►
From YouTube: Law and Government on Bill No. 160844 2-27-2017
Description
From the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government held February 27, 2017:
Discussion and testimony relating to Bill No. 160844.
Read the bill: http://bit.ly/2zMPqY8
B
The
fines
and
penalties
imposed
in
connection
with
the
violation
of
parking
regulations
pursuant
to
authority
granted
it
by
section
345
of
the
parking
authority
law
and
amending
title
1
of
the
Philadelphia
Code
entitled
general
provisions.
Title
9
of
the
Philadelphia
Code
entitled
regulation
of
businesses,
trades
and
professions,
title
10
of
the
Philadelphia
Code
entitled
regulation
of
injured,
individual
conduct
and
activity
and
title
12
of
the
Philadelphia
Code
entitled
traffic
code
to
implement
the
repealer
in
all
places
where
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
appears
all
under
certain
terms
and
conditions.
Thank.
A
You
before
I
recognize
councilman
Oh
I
just
wanted
to
put
on
the
record
that
we
have
first
a
an
opinion
from
the
law
department
which
obviously
I'm
not
going
to
read
the
whole
thing,
but
I
think
to
summarize
raises
legal
concerns
about
I.
Think,
it's
fair
to
say
the
majority
of
the
bill.
Also,
we
have
a
letter
from
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
Joseph,
Ashdale
chairman,
where
basically,
he
references
that
that
opinion
and
saying.
For
that
reason
the
authority
will
not
offer
testimony
for
the
committee
today
they
he
further
states.
A
We
will
continue
to
cooperate
with
your
office
in
any
one
city
government
to
help
make
our
city
a
better
place,
work
and
to
work
rate
and
raise
our
families,
and
he
looks
forward
to
working
together
in
the
future.
There's
also
short
written
testimony
from
the
managing
directors
office
of
transportation
infrastructure,
again
referencing
that
legal
memo
that
I
ice
referred
to
saying
that,
for
that
reason
they
are
unable
to
offer
support
for
the
bill.
Also,
I
want
to
recognize
that
there
are.
A
C
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
chairman
I
introduced
a
bill
which
has
to
do
with
returning
local
control
to
the
city
of
Philadelphia
regarding
a
very
critical
municipal
function
that
is
administering
and
enforcing
on
street
parking
and
related
functions,
and
that
includes
the
revenues
that
are
generated
by
these
functions
for
the
city
of
Philadelphia
and
for
the
School
District
of
Philadelphia.
This
would
not
only
benefit
the
city
and
reduce
tax
burdens
on
citizens,
but
it
is
also
a
protected
provision
under
the
constitution
of
Pennsylvania
that
the
General
Assembly
not
interfere
with
the
functions
of
the
city.
C
There
is
a
legal
memorandum
that
has
been
distributed.
Many
people
have
received
it,
that
is
in
dispute
by
myself,
which
I'll
be
presenting
on
at
a
later
footing
time,
I
guess
shortly
after
we
hear
from
our
two
witnesses,
I
would
like
to
state
that,
contrary
to
the
legal
memorandum
I'm
not
trying
to.
C
Dismantle
the
parking
authority,
the
parking
authority,
is
a
state
authority.
I
couldn't
do
that
if
I,
if
I
tried,
the
parking
authority
is
properly
its
members
are
appointed
by
the
governor.
The
issue
is
that
it
is
interfering
unconstitutionally
with
the
city
and
that
is
protected.
There
are
two
ways
to
deal
with
this
if
this
bill
passes.
C
The
first
is
that,
of
course,
the
streets
department
or
other
departments
would
retain
the
ability
to
manage
on
street
parking
for
the
benefit
of
the
city,
the
other
simply
that
we
will
be
able
to
negotiate
an
agreement
with
the
parking
authority
that
is
more
transparent
and
beneficial
to
the
citizens
of
Philadelphia.
We
have
not
been
able
to
do
that
because
of
various
legislation
and
other
things.
C
A
D
Good
morning,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
I'm
Steve
Huntington
I'm,
chair
of
the
Crosstown
coalition.
