COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:15 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 090065, 090066, 090067 and 090068 - - - 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. The Committee on Appropriations is now in session. Will the Clerk please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 090065, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009 within the General Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions to certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; and Bill No. 090066, an ordinance 16 authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009 within the Grants Revenue Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions to certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; and Bill No. 090067, an ordinance 24 authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009 within the Water 3 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions to certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; and Bill No. 090068, an ordinance 7 authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009 within the Aviation Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions to certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions.
Thank you. Do we have anyone from the Administration here? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Good morning, Councilwoman. Good morning, members. I'm Steve Agostini, Budget Director for the City of Philadelphia. I appear before you today 4 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. to offer testimony on Bill 090065, 090066, 090067 and 090068, which make FY2009 budget appropriation transfers between and among classes and departments in the City's General, Grants Revenue, Water and Aviation Funds, respectively. Beginning with the General Fund mid-year transfer ordinance, as shown in Exhibit A, there are transfers 11 requested in Bill No. 090065, including 12 ten transfers involving a net change in 13 departmental appropriations and eight 14 transfers between classes within 15 departmental budgets that do not result 16 in any net changes in appropriations. 17 All General Fund transfers total slightly 18 over 25 million. Among the larger transfers, the Philadelphia Prisons requests 13.278 million to fund additional personnel and contractual housing associated with increased prisoner census. Five million is requested by the Law Department to fund costs associated with the increased 5 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. use of contract experts and attorneys and to fund legal costs associated with recent contract and arbitration settlements. The Police Department requests 1.5 million to fund increased uniform and maintenance allowances awarded in the last FOP arbitration. The Board of Revision of Taxes requests an increase of 1.3 million to fund additional programming and maintenance costs associated with the Computer Aided Mass Appraisal system. And then smaller amounts, the Commerce Director requests a transfer of 580,000 to complete the functional transfer of the Office of Economic Opportunity into the Commerce Department. The Office of Housing and Community Development requests a transfer of million from the Public Health Department to reflect also a functional transfer of the childcare facilities fund and to fund greening and anti-predatory lending initiatives. An internal transfer of 1.9 6 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. million is requested by the Managing Director to realign funding for both the 3-1-1 system and the Youth Violence Reduction Partnership. And the Division of Technology requests an internal transfer of 300,000 to fund additional equipment purchases. Bill No. 090066 requests a transfer of 11.9 million in the Grants Revenue Fund to provide appropriations to the City Commissioners in order to spend Federal Help America Vote Act funding, what's known as HAVA. Funds will be used for enhanced voter education efforts and to improve place accessibility, as well as reimbursement to the General Fund for the purchase of electronic voting machines. Bill No. 090067 requests a transfer of 10 million in the Water Fund. This transfer is needed to provide for increased debt service costs associated with the turmoil in the global financial markets and certain instruments that the 7 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Water Department has. And then, finally, Bill No. 4 090068 requests a transfer of $34,200 in the Aviation Fund. This transfer is needed to pay increased uniform clothing and maintenance allowances granted in the FOP arbitration award. I am happy to answer questions that you may have, and there are representatives from the individual departments who are also here to provide additional information and answer questions.
Thank you very much. I understand the rest of the testimony will be read into the record.
Yes. And I neglected to say -- and I'm going to get better at this, I think. I would appreciate if you would report this bill 23 out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further request that the rules of Council be suspended so as 8 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. to permit first reading at the next session of Council.
Thank you. Regarding the Law Department, how many cases are handled by outside legal counsel on a yearly basis? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Madam Chairperson, Councilmembers. Shelley Smith, City Solicitor. The number of matters handled by outside counsel in a given year varies from year to year depending on really the demands of the Law Department. Obviously we don't have any control over when we get sued or for what, but typically the reasons that we send matters out are either for capacity -- in the case of labor negotiations, it's a perfect example -- or conflict matters. 9 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. In 2006, just to give you sort of an idea over the past few years, in Calendar Year 2006, the Law Department referred out 80 matters. In Calendar Year 2007, the Law Department referred out 68 matters. In Calendar Year 2008, the Law Department referred out 54 matters. So they've actually declined last year over the previous couple.
Well, I do know that a recent news report put the cost of outside legal counsel for the fiscal year around $7 million. Could you explain to the Committee where the other million will come from to make up the difference, since your request today is only million. So I'm guessing that you'll be back at another time for two more million.
Madam Chair, that is correct. We were looking at the end-of-year ordinance to complete whatever additional funding we might need not only for the Law Department but for 10 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. other departments. The million request represents what we need to date to pay outstanding bills that have been incurred to date already. We're hoping that we don't incur the full million. That's a projection. So that's why we're holding that until the end of the year.
Well, regarding the hiring of firms for negotiations on the City union contracts, why were there only five firms solicited for this work?
There were -- if you're referring to what was reported in the newspaper, we interviewed five firms for the work because we -- the criteria that we established to interview the firms was based on the capacity that the firms would have to handle the work. It's quite voluminous work, as you can imagine, and the expertise to handle the 11 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. work; that is, the familiarity with the unions, public sector labor law, which every firm in the City does not handle. And so once you boil that down, there were only five firms that had -- there were only five firms whose resumes fit those criteria.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? Councilman DiCicco? Councilman Clarke?
Madam Chair, I actually had a question with respect to Prisons. I'm going to let Ms. Smith go for today.
Someone down that end has a question. The lights are on.
I have a question. Part of what was reported was the issue -- and I guess there's mixed 12 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. reviews as to whether we have a hire freeze for attorneys or whether we are going to bring in more attorneys to absorb some of this work, especially some of the more aggressive work that's been done around collections.
Could you ask the part of our question again about the collections.
Do we have a hire freeze for attorneys? Are we hiring attorneys to absorb some of this internal work, increased work, that needs to be done so that we're less reliant on these independent contractors?
Councilmember, we don't have a hiring freeze. We have a regular review of every request to hire from every department. That includes Water and Aviation funds as well. And what we're trying to do is ensure that the life and safety requirements for the City are taken care of and that critical positions in departments are also taken 13 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. care of. In that process of review over the last four to five months, we have approved -- that hiring committee has approved a number of attorney hirings, including some at significant levels of expertise and responsibility for the Law Department.
We've hired -- excuse me. Let me find that particular document. We have hired in the Fiscal Year 2008, we hired 13 attorneys, of which nine were in litigation, which is where the conflict -- which is where the outside counsel needs generally arise more frequently, the conflict and expertise issue. And we've hired, I 14 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. believe, two since -- two General Fund attorneys in Fiscal Year '09. The issue has been that we looked to increase a net increase in the number of attorneys in the Law Department. We lost more attorneys -- obviously we have sort of expected attrition, and in the last year, for a variety of reasons, which is not appropriate for me to get into here, we had some unexpected attrition. That sort of lowers the floor from which we were working. So we haven't experienced a net increase in the number of attorneys in the department. We are working to -- there have been a variety of reasons that have contributed to that. Our salaries, as you read in the paper and I think everybody knows, as compared to the market are very low. The Budget Office has been very supportive of trying to work to figure out ways to do that, but with this very constrained budget 15 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. environment, it just becomes more difficult. So we can't always bring on the more experienced attorneys that would allow us, for example, to bring back matters that are already outside. And I came in with a significant number of matters outside, as you can hear from the numbers that I recited to you about the cases that have been referred out in 2006 and 2007. Those cases were already out when I got here. So we wanted to, as I said, effect a net increase in the number of attorneys and try to not only reduce, which we were able to do, the number of matters that we referred out, but also to bring some of those matters back, but we weren't able, in many instances, to hire people with the necessary expertise to do that.
Yes. Two questions, Ms. Solicitor. 16 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc.
One, just a general question about auditing outside lawyers' hours. There's a term that I'm sure you're familiar with. It's called over-lawyering a case.
Public entities are more susceptible to it, I believe, from having talked to a lot of people in the public sector, than the private sector, which usually when there's house counsel or a client there, they're scrupulous about how many lawyers are doing the same thing. And I just wonder what kind of auditing we have within the department for this, because we're looking at some pretty high bills here.
Sure. First, let me say that the amount of money that we pay to lawyers at outside firms is so below their market rate that I'm not sure that there's necessarily -- I mean, we 17 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. already pay them -- our top rate for billing lawyers is $225 an hour. That's no matter what their level of seniority. If you're a partner at a law firm with 6 years of experience doing city work, 7 you're going to get $225 an hour. 8 As many of you probably know, 9 an attorney at that level billing a 10 private client -- 11
I'm not 12 talking about that attorney. See, I want 13 to make clear what firms often are 14 accused of doing, and I'm not saying you 15 have ever been convicted. And this is 16 with insurance defense work, any 17 low-paying work that is far below their 18 regular hours, they have more lawyers on 19 the matter, because it's not the person 20 sacrificing at the top. It's the people at the bottom that are gathering a lot of hours that are very close to what they're charging.
So I don't 18 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. need to hear about the top person. I'm talking about when four lawyers are in the room instead of one or --
-- three lawyers or whatever, and I want to know what you have.
Our contracts prohibit that. Our contracts require that firms that do the City's work only have one attorney working on any given task at any given time for exactly the purpose that you're mentioning, that we don't want over-lawyering. And so the process for making sure that happens is that there's an attorney assigned to oversee each matter that's handled by outside counsel, and those bills come in and those bills are reviewed by outside counsel for the appropriateness of the billing in terms of both the amount for the task and the time spent on the task, and when there appears to have been 19 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. overcharging or excessive billing for a particular task or in a particular area, those bills are marked up and reduced and sent back for reductions. And we routinely do that.
Do you have any third party that reviews these bills for you, as insurance companies do when they send out work, companies that specialize in kind of keeping your costs down?
Are you aware that there are companies that that's all they do? They help firms that hire outside counsel keep their costs down by auditing very tightly how many hours are being spent on different matters.
I would ask you to look into that, because it's 20 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. common in the private sector to have that audit.
Secondly, do you have a strategy to try to get these costs down going forward?
