COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FY26 BUDGET City Hall, Room 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 7, 2025 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: Council PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE-RICHARDSON COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS HELEN LOUGHEAD, CLERK - - -
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing in a public meeting of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 250195, 250196, 250197, 250198, 250199, 250200, 250201, 250202, 250210, 250211, 250212, and Resolution No. 250214. Ms. Loughead, will you please call the roll to take attendance?
Councilmember Jones. Councilmember Young. Councilmember Driscoll.
Councilmember O'Neill. Councilmember Gilmore- Richardson. Councilmember Thomas. Councilmember Harrity.
Present. Thank you-all. The committee is present and this hearing is now called to order. Ms. Loughead, will you please read the title of the resolutions?
Bill No. 15 250195, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1500 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Wage and Net Profits Tax by revising certain tax rates, under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250196, an ordinance adopting the operating budget for fiscal year 2026. Bill No. 250197, an ordinance to adopt fiscal 2026 capital budget. Bill No. 250198, an ordinance to adopt a capital program for the six fiscal years 2026 through 2031, inclusive. Bill No. 250199, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Business Income and Receipts Taxes to revise tax rates and end certain exclusions from the tax on receipts, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250200, an ordinance amending Chapter 12-1,000 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Traffic Code to revise the fee for the use of parking meters, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250201, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code entitled School Tax Authorization to provide for an increase in the tax of the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia's authorized to impose on real estate, and amending Chapter 19-1300 entitled Real Estate Taxes to establish an equivalent reduction in the tax rate for the city real estate tax, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250202, an ordinance amending Section 19-1806 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Authorization of Realty Use and Occupancy Tax to eliminate certain exemptions, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250210, an ordinance amending Section 10-1001 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Fees of Commissioner of Records to increase the portion of fees for the recording of deeds and mortgages and related documents be used for housing trust fund purposes under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250211, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1400 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Realty Transfer Tax to bear rising the rate of the tax, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250212, an ordinance to amend Chapter 19-4400 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Development Inter-Tax to end in position of the tax, under certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 250214, a resolution providing for the approval for the Council of the City of Philadelphia, a revised five-year financial plan for the city of Philadelphia covering Fiscal Years 2026 through 2030, and incorporating revisions with respect to Fiscal Year 2025, which is to be submitted by the mayor to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority pursuant to an intergovernmental cooperation agreement by and between the city and the authority.
Today we'll continue the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole to consider the bills read by the clerk that constitute proposed operating capital spending measures for fiscal year 2026, a capital program named Forward- Looking Capital Plan for Fiscal Year 2026 through Fiscal Year 2031. This morning we will hear testimony regarding the Housing Opportunities Made Easy, which is known as the home Initiative. And this afternoon we will hear testimony from Mural Arts. Ms. Loughead, will you please call the first panel to testify?
Ms. Thurman, just state your name for the record.
Tiffany Thurman, Chief of Staff to Mayor Cherelle L. Parker. Good morning, Council President Johnson and members of City Council. Thank you for inviting us back to testify about the Housing Opportunities Made Easy, AKA home Plan. We hope the materials shared since the last hearing on April 23rd were helpful, and we look forward to discussing this issue further today. As Mayor Parker stressed during her special address, the city of Philadelphia, like many other cities across the country, is facing a housing crisis. The broad agreement on this amongst experts, practitioners, and elected officials across the political spectrum is striking. The impacts of the housing crisis are felt by many of our constituents. We hear from them consistently. Those voices are saying the same thing. We have a housing crisis, and we must act now. The data only reinforces the point and the urgency. We estimate Philadelphia is short as many as 17,000 housing units in key areas across the city. Unlike -- unless we take bold steps to address this, thousands of Philadelphians will not have access to safe, affordable, quality housing. As we discussed previously, and as you know, a massive portion of the city's housing stock is old, getting older, and in desperate need of repairs. Nearly half a million units were built before 1960, and almost 300,000 before 1940. By our estimates, at least 21,000 of these need repairs and preservation. E income price increased last year to $240,000, 37 percent higher than 2019, and the least expensive homes are up by 56 percent. Especially while interest rates have risen, household incomes aren't close to catching up, putting down payments and mortgage costs out of reach for many residents. Finally, the situation is dire for many renters. Three in 10 are severely cost burden spending more than half their income on rent. For nearly a quarter of renters in this city, rent is consuming 30 to 50 percent of their income, leaving very little for other basic living necessities. The numbers paint a very clear picture. The need is great and unless we take bold action, the situation will only worsen. While we outline the framework and core pillars of the home Plan in the prior hearing, we want to stress again that it is -- it's comprehensive design is intended to directly address the challenges that I just listed. This proposed plan will meet 78 percent of need for housing production and for preservation. Critically, this is in addition to PHA's 20,000-unit open doors initiative, ensuring that especially for residents with lower incomes, we have enough quality, affordable housing across the city. Now I know we're all considering this major initiative while other risks loom. We don't yet know what federal funding may be cut and where. We don't know how the economy will fare in the months ahead, but we've done our homework, and we stand ready. Further, this is what we do know, this administration, the Parker administration, has always prioritized fiscal stability since day one. So that we can weather any storm while we're addressing the city's biggest challenges. We can afford this plan, but we cannot afford to wait. Experts across the commonwealth and across this nation have all but verified, they have verified that time and again, in fact, during our conversation earlier this week with Robin Weissmann, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency PHFA, she applauded how big and bold and comprehensive this plan is in light of what's happening at the federal level. She emphasized that the home Initiative is not only a housing plan, but an economic investment for Philadelphia. The $800 million bond fund from the city is a long-term investment, where we will reap the rewards of revitalized neighborhoods and new revenue for years and years and years and years to come. This is a bold investment, but Philadelphia is not alone.
In this uncertain fiscal environment, other major cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Columbus, Atlanta, Austin, Raleigh, Kansas City, and San Antonio are issuing bonds to pay for essential housing investments and programs as well. The home Plan is not just a bond plan, it's a comprehensive approach that involves supporting existing programs, building new programs to fill in gaps. In fact, creators' policy and legislation, process improvement we're focusing on, leveraging the city's investment with private capital. We want to make sure that we keep front and center the fact that the home Plan is a multifaceted and comprehensive approach that will change the way we do business as a city, not just a pot of funds. Fortunately, despite these challenges, Philadelphia has several significant advantages in tackling our housing crisis. The foremost being the commitment from the administration and this city Council, unions, developers, the philanthropic community, and numerous other stakeholders in facing this crisis head-on, leading from the front. We will not piecemeal this plan. What we're presenting to you today is comprehensive because that's what this crisis calls for. Thank you again, Council President and members of Council for your time and for this opportunity to come back and talk more about this plan.
Thank you, Tiffany, and welcome back. Good to see all of you as well as we move to City of Philadelphia forward. I just have a couple questions before I turn it over to my members. So let's talk about the $800 million borrowing, the bond. Could Rob Dubow please come up?
And we're going to walk through bubblegum as we make sure that we're fiscally sound and also address the housing crisis that we have here in the city of Philadelphia. And so Rob, just for the record, just to frame the conversations -- conversation, give us a overview of the debt service that we're going to be paying over the lifetime of the $800 million borrowing of the bond, and then also how much we're going to be paying, the total, and then also each year.
Got it. Okay. So we're -- our plan is to do two borrowings of approximately $400 million each. Each borrowing will have debt service in the 35 -- 33 to $35 million range. We are planning to do them tax exempt, so tax -- sorry, taxable, so that we have more flexibility in how we spend the money. Over the life of the bonds, the total debt service would be a little over 1.3 billion.
Okay. So that's years 4 into the future we'll be paying back 5 on the $800 million to -- 6
9 So we're borrowing 800 million to 10 pay back 1.3 billion in the future? 11
15 Okay. I just want to get clarity on 16 it. 17
-- this kind of 18 typical for borrowings are about -- 19 they're usually 20 years, and 20 there's always interest. They're always paying interest because, you know, the amount that you're -- the debt service you're paying 20 years from now isn't as much -- worth as much just on as you pay all that now.
On average, how much will we -- on average, how much we'll we be paying on interest?
You are an expert, and you've been around for a while and put a lot of these deals together. So give us an average on the 1.3 billion that we have to pay back the interest.
Yep. So if it's about $500 million over 17 years, so it's about 25 million a 18 year, but it varies by year. 19
Over the years. And also 7 currently separate from this 8 particular proposal -- 9
And again, just 10 to emphasize that is standard for 11 all our borrowings. 12
They all have 15 interest, they all get paid back 16 over about 20 years. 17
And so -- because you're a chief finance guy, in terms of -- what's the total number of debt service that we have now, just as a city?
I know we did a borrowing under NPI, we did another borrowing under Rebuild, but just give us overall.
Sure. So our existing debt service, throwing everything is about 570 million for FY26.
And so could you calculate that 570 million over the 20-year period in the event that we approve the home Initiative, will that number go down?
Substantially, after FY29, as we've talked about before, we have those pension- obligation bonds and the payments for them go down.
I want to -- not so much the pension, I want just focus just on the debt service.
Yeah. So when that goes down substantially, our overall debt service goes down, and even including the debt service on these bonds, our debt service will be much lower in the future than it is now.
So the debt service on the pension bonds is also included on other bonds --
Could you separate that from us? Could you separate the pension bonds versus other bonds that we borrowed on --
Such as NPI, such as Rebuild, and the other key initiatives that we introduced.
What we can do is we can give you our general obligation debt service, we can give you then the debt service. So Rebuild and NPI go through authorities. We can give you our authority debt service, and then we can give you the pension obligation behind debt service.
And so if we are paying 1.3 billion over the 20-year -- over years from now, can you give us the overview of the strategy? And I like that this is an investment. That's what the presentation said, and other cities has done that. What is our -- how are we going to grow revenue to pay this money back for those who are going to carry this debt in the future?
13 I think my son is 10 now, so well, 14 he'll be 30 then, and so I'll -- 15 we'll probably have children in 16 public schools around that time and 17 utilizing the city services. 18 So I just want to make sure 19 that, you know, we fiscally sound 20 and, you know, we doing the right thing in terms as we address, because it is a housing crisis.
I just want to make sure that in terms of -- as some of you say, kicking the can down the road, right, and that's not what we are doing, right?
So we're going to figure out -- so I'm assuming there's a strategy to bring in that revenue to pay down --
Yeah, so a couple of things. You would issue bonds when you think something is a long-term investment, right, and when you see the long-term payoff. And there's really nothing that's more of a long-term investment than housing, you know, it's why people take out mortgages. So this is something that really fits with what the borrowing should be for, because there is that long- term payoff. When we look at how this is structured, and the fact that our debt service will actually be lower going forward, overall debt service than it is now, that means that it can fit within our revenue streams, because we're actually, you know, what we're projecting now is lower debt service than we have today.
Okay. So it will be lower debt service in the future than we are now, so we'll spend less?
That is based off of the debt service schedules for all our outstanding debt, and the debt that we are contemplating in this five-year plan.
Okay. And have we -- throughout this process, have we ever considered not using the bond? Have we ever thought about utilizing money from our general fund investment in the housing to pay down our debt service?
Yeah, we do do a substantial amount of PAYGO, you know, paying for things out of operating, and that has actually meant, particularly for our general obligation borrowing the -- the borrowing we do for, you know, rec centers, police, we've been able to do more of that with PAYGO and less from a general obligation borrowing, which has enabled us to make our bond -- overall bond deals smaller and have further time in between them. So that has helped lower our debt service over time.
And just in regards to -- and I'm going to wrap up, in paying back the money over the 20-year period, again, that's the 1.3 billion, are you going to provide -- I know you say when we do these long-term investment, there's going to be a level of job growth that will pay for the debt service, help us generate additional revenue to take care of the other services that we have to provide in the future. So I think what -- and you have, Mr. Ira Goldstein, are you-all going to give us analysis of where that job growth is going to come from so we have an idea of how we're going to pay down this debt service in the future? And then the last part is, I know your initial analysis in front of his body said there's zero job growth projection over the next five years in the five-year plan. So is that going to change at some point in time?
Yeah. And, you know, one of the reasons that we make the investments, we make in the -- not just this investment, all the investments we make in the economy is to try to spur growth so that we'll see more job growth, that's the long-term goal is to --
We're on the same page there. And again, I'm just asking these questions as we move forward.
Through us reviewing and going over the documents as a -- as a unit, these questions come up and people want to make sure we're making a responsible decision on behalf of the taxpayers. And so this is my responsibility to ask these questions.
We talk about partnering with the unions and getting $200 million worth of private capital, which I think is great from a public/private partnership. Just to reiterate the individuals we are anticipating having these partnerships with, any event that these partnerships don't come to fruition, because again, we are also going to in an environment of uncertainty, right? One day we're dealing with this issue in terms of the financial stability of our city and our country, and the next day we're dealing with something different. And so people can change at the whim, right? Give us an idea of separate from the unions who these other partnerships would be in any event that they do not move forward with our Plan B.
So we worked with -- well, on day one when the mayor signed the executive order, we had union stand with us, we had leaders like Robin Wiessmann, who I mentioned earlier from PHFA to stand with us as well as, you know, leaders across the philanthropic space. So those leaders we are in active conversation with, we have proposals for, and we're waiting to hear back from, but we have no 5 reason to believe that the additional 200 million outside of the 800 million that we won't raise that funding through philanthropic support, the support from the unions, and also funding from our state, from the Commonwealth. And we also haven't nixed out, or we're still looking to receive funding from the federal side as well. But in terms of the specifics, I think beyond that Rob, you want to talk through it? Okay. Yeah.
Okay. All right. Give me an idea in regards to the NPI team, Neighborhood Preservation Initiative, we all worked on it, including the mayor, what its role as we move forward with the home Initiative? I've received that conversation from every last member of Council. What is our role in participating in such a project? The last administration didn't have a bold vision around housing, and so we led as a body and came up with NPI to address the housing infrastructure, and housing crisis in the city of Philadelphia. It's great that we have a Mayor that has a vision to address this issue, but we want to also make sure that the work that we have done continues and working in partnership with the administration. So what does it look like? I know Jessie has met with Jenaye Munford and team, but give us an overview of the role that Council will play in terms of NPI 2.0.
So one of the things that we often talk about is our Parkerisms, right? Not pitting the haves against the have-nots, you know, and, but we also have Johnsonisms, too. And a John -- one Johnsonism is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Okay. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And so we've had really, really great relationship and healthy, you know, working partnerships with Janae Munford, who you mentioned, as well as Eleanor Sharpe, and other leaders in your -- on your technical staff. In terms of the specifics around NPI, I'll turn it over to Jessie. But I did want to affirm for the record, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and we stand ready to continue our partnership with City Council. It is a successful program, no doubt. Our commitment to driveways, that doesn't go away with this plan, right? It's enhanced by this plan.
And I will say this for the record, early on when I did talk on the mayor, mayor when we had our meeting, she said, give us an idea of all of those things that's the interest of members, and thus far they are in here. We'll look at the details in terms of how what type of funding is allotted to what particular areas. I think some of those things will work out, but still just want to be on a record on what that looks like in terms of our partnership.
And I appreciate that, Council President Johnson. And we have had really, I would say, very healthy and productive meetings individually with councilmembers around the home Plan and NPI, mention the driveways and alleyways, I see you over there clapping, Councilmember --
That's a northwest thing though, you know, the alleyways.
Yeah. But -- and just to expand on that the ability to look at NPI as a precedent for what we're doing has been beneficial to us because it's really set the stage for a -- the array of programs that we're presenting. More than half of what we're proposing here is existing programs, things that we're looking to continue, things that we're looking to invest and/or expand in. I think that we have looked at the quantification for the dollar amounts that have been spelled out in the proposal, and a lot of that has been predicated on past budgeting for a lot of the programs and meeting the marks here. So I think that NPI has definitely been a good metric for us, understanding where things might be oversubscribed and undersubscribed when it comes to the funding aspect of it all. But the intention here is to keep on having that same channel of communication open when it comes to home. I would imagine that, you know, the same technical staff that we spoke to when it comes to NPI would be the same technical staff that we'd coordinate with when it comes to home You know, and as we go on forward, you know, even as we leave today, we totally want to make sure that we keep that channel of communication open as we figure out how to dive in and refine, you know, where you all are seeing some room 2 for refinement.
Give me an overview, and we talk about NPI, we spent roughly 157 million over months. And so I 7 know the home Plan is actually, 8 you're going to borrow 400, and then 9 400, right? And then obviously, the 10 goal was to do the first 30,000 11 units of preservation of building 12 homes and the preservation of 13 infrastructure, right? 14 What's -- give me the 15 timeline, and then also we would 16 like for you to provide broken down 17 by units also, broken down by a 18 program expenditures and support. 19
Okay. Well, 20 I mean, we can probably prepare 21 something a little more expansive 22 that spells out the timeline across 23 the 50-some-odd programs, but for 24 us, it's really getting started immediately, right, where we can. There are obviously some existing programs that are, you know, concurrent with what we want to do and we want to make sure that we have those conversations. Again, it's -- we're still talking about what that last tranche of spending for NPI looks like, right? And understanding that you all have specific dedication to that, but understanding that there are funds that have been allocated in previous tranches for the programs that we're presenting. Understanding where, you know, that taps out and where we can come in. I think we are open to still be very much engaged when it comes to the timeline conversation. When it comes to the production as, or the -- everything that we're looking to yield and produce, I think that we have produced a breakdown of where each one of the programs is going to yield certain units and all of that -- expand -- that detail. All of that's been provided to the body in the form of a letter that spells out where the targets exist and how they're breaking up. But, you know, when it comes to the target of what we're trying to do here, when it -- we've quantified the need, we've quantified the need based on preservation and production. And what we're looking at is that when it comes to the 30,000 net breakdown is going to speak to 78 percent of both of those needs. So, you know, we're prepared to adjust accordingly, monitor it, we're tracking it. It will be over the next four years, but I mean, at the same time, we'll be active -
Mayor's goal was the first term we're going to get 30,000 units of preservation.
Building up housing. So the onus is on you to get the work.
We understand that, but, you know, we've mapped this out based on the borrows -- the borrow, the spend -- the borrowings over the next couple of years. But again, within the first term, we intend to hit the targets.
Now my favorite organization over there, Land Bank. Yeah, here you go, Angel Rodriguez. I know we had -- last time we talked and I know the chief of staff is going to make sure we get it done because he has to be on steroids to make sure we hit the ground running to reach those goals. I could hear Jamie Gauthier in my ear now, like, let's get ready to rock and roll. So just give us a brief overview. And if Madam Chief of Staff said it shall be done, it is going to get done. But just also just talk about the study, and then the ramping up of staff to make sure that we get rid of as much public land as possible through the Turn The Key program and other various initiatives that we are going to be addressing. And then also, I want to add, we did a town hall in the Northwest, and we talked about there are our middle-neighborhood constituents out there who came and spoke about NPI and the need to make sure that we are addressing everyone's issues. And a very unique concept they asked that we could bring back to you as you roll out just home Initiatives was the request for us to also look at, I think they call flats, the type of housing where seniors don't need to go up and down the steps anymore. But if we could take that in consideration of our overall toolbox of housing that shall be available, that was something that was actually asked of us. But just give us an overview on the Land Bank strategy to expand on the Land Bank strategy to go Land Bank 2.0, to get rid as much land as possible in turn to develop as much land as possible so we can hit that 30,000 unit target.
So there's two big sprints with the Land Bank, and one thing I did share with my colleague, Angel Rodriguez, was that I was not going to speak for a lengthy period of time as if he were not in the room because he's here. But we're really excited to talk about the commitment that we have to the Land Bank as the administration. And so in the first sprint we're looking inwardly, we want to make sure that the compliment of staff meets the strategy. And so we are -- we're assessing the current state. That strategic plan will be complete before July 1.
