COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE City Hall, Room 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE-RICHARDSON COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS HELEN LOUGHEAD, The Clerk P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. COUNCILMEMBERS: Good morning.
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing and public meeting of the committee of the whole regarding Bill Nos. 260199, 260200, 260201, 260202, 260203, 260204, 260205, 260206, 260208, 260209; and Resolution No. 14 260227. Ms. Loughead, would you please take roll?
Councilmember Jones? Councilmember Young? Councilmember Driscoll?
Present. I want to thank you, Ms. Loughead. This committee has a quorum and is officially called to order. Ms. Loughead, would you please read the title of the bills and resolution?
Bill No. 3 260199, an ordinance adopting the operating budget for Fiscal Year 2027. Bill No. 260200, an ordinance to adopt to Fiscal Year 2027 capital budget. Bill No. 260201, an ordinance to adopt a capital program for the six fiscal years, 2027 through 2032, inclusive. Bill No. 260202, an ordinance amending chapter 19-2400 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Hotel Room Rental Tax by providing for an additional excise tax on hotel room rentals, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260203, an ordinance amending sub code A, the Philadelphia Administrative Code of Title IV of the Philadelphia Code, Building Construction and Occupancy Code by adding and revising zoning board of adjustment fees and provisions regarding hearing scheduling, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260204, an ordinance amending Title III of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Air Management Code to modify the amounts with a license and permit fees, under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260205, an ordinance amending section 19-1806 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Authorization of Realty Use and Occupancy Tax to clarify the imposition of the tax on the use or occupancy of real estate with respect to cell towers, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260206, an ordinance amending chapter 6-600 of the Philadelphia Code, Asbestos by adding and revising provisions related to various fees, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260208, an ordinance amending chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled School Tax Authorization to add a new section 19-1808, entitled Authorization of Rideshare Use Tax to authorize the Board of the School District of Philadelphia to levy a tax upon the use by passenger of a transportation network company for a prearranged ride that originates in Philadelphia, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260209, an ordinance amending Title of the 19 Philadelphia Code, entitled Finance Taxes and Collections to add a new chapter, 19-4800, entitled Retail Delivery Tax to establish a tax on orders for the delivery in Philadelphia of retail consumer and other tangible goods, all under certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 260227, providing for the approval by the Council of the City of Philadelphia of a revised five-year financial plan for the City of Philadelphia, covering fiscal years 2027 through 2031, incorporating revisions with respect to Fiscal Year 2026, which is to be submitted by the mayor to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, pursuant to an intergovernmental cooperation agreement by and between the city and the authority.
Thank you very much, Ms. Loughead. Today we will hold the public hearing of the committee of the whole to consider the bills read by the clerk that constitute proposed operating and capital spending measures for Fiscal Year 2027, a capital program, a forward- looking capital plan for Fiscal Year 2027 through Fiscal Year 2032. This morning we have scheduled testimony from the Law Department and Defendant Association. Ms. Loughead, will you please call the first panel?
The first person to testify from the Administration is Renee Garcia, city Solicitor.
Just for some housekeeping rules for our session today, obviously, we're going to be on a timer, and we have a hard stop at 1:00. And so we have two city agencies. You have the solicitor's office, and also the Defender's Association. And so just be direct with your line of questioning, please be direct in your responses, and we'll go from there. Try to get as many rounds in before I break at 1:00. The Chair acknowledges city solicitor, Renee Garcia. Just state your name for the record and please begin your testimony.
Good morning, Counsel President Johnson and members of City Council. I am Renee Garcia, city solicitor. Joined today by first deputy city solicitor, Meghan Goddard, and members of my executive team. I am pleased to provide testimony on the Law Department's Fiscal Year 2027 operating budget proposal. The Law Department has the esteemed honor of serving as council to the mayor's administration, this Council other elected officials, and boards and commissions. We strive to provide innovative legal strategy on behalf of our clients to better the lives of our neighbors here in Philadelphia. As passionate public servants, our team of over 400 attorneys and legal paraprofessionals is dedicated to pursuing equity and justice through our everyday work. With every complex challenge, our team is working to provide exceptional legal services to minimize risk for the city, while pursuing our collective vision for a safer, cleaner, greener Philadelphia with access to economic opportunity for all. Relevant to this budget hearing, the work of the Law Department also preserves city funds, while securing and collecting additional revenue through successful affirmative litigation tax revenue, fines and fees. I want to highlight a few of the major efforts that the Law Department was involved in during the Fiscal Year '26 budget cycle. Whether there is an emergency issue of citywide interest or challenge to city operations or legislation, the Law Department is called upon to provide legal counsel. As all members know, no 8 piece of legislation is a straight line or straightforward. Your offices have your ear to the ground at what real world issues are impacting Philadelphia residents. Our job in representing both the Mayor and City Council is to take noble policy ambitions and fit them in a fragmented, piecemeal, and sometimes contradictory legal landscape. Our legal advice strives to achieve all of your policy objectives while also withstanding constitutional preemption and Charter restrictions that do not always align. E. Initiative was one such example, where we worked iteratively on numerous drafts of legislation related to the issuance of bond financing. In this past year, the Law Department has supported City Council to advance complex legislation pertaining to sidewalk cafes, workforce training, discrimination in housing and employment, youth services, animal cruelty and overbreeding, mobile medical service providers, curfews, retirement savings, nuisance businesses, and more. Although those examples involve months of planning and deliberation, the Law Department is also called for in the moment legal advice. A few weeks ago, the Law Department was immediately deployed to provide emergency counsel to heroic first responders and operating departments in the aftermath of the tragic garage collapse in Grace Ferry that claimed the lives of three people. Law was on-site to assist with real-time legal advice related to evidence preservation and emergency contracting and drafted executive order 0326, to initiate an independent investigation of the incident, which is now underway. The Law Department has been instrumental in progressing the city's consumer protection efforts. Since the implementation of the Consumer Protection Ordinance 16 introduced by this legislative body, the Law Department has championed efforts to protect Philadelphia consumers from scams and frauds perpetuated by bad actors. We have filed several lawsuits to hold companies accountable for fraudulent business practices and harms to Philadelphia consumers. This year, we sued SC Johnson and Bimbo Bakeries for violating consumer protection laws by misleadingly advertising the recyclability of their products, leading to increased litter and disruption to waste processing systems.
We also filed two separate suits against several pharmacy benefit managers: One alleging that companies had a significant role in creating and sustaining the opioid addiction crisis, and the other alleging the companies participated in a price fixing scheme to artificially inflate the price of insulin. More recently, we sued GLOCK, a common gun manufacturer, which the city alleges had contributed to the gun violence crisis in Philadelphia through their advertising tactics, which promote the use of illegal switches to convert handguns into automatic weapons. We continue to litigate in these cases to obtain relief and ensure that entities doing business in our city are following applicable laws. With the transition to a new federal administration and ever shifting federal legal landscape, the Law Department has worked to meet the legal needs of the city in this moment. Law provides 24/7 monitoring of emerging funding issues, enforcement actions, and case law developments with nuanced collaborative and creative legal advice solutions and actions. Attorneys across the department provide real-time advice to operational departments through changes to federal funding and grant criteria to minimize disruptions to essential programs and capital project progress. Notably, the Law Department was instrumental in an emergency fund to support families impacted by cuts to the SNAP benefit program. Additionally, when the slavery panels were removed from the President's house exhibit, my department filed a complaint and an emergency junction that same day. Although the matter is still under appeal, my team successfully had many exhibits restored and the federal government is currently enjoined from further attempts to change the exhibit. Thank you. The Law Department continues to employ all available legal strategies to reduce the rate of gun violence and tackle the black market of illegal firearms. In addition to the suit against GLOCK, this year, the Law Department drafted the straw purchasing ordinance, now signed into law, requiring all licensed firearm dealers in Philadelphia to post clear warning signs that straw purchasing of guns is a crime. We also successfully defended the switch ordinance, banning rate of fire acceleration devices, leading to the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against the city. The Law Department plays a critical role in advancing the city's goals of creating and preserving affordable housing, as well as creating long-term opportunities for those in recovering from substance-use disorder. The Law Department was vitally involved in all aspects in the development of the Riverview Wellness Village. Our units collaborated with city departments on issues related to real estate infrastructure, HIPAA and privacy, constitutional matters, and contracting. We assisted the Office of Community Wellness and Recovery and negotiating professional services and best value contracts to ensure the residents of the Riverview Wellness Village receive comprehensive care, recovery support, medical and other services, including but not limited to food services, culinary arts training, career exploration, and skill development for residents. The code and public nuisance litigation unit also worked over many months to secure a zoning variance that would allow for the expansion of services at the Riverview Wellness Village, through the erection of a new building with 82 multifamily dwelling units on site. The commercial law unit attorneys supported the Office of Homeless Services in partnership with numerous city agencies in expanding the city's emergency shelter capacity by 1000 beds. The Law Department's commercial law and real estate team play a key role by negotiating leases, assisting with drafting notices, executing, supporting contracts, offering guidance on licensing and zoning requirements, and preparing letters of support for shelter-site locations.
These efforts are just a snapshot of the daily responsibilities and work of the Law Department. Our department touches every piece of legislation, every program and initiative, every transaction, every contract. Our legal work ensures that we are able to deliver outstanding public service on behalf of the residents of Philadelphia. This commitment to investing in law staff is crucial to our retention, our ability to attract and hire a diverse set of the best and brightest legal minds, which we need as we work together to solve some of the city's most complex challenges. On your desk is our year in review, so you can review everything that we did last year, as well as our involvement in the community, and some of the fun stuff that we also do to, you know, create the bonds really that allow us to do this work, which is challenging. I am now happy to take questions.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Dr. Anthony Phillips.
Thank you, Council President. I was expecting you to go first, so right ahead. Appreciate it. Thank you. So, City Solicitor, one of my first questions that I have for you is around contracts, legislation, service level agreements. My -- the theme for this budget cycle for me has been responsive government. So ultimately, one of the things that's important for me, and we talked about this, but I wanted to go on record for this, is the importance of being able to provide City councilmembers with service level agreements. So it's an understanding that if we send you a contract review, a piece of legislation review, there will be a document that you could send back to us, giving us a timeline on the review process for how long this should take in terms of reviewing the legislation and providing feedback, and information, and legal counsel around legislation and contract. Is that something that this Law Department can do this coming year to help us understand how quickly we can get things back when it comes to contracts and legislation that we want to pass in the city?
Yep. Thank you for your question. We have taken numerous efforts on the contracting side to reduce the amount of time that the Law Department has contracts. It is -- there's two kinds of contracts: There's law draft contracts, and then there's department draft contracts. And my preference is really to move to law draft contracts, because we're using templates and we can do it faster than a department can. But within our service level agreement, if you -- if you will, our SLA, we strive to get a contract done in 30 days, but it's not a linear line, because it could be a run of the mill contract, where we use a template and it's easy and it goes through without editing or there could be an incredible amount of editing, it could be very complex. So 30 days is our metric, and we're trying to get contractor review under 30 days, but it could be that we're negotiating with the provider, it could be changes in the scope of the contract. So we've had some technology contracts that have taken nearly a year to negotiate because of the back and forth. So generally, it's about 30 days. But it really is variable depending on how much negotiation is going on and the endoscope of the work that needs to be done, whether that changes.
Oh, I wasn't done. All right. So and then I just wanted to also ask you, which is really important, can you follow up about the legislation piece, proposed legislation that we sent to you? Because the whole goal is, and we understand there's complicated factors, but after looking at it, maybe after the first week or two, you could say, this one is going to take us this amount of time.
Can we begin to have those type of service-level agreements as well?
Yeah, we can. I will speak to Chief Lewis Rosman, so that right off the bat, you have an understanding of where that legislation is in the queue, and I think it would be good for one legislation to come in to even set a meeting out, whether it's two or three weeks, so that it's on the calendar. If that -- if that is okay with you, a good way to go about it. So at least we have a definite checkpoint in.
To discuss, you know, how heavy the editing has to be, or other ideas, or maybe we need to speak to some of the operational departments, obviously, with your approval, but I think that --
And I just want to ask something about the Law Department's relationship with City Council.
So we understand the Law Department's role to represent the Administration, City Council, agencies in the city, as well as our boards. But there are times where Council is advancing legislation that perhaps the administration may not fully agree with. In those moments, how does the Law Department balance that, and how can you better support Council in advancing laws that reflect what we're hearing directly from residents?
Yes. And this comes up, I think -- so the Charter's 75 years old. It was adapted, I think it was April 17, 75 years ago. And I bet this question has come up every year since, because it is unusual. Most cities are set up this way. My job is to enforce the Charter. I didn't write the Charter, you all amend the Charter, but my job is to enforce the Charter as it is written. That means that there are lanes as designated in the Charter that are for the executive and the legislative. My job is also to review state law, federal law, to look for preemption issues, constitutional issues. So when I'm analyzing a piece of legislation, I'm taking all of that into consideration. My legal advice will be the same, whether it is the mayor asking or City Council asking that I believe there is a separation of powers issue or not an issue, or a constitutional issue or not an issue. I am doing the best that I can to predict the legal challenges that come. It is your decision whether you put a bill in or not, right? Then the mayor has to decide on her side whether the bill would be implemented. And part of that is legal risk. So I know that there's a feeling that City Council hears no 6 a lot. The Mayor also hears no a lot. I just say no. 8 But what I try to do, what we really strive to do, and what I try to do when I come in every day is to say, "yes and", or "no, but", right? So the most important thing is to have conversations about the goal that you're trying to get to rather than sort of a proscribed way to do it.
Thank you. Thank you. I -- it's been something that's been weighing on me for a little bit about what you said, you can't change the Charter, and whether or not we need to distinguish, you know, having have a legal support for just Council, and then legal support for administration. That way we don't have to divide minds in that way. So I just -- I don't know what's your perspective on that, the idea?
I honestly, and I'm being truly honest, I don't know how that would function because it is still the administration that has to implement legislation. So you could have your own lawyer, and then if you have lawyers, and there's Emily Marcos as well that says this is constitutional or not, but it is for the mayor to implement. And so I come in, again, as a city solicitor saying to everybody, anybody who wants a legal opinion, I believe that there is a first amendment issue, or a preemption issue, or there is no 23 issue. So you could have your own lawyer, but it is -- it is still there is one lawyer that speaks on the legal position of the city, and it benefits all of you to have that position so that there, it's no 5 surprise, right? So you know exactly what the mayor's going to be told about the enforceability of any bill.
And just one quick question, Counselor, because I heard the bell. I just want to say there for the question on the delivery tax --
I'll get it. I'm on my second bell. My gosh. All right. Real quick. From a legal standpoint, how is the Law Department analyzing this current delivery tax that's being proposed, if there is a uniformity cost, it's not connected to a sales; like, how is it not distinguished from being a sales tax as opposed to being just strictly a delivery tax?
Yeah. I am very happy to give you a legal opinion under privilege. I can follow up with that.
Thank you very much. I'm going to do this, because I see we have a considerable amount of individuals who have questions, but also, it's a combination of the solicitor's office and Defendant's Association. So, Ms. Hudson, can you come and give your testimony, and then I'll allow members to go through the queue. Because some people are in the queue for the Defense Association. So could you go ahead, Ms. Hudson, please begin your testimony so we can go straight through all the lines of questioning, please. And before you begin, Renee, I just want to also thank you and your team, one for stepping up in the space regarding the challenging of the Trump administration to remove the non-slave individuals at the President's house and really stepping up in that space, and doing -- moving forward with the legal challenge, because it is very, very significant. Other counties also follow suit and file certain lawsuits as well regarding that issue. And then also an issue that's near and dear to me around the issue of guns, right? The suing of individuals that were selling, I don't know who -- did we sue GLOCK? I don't know. Whatever company you work with, Joshua Harris --
For suing GLOCK, and also addressing the issue around the switches as well. So I didn't want this session to go past without acknowledging how critically important the work is being done around those two particular issues. That's near and dear to me. So I want to acknowledge that.
Thank you. I'm very proud to stand up on those cases for the city of Philadelphia.
Thank you. Ms. Hudson, as always, it's good to see you. Just state your name for the record. Let me give you a shout out too. Thank you for your hard work that you're doing regarding reentry, also our juveniles, and also addressing the issue of how the public defender's officer has reshaped how we address public safety. And so, I appreciate your work. Thank you for being a part of the special committee on gun violence.
Good morning, Council President Johnson and members of City Council. My name is Keisha Hudson, Chief Defender of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I am joined today by members of my leadership team, Carolyn Jester, our chief financial officer; Lilah Thompson, who heads our immigration law practice; Andrew Pappas, who oversees pretrial diversion; Elisa Downey-Zayas, who runs our reentry program; and Kate Parker, our policy director. Like Public defenders everywhere, the Defender Association of Philadelphia plays a critical role in a functioning justice system. Every day, our office works to ensure that constitutional rights are protected, that court processes are fair, and that outcomes promote stability, not further harm for the individuals and communities we serve. This budget size season, we are requesting an increase of just over five million. This is a targeted necessary investment to sustain our operations, meet our labor obligations, and continuing delivering essential services, including immigration, defense, and strategies that reduce unnecessary incarceration. Last year alone, our office represented more than 30,000 clients across 62,000 cases and staffed more than 200,000 hearings. On any given court day, that means our attorneys are covering close to 850 hearings. That volume reflects both the scale of our responsibility and the stakes for the people we represent. Philadelphians who are low income, often navigating housing instability, behavioral health challenges, and the long-term impacts of poverty and trauma. To meet this demand, we rely on a workforce of more than 500 people, attorneys, social workers, investigators, and support staff. Eighty-four percent of our staff are unionized, and 75 percent of our staff live in the city of Philadelphia. Supporting and retaining this workforce is essential to maintaining the quality and continuity of our services. A significant portion of our budget request is driven by labor and operational costs. And it's important to remember that we are not a city agency, and as such, we do not get support for operating costs, which yearly total $9 million out of our baseline budget. These operating costs also includes meeting our collective bargaining obligations and addressing the rising expenses related to insurance, technology, and facility maintenance. These are not optional investments, they're the baseline requirements to keep our systems functioning effectively. Carolyn Jester, our CFO's here and can speak in more detail about these costs, and can answer any questions you have about how we manage them responsibly. But our budget request is more than about sustaining operations; it is about continuing strategies that are working. Over the past two years, Philadelphia's jail population has reached historically low levels. While crime trends alone do not explain this targeted policy and collaborative efforts, many involving our office have played a significant role. Our pretrial interventions, including early bail review and emergency bail hearings, are designed to ensure that people are not held in custody unnecessarily. Even short periods of detention can destabilize employment, housing, and family connections. Through our emergency bail hearings alone, we have secured the release of more than 280 people. Even conservatively, that has saved the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in incarceration costs, while also improving outcomes for those individuals and families. But due to staffing constraints, we can only staff these hearings on a limited basis. With dedicated funding, we can expand this work and make these interventions more consistent and accessible. Andrew Pappas, who leads this work can speak more about how these strategies are reducing unnecessary detention while maintaining public safety.
Another key investment is the expansion of the Wellness Court Initiative, which provides an alternative to arrests and incarceration for those facing summary offenses, connecting them to treatments and support instead of cycling them through the jail system. Our office plays a central role in making this program work. We screen every individual brought in on Wellness Court days, identify eligibility, resolve outstanding bench warrants, and help ensure that participants can actually access services. Since its launch, we have helped prevent more than 160 incarcerations through this initiative. Without that intervention, nearly one third of those individuals would have been required to enter the jail due to outstanding warrants. As the program expands citywide, our role will expand with it. This budget request includes the staffing needed to scale that work responsibly. Andrew, again, can speak further about what that expansion requires and what it will deliver. We're also seeking continued investment in immigration legal defense through the PAIFUP program. S. citizen family members. The data is clear here: representation makes a difference. A majority of our detained clients represented through this program have been released from custody, and outcomes allowing individuals to remain in the United States are significantly higher for those with counsel compared to those without. Just as importantly, clients who are released consistently returned for their court hearings, demonstrating that due process and accountability go hand in hand. This area is growing, the demand is growing, and when -- where the consequences of inaction are significant, not just for individuals, but for families and communities across Philadelphia. Lilah Thompson, who leads our immigration practice is here and can provide additional detail on both the need and impact of this work. Finally, I want to emphasize that many of the most effective strategies we've discussed: emergency bail hearings, reentry support through the Bridge Home program, elements of our diversion work are not fully funded through our core contract. These are programs that reduce incarceration, improve outcomes, and save the city money over time. But without dedicated investment, they remain limited in scale. This budget request is an opportunity to align funding with what we know works. In closing, I want to thank the defenders who do such incredible work, those who are present here with me and those back at the office in courts at the jails. And I personally invited two members of our police accountability unit: Mike Mellon and Paula Sen, who ensure -- our staff are the ones that ensure our clients are zealously and effectively represented when facing the immense resources of the police. And I want to thank Mike and Paula for the exceptional work they have done in the police accountability unit in particular this past year. Funding public defense isn't just a line item in a budget; it's what determines whether the constitution's promise of justice actually works in real life. Our budget proposal reflects a responsible and strategic investment in the essential operations and programs of our office. With Council's support, we can continue to deliver high quality representation, strengthen public safety, and ensure a more equitable and effective justice system for our city. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
Geez, you just reminded me, I was in a barbershop yesterday, a lot of guys coming home from back in the day from dirty cops. That was a conversation I had getting my hair cut yesterday. And I applaud you and your team, like, you know, I believe in accountability, but you got to do it the right way. And so a lot of folks are coming home to South Philadelphia, so until you and your team continue to keep up the good work, so I want to acknowledge that. Thank you very much. So you-all ain't going to clap for that, but I will. So what's up? I guess, if you don't have that lived experience, you probably don't really connect with it, but thank you-all for doing what you-all doing. You got to do it the right way, that's all. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, then Councilmember Kendra Brooks, then Councilmember Nicholas O'Rourke, and then Dr. Nina Ahmad.
