COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 1, 1998 Noon - - - BILL 980640 - Prohibiting Sidewalk Sales in 5700 Block Baltimore. . . RES. 980675 - Authorizing Council to Examine Issue of Abandoned Houses. . . BILL 980552 - Prohibiting Sidewalk Sales in 2700 block of North American Street. . . BILL 980646 - Relating to "Cease Operations Orders". . . BILL 980760 - Re Issuance of Accelerated Review of Plans. . . BILL 980795 - Re Technical Codes Governing Construction, Occupancy, Use, Maintenance of structures in the City.. . . (Full text of each bill and resolution within body of transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 12/1/98 L&I Committee I N D E X Page BILL 980640 John P. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager Department of Licenses and Inspections Pat Evans, Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Soccer Community Development Corporation RES. 980675 John Kromer, Director, OHCD . . . . . . . . . 9 Judith Robinson, Private Citizen. . . . . . . 12 10 Ruben Johnson, Staff Architect. . . . . . . . 18 Community Development Corp. Of Frankford Ministry BILL 980552 John P. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager 14 Department of Licenses and Inspections 15 BILL 980646 16 John P. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager 17 Department of Licenses and Inspections 18 BILL 980760 John P. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 19 Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager Department of Licenses and Inspections 20 Richard Feldgus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 21 Administrative Services Director Department of Licenses and Inspections 22 BILL 980795 23 John P. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager Department of Licenses and Inspections 3 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980640 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections is now in session for the public hearing. The first bill on the agenda is Bill 8 No. 980640, which is an ordinance amending Section 9 9-205 of The Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales on portions of Baltimore Avenue and 58th Street. Mr. Campbell please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of for the Licenses and Inspections. At my right is Richard Feldgus, the Administrative Services Director. I am here today to testify on the provisions of Bill No. 980640, which will prohibit vending and sidewalk sales in the 5700 block of Baltimore Avenue on the mall side, and 58th Street from Baltimore Avenue to Hoffman Street, by the 4 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980640 sides. We support adoption of this bill. In fact, I believe I worked with Councilwoman Blackwell in drafting the provisions of this bill. And, again, we recognize Council's right to deal with and regulate activity on the sidewalk. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Campbell? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. If you gentlemen could just step aside for one second, I want to ask the residents from the area to come up. At the request of Councilwoman Blackwell, we're trying to expedite their wait here. We know they have to get back to their businesses and their lives. So we want to thank you for coming in. (Area residents come forward.)
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for waiting. Could you identify yourselves for the record. And while you're doing that, if you could move the microphone closer to you so we can hear you. 5 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980640
My name is Pat Evans. I'm the Director of Soccer Community Development Corporation. We're a community group that's located at 58th and Baltimore, and we are presently developing the apartment building known as "6000 Baltimore Avenue." Thanks to our city, our Councilwoman, we're just thrilled and we're thrilled to be here, and we'd like to read you a statement that we've prepared.
We do have copies that we'd like to submit and have entered into the record.
Dear Committee Members, enclosed is correspondence from 1990 and 1991 that we wrote to the City regarding the issue of vending in our community. That was eight years ago, and still we have heard nothing. In eight years, many things have 6 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980640 happened in our community. Several residents formed a Community Development Corporation and began the process of building revitalization plan for our community. We joined our efforts with the Free Library of Philadelphia to fix up and remodel the Blanche A. Nixon Library. It was completed a few years ago. For the past three years, we've tackled graffiti. And with residential effort and participation, our area is now recognized as a zero-tolerance zone for graffiti. Six years ago, our councilwoman, Jannie Blackwell, lent her support to us to renovate an abandoned apartment building in our neighborhood. Even though it has taken years, within the first quarter of the new year, we hope to welcome new residents into our neighborhood who will occupy 46 senior apartment units. For vending, yes. In eight years, we have seen many changes. Vendors have become more selective about their times, site locations, and seasons. Usually, spring to early fall. We have a new rib man, who now operates a full-fledged restaurant outside of the Andora train station -- 7 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980640 that's our bridge area. Starting on Fridays and weekends from p.m or a.m. or a.m. in the 4 morning. The fish vendor has moved his operation from 58th Street to around the corner permanently on Baltimore Avenue between 58th and 57th Street. Vending has now spread to the northeast and northwest corners of Baltimore Avenue. We now have a new breed of tape vendor who really sells in disguise. Vendors now put up 4- and 5-foot signs to advertise from the tops of their trucks on 58th Street. We now have another permanent truck outside our shopping mall that is a fruit-and-vegetable stand. Several vendors harass an intimidate store owners over their own areas that they are paying taxes for, while they consistently pressure our seniors to buy their wares. Our community group is working hard to support our residents and neighborhood in our continued effort of upward mobility and growth. Our community is looking to attract investment in both our residential and commercial mall area. Investors are not attracted by littering, scattered trash, illegal dumping, zoning 8 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980640 violations, loitering, and illegal street vending. We are not here to insult anyone; however, it is now eight years later, and as taxpayers, we are still asking, When will they make 58th Street vendor-free? We thank you for your time and your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Pat Evans, and supporters of our community civic association, also known as "Soccer CDC."
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, this organization has fought long and hard and is doing an excellent job to bring the neighborhood back. I also have in my possession a ten-page petition dating back to April 1991 that was forwarded to the City and to my office, trying to deal with this issue. As the 9 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980640 Committee Chair knows, I am certainly a person who is pro-vending, but we have instances where it doesn't work and where the vendors won't work with the community to try to do it in a fashion that is acceptable so that everybody can win. So this is one of those instances where, certainly, we support Soccer, we commend them for all the work that they are doing, and this is a corner where we can say vending hasn't worked. And we hope that the committee will suspend the rules, and we certainly support this bill.
Thank you Councilwoman and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming in today and taking the time and being so patient.
