Thank you, Council President. We have several dozen of these. We call them overturned conviction matters. Overtime conviction I think that's what you're getting at. And just to be clear, we find out when they're coming when you all find out when they're coming. So they come to -- we see in the newspaper or we get a presuit letter from the plaintiff's counsel. And these cases are very difficult cases because it's something that happened often 30 or 40 years ago, so you can imagine huge volumes of documents, right. And often times there's a conviction and there's multiple appellate levels, right. So they're very complex. Often times a number of the actors that were around 30 or 40 years ago are deceased. So it takes us quite a bit of time to work through what actually happened, even to get all of the documents together. But we do work these cases up very, very thoroughly. And I'm very proud of the work that we've done on these because there certainly were issues in the past, right. But every case really needs that very personal touch. And so, it is not going to be a matter of us turning around. One of your questions is how quickly can the claim go out. It's not going to be overnight, right. And so, we do work these up. We have settled them and we settle on -- sometimes the numbers are a little uneven and that's because we settle them on a per year basis. So how many years were they incarcerated. We settle them on a per year basis. We have settled a number of them. We do have others that may go to trial, but we have settled them far below the verdicts that have come around the country of those who have gone to trial, because our lawyers are very, very thorough and really no rock remains unturned. So we can ensure that those who are compensated are compensated appropriately.
In terms of the Law Department, what have you done to train police leadership to prevent or have you thought about engaging in working with the police department to train police leadership to prevent wrongful convictions? Have you performed any sort of analysis to determine what gaps in training, supervision or discipline causes wrongful convictions?
Yeah. Thank you for that question. Like I said, a lot of this happened 30 and 40 years ago, so enormous amount of change has already happened, but the Law Department does have an after-action policy. I always say it's never about one case. It's always about systemic issues. And so, when we do see a case, whether it's involving a conviction or really anywhere in our litigation portfolio, we do write up what happened in the case, what systemic issues that we see and that goes to the client and we work with the client to fix the systemic issues. So certainly, over the years when we see anything arising in litigation with police, there is that constant feedback loop.
When you say systemic issues, is there one department or unit that's more prone to claims than others just based upon your experience?
It can really happen anywhere. The police, they're a big client of ours, right, there's a lot of them. But it could happen in the torts context --
Let me back up then. Not so much where it could happen, I'm just talking about in terms of data on the books. I'm sure in your office, right, there should be files of, okay, we got wrongful conviction suits based upon Philadelphia police officers, right, and it's broken down by category.
This may be Strike Force Unit. This may be Drug Task Force Unit. This may be Robbery and Homicide Unit, right, where these types of wrongful convictions come up. Do you have any data to show overall big picture-wise when it comes to the department these particular areas we've seen more wrongful convictions claims than other areas?
We see the most cases needing remedial work in the excessive force, not in the overturned conviction because so many changes have been made over the last three or four decades. The interviews aren't the same as they used to be. They're videoed. There are more people in the room. They have protections already in place. So those issues that came up 30, 40 years ago in these cases we're not seeing those again.
Okay. In 2022, a jury convicted former Philadelphia Homicide Detective Philip Nordo for his actions during homicide investigations, which included the sexual abuse of witnesses and informants. What is the Law Department doing to compensate his victims and the individuals who have had their convictions overturned because of his misconduct? And that was just basically 2022, which is roughly two years ago. So that's more recent.
So give us an update on how we're addressing that.
We have a number of cases in litigation right now. We have settled one matter and we're proceeding through litigation.
