Seeing none, we will now move to the final bill, 020682, an ordinance 14 approving the 9th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Whitman Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at a point of intersection of the northerly side of Snyder Avenue and the easterly side of Front Street, including the 9th Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the amended relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 30 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring the condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. 237 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson, Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020682, which would approve the 9th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Whitman Urban Renewal Area. A total of 30 properties, all vacant lots would be acquired under this for the purpose of land banking. The bill would advance NTI goals of eliminating blight assembling land for future development in restoring, in the end, properties to the tax roll. This amendment was approved by the City Planning Commission on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020682 and would also ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on Thursday, December 12, 2002.
Thank you. How large is the Whitman Urban Renewal Area? Do you 238 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 know how far it goes up, how far north? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Snyder Avenue is the northern boundary.
And these properties are all vacant lots at this point?
This was a request that came through the District Councilperson's office. And I believe he received that request from State Representative Keller.
But there's no 15 developer for this land at this point?
No. I think they're working on a conceptual plan at this point in time and wanted to just bank what was vacant now.
Councilman DiCicco is not here now, but I know that for quite sometime with a developer ready to go there's been a large number of parcels in the northern end of, I guess, south of Washington Avenue, east of Front Street which has been known forever, I guess, as Jefferson Square. I was just curious as to when we make 239 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 decisions as to taking of property without developers ready to go, how did we not get this particular project that's been, I guess, on the drawing board for three years with a developer ready to go? How does that not make the list?
Let me understand, if you're asking the second set of condemnations requested by Jefferson Square?
I'm talking about the movement of the project forward. We are going to approve today, with my affirmative vote, we're going approve today about almost 3,000 properties, many of which do not have developers ready to go. This particular proposal has had a developer waiting to go for quite sometime and money that's in the pipeline which is not coming forward to move the project forward. Who makes that determination that we go through and take properties that don't have any development plan for them but leave properties on the table or put properties in limbo that have a developer ready to go that could be a good model project for NTI as something to show off, it doesn't make the final cut or at least this cut.
I think the problem right 240 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 now is that we did do a major condemnation. We did supply the land. We did allocate $3 million in CDBG for the project. We supported it for a million dollars worth of Pennsylvania finance and there's no 6 movement. And we have attempted to work with the developer --
What's the reason that you understand for lack of movement?
At this point in time, the last thing I heard, and not directly from the develop, was that their construction numbers are coming in higher than the subsidies that are available.
Well, Councilman DiCicco is not here now. I don't know if that's necessarily the case. So I would appreciate if you could provide in writing what your understanding of why there's a delay.
The second part of this was that the second proposal for a second condemnation included well over 30 relocations. And between that and the rising property values down there, it might have been a 5 or $6 million condemnation only to creat enough land to maybe build 30 houses. It 241 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 would be very -- I mean, that real estate market since this started has changed so dramatically down there that what we appraised and condemned four or five years ago, we couldn't even come close to that. I think the market is really taking off there.
What information do you have? I don't know how you do comparables on vacant lots because a lot of them are vacant lots.
I can just tell you what the developer supplied us. When this project was first proposed, the appraised value of their three-bedroom units was 85 and for their four-bedroom units was 95. In our most recent discussion with the developer, after construction values on the three-bedrooms are $195,000, and he can sell the four-bedrooms for 210,000. That's just how rapidly the market has changed down there.
Is this a problem with that particular scenario? 242 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
No, I think it's great. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's good. I mean, I'd just like to see them put a shovel in the ground get moving.
There's a second round of condemnations, would that speed up this process?
So the ability to build more volume would not be beneficial to a project?
That seems to fly in the face of anything I've understood about housing development, that if we could do market rate housing development on a larger scale, that would not more beneficial than doing it on a smaller scale?
I can't argue that. If you're going to do 200 versus 100 houses, there are some economies of scale to be realized. I think the issue here is, we have not been presented, including with 4 million in public subsidy, including with spending well over 3 million 243 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 to put the land together, the developer has not come in and said "I'm ready to build" yet. We have 4 million in public subsidy --
But we have developers in these other bills that did not step to the floor and said "We're ready to build" either.
No, but they don't have 4 million in public subsidy and the land. I mean, we've already conveyed the land to Jefferson Square, put 3 million in CDBG, 1 million in PHFA finance.
