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.