COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania December 17, 2002 10:10 a.m. - - - BILL 020496 - an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Sales"... BILL 020634 - an ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, Subcode PM, by amending requirements applicable to vacant premises... BILL 020732 - an ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, Subcode PM, by adding provisions relating to the maintenance of exterior... BILL 020735 - an ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, Subcode A, by amending provisions relating to fees assessed for certain licenses... - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 020758 PAGE EDWARD J. McLAUGHLIN, L&I ............ BILL 020496 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ............... 10 HARRY MOORE, Community College ....... 11 BILL 020634 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ................ 12 ROBERT SOLVIBILE, L&I ................. 15 EDWARD J. McLAUGHLIN, L&I ............. 28 3 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020758
This is a hearing of the Committee of Licenses and Inspection. The Committee will hear testimony on Bills 020496, 020634, 020732 and 020758. I have Councilman Mariano, Vice-Chairman, Councilman Nutter, Councilman Ortiz, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown and I think Councilman Rizzo is in the men's room. So we're ready to roll. Clerk, you can read the title now.
Bill 020758, an ordinance 13 amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, Subcode A, by amending provisions relating to fees assessed for certain licenses and permits and amending provisions relating to the posting of certain permits and licenses; amending Subcode PM by amending provisions to consolidate licenses relating to residential dwellings; and amending Title 19 of The Philadelphia Code, Section 19-2602, relating to fees assessed for business privilege licenses; all under certain terms and conditions.
Testimony. Mr. McLaughlin? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. Good morning, 4 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020758 Councilman Mariano and Members of the Council Committee of Licenses and Inspections. I am Edward J. McLaughlin. I am here today to testify on Bill 5 020758, which changes certain fees charged by the Department of Licenses and Inspections for licenses and permits. Accompanying me here today are my deputies, Robert Solvibile and David Perry and Dominic Verdi, as well as my administrative services director, Richard Felgus, and our director of information technology, James Weiss. Before we provide any further testimony on this bill, we would like to request that the Committee amend this bill by deleting the proposed Subsection A-906.2.1 and replacing with the following: A-906.2.1, owner unit exemption. For one- and two-family dwellings, the $30 license fee is waived for a dwelling unit occupied by an owner listed on the title deed to the property. This change will keep the owner unit exemption the same as our current license provision, which will have separate licenses for residential housing. In the interest of brevity, I would just 5 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020758 like to summarize that this bill will adjust fees with the increased departmental costs to issue permits and licenses, as well as to allow the Department to automate operations by reducing our fast-form permits by 50 percent. For single-family residences and reducing single-family construction for building permits by percent, we hope to 9 foster repair and rehabilitation of existing 10 dwellings throughout the City, thereby aiding the 11 City's anti-blight efforts. 12 We believe that maintaining a strong 13 Department of Licenses and Inspections which is 14 properly equipped with modern technology will 15 benefit all of the citizens of Philadelphia. 16 Thank you for your consideration and for 17 the opportunity to present our testimony. I will be 18 happy to answer any questions at this time. 19
Thank you, 20 Commissioner. I just want to make note that Councilman Rizzo joined us. Do we have any questions for the commissioner? Councilman Ortiz.
Commissioner, how 6 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020758 will these fees increase revenue, and are these fees going right back into the general fund of the Department? MR. McLAUGHLIN: These fees will help us automate the Department and to provide better services to people, on-line services, plus it will allow our inspectors in the field to use that technology to provide more effective, more efficient service right on the spot in the field.
In the first year of these fees, how much money are you expecting to be able to get? MR. McLAUGHLIN: $2.2 million.
And, again, that money will not go into the general fund, but will go right into the Department? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well, the money will go into the general fund, but the commitment from the administration is to automate L&I. So, very specifically, we have been joined by the managing director and the mayor's office with the objective of automating L&I.
So the $2 million will go towards that automation? 7 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020758 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes.
Thank you. Seeing none, Commissioner, anyone else to testify on this bill? Anybody? Michael, for the commissioner?
Commissioner, your testimony on Bill 020758, that's the bill that we're on presently? MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's correct.
Two questions. One, your proposed amendment, if I'm reading it correctly -- and I know you asked for us to delete the section and insert the new language that you put in -- from what I can tell, the language that you're suggesting is exactly the same as what's already in the bill, with the exception that the sentence has the additional language of "for one- and two-family dwellings"; is that correct? MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's correct.