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move quickly to a resolution which we will not complete today, but we will recess the hearing on the resolution to a date certain, but there are 10 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 three people here who have been waiting to testify on the resolution so we'll take that now. That is Resolution No. 980675, which is a resolution authorizing the Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold hearings to examine the issue of abandoned housing in the City of Philadelphia and to formulate solutions that will expedite the redevelopment of the properties. Mr. Kromer? And is there someone else to testify, sir? Ma'am? So we have two other witnesses? If you could just come forward, and then after Mr. Kromer, we can have you please identify yourself for the record. Mr. Kromer, recognizing that we will be having an extended, more expansive hearing on this issue at a future date, if you could confine your remarks to basically setting the stage for that hearing.
Good morning. My name is John Kromer. I'm Director of the City's Office of Housing and Community Development, and I'm pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words in anticipation of the future hearing on this matter. I've submitted written testimony which 11 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 I believe all the members have received, and have attempted to summarize some of the basic issues relating to vacant property acquisition and disposition that we try to address. The key mechanism these days for acquiring vacant property is the eminent domain process, and we worked with the Redevelopment Authority to make eminent domain as effective as it possibly can be as a tool for neighborhood reinvestment. The City and the Redevelopment Authority really weren't in the business of eminent domain at all when this Administration started, and the Authority at this point now has the capability to acquire over a thousand properties per year, using the eminent domain process. Clearly, a lot more has to be done. Councilmembers may be familiar with the policy paper on vacant property that was issued by our office a couple years ago. There are tens of thousands vacant properties in the City, and no 23 single approach is going to be sufficient to address this major problem in short order. So I'd welcome an opportunity to participate in the 12 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 expanded hearings on this matter. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Ma'am, please identify yourself for the record and pull that microphone closer to you. Thank you.
Yes. My name is Judith Robinson. I'm a resident of North Philadelphia and I am also a real estate broker. I just would like to voice some concerns as you all get together as a committee to formulate solutions that will expedite the redevelopment of these abandoned properties. One area of concern is that, if possible, that you try to salvage as many properties as possible. I understand, from past hearings, that the Office of Housing and Community Development has a policy that they would like to reduce density. That's fine and well because I know we have a reduction in population. However, as one that lives in North Philadelphia in a block of row houses, we would just like you to know, and anybody else that's 13 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 going to be formulating these projections that they would keep in mind that, if at all possible, where there's one or two properties in a block or less than, say, to percent of the block that 6 is abandoned, we would like to see if those 7 properties can be salvaged first. 8 There are many projects where they're 9 taking 12, 13, 15 properties that are abandoned on 10 the block and doing that block over. And, also, 11 there are properties that are over 20, 30 years 12 old that are being rehabbed through the PHDC 13 program. And if those properties can be rehabbed, 14 we certainly want it to be known that we would 15 like any property that can be salvaged in a block 16 where homeowners are trying to do the best they 17 can to keep block up, we want to try to keep those 18 properties and salvage as many as possible. 19 In addition, an area I would like for 20 this committee to focus on as your formulate this plan is the reduction of the cost to rehab these properties. Right now, I understand it's costing 80 to over $100,000 to rehab one of these properties. I think that cost is just totally out of line. 14 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 As someone that sells rehabbed properties, HUD and VA, for instance, and other distressed sales in the private market, there is nobody in the private marking that is rehabbing a property costing that much, so why is the City paying that much money? I think that is something we should look at very close.
There's no argument here, and that's probably 'cause government's doing it.
Absolutely. I would like to suggest that we use some methods such as Habitats for Humanity. They are doing an excellent job of rehabbing homes in the same area, and they're doing it for a substantial amount less, so I would just like to make that suggestion. Also, that we try as best as we can to try to stem the tide of this abandonment. Maybe beef up some of the programs such as the donor-taker program and other programs that you already have on the books. This situation has been studied over and over, and I would just like to suggest that instead of continuing to study it, 15 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 that you use some of the suggestions from the study and move forward seriously in dealing with this problem. So in that vain, I would like to suggest that you do whatever you can to beef up the donor-taker programs. The Vacant Property Committee, I wish they would move forward; they are really stagnating. The process takes too long. I think you should look at all of processes to get the properties in the hands of people that can fix them up and would like to be taxpayers and homeowners as quickly as possible. In addition, I would like to just ask, since Mr. Kromer's here, if the OHCD has coordinated with Licenses and Inspections on their study of this abandonment problem, because I know at the meeting that I attended -- several meetings that I attended, the Land Reuse and Vacant Property Committee that was held -- the biggest meeting was held sometime on September the 10th, they -- both agencies stated that they would be doing this study, so I wondered if we can't save money by consolidating some of the findings that, 16 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 as you stated, this particular study, that was done and several others that have been done in the past, how come you can't coordinate this information and lessen this continuation of studying this problem over and over again? I think you both have done a good job of studying it in the past. So I would just like to suggest that these agencies and all other, -- Redevelopment Authority, etc. -- would coordinate some of these programs and studies that have been done and really truly move forward to try to resolve this problem. In addition, I would just like to make one other suggestion. That possibly you consider a public sale of your PHA properties, that I would suggest that they are in better condition and can be open to the public, such as HUD or VA is doing with their repossessed properties. Because we don't have the resources as a City, the tax dollars are just not there, as we all know, possibly if you open you, say, packages of these properties to the public, that would relieve some of the stress that you have on these funding 17 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 dollars -- the limited funded dollars that are available. So I would just like to make a suggestion that you look into how HUD and VA are handling properties disposition or possibly auction type of situations to get some of these properties in the hands of private investors. And I don't think they can do any worse than what is going on now, with the price of properties costing over $100,000 to rehab, and then as it relates to the vacant land and the properties that are going up, they're costing just an astronomical figure of well over $100,000. These small projects are almost a disadvantage to the people purchase them because all around those newer developments are these abandoned properties, and a substantial number of them are owned by the City and other quasi-governmental agencies. I think the City should set an example by dealing with those properties first and foremost because they're already in the hands of City ownership. So they should start there first.
