1  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SCRANTON  HELD:  Tuesday, December 8th, 2020  LOCATION: VIA ZOOM  -  Maria McCool, RPR Official Court Reporter    2  1 2  COUNCIL  MEMBERS:  3 WILLIAM GAUGHAN, PRESIDENT 4 KYLE DONAHUE, VICE PRESIDENT  5 MARK MCANDREW 6 JESSICA ROTHCHILD 7 THOMAS SCHUSTER  8  9 LORI REED, CITY CLERK  10 KATHY CARRERA, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK KEVIN HAYES, COUNCIL SOLICITOR  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25    3  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  (Pledge of Allegiance.)  MR. GAUGHAN: If everyone would  please remain standing for a moment of silent reflection for our service men and women throughout the world and also for all those people who have passed away recently in our  community.  Let us also take a moment of silence  for all of the people in our community, in our country and across the world who have passed  away from the coronavirus.  The COVID-19 pandemic has turned our  world upsidedown. But we must remain hopeful and strong. We continue to pray for the doctors, nurses, researchers and all medical professionals and first responders that seek to heal, who help those affected and who put themselves at risk in the process. May they  have protection and peace.  Whether we are home or abroad,  surrounded by many people suffering from this illness or only a few, let us stick together, endure together, mourn together and in place of our anxiety, let us have hope and peace. Thank    4  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  you. Miss Carrera, roll call, please?  MS. CARRERA: Mr. Schuster. MR. SCHUSTER: Present. MS. CARRERA: Mr. McAndrew. MR. MCANDREW: Present. MS. CARRERA: Dr. Rothchild. DR. ROTHCHILD: Here. MS. CARRERA: Mr. Donahue. MR. DONAHUE: Here. MS. CARRERA: Mr. Gaughan. MR. GAUGHAN: Here. Thank you.  Councilman Donahue has a motion to make.  MR. DONAHUE: Thank you. I'd like  to make a motion to take from the table file of  the Council No. 36 2020.  MR. MCANDREW: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: There's been a motion  and a second. On the question? On the question, this piece is being taken from table and placed in Seventh Order tonight for a final  vote.  This is the waste disposal and  collection fee for calendar year 2021. And, Mary Jo Sheridan our City Treasurer is here. We'11 have her speak on that after we have our    5  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  discussion with Portnoff.  There are also three remaining  pieces of legislation that are tabled, resolution number : well, I'11 wait a minute until we get off the question here. Is anyone else on the question on the motion? Okay. A17 those in favor signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  )  ayes have it and so moved,  There are three tabled pieces of  legislation, Resolution No. 49 2020 which authorizes the City to accept the piece of equipment, a John Deere backhoe loader provided  by Keystone Sanitary Landfill.  There is also file of the Council  No. 35 2020, which is the City's 2021 operating budget; and file of the Council No. 37 2020, an agreement with Portnoff Law Associates to collect the City's delinquent refuse fees.  At Council's meeting scheduled for  next week, December 15th, I will entertain a    6  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  motion to place the resolutions and ordinances in the Seventh Order for a final vote. So if anyone from the public would like to comment on these ordinances and resolutions, please feel free to submit your comments to our City Clerk Lori Reed at redeScrantonpa.sox or you can send written correspondence to 340 North Washington Avenue, Scranton 18503.  Mrs. Reed, please dispense with the  reading of the minutes.  MS. REED: Thank you. THIRD ORDER. 3-A. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM  OECD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATED NOVEMBER 25 AND NOVEMBER 30, 2020 REGARDING COVID-19  REIMBURSEMENTS THROUGH LACKAWANNA COUNTY CARES  ACT FUNDING.  3-B. CHECK RECEIVED FROM LACKAWANNA  COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $326,203.37 FOR COVID-19 RELIEF BLOCK GRANT REIMBURSEMENT.  3-C. CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO MAYOR  PAIGE G. COGNETTI DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2020 REGARDING ORDINANCE FOR ENGAGEMENT OF PORTNOFF  LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.  3-D. CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO MAYOR  PAIGE G. COGNETTI DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2020    7  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  REGARDING CLOSING DISBURSEMENTS TAX AND REVENUE  ANTICIPATION NOTE FOR 2021.  3-E. LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT OF  COMMON PLEAS ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2020 REGARDING CITY OF SCRANTON REQUEST TO TRANSITION TO PAYROLL PREPARATION TAX.  3-F. SINGLE TAX OFFICE CITY FUNDS  DISTRIBUTED COMPARISON REPORT YEAR TO DATE 2019-2020 NOVEMBER 30, 2020.  3-G. CITY OF SCRANTON 2021  OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY OF NEW  POSITIONS/JOB DESCRIPTIONS RECEIVED NOVEMBER  20, 2020.  3-H. MINUTES OF THE SCRANTON  REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING HELD  NOVEMBER 4, 2020.  3-I. FUEL CARD ANALYSIS RECEIVED  FROM OFFICE OF THE CITY CONTROLLER FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 24 THROUGH NOVEMBER 23, 2020.  3-J. MINUTES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE  COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 5, 2020.  MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you, Mrs. Reed.  Are there any comments on any of the Third Order items? One of the comments I have, Mrs. Reed, in the : one of the items here is    8  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the job descriptions.  We were provided : Council was  provided within the last few days additional job descriptions that were not originally included in that document. So if you could please post those job descriptions that relate to the 2021 operating budget in Third Order for  next week I would appreciate it.  MS. REED: Thank you.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Since there's  no other comments on the Third Order items, we'11 : received and filed. Do any Council members have any announcements at this time? No announcements, okay. Mrs. Reed.  MS. REED: FOURTH ORDER. CITIZENS  PARTICIPATION.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Thank you. Now  we can resume our conversation with Portnoff Associates here about the agreement we're going to take up next week which is to hire Portnoff to collect the City's delinquent refuse fees.  I'11 continue to open it up to the  floor here in terms of questions for the gentlemen and Miss Sheridan who came tonight. Any other questions on the agreement or in    9  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  general?  MR. DONAHUE: I just have one quick  one just to try to make sure I understand the fees completely. So say, you know, I owe $300 from 2018. When I get my first letter, how much will that - will I owe according to your initial letter? You're muted, Kevin.  MR. BURAKS: Sorry. Better? MR. DONAHUE: Yes.  MR. BURAKS: Again, it's assuming  that everything that is on the account is fully collectable. The letter coming from us will be that amount plus $40, plus the certified postage which is the : about 5.75.  MR. DONAHUE: Okay. So it would be  340, you know, if I paid it right then?  MR. BURAKS: Correct.  MR. DONAHUE: The only reason I was  asking is because I don't understand what the initial review and sending first legal demand letter 175 under the legal fees represents.  MR. BURAKS: That is the second step  in our process. The initial : the $40 plus postage, that letter basically informs them that fees have been shifted and a lien will be    10  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  filed if they don't do anything at that point  in time.  As I mentioned before this,  incremental steps in what we do, that's the second incremental step. But the first letter, the initial letter is $40 plus postage, informs them of the positive incentives that I mentioned earlier, informs them of the negative incentives and that the City is going to intend  to shift the fees going forward.  So that's the thing that triggers  the ability to shift the fees going forward :  that letter.  MR. DONAHUE: A17 right. Thank you. DR. ROTHCHILD: I have a question  that concerns I know that you were explaining earlier the need to analyze the accounts first to see, you know, for how many years they might have owed or if there are other needs existing before you get to those next steps in the  process.  But with the amount of accounts, do  you think that will take a lengthy period of time to get through and to perform that analysis before you actually get to sending out    11  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the letter or are you just going to be, you know, prioritizing it? I'm wondering how long it will take before people actually start to  see that first letter.  MR. BURAKS: Hopefully quickly.  Again, it's sort of : it's tough because we're just getting the data today for the first time. There's still a lot of open questions. But again, we're hoping to move through that as  quickly as possible.  Again, we obviously  we're going  to spend a lot of time doing that. And that first letter, that $40 plus postage is not : to be very honest, it's not like a profit making letter for our firm because there is a lot of work that goes into creating that first letter and getting everything out and creating  the forms and things like that.  But we want to start the process  too. As I mentioned before, we're going to be : the same incentives to move forward and start pursuing these quickly. But again, we're not : we're never going to take a step before we're absolutely ready to do it because we're not going put the City or our firm at risk for    12  being sued because we weren't careful.  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  So we're going to be very careful  and especially with regard to the, you know, fees and costs that are existing on those files from the old collector, we need to be 100 percent sure what they are whether or not they are, in fact, collectable because we're never going to send out a letter without knowing 100  percent of what we're asking for.  So I know it's a little bit of a  circular answer, but our goal is to do as quickly as possible. But we're also going to be as careful as possible so we're not :  DR. ROTHCHILD: Okay. I wasn't sure  if there was a defined period of time for how long you anticipate that taking. I just don't want to get into where it's, you know, several months down the road and then we're not seeing  as much :  MR. DADAY: Typically at the  beginning of the year get 40 to 50,000 claims in. And we do turn them around relatively quickly. Is that right, Kevin and Dave? I'm not part of that aspect as part of the process but we do turn it around relatively quickly.    13  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  This is going to be a little bit  different because we're looking at this data. This isn't a client we've had in the past obviously. So as Kevin has indicated, there is this issue with Northeast, their fees and costs we have to take a very close look at that to make sure that there isn't going to be any issues with regards to our collection efforts  on your behalf.  I think you're going to be really  excited about what we can do for you. I know that when I was :- many years ago when I was the solicitor for the City of Allentown, we hired Portnoff to collect our water and sewer and they did a tremendous job for us.  We've also done this for the City of  Easton and we continue to do it to this day. I think at the end of the day you're going to be really pleased with what we can produce for the  City.  DR. ROTHCHILD: I understand. Thank  you. Yeah, it just seemed like what the data and the amount of accounts, it sounds like an overwhelming number to me. I just wanted to  get some perspective on it.    14  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. DADAY: We've had a lot of  clients too in the past who I suspect your data is probably significantly better than many of the clients that we've had. I could remember one City that we collected for and it was :- it was a little, you know, it could be a little challenging. But I suspect your data is  probably pretty decent.  MR. DONAHUE: I caution against  making that assumption.  MR. SCHUSTER: Well, in dealing with  Allentown, I think you understand some of the issues that have been facing our City recently too. When we're looking at, you know, an account or client that has 24,950 delinquencies which, you know, end up being about 4,800 parcels and covers a period of 18 years, how big would you say the City of Scranton as a client is to your firm and to your other 160 other clients? Would you say that's a big  case?  MR. BURAKS: Yeah, it's definitely  one of our biggest ones up there with Allentown and Easton and some of the big school districts that we have, Altoona. Yeah, it's a : you    15  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  guys are a big client. Again, but we have clients : as I mentioned before, we have clients that are big. We have clients that are small. We have clients that are urban. We  have clients that are rural.  But our process is always the same.  For all those clients, the process is the same. We still look at every individual account as an individual account and make the best decisions as to what needs to be done on that. So the fact that you guys are a big client is great  and we're excited to service you.  But again, we're going to treat  every property just the way we treat every other property owner throughout the state. Yeah, the big : to me, the big challenge here is again, I know that the City is currently waiting for some information from the prior  collector.  As fast as that could come in, you  know, it's going to expedite our review because to me, that is sort of the biggest asterisk right now out there with regard to the data itself. There's big numbers in potential fees and costs when I look at the data, what are    16  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  they. Do you know what I mean?  The other numbers I know Mary Jo is  easily going to provide answers to anything we might have. It's just : that's the stuff we're going to need to get on. I know she's waiting on that. Hopefully they respond quickly and get that to us and then, you know, we'11 be able to start digging a lot faster.  MR. SCHUSTER: Yeah, and when  looking at a caseload of this size, how fast do you think you can get through those 18 years to maybe move into some new cases or new  elinquencies?  MR. BURAKS: I mean, you know, every  account doesn't have to be started from day one, right, so as I mentioned before, there's a large amount of accounts with one year delinquency on it. Those letters should be pretty quick on getting those out.  And those accounts too, the majority  of them, the fees and costs are pretty low. So some of the accounts will have a $10 add on. I'm sure we can find out the answer to what that $10 add on is and then start moving on them. Where some of the older ones, you know,    17  we can continue to work on those as we're  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  getting stuff out.  So it's not like : we don't have to  wait for day one to get 100 percent of the things out on day one. We could start, you know, basically triaging and figuring out the ones that are simpler, start getting those letters out right away and then keep moving through, you know, the other ones that have a  little bit more challenge.  So again, we're going to be very  communicative with you guys on this. You're going to, you know, we're very transparent. One of the compliments we always get is on our reporting that we provide to our clients. We provide reporting that is very detailed. It gives you all the  and, you know, pretty much everything is at your fingertips as to what you  need.  And then at the same time for the  property owners, they could always go on our website and look up their balance 24/7. So everyone has access to information, both the public and the City as to what's being done. But again, you know, we're going to try to be    18  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  as creative as possible to get you your money and move forward with things in a timely  manner.  And if there is some accounts that  are holding up the process, like, we're not going to let that hold up 100 percent of the accounts. You know, we'17 put those in a pile and deal with those as we are at the same time moving forward on the ones there's no problems  so :  DR. ROTHCHILD: How often would you  provide that reporting to Council?  MR. BURAKS: There's a month   there's a weekly remittance when we : we turn over our money - as I mentioned before, we turn over the money weekly. So we collect the money, the next week you're going to get a ACH  transfer with that in there.  That also comes with a remittance  statement that basically gives a very detailed breakdown on everything that's being collected in that remittance and what that is. And then we, you know, we could do other statements too  depending on what we want.  We could work with Mary Jo and you    19  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  guys as to how we do that. So what's going to happen going forward is, you know, if you guys : when you guys sign the contract and enter the ordinance, then we're going to meet with you and sort of go over a lot of the little details in the contract, as I mentioned before, payment plan parameters, voucher programs, things like that to cover all that  stuff.  We can discuss how, you know, you  were asking what a copy of our typical remittance statement looks like. But, you know, we'17 make sure that it works for you guys. And we'1l get it to you when you need it. - So you shouldn't have : there shouldn't be an issue with regard to you not having  information when you need it.  ATTY. HAYES: Councilman Gaughan, I  just had a followup question to a question that was raised by Councilman McAndrew during the caucus. And because I'm reviewing your contract it's with regard to the initial notice of the delinquent claim, the $40 or the $47  fee.  That section as I read it indicates    20  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  that the : and I believe you stated that the City wouldn't have to - wouldn't be : wouldn't have to put that money up front. That would be - we would never have to put that up  front that money, right?  MR. BURAKS: So, right, so say  ATTY. HAYES: Let me just finish my  point, if I could. And sO : but the way I read this is, it says the City shall pay Portnoff the one-time fee of whatever it is  47 -- $40 plus postage.  And then later on it says the City  will adopt an ordinance that authorizes the charging of that amount. And then upon collection, the City will be reimbursed. So my : so in other words, we won't get reimbursed until you collect against that  property, correct?  MR. BURAKS: There's two components  there, right. So any individual account you won't be reimbursed until we collect it sO :  ATTY. HAYES: So let me just  followup on that. So on that point, what Councilman McAndrew was asking was that we would have to up front $47 times however many    21  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  accounts you determine we have.  And we wouldn't be reimbursed on  that until you collected on that property,  correct? Is that right?  MR. BURAKS: Let me just clarify.  So individually, right, any individual property you don't get to the $40 plus the 5.75 postage back until we collected. But for that initial invoice when we send that to you to pay the cost of sending out that first letter, we won't invoice you for that cost until cumulatively we've collected at least that much.  So, right, on any individual account  you might not be reimbursed, but say that initial invoice cost the City $250,000, we would collect $250,000 before we send you that  invoice.  ATTY. HAYES: Where does it say that  on the contract?  MR. BURAKS: It doesn't say that.  But we can put that : if you want to put that  in there, we can put that in there.  ATTY. HAYES: That's kind of  important for -  MR. BURAKS: Yeah, I'm just telling    22  you that's what we do though. We always do that. But again, I'm happy to put that in there if that's an issue. But, yeah, that is  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  our practice. That's what we do.  ATTY. HAYES: Okay. It think  certainly we need to get that clarified.  MR. MCANDREW: Put it in there. MR. BURAKS: That's fine. ATTY. HAYES: And the question I  think someone raised about the percentage, your percentage of collection and I know it's difficult for you to determine because you just got the data today, but the information that was provided to Council, Mary Jo, there was an indication that they collected 20 to 25 percent in year one and then greater than 50 percent.  Where did you get that information,  Mary Jo; do you know? The information was provided to Council. There was a spreadsheet that did a comparison of the seven vendors and  there was : recovery of the :  MS. SHERIDAN: Okay. Hold on. I  was not - I don't know what was sent to : I don't know what was sent to Council.  ATTY. HAYES: There was a comparison    23  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  between the five bidders. And the indication was, again, I presume that this was used in determining who was the most responsive bidder. There was 20 to 25 year one and then greater  than 50 percent total recovery.  MS. SHERIDAN: I'm looking at oh,  are you talking about row 12 recovery of  accounts?  MR. GAUGHAN: Yeah.  ATTY. HAYES: It's attached to the  proposed ordinance that's been submitted to  Council.  -  MR. GAUGHAN: Yeah, you're correct.  It's that : it's column number : row number  12.  ATTY. HAYES: Right.  MS. SHERIDAN: Oh, that information  was provided by the proposers by each of the  proposers.  ATTY. HAYES: Is that the estimate  of what they believe they would recover in year  one or :  MS. SHERIDAN: Well, no. You know,  that was in some cases the proposer provided what they anticipated they would recover in    24  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  year one. But other proposers : one other proposer their percentage that they provided was a cumulative percentage on a number of accounts. So it was over a period of time.  So it was almost like not being able  to compare apples to apples in some cases with  regard to what they provided us.  ATTY. HAYES: And then greater than  50 percent total recovery was also considered? I'm looking on the attachment that the : what was submitted to Council as Exhibit A in the  resolution.  MS. SHERIDAN: Okay. I'm sorry. I  should have that.  ATTY, HAYES: Well, let me ask you  that. Was that considered in determining who was the most responsive bidder or the  responsible bidder?  MS. SHERIDAN: We considered : we  considered an array of - I mean, we used a rubric with various factors to consider.  ATTY. HAYES: Was this like a : did  you have a committee like they had for the healthcare broker in identifying the : in  reviewing the bidders?    25  MS. SHERIDAN: No, we didn't have a  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  committee.  ATTY. HAYES: A1l right, that's, I  mean, I'm just wondering where the numbers came  from, the percentages.  MS. SHERIDAN: Yeah. Okay. They :  the percentages were provided by the bidders. And they were :- they provided different metrics that weren't exactly identical. And those of us who evaluated the - I mean, it was the Business Administrator Carl, myself, the Mayor, the City : I think : and then I think we conferred eventually with City Solicitor  too.  ATTY. HAYES: And then I just have  one more question. You -- your firm is based in King of Prussia, right, Montgomery County?  MR. BURAKS: Yeah, our main office  is in King of Prussia. We also have an Allentown Office which Bob and Dave that are on the call, that's where they actually work  out of.  ATTY. HAYES: And would you be  charging for any travel cost that you would have to - that you would incur in coming here    26  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  presenting different petitions and filing  petitions?  MR. BURAKS: No.  MR. DADAY: I can comment on it.  We're up Lackawanna County Courthouse probably between Dave and I probably at least twice a month. But we don't charge any additional fees  or tolls for that matter.  ATTY. HAYES: That's good. Thank  you. That's all I have, President Gaughan.  MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you. I have a  few more additional questions. In Section two here, it says cost to be add to the unpaid claims in addition to the fees set forth in section one the reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket charges, costs expenses,  commissions and fees incurred in the collection of unpaid claims including and then it lists : including but not limited to things like postage, title searches, VIN searches.  Can you just talk about that what  that amount comes out to and if there is any, you know, commission fees or anything like  that?  MR. BURAKS: Yeah, you're talking    27  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  about Section two, the ordinance. So  basically, these are hard costs that are added to the file as I mentioned before, you know, court costs, sheriffs' fees. We don't charge any commission. So we don't charge any  commission at all.  And then I think that was what  distinguished my firm from the other firms that were all submitting to the RFP. I think all of them were going to charge commission. And with regard to a commission, as I mentioned way earlier, I guess, there's just no incentive to  do anything.  Once that commission is added, it's  there. So there is no incentive for someone who now owes money to do anything as a result of that commission. Again, we create the incentive by charging things incrementally, small steps and giving them time to pay in between those steps with the option for payment  plans and hardship programs.  But that's what distinguishes us.  So, no, there is no commission. The fees are all right there in the ordinance. And people will see that from day one in the first letter    28  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  that we send to them. So again, they know what's potentially going to be charged to them ahead of time and by having a flat fee structure that's predictable to the property  owner.  But, no, no commissions. It's  just : the commission that might - I don't think there's - I'm trying : let me pull up the ordinance to make sure. I don't think there is language commissioned in that section,  is there.  MR. GAUGHAN: It just says  under  part two of the ordinance, it says in addition to the fee set forth in section one above which is the legal fees and collection fees that you've identified in the proposal : in your proposal, it says in addition to these, there may be costs added to the unpaid claims.  And the language : one of the words  that's used is cost, expenses, commissions and fees incurred in the collection of the unpaid  claims.  MR. BURAKS: Yeah, that would be  like a hard cost. So again, for example, for taxes, like a tax claim bureau could take a    29  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  commission as a result of the collection. It's not : it wouldn't be our commission. I guess it would be any : it would have to be a legal commission that's charged to the account from the outside that we would have to pay for the collection purposes. But it's not our commission, no, sO no. These are just :  MR. DADAY: I don't think there is a  commission for collection of municipal claims.  I'm not aware of it.  MR. BURAKS: No. No.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Section four  you talked about the hardship exemption policy. That would be created, correct me if I'm wrong, by the City. And you're saying in your proposal that you'11 assist the City upon request in the establishment and administration of this policy without additional charge. Now, would that be something that you administer or  the City administers?  MR. BURAKS: So most of our clients  give us 100 percent authority to deal with the hardship program because they don't want to be a part : they don't want to know who is even applying necessarily. They don't want to know.    30  They want us to treat everyone the same.  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  So again, we're working for the  City. So the discretion is up to you. But most our clients basically let us do the hardship program as we always do. We have a formal application. It's available on our  website.  We could send it to people if they  call for it. It's a formal process where they submit an application. They put their expenses. They put their income. They put special circumstances. We ask them to actually say what they could pay a month. And then we  take that all into account.  And then if they meet the criteria  for that program, it's really their ability to pay what that dictates what that monthly amount  is. Again, it's :  MR. GAUGHAN: What would the  criteria be on that? Like, what criteria do you use when you're looking at an application? income and then we'1l look at their expenses. And, right, if there's expenses that are on there that aren't typical expenses that the  MR. BURAKS: We'11 look at their    31  average person needs to live by, you know, there's a Mercedes payment every month and they owe the City, we might not deem that a hardship because that expense is, you know, the amount they're paying towards a car expense is way beyond what a normal person is paying for a car  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  expense who has a hardship program.  So we sort of look through the stuff  that they put on there. But again, we find that most people that submit a hardship application are a true hardship. And we're going to let their finances dictate what they can pay. We would recommend the City allow us to give them more extended payment terms.  At the end of the day, the  discretion is up to you. If you want to review every hardship application as a City you could. Again, most of our clients when they use us, they like the fact that we're taking over all the administrative headaches and work and expense of doing the collection side.  And we would do it all. But at the  end of the day, you could have as much  involvement in that process as you want to have or as little as you want to have. We're happy    32  with either. But most our clients, they prefer to have us sort of run the hardship program.  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Same thing with the payment plans,  like, we would work with you in the very beginning to set what the criteria is and the timeframes for payment plans. And then at that point in time it's a hard line in the sand and  that's what we do.  And if they can't do that timeframe,  then the hardship program will potentially give them more extended payment terms if they meet the criteria for that. I mean, the key with the payment plans, for example, is like we typically recommend that payment plans be capped at six months because if you go too far on a payment plan, then they basically : makes it very difficult for them to ever pay current  on a bill.  But again, some of these are older  situations. And we might decide for some of the older claims we'11 make a different timeframe. But again, that is something that we will work out with you guys after we're hired and sort of look for a sweet spot that makes the most sense for the City and your    33  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  property owners.  Again, because the goal is to get  paid. And, you know, we've had clients before that decided : we had one client, for example, after we were representing them for a while, you know, we want to get tough on payment plans. We don't want to do payment plans anymore. We told them we don't recommend you doing that because they've been successful.  And they just felt like we're going  to take a harder approach. Within six months, they were back on payment plans again because it's just, you know, sometimes for some people if you say, oh, we're not -- it's just going to be not : and that's not going to benefit them and it's not going to benefit the City because again, our goal is not to move just to sell  property.  We want to get you guys your money.  So, yeah, so we think the payment plans and hardship programs are a big part of what we do  and a big part of our success.  MR. GAUGHAN: Do you have a  percentage of out of all of your clients the amount of hardship applications that you get or    34  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  percentage of those that you approve and those  that you deny what that looks like?  MR. BURAKS: No. That's a good  question. I don't know that answer offhand. It's something we can probably do a little bit of digging around for. But again, most people who submit hardship applications I feel like we tend to accept them because they're realistic with what they're asking for and what they  could pay.  There would have to be some type of  red flag on there that would just indicate that there is something strange about that  application. But again, the goal is to get the City paid. And the goal is not to sell property. The hardship is a good point to  that.  MR. DUGAN: I also just wanted to  jump in. If there's an offer that they make and we don't think it's sufficient, you know, we could make a counteroffer and try to work out a resolution. So, you know, usually we're able to : you know, by going back and forth we can settle on a plan that's beneficial for both  of us.    35  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  There is some flexibility there.  It's not either : it doesn't have to be that either we accept it or reject it. Sometimes we'17 send a letter and say, you know, if they offer $100 a month we'1l say, no, we want 200  and, you know, they accept that.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay.  MR. BURAKS: Let me just add to that  too. That's a good point that David made. And that's I think too there's typically almost like two types of hardships. There's one hardship who no matter what's going to happen, that person's always going to be a hardship  situation.  For whatever reason their situation  is never changing. Sometimes it's a temporary hardship though, a job loss, an illness where, you know, in six to eight months they will be in a different situation. So sometimes we'11 have a more temporary type hardship where we're going to put them on a hardship plan for a  certain time period.  And then we'11 reassess with them  after that period is over and see where they are and, you know, maybe they're no Tonger a    36  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  hardship at that point in time. Maybe they just go back to a payment plan. You know, again, this sort of indicates that we look at every file, like, we're not -- what we do isn't  just pushing buttons.  Like, we look at every file. If  someone calls in and wants to work with us, we're going to find a way to work with them to get the City their money and give them the ability to pay. So, yeah, there's not : the hardship, it's not always cut and dry. We're going to look at each one depending upon what the situation is and figure out how to best  deal with it.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Thank you.  Section eight, it talks about outside attorneys that you're - Portnoff will be permitted at your discretion to hire outside attorneys to assist you in the collection of the accounts  under this agreement.  Can you explain Section eight a  little bit in more detail and what outside attorneys you usually work with, how they're selected? Do you work with law firms or attorneys and will you work with attorneys in    37  - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Scranton because this is a Scranton account or  how does that process work?  MR. DADAY: Typically we go up  there. Dave and I typically represent the City. We have been up there sO much over the last few years, we're practically local. And if we do have to bring somebody in, we typically would bring somebody from Lackawanna County to help us out. But that's : we haven't done that a number of years,  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Do you  currently work with any firms in Lackawanna County for : on any different accounts that  you have?  MR. DADAY: In terms of - I deal  with a lot of attorneys up there. I deal with Dan Penetar. He represents a lot of the Tax Claim Bureau. Rick Fanucci, we deal with him a lot. We deal with Joe a lot. So, yeah, we :- IK know a lot of folks that are up there because  we're up there so often.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay.  MR. BURAKS: This is typically  something where there's going to be, you know, say there's like a conflict or maybe we have a    38  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  client in western Pennsylvania where there's a quick motion that needs just to be, you know, handed to the judge. We might pay local counsel out there to just hand something over.  But again, in Lackawanna County,  again, Bob and David are there often. So I don't anticipate this being used in this contract. But, you know, it's an option that we typically want to have just in case there's, you know, something that's not :- you know, I guess it's legally sophisticated and it might be a hand-up or something like that. But I don't anticipate it being used for you guys.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. This question  will probably be for Attorney O'Brien or Mrs. Sheridan. Do we know the amount that the City had paid or any amount that the City had to pay NRS as we part ways with whatever money that  was outstanding?  MS. SHERIDAN: Joe, do you want to  take that?  MR. GAUGHAN: Joe, you're muted. ATTY. O'BRIEN: That is under  I'm sorry.  discussion now. We've had three meetings with    39  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  NRS. We have another one coming up. And we are discussing with them what may be owed to  them or what they may owe us.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: I could tell you  this. It will not be a big amount of money without your permission. We're certainly going to come back to you. The unraveling of the NRS agreement has been a little complicated. And we're working on it now. And that will be something that will be submitted to Council.  MR. GAUGHAN: And was it the City's  position - I believed it was the City's position maybe a few months ago when we had last kind of talked about the delinquent refuse fees that the administration or the Mayor was looking to hire a firm to collect the delinquent refuse fees from 2002 to present.  But moving forward once we were able  to get the refuse bill placed on the real estate tax bill that we were in conversations with : or the City was in conversations with the county to collect the delinquent refuse bill. So is that still on the table and is  that still an option?    40  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Yes. Yes, it is. MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. So this  agreement then would just be for -  ATTY. O'BRIEN: This is for one year  and then depending on what happens.  MR. GAUGHAN: Is it one year? I  thought it was two years. Yeah, I think the agreement says two years, correct?  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Two years, yeah, two  years. I misspoke.  MR. DONAHUE: But that's just for :  mean, Portnoff would just be from 2002 to 2020. But then moving forward with any sort of delinquents we're looking at some sort of agreement with the county, correct?  ATTY. O'BRIEN: We're looking at an  agreement with the county, yes.  MR. DONAHUE: For those that are on  the tax bill, you know, moving forward.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: When 2021 : those  2021 they become delinquent, that's when we  might be with the county  Tax Claim Bureau.  MR. DONAHUE: Yes.  MR. GAUGHAN: I mentioned this  before. And I'd like to know if the    41  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  administration is considering or would consider a grace period or amnesty type period for those people who owe, you know, significant amount of garbage fees and, you know, to have them come forward during a certain period of time to waive the fees and the interest and penalties and whatever else and to have them just pay the  fees.  We've talked about this last week.  It's been an idea that I've had which I think would bring in a significant amount of money into the City coffers for next year. But instead of trying to get blood from a stone before we hire a delinquent collector to give people the opportunity instead of, you know, if they owe $1,000 and you're going to tack on additional fees, what make : like I've been saying, what makes anyone think that somehow magically people are going to come up with more money and, you know - so is there any discussion that's currently ongoing in the  administration :  ATTY. O'BRIEN: I think Portnoff  addressed that earlier that that is : there are arguments to be made both ways for these    42  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  amnesty programs. It's something they've worked with, something they've instituted. And that's not something that is inconsistent with  their contract.  It's not something that's set forth  in their contract but it's not something that is inconsistent with it. I mean, there could be an amnesty period. They could hold off for a couple of months, give people a chance to come forward before they start moving forward  on the delinquent 2020 fees.  - mean, there's a lot of different  ways. It could be a partial amnesty for older ones. The answer is, yeah, it hasn't been decided on but certainly is something that is going to be under consideration -- I believe has been discussed. I don't think any decision  has been made yet.  You know, there are people who think  it's a mistake because then, you know, people don't want to pay because they think they'11 get amnesty. And also people who have paid, somebody who stepped forward in 2020 and made a big past payment or a big present payment, wow, jeepers, I should have waited and got a deal.    43  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. GAUGHAN: We would bill this as  a one time. And we could, you know, work it into the : into an agreement or in the legislation that this would be a one-time thing. We would never do it again. I - just  think it make sense.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Yeah, it's  certainly : it's certainly something that should be discussed. And, you know, there is also in these cases, it's kind of a de facto amnesty on a case-by-case basis. People come forward. They have an excuse. There's an explanation for their default, things like that and we enter into settlements. We do that all the time. We do that all the time, not on big  ones. That's a form of amnesty.  MR. GAUGHAN: Yeah. And, I'm sorry.  It is a one-year contract. I misspoke earlier. Kevin, did you have anything to say on the  amnesty?  MR. BURAKS: I guess, I have another  suggestion. Our firm has done amnesty programs before. And we don't typically recommend for things that are actually really collectable. And I don't know mean not legally or illegally    44  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  collectable but ones that you could actually get the money on because otherwise you're basically : to me, it sorts of sends the wrong  message potentially to those again.  As Joe mentioned, those people that  paid on time, you're basically putting up the potential that, you know, "A", I made a mistake in paying. And then in the future if I wait, potentially then I could maybe open myself up to an amnesty program in the future. I mean :  MR. GAUGHAN: Yeah, but we would  put in there that this would be a :- literally a one-time thing. And I, you know, I  understand there is another way to look at it. But, you know, as you said before we have 16.7  million dollars in delinquencies.  So, you know, we've had collectors  in the past. This is, you know, to me it's like trying to get blood from a stone. I think you need to give them : the only way I would be in favor of this or in favor of, you know, entering into any sort of agreement is if it was contingent upon a period of : a grace period for people, especially in the midst of, you know, the pandemic and the hardships that    45  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  people are facing. You know, those people who paid on time. I pay on time. And I understand  that argument.  But we're not looking for people to  pay nothing. We're looking for people to pay what's owed to the City, not the fees, not the interest, not the penalties. We're going to give -- I would want to give a one-time grace period for people to come forward, get right with the City, get on a payment plan or whatever else before you have someone come in and, you know, send letters and get aggressive  and try to collect it.  MR. BURAKS: One thing that we've  seen that's worked is that we've had clients before we've been hired they issued a press release and they tell the public basically that if, you know, these are : there's people that have their delinquencies. We're planning to turn over our accounts to a private collector.  We're going to give you "X" amount  of time to make payment on these accounts. And if you do that, you obviously avoid having to pay extra fees and costs that will be added. We've had clients that have done very well with    46  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  that type of press release whereby when people come to the table : and again, they'11 start paying before the accounts even come to us just knowing that the accounts will be coming to a  private collector.  That's something that's worked well  for some of our clients. I know that as a fact. So that's another option.  MR. GAUGHAN: What about waiving the  fees and the :  MR. BURAKS: Yeah, they don't  typically waive : and again, the clients that we've worked amnesty programs are ones where there's just been :- there's been no success basically as a result of the fact that property values aren't high enough to sell to get the  money that's owed.  It's really : these accounts are :  our process, the only way our process really doesn't work is if at the end of the day the property that we're collecting upon is not sellable or the amount their owed exceed the amount of the property and thus, everyone's not  going to get paid.  Other than that, our process works    47  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  well. So, you know, basically the property the ones that we've done the amnesty for, some of them in western Pennsylvania in areas that are depressed, properties aren't selling, there's amounts that have been owed for a long  period of time.  And the client is willing to just do  anything to try to get something because they're not going to : they really don't have a lot of likelihood to collect on those  accounts.  So we've worked with those types of  people to try to do an amnesty program, But for clients where it's collectable at the end of the day, we just don't recommend it because again, there is sort of mixed signals being  sent.  And at the end of the day, the City  is actually loosing money that it doesn't necessarily have to lose because again, you know, for you guys you have delinquencies dating back from 2002 to 2019. If you do an amnesty program, there's people that are owed one year, two years of collections that are now going to benefit. And it's : you're probably    48  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  going to get 100 percent of your money anyway.  So potentially, the City is now  losing money that there's a very good  likelihood that you're going to get. So to me, you do a press release. You give them a warning. You give them some time. If you want to give them some time, you give them some time and say this is your period of : this is an amnesty period in a sense where we're not going to do anything and we're going to give you a  chance to pay.  And if you don't pay in this period,  we're going to turn over the accounts. And, you know, you're giving them a month or two, whatever you want to give them to pay without any extra penalty. You could stop  if there is interest, you could stop interest, I guess, if you wanted to and say we're not going to accrue any more interest and things like that  and give them a chance to pay.  If you're waiving the -- if you're  waiving something that's due to the City and that's collectable, to me that's a loss at the  end of the day that's unnecessary.  MR. GAUGHAN: Yeah, I disagree. I    49  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  think and, you know, I think there's two schools of thought on this. I just think that the newspaper did an analysis a few years ago when the City raised the fee from 175 to 300, that's when you really saw delinquencies go  through the roof.  L n mean, we live in an area where the  median income is like 25, $26,000 a year. It's hard for people to pay the fee that is in place. And we're in a position now where it's hard to lower it because it's been that way now  for a number of years.  So again, to me, when you have  somebody who really can't pay $300 and when it went up to 300 from 175 and then you add on interest and fees and penalties, what makes you -- I mean, what makes anybody think they're going to be able to come forward with money from like the sky when we're in the middle of a  pandemic and people are hurting.  They're out of work. I think, you  know, the only - again, the only way I would be in favor of moving forward with this company or any company for that matter would be if there was an amnesty, waive the fees, waive the    50  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  penalties and give people a chance to pay the face. Pay what's owed to the City originally, not all the extras that come along and where you, you know, crush people with it. I just  don't agree with that.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Bill, let me say  something. You know, NRS is out the door on December 31st. We don't have a tax collector on January 1st, delinquent tax collector. There's not going to be any money coming in. So we have to - I would just ask you to reconsider saying you won't support it unless  that's a contingency.  Maybe let's say we support it and  then we can discuss it because if it : if it's not adopted, who's going to collect the delinquent tax? Who is going to get all of  2020 delinquent taxes?  MR. GAUGHAN: Well, I think that  gives the incentive to the Mayor and to the Mayor's cabinet to get a proposal together quickly and then we'11 :- I mean, I can't speak for the rest of Council. But I can't consider this unless there is a grace period or an  amnesty.    51  can't in good conscience hire a  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  company that, you know, is going to go after people and if you owe, you owe. I get that. But I can't in good conscience agree to that during a pandemic where there's people that have lost their jobs and are in severe economic  hardship.  I think you give people the  opportunity to come forward and as much as we can erase or eliminate the fees and the interest and everything else. And again, we're looking at 4 million dollar revenue shortfall next year. I think this is a way in the first or second quarter of next year to get a significant amount of money in the City's  coffers.  So this is me speaking just for  myself. I don't know how everybody else feels. But I think if everyone else is on the same page as I am, then it would incumbent upon the administration if they want to hire or us to approve the agreement to, you know, move forward in coming up with a proposal or a plan because I think it's very, very important. So  that's my spiel on it.    52  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Well, how long a  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  grace period would you want?  MR. GAUGHAN: Well, I don't know. I  think in cities it really ranges from, you know, 60 days to 90 days. It really would depend on a number of different factors. But I would be open to any suggestions from the  administration.  Again, I just think it's important  before we hire a collector to send people letters and take people to court, you know, I think we have to give people a chance to : and we're - again, I'm not talking about amnesty in terms of just letting people walk free, just  pay what you originally owed.  And again, there was an analysis  done a few years ago when it went from 175 to 300, that's when the delinquencies went up. And the people I talk to in my neighborhood, I have trouble paying it. So, I mean, if I missed it, all of a sudden now I go from owing  300 to like 600.  Well, if I can't pay 300, where am I  coming up with $600 from? Again, I don't disagree with hiring a company maybe to go    53  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  after the people who just are constant  scofflaws with this stuff because it's not fair to people who pay consistently like myself.  But on the other hand, I think  you've got : you have to give people a chance to pay what's owed to the City, especially in light of the economic difficuities everyone including myself and people in Scranton and  around the world are facing.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: I think everybody  hears you. And I think that we can probably work out something with Portnoff. But the alternative you give us is not hire a delinquent tax collector, the City : that's  more than an amnesty.  That means don't anybody pay because  you're not going to get a collection then. I mean, we have to have a delinquent tax collector because NRS is gone. There going to be picked up and they're gone. There's going to be nobody collecting  why would anybody want to pay now if there wasn't going to be a  collector?  It's just going to sit there. So  that's why if you could approve this and then    54  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  we hear you and hear of Council that there should be a grace period and an amnesty period and we can work that into the agreement. But just not hiring somebody, it makes it : and that really is going to increase the City's deficit if we don't have any way to collect the  delinquent taxes.  MR. GAUGHAN: Well, I think that,  you know, I talked to the Mayor about this. And she was kind of back and forth on it, didn't really have an opinion on it yet. She, you know, is looking at both sides of it I think. I don't want to not hire someone.  But I think before I would  personally consider it, we would have to have something in the agreement or some kind of plan from the administration to have an amnesty or a  grace period for people.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: I hear you. MR. MCANDREW: So I kind of agree  with everybody but in different pieces. So I don't like the word amnesty because that to me sounds like you get off free. So we don't want that. I know that, Kevin, you said, you know, you're going hit the ground running.    55  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  And when you do, you go after the  out-of-town guys that owe tens of thousands of dollars, okay, so they're the first ones you go after when you said from day one. That's fine.  I agree with maybe giving a break.  So in making the people aware at a  press conference, that's fine. Come to some type of agreement where, okay, it's 30, 60 days. I'm fine. I'm open to any of that to give the people some time to say, hey, you know what, maybe this is the time I could pull it all together and pay something or get on the  right track.  And then, of course, we have to  collect the delinquents moving forward or : but I see a combination of all three that  works for me.  MR. DADAY: Just to clarify for a  second. We don't go after individuals. We pursue the collection across the board. So I just want to make sure that that's absolutely  clear sO :  MR. MCANDREW: Okay. Maybe I meant  put a little more effort than the person that owes $310, put a little more effort in the    56  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  person that owes, you know, 20, $30,000.  MR. DADAY: Sure.  MR. MCANDREW: I'm not saying going  after but :  MR. DADAY: And I just want to be  clear about :  MR. MCANDREW: :- work a little  harder. That's fine. I get what you're saying. But I think we focus on them first.  MR. GAUGHAN: Carl, did you have  something you wanted to -- I saw you wanted to  say something.  MR. DEELEY: Yeah, thank you,  Chairman Gaughan. So I'11 be your first point. You know, like the administration, we're aware, I think, of your willingness I think to do something for the community. And I think it's  well-founded.  And as you know, just going into  next year, we're very sensitive to, you know, the stress that people have been under this year and it will continue through next year. So I think it's a point well made. In terms of the description and the analysis in terms of how we can put into effect something along    57  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  those lines, we really have not had any meaningful analysis on that just sO you're  aware of that.  So, yeah, it's not really being  brought into this dialogue around the arrangement with Portnoff, not at this point just so you're aware of that. We have not, you know, considered anything structurally that would go into this contract not at this point.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Well, I - MR. DEELEY: So we would have to  take that offline basically and, you know, we'd have to have that dialog and to your point too  for your consideration.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Yeah, I would  appreciate if that could occur, you know, as soon as possible because, you know, again, that's the only way that I would consider what's : what was in front of us that we  tabled last week.  MR. DEELEY: Point taken. Yep. MR. GAUGHAN: Would anyone else like  to add anything or anyone have questions?  MR. SCHUSTER: I will say I'm in  agreement with you, President Gaughan.    58  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. GAUGHAN: Anyone else? A11  right. Well, thank you so much. This is really a good discussion. And thank you for all the information, Kevin and Bob and Solicitor O'Brien and David.  So thank you very much and we'11  continue to consider the proposal and all of the things that were brought up tonight. Thank you very much. And, Mary Jo, I know you're sticking around to continue our discussion on  garbage tonight.  MR. BURAKS: That's for having us.  Yeah, and we appreciate the time. And we're  exciting to work with you guys.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay :  MR. DONAHUE: Thank you for taking  the time.  MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you. MR. MCANDREW: Thank you, folks. MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. We're staying  on the fee for the garbage tonight. We have Mary Jo Sheridan our City Treasurer. And, Mary Jo, thank you very much for coming tonight. We really appreciate it. So one of the things that we're bringing off of the table to vote on    59  tonight is the City's plan to roll the refuse  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  fee into the real estate tax bill.  So, Mary Jo, I'11 turn it over to  you if you just want to explain the rationale behind that, the thought process and what the  plan is.  MS. SHERIDAN: Thank you for this  opportunity, President Gaughan. So since September and through November, the City has been working toward moving the refuse fee onto the real estate bill to : in large part to ease the bill paying process for taxpayers to  provide a single form of payment.  And just to make clear, I mean, we  have had multiple work sessions and have had a very good rapport with the Single Tax Office staff and our departments, the DPW, the LIPS Department and Treasury have all worked together with our own IT Department to establish the processes to create better communications to ensure that the refuse fee  database is as clean as possible.  Now, that process will be ongoing  into next year. There are approximately 27,000 properties on the refuse fee billing file.    60  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  About 10 percent, around 2,700 of those properties are properties that we still have to work on, LIPS might have to go out to verify that a property is a one unit, two unit, five unit and to make sure that we're billing correctly for different properties.  So we are working all of us together  with STO to ensure that the database that we're using to bill is as clean as possible. That said, we know there are issues with that. And that's why we have in our 2021 budget, we have established this position of constituent  services.  And this is the person who would  maintain the database and also deal with constituents to resolve discrepancies, not just discrepancies with the database but also to address exoneration for vacancies.  There are a lot of, you know,  there's a lot that happens throughout the year with regard to, you know, the bills, adjusting them based on different circumstances for  different properties.  But the important point that I would  hope that everyone would understand is that we    61  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  have had : since I think 2011, NRS our current delinquent refuse fee collector, okay, has been collecting and has staffed two people in the  Treasurer's office since 2011.  Since I believe the 2012 contract,  that contract stipulated : there was a clause added in that contract that provided for NRS to collect not just the delinquent refuse fees and the delinquent taxes but also to collect the current year refuse fees for free.  But they did put, you know, part of  the reason they did that was sO that they could keep updating the database, the delinquent refuse fee database as the years go by. And they, you know, their fee that they take : they collected from us was the 15 percent off  of the delinquency collections.  But the important point is that  December 31st is those two staff persons' last day. So the people who collect not just delinquent refuse fees but also and delinquent taxes but also the current year refuse fees,  those people are gone.  And this constituent services person  stationed in the Treasurer's office will    62  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  perform one function that the City has to maintain control of. And the Single Tax Office will become the collector of the refuse fee.  And this simplifies the process for  the tax and ratepayer, for the fee payer and the taxpayer. They go to one place to pay their taxes, mail it to one place.  The other thing that's nice about  this new plan is that instead of a two installment payment plan, the installment plan for paying refuse fees will shift to four installment payments spread over a wider period of time, which is good timing in light of the difficult economy and the uncertainty because  of the pandemic.  Now, it also does shift somewhat the  timeline. As we were talking, you know, earlier today or many of us have been talking over the last several weeks and months. Instead of the refuse fee bill going out the door in May and the discount period being June 30, the refuse fee will : the refuse bill will go out at the same time because it will be on  the real estate tax bill.  And a discount period will match the    63  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  discount period for the refuse fee. But the discount rate stays the same. So the discount : the 10 percent discount rate for the refuse fee will stay the same.  But I think : let's see. Oh, one  other : can I bring up one other point before  taking any questions?  MR. GAUGHAN: Yeah.  MS. SHERIDAN: There was -- you had  mentioned to me earlier that a citizen had raised concerns about tax cheaters. And she was concerned that tax cheaters, you know, about this refuse fee being rolled onto the real estate tax bill being possibly better for  tax cheaters.  But really what happens is the  opposite. By putting the refuse fee onto the tax bill, the fee and taxpayer doesn't have the discretion to pay one and not the other. They both get paid together. And they get drawn down. If someone does installment payments, they get drawn down together.  So : so there is no, you know,  discretion. And it will help - we believe it will help significantly the collection rate on    64  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  a delinquent - or on refuse fees.  MR. MCANDREW: Mary Jo, can't a  clerk do that? I mean, can't one of our union clerks provide that : can't they do that job?  MS. SHERIDAN: Which one, the  constituent services job?  MR. MCANDREW: No, no, the refuse  fee. You said just actually collecting :- it's an extra body when the one from NRS leaves. Can't we utilize a clerk to do that function, a  union clerk?  MS. SHERIDAN: Well, part of the  problem with : like, part of the impetuous to move it onto the real estate tax bill was to simplify the process. We have sO many people would come to City Hall and then have to go  down to the Single Tax Office.  So they're paying one, you know,  their tax bill in one location. And their refuse fee in another location. So, you know, one big reason why we want to do this is to simplify the process for the tax and ratepayers  for the citizens.  MR. GAUGHAN: So in other words, so  ifI-- you know, I'm going to pay my taxes    65  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  this year. I go down to the Single Tax Office. I'm paying my real estate taxes, my county tax and now my refuse fee at the Single Tax Office,  correct?  MS. SHERIDAN: Yes.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. And if I - if  I'm a citizen and I say I got my real estate tax bill, there's a $300 garbage fee on there but I don't, you know, get rid of my garbage anymore or there's a : or it's on a vacant lot or there's a half a double here and, you know, there is no one in there for the last six months, you're saying that you go to City Hall, you go to the Treasurer's office and you're dealing with now that constituent services  person, correct?  MS. SHERIDAN: Yes. Yeah, so that  person would be referred to the constituent services person at the City who is also going to be maintaining the database which is huge for the City. I can't emphasize enough how important it is that we are taking charge and owning our own data really for the first time. collections better and to, you know, we can  This will allow us to manage our    66  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  look at our collection rates and manage them sO much better if we know what we're getting. So that constituent services person will deal directly with the constituents but will also be the person who will update the database and  maintain it.  So if there is : if there is, for  instance, an exoneration for a partial or full year vacancy, that person would maintain that database and then also, that person would adjust the database : say DPW says this looks like it's a, you know, seven-unit property not a five-unit property, we can coordinate with LIPS and then coordinate with Treasury, stop pickup, you know, update our database or vice versa, you know, add a property that we've been billing as a one unit and change it to the appropriate two, three or four unit.  So we're talking in a structured way  with each other to modernize, update and improve the accuracy of that database. And the important thing about that too is, next year when we go to bill, when we go to give that database to the Single Tax Office, we're giving them a better product, a more accurate bill to    67  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  collect for us.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. And you're  confident that this : because you're going from, you know, having two people through NRS who were in the Treasurer's office to now they're obviously leaving because the contract is ending; and you're replacing the two of them with one constituent services person.  And I think in the budget there was  one job was : like, one job was swapped out. There was an administrative I think assistant  or cashier or something.  MS. SHERIDAN: Yes.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. So you're  confident that this one person can handle, you know, all of the - all of the activity that will most likely go on with this new change.  MS. SHERIDAN: Yeah, it's : 2021  will be an especially busy year. So : because we are going to be working hard to correct a database that needs work. And we will : we want to be :- we are going to be ready to be responsive to the public when the public is referred to us by Single Tax or when they call us directly or visit us or e-mail us.    68  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  That person will be ready and  designated. But that person will also have to be the person to on an ongoing basis maintain  that database.  MR. GAUGHAN: Right. MS. SHERIDAN: So we'11 have  collections at Single Tax and we'11 be :  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Let me jump in and  just -- I think it was Councilman Schuster, maybe it was Councilman McAndrew, I don't see that well anymore -- raised the question said that couldn't a professional union clerk do the  collection.  And I think the answer to that is  yes. At the present time the collection is being done by independent contractors employed by NRS sitting in the Treasurer's office. They are also doing whatever is done on constituent  services.  Now the collections efforts are  going to be sent down to Single Tax Office. And they're going to have their people do it. So you're going to have the professional union  trained employees doing it.  And the constituent services will be    69  done out as : and the reason for the split up, it was just explained by Mary Jo. I don't want to talk about that. But the answer to your question, yes, that's going to be done that  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  way.  MS. SHERIDAN: And can I say one  more thing, President Gaughan?  MR. GAUGHAN: Yeah.  MS. SHERIDAN: The -- I think the  important thing for us for the City is that we make every effort to maximize our collections, to improve our collections processes. If we're : if we're doing a better job collecting revenues, all of our revenues, if we're doing a better job : and that includes : if we're doing that, then we can, you know, I don't want to say not raise taxes; but like that's what I  have in my mind.  If we collect better then we don't  have to increase taxes, you know, or : I mean, I shouldn't say that. But you know what mean. We really should manage them the best that we can so that everybody out there who is paying their taxes isn't shouldering more of a burden because of those who are not.    70  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  And as I say that, I fully  appreciate what President Gaughan and other Council members have said about people who are struggling and these very difficult real difficult times that we are in right now.  But at the same time, I do think  it's important to collect better and in a more modern way where own our data, where we manage it. And we're not relying on vendors that we can't get enough information from. And I'm not saying that, you know, I don't want to blame because I don't know what was asked for in previously administrations by, you know, of any  vendor.  I C don't want to be judgmental that  way. But I just do think to own our own : own our data, manage it and collect as best we can.  MR. GAUGHAN: Kevin?  ATTY. HAYES: Mary Jo, so it's my  understanding that the contract with Portnoff, that is intended to be delinquent taxes from 2002 to 2020, I'm sorry, delinquent refuse  fees, correct?  MS. SHERIDAN: Yes.  ATTY. HAYES: Okay. And so then    71  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  prospectively : and I could understand why the county wouldn't want a piece of that hornet's next. But prospectively, is it your intent to pursue in intergovernmental agreement with the county that they would collect the delinquent refuse fees going forward now that you, you know, now that you have that : this new organization in place and it's going to be : it's going to be on the tax :- it's going to be on the property tax bills could be collected by the City Tax Collector.  And prospectively we would enter an  intergovernmental agreement with the county that they would be managing or collecting the delinquent refuse fees going forward.  MS. SHERIDAN: I would say --1 I  would say, yes, that is the intent. But I would add the caveat that we also want to track and track, you know, the effectiveness of  collections with anybody.  - mean, I think we want to hold  everyone we work with accountable as we should be held accountable. So : sO that :- that's the only caveat. But, yes, that makes sense to me. I mean, that's what we've thought.    72  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  ATTY. HAYES: So at the end of the  calendar year 2021, we don't have fees  collected  refuse fees who's going to :  what's the thought as to who's going to be pursuing those delinquent fees : refuse fees?  MS. SHERIDAN: Um : ATTY. O'BRIEN: In 2021? ATTY. HAYES: Correct.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Well, the plan at  this point would be the county.  MS. SHERIDAN: Yeah.  ATTY. HAYES: That makes sense. MS. SHERIDAN: Yeah,  MR. SCHUSTER: Mary Jo, thank you  for the comments that you've made there. I think we all understand what you were saying or at least I understand what you're saying. Right now as I see it, we have 16.5 million in  delinquents out there.  It think when we bring this company  in, I think they're going to do their best to hurry up and get on the cases of all of those 16.5 million. But, I mean, from my  perspective, it seems like we're turning over all of that money to them at that point.    73  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  And if we ever decide to part ways  with them they'11 be taking that with them unless we pay them off going out the door,  correct?  MS. SHERIDAN: Well, no - I  don't : Councilperson Schuster, I do see your point. And I definitely appreciate your concern, especially given the situation with the outgoing vendor and sorting that out.  So I definitely appreciate your  concern. But I think that Portnoff is going to have to evaluate the receivables that we have on the books first. So I'm not sure I would assume they would take all of those accounts or deem all of those accounts collectable.  - think that, you know, we're still  negotiating our separation from NRS. And, you know, also : so I think that - I think it's not : it's not quite as black and white yet. t think that they would account to us as to what accounts they think are feasible for them  to go after.  We're still talking with the  outgoing vendor. So I do appreciate -- I do appreciate your concern. But, I mean, one    74  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  thing that is important to know is like the 2002 to the 2020 delinquent fees can't be collected by the county. Like, they can't :  they can't take them.  They could only collect  delinquencies for those refuse fees that the county has billed for. So 2021's delinquencies are the first year of delinquencies that they  would be able to collect for.  MR. SCHUSTER: Yeah, I understand  that. I understand :  MS. SHERIDAN: : be 22, yeah. MR. SCHUSTER: And I understand it  wouldn't be that whole 16.5. They're going to have to weed through that and see what is collectable and see what isn't. I just hate to see us : you know, when we look at this it's a  one-year deal.  But I feel like that one-year deal  opens them up to one year of choosing what's theirs, I guess. So I'd hate to see the City sell itself short by passing 18 years of  collection over to them.  MS. SHERIDAN: Well, I € did -- I  did : let me just clarify.    75  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  ATTY. O'BRIEN: These are the old  collections, you know, the : a lot of those : most of those have been already liened. And they're kind of just waiting for  further action.  It think when the new collector be it  Portnoff or anybody comes in on January of 2021, they're going to get a whole book of delinquent 2020 refuse fees. And they're going to proceed forward with the letters, the liens  and sO forth.  The ones before them have mostly all  if they're worthwhile, they've mostly all been lettered and liened. So it's not so much turning it over to them. It's they've already done all of things you could do under the  Municipal Claims Act.  And then they will be collected the  way : if the lettering and the liens don't work, then maybe they'11 be collected if they're turned over for an upset sale or maybe they'11 be collected when the property is sold or maybe they'11 be collected when the property is refinanced or maybe they'11 be collected, you know, through an inheritance situation.    76  So, you know, it's not like they're  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  going to get 20 years of claims and they're going to have to : the big work is done on the new ones because a lot of work on these 16.5, they haven't just been sitting there. Some of  the old ones have.  But in the last couple of years  we've had some : we've had NRS in there. They've sent out the letters. They liened them. The money just hasn't come in. So it's not that it -- it's like that they're : we're just turning all of these over to them because a lot of those claims are sitting there.  And all possible collection efforts  have been done. And it's just a question of waiting for an upset sale, can you get them through a refinancing, can you get them through a : sale, can you get them through an inheritance or is somebody going to just come forward and  pay them?  MS. SHERIDAN: Can I make a  correction too? I think it's a little bit and this was my mistake. I think it's a : not so accurate to refer to this inventory of receivables as 16.7 million. And that's my bad    77  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  because I think I said it first.  But that's the balance showing on  the October 31st database from NRS, which is the most recent one that we got. But just to give you a better : a little bit better picture of what it really is, it's the face value plus interest, plus penalty that 12 percent penalty that : right, the face and  penalty is 9.2 million, okay?  And then there's 2.8 million of  additional interest. And then according to this four point : almost 4.7 million in costs which were trying to get an understanding of, okay? So we're talking about a face value of :- how do I do the inverse of 9.2 million divided by 1.12 : it's about 8.2 million.  The face value of us of this  inventory is about 8.2, okay? And then another million is the penalty then interest and  costs.  MR. GAUGHAN: A17 right. Thank you,  Mary Jo. Any :  MR. MCANDREW: One more question  about - Mary Jo, can I go back to the constituent services person? Why can't that    78  person just work in the tax office, the Single Tax Office instead? We're talking about making it easier and bouncing around and not bouncing around, why can't that person just work out of  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  there?  MS. SHERIDAN: Oh, Councilperson  McAndrew, that is a very, very good question. And here's the bottom line for me why this person should be retained in the City. This person is going to maintain the database that we need to manage, okay, that the : we need to  manage.  DPW, LIPS and Treasury all need to  stay : we all have impact. We all have input on this database, okay? That's number one.  Number two, decisions about whether  to exonerate fees for vacancies, reviewing : reviewing whether someone's application for a vacancy is meritus and valid and whether the exoneration should be granted, that decision, the decision about any  like other adjustments that might need to be made for  whatever reason.  Those decisions, that authority  really should remain with the City. It should    79  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  rest with the City with regard to that type of constituent services. But do you know : it is a good : it is - it does, you know, I can see you know, that it could be appealing to have  that person out at Single Tax.  But I really think that it should  rest with the Treasurer. I mean, the Treasurer is supposed to be the : that office is supposed to be the office to research and review exonerations and applications, you know, vacancy applications, things like that. So I  would just -- I would -  ATTY. O'BRIEN: I think that that's  a : Mary Jo gave the perfect answer there that that constituent service person is not just a collector. That person has to make discretionary decisions which you have to be : are going to be things that are going to : going to be - that person's going to  refer to the Treasurer.  The Treasurer is probably going to  come to me on some of them. They're going to go to the Mayor. Some of them are going to go to you if it's a big enough exoneration or a big enough change. So it's something that    80  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  there's a whole level of responsibility that all rest with the City, not with the Single Tax  Office.  They're not City employees. They're  just a contract with the City. So it has to have someone with the authority to make that decision. The Single Tax Office, they could collect the taxes there. They're not exercising governmental discretion.  MS. SHERIDAN: And, Councilperson  McAndrew, I really do communicate with the Law Department pretty frequently, especially since we are trying to address some, you know, some issues that have lingered out there for certain property owners for too long. We are in communication a lot to resolve issues.  MR. MCANDREW: I'm not saying to  move :- I'm not saying for you to lose an employee. The employee would be yours but just working down there and compiling the data there. Do you know where I'm coming from or no : and populating that database that you're  looking for.  MS. SHERIDAN: I don't know. I  don't know. I don't know. I've never    81  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  considered logistically having a Treasury employee at Single Tax. I don't know, would  that be possible?  MR. MCANDREW: Well, you had two NRS  employees.  MS. SHERIDAN: In City Hall, right.  Good point. Good point. That's a great point,  yeah.  MR. GAUGHAN: Anybody else have any  questions?  MR. SCHUSTER: Sorry, go ahead. MR. DONAHUE: Go ahead, Tom. MR. SCHUSTER: This might be a  little off task, but you talked about, you know, single unit, multiple unit homes, things like that. Do you know how many we have in the City that aren't properly identified? Is that a large number or is it just a handful?  MS. SHERIDAN: Yeah, we did. And  this again, this is the result of work sessions with multiple City departments and Single Tax. Single Tax's staff has been incredibly helpful and knowledgeable in helping us to identify properties that need to be reviewed.  And we did an analysis of the data    82  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  and identified of the 27 : approximate 27,000 properties that are on the refuse fee bill that : on the refuse fee database, there are approximately 2,700 that we need to address, like, we need to :- DPW and/or LIPS or Treasury or a combination of both we have to do some work to, you know, clean up those : either the database or change the bill, you know, to be  more accurate.  Some of them are easy to resolve.  There's some that I would consider low hanging fruit, like, things that we could easily clear up and do so right away. But some of them are going to need some more - a little bit more work. We're going to have to go out and  inspect :-  MR. SCHUSTER: If someone has an  issue like that, would they need to contact you  about that it?  MS. SHERIDAN: ADsolutely.  Absolutely contact me or my office. That constituent services person will be the person for that. Plus that's kind of an ongoing issue just because there are always things happening, whether it's a, you know, a property getting    83  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  demolished or built or, you know, changing  status somehow.  It talked to somebody recently whose  property : the mother-in-law house in the back was demolished a number of years ago. And she's trying to get her bill sorted out.  MR. SCHUSTER: And for a review of  that nature, there's a fee to the property owner to get that reviewed and changed?  MS. SHERIDAN: That's when I wish I  had Tom 0leski here. I'm not sure. That's a good question. And I'm not sure how to answer that. I think it depends. I think if we're trying to verify the accuracy of our database, some things we can do by just, you know, going and looking at the premises and seeing whether there's more than one electric box.  You know, some things are easy to  identify. But we have plans in place and further plans developing to do this in a way that's targeted and efficient by possibly targeting certain neignborhoods.  So, you know, one area that comes up  or the : some of the homes up by the University where it appears that, you know,    84  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  there might be more than one unit based on the number of students, you know, gathering outside  on the weekend.  So, you know, there are different  areas that are -- we can look at over time.  MR. SCHUSTER: A17 right. Thank you  very much.  MS. SHERIDAN: Thanks.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Anybody else?  Kyle, did you have a question?  MR. DONAHUE: I just have a quick  comment because I think we sort of mixed the two Portnoff and then also moving the  delinquent tax bill into the same discussion a  little bit.  But I think it's important that we  keep them separate because moving the refuse onto the tax bill is a way to : a way I believe to move forward into a more efficient  collection system.  You know, that's not saying that I  didn't : I don't have reservations because I know there will be issues because there's issues with the data. We all know there's issues with the data going back years.    85  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  But, you know, in my conversations I  was, you know, pleased to hear, you know, Mary Jo and Carl say instead of, you know, carrying those mistakes over from year to year, that someone will be there in that constituent service capacity to fix those mistakes so that although they might be issues in year one, you know, hopefully they're not issues in year two  and year three moving forward.  So, I mean, my reservations are a  little, you know, calmed down just because the administration to me at least acknowledged that there are going to issues and that they have a plan of addressing those issues then going into, you know, next year and beyond.  But then on the, you know, the  delinquent side, I think that's just : it's a tough situation because we constantly try to go back and fix the mistakes of the past. Where in reality, you know, you want to just clear those books so that once you move into a, you know, a new collection system that you don't repeat those mistakes of the past.  So it's : which is sort of why I,  you know, agree with Councilman Gaughan's    86  amnesty plan, you know, idea a little bit just because it's just bad : at this point it's just bad debt on our books. And you're just trying to clear it off as fast as possible to move into a system that's more efficient.  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  You know, but I do understand also  the need for an aggressive collector once we get past that point. So I just wanted to make  those comments quickly.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Thank you,  Kyle. Anybody else?  DR. ROTHCHILD: And I would just  add, Mary Jo, I appreciate you coming in as well as Carl to be able to answer our questions about this. You know, obviously before passing this legislation, we want to make sure this is  the right choice for the City.  And I understand how it will help in  our collection rate. I was apprehensive to wanting to ensure that, you know, that we're being fair to those who might have multiple properties or just making sure that we capture  all of those different properties.  And I know the data, I'm sure  there's plenty to go through and to really    87  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  clean it up to get it to where it needs to be and where it should be but hasn't at no fault  of yours or this administration's.  Idon't really have any questions at  this time. I believe we've gone through a lot of this tonight. So thank you for staying with us and answering all of Council's questions. We really appreciate it. And it think that's going to be helpful in our next decisions.  MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you,  MR. SCHUSTER: So just to tie it up  here I guess, kind of going with President Gaughan what he had said and Mr. Donahue as well as Mrs, Sheridan, you know, in looking at an amnesty program does keep that in the City's hands if we open that up for a short time  period.  Maybe we get a nice influx of money,  people have a warning, that money comes in and then we move into that agency or that firm to  do that collection.  But maybe the way I see that is with  that amnesty, we can keep that money in our hands with us dealing with it prior to turning  it over.    88  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Thank you. The  last thing I just want to say is, we requested a C copy of the other bids. I think there was six other bids. So if you provide those to us, we would appreciate it. I think there was five  or six other bids.  MR. DEELEY: Yeah, absolutely we  will provide that to Council.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Thank you.  That's all I have. Does anybody have anything else? A1l right. Solicitor O'Brien, Mary Jo, Carl, thank you so much for coming. Appreciate  it.  MS. SHERIDAN: Thank you. MR. DEELEY: It was a good  discussion as always.  ATTY. O'BRIEN: Thank you. MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you very much.  Okay, everyone, have a good night.  MR. DEELEY: Good night.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Let's see. So  we're still on Fourth Order getting off the garbage topic now. At this time, I'd like if someone from Council could please make a motion to accept public comment from the following    89  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  individuals: Aaron McNany and Marie  Schumacher.  MR. DONAHUE: So moved. MR. SCHUSTER: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: There's been a motion  and a second. On the question? On the  question, Mrs. Reed :  MR. DONAHUE: Okay.  MR. GAUGHAN: Oh, no, go ahead.  Sorry, Kyle. On the question?  MR. DONAHUE: No, I thought you were  just going on the question and not asking Lori  to read the comments. Sorry.  MR. GAUGHAN: No, that's okay. Mrs.  Reed, can you please read the comments into the  record?  MS. REED: Thank you.  The first  comment is from Aaron McNany. He identifies himself as a small business owner in the City  of Scranton as follows:  Regarding item 3-C on the Council  Meeting's December 1, 2020 agenda:  I am concerned about the request for  a - $28,000 COVID relief act reimbursement claimed by the City of Scranton's OECD. The    90  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  stated expense description is for, "Scranton City website updates(s) to improve citizen's access to services and information to COVID  pandemic."  Will you please provide more  information regarding what specifically cost $28,000? The City's website, scrantonpa.gov, is a very simple, legacy' website which should require minimal development costs. Based on my 8+ years of professional work in the web development industry, the requested reimbursement amount grossly exceeds what I would reasonably expect website edits of this  magnitude to cost.  I am especially mindful and  concerned about these expenses as it is being claimed against Cares Act funding which is being rapidly depleted and may have better uses (including additional small business support which is desperately needed by our city's many restaurants and other hurting industries.)  MS. REED: The second submission is  from Marie Schumacher as follows:  0 Iw would like to request the 2021    91  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  recycling schedule be changed by switching the frequency of corrugated cardboard with paper. A month's worth of paper can be very heavy for many.o Back in March the City said it would bill Fox News for a Town Hall in Scranton.  0 What steps are being taken to  ensure the 2020 Audit is received on time? What is the current date for receipt of the 2019  Audit?  0 Please ask the Administration to  include the zoom information for all bid  openings.  0 What is the forecast for lost  revenue due to the LERTA enactment? How much  was lost in 2020?  0 When will we see the Master Plan  for the former Serrent1 Center including capital costs, operation costs and expected  revenue?  0 Back in March the CIty said they  would bill Fox News for the Town Hall, What was the amount of the bill, date it was sent and  whether the bill has been paid.  MS. REED: That concludes the  Citizens Participation.    92  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you, Mrs. Reed.  With Mr. McNany  and I hope I'm saying his name right. I think he makes a really good point. The item that he's referring to was actually on last week's agenda. And it was Item 3-C. And it was correspondence that Council received from Eileen Cipriani, the  Executive Director.  And they were submitting an expense  in the amount of $28,000 for a Scranton City website update to improve citizens access to services and information due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I would like further information  about this was well.  So, Mrs. Reed, if we can get in  touch with the Mayor and the IT Department and find out exactly what costs $28,000. Off the top of my head : and, Kevin, you may remember  an e-mail floating around.  I think there was maybe an agreement  that the City was going to enter into for a new website design or something like that.  ATTY. HAYES: COSTAR.  MR. GAUGHAN: A COSTAR contract. ATTY. HAYES: So the reason this is    93  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  able to go outside the normal bidding process is that it's a COSTAR vendor and a proposal through COSTAR to the Office of General Services in the state where we participate in that program. That's why we're able to  expedite it, I guess.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. So : but I do  think he makes a good point on, you know, is this really something that the City would get reimbursed for with the county. And it looks like based on the other items that we've seen from the OECD Director, there's quite a few things that we didn't get reimbursed for.  One of them actually being I'm  surprised or at least they pulled it, the additions to the Serrenti Center. So I would like additional information on that.  And then Miss Schumacher's  questions, Mrs. Reed, if we could forward those to the administration and ask for an answer by next Tuesday, December 15th. The one question that she has about what steps are being taken to ensure the 2020 audit's received on time, we've consistently asked for updates on this.  And I think we've all stated that we    94  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  were disappointed that the audit is again late this year. We did receive a draft of the 2019 audit. And I don't know what the date of receipt is for the completed audit. I think we were waiting on some things from OECD and  another department.  So the only thing Council can do  really is continue to ask for updates and, you know, hold the administration's feet to the fire in terms of making sure this gets done. I thought it was going to get done on time this year because it wasn't last year but we're not  in that position.  ATTY. HAYES: Councilman Gaughan,  with regard to an outstanding request by Miss Schumacher, she had previously requested to the number -- for us to provide her with a number of outstanding opinion lawsuits that the City  is a party to.  And the Law Department has provided  me with that information which I've circulated to you all earlier today. And the total number, there's 27 civil actions that the City is a party to. This number does not include any workers' compensation, heart and lung or    95  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  other claims. These would all be civil  actions.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Kevin, I did  see that you sent that out. And we'1l get that out to Miss Schumacher. And I appreciate that. Can you also check with the Law Department, I'd like to know if there is a policy of the City's if anyone who represents the City would not be permitted to accept claims against the City.  So, I mean, I would assume that we  have a policy like that. But I just want to double-check and see if that's the case.  ATTY. HAYES: You mean as a  plaintiff?  MR. GAUGHAN: As a plaintiff,  correct.  ATTY. HAYES: Okay. A11 right.  I'17 do that.  MR. GAUGHAN: Anyone else on the  question?  MR. MCANDREW: I just want to talk  about the audit again. This is ridiculous. I mean, we talk about it almost weekly. And this happened last year and probably the year before and, you know, it's a blame game. I just don't    96  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  understand that we're not receiving the informing in a timely fashion.  Let me tell you something, when I  first got married, I made wedding cakes on the side for extra money, right? It would be like me - a bride coming to me and saying, you know what, I want a wedding cake on October 22nd; and then me saying, you know what I'm sorry. I could give it to you on January 5th, the  wedding cake.  So it's beyond -- I can't understand  this. And it's habitual from what I understand. So maybe the City should, you know, start looking at doing business with  someone else.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Anyone else?  A17 right. A17 those in favor of the motion to accept public comment signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved. Mrs. Reed?  MS. REED: FIFTH ORDER. 5-A.    97  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MOTIONS.  MR. GAUGHAN: Councilman Schuster,  any motions or comments?  MR. SCHUSTER: Nothing at this time. MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you. Councilman  McAndrew, any motions or comments tonight?  MR. MCANDREW: Yeah, I would like to  make : no, you know what, I just want to go over a couple things. So usually I come and express or, you know, share the concerns and complaints of residents. And I don't mind  doing it. It's part of my job.  But I would like to provide updates.  I'm happy to report some things that have changed, you know, they've been heard. So that illegal garage on 1149 Sloan Street is finally been shut down after months. So they're finally out of there. I'm sure the residents are very happy because it was a huge safety  issue.  And also to credit Mr. Deeley, sO I  posed questions : three questions for the past three weeks. I finally got the answers, one about overtime who is entitled to it, who's exempt, who's not exempt. The answer I got was    98  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  only DPW supervisors. I'm saying in management capacity. Only DPW supervisor managers are eligible for overtime, one fleet coordinator, one recycling coordinator, one refuse foreman.  These titles are obviously going to  change in next year's budget. But to my understanding, they are the only : that could receive overtime. Or they're not exempt from  it.  The second one was what's the total  dollar going to be : what's the total dollar amount going to be for the proposed : 12 new proposed positions. And that's inclusive of insurance and benefit : pension benefit. So them 12 new positions : proposed new positions are going to cost the taxpayers $710,960. A11  right.  That's not including the proposed  increases for some : for a select few. Like I said, I like to get the information back. I'm not happy with this one, number two. And then also, my question posed was why was the fleet manager : why is not the fleet manager handling the fuel card reports because I  thought they were.    99  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  It thought that was part of his  position, the reason for the hire. The fleet manager doesn't do that. Reports to the DPW director, okay. Responsible for the (inaudible) of the City, (inaudible) spot  vehicle assets.  This includes scheduled maintenance,  working with department manager to plan replacement or additions and the sale and  disposal of retired vehicles.  The fuel card management now has  been moved to the Business Administrator's office. This is to centralize controls for all the City departments including managing the request of allocation of cards, billing and payments. So thank you for answering my questions. And that is all I have.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Thank you. Dr.  Rothchild, any motions or comments?  DR. ROTHCHILD: Yes, I just have a  couple of quick comments. First off, over the weekend I had received some concerns and complaints over the new route to get to the Nay Aug Christmas lights that the Scranton Police  Department announced last week.    100  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  So, you know, the proposed route or  way that they were asking vehicles to travel was through Vine Street up to Arthur Avenue sO that Mulberry Street did not get clogged up with vehicles and that emergency vehicles could still get through to the hospital up there.  And I know I passed by over the  weekend and noticed there was still a very long line of vehicles down Mulberry Street. And so Ih heard from a couple of local residents and neighbors that are having problems with it. And, you know, obviously the concerns for the  hospital still stand.  And, I mean, I reached out to a few  of the people who are working on the light show to find out from them what other ways : what other things she can do to help resolve it or make it easier. And I think they are working with the administration  with the Mayor's administration and also with Geisinger to find  a better way.  So I just wanted to, like, provide a  brief update on that hoping for a quick solution since we still do have a few more weeks the light show will be held. And it's    101  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the weekends in particular that get pretty busy  and lined up with cars.  So there's probably a lot of people  who just might not be aware that they are asking people to use Vine Street instead. But even Vine Street could get just as backed up. It was going down Harrison Avenue and it was also going all the way down to Mulberry to where the Domino's and the gas station is.  The other thing that I wanted to  bring up and I know Councilman Donahue and Solicitor Hayes may also want to speak to this. We didn't get a chance really to bring this up yet but about our call that we had earlier with representative from American Water to discuss  the Birch Street issue.  So we have a couple of updates there  so the residents are aware of the situation and where they're at with the repairs. Solicitor Hayes, I know you had specifically included some of the things in your e-mail. I don't know if you wanted to summarize the call.  ATTY. HAYES: Sure. So yesterday  Councilman Donahue and Dr. Rothchild and I participated in a call with Maureen Coleman    102  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  from Pennsylvania American Water. The purpose of the call was to obtain an update on the longstanding project in South Scranton.  Specifically the project is being  performed by Pennsylvania American Water in reaction to : or as a result of a consent decree issued by the EPA for past violation by the Sewer Authority. You need to put in a holding tank for : to prevent situations where there's a storm and combined sewer  or combined sanitary and stormwater sewer go into  the Lackawanna River.  We : Dr. Rothchild and Councilman  Donahue raised the issue that this project was supposed to be completed last we heard was September. Then we heard the end of this year. What Mrs. Coleman explained to us was that they encountered delays due in part to supply issues  from Canada during the pandemic.  They had encountered some surface  conditions which were difficult considering it was in a land mine : a coal mine area. But the long and short of it is the report that : the report that we received is that the project should be completed by the end of April of    103  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2021.  At that time, the general contractor  Pioneer Construction or its subcontractor wi1l do a full restoration of the roadways that were impacted, those being Birch Street, Willow Street and Bergen Court. In addition, the, you know, the construction of this impacting most residents is the closure of Birch Street.  That should be completed by - that  aspect of the construction project should be completed by the end of February. And that road would be open at that point in time.  So she was very responsive to our  questions. They provided us with a 1-800 number that residents can contact with any questions or complaints they have. And that could be put in, you know, maybe Third Order for next week's meeting because I have that here so the residents have it. I don't know if, Kyle, you want to add anything.  MR. DONAHUE: No, I mean, I think it  was a good explanation of what, you know, what the delays in the project were. But I think, you know, from our perspective moving forward we have figure out, you know, some sort of    104  solution to where a project, you know, of this scope doesn't take, you know, two years and shut down a residential street for two years.  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  t think that's something on our end  that we have to try to figure out a way to avoid, you know, moving forward.  DR. ROTHCHILD: I agree. I don't  think it should have gotten to this point. And H know they have provided a lot of information on how much work has gone into this and the scale of the project, which I can appreciate.  But still, you know, I don't feel  like it should have taken this long and gotten to this point. And, you know, I think we're going to continue to stay on top of them. But it keeps getting extended. And sounds like they"11 be done with the Birch Street portion  earlier than the Willow Street.  Ib believe there was another street  involved too. At least Birch Street will be opened earlier. I think she was estimating end  of February with that, correct?  ATTY. HAYES: That's right. DR. ROTHCHILD: But by April/May,  that would be the full restoration with    105  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  complete paving. And we want to make sure that's all completed to standards. No one should be left with, you know, with a rocky  road after this is completed.  ATTY. HAYES: Right.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Anything else? DR. ROTHCHILD: No, that's it from  me. Thank you.  MR. GAUGHAN: Okay. Thank you.  And, Councilman Donahue, any motions or  comments?  MR. DONAHUE: No, I was just going  to mention a little of that. And also, a couple weeks ago I know I had brought up an issue regarding a storm drain on Emmett Street. We did get correspond back this week that it's been put on the schedule for PA American Water to fix that storm drain. So hopefully in the next couple weeks that gets fixed. And that's  all I have.  MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you. I just  have a couple things. First, I just want to make : or clarify one point that I made during our caucus with Portnoff. So when I mentioned amnesty program or grace period, I just want to    106  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  be very clear that I am not saying that people should be forgiven the entire amount or should get away with something and not pay anything.  What I'm simply saying is, over the  years we do the same thing over and over and over again to the point of what I think is diminishing returns. So we have not been able to collect a few million dollars in  delinquencies from 2002 to 2020 to the present  time.  We are in need of revenue. I would  rather come up with some sort of plan or program  and I mentioned this in the past : ap plan or program to have people come forward and to pay what they owe the City, if that's possible because if we don't do that, then we are going to look next year at a 4 million dollar shortfall and potentially using that OPEB trust money, which I don't agree with or  refinancing.  I think this gives the City an  opportunity to collect potentially a significant amount of money. To me, this is about revenue. As Councilman Donahue said, clearing the books. There are people who owe a    107  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  significant amount of money. And I really don't think that tacking on more fees and liens and everything else is going to bring in, you know, the type of revenue to our coffers right  away that we will need next year.  And again, as I said, we do the same  thing over and over and over again. So are we going to, you know, maximize the collections for the City or are we just going to increase the dollar amount of the liens that are obtained which makes it more and more difficult  to collect those past amounts.  And again, this setup with Portnoff  or any collector for that matter in the beginning it mostly benefits law firms first and the City secondarily. So what I'm simply saying is, give people a chance to come forward who have not come forward in the past for  whatever reason.  And we can't get blood from a stone  and see if they will come forward if we give a grace period : a one-time grace period for a certain number of weeks or months or whatever that might look like. So that's what I was suggesting not that we would forgive, you know,    108  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  all past amounts or anything to that effect.  So again, if we're talking about  revenue, here's an idea. Why not try it? I don't believe in the City's history we've done it in the past. So I don't think it would hurt at all. I only think that we would gain more revenue coming into the City's coffers.  We did receive a response from the  Scranton Sewer Authority. And we -- I had asked for the balance of the two escrow accounts. And they are as follows:  There's a class action easement  escrow. Right now there is $11,509,586.87 in that escrow account. There's a second escrow account in the amount of 54,833,210.58. We did ask for a timeline on when those funds may be released and, you know, what that process looks  like.  And they replied that the matter is  still an ongoing litigation. So there is a significant -- the bottom line is, there's a significant amount of money still outstanding. What those amounts look like after the litigation is solved, I don't know. But there should be some money at least coming to the    109  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  City. I think it goes 80/20. So that's  Scranton and Dunmore.  Mrs. Reed, I requested I think maybe  two weeks ago a copy of the workers' compensation reserve analysis and loss forecast. We usually receive a copy of this with the budget at the end of the year. We did not this year. So if we can request that before next week if it's available I would appreciate it. And that is all I have for this  week. Thank you.  MS. REED: Thank you. 5-B. FOR  INTRODUCTION - A RESOLUTION = ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM BRAYER'S TOWING LOCATED AT 1013 FERDINAND STREET, SCRANTON, PA FOR THE USE OF A PORTABLE LIGHT STAND USED TO ILLUMINATE THE KEYSER VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOT WHICH SERVED AS A POLLING LOCATION THE NIGHT OF  NOVEMBER 3, 2020, ELECTION DAY.  MR. GAUGHAN: At this time I'17  entertain a motion that Item 5-B be introduced  into its proper committee.  DR. ROTHCHILD: So moved. MR. DONAHUE: So moved. MR. SCHUSTER: Second.    110  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question?  A11 those in favor of introduction signify by  saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 5-C. FOR INTRODUCTION =  A RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING DONATIONS PROVIDED TO THE CITY TO AID IN THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO ITS EFFORTS TO COMBAT THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.  MR. GAUGHAN: At this time I'11  entertain a motion that Item 5-C be introduced  into its proper committee.  MR. DONAHUE: So moved. DR. ROTHCHILD: Second. MR. GAUGHAN: On the question?  A17 those in favor of introduction signify by  saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.    111  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 5-D. FOR INTRODUCTION =  A RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND OTHER APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO A MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SCRANTON, HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED ("LESSOR") AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, WITH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICES AT ONE VERIZON WAY, MAIL STOP 4AW100, BASKING RIDGE, NEW JERSEY 07920 ("LESSEE") TO LEASE SPACE TO LESSEE WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR SITES AT WHICH LESSEE WISHES TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE, SMALL CELL  COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, AS WELL AS ANY AND ALL NECESSARY LEASE SUPPLEMENTS OUTLINED  HEREIN.  MR. GAUGHAN: Thank you, Mrs. Reed.  At this time I'11 entertain a motion that Item 5-D be introduced into its proper committee.  MR. DONAHUE: So moved. DR. ROTHCHILD: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? On  the question, unless I missed it in here, I would like to know if they have any idea how    112  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  many poles these antennas are going to go on and where are they located in the City. So if we can get an idea before next week.  And then when I was looking through  it, I think the amount that the City is going to get per pole is $270. And there's a $100 one-time application fee. So those are two  questions that I have.  So, Mrs. Reed, if you could follow  up with the City administration just to find out again where these poles are going to be located throughout the City. Anyone else on the question? A17 those in favor of introduction signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 5-E. FOR INTRODUCTION -  A - RESOLUTION - CEREMONIOUSLY DEDICATING "JOE BIDEN WAY" AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH WASHINGTON AVENUE AND FISK STREET IN HONOR OF  PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN.    113  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. GAUGHAN: At this time I'11  entertain a motion that Item 5-E be introduced  into its proper committee.  MR. DONAHUE: So moved. DR. ROTHCHILD: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? On  the question, I just want to say I'm thrilled, first of all, I'm thrilled that we have no matter what political party you belong to or what your political affiliation is, I think we should all be thrilled and excited that someone who was born and raised in Scranton for the first 10 years of his life is going to be President of the United States and he lived right on North Washington Avenue.  It's a great honor for the City.  You know, I had the honor and pleasure of seeing Joe Biden on Election Day when he came to Scranton. And I think, you know, better days are ahead definitely. And I think the City is going to play a major role now in the White House and throughout country.  So this is a : was a great day for  the City of Scranton. Anyone else on the question? Okay. A1l those in favor of    114  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  introduction signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 5-F. FOR INTRODUCTION =  A RESOLUTION - APPOINTMENT OF JOHN JUDGE, 915 ELECTRIC STREET, SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA, 18509, TO THE POSITION OF SCRANTON FIRE CHIEF  EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 30, 2020.  MR. GAUGHAN: At this time I'17  entertain a motion that Item 5-F be introduced  into its proper committee.  MR. DONAHUE: So moved. MR. SCHUSTER: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? Yes,  on the question, I have one concern about this, And it's not about John Judge personally because I'm sure he would be a good Fire Chief.  But in looking at the resume that  was submitted by Mr. Judge back when he was appointed as the acting Fire Chief, one of the things that stuck out to me is that he    115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  currently is a part-time police officer in  South Abington Township.  And it says according to his resume  that he is currently a part-time police officer. So my concern is, you know, this obviously being a Fire Chief in the City of Scranton is a full-time position on top of eventually, you know, transitioning probably into a role of Emergency Management  Coordinator.  So I would be concerned in how  someone could be a full time Fire Chief and also, you know, a police officer in South Abington Township. So, Mrs. Reed, if you can reach out, send correspondence to the Mayor and ask the Mayor if she's aware of this, number one, and number two; if Mr. Judge is still a police officer in South Abington Township and if someone could explain to me how he would be able to perform both positions. Anyone else on the question? Okay. A17 those in favor of introduction signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye.    116  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 5-G. FOR INTRODUCTION -  A RESOLUTION - APPOINTMENT OF ALEX MOLFETAS, 119 PENN AVENUE, SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA, 18503, AS A MEMBER OF THE SCRANTON PARKING AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 24, 2020. ALEX MOLFETAS WILL BE REPLACING THOMAS TANSITS WHOSE TERM EXPIRED. ALEX MOLFETAS WILL BE APPOINTED TO A FIVE (5) YEAR TERM EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 24, 2020  AND WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 1, 2025.  MR. GAUGHAN: At this time I'17  entertain a motion that Item 5-G be introduced  into its proper committee.  MR. DONAHUE: So moved. MR. SCHUSTER: Second. MR. GAUGHAN: On the question?  A11 those in favor of introduction signify by  saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The    117  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 5-H. FOR INTRODUCTION  A RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND OTHER APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON POLICE  DEPARTMENT A GRANT FROM THE PNC FOUNDATION FOR FAIR AND IMPARTIAL POLICE TRAINING PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED  ($7,500.00) DOLLARS.  MR. GAUGHAN: At this time I'11  entertain a motion that Item 5-H be introduced  into its proper committee.  MR. DONAHUE: So moved. MR. MCANDREW: Second. MR. GAUGHAN: On the question?  A11 those in favor of introduction signify by  saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: SIXTH ORDER. 6-A.  READING BY TITLE - FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 38,    118  2020 - AN ORDINANCE - AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 6, 1976 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE (AS AMENDED) IMPOSING A TAX FOR GENERAL REVENUE PURPOSES ON THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY SITUATE WITHIN THE CITY OF SCRANTON; PRESCRIBING AND REGULATING THE METHOD OF EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX; CONFERRING POWERS AND IMPOSING DUTIES UPON CERTAIN PERSONS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES, BY IMPOSING THE RATE OF THE REALTY TRANSFER TAX AT TWO AND TWO TENTHS PERCENT (2.2%) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2021 AND THE SAME SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  AND EFFECT ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.  MR. DONAHUE: You're muted, Bill. MR. GAUGHAN: Oh, sorry about that.  You've heard reading by title of Item 6-A.  What is your pleasure?  MR. DONAHUE: I move that Item 6-A  pass reading by title.  MR. SCHUSTER: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? A11  those in favor signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye.    119  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 6-B. READING BY TITLE -  FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 39, 2020 - AN ORDINANCE - AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 148, 1986, ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 98, 1976, AS AMENDED, AND IMPOSING A MERCANTILE LICENSE TAX OF 2  MILLS FOR THE YEAR 1987 AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER UPON PERSONS ENGAGING IN CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS AND BUSINESSES THEREIN; PROVIDING FOR ITS LEVY AND COLLECTION AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MERCANTILE LICENSES; CONFERRING AND IMPOSING POWERS AND DUTIES UPON THE TAX COLLECTOR OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON; AND IMPOSING PENALTIES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1987", BY IMPOSING THE MERCANTILE LICENSE TAX AT ONE (1) MILL (.001) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2021 AND THE SAME SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ANNUALLY  THEREAFTER.  MR. GAUGHAN: You've heard reading  by title of Item 6-B. What is your pleasure?  MR. DONAHUE: I move that Item 6-B  pass reading by title.    120  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. SCHUSTER: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? A1l  those in favor signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 6-C. READING BY TITLE -  FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 40, 2020 - AN ORDINANCE - AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 147, 1986, ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE GENERAL REVENUE BY IMPOSING A TAX AT THE RATE OF TWO (2) MILLS UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING OR CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF SCRANTON AS MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS THEREFROM; REQUIRING REGISTRATION AND PAYMENT OF THE TAX AS CONDITION TO THE CONDUCTING OF SUCH BUSINESS; PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF SUCH TAX; PRESCRIBING SUCH REQUIREMENTS FOR RETURNS AND RECORDS; CONFERRING POWERS AND DUTIES UPON THE TAX COLLECTOR; AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY IMPOSING THE BUSINESS PRIVILEGE TAX AT THE RATE OF ONE    121  (1) MILL (.001) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2021 AND THE SAME SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.  MR. GAUGHAN: You've heard reading  by title of Item 6-C. What is your pleasure?  MR. DONAHUE: I move that Item 6-C  pass reading by title.  MR. MCANDREW: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? A11  those in favor signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and so moved.  MS. REED: 6-D. READING BY TITLE =  FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 41, 2020 - AN ORDINANCE - AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 11, 1976, ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE (AS AMENDED) ENACTING, IMPOSING A TAX FOR GENERAL  REVENUE PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF TWO PERCENT (2%) ON EARNED INCOME AND NET PROFITS ON PERSONS, INDIVIDUALS, ASSOCIATIONS AND BUSINESSES WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF    122  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  SCRANTON, OR NON-RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON, FOR WORK DONE, SERVICES  PERFORMED OR BUSINESS CONDUCTED WITHIN THE CITY OF SCRANTON, REQUIRING THE FILING OF RETURNS BY TAXPAYERS SUBJECT TO THE TAX; REQUIRING EMPLOYERS TO COLLECT THE TAX AT SOURCE; PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAID TAX; AND IMPOSING  PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATIONS, BY  RE-ENACTING THE IMPOSITION OF THE WAGE TAX AT TWO AND FOUR TENTHS (2.4%) PERCENT ON EARNED INCOME FOR RESIDENTS AND ONE (1%) PERCENT ON EARNED INCOME FOR NON-RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON, FOR WORK DONE, SERVICES PERFORMED OR BUSINESS CONDUCTED WITHIN THE CITY OF SCRANTON FOR THE YEAR 2021 AND THE SAME SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ANNUALLY THEREAFTER. Ordinance-2020 Earned Income Tax 2021.pdf 6.E READING BY TITLE - FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 42, 2020 - AN ORDINANCE - AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 100, 1976, ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE (AS AMENDED) LEVYING GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1977", BY SETTING THE MILLAGE FOR THE YEAR 2021 AND THE SAME SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ANNUALLY    123  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  THEREAFTER.  MR. GAUGHAN: You've heard reading  by title of Item 6-D. What is your pleasure?  MR. DONAHUE: I move that Item 6-D  pass reading by title.  MR. SCHUSTER: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? A17  those in favor signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: 6-E. READING BY TITLE -  FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 42, 2020 - AN ORDINANCE = AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 100, 1976, ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE (AS AMENDED) LEVYING GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1977", BY SETTING THE MILLAGE FOR THE YEAR 2021 AND THE SAME SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.  MR. GAUGHAN: You've heard reading  by title of Item 6-E. What is your pleasure?  MR. DONAHUE: I move that Item 6-E    124  pass reading by title.  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. SCHUSTER: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? A11  those in favor signify by saying aye.  MR. SCHUSTER: Aye. MR. MCANDREW: Aye. MR. DONAHUE: Aye. DR. ROTHCHILD: Aye.  MR. GAUGHAN: Aye. Opposed? The  ayes have it and sO moved.  MS. REED: SEVENTH ORDER. 7-A. FOR  CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - FOR ADOPTION - RESOLUTION NO. 102, 2020 = RATIFYING AND APPROVING OF THE EXECUTION AND SUBMISSION OF THE GRANT  APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF SCRANTON, ON BEHALF OF SCRANTON CULTURAL CENTER AT THE MASONIC TEMPLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ACTING THROUGH THE COMMONWEALTH FINANCING AUTHORITY FOR A LOCAL SHARE ACCOUNT GRANT, PURSUANT TO THE PA RACE HORSE DEVELOPMENT AND GAMING ACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,928.00 FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY UPGRADE" LOCATED AT 420 N. WASHINGTON AVENUE, SCRANTON,    125  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  PENNSYLVANIA, AND AUTHORIZING THE  MAYOR AND OTHER APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA, TO ACCEPT THE GRANT, IF SUCCESSFUL, AND EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO A LOCAL SHARE ACCOUNT GRANT CONTRACT AND COMMITMENT LETTER WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TO ACCEPT AND UTILIZE THE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,928.00 AWARDED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR SUCH PROJECT.  MR. GAUGHAN: What is the  recommendation of Chairperson for the Committee  on Community Development?  DR. ROTHCHILD: As Chair for the  Committee on Community Development, I recommend  final passage of Item 7-A.  MR. SCHUSTER: Second. MR. DONAHUE: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? Roll  call, please.  MS. CARRERA: Mr. Schuster. MR SCHUSTER: Yes.  MS. CARRERA: Mr. McAndrew. MR. MCANDREW: Yes.  MS. CARRERA: Dr. Rothchild. DR. ROTHCHILD: Yes.    126  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MS. CARRERA: Mr. Donahue. MR. DONAHUE: Yes. MS. CARRERA: Mr. Gaughan.  MR. GAUGHAN: Yes. I hereby declare  Item 7-A legally and lawfully adopted.  MS. REED: 7-B. PREVIOUSLY  TABLED - FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE FOR ADOPTION - FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 36 2020 - AMENDING OF THE FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 6 2020 - AMENDING. FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 59 2019 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FILE OF THE COUNCIL NO. 17 1994 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AS AMENDED AUTHORIZING THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SCRANTON TO ENACT A WASTE DISPOSAL AND COLLECTION FEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING REVENUE TO COVER THE WASTE DISPOSAL AND COLLECTION COST INCURRED BY THE CITY OF SCRANTON FOR THE DISPOSAL OF REFUSE BY IMPOSING A WASTE DISPOSAL AND COLLECTION FEE OF $300 FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2021 AND THE SAME SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ANNUALLY THEREAFTER AND TO AMEND THE TIMELINE FOR PAYMENT ALLOWING CHANGE IN THE MECHANISM OF BILLING, UPDATE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXONERATION AND INCREASE  PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.    127  MR. GAUGHAN: And what is  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  recommendation of the Chairperson for the  Committee on Finance?  MR. SCHUSTER: As the Chairperson  for the Committee on Finance, I recommend  passage of Item 7-B.  MR. GAUGHAN: Is there a second? MR. MCANDREW: Second.  MR. GAUGHAN: On the question? On  the question, I'm going be in favor of this putting the refuse bill on the real estate tax bill. I think it really boils down to common sense. And this will, number one, make it more efficient; number two, it will streamline the  process for taxpayers.  So I think, you know, when you boil  everything down it makes sense. And I was : we were assured tonight by the City Treasurer that there are, you know, pieces in place where this is going to be able to be managed and was  one of my concerns.  And again, they assured us that, you  know, that was going to be taken care of. Anyone else on the question? Roll call,  please.    128  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MS. CARRERA: Mr. Schuster. MR. SCHUSTER: Yes. MS. CARRERA: Mr. McAndrew. MR. MCANDREW: Yes.  MS. CARRERA: Dr. Rothchild. DR. ROTHCHILD: Yes. MS. CARRERA: Mr. Donahue. MR. DONAHUE: Yes. MS. CARRERA: Mr. Gaughan.  MR. GAUGHAN: Yes. I hereby declare  Item 7-B legally and lawfully adopted. If there is no further business, I'11 entertain a  motion to adjourn.  MR. DONAHUE: Motion to adjourn. MR. GAUGHAN: This meeting is  adjourned. Thank you everyone. Have a good  night.    129  CERTIFICATE  2 3  I hereby certify that the proceedings and  4 evidence are contained fully and accurately in the 5 notes taken by me of the above-cause and that this copy 6 is a correct transcript of the same to the best of my  7 ability. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  Maria McCool, RPR Official Court Reporter  22 (The foregoing certificate of this transcript does not 23 apply to any reproduction of the same by any means 24 unless under the direct control and/or supervision of  25 the certifying reporter.)