Okay. At this time, I'm going to recognize Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. Good afternoon, Solicitor Garcia. I don't have questions. I only have praise. I am so thrilled by you being nominated for this position, my whole team as well. And it's because of what I saw you do with respect to the University City Townhomes case. And just by way of background for those of us who weren't here or for people watching, a couple of years ago I put in place a zoning overlay that covered the University City Townhomes as well as other expiring affordability properties. In response to that, the owner of the property, IBID, sued me as an individual, sued me as a Councilperson and sued the City of Philadelphia. And with you as the Chair of Litigation, we fought that in Federal Court for I think over a year or around a year. We fought that very well, and we did it so well that the owner winded up settling with us in that settlement, including a $3.5 million Tenant Fund for the 70 families involved and it included the City of Philadelphia receiving percent of that very high value site at 40th and Market that we will use to build 70 new units of affordable housing, ensuring that there's still affordability in University City. And there were many things that struck me about what you did in that case. First, that was the scariest thing that had ever happened to me professionally, to have these folks sue me personally for the value that they felt that they were losing and you were able, you know, and your team was able to comfort me. You had the charges against or the suit against me as an individual and a Councilperson dismissed, so we were only dealing with the suit against the City, which was amazing and a huge comfort to me. You fought that case expertly. We were up against -- our team of public servants, our team that was dominated by women of color was up against this high-powered law firm which may or may not have been represented in this room today earlier, and against a team of mostly men who did not look like us. And you guys just did an amazing job and I was so proud to be represented by you. I was so, so proud. And then I know that your primary job is to represent the City of Philadelphia and sometimes that can demand taking a conservative approach, but you also had a heart for the people in my District and the people who were in the midst of this affordability crisis, and I appreciated that and it has always shown through, right, as we were going through this case together. And even after we negotiated the settlement, you kept your eye on implementation. All of those -- I think maybe there are two families or so that haven't received their $50,000 to find new housing, and we just talked the other day about how we will construct new affordable housing on the site. So you carried it all the way through with such grace and such skill and such fearness. So there is no doubt in my mind that as our Solicitor you will continue to both carry the best interest of the City of Philadelphia and the best interest of our people, the people that we're representing. And I'm just really pleased and I'm proud to know you, so thank you.
I thank you, Councilmember. It is a privilege to continue working on that matter and just illustrates how my team, they could be making so much elsewhere and they are here for that, to fight on these issues. And we are not afraid to litigate.
-- it did come out and I'm happy to say over $3 million has gone out to the residents of the Townhomes and now we're looking, like you said, to build affordable housing. And I'll never let that go, right. I will hold that with me forever for my entire career, so thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gaut -- excuse me, Katherine Gilmore Richardson. You're in my brain.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to also offer my sincere gratitude and thanks to you, Renee Garcia, for your work. I've had the opportunity and pleasure to work with you while you were working in the Law Department helping us with the legislation that I offered to ensure that we have public comment prior to any FOP contract is settled. And so, that was a really long and arduous process. It was a very, very difficult case. It was a difficult set of circumstances and you and your team and the entire Law Department team were just stellar. And so, I also want to say thank you for your work and for everything that you did on behalf of my office to help us face that moment. I also wanted to ask about an issue that you know is exceedingly important to me and a part of your team that we in this Council body have supported relative to our budget process, and that would be the Nuisance Business Task Force. We added additional dollars. I know Councilmember Gauthier worked on this issue as well to ensure that we could have more attorneys in the Nuisance Business Task Force, so I wanted to ask you specifically about that work in the Law Department. And finally, I offer kudos to the entire Lej Team and everyone that we've worked with that has helped us to craft some of our legislation. I see Lou Rosman back there and I have to mention Reynelle. I don't see her, but everyone on the Lej Team I really appreciate all of you and the work that you all have done. And if I did miss someone, charge it to my head and not my heart, but I am appreciative.
Thank you, Councilmember, for the comments. Act 111 litigation is another example of the team coming together and Lewis Rosman, Joe Altman, Cara Leheny, Craig Gottlieb all worked very hard to win on appeal. We've very thankful to Council for giving us funding last year for our Code Unit. We were able to hire four new attorneys and three new staff members. The Code Unit filed 2500 cases last year for code violations. 600 of those were filed in the Court of Common Pleas. And part of those are building safety, and a lot are public nuisance. And we are working exceedingly hard. And I'm proud to say that we have been enforcing the short-dumping ordinance. I know that that has been a tremendous collaboration between our City stakeholders and we are working on gambling, Councilmember, and we continue to work in the tobacco space and the drug paraphernalia space. We are also --
I apologize for the interruption, but you hit the nail on the head. It's drug paraphernalia.
We are inundated with these stores in our communities, and so many people are reaching out to our office saying we've reported these stores, you all have done inspections and nothing has come of this. And I know some of this is on the L&I side. And when we get there, we will get there with L&I during the budget process regarding these drug paraphernalia stores. But we really need enforcement for these drug paraphernalia stores. We need them to be taken to court when appropriate after we filed all the process that we need to do on the City end. But we are being inundated in our communities by these stores.
Yeah. I completely agree and I look forward to seeing when L&I has split how we can really beef up that public nuisance side. As you know, the Law Department is intricately involved in all of that, and we will be there for the clients to help build that out.
Thank you. And I also want to add to that menu of nuisance businesses. We have AutoZones in different Districts where they actually rent tools for people to illegally fix cars in front of their establishments which totally brings down the quality of life of the neighborhoods to the point where I know in the southwest part of my District, a day care center and the whole plaza is pretty much being held hostage. And I know we've been working with the Law Department to look at some ramifications for this particular business and also working in partnership with the 12th Police District as a quality-of-life issue. And so, we'll follow up regarding that particular issue with you and your team because it's definitely a nuisance business that's not a stop-and-go, but it's a business that's bringing down the quality of life just based upon how they go about doing their service.
At this time I'd like to acknowledge Councilwoman Quetcy Lozada.
Thank you, Council President. Just kind of staying along the lines of the nuisance businesses, I know that we worked together and I appreciate the work that you all did to help me craft the Business Curfew bill. Originally we were trying to do that across the District. The goal is not to stop business from being conducted in the District in the City, right. We promoting that the City's open for business. And so, I know that bills like the Curfew bill can raise some questions. I have had multiple commercial corridors now reach out to say, hey, why can't you extend that bill, why can't we have a business curfew in our commercial corridor. And I know that you responded to me and to the office, but I'd like to put it on the record. So if you could just share with us why is that challenging and why did the Law Department recommend that we just did it in the targeted area as opposed to District-wide?
Thank you for that question. I personally was not involved in the initial review of that bill, but what we try to do overall constantly is a risk assessment. So I've said to many of you as we met, I'm trying to get you the best bill possible that can be passed with legal muster that always is meeting your goal, but is surgical enough not to bring immediate litigation. So when we're discussing underprivileged, I'm constantly thinking about implementation risk, legal risk, reputational risk. I don't want to convey privileged information in public here, but I'd be happy to follow up and see if that can be expanded.
And then my follow-up question is I know that you represent the Administration, you represent us in Council. How do you intend to balance or how would you navigate when our ideologies are different?
Do we have a second or a third in the room? The way the Charter is constructed, the Solicitor's office provides the legal opinion of the City, whether a bill is legal or not legal, whether there's a preemption issue, a constitutional issue, whatever the issue may be. So when you ask me whether something is legal and the Mayor asks me whether something is legal or a court asks if something is legal, my advice is the same. It's legal or it's not legal, right. It's not a policy question, right. So that everybody in the City who worked for the City, who does business with the City and the court knows it is the solicitor's opinion that will be represented in court should something go to litigation. And the way I manage the relationships is under privilege, right. You will talk to me or my people obviously, and that will be a confidential conversation. I will not let the Mayor's Office, I will not let your colleagues know who I am meeting with or that we are meeting, and the same on the Mayor's side, right. That confidentiality is very, very important. But I also believe that it is the right structure to have one legal voice in this City, and you all have -- not all of you. Many of you have lawyers in your offices, which is really, really helpful. Some of you are lawyers, right. But when you have a bill 12 that's crafted, when you want the City's opinion, how is the Solicitor going to give advice to anybody who asks for it, then you come to me so that we have one legal voice in this City. There may be times -- it's very, very rare when the law is so unclear that there is a conflict, but it happens very, very rarely. So again, when you're coming to me, I want to give you the advice that you need to make the best bill so I'm going to think about legal risk, I'm going to think about implementation risk, fiscal risk, operational risk so we can have the best product. And I think many of you worked with Lewis Rosman's group at those early stages. I have many lawyers that you can talk with at those early stages so we can get to the best bill. But like I said, at the end of the day I'm giving you an opinion, I'm giving the Mayor an opinion and it's the same opinion on whether it's legal or not legal.
Yeah. I just want to follow up. See, this is why it's great work with a great team of Councilmembers because you don't have to ask all the questions because we're all on the same page and that happens a couple of times a day. But, yes, it's always been our concern to be quite frank, and this is nothing that we didn't have a conversation about during the interview process, just making sure that there's equal representation, right, irregardless of the policy position of the Administration, because sometimes it's going to be adverse. We're not going to be on the same page. And there lies the conflict, right, whenever we get to that point. Based upon policy, I think probably the last similar type of issue was safe injection sites. The Administration had a very specific way how they wanted to address it. Some members of Council had a totally opposite way of how they wanted to address it. And then it was kind of like we just weren't on the same page in terms of how it was being addressed. And just to be frank, on our end it was like, well, where's our legal representation regarding this particular issue. At least that's what was expressed to me based upon how my members felt at that particular time, making sure that we're being represented even though we don't agree with the Administration, and people wanted different types of information, provided it to them. And at that time, folks didn't feel like they were actually being equally represented. And this is not the first that we've dealt with this type of issue. In the past we even explored the possibility of having our own solicitor and legal representation on the Council side. And so, I just want to reiterate and you talked about being sensitive to that type of approach, but it is a real concern that we've had in the past that we're real sensitive to as we move forward, knowing that we would like equal representation on the Council side similar to what's taking place on the executive side with the Administration.
I understand that the safe injection site in particular, which is one of those unique circumstances, was an instance where Council was provided with conflict counsel. But I do understand the sensitivity. If it does come up or if you don't feel like you're getting the attention you need, please talk to me. I am accountable for my department. So if you need resources, if you need other folks, please let's have a conversation about it.
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to join the chorus of people giving you and your team accolades because whether it was ghost guns, whether it was lost and stolen guns. Whether it was flavored tobacco, whether it was now gambling, you have represented our legislative interests to the best of your ability. And something that Jamie Gauthier said that I echo, you're not afraid to legislate and go up against folk that don't necessarily have Philadelphia's best interest at heart. When they go up there, they represent Philly's interest and that isn't always echoed by the rest of the Commonwealth. So thank you for being fierce, formidable and knowledgeable about where you should advise us when we should step up and continue or whether we should be patient, which I rarely am, about a matter. So with that in mind, how are we doing on the whole gambling machine. If you're not allowed to talk about it outside of court, just give me the hi sign and I'll move on.
Oh, okay. So we won't go there. But where are we on lost and stolen?
Yes. Thank you for asking and thank you, Councilmember. You said to me a few times, sometimes we're going to lose but we got to play the long game, right. And lost and stolen is one of those cases that was started many years ago by these brilliant lawyers who planned out the long game. This is a very purposeful suit. That is sitting in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We do not think it will be heard until our Crawford matter is heard, and that's our preemption case. And I'm going to make it very simple. But that is the case where you we say this preemption is unconstitutional. We cannot protect our people, right, not in the way it's written, not in the way it's interpreted. So we are hoping for a favorable decision on that. That was argued in September. And then lost and stolen is right behind that. So that is sitting there waiting, and again a really good example of playing the long game and how the Law Department is part of public safety, everybody thinks about the DA and the Defenders. But there's so much that the Law Department can do, from this legislation, from code, from child welfare, from privacy angle, right. And thank you for being bold in legislating because that really lets us push all of us forward on the civil side.
So let my colleagues know it's when you start getting personal judgment that you're going to appreciate this department because people pierce the government veil and sue you personally for your interventions, your decisions. And it's right around then that you're happy you got a lawyer like the lawyers in the City Solicitor's Office. So thank you for that.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Rue Landau.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Solicitor Garcia, super happy to have you here. I'm going to add my voice to the chorus of people who love our Law Department, I think I spoke to your group in 2017 or so and came with a list of over attorneys I 4 had already worked with in your 5 department and it has expanded 6 since then. So I am well aware of 7 the great things that you do. 8 Along with all of the cases 9 that my colleagues have already 10 talked about, I want to thank you 11 so much and your whole team for 12 consistently going to bat for the 13 LGBTQ community since we've had to 14 fight life partnership in Devlin 15 until our most recent issues as 16 well. 17 Certainly, everybody has 18 been as tactical and creative in 19 making good law and then are trying 20 to preserve good law as possible. 21 And because of that, we've been at 22 the forefront of protecting civil 23 rights and adding protections here 24 in Philadelphia, so thank you for 25 that. I wanted to ask about -- I love that you're breaking down silos internally. And I wanted to ask about communication within the Law Department and then outside of the Law Department in the departments -- this is a forward-looking question about review of lawsuits in the City of Philadelphia, making sure that we're actually watching. If we keep getting sued from a certain department or because of a certain defect in our sidewalks or streets or something, that we're paying attention to that so we can fix it, come up with some remedial measures and stop it. I fear that there hasn't been the communication that we needed other than case, case, case to try to put an end to some of this.
Yes. Thank you for that question. That leads into the after-action plan that I talked about and being in the corporate sector, coming in and thinking about a compliance function for our Law Department. It is never about a case. It is never about a deal. It is always about the bigger picture. I see myself as a risk mitigator, right. Yes, I'm a lawyer. But overall I mitigate risk for the City, right, and I protect our indemnities when I do that and I protect all of you when I do that. So when we see patterns, our lawyers job is and they know it's their job to elevate that. So perhaps it's a particular community where we're seeing tons of sidewalks and potholes and tree limbs creating issues, yes, that has escalated up to the Streets Department or whichever department it is. There is always that feedback loop. Now, what I'm trying to do with my department right now is look at safer, cleaner, greener economic opportunity, education and try to figure out what are we working on for City Council, for the Mayor's Office, for all of our clients, and that may lead to task groups or working groups within the Law Department. But there are also plenty of working groups with the Administration as well. But just to reiterate, our lawyers know that it is their job to escalate. If you're just sitting there toiling away and not looking at the big picture, then you're not doing your job. You're not being in service of the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you. And the last question is I am very happy about the New Consumer Protection law. Thank you. The City needs it, and it's going to be an incredible tool. What resources does the Law Department need in order to make it successful?
Yeah. And I'll talk about this a little bit if I have the time in my budget address. But when you have bills like this and the bills around the Office of Worker Protection, there really is an investigative element that I want to build up. So to have investigators and an attorney, paralegal staff is really what we're looking for. We will be utilizing the Community Legal Services and other partners to get referrals about the issues, the systemic issues. MV Realty is a perfect example, right, these predatory folks that are in and around the space of housing. But it would be really helpful if we had both the attorney and staff but also investigators so that they can go out and get the data and the details on something that's happening over and over and over again. Thank you for that question.
Thank you very much. And the Chair recognizes Councilmember Nina Ahmad.
Thank you, President. I'm new even though I've been a Deputy Mayor before. I just want to follow up on what Council President was making a point of, the conflict when representing the executive branch and the legislative branch. How do you resolve that? I don't know what exactly happened with that. How you do you address that?
Safe injection sites was a very unique issue in that really Council was on the right side of the law, but the Mayor and the Administration wanted to submit an amicus brief to federal action that was challenging that law, so that was really like there were two sides of the law. It's very unusual. Usually the law is what the law is, right, and that's interpreted by the Solicitor's Office. You might not like the law. I didn't write the law. You all write the law, but I'm not getting into policy disputes. It really is this is what the law says, this is what the case law says, here is how the City would interpret that, and it's really you and the Mayor talking about policy and how we can -- if there's daylight there within the parameters of the law on any specific subject.
So would you be then advising executive branch based on that purview to not do something?
If you pass a bill and you say, Renee, is this legal? And I say, yes. The Administration says, Renee, is this legal? I'm going to say yes. I don't turn around and then say no, right.
My second question is your relationship with the DA's Office around immigration. You know, we have a lot of undocumented folks here and how they get charged if they are involved in something is very critical to their immigration status. I don't know what your rule is there or do you have any at all or what is your oversight over our communities who live in immigrant communities in Philadelphia?
I have not worked with the DA specifically on immigrant issues, but there is a working group around immigrant issues. So we've been very focused on the Welcoming Center and getting together contracts when we have large influxes of migrants from Texas, and we're also involved on the litigation side, so we will sign amicus briefs in support of the Administration's policy and primarily these are taking place in Texas. But I have not been involved on the criminal side.
Thank you very much. I had a couple of shout-outs I wanted to say in the spirit of my colleague Councilman Curtis Jones. It's a Lydia Furst that's a part of your Law Department. I introduced a bill 24 before it was a popular thing to do to ban ghost gun parts in the City of Philadelphia, and she successfully tried that case on behalf of the City of Philadelphia and legislation I introduced, and Josh Shapiro in the spirit of the legislation began to move forward on the state level, so I do want to thank you and your team for that work from a public safety standpoint. And I also just from a point of information just wanted to give you another example of where the Administration may be one place and we may be another place and how it turns out with the Solicitor's Office legally. There was a time when Michael Nutter was the Mayor and he wanted to shut down libraries, and that was his policy, right. And it was a young lady who's a part of the Administration now named Sophie Bryant who actually litigated and took the case and made sure that Council's wishes of not shutting down libraries for the sake of our budget process, our well wishes were actually moved on and the judge ruled in Council's favor. And so, that's like another example of where policy-wise we may not be on the same page with the Administration and then we look into our lawyer which is the City Solicitor to help us navigate and make sure our voices are heard. And so, hopefully as we move forward -- naturally those types of things will happen, but we also work in the spirit of one City, one Philadelphia, so hopefully that won't happen. But we are an independent body at the end of the day and sometimes those things happen. But for the most part we'll be rowing I would think in the same direction in terms of moving the City of Philadelphia forward to a safer, cleaner, greener city with economic opportunity for all. I just want to thank you for taking time out of your schedule, Ms. Garcia. I look very forward to working with you. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the last member of City Council who has comments which is Councilmember Anthony Phillips.
It's been quite the eventful day. And thank you so much, Renee Garcia, for staying with us. Just a quick question, one question only: So Philadelphia has struggled for decades for tax delinquency. Since the suspension of tax sales, property tax delinquency has been on the rise, increasing 2 percent to 8 percent every year since 2019 or around $5 million to $10 million a year. Today 60 percent is owned by investors -- is owed by investors or landlords according to the City's 2023 Tax Delinquency Report. We are in the midst of a housing crisis and numerous properties throughout all Council Districts. It contains blighted and vacant properties. How does your office plan to deal with all of the current vacant properties throughout the City? Furthermore, once these delinquent properties are identified, what is your commitment to getting those properties into court and properly sold to decrease the blight in vacant properties throughout the City?
Thank you, Councilmember. I completely agree with you that something needs to be done about these blighted properties. The Law Department has about 3,000 properties that are ready to go to tax sale. Tax sales are not being scheduled, and I believe you will be hearing from the Mayor either in her budget address or some time in the future about her plan.
Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Ms. Garcia.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Are there any other witnesses to testify on Resolution No. 240038? (No response.)
I want to also give a shout-out to Lewis Rosman over there I see. This concludes the -- before I say this concludes, thank you very much, Ms. Garcia, for your testimony. Thank you for stepping up as a public servant to fulfill this role to help move the City of Philadelphia forward, so thank you very much.
This concludes the hearing for Resolutions 240075, 240078, 240079, 240029 and 240038. And we will now go into the public meeting. There being no further questions for members of the Committee and no other witnesses on the list to testify, I will ask if there is anyone else present in the hearing who wishes to offer testimony on Resolutions 240075, 240078, 240079, 240029 and 240038? (No response.)
Hearing none, I want to thank all the witnesses for their participation today. We definitely value your opinion. Mr. Christmas, as we go into our public meeting, can you please call the roll to take attendance.
Present. Thank you, Mr. Christmas. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Kathy Gilmore Richardson on a motion on Resolutions 240075, 240078, 240079, 240029 and 240038.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolutions 240075, 240078, 240079, 240029 and 240038 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit consideration of these resolutions at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilman Squilla seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Resolutions 240075, 240078, 240079, 240029 and 240038 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit consideration of these resolutions at our next session of Council. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. And Resolutions 240075, 240078, 240079, 240029 and 240038 will be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation with the suspension of the rules to permit consideration of these resolutions at our next session of Council. This concludes the business before the Committee of the Whole for today, and I want to personally thank all of our Members for being here today as well as being on time. Thank you very much everyone. (Committee of the Whole concluded at 4:44 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL