From the4 GPS ankle bracelet up to minimum security5 facility.6
Well, do we have7 any minimum security facility? We don't8 have any minimum security facility. Did9 I lose --10
It11 wouldn't be saving the money for us.12 We'd find a way of charging 100 bucks a13 day for that. But there are facilities14 out there around the City that -- and15 companies. Let's face it, these are16 profit, non-profit companies. All we're17 trying to get at here is a cost18 differential and if somebody doesn't have19 to be at a certain place, not be there.20 Right now we don't have an21 ankle bracelet system. And, by the way,22 I believe that the Prison Commissioner,23 when he gave me that number of 5,50024 don't have to be on State Road, that he's25 205 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 looked at the files. I mean, he didn't2 hesitate. He didn't say, I'll try to3 think of a number. So I assume they've4 had some internal review on that, but I5 may be wrong. But I assume that there6 was something behind that opinion.7 But just getting to the ankle8 bracelet for those that are -- that9 warrant it. I mean, the state has ankle10 bracelets, right?11
We have about 70019 people on electronic monitoring today.20
Do you21 think that's all we can do of those22 5,500, assuming that the Commissioner was23 somewhere in the ball park?24
There are all25 206 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 kind of discussions to try to identify2 are there people in the prison who could,3 with minimum risk, be released and4 appropriately supervised on electronic5 monitoring. One of the issues is, for6 every -- I don't know what the factor is,7 but for every X number of those people,8 you need a probation officer or a warrant9 officer to be able to monitor them. Our10 Adult Probation Department now is at the11 cap of those number of people. So they12 have -- the last time we met about ten13 days ago, they had about ten bracelets14 that were free. Once those bracelets are15 put on people, they are at their cap16 until they get more probation officers to17 supervise those folks.18
Which is19 less expensive? The probation officer or20 the --21
It's less22 expensive, but the burden of getting23 qualified probation officers who want to24 stay and work for the City is really25 207 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 hard, because the pay is low, the2 requirements are very tough. It's a fast3 burnout. But, more importantly, I think4 you have to think of something else. You5 said "someplace else." Community6 corrections is a big issue in cities like7 Philadelphia, and many, many, many, many8 communities do not want halfway houses,9 prison release houses. And you can ask10 yourselves, if I wanted to put 500 people11 in X community that you were the City12 Councilperson of and you proposed that to13 your neighbors, they would all say, Not14 in my neighborhood. And I think that's15 really one of the things that we have to16 understand, that people are so frightened17 about the prospect of a community being18 inundated by halfway houses, parole19 locations, minimum security facilities,20 whatever you want to call them, that's21 going to be a hard sell.22 Now, having said that --23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 Excuse me. Excuse me. Councilman Goode25 208 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 has a point of information.2
Could I just3 finish my one sentence?4 Having said that, I think we're5 on the way to looking at people who can6 be monitored. But monitoring does not7 prevent me from selling drugs if I'm at8 home. Monitoring does not prevent me9 from breaking that monitor and leaving or10 doing something criminal. Monitoring11 means it needs to be supervised. I'm12 just not on my word. And we're already13 strained at capacity on that.14 Having said that, we're already15 on the case.16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:17 Councilman Goode.18
Madam19 District Attorney, I think you should20 know that a majority of this Council is21 actually very serious about community22 reintegration and setting up what I would23 call centers to services, and the reason24 being is that, as you've said, there are25 209 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 people who are repeat offenders, two,2 three, four, five, six times. The issue3 is, they're coming home anyway and so why4 not have a more thoughtful approach that5 saves our costs and tries to reintegrate6 them into communities.7
I didn't say that8 you shouldn't do that. What I said was,9 it's a very hard sell to sell it to your10 constituents to put this kind of facility11 in a neighborhood.12
It's going13 to take a lot of political will, but it's14 necessary.15
Last21 question dealing with the dollars on the22 ankle bracelet, GPS, does the state or23 federal government -- I assume we're24 doing everything with Probation25 210 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Department employees; is that fair?2
Does the4 state or federal government use any of5 the outside contractors that are in this6 business?7
I don't know all the8 details. I do know there are some9 overlap with contractors.10
Is there a11 reason why we don't -- I think that's a12 fair question.13
The Prison14 Commissioner --15 COUNCILMAN O'NEILL:16 Particularly in light of the Probation17 Department's capacity problems.18
One of the things19 you are seeing with the Prison System is,20 they are trying to get a number of21 alternative facilities out there, and22 there's a recent one that opened that23 they're expanding by another hundred24 beds. Those beds still count within your25 211 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 overall cost, but they are cheaper.2 So the City is moving that way,3 trying to have places for minimum4 security prisoners; for example,5 community corrections facility, work6 release, facilities to do that. We're7 supportive of that for appropriate8 defendants.9
