COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, 5/31/01 2:07 p.m. - - - BILL 010373 - Authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the City, to file an application with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a community development block grant; and to take any and all other action necessary to participate in the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. . . BILL 010348 - Declaring that it is desirable for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the City of Philadelphia served by the Community College of Philadelphia for the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia to provide certain financial assistance to the Community College of Philadelphia. . . PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL, Chair COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 /00 FINANCE I N D E X Page BILL 010348 Donald Cramp, Director . . . . . . . . . . . Hospitals and Higher Ed. Facilities Authority Dr. Steven Curtis, President . . . . . . . . Community College of Philadelphia BILL 010373 John Kromer, Director, OHCD. . . . . . . . . 10 Mjenzi Traylor, First Deputy Director. . . . 23 Commerce Department 11 James Fluck, Executive Vice President, PIDC 28 12 Curtis Jones, President and CEO. . . . . . . 39 Philadelphia CDC John Lenahan, Vice President Lending . . . . 41 Department, Philadelphia CDC Scott Wilds, Assistant Housing Director. . . 55 Dainette Mintz, Director . . . . . . . . . . 90 Special-Needs Housing Roderick Lyles, Fiscal Officer, OHCD . . . . 109 Rose Gray, Director of Development . . . . . 141 Association Puerto Riquenos En Marcha Anthony McIntosh, Executive Vice President 146 Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation 3 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon. This will begin our Finance Committee hearing. The first bill for consideration is Bill No. 010348. A quorum being present, we can begin. To my left is Councilman David Cohen. To my right, President Anna Verna, and to her right, Councilman James Kenney. We will ask the clerk to read the title of the bill.
Thank you very much. Let me say good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony an welcome.
Thank you so much. My name is Donald Cramp. I am the Director of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority. I am very pleased to be here with Austin McGreal to my right, general counsel of the Authority; to my left, Dr. Steven Curtis, President of Community College of Philadelphia; and Mr. Kevin Scott, counsel to the Community College, to the left of Dr. Curtis. Also 4 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 in the audience, we have several other expert professionals should there be a need. May I first express my appreciation to you, Madam Chairperson and each member of the Finance Committee for your courtesy to address our needs before the summer recess. By hearing us today, you will give us the flexibility to sell the bonds possibly in the late summer and at a time when it is judged that the interest rates are favorable and thereby, the cost savings to the college can be maximized. Also, your considerate hearings today will enable us to be respectful of the timing of other possible bond financings intended for sale to the public on behalf of the City of Philadelphia. As well, I wish to make a brief introductory statement in support of the proposed bill before you. At the board of directors meeting of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia on April 10, 2001, the Community College submitted an application for financing. The application seeks the Authority's assistance in the proposed financing. Before turning to Dr. Curtis, may I close as I began. For the Authority, thank you for 5 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 helping us work in a cordial manner with our hospitals and universities. Your courtesies never go unnoticed. Now it is with true and great pleasure that I turn to Dr. Steven Curtis, President of the Community College of Philadelphia.
My name is Steven Curtis, President of the Community College of Philadelphia, and I'm here to provide testimony in support of Bill 13 No. 010348. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the college in an approximate amount of $35 million. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance the cost of the acquisition and construction of a new business and industry technology center for the Community College of Philadelphia. The center will be located on an undeveloped parcel of land at 18th Street and Callowhill Street in Philadelphia, adjacent to the 6 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 college's main campus. The three-story center will be approximately 97,000 gross square feet on top of a two-story below-grade partially-enclosed parking garage. The site will accommodate the college's Division of Community Services and Continuing Education Programs, which have outgrown space currently -- I should say, which have outgrown space which is currently leased at 16th and Callowhill Streets. The center will also accommodate some of the degree programs offered by the college which makes the greatest use of advanced computer technologies. The three-story building will contain a combination of computer laboratories, so-called "smart" classrooms, distance-learning classrooms, a new career planning and placement center for students, faculty offices, meeting rooms, and seminar rooms. The design of the building will ensure flexibility to accommodate current and future technologies. Classroom and seminar spaces will be designed in a variety of configurations to address the wide range of customized and instructional programs offered by the college to business and 7 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 industry clients as well as to meet the needs of degree programs offered by the college, again, using advanced computer technologies. To assist the college in the development of the project, the college has engaged the Binswanger Companies, a well-known and respected real estate firm, to acquire and develop the project on the college's behalf. The project will be developed and owned by a Binswanger affiliate, Combins LP, and leased to the college pursuant to the terms of a long-term lease. The college will have the option to purchase the project at the end of the term for a nominal sum as well as the option to purchase the project during the term of the lease for an amount equal to the unamortized debt issued to finance the project, plus a nominal sum. The college has applied to the Hospitals Authority for financial assistance, which would consist of issuing its revenue bonds, series of 2001, in an amount not to exceed $35 million for the purposes of financing the project on behalf of the college. The revenue bonds will be secured by an assignment by Binswanger of the payments made by the college under the lease directly to the bond 8 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 trustee. The lease payments will be made directly to the bond trustee and will be sufficient to pay the principal and premium of and interest on the revenue bonds. At the same time, the college estimates that -- excuse me. At this time, the college estimates that the total cost of the project, including capitalized interest, reserved funds, and issuance costs will be approximately $29 million, and is requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds in a like amount to finance the project. The college and Binswanger are committed to using their good-faith efforts to obtain participation in minority- and women-owned contractors and subcontractors for the project. We expect to meet at least the minimum City goal of percent minority and women participation. 19 This concludes my testimony, and I'll be 20 glad to answer any questions that you might have. 21 Thank you. 22
Thank you very 23 much. 24 The Chair also notes that Councilman 25 Darrell Clarke is here. 9 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 Thank you. Are there any questions for members on the committee? (No questions.)
All right. What we are going to do on this bill is to -- for the purposes of Bill No. 010348, we're going to conclude our public hearing and enter -- are there questions? (No questions.)
We're going to recess our public hearing and enter into a public meeting for the purposes of 010348. I'm going to ask Councilman to give me a motion with a suspension of the rules for this bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 010348 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor? 10 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010348 Opposed? It has been moved and seconded that Bill 4 No. 010348 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules be suspended so as to permit first consideration at our next session. Again, all in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
May I just make a motion to the relatively new president of Community College. This expresses or great respect and admiration both for the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority and for the work of Community College over many, many years. We wish you extremely well in your endeavors to continue to raise the level of Community College. We think it's the finest community college in the country, and we think it just performs in an outstanding way for all of the people of Philadelphia. And that's the reason you find so little question. We know the Authority studies the 11 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 situation very carefully before it makes its recommendation. Your explanation was very clear. We wish you well in this development.
I think that Councilman Cohen spoke for all of us. We appreciate all that you and certainly are happy to support this legislation. Thank you very much.
And that also includes the counsel for the committee, Mr. McGreal.
Now that we have concluded this piece of legislation, the Chair notes that Councilman Michael Nutter has resumed and we also resume our finance hearing with regard to our community development block grant application. We will please ask Mr. Kromer and whomever else you would like to have with you at the table to come forward to begin your testimony. Again, thank you all for your patience, and as you know, we will have the Administration's testimony 12 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 today and we will have the community groups starting at on Monday. It might make it a little simpler 4 this year with starting the community on Monday, but 5 today, we will try to conclude all Administration 6 testimony. 7 (Witness comes forward.) 8
Having said 9 that, the clerk has already read the bill, and 10 Mr. Kromer, please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony. We also note that, before you do that, Marian Tasco, Vice Chair of this committee, is here. Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'm John Kromer, Director of the City of Philadelphia's Office of Housing and Community Development. I've submitted written testimony, but I'd like an opportunity just to provide some additional comments, which I think I can deliver in fewer than five minutes and which I think would be helpful in addressing some of the issues which Council may be concerned about. A key issue is with the community development block grant is always resources -- what 13 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 are we getting, where's it being spent, how much do I get for my particular interest. And one of the issues and resources is really going to be an important topic at this hearing and during this year. We really have to prepare ourselves for a fundamental change in the way that the community development block grant is regarded. During the past decade, it was possible to use the block grant as the primary resource for neighborhood reinvestment. There was a lot of it and we could use its flexibility to do a lot of things, and that situation has changed for a few reasons that I'll describe in a moment. And going forward, starting with the coming year, the block grant really cannot be regarded as the primary central resource for neighborhood reinvestment. It's got to be regarded as one of several key resources that need to be used in coordination and in concert with one another. In past years -- and I'm speak really of the past eight years -- there's been a lot of community development block grant money and other federal money available for neighborhood 14 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 reinvestment. During the early 1990s, tens of millions of dollars remained unspent, and it was possible to tap into those unspent dollars from prior years to begin doing a lot of housing production. During the Clinton administration, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros was very generous to Philadelphia, and we received a home ownership grant, an empowerment zone grant, and several other special grants which really supplemented the federal money that we received every year. That pattern has really stopped and there have not been any special federal award programs now for sometime. A third factor during the 1990s was a Section 108 Program, and every year for a period of five or six or seven years, I came to Council and requested and obtained approval for Section 108 financing for various housing activities. And, again, that was a resource of tens of millions of dollars, which was very valuable to the City. The neighborhood which was the primary beneficiary of the Section 108 borrowing during that period was Logan. Section 108 dollars were borrowed every year to support relocation of residents from 15 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 the Logan Triangle, and if we hadn't done that, we would be here today with about 250 families living in imminently dangerous housing in the Logan Triangle area. So I'm pleased with the results of the Section 108 borrowing. But we're not going to be able to sustain that level of activity because we don't have access to those additional resources that were so readily available in past years. And just to give you a sense of the impact of the reduced resources on our program, I wanted to give you one handout that shows the performance of the Basic Systems Repair Program over the past few years, and you'll see how the decline in resources has affected our ability to deliver home repairs, which I know are a concern to most or all members of City Council. 7 million available for these repair programs and produced about 6500 units of repair. In Year 25, by contrast, the last fiscal year, only about $9 million was available, and production dropped by nearly two-thirds, down to about 2500 units. 16 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 And the reasons for that drop in production primarily were two. 4 million in Year 21, down to nearly a million dollars less in Year 25.
And that drop means 850 to 900 heaters that couldn't get replaced, or collapsing roofs that couldn't get replaced. That's significant. 3 million in Year to $6 million less in Year 25. 12 So why the reduction in community 13 development block grant dollars? And the answer is 14 that the block grant began to get spread a little 15 more thinly during those years and stretched a 16 little more further than it had to in previous years 17 because those federal grants weren't coming in and 18 the prior years' unspent funds weren't available. 19 And a primary activity during those 20 years, which continues to be a priority activity, 21 was housing production, and I just have a onelist here of the housing production pipeline, which includes new construction and vacant house rehabilitation ventures to which the Administration and Council has made commitments. And these are 17 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 published in the plan that was approved by Council in the last fiscal year. And for all of these ventures, we have committed funding for pre-development work, for acquisition, or for bricks and mortar activities. You'll see in this current pipeline of development ventures which have received some level of support but have not been fully funded, we've gotten nearly 800 units and we've got an estimated commitment of over $44 million yet to be committed during this coming fiscal year and in future fiscal years. So the bottom line from all of this is that we can't support more housing preservation, more housing repair, more housing production, plus authorize new development ventures; we just don't have the resources that we used to have. We can certainly use community development block grant as a base which provides some support and leverages other resources, but we can no longer view the community development block grant as the place to go to fund all of these things exclusively. So where else can we go and how can we blend other resources with the block grant to address this pipeline, which is a City commitment, 18 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 it's a published commitment, to get the job done? I have one last handout which suggests some ways in which we can address this issue of resources based on some opportunities, most of which have just emerged within the past year. And one of them I don't want to spend too much time on but mentioned right off the bat is the Mayor's -- the bond financing associated with the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, and I do want to mention this and cite the example of the Jefferson Square sales housing that's identified in the first of the nine ways to create more resources for neighborhood reinvestment. Jefferson Square, even if it receives the State Home Ownership Choice Award, which we will be applying for, Jefferson Square needs $3 million in City subsidy over and above the State funding, $3 million to support this sales housing venture. That's double the maximum subsidy amount that the City has approved in past years, and the question is, with this pipeline and with the demand on the limited resources, how could we approve double the subsidy that we're accustomed to authorizing? And the response that's being proposed through 19 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Neighborhood Transformation Initiative is to blend some limited community development block grant support with acquisition and site preparation from the bond financing, but it's really more than that, and you can read this handout for yourself. I just want to --
Excuse me, Mr. Kromer, excuse me one moment. Councilman Nutter asked that you back up maybe two paragraphs ago and begin again. And while he's doing that, Mr. Traylor, would you come forward because we'd like to get all of the testimony on the record and then ask our questions. It might make life a little more organized. Thank you. Mr. Kromer?