That's
a
federation
of
24
are
SEOs
representing
communities
in
Greater
Center
City
from
fish
town
in
the
north,
through
Packer
Park
in
the
south,
from
Society
Hill
in
the
East,
spruce,
Hill
and
Garden
Court
in
West
Philadelphia,
as
well
as
some
outlying
communities
such
as
East
Falls,
over
Brook
farms
in
central
Roxboro.
D
We
had
a
robust
response.
The
the
request
was
six
days
ago,
2/3
of
our
members.
Sixteen
members
responded,
one
of
the
groups
couldn't
convene
their
board,
so
they
had
to
abstain,
but
there
was
agreement
of
the
other
15
members
that
we
should
consider
taking
the
functions
of
parking
enforcement
and
sending
them
back
to
the
city.
D
Another
comment
that
sort
of
bubbled
forth
was
that
this
would
be
a
major
change
in
how
the
city
operates,
so
that
we
were
hopeful
that
perhaps
this
bill
could
gain
some
support
with
some
input
from
other
council
members
representing
other
districts
this
morning.
For
the
first
time,
councilman
Greenlee
I
saw
for
the
first
time
this
memorandum
prepared
by
the
law
department
on
January
25th.
D
Obviously
the
Crosstown
doesn't
have
the
legal
resources
to
opine
on
the
legality
of
this
bill.
Speaking
personally
having
practiced
law
for
40
years,
I'm,
not
surprised
to
see
an
opinion
like
this.
Having
said
that,
I
think
the
presentation
of
the
bill
did
occasion
a
dialogue
among
our
members
and
produced
a
pretty
quick
consensus
that
the
people
in
the
cross
town
neighborhoods
support
the
idea
of
taking
a
look
at
returning
parking
functions
back
to
the
city.
So
thanks
for.
A
E
My
name
is
Jay
cleaver
I'm,
the
co-chair
of
the
fist
square,
a
volunteer
based
political
action
committee
dedicated
to
improving
the
built
environment
of
Philadelphia.
We
believe
that
through
this
legislation,
as
well
as
looking
at
the
operations
and
technology
that
we
can
help
to
transform
the
lived
experience
for
residents
and
visitors
to
this
end,
we've
been
disappointed
with
the
current
state
of
on-street
parking
management,
which
is
an
ad
hoc
process
lacking
planning
and
foresight.
Many
parking
districts
have
on-street
parking
permits
that
exceed
the
capacity
of
actual
on
street
spaces
blocks.
E
Sidewalks
and
crosswalks
are
the
norm
in
our
city
violating
ata
standards
and
putting
all
residents
at
risk,
but
particularly
children,
the
elderly
and
residents
with
disabilities.
The
current
of
the
PPA
currently
operates
with
an
invitation
to
enforce
parking
laws,
leaving
vast
stretches
of
the
city
with
little
enforcement.
The
focus
has
resulted
in
an
oversized
focus
on
expired
parking
meters
rather
than
illegal
parking
enforcement.
E
We
found
in
the
data
that
there's
currently
15
expired
meter
tickets,
written
for
every
one
ticket
regarding
blocked,
sidewalks,
crosswalks
or
ATA
ramps,
and
as
a
South
Philly
resident
I'm,
acutely
aware
that
the
lack
of
this
isn't
because
everyone's
following
parking
law
well,
we
were
also
disappointed
with
Friday's
PPA
board
meeting,
where
board
members
stated
that
they
have
no
way
to
improve
the
number
of
wheelchair
accessible
vehicles
that
they
are
bound
by
Commonwealth
legislation.
The
current
state
of
30
wheelchair
accessible
vehicles,
citywide
is
not
where
we
need
to
be.
E
If
the
PPA
can't
provide
the
necessary
service
due
to
state
legislation,
perhaps
it's
time
to
evaluate
the
legislative
oversight,
fiscal
management
has
been
opaque
in
troubling.
The
promise
to
provide
funding
to
our
schools
has
seemingly
vanished
through
chaos,
capital
expenditures,
creative
accounting
and
lackluster
management
of
budget
creep.