The state, I would16 say, has a better reentry program, in17 part because they have a lot more money18 than we do in the City. It's part of the19 reason why we've worked so hard to have20 our really long-term serious offenders go21 to the state system, because they can get22 better treatment and better reentry23 programs where there's a continuum of24 care, especially for drug treatment from25 212 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the prison to a community correction2 center to parole. And for your really3 very drug-involved repeat offender, which4 we see all too much of, the state5 oftentimes has a better treatment program6 than we can ever hope to provide on the7 county level.8
Is it true9 that a lot of people that are detainees10 at State Road have fairly low bail that11 they're not meeting?12
John Delaney13 actually -- I think there's some14 misunderstanding about the percentage of15 people who are pretrial detainees. There16 certainly is that percentage who have17 open cases, but he can provide you -- you18 have people who have multiple holds.19 That's the big population driver at our20 Prison System, and it's part of the21 reason why the court's present ARC and22 AVOP programs show particular promise in23 reducing that population, because it24 specifically targets that population25 213 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 driver.2 Let me turn that over to John3 Delaney just to give you the statistics4 about the nature of our prison5 population.6
The most detailed7 information came from Professor Goldkamp8 at Temple University, who last looked at9 the county prison in 2006, and what he10 found was of the people in jail awaiting11 bail, those who had bails of less than12 $500, one percent. Those who had bail of13 $501 to $1,499, one percent.14 So there are some. There are15 very few people in the county prison16 awaiting trial simply because they can't17 post a nominal amount of bail. A lot of18 these people -- he noted the biggest19 difference between when he looked at the20 prison in 2006 and when he did it in 199521 was the skyrocketing number of people who22 were there for multiple cases, people who23 get arrested, fail to appear, get24 arrested again, fail to appear, get25 214 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 arrested a third time, now they're2 detained. Well, when you look at that3 person, they're detained on three4 separate cases. Even if they could post5 bail on the most recent arrest, they're6 not going to get out.7
Do we have8 a breakdown on that from your end? I'm9 sure the Prisons have it if we asked10 them, but does the District Attorney have11 it?12
I don't have any13 more recent information in the greater14 level of detail as what I gave you.15
No. We wouldn't22 have that unless he provided it to us.23 We don't have that.24
Okay.25 215 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Thank you.2
Thank3 you.4 Are there any other questions5 from members of the Committee?6
Thank you.11 Ms. Hart, do you happen to know12 if the CJAB funding can be used to13 prevent layoffs, which meant much of the14 federal money coming out today can?15
There are different16 funding pots that are coming from the17 Bureau of Justice systems. Some,18 particularly which will be funded through19 PCCD, do permit supplantation. The 13.520 does not. However, it looks at only --21 you don't look at what last year's22 budget. You look at what the proposal23 was. And so you could use it. You could24 use it for a variety of topics, whether25 216 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 it's to cover the prison population,2 whether it's to cover us. There's great3 discretion in how it could be used, and4 there's a lot of guidance about the5 supplantation issue on their website. So6 we're very confident that it could be7 used for a very wide variety of ways in8 complete compliance with federal law.9
Thank you.10 Maybe you'd be able to brief some members11 of our staff once we get a recommendation12 from the Administration to be reviewed by13 Council?14
Thank17 you.18 Mr. Gillison, I think that you19 have certainly gotten the impression that20 many of the Councilpeople are not very21 happy with what we heard today. So I'm22 going to ask you to please get together23 with the DA and her staff to see how24 this, in my opinion, injustice could be25 217 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 corrected, and we will have a callback2 before we vote on the budget.3 Did you want to add anything?4
No, Madam5 President. I just wanted to recognize6 two candidates that are running for7 District Attorney that are here today8 listening, Dan McElhatton and Dan9 McCaffrey.10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:11 Welcome.12 I think they both know the13 system very well.14 Lynne, I just want to close by15 saying I'm sorry that you had to go16 through this with your last budget, but I17 certainly want to publicly thank you for18 all that you have done. There was never19 a time that we had a community problem20 that I called you and you did not make21 yourself available.22 I guess one of my very first23 jobs with the City was in the DA's24 Office. So I have a personal feeling for25 218 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that office. I don't know of anyone that2 did as good a job as you did, and I know3 that you're going to be sorely missed.4
I6 don't know what your future plans are,7 but I want to wish you every success in8 your future endeavors.9
Well, I thank the10 Council President. I want you to know11 that as a lawyer and a litigator, I12 really enjoy spirited debate.13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 That's quite obvious. It's no secret.15