And I understand there are a 18 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 substantial number of these vacant and abandoned properties that are owned by private owners and that some of them are deceased and it's really hard to track down an heir, or there's no heir. I understand there's a tedious process to get those properties in the hands of people that can be taxpayers in the future, but I would suggest that we start with the City properties and quasi-governmental-owned properties first to practice a good policy and show a good model that we all can go by in the future. And I thank you very much for your time, and I would truly appreciate you taking some of these suggestions under your advisement.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Ruben Johnson. I am the staff architect for the Community Development Corporation of Frankford Ministry. Let me just say that Frankford is a small community in the northeast of the city, and we don't have the problems like (unintelligible) 19 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 in north Philadelphia and West Philadelphia, where we have large tracts of abandoned blocks. Our focus is basically addressing abandoned properties block by block. And what happens is is that we have a pretty good idea of the percentages of abandoned properties within our area. What has happened is, these properties that we have designated and worked on have been demolished without our knowledge. This past year, we had two of our properties that were designated to entered in the HRP program, demolished without our knowledge. In addition to that, some of the problems that we do receive through the Act 94 process are in such deplorable condition that by the time that we receive entry authorization for ownership, they're in such a deplorable condition that the cost is probably anywhere from 80,000 to $100,000 to rehab. One of the ways that I think that we can streamline the process is to have a shared tracking system with the (unintelligible) Acquisition Department, L&I, and the CDC to develop strategies for securing and cleaning and 20 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 sealing the properties. When I say "cleaning and sealing," I mean waterproofing the properties to defer any further vandalism or deterioration. And by that time, when we can put it through the HRP process, we could rehab the properties within the cost range of probably anywhere from $45 to $60 a square foot, which is not bad. That's the only concern that I have at this moment with the process.
Thank you. Question. You said you're from Frankford. Were you talking about a specific area during your testimony?
Yeah, Frankford Ministry, I believe our boundaries are Torresdale in the south; to the north Bridge Street; to the east -- I'm sorry, to the east is Torresdale Avenue. To the west is sort of like Castor Avenue, on the -- Castor and where Friends Hospital is.
Thank you. And, ma'am, were you talking about a specific area?
I'm basically talking about the whole 5th Councilmatic District. That's 21 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 the area that --
Yes, where a substantial portion of the abandoned properties are.
Thank you. I might say that there are some of us who have worked long and hard. And as bad as the problem is, it's better. And I'm sure Mr. Kromer will agree, our Housing Director, that it's better than it has been in the past. And in some areas -- certainly in West Philadelphia -- we are trying to do that block-by-block approach where we started in some areas to do just what you recommend, but there are many of us who have been fighting the system long, long time to try to deal with and to try to help to improve in this area. For example, to ask L&I, and they work more with communities to try to even give them materials to board up properties. And it's a big problem to try to catch properties and be able to control them from the time they become vacant before they're vandalized, so we've had a lot of 22 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Resolution 980675 talk about that even in recent years and what we need to do that would involve the community -- in some cases the community, and in some cases, CDCs and other people. So your testimony is much appreciated. We know that both of you speak certainly from experience and from a desire to improve our city.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you very much for your testimony, and we will be rescheduling this hearing to a date certain -- we will be rescheduling this hearing at a date determined by the call of the Chair, and we will notify you and others who are interested to have a more expansive hearing as time permits. Thank you very much. The next bill is Bill No. 980552, which is an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales in the 2700 block of North American Street, both sides. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. 23 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980552
Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney and members of the L&I Committee. I'm John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of for the Licenses and Inspections. I'm here to testify on the provisions of Bill 980552, which, if adopted by this Council, will prohibit all vending and sidewalk sales in the 2700 block of North American Street, both sides. This is a redraft of bill, I believe, of bill that had previously been introduced. There was a technical error and the bill had to be redrafted. We again support the adoption of this bill. This is a continuation of vending prohibition in the area of the 200 block of West Lehigh. And throughout the area, as far west as Germantown and Lehigh, vending is prohibited. One thing I would suggest that, and I guess to the whole Council, District Councilpeople and in future bills, that, like Councilwoman Krajewski, you look at your problem in toto, and instead of designating one particular block or two particular blocks, that you designate whole areas 24 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980552 where you do not want the vendors to be. It makes enforcement a lot easier for the Department because, for example, in a recently adopted bill, it's banned now when the mayor signs it in the whole 6th Councilmatic District. We also have that in Councilman O'Neill's district where large portions of the 10th Councilmatic District, vending is just prohibited. A lot of times -- and I guess Councilwoman Krajewski, you will remember when we chased the vendor around Cottman and Frankford, where we went block after block and we moved him two blocks, and then I think there were four or five bills. So I think it would be, you know, prudent that, you know, you do boundaries. I know for Councilman Nutter I have done bills. Of course, with the Councilwoman, I did the 6th District. And that's my testimony, and I'm happy to answer other questions.
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill?
Thank you very much. We will now proceed with Bill No. 12 980646, which is an ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "The Philadelphia Building, Construction and Occupancy Code," by amending Subcode A,"The Philadelphia Administrative Code," by amending Chapter 5, entitled "Violations," by amending Section 18 A-505.0, entitled "Cease Operations Order," by adding a new section regarding unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and by amending Subcode PM of The Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code, by amending Chapter 2, entitled, "Definitions," by amending Section PM-202.0, entitled "General Definitions," by amending the definitions of "unsafe," all under certain terms and conditions. 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 Please identify yourself.
