So we've sent a lot more out, so those collection numbers should go up. We just don't have the capacity to run around town. So we have collection counsel for that.
Okay. That'll be great. And I'll get the rest of the numbers -- of the numbers later.
But I also -- I wanted to -- and I know I just sent this to you last night, but I have to get this on the record. Because I serve in dual positions now and work closely with my district Councilmember, Councilmember Jones, very closely. But I have to get this on the record relative to the letter, first-class mail, that we received from one of the former presidents of WRA, Mr. Reed. And I'm putting this on the record because I know he watches, and so I just want him to know that we did send that information to our City Solicitor and her team for their follow-up. L&I is doing their part. I mean, they have gone out there on numerous occasions relative to the two properties in question that are owned by the same owner, residential properties in Wynnefield. And we just need the follow-up to take place because we are being inundated in that community by owners, just like the one that was referenced in that letter that we received last night. And I know the community would be greatly appreciative of the follow-up. I will tell you that two of the properties on that block -- and for reference, there's only three properties on that side of the street, two of the three have gone up for sale and two of the three have sold that are directly next door to that one particular problem property. So it is an issue. And we're talking about, you know, houses that are of great worth. And so for those folks who are longtime Wynnefield residents to move as a result of that nuisance residential property, it's an issue. And all in that corridor we have a challenge. We had the folks that were having the paid pool parties in a residential neighborhood, selling sections, hookah and liquor. I mean, we have been inundated in that section with nuisance residential properties. And so I just had to put that on the record because we just received that letter just yesterday. I just sent that to you all last night. But I'm just putting it on the record because I know that Mr. Reed listens.
Yeah. And, Majority Leader, we do have an update. Would you like to put that on the record or shall we submit that in writing?
Yes, we can submit it in writing because of the sensitive nature of that particular location. But I just want them to know that we are following up.
Okay. I'll have a written response to you -- first I'll send it to you so we can work with how to respond to the community.
Yep. And I want to thank L&I and the team for all their work for following up, because they were really helpful in coordinating and going back and forth over the last year. Okay.
All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Council Lady, Majority Leader. Chair recognizes Councilmember J. Young.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions for the law department. I know right now we're suing Glock, but our police department still uses Glock. And I know as an attorney, when, you know, I had clients, we're suing somebody or some entity, we don't use that product or use that service anymore while we're suing them. So what advice have you given our police department while we're suing Glock but still using their products?
Yeah. That's what makes the behavior doubly offensive, is that we do use Glocks, and you'll hear the police department say they're very reliable. They're very reliable guns. And then on the flip side, they're advertising that you can make them into automatic weapons, right? And that is at the heart of our case. How could you -- how could you play both sides like that, right? The police department also mentioned that to turn over all their weapons would take probably five years. So at that point, we're not going through that. We're hoping to work with them. Honestly, what we want is a better product, and we want them to stop advertising. So that's where we are now. There's a long road and there's lots of discussions to have, but you've really hit on a point that makes it like just doubly insulting to us that they would produce something and advertise something that, number one, is not legal. It's not legal for everybody to have automatic weapons, right? But that can hurt our police.
I mean, essentially to me it's just -- even if we win this case, we're just going to get our money back that we are already giving them. So it's -- you know, even if it does take five years, I think that we should show that we're willing to, you know, put our money where our mouth is and start that process. Because if we don't, then Glock is winning either way. So I just wanted to put that on the record. I have another question regarding the retail delivery tax. In the legislation itself, it says that in the -- I guess, in the preamble, it says, "Whereas, the steady increase of delivery vehicles on streets has led and continues to lead to increased traffic congestion, deterioration of the streets, vehicle-related area emissions and other harms and cost to the city and the residents." So why are we taxing the retailer instead of the delivery services that are causing these things that happen on our streets?
Sure. That is something that is privileged information, unless the administration wants to talk about that. So I will send -- the Mayor's office is in the room, and will note that question.
So the reason why we're taxed -- the city has proposed to tax retailers versus the delivery services is privileged; is that what you're saying?
Any conversations that I've had with the Mayor on why she's doing one tax or another tax would be privileged, yes.
Okay. Would it be legal for us to tax the delivery services?
That is a question that I can answer for you in privilege. I will submit a written response to you.
I'm asking -- I'm waiving privilege. I'm waiving it. Can you answer that question now for us?
I cannot answer that question right now because I have not done -- I personally have not done that research. If it's been done -- but even if it was, I would not give you that in public.
Thank you. My last question for you is regarding parity for your employees with, I want to say, other legal departments, right? With the District Attorney's Office, the Defender's Office. Can you tell us where some of the, I guess, the salary disparities are between attorneys that are doing similar work between your departments and like the District Attorney's Office? And I mean, I've noticed some of the salaries for District Attorney employees are a lot higher than some of the salaries for folks working in our law department. Can you talk to us about why there are certain disparities?
Sure. I have a pay plan, which I'm happy to share for everybody who wants it. And it goes by title. And then there are steps in each title. So the entry level is assistant city solicitor, and there are five or six steps, and the Deputy and five or six steps. And the same for staff members as well. We have pay scales. I do not differentiate between those in the child welfare unit and the code unit, right? We are looking for the same level of experience, same pay throughout. My understanding, and I know he's going to be here next week, is that the District Attorney's Office is not set up that way. I can't speak for the Defenders on how they do it, but that's how we set our office up.
Thank you. The same question for the Defender Association. Like, how do you set up your pay scale amongst your attorneys? I know that now your attorneys are represented. But how was that pay scale set up for your entry-level attorneys versus your higher-level, more seasoned attorneys?
Thank you for that question, Councilmember Young. And I had started to talk about this before, but just to lay the groundwork, that the Defender Association's starting salary is far below that compared to other attorneys and other public defenders across the Commonwealth, but also in New Jersey, where their starting salary is $85,000. And in Maryland, that's the starting salary as well. Our starting salary is $75,000. My understanding, I believe the law department and the District Attorneys are on the same starting level, which I believe is $79,000 or $80,000 starting. But Solicitor Garcia can answer that question. We have a contract with the UAW. Our attorneys are unionized. So our starting is at $75,000 and it goes up each year. We are a unique organization in that 15 percent or so of our staff have been there for decades. So people have spent literal decades practicing as attorneys in our office, which is -- which is wonderful service. But we also have to make sure that we account for that experience. And so we have a 30-year scale so that the salary goes up by $2,000 every year. But it's a 30-year scale to accommodate for having a significant workforce that has been with the organization for decades.
Thank you. And, Madam Defender, can you tell us what -- I guess, what are the annual or the average percentage increases in salary that you -- that you negotiated with your employees?
Yeah. Well, the attorney -- with your attorney union and non-attorney union.
Right. So we're at the bargaining table now with our non-attorney union. And we are still discussing where we can land on salaries given the budget outlook.
Yeah. I'm just bringing that up because, you know, looking at where we are, you know, our city employees went on strike for 3.5 percent, right? And so just trying to maintain that parity when it comes to increases in salary and looking at where some of our other represented employees are. I know your employees are not city employees, but you're asking the city for funding. So I'm just trying to ensure that there's parity when it comes to those increases as well.
Right. And a reminder, again, because we are not a city agency, we don't have a pension. We have a 403(b) that we have to pay into and take care of -- for our staff. But that's another, you know, distinction between how our agency is treated -- pitted against other agencies. And so the fact that we don't have a pension is something that we have to account for in our 403(b) benefits, which is something that we are discussing at the bargaining table for our non-attorneys right now.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I heard the bell. Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes -- I'm going to go to Councilmember Landau because I know you said you just had a couple of questions real quick.
Thank you. Thank you. CHAIR BASS: It's all right. Go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you again. So my questions are for the law department. I wanted to talk a little bit about technology, following up on the Majority Leader's questions about nuisance businesses and the information that we have that you've hired an investigator. What role does the law department play in weighing in on technology for all of our departments? It feels like a lot of the grievances that come to us and that we pass along to all city departments and agencies are really about what seems like simple communication issues that also we could be using technology to connect more dots. It seems that for all of the issues that a nuisance business might have, even if we have them in different tech silos, databases in the city, why are we not connecting them? So start with, how much -- like, what role does the law department play in overseeing all technology? And again, I want to just touch on one other thing that came up today. Even contracting, we know when contracts come up, we know when they need to be conformed, we know when they need to be fully executed, and then when someone needs to be paid. This seems like we are so far behind the times in what should be happening quickly and to get to like the really strong meat of your work instead of dealing with some of the smaller administrative things that could be easily done.
Thank you for the questions. I'll take the technology question first. I have two hats. One is as a department head and one as a city solicitor, right? So I'm responsible for 415 people and the technology that they use, right? So I have -- you know, within budget, et cetera, I have some ability to get new technologies to help us out there. So I'm getting a real case management system after 30 years of using a piece of nonsense that was proprietary, right? And with that, I can track a lot more data, right? So that will be key. On the other side, so on the City Solicitor side, I am in the room and trying to figure out, particularly with Philly Stat 360, how to get our data into their bucket so they can spit it back at us, right? And the same with Revenue and the police. And we have endless meetings about this. And Philly Stat 360 is really the hub of that. So I'm there as kind of a stakeholder because I have data, right? And then there's kind of the third hat that I wear; any contracts for technology, right? I know you're very interested in AI. All of that goes through me and they're very heavily negotiated. So there's kind of three lines of responsibility around technology. For contracting, I do want to put on the record the work. I know it is frustrating. It is frustrating for everybody. I have a lot of contracts, so it's frustrating for us too. But there are some tangible things that we have done that I'll just read through, knowing that we're getting short on time. So this is work that's done with the law department, CAO, Procurement, and Finance. So we accelerated the approval process for all amendments, eliminating days from the overall conformance timeline for amendments. We reviewed proposed scopes and budgets in advance of contract routing to expedite law's review, collaborated with Procurement and OIT on an RFP to update and streamline all city contracting templates. Met biweekly with city stakeholders to identify contracting issues and problem solving in real time. And along with Procurement and CAO, led fiscal year '27 procurement kickoff to establish timelines and best practices for departments to ensure timely conformance. So we're not seeing -- we saw this year a smoothing out of contracts coming throughout the year. We still have to do better. And the procurement commissioner will tell you that, but usually this time we're starting to drown and we're okay and we're moving things and we're cranking. So, you know, they may look like small things, but all of this together, I personally feel that we are moving in the right direction and law is in the middle of all that.
I appreciate. And I want to shout out the Majority Leader also for all of her work on this process. This is -- you know, as somebody who worked for the city for so many years, sometimes you get used to the machine not working well. You have to do a deep dive into it to fix it. But I think you said earlier today, to someone else's question, that law should be the center for all contracts. And I don't know all the details of what happens in the administration, but that kind of feels right. It feels like you are the ones who could -- this is an issue of justice. This is an issue for so many of the organizations who we are funding to do the important work on the ground. They are struggling if they can't get their money on time. And that's an issue of justice. The nuisance business issue is an issue of justice. It's all -- it all comes under the same guidelines. I've got to jump in with two more questions real quick. One, I wanted to follow up on a hearing that we had about GPS monitoring of our -- of our youth. And this is -- I wanted to know about -- with this -- we have a vendor with Track Group. And it disclosed that the City of Philadelphia can access individuals GPS location data for up to seven years after a case is closed. Track Group then stores all the data indefinitely in their own facilities. And the goal is to assess whether current data retention and storage practices align with the city's legal obligations and understand the potential privacy, civil liberties, and whatnot. This is what I want to know. So does the contract for the GPS monitor vendor include parameters around collection, storage, and sharing of individual's data? If yes -- and then also can you share more about these parameters? I'm very interested in this.
I probably looked at that contract at some point. I will tell you in our general provisions -- that all of those obligations are included in our general provisions. So the collection of data, the storing of data, the sharing of data, all of that is covered in myriad places in the terms that we give to everybody. So I can provide a copy of that. I'm looking at my team to know if they know anything about this contract in particular. But I will follow up with you on that and highlight the sections that you're asking about.
I appreciate that so much. And then finally, I was so pleased to be able to -- when the Mayor came out with her consumer protection bill that you guys worked on for so long, it was so wonderful to be able to introduce that on our behalf. What -- for -- the Glock case is so exciting to me. That's exactly what we should be using this law for. And so what emerging issues are you seeing, and any trends in especially things like digital fraud and scams that is -- that are harming Philadelphians? What's next on this?
Yeah. We have some subpoenas out there that I can tell you privately about. But you've hit it. It has moved to the digital space. It was probably for a long time contractors with like bogus agreements and stuff, right? And now it is -- I don't know, that -- you know, something I get on my phone that I click on and all of a sudden, you know, my data is gone. It is much harder to trace because these perpetrators are often not even here, right? And so we are trying to pull that out to see if we can work -- and we talk with law enforcement to see if there's anything that we can do there. A lot of it is education and we're working with the CEO on education about fraud. And then I would say financial predatory practices is something we're very focused on as well because there's still a lot of junk products out there, and it's easier than ever to apply for them, because you can just apply on your phone. You don't have to go to an office or anything. So that's a big part of our focus right now.
Thank you so much. This is one of my favorite days or one of my favorite panels. I can sit here all day, as we all know. Last thing, Solicitor Garcia, I have a request for you. When we hear from the Public Defender's Office this year in particular, but every single year about the incredible holistic work that they're doing that is constitutionally required, that is helping us to reduce crime and recidivism here in the City of Philadelphia, again, I say this is an issue of justice. We are all winning because of their work. They have expenses that the DA's Office does not have. I would ask you can you please advocate for the increase in their budget as a reason for justice, for the -- for the betterment of Philadelphia? I would ask you, will you please advocate for an increase in their budget?
I think the request to the Mayor's Office has come quite clearly out today.
Thank you very much. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Phillips.
Thank you, Chairwoman Bass. I just wanted to ask a quick question for the delivery tax, Solicitor. If -I want to know, does the delivery tax exempt places like -- or entities like -- companies like FedEx, UPS, DHL, USPS?
The tax is on the point of sale. So it would be -- I don't want to name any big warehouse stores. So it's not on the carrier, it's on the retailer, who's -- the customer is paying, right? I'm entering to a transaction with Target. It's on the point of sale.
Right. So therefore, a company like FedEx, the retailer can actually -- so basically the retailer is absorbing the tax and it's being passed off to the consumer, correct?
And that's the way -- my understanding, it's the way it's set up. But I really want to defer to Rob Dubow because I'm staring at a lot of words, and he's the master of all details.
Okay. Yeah. One of the things I was thinking about is that I know there's like -- there's supposed to be no tax on food -- you know, it's just -- it's just only solely -- not on food, but there may be companies that may find their way to kind of angle themselves to not, you know, be a part -- to be a part of like, oh yeah, we're not food. And they're going to end up being -- they end up taxing everything at that point.
Okay. And I just have another question. You set a target of 3,250 nuisance-related cases annually. How much of that work relies on outside counsel versus internal staff to support? If we're increasing funds for outside firms, how does that translate to faster or more effective enforcement in neighborhoods?
Okay. That's great. And then also, is it a number -- are there a number of violations or severity issue, community complaints, that you do in coordination with the Philadelphia Police Department and L&I when it comes to these cases? Are you coordinating with them closely?
All right. And then one of my final questions, which is really important -- well, I wouldn't say important, but I'm just really curious about; relatively important. In the budget detail I see Epiq Discovery Solutions.
Increasing to about $660,000 for e-discovery services. Can you please explain what is driving that increase and why is it important for services -- these services, why is it important -- so important for them to increase the cost?
Yeah. So that's -- e-discovery is -- in a litigation, we have to exchange documents, right? In civil discovery, you should exchange documents. And most of our, if not -- almost all of our data is electronic now. We don't have, you know, photocopy, like back in the day, you used to have paper documents and you had to photocopy them and send them to the other side. It's all electronic now. And there's so much more data because people are using Teams and SharePoint and Copilot and all of it. There's an enormous amount of data. So when we're in a litigation and we have to turn over information or receive information, we use Epiq eDiscovery. They are our e-discovery platform. We don't have a platform within the city. And so that data would get pulled, emails, Teams, data from SharePoint would get pulled and put into the eDiscovery's platform, and then produced from there out to either the plaintiff or the defendant, and vice versa. If they're producing something to us, it goes into this platform.
Okay. Thank you so much, Chairwoman; and thank you, Solicitor, for some of the support that you provided our office for the past year. And we're looking forward to continued growth in this department. Thank you.
Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Young.
Thank you. I want to get back on that -- the question I had regarding the retail tax. But you -- so you said the Finance Director may have more details or information on that. And I'm just asking, this is the budget hearing, is there anyone from Finance or Budget here that can answer some of those questions that my colleague and I may have regarding that?
So essentially -- yeah, I mean, we -- you've asked -- Councilmember Phillips asked a question and you said, well, Finance is better suited to answer that question. So I'm just asking, is there someone from Finance or Budget here that can answer the questions that we have related to that particular tax? Because, you know, we are in the middle of budget hearings where that piece of legislation is a part of this process. So just asking if there's somebody here.
I don't believe there is anybody here. I think the question was whether we expect that the retailers will absorb the tax or pass it on to the consumer?
I don't know. I did watch the hearing last week, so I don't know if that particular question was asked, but we can certainly pass the question up and have a written response.
So in your legal opinion then, right, when you're giving advice -- and I know you'll probably say it's privileged information, but as we are going through the process of all the what- ifs as attorneys, we give our clients all the what-ifs.
Now, has that question been -- has the law department opined on that? Has that been one of the what-ifs that has been asked, and what is the outcome of that?
All right. You know that I can't tell you what I've talked to the client about. I can't tell you what they've asked about.
Thank you. So that's just a question that I guess I'm going to follow up with another question in writing regarding that question, and we can get some answers to that.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you. Okay. We're done a little bit early unless anyone else has any questions. And if not -- Councilmember, you have questions? Okay. So this committee will stand in recess until 2:00 p.m. Thank you. (Lunch recess.) CHAIR BASS: Good afternoon. This afternoon we're going to have scheduled testimony from the First Judicial District and the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office. Mr. Stefan, will you please call the next panel to testify?
The next panel is Judge Nina Wright-Padilla, President Judge Court of Common Pleas and Chair, Administrative Governing Board. And then we'll also have, in the Sheriff's Office, Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff for the City and County of Philadelphia. CHAIR BASS: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon. CHAIR BASS: Okay. And whoever wants to go first, you can please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. I am Nina Wright Padilla, President Judge Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. I'm very, very happy to be here. With me I have Richard McSorley. He's our Court Administrator.
And I can't speak for the sheriff. I think it's proper for her to speak for herself. CHAIR BASS: Right. She'll -- she'll go --
Oh, later. CHAIR BASS: -- as soon as you're finished with the testimony.
I'm sorry. CHAIR BASS: That's okay. It's all right.
