, between Lehigh Avenue and Duncan Street; all under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090670, an ordinance 13 amending Chapter 10-700 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Refuse and Littering," by providing for additional penalties and consequences for short dumping, under certain terms and conditions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Holst, I think you heard me earlier.
Right. I wasn't sure of the procedure. 6 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you have anything to say. If not --
No. If you have any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions of this witness from this committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against any of the bills that have just been read into the record? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Holst. Mr. Abernathy, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 090569, an ordinance amending Section 9-206 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Vendors in Neighborhood Business Districts," by creating the Oregon Avenue Business Corridor District; all under certain terms and conditions. 7 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 090569 which, if enacted, will establish a neighborhood vending district to be entitled the "Oregon Avenue Business Corridor District" within the designated boundaries mentioned in the bill. The Department offers no 20 objections to the enactment of this bill 21 and technical amendments that will be offered by Councilman Kenney to clarify the process for the selection of vendors to conduct vending activity at one of the approved locations within the designated 8 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. area. Thank you for the ability to provide the testimony, and I will be happy to answer any questions at this time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kenney.
And the Department has no -- I know you don't, but does the Department have any opposition to what we're trying to do?
Then I have no questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Haigler.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Abernathy, please read the title of the next bill. Any other witnesses on this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 090586, an ordinance amending Chapter 10-700 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Refuse and Littering," by repealing Section 10-726, entitled "Commercial Establishment Waste Management," and by making technical conforming amendments, all under certain terms and conditions. ) 10 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good morning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Or good afternoon. Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me, Commissioner. Does everyone have a copy of the Commissioner's testimony? ) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am Clarena Tolson, Commissioner of the Streets Department. I'm here with Deputy Commissioner Carlton Williams of the Sanitation Division. We are here this afternoon to offer testimony regarding Bill No. " 11 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. In May of 2009, City Council passed an amendment to the Code giving the Streets Department the authority to charge a fee to commercial establishments that receive trash and recycling collection services from the City. These changes were essential to address the City's unprecedented budget crisis. The global economic crisis has forced the City to make major changes to the way services are delivered to the citizens of this city. Most of the agencies have endured significant cuts to service. In FY09, the Streets Department budget was reduced by $10 million. Many services were reduced or eliminated, including bulk collection, mechanical leaf collection and residential mechanical cleaning. In FY10, the Streets Department took an additional $16 million budget reduction that significantly impacted our service delivery. The additional service cuts included closing area drop-off centers, 12 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. reducing residential curbside trash set-out limits, downsizing recycling education and outreach programming, and implementing fees to small commercial establishments to maintain commercial collections at those locations. The small commercial establishment fee allows the Streets Department to continue providing curbside rubbish and recycling collection without reducing or eliminating the service to small businesses. Most cities require businesses, regardless of size, to have private waste collection services. We believe the $500 fee is an alternative to continue providing services to small commercial establishments without service interruption. Under the existing law, a fee will be charged annually to each commercial establishment that receives City collection. There are an estimated 15,000 small commercial establishments that receive City collection services. Commercial properties are defined as 13 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. having at least one retail or professional office unit. Buildings that are exclusively residential will not be assessed a fee and will remain eligible for City collection at no charge, providing that there are no more than six units and collection volumes meet existing set-out limits. Under existing regulations, premises of six or less units with at least one commercial establishment would be billed. This fee allows the Streets Department to continue services to small businesses at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, additional services will need to be eliminated if the fee is revoked and alternatives are not found. The Administration has been discussing possible alternatives with the sponsor, Councilman DiCicco. We understand the concerns raised by many members of Council regarding the fiscal impact to small businesses related to the new fee. We are especially mindful of 14 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. this given the difficult and challenging economic conditions we exist in.
