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.