And we'll ensure that of the 32 positions that we have budgeted, that complement of staff supports the needs of the Land Bank. So that will be done by this summer.
Then there's a longer-term plan, which Jessie spoke to on the record when we were here last time. That's more longer- term, and that's looking at further assessments outside of, or -- it's looking more at service delivery. And so I'll turn it over to Jessie, then Angel to talk more about what that strategic process is going to look like and in the RF that we discussed when we were here last time.
Yeah. So the -- just to codify -- just to back up and talk about that strategic plan. So the strategic plan is actually, it's a closed -it's RFP that's closing, making sure we are getting some sort of vendor to be able to perform that. And that will actually be in -- we'll have the contract for that. We'll have that in place to actually roll out and begin rolling out by July 1st. So we'll work toward actually, you know, doing the work that the vendor or the contractor consultant, excuse me, would have to do to actually put together that strategic plan. That plan is actually going to incorporate or it's going to require some steps along the way when it comes to councils be sitting in front of you and having you all, you know, vote on it or, you know, review it to the extent that those processes are required here. So that's not necessarily completed by July 1st, but we will have a -- we have somebody in play that's actually going to put that together. Now, what happens, that strategic plan is basically going to look at the strategy, specifically, around acquisition and disposition. It's going to actually bump up how the Land Bank does its business when it comes to focusing on certain areas, where it should ramp up its target approach, where it should, you know, look to prioritize certain end uses, whether it's affordable housing or, you know, open-space or gardens, whatever the case may be. But we want that strategic plan to respond to the times now versus when it was last done in and around 2016. The operational assessment, which we took -- Newton took heed to, that's been bumped up and we intend that to actually be completed by July and actually be in place. And that operational assessment is going to look at how the organization actually conducts itself in terms of businesses, looking at the way that, you know, we can respond to the things that we came out of the hearing in October 30th of last year, thinking about how the disposition policy may play a role in the ability to -- for the public to do business through the Land Bank. But that's also in addition to the steps that we've already taken in terms of, you know, looking at the Land Bank board itself, putting a website out that is a little bit more user-friendly, and something that's much more clearer on what the availability of property is. And I'll turn it over to Angel, who's had a chance to look at that organizational assessment scope.
Angel Rodriguez, Land Bank. Thank you for the opportunity. Good morning, everybody. So in speaking to the administration, I was really happy to hear that there's going to be a bifurcated assessment. One internally thinking about operations and then obviously going back to the strategic plan, which we've done previously, talking about how land should be used across the city, and getting input from community and stake -- other stakeholders throughout the city. With the internal piece, I think it's important to note, and what I'm excited about with this evaluation is that the Land Bank is neither a panacea nor the catchall for every ill in the land disposition. It works in an environment and an ecosystem. We can do certain things, and then we have to hand off to other agencies. So when Tiffany talks about DPD's budget, a lot of people forget that Land Bank is a part of DPDs budget, and that we're looking at how do we restructure those allotments of personnel across the board, because while the Land Bank can approve a project, can get it through the board can get it to Council and get Council approval, we need the help of zoning, we need the help of L&I, we need the help of, you know, all the inspectors, we need PECO's help and all that. So when you see a delay or something's not happening, or assistance to developers, nascent developers like we did with the Minority Developer program, that requires partnerships. The problem is, you know, the issue being obviously the Land Bank's the front door. So how do we tease that out and how do we really explain that, and then fund where we need to fund. So we're really excited about engaging in this process and getting it done by July 1. So everybody has a better understanding of the process, but also kind of rewrite that narrative so that it better fits and dovetails into the larger strategic plan. And that way we can actually ramp up and we'll know where we should be funding appropriately.
Thank you very much. I'm going to turn over to my members --
Just one other thing. It's been mentioned that we have two vacant positions. I just want to under -- let everybody else know, yeah.
One unintended consequence by what's happening on the federal level, prior to this date, we were not getting qualified applicants. I can say that now, just recently looking at what we're having. Unfortunately, because other places are contracting, we're getting better candidates, so we'll be able to fill those positions soon.
Okay. Cool. This last question is for Mr. Dubow. I want to go back to the 1.3 billion over years, right. I just want to 17 also just recommend with your team, 18 I know you-all work with the 19 reinvestment fund, just is 20 somebody's going to do an analysis to show how we recoup the investment, the pay down on that debt service that we're going to be paying over the 20 years?
Yeah. And in the payoff is kind of more than just dollars and cents, right? For something like this, it is the fact that we're addressing the housing crisis in Philadelphia and people will have homes. And they will pay taxes on those homes, right? So that will benefit us. But yeah, we can give you the benefits.
I believe you, I'm just saying, is there anything in writing to say this is how we're going to get a return on our investment, even if it's -- I'm not going to say hypothetically, just from a data- driven standpoint, right, okay. We know off the top, we know the unions within themselves.
We know the effect they going to get a significant amount of jobs.
We know contractors are going to have the opportunity to participate, that's going to drive revenue. Just in the event that we have when we have -- when we're responding and some folks will say, well, you're borrowing 1.3 billion, right, to basically, through a bond on 8 million, right. Okay.
800 million for the record. How you going to pay for it, right? And I say, well, we're going to have more people with housing, right, more people who have housing, we're going to address the issue of homelessness. That takes away from our -- the draw off our system social service wise, right?
Yes, exactly. But it'd probably also be, you know, is good to have anecdotal data to say, okay, here's what this looks like. And I know you have one of the four most experts who are sitting with you. They'll be able to say, okay, here's what that looks like. At least I would think that would make this body, for at least the fiscally, the individuals who are -- and -- individuals who want to make sure we're making a sound fiscal decision. That's all.
So we're going to be looking for that type of data as we go through this process. And I know the clock is moving between now and June, but we may be here for a session or two beyond. I would like to get it done sooner than later, and so that type of information. And also, the total debt service that the city of Philadelphia has separate from this, just in general, but I want you to separate it from the actual pension obligations to other debt service that we had that's not pension fund.
And to be clear, that pension obligation fund is debt service, that was a borrow.
I know it is, but like how we did NPI, how we did Rebuilds, those type of concrete initiatives that doesn't deal with the health and welfare of individuals. Did I make clarity from that aspect?
Okay. That's -- so that's more clear. I'll say brick and mortar, put it that way. Investments versus health and wellbeing of individuals, that would be helpful as well.
And thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the Chair of Housing to lead the discussion, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning to all of you. Thank you for being here to continue this critically important discussion. My first set of questions are around H.O.M.E repairs. Thank you so much for all the data your team provided that relates to enrollment and demand for our H.O.M.E repair programs. It was incredibly helpful in showing just how popular these programs are and how high the need is. In fact, I'd say this data really emphasizes what many of my colleagues and I were saying at the last hearing about how expanding basic systems repair eligibility without a commensurate increase in budget and support infrastructure runs the risk of paralyzing the program. I'll note a few numbers that jumped out to me. First, we have over 10,000 people who expressed interest in either BSRP, Adoptive MOD, or Built to Last year who were not accepted further proof on how popular these programs are. We have over 10,000 people who expressed interest in these programs who were not accepted, and only about 9 percent of them were turned away because of income over eligibility. This means that demand is already huge, even within the current confines of the program. Second, census data shows that the number of eligible homeowners would literally double if the income terms are increased to 100 percent AMI. Third, even when all of PHDC outreach materials say that 60 percent AMI is the income cap, as they do today, still almost 600 people who were over income tried to apply anyway. Depending on how much work they need done, that's $10 million in new repair costs at least, which already surpasses the FY26 budget proposal that's before we as a city -- and that's before we as a city government publicly announced that the eligibility has increased. Again, I admire the intent here. I agree with the mayor that we don't want to turn away people who are a nickel over the income eligibility, but it does feel like we need to consider a more subtle solution to avoid paralyzing BSRP with too much demand. And so I wanted to ask, was any thought given to a waiver process or some method of special consideration for households that would be over 60 percent AMI but that would still give them the opportunity to make their hardship case to PHDC? Perhaps that higher income households receive certain types of repairs, but not other types of repairs. And this is local money, and so it's not as restrictive as some of our other sources of funding like our federal fund. So we have the ability to be flexible and we have the ability to be creative. And so how much have you thought of these more nuanced types of solutions so that, you know, we as a city are not offering a program to tens of thousands of newly eligible homeowners that we know we don't have the funding for? It sounds like we could meet the mayor's goal without wholesale increasing the program eligibility to 100 percent AMI.
The first -- the first -- one of the questions that you asked Councilmember Gauthier, is how much have we thought about it? We've thought about it day and night, since it definitely long before the transition, but definitely during the transition when we brought together all the experts, including some of those that are referenced or that help to -- the people that are for what you're saying. What our approach is saying is that it's not an either-or proposition, it is a both and proposition. It is a pro-growth proposition. It is to say that we're thinking about all Philadelphians across the spectrum. We're thinking about teachers, police, firefighters that would not have access, but for the provisions in this program, as well as -- and people who have aspirations for H.O.M.E ownership and who need help with renting, as well as the folks that you mentioned in your opening. And I appreciate the reference to the data points that we provided, because though it is those data points that substantiate our approach. I'll kick it over to my colleague, Jessie now to provide more information and more responding to your specific questions, and then of course, Dave Thomas head of PHDC.
Yeah, I mean, just before I kick it over to Dave, I do want to clarify that there is a difference between expressions of interest and actual cases that made it past that threshold review. You know, one of the things that are kind of prevalent in the EOI process is that they are literally substantiating the ability to say that they actually live in the H.O.M.E that they could qualify for something like this. So, I mean, that is a cut in the process that we want to make sure that we are taking advantage of. In terms of the cases that is the -- the caliber or the amount of cases that you see canceled within that category are sheerly on the fact of the matter is that there's -- it's an application process, so there are boxes to be checked on the applicant side. So being able to evidence financial documentation and things that represent your ability to qualify for something is important to the process. So, you know, we, we recognize that there's always an opportunity to think about how the application process could be better and could be easier, but I do want to make sure that there is a distinction between expressions of interest and actual cases canceled. And I'll kick it over to Dave to talk about the strategy.
I think -- I think what I'm saying might be missed. What I'm saying is we have a -- an extremely popular program where even limiting it to 60 percent AMI, we are spending millions of dollars on it. And even if we took into account those who expressed interest over the income eligibility, that would've been a huge amount spent. And so if we go out, and right now we're getting those expressions of interest, while the program materials say 60 percent AMI. If we go out and now say 100 percent based on the people that are in the city, we're talking about literally doubling the program. At the same time, the allocation that has been proposed by you-all doesn't account for that. It does not account for that level of growth. And so what I'm asking you very specifically to respond to is if we can meet the goal of helping people who are just over the eligibility in a way that is more subtle than completely opening up the program. Can we have a waiver process for people that make more than 60 percent AMI? Can we have a set of repairs but maybe not the full set for people who make over 60 percent AMI? Are there ways to still meet our goal of serving a variety of people that are both low-income and working class without doubling the amount of people that are applying for the program and knowing -- going into that knowing that we have not allocated enough money?
David Thomas, President, CEO PHDC. Thank you for that question, Councilwoman. I want to start by saying, I want to say a couple years ago when we increased the income eligibility from 150 percent of poverty, I was concerned about the amount of people that would apply. And when -- that's when we took it to 50 percent. It didn't really change a lot of demand. And then we took it to 60, and I had that same fear again. And I think that number probably increased my demand by maybe percent, if so. 4 So I don't know that it's 5 going to double my demand. I don't 6 know that trying to create a waiver 7 process would be the best approach, 8 although I'm open to considering 9 your thoughts and your ideas. 10 But my concern would be making that program more subjective. And I don't want to make it subjective, because then you're leaving it to our internal staff to make decisions that they should not be responsible for making. I mean, it should be a program that's for everyone, because the need is there.
Just for clarity on it. Because I wrestled with this a little bit myself to be quite frank with you. And I -- and I probably had one of the most diverse districts as a District Councilmember representing different neighborhoods from 7 Rittenhouse Square to Packer Park, 8 from Point Breeze to East Ridge, so 9 I have to also make sure I'm 10 balancing my policy approaches to 11 support everybody. 12 But I know the argument has 13 always been, if a person makes a 14 little bit more, a little bit -- 15 what is a little bit more? Is it 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000? And I'm not even asking that question for the clap, but I wrestled with it because I remember when we did AVI, and a sweet, little Italian woman who lives in Packer Park came to me about her real estate taxes increasing, and she's on a fixed income and she was only maybe 200, 300, $400 over the criteria for the senior citizens tax freeze, and was literally crying. So from that point forward, I knew I had to figure out a way to be -- to support her, and she shouldn't be penalized for making a few dollars above the actual income guidelines. So who would clarify what does that guideline be in terms of how much an individual -- because the difference is really -- if we be real, the difference is a person who's has to make a decision between getting their roof fixed, right, or paying their mortgage. But then you may have another person who may be, well, I can get the roof fixed, I can go to Cancun, and then still pay -- apply for this program to get my roof fixed. But maybe not go to Cancun and just get your roof fixed. If that makes sense in terms of comparing the two individuals. The Chair releases time back to Councilmember Jamie Gauthier. Because I do struggle with that to try to figure out, we not just doing a giveaway to some folks who just -- I mean, our job is to really advocate for everybody, but as my colleague O'Rourke said, we also have to advocate and make sure we are fighting for the least of these, right? And so that's a part of how I approach it as well.
Dave, we've talked a lot about this program. I know it's your baby. And I've heard you say on numerous occasions that we are getting, I think a million dollars a week in applications for this program, with the program at 60 percent AMI. I'm going to push back on the notion that if we go out into the city and say, you can have a free $25,000 grant no matter how much you make, no matter who you are to repair your H.O.M.E, that there's not going to be a lot of interest in that, that defies what we've been seeing with respect to this program. And so we talked a little bit earlier about fiscal responsibility, and I'm going to say that fiscal responsibility is more than just about books and accounting, it's also using your resources to make the biggest impact and using your resources when they are -- where they are most needed. I think it would be irresponsible to go into this knowing that we're not allocating enough money, but at the same time literally doubling the people who will apply. And so I agree with the mayor that we don't want to pit the have-nots against the have-a-littles, but I also think we want to be really smart about using our resources where they're most needed with an incredibly, popular and vital program. Thank you.
And I'd just like to add to that, you know, we don't think that looking at income alone really quantifies the actual need, so I think that, you know, it's important to us to, you know, let the power be an actual targeted outreach and as we look at these increases across the board. So it's important for us to do the work to make sure that we're still responding to the need as a whole, but at the same time, managing the ability to expand. And so we do recognize that there is -- there needs to be a refined approach for this, and needs to be some sort of accounting for what the dollar amount responds to, but that's why what we're going forward with, we'll make sure that we look at eligibility with a fine-tooth comb.
I'm just asking for a different way of approaching this.
And but to suggest that we're not going to be fiscally responsible is also very irresponsible. To also suggest that we haven't looked at our homework and haven't thought about those eligibility requirements or just we're unfurling the sales to anyone and everyone that applies is also very irresponsible. That's the wrong narrative that is put out there. That is not our mantra, that is not how we work. When we look at eligibility, when we look at income, and we talked about this before, student loan debt, let's start and stop right there. Healthcare costs, number two, and on and on and on. There are a number of factors that we're looking at in addition to that. And I just think it's very, very dangerous to put a false narrative out there of something that the Parker administration didn't proffer and didn't say. To put that in --
Please don't confuse my comments. Please don't confuse my comments. We just went through a pretty long back and forth about the bond issuance --
-about the amount of time, about how encumbered the city would be, even after the mayor has left. And I'll be very transparent with you; I want to spend $800 million on housing. All I'm offering is not to suggest that the Parker administration is fiscally irresponsible, but that a part -- a part of fiscal responsibility is not just looking at the -- the accounting, but looking at where we are making investments -- looking -- making sure that we are getting the most bang for our buck, and making sure that we're supporting the people in the city that most need our support. And I'm also not suggesting that you haven't looked at the numbers, I assume you have, but the proposal that we received proposes to double the amount of applicants without adding a commensurate amount of investment. And I think that's something that we have to work on together.
The proposal suggests that we meet the need -- that we address real needs that we currently aren't addressing, and that we meet the moment with the crisis that we're currently experiencing, and that we do not remain in last place when it comes to our economic mobility. Which by the way, over the last -- over the last decade, we have slipped to last place. That's why this plan is comprehensive, that's why it meets the moment. I know that Dave Thomas has been asking to --
And again, because I'm not getting to the whole narrative about pitting the have and the have nots because I hear that and sometime it comes across to me as just good rhetoric and jargon. The legitimate question is, though, a legitimate question, right, is, if we're raising the AMI to 100 percent, right? And again, at least for clarity for myself, I just want to get an understanding that we're supporting those most in need, that we're going to support somebody else who have a little bit more than those who just have a little bit less, right? What does that number look like? Or are we still working on that number? At least for me in layman's terms, I'm trying to understand that part. And again, is it a person that makes $5,000 more than the income guideline, $10,000 more than the income guideline, or $20,000 more than income guidelines? Because I think that would kind of crystallize, at least for me, how we're supporting people who want to utilize the program that may not meet the income guidelines as it currently is since we're going to increase it.
Yeah. So for your -- for your question, sir, the guidelines would change of about $30,000, roughly.
So the person that makes 70,000, or let's -- I'm going to bring the number down. A family that -- a person that makes 40,000, now a $70,000 person can participate in a program?
Okay. I mean, for me that was just real simple --
Also, I want to qualify a couple things, because it's not just income that dings eligibility, it's the need.
Yeah, Jessie said that. He just said we take other things beside --
I probably term -- I probably turned down more people because they didn't have a need than I turned down more people for any other thing, because people just want us to spend money, like you just said unnecessarily. But we're trying to focus on emergencies. We're trying to take care as many people that had a need as we can take care of. So and that emergency does not, as we talked about, does not stop at the -- at the low-income level. I do talk about people all the time, and yes, I do get calls from folks that are slightly over, but have a great need, and we would love to address those needs. Because at the end of the day, me addressing a roof does not only secure that family, but it takes care of that neighborhood. It takes care of that block, it takes care of that community. So I think that is something that we need to be focused on because we're not just saving families, we're saving communities every day.
Just to put your question in further perspective, Council President, if you think about a family of three, a household of three, a single mom with two kids, that 60 percent threshold caps her ability to qualify for something at just under $75,000. And we think about how far $75,000 in a single-family household goes right now. A single -- excuse me, a single-parent household goes right now. So, you know, thinking about, you know, that additional number that Greg -- that Dave talks about, you know, that bumps it up to $100,000. And thinking about a two-family -- two-parent household where, you know, if it's four people, $71,000, that $71,000 becomes just over a 100,000 and almost 120,000. So you're thinking about like the incomes that are coming in roughly about 50 or $60,000 paired each lead together, like that that cancels people out. So being able to put it in that perspective is also our ability to look at the responses needed for families.
And so this is the process and some of this is in public, so we'll do a deep -- we still want to do a deeper dive before we pass the bill to shape what it looks like.
I think that it would be really good, and this is something that we could also offer up. It is -- it is within the deck, but the deck is over a hundred pages, just talking about the debtto-income ratio and other factors that we looked at that are so critically important so that we're not just boxing ourselves in looking at a metric that is important, but it doesn't tell the entire story.
I know you-all did your homework, so, we've been doing it, we've done this rodeo before with the six -- I know you-all do your homework. I think, it's just us as a body going to work with you to figure out what we going to compromise on before we pass this bill.
