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.