The second issue is, 8 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020758 and I've had conversation with the Chair and the clerk of the Committee, I actually have a proposed amendment myself based on conversations between my staff and Mr. Otis Haigler. There was a recent addition to The Philadelphia Code generally referred to as the Educational Housing District Bill, which was passed just a couple months ago. There is one provision that affects the property maintenance section, 102, and that did not get picked up in the course of the drafting of this bill. I'm going to assume, for one, this bill 13 in a drafting stage could have possibly started before we even passed the Educational Housing District Bill, but having said that, I'm going to propose at the appropriate time an amendment, which would go at , under Section PM-102.0, licensing, for a new section, which would be PM-102.1.1, which would replicate the language from the original Educational Housing District Bill to be inserted between PM-102.1 and PM-102.2. So it would literally go right in between those two sections. And I just wanted to bring that to your attention during the course of the public hearing and ask if you would be in agreement with that. 9 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020758 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, we are in agreement with that, Councilman.
Any other questions for the commissioner from the Committee? Seeing none, and no one else to testify on this bill -- Commissioner, do you want to say something else? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Could we request suspension of the rules?
This won't get passed, because we only have one council session. We'll get past the first one on the next one, January 28. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. We're aware.
Thank you. The clerk will read the title of Bill 10 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020496 020496.
Bill 020496, an ordinance 4 amending Section 9-205 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled Sidewalk Sales, by prohibiting sidewalk sales on portions of 18th Street and Callowhill Street.
Good day, Councilman Mariano, Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., legislative and regulatory affairs manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 020496, which, if enacted, will amend Section 16 9-204 of The Philadelphia Code to prohibit sidewalk sales on portions of 18th Street and Callowhill Streets. With respect to this bill, the Department offers no objections to its enactment and is prepared to enforce its provision subsequent to passage by City Council and being signed into law by the mayor. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time. 11 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020496
Any questions from the Committee for Mr. Haigler? Seeing none, Mr. Haigler. Is Mr. Moore here from Community College? Do you want to testify, Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore, pull that right up, because this is like -- he's getting all the new technology. We're not getting anything.
My name is Harry Moore. I'm the director of facility operations for the Community College of Philadelphia, and I'm here to just pass a couple comments onto the bill there. The request was submitted by the College because at the time that we dealt with the neighborhood association, Logan Square, they had requested us to seek this legislation. And since there are no vendors on the site now, we just want to continue the status quo and satisfy our commitment to the Logan Square Association. 12 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634
Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Moore from Community College? Seeing none, the clerk will read the title of Bill 020634.
020634, an ordinance 8 amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, Subcode PM, by amending requirements applicable to vacant premises, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good day, Councilman Mariano and Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., legislative and regulatory affairs manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Accompanying me today is First Deputy Commissioner Robert Solvibile. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 020634, which, if enacted, will amend sections of the Property Maintenance Code to require that the owners of properties classified as causing a blighting influence maintain and secure them with windows and doors. The Department fully supports this bill 13 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 in the interest of addressing concerns regarding blighted buildings without windows and doors that have a deleterious effect on the surrounding community. Besides being a public nuisance to the other residents who live in proximity to them, the buildings that fall into the category of causing a blighting influence on the community pose a threat to public safety. Accessibility to these buildings by unauthorized persons create a harbor for criminal and other adverse activity to transpire, which is inconsistent with public policy and the desires of others residing in the community. Bill 020634 provides a mechanism to address this blight on the community by requiring that the owners of these properties maintain them in a condition which is consistent with other aspects of the community in which they are located. It is believed that this will help to stabilize areas of the City from the spread of further blight that has an economic impact on surrounding properties and an emotional impact on the individuals who reside in them. From an operational perspective, the 14 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 Department is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill should it be passed by City Council and signed into law by the mayor. However, we wish to emphasize that our primary objective in enforcing the provisions of this bill will be to use our enforcement powers in cooperation with other local governmental departments and agencies in an effort to gain compliance from the property owner through their abatement of blighting conditions. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony on Bill 020634. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Any questions from the Committee for Mr. Haigler? Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not had an opportunity to talk with the sponsoring councilmember about this particular bill, which I certainly plan to support. I did have one question, and I don't know if you can answer it, Mr. Haigler, or if you were involved in the drafting of the bill. But under the definition of the blighting influence, I was intrigued about the -- 15 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 there appear to be two conditions that determine whether or not the property qualifies as being considered a blighting influence. First was that the building is located on the block face where 80 percent or more buildings on the block face are occupied. Do you have any idea where the 80 percent standard came from, and does this mean that if the block -- if the property is on a block where only 70 percent of the buildings are occupied, then the building is not considered a blighting influence?
Mr. Solvibile, you have to state your name for the record.
I'm sorry. My name is Robert Solvibile, deputy commissioner of Licensing and Inspections. It was put in at the suggestion of the Law Department, but it gives us the right to write this violation on any block in the City of Philadelphia; just that the notice period would be longer for less than 80 percent. 16 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634
It would give us the right to write the violation on any property in Philadelphia without doors and windows. It's just that the time for notice when it's less than 80 percent of vacancy on the block would be days 9 versus, say, a ten-day notice. 10
Tell me the 11 provision of the bill that allows you to write the 12 violation on any block regardless of the 80 percent 13 standard. 14
Councilman, we currently 15 have provisions of the Code that allow us to deal 16 with the abatement of vacant buildings in general. 17 This particular bill primarily deals with buildings 18 that cause a blighting influence on the community, 19 where there are community concerns that have been 20 raised to require that we go beyond just what we normally do with vacant buildings, require that they seal them. This bill will require that the owner provide -- put in windows and doors, actual windows and doors in those buildings, to keep the buildings 17 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 consistent with the rest of the community.
Well, that's what I thought the purpose of the bill was. I mean, I've certainly had a few experiences, and Mr. Solvibile and I have had discussions about this, where is it true that under the current Code there is not a requirement that you have windows in where windows are and doors where a door would normally be? Isn't that presently the case?
It's unclear in the Code that we can require doors and windows, which is the reason for this bill, to make it clear that we have that authority to require doors and windows and not just let the owners seal the building. A case in point would be the property you and I are both very aware of on Lawnton Street.
We have no authority to make him put doors and windows on that. With this bill, we will.
Okay. So the bill 23 does provide the clarity that we need to require the windows and doors. So let me go back again, and I don't 18 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 know what the Law Department's advice was, but tell me a little more, I guess, about this 80 percent standard, and will that in any way, shape or form interfere with the ability to require windows and doors if the person makes the argument that, for whatever reason, the particular block in question only has 70 percent occupancy?
No, sir, because under the second section there, it gives the commissioner the discretionary authority to require windows and doors for other scenarios where you have four different criteria here where the deterioration and/or safety of the property is at question, whether there's a safety issue for the surrounding community, the value of intact and occupied properties in the surrounding vicinity of the property. The commissioner would make this determination in consultation with the other appropriate City officials. So the 80 percent is one standard, but then you have a second criteria that could be followed as well.
Okay. As I said, I'm pleased that we have this bill. It does remove 19 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 the ambiguity that we've been operating under. I just wanted to make this discussion for the record so that it's clear going forward. I mean, there are some people who specialize in trying to figure out how to get around The Philadelphia Code. That's a bit of a cottage industry these days. And if I were not the kind of calm person that has my oatmeal every day, I'd be dealing with some of these folks in a slightly different fashion. I appreciate this bill, and I'll sleep better tonight. Thank you.
Just to follow up on that, take me through the process. You build a new building. You have to have a certificate of occupancy to move into that building in Philadelphia. You build a new house. To get a certificate of occupancy, you have to have windows, don't you?
Correct. It would have to 20 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 meet the minimum standards required under the Building Code, Property Maintenance Code.
So if the person showing up, the inspector, to provide the certificate of occupancy walked up and there were no 7 windows, no doors or bricks where windows are supposed to be, would they get a certificate of occupancy?
So my confusion is, when a building falls out, falls beyond the requirements of a certificate of occupancy, why isn't it in violation?
Because all buildings, all properties in the City of Philadelphia, have to meet minimum standards as required by law, as required by the Property Maintenance Code. Any building in the City, regardless whether it's occupied or vacant, still have to meet those minimum standards of the Property Maintenance Code, and the property will be maintained by the owners of those properties.
I'm probably not making myself clear. An occupied property, a person lives in 21 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 an occupied property, and they're living on the first floor or the second floor, and the first floor gets boarded up. And there are conditions like that where people are living in homes like that. Isn't that automatically a violation because they boarded it up and it wouldn't have gotten a certificate of occupancy if you came out there and it had boards in the window?
The Law Department advised us that the Code, the present Code, did not allow us to order doors and windows; that the code said that you had to seal the property -- you could seal the windows versus having doors and glass in the windows, you could use wood to seal it; and that to order owners to comply with our desire to have doors and windows, we would need this ordinance. That's, basically, what our desire has been all along. As an example, it was brought up yesterday, 2200 block of Arch, and it's a high-rise building in Center City without doors and windows. We only had the right to make him seal the windows that were accessible to -- the openings that were accessible with wood. 22 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 With this ordinance, we have a right to order all doors and windows in the whole building. And there's several buildings like that in the City that have that kind of effect on the community. Another area where it will be put to a lot of use is in the corner stores all over the City that you see that are sealed on the second and third floor and the business is to operating out of the first. That has a horrible effect on the community's morale and the value of the property in the community. And we intend to use this ordinance 13 to write that type of building in violation to require doors and windows on all the openings if they're going to do business there.
Again, my point being that, common sense, there's a minimum requirement to get a certificate of occupancy. Once that building falls below that standard, you would think that that building would be in violation. Because if you can't get a certificate of occupancy with the scenario that you just described, boards in the windows, it just doesn't make a lot of sense, but --
Councilman, let me clarify one issue. 23 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 The certificate of occupancy is primarily required for new construction, for new buildings.
Buildings that are being maintained, they fall under requirements -- the certificate of occupancy is a requirement that falls on the buildings that are being constructed under the Building Code.
And the Property Maintenance Code is to maintain existing property. So there's a distinction there. This bill will allow for the maintaining of those properties to a minimum standard that was not in existence before. And the issue with the wood in doors, that was primarily from a safety perspective to prevent trespass into the property so that it would prevent somebody from going into the premises, starting fires and so forth. So that was a minimum requirement to prevent access to the building. This will be one step above to require that the building not only be maintained against 24 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 trespass, but it also would have to be aesthetically consistent with the other surrounding buildings in the community.
My final question: What resistance, what legal challenges to you anticipate with the implementation of this legislation? I own that building at 22nd and Arch. Today he's legal. Tomorrow, or whenever, it becomes a violation. Do you realistically think that you're going to be able to enforce this legislation if it passes?
Councilman, the Law Department has drafted this for us with buildings like that in mind. So that would be a question that we can't answer, but I'm sure the Law Department thought that they could enforce this bill against people who are having this blighting effect on the community.
Have we done any kind of communication with these property owners, letting them know that this legislation is on the way?
The three properties that I mentioned in my testimony have been in equity court, and we have gone back and forth for years 25 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 with these owners about the conditions of these buildings. And by the buildings being open, they continue to deteriorate, and concrete is falling off the buildings. And every third year we're back in equity court. So we're trying to stop that and make them take a hold of their buildings and make them more pleasing aesthetically to the community.
Were those property owners, equity court, the interested parties, were they made aware of this hearing?
It's public notice, Councilman. The requirements of the City Charter, the notice did go out.
I understand that, but my point being is, this is a big, big unexpected burden on these people. You know, I'm not saying that they shouldn't do what we suggest here, but this is how sometimes government gets criticized, where you parachute in an ordinance that possibly 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 could cause several hundred thousands of dollars in temporary expenditure that's not budgeted. You know, there is some fairness and some communication I think required or some way to work this in gradually, maybe by the floor.
Councilman, if I may, I think being the co-sponsor with Councilman Krajewski on this, I think the spirit of this was -- I get your intention, but the spirit of it was if we don't do something about this eventually -- you heard Councilman DiCicco speak about this yesterday. He asked Mr. Solvibile about this. But if we don't do something about this eventually, it never gets done. And on your part of it, what you're trying to say here, I think, maybe when this becomes a law, do we send something out and say, look, we passed this law, now you got two weeks or a month or we're coming to get you tomorrow.
Well, when it's passed, we're going to write a violation, and they'll have rights of appeal, and they're all represented by attorneys.
Excuse me. See, this is the part that really bothers me. You know, we're 27 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 trying to work with people. Why do you need to write a violation to get cooperation? Right away you get people's feathers ruffled. The building has been sitting there for 30 years or how many years. Now all of the sudden they get a violation. Isn't there a better way to conduct our business than doing it this way? My God.
I know of no way to comply -- to force on owner to comply. We could send --
It sounds to me this is typically why we are all in the craphouse that we're in with our public relations, that there ought to be a better way, in my opinion, to get this accomplished without, you know, Friday it's legal, Monday it's not, bam, you got a violation. Come on, Guys. Let's think of a better way to get this accomplished.
What comes to mind, Councilman, is a property that I'm very aware of and have been back and forth with the owner and their attorneys for years, and it's in a neighborhood where homes are very well kept, and this is the only one that's vacant and it's getting broken into and 28 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 it's a pigeon roost and it's everything that you don't want in a residential community. And the citizens that are living in that neighborhood have a right to have a home there that looks decent. And that's all this bill is trying to do, is to assist the community in getting this type of housing that's in their neighborhood to look and be aesthetically pleasing instead of deteriorating.
Commissioner, I'm not talking about that scenario. I'm talking about the one we just talked about that's in Center City Philadelphia, that people own it, that you have probably a relationship with, and, in my opinion, you do it how you need to do it, but, again, hammering them with a violation is -- it's like the meter person waiting there until the meter expires. It's just, in my opinion, not the best way to conduct our government. You know, that's my opinion, and that's why I'm here at this committee hearing. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Ed McLaughlin, commissioner of L&I. I hear what you're saying, Councilman, and we will pull a group of those group together and 29 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 talk about how we should go about enforcing this. The issue for us, though, is, we need the backdrop of the law. You know yourself that we're reasonable in our enforcement and that we take a step back and let people have room to comply with the law. But we always need the backdrop of having the law there that will support our actions. We will definitely listen to what you're saying, call a group of people together. We know who the players are as well as you do, and, you know, your phone will ring. The rest of the councilpeople's phones will ring on this issue if we don't enforce it reasonably. So we understand that.
Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner.
Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Councilman. You're truly the kinder gentleman council -- kinder, gentler councilman. Thank you. Is there any other questions for these? This concludes the public hearing. We will now go into the public meeting. The public meeting is brought to owner, and I think, Councilman Nutter, you will be 30 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 Councilwoman Krajewski, since she's not here.
No question. Now, do you want to go right down the line down, Councilman?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are two amendments to Bill 020758. The first is in Section 1, which deletes the proposed Subsection A-906.2.1 and replace that section with the following: "A-906.2.1 (Reserved) owner unit exemption: For one and two-family dwellings, the $30 license fee is waived for a 31 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 dwelling unit occupied by an owner listed on the title deed to the property." The second amendment, proposed amendment, to Bill 020758 is to amend the bill on , by inserting the following paragraph between Section PM-102.1 and Section PM-102.2 with this new section: "PM-102.1.1, Special Requirement in Educational Housing Districts: In addition to the other conditions for obtaining a license under this section, no person shall be issued a," delete "multi-family dwelling," insert "housing inspection" license for a property located in an Educational Housing District in which the total number of students living in the building exceeds 25, or in which the percentage of dwelling units in the buildings in which at least one student lives exceeds percent of the dwelling units of such 19 building, and no such license shall be renewed, 20 unless such person obtains a certification from the 21 Department stating that within the last ninety days 22 the property has been inspected by the Department 23 and is in substantial compliance with the 24 requirements of the Building Construction and 25 Occupancy Code. The fee for such an inspection 32 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 shall be established by the Department by regulation. For purposes of this subsection, the terms "Educational Housing District" and "student" shall have the meanings as defined in Chapter 6 10-1800 of the Code."
I move the adoption of both amendments read into the record.
The amendment has been read and seconded. All those in favor say aye. MEMBERS: Aye.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 020758 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation.
A further recommendation, that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading in our next 33 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 session.
It has been read and seconded as amended. All those in favor say aye. MEMBERS: Aye.
All those opposed? Seeing none, it passes as amended and with a suspension of the Rules. Okay. Councilman Nutter, on Bill No. 11 020496.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill 020496, I move that Bill 020496 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation.
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. MEMBERS: Aye.
All those opposed? None. Seeing none, it passes. Councilman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 020634 be reported out of this Committee 34 12/17/02 - LICE SES - BILL 020634 with a favorable recommendation.
So moved and seconded. All those in favor? MEMBERS: Aye.
Opposed? Seeing none, it passes. This concludes the public meeting --
I started at the end. I'm sorry. Did we take testimony on 732?
I'm sorry. We're holding 732. That's been held. I'm sorry.
And that concludes the public meeting on Licenses and Inspection. Thank you, Everyone. (Hearing concluded at 10:45 a.m.) - - - 35 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 17, 2002, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)