That we feel comfortable with in order to get us to the other side. So I'm going to move on to Councilmember Rue Landau, and then Councilmember -- I'm sorry, you gave me the hand, Councilmember -- it's Jim Harrity, then Councilman Rue Landau, then Councilman Nicholas O'Rourke. Point of information, Mr. Phillips from the Northwest, sir.
Yes, Council President. I just wanted to be helpful for this conversation. I think I heard the mayor say before that the reason why we're even looking into this more deeply when it comes to housing preservation has a lot to do with the 9th District, the 10th District, the 5th District, where individuals are working. And I just wanted to get clarity from you-all trying to find a number.
With all due respect, they're working in the 2nd District, too. Every district --
They're not -- we're working and they're working class. I didn't finish my statement, I'm sorry.
We got working-class people. Wait, time out, time --
No, what I'm trying to say is that I know they're all over.
We've got working-class people in 2nd District, the 3rd District --
But I'm saying that the model is -- a lot of times these people -- we don't -- our areas don't get the opportunities, right, that in this capacity because -- I'm just saying, what were the numbers? I just want to know the AMI for the 9th District, 10th District, and the 4th District, the average, I mean, do you have that on-hand?
I mean, the -- depending on the household size, you're talking about just over 60 percent, but below and just above 60 percent. Your average Philadelphian is about 57 to 58 percent. And those different constituencies represent your average Philadelphian. But I mean --
If -- I mean, if we going to go there on the AMI, then we might well talk about the real cost of housing and making sure that the housing that we provide reflect the housing AMI of the people that live in the city of Philadelphia and not the area in middle income of the federal government says that -- I mean, if you going to go down that road in terms of how these houses are going to be sold to the people who want to purchase them. So -- but I do take the point that the gentleman from the 9th Councilmanic talked about -Councilmanic District is talking about in terms of AMI, and we did do a town hall in his district, and people did come up and say, we are a middle neighborhood.
And the Mayor is a member of -- former member of this body, and she talks about middle neighborhoods. So we are going to work it out.
In terms of our body and your body, and then we'll come up with a compromise that we all can agree on and make sure we are supporting those most vulnerable.
But for the member from Northwest who said that those are the only working-class families in the city of Philadelphia.
We are not putting district against district; we want to focus on the whole spectrum.
We're just having fun. We're just -- we're just having fun.
I know. Right. I appreciate you. I appreciate you.
On the spirit of moving the city of Philadelphia forward. So, Member Harrity.
Thank you, Council President. Thank you-all for coming today. You know, I'm the chair of labor and civil service, so I'm always concerned with the training of our workforce and the -- quite frankly, the money in our workforce's pocket. So I'm going to ask these three questions and for the sake of time, and then you guys can do what you got to do. What measures are in place to ensure that contractors hire for the home Initiative, meet responsible contracting standards, and that all construction workers on these jobs are properly certified and qualified to do the work safely and professionally? You know, because of the collapse we had on 23rd of market a few years back, we know that being certified and qualified to do a job means a lot. And then how many homes will be built with prevailing wage apprentice standards and meet minority quotas. And then lastly, given that the, you know, I'm a union guy, so I know a little bit about the unions. Given that the union pension funds have a fiduciary responsibility, typically invest in large scale building projects across the country. But they don't invest in back rent payments to landlords, minor H.O.M.E repairs, or removing roots or trees, how does the administration plan to align the goals of the home Initiative with the investment criteria for these funds?
Good afternoon -- good morning, still. So it depends on the type of housing, in terms of -- that's being developed under the home Plan. Obviously, low-income housing tax credit deals are all prevailing wage, which, you know, because of the agreement we have with the building trades, those are all union rates. We monitor those closely. We do have a robust, you know, equal opportunity program where we are tracking, you know, Philadelphia residency, making sure that contracts that are being engaged with developers and contractors who are buying your materials, that they're, you know, engaging minority developers, women- owned businesses, and DBEs. But we're tracking those numbers. But usually, large scale, mid-size construction projects are all union rate. If you're talking about smaller projects like say, Turn The Key, where it's infill's scattered site. Typically, the development is not union. Those are done, but it's still governed in terms of your question about quality work and safety work, we rely on L&I to actually track the work and make sure that those standards are met. The other issue in terms of minority participation, we also do track those. Everybody is required to have an EOP plan, and we do track and make sure that they do that and we do have recourse to stop a project if they're not meeting their goals in terms of those issues.
Okay. But how many homes out of the 30,000 do you -- average that are going to be -- let's say, I know that we can't actually do this project by building 30,000 units, we're going to have to do some creative stuff in order to hit our numbers, and I'm all for that. I'm just trying to make sure that while we're doing it, we're keeping a standard together. I mean, just to walk on a job, a union laborer has to have a minimum of 10 hours OSHA training, and that's for their own good. We see what happens when people go on to job sites and they're not pro -- good people die, that's just the reality. So I'm curious about that. And then if you could also just touch back on my last part of that question on how do you plan to plan for the fact that the much of the unions will only pay for the large sales construction, they will not -- they do not -- in our normal investment for our pension funds, we don't normally invest in those smaller projects. So how do you separate that is what I'm trying to get at.
So the first question around the number of homes built with prevailing wage, we're still working at that. We will get that information to you.
The second question around the training, workforce development, you know, our commitment remains, we did not just have the unions to stand up with us and name only, we're a pro-union administration. So they are absolutely at the table, fully read in on the plan and supportive of it. Regarding the more technical question around the proposal and the pension fund, I'll turn it over to Rob. MR DUBOW: Sure. Thanks. So we are, as we talked, we've been having discussions with unions and they're asking the same questions you are. So we're making sure that we can find a match that is the kind of investment that appeals to them, that meets their fiduciary responsibility and it creates jobs. And we're optimistic we can do that. And as we committed to last time with the Council President, as those discussions get further, we will loop in Council to --
I'm going to go there, but what they provide you -- the administration, the numbers on diversity and inclusion, because they're going to be using taxpayer dollars to build in the city of Philadelphia, so will they provide you their numbers or what people of color are participating in the unions and their plan to make sure that they diversify as they move forward.
Not only that -- so yes, but we also, if you remember just a few months ago when we proffer -- when we put a proposal before you in working with the unions, that was reflected in that plan, the plan regarding the Sixers. So we've demonstrated our commitment to diversity, to equity --
That commitment wasn't done in a vacuum. And so there is -- the standard is the standard.
And the standard doesn't change project by project. We have a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is not just something beautiful to say, but look at our numbers now.
Not the commitment, because I know the commitment is going to be there, but also, they should give you their numbers and say, this is what the makeup of our unions look like as of today. That should be a request from the administration in terms of an agreement as you move forward, that's all.
You know, we've demonstrated our commitment to this even with the new office that we have led by Nadir Jones.
I know your commitment without a shutter of a doubt.
But Our commitment is the -- is our commitment. And if H.O.M.E is our plan, then that commitment doesn't change. Our partners then sign. If they're partnering with us, they're signing onto that commitment.
So they're not going to give you their numbers, they're showing you -- they're opening their books and say, this what the demographics of diversity looks like and all the unions we're going to do agreement with. Is that what you're saying for the record?
For the record, I'm saying that we have a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And the -- and the companies that we work with, the partners that we work with at the table have to have that share commitment if they're working with us.
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm not asking about the share commitment, I'm not asking about the administration commitment, I'm asking about the individuals that you're going to engage in agreement in to use their funds to invest in the home Initiative are going to give you, or have they submitted to you their numbers of diversity as it relates to their particular union?
And any organization that we work with, whether it's a union, philanthropic community, they have to have a share commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
I'm not asking you -- I'm asking you -- just for the union --
But if you have a specific question regarding the unions, we should then bring the unions here to make that -- to answer that specifically.
No, well, you're doing the agreement, not me. You have to provide that information to us. And so when you get a chance, my official request is to provide their data to us, because this is what members will ask these questions, and so I'm just doing it for the record. And so the official request is that they provide you the data of the makeup of the particular unions and then you provide that to member of the Chair for members of the Board. That's all.
And this is not -- and this is not questioning the administration's commitment. The Chair recognizes the Councilmember Gilmore- Richardson.
Thank you, Council President. And I appreciate you bringing that up because that also came up at one of our town halls in the 9th Council District that we had last week, this exact question. And so as an addendum for clarification relative to the request, if we would be able to get at least copies of a memorandum of understanding or agreement as it relates to the --
-- the home Plan and the agreement with said partners that have been mentioned.
See, we know your commitment. Just letting you know. Rocking and rolling. Where are you going?
You asked the question. The Chair recognizes -- the Chair recognizes Member Harrity to finish up his line --
I'm sorry. I thank you for that. But just along, our Council President's line, too, again, as somebody that came from the construction union, one of the biggest hindrances for minority companies to be able to do these projects is the bonding process. Most of the smaller contracts, they have insurance, they have their contractor's license, they're fully prepared like that. But what catches them off guard when they've tried to even look at this kind of jobs is the bonding. They have to have a bond comparative of the work that they're going to do. Maybe, how we try to really try to get more minorities involved is to figure out how we help them with that bonding process. Because a lot of these companies, they could definitely do the job, they just can't afford that initial bond. Now, they might be able to afford that initial bond halfway through the job when they get a payment. You know what I'm saying? But if we're really going to give it a shot or give it a chance, I believe that we also have to look at the bonding process and how we ask these companies to do this. Because again, we have a lot of qualified minority companies in the city of Philadelphia. Finances is what gets us.
Absolutely. And through the new organizational structure that we have with our OEO Department led now under Nadir Jones, we're doing just that. That is actually a provision of this plan to look at bonding and contracting, and any other barriers that we know that minority-owned firms have faced, right? So it's giving them those opportunities through -- with the right provisions in place and the right oversight in place, but through this plan. I don't know, Jessie, would you like to speak more to that?
No, I mean, that's it. I mean, we do call out the access to bonding in our plan. There are monies committed to that, and we understand that that is a barrier. And as we look at the barriers, that is one prime barrier for the not so prime developers that we want to make sure that we endorse here.
Exactly. And the Council President was just trying to get through that, you know, these contractors that we're hiring, you know, we always have this thing where they say they're going to hire from the neighborhood, they're going to do this, they're going to do that. This is a substantial investment. And if we are going to make this change and bring everybody on board, this is the time to do it, while we know this work is going to be available. So I thank you. Thank you.
And these lines of questions is because in any event that we come to an agreement, and we approve this $800 million borrowing, which is going to cost us a hundred -- $1.3 billion over years, so if we 11 agree to this, this is probably the 12 most historical, significant -- 13
15 -- investment that we've seen in a 16 lifetime, and our role and 17 responsibility -- and before you say 18 that the administration isn't 19 thinking this way, I know you-all 20 are, but we are thinking as well that we want to make sure that everybody get a chance to participate. And because we are the largest poorest city in America, if we're going to do a billion-dollar investment, actually a $2 billion investment, then surely all boats have to rise with the tide in terms of generational wealth as a part of this. So that's what these lines of questioning are coming along, the union support. But at the end of the day, it's about making sure those who are most vulnerable have a chance to participate, that hasn't been the case here in the city of Philadelphia. And so if they want in on this taxpayer investing initiative, then they got to put up and show up to make sure that this process is diverse and inclusive. And they -- my friends, and I tell them, and they can hear me and call it later on, but it is what it is. And I stand on that. That's all.
And I know the administration is standing on it as well. MS THURMAN: Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Council President. Thank you all so much for being here. I echo so much of what my colleagues have said so far. I want to start by saying again, every time I get the mic, when we talk about home, I am so excited about this potential transformational change that we're going to do with housing here in Philadelphia. I think if we can infuse $800 million in the right places in the city and the right programs in the city of Philadelphia, we can dramatically change people's lives in the way we're doing business here. So I want to start by telling you how excited I am. I've got one comment, two questions. I'm getting them out first. My first comment, just to go back to Basic Systems Repairs, again, to be very quick, if I remember correctly from your information, we take care of 2,500 houses per year, and there are now, as we hear, 10,000 applications of interest, which I'm assuming means a waiting list. I want to spend this money as smartly as possible, and don't understand -- this is just a comment, no need to reply to it. I would suggest we should clear our waiting list first and handle whoever else is in our current income bracket of 60 percent AMI, which is already quite high. But to gather the folks who are just above, who miss it, you can tweak that number of 60 percent without going up to 100 percent AMI, which are very, very high numbers at a household of three at $107,500. Just saying there's a way we can do this to capture more people to take care of exactly what Basic Systems Repair was intended for. But those are not my questions, so. Thank you. I wanted to -- I have two questions: One -- the first one is about housing preservation. We -- the prior housing plan focused about two-thirds of its targets on housing preservation. We have all said, and the mayor says that the most affordable H.O.M.E is the one that you are in right now. Can you provide detail, and maybe you can even share this in writing, what programs funded under the home Initiative will fund housing preservation and how many units they are expected to preserve? And how is this determination made to shift away from preservation, especially given that preservation is a core need for this city with so many affordable units? And my second question, different topic, is about research and consultant initiatives. By my count in the home Program, there are 10 programs proposed, and seven of them with funding attached to them that are research, consulting, assessments, outreach, or training initiatives. And they altogether add up to $4,560,000. So these are, for example, access to bonding for local contractors, contractor changing -- training, the earned income tax credit, Land Bank assessment, long- term 70-30 ground lease research, operational and programmatic efficiency assessment, positive housing, marketing and engagement, the rent-to-credit program research, restore, repair, renew impact report, and workforce development. So my questions here is, what was the decision-making process around determining that these initiatives were better funded through the home bond issuance rather than through the general fund? And was an assessment made about any of these that they could be accomplished by existing staff just in their job duties and under current funding levels rather than the new resource and outside consultants? Thank you.
So broadly speaking, the capacity is not -- we don't have the capacity. If we did, because we are fiscally responsible, in our current form, then we would've done that. We don't have the capacity, which is why we are looking to bring on some consultants, being fiscally responsible. We're also focused on the assessments because we realize that this is a long-term investment. And no one's going to approve the plan unless we can prove, as Councilmember --
Not Harrity. As Councilmember O'Rourke always talks about, counting the cost. We have to show you all and demonstrate to you all that we have counted the cost, right? And that we're going to do that continually. And that's where that -- those assessments come in at. It lays the framework, it substantiates the approach, and it affirms that we're on the right track. And throughout the process, if we're not -- if we're no longer on the right track due to externalities, like change in market demand, shifts in priorities, change in the ecosystem based on what's happening at the federal level, then we can pivot quickly because of those -- that comprehensive assessment. So thank you for calling that out and even bringing attention to the fact that we are focusing on assessments. Regarding the investments and our -- the investment strategy there, I'll kick it over to Rob.
Yeah. I just want to -- for overall context, the plan is a $2 billion plan. One billion is property, 800 million is the bond, and then there's another 200 million. We are still talking through the best sources of funding within that for particular items. And so you're right, we may look at these and say, you know what, those shouldn't come through the bond. They should come through the Housing Trust Fund, they should come through the General Fund. But that is a discussion that we are having and that we want to continue to have.
And just to answer your last question, or the one question you had about the proportion of programs that speak to preservation specifically, if you don't mind me reading off of 15, I can give that to you.
That's the Adaptive Modification, Affordable Housing Preservation, that's neighborhood-based rental preservation that's funding -- gap funding. The Basic Systems Repair, which we know. We have Curbside Appeal, we have Facade Improvement, we have H.O.M.E Service Clearinghouse, so that's giving people the opportunity to link up with people -- the masters of the trade that do the work. Neighborhood Infrastructure program, that's the alleyways and driveways, Permanent Housing and Supportive Services, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, Rental Improvement Fund, Restore, Repair, Renew.
There is also Rowhouse Protection, and there's also Targeted Housing Preservation Program, and then there's Weatherization as well. And collectively, that funding amounts up to about 492 million -- almost $493 million.
Thank you. Councilmember Nicholas O'Rourke, then Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad.
Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning, administration. The home Initiative is proposed to fund 38 different programs and projects. That is a lot. You called it comprehensive, I would agree. Several of these programs, like the Basic Systems Repair, the Adaptive Modifications, Philly First H.O.M.E, Turn The Key, are tried and true. They are effective programs that we know work, work well, and importantly work well when funded by bonds as a public investment in our city's future. And we know that because of the incredible success after some trial and error, I'm told, of the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative, something that took place before I got to this body. Many other proposed home Programs are new though. They're completely untested, or at least untested in a bond-finance context. This plan is a massive step. As the president mentioned, it is the -- it's not even hypothetical, it is the single, largest bond measure in Philadelphia history. I want to echo my colleague, Member Landau. I actually am really inspired by the bold initiative that the mayor is taking and the step that they're taking here. It demonstrates that we can do hard things. We can do big things, and I think that's what an executive ought to be willing to do, and also a bond is a very expensive investment, and it behooves us to ensure that it pays off and is worth the amount of debt service, 1.3 over years that we 4 would be taking on. 5 And remember that 6 ultimately, this administration 7 would not have to deal with the 8 weight and responsibility of paying 9 off that debt because it'll outlive 10 your time in office. 11 I'm really concerned that 12 one, the plan is spread so thin 13 among 38 different programs, and 14 two, that so much of this plan is 15 oriented toward new and untested 16 programs. So I have a couple 17 questions. 18 Just so I can be clear, 19 this is not a part of the budget, we 20 do not actually have to pass this with the budget. So why is there such a quick timeline on this? Wouldn't it make more sense for us to have a robust engagement process to help decide the best focus for this funding, and then agree on a more informed and focused plan later in the fall or in the winter? It really feels like we're kind of rushing this.
It's -- we have a crisis. That's why. We have a crisis. That's the reason why. And it's -- and it's -- it has persisted for far too long. And what I believe that we're collectively saying is not on our watch. And that's why we're doing it now. We have a crisis and we want to address it now. And while I may not be in this seat in years, I'll still be 19 a resident in 20 years. My daughter 20 will be here in 20 years from now. Council President Johnson talked about his son 20 years from now. That's who we're thinking about. I don't want to let the crisis continue to roll. It -- we are saying not on our watch. So that's why. But also, there's something that you mentioned. You said, you know, there are some untested programs. That's the reason why the assessments are so important. The assessments we did, that were conducted before we got here, and the assessments that we're proffering or proposing that will continue even in the midst of this plan to ensure that it is -- it's not just some plan that is made up based on ego to say that we did something big. But it is -- it is tested. It is based on data. And it -- and I'll have -- I'll turn it over to Greg Heller to talk more about those tested programs that are new. Thank you for bringing that up.
Yeah. Good afternoon. Greg Heller, consultant with the city. I just do want to reiterate the -- there are 35 existing programs and new 5 programs in the home Plan. And 6 again, the H.O.M.E plan is not just 7 the bond funded programs; it's the 8 whole holistic approach with 9 multiple funding sources. 10 The need for new programs 11 was identified through the data 12 analysis where we found that there 13 were gaps in who -- and where were 14 being served by the existing 15 programs. And there was a need for 16 other approaches to fill those gaps. 17 There was pretty significant amount 18 of research and talking with other 19 cities, looking at other approaches, 20 evaluating the data. And all of the new programs are based on successful approaches and or evidence-based. There's been, like I said, a significant amount of best practices research that's pretty well documented from cities around the country trying to figure out what are approaches and how they need to be adapted to fit local conditions in need. So the new programs, I just want to emphasize, were not sort of pulled out of the air. They were based on in-depth data analysis best practices research and working closely with other cities to make sure that they are viable based in data and can be successful here.
Thank you for the explanation. I heard the bell. You brought another gentleman up to perhaps speak.
I have more questions before we roll. Yes, ma'am.
