COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, October 26, 2009 11:15 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO BILL 090390 - An ordinance amending Chapter 16-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Vacant and Surplus Properties"... BILL 090521 - An ordinance requiring the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development to provide certain specified notice of its public meetings... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning. This is the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. We have established a quorum. We have Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Kenney, Councilman Greenlee. Will Mr. Carter please read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 090390, an ordinance amending Chapter 16-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Vacant and Surplus Properties," by amending Section 14 16-404, entitled "The Vacant Property Review Committee."
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly. I will be offering an amendment to this bill. Actually, I've circulated an amendment to this bill. The Reinvestment Fund has asked to withdraw itself from consideration, which is in their written testimony. I don't know if someone will 3 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 appear here to actually explain why, but I would like to just remove the Reinvestment Fund and just keep Local Initiatives Support Corporation, who will testify on their own behalf today. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Our first witness is Ms. McColloch. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. MS. McCOLLOCH: Good morning, Councilman Clarke and members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. I am Deborah McColloch, Director of Housing, and I am here today to present testimony regarding Bill No. 22 090390, which was introduced by Councilman Goode on May 7th. This bill amends Chapter 16-400 of The Philadelphia Code by adding 4 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 members to the Vacant Property Review Committee. This Committee already includes heads or their designees of the Department of Public Property, the Department of Revenue, the City Planning Commission, the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Commerce Department, the President of City Council, the Chair of City Council's Committee on Public Property and Public Works, as well as other City entities, including the Office of Housing and Community Development and the Redevelopment Authority. Specifically, this bill would add the executive heads or their designees of now only LISC, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, to the Committee. The City has convened a Vacant Property Working Group which already includes representatives of the Reinvestment Fund, which is no longer included in this bill, and LISC, so they are already our partners on these issues of addressing vacant property. LISC has 5 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 worked for the City on issues of vacant lot and it possesses a level of expertise and understanding of vacant land issues which may be helpful in resolving vacant property issues in Philadelphia. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. Any questions of this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
There being none, thank you very much. I'm sorry. Let the record reflect that Councilman Curtis Jones is in attendance. MS. McCOLLOCH: Oh, sorry.
Generally on the issue of the Vacant Property Review Committee, could you for my purposes share with us how in this Administration its role in obtaining properties has 6 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 changed from the last Administration and whether or not by adding these two -- I believe it is now one -- extra person how that's going to change the process in anticipating that it may be for the better? Can you give me a better sense mechanically how that's going to help? MS. McCOLLOCH: Well, the Vacant Property Review Committee, of course, is a committee of City Council, and so this is expanding that membership. So Committee members vote on the disposition of properties, and so now there will be one additional entity represented at the table, and LISC, as I said in my testimony, has been working with us addressing issues of vacant land, so I think that the expertise that LISC brings could be helpful in the discussion of how land should be disposed and to what entities and to what end.
I am familiar with the Vacant Property Review Committee. In fact, in a prior capacity 7 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 as President of PCDC, I sat on the Vacant Property Review Committee and understand its important function. The question I have is that as a public land distribution/dissemination agency, we seem to be experiencing some delays by way of disposition of property, and I wanted to know -- and I came from my office to burden this committee with that question so that I could get a better answer. It's my understanding that we have some delays and backlogs. Is this going to change that in any way, and, if not, how are we going to kind of move that process along? MS. McCOLLOCH: We're currently -- there is a backlog of cases that's currently being addressed. The cases are being reviewed. We've been going through what was an extensive backlog. I believe about 250 properties have been moved recently, and that we're going back and reviewing each of those 8 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 cases so that that pipeline that has been delayed can get moved. I'm not sure that adding an additional member to the committee will have much of an impact on that backlog, because that's really several years old, that we have to process each of those deeds, and each of those cases has to be reviewed. So we're turning that through the system now.
