2  CITY COUNCIL



             CITY OF NEW YORK






                       of the







         10                 December 5, 2003

                            Start:  1:25 p.m.

         11                 Recess: 3:05 p.m.


         12                 City Hall

                            Council Chambers

         13                 New York, New York



                  B E F O R E:


                         MADELINE PROVENZANO

         16                                Chairperson,



                         COUNCIL MEMBERS:   Jose Rivera

         18                                 Diana Reyna

                                            Tony Avella

         19                                 Gale Brewer

                                            Leroy Comrie

         20                                 Robert Jackson

                                            Kendall Stewart

         21                                 Erik Dilan

                                            Christine Quinn

         22                                 Charles Barron





                         17 Battery Place ‑  Suite 1308

         25              New York, New York 10004

                              (800) 756‑3410












          2  A P P E A R A N C E S



             Dr. Thomas Frieden

          4  Commissioner

             New York City Department of Health

          5  and Mental Hygiene


          6  Jerilyn Perine


          7  New York City Department of Housing Preservation

             and Development


             Linda Gibbs

          9  Commissioner

             New York City Department of Homeless Services


             Wilfredo Lopez

         11  General Counsel for HUD

             New York City Department of Health

         12  and Mental Hygiene


         13  Harold Schultz

             Special Counsel

         14  New York City Department of Housing Preservation

             and Development


































          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: If things


          3  look a little confusing, they are.  This is what,


          4  Bill, fourth, fifth hearing?


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  That's a


          6  good number.


          7                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  We'd like to


          8  move it along as quickly as possible.  For those of


          9  you that don't know, there's a storm outside and


         10  we'd like people to get home quickly and safely, so


         11  I'm asking everybody to be as brief as possible.


         12                 We'll start with Council Member


         13  Perkins, who promised me he had a brief opening


         14  statement.


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Thank you


         16  very much, Madam Chair, for your cooperation and the


         17  opportunity to make a brief opening statement.


         18                 I am disappointed that the


         19  administration walked away from the negotiating


         20  table at the eleventh hour when the health and


         21  wellbeing of New York City's children is at stake.


         22  This bill is the most comprehensive, effective lead


         23  bill legislation in the country.


         24                 Further, it is a reasonable and


         25  approachable bill that addresses the legislative













          2  concerns of the administration while still


          3  protecting the health of children.  I urge the Mayor


          4  to take another look at this bill and invite him to


          5  join us in passing sweeping legislation that will


          6  ultimately save hundreds of thousands of children in


          7  our city from the hazards of lead paint and lead


          8  paint poisoning.  Thank you very much.


          9                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  That was


         10  very brief, Bill.


         11                 We have Tom Frieden from the


         12  Department of Health and Mental Health.  We have


         13  Jerilyn Perine from HPD, and we have Linda Gibbs


         14  from the Department of Homeless Services.  So


         15  whichever one of you wants to start first.


         16                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  Good


         17  afternoon.  I'm Dr. Thomas Frieden, Commissioner of


         18  Health and Mental Hygiene.  I appreciate the


         19  opportunity to speak with the Council, this City


         20  Council Committee on Housing and Buildings and other


         21  members of the Council about lead poisoning


         22  prevention in New York City and the latest version


         23  of Intro. 101A.


         24                 We're all concerned with stopping


         25  lead poisoning in New York City.  Several weeks ago













          2  I testified before you about Intro. 101A.  I


          3  addressed components that, with some slight


          4  modification to ensure, a law would protect those at


          5  greatest need would allow us to achieve our goals.


          6  Most of those concerns appear to have been addressed


          7  in the latest version of the bill, however there are


          8  still issues of concern.  It would be irresponsible


          9  to rush into a law that has such wide ramifications


         10  for the city's health and for the city's housing and


         11  that includes components that have potentially very


         12  large costs but which do little or nothing to


         13  address lead poisoning and to prevent it in our


         14  children.


         15                 I'll briefly review these issues with


         16  you. First is the issue of a chewable surface under


         17  the latest version of the bill.  In the latest


         18  version, landlords would be required to remediate


         19  all window sills in all pre‑ 1960 buildings in every


         20  neighborhood in New York City where there's a child


         21  under the age of seven.  There are an estimated


         22  350,000 dwelling units in New York City with such a


         23  child.  Assuming for a moment that an average of


         24  eight window sills per dwelling unit, that's 2.8


         25  window sills which need to be remediated in the near













          2  future.  No matter how stringently work practices


          3  are monitored, it is quite possible that some of


          4  that remediation will involve the generation of lead


          5  dust and that unintentionally that component could


          6  result in more rather than less lead poisoning.


          7                 Remediation of window sills should be


          8  predicated on a real risk of poisoning.  The best


          9  scientific knowledge suggests that most childhood


         10  lead poisoning results from hand‑ to‑ mouth


         11  activity.  Remediation should be done where there's


         12  evidence that such a risk exists.  Thus, we


         13  recommend that chewable surfaces be defined as an


         14  edge or protrusion that has been chewed or is


         15  deteriorated or where an occupant has notified the


         16  owner that a child lives there has mouthed or chewed


         17  it.  In other words, either if it is actually


         18  deteriorated or if a parent or a family member or a


         19  child requests remedial action.  We're not saying it


         20  shouldn't be done, we're saying it doesn't make


         21  sense to do this in nearly 3 million window sills in


         22  short order because you may actually cause more lead


         23  poisoning than you prevent. We know there's a risk


         24  of causing lead poisoning when you disrupt intact


         25  lead paint.  We're not certain that doing this will













          2  prevent many or even any cases of lead poisoning.


          3                 Second, we want to emphasize once


          4  again the need for realistic time lines.  It is the


          5  owner's obligation to correct the hazards and the


          6  owner needs adequate time to do this.  HPD will


          7  discuss most of the time line issues, but I do want


          8  to discuss one that specifically pertains to the


          9  Health Department.  The current version requires


         10  that we certify to HPD any dwelling unit where the


         11  landlord failed to comply with the order to correct


         12  the violation.  We support this provision as we do


         13  so many other provisions in this version of the


         14  bill.


         15                 New York City is one of the only, if


         16  not the only place in the U.S. Where a city will


         17  correct a hazard when the landlord fails to do so.


         18  But the current bill requires that this


         19  certification be completed within 16 days of the


         20  report of the elevated blood lead level.  This is a


         21  problem.  When a blood lead test is received, the


         22  Health Department inspector goes out within an


         23  average of about two days.  However, there are


         24  situations where access into a dwelling unit is not


         25  successful.  Sometimes the family's out of town.













          2  Sometimes the family is not easily found. Physicians


          3  frequently don't accurately write an address on the


          4  blood test request requisition slip.  Sometimes it's


          5  not the family's primary residence or address.


          6  Until we get into a home we don't know if there's a


          7  lead‑ based paint hazard at all.  And in about 40%


          8  of the addresses we don't find a lead paint hazard.


          9  Once we identify a violation we issue a legal order


         10  to the landlord to abate.  It takes several days to


         11  prepare that order so it will stand up in court if


         12  it's challenged, as it often is, or sometimes is,


         13  and it takes some time to serve it or have it arrive


         14  at the landlord.  The landlord is then given five


         15  days to correct. Certifying to HPD within 16 days is


         16  neither efficient nor effective.  In many cases the


         17  landlord would have begun doing the work and we will


         18  now have HPD trying to do the work as well.


         19                 We recommend a simple change in this


         20  provision, that the provision specify that the


         21  certification process be completed within 16 days of


         22  the date of identification of lead‑ based paint


         23  hazards.  The implementation time for this


         24  legislation is also unrealistic.  As you know, the


         25  discussion of this legislation has been going on for













          2  many months.  The legal, technical and


          3  administrative aspects of implementation are


          4  extraordinarily complex.  We want to get it right.


          5  We should proceed with speed but not with


          6  irresponsible haste. It will take months to


          7  promulgate regulations, hold public hearings on


          8  those regulations, analyze and incorporate the many


          9  comments which we are inevitably going to receive,


         10  establish procedures for implementation and ensure


         11  effective implementation.  It may be easy to set a


         12  deadline but ensuring that doing so doesn't


         13  unintentionally lead to longer delays and effective


         14  implementation of effective legislation is much


         15  harder.


         16                 At the last hearing the Council


         17  requested cost estimates.  Since we only received


         18  the bill very late last night, I can't give you an


         19  exact estimate, but we remain concerned in


         20  particular about the costly item of monitoring work


         21  practices for large jobs for a variety of reasons,


         22  including liability concerns which would arise in


         23  all work done that covers more than a hundred square


         24  feet. This could cost the Department of Health $7


         25  million or much more than that and I don't think it













          2  would have a commensurate benefit in preventing lead


          3  poisoning.  This could be rectified with a


          4  relatively minor change in the wording of the


          5  legislation.


          6                 I'm also concerned about the


          7  provision for cleaning dust when no significant


          8  lead‑ based paint hazard has been identified.  The


          9  bill currently only allows us to order the landlord


         10  to clean it if we determine that the source of dust


         11  is from the dwelling.  The bill should more


         12  specifically allow the department to order the


         13  landlord to clean if there are no lead‑ based paint


         14  hazards in ‑‑ we should be able to order cleaning if


         15  there are lead‑ based paint hazards in the dwelling


         16  unit or in adjacent common areas.  Moreover, this


         17  should be specified which I believe was intended for


         18  children with blood lead levels of 15 or greater.


         19                 As you know, my scientific judgment


         20  is that changing the current practice of covering


         21  children under six, established pursuant to the now


         22  voided Local Law 38 covering children under seven,


         23  would be a serious error.


         24  The current draft legislation is an improvement as


         25  it allows the Board of Health to reduce the age to













          2  six or under six after one year.


          3                 I want to make clear that our concern


          4  on this issue has everything to do with preventing


          5  lead poisoning in our city's children.  By


          6  increasing the size of the population covered by


          7  15%, and that's what increasing the age by a year


          8  would do, all of this increase, being among children


          9  who are at vastly lower risk for lead poisoning and


         10  who would receive vastly lowered benefit from


         11  intervention, you reduce at any funding level the


         12  effectiveness of lead poisoning prevention efforts


         13  by 15%.  Let me reiterate, this is not an issue of


         14  resource allocation.  If a hundred million dollars


         15  is being spent on the program, it will be 15% less


         16  than it would be otherwise.  If a billion dollars is


         17  spent on the program, it'll be 15% less effective


         18  than it would be otherwise.


         19                 Younger children account for the vast


         20  majority of those who are lead poisoned.  The number


         21  of children with lead poisoning peaks at two years


         22  of age.


         23  Children under three play on the floor more.  They


         24  have more exposure to lead dust.  This is the age at


         25  which they have the most hand‑ to‑ mouth activity













          2  which exposes them to lead dust from their hands,


          3  toys and bottles.  This is the age when their


          4  developing nervous system is most susceptible to the


          5  harmful effects of lead.  This is the age at which a


          6  child's elevated levels are most likely to be


          7  related to exposures in their own home versus


          8  exposures elsewhere. This is the age at which


          9  intervention to lower blood lead levels are more


         10  likely to be successful.  This is the age at which


         11  interventions to lower blood lead levels will have


         12  the most positive impact on child development.  All


         13  of these factors are very different among six year


         14  old children. Older children have a much lower rate


         15  of poisoning, are much less likely to be exposed in


         16  their home and, if exposed, it's less likely for


         17  that exposure to have their levels reduced as a


         18  result of environmental intervention.