Yes. My strategy has been and remains that the only way that we can -- the only way -- there's always going to be categories of matters that we're going to have to send out. Conflict matters will always have to be sent out, because we cannot handle them in the Law Department. Labor negotiations are the kind of work that the Law Department probably would never have the capacity to fully handle in-house, because the work is so voluminous and so time consuming that it would take a staff of -- it would take a certain number of attorneys. It would be their full-time job. And I'm not sure that we would ever be able to build that capacity in-house. 21 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. So short of those kinds of matters, it has been my intention to try to hire in-house the attorneys that have sufficient experience to handle the matters that we've sent out for reasons like staffing. For example, we had several matters outside that are class action sorts of matters, several plaintiffs involving sort of complicated legal issues. There was a time when the Law Department had attorneys on the litigation side that had sufficient trial experience that they could handle those matters, but we don't have enough of them now. It's my intention to try to hire them. I have been trying to do that. For all the reasons that I think I've already described, we've just been unable to do that. But we continue to work, and the positive thing is that the down economy in the private sector has sent more experienced lawyers our way. So I'm hopeful that there will be an 22 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. uptick in our getting resumes of more experienced attorneys who are willing to work for our, sadly, very low salaries in order for us to try to make those differences. So I'm continuing to work on that.
That's the only way to do it, because the work doesn't go away.
Can you repeat the number of cases in the years '06, '07 and '08?
Yes. In 2006 -- this is calendar year, not fiscal year. 23 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. In Calendar Year 2006, the Law Department referred 80 matters to outside counsel. In Calendar Year 2007, the Law Department referred 68 matters to outside counsel. In Calendar Year 2008, the Law Department referred 54 matters to outside counsel.
And how many outside counsel firms do you actually use, and of that number, how many are minority firms?
If you give me a minute, I haven't counted the firms, but if you just give me a moment.
Well, I have to get you that information. I can't divide it up. In terms of the number of different firms we've used in each year -- in terms of the number of different firms, I can tell you that in 2008 we referred matters to, it appears to be, 16 different firms. I'd have to 24 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. get you the specific number of firms used in each of those previous years.
All right. I'd like to get that information on the number of firms, and of that number, how many were minority.
Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's on another department? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.
Okay. 25 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Thank you. I believe we have Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for the Prison Commissioner. Commissioner, the largest amount in any of these appropriation bills is in your department and related to increased prisoner census. In terms of this particular increase, do we know whether these people have been sentenced already or whether they're simply awaiting trial? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Good morning, Councilwoman Krajewski, members of the Committee and Councilman Goode. In our population, breakdown of our population, of the 9,700 approximately we have in custody on a given day, about 76 percent are awaiting trial and the remainder are sentenced.
I was going to ask the question about the general 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. figure next, but in terms of this increased cost, this million for 4 increased prisoner census, do we know 5 whether these are people who have already 6 been sentenced or whether these are 7 people awaiting trial? Are we just 8 assuming that about 76 percent are 9 awaiting trial? 10 COMMISSIONER GIORLA: The 11 increased sentence, which the number is 12 approximately 700 over last year, are 13 primarily pre-trial or unsentenced inmates.
I asked a question previously in another meeting related to why we have this many people awaiting trial that have not been sentenced that are increasing our prison costs in this way, and the question was related to the amount of continuances and whether those continuances are actually being requested by the District Attorney's Office or whether there's some other reason for them. 27 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Councilman, I don't know or have that data. That would be under the purview of the courts. As it stands right now, we're participating with the other criminal justice agencies in the City. In the Criminal Justice Advisory Board, we've formed a Prison Population Subcommittee to address that, and the courts have some matters in the works, which they could probably explain more fully.
Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Agostini, since this is going to be a recurring matter budgetarily, and actually not just budgetarily but from a public policy perspective, if the majority of people in our prison system are in fact awaiting trial and have not been sentenced and if it's because of continuances and it's because of continuances possibly that are being requested by the District 28 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Attorney's Office, how do we get control of that and when do we actually approach that issue honestly?
Councilmember, you're absolutely right. I mean, as the Commissioner said, I mean, the pre-sentencing holds, in essence, for people is what's driving up census. I know that the Deputy Mayor, Everett Gillison, has been working with both the DA and the courts to try to improve that. I will ask him to come back with some update as to what those efforts have done and where we are, but until the courts and the DA actually take a different approach, there's very little Prisons can do and there's very little that our branches of government can do. But we'll bring that up.
Because this is another $13 million. It's only going to continue and continue.
You're right. It's a big number. 29 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc.
My question is, what were the final costs associated with the 3-1-1 system? Do you want me to finish or do you want --
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Good morning, Councilman.
My question is actually, to some degree, kind of along the lines of Councilman Goode's question, and Mr. Gillison I see is not here, and I don't know if you can answer these specific questions, but I know that there is -- I think you referenced a committee or a task force that's put 30 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. together to try to reduce the prison population generally, because these costs are obviously increasing on a daily basis, and as Councilman Goode said, there's a substantial number of individuals who are awaiting trial. There could conceivably be individuals who should be in a federal prison system or some other type of environment, and we're doing a lot of outsourcing. Can you tell me what the status of that committee is or that task force is that's working on coming up with strategies to reduce that population? Because at this rate, it's clear that we cannot continue the ever-rising increase in costs of our prison population. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: I'd like to answer your question in two parts, if I could. First of all, you alluded to federal prisoners or outside-jurisdiction prisoners within our population. Right now we no longer house federal prisoners. After the Federal Detention Center was 31 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. completed in Center City, we no longer had that task. We do, however, house well over 530 state-sentenced inmates, those who have sentences longer than two years, between two and five years. Within that population, we've engaged the State Department of Corrections, who have agreed to take 250 and change the place of confinement, move them up to State facilities. That process has begun. It's moving. We haven't addressed the entire 250 yet.