Okay, John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. We have reviewed the provisions of this bill and we accept and urge its adoption. This bill explicitly states powers that we believe we already have; however, while reading the code, it could be misconstrued or vague, so we again thank you, Mr. Kenny, for your --
Actually, the problem, Mr. Campbell, is we have the ability to enter a building now for fire and safety violations as a result of storage gasoline or unsafe wiring that could cause a fire. The problem that we've experienced, as you and members of the department well know, is that when have in a row house setting abutting properties that are experience the deleterious effects of people, for whatever reason, that have problem sewage problems in the basement, vermin problems, rodents, bugs, it takes us 60, 90, 120 days to get a court order to go in and abate that problem. 27 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 Often that problem is associated with either someone who's elderly and can't care for the house themselves or someone that may be mentally ill and can't care for the house themselves. And what happens is, the people who surround that property deal with the -- again, the deleterious effects of that property. What we need to do and what, hopefully, this bill will do is speed up this process so that we can abate the problem. We don't want to hurt the people living there; we just want to get the problem solved so that the young couples and families who live around them don't move out, which is what we've experienced on a number of occasions. So by the time we get in, many times into equity court, by the time, you know, we cite, cite, come back, reinspect, cite, can't get in, knock on the door, you know, the lady's in there hiding. We need to be able to get in their in an expeditious fashion and abate the problem.
Councilmember 28 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 Rizzo.
I'm sorry. Councilmember Rizzo here, just so the record's clear. In the hearing today are Councilmembers Krajewski, Rizzo, Kenney, Nutter, and Councilwoman Blackwell on special assignment.
Also, can I just add a quick question in reference to this.
That's one of my concerns. I just want to make sure that I understand about the abutting property. Can a cease-operations order be placed on an abutting property that is affected by a condition that is occurring next door?
Well, we would put the cease-operations on the property where the condition is.
If that were in violation, if that were creating a problem, then 29 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 it --
See, that's what -- I want to make sure that I understand again. If in a row home situation, just like Councilman Kenney indicated, that the house that is causing the problem is creating a condition next door, you're telling me that L&I would then put a cease-order on both properties?
Councilman, can I suggest -- and, I'm sorry I just jumped right in the middle, that's Mr. Feldgus over there. Councilman, can you give us an example of what kind of --
We recently had a situation in South Philadelphia -- and the street will remain unnamed -- where we had an elderly resident who has been there by herself. She was in her eighties and has, over time, because of age and infirmity, been unable to care for her house. As a result of that, the house wasn't cleaned over a period of time. And as a result of that, we've had an insect problem, we've had a rubbish disposal problem in the house. 30 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 The neighbors, who very cooperative and tried to help, convinced the woman that they needed to get in there and clean the house for her. She refused all of those offers. We sent out the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging and they attempted to make some contact; she refused contact. We sent L&I out, they went out and tried to make contact, could not make contact, and wound up citing the property. We then wound up in a situation where we had to get into an equity court situation to allow the judge to issue an order to actually go in and abate the property and not only take care of the problems that were surrounding the houses on either side, but help her in her situation from a sanitary and insect situation. It took about 140 days of the first semblance of the problem coming around to its final disposition. And on that particular street, which the insect problem affected 14 properties on the same side of the street, all of them had to be fumigated, and two of those houses are now up for sale, and those people are moving out of town.
So now, Councilman, 31 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 what does this bill do?
What would it have done in that situation? If you had this, what would it have done in that situation?
Right now, under a cease-operations order, which is a term of art that's probably inaccurate. Cease-operations orders conjure up a different form of abatement, which really affects commercial properties. What we're talking about is the ability to be able to go into the property in a more timely fashion, similar of if there were some suspicion that the old man or old woman or if anyone was, storing, say, gasoline in the basement or had some other life-safety issue where they could get -- L&I would have the ability to enter the property immediately to abate the problem so that people wouldn't -- the house wouldn't blow up. What I'm saying is that we need a quicker, more expedited ability to address these problems prior -- and expedited ability to address 32 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 these problems different from the one we have now, which is a cumbersome litigation that winds up really solving way down the road, when it could have been solved a lot earlier.
Thank you. I want to continue my question. If I live next door to the house with the problem, I would like to know, in the worst-case scenario, with the bees, the roaches, the sewage, what can happen to the person that lives next door? I understand that we don't want a person living next store to an unsanitary, dangerous situation. But could that person wind up being put out of their own property for a period of time, say 30, 60 days, until the problem next door that started this chain of events, that the problem's dealt with? What could happen to the person next door during this process? What is the effect?
I would argue, 33 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 nothing, but. . .
Nothing, Councilman, we're citing the property in violation, not the property next door.
And, remember, in these situations, no one's put out of their house, no one's put out of their house. What's happened is is that L&I goes in with the appropriate contractor or fumigator, nor whatever, and basically cleans out the person's house on the offending property. That person's not put in a hotel or a shelter or anything; they stay right there while the work's being done. As a matter of fact, we've had situations where we've had people who are minorly mentally ill, who are still able to be on their own but not capable of caring for their property, who told our people that -- and this is a paraphrase of his quote -- "You think I'm crazy? You guys just came in and cleaned my house, put in all new cabinets, and cleaned out my kitchen. I mean, I'm not the crazy one, you're the crazy one." So the problem that we have is because 34 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 of this situation that takes a long time to litigate, we have to go back in there two and three times in five years and do this problem over and over again. And I am telling you, I have personal information about people who have actually moved out of the city because they've given up trying to deal with the person.
I think we all have that same problem, Mr. Chairman, we all have that same problem, believe me.
Believe me, let me state for the record, it is not the intent of this bill, nor do I believe that it's your understanding of this bill that anyone, anyone would be put out of their house unless, of course, it was falling down, or there was some other life-safety issue. But the sanitation issue needs to be dealt with.