         19                 I understand that beyond the issue of


         20  the merits of the decision of whether to cover six


         21  year olds or not, there are issues of environmental


         22  review.  There's apparently concern that if the


         23  nonimplemented Local Law 1 age of under seven is


         24  changed to under six, this could be harmful.  In


         25  fact, the opposite is the case.  If the number of













          2  low risk children covered increases by 15%, then


          3  there will inevitably be more lead poisoning than


          4  there would be at any level of resource allocation


          5  than there would be if the current practice of under


          6  six is continued.


          7                 Any law can have unintended


          8  consequences.  In the case of housing, unintended


          9  consequences could potentially include decreased


         10  availability of apartments for children with


         11  families and increased homelessness.  We're all too


         12  familiar with the negative health consequences of


         13  homelessness and unstable housing.  Homeless


         14  children are less healthy.  Neighborhoods with more


         15  abandoned property are less healthy.  There are also


         16  potentially legal unintended consequences including


         17  a large increase in taxpayer costs as a result of


         18  compliance impossibility with proposed time frames,


         19  or landlord irresponsibility or because of a


         20  plethora of lawsuits.


         21                 As Health Commissioner, I hope that


         22  the cost resulting from this law go toward


         23  preventing lead poisoning. We're close.  Many of the


         24  changes in the statute, in the draft statute, are


         25  changes which are more protective of children.  Many













          2  of the changes would make the draft statute more


          3  possible to implement.  There are a few remaining


          4  issues which unless resolved would result in a


          5  statute that could have very negative unintended


          6  consequences and would not devote the resources that


          7  we need to devote to lead poisoning prevention to


          8  the most effective measures of stopping lead


          9  poisoning in New York City.


         10                 It is for that reason, regretfully,


         11  because I hope that we will have a good law that we


         12  can agree on and implement rapidly but, regretfully,


         13  despite all of the areas that there has been


         14  significant progress, I would be unable to recommend


         15  that this law become effective at this point.


         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you,


         17  Dr. Frieden.  You don't have copies of your


         18  testimony?  Yeah, I know things were kind of rushed.




         20                 Now that it looks like I have several


         21  Council members here, let me introduce the folks


         22  that are here.  I am Madeline Provenzano, Chair of


         23  the committee.  To my left I have Council Member


         24  Tony Avella.  Next to him is Council Member Eric


         25  Dilan, Council Member Kendall Stewart.  Council













          2  Member Christine Quinn is in front of us.  To my


          3  right Council Member Leroy Comrie, Councilwoman


          4  Diana Reyna, Councilman Bill Perkins, Council Member


          5  Joel Rivera.  I'm actually ‑‑ I was afraid I was


          6  going to be sitting here by myself today so I'm glad


          7  to see that so many members joined me.


          8                 I think what we'll do is let all of


          9  the commissioners testify and then we'll have


         10  questions.


         11                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Good morning ‑‑


         12  good afternoon, Chairperson Provenzano, members of


         13  the Housing and Buildings Committee.  My name is


         14  Jerilyn Perine.  I'm the Commissioner of the


         15  Department of Housing, Preservation and Development.


         16    I'd like to start by just clarifying for the


         17  record that we did not walk away from any


         18  negotiations last night.  I was here myself 'til


         19  quite late.  We basically, when language and


         20  comments that we made were not accepted, we went


         21  home.  We wouldn't be here today if we didn't think


         22  that there was a case to be made for some additional


         23  changes, and the points we would like to outline we


         24  hope will be able to be a step towards doing that.


         25  We remain willing to continue to talk.  That's why













          2  we're here.


          3                 When I testified before this


          4  committee on November 17th, I stated that the


          5  proposed bill was a big step forward in the


          6  direction of improving the lives of children.


          7  However, we believe that some technical and


          8  procedural changes were required to have a better


          9  primary prevention program than we have had to date.


         10    Unfortunately, a review of the proposed


         11  legislation leads me to feel that it falls short of


         12  our expectations of a bill that we had hoped would


         13  strengthen our enforcement capacity and provide a


         14  workable framework to reduce lead pain hazards in


         15  the city's most vulnerable housing stock.


         16                 I've testified at least twice before


         17  this committee and both times I've emphasized that


         18  legislative time frames must be reasonable if we are


         19  to send a message that we are serious about carrying


         20  out the required work according to the standards


         21  that we all agree should be put in place.  Time


         22  frames that are unrealistic only ensure failure and


         23  noncompliance and will do little to protect the


         24  health of children at risk and improve the city's


         25  housing stock.













          2                 The City of New York is the only


          3  municipality in the country that carries out a large


          4  scale emergency repair program which completes


          5  emergency work in multiple dwellings when owners


          6  fail to correct the work themselves. Our employees,


          7  working within the constraints of the city's


          8  procurement rules, budget limitations, work rules


          9  and with all the difficulty associated with carrying


         10  out repairs in the housing stock that we do not own


         11  or control access to, have corrected over 10,000


         12  lead pain violations over the last three years alone


         13  at a cost of more than $13 million.


         14                 In short, HPD has had more experience


         15  doing work to correct lead violations than any other


         16  municipality or property owner in the country.  So


         17  if we indicate that time frames cannot be met, our


         18  view is not based on conjecture but rather on the


         19  most extensive body of work in the United States.


         20  We say again the time frames in the proposed


         21  legislation, although somewhat altered in this


         22  draft, remain difficult to comply with, particularly


         23  for HPD to follow up with emergency repair if needed


         24  and complete a final inspection when owners have


         25  undertaken the work themselves.  They are simply not













          2  realistic.  Changing them would ensure that the work


          3  can be carried out in accordance with the stated


          4  objective of the bill, that is to prevent lead paint


          5  poisoning in children.  Leaving them as they are


          6  will undoubtedly create a situation where our


          7  workforce, which is diligent, hard working and


          8  committed to enforcing housing standards will be


          9  doomed to fail.  Nowhere in the bill is there


         10  language that would ensure that the city is


         11  protected against liability as it undertakes its


         12  heavy responsibilities under the law, not as a


         13  landlord but as a regulator.  The language that as


         14  in the previous bill protected the city and that


         15  language should be in this bill as well.


         16                 We have also had serious operational


         17  concerns with the provision in the law that require


         18  HPD to reinspect every lead violation it issues


         19  within a very short period of time.  And our


         20  inability to rely on the presumption of lead paint


         21  when we are unable to conduct or follow XRF


         22  inspection due to inability to gain access.


         23                 We continue to have concerns about


         24  requirements for recording intact services.  These


         25  will have the effect of reducing inspector













          2  productivity and reducing the number of apartments


          3  that will be inspected.  And let me make this clear,


          4  it is not simply a function of resources. Time


          5  frames must reflect the actual tasks that must be


          6  carried out which include getting access to a


          7  tenant's apartment multiple times, developing an


          8  adequate scope of work and safe work containment


          9  practices obtaining all the necessary materials,


         10  adequately documenting the process, ensuring that


         11  qualified workers are carrying out the work and


         12  completing all of the cleanup and final dust testing


         13  that must be done before work can be determined to


         14  be complete.


         15                 In addition, time frames must be


         16  suspended when for any reason we cannot gain access


         17  to a tenant's apartment or other unforeseen


         18  circumstances arise.  We simply cannot be held to a


         19  standard that requires us to carry out work or an


         20  inspection in someone's apartment with no


         21  opportunity for extension when access to the


         22  apartment is not provided.  Based on our experience


         23  in carrying out work under Local Law 38 to correct


         24  lead violations, approximately one‑ half of the work


         25  that has been completed through the Emergency Repair













          2  Program is completed within 60 days.  The other half


          3  takes more than 90 days, primarily because of access


          4  issues.  Appointments with tenants must be made and


          5  kept and we must make reasonable attempts to


          6  accommodate the needs of the tenants.


          7                 I want to be clear here.  I'm not


          8  talking about half of the jobs are not being done


          9  because people deny us access, it's that we're


         10  trying to accommodate people and their lives.  They


         11  have jobs and they have children and we've got to be


         12  able to get access to carry out fairly extensive


         13  work.  We try to work with people to accomplish


         14  that.


         15                 We should also be concerned with the


         16  unintended consequences of this law.  The failure to


         17  provide owners with a clear path to protection from


         18  tort suits may well have the same effect that it has


         19  had in Massachusetts. Massachusetts, which has a


         20  lead paint law which provides for strict liability,


         21  has experienced a pervasive problem with owners


         22  discriminating against families with children.  In


         23  New York with its substantial homeless and double‑


         24  up population, such families can ill afford the


         25  consequences of making it yet harder for low income













          2  families to find housing.  By holding landlords to


          3  clear standards, but protecting them from


          4  unrealistic risks, we can mitigate this problem.


          5                 And finally, the time provided for


          6  the proposed law's effective date is still


          7  insufficient and we do note that you have extended


          8  it, but we will think it's too short.  This is a


          9  very complex bill requiring the writing of complex


         10  rules which must be publicly promulgated, the hiring


         11  and training of many workers, public education of


         12  owners, reprogramming of a complex computer system


         13  and purchase of sophisticated equipment.


         14                 In addition, the rehabilitation work


         15  currently under way in the city would have to come


         16  into compliance with a new standard within 120 days,


         17  potentially stopping or delaying work that is


         18  already underway.  Simply by extending the time


         19  frame we could resolve many of these issues.


         20  Programs at the federal level that require far less


         21  stringent time frames and scope of work took many


         22  years to implement.  While we recognize that the


         23  revised version lengthens the effective date to 120


         24  days, we will believe that this bill will require a


         25  phase‑ in process longer than that if we are to be













          2  serious about implementing its provisions


          3  responsibly.


          4                 One example is the requirement that


          5  extensive rules including brand new ones that will


          6  govern safe work practices on all repair work be


          7  ready on the day the law goes into effect.  These


          8  rules will have a profound effect on the way that


          9  lead paint is handled in the city and should be


         10  carefully considered.  Doing these rules in 120 days


         11  is not reasonable or appropriate.


         12                 New York City has had one of the most


         13  aggressive programs of primary prevention in the


         14  United States.  We were the first city, almost the


         15  first city in the U.S. to ban lead paint in 1960.


         16  Now, lead hazard reduction law preceded the federal


         17  government's Title 10 rules and we have spent more


         18  money than any other municipality on direct work to


         19  reduce lead hazards.


         20                 In addition, as a result of an


         21  extended and significant public investment in the


         22  renovation of the city's low income housing stock,


         23  today we have the lowest dilapidation rate since it


         24  has been measured by the U.S. Census Bureau.


         25                 Once again, we believe that this













          2  proposed legislation has made significant


          3  improvements.  The proposed bill has come a very


          4  long way.  We hope now that it can come a little


          5  further.  If not, I am unable to recommend that the


          6  Mayor sign the bill in its current form.  The


          7  changes we are suggesting do not change any of the


          8  standards for lead safety that the law provides for.


          9    They are instead simply intended to create even


         10  stronger safeguards for our city's children and


         11  ensure that the city's housing stock remains in good


         12  repair for generations to come.  Thank you.


         13                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you,


         14  Commissioner.  We've been joined by Council Member


         15  Charles Baron.  I guess he didn't have enough of his


         16  committee. Commissioner?


         17                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  Good afternoon.


         18  My name is Linda Gibbs.  I'm the Commissioner of the


         19  New York City Department of Homeless Services.


         20                 In the City of New York today we


         21  provide shelter to a record 9,250 families.  This


         22  includes 17,000 children who are living in homeless


         23  shelters.  I'm here today to express concern that


         24  this legislation as currently written could have the


         25  effect of increasing family homelessness in New York













          2  City.  Let me explain.


          3                 Nearly 80% of the families in


          4  homeless shelters today come from doubled‑ up


          5  housing situations. Meaning that they are living


          6  with friends or family members and then become


          7  homeless.  These are primarily young families.  67%


          8  of the children in the family shelter system are


          9  under the age of seven.  In New York City today it's


         10  estimated that there are 97,000 additional families


         11  with incomes under 20,000 who are currently in


         12  similar doubled‑ up situations.  These 97,000


         13  families with an estimated 200,000 children are


         14  living on the edge.  These are families who are at


         15  risk of homelessness.  These are the very families


         16  to which the city is focusing increased prevention


         17  efforts to help to avoid the trauma of homelessness.




         19                 This legislation turns these families


         20  into a liability for landlords.  This legislation


         21  turns these families who are now enjoying some


         22  measure of stability as they live in the community


         23  with families and friends into families at even


         24  greater risk of homelessness.  It is clear that poor


         25  families with young children are exactly the













          2  families we must make greater efforts to stabilize


          3  in housing.  Legislation that is meant to improve


          4  the health and wellbeing of low income families


          5  should not instead destabilize their housing


          6  situations in this tight housing market.


          7  Legislation meant to improve the health and


          8  wellbeing should not create new incentives for


          9  landlords to discriminate against families with


         10  children as has occurred in Massachusetts as


         11  Commissioner Perine has described.


         12                 Let me be clear.  We obviously want a


         13  law that provides clear standards for owners along


         14  with strong enforcement.  But we must also ensure


         15  that we do not create the unintended consequence of


         16  producing more family homelessness in this process.


         17  Thank you.


         18                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you,


         19  Commissioner.


         20                 Commissioner Frieden, you mentioned


         21  an increase of some $7 million to your agency to


         22  implement it. I don't think either one of the other


         23  commissioners mentioned ‑‑ gave us a figure for what


         24   ‑‑ I may have missed it but ‑‑ okay.  I'd be


         25  interested in knowing if you have any idea, and I'd













          2  also be interested in knowing if there's been a


          3  commitment from OMB to address this additional


          4  expense and if not where do you plan on getting this


          5  money?


          6                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  Again, the


          7  estimate of 7 million was specifically for work


          8  practices.  We estimate again making cost estimates,


          9  with about 12 hours after seeing the bill is


         10  difficult to do, but we estimate that it may be


         11  about $11 million for the Health Department alone.


         12  We have no additional money pledged or like next


         13  year from OMB.  In fact, as you all know, we have a


         14  multi‑ billion dollar deficit going into the future


         15  years.  $11 million comes on a series of painful


         16  budget cuts at the Health Department.  We don't see


         17  places where we could cut that amount of money


         18  without significant pain.  Anything that could be


         19  done painlessly has been done.  Cuts of $11 million


         20  would, for example, include all of the following


         21  programs. All of our intermediate school presence


         22  throughout public schools, a significant portion of


         23  our support for the several dozen child health


         24  clinics of HHC, our support for gratus medication


         25  programs and fuel waivers of HHC.  I would be open













          2  to other suggestions also.  It's not that I'm saying


          3  these are the programs that we'd like to cut.  There


          4  are no programs left that we would think, let alone


          5  like, would be possible to cut without significant


          6  health ramifications.


          7  Most of what we do is legally mandated or related to


          8  outbreak control or related to contractual


          9  obligations that we continue or related to direct


         10  service for prevention of epidemics.  So we would


         11  not want to stop controlling West Nile virus.  We


         12  would not want to stop vaccinating for the flu.  We


         13  would not want to stop registering births and deaths


         14  and so there are a very limited number of places


         15  where we could cut.  $11 million is a very


         16  significant reduction and I don't see any way to do


         17  it without a great deal of pain.


         18                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  We really


         19  didn't have a chance to analyze the cost in this


         20  bill.  We certainly analyzed the last version which


         21  was close to about $60 million in cost for HPD.  I


         22  think a lot of the changes in this bill actually


         23  would reduce that number.  I think we'd still be


         24  talking about tens of millions of dollars.  It would


         25  be difficult to say where we would take that from













          2  within our budget because our agency's budget is a


          3  little different than a lot of other agencies.  We


          4  are overwhelmingly federally funded.  Our expense


          5  budget only has ‑‑ only accounts for ‑‑ about 20% of


          6  it accounts for tax levy funds.  So because we


          7  couldn't just switch over the federal money, because


          8  we get those grants for particular purposes often


          9  associated with capital work, we would really be


         10  hard‑ pressed to be able to come up with the right


         11  kind of money for this.  Certainly, we'd have to


         12  look to our preservation enforcement activities.


         13                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  The Department


         14  of Homeless Services has not had a chance to cost


         15  out the implications of this bill either.  The forms


         16  of that cost would come in two ways; one would be


         17  the cost of increased shelter that comes with


         18  increased family homelessness and, secondarily,


         19  would be the cost of compliance within the shelter


         20  system.  Both of those would have to be taken into


         21  account.


         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you.


         23  Commissioner Perine, you mentioned Boston,


         24  Massachusetts, and we hear a lot of talk about their


         25  legislation.  Could you sort of expand on that













          2  because I'm kind of in the dark about what's going


          3  on up there as compared to ‑‑


          4                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Well, what's


          5  happened there, you know, their housing stock is


          6  certainly a little different than ours is.  It's a


          7  smaller housing stock.  They don't have the large


          8  multiple dwellings that we have so most people who


          9  are renting are renting in a smaller stock.  They


         10  are also an old city as we are, so they do have an


         11  aging housing stock which is why they've got the


         12  similar kind of problem with lead paint.  They've


         13  got four times the rate of lead poison in children


         14  that we have.  One of the implications that has ‑‑


         15                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  That's


         16  specifically Boston we're talking about?


         17                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  That's Boston,


         18  yes, I'm sorry.  At least in Boston, and I don't


         19  know how pervasive the problem is statewide, but in


         20  Boston with it's very tight housing market, they


         21  have experienced pretty extensive discrimination


         22  against families with children.  Those complaints,


         23  as they do here, you know, go to the State's Human


         24  Rights Commission which has lead.  Complaints about


         25  discrimination with families has been a big issue













          2  for them there.  Again, in a tight housing market


          3  it's a concern.  We don't want to create a situation


          4  here where people are at an unfair disadvantage when


          5  they are in the housing market looking for housing.


          6                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you.


          7  I'm going to turn this over to some of my


          8  colleagues.  We've also been joined by Council


          9  Member Robert Jackson, a member of the committee.


         10                 Council Member Stewart?


         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  Thank you,


         12  Madam Chair.  Commissioners, you all three seem to


         13  think that there's a rush and if so I want to ask


         14  you, how many sit down meetings have you had with


         15  the proponents of this bill?


         16                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I haven't


         17  counted them all.  I mean we were here pretty late


         18  last night.  Certainly in addition to myself,


         19  members of my staff have been in multiple meetings.


         20  I don't know the number, and there have been


         21  obviously other discussions as well.  So there's


         22  been lots of discussions, particularly over the last


         23  couple weeks.  As I said, we are happy to continue


         24  talking.


         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  In other













          2  words, you feel that there's a lot more we can do by


          3  coming together and spending time and trying to work


          4  out something that is, that can be worked for both


          5  sides.


          6                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: I think as we


          7  said, most of the concerns we previously raised have


          8  been effectively addressed and those concerns are


          9  concerns that will allow the current version of the


         10  bill to be more protective of children and more


         11  effective.  There are, however, some remaining


         12  concerns which remain unresolved and which we feel


         13  would result in a bill that doesn't do the good that


         14  it should do and it could have very serious


         15  unintended consequences.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  All right.


         17  I agree with that.  As far as liability is


         18  concerned, is the city going to be liable when one


         19  does not have insurance because as I see it the


         20  small home owners cannot get insurance right now and


         21  if they can't get insurance with this form of


         22  liability that we are creating for them, it means


         23  then that they wouldn't have any defense.  Would the


         24  city be responsible, would they be liable as a co‑


         25  defendant?













          2                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  The city's


          3  liability is actually a little different in this


          4  bill than the owner's. It's not in our role as an


          5  owner that we're actually talking about the city's


          6  liability.  The issue with the city's liability in


          7  this bill is really the city's role as a regulator,


          8  as the entity that has some responsibility for


          9  enforcing the law.  In Local Law 38 there was


         10  specific language which limited the city's liability


         11  in that regard and we're simply suggesting that this


         12  law should repeat the same language that that law


         13  had.  The liability on the owner's side is really


         14  different and yes, I think you've probably heard


         15  from the real estate industry about issues related


         16  to insurance but I don't want to mix up those two


         17  different liability ideas.  I mean what we really


         18  talked about here were the issues related to the


         19  city's liability as a regulator and what the


         20  implications we think in the housing market might be


         21  if you start to increase the risk of owners in the


         22  housing market.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  Well, my


         24  question really points to the fact that if you don't


         25  have enough time to enforce what has to be done and













          2  there is no insurance by the owner's part, I want to


          3  know if the city will be responsible in any form, in


          4  that fashion.


          5                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  And as I said,


          6  there would be a liability in terms of that would


          7  extend to the city in terms of its regulatory role.


          8  I don't know that I can really put those two things


          9  together.  It's not explicitly associated with the


         10  liability of an owner who's not gotten insurance.


         11  It's really separate and apart from that.  In


         12  addition to, another way to put it.


         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  And,


         14  Commissioner Gibbs, how many families do you think


         15  that will be discriminated against in this fashion?


         16  If one knows that they cannot get insurance and the


         17  family's trying to get an apartment in that building


         18  and they have children, how many you think could be


         19  discriminated against?


         20                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  I think it's


         21  obviously very difficult to precisely predict that.


         22  I think we should look at the Massachusetts


         23  experience in order to try to understand it.  Here


         24  the question is around whether or not the way the


         25  law is structured creates an incentive for landlords













          2  to comply and to continue to make housing available


          3  or if it creates an incentive for landlords to try


          4  to minimize their risk by not allowing children of


          5  young age to be in their apartments.  I think that's


          6  really where we're focusing, thinking about how we


          7  can bet to a resolution that encourages compliance


          8  and encourages open access to housing.


          9                 Just in terms of those, looking at


         10  what are the potential risk numbers, the 97,000


         11  families that are living doubled up with incomes


         12  less than $20,000 are really the most at risk


         13  population for homelessness in the city today.


         14  Those are the types of families that we most


         15  frequently find coming into shelter and the ones


         16  that we believe would be ‑‑ have increased risk of


         17  homelessness because of the liability that they now


         18  pose as a tenant to those landlords.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  My next


         20  question has to do with training of workers.  The


         21  workers that to do the cleanup, to make the changes,


         22  there is what we call "presumption" that there's


         23  lead.  How long they have to be trained and isn't it


         24  a fact that we're going to have people going to be


         25  creating an even much more dangerous situation if













          2  there is a possibility of lead because they might be


          3  just doing it because of the cost?


          4                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I'm not sure if


          5  I'm going to answer your question properly.  I mean


          6  right now under the existing law HPD, when we carry


          7  out emergency repair work, we already use certified


          8  trained workers. Owners under the former Local Law


          9  38 in certain circumstances weren't required to do


         10  so.  This law actually extends that requirement to


         11  all work.  Last time when I testified in November we


         12  supported that change.  I mean I know we think


         13  requiring trained and certified workers is a good


         14  thing and is going to help the work that is of a


         15  greater scope and standard in this proposed law for


         16  that work to be done in an appropriate and safe way.


         17    The concern that we have is about really the time


         18  that people are given to do that work, which also


         19  goes to the effective date of the law.


         20                 If you want, if you're serious about


         21  wanting people to actually go out and find the


         22  appropriate workforce that is EPA certified to do


         23  the work properly, there's got to be adequate time


         24  frames in place to do that.  I actually don't know


         25  how the EPA training is.  I can ‑‑ it's several days













          2  to a week depending on the level of training.  So


          3  that's what it would take to get people certified.


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  But that


          5  work, trained workers should be with actual and not


          6  just presumption.  If I have work to be done and


          7  there's no test that to say that it's actually lead,


          8  you're saying that I must have certified workers to


          9  do any kind of work even if there's just a


         10  presumption?


         11                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Well, you know,


         12  an owner can always test to see if there's lead or


         13  not, and if they don't believe ‑‑ if they have a


         14  sense that maybe they don't have lead paint, they


         15  can just carry out the test and then that would


         16  relieve them from the obligations of the law.  That


         17  was true under the prior law as well.  So, yes,


         18  there is an obligation to carry out lead reduction


         19  work with certified trained workers, but owners do


         20  have an ability to affirmatively test to see if


         21  there is lead and if there isn't, they need go no


         22  further.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  So you're


         24  saying that before they can start that work with


         25  trained workers, which will cost more, they should













          2  do a test?


          3                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Well, certainly


          4  if they believe ‑‑ if they have reason to believe


          5  that there's no lead paint, sure, they should


          6  certainly do that because that would then just


          7  relieve them of that burden right away.


          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  I'm trying


          9  to clear this up because I'm looking at the five or


         10  six‑ family owner who has some repairs that need to


         11  be done in an apartment, maybe sheetrock, and you


         12  may have some dust and based on the law it's


         13  presumed that it has lead.  But ‑‑


         14                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  If it's built


         15  before 1960.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  Yes, if it's


         17  built before 1960.  But you're saying before he can


         18  do that sheetrock, that new work to resurface that


         19  wall, he has to do one of two things:  Get it tested


         20  and if it says no, it's negative, he can get anybody


         21  to do it.  But if it's not tested, it's only


         22  presumed he must get someone who is trained to do


         23  that?


         24                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  That's right.


         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  That's what













          2  the law says?


          3                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, that's


          4  correct.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  Contrary to


          6  what is happening right now?


          7                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, it is.  It


          8  is a change from Local Law 38, yes.


          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  And do you


         10  think that throughout the City of New York all the


         11  workers, all the carpenters and mason workers and


         12  sheetrock workers, you're saying that they all have


         13  to be trained now to do that type of repair?


         14                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I'm saying that


         15  when an owner is going to carry out work that is


         16  going to affect painted surfaces and if there's a


         17  presumption of lead because the building was built


         18  before 1960, the owner must use certified trained


         19  workers in order to do that work, yes.


         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  All right.


         21  So you don't think there's going to be a lot of


         22  cheating on this? I'm trying to figure out, the


         23  amount of building that we have that were built


         24  before 1960 ‑‑


         25                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes.













          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  ‑‑ There's


          3  quite a lot.


          4                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  And if you


          6  have to just do maybe one surface with sheetrock


          7  because there might be a hole in that wall, you're


          8  saying that if you really just want to do it without


          9  getting the test, without going out and getting that


         10  test done, you have to go and get a worker who has


         11  been trained to do that?


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, that's


         13  correct, and if it's more than a hundred square


         14  feet, then they also have to be EPA certified.


         15                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  And if I could


         16  just add, if it's more than a hundred square feet


         17  they have to notify us in writing in advance at the


         18  Department of Health, and because of some of the


         19  aspects of how it's written in the statute, we would


         20  have an affirmative obligation, we feel potentially,


         21  to review the work that's being done, which would be


         22  very costly for us.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  Just the


         24  presumption?


         25                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes.  And if I













          2  could just add, you know, last time when I


          3  testified, again, these were things that we actually


          4  agreed with in the proposed law.  We think that if


          5  you're going to increase the standard of work that


          6  people have to carry out it should be done with


          7  trained workers and where certified workers are


          8  appropriate, then that's what's appropriate.  All


          9  we're saying is that people should have a fair


         10  amount of time to accomplish that work if we're


         11  actually going to be serious about making that a


         12  requirement.


         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  And once


         14  again, you are willing to sit down and make sure


         15  that we have an adequate bill, not a bill that


         16  creates a vague liability for anybody?  You're


         17  willing to sit down to have a true bill that all of


         18  us can agree on and all of us can sign onto?


         19                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, I think,


         20  again, that's why we came here today, to try to once


         21  again express our comments and indicate the places


         22  where we think the proposed legislation could be


         23  changed to be made better.


         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART:  Thank you.


         25                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Council













          2  Member Barron.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  Thank you


          4  very much, Madam Chair.  You know, in these chambers


          5  I've heard so much incredible testimony in the last


          6  couple of days but, Commissioner Gibbs, are you


          7  telling us that if we require you to do what you're


          8  supposed to do anyway, which is have lead free


          9  shelter for homeless families ‑‑ by law in 1986 the


         10  Barnes v. Koch (phonetic), by law that's something


         11  you have to do anyway, are you saying that if you're


         12  required to do this, it's going to create


         13  homelessness?  You're blaming us for requiring you


         14  to do what you're supposed to do anyway?


         15                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  I actually ‑‑


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  Let me


         17  finish, Commissioner, let me finish, Commissioner.


         18  For what you're supposed to do anyway.  So you're


         19  telling us that if this happens it's going to create


         20  homelessness, as though you're supposed to be


         21  putting children in lead contaminated homes in the


         22  first place.  You're not supposed to do that anyway.


         23  You're already required not to do that.  I just want


         24  to get clear because the way you communicated, I


         25  just want to be very clear that you're saying













          2  because you have to do this and discrimination, with


          3  insurance which is not supposed to happen either,


          4  that all of this, you know, the problem you have


          5  with this bill is that it might create more


          6  homelessness?


          7                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  I was actually


          8  not speaking about the responsibilities of the


          9  Department of Homeless Services to provide shelter,


         10  I was speaking about the implications this would


         11  have within the real estate market more broadly that


         12  might cause landlords to be disinclined to rent


         13  apartments to young children.  And I raise this


         14  because it's being raised with me and I think it's


         15  something that we have to be really concerned about


         16  in a city that already has a crisis of homelessness,


         17  whether this is going to exacerbate ‑‑


         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  I hear what


         19  you're saying, but that's a very ‑‑ I'm not as


         20  sophisticated as the others, that's a very slick


         21  connection because ‑‑ and I say that because, first


         22  of all, no one's supposed to discriminate against


         23  any child when it comes to homeless, the agency


         24  should take them to court, the city should protect


         25  against discrimination.  So they can't threaten you













          2  with discriminating ‑‑ discrimination and then you


          3  say we're not going to be for this bill because now


          4  the landlord's going to discriminate against the


          5  poor, poor children, so if we pass this bill, it's


          6  going to make them homeless.  Come on now, that's a


          7  stretch.  It is the city's responsibility, your


          8  responsibility that no discrimination should happen.


          9  So you can't come to the City Council and say


         10  because of some discrimination we shouldn't have


         11  lead free, lead safe, you know, apartments because


         12  landlords are going to discriminate against children


         13  so it's going to create more homelessness.


         14                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  I don't think we


         15  disagree with you.  I think we agree with you


         16  because we're not trying to change any of the


         17  standards of the requirements in this law.  All that


         18  we're saying, and we're not suggesting that ‑‑ what


         19  we're saying is if you look at the Massachusetts


         20  experience we can say this is what happened there.


         21  Could that happen here?  It is possible. It's not


         22  just a question of discrimination because, you're


         23  right, of course, you know, we have to ‑‑


         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  That's right.


         25                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  We have to












          2  presume that people are going to act in good faith.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  Right.


          4                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  However, we do


          5  know, again looking at the Boston experience, that


          6  people don't always and the concern that we've got


          7  here, we've got an extra problem in New York that


          8  they actually didn't have in Boston which is that we


          9  have a very significant overcrowding problem in New


         10  York City, again, given our very tight housing


         11  market.  So in fact owners who have doubled up


         12  families in their apartments, it's actually not


         13  discrimination if they seek to have that doubled‑ up


         14  family removed.  It's actually them enforcing the


         15  occupancy standards that ‑‑


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  Yes, but ‑‑


         17                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  ‑‑ Most owners


         18  in New York City kind of turn a blind eye to that.


         19  What we're saying is there is a potential.  Again, I


         20  believe it's a completely unintended consequence ‑‑


         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  It's ‑‑


         22                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  ‑‑ But there is


         23   ‑‑ we are articulating to you ‑‑


         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  I know.


         25                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  ‑‑ That there is













          2  a potential of an unintended consequence here of


          3  making families with young children potentially


          4  undesirable for owners.  That's all we're saying.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  Yes, but I'm


          6  saying ‑‑


          7                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  And given our


          8  extreme overcrowding problem ‑‑


          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  Right.


         10                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  ‑‑ And given our


         11  extreme tight housing market, this kind of a problem


         12  can really be exacerbated.


         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  But I really


         14  think that that's bogus.  I really do.  I think it's


         15  bogus.  I think in the context of saving children


         16  from lead poisoning because that's what this whole


         17  context is, saving children from lead poisoning


         18  which is the priority.  That's bogus, that any kind


         19  of trying to manipulate the law and removing


         20  children, the city should unequivocally say this


         21  will not happen, that we will fight it along with


         22  the City Council, along with the Mayor, along with


         23  every agency, along with every ‑‑ all the power that


         24  we have to protect our children from being lead


         25  contaminated poison that any kind of slick way













          2  landlords or real estate folk put pressure on us, we


          3  will not tolerate it.  It's just difficult to come


          4  to this hearing and try to attach, you know, this


          5  question of homelessness with this lead free bill


          6  here.  This lead bill I think is just a little ‑‑ I


          7  wouldn't say ‑‑ I don't know whether it's overtly or


          8  not so overtly disingenuous to come with that


          9  because it gives ‑‑ it would give the public the


         10  impression that with this bill being like it is or


         11  if we go forth, then we're going to have a problem


         12  with homelessness because now landlords or real


         13  estate people will not be desirable.  I have


         14  problems with that.  I have very serious problems


         15  with that.


         16                 The perception, because you know,


         17  reality is one thing, perception is everything.


         18  It's just a perception that you're giving with that


         19  testimony, makes it seem that the public will run


         20  out here saying oh, man, if we do this it's going to


         21  create more homelessness, and that is disingenuous.


         22                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  Well, it's not


         23  disingenuous.  You can disagree and I certainly


         24  respect that, but we feel it's our obligation to


         25  bring to your attention what we consider can be













          2  unintended consequences of the bill and something,


          3  frankly, that I think can be fairly easily fixed


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  Right.


          5                 COMMISSIONER GIBBS:  ‑‑ Without


          6  dealing with any of the standards or obligations in


          7  this law.  We're not suggesting that any of those


          8  things be changed.  We're simply ‑‑ you know, we've


          9  simply suggested that some of the tort liability


         10  exposure for owners be limited.


         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON:  I bet.


         12                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you.


         13  Council Member Quinn?


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Thank you.


         15  The Massachusetts law that some comparisons have


         16  been made to, that's a full abatement law, isn't it?


         17                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes.


         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  So this isn't


         19  a full abatement law, correct?


         20                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  And I'm not ‑‑


         21  yes, but that's not what drives actually the problem


         22  that I was talking about, it's actually the


         23  liability issue that is similar in Massachusetts as


         24  it is in this proposed bill.


         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  But some of ‑‑













          2                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  It's not about


          3  the standard of work, it's about the liability


          4  exposure.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  But wouldn't


          6  on some level the liability exposure be impacted,


          7  maybe not determined, but impacted by whether it was


          8  a full abatement proposal or not?  And I thought


          9  somebody when they were testifying kind of made


         10  financial references to Massachusetts which I think


         11  would have some relationship to the level of work


         12  required, which the abatement issue ‑‑


         13                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I actually


         14  don't think so because I think the liability can be


         15  extreme and it's not necessarily a function of the


         16  work that is required.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Is there


         18  another city or state or county that has actually a


         19  program that's more of a ‑‑ similar to what ours


         20  would be, where keeping it intact as opposed to


         21  complete abatement?  Because then at least the


         22  comparison would be apples to apples.  And you're


         23  making the point that Massachusetts did this and it


         24  caused X, Y and Z problems.  If we had some way that


         25  was doing something more similar to what we're













          2  doing, that would be ‑‑ I would find that more


          3  useful information.


          4                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I mean I don't


          5  know. We'd have to look at it.  I'm sure somebody


          6  knows that.  I don't know that.  But again, I think


          7  the applicability is not around the standard of work


          8  required but actually over the liability exposure.


          9  So the liability exposure is very similar.


         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I guess, I'm


         11  not a trial lawyer ‑‑


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I'm not any


         13  kind of lawyer.


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  So it's great


         15  that the two of us are discussing this.  But it


         16  seems to me that the standard of work, something


         17  like full abatement which is about as broad as you


         18  can get, would have an impact on liability exposure.


         19    I mean it just seems logical to me that it would.


         20                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  No, I don't


         21  think so. I mean it actually would ‑‑ I don't think


         22  it would.  I'm actually not quite following what


         23  your concern is.  I mean, you know, what the work is


         24  that is required is one set of issues.  What the


         25  liability exposure for an owner and what he has to













          2  do in order to I guess defend against cause is


          3  really ‑‑ I don't think it's a function of


          4  abatement.  I mean I think the difference would be


          5  that if you fully abate, then you've limited your


          6  liability in that way.  But even with that ‑‑


          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  But you've ‑‑


          8                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  But even with


          9  that provision there's been problems in Boston.


         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I guess if


         11  there is another place, that would be more useful to


         12  look at, that's more similar to what we're doing.


         13  It just seems to me like if you're saying you have


         14  to do this whole much broader universe of work, then


         15  if you don't accomplish, which is a higher standard,


         16  a broader array of full abatement, that on some


         17  level that would translate into a more likelihood of


         18  liability in this greater amount of work that would


         19  have to be done.  Maybe that's not how it works.


         20                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I don't think


         21  it does. I think it's a little more expensive but I


         22  don't think it's necessarily a function of


         23  liability.  And again, I'm not suggesting in any way


         24  that the standard of requirement of scope of work


         25  that is outlined in this proposed law be changed.













          2  I'm not suggesting that.  We have been supportive of


          3  the standard of work and having it carried out with


          4  trained workers and all of that.  We're really just


          5  trying to ensure, again, that there are not some


          6  unintended consequences that if we were in a housing


          7  market with a very high vacancy rate, you know,


          8  these things maybe could be absorbed within the


          9  housing marketplace given the extremely vacancy rate


         10  that we have and we know we've got many more people


         11  chasing that vacant apartment than there are vacant


         12  apartments.  So we know when it is essentially a


         13  seller's market.  These constraints I think are


         14  potentially going to be exacerbated.


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  That kind of


         16  leads me to my next question, actually, which is in


         17  Massachusetts, did homelessness increase after their


         18  law went into effect?


         19                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I can't answer


         20  that.  I actually don't know.  I mean they've also


         21  of course got a very different structure than we do.


         22    I mean there's no requirement for shelter as we


         23  have in New York, so what you find in most other


         24  cities, and Commissioner Gibbs is more expert on


         25  this than me, but you don't necessarily see an













          2  analogous situation to what we have because we take


          3  on a fairly open obligation and most other places do


          4  not.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I mean that ‑‑


          6                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  So they simply


          7  limit ‑‑ they simply don't take people into a system


          8  in other places so their system is as big as it is


          9  and it just stops at where it is and they don't


         10  continue to have access they way we do.


         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I think that


         12  speaks to what the impact would be on government,


         13  but it doesn't, which is a valid point in comparison


         14  to Massachusetts, but it doesn't speak to whether


         15  the problem was created if you know part of what you


         16  guys are saying is that if we do this we're going to


         17  create more homelessness and you're drawing


         18  comparisons to Massachusetts.  Although Boston or


         19  the state may not have been required to house them,


         20  it's relevant whether or not their law created


         21  homelessness.  Although we may not know it to the


         22  exact same number we would in New York City, where


         23  Commissioner Gibbs has an obligation to deal with


         24  it, I'm sure there are some organizations,


         25  governmental or nonprofit, that would have some













          2  sense of whether homelessness rose after


          3  Massachusetts ‑‑


          4                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes ‑‑


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Even in ‑‑


          6  pick a place ‑‑


          7                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I think it's ‑‑


          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  ‑‑ Boston or


          9  somewhere.


         10                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I think it's a


         11  fair point.  I think we should remember, however,


         12  there is ‑‑ I think the effects in Boston were going


         13  to manifest themselves a little differently than


         14  they potentially will here.  Again, given the nature


         15  of their housing stock versus ours and given the


         16  nature of their marketplace, they don't have a


         17  significant number of overcrowded doubled‑ up


         18  families at this very, very low income level.  I


         19  mean in Boston essentially the low income population


         20  is almost exclusively concentrated in their public


         21  housing stock.  It's very different than in New York


         22  which is a much more varied housing stock with ‑‑


         23  and a much larger housing stock, obviously, as well.


         24    So I guess we're trying to say that is our


         25  concern.  Unlike most places in the United States,













          2  most big cities, we really have a significant number


          3  of families who are living really on the edge for


          4  whom one last event can then, you know, push them


          5  over into homelessness.  I don't believe that was


          6  the case ‑‑ I don't believe that's the case in


          7  Boston.  So, you know, I think it's different.


          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I mean if


          9  those folks are living doubled up or otherwise in a


         10  home that's unsafe, they should be out of that home


         11  and we need to ‑‑


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Again, that's


         13  not so much the issue.  I mean the issue is will we


         14  be encouraging landlords to aggressively enforce the


         15  occupancy standards.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Did we see in


         17  Massachusetts ‑‑ one of the other statements was


         18  that we would see landlords basically discriminating


         19  against families with children.  Is there data that


         20  that happened in Massachusetts?


         21                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, I think


         22  from the State Commission on Human Rights.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  How much did


         24  they see housing discrimination increase?


         25                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I don't know













          2  the statistics actually but it has been ‑‑


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Was it charted


          4   ‑‑


          5                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  ‑‑ Reported


          6  significantly, yes.


          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  And did it


          8  track with other trends in the state or was this the


          9  only factor that it caused?


         10                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  No, it was ‑‑


         11  you know, people saying they were discriminated


         12  against because of, in this particular issue.


         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  But you don't


         14  know how much that went up or ‑‑


         15                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I don't have


         16  the data.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Okay.  If you


         18  could get that to us, that would be great.


         19                 Commissioner Frieden, I was a little


         20  confused in part of what you were saying about the


         21  time frame issues because I don't think that 101A


         22  talks about shortening the Department of Health time


         23  frames in response when children are lead poisoned.


         24  It seemed to me that they are exactly the same as in


         25  the current law of Local Law 50 of 1972.  So I don't













          2  really ‑‑ Local Law 50 in 1972, how did that change?


          3  Which I think were the same in Local Law 38.


          4                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  No, no, Local


          5  Law 38, if I understand correctly, the deadline


          6  begins when we document the lead paint hazard, and


          7  we 're fine with that.  We're fine with having it 16


          8  days from then.  The problem is when there's ‑‑ we


          9  get electronic reports, 400,000 a year, of lead


         10  poisoning levels, of lead paint ‑‑ of blood lead


         11  levels.  From that date of that report we have to


         12  get access to the apartment.  If we document the


         13  lead‑ based paint hazard we have to issue an order


         14  to the owner.  We have to serve the order to the


         15  owner.  We have to give the owner five days to


         16  remediate.  Keep in mind that HUD, under the federal


         17  statute for lead poisoned children, gives 15 days


         18  and 30 days for controls on the owner's part.  So


         19  those are the federal standards.  We have no problem


         20  with the 16 days from the documentation of lead‑


         21  based paint hazard.  I think really it's a small


         22  issue and it would be consistent with what 38 has


         23  provided.


         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I mean maybe


         25  we could have more discussion after this, but I'm













          2  not exactly sure, it seems to me, where the change


          3  is because I don't really see ‑‑


          4                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I'm sorry?


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  That's okay.


          6  So you're saying the change is in when in confirming


          7  the poisoning or ‑‑ because I don't see how the time


          8  frames change.


          9                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  Confirming


         10  that there's a hazard in the apartment.  About 40%


         11  of the kids, we don't have a hazard in the apartment


         12  so there's no time frame that arrives there.  We


         13  could be in the situation in this circumstance of


         14  actually mandating a correction where there's no


         15  lead‑ based paint hazard if we can't get access to


         16  the apartment for 16 days.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Maybe I can


         18  look at that with some of the DOH folks afterwards


         19  because as I read it there isn't a significant


         20  change there in the time frame and that there's a


         21  misinterpretation.


         22                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I've been


         23  corrected, that I guess the practice in the past


         24  under 38 had been to count the 16 days.


         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  What I













          2  understand Local ‑‑ someone just handed me Local Law


          3  38 which says that, "The procedure of certification


          4  shall be completed within 16 days from receipt of


          5  complaint or inspection or examination, whichever


          6  occurs first."


          7                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  Right.  And


          8  what I'm being informed is that that in fact has not


          9  been the practice because it's simply not possible


         10  and would remain not possible under this.  So rather


         11  than saying either/or and whichever is first, we


         12  would say do it from the date of inspection.  If the


         13  Council wanted to discuss standards for how quickly


         14  to get in and how we would leave notice if we


         15  couldn't get in, those are things we're certainly


         16  willing to discuss.  We want to get in quickly.  We


         17  want to get it fixed quickly but realistically there


         18  are circumstances where we can't get access to the


         19  apartment in 16 days so we can't break down the door


         20  and look for lead.


         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  So your


         22  assertion is that this, because I'm now only a


         23  little more confused, I apologize, that this does or


         24  doesn't change, 101A does or doesn't change the time


         25  frames for DOH.  Because it still sounds to me like













          2  it doesn't.


          3                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I misstated


          4  earlier.  You are correct, Local Law 38, as you


          5  read, is similar to the draft of 101A, but in


          6  neither case do we feel it's implementable and in


          7  both cases it's very different from the HUD federal


          8  guideline which are considered the most restrictive


          9  in the country, where you have 15 days followed by


         10  30 ‑‑ 15 days to do ‑‑ inspect and then 30 days to


         11  remediate.


         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  But you've


         13  existed under Local Law 38 and in fact testified


         14  before the committee at other moments that Local Law


         15  38 was working.


         16                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  That we were


         17  operating under Local Law 38 effectively, but


         18  without full adherence to this aspect of the


         19  legislation, I gather.  At least that's what I'm


         20  being informed at this point.


         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  So it doesn't


         22  change it from the existing law but now the more


         23  that you think about it, you never liked the


         24  existing law to begin with, right?  I mean that's


         25  basically what you're saying.













          2                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  We think there


          3  needs to be improvements to make it workable.


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  So it isn't ‑‑


          5  you're not opposed to it because it changes the


          6  existing law, you're opposed to it because you


          7  didn't like the existing law now more that you think


          8  about it?


          9                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I'll ask


         10  Wilfredo Lopez, our general counsel, to ‑‑


         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Oh, no,


         12  they're bringing up a lawyer, gentlemen.  Now we're


         13  in trouble.


         14                 MR. LOPEZ:  I don't have Local Law ‑‑


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  You just have


         16  to identify yourself.


         17                 MR. LOPEZ:  Wilfredo Lopez, general


         18  counsel for HUD, New York City Department of Health


         19  and Mental Hygiene.


         20                 I don't have Local Law 38 in front of


         21  me, but as you read it, I think you read it as from


         22  16 days from the date of inspection or examination,


         23  whichever occurs first. The proposed law says 16


         24  days from the receipt of the elevated blood lead


         25  level.  Now that language you just read from Local













          2  Law 38 could be interpreted in different ways. We


          3  agree that it should say 16 days from the date of


          4  the inspection.  If you're talking about what does


          5  date of the examination mean, that gets a little


          6  vaguer, but this proposed law is very clear that


          7  it's 16 days from our receipt of the elevated blood


          8  level report.  And that is a change and that is


          9  certainly not doable.


         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  So your


         11  problem is that you feel it narrows it to not date


         12  of the receipt of the levels or the inspection but


         13  just to the date that you get the levels?


         14                 MR. LOPEZ:  It starts ‑‑


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Because this


         16  says from receipt of complaint or inspection or


         17  examination, whichever occurs first.  So you'd


         18  always get the complaint before you would do the


         19  inspection or the examination, so it seems like


         20  basically it is the same thing.  This just had more


         21  language that might have seemed like it gives you


         22  more time but it really didn't.


         23                 MR. LOPEZ:  Local Law 38 allowed a


         24  valid interpretation of this.  The sentence


         25  specifically says, "The procedure of certification













          2  shall be completed within 16 days from receipt of


          3  complaint" ‑‑


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Right.


          5                 MR. LOPEZ:  ‑‑ "or inspection or


          6  examination, whichever occurs first."  None of those


          7  are necessarily report of the blood lead level.


          8  That's a different date. Examination of the child,


          9  examination of the apartment, examination of both?


         10  So we have no problem with it, tight time frame and


         11  being held to that time frame.  We do have a problem


         12  with a time frames that's unimplementable.  We've


         13  been implementing with great effort but very


         14  effectively the 16‑ day time frame from the time


         15  where we can get access and document the lead


         16  hazard, which is our interpretation of Local Law 38.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I mean I think


         18  obviously that there's some confusion about what has


         19  or has not happened here.  That deserves more


         20  discussion because, as I said, I was under the


         21  impression that that hadn't been changed and


         22  certainly we could all agree there's a lack of


         23  clarity here and that may not end up being such


         24  after further examination that it's a point which


         25  the administration may in fact object to and feel a













          2  need to stand in opposition based on.  I know that's


          3  not your only issue.


          4                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: But let me also


          5  comment that on many other issues, similarly, the


          6  issues are not huge. This has an issue of a


          7  definition of when the clock starts. We have no


          8  problem with the standard.  We have no problem


          9  looking at time frames.  We have no problem


         10  reporting and being held accountable on those time


         11  frames, as long as they're realistic.


         12                 Similarly, on the issue of work


         13  practices, we don't think it's a major issue.  It


         14  just has to do with ensuring that we're not creating


         15  a bureaucracy in an administrative requirement that


         16  isn't really protecting children.  I do think that


         17  we're close on these issues.


         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Just lastly


         19  very quickly, on the issue of the age levels, six or


         20  seven, I know Commissioner Frieden, you as the


         21  Commissioner and a medical doctor, think it's not


         22  the right thing to do, but I've heard ‑‑ I must say,


         23  you're the only in this process and certainly we've


         24  not heard from every doctor in the City of New York,


         25  thank God, or we would be here a really, really,













          2  really long time ‑‑


          3                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  No, I would


          4  have been here a really long time myself.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  That is very


          6  true, yes. Well, thank God for Madeline, that she


          7  wouldn't have to be here that long.


          8                 But I've heard and I think probably


          9  the Committee has heard from more doctors of


         10  prominence and most doctors in general who think


         11  that that is the medically correct and better thing


         12  to do for children.  I mean, Doctor, you know, I


         13  just had the testimony of two, for example, in front


         14  of me, but there have been many from places, that


         15  are some of the leading hospitals that deal with


         16  lead poisoning, so ‑‑


         17                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  They're wrong.


         18  They're simply and plainly ‑‑


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  You're the


         20  only doctor that's right.


         21                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I'm not the


         22  only doctor ‑ The Centers for Disease Control, HUD,


         23  the U.S. Guide for ‑‑


         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Well, HUD ‑‑


         25                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  ‑‑ Clinical













          2  Preventive Task Forces, the Advisory Committee for


          3  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The


          4  leading national experts on lead poisoning all agree


          5  on this issue.  This is in no way a minority view.


          6  This is the standard view of the environmental world


          7  and of the public health world.  It's the wrong


          8  thing to do to change it.


          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  Many of the


         10  organizations you just referenced were actually


         11  government organizations as opposed to independent


         12  doctors.  I mean I have two letters here from six


         13  different doctors, some from, ‑‑ affiliated with Mt.


         14  Sinai Hospital, has a long record of issues of lead


         15  poisoning.  I mean it seems hard for me to imagine


         16  that all of these doctors who have no governmental


         17  interest in this, you know, HUD, the Centers for


         18  Disease Control and others that you mentioned, are


         19  all government affiliated, but all of these other


         20  independent doctors are wrong.  What interest would


         21  they have in misguiding government?


         22                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I find it


         23  puzzling and I'll leave it at that adjective, the


         24  insinuation that government, public health


         25  physicians would be guided by anything other than













          2  how to make the most effective public health policy.


          3  That's what CDC does and that's what the Health


          4  Department does in New York City.  Most kids with


          5  lead poisoning are under three.  If you add a group


          6  of kids that has a rate that's ten times lower,


          7  you're going to be essentially stealing resources


          8  away from the kids who need it and giving it to kids


          9  who don't need it.


         10                 We have 40,000 licensed physicians in


         11  New York City.  I'm sure you can get a few,


         12  including some very smart ones, to agree with many


         13  different types of assertions, but the national


         14  guidelines, the state guidelines, the city


         15  guidelines, the recommendations are very clear on


         16  this issue, there's not ambiguity.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  I think it's a


         18  bold statement to say there's not ambiguity and that


         19  all these other doctors are wrong.  And my reference


         20  to questioning the governmental public health people


         21  is more about the federal ones, because they do work


         22  for an administration who I don't necessarily would


         23  agree with has the best public health interest of


         24  New York City's children in mind, not the doctors


         25  affiliated with your department.  Now, you may













          2  disagree with my perspective on the Bush


          3  administration, but I think we could at least agree


          4  to disagree.


          5                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  These are


          6  panels going back to Jimmy Carter.


          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER QUINN:  We could at


          8  least agree to disagree on that, and I think it's a


          9  bold statement that all of these other medical


         10  doctors, and like I said, I've heard from far more


         11  that think it's the right thing to do, are wrong.


         12  But I guess we'll agree to disagree on that, and I'd


         13  love to talk to folks at another point about the


         14  other thing that there appears to be confusion or a


         15  lack of clarity on.  Thank you, Madam Chair.


         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you.


         17  We have two more Council members to ask questions.


         18  Joined by Council Member Gale Brewer.  I am


         19  adjourning this meeting at 3:00, even if it's in mid


         20  sentence because of the weather. Council Member


         21  Comrie.


         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Thank you,


         23  Madam Chair.  I'll try to be quick.


         24                 It's a lot of confusion in my mind


         25  anyway as to what is now ‑‑ to your best













          2  articulation, now there's going to be the process to


          3  report a violation, to resolve a violation and to


          4  correct a violation in two cases.  Number one, if a


          5  tenant reports it or, number two, if it's reported


          6  by an outside agency, some nongovernmental


          7  organization.


          8                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Are you asking


          9  me how it would work under this proposed ‑‑


         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Yes.


         11                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  ‑‑ This


         12  proposed bill?


         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Yes.


         14                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Under the


         15  proposed bill, I mean the first step ‑‑ I mean let's


         16  set aside the issue of when it's triggered, the


         17  violation is triggered by their being a lead


         18  poisoned child that the Health Department


         19  identifies.  Right, that's one way ‑‑


         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Before you


         21  get to the knowing a child is lead poisoned, you


         22  have to have a call in to say that an apartment


         23  needs to be inspected or are we doing this ‑‑


         24                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  No, no, I'm


         25  just saying there's two different broad drivers,













          2  right, and this is true ‑‑ this was true under Local


          3  Law 38.  It's true here as well.  If a child turns


          4  up lead poisoned, you know, they go to the doctor


          5  and they get a test.  I mean that's going to


          6  immediately refer to the Department of Health.  That


          7  triggers one way of the apartment getting looked at


          8  and a violation being placed.  And we can explain ‑‑


          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  But this law


         10  is not increasing the responsibility for doctors to


         11  do more testing, is it, or mandating more ‑‑


         12                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  The State has


         13  authority over the licensing ‑‑


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Licensing,


         15  right.


         16                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  ‑‑ Of


         17  physicians, so we actually don't have ‑‑


         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  I'm not


         19  talking about the people that get reported to you,


         20  I'm talking about the other ones.


         21                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  So then the


         22  other is when somebody calls and says either I just


         23  have peeling paint and then they are questioned; do


         24  you have a child under, you know, whatever the


         25  requirement of the law is going to be, and if they













          2  answer in the affirmative, then that potentially is


          3  going to trigger both an inspection and potentially


          4  a violation if that's found to all be the case.


          5                 The other is when somebody calls


          6  directly and says I have a child under the


          7  appropriate age and I have paint that is not intact


          8  or I have dust on my window ‑‑ whatever their


          9  problem is and then that's going to also trigger an


         10  inspection.  I'm presuming that for the most part


         11  that initial entry point into the system would be


         12  the same under this proposed law as it is now which


         13  is that we continue to encourage people to call 311


         14  if they have housing problems of any kind.


         15  Certainly if they're concerned about lead paint and


         16  they know they have a child, a young child, they


         17  should call.


         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Under that ‑‑


         19                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  We expect that


         20  system's going to remain in place obviously and be


         21  the main intake for getting inspectors out to see


         22  what the problems are.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Maybe I'm not


         24  articulating it.  I have a cold so ‑‑ you're saying


         25  that once the initial complaint comes in, the time













          2  for HPD to extend the complaint has been extended


          3  from five to ten days.  Is that the initial time


          4  frame ‑‑


          5                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes.


          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  ‑‑ That we're


          7  talking about?


          8                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes.


          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  And you're


         10  saying that that ten day period is not adequate?


         11                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  No.  Actually,


         12  we had asked for it to be extended from five and,


         13  yes, it was.  The two time frames I guess that we


         14  have primary concern about, and this is separate and


         15  apart from the effective date, is essentially the


         16  time that we get to correct the work, when owners


         17  don't act and we have to act under the repair


         18  program.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Um‑ hum.


         20                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  You know, in


         21  the interest of not taking up the last 15 minutes on


         22  this issue completely, because it's a little arcane,


         23  is the issue of the proposed laws basically


         24  requiring that we go back and reinspect every single


         25  apartment that had any kind of a lead violation,













          2  even when the owner corrected or didn't correct.


          3  Even though if he didn't correct we would have gone


          4  out and done it through the Emergency Repair


          5  Program.  So we just think that's a redundancy.  We


          6  think that's something ‑‑


          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  You think


          8  it's onerous ‑‑


          9                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  But we think


         10  it's something very resolvable because, again, we're


         11  not ‑‑


         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  And your


         13  resolution for that is just to keep pushing the


         14  clock because we're up against the ‑‑


         15                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, it would


         16  simply be to say, you know, it doesn't have to be


         17  redundant.  If the owner didn't act, we're going to


         18  go in to do the emergency repairs, so you don't


         19  really need to have an inspector go first to say,


         20  yes, we're really, really sure he didn't act. I mean


         21  because we're going to be sending in the emergency


         22  repair scoping unit to go and see what the work is


         23  and so we would know then anyway, so... I think it


         24  meets the same intent of what was being asked.  I


         25  think we could just change it a little to make it













          2  work better.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  And that


          4  change would be?


          5                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  That if the


          6  owner didn't act, there's no need to send a code


          7  inspector to verify that fact because we would first


          8  just be sending people in to do the emergency repair


          9  work.  So we're accomplishing the next step.  You


         10  don't need to have a redundant step in the middle of


         11  that, but we do need more time to complete the work.


         12    Right now it's 30 days in the proposed law and we


         13  need 60 days.  Again, half the work that we do now


         14  is completed in 60 days.  The other half takes


         15  longer than 60 days because we have difficulty


         16  accommodating the access needs of the tenants.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  And most of


         18  those 60 day period with the difficult access needs,


         19  how many of those turn out to be valid complaints,


         20  do you have a rough idea?


         21                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  These are only


         22   ‑‑ I'm only talking about the ones that were valid


         23  to begin with.


         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  You're only


         25  talking about valid.













          2                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I took out of


          3  the equation the ones that didn't ‑‑


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  In the last


          5  calendar year do you know how many complaints were


          6  invalid approximately?


          7                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I think it was


          8  about 9,000.  And by invalid, I would simply call


          9  them downgraded. I mean it just means that people


         10  legitimately had peeling paint and a child under


         11  seven, but we went out.  The landlord didn't do what


         12  they were supposed to do.  We went out to do the


         13  repair.  We tested.  We found it wasn't lead or ‑‑


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  But they had


         15  to


         16  actually ‑‑


         17                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  ‑‑ Or we found


         18  the work was done.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  But you did


         20  the 5,000 preliminary inspections?


         21                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes.


         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  And you just


         23  found out it was not as serious as they ‑‑


         24                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  It was either


         25  not lead or the work had already been done.













          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Okay.  Do you


          3  think that if we had more sort of, as the window


          4  guard legislation where with the owner every year


          5  was required to do a thorough building inspection


          6  and a preliminary inspection of each apartment at


          7  the beginning of the year of the window guard, it


          8  would lessen your inspection at the end of the day?


          9                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, and I


         10  think the proposed law ‑‑ again, in my last


         11  testimony in November, the proposed legislation


         12  already had a provision in it that kind of mirrored


         13  the window guard notice provision.  And we were in


         14  agreement with that.  We ‑‑


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  But that's


         16  not in this one today.


         17                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  ‑‑ Supported


         18  that.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  I'm only ‑‑


         20                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I think it is.


         21  Yes, it is.  It's ‑‑ that remains, that's still in


         22  there.  And we were on board with that when it was


         23  in there last time. Again, we're just really talking


         24  about the time that people are given to carry out


         25  the work that we all agree needs to be done.













          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Well, since


          3  I'm against the clock, I'll behave and won't ask any


          4  more questions.


          5                 How many ‑‑ Council Member Reyna is


          6  asking me, how many valid complaints were registered


          7  in the last year if you can recall?  If your staff


          8  has it handy.


          9                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I don't know.


         10  We'll get that to you.  I'm sure somebody behind me


         11  has it.


         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  Has it, I'm


         13  sure.


         14                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  We corrected


         15  about 3,000 violations ‑‑ about 10,000 violations we


         16  corrected, which means over the last three years


         17  about 10,000 lead violations that owners didn't


         18  correct, we corrected through the Emergency Repair


         19  Program.  But we can give you a complete breakdown.


         20  It really comes right out of the report that we did


         21  for the Council on Local Law 38, so I'm sure we have


         22  it.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  I'm sure I


         24  have it, too, it's just that everything has been


         25  compressed so we hadn't ‑‑ and with this snow today













          2  I didn't want to walk with all these papers to this


          3  hearing, so please forgive me for asking, but I just


          4  wanted to clarify it for the hearing purposes.


          5                 I just have one other question.  How


          6  far away do you think we are with getting this


          7  resolved?


          8                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Again, I think


          9  we are really ‑‑


         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  To where the


         11  city feels most effective in protecting children?


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I think we are


         13  not far away.  I believe that with incorporating the


         14  changes that Commissioner Friedan and I have


         15  outlined here today, I think that it is resolved and


         16  I really hope that some time can be set aside to do


         17  that.


         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE:  I hope that


         19  you do get the opportunity between now and the next


         20  hearing to sit and meet again and resolve these


         21  questions because I really feel that HPD and Health


         22  has been working adamantly and with much honor and


         23  praise in trying aggressively do lead abatement in


         24  the city.  I think that if we have empowered


         25  agencies that are given opportunity to do what they













          2  need to do aggressively, without being forced into


          3  situations ‑‑ I know that unhappy employees lead to


          4  shoddy work.  Unhappy agencies lead to underreported


          5  and bad service.  If we're going to look to the city


          6  to be our champions in this we have to try to give


          7  them every opportunity to do what they need to do in


          8  the way that they feel most comfortable. Thank you,


          9  Madam Chair.


         10                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Thank you,


         11  Council Member Comrie.  Well spoken.  Council Member


         12  Perkins, you will be the last questioner.


         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Thank you


         14  very much, Madam Chair.  I'm not going to be very


         15  long.  I want to first express my appreciation to


         16  the Commissioners for recognizing how far we've come


         17  from where we've been and how important it is that


         18  we do this bill on behalf of the children of the


         19  City of New York.


         20                 I want to make sure I'm clear,


         21  landlords in the city are presently subject to


         22  liability for neglect?


         23                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  There are two


         24  different liability concerns and let me try to


         25  explain the city's first and I'll ask Harold to help













          2  me if I need help with this.  If I'm not saying this


          3  right, tell me.


          4                 Essentially in Local Law 38 there was


          5  specific language which protected the city from


          6  extreme liability in its role as a regulatory ‑‑ in


          7  its regulatory function.  Again, forget the landlord


          8  function that we have in some limited capacity.


          9  It's just we have an obligation to go out, to send a


         10  code inspector, to write a violation, whatever all


         11  the steps were.  In Local Law 38 the liability that


         12  we had in the performance of those activities was


         13  limited.  In this law there is no such language,


         14  which means we make a human mistake, somebody loses


         15  a piece of paper, somebody missed something,


         16  somebody didn't get to the end of their routing and


         17  then they got someplace a day later than they


         18  expected to be, the city becomes potentially


         19  unprotected from a fairly large liability risk.


         20  Again, just talking about in its regulatory


         21  function.  I'm not talking about in its function as


         22  a landlord or owner of property. We believe that


         23  risk is unintended and we also don't believe it aids


         24  the law in any possible way.  We think that there


         25  should be clear standards and time frames in the













          2  things that we're supposed to do.  We think we


          3  should be accountable as we try to be to the Council


          4  and to the Mayor in terms of our ability to carry


          5  out those functions, but we don't think we should


          6  saddle the city with a huge potential liability pool


          7  that creates a very significant risk.  So that's one


          8  concern.  Did I ‑‑ okay.


          9                 MR. SCHULTZ:  I'm sorry, my name is


         10  Harold Schultz.  I'm special counsel for the


         11  Department of Housing, Preservation and Development.




         13                 What I would add to that concern is


         14  of course of particular concern when we're looking


         15  at a statute that has time frames requiring us to do


         16  things in times that we basically believe are not


         17  really feasible and that does not recognize the


         18  nature of the problem that we have when we try to


         19  gain access to apartments that we don't control in


         20  order to get work done.


         21                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  So these two


         22  ideas kind of go together.  If we've got an


         23  unrealistic burden, this is really exacerbated by


         24  having kind of this unlimited liability concern.  So


         25  these two things kind of work against each other in













          2  this case.  We think both these things need to be


          3  adjusted.


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  I just want


          5  to just be clear that under Local Law 1 the city and


          6  landlords are subject to liability on the basis of


          7  neglect.  Under the present law, not Local Law 38


          8  because it doesn't exist ‑‑


          9                 MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, actually, that's


         10  actually debateable, Councilman, and I'll tell you


         11  why.


         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  In terms of


         13  city owned properties.


         14                 MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, in terms of city


         15  regulatory activity, the courts in general have held


         16  the city not liable.  Our concern right now,


         17  frankly, is the issue of Local Law 38.  Local Law 38


         18  had language that specifically held the city not


         19  liable in its regulatory context, we are now


         20  concerned that replacement statute, which once again


         21  doesn't have that, might be interpreted by a court,


         22  possibly interpreted by a court as a decision by the


         23  Council to remove what we would have thought was the


         24  natural liability ‑‑ the natural immunity of the


         25  city from regulatory liability.  So that's why it's













          2  particularly important in this case.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  And with


          4  respect to the landlords, private owners?


          5                 MR. SCHULTZ:  Landlords had liability


          6  under the prior statute, although I would say that


          7  not during the entire time of that prior statute.


          8  It required a subsequent decision of the court, the


          9  Wave Crest decision, which then imposed liability.


         10  That happened relatively late in the history of


         11  Local Law 1 and was not that big an issue and was


         12  pretty much when Local Law 38 came into effect did


         13  change that, but in the early history of Local Law


         14  1, Wave Crest was not the standard.


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  I guess the


         16  big issue that has been coming up today, especially


         17  as evidenced by the first time appearance of the


         18  Commissioner for Homeless Services, is the


         19  discrimination issue.  I was wondering, we're


         20  already under liability framework.  Are you seeing


         21  evidence of discrimination over these last X number


         22  of years because of the fact that landlords, whether


         23  it be the city or, more importantly, private


         24  landlords are discriminating?


         25                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I don't think













          2  we would say that we've seen something in the short


          3  term and I don't think we could see something in the


          4  short term for a couple of reasons.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Because


          6  Local Law 1 is much longer ‑‑ has been around for a


          7  while.


          8                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Right.  But


          9  again, we spent the last three years with Local Law


         10  38, so I think one of the points of confusion right


         11  now is that I think there's a lot of confusion out


         12  there, frankly, in the industry in terms of what


         13  kind of standards they're supposed to be meeting


         14  right now.  And this is actually not a good thing


         15  from anybody's point of view.  I think that we have


         16  a situation where people may not be sure, are they


         17  following Local Law 38 rules, are they following


         18  Local Law 1, and while it may be clear from a


         19  lawyer's perspective which law is applicable right


         20  now, I think to the average person out there who's


         21  trying to make repairs or carry out work in their


         22  buildings, I don't think it's so clear to them.  So


         23  I don't think the full ‑‑ I don't think the impact


         24  of Local Law 1 provisions is really being felt in


         25  the industry right now.  Again, just because of the













          2  oddity of the way that Local Law 38 was rescinded, I


          3  think there's a lot of owners out there who probably


          4  still don't fully understand that.


          5  I certainly think that makes me certainly agree with


          6  you that it's important to pass another bill


          7  because, regardless of what we might believe is the


          8  law that people should be following today, I think


          9  there's a certain amount of confusion out there and


         10  the quicker we can resolve that confusion with a law


         11  that we can all begin explaining to people and


         12  reaching out to people and making sure that they


         13  understand what the obligations are, the better off


         14  we all will be.


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  But, again,


         16  to your knowledge we are not experiencing


         17  discrimination by virtue of the liabilities that are


         18  presently imposed on landlords?


         19                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  No, and we


         20  didn't suggest that in my testimony.


         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  I don't


         22  think you expressed it that implicitly, but by


         23  making reference to Massachusetts, it suggested that


         24  if you maintain liability, that there will be the


         25  Massachusetts experience in New York City in terms













          2  of discrimination against families that have


          3  children.  So I just wanted to make sure that it was


          4  clear that we already have that ‑‑ we're already


          5  operating in that context and we're not seeing that


          6  kind of evidence yet.


          7                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I would just


          8  reiterate once again that the Wave Crest standard


          9  came along late in the history of Local Law 1, and


         10  on top of that the confusion with regard to ‑‑


         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  How late was


         12  that, do you know?


         13                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I think it was


         14  not until like the early to mid '90s that you had


         15  the Wave Crest standard. I have to check the date.


         16  But Local Law 1 was passed in 1982.  It was not the


         17  standard throughout most of the '80s and I believe


         18  the early '90s.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  How long do


         20  you think it takes before discrimination becomes


         21  apparent in the housing?


         22                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  No, it's just


         23  that we're saying that that wasn't the standard.


         24  You know, things changed after that decision.  That


         25  was the issue.













          2                 Our only point, you know, is this


          3  what we are saying with some sort of crystal ball


          4  certainty is going to happen?  No.  What we're


          5  saying is this is what happened in Massachusetts.


          6  We're saying we have some intrinsic issues in our


          7  housing marketplace in New York City that can make


          8  us vulnerable to these kinds of things.  It is a


          9  seller's market in New York.  It's a very low


         10  vacancy rate.  We have more people chasing


         11  apartments than apartments available for them.  So


         12  we know we've got some of the circumstances that


         13  make people seeking housing in New York,


         14  particularly lower income people, more vulnerable to


         15  problems in finding those apartments.  We know that


         16  that's the case now.  So all we're saying is that


         17  this is a concern, we should be aware of it. We


         18  believe that there are some fairly de minimis things


         19  that we could do to change this law in order to keep


         20  all the same standards in place, accomplish the same


         21  objectives that I think we all are trying to


         22  accomplish and minimize the unintended consequences.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Just so I'm


         24  clear, should we be protecting landlords who


         25  discriminate against families with children to avoid













          2  liability?


          3                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  No, of course


          4  not.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Okay.  So we


          6  shouldn't be crafting legislation that says


          7  eliminate liability to eliminate discrimination.


          8                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  What we should


          9  be doing is crafting legislation that gives


         10  landlords an incentive to meet the standards that


         11  are carried out, that are provided for in the law.


         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Okay.  We


         13  can probably do that and maintain liability as well


         14  because I would expect that the same landlord that


         15  discriminates is probably the kind of landlord that


         16  we would want to be liable for negligence.  It seems


         17  that those types of values of being a discriminator


         18  and being one who is purposefully negligent are


         19  about the same character.  We don't want ‑‑ do you


         20  understand?


         21                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  Yes, I do.  I'm


         22  not sure I agree with that.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Okay.  Let


         24  me ask you, Dr. Friedan.  I want to be clear.  You


         25  in your presentation make note of the problem of the













          2  seven and the six.  Am I correct?  It's my


          3  understanding that we've come to some accommodation,


          4  mutually acceptable accommodation to some extent


          5  crafted by you or the administration side and am I


          6  correct in that regard?  Because I was wondering why


          7  it was still being represented?


          8                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  The current


          9  draft is something that I stated in my testimony is


         10  a significant improvement. It's not from our view


         11  ideal ‑‑


         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  I want to be


         13  specific about the seven and the six.


         14                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  We can live


         15  with the current draft of seven and six, yes.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Okay.  Thank


         17  you very much.  Because you raised that again and


         18  cited the 15% and the other, you know ‑‑


         19                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  I just wanted


         20  to make clear why we're concerned about it, that's


         21  all.


         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  That's a


         23  fight that's been ‑‑ that's off the table.  So if


         24  you put it on the table, it might make people who


         25  are concerned about that think that that has not













          2  been addressed.  I know that you were generous in


          3  saying we've addressed some things together but you


          4  brought that one back up as if it wasn't addressed


          5  and that has budgetary implications and other types


          6  of implications.  In fact, the decision about it


          7  basically put it in your court to determine whether


          8  or not it was appropriate after one year of being in


          9  implementation.  Am I correct?


         10                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  At the Board


         11  of Health, actually.


         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Yes.  Okay.


         13  So we just want to make sure the record's clear.


         14                 Now, assuming that such


         15  technicalities as that and others that you've cited


         16  this morning in your testimony were mutually


         17  resolved with perhaps the exception of the


         18  liabilities or with regard to the city and with


         19  regard to the private landlords, do you think that


         20  you would be ‑‑ we would be able to be agreeable on


         21  a piece of legislation?


         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Let me just


         23  interject.  I'm very serious about this.  Another


         24  five minutes and we're finished here because I have


         25  people that have to get home to the Bronx, Brooklyn,













          2  and I'm very concerned about people's safety.  So


          3  Queens, you're only over the bridge.  So five


          4  minutes and we're out of here.


          5                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  I don't think


          6  we can make that statement because I think that for


          7  us the liability issues are very much intrinsically


          8  integrated into the issues, particularly around time


          9  frames and the obligations around time frames.  I


         10  would reiterate that I believe that the gaps are not


         11  significant and that we could probably talk through


         12  some of these things and hopefully reach a


         13  resolution.


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Putting


         15  liability to the side, and we did to some credit,


         16  talk through those things, would you still ‑‑ would


         17  you be able to support the bill with liability,


         18  without giving the city freedom from liability?


         19                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  We cannot put


         20  that aside.  We cannot put that aside.  That would


         21  be ‑‑ we believe that would be irresponsible.  We


         22  couldn't do that.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Okay.  Dr.


         24  Friedan?


         25                 COMMISSIONER PERINE:  But we













          2  certainly can talk about it.


          3                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Bill, I'm


          4  going to end this.  I'm sure we'll have another


          5  hearing.  You know, I'm ‑‑


          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  This is my


          7  last question.  I'm not going to ‑‑


          8                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Is it ‑‑


          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  I'm just


         10  asking for an answer to this one last question.


         11                 (Commotion)


         12                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Excuse me.


         13  You can be removed from this chamber.  Go ahead.


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Dr. Frieden,


         15  I just wanted to get your response to the question.


         16                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN:  The response


         17  will be from the administration when I see a new


         18  version of the bill in addition to the liability


         19  concerns, the chewable surface issue I outlined in


         20  some detail on the other issues I think are issues


         21  that need to be addressed.  I do feel we're very


         22  close and that we do have a mutual goal coming up


         23  with an implementable and effective piece of


         24  legislation.


         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS:  Thank you.













          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO:  Save it for


          3  next week.


          4                 I have four whatever here, people


          5  that have signed up.  You will be put on the top of


          6  the list.  I can assure you there will be another


          7  hearing.  I apologize, but I have folks getting very


          8  nervous here.  Proposed Intro. No. 101A is laid


          9  over.  There was a lot of confusion.  Folks worked


         10  very late into the night and that's why some of the


         11  issues are not clear.  But in another few days we'll


         12  be able to take a better look at the new bill.


         13  Thank you all for coming.  Safe home.  This hearing


         14  is adjourned.


         15                 (Hearing concluded at 3:05 p.m.)

































          2              CERTIFICATION






          5     STATE OF NEW YORK   )


          6     COUNTY OF NEW YORK  )






          9                 I, PAT IARKOWSKI, do hereby certify


         10  that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript


         11  of the within proceeding.


         12                 I further certify that I am not


         13  related to any of the parties to this action by


         14  blood or marriage, and that I am in no way


         15  interested in the outcome of this matter.


         16                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto


         17  set my hand this 5th day of December 2003.












         23                          PAT IARKOWSKI

















          2             C E R T I F I C A T I O N














          9            I, PAT IARKOWSKI, do hereby certify the


         10  aforesaid to be a true and accurate copy of the


         11  transcription of the audio tapes of this hearing.






















         22                 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

                              PAT IARKOWSKI