Mm, I am sure we know it. I don't know it off the top of my head, but I can get you that number.
We have asked this same question at least since I've been here, and I can go back into 57 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 the records where we talked about you working on a system that would give us that information. I think my colleague Donna Reed Miller is accurate when she talks about the role of the District Councilperson, because often, people, whether they live in the City of Philadelphia, don't live in the City of Philadelphia, come to the District Councilperson to seek out investment opportunities to do your mission.
And when we can't tell them what a property is going for or what it could possibly yield or what our inventory is worth, we're not the problem.
So we've asked for that for the last two years. 58 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 Do you have any idea when that is going to be completed or when we can expect an inventory of the value of the asset that we have so that we can, in these tough budgetary times, be able to market it and help you do that?
I mean, let me just sort of say where -- 'cause I know we've had a conversation about this about a year ago. Just so folks know, the three major entities, right, that I think we're talking -- I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. So of the three major City entities that hold land, the first is my agency, the Redevelopment Authority. So 59 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 last year, last June, in fact, in June of '09, we put our entire list of properties owned by the Redevelopment Authority up on our website. So any -- and that's a dynamic list; it changes regularly. So anybody can go to the RDA website. We're the first agency to do it in the City, in the history of the City, to put a list up on our website. Anybody can go to that, and if they're interested in acquiring a parcel, it tells them who to talk to and that sort of thing.
So we -- PHDC is the second entity, the Philadelphia Housing and Development Corp.
They've had a list for years, but you had to pay to get it. And so, we've changed that; we've changed 60 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 that policy so that now we all have access to that list. And we're working with them to get that up on their website. And then the third list, of course, is the largest, which is the City Public Property, the Department of Public Property, which is the City of Philadelphia. You know, they actually have a list that they've now put together. Their list is less dynamic. I mean, they've got resource constraints. So one of the things that we're working with them on is how can we get their list regularly updated. And then the real place we want to go, I think, with all this, is to get all three of those lists together, posted in one spot.
That's what we don't do right now, but we're working to try to get there. 61 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
Well, I'm excited to hear that, finally, we're going to know what -- and you will break that down by district? That would be helpful to us.
Yeah, we can do that with the Redevelopment Authority's list.
I'll check on the other two and see how -- it shouldn't be that hard, but, you know, it's mostly done by zip code. So breaking it down by Council District may take a little more time, just so you know. But we can do it.
Just out of interest and curiosity, how many deals did we do last year and the year before? How many developments have we, as a -- did your agency actually deliver? 62 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
Well, it depends on what you mean by "development," I guess. So I can give you some numbers.
You can give me commercial versus housing development and a sense of total value of what that's worth?
Mm-hmm. We did about $3 million in property sales. We... Mm, I'm trying to think of... I'm trying to think of what -- the other thing we do is affordable housing lending. So in 2009, we did 475 units of affordable housing lending. We did 142 PHILoans.
PHILoans. That's the PHILoan Program, which is also done by the Redevelopment Authority. So I can get you all of this if you want it in a report.
I'm not sure what 63 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 you mean by "project."
So if you did 475 units, how many developments is that? I mean, just in my district, how many developments did you do in the 4th Councilmatic District last year or the year before?
I can get you the number; I know that we summarize that and we have it.
No, but I know we that did a couple because when we did the summary list, there were several in every district except for the 10th. So I know there were some, but I just have to let you know what they were.
Well, I don't know about other Councilmembers, 64 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 but that's the kind of useful information, and it leads to this question: Historically, before you conveyed or worked with the developer, it's my understanding your agency would meet with the District Councilperson to -- it wasn't necessarily a sign-off but to get a tacit approval of are these people -- is this developer compatible to this neighborhood? did you feel that this is a benefit? And is that written in the -- in your standard operating procedures, or was that like a courtesy policy-something that you did?
Let me make a of couple points. On the question of how many projects we did in your district, I know that we sent you a letter in January, so I'll dig out that letter, because we sent a letter to every Councilmember because I know that several Councilmembers called 65 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 me in response to that letter about some of the projects. And we did send you a letter about all of the projects that were done in your district.
Was this after the fact that they were done or -- I'm -- this leads to my question.