Do you have a projected date of completion of the transfer? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Not at this time. A lot of it is dependent on forms and paperwork that has to be filled out and submitted by the State. There's an approval process based on sentenced calculation.
Let me ask you a more specific question. Do you anticipate being able to have that 32 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. transfer resolved before the next fiscal year -- COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Yes, sir.
-- so that won't be a carryover in our budget projections? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Yes, sir.
We do? Okay. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: And as far as the Criminal Justice Advisory Board, all the major components of the criminal justice system are members. We held a meeting just two days ago where we developed bylaws. Personally I'm on the Prison Population Subcommittee. We're performing an analysis of those within our population by hold. And by that I mean sentenced detentioners, those with multiple matters, and it's a large number of the population who they may have -- in addition to court continuances, there are several cases that they have, whether they're probation holds, parole holds or 33 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. new cases or who are bench warrants and cases on which they're wanted. That's a significant portion. I don't have those figures, but that's the analysis we're conducting. Once we do that, we expect to be able to identify subsets within the population that we can maybe move through the system a little faster or adjudicate quicker, and we're going to work with the courts to do that.
Are we looking at an enhanced electronic monitoring process or strategies? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: We have looked at a number of vendors, but at this point, we're in the process of revising our work release policies and procedures to include a phase that would incorporate electronic monitoring. We've looked at several vendors, but haven't awarded a contract as yet. We tested the technology and conducted a pilot. This may give us some 34 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. relief or give us some enhanced supervision of those in the community. We feel that it also can be extended to other elements of our population. In the event that we might be ordered -- and after that discussion about litigation, we could be ordered to make emergency releases into the community because of the level of population levels, which has happened in the past. We could use electronic monitoring as somewhat of an intense supervision rather than just letting people go. So they're some of the efforts that we're engaged in right now.
Okay. And you will keep us abreast? When is the next time you can give us a status report of that reduction strategy? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: The next tentatively scheduled Prison Population Subcommittee meeting for the CJAB is March 11th. I would believe sometime after that. And the actual CJAB meeting 35 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. is near the end of March.
Okay. Would it be possible for, I don't know, Mr. Gillison or the budget individuals to forward just a status report on a somewhat consistent basis so we can have a sense of where we are with that whole program? Because the only time we really get to ask questions about it is when we have a hearing. I think the last time was when Mr. Gillison was here about another unrelated matter. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: I'll submit the matter to the Deputy Mayor, sir.
Are there any other questions regarding the Prisons here? Councilwoman.
I guess I want to really emphasize what both my colleagues Councilman Goode and Clarke 36 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. are getting to. We are making incredibly tough decisions in this budget, and when you look at this single figure of $13 million, that would close our whole libraries and rec centers and everywhere else. And I can't emphasize the urgency when we know we've been carrying 500 prisoners that belong at the State. And I am encouraged by our moving of 250. But it's $100 a day, and I can't think of a more important matter for this Administration to resolve as quickly as possible as it is to just move those prisoners. So I just want to go on the record on that, because if we're doing 13 million and it's February, I foresee us potentially looking at another six or seven by the end of the year, and that's really hard for us to grasp, because it just seems as though this is a number we could better control, because we know what some of the solutions are, whether it's the home monitoring or some other 37 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. things. So I just really want to emphasize that.
Well, we appreciate that, but please bear in mind that we have partners on this, and the partners are not just you and the Administration. The partners are also the court system and the DA. And we need those partners to be cognizant of the same fiscal pressures that you've just outlined to assist us in trying to implement those things that we think not only save money but maintain safety at both the prison and the general community.
I agree, and I think because we're in season where we have a very contested DA's election, I think it's important for our citizens to be aware that we're never going to control this unless those partners do step up to the plate, and the same way they hold us accountable in Council, that we really look at these partners both on 38 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. the judicial side as we elect judges and the District Attorney, that we will grapple with this issue, uncontrollable issue, unless everybody steps up to the plate. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: And I can assure you, Councilwoman, that the bulk of this transfer amount was dedicated to outside housing, and we've managed to reduce that figure by at least two-thirds, and we're intending to try and reduce that as we speak. We hope to be out of nearly all outside contracts, all outside jurisdiction contracts, by the end of the fiscal year.
Thank you. Are there any other questions? I believe we have Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning, members of the Committee. 39 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Could I please ask the City Solicitor to return to the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, City Solicitor. I was not privy to your previous testimony, but did want to put on the record the context of why, as you put it here, ongoing labor negotiations and conflict matters also requires additional use of outside counsel. Please give us a status or update as to the -- do you have a unit or a division in the City Solicitor's Office that deals with labor negotiations?
We have a Labor and Employment Unit into which labor negotiations would fall if we had attorneys with sufficient experience to handle those matters. But we don't. That unit is staffed -- there has been, 40 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. first of all, a lot of attrition in that particular unit over the past several years. One of the first things that I did when I was appointed to this position was appoint a new Chief Deputy to oversee that. She is actually now out on maternity leave, but she was very involved in at least overseeing the labor negotiations. But we don't have sufficient -- we don't have attorneys within that unit with sufficient experience to handle the day-to-day demands of the labor negotiations.
And so if that be the case for the day-to-day labor demands, what does that mean for the soon to be need to -- in a year you're going to have to approach labor negotiations again, correct?
It's been -- I think the Finance Director was quoted in 41 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. the newspaper absolutely correctly, that we have been in virtually non-stop labor negotiations since we -- since this Administration took office, because we took office at a time when we had to begin preparing to negotiate contracts that were about to expire in June of 2008, at the end of June 2008, and as you all know, we negotiated one-year contracts, which means those contracts again expire in June of 2009, and we are presently in the process of preparing for those negotiations.
Okay. Which means you will continue to use the outside law firms?
Is there any other unit or division in the City Solicitor's Office that is also what one might term understaffed and, therefore, requires you to seek outside counsel if you're indeed in the business of trying as best as possible to keep the City 42 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. harmless?
Yeah. There's a particular need in the General Litigation Unit, which is the unit that handles litigation -- our litigation units are Civil Rights, Labor and Employment, Claims, which handles the personal injury cases, Code Enforcement and General Litigation. General Litigation handles everything that doesn't fall into the specific categories I just described of the other units. That unit presently has, I think, four attorneys and --
It's not the norm when you consider that one of those attorneys is a relatively young attorney. Those cases are typically very sophisticated commercial litigation matters. That's another place where we've lost attorneys and expertise over the years and have had to refer matters out. So, for example, we have a voting 43 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. rights case that's with outside counsel that would be --
A voting rights case that's been going on for years that's overseen by the General Litigation Unit, but could be handled within that unit if we had the expertise -- if we had attorneys there with the expertise and experience to handle it. But because of the demands and the low level of staffing, the one attorney -- the couple of attorneys in that unit who actually have fairly significant experience don't have the time to handle the demands of that case with all their other regular caseload responsibilities. That's an example. The Claims Unit is closer to being fully staffed, but we have two attorneys who are about to go out on maternity leave, and our caseloads are such that our attorneys handle somewhere 44 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. between 35 and 45 cases per attorney across the litigation units. You compare that with attorneys in a private firm of the same size as the Law Department, they typically handle a third that many. And so every time we lose any person for any reason for any period of time, such as somebody going out on maternity leave, that puts a strain. The cases have to be redistributed. That puts a strain on the attorneys who are left to try to pick up the work that can no longer be done by that person.
Okay. So I'm trying to get a handle on then when is it mandatory or essential for you to reach outside of the Law Department to outside law firms to meet the need.
As a general matter, we refer matters outside when we don't have -- first of all, in conflict matters where we have a conflict of interest. That happens most typically in police civil rights cases where both the 45 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. City and the police officers individually are sued and there has been already some disciplinary action taken by the Police Department so that the defenses would conflict. And then when we don't have the internal capacity or expertise; for example, the prison triple celling litigation, we've been subject now to two separate lawsuits. One was the Bowers case that was filed in 2007, I think, over triple celling in the prisons. That case is still active. And there's a subsequent case, a class action alleging the constitutional deficiencies of triple celling. That case is active. We don't have the capacity in-house or the expertise really to handle it. Those cases are referred outside. So those are the kinds of situations -- those are just examples. I couldn't give you like the laundry list, but those are examples of cases.
But ultimately if you refer them out, it 46 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. costs the City more.
That's absolutely right. And we don't have control over when we get sued. The cases come in. We are unfortunately in that way like the Prisons, that we get -- the City gets sued and the Law Department has to defend the cases somehow. And we are under the same obligations of professional conduct as every other attorney sworn to the Bar in Pennsylvania to meet our duties of zealous representation. We don't get to slack off because we're overworked and underpaid.
And so from a budget analysis standpoint, ultimately which is more cost effective, to hire experienced attorneys in-house or to -- what's the term?
The most cost-effective way of defending the City is to have experienced lawyers hired in-house to defend the City. We're always going to have situations where 47 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. for -- we're always going to have the conflict situation. There's nothing that we can do about that. We can't predict it. I mean, we're never going to be able to handle those in-house just because of the nature of the case. The conflict prevents us from doing that. So there are always going to be situations where we're going to have to refer cases outside, but to avoid having to do that in the situation except -- in situations except where it's absolutely necessary, the most cost-effective way of defending the City is to hire lawyers in-house with the experience to handle the case.
Okay, then. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair Lady.
Thank you. Councilwoman Sanchez, I believe you have a question.
48 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Councilman Clarke.
Are there any other questions regarding the Prisons? Councilman Jones.
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. Good morning.
Does the City Solicitor's Office have the primary or partial responsibility for bail collection?
We have a responsibility to collect delinquent -- to collect revenues when they become 90 days delinquent, revenues of all kinds that are owed to the City. So to the extent that bail money is owed to the City, yes, the City is -- the Law Department is responsible for collecting that. 49 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc.
Currently, to the best of your knowledge, what is the outstanding amount of bail owed to the City of Philadelphia?
My understanding is that the amount that is listed as owed to the City, going back to 1968, is a billion dollars, of which we believe about a million is actually collectible.
Let's assume your assumption is correct, and I have no 13 reason to doubt it. Of that million dollars, what is your strategy for collecting the receivable that is indeed collectible?
We have put out an RFP for the collection of that bail money, and we've been working with -- we've been working with the Common Pleas Court, which has also put out an RFP to collect the money owed from a certain year forward. And so we've been working together to try to coordinate those efforts, so that we have an understanding 50 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. with the court that what they collect that is owed to the City will come to the City, and we have an RFP out to collect the remaining set of that money that's owed to the City.
Councilwoman Sanchez, that's a part of your recommendations of the Freshmen 15. And I would only ask for the record that some consideration of that million dollars be considered for the expansion of Community Courts. I don't need a commitment today, but just to put that on your radar screen.
Thank you. Are there any other questions regarding the Prisons? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez. 51 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc.
No. I don't have any questions for the City Solicitor.
I know, but you have a question. Councilman DiCicco? I'm going to have to get separate mikes down that end.
If we can have the Board of Revision of Taxes, Councilman Clarke and Councilman DiCicco have questions for them.
Good morning. I'm Charlesretta Meade, Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes, and with me is Enrico Foglia, our Executive Director.
Thank you. 52 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Councilman Clarke -- or Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are we starting to look alike?
You only have one mike among you, that's why. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair. In relationship to your request for $1.3 million for the Computer Aided Mass Appraisal system, how long ago did this project begin?
I think it was 2005. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Before your time as Chair, I believe.
2004. I'm sorry. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So 2004. So it's five years. Four and a half, five years.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do we know how much was spent to date on getting this system in place? 53 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc.
Just under seven, I believe. Just under $7 million, I believe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we not make an appropriation and additional funding last year available or within the last four years at that number? Has this number not increased?
I would have to go back and check. I don't recall offhand whether there was an appropriation addition, but I will check. But I believe that to your point, has the number been going up, I believe that's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I believe we were told that this program would be operational if not last year, maybe within the last year, and that may have been the second time, quite possibly the third time since '04 that we were told that in another five, six months, the system will be ready. 54 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Why are we not ready and why are we now asking for 1.3 million, of which we've already spent million? 5 That's a significant percentage of the 6 original bill for this program to be 7 implemented. So could you just explain to us where we are and why we're still not there yet?
Okay. There are multiple reasons why we're not there yet. One of the problems that we had during the summer and the fall since I spoke to you last was in the actual processing of the data in terms of trying to transfer the information from VSAM going to a platform over that's at the Department of Technology and into the new realware program, and the processing back from realware to VSAM was extremely slow. We also had a problem in making sure or assuring that we had dedicated staff over at DOT. We were at the point where when there were problems or inquiries, we had to call in the help 55 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. desk. There were also several severity issues that needed what they called work-around that we were still trying to get resolved. In the end of September when we realized the problems we were having, I actually contacted Allan Frank from the Department of Technology to request that he come to provide more dedicated staff, that he could assist in terms of making a review of the project and a determination of how we could actually speed up not only the processing but the entire project, and he made certain recommendations to us. And now I believe we're back on track again, and it appears that we should have -- and I see Allan is here now -- we should have the CAMA system ready April, beginning of May. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm smiling not to be sarcastic, but --
I know. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- if we 56 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. go back into the notes of testimony over the last couple of years, my guess is -- and I think I'd be quite accurate -- that we've basically heard the same explanation and the fact that we would be ready by April or March in the past, and I'm just wondering what will make it any different this year than has not been the case in the previous years. Staffing was always an issue and moving from one system or flatware to another. All that technical stuff, which I don't know about and don't care to know about, seems to be the same old story, if you will. No 16 disrespect, but that's what we've been hearing. And I'm wondering from a technical standpoint if and when the system is finally in place -- and, again, I'm not a technician with computers -- will this system be antiquated by the time we get up, since it's five years ago that we started this program?
Do you want to address that? 57 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc.
Councilman, I'm Allan Frank, and Councilwoman and Appropriations Committee. I'm the Chief Information Officer for the City. I obviously wasn't here in the past, since I'm relatively new, but when I did come in in the fall, I did do a full review of where they are, and I know it does sound like you've heard this before, but there were some real issues with how they were implementing the system, and this was -- this really preceded the Chairman. So I want to make it quite clear that -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I agree, and I think I started --
But where we are to your point is, we had to focus on making sure that the data was available to do the proper type of analysis on full 58 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. value. So what we tried to do is to make sure so that we could meet these dates that we pushed aside any other type of work with the system that didn't relate directly to actual value. So I think we're pretty confident that the system itself will be ready as we get into the May timeframe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The data on the values obviously would have changed, I would assume, based on the real estate market. Does that impact this program in any way? Does that mean that at some point we got to come back and then we're looking for more money to make changes or upgrade the system to reflect the real estate market as it exists today as compared to what it was six months ago?
No, sir. In fact, the data will be ready by May certainly for everybody to look at, and the system itself is designed to be able to handle those changes on an ongoing basis. 59 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there any of this money being used for anything other than CAMA? Salaries, operational issues related to the BRT?
Councilmember, no. 10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's strictly for CAMA?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How many Board members are there now?
Seven. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All appointed by the Board of Judges, right?
Yes, that's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Where do you get your salary? Is that State salary or City?
City. City of Philadelphia. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: City pays 60 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. your salaries. I don't have any further questions at this time. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Real briefly, the completion of this system, which you're anticipating relatively soon --
Technology associated with that. What role will this play, if any, in your ability to enact the full value taxation program?
Well, in terms of having the numbers for the actual value, we anticipate having those numbers within the next 30 days, actually. We're working on two tracks. One track is getting the full technology component of it ready so that we can have 61 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. the complete and final conversion of the data from the VSAM system into the realware system. At the same time, we're working with our consultants, our modeling consultants, who are doing the statistical analysis. Right now we have Dr. Kevin Gillen, who is working on the statistical analysis of all the land within the City, and with that statistical analysis, that information will then be transferred into VSAM and converted into the new computer system for the land values for the City. And then we have Dr. Forrest Huffman, who is Professor of Real Estate in charge of the real estate department out at Temple University, assisting us with doing the modeling of the improvement or buildings on the land. Those will be combined, and we anticipate completion of that information by the beginning of April.
Yes. Yes, by the 62 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. beginning of April of this year. The anticipation is that we'll be looking to assure that it's within the percent allowance of an error rate 6 prior to that information being 7 transferred from VSAM into the realware 8 system. What the realware system will do 9 is to then provide an analysis to take 10 all of the properties that are outliers 11 fitting not within that 15 percent and to 12 try to narrow that error rate. So we 13 hope to have numbers for you that are 14 good numbers in April. 15
So your ability -- because you didn't quite answer my question in specific terms. I wanted to know its relationship to your ability to implement the full value, which is a much talked about process.
Yes. So having that information so that the data is 63 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. clear and correct and in the VSAM system so that it can be converted, which is transferred over into the realware system, which will become our functional system of record, that system is, as Mr. Frank has testified, is expected to be ready April/May. Then we'll be ready. That would be our level of business readiness.
So does that translate into the BRT, which my understanding --
That will translate into our ability to provide the actual value numbers to the Administration and to City Council. That does not translate into our taking any step other than providing the information to City Council and the Administration. And then you will take it from there and we will complete all of the other components of the system, which we hope will generate the STEP and PURTA reports and handle all the other functions while you are making 64 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. your decision of what Council and the Administration does with rate and that sort of thing.
To make it clear -- and we appreciate -- I'm speaking on my behalf and I'm going to tell you, most members appreciate the fact that you will forward that information to all of the pertinent parties. You do not need City Council and the Administration's approval or permission to start the process of actually implementing full value; am I correct?
Well, in terms of needing the approval specifically by law, no, we wouldn't, but the cooperation has to be there.
Right. So if there's not the cooperation -- the information from the Board of Revision of 65 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Taxes on values is translated to the Department of Revenue, and it's the City Council millage -- the millage that's set by City Council is then placed upon the assessed value by the Department of Revenue.
If we don't have that change, then it's not working. So that's why I'm saying I understand your concern, but it becomes if that millage rate isn't changed, then there's a serious problem. So we have to do our job in terms of having the numbers ready, but there has to be a cooperation by all of us to know --
I understand that. I just want to clarify. Because when you said you're going to forward this information to Council and the Administration, it's not -- that you cannot say we're implementing on December 1st whatever, we're implementing full 66 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. value, the BRT, and then it's basically our responsibility to come up with a solution to adjust the millage to make it revenue neutral and all of the other things that we have to do.
What we're expecting once we transfer the information to you is that there will be a multiplicity -- there will be questions. And so there may be questions, there may be information that you need, there may be mapping and diagrams or analysis that we can assist you with. So we're anticipating -- and Mr. Frank and I were speaking about that yesterday -- preparing so that we can help to answer whatever questions that you need answered. You'll have the good numbers, but in terms of the level of the millage rate and how you do that, we're waiting to hear for that, as well as the Board is interested in hearing what happens with, for instance, the Homestead Act that was passed -- the ordinance that 67 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. was passed by Council about a year ago. But I know you're waiting for the enabling legislation, but with that Homestead Act, as it's written now, the responsibility is on the Board to take some action. So we're waiting to hear that, so that we can get ready for all of those things. So we will be in the mode of providing the information to you, working cooperatively with you and the Administration to understand what it is in addition that you may need in terms of analysis other than those numbers, and then finding out about the Homestead Act and other things that may impact this project. And then we definitely have to work cooperatively to go to the next step. So our next step is to get the numbers to you and then begin the process of working cooperatively to see if there's additional information that possibly our system can assist you with, 68 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. and then getting in our "get ready" mode to do what needs to be done vis-a-vis Homestead Act and any other ordinance or acts that are passed that the BRT has responsibility for.
Because of time, I won't belabor this, but I guess just again to emphasize what my colleague Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Clarke are concerned about, we all want to get the information accurately, but we also need the Board of Revision of Taxes, because it is an independent entity, to understand the urgency, given our financial situation, to have accurate data so that we can make decisions both on the executive side and on the legislative side and have a more predictable form of revenue and correcting a system that we all know has 69 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. had its issues. So I guess my message to the Board of Revisions and its members is, this is a time when more than any time in our history we need folks to feel the urgency that we're feeling. And our citizens express that to us probably in a more direct way than they do to the Board of Revision of Taxes, but they are unaware that our ability to get this right depends on an independent body like the Board of Revisions to get it right so that we can deliberate in a very thoughtful way as we move forward. So I just want to express that there is a sense of urgency, and we rely on you. Because I'm concerned when I hear Councilman DiCicco, my senior member, talk about dรฉjร vu and we've heard this before. So I just want to make that clear.
Right. And, Councilwoman, let me just say on behalf of the Board that we understand the 70 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. urgency as well, and what we put most importance on is assuring that we have accurate data to transfer to you. And there was one question I do want to clarify the answer to, and I think this was Councilman DiCicco. There will be a requirement in terms of updating the data in the system. For instance, the system uses -- and one of the items that is included in this request is for Marshall and Swift. Those are the cost tables, and those cost tables are updated yearly to make sure that we have the proper information on the sales files, which comparable sales are used. So those will be regular costs. That will be regular costs. And there will be some other regular costs for maintenance and updating of certain critical information that's needed so that we will have good data that's ongoing.
Thank you. 71 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm confused by this whole conversation, because we have a VMS system, which places values on property, which has a full actual value and it has a value for land. Now, we only tax at a certain percentage of that, which is one-third, but doesn't the VMS system have what the Board of Revision of Taxes currently considers to be the fair market value of every piece of property and building in the City of Philadelphia?
Well, as a function of the project for the -- of the realware project, it does, because that was a portion of gathering --
That's not my question. Doesn't the VMS currently have an assessment of the fair market value of every property and every piece of land in the City of Philadelphia?
And my answer is 72 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. that as a function of having the realware --
That's a yes or no question. I'm talking about the VMS system.
The VSM? As a function -- if you allow me to answer. As a function of preparing for the realware project, then, yes, there was a gathering of information so that we could have the values at actual value.
Isn't your job to have an accurate value for every single property in the City today regardless of the software or the technology?
So you're saying that you don't have a fairly -- you don't have a fair market value of the 73 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. properties that exist in the City of Philadelphia? I'm not talking about software platform.
Right. Well, one of the things that has to be understood why we put in the request and Council was so gracious to allow us to be funded for this system is that with the system as it existed, our evaluators were valuing property basically about every three years, even though it should be done annually, because we just didn't have the staff to do it on a year-by-year basis. So that's why I'm saying yes, we were responsible for doing that, but we needed a mass appraisal system to allow us to do it on a yearly basis. In preparing for this mass appraisal system, we're just about at the point where we have that information now, yes.
Every single property has a value in the BRT that people are currently paying taxes on --
-- that is currently the fair market value of that property as far as the BRT is concerned. So back to Councilman Clarke's question, I'm not sure I understand why a software platform is relevant with respect to state law, which requires that you assess properties at their actual fair market value today. Why are you waiting to act and fulfill your obligation under state law?
Well, it's not a matter of just sitting idly and waiting. It's a matter of having the number of people that you need on staff in order to be able to do it annually. That's why in most jurisdictions in order to accomplish the goal of having the annual assessments, you need a computerized mass appraisal system to assist the assessors in doing their job. That allows you to do the 567,000 accounts in the City on a yearly basis.
How many 75 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. assessments were done last year?
Eighteen thousand. How many assessment were done the year before?
Something like 400,000. So we are in financial trouble in our Five-Year Plan in part because your assessors went from 400,000 assessments to 18,000 and because you have failed to follow your state-mandated requirement of being at full value.
With all due respect, Councilman Green, we're correcting the deficiencies that we have now, but at any time during the 16-year period, Council could have changed the millage rate if you wanted to increase taxes. It's not our job to increase 76 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. taxes. It's our job to set the values. And what we're doing now is --
That's exactly right. Thank you for clearing that up, because that finally answers Councilman Clarke's question. Please do your job and set it at fair market value, and then we will do our job. That's the way it works, not the opposite. We don't set millage prior to knowing what the total assessed value that we're going to have our tax base off of. When you do your job, we'll do ours, but please --
And I as a member of the Board of Revision of Taxes never said you did, Councilman.
And we're doing our job. And, Councilman Clarke, may I just say, if I failed to answer your question, then I apologize. My intent 77 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. was to answer your question exactly and fully.
I think you could have -- and for the record, Ms. Meade is a long-time friend, constituent. I thought you could have answered the question more clearly, because from my perspective -- and I don't want to tell you what you should have said, but I'm going to tell you what you probably should have said, is that your ability to accurately implement the full value system requires you to be able to do an appraisal of the entire City all at once, because you can't implement a system that will, as we currently do, 15, thousand appraisals a year, and you'll 20 have portions of the City paying full value and other portions not paying full value. So you need to be in a position you can do an appraisal in the entire City in one year and then you implement full value after you had the ability to 78 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. do that.
We have testified previously in terms of the need for the computerized mass appraisal system to assist the assessors and the Board of Revision of Taxes in being able to do our mandated job of assessing values for the City on an annual basis. And that's our goal and our mission.
Just one 79 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. quick point, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I guess what I'm suggesting is perhaps what we have at the BRT is a -- and I'm not singling you out in this. I'm talking about the way it is run is a management problem and not a sort of lack of revenue or lack of assessment problem in terms of how things go, and I think we need to look at perhaps the way management works at the BRT so that someone that reports to this body can be accountable for their actions, someone perhaps having the Administration appoint members of the BRT or some other method so that there is accountability for what happens there to us and to the executive so that we can do proper planning in the future. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. 80 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you all very much for coming in. That ends our --
That ends our public hearing. Now we will go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for Bill 090065, and I believe a suspension of rules. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090065 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor? 81 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. (Aye.)
Therefore, Bill 090065 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, with a suspension of rules so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke on 090066.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090066 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, with a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Opposed? 82 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. (No response.)
Therefore, Bill 090066 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, with a suspension of rules so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for Bill 090067.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 13 090067 be moved out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
83 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. Therefore, 090067 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for Bill 090068.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 090068 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Therefore, Bill 090068 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable 84 2/26/09 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 090065, etc. recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. Thank you all very much. That ends our public meeting. (Committee on Appropriations concluded at 10:30 a.m.) - - - 85 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 February 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.)