And I take and16 give no quarter to any person. And far17 from being angry at anybody. This is the18 stuff that makes me live and breathe. If19 I wasn't fighting for my office and my20 staff, I'd be the lesser person for it.21 And I recognize the power and the22 authority of Council and the fact that,23 as I previously said, we're all in this24 together. We're here to serve the25 219 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 public. And my budget statement says2 that -- it's not about me, because I3 won't be here in eight months. It's4 really about the safety and the security5 of the system, and that's why I think6 we're such a great office and the people7 in it are such great warriors.8 I also want you to know that9 43 -- it'll be 44 years next year of10 public service. It's been a great joy.11 I have absolutely no intention of12 retiring. And I must say in a parting13 note that had my husband not become ill14 and subsequently died, I'd be in the very15 last weeks of a reelection race.16 So I look forward to new17 challenges. I hope that I'll be able to18 work with the City. I even have -- and I19 must say this to Mr. Gillison. As much20 as I am irritated with him and this whole21 process, I'm not mad at him and I'm22 not -- what a surprise. I'm not angry23 with anybody. This is the stuff that24 makes a public servant a public servant.25 220 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 You have to get up here and fight for2 what you believe in, and if you're not3 prepared to fight for it, get another4 job. And that's the way I look at it.5 So I'm off to new adventures.6 I thank you very much. And I must say7 I'm so pleased that Mr. McPherson is8 here. This is the quintessential genius9 of budgeting, and I'm so happy that he is10 here with you through this budget cycle.11
This20 Committee will stand in recess until21 3:15.22 Thank you.23
Good24 afternoon. We'll reconvene the Council25 221 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 hearing on the budget, and is the Law2 Department prepared to testify? Come3 forth, please.4 (Witnesses approached witness5 table.)6
Good afternoon,9 Councilwoman Tasco, members of City10 Council. I am City Solicitor Shelley11 Smith. With me today are Donna Mouzayck,12 First Deputy City Solicitor; my Chief of13 Staff, Jennifer Burns; Elizabeth14 Mattioni, Chair of Litigation; Vanessa15 Garrett Harley, Chair of Social Services;16 Dan Cantu-Hertzler, Chair of the17 Corporate and Tax Group; and Dave Fegan,18 Director of Administration. I am pleased19 to have this opportunity to testify in20 support of the Law Department's Fiscal21 Year 2010 budget request.22 I've submitted my testimony for23 Council, but I'll be happy to read it24 into the record, if you like.25 222 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
4 Here's how our Fiscal Year '105 budget request compares to estimated6 Fiscal Year '09 obligations: General7 Fund, the Law Department requests8 $11,335,383 in Class 100; $9,152,911 in9 Class 200; and $280,024 in Classes 30010 and 400, for a total of $20,768,318 in11 the General Fund, a net decrease of12 $149,300 from estimated obligations for13 Fiscal Year '09. 5 In the Grants Revenue Fund, the6 Department requests $21,644,000, an7 increase of $5,988,000 from estimated8 obligations in Fiscal '09. 13 The mission of the Law14 Department is to provide high-quality and15 timely legal advice to all officials,16 departments, boards and commissions17 within the City. 1 Consequently, the Law Department has2 little, if any, control over the number3 or types of matters it handles. 13 Revenue initiatives: Initially14 I wish to note that the vast majority of15 taxes are paid on time. 1 tax collections. 74 million. 13 The Law Department continues to14 maintain improved case analysis15 procedures that allow for early16 assessment of claim exposure, initial17 claim evaluation, enhanced defense18 preparation and better advice to City19 departments. million23 for Fiscal '09. 1 litigation cases were settled this fiscal2 year impacting Fiscal '09 indemnity3 projections. 5 million. 620 percent of contract dollars being paid to21 minority and women contractors in Fiscal22 '08. We continued with the majority of23 those contracts in Fiscal '09 and expect24 to do the same in Fiscal '10. 1 reasonably experienced attorneys for2 these units, plus an additional three in3 the Regulatory Affairs Unit. 7 I thank you for the opportunity8 to testify today on the Law Department's9 Fiscal '10 budget request. 14
Thank you15 very much.16 The Chair recognizes Councilman17 Greenlee.18
Thank19 you, Madam Chair.20 Good afternoon, everyone.21
Good afternoon,22 Councilman Greenlee.23 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:24 Ms. Smith, just a couple of questions on25 230 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the tax collection that you talked about.2 You say you targeted or you're looking3 for an increase in the pace of4 collections. Do you have like a sort of5 target percentage that you'd like to see6 increase for Fiscal Year '10? Have you7 done it like that?8
We have not done it9 like that. What we have tried to do is10 accelerate the rate at which11 delinquent -- the rate at which12 collection matters that have, I'll13 characterize it, sort of run their14 collection course in the Law Department15 are sent out to collection firms for more16 aggressive action. The Law Department17 internally continues to work on18 collection of the more current taxes, and19 as those reach a point where more20 aggressive effort is required that a21 collection firm might better be able to22 address, we're looking to accelerate the23 pace at which we refer those matters out24 so it can -- so that those delinquent25 231 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 matters can be the subject of more2 intense collection activity going3 forward.4
I know5 you talk about the numbers in real6 numbers are high in money, but that's7 because of the age of the debt and all8 that.9
How many11 would you say -- does it ever get to the12 point where you just say, Look, this13 person is not findable, if you will?14 Maybe the person has died. You can't15 find anybody connected with, say, a16 property or a business or whatever the17 case may be.18
As a general matter19 with real estate collections, because20 real estate taxes are connected to a21 property, there's always the theoretical22 possibility of collecting even when the23 property interest is transferred, no24 matter how old the debt is, the lien25 232 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 against that property, which is2 renewed -- which is regularly renewed,3 goes along with that property so that at4 the very worst-case scenario when the5 property is transferred, that tax lien6 can be satisfied.7 But, generally speaking, we8 found that approximately 98 percent of9 whatever is collectible is collected10 within six years of the initial tax11 accrual, and then beyond that, the12 collection rate is somewhere around one13 or two percent.14
