Yeah. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: And it does. And the way the charter is set up, the solicitor's office provides the legal opinion for the entire city. So that everybody who does business with the city, everybody, the courts, right, everybody who's internal knows that it is the solicitor's opinion that will be presented in court along the way. So, yes, you can get another legal opinion, but I am telling you what the city will present if we go to court on this issue.
I understand. So I understand what you're saying. You're saying if the city goes to court, then the solicitor's legal opinion is what would stand up in court as it relates to the city's position -- CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Correct.
-- even though we may have had a difference of opinion in counsel. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Yes.
So I guess the question would be then how do we solve for that? How do we -- and I know I'm not an attorney, which is why I'm asking this.
Excuse me, Majority Leader. I have a point of information.
Yes. Thank you. And Madam Leader, I think I have an answer to that question, and that would be that council needs its own solicitor's office. It was just something that I've been advocating for since I was a staffer on City Council.
We need our own solicitors to issue -- to fight for us in court.
Well, I think for additional point of information for the record, I think my chief legal counsel said, we can't have two solicitors at one time. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: You could change the charter. That could happen. I'm telling you in other jurisdictions, it turns out to be a disaster.
The Chair recognizes Majority Leader Gilmore-Richardson.
Right. So -- and so, but here's -- this is my concern, right? We -- so say you do a charter change at -- we're back at where we are now. So I'm just asking for a procedural operational understanding. How do we solve for this challenge? Because, again, I don't want it to be a situation where now all these folks have voted in favor of this said initiative, and it wasn't my bill. I introduced it on behalf of another member who's no longer in this body. And I just don't know how we solve for that. Like, how do we solve for an issue like that, recognizing that other parts of the charter do state the administrative authority empowers of the administration, but when that is in conflict with the intent of the legislation and the question that hundreds of thousands of people voted in favor of having? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: And my response is that keep doing what you're doing. You know, come to the law department before anything is introduced and passed, and you will know the law department's position on whether it is legally enforceable, whether there's a preemption issue, whether there is separation of powers issue. Those are the two main things, and you will be on notice, and we can help fix whatever it is before it goes up.
So, but here was the issue with this. This happened under a previous administration, and so it was prior to this administration that the legislation was passed. And so now that there's been a change in administration and a change in the organizational structure of the staffing complement within the administrative department, now the opinion has been requested when there was no issue prior to this time. So it's one of those circumstances where we -- you know, I came right to you all because I just think that that's the right thing to do. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Right.
Because I always want to protect us and protect ourselves from, you know, any litigation. And just as a former legislative aide of five years, I know to do that. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Yes.
But again, in this instance is, I don't know how we solve for that challenge because say we do a charter change, and then as well, I don't have to follow that. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Well, and that's not a question of the law changing. We can tell you -- you know, you could ask, could future mayors ignore this? And we could say yes, because this is an executive prerogative, right? So, you know, I wasn't there when this conversation was taking place.
That word's prerogative. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Right?
Say that again. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: I mean, there is a separation of powers, and we can warn of that up front, right?
Okay. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: So you have a different mayor. The law doesn't change, and I don't make up the law, right? We interpret the law to the best of our ability. And again, that is the opinion of the city, should it be challenged in court.
Okay. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the time, Council President. I just wanted to get that on the record because as the chair of the law and government committee, I don't want folks to think that I didn't do my due diligence. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Of course. Yes.
As the chair of the committee and as the, you know, sort of chair that ensures that we're getting the ballot questions on. I work with the commissioner's office on the plain language statements with the law department, with you all. So I just want to make sure that I am doing my job to the very best of my ability, and wanted to ensure we have clarification on that issue. And I want to say again for the record, because I know they're listening, that I appreciate this administration for the opportunity to meet and work together. This was a bill that was introduced under the last administration that we're just getting an updated opinion regarding under this administration. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Understood. And your office is always a great partner, and I'm happy to talk about this further.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I just had a couple questions and I want to follow up somewhat on Councilwoman, our majority leader's line of questioning. And, you know, I had never heard the term of executive prerogative, which suggests to me that the executive office really is who the solicitor works for. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: No, I would say Council also has prerogative, right? We can give you all the advice in the world and you can pass what you want. So both -- there's a separation of powers and both the legislative branch and the executive branch have their own powers by design.
I -- listen, I know the way it's supposed to be set up and the way it's supposed to happen, but I'm saying that from your own words, the term executive prerogative would determine if there could be two solicitors in this administration or in future administrations. It's a bit -- you know, it's a bit troubling to me. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: No, no, no. I -- maybe you misunderstood.
Maybe. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: The charter is what says that there's one solicitor.
No, I understand that, yes. But we're talking about if there was a change so that there could be representation strictly for Philadelphia City Council, you're saying that it could be ignored by future mayors, by -- CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: No, no, not if there was a charter change.
Or but -- CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: No, no, no, that is not what I was saying.
You're saying not if there is a charter change. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Not if there's a charter change.
Right. Okay. All right. All right. Let me ask you a question then about this thing we call due process, which in many ways, in my opinion, is a bit of a double-edged sword, especially right about now, because we want to make sure that, you know, when it comes to individual rights, that people receive due process. When it comes to the operation of businesses in our communities that are flouting our laws, that are doing whatever they want to do, that are operating without licenses, without any sort of permits, you know, basically doing whatever they want to do. We continue to come back to L&I and different departments, the health department. We can't do anything about nuisance businesses because these businesses are afforded due process, and it feels as if it's over the rights of the community. The people who are most negatively or adversely impacted in the neighborhood. And so I was wondering if you could speak to that a little bit. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Sure. I don't know that -- we'd have to talk further about the perception or the reality. I'm not sure that there's a favoring of business rights over individual rights, because I don't --
What's the -- in my opinion, it's very much a reality. Anytime you can walk into an establishment that has no 13 operating permit, no operating licenses, no tobacco license. They're selling tobacco products. They're selling fake cigarettes. They're -- you know, there's no -- the signage is illegal. They're operating down the street from a school, which is illegal for the type of products that they sell. I mean, pretty much everything that they're doing is illegal. And yet they opened up earlier this year and they're still open. They were closed for maybe hours, but they're still open. And so when we've asked, and we just asked the other day, the Department of Licenses and Inspection, we asked the health department, and what we keep coming into, running up against is that they are afforded due process to be able to get their stuff together. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Yes.
Now, I 15 don't understand how it is that if I 16 put my trash out early, I don't get 17 due process. I get a ticket. If my 18 grass grows too high, I don't get 19 due process. You know, I don't get 20 a warning. I don't get time to get 21 it together. I get a ticket saying 22 you have to pay, you know, judge and 23 jury, you know, you are fine. If 24 there's construction done on a building that's, you know, of concern and L&I comes across the site, then it's a an immediate work stoppage, cease order -- cease work order. So I don't understand how these -- you know, what is the line that is drawn that says that certain businesses get a pass. They get time to get themselves together. And it feels as if for the rest of us, you know, there is no, you know, grace or time or warnings given. You get the actual violation which is, you know, due in, like, 10 or 15 days or whatever. And then it escalates and then you have, you know, additional fees and, you know, interest and penalties and all those kinds of things. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Sure. Let me try to tackle that in a couple different ways. So if you get a ticket for putting out your trash, your due process is that you have the ability to challenge that ticket.
Well, I'm not saying -- no. Well, let's say that I did put my trash out early, so, you know, yeah, guilty, right? But at the same time, they put out -- if they're going into a business and don't have a license to this day, they're guilty, right? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: So -- so --
So why do they get -- why do they get time to get their license or not and continue to operate? Shouldn't they have to close down while they're getting their license and all of their other, you know, use and occupancy, you know, fees and taxes that they have to pay? They don't have any of the licenses that they are required to have. They don't have any of the permits that were required when the construction was done. They have multiple violations as they're operating now, plumbing code violations and electrical code violations. And, you know, I'm harping on the same one over and over again because it's just so egregious, but I could duplicate this by 30. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: So the due process is built into the code, right? So it depends on the violation, but there are violations where you get sort of a CVN, right? Or three notices, and then you get your commercial activity license pulled after a hearing. That is all built into the code.
But if you don't have a commercial activity license? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Well, it depends on what the penalty is, right? There are code violations for which that require a hearing. It requires Board of L&I review or ZBA review or whatever it is. That is all built into the code. I do think license and inspections, and I believe they testified to this, will be ramping up so that they are hitting more CVNs right off the bat and not giving people time. But if you are looking to close a business or take away a license, that does require -- that is a constitutional issue and does require due process. Now, there are certain circumstances where the business is imminently dangerous that we can shut down before that initial hearing, right? We can go in on an emergency motion without the full hearing and shutting you down in part.
What determines if the business is dangerous and should be shut down? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: It's a hearing. It is a hearing where we go, the Law Department would go, and there would be an inspection, and we'd have someone from L&I come to testify as to whether that business was imminently dangerous. And this is all governed by statutory and then the common law as to what has determined in other cases to be imminently dangerous.
You know what, I understand what you're saying, but I think that there's a disconnect. And I think that the disconnect is between a lot of our communities and what's happening and how these businesses are operating and the people that we have who are responsible for ruling on whether these businesses should be open or closed. There's a real disconnect because there's no way that this business would be open if they stepped across the street on Cheltenham Avenue in Montgomery County or, you know, Delaware County or Bucks County. Like, there is no 5 way. And for some reason, this notion of due process for a business that is operating in a manner that is detrimental to the community, you know, to the taxpayers, you know, listen, it's questionable as to if these folks even have a tax account in which they're paying their fair share of taxes. So, you know, I'll continue to beat this dead horse until we get some resolution on it. But we are not -- our communities are not being serviced legally the way that they should be, because if someone operates in a way that works against the community, they should be shut down immediately. Everybody knows it. I've been talking about it. This is not a secret. And this needs to be addressed. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Yeah.
It needs to be addressed. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: And I understand. And I don't know if you were in the room. I can't remember when people are coming out that we have -- we handled 2700 cases in court last year and we -- and it's not enough. And we're not going fast enough through our boards, too. So we are ramping up as much as we can, as quickly as we can. But if any of you have a business in your jurisdiction that you believe is not being inspected or is not being penalized like they should.
I'm going to give you a list. I got a list. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Send me the list.
-- continue to have the same conversation. Thank, Mr. President.
I know you will. Thank you. Point of information.
I just -- briefly just say in 10 seconds, I concur with Member Bass. I think this is very unfortunate that if everyone in the law department, everyone in public health, everyone at L&I lived in these neighborhoods and had to listen to people deal with this every day, they're not going to be talking about the due process. They would say, you know what, shut them down and they can take us up in court later on and try to prove their point. There should be a zero tolerance when it comes to certain things in our city. And I think that's the due process. The due process, they have the right to appeal. But for us to internally have these policies that keep giving people opportunity after opportunity, when we don't even have the human resources in the city of Philadelphia that constantly keep checking back to see if they're doing the right thing, it's just a waste of our time. It's wrong and it's archaic and it needs to be fixed. And I think it's just unfair that we keep circling every year around us. And I just hope that we can become more innovative with our law department, public health, and L&I around us. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: I do understand that. We do have department members that live in all neighborhoods throughout the city. But the law is the law, and if we want to change the law, we can talk about changing the law. But what I'm not going to say is, forget the law. We're just going to shut them down. That's not what we're going to do. That is not the reputation of the law department. The judges will not take kindly to that, and everything will get reversed. We believe in the law. If we want to change the law, that's a different conversation than just saying ignore the law.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jim Harrity. We're officially in our second round. And be brief in your response and direct. Councilmember Bass, would you like to be acknowledged? Councilmember Cindy Bass.
I would just -- you know, I apologize, but I just, you know, just the sort of like the tone and the response. You know, and I know you and I'm -- you know, maybe it just came out a little bit, you know, aggressively. But, you know, we're not asking you to not follow the law. What we're saying is, we need help. These neighborhoods need help. And we're asking for help. We've been asking for help over and over and over again. And we get these same kinds of responses, which is just like, well, this is what it is. Deal with it. Like, no. We're here asking you for help. We need your help. We need your buy-in. And we need for you to help us figure out what to do. You're the chief legal strategist for the city of Philadelphia. We need your help. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: And we are here to help you.
It doesn't feel like it. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: I'm telling you, we handled 2,700 cases in court last year. And I'm telling you, it's not enough --
Well, none of them were in the 8th District with these nuisance businesses. I'm glad. Thank you for your service. But none of them -- none of the work that you did had any impact on businesses which have a huge impact on the larger community. People in those neighborhoods really feel stuck. And a lot of them, beyond selling, you know, these products that they shouldn't be selling in the first place, but then they attract other people who are selling additional products that are illegal. So we need your help, is what I'm saying. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: And we're here to help. And I'm sorry if I'm coming across defensive, but we are working very, very hard.
We're all working hard. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: I agree with you.
There's not one person on this floor who doesn't work from the time that they get up to the time that they go to bed. We work days, nights, weekends, holidays, summer, winter, fall. We work. That's what we do. That's the gig. And it's -- you know, I think you work too. I'm not saying that you're not working. I'm saying we need help. We need your help. Please help us. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Yes.
Please help us come up with a remedy to address these nuisance businesses. That's -- thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jim Harrity.
Thank you, Council president. I'm not even going to get on that with the nuisance business where I live. I'm going to stick to my questions. I got two more left here. One for the Law Department. What is the Law Department's role in mitigating the issues faced by the Kensington Wellness Court? And then for the District Attorney's Office, how does your office determine who to refer to Wellness Court? Yadda, yadda, yadda. The city is making a big investment in this program and we would see -- would like to know how they determine who goes through AMP or who goes through PAD. How do your district attorneys go about that process of how one is perceived PAD or AMP? Just trying to figure out, you know what I mean, the differences between the groups and the fact of are they -- are you going to be using AMP as well as PAD in the wellness ecosystem? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: I'll take wellness very quickly and I'll pass it to the DA. As I said before, we have been advising Office of Public Safety all along the way with wellness courts. We will continue to do that. And I have personally been in a lot of meetings involving people in this room, and we'll continue to be. We are riding along to do whatever is necessary and whatever advising is necessary to get the court on track. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Councilmember, thank you for the question. So just a, you know, partial mechanical answer, and then I'll try to speak a little more broadly. We are involved in referrals to AMP. Amp of course has existed for more than a decade. And it involves people who are already arrested and in the system. We are not involved with referrals to PAD. Those determinations are made entirely by the Philadelphia Police Department. We don't even see those cases because there's never an arrest in those cases. And I don't say that to demean or minimize the good work that can be done through a PAD type program that's done the right way. There certainly are national examples of places where it's been a good idea. PAD in Philly is modeled in many ways among other programs on the LEAD model in Seattle, which has done remarkably good work in terms of dealing with people who are unhoused, living on the street with addiction, often with mental health issues as well. When we talk about Wellness Court, the cases that are getting to Wellness Court are getting there through the Philadelphia Police Department. They're not getting there through us. As you know, there's sort of a -- how shall I put it, there's a gathering of people that occurs often in the morning before Wellness Court and then those people are brought into the system. So those are not referrals we make and once again, I'm not criticizing anybody, I'm just trying to say mechanically that's how that works. The part of what is going on with the discussion around Wellness Court is that Wellness Court is evolving. It has been evolving from the beginning and some of what's going on now is an effort to include more information from entities that have knowledge and expertise in the field that would like to see a Wellness Court type solution or a public health solution work. You know, the courts have things to say about courts. Public Defender's office has things to say about proper criminal defense and about the position of their clients, many of whom get picked up. The District Attorney's office has a whole lot to say about what are best practices in relation to this. So, you know, in my mind, we have -- we all want -- we all share the value of wanting a proactive approach to what's occurring in Kensington, Port Richmond and other areas that have a high level of people living on the street suffering from addiction, and that also have a high level of homeowners who have suffered for decades under certain conditions. We all want this to succeed.
The discussions that are going on are simply about whether or not the final result, the evolving Wellness Court is going to be effective, successful in ways that frankly no 17 other program has been in Kensington for decades. Whether it's going to succeed. I think all of us would agree that it's not enough to say we tried. It's enough if we are effective and we are alleviating problems for the residents, but also for those who are suffering from the disease of addiction.
Yeah, all I was trying to get at was the fact -- I thank you for clearing that up too. That would have made it very simple, I think. So, PAD is the police before anybody has been charged or anything and the AMP is after somebody actually has been charged or allowed to. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Yes, sir.
Okay. So, that's the discrimination -- the difference between the two of them. I appreciate that. And you are you saying that you will continue to use both as -- on a per person basis, is what you are saying? It goes by a per client, I guess, basis of what they would get if -- the police, you don't even see the PAD people. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Correct.
You only see the AMP people; is that correct? DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: We do not see the PAD people because, you know, almost all of our cases originate with an arrest by police and the presentation of documentation. If there is no 11 arrest, we don't even know the names of the people who go into PAD, much less what happens to them. I don't say that to criticize.
No, no, I get it. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: You know, there's much to be said for a multi-layered approach to diversion. But, you know, and I also don't see it as within my purview to criticize the police commissioner on the decisions that are made internally with reference to them. But when it comes to AMP, that is in our bailiwick, that's in our ballpark. And yes, we -- like AMP, we want AMP to continue to do the good work. We want to see it evolve. We want to see it grow in ways that will make it more effective, along with a variety of other diversionary type programs.
That's good for me. Yes, I did hear the bell. Thank you.
You're welcome, sir. I'm just condensing because we're going to be wrapping up at 1.30. So I want people to be direct and direct responses, please. Councilmember Rue Landau, then Councilmember O'Rourke, Councilmember Thomas.
Thank you. I'll stay in the same line of questioning for a second. Chief Defender, I believe you said last year you made 740 referrals to mental health and substance abuse? DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: 1,740.
1700. I missed a digit. Sorry. Thank you. Are you referring people to the same entities that the city is using for their 30, 60 and 90 treatment centers people are going to before they go to the wellness center? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: My understanding is where we refer our clients to a number of places for inpatient and outpatient treatment. I have an understanding that once clients are finished their 30, 60, 90, then there are no supports that I'm aware of in terms of where they go then. There are people at the wellness center. Only two of the people at the wellness center currently have gone through Wellness Court to get there. The others who are residing there, I don't have any visibility as to how they got there, whether it was a 30, 60, 90. Did they complete treatment? Are they there in some sort of rehabilitation? What services are they connected to? So we're not seeing that population.
Are you referring to the same service providers that the city is sending to? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: We do.
Nonprofits? Okay. And -- I got more. I wanted to ask -- switching over to --
Okay. The issue that Majority Leader Gilmore-Richardson championed, and that I helped to work on, too, that I want to thank the city for focusing on contract conformance and tackling that issue because it was affecting so many nonprofits, and I was so happy to be appointed to the nonprofit task force to play a role in that. We know that you've removed a strong amount of -- a large amount of the backlog on the contracts. What specific steps has the law department taken to streamline contract conformance and payment of invoices to nonprofit vendors who partner with the city? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: So one thing we're doing is shoring up the different templates for different kinds of contracts. So there's two ways that contracts could be drafted. It's one by agency draft and one by law department draft, and then an agency draft then comes to the law department. What I would like to move eventually, and we're getting two more people to do that, is move to more law draft, right? So that we -- but one thing we can do now is shore up templates so that we are not reinventing the wheel all the time. There are certain negotiations that take forever, right? And I think there also needs to be, and this has come through the task force, but an education for the nonprofits on how to have their paperwork together. So that makes it quicker also. So we are doing that. We are streamlining within, but we are doing an awful lot of client counseling within the different agencies. We have a new procurement commissioner who I'm very excited about. He gets what's going on, and we are meeting with him on the regular to try to see if we -- you know, right now what we have is a system built in 1980 for 2025, and we are trying to figure out what code, what's a system limitation, what's a code limitation, what's an agency limitation. And we will be continuing to work with Council on this. There are a lot of fixes that need to happen, and we are in the middle of all of it.
Thank you. I have a few additional questions, but I'll put them in writing.
Thank you very much, Councilmember Rue Landau. Councilmember O'Rourke and Dr. Nina Ahmad next.
Thank you, Mr. President. Being mindful of the time, I wanted to just put on the record that I agree with my colleagues, Chief Defender Hudson, that your work is absolutely incredible and necessary, and would ask if we have more time for you to talk a little bit about what pay equity would mean even beyond this for your folks, but I do believe that you deserve it. That having been said, I want to say that as we discussed at a hearing in March, the defenders have continued to step up to do more of this incredible work to safely reduce our jail population by over 1,000 folks in a year. Thank you for that. How does your office contribute to the recently launched emergency bail process, and what funding have you received for this vital work to date? CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you, Councilmember. Really quickly. So, we have not received any funding or supports to staff the early bail hearings that I --
No 18 funding. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: No 20 funding or supports. We're doing it in partnership with the First Judicial District, with the DAO, and us, where we do exhaustive work to look through everyone who we think could safely be released. The folks who we are getting out through early bail hearing, 48 percent of them have had their cases dismissed. These are not clients that should have been incarcerated in the first place, but we will continue and hope to expand should we get the support to do so.
Thank you, Chief Defender Hudson. And one question, I'm done. For District Attorney Larry Krasner, sir. Let me just say that the work of the Conviction Integrity Unit, I believe it speaks for itself, leading to dozens of exonerations and commutations, as well as new sentences in hundreds of juvenile cases. We talk a lot about rebuilding trust.
We talk a lot about rebuilding trust with communities who have long faced injustice. How does the Conviction Integrity Unit advance the work of actually rebuilding trust? Can you speak to that please? DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Yes, it's absolutely crucial that people believe that we are trying to be fair, because that means if they're sitting on a jury, they're not assuming, I'll leave the names out of it, that a certain prosecutor's up there lying to them, hiding documents, tricking them. It becomes easier when you play fair to prove to a jury that you have established a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Witnesses are more willing to come forward because they know you're not going to try to jack them up and claim they committed the crime, which has happened historically. Victims are more willing to come forward because they know that they are not somehow going to be vilified and told that they are the problem. So, trust is absolutely crucial. One of my favorite little anecdotes. I'll be quick, Council President, I promise.
I didn't say nothing. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: One of my favorite little anecdotes is we came into office, started doing what we're doing, and there was kind of an old school prosecutor in the office who changed how she did closing arguments. You know what she said? She said, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I want you to know that we have come here and presented this evidence in good faith, and you know we're being honest and we're being fair because this is the new district attorney's office, okay? She worked in the old one, but she figured she had a better shot at hitting that home run if she made sure people remembered who she was working for, okay? That's not about me. That's about integrity. That's about setting a standard that even though we're going to make mistakes like everybody else, we are trying as hard as we can to play fair and to be fair, and that changes everything. It changes everything in terms of the ability not only for our office, but other law enforcement entities to operate because people believe in it.
I thank you for that response, and I'm just grateful to know that that is happening. I believe we are living in a time, and have been for a little while, where trust in institutions is deteriorating and eroding as a result of an inability to be able to move with certain values like integrity. So to be able to create and set up a situation whereby we can actually see some genuine justice within our criminal legal system as it relates to convictions or what have you, I believe goes a long way in re-engendering a sense of trust, and therefore hopefully it will turn into more civic engagement in a time when we need more of that as well. So thank you DA, thank you, Solicitor, as well as thank you, Defender Hudson, for all the work that you do. I'm done. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad, Councilmember Isaiah Thomas, Councilmember Young.
Thank you, Council President. Wanted to follow up with the DA about sexual assault cases. And one is, I heard you say nine percent decrease in sexual assault cases that you're prosecuting. Maybe I misheard you. If you could address that. And how much of your budget is allocated to work on sexual assault cases and the new forensic lab, will that help in more clearance of these cases? DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Thank you for the question. Thank you for the question. The data indicates that this year as compared to last year, meaning on this date, we are down 8.86 percent in reported rape incidents. And obviously we know there's a great complexity to the reporting of these cases. But I also think it's fair to say as we get farther from the pandemic, that the level of reporting is liable to be a little more accurate than it was during the pandemic when victims were often basically stuck in the home with an offender in a way that was affecting them. Our two most active trial units in the office are the Family Violence Sexual Assault Unit and the Homicide Non-Fatal Shooting Unit. They try more cases than any other units. And therefore these are relatively large in terms of the staffing. It takes up a significant part of the budget because they are so crucial. And because the work is so intense, it does often involve completing jury trials, much higher level of preparation. I can't give you a number off the top of my head, but I would think that we're probably looking at staffing in that unit on the order of 35 people. Probably looking at a number of attorneys that at the moment, and yes, of course it changes with people coming in and exiting the unit. But we're probably looking at more than 20 attorneys who are actively working on these cases. So it's an essential part of our office. It's something that we consider to be vital. Most people, when they're asked to say what are the most heinous crimes, most people are going to say murder and rape. That's the first thing that's going to come out of their mouths. I think that viewpoint reflects how the general public feels. It also reflects how I feel in terms of the gravity of this. And that's not to minimize the other offenses. They're incredibly important as well. But we take them very seriously. Would a state-of- the-art forensics lab help with this? That absolutely. You know, one of the more interesting developments that I've seen in the last five years --
Just a point of information. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Yes, sir.
District Attorney Krasner. Because we know you've been sounding the alarm about when we have this state of the art on forensic lab that it was going to increase the quality of prosecution to make sure we make our city safer. That bill has been introduced. I think we are waiting for a hearing and so at some point in time we will be building the brand new forensic lab. And so I just wanted to state that for the record. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: And that is marvelous. I was aware it was underway. It's been a years- long project. And I applaud everybody who supports that. Because keeping innocent people out of jail and solving unsolved cases against people who've done terrible crimes is essential. Just one example of that is a 30-year-old rape murder that was solved with the help of the FBI and was solved using something known as genealogical DNA. You know, in the old days, you had to have a DNA match to prove a case. You don't anymore. These days, we can go into a giant database of people who might be related to a perpetrator, even a distant relation to a perpetrator. And we can work through that DNA to identify families in which the perpetrator is a member. That's how that case got solved. That was a man who not only raped and murdered a medical student 30 years ago, but he raped and attempted to rape multiple other people and then slashed two people with a machete. We're talking about a vicious human being who was living in a tent in the woods off the grid without a cell phone. His family didn't even know he was alive. But that's the power of this work. When the FBI showed up and said, we got magic, and we said, please, that's the power of this work, and that's the power of those resources.
Well, thank you. Science rules. And I also just want to quickly --
Wrapping up. Quickly, human trafficking issues that are going to crop up in 2026 with the increased sports venues and all of that. I had talked to you about this. We're going to follow up. I want to make sure there's money allocated for us to do that work in conjunction with the Attorney General and all the groups who do the work. We want to make sure that you are thinking about that, and I'll be following up with that -- on that issue as well. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Thank you, Councilmember. We have a specific ask in that regard in our budget and I am with you a hundred percent.
Thank you, Dr. Ahmad. Councilmember Thomas, Young, then wrapping up us up is Councilmember Phillips.
Thank you, Council President. I want to just take a couple steps back to the line of questioning that I had started earlier, and I just want to take a moment to just say, City Solicitor, I think you are doing a good job, and your office and my office has had a great working relationship throughout the course of my time here and your time, so I just wanted to provide that context. Back to the earlier line of questioning, you said when we were talking about the exemption, you represent the city of Philadelphia; is that correct? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Correct.
So when you say you represent the city of the Philadelphia, who did you talk to to determine the city's position? So in order for us -- you had to take a position, right? We got sued and you had to take a position and you've taken the position that you want to settle based on the best interest of the city because you represent the city. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Correct?
Who did you talk to to determine the city's position? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: On that specific case?
Yes. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Or generally about the exemption?
About both exemptions on both BIRT and use and occupancy. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: So, I mean, on the exemption itself, it is Council's decision whether to repeal the exemption, right? So I am telling you from the city solicitor's perspective that it's too risky to continue this exemption, and that is the briefing that we've provided to your office, to a number -- City Council as a whole, a couple different times.
So I think what I'm trying to get at is there are bills and recommendations on behalf of the city and -- CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Correct.
No 2 one -- I don't know about other members of Council, but no one said, well, this is the lawsuit. What is your position? I work for you, you're my client. So if you are the lawyer and I'm the client and -- how can you feel comfortable telling me my position without having a conversation with me? You took a position. You already took the position and then briefed us on the position that you took. You didn't say this is the case, this is the dynamic, this is what I recommend, but because I work for you and I'm your lawyer, do you say I should go forward with this? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: So the litigation is in my purview, right? And that consultation was made with the finance director, with the revenue commissioner with the Mayor. That falls in my purview. Under the charter, I decide what litigation is going forward and not going forward. For you all, what you decide is whether you're going to repeal this exemption and that is the briefing that we have all provided to you because there will be another case.
Yeah, I think that we have a difference of opinion, not necessarily to where we are, but how we got here. I don't think that I'm arguing whether or not you've made the right decision around the position we should take on use and occupancy in BIRT. I think I'm worried about the precedent that this set because it gives me the perception that the law department feels like it's okay to discuss things with the executive branch of government exclusively and then come to Council and tell us, well, this is the position that this city has taken. That's how it feels. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: When it comes to litigation, right, unless that is litigation involving City Council on your ordinances, which we would talk to you about, right?
So that's what -- right there. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: That's different. That's different.
But these are -- these are City Council ordinances, these are City Council initiatives. Last I checked, the BIRT exemption was a bill that was introduced by former Councilwoman Maria Sanchez. This was a project that came out of her office that she worked on. So we recognize that she's not a part of this legislative body right now, but it comes from -- CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: But this is a state constitutional issue, number one.
Yes. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: And there were other claims in the case. There are other claims in the case that have nothing to do with this because what it comes down to is these companies aren't owed money back, right? They're owed money back on these other claims.
So I think now you're moving into a legal argument, and I think my pushback is a process. I'm not -- I'm not talking about the legality of it. I'm talking about the process. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Right.
And I just want to be very clear, because this is not just about me. This is about all of the members on City Council, and not just about us in 2025. There will be a 2030. There will be a 2035. And I would hate for my colleagues over here who did all this great work in 2025 to be put in a position where it gets repealed without a conversation with the legislative branch of government, because those specific people are no longer here. I think you've proven my point, because we both know firsthand that when it's a City Council initiative, you guys come to us. I'm saying this is a City Council initiative. The exemption around BIRT, the exemption around use and occupancy, they're both City Council-based initiatives. And I think the concern that I have is the precedent that's being set around this process, because it makes it okay for the administration to work with the law department to unilaterally make decisions without coming before this body, specifically, on projects that came out of the legislative branch of government. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: But let me be clear that in the resolution of this case, we're not agreeing, and the settlement isn't out yet, but we're not agreeing to enjoin the enforcement of your City Council bill. The resolution is on the monetary claims in this case. So it's very different than the law department agreeing to enjoin the collection or non-collection of the tax, right? That's why --
So I'm going to -- I'm going to talk to some lawyers, because I can't go get my own lawyer. So I'll talk to some lawyers that I know, and I'll get those opinions from some friends that I know who are lawyers. And we can agree to disagree for this moment. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Sure.
And I look forward to having a conversation at another time because we do have some lawyers. I'm looking at a couple of them on the floor right now. Let me just give some homework assignments, Council President and then I'm going to go ahead and wrap up. I just want to make sure that we can get these questions answered for the record. City Solicitor, you don't have to answer this right now, but I want to know how much have we spent on lawsuits over the last five years in the city of Philadelphia, specifically lawsuits around vehicles that started with traffic stops. We know that crime has been down significantly over the last couple years and we want to see how much money have we saved on lawsuits, specifically dealing with traffic stops. Chief Public Defender, you guys have the Driving Equality dashboard. That is an initiative that you started out of your office, and that data is something that's readily available to the constituents of the city of Philadelphia. I want to know a fiscal number. What does it cost to maintain that dashboard and to expand that work? You don't have to answer it right now, but to be able to expand that work to put us in a position to address some of the technology concerns that you had. Last but not least, District Attorney Krasner, we passed the exonerated Justice Bill because of the work of the district attorney's office, specifically the exoneration unit. You have seen more people exonerated during your time in the city of Philadelphia than probably the entire existence of the city combined before you got there. We want to know specifically how much money has these exonerations cost the city of Philadelphia. We also want to know who's taking advantage of the exoneration restorative package that we pass to ensure that people who are exonerated have resources that they can benefit from. And then last but not least, specifically around exoneration, we want to know any data around recidivism for people who've been exonerated. And we also want to -- we want your office to look into the fact that the courts, and I know this from personal experience, that the courts are no 22 longer as open to exonerating people in the past compared to now asking people for time served. So in writing, if you can let us know why the courts are moving in that direction and the implications that can have on our city moving forward, that would be appreciated. Council president, I'm going to stop right there because I know we're pressed for time.
And I'll follow your lead as it relates to what's in writing and what gets answered right now. Thank you, Council President. Thank you all for what you do.
Just provide it in writing because I do want the last two members to get their questions on the record before we wrap up. So make sure you provide the chair the response to his questions so we can provide to all members of Council. Councilmember Young and then Councilmember Dr. Anthony Phillips. So we wrap up.
Thank you. I want to put my first two questions on the record for the city solicitor. Can you talk to us about how close you work with the Office of OPA when it comes to tax appeals and actual tax assessments to proactively get accurate assessments so we are not having to litigate so many appeals? That's the first question for you. And the second question is, if -- is it -- do you think it's appropriate for when City Council passes a charter change that then gets voted on by the public to be implemented, do you think it's appropriate for City Council to sue for an injunction when such charter change has not been implemented by the executive branch? CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Okay. With respect to OPA, we have a unit dedicated to OPA and so we work with them both on setting up the assessments and further defending the appeals, right? We do kind of all of it including when it gets to the tax appeal phase. I have personally been involved with conversations with OPA and CLS and other community partners on ensuring that the assessments are fair and non-discriminatory. So I have personally been in those conversations. Just because there are a large number of appeals doesn't mean the assessment was not accurate. But we all know those stories of two buildings right next to each other and they're valued differently. So we have handled thousands of these cases. We ride along with the OPA. We assist them. We make adjustments. And so sort of at bottom we are intricately involved in tweaking the assessments every year as we go on. And then your second question, I'm sure I'm not -- there was a charter change.
Yeah, so it's a hypothetical, right? But if there's a charter change that's approved by this body, approved by the voters, but the executive branch chooses not to implement that charter change, is it appropriate for Council to sue for an injunction to get the implementation of that charter change?
Before you answer that, you represent both of us. So -- CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Yeah, it's a separation of powers issue again, right? And it is a hypothetical. And we'd have to sort in, you know, what the -- what the charter change was. But there are certain things within the prerogative of the legislative branch and the people and certain things that the executive branch has control over. And so in a vacuum, I don't know the answer until I know the specifics.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I get one more question on the record for the district attorney? I'm sorry I haven't asked a question yet to the DA.
And be like, she can respond on the record because Rue is giving me the scouring eye because I cut her short. So go ahead, Mr. Esquire.
So to Mr. Krasner, thank you for being here. You brought some victim services organizations here today. What is the difference -- what's the difference between funding these victim service organizations through the district attorney's office versus the city's managing director's office and other offices? DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: I just want to be clear. I'm supposed to answer as opposed to put that on the record. I'll do whatever the process is.
Put it on the record, please. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: If you really --
Go ahead, sir. Briefly. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Okay. So there are -- there are services -- historically, money has gone to the DA's office not only for its own internal operation, which is quite elaborate, but also for regional, outside, you might say outside, contracted victim witness services organizations. That goes back a very long time. These are all organizations that have operated under contracts with the DA's office. We don't get that money. The money passes through and the money that goes through these organizations does not simply come from --
Please don't say pass -- don't say pass through in the chambers, sir. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Okay. I'm sorry.
We don't do pass throughs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Sorry.
We get the operations of it, but what's the difference?
So I think we get the operational aspect of it. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: That is correct. Never been a better partnership.
What's the difference between the funding mechanism coming from your office versus the managing director's office, Office of Victim Advocate, you know, public safety office, whatever? What's the difference in that? DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Well, I will say there seem to be all kinds of layers here that maybe we should all sit down at some point and try to sort out. I will say that because I don't think it actually makes a whole lot of sense to have different entities doing the same thing in silos, especially if we are in a situation where the most crucial information about danger, the most crucial information about the case itself, are held consistent with Pennsylvania law by the DA's office. So there may be some efficiencies to be had here, but please remember that because we are prosecuting these cases, we are privy to all of this information that is law enforcement only. And therefore, if we know that someone involved in a case is a member of a shooting group because we have intelligence from the FBI or something of that sort, it enables us to figure out where the relocation money should be spent. It enables us to be in close contact with victims, witnesses, et cetera, and to do so in the context of what's actually happening in the case. Is this retaliatory? Is there a motivation involved? Could there be aspects of self-defense here? What's actually going on? So I'm not going to discredit any other entities or, you know, in any way tear them down for what they do. But what I am saying is that we are uniquely positioned to have access to a lot of information about the case, which does put us in a position to work closely with these outside contracted organizations on the protection of those folks, a company met in court, what their needs may be, how can we help pay for the funeral, things of that sort. I view it as a very positive collaboration. They do amazing work. That work needs to be supported and funded. But as for other structural aspects, are there other efficiencies to be had, we're always open for that conversation.
Thank you. And last, Councilmember Dr. Anthony Phillips.
Seventy seconds. I just want to - I just want to clarify something I couldn't get to do during my point information because of time. I am in favor of due process. I'm going to tell you why. Because if I get pulled over by the City of Philadelphia for something, I have a -- I deserve a hearing if I don't agree with it. I deserve the right to appeal that hearing. What I'm saying is that the City of Philadelphia has archaic ways when it comes to handling due process. We have to handle due process in a much more expedited way given the seriousness of our community. I went to school. I know a couple things about these things and how this works, so I'm not familiar with it. What I'm saying is the quick comment question I have for you is this. What should happen for serious violations around alcohol distribution, drug distribution, illegal sales and things, there should be -- the violation should be -- you should get the notice. The business gets the notice saying violation for looseys. That could be an example. After the business learns about their violation of selling looseys, there should be a certain amount of time that they get to make an appeal for that violation. But as soon as they get that violation, there should be a cease and desist order. Once they make the appeal, they can begin to continue to operate their business. After they make the appeal, there should be a hearing that they can defend their case, showing that they're not in wrong, whatever their defense is. We can then determine through a judge after that to say, hey, you know, are they guilty or they're not guilty. Once they're determined to be guilty, then we shut them down. They're not guilty, they could continue. But what's occurring in the city of Philadelphia, and the question I want you to think about more innovative, I want this on record, is how can we expedite the due -- expedite the due process so this could be a lot more quicker when these serious violations are happening. And then just really quickly, I just want to know what can we do to stop giving these businesses so many warnings for them to get it correct to the point where we don't just -- we don't have the time. So I just wanted to state that. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Yes. And thank you. We will follow up because some of the changes are code changes, some of them are process changes, some of it is preempted by the alcohol and drug bureau. So we will follow up. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Council President --
Thank you, Council President. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: I must apologize. There's one sentence I need to put on the record in reference to Councilmember Young's question. It is included in our testimony, but I think it's very important to answer his question. And that is that the DA's office is statutorily required by Pennsylvania statute under the Crime Victims Act and the Juvenile Act, as well as Pennsylvania rules of juvenile court procedure to ensure that victims of crime whose cases are processed within the criminal and juvenile justice system receive all rights, notifications, and services to which they are entitled. So we have a statutory requirement that does not necessarily apply to some of the other entities who are helping to provide these services.
And I just -- I was just saying I just think our community needs due process. That's why I'm passionate about this. But go back to Young.
So -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: I'm sorry if I interrupted. I did not mean to interrupt if that's what I just did.
No, just for the record, Councilman Dr. Phillips was just responding to the city solicitor just saying -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRASNER: Oh, I see.