Sure. I was touching on the issue of resources and the limitations of resources and the desire that I think we all share to fund a range of activities from preservation to new production to new ventures over and above those that are in the pipeline.
You said something 20 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 about the amount of subsidy and doubling the subsidy or something like that, and I lost you at that point.
Yes. One of the ventures in the development pipeline is the Fifth and Reed sales housing, the Jefferson Square venture, which the City has supported in the past and which Mayor Street has proposed as the City's entry in the State-funded Home Ownership Choice Program, which we hope would provide some additional funding from the State. Even if Philadelphia's successful in receiving that State funding, $3 million of subsidy is required in order to bring Jefferson Square to implementation. And in past years, our published underwriting criteria has specified that the maximum subsidy shall be $1.5 million.
Well, that's just been an established practice that's been published annually in the plan and authorized by Council as part of the plan. It's one of the standards that we've used.
All right. I'm sorry. Okay. 21 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
All right. So we want to get all of the testimony out first, Mr. Kromer.
Thank you. I'll just wrap up quickly. Just to cite two of other items in the Nine Ways Summary, the second one, we need to do more leveraging from non-City sources and the proposed West Oak Lane Home Improvement Program, which is being sponsored by the LISC Program, in concert with two private-sector entities, would leverage $5,000 per property for every $3,000 in subsidy that the City puts down. So we like that and we'd like to do more of that in the future, and we've got to do more of that in order to increase the resource base for home repairs and the other activities that we care about. Something more immediate is item no. 7, reduce the soft costs associated with housing production. One of the biggest soft costs that appears in the current development budget is for ventures like the ones in this pipeline is construction interest. And with -- through coordination with Redevelopment Authority, we will 22 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 be drawing down a $10 million community development block grant float loan in order to establish a zero-interest construction loan fund at the Authority that will provide construction financing for development ventures that are receiving subsidy from the City. The first venture to be financed through this construction loan fund, which is the next phase of Cecil B. Moore sales housing, will save approximately $200,000. One deal, $200,000 in saving on soft costs. So these items add up to a lot of additional resources, and I hope that reinforces my point that we need to continue to regard the block grant as a very significant base for further activity, but we can't regard that as the only resource. We've got to work the block grant in combination with other sources of funding in order to continue to be ambitious about neighborhood reinvestment and achieve the performance results that we all want to see. Thank you.
Let me note before Mr. Traylor begins that Councilman Frank 23 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 DiCicco is here. So we have a full contingent of Councilpersons who are here for this hearing. Councilman W. Wilson Goode is also here. Thank you. Mr. Traylor, would you identify yourself for the record and present your testimony.
Thank you. My name is Mjenzi Traylor. I'm First Deputy Director of the Commerce Department. Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell and members of City Council. I am here today to present testimony in support of the Fiscal Year 2001 Consolidated Plan. With me this afternoon are Curtis Jones, President of Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation, and James Fluck, Vice President of Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. For Fiscal Year 2002, the City's approach to neighborhood economic development continues to encompass three goals: assisting small neighborhood businesses, investing in neighborhood physical infrastructure to improve the business environment near residential areas, and fostering the group of community economic development skills and capacity particularly within community 24 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 development corporations. Today, I would like to point out major program areas that will receive changes in funding for Fiscal Year 2002. Our lending and grant programs are administered by PCDC, PIDC, and the Commerce Department. PCDC's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund will be increased from $1,650,000 to $3 million. In the current year, businesses will 10 receive loans under the program -- that is, under 11 the SBRLF Program. This fund, together with PCD's 12 other financing programs, will achieve approximately 13 100 transactions. 14 The Neighborhood Development Fund is 15 administered by PIDC. This was a lending program, 16 which, in past years, provided the gap financing for 17 numerous neighborhood businesses and development 18 projects. NDF received no funding in the current 19 year but will receive $2 million in the 2002 budget. 20 As stated in the Consolidated Plan, PIDC will 21 provide assistance to at least 15 projects, which 22 will retain 600 jobs and create 1400 new ones. 23 The Neighborhood Support Services 24 Program, which supports targeted neighborhood work 25 by CDCs in nine neighborhoods, will be increased 25 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 from 900,000 to 950,000. The Commerce Department will continue to offer three levels of grant support. The Pre-development Grant will be increased from 150,000 to 200,000. The Planning and Marketing Grants will also go from 150 to 200,000. The Neighborhood Development Grants, which received no funding in the current year, will receive $1,500,000 in 2002. PCDC will draw down Section 108 funds to assist in larger-scale development projects and to support our Neighborhood Lending Programs. The primary goals of these Section 108 loans will be to create permanent jobs for residents in Philadelphia, to stimulate private investment, and to generate tax ratables for the City. While the creation of jobs for low- and moderate-income Philadelphians will be the key criteria for these loans, the expansion of retail goods and services in our neighborhoods and the elimination of blight will be an alternative criteria. There was no Section 108 allocation in the current year; $15 million is budgeted for year 2002. PCDC will continue to operate the Targeted Neighborhood Commercial Area Program. This 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 program provides for an array of support services to 38 commercial areas, and these areas are listed on Pages 74 and 75 of the Consolidated Plan. In addition, PCDC will provide direct assistance for for-profit businesses and nonprofit organizations which act as key service providers and employers in these commercial areas. The principal goal of the TNCA Program is to enable these businesses to remain and to expand while providing needed goods, services, and employment opportunities for Philadelphia's low and moderate-income residents. PCDC will also provide acquisition grants to community-based development organizations located in these commercial areas. The CBDO's will acquire and improve the properties.
After the improvement is completed, they will either lease or sell the properties to businesses that will provide retail goods or services to the low- and moderate- income residents of that neighborhood. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Council for their ongoing commitment to the Office of the City Representative and Commerce Department's economic development activities. We look forward to working closely with members of 27 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Council to continue to strengthen the economic base of the City. My colleagues and I will be pleased to respond to any questions Council may have. Thank you.
Thank you. And we thank everyone else from all of the housing departments who are here this afternoon. Now we'll begin our fun part -- our questions. I think for Mr. Traylor, we only have one -- I only have one. Would you provide information as to the projects that will retain 14 the jobs, that will retain 600 jobs and create new 15 ones? Would you give us details about who they are?
No, those projects are not known at this time. That will come through an application process to PIDC. And if you want some further explanation of how that application process will work, we can have Mr. Fluck give us that at this time.
Or what the criteria is for people to apply would probably be most useful in how jobs are created and who can 28 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 apply and how they can apply. That would be very helpful. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is James Fluck, and I'm Executive Vice President of PIDC.
Regarding your question in terms of the application process, basically, an application under the program has to meet one of the criteria established under the CDBG program for fundability. It has to benefit low- and moderate-income individuals, it has to employ low- to moderate-income individuals, and it has do so at the rate of employment of low- and moderate-income individuals one job per $35,000 of lending. So those are the general criteria that we look at in terms of identifying prospective 29 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 projects.
And then we'll provide an application, we'll go over it with a client, and evaluate the project with a client.
No, no. This is simply an application. Again, we look at things like: total project; what's it cost; what's the financing; what are the sources of the financing; in addition to the financing we provide, is there any private financing; how many jobs will it create. Those kinds of things are what we look at and evaluate.
Okay. How will 600 jobs be retained and 400 new jobs created?
These are estimates based on our experience in dealing with clients over -- these are goals that we establish for the program. As Mr. Traylor said, there aren't any specific companies that have been identified at this time, 30 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 but they will be over the coming fiscal year.
Let us also note that we note City Planning is represented, PIDC and PCDC. We see Mr. Jones. All right. Does that answer the questions for the committee on that particular issue? Then we'll go back to our questions for Mr. Kromer.
All right. Then we'll entertain questions for Commerce. And then, Mr. Kromer, we'll keep you for last. Councilwoman Tasco.
The Mayor's Business Action Center comes under your department?
Team, right. What is the staffing level? Is it the same level that it was under the prior administration?
No. If I'm not mistaken, 31 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Councilwoman, I think we are two persons under the staffing that was under the previous administration.
I think that we've been trying to not fill them. In other words, if the -- if the current staff -- there has been some restructuring of the department, and if the current staff is able to serve the demand into that unit, then we will live with the current staff. Otherwise, we'll have to fill those slots. But that's a limited budget that they're operating under and so we'd like to keep the staffing at the level it is now.
As you know, we all represent business districts within our Councilmatic districts and as you know, many, many, I guess, if not most of the districts are quite diverse ethnically. And we from time to time -- particularly I do -- run into problems with language barriers, particularly on Fifth Street. And what I'd like to know is, what is the plan for your department to be to have a staff that reflects the diversity of these business strips? Because we have 32 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 more problems because of lack of communication, business people don't know how the City works, they don't know the rules and regulations, I have more complaints about trash, I have more complaints about various zoning issues. And part of the problem we recognize is the ability of our government to communicate with its citizens. And what is being done and will be done? I know you hired someone we recommended to work with the Asian population, but it's nearly not enough to do that because there are other groups that require communication and an understanding of how government works.
As you said, Councilwoman, we did hire over at PCDC in two language areas where there's the higher demand -- and that is for the Korean community as well as for the Spanish-speaking community. And right now, if MBAT has a contact -- you know, in other words, if we're contacted by someone from the business community, Korean business community, and there seems to be a language barrier, then we would call upon, and have called upon, PCDC's person to help us with that. Now, to my knowledge -- and the same 33 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 thing is true with the Spanish-speaking person who is a part of PCDC staff. Now, I think that if there is evidence that is presented by any of the businesses that you represent that that system is not serving them, then we would have to seriously consider adding to, you know, the staffs and, you know, maybe even directly to the MBAT staff to accommodate that. I'm not aware that there is any backlog that comes by way of there being language barriers.
The issue becomes -- I don't believe that they're going to reach out to us; it is our responsibility. For example, last Friday, I did a walk-through on Fifth Street, and I met with the young man who works in the Streets Department who works with the businesses around trash issues, and I asked him what was the real problem. He said the real problem for him was the language issue. So there has to be some coordination there with that department when you're dealing with services and what the City requires -- not so much and I know what you do. You work -- you develop business, but you also are in business retention. 34 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
And so what I see a need for is to have a coordination with L&I, the Streets Department, and communicating to the merchants what their responsibilities are around certain governmental issues they have to deal with.
And so when we go there and we talk to them about how they should put trash out or that they should have Dumpsters or they can't put a retail in a wholesale or there are other issues that -- just because they don't know, you see?
So, you see, there has to be some outreach from us to them in conjunction with those departments that can provide services to them about what they have to do.
Okay. I think I understand the problem or the issue that you're pointing out, and I think what we'd like to try is 35 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 this, because it is clear that we have not communicated with the other departments of the City, as you're saying, that these translating services are available for them.
And it is MBAT's job to be the representatives on behalf of the businesses for any department of the City. I mean, it's their job to do that interacting with the other departments of the City. I think that I'd like to take your suggestion, though, and first see whether we can deal with this issue by communicating with the departments that we have people who are capable of translating in these two communities and then see where we wind up with that.
You know, I'm not being critical; I really want to offer this as the benefit of the experience we've had. And we work well with MBAT and we're not criticizing them at all. I just wanted to give you my observation and the problems I deal with and in responding to concerns raised by the residents from the surrounding community in terms of what's happening 36 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 on the business strips. And I just see a better -- a stronger need for a better communication from the MBAT office and in conjunction with the departments that we have to deal with. And I think that would serve us all better.
With regard to the same issue, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the suggestions I would make in regards to Councilmember Tasco's line of questioning is that -- I don't know what kind of interface and contact that MBAT or Commerce has with the various number of business associations throughout the City. Through my work with the immigration issue, I've come to meet with, based on their outreach to me, numbers of ethnically-based business associations that could provide these kinds of translation and interface service free of charge by letting them know at their association meetings, by 37 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 meeting with them regularly. The Dominican grocers, for example, is an organization that I've come to know quite well over the last few months, and they're willing and want to help to be an arm of government within their communities dealing with their association or other Latin-based organizations and neighborhoods from a business strip perspective. The same thing with a number of other Asian business associations. So I think you may have a wealth of people available and ready outside of government, that if you work with them and met them, could be kind of your conduit of information for the Streets Department, for Health. These are the departments that, for the most part, businesses have tough interface with, and that is: L&I, Health, the Parking Authority, those kinds of agencies. So I would make that suggestion that -- and I would help my office provide you with a list of people that we've met with already so that maybe you can reach out to them and bring them into the loop so that you have an opportunity to have a ready source of translation services and people who are from that particular background and perhaps would be 38 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 more trusted by those particular merchants. I think the discussion also in this regard does bring to the fore what I believe is a need for an office of government that deals simply with immigration services, both immigration attraction and for the people who are here now to be able to do that outreach, not only from a business perspective but health, education, all of those kinds of services that we need to provide to people. So on those two accounts, I'd make those suggestions and thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. I know that what you're saying is correct because in most of the sessions that we have had with both the Dominican as well as the Korean business associations, they have used their own translators for us so that we did not have to call upon the one that we have access to in each one of those categories.