If I may, Council President and Councilmember O'Rourke? You know, when I was in my previous role in 2016, you know, we were doing rebuild and a part of that, the Knight Foundation paid for us to go and look at other cities. And I remember being in Detroit, and I remember standing at the Eighth Mile and hearing from the actual residents talk about that. In fact, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, we were on that same trip together, and we did those learning journeys together as part of your previous role before becoming an esteem elected official. But I remember hearing from residents, today at that point, talking about the impact that still persisted at that moment from decisions that were made years ago. And so we don't want to be paralyzed by inaction. I think it's important to even talk about how I don't have to go to Detroit to see where -- how redlining has impacted Philadelphians. It happens here. It's happening here. But I want Ira to also talk about the programs -- Ira to talk about the programs and how we're addressing even matters like redlining here in the city.
Good morning. I'm Ira Goldstein with the Reinvestment Fund, a consultant to the city on this. Yeah. Guide House did an extraordinary amount of research on best practices for programs that touched the different kinds of problems that we identified here in the city. As you know, we were involved in creating the estimates of the number of housing units that were short, as well as identifying areas where we are overbuilt. And there are significant parts of the city where we have more units than we need. They're going vacant. And what H.O.M.E is meant to address is the production in the areas and for the populations that need that production. But we also identified that there were a fair number of places around the city and more than 20,000 households where the conditions of those homes were sufficiently bad in terms of either showing code violations or multiple code violations, low value and old age together which are generally a sign of a property in need of repair. So what we were trying to do really with the H.O.M.E program was to sort of understand the ecology of the different needs of the city in terms of its housing -housing its population, and figuring out which programs get to that. In addition, as Tiffany had mentioned, it is important to understand that we didn't get here by accident. There are lots of things that brought us to the place where we have significant parts of the city that are starved of investment. They're starved of investment for a whole host of different reasons, including red lining and including other things that sort of pile on top. And so the H.O.M.E Initiative is also designed to include the kinds of things that address the ability of institutions to be able to do constructive business in the city and to rebuild the neighborhoods. So we do have initiatives tied to appraisal bias, trying to understand whether or not people are getting fair values in the -- in the evaluation of their home. Separate and apart, but not unrelated, we're looking at assessment bias as well. So we do have ways and as part of this larger H.O.M.E Initiative of trying to understand what's at the root cause of some of these issues that we're trying to address with H.O.M.E, and we will address them.
Thank you for your responses. One before I go on, I could be wrong, so I want to say it on the front end. But it seems like there are parts of this plan funding programs that were previously funded by the general fund. Could you provide a written breakdown of any programs that have had any of their general fund dollars replaced now by H.O.M.E dollars between FY25 and FY26?
Thank you very, very, very much. And I'll come back on the next round. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad and Councilman Jeffrey J. Young.
Thank you, Council President. Thank you all for being here. This is obviously a very heavy lift, and so we are proceeding as judiciously as possible with as much information as we have. I had asked this question, and I think Rob Dubow had responded to that about, has the city secured commitments from lenders to commit beyond debt financing and mortgage lending to make sure that they're commitments that provide philanthropic support into the housing trust fund. And these -- they can make these contributions because -- and this is counted as the CRA obligations, and they have these large foundations. So at that time, he had said he had started beginning to talk to banks. I wanted to know where we are on that, how firm these commitments are, because we really could, you know, this -- we could match the bond issues that we are floating with commitments from these private lenders who are required to meet their CRA requirements and who have money set aside in their foundations. So I just wanted to know how far have we come with that conversation and commitment?
Yeah, we don't have any commitments yet. We have ongoing conversations with banks, really bad kind of number of ways that they could help with this --
So for us to commit to doing this two-trench bond floating, we would like to have that information in hand before we can make these commitments, because that would relieve a lot of the burden. So I don't know how you speed this up or what, but we need that in order for us to put our city into debt far beyond our tenure here. And these are future mayors who are going to have to deal with it. So I just wanted to know what is driving these conversations with these lenders? How, you know, urgent is it -- do they understand that we can't get this done without them?
Yes, they understand the urgency and they are committed to helping. So we do think that we will get agreements with them, and we understand that we need to do that quickly.
Yes. We just -- we need numbers. We need dollar amounts, we need actual commitments. We need -- we can't build on such a shaky foundation where all the money is going to come out of our taxpayer heights. So we have to really bring all these other partners who make money off of us, who make money off our taxpayers. They are -- their income stream is coming from us. So I just want to underscore that this is serious and they need to really show skin in the game in order for us to thrive. Because when we -- the city thrives, they thrive. And so just wanted to underscore the urgency, and we need this information before we can make these massive decisions.
I think it's also important to note that we have to also demonstrate to lenders and to the philanthropic community and others that we are asking to fund this, that the city is also committed. So we agree with you and it's -- again, it's both and, right?
We have to also demonstrate that we are ready to do what we need to do to also meet the crisis as an administration, as a city. So absolutely, we agree.
And I think they have to understand that we can go down this road of having, thinking, wanting, we need much more firmer conversations where we have some commitments because it is a bold plan, and we would love to do a bold plan, but we need skin in the game from other people who are going to benefit from this bone plan. So I urge you to get back to us with much more firmer commitments with dollar amounts that you have been able to get. And you can tell them that we -- you know, your commitment is going to drive this conversation and this whole plan forward. So they will -- they can understand their role in committing will make us move faster. So I just wanted to underscore that. Thank you, Council President.
And I just -- just to add there, you know, I welcome what your, you know, comment and feedback is, but I just wanted to recognize that there are existing lender -- funding commitments through our accelerator funds. So there is a mechanism in place that we have that there is an existing stream of funding that is coming in. And that's the kind of thing that we're looking to leverage in these conversations, knowing that, you know, not just in accelerator fund, but knowing that there have been tremendous amount of conversations around, you know, the lending community support or Turn the Key, things like that. We're definitely starting some new conversations, but we're absolutely leveraging some existing conversations as well.
I just want to make sure they understand their mortgage and debt financing should not be counted in that pool that they're giving because they can -- they can mix that up and say, yeah, we're doing our part, we're doing all this, we're underwriting all this. Nope. Separate. Separate actual philanthropic dollars that is coming out of their foundations that they have set up to do exactly this. So I just want to be clear about that.
Thank you very much. Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young, and then we'll prepare for our second round before we wrap up.
Thank you, Mr. President. And still good morning for a couple minutes. With the proposed federal cuts to HUD, I look at the H.O.M.E plan and see that there is minimal, if any, allocation to PHA regarding, you know, our most vulnerable housing citizens. And so, if we are planning to borrow, you know, or this project, it's proposal is almost $2 billion. And HUD is, you know, threatening to defund itself, essentially. The president is threatening to defund HUD. You know, we can get rid -- we can lose our section 8 vouchers. They're providing caps, you know, but they want to do two year caps on, you know, public assistance, public housing assistance. Out of this amount of money, what -- knowing that we're -- this crisis that we're going into, you admitted it's a crisis, and PHA is a -- has been a partner throughout this crisis. Can you tell us what the rationale is behind not including them as a partner to -- in order to help them leverage some funding from the city so they can go out and continue to do the things that they're doing? Because I do know, just watching what PHA has done in this city, if you give them a dollar for some reason, they turn that to 10. They have that ability to do that. And so I think that, you know, our -- we'll -- our money will go a long way if we can invest in PHA as well through this program. So can you tell us what the rationale and thinking is behind excluding them from direct funding from this program?
We fully support PHA. And that -- so it -- so any notion around excluding them or saying that, you know, they -- we are not working with them, that is not true. So --
One moment. So we are working with Kelvin, Jeremiah, and we are not -- we would stand with him, right? We're not standing against him. So now we can talk further about the allocation, but I want to be very clear, and I even mentioned that in my opening comments, I know that you weren't here, I can submit that to your office. But we -- you know, we support the work that Kelvin Jeremiah is doing. We can't do this without him, but in terms of our funding strategy, I'll kick that over first to Jessie.
So, I mean, you know, it's certainly to the chief of staff's point that we see partners in PHA and they're definitely been part of the conversation. They are always part of the conversation when it comes to housing. But we also recognize that we're trying to respond to a specific -- not specific, a vast continuum of housing, right? And PHA is a portion of that, which is why we are looking to provide funding for things along the lines of acquisition. PHA is on a -- on a very ambitious acquisition effort to support their program. So, I mean, to specifically talk about which light item talks to them, when it comes to that, it is the acquisition fund that gives them the opportunity to -- gives us the opportunity to support them in their acquisition efforts as they chart toward 12,000 -- 20,000 -- 12? 20,000 units.
So are you saying that the acquisition funds from the H.O.M.E Initiative will be given to PHA so they can acquire properties on their own?
I'm saying PHA is eligible for the -- would be eligible for that. They would be eligible public developer for that particular --
They will be eligible like any other entity is or developer is eligible? We're just saying, but -- so they're not -- there's no direct line item for them specifically in this. They have to compete with it like everyone else.
Well, I mean, there's no specific lineup outside of that, but I mean, as a department and as a city, we definitely invest and we support their applications when it comes to PHA tax credit projects. So there's partnerships outside of H.O.M.E itself when it comes to PHA, and we recognize the power and strength in that. But, you know, again, we definitely are supportive of what PHA is doing. But it would be, you know, not to our advantage to dedicate a whole pot of funding to just them because they're -- again, they're a partner in this, but they're a portion of this. And we recognize, again, that we have a comprehensive plan, a larger continuum.
So the financing that we currently do around LiTech, that doesn't change. The partnership with Kelvin Jeremiah under his leadership, of course, but with the organization, that doesn't change. But this is -- this spurs the work that we're trying to do across the entire spectrum to meet the need to meet the crisis.
I just think, you know, you mentioned partnerships outside of this. I think they need to be included inside of this program in order for us to leverage this large amount of money so we can get the most bang for our buck as we are stretching to try to touch, you know, 30,000 units. I think they have, you know, units in a pipeline that could help us get to that number at a quicker pace. So, thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Member Young. Just had a question as we go into the second round. I guess this would be for Jessie.
Could you provide the chair a copy of the Land Bank's agreement with PHDC or PHDC agreement with the Land Bank?
So we can get the details that spell out how the two work with each other, right? The Land Bank itself, obviously, is one of the handful of city -- well, the multiple city agencies that own land itself. I do believe there are only two employees, specifically to the Land Bank, one of them being Angel Rodriguez, and if I'm not mistaken, one of their attorneys. But the Land Bank is staffed by PHDC. So, I mean, I think Dave Thomas can get you the materials that spell out how exactly that staffing -- how the -- how PHD staffs the Land Bank operations. But, again, PHC is the staffing entity for the Land Bank.
And also the -- in the role of the board, because I know it's an overarching, you got the board, then you got the staff at PHDC --
-- then you got the Land Bank under, that's the organizational structure, correct?
So, yeah, Land Bank does have its own board, just like, you know, PHDC staffs the redevelopment authority, which also has its own board. But these boards are -- they're -- they coincide with the inventories of land and the operations that live specifically with them. But PHDC is the staffing -- the city's nonprofit that staffs those particular entities.
Okay. All right. Thank you. And then, Jessie, while we are at -- just want to do a follow up. I know, going back to NPI, in year 1, we spent 89 million. And then in year 2, we spent 67 million, which is a total of 157 million over 10 months. And so for the H.O.M.E plan 11 to be effective, right, how are we 12 spending 400 million in the same 13 time period? Now that -- we are not 14 even talking about the whole 800 15 million. 16 Let's just talk about 17 spending the 400 million in the 18 two-year time period and taking into 19 consideration that you have to staff 20 up, anticipation and being 21 thoughtful about any delays that may 22 come down the pipeline, and also 23 launching new programs and new 24 staff. So just give me an idea how we would least spend -- we're not even talking about the 800 million, but let's just focus on the 400 in the two-year time period. And just give us a view of your vision to spend that money down.
I think the answer to that question probably deserves a Gantt chart that we can probably deliver to you in the form of, something hard copy, I guess you could say something written. But I think that we -- you know, we said it a time or two before that we have mapped out when the drawdown is going to be -- we have mapped out when we plan to spend on certain things, and time it takes to stand up to programs that are new and 20 being introduced. You know, and I think that, you know, you brought up the fact about staffing, but also indicating that we need to look at the ability to respond to how we do that in ways that recognize how long it actually takes to put programs in place. So, I mean, as we talk further with you all and talk amongst ourselves and actually bring this additional staff on, we'll have a better understanding of how long it's going to take. But we have these preliminary understandings of how long it's going to take. You know, first drawdown will be in '26, the second drawdown will be in 27. But understanding that, to your point, the original question, $400 million within a certain time frame, that's because we've quantified the need. We've taken that step to research where the demand is, and we want to match that dollar amount and the program and the delivery with that actual demand.
I know you said there's something that should be given in writing, so please provide the chair in writing how you see the drawdown. Spend that $400 million. So, thank you for offering that as well. That would be helpful as well.
I think for Councilmember Young, we could also provide in writing the ways in which PHA is baked into this plan --
The Mayor mentioned at the announcement that PHA was a part of the plan.
I think his question is in terms of our commitment financially and working in partnership with PHA.
That's -- we can definitely provide that because I'm looking here. The shallow rent program, the acquisition fund, there are programs under production and throughout that benefit PHA. So, we can provide that breakdown in writing.
Okay. Before I turn it over to my members, I want to talk more about the H.O.M.E Service Clearinghouse and Concierge Program. How would it be implemented? The process for contract selection and making sure we're protecting ourselves from any type of legal liability, because there's already a pre-selected list.
Hi. Greg Heller, consultant for the city. So this is one of these programs that would be a new program, but that's based on best practices in other places that we've looked at and are trying to bring the best for Philadelphia and customize it to here. So the idea behind it is that this is something that we've seen in a number of programs, including Restore, Repair, Renew, where homeowners have a hard time finding qualified contractors, coordinating multiple trades, scheduling payment, figuring out how to review invoices and write-ups that are in all different formats. So the idea here is for the city to contract with one or more third parties who would make this easy and smooth for homeowners, who would vet contractors, provide training and quality control, who would -- you would just reach out to the clearinghouse instead of all the different contractors. So if you need a carpenter and a roofer and an electrician, the concierge service would help identify those contractors, would coordinate, would deal with scheduling, would provide clear work write-ups and invoices that are typed and in a consistent format, would provide ease of payment through their system instead of having to pay multiple contractors. So it would basically make this much smoother and easier for homeowners to navigate and to coordinate and ensure quality. In terms of specifically how that quality control is going to be carried out, there are good examples around the country. We'll work together to figure out what approach and what requirements we have on the third party in terms of their quality control, but, generally, it's looking for certain types of experience, certifications, shadowing the contractor on site, having them shadow an existing contractor in your network, providing ways to have feedback from homeowners to evaluate contractors in real time. So things like that. But we'll make sure that we put a strong quality control protocol in place for the third parties who are participating.
Good. Thinking along the lines of quality control, and I know Member Young introduced the legislation, and I remember even a former member, Sanchez, had a legislation. I don't know if it came into law, either one of them yet. But because we're embarking on such a significant initiative around development and construction, the issue that's always happening, at least, in the second councilmanic district, with all the gentrification that we've seen taking place in development, the building of new homes having a negative impact on long-term residents' home, the shifting of foundations, my stories of the houses were cool and secure, then all of a sudden, developer A comes along and starts the building, the homeowner lot has an impact on the two houses on each side. Are we taking into consideration any precautions in terms of one liability, right, as a city? But also most importantly, probably even more than this liability for the city, but protecting our homeowner who says, my house is pretty secure. And then once they start building these houses, then I start having cracks or foundations starting to shift. Have we taken that in consideration?
We have, by way of a Rowhouse Protection program. That is part of the programming that we are proposing, understanding that folks might have those types of effects, but might not necessarily have the means to litigate it or go to court about it. So making sure that there is funding available for those instances is important to us.
That's in H.O.M.E. And also, I want to just kind of add on to the description of the H.O.M.E concierge. So I do want to flag the fact that we have been in conversation with PEA when it comes to their ability to administer programs along the lines of what we're trying to deliver at H.O.M.E concierge.
So you -- are you publicly saying we want you-all partnering with Built to Last?
We are saying that we are engaged in conversation with Built to Last.
Okay. That's what I'm talking about. Rocking and rolling. Nice to be up there. One city. Rocking and rolling. So that's what's up. That's what I'm talking about. I love it when, you know, we all are working together. And again, I know for a fact, every last member of city Council I've talked to individually are definitely on board with the spirit, because we all know we need to address housing. We know -- we all know we have to address those who have aging infrastructure in terms of their homes and so forth in the city of Philadelphia. So the Chair recognizes Member Phillips for a point of information.
I just -- a quick question. Quick question. Does that mean that it's merging Built to Last into -- or is it still going to be separate? Because, you know, sometimes people are confused.
I think the essence of the program in Built to Last, there are a lot of overlaps between what we're looking to do in H.O.M.E concierge. So we are talking -- we're in active conversation about figuring out how something like that can coexist.
Can I -- can I get you-all to commit to that 10 million now while I have you here? I had a couple other questions in regards to -- walk up on me like -- a couple questions. The commitment from the unions and other partners, is there a dollar amount at this particular moment that has been secured that you are able to talk about, or everything is just -- everything is a work in progress in terms of conversations?
But it's -- but negotiations -- the proposal isn't finalized.
Council will be at ease for 10 minutes. (Council at ease.)
Just my last two questions and I'll turn it over to the chair of housing. This is for my -- where's Mr. Rob Dubow? Okay. He hasn't come back yet. Oh, hey, Rob. How you doing? I've learned as a young Councilmember coming in here, Tiffany, under the tutelage of the great Rob Dubow, you know, how to make sure I'm making them fiscally sound decisions. And so --
John told me if I stood in the back, I wouldn't get called up anymore and -- one question.
So I just want to get an idea, Rob, out of the first 400 million on that we want to see spent, how much will we see -- how much out of the first 400 million has to be spent before we do the second borrowing?
And I learned that from you. We won't be playing debt service on money that's just sitting there.
Yes. Thank you. You know, as Jessie said, the plan is to spend all that 400 within two years. But what we will do is monitor the spend and see when we're at a point where, several months out, we'll need more money and then we'd borrow at that point. Our projection is that will happen in about two -- a little over two years. But we will -- you know, we'll look at how the spend goes to time when we do our second borrowing.
Okay. All right. With that being said, I'm going to turn over to the chair of Housing, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. For this round, I want to focus on what the Council president brought up earlier about the role that Council will have in the implementation of home But first I just want to put a couple of quick questions on the record that I hope you can follow up on in writing. There were a couple numbers in your updated funding spreadsheet that I didn't quite understand. One was FreshStartPHL having an FY25 budget of $19 million, but only an FY26 budget of $1 million. Getting clarity on that would be great if you could follow up. And also, why does the permanent housing line only have federal money in it and no bond money? Because that seems like an important way to produce new units for people coming out of homelessness. And so if you could just clarify those items in writing, it'd be great because I assume that you need longer explanations for those. What I would like for you to tell us today is what specific organizational and collaborative structure you all are proposing in the H.O.M.E plan in terms of how spending and strategic decisions get made between Council and the administration over the length of the two bonds. The only specifics that we've heard you give so far have been around working with district councilmembers on which public vacant land to dispose of. Otherwise, it's just been more general references to continue to collaborate. But when our branches of government have collaborated successfully, all of that structure has been reviewed and decided upon and included in enabling legislation. And since we haven't -- you know, we're waiting on the draft bills for the spending, we don't really know what role you envision for Council, at least not in a detailed way. Tiffany, earlier you brought up Rebuild. That enabling legislation included mandatory hearings, and reporting, and that the investment sites be submitted to Council on an annual basis and a project review team that Council was a part of. And Council President Johnson earlier brought up MPI 2.0 because essentially H.O.M.E would become or replace MPI if it was approved. And MPI includes similar levels of budget review as well as organizational infrastructure in both branches of government that work together outside of the Council chambers. And so I wanted to hear from you on which of these mechanisms will be included in your draft legislation for H.O.M.E? Or are you proposing some different type of structure?