I want to make sure there's a due process law. It is frustrating when I'm dealing with like auto zone. I call them out in Southwest Philadelphia and you got guys inside the parking lot doing illegal mechanic work that's holding all the tenants, including a daycare center hostage. And then we have to wait until they go to court. And it's like we treat them with kid gloves, right? And it's probably procedural things, right? But when I get a call from Illinois saying, well, we're in court and they get their chance to do their due process and so forth. But in the meanwhile, they aren't improving their behavior. And so the whole legality of it, I think, need to be reviewed in terms of how we hold the bad actors accountable. Because we do know some way, somehow, depending on what neighborhood you live in, somehow the law just works more efficiently than other neighborhoods. I'm just being quite frank in terms of my experience as a young man growing up in the city of Philadelphia. So I dare you open up one of those stores in certain neighborhoods and sell certain things. And some way, somehow, the law magically works in that neighborhood's favor to expedite and address a particular issue to make sure a certain store doesn't open up. And I think, you know, in this particular body, there's an appetite of advocacy around just holding the bad actors who prey on our communities day in and day out. And so it's a longer conversation. And obviously, we'll work with not only just the solicitor's office, but also District Attorney who has environmental clean and green unit to actually go after the bad actors that's doing illegal dumping. And like due process, if you're illegally dumping, once you get caught, you shouldn't be allowed to do business in Philadelphia no more. Like period, not you should get a chance to come back because that means you have a lack of respect for the neighborhood that you're doing the illegal dumping in. But that's a longer conversation. This is Democracy in Action. We thank the three of you for being here today. To Ms. Hudson, we will make sure we stay on top of addressing the issues regarding the Defenders Association. And so thank you for being here. I thank all three of you for being here, District Attorney Larry Krasner, City Solicitor Renee Garcia. We will be in recess for the afternoon session for the Sheriff's Office until 2.30. CITY SOLICITOR GARCIA: Thank you, City Council President. CHIEF DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you. (Council at ease.)
Good afternoon, everyone. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, everyone. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Good afternoon.
We will continue our committee of the whole budget hearings. Ms. Loughead, will you please call the next panel for testimony.
Good afternoon, sheriff. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon, Council president, City Council members.
Just state your name for the record, and then please begin your testimony. Good to see you. SHERIFF BILAL: Good to see you too. Good afternoon. I'm Sheriff Rochelle Bilal for the city and County of Philadelphia. May I begin?
Yes, you can begin, please. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon, Council President Johnson and members of City Council. It is both an honor and a privilege to appear before you today. I am Rochelle Bilal, sheriff for the City and County of Philadelphia. Joining me today are Tariq El-Shabazz, undersheriff, Jamison Rogers, Chief of Staff, Patrick Lee, Chief Financial Officer, Craig Martin, chief budget officer, chief deputy of Court Operations, Sean Thornton, Inspector Heinz, Family Court and Transportation, Inspector Sean Marshall, he's not here today. He had an emergency situation because he was over Internal Affairs and Training Bureau. Inspector David Fallon over Civil Enforcement. Inspector Joshua Perez over City Hall and Widener Building. Inspector Nicole Nobles over the Warrant and Bike Units. IT manager, Eric Chambers. On the behalf of my entire team, I want to thank you for your continued partnership and support in our shared mission to keep Philadelphia safe, secure, and thriving. It's a true privilege to stand alongside such dedicated public servants as we work together to strengthen our communities. Plans for fiscal 2026 -- year 2026. As we move forward into fiscal year 2026, our office main objectives are aligned with the blueprint for a safer Philadelphia, which is an initiative that remains at the heart of our efforts. Our mission is to execute all orders from the first judicial courts and to continue to work on deploying personnel to return excess proceeds from property sales to the citizens, helping them access economic opportunities like home ownership. Our office stands ready to enhance public safety, particularly in line with Mayor Parker's vision for a safer, greener, and cleaner city. The Philadelphia Sheriff's Office has made significant contributions to this vision, particularly through our work with Civil Enforcement and Warrant Unit, who have been instrumental in apprehending fugitives working in partnership with the District Attorney's Office and the Philadelphia Police Department. This collaboration is essential in keeping our streets safe and ensuring the court system operates smoothly. Additionally, the sheriff's office has played a critical role in our election security efforts, stepping up to meet the demand for more trained law enforcement officers during the election of 2024. This service was invaluable in helping ensure a smooth, safe process for our citizens. However, as we continue to evolve and grow, we face challenges. Our deputies' salaries are not competitive with other counties within Pennsylvania. And if you just make a little note here, correctional guards get more than our deputy sheriffs. And this disparity has made it increasingly difficult for us to retain high quality deputies, especially given the increased demand for our services. The need for local sheriffs' academy. This is very, very important. One of the greatest challenges we face as an office in the time, commuting -- with a time, commuting, and costly requirement for our deputies to travel and attend Pennsylvania's Sheriff Academy at State College for 14 weeks. This is a 19-week program. 15 While essential presents significant 16 barriers for many in our 17 communities, particularly 18 individuals with families or other 19 local commitments. This process results in a delay in the training of deputies. Therefore, I propose we explore the establishment of a local sheriffs' academy here in Philadelphia. A local academy will allow us to shorten the training period, enhance accessibility of the program for the diverse communities, and most importantly, speed up the hiring process. This initiative would enable us to hire and train deputies on a more consistent, rolling basis. Rather than being restricted to only one or two training cycles per year. This would greatly benefit both our office and the city.
Ensuring that we can meet the growing demands of law enforcement while providing stable, well-trained professionals to serve our citizens here in this city. Technology. Whew. Technology integration and community engagement. To address these challenges, expanding the role of technology in our operation is essential. One of the most promising developments in our partnership with Tyler Technology, which will enhance transparency by allowing us to track receipts, voided transactions, and disbursement accounts with greater accuracy. Additionally, the implementation of the Live Scan Plus system. An advanced mobile fingerprinting and biometric recognition tool will significantly improve real-time identification of individuals with outstanding warrants. This technology enables deputies to perform field-based warrant checks and identifications, reducing delays and increasing public safety by closing critical gaps in the execution of judicial orders. In the upcoming -- in the coming year, excuse me, allergies, we are also looking to expand our bike and canine units, which will provide a more visible presence around the courts and city hall, as these units currently have been serving our citizens throughout the city. This increased presence is part of our larger vision to help improve safety and strengthen community trust through visible, proactive law enforcement. I am also proud to announce several key initiatives we have undertaken in our community engagement efforts. We are working closely with Councilmember Dr. Ahmad and Councilmember Lozada to host upcoming events aiming to increase hiring opportunities for both the AAPI and Latino communities, demonstrating our commitment to engaging with Philadelphia's diverse population and providing opportunities for all. We also committed to enhancing the health and well-being of our communities. In 2024, we honored -- we were honored to host a free healthcare pop-up clinic that provided much needed medical services to underserved communities throughout Philadelphia. Our motto with that, you can come in and say your name was SpongeBob, and all we were going to say is, how can we help you? These efforts represent our broader commitment to not only protecting citizens in the courts, but supporting their well-being in all aspects of life. Additionally, in a groundbreaking move for public safety, I am proud to announce that the Philadelphia Sheriff Office is now the first law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be certified in autism awareness. This important certification required our sworn and professional staff to undergo specialized training and pass an assessment, ensuring that we better equipped to serve individuals with autism and their families. In closing, with your support, I know we can achieve these goals together. We are committed to working in partnership with City Council and all stakeholders to move Philadelphia forward and ensure brighter, safer future for all our citizens. We look forward to continuing these efforts and to further engaging with our communities through the various initiatives we outlined today. Finally, I must address an important issue. Earlier this year, we learned that last year's budget proposal was not properly placed. As a result, it was not given full consideration. This is something that must be addressed so we can ensure our current fiscal year proposal is properly considered. I trust that this process will be handled professionally and honorably, ensuring that the needs of the Sheriff's Office are met and that we can continue to provide the critical services to our citizens in this city and their demands. Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you, Sheriff Bilal. And I think it's great that your agency received the Autism Awareness Award. I know you did another initiative recently with the district attorney, Larry Krasner, an announcement with the chair of Public Safety, Curtis Jones Jr., to go after those individuals who I think steal homes, correct? SHERIFF BILAL: Yes.
Is that -- is that correct? SHERIFF BILAL: Yes.
Okay. Clearly, so I have a couple questions I want to ask before I turn it over and let the chair of Public Safety lead this conversation. First, just clarify this budget conversation because I think we all were a little perplexed. So what happened on the last budget? SHERIFF BILAL: The last budget, we didn't know that the administration would just put what they thought we needed instead of giving you-all the total request of what we were asking for. And so last time we had a copy because you-all didn't have the actual copy of what we submitted. And so we had a copy of it and we gave it to everybody. So if that happens again, we got a copy of our budget of requests so that we can give to everybody.
So the full budget for everyone member of the council, which should be in alignment with the budget that the administration has. So everybody is seeing the same information; is that correct? SHERIFF BILAL: That's correct.
