An Open Letter Bennett Levin, PE Post Office Box 822 Washington Crossing, PA 18977-0822 August 6, 2013 The Honorable James Kenney City Council The City of Philadelphia, 4th Floor City Hall Broad and Market Streets Philadelphia, Pa 19107 Dear Councilman Kenneyl, I want to thank you very much for the courtesies extended to me by you and other members of City Council and to be allowed opportunity to share my experiences in a forum that was both serious as well as willing to listen to someone who, I humbly would say, “Not only talked the talk, but actually walked the walk”. It was a rare pleasure to be among old friends such as yourself, Curtis Jones, and Jannie Blackwell, and meet Councilman Henon. I am sending copies the remainder of this letter to all of them, as I had promised to do when I spoke in chambers this past Thursday.I have also enclosed a copy of a letter that I sent to Mayor Nutter yesterday after having read the full text of his statement to the media commenting on my appearance before you last Thursday. The letter speaks for itself. I can only say that I am disappointed by his attempt to diminish the serious business before the Special Committee. In my testimony I said that I thought the solution to the dilemma facing the City on the issue of demolition and the permitting process was not “difficult or remote”. To that end I also cautioned that the rush to regulate usually results in over-regulation that is neither a benefit to public safety nor the economic dynamic of the city. I believe a practical and tempered approach is in order that addresses the public safety dynamic, is not overly burdensome, is easy to enforce and at the same time removes liability from the City and places it squarely where it belongs; on the owner, the contractor and the “professional” in responsible charge of the demolition. To that end I would suggest that you consider incorporating some of the following process into whatever is decided as the regimen that the City will adopt going forward. The actual demolition permit should be obtained solely upon the application of a Registered Professional Engineer licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That Professional (PE) will be the person who by his or her being the signatory to the permit application undertakes that they will be “in responsible charge” of the methods and materials used in the demolition. This is no different then the current practice which requires an Architect’s and/or Engineer’s seal on drawings and reports submitted to the Department. The Engineer obtaining the permit can do so as the agent of the actual contractor hired to do the work. The application for a demolition permit should include the Business Privilege License (BPL) of the Engineer (PE), the Contractor; and if applicable, the owner of the property. (Why that requirement is not currently in force is a troubling development but that is another subject) The responsible party (PE) as well as the actual contractor each must provide with the submission of the application a certificate of insurance in an amount of not less that $3,000,000 for both professional liability and general liability with the City of Philadelphia being added to the policy as both a named insured and an additional insured. The policy must contain provisions that notice must be given the City if the policy is terminated or lapses and if such an event occurs then the demolition permit is immediately rescinded and the City has the obligation to post a “Stop Work” order at the sight. This process is simple, mimics current or past practice, imposes no undue burden on any party, and insulates and removes the City of Philadelphia from the “Circle of Risk”. The State law regulating the Engineering Profession is very clear in defining the professional skills and responsibilities of those who it licenses. To a great extent those skill are far in excess of most of the skills required of City Inspectors whose ranks have been decimated by recent budget cuts. City inspectors can audit the work of the person “In Responsible Charge”. Finally; the process I describe is in full compliance with the mandates set forth in the City’s Home Rule Charter. Those mandates are clearly defined as follows: In Chapter 10, In Section 5-1001 which defines inspections, In the annotation to 5-1001 which mandates that inspections are to be defined in the broadest possible terms In Section 5-1002 (a) Building Safety and Sanitation (see below) In Section 5-1002 (f) which defines “Special Inspections” The City Code specifically mandated inspections and certifications by outside specialists in those areas in which the City lacks the resources or expertise to perform the inspections with City employees. It is my personal opinion that this process might be more applicable to buildings whose height exceeds 20”. To conclude I would like to more fully respond to Councilman Jones’ question to me regarding the “Public Safety” v. “Economic Development” focus of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The indisputable answer is also found in the City’s Home Rule Charter as follows Section 5-1002. a. Building Safety and Sanitation, Signs and Zoning. It shall, except as otherwise specifically provided in this charter, administer and enforce all statutes, ordinances and regulations for the protection of persons and property from hazards, in the use, condition, erection, alteration, maintenance, repair, sanitation (including the maintenance and condition of plumbing and drainage facilities and the maintenance of sanitary conditions in housing accommodations), removal and demolition of buildings and structures or any parts thereof and the grounds appurtenant thereto, in the operation of equipment therein, and of outdoor signs. I really have no further comment on that matter except to say that the current placement of L&I under “Economic Development” is a serious problem that is reflective of the thinking and the priorities of those who have oversight of the department’s day to day operations. It all goes back to my premise of the “organization chart”. I was able to obtain the 2012 annual report of L&I and I was happy to see that many of the current senior managers were good people who were there when I served as Commissioner. The issue is not the people but the “priorities” and how they themselves are managed. Once again, thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you and your colleagues last week. With my best personal regards, Bennett Levin
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:27:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015