Yeah. So, one, the bond legislation will be introduced next week. It'll be presented next week. I believe May 15th is the date. I also want to be very clear and get on the record that H.O.M.E does not replace MPI nor does it become MPI. So that's important to state as well.
I don't -- we're not -- I assume we're not going forward with another large bond issuance for MPI, if we do that. That's what I mean by that.
Yeah. So regarding the organizational structure and the collaboration between Council, it -- one of the things that we said last time was that it starts with the district councilmembers. Of course, it doesn't end there. But going through the amount of assets that we have now that we believe will make up that 30,000 units is important. And we want to make sure, again, just like every other approach, that the data is accurate and that we are aligned. And then from there, one aspect, which is what I talked about on the record when we were here a few weeks ago, was as we -- when we think specifically about land disposition and the 1,000 units that we are proposing for the first pilot, we want to make sure that we're aligned with Council on the framework, that it's based on a set of -- a set of factors around equity and also need, right? So that's important as well. I'll kick it over to Angela to talk more about the organizational structure and the collaboration with Council. And then, of course, Jessie to end it.
Thank you. Good morning. And is it still morning? Good afternoon. I'm Angela Brooks, Chief Housing and Urban Investment Officer for the city. And, you know, I think part of the meetings that we've been having with councilmembers is to kind of determine that. So I do think that as we start thinking about moving forward, and you'll probably see reflected next week, we do plan on working with Council and also engaging community in -- as we move forward. So some of the examples of ideas you mentioned will be incorporated in that. We're looking forward to having meetings. I believe we've met with you. We've met with some other councilmembers in incorporating some of your ideas. I think one of the important things to mention is that engagement has been a very focal point of this administration and it will continue both with Council and with community. And so as we continue to move forward, we'll continue to do that. I'll turn it over to Jessie because he's been doing a lot of work on that, particularly around the land disposition.
Yeah. And, I mean, it won't be too much more because Angela covered the correspondence kind of channel of communication when it comes to Council. But, you know, we certainly value the relationship that we have with Council when it comes to land disposition and understanding that we utilize your initiatives to really understand what gets built and where it gets built, right? So, you know, we've already started to have these conversations, started to meet with councilmembers, and we, you know, as we're reaching out, we look forward to having or continuing those meetings. But when it comes to land disposition, again, that is going to be a conversation about what pre-authorization looks like in terms of properties and also qualified developers. The property list, you know, I'm glad we have had this kind of round of conversations with certain Council districts so far because we are able to make, you know, certain clarifications. It's 1,000 properties across the city, not just 1,000 properties per, you know, Council district. So being able to make those sorts of clarifications have been important. But also, again, you know, community engagement is important to us, right? And we want to work with you hand-in-hand to figure out what that looks like and how impactful that can be going forward. Too many times do we have to look at projects in terms of -- too many times do we see projects get not necessarily discontinued or -- and -- or just not supported because there was no 20 corresponDence With the Community on the Front End. So, You Know, That's What We're Looking at, Council, to Be Really Kind of the Biggest Partner When It Comes to That.
Thank You. I Think I'm Talking, -- Although We Await More Detail --
-- About What You All Want on This Land Disposition Side, I Think I'm Talking About Going Beyond That. I'm Talking About Overall Strategy Spending When We're Coming Together to Review Those Things. Who Are the Decision Makers on the Council Side, on the Admin Side? You Know, We've Had a Lot of Conversation Between the Council and the Admin Today About, For Instance, How That Money Gets Spent. Beyond Just an Initial Coming Together Around That, If We Choose to Go Forward With This Bond Issuance, It Needs to Be Baked Into the Legislation. All of Those Aspects of How Decisions Get Made Along the Way, and We Need to Be on the Same Page About That Structure. That's What I'm Asking For.
Yeah. We Can Provide Further Detail, but, You Know, It's Interesting That You Mentioned Rebuild. One Thing This Will Not Be Is a Decades Long Process Where We See Continued Deferred Maintenance, Continued, You Know, Assets and Disrepair and They Remain in Disrepair Due to, You Know, and a Process That Was Meant to, You Know, Spur Engagement, but All It Did Was Prolong Decision Making. So, but You Are Asking For Specifics, and That Is Something That We Absolutely Can Provide in Writing When We Follow Up With the Other Questions.
Thank You. I Would Recommend That That Is a Piece of the -Incorporated Into the Legislation. Thank You So Much.
Thank You. The Chair Recognizes Councilmember Jim Harrity, Then Councilmember Rue Landau and Councilmember O'Rourke.
Thank You, Council President. When the Administrations Refer to Updating Homes For the H.O.M.E Initiative, What Specifically Does That Include? Is It Limited to Cosmetic Improvements Like Painting and Tile, or Does It Extend to Major Systems Like Electrical, Plumbing, Structural Work, and What the Threshold -- What Threshold Determines the Scope of That Update?
So I'd Like to Call Up Dave Thomas to Talk About What Those Programs Entail. But I Will Be Clear About the Fact That These Different Programs Are Supposed to Speak to Different Aspects, Just as You Described. Basic Systems Repair, Really Kind of the Ability to Make Emergency Repairs to Some Very Important Systems. Restore, Repair, Renew, Being Able to Add Onto the Cosmetic Aspect and Taking Steps Toward That. Weatherization as Well, Being Able to Really Kind of Protect Your H.O.M.E Against the Elements, but I'll Talk to Dave.
And Just to -- as a Follow Up to That Too, Can They Qualify For Multiple? So Could They Qualify For the Systems Repair If They Needed a Heater, and Then Also Qualify For Cosmetic Work If That's Needed.
So Before I Turn It Over to Dave, the Answer to Your Question Is Yes. And We Are Taking Steps to Make Sure That We Determine That Upfront With Our One Front Door to Be Able to Access That Website, Take a Look, or Literally Submit Your Information, Really Kind of Document What Your Needs Are. And Then That Is a Tool That Will Really Kind of Parse It Out and Tell You What You're Qualified For.
Yeah. Because That Would, Like, Absolutely Speed Stuff Up. You Know What I Mean? People Could Get It All Done One Time and --
But I Think, Unless -- of Course, Jessie Didn't Answer Anything, I Think Jessie Did a Better Job Than I Probably Would've Done Articulating the Programs. Obviously BSRP Focuses on Major Systems and Repairs. As He Pointed Out, a Rental Improvement Fund Is Designed to Help Keep Small Landlords in the Game of Renting Affordable Units, Allowing Them to Do Cosmetic Work as Well -- as Well as Major Systems. We Also Have RRR Restore, Repair, Renew, That Allows You to Do a Multitude of Things as Well. Whether It Be Major Systems, You Can Combine It With BSRP When We Often Have Situations Where Our Grant Does Not Go Far Enough to Save That Home And We Also Have Other Resources Like the Adaptive Modifications. So We Often Combine All of Those Programs to Try to Address the Broad Need That the Consumer Has.
So a Homeowner Could -- So They Can Apply For These Things, That's Great, but They Can Actually Still Get Turned Down If Their House Is Deemed Too Much Needs to Be Done? Is That What You Just Said?
So There Are -- There Are Some Opportunities -- There Are Some Situations Where the Need Is Far Greater Than Our Resources Can Support, but That's Very, Very Few but It Does Happen. And We Often Try to Figure Out Alternatives to Figure Out Ways in Which We Can Support Saving That Property. So, Working on It Now, I Have a Property Right Now That We're Working on a Multitude of Opportunities That We Believe Are Available to Save That Property.
And What Would Happen in a Situation Like That? Say We Have a Senior and It's Just Too Late For a House and They -- I'm -- the Way It Sounds to Me That It Would Be Probably Condemnable. Are We Condemning This House and Now and Then They Have No 24 Place to Live? Well, How Do We Deal With That?
Well, We Certainly Don't Condemn -- We're Not the Condemning Authority.
We Have Had in Past Years, in My Tenure, in My Experience, We've Had Situations Where We've Been Unable to Save That House. We've Worked With PHA and Many Opportunities For Seniors to Be Relocated Into Senior Multi-Family Developments. So, We Continue Those Relationships. We Certainly Don't Want to See Anyone on the Street.
Thank You Very Much. The Chair Recognizes Councilmember Rue Landau, Then Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke, Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young.
Thank You. Just Two Quick Questions. One Was, I Was Really Excited to See an Interest in Supporting Renters in Accessing New Homes or Apartments. Something, You Know, Is an Issue I'm Working on. The Upfront Costs of Finding a New Apartment, I Hear From Constituents All the Time, Not Only Is It Very Difficult, but the Upfront Cost to Move in Is Sometimes a Huge Barrier That They Can't Overcome. So Can You Provide More Detail on the Record About the Fresh Start Program, Which I'm Very Excited About? Who Will Qualify? How Many Renters Do You Think It Will Support? How Much -- How Much in the Dollar Amount Could Each Renter Get? And About How You Arrived at the $4 Million Figure For Funding For This Initiative. Just in General Want to See How Many Families We Can Help Here. I'm Putting My Second Question on While We're Doing It. I Wanted to Know Also How You Came Up With the Number of the 300 Market Rate Units That You Proposed in the Plan. It's Just -- For Me, That Was a Random Number. We Talked About It More and Was Hoping I Can Get Some More Insight Into the 300 Market Rate Units. But Fresh Start First.
So I'd Like to Defer Your First Question to Mark Dodds Who Leads Our Division of Housing and Community Development, Who Works Very Closely With the Program.
Hello. Good Afternoon. Thank You For the Question. So, Fresh Start, and It Was Also Mentioned -- the Question Also Was Risen Earlier. That Program Is Currently Funded With Reallocated Rental Assistance Dollars. That's Why You're Seeing Such a High Amount in FY25 Versus FY26. Quite Frankly, That Program Just Launched. PHDC Is Administering It in Consultation With DHCD and Other Folks. And We Want to Get a Handle on How That Program's Performing Before We Commit Such an Equally High Amount in Subsequent Years. In Order to Participate, It -- You Have to Be at or Below 80 Percent AMI. We Are Prioritizing, I Believe, Applicants That Come in at 50 Percent or Below AMI and It Includes the First Three Months Rent as Well as Move-in Assistance. Move-in Assistance Is a Thousand Dollars and We Expect the Average Payment Amount to Be Around 5,000. So, in Terms of Household Serves, the Math Would Be Million Divided 5 By 5,000. 6
7 Sorry, Slow Down. You Said 8 Household Served, and What Did You 9 Say? 10
The Math Would 11 Be 19 Million Divided By 5,000. I 12 Was Trying to Do It Quickly. 13
Oh, 14 You're Doing It in Your Head. Thank 15 You. 16
17 Councilmember, We Have Ira 18 Goldstein Here to Speak to the Other 19 Question That You Have.
-- That Data -- that number is data-Based and Ira can talk to the rationale Behind that.
Good afternoon. So the idea is when we estimated the number of units that were needed to be produced or preserved in the city of Philadelphia, part of the way that we made estimations about what incomes levels they would touch is where those shortages are in the city and what the tracked - census- tracked income information looks like. And so we're not actually suggesting that the city would subsidize or put money into other than through the normal new or rehabilitation tax abatement. We're not suggesting that they would create those 300 units, but they would be 300 units that would be in areas that in general have an income that's a little bit higher.
How -- which units are these? How do they exist? I don't understand then what the units are then if they're not created. Are you saying -- are you saying we're going to count 300 units towards the 30,000 that just receive a small amount of city funding?
If they -- if these -- if these units ended up being produced in higher income areas, but they would still be for, you know, for people who could -- not at that -- not at that affordability level, but they would be in parts of the city that might be a little bit higher income.
You said these are not 300 units that are being built or rehabbed. They are units that are -- randomly appear in the neighborhood? I'm confused.
No, no, no. 14 That's not what we're saying. What we're saying, you know, the market every year produces thousands of units without any city touch other than, for example, as I said, the property tax abatement. So these -- and those housing units happen all over the city of Philadelphia, right? When we estimated the 17,000 units that were short and we estimated the income levels that they needed to touch, some of those units are in areas that are slightly higher income. But we do not expect that those units would be receiving subsidy under H.O.M.E, at a level that would be prices or rents for higher income people. That's what I'm saying. That's still not clear?
And just to add on to that, so we did our best based on past performance and forecasting to figure out what household income levels all of these programs would serve and how many. We talked about that at the last hearing. There are a small number of households at 120 percent of AMI that we anticipate will be served by these programs. And we do have a breakout of those. So, for example, access to bonding for local contractors, contractor training, demolition for redevelopment, H.O.M.E service, clearing house and concierge, Land Bank operational assessment, long term ground leases -- which one is this -- positive housing marketing engagement. So there's a small amount of funding that gets allocated to those 120 percent AMI households that's attributable to that 300 units.
We can provide that spreadsheet with a breakdown and explanation.
Right. But again, that's the result of allocating all of the programs across all of H.O.M.E to what households, at what income levels are they forecasted to serve based on past performance and then forecast for the new programs.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke, Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young --
I want to clarify that we will provide that information. Yeah.
Thank you very much. Chair recognizes Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke and Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young and Councilmember Gauthier will wrap us up for the day.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick reflection on, like, the first question that I lifted up. Just want to give a little commentary as I reflected on it during the break. There is something to be said about analysis of best practices and you said it. And after that analysis, trying them out to prove the concept. It takes on a new dimension of risk when you do it while taking on more than a billion dollars of debt that are thinly spread over dozens of programs. It is a crisis. It is. And also, if the response to the crisis isn't just comprehensive but also thorough in the way of a robust engagement process, it looks like you're doing a lot. Like, you're panicking and then rushing. And panicking and rushing creates a larger crisis. And that's what I wanted to speak to in general, but I meet the moment -- I appreciate that we're meeting the moment recognizing it as a crisis. I just wanted to state that for the record. This is my actual question. You responded actually in writing to my last question about using H.O.M.E funding to fund L&I inspectors. You said that, and I quote, “Bond proceeds cannot fund staff positions.” But I'm seeing in the H.O.M.E plan that there is $3 million proposed to fund, quote, “additional staff and capacity to remove blighted and vacant units owned or in possession of the city, end quote. Can you explain how the funds can pay for that but not more staff capacity for L&I to perform proactive inspections?
So I want to be clear about the last update that we've provided to the body. It does not have that in the language. We have removed any references to utilizing this bond fund for staffing. There will not be a dedication of funds for staffing. Per the latest thing that we have submitted to the body, that is not included in there.
On the same lines of questioning. If we are ramping up 30,000 units of housing as well as the preservation of infrastructure --
-- which is rapid development and we never want to see what we saw happen at 2030 market. So, what is the role in expanding L&I to make sure that these developers that comes from this clearinghouse list are -- they say they qualified, and I know we would do our vetting that should have did qualify, but at the rush, just to be quite frank, because there is a target. You all under -- you all have a timeframe that you have to accomplish this. So we cannot even act like that's not the case, which means you have to have an aggressive plan. You're going to hit the ground running, you're going to spin down, but the development is going to be so fast. Who's -- the check and balance from the inspection standpoint in terms of the role of L&I. So his question is: Can the bond funding be used? And I think you're answering that. But also, my additional question is, he's advocating for additional staff and L&I. One, to go after slumlords but also, I would think if we are building so much, we will have the L&I staff also on the ground. And when they came in front of us, they said, well, we want to address the vacancies that we have, and then once we address the vacancies, we'll come back. But we're building 30,000 units in aggressive timeframe in two years. So I would think our inspection and oversight was going to -- we're going to need even more moving forward.
So, we did, as part of H.O.M.E, when -- of course when the mayor signed the executive order, we looked at over different departments, you know, 23 within the city of Philadelphia. 24 And we asked them, you know, what do they need to do to be successful? What would success look like? And that's everything from looking at their right compliment of staff, the funding to not just -- even beyond staff in order to be successful. So whether we are working with Basil Merenda, Commissioner Merenda or Commissioner Greenwald, we know that we have quite a few vacancies in their department. So that is the first step. So what we're saying, what we've said on the record before, during the five-year plan hearing, during the year FY26 hearing, and even now, first, let's fix the problem that we have at hand, which is filling the current vacancies.
And if we find that we need additional positions in order to be successful, whether it's with H.O.M.E and beyond H.O.M.E with the -- with the initiatives that you have brought up on the record, we will make sure that we have the right compliment of staff, of course, and that goes back to even something that -- the question that Councilmember Gauthier asked. That's where that collaboration comes in, right? So it's not that it's falling on deaf ears. We're saying we have vacancies now that we need to fill in order to meet the moment. Let's fill those now. It's no different than what we're doing at the Land Bank. You know, we can throw positions at them, but they may find that they can't -- they're hard to fill, or that they don't need those positions. There are other positions that they need in order to be successful with H.O.M.E and Beyond. So we're not saying no. We -- you know, we're not saying no; we're saying let's meet the problem that we have now and address that, filling the vacancies that we currently have.
That's fair. I mentioned that to another department yesterday. I'm going to go back to Member O'Rourke.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for that update in terms of having recently removed some of that language out. From the copy that we had, it didn't have that in that. So thank you for that update. I will say that I also believe that we heard that you're planning to hire 30 or more new staff to administer the plan. Wanted to know where the funding is coming from for those positions. Will they be union or exempt positions? I also know that MPI had a line item for administrative costs. Why is that not possible to do for the H.O.M.E initiative? If you could speak to those two. And I have one more question I just want to get on the record because I know my time is getting slim. In your written response, you underscore that the administration is committed to using the H.O.M.E initiative to support L&I's effort to develop a proactive inspection program. Can you explain what you plan for that to actually look like? Are you considering using H.O.M.E funds for software like we heard Washington DC uses during our rental repair hearing that will triage the rental units in the worst conditions for proactive inspections? And -- yeah. I'll stop there.
So L&I is not here, so we can provide -- we can provide a more robust response in writing. But it is beyond what we have seen, right? We have -- we are looking at not just drones for cyber security and looking -- and utilizing drones and that type of software for what we're doing in L&I currently or with our public safety units. But how do we use drones and technology like that to speed up our processes? And so we know we're testing out some of that equipment now in partnership with of course Commissioner Merenda and Commissioner Greenwald. But we can provide more of a robust response. They're just not here. So -- MR LAWRENCE: And just to add to that, you know, existing infrastructure and programs like eCLIPSE, knowing that we have that tool, knowing that's something that spreads different departments, being able to utilize that in a more effective way to meet the demand. And just to answer your other -- your first question about the funding for the staffing, that's coming directly out of the planning developments budget.
Okay. I just want to emphasize that it's hard to understand how our commitment to preserving housing works. If we are not aggressively checking to make sure that our rental housing isn't falling apart around us. So I just want to underscore it because this is, I think, the last round, so I want to get another chance at this bat to just say that I really, really, really think it should be reflective even more in their plan to make sure that we are addressing rental inspections, rental housing, and making sure that's being addressed. Thank you for your response to your answers and thank you for this time. I mean, I guess if you could say in what other ways is the administration taking seriously to that end, the dire need for our proactive inspection systems? If you could speak to that. I thank Mr. President for your indulgence.
Well, again, it's about making sure that L&I lives up to its commitment to our executive order in doing such and being able to improve on the ability to inspect at a faster pace and a more, you know, adding to the efficiency that they already have. But, again, to that point that the chief of staff made, the administration is committed to working with L&I to meet those demands.