Okay. Cool. Just a couple questions. You talked about establishing a local academy. What's the status? What's the timeframe to bring that local academy here to the city of Philadelphia? SHERIFF BILAL: Well, we submitted our space request to public property. We looked at a space which basically can accommodate all of what we need as far as a sheriff's academy. We're going through PCCD, which is the sheriff's academy board of people requesting that we have this academy here in this city. We're talking to them now. We got a big presentation to give them. We want public property to go with us to our location so we can map out that space. We want it as soon as we can. But, you know, the wheels of justice move kind of slow. But we're trying to get it done by the end of the year or the beginning of next year. And so we're having all of them conversations. We had a conversation with the Philadelphia delegating from the state basically to get a waiver for us to have the academy here. You have the other municipalities around the Commonwealth like Montgomery, Bucks. All the people on this side will be happy to have a Philadelphia academy here for their people to come to and go home at night and not have to go stay up at Penn State for weeks, five days out of the week 6 for 19 weeks. And so we're in those 7 conversations, and so we just got to 8 be able to move it along, I guess, 9 with your approval and the mayor's 10 approval that we -- public property 11 can say yes, and then we can start 12 putting everything together. 13
14 Okay. And also in terms of the 15 recruitment and salary and 16 compensation, do we provide bonuses 17 for individuals who have an interest 18 in becoming a sheriff? 19 SHERIFF BILAL: We just -- from this administration, and this basically has been the first time since I've been in office, since I've been screaming and since I walked in the door, they are providing a $10,000 bonus for recruits that are coming in right now. So that's what's going on.
When you say they, meaning your team is providing? SHERIFF BILAL: The city.
The city. SHERIFF BILAL: Yeah. We can't offer any bonus.
The city has to agree in order to offer bonus for deputies to, you know, for those who are recruits that are looking to make this a career.
Good. SHERIFF BILAL: So that bonus of $10,000 is now. This is the first time that we're talking to the HR administration under the new leadership, that we are now going to be announcing twice. We have an announcement now that ends May the 18th, and then we are going to have another announcement in June. And that's the first time, because prior to that, the HR only announced for deputy sheriffs once a year for six weeks, and that was it.
Okay. What's your strategies for recruitment to make sure we're addressing the issue of vacancies? SHERIFF BILAL: Well, we are out on all public social media. We are on TV. As a matter of fact, I saw that on ESPN. Our deputies are out around the city as to -- I thought this was off. We are out around the city recruiting. We are at every event. We are at your budget meetings. We're hitting the ground running. So we're putting up on media. We're on radio. We're on TV. We just didn't get on the buses yet. I think that's about to happen. And if we can get some billboards up, we put them up and put them too. We're out everywhere.
Okay. And you were at my job fair as well. SHERIFF BILAL: Yes.
And I also want to acknowledge the work that you-all are doing, going after those who have warrants in the process of us -- making us have a safer city. Let's go into and do a deeper dive regarding the executive orders from Nina Wright Padilla, right? Give us an idea of how you and your team are addressing corrective actions regarding those two executive orders. And just for the record, just give members a brief overview of what those two orders were asking you to address. But most importantly, how are you addressing them? SHERIFF BILAL: I'll let the undersheriff reply to that.
Thank you for allowing us to have this question so that we can answer it properly.
Absolutely. First of all, it should be noted that prior to -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Council.
Tariq Karim El-Shabazz, Esquire. I'm the undersheriff of Philadelphia -- in the city of Philadelphia, city and county, I should say, of Philadelphia. We would -- we were working with the First Judicial District prior to any executive order coming out. What was noticed and we had that conversation -- like any other law enforcement agency, we were shorthanded. Based on that short- handedness, there were some complaints. And we acknowledged that there were some complaints with regards to courtrooms being covered, with regards to individuals getting to courtrooms on time, to the end of it. We began to address those matters, but those matters were kind of married to the ability to recruit and to hire. We've already went through in the sheriff's presentation --
Manpower thing. Just like every other law enforcement agency. But what the sheriff did was, prior to the order, began to design a plan. In order to do that, because it's a security plan, we had to go through first analyzing what the problems may have been, come up with a strategy that could work with the numbers that we had, and then try to test out that strategy to ensure that we cover every hole. Prior to being able to cover every hole, the court order came out. Once the court order came out, myself and other members of the sheriff's team began to meet. As we were meeting, we began to meet more often with the AGB board. During the course of that meeting, we began to address each and every issue. We got together with members of the -- some of the -- I should say all of the inspectors, with respect to the courts, to put together that strategy. Unfortunately, I'm not going to go into the details of the strategy, because if we go into the details of security, we'd have to change it. But what we noticed, in reviewing it, is that we needed to make supervisory changes as well. Because making supervisory changes allowed us to get people in place that began to see shortfalls and come up with remedies. Once we began to do that, the inspectors dug in and came up with a plan. That plan was presented to the -- to the AGB board, who presented it to FJD, and we began working that. During the course of working through that, with no 18 complaints at all, for example, people were getting to court earlier because they were getting picked up from the prison earlier. We began to work with the prisons and together, as one Philly, we began to bring people down earlier. Juveniles are a little different, because they're juveniles, they have a different feeding policy to the end of it. But we began to get people down earlier, buses down earlier, so we rectified getting people to court on time. We began to redeploy individuals and deputies in particular locations and at particular areas that gave us the ability to service the courtrooms. And to make sure that each judge, that each deputy, that each citizen, and each individual that's accused would be safe. We began to do that as well. We began to come up with plans that allowed us to go around the areas of every installation and to explore what we can do to secure those areas. And we were able to do that prior to the second order. The second order didn't deal with any of those things because everyone was satisfied, based on all of the meetings we continually had, with what we were able to do. Our presence in the courthouses, our presence in every installation, our presence around the city and county, or the center city in Philadelphia, to the end of it. But there was a concern about recruitment. Mind you, the sheriff and myself, along with other individuals in the team, sat down with the AGB in -- last year, in 2023, talking about the shortage and coming up with different ideas to do it. With the redeployment, new supervisors, new chiefs, and beginning to put people in place, we were able to deal with that. But we discovered that in order to, I guess, totally alleviate the concerns that people had, we had to come up with strategies. One of the strategies that the sheriff came up with, she talked to you about, the Sheriff's Academy. The other strategy that they came up with, it was how could we publicize -- how could we publicize the hiring of sheriff deputies? The other thing is, this was the first time, as the sheriff indicated, that OHR began to actually work with us and open up their entire list to us. Originally, they didn't give us the entire list. But since this administration has come into place, they give us the entire list, and we're able to actually draw down on that list.
To the degree that we're getting more people coming up to our physical agility, we have more people that are actually in the pipeline going through the other processes to get them ready to come into court until they are able to go up to Penn State. The sheriff also installed some other tools that we can have a discussion about that, but I don't think that this is the present for it.
So both executive orders, one, I would submit to you, has already been accomplished. The second one is being accomplished with the numbers that we're increasing now. The last thing I want to say, and I'm going to end it with this as to that question. We didn't have a budget for advertising. The sheriff, in order to expand the budget for advertising, she actually had to use service fees to pay for operations like advertisement. With that, and with that new strategy that came up with her team that deals with media, we've been able to put more up. We've been able to address all social media platforms. And that advertisement actually is playing out in terms of the number of people we have coming out to our physical agility and our orientation.
Are we partnering with -- the Mayor has a municipal government college at Community College of Philadelphia to try to serve as a pipeline to help young people follow a career in city government? Has that ever been discussed to maybe do a partnership? Because it sounds like more of a personnel thing more than anything else. SHERIFF BILAL: No. 19
Okay. I just asked that because I know that's like a major part of the administration's goal to try to get more people involved in various city agencies. And so when you talk about personnel, and I know the recruitment is a key component to make people want to be a part of the city jobs that we have to offer, particularly the sheriff's office. That might be another avenue just to think about from a partnership standpoint and the administration being supportive of making sure that we address the personnel issues. I have one or two before I turn it over to my colleagues. And I did the same -- asked the same question yesterday regarding the Registered Wills Office. So PICA, they say we shouldn't have the Sheriff's Office. We shouldn't have the Registered Wills Office. For the record, I did reach out to PICA to try to get what their perspective was. And they were going off a report like in 2003. SHERIFF BILAL: 2009? Was it 2009?
2009. So I said, just to be fair about the process, give us your response and give us the things. I have your report. So I have read your report in terms of things you have been working on in terms of the audit from the last city controller. But what's your direct response to that recommendation and the things that your office have been doing that's up to date now? Because I didn't see any actual data specifically. But nevertheless, that was a recommendation. So give me your feedback. SHERIFF BILAL: Basically, we looked at the --
And have anyone called you directly or your team?
Want to go on the record. SHERIFF BILAL: There was no conversation with the -- what are they called?
PICA. SHERIFF BILAL: PICA. In reference to the Sheriff's Office prior to them making a statement. And as we looked at what they were formed for, we kind of see that basically they are way out of their line recommended any -- elimination of any elected official in this city. And we talked to the senator who basically gave us a letter as to the fact that they're out of line. They did not talk to us. They're going through old stuff. And they're putting it on this office. And when you say you're talking about 40 years of what you may say what was wrong with the office. But never have a conversation of me only being there since 2020 as to what we are doing to improve the office to bring the office in compliance. Not at all. We had an audit. Because when I came in, the one thing I know about business, if you're taking over somebody else's business, the first thing you want is an audit so you can find out what it is that you need to do --
And just for the record, you called for the audit, correct? SHERIFF BILAL: When I was coming in, certain checks were being sent out. And I asked the controller then to do an audit.
Asked for an audit the office that you were representing? SHERIFF BILAL: To stop and see what was going out before I got into office. Basically, inviting her to come in there so that she can do an audit so I can find out what is going on in the sheriff's office. Because mind you, when I walked in there, there was no pamphlet. Nobody came to the sheriff's office and say, hey, this has been going on. This is the next project. This is the ones that need to be updated. This is how the office is supposed to run. This is how you're supposed to work with your City Council people. This is how you're supposed to work. Matter of fact, the Homeward Charter, I'm not an elected official. I didn't even know what the Homeward Charter was. And so by getting an audit back in 2022 from the controller's office at that time, basically gave us a blueprint on what needed -- what was deficient and what needed to be corrected. And one of the major things, me being in law enforcement in Philadelphia Police Department in 27 years, when I walked into the armory, I thought it was a major disgrace. Because I've never seen people just with very haphazardly taking care of guns in that manner. And I believe we gave copies of what that was prior to what it is today. I mean, it was just a mess.
Just for the record, talk about what it is, the changes you have made regarding the firearms and so forth, and what you're doing today. SHERIFF BILAL: What it was back then, it was a manual record keeping book from the pre-historics. Trust me. And the computer system that was there was like your old TV with tubes in it. This is 2020. It had no means of communication between me and my staff at all. The guns was on the floor. Long guns were stuck on the corner. FEMALE VOICE: They were in a barrel. SHERIFF BILAL: In a barrel. Long guns were stuck on the corner. There was no mechanism or any electronic mechanism to track anything in the armory at all. So what we did was modernize. There was -- there's new technology, there's security systems, there's the BEAST that basically tags everything that comes in there that puts it into a system. We know when it goes. We know when it comes out, who took it out, and for whatever reason. If you see -- if you want the pictures, we'll send them to you from what it was then to what it is today. We had a press conference on this as what we did with the sheriff's office. For some reason, one certain media didn't put none of that in there. None of it. Thank you. And if you want to, term report, go to phillysheriff.com, and our term report shows us that the recommendations from the controller office, we've done some, there is some pending because technology costs money. And when we put it in our budget and say we need upgraded technology is because that's what we need to do to help bring the office in compliance.
And last, because I know my members are ready to start, just give us an overview of your budget request and how that budget request will be broken down into how you're going to utilize the request for services. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. That means we need to bring the CFO up here and the budget manager up here. You-all step out.
Like in the perfect world, you get that $20 million, how is that money being spent? SHERIFF BILAL: Say that again?
No, I said, in the perfect world, let's say if the $20 million was allotted, how would that be spent? SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. You've got to introduce yourself. Tell them who you are.
Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Lee. I'm the chief financial officer for the sheriff's office. And that's a good example of a number that we've requested over several financial periods. That allocation goes to expansion. If I could use that as a backdrop because of technology, personnel, contracts. For example, we need contracts just to do psychological evaluations for recruits. So we've been able to manage that partially. But if we have more than one provider, we can get them through the background check with regard to psychological evaluations a lot faster. The other part of that is upgrades to just how we deliver food to the inmates. Something as simple as that we've been trying to do, but it requires an RFP because the sheriff have a certain focus with regard to how she wants to increase the nutritional value for the inmates. We've presented all that information, for example, to finance, and we've given them detailed justifications. What has not happened is we never get a response to it with regard to that. So using $20 million, if we allocate it correctly, that covers the health with uniforms, special equipment. The inspectors have done a fantastic job with identifying their needs with regard to special equipment they need in their units. We get those requests, we review them with the sheriff, and we try to get them covered. But she's got to make a decision who gets what first because of budget constraints.
Okay. Thank you very much. And now the chair recognizes Councilman Curtis Jones and Councilmember Jamie Gauthier and Councilman Jim Harrity.
Thank you so much, Mr. President. I'm going to use a football analogy for those of you who follow football. The number one draft pick this year was Cam Ward.
It should have been Shedeur Sanders, but that's a different conversation.
You know, I'm getting ready to make my point. Shedeur Sanders was at least supposed to be in the top five, wound up going all the way to the sixth round. One would question, was it for football reasons or other reasons? So life ain't fair. Having said that, that means Shedeur Sanders is going to just have to outperform on the football field. Everybody that came before him. So get used to that. With that, can we take a step back and tell the listening audience what is your primary responsibility as a sheriff? You do a whole lot, but what are your primary responsibilities? SHERIFF BILAL: Our primary responsibility is the security of the courts, the fiduciary for the sales of the land and property. Those are court orders. And our safety for our deputy sheriffs as far as day safety. Because when I came in, they had no equipment in order to keep them safe. Especially when you have a civil arrest and they had basically nothing to do what they needed to do out there. And so those are the things -- are you finished with our budget people?
I think. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. You-all come back. Bring them back. So, the fiduciaries for land here dealing with the real estate sheriff's sale, the arm and security of the courts for the citizens of the city in reference to a safety to keep them safe. Because we get, I think my deputy said the other day, two point something million people that came through the courts in one year.
How many? Say that again. SHERIFF BILAL: 2.64 million people come through the courts in one year. One.
And you have to transport prisoners. SHERIFF BILAL: Prisoners. We transport prisoners.
Keep courtrooms safe. SHERIFF BILAL: Keep courtrooms safe.
Keep judges safe. SHERIFF BILAL: Keep judges safe. Keep the people --
There's 66 courtrooms across the street, isn't it? SHERIFF BILAL: Uh-huh.
All right. And then four other buildings that you have to secure. What -- how many -- how many slots do you have to fill that are still open? SHERIFF BILAL: Did you hear that? No, we got it. We need to.
Excuse me, sir. For the record, you have to come and speak onto the microphone.
And say who you are. SHERIFF BILAL: We need -- he's going to answer that, but when I came into office, we were budgeted for 420 deputy sheriffs. And I said, okay, let's start hiring. When I went to hire, they said, oh, you ain't got no money in your budget. I tried to figure that one out. If you're telling me I'm budgeted for this much, when I went to use it, it wasn't there. So, go ahead.
So I'm trying to do what Tariq would do in a courtroom, try to build my case. SHERIFF BILAL: Go ahead. Build your case.
So, what I'm saying to you, you have probably, I'm going to guess, at least a 30 percent vacancy rate that you have to fill in order to be able to meet those basic responsibilities. So, right now, you're doing what you can with what you have to keep both the defendants, the accused safe, and the judges safe. And so, to do that, you've had to do some interesting things that I know about, but I won't share, right, in order to keep things, at least the perception of safety out there. So, some of these things that they have talked about, I know that they tried to do early on, because in full disclosure, we had a transition meeting where we talked about audits, where we talked about how to fill these vacancies. So, I know this has been on the radar for a while. And for whatever reason, they have not -- they've received the Shedeur Sanders treatment within budgeting. And we have to -- we have to pay attention to that, because it is our victims that go to those courtrooms. It is many people from our communities that are the accused going to the court. And what we cannot have -- what we cannot have is fights on the elevators. In order to be a bold witness, you've got to feel safe when you come to testify. And so, that is a primary function of them. I'm going to switch real quick, Mr. President, to the training center. I know for a fact that PCCD is --