Lastly,
PBA's
revenue
initiative
to
expand
revenue
through
billboards
on
neighborhood
Lots
without
resident
input
is
troubling.
E
We
believe
the
following
actions
should
be
taken
by
the
PPA
immediately
implemented
Center
initiatives
to
increase
the
number
of
wheelchair,
accessible
vehicles,
enforced
parking
regulations
throughout
the
city,
particularly
those
that
impact
accessibility,
implement
demand
based
pricing.
On
parking
meters
to
encourage
better
parking
management
and
to
council
I
believe
that
you
have
the
following
capabilities
that
could
enact
immediately.
E
One
would
be
to
remove
the
on
street
parking
tax
exemption,
so
the
parking
revenue
can
flowed
directly
to
our
schools
and
city
I'd,
recommend
the
rapidly
implementing
daylight
intersections
to
ensure
that
crosswalks
are
safe
and
accessible,
implement
a
well
and
defined
planned
residential
parking
process
to
ensure
that
residents
who
need
on
street
parking
the
most
habit
and
to
require
our
CEO
approval
prior
to
any
municipal,
billboard
being
permitted
in
our
neighborhoods
and
removing
any
barriers
to
enforcing
parking
regulations
that
may
prioritize
relationships
or
political
reasons
over
resident
accessibility.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
C
C
The
bill
does
not
dissolve
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
and
to
be
clear,
I'm
introducing
an
amended
bill
just
to
take
that
language
out,
because
it
doesn't
matter
if
it's
in
or
out
it's
a
state
created
entity
and
we
cannot
dissolve
the
parking
authority,
but
there
may
be
some
confusion,
so
I'm
introducing
an
amended
bill
that
removes
that
language,
an
amendment
to
the
bill,
Thank
You,
mr.
chairman,
the
bill
provides
philadelphians
the
opportunity
to
take
back
control
of
this
critical
in
a
simple
function.
Second
slide:
the
city
does
have
the
legal
authority.
C
The
city
has
a
legal,
the
legal
authority
to
take
back
the
functions
of
an
administration,
Street
parking
system
from
the
parking
authority.
The
administration's
reliance
through
this
legal
memorandum
on
the
Pennsylvania
Court
decision,
city
of
Philadelphia
versus
Schweiker,
decided
in
2004
and
other
various
statutes
afterwards
by
the
General
Assembly,
is
misplaced.
C
Next
slide,
the
Pennsylvania
Constitution
article
3
section
32,
prohibits
the
General
Assembly
from
enacting
local
laws
or
special
legislation
regulating
the
affairs
of
counties
and
cities.
By
the
way,
this
section
was
never
argued
by
the
city.
In
any
of
its
cases,
the
city
of
Philadelphia
versus
Schweiker
stated
the
Supreme
Court
stated
that
the
city
abandoned
its
claims
under
article
3,
section
32,
and
therefore
they
were
not
considered.
C
The
Pennsylvania
Constitution
in
its
current
state
was
established
in
1874.
The
delegates
to
the
convention
in
1873
were
motivated
by
reform
10
years
prior
to
that
convention
convention
corruption
and
favoritism
in
the
General
Assembly
was
rampant.
Over
90%
of
the
bills
passed
in
that
legislature
were
special
and
local
reform
specifically
addressed
the
General
Assembly's
interference
in
the
affairs
of
municipalities,
dis
trust
of
the
legislature
is
a
hallmark
of
Pennsylvania's
Constitution.
Article
three
contains
express
procedural
and
substantive
limitations
on
the
General
Assembly's
powers.
C
This
contradicts
the
idea
in
the
legal
memorandum
that
the
city
and
is
a
creature
of
the
General
Assembly
and
therefore
subject
to
what
the
General
Assembly
does.
That's
not
true
local
control.
The
ability
are
when
the
next
slide-
I'm,
sorry,
that
should
say
article
3,
section
30.
Yes,
local
control,
the
ability
of
counties
and
municipalities
to
make
their
own
decisions
is
very
important
in
Pennsylvania
to
protect
local
control.