However, as Council knows, the economic crisis also impacted the City severely, and as described in my testimony, the Streets Department has had to increase various fees and fines as well as to reduce or eliminate many services. We would like the opportunity to continue working with the sponsor to craft a workable solution and, therefore, respectfully request that the bill be held in committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to working with City Council to provide the quality services our citizens deserve. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Commissioner. Just for the record, you and I and your deputy met, I believe, either in June or July. Somewhere this past summer we had a meeting to discuss this fee structure. 15 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I suggested maybe we did something across the board, meaning that any establishment -- all business privilege licensees throughout the City of Philadelphia maybe would have to bear part of the burden on this, and if I recall correctly, we came up with a number of about $70 a year if every business, whether they were small business or large institutional businesses that already have commercial pickup, would be billed. You brought that back to the Law Department, and I believe that they said that was not doable because they considered that would be considered as a tax; is that correct? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just so that we know we did have that conversation. Then I think the next conversation we had, aside from the time 16 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. I came to testify, which I think was in August, if I'm not mistaken, at the Municipal Services Building, was last week, 4 o'clock, either Wednesday or Thursday. I forgot what day it was. And that's when you disclosed to me at that time that the Law Department didn't think this was -- my recommendation on the $70 a year was not doable because they didn't think it was legal or because it would be considered a tax. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that fairly accurate? More recently, about an hour and a half or two ago, you and I had a telephone conversation where I asked you about the current regulations, where if a property has six or less units, residential units, but has one or more of those units as commercial/retail, they would be billed under the current regulation; is that correct? 17 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Those who are six or less would not be billed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Even if they have a retail component? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: If they have a retail component, they would be. But if it's residential only, they would not be. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. So I asked you the question since, in my opinion -- and I think the opinion of all the folks I've talked to -- if a building is a residential rental apartment building, whether it's one apartment or more than one, why are they not being billed? Why would we not bill them, because they're income-producing properties? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We can certainly go back and examine that a little bit more closely. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that's what we talked about about an hour ago, because I have to assume when we got to 18 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. the $70, it's because of the -- I forgot what the exact number was of all the business privilege licensees in the City of Philadelphia, brought that down to -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: One hundred thousand. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: One hundred thousand. If you're getting to the $500 fee based on the 15,000 small businesses, I have to assume there are more than 15,000 rental buildings in the City of Philadelphia. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And a considerable amount of those are not what I would consider the high rise where they would have regular commercial pickup.
I'm talking about through every neighborhood there are duplexes, triplexes, quadriplexes. We're picking up their trash at no cost. And you're familiar with where I live? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. 19 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Behind where I live in that courtyard, there are two triplexes. All the trash goes out. So the owner of that building, who is charging anywhere from $900 a month per unit and up, isn't paying, and I thought the unfairness about what the proposal on the $500 annual was -- I use John the barber -- Johnny the barber in South Philadelphia who lives above his barber shop, has a two-chair barber shop, lives above the store, not married, no kids, by himself, he produces maybe one bag of trash a week. Adding $500 to the cost of him doing business in the City of Philadelphia and multiplying that by 15, thousand people, I don't think that's 19 fair, and I think that's why we're here 20 today. And I know my colleagues have some questions also, but I really would like to explore that other option of all the apartment buildings, multi-family apartment buildings, whether or not they have a retail component or not. I think 20 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. we might be able to get to the number you need to plug up your budget hole that you have and be as painless as possible by doing it, because the volume of people contributing would be much greater than the 15,000 with the small businesses. And one other thought. And I don't expect you to have an answer today. I know in Manhattan, there are no 11 dumpsters in Manhattan. My son lives in a condominium in Manhattan, and next door to where he lives is a small seven-story office building with a little retail component. The trash gets put out every single night, and I think they're required, if I'm not mistaken, to have a commercial pickup. So we need to continue to talk. It's unfortunate for whatever reason you and I were not having this conversation from the middle of the summer until last week. That's an unfortunate thing, because I think a lot of this stuff may have been resolved by today. If not last 21 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. week, at least by today. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, we certainly look forward to working with you from here out to resolve this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I know that. We've always worked well together, but unfortunately, we were not having that conversation for the last couple of months. Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you, Commissioner. Based on how the proposal was initially brought out to today, I just wanted for the record to kind of clarify a few issues to make sure that we're both on the same page. Has in fact the fee -- are folks allowed to make payment arrangements on the fee? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We have not as yet promulgated the regulations. We had a hearing at the end of August. So final regulations are not in place, which would either set the fee amount or 22 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. to provide payment plans or otherwise.