And I know we talked about the 32 positions. We provided that response in writing after the last hearing. But I also wanted to note for the record that on top of those 32 positions that we know that we will need in order to be successful in implementing this plan, we have 29 vacancies currently in the planning and development department, right? So with the assessment that we're doing with the Land Bank, filling those 29 of vacancies through the robust work that we're doing under Candi Jones's leadership in office of Human Resources along with those 32 positions, that's how we're going to be successful in implementing this.
I have a question, though, and I asked the same questions at the Sheriff's office yesterday, who was coming for us, asked for million, right? But if you have these vacancies, right, so what are you going do with the money? And you already have vacancies to -- that need to be filled, so the money just isn't sitting there? So that's the same question I just asked the administration.
Yeah. No, 12 the money is not sitting there, 13 right? So when we are -- when we 14 are -- we're working with -- II 15 mentioned Candi Jones along with the 16 HR team and planning and 17 development. So we have a pipeline 18 of very, very qualified candidates. 19 Angel Rodriguez even talked about 20 that. So these are not just stagnant funds that are sitting there. We have -- we have more people that are applying for roles now. Because of what's happening, it -- you know, the climate overall, we have highly qualified candidates now more than ever. So we have -- we won't have any problem filling those 29 vacancies --
-- or those 32 positions. And if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't say that on the record.
Just want to say on the record, the property maintenance inspections only have one vacancy. Just for the record. That's it.
Property maintenance inspections only have one vacancy.
I believe so, yes. Thank you for your time. Again, appreciate you.
If that's the -- if that's what you're showing then that's what you're showing. Again, L&I is not here. I don't have that budget detail in front of me. So I'm happy to respond in writing.
What I can say, though, is, before we got here, before we came up with a plan, before the deal was sealed, right, and we were ready to present it to Council, we met with every leader and every deputy commissioner. We talked about the problem that we were trying to solve for. And then we gave them more than 30 days, but by way of the executive order, a final 30 days to respond to that. So they knew the goal. They were very clear on the goal. It wasn't just something that we pushed through and we said, make it happen. We said, we need your affirmation that we have what we need in addition to this bond deal in order to be successful. So it is -- it is there. It's also public on our Philly STAT 360 site as well.
Yeah. So initially, what you're saying is the departments that we're charged under the executive order pretty much gave you what their needs were --
And so with L&I having only one property maintenance inspector, they're okay with just that one. Because had they needed more to embark upon the H.O.M.E initiative to address 30,000 units of housing and H.O.M.E preservation, if they needed more than one inspector, they would've submitted --
What I can say is that the compliment of staff that is represented in our FY26 budget detail reflects the successful implementation of home I can't speak specifically to the one position because I don't have that budget detail in front of me.
So I'm happy to respond to that in writing. But I can tell you we don't present half-baked plans. That, I can say emphatically.
We know that. We're just asking the questions.
We're sure the administration wouldn't provide half-baked plans.
Is -- if it's one Property Maintenance inspector for an initiative we are about to embark on, to inspect or to preserve or to build 30,000 units and preserve housing infrastructure within that. And they're saying, not you, because you'll find out when you reach back out to Bridget or Basil that they only need one individual to help get this done. Okay. Or maybe some of the positions that are vacant could be additional inspectors as part of their process. We don't know. But we'll look forward to getting --
Ninety-nine percent of the time I can speak on behalf of the administration, which includes every department --
-- under the administration. In this instance, I can't, but I will provide a written response.
All right. Thank you very much. Anything else, Member O'Rourke?
Thank you. Councilmember Young and then we're wrapping up with Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Mr. President. In any of the preservation initiatives, are -- I've noticed that in my district, in particular, that we get a -- we have a lot of older structures where L&I comes out and it deems the property, you know, unsafe. And those homeowners are -- oftentimes, don't know what to do, unable to afford the next steps. Is there any funding in this plan to provide homeowners with funding to allow them to access engineering reports in order to make their property safe? So they know what to do and how to make their property safe?
So I don't know that we've earmarked funds specifically for those types of reports, but we have earmarked opportunities to make sure that residents have the ability to contact who they need to talk to when it comes to seeking funds for repairs. You know, we are under the impression that there needs to be much more targeted outreach, and that's the focus that we're having that we've put into our plan. Just making sure that, you know, our neighborhood advisory -- neighborhood advisory committees are actually empowered in a way to speak to those types of things, what to do, be much more advisory on what steps they can take. But, you know, it really is our ability to respond through our own programs not so much as the reporting that would substantiate the ability for folks to go elsewhere to seek these types of relief. But we are looking to be the answer to the problem as opposed to informing a way to answer.
So along that note, if I'm a property owner and I -- you know, I just get hit with, you know, L&I says my property is compromised to say to some unsafe construction next door. Right now I have to go jump these loops to try to find a property owner, but at the same time my property is at jeopardy, so I can't waste time finding that owner. What, in this plan, can I do as a property owner to get the assistance that I need?
So I'll defer to Mark Dodds who can speak to this specifically.
Yeah, I appreciate the question. So it was mentioned earlier, the Rowhouse Protection Project, it -- a lot of that funding goes towards legal fees but it also goes to supporting engineering costs or additional work along those lines.
Thank you. And one more question. I looked at the programs that are supported by H.O.M.E and this is just my own calculation. Almost about percent of them is some kind of loan acquisition fund, something like that, right? And in a few -- a few years ago this body passed an ordinance 6 that created the Philadelphia -- the Philadelphia Public Financial Authority. And looking at the legislation, there's a lot of things that this -- that's within H.O.M.E that that entity can do. The public financing entity that can develop and implement programs to fund programs improving affordable housing, commercial corridors, et cetera, et cetera, right? And in the legislation it says, you know, the authority can make purchase sale, insure, guarantee, hold, otherwise, deal with any loans, equity, other investments, accept contributions to capital, borrow money, issue notes, issue tax exempt bonds, lend money, extend credit, acquire, develop, implement projects. These are -- all these things that are within H.O.M.E that, essentially, the finance authority has the authority to do. And so have you all thought about, you know, using this authority to help implement the things that would fit that are within your H.O.M.E ideas?
So, I mean, a lot of what we're doing is in, you know, soliciting investment, right? I'll let Rob talk to it a little bit more because it's really, you know, a good amount of the loan products you talk about, that is commitments that we're seeking from other lenders and other institutions. We're not actually providing that commitment. But I'll let Rob talk to it.
But you can -- but with this authority, you can issue tax exempt bonds. And I know that this program is not -- you're looking to do taxable bonds, but this tax exempt bonds is something that could be issued through this authority. And on that same note there are some items in here that could be used for tax exempt bonds. Have you thought about having two different types of bonds to save the taxpayer some money? We're issuing -- so issuing tax exempt bonds for those programs that qualify for tax exempt bonds and then having the taxable bonds for the others?
I'll answer first question first, second question second. So we have existing authorities that are able to issue the debt. We don't need to basically create a new authority to do that. So we will -- our proposal is to use one of the existing authorities to issue the debt. In terms of taxable versus tax exempt, the reason that we're proposing to do this taxable is, one, to have the maximum flexibility in case we want to move money between programs that are authorized in the bonds. And in consultation with Council, I think, you know, it'd be better to move some of this funding at least in the short term to a different program. We want to be able to do that. And the way we get the most flexibility is by doing that with taxable bonds.
But have you all done analysis on how much taxpayer money could be saved if you were to go with a tax-exempt bond rather than a taxable bond for the things that are able to go under the tax-exempt bond?
Yeah. A lot of that depends on market conditions at the time we go to market. But it also would be overstating that difference if we looked at the entire issue because a lot of what we're doing in the deal is not eligible for tax exempt financing.
That's my point. So a lot of it is not eligible. So why have -- why increase the cost of taxpayers and not go with a tax-exempt bond for the things that are eligible?
Yeah. And, again, the reason that we're doing that is to ensure we have the flexibility if we need to move funding between programs. So that we cannot -- if we -- not run into problems with the tax exemption if we tried to move something into the wrong pot.
I mean, I hear that answer and I -- it's an answer. I think that we are creative enough to figure out what can -- the exact amount that we need for the taxable bonds where we won't have to try to move things back and forth. But that's my time, Mr. President. I know the bell rang, so I'll yield. I'm okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, all right. Thank you. You give me more time. So in that same -- in that same context with the taxable bonds, right, if we -- I'm asking if you can break down for us, for Council, to let us know what programs fall under the -- what programs can be utilized with a tax-exempt bond? And which programs are -- can be only utilized with a taxable bond, right? So we can give that analysis -- so we can do our due diligence to see if it's worth it or not to us to put forward a -- this bond, this borrowing of this $2 billion program, like, we're putting a mortgage on our future here. So we want to make sure that it's at least -- we're doing our due diligence as a body to make sure that we're saving the taxpayers as much money as possible with the program. MR DUBOW: Yeah. No, we're happy to show you that and, you know, within the caveat that would kind of tie our hands with some of the stuff we need to do. But we are happy to give you that analysis.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I'm good.
Thank you, Council President. Can you please clarify if the projected FY26 increase in the housing counseling budget is intended to replace the expiring CDBG-CV funding, which means essentially keeping it level or if it represents a genuine increase in the overall housing counseling budget from FY25? And I'm asking this because I think housing counseling is going to be critical to this plan. And then regarding the Land Bank operational assessment, you said that it's starting on an accelerated timeline but it isn't listed in the FY26 budget. Is this a mistake or -- and is this going to be updated? And if I could get relatively quick answers to those questions, I have a couple of quick questions on the wait list for H.O.M.E repair programs.
It's not a mistake. FY -- the Land Bank operational assessment is occurring now. So we're happy to provide additional information.
You asked us to go quick. And then for housing counseling, I'll go over to Dodds.
So this question came up in the previous round and I just want to clarify. The -- Mark Dodds, the Division of Housing and Community Development. Housing counseling. The additional money in the H.O.M.E bond is meant to replace the expiring CDBG-CV money.
So it essentially is keeping it level. That said, it came up before we certainly understand the importance of housing counseling. We're thinking about ways in which we might be able to support it differently. So, for instance, some activities around Eviction Diversion, that was previously funded by CDBG-CV as well. In this budget, it's included in the housing counseling line item, but it's perfectly possible for us to take some of that included in program delivery which would free up some funds for housing counseling. So we'd be happy to discuss that more and think about ways in which we could, you know --
Thank you so much. And then lastly, on H.O.M.E repairs, the data you provided shows that the adaptive mod wait list is actually bigger than I thought it was, and that's before the proposal to increase eligibility to 80 percent AMI. Adaptive mod is very important to me because these are our seniors that we're serving through this program. Our people with disabilities, people who are much more likely to be on fixed incomes and vulnerable to displacement. For that reason, clearing -- I think clearing this backlog should be a high priority for us. My estimate is that it will cost $15 million to help every one of these over 1,700 people on the AMP wait list. So, first, is that accurate by your calculations? And then what is your estimate on how much it would cost to clear out the 2,800 people currently on the wait list for Built to Last?
All right. Now, I can -- I can do your AMP. I don't know if I can do your Built to Last. But -- so for adaptive modification, I believe your number is very close to being accurate --
-- based on the information that you've been provided. The pace of getting to those folks is really tied to what we do to try to make sure that we're providing the right services. And that is an occupational therapist. So it's hard to find a large group of occupational therapists that can, you know, be on call, so to speak. So I've actually gone to a different approach where I have independent occupational therapist because I was using large companies at one time, they did not prioritize our people. So we're actively addressing those things a lot more aggressively than we did in the past. But it is still a challenge because we still have to sit down with the homeowner, understand what their conditions are, understand not only today but tomorrow. So when we're providing a solution, that solution is not only going to satisfy your need today but recognizing and projecting how your -- how your situation is going to progress, so to speak. So it is -- it's not the easiest program to administer. And, today, we're actually running across a few other problems related to tariffs and other things because some of that equipment is not coming through as readily as it used to.
I see. Thank you for that. I think my point is the issue with finding the therapists withstanding. I think we should really look at clearing out these wait list on programs that have shown to be not only popular, but great investments in terms of keeping people in the homes that they are already in and would love for us to think about that further. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council President.
Thank you. And just to follow up on that line of questioning, which I'm pretty sure we have a plan for it. But when -- in the event that this proposal moves forward and we have the additional funding to support those organizations, I mean those initiatives that already have wait lists and so forth, just give me an idea how we're going to integrate the new funding and wrapping up the backlog. And obviously they will continually be the priority, probably go to the top of the list, right? Just give me an idea of their smooth transition of integration which I'm -- that's sounds easier probably than it's said, but, for me, it's like, we got more money now. Let's just -- especially you with the requests, you know, them million dollars a week requests for a basic system H.O.M.E repair. So give us an idea how you're going to integrate all of them with the new funding to keep the ball moving forward.
All right. That's an interesting question but, you know, I'm not -- this is not new to me. So right now, and as we're speaking today, we're aggressively addressing that backlog. So we're looking at that backlog because, as I told you before, a lot of people fall out due to the fact that they don't return calls and things of that nature. And it actually impedes our ability to get to the people who have a true need. So we're actually addressing -- I'm actually increasing the frontline to address those -- to address that need so that we can reduce that backlog. Ideally, we want to get to people within six months. That is my ideal timeframe because, you know, some things do take time. Right now we're somewhere around 6 to 12 months. And the reason why we don't really want to go beyond that 12-month period because then we're going into another cycle where we're asking for income eligibility once again, and where your need -- your need didn't change but your income may have changed at the end of the day. So we're really just trying to get to people when they have that need. And it is a challenge. We certainly have enough contractors. I don't think that that's my challenge. I think the challenge really has been social security office and trying to determine eligibility. Those offices have been closed lately. Many of our clients who used to go into those offices now have to set up appointments. And those appointments are three months out. So we're actually looking at alternatives to identify eligibility because those things are impeding our ability to move fast. And we don't have all the answers at the moment, but we are looking at every opportunity there is to move this thing a lot quicker. Yes.
Just a recommendation and I'll acknowledge Councilmember Jamie Gauthier for a point of information. Maybe on the federal piece, in terms of helping individuals through the process to determine if they're qualified or not, maybe engaging with a partnership with Congressman Dwight Evans or Congressman Brendan Boyle to maybe see if there's a way where -- because you're working collaboratively together, they may come up with a process with people specifically for the housing initiative, that they can work with social security administration to help streamline that process. Maybe.
Well, let me just say this. I think the fact that we're trying to utilize a more flexible resource has given me a lot more flexibility. So I'm not as tied to those same restrictive requirements.
So we're very much open to, you know, if you will, looking outside the box, so to speak. So we actually will come up with alternative solutions because we're not going to be handcuffed by what's going on at the federal level.
That's another form of resistance too, so thank you.
Absolutely. But I also want to say, you mentioned several of our congressional leaders, we're also working with our congressional delegation --
-- ensuring that they are informed about our H.O.M.E plan, what our initiatives are, and how we need their help now more than ever. So --
With -- you know, we talked about Robin Weissmann, but even beyond her.
Good. Good to hear that. Councilman Jamie Gauthier.
Quickly, I just wanted to put a finer point on this issue. So clearing out the backlog for incredibly popular effective programs makes a lot of sense and can give us some quick wins, but as we do that, we also have to do that within the context of our spending plan. If we're -- if, for instance, clearing up a backlog for BSRP or Adaptive Mod is going to take up the majority of our -- what we plan to be spending in any given year and we're dramatically increasing the amount of people that are eligible, then we have to think about that in terms of the money that we're allocating to these programs. So just wanted to make that point.
Absolutely. And I just want to, you know, end by saying, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. So absolutely agree with your point.
That's what's up. Listen, we thank you and thank you Tiffany, chief of staff and Rob Dubow and Jessie and a whole team as a whole for, one, following up on a callback and also just indulging us as we do our due diligence around this process. And, again, I know the spirit of this body is within line of the overall vision and mission regarding addressing the housing crisis and addressing the issue of housing and equality here in the city of Philadelphia. And so this is just another part of the process of us going through the details and making sure that we can figure out a way to do -- continue our partnership, I'll say that, in terms of addressing this very critically and important issue. So thank you for your time and we'll be in recess until 2:30. (Council at recess.)
Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, everyone. You've got to have that Jane Golden type of spirit, you know? We will continue our Committee of The Whole. ms. Loughead, will you please call the next panel? THE
So, Ms. Jane Golden, we want to thank you for being here. We thank you for your enthusiasm. We thank you for your leadership as we beautify -- as you beautify the city of Philadelphia, but also inspire and empower our young people. So with that being said, Jane, please begin your testimony.
Thank you. Good afternoon, President Johnson and members of City Council. I am Jane Golden, the Executive Director of the Mural Arts Program. I'm here to testify on behalf of our fiscal year 2026 budget for which the Mayor has allocated $3.7 million. I want to start with gratitude. Huge gratitude for all the support that we have received from the city over the years, particularly this past year as we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Anti-Graffiti Network and Mural Arts. With me today are the directors of three core departments, Restorative Justice, Damon McWhite, which works to improve public safety and reduce recidivism. The Porch Light Program, yay, which offers support -- which supports community mental health, and Art Education, which offers high quality out of school programs for our city's most vulnerable youth. And they will introduce themselves right now. Michelle.
Good afternoon, Council. My name is Michelle Nugent, and at 17, I was introduced to Mural Arts as a mural apprentice. Twenty years later, I'm proud to stand here as Mural Arts Director of Art Education, a living example of positive and lasting impact this organization and its art education programs has on our city.
Good afternoon, Council. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Nadia Malik. I'm the director of the Porch Light Department. Porch Light is an 7 year partnership with the city's 8 Department of Behavioral Health and 9 Intellectual Disability Services. 10 I moved to Philadelphia 11 eight years ago to attend social 12 work school and my goal in social 13 work school was really to study art 14 and mental health. And eight years 15 later, the only reason I'm still in 16 the city is because Mural Arts kept 17 me here because of the amazing work 18 that we do in Philadelphia.
Good afternoon. My name is Damon McWhite. I'm the director of the Restorative Justice Program at Mural Arts. I started with the department about three years ago working on the job development side. And over the last three years, the work that we are doing with not only individuals who are currently incarcerated, but the folks who are coming H.O.M.E has inspired me to continue that work as a director of the program. So I'm very excited to be here and be a part of the testimony.
These dedicated individuals, along with our amazing team at Mural Arts, engage thousands of community members through critical work that uses arts and culture to drive economic development, improve public space, catalyze civic engagement, and provide young people and adults with skills to join our city's workforce. Our core programs directly support Mayor Parker's priorities of public safety, access to economic opportunity, education, and moving towards a cleaner, greener city. Here are just a few examples of that work. Our Restorative Justice program addresses public safety head on with its focus on providing a rigorous curriculum that provides job skills, training, and pipeline development. The Guild program, a paid- life readiness program for justice impacted to 24-year olds, has a 13 one-year recidivism rate of six 14 percent. Let me say that again, six 15 percent. The rate in the 16 Commonwealth is 55 percent, the 17 national average is 65 percent. The 18 Rec Crew workforce development also prepares justice impacted individuals through trainings, skill building, job readiness, and also the Rec Crew transforms recreation centers throughout the city, making buildings beautiful where our children go. Economic opportunity is key to Philadelphia's future, and I'm proud that participants in our Guild and Rec Crew programs earned nearly half a million dollars in 2024, putting that back into the economy. And we have an 85 percent placement rate in jobs or additional training. Yay. Sorry, I get so excited. Now let's look at Porch Light. Our partnership with the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disability Services. Porch Light signature project in fiscal year 2024, directly addressed gun violence through a weapons buyback initiative. Guns are being melted down and we're creating a peace park in Kensington. Our signature project for fiscal 2025 focuses on a citywide suicide prevention awareness project, culminating in a beautiful mural at St. Christopher's Hospital for Children. 4 million to the creative economy of our city. Color Me Back has provided same day work for over 1,400 people facing housing insecurity and totaling over a quarter of a million dollars annually. We have also connected 240 Philadelphians who have been struggling to CareerLink, and we place people in job training and positions within the Mural Arts program. There is always a pathway at Mural Arts. In the Northeast and South Philly, both neighborhoods with many immigrant and first- generation residents, our Porch Light storefronts offer practical necessities such as citizenship or English as a second language. Through Porch Light, we strive to create a sense of belonging and empathy amongst neighbors. Whether new or long established. Our art education program aligns with the mayor's extended school day and year-round priorities by providing both in-school and after school programs. Each year, well over 2,000 students across all 10 council districts study everything from entrepreneurship to portfolio development, while they contribute to public art projects that enhance our neighborhoods. Yay. And of course, at the heart of our work, it is about engaging the community in bringing beauty and meaning to public spaces. So we thank our community murals department. Yay, community murals. In fiscal -- that's right. In fiscal 2024, we created murals, again, in every council district. We are everywhere. We dedicated -- just dedicate -- we -- just recently, we've dedicated 81 public art installations. We completed 53 restorations, and in the first two quarters of fiscal 25, we dedicated another 50 new public art installations. And we're in the midst of doing 130 projects right now. So we're busy bees. We continue to expand the concept of community engaged public art as we tap into the extraordinary creative energy of Philadelphia sector. For example, FloatLab. You could ask, what is FloatLab?
It is a unique civic space that will be right by Bartram's on the Schuylkill River. And by day it will be a laboratory where young people can study the river and environmental issues. And at night, it'll be a spot where people can meditate on the river or have performance. Right now, we are living in unprecedented times. Our residents, our institutions of higher education and many vital programs normally funded by the federal government are threatened. In the face of this, Mural Art's commitment to community, to connection, and creativity helps foster resilience and keeps hope alive. Our mural projects create opportunities for neighborhoods all across the city to come together to understand their uniqueness and their shared values. Innovative projects like the People's Budget funded by the William Penn Foundation, build knowledge through civic engagement and strengthen democracy locally. As we look to 2026, Mural Arts is planning a full range of programs to -- designed to reflect on this moment, reimagine the future, and celebrate and transform our city. Printmaking by the People is a partnership with the free library that invites people to participate and reimagine the Declaration of Independence. Bells across Philadelphia will bring artists and communities together to decorate Liberty Bell replicas along 10 commercial corridors and in parks, reinforcing our city's historic brand. Preparing for the expected influx of visitors, we are creating monumental new artworks and key gateways to the city to celebrate Philadelphia's revolutionary and innovative spirit. The funding for these murals was appropriated in the fiscal 2025 transfer ordinance. Thank you so much. We are really, really grateful and excited. A potential new project -- a new project coming in Fiscal is our partnership with CLIP, and we're going to be working with the Office of Clean & Green to Beautify Highways. I am very excited about this opportunity. It's very large, very big, very daunting and very inspiring. And I want to thank the Mayor for supporting this important initiative. As you heard, our work is so much more than murals. It's about strengthening Philadelphia spirit, its neighborhoods, its people, and its future. It's about using art and culture as a tool to heal, to connect and to push forward. Just recently, USA Today named Philadelphia the number one city in the country for street art and murals. Let's hear it. That recognition matters. Number one, Cincinnati thought they could get it, but there was just no 24 way. And it matters not just for what it says about our creative talent, but what it says about who we are and what we believe in. Every mural, every project we take on, is a daily act of hope. In a world that feels fractured, this work says we still believe in each other. We believe that change is possible. I always say that art ignites change because I see it happen again and again and again. This is the kind of change Philadelphia deserves; creative, connected, and community driven. We are incredibly grateful more than you'll ever know, for your support and for the belief that you have in us, that Mayor Parker has with us, that our Chief Cultural Val Gay has with us. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Because of all of you, we can keep building a city where what's possible becomes real, block by block, wall by wall, person to person. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Thank you very much, and we appreciate, as always, your very enthusiastic and inspirational --
-- testimony for something that's critically important here in the city of Philadelphia. I know I asked the administration some time ago at my own research regarding the proposed FY26 budget that includes the $190,000, which you talked about for the beautification of I-95. However, funding for Color Me Back program, which is $750,000, is not recognized in the five-year plan. So give me an idea of how this funding shift of priorities will affect your ability to support your five core programs such as Color Me Back and Restorative Justice.
Okay. To answer that question, we're going to tag team. So, Lisa Murch, if you would come up here and introduce yourself.
My name is Lisa Murch, and I'm the Chief Operating Officer at Mural Arts. The 750 that you were referring to for the Color Me Back program is actually coming to us through another source in the city, which we're very pleased about. The CEO office will be providing us $750 directly to the Porch Light Color Me Back program, which is wonderful and a new development for us. So we're really grateful for that. The funding that we're going to have difficulty raising for our other programming is our Guilds program. Oh, sorry.
So the 790 for the highways. So the budget is 3.7. Of the 3.7, as you just indicated, 790 is for the highways. So we take that out and we have 2.9, something like that. 2.8, 2.9. So that, and now Lisa will talk about what that means.
Yeah. So that reduction in our general operating dollars will impact our programming, right? So we will only be able to do half the number of community projects that we normally engage in. We would not be able to run our guild program as planned. Restorations would have no 22 budget in our -- in our budget this year. And then our crew, we are also hoping to bring some of the members who are least compensated to what we feel like is a healthy living wage. So all of those things would really be a wonderful thing for the program if we could bring those back.
So let's do a deeper diver ground around the issue of public safety. Right now we see the City of Philadelphia, as a matter of fact, it was mentioned yesterday, a 50 year historic low when it comes to homicides and shootings. So talk about the role that Mural Arts have played. A lot of people when you think Mural Arts, if they don't know the overall mission, the first thing that come to their mind is, you're doing great murals across the city of Philadelphia. You're cleaning up graffiti and you're doing some painting. But it's -- the mission is much, much more than that. Particularly when it comes to the issue of public safety, giving young people a second chance, giving adults a second chance, and also a purpose to transform their lives when they are incarcerated and also returning citizens as we talk about public safety here in the city of Philadelphia.
Thank you, Council President, for that question. I'll turn it over to my colleague in a minute. But I want to say to all of you that the Restorative Justice program at Mural Arts, and you could all look at me and say, but Jane Golden, you're biased. But I'm a person who I believe that this is not a job. For me, it's a moral imperative. And we do the work with the utmost integrity. If I'm giving you a statistic, it's because it's real. The changes that we've seen over years, we started working in Graterford Prison 20 years ago. We started our reentry program in 2008. And what we saw were extraordinary changes. Many of the young people are here today. They have talent and genius and potential that has just gone unrecognized in our society. And people should not be judged endlessly because of a mistake they've made. We've all made mistakes. And we are a program that provides people with love and with rigor and with training and the data backs it up. Six percent recidivism, 85 percent chance, I mean, of people moving on to jobs. We are not an ambivalent employer. We are one that cares about our constituents. And so now I'll turn it over to Damon. I just had to say that because I get so wound up and excited and I believe in the work.
It's not a lot of meat left on the bone. Yeah, for sure. So thank you Council president for acknowledging that. So in our Restorative Justice department, as I mentioned earlier, we operate programs both at the State Correctional Institution and also at our space at 915 Spring Garden Street. What we've seen and what I've personally seen within that program is opportunities for Philadelphians to reconnect back to their community. So you're talking about young people who are not only potentially offenders, but they're also victims of those same crimes that are happening in their community. And these mural projects and this opportunity to work at rec centers and work with community members is not only building that customer service skill that a lot of our city employees are looking for and opportunities that could exist to them, but it's also reconnecting them to those communities that they feel like they're no longer a part of when they're incarcerated. So on upon their return, we're working on projects that are directly impacting these neighborhoods. We're getting community members to come up and engage with our participants to ask about the process, ask about their experience, ask about what they're excited about the program for. And they're building those one-on-one communication skills that are going to help them when they leave our program in the future. And to Lisa's point, one of our main concerns for next year is losing that opportunity for that life readiness program that Jane mentioned because of the importance of giving people the opportunity to identify a purpose that they can begin to pursue, and then having a community of support from Mural Arts to be able to move on with that. We have participants that are here today that are selling artwork that would've never thought before about themselves being artists. We have participants here today that have other job opportunities that they're waiting for. We have participants in coding programs. I know I saw a couple of councilmembers at our event yesterday. But we're connecting people to opportunities that exist even outside of art, but we're using art as the opportunity to connect that thread. And without that Guild program, we would definitely be losing the opportunity to do so for a number of Philadelphians.
And, Council President, it's also, as you pointed out, I think that Mural Arts is a deceptively complex organization because it's public safety, but it's also beautification, it's opportunity, it's economic development, and it's also around mental health problems. But it's about like going like this and saying, we are going to provide pathways, a foundation, and opportunities for people across this city, some of whom have really struggled. But why not have a chance to move on with your life and thrive. And that's what we see. So we are probably seeing, how many people every year in the Guild and the Rec Crew?
Typically, between 60 to 80 people in those programs. And with the structure that we're building and the structure that we have in place, we want to be able to increase that work. But we understand like this situation could potentially limit the amount of people flowing into the program that could ultimately be a part of the Rec Crew. And that's one of our major concerns with losing the Guild program.
And the other thing is, I know you go out to Phoenix, which thank you for doing that, and we had a field trip and we're going to do it everybody again in July. And Councilmember O'Rourke, thank you for joining us. And it was amazing. A hundred new murals throughout the institution of images of places. The men there will never travel to, but exist in their minds. We cannot tap down their imagination and creativity, and we need to nurture it.
How much was the FY25 budget? Your budget? Your total budget for Mural Arts last year for FY25?
Yeah. So our original base budget was close to 3.7. Right. But after additions from Council over the course of the year, we get to about $5 million.
Okay. So let's just stick with the base budget. So the base budget is how much?
That's 3.7. And then I know you came back, we did a midyear transfer -- came back to the mid-year transfer for 2.50. Now, and I'm asking you this question because the 790, which really is not about your programming, right? That means those programs that has -- so those programs are already supported prior to the 790, correct?
So for last year's fiscal year, yes, we are supported through the end of this fiscal.
But the 790, which is going to -- what has to be used in a certain types of -- in a -- in a certain way leaves these programs out, correct?
That is correct. And what we -- when we were doing our assessment around 5 million, it keeps our program like organizationally strong so that we can keep doing this without interruption.
Got it. So I want to turn it over to our champion of arts as well. Another patron on here who have led this effort in Council for a while. Councilmember Isaiah Thomas. And then we'll start our around. Councilmember THOMAS: Good morning -- good afternoon, colleagues. Good afternoon, Council President. Good afternoon to all of BS and people from Mural Arts. Jane Golden, we love you. Your energy is contagious. Council president, I have no questions. I'm a board member for Mural Arts. I know firsthand the great work that's done through the Guild program and all the initiatives that run through Mural Arts. And I'll just close out by saying this Council President, we talk about the importance of 2026 and everything that's going to happen next year. It's imperative that we fund Mural Arts in a way that they're needed to assure that they are the quality partner that we know that they can be and have been in the past to put us in a position to display Philadelphia in the best eye for the world to see. So I just wanted to put those remarks on the record, Council President. Of course, Jane, the entire team, thank you for all the great work that you're doing. Of course, you know, you have my support. And I also just want to close out by thanking all of the other board members for Mural Arts because the Mural Arts Board is a phenomenal board who does great work. And it's one of those boards where it's not supposed to be a working board, but Jane puts us to work just like she does everybody else. So, thank you, Council President.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognize Councilman Rue Landau, then Councilmember Kathy Gilmore-Richardson, and Councilmember Phillips after that.
Thank you, Council President. First of all, yay, Mural Arts. I love you guys. It is absolutely true that all of your enthusiasm is contagious. You're so lucky to work with this institution every single day. It's easy to get up and go to work when you have this kind of enthusiasm. Right? I'm also -- I cannot describe what an amazing fan I am of all of your work and the way in which you have transformed lives. I was really moved when we were talking now about your Restorative Justice work and your work with people returning from incarceration or anybody who's got a record. You know, I've done a lot of restorative justice work in my time where people are kind of apologizing and healing a bit in a conversation or in a community. But to think that after that process, you have a product on the wall too. You've taken part in amazing art project, whether it's a mural or something where you can always walk back to it and look at it and remember the growth that you've had personally and the growth to the community is really something very special. So thank you so much for that. I want to start by just -- I'm confused and want to get to some nitty -- my one nitty-gritty budget number to start with. Because I'm excited about this I-95 project. I would like every avenue and way people are going to come and experience our wonderful city to be beautified. But my understanding is that about -- so you're calling it 790, about $790,000 is -- was allocated to support the Clean & Green Initiative, but it didn't come from Clean & Green's budget. So then that means it comes from your budget, which means there's $790,000 worth of other things that you can't do; is that right?
Okay. I -- I'm against that. I'm voting against that already. I don't like that. So we'd love to -- we have to try to make you whole in some way. I appreciate you taking on this initiative. You always try new things along with the work you currently do, but I'm assuming that includes you'd need more hands and more material and things like that in order to make that happen. So okay. So that cleared that up for me. What additional funding would you need in order to complete that project along with all of your other work? Is it exactly $790,000?
Well, actually we would really love $1.5 million so that we could do the work we need to do to keep serving the citizens of the city in the best way we can. We're very grateful for the budget that we have and for the support that we get. But the truth is that Mural Arts is an ambitious program in the best sense of that word. We are opportunistic, we see opportunities everywhere, and we want to be able to seize them in a manner, like as I said before, with integrity, that's serving individuals, creating a city that looks at public safety, beautification transformation of sites. I mean, just over the last number of years you think about it, there's been inflation. There's like things -- like, it's just more expensive to do work. And our budget is for the most part, pretty flat over the many years that we've been doing this work. So we're not -- you know, we -- you know, we can't ask for the sky, but 1.5 would be, like, incredible. But we do -- we have to -- it would just be heartbreaking to not be able to continue serving our city's young people, justice impacted young people in the manner with which we've been doing. And also, you know, working along commercial corridors, hiring artists. I mean, like, individual artists. It's so wonderful that there is a place to go to create in public space where there's a real community around that. Artists move to Philadelphia, but they may not stay here if they're not opportunities. So 1.5, I'm sorry, that was a long way answer.
Thank you for the 1.5. So that -- would that also -- I know 2026 is coming and so this I-95 is only one part of that. Would your -- would $1.5 million also cover whatever your vision is to expand what we should be doing in Philadelphia for 2026?
No, it would not. It would cover our operations and that's what it would cover. We have raised additional funds for some of our projects, but, you know, our dream would be -- we have a very, very little restoration budget. We should be restoring some of our landmark murals. We should be creating a new collection like the City of Los Angeles there -- because the Olympics are, I guess, in '28, they've already started commissioning new work. It's like, we need to think this way. I mean, we're -- it's like we're Philly, we lead the world in public art. It's like so awesome. So if you ask me, I know you know this about, like, for five minutes, like, what -- like ideas for 2026. We're doing some great things. And of course we have other ideas because that's just who we are. It's like in our DNA.
Okay. Thank you so much. I'll come back for another round. I got like 100 questions for you guys. Love you guys.
Thank you. Dr. Phillips, Majority Leader Gilmore-Richardson, Quetcy Lozada, Councilmember Harrity.
Thank you so much, Jane Golden, for the work that you do in the city of Philadelphia and all your amazing team. It's a -- it's excellent. So keep up the work. I just want to begin by thanking you for your dedication to working well with the community. Your entire mural staff does a lot of work with, you know, engaging neighbors about what they want to see from their murals, but also finding ways to get additional funding to get the murals completed. So I just want to pull out the fact that -- I just want to bring up the fact that you have -- we're noting that it would be a potentially an additional $1.5 million needed to keep your current operation funds in place. And what I want to say is that we had a conversation the last budget cycle, and I said this cycle, I would want to deliver on this because this was something I asked, I did some research, learned about from your team that it costs about 30 to $80,000 depending on the size of murals and, you know, because some are very tall and so forth. And I said, can you imagine the city of Philadelphia with two murals minimum per Council district in all districts? And I'm like, what would that cost? So I did the numbers and that -- and it was agreed upon that it would be an additional million dollars. So what I'm suggesting from all of us at City Council is that, you know, we don't just do the $5.2 million, but we do $6.2 million so that we can get the minimum of 2 million. And so -- and so I'm very hopeful by all of our colleagues that we could find a way to make that happen. Because if that's the minimum of getting two murals per district, and we can work even with our counselor, our large members and so forth in thinking about all these things, I think it would be an amazing thing for all of the city of Philadelphia. So just want to talk about, you know, that -- your thoughts on that.
Well, it would be a dream. I'd probably would faint and you'd have to bring me back to life. But thank you. We -- you know, first of all, we have -- and my colleagues here in the project management office know this. We have a waiting list. Like, the demand for projects far exceeds our ability to do it. That's like a -- that's a bottom line real scenario. And so we could probably do work in the Council districts and then for our at-large colleagues, there would be some other projects we could do. So it would be -- it would be amazing and we could do it and we'd be very energized and inspired and really good team players.
Thank you. Because we already know that the 5.2 covers your -- just to keep you afloat, but that additional million would bring more life to the city of Philadelphia when it comes to art. So hopefully we can not only keep you afloat with the 5.2, but bring more to our districts. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Phillips. Councilmember Gilmore-Richardson, then Councilmember Quetcy Lozada, then Councilmember Jim Harrity.
Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you so much, much Jane Golden and to the entire mural arts team. You know, you just bring such wonderful energy and life to this work and really underscore the importance of arts in our community. I'm really excited to hear about the I-95 project in particular because I've noticed even in my travels on 76 and even in the park, I've noticed more graffiti in the park, which that was kind of like an unspoken unwritten rule for years that we don't impact our park spaces with graffiti. But I'm noticing even now, like Chamounix Drive over in closer to west Philadelphia, more and more graffiti even in the park. So I know that you all are working on the 2026 activities and all of the other additional murals. Some of which I have seen some of the concepts and I'm just thrilled and excited for and so is the community. So I thank you for that. And also thank you for your commitment to Tussin as well. But are you all working towards any projects in the park in specific just around graffiti removal? Or --
Well, what we -- what we hope to do with some of the funds that have come in, and we're very, again, grateful to all of you, the mayor, and to Director Williams from Clean and Green, and of course Chief Cultural Officer Val Gay. We're very -- we would like to take a portion of that. And I believe the mayor even touched on this in her budget address and work with graffiti writers. Because as you know, and many of you know, back in the day, I did work for the Anti- Graffiti Network a thousand years ago.
But we love that work and we feel that -- I mean, just recently there was a young man who had been defacing property, and one of my colleagues here gave him an opportunity to work on a mural. And I will say that he did an amazing job. And then he sent me an email and he said, dear Ms. Golden, I just want you to know that that experience was so important. I would like to now do murals on daycare centers in my neighborhood. That's a real story. And it's like, there are so many more young people like him who would -- who would like -- would be willing and eager and interested to help transform our city for the better, if only for an opportunity. So thank you for that question. We would love to do that.