It was to answer your questions of how many projects were done in the last year. It was really partly how many projects were done since Mayor Nutter took over the chairmanship of the Redevelopment Authority, so it was really covering about months. 17
But on your question -- the other question, which was the process, I would say that when I got to the Redevelopment Authority, none of the procedures were written down. And, in fact, one of the things that I've been trying to do since getting there is 66 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 writing some of this down, because there were many things that were done, and people said to me, "Well, this is the way we always did it." And we actually now have a written rule book of policies and procedures.
So in that written rules, policies, guidelines, is it written anywhere that you meet, before you convey property to developers that do the development, with the District Council people?
Sometimes we meet and sometimes we just notify, depending on the nature of the project, so...
Well, at least for me -- and I can't speak for other members; I can speak for me -- it is crucial that you meet with me before you do that, because we have, believe it or not, boots on the ground and have a better sense of the community and their response to particular projects as they, 67 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 you know, start.
And it's better for us to be able to at least be notified about that.
So that we can gauge accurate information to the communities in which these developments are.
What comes to mind is the apartment buildings across from the $80 million development of -- in West Park that was owned by your organization. After the fact, you told me that you sold them to a nice enough guy. I have no interest in him other than the fact that I want him to do a good job in maintaining the direction that that neighborhood is going. But that person had not met with not one community organization, not one religious organization, not one elected official 68 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 until after the deal was done. And that kind of reversal in policy for your agency is deeply concerning to me, because it does not allow us to play our proper role and, I believe, legitimate role to be a liaison ombudsman to the community, and it totally takes us out of the process. So whether it was mandated by law or just in practice, I think it's important and one that should be maintained, because at the end of the day, they look at all of us as government, the community. And if one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing, it just reinforces a negative opinion of all of us. So sometimes, in attempting to do a good thing, we wind up doing something that is detrimental to the community. And I don't know if that can be written in your policy, but I strongly suggest that it does, because at the end 69 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 of the day, after the directors are gone, we live with the community who have to suffer from bad maintenance often. And in the case of that facility that was owned by you, that was a major, major trafficking area for drugs in the area owned by us.
It was beginning to be developed -- and I don't know the status of it today -- as a place where individuals actually staked out their victims from the mall across the street. So communicating with us -- 11-year-old, 12-year-old kids knew it, but you won't know it unless you talk to us. And so, I think that that is a valuable way to gain information about the direction of the community.
And I agree with you, Councilman. I will say that when I came in, in '08, that was one of the reasons we 70 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 made the decision to sell that property, because, in fact, the Redevelopment Authority had done a horrible job of managing it, and we determined that we ought not to really be in the property management business; that's not what we do. You didn't hear me say we're in the property management business when you asked. I do want to clarify, what we did in that case was an RFP. And when we selected the person who had put forth the best project in the RFP, that was when we came to you. I want you to understand we had not done the deal at that point. And, in fact, we came to you and said we want you to you meet with the developer; that's when we took 'em out to meet with Lucinda Hudson and some of the folks in the community and had him meet with -- because, in fact, we would not have gone ahead with the sale had he been problematic for you or for the community. 71 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
So I just want to clarify that legally, we had not done that.
I was the one who came to you guys and talked about the fact that there were a lot of complaints. I mentioned to you in specifics about the need to sell it because of some of the mold problem --
You got back 72 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 to me after the fact. But my point is, if we communicate better from the start and we don't have these gaps -- and there may have been other people willing to pay more had we known that the process had moved along, because what we also do is that we will never -- and I never want to -- make a decision for you. That is what we pay you to do.
But I always want to add to the discussion, I always want to add to competition. There may be local concerns that are from Philadelphia that may have wanted to take part in that but did not know because we were out of the loop and. That's where that communication, once again, comes in. And if we know of the parcels to market, people who come -- once again, in my conversation, where I began, most people don't know of you. They know of us and they may expect us to know and be 73 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 able to reach out to you.
So that's why that is important to me as a District Council person, and I think I sensed it from my colleague Donna Reed Miller.
I just want to ask a few questions in terms of some of your answers to Councilman Jones. If you have a set of new policies and ways that you run the RDA, I would appreciate getting a copy of that so that we can understand what you're on so we can figure this whole thing out. I have a question, but instead of asking it as a question, I'll just ask -- I'll just make a statement. City Council members are going to be involved in the revitalization efforts of their districts. Put 'em all 74 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 together as ten districts that makes up the City. The Administration is involved in the revitalization of the City of Philadelphia. And certainly, in the various departments, they're involved in what happens in our Council Districts. Whether you like it or not, we must be informed, we have to be informed; we're doing our job. Councilman Jones should have been informed. How do you think we feel when we pick up the newspaper and see that a property is being advertised for sheriff's sale if we had no prior knowledge? And I'm not talking about any one particular property. But I talk to Councilmembers and I hear what they say. We're going to be involved. I'm going to be involved in the 8th District. You know, I've been involved for 17 years. We've been out here, pounding these pavements, meeting with community 75 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 people, getting the constituent calls about the blight, et cetera, and we're just going to be involved; that's one of my roles. Your role is to lead the RDA; that's fine. But we got to work together. I don't want to come to work and not know what's going on in my district 'cause nobody at the RDA level decided to tell me.