C
The
Pennsylvania
Constitution
under
article
3,
section
32,
prohibits
the
General
Assembly
from
passing
any
local
or
special
laws
that
regulate
the
affairs
of
counties,
cities
and
other
political
subdivisions.
The
General
Assembly
would
violate
the
Pennsylvania
Constitution
if
it
legislated
that
dependency,
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
performed
the
city's
functions
and
prevented
Philadelphia
from
altering
its
relationship
with
the
parking
authority
without
the
park,
authorities
consent
absent
a
bona
fide
state
interest
next
slide
at
22
of
2001.
The
Pennsylvania
Constitution
requires
that
the
General
Assembly
enact
special
laws
and
that
they
serve
the
public
interest
in
2001.
C
The
Pennsylvania's
Speaker
of
the
House
met
with
the
mayor
of
Philadelphia.
The
mayor
ignored
him.
The
result
was
the
introduction
of
act
22
that
passed
an
act.
22
made
the
governor
the
person
who
appointed
the
board
members
of
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority,
taking
that
power
away
from
the
mayor
next
slide.
C
As
a
result,
the
leadership
of
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
changed
and
no
longer
responded
to
the
mayor.
Philadelphia
Act
22
also
required
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
to
transfer
up
to
45
million
dollars
of
its
retained
earnings
to
the
Philadelphia
School
District
on
an
annual
basis.
There
was
no
City
parking
issue,
a
problem
that
precipitated
this
change.
C
Nextslide,
consistent
with
the
newly
enacted
amendments,
the
governor
appointed
six
new
members,
two
from
the
speaker,
two
from
this
senate
president
pro
tempore,
two
from
the
governor
to
the
existing
five
board
member
appointed
by
the
mayor,
basically
giving
the
governor
and
the
Republicans
in
Harrisburg
a
majority
on
the
parking
authority.
The
city
files
in
common
police
court
challenging
the
validity
of
the
amendments.
The
city
also
sought
injunctive
relief
to
prevent
the
new
members
from
being
sworn
in,
because
the
city
failed
to
name
the
governor.
C
The
common
police
court
lacked
jurisdiction
and
transferred
the
case
to
the
Commonwealth
Court.
The
Commonwealth
court
lacked
jurisdiction
and
dismissed
the
case
next
life.
The
city
of
Philadelphia
then
sought
an
emergency
stay
and
exercise
of
King's
Bench
powers
with
the
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
King's
Bench
is
basically
falling
on
the
mercy
of
the
court
for
justice.
The
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
denied
the
city's
request
for
relief
regarding
ceding
the
newly
constituted
board,
but
stayed
further
implementation
of
the
challenge
amendments.
Then
it
returned
a
matter
to
the
Commonwealth
Court
and
lifted
its
stay.
C
C
It
states
that
the
General
Assembly's
amendments,
impermissibly
and
unconstitutionally
infringed
on
the
city's
Home
Rule,
Charter
and
corresponding
ordinances.
It
says
the
amendments
violate
the
legislative
pledge
not
to
alter
or
limit
any
rights
of
PPA
until
all
bonds
have
been
fully
bent
and
discharged.
The
city
relied
on
this
pledge
in
dealing
with
the
PPA.
C
It
also
stated
that
singling
out
the
PPA
constituent
can
basically
is
a
special
legislation
without
substantial,
valid
or
rational
basis.
Next,
it
says
that
the
that
special
or
local
amendments
were
passed
without
constitutionally
required,
published
notice,
published
notice.
Then
it
claims
that
the
amendments
unconstitutionally
delegate
municipal
functions
to
a
special
Commission
and,
finally,
that
the
amendments
were
passed
in
a
bill
which
violated
Pennsylvania's
constitutions,
single
subject
role.
C
Basically,
the
bill
dealt
with
the
city
and
the
parking
authority,
and
all
these
claims
were
dismissed
for
a
number
of
reasons
that
were
explained
by
the
court
next
slide.
In
response
to
the
city's
amended
complaint,
the
Commonwealth
and
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
filed
preliminary
objections,
a
full
panel
of
the
Commonwealth
Court,
granted
their
preliminary
objections
and
dismissed
the
city's
complaint.
The
city
then
files
to
the
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
next
slide.
C
The
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
affirms
the
order
of
the
commonwealth
court.
Dismissing
the
city's
case,
the
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
found
that
the
city
did
raise
constitutional
challenges,
including
article
3,
section
32
against
at
22,
in
its
amended
complaint,
but
failed
to
state.
These
issues
in
its
list
of
questions
presented
on
appeal,
did
not
discuss
them
in
the
body
of
its
brief
and
did
not
include
them
in
its
prayer
for
relief.
Therefore,
the
city
abandoned
these
claims
next
slide.
C
City
of
Philadelphia
versus
Schweiker
is
not
on
point
and
it
forms
a
basis
of
the
law
department's
legal
memo.
The
legal
memorandum
provided
by
the
law
department
to
the
city
to
City
Council
regarding
the
legal
authority
of
Bill
1608
for
for
that
we
are
hearing
today,
relies
heavily
on
city
of
Philadelphia
versus
Riker,
where
the
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
affirmed
the
Commonwealth's
dismissal
of
the
city's
case
in
Schweiker.
The
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
found
and
specifically
Sayed
stated
that
the
city
had
abandoned
its
claims
under
article
3
section
32.
C
Since
the
decision
in
city
of
Philadelphia
versus
Schweiker,
the
General
Assembly
has
enacted
various
laws
regarding
on
street
parking
and
other
municipal
functions,
empowering
the
Philadelphia,
Parking
Authority
and
possibly
restricting
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
The
city
has
not
challenged
the
constitutionality
of
these
laws
under
article
3
section
32,
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
is
not
accountable
to
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
It
has
a
direct
relationship
with
the
General
Assembly
through
the
General
Assembly,
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
has
obtained
additional
duties
within
our
city
that
generates
funds
which
are
not
known
to
city
officials.
C
These
funds
are
collected
by
PPA
and
placed
in
non
city,
counts
and
used
outside
the
city
of
Philadelphia,
that's
to
our
detriment.
Next
slide:
9
of
2004
Hawk
9
extended
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
x'
administration
of
cities
on
street
parking
for
an
additional
10
years
after
the
1994
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
parking
authority
expired.
C
So
the
city
of
Philadelphia
had
an
agreement
with
the
Parking
Authority
and
legislatively
the
General
Assembly
extended
it
till
2004.
Without
the
city's
consent,
annual
transfers
from
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
to
the
city
would
be
twenty
five
million
of
net
on
street
parking
revenue
and
the
excess
to
Philadelphia,
School
District.
C
So
at
nine
changed
the
formula
instead
of
40
up
to
forty
five
million
dollars
per
year,
going
to
the
School
District,
25
million
would
go
to
the
city
if
there
was
any
money
left
over
and
beyond
that,
anything
above
25
would
go
to
the
school
district.
By
the
way,
this
provision
expired
on
March,
31st,
2014,
the
law.
Department
memorandum
advises
that
the
city
cannot
release
its
agreement
with
PPA
without
ppas
consent.
C
The
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority,
the
relevant
language
that
they
point
to
is
in
the
statute,
quote
the
authority
and
the
city,
meaning
the
parking
authority
by
mutual
consent
may
modify
the
system
of
on-street
parking
regulation
to
the
extent
permitted
by
law
next
slide
in
response
to
act.
9
the
city
filed
a
complaint
city
of
Philadelphia
versus
Rendell
in
the
Commonwealth
Court,
and
that
was
decided
in
2005,
which
challenged
the
new
statutory
amendment
has
once
again
interfering
with
the
city's
Home
Rule
Charter
or
a
home
rule
powers.
C
The
Commonwealth
Court
sustained
the
preliminary
objections
and
dismissed
the
city's
case.
It
stated
that
these
issues
had
already
been
decided
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
city
of
Philadelphia
versus
Schweiker.
Next
slide.
Footnote
23,
however
footnote
23
judge
Levitt
for
the
majority
stated
at
9
extended
that
contract
at
9
did
not
divest
the
city
council
of
the
ability
to
legislate
on
the
subject
of
on
street
parking.
That
does
not
involve
proprietary
aspects
of
on
street
parking.
C
The
dissent
reads
at
9
to
give
the
authority
a
legislative
veto
relying
on
the
Locke
language,
that
quote
the
authority
in
the
city
by
mutual
consent,
may
modify
the
system
of
on
street
parking
regulation
to
the
extent
permitted
by
applicable
law.
End
quote:
the
parking
authority
law
makes
it
clear
that
on-street
parking,
rigid
regulation
involves
acts
of
administration,
supervision
and
enforcement,
not
legislative
acts.
In
any
case,
the
authority
has
not
attempted
to
veto
an
act
of
City
Council.
The
mere
possibility
of
that
event
does
not
give
rise
to
a
cause
of
action
stated.
C
C
This
statute
did
not
extend
an
agreement,
it
simply
legislated
what
will
happen,
and
that
is
probably
in
violation
of
article
330
section
32.
Unlike
act
9,
the
July
2012
statute
does
not
extend
the
cooperation
agreement.
The
General
Assembly
simply
legislated
the
city
function
to
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
July
2012
statute
does
not
prohibit
unilateral
action
by
city
regarding
on
street
parking
and
other
functions.
So
nowhere
in
this
statute
does
it
say
the
city
cannot
take
unilateral
action
and
such
a
prohibition
would
be
unconstitutional,
absent.
C
A
state
interest
next
slide
in
city
of
Philadelphia
versus
Schweiker,
which
started
its
path
in
2001
and
ended
in
2004.
The
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
in
the
Commonwealth
claimed
that
the
state's
interest
in
enacting
at
22,
which
could
took
control
of
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
from
the
city,
was
to
provide
adequate
funds
to
the
School
District
of
Philadelphia
in
2001,
the
state
also
took
control
of
Philadelphia's
financially
challenged
school
district
since
2001
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
has
grown
significantly
and
dramatically
increased
its
revenues.
However,
its
costs
have
also
grown
dramatically
grown
dramatically.
C
An
additional
revenue
generation
authorized
by
the
General
Assembly
is
not
provided
to
the
city
or
the
school
district.
In
fact,
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
has
never
come
close
to
giving
the
maximum
of
forty
five
million
dollars
annually
to
this
Philadelphia
School
District,
as
provided
in
at
22.
That
would
be
675
million
dollars
over
15
years
next
slide.
C
Money
promised
the
school
district
has
not
been
delivered.
City
council
held
hearings
regarding
PBA's
failure
to
provide
funds
to
the
Philadelphia
school.
This
public
officials
have
expressed
the
opinion
that
the
Philadelphia
Parking
Authority
appears
to
provide
as
little
funds
as
possible
to
the
Philadelphia
School
District.
The
state
has
not
funded
the
Philadelphia
School
District
adequately.
As
a
result,
the
city
has
raised
property
taxes.
Four
years
in
a
row,
increased
the
school's
percentage
of
use
and
occupancy
tax
and
implemented
a
state
authorized
cigarette
tax,
none
of
which
provides
the
money
that
is
needed
today.
C
Article
3
section
32
prohibits
the
General
Assembly
from
enacting
local
or
special
laws.
The
July
2012
statute
would
be
unconstitutional
if
it
prohibits
the
city
of
Philadelphia
from
regulating
its
on
street
parking
and
related
functions.
The
articulated
state
interest
in
providing
adequate
funds
to
the
Philadelphia
school
district
has
not
happened
and
there's
no
indication
that
it
will
bill
1608,
44
lawfully
returns,
cities
on
street
parking
functions
and
all
related
revenues
to
the
city
of
Philadelphia,
as
required
by
the
Pennsylvania
Constitution
in
article
3,
section
32.
C
The
courts
have
hinted
to
the
city
of
Philadelphia
that
continually
raising
Home
Rule
Charter
issues,
special
commission
issues
and
all
the
other
issues
that
were
outlined
in
this
legal
memorandum
is
already
decided
by
the
Supreme
Court
and
that
article
3,
section
32
has
not
been
raised.
I
would
like
to
say
that
we
should,
in
this
committee,
vote
to
favorably
vote
this
bill
out
of
committee,
and
that
way
we
will
be
able
to
begin
this
process
in
motion,
as
was
testified.
We
then
have
some
choices
to
consider
which
is
nowhere
nowhere
near
today.
C
C
In
addition
to
which
passing
laws
that
create
new
powers
within
the
city
of
Philadelphia,
to
generate
revenues
that
go
to
accounts
outside
of
the
Philadelphia
city
of
Philadelphia
or
the
school
district
is
counter
to
the
articulated
state
interest
of
funding
schools
with
that,
I
would
certainly
answer
any
questions
that
my
colleagues
may
have.
Thank
you,
Thank.
F
G
F
Substantive
credit,
not
ethics,
but
I,
guess
one
of
my
concerns
and
I
had
someone
who
had
been
a
member
of
the
law
department
and
the
deputy
city
solicitor.
I've
had
many
challenges
in
the
base
with
a
law
department
regarding
their
opinions
on
various
issues,
I
did
have
a
chance
to
read
the
opinion
that
was
provided
solutions.
Opinion
that
was
provided
I
did
have
some
questions
regarding
an
opinion,
however,
I
do
know
the
city
solicitor
is
the
chief
legal
officer
for
both
the
executive
branch
and
the
legislative
branch.
F
I
do
believe
we
need
some
type
of
Marbury
vs..
Madison
decision
I've
been
saying
that
for
a
very
long
time,
we've
had
a
couple
situations
in
my
experience,
working
in
City
Council
or
it
almost
came
to
that
situation.
I
believe
counseling
Greenlee
can
relate
to
his
former
boss,
councilman
David
Cohen
and
mayor
Street
during
the
kind
of
trash
litigation
that
almost
got
us
to
that
point.
However,
I
would
like
to
hear
some
perspective
from
the
law
department
before
I
be
able
to
vote
on
this
bill.
F
My
understanding
is
that
the
legislation
or
concept
that
we
would
have
the
police
department
streets
in
Illinois
all
be
responsible
for
park
enforcement
and
City,
Adelphia
and
I
just
also
have
some
perspective
that
how
would
those
departments
and
do
that
and
I
would
also
like
to
hear
from
them
as
well
regarding
and
this
this
legislation.
So
that's
some
of
my
concerns.
I
am
open
to
amending
the
bill
better.
This
form
that
ready
to
vote
on
it
because
I
have
those
questions.
Ask
anything.
Yes,.
A
C
It
will
not
benefit
us
to
spend
time
thinking
about
what
is
the
best
way
to
administer
on
street
parking,
whether
it
is
by
having
the
parking
authority.
Do
it
maybe
do
it
more
transparently,
maybe
do
it
in
a
way
more
responsive
to
our
planning
and
citizens
needs
or
whether
we
should
have
the
streets
apartment
if
we
don't
pass
the
bill,
because
basically,
there's
no
reason
for
us
to
consider
any
of
this.
If
we
pass
the
bill,
it
doesn't
mean
I
mean
how
to
committee.
C
What
they're
doing
the
only
caveat
is
if
the
parking
authority
in
the
Commonwealth
were
to
take
us
to
court.
If
we
pass
this
bill
out
of
City
Council
and
made
it
in
ordinance,
then
they
may
file
an
injunction
or
may
file
something
against
us,
but
that's
that's
I,
think
a
matter
that
is
in
their
hands.
I.
C
Think
that,
as
you
raised
overreaching
by
the
General
Assembly
into
the
details
of
what
we
do,
for
example,
the
current
bill
in
in
in
the
General
Assembly
would
say
that
I
as
a
city,
councilman
or
any
city
employee,
cannot
contact
the
Immigration
Service.
That
is
part
of
the
bill.