Good morning, Solicitor Garcia and Defender Hudson. My questions are for the defenders. So thank you for your testimony. I wanted to know if you can expound on what the primary drivers of your office's operating costs are, and then secondly, how do the terms of your union contract, particularly pay scales or benefits drive the size of your annual budget increase request?
Thank you. I'll invite our CFO Carolyn Jester to answer that question.
Good morning, and thank you for your question. I wanted to just explain that currently we have a $69 million budget. After salaries, rent, taxes and insurance, we've spent 66 million of that. So we've got only about 3 million left and we haven't turned the lights on yet. We pay for our electric, phone, internet, laptops. We have to buy all the software. If we want email, we have to buy Microsoft and Windows, and of course, pay cost associated with representing our clients. We have expert witnesses and professional fees. Without an increase in the operating expenses, we fall short of meeting those obligations. And in terms of your second question, the union contracts. On July 1st, we are contractually obligated to increase the salaries of our staff, and our current budget does not support that. We are $2 million short. So the investment in the defenders of about 3.3 million to cover our salaries and our operating costs is less than five percent of our budget. But it's what we need to continue the current operations, and that's not even discussing what my coworkers will discuss about increasing representation and increasing some of the services we can offer.
So this $5 million increase is really making up for an incredibly slim margin once you account for all of the hard work that we've all, you know, commended in this room?
Thank you. I wanted to hear more about your reentry work. What reentry programs do you currently coordinate with, and how effective are they in reducing recidivism? How does this differ from what other reentry services are able to provide? And then lastly, what gaps in service such as housing, employment, or mental health support most affect your client's successful reentry?
Thank you for the question. Good morning, everyone. My name is Elisa Downey- Zayas. I'm the managing director of Behavioral Health Alternative Sentencing and reentry for the Defender Association. So Bridge Home was kind of my baby. It was the pitch that I made to Keisha when I entered my current role. And it is a unique reentry program in that there are a lot of great organizations that do work in this city: PowerCorps, Uplift, the Division of Reentry, they do good work. The problem is that you can provide services to people in county custody, but if you don't combine it with legal, you're not going to effectuate real change in these people's lives. And what we heard over and over again was that people would get really good information and services, but it wasn't connected to their release state. So they couldn't actually connect with the community services on the -- on the street because the organizations themselves did not have the legal acumen or the legal ability to actually file for parole. So the Bridge Home Program brings together a unique skillset. It is social workers that act as a liaison between legal and community reentry programs. And in doing so, they do needs-based assessments to meet with individuals in county custody to establish what do they need to succeed when they re-enter. And then because we are housed within the Defender Association, we can actually file a petition for their early release, give the judge the details of the good work that these community programs are doing, and provide a reason why this individual can succeed by making those connections. And the parole petitions have been so well received by the Judiciary. Our capacity, we started with one social worker and the biggest problem we had was that we had a -- we were victims of our own success, because we were only able to do five a month when we started, and the response that we kept getting was, why aren't you doing these for everyone? Because the plans were detailed, we connected them with services, and we give a year of case management services post-release. And so we have been struggling because we know it works. We've served 101 people so far. Fifty-three of those people have reentered the community, and only four individuals have experienced re-arrest or re-incarceration. That's a seven-and-a-half-ish recidivism rate. Most other community-based or department of corrections-based recidivism programs have between 20 and 40 percent. Now, obviously, we're only a year in, but the results speak for themselves. They work.
So to close out, what gaps in service could we help you close that would make that successful program even more successful?
Well, the biggest -- the biggest barrier obviously is housing. The current environment has shuttered a lot of resources for people on drug and alcohol or mental health treatment. So people who are already experiencing criminality or the results of criminality, so, you know, lesser job opportunities, lesser housing opportunities with convicted felons. They also are now seeing programs decrease where if they have concurrent issues, so drug and alcohol or treatment issues. And so the expansion of those and the housing -- affordable housing is really our biggest barrier.
Thank you so much for your work. Thank you, Council President.
Thank you. Thank you, Council president. My first question is for the Law Department. At the hearing for ICE-OUT legislation, you stated that there would be training for city's employees about the new guidance the administration issued in response to the bills about interacting with ICE and other external government officials on city property. Could you please provide us with the details of these training sessions? Specifically, when will the trainings be held and what will they cover? Who will receive the trainings and how frequently will they take place?
Thank you, Councilmember and good morning. The guidance has since gone out. So there are two documents: One is the Law Department drafted guidance of who exactly to call when someone shows up and what to do, and then there's an infographic just making it a little bit easier to read and a little bit less dense. So those both went out. They went out to HR managers and city leadership to then cascade down to the building supervisors or front desk people. It was really for the departments to decide who would be the person interacting with any kind of law enforcement agent that showed up at any city facility. The trainings will be May 5th and 7th. We're doing two separate -- same training, but two separate dates.
Thank you. And my next question is for the defenders. I have a series of questions related to your immigration work. How much funding is allocated to the Pennsylvania Immigrant Family Unity Project, and how has the demand for services changed over the last couple of years? The city plans to roll out an RFP for a PAIFUP contract, which will be funded at $950,000. You are seeking an additional 950K for your unit. How will that funding be spent? And can you discuss how relatively recent changes in immigrant policy related to the detention of non-citizens has changed your practice?
Thank you so much for the question. My name is Lilah Thompson. I'm the Chief of the Immigration Unit at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I want to note that the program is currently only funded at $950,000, and this is enough to represent only a small percentage of Philadelphians who need representation in their legal cases in the immigration space. As of -- from January 1st, 2025, to December 31st, 2025, we received 214 referrals to our program, and we were only able to offer 35 individuals direct legal representation in immigration court. That's percent of all referrals. 13 By comparison, the year before, 2024 14 year, we only received 82 referrals 15 and were able to accept 37 people 16 for full representation; that's 45 percent of all referrals. The number of cases has increased dramatically. If you compare just January of 2026 to January 2025, this January we received referrals, and the prior 23 January we only received five. 24 Since this past year, there has been a series of unlawful detentions that is subjecting non-citizens to mandatory custody that is against the law. And the 2nd Circuit actually just struck down this policy this morning. We expect that that will happen in the 3rd Circuit as well, but we are waiting to see. In the meantime, though, ICE is detaining people unlawfully and holding them in detention. And our office is seeking additional funding so we can represent these individuals who are subjected to unlawful custody and are trying to defend against their removal from the United States. In the past year, since December of 2025 to present, we have filed 73 habeas petitions in Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Three petitions challenging ankle monitors being used to surveil our clients, and five additional petitions in federal court in the Western district of Pennsylvania, in the middle district of Pennsylvania. Of these individuals, 51 were ordered to be immediately released from custody due to illegal government detention. What we will use this money for is representing more people. We need to be able to meet the moment and only being able to represent 13 percent of individuals in custody at 14 this time is not sufficient to do 15 so. 16
Thank you for that. And one other question. I want to understand how the Defendant's Association views the Wellness Court, and how will your role change with the planned expansion of the Wellness Court, and what supports do you need?
Thank you for your question. Andrew Pappas, managing director of pretrial for the Defender Association. Wellness Court has already expanded to two days a week, and the planned expansion to five days a week. We'll obviously bring in more people every day. There's been huge benefits to this program in terms of our ability to remotely lift bench warrants out at the Kensington Wellness Support Center. That's not something that has ever existed in Philadelphia before, remotely lifting bench warrants. To date, we have lifted bench warrants for 126 people, a total of 206 warrants. That's an enormous volume of people that are not going into custody. We've prevented 169 incarcerations. Every person who doesn't have to go to State Road, who doesn't have to spend even a day, right? Some people will go into custody and be on a bench warrant list at the CJC the next day, but even one night in jail, is a night in jail. And for some people, it's much longer. So anytime we can prevent an incarceration is a huge benefit, and that's exclusively through this program.
Yep. And I get that. I'm not saying that; I'm saying the capacity. What is the capacity that you have with staffing currently with the expansion of Wellness Court, since one of the questions is centered around your ability to do all the work that you have with the money that's allocated?
Yeah. So right now we are staffing Wellness Court two days a week with two attorneys and a social worker. We also staff warrant remediation on the other three days a week that we don't -- that Wellness Court is operating, we're already doing remote bench warrant lifts that day. If Wellness Court expands to five days a week, we're going to need to probably at least double the number of attorneys that we have out there. Our social workers are now providing case management to the Wellness Court participants; they're also public defender clients. And so we would need to expand our capacity for social workers as well, so that we can represent all of our clients in case management.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just while you're up here, I heard you say that two days a week with two attorneys, as you go to five days, you'll need to double with the expansion. Just to kind of stay in that length -- that same vein, could you also just describe a typical day in Wellness Court for your offices, and given what you've said, what role does your office play just in layman's terms that can't be easily filled by other folks?
Yes, thank you for the question. So police go out every Wednesday and Thursday morning, starting around 6:00, 6:30 a.m., and arresting people in the Kensington neighborhood on summary offenses. When they get to the Kensington Wellness Support Center, that's when our role kicks in. So we review every single person who's arrested, that's 550 unique arrests over the last 4 months. We are reviewing them for 5 outstanding warrants, open cases to 6 look at their entire criminal 7 picture, and any past supports that 8 they've had through our office or 9 outside of our office. 10 The police are also doing a 11 similar warrant review through NCIC, 12 PCIC, but the information that they 13 get is not connected to a docket 14 number. So the police could say, 15 this person has a warrant. I don't know what the docket number is, I don't know exactly what all the charges are, I can't generate a list for the Court to put those people on a bench warrant list. We do that, right? Sometimes the police will come and say, we ran this person through NCIC, PCIC, they have four warrants. And I will say, they went through Bench Warrant Court two days ago, your information just is not -- just hasn't been updated yet. And when they call in, they're able to verify that. That's a person who would've gone into custody erroneously if we weren't there to prevent it. And so that's the first thing that we do, is run everyone to see what warrants they have so that we can put them on a bench warrant list, lift those warrants, and make them eligible to receive services through Wellness Court, because they don't have to go into custody. We're then reviewing body camera footage for anyone that is a Defender client, we are talking with the police, with the behavioral health specialists, with medical to make sure that our clients are receiving the services that they need, and then representing them when they get over to 391 Whitaker for court in the afternoon.
So efficiency and accuracy in terms of dealing with those who are just as impacted within this wellness system is dependent upon the Defender's Association to effectively get that done. So it's fair to say that you all need to be well staffed and funded to be able to do these things and to get the Wellness Court running effectively; is that fair to say?
I would agree. Good morning to you, Mr. Pappas and to you, Defender Hudson, as well as to our city solicitor, Ms. Garcia. We don't have to go into detail, but I want to thank you for the work that has been done in our partnership in recent weeks and months. Thank you very kindly. Jumping back into my questions mainly for the Defender Association. The association is currently in negotiations for a first contract with -- and I'll be brief, Mr. President. A first contract with the non-attorney staff, who voted to form a union a little over a year ago. We know that collective bargaining agreements, especially first contracts, typically include pay increases over multiple years. So how does the mayor's proposal to flat fund the Defenders Association for FY27 affect your ability to negotiate a fair contract and agreement with non-attorney staff?
Thank you for your question, Councilmember O'Rourke. As our CFO, Karen Jester, testified, we are already in a contract with the UAW who represents our attorneys and contractually obligated on July 1st to give our attorney pay increases through their contract. We cannot meet that pay increase that we're contractually obligated to meet because we've been flat funded. And so part of our budget request a little over 2 million is not only to meet our obligations with our attorney union, but we are at the bargaining table with our non-attorneys who are represented by AFSCME DC 47, which represents many city workers as well. It's difficult to be at the bargaining table negotiating a contract when we know that we -- the mayor has us flat funded, but we are now going through a process with Council. We may not know what our funding outcome looks like until Council votes on the budget. We've requested million, a little over 2 million of that would help us meet what we hope to be the agreed upon salary negotiations with our non-attorneys.
It's essential that you get the funding that's -- that you needed clearly to me. Defender Association attorneys are also unionized and the defender has negotiated two collective bargaining agreements with attorneys since 2022. How has the defender budgeted for a multi-year contract, given that funding is allocated by the city annually, and isn't necessarily predictable from year to year?
We -- it's not predictable. We negotiate in good faith with the UAW, and our attorneys. I just want to make it very clear that when we look across the Commonwealth, and we look across the tri-state area, and I'm just looking at Maryland and New Jersey, because the cost of living in New York and DC is very high, our attorneys are making less when we look across --
Excuse me, Ms. Hudson, one second. We have a point of information form Councilman Jeffrey J. Young, Esquire.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just on the same lines, well, when you're negotiating these contracts, is the city or representative from the finance department, are they at the table with you when you have these discussions? If you rely on the city to fund your operations, I should -- I mean, is someone there from the city helping you with that negotiation?
I'll just ask Mr. Gillison to come up, since he sits at the bargaining table with our first assistant, Sarah Allen. I am not at the bargaining table, but Everett and my first assistant are the ones that are working.
And could you also clarify your structure as the Public Defender's Association? Are you a city agency, a nonprofit --
A partner with other organizations to bring in additional resources --
-- to supplement you. Everybody may not know. They may just assume that you are part of our city. Are you city employees, do you have to live in the city, you get a pension, you're -- could you just clarify the structure, just for the wider public, for the record?
We were founded in 1934 as a community defender. And so a 92-year-old organization. So, you know, well before the United States Supreme Court said that if you cannot afford an attorney, one should be appointed to you. We've been doing that work well before that decision in 1963. We then entered into a contract with the City of Philadelphia. So we are not a city agency; we are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and so that related to what I testified before regarding operating costs. So issues around rent, and healthcare, and insurance, that's -- that comes out of our base budget. We do not get support for that. We are not -we don't have a pension program, so we are not looked at as city employees, but I can also have Everett talk about what happens at the bargaining table.
Thank you. Everett Gillison, the director for employee and labor relations for the Defender. Good morning to all Councilmembers. We are a nonprofit, therefore, the city does not sit at the table with us when we're negotiating. I represent along with the first assistant, Sarah Allen. We are the ones that actually have to do the negotiations on behalf of the office. After we do that in good faith, we bring it back to our -- to the chief defender, who then takes it to our board. As a contract, that means that we submit what we need to this body and to the mayor, and the mayor then -- and you set our matter like all other contracts. We put our contract through the city solicitor's office in order to make sure it's conformed properly, and paid the way it needs to be paid. Each year, we estimate, and Carol and Jester makes a very, very good estimate of what we think the contracts need are going to be in the incoming up, and when I -- when I'm negotiating on behalf of the office, I have been around for a little bit of time, so I kind of have a good sense of where things should end up. Sometimes we get surprised, but most of the time, we hit our numbers. But the question always is, will we get the support from the city, from the mayor, and from you to make sure that we can meet our needs. This year, the Mayor flat funded us in the five-year budget, zeros for increases across the five years. I've been around for a while, that hasn't been done. So we are appealing to each of you to kind of look at the history, look at what we've been doing, look at the work that we've been doing. It wasn't too long ago; there were 10,000 people on State Road. We changed the way that we did public safety. And as a result of doing that, there are now less than 3,300 people on State Road. There has been significant savings by being a holistic approach to public safety. I don't know where that came from. I'll just say that's something that I know that we've been hearing for many years in this hall and in the mayor's office. And I think that we have to reflect the reality. We are now unionized. We are now a nonprofit that has a union, and we are a negotiating in good faith, and we have to come up with the money. And there's -- there is no magic. Either we have it, if you give it to us, or we don't. And if we don't, the only way we do is that we have to take services away, and we don't want to do that. So I leave it to you and to your good graces to look and see that the investment is definitely worth it. Any other questions? Thank you.
He's right, you know. Well, I mean, I hope Member Young got his question answered. I believe I got mine as well. I thank you for your time for coming here today, and thank you for your service to the residents of this city, and those who are engaged within our criminal legal system. Obviously, I value you and we hope that we can demonstrate that through funding you well. Blessings to you.
Thank you, Council president. Good morning to all, and thank you for all of you for your public service. Sometimes thankless in the public sphere, but we know how hard all of you work. My first question is to our city solicitor to follow up on the line of questioning that Councilmember Phillips did around the contracting timeline issue. I hear you in terms of accountability and transparency, I had asked this question of the chief administrative officer as well, since you're all in a continuum in this process, of a timeline being put out in terms of some sort of a public-facing, you know, website to tell where we are along without having to yield information that is sensitive, but the public has no 4 idea. It's like this black box, what is happening? And our job is to demystify this process. So I wanted to hear what the Law Department would say about a dashboard.
Quite honestly, I don't have an opinion on that. That's really a policy decision. I know that through the implementation of Opal, which is the new system, there will be dashboards for the vendors to be able to see exactly where their contracts are, and who their point persons are. But with respect to the public, that's really a policy decision that if the administration want to explore that, I would review any legal issues.
And follow up is about implementation of our bills. You know, we -- you already somewhat touched on it. We really -- we can pass as many bills as we want and the administration can choose to implement, not implement. What pathway do we have outside of going to the Commonwealth Court to really make sure what we are asking on behalf of our constituents actually gets done, and what is the accountability process there in terms of implementation?
Sure. There's -- well, I'm going to kind of break it down. There are bills that are squarely within your purview, those the mayor has to implement. Then there are bills that for separation of powers issues, the mayor does not have to implement, right? And that is a policy decision that, you know, she has to make with her operating departments. And I'm not going to pretend there aren't politics and, you know, that's not my lane over there. But the Charter is what -- the implementation of the Charter is what determines what is in those buckets, right? And the way the Charter was written 75 years ago is that it is a strong mayor form of government. And we've said that over and over and over again. And the -- you know, obviously I wasn't there, but the vision and what the home rule Charters are in other cities is because City Council could pass every single Thursday operational requirements for the administration. They could say every city solicitor who's hired has to speak five languages. Would that be better for representation in the public? Yes. But that's not City Council's job to make that determination, that's in the mayor's purview, right? That's the way the Charter is written. So if you have a bill that is within your authority, a taxing bill, or whatever it is, and it's not being implemented, then you could sue the Mayor in a mandamus action to have that implemented. But for a bill where it is touching on separation of powers issues, you could ask for counsel. I mean, we would have that discussion, but you both have my legal opinion and you know where I'm going to fall, and that's the reason why it's set up the way that it is.
So if you were to sue, would you represent the Council in that process, or we would have to get outside counsel?
If we were to sue, it would -- that determination would be made on a lot of factors, including what my legal opinion was at the time that the bill came down.
Thank you so much. I want to pivot to our Public Defender's office, and once again, say thank you for doing what our constitution tells us. I'm deeply grateful to all of you for the work you do under very difficult circumstances, and it behooves all of us to make sure you have the resources, point 1. Point 2, thank you for feedback we got from your office around the hearing we had on Friday around the gaming platforms being used as grooming spaces for everybody actually. And the real question I have out of how young people are targeted in the law enforcement system, even when they're victimized. And if you could address, how can we address that once we do not revictimize people, ones who've already been targeted by traffickers or, you know, grooming of some sort, where does -- we all know this, police and the DA knows it, why are they charging them as adults? Why is there no understanding of how this crime occurred and what their role was in it in terms of being coerced to carry out something illegal? So if you would address, what can we do to stop this?
I think one of the most important things to realize is that a lot of the folks who obviously come into the system are, as you identify, victims of trauma themselves and deep trauma themselves. And I think that we need to be more cognizant in terms of realizing through social services and mitigation. I've always said that victims advocate should be appointed to the people who are in these cases. That my clients often are at many times, over 70 percent of them are victims themselves of some sort of crime before they came into the public defense space. And to -- and that they need services as well. So I think it's given the resources, but also a lot of training and an understanding of what that world looks like and what that space looks like, and have that be trauma informed, and having everyone interacting with our youth in the space to be trauma informed, but also put on the lens of should -- is this an incarceration, or criminal justice path, or is there other outcomes that are beneficial here to our youth?
So the problem I have is they're happy to go after the kids, but they're not going after the Johns, they're not going after the traffickers. So their resources are misplaced to do this in the first place. So we need to talk further to really see how -- whether we can codify this in some way where the DA and the police are accountable of how they address a crime such as human trafficking, and who are they putting their resources to get and hold accountable? So thank you for the work you do.
I hear you, and we're going to have to work on this. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Dr. Ahmad. The Chair now recognizes Councilmembers Jones, and then Harrity. Jones was in the queue, but it dropped off. So Harrity after. You're okay? Okay. Member Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning still. I am grateful for two things being able to be true at the same time. The fact that we have pursued a more progressive form of justice, and the prison population is down, and crime is down. And it proves that to pursue a more progressive form of government, it doesn't mean crime goes up and doesn't mean we are in bedlam. And thank you and the team appear testifying today that had proved that theory to be true. My questions this year first to the solicitor and then to the defenders is, can you give us a brief update on gaming machines, some of the gun legislation that is pending, lost and stolen switches and things of that nature? You've done a herculean job of defending the city of Philadelphia in those cases. And for the Defender's Association, please describe for me, I know we are reducing the census up on State Road, how are you working with probation and parole at the other end to reduce their caseloads? Why don't we go with the city solicitor?
Good morning, Councilmember and thank you. I am so surprised you're asking questions about guns. I have a little Councilmember Jones tab here, actually. So I'll start with gaming first because it's a bit shorter. We are still in the appellate courts up and down the appellate courts on whether these are games of skill or games of chance. And so we are waiting determination by the appellate court, and then we can flow the consequences of enforcement through there. On guns, I have an ever- growing list, so I'm very happy to update you on this really important work. So one of our cases is our 3D printing, and there was a preemption challenge to the ordinance that governs 3D printing of firearms. We won that case in the trial court, and in the Commonwealth, and now the appeal is pending in the PA Supreme Court. In the gun range case "In Re: gun range," and this was a zoning restriction around where gun ranges could be, we -- one in the -- at the ZBA, one at the trial court, and in the Commonwealth Court, there was a remand down to the trial court on exclusionary zoning. We prevailed on there and they -- but went back up to the Commonwealth Court. But we've been successful there. On the rec center case, this was Mayor Kenny's executive order that firearms should not be in the rec center. Here -- and let me just back up to say, we -- through this executive order, we're looking to govern properties as the property owner, right? This was our properties. We govern the rules of engagement of who comes in and whether they can have weapons or not. That case, we lost at the trial court. They found that we are preempted and our appeal is pending in the Commonwealth Court, an injunction remains in effect.
So currently, if I understood that ruling -- currently, if I understood that ruling, that people are under the law, able to bring firearms into our public spaces, city buildings, and rec centers?
Not all city buildings. For example, they can't get into this building, because this is where the judges sit, right? So they can't go into courthouses. But yes, for rec centers and parks that remains in place. The Armstrong case, which is our lost and stolen case, which you're familiar about, that is still sitting with the PA Supreme Court, so we await decision on -- well, I think they haven't actually, and we haven't fully briefed it yet with the Supreme Court. I think they -- we applied for an appeal on that sitting up there. We sued three gun shops, if you remember that case for straw purchasing. All three have been shut down, and we are in the process of going after the insurance companies because none of the three have any assets. So more to come on that. We have our challenge to the switch ordinance. We -- the -- that's the bump stocks and the switches. We won at the trial court, and so the ordinance remains in effect, and that is an appeal that's pending in the Commonwealth Court. And then finally, our GLOCK case, where we sue the manufacturer of the guns for marketing, that makes it look like anybody legally could put a switch in or have an automatic weapon when, of course, automatic weapons are not legal for the public. And that is our list.
I just want to thank you for putting up the good fight.
And representing us well in these respective courts. Madam Defender?
Thank you for the question. So as I understand it, the question is how do we stop people from violating probation and parole in the first place to stop kind of their reentry into the jail? But if that's not the question, please let me know. I will say that to pivot back to my earlier --
So actually, the question is more we have made headway in reducing the population at the prisons. How are we doing on the other end of the continuum of justice to say people are concluding their probation, their paroles?
So to get them off? Okay. So there's two big ways, I would say. The first is going back to our reentry. So the first thing you can do to get someone off probation or parole is to have them be successful very early on. So Bridge Home, and we also have the New Leash on Life program, which many people know about, which is a program run by New Leash on Life USA by one of the first things you can do is make sure that people understand the conditions of their probation and parole. You are in a courtroom, a lot of difficult or complicated terms are used, and people speak very quickly. Most defendants leave the courtroom not having any idea what is expected or required of them when they're being supervised. That is a very real and practical problem that people don't know what is going to lead them back to jail or cause them to not be successful on probation and parole. One of the first things we do when we meet with someone in Bridge Home, or when we meet with someone behind the walls who's in New Leash on Life, is tell them, here's your sentencing order, sir, or ma'am; here are all the things we expect you to do. What are you going to have a problem with doing? And so just communicating explicitly about what the expectations are is plan 1. That's how we get people off supervision. The second thing is, if some part of that is difficult or impossible, then that has to be explained to the courts. They are unable to do this for this reason, or they want -- you told them to get a GED, but they, you know, are in this other program and other vocational program instead, that doesn't require a high school diploma or GED, and that's what they're going to do. So it requires a communication with the people who are being supervised, and a conversation with the courts about the purpose is having someone engage in pro-social conduct. We don't always have to exactly prescribe what that conduct looks like. What we want is for people to not be rearrested and to contribute their communities in a positive way. That looks very different for everyone, and we don't need to put certain expectations. The second thing I will say is Act 44 has really changed the game. It was statewide legislation, that includes mandatory review of people's probation after prescribed periods. In many cases, it mandates early termination of your supervision if you are compliant, except if you are actually in violation or have committed a new crime, well, under supervision. That case -- or it went live June 2024, and to date, over 400 probation review conference summaries have already been filed. About 70 percent of the time probation is recommending termination be terminated. That is allowing people to get off supervision sooner. And what I always tell people is getting out of jail is free -- is you being free, but getting off supervision is real freedom. So we are allowing people to get back to their actual lives free of the stigma of supervision and free of the weight of the courts behind them. And frankly, we should have more support for Act 44 provisions in the courts. The courts and the District Attorney's office has been very hesitant to read the explicit provisions of the bill and the way they're meant to be read. It demands mandatory termination. We are often going into court and saying, termination is mandated, it is a shall statute, and we have the courts and the District Attorney's office fighting us. These are people who are in compliance with their supervision. We know that criminality or criminogenic, supervision is less valuable after the first months. 17 Sometimes 18 months, 24 months, but 18 it is a short period of time. If we're reviewing someone's sentence within that time period, and someone is doing well, we shouldn't be hung up on whether they did 20 hours of community service or whether they passed their GED test or not. We should be getting people off supervision, and everyone should be on board for that.
So is the population of supervised individuals up or down?
Down. And it should continue to go down, and it should actually continue to drive down the prison population because the less people -- one of the primary drivers of the prison population is detainers. You're in on a probation detainer. The less people who are on supervision, the less people who are in on detainers. So oftentimes, you have someone on probation who picks up a minor offense, a small amount of marijuana, they're in jail on that detainer. Now, you get one of those and you're not on probation anymore, you pay a fine; you don't go to jail. So we are getting people off supervision and over time, I do expect the provisions of Act 44 and the way -- and to probation's credit, they've been doing an amazing job here. I have to give the Adult Probation and Parole Department of Philadelphia a lot of credit, because they had to do a lot. But they are really trying to focus their resources on people who need to be supervised, and everyone else who's just doing what we need them to do, they're trying to get off supervision. And that should really drive down the prison population in the coming years.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a third leg of good job, good job, and good job. And we appreciate that. Can you get those stats to the Chairwoman, please?
Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Harrity.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Hello, everybody. I think it's still morning. Good morning. Thank you as always. I appreciate always. I torture Ms. Garcia about bringing us some more money all the time. And the Defender's Association, you guys know how I feel about you. And I'm glad you brought up about people being caught in that process just for like a dime bag of weed of -- yeah, it's no secret, we've had this discussion before. It -- the Defender's Office took care of me when I was a kid. I was always in and out of trouble of stupid stuff. My first job was to pay the fines because my father was a police officer, and he refused to pay fines for me misbehaving. So I had to go get a paper route in order to pay the fines. But I know that it's a scary thing going in there. And when you have that defender that comes up and greets you, especially when you're in family court, where it used to be over there at 1801 Vine, we used to have to go and walk it up to see that big building when you're a kid, and I know it even intimidated my mother when she had to take us there. So I always appreciate you guys, and I'm sure, you know, I always tell the story about my brother and how the system worked. And, you know, my brother did nine years on a two-and-a-half-year bid. In defense of the judge, he reconsidered the sentence nine times. Finally, he set him Upstate and he was able to be paroled and then able to get out of the system. But it took forever just because he couldn't stop smoking marijuana. The judge actually said it. He said, Sean, it actually drives me crazy to have to send you back, because you have not committed another crime, except smoking marijuana and violating his parole. And because of that, he did nine years. So I thank you for everything you do. And to go in line with that, I know that people had asked a little bit about the Wellness stuff already, but Ms. Garcia, where does the Philadelphia Commonwealth Court appeal against the Opioid Trust currently stand, given the trust has repeatedly rejected the city's Kensington spending programs while the clock on those funds continue to run, what is the Law Department's strategy for protection -- protecting Philadelphia from forfeiture? I remember they tried to take the money back a couple times for something we were spending on. And just to get the questions out there for the Defender's Association, the testimony states that Wellness Court -- to expand Wellness Court to five days a week, and to serve more communities; which communities will the expansion encompass? And also, you stated that 30 percent of the Wellness Courts participants lived outside of the city. I thought the original agreement was to send people back to their original county for the treatment, because Medicare dollars would not cover it if the residents were not from Philadelphia. Has that changed? Are they now allowing us to do that? I know we're working out the warrant thing with the different counties, which is great, but did they give us a waiver or something to be able to send them to the program?
I'll be very brief. Yes, some of the money was held back, some of it was subsequently released, but our case is on for oral argument before the Commonwealth Court on May the 12th.
Thank you. That's great. I know it was a little bit of semantics, and it -- and it actually helped bringing it -- I was there when we did the tour with a couple of the State reps there, and the people that are on there, and they didn't actually get what we were asking for at first. They didn't understand why housing in those neighborhoods, how they were being deteriorated from the epidemic that was going on from the people being down there, until we actually bought them and toured them, that they changed their mind. So, you know.
You're exactly right. It is -- it has very proudly been an opportunity to educate about the holistic approach that has to be used to combat this epidemic. So while we're still fighting over this, I do think in the future, we've laid a foundation.
Yes. And thank you for your question. In terms of expansion, I know that the Office of Public Safety has indicated that we'll expand to three days, starting on May 18th. My understanding is that expansion will be, in terms of the number of days, but still within Kensington. I know the goal is to go citywide, but I don't know the exact neighborhoods in which they plan to expand in which order. In terms of the issue with people from other counties who are arrested in Kensington, DBHIDS has social workers there that do assessments for their social service needs, their drug and alcohol needs. And depending on where they're connected, they -- if they're Philadelphia residents, obviously, they're able to connect them with services here. They have worked with all of the counties to find resources for people out in those counties, even into New Jersey. We have connected people with services in New Jersey, if that's where they were originally from. And so it's a little bit more complicated. It sometimes takes a little bit longer to make those connections. So as opposed to a Philadelphia resident who may be able to get connected to services the same day that they're arrested, sometimes for people who are out of county residents, they're getting a one week date to come back to Wellness Court so that they can work through all of those insurance issues, make connections out of county and out of state and try to get them connected to the services where they reside.
Yeah. And trying to get them back, that's a whole other story?
But just you're there, you're on the ground, you guys. So how is our Wellness Village affecting that? Is it helping to be able to have a place for long-term housing so that we're not actually putting them back out into the neighborhoods that, to be quite honest, for us, they shouldn't be in people places and things that's a rule for us, you know, stay away from the same people, same places, or you'll do the same things. So how do you feel that the Wellness Village is working, and what do you believe that we could do to make it easier to access?
Yes. Thank you for the question. So Riverview Wellness Village, for the people who have made it there through Wellness Court, we've gotten overwhelmingly positive responses in terms of the physical facility itself and the services that are being provided. There haven't been a tremendous number of people who came in through Wellness Court that made it to Riverview yet. We're seeing those numbers increase, but I think to date that number is less than 5 people in terms of people who came 6 in through a Wellness Court arrest, 7 went inpatient, because that's a 8 requirement before you can get 9 stepped down to Riverview, you have 10 to complete 30 or 60 days of inpatient treatment, right? So in terms of people who have come in through a Wellness Court arrest, completed that inpatient and then stepped down to Riverview, you know, I think that number is less than 10. Although we're seeing more people now since we've expanded to two days that are accessing inpatient treatment. And so, I anticipate those numbers will continue to rise. I think that's just kind of the growing pains of the process. And so I'm hopeful that we will see more of our clients get to Riverview and the long-term housing support that it provides.
Yeah, I would like to definitely work with you to make sure that it happens. Riverview has been very accommodating whenever I've reached out to them for somebody who was struggling, that was ready to get out and needed a place to land. So we definitely need to use that resource. And hopefully now that we're going to be doing five days a week, we will have more people into that, you know, the system, because it actually -- like you said, it takes at least 60 days to get them over into Riverview. And trust me, I've gotten somebody into Riverview back into Aphid Girard and to then back the Riverview. It's a process, right?
You know, so, thank you for that. And just my plug, I'm always for fully funding the Defender's Office. Amen.
Thank you, Councilmember. CHAIR BASS: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Landau.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all for being here today. I feel the need to start with the Wellness Court because you're up here. So I'm going to -- I'll start there. I want to start with funding, though. I am amazed as what I'm hearing is an increase -- a continual increase in demand on your services and the great holistic wraparound services that you're doing. And that there's not an increase in your budget for that. Is this -- has this been the norm over the past years that there's an increase in demand for your services and there hasn't been an increase in the budget?
Every space that we've expanded into in the last, I would say, you know, certainly in my tenure, has come with -- or has started with grant funding, right? So just one example, you know, we now have an education lawyer; one, for our client population that represents -- works with our youth. And that was grant funded. The Bridge Home program that you heard Ms. Downey-Zayas talk about was grant funded. So we are expanding, not just our representation of people who are coming into the juvenile, independent and delinquent and adult systems. We also represent people in civil mental health court. And we do thousands of hearings a month. And that population of clients is expanding. Unfortunately, a lot of our population now are people in nursing homes with dementia. And so it's a little-known aspect of our work that we represent people in civil mental health as well as our dependency practice. But programmatically, we -- I come to Council every year and stress the importance of supporting the public defenders. But we need to expand our holistic representation, expand the number of social workers that we have. We need to do case management work as opposed to referral. And right now we do not have enough social workers to work with clients in a case management approach. The Bridge Home Program and Ms. DowneyZayas explaining that funding, that case management service is really critical, and that's what our clients need. So I think the 5 million request is a humble one. But it's absolutely a critical one. Not just to sustain the services that we have now, but we really need to expand in some critical areas, particularly around the diversion work that we are doing in Kensington and in reentry. This budget request included a $400,000 ask to support expanding Wellness Court from the one day, ultimately to now three, to now five. We did not get that $400,000 request from the Mayor, but we are hoping we can get funding to staff and expand. We want to move with this program, and we want to be able to meet the demand and the city's focus on expanding. Currently -- we don't have the resources currently to expand to that three or five days. The person who staffs Wellness Court is literally sitting right here and is a member of my executive team, and he's the one on the ground.
And still people have a constitutional right to be defended in these actions. And are there any private law firms stepping up to do this for free?
So it would only make sense that we need to fund you; is that correct?
I wanted to -- you kind of answered my next questions about social workers and stuff, and maybe I'll just go on a long soliloquy right now. You have 100 percent proven that holistic approaches to everything in the criminal justice system works. We have been doing this in partnership in Philadelphia now. We are all rowing in the same direction. Every single dollar we give you proves to be a decrease in crime, a decrease in people being incarcerated, a decrease in people with any kind of recidivism committing another crime. It doesn't make any sense at all that we wouldn't fund you for every single thing that you're doing. It is absolutely perfect. And you guys have kind of perfected the model too. You've taken on -- I can guarantee when you were first founded 70 something, is it?
1934. My guess is you came in, you took each case, you handled that case and you moved on. You now are looking at the big picture and seeing what pieces -- what matters and what works and what investments you need, including social workers, so somebody doesn't come back in again. I don't see any reason at all we wouldn't fully fund you. Can I ask a PAIFUP question? I also have a question for the law department too. So, PAIFUP, how much -- how much do you need to increase your PAIFUP representation that we know will happen? Start with that. Oh, how much additional funding do you need for PAIFUP?
We're asking for an additional $950,000 for this year. To really meet the moment, we would need substantially more than that. But that is all that we're asking for at this time. We are hoping to scale up our program to be able to represent every Philadelphian who needs assistance in detention, and then if released from custody, in their continued immigration removal proceedings.
I was struck by your comment -- your whole team's comments about how even one day incarcerated for somebody -- for a person, can affect their lives and how they need so much support on the other end. So how we quickly get them back into society as quickly as possible, and how much that could affect them and how much supports are needed. Do you have any plans to increase social work funding or any other mental health supports needed for folks who are released from detention?
Yes. This is a really excellent question. Our team provides a lot of the support, and in partnership, one of the reasons that the PAIFUP program exists at the Defender Association is so that we can collaborate on the many resources that the Defender already has. And so we work very closely with the social work team to provide these resources for our clients and with our community-based organizations. PAIFUP is a collaborative, not just of legal service providers, but of community-based organizations. And we all work together to provide that holistic representation for our clients. And so one of the things that we're constantly looking at is how we can expand services to our clients so that they cannot just survive the very difficult moments of being in custody. And it is civil detention, but it is indistinguishable from punitive criminal detention settings, to be able to not just survive that, but to be able to thrive in our communities. And we do that through our network of community-based organizations and within the resources that we have inside the Defender Association. So funding the Defender, writ large, also helps our immigrant clients as well.
Thank you. Can I ask a couple of questions to the law department as well? And if not, I'll come back around. CHAIR BASS: It's a short list. It's a short list. Next, Councilmember Thomas.
Good morning. Thank you. I want to first start by saying thank you to the entire legal team, both our solicitor as well as our public defenders. I've had the honor to work closely with both departments on a number of different issues. But everyone knows that my favorite issue to discuss with both departments is actually Driving Equality. Yesterday I had an opportunity to be in New York for a panel. And based on the work that we've done in Philadelphia, cities all across the country are looking at Driving Equality as a model to address issues as it relates to pre-contextual traffic stops. When we started that conversation in 2020, clearly the focal point of that conversation was dealing with men of color, specifically Black men who had been victims of a lot of viral situations that caught the attention of the entire -- the entire world, really. Now, the conversation is steered more towards ICE, and looking at pre-contextual stops to put people in a position where their status as citizens might have been jeopardized. It's no secret that we've been sued multiple times and there's a rumor that a certain court has decided to take the case. Can you talk to us a little bit about where we are as it relates to withstanding another challenge to Driving Equality? And what is the legal strategy that you're comfortable communicating today? Clearly you can't say the whole legal strategy, but what are some things that you're comfortable communicating today so this legislative body and the general public can understand that we are fighting our hardest to make sure that this legislation stays intact?
Sure. Councilmember, if you can believe it, we have been in litigation for four years now; four years over this. The whole time it's been enforced, right? There's never been a stay in place, which is important for people to know. And the sky has not fallen yet. So far -- so far as I'm aware, the sky has not fallen. We had won in the trial court in March of 2023. We got the case dismissed. We won in the Commonwealth Court in September of 2025. There was a further appeal, which is discretionary, meaning that the PA Supreme Court could take the appeal, and they in fact did take the appeal. So that will go through probably another year of litigation. Again, there's no stay in place. So enforcement will continue. If you ask me why they took it, I don't know. There were two dissents on the Commonwealth Court opinion that maybe they were trying to clean it up and to have --
You're saying they, can you let folks know who the "they" is?
Sure. What I'm saying is, I don't know why the Supreme Court decided to take this appeal. They did not have to. It was discretionary on their part; meaning it was not an appeal by right to the PA Supreme Court. There was with the Commonwealth Court opinion two dissents. And it may be that they, the PA Supreme Court, thought that they needed to clean up the opinion. But the issue is whether the ordinance and the executive order that follow the ordinance are preempted. And I have felt very strong about our legal position the entire -- the last four years. And we have been winning in that the Mayor must have discretion in dictating enforcement of the vehicle code.
So just to close out. Thank you, Madam Chair. How much money of taxpayer dollars have we wasted on these lawsuits the last four years? And where are we as it relates to the Public Defender's Office being able to assess the data around traffic stops and why the stop happened and what actually was the end result of those traffic stops? Those are my last two questions, Madam Chair.
I can get you the exact number. We did have Montgomery McCracken as co-counsel for a while. I'm going to say it's maybe $20,000 or $30,000, but I will get you that final number. Since then, my office has been handling it. So it's not out-of-pocket expense, but it's an awful lot of time that we could be working on other things, including all those gun cases that I read out, because it's the same team.
Is there a way that you can give us an estimate and maybe give it to our Council President sometime before we finish budget negotiations? I think it's important that the taxpayers recognize how much revenue and taxpayer hours -- I'm sorry. How much taxpayer dollars and manpower has been spent defending this case over the last four years. And if our Chief Public Defender could just close out with some information around data. Because we're still struggling to collect data. So how are you guys doing collecting data and what is the data? What is the story that the data has told you thus far?
Thank you, Councilmember Thomas. And we have been proud to partner with you in getting the Driving Equality law in effect. I will invite Mike Mellon, who you've worked with very closely from our Police Accountability Unit, to talk about the picture of the data. Now, we have a dashboard, the Driving Equality dashboard, but he can give you a clearer picture of what is happening with the data and what that looks like.
Good morning, and thank you for the question, Councilmember. Our unit --
This is Michael Mellon on behalf of the Defender and the Police Accountability Unit. Our unit, which consists of a data analyst and a policy analyst and two attorneys and some admin staff, together built a dashboard that tracks the policing related to vehicle stops. And so we can look in real time to see the trends that are happening in regard to policing as it relates to vehicle stops. Now, what we've seen over the last two years or so is vehicle stops have actually increased comparative to immediately after the pandemic. But right now we are having a little bit of trouble being able to see patterns related to why the officers are pulling the vehicles over. So we continue to work with the police department and the Council Member's office to improve the statistics that are available so that our citizens can see the trends that are happening within the police department to make sure that what we are seeing with Driving Equality, our expectations are being met as far as the officers behaving in a way that is consistent with the Driving Equality ordinance. Now, we are seeing a lot of disparities still. Disparities dropped, but are still very, very significant. And so we need to be, all of us, to be able to keep an eye on what's going on. And that's why the dashboard is important. It's why the data needs to be improved so that we all know what's going on.
Thank you, Mike. Madam Chair, with respect for the time, I'll come back to the second round to be able to do a deeper dive into this line of questioning, but I do want to again publicly affirm and thank the legal representation, both on the Chief Public Defender side as well as the City Solicitor for the great work that you've done with Driving Equality. Thank you so much.
And if I could just quickly add, thank you, Councilmember Thomas, that the Driving Equality dashboard is also another endeavor that is grant- funded by the Catalyst Foundation. So thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Lozada. Sorry. Councilmember LOZADA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I echo my colleagues' sentiments in saying thank you and expressing gratitude for the work that each of your departments do for our city every day. Many of my questions were asked by my colleagues, but I do have two simple, quick questions, one for each of you. I'll start with the Defender's Office. And that is, there are sometimes different sentiments expressed when we talk about the work that is happening at Wellness Court. And so very simply, I ask, do you believe in the work that we're doing at Wellness Court? Do you believe that the work that is happening there is happening with compassion and with empathy for those that are suffering from addiction? And do you believe that in order to respond and restore quality of life in the -- in the communities where this is happening, do you believe in the expansion or in the need for the expansion that is happening or that is being requested?
You know, last year when I sat at Council table, you know, I was clear that in our view we would've preferred to have been in from the beginning and to have sat at the table with the city, with the police, with the Office of Public Safety from the very beginning. Us, the District Attorney's Office, and the courts were not part of kind of strategically building out what Wellness Court would look like and how it would function. And I think, you know, one of the reasons we're seeing kind of a very, very slow progression of clients from Wellness Court into Riverview, is because we've had to navigate challenges to a system that was really designed without our direct involvement. As it stands, you know, we've been -- we've been there the entire time, from the start of the pilot project. And we'll go with the expansion to the two days, to the three days. And ultimately, if we get the funding, of course, to the five days. The work we're doing in lifting bench warrants is fantastic work. It's important work. It's keeping people out of jail, keeping the jail population low, but also making sure they're getting services that same day and that they're connected to services that same day. And that's a crucial element of -- and a crucial success point of the program. I do think -- and I've suggested to DBHIDS that I would like to have social workers to do case management for our client population. I know DBHIDS is hiring social workers of their own, but our clients -- these are our clients. They trust us, they look to us to guide them. And I think if I had an equivalent number of social workers, or if the social workers -- the 15 they want to hire, perhaps we get half of them to work with our -- you know, work with our team, I think you'll actually see much better outcomes. It's the case management that's really critical. It's following the clients. It's now helping them navigate all manner of challenges. So I think the program -- I believe in the program, I believe the program is working in some crucial elements. I believe that it will work with continued collaboration, but I cannot emphasize enough that we all need to be at the table and collaborate in ways that we can expand and improve this program, not just in Kensington, but all across the City of Philadelphia.
And that's why I ask you, right? Because I believe that you bring a different perspective, and I believe that people trust your word, right? I think oftentimes I hear from folks who don't understand what is happening there, that we're disappearing people or that people are being treated without compassion and without empathy, right? And so I think that hearing it from you here on the record, I think makes a difference. Folks don't understand that this is new and that there is a need for us to readjust when necessary. I appreciate your office's work as well as the police department and others involved in the courts, and your willingness to adjust where necessary in the best interest of those who are living in addiction and connecting them to services. So thank you for that. Thank you for your work. And thank you to your team too, who is on the ground and who, you know, is present and kind of working it through with us. We are grateful for your partnership. To our City Solicitor, thank you. Grateful for -- you recently helped me respond to a situation in the district, and I appreciate your support for that. You've often heard Majority Leader speak to the nuisance businesses in the community. There have been multiple pieces of legislation that have been passed in this legislative -- or by this legislative body. And the nuisance businesses issue persists in our -- in our neighborhoods. In the 7th Council District, I see one of these convenience stores pop up very quickly, sometimes without going through a zoning process. Everyone knows that they're selling illegal products, but it persists. And so at what point do we as a city determine that these types of businesses are not good for our communities? And what can you do to help expedite the process in order to hold these people accountable? Because I'm at the point now where I'm -- we've done overlays, right? And it doesn't even seem like the overlay to prevent these businesses from opening up in our communities is even helping. So at what point does the City Solicitor's office -- or what can you do to help us take back our communities? Because these folks are almost like predators. Majority Leader mentioned several times in these chambers that they're leaving New York because New York is cracking down on them. So what can we do as a city to prevent us from having to get to that point, right? We should be proactive. We're seeing what they're doing in other neighborhoods. What are we doing in the city to be able to protect our neighborhoods from predator businesses?
That's your small, simple question. I will say, if I tallied up all the meetings on the different topics that I handle, nuisance businesses is probably one of the top-rated in terms of volume of meetings that I'm in and calls that I'm on, because it is a game of whack-a-mole, right? It is -- you squash one and they pop up again, and you squash one and they pop up again. And the hard thing about it is they combine legal products and illegal products, right? You know that. And then we take their business license away, and then they pop up under another name. So one thing that we -- besides ramping up, so we have -- in this fiscal year, we hired five new attorneys for the code enforcement team. And they are literally hitting thousands of cases, working very closely with the police department on 4,400 cases. The other thing we did, which is -- was gold, is to hire an investigator for that unit. And the thing that he is doing is going through public records to find joint ownership between all of these. And so one thing we're trying to do right now is figure out the right way to hold successors liable, right, for their predecessors, because it's all the same people, right? So that is something that we are very invested in doing. I unfortunately don't have all the answers. I -- we are trying any kind of innovation, and I know that Council has been really supportive. But we do have -- and we can do a fuller briefing with the Office of Public Safety and L&I, because we do have these meetings. But it is really tricky in particular because some of the businesses have certain through lines that would give them certain legal protections. And I can brief you -- that was very vague. I'll brief you offline about that. But it is -- but it is a struggle. I'll just admit it is a real struggle. But our investigator is worth his salary in gold because he is starting to unpeel all of that gristle that gets tied up in these -- like the shell game that they're playing.
I recognize that we have to be cautious about racial profiling. I get it.
But if it's the same community who is being problematic in our neighborhoods, then we need to -- we're losing a lot of our young people as a result of these establishments opening up in our neighborhoods. And so I think that we're sending mixed messages as a city, right? We're saying we want to be open for business, and come bring your business into our city, and open up in neighborhoods, and, you know, we want to have a nightlife and we want to be like a New York. And we -- but we recognize that -- well, we have to recognize that maybe we're not ready to be a New York, right? That maybe we don't have the capacity, that maybe, you know, we don't live on top of each other like they do in New York. And that these types of businesses are really impacting quality of life in neighborhoods. And they are the reason why we're losing some of our young people and our young people are being exposed to certain types of products, because there is a lack of enforcement, because we're afraid of people saying that we're profiling a certain community. And so I want us to do whatever we absolutely can do. There's been funding for a nuisance business task force, hiring infectors and task force and health department. We need to do more. And so I am going to ask you to do what we can. I want to be a partner in that. You know, in some blocks I have four and five of these businesses, and it's just -- it's a problem.
Yeah. If I could say two more things. One, it's cities across the country. So this -- and I'm on the board of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, and we're all struggling with this, big city, small cities, because the demand is there, right? There's the supply and the demand, right? And we have product after product after product, whether it's something ingested or something on our phones that's just giving us these addictive-like behaviors, right? And forming those pathways. And so there's got to be two sides of it, right? And that's why we've done the tobacco and the vaping and that whole line of cases that we've worked on to try supply and demand. And the demand is really hard because of -- quite honestly, I'm not a doctor, but the way that brains are being rewired to want that hit all the time.
Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Chair recognizes Councilmember Katherine Gilmore Richardson, and then Councilman J. Young.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you all so much for being here this morning. I'll start with our thank- yous. Of course, thank you to our City Solicitor, Renee Garcia, to Sam, your Chief of Staff; thank you very much for your responsiveness to the entire legislative unit. Lewis Rosman, our old friend from Council. Raynell Staley, thank you very much, Raynell, and I hope you're listening. And Zoe, thank you so much. Joanna Klein from the Code Enforcement Unit. Jim Zwolak, who I've had an opportunity to work with even back when I was a staffer; thank you very much for always being helpful with information and guidance relative to the delinquency, real estate, sheriff sale, and lien cases, of which we just sent another one today. So thank you very, very much. And for the Defenders Association, thank you so much to Keisha Hudson, our Chief Defender. Thank you to Everett Gillison, we appreciate you being here and your presence today. And also to Rhonda Harvey and the entire Harvey family. They are defenders through and through. So I just wanted to give each of them a shout-out and say thank you. I wanted to go back to the point of my colleague, Councilmember Lozada, to nuisance businesses for law department. Can you provide an update on the nuisance business unit in the law department? How many nuisance abatement plans is law currently working on? And how does law department work with other city departments to ensure we pursue fines and fees for businesses who owe the city money based on code enforcement court cases? And then to the point that was brought up during your response to Councilmember Lozada, if you could speak to how you all are enforcing the new legislation that we just passed relative to the businesses that are changing their LLCs. And so -- to try to avoid, you know, their abatement plans.
I have some figures here. And then if you want more figures -- well, I'll give this to you in writing, and then if you want more figures, I'll give it to you as well. So in our nuisance and property unit for this fiscal year, so July 1st 2025 to current, the unit received 77 referrals. We filed 16 matters in court. We have referrals sitting, and there's 10 24 that are kind of in the pipeline for 4,400 cases. We have a nuisance abatement plan request 48. I don't know of those 48, I can follow up on how many are completed. We've filed two restraining orders and we have at least five BLUR appeals that are pending. If you need more, I have figures on short dumping. I have figures on health appeals. I have a lot of figures.
Health appeals would be great because I think that goes into the issue that we were talking about the other week, Councilmember Lozada, relative to the businesses with the permits, the cigarette permits as well.
Yep. So tobacco enforcement, again, on this fiscal year, we've handled 29 appeals at BLUR for tobacco enforcement.
Overall, in this fiscal year, we filed 1,045 cases, and we've handled 1,600 court appearances and 1,800 administrative board appearances. We've collected, I think this is one of your questions, $2.6 million in fines and fees.
And we have -- we've hired collection counsel that does contingency work, because collection is actually really difficult when the businesses are popping up and down.
So we've sent a lot more out, so those collection numbers should go up. We just don't have the capacity to run around town. So we have collection counsel for that.
Okay. That'll be great. And I'll get the rest of the numbers -- of the numbers later.
But I also -- I wanted to -- and I know I just sent this to you last night, but I have to get this on the record. Because I serve in dual positions now and work closely with my district Councilmember, Councilmember Jones, very closely. But I have to get this on the record relative to the letter, first-class mail, that we received from one of the former presidents of WRA, Mr. Reed. And I'm putting this on the record because I know he watches, and so I just want him to know that we did send that information to our City Solicitor and her team for their follow-up. L&I is doing their part. I mean, they have gone out there on numerous occasions relative to the two properties in question that are owned by the same owner, residential properties in Wynnefield. And we just need the follow-up to take place because we are being inundated in that community by owners, just like the one that was referenced in that letter that we received last night. And I know the community would be greatly appreciative of the follow-up. I will tell you that two of the properties on that block -- and for reference, there's only three properties on that side of the street, two of the three have gone up for sale and two of the three have sold that are directly next door to that one particular problem property. So it is an issue. And we're talking about, you know, houses that are of great worth. And so for those folks who are longtime Wynnefield residents to move as a result of that nuisance residential property, it's an issue. And all in that corridor we have a challenge. We had the folks that were having the paid pool parties in a residential neighborhood, selling sections, hookah and liquor. I mean, we have been inundated in that section with nuisance residential properties. And so I just had to put that on the record because we just received that letter just yesterday. I just sent that to you all last night. But I'm just putting it on the record because I know that Mr. Reed listens.
Yeah. And, Majority Leader, we do have an update. Would you like to put that on the record or shall we submit that in writing?
Yes, we can submit it in writing because of the sensitive nature of that particular location. But I just want them to know that we are following up.
Okay. I'll have a written response to you -- first I'll send it to you so we can work with how to respond to the community.
Yep. And I want to thank L&I and the team for all their work for following up, because they were really helpful in coordinating and going back and forth over the last year. Okay.
All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Council Lady, Majority Leader. Chair recognizes Councilmember J. Young.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions for the law department. I know right now we're suing Glock, but our police department still uses Glock. And I know as an attorney, when, you know, I had clients, we're suing somebody or some entity, we don't use that product or use that service anymore while we're suing them. So what advice have you given our police department while we're suing Glock but still using their products?
Yeah. That's what makes the behavior doubly offensive, is that we do use Glocks, and you'll hear the police department say they're very reliable. They're very reliable guns. And then on the flip side, they're advertising that you can make them into automatic weapons, right? And that is at the heart of our case. How could you -- how could you play both sides like that, right? The police department also mentioned that to turn over all their weapons would take probably five years. So at that point, we're not going through that. We're hoping to work with them. Honestly, what we want is a better product, and we want them to stop advertising. So that's where we are now. There's a long road and there's lots of discussions to have, but you've really hit on a point that makes it like just doubly insulting to us that they would produce something and advertise something that, number one, is not legal. It's not legal for everybody to have automatic weapons, right? But that can hurt our police.
I mean, essentially to me it's just -- even if we win this case, we're just going to get our money back that we are already giving them. So it's -- you know, even if it does take five years, I think that we should show that we're willing to, you know, put our money where our mouth is and start that process. Because if we don't, then Glock is winning either way. So I just wanted to put that on the record. I have another question regarding the retail delivery tax. In the legislation itself, it says that in the -- I guess, in the preamble, it says, "Whereas, the steady increase of delivery vehicles on streets has led and continues to lead to increased traffic congestion, deterioration of the streets, vehicle-related area emissions and other harms and cost to the city and the residents." So why are we taxing the retailer instead of the delivery services that are causing these things that happen on our streets?
Sure. That is something that is privileged information, unless the administration wants to talk about that. So I will send -- the Mayor's office is in the room, and will note that question.
So the reason why we're taxed -- the city has proposed to tax retailers versus the delivery services is privileged; is that what you're saying?
Any conversations that I've had with the Mayor on why she's doing one tax or another tax would be privileged, yes.
Okay. Would it be legal for us to tax the delivery services?
That is a question that I can answer for you in privilege. I will submit a written response to you.
I'm asking -- I'm waiving privilege. I'm waiving it. Can you answer that question now for us?
I cannot answer that question right now because I have not done -- I personally have not done that research. If it's been done -- but even if it was, I would not give you that in public.
Thank you. My last question for you is regarding parity for your employees with, I want to say, other legal departments, right? With the District Attorney's Office, the Defender's Office. Can you tell us where some of the, I guess, the salary disparities are between attorneys that are doing similar work between your departments and like the District Attorney's Office? And I mean, I've noticed some of the salaries for District Attorney employees are a lot higher than some of the salaries for folks working in our law department. Can you talk to us about why there are certain disparities?
Sure. I have a pay plan, which I'm happy to share for everybody who wants it. And it goes by title. And then there are steps in each title. So the entry level is assistant city solicitor, and there are five or six steps, and the Deputy and five or six steps. And the same for staff members as well. We have pay scales. I do not differentiate between those in the child welfare unit and the code unit, right? We are looking for the same level of experience, same pay throughout. My understanding, and I know he's going to be here next week, is that the District Attorney's Office is not set up that way. I can't speak for the Defenders on how they do it, but that's how we set our office up.
Thank you. The same question for the Defender Association. Like, how do you set up your pay scale amongst your attorneys? I know that now your attorneys are represented. But how was that pay scale set up for your entry-level attorneys versus your higher-level, more seasoned attorneys?
Thank you for that question, Councilmember Young. And I had started to talk about this before, but just to lay the groundwork, that the Defender Association's starting salary is far below that compared to other attorneys and other public defenders across the Commonwealth, but also in New Jersey, where their starting salary is $85,000. And in Maryland, that's the starting salary as well. Our starting salary is $75,000. My understanding, I believe the law department and the District Attorneys are on the same starting level, which I believe is $79,000 or $80,000 starting. But Solicitor Garcia can answer that question. We have a contract with the UAW. Our attorneys are unionized. So our starting is at $75,000 and it goes up each year. We are a unique organization in that 15 percent or so of our staff have been there for decades. So people have spent literal decades practicing as attorneys in our office, which is -- which is wonderful service. But we also have to make sure that we account for that experience. And so we have a 30-year scale so that the salary goes up by $2,000 every year. But it's a 30-year scale to accommodate for having a significant workforce that has been with the organization for decades.
Thank you. And, Madam Defender, can you tell us what -- I guess, what are the annual or the average percentage increases in salary that you -- that you negotiated with your employees?
Yeah. Well, the attorney -- with your attorney union and non-attorney union.
Right. So we're at the bargaining table now with our non-attorney union. And we are still discussing where we can land on salaries given the budget outlook.
Yeah. I'm just bringing that up because, you know, looking at where we are, you know, our city employees went on strike for 3.5 percent, right? And so just trying to maintain that parity when it comes to increases in salary and looking at where some of our other represented employees are. I know your employees are not city employees, but you're asking the city for funding. So I'm just trying to ensure that there's parity when it comes to those increases as well.
Right. And a reminder, again, because we are not a city agency, we don't have a pension. We have a 403(b) that we have to pay into and take care of -- for our staff. But that's another, you know, distinction between how our agency is treated -- pitted against other agencies. And so the fact that we don't have a pension is something that we have to account for in our 403(b) benefits, which is something that we are discussing at the bargaining table for our non-attorneys right now.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I heard the bell. Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes -- I'm going to go to Councilmember Landau because I know you said you just had a couple of questions real quick.
Thank you. Thank you. CHAIR BASS: It's all right. Go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you again. So my questions are for the law department. I wanted to talk a little bit about technology, following up on the Majority Leader's questions about nuisance businesses and the information that we have that you've hired an investigator. What role does the law department play in weighing in on technology for all of our departments? It feels like a lot of the grievances that come to us and that we pass along to all city departments and agencies are really about what seems like simple communication issues that also we could be using technology to connect more dots. It seems that for all of the issues that a nuisance business might have, even if we have them in different tech silos, databases in the city, why are we not connecting them? So start with, how much -- like, what role does the law department play in overseeing all technology? And again, I want to just touch on one other thing that came up today. Even contracting, we know when contracts come up, we know when they need to be conformed, we know when they need to be fully executed, and then when someone needs to be paid. This seems like we are so far behind the times in what should be happening quickly and to get to like the really strong meat of your work instead of dealing with some of the smaller administrative things that could be easily done.
Thank you for the questions. I'll take the technology question first. I have two hats. One is as a department head and one as a city solicitor, right? So I'm responsible for 415 people and the technology that they use, right? So I have -- you know, within budget, et cetera, I have some ability to get new technologies to help us out there. So I'm getting a real case management system after 30 years of using a piece of nonsense that was proprietary, right? And with that, I can track a lot more data, right? So that will be key. On the other side, so on the City Solicitor side, I am in the room and trying to figure out, particularly with Philly Stat 360, how to get our data into their bucket so they can spit it back at us, right? And the same with Revenue and the police. And we have endless meetings about this. And Philly Stat 360 is really the hub of that. So I'm there as kind of a stakeholder because I have data, right? And then there's kind of the third hat that I wear; any contracts for technology, right? I know you're very interested in AI. All of that goes through me and they're very heavily negotiated. So there's kind of three lines of responsibility around technology. For contracting, I do want to put on the record the work. I know it is frustrating. It is frustrating for everybody. I have a lot of contracts, so it's frustrating for us too. But there are some tangible things that we have done that I'll just read through, knowing that we're getting short on time. So this is work that's done with the law department, CAO, Procurement, and Finance. So we accelerated the approval process for all amendments, eliminating days from the overall conformance timeline for amendments. We reviewed proposed scopes and budgets in advance of contract routing to expedite law's review, collaborated with Procurement and OIT on an RFP to update and streamline all city contracting templates. Met biweekly with city stakeholders to identify contracting issues and problem solving in real time. And along with Procurement and CAO, led fiscal year '27 procurement kickoff to establish timelines and best practices for departments to ensure timely conformance. So we're not seeing -- we saw this year a smoothing out of contracts coming throughout the year. We still have to do better. And the procurement commissioner will tell you that, but usually this time we're starting to drown and we're okay and we're moving things and we're cranking. So, you know, they may look like small things, but all of this together, I personally feel that we are moving in the right direction and law is in the middle of all that.
I appreciate. And I want to shout out the Majority Leader also for all of her work on this process. This is -- you know, as somebody who worked for the city for so many years, sometimes you get used to the machine not working well. You have to do a deep dive into it to fix it. But I think you said earlier today, to someone else's question, that law should be the center for all contracts. And I don't know all the details of what happens in the administration, but that kind of feels right. It feels like you are the ones who could -- this is an issue of justice. This is an issue for so many of the organizations who we are funding to do the important work on the ground. They are struggling if they can't get their money on time. And that's an issue of justice. The nuisance business issue is an issue of justice. It's all -- it all comes under the same guidelines. I've got to jump in with two more questions real quick. One, I wanted to follow up on a hearing that we had about GPS monitoring of our -- of our youth. And this is -- I wanted to know about -- with this -- we have a vendor with Track Group. And it disclosed that the City of Philadelphia can access individuals GPS location data for up to seven years after a case is closed. Track Group then stores all the data indefinitely in their own facilities. And the goal is to assess whether current data retention and storage practices align with the city's legal obligations and understand the potential privacy, civil liberties, and whatnot. This is what I want to know. So does the contract for the GPS monitor vendor include parameters around collection, storage, and sharing of individual's data? If yes -- and then also can you share more about these parameters? I'm very interested in this.
I probably looked at that contract at some point. I will tell you in our general provisions -- that all of those obligations are included in our general provisions. So the collection of data, the storing of data, the sharing of data, all of that is covered in myriad places in the terms that we give to everybody. So I can provide a copy of that. I'm looking at my team to know if they know anything about this contract in particular. But I will follow up with you on that and highlight the sections that you're asking about.
I appreciate that so much. And then finally, I was so pleased to be able to -- when the Mayor came out with her consumer protection bill that you guys worked on for so long, it was so wonderful to be able to introduce that on our behalf. What -- for -- the Glock case is so exciting to me. That's exactly what we should be using this law for. And so what emerging issues are you seeing, and any trends in especially things like digital fraud and scams that is -- that are harming Philadelphians? What's next on this?
Yeah. We have some subpoenas out there that I can tell you privately about. But you've hit it. It has moved to the digital space. It was probably for a long time contractors with like bogus agreements and stuff, right? And now it is -- I don't know, that -- you know, something I get on my phone that I click on and all of a sudden, you know, my data is gone. It is much harder to trace because these perpetrators are often not even here, right? And so we are trying to pull that out to see if we can work -- and we talk with law enforcement to see if there's anything that we can do there. A lot of it is education and we're working with the CEO on education about fraud. And then I would say financial predatory practices is something we're very focused on as well because there's still a lot of junk products out there, and it's easier than ever to apply for them, because you can just apply on your phone. You don't have to go to an office or anything. So that's a big part of our focus right now.
Thank you so much. This is one of my favorite days or one of my favorite panels. I can sit here all day, as we all know. Last thing, Solicitor Garcia, I have a request for you. When we hear from the Public Defender's Office this year in particular, but every single year about the incredible holistic work that they're doing that is constitutionally required, that is helping us to reduce crime and recidivism here in the City of Philadelphia, again, I say this is an issue of justice. We are all winning because of their work. They have expenses that the DA's Office does not have. I would ask you can you please advocate for the increase in their budget as a reason for justice, for the -- for the betterment of Philadelphia? I would ask you, will you please advocate for an increase in their budget?
I think the request to the Mayor's Office has come quite clearly out today.
Thank you very much. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Phillips.
Thank you, Chairwoman Bass. I just wanted to ask a quick question for the delivery tax, Solicitor. If -I want to know, does the delivery tax exempt places like -- or entities like -- companies like FedEx, UPS, DHL, USPS?
The tax is on the point of sale. So it would be -- I don't want to name any big warehouse stores. So it's not on the carrier, it's on the retailer, who's -- the customer is paying, right? I'm entering to a transaction with Target. It's on the point of sale.
Right. So therefore, a company like FedEx, the retailer can actually -- so basically the retailer is absorbing the tax and it's being passed off to the consumer, correct?
And that's the way -- my understanding, it's the way it's set up. But I really want to defer to Rob Dubow because I'm staring at a lot of words, and he's the master of all details.
Okay. Yeah. One of the things I was thinking about is that I know there's like -- there's supposed to be no tax on food -- you know, it's just -- it's just only solely -- not on food, but there may be companies that may find their way to kind of angle themselves to not, you know, be a part -- to be a part of like, oh yeah, we're not food. And they're going to end up being -- they end up taxing everything at that point.
Okay. And I just have another question. You set a target of 3,250 nuisance-related cases annually. How much of that work relies on outside counsel versus internal staff to support? If we're increasing funds for outside firms, how does that translate to faster or more effective enforcement in neighborhoods?
Okay. That's great. And then also, is it a number -- are there a number of violations or severity issue, community complaints, that you do in coordination with the Philadelphia Police Department and L&I when it comes to these cases? Are you coordinating with them closely?
All right. And then one of my final questions, which is really important -- well, I wouldn't say important, but I'm just really curious about; relatively important. In the budget detail I see Epiq Discovery Solutions.
Increasing to about $660,000 for e-discovery services. Can you please explain what is driving that increase and why is it important for services -- these services, why is it important -- so important for them to increase the cost?
Yeah. So that's -- e-discovery is -- in a litigation, we have to exchange documents, right? In civil discovery, you should exchange documents. And most of our, if not -- almost all of our data is electronic now. We don't have, you know, photocopy, like back in the day, you used to have paper documents and you had to photocopy them and send them to the other side. It's all electronic now. And there's so much more data because people are using Teams and SharePoint and Copilot and all of it. There's an enormous amount of data. So when we're in a litigation and we have to turn over information or receive information, we use Epiq eDiscovery. They are our e-discovery platform. We don't have a platform within the city. And so that data would get pulled, emails, Teams, data from SharePoint would get pulled and put into the eDiscovery's platform, and then produced from there out to either the plaintiff or the defendant, and vice versa. If they're producing something to us, it goes into this platform.
Okay. Thank you so much, Chairwoman; and thank you, Solicitor, for some of the support that you provided our office for the past year. And we're looking forward to continued growth in this department. Thank you.
Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Young.
Thank you. I want to get back on that -- the question I had regarding the retail tax. But you -- so you said the Finance Director may have more details or information on that. And I'm just asking, this is the budget hearing, is there anyone from Finance or Budget here that can answer some of those questions that my colleague and I may have regarding that?
So essentially -- yeah, I mean, we -- you've asked -- Councilmember Phillips asked a question and you said, well, Finance is better suited to answer that question. So I'm just asking, is there someone from Finance or Budget here that can answer the questions that we have related to that particular tax? Because, you know, we are in the middle of budget hearings where that piece of legislation is a part of this process. So just asking if there's somebody here.
I don't believe there is anybody here. I think the question was whether we expect that the retailers will absorb the tax or pass it on to the consumer?
I don't know. I did watch the hearing last week, so I don't know if that particular question was asked, but we can certainly pass the question up and have a written response.
So in your legal opinion then, right, when you're giving advice -- and I know you'll probably say it's privileged information, but as we are going through the process of all the what- ifs as attorneys, we give our clients all the what-ifs.
Now, has that question been -- has the law department opined on that? Has that been one of the what-ifs that has been asked, and what is the outcome of that?
All right. You know that I can't tell you what I've talked to the client about. I can't tell you what they've asked about.
Thank you. So that's just a question that I guess I'm going to follow up with another question in writing regarding that question, and we can get some answers to that.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you. Okay. We're done a little bit early unless anyone else has any questions. And if not -- Councilmember, you have questions? Okay. So this committee will stand in recess until 2:00 p.m. Thank you. (Lunch recess.) CHAIR BASS: Good afternoon. This afternoon we're going to have scheduled testimony from the First Judicial District and the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office. Mr. Stefan, will you please call the next panel to testify?
The next panel is Judge Nina Wright-Padilla, President Judge Court of Common Pleas and Chair, Administrative Governing Board. And then we'll also have, in the Sheriff's Office, Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff for the City and County of Philadelphia. CHAIR BASS: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon. CHAIR BASS: Okay. And whoever wants to go first, you can please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. I am Nina Wright Padilla, President Judge Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. I'm very, very happy to be here. With me I have Richard McSorley. He's our Court Administrator.
And I can't speak for the sheriff. I think it's proper for her to speak for herself. CHAIR BASS: Right. She'll -- she'll go --
Oh, later. CHAIR BASS: -- as soon as you're finished with the testimony.
I'm sorry. CHAIR BASS: That's okay. It's all right.
Okay. Good afternoon, members of City Council. I am Judge Nina Wright Padilla, President Judge Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Chair of the Administrative Governing Board. I am pleased to provide testimony on the First Judicial District's Fiscal Year 2027 Operating Budget. First Judicial District is essential to the daily functioning of Philadelphia, handling hundreds of thousands of cases each year, while ensuring fair, timely, and efficient justice across all divisions of the court. We drive outcomes in public safety, community stability, and case resolution 14 through strengthened courtroom safety and coordinated programs such as Accelerated Misdemeanor Program and the Neighborhood Wellness Court, addressing complex challenges including behavioral health and the opioid crises. This progress depends on a strong workforce. During the recent union negotiations, we sat side by side with the City of Philadelphia and members of the mayor's office to bring those contacts close together, and the -- and the contracts close. Excuse me. I am certain that the city would say that the FJD legal team led by Eric Assini -- raise your hand, Eric, thank you -- was instrumental in bringing those negotiations to a successful conclusion. At that time, we had expected that the same consideration for the salary increases would go forward for our non-represented staff. We have over 800 non-represented employees in critical roles. We are here today to simply ask that the same salary increase be granted to those employees as well. Therefore, to maintain operations and remain competitive, we are requesting a three percent salary adjustment for those employees, which is the same as the union increase and the continuation of the fifth salary step for eligible staff. This step was also something that was negotiated with the unions. This is not about expansion; it is about sustaining performance, preventing wage compression, and retaining the talent needed to keep our courts running effectively. With continued partnership and support from the city, the First Judicial District will remain a stable, high performing court advancing safety, fairness, and opportunity for all Philadelphians. We have provided written testimony, and we are available for any questions you may have. Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you very much for your testimony. We're going to hold questions until we -- after we hear from the Sheriff. Madam Sheriff, please state your name and proceed. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon. I'm Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff for the City and County of Philadelphia. First of all, good afternoon. CHAIR BASS: Good afternoon. SHERIFF BILAL: And I don't see Council President, so I'll say Councilwoman Cindy Bass. CHAIR BASS: Yes. SHERIFF BILAL: It is both an honor and a privilege to appear before you today. I am Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff for the City and County of Philadelphia. Joining me today, Jamison Rogers, Chief of Staff; Patrick Lee, Chief Financial Officer. And they can raise their hands as I'm saying it, so you'll know who they are. Deputy CFO and Project Manager, William Brownlee; Craig Martin, Senior Chief Budget Officer; Chief Deputy of Court Operation, Sean Thornton; Inspector William Hans, Family Court and Transportation; Inspector Sean Marshall, he's not here. He had a death, his family, but he would have, Internal Affairs and Training. Chief Inspector David Fallen, Civil Enforcement; Inspector Joshua Perez, City Hall and Widener Building; Chief Inspector Nicole Nobles of specialized units, Warrants, Bike Unit, K-9, Domestic Violence Task Force Unit; and IT Director Eric Chambers. Inspector Moore, who is also part of our Warrant Unit. And here we have today is Badia Beasley, Mark Wilson from our Real Estate division. Thank you, you-all for being here today. We do appreciate you standing. Here are our plans for Fiscal 2027.
As we move into Fiscal Year 2027, the Sheriff's Office remains aligned with the city's blueprint of Safer Philadelphia with continuous guide -- with a continuous guide of our operational priorities. Our core mission remains the execution of all orders from the First Judicial, while also expanding our efforts to return excess proceeds from sheriff sales to residents, helping to restore financial stability and promote pathways to ownership. We will continue to support the vision of safer, cleaner, and greener Philadelphia. Our Civil Enforcement and Warrant Unit remains critical to this effort, working in close partnership with the District Attorney's Office and the Philadelphia Police Department to apprehend fugitives, and ensure compliance with the court orders. Our Fiscal 2027 budget request of 19,268,000: For several years, this office has operated under constraint funding levels, resulting in ongoing staffing challenges and impacts to service delivery. As we enter this budget cycle, we respectfully urge City Council to remain grounded in the first principle of the vision of safer. Achieving that goal requires not only alignment in priorities, but also the necessary partnerships and financial investment. We look forward to working collaboratively with City Council to ensure this office is adequately resourced and strengthened operations, support of our personnel and continued delivery of essential public safety services to residents of Philadelphia. Court security and staffing needs personnel overtime impact. Despite operating with staffing shortages, our deputies continue to provide consistent and professional security across all court facilities. However, this level of service comes at a cost. Current staffing levels have resulted in significant reliance on overtime contributing to increased fatigue, higher sick -- higher sick leave usage, and long- term strain on our workforce. While our personnel continue to perform in high level, this model cannot be sustained. For Fiscal '27, we are prioritizing increased hiring of deputy sheriffs and professional staff, reduction in overtime dependency, workforce stabilization and wellness. Strategic investment in personnel will allow us to reduce overtime expenditures over time, improve employment -- employee retention, and maintain the high level of security required within our court system. We've done election security. The Sheriff Office played a crucial role in supporting election security efforts in 2024 and 2025 by supplementing law enforcement presence citywide. As we prepare for future election cycles, we anticipate continued demand for these services and will plan accordingly to ensure safe, secure, and orderly elections for Philadelphia residents. Interagency support and operational flexibility. In addition to our core responsibility, the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office consistently support partner agencies across the City and Commonwealth when called upon. We work closely with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, the Office of Emergency Management, and the Philadelphia Police Department, among others to provide critical resources and personnel during protests, large scale events, and other high-profile operations. On a near daily basis, we are called upon. Our office assists with the deployment of transportation access, including buses to support coordinated public safety efforts, even when these requests require significant logistical coordination. While continuing to meet our primary obligation to the courts, this level of inter-agency support reflects our ability to operate flexibly and efficiently, consistently doing more with limited resources in the service of the City of Philadelphia. Let me say this, to be clear, there are a lot of things that we are a part of, but yet we have not mentioned in the press conference. Competitive salaries, retention, and personnel funding: A significant challenge we face as we enter 2027 -- Fiscal 2027, is compensation.
Deputy Sheriff's salary in Philadelphia remains non-competitive compared to others in surrounding counties in Pennsylvania. This disparity continues to impact both recruitment and retention, particularly as other jurisdictions offer higher starting salaries and more accessible training pathways. Addressing salaries' competitiveness will be essential to maintaining a qualified and stable workforce. One of the most significant structural challenges we face in current requirement for recruits to attend Pennsylvania Sheriff's Academy of State College. 19-week residential program creates barriers to entry, particularly for candidates with families or local obligations, and contributes to delays in over -- on onboarding new deputies. Fiscal '27 and beyond, we propose exploring a local sheriff academy here in Philadelphia. A local academy will shorten onboarding timelines, improve accessibility for diverse candidates, enable rolling hiring cycles rather than limited annual classes, strengthen regional collaboration. We have already received written support from the Sheriffs of Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, and Chester Counties who have expressed interest in sending recruits to Philadelphia based on that academy -- regional academy here. Technology investment: Strategic investments in technology remains a priority in 2027. Our partnership with Tyler Tech Technologies will improve financial transparency, accountability by enhancing our ability to track receipts, void transactions, and disbursements in real time. Additionally, the implementation of LiveScan Plus system will provide deputies with mobile biometric identification capabilities, allowing for real time fingerprinting and warrant verifications in the field. This advancement will significantly improve operational efficiency and public safety outcomes. Community engagement and specialized units: In 2027, we plan to expand our Bike and K-9 Units, increasing visibility, law enforcement presence in and around court facilities and key areas such as City Hall. We also remain committed to community-based initiatives. In 2025, the Sheriff's Office hosted free healthcare pop-up clinics and provided critical service to underserved communities, an effort we plan to continue and expand. Additionally, Philadelphia Sheriff's Office is proud to be the first law enforcement agency in Pennsylvania to achieve certification in autism awareness. This training ensures that both sworn and professional staff are better equipped to serve individuals with autism and their families with care and understanding. Closing remarks here: with your continued support, we are confident we can meet the demands of Fiscal 2027 and beyond. We remain committed to working in partnership with the City Council and all stakeholders to strengthen public safety, improve operational efficiency, and serve the residents of Philadelphia with professionalism and integrity. Before closing, I would like to take a note. The importance of ensuring that the Sheriff's Office budget is fully reviewed and properly considered as part of Fiscal '27 process. Doing so will allow us to effectively plan, allocate resources, and continue delivering the critical services that the courts and the public rely upon. Lastly, on behalf of my entire team, thank you for your continued partnerships and support in our shared mission to keep Philadelphia safe, secure, and thriving. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIR BASS: Well, thank you for your testimony, and I want to thank you for you and your department and the First Judicial District for all of your hard work. And one of your statements earlier was that the City of Philadelphia works because you all work, and so I don't want it to be in any way diminished. The amount of work that you all do, the high level of responsibility that you have and the -- you know, just overall, the way you conduct yourselves and conduct your departments.
That doesn't always get properly recognized. There's a lot of criticism; I think that there's particularly a lot of criticism around African American women in leadership. So I just really want to say thank you for all of the work that you do, really, to all of your departments and staff. So thank you for your work. I just had one quick question before I turn it over to my colleagues, and that is around sheriff's sales. Can you talk a little bit about sheriff sales? Where are we in the process? What's happening? What should we be expecting? SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. Sheriff's sales are going on. As of August of 2024, we are now back full blast of five sales a month. Some of the things that we are doing is we went technical; our sheriff's sales are online, more people are bidding, more people are getting excess proceeds back to them because the more people that bid, the more money they get back. Mortgage sales are up, tax sales are up. And I think each of you have a package on your desk. We give all the diagrams and all the numbers to what is going on in the sheriff's sale as real estate. Let me give you some more questions. Real estate, well, let me see. You have a specific area in the real estate? Because there's so many departments in the real estate division. CHAIR BASS: Well, you know, I really wanted to -- if -- listen, if you read some of the public daily publications, you would think that, you know, real estate, particularly in the Sheriff's Department, was going to hell in a handbasket. SHERIFF BILAL: Huh-uh. CHAIR BASS: And so I really wanted to try to address some of the items that may cause doubt or concern with the general public in terms of some of the things that have been alluded to from the Sheriff's Department with, you know, deed transfers and, you know, returning funds, you know, belonging to heirs and others that, you know, through a sheriff's sale process are due to have some sort of a refund. Can you talk about some of those types of things that are portrayed to be as problematic within the Sheriff's Office? I would appreciate any clarity that you could provide. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. Thank you for that question -- CHAIR BASS: Oh, sure. SHERIFF BILAL: -- because basically a lot of the stuff that we are -- that are being put in the papers is basically twisting the narrative. Let's start with deeds, and in your package, you have our deed pamphlet, which we give out to everybody to tell the process. A lot of the time they're saying the deeds are so delayed and so behind. There are reasons why they are. And we put that information up on our webpage to explain that. The process of deeds process is once you do a sheriff's sale, let's say you do a sheriff's sale, January of 2025. Mortgage sale; you purchase the property. Mortgage company think the sheriff offer is like the storage bin for them. They basically buy that property back, and they don't move on it or pay any of the bills to that property until they get a buyer for it. So they bought it back in January of 2025, but they don't get a buyer for it until, let's say, September of 2025. Now it is the rush to get the deed. But the situation is this way, until you pay all the invoices on that property that you get from the Sheriff's Office, is when your deed process starts. CHAIR BASS: Uh-huh. SHERIFF BILAL: It doesn't start because you bought it in January of 2025; it starts once you pay all the bills on it. And that a lot of times they don't pay all the bills on it until they get a buyer, which is sometime in September. And now your deed process starts. And now as we go through the deed process, we can form it; it gets recorded, and then you get to deed. But if you believe them that run to the newspapers, Oh, I didn't get my deed. Well, they never tell them that they didn't pay the invoice of the property.
And when it comes down to tax lien sales, they never tell them that they didn't upload their tax compliance letter that they're supposed to give for the city purposes to make sure they don't owe any taxes in the city. They never -- they never tell them that. Once you give your tax compliance letter to us, then your deed process start. Now you can buy the property, you can settle on it, but according to the rules from the city, you have to have a tax compliance letter to say that you don't owe any taxes in the city. Now, once you give us that, now your deed process starts. See, they can put any, Oh, I haven't got my deed because I bought it in January, but until you finish and complete the sale, your deed doesn't start. And a lot of, because we dealt with a couple of people, we done did over close to 2,000 deeds in 2025, and up to about 300 and something up till this date. And these are the people that follow the rules and in compliance, all the paperwork is in, their invoices are paid, and their tax certificate for tax sales is uploaded and done. The ones that run to the papers is the same person that tried to get to the head of the line a year ago. So the ones that try to get to the head of the line keep thinking this is the old operation. It is not. You can't come to the Sheriff's Office and smile at somebody and get a friend and get pushed to the front of the line when everybody else is in line waiting to get their stuff processed. That doesn't operate with us anymore. We follow the law, we follow the rules, and that's how we get everything processed. CHAIR BASS: One other quick question then I'm going to turn it over. Can you talk very briefly about, you know, for folks who lose homes on sheriff sale, because we know that taxes are going up, we keep doing these reassessments residents cannot afford it. Well, now let me clarify, the city, you know, City Council does not -- is not increasing real estate taxes, but assessments are continuing, and values are climbing. And so as people are losing real estate, their generational wealth, because in most of our communities, real estate is the only generational wealth most of us have, are able to pass down, are able to give to our children. You know, this is really it. And so with the loss of these properties, if you can't pay the taxes and then your property ends up sheriff's sale -- on sheriff's sale, can you talk just a little bit about how are we avoiding or trying to help people avoid ending up in that particular type of scenario? com. What our Civil Unit does and gives out to homeowners, because my Constituent Services Unit was mandated to develop and put in that pamphlet, all the agencies that can help people save their homes, all of them. And so when our Civil Unit gets the court order, though they have to do their job according to the court order, they do give out postings and pamphlets on the organizations that can help you save your home. And by doing that, a lot of people have started using all of those resources, and they have basically been able to save their homes. T program, eight point something million dollars giving back to homeowners in that area. But the amount of properties going up for sale has been stayed or stopped because people are using that information to get a hold to the agencies that can help them save their homes. CHAIR BASS: Okay. SHERIFF BILAL: In that? Do you have it? So we will -- we basically, in that package, you have this in there, it basically tells you, in 2024, how many properties was stayed in any -- in every Councilmanic District in 2024 and in 2025. That means the numbers have increased in 2025 on how many properties have not gone to sheriff's sale because of the information that are given at the time that we get involved, the Sheriff's Office get involved. And for the record, for people who think we pick and choose properties, we don't. We only operate off of court orders -- CHAIR BASS: Yeah.
SHERIFF BILAL: When we get the court order, we have to act. But in that process, we give out information for families to be able to get the help they need in order to save their homes. CHAIR BASS: Well, listen, thank you very much for that information. I'm sure there's going to be some more questions related to sheriff sales from the members. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. CHAIR BASS: So I want to turn it over. Real quick, I do want to say, again, a special thank you to the deputies who keep us safe here in the chamber. So thank you so much to our sheriffs and of course PPD, Philadelphia Police Department, for, you know, our regulars here who are also, we count them as members of Council as well. So first up, we have Councilmember Harrity, Jones, O'Rourke, Brooks, and Gauthier.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Good afternoon, everyone. How are you? SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon.
My questions are for the First Judicial. Philadelphia Family Court Help Center in federal fund -- wait, the Philadelphia Family Court Help Centers in federal funding is set to expire after nine years of funding. Can you speak about this program and how it will continue to serve our constituents without this funding? What gaps does this leave for families and individuals during their experience with the court system? And we know there is a renewed focus within the state court system and the First Judicial District around the intersection of mental health and behavioral health and substance abuse, as well as autism and intelligent -- intellectual disabilities. Can you tell me more about this work within Philadelphia and any possible partnerships between the judicial branches of government to address this major issue?
Thank you for the question, Council person. First, we're hoping that the federal funding will continue for Family Court, and we'll be able to maintain all those services. We don't have a plan in place yet to fill that gap. We're hoping that gap doesn't have to be filled, but it is a question that I can take back to Administrative Judge Olszewski, and we can probably send you back what our plan is, what our backup plans are. Bottom line is the Family Court knows what its obligations are and what its services to the people that use those programs. And we're going to continue use -- we're going to continue with those programs. We're just going to have to find a way to do it if the worst-case scenario happens. But I can have other conversation with you offline with Judge Olszewski and get you more information about that.
Yeah, if you could just get it to the Chair and then we could --
-- we could all have that information would be nice. And how about the, you know, my question with what -we know there's a renewed focus with the state court system and the First Judicial District around the intersection of mental health, behavioral health, and substance abuse, as well as autism and intellectual disabilities. Can you tell me more about this work within Philadelphia and any possible partnerships between the judicial branches of government to address this major issue and intersection?
Absolutely. The issue of behavioral health has become finally sharply in focus for the FJD and also for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We've worked with DBHIDS; we've worked with DBH. We're collaborating, right now, with DBH taking over the forensic unit in the Criminal Justice Stout Center. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is working with the Mayor's office and obtaining funding to continue in their mental health initiative. We've had several statewide collaborations over mental health. There's now a mental health committee that the FJD works with. It's chaired. One of the chairs is our own Supervising Judge DeFino- Nastasi. So instead of just having the mental health issue becoming a Philadelphia issue, it has finally expanded to a statewide issue. And the court is starting to address a lot of the mental health things that we see in the court. We are now have -- DBH is working with us to have navigators in our pretrial program, our Adult Probation and Parole Program. We have the Hub, which is over the Stout Center, which is not only just for people in the criminal justice system, but it's open for everyone. Probation is creating a resource center addressing mental health issues. So the referrals and the actual hands-on work that we're doing, it's a much bigger collaboration. As somebody who's been here for as long as I've been here for 40 years, this wasn't even talked about 10 years ago. And now we have partnerships with the state, with the DBH, with DBHIDS, and a lot of other partners. And fortunately, there's funding that's being made available for this too. So I think this is going to be all going. And lastly, to talk about autism, we -- in our own place in the FJD, we've created autism awareness training program. It's mandatory for all employees. We've given it to our judges. So staff is aware, first line staff, you come into the Stout Center, you come into City Hall, you're going to file. People don't realize that, you know, there might be something different. And now our staff is being trained to recognize these kinds of issues and take the steps. And this is ongoing training that we're doing. And we've done trauma training too for all staff. So we're trying to make sure that our first line, faces of the FJD, are aware --
And we have the autism reading room as the President Judge has said. So a lot of collaboration, a lot of overdue collaboration.
Yeah, I'm glad to hear that. I -- everybody knows I'm a grandfather to an autistic child, and you know, hoping that he never has to experience the court system. But if he does, knowing that we're actually making progress around those issues is very personal to me.
And even that collaboration with the Sheriff, as the Sheriff mentioned, their autism training, our autism training. Now, when somebody walks into our buildings, there's a lot more people who are aware.
Absolutely. And I -- I'm with the sheriff when she does her program, spent last week at the press conference with her. She does -- doing great work when it comes to that with her collaborations of that. You know, it's kind of funny, you don't realize it until you -- until you deal with it about how different it is to interact, right? And how quick the interaction could change. So it's good to see that both law enforcement and the court system are partnering up to really work on these issues. So I thank you all for your service. Judge Padilla, thank you. It's an honor to see you as always. Thank you for your many years of service, President. Thank you.
Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to echo something the Chairwoman said that a lot of times we tend to focus on the here and now and not remember half of the good things you guys did for the City of Philadelphia. And I just want to take a moment to recognize that. I remember the worst night of -- in my career, was the night of the George Floyd uprising and all hell broke loose. And I happened to have the scanner that night, so I'm hearing the back and forth, the calls coming back in. And I'll never forget there was a time, and I remember talking to my colleague over there, she was out at 52nd Street, but there was a time when Center City was besieged, surrounded. And we -- it was almost as if at that time, the Police Department was going to just concede Center City. It was that bad. And I remember the Sheriff's Office, without a lot of prodding, stepped up to the plate, pulled up, and I know where you were deployed, and I know what your responsibility because I heard it and I never forgot. That was like a scene from the movies of the Calvary trying to hold down the fort. And I appreciate it, and I want to say it publicly to you, and thank you for your service, you and your team. For the courts -- yeah, give it, she deserves it. For the courts, another rough time was during the pandemic, and we were meeting weekly, Your Honor, trying to figure out how to reduce the census population up on State Road. And back then, the courts, the DA, the defenders, you know, weren't so huggy friendly back then. But in spite of that, you guys stepped up to the plate using technology to have hearings to look at whether or not people could be released safely back into the community. And you weekly brought that census countdown to the fact that what could have been a pandemic spread up on State Road was reduced. We had some fatalities, but not as many as we could have had if we had not worked together. I know some people claim they invented the shot for COVID, but you guys were in the trenches making it happen, keeping us safe. Both the correctional officers up there and the inmates that they are sworn to protect. So thank you both for that. Now that's the good part, and I'll get to the rough and tumble. There's no rough and tumble, relax. But what I would like to ask you, and I'm so glad this year they have you two sitting -- these two departments sitting together so that we don't do this. How -- so today when I was coming into work, there was a big ruckus over at CJC. The, you know, police were called in, it was some disturbance at CJC. And even City Hall police were called. Are we -- what -- with your shortage of manpower, personnel, and your courts having to operate, how is safety -- how are you working together to keep, not only the staff of the courts safe, but the people that are -- the defendants and those accused safe as we travel through CJC? Is there a better plan this year for working together?
I would like to just comment on that. That's a very important question. And I can tell you City Council had a hearing recently on ICE, and after the hearing, a lot of those folks that were here in the well of City Council made their way to my chambers. And were standing outside with a huge banner, and they were saying things like, We know you're in there, we're going to be here for a while. And so finally, I ended up calling the sheriff, Sheriff Chung, standing right there. He came to my rescue. He came right over there, right away, took care of it. I couldn't be more pleased and more proud of having the security that we have right now. I also have occasion to meander over to the Stout Center on occasion, probably maybe once or twice a week. And I troubled the sheriffs over there to find out -- the deputy sheriffs, to find out what's going on, make sure everything okay. I stop in a different courtroom from time to time, and I have to commend Sheriff Bilal. There really haven't been any problems at all. The sheriffs are present, they're available. They're helping us. They're there to answer any issues that we have. Personally, I haven't noticed any problems at all with it.
Without that kind of security in the courtrooms, witnesses don't want to testify --
People -- so there is no justice without courtroom safety. And I'm glad you banned these glasses over there because --
-- it's intimidating to say the least, when people can record you in the court --
-who's testifying and putting it out on the web. So we have to lock down, no pun intended, on the security of CJC in order for us there -- for there to be confidence that people are safe and have justice. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. And I -- you know, I just -- along your line of questioning. It's my understanding that the building was built knowing that we needed, sort of like, more space, more elevators, more ways to enter and exit. And that the -- to save a couple of dollars, we built it wrong. Well, not we, because I wasn't here then, but it was -- it was built wrong.
So unfortunately, Madam Chair, me and Wilson Goode, Sr., were here. And my name is on the Justice Center. And I remember the change order that you were supposed to have another bank of elevators --
-- thus -- so that the overcrowd, in order to save money because of cost, but you are right, Madam Chair, they cut down a bank of elevators. CHAIR BASS: And it's been a huge issue ever since --
Correct. CHAIR BASS: So sometimes you got to spend the money, do it right the first time. Chair recognizes Councilmember O'Rourke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to all, President Judge Padilla, and Mr. McSorley, as well as the Sheriff of County and the City of Philadelphia, Ms. Rochelle Bilal. I appreciate you-all for your leadership and your service to our City. To you Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff, the town, I find some of your employees to be some of the best and brightest that there are. Grateful to have in the chamber with us today. Both Pastor Darrell Roberts, who I find to be a great champion, as well as the Reverend William Brownlee, who is a good brother. And we go way, way back. And so grateful to have him here, and thank you for hiring them both. Let me jump into my questions. I want to, as I said, thank you for your service to the city, but also thank you for your office's role in carrying out what is probably one of the more difficult mechanisms of our housing system and difficult parts of the housing system. As you may have heard, this past week, this body passed the Safe Healthy Homes Act, which is centered on ensuring that all renters in Philadelphia have access to safe, healthy, and stable housing. Throughout the course of this, what turned out to be more than a year long process, there were ongoing questions raised about eviction timelines particularly around lockouts. And I want to acknowledge that the long lockout times were actually explicitly raised in the run up to the de facto abolition of the Landlord Tenant Office. Prior to which existed and was valued, I think, by landlords for effectively addressing system backlog with speed and with efficiency and limiting financial strain on small landlords by doing so, because it was a quick effort. Now, the problem was that folks were getting shot in the process. And because it's privatized, it existed outside the purview of this body. That to me, and I think to others, is an unacceptable way to operate, so that needed to go. That said, with the evictions being handled by the Sheriff, it still does place control of the process into Council's power. But we do have a responsibility to understand how it's functioning. And I and many landlords, we found out that the course of this, have a vested interest in that it -- in that it functions better. Especially given the serious impact these actions have on tenants and families. So I want to ask a few questions to better understand both the timeline and the safeguards in place related to the eviction process and the lockout time. Once the Sheriff's Office -- somebody is coming up. SHERIFF BILAL: Go ahead.
Great, yeah. Once the Sheriff's Office receives a court order for a lockout, what is the typical timeline before that lockout is executed? And I'll tag another one in there for expedience. And then what operational or capacity challenges affect how quickly or slowly those lockouts are carried out? We'll start there. SHERIFF BILAL: Good question. First, let me just give you our timeline as we got this. Once the Landlord Tenant Officers was no longer in play, the Sheriff's Office got it.
Uh-huh. SHERIFF BILAL: Normally we would do about 400 evictions a year. Last year we did 18,000. So if you're saying the manpower is low and we have to figure out how to do those evictions safely, so we are basically building up to that. And the person that is working with a lot of the landlords to make sure that certain things go smoothly is my Chief Inspector -- no -- Inspector Fallen -- Inspector Fallen, who is -- who is in charge of the Civil Unit. And I'm going to let him give you that timeline.
Okay. Thanks. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Good afternoon, Chief Inspector Fallen.
You need to get closer. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Good afternoon. Chief Inspector Fallen, Sheriff's Office, Civil Enforcement. When the Landlord Tenant Office first shut down in 2024, we were able to adjust staff and move some things around to schedule roughly 70 to 80 evictions per week. Which -- what I found after we got a full year of data, of collecting writs and taking in cases, was that that was about half the amount that we needed to be scheduling. So for several months we were upside down. Right now, we're probably about to turn a corner because we've doubled our staff from -- we started with eight. Now we have 16 detectives on the street. A case I just looked at today, we got the second part of the -- of case about four weeks ago. So it depends on what part of the city you're in, how quickly the eviction is going to come. But right now, on average, it's like four to six weeks. We are training and soon we'll have more staff deployed into those busier parts of the City, which I'm finding is West and Southwest Philadelphia. As soon as we get those people out, you're could probably start hearing a lot less about the landlords. But one thing we said we weren't going to do was just do them haphazardly. So the difference is we do them with partners, we do them in pairs. They were doing them so well. So we had to -- you may have heard they only had six or seven people doing them, but they were doing them rushed, and from what we're hearing, dangerously.
For sure. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: So now that we've doubled our staff, we are -- now we are on top, we're right side up now. We're scheduling more than we're bringing in. But now we just have to work to reduce what's behind, which --
But it does -- I'm sorry. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: We're working for both sides.
Sounds like a winner. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Yeah.
It does sound like you are -- you're saying that you're at a turning point now. You are staffing up -- CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: We are.
-- there are things in play. And so we've already seen a bit of an increase in the amount of lockouts you've been able to effectively do, but you expect there to be even more of an increase in the coming days, weeks, months, as you're staffing up. Is that accurate? CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Correct.
Okay. And I want to clarify too, the Sheriff said 18,000. Did you mean 18,000 or 1800? Just want to clarify for correctly. SHERIFF BILAL: 18,000. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: 18,000.
So we went from 400 a year to 18,000. 2000, less than 20,000 in the course of a year. Okay, that is a major notion. Again, I want to also say that I recognize the efficiency that the Landlord Tenant Office in its existence provided to those who were concerned with quick lockout times. But you can't kill folk in the process or shoot folk in the head. And so I think we did the right thing. I'm grateful to and your leadership and Member Brooks as well to address that. But we have going to figure out how to get this -- that number down or get you-all to a place where you can actually handle that. Let me continue on with my questions. Given that, how does your office approach balancing efficiency? And I'm sure this is difficult, with ensuring that tenants have adequate notice and time to prepare? In the process of these, how are you doing that? CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: So if we just speak with the landlord tenant eviction, there's -- it's a two-writ process and they're given a 10-day notice to vacate. It gives them a date and time that they have to leave. So that's served or posted to the property if they don't answer the door. And we provide all contact information for the assigned detectives in that area. So if anyone in that property has any questions, they can call them or call the office, and we'll direct them where they need to be. And then when eviction day comes, when the landlord or the attorney or the plaintiff files what's called their alias writ, that's when we schedule the physical lockout. They're given notice. We try to do that about a week in advance of the actual eviction date. So we give plenty of notice and information and resources to try and assist them.
On the question on information and resources, what protocols are in place to connect tenants to resources like legal assistance, like emergency housing if that's necessary, social services at or before that point of lockout? SHERIFF BILAL: That's the pamphlets that we put together from my Constituents Services.
Perfect. SHERIFF BILAL: We've developed all type of pamphlets to give to everybody around this city in reference to what the Sheriff gets involved in.
Got you. Will these be up -- as the new legislations coming through, you'll update these with new information that's necessary? SHERIFF BILAL: And if we find another resources; local, state, or federal, we will add to that pamphlet, yes.
Wonderful. Are there any policy, staffing or funding needs that would allow your office to better support a process that is fair, that is transparent, that minimizes harm to vulnerable residents? And I ask these questions because, like I said, in the process of trying to secure the tenant protections and strengthening what was already on the books, I spoke to a whole lot of landlords. And many of them had the same refrain around, we probably wouldn't have as many issues with what you're trying to accomplish, if we trusted that when we were on good ground to evict someone who is a problem tenant, it didn't take six months to a year to do so. That was probably the top concern or apprehension that folks had when we actually got into the nitty gritty of my bills was lockout time. So that's the reason why I'm asking this to make sure that we create a situation where folks are able to be evicted and needed to go, but also that we're able to deal with them in a -- in a compassionate manner that provides people, connects them to resources, things that they need to be able to live better going forward. Anything that we can do policy; funding wise, staffing wise, to help you do this better? SHERIFF BILAL: We need staffing. We need funding. When we said we are asking for million 18 over a five-year period, that's for 19 staffing, that's for equipment, that's for promotion because people that do the lockouts are detectives. They are all sworn personnel; civilians cannot do that. And this is the reason why; we did an analyzation of how many deputies are needed in order to be -- to be fully covered, the courts, the special units everywhere. And we did that. It's about 630 at the lowest minimum. Right now, we are 300 -- 391. And because of the court order that we got are mandated to staff and get people in there is we went all out of the box advertising on all kinds of TVs to get people to notice that this is an available position for people to come work with the Sheriff's Office so that we can get those staffing numbers. The problem was this, is they never did it in the past. They never fully funded the Sheriff's Office. And you can look in all their budgets. They never planned for nutrition. They never planned for those that were retiring. They never planned for those that were going to move on to other departments or other law enforcement agency. They never did that, and so we are low because of what the past brings. But we move -- we done moved past that. We now have to focus on staffing the Sheriff Office so that it can be staffed properly and all what the court needs us to do that we can do that, and all that the city that we can do. We do more, people think we're just in the Sheriff's Office, we're just in the courts. The city calls on us a lot. OEM calls on us a lot. And in my opening statement that we have to really do some logistical planning in order to help the city with all of what they are asking for. Just to give you a few months, November '24, September '25, May of '25, 480 hours, 330 hours, 543 hours. 1,353 for 2025 is the hours of overtime that we are putting out because they're calling on our buses, our K-9, our vans to support the OEM and all the major events there. That's coming out of our budget. It's not coming out of Philly PD budget. That's not coming out of OEM budget; that's coming out of the Sheriff budget. So we are doing a round of things, and whatever the city needs us to do, we will do the best that we can to make sure it happens.
I heard the bell, so if there's another round, I'll come back for my Judicial District questions on that one. But again whatever we can do to get you in a situation where you're able to effectively meet the demand around evictions and we're able to do that in a way that's much better than Landlord and Tenant Office, which we already are doing, and I want to thank you for that. But to increase your capacity, I think is well worth the effort. And I think there'll be a whole lot of landlords across the City of Philadelphia who would also thank us if we did that as well. Anyways, thank you so much for the time, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes Councilmember Brooks.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So my questions are for both the First Judicial District and the Sheriff's Department in reference to the ICE legislation. It's a series of questions, so if you guys can just take it down and just answer them accordingly. So for years we have seen consistent and disturbing trends of civil immigration arrests of Philadelphians as they exit the Juanita Kidd Stout Center for Criminal Justice. ICE Agents have utilized our local courthouse as ambush site detaining community members as they exit. Despite many still being in the midst of the criminal proceedings or having accepted other sentencing within the criminal justice system. Local ICE agents have been undocumented waiting in the lobby of CJC and visiting upper courthouse floors without documentation of valid judicial warrants, often executing arrests the moment a community member steps out into public hallways or sidewalks. In Chicago, the top Cook County judge banned ICE from arresting any party witness or potential witness while going to court proceedings. Including arrests that might be made inside courthouses, but also parking lots, entryways, and surrounding sidewalks. And Oregon bans the arrest of people at courthouses or on their way to or from there, unless ICE carries a warrant signed by a judge. I know that the First Judicial District and the Sheriff's Office are not supportive of ICE's policies and action. But at least it seems like -- it seems that each party says that it is the responsibility of the other to enact the policies like Chicago has done. So I would like to take the opportunity to ask you both questions while you're both here. So my first question is, like Chicago's top county judge did, will you prohibit the civil arrest of any party witness or potential witness while going to court proceedings, including arrests inside courthouses and in parking lots, surrounding sideways, or entryway? My second question is, will you require all federal agents and law enforcement to wear visible identification and no masks in the courthouse? The third question is, will you expand virtual or excuse experiences -- appearances across all courts until a comprehensive policy protecting immigrant community members is finalized? And lastly, would you put in place a clear policy prohibiting personnel from expending resources or time existing ICE in civil immigration enforcement in or near the CJC?
I can -- I can answer my way, but I would also like Mr. McSorley to answer his way. And of course the Sheriff. So in terms of prohibiting access to ICE, ICE is a federal agency, and we just don't have the jurisdiction to prohibit them. It's my understanding that the ICE agents sort of post-up all around the CJC, the Masonic Temple, across where the Marriott is down the street, and they follow people. That's my understanding. There's really not a way that this -- that the court can enforce any type of order about ICE arresting people. Let me just say this, you said it at the beginning of your statement that, you know, I think you said something about how the FJD may have a feeling about it personally. So the court is independent. We have to be fair, unbiased, and we have to just rule on the matters before it. I cannot, as a judge, as President Judge, none of the judges in the FJD can go on the No Kings protest. It's not proper. We can't state how discussing the policy is because that would not be proper. So we can't do anything like that, we can't say those kinds of things. But in terms of masks, the same thing. And the mask in general are federal policy. So we can't -- we don't have any statement about that. The virtual court hearings would be -- I actually thought about that when I saw your hearings. I don't see how that could be implemented either because the criminal proceedings, for example, if they -- those are virtual, can you imagine the level of witness intimidation that could go on? We wouldn't even know who was present in the room at a virtual proceeding. The witness intimidation factor is off the chart in any event, very often in criminal proceedings. So it would be unmanageable if it were -- proceeding were virtual for a child case -- child custody or dependency case, or a juvenile delinquency case. It would be impossible, really, to have a virtual proceeding for that also. And in terms of a policy that inhibits personnel from assisting. So the court doesn't really have those kinds of policies because of the same reason I said at the outset. We're not allowed to have an opinion about things. We just resolve the -- or dispose of the matters before the court fair, impartial, unbiased. That's what the court is. We're not an active -- an activist sort of arm of the government. So there are three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judiciary. The judiciary can't have those kinds of opinions. But I would like Mr. McSorley to comment because he's got a lot of experience, and he probably would say it better than I will.
I don't think so, Judge. Hi, Richard McSorley again. To echo what the judge said. Just the President Judge basically said everything that I would say. Just to be more specific, I know about the Chicago ruling. I know that's on appeal right now. I don't know what the Chicago layout is of their courthouse, so they might have their parking garage below them, and maybe they can control that jurisdiction. But unfortunately for the Stout Center, for instance, we have the Masonic Temple on one side, Chili's on the other, and the Notary Hotel across. We don't have -- as the judge mentioned, we don't have the jurisdiction to issue an order that would encompass those areas. So what we have done is we've worked with the Sheriff very closely, and the Sheriff does have a written policy about ICE and what the agents can do. To my knowledge, there's not been one arrest inside the Stout Center or any courthouse. There has been arrest, as we've said, outside, and the Sheriff maintains that security inside of our building. They again, we have the issues that this is a public courthouse. If we can't tell somebody what they can and cannot wear, in the building and many of the ICE agents that come in, they're not in there to effectuate an arrest. So they don't identify themselves. They don't have to go up to the Sheriff and say, I'm an ICE agent. I'm here with a warrant. They're just in the building. What their intentions are, what their real business is, I'm not sure. But they can move freely without the building and there's nothing we can do to restrict that except to work with the Sheriff. When we do know that an ICE agent has an arrest warrant, if they do identify themselves, there are protocols in place that were put in place by the Sheriff's Department. If the court officers knows that there's an ICE agent in the courtroom, they notify the Sheriff, they notify to the District Attorney immediately. That is brought to the attention of the judge. If there's any hint of anything that's going to happen in that courtroom in the hallway, the court tries to handle it. But for the most part, and I've seen a lot of the video, and I've been in the Stout Center for many years, we don't know anything until the person has left the building, and they walk outside. So we can't regulate what the people are wearing. As the judge said, the video hearings, we've had communication with the ICE advocates. It is something that I know that they would like, but unfortunately, criminal cases, constitutionally, we just can't do it. Not to mention, as the judge said, the witness intimidation. Also, we have local rules of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that we're not allowed to conduct hearings via technology. So our hands are tied in that area. And for personnel, just to emphasize, we -- our personnel are trained. They know what to do when any law enforcement agency comes into any courtroom and identifies themselves if they're going to make some sort of arrest or they want to present themselves. Our personnel are told that they're not supposed to contact or have communication with any other law enforcement agency without a supervisor's permission. So we don't have court people calling outside law enforcement agencies unless they have a reason to do so. And if they do have a reason to do so, they're supposed to be -- have a supervisor's permission. So -- and this goes -- this is not just ICE; this is every law enforcement entity. The Philadelphia Police Department can't come into the courthouse and make an arrest in our courtrooms. They can't make an arrest in our hallway. They have to identify themselves to the Sheriff, and then the Sheriff takes it from there. And then if the person is going to be turned over, that's the between law enforcement. But just to end on what the judge said, we've had many discussions with the Administrative Governing Board. What can we do? Where does the - where is the line drawn for the court system?
And as much as we might want to issue an order or put something out there that within so many feet of the courthouse, we're going to and from, it just isn't enforceable, it's just not within our power. It would undermine our authority because it's -- we are issuing an order that would not be able to be followed. And it becomes a political statement basically. And I understand we just had a lot of communication with a lot of advocates, immigration advocates, about 12 or 13 letters, and we answered each and every one of them. We will keep that communication open, but we are doing what we can do. Now I guess I'll turn it to the Sheriff for her comments. SHERIFF BILAL: Thank you for that question. We've already stated this numerous times, and we all also put our policy up on our thing. I know the main issue is around the courts. I think we met with a group of ICE, No Philly ICE, and they wanted us to mandate parking lots. We can't mandate private parking lots, that's not in our purview. We can't mandate them stationed up at the Marriott; that's not in our purview either. What we do inside the courthouse and what we have been doing. ICE agents do not come in the courthouse with masks. They have to identify themselves. Matter of fact, they have to have two IDs. They have to have their ID and their badge. They can't come in our courthouse with just one. They just can't. And they had been -- up until we started dealing with the mess that we see today, there was cooperation. They had -- they had to get a warrant, a judicial warrant to come and get anybody, or to say they want to arrest anybody. And then they would not be able to arrest them inside of there. If the person was in custody, we would take them down, send them back to where they were in custody, and they would go there to get them. There was one incident, and they keep playing this over and over, that a person walked outside of the courthouse and saw the ICE agents and ran back in and they ran behind them. That was the only incident. The other one was not dealing with the Sheriff's Office at all. And I think the Police Commissioner addressed that. But the people keep saying the same thing over and over. Whatever we get, the sidewalk is the public sidewalk. We do not man the public sidewalk at all. That's like we are -- we are patrolling the streets. And as people put it out there, we don't patrol the streets, but we do in some instances, when you see our Bike Unit is around the courthouses. And it's -- they say escorting people from the courthouse to their vehicles to make sure they're safe. But we don't patrol the streets and there's a public sidewalk. So when they came to us, they wanted us to keep them out of parking lots, and we don't man parking lots. We don't man the Marriott parking lot. We don't man the Marriott -- cover over there. We don't man none of that. But what we do inside is they are very cooperative when they come to us. They don't wear the mask. And if they want to see somebody inside or have anything to do with them, they have to have a judicial warrant and we notify the judge. And now all of that takes place under us.
Thank you so much. Thank you both, all three of you guys for making sure that's on the record so our advocates could have this information. You know, I do appreciate the work I've done directly with the Sheriff's Department to get us to this point. And it was just important that we get these things on the record as part of the conversation. As these conversations continue to move and grow, I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. And in the event that the outcomes in Chicago are any different after the appeal, would you be willing to engage in a deeper conversation about what exactly the courts are able to do here in Philadelphia? CHAIR BASS: Council Lady -- Councilwoman Brooks, can we make that the last and then you come back on the second --
That's my only question. I -- CHAIR BASS: Okay. On the second round.
I don't -- I don't have any other question. That's it for me. CHAIR BASS: So can we answer that and --
Yes, absolutely. We're always going to have the conversation. We're always open to the conversation.
Thank you so much. CHAIR BASS: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Gauthier, Lozada, and then young.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Sheriff Bilal and President Judge Wright Padilla, and to all of you. Thank you so much for your work and thanks for testifying today. My question is for FJD, but I wanted to pause a little bit and just touch on the line of questioning from my colleague Minority Whip Nicholas O'Rourke. I am very alarmed to hear you say that we're doing 18,000 evictions or lockouts a year. If -- I want to follow up to maybe dig into those numbers some, but if that is the case, and that is a red alarm emergency. And I -- although I support what my colleague said, that we have to give the Sheriff's Office the support to do these lockouts/evictions efficiently and safely. While we are considering that, we also have to do the work to get that number down. As far as I can recall, we were doing 20,000 evictions prior to the pandemic. And at that rate, we were the fourth highest evicting city in the entire country. And everyone should be clear that when we're talking about -- when we're talking about folks being evicted, we're talking about black and brown, single moms with children. We're talking about elderly people, we're talking about disabled people. Those are the folks who are most often experiencing this. I think my colleague has a point of information. CHAIR BASS: Well, Chair recognizes Councilwoman Lozada for point of information.
Point of information. Is it 18,000 evictions or 18,000 ejectments? And are they the same? Because again, I'm alarmed, but I want to --
Maybe another point of information coming from Rue. SHERIFF BILAL: Because she knows, she knows the difference. The evictions --
Eviction filings -- eviction filings or actual ejectments? That's what I'm trying to figure out. SHERIFF BILAL: Go Ahead. SHERIFF THORNTON: Good afternoon. Sean Thornton, Chief Deputy of Court Operations, but I also worked in the Eviction Unit. It's actually 18,000 evictions scheduled. Let's be clear on that. But what actually happens, and I know to your point, you were concerned with that number. But what actually happens is evictions get scheduled and at some point, during that process, things get worked out between the occupant or the tenant and the landlord. And that number reduces. So it's actually 5,500 who we actually are evicting, but it's actually scheduled 18,000. So there's some enforcement, but that number is reduced.
Okay. SHERIFF THORNTON: So you -- so you know that part.
Well, that's a lot different. 5,500 is a lot different than 18,000. SHERIFF THORNTON: Yes. It's scheduled. Those writs come through the office, so yes. SHERIFF BILAL: So don't forget that that's a process. SHERIFF THORNTON: Yes. SHERIFF BILAL: The evictions are scheduled. They're posted, there's notification that this is about to happen, and then some deals are made between the landlord. And the problem came in with the Landlord Tenant Offices, is that once the landlord -- the tenant made an agreement with the landlord, and if they miss one, instead of notifying them that they're being evicted, they just rolled up on them. And then that's where the problem came in at. Yeah. So it's 5,000, but it's 18,000 that we have to start. Yes. CHAIR BASS: So Chair recognizes Councilmember Landau for a point of information, but I just, really quickly, I wanted to say that even though it's -- they're scheduled, that to me is still, you know, saying something is happening. When we went from this low number that was still being scheduled to now 18,000 being scheduled. Even if the eviction, the actual number of evictions drops back down, it's still saying that -- SHERIFF BILAL: 18,000 being in scheduled, meaning eight -- our manpower is out there posting and scheduling and posting, and notifying people that there's an eviction happening. CHAIR BASS: Right. SHERIFF BILAL: So we are still out there doing the work. CHAIR BASS: Yes, yes. So thank you. Councilmember Landau.
I'm sorry, I just want to clear this up because I think it's really important for the public right now, just in case. My understanding and belief at the highest level, the Municipal Court handled 24,000 eviction cases filed a year. That's when Mayor Kenney started his eviction diversion task force of which I was a part of this. That's when the Council got involved in the whole process. It's -- so even if it's 18,000 cases filed, your own press release you put out in December of 2025, said that you've now increased capacity to go from cases 18 scheduling for eviction duties to 19 144 a week in your -- in your press 20 release. That -- my understanding 21 is it's maybe a hundred or so a 22 week, which would make it at best 23 7,000 a year. But I think it's 24 something -- and when we're talking about lockouts that are scheduled. SHERIFF BILAL: When you say -- when we talk about 18,000, that's the 18,000 filed that have -- we have to begin to post. Then when you talking about --
They're in Municipal Court -- SHERIFF BILAL: -- ejection --
They're filed in Municipal Court. SHERIFF BILAL: Right.
They go through a whole court process, and if they have to get -- go through an eviction, then it comes to you -- SHERIFF BILAL: Right.
But most cases settle in Municipal Court, almost all of them do. SHERIFF BILAL: I don't know about that. Fallen?
I'm sorry, I just want to clear this up for the public -- SHERIFF BILAL: Yeah, I know you want to get it cleared up.
-- because I want us to go -- SHERIFF BILAL: Was it -- this is Chief Inspector Fallen over at --
Excellent. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: All right. I'll try -- SHERIFF BILAL: Over the Civil Unit. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: I'll try and clear it up the best I can. Chief Inspector David Fallen again, Civil Enforcement. So these are -- these are both the Common Pleas writs, and the Municipal Court reads -- writs. So ejectments, evictions, it is the same for us. It ends with someone being removed from a property. The 18,000 number comes from services to that property, giving them notification. That's the first writ we talked about. That's the final notice --
Okay. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: The amount of writs that we're actually filed with our office in 2025 was -- it looks like it's about 17, 18,000. There's a lot of services. 5,500 were scheduled in 2025. That doesn't mean they all ended in an eviction. Some judgments get satisfied based on our notices. Some people, they go, they pay, they pay the judgment, the eviction gets stopped. Some people move out and turn over the keys. We just had one today where we got an email that said, You can cancel this one. They gave the keys. We're good. So there's in that schedule number, it's things that are postponed by the attorney. Sometimes we get an email that says, Hey, they gave us most of the money. We really don't want to put them out. Can we give them another shot? Put it on hold, if they don't settle up, we'll let you know.
But you said 5,500 real lockouts. That makes much more sense. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Yeah.
That's an actual -- that's the -- that's what everyone was, I think, very upset about to think that 18,000 people are getting locked out. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: No.
It's about 5,500. That makes much more sense. Thank you. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: But don't forget it is the 18,000 of the work we still have to do. It isn't like we sitting there -- CHAIR BASS: Councilmember -- thank you. Councilmember Gauthier. Thank you.
12 Okay. Thank you so much for 13 clearing that up. We as a Council 14 are working way too hard on eviction 15 diversion, investing in that and 16 right to Council and emergency 17 rental assistance to have anywhere 18 that number -- near that number of 19 evictions. So, thank you. My 20 question is actually for FJD. 21 A few months ago, under the 22 leadership of Councilmember Phillips 23 and Councilmember Landau, we had a 24 hearing on the use of GPS in the juvenile justice system. And I'm wondering what has changed since then about policy or practice related to the use of GPS, particularly to ensure GPS is only being used as an alternative to incarceration.
Thank you for that question, Council person. GPS is being used by Family Court. Our numbers have dropped on the amount of GPS, and one of the changes we are trying to make to make sure that GPS is used on the more violent cases than the misdemeanor cases. Right now, in calendar year 2025 or 2024 is our last stats that I have. 85 percent of the GPS use was on felony cases; only 15 percent was on misdemeanor cases. And the year before that, the numbers are very similar; 80 percent on felony and 20 percent on misdemeanor cases. We are trying to use GPS sparingly and trying to make sure that it's not interrupting the daily activities of those that have to wear them. In the calendar year of 2025, there is 749 motions filed for GPS review. 39 percent of them remained in the community on GPS, 27 percent were held for further action by the court. And then 29 percent failed to appear. And then there was some miscellaneous numbers. So GPS has its place, I think that it's being used correctly. It's very expensive to use, but we are trying to use it to keep juveniles in Philadelphia not in placement and also under supervision. But as I said, I think the Family Court will tell you that the emphasis is to use them where they must be used. And that's mostly on our felony. And it's just a different population that they're dealing with now.
Thank you. At the hearing, we heard a lot about sort of hardships that were placed on people in terms of them being able to move forward with their lives under GPS monitoring. We heard of people going back into lockup because of technical violations. I'm looking to understand if the items that you discuss right now, are those the ways that you've always practiced? Had -- did you all take anything specific from the hearing? And since the hearing, have you made any changes in policy or practice based on what we heard is happening in the community?
I know that there's ongoing discussions under Administrative Judge Olszewski. They are looking at different ways that they can take that information and try to make the system better. I -- as of right now, I can't tell you that I know of any changes as the Court Administrator, but I can definitely talk to the Administrative Judge and get you a more comprehensive answer.
Thank you. This is really important to Council, so I would love to be able to follow up with you all to understand what changes you're willing to put in place. Thanks so much.
Okay. CHAIR BASS: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Young and then Phillips.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions for the Sheriff. I want to thank you all for being here. Can -- Madam Sheriff, can you talk about what are -- I mean, we talked -- you've mentioned that there is a shortage in officers, but can you talk about what your promotion policies are from within? So, you know, and how you are looking to, I guess, how does your recruitment -- how does your promotion policies affect your recruitment? SHERIFF BILAL: I'm trying to understand, promotional or advertising?
No, no, no. Just your, yeah. How do you promote from within? What are your policies? What are your -- what do you do to determine who and how your officers get promoted and then how does that affect your recruitment? SHERIFF BILAL: To the next rank?
Yeah. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. Those -- they take a test and then they get listed on the test. And they get listed as to what their rank is. The city gives us a -- we're saying we got about spaces. 6 They may give us a list of 20. Then 7 they are interviewed. They are 8 interviewed by their command, and 9 they are graded on that. And those 10 that are the highest are the ones that get promoted. The others get put back on the list until the list ends.
Okay. Thank you. What -- in your testimony, you talk about the sheriff academy. Can you talk to us about what is your implementation path for this academy? I know you and I have talked privately about it, but just talk to us as a Council to figure -- to talk to us about, you know, what some of the operational challenges that you're facing with having to send, you know, your recruits halfway across the state. And, you know, just talk to us about what the need is for this. SHERIFF BILAL: I'll let my Chief of Staff do that, because I can talk about that all day. That's like the biggest thing in my book. We need people.
Thank you. And if you could also mention and talk about how you plan to recruit and train deputies, you know, not just after -- you know, after you get this academy, how you going to recruit to keep them here?
Okay. Absolutely. Jamison Rogers, chief of staff to Sheriff Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff's Office. Regarding your question, Councilmember, is the Sheriff has had this vision for a very long time. And has made immense hurdles in getting us close to the finish line as far as identifying a location, getting collar counties. As you mentioned earlier, other elected sheriffs that want to send their recruits here because of the weeks that you have to spend 9 in State College. We have a lot of 10 people that really want to be a 11 deputy sheriff. However, when they 12 find out that they'll spend 19 13 weeks, Monday through Friday, at 14 State College for a three- 15 and-a-half-hour drive each way, we 16 lose a lot of good candidates. 17 So having this academy 18 here, and believe Councilman 19 O'Rourke, you asked us last year, what buy-in did we have last year? We didn't. Now we do have buy-in from border collar counties now. We've had the conversations with public property, Ms. Harris, I've worked with when she was Chief Deputy Mayor here, putting together a five-year plan on how it would increase recruitment and lower overtime over those five years. Unfortunately, those conversations have stopped, but we yearn for the opportunity to reengage with those conversations again. And it'll be economic opportunity for the City of Philadelphia. And also enhancing the numbers that we have within the office. Hope that answers your question. SHERIFF BILAL: But we also did something else. We knew that because of the court order, we needed to hire and branch out. So while we are waiting for State College, now, mind you, State College service 61 counties. So we may get four slots. So we hire 30 people because we bring them into our office and start training them prior to them going to State College. So now you do the math. If there are 61 counties, we get four slots, we got people. 5 Do you know how long it'll take for 6 all 20 of them to get trained up at 7 state college? Five years. Thank 8 you. You do the math quickly. So 9 we had it decided that we will look 10 at another avenue, which we are 11 doing at MACO. We send some of our 12 recruits to MACO to get trained, and 13 then they come back and they do the 14 two-week waiver with one week up at 15 State College and one week here. So 16 that kind of like eliminate that. 17 But they have a threshold 18 that we can't send every -- so we 19 got 20, we can't send 20 over there 20 either. So it's like some that may be able to go to State college, and some go to MACO. That's how we were able to hire about, what, a hundred and something -
126. SHERIFF BILAL: -- after this court order, because we had to think out of the box on how to get people to come and be deputy sheriffs in this city. So of going to State College, for families that are here in this city, that are involved in this city, that's a no-no for them. Once we go -- they go through orientation and find that out, they said -- they don't show up anymore.
Thank you. I have one more question for the courts, if you don't mind, Madam Chair. I recently learned that the Family Court Help Centers has lost a federal grant. Can you talk to us about how -- or like how important it is for us to, I guess, take a look at this information? I think that this is information that was given to us by, I guess, some of the, I think, members of the Bar Association. And this Family Court Help Center, it seems like it is staffed by some of those, like, basically volunteers, essentially. Could you talk to us and talk to us about the impact of the loss of like any federal grants on the court system?
I believe that this is the question we were started our testimony with that --
I didn't think that we have lost that grant money. I think that the Family Court is still working with how they're going to fill that gap. And I need to speak to Administrative Judge Olszewski. I'll be able to get you more definite information on that --
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes Councilmember Phillips.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Chairwoman. So my first line of question -- my only line of questions I have for today is for the First Judicial District. Currently, if I'm correct, you handle Act 135, Conservatorship, correct?
Okay. Have you seen an increase in Act 135, conservatorship followings, over the past three to five years? If so, what is driving that increase?
Yeah, I don't know if there's been an increase. I'm sorry. But I could find out and get the information to you.
Okay. How many properties have been placed since the conservatorship annually, and how many result in transfer of control or ownership? Can you -- you have to get back to me on that as well?
I'm sorry, I would have to get back to you. But thank you for the question. It's important point.
Okay. And are you -- are you doing anything in terms of providing safeguards in place to ensure property owners are -- fully understand their rights before conservatorship is granted? Is that something your office does?
Well, there's a checklist of things that have to be asked; questions, inquiries, that have to be made before the Act 135 is granted. So --
-- the presiding judge would go through that whole list. I actually presided over that when I was in that program. And there are actually two -- there's regulations and rules, and I would spend a lot of time exhaustively going through that list to make sure.
Right. Well, I say that because I'm greatly concerned about properties being taken from --
-- residents in the City of Philadelphia through conservatorship. Currently, we have a property, and I would love to continue this conversation with you, and on which a church wanted a property next door to them. And they did everything in their power, and they're not even predominantly African American community. The church is predominantly white, and they did everything in their power to get that property from an individual. Unfortunately, the individual kept denying them, and then they found some ways to go through L&I, right, to get these violations on them. After the violations, they made some sort of blanket statement that he's -- he wasn't present at the house despite the fact that a neighbor, several neighbors, had pointed out that he does live at that house. And so whatever reason, we're now in a position right now that a man who's been living somewhere for 37 years is in a position to potentially to lose his house due to conservatorship. So I do think it's really important, right? And I'm -- we're going to be working on this because it's bothersome to me. So I just want us -- it's going to be very, very important that I think this court be -- we're trying to preserve houses in Philadelphia -- does -- CHAIR BASS: Yeah.
-- does something to help protect those people. CHAIR BASS: Councilman -- Chair recognizes Councilman Jones for point of information.
Thank you. President Judge, that issue that Member Phillips is talking about is pervasive.
Pervasive. It -- and what irks me, and I appreciate you raising it, what irks me is they won't do that in the heart of distressed neighborhoods. They won't say, yeah, we want to, you know, take over these properties because we see blight in depressed neighborhoods. They wait till they get to Mount Airy -- CHAIR BASS: Germantown.
They get to Germantown. They get to our districts, Wynnefield, the like, and then they say, oh, that property has a broken window, and we will take it under our advisement, building up enough of the fines, fees, levies, and improvements, keeping a thick folder. Before you know it, the people that may have been under distress may have been unable to keep up with the payments, lose the house. And it doesn't just happen every now and then. It is a systematic; there are law firms that dedicate themselves to this process. So the issue that my colleague is raising is pervasive.
Thank you. And I think it's -- thank you so much, Member Jones.
And I just want to say it is also utterly important to you as we provide support funding to this -- to this office that you all work together in conjunction with City Council and the City of Philadelphia to prevent this from happening. So you could say you're doing your part and maybe you're counseling and coaching your judges on how to look for these particular schemes. Because it's not right, right? And I think some of them are also in cahoots in some capacity with -- that needs to be looked at seriously. So we will be in conversation. I'm not going to let this one go because it's wrong. All right? Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Councilman, thank you very much. Point of information from Councilmember Young.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point out for my colleagues that this is state legislation that allows this. CHAIR BASS: Yes.
So we need to talk to our partners in Harrisburg that allow -- the law itself allows attorneys and the petitioners automatic payments. So the petitioner gets percent from the top and lawyers automatically get their fee because the law says they do. CHAIR BASS: Yep.
8 Right? So it's not -- the court has 9 little discretion in some of the 10 things that happen with Act 135. So 11 I think we really need to focus our 12 energy on actually changing the 13 legislation from Harrisburg. But 14 yes, the courts have discretion on 15 determining if the property is 16 considered abandoned or blighted. 17 But the legislation is so -- it is 18 -- it's so vague that, you know, you 19 can -- anyone's house can -- 20 CHAIR BASS: Sure.
-- can fit under the definition. So it's very hard to kind of control this type of behavior when the law allows those, you know, those types of predators, I'm going to call them that because that's what they are, to reap these benefits from this Act 135 law. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you to Councilmember.
Thank you so much. CHAIR BASS: But -- and just going back to Councilmember Phillips's point, one of the things that I learned about Act 35 -- 135 is that when someone files against you, you are automatically the defendant in the case. So you have to go in to defend your right to keep your own real estate. And again, as we talk about real estate being generational wealth for most of us in our communities, the only generational wealth that we really have access to. It's very, very frightening that this is happening. But back to Councilmember Young's point, that's something that we really need to coalesce and work with our state partners on legislatively to get some changes there. So thank you very much. You're done? Okay. Chair recognizes Councilmember Landau.
Thank you. First, thank you all for being here. Appreciate you so much. I think I scare Councilmember Jones away every once in a while. I got you. No, I was just kidding. My first questions are for the court. So in case you don't know, I am the chair of the Tech Committee, and I always try to ask a whole bunch of tech questions. But one thing in particular is that I've heard -- I'm curious about who oversees the technology systems, the databases, and the dockets in both the Court of Common Pleas and Municipal Court. Do all the courts have the same systems? And would you detail what it would cost to improve these systems? I've heard stories as much as people saying that even switching out a PDF would cost $20,000. And I'm not sure if someone was being dissuaded from changing that PDF, but would be curious about that. And also, how do you -- do you work with the city's OIT on both hardware and software improvements for our courts?
Thank you for the question, Councilperson. The FJD has its own IT department. It's fully staffed. We look after all of our own hardware. We have created a lot of software. We do have outside software that we use. Family Court uses a basis system, for example, Court of Common Pleas, a Municipal Court and criminal uses system called CPCMS as a state-run system. But everything has to come through our FJ -- FJD IT department. We work hand in hand with the City's OIT. We have weekly, if not more, meetings with them. We can't do anything without City OIT because everything has to go through the city network and they have their firewalls. We need permission to get through our firewalls. So to answer your question, we look after our own hardware. We have a cycle to replace our PCs to upgrade to, you know, the latest programs. I think that we're up to Windows -- I'm not sure which Windows it is. What is it? Yeah, we're up to Windows 11 now.
I know. We are -- we are coming right out of the 19th century and moving straight ahead. So we do have to do all this within the confines of our budget, our class 200 and 300 monies. The FJD IT department does have its own budget and it's just to basically maintain what we can do. But everything in FJD, every program, I think you mentioned that, we all are using the same hardware or software.
Who does the maintenance if you needed to change a form, update --
-- something more having to do with filing, not the website.
Right. Unless it's something that, I myself have could go in and change a form for something for, you know, policies for the FJD. If I have access to that, right access to that; administrative rights, then I could do it. But almost everything from things posted on our -- on our intranet to our internet to the forms that are used within the FJD, all that is -- has to be done and is approved by the FJD IT, which has a staff of, I think about or so 9 people. 10
11 Okay. I would love to follow you 12 up. I'm going to get the details of 13 this and follow up with you on this 14 particular instance. And also I 15 wanted to follow up on having to do 16 with Family Court Help Center, too. 17 So last year I was able to 18 secure money in the budget for the 19 debt court navigators. Can you give 20 an update on where we stand with the debt court navigator and anticipated outcomes? And then I'm also looking at Family Court because Philadelphia Legal Assistance and Women Against Abuse have provided two help desks for almost a decade, and they're about to lose all of their funding. So can you detail their operation and impact and what would it take to not only maintain but increase access to this critical legal assistance?
Again, I'm sure -- I have to fall back on -- I'll have to get back to you with Administrative Judge Olszewski. I don't want to speak for him, but I know that they're aware of this and they're making plans, but I want to make sure I have my details. So come -- I'll circle back with you and get that information.
Okay. Thank you for that. I have one -- a couple of questions for the Sheriff as well. I wanted to -- I'm staying on my tech theme here. Can you detail how you work -- the Sheriff's Office works with the city's department of OIT for tech support; both hardware and software. And you detail a partnership with Tyler Technologies to help improve financial transparency. What are -- what are -- I suppose, what's the Sheriff's Office paying for these services? When can we expect results and what specifically are they going to produce? That's -- I also have a LiveScan Plus question. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. Eric Chambers. And --
Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Eric Chambers. I am the IT director for the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office. And with respect to your question Madam Councilwoman, we have a collaboration, under the Sheriff's leadership, we are rebuilding -- I should say, rebuilding a collaboration with OIT. And they do some of our services, and then we have an IT staff in-house that does the majority of the services. So with respect to just general daily computer -- just computer issues or whatever, we have an IT staff, right? But when we need to work, do anything within the network, domain or whatever, we coordinate with OIT. And we do that through their ticketing system. We are, again as I stated, rebuilding relationships so we can reach out directly to those individuals in some of the different units under OIT for help in various areas. For instance, we just got our first server environment. So that will give us the ability to bring together all the software that we have currently running under the Sheriff's Office -- in the Sheriff's Office into one location. And with that we collaborated with OIT through their Gates Process to get to a point where now we have that environment, we can house that software. In addition to that, we are working with OIT to bring in accounting software. When I came on board, we -- under the Sheriff's leadership, again, we have transitioned the Sheriff's Office from the stone age, really, in my opinion because I've been in it a long time. We've transitioned from the stone age to the 20th century, and we're in the 21st century, right? But we're getting there as our people over in FJD stated, right? We're getting there. We're Windows 11 compliant now. And we have a lot of equipment that is working within the office now to assist our users to be able to do things they need to do on a daily basis.
Thank you so much for that. When I -- oh, sorry. I just want to -- when I first started to work for the City of Philadelphia long before the Sheriff was in -- at the helm, they were still doing things by pencil and paper, so --
Yes, ma'am. SHERIFF BILAL: I think we done had too many press conferences on what it was when I walked in there, so I'm not even going to belittle that. Computer had a big old back to it when my grandbaby had a flat screen and that's 2020. Patrick?
Yes. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Patrick Lee and I'm the chief financial officer for the Sheriff's department, Office, rather. So what's interesting about what we've been able to do in conjunction with our IT team is that we tie everything to a city contract. So that is the basis of where we go. All the pricing is set by those contracts. For example, IT augmentation of staff, we get that through OIT. In addition, all of the Dell and software, unless it's other than Microsoft software, we use a city contract to purchase. And that helps us with managing the costs that go into IT, down to the hardware, software, and any other items that we need through and to augment our augmentation process that we have implemented over the last four years, going on five years since I've been there. The efficiencies have been readily apparent. So every time we add technology, we improve either process, procedure, or units to do something a little more efficient.
That's great. I was curious about the Tyler Technologies and LiveScan Plus systems too. Well, let's go to LiveScan Plus, because I think this one is particularly important. You said it's going to provide mobile biometric ID capabilities such as fingerprinting, and how do we ensure data in the system and with any LiveScan subcontractors will be secure? What's the process of federal law enforcement, such as ICE, would ask the city LiveScan or any of its data storage partners for the fingerprinting information? SHERIFF BILAL: Any one of you-all.
Well, I don't work with Live -- SHERIFF BILAL: Talk about our fingerprinting that we have outside. That's our Warrant Unit. Basically, all our data is kept with us. That data does not go in a cloud to the city. It's kept within the server that we maintain in the Sheriff's Office.
Excellent. SHERIFF BILAL: And we don't give that information out.
Excellent. Thank you so much. Wait, that's it for now. Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes, Councilmember Ahmad.
Thank you, Chair -- CHAIR BASS: And before I do that, I want to recognize Councilmember Mark Squilla is present. Member Ahmad.
Good to see you all. I first have a quick question for the First Judicial District. Good afternoon, Madam Judge. I wanted to know what training do judges get around human trafficking and child welfare issues? Is there a specific training module as new judges come on around these issues? And then I have a second part question.
Yes, there is training. Thank you for that question. The AOPC, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts runs -- we call it affectionately Baby Judge School. Every time we get a lot of new -- any new judges that come in, and they cover a lot of that substantive information.
And the follow up is, do you have -- give us an overview of how the branches within First Judicial work with DHS, with Department of Human Services, with respect to trial, welfare, Family Court cases? And where do you see gaps either in communication or cooperation? And particularly do you have any interaction with the CUAs -- CUA case managers, and the DHS case managers? We -- the feedback we get, particularly from constituents, is that there seems to be a disconnect. And a lot of times the information doesn't seem to reach the judge sitting in on, you know, reviewing these cases and they feel a lot gets lost. So this is from the outside looking in, and of course not everybody is allowed in the court. So this is also some hearsay involved. So I just wanted to clarify what exactly -- what engagement is there to have a really nuanced, solid, you know, sort of, briefing that the judges get in order to pass judgment?
Well, the judges have all of those workers right there in the courtroom, and they can testify. The workers can testify. The judges can follow up; they can ask for additional resources to be ordered for them, and they periodically reschedule those matters, especially in Dependency Court. So if there's a change of circumstances that can be made known. A lot of times, because those cases are so intimate and emotional --
-- you may have people who are displeased with the result, and that can end up in a -- in a complaint. But the judges work really hard to try to get it right. Our Family Court judges are hardworking, and they really do want to make the right decision, I mean, who doesn't want to make the right decision? Of course they do.
Well, thank you. Because this is traumatizing for them as well, but it is many more times traumatizing for those who have gone through the system to stand in front of them.
So I just want to make sure I can tell our constituents that there is a grounding in understanding all of this. So thank you. I know I have very little time. I want to pivot to our Sheriff. Thank you. My question is you talk about including workplace stabilization and wellness as a FY27 priority. Can you give us a quick example of what this initiative could look like? And I will tell you why I am asking. I just passed a bill on workplace accommodation, and I wanted to see how those trickle down to you. Meaning how do you see those in your work and how does that come into the wellness conversation, including those who come to court and are traumatized by whatever decision is made. And I have seen this happen in Family Court where one side will not, you know, maybe have their child removed, and they have a meltdown, and then it becomes -- there's violence and all of that. So I was looking to see how wellness is integrated in those spaces as well. SHERIFF BILAL: Thank you. When we say in our accent, workplace stabilization and wellness, it's dealing with the amount of time that our deputies are working overtime.
I see. SHERIFF BILAL: And because of the amount of hours that they're working overtime to make sure everything that we have to do gets done, that right there becomes an issue. Because now you're looking at burnout, looking at those that are getting stressed because of the amount of hours that they're doing right now. And so when we put that in there, hiring more people reduces the amount of overtime, stops the burnout, and therefore deals with their mental health and their wellness. That's when we talked about stabilization of the office.
And so are you also looking at stabilization of wellness in the spaces that you work? I know you're talking about your workers, that's clarified. That because you're the frontline sort of workers in some of these traumatic spaces, I just wondered, what do you need either from your office or the judicial system to really stabilize those spaces as well for so the clients and the constituents, so it doesn't escalate into problems? SHERIFF BILAL: That sound like the chief question. What are you doing over there? SHERIFF THORNTON: Listening to that question. Good afternoon again. Chief Deputy Sean Thornton, chief of our Court Operations. Basically, what we do is we maintain professionalism throughout the day. If we see something happen, we're more proactive with it. If there's some issues with families, again, you're coming into the courthouse, right?
Yeah. SHERIFF THORNTON: There may be some issues with trials. You have opposing families and things of that nature. So things are in place where we try to keep the peace. No, we do keep the peace and if necessary, we separate families and things of that nature. But again, it all goes into professionalism; being there, being aware, being alert. And that's what we preach to our staff.
Thank you. I just had a brief question first. Good afternoon. MS BILAL: Good afternoon.
I want to thank Member Cindy Bass, who is part of my leadership team for holding me down. I know as we wrap up, I just had a -- just some brief few questions and also comments. Always good to see you, Sheriff Rochelle Bilal. SHERIFF BILAL: You, too.
Thank you for your hard work and your dedication and things that you're doing to move the City of Philadelphia Forward. And Nina Wright Padilla, we thank you, and the work that you're doing with the First Judicial District. On the First Judicial District, we have a follow-up conversation as well. I just want to know the progress we have made regarding the CURE Report. The CURE Report was a report that focused on racial equity, nepotism at the First Judicial District. And it was a report that I worked on as a Councilmember and just wanted to get an idea of where we're at in terms of how we are addressing the --
-- racial climate, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and all of those things to make sure that it's a healthy environment for individuals to thrive. Just want to get to know if any progress has been made since then.
I'm so glad you brought that up. Thank you for that question. I have been concerned about that CURE Report from the time you brought it to my attention some time ago, thank you for that. So what I've done during my time as President Judge is I've convened a committee for the board of -- Board of Judges Committee for the CURE Report. And the purpose of the committee is to go through all the recommendations on that report and try to see how we can effectuate it, to effectuate change. I think it's really important to be aware of that CURE Report and all those recommendations and protocols that were mentioned. And I plan to continue that work to change -- to make a change while I have this time. So thank you. I appreciate it. And we will do that. We will follow up too if you're interested.
Yeah. Well thank you. And yeah, we can just do a follow up and just say, here's a recommendation that were proposed. Here's the progress we have in making as relates to the recommendations. Just a status update. And always good to see Richard McSorley as well, thank you for your hard work, your dedication. Always been on the case because you were around at that time when we were working on this particular issue.
I was, Council President. And we have made significant changes. Our population has changed. Our numbers are changing. The upper-level management, old people like me don't get out as much, but our demographics are changing. They've changed since the last time we spoke. We've instituted new hiring policies; we have hiring panels; we have promotional exams that have been changed. We've gotten rid of a lot of testing; we don't do that anymore. We have changed a lot of our policies, our personal appearance policies, to make them more neutral. And in fact, myself, my DEI Chair is back there, Cordell --
Say that again one more time. I like how you said that. Say it again.
He's back there. He has been working with a lot of training in the FJD, doing a lot of brown bag lunching, doing a lot of different training, and making the staff aware of different cultural differences. And we've undertook -- it was -- it took us about two years. We went through every personnel policy in the FJD with that eye, with that different lens and updated everything to try to make it more inclusive, try to make it more gender neutral. Try to make sure that it was up-to-date from the 1980-something that it was originally written. So we have been making progress ever since then, and my staff and I and along with the judge, we're going to continue to do so.
Good. I see Gary, but Mr. Jones, stand up, sir. And he's part of your team over there doing some good work. And so I want to continue to encourage the young man to keep up the good work while you over there in the First Judicial District. That's all I have. Chair recognizes Councilman Nicholas O'Rourke.
For the good of the order, I'll pass all my questions, Mr. Chairman -Mr. President. Thank you very kindly.
That's it? Okay. Thank you very -- listen, we want to thank the two of you for being here. Thank you for your hard work and your dedication to our Sheriff's Office, and the people that work for the Sheriff's Office and particularly those who put those uniforms on. It is not guaranteed that you will come home, especially in this climate in America on any given day. So just thank you for -- on the work that you are doing from a law enforcement perspective and just protecting those who need protection. So with that being said thank you very much for your testimony.
With that being said, is there any other questions for members of this Committee as we wrap up for today? Hearing none, the Chair calls on Councilwoman Cindy Bass for a motion to adjourn.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- thank you, Mr. President. So moved. Councilmember: Second.
Okay. It has been moved and properly seconded that the public hearing and meeting on the bills and resolutions before the Committee today stand in recess until -- MALE VOICE 2: Supposed recess until tomorrow.
Yes. MALE VOICE 2: Say that. Just say in recess until tomorrow at 10:00.
I'm reading it now. It has been moved and properly seconded that the public hearing and meeting on the bills and resolution before the Committee today stand in recess until Wednesday April the 29th at 10:00 a.m. All those in favor of signify by saying aye. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
Anyone opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. This committee will stand in recess until Wednesday, April 29th at 10:00 a.m., at which time we will reconvene at Room 400. Thank you very much. (Committee of the Whole public hearing concluded at 4:10 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me of the above case, and this copy is a correct transcript of the same. ______________________ Samanda J. Rios