In the Northeast, for example, there's a Russian business association that, you know, provides translation services and other, I guess, cultural information about what people expect, are afraid of, concerned about when 39 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 it comes to each individual group as a large group of Asian Indian business people. So there's a number of groups that are out there and willing to be a part of this.
Mr. Traylor, in your testimony, you indicate that PCDC's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund will be increased from $1.6 million to $3 million. In the current year, 18 businesses will receive loans under the program. 19 What is the amount of the average loan? 20
Mr. Jones or 21 Mr. Lenahan? 22 (Witnesses come forward.) 23
Good afternoon. I'm Curtis 40 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Jones, President and CEO of Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation. In response to your question, our average loan size for that particular program is approximately 70 to $75,000. Now, we can go as low as $25,000 in that particular program up to -- we've done $400,000. But the average loan size is about 70, $75,000.
Are there any businesses in south or southwest Philadelphia who have received the loans?
Oh, absolutely. We have actually -- I would have brought today a breakdown by Councilmatic District.
We provide it usually every year, and we'll make sure that your office and the respective Councilmen get a breakdown of that. Just off the top of my head, in southwest, if you just consider from Market Street, there are a couple of deals on the books or at least being considered now. John, you might want to bring up some of those deals. 41 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
John Lenahan, I'm Vice President for the Lending Department at Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation. We've done a number of deals in South and Southwest Philly. We just had a grand opening, in fact, for a company called Room for Love last Wednesday -- it's not what it sounds like. It's a wedding gift type of operation. And we have funded about three or four businesses along Woodland Avenue. And we have a whole list of projects with where we list by fiscal year, by Councilmatic District the jobs created and retained and the number of outside dollars or the amount of outside dollars that we've arranged for financing for as well.
If you would be kind enough to send a list of that to the chairperson and she will distribute it to members of Council, we would all appreciate it.
We would like Year 25 and Year 26, please. 42 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000, we actually far exceeded our goal in terms of CDBG-funded loans. We went over $3 million in both loan approvals and loan settlements. That's why we went back to Commerce and requested additional funding for the 2001 year. We weren't able to arrange it for 2001 because the preliminary plan had already been in. However, they indicated they would try and accommodate us for Fiscal Year 2002. That's why the amount has been increased.
It would be very helpful for us, as we try to help groups in our area, if we know. This has always been my argument with PCDC. PCDC makes decisions that for us become very political because consistently, we don't know who you're working with. And I always use the example of -- I had a lot -- within a quarter of a block, there were two lots in my area that were due to be fenced. So PCDC picked the one it chose as opposed to the one I chose. But it's a prime example that, you know, we have to make decisions that affect us being in 43 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 office and that affect our groups. And if PCDC would work with us when groups want loans and grants, everybody benefits. But when you make 'em outside of that, then we feel it becomes many times that you make the political decisions and not us, and we get angry. And I say this every year.
Nothing's changed, and I say it every year, Mr. Jones.
So, again, we ask for those names. In fact, maybe I will, Mr. Kromer, mention this list first before we begin. We would like a list -- we received a list of the CDBG home funding projects, which is very, very helpful. Can we get a list of the names and addresses of persons and firms who received 108 loans? Everything just Fiscal 20 Year and 26 and the projects. That's number one. Number two, persons who benefitted in those two years from the basic system repair. And contractors who completed the works and how much they were paid. That's number two. 44 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 And number three, minority contractors involved in this program. And I think that will do it. All righty. Thank you very much. Mr. Kromer, we would ask you now for the record to tell us again about the Year 27 Plan not having new projects and the Administration's position on that. And part B of that question is that we support the Mayor's blight initiative but feel that we cannot as Councilpeople delegate our responsibility, that responsibility entrusted to us by our constituents to make decisions without having their projects included in Year 27 Plan. Having said that, we have requested from District Councilpersons to give us a list of projects that they requested. Here this is. I would ask one of the Sergeant-at-Arms to hand this to Mr. Kromer. This includes those projects I have to date: Councilman Mariano, Councilman Clarke, Councilwoman Verna, myself and others. I will submit to you as I receive and we would hope that before we conclude our hearings on Monday that we have a response to those specific projects. All of 45 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 it's stuff I'm sure you're that you're already aware of, but we would like to know -- we ask that you keep in touch with the District Councilpersons as you need to respond to that and certainly that you keep me, as chair, informed. So would you respond again to the change in Year 27 and how that changed and why.
Yes. And first let me say that the housing agency staff and I will review this information and any other material provided by Councilmembers carefully and will respond.
Yes, we'll be sure to include that as well. The basic issue that we're facing in the Year 27 is one of limitations of resources. It's a combination of two related activities that occurred. One is that outside funding, whether it be from prior years' unspent funds or from special HUD programs or for 108 loans, additional funding is no 23 longer available in this fiscal year to supplement the entitlement funds that we're receiving this year. 46 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 And then, secondly, we've had a very productive program over the past years. We've had a lot of high-performing community development corporations, a substantial number of private developers who have worked effectively with neighborhood-based organizations, and a very extensive home repair program that's functioned year-round. The result is that the demand for funding is far greater than the amount of resources we have in the coming fiscal year. And, in fact, my point in circulating this list of the pipeline is just to indicate that of the development ventures that the City has already committed to by publishing them in the Year plan, which Council and the 17 Mayor authorized, we have a demand approximating 18 $44 million on the budget, and that's far in excess 19 to the amount that the Year 27 grant could provide. 20 That pipeline doesn't even take into account the 21 additional development ventures that have been 22 submitted today and that, understandably, 23 Councilmembers want to see happening during the 24 coming fiscal year. 25 So we've got to figure out how to deal 47 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 with that limitation. And the response is, number one, that we need to find effective ways to tap other resources, and that's the point of this handout on the nine ways to create more resources for neighborhood reinvestment. And some of these opportunities are big. 7 million last year. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is proposing to commit $3 million to support the East Poplar sales housing development, which is one of the pipeline ventures. And some of the opportunities are not so big. But if we pursue all of them we're going to have a much more substantial budget during this coming year using the block grant and other resources. Now, that may be very well and good, but it doesn't address the question that I'm sure other Councilmembers have. What about the stuff we want to get done this year that's not mentioned in your pipeline and that is not published in the plan? What are we going to be about new development ventures? And my response is, in some respects, the relationship between the Administration and 48 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Council will be the same as it has been in prior years in which we've handled new development ventures effectively, and in some respects, the relationship will be different. There are two ways in which the relationship will be the same. Number one, as in the past, the Administration will not commit money upfront and set aside dollars for specific ventures. We stopped doing that in Year because 11 we found that developers were hanging on to City 12 funding awards and were no delivering results. And 13 in some cases, we found that completing a careful 14 underwriting of a development venture resulted in a 15 finding that a lower City subsidy could be provided 16 than what the developer had requested. 17 So as previously, we will make 18 commitments but we will not set aside a reserve 19 funding. We haven't done that for nearly a decade, and we have been able to deliver funding on time and on budget when called upon to do so. But secondly, and I think this is where we need to do some work and can get some work done, we need to, as the administration, make a commitment to include these development ventures and others 49 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 which you'll be proposing as part of our agenda for the coming fiscal year.
And in the final version of the consolidated plan, to show you that these development ventures will be part of our agenda for neighborhood reinvestment during the coming fiscal year. Again, we've done that with past development ventures that you've brought in every year and those ventures have been funded for pre-development work, for acquisition, for site preparation, and for construction. We're going to do the same thing again this year. It won't be different from the process in the past. There will be some significant differences, however, in the way that we propose to support these development ventures during the coming fiscal year. Number one, we intend to make our funding decisions based on planning, on neighborhood planning that gets done in the communities where these ventures are proposed. And the Planning Commission staff, I believe, has met with all of you and your staffs to talk about the Planning Commission's role, new and expanded role, in planning for development investment. 50 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Why is this important? Let me cite just a couple of examples. One of the ventures that you mentioned, Councilwoman Blackwell, is the Third and Diamond venture that Councilman Mariano wants to see funded.
And we want to support that; it's an important rental housing development venture. But the proposal that we received earlier this year called for a substantial portion of that housing to be built within a Keystone Opportunity Zone, and in fact, on a parcel that the Commerce Department has been acquiring for some years for economic development. So the housing interest was not connecting with the economic development interest. It doesn't take much planning to sort out those issues and get us on the right track, and that's really all that we're proposing to do, to be a little more systemic in neighborhood planning in relating a neighborhood plan to funding decisions, to investment decisions. Another case in point, the Forgotten Bottom neighborhood in South and Southwest 51 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Philadelphia. We've talked about it for years. Most recently, we've talked about some repairs to the existing housing there, and we'll complete those repairs, we'll find the funding for those repairs. But if you look at the map of that area you'll see, as you're aware, that the Forgotten Bottom is adjacent to a Keystone Opportunity Zone and also adjacent to Tasker Homes, where the Housing Authority plans to make a very substantial investment of capital funding. Why aren't getting together all of the parties that need to be involved, not only to repair the houses that we want to repair but to create a master plan for that whole area that encompasses the Tasker Homes improvement, the Economic Development, and the KOZ, and a broader revitalization plan for the Forgotten Bottom neighborhood. Again, that doesn't mean we need to get into a five-year planning process, it's not that hard to figure out, but why don't we work together so that the Housing Authority isn't doing its thing in isolation from the other housing that we're focussing on, why can't we have a unified plan to support these investment decisions. 52 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Some of the other issues have already been raised to Council and presented in public as part of the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative: the cost control issues, the plans to consolidate housing agency administration to lower costs. But the basic thrust would be the same: to support a relationship with Council so that the development ventures that Council wants to see done are integrated into the plan for the coming fiscal year and are processed for implementation. But I expect, based on those two examples and others, that if we follow an approach which combines the block grant with other resources that relates public investment to sensible neighborhood planning, we're going to see a lot more of an effect at the neighborhood level and create a lot more impact than we would if we were treating the block grants as the basic source of funding for all of these activities.
Mr. Kromer, I'm told that in Councilman Mariano's area, that the area that was a Keystone Opportunity Zone is no 24 longer. Just so it's obvious that you can check into that. 53 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 But, certainly, I think that all of us on principle agree. If we reorganize Housing to make it more systemic, coordinate agencies like RDA and OHCD and PHA so that everybody -- so that we have an approved system with everybody, but certainly before that, we only request that Council feel that there's some level of inclusion so that they know how to respond to constituents who are always pressuring us about trying to get development and housing done in their areas. I think that's kind of bottom line. Everybody wants to streamline, everybody wants do it better, but they just want to be kept apprised of what that means and what that process is.
It seems to me that we can be very clear with Council about how these requests and other concerns that are brought up today and Monday can be related to the planning process and the implementation approach that I've described. We've done that in the past and I don't think it's too much to expect that we could do it again and publish that as part of the final document here.
Great. We understand that funding for homeless 54 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 and special-needs housing has been reduced by 3.5 million last year. Can you explain that? Last year, there was $3 million for development, financing, for acquisition, rehab, or special-needs housing, and this year it is not listed.
I'd like to have Dainette Mintz, the Director of Special-Needs Housing, respond to that. I know she's finishing up a meeting across the street, but she should be here in a few minutes, and I believe the issue relates to the demand for development financing and the ventures that are currently ready to receive funding, but she will follow up on that.
Thank you. All righty. I understand that the AIDS funding has increased and, you know, there's been a reorganization of agencies. I haven't quite understood what that means, but so some new agencies have surfaced, some agencies that have been here since the beginning of time since I know that we've dealt with AIDS have kind of gone by the wayside. Can you explain what the new funding for AIDS means and how the change in how these dollars are 55 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 allocated happens.
I think Scott Wilds can provide some more information on that.