That would be great. I wanted to bring it up because, and I'm sure if former Councilmember, Blondell Reynolds, was listening right now, which she does from time to time, you know, that was her entree into politics was when someone wrote graffiti on her first house down in University City in Mantua, and she was not happy about it. And that was her foray into the entire graffiti network and the birth of mural arts. And so I wanted to bring that up because we've seen more of it as of late. And I have -- I guess this will be more of a, I guess, funny question, but I've seen recently, even on the Girard Avenue Bridge, when you're coming from Brewery town or North Philly, coming over towards the zoo near Lansdowne Drive on that bridge, you know, where the -- typically we have some of the SEPTA trains and Amtrak trains that run on that line. More graffiti even on that bridge. And that's really been a real gateway for folks that are coming in and out of the city who may be coming from the west side, but also from other areas. And just thinking about not only Kelly Drive, but the reopening of Dr. Martin Luther King Drive that we anticipate with the mayor's stating in her address, the bridge being finished by the art museum in the fall of 25. How do we restore a bridge like that that's so high up? So are you -- I'm sure you're on the platform, right? And I don't know how are they're getting that graffiti all the way over top of the river?
Well, if we're talking about the same wall, there is a great wall right by 30th Street where all the big graffiti writers are. Is that the one that you --
No. This one is the bridge where the zoo is located.
Well, it would be possible. I mean, we have funding. So this is -- we have funding from the midyear transfer for a gateway project, and we're going to soon be putting together an advisory committee to think about how do we define where our gateway should be. But then I think, you know, connected to that, there might be -- because it's 500,000, a project like that would probably be quite expensive, but I think doable. We'd have to do a real serious analysis and work with CLIP because there would be safety concerns.
But I think we have to -- I think that's such a great question because we have to be thinking about what are people going to see and what do we see as people who live here --
-- every day in these key locations. And I think that we should think about how do we beautify either with color or with image.
Because you all have a mural there on the 76 west portion of -- when you enter from Girard Avenue going eastbound on 76. But again, this is the bridge in particular. And I'm just trying to conceptualize because my kids and I, we walk from home all the way downtown a couple times a year, and we walk over that bridge and it's a gate. It's a really high gate. So I don't even know how they're getting over there, is what I'm saying, to do that and then how we would rectify the issue. Like, that projects that you all typically work on, because it's really -- it's nothing there. Like, it's not even like the ground is there 30, 40 feet below. It's not -- it's just the Schuylkill River.
I have no idea how they're doing it. I look at it in amazement and they think some of them -- I mean, there's -- I saw a few spaces last week and I thought they must be repelling down. And someone told me that's exactly what they're doing, yet they're, like, getting trained.
So, I mean, that's why I thought the mayor's idea actually of in some places just using color is a way to go.
And we've actually seen some images around the country that are really interesting. And so that's what I would advocate for. So I think it's possible with the right research, but I would advocate for color and I really do believe that would be quite striking and beautiful.
Okay. That'll be great. Well, I just wanted to mention that because that's on the sort of traffic corridor in thoroughfare when people will be coming in and out of the city. And also when we go back and forth to work, school and play, we're seeing this as well. But, you know, I'm an avid supporter of mural arts, we appreciate all the work that you all are doing, and I look forward to personally ensuring that we are being supportive of your request.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the Councilmember Quetcy Lozada, then Councilman Jim Harrity, then Councilmember Squilla, and then O'Rourke.
Thank you, Council President. I just briefly want to recognize and thank Jane for the amazing project that was just completed on Francisca and the Haiku project that connects Louisa with the residents of Naval Square. I can't tell you the number of people who have said how much they appreciate that project and how beautiful it is and how much they can't wait to see more projects in and across the 7th Council District. And so my question to you is: Can you tell us how many projects specific you have by district? And is there a specific budget that you would need for each one, and if you know what that is, at least, for the 7th, could you share that with me?
Sure. So I think that the councilman referred to in the number a million dollars of two projects per district were placed in a range between 30 and 80k was your estimate, correct? So I think that would be kind of a base level to start from as a price point.
And I just want to thank you for your support and we're really excited to go and look at the commercial corridors. And I think that's about right. That's -- it's interesting because if you did an analysis of our budget, the sliver that goes to murals is actually quite small. It's ironic but true. So thank you for that. Really good question.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jim Harrity.
Thank you, Council President. Jane, my baby, you know -- you know I love you. I remember Anti-Graffiti. I started in 93 with the Controller's office. I remember Anti-Graffiti from when I first started working and also from when I was a kid. But I had the pleasure of working with you when I worked for John Street and the managing director's office. I actually was in -- that's when you had the kids program over on North Broad Street, the after school program, which was really great, so big supporter. I'd just like to know -- you know, and thank you again, like Quetcy said, for the 7th District, you know, we need help over there. Murals really do brighten up the scenery, and the kids, it makes them feel good. So I'd love to see some more over there. Why are these programs especially critical to Kensington Community, the mental health community and those involved in the restorative justice and reentry communities? What outcomes or impacts have you seen in these areas? And if Mural Arts budget stays stagnant and is not fully funded, what is going to happen to the restorative justice aspects that you have highlighted to us?
Well, one thing is for sure the Guild Program that we love and that many of you have supported over the years will go away. I mean, I think it's -- there's -- we just -- it's a math issue. We just can't support it. Our -- the work we do in Kensington with Porch Light, and I would like Nadia to speak about it, has been extremely inspiring that we could be at rec centers, we could be at schools, we can be in parks. I mean, we're very facile and responsive, and so we want to be there and we want to have a consistent presence there. And then the Color Me Back work is really -- it's like God's work. It's really transforming people's lives. Nadia, do you want to -- would you like to add?
Of course. Yeah, so, you know, Mural Arts in general has a long commitment to the Kensington neighborhood. The Porch Light department, we've been in the neighborhood for eight years, and I think that consistency is a big part of it. We have seen every single year that we've been in the neighborhood. The one thing that we always hear from people in Kensington is that we want people to prove that you're here and in it for the long run, right? That we don't want people dropping in and out. We want people to listen to us, to tell -- to hear what we want in the neighborhood. And I think that's the biggest effect that we've had, is that we are consistently there. We have a storefront right now on Kensington and Allegheny.
Yeah. And it is, you know, you live there, you know, Kensington and Allegheny, not many people want to come out to that corner and come out to work there. Since we've been there, we have great partnership with Esperanza right around the corner, the Hispanic Community Counseling Services across the street, RAWtools is next to us. That combination of people being there consistently has made a huge difference. And that people know that we're there. They know that when they come into our space, it's a safe space for them. We accept them. But in terms of outcomes, I think it is that just we have -- we're consistently there. And also providing an outlet for people that might not have a space to have an outlet for just free art programming, right, just that outlet of expressing themselves, the outlet of a space to gather. We heard from a lot of people that there just aren't space -- The McPherson Library is an amazing space. People gather there, but there's very few and far between spaces where people can just come in. They know that they're safe there, they can bring their family members there. But we've also just seen, you know, being -- referring people to services, that idea of community, and I think Damon speaks about this a lot with the Guild, but in our Color me Back program, we've been in Kensington for three years. And that idea of seeing people who've been through that program, who were going through the same concerns, the same mental health concerns, the same substance use concerns, they serve as a role model for someone else has done this, so I can also do this. I can -- I have this clear pathway for myself.
Yeah. That's the other thing I like, is the fact that you're bringing people from that community in there to work on those pieces along with the kids. I think you do an amazing job and I know that there were a bunch of us last budget cycle fighting to get Mural Arts some more money. We did get a little bit. We didn't get everything we needed, but, you know, me, I'm -- I'm going to vote for fully funding it because I also believe that we need to make a good impression for -- we need to make a good impression for the birthday of our country. And to be honest, Mural Arts is literally probably one of the least expensive ways that we could do that compared to -- compared to some of the other projects. So I just hope that my colleagues, we can stand strong on this issue and dig our heels in because I think this is important. I think it's something that lights up a neighborhood, it brings joy, makes the kids smile. For me, that's what it's about.
And thank you so much. And it's really a joy to see people go through Color me Back, and then have, like, either jobs with us or jobs in other places. It's so -- you feel so inspired by that. And that's why we're very grateful that 750,000 came back because, if not, I would've been sitting here today and telling you we're cutting Color me Back. So that's very precarious as well, and someday it would be a dream if that was incorporated into our budget, just generally.
Thank you. CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla followed by Councilmember O'Rourke, and then we'll close out with Councilmember Landau.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Jane and Mural Arts for being here. First of all, let's cut to the chase, I'm supportive of the $1.5 million in the budget, obviously. But I want to go back to the question. Because when Carlton Williams was here, Clean and Green testified, we had asked him about the highway funding and he had mentioned that they were going to work with graffiti writers and how that would work. I'm just curious, do you have a -- do you know the plan or what the plan is and how that 750 will be spent? Because you know my goal and which we're going to talk about privately, but, you know, to try to create a graffiti wall where we could have a wall where we could use graffiti writers, engage them, have them show their art and then make it a place where people could visit and then every year change it up and have it over and over again. And, you know, I would like to be able to work with you on that. And I know you're burdened with nine million other projects to do, but, you know, and find the resources to do that. But the -- Carlton had said that the goal was to come up with working with graffiti writers on some of this program. Do we have any idea of how that would work? Or is that funding specifically for that? Or are you just using the funding to paint over to graffiti on the highways?
That's a great question, Councilmember Squilla. Thank you for asking that. We really believe very strongly that it's important to keep our -- the highways, keep our city clean, and we really commend CLIP for all they do. At the same time, it's very important to impact behavior, otherwise we'll just be here again and again. So I think that it's a -- it's multitasking and we have written a number of proposals, we've shared proposals with Director Williams. He's very open to it. It's now a question of, you know, sitting down now this very, very late spring and making a plan to both beautify the highways, but taking a fraction of that money because we're ready to fly into action because we have a history of doing it, of working with the graffiti writers. And I love your idea and I commend you for this and we look forward to working with you to have some legal walls that change. I mean, I was invited to go to Miami Beach during Art Basel to be on a panel. And first of all, there were like hundreds of people there from all over. And they had taken spray and there were all these murals everywhere that were rotating and people were so captivated by it that I think that we're missing out on opportunities that we could both change kids' lives and get something beautiful and also sort of captivating and attract people to it. So I think there's a way of doing all those things. And I think we -- that we just should -- we should do it and now is the time. We're very eager to do this.
But we know all those things cost money and resources, and if we want them to happen, we have to be able to support them. So saying that and engaging the graffiti writers and understanding, because we know -- we see -- we never used to see graffiti on murals before. We're seeing that now, right?
So we're seeing that change. And the goal is if you bring these people in, work with them, show them that their art is important and it means something, they don't want anybody writing on their art, wo we won't want you writing on somebody else's art. And I think by getting them involved and being part of the solution will really bring us to have -- spend less resources in just cleaning up graffiti or putting a million dollars into just cleaning up highways because they're going to be doing their art on these walls and then people are going to go take pictures in front of them.
You're absolutely right. I will always remember the first mural I did in the city of Philadelphia, when I worked for the Anti-Graffiti Network, I was working with about a hundred graffiti writers on the spring garden street bridge. And it was just like, it was chaotic, but it was inspiring. And at one point we got to work all of us and someone had written their name across the bridge and they were like, Jane, this is awful. And I'm like, well, what do you think you've been doing around the city? And they're like, Oh, right. And it was like a moment of epiphany. And then a few days later, this young man comes walking up to us and their kids are like, that's Pez. I'm like, what? And I just run up to him and he goes, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm sorry. I came to apologize. I said, this is how you apologize. You're going to start working for us today. And I gave him a brush and you know what? He stayed seven years and now he's a big designer, lives in Denver, has two kids.
That's good. That's great. But maybe we could do that for cornbread, right? Or some of the other guys out there. So, yes, happy to work on that with you and obviously supporting the additional dollars in Mural Arts. We know -- I love seeing the shirts and the signs today because, you know, I always say Mural Arts is not just murals. We are the biggest outdoor art museum in the world, but it's more than just murals, right? So thank you so much. Great job. CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, Councilman, and thank you for your advocacy and your work on this issue. The Chair recognizes Councilmember O'Rourke, and then we'll close out with Councilmember Landau.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First and foremost, I want to add my voice to the course of my colleagues and thank Mural Arts for all that you do for our city. It is late in the afternoon, so why don't we go ahead and give another round of applause to Mural Arts for all that they do. You mentioned it already. We have more murals than any city on the planet that we call Earth, and that simply wouldn't be the case without your work. And so thank you for that. You also do phenomenal restorative justice work. You may have talked about it prior to my coming into the chamber. I recently toured, as you mentioned, SEI Phoenix with you and your team. And I suggest, if you haven't already, colleagues, that every member do the same. Go up there and see with your own eyes the sort of work that's being done in that space, in the way that it feeds the spirit in the midst of a cage. I think it's important. I think I was -- came in, you were talking about Color me Back. I was going to ask about that. But I do want to know, your office does a lot of work around the budget engagement; is that correct?
Can you tell us about the work of the People's Budget Office?
Sure. Thank you for asking that question. It's a really innovative program. I want to give a lot of credit to Phoebe Bachman who had this idea. We're -- I just want to say this, that we're an organization that's always open to ideas. I think in life, people here know a lot. And so we like to think about yes and how we could do it. So this is about using artists to help people learn about the city budget, think about what possibilities are. And, you know, artists have a wonderful way of communicating and interpreting things in our world. Sometimes it's things that we, you know, don't think about, but somehow an artist will see something different or new path out. They will see the light. And so this people's budget is so fascinating to me because we're -- we have artist residencies, we have a container in Love Park that we've turned into an office. And then we have these budget 101s and 201s all over the city. And I went to one at Bach a few weeks ago, just stopped in on a Sunday afternoon. And I'm thinking, well, how many people could be here Sunday at 3:00 o'clock? I walked in, it was packed. It was standing room only because people yearn to know more. People love our city, they're invested in our city. And this is a way of knowledge sharing. And so it's like, okay, we all have a vested interest in our city. And so understanding the budget is really important and using art is a way to welcome people in has been fascinating. It's really a wonderful program. I was thrilled that William Penn provided us with this, a very significant grant. And I want to say that every program officer from William Penn came to the People's Budget last week to the office, and they all worked with them for several hours and talked about the city budget and then did art activations.
I appreciate Member Harrity's point. We can clap for that. Yes, we can. I appreciate Member Harrity's point around being one of the cheaper ways or -- yeah, I guess cheaper ways by which we're able to do amazing things. One of those amazing things, and I'll preach this to the day that I lay my head down in the grave, democracy is more than just voting on election day or election season. It's what you do prior to throughout election season and after the fact. And when you are able to provide a program that creates more access points for the common citizen of one of our neighbors to be able to engage and be able to know more about how our city runs, how things are flowing, what have you, we are re engendering a sense of civic responsibility and engagement in a way that I think we -- it could be overlooked. And I just want to raise that as we talk about every election cycle, voter turnout, by the way, May 20th, don't forget to go vote. Why, as we talk about those sorts of things, seeing these points as well as opportunities for us to be able to be a more democratic city and therefore be a beacon for others. I still got some time on the clock. So I'll say that another program that I think speaks to Mural Arts multifaceted impact. And if you talked about this already, I apologize, is the Kensington storefront. Was that mentioned this already? Which is one of the several specific spaces run throughout the city. How does the Kensington storefront community curator program work? And can you tell us more about the impact that it has?
Yeah. Thank you so much for your question. Yeah, so we've been running the Kensington storefront in different spaces, but for eight years now, the biggest impact I can talk about in the last year, I see this as a culmination of all the work we did in the neighborhood is we were able to install three 12-foot-tall vessels in the neighborhood done by artists Roberto Lugo, who grew up in Kensington, right? He grew up there, lived in several different spaces in the neighborhood, and now he's at MoMA and he's around the world and he's this amazing ceramic artist. But he wanted to come back to the neighborhood and put his beautiful pieces in that neighborhood because he was like, this neighborhood deserves it, right? This -- it's art, it's for everyone. That's what we do at Mural Arts. But in Kensington, we would not have been able to do that project if we hadn't been committed to that neighborhood for many, many years and have amazing partnerships in that neighborhood. So yeah, we continue to do those kinds of workshops. We offered ceramic workshops. We had two churches starting to come to our free ceramic workshops, had never touched clay before, started coming every week. We have these amazing clay pieces now in our space. And so that's the effect that we see is just that long-term engagement with folks, they just keep coming back to us and we keep offering whatever we can with the budget that we have.
And I just want to say that the storefronts, because Barb Bower's here from the Tacony LAB, it's a way of being in neighborhoods that are far from any anchor arts institution and opening up the door and saying all are welcome. And someone once said a long time ago, Councilmember, it was the biggest compliment to me ever that mural arts is the visualization of democracy because people are invited into a civic space and their voice matters.
Yeah. Again, thank you so much for help bringing vibrancy and life to our city for all the work that you do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman, and thank you for your advocacy. Those was a great line of questioning and thank you for your answers. We'll get ready to close out today's session. So Councilmember Landau, you are our last person for today.
Thank you so much. Just a couple more anecdotes and one final question to make sure I get this one on the record. First, as you engage with more graffiti writers, I told Clean and Green, and I will tell you I'd like to meet Rew, R-E-W, who is all over the city. When you find that person, please connect Rue to Rew. And the second -- and Rew is very talented, you'll enjoy. And the second is, I will not ever forget my experience at the Kensington storefront with the Porch Light Series. When I was watching local folks work on your Petrykikva Gardens.
Yes. Where they had already said that they had worked on this. So it was like an homage to the Ukrainian community. And I had -- there were folks in Kensington talking about how they were engaging with the Ukrainian community. I believe some people came from Ukraine to actually work on this project. Then got to see the installation of it. I -- to see this all full circle and to see your artists there on the ground at the installation at a great art gallery was just such an amazing Philadelphia story and Philadelphia experience. So thank you so much, even for allowing me to be a part of that.
And I think I just want to end to make sure I ask this question clearly because I think we -- you know, you've got a whole bunch of fans here and we absolutely want to help you get a fully funded budget. But what would happen if you don't get the extra funding? What would be the effect on employment for class and any of the projects you have on class 200? Again, hoping this could never happen, but I want to get on the record what the damage would be.
Well, I first want to say our class 100, we don't really have -- we used to have 9 city employees back in the day. We 10 have now how many? We have 10. So 11 half. And we would worry that they 12 would be doomed to the salaries that 13 they have, which are not sufficient. 14
It's not a 17 living wage for them. And that's 18 heartbreaking. So that's number 19 one, for class 100. For class 200, 20 the Guild would go away. We would do a fraction of our restorations. We would do a fraction of new murals. So going into 2026, we would really -- like, it would be really -- it would be hard on us, really difficult, but really a shame for the city because we're an organization that flies and can even fly more. What else, Lisa, on this?
Okay. Those are the main -- well, those are the main things that would happen. So it would impact employment of artists, employment of constituents, and the kind of work that we can do. To be really clear, it would be a hardship.
Okay. We will work so hard to make sure that doesn't happen. Thank you so much for all that you guys do.
Thank you very much. Any other questions, comments from members of the committee? Jane, again, we want to thank you for your leadership. We want to thank your team for your leadership as well. And we hear you loud and clearly and it seems like you even have majority of members of Council will be advocating and fighting for you during this budget process to make sure that we continue to keep the programs moving forward to help not only beautify our city, but most importantly continue improving the quality of life of our young people. So thank you for being here.
With that being said, the Chair recognizes Councilmember Gilmore-Richardson for a motion that the public hearing and meeting on the bills and resolutions before the committee today stand in recess until Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
It has -- it has been moved and properly seconded that the public hearing and meeting on the bills and resolution before the committee today stand in recess until Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in room 11 400. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion carries. And this committee stands in recess until Tuesday, May 13th at 10:00 a.m. (Public hearing and meeting on bills and resolutions concluded at 3:40 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me of the above case, and this copy is a correct transcript of the same. _______________ Samanda J. Rios