The15 reason I bring that up, because we all16 hear, the Administration hears, we hear,17 Well, one of the ways to solve this18 budget problem, just collect the money19 that's owed. But it's not as simple as20 that. That's why I asked the question.21 There's obviously a lot of debts out22 there that aren't collectible at least in23 the present time.24
All2 right. Last question just on -- you say3 about trying to make agreements before4 you have to go to legal action, if you5 will, or send it to a collection agency,6 whatever. What kind of flexibility do7 you have? Because one of the questions8 we have sometimes is, I want to make an9 agreement, but I can't meet what the Law10 Department is asking. I hear this from11 businesses sometimes.12 Do you pretty much stick to a13 set percentage that you have to have or14 do you take in consideration if you can15 get a decent amount, at least it stops it16 from going into further litigation?17
I think I'll have18 Cindy White, our Chief of Tax, explain19 that, because she can explain it better20 than I can.21
Good25 234 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 afternoon. How are you?2
Cynthia White,6 Chief Deputy City Solicitor, the Tax7 Unit.8 Typically if a business9 owner --10
If a business owner13 has difficulty meeting our settlement14 payment terms, then we will work with15 that taxpayer and ask for financial16 documentation to demonstrate a financial17 hardship. We also will give flexible18 terms and allow for graduated payments19 and do all we can to accommodate someone.20
As usual,21 we usually hear when people complain, not22 when it works out. That's the way it23 goes. But I'm glad to hear that, because24 I would think in the long run, at least25 235 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 in a lot of cases -- I can't expect you2 to take $5 for a $10,000 bill or3 something, but you maybe save money by4 not having to take it further if you can5 get some kind of reasonable agreement6 that the people will keep up.7
Exactly. And once8 a taxpayer is under an agreement, our9 experience is that they are willing to10 continue to pay that agreement and work11 with us to pay it throughout the term and12 satisfy the debt.13
Great.14 Thank you. Thank you.15 Thank you, Madam Chair.16
Yes.17 Ms. Smith, on of your18 testimony, you talk about you set up a19 competitive procurement of collection20 firms to enhance the City's collections21 of all types of delinquent taxes and also22 bail forfeitures. What would those23 delinquent taxes include? What kind?24
Well, currently, we25 236 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 use collection firms to collect all taxes2 except real estate taxes, and the City3 absorbs the cost of those commissions4 charged by the collection firms off the5 top of whatever is collected. So what we6 have done is expand the use of collection7 firms in those taxes, again all taxes8 except real estate taxes, where we9 currently use collection firms to enhance10 our ability, as I said, to send those11 matters out more aggressively and more12 quickly so that we can intensify our13 collection efforts.14
Have you15 done any inventory or census of the kind16 of taxes that are owed to the City and17 the age of the tax to be collected, and18 if at some point they're just on the19 books forever, you don't keep counting or20 look forward to come in?21
Revenue actually22 does some calculation of that, and that's23 what I was explaining earlier. It24 appears from -- they've aged tax25 237 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 collections, at least in real estate and2 business privilege tax, and what we can3 glean from that is that approximately 984 percent of whatever is collectible is5 collected within the first six years of6 the debt being owed, and after that, the7 collection falls to a rate of about one8 or two percent.9 So, yes, at a certain point, it10 does become more difficult to collect.11 About 90 percent of what is collected is12 collected in the first two years. After13 the first two years, then the collection14 rate falls off so that the additional six15 or seven percent is collected in the next16 four years and then it falls off even17 further.18 So, as I said, the way we19 structure the work is that the Law20 Department -- Revenue and then the Law21 Department focus on collection of the22 most current taxes, and then as the23 collections -- as the debts age, the24 matters are sent out to collection25 238 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 agencies that have the resources to track2 down the people who have become more3 difficult to find or the debts that have4 become more difficult to collect, so that5 there's an incentive for them to do that6 and they have the resources to find7 people that have become or tried to8 remove themselves from discovery as it9 were.10
Thank you,13 Madam Chair.14 Good afternoon, Solicitor.15
I want to18 follow that line of questioning there.19 We learned recently that the Water20 Department through Water Revenue has21 about $80 million of uncollectible on the22 street that's only two years old. Why23 don't we strike while the iron is hot24 here? Because if we have $80-some25 239 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 million that's only two years -- and you2 just confirmed it, as it ages, it gets3 more difficult to collect. I just can't4 imagine -- I hear it's well over 140, 1505 million that is still on the books that6 is up as much as 15 years old.7 First of all, as a city8 solicitor, it's not realistic, in my9 opinion, unless you're required by law,10 to carry that on the books for 15 years.11 All it does is suggest that we are not12 doing what we're supposed to do.13 Are we required to keep this14 uncollected debt on the books for 1515 years, and why can't we get more16 aggressive in collecting what I17 understand is over $80 million that's18 less than two years old?19
I'm going to speak20 to the issue of keeping the debt on the21 books and then I'm going to ask Cindy22 White to speak to the issue of the23 collections.24 The Finance Director and I have25 240 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 actually been discussing -- we've been2 trying to determine whether or not there3 is a way for us to remove that debt of a4 certain age from the books, but we have5 not -- we're not like a business, in that6 businesses can at a certain point write7 off the debt. We have not figured out a8 legal way that we can do that, but we are9 concerned about that and we are looking10 at it, and we will continue to look at it11 for the reasons that you suggest.12 Cindy.13
I'm sorry. Cynthia18 White, Chief Deputy City Solicitor for19 the Tax Unit.20 With regard to collection, I am21 aware of the debts that you've mentioned,22 and toward that end, there have been23 recent contracts that have been awarded24 to address the more recent debt within25 241 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the Water Revenue Bureau to have that2 debt referred out to collection agencies3 in the first instance and have them4 collect. And we also have a firm under5 contract to collect on the debt that6 really cannot be collected in the routine7 manner but requires legal action.8 Moreover, water liens like real9 estate liens do run with the property.10 They're in rem liens. They have a life11 of 20 years. And in addition to that, we12 have the ability to revive those liens.13 So, in effect, those liens will stay out14 there, and to the extent that a taxpayer15 ultimately tries to transfer the property16 or any time try to refinance, at that17 point those liens would have to be18 satisfied, and the lien itself protects19 the City's interest.20
Now, let me21 just follow up a little bit with that,22 and I appreciate the fact that you guys23 have recognized that that money is out24 there, and I think it would be very25 242 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 helpful now to get as much of that in.2 But this process costs money. The liens,3 I assume there's a cost associated with4 placing those.5
The lien actually6 is then assessed against the taxpayer,7 the homeowner. There's a $20 charge per8 year each time we file the lien.9
Add then the10 collection agency gets a piece of the11 action?12
So what can15 we do to not allow this stuff to get two16 years old, to get more aggressive in the17 first year, the first six months to make18 sure that this debt is collected so we19 can get paid the entire debt that's due20 without having -- the lien fee that you21 just mentioned will be eventually22 collected, but maybe not eventually23 collected, or the lien that's associated24 with the bill, the cost of the water. I25 243 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 just can't imagine -- and I remember PGW2 having some similar issues at one time,3 and they've done an outstanding job. I4 can tell because the phone is ringing5 about gas being shut off, the outstanding6 job in correcting that.7 What can we do with Water8 Revenue to make this work better than it9 does today? We should never be in a10 situation, in my opinion, even as big a11 city as we are, to be 180 million, plus12 another 75, 80 million that's older than13 that. What can we do?14
I would agree,15 Councilman. I think the shut-off16 mechanism is one approach, and I know the17 Water Revenue Bureau uses that, but18 outside of that, especially during the19 moratorium period, we can then initiate20 actions more readily, more quickly in21 Municipal Court. We have an existing22 program. We are hindered by staffing23 restrictions and we also have limitations24 from the court as to how many complaints25 244 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 we can file each week.2 (Bell rung.)3
But if we were able4 to file more of those inpersonam actions5 against these homeowners and let them6 deal with the debt while it's small,7 while it's current, while it's fresh,8 then I do think we'd have a greater9 recovery.10
Well, I know11 that -- I worked for a utility company --12 that you can live without electricity for13 a while. You can live without gas for a14 while, but water, summer, winter, all the15 seasons, you need it and almost16 immediately. So I think we have to get17 their attention.18
Thank you.20 Thank you, Madam Chair.21 Now, when she's not paying22 attention, that means I can ask another23 question.24 I think I will.25 245 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Yesterday we asked a question2 of the -- yesterday we asked the3 question --4
She didn't7 catch me yet.8 Can I finish this one question,9 Madam Chair?10
Thank you.12 Yesterday we were talking about13 casinos and the fact that they'll be14 arriving sooner than later. Our question15 was, can we create an environment in the16 casinos as we did at the airport, the17 police that are paid for by the18 aviation -- that the airlines pay for the19 police officers?20 We are trying to develop a21 concept where the casino industry has to22 contribute to a certain number of police23 officers above and beyond what would24 normally be at the location before the25 246 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 casino. What can we do and what do we2 need legislatively to start that process?3
You may recall that4 the casino development agreements for the5 casinos at the waterfront -- I'm not6 going to get into the movement of them,7 but the original casino development8 agreement actually provided for payments9 from the casino developers that included10 some incremental cost of the additional11 police response. To the extent that12 those -- the costs that were factored13 into that agreement do not adequately14 cover the police cost, we could certainly15 examine whether or not it's possible to16 increase the cost and pass it along to17 them.18
The model at19 the airport works well. There could be a20 major multi-alarm fire in a part of the21 City and those police officers are not22 drawn away, and I think that the23 community, especially SugarHouse, needs24 to know that police officers that are25 247 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 assigned there will not be pulled away,2 God forbid, if another emergency occurs3 somewhere else in the City. So I think4 that we should start thinking about a5 committed police force that is there to6 serve that community.7
