Well, I heard earlier that there weren't any reassessments, that there were just -- maybe it's for commercial. 434 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information. It's not the full value reassessment. It is the normal once-a-year annual reassessment that some property owners receive. It's not related to the full value reassessment.
Yes. Now I'm going to get another reassessment. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, if I may, Madam President, can I have a minute? Have you filed an appeal? If you haven't --
I'm going to tell you, I've had sleepless nights over this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have sleepless nights over a lot of things, 435 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 but did you file an appeal?
I have sleepless nights every night. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have sleepless nights over this bill or this proposal.
I hope so. I have spoken to a lot of people. My accountant for one, Kathy for one. I went to a lawyer, and basically they said to me -- and a property owner who has already gone through the procedures of filing, and they said, Don't bother, because they're just going to laugh at you. They're going to say, What do you pay in taxes? They'll say, Fine, I'll buy the property from you. They were the exact words from three separate people. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The "they" you're referring to, a few of them are sitting behind you to your left and they are smiling and shaking their heads. I can assure you of the 2,000 cases that my 436 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 office represented back in 2003, that they didn't laugh about anything and they listen to you. I'm not suggesting that you'll get any roll-back consideration, but I would suggest that you file an appeal. I have found the Board of Revision of Taxes to be very fair and understanding. No guarantees.
And I would also echo that. I think you're foolish not to appeal.
Okay. I will do that. However, with the full market value, that will totally put us over. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We agree.
That's something else we'll have to talk about, and that doesn't go into effect until '07. However, I think the Councilman has indicated to you, and I would concur, that you definitely should appeal.
And I would tell your neighbors to do the same thing.
Okay. Thank you for coming in to testify. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Joseph Figurski and we have Fab Fusaro.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Chairperson Verna. My name is Joseph Figurski. I am going to be 71 next week. I live at the 100 block of Carpenter Street in Queens Village. I retired from the Sanitation Department when I was 65. I wanted to work that long so I could get full Social Security. I stayed with my parents until they both passed away, which is recently, 438 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 and I'm living in their home now on Carpenter Street. And I've been reading the paper of the way the things have gone with their real estate taxes and everything, and what I want to say -- I might say, I'm here for the people of our parish, what I belong to. A lot of them are in their late 70's and 80's, and they don't have anywhere to go. They tell me they would rather die than leave that house, because they're within walking distance of the church, up the stores and everything, and they got to love Queens Village, like I do. I love my neighbors, too. Whenever I need help, they're always around. I'm by myself in this house that my grandfather left to me. I was wondering if there was any way that if they do want to raise the taxes, is there any way where they could have some mercy on us and keep it down to a minimum? Because we love where we're living now, and God knows how many more 439 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 years I got left. I just went through cancer treatments last year, and I don't know how long I have. I have to get checked every six months. And I would appreciate it if the people take this into consideration and think about us, the people that have been living in this house -- I was living in the same house for 71 years now. We've been honest, working people, like people in back of me, living and paying taxes every year, but gentrification has been changing the whole view of things. And I know we can't stop it, but at least have some pity on us people that who knows how many more years we got left. That's all I have to say.
Now, if I could wipe away that tear, you really have impressed me. I want you to know that. We have heard your plea.
Well, I've been told by my father to always speak the truth. 440 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844
And you have. Let me just say that we certainly understand exactly what you have just spoken, and I keep saying there are many senior citizens who try for PACE, for instance, and their income may be seven or eight dollars over what they're allowed and, consequently, they're not eligible for PACE and they fit into the category that you're just describing, where they've lived in their homes all their lives and they're not entitled or eligible for many of the benefits that some others may receive. When we make a decision, believe me, we will certainly be taking people like you and others into consideration.
I am living on a $16,000 income. That's all. 441 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844
I hope we could give you a birthday gift. Our next witness? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Fab Fusaro. I'm a neighbor of Joe Figurski, who just spoke. I'm, I guess, one of the yuppies in the neighborhood who started there back in '92 when I purchased a home for $125,000. I got to tell you, the reason that I went to that neighborhood and the reason that I continue to stay in that neighborhood is because the quality of life that's afforded by the old-timers in the neighborhood. Those guys have been there. There's such history. They've been there since -- I mean, Joe said 71 years, but people have been there since before World War II. I just want to go over a little 442 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 bit in a minute what's going on on our block, basically the southern end of Queen Village, to give you a little more idea basically on the variation of what the lady over on Clinton Street spoke about and how I'm afraid, I guess, that this reassessment is going to occur during a bubble and it's not necessarily going to be fair and deliver, I think, the equalization that we're talking about or that's been promised. So the area between Christian Street and Washington Avenue, there was a spice warehouse distributor, that they received a high reassessment and sold the property for redevelopment. The plan was to put approximately eight houses at approximately $800,000 each in on that property. They built six and then stopped because they weren't selling any of the houses. They were able to sell one for about $700,000. We have five houses staying there brand new that have not sold. 443 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 Next door to me, a vacant lot was sold for $140,000. A property was put up for -- I'm not sure the amount that was paid to put it up; however, it went on the market for $900,000. I think it was 895, was the number. It stayed on the market for almost a year. What ended up happening is, the owners who were speculating that the house would go and they could make a nice profit ended up having to move in. They have the ten-year tax abatement. Their taxes are estimated, at the end of the ten years they will be paying $12,000 a year for that property. Now, I'm not sure exactly how the reassessment is going to go. I mean, I've heard Mr. Glancey. My next-door neighbor is an accountant who has done a lot of numbers. We've been distributing a flyer throughout the neighborhood. We're very concerned. I think the problem is that when you talk about reassessment and then 444 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 you talk about moving to a flat rate or simplifying, I understand simplifying. I'm a computer guy. I know it makes more sense if you can just take a single fraction rather than fractions of fractions. However, doing the reassessment at the same time, especially given this bubble, I think is going to end up hurting a lot of people, including the guys in my neighborhood. Myself also. I have a young child. She's four months old. My wife, we love that neighborhood. We want to stay, but we already pay an exorbitant -- I shouldn't say exorbitant amount. I think we pay a fair amount based on our wage tax. You know, the City gets probably from us, I'd say, on average about $800 a month in wage tax and real estate taxes. I'm not quite sure how much more we can afford to keep paying in order to stay in the City. So I would just caution you, just take these things into consideration. 445 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 I was a little concerned. Mr. Glancey got up here. I understand he's got a tough job to do, but when he talked about, Well, we're looking at a three-year rolling average, three years, but, I mean, even the Fed has said that the real estate bubble is an issue and, in particular, Philly where we've had a great run here. But my concern is that it's not going to last and that we'll end up not delivering this equalization that we're promising and we're going to basically destroy these neighborhoods. We will destroy the character of these neighborhoods. That's all I have to say. Thanks.
Thank you very much. Questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you again for coming in to testify. 446 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Karen Allen. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: John Mahan.
John Mahan, is he here? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Terry Gillen. (No response.)
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify whose name has not been called? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is David Yufelasy (ph), and I sat through all the meetings so far and I listened to everybody's testimonies, and I had a couple of questions. The first question I had was, this state law that Mr. Glancey is saying is the reason why this is being pushed through, he seems to be saying the state is making them go to a 100 percent valuation. I'm not clear 447 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 on that. I was wondering also, how long has this law been on the books, this state law for full valuation? I was told over 50 years.
I was wondering why now, if it's been a law for over 50 years, why now --
Good afternoon again. My name is David Glancey and I'm the Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. That law has probably been on the books, the general county assessment law, has been on the books since 1940. What we have done, at least in my tenure at the BRT -- I can't speak for other 448 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 Chairpeople and other folks who worked there -- is that we have always tried to use -- as I walked in the door, there was some fragment of market value, some fraction of a fraction of a fraction. That's the way it was done. As we moved forward into the '80s and the early '90s, what we attempted to do to stay in compliance, which we thought we were doing, in compliance with the law, was to make everything as uniform as possible. So if you were 50 percent of the value on your block, we would try to have everybody on your block at that value. We're wrong. The law says you should value property at actual value, and that's what we're attempting to do. One thing, Council President, if you don't mind, is, the value is a separate and entirely different concept than the taxation. And I say that not just to this gentleman, but to everybody prior who is -- and I think rightfully 449 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 so -- is frightened, is scared, doesn't know that this is a new process. And really, as I said, this is the beginning of the debate. It's not going to happen tomorrow. We're talking about the debate today, the new valuations, the way to mitigate any particular taxation problems. But the law says properties should be valued at actual value. And you heard another gentleman up here today say if you don't do it, somebody is going to make you do it. So we think working with folks like City Council and the Administration and the state legislature is a much better way to make a much saner system than have some judge impose upon us something that may not be as sane as I think all of us can make it.
Okay. My next question is, since this is a state law, how many counties actually enforce this full valuation?
40 percent of the 450 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 counties in Pennsylvania do that.
40 percent of 67. And our neighbors in Montgomery, Chester and Delaware do it.
That doesn't have anything to do with the value, sir. What I'm saying is, value is different from taxation.
But that does have a lot to do with how much you actually pay the City each year. So you have to think about that also.
No. I disagree. Valuation doesn't have anything to do with that. Valuation is entirely different from taxation.
I agree with you, but what I'm saying is, I'm taking everything into consideration, not just 451 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 the property taxes. I'm considering the wage taxes. I'm considering how much each year people actually pay to the City, whereas other counties don't have a wage tax like we do. So you also have to think about that when you're considering these increases.
Again, I just want to reiterate, the value is not the tax. The tax policy is going to be set, and I'll certainly be part of the debate and certainly try to help. It will be by Council, the Administration, the state legislature. We could set the value today at whatever it might be and say no taxes whatsoever. I don't think that's a wise thing to do, but I think that's exactly what you can do. The value is entirely different.
I'm wondering 452 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 also, what does Philadelphia Forward have to do with this whole process?
You'd have to ask Mr. Mandel. I have nothing to do with Philadelphia Forward.
I think we've given you much more latitude than we normally would.
Usually this is not a question-answer type of forum, but since Mr. Glancey was here and I know your friends have made some comments, I thought that Mr. Glancey could certainly clear the air on what was said. So if you would like to complete your testimony, we'd be more than happy to hear it. Mr. Glancey, I want to thank you for coming up and responding to this gentleman's questions. 453 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844
Thank you. Thank you, Council. Also, I wanted to add that I really think that these values on these properties have been greatly affected by a lot of factors out of control of most people, most people who live in these neighborhoods and have lived in these neighborhoods for a long time or not so long a time. And I think one of the Councilwomen spoke about predatory lending. I think that has a serious effect on this whole issue here, as well as investors coming in and flipping properties. You might have a property that's bought one year for $200,000 and then maybe a year or two later, they sell it for 400. Now, I don't think it's fair that the people surrounding these neighborhoods are going to be based on a sale value that they have no control over. This is being driven by the real 454 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 estate market, which I don't think is a true real estate market. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
You're welcome. Thank you for coming in. Any other witnesses to testify? Please approach the witness table, sir. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, ma'am. My name is Rudolph Lane, and I thank the Council for the opportunity to speak. A couple of things I want to address. One was how the property is going to be assessed. One of the things that's happening in my neighborhood, a shell was recently sold for $100,000 to a real estate investment group. They put this shell on the market within seven days for $124,000. The homes in my neighborhood, 455 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 when I purchased my home, were selling for around $30,000, and now they're on the market, some of them, for $250,000 now. The people who are living in the neighborhood have been living there some time and they're just having problems making not only the regular living expenses with the high cost of fuel and other things in the neighborhood, but they are having problems addressing this tax business. The other thing, from what I understand is, they're making observations on the property from the exterior only and they are -- so if you don't paint your house, if you don't make any outside improvements on your home, then how are they going to know what is the value of your home? So they're not going into the homes and they're just raising the taxes based upon the sales of other properties in the neighborhood. And I don't think that is really a fair 456 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 way of doing it. So if I don't want my taxes to go up, I just let my property run down and so my taxes are not going to go up. That's not an incentive for me to try to do what I can do to keep up my own property, and I think that's going to be counterproductive to what people are trying to do in the communities, especially where I live. We're trying to improve our community, and then by doing this, we're going to be taxed more. The other thing was, for the disabled people, I have seen nothing for the disabled people into the laws. Now, we have a lot of veterans that are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, et cetera, and some of these veterans are going to be 100 percent disabled. I haven't seen anyone address any of those issues, and I think those issues should be addressed so that those people can get some kind of leeway in that consideration for their taxes. 457 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 I guess the other issues that I wanted to express have all been taken care of pretty well, and I thank you very much for your time that you've given me.
Thank you for coming in to testify. We really appreciate your views. Do we have anyone else to testify? Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. My name is Eddie Williams. I live in the 2100 block of Kater Street. I've lived there since around 1947, not in the same house. I got married and I now live down the street from where I first lived when I first came to Philadelphia. In 1961, I paid $3,500 for my house. Now, you know that real estate value has gone all through the roof. I heard some of the testimony. But what kind of angers me a little bit, Council President, is the fact that we fought so hard to preserve that area. As you know, 458 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 that's an old -- I mean, this is old history, old news, but we fought so hard to preserve that area when the Cross Town Expressway was coming through. We was in the forefront to make sure that that didn't happen. And it didn't happen. Now the property has gone up astronomical. You know, the house I paid $3,500 for now is probably worth $350,000, $400,000. I'm paying about $1,600 a year in taxes, and you're talking about -- I mean, the proposal is to go up 100 percent on the fair market value of the properties. People like me can't afford to pay that. I'm retired now, you know, and just laying back, hoping to enjoy a few more years I might have, and I'm sure that -- because you're representing our area very well over the years, and I'm sure and I hope that the rest of the Councilpeople come up with some formula to give some relief to a lot of people that needs it. Councilman DiCicco was talking 459 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 about in his area, and, of course, in your area you have a lot of the same thing. So I just happened to be here and wanted to say that to you and the rest of the Councilpeople, and I hope you take some of it into consideration, especially elderly people. And then you got young people that's suffering, too, not just elderly people.
Eddie, I know properties in your area have really skyrocketed, and I have said, as I said last week, people who sell their properties make a very, very handsome, very handsome profit in selling, fill their pockets with the money, leave town. You decide that you're going to stay in the community. You should not be penalized for deciding to stay, because you may not have a choice to leave anyway. But, believe me, we understand precisely what you're saying. We will be 460 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 having more meetings, I'm sure, public hearings, and by that time, hopefully we will know exactly what direction we'll be going, and I would really appreciate at that time if people would come in to testify and let us know what their feelings are.
Thanks, Eddie, for coming in. We appreciate it. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm sorry. Would you pull the microphone closer to you. Identify yourself again, please.
I live on South 2nd Street just below Christian, and my 461 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 neighborhood has gone crazy. First off, I'm an artist, so my income level is low. I have lived in my house for years and 5 I am on Social Security, with no pension 6 or anything else. I work part time 7 teaching, but that's based on if the 8 class fills. So I have no guaranteed 9 income. 10 I have enough savings that puts 11 me over the top for welfare or, you know, 12 the subsidies. And I'm very nervous. I 13 pay now $3,000 a year in taxes, and it's 14 a struggle to get there, and I'm just 15 really nervous about what's happening. 16
Okay. 17 I think that many people feel as you do, 18 but, believe me, we do have some 19 compassion, not a lot, but we do have 20 some, and we certainly are not going to want to see people who have lived in their homes for years and years to be forced to move out.
What happens is that people like myself have made the 462 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 neighborhood attractive. When I moved in 20-some years ago, there were crack vials all over the sidewalks, and so we very quietly tried to make our immediate neighborhood a safe place to live. And it is. Now it's being much more attractive. Now, the new construction down the street, they listed for 900,000. They couldn't sell them, even at 7. So that's what my property is going to be based against.
What did you pay for your property when you purchased it years ago? 17
I paid 90, which 18 was on the high side, but my daughter was 19 going to the Performing Arts High School 20 and she could take the bus up Christian Street right to school. So that's why I chose that neighborhood. And I've been broken into a couple times, and believe it or not, the neighborhood is still not safe, but the 463 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 appearance of it is. And so I don't know that I want to leave Philadelphia, but if I have to, I will, and that's kind of -- all of my friends that are also artists and professional people are feeling the same way.
Well, we're hoping that you'll be able to stay for many, many years to come.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? Please come up to the witness table, gentlemen. Why don't you both come up at the same time and you'll each have your chance to speak. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is 464 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 Mr. Francis Morgan and I live 916 South 2nd Street, in Mr. Councilman DiCicco's district, and I've been in my house since 1945. I was born in my house. From the womb to the tomb hopefully. And my parents were in that house since 1928. And I'm just afraid of the assessments that are going to befall me, and I just might have to move. I'm retired now. I worked for the Navy, graduated from Temple University, worked for the Navy for 36 years. And my area has really come up. In fact, I used to live across the street, I think, from your relatives that had -- A.L. Verna Garlic Factory.
Oh, okay. They moved because of the fact that taxes went up on them on the business, and they left. And about seven or eight people -- there was about ten people who worked 465 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 there. They left and they built these enormous big condos, which they have the ten-year tax abatement, live right across the street. They're selling for 900 or -- I think it's $900,000 each, and their taxes, believe it or not, the people who moved in there, they pay $900 a year on a $900,000 house. And then they're going to tax us where I live, the working-class people. We live in a beautiful area, a beautiful block. The gentlemen who all testified before me, they all live right in my area. They're great people, and we don't want to destroy the City and destroy these neighborhoods of people who have lived there for years and years and years, and especially I don't really want to leave. And I do get a pretty good pension, but I'm just afraid my taxes are going to go sky high based on the $900,000 houses that are across the street from me that they built. They can't sell. They only sold one in two 466 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 years. They can't sell them. And I think the market is getting a little sour, you know. But thank you for your hearing my testimony.
Thank you for coming in, and I assure you that you have a District Councilman that works very hard and certainly will be there to protect your interests.
I'm just concerned about maybe if they would have -- I heard of a grandfather clause before, but was that with the state, where they could only increase your property so much? I think that was under Rizzo, but I don't know if that's really in effect anymore with the City.
Well, anyway, people who live there for so many years should be given a break on their taxes, I think, with the assessments. Thank you. 467 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844
Thank you. Thank you very much. Sir, please identify yourself.
Sure. My name is Jerry London. I live at 5th and Pine Street in Councilman DiCicco's area. The house was purchased -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there anyone here who does not live in my area? I'm just curious.
To follow up with the previous gentleman's statement about he thought there was some grandfather clause, I was Chairman of a -- it's called a Curbstone Committee Against Unfair Taxes some 30 years ago, and I thought we reached a settlement with the City which said that, one, if you've been in your house more than, I think it was, ten or 15 years and the taxes kept going up -- this is because the area was being gentrified where I lived at the time -- 468 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 you could, shall we say, reverse escrow your taxes. If you raised and said I can't afford it and you can prove it and so forth, that the taxes would go against you in your file and that when either you died or you sold the house, you could pay up then. I don't know if that's still in effect. I asked the attorney that worked with me on that years ago whether it is. He wasn't sure about that. But the second provision was that you couldn't raise anyone's taxes more than ten or 15 percent in any given year. Now, my taxes were raised two years ago 47 percent. I tried to protest at that time, to no avail. The articles in the paper the last few days indicate that taxes in general in my area could go up very steeply. I did some figuring out on my own and it could go up much as 90, 110 percent. I thought this meeting was 469 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 starting at 1:30. That's why I got here ten minutes ago. Is this meeting going to start officially at 1:30 or is this the beginning of it?
No; 10:30. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This past Thursday was 1:30.
Okay. Fine. My concern is that I guess in Tom Ferrick's column yesterday, he was saying that the BRT was stating that to maintain the $816 billion in taxes, the rate would go from 83 to 19, if you're familiar with the article.
I think that would be too high, and I don't know how he reached -- or the Board of Revision of Taxes reached that figure, but I heard when I first came in that you are going to have public hearings. Will they be announced so that we can come and discuss 470 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 it further then?
At that point, I think that we would have a much, much better understanding as to what was being proposed.
Do you foresee this taking place in the next month or in January or March?
Mr. Glancey, didn't you indicate earlier that there would not be an assessment date until probably January, or did I misunderstand you?
Good afternoon once again. David Glancey, Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. What I referred to in getting numbers to City Council and to the Administration was January of '06. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you 471 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 also live in my district?
I also live in the First Councilmanic District, and I will be talking to my District Councilman once I do what I do.
Again, let me reemphasize that valuation is separate from all the things that we've been talking about today. However, yes, we're going to try to get you numbers that you can use, kind of what Councilman O'Neill was saying, the macro numbers, by January of 2006.
Now, I believe what this gentleman was talking about earlier about the taxes, there was a cap.
That was an 472 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 agreement that was reached with the City some 30 years ago.
That was the Coleman-Green decision, that there was a cap of percent, but I 7 think that ran out; did it not? 8
That was a 9 consent decree and it lasted from 1982, I 10 think, to '89, something like that. 11
So we'll just have to wait and see the ads for the further hearings. Yes?
Yes. And I'm sure if you'll let your District Councilperson know, they would be certainly more than happy to inform you when the hearings would be so that you could come in to testify. 473 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We'll do that, Madam President, and we'll try to do that through a Civic Association by giving him notice. And I apologize if it was not done. Two other things. I think the gentleman mentioned something about a gentrification bill. Senator Fumo I believe back in the middle '80s when I first began working for him did some legislation that would give long-time residents some protection, but I don't think the City ever enacted it, and we're working on doing something to that effect. I think Councilman Clarke has a bill in, and we're looking at a similar bill. So we're going to revisit that issue as one of many issues that we'll be revisited, and what I think we're going to do, "we" meaning my office, is at some point when the full valuation reassessment figures come in and we have bills that are going to be presented to 474 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844 deal with it, for me in my district I will probably be calling some town meetings to come out with the folks to talk to you about what the various issues are, not unlike what I did back in '03 when we talked about the appeal process. Where we wind up, sir, at the end of the day, I really don't know yet, but as far as information and trying to work towards a reasonable accommodation so that people aren't priced out of their homes -- you weren't here earlier. We collectively as a body are trying to figure that out, along with the BRT as well and the Administration. Thank you.
Anyone else to testify? (No response.) 475 10/31/05 - WHOLE - RES. 050844
Seeing no one, this Committee will stand in recess until the call of the Chair. Thank you very much. (Committee of the Whole adjourned at 1:30 p.m.) - - - 476 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 31, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)