I'm aware keenly that the Chairman is interested in this subject and, in fact, has introduced legislation to deal with the overarching issue of publicly owned land, but I wanted to on the record cite that we really need to, in light of all of our budget constraints, in light of all the economic imperatives that we have, need to fix this process so that not only residential individuals who have adjacent properties to their property can gain control, but also issues, fundamental issues, of what is the value of the 9 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 inventory that we have, what is its potential to deal with some of the deficit problems by disposing of it. Those are issues that, just to give you a heads-up and the Vacant Property Review Committee and OHCD in general and Public Property, that we are going to be increasingly concerned about in light of all of the tough decisions we have to make budgetarily, and we're already beginning the budget process again. So fixing this is a critical component on the revenue side. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman. I must admit, I wasn't going to bring it up today, but there is some concern about some of the inconsistencies in the interdepartmental back and forth about how properties should be disposed and whether or not should they be market value or nominal. I understand that Public Property, not only being a member 10 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 of the committee who actually has to sign the deed, at the end of the day I think we all need to be on the same page, particularly given the fact that Councilman Jones has said we do need to be in a position to accelerate the disposition and our financial situation. I think we're actually going to be doing something very shortly relating to that issue. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This doesn't have as much to do with backlog as it does with information that I had received recently, and I don't know how accurate the information is, but has there been some discussion either in RDA or somewhere else relative to side yards that have been deeded over to neighbors in the past? I know the Chairman mentioned something about relative to the market value argument or discussion going forward. Is there 11 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 anything that you've heard of relative to properties that have already been deeded in the Side Yard Program? MS. McCOLLOCH: Not that I'm aware of of properties for which people have already received deeds. There is a working committee. The Redevelopment Authority is taking the lead on it, also working with the Chief of Staff, to review overall our vacant land disposition policies, as Councilman Clarke said, to try to bring consistency to what happens at Public Property, Redevelopment Authority, Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation and so forth.
But not properties that have been deeded? MS. McCOLLOCH: But not properties -- to my knowledge, not properties for which people have already received deeds.
So in the discussion -- and I have not been 12 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 directly part of it, just kind of getting information here and there, and that's the difficulty, and I will echo what I've said before and what other people have said, is that when there's lack of information or communication, rumors and other things grow and things become actually worse. So any ability to share what the issue is and what the discussion is with everyone in Council would be helpful, because when you hear this stuff, you go, Oh, my God, what are they going to do now. Going forward with the side yards, what's the issue relative to market, the market value argument? What's going on with the discussion there? What's the two sides or three sides of the issue? MS. McCOLLOCH: Well, there's a debate, I'll say, between the longstanding policy, which has been side yards would be disposed of at nominal value for use by an adjacent owner to use 13 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 as a garden or parking space or what-have-you, versus the notion that the land has value and we should -- "we" as the City -- should be recovering that value and not providing side yards at nominal value. So there's been a debate back and forth, particularly --
In neighborhoods that are experiencing difficulty where there could be hand in hand with that difficult circumstance, a lot of the abandonment and properties that have been demolished under NTI or by the City generally, it would seem that it would be cost prohibitive for some of the folks who live in those struggling neighborhoods to be paying market rate dollars for side yards, which I in the past in my experience, it's kind of been a bit of a favor I thought that they were doing for the City by taking ownership, cleaning it up, fencing it, landscaping it and making the neighborhood look better, while at the same time getting 14 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 more square footage for their own use. But if theoretically we start charging people a market rate assessment in a struggling neighborhood, you're not going to have any of those sold and you're going to have the blight. So, I mean, if the lot, which is highly unlikely, is located in a neighborhood where the property values are up there, in the 200, 300 per house, it's unlikely the lot is going to exist, because it's going to be developed. In neighborhoods where development is difficult for numbers of reasons, it would seem that having the Side Yard Program and a nominal fee is a neighborhood stabilization effort as much as it is a revenue producer. Do you understand the difference? MS. McCOLLOCH: I understand exactly what you're saying, Councilman, and that is precisely, if you will, the debate that's been going on between sort of the community development side of the 15 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 world, which is the value here is to promote neighborhood stabilization, give people, particularly in distressed neighborhoods, an opportunity to acquire that land and take care of it, as opposed to the side of the City that is looking to generate revenue and sees this as a way to generate revenue.
But you could put a side yard and vacant property out there for a market rate sale and never sell it. MS. McCOLLOCH: Right.
I mean, we just can't -- we've become kind of our own slumlord at that point, because we're not going to have the capacity or desire to turn these properties over to folks who will create a garden, maintain it, put a little side patio and make their house and their neighborhood better. MS. McCOLLOCH: And I think that's why we need a policy with some nuance to it so that particularly in 16 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 neighborhoods where there's not a lot of investment, you can have a way to dispose of properties at nominal value and not create a windfall in a different neighborhood where if you sell it at nominal value and then the person could turn around...
And the only thing I would add to that is that, again, if there's lack of information, there's going to be rumors and exaggeration, and that makes it harder to get the toothpaste back in the tube once it's out, and it's happened not necessarily with you on a number of instances, but over the last couple of years, a lot of that stuff could have been avoided had we had the information correctly in front of us and then had the ability to discuss it as opposed to trying to figure out what people are thinking. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay.
Thank you, Councilman. Real quick, Ms. McColloch, you mentioned that there was a committee reviewing land disposition/acquisition policy. Is City Council, either itself or through VPRC, represented on that committee? MS. McCOLLOCH: No, but the idea was that the committee is working -- it's a committee of the Administration that will be bringing a set of proposals back to Council to discuss with Councilmembers. There's not -- we've not yet created a set -- we've not yet written a set of policies for discussion. We're in discussion stages.
And I do hear that you said that the RDA was taking the lead, along with the Chief of Staff? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
I'm a little concerned about establishing a set 18 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 of policies, albeit a recommendation, without the involvement of City Council, who is pretty much the only entity that can dispose of property within government, and hearing now that VPRC -- the Chair of our committee is Mr. Coates. I'm a little concerned that you're saying that they're not involved in that discussion. I found -- MS. McCOLLOCH: I beg your pardon. Well, I've been involved in the discussions and Mr. Coates has been involved in the discussions.
He is? MS. McCOLLOCH: I meant there was not -- I misspoke. I misunderstood your question. There's not a specific representative -- there's not a specific Councilmember in those discussions, but certainly Mr. Coates has been in the discussions, as have I.
In his capacity is he representing VPRC or is he representing -- because it's a little 19 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 confusing, because it's a VPRC staff that actually works for you. MS. McCOLLOCH: Right.
So my question is, is he representing City Council in his capacity as the Chair of the committee on that panel or is he representing you in his capacity as Director of the VPRC staff? MS. McCOLLOCH: He's bringing his expertise to the committee to this little working group as --
Two hats. MS. McCOLLOCH: -- the Director of Real Estate for the Office of Housing and Community Development. So he's not there specifically as a representative of City Council.
So we don't really have a representative on it. MS. McCOLLOCH: Right.
Okay. All right. I'll leave that alone. Councilman Rizzo. 20 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390
Has the sale of a side yard or a piece of real estate to a homeowner ever impeded development? Do we have in our arrangements land leases? I mean, do you ever hesitate in selling someone outright a vacant lot that you believe some day when the neighborhood, like many neighborhoods have, comes back? Could they be a land lease versus an outright sale? MS. McCOLLOCH: There's not a land lease. Hold on just a minute. I'm sorry. Let me just ask Mr. Coates to come up, because he's really the expert on this and he could answer that question.
You understand my question? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yeah. 21 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390
That they own it, but they don't own it. (Witness approached witness table.)
I'd just like to say, Mr. Edwards, I know you're here for this particular bill that will designate your agency as a member of VPRC. Please bear with us. We don't get a lot of bites at the apple, so I know we're a little off the screen in terms of our question, but we'll be with you very shortly.
Good morning. Yes. There are -- John Coates, Chairman of the Vacant Property Review Committee. There are times that we issue what's called an Urban Garden Agreement, which is similar to a lease. It's a renewable document each year that allows a homeowner or civic group to utilize vacant land. That way, I think to answer your question, should the City at some point down the pike wish to use that land 22 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 for another purpose, it hasn't been deeded over. It stays in City inventory.
Well, we just witnessed that, I believe. They relocated one of the urban gardens recently, in the last six or eight months, to a new location because of development. So I've witnessed that. But I'm talking about some of the routine sales. Should there be some consideration of land lease versus outright ownership?
Well, I think the Planning Commission reviews -- on the committee is the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission usually reviews the appropriateness of the disposition. So if there is a plan for some future use, we're usually made aware of that and asked not to dispose.
Well, the reason I'm bringing it up is exactly that. Many people have been turned down because of that, that they asked that 23 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 there be an option that they could lease it until the time that it was developed, and they were told no. 5
Well, they should be able to lease through Public Property. They couldn't lease -- the VPRC can't issue a lease, but the Department of Public Property could. That might be something that could be incorporated into these discussions.