Well, we had spoken to you about the Germantown Y; is that the --
You've spoken to me about lots of things. In fact, we have a meeting set for tomorrow or Wednesday -- I can't remember which day it is, I have to look at my schedule -- to talk about a number of tings.
So don't 76 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 go there, okay? However, we have to talk. I'm not going anywhere, and I don't think you are. We have to work together, we got to figure out how to do this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the beginning of my term, I introduced a resolution that was looking at the economic-development agencies and the alphabet soup and the different responsibilities of them and how they coordinate and interact -- the RDA, the PIDC, the different housing agencies, et cetera. And one of the major concerns I had was the lack of accountability to this body for the properties that we turn 77 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 over to these agencies. It seems like we don't either exercise our oversight authority properly, or perhaps we should not transfer properties until there is already a deal with respect to them that the City Council or the District Council people approve of them. And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about how we, as a body, should be holding the Redevelopment Authority accountable to us, as a body, for results, so that the feeling that a lot of people have that properties are transferred and go into a black hole can be alleviated.
Well, I do think that partly what we're doing, which is to try and provide more transparency and better data, is a first start. I mean, again, when I -- the first question I got when I went to the Redevelopment Authority was people saying to me, Why don't you list your properties up on your website? 78 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
I believe that was one of the first questions that was asked in the first budget season. That's correct.
Well, part of the answer was, we didn't have a website. So it's very hard to be open and transparent if you don't have good mechanisms.
And so, first, we got a website, and then we spent literally a year going through the list of properties and doublechecking it against records to try to make sure that the list was accurate. And so, it literally took us a year to get to the point where we could just give you that information.
That's right. It was in response to a question from my office, where we asked you to please list every single property owned by the RDA, and you had to literally go through paper records to determine that. 79 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
As a part of that process, you discovered that properties that were transferred years ago were not -- were still on the tax rolls as City-owned or owned by the RDA, even though they had been transferred and developed.
Yes. There were bad records in many ways; yeah, that's correct.
Okay. Could you please provide the Chair a list of all of those properties that you discovered and tell us whether or not the Administration plans to go back ten years, which is what we're permitted under the law, to collect taxes from the people who have transferred those properties, who did not receive tax bills on all of the parcels that were transferred to them.
I'm sorry. What's the subject or -- 80 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
We transferred properties to people. And say it was a group of properties and I got this from you.
And, say, the deed listed one address, even though there were ten addresses.
So the tax bill was sent only for one address, not for ten addresses, and this is a problem that existed for a long time. I'd like to know what the City's plans are for going back and collecting taxes from the transferees for the last ten years and how much revenue that would bring. And I guess I'd suggest that it would make sense to get bills out to 81 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 these people during the amnesty period so that they're incentivized to pay it quickly, sort of as one think that you could help us with.
The other thing is, I have a few ideas about maybe how we can create accountability, and we can talk about them over time. I'll talk to the chairman of Public Property about it. Things like -- what would you think of conditional transfers that require you to come back to the District Council person with thirty days' notice or ten days' notice prior to transferring a property in order for that transfer to be a valid transfer? Not reauthorization, but notice, so people in the districts know what is happening.
Yeah, we're happy to talk about all of that. I mean, it's -- I think there's a spectrum -- I 82 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 think the problem is that we don't have enough tools, and the tools aren't nuanced to deal with the different conditions in the City and the different types of property. So you've been, for example, very active and, I think, a strong advocate, as is Councilman Kenney, of the idea of using real-estate brokers to sell land, right? Well, brokers want a different thing, right? What real-estate brokers want is, they want a very simple, straightforward process that looks a lot like the rest of the process. And so, when we did a pilot program with real-estate brokers, they didn't want to hear about all of this procedural stuff and how we had to go through, you know, lots of steps, whether it's the RDA board, City Council; they didn't want to hear about any of that. So, on the one end, we have a group of properties that we think maybe 83 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 fall into the category of eligible for broker sales and really good properties to sell to brokers that may need one set of oversight. And then I think there are the larger projects -- or the projects that have large development potential that may need zoning change, planning change, or whatever, that clearly need much more of a dialogue and much more input from community groups and all that stuff. The problem is, we've got a system right now that treats everything the same, and I think that's the frustration. And so, we've got to figure out a way either to develop a larger set of tools, which what we've been trying to do, or figure out a new system, and that's really what I think we're all trying to work on.
