COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILLS 100115, 100116, 100117, 100118, 100131 and RESOLUTION 100141 - - - 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. MR. McPHERSON: Our first department is the First Judicial District. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Committee of the Whole. I'm David Lawrence. I'm the Court Administrator for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, and with me today is the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Chair of the Administrative 3 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Governing Board, Judge Pam Dembe, and Kevin Cross, Deputy Court Administrator for Financial Services. We are here to submit testimony in support of the District's FY2011 General Fund and Grants Revenue budget request. In addition, this testimony will highlight our outstanding issues and concerns, position reductions, partnerships and revenue contributions. The FJD acknowledges and appreciates the Administration's regard for the Judiciary as exhibited by not seeking to reduce our current General Fund budget. 5 percent, since December 2008. We also recognize that the Administration and City Council value the Judiciary as a capable, independent partner in government. With these pursuits in mind, the District has implemented initiatives to reduce costs, 4 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. increase efficiencies and strengthen partnerships. 5 million, along with other previous reductions, has had a substantial impact on the District and has forced the elimination of 379 General Fund positions in less than six years, with 167 attrited in one year. Part of this reduction is the transfer of 52 positions to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant funds. The funding for these positions expires at the end of FY11, or June 30th 2011, and the FJD will seek to have these 52 positions placed back on the City's General Fund in FY12. The FJD further acknowledges the additional funding in the court-appointed counsel appropriation for FY10. This $2 million will allow for continuous payments to assigned counsel through June 30th, 2010. In the event the entire two million is not expended, the FJD seeks to transfer the remaining 5 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. balance into FY11. This amount will be used to supplement the FY11 appropriation which was reduced in FY10 by $600,000. While the intent of this supplemental appropriation is to ensure uninterrupted payments to assigned counsel for the balance of this fiscal year, the City must consider developing a strategy to fund a fee increase for criminal appointments, which have had only minor increases since 1996 and for which the City and the District are in litigation. Included in our FY11 budget submission in the Grants Revenue Fund are three new grants that are funded through the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency with federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. All three programs are two-year grants for Class 100 and personnel only, with the intent to hire additional adult and juvenile probation officers and expand our DUI Treatment Court. With this testimony, the FJD 6 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. provides an update on the status of statewide funding at the local judiciary. On December 8, 2008, the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania filed an application for enforcement of the prior Supreme Court orders. A number of counties and other organizations such as the Register of Wills and Orphans Court Associations intervened and briefs were filed in September and October 2009. Oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court on December 8, 2009, and no 14 decision has been issued as of this date. Through the City's Criminal Justice Advisory Board, the District with our justice partners has seen increased cooperation in resolving criminal justice-related issues. Board members include, among others, the Courts, the DA, the Public Defender, Deputy Mayor, City Council, Police and Prisons. This collaboration has created a targeted approach to creating defined results. For example, while the Commonwealth has 7 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
percent in prison population, through the coordinated efforts of CJAB, Philadelphia has seen a significant reduction of percent in its prison population, from 9,854 inmates in January '09 to 8,369 in March 2010. We believe that a great part of this reduction is due to the many programs initiated by the Philadelphia criminal courts in cooperation with our justice partners. Among these are Remote Video Conferencing, Accelerated Violations of Parole and Probation hearings, and Advanced Reconciliation and Consolidation hearings. Through the application of Video Conferencing, the Courts have saved the Sheriff's Office approximately $292,000 in transportation costs and 350,000 to the State prison in reducing the number of days per inmate. In addition to these programs, FJD continues to monitor 780 offenders on electronic monitoring, bringing 8 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. substantial savings in cost and logistics to the prison population and its justice partners. The FJD is pleased to announce the continuation of the Philadelphia Community Court through ARRA funds and the enhancement of the DUI Treatment Court. The success of the specialty courts rests in the ability to identify targeted populations, remove offenders from the general caseloads and place them into diversionary and reentry programs. During FY10, the Courts have implemented the Mental Health Court and Veterans Court. We are using grant funds for their start-up costs and will seek to incorporate these programs into our overall administrative structure. To make problem-solving courts effective, it takes concerted efforts from the many justice partners, such as the DA, the Defender, the Veterans Administration, PennDOT, behavioral and mental health providers and other 9 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. organizations like the University of Pennsylvania. The FJD recognizes their efforts and dedication to these programs and are grateful for their continuous contribution and help in their success. Other highly successful problem-solving courts are the Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Court, Commerce Court, Drug Treatment Court and the Nuisance Night Court. The FJD is working with the Mayor's Recovery Office for its ARRA-funded programs to maintain compliance with State and federal reporting requirements and for coordinating City Council approval of our Recovery funding. Through this cooperative effort, the FJD received funding for three additional ARRA grants, eight Recovery grants in total, contributing to the City's overall recovery efforts, while maintaining accountability and transparency for the citizens of Philadelphia. 10 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Applying the model of the statewide Office of Children and Families in the Courts, the juvenile branch of the Philadelphia Family Court has established the Philadelphia Roundtable. The Roundtable group is comprised of the Department of Human Services, the Department of Behavioral Health, the School District of Philadelphia, the Support Center for Child Advocates, the Philadelphia Defender's Office, the City Solicitor's Office and Community Legal Services. The goals of the Roundtable are to decrease out-of-home care for dependent children, decrease out-of-state care for both dependent and delinquent children, and reduce the length of stay for dependent and delinquent children in out-of-home care. This roundtable approach has been successful in reducing the number of children placement by nine percent and continues to strive for permanency of every child in dependency court. 11 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. The Courts are pleased to announce that progress is being made on the Family Court facility. The proposed site is 15th and Arch Street. The 14-story glass and concrete design was presented to the Art Commission in late February and will house the two separate facilities at 1801 Vine Street and 34 South 11th Street.
We are grateful for City Council's support of this most worthwhile project. While it would appear that the Court's budget for FY11 is just short of 100 million, we hasten to point out that roughly 55 million in revenue, including $1 million increase from FY10, will be turned over to the City for fines, fees and various State reimbursements. Thus, the net amount of the Court's budget would actually be closer to $44 million. We will continue to examine our fee structure to make sure we are charging appropriately without infringing on the public's right to access to justice. 12 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Contracting and procurement functions of the District are regulated by policies established by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. However, participation by minority, women and disabled businessowners is important to the Court, and our current FY10 participation level is 37 percent. We expect that to continue in FY11. The Philadelphia Judiciary appreciates this opportunity to present to you some of its accomplishments, concerns and the realities it faces and has overcome. We have demonstrated our ability to do more with less, thereby providing honest value on the investment and remain a cooperative justice partner. We are also hopeful you will allow the Judiciary to remain a strong and committed partner by approving our budget request as outlined. On behalf of the Philadelphia Judiciary, the Administrative Governing 13 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Board and employees of the First Judicial District, we respectfully seek City Council's consideration of our FY11 General Fund budget request of $99,096,000 and Grants Revenue budget request of $58,058,000. We seek this request consistent with past City of Philadelphia and FJD budget agreements which allow retention of any and all savings generated by the District. Thank you for your consideration, and we will be happy to entertain any questions members of Council might have.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, everyone. (Good morning.)
I just had a couple of questions regarding the 14 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. issue you raise in the top of , Ms. Lawrence, with the probation officers.
You said that to your grants, the intent to hire additional adult and juvenile probation officers. Do you know how many we're talking about here or what is your goal?
We are 57 probation officers, adult probation officers, below our FY08 targeted staffing level of -- when we were targeted for 1,965 employees in the General Fund. In juvenile, we are down probably closer to 100 probation officers as to where we should be against JCJC standards. So our staffing levels in the probation area are down dramatically. We have moved many probation officers over to the Byrne grants. We had probation officers on supervision fee. It is shaky funding and we are not happy with that. We're only doing it to 15 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. preserve the jobs that we can, which begs the whole issue of the compensation of probation officers, which we've maintained for years is too low and --
Don't you lose people because of that? Don't they go other places?
Yes. They'll make less than social workers in the system as they move along.
Right. Right. Again, that, I would guess, has like a ripple effect on the system generally when they don't -- or they have an over caseload, if you will?
What we've been forced to do -- and we would have done this regardless because it's just a better business model -- we've realigned our caseloads based on the risk presented by the offender, so that we are deploying, as best we can, more resources to those offenders deemed to be higher risk than someone who, according to the 16 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. risk models, is less likely to recidivate or engage in some other criminal activity. So, yeah, it does cause a tremendous strain on our existing resources.
But just so I'm clear, is there a -- I know you said you're 57 below on adult, close to 100 on juvenile. Is there a target, I mean, realistic -- we all know we have budget problems here -- that you're looking to hire? I mean, is there a target number?
All right. And how much money would that cost about, roughly?
Okay. And in the juvenile where there's even more of a gap, but is the need as high, in your opinion? 17 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
The juvenile world and the adult world of probation are two very diverse creatures. The juveniles, according to State standards, federal standards, require much lower caseloads than adults do. These kids are still fragile, they're still in their development years. So I don't want to diminish in any way the need to augment existing probation staff, and we are roughly 100 positions below where the Juvenile Court Judges Commission feels we should be in terms of staffing levels.
Like I said, I would guess that would have, like I said, that ripple effect on the whole system when you don't have enough people. And there actually is a freeze right now, you have not been hiring any?
Actually, as of roughly late December, beginning January, we have been able to meet our $99.1 million budget, so that as people leave, we are now able to replace them and still 18 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. hit that budget number.
Okay. 7 Like I said, I know we got budget 8 problems, but that does seem to be a 9 serious matter. 10
All 13 right. Thank you all. 14 Thank you, Madam President. 15
16 You're welcome. 17 The Chair recognizes Councilman 18 Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Your Honors and Administrators.
Good morning. 19 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
One of the things that is near and dear to me and one of the issues that I've always been a proponent of is the alternate court, alternate sentencing process ever since our trip up to Red Hook, New York where we saw community courts in a holistic kind of approach. I raise the issue of holistic because community courts, alternate courts can mean many different things. There's a wide range from drug treatment to mental health to a number of courts. My question becomes -- and there are a lot of people who are spending a lot of brainpower to try to figure out how this works administratively to kind of codify, combine some of these things that might reduce some of the expense. In Red Hook, one of the things that I noted was that they had multiple jurisdictional authorities. I don't know if I said that in the proper context of the legal ramifications, but they were able to decide on things like housing 20 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. court, whether a person who committed a crime would be displaced out of public housing. They were able to oversee child support issues. They were able to oversee traffic violation issues, all in one courtroom, which gave a holistic approach to the defendant, a holistic approach and cut down on the victims having to take off work, and it was able to solve things in a quicker, more efficient, effective way where everybody in that courtroom was happy. And I wanted to know if we have done any research on how we can kind of combine some of those things so that they meet the worthwhile goals, but yet not have to have duplication by way of administration and to come up with a matrix, a hybrid of what those community courts might be by combining a couple of those kinds of jurisdictions.
I'll answer that one, Councilman. As you know, we opened our first Veterans Court 21 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. this year and we opened it because there are special services that are available to veterans that aren't available to others and there are special problems, like brain injury issues and the like that others don't have, and as with any new court, it takes a couple of months to really get it moving smoothly. We are now beginning to have the judges in that courtroom collect data on the defendants who come in, because to our surprise, it wasn't young veterans. These are people who are in the bulk tend to be 40-ish, which means they're probably the first Gulf War folks. And anyway, we're collecting data on other problems they have that bring them into the courts, domestic issues, debt issues, housing issues. And so that is probably going to be the first model that we use. I've already designated a couple of Municipal Court judges so that they're able to serve as Common Pleas judges, because, as you 22 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. know, in Pennsylvania judges have limited jurisdictions and so it's not as easy as it looks on paper to use a wide umbrella. When we do that, as with anything else, we'll figure out how to make it work well. It will be much easier, I think, to begin doing cross jurisdictional things when Family Court is a half block away as opposed to several blocks away. We're already doing things like when someone is picked up or surrenders on a criminal bench warrant, we're using video to hook them right up with Traffic Court now so we take care of those things. So we are moving in those directions. I am very sensitive to the idea that you can't treat an issue and not look at the whole person, and that bringing people back to court and back to court isn't good for them and isn't good for us.
I agree, Your Honor, that this is a work in 23 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. progress, and the most encouraging thing you said is that you're compiling data that quantifies what the savings are and so, therefore -- or the cost and where the chips fall where they may, where there are efficiencies, that we evolve our thinking to try to minimize duplication, try to create convenience for victims and try to create justice in a holistic fashion. So as long as I hear that, I am encouraged. And I do not think it will happen overnight, but there are varying groups ranging from CJAB to other groups that I've met, along with the DA, to talk about how we evolve this into even something that might even be considered the vessel of a non-profit that kind of gets things remanded to them by the Courts. Nothing in stone, but just an evolving dialogue and thought process to that. So I'm encouraged by that. You mention in your testimony about electronic monitoring saving the 24 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Courts. I'd like you to elaborate by telling me how much have we saved and what are the expansion plans based on that utilization.
Electronic monitoring costs about $9 a day and we're now looking at GPS monitors.
Where are your kids? If only they'd had them when I had teenagers. Which, again, there's always a cost outlay, but it's significantly cheaper than keeping people in jail.
Well, if I may, the savings would be to the City in terms of days in prison. We have 780 people on active monitoring.
Yes. So 780 25 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. times $90 a day is what the City would purportedly be saving in housing costs if these people were to remain in the Philadelphia County jails. Now, let me also state that in addition to the 57 probation officers we're down, we're down warrant 9 investigators. I don't have the capacity 10 to monitor any more people. The monitors 11 cost $1,300 a piece, and it takes people 12 to make sure that they're monitored 13 effectively and efficiently. 14
So wouldn't 15 the probation officers and others in that 16 realm of your responsibility be the 17 perfect candidates to kind of take that 18 on? And I'm saying one and one equals 19 two. If you're saving money by doing 20 this and you can increase the ability to monitor incrementally to the savings justification, doesn't that make sense to do?
Absolutely. If I'm provided with the resources to 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. increase the number of people that I have on electronic monitoring, I'm the first guy in line that wants to do it.
So it is the probation officers that might take that on?
Well, right now the electronic monitoring function is performed by Pretrial Services.
So if we want to expand electronic monitoring and provide Pretrial Services with additional resources so that we can get additional people on electronic monitoring, I'm --
So the savings that you derive by using this, you're not realizing back in your budget to reinvest?
No. No. Any savings that are realized from electronic monitoring would accrue to the City in its Prison budget.
27 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Councilman, we did a -- ran the numbers if we were to upgrade with another 800 units, and if you add the equipment, the personnel to monitor it, the equipment that uses the monitoring as well as the actual units, the fringe benefits, it would come out to cost us $10 and change per person per day. So the savings would be --
To the City. Have you made this request, said, Listen, we're saving the Prisons X amount of dollars? Have you made an official request? Can we actually use some of that savings to reinvest in a process that will give us additional savings? Have you made that kind of briefing?
We've had these conversations with the City over the years. Going back in time, this function 28 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. used to be performed by the Prisons, by the City. And going back to the days of the Rendell Administration, they came to us and asked us to assume the function.
I got back in the day, but this year, have you made the City --
The City is very much aware of what our EM costs are and what the Prison costs are.
See, you've been in too many courtrooms. You won't answer. Have you made a specific request this year?
I mean, is that a subject of CJAB? Is that a subject of these budget processes?
Can we make a specific request that makes sense in 29 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. times of budget crisis to save money and invest in a way that makes sense?
All right. So you're going to make an official request to the Budget Officer for that?
All right. I'm going to -- I know the clock isn't on, but I won't do what my colleagues do. I will pass -- not you. There's one in particular, but -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: He's not here.
And that's a wonderful thing. I'm going to raise a touchy issue of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and ask how we got to this point and then some specific questions about where we are. Can you tell us what prompted this takeover, if that's the correct way to 30 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. couch it? And I'm very concerned. I got a lot of calls, I got a lot of letters, I got the information, this information, counterpoints. Can you for the record tell us what's going on?
Yes. For years there have been very grave concerns about the Clerk's operations in the two major areas of its function. Despite the fact that it has a lot of talented, hard-working, smart people working there, they have been consistently unable to create accurate records and to get those records where they need to be so that people go to jail who should go to jail, get out of jail who should get out of jail, things like that. They have been similarly unable to manage the money on the criminal side. And, again, there are talented, hard-working people there. It is --
How many talented, hard-working people? 31 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
I think the total is 110, 109, something like that. It has been -- has always been a management issue, and the Chief Justice finally hit the wall on it. Now, you have to understand the sort of context as stated in the letter that I sent you, this is the trend both nationally and in Pennsylvania. This really is entirely a court function. It's keeping criminal records. It's disbursing and managing monies that come in because of the criminal system. And we've gone in there. We've got accountants looking at the monies. It will be a couple of weeks before we can give you details beyond what's in the various bank accounts and how much of it is principal and how much is interest. We're using a performance auditing firm to give us some ideas, but we're sending in the management team that turned our civil operation into the best one in the country to go in there and figure out how 32 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. we develop the supports and the training and the retraining for folks so that they can do their job and the courts function properly.
So what is the legal standing that was used to usurp -- I don't know if that's the correct word to say in this case, but to take over that function?
The Chief Justice's order directed that as of March 4th, the duties and functions of the Clerk's Office would be absorbed by the First Judicial District. It did not touch the political office of the Clerk. That is strictly within the province of City Council. It's not going to seem to me to make much point to continue to elect someone for a job that is going to have no function and to pay that person, but that's certainly entirely up to you folks. The Clerk then resigned, so the 33 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. office is vacant.
What happened to -- what is the status of the 110 employees?
They're working every day sitting in the courtrooms. They are meeting with Joseph Evers, who is our Prothonotary. They are developing programs to -- they are offering us a lot of help as well. This isn't Darth Vader coming in from the inside and --
I know the Prothonotary. He's not Darth Vader, but I'm concerned about the status of a lot of those -- what's the percentage of women that work in that office? I mean, that's --
That's a Blondell Reynolds Brown question, but -- and most of them, a lot of them are single parents, I understand, and I'm very concerned about -- are they 34 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. represented by a union?
Believe me, I don't want them to leave. Really, I don't want them to leave. If I had to, we could, I guess, operate without them, because we didn't get the funding when we had to do it and we could operate without them, but it would be a pretty ragtag operation for quite a while. I want those people there. Over the years, most of the clerks I've worked with have been absolutely fantastic. It's not their fault that management didn't bother to train them when the computer systems changed. It's not their fault that management never figured out how you work it out so that 35 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. you have clerks in the courtrooms while things are going on so that they can make accurate records. It's not their fault that management never figured out how to manage the monies. I want them there. I want to give them all the support we can. I want them in a couple of years winning the kind of national awards that the civil employees have gotten with Mr. Evers.
I appreciate that comment, and here's why: All too often when CEOs, executives argue, the grass gets trampled, meaning when the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. A lot of times the workers who are taking direction from management get put in a situation where they're damned if they do and double damned when they don't. And whether it is the BRT, whether it is the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, one of the things that this body will always do is be concerned about the welfare of the employee, because if you're talking about 36 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. retooling and retraining, upgrading skill-sets, those are the kinds of things -- no, I don't want to be inefficient in that process, but I do not want someone else being the fall guy of Enron, and the only persons who wind up getting hurt are the stockholders and the people who actually work for a living. So I'm encouraged by -- I do not take a part in whether or not there was malfeasance or mismanagement. That's not for me to decide. But what is important to me is that the people who go to work for a living that pay our taxes and are doing their thing to support their families be protected when the elephants fight.
We don't need fewer taxpayers and we don't need fewer clerks. This is a function that needs a body in the courtroom while courtroom operations are going on, period, paragraph. So their jobs are not in jeopardy. We have already -- we've 37 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. been working for months with the union. Some of these people are going to see an immediate pay raise because they're getting paid less for equivalent functions on the court side. With other people, we're going to do what we do with our employees, which is we have programs to encourage them to train and upgrade themselves so that they will be eligible for better salaries.
Madam President, I'm going to hold my continued questions and allow my colleagues to weigh in on questions.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, President Judge.
Last year we 38 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. had a somewhat interesting and lively debate about whether the criminal justice system was broken. I had the same debate last year with the former District Attorney. I'm not really interested in revisiting that debate as much as since the Inquirer wrote an article saying the justice system was broken, since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided the system was broken, it seems that everyone is somewhat on the same page now that there are problems. Not totally on the same page, because there's still some finger-pointing in terms of whether the problem is defense attorneys. I think the problems in some cases was practices of the former District Attorney's Office. I'm just interested in knowing what you've learned in the year and how your perspective may have changed over the last year in terms of what needs to be reformed in the criminal justice system.
Well, I 39 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. think one of the significant changes is that the Supreme Court is interested in supporting change. The previous year they were, I think, very much involved in that horror show in Luzerne County, and so unless there were actually grenades going off down here, it wasn't getting as much attention. We can get a lot more done and a lot more quickly with the support and attention of the Supreme Court. The new District Attorney is an innovator, I think. I think he's willing to -- also a person who wants to get information, do research, learn, so that we can then all share the data and go forward. He's not sort of stuck in concrete. For instance, at the last CJAB meeting, he told us he had just gotten an interesting proposal for sort of an ankle bracelet type equivalent that I guess monitors if you've had anything to drink from what comes through your skin. So I 40 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. don't think that would have come in the last Administration, and so we all went, Oh, that's neat. So we're going to collectively look at that, and we'll all talk about whether that kind of thing can go forward. And it's just a small example. Over the last couple of years, there's been a real level of trust that's developed all throughout the system, I think. So I think that, by and large, things are working pretty well. The Inquirer story is not accurate in all respects, but nonetheless, it's pointed at a number of concerns that we all share, so we're working toward fixing them.
I guess my question was somewhat have you discovered that some things were broken that you did not believe were broken before? And beyond that, what is your focus and priority in terms of reform? 41 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
At this point, we're -- I don't think that we've entirely figured out exactly what will make Municipal Court work to the satisfaction of everybody, and that's where the issues are. That's where the bench warrants are. Never mind that a lot of them are old and unenforceable, but that's where they are. That's where the dismissals are. We're going to have to do some balancing. For instance, Justice McCaffery rightly points out that in the other counties, preliminary hearings are very fast or non-existent and things go right to the Common Pleas Court. And that's great from the point of view of many victims, particularly for low-to-moderate-level crimes. If your car has been stolen or your window has been smashed, you don't want to spend a lot of time coming to court. And, in fact, I think we're probably going to have to resign ourselves to the fact that 42 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. an awful lot of citizens won't come to court even if we offer them free breakfast when they do come. So you're always going to have some no-shows. The thing that we're going to have to find a workaround for is if we have these very brief preliminary hearings, in those really serious cases where there is intimidation of witnesses, that longer preliminary hearing was a barrier against the intimidation, because there had been enough cross-examination that legally that could be introduced at trial, so there was no longer any point in intimidating the witness. So I don't know exactly how we're going to solve that one. When cases get to Common Pleas Court, there's a 77 percent conviction rate. The Courts are chewing up more cases than are coming into the system at this point. So I think things are working pretty well once they're in Common Pleas Court, but I think that 43 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. without finger-pointing, everybody has to work on how we work on the beginning of the process. And one of the most -- one of the things that I think I didn't realize quite how broken things were is with the information transfer. For the life of me, I can't figure out why we still have policemen taking reports on pieces of paper. That's so stupid. It should be done electronically on one of those little hand-held pads. It should go right into the district, and while the cop is still there with the victims and the witnesses, the detective on duty can go, You didn't get this, what about that, so that you get the information while you've got the witnesses, because it's real hard to find them afterwards. And then that information should go right into a database that goes instantly to the District Attorney's Office, and it's very easy to take that information and redact sensitive information that 44 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. shouldn't go out to the wide-wide world, so that defense lawyers have information right away. Because you cannot, as a defense lawyer, advise a defendant to plea or go to trial until you know enough about the case so that you're not committing malpractice. In New York City, they have that information the same or, at best, the next day to everybody in the system. But if we're still starting doing things on paper, we're not going to get there. So that will, I think, be the next big thing that we really have to work on.
Thank you, President Judge. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you. One of the other issues that I'm concerned about and there was a move, 45 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Resolution 75, I believe it was, where under that resolution individuals that owed child support were -- there was a decision, an administrative decision, to not go after certain accounts. Are you familiar with that?
At which point -- I'm not the feminist that my colleagues, some of them, are, but I have listened. I've listened very carefully and have become an enlightened male, Madam President, having a mother, having a daughter that will tend to enlighten you. But under this -- and I'll paraphrase -- this order 75 said that we're just not going to go after this because we're going to lose federal money that we get when we don't collect on these deadbeat accounts. And I got a couple of calls that struck a nerve to me, because some of the mothers who had 46 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. been handling the responsibilities of the household for decades, for decades, going down, re-filing, going down, doing what they thought would be in the end some justification for them sticking in with their children were told that we're just not going to go after these accounts anymore, so we're closing the books on them. And with heavy hearts, they accepted their fate, but a couple of them even said they got -- which really bothered me -- the callbacks from deadbeat parents -- and I won't say dads or moms -- deadbeat parents that said, Na-na-na-na-na, I told you I wasn't going to pay it, which seems to me, under every definition of justice, unjust. Can you explain why we are doing that?
We know that -- and I apologize. I thought Judge Dougherty was going to be here, who is very familiar with this issue, but Resolution 75 has caused a tremendous amount of controversy and a tremendous 47 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. amount of disappointment, if you will, and I believe it's based on the formula that the federal government uses to reimburse counties for their child support operations. Unfortunately, I am not as conversant in it as others in our organization and, if I may, Councilman, can I have Judge Dougherty get in touch with you and explain exactly what the ramifications and reasoning behind that resolution is?
He can attempt to. I'll grant him that. But there's no amount of justification that says that if I hold out long enough and if I just ignore every attempt to collect and if I can just evade the Courts long enough, that eventually it gets written off. That sends a really poor signal to custodial parents that stick in there, overwhelmingly wind up being working moms with dependent children. Not that there aren't dads that also are in that situation. It just seems to me that just 48 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. because we want to be penny wise by way of getting these dollars from the federal government, that the small people, once again, who carry the load every day, become the unintended victims of an unjust act. And we have to do something about that that kind of restores the faith in a parent that if I do the right thing, at the end of the day, people will be held accountable. Because if not, it will only serve to send the message that if I duck long enough, it will be all right. So he can attempt to justify it, but to me there's no justification.
I don't know that he can justify it, Councilman. I know he does have a tremendous amount of background with it that hopefully will shed some light on the why's and the wherefore's.
Would you send the answer to the Chair so that all of Council -- 49 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
-- can be made apprised of this. Because every person in here has a constituent that is impacted by this, every one of us, and when you saw the disappointment or heard it in their voice, not one but dozens have called or mentioned it and said what are we doing about it, I thought I would take this opportunity to find out. I was this close to introducing a resolution about it or an ordinance 14 about it, but I thought I would give you this opportunity.
And I think Council always has that option, to pass a resolution or an ordinance of some sort, but I will have the answer supplied to the Chair.
I'm going to talk to some of my more enlightened colleagues and see if we can't get something going with that. Thank you, Madam President. 50 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
I just had a quick question, and I apologize if you have already answered this, but it has to do with are you working with the Police Commissioner and the District Attorney as far as helping them out with cutting down on police overtime?
It seems like that's their biggest problem in the Police Department.
Yes. We, through the CJAB, have put together a smaller subcommittee that's working right directly on that issue, because we all 51 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. agree that it's an issue and it takes everybody involved in doing that. For instance, one of the things that we're going to need to do is in training the Quarter Sessions Clerk personnel, they're going to need to be very specific about continuances, who asked for it and for what reason and the like, so that we can start leaning on folks.
So you can cut down on continuances; therefore, the police won't be coming back and back and back again --
Discovery Court has already made a direct impact on that, because it used to be the case would get called, it would be listed for trial, and the lawyers, of course, would wait until the day of trial to show up and go, Oh, I don't have necessary discovery. The judge sometimes would 52 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. decide that the case had to be continued because otherwise it was going to come back because it hadn't been fair, and so the witnesses, including the police, were coming for no good reason. And it was actually kind of amusing, we announced that we were starting the Discovery Court a month or two before we actually did begin this Discovery Court, and all of a sudden, the amount of discovery rose substantially. So that's been an effective method.
And then eventually witnesses get tired of coming and eventually these cases are dropped.
Well, I wish you a lot of luck, because it seems to me that every year we ask the same thing and it's the same problems and the same overtime, the same cost and it goes on and on. I wish you all the best in working with the Administration, the 53 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Police Commissioner and the District Attorney in trying to cut down on this problem. And not only will it, of course, help us revenue-wise, but it will also help the Police Commissioner in distributing his personnel.
Absolutely. This is a cooperative effort. It isn't about finger-pointing, and I think by the time we come back next year, we're all going to be able to give you some good numbers on that.
You're welcome. Your Honor, what is the present backlog? Do we have any idea, the present backlog?
We don't have a backlog in the sense that we've eaten up or disposed of more cases than we've brought in.
Yup. You folks are funding what I still think is the best court system in the country. He's always got brand new statistics.
Your Honor, that's fine. If you tell us that there is no backlog, I think that is absolutely wonderful. It's the first time that I ever heard that.
Absolutely, but in past years, many, many, many cases.
And there are roughly 12,000 cases in the Common Pleas Court inventory. There's roughly 25,000 cases in the Municipal Court inventory. And as long as you are turning them over with acceptable time standards, you don't 55 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. consider that a backlog. Now, we would like to turn over the inventory a little more quickly than we have been doing, and that's one of the reasons we've instituted Discovery Court. We've instituted the Accelerated Review Program. But by and large, at least -- and, again, we have the criminal courts, the civil courts, the family courts. So the numbers are going to swing wildly between them, but basically we are turning over our inventory in a time period that is fairly acceptable. We'd like to do it quicker. Justice delayed is justice denied. Prison costs go up. Everything goes up the longer you keep a case in the system. And we can provide Council with the numbers for every program we have, how many we have this year, how many we had last year and whatnot. We'll be happy to get that to you.
That's great. 56 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Just to give you a small flavor for it, in 2008, we were in Common Pleas criminal trial disposing of about 1,200 cases a month. It worked out to and a half thousand 7 by the end of the year. In 2009, we 8 pushed that up to 1,330 a month and we 9 got rid of 16,000 cases. So that is a 10 result of the various programs that we've 11 been developing and the use of video and 12 the consolidation of probation violations 13 and the like. So we're really pretty 14 proud of that.
I think you're all doing a fabulous job. Your Honor, while you're here, I just want to thank you and the members of CJAB for initiating the process whereby we're reducing the population of inmates. I think that's wonderful. It's saving the City quite a bit of money, and you're all to be applauded.
Well, thank you. 57 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
The Chair once again recognizes Councilman Jones.
It's a wonderful thing when my good friend and colleague Councilman Green is not here with his points of information that turn into questions. I have an opportunity to talk about some things. Real quick question. We have a lot of town and gown issues related to universities and conflicts with residents within those communities. In one case up at St. Joe's -- and I don't mean for you to answer the specifics of that case, because you couldn't, but generally what happened was the owner of the property, based on issues of overcrowding, putting too many students into that, we took him to court. He just didn't show up, and 58 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the judge dismissed the case, which is -- which again confuses me, because it sends the wrong signal to the owner, if I just don't show up, this thing may once again go away. And is that a general policy or maybe just one isolated instance?
If I had to guess, I would guess that what happened is that they weren't able to get service on the guy.
So how do we deal with that? Because if they duck us, then we don't get our day in court literally, and something I'd like to know about. Because including a couple of my colleagues who live in Wynnefield, that issue pops up more and more, and I would imagine any university community, including my colleague Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller have a number of university -- Blackwell as well, a couple of those universities that have similar problems. Is that something that you could at least research for us and get 59 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that?
Absolutely. That bothers me, what you just brought to our attention. If you could have your staff get us specific cases, we'll be glad to look at the dockets there and see exactly what happened to the case and why it happened.
We appreciate that. Can you explain to me the role of probation and parole within your department? Because I kind of understand we had a hiring freeze --
-- with that, and I didn't understand -- I think they kind of play that role of being the intermediary, being the monitor of inmates, felons, others that are accused that kind of keep -- get a thin line between incarceration and those people out on the streets that if left unattended, could wind up hurting 60 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. themselves and others.
Well, years ago Dr. Lawrence Sherman from the University of Pennsylvania began studying this stuff, and it took quite a while until there were computers big enough to crunch all the data for all the people who for the last 20-odd years or 30 years or whatever gone through the Philadelphia system, and what they discovered is that there are an awful lot of people that you put them out on the streets and you say, Stay below the radar, and by golly, they'll stay below the radar and they'll show up and they're sorry for what they did and that's it. There's another group, smaller, that kind of needs to be dope-slapped a little bit, needs to be brought in and monitored some, and so you put more resources there. There is at the top of this pyramid, if you will, a small and frightening bunch of people, often young 61 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. men between -- I forget what age and what age, who have a pretty significant likelihood that within two years, they'll either be killed or be involved in a shooting, and with those folks, what they're doing -- and they're doing this in other jurisdictions as well. I mean, Philadelphia is one of the pioneers, but it's not the only one. They are on them 24/7. They're showing up on their block at midnight. They're showing up when they're hanging out with the pals that got them into this trouble. They're watching when their buddy gets arrested or that they know this kid has been doing bad stuff with in the past. So they're really concentrating on those young people to see if we can get them turned before we end up just sending them to State prison and throwing them away.
One of the concerns I have is, what currently is their caseload per parole, probation officer? Do you have figures on that? 62 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
It varies according to the specific nature of the caseload. There are low --
Per officer. And these are, at least according to the statistical model, people who don't need much supervision at all. They don't need to come in and see their probation officer every month, and their risk of recidivating is very low. In the high-risk caseloads where you talk 40 or 50 people, they're the people who need much more attention than the low-risk people. These are the people that the Judge referenced who are likely to be involved in some sort of very negative type of incident without close supervision. 63 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. So you can't just say the caseload is 125. It varies.
Let's assume -- and I'd like to assume this -- that you know what you're doing when you do the assessment part.
But let's assume based on -- let's know based on statistics that obviously something is ajar. What I know is that, again, like the law of averages, that at 600 to one, if they go to two a day, they may get to that person a year later, and circumstances and risks change left unmonitored. And that's my concern. If there has been a study that shows of that 600 to one caseload, how many of them wind up graduating into that high-risk area and is it a cause and effect of not being monitored? I didn't know that you relapsed and I didn't know that you were without a job and your economic pressures are on 64 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. you. I didn't know that you got kicked out of the house and, therefore, are on your own and that you moved into a household environment with other felons. To what degree do we analyze that kind of graduated, progressive problem where people go from low risk to very risky?
The model is still young and it's under constant evaluation. Yes, it does need to be validated some more, because people do progress in the manner that you outlined, and what we need to do is to try and find out some predictive value as to who these people are who are going to graduate into these higher-risk categories. The bottom line, Councilman, is, if we distributed the entire caseload equitably across the board, you can give me a hundred more probation officers and it still wouldn't be enough. So we need a way to find out how we can focus our attention on the people we feel really 65 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. need that attention.
And I understand the challenge there, because predictably, if we could predict, then we can prevent.
We have to figure better ways to predict it. But one of the things is, if I'm a -- I don't want to put that on me. But those people that wind up in that situation also know that there's a great degree of turnover by way in that department, and I think higher than average of other departments. Is that --
Actually, it's just slightly higher than other departments. It's more noticeable because the department is the largest department we have. So in terms of raw numbers, we do see what would appear to be higher numbers moving on to other opportunities. As a percentage of the workforce, it's not too bad. 66 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Something that I think you need to address, because we are losing them to good places. Like they'll go and become police officers or they wind up in the State system, which pays, I think, a differential of about $5,000 per. So you wind up training them, giving them the Police Academy training; is that right?
Well, no. No, it's not Police Academy training. I mean, if they move on to a police officer's position, they still have to go to the Academy.
Yeah, but they get that level of training that is desirable to our competitors up in Bucks County. If they can get --
If they move on to other probation departments, federal probation, Bucks County and some other counties, sure, they're already trained.
So we're a good breeder ground for people to steal 67 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. our employees that probably by the time they learn the streets -- and I understand at the State level they pay $5,000 extra differential pay if you have to do Philadelphia County.
And that's an interesting statistic to note. I'm going to yield again, Madam President, and eventually, Madam President, you'll realize that I should be on CJAB, and I'm going to keep asking these criminal justice questions until you appoint me.
And you try, I know. Well, you'll have to talk to Councilman Green about that.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.) 68 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
-- I think you're all doing such a fabulous job.
Thank you for your support and help. And I have brought with me, President Verna, something to distribute to all of Council. It's the 2009 Judicial Education Report. It's a list of the educational programs that the First Judicial District puts on for its judges and a list of some of the educational things that we do for and with the judges, just to let you all know that we really try to keep our judges the best educated.
That's wonderful. Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: The next 69 4/13/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. department is the Department of Public Property. * * * 70 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) (Second-shift stenographer Josephine Cardillo relieves first-shift stenographer Michele Murphy at 11:25 a.m.)
The next department is the Department of Public Property. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Council President Verna and members of City Council, I am Joan Schlotterbeck, the Commissioner of the Department of Public Property. It's a pleasure to appear before Council today in support of Public Property's budget request for FY '11. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) discuss our initiatives for FY '11. The Department of Public Property's FY '11 Budget request totals approximately $194 million in all funds, an increase of approximately 117,000, or less than percent over the FY '10 estimated obligations. percent, from FY '10, due to the addition of a Facilities Assessment Team in the Capital Projects Division. The department is budgeted for 136 positions. percent, from FY '10. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) for utility charges, and 51 million for our core departmental operations. In Class 300, we are requesting approximately $826,000, reflecting no 6 change from FY '10. In Class 400, we are requesting approximately $98,000, a decrease of $42,000. We're a little bit over 30 percent from FY '10 due to the IT consolidation in the Division of Technology. 3 from FY '10. 8 percent from our FY '10 estimated obligations. In the Aviation Fund, we are requesting approximately $27 million, reflecting no change from FY '10 estimated obligations. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) Property's mission is to efficiently maintain the physical infrastructure that supports government operations, including City-owned buildings and leased space. Our current initiatives will produce results in the core service areas of public safety, health, and sustainable communities, and customer service. As part of the department's efforts to improve the management of our public facilities, we continue to focus on increasing efficiencies in order to better serve the various facilities and user agencies. The department currently has maintenance responsibilities for over 150 facilities, including Police, Fire, and department facilities. I'm sorry, including Police and Fire Department facilities. The department plans to enhance efficiency by establishing a Construction Trade Unit to handle smaller-scale maintenance and repair jobs. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) will thus reduce and potentially eliminate the need to contract with outside vendors for smaller jobs. The department continues to work with the Division of Technology to implement an enhanced work-order and asset-management system. Other ongoing initiatives include Police District consolidation, L&I and district improvements, and City Hall tenant renovations. The department has partnered with the Office of Sustainability on two projects. The first focuses on reducing energy usage and cost in the triplex facilities and City Hall through an investment trade audit for a potential use of an energy savings company, ESCO. The second project will establish and implement a utility-management database to monitor utility and usage and their costs associated. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) support for project-management services for Police, Fire, Prisons, Recreation, Fairmount Park, Health, Library, Human Services, Fleet, Office of Supportive Housing, Art Museum, Zoo, Public Property, the departmental operating facilities as well. Collectively, these departments include in excess of 1,000 facilities comprising over million 11 square feet and over 10,000 acres of park and recreation land. Major projects currently underway include the President's House; Robin Hood Dell renovation; City Hall exterior renovations, final phase (thank you very much); new Fire Engine 38; new police swat bomb tactical facility; Benjamin Parkway improvements, Phase 1; the new Youth Study Center; City Hall life-safety sprinkler installation; and the Criminal Justice chiller central plan upgrades.
10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) carryforward funding backlogs and improve project timelines by restoring staffing levels, implementing a job contracting program, reorganizing the division for greater efficiencies. A facility assessment team will be established to identify, coordinate, and prioritize all infrastructure capital and maintenance issues. DPP is continuing to identify new opportunities for lease savings as existing leases expire as well as monitoring the use of City-owned space to ensure efficient allocation. As part of this plan -- of these planning efforts, we have developed new City space standards as well as purged -- we've been in the process of purging all excess equipment and files. The department has engaged with -- was engaged with 61 planning projects to date in FY '10, including the design, construction, and project management of those projects. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) The renegotiation in FY '10 of several leases and the relocation of several agencies from lease bases into City-owned space has generated an annual savings of $475,000. The department is also generating efficiencies with our City-as-lessor leases as well as our City surplus property sales. These efforts resulted in over $7 million in General Fund revenue in FY '09, with an additional $5 million in revenue expected in FY '10. DPP was successful in its bid to acquire two federal-based realignment and closures, better known as BRAC, properties located on Wissahickon and Woodhaven Roads. The planning process for the reuse of these two BRAC sites continues. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) Police Department functions. The design work with commence prior to taking title. The department is also examining a building located at 4601 Market Street as a future site for Police and Health Department functions. We have engaged a building-assessment study to determine the feasibility of moving forward with the project. I now close my testimony and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued support of the Department of Public Property. I am available to answer any questions you may have. I'm joined here by all three of my deputies. The department is committed to supporting the Administration's goal of percent minority-, women-, and 21 disabled-owned businesses participating 22 in City contracts. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) attention. 7 percent.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: You're very welcome.
On of your testimony, you mention the addition of a Facilities Assessment Team in the Capital Projects Division. What will the assessment team do, and who will make up the team? And can you tell me if these are new or existing positions? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay. They are new positions, and I'd like to invite Deputy Commissioner Gary Knappic to address the other parts of your question.
Thank you. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Madam 80 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) President, Gary Knappic, Deputy Commissioner for the Capital Projects Division.
Good morning. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: The assessment team that we're going to assemble is really going to further what was originally started by the PICA assessment report. The PICA assessment report really identified corrections and facilities, and they only dealt with 156 facilities; they were more or less a point-and-show type of corrections. They really didn't give us any indication of the life cycle of those facilities nor of the various systems that are housed in those facilities. The HVAC systems really weren't looked at from an engineering perspective and a life cycle perspective to give us an indicator of what is going to happen in the future. 81 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) I really project this team to be kind of a hit squad on -- for the 1100 facilities that are under our care, custody, and control from the capital sense; that would be a constant type of thing. Allow us to better evaluate those facilities. And because of limitations associated with the Capital Budget, to be able to allow us to really prioritize the capital projects that we're going to go forward with.
Thank you. Commissioner, on of your testimony, you mention that the Capital Projects Division is developing a plan to reduce carryforward funding backlogs and improve project time (indiscernible) in the Capital Fund by restoring staffing levels, implementing a job order contracting program, reorganizing the division for greater efficiency. When do you anticipate the completion of the plan? 82 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Oh, at this point in time, we have complete support of budget to fill vacancies that we have, and we're working very closely with HR to make that happen. So I guess if I had to put a timeframe on completion of all of that, I don't know that we could fairly do it right now, but hiring the folks to get onboard and then start the process, I think sometime in FY '11. Is that fair Gary? DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Madam President, I think the first step in moving forward is to bring our staffing level back up. We're down from 54, in FY '09, to 38 personnel in the Capital Projects Division. We have to bring that up. And when we're able to do that, we'll be able to hopefully keep our head above water with the projects that are at hand. The second initiative there would be to reorganize the division, 83 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) slightly tweak it, to create an administrative division within -- I'm sorry, an administrative team within the division, and also to create a construction team within the division. The idea behind that is going to be able to -- the construction team will take more ownership of the projects when they go out into the field, and we'll concentrate in the office in getting those projects out into the field. The job order contracting system, I'm hoping, will be up and running in a year. And what that is, it's a unit -- it's a requirements-based type of practice that's bid -- it's a public works bid on a unit price basis. And what that will allow us to do, as Council has many times in the past really suggested to us, is that there are a number of projects that require -- the small- to medium-range projects that require little to no engineering. And 84 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) that will allow us, with a very basic description of scope, to get these projects accomplished in a more timely manner.
Thank you. On of your testimony, you mention that your department has maintenance responsibility for over 150 facilities, including police and Fire facilities. The Controller's Office issued a report detailing the deplorable conditions of our Police facilities. Does your budget have the resources to correct these maintenance issues? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No. 19
How much would you need? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Actually, Madam President, I believe you asked me the same question --
You talk about an assessment team. 85 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right.
Have you taken an assessment of the Police facilities? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Well, actually, the PICA report did do that for us, and also the City Controller. But frankly, I also knew the condition of the buildings, without being told.
I'm sorry. The buildings without...? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I mean the Police and Fire facilities, the conditions of them. I mean, I -- well, I inherited them in already, you know, rundown conditions, and it's been a challenge to just even establish some kind of a standard of delivery of maintenance service. It's been a challenge. So last year, you had asked me the same question, and we put together an 86 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) answer that said that we estimated at that time that we would need approximately 210 trades people to have, like, a three-shift operation to maintain facilities 24/7. I think I might have to take a look at that again now, at this point, to see if that's still an acceptable level. I haven't done that, but...
Have we made any improvements whatsoever in any of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes.
-- Police facilities? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. We worked together with the Capital Project Team, and we had the high- priority items -- not all be but a lot of them started and some of them completed. We've also worked on -- I don't want to call it "cosmetic," but in some instances, it was more or less cosmetic 87 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) changes, which would clean up and freshen up and put some new work stations in different locations. And I actually would like Deputy Commissioner Bob Murray to address those.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: you're welcome. DEPT. COMM. MURRAY: Good morning, Madam President. Bob Murray, Deputy Commissioner for Facilities, with Public Property. We've been tackling a lot of the issues that were brought to our attention as a result of those various reports, whether it's the PICA or even the Controller's report. It is an ongoing issue, but we have identified some projects that we can tackle on a priority basis. Working closely with the Capital Projects Office, we have a roof-repair project underway. 88 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) We also have a mechanical, electrical, and plumbing project underway that's identified some of the poorer-condition locations that we have to maintain. So, like I said, we are doing an ongoing overhaul. And, hopefully, we'll get there someday. But as the Commissioner pointed out, we have our facilities that are operating 24/7, hours a day, in most 12 cases, when you're looking at a firehouse 13 when you're looking at a police station. 14 Basically, with our current level of 15 staffing, we really have a single shift, 16 basically an eight-hour-day shift. 17 Ideally, we would like to 18 expand that to a second or third shift. 19 If we had appropriate staffing levels, we 20 could get into buildings when there is a 21 problem rather than just acting on an 22 emergency basis, like an after-hours 23 call, for instance, or on a weekend if a 24 call comes in. So those were some of the 89 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) things, yes, we were thinking about ideally with -- ideally if we had the appropriate staffing levels.
Commissioner, what does the deferred maintenance cost in the Capital Budget? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I honestly don't know that I can answer that. I mean, we could estimate it, I guess. I don't think any of us have an absolute answer to that.