So,
for
example,
if
any
of
my
constituents
came
to
me
and
said
my
family
is
stuck
in
Bermuda
and
we
can't
get
them
back
over
here.
I
can't
call
the
Immigration
Service
under
that
bill.
I,
don't
think.
C
G
Thank
You.
Mr.
chair,
you
know
my
one
comment
would
be
that
I
believe
that
the
parking
authority
should
be
here.
I
feel
like
any
entity
whether
or
not
they
agree
with
the
substance
or
the
claim
that
is
made
before
them
should
show
up
before
City
Council
as
an
act
of
respect
for
the
council's
relationship
that
they
should
be
present.
G
I
would
hope
that
the
parking
authority
would
be
able
to
comment
to
city
council
chambers
and
be
able
to
directly
address
that
disagreement,
and
we
can
end
it
where
we
end
it,
but
it
is
a
problem
when
a
major
entity
and
partner
with
the
City
Council
chooses
to
opt
out
of
a
hearing
in
which
they're
the
subject
of
it.
So
that's
my
first
comment.
My
second
con
is,
you
know.
I
also
want
to
commend
councilman
Oh
for
his
tremendous
work
and
his
research
on
this.
G
There
isn't
anybody
else,
I,
don't
think
who
has
has
been,
as,
as
you
know,
laser
focused
on
these
issues
and
I
share.
Many
of
the
frustrations
that
led
to
the
to
the
formation
of
the
bats,
certainly
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
role
of
school
district
funding,
and
particularly
we've
raised
questions
about
the
fact
that,
for
example,
in
2014,
the
parking
authority
came
before
City
Council
requesting
increases
in
parking
rates,
promising
that
we
would
reach
what
should
be
18
million
dollars
a
year.
G
We
are
maybe
projected
to
reach
that
maybe
projected
to
reach
eight
million
a
year
by
the
eight
million
for
FY
2017
by
the
time
that
their
fiscal
year
ends,
but
that's
even
up
in
the
air.
That's
the
difference
of
ten
million
dollars
a
year.
I,
don't
think
that
that's
acceptable,
I,
don't
think
it's
acceptable
for
the
parking
authority
not
to
have
had
a
performance
and
management
audit
prior
to
this,
in
order
for
us
to
better
understand
the
expenses
that
they
accumulate
and
accrue.
But
we
do
have
new
leadership,
the
parking
authority.
G
We
also
have
a
full
performance
management
audit
that
will
come
before
us,
hopefully
from
the
Auditor,
General
Eugene,
D,
Pascal
and
I
believe
that
the
Attorney
General
is
also
very
clear
and
aware
of
the
parking
Authority's
responsibility,
not
so
much
as
its
own
entity,
but
as
but
as
an
institution
of
the
public
trust,
and
it
should
be
seen
as
that
kind
of
institution
that
it
is
a
public
trust.
Much
like
the
Hershey
school,
much
like
other
kinds
of
entities.
G
It
has
a
responsibility
to
the
City
Philadelphia,
to
the
schoolchildren
of
Philadelphia
and
to
the
airport,
which
is
a
massive
regional
center
and
is
so
some
area
that
we
should
be
asking
a
lot
of
questions
about.
But
I
don't
know
that
I'm
prepared
to
vote
on
this
bill
at
this
time,
in
particular,
because
I
think
that
there
are
the
outstanding
questions
have
been
raised,
but
by
the
law
department
and
by
my
other
colleague
here
that
are
outstanding.
G
F
A
You
I
here's
where
we
like
to
guy.
That's
just
other
comments.
Councilman
all
has
an
amendment
which
I
think
everybody
kind
of
from
what
I
understand
agrees
that
that
could
be
moved
out
of
committee.
We're
going
to
go
briefly
into
the
committee,
a
meeting
so
that
he
can
move
that
amendment
I'm
then
gonna
ask
that
we
move
it
back
into
to
the
committee
hearing
and
hold
it
to
call
the
chair.
So
we
will
temporarily
go
into
the
committee
of
the
longer-run
committee
meeting
and
the
chair
recognizes
councilman.
Oh
thank.