Mr. Chairman, do you remember the name of the property management system that was 84 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 online during this Street administration that was taken down, where you could actually go on and you could search and find properties? This administration -- the previous administration spent about 3, 4 --
It was online. All publicly-owned properties that were in Public Property --
-- were available online. And that was taken down in 2008.
Well, I know the NTI had a website, but I don't think they had all of the publicly-owned properties; I know that they had some of the publicly-owned properties. 85 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
There was also a private entity, as Councilman Greenlee reminded me of, Hall Watch. They actually did significant work in making available on the website, properties across the City of Philadelphia. Then there was actually a system that we were supposed to purchase, and I think we spent around $5 million of NTI dollars to put it in place.
Okay. Well, I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell. 86 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
Thank you. It's not narrowly related, but in general, I just wanted to ask the director if we're clear on legislation coming to Council before it goes to the board so we don't have so much confusion in our communities.
Absolutely, yes. I know that you raised that when we met a few weeks ago.
And the other thing is, I wanted to contact you -- I could have waited till after the hearing for this, to see if we couldn't, before we have our formal hearing, work some Council people on specific issues, and maybe we can meet in the Caucus Room 23 or something to get their specific property issues resolved.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Hold on a second, please. Okay, I held my questions for a reason. I just want to briefly go over -- and I promised myself that I would not allow this to be an adversarial hearing as it relates to my conduct. But briefly, I just want to make a couple of statements. This whole issue about the relationship between Councilmembers, particularly District Councilmembers, and the Redevelopment Authority comes out of, I know in my case, frustration and years of having prior relationships with prior executive directors that were a lot more open and a lot more sharing of 88 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 information, the ability to get on the phone and talk to not only the executive director or the staff members and have it -- and I know early on, in your administration, you would not allow that. You have now relaxed that, and I don't know why. But, you know, it is what it is. And our inability to, frankly speaking, as it was referenced earlier, to know what in the world is going on in our Council District, because at the end of the day, we all got elected. I understand you got appointed, but we got elected. And at the end of the day, the people live in those neighborhoods, if something happens in those neighborhoods, they're not going to look at you, and, frankly speaking, they might not even look at the at-large Councilperson; they're going to look at the District Council.
And say, "You're the guy that let that come in my neighborhood."
So our inability to have that type of relationship has been very frustrating to me, to the point where I have to call the Mayor because he's the chairman of the board.
And I shouldn't have to bother the Mayor about every little thing, but that's just the way it worked out. When you came in, you essentially defaulted -- I don't know if the majority of all of the developments that had not complied with the redevelopment agreement. That's fine. You know, it's within your right. But the reality, under the existing regs, you essentially have an unfettered ability to do whatever with 90 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 those properties as it relates to the executive director of the board, without Councilmembers ever knowing how, when, or what the ultimate outcome. That didn't bother me before. And, in all honesty, I didn't know that until it was referenced to me. But it bothers me now.
'Cause I'm a little concerned about how you do things over there. I'm just being straight up.
So it caused us to introduce this ordinance 21 that essentially, as we move ahead -- and hopefully we'll get this NTI thing moving relatively quickly -- all of the redevelopment agreements that are done heretofore will -- I'm sorry, subsequent 91 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 to this, will have some ability to have a relationship. I would hope that those defaults that you've issued -- and I understand there are a significant number of 'em, that you craft some regulatory process where Councilmembers will be able to know exactly what's going to happen if you change the developer, if you change the development plan, or if it were nominal and now you want to sell it. It needs to come back to Councilmembers so that, at a minimum, they know what in the world is going on.
So I would hope that as you think about, you know, the aftermath of this hearing, that you develop some sort of process that puts us in a position where we're at least in the loop to some degree. And I understand you feel that you need to have some level of an ability to move projects quickly. I don't think 92 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 any member of Council would like to do that. You know, as quickly as we are, I mean -- that's what we're about.
I don't understand, frankly speaking, why you have gone from two-times-a-month meetings to one time a month 'cause I think that actually delays your ability to expedite development. But, you know, as I say, you're the executive director; you made that determination. What I would like to do is offer an amendment today that will respond to two of your concerns. One is, in the ordinance, it said that by resolution or ordinance, the conveyance shall happen by members of Council. What I'm prepared to do, assuming that the committee is accepting of this, is to take the ordinance out and do it by resolution. As you know, a resolution only needs one-day notice and a one-day vote. 93 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
And if it's controversial enough that we need a hearing, we can always have a hearing on the resolution. The other issue has to do with the change in the price on that particular property if it has to come back to Council. I'm prepared to delete that section because my assumption is that if you change the price, you're going to charge more, so that's a good thing for the City. But in the event that there is a nominal consideration to a developer, and then you want to charge that developer for that consideration, I would like to see that come back 'cause that changes the scope of project in terms of, you know, the ultimate outcome. So I will be offering those two amendments to this bill today.
So 94 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 hopefully, we can come to some agreement as we move ahead -
-- where we can strengthen our relationship, and I mean it in a real way because I'm just not used to doing business like this, as a number of other people are, okay?
Right. And I hear you, and I agree with you. And certainly on the defaults, absolutely. We would fully intend to go back to you all of the District Councilmembers and talk to them about the properties.
Like so many things that goes on around here, I really don't always understand why we're in the situation that we're in. It just to me seems commonsensical that there should be at least one person that represents the authority that has 95 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 interface with the folks here. I mean, even companies in the City have -- I mean, I see Ed McBride, you know, once or tries a week representing PECO. I see other people that are representing other entities, other governments, other everything. Isn't it easier just to have a person that stops into Councilman Clarke's office or stops into Councilwoman Krajewski's office and says, "Hey, how you doing? Is there anything going on?" Or, "This is going on today" or, "This is going on next week. Here's a heads-up." It seems that it would be just the flow of business and the flow of cooperation. It's much simpler than having the questions that Councilman Jones asked about a project that got, you know, out of the barn before anybody knew about it. I just -- to me, it would seem easier -- not that you should have to 96 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 walk around every day and visit Council offices, but there's got to be somebody in your shop that you trust that can interface with the folks here. I mean, again, as Councilman Clarke says, it's not as much an at-large issues as it is obviously a district issue. But I've been around here long enough to know that the common-sense approach really always -- usually works.
It can be someone you designate to say this is what's coming or this is what to expect or this is what we'd like you to help us with. It seems that life would be so much easier and one less piece of contention between the Administration and Council.
So is that 97 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 possible?
Thanks, Councilman. Any other questions of this witnesses by members of the committee? (No further questions.)
There being none, this concludes the hearing on Public Property and Public Works. * * * 98 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting)
Councilman Kenney, could I please have a motion on Bill No. 100094.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 100094 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100004 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Councilman Greenlee, can I please have a motion on Bill No. 100130.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 100130 be 99 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first readings at our next session of Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100130 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a rules suspension so as to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. Councilman Rizzo, please get a motion on Bill No. 100132.
I move 02 out of committee with a favorable recommendation and ask that the rules of Council be suspended --
32, I'm 100 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) sorry. And that the rules of Council be suspended and that this be heard at the next session of Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100132 is reported out of committee with a rules suspension to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. Bill No. 090785 has been held at the request of the sponsor. Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 100101 be amended --
Hold on, hold on a second, Councilman. There's a question. (Brief discussion held off the record.) 101 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting)
There's a question about 85, the 50 percent Public Property. What we -- ultimately, the outcome of the conversation was that we will be having conversations with the department, and we will come back at a later date in the committee and amend it after we get some of the specifics in terms of the criteria established, so we're going to hold it right now. Councilman Kenney, can I please get a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 15 100101.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 100101 be amended according to your on-the- record comments relative to the changes in the bill. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of the amendment? 102 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) Those opposed? The ayes have it. Councilman Kenney, please.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 7 100101, as amended, be reported out of this committee favorably and that a request be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100101 is reported out of committee, as amended, with a favorable recommendation and with a rules suspension to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. This concludes the meeting on the Public Property and Public Works Committee. 103 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) Thank you all very much. (Proceedings end at 10:58 a.m.) * * * 104 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Public Property and Public Works are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Monday, March 22, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)