While the Chairman is out, let me ask another question, not to belabor this point, Ms. McColloch, but in kind of piggybacking on what Councilman Kenney said. Whose decision was it to set up this advisory committee or whatever it was, or who is doing it? 24 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 MS. McCOLLOCH: Who is?
On the working group, yes. MS. McCOLLOCH: It's being chaired by the Chief of Staff, Clay Armbrister.
Do you know the reason -- I mean, it would seem to me just for a couple of reasons, just sort of courtesy and saving time, to get it done, that Council would have a direct involvement, some Councilmember or some entity. This is nothing against Mr. Coates, but as Councilman Clarke says, he has a couple hats on. You had said earlier that Vacant Property Review Committee is part of City Council, and so obviously vacant property, its disposition affects -- City Council affects, and certainly the district Councilpeople particularly are very involved in this, and those of us at-large are too, but particularly the district people. It just doesn't seem to 25 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 make a lot of sense. And I know this maybe isn't your decision, but I'm just trying to think the thinking here of why Council would not be a direct involvement in this, because it comes back to us and we didn't -- I would say the likelihood of problems coming out of that increases. Wouldn't you think? MS. McCOLLOCH: I think the idea was that there would be some preliminary work done to put some ideas out and then bring it back and have discussions with Council.
Well, again, not to belabor it, but it would seem like having Council as one of those entities in that original discussion since they're so involved anyway just makes some sense. And, again, I'm probably picking on you and it's not your decision, I understand that. We go through this all the time. The folks that we need to get to, we can't. And this has gone farther than the bill we 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 have today, but it just seems like that doesn't -- because vacant property is going to be always a big thing with Council and the constituents, and it just seems to include Council in the very beginning makes a lot more sense. Councilman Kenney. MS. McCOLLOCH: I understand your concern.
Thank you. Just one more question relative to this, and this came into my head as a result of conversations I just had with Councilman Greenlee. You had said in your answer to my question that no deeded properties would be reconsidered, or once they were deeded over, the deed was -- MS. McCOLLOCH: As far as I know, that's -- yes.
And Mr. Coates mentioned issues relative to a garden lease or garden agreement. Are the garden agreements in the mix of potential properties that could be 27 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 reclaimed by Public Property or the RDA?
They could be. They could be. MS. McCOLLOCH: They could be, because those properties have not been deeded. The ownership has not changed. The ownership is still in RDA or the City.
So let me give a hypothetical. If a community civic association managed an urban garden for years and this group that's 14 putting together this policy decides that 15 that property is of value, they could conceivably move to take the property back and sell it on the market? MS. McCOLLOCH: Conceivably the City could choose not to renew the lease for another year if their people have it under an Urban Garden Agreement.
And that would have to do with the current value of the property as it relates to that neighborhood when you reconsider the 28 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 lease? MS. McCOLLOCH: Right.
How many of those properties -- how many of those Urban Garden Agreements exist or are active right now?
So all of those few hundred would be eligible for reevaluation. Now -- let me go back. How many of the several hundred that we have have not been renewed?
No. It's usually 29 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 automatic, and in many cases, if the group incorporates and becomes a corporation, they can acquire title.
Let me just give you some -- and, again, this is for whoever is listening and whoever is going to read the transcript. If the results of this working group put us in a position here where we're going to have to take a ton of grief from folks in the community because their properties are being taken back after they've tended them for a significant amount of time, it's not going to be pretty, and as Councilman Clarke said and Councilman Greenlee has said and Councilman Rizzo has said, if we're on the ground floor with the development of the policies, one of us or someone designated from Council staff, then you're not going to have the problem. I don't want to have to put up with hundreds of phone calls and e-mails to my office if the policy outcome 30 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 decided that we're going to take these properties back and market them. If I have some advanced notice of it, I can deal with it. If we have some input, we can mitigate it and we can shape it, but if you guys go ahead and do it and then I start getting bombarded for no reason -- since we're telling you this now -- MS. McCOLLOCH: I hear you, Councilman.
It's not going to be a pleasant situation. And I don't want to be unpleasant. MS. McCOLLOCH: I understand your concern.
A perfect example of being blind-sided was when they had to relocate in Southwest Philadelphia all of the urban gardening to accommodate the expansion of the 31 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 airport, or whatever the rationale. We were bombarded by that, and I think we honestly read about that in the newspaper when that all occurred on all of those -- do you remember that, when all the gardeners' gardens had to be removed to accommodate some activity at the airport? MS. McCOLLOCH: I'm not familiar with it, but I think it went through Public Property, yeah.
Perfect example. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay. I hear the concern.
Thank you, Councilman. I concur with the earlier statements by the Councilmembers. Let the record reflect that Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller and Councilwoman Joan Krajewski are present at the committee meeting. Any other questions from members of the Committee of these 32 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 witnesses? (No response.)
There being none, thank you very much. The next witness will be Mark Edwards from LISC. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Edwards. Please state your name for the record.
My name is Mark Edwards. I'm the Executive Director of Philadelphia LISC.
Good morning, Chairman Clarke, Vice-Chairman Kenney and members of the Committee on Vacant Property and Public Works. Good morning. As indicated, I am Mark Edwards, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Office of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, otherwise referred to as 33 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 LISC. On behalf of the staff and Board members of Philadelphia LISC, I am honored to be with you this morning to testify in support of Bill No. 090390, which would add Philadelphia LISC to the Vacant Property Review Committee. We are grateful to Councilman Goode for introducing this bill and we deeply appreciate his confidence in us. Should this bill pass, we look forward to the opportunity to play a vital part in the important work of the VPRC. I would like to provide some brief background information about our organization and describe some recent work we are doing in the area of vacant properties. I will then be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Philadelphia LISC is the local office of the national Local Initiatives Support Corporation. National LISC was established in 1980 and today is the largest community development 34 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 intermediary in the United States. National LISC channels loans, grants and technical assistance to more than 2,200 community development corporations, or CDCs, nationwide. By supporting and strengthening these non-profit, resident-led local organizations, LISC helps renew the communities where lower-income people live, work and raise their families. Philadelphia LISC was among the earlier offices established within the national organization and we were established in 1981, and we have worked with CDCs in virtually every neighborhood over the last 28 years. Our aim and commitment is to help reverse the effects of decades of disinvestment in distressed communities citywide. Philadelphia LISC's services to CDCs include loan financing, grants, technical assistance and support on policy issues. Since our inception, Philadelphia LISC has raised locally $9.6 35 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 million in funding. By combining those local resources with national funds, LISC has been able to make over $249 million in community development loans, grants and equity to CDCs throughout the City. The result has been over 6,500 new housing units for lower-income families and 1.37 million square feet of commercial space and community facilities. Additionally, Philadelphia LISC's investments have leveraged over a half a billion dollars, $670 million in total development costs. Because of our extensive work with CDCs, we believe that LISC offers the VPRC an important perspective of a neighborhood supporter in the areas of housing and community economic development. By formally joining the VPRC, we would hope to be able to expand on the work that we are currently doing with the Redevelopment Authority and the City of Philadelphia overall in support of a 36 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 comprehensive strategy for vacant land management that promotes sustainable neighborhood revitalization. As part of that effort, we have commissioned a report from a nationally recognized authority on vacant land management known as the National Vacant Property Committee. The report will assess the current state of affairs in Philadelphia and offer best-practice recommendations from other cities nationwide. That report will be available before the close of this year, and we welcome the opportunity to make a formal presentation of the report to this committee, to the full City Council or both. In closing, again, let me thank you for the opportunity to testify. Should this bill pass, we are committed to being fully engaged, active partners in the VPRC's efforts to carry out its mission. Thank you. 37 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Again, I want to thank LISC for the significant commitment to Philadelphia's neighborhoods over the years. I'm hearing earlier on the sidebar you telling me you guys have been investing quite significantly in the district I represent, and my assumption is that it's comparable in other areas of the City, so I just want to thank you. Are there any questions of this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
There being none, thank you so much for your testimony, sir.
Let the record reflect that Bill No. 090521 has been withdrawn from this committee hearing. We rescheduled that for a later 38 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 date. This concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Public Property and Public Works. We will now go into the public meeting. Councilman Kenney, can you please make a motion on the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 11 090390 be amended accordingly with the amendment circulated by Councilman Goode. (Duly seconded.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 39 10/26/09 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090390 090390, as amended, be reported out of this committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded Bill No. 090390 will be voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation and rules suspension to allow to be read at the next session of Council. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Public Property and Public Works concluded at 11:45 a.m.) - - - 40 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 26, 2009, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (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.)