Let me raise one question, though, with you. And maybe this is where Councilman Rizzo's concern is coming from. This new number 5 on is under Section A-505.0 of the general category of "cease-operations orders," which, if I'm reading 35 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 this correctly, is actually coming out of the Building Construction and Occupancy Code, which was possibly subsequently amended to be the Property Maintenance Code? Is that correct?
Okay. Maybe where some of this is coming from, A-505.1, General, which is not being amended, talks about the Department, which I assume is L&I, and the Fire Department being authorized to issue cease-operations directly that occupancy, use, and other activities cease immediately, and that the premises be vacated pending compliance with such orders whenever. . . And then we go to this new number 5. My question is: Given where this new number 5 is, in the example as laid out by Councilman Kenney, if the Department shows up based on all these complaints or, you know, vermin or whatever the "it" is and makes a determination and, I mean, either the lady lets you in you break the door down and you access the property, and then you determine that it is as bad, if not worse 36 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 than all the neighbors have reported. Do you, in fact, given where number 4 is, under A-505.1, are you, in fact, allowed, if 5 not almost required, based on the reading of the cease directing that occupancy, use, and other activities cease immediately, and that the premises be vacated, pending compliance, which I assume means that you're going to abate the condition, do you, in fact, cause the homeowner, the source of the problem, at that point, to vacate? Having nothing to do with the abutting property owners; I'm now just focussed on the problem property. Could you, in fact, with the new number 5 cause or create a situation that that person, this older lady, as described in the example earlier, be vacated from the premises while you abate the property?
Actually, Councilman, that's two questions. Number one, could we? Yes, theoretically, we could. Would we? Definitely not.
We have been dealing 37 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 with this going back to even B.C. ("Before Campbell"). I've dealt with it personally, as Director of Contractual Services. When we run into these individual situations, we --
I understand what the practice is. I'm asking you, based on the words on the piece of paper in the A-505.1, which is not being changed, but that is a section that authorizes the Department and the Fire Department to cause the premises to be vacated for the abatement of a problem. Is that true?
All right, so that's the law; you're telling me that the practice is something else.
And that under these circumstances, while you could cause the premises to be vacated with this new number 5, your policy is not to vacant but to abate problems and conditions.
That's correct. In 38 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 addition to that, Councilman --
So that you exercise judgment as to whether or not you will, in fact, vacant a property, and that it's not your policy on mission, and that you're not out on a mission trying to vacate properties. But you do, in fact, have right and authorization to vacate properties, depending on your judgment of the situation.
Okay. What happens to the abutting property owners? And in this case, as Councilman Kenney has laid out, 14 people are affected by this, hopefully not as bad as the source of the problem. Do you, even under this section, have the right to force those homeowners to vacate their properties, or are you only left to try to abate the problem because you are citing the direct source of the problem?
Well, we would have to cite the individual owners for violation, but I believe in the situation --
The owners that are 39 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 being affected by the --
Affected. But, again, the practice has been, we've gone into the properties, and I'm not familiar with the particular case, but have exterminated properties on either side in the back. I mean, over the years, we've gone in and --
All right. So let's say I'm in a tight situation and my next-door neighbor -- and I'm minding my business. I mean, I clean my house every other day and twice on Saturday. I mean, I'm just like going to town with this cleaning thing. But my next-door neighbor is sloppy, dirty, nasty, and all of their stuff starts coming over into my house, and all the neighbors called and say, You know, that property at 1405 is a garbage place. And you come out and cite the premises, you utilize this provision, you vacate the premises, you start to abate the property. And then you go to the next-door neighbors and say, Are you having a problem? And they say yes. Are you telling me are you telling me that you cite 40 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 those folks too?
No, you don't, 'cause there's been fifty instances where I've dealt with this, and not one of those neighbors has been cited. See, the issue, John, and you got to be clear on this because, see, it's not clear. Not one of the instances that I have dealt with in the seven years that I've been in this Council -- and I would estimate there's about fifty of these -- has any abutting resident been cited, ever. Do you have the theoretical, technical ability to cite them? You could cite anybody. You could cite me for walking down the hallway. But in those 50 instances involving perhaps 300 different properties, abutting and otherwise, have one of those other people been cited?
Now, wait a minute. I would like him to clarify because he -- Mr. Campbell's statement is what led me down that example, so I always like you to clarify for the 41 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 record. You said that the abutting property owners do get cited --
-- which is why I laid out that example. Now I do need you to clarify for the record.
So they could be cited because would be in violation of some particular provision of the code. You, again, using -- exercising some discretion and judgement, make a decision that the source of the problem is 1405. The neighbor at 1407 could be doing everything possible to keep their place clean but, unfortunately, roaches and other vermin travel. So you figure out the source of the 42 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 problem, you cite that homeowner, you might even vacate because you have the power to do that. You go to the next-door neighbor, figure out that they have a problem, and you try to help them with their problem, but you don't slap them with a violation because that would be crazy and stupid.
Even though you have the power to cite them, you exercise discretion and you don't.
Thank you. I wasn't finished, thanks. You indicated this was B.C., before Campbell. What about after Campbell, A.C.? Is there any --
Who pays? Would you explain, when 1405 is in violation and the problem 43 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980646 spreads down the block, three houses in each direction, you come in and remediate the problem, who's responsible for that remediation -- the homeowner, or does L&I pick up the tab?
Which one? Be specific be specific 'cause we're looking for a problem here. Be specific, who gets billed for the work?
Did the other 14 properties along that street that had to be fumigated get billed for the work?
Thank you very 44 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 much. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill is Bill No. 980760, which is an ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "The Philadelphia Building, Construction, and Occupancy Code," by amending Chapter 9 of the Philadelphia Administrative Code entitled "Fees," by authorizing the Department of Licenses and Inspections to provide for a specified fee, the accelerated review of plans associated with the issuance of building, zoning, and electrical permits, all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record.