Right. I8 understand. We can certainly take a look9 at that.10
Thank you,16 Councilman.17 The Chair recognizes Councilman18 Jones.19
Thank you,20 Madam Chair.21 Solicitor Smith, I want to22 thank you for responding to my letter of23 inquiry sent a year ago. The date is24 April 1st. I guess that was --25 248 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
-- April Fool's Day4 to respond to it, but some information is5 better than none.6 What I would want to focus on,7 though -- and I sincerely thank you for8 your responses, because they were9 helpful.10
And just to11 explain, I think our difficulty was, a12 lot of the information that you were13 requesting from us was information that14 we just really don't have, and I think15 the letter reflected that, but...16
What I'd17 like to spend a moment on, though, is an18 old issue that I raised about bail19 collection and where we were in that20 process. It was at one point felt that21 there was a billion dollars of bail money22 on the street, and what we kind of23 negotiated down to what would be a24 realistic receivable was somewhere in the25 249 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 neighborhood of --2
I think the number3 that was being floated was a billion4 dollars. What we think is actually5 collectible is about a million.6
No. It was7 about 100 million, as I recall, and that8 was from a billion down to 100 million.9 And even if it was 1 million, what are we10 doing to collect it?11
For our part of it,12 we have solicited proposals from13 collection firms and we have received14 responses and evaluated those, and we15 should be in a position to make a16 selection in the very near future, if we17 haven't already.18
All right.19 I'm not going to wait until April 1 next20 year.21
In addition,24 you mention the collection agencies.25 250 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 What was the breakdown of minority and2 female agencies that you have?3
I'm sorry. Are you4 speaking specifically to the bail5 collection or in general?6
We have two20 minority firms, RCB, which does a very21 large portion of our collection work, and22 Linebarger is a female-owned minority23 firm -- I mean, a female-owned law firm24 that does our delinquent real estate.25 251 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
And that2 represents the bulk of what your Class3 200 allocations are for, or is that --4
Well, no. We5 have -- our Class 200 allocations are not6 simply for collection firms. We also7 have outside counsel.8
But made up9 of your minority participation, what10 represents law firms then?11
Okay. Minority or15 MBEC-certified firms, we currently have16 contracts with five minority firms,17 minority or women-owned firms -- I'm18 sorry; six. And then at majority firms,19 we attempt to use minorities and women20 wherever possible. So in addition to21 those firms, there are an additional --22
So what23 percentage of firms equal minority, what24 percentage of firms equal female?25 252 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
I would have to2 calculate the percentage of firms. I3 could count up the number of firms that4 we use and tell you of that number,5 but --6
I understand7 Bill Green has a calculator he might be8 able to provide.9
It's 28 percent of12 contract dollars that we spend on13 minority or women-owned firms. In terms14 of the number of firms, we can count that15 up for you.16
What was24 your understanding of City departments25 253 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 with regards to providing in the body of2 your testimony MBE/WBE numbers? Because3 what we've discovered with each City4 department, that there's been some5 inconsistency in what Council's6 expectations were with regards to7 participation of disadvantaged8 businesses.9
My understanding10 was that our department was expected to11 testify to the numbers of diversity in12 our contracting and in our staffing as13 well and the amount of money that we14 spend on minority contracting.15
So my only16 ask would be, provide that information to17 the Chair. It's just easier for us to18 see it. And going forward -- last year19 we did a letter. This year we did not20 because we were convinced that there21 would be a universal uniform message.22 That has not happened. So next year we23 will send a letter indicating that we24 need every single department to come25 254 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 prepared in the body and text of your2 testimony with who and amount of all subs3 and primes and percentages and dollar4 amount, a grid picture. And that just5 gives us a big picture of what is6 happening in departments.7
No problem,11 Councilwoman Brown. I think it speaks to12 a need to sharpen our communications with13 the departments as to what our14 expectation is and having a uniform15 presentation of how minority and female16 participation is applied.17 I want to go to your letter and18 response, and I asked on Question 3 of19 that letter, According to recent Inquirer20 articles, there are over 300 bridges,21 trestles in the Philadelphia area that22 are in a state of disrepair and there's23 almost a ten-year backlog of capital24 projects to fix them, and I asked -- I25 255 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 further asked were we in communications2 with Amtrak and/or Conrail or whoever3 owns these dangerous bridges within our4 municipality, and one of your responses5 was that the City could petition the PUC6 to have railroad owners improve and7 remove bridge trestles that intersect8 with City-owned streets.9 Have we made any progress on10 that inquiry? I mention that in11 specifics to 52nd and Jefferson where CNN12 documented and chronicled railroad ties,13 one of which is in my office, that we14 spent $80 million worth of improving a15 mall, a dilapidated mall in that area,16 but the bridge trestle, every time the17 bridge goes -- the vibrations cause giant18 flakes of metal to come loose, and my19 concern is for what is the liability to20 them but, as important, what is the21 liability to the City of Philadelphia.22
Right. The23 liability to the City of Philadelphia24 to -- I mean, the City is liable for25 256 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 defects in streets that are owned by the2 City. So as far as if there were a3 defective condition of a bridge or4 trestle that intersected with the City5 street, the City would not be liable for6 that condition.7 That said, I don't know whether8 or not the Streets Department has9 determined to contact the PUC about that,10 but I can certainly look into that and11 get back to you.12 (Bell rung.)13
And I14 appreciate you responding, but I would15 encourage you and implore you to set up16 a -- I don't want to say a task force,17 but some folk to look into what our18 liabilities are, what our action steps19 could be. Not only is it a question of20 beautification. It is a question of21 public safety.22 And as I look at some of the23 conditions -- and I asked also is there a24 disparity between the amount of repairs25 257 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 done outside of the City of Philadelphia2 by these entities as opposed to inside3 the City of Philadelphia, and, if so, is4 there some recourse we can take as a5 municipality to say that we are not any6 less important than Montgomery County,7 Bucks County and others.8
You know,14 Councilman Jones, it's interesting you15 bring that up, because when they were16 about to do the -- as they were doing the17 repair of the South Street Bridge, you18 know it is a very dangerous condition19 coming onto the Schuylkill Expressway at20 that point, and they said it was too21 expensive to fix that situation there, if22 it was even possible to do that, and I23 pointed to the 309 expressway being24 redone, many of the interstate highways25 258 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 being done, but it was too expensive to2 take care of the westbound onramp at3 South Street that is very deadly, if you4 have ever experienced coming on there.5 So your point is well taken.6
I appreciate7 it.8 And, Madam Chair, I think we9 should find this out, because I have a10 sense -- and it is my gut -- that there11 is a disparity between the emphasis12 placed on bridges, trestles outside of13 Philadelphia versus inside of14 Philadelphia, and that disparity is just15 unacceptable.16 Thank you, Madam Chair.17
Well, are18 you talking about SEPTA and/or SEPTA and19 Conrail, or both?20
Actually,21 I'm talking about all of the above. I'm22 of the opinion that we are de facto23 discriminated against in a number of24 ways. But not just by railroads and25 259 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 trestles, but by major chains, that a2 CVS -- and I don't want to pick on them.3 Let's say a drugstore that has chains4 outside of Philadelphia has a different5 maintenance budget for shrubbery and6 trees and beautification than they do in7 inner-city areas. And if that is true,8 not only is it wrong, but I think that9 there may be some legal recourse we have10 by way to make sure that that does not11 happen. And I'm looking to the City12 Solicitor's Office to look into that.13
I agree17 with him to a great measure in terms of18 some of the corporations, but we have19 constantly always had problems with20 Conrail and their safety of their tracks21 and/or the lack of maintenance. I can't22 speak to the actual rails, but we do know23 there's a terrible disrespect for the24 cleanliness and clean-up of these tracks.25 260 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Now, you may say what does the Law2 Department have to do with all of that,3 but we've talked to all the other4 departments and haven't gotten much5 action. Maybe you can take some action6 on that. Okay? At the end of the day,7 if we're going to be held legally liable8 for something, then we ought to up front9 call attention to it.10
Right. The point I11 was trying to make was -- I hear what12 you're saying. I will absolutely look13 into it. Your question is about the14 disparity and expenditure of highway15 repair dollars within the City limits16 versus in the suburbs. I understand the17 question, correct? That is the question,18 right?19
Well,20 yeah, that's his question. That's his21 concern.22 We don't know what the question23 is, but there's a problem. Okay? So you24 figure out what the question should be25 261 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 and ask it. Okay?2
We're not4 the lawyers. I'm a politician. I'm not5 about that.6
Thank10 you, Madam President.11 I don't want to beat a dead12 horse or a broken bridge. I think the13 question is that we continuously14 complain, and I have a lot of these15 untaken-care-of railroad tracks. I think16 the issue is, is there litigation going17 on across the country? Should we be18 looking at it and can we be ahead of that19 curve as opposed to behind that curve?20 And in that, we will find out whether21 there's a disparity between their22 maintenance and their investments in23 other areas versus urban cities. And I24 guess that's what we're going to, and I25 262 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 think both Councilman Jones and I have2 asked department by department by3 department that has any interrelationship4 with those to say, Look, we may have to5 go to litigation, because what they do is6 blatant in how they operate now. Deputy7 Mayor Rina Cutler has established some8 communications, but I can tell you that9 we're still not getting any action.10 So the issue is, we could talk11 or we can act, and at some point the Law12 Department is going to have to play a13 role in that.14 That said, I've worked for the15 last 16 months with Rob Dubow and16 Commissioner Richardson on the issues of17 our collections, because it's an issue we18 hear continuously. As Councilman Rizzo19 said before, collect the money that's20 owed to the City and then we won't be in21 this trouble.22 One of the issues that I have23 pushed and there's been continued24 pushback from the Administration has been25 263 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the issue of an amnesty program, and I2 want to just put on the record again,3 because I know the typical responses, We4 do an amnesty and then there's a drop-off5 and people expect the future amnesty and6 then there's a drop-off or people won't7 pay until. But my belief is, based on8 your testimony, that if we are being as9 comprehensive in our collection10 strategies, utilizing both internal and11 external mechanisms, that that's what12 might make an amnesty program different13 this time versus what we've done in the14 past.15 So, again, in light of our16 financial situation, using that17 comprehensive strategy with our external18 collectors and our internal, why won't we19 consider an amnesty program to collect20 those dollars?21
I'm not sure it's22 accurate to say that we won't consider an23 amnesty program. It is my understanding24 that Commissioner Richardson is25 264 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 evaluating the possibility of an amnesty2 program. I know that we've had some3 discussions about it. I think Cindy --4 okay. I know that we've had some5 discussions about it, and I think the6 question is whether such a program could7 be designed that would -- again, to your8 point, we are looking at leaving no stone9 unturned as it were to try to collect as10 much revenue, delinquent and otherwise,11 as we can. I think the question that12 Commissioner Richardson is trying to13 evaluate, along with the Finance Director14 and with our help, is how to design an15 amnesty program that will not encourage16 people to wait until amnesty comes before17 they pay. So, in other words, won't18 discourage people from -- that won't19 discourage the people who would otherwise20 promptly pay and won't discourage people21 for whom another delinquent tax22 collection effort might yield greater23 revenue collection, won't encourage those24 people to wait until an amnesty program25 265 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 comes along so that they can get the best2 deal possible. Our objective obviously3 is try to get the best deal for the City4 and to set up, if we were going to an5 amnesty program, to try to balance all of6 those interests.7
I8 understand, and, again, under normal9 circumstances, I would say -- again, I'm10 going by what Commissioner Richardson and11 you are saying, is we are getting very12 serious and very focused in on this. So13 I think that when the argument becomes,14 Well, we're worried about what's going to15 happen two, three, four years from now16 versus can we collect potentially $10017 million, it's not a good argument, and18 that's what I've been hearing for the19 last 16 months. I think that I want to20 get 50 percent of something versus 10021 percent of nothing.22
As I said, as I23 understand it, Commissioner Richardson is24 trying to evaluate how to set up a25 266 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 program.2
As it6 relates to the issue of the collection7 agencies -- I don't know if we've done an8 analysis. I know there has been some9 move, and Commissioner Richardson spoke10 to this, of us --11
We're18 keeping you awake.19 The question of turning our20 collections over earlier to these firms21 so that we can collect this money, where22 are we -- how are this year's contracts23 different than last year's in terms of24 our ability to turn them over quicker? I25 267 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 think Ms. White was speaking to that, but2 I didn't know what our contracts were3 now.4
There's no5 limitation in the contracts on when we --6 we turn the matters over when we've7 reached a certain point in our office8 where we think it's no longer appropriate9 for us to devote our efforts and it's10 more -- and the debts are sort of more11 appropriate for collection agency12 activity.13 What we've tried to do this14 time is broaden the number, expand the15 number of collection agencies that we use16 so that we can send a larger volume of17 cases out sooner. So it's really a18 matter of numbers, just trying to expand19 the resources so that we can go after20 more.21
Don't22 they work on contingency fees? So why23 are we spending more resources? Don't24 they work on contingencies?25 268 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Yes, they do work2 on contingencies, and we have -- we send3 them out -- and I think Ms. White might4 be able to explain this more clearly than5 I can. So why don't I just let her do6 that.7
Cynthia White, Law8 Department.9 With regard to how the new10 contracts differ from the old contracts,11 previously we would refer cases out to12 our vendor. They would keep them for the13 term of the contract and pretty much have14 the entire duration to collect.15 Under the current proposal, we16 are implementing a faster rate of return17 and review. In other words, we're doing18 first placement, second placement, third19 placement within each of these groups and20 incorporating as well our internal21 collections.22 So the goal is to have23 referrals sent out earlier as the first24 placement, and typically that's within25 269 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the first 90 to 120 days up to maybe six2 months. After six to eight months, it3 will go to another phase, and after that,4 then ultimately if there's no collection5 after routine dunning and every effort is6 made to collect, it goes legal action.7 And in terms of our internal8 activity, we have, as I referenced9 earlier with Councilman Rizzo, a mass10 litigation program in Municipal Court11 where we actively file complaints for12 various tax types. And so, again, we are13 incorporating our collection efforts in14 between the agencies as well to make sure15 that there's a constant working of the16 inventory and it's fresher and it's17 staged in a way that they're not just18 sitting and being warehoused.19
I lost my25 270 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 place when I did my point of order.2
I'll be5 happy to yield. I haven't asked my first6 question yet, but --7
He lost10 his -- when you ask for a point of11 information, you lose your spot. We're12 sorry.13 Councilman Rizzo.14