Okay. Good afternoon, members of City Council. I am Judge Nina Wright Padilla, President Judge Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Chair of the Administrative Governing Board. I am pleased to provide testimony on the First Judicial District's Fiscal Year 2027 Operating Budget. First Judicial District is essential to the daily functioning of Philadelphia, handling hundreds of thousands of cases each year, while ensuring fair, timely, and efficient justice across all divisions of the court. We drive outcomes in public safety, community stability, and case resolution 14 through strengthened courtroom safety and coordinated programs such as Accelerated Misdemeanor Program and the Neighborhood Wellness Court, addressing complex challenges including behavioral health and the opioid crises. This progress depends on a strong workforce. During the recent union negotiations, we sat side by side with the City of Philadelphia and members of the mayor's office to bring those contacts close together, and the -- and the contracts close. Excuse me. I am certain that the city would say that the FJD legal team led by Eric Assini -- raise your hand, Eric, thank you -- was instrumental in bringing those negotiations to a successful conclusion. At that time, we had expected that the same consideration for the salary increases would go forward for our non-represented staff. We have over 800 non-represented employees in critical roles. We are here today to simply ask that the same salary increase be granted to those employees as well. Therefore, to maintain operations and remain competitive, we are requesting a three percent salary adjustment for those employees, which is the same as the union increase and the continuation of the fifth salary step for eligible staff. This step was also something that was negotiated with the unions. This is not about expansion; it is about sustaining performance, preventing wage compression, and retaining the talent needed to keep our courts running effectively. With continued partnership and support from the city, the First Judicial District will remain a stable, high performing court advancing safety, fairness, and opportunity for all Philadelphians. We have provided written testimony, and we are available for any questions you may have. Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you very much for your testimony. We're going to hold questions until we -- after we hear from the Sheriff. Madam Sheriff, please state your name and proceed. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon. I'm Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff for the City and County of Philadelphia. First of all, good afternoon. CHAIR BASS: Good afternoon. SHERIFF BILAL: And I don't see Council President, so I'll say Councilwoman Cindy Bass. CHAIR BASS: Yes. SHERIFF BILAL: It is both an honor and a privilege to appear before you today. I am Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff for the City and County of Philadelphia. Joining me today, Jamison Rogers, Chief of Staff; Patrick Lee, Chief Financial Officer. And they can raise their hands as I'm saying it, so you'll know who they are. Deputy CFO and Project Manager, William Brownlee; Craig Martin, Senior Chief Budget Officer; Chief Deputy of Court Operation, Sean Thornton; Inspector William Hans, Family Court and Transportation; Inspector Sean Marshall, he's not here. He had a death, his family, but he would have, Internal Affairs and Training. Chief Inspector David Fallen, Civil Enforcement; Inspector Joshua Perez, City Hall and Widener Building; Chief Inspector Nicole Nobles of specialized units, Warrants, Bike Unit, K-9, Domestic Violence Task Force Unit; and IT Director Eric Chambers. Inspector Moore, who is also part of our Warrant Unit. And here we have today is Badia Beasley, Mark Wilson from our Real Estate division. Thank you, you-all for being here today. We do appreciate you standing. Here are our plans for Fiscal 2027.
As we move into Fiscal Year 2027, the Sheriff's Office remains aligned with the city's blueprint of Safer Philadelphia with continuous guide -- with a continuous guide of our operational priorities. Our core mission remains the execution of all orders from the First Judicial, while also expanding our efforts to return excess proceeds from sheriff sales to residents, helping to restore financial stability and promote pathways to ownership. We will continue to support the vision of safer, cleaner, and greener Philadelphia. Our Civil Enforcement and Warrant Unit remains critical to this effort, working in close partnership with the District Attorney's Office and the Philadelphia Police Department to apprehend fugitives, and ensure compliance with the court orders. Our Fiscal 2027 budget request of 19,268,000: For several years, this office has operated under constraint funding levels, resulting in ongoing staffing challenges and impacts to service delivery. As we enter this budget cycle, we respectfully urge City Council to remain grounded in the first principle of the vision of safer. Achieving that goal requires not only alignment in priorities, but also the necessary partnerships and financial investment. We look forward to working collaboratively with City Council to ensure this office is adequately resourced and strengthened operations, support of our personnel and continued delivery of essential public safety services to residents of Philadelphia. Court security and staffing needs personnel overtime impact. Despite operating with staffing shortages, our deputies continue to provide consistent and professional security across all court facilities. However, this level of service comes at a cost. Current staffing levels have resulted in significant reliance on overtime contributing to increased fatigue, higher sick -- higher sick leave usage, and long- term strain on our workforce. While our personnel continue to perform in high level, this model cannot be sustained. For Fiscal '27, we are prioritizing increased hiring of deputy sheriffs and professional staff, reduction in overtime dependency, workforce stabilization and wellness. Strategic investment in personnel will allow us to reduce overtime expenditures over time, improve employment -- employee retention, and maintain the high level of security required within our court system. We've done election security. The Sheriff Office played a crucial role in supporting election security efforts in 2024 and 2025 by supplementing law enforcement presence citywide. As we prepare for future election cycles, we anticipate continued demand for these services and will plan accordingly to ensure safe, secure, and orderly elections for Philadelphia residents. Interagency support and operational flexibility. In addition to our core responsibility, the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office consistently support partner agencies across the City and Commonwealth when called upon. We work closely with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, the Office of Emergency Management, and the Philadelphia Police Department, among others to provide critical resources and personnel during protests, large scale events, and other high-profile operations. On a near daily basis, we are called upon. Our office assists with the deployment of transportation access, including buses to support coordinated public safety efforts, even when these requests require significant logistical coordination. While continuing to meet our primary obligation to the courts, this level of inter-agency support reflects our ability to operate flexibly and efficiently, consistently doing more with limited resources in the service of the City of Philadelphia. Let me say this, to be clear, there are a lot of things that we are a part of, but yet we have not mentioned in the press conference. Competitive salaries, retention, and personnel funding: A significant challenge we face as we enter 2027 -- Fiscal 2027, is compensation.
Deputy Sheriff's salary in Philadelphia remains non-competitive compared to others in surrounding counties in Pennsylvania. This disparity continues to impact both recruitment and retention, particularly as other jurisdictions offer higher starting salaries and more accessible training pathways. Addressing salaries' competitiveness will be essential to maintaining a qualified and stable workforce. One of the most significant structural challenges we face in current requirement for recruits to attend Pennsylvania Sheriff's Academy of State College. 19-week residential program creates barriers to entry, particularly for candidates with families or local obligations, and contributes to delays in over -- on onboarding new deputies. Fiscal '27 and beyond, we propose exploring a local sheriff academy here in Philadelphia. A local academy will shorten onboarding timelines, improve accessibility for diverse candidates, enable rolling hiring cycles rather than limited annual classes, strengthen regional collaboration. We have already received written support from the Sheriffs of Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, and Chester Counties who have expressed interest in sending recruits to Philadelphia based on that academy -- regional academy here. Technology investment: Strategic investments in technology remains a priority in 2027. Our partnership with Tyler Tech Technologies will improve financial transparency, accountability by enhancing our ability to track receipts, void transactions, and disbursements in real time. Additionally, the implementation of LiveScan Plus system will provide deputies with mobile biometric identification capabilities, allowing for real time fingerprinting and warrant verifications in the field. This advancement will significantly improve operational efficiency and public safety outcomes. Community engagement and specialized units: In 2027, we plan to expand our Bike and K-9 Units, increasing visibility, law enforcement presence in and around court facilities and key areas such as City Hall. We also remain committed to community-based initiatives. In 2025, the Sheriff's Office hosted free healthcare pop-up clinics and provided critical service to underserved communities, an effort we plan to continue and expand. Additionally, Philadelphia Sheriff's Office is proud to be the first law enforcement agency in Pennsylvania to achieve certification in autism awareness. This training ensures that both sworn and professional staff are better equipped to serve individuals with autism and their families with care and understanding. Closing remarks here: with your continued support, we are confident we can meet the demands of Fiscal 2027 and beyond. We remain committed to working in partnership with the City Council and all stakeholders to strengthen public safety, improve operational efficiency, and serve the residents of Philadelphia with professionalism and integrity. Before closing, I would like to take a note. The importance of ensuring that the Sheriff's Office budget is fully reviewed and properly considered as part of Fiscal '27 process. Doing so will allow us to effectively plan, allocate resources, and continue delivering the critical services that the courts and the public rely upon. Lastly, on behalf of my entire team, thank you for your continued partnerships and support in our shared mission to keep Philadelphia safe, secure, and thriving. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIR BASS: Well, thank you for your testimony, and I want to thank you for you and your department and the First Judicial District for all of your hard work. And one of your statements earlier was that the City of Philadelphia works because you all work, and so I don't want it to be in any way diminished. The amount of work that you all do, the high level of responsibility that you have and the -- you know, just overall, the way you conduct yourselves and conduct your departments.
That doesn't always get properly recognized. There's a lot of criticism; I think that there's particularly a lot of criticism around African American women in leadership. So I just really want to say thank you for all of the work that you do, really, to all of your departments and staff. So thank you for your work. I just had one quick question before I turn it over to my colleagues, and that is around sheriff's sales. Can you talk a little bit about sheriff sales? Where are we in the process? What's happening? What should we be expecting? SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. Sheriff's sales are going on. As of August of 2024, we are now back full blast of five sales a month. Some of the things that we are doing is we went technical; our sheriff's sales are online, more people are bidding, more people are getting excess proceeds back to them because the more people that bid, the more money they get back. Mortgage sales are up, tax sales are up. And I think each of you have a package on your desk. We give all the diagrams and all the numbers to what is going on in the sheriff's sale as real estate. Let me give you some more questions. Real estate, well, let me see. You have a specific area in the real estate? Because there's so many departments in the real estate division. CHAIR BASS: Well, you know, I really wanted to -- if -- listen, if you read some of the public daily publications, you would think that, you know, real estate, particularly in the Sheriff's Department, was going to hell in a handbasket. SHERIFF BILAL: Huh-uh. CHAIR BASS: And so I really wanted to try to address some of the items that may cause doubt or concern with the general public in terms of some of the things that have been alluded to from the Sheriff's Department with, you know, deed transfers and, you know, returning funds, you know, belonging to heirs and others that, you know, through a sheriff's sale process are due to have some sort of a refund. Can you talk about some of those types of things that are portrayed to be as problematic within the Sheriff's Office? I would appreciate any clarity that you could provide. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. Thank you for that question -- CHAIR BASS: Oh, sure. SHERIFF BILAL: -- because basically a lot of the stuff that we are -- that are being put in the papers is basically twisting the narrative. Let's start with deeds, and in your package, you have our deed pamphlet, which we give out to everybody to tell the process. A lot of the time they're saying the deeds are so delayed and so behind. There are reasons why they are. And we put that information up on our webpage to explain that. The process of deeds process is once you do a sheriff's sale, let's say you do a sheriff's sale, January of 2025. Mortgage sale; you purchase the property. Mortgage company think the sheriff offer is like the storage bin for them. They basically buy that property back, and they don't move on it or pay any of the bills to that property until they get a buyer for it. So they bought it back in January of 2025, but they don't get a buyer for it until, let's say, September of 2025. Now it is the rush to get the deed. But the situation is this way, until you pay all the invoices on that property that you get from the Sheriff's Office, is when your deed process starts. CHAIR BASS: Uh-huh. SHERIFF BILAL: It doesn't start because you bought it in January of 2025; it starts once you pay all the bills on it. And that a lot of times they don't pay all the bills on it until they get a buyer, which is sometime in September. And now your deed process starts. And now as we go through the deed process, we can form it; it gets recorded, and then you get to deed. But if you believe them that run to the newspapers, Oh, I didn't get my deed. Well, they never tell them that they didn't pay the invoice of the property.
And when it comes down to tax lien sales, they never tell them that they didn't upload their tax compliance letter that they're supposed to give for the city purposes to make sure they don't owe any taxes in the city. They never -- they never tell them that. Once you give your tax compliance letter to us, then your deed process start. Now you can buy the property, you can settle on it, but according to the rules from the city, you have to have a tax compliance letter to say that you don't owe any taxes in the city. Now, once you give us that, now your deed process starts. See, they can put any, Oh, I haven't got my deed because I bought it in January, but until you finish and complete the sale, your deed doesn't start. And a lot of, because we dealt with a couple of people, we done did over close to 2,000 deeds in 2025, and up to about 300 and something up till this date. And these are the people that follow the rules and in compliance, all the paperwork is in, their invoices are paid, and their tax certificate for tax sales is uploaded and done. The ones that run to the papers is the same person that tried to get to the head of the line a year ago. So the ones that try to get to the head of the line keep thinking this is the old operation. It is not. You can't come to the Sheriff's Office and smile at somebody and get a friend and get pushed to the front of the line when everybody else is in line waiting to get their stuff processed. That doesn't operate with us anymore. We follow the law, we follow the rules, and that's how we get everything processed. CHAIR BASS: One other quick question then I'm going to turn it over. Can you talk very briefly about, you know, for folks who lose homes on sheriff sale, because we know that taxes are going up, we keep doing these reassessments residents cannot afford it. Well, now let me clarify, the city, you know, City Council does not -- is not increasing real estate taxes, but assessments are continuing, and values are climbing. And so as people are losing real estate, their generational wealth, because in most of our communities, real estate is the only generational wealth most of us have, are able to pass down, are able to give to our children. You know, this is really it. And so with the loss of these properties, if you can't pay the taxes and then your property ends up sheriff's sale -- on sheriff's sale, can you talk just a little bit about how are we avoiding or trying to help people avoid ending up in that particular type of scenario? com. What our Civil Unit does and gives out to homeowners, because my Constituent Services Unit was mandated to develop and put in that pamphlet, all the agencies that can help people save their homes, all of them. And so when our Civil Unit gets the court order, though they have to do their job according to the court order, they do give out postings and pamphlets on the organizations that can help you save your home. And by doing that, a lot of people have started using all of those resources, and they have basically been able to save their homes. T program, eight point something million dollars giving back to homeowners in that area. But the amount of properties going up for sale has been stayed or stopped because people are using that information to get a hold to the agencies that can help them save their homes. CHAIR BASS: Okay. SHERIFF BILAL: In that? Do you have it? So we will -- we basically, in that package, you have this in there, it basically tells you, in 2024, how many properties was stayed in any -- in every Councilmanic District in 2024 and in 2025. That means the numbers have increased in 2025 on how many properties have not gone to sheriff's sale because of the information that are given at the time that we get involved, the Sheriff's Office get involved. And for the record, for people who think we pick and choose properties, we don't. We only operate off of court orders -- CHAIR BASS: Yeah.
SHERIFF BILAL: When we get the court order, we have to act. But in that process, we give out information for families to be able to get the help they need in order to save their homes. CHAIR BASS: Well, listen, thank you very much for that information. I'm sure there's going to be some more questions related to sheriff sales from the members. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. CHAIR BASS: So I want to turn it over. Real quick, I do want to say, again, a special thank you to the deputies who keep us safe here in the chamber. So thank you so much to our sheriffs and of course PPD, Philadelphia Police Department, for, you know, our regulars here who are also, we count them as members of Council as well. So first up, we have Councilmember Harrity, Jones, O'Rourke, Brooks, and Gauthier.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Good afternoon, everyone. How are you? SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon.
My questions are for the First Judicial. Philadelphia Family Court Help Center in federal fund -- wait, the Philadelphia Family Court Help Centers in federal funding is set to expire after nine years of funding. Can you speak about this program and how it will continue to serve our constituents without this funding? What gaps does this leave for families and individuals during their experience with the court system? And we know there is a renewed focus within the state court system and the First Judicial District around the intersection of mental health and behavioral health and substance abuse, as well as autism and intelligent -- intellectual disabilities. Can you tell me more about this work within Philadelphia and any possible partnerships between the judicial branches of government to address this major issue?
Thank you for the question, Council person. First, we're hoping that the federal funding will continue for Family Court, and we'll be able to maintain all those services. We don't have a plan in place yet to fill that gap. We're hoping that gap doesn't have to be filled, but it is a question that I can take back to Administrative Judge Olszewski, and we can probably send you back what our plan is, what our backup plans are. Bottom line is the Family Court knows what its obligations are and what its services to the people that use those programs. And we're going to continue use -- we're going to continue with those programs. We're just going to have to find a way to do it if the worst-case scenario happens. But I can have other conversation with you offline with Judge Olszewski and get you more information about that.
Yeah, if you could just get it to the Chair and then we could --
-- we could all have that information would be nice. And how about the, you know, my question with what -we know there's a renewed focus with the state court system and the First Judicial District around the intersection of mental health, behavioral health, and substance abuse, as well as autism and intellectual disabilities. Can you tell me more about this work within Philadelphia and any possible partnerships between the judicial branches of government to address this major issue and intersection?
Absolutely. The issue of behavioral health has become finally sharply in focus for the FJD and also for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We've worked with DBHIDS; we've worked with DBH. We're collaborating, right now, with DBH taking over the forensic unit in the Criminal Justice Stout Center. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is working with the Mayor's office and obtaining funding to continue in their mental health initiative. We've had several statewide collaborations over mental health. There's now a mental health committee that the FJD works with. It's chaired. One of the chairs is our own Supervising Judge DeFino- Nastasi. So instead of just having the mental health issue becoming a Philadelphia issue, it has finally expanded to a statewide issue. And the court is starting to address a lot of the mental health things that we see in the court. We are now have -- DBH is working with us to have navigators in our pretrial program, our Adult Probation and Parole Program. We have the Hub, which is over the Stout Center, which is not only just for people in the criminal justice system, but it's open for everyone. Probation is creating a resource center addressing mental health issues. So the referrals and the actual hands-on work that we're doing, it's a much bigger collaboration. As somebody who's been here for as long as I've been here for 40 years, this wasn't even talked about 10 years ago. And now we have partnerships with the state, with the DBH, with DBHIDS, and a lot of other partners. And fortunately, there's funding that's being made available for this too. So I think this is going to be all going. And lastly, to talk about autism, we -- in our own place in the FJD, we've created autism awareness training program. It's mandatory for all employees. We've given it to our judges. So staff is aware, first line staff, you come into the Stout Center, you come into City Hall, you're going to file. People don't realize that, you know, there might be something different. And now our staff is being trained to recognize these kinds of issues and take the steps. And this is ongoing training that we're doing. And we've done trauma training too for all staff. So we're trying to make sure that our first line, faces of the FJD, are aware --
And we have the autism reading room as the President Judge has said. So a lot of collaboration, a lot of overdue collaboration.
Yeah, I'm glad to hear that. I -- everybody knows I'm a grandfather to an autistic child, and you know, hoping that he never has to experience the court system. But if he does, knowing that we're actually making progress around those issues is very personal to me.
And even that collaboration with the Sheriff, as the Sheriff mentioned, their autism training, our autism training. Now, when somebody walks into our buildings, there's a lot more people who are aware.
Absolutely. And I -- I'm with the sheriff when she does her program, spent last week at the press conference with her. She does -- doing great work when it comes to that with her collaborations of that. You know, it's kind of funny, you don't realize it until you -- until you deal with it about how different it is to interact, right? And how quick the interaction could change. So it's good to see that both law enforcement and the court system are partnering up to really work on these issues. So I thank you all for your service. Judge Padilla, thank you. It's an honor to see you as always. Thank you for your many years of service, President. Thank you.
Thank you. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to echo something the Chairwoman said that a lot of times we tend to focus on the here and now and not remember half of the good things you guys did for the City of Philadelphia. And I just want to take a moment to recognize that. I remember the worst night of -- in my career, was the night of the George Floyd uprising and all hell broke loose. And I happened to have the scanner that night, so I'm hearing the back and forth, the calls coming back in. And I'll never forget there was a time, and I remember talking to my colleague over there, she was out at 52nd Street, but there was a time when Center City was besieged, surrounded. And we -- it was almost as if at that time, the Police Department was going to just concede Center City. It was that bad. And I remember the Sheriff's Office, without a lot of prodding, stepped up to the plate, pulled up, and I know where you were deployed, and I know what your responsibility because I heard it and I never forgot. That was like a scene from the movies of the Calvary trying to hold down the fort. And I appreciate it, and I want to say it publicly to you, and thank you for your service, you and your team. For the courts -- yeah, give it, she deserves it. For the courts, another rough time was during the pandemic, and we were meeting weekly, Your Honor, trying to figure out how to reduce the census population up on State Road. And back then, the courts, the DA, the defenders, you know, weren't so huggy friendly back then. But in spite of that, you guys stepped up to the plate using technology to have hearings to look at whether or not people could be released safely back into the community. And you weekly brought that census countdown to the fact that what could have been a pandemic spread up on State Road was reduced. We had some fatalities, but not as many as we could have had if we had not worked together. I know some people claim they invented the shot for COVID, but you guys were in the trenches making it happen, keeping us safe. Both the correctional officers up there and the inmates that they are sworn to protect. So thank you both for that. Now that's the good part, and I'll get to the rough and tumble. There's no rough and tumble, relax. But what I would like to ask you, and I'm so glad this year they have you two sitting -- these two departments sitting together so that we don't do this. How -- so today when I was coming into work, there was a big ruckus over at CJC. The, you know, police were called in, it was some disturbance at CJC. And even City Hall police were called. Are we -- what -- with your shortage of manpower, personnel, and your courts having to operate, how is safety -- how are you working together to keep, not only the staff of the courts safe, but the people that are -- the defendants and those accused safe as we travel through CJC? Is there a better plan this year for working together?
I would like to just comment on that. That's a very important question. And I can tell you City Council had a hearing recently on ICE, and after the hearing, a lot of those folks that were here in the well of City Council made their way to my chambers. And were standing outside with a huge banner, and they were saying things like, We know you're in there, we're going to be here for a while. And so finally, I ended up calling the sheriff, Sheriff Chung, standing right there. He came to my rescue. He came right over there, right away, took care of it. I couldn't be more pleased and more proud of having the security that we have right now. I also have occasion to meander over to the Stout Center on occasion, probably maybe once or twice a week. And I troubled the sheriffs over there to find out -- the deputy sheriffs, to find out what's going on, make sure everything okay. I stop in a different courtroom from time to time, and I have to commend Sheriff Bilal. There really haven't been any problems at all. The sheriffs are present, they're available. They're helping us. They're there to answer any issues that we have. Personally, I haven't noticed any problems at all with it.
Without that kind of security in the courtrooms, witnesses don't want to testify --
People -- so there is no justice without courtroom safety. And I'm glad you banned these glasses over there because --
-- it's intimidating to say the least, when people can record you in the court --
-who's testifying and putting it out on the web. So we have to lock down, no pun intended, on the security of CJC in order for us there -- for there to be confidence that people are safe and have justice. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilmember. And I -- you know, I just -- along your line of questioning. It's my understanding that the building was built knowing that we needed, sort of like, more space, more elevators, more ways to enter and exit. And that the -- to save a couple of dollars, we built it wrong. Well, not we, because I wasn't here then, but it was -- it was built wrong.
So unfortunately, Madam Chair, me and Wilson Goode, Sr., were here. And my name is on the Justice Center. And I remember the change order that you were supposed to have another bank of elevators --
-- thus -- so that the overcrowd, in order to save money because of cost, but you are right, Madam Chair, they cut down a bank of elevators. CHAIR BASS: And it's been a huge issue ever since --
Correct. CHAIR BASS: So sometimes you got to spend the money, do it right the first time. Chair recognizes Councilmember O'Rourke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to all, President Judge Padilla, and Mr. McSorley, as well as the Sheriff of County and the City of Philadelphia, Ms. Rochelle Bilal. I appreciate you-all for your leadership and your service to our City. To you Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff, the town, I find some of your employees to be some of the best and brightest that there are. Grateful to have in the chamber with us today. Both Pastor Darrell Roberts, who I find to be a great champion, as well as the Reverend William Brownlee, who is a good brother. And we go way, way back. And so grateful to have him here, and thank you for hiring them both. Let me jump into my questions. I want to, as I said, thank you for your service to the city, but also thank you for your office's role in carrying out what is probably one of the more difficult mechanisms of our housing system and difficult parts of the housing system. As you may have heard, this past week, this body passed the Safe Healthy Homes Act, which is centered on ensuring that all renters in Philadelphia have access to safe, healthy, and stable housing. Throughout the course of this, what turned out to be more than a year long process, there were ongoing questions raised about eviction timelines particularly around lockouts. And I want to acknowledge that the long lockout times were actually explicitly raised in the run up to the de facto abolition of the Landlord Tenant Office. Prior to which existed and was valued, I think, by landlords for effectively addressing system backlog with speed and with efficiency and limiting financial strain on small landlords by doing so, because it was a quick effort. Now, the problem was that folks were getting shot in the process. And because it's privatized, it existed outside the purview of this body. That to me, and I think to others, is an unacceptable way to operate, so that needed to go. That said, with the evictions being handled by the Sheriff, it still does place control of the process into Council's power. But we do have a responsibility to understand how it's functioning. And I and many landlords, we found out that the course of this, have a vested interest in that it -- in that it functions better. Especially given the serious impact these actions have on tenants and families. So I want to ask a few questions to better understand both the timeline and the safeguards in place related to the eviction process and the lockout time. Once the Sheriff's Office -- somebody is coming up. SHERIFF BILAL: Go ahead.
Great, yeah. Once the Sheriff's Office receives a court order for a lockout, what is the typical timeline before that lockout is executed? And I'll tag another one in there for expedience. And then what operational or capacity challenges affect how quickly or slowly those lockouts are carried out? We'll start there. SHERIFF BILAL: Good question. First, let me just give you our timeline as we got this. Once the Landlord Tenant Officers was no longer in play, the Sheriff's Office got it.
Uh-huh. SHERIFF BILAL: Normally we would do about 400 evictions a year. Last year we did 18,000. So if you're saying the manpower is low and we have to figure out how to do those evictions safely, so we are basically building up to that. And the person that is working with a lot of the landlords to make sure that certain things go smoothly is my Chief Inspector -- no -- Inspector Fallen -- Inspector Fallen, who is -- who is in charge of the Civil Unit. And I'm going to let him give you that timeline.
Okay. Thanks. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Good afternoon, Chief Inspector Fallen.
You need to get closer. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Good afternoon. Chief Inspector Fallen, Sheriff's Office, Civil Enforcement. When the Landlord Tenant Office first shut down in 2024, we were able to adjust staff and move some things around to schedule roughly 70 to 80 evictions per week. Which -- what I found after we got a full year of data, of collecting writs and taking in cases, was that that was about half the amount that we needed to be scheduling. So for several months we were upside down. Right now, we're probably about to turn a corner because we've doubled our staff from -- we started with eight. Now we have 16 detectives on the street. A case I just looked at today, we got the second part of the -- of case about four weeks ago. So it depends on what part of the city you're in, how quickly the eviction is going to come. But right now, on average, it's like four to six weeks. We are training and soon we'll have more staff deployed into those busier parts of the City, which I'm finding is West and Southwest Philadelphia. As soon as we get those people out, you're could probably start hearing a lot less about the landlords. But one thing we said we weren't going to do was just do them haphazardly. So the difference is we do them with partners, we do them in pairs. They were doing them so well. So we had to -- you may have heard they only had six or seven people doing them, but they were doing them rushed, and from what we're hearing, dangerously.
For sure. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: So now that we've doubled our staff, we are -- now we are on top, we're right side up now. We're scheduling more than we're bringing in. But now we just have to work to reduce what's behind, which --
But it does -- I'm sorry. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: We're working for both sides.
Sounds like a winner. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Yeah.
It does sound like you are -- you're saying that you're at a turning point now. You are staffing up -- CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: We are.
-- there are things in play. And so we've already seen a bit of an increase in the amount of lockouts you've been able to effectively do, but you expect there to be even more of an increase in the coming days, weeks, months, as you're staffing up. Is that accurate? CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Correct.
Okay. And I want to clarify too, the Sheriff said 18,000. Did you mean 18,000 or 1800? Just want to clarify for correctly. SHERIFF BILAL: 18,000. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: 18,000.
So we went from 400 a year to 18,000. 2000, less than 20,000 in the course of a year. Okay, that is a major notion. Again, I want to also say that I recognize the efficiency that the Landlord Tenant Office in its existence provided to those who were concerned with quick lockout times. But you can't kill folk in the process or shoot folk in the head. And so I think we did the right thing. I'm grateful to and your leadership and Member Brooks as well to address that. But we have going to figure out how to get this -- that number down or get you-all to a place where you can actually handle that. Let me continue on with my questions. Given that, how does your office approach balancing efficiency? And I'm sure this is difficult, with ensuring that tenants have adequate notice and time to prepare? In the process of these, how are you doing that? CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: So if we just speak with the landlord tenant eviction, there's -- it's a two-writ process and they're given a 10-day notice to vacate. It gives them a date and time that they have to leave. So that's served or posted to the property if they don't answer the door. And we provide all contact information for the assigned detectives in that area. So if anyone in that property has any questions, they can call them or call the office, and we'll direct them where they need to be. And then when eviction day comes, when the landlord or the attorney or the plaintiff files what's called their alias writ, that's when we schedule the physical lockout. They're given notice. We try to do that about a week in advance of the actual eviction date. So we give plenty of notice and information and resources to try and assist them.
On the question on information and resources, what protocols are in place to connect tenants to resources like legal assistance, like emergency housing if that's necessary, social services at or before that point of lockout? SHERIFF BILAL: That's the pamphlets that we put together from my Constituents Services.
Perfect. SHERIFF BILAL: We've developed all type of pamphlets to give to everybody around this city in reference to what the Sheriff gets involved in.
Got you. Will these be up -- as the new legislations coming through, you'll update these with new information that's necessary? SHERIFF BILAL: And if we find another resources; local, state, or federal, we will add to that pamphlet, yes.
Wonderful. Are there any policy, staffing or funding needs that would allow your office to better support a process that is fair, that is transparent, that minimizes harm to vulnerable residents? And I ask these questions because, like I said, in the process of trying to secure the tenant protections and strengthening what was already on the books, I spoke to a whole lot of landlords. And many of them had the same refrain around, we probably wouldn't have as many issues with what you're trying to accomplish, if we trusted that when we were on good ground to evict someone who is a problem tenant, it didn't take six months to a year to do so. That was probably the top concern or apprehension that folks had when we actually got into the nitty gritty of my bills was lockout time. So that's the reason why I'm asking this to make sure that we create a situation where folks are able to be evicted and needed to go, but also that we're able to deal with them in a -- in a compassionate manner that provides people, connects them to resources, things that they need to be able to live better going forward. Anything that we can do policy; funding wise, staffing wise, to help you do this better? SHERIFF BILAL: We need staffing. We need funding. When we said we are asking for million 18 over a five-year period, that's for 19 staffing, that's for equipment, that's for promotion because people that do the lockouts are detectives. They are all sworn personnel; civilians cannot do that. And this is the reason why; we did an analyzation of how many deputies are needed in order to be -- to be fully covered, the courts, the special units everywhere. And we did that. It's about 630 at the lowest minimum. Right now, we are 300 -- 391. And because of the court order that we got are mandated to staff and get people in there is we went all out of the box advertising on all kinds of TVs to get people to notice that this is an available position for people to come work with the Sheriff's Office so that we can get those staffing numbers. The problem was this, is they never did it in the past. They never fully funded the Sheriff's Office. And you can look in all their budgets. They never planned for nutrition. They never planned for those that were retiring. They never planned for those that were going to move on to other departments or other law enforcement agency. They never did that, and so we are low because of what the past brings. But we move -- we done moved past that. We now have to focus on staffing the Sheriff Office so that it can be staffed properly and all what the court needs us to do that we can do that, and all that the city that we can do. We do more, people think we're just in the Sheriff's Office, we're just in the courts. The city calls on us a lot. OEM calls on us a lot. And in my opening statement that we have to really do some logistical planning in order to help the city with all of what they are asking for. Just to give you a few months, November '24, September '25, May of '25, 480 hours, 330 hours, 543 hours. 1,353 for 2025 is the hours of overtime that we are putting out because they're calling on our buses, our K-9, our vans to support the OEM and all the major events there. That's coming out of our budget. It's not coming out of Philly PD budget. That's not coming out of OEM budget; that's coming out of the Sheriff budget. So we are doing a round of things, and whatever the city needs us to do, we will do the best that we can to make sure it happens.
I heard the bell, so if there's another round, I'll come back for my Judicial District questions on that one. But again whatever we can do to get you in a situation where you're able to effectively meet the demand around evictions and we're able to do that in a way that's much better than Landlord and Tenant Office, which we already are doing, and I want to thank you for that. But to increase your capacity, I think is well worth the effort. And I think there'll be a whole lot of landlords across the City of Philadelphia who would also thank us if we did that as well. Anyways, thank you so much for the time, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes Councilmember Brooks.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So my questions are for both the First Judicial District and the Sheriff's Department in reference to the ICE legislation. It's a series of questions, so if you guys can just take it down and just answer them accordingly. So for years we have seen consistent and disturbing trends of civil immigration arrests of Philadelphians as they exit the Juanita Kidd Stout Center for Criminal Justice. ICE Agents have utilized our local courthouse as ambush site detaining community members as they exit. Despite many still being in the midst of the criminal proceedings or having accepted other sentencing within the criminal justice system. Local ICE agents have been undocumented waiting in the lobby of CJC and visiting upper courthouse floors without documentation of valid judicial warrants, often executing arrests the moment a community member steps out into public hallways or sidewalks. In Chicago, the top Cook County judge banned ICE from arresting any party witness or potential witness while going to court proceedings. Including arrests that might be made inside courthouses, but also parking lots, entryways, and surrounding sidewalks. And Oregon bans the arrest of people at courthouses or on their way to or from there, unless ICE carries a warrant signed by a judge. I know that the First Judicial District and the Sheriff's Office are not supportive of ICE's policies and action. But at least it seems like -- it seems that each party says that it is the responsibility of the other to enact the policies like Chicago has done. So I would like to take the opportunity to ask you both questions while you're both here. So my first question is, like Chicago's top county judge did, will you prohibit the civil arrest of any party witness or potential witness while going to court proceedings, including arrests inside courthouses and in parking lots, surrounding sideways, or entryway? My second question is, will you require all federal agents and law enforcement to wear visible identification and no masks in the courthouse? The third question is, will you expand virtual or excuse experiences -- appearances across all courts until a comprehensive policy protecting immigrant community members is finalized? And lastly, would you put in place a clear policy prohibiting personnel from expending resources or time existing ICE in civil immigration enforcement in or near the CJC?
I can -- I can answer my way, but I would also like Mr. McSorley to answer his way. And of course the Sheriff. So in terms of prohibiting access to ICE, ICE is a federal agency, and we just don't have the jurisdiction to prohibit them. It's my understanding that the ICE agents sort of post-up all around the CJC, the Masonic Temple, across where the Marriott is down the street, and they follow people. That's my understanding. There's really not a way that this -- that the court can enforce any type of order about ICE arresting people. Let me just say this, you said it at the beginning of your statement that, you know, I think you said something about how the FJD may have a feeling about it personally. So the court is independent. We have to be fair, unbiased, and we have to just rule on the matters before it. I cannot, as a judge, as President Judge, none of the judges in the FJD can go on the No Kings protest. It's not proper. We can't state how discussing the policy is because that would not be proper. So we can't do anything like that, we can't say those kinds of things. But in terms of masks, the same thing. And the mask in general are federal policy. So we can't -- we don't have any statement about that. The virtual court hearings would be -- I actually thought about that when I saw your hearings. I don't see how that could be implemented either because the criminal proceedings, for example, if they -- those are virtual, can you imagine the level of witness intimidation that could go on? We wouldn't even know who was present in the room at a virtual proceeding. The witness intimidation factor is off the chart in any event, very often in criminal proceedings. So it would be unmanageable if it were -- proceeding were virtual for a child case -- child custody or dependency case, or a juvenile delinquency case. It would be impossible, really, to have a virtual proceeding for that also. And in terms of a policy that inhibits personnel from assisting. So the court doesn't really have those kinds of policies because of the same reason I said at the outset. We're not allowed to have an opinion about things. We just resolve the -- or dispose of the matters before the court fair, impartial, unbiased. That's what the court is. We're not an active -- an activist sort of arm of the government. So there are three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judiciary. The judiciary can't have those kinds of opinions. But I would like Mr. McSorley to comment because he's got a lot of experience, and he probably would say it better than I will.
I don't think so, Judge. Hi, Richard McSorley again. To echo what the judge said. Just the President Judge basically said everything that I would say. Just to be more specific, I know about the Chicago ruling. I know that's on appeal right now. I don't know what the Chicago layout is of their courthouse, so they might have their parking garage below them, and maybe they can control that jurisdiction. But unfortunately for the Stout Center, for instance, we have the Masonic Temple on one side, Chili's on the other, and the Notary Hotel across. We don't have -- as the judge mentioned, we don't have the jurisdiction to issue an order that would encompass those areas. So what we have done is we've worked with the Sheriff very closely, and the Sheriff does have a written policy about ICE and what the agents can do. To my knowledge, there's not been one arrest inside the Stout Center or any courthouse. There has been arrest, as we've said, outside, and the Sheriff maintains that security inside of our building. They again, we have the issues that this is a public courthouse. If we can't tell somebody what they can and cannot wear, in the building and many of the ICE agents that come in, they're not in there to effectuate an arrest. So they don't identify themselves. They don't have to go up to the Sheriff and say, I'm an ICE agent. I'm here with a warrant. They're just in the building. What their intentions are, what their real business is, I'm not sure. But they can move freely without the building and there's nothing we can do to restrict that except to work with the Sheriff. When we do know that an ICE agent has an arrest warrant, if they do identify themselves, there are protocols in place that were put in place by the Sheriff's Department. If the court officers knows that there's an ICE agent in the courtroom, they notify the Sheriff, they notify to the District Attorney immediately. That is brought to the attention of the judge. If there's any hint of anything that's going to happen in that courtroom in the hallway, the court tries to handle it. But for the most part, and I've seen a lot of the video, and I've been in the Stout Center for many years, we don't know anything until the person has left the building, and they walk outside. So we can't regulate what the people are wearing. As the judge said, the video hearings, we've had communication with the ICE advocates. It is something that I know that they would like, but unfortunately, criminal cases, constitutionally, we just can't do it. Not to mention, as the judge said, the witness intimidation. Also, we have local rules of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that we're not allowed to conduct hearings via technology. So our hands are tied in that area. And for personnel, just to emphasize, we -- our personnel are trained. They know what to do when any law enforcement agency comes into any courtroom and identifies themselves if they're going to make some sort of arrest or they want to present themselves. Our personnel are told that they're not supposed to contact or have communication with any other law enforcement agency without a supervisor's permission. So we don't have court people calling outside law enforcement agencies unless they have a reason to do so. And if they do have a reason to do so, they're supposed to be -- have a supervisor's permission. So -- and this goes -- this is not just ICE; this is every law enforcement entity. The Philadelphia Police Department can't come into the courthouse and make an arrest in our courtrooms. They can't make an arrest in our hallway. They have to identify themselves to the Sheriff, and then the Sheriff takes it from there. And then if the person is going to be turned over, that's the between law enforcement. But just to end on what the judge said, we've had many discussions with the Administrative Governing Board. What can we do? Where does the - where is the line drawn for the court system?
And as much as we might want to issue an order or put something out there that within so many feet of the courthouse, we're going to and from, it just isn't enforceable, it's just not within our power. It would undermine our authority because it's -- we are issuing an order that would not be able to be followed. And it becomes a political statement basically. And I understand we just had a lot of communication with a lot of advocates, immigration advocates, about 12 or 13 letters, and we answered each and every one of them. We will keep that communication open, but we are doing what we can do. Now I guess I'll turn it to the Sheriff for her comments. SHERIFF BILAL: Thank you for that question. We've already stated this numerous times, and we all also put our policy up on our thing. I know the main issue is around the courts. I think we met with a group of ICE, No Philly ICE, and they wanted us to mandate parking lots. We can't mandate private parking lots, that's not in our purview. We can't mandate them stationed up at the Marriott; that's not in our purview either. What we do inside the courthouse and what we have been doing. ICE agents do not come in the courthouse with masks. They have to identify themselves. Matter of fact, they have to have two IDs. They have to have their ID and their badge. They can't come in our courthouse with just one. They just can't. And they had been -- up until we started dealing with the mess that we see today, there was cooperation. They had -- they had to get a warrant, a judicial warrant to come and get anybody, or to say they want to arrest anybody. And then they would not be able to arrest them inside of there. If the person was in custody, we would take them down, send them back to where they were in custody, and they would go there to get them. There was one incident, and they keep playing this over and over, that a person walked outside of the courthouse and saw the ICE agents and ran back in and they ran behind them. That was the only incident. The other one was not dealing with the Sheriff's Office at all. And I think the Police Commissioner addressed that. But the people keep saying the same thing over and over. Whatever we get, the sidewalk is the public sidewalk. We do not man the public sidewalk at all. That's like we are -- we are patrolling the streets. And as people put it out there, we don't patrol the streets, but we do in some instances, when you see our Bike Unit is around the courthouses. And it's -- they say escorting people from the courthouse to their vehicles to make sure they're safe. But we don't patrol the streets and there's a public sidewalk. So when they came to us, they wanted us to keep them out of parking lots, and we don't man parking lots. We don't man the Marriott parking lot. We don't man the Marriott -- cover over there. We don't man none of that. But what we do inside is they are very cooperative when they come to us. They don't wear the mask. And if they want to see somebody inside or have anything to do with them, they have to have a judicial warrant and we notify the judge. And now all of that takes place under us.
Thank you so much. Thank you both, all three of you guys for making sure that's on the record so our advocates could have this information. You know, I do appreciate the work I've done directly with the Sheriff's Department to get us to this point. And it was just important that we get these things on the record as part of the conversation. As these conversations continue to move and grow, I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. And in the event that the outcomes in Chicago are any different after the appeal, would you be willing to engage in a deeper conversation about what exactly the courts are able to do here in Philadelphia? CHAIR BASS: Council Lady -- Councilwoman Brooks, can we make that the last and then you come back on the second --
That's my only question. I -- CHAIR BASS: Okay. On the second round.
I don't -- I don't have any other question. That's it for me. CHAIR BASS: So can we answer that and --
Yes, absolutely. We're always going to have the conversation. We're always open to the conversation.
Thank you so much. CHAIR BASS: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Gauthier, Lozada, and then young.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Sheriff Bilal and President Judge Wright Padilla, and to all of you. Thank you so much for your work and thanks for testifying today. My question is for FJD, but I wanted to pause a little bit and just touch on the line of questioning from my colleague Minority Whip Nicholas O'Rourke. I am very alarmed to hear you say that we're doing 18,000 evictions or lockouts a year. If -- I want to follow up to maybe dig into those numbers some, but if that is the case, and that is a red alarm emergency. And I -- although I support what my colleague said, that we have to give the Sheriff's Office the support to do these lockouts/evictions efficiently and safely. While we are considering that, we also have to do the work to get that number down. As far as I can recall, we were doing 20,000 evictions prior to the pandemic. And at that rate, we were the fourth highest evicting city in the entire country. And everyone should be clear that when we're talking about -- when we're talking about folks being evicted, we're talking about black and brown, single moms with children. We're talking about elderly people, we're talking about disabled people. Those are the folks who are most often experiencing this. I think my colleague has a point of information. CHAIR BASS: Well, Chair recognizes Councilwoman Lozada for point of information.
Point of information. Is it 18,000 evictions or 18,000 ejectments? And are they the same? Because again, I'm alarmed, but I want to --
Maybe another point of information coming from Rue. SHERIFF BILAL: Because she knows, she knows the difference. The evictions --
Eviction filings -- eviction filings or actual ejectments? That's what I'm trying to figure out. SHERIFF BILAL: Go Ahead. SHERIFF THORNTON: Good afternoon. Sean Thornton, Chief Deputy of Court Operations, but I also worked in the Eviction Unit. It's actually 18,000 evictions scheduled. Let's be clear on that. But what actually happens, and I know to your point, you were concerned with that number. But what actually happens is evictions get scheduled and at some point, during that process, things get worked out between the occupant or the tenant and the landlord. And that number reduces. So it's actually 5,500 who we actually are evicting, but it's actually scheduled 18,000. So there's some enforcement, but that number is reduced.
Okay. SHERIFF THORNTON: So you -- so you know that part.
Well, that's a lot different. 5,500 is a lot different than 18,000. SHERIFF THORNTON: Yes. It's scheduled. Those writs come through the office, so yes. SHERIFF BILAL: So don't forget that that's a process. SHERIFF THORNTON: Yes. SHERIFF BILAL: The evictions are scheduled. They're posted, there's notification that this is about to happen, and then some deals are made between the landlord. And the problem came in with the Landlord Tenant Offices, is that once the landlord -- the tenant made an agreement with the landlord, and if they miss one, instead of notifying them that they're being evicted, they just rolled up on them. And then that's where the problem came in at. Yeah. So it's 5,000, but it's 18,000 that we have to start. Yes. CHAIR BASS: So Chair recognizes Councilmember Landau for a point of information, but I just, really quickly, I wanted to say that even though it's -- they're scheduled, that to me is still, you know, saying something is happening. When we went from this low number that was still being scheduled to now 18,000 being scheduled. Even if the eviction, the actual number of evictions drops back down, it's still saying that -- SHERIFF BILAL: 18,000 being in scheduled, meaning eight -- our manpower is out there posting and scheduling and posting, and notifying people that there's an eviction happening. CHAIR BASS: Right. SHERIFF BILAL: So we are still out there doing the work. CHAIR BASS: Yes, yes. So thank you. Councilmember Landau.
I'm sorry, I just want to clear this up because I think it's really important for the public right now, just in case. My understanding and belief at the highest level, the Municipal Court handled 24,000 eviction cases filed a year. That's when Mayor Kenney started his eviction diversion task force of which I was a part of this. That's when the Council got involved in the whole process. It's -- so even if it's 18,000 cases filed, your own press release you put out in December of 2025, said that you've now increased capacity to go from cases 18 scheduling for eviction duties to 19 144 a week in your -- in your press 20 release. That -- my understanding 21 is it's maybe a hundred or so a 22 week, which would make it at best 23 7,000 a year. But I think it's 24 something -- and when we're talking about lockouts that are scheduled. SHERIFF BILAL: When you say -- when we talk about 18,000, that's the 18,000 filed that have -- we have to begin to post. Then when you talking about --
They're in Municipal Court -- SHERIFF BILAL: -- ejection --
They're filed in Municipal Court. SHERIFF BILAL: Right.
They go through a whole court process, and if they have to get -- go through an eviction, then it comes to you -- SHERIFF BILAL: Right.
But most cases settle in Municipal Court, almost all of them do. SHERIFF BILAL: I don't know about that. Fallen?
I'm sorry, I just want to clear this up for the public -- SHERIFF BILAL: Yeah, I know you want to get it cleared up.
-- because I want us to go -- SHERIFF BILAL: Was it -- this is Chief Inspector Fallen over at --
Excellent. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: All right. I'll try -- SHERIFF BILAL: Over the Civil Unit. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: I'll try and clear it up the best I can. Chief Inspector David Fallen again, Civil Enforcement. So these are -- these are both the Common Pleas writs, and the Municipal Court reads -- writs. So ejectments, evictions, it is the same for us. It ends with someone being removed from a property. The 18,000 number comes from services to that property, giving them notification. That's the first writ we talked about. That's the final notice --
Okay. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: The amount of writs that we're actually filed with our office in 2025 was -- it looks like it's about 17, 18,000. There's a lot of services. 5,500 were scheduled in 2025. That doesn't mean they all ended in an eviction. Some judgments get satisfied based on our notices. Some people, they go, they pay, they pay the judgment, the eviction gets stopped. Some people move out and turn over the keys. We just had one today where we got an email that said, You can cancel this one. They gave the keys. We're good. So there's in that schedule number, it's things that are postponed by the attorney. Sometimes we get an email that says, Hey, they gave us most of the money. We really don't want to put them out. Can we give them another shot? Put it on hold, if they don't settle up, we'll let you know.
But you said 5,500 real lockouts. That makes much more sense. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: Yeah.
That's an actual -- that's the -- that's what everyone was, I think, very upset about to think that 18,000 people are getting locked out. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: No.
It's about 5,500. That makes much more sense. Thank you. CHIEF INSPECTOR FALLEN: But don't forget it is the 18,000 of the work we still have to do. It isn't like we sitting there -- CHAIR BASS: Councilmember -- thank you. Councilmember Gauthier. Thank you.
12 Okay. Thank you so much for 13 clearing that up. We as a Council 14 are working way too hard on eviction 15 diversion, investing in that and 16 right to Council and emergency 17 rental assistance to have anywhere 18 that number -- near that number of 19 evictions. So, thank you. My 20 question is actually for FJD. 21 A few months ago, under the 22 leadership of Councilmember Phillips 23 and Councilmember Landau, we had a 24 hearing on the use of GPS in the juvenile justice system. And I'm wondering what has changed since then about policy or practice related to the use of GPS, particularly to ensure GPS is only being used as an alternative to incarceration.
Thank you for that question, Council person. GPS is being used by Family Court. Our numbers have dropped on the amount of GPS, and one of the changes we are trying to make to make sure that GPS is used on the more violent cases than the misdemeanor cases. Right now, in calendar year 2025 or 2024 is our last stats that I have. 85 percent of the GPS use was on felony cases; only 15 percent was on misdemeanor cases. And the year before that, the numbers are very similar; 80 percent on felony and 20 percent on misdemeanor cases. We are trying to use GPS sparingly and trying to make sure that it's not interrupting the daily activities of those that have to wear them. In the calendar year of 2025, there is 749 motions filed for GPS review. 39 percent of them remained in the community on GPS, 27 percent were held for further action by the court. And then 29 percent failed to appear. And then there was some miscellaneous numbers. So GPS has its place, I think that it's being used correctly. It's very expensive to use, but we are trying to use it to keep juveniles in Philadelphia not in placement and also under supervision. But as I said, I think the Family Court will tell you that the emphasis is to use them where they must be used. And that's mostly on our felony. And it's just a different population that they're dealing with now.
Thank you. At the hearing, we heard a lot about sort of hardships that were placed on people in terms of them being able to move forward with their lives under GPS monitoring. We heard of people going back into lockup because of technical violations. I'm looking to understand if the items that you discuss right now, are those the ways that you've always practiced? Had -- did you all take anything specific from the hearing? And since the hearing, have you made any changes in policy or practice based on what we heard is happening in the community?
I know that there's ongoing discussions under Administrative Judge Olszewski. They are looking at different ways that they can take that information and try to make the system better. I -- as of right now, I can't tell you that I know of any changes as the Court Administrator, but I can definitely talk to the Administrative Judge and get you a more comprehensive answer.
Thank you. This is really important to Council, so I would love to be able to follow up with you all to understand what changes you're willing to put in place. Thanks so much.
Okay. CHAIR BASS: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Young and then Phillips.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions for the Sheriff. I want to thank you all for being here. Can -- Madam Sheriff, can you talk about what are -- I mean, we talked -- you've mentioned that there is a shortage in officers, but can you talk about what your promotion policies are from within? So, you know, and how you are looking to, I guess, how does your recruitment -- how does your promotion policies affect your recruitment? SHERIFF BILAL: I'm trying to understand, promotional or advertising?
No, no, no. Just your, yeah. How do you promote from within? What are your policies? What are your -- what do you do to determine who and how your officers get promoted and then how does that affect your recruitment? SHERIFF BILAL: To the next rank?
Yeah. SHERIFF BILAL: Okay. Those -- they take a test and then they get listed on the test. And they get listed as to what their rank is. The city gives us a -- we're saying we got about spaces. 6 They may give us a list of 20. Then 7 they are interviewed. They are 8 interviewed by their command, and 9 they are graded on that. And those 10 that are the highest are the ones that get promoted. The others get put back on the list until the list ends.
Okay. Thank you. What -- in your testimony, you talk about the sheriff academy. Can you talk to us about what is your implementation path for this academy? I know you and I have talked privately about it, but just talk to us as a Council to figure -- to talk to us about, you know, what some of the operational challenges that you're facing with having to send, you know, your recruits halfway across the state. And, you know, just talk to us about what the need is for this. SHERIFF BILAL: I'll let my Chief of Staff do that, because I can talk about that all day. That's like the biggest thing in my book. We need people.
Thank you. And if you could also mention and talk about how you plan to recruit and train deputies, you know, not just after -- you know, after you get this academy, how you going to recruit to keep them here?
Okay. Absolutely. Jamison Rogers, chief of staff to Sheriff Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff's Office. Regarding your question, Councilmember, is the Sheriff has had this vision for a very long time. And has made immense hurdles in getting us close to the finish line as far as identifying a location, getting collar counties. As you mentioned earlier, other elected sheriffs that want to send their recruits here because of the weeks that you have to spend 9 in State College. We have a lot of 10 people that really want to be a 11 deputy sheriff. However, when they 12 find out that they'll spend 19 13 weeks, Monday through Friday, at 14 State College for a three- 15 and-a-half-hour drive each way, we 16 lose a lot of good candidates. 17 So having this academy 18 here, and believe Councilman 19 O'Rourke, you asked us last year, what buy-in did we have last year? We didn't. Now we do have buy-in from border collar counties now. We've had the conversations with public property, Ms. Harris, I've worked with when she was Chief Deputy Mayor here, putting together a five-year plan on how it would increase recruitment and lower overtime over those five years. Unfortunately, those conversations have stopped, but we yearn for the opportunity to reengage with those conversations again. And it'll be economic opportunity for the City of Philadelphia. And also enhancing the numbers that we have within the office. Hope that answers your question. SHERIFF BILAL: But we also did something else. We knew that because of the court order, we needed to hire and branch out. So while we are waiting for State College, now, mind you, State College service 61 counties. So we may get four slots. So we hire 30 people because we bring them into our office and start training them prior to them going to State College. So now you do the math. If there are 61 counties, we get four slots, we got people. 5 Do you know how long it'll take for 6 all 20 of them to get trained up at 7 state college? Five years. Thank 8 you. You do the math quickly. So 9 we had it decided that we will look 10 at another avenue, which we are 11 doing at MACO. We send some of our 12 recruits to MACO to get trained, and 13 then they come back and they do the 14 two-week waiver with one week up at 15 State College and one week here. So 16 that kind of like eliminate that. 17 But they have a threshold 18 that we can't send every -- so we 19 got 20, we can't send 20 over there 20 either. So it's like some that may be able to go to State college, and some go to MACO. That's how we were able to hire about, what, a hundred and something -
126. SHERIFF BILAL: -- after this court order, because we had to think out of the box on how to get people to come and be deputy sheriffs in this city. So of going to State College, for families that are here in this city, that are involved in this city, that's a no-no for them. Once we go -- they go through orientation and find that out, they said -- they don't show up anymore.
Thank you. I have one more question for the courts, if you don't mind, Madam Chair. I recently learned that the Family Court Help Centers has lost a federal grant. Can you talk to us about how -- or like how important it is for us to, I guess, take a look at this information? I think that this is information that was given to us by, I guess, some of the, I think, members of the Bar Association. And this Family Court Help Center, it seems like it is staffed by some of those, like, basically volunteers, essentially. Could you talk to us and talk to us about the impact of the loss of like any federal grants on the court system?
I believe that this is the question we were started our testimony with that --
I didn't think that we have lost that grant money. I think that the Family Court is still working with how they're going to fill that gap. And I need to speak to Administrative Judge Olszewski. I'll be able to get you more definite information on that --
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR BASS: Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes Councilmember Phillips.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Chairwoman. So my first line of question -- my only line of questions I have for today is for the First Judicial District. Currently, if I'm correct, you handle Act 135, Conservatorship, correct?
Okay. Have you seen an increase in Act 135, conservatorship followings, over the past three to five years? If so, what is driving that increase?
Yeah, I don't know if there's been an increase. I'm sorry. But I could find out and get the information to you.
Okay. How many properties have been placed since the conservatorship annually, and how many result in transfer of control or ownership? Can you -- you have to get back to me on that as well?
I'm sorry, I would have to get back to you. But thank you for the question. It's important point.
Okay. And are you -- are you doing anything in terms of providing safeguards in place to ensure property owners are -- fully understand their rights before conservatorship is granted? Is that something your office does?
Well, there's a checklist of things that have to be asked; questions, inquiries, that have to be made before the Act 135 is granted. So --
-- the presiding judge would go through that whole list. I actually presided over that when I was in that program. And there are actually two -- there's regulations and rules, and I would spend a lot of time exhaustively going through that list to make sure.
Right. Well, I say that because I'm greatly concerned about properties being taken from --
-- residents in the City of Philadelphia through conservatorship. Currently, we have a property, and I would love to continue this conversation with you, and on which a church wanted a property next door to them. And they did everything in their power, and they're not even predominantly African American community. The church is predominantly white, and they did everything in their power to get that property from an individual. Unfortunately, the individual kept denying them, and then they found some ways to go through L&I, right, to get these violations on them. After the violations, they made some sort of blanket statement that he's -- he wasn't present at the house despite the fact that a neighbor, several neighbors, had pointed out that he does live at that house. And so whatever reason, we're now in a position right now that a man who's been living somewhere for 37 years is in a position to potentially to lose his house due to conservatorship. So I do think it's really important, right? And I'm -- we're going to be working on this because it's bothersome to me. So I just want us -- it's going to be very, very important that I think this court be -- we're trying to preserve houses in Philadelphia -- does -- CHAIR BASS: Yeah.
-- does something to help protect those people. CHAIR BASS: Councilman -- Chair recognizes Councilman Jones for point of information.
Thank you. President Judge, that issue that Member Phillips is talking about is pervasive.
Pervasive. It -- and what irks me, and I appreciate you raising it, what irks me is they won't do that in the heart of distressed neighborhoods. They won't say, yeah, we want to, you know, take over these properties because we see blight in depressed neighborhoods. They wait till they get to Mount Airy -- CHAIR BASS: Germantown.
They get to Germantown. They get to our districts, Wynnefield, the like, and then they say, oh, that property has a broken window, and we will take it under our advisement, building up enough of the fines, fees, levies, and improvements, keeping a thick folder. Before you know it, the people that may have been under distress may have been unable to keep up with the payments, lose the house. And it doesn't just happen every now and then. It is a systematic; there are law firms that dedicate themselves to this process. So the issue that my colleague is raising is pervasive.