What is going to be your recommendation? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think that we're examining the option of payment plans, because we did hear from some businesses that thought that that was an option that they thought was important to them.
Where are we on the situation where folks have dual storefronts that may be in separate deeds? That was an issue that was raised and we had shared. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Dual storefronts with separate deeds?
Yeah. One of the issues was that every property was going to be charged, and in some commercial corridors you may have a business where the property is listed under two addresses, but it's one business. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think 23 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. that we'd have to examine on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not it's one business or multiple businesses that are adjacent to each other, maybe with the same owner.
Right. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: But multiple businesses.
So that still has not been spelled out in the regulations? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That has not been finalized.
As it relates to businesses that are closed, there will be a waiver offered for folks? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. If there's no business in operation, they'd be able to request a waiver.
For how long are those waivers? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The fee will be an annual fee, so if the business is closed for a year, then they would not 24 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. pay.
And -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information, if I may. So we don't even know if the 15,000 businesses that we're talking about is a real number, because there may be people who have a business privilege license but it's not in operation. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We've actually gone out and done some audits. The data that we have comes from another City agency, and we did some field audits to kind of check the data for accuracy, and we were fairly confident in what we received, that it's pretty good.
Point of information. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
What other agency did the gathering of the information? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: BRT has 25 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. the record for the property owners. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh.
Thank you. I'm sure they're accurate. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's accurate. Okay. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, we did a -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No 11 disrespect to you two folks. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We did do a field test to examine the data. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not with the BRT folks, right? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No; we did it with our own staff. To audit the data to ensure that we were relatively close in terms of the numbers of businesses and types of businesses. We do that -- we thought that was important to do before going through this process.
I thought there might be a reason you didn't mention the agency. 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
I guess my other question would be, if we have what some are considering like low, I guess, barber example, is there any consideration given for those low trash kind of establishments, whether it's a realtor or someone else? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think that as we try to, for lack of a better word, I'll say negotiate, try to negotiate and navigate where we're going to go with this fee structure, that's something that we have to consider. There are certainly challenges that we have to recognize with regard to making a fee -- setting a fee structure based upon the quantity of materials that are set out. We do not have a pay-as-you-go system or per-bag system. It's very difficult for us to understand how much trash people would set out. It is certainly very easy to modify what you may set out on your trash day and any 27 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. given time, because people can carry their bags someplace else or claim it to be somebody else's bag. So we're very concerned about having an infrastructure to support a system of knowing how much people are putting out and then charging a fee based upon that. But we are certainly mindful of that as an issue to be considered.
No other questions at this time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Jones and then Councilman Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Commissioner Tolson and Deputy Commissioner Williams. How are you? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good afternoon. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good afternoon.
For the record, you guys didn't come up with this 28 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. great idea for the trash fee. This was a result of a crisis that we were having budgetarily fiscally and you were asked to seek out ways to create new revenues. Is that -- you don't have to confirm nor deny. We'll just assume the first thing that came to your mind when you woke up that morning was not a new fee on small business. Let's assume that. Since that time, we've gotten our one percent increase in sales tax, which puts us in a little better fiscal condition, and we've gotten the new dumpster bill passed, which would some day alleviate some of the revenue need. Does that in some way, between the two of those things, offset some of the need for this $500 commercial pick-up fee? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think that we have to remember that the one percent tax that we're looking forward to was already considered and included in our budgets. So that does not take away the need for us to have the revenues that 29 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. we've also projected for this fee. It's not impacted by that. Relative to any fees that might come from the dumpster legislation, we certainly have to be mindful of the costs that will be associated with it. There's certainly some level of cost that will be in the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I don't know the amount of that or the value of that, and we have to more closely look at those numbers. I think part of our process and our navigation of this fee structure, all those things should be considered.
Well, also in conjunction with the Chairman's idea about rental fees, particularly surrounding college communities, every year we have this big push when they move in and when they move out, which I believe increases your pick-up tonnage in those areas. It seems to me that that would be a more fair and equitable way to distribute the true cost of collections 30 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. in town, and that particularly around those times of years is really evident that your folks picking up trash are put in an onerous -- and I know you know this, Carlton. Is there a better way to distribute some of the need for the revenue throughout maybe even adjusting that rental fee to include those density issues around college campuses? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Around some of our colleges we have a collection, as you mentioned -- collections, as you mentioned, for move in and move outs, and specifically we do that because of the amount of debris that is left as a result of those two processes. I can say, though, I don't know the exact tonnage off the top of my head. There's a few hundred tons that come as a result of that process and they are usually only operations that last for a few days on either end. So the cost to that is not significant relative to the 31 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. entire scheme of things.
So there's been a study done, I would assume, that when we look at -- there's some communities in my district that have reached the tipping point of close to -- and we took a tour of one of them in Manayunk, that the tipping point where 85 percent of the residents are renters and are of a college kind of in-and-out ilk, and you've kind of did a study to look at whether or not that was an increase in tonnage or decrease in tonnage based on that? And if so, I'd love to see that. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I thought you were specifically talking about the move in/move out process where we had the extra collection days for colleges.
No, and I will let this go, but -- right. These are revenue-producing, multi-unit properties. But also one of the other problems, which is not germane to you but more to L&I, is that when they have a 32 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. license for six, they cram in ten, and so the amount of actual residents in those things are harder to predict anyway, and it would be good to take a look at over time, over a couple periods of time what the impact on your services are. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We can do that, yes.
And in so doing, make it fair to take a look at what rental properties in a community, particularly when it gets beyond the 50 percent mark, what it really means to your collection process. And I think we could probably juxtapose the renters' licenses with the pick-ups and, in those communities, know exactly where we're talking about. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We can examine that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green. 33 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good afternoon.
-- Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner. I'm curious about your statement that the loss of revenue would affect your department. Does this bill 12 in any way change the appropriation to the Streets Department? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Included in our budget is the assumption of this $7 million --
Well, that's included in the entire City budget, though. It's not an assumption. In other words, your allocation from the General Fund, your appropriation from the General Fund, without further action by Council, will not change your budget; is that correct? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It does 34 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. not change the amount that we get. However, the amount of revenues that we list in our budget are impacted.
Well, that revenue goes into the General Fund, not into the Streets Department. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It's our contribution to the General Fund, so we must list that and that is included as -- understood as being part of our budget, as we call it. Maybe it's not what we receive as an appropriation --
If we find another 7 million bucks, green dollars are fungible, aren't they? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Generally, yes.
I just wanted to establish the fact that it's not actually going to change the Streets Department's appropriation without that going through the Appropriation Committee of Council and us passing an appropriation measure. 35 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. So how much would we save if we eliminated commercial pickup and do what other cities do and require businesses to, if they have trash, require them to have their own private refuse collection? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We can give you that number. It's a little less than 3 million.
We'd save less than 3 million? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
And we're charging 7 million? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
So this really was not a cost recovery item, but a revenue item. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No, that's not quite true. The cost of -- if we were to exclude them does not mean that we don't have to have other services. However, by including them, our incremental costs are different.
I don't 36 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. follow that. Could you put that in numeric terms for me. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Sure. If we were to -- because we are collecting the commercial properties while we're collecting the residential properties along the way.
So you're passing them anyway. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's correct.
So it's really not $3 million in extra costs. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. It is.
It is? And that's because of tonnage? Because the trucks and employees are passing them anyway. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes, there's tonnage and there's also the time that goes along with it.
They're going by them anyway. 37 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes, but still making the stop, so it's time and tonnage.
Okay. So how much tonnage is produced by these 15,000 properties? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I don't have that number with me, but I will gladly provide it to you shortly after our hearing.
Okay. Do you have any study of how many of the 15,000 actually put out trash? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: These 15,000 are the ones that put out trash. There are some --
Well, you're requiring people to pay whether or not they put out trash; isn't that correct? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. No. 22 This fee is for those that receive City service. So let's say if you are an auto mechanic, a garage that does not receive City service, you would not pay this fee. 38 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That do not have commercial pickup. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: So if you have commercial collection --
It's for those that do not have commercial pickup. But it still assumes that they're putting out trash even if they're not. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It assumes that you are receiving City services for collection.
Right. I mean, we don't know that they're actually putting trash out. We just know that they have no commercial pickup. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think if someone could tell us that their business is closed, which would not produce trash, that would be one thing, which we mentioned earlier. But these 15,000 are businesses that are receiving City services, receiving City trash collection, trash and recycling.
There was an 39 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. idea raised during the budget cycle -- I believe it came from Deputy Mayor Rina Cutler -- that people -- and this was going to apply to the whole city, that basically people have to buy trash bags with some kind of printing on them that makes it clear that they're City-owned trash bags. Was that considered for these 15,000 customers of the City to actually have them only pay for the -- if you truly want to have them pay for the service they're using, basically sell the trash bags for $3 or even $10 or something like that that sort of includes the actual time and tonnage issue within the price of the bags rather than a straight $500 fee, so people are actually paying based on the amount of refuse that they're creating for us and it has a correlation to the services we provide? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, let me just clarify one point. The concept around a pay-as-you-throw or per-bag fee or per-household or unit fee was not 40 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. finalized.
No. I understand that. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: So we hadn't got to the point to tell me whether or not it was going to be a per-bag fee. That even had not been concluded.
Could you by regulation without this ordinance require these 15,000 customers of the City to have a bag fee? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Per-bag fee?
Per-bag fee. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I am not sure. I would like to talk with the Law Department to see if we can do that by regulation versus having an ordinance to set that up.
It's my recollection that the answer was yes at my budget time, but if you could get back to the Committee, I would appreciate it, 41 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. that you could by regulation require that. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. We will check.
And, finally, how much revenue will the General Fund receive as a result of the new licenses and permitting that will be required of public right-of-way and private dumpsters based on the legislation just passed by City Council? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That is one thing that I think that we'd like to continue to work with Councilman DiCicco and I think he was also working with your office to identify -- impacted by that it is not just the Streets Department, but also L&I. So I think that we wanted to get clarification, and we can work with both your offices to determine what that really means. I cannot give you an answer right now, but I think we need to understand a little bit more.
Okay. We 42 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. conservatively, very conservatively, assuming that we actually know how many dumpsters are out there, because private licenses haven't been required, records are old, so we've gotten a bunch of varying numbers from L&I and Streets on how many private dumpsters there are. We think it's wildly underestimated, probably on the order of 10,000 or 15,000. But just taking current numbers that we got from Streets and L&I and taking the fees and the ability to actually collect the fines -- right now we only collect percent of them -- we 16 estimate conservatively, very 17 conservatively, that it's two and a half 18 million dollars, and we fully expect that 19 it's going to be closer to $4 or $5 20 million. And, frankly, I think that's 21 very conservative, but that's as far as 22 my staff will let me go on the issue. So 23 with that extra revenue that wasn't in 24 the budget, you still say you object to the repeal of this? 43 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: What I said is that I think that I would like to continue to work with your office and Councilman DiCicco to understand the implications, because I don't understand them right now, but I would like to understand them a little bit better. We can get clarification with Licenses and Inspections and also with the Budget Office to confirm the value -- I'll just use the word "value" or the incremental revenues that will be expected from it so that we can understand how to apply that.
Because essentially what we've now got as a result of the dumpster legislation is a windfall of at least two and a half million dollars, and I think 5, and I think maybe we ought to sort of replace one of these with the other. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I understand the concept. I just don't know the dollar that goes with it. So I think that we just need to talk a little 44 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. bit more to work together and resolve it.
And I wasn't sure I understood Councilman DiCicco's questioning. Did he say that you guys had worked together over the summer or you weren't able to get together? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We did not work together over the summer.
Were you instructed not to work with Councilman DiCicco? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think that we were working together as a team and we certainly are -- for the entire summer I could say that I was completely tied up with all measures that set budgets on them, and I apologized to the Councilman for not working with his good office to advance this, but I certainly am ready to work with him now and eager to do so.
I understand that, but I think it's important for us to know whether or not you were 45 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. instructed not to work with Councilman DiCicco's office. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think that you're asking for an answer that I don't have to give.
Well, it's a yes/no question. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, I gave my answer. There was no yes/no. 11 Maybe I'm longwinded.
I don't want to require you to answer a question, Commissioner. I mean, we don't want that kind of relationship, but I think we need to understand what's been happening and why we haven't made progress, and I think it's a very fair question. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I do too, but I'm trying to share with you the environment that we were working in. Through the entire summer we were quite caught up with all the issues around the budget. With this maybe we didn't do as good a job as we needed to do to secure 46 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. the understanding to work around it, but --
I appreciate that and I appreciate the position you're in, and I'm sorry to put you on the spot like that. I'm not going to press it further, but if that -- and this is not a reflection on you. If that continues to happen, we'll start requiring answers to those questions, or I will. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For hypothetical purposes, if people started to appeal for one reason or another, "it wasn't me that put that trash out, I didn't pay, I don't have to pay, I'm closed," whatever those appeal processes are, describe for me how that would work. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We have a number of officers that will be working 47 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. with the program who will be able to examine and work with citizens and property owners with regard to individual circumstances, because believe me, there is lots of variations to this challenge that we haven't even anticipated. So we'll be able to visit properties, offer guidance on how to best approach whatever system that we will ultimately have, and that guidance will happen as a result of direct field investigation, maybe recommendations about how to best process materials. For some people, maybe it's better that they have private collection. Maybe the type of quantity they need to set out are not appropriate for City collection. It may not be safe for a community. You may have a doctor's office that's putting out a significant amount of bloody materials, and we may have to have discussion about not having City collection at all and doing something else with their materials, having a HAZMAT collection or a medical 48 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. waste collection. But all that will come as a result of doing one-on-one's, and it's hard to give kind of a gross answer other than to say that on a case-by-case basis, those exceptions have to be examined.
So two things. One, we don't know the enforcement of this could -- the meter could start running on this relatively quickly if people start to appeal it or we get into hazardous waste issues or those kinds of things start mounting up. We have to gear up personnel to go out and solve that. We don't know where the bar will ultimately set on those kinds of enforcement issues or appeals issues. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We don't know how it's going to be resolved and we'll have to refocus personnel to address any issues or concerns that may come up with that.
Second issue is, so if the individual business appeals 49 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. it, they appeal it to whom? To you? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Back to the Streets Department, correct, and then --
So you're the judge and the jury of their appeal? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, I think that we send out -- what we anticipate, that we'll have mass letters that will speak on a gross level about conditions that we're expecting. However, as citizens bring to us individual and unique circumstances, then on an individual case-by-case basis we'll be able to examine them, working within the framework of exceptions and rules and protocols, but on a case-by-case basis going out to examine the conditions that people are working in.
So a person that goes through appeal, they go to you and an internal matter you decide. There's no independent kind of assessment of this at all? 50 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No, there would not be an independent panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I want to say I enjoy my working relationship with you and the Deputy Commissioner and our department, and I look forward to continuing working with you guys. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions? Councilman Kenney.
No. I'm not on this Committee permanently. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's a very exciting committee. Just for the record, you report to Deputy Mayor -- is that her title -- Rina Cutler? 51 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes, Deputy Mayor Rina Cutler, who heads Transportation and Utilities. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Has she weighed in on any of these conversations with you about any of this? She obviously knew what we were planning on doing based on my testimony back in the summer. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct. Yes. Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any comments from her, any recommendations? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think that I'm speaking on behalf of the Administration, certainly my management team, yes, and presenting what we think is thoughtful commentary, as well as our strong desire to work this out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And if we were to hold this bill as you're suggesting, what guarantees do we have that we will not or the Administration will not order you to begin implementing 52 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. the fees? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, Councilman, I think that -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Notice I said the Administration. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: -- City Council has made it clear what you can also do. So that doesn't work for us, to be in the midst of anything that causes confusion. I mean, our citizens need us to lead, provide leadership, and it's our desire to move on this as quickly as possible, but certainly not move on it unilaterally. That's why we're here and that's why we're willing to talk. We need this to work out so that we can start to provide services that we need and maintain the services that we need to maintain for the citizens. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: For me, though, I would not -- normally I'd say let's take a parallel track, keep looking at this and what the numbers are and how much money we get from the dumpster fees, 53 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. but I'd like to look for alternatives. Personally I'd like to look for other alternatives, maybe with the residential apartment buildings and places like that that would minimize the cost. It might even be a wash. Maybe you get your 7 million that way. I don't know what those numbers are. And in the absence of all that information, we got a lot of work to do, and it's unfortunate we didn't have an opportunity to work on all those details a lot sooner. Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Chairman, thank you and thanks as a temporary member of the Committee, but it does apply to other areas of interaction between our witnesses and the panels, that the request for delay I think sometimes slows down the process as opposed to keeping it on track. I mean, sometimes the delay gets lost in other things. If you know something is coming, you're going to work on getting your best 54 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. part of it that you can craft done. I mean, Councilman DiCicco's reputation, once he gives his word, he keeps it. So if this bill got out of Committee and he held it until he was and the Committee was happy with the outcome of the negotiations or discussions, I think that would be appropriate. I think sometimes the bill gets lost in delay land, and that sometimes is the end of it, and then because if there's not a lot of communication and something gets done and we wind up getting angrier than we should be because it got done, while things are moving down the track together, at some point in time maybe we can hook up both the trains. But I would argue, as a member who has to vote on it in the future at some point, that the delay is -- I don't know whether it's in the best interest of coming to a conclusion. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Can I just add, though, from our perspective? 55 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. Delay does not work for us either. So it is in our interest to move as quickly as possible.
So if while these discussions took place and the bill 7 sat on the Calendar, would you trust Councilman DiCicco -- I would -- to hold the bill until the appropriate time? I think having to go back and do another hearing, schedule the hearing, get the quorum, go through the hearing again I think doesn't make a lot of sense when we can amend something on the floor or in Committee at another time. It's just my observation as a temporary member here today. I just think that things will get done if there's a pending piece of legislation as opposed to not. That's just my opinion. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: To answer your question, I have always known Councilman DiCicco to be an honorable man. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. 56 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, this concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now go into the public meeting. We are now in the public meeting. As I said earlier, Bill Nos. 090469, 090665 and 090669 are being held. I will ask Councilman Green to start reading off the bills for votes.
I move the amendment that's already been circulated to Bill 090569. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 090569 be approved. 57 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. Councilman Green.
I move that Bill No. 090569 be approved by this committee, as amended, with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 090569, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) 58 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 6 is approved.
I move that 090518 be approved by this committee with a favorable recommendation and with a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 090518 be approved with a suspension of rules. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 24 is approved. Councilman Green. 59 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc.
I move that Bill 090572 be approved by this committee with a favorable recommendation and with a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 090572 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 21 is approved. Councilman Green.
I move that Bill No. 090576 be approved by this committee with a favorable recommendation 60 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 090576 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 19 is approved. Councilman Green.
I move that the following bills be approved by this committee with a favorable recommendation and that all bills be approved with a suspension of the rules to permit first 61 10/13/09 - STREETS - BILL 090469, etc. reading at the next session of Council. The following bills are: 090586, 090662, 090664, 090666 and 090670. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the bills that have just been read into the record be approved and that a suspension of rules apply to all of those bills. Everyone in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All those bills have been approved. Thank you. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. Thank you. (Committee on Streets and Services concluded at 3:05 p.m.) - - - 62 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 13, 2009, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)