What is the amount of all the acquisitions that we're going to approve today preliminarily?
So a substantial sum of money without developers waiting, with the exception of 686 and one private sector development in 681 I don't see much on this list that developers waiting in line to do it or private sector expansion or the private sector development with the exception 244 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 again of Westram and Mr. Brown up the Model Cities Program. So while I understand there may be a change in the real estate environment in Jefferson Square, we are going to approve preliminarily today $14 million in acquisitions without much of a development scheme. Which I'm willing to do. Again, I'm voting for this. When I a project that's on the board for three years which has great potential to improve a neighborhood, it has tons of planning behind it, gets left off the list when we're going to move forward and do 3,000 properties which have similar situations without -- this project has a developer. These properties don't necessarily have developer and are costing $14 million. Again, I'm voting it. I think that Westram especially is a tremendous opportunity and I think some of the other things may pan out to be great opportunities. We don't know. I think we have a pretty good idea that Jefferson Square because of, as you testify, as a changing housing marketing would be very substantial project which would bring middle and upper middle income people to the neighborhood and a greater tax base and improvement to South Philadelphia community all 245 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 tolled. I mean on one standard, we don't have a developer ready to go so we're not going to do that. But we don't have developers ready to go here and we're gong to condemn 3,000 properties.
I understand. I think, if I can articulate this. There as was an acquisition put together for the first phase of Jefferson Square. $3 million in CDBG was set aside. The City supported it for another million dollars of PAHA financing.
Right. And we spent a little over 3 million on acquiring the land for this project. That is all -- we've turned over the land well over a year ago. The other financing has been placed well over a year. I think we need to see that thing move. I mean, you're right, it's ready to go, but it's been ready to go for over a year. And to justify spending another 5 or 6 million assembly land, you'd like to see this developer put a shovel in the ground. It's not that they don't have the money.
Well, is 5 or 6 million your supposition of what the houses are, or 246 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 do we have appraisals of those properties?
I think that our market studies in what we did for NTI is do different 5 market studies to do baseline budgets are indicating 6 substantial increase in property values in that area 7 that would rise -- and then remember, you've got 30 8 relocations at, you know, alone are going to cost 9 well over a million dollars, just the relocations, 10 not including additional subsidies that would be 11 required if those persons relocate into those new 12 house. 13
And, again, I'll say 14 for the record, I'm happy to vote on all these bills 15 today, but we're spending $14 million with not a lot of developers lined up to do anything.
Good afternoon again. I'm Richard Redding from the Planning Commission testifying on Bill 020682, involving the Whitman Urban Renewal Area proposing acquisition of a approximately 30 properties. I'm testifying in support. The Planning Commission approved this at its October meeting. Thank you very much. 247 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter.
Thank you. I have a couple questions. They're not specific to the bills in front of us. They are pertinent, though, to the matter at hand. And if I could just ask a couple questions, some of which the witnesses may actually have answers to at the moment; the rest, if they can get the answers back, I'd certainly be satisfied. But I think they're relatively short. Mr. Wetzel, for the record -- and I think there was an information request made earlier. You're going to be able to get us copies of all the various urban renewal areas or renewal zones as well as a City-wide map that would show everything; is that correct?
Well, actually, what we committed to have was have what maps for these ordinances put together. It's going to take a little bit longer if you want -- the Planning Commission does have a City-wide map that covers all the redevelopment areas and they're working one that then superimposes the urban renewal areas on top of 248 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 it.
All I'm asking for is for the matters that are in front of us today if we could have kind of small user friendly version of the maps that have gone back and forth as well as take all of that information and then put it on one map just for the bills that are in front of us today so you can then get a City-wide perspective of the bills. We could then take the 13 bills and the 11 areas involved and properties and put them on one 12 map which is of a City-wide nature so you can see 13 actually visually where the development activity is proposed to take place.
Excuse me. If we go down to the parcel level on City-wide map, it's all going to get blurry. So at this level of map, if we go down to the parcels that are being taken, if you want to see like the property lines, does that matter that much to you?
