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.