Okay. Again, John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department. With me is Richard Feldgus, Administrative Services Director for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The bill before you today is one that actually lays out the fees for accelerated review. 45 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 We have actually -- what we have done is delete it, or we are requesting that A-902.10 be deleted and that a new section be added called "Accelerated Plan Review." And when we did this ordinance 7 originally, we really didn't place in the fees for the accelerated review. We feel that this is something that should really be placed before this body because the policy has been that license and permit fees have always been passed upon by Council.
A couple questions, Mr. Campbell. One, is this an increase in fees for accelerated review as compared to what the practice is now? What happens now?
I'm Richard Feldgus, Administrative Services Director. The fees right now typically for an accelerated building is approximately $480.
That's been the standard figure that was developed a number of years ago with our staff based on the amount of time of the 46 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 engineers to do this on overtime, to do the work.
It's basically been a flat fee in the past. And at this point what we're doing is, we're changing it to go more into a per-hour fee based on the amount of time that it's actually going to take.
Now, I'm familiar with an accelerated zoning permit application when you actually have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Some people pay for an accelerated hearing 'cause they want to get moved up. Explain for me, please, the difference between this zoning permit accelerated review and what my common experience is where somebody applies but then want to get a hearing real quickly, and I think that would be like $500.
The zoning permit is the action that would precede going to the Zoning 47 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 Board of Adjustment.
When people come in and they have a project that they want to get underway, they have to zoning permit and come to our people. If they're in a hurry to get either an acceptance or a refusal, they may ask to have the zoning work, which is done by L&I, accelerated.
It can be, you know, that they know they're going to get a turndown.
And they want to be able to get to the Board quicker. (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
This is for the L&I processing. In other words, this is the plan review work done in the concourse of the Municipal Services Building by our people, as contrasted to the Zoning Board of Adjustment accelerated hearing where the Board gives you a special hearing and an accelerated date. 48 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 So this is actual work that has to be done to review the zoning plans to see whether you're in conformance with the zoning code or not. We can issue a permit. If we issue a permit, there's no need to go to the Zoning Board. If we don't issue a permit, if we issue you a refusal, then you go to the Zoning Board.
Do me a favor relatively quickly. You have to walk me through this with some kind of a hypothetical example.
I want to do a grocery store in, you know, it's an R-2 residential grocery store -- I don't know whether it's allowed or not, but for this example, it's not allowed.
I show up, I ask for my zoning permit, I'm refused because it's not allowed, and the only way you to get to the Zoning Board is by getting your refusal in the first place. So I pay my $80, I get refused. Then I 49 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 file my zoning application, which is $200.
And then I get scheduled whenever I get scheduled, but now I'm in a real big rush. So then I say I want an accelerated review which, again, is it $500?
Okay. So then I pay the 200 and the 500 to get an accelerated review?
Correct. Where this $50-per-hour charge would come in is, you are asking our Zoning Review people to also accelerate their processing of your application.
They weren't accelerating it based on the 200 or $500?
Normally, what would happen would be that if you came in, it could typically take anywhere from, oh, two to four weeks for that zoning review to be approved or refused. The accelerated zoning gives the opportunity to accelerate that to less than three days.
I understand. The accelerated zoning review, though, does not automatically trigger an accelerated --
Then what am I getting out of the additional $500 that I'm 51 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 paying?
You're getting -- remember now, once L&I acts, we've acted, it's done. Then you want to go to the Zoning Board. Normally, it would take somebody typically about five weeks to get to the Zoning Board. They want to get there sooner.
So they go to the accelerated zoning hearing, which can get them to the Zoning Board within, typically, two weeks, the minimum posting period, so you have to wait for that, but it's usually two weeks to get there.
So they've got three weeks off the process there. The accelerated zoning permit process is totally apart from the Zoning Board process. What we're doing there is, again, we're cutting time off of that process by having our people review that zoning permit request on an overtime basis. What we do for that is, we guarantee 52 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 the people who want a quick turnaround on the zoning permit review, three days' time, to get the permit review for that. So that you can accelerate the process from about three months down to about three weeks.
All right, one last time. I go and get my $80 permit, you refuse me 'cause it's not allowed in that zoning classification. I then pay my $200 for my regular zoning hearing. Then I decide I want it accelerated.
In that scenario, at what point in time do I get my zoning permit? 'Cause I got to have a zoning permit.
Well, you'll get your zoning permit after the Zoning Board gets the variance.
But at the time you're 53 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 coming in for the zoning permit and paying your $80, that's the time that you have to decide whether or not you want an accelerated zoning permit. That's when you would go for this permit.
But why would I ask for an accelerated zoning permit review if I don't know that I have my zoning variance yet?
Well, you may or may not need a variance. What you're trying to do here is accelerate the time process.
The whole issue of all of these accelerated permit reviews is that time is worth money to people.
All right, hold it. So some people who don't need a zoning variance and may just be able to get a zoning permit.
But it may take some time to review the plans. 54 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760
And so now you're giving them the opportunity to have an accelerated review of your plans when you're primarily dealing in an over-the-counter situation, not particularly controversial, but now it's just time is money.
So in that situation, I might ask for an accelerated review. If I have to go through the zoning progress, it may not be to my advantage to do that because there's still time involved, even with an accelerate process that I got to go to the Zoning Board.
I got to put on my case. I may win, the opponents may appeal, then I'm over in Common Pleas Court, so I can just kind of take my time.
Thank you. I've got a question about this process. Let's say you want to enclose your porch.
And you first need to find out if the zoning would permit that to occur; is that correct?
I want you to identify all of the permits that I'm going to need. I first need a zoning permit, correct?
Now I want to build something so I need a building permit.
I want to put lights in there, inside that porch so now I need an electrical permit also.
I'm curious as to 56 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 why we even need an accelerated permit process. Is L&I -- how many people -- how many people are employed in that permit issuance unit?
Well, it breaks down by numbers, by the various units, just as you mentioned the permits. So that we have approximately a dozen engineers who are doing building plans review. We have -- when we're talking about zoning, I believe we have about eight people doing zoning review. We have just two people doing electrical permit review. So that the number of people vary in the process. And the amount of time it takes varies, depending on the amount of activity that's going on in the City in terms of how many people are applying for permits. To give you an idea, in the last year, we issued a record number of permits in the City of Philadelphia for recent time -- notwithstanding the fact that people would think that there's not a lot of building activity going on because you don't see a lot of high-rise construction but 57 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 we're having a tremendous building boom in the way of rehab and renovations and alterations. So there is a tremendous amount of work there, and what people are trying to do with this accelerated permit is, they want to get their work underway quickly.
What I'm concerned about is -- any manager of a corporation, if you're busy, you hire additional people, you bring in -- you deal with the situation. So if you're busy to make the citizens that are in a hurry to get something done, pay additional monies to get it done, to me, the operation needs to be analyzed to see if it's staffed properly. Has it been done?
Yes. We -- this is a measure basically that says that by allowing overtime to our employees for the peak periods 58 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 when people have this need to get this work done quickly, we can avoid hiring large numbers of additional people who, in slow periods, would not be necessary in the organization. So the question is -- it's a way of trying to get through the peaks without having to unduly burden ourselves in the valleys.
Is overtime and Licenses and Inspections fairly available throughout the Department? Or is this going to be an area where people will be making a significant amount of overtime that do this particular function? These people, I assume they're professional engineers?
So I'd like to ask 59 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 the Chair, I'd be curious if I could ask L&I to provide to the Chair how much money we're talking about in overtime to carry out this accelerate process because it may justify additional people. I'm not suggesting that that's the case.
But the question I guess is, is it cheaper to pay the overtime or to bring on the new employee? And I think the answer's probably obvious.
Well, no, it's got to be cheaper to pay overtime than it is to bring in new employees.
No, it's cheaper because when you bring on new people, you have to pay benefits, you have to --
If you have 60 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 professional engineers making 100,000 in overtime, you don't know that.
What's the average rate of pay, base pay of your -- the people working in this division?
The engineering staff of the Department typically are making approximately between 60 and $65,000 a year.
Base pay. If you add in fringe benefits, you're talking about another roughly another 35 percent on top of that, so we're talking about each engineer would cost us roughly in the vicinity of about $85,000.
I wasn't aware that a professional employee that worked for the City was paid overtime by the hour, I didn't know that that was a practice.
There's a special provision in the civil service regulations that allows these engineers to get paid at a straight-time rate; they do not get time and a half, they get a straight-time rate. But, yes, they are being paid. 61 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760
I'd still be curious. Again, I understand that in most cases, it is better to have people work overtime, especially at a straight rate, but I'm still curious of the oversight of that department because I think some day we're going to read in the newspaper that we've got engineers in the Department of L&I walking out of the door with a $125,000 paycheck because of an accelerated program.
That's why I don't read the newspapers; I listen to the radio, Fran.
Councilman, I can tell you, this program's been operating in the department now for a number of years. Typically, our engineers, on average, are getting somewhere between about 15 and $20,000 a year in overtime compensation for doing the plan reviews. The other people, the zoning people and the electrical people, who are not quite as high paid, are getting slightly lesser amounts. But our people are getting a substantial amount of overtime because there's a 62 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 substantial demand for this program.
And it's a select group. There's other people in L&I that, I assume, get zero or very little overtime.
Yes. John Campbell and I have not earned overtime in years. 8
Mr. Feldgus, do you 13 have any estimates on how many of these you 14 anticipate doing in the course of a fiscal year? 15
Last year, the Department 16 did in excess of 2,000 accelerated plan reviews. 17 It generated almost $900,000 in revenue to the 18 City of Philadelphia. So that the demand is 19 there. 20 To me, quite honestly, this is a voluntary program that people can avail themselves or not avail themselves of. We let the public know, for instance, if they didn't get an accelerated review, how long it would take for building project to move through. 63 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760
-- that it was in his or her best interests to make the accelerated review payment. In addition, notwithstanding whatever these engineers or nonprofessional people may make, it's not like they're not working or they're somehow taking advantage of the system. There is an additional expense to have this review, they make what they make, they're generating legitimate overtime. And if number were 10 to $20,000, your own testimony is is that their base salary is up at 60.
With benefits pushing you up in the 80-90 range, and there's no 20 way in the world you're going to have a person hired for the $20,000 in overtime expense, in addition to the additional revenues that you're generating by having people pay for this in the first place. So -- okay.
Can I ask you a 64 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 question. Is this provision or is this available for people in the surrounding suburban counties, do you know? I mean, if I'm a contractor and I'm doing work in Montgomery County or Bucks County, can I go in and, for a fee, expedite this process? You're unaware of it or you're --
I'm really not unaware of it. I know we've had a number of jurisdictions, surrounding counties as well as other cities, talking to us about our program because it's worked so well. Using this program, we've been able to get out major construction jobs in less than a week, and that type of a turnaround time is like unprecedented for most cities. So we've had a lot of people talk to us, but I don't really know who's implementing it.
And, secondly, the people who are taking advantage of this for the most part are not individual residential homeowners; these are contractors, bigger jobs, people who are willing to pay the extra money to get the work done quickly. This is not Mary and Joe Smith trying to get their deck put on their house. 65 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760
That's correct. Mostly it's large contractors who have big jobs, who have large amounts of money invested, interests costs, financing, everything they have going on so that they want to get their work underway very quickly.
Councilman Nutter says, "Unless Mrs. Smith is driving her husband nuts to get the deck up." (Laughter.)
When the Department of L&I is busy and the process is backed up, are there times when Mrs. Smith wants the deck permit and there's an extended period of time for Mr. and Mrs. Smith to get the permit for their deck?
Do you think that the manager of that organization would authorize overtime so that the homeowner or the business person wouldn't have to pay, just based on the way we do business, that if a person's been waiting 66 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 for a permit and it's because two people, three people are out with the flu, that overtime's authorized to get the permit process moving. Do you ever do that?
In the past, we've really had a very limited ability to use overtime prior to this accelerated program. Generally, the answer to your question is that backlogs build up. Prior to the current administration, unfortunately, we were taking anywhere from seven to ten weeks to issue many of our building permits. That was for big jobs, little jobs, any jobs. This program has enabled to us cut that down, both with the people who want the accelerated route, and also the small jobs because, remember now, with this overtime and accelerated program, a lot of these large jobs, 2,000 of them in fact, moved out of the stream, and this allowed all of the other jobs to move along quicker. So that right now, typically somebody coming in for this small job is benefitting by the people going into the accelerated program. 67 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 They're not paying the money; the accelerated people are, but everyone months along quicker now.
That's very good point, that's a positive point. Is there anything that suffers based on the fact that you've got people now instead of working a 40-hour work week in many cases, what's the average overtime hours that a person is authorized to work? Is 8 hours more a week, 16 more hours a week?
Well, does that affect the performance of that employee to do the -- or is this accelerate group just a -- I've gotten some phone calls that the way the accelerated program works affects sometimes the operation of the Department of Licenses and Inspections internally. Are there problems with morale or people complaining that some folks get overtime and others don't? 68 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760
I don't think we have a real problem with that. There may be some people who have been mentioned that. You know, you're always going to have those kind of petty jealousies and things of that nature where some people may say that somebody else is making a lot of overtime, why can't I make it? But the reality is I don't really see that we've had a problem with it. Yes, I would agree with you that we are putting a lot of demand on some of our engineers to work these long hours. By and large, again, we have to -- it's a voluntary program on both the parts of the employees and the people who are participating. If one of the engineers -- and we have a couple who have basically said, "I don't want the overtime," then they don't do the work. So the people who are in the program are voluntarily working in the program. And from that standpoint, we have really not had much in the way of morale problems. The attendance of this group of employees has been extremely good. They are professional people. Their leave records would 69 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 bear out the fact that they're professional people. Their sick-leave usage is always very low so that we're not seeing any burnout, we're not seeing any real problems. But he fact of the matter is that we do have this group of people who are working a lot of hours.
One last concern. With the accelerated review process, there is -- from the community perspective, a person takes out a permit, there is, I believe, a 30-day time period during which someone could file an appeal to the Board of L&I Review about that particular permit. Mr. Feldgus, you seem concerned.
I'm puzzled, I don't know about that. If somebody has a problem --
If the Department issues a permit, an aggrieved person has the right 70 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980760 to file an appeal with the Department about that particular permit, if they think you issued it in error or --
Well, they have a general right to file for any action taken by the Department.
Exactly, correct. The only thing that ever concerns me about the accelerated review process is that you somehow possibly cut down the ability of people to know what's going on, and you essentially, because of the general backlog usually in getting permits, you could, in fact, possibly cut down the window in which people get the opportunity to have information and file their appeal in a timely fashion. It's not -- I'm not making any charge today, there's nothing for you to do about it, I just want to make it known for the record that it is a concern with any of these accelerated requests. I mean, I'm going to support the request here today, but there is a potential for impact on the community side.
Theoretically that would 71 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980795 be true.
Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The last bill is Bill No. 980795, which is an ordinance amending Bill No. 960591-A, approved March 26, 1997, which is ordinance adding a new title to The Philadelphia Code that, upon enactment of other ordinances, will contain all of the technical codes governing the construction, occupancy, use, and maintenance of premises, buildings, and structures in the City. Those technical codes now appear in The Philadelphia Code as "The Building Code, Electrical Code, Fire Prevention Code, Plumbing Code, Housing Code, and Property Maintenance Code." And enacted within the new title, uniform provisions governing the 72 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980795 administration and enforcement of all those Technical codes, all under certain terms and conditions, by correcting certain printing errors in the bill, under certain terms and conditions Please identify yourself for the record.
Again, I'm John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of for the Licenses and Inspections. Bill 980795 was drafted and prepared at the request of the Law Department. There were some printing errors in the bill and then collating errors that were sent to the mayor for signature so that the bill that was actually approved by this body and what the mayor actually signed was something different. And this was discovered recently when the Law Department was in the process of upgrading or redoing General Code and came across the area. So this is just cleaning it up.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 73 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980795
Isn't it true that this is really the stadium bill for the City of Philadelphia? (Laughter.)
Isn't it true that within the provision here there is reference made that allowed for the building of two stadiums in the City? Isn't it true? I demand an answer to that question right now. (Laughter.)
All right. Anybody else to testify on this bill? Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 74 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Bill 980795
Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing, with the exception of Resolution 980675, which will be held to the call of the Chair. - - - 75 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Public Meeting
We are now in a public meeting. And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell for a motion on Bill No. 980640 with a suspension.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 980640 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and for a suspension of the rules so that it can be heard in our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 16 980640 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 980552, with a rules suspension.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980552 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. I 76 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Public Meeting further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 9 980552 is reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 980646.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980646 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 25 980646 is reported out of this committee with a 77 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Public Meeting favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Krajewski for a motion on Bill No. 980760, with a rules suspension.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980760 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and with a suspension of rules as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 17 980760 is reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Rizzo for a motion on Bill No. 980795.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980795 be moved out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. 78 12/1/98 L&I Committee - Public Meeting
And a request that the rules be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 10 980795 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. That concludes the business of the Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections. The Council Committee on Public property should convene shortly. Thank you for your attendance. (Adjourned at 1:08 p.m.) - - - 79 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, December 1, 1998, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS BILL NO.'S 980640, 980552, 980646, 980760, 980795 and RESOLUTION NO. 980552 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter