Committee Hearing, April 14, 2010

I mean, a hundred thousand dollars is -- we're picking up pennies on the street here in Philadelphia. You know that. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.

Okay. Great. So going back to the budget detail, the Clerical Services section, it looks like there is a new Word Processing Specialist position for FY11. Is that a transfer? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's another transfer, yes.

Okay. In 107 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the Clean and Seal section, there's an unfilled Abatement Worker position. Same question. COMMISSIONER BURNS: That will be a new hire. It's really important to -- let's see. We were at in Fiscal 8 Year '10, and that's really where we want 9 to be in '11 as well. 10

Okay. So 11 can you make an estimate as to the number 12 of additional properties that will be 13 able to be cleaned and sealed as a 14 consequence of making this hire? 15 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. 16 Right now with our clean and seal, one 17 person -- we have to see what one person 18 does to the actual amount of crews that 19 we can put out on the street. Any given 20 day we have to deal with obviously if 21 people are in work or out of work. 22

If it wouldn't change the number, though, that gets cleaned and sealed, it probably wouldn't make sense to make the hire. 108 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. We'll take a look at it.

Okay. Vacancy allowance of 174 -- sorry. Development Division, Section 52, 28, there's a Code Administrator II position. Is that a transfer or is that a promotion of a vacant position? Actually, the chart indicates it's likely filled through an internal promotion, because you drop a position. I just want to confirm that. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I'm sorry. What line was that again?

It's Section 17 52, , Code Administrator II. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah, that was an internal transfer.

In the License Issuance section, there are three new Service Representative positions. Have they been filled? This is still on . COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't 109 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. know how I missed that one. That has to be an internal transfer, because we didn't do any new hires there at all and we don't intend to do any new hires in that unit. I know we did a transfer --

You don't have to figure it out now. If you can just point us to where the transfer came from, that would be great. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.

If they are new positions, you've testified about the significant and commendable reductions that L&I has achieved in wait time at the MSB license area, a drop from 26.6 minutes to 9.82 minutes in January. So I just want to -- if we're going to hire people, is that because we don't think nine minutes is fast enough, or if we're going to hire additional people, what can we expect to bring the wait time down to? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.

This is District Operation section, Construction 110 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Plans Review Specialist position, it looks like it's new. COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's another one that is an internal promotion. If you look at Line 73, L&I Construction Code Specialist Trainee -- I mean, Line 72, L&I Construction Code Specialist, there was eight at the increment, in 2010, then that goes to 11 eight. So those six positions were 12 actually promotions into that title, 13 Construction Plans Review Specialist. 14

Okay. Well, there's new L&I Construction Code 16 Specialist Trainee. Do they perform the same -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Those are considered new hires, and since November 9th, we've actually hired eight of those 16. So eight are currently filled of those 16, but, yes, those are new hires. I'm sorry.

And how are they going to improve operations in L&I? 111 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, I have estimated that inspectors could 4 potentially do 38,400 inspections a year. 5 The eight that we have brought on, so 6 half of that, would be about like 17,000 7 inspections from the eight. But one of 8 the bigger things that we can do with 9 this title -- 10

So these are 11 inspectors? 12 COMMISSIONER BURNS: These are 13 inspectors in the field, construction 14 inspectors, yes. 15

Construction 16 Code Specialist Trainee is an inspector? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's the first title to come in as an inspector in construction, yes.

So this is in addition to the 19 inspectors. So every question I asked about the 19 inspectors with additional revenue, et cetera, what 17,000 additional inspections would mean in terms of 112 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. revenue -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.

-- based on sort of averages. Seventeen thousand is a big enough number that whatever the average you come up with should be pretty accurate. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.

Administrative Division, Section 52, 52, it looks like there were -- it looks like two Deputy Commissioner positions have been eliminated that were filled as of June 30th, but there's a new 100,000 per year Deputy Commissioner position. Is this an internal promotion or transfer? COMMISSIONER BURNS: One of the Deputy Commissioners, Line 6, you see is actually Director of the Nuisance Task Force. Line 7, Deputy Commissioner Evans retired. She was a Deputy for Administration. And then Line 8 is sitting next to me on my left here, Anuj. 113 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.

Hi, Anuj.

Hi, Councilman. Good morning.

Well, he's a nice fellow. In the 3-1-1 Contact Center section, there are two new Service Representative positions. Have they been filled? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I know we were helping through the interview process, so I know we were conducting the interviews, but I'm not sure if they've been filled since November.

Do you know what are the job duties of these people? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. They're serving either -- they'll be serving as call agents.

In the 3-1-1 Contact Center? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.

And they're in your budget? 114 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. When we -- that's actually where some of the prior question on one of the service reps I could show you to. But anyhow, when we consolidated with 3-1-1 in July of last year, July 2009, we transferred five employees to 3-1-1 that were in our Call Center, particularly because they had the knowledge of our business and also we wanted to augment and make sure that 3-1-1 could take on our additional calls.

So do you know what the -- but these are new positions. So do you know what the average wait time for a caller to 3-1-1 is? I'll tell you, it's one minute and 45 seconds during Calendar Year 2009, but down 18 seconds by December 2009. So why do we -- I'm not sure I understand why we need these positions. COMMISSIONER BURNS: These aren't -- well, we have two filled. The 115 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. two would be new positions. But in terms of the budget, these are four positions we've had on our budget that if you look at Line 59 --

Well, it seems to me, though, the job is getting done without them. COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's a shame, because Rosetta was here at 10 o'clock and she actually beat me here. She waited it out just in case. So we'd have to respond --

Okay. My understanding is that if an inspector cannot enter the property after two visits, it's L&I policy to close the case; is that correct? COMMISSIONER BURNS: If we get a complaint and we've gone to that complaint, yes, two times and we're not able to get entry if we have to get inside, we consider the complaint as unfounded.

So in the 116 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. statistics -- and that's a change in policy? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It is, because we had problems there.

So in the statistics that you're providing as to number of cases resolved compared to the past and all that stuff, it includes items like this where you're sort of, never having inspected the property, making a reasoned judgment that if you went twice, it's unfounded? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. I think it's -- it comes up as unfounded, not as being resolved. We'd look at it -- what we're measuring is really those cases that we open as a result of inspection.

Has the problem been corrected about "resolved" appearing in 3-1-1 when it's transferred to the department, like L&I? COMMISSIONER BURNS: To my knowledge, yes. 117 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.

One of my constituent services people asked me to ask you a question. We often hear from constituents about cases where a property is strewn with trash and debris and even though multiple violations have been issued by L&I, there's been no attempt by the owner to clean the property, and some of these have five, ten, 15, 11 violations. When the property owner is 12 not attempting to become compliant, how 13 long does it take from issuing a 14 violation until the case is listed for 15 court, and how do you make that 16 determination? Is there any policy with 17 respect to the number of violations and 18 how long you wait before taking it to 19 court? 20 COMMISSIONER BURNS: We did institute a policy on the number of times that we'll actually inspect before we take it to court, and that's three inspections before we take it to court. With those three inspections, plus the 118 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. time in court and if they do not comply, that could be a period of six months.

I mean, we're aware of properties where there's more than three inspections and they're not in court. COMMISSIONER BURNS: It is a fairly new policy this past year. So I expect that -- I know that's out there, yes.

I mean, can you go through your database and rather than just every case that now comes up that gets three, take a look at if you have 16 violations on a property, bring all them to court as well? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We're doing that right now.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. 119 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

I think I still have to deliver testimony on the Boards.

You still want to hang around? I was trying to let you get out of here. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Just to read it into record?

Okay. Next the testimony will be for the Board of L&I Review. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good morning, Council President -- Councilman Clarke and members of Council.

Be careful with that. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I am Fran Burns, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I appreciate 120 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the opportunity to present the Board of Licenses and Inspections Review Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget request. The Board of Licenses and Inspections Review is requesting a total Fiscal Year '11 budget of $155,721 in the City's General Fund, of which $140,645 is Class 100 and $15,076 is Class 200. The Fiscal Year '11 request will fund two full-time General Fund positions. I am available to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner. What was the Fiscal '10 appropriations? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It's the same. Let me just look over my shoulder and make sure that's right. It's the same.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions of this witness by members of the Council? 121 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. (No response.)

There being none -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: There's two more Boards.

Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BURNS: The Board of Building Standards -- good morning again. I'm Fran Burns, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I appreciate the opportunity to present the Board of Building Standards Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget request. The Board of Building Standards is requesting a total Fiscal Year '11 budget of $71,601 in the City's General Fund, of which $71,542 is Class 100 and $59 is Class 300. The Fiscal Year '11 request will fund one full-time General Fund position. And, again, I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions by members of the 122 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Committee for this witness on this particular Board? (No response.)

There being none, please proceed. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Again, this is the testimony for the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'm Fran Burns, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is requesting a total Fiscal Year '11 budget of $377,871 in the City's General Fund, of which $334,333 is Class 100 and $43,538 is Class 200. The Fiscal Year '11 request will fund five full-time General Fund positions. And, again, I'm available to answer any questions on this.

Thank you. Councilwoman Sanchez.

Thank you. Just quick. I wanted to 123 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. know -- I know with the addition and the changing of the Board, what is our schedule and backlog for scheduling hearings? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Right now in front of the Board it takes days to 8 get an accelerated hearing and six weeks 9 for a regular hearing. 10

And 11 that's from -- what's the improvement? 12 Because I know at one point we had 13 like -- 14 COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's 15 actually, I think -- and just our understanding, and a lot of this is anecdotal. We can look over the past two years, but I think even anecdotally, that's about as fast as it's been in terms of getting a hearing. I think standard we were looking at regular hearings in like eight- to ten-week range and accelerated in three- to four-week.

So 15 days is the accelerated? 124 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.

If there's ever a case that's accelerated but then gets continued, do they still get the opportunity to get accelerated on their continuance? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't know, and we can provide you with that answer.

One of the practices around the expediters has always been kind of controversial. How have we kind of streamlined that so that folks don't feel a need particularly when they don't need a lawyer or an expediter? Do we see an uptick in people just filing their own cases or is there still this dependency on this other part? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We only require lawyers if it's a corporation. Honestly, I don't think we're tracking data on whether someone is representing themselves or being represented in front of the Zoning Board. In fact, I know 125 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. we're not.

Yeah. I think it's important. It's one of the issues we've worked aggressively on, because there's so many issues that don't require legal representation and people don't know, because the forms are pretty intimidating in terms of the Zoning Board. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Commissioner, real quick. As you know, there is a Charter question on the ballot this spring on changing the configuration of the Zoning Board. Currently there is currently a member of L&I sitting on the Zoning Board. Is it the same person designated for all of the Zoning hearings? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We've been --

This is an L&I designee. 126 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: It has to -- our understanding of the Charter requirement is, it has to be the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner that sits.

Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Under the change, will you continue to have that level of -- in the event that they're needed as a result of being an alternate? COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's my understanding from the Law Department, yes.

So it will be either the Commissioner or a Deputy? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. And it's actually a different section of the Charter I think that regulates who can sit on behalf of or be delegated on behalf of the Commissioner, and the interpretation is that it's specific to the Commissioner or Deputy.

Okay. The 127 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Zoning Code Commission, would that be more appropriate for City Planning, questions? Because you guys are up later.

Yeah. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.

Okay. We'll wait until Planning. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will be in recess until 2:00 p.m. (Luncheon recess.)

Good afternoon. MR. McPHERSON: The next department will be the City Planning Commission. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon, Councilwoman Tasco and Councilman Greenlee. I'm Alan 128 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Greenberger, the Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to present the City Planning Commission's proposed Operating Budget for FY2011. Gary Jastrzab, our Deputy Director, is with me. The City Planning Commission's Home Rule Charter-mandated functions are to, one, prepare, adopt and modify a Comprehensive Plan for the City; two, prepare an annual Capital Program and Budget; three, prepare proposed zoning ordinances, maps and amendments; four, prepare regulations concerning the subdivision of land; and, five, make recommendations to City Council on the foregoing, in addition to the acquisition or sale of the City real estate. In addition, the Commission is also charged with reviewing and making recommendations concerning the School District's proposed Capital Program. The Department's responsibilities also encompass economic, 129 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. community development and environmental planning concerns. New emphasis has focused on issues of sustainability, neighborhood conservation and preservation, and humanizing the scale of the City through urban design. 497,598 million is comprised of three components, a General Fund request for $2,251,249, a Community Development Fund request for $408,186 and an appropriations request for $1,538,163 in the Grants Revenue Fund. This is $1,172,899 more than the Commission's FY2010 estimated obligations due to a $1,227,832 increase in requested appropriations from the Grants Revenue Fund and an increase of $241,467 in requested Community Development funds. Our General Fund request is reduced by $296,400. The appropriation increase for 1,227,832 from the Grants Revenue Fund reflects $945,000 130 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that was expected to be used by the Planning Commission for bicycle and pedestrian counts, healthy communities and active living studies, healthy communities planning coordination, sidewalk condition assessment, and tobacco retailer database development. The remaining increase in grant appropriations will support the Hunting Park West planning, bicycle and pedestrian planning, the Citizens' Planning Institute and the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to grants, I'd like to mention that the PCPC staff has aggressively pursued opportunities for competitive planning. 744 million for 22 transportation and land use planning studies. In March, the Commission was awarded a foundation grant to establish a 131 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Citizens Planning Institute as a means to engage citizens and teach planning principles, provide a common language to discuss planning issues, and build the capacity of individuals and civic organizations for participating in their communities' planning process. We are now laying the groundwork for CPI and we will have a pilot project up and running before the end of the calendar year. These grant funds have allowed the Commission to maintain its productivity while other revenue sources have declined. In FY2011, the City Planning Commission is anticipating a staffing level of 42 positions, 38 General Fund positions, three Community Development Fund positions and one Grants Revenue Fund position. This is a reduction of one budget position relative to FY2010. Under the proposed cuts of two and a half, five and seven and a half percent, the Commission will preserve 132 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. core functions, but jeopardize progress on key initiatives. 5 percent would eliminate a third position. Particularly, the capital budget process would be comprised severely. Progress on Philadelphia 2035, the Comprehensive Plan, which forms a critical basis for Charter-mandated zoning reform, will be delayed.

During the past year, the Commission completed our Imagine Philadelphia project establishing a foundation for a new Comprehensive Plan, the first undertaken in Philadelphia in 50 years. We have recently kicked off this comprehensive planning effort, entitled Philadelphia 2035, which will be composed of a long-range citywide plan and beginning a five-year program to prepare 18 implementation-oriented strategic district plans covering the 133 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. City. The Citizens Planning Institute I mentioned a few minutes ago will provide a means to engage individuals and civic organizations in the planning process. Once the Zoning Code Commission completes its work and a new code enacted into law, the PCPC will begin a district-by-district remapping of the City. Full funding of our FY2011 budget is necessary to ensure the Commission's contribution to the City's financial recovery and overall long-term economic development, with a concurrent impact on new development, job creation and efforts to achieve neighborhood sustainability. I believe that to remain competitive among cities, Philadelphia must maintain a focused priority on planning and must continue to fund the effort as aggressively as possible. The City Planning Commission staff has always prided itself on its ability to provide fast and efficient 134 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. service to individuals and community organizations seeking planning-related information, property owners seeking review of development plans and City department and City Council requests for data and analysis. Adequate funding of the City Planning Commission is necessary if we are to continue to perform these functions. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission is committed to supporting the Administration's goal of percent 14 minority, woman and disabled-owned 15 business participation in City contracts. 16 Based on the available contracting 17 opportunity, the City Planning 18 Commission's projected FY participation 19 goal is 31 percent. PCPC's FY08 20 participation level was 20 percent, its 21 FY09 level was 30 percent, and its 22 anticipated FY10 level is 18 percent. I 23 have a footnote to that -- 13 percent. 24 I'm sorry. 25 I have a footnote to that, but 135 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. I'll deal with that during questions. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the City Planning Commission's Operating Budget and would be pleased to answer your questions. Should any Councilmember wish to engage in further discussions on any of these matters, my staff and I are happy to meet with you at your convenience.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm just looking at the first page of your testimony where you talk about the appropriations from the Grants Revenue Fund, which includes a number of areas that you were going to work, but the one around tobacco retailer database development, could you give --

Yeah. I can explain that. A number of these grant opportunities at the time that the testimony was written, these are 136 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. coming -- a number of these things are coming through the Health Department through a Healthy Communities grant, and at the time the testimony was written, we weren't sure where some of these would be placed. So they're placed in here as an appropriations request to authorize us to do it, but they're also -- I think they were also placed in the Health Department's. We've subsequently decided that these are being run through the Health Department.

Okay. Thank you. In the proposed Citizens Planning Institute, have you -- I know you say you're going to -- you're laying the groundwork for that, but what preliminary ideas do you have for implementing that institute?

Thank you for that question. We're very excited about Citizens Planning Institute. There aren't too many examples of this in the 137 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. country, and they tend not to be in big cities. But because we're rewriting a Zoning Code and doing a Comprehensive Plan with a lot of subsequent mapping that has to go on, we thought that this was a very important thing to get people really educated on what planning is, what its implications are and also how to manage and understand these new tools that will be available in Calendar '11. So what we did is in talking to the William Penn Foundation, who is giving us this first grant, it's a start-up grant really to develop the curriculum, and this is so at the end of this year, we anticipate and will report back to both Council and to William Penn on basically a curriculum of what we think it is we need to provide to communities, with the intention of asking them for seed money to really start the program. Long term, however, we believe that this needs to be part of the normal operating position of the Planning 138 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Commission, with educational components offered up to both individuals and communities as needed.

Well, do you plan to include the various communities throughout the City in your development of the curriculum?

Yes, we will. We've already been -- in fact, when the idea was floated the first time, we received a number of requests from community groups, who said sort of sign me up, and I think their concern, although we're not certain that this is the pattern -- this is what we'll find out as we develop this curriculum in coordination with their feedback -- is what is it you think you need to hear from us, as well as what do we think we need to put out there, and it will be a combination of both. I suspect that there'll be a lot of crossover. I think what we think we need to put out there is probably what most communities think they 139 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. need to hear.

To get a broad view of input from a broader perspective of the City, because we know that people who are more engaged in planning will respond, but some of the small neighborhood groups or neighbors don't really respond. Can you think of a mechanism to reach out to the neighborhoods that are not responding as you review who is responding, how do you connect with the small neighborhood organizations and/or -- well, because some neighborhoods don't have organizations in an organized fashion, but how do we reach out to the broader community to get their input.

I think there are three ways we'll do this. One is, we'll take advantage of community meetings that the Zoning Code Commission is running anyway to get feedback, direct feedback, sort of person to person, and these meetings are in neighborhoods. 140 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Secondly, for the first time I think in anybody's memory, we actually now have a list of every self-declared community organization in the City, complete with boundaries, self-declared, leadership --

Always the case.

But leadership, contact points. So I think what we will do, which is what we do through our Community Planning Division anyway, is reach out to them directly to get direct feedback from them, and then in the comprehensive planning process itself, we'll also be running neighborhood meetings, and so we'll reach out there.

Sounds good. In terms of your minority participation, who do you do business with? What kinds of goods and services do you engage in that would promote this 141 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. diversity that's required?

Pretty much a hundred percent of it are professional design and planning services. Just to give you an example of the range, we've retained a firm to help us develop the Hunting Park West Master Plan. They have a number of subcontracts on that. We've engaged another firm who is helping us with our pedestrian and bicycle sort of citywide plan. It's always those kind of firms. They almost invariably -- in fact, they do invariably come through grant opportunities that we garner. So in a given year, it will change. Some years we'll have a very low number of contracts, other years we might have a higher number of contracts depending on the grant opportunities that are out there and what we have explored with grantors based on what we think our needs are.

Okay. 142 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, gentlemen. (Good afternoon.)

One question. In the middle of your testimony, Mr. Greenberger, you reference the strategic district plan. Can you go into that a little bit, exactly what that is and where the district -- I don't know if you've actually figured out what the districts are, but if you go into a little more detail.

Sure. In order to do -- what we're calling the Comprehensive Plan really consists of these two parts. We're looking at the City as a whole and trying to understand what are the big strategic citywide things that we need to be thinking about over the next 30 years, and they might 143 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. involve -- to pick sort of the obvious examples, they might involve underdeveloped waterfronts, they might involve key passageways that link multiple regions in parts of the City. They'll include the relationship of land use to the transportation network, things like that. But at some point, we're going to have to get down to parcel level and actually consider remapping of the City relative to the new Zoning Code. In order to do that, we need to take a more -- it's a sort of up the level on the microscope, you might think, you might say, to look at areas of the City at a more detailed level that will help us guide what to do about remapping. Now, the remapping -- and I can't remember, Councilman, if you've heard me say this before. The remapping is not going to be a wholesale remapping of every parcel in the City, because there's a lot of things that are right and we don't want to remap. But there 144 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. are particular subject areas that we think probably form the heart of rethinking, and they would include things like commercial corridors, transit-oriented development and how we sort of make that stick better. We're not very good at it.

I think that's a good idea.

Yeah. I thought you would. I didn't say it for that purpose, but that happens to be a key thing. And I think that this is a city that had an enormous -- has an enormous amount of land zoned industrial based on experiences from 50 to 100 years ago that we need to rethink. So the strategic plans are going to allow us to do that. They're not a neighborhood -- they're not a neighborhood-level plan. They're bigger than that. We have an internal sort of working map that divides the City into 18 different areas, and 145 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. they're largely based on, you might say, a kind of empirical sense of how people live their lives in the City. It's the kind of thing that if I -- if I said to you when things happen around where you live, good and bad, when are they part of what you think is your kind of territory and when are they not. And so it's a kind of -- some of that is enforced by geography, neighborhoods that butt up against rivers or against the City boundaries. Sometimes it's very much about people who live on one side of a major arterial through the City kind of think about everything that happens on the other side is not their world. It's kind of that. It's a bit of a convenience for the Planning Commission. We have to divide it up somehow, and we didn't think that it was going to work to just say northwest, northeast, center, southwest kind of thing. We needed a more fine-grained approach.

So these 146 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. areas, that covers the whole City of Philadelphia?

Right. 5

Now, I 6 guess as a Councilman at-large, obviously 7 I'm addressing all that, but I assume 8 there will be direct contact with the 9 District Councilpeople in that area? 10

Absolutely. 11 And they're not defined by Council 12 district, so there'll be crossover. Some 13 of them have majority one Councilmember, 14 but many of them -- most of them have 15 two, sometimes three. 16

Right. 17 Okay. And just last question. How 18 did you -- I guess you kind of said this, but how did it come to 18 and why?

We kind of -- working -- we did this actually as a group with our Community Planning Division, who know the City the best in our agency, and we just started saying, All right, if you had to try to 147 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. understand the City in terms of how people think about how they live, where the kids go to school, assuming it's neighborhood based, where they routinely shop, how they measure the good things and the bad things that happen in City life, where are those boundaries. And to pick a kind of easy one, Manayunk and Roxborough, which are hemmed in by a lot of geography -- that's why it's an easy one -- is a kind of natural territory that people think of as a place in the City that they relate to if you live there.

A defined area kind of thing, yeah. Right. I got you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I only have one question and 148 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the rest is actually a comment. I just wanted to thank the Planning Commission. It has been great to see it take its rightful role in the planning process as it relates to neighborhoods, and I want to personally thank Mr. Greenberger for all of his patience in dealing with the multitude of my groups, those informal and formal --

You're welcome.

-- in the discussions around community planning. I appreciate that, and I look forward to, as even we do the zoning overlays and stuff, your thoughtfulness in that process is so very important. Civic organizations, whether -- I have about a dozen of them and the CDC world are very much involved and vested in what happens in the neighborhood, and our ability to show to them that we really do care and want to be thoughtful is so very important. So you've made that process 149 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. less painful than it could be. As it relates to the Citizens Planning Institute, I wanted to -- going back to what Councilwoman Tasco was saying, I think that there's some less organized vehicles and even some vehicles that are very organized but maybe for all the wrong reasons, and I really want to look at how we ensure that we grab those folks. I mean, there's some folks who just focus on zoning for all the bad reasons, for everything they're against. I see Eva shaking her head. And then there are some folks who have just never been engaged because they just feel like it's too much of a complicated process. So I'm encouraged that you're looking at how you do this plain language so kind of folks get involved, and I want to just offer up, because I do have many languages in my district, to the extent that we can help ensure that we're doing this, also providing --

That would be 150 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. very helpful.

-- language access. It's very important. So as we're developing these things, that we think about language and how that gets translated.

That's a good suggestion. We'll take you up on that.

Okay. As it relates to the minority participation, you talked about some of the firms and you said you had a footnote on that, so I wanted to give you an opportunity to share it.

Well, thank you. I was going to ask permission from the Chair to do that anyway, but thank you for asking. The footnote is a simple one. One of our major prime contractors is a woman-owned firm who is registered with, I believe, State PennDOT, transportation planning firm. They're registered with PennDOT, but that registration has not 151 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. been put into the City system yet, so our numbers do not reflect their participation either in '09 or '10. So the '09 number will be somewhat higher than the 30 percent. The '10 number will actually be 41 percent when that firm gets itself -- when we finish its paperwork. But we didn't want to put it forward without the paperwork done yet.

Well, we thank you for that, and we encourage you to, whenever possible, to continue to engage not only minority and women firms, but Philly-based firms. That's important to us. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No response.)

There being none, you may be excused.

Thank you. I think I'm staying for the next one. 152 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. MR. McPHERSON: The next department is the Zoning Code Commission.

I'm sorry. I'm getting rid of everybody. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Councilwoman, other Councilmembers. My name is Eva Gladstein and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today as Executive Director of the Zoning Code Commission and to present its Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Alan Greenberger is next to me, and he serves as Chair of the Zoning Code Commission, and I'd also like to recognize that we have excellent participation directly on the Commission from Councilmembers Clarke, DiCicco, Green and O'Neill and they provide a great service to the Commission and its work. The Zoning Code Commission's 153 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. proposed Operating Budget of 500,000 is comprised entirely of a General Fund request - 150,000 for staff salaries, 330,000 for purchase of services and 20,000 for materials and supplies. As you know, the Zoning Code Commission was created as a result of a Home Rule Charter change approved by the electorate in May 2007. Initial appointments to the 31-member body were made in August 2007. The authorizing legislation directs the Commission to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the Zoning Code and specifies some of the elements of that analysis. It also directs the Commission to make recommendations to City Council concerning proposed changes to the Zoning Code before the end of Fiscal Year 2008. In 2008, City Council granted a two-year extension of this deadline to June 2010. Later in this Council session we will return with a request to extend this deadline. 154 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. The authorizing legislation set forth goals for the reform of the Zoning Code as follows: Philadelphia Zoning Code should be consistent and easy to understand, should help shape future construction and development, and should enhance and improve Philadelphia's development approval process while encouraging positive development and protecting the character of Philadelphia's neighborhoods. In July 2008, the Commission contracted with a team led by nationally recognized consultants, Clarion Associates and Duncan Associates, to participate in the first phase of the work. The team also includes the participation of a number of local firms, including CH Planning, Claflen Associates, Portfolio Associates, and Wallace Roberts and Todd. The ZCC issued an RFP in April 2009 and selected the same team for its second phase of work. Our work is well underway, and 155 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. we expect to be able to deliver a proposed new Zoning Code for City Council's consideration in the fall of 2010. We've published a number of documents, including an Assessment of the Existing Code, Best Practices Report, Detailed Recommendations for a New Zoning Code, Module on Administration and Procedures, and as of this morning, we released the draft of Module on Districts and Uses. This work has been informed by an extensive civic engagement process, which many of you have participated in. It has included two public hearings in City Council Chambers, community-based 18 meetings attended by 800 residents, interviews with 125 professional code users and a web-based survey that has been completed by 1,600 individuals. We also have a robust website and have made presentations to a number of interest groups. We're planning another round of civic engagement activities that will 156 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. begin later this month, in which we will seek feedback on the second module on Districts and Uses and yet another round accompanying the release of Module 3 on Development Standards in July of this year. Supplementing these activities, we've also been an active participant over the last year in the integrated planning and zoning process that Alan spoke about in his testimony. We've been weaving together the comprehensive planning and Zoning Code initiatives, and this has been the inspiration behind the creation of the Citizens Planning Institute, an ongoing educational arm of the Planning Commission.

In 2011, in addition to providing the proposed Zoning Code to City Council for its consideration, we'll help develop and implement a training program on the new Zoning Code for City staff and other code users and publish a Zoning Administrative Manual that will 157 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. accompany the new Zoning Code. The Zoning Code Commission is committed to supporting the Administration's goal of percent 6 minority, woman and disabled-owned 7 business participation in City 8 contracting. In support of those goals, 9 the Commission currently has one 10 professional services agreement in the 11 amount of $330,000 and some change, of 12 which 17 percent has been subcontracted 13 to minority business enterprise and 11 14 percent with a woman business enterprise, 15 both local firms. And that exceeds the 16 ranges that were set for this contract. 17 This contract extends through August 18 31st, 2010, and based upon the available 19 contracting opportunities for Fiscal Year 20 '11, we anticipate being able to meet the 21 same goal. 22 This concludes my testimony. 23 Again, I appreciate the opportunity to 24 appear before you today and would be 25 pleased to answer any questions you may 158 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. have. And, again, I'd just like to express my appreciation for the assistance that members of Council have been giving to us as we try to lead a very complex, complicated process and make sure that we hear all voices and can consider them and have their input, and members of Council have been critical to that process up until now and I know will be as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and we thank you for the work that you're doing. When we first, I guess, passed the resolution or ordinance 17 to establish the Zoning Commission, it was going to be done in six months. I said, Oh, I don't think so. So here we are how many years later, three, going on four. That's fine. It's better to not act in haste and repent in leisure. So we'll see what the end product will be. Hopefully it will be better for the City of Philadelphia in terms of this whole 159 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. zoning issue. Councilwoman Jones -- Councilman Jones.

That's all right.

I'm sorry.

Thank you. I want to thank you. We are getting in a habit of thanking Commissioners this year, and you are one of them. I absolutely have been involved in economic development for most of my professional career, and just the notion of predictability for developers, that you can go from a book that is maybe this thick to the possibility of it being something in a Reader's Digest understandable fashion is like night and day by way of the ability to attract developers. Now, we disagree on the role of the District Councilperson in that process a little bit, but it's been my experience with you that it's going on 160 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. just fine. We have not gotten everything we wanted. We have gotten a lot of what we wanted, and at the end of the day, I think we always got or are able to achieve a good product, particularly around the reclassifications by way of increasing density, which is something that urban areas need in order for old parcels to be marketed better and more profitable to developers, particularly in a recession. I am optimistic about your vision about transit-oriented development and what it will mean to the future of this city. I'd like to wrestle with where those things are a little more. Although I respect the location of 46th and Market in the Third District, my argument always is that the first thing you see when you come into the City of Philadelphia is 63rd Street, which is the gateway of the City. But in general, I am pleased and optimistic about your level of work. Recently Lancaster Avenue 161 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. was the beneficiary of that, soon to be Hunting Park, where I believe that even in a recession the development of fire stimulus is about to happen. What I'd like to get a little more clarity about is where the transit-oriented development strategy is heading and what some of the early signs or successes have been.

If I might answer that. That's a good question, and here's what we're going to do: Through this Healthy Cities Initiative that the Health Department has organized, one of the aspects of that is increasing the walkability of the City. We do pretty well right now, but we can do a lot better. And the person that we just retained through that grant, one of his critical jobs is going to be to look at every single transit node in the City, map them and also start to categorize them relative to the kind of use pattern certainly, the sheer numbers, but also 162 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the potential, so that we can start to understand what sort of, I'll use the term, transit-oriented development guidelines ought to be applied, since you would not apply the same one for every single category. So to pick an example, Broad and Erie is a very big transit node, has a lot of commercial activity around it already. The kind of density and design controls we would put on that would be very different than the Stenton R-7 station in my part of East Mount Airy where there's no commercial activity and it's purely a walk to your house kind of operation. So we're going to do that. We'll categorize them, and we'll be happy to share them with you and actually seek your opinion on do you think we have this right. Then we'll figure out which controls belong where.

And I think --

I think 163 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that's going to result in rezonings.

I think the communications process is key, particularly with the District Councilpeople, who had their kind of feet on the ground, boots on the ground, if you would. We also understand -- like you have information, we have sources of information and have a better indication sometimes of interest that has been piqued by people in particular areas. So if you know where peanut butter is and we know where jelly is, if we get together, we just may make a sandwich. And the idea there is that one begets the other. When we make a capital investment in a rec center, seemingly unrelated, but when we put in a walking track, or in the case of the 7th District, Astroturf, it creates a viability for a neighborhood that is synergistic. So if we work together on how we can apply these things, if you know 164 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that there's a senior center about to happen there, then me putting a skate park in the rec center doesn't quite make sense, but a walking track does. So that kind of working together and communication is key. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. Thank you. Are there any other questions? (No response.)

There being none, thank you very much. No, we have someone else, right? MR. McPHERSON: The Historical Commission.

Thank you. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good afternoon. Would you state your name for the record, please, and begin with your testimony. 165 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.

Good afternoon. My name is John Farnham. I am the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. I present for your review and consideration the Historical Commission's Operating Budget request in the amount of $403,942 for Fiscal Year 2011. The request includes $385,995 in Class 100 employee compensation, $11,906 for Class 200 services, $4,181 in Class 300 materials and supplies, and $1,860 for Class 400 equipment expenditures. 2 percent, less than the original appropriation for Fiscal Year 2010. The number of approved staff positions, all of which are filled, remains at six. Created by City Council ordinance in 1955 and reorganized in 1985 under Section 14-2007 of The Philadelphia Code, the Historical Commission is responsible for ensuring the preservation of historically significant buildings, 166 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. structures, sites, objects, interiors and districts in the City. The Commission identifies and designates historic resources, listing them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, and it regulates preservation through the City's building and other permitting processes. With its federal certification, the Historical Commission performs federally mandated environmental clearance and historic preservation reviews for public and quasi-public municipal agencies. During all of its reviews, both local and federal, the Historical Commission balances historic preservation with the economic development as it safeguards the City's unique heritage and wealth of cultural resources, fosters civic pride, promotes healthy and sustainability communities, enhances property values, provides educational opportunities, and attracts new residents, businesses and tourists. Under Section 14-2007, the 167 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Commission has designated 21,178 properties as historic, many of which are located within the Commission's 5 historic districts. Additionally, the 6 Commission regulates 469 properties in 7 Manayunk under Chapter 7 of the Property 8 Maintenance Code. To protect historic 9 resources, the Commission reviews 10 building and other permit applications, 11 ensuring that work proposed satisfies 12 preservation standards. In Calendar Year 2009, the Commission approved 1,102 applications. It also conducted ten reviews for the Historic Home Repair Program, a City-funded program, which provides preservation grants to low and moderate-income homeowners. During the year, the Commission designated two historic districts with 320 properties total, seven individual sites and rescinded the designation of one site. Under a programmatic agreement with the state and federal governments, the Commission conducts reviews, commonly 168 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. called Section 106 reviews, for programs funded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development through the local office of Housing and Community Development and other agencies. Performing this task, the Commission conserves City resources, conducting reviews at the municipal, not the state or federal, level and obviating the need for expensive consultants. In 2009, the Commission conducted 2,492 federally mandated eligibility determinations and 245 work plan reviews for projects undertaken by these agencies. These projects include rehabilitation of housing for elderly, disabled and low-income persons and adaptive reuse of commercial properties. In addition, the Commission advises City programs and agencies such as the Streets Department on state and federal historic preservation compliance. Finally, the Commission serves as a consulting party in all other federal historic 169 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. preservation reviews conducted in the City, and a recent example is the review of the proposed American Revolution Center.

The Commission also serves as a clearinghouse for information on history and preservation, providing technical assistance to property owners, developers and design professionals, and information on the history of Philadelphia and its built environment to cultural resources, management professionals, educators, students and the public. In 2009, the Commission serviced 290 walk-in research requests and numerous other telephone, e-mail and mail requests. The Commission is committed to supporting Administration's goal of 20 percent minority, women and disable-owned 21 business participation in City 22 contracting. The Commission anticipates 23 limited contracting opportunities for 24 very specialized consulting services in 25 Fiscal Year 2011. 170 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. In addition to the many accomplishments summarized above, the Commission completed or continued several important projects during 2009. First and foremost, the Commission developed regulations, processes and forms to implement the new authority conferred by this Council to designate publicly accessible interiors. The Commission looks forward to designating its first interior later this year. In response to numerous constituent requests, the Commission restarted its long-dormant historic district program and designated two historic districts, Tudor East Falls and Parkside, during 2009. The Commission will consider a third, the Awbury Arboretum historic district, in Germantown shortly. The Commission plans to process additional district nominations in 2010 and '11, but before considering any district designation, the Commission will meet with community 171 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. leaders and other interested parties to ensure that its designation plans coincide with the plans of the community. The Commission completed a series of projects to increase efficiency and effectiveness and improve customer service. The Commission entirely rewrote its rules and regulations, making them easier to use, eliminating unnecessary reviews, reducing review times and costs for many types of applications, and promoting the use of green technologies, energy-efficient replacement elements and low-maintenance materials without degrading historic appearances. The Commission is also improving its efficiency and customer service as a partner in the reform of the City's development review process. In addition, the Commission is working closely with the Zoning Code Commission to ensure that the historic preservation ordinance, which is located in Title 14, is successfully integrated into the new 172 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Zoning Code. Completing a two-year project, the Commission verified all addresses on the Philadelphia Register as compliant with official City addresses -- to ensure that all addresses are compliant with official City addresses. To ensure continued compliance, the Commission developed an automated system to periodically compare those addresses with City tax records. The accuracy of these address which are listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places is essential to the Commission's business and also to the interested property owners and potential property owners, buyers. The Commission is providing this data now to the Department of Licenses and Inspections and to the public through the Board of Revision of Taxes' website and TREND, the region's real estate industry's Multiple Listing Service. Also with funding from a non-profit, the Commission will shortly send letters to 173 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. every owner of a historically designated property reminding those owners of their responsibilities under the preservation ordinance, thereby educating property owners and reducing unnecessary legalization and enforcement actions.

The Commission created the content for a new website during the past year to provide more and better information to the public in a timely manner and is working with the Division of Technology to implement the website, which will replace its current inadequate website and integrate with the City's Business Services Center. The Commission digitized 41,251 essential documents to enhance office efficiency, ensure their preservation and provide more and better information to property owners and the public. Finally, and importantly, the Commission is making great progress in its privately funded, multi-million-dollar, public-private 174 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. partnership with the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia to develop a comprehensive historic preservation plan for Philadelphia. The plan, which will include a citywide survey of historic resources and a broad framework for evaluating and interpreting those resources, will allow the Commission to plan and designate strategically for the first time in its 50-year history. Thank you, members of Council, for your attention, and I'm happy to address any questions that you may have.

A couple of questions I have. Would you explain what the -- in Paragraph 3 where you say the Commission regulates the preservation of 469 properties in the Manayunk area under Chapter 7. Explain that, please.

Yes. Prior to 1985 when the current historic preservation ordinance went into effect, the Historical Commission did not have 175 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the authority under the earlier ordinance 3 to create historic districts. It only had the authority to designate individual sites. There was a movement in the early 1980s to create an historic district within the Main Street Manayunk area, but the Historical Commission did not have the legal authority to do that. Therefore, City Council itself, through an amendment to the Property Maintenance Code, created that historic district and authorized the Philadelphia Historical Commission to regulate that district. And that idiosyncratic piece of legislation survives today and we still operate under it, regulating properties in Manayunk, much as we do under the standard preservation ordinance, but with a slightly different authority.

Okay. And one other question. You're $9,178 less in your budget. What did you cut?

That money was 176 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. transferred to the Division of Technology as part of the IT consolidation that the City is undergoing. So that will cover IT services that the Commission currently paid for out of its budget through the Division of Technology budget.

So instead of you doing your own technology, it pays for the services of IT?

Yes.

I think my last question is, you talk about providing technical assistance to property owners, developers and design professionals. Do you charge a fee for that?

No. Currently, the Historical Commission charges no 20 fees. The service is provided to owners of historic properties.

What would be the height of your technical assistance?

Typically we 177 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. receive inquiries from owners of properties, both designated as historic and not designated as historic, but older, people looking for information about, for example, how to replace an historic roof, the best ways to treat historic masonry facades, how to replace brick or point brick. We provide those services. We have a staff of four preservation planners. They all have degrees in Historic Preservation Planning and are really experts in maintaining older buildings, and they provide those services to Philadelphians.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Farnham. Just briefly could you kind of explain how a district gets established and how it's designated.

Historic 178 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. district?

Historic district, yes.

Certainly. Currently and for, I would say, the last ten years or so, the Historical Commission has acted reactively in that it has not initiated the designations of historic districts, but has actually reacted to requests from communities, typically from community groups or other interested groups in preservation. The Historical Commission typically works with community groups, community activists who are interested in seeing their neighborhoods preserved, helps them prepare the documentation that's necessary for submission to the Historical Commission, often works with third parties; for example, the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, which has the funding to assist community groups, to prepare the documentation that's necessary, and once 179 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that documentation is prepared, describing the boundary of the district, the different important historic resources within that district and explaining how one or more of the ten designation criteria that are laid out in the historic preservation ordinance are satisfied by the historic district. Once that documentation is complete, it is reviewed by the staff of the Historical Commission. Once the staff determines that it's complete, it's forwarded to an advisory committee, the Committee on Historic Designation, which reviews it, and then from there, with the recommendation from the Committee to the Commission. Now, before any public meetings take place to review a nomination, the Commission is bound by law and does provide notice to all property owners within the potential historic district at least 60 days in advance of any meeting, and it provides that notice through 180 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. newspaper advertisements, two letters, one to the property owner as his or her address is listed by the Board of Revision of Taxes and one to the property itself, and then finally signs, one per block in the district.

Okay.

And then the Commission reviews the nomination and determines whether or not the case has been made that it meets one or more of the ten designation criteria laid out in the ordinance.

You answered what was going to be another question, but I'm glad you did, about the notification of all property owners. So they all know or the best attempt is made to tell them that this is being planned?

Yes. Yes.

Because every once in a while, you'll you get people to say, I didn't know. So I just wanted to see how they're informed. 181 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.

Absolutely. The notification requirements are laid out very precisely in the ordinance, and we use those three methods, signs, newspaper advertisements and then the letters. And I think the letters are the most effective.

Okay. And the last question, the Historic Home Repair Program, how do people know about that? Is that somehow advertised? I know you say you're sending things out this year to all designated properties.

The Historic Home Repair Program is in part funded by the City and in part by private non-profit, and it is administered by the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia through a contract with the Office of Housing and Community Development, and part of that contract with OHCD stipulates that the Preservation Alliance has an obligation to advertise this program. So the 182 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Preservation Alliance advertises it in numerous ways, and I think the most effective way was that it sent out literally tens of thousands of letters to potential historic property owners, property owners who reside both in locally designated historic districts and also are eligible if they reside in nationally designated historic districts.

Do you have any idea how much money, particularly City money, we spend on that last time?

I don't have the numbers before me. I could get that for you, but --

If you could. Great.

I certainly will do that.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair 183 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. recognizes Councilman Jones.

Thank you. I only have a few questions. Your testimony was enlightening as to the process, but generally when there's a historically certified home on a block, what does it do to property values one way or the other? Does it impact it at all?

We believe that it does, and this is a question that has been asked of the historic preservation community with great frequency, to the point where we felt like we really -- about two years ago, we needed to find the answer for ourselves, and we contracted with Econsult. Actually, we had the Preservation Alliance contract with Econsult. It wasn't City money that paid for the study. But Econsult did a study looking back over about 20 years at every arm's length property sale within the City of Philadelphia and looking at whether or not that property is 184 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. designated locally or designated through the National Register of Historic Places, and determined that across the board, across the City, property values rose slightly faster within a designated area. So there's a slight advantage to property owners who own designated properties in that their property values rose slightly more than comparable properties very near to those but outside of historically designated areas. Another interesting fact that the reviewers at Econsult discovered was that property values were also much more stable within historic districts. They didn't see the radical swing, so the radical gains but also the radical losses that some other neighborhoods had seen. So I think in general, the study proved what we all in the profession believed, that in fact designation stabilizes and protects property values.

Could you 185 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. speak to the myth that to become historically certified -- I gave a hint, myth -- that once you're historically certified, it costs more to renovate your home. And what safeguards, grants, provisions are there to offset original architect material, designs and purchases.

Absolutely. Philadelphia is a very diverse city with a very diverse stock of historic buildings, and we are very sensitive to the fact that it can be expensive, whether designated or not -- I live in an old house not designated -- can be expensive to maintain. Our goal is not to add any cost to the maintenance of an historic building, and we work very hard with property owners to find ways to maintain the historic appearance, and generally that's what we're trying to do. Property values, neighborhood stability I think depends on the maintenance and the 186 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. restoration of the historic appearance. We find ways to help property owners maintain the historic appearances of their properties without increasing cost. We've heard this myth many times and are very sensitive to it, and the Historical Commission took a step over the last months or so to actually 10 go back and revise its rules and 11 regulations to make it easier for the 12 Historical Commission to allow, say, a 13 wider range of products; for example, 14 windows and doors and roofing material 15 and masonry repair material, allow a 16 wider range that would protect that 17 historic appearance, but not necessarily 18 cost as much as it may have cost during an earlier review. So I think we're at the point where we can say that we're working very hard not to add cost and we hope we aren't adding cost, and we don't think we are. So we asked someone to study it once, and the conclusion was it was 187 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. really a very difficult thing to put a number on. In terms of safeguards, the historic preservation ordinance includes within it -- and this is really what makes the ordinance constitutional -- a safeguard, a pressure valve, let's say, that allows the Historical Commission to approve applications that don't necessarily meet historic preservation standards in cases of financial hardship, and there are a couple of different types of financial hardship, but one related to the property. There are some properties that simply can't be profitably rehabilitated, and the Commission understands that and takes that into account. But then there are properties that are owned by people of low and moderate means, and the Historical Commission has within its rules and regulations the capacity to allow for work that does not meet the standards if enforcing the standards would in any way 188 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. be a hardship on the property owner. And I think the process works very well. The good news is, we don't see applications of that type very often, because I think we work on the front end very hard to find ways to help people maintain their properties without putting hardships on them.

Finally, is there a problem when you try to restorate historical properties and also achieve greening? Have they come into conflict with one another?

I've read a few articles here and there that there is a potential conflict between preservation and green, but I really -- I have not seen that, and I think in fact -- and I've heard people also say that, and I've said it myself, that historic preservation is a very sustainable practice, it is a very green practice, because we're not removing a building and putting it in a landfill and building a 189 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. new building, but we're reusing what we have. It's essentially recycling. And as I noted earlier, the Historical Commission amended its rules and regulations, and one thing that it did was, it amended them to allow for the introduction of green technologies, alternative energy technologies into buildings. The Historical Commission approved a project in Society Hill recently that really is a showcase of green technology. So I think there are ways and we're working to find ways. We've actually had a consultant in from Washington who came in pro bono and gave all of the Commission members a day-long seminar on ways in which historic preservation and green technologies can be integrated. I think we're moving in that direction, and we made some big strides and we're going to continue to work in that direction, because it's the future for historic preservation. 190 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No response.)

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: The next department is the District Attorney. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Madam President. How are you?

Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam President. My name is Seth Williams, and I have the good fortune of being the District Attorney of 191 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the City of Philadelphia. First, I want to thank you for allowing me to change the date that I was to testify. Originally the date I believe was April the 24th, and as you know, I'm a member of the United States Army Reserves and I'll be away with my Army Reserve unit from the 21st of April until the 30th. So I'm very thankful for you accommodating my schedule. And before I begin my testimony, I am surrounded by many members of my tremendous staff. I would just for my own purposes like to introduce them to you. Sitting with me is Mr. Ed McCann, the Deputy of the Trial Division, and Mr. Greg Rowe, who is the Chief of our Legislation Unit. Also with me today is Mr. Joe McGettigan, who is the First Assistant; Ms. Sarah Hart, the Deputy of our Performance and Policy Division; Ms. Tasha Jameson, the Director of Communications; Mr. Brian Grady, who is 192 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the Deputy of our Special Operations Division; Mr. Curtis Douglas, the Deputy of our Investigations Division; Mr. Ron Eisenberg, the Deputy of our Law Division; Ms. Doreen Rooney, our Budget Analyst; Ms. Jessica Cohen-Nowak, a Performance and Policy Analyst; Mr. Will Stewart, a Law Clerk; Mr. Bob Petraglia, our Budget Director; Mr. Matt Braden, the Director of Administration; and Mr. Vernon Price, who I'm sure all you know, is currently our Director of Government and Community Relations.

We certainly welcome all of you. Welcome.

And, again, I have submitted my formal notes and remarks. I hope you will add them to the record.

Absolutely.

I will not read from them in their totality. I wish not to bore you, place all of you to sleep 193 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. right now, but I think you will find it very thorough, and hopefully it will address the questions and issues most pertinent and germane to the members of Council. I want to thank my staff for helping me prepare for today. Anything that I do that is right and good I would assert is a result of their hard work. Any mistakes that you may hear are the result of my own frailties. So, again, I'm very thankful to be here, and, again, good afternoon, Council President Verna and City Council members. This is my first budget hearing as District Attorney in Philadelphia. I am very appreciative to be here this afternoon. I think it's fitting and only fitting that my first visit as a District Attorney comes on my 100th day as a District Attorney, and I am very excited to discuss some of the improvements that we have already made to the District Attorney's Office, the impact those 194 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. changes will have on the criminal justice system, and to detail initiatives I would like to implement in order to further repair our system. Today, I will offer some ideas on how working together we can make targeted investments that will reduce crime and save millions of dollars. At the outset, I want to tell you that Philadelphia invests far less money in its District Attorney's Office than most other major municipalities invest in their respective DA's Offices. Attached to my written testimony is a chart that illustrates just how little we spend per capita in general revenue in the District Attorney's Office in Philadelphia. I'll explain how a relatively small investment for improvements to my office will begin almost immediately to pay dividends in improved justice delivery and cost savings. Being smarter on crime, what I 195 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. have accomplished in 100 days. I've already made a number of significant changes to the District Attorney's Office that will allow us to be smarter on crime and to make us -- and to allow us to make better use of our existing resources so we can target and prosecute violent criminals. Let me describe some of them to you. And I have attached as an amendment to my notes of testimony, my comments, a complete list of bullet 13 points that I believe are the most 14 significant accomplishments that we have 15 made in the first 100 days, but I'll just 16 address a few of them. 17 On my first day in office, I 18 revamped our Charging Unit. The Charging 19 Unit, of course, is where the District 20 Attorneys review all of the arrests made 21 by the Police and approve or decline 22 arrest warrants and search warrants. 23 Prior to January the 4th, many of the 24 attorneys that staff that unit, while 25 they were members of the Bar, had never 196 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. been trial attorneys, had never been in courtrooms. They were merely reviewing three paragraphs possibly sent to them by the Police Department to find what are all the possible charges in the universe that they could apply. It was my goal that if we're going to make real and substantive changes in the criminal justice system, I can't just ask you, members of City Council, or the Mayor or the Police Commissioner or the courts to make all the changes. I recognize that I have to get my own house in order, and that began with the Charging Unit and placing -- doubling the number of prosecutors that were there and taking attorneys that had a lot of trial experience and putting them there so they can review all the cases. I wanted to put people in our Charging Unit that had demonstrated good judgment, and that's what we've done. I think that will make significant changes in the types of cases that come into the system and will allow 197 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. our District Attorneys to have credibility when they're in court.

Because for far too many years, everyone perceived that the DA's Office approved everything and overcharged, which required the Municipal Court to review everything and to be a filter of what really should go forward. Well, I won't allow that. I'm not going to abdicate my responsibility to anyone else. We're going to only charge people what we believe they should be charged with and only charge people that should be charged with criminal charges. So we began that on Day 1. I also created a new Performance and Policy Division to, among other things, create performance measures to track and improve the Office's performance and increase the conviction rate. We need to know what works and what doesn't and what we are doing right and wrong. When I sit before you next year, I will be able to not just 198 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. anecdotally tell you that we are doing this better or we're doing this or that or we need to change this thing, but when Councilman Greenlee asks me a question, I could actually put to charts and numbers to show you how the changes in charging have affected the criminal justice system or how this investment you have made has allowed us to reduce the prison population. So we'll no longer be just smoke and mirrors and me winking at people, but we will actually be able to use evidence-based, attrition analysis, numbers, things that people like Councilman Goode did much better than I did in math class at Central High School, can actually look at the numbers and analyze them and realize what we're doing and how, which policies and programs need to be continued, magnified and which ones possibly need to be eliminated. I've begun the implementation of the Back on Track program, which is a recidivism-reducing alternative to 199 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. incarceration. Back on Track is a comprehensive employment and education reentry program that provides jobs training, education and other important life skills as an alternative to incarceration. It works in San Francisco, where it started. It will work here. I've begun working closely with public-private ventures and the Lenfest Foundation to replicate this program in Philadelphia. So those of you who may not be aware of this program, it's a tremendous program that works very well in San Francisco. In Philadelphia and in Pennsylvania, we have, as you know, mandatory minimums for people who sell crack cocaine, and we send about 200 people to State prison that have either no prior record or records that are less -- prior records that -- they're non-violent people. These are people who go to State prison at a cost of about $40,000 a year per person. They return 200 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. as convicted felons, which in many ways is an economic death sentence, prohibiting them from any future hope of employment, and many of them return home as violent people. The Back on Track program is an alternative to that. It will give them hope. It will reduce the amount of money that we're spending on the prison system, and has a recidivism rate much lower than that we have now. In San Francisco, the Back on Track program costs about $5,000 per person per year. They receive the drug and alcohol treatment that they need. They get the literacy skills, trainings that they need. They'll do community service, and, most importantly, they'll learn a real skill, to be a carpenter's assistant, an auto mechanic, work in the hospitality industry, some real job here in the economy of Philadelphia. And if they successfully complete the program, they have no record. 201 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Five percent of the people in this program in San Francisco failed by getting rearrested. In Philadelphia, 73 percent of the people that come out on probation or parole get rearrested in one or two years. So what we're doing now currently does not work.

The Back on Track program I think is a way that we can reduce recidivism, reduce the amount of money we're paying on prisons and will help us be smart on crime. Helping to reform our court system, I began to address the enormous problems in our criminal justice system highlighted by the Philadelphia Inquirer in December, the day I took office, by assisting Chief Justice Ron Castille and Justice McCaffery of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who have both demonstrated enormous leadership and knowledge in addressing the systemic problems in our court system. Working together and with input from the Defense Bar, we've already made great progress, and the Supreme 202 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Court has instituted new rules that will ensure that cases are heard and victims have their day in court. Diverting low-risk non-violent drug processors: In order to move thousands of non-violent cases out of our main court system, I am creating a proactive pretrial diversion program where those who possess less than 30 grams of marijuana, which amounts to about 3,000 out of the criminal cases in our system every year -- we are not de-criminalizing marijuana. Firstly, everyone arrested and convicted for possession of small amounts of marijuana will receive the same kind of sentence they would have in the past, just more rapidly and efficiently and with a guarantee of a drug education component. So this is something that's not happening right now. We have about 75,000 cases every year in our criminal justice system. About ten percent are cases in 203 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. which the lead charge is the possession of marijuana. About 7,500 cases. Of those 7,500, about 3,000 of them the defendants possess such a small amount that by statute is referred to a di minimis amount, less than 30 grams. And operationally now those cases that do go to conviction, the judges are giving about three months of non-reporting probation. It's a total waste of our City's money, in that we are arresting these people, they're being photographed, we're sending all of the discovery to the defense attorneys, all the paperwork, all the copies are being made. Police are coming to court over and over and over, standing in the Criminal Justice Center for hours when they could be out protecting our City streets and our loved ones. We're spending thousands of dollars for cases in which people possess about $5 or $10 worth of marijuana. So I believe this is an example of being smart on crime, something we've 204 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. implemented -- we'll hope to implement by the end of this month or the middle of May. I think just that act alone will be able to save us between anywhere from $300,000 to $600,000 based on just the overtime reduction to the Police Department. Investing in the District Attorney's Office to improve public safety and save taxpayers' dollars: I am appreciative to Mayor Nutter for recognizing an enormous amount of work that we need to do in order to make Philadelphia safer by providing even a modest budgetary increase. The budget proposed is much better than a reduction, so I'll start with that. I'm very thankful for the Mayor and his staff and Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison for identifying that we need more. However, I cannot accomplish what I have set out to do to improve my office, make Philadelphia safer, save Philadelphia money and bring us more in line with the 205 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. investments other big cities make with their District Attorney's Offices with the Mayor's budget recommendation. I am asking you today to allow me to make two targeted investments. 5 million and possibly close to six million. That's a win-win. Improved public safety, savings for our taxpayers. I would like to begin a proactive diversionary program where we identify cases that should be diverted and pled out before trial.

This investment will allow us to get more offenders to plead guilty more quickly, identify the highest risk offenders whom you must concentrate on locking up for a long time, get many of our police out of the courtroom earning overtime pay and back patrolling our streets, and identifying those for whom intermediate punishment and other diversionary 206 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. programs are most appropriate. This proposal is evidence based. In San Diego, defendants enter guilty pleas in felony cases in about 75 percent of all the crimes before preliminary hearings. Think of the cost that we would save Philadelphia if 75 percent of our criminal cases resulted in guilty pleas without police, without victims having to go to preliminary hearings. It's enormous. It will not be easy. My office's present system of maintaining and updating and transferring case files is antiquated. We do not exchange discovery electronically. We spend a large amount of time tracking down paper files. The technological revolution seems to have passed over the District Attorney's Office. If we could automate our system so that we could spend more staff time reviewing cases and trying to resolve them earlier in the process rather than hunting down file after file 207 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. after file, we will save money in the long run and achieve better results. I also need to begin planning for community courts, which Councilman Jones and I have spoken about many times and have visited many sites that could be appropriate across the City. Community courts will allow us to dispose of a large number of cases even more efficiently, as well as help offenders receive treatment, counseling and other critical services in the neighborhoods where they live. In order to reap the enormous cost savings and improved efficiencies of such a plan, we would need an investment of approximately $1,015,000 to cover additional personnel, implementation of electronic discovery, creation of an offender risk instrument and planning and feasibility grant for community courts. This investment will save us money. It will reduce prison costs, permit the closing of the Cannery and reduce money 208 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. spent on police overtime. 6 million in savings. That means for investing a million dollars, the City will save about five million. When I spoke of the Back on Track program, once we create that, it will cost us about a million dollars a year to do the Back on Track program. That's $5,000 a year for approximately 200 defendants. Currently, we're spending on those 200 defendants $8 million incarcerating them, so that would be a savings of $7 million. I ask that you allow us to relocate as many as -- I'm sorry. I'm also asking that you invest in expanding and enhancing our witness relocation program and allow us to go after the thugs that intimidate witnesses. Witness intimidation affects every homicide case and is now affecting other violent cases as well. It strikes at the heart of prosecution and the very core of our 209 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. justice system. I ask that you allow us to relocate as many as an additional 4 families by providing $400,000 in witness 5 relocation money to supplement the 6 approximately 600,000 we get from the 7 State. 8 I also ask that you allow me to 9 aggressively prosecute those who commit 10 acts of witness intimidation by allowing 11 me to dedicate three prosecutors and two 12 detectives to go after those who 13 intimidate our victims and witnesses. 14 Currently, we only have about 20 15 prosecution for witness intimidation per 16 year, and that's because we basically 17 pick the lowest hanging fruit. By 18 increasing the number of detectives and 19 investigators that we would have and 20 prosecutors, we'd be able to investigate more cases. Because it's much more than just prosecuting an auto theft case.

It requires often the review of cell phone records and doing all types of things, a little more complicated. So we believe 210 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that we will have more of this investment and send a strong, clear message that those who intimidate will be caught and prosecuted. We will protect our witnesses. To fund this investment, we would need to spend $400,000 to cover the cost of three prosecutors and two detectives. Again, Council President Verna and members of Council, I thank you for your attention. I believe that I'm attempting to really create a real partnership with Council. I was astonished after I invited you to our office and I was very proud that 16 of the 17 members of Council came to meet with me and my senior leadership. I was surprised when I was told by so many of you you had never been invited to the District Attorney's Office before. I was surprised -- I invited the Mayor and the Police Commissioner to address all of the Assistant District Attorneys. Both of them shocked me when 211 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. they told me that they had never been inside the District Attorney's Office before. That's unacceptable to me. I think we have to create a real partnership. All of us have the same constituency, Philadelphians, who want to make sure that they, their families can be safe and our city can be a safer place to live, work and play. So at this time, I just ask if I could submit the statement that I presented you with, and I make myself available to any question that you may have or that my staff may assist me in answering.

Thank you. And I totally concur with you that we certainly have to work together, and I think for years, I guess I preached the same song how all of the law enforcement agencies should be working together, and I don't think that happened until rather recently when CJAB actually came out with 212 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. a report, and it was amazing to learn -- we have been also talking about the detainees at the Prison System and how wonderful it was to hear that they have indeed worked something out where the detainees issue was addressed. You have indicated that there is a need -- a need, not a wish, but a need -- for an additional $1,815,000 in your budget. Have you discussed this with the Administration?

Well, I briefly discussed or made the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety aware yesterday briefly and sent him a copy of these notes this morning as well. It's something that I believe we'll have to, of course, have further discussion. But as a result of discussions with many members of Council and being prepared to answer questions and to know that you would be asking me what would you do to make the City safer if we had more money, I had to think of every 213 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. possible option, and in so doing, I recognize that the District Attorney's Office in many ways serves as the fulcrum point for the criminal justice system. You have seen a tremendous reduction of individuals that are incarcerated on State Road in our county prisons. That wouldn't occur without the District Attorney's Office. We have seen tremendous and just since January the 4th -- and Mr. McCann has been working very closely with Chief Inspector Flacco of the Police Department. Commissioner Ramsey sent him over and other Deputy Commissioners to talk about how we can reduce police overtime, and we're making tremendous progress, and they have already realized significant savings in police overtime. Well, we can help. I mean, it all starts with the DA's Office in the Charging Unit. We're going to see real changes. The pretrial diversionary program that I talk about, if we can have 214 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. more DAs spend just a little bit more time evaluating the cases earlier and then making reasonable offers to defense counsel earlier, putting defendants in programs that they need earlier so they can get the help that they need so they don't become repeat offenders, it will have tremendous savings on us, from police overtime, overcrowding in the prisons and all the lawsuits that have historically affected us because of that. So, yes, we're asking for that increase. Part of it is for, as I stated -- and we're getting a lot of help right now free. I'm going everywhere hat in hand, trying to get people to help us so that we can make the system safer. I've been to DC on several occasions. I've visited with the Director of the National Institute of Justice, people at the Bureau for Justice Assistance, people at the Center for Innovations of Courts. I might have that name wrong. It might be the Center for Court Innovation. But 215 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. they have them coming to give us technical assistance as we move towards community-based prosecution, community justice centers in different neighborhoods, to provide technical assistance. But also we need help. The courts are moving towards a paperless system. Well, that's fine for the courts, but it would be helpful if the District Attorney could do the same, because we have to send the discovery. I brought with me some props, as you noticed. I have a box of files that the average Assistant District Attorney takes with him or her to court when they go. And these are the same files -- I went to court -- I was sworn in on January the 4th, and I went to court on January the 6th so I can show the young ADAs that work for me that I'm not going to ask them to do anything that I won't do myself and so that I can see again the files. And the files are 216 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. exactly the same as when I started September the 8th of 1992. Mark Gillison, I've appointed him the Chief of our Major Trials Unit. His father was a prosecutor. The files are exactly the same. The paperwork is almost identical to what it was when he was a DA. He could come back right now and go to court and everything is exactly the same. The DAs have to mark on the files everything that happened. They have to mark on the run sheet -- it's a piece of paper that they get -- everything that happened. The police have electronic discovery. They send us information via e-mail. We then have to print it out. We have time-intensive paralegals that get black markers.

I don't know if they get them from Staples or where, and they just cross out the information about the victims, their phone numbers and where they live. We then make copies and send that to the Defense Bar. Well, in many other jurisdictions, I would say almost 217 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. in most other jurisdictions, they do that electronically. There's no paper. It saves times and saves the resources of our local government, and I think an investment, a minimal investment, about $325,000 to allow us to get the hardware and the software to do that would be a tremendous savings for the City long term. I understand I believe that the Department of Technology recently got a $25 million improvement. I think out of the whole looking at the City giving us just 325-some-thousand dollars to do what I think we could do to improve our technology would have a tremendous windfall for the City in the long term.

Those files look exactly as they did --

When you worked there.

-- when I worked there many, many moons ago. What would your priority be as 218 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. far as funding?

Well, I think us being smart on crime. And being smart on crime doesn't mean being soft on criminals. It means recognizing that we have to treat violent criminals differently than we have to treat people that are non-violent knuckleheads, and we try to help the non-violent knuckleheads as best as possible, like we're trying to do with the 3,000 marijuana cases, to get them through the system, so that we can use those resources for those people that are truly violent. I think that we need to do all that we can to target those that are intimidating witnesses. That really strikes to the core of our criminal justice system. We have a culture in Philadelphia that many of you have spoken to me about, and when I go out -- we've had four town hall meetings in the 100 days that I've been the DA. I've gone to many of your ward meetings and your 219 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. community meetings. People talk about this no-snitch culture that we have in Philadelphia and people being afraid. We had members of your office came over to our office, and they talk about their constituents, how afraid they are to be involved. Well, I tell everyone when I go out, I ask people how many of them have watched the TV show Law and Order. Everybody puts their hand up. I talk about how the first 30 minutes of that is what the police do, and everybody understands what the police do, but the second half of that show is what happens with the prosecutors, what happens in the court, and we have to have our witnesses and we have to protect them, and we have to do a better job. So, of course, one of my priorities of that would be to better protect witnesses, to relocate those that need relocation, to prosecute those defendants, those thugs, that have intimidated our witnesses and to make a 220 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. quick statement. But a lot of what I'm saying is, we can no longer just talk tough on crime. We have to be smart on crime. And it's not the threat of a serious sentence. It's the severity. It's not the severity of the sentence that changes behavior. It's the certainty of punishment that changes behavior. And by us investing in this pretrial diversion system, we'll have more DAs reviewing the cases. We'll be able to move to a swifter and a more certain sense of justice. And that's something that I think we really have to do, and currently I just can't do it because we still have all those courtrooms to staff, and as a result of the reduction in the budget over the last several years, we have fewer staff members. I've taken a significant amount of the members of the Trial Division to put them into the Charging Unit, because I realize we had to do that, but to be 221 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. able to really staff appropriately a Case Assessment Bureau where they could assess these new cases and get them the appropriate offers and then staff the courtrooms for those pleas would take an investment in personnel.

What is the backlog in cases to be heard?

The backlog of cases? Well, I'm being advised by Mr. McCann there really isn't a backlog of cases.

It's not?

I think that in civil -- when I was a civil attorney, there are many cases that takes slower than some maybe the plaintiff or the defense wants to get to court, but in the criminal justice system, we have rules of speedy trial, and if the defendants do not get their trial in a speedy fashion, the case gets thrown out.

How 222 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. about when these cases are continued every time they're listed because, being very frank, I think that many of the attorneys go judge hunting? If they have more than one case that day, they're going to look for a judge who they think will be more lenient toward their clients.

Well, I don't disagree with you.

And we always had a backlog in the DA's Office. I can't believe there's not a backlog now.

Well, I think we might have been using different terms for what you're talking about now, and that I clearly recognize that there are a lot of games that go on at the preliminary hearing. And I stated earlier -- I didn't want to go too far in-depth, but the criminal justice system in Philadelphia in many ways has been broken. Fifty-nine percent of all the 223 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. felony cases in Philadelphia get dismissed for lack of prosecution at the preliminary hearing, because those hearings never go on, because for many reasons, either the victim isn't there or they show up and then the defense attorney asks for a continuance, and the victim, who maybe their car was stolen, they didn't choose to be a victim. They took off one day of work. Now they have to go back another time. Maybe their boss isn't going --

Well, let's go beyond the preliminary hearing. Okay?

Well, I was going to say --

They -- go ahead.

We have worked with Chief Justice Castille and Justice McCaffery and we have instituted -- they have instituted within these first 100 days new policies and procedures at 224 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. preliminary hearings that we believe will make it a more expedited process and one that is more just and fair to the victims. We'll be allowed to hear hearsay evidence more so now in preliminary hearings. Philadelphia has one of the highest fugitive rates, because a lot of the defendants just don't show up at the preliminary hearing. They know they can just go turn themself in a couple days later. And if the victim was there, that thwarts them and makes them frustrated. Well, now we're going to start putting more of those preliminary hearings on in the absence of the defendant. The law says we can and shall. It's just the practice has been that it wasn't taking place. The defense attorneys are going to have to say what their status is first at the preliminary hearing. Often they would wait to see if the DA was ready, and if the DA said they were ready 225 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. because the victim was there, they would say they weren't ready. Well, they've changed that now. The defense has to say that they're ready first. So these changes, I think, are going to make it better for our victims and witnesses. It will make it so that we don't have as much police overtime, police having to come to court and victims having to come to court over and over again.

I would ask you if you would follow that now, let's go beyond the preliminary hearing. What happens then?

Well, after the case --

A case is held for court.

A case is held for court, then there's a formal arraignment, then it goes to the Court of Common Pleas if it's a felony.

226 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Exactly. So how many cases that go before Common Pleas Court do we have a backlog of? I'm not talking about preliminary. I'm talking about cases where the preliminary hearing is behind the defendant. They now have to go before the judge in CP or MC. What kind of a backlog do we have? MR. McCANN: Madam President, there was roughly 16,000 cases disposed of in Common Pleas Court last year. So the beginning -- the beginning inventory at the beginning of the year was probably roughly that, maybe a little bit more than that. So if you're talking about cases that are getting carried over for more than one year, that's really the minority of the cases. Most of the cases are disposed of within roughly that year point of time, the felony cases. Homicide cases take longer. They take typically between 12 to 18 months to dispose of. So I would say typically on a case that's held for trial 227 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. in the Common Pleas Court, it would typically be disposed of in less than a year.

In less than a year? MR. McCANN: Yes, ma'am.

And, Madam President, the model that I would like to move to -- and after I won the Primary last May, I visited with the District Attorney in Brooklyn, I visited the DA in Montgomery County. Risa Ferman was very polite and showed me a lot of good stuff. I visited the DA in Dauphin County, Allegheny County. I went to San Diego and San Francisco. And in San Francisco, as I mentioned earlier, 75 percent of all their cases -- and San Diego is a jurisdiction larger than ours. There's three million people in San Diego County, 1.5 million in San Diego city proper. Seventy-five percent of their cases, as a result of them putting qualified, experienced prosecutors in 228 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. this Case Assessment Bureau, they result in 75 percent pled guilty before they would go to the Court of Common Pleas, where there is either a backlog or not a backlog, but they wouldn't be going there, saving the police and victims all that time and their resources and the court's and the DA's Office and the defender's. So that's the model I would like to move to, so that then we can -- the majority of the cases in our system are non-violent cases. People are selling drugs, stealing cars, breaking in commercial establishments, all things in which we need to address, but we have a very small percentage are the violent crimes, and those are the ones I think we need to focus on like a laser so that we can reduce the violent crimes in our city and really deal with those individuals that are committing those offenses. And by doing this, I think we will be able to move towards that model. 229 4/14/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.

I see you have a map there. I'm rather curious. Do you mind explaining what it is?

You know I love talking about that map.