COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 100115, 100116, 100117, 100118, 100131 and RESOLUTION 100141 - - - 2
Good morning. I do apologize for the delay. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. Our first department to testify this morning will be Licenses and Inspections. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good morning, Council President Verna and members of Council. I am Fran Burns, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I appreciate the opportunity to present the Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget request to City Council. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is requesting a total Fiscal Year '11 budget of $34,594,886, of which 3 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. $23,068,925 is in the City's General Fund, $10,920,000 is in the Grants Revenue Fund and $605,961 is in the Community Development Fund. 2 million in demolition funding. The Fiscal Year '11 budget continues our efforts to preserve and improve core service delivery. The Department of Licenses and Inspections exists to enforce The Philadelphia Code and, through education and enforcement of the Code, protect the citizens of the City of Philadelphia. The core services of the Department are to review plans, conduct inspections and issue permits according to building, zoning, plumbing and electrical codes; inspect properties for compliance to fire and property maintenance codes; issue licenses; and to inspect, demolish and clean and seal vacant properties. The Department is organized in 4 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. three divisions. The Operations Division handles code enforcement inspections, including property maintenance, fire and business inspections, as well as demolition and clean and seal activity. The Development Division handles permit review and issuance, license issuance and permit inspections. The Administrative Unit handles budget, communications, human resources, payroll and information technology. As you know, the last two fiscal years have presented a significant challenge to the City of Philadelphia and the Department. To provide context, our General Fund allocation has decreased approximately percent since Fiscal 19 Year '08, and as a consequence, the 20 Department laid off 38 employees. million for Fiscal Year '11. While it has been a difficult period for our workforce, we can also communicate 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that we are delivering an improved service to the public at a reduced cost. We have established a goal of becoming the nation's leading code enforcement agency, and thanks to the hard work and dedication of our employees, we have made tremendous strides during the course of Fiscal Year '10 towards that goal. Two of our Fiscal Year '10 achievements - the license consolidation project, which reduced the number of licenses to be administered by the Department from 138 to 35, and the demolition activity funded through the commercial corridor bond - would not have been possible without the unwavering support we received from City Council. Both efforts were great examples of the positive outcomes that can be had when working together collaboratively. Thank you. We are holding ourselves accountable for better results. We continue to measure our performance on 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. license, permit and plan review turnaround times and how long our customers wait for our service. We reported improvements last fiscal year when it took 87 minutes in January 2008 to get a license in the Municipal Service Concourse. 82 minutes in January 2010. In addition, changes in our building and zoning process have helped to make Philadelphia a better place to do business by creating a more professional environment where customers sit with examiners one on one to discuss their building and zoning applications in a quiet environment. Our work has reflected positively in a customer service satisfaction survey that the Department has administered for the past year and a half. Consistent results show that 85 to 90 percent of our 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
" We have consistently reviewed construction and zoning plans applications within business days at 7 the rate of about 95 percent throughout 8 the past fiscal year and continue efforts 9 to improve the submittal of correct and 10 complete applications from our customers. 11 We have also performed requested 12 construction permit inspections within 48 13 hours of request in excess of 90 percent 14 of the time. All of this work is 15 performed by a nationally certified 16 staff, which adds definite value to 17 obtaining permits and inspections of 18 construction projects for our customers 19 and ensures the building safety of our 20 city. As of January, our Business Compliance and Housing Units were making 95 and 86 percent of their respective initial inspections within 30 days, and our Commercial and Industrial Unit was 8 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. turning around 93 percent within 15 days. Clean and seal requests that used to take months to respond to from an inspector request now take an average of ten days. We have also started the first proactive housing inspection program in years, through which we are targeting property owners who have delinquent housing inspection licenses or are not licensed at all for code enforcement. We have also embarked on a proactive business district inspection program where we first provide an educational letter, then follow up with an inspection. Our educational letter is in multiple languages. We are also expanding our commitment to serve limited English-proficient customers and for the first time have conducted cultural competency training for our inspectors. In Fiscal Year '10, we are on track to reduce regular overtime by an additional percent as compared to 25 Fiscal Year '09 and a combined 65 percent 9 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. from Fiscal Year '08. We have also continued to reduce our costs for demolitions. Our average demolition cost is now $17,000 when comparing the full-year average and $13,000 over the past three-month average. That's compared to roughly $26,000 two years ago. We accomplished this by employing better management, combining three former stand-alone contracts into one contract under one responsible party. We also rarely allow for change orders or add-ons to the initial bid, which in the past has driven up the cost. In the Administrative Unit, we have implemented an electronic time and attendance record-keeping system which will allow employees and managers to better understand their resource allocation on a day-to-day basis. We have also created a consolidated inspector series which will allow our inspectors to address multiple types of complaints at the same location at the 10 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. same time and provide a new career track for our employees. We are investing in new training in green building code and design using money awarded through the City's Recovery Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant, and we have launched an Employee of the Quarter program, which recognizes significant contributions throughout the Department. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is also committed to supporting the Administration's goal of percent minority, women and 15 disabled-owned business participation in 16 City contracting. Based on the available 17 contracting opportunity, the Department 18 of Licenses and Inspections' fiscal year 19 participation goal is actually 25 20 percent. 21 That's a change that I know 22 we're going to talk about shortly 23 compared to the written testimony. 24 To demonstrate our commitment, 25 earlier this year we pulled together a 11 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. meeting with several minority, women and disabled-owned demolition firms to understand what barriers there are to doing business with the City and what we can do to alleviate them. Our demolition funding represents the primary contracting opportunity that the Department engages in.
Accordingly, it is where we will work to improve our participation rate. As a result of this meeting, we are working to make it easier for minority, women and disabled firms to meet the City's requirement to become an eligible vendor and are improving our notification process for new demolition sites. Provided the Department's proposed budget is adopted, we will continue to make significant progress in Fiscal Year '11 towards improving services and making the Department the nation's leading code enforcement agency. In the coming year, we will transform the public's perception and initial 12 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. interaction with the Department by revamping the look, feel and usability of the Department's publications. We will bring more services online. We will continue improving our response rate to service requests and investing in customer service improvements. We will plan on two full-service remote locations at district offices to provide services that are currently only offered downtown. The hard-working employees of the Department will continue to make Philadelphia a better place to live, work and play. Thank you for the opportunity to present our Fiscal Year '11 budget. I am available to answer questions at this time.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. 13 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Good morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good morning.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my e-mail blast yesterday, but I still have some questions I'd like to put on the record, and if the Office of Economic Opportunity is here, I'd like them to come to the witness table as well. L&I is in the demolition business? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Part of the services that we provide, we do have abatement activity, which is demolition of imminently dangerous buildings.
And $7.2 million in Fiscal Year '11? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's correct.
And you are the Commissioner of L&I? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That is correct. 14 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
How much demolition work will women-owned businesses receive in Fiscal Year '11? COMMISSIONER BURNS: From the demolition activity?
Yes. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Right now we do not have any certified women companies on our qualified demolition vendors.
How much will women-owned businesses receive in non-demolition work? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We actually have -- our biggest contract right now in our Class 200 is with a woman, a woman-owned firm, and we're working with her to get her certified, and that would be probably a majority of our Class 200 funding outside of the demolition funding. 15 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
And what percentage overall is that? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I'd say that's probably about 55 percent.
And what percentage in demolition work will businesses owned by people of color receive in Fiscal Year '11? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We currently have two companies that are, again, they're minority companies that are not certified that we need to work on getting their certification. If we get them on with some of our current companies that are certified, I think that we can be, just with those two actions, in the 12 to 18 percent range for the demolition activity. Also, for our asbestos contracts, we have four firms that are qualified as the asbestos contractors. 16 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Fifty percent of those firms are minority. So in that way we can also do a good job and take this very seriously, as we do, to our minority participation rates.
So the overall DBE goal for Fiscal Year '11 is now percent? 10 COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's 11 correct. 12
It's not 13 4.63 percent? 14 COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's 15 correct. 16
What was the 17 goal for Fiscal Year '10? 18 COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't 19 have our Fiscal Year '10 goal. What I 20 would like to do is talk a little bit 21 about how as the Commissioner I've 22 approached this. 23
I would 24 prefer to finish my questions first. 25 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. 17 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Absolutely.
And OEO can come to the table now. (Witness approached witness table.)
What was the goal for Fiscal Year '09? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I'm going to ask, because I have the actuals for both years, but I don't have the goals.
The goal for Fiscal Year '09 was 55 percent - 35 percent MBE, percent WBE. 15 What was the goal for Fiscal 16 Year '08? I'm sorry. First, what was 17 achieved in Fiscal Year '09? 18 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Fiscal 19 Year '09 was close to seven percent. 20
What was the goal for Fiscal Year '08? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Fiscal Year '08 I think was again that 55 percent.
So there was 18 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. a 55 percent goal in Fiscal Year '08 and Fiscal Year '09. What was achieved in Fiscal Year '08? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Fiscal Year '08 was 24.5 percent.
So 24.5 percent was achieved in Fiscal Year '08. It then dropped to seven percent in Fiscal Year '09? COMMISSIONER BURNS: As a percentage of the total, yes.
It dropped from 24.5 percent to seven percent in one year? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's correct.
That's also the transition in Administrations; is that correct? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It coincided, but I don't think that that's a cause and effect. But, yes.
I actually believe it did. 19 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Ms. Dowd-Burton, could you state your name for the record.
My name is Angela Dowd-Burton. I am Executive Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity.
The Administration released the OEO strategic plan on February 8th. Under that plan, what is the responsibility of OEO to avoid such a drop in capacity and participation that existed from 24.5 percent in Fiscal Year '08 to seven percent in Fiscal Year '09 to a goal of only 4.63 percent originally stated in the budget testimony?
My question was, under the strategic plan, what is the responsibility of OEO to avoid such a drop in capacity and participation?
OEO is dedicated to expanding the number of 20 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. companies that the City of Philadelphia will be able to generate participation goals with, and as a part of that expansion, it is looking more towards registering companies that are certified by agencies throughout the region as opposed to conducting the certification process itself.
The Street Administration obviously built capacity in this area. How will the Nutter Administration re-establish that capacity? In other words, clearly, the Street Administration set goals of 55 percent. Originally in this budget testimony it was less than five percent. The Street Administration actually achieved participation at percent and 20 above. 21 How will this Administration 22 re-establish that capacity? And I will 23 stop there until the second round. 24
One of our 25 goals is to implement an extraordinary 21 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. outreach into the business community. We are building relationships with the African American Chamber, the Hispanic Chamber, the Asian Chamber of Commerce to make sure that companies are aware of the extraordinary interest in engaging them on City contracts and in the private sector as well. So our goal is to begin to build those relationships that apparently have been in place in the past and to expand them. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I just want to elaborate on that in terms of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. One of the things that we actively did and we already have taken those steps is, on January 14th and prior to January 14th we looked at the list of qualified vendors that had worked with the Department before and compared that to today who are getting business. We also -- the Administration in working through the economic recovery 22 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. and some of the dollars there, and having meetings at the Enterprise Development Center, we got a list of minority firms, demolition firms, in the State of Pennsylvania, and we invited from that minority participation list and from those vendors who we know have done work in the City before, we held a meeting on January 14th. We invited vendors to 11 that meeting. Six of the ones we invited 12 showed up. And we talked to them about 13 what are your current barriers prior to 14 when we look at Fiscal Year '08 to what we're doing now. The biggest and the biggest change here is actually with some funding through the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, and when the -- biggest barriers related to bonding and the insurance requirements, that some of the smaller companies were able to take advantage from through the NTI dollars. Some of the other things that we heard is if we can get our invoices 23 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. paid as quickly as possible for the smaller businesses, that if we can look at our experience and what we require in terms of experience, and also in terms of -- some of them actually wanted us to do some faxed bids rather than things directly by e-mail, because they felt fax was more accessible to them. On those three areas, I know that I can and will make strides in terms of the Department's flexibility and be able to really meet what we heard in terms of their barriers. We also have -- as a follow-up to that meeting, we had a second meeting on April the 1st where we walked through filling out all of the forms --
Commissioner, I was actually getting to that, but my time for asking questions has expired, so I'd prefer to go through that when I can still ask questions. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you. 24 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. How are you, Commissioner Burns? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good morning.
Last year Councilwoman Tasco talked a lot about the process by which vacant properties were, A, cited; B, demolished and then the possibility of conveyance. A lot of this centered around the broken window law that we talked about again last year. I wondered if you could provide me some of the statistical data related to us doing citations, there being core actions, fines that were accumulated, and then at the end of that process, what 25 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. dispositions were made. So if there was a vacant property on a block, we went out and cited them based on the broken window law, what was the result of those actions taken and were they either corrected or did we take action to come against the property owner? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Councilman, since you're specifically asking about the broken window or what we refer to as the doors and windows policy in the Department, this past fiscal year we wrote 230 violations of windows and doors. Basically on blocks where there's 80 percent occupancy and you have a vacant property that doesn't have windows and doors, we can write a violation according to the law that windows and doors should be supplied and actually put on the property by the owner. Out of that, 55 of the 230 have complied. That means that they actually put the doors and windows in. And 175 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. have not complied. And I'm going to talk a little bit about how we handle our compliance or non-compliance right now. Throughout this past year, we established a very strict court policy in terms of our inspections and how our inspectors should handle inspections. Our inspectors will go to an initial inspection, will go to a second reinspection and then a third reinspection. If after the third reinspection the property has not complied, we will send it immediately to Municipal Court. What we've also done over the past year is, we've hired, through cooperation with the Law Department -- and they're actually employees that report to the Law Department, but two lawyers that will represent us in Municipal Court. So what we're hoping is that, one, we have a very clear standard and policy in terms of the Department on how many times we're going to actually be 27 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. out to a property when there's non-compliance. Second, we're going to get it to court after that third reinspection. There is exceptions built into our policy for supervisors. But then when you come to court, we're going to have a lawyer there representing the City of Philadelphia when you meet us in Municipal Court. So I'm hopeful -- your question was directly on windows and doors, but I'm hopeful with a stricter adherence to our policy, with the lawyers and seeing that people actually do come into compliance through just issuing the violation, that we'll continue to see better compliance rates.
Actually, Fran, I -- Commissioner -- I forgot you come from our district and I get too familiar, but officially, Commissioner, that's a good start. That 200 cases represents how many vacant properties in the City of Philadelphia, compared to how 28 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. many vacant properties in the City of Philadelphia? Approximately 25,000 roughly, give or take a couple thousand? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I would say it probably represents only about two percent, and that's a rough, off-the-back-of-the-envelope estimate.
And I'm not going to hold you to that, but what I'm saying to you is that the success -- I'm going to consider that a beta testing, that if in fact we write the citations and we show those property owners that we care, they will either do one or two things. They will either comply or we will build enough fines to get conveyance to the City and/or community groups. What I'd like you to do is kind of highlight, not today but provide to the Chair and members of Council, a sketch of how that process works. Also juxtapose some of the kind of successes you've had in that two percent, with an eye towards how this body can help you to 29 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. replicate that in a larger fashion. The State Legislature did a piece of legislation, I believe, that is talking about quicker conveyance of properties to community groups that might be interested, and that is on the back of a conversation we've had about the frustration that CDCs and block captains have about vacant properties, absentee owners that refuse to do anything, and that this particular tool might be used to help them along, us along and actually improve the quality of life. So I guess what I'm hoping that you will do is give us an outline of how this body can improve the laws. I understand that the fines currently are not less than $150 to $300 a day after the 30-day court piece; is that correct? I think it is. I'm looking at the law. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Yes.
So if there are things that we can do to enhance 30 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that, complement the State, let us know. COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's a State law. Okay.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, everyone. Commissioner, first of all, I usually start out every other year by asking about the delay or the lines over at the MSB for getting permits and whatever, but not just by your testimony but by applicants telling me that you've made tremendous improvements over there, and I appreciate that. I know they appreciate that. Thank you. As far as getting on demolition, coming at it from another angle, and I know you and Mr. McDade have 31 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. been very helpful whenever we've had particular concerns, but I know one of the things that you hear from the community, they think sometimes properties they think should be torn down and they don't meet the definition of imminently dangerous. Could you either explain or if there's written things, you could get it to the Council President, like the difference -- what some of the differences that delineate between imminently dangerous and just dangerous? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Absolutely. And I'll also be glad to provide this through Council President Verna. The imminently dangerous, we really look at imminently dangerous properties as those that from our qualified inspectors they determine is in imminent structural danger of collapse. And I'm going to talk through what we have. We do have another -- this is another policy that we worked on over the 32 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. past year to really give some structure and consistency to our inspections of when we do determine it as imminently dangerous. When there's a partial collapse of the front wall; when there's a partial collapse of load-bearing wall or structural member; when there's partial collapse of the side wall if it's a corner property; when there's a partial collapse and the condition is affecting an adjoining property; when there's a partial collapse and the collapse leaves a freestanding wall. Those are instances -- and from the public view, you could see a property where the roof may have fallen in, but really the structural elements of that property are still sound, so we don't determine that as imminently dangerous and we write violations that are unsafe violations. And to the point that we were just speaking about earlier, what we really need in those situations is, we 33 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. need property owners to be held accountable for the conditions of these properties.
Okay. Thank you. And if you could get that information to the Council President, I'd appreciate it. When you talk about making owners responsible, and you and Councilman Jones talked about some of the violation procedures, if you will, would some entities, like Philadelphia Housing Authority, Redevelopment Authority, maybe the School District, maybe there's others, that have properties that for whatever reason have fallen in disrepair, are they basically treated the same way? I mean, is PHA given a violation? Is RDA given a violation? How is that handled? COMMISSIONER BURNS: They are given violation notices, yes.
If it gets to the point where L&I has to take some remedial action, like on imminently 34 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. dangerous property, I assume with a private entity there's a lien put on the property, whatever. There's some action to try to get money back that the City put out; am I correct? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. We bill first, and if the bill is not paid, then there's a lien placed on the property.
Is that same thing done to the entities like the examples I just gave, PHA, RDA, School District, whatever? COMMISSIONER BURNS: If we were to take an abatement action, we do bill 17 the public agencies as well.
Do they pay? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't have that -- I didn't anticipate that, so I have to look at what we have, what the instances are and get back on that.
Because we'd be interested to see who is putting 35 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. out money. And I'm not blaming you guys for this. You guys are doing the right thing. So just take it where I come from. But if those other entities, if they don't pay, they should be -- really they should be treated the same way as a private entity, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. I'll get you that data.
I appreciate that. One last question since it looks like I have time. Lot cleaning, does L&I still clean lots? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We don't. We can write violations for vacant lots, but we do work closely with Deputy Managing Director Tom Conway and we'll refer vacant lot cleanings to him through his program.
So basically through the MDO? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. 36 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Considering the City's desperate need for revenue and considering the widespread unlicensed, unpermitted, unknown contractors that are doing work all over the City, streaming in from New Jersey and the suburbs a lot of times, creating a situation where someone hires them thinking they may be licensed and they do shoddy work and they're not licensed and you can't find them, they're not insured, what plans does the Department have to begin to seek out, search, track down these folks who are basically making a living off of the City and not paying any fees or any 37 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. license requirements and kind of insulting the real people who do that, who get their licenses, get their permits, are insured, pay taxes? Because we've had this discussion in the past. You go to any Home Depot or Lowe's at 7 o'clock in the morning and they're all there picking up their equipment for the day and going out to do their work, without a permit or without a license. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, the first thing that I want to encourage is that you let us know about it by address, because some of our data from the past year, we only have 35 reported complaints of unlicensed contractors. So something in terms of that data at least isn't coming through --
Well, should it be complaint driven? For example, if you have an unlicensed, unpermitted contractor who comes to work at your house and the work is fine, you're not going to complain. You're 38 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. going to pay the guy and he's going to go on his way. So I don't know how that could be complaint driven. It needs to be, I think, more proactive than complaint driven. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I'll get to that, but to the extent that we can also have in terms of the eyes and ears and understand that if it's known where people think it is occurring, even if it's a thought, to get it to us and we'll be there to inspect. But the other is, we just had -- I just hired eight new Construction Inspector Trainees. If they make it through the six-month probation, I have eight new hires. And we're going to do a Tuesday to Saturday shift. I'm hopeful that that Tuesday to Saturday shift, particularly now we'll be able to say L&I has construction inspectors out on Saturdays, that we'll be able to respond to some of this that there's construction activity that maybe we're 39 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. not hearing about through complaint but that's ongoing and that's happening.
Will they need to be told where to go or will they drive around like they do in the suburbs? See, I think the irony is if I were an unlicensed contractor in the suburbs, they would have an inspector at my work site within the hour of me arriving. And then also if I'm not licensed or permitted, they have the practice of taking my equipment, my tools and my roofing kettle, if I happen to be a roofer, and they tow it away and impound it. I mean -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: We have -- and this is something that, again, is something I could get back in this terms of data, but we do -- our inspectors are on the street. We do want to make sure that we get to our permit inspections for those permit holders that are paying for a service for a trained inspector to come inspect their site. But while we're on 40 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the street, we're also looking at what's happening, and we have inspectors that are assigned per census district and they know their area and they know the work that's out there. The biggest tool that they have right now -- and this is where I can get you back some data on what we've actually -- how we've used that in terms of what we call pick-up inspections, but we can issue a stop-work order. That's the biggest -- we walk onto a site. If the prime contractor is not licensed, if the subcontractors aren't licensed, if they don't have the correct permits, we can stop the work immediately, and we did put out --
Can we impound the truck? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Not right now, no. 41 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Would you like authority to impound the truck? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Why don't I consider it. It's not been anything that we've really talked about, but it is something we can consider.
I think part of all this is reputation, too. I think the reputation is is that you can come here, basically ignore the rules, make a day's living and go back home to the suburbs. The suburban experience is that our folks don't do that because they know they're going to lose their truck. One of the things I always thought might be appropriate -- and I don't know whether it could be worked out, but I've called them the most relentless enforcement agency in history of mankind, the Parking Authority. They are on the street every day. Those folks are walking up and down business strips. And I don't want them inspecting construction work. I think they can 42 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. easily ask the owner of the truck to show their business privilege license, and if that's not available or they don't have it or they say they don't have it with them, you can take a license number and we can send it on -- they can send it on to you guys. At least you know who the unlicensed guy is, to go back to that location and check his license again. Because again, the reputation that the suburbs is, if you go out there and you do that, you're going to have a bad day, and I think that the people who come here think that it's just wide open. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Is there any possibility that we could put those folks into action and maybe share some revenue with them? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, I'm definitely open to -- I would be --
They are. I talked to them already. They don't mind doing it. 43 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, I'm open to talking about ways in terms particularly with the vehicle itself and licensing, where we might be able to have some joint cooperation there. I would be very hesitant to talk about anything in terms of a building, a property and that --
No. I mean, I don't want them doing that at all, but I mean asking a person to show them their BPL is not exactly that, you know -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's not onerous.
You don't need to be specially trained to look at a person's BPL. And also you don't need anything much more complicated additionally to put on the bottom of their little hand-held fine generator another way of generating a fine or at least a ticket that goes back to you guys so you know who is out there doing what. 44 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Thank you. Good morning, ladies. Let me stay on that questioning, the line of questioning of Councilman Kenney. You mention that your inspectors now, who are going to be interdisciplinary, are going to be assigned by area and you said census tract? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, our inspectors are assigned by census tract throughout the entire Department. 45 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
So in designating the census tracts, I'm a little concerned about areas where there's more density or more construction. Going back to his point around how do you capture folks, is that something that you're able to monitor in terms of how many inspections inspectors conduct a day? Does that kind of flowchart exist so that we can see who has more activity or less activity? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. We can look at it by permits issued by census tract, by Council district. We can look at it historically by complaints as well. And in terms of the housing, our Operations Division, one of the things that Deputy Commissioner Greenwald did is, she looked at our density and reassigned inspectors based on the demand more or less.
So in some census tracts, there might be two? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, we 46 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. actually have -- they could have more or less than -- the numbers vary based on the demand.
When we're looking at the data -- I'm glad we're collecting that data -- how are we collecting that data? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, we have it in our software system and we can pull it out into a spreadsheet and then look at it. We can map it through GIS.
How far are we as we talk about enhanced training for inspectors and interdisciplinary training, how far are we from technology and using PDAs? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's something that in conversations and cooperation with the Department of Technology that we've acknowledged as a requirement for the Department, and over the next year, we're actually going to be building what those requirements are given our current technology and any gap 47 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. we might have between our technology and the hardware itself.
Because all of the reviews I get is that Hanson is in fact pretty good. Are we going to be able to interface with Hanson in our PDA system? COMMISSIONER BURNS: In the short time, that's likely our goal.
So that's our goal for next year? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, our goal for next year on the hand-held side is, one, we recognize that it's where we need to be, but to really -- what we really need to do is understand the requirements of interfacing with, as you mention, Hanson, which is our software system, and building those requirements so that we can really understand what it takes to implement that.
That data sharing, do you look at then CLIP's information and that information? Are we 48 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. able to put that information together by geographic areas? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes, we are.
Is that information readily available to folks? I'd like to be able to look at -- as you know, I represent a district that has a lot of non-compliance issues. Many of it has to do with folks not knowing how to comply. So I'm interested in looking at, now that we have the ability to collect that data, where we see high levels of non-compliance and how do we do some preventive stuff in some of those areas. So I wasn't sure that you were collecting that data that way. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, we are, and it depends on basically how we ask the question based on what we're looking at. So what we would do is make sure we were aligned with you in terms of what the question is, and then we can call the data to really provide your 49 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. needs that way.
I'd like to work on that. Very excited about fast-track permitting and zoning. Can you talk about any challenges in the implementation? And then I do have a comment that I've heard a couple of times that I want to kind of relay back to you. What's our diversion rate from your normal zoning and permitting process to some of this fast-tracking? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. The fast-track process is something that was implemented within the Zoning Board of Adjustment. So it only really comes into effect when a zoning permit is refused and the applicant wants to appeal that refusal. In those cases, we have eight items or scenarios where we consider them simple scenarios that they would qualify for this fast-track process. It's really been out of, say, a handful of like 2,500 50 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. cases, we've seen only like about 75 that have qualified in the fast-track. Part of that we think is -- well, actually, we just expanded the fast-track to add three items. We were at five; now we're at eight. But part of that we think is just the number of cases coming through. And what we found is that it's a step, and I think it's a step in the right way to be looking at how we handle cases, how cases are handled at the Zoning Board of Adjustment and also the timeliness of getting in front of the Board.
So we can look forward to some expansion on some of that fast-tracking? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We recently went to eight about a couple months ago. So I think we're probably going to stay at that for now to understand if that's a comfort level, if there's anything else that really can be put into that simple category.
In those 51 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. fast-tracking, one of the issues I heard -- I guess you pay for the expediting $500? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, not fast-track. Fast-track is handled exactly like any regular hearing. The only difference is when it gets to the Board, if there's no opposition and if there's City Council support and if the City Planning Commission supports, then it's basically an item held at the first of the hearing to try to get a quicker vote and read it into record.
So where's the permitting that people -- one of the -- I had a meeting with small developers last week, and one of the issues is that for some of their permitting, you have some sort of fast-tracking. An inspection is conducted and they're in non-compliance, if the inspector doesn't reinspect within the timeframe, they're no longer eligible for that. Am I understanding that 52 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. correctly? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That doesn't sound familiar in just the way that you just communicated it. We do have an accelerated review program --
That's what it is. COMMISSIONER BURNS: -- for permits in the Municipal Services Concourse to get an accelerated review or a review within five days.
Right. So then when the person comes out, if there's some issues and the inspector is not available for reinspect, people have lost their ability to be part of that fast-tracking, that they have to reapply for it. COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, that's not the case.
Well, that has been the case with some folks, so -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. 53 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. I'll be glad to --
Because I wasn't even aware of it. I was kind of happy to hear that they had something nice to say. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, although you claim that the difference in participation rates are not based upon Administrations, I feel comfortable saying without contradiction that the Street Administration gave a ton of 54 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. demolition work to disadvantaged businesses and the Nutter Administration has given very little demolition work to disadvantaged businesses. To prove my point, do you have the participation rates achieved in Fiscal Year '07, which was the last full fiscal year of the Street Administration? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, I don't have Fiscal Year '07.
It was 44 percent. So in the last full fiscal year of the Street Administration, the rate was 44 percent. In the fiscal year that included both the Street Administration and the Nutter Administration, it dropped to percent, and according to your 19 response to a question earlier, in the 20 first full fiscal year of the Nutter 21 Administration, it was seven percent. We 22 don't have the numbers yet formally, 23 because we won't get them through our 24 report until June, but it went from 44 25 percent in Fiscal Year '07 to 25 percent 55 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. in Fiscal Year '08 to seven percent in Fiscal Year '09. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, the other thing --
Is that attributable to a change in Administration or not? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't believe so, no. 11
In the last full fiscal year of the Street Administration, it was 44 percent. Is OEO still here? In the last full fiscal year of the Street Administration, it was 44 percent. In the first full fiscal year of the Nutter Administration, it was seven percent. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I know. I -- (Witness approached witness table.)
I'm going to ask OEO a few questions. 56 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. We went from 44 percent in the last full year of the Street Administration to seven percent in the first full year of the Nutter Administration. That's indisputable. Ms. Dowd-Burton, who on your staff is responsible for noticing a drop like that?
Well, the Executive Director and the leadership of OEO would be responsible for noticing that drop.
My question was, who on your staff is responsible for that? Not so much the Director, but who on your staff is responsible? We don't have the Fiscal Year '09 numbers yet. I received that information from the Commissioner. We'll receive the information formally in June. So I only noticed the drop from 44 percent to percent to a goal that was 24 set in the original testimony of less 25 than five percent, and that's what set 57 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the alarm, which is why I sent the e-mail blast yesterday. Who on your staff is responsible for L&I in terms of setting the goals for the Department?
Well, Councilman, I think what I'd like to do is take responsibility going forward.
And I'd like you to name the staff person who is responsible for L&I, because under the Mayor's strategic plan where you set a goal for percent, as it was explained, 15 the strategic plan said that people would 16 move away from certification, will move 17 into a goal-setting and goal-achievement 18 process and that the staff would not be 19 focused on certification, but the staff 20 would be focused -- would be assigned to 21 departments specifically. So are staff 22 assigned to departments? 23
Who is 58 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. responsible for L&I?
I want to know who the staff person is responsible for L&I. Well, let me ask this question: Would it be the same staff person that rather than trying to build capacity of disadvantaged businesses has actually spent time trying to de-certify minority contractors? Is it the same staff person?
Okay. Well, we're going to have a lot of fun next week.
Commissioner, can you explain how you think this should work out? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. We have, as I started to say a little bit 59 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. earlier, we identified firms through some of the Enterprise meetings that we were going through that are demolition firms in actually the State and minority firms, and we invited those firms, in addition to firms that we know have done business with the City in terms of demolition business before, and we invited them to a meeting in January 14th to talk about what are your current barriers, why aren't you participating in the City of Philadelphia. We need them to bid in order to issue them work. From that meeting, we had a follow-up meeting on April the 1st where we brought the actual forms and walked through with the companies the forms that they need to fill out in order to get qualified as vendors for demolition activity, and I think we were very successful there. We had follow-up with those firms in terms of making sure they're submitting for their qualifications to be on the bidder's 60 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. list. The other thing that in terms of understanding the barriers, I mentioned a couple of them that I think are definitely within my control, in that I can give assurances to in order to get this participation. The biggest one --
Commissioner, real quick, I'll ask one more question and then you can finish your statement as long as you want. Those barriers seem to be overcome during the Street Administration. Some of those barriers you believe you can overcome, you can fully explain that. Are some of the new barriers associated with the fact that OEO has actually de-certified some minority contractors? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I didn't hear that at all. We didn't hear that at all in our meetings. The biggest is really the bonding, which through NTI there was a program to help contractors with bonding. And what we hope to do now 61 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. in terms of identifying that as an Administration is find out if it's not NTI dollars, is there a resource that we can provide the same assistance, because we take this seriously. It's important for the City. It's good for the City to have this minority participation. We're actively trying to get it.
So the Street Administration bonded the contractors? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Through the NTI.
But the Nutter Administration has not? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Through the NTI dollars, there was a program available for bonding.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman 62 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Jones.
Thanks again, Madam President. We had talked about in our initial question about how we more rapidly get vacant properties cited and then eventually either fixed or conveyed. I don't know if you've been working with the State or reviewed that law to kind of see how it can be a companion tool for what you do. Have you looked at that at all? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, Deputy Commissioner Greenwald and one of our Directors was out with a representative from the State driving around the City looking at some of our vacant properties and talking about really the situation the City faces right now in terms of those vacancies. As you know, I've also been working closely with the Redevelopment Authority in terms of what they're thinking, because we have different roles, but they're very much 63 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. intertwined. So we do have the contact with the State House and Urban Committee for the vacant property.
So that means, yes, we are looking at it -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
-- to see how we can incorporate it as a useful tool? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's correct.
Thank you. I'd like to shift focus, however, now to occupied properties. One of the unintended consequences -- and we've been using that word a lot lately about public policies that we make that have unintended consequences -- was a constituent that called about a landlord/tenant issue where there was a busted soil pipe, I believe the incident was, if memory serves me correctly. Our intentions were to send them out to help the tenant to get the owner to actually 64 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. fix the property, but to our surprise and dismay and definitely to the dismay of the occupant, when they went out there, they said, Yes, you're absolutely right, this is a health violation, pack your stuff, you have to go now, and what we did was make a person homeless. There was a happy ending to that story. We found them suitable housing, but it was a thing that gave us pause that when we bring in the calvary, we better watch out that we're not sending them to their own demise. So what I want to know is, describe for me the cease and desist order that you can implement as it relates to renters and occupied tenant facilities. COMMISSIONER BURNS: From July 2009 to March 2010, we only ceased 22 housing or residential properties in the 23 entire City, and they were largely 24 illegal rooming houses where not just -- 25 where we saw a multiple number of 65 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. occupants and really were concerned about the safety of those occupants given the numbers in the homes. I think what in the situation that you just described rightly scares people is when we issue intent to cease notices. And if I received an intent to cease and I was the tenant, you know, I would be wondering do I have ten days to get out, do I have days to get out. 12 But the advice that I would give is that 13 we use the intent to cease to really take 14 our enforcement to the next step in terms 15 of, Take us seriously, property owner, 16 this is something you have to address. 17 We need to do that, because we need 18 people to comply, because in order to be 19 helpful for that tenant, the property 20 owner needs to make those fixes. I think maybe if we could do a better job in terms of our education if as a tenant -- and we could actually use your help in that. As a tenant if you know that there's an intent to cease, the 66 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Department isn't -- wait to see if there's an actual cease order issued. If there's a cease order, we work with our social support agencies and --
Well, we would be glad to enlighten our constituents and also enlighten my staff so that we can calm them from thinking it's time to pack and run, but what I'd also like to ask, which is a logical question, is there a threshold that we as a municipality -- I know we did this in prior Administrations -- to actually do the work in some cases, put a lien on the property, collect it at the point of transfer of title or sale? We used to do that, and I understand that it is a costly proposition, but maybe in a scaled-back version, there might be some classes of violation that are so -- that are not -- the property isn't imminently dangerous, but it is not fit maybe for habitation based on some criteria that you establish, that we would do the work, 67 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. put the lien on, with the possibility of getting that money back and almost accelerate the fine because of the fact that we had to do the work. That could make sense. Because it's, again, a case of taking money out of one pocket and putting it -- if that person winds up homeless, they wind up in a homeless shelter, we wind up paying for it anyway. So is there a limited category of repair that in order to keep a person from becoming homeless, that we might consider providing that kind of funding for? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It would make --
And I'm kind of addressing this also to the Administration. Has there been a discussion that kind of says at this point we're robbing Peter to pay Paul and we're not really saving money. We're just transferring the payment over to another department. 68 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: We have talked about it internally, particularly given some of the history of where we've been. Our current and primary focus was on imminently dangerous buildings and what can possibly occur there and focus all that as a main priority, but we have talked about it, particularly because when we go out, we're seeing things and there is a lot of passion behind the employees in our department and they want to be helpful, and really what we are doing is, we're continuing to try to get this compliance effectively through the property owner. So we have talked about it, and it's something that if we ever get a handle on imminently dangerous properties, and that should be our first priority, that we could consider given our funding parameters, definitely.
Even if we put an assessment due at the time of real estate tax. I don't know the legality of 69 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that, but even if we send a separate bill 3 that was on the real estate tax, so if there's a mortgage that's being paid, where they automatically deduct that portion, that we would get our payment even quicker. So to look at whether or not that is in fact legal. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Councilman, you're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to follow that line of questioning. Let's talk about where we are with our lien situation. Last year President Verna had asked around the NTI liens. Where are we with the placement of all those liens on the properties? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We did 70 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. another look at all of our billing through NTI to see if everything was billed, and we're actually almost like days, minutes away from the results of that analysis. We did under -- when John Elfrey was Acting Commissioner, he noticed that some bills hadn't gone out and he did a billing -- basically a pick-up of some billing from NTI and got that out the door. So this is like a third look just to make sure, and we're going to provide that when we have that results.
That would be very important for us. One of the things that we found or I found was that there were a lot of properties where the City through NTI had done demolition in my district where we hadn't done acquisition, and now people were selling them, so there was a time sensitivity for our placement in the lien, particularly in areas where the market had changed. So that's an issue that's very important 71 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. to us. The other issue that I've been working for in the last year has been about us being able to, through your contracting of PHS, be able to lien their work. Have we made progress? Has that been finalized? Again, PHS does about $2 million of work. They manage a million square feet of land for us, and we want to -- there was a technicality because they were your sub around can they lien. Did we get that resolved? COMMISSIONER BURNS: A lot of that is through Deputy Managing Director Tom Conway, and I'd have to see. I am aware of the issue, and he may actually be providing some of the billing for PHS, which then may lead to the fact that we can lien it. I'm just not a hundred percent certain on that, but I do recall having heard that that was probably happening.
Again, that's another area where given the 72 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. General Counsel's opinion that we've received on the NTI, where we can go back several years, and I think that's also an important piece for us, to be able to capture that, because that money will help us generate a fund to be able to continue to support their work and their expansion, and through these budget negotiations, I'm always concerned because those are the ticket items that are important to me and Jannie and Donna Reed Miller and Darrell, because so much of that land maintenance is done in our district. So to the extent that we can -- because I think if we can close that loop -- NTI was $125 million in demolition. PHS has been doing this for a decade, two million a year. It's an ability to capture a lot of money. So it's important to us. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
I'll make sure to also circle back around to 73 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Tom as to how he's doing that. I wanted to talk a little bit about for you to describe what will be L&I's role in our Pressure Point and how you see this working and helping us be more proactive and preventive on quality of life issues. COMMISSIONER BURNS: In Pressure Point specifically, there's the Nuisance Task Force, which reports to the Police Department, has been extremely effective and supportive there. We also are well represented and attend the Police public service areas, and mainly what we're doing is, there's a holistic look at where are the vacant properties, what are the problem nuisance properties and then what within L&I can we do to either clean and seal, make sure we get the violations out in those areas. So we've been coordinating and cooperating, and we're at all the meetings and we have -- we keep track of with each of those distinct projects what 74 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. do we have in terms of our responsibility there.
Okay. What's our current backlog as it relates to clean and seals and demos, and does this budget address even our backlog? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We really benefited from the Recovery funds to help with our clean and seal backlog. We actually only have 220 properties that we currently consider in a backlog that are from 2007. We got through all of 2009, all of 2008. And, actually, to the extent that that 220 is real, sometimes we find that we've actually already done those properties, because they're from three years ago.
So that's the only backlog we have, is that -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
How much does it cost us to clean and seal a property? 75 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Our current average is $1,338.
And so that's about the amount that we lien on properties? COMMISSIONER BURNS: If the bill is not paid.
If the bill is not paid. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. That's the average. But it, again, depends on what is the actual bill of the work at each property.
So that's the average of pretty much -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's the average. It can vary dramatically, yes.
Have we looked at whether we need to be increasing the amount that we lien for clean and seals? I find that in Year 3 there's certain properties that we've done over and over of how to go in. So how does the second and third billing add 76 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. up to those properties? COMMISSIONER BURNS: They get billed every time and each time.
The same amount? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Whatever the amount is to do the work, which could vary depending on if -- depending on what we see at the property in terms of the challenges and how it's changed from the last time we cleaned and sealed it, that an administrative fee is added.
Okay. Thank you very much. How much is the administrative fee that we're adding? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's actually percent. 19
Thank you. I'm just a little curious. When we demolish a building, we usually 77 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. put a lien against the property owner. Who collects the liens? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We --
How does that whole process function? COMMISSIONER BURNS: The lien is only placed if the bill isn't paid, and the collection is --
Ninety-nine percent of them are not paid, right? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Right. But just in terms of the step, I want to make sure that -- but the collection is actually done through the Revenue Department.
That would be at the time of the sale of the property, but I'm just wondering how much of that do we actually collect? COMMISSIONER BURNS: In terms of our demolition and/or our clean and seal? We did look at this, because we know that it's an item. We looked at 78 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. this last year, and the percentage rate of collection on the demolition liens was 1.79 percent. So I don't think that that rate probably doesn't fluctuate much. It's the same challenge that we face in terms of the work that we do in L&I with property owners and properties sitting.
And I know that the price of demolition has really, really come down in the last two years. However, I will tell you when it was costing a lot more, when a property was demolished, the dirt was cleared of any bricks or concrete or whatever. A tree may have been planted on that lot and we had a fence erected. I know we're not doing that anymore. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, the property should be graded and free and leveled and free of bricks. And that's something that --
Well, I think your office may have received a complaint from my office -- 79 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
-- that that was not done recently, and it is a disgrace, because it is in a residential area and children are just going to be having a brick fight. So I would appreciate that being cleared up immediately. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Absolutely.
The Chair now recognizes -- Councilman Clarke is not here. Councilwoman Sanchez.
You're finished? He wants to go last. Councilman Jones.
I love our civility. Thank you, Madam President. I have one last issue. First of all, I should start with a thank-you about your staff's participation with our 80 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. office and the community to deal with town and gown issues revolving around university living. You have been a part of a task force that has really, really made a difference in the communities of Wynnefield and East Falls by way of letting our welcomed students know that we are serious about being good neighbors and not having houses that are overly occupied and not having the loud parties that we all once enjoyed but now find reprehensible. But we're thankful that your staff has been a participant in that, and it has made a difference, and I think that should be on the record. I can't thank you enough for that participation. My question was, similar to last year, I asked that is there a tipping point when renters because of a transient nature, short-term renters, meaning college students, put an additional burden on the municipal services that are required, trash, L&I 81 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. inspections, those kinds of things, that might warrant some additional action by this body to have almost a renters community, that we do an assessment, which would allow you the additional resources you need to make those time-consuming and expensive inspections of student housing. Is there some kind of way that we've evaluated, quantified it? I asked it last year. I'm asking it again this year, to kind of look at particular communities surrounding Temple, surrounding Philadelphia University and St. Joe's and University of Penn that might qualify for that kind of assessment. Have we begun the study? Because I got it on the testimony that you said you would look at it. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, we have, but I think that in terms of looking at -- because where this -- we've talked about this before. And if we're 82 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. thinking as a city or as a body, if you're thinking about maybe a fee structure to rental properties because of what the answer may be, I think that it is more holistic than simply what is L&I services. So we can -- I know where we've been, why we've been there, and we can compare that to rental properties and to possibly some university life in that area and help form what you would look at as the total picture.
One of the things that we do -- and probably the best part of this job -- is that when we see a problem and that we see a pattern, then we change public policy. When we see a problem, then we see a pattern, then we change public policy. What we need from you is to quantify what the difference once a community -- is there a tipping point where because of the transient nature of that area, does it cost us more to service that area. 83 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Now, if we multiply that by trash, sanitation pick-up, L&I inspections, other kinds of services that the City provides, there is a justification for an assessment or fee, but until we start to really measure our costs, as Bill Green always says, if it ain't measured, it ain't managed. If we don't measure it, then we can't kind of determine where the need is for additional resources. So your particular area of focus helps us to kind of craft that kind of public policy understanding. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. 84 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Good morning. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good morning.
Just real quick. What's the process in terms of, and how long does it take, in terms of identifying a nuisance, not necessarily a nuisance that requires a demolition, but a general nuisance -- first of all, let me thank you for your quick response yesterday to my phone call. This kind of leads me to this particular question. You have these situations where people, they get a notice of non-compliance or a notice of some CVN or whatever, some code violation, and they essentially take the position that I'll wait it out, I'm not going to do anything, because it costs me more to comply with the nuisance issue than it does for me to deal with this issue, and they just let it go on and on, but meanwhile, the adjacent property owner, like the situation yesterday, is burdened 85 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. with a situation that in their case is dire. Can you talk to me about the timeline when we send an inspector out and how many times we actually have to issue a code violation notice for either non-compliance and how long it takes to get to court, and then how long it could actually take for in the event that that person doesn't do anything, that the City abates the nuisance or does whatever it is and as it relates to curing the problem associated with the adjacent property owner? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Everything varies based on --
I know that was a long question. COMMISSIONER BURNS: -- the actual -- everything varies based on the actual nuisance itself or the actual violation of the code. In our Operations Division within the Department, we have a very clear three reinspections, send it 86 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. to Municipal Court. Three reinspections could take 90 days. Then getting the court date could be like another 30 to 60 days. That's for people --
Is that best-case scenario, realistically? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah, realistically it is. And that's in the case where we don't have property owners that are complying with the violation, and property owners actually do comply with our violations as well, and I think that's partially in the windows and doors question. I got at that a little bit. For the instance that you -- yesterday we're referring to. That was a construction site, and that one we can be more effective at issuing the stop-work order and trying to get it into court if the construction is not going to continue to either fill the hole in this case or restart the construction activity. And we saw --
If you 87 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. don't mind me jumping in. In this particular case, because the construction order was stopped -- and I know Mike probably knows a little more about it -- it actually exacerbated the problem, because it's a property that's open, without getting into -- I don't want to get into the specifics, because I know you have an active case. So I'm assuming he told you that we stopped it because we were in non-compliance of the construction aspect, so now they basically said, Well, I'm not going to do anything. And this thing -- I just found out after I talked to you, happened to see another neighbor that said this has been going on for 15 months, and I got the senior citizen who is next to this property and she called my office crying, as I told you yesterday. I mean, what's the point -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, in that one, we already had been to Municipal Court, and the Court issued a 88 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. $3,000 fine. That still didn't get this person. So Equity Court is really the vehicle, that we have to then take it that step. If the violations don't work, the stop work doesn't work, the fine of $3,000 doesn't work, Equity Court can actually compel someone to make -- to fill the hole or make the repair, or in some cases actually when we go to Equity Court, the Court will order the Department to make the abatement.
So my question is, how long does all of that take? And my follow-up question to that, just in case the bell rings, is that governed by statute within the municipal code or within a State code? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I think it's fair to say that all of that can take six to nine months going through the court system if we don't get compliance, and on our end, what I need to make sure is that our inspectors, if they get something into Municipal Court, see that 89 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. even with a $3,000 fine, that wasn't effective. They've got to see that immediately and try to get us into Equity Court in those situations.
So we have to go to Equity Court before we can consider abating the nuisance ourselves? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
So what establishes that? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That is actually a factor of -- we have broad abatement powers within the Code. That's a factor of really wanting to stress that we've got -- we don't want contractors to think that they can get the City of Philadelphia to do their work. So that's really a factor of trying to get the contractor, the property owner, to be responsible as they should and use the courts to get that done.
Well, if we abate the nuisance, we lien the property; am I correct? 90 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
So essentially we become the de facto owner, assuming that -- in that particular case, abating the nuisance is actually constructing the house. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. At this point in time --
I guess I'm just trying to find out at the end of the day, through no fault of their own, the adjacent property owner is suffering immeasurably, in this case for months, 15 and at what point -- and I guess I'm trying to understand if there is a legal remedy as it relates to shortening the timeframe as relates to getting to the point where we can either abate the nuisance or take it to Equity Court, or whatever the ultimate remedy is. Because this happens too often, as you know. In this particular case, the person basically is waiting it out, because he happens to be in an area where he can 91 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. probably sell that property easily even in its condition for six figures. So a $3,000 fine to that person, no big deal, I'll make it up on the sale of the property. And if you can't answer now -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: I can't right now. I think it's --
Because if there's something -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's in the same area of the --
-- within the Code that Council can do to accelerate that process, to make sure that a person either complies in a timely way or the City then has the position where it's authorized to abate the nuisance. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Can you do that for me, please? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Certainly.
Thank you, Madam President. 92 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you. I wanted to end with this, because I didn't want to be remiss and not thank L&I, in particular McDade, who is here, on all of your help and support around our recovery house challenges in West Kensington and Frankford, and just wanted to let you know for the record we are looking at putting together some sort of regulations, looking at where we don't have enough authority on your code enforcement pieces to deal with some of the situation. That community is extremely frustrated, and rightfully so, but I wanted to acknowledge that L&I has done what it can with what we have. It's a situation that's very complex, because there is a community need that's very hard to explain, and we had an opportunity last week to meet with 93 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Mr. Fairbanks, who wrote a book about this and was actually in the City lecturing around post-industrial Philadelphia and kind of the recovery revolution that's been going on for ten years in particular parts of the community. And I am a supporter of recovery and I do -- but I do want to find some sort of happy medium. So I just wanted to acknowledge all of your work. I know it's hard, but we are going to be working on some sort of regulations. We don't know what that looks like. At some point we'll reach out to you and look at what are the potential health code issues that we can shore up to help us kind of deal with the bad ones that are only a few as opposed to the folks that are doing some good work out there. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you. We look forward to working with you.
The 94 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Green was getting all anxious over there. I'll just be a minute, sir. Just a follow-up on Councilman Clarke and actually Councilwoman Sanchez's point. I know when a building is particularly dangerous, you can do the curbside bid, right? You can make a decision there to demolish the property because it's that bad; is that right? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
You don't need a court for that? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, we do not.
But is that the only way you can take action without going to court -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. 24
-- take direct action? 95 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. 3 That's why I -- I somewhat said it. We do have broad abatement powers under the Code.
Okay. All right. Because I'm just seeing -- and I know what you're saying, you don't want to have to do all the work, because there are -- most people don't pay. So I know you don't want to get into that. So you do have a certain leverage right now, but it might help if there was more given through us. Would that be fair to say? Or maybe that's our call. I don't know. All right. Never mind. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 96 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. First of all, I want to commend you and Anuj and the team at L&I for a proactive business district inspection program. I think you guys are doing a good job with that stuff. I think you know that I've been asking each department to go over the budget reduction scenarios we received from the Administration. The scenario for L&I lists items totalling $1.79 12 million. I think we could all agree that 13 L&I has taken serious cuts and is 14 stretched, so I'm not suggesting that 15 these positions are unnecessary, but I'd 16 just like to go through them with you and 17 try to understand them. 18 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
So in the budget reduction scenarios, I'm sorry, you listed $1.79 million, and this was the seven and a half percent that you shared with the Budget Office and they sent over to us. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. 97 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Are any of these reductions included in the proposed budget? COMMISSIONER BURNS: They are not.
They are not? Okay. If not, could you go through the items and describe the impact on citizens of actually making the cut? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Of making a whole seven and a half percent cut? Okay.
Well, just the different items that are listed there as potentials, what would be the impact of making those cuts in the context of getting the rest of your budget. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Well, the impact of the seven and a half percent when we looked at this for the submission was a total of 27 positions, and it's really a lot of the conversation that we talked about today. If we're not on the street making inspections, issuing 98 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. violations, getting people into court, then we're not going to be an effective agency. So when we talk about -- I have averages by each inspector of what they would and can do if we lost that. I can talk through that. We have data on the amount of calls that we get and how we need to respond to those. I can talk about some of our -- the success of some of our programmed inspections, which is really something we should be doing more of, and how we can accomplish that. And also one of the things -- I don't know if you noticed this in the budget. I hope you did. But we really have taken a lot of our opportunity to shift where our hires will be and are occurring into the inspector positions. So that's -- really when we talk about 27 positions, right now we have -- we 23 really have 29, but four people are going 24 to retire within the month. We have 25 25 housing inspectors in the City of 99 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Philadelphia. So we talk about 27 positions. I got to figure out, all right, does that come in housing inspectors, does that come in some of the business district inspections that we're doing where, again, in terms of data, we think we get about 35 percent in terms of revenue -- 35 percent of maybe an inspector's salary and fringes is covered by the work that we do. So anyhow --
So you do have data about each inspector, what kind of -- what the responsibility is, whether it's electrical, housing, whatever, and the revenue that them being out inspecting generates by type of inspector? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We've looked at it and we have what we feel is the best estimate given the tools that we have to try to determine that, yes.
Could you please share that with the Chair? 100 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Sure.
What about on the sort of collection side or L&I's revenue side in terms of license fees? Do you know the information by type of license fee? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
You do? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. What we know is, we know how much revenue comes in by type of license fee. We don't -- I can't necessarily say how much of that is directly by license type by the actual inspection. I can give like broad parameters.
Do you know fines by that category also? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
If you could please provide that to the Chair also. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Sure.
That's good. We've been asking for that, not you directly, and weren't aware that it 101 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. existed. So the Operations Division, Section 52, has a Clerk Typist II position, $29,000 a year. How are those functions getting performed now? I'm sorry. You've already testified that you're not going to fill that position. In the Commercial and Industrial Fire section, it looks like there's an unfilled $39,000 Commercial and Industrial Fire Inspector position. How are those job duties being performed now? Is that filling a vacancy? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That one Commercial and Industrial Fire Inspector was actually in anticipation of a possible promotion. If you look at Line under Housing Code Enforcement, Line 21 26 is a Housing and Fire Inspector III 22 and you see that reduced from two to one. 23 That's a possible promotion from that to 24 that position. 25
Thank you. 102 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. In the Housing Code Enforcement section, a Code Administrator I position, the two were vacant in November. Are those filled? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. Those actually are again an internal transfer and an internal promotion. I can tell you those lines. Line 27, the Housing and Fire Inspector Supervisor, see how that goes from five to four? One of those is a promotion into Code Administrator I.
Okay. COMMISSIONER BURNS: And then Line 65 on the Code Violation Resolution 17 Unit, we have a Code Administrator I. You'll see that reduced from four to two.
Yes. If they're internal transfers, I'll take your word for it. With respect to the 19 new L&I Code Enforcement Inspectors, the chart from the Budget Office indicates that these positions, quote, will replace 103 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. numerous departures over the last year due to retirements and resignations, and also that L&I is at a ten-year low for the number of housing inspectors at 25. I am supportive of the important work the Inspection Department does, which supports the quality of life in the City and also secures revenue through fines for non-compliant property owners. During last year's budget process, I asked some questions about the number of inspections performed by L&I in '08, '09 and projected in '10, which I don't think were answered before the budget process ended. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
How difficult is it for you to gather that information? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's not difficult at all. We have it, we look at it, and we can provide it.
That's great. 104 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. To help make the case that the positions are needed, could the Department -- I think providing that information will be helpful. Can you include a projection for the number of inspections in FY11 with and without the additional 9 positions? 10 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. 11
And what you 12 would expect that to look like from a 13 revenue perspective? 14 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. The 15 revenue part is a little bit harder, but 16 yes. 17
Do you know 18 if the current revenue estimates for the 19 license fees and for fines assumes -- was it increased over last year? In other words, if we hire these people, will it be a higher number than is currently in the budget? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It wasn't -- no. These hires are not tied 105 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. to the revenue projection and --
So the revenue projection was not increased over last year for -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: What we had to take into account with our revenue projection was the decrease in the economy right now and the impact here. So the revenue projection was decreased when comparing Fiscal Year '11 to Fiscal Year 2010 original budget, but it actually was increased when comparing Fiscal Year 2011 to Fiscal Year '10 current estimate.
Actual, yeah. Okay. So with the work that these kind of inspectors do, though, could you make an estimate as to how much you would expect in increased revenue -- when you give me that increased revenue number, it will be additive to what's in the budget; is that correct? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. I 106 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. don't think it's going to be substantial, but it would be, because I don't think that we tied these potential hires to revenue increase.
But we would expect there to be a revenue increase as a result of additional inspections and violations and fines? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Minimal, but yes.