No, it doesn't. I think if you want to -- on a City-wide map if you took -- it seems like on this map, for instance, you have two things going on here. You've got the boundary of the renewal area. And then, unless my 249 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 eyesight is failing me, the properties being taken which are in the red all seem to be up in the upper left hand corner there. So for my purposes, at least, I would say give me the boundaries and then to extent that those properties are close to each other, why don't you just either make a circle, a square, a triangle, use whatever shape you want, the ones you like the most in grade school, and have that be the designation for what's going on there. That's obviously easier with that one and a few others that are very close to each other. Where you have an area that has two or three things going on in different places, just designate them that that's where active is going on. You'll just be able to visually see what's happening.
Now, I've had meetings with yourself and a number of other members of the Redevelopment Authority and Planning Commission and the like related to proposed takings in my own district. But I would like to get some clarification for the record. How did you decide -- give me the shorter version of this story. How did you decide 250 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 which packages or which parcels or which areas or zones would be a part of this series of bills 4 versus my understanding that there will be another 5 package of bills coming to us late winter, early 6 spring, and if you can tell us actually what the 7 timing is for that. But how did you decide what's 8 in this round versus any other round. 9
I can share with you, and 10 I'll deliver to you a set of principles that we 11 looked at, for example, a set of principles for land 12 banking versus a set of principles for side yard 13 acquisitions versus a set of principles for projects. And I'd will be glad to share that with you. But just generally, what we were looking for in acquisition zones was already a tremendous amount of vacant lots. And if you look at the acquisition zones and you look at the numbers, there already was a substantial amount of vacant land that was in each of those acquisition zones. When we looked at projects, we looked at, you know, is a project, or example, part of the City's Consolidated Plan, and I think the example is Cross Street which I think the Councilperson says has probably been the plan for five years or more. You know, something that hadn't 251 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 moved forward and now there's an opportunity to move it forward by using NTI resources to do something with it. So we looked at projects that had a real chance to move. And I can share with you the kind of principles that we have because we've committed to those to writing as a team in order to review, analyze these packages and then make recommendations. And we came back to each District Councilperson. We worked with them during the process, came back, said this is our recommendations. And in some cases we had to go back to the drawing board and take properties off and add properties, but the whole process in the end was to arrive at a mutual agreement between us and the District Councilperson as to what would be in the package.
Can you take for us the 2500 properties and break them out by vacant lot, vacant building, occupied structure, and tell us what the 2500 properties or parcels are composed of?
Can you also take those parcels and tell us, for instance, how many in 252 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 a line item kind of fashion how many are going to CDCs, how many are going to private developers, and then I guess possibly as a result of the Chair's earlier request, I guess the balance would then be going into a land bank; is that how they would be split up?
How many known CDC projects are a part of the bills in front of us 11 and how many are private sector developments? 12
Did I hear you say earlier that this package in front of us represents $14 million in acquisition costs?
Is it my recollection at the NTI budget hearing that we put aside $10 million at the acquisition?
No, there's actually 14 million, 14.5 in the Year One Program Statement and Budget.
So you don't need any additional acquisition dollars for this package 253 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 in front of us.
Pat, you may want to comment on this, but I think there's going to be a request to add some money because we're going to be doing this in the spring.
My name is Patricia Smith, Director of Neighborhood Transformation. In the FY '03 budget, which was approved by Council in June, there was all total approximately $14.5 million for land assemblies, specific development projects, and acquisition of buildings for rehabilitation. We're also, based on the pending request, looking at somewhere in the area of another 30 million. The approved acquisitions as a part of this ordinance, including indirect and direct costs, are totaling about 14, 15 million. So we're almost, you know, neck and neck in terms of the ordinances. Last week, the Administration -- I believe has been transmitted to Council, a resolution to amend the program statement and budget so that we can allocate more funds in acquisition as part of this year to support anymore takings going forward. And we also described as a part of that process the beginning of a recycling concept where 254 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 most of these properties are tax delinquent and abandoned to the extent that we realize the collection of any liens to begin a fund to recycle resources to support acquisition in future years.
So, I'm sorry, what did you say was transmitted to Council.
A resolution to amend the program statement and budget. That was, I believe, transmitted last week. I know there was some conversations with the President's office. I don't know if it's been physically transmitted yet. And there have been prior conversations because we realize that the pending requests are exceeding what we had budgeted for Fiscal Year '03.
Let me make sure I'm understanding. Are we talking about a bill or a resolution.
It would be a resolution 20 under the ordinance passed by City Council. That resolution and the additional dollars would be tied to the acquisition package for what in essence is next year, although still in the course of this fiscal year; is that correct?
Yes, we're still in this 255 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 fiscal year. I mean, it's a budget. What we presented to Council and approved was a budget and at the time was our best estimation of what demand for acquisition dollars were. And based on the pending request, we want to up the budget amount for this Fiscal Year. And that must be approved by a resolution.
But there are no 10 acquisitions -- you will not be at a disadvantage in terms of acquiring properties because of the resolution that has been sent over to us may not have been introduced --
No, that does not impact this. By the time the Declarations of Takings and everything will be followed.
Last question is actually related to kind of who's doing what these days. You are the NTI Director, correct?
Now, I read not too long ago that the Administration has recently brought on -- I may not have the title correct. Is it the Secretary of Neighborhoods? 256 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
The Secretary of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. And Mr. Kevin Hanna. Mr. Hanna will be responsible for overseeing basically what I call the City's housing and community development delivery systems, including any reorganization of the housing agencies that will place that we've outlined in prior materials. I'm still a member of the Mayor's staff. Often I describe my role of sort of like if you think of an orchestra and the conductor, that the orchestra is made of various parts, various agencies, so I interact with the Managing Director's Office, with the Capital Program Office, with OHCD, PHA, RDA.
Where does Mr. Hanna fit in with all of these activities? Does he report to you? Do you report to him?
Mr. Hanna, as a secretary position, reports directly to the Mayor. He's a member of the Mayor's Cabinet and reports directly to him in the same way the Managing Director, the Finance Director, the Director of Social Services Public Safety.
Okay. Lastly, the things that he will be doing, who presently does 257 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 them?
Currently, the work that's currently being done, I mean, some members of the OHCD, Redevelopment Authority, you know, the delivery system is spread out. So he's the secretary or the point person that will oversee those positions.
At this point in time, it would be the Director of Housing, Deborah McCullough. Then there's a what I call a collaborative relationship between Redevelopment Authority, the Housing Authority. We meet on a monthly -- the City Housing and Community Development Directors, we meet on a monthly basis with the Mayor and so we're part of that sort of like cluster. We call them clusters. So we have a community development cluster made of a variety of agencies that are involved in housing and community development activity.
Thank you very much. 258 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
I know this has been a long day, but I have to take this opportunity to update the Committee, and especially Councilman Nutter who I came before many times and the question was, are we going to get any legislative changes. I want to report to you that both the House and the Senate unanimously passed legislation reforming both Act 94 and the Urban Renewal Statutes and it was signed by the Governor on October 5th. The became law last week. One of the key provisions of that that's really important is that in these budgets, this $14 million, there's 35 percent contingency in there. In other words, if we appraise the land at a million dollars, we need to set aside another 350,000 to handled any challenges that might come up and pay those. Under the previous statute, that money -- if we paid that money in the court, it could sit there five years and individuals had five years to come forward to challenge the value. The statute now is one year. So 12 months after we pay in the court, if nobody comes forward or very few, we'll be able to release that money and recycle it into more acquisitions. And that is a real 259 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 fundamental change that's going to make doing business better. So I just wanted to report that update. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. That will conclude the hearing of the Rules Committee. - - - 260 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - December 9, 2002 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020666, 020667, 020668, 020669, 020671, 020672, 020673, 020678, 020679, 020681, 020682, 020685, 020686. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO - - - 261 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020666.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020666 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020666 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020667.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020667 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, 262 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020667 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020668.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020668 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.) 263 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020668 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020669.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020669 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020669 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020671. 264 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020671 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020671 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020672.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020672 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 265 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020672 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020673.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020673 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020673 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our 266 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020678.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020678 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020678 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020679.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020679 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for a suspension of 267 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020679 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020681.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020681 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for the suspension of the Rules as to allow for first reading. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020681 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for 268 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 020682.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020682 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020682 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020685.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020685 be reported out of Committee with a favorable 269 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation, and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020685 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020686.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020686 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020686 reported out of this 270 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your attendance. (Council adjourned at 3:25 p.m.) - - - 271 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of December 9, 2002, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public