We were fortune this year in getting a substantial increase in AIDS housing and funding. The increase was driven by the increase in caseload in the region. We administer HOPWA, which is a regional HUD-funded program. We got a substantial increase because the number of folks diagnosed with AIDS has gone up dramatically in the City and in the region in the last two years. We've done a couple of things with this increase. We have supported development construction funding for new housing units. We did a request for proposals and we have decided to fund two construction ventures with some of the increase. The other amount of the increase is 56 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 going to set up a new rental assistance venture that will be aimed at folks who are healthy still and are working but can only work part-time and need additional small amounts each month to meet their existing rents. There are a lot of folks, we've been told, that are right on the edge. They work, they can sustain an apartment, but if they get sick or out of work, their worlds just disintegrate. And these new funds will be used in part to fund assistance to keep them in their existing apartments. That is something that we obviously have to have this approved. We will go to HUD and we hope to get it approved this summer. It's based on a model, Oakland, that's been in operation about two years.
Thank you. I'll ask two questions and then defer to my colleagues, who are getting impatient with me asking so many. How well is the neighborhood strategy working per the Mayor's executive order, whereby 50 percent or more of economic benefit of CDBG-funded programs go to immediate and surrounding 57 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 neighborhood people?
The Office of Housing and Community Development provides regular reports on the neighborhood benefit strategy as it affects local employment. And I would say that the results are not what we would like to see in terms of a commitment to return half of the economic value of the development venture to the community. During recent years, the number of construction ventures that have been built by the building trades has increased substantially, and the involvement of the building trades is almost complete across the board in the housing production programs. For various reasons relating to the history of the building trades over the past decade, the number of Philadelphia neighborhood residents who happen to participate in those construction ventures does not give us the level of participation that's called for in the neighborhood benefit strategy legislation. There are only two ways of addressing that situation that I can think of. One is to step up the apprenticeship programs and the process for bringing more neighborhood residents into the 58 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 building trades, and I know some of the trades have done an excellent job in advancing that goal, but clearly, we're not where we need to be. And the second opportunity is to consider mixed labor forces on some construction ventures. And that has happened in the past. It's not really happening now, but if it is possible to make that happen, then we will have a bigger opportunity for more neighbor participation, but we don't -- we are not where we need to be in terms of the neighborhood benefit strategy.
I think that single issue and that of the cost of housing rehabilitation are the two variables that will make a big difference in what projects we get done.
My final question for this round is, would you explain the difference in Section 108 funding between the 15 million allocated toward downtown development and the repayment of 14.212. What is our borrowing capacity for economic development versus housing?
The borrowing capacity for Section 108 is five times the amount of the 59 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 community development block grant entitlement. This year, the entitlement is approximately 72 million, so we have nearly 400 million in borrowing capacity. Some of that capacity has been used to support economic development activities. And in the case of economic development, the 108 funding is borrowed by the City and then loaned to private developers. In each case, the private developer pays back the City and the City pays back the federal government. There is no loss of entitlement funds on the City's part. The situation with respect to housing 108s, the use of Section 108 for housing-related activities is different. As I mentioned, the biggest beneficiary of the housing Section 108 financing was the Logan Triangle area. Every year for an extend period of years, we borrowed $3 million in Section 108 funding to fund Logan relocation activities, and there was no private developer or no other source of payback for that funding. And so the funding has been paid back through a reduction through a commitment from subsequent years' community block development grants. 60 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 And so the Section 108 loan repayment line items that you see in the Year 27 Plan on the budget pages reflect the repayment of those housing-related 108 loans that supported the Logan relocation, but also a variety of other housing production and preservation activities.
Good afternoon, Mr. Kromer. I'd like to go back to what the Chair laid out and I'll be getting some information to her as well. With regard to Year 27 and some of the differences, the Chair mentioned in caucus this morning at our Council session about the need to get information in about projects that members had an interest in, and I was trying to understand -- and she gave every piece of information that she had, which she admitted was not a great deal -- as to why this was the circumstance or the situation this year as compared to previous years. And I was somewhat perplexed by that as well. And I know that you alluded to it earlier, but I really don't understand why it's this 61 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 way. And then the Chair handed you an envelope and other members have things in it. We're kind of down to the wire and it seems like, you know, folks are trying to get in the lottery line before o'clock. 6 Can you explain that? 7
Yes. There's really no 8 necessity for Councilmembers to feel pressured to submit a list of development ventures. We've got time to discuss what each Councilmember would like to see included in the Year 27 Plan. What's a little bit different this year is --
I'm sorry to cut across you. In the past, was it the case that they were already included?
No. In the past, there was an informal process in which I met individually with most of the Councilmembers that had community development block grant issues and interests and talked about what was proposed in the plan and talked about what the Councilmember wanted to see. No formal agreements were made at that time, but there was an opportunity to provide a little exchange of information. 62 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
That hasn't occurred this year in part because of the schedule being a little tighter this time than it was before. And so I think the request for Councilmembers to --
What do you mean "tighter than it was before"? Have we not been around?
Well, usually we've had a little more time between the publication of the proposed plan and the scheduling of the Finance Committee hearing. It's just happened that way and --
Was there a problem at the print shop or something or --
No. And I don't think the change in the schedule really presents any problem. We've still got time to talk over these issues and any others that Councilmembers want to bring up. And as I said --
Maybe what I'm trying to understand then is, how do you put 63 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 together a plan if you don't know what the items that may or will be in the plan are? I mean, what is this document then?
Well, that's why the word "proposed" appears on the cover every year.
But after we vote on it, doesn't it change from proposed to final?
Only after Council reviews and we have some discussion and, in many instances, some agreement on what the final plan will look like. That's what this is all about.
Okay. So let's say the bill comes out next week, gets voted on on the 14th, what happens then?
As in past years, the final consolidated plan would be submitted as the City's application to HUD but -- 64 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Well, it would be this document with any changes, additions, deletions, corrections that the Administration and Council agree should be a part of the plan, just as in past years.
Okay. You made reference earlier to some Planning Commission meetings about developing plans for different neighborhoods. I didn't catch all of that or --
Well, I wanted to say that one of the difference that is proposed for the coming fiscal year that's somewhat different from prior years is that the goal will be to achieve a consistent relationship between neighborhood plans and public investment in neighborhoods. In the past, there has been some relationship, and in many cases a great relationship, but it hasn't been consistent or systemic. 65 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 I said that I believe that every Councilmember has had some communication with Maxine Griffith and her staff about the nature of that neighborhood planning, some elements of that planning. And I believe the staff person from the Planning Commission is here if there are any questions about that process.
Okay. Yeah, I have not experienced that process, but I'm looking forward to it. So at the moment, what can you tell me about the housing proposal in Roxborough that I think was funded last year, for a commitment of funding last year. Is that the 4200 Mitchell?
And what projects or plans do you have so far for the district for Year 27?
Includes Mitchell street 66 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 venture nut what about for this application which is the Year 27 application what can you tell me about that proposed plan in terms of its coverage of any projects in the 4th District?
Well, as I said before, I can't tell you that we're going to reserve or set aside funding, and we haven't done that in the past. I can tell you that there isn't enough money in the Year 27 budget to fund new development ventures in any district using the block grant alone, and that we're going to have to work to combine the block grant with other resources in order to support these ventures and any other ventures that Councilmembers want to see implemented.
Well, how much is the block grant? Is that the 88.924?
And block grant entitlement is about 72 million. It's the first line there.
Right. And then you probably have some program income.
From CDBG-related but, again, if you look at all of the other --
Okay. And you're saying that out of that, there's not enough money to do any projects?
Well, if you compare that to the 44 million in expected funding required just to support what we previously agreed to and the demand for --
Oh, you're saying that you need Year 27 money to add on to this -- 68 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 it's a new term that we got today, the pipeline.
All of these projects need additional funding to get completed.
In part and from other resources as well. I had mentioned PHA as a funding source and PHA enters into the picture in a number of these line items as a significant funding resource.
No, it's not, but we can break some of this out based on what we know now.
All right, that would be helpful. So let me just make sure I understand. So you're saying then that because of the projects that are in the pipeline, there is no money that you 69 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 can identify at the moment in Year 27 for anything new because we have to fund or finish funding all of the stuff in the pipeline. Is that what you're saying?
Not really. I mean, that would be the way to look at it if the block grant were the only resource, but we can't look at the block grant as the only resource. I think the way I would express would be to say that we can't fund housing preservation programs, the pipeline, and new ventures all together with just the block grant funds; there's not enough in the block grant. We've got to expand our resource base if we're going to do all of these things, which I believe we all want to do.
I'm a firm believer in expanding the resource base. Now, have we been in this situation before?
We really haven't to the extent that we are now because of the factors that I had mentioned. We had a lot of access to prior years on spent funds during the early '90s, we had a lot of new federal awards during the mid-1990s, and 70 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 we had a lot of Section 108 borrowing during the late 1990s. We don't have any of those things now and that's a very substantial loss of funding.
At the time that that activity was going on, I mean, was it your anticipation that we would be in this situation?
The resource question has been one that's come up every year in these hearings. So it's always important, yes. But as the Nine Ways Summary indicates, I think, there are always opportunities, and frequently big opportunities, to achieve that broadening of the resource base.
What's being done in the -- we've had discussion over many years about program delivery and general administration or admin. costs. From Year to Year 27, those went 19 up $2 million, and is it correct that for Year 27 20 we're anticipating HUD loan principal and interest 21 repayments of $14,212,000? 22
Okay. So does that 24 mean that between program delivery and the HUD 108 25 loan repayments out of the CDBG allocation, that's 71 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 $45,781,000?
Okay. So that only leaves us, in terms of pure dollars for out on the street activity, with about $44 million, 43 out of the 88.
From the block grant, but the total budget on the order of 120 million.
Well, I understand that, but those are all in the block grant line.
No. The administration is all associated with the $120 million overall budget, not simply the block grant. Yes, the administration costs are funded primarily from the block grant line item, but the total program is a $120 million program.
Right. Well, that's CDBG and Homes and HOPWA and all of that. 72 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
All right. But, again, just staying in the CDBG line in the book on the gray pages, you have 31 million for program delivery and general administration.
Okay. What is being done in the administrative costs area in terms of reduction?
I don't have a detailed presentation today, but I can give you a couple of examples of the approach that has been taken to consolidating administrative responsibilities and cutting down on overhead. 73 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Despite the fact that the housing agencies are subject to the same contract provisions as other City agencies that have representative employees, the operating costs have not increased, despite the fact that the contract-mandated salary increases have taken effect. Several years ago when I appeared before you, I had a deputy director for operations, an executive assistant, and a personal secretary. I have none of those staff now. Currently, we produce a quarterly report for City Council based on a Council request from several years ago. And it's a big report but it's a good report. It provides a lot of detail on the performance of the CDBG-funded programs. A dozen people participate in some ways in contributing to this report, and we're about to make that reporting process a lot more efficient so that people who are spending substantial amounts of time reporting aren't doing that anymore. And we're able to do that for two reasons. First, we're equipped and trained to use computers to do that and were not able to do that, didn't have the equipment or the training in the past years; and secondly, because of that, we're 74 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 able to take advantage of the guidance that MOIS can provide in getting the three housing agencies together to produce one unified report that can be accessible via e-mail and will allow those staff who have been devoting lots of time to reporting to actually work on performance associated with this larger program that we're proposing.
Program delivery and general administration. It went from 29 million to 31 million.
The PCDC line item, I think, is the largest -- represents the largest increase in program delivery, and I think that's related to the increased funding that's proposed for economic development this year. I'm sorry -- PCDC is relatively small. The largest item is the L&I item. I apologize.
There's a slight increase in PCDC. 75 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Curtis, Curtis, Curtis, if you got the biggest number, it's all right, brother, it's okay. (Laughter.)
You know, we got no 7 issue. You're around the corner, you're in the neighborhood, it's no problem. So, I'm sorry, who was the big winner?
PCDC had a relatively small increase, L&I's line item has increased, and this is simply a shifting of the line item --
Yeah. I tell you, boy, you read these gray pages and you see all kinds of stuff, don't you, Mr. Kromer?
This represents a shifting in a line item that has appeared in the block grant budget for about ten years, the L&I Emergency Abatement Program. Previously, the line item was a program line item; in fact, for some years now, the funding has paid for L&I inspectors, I believe 20 or more L&I inspectors, who do code abatement, nuisance 76 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 abatement work in CDBG-eligible areas. And so the line item is shifted from program to program delivery. It's the same funding level which has shifted.
Let me ask you, on that particular item, as much as I work with and admire the work of L&I most of the time, why are we giving them CDBG dollars? Weren't those people already working for the government?
Why isn't this money just taken out of their own budget?
That's an excellent example of a policy that needs to be reviewed and possibly changed. A more significant example, I think, is the workforce development category that we've presented every year under the Employment and Training line item on of this year's budget. And I've been very pleased to fund job-readiness programs and employment training programs supported by Campus Boulevard Corporation, Youth Build, and other fine organizations, which really produce results, but the reason the block 77 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 grant is tapped for that purpose is because these organizations have not been able to get access to the tens of millions of dollars that are currently available in State-funded --
And we have a Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation?
Precisely. And the point is, why can't we take employment and training out of the block grant and fund it through these workforce development programs so that we'd free up in this case $2.2 million annually for housing and neighborhoods.
The question is, are we also giving money to Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation?
Okay. So I guess I go back to the question -- I mean, whether it's, you know, PIDC at $400,000, you know, wonderful people over there, they, you know, again seem to have their own ability to run their operation, L&I at 1.9, the 78 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Commerce Department at 668, the Law Department at 308, City Planning at 339. I mean, these are all City of Philadelphia governmental agencies, and in many instances, I would submit that many of the people probably either by position or individual were already on the government payroll. Why are they being off-loaded to the CDBG program?
Well, the thinking has been, and I support this, that with the possible exception of the L&I staff, all of these staff are performing responsibilities that relate to getting out the community development block grant money. That's been the practice in Philadelphia, as in most other cities, and if that practice were not followed in Philadelphia, we'd be looking to the General Fund to support these positions.
But the L&I inspectors who are inspecting a house or tearing down houses, or whatever these folks are doing, I mean, they don't do anything necessarily different in a CDBG-eligible area, which about two-thirds of the City is CDBG-eligible anyway, versus a non-CDBG-eligible area. I mean, there are only, I guess, a 79 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 couple ways -- I've never done it but, I mean, there are only a couple of ways, I guess, to tear a house down or inspect one, right?
This L&I work relates to occupied housing and housing preservation. I do agree that --
All right. Do they do something different in the CDBG-eligible areas? Do they come over and have breakfast with them and they don't in other places? I mean, what is the difference?
I think the service is basically the same, and I think that point is debatable as to whether the inspectors should be funded from the block grant or not.
What I think everyone would agree with is we need those inspectors out there.
All right. One last question, Madam Chair, and then I'll call it a day. What is this Nine Ways to Create More Resources for Neighborhood Reinvestment? One of them popped out at me, which was number 8, reduce housing construction costs, and you list as an example a place called Spring Lane Meadows. Now, there was no City money in that development, correct?
Okay. Was there any OHCD or any other agency involvement in that development?
Okay. So why is that on the sheet and what does this mean?
Well, as in some other private-market rate development, the cost of completing a unit of housing is substantially lower than the amount that the City pays to complete a unit of housing and there are some good reasons why 81 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 City-financed housing costs more and some reasons which I think might be worth some further examination.
Well, what's a good reason that City-financed housing might cost more? How can that be --
Well, procurement requirements and there are costs associated with processing payments and dealing with the City paperwork that --
-- builders would not have to deal with in privately-funded projects. And that's a good reason. It's certainly not a good thing, and we're trying to change that situation for the better as much as we can. I think on the other hand, and this is where the Roxborough example is a case in point, the labor costs associated with City-funded development are substantially higher than mixed-labor force construction on development ventures such as the Roxborough sales housing. Again, we haven't had an opportunity to talk about that with the building 82 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 trades, but if it would be possible to have a dialogue between the Administration, the developers that we support, and the building trades, perhaps we could get at that cost factor, which is the biggest single factor affecting the high cost of City-subsidized housing in Philadelphia.
Okay. When I return to all of this, Mr. Kromer, I'm going to want to talk to you about some development in Parkside, a distressed neighborhood in Overbrook, the Phoenix project, which you've had meetings about with a group of ministers in West Philadelphia, Bible Way Baptist Church, Carol Park, and the property I believe in the 500 block of North (indiscernible) Street, which I've been trying to get you to fund acquisition for for the last five years.
Thank you, Councilman. Before I call on Councilman Kenney, we have received a list that we would like to submit to you, Mr. Kromer, from Councilwoman Miller to add to the others. I'll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to -- 83 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Yes, to include in the envelope. Now we'll call on Councilman Kenney.
And seal it back up. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kromer, just referring for a moment to the pipeline list, a quick calculation indicates to me that on average, we're probably spending in most of this new construction, it seems to be new construction, both rental and home ownership, it seems to be on average about $100,000 a house. Is that a fair estimate? I mean, if you quickly divide, it's sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, but on average, about $100,000. Is that fair?
I'd have to get out the calculator and also look at what the City subsidy was paying for. In some cases, it's only construction; in some other cases, it's a variety of things.
But from just a cursory look at it. 84 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
What I'd like to know if possible sometime in the near future is how we compare to other similar cities. What happens in Boston, Pittsburgh, cities with strong labor influence, cities without it, and just, you know, how other cities spend their dollars on new construction, just as a kind of general look-see as to what other towns are doing.
Thank you. I'll move a minute to PHDC and the Home Start Program. What's the budget for Home Start?
The budget for Home Start is shown in line item, let's see, 41 of the budget pages. It's near the very top, the second line item and the funding, the proposed funding amount is 1.4 million.
And how many -- last year, how many houses were rehabbed under Home Start?
Let me see. (Witness comes forward.) 85 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Okay. Is there an 8 inventory of Home Start housing that exists? What 9 happens -- what's the process as far as the house is 10 concerned? Once it's rehabbed, what happens? 11
The houses are sold to 12 first-time buyers. Since 1994, we've done 134 13 houses, of which all but two have been sold. 14 There's one of those two that's under sales 15 agreement and the other one is for sale. 16 The ones that were done last year are 17 underway now. About half of those have been sold 18 and they're not done yet.
Do we go back and take a look at the condition of the house and what's going on with the house after it's sold, or basically when it's sold, we're out of the picture?
We're basically out except that we maintain a lien on the house, and if it's sold again, it has to come back to us if it's within 86 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 years so that we do have some chance to review those.
And that's the end 9 of it. So there's no real inventory of housing. Of 10 the 134, there's only two that are waiting to be 11 settled on? 12
On one of them, there is an agreement. On the other one, it's up now for sale still.
And how do you determine what houses to go after, the basic conditions when you first get them, where do they come from, what neighborhoods do you choose, is it throughout the City or specific targeted areas? Basically, how do you determine when to, how to acquire a property and in what neighborhood?
The plan, which Council 87 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 approves every year, names the places in which we work in a general way, the neighborhoods. And as a rule, there are several of those a year. Our staff, along with other folks in those neighborhood groups, we hope to use the (indiscernible) as an example, go out and look at blocks, the blocks have to have -- be in good shape, be intact except for have up to four vacancies. Occasionally, we've gone to four. In the last cycle or two, we've stayed under two or three vacants on that block. We acquire those and then they're rehabbed and sold.
What is the general method of acquisition? I mean, do we take them for back-taxes, do we buy them? How do we acquire them, through eminent domain? What do we do?
A few of them come from the existing vacants owned by the City.
A few of them come from the housing that is owned by the City. The bulk of those are acquired by the RDA by condemnation.
Okay. And then they're turned over -- they're owned or continually owned by the RDA while we do the work? 88 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
They're turned over to PHDC that then does the rehab and sells the house.
So PHDC's actually the person at the table, at the settlement table.
And how do we acquire or how do we come about the potential buyers?
There are marketing sessions held in the area in which the houses are typically, at a church or a rec center or a library. One must go there to that local place and apply. People are screened for the income eligibility; they have to be able to get a bank loan. And then at the end, if there are several folks who want a house, a selection occurs based on a scoring that includes someone from our staff, from PHDC, bank officers involved, and someone that comes out of the group and helps with the marketing.
Do we deal with a specific number of banks or there's a varied number of --
No, it's open to any bank 89 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 that you can go to and get your own loan.
So at the seminar or at the event, you advise people to go to a certain bank or to a neighborhood bank or just to go out and seek potential financing on their own?
Get your own loan. It's not restricted at all to a certain bank.
So, again, of the 134 houses that have been done since 1994, there's only two that you're aware of that are still not occupied.
Excuse me for a moment, please. (Mr. Kromer consults with colleague off the record.)
Mr. Kromer, Councilwoman Tasco has some questions. 90 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
I'm sorry. Dainette Mintz is here, and I just wanted her to respond quickly to the issue on special-needs housing.
Dainette Mintz, Director of Special-Needs Housing. I'm sorry, I don't know the question.
The question is to explain the reduction in special-needs funding, really the shift in line items.
Yes, we raised a question that funding for homeless and special-needs housing has been reduced by 3.9 million from last year. Can you explain the decrease?
The budget was decreased by a million dollars from 3 to 2 million in the development financing category, and that was to allow for the lack of Section 108 funds. That's a category or a resource that we had had in 91 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 special-needs development for the last three years.
I can't hear you. Are you saying that Section 108 loans are affected by the 3 million last year for development and financing for acquisition rehab, etc., and no 7 dollars this year?
No, no, no. Last year, we had $3 million total for development activity, and a portion of that, $500,000 I believe, was 108 loans. And this year, as we were not going to have 108 loans available, we reduced the special-needs budget by that amount in addition to taking into consideration that over the past couple of years, the number of proposals that we've had to that RFP process has not maximized the full amount of funding that we had. And so we thought this year, we would make $2 million available in order to really make a determination of what the request for funding for feasible projects were, and so --
You're saying there's 2 million in their now for special-needs housing?
For development activity. 92 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 There's other funding for available for special needs.
There's $2 million available for development activities. There is other funding available for other activities, primarily rental assistance activity. But for the development activity this year, the RFP amount was reduced to $2 million, yes.
And you are saying it's because we don't have people who are requesting to do special-needs housing?
No. I'm saying that the numbers of feasible proposals for which we would provide funding in the past has not met the amount of funding that has been available so that we have not utilized the full amount of funding in response to the RFPs. What we've done is to make that funding available to fill gaps in existing special-needs projects.
I don't understand what you're. You're saying we have more applicants than money or -- 93 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
I know people come to me all the time who want to do special-needs housing type projects, unless they are earmarked some other way. I mean, there are a lot of people who want to do special-needs projects.
I'm not addressing the competition. There are a number of respondents, but in reviewing the proposals in terms of the people who have documented experience in being able to operate both the facility, the residential facility, and being able to provide service, we have found that in the last five years, we have not utilized the full amount of funding that we had available, so we had the opportunity then to provide gap financing to some of those projects that were not able to secure alternative funding that they were looking for. So this year, when we had, for budgetary reasons, to look at where we could make a reduction, that was a practical decision we made, which was, we had not used the full-time amount, we would reduce that budget line and look at what responded to this 94 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 past spring's RFP process.
But what about the constituents who need the service? And can't we find a way to have these inexperienced groups partner with those who are experienced? What about the whole body of people out there? You know, I accept the fact that in housing, we have to deal with every aspect thereof. You've got to deal with a person sleeping on a grate as well as a person living in a mansion, quote/unquote, so, you know, none of us has the freedom to only deal with one type of issue in this regard.
And so I mention this in terms of transitional housing. What about all the people who need this housing? You know, where does it fit, or what have we done with body of people who need the service?
We have provided technical assistance to emerging groups and they have basically partnered with experienced providers. I mean, the rule of thumb is that wherever you're lacking experience, if you're lacking housing experience and you have service experience, then you 95 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 link with someone who has that other experience. And we've encouraged partnerships repeatedly. However --
Okay. So you're saying instead of doing it the old way, you cut back in the RFPs for special-needs housing and, instead, try to steer those individuals or organizations into technical assistance --
What I'm saying is that the organizations that we have not funded, we have not funded because they've lacked experience. To provide them with additional capacity, we have provided them with technical assistance, and following that technical assistance, we've encouraged them also, in order to be more competitive for funding, to link up with either a housing provider or a service provider who has the experience that they lack. However, they do not always follow that advice, and sometimes they will make up a third of the proposals that come in. Their heart is in the 96 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 right place, they want to provide special-needs housing, but they still don't have the capacity to do the project that they are proposing to do.
So what do we do to get them ready since you have the clients out there and you have people out there who want to do it but they don't know how to do it?
We continue to provide them with technical assistance workshops through the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition with the technical assistance grant that we fund, we've continue to provide partnership opportunities, and we've also, in many cases, have directed organizations and sat down with them and talked to them about what experience they lack and what they would need to do in order to be competitive. Because it is a competitive process with very limited dollars and we're looking at as much as we can to ensure that when we do fund a project, it has the best opportunity of coming to fruition.
My last question on this issue, since we're belaboring it, is: Then do we intend to increase, after all of this, you know, trying to get these folks ready, 97 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 then will we increase next year and go back to 3 million -- you said we're maybe not down 3 million but down 1 million.
So then next year, we're sponsoring work shops, we've got the Urban Affairs Coalition or GPUAC or whomever, technical assistance, etc., etc., then do we expect to increase funding in this area the next funding cycle next year?
To respond more fully, we can provide some information about groups that have been funded based on qualified proposals and then some information about the groups that have not received development funding and what we're doing to help advance them. And then if there are any groups that have come to your office that you don't see on either of those lists, then you can refer them to us and we can show you what we'll be doing to help advance their plans as well.
Thank you, Mr. Kromer. Thank you, Miss Mintz. 98 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. I just want to ask you a question about projects. Now, tell me what's going to happen with projects now. We've been asked to give you projects that we want in our district, but we weren't asked for them upfront. What's going to be different? Now that we've given you these projects, how will they fit in the overall plan of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative if that is what you all are supposed to be coordinating?
In terms of the block grant, the approach really would be very similar to other years, and in past years, you and I and other Councilmembers and I have talked about specific development ventures that are not a part of the plan but which the Councilmembers want to see dealt with in the coming fiscal year. And some of that discussion has been the result of a written proposal that someone submitted, some of that discussion originates in the Councilmember's office and then comes into the public hearings and becomes a part of the public hearings, and some of the discussion 99 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 comes up at the time of the Finance Committee hearing or even between the time of the Finance Committee hearing and the approval of the plan. And that's the way it will be with respect to Year 27, so that we will, as we have in the past, take seriously any proposals that we receive from Councilmembers and will provide whatever additional documentation is needed in the final version of the plan to show that the Administration is regarding these proposals as being part of the Year 27 activity. What will be different this year is that rather than my saying to you, Well, you know, the block grant is very limited and we had a lot of demands on our funding and we can't do Section 108 and the State cut us back again, we'll be talking about each of these ventures in a broader context in terms of: what can the Housing Authority do, if there's a link to the Housing Authority, as in Tasker Village and East Poplar and Mantua; is there an opportunity for State or federal funding under the Bush Administration, and there are a couple of significant opportunities that we've been pursuing; is there a way to reduce some of the costs that are 100 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 currently proposed in the plan such as the workforce development cost and fund them somewhere else so that we can free up those dollars to support the development pipeline. And so we're really going to broaden the attempt to fund proposals that Council presents to the Administration, but the standing of those proposals and the seriousness of -- our seriousness about getting them done and working with Council and the constituents in each district to get them done will be unchanged. The neighborhood planning emphasis that I referred to earlier, I think, really increases the potential to actually implement these plans because it will relate these funding decisions to a broader neighborhood plan and to other activities that are going on in the neighborhoods.
And I guess you're prepared to respond to it. I'm looking now on 144. In the Year 26, we had for Logan acquisition and relocation out of the Section 108 money 101 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 $3 million, but then the contract was only for a million. So I'd like to know what happened to the 2. And now in Year 27, we go to 500,000, and as you know, we still have an obligation to settle with over from 180, 200 people, so it's going to run us about to $12 million. 8 And in addition, we have the triangle, 9 where there are people living in the triangle who 10 are seeking assistance on a person-by-person basis, not just we're going to do the whole triangle, but based on the condition of the home or L&I inspection that requires them to relocate. Where are the dollars to support that effort? 'Cause it's got to be an ongoing effort 'cause there's still people there who have to be settled.
There are -- with regard to the Logan Triangle itself, some of the reduction in funding relates to the fact that most of the -- well, the Logan Triangle relocatees have all been moved out, all the eligible families have left the --
I'm sorry, the rectangle, the rectangle. The triangle's gone, the rectangle. 102 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
All right. Well, I'm just talking about the commitment that was made at the beginning of 1986 for the relocation. That commitment has been honored and the Logan Assistance Corporation, which has also received a substantial amount of that funding, has not followed up with documentation on its current activities or its proposed activities during the coming fiscal year. So we really need something more tangible from the LAC in order to budget appropriately for future LAC activities, and we really have seen the passage of several months in waiting for information that we've requested some time ago.
Well, one of the problems with that was that we were on the track to developing a plan and got sidetracked 'cause we just got a letter today that was addressed to HUD yesterday.
And this was over a year ago so it's not LAC's fault, fault does not rest with LAC because they did not have the resources as requested to follow through on that planning, so that planning is in the process, but 103 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 still, we have -- what is the plan and has the Administration talked about the 180 to 200 people who left Logan, who still have to be paid and settled for their property? And until we can do that, we can't even begin to talk about redevelopment of that land 'cause we don't have site control.
That's right. And there are really two issues. One is determining who's going to process those relocation payments and what form of outreach are we going to use to notify those people and provide those people with the benefits for which they're eligible. But the broader issue that you referred to previously, I believe, is what about the occupied areas that are adjacent to the cleared area, what are we going to do there? And I think the evidence is clear that preservation has to be the major response in that area. We need funding for home repair, for stabilization, for home improvement to keep people in their homes and prevent abandonment and prevent, again, a vacating of the area. The block grant is one resource that can support that, but clearly, when you look at the 104 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 numbers, we don't have enough to do all of the things that we need to do citywide plus mount an ambitious preservation program in that area. And that's the reason why I've emphasized leveraging of other sources, as we're proposing to do with West Oak Lane with the LISC Program that you helped get organized.
Well, you know, you all keep talking about the West Oak Lane and, you know, West Oak Lane is my district and I think if you say, Well, we'll give somebody in West Oak Lane some money, that will satisfy the 9th Councilmatic District, but clearly, that money is needed there, but even more so in the preservation of Logan, which I've been talking about, and nobody has told me how they plan to begin work in Logan for the preservation, which I asked for two years ago and asking for targeted program for that area. I hope with this letter, we get the ability to use Home money to help begin that planning process. But you said -- you just said it, that we don't have a lot of money, we have a lot more to do, and you can't concentrate on the area. What does that mean to the people who live in Logan? I 105 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 mean, where is the planning for that area and where is the commitment to that area?
In terms of the planning for that area, I think in addition to the request for outside support, and I have a copy of letter to HUD, that this is another example of an opportunity for Planning Commission activity to look at the broad area and to look at the mix of preservation and new development activities that has to take place there.
Well, will there be money when we get ready to -- 'cause I have a group now, Resources for Human Development, that said, Look, we're ready to go in, and that was March of last year, to go in and take some of those houses and begin to rehab some of those properties so that people will feel that at least something is being done in Logan and folks who live there won't begin to leave, you know, and that they'll stay and something's going to be done, but nothing's been done.
Well, the answer is no, there isn't enough money in the Year 27 block grant to support those activities, and that's why we've 106 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 got to work together to broaden the base of funding available for areas like Logan because the block grant won't be enough, and if we just talk about this as the funding resource, we're not going to be happy and the public is not going to be served. And I'm referencing the West Oak Lane program as an example of leveraging other funding. We've got to do that kind of thing in Logan to preserve what we've got there now.
Well, who made the decision to give the money to West Oak Lane? Who decided that was the targeted area?
There is no funding commitment in place. My understanding is that LISC brought the proposal in to the Administration with your support and that it's on the table as a proposal.
Well, I understand the money was committed. But then in terms of the whole overall Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, the blight program, in terms of the overall plan for -- well, that's the Neighbor Initiative question I imagine we'll have when you come back here. 107 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
But still, you just can't -- you just can't take one organization and trot it out as the poster child and then say for the other areas, you don't have anything or you can't plan for anything for that area 'cause we don't have enough money in community development block grants and we don't know what's going to happen with the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, just give us the money, and we'll decide what's going there. That's the problem.
I agree that's unacceptable. We've got to respond by saying we've got the block grant and we have these other funding elements, and in that way, we're going to do the job that we need to do to support your neighborhood.
Well, let's go back to the rectangle; it was the rectangle I was referring to where the individuals as homeowners can seek assistance from Logan Assistance Corporation based on the bylaws on an individual basis. While we're not going through there as we did before and do the wholesale evaluation of each property, but as a homeowner experiences some problems with their 108 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 home, and L&I certainly has some say in what happens there, if they have to leave, then LAC is responsible for their relocation expenses. And I think that there has to be some consideration made for that, and I don't think $500,000 going to do it, and I want to know what happened to other million from the million. Did that money go someplace else? Where did it go?
The $3 million for Year 26, you only appropriated -- the contract was only for a million, so at least 2 million, so where's the other 2 million?
I don't have the answer this afternoon, but I can, through the Chair, provide the detail on what's been spent, what it's been spent on, and what the reason is for the change in proposed funding level.
I think it should stay in the budget; I don't think you should take it out, given the fact that we still have people over there, 'cause you're going to have a problem if you don't.
I think the money was appropriated already in Year 26. On , $3 million, Logan acquisition and relocation. And I understand the contract was only for a million dollars, so there's $2 million floating around someplace.
The Office of Housing and Community Development has some information on that that I think will respond to your question.
Good afternoon. My name is Roderick Lyles. I'm the Fiscal Officer for OHCD. As it relates to the Section 108 development for CD Year 26, OHCD is not in receipt of those funds. The $1 million funding that was currently provided, which is a temporary measure until such point those funds are, in fact, received.
But last year, you committed $3 million, you applied for $3 million.
When get the money, it should go to Logan. You're going to get the money, right?
No. We are not -- as we speak, we are actually not in receipt of the funds as it relates to the Section 108 for CD Year 26.
Yes. And when we receive them, they will be available during the coming fiscal year, and so the full amount that you are calling for will be available during fiscal 02.
It won't go anywhere else. The question of how it gets appropriated will depend in part on how Logan Assistance Corporation responds to the outstanding request for documentation and also on the Administration's policy for processing the relocation caseload of eligible relocatees that have still not yet received benefits and the 111 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 question of whether some of that should be done through the Redevelopment Authority or through the Logan Assistance Corporation.
Well, I think the responsibility also rests -- as I understand it, there was supposed to be an effort made to come up with a plan to deal -- oh, the other question, the ineligibles. I understand that Specter and Santorum last year committed $300,000 in the federal budget to help with the ineligibles. Have you received that money? have you been asked to apply for that money?
I haven't received that money but I have heard the information that you described and I will get back to you.
What is your department doing to follow through to get those dollars?
I don't know what the plans are, but I will get back to you with more information on what the dollars are and what the opportunities are to pursue them.
Has anybody approached Senator Santorum or Senator Specter to 112 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 follow through on the $300,000 commitment?
I don't know but, again, I'll find out and get back to you quickly.
Okay. Now, that money, I understand, was to be spent for. . . Okay, we still have four ineligibles who have to be settled, and that was to rest with you guys in terms of how you're going to handle that. So we have $3 million, plus $300,000, right?
Right. So, still, there are people in the rectangle who have to be -- I want the money to remain appropriated for Logan is the bottom line.
The other question -- let's talk about my favorite subject, which I'm sure you do not want to have a conversation about, and that is Bill 715. We passed Bill 715, which came as a result of last year's discussion here, where we wanted to gain additional dollars for 113 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 counseling, and we were asked not to do that, not to amend the budget, but in the end, what we came up with was a bill to deal with predatory lending, which, as presently constituted, rests with your department. Could you tell me what's happening and what will happen by -- I think it's January 15th in terms of your oversight of Bill 715?
Well, I'm concerned about the legal issues that relate to the bill in one sense, but in another sense, the responsibility of OHCD is really a core responsibility that is apart from whatever may be going on with respect to the legal issues. Clearly, OHCD is the place where the counseling resource and the outreach and the intervention and the assistance has to take place. I don't know of any discussion of any other City agency handling that responsibility. And the need clearly is there; it's been demonstrated and documented in every possible way. So I -- it's just not appropriate for me 114 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 as Director of OHCD to say, you know, we're going to wait on this and or we're going to wait and see or whatever. We've got a responsibility to move on the issue and address the issue. We've done a couple of things to date, and we're going to keep moving on this during Year 27. We've initiated, with the support of Alison Hughes, a training program for all of the existing housing counseling agencies. The first two rounds of training have been completed, a third round is in process. The testing of the counselors who have been trained has occurred; the testing results have been very satisfactory. I feel that the level of knowledge and expertise that our counselors have with respect to the predatory lending issue is substantially greater than it was a year ago or even six months ago as a result of this training. And I've initiated a series of biweekly meetings with representatives of the counseling agencies, coordinated through Miss Hughes and the housing counseling agency of Philadelphia and in concert with the Predatory Lending Task Force, and it does meetings every other week. We talk about what we are going to do together to increase the 115 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 capability of our counseling agencies to address this issue. Our most recent meeting last Friday focused on two subjects, which I think are critical to Year 27. One was what exactly are the services that the counselors should be providing to people who have been victimized by a predatory lender or who will be warned about the threat of predatory lending. If somebody shows up at a City-funded counseling agency today and says, you know, I'm interested in purchasing a home, what services do you provide? The counselor can be very specific about what the scope of services is, and I can describe it to you. We don't have that kind of specific scope of services that relates to the predatory lending issue, and we're determined to get that by July 16th so that we have a written published statement of the services that are available through these counseling agencies. And when people contact these agencies as a result of our outreach, that they get a very clear presentation of what it is they're being offered. And there are trained staff in every 116 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 counseling agency that is part of the promotion, and this will include most of the counseling agencies. There are trained staff who are ready and able to deliver that service. So the second issue that we have been focusing on, again, that we're determined to resolve by July the 16th is the mix of services that we'll be providing in the future, how much of the counseling effort should be devoted to the pre-purchase activities, which have been ongoing and are continuing, and to what extent should we shift counseling agency staff over to work more, or in some cases exclusively, on predatory lending. Again, the picture is changing substantially from the picture a year ago. We've got about 60 City-funded trained housing counselors, and by the middle of July, I would want to be able to tell you and the rest of the public what the breakdown in service is so that you would know how many of those 60 are working exclusively on predatory lending issues, how many are splitting their time between that and pre-purchase, and how many are continuing to work on pre-purchase.
We have also been discussing an outreach 117 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 that would be supported by the City but would bring in the advocacy groups, the churches and the civic organizations, and do the things that we've talked about over the past year in terms of making known information about the threat of predatory lending and the opportunity to get assistance in dealing with that threat. And we'll be contacting the lending institutions and the intermediaries such as the Reinvestment Fund and ACORN who have expressed interest in developing new products and determine whether by the 16th, they could roll out those products; and if not, whether by the 16th, we could start promoting them, you know, for a roll-out in August or September. So, again, I'm very concerned about the legislation, the legal issues, and so on, but in terms of OHCD's responsibility and what we need to do and our determination to move forward, we're not slowing down. And to the extent that your office wants to see us doing something more than that, or if there's some request for additional support, we want to be very responsive, because there's no 25 question that that issue has got to be addressed. 118 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Well, in the bill, and until the Administration can decide which department will enforce the legislation, right now, OHCD is in the bill to do that.
But we left it to -- during the course of the legislation, we said, Well, it's up to the Administration to determine if they want someone else to do that but we believed it was the most appropriate as I believe the task force came up with -- the drafting committee decided, based on their intensive discussions, that since you are in housing and control the counseling process, that your department would be the best department to oversee the legislation. And let's forget the legal issues; that's an aside that we'll be taking care of. But we have to proceed in any case with or without that. And we do have to form the advisory board, which we will work with the Administration to do.
What about the enforcement piece? Have been given any instruction about that yet? 119 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
No, I don't have any information on that but, again, I can provide some more detail if there's something additional to report.
Thank you, Councilwoman Tasco. Councilman Mariano.
You forgot to come -- you forgot to come to our meeting the other day that we had scheduled. You didn't call. I was left waiting at the altar. My feelings are hurt.
I'm sorry to leave you at the altar, but this is the first I've heard of the meeting.
Well, it was on my schedule. But anyhow, on May the 2nd of this year, I received a letter denying funding for the WCRP 120 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 project at Third and Diamond. I understand you spoke about it a little when I was out for lunch there. What's the story with this?
I mentioned Third and Diamond as an example of the approach that we've got to take in the coming fiscal year in funding our development ventures, the need to do more neighborhood planning and link our funding decisions with neighborhood plans. If we weren't taking this approach, then the response I'd be giving you today would be, well, as you know, WCRP applied for funding through our last RFP and was unsuccessful. We'll have another RFP in January and they should apply again and we'll work with them to try to increase the chances that they'll be successful. Now, that approach was okay, and in that approach, we funded a lot of outstanding development ventures, so there was nothing wrong with that per se. But this year and in the future, that approach is not going to be enough because the block grant is not enough of a resource these days to support all of the development activities that we need to fund. In addition, we need to be more systemic 121 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 and a little smarter about the way that we use the block grant in neighborhoods. There's a need for a little more planning to guide the investment, not just an RFP, but a neighborhood plan so that everything fits together. And as you know, the issue with respect to WCRP was that part of the parcel that was proposed for housing development, Phase and Phase of the residential venture, was the same land that the Commerce Department, apparently with the community's consent, had been acquiring for economic development. So somebody didn't talk to somebody else. And I don't think that means we need to get into a, you know, multi-year planning process, but I think it will be easy for everybody to get to the table and put together the appropriate plan for Norris Square. That includes the housing development, the economic development element, and included in that discussion WCRP. Where's it going to be, how many units, what's the cost going to be, CDBG and what else are going to be the funding sources, and how are we going to move this thing this coming fiscal year. 122 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 The commitment to move ahead with ventures that you're concerned about, including Third and Diamond, is unchanged. We're going to work with you to get this moving and to get this to happen. We just want to do it a little more systematically than we did last year so that we won't be stuck as we were last year with this one and others.
So basically WCRP's project at Third and Diamond, I understand you're -- when you say economic development, I guess you're referring to that originally, they were in the KOZ and then they were told and they moved out. And when we had this meetings in my office a couple months ago, you didn't know anything about a KOZ, but Commerce tells me that your office knew all about it. Now, I'm a very simple guy. When am I getting the money, when are they doing the project? And if it's not going to happen this year, I'm going to make it happen this year. So you got to figure out how to do this dog and pony show that you come up here and every do it and not anger -- see I'm getting sensitive, I'm not going to say "pissed 123 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 off," but not anger nine of us.
Because if the nine of us vote against this, nothing happens. So what you're saying is on the record. You understand that, right?
So am I getting that project this year, or am I not? No respects to the other Councilpeople, let them work on you. Third and Diamond I want that. Now, if that's not going to happen, tell me now. Don't come back in four months and tell me something different or come back in six months and we play this game forever, 'cause I can last, I'm getting paid by the hour here, it doesn't matter.
My commitment this year is the same as it's been every year. That is --
Mr. Kromer, am I getting the project at Third and Diamond? 124 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
And then we sit down and we decide who gets and who don't get it. See, that's the problem that goes on. That's why nobody's here, that's why there's three or four or five or six Councilpeople sitting here. When you come and give us the same -- I don't know, what's the sensitive word for "bullshit"? Caca, the same caca every year. Come on, John. We're adults here.
Tell me I don't got it and I'll go lobby to get it, but we got to know.
Every venture that is published in the plan that is authorized by the Mayor and City Council moves ahead. That's the way it's been for a decade.
The Majority Leader asks projects, I gave her the project that I wanted, one project, she got it. I only have one in the 125 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 district that I'm working on right now, that's it, and only because they were stiffed for the last couple years. This is very important project, but we have to make these things more clearer for us.
Absolutely, but some of that responsibility falls on the developer and --
And when we have a conflict between land uses, we've got to resolve that.
I got a feeling you can lie and keep a straight face. Am I getting my project?
How much money is there going to be citywide for projects?
If you look at the budget on the first pages of the budget breakdown, housing 126 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 production, , the total amount is 18.4 million.
You mean you like DiCicco better than me? Is that what you're telling me?
So he's getting 16 three projects and I'm not getting any? John -- 17
You know, I got all the friends I need in the world. I just need to get this project done.
I understand. And we'll do -- as in the past, we'll work with you to get that done and to get the other development ventures that you identified moving. 127 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
But 18.5 million -- well, how do you decide who gets what and what districts get anything? I mean, is it a top secret like a secret society I have to get in or what? I mean, what's going on? How do we decide?
There are two things we've got to do. One is, we've got to get them ready to be funded. WC --
And they've been sitting there for a couple years. You know, I'm getting different stories from them, from Commerce, and from you. That's what confuses this whole issue.
Proposing housing on a commercial development site does not constitute being ready for a plan.
Well, that was a mistake. Then they came and say, Okay, now we understand and we changed it, but that was a couple years ago. They've been waiting a couple years since they flipped off the KOZs, which, by the way, 128 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 they had this before the City came and made it a KOZ. And when come into a neighborhood and decide that something's going to be a Keystone Opportunity Zone, who are you calling? They're not calling me, I'm just a District Councilman there. They're not Angel, he's an at-large Councilman, or Councilman Goode or anybody.
Yeah, they authorized KOZs, but you didn't ask us to pick where they were going to be, 'cause I wouldn't have wanted to pick there 'cause I would have known that RCP wanted their project there.
I think what is not being said is that, in essence, the same thing that happened the other day here, when we had the Chief of Staff. The problem is that there is a neighborhood transformation plan that has not been developed. The CDBG money is going to go into that 129 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 supposed plan that is supposed to be developed. Since it hasn't been developed and they have not made a decision on how they're going to make use of that CDBG money, the poor gentleman here cannot give you any explanation as to what because all of that money is going into NTI, and then that's why we keep on asking questions of the -- as you asked the question of the Chief of Staff, and they had no 10 answers for that. So they're trying to decide -- I mean, they're trying to reconcile different budgets here -- PHA, CDBG, right? What else, RDA or something? Come up with some private investment that -- you know, this is like the stadium deal, right? There are shortfalls here, there are shortfalls, there are shortfalls everywhere. And there are plans galore, but no plan in black and white. So places that need economic development, that need a comprehensive -- the Fifth Street Corridor, Frankford and so on, we cannot get to that because nobody knows what they're going to do as of the present time. That's where we're at, isn't it?
He's not allowed to 130 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 say. And let me just say this. Councilman unlike you, I don't see a bogeyman behind every rock, and I believe that's good. But, Councilman, what I really think it is is, he's here doing his job, he can tap dance all day long, but you know what? I sat down with this mayor when he was a mayor for three months, and we sat up in my office upstairs, and my staff went, Christ, we've been working here six years and we never seen the Mayor come up on the fourth floor, on the fifth floor, he sat in there. We sent a guy to Milwaukee, we sent a guy to Baltimore. And you know what, it's a big plan. You don't just knock houses down, they know that.
But -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
But something's being missed here. I hear what you're saying. I don't totally agree, but something's amiss here, and the thing that's amiss is, the Commerce Department don't know he's doing or he don't know what they're doing. So I'm not sure exactly what's going on. 131 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 And that's why I wanted to introduce the bill. We could have introduced the bill and hashed it out here and found out that's just what they had in mind.
That's exactly what I said. They haven't spoken yet. In order to develop that plan that they're supposed to present to us at one moment or another. It could be six months from now, it could be a year from now, but the CDBG money is going to be a part of that NTI plan.
I really feel left out of this dialogue. If I could just speak for a moment. I really, with respect, would not agree with your characterization, Councilman Ortiz. It's not really correct that the --
John, don't feel bad. The glass half full in his world -- or half empty. Mine's half full. It's just differences in people.
I wouldn't say that the block grant going into the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Clearly, the block grant is -- 132 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
We agree. It's one part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. At the same time, though, in terms of what's in black and white, here it is, and it's very similar to what has been presented in the past in terms of the range of activities. What's different -- and this is a critical issue -- is that we don't have the money that we used to have, we don't have enough money to pay for all of the preservation activities that need to go on citywide in the areas that we're concerned about, plus pay for --
You got ten 133 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 District Councilpeople. If you're not asking us, who are you asking, who? The Mayor certainly knows that, he was a District Councilman. He sat in that seat, then went up there. He knows. Who are we asking? You didn't ask me 'cause I told you we wanted to do this one. Maybe you asked DiCicco, I don't know. Or maybe you asked Councilwoman Blackwell. John, you're doing a job, and I understand it. And if it looks like I'm picking on you, tough, you're a big boy, you're getting paid big money. I got to have these answers for these people. This isn't fun. You know, we do the same stuff all the time. Now we're changing the plan in the middle of the game without explaining the rules? Come on, if you can't tell us, who can you tell?
I'm for the program. I want to introduce it and hash it all here and start finding out what's going on 'cause I'm excited about it. I know the people in Frankford got plans and I know the people down here have plans in they're different from the ones in 134 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Frankford, and the people on Byberry Road have different plans. We understand all of that, but everybody around here is so afraid of everybody, they're afraid to say what they really want to -- what has to be said.
I understand. And if my top priority were making you happy, then I'd say --
Well, then I would marry you, John. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Before that, I'd say we promise $1.5 million to WCRP. You'd be happy, we'd go on our way. that won't work, for a couple of reasons. The proposal that we have, that we received, that has legal standing that we got several months ago -- not several years ago -- conflicts with another community proposal for economic development in the same location.
And that's unacceptable. And we can't straighten that out on the fly. We've got to be serious about what the plan is. 135 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Secondly --
John what was the key word of that meeting? Who did we bring in there? We brought Patricia DiCarlo up and she told you there was certain people that were designated and they're the ones that want that here. I mean, I have nothing against the other group. Let's go on to other plans. That's what I don't understand.
Well, we'll get it done, and that's our commitment, to work with you.
It's the same commitment as we give every year. During the fiscal year, we're going to work with you and the developer to get this thing moving ahead.
And there's no 19 other problems with that that we need to know about? Could you call my staff and tell Huey anything that has to be cleaned up for that so we can do that?
There are really -- you can call them "problems," but there are two big issues we've got to address. One is, what is the plan for 136 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 that area, where is the housing going to go, where is the commercial going to go, is everybody on board with the assignment of various land uses. We should be able to straighten that out pretty quickly. But can't have a situation in which the written proposal says one thing and the phone call tells me something different a little bit later. Secondly, we've got to have a funding approach. We don't have enough money to fund Third and Diamond and all of the other ventures that we've committed to. And that's really where the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative comes in. We've got to broaden resource case. In some cases, we can bring in other public agencies like the Housing Authority, to which Councilman Ortiz referred. But without that, we're not going to get anything done.
John, the Norris Square Civic Association supports this plan and they are the group of record in that area. I mean, we set up rules and then they go by 'em and then we change them. Am I wrong? Is Norris Square the group of record?
Do I have to go up there and bring Patricia down here to tell you? She told you, right?
So then why is this happening? Why are we to this point? This should have been done two years ago, but it's not, so I want to do it this year.
That's great and we're going to work with you to achieve that.
Then why are you saying we got to straighten things out? We don't. We know who's in charge at that point, them. Why?
Can you tell me something outside off the record? You could tell me that.
This isn't a game with me. I want to make these people happy 'cause that's what I was elected to do and I want to do 138 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 it. I mean, it doesn't matter if you like me or not.
You've done what you need to do. And as in every year, we're going to work with you to move this to implementation. That's all we need to say. What I need to do, though, with your support, is to sit down, not only with the civic association and not only receive, you know, the letter or the phone call, but look at the total plan for that community to make sure that one group's interest, WCRP's, isn't conflicting with some other interest. And that's the problem we've had. It's a solvable problem and we're going to work with you to solve it.
Somewhere along the line, you told Norris Square that they were the group of record and, you know, I didn't make that up, you didn't make that up, somebody's -- so why do we got to do that now?
Absolutely. They're the 139 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 group we'll work with, and that's the only commitment we make to any group: We're going to work with you, we're going to collaborate with you.
Well, didn't they make that clear when we had that meeting at my office that that's what they wanted? I mean, Patricia stood there and told us, right?
Well, even at that meeting, I didn't have a clarification on the Commerce Department acquisition and the KOZ, which, apparently, they supported as well.
So I was hearing two different versions from the same source.
But you and I, we're clear now on what I want there and what Norris Square wants. Do we need to make anybody else happy there?
You and I, I think, are very clear, and I don't think it will be difficult to bring in the other parties that need to be part of a plan for that area and get this thing together.
Could you tell me who the other parties are on the record, or would 140 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 you rather tell me --
Oh, absolutely. It's primarily the Commerce Department and the Planning Commission to make sure that we're all on the same page.
But there's no 8 other civic groups that's going to be mad at us, is there?
You're shaking your head, Rose. Stand up and tell me. Let's get this out 'cause I got all night. My pizza don't come till 6. Rose, come on and testify. (Witness comes forward.)
This is the stuff that drives me crazy. I want to know what goes on 'cause this is the only thing I get to do. And when I walk from here to the bathroom, a million people are grabbing me for other things and I only have so much left up here. Go ahead. Say your name for the record and who you represent. 141 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Rose Gray, Director of Development for Association Puerto Riquenos En Marcha. I'm here today, as I say, out of order, but I'll speak our piece. There is a conflict between Norris Square Civic and Association Puerto Riquenos En Marcha about boundaries, and it's been that way for the last ten years. We were not aware of the project at the beginning of it, and we work with the community group, and we're working with the Empowerment Zone to create an economic corridor so we support the separation of housing and industrial development along American Street. So if Miss DiCarlo or Nora (indiscernible) want to speak with me, that's fine. But our boundaries go to American to Eighth, York to Montgomery.
But the stuff that's boggling my mind is somewhere along the line, somebody told Norris Square that they were the boss of bosses here in that particular area. You know 142 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 what I mean, they were the community group -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
They were the civic group of record, but you understand that, right?
Yes. But, Councilman, whatever's good for the community, and we have a difference of opinion --
And we can try to work it out but I've not been contacted by either party.
Okay. We'll do that next week, but now that you've cleared that up, how does that happen, John? How does Norris Square get to the point where they're the civic group of record and she don't know it, but her group's the next one up.
I don't think it's the City, 143 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 it's the community group to figure it out. That's my opinion.
But somewhere along the line, Commerce or John's group or somebody has to set up rules or we'd all just be free agents running around and it would be bedlam.
Our work in the Third and Diamond area, to the extent that any community group has been involved has been exclusively with Norris Square. And so we've continued to communicate with them. We really haven't had any activity with APM in the Third and Diamond area, but if they're an interested party, if there's a need to bring them in or any other group, we need to be open to that.
Rose, how does all that happen? Like, how do you -- like, you've been doing that stuff for a long time, as long as I've been Councilman, I know that. How does it get to the point where you find out that? Who do you call? I mean, do you -- how do you find out who makes the decisions? You know, you're fighting for projects, they're fighting for projects, and we're all driving Kromer nuts for money.
This is the first time we've 144 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 ever stumbled onto an issue like this.
Usually it's pretty clear-cut. So this is an overlap of a project, it's an overlap.
She was jumping up and down back there and I had to --
I'm glad, I'm glad. So, John, what did we learn here today? Run everything past Councilman Mariano and his district so he knows. Don't listen to the at-large people, they're not interested, right guys? They're not saying nothing. Wilson's laughing. Angel, he's throwing stuff at me. We're going to do this, right? How many times did I ask him Wilson, ten? All right. Wilson's got my back over there. Thank you, Mr. Kromer. 145 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Thank you very much. Mr. Kromer, on , under Employment and Training, only a handful of employment and training providers are identified and none in West Philadelphia are identified. Is it possible for us to include -- for example, we have -- in fact, we someone who's here, Jean Bunn, who does the Hospitality Institute that we're trying to get. We have a commitment from Penn to use their hotels and she could provide the training. Is there some way we could expand that program to include something for west and southwest?
We'd like to do two things. One is expand the effort, but secondly, to the extent possible, just take it out of the CDBG funding stream and get more activities funded through the workforce development programs that were intended to fund them. So we'd be glad to look at that programs and others in West Philadelphia as part of an effort 146 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 to increase the funding resources for that.
Thank you. I'll send you a memo -- I'll send you a letter with that regard.
Also, let me ask you about jobs. I know on , is it? 70, PHDC refers to jobs. I know we've referred people to them in the past, although we don't get feedback. How does that work? I mean, I came up with a flyer that we had from, like, 1999 and some of the things they list are carpentry, electrical, wiring, etc., etc., life skills readiness, driver education, and a coupled with that, maybe this is something that can be done in conjunction with the unions and their new added emphasis in our city today. (Witness comes forward.)
My name's Anthony McIntosh, the Executive Vice President of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation.
Yes, good evening. 147 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
Good evening. In response to your question, the Job Center assists in identifying employment opportunities for residents throughout the City of Philadelphia. With respect to the maintenance, mechanics and things of that nature, we're no longer directly involved in that activity, but we are assisting people in identifying the various opportunities throughout the City.
So you don't have the Job Center that you once did?
No, we do not. The level of funding has been reduced over the years, and right now, the only funding that we still have in place is the funding that's made available through the Office of Housing and Community Development.
Again, I think this is an opportunity to tie in the workforce development programs and have them funded from the sources which were intended for that purpose.
Okay. Thank you very much. 148 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 Do you know how far behind and what the backlog is for weatherization and basic system repairs and generally where we are and what we can do in that regard? I know there's never enough money for anything in life, but what we can do. So many people require these services.
Again, not to belabor the point, but as you're fully aware, the demands on the program far outweigh the resources available to serve the needs of the people. With respect to the weatherization program, right now, we're in a very fortune situation in that we were recently awarded additional funding from the State to provide weatherization assistance. And right now, there is not a waiting list to assist people in addressing weatherization needs. With respect to the waiting list for the basic system repair program, it varies, depending on the trade. For example, heating assistance, right now today, there is not a delay in getting assistance to people in need of heating repairs. However, as it relates to some of the other trades, on an average, I would say we have 149 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 about a nine- to ten-month -- and that's average. For example, our plumbing waiting list is well over a year. But in some of our other areas, the time is less than that. For example, roofing, it's short of six months.
What area? Oh, you said roofing. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Okay, thank you. I'll tell my folks who call you every day.
The VSRP is another example of the resource problem, where we can't simply come in and say, you know, we wish we had more money. We've got to find other resources and bring them into play. And I've cited the West Oak Lane program as one example of that, that leveraging. We really flood to do a lot more so that we're servicing the people that need repair work.
Thank you. Do you know about some disability advocates that are worried about the adaptive modification program? And they claim they have a backlog as high as seven years for disabled residents. That may be Scott Wilds's area. 150 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373
That's one of the issues that President Verna was talking about, okay. Is that you as well, Mr. McIntosh?
That too is a program, again, where the demands on the program are far in excess of the dollars available to assist.
This is for people who are disabled. I assume then -- what do you do, do modifications to their property?
Okay, would you check on that for us and let us know?
We'll follow up with the 151 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 data on that.
Thank you very much. And another question. Is it possible for us to have the energy program expanded so that -- SOCO, Support Our Community Organization, at 58th and Baltimore, is midway between Anna Verna and my area. And the next service area for energy assistance is 65th and Woodland. Now, 65th and Woodland, Southwest CDC, is supposed to come all the way down to 58th and Baltimore, but in reality, they just don't, it's a whole 'nother world. And we have a person who is right there, if there's some way we could work that out. Would you look into that for us?
Yes. Let me find out how that's working now and what might be done to change that.
Thank you. And the other thing is when Miss Mintz was talking, I was thinking about Potter's Mission, for example, as people who are always dealing with homeless people or who are dealing with people in need but who don't have the technical expertise but 152 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 who are people who want to do it, and they're going to do it anyway forever, but maybe we could try to help to get them ready.
Okay. I'm almost done, I think, and it's three minutes to five, so we're trying to. . . Does any other Councilperson have any questions. Councilman Goode?
I just wanted to thank Mr. Kromer for his leadership of reinvestment commission, for his work with Mr. Cuorato and Mr. Traylor and Mr. Jones and people from PIDC who are expanding economic development resources, and I look forward to working with all of you on NTI. And, obviously, I'm a happy camper who's taken care of this year, so I don't have any questions.
Thank you very much. And may we say that this is the area that in my job is closest to my heart; education is second, since I came out of a teaching background. But everything dealing with homeless to 153 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 self-sufficiency to home ownership, all of that is what in my opinion, from housing development to commercial to, corridor revitalization etc., etc. is what's going to make the difference to move our city forward. And we thank you have all of you for your commitment in this area. And, Mr. Kromer, I'm sure you knew when you came that you would get it for the NTI Program. I guess you were kind of prepared for that. It's kind of an idea whose time has come. But I think that what we are in the process of having is growing pains, and sometimes growth is difficult, but in spite of it, we seem to get there. So let me say that we appreciate your review of all of those proposals and letters. For the most part, mine is about the longest. But for the most part, we appreciate your review of that. I'll probably have one or two more on Monday. And having said that, we thank all of you for coming. On Monday, we will have the community groups that come so it will make life a little more organized, instead of having them sitting here today, waiting and waiting. 154 5/31/01 FINANCE - BILL 010373 So we will recess this hearing today until Monday, at o'clock. And we hope all of you 4 can come. And thank you all. 5
Thank you. 6 (Adjourned 5 o'clock p.m.) 7 8 9 10 155 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, May 31, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE BILL NO.'S 010337, 010348 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter