Can I -- can I get you-all to commit to that 10 million now while I have you here? I had a couple other questions in regards to -- walk up on me like -- a couple questions. The commitment from the unions and other partners, is there a dollar amount at this particular moment that has been secured that you are able to talk about, or everything is just -- everything is a work in progress in terms of conversations?
But it's -- but negotiations -- the proposal isn't finalized.
Council will be at ease for 10 minutes. (Council at ease.)
Just my last two questions and I'll turn it over to the chair of housing. This is for my -- where's Mr. Rob Dubow? Okay. He hasn't come back yet. Oh, hey, Rob. How you doing? I've learned as a young Councilmember coming in here, Tiffany, under the tutelage of the great Rob Dubow, you know, how to make sure I'm making them fiscally sound decisions. And so --
John told me if I stood in the back, I wouldn't get called up anymore and -- one question.
So I just want to get an idea, Rob, out of the first 400 million on that we want to see spent, how much will we see -- how much out of the first 400 million has to be spent before we do the second borrowing?
And I learned that from you. We won't be playing debt service on money that's just sitting there.
Yes. Thank you. You know, as Jessie said, the plan is to spend all that 400 within two years. But what we will do is monitor the spend and see when we're at a point where, several months out, we'll need more money and then we'd borrow at that point. Our projection is that will happen in about two -- a little over two years. But we will -- you know, we'll look at how the spend goes to time when we do our second borrowing.
Okay. All right. With that being said, I'm going to turn over to the chair of Housing, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. For this round, I want to focus on what the Council president brought up earlier about the role that Council will have in the implementation of home But first I just want to put a couple of quick questions on the record that I hope you can follow up on in writing. There were a couple numbers in your updated funding spreadsheet that I didn't quite understand. One was FreshStartPHL having an FY25 budget of $19 million, but only an FY26 budget of $1 million. Getting clarity on that would be great if you could follow up. And also, why does the permanent housing line only have federal money in it and no bond money? Because that seems like an important way to produce new units for people coming out of homelessness. And so if you could just clarify those items in writing, it'd be great because I assume that you need longer explanations for those. What I would like for you to tell us today is what specific organizational and collaborative structure you all are proposing in the H.O.M.E plan in terms of how spending and strategic decisions get made between Council and the administration over the length of the two bonds. The only specifics that we've heard you give so far have been around working with district councilmembers on which public vacant land to dispose of. Otherwise, it's just been more general references to continue to collaborate. But when our branches of government have collaborated successfully, all of that structure has been reviewed and decided upon and included in enabling legislation. And since we haven't -- you know, we're waiting on the draft bills for the spending, we don't really know what role you envision for Council, at least not in a detailed way. Tiffany, earlier you brought up Rebuild. That enabling legislation included mandatory hearings, and reporting, and that the investment sites be submitted to Council on an annual basis and a project review team that Council was a part of. And Council President Johnson earlier brought up MPI 2.0 because essentially H.O.M.E would become or replace MPI if it was approved. And MPI includes similar levels of budget review as well as organizational infrastructure in both branches of government that work together outside of the Council chambers. And so I wanted to hear from you on which of these mechanisms will be included in your draft legislation for H.O.M.E? Or are you proposing some different type of structure?
Yeah. So, one, the bond legislation will be introduced next week. It'll be presented next week. I believe May 15th is the date. I also want to be very clear and get on the record that H.O.M.E does not replace MPI nor does it become MPI. So that's important to state as well.
I don't -- we're not -- I assume we're not going forward with another large bond issuance for MPI, if we do that. That's what I mean by that.
Yeah. So regarding the organizational structure and the collaboration between Council, it -- one of the things that we said last time was that it starts with the district councilmembers. Of course, it doesn't end there. But going through the amount of assets that we have now that we believe will make up that 30,000 units is important. And we want to make sure, again, just like every other approach, that the data is accurate and that we are aligned. And then from there, one aspect, which is what I talked about on the record when we were here a few weeks ago, was as we -- when we think specifically about land disposition and the 1,000 units that we are proposing for the first pilot, we want to make sure that we're aligned with Council on the framework, that it's based on a set of -- a set of factors around equity and also need, right? So that's important as well. I'll kick it over to Angela to talk more about the organizational structure and the collaboration with Council. And then, of course, Jessie to end it.
Thank you. Good morning. And is it still morning? Good afternoon. I'm Angela Brooks, Chief Housing and Urban Investment Officer for the city. And, you know, I think part of the meetings that we've been having with councilmembers is to kind of determine that. So I do think that as we start thinking about moving forward, and you'll probably see reflected next week, we do plan on working with Council and also engaging community in -- as we move forward. So some of the examples of ideas you mentioned will be incorporated in that. We're looking forward to having meetings. I believe we've met with you. We've met with some other councilmembers in incorporating some of your ideas. I think one of the important things to mention is that engagement has been a very focal point of this administration and it will continue both with Council and with community. And so as we continue to move forward, we'll continue to do that. I'll turn it over to Jessie because he's been doing a lot of work on that, particularly around the land disposition.
Yeah. And, I mean, it won't be too much more because Angela covered the correspondence kind of channel of communication when it comes to Council. But, you know, we certainly value the relationship that we have with Council when it comes to land disposition and understanding that we utilize your initiatives to really understand what gets built and where it gets built, right? So, you know, we've already started to have these conversations, started to meet with councilmembers, and we, you know, as we're reaching out, we look forward to having or continuing those meetings. But when it comes to land disposition, again, that is going to be a conversation about what pre-authorization looks like in terms of properties and also qualified developers. The property list, you know, I'm glad we have had this kind of round of conversations with certain Council districts so far because we are able to make, you know, certain clarifications. It's 1,000 properties across the city, not just 1,000 properties per, you know, Council district. So being able to make those sorts of clarifications have been important. But also, again, you know, community engagement is important to us, right? And we want to work with you hand-in-hand to figure out what that looks like and how impactful that can be going forward. Too many times do we have to look at projects in terms of -- too many times do we see projects get not necessarily discontinued or -- and -- or just not supported because there was no 20 corresponDence With the Community on the Front End. So, You Know, That's What We're Looking at, Council, to Be Really Kind of the Biggest Partner When It Comes to That.
Thank You. I Think I'm Talking, -- Although We Await More Detail --
-- About What You All Want on This Land Disposition Side, I Think I'm Talking About Going Beyond That. I'm Talking About Overall Strategy Spending When We're Coming Together to Review Those Things. Who Are the Decision Makers on the Council Side, on the Admin Side? You Know, We've Had a Lot of Conversation Between the Council and the Admin Today About, For Instance, How That Money Gets Spent. Beyond Just an Initial Coming Together Around That, If We Choose to Go Forward With This Bond Issuance, It Needs to Be Baked Into the Legislation. All of Those Aspects of How Decisions Get Made Along the Way, and We Need to Be on the Same Page About That Structure. That's What I'm Asking For.
Yeah. We Can Provide Further Detail, but, You Know, It's Interesting That You Mentioned Rebuild. One Thing This Will Not Be Is a Decades Long Process Where We See Continued Deferred Maintenance, Continued, You Know, Assets and Disrepair and They Remain in Disrepair Due to, You Know, and a Process That Was Meant to, You Know, Spur Engagement, but All It Did Was Prolong Decision Making. So, but You Are Asking For Specifics, and That Is Something That We Absolutely Can Provide in Writing When We Follow Up With the Other Questions.
Thank You. I Would Recommend That That Is a Piece of the -Incorporated Into the Legislation. Thank You So Much.
Thank You. The Chair Recognizes Councilmember Jim Harrity, Then Councilmember Rue Landau and Councilmember O'Rourke.
Thank You, Council President. When the Administrations Refer to Updating Homes For the H.O.M.E Initiative, What Specifically Does That Include? Is It Limited to Cosmetic Improvements Like Painting and Tile, or Does It Extend to Major Systems Like Electrical, Plumbing, Structural Work, and What the Threshold -- What Threshold Determines the Scope of That Update?
So I'd Like to Call Up Dave Thomas to Talk About What Those Programs Entail. But I Will Be Clear About the Fact That These Different Programs Are Supposed to Speak to Different Aspects, Just as You Described. Basic Systems Repair, Really Kind of the Ability to Make Emergency Repairs to Some Very Important Systems. Restore, Repair, Renew, Being Able to Add Onto the Cosmetic Aspect and Taking Steps Toward That. Weatherization as Well, Being Able to Really Kind of Protect Your H.O.M.E Against the Elements, but I'll Talk to Dave.
And Just to -- as a Follow Up to That Too, Can They Qualify For Multiple? So Could They Qualify For the Systems Repair If They Needed a Heater, and Then Also Qualify For Cosmetic Work If That's Needed.
So Before I Turn It Over to Dave, the Answer to Your Question Is Yes. And We Are Taking Steps to Make Sure That We Determine That Upfront With Our One Front Door to Be Able to Access That Website, Take a Look, or Literally Submit Your Information, Really Kind of Document What Your Needs Are. And Then That Is a Tool That Will Really Kind of Parse It Out and Tell You What You're Qualified For.
Yeah. Because That Would, Like, Absolutely Speed Stuff Up. You Know What I Mean? People Could Get It All Done One Time and --
But I Think, Unless -- of Course, Jessie Didn't Answer Anything, I Think Jessie Did a Better Job Than I Probably Would've Done Articulating the Programs. Obviously BSRP Focuses on Major Systems and Repairs. As He Pointed Out, a Rental Improvement Fund Is Designed to Help Keep Small Landlords in the Game of Renting Affordable Units, Allowing Them to Do Cosmetic Work as Well -- as Well as Major Systems. We Also Have RRR Restore, Repair, Renew, That Allows You to Do a Multitude of Things as Well. Whether It Be Major Systems, You Can Combine It With BSRP When We Often Have Situations Where Our Grant Does Not Go Far Enough to Save That Home And We Also Have Other Resources Like the Adaptive Modifications. So We Often Combine All of Those Programs to Try to Address the Broad Need That the Consumer Has.
So a Homeowner Could -- So They Can Apply For These Things, That's Great, but They Can Actually Still Get Turned Down If Their House Is Deemed Too Much Needs to Be Done? Is That What You Just Said?
So There Are -- There Are Some Opportunities -- There Are Some Situations Where the Need Is Far Greater Than Our Resources Can Support, but That's Very, Very Few but It Does Happen. And We Often Try to Figure Out Alternatives to Figure Out Ways in Which We Can Support Saving That Property. So, Working on It Now, I Have a Property Right Now That We're Working on a Multitude of Opportunities That We Believe Are Available to Save That Property.
And What Would Happen in a Situation Like That? Say We Have a Senior and It's Just Too Late For a House and They -- I'm -- the Way It Sounds to Me That It Would Be Probably Condemnable. Are We Condemning This House and Now and Then They Have No 24 Place to Live? Well, How Do We Deal With That?
Well, We Certainly Don't Condemn -- We're Not the Condemning Authority.
We Have Had in Past Years, in My Tenure, in My Experience, We've Had Situations Where We've Been Unable to Save That House. We've Worked With PHA and Many Opportunities For Seniors to Be Relocated Into Senior Multi-Family Developments. So, We Continue Those Relationships. We Certainly Don't Want to See Anyone on the Street.
Thank You Very Much. The Chair Recognizes Councilmember Rue Landau, Then Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke, Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young.
Thank You. Just Two Quick Questions. One Was, I Was Really Excited to See an Interest in Supporting Renters in Accessing New Homes or Apartments. Something, You Know, Is an Issue I'm Working on. The Upfront Costs of Finding a New Apartment, I Hear From Constituents All the Time, Not Only Is It Very Difficult, but the Upfront Cost to Move in Is Sometimes a Huge Barrier That They Can't Overcome. So Can You Provide More Detail on the Record About the Fresh Start Program, Which I'm Very Excited About? Who Will Qualify? How Many Renters Do You Think It Will Support? How Much -- How Much in the Dollar Amount Could Each Renter Get? And About How You Arrived at the $4 Million Figure For Funding For This Initiative. Just in General Want to See How Many Families We Can Help Here. I'm Putting My Second Question on While We're Doing It. I Wanted to Know Also How You Came Up With the Number of the 300 Market Rate Units That You Proposed in the Plan. It's Just -- For Me, That Was a Random Number. We Talked About It More and Was Hoping I Can Get Some More Insight Into the 300 Market Rate Units. But Fresh Start First.
So I'd Like to Defer Your First Question to Mark Dodds Who Leads Our Division of Housing and Community Development, Who Works Very Closely With the Program.
Hello. Good Afternoon. Thank You For the Question. So, Fresh Start, and It Was Also Mentioned -- the Question Also Was Risen Earlier. That Program Is Currently Funded With Reallocated Rental Assistance Dollars. That's Why You're Seeing Such a High Amount in FY25 Versus FY26. Quite Frankly, That Program Just Launched. PHDC Is Administering It in Consultation With DHCD and Other Folks. And We Want to Get a Handle on How That Program's Performing Before We Commit Such an Equally High Amount in Subsequent Years. In Order to Participate, It -- You Have to Be at or Below 80 Percent AMI. We Are Prioritizing, I Believe, Applicants That Come in at 50 Percent or Below AMI and It Includes the First Three Months Rent as Well as Move-in Assistance. Move-in Assistance Is a Thousand Dollars and We Expect the Average Payment Amount to Be Around 5,000. So, in Terms of Household Serves, the Math Would Be Million Divided 5 By 5,000. 6
7 Sorry, Slow Down. You Said 8 Household Served, and What Did You 9 Say? 10
The Math Would 11 Be 19 Million Divided By 5,000. I 12 Was Trying to Do It Quickly. 13
Oh, 14 You're Doing It in Your Head. Thank 15 You. 16
17 Councilmember, We Have Ira 18 Goldstein Here to Speak to the Other 19 Question That You Have.
-- That Data -- that number is data-Based and Ira can talk to the rationale Behind that.
Good afternoon. So the idea is when we estimated the number of units that were needed to be produced or preserved in the city of Philadelphia, part of the way that we made estimations about what incomes levels they would touch is where those shortages are in the city and what the tracked - census- tracked income information looks like. And so we're not actually suggesting that the city would subsidize or put money into other than through the normal new or rehabilitation tax abatement. We're not suggesting that they would create those 300 units, but they would be 300 units that would be in areas that in general have an income that's a little bit higher.
How -- which units are these? How do they exist? I don't understand then what the units are then if they're not created. Are you saying -- are you saying we're going to count 300 units towards the 30,000 that just receive a small amount of city funding?
If they -- if these -- if these units ended up being produced in higher income areas, but they would still be for, you know, for people who could -- not at that -- not at that affordability level, but they would be in parts of the city that might be a little bit higher income.
You said these are not 300 units that are being built or rehabbed. They are units that are -- randomly appear in the neighborhood? I'm confused.
No, no, no. 14 That's not what we're saying. What we're saying, you know, the market every year produces thousands of units without any city touch other than, for example, as I said, the property tax abatement. So these -- and those housing units happen all over the city of Philadelphia, right? When we estimated the 17,000 units that were short and we estimated the income levels that they needed to touch, some of those units are in areas that are slightly higher income. But we do not expect that those units would be receiving subsidy under H.O.M.E, at a level that would be prices or rents for higher income people. That's what I'm saying. That's still not clear?
And just to add on to that, so we did our best based on past performance and forecasting to figure out what household income levels all of these programs would serve and how many. We talked about that at the last hearing. There are a small number of households at 120 percent of AMI that we anticipate will be served by these programs. And we do have a breakout of those. So, for example, access to bonding for local contractors, contractor training, demolition for redevelopment, H.O.M.E service, clearing house and concierge, Land Bank operational assessment, long term ground leases -- which one is this -- positive housing marketing engagement. So there's a small amount of funding that gets allocated to those 120 percent AMI households that's attributable to that 300 units.
We can provide that spreadsheet with a breakdown and explanation.
Right. But again, that's the result of allocating all of the programs across all of H.O.M.E to what households, at what income levels are they forecasted to serve based on past performance and then forecast for the new programs.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke, Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young --
I want to clarify that we will provide that information. Yeah.
Thank you very much. Chair recognizes Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke and Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young and Councilmember Gauthier will wrap us up for the day.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick reflection on, like, the first question that I lifted up. Just want to give a little commentary as I reflected on it during the break. There is something to be said about analysis of best practices and you said it. And after that analysis, trying them out to prove the concept. It takes on a new dimension of risk when you do it while taking on more than a billion dollars of debt that are thinly spread over dozens of programs. It is a crisis. It is. And also, if the response to the crisis isn't just comprehensive but also thorough in the way of a robust engagement process, it looks like you're doing a lot. Like, you're panicking and then rushing. And panicking and rushing creates a larger crisis. And that's what I wanted to speak to in general, but I meet the moment -- I appreciate that we're meeting the moment recognizing it as a crisis. I just wanted to state that for the record. This is my actual question. You responded actually in writing to my last question about using H.O.M.E funding to fund L&I inspectors. You said that, and I quote, “Bond proceeds cannot fund staff positions.” But I'm seeing in the H.O.M.E plan that there is $3 million proposed to fund, quote, “additional staff and capacity to remove blighted and vacant units owned or in possession of the city, end quote. Can you explain how the funds can pay for that but not more staff capacity for L&I to perform proactive inspections?
So I want to be clear about the last update that we've provided to the body. It does not have that in the language. We have removed any references to utilizing this bond fund for staffing. There will not be a dedication of funds for staffing. Per the latest thing that we have submitted to the body, that is not included in there.
On the same lines of questioning. If we are ramping up 30,000 units of housing as well as the preservation of infrastructure --
-- which is rapid development and we never want to see what we saw happen at 2030 market. So, what is the role in expanding L&I to make sure that these developers that comes from this clearinghouse list are -- they say they qualified, and I know we would do our vetting that should have did qualify, but at the rush, just to be quite frank, because there is a target. You all under -- you all have a timeframe that you have to accomplish this. So we cannot even act like that's not the case, which means you have to have an aggressive plan. You're going to hit the ground running, you're going to spin down, but the development is going to be so fast. Who's -- the check and balance from the inspection standpoint in terms of the role of L&I. So his question is: Can the bond funding be used? And I think you're answering that. But also, my additional question is, he's advocating for additional staff and L&I. One, to go after slumlords but also, I would think if we are building so much, we will have the L&I staff also on the ground. And when they came in front of us, they said, well, we want to address the vacancies that we have, and then once we address the vacancies, we'll come back. But we're building 30,000 units in aggressive timeframe in two years. So I would think our inspection and oversight was going to -- we're going to need even more moving forward.
So, we did, as part of H.O.M.E, when -- of course when the mayor signed the executive order, we looked at over different departments, you know, 23 within the city of Philadelphia. 24 And we asked them, you know, what do they need to do to be successful? What would success look like? And that's everything from looking at their right compliment of staff, the funding to not just -- even beyond staff in order to be successful. So whether we are working with Basil Merenda, Commissioner Merenda or Commissioner Greenwald, we know that we have quite a few vacancies in their department. So that is the first step. So what we're saying, what we've said on the record before, during the five-year plan hearing, during the year FY26 hearing, and even now, first, let's fix the problem that we have at hand, which is filling the current vacancies.
And if we find that we need additional positions in order to be successful, whether it's with H.O.M.E and beyond H.O.M.E with the -- with the initiatives that you have brought up on the record, we will make sure that we have the right compliment of staff, of course, and that goes back to even something that -- the question that Councilmember Gauthier asked. That's where that collaboration comes in, right? So it's not that it's falling on deaf ears. We're saying we have vacancies now that we need to fill in order to meet the moment. Let's fill those now. It's no different than what we're doing at the Land Bank. You know, we can throw positions at them, but they may find that they can't -- they're hard to fill, or that they don't need those positions. There are other positions that they need in order to be successful with H.O.M.E and Beyond. So we're not saying no. We -- you know, we're not saying no; we're saying let's meet the problem that we have now and address that, filling the vacancies that we currently have.
That's fair. I mentioned that to another department yesterday. I'm going to go back to Member O'Rourke.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for that update in terms of having recently removed some of that language out. From the copy that we had, it didn't have that in that. So thank you for that update. I will say that I also believe that we heard that you're planning to hire 30 or more new staff to administer the plan. Wanted to know where the funding is coming from for those positions. Will they be union or exempt positions? I also know that MPI had a line item for administrative costs. Why is that not possible to do for the H.O.M.E initiative? If you could speak to those two. And I have one more question I just want to get on the record because I know my time is getting slim. In your written response, you underscore that the administration is committed to using the H.O.M.E initiative to support L&I's effort to develop a proactive inspection program. Can you explain what you plan for that to actually look like? Are you considering using H.O.M.E funds for software like we heard Washington DC uses during our rental repair hearing that will triage the rental units in the worst conditions for proactive inspections? And -- yeah. I'll stop there.
So L&I is not here, so we can provide -- we can provide a more robust response in writing. But it is beyond what we have seen, right? We have -- we are looking at not just drones for cyber security and looking -- and utilizing drones and that type of software for what we're doing in L&I currently or with our public safety units. But how do we use drones and technology like that to speed up our processes? And so we know we're testing out some of that equipment now in partnership with of course Commissioner Merenda and Commissioner Greenwald. But we can provide more of a robust response. They're just not here. So -- MR LAWRENCE: And just to add to that, you know, existing infrastructure and programs like eCLIPSE, knowing that we have that tool, knowing that's something that spreads different departments, being able to utilize that in a more effective way to meet the demand. And just to answer your other -- your first question about the funding for the staffing, that's coming directly out of the planning developments budget.
Okay. I just want to emphasize that it's hard to understand how our commitment to preserving housing works. If we are not aggressively checking to make sure that our rental housing isn't falling apart around us. So I just want to underscore it because this is, I think, the last round, so I want to get another chance at this bat to just say that I really, really, really think it should be reflective even more in their plan to make sure that we are addressing rental inspections, rental housing, and making sure that's being addressed. Thank you for your response to your answers and thank you for this time. I mean, I guess if you could say in what other ways is the administration taking seriously to that end, the dire need for our proactive inspection systems? If you could speak to that. I thank Mr. President for your indulgence.
Well, again, it's about making sure that L&I lives up to its commitment to our executive order in doing such and being able to improve on the ability to inspect at a faster pace and a more, you know, adding to the efficiency that they already have. But, again, to that point that the chief of staff made, the administration is committed to working with L&I to meet those demands.
And I know we talked about the 32 positions. We provided that response in writing after the last hearing. But I also wanted to note for the record that on top of those 32 positions that we know that we will need in order to be successful in implementing this plan, we have 29 vacancies currently in the planning and development department, right? So with the assessment that we're doing with the Land Bank, filling those 29 of vacancies through the robust work that we're doing under Candi Jones's leadership in office of Human Resources along with those 32 positions, that's how we're going to be successful in implementing this.
I have a question, though, and I asked the same questions at the Sheriff's office yesterday, who was coming for us, asked for million, right? But if you have these vacancies, right, so what are you going do with the money? And you already have vacancies to -- that need to be filled, so the money just isn't sitting there? So that's the same question I just asked the administration.
Yeah. No, 12 the money is not sitting there, 13 right? So when we are -- when we 14 are -- we're working with -- II 15 mentioned Candi Jones along with the 16 HR team and planning and 17 development. So we have a pipeline 18 of very, very qualified candidates. 19 Angel Rodriguez even talked about 20 that. So these are not just stagnant funds that are sitting there. We have -- we have more people that are applying for roles now. Because of what's happening, it -- you know, the climate overall, we have highly qualified candidates now more than ever. So we have -- we won't have any problem filling those 29 vacancies --
-- or those 32 positions. And if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't say that on the record.
Just want to say on the record, the property maintenance inspections only have one vacancy. Just for the record. That's it.
Property maintenance inspections only have one vacancy.
I believe so, yes. Thank you for your time. Again, appreciate you.
If that's the -- if that's what you're showing then that's what you're showing. Again, L&I is not here. I don't have that budget detail in front of me. So I'm happy to respond in writing.
What I can say, though, is, before we got here, before we came up with a plan, before the deal was sealed, right, and we were ready to present it to Council, we met with every leader and every deputy commissioner. We talked about the problem that we were trying to solve for. And then we gave them more than 30 days, but by way of the executive order, a final 30 days to respond to that. So they knew the goal. They were very clear on the goal. It wasn't just something that we pushed through and we said, make it happen. We said, we need your affirmation that we have what we need in addition to this bond deal in order to be successful. So it is -- it is there. It's also public on our Philly STAT 360 site as well.
Yeah. So initially, what you're saying is the departments that we're charged under the executive order pretty much gave you what their needs were --
And so with L&I having only one property maintenance inspector, they're okay with just that one. Because had they needed more to embark upon the H.O.M.E initiative to address 30,000 units of housing and H.O.M.E preservation, if they needed more than one inspector, they would've submitted --
What I can say is that the compliment of staff that is represented in our FY26 budget detail reflects the successful implementation of home I can't speak specifically to the one position because I don't have that budget detail in front of me.
So I'm happy to respond to that in writing. But I can tell you we don't present half-baked plans. That, I can say emphatically.
We know that. We're just asking the questions.
We're sure the administration wouldn't provide half-baked plans.
Is -- if it's one Property Maintenance inspector for an initiative we are about to embark on, to inspect or to preserve or to build 30,000 units and preserve housing infrastructure within that. And they're saying, not you, because you'll find out when you reach back out to Bridget or Basil that they only need one individual to help get this done. Okay. Or maybe some of the positions that are vacant could be additional inspectors as part of their process. We don't know. But we'll look forward to getting --
Ninety-nine percent of the time I can speak on behalf of the administration, which includes every department --
-- under the administration. In this instance, I can't, but I will provide a written response.
All right. Thank you very much. Anything else, Member O'Rourke?
Thank you. Councilmember Young and then we're wrapping up with Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Mr. President. In any of the preservation initiatives, are -- I've noticed that in my district, in particular, that we get a -- we have a lot of older structures where L&I comes out and it deems the property, you know, unsafe. And those homeowners are -- oftentimes, don't know what to do, unable to afford the next steps. Is there any funding in this plan to provide homeowners with funding to allow them to access engineering reports in order to make their property safe? So they know what to do and how to make their property safe?
So I don't know that we've earmarked funds specifically for those types of reports, but we have earmarked opportunities to make sure that residents have the ability to contact who they need to talk to when it comes to seeking funds for repairs. You know, we are under the impression that there needs to be much more targeted outreach, and that's the focus that we're having that we've put into our plan. Just making sure that, you know, our neighborhood advisory -- neighborhood advisory committees are actually empowered in a way to speak to those types of things, what to do, be much more advisory on what steps they can take. But, you know, it really is our ability to respond through our own programs not so much as the reporting that would substantiate the ability for folks to go elsewhere to seek these types of relief. But we are looking to be the answer to the problem as opposed to informing a way to answer.
So along that note, if I'm a property owner and I -- you know, I just get hit with, you know, L&I says my property is compromised to say to some unsafe construction next door. Right now I have to go jump these loops to try to find a property owner, but at the same time my property is at jeopardy, so I can't waste time finding that owner. What, in this plan, can I do as a property owner to get the assistance that I need?
So I'll defer to Mark Dodds who can speak to this specifically.
Yeah, I appreciate the question. So it was mentioned earlier, the Rowhouse Protection Project, it -- a lot of that funding goes towards legal fees but it also goes to supporting engineering costs or additional work along those lines.
Thank you. And one more question. I looked at the programs that are supported by H.O.M.E and this is just my own calculation. Almost about percent of them is some kind of loan acquisition fund, something like that, right? And in a few -- a few years ago this body passed an ordinance 6 that created the Philadelphia -- the Philadelphia Public Financial Authority. And looking at the legislation, there's a lot of things that this -- that's within H.O.M.E that that entity can do. The public financing entity that can develop and implement programs to fund programs improving affordable housing, commercial corridors, et cetera, et cetera, right? And in the legislation it says, you know, the authority can make purchase sale, insure, guarantee, hold, otherwise, deal with any loans, equity, other investments, accept contributions to capital, borrow money, issue notes, issue tax exempt bonds, lend money, extend credit, acquire, develop, implement projects. These are -- all these things that are within H.O.M.E that, essentially, the finance authority has the authority to do. And so have you all thought about, you know, using this authority to help implement the things that would fit that are within your H.O.M.E ideas?
So, I mean, a lot of what we're doing is in, you know, soliciting investment, right? I'll let Rob talk to it a little bit more because it's really, you know, a good amount of the loan products you talk about, that is commitments that we're seeking from other lenders and other institutions. We're not actually providing that commitment. But I'll let Rob talk to it.
But you can -- but with this authority, you can issue tax exempt bonds. And I know that this program is not -- you're looking to do taxable bonds, but this tax exempt bonds is something that could be issued through this authority. And on that same note there are some items in here that could be used for tax exempt bonds. Have you thought about having two different types of bonds to save the taxpayer some money? We're issuing -- so issuing tax exempt bonds for those programs that qualify for tax exempt bonds and then having the taxable bonds for the others?
I'll answer first question first, second question second. So we have existing authorities that are able to issue the debt. We don't need to basically create a new authority to do that. So we will -- our proposal is to use one of the existing authorities to issue the debt. In terms of taxable versus tax exempt, the reason that we're proposing to do this taxable is, one, to have the maximum flexibility in case we want to move money between programs that are authorized in the bonds. And in consultation with Council, I think, you know, it'd be better to move some of this funding at least in the short term to a different program. We want to be able to do that. And the way we get the most flexibility is by doing that with taxable bonds.
But have you all done analysis on how much taxpayer money could be saved if you were to go with a tax-exempt bond rather than a taxable bond for the things that are able to go under the tax-exempt bond?
Yeah. A lot of that depends on market conditions at the time we go to market. But it also would be overstating that difference if we looked at the entire issue because a lot of what we're doing in the deal is not eligible for tax exempt financing.
That's my point. So a lot of it is not eligible. So why have -- why increase the cost of taxpayers and not go with a tax-exempt bond for the things that are eligible?
Yeah. And, again, the reason that we're doing that is to ensure we have the flexibility if we need to move funding between programs. So that we cannot -- if we -- not run into problems with the tax exemption if we tried to move something into the wrong pot.
I mean, I hear that answer and I -- it's an answer. I think that we are creative enough to figure out what can -- the exact amount that we need for the taxable bonds where we won't have to try to move things back and forth. But that's my time, Mr. President. I know the bell rang, so I'll yield. I'm okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, all right. Thank you. You give me more time. So in that same -- in that same context with the taxable bonds, right, if we -- I'm asking if you can break down for us, for Council, to let us know what programs fall under the -- what programs can be utilized with a tax-exempt bond? And which programs are -- can be only utilized with a taxable bond, right? So we can give that analysis -- so we can do our due diligence to see if it's worth it or not to us to put forward a -- this bond, this borrowing of this $2 billion program, like, we're putting a mortgage on our future here. So we want to make sure that it's at least -- we're doing our due diligence as a body to make sure that we're saving the taxpayers as much money as possible with the program. MR DUBOW: Yeah. No, we're happy to show you that and, you know, within the caveat that would kind of tie our hands with some of the stuff we need to do. But we are happy to give you that analysis.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I'm good.
Thank you, Council President. Can you please clarify if the projected FY26 increase in the housing counseling budget is intended to replace the expiring CDBG-CV funding, which means essentially keeping it level or if it represents a genuine increase in the overall housing counseling budget from FY25? And I'm asking this because I think housing counseling is going to be critical to this plan. And then regarding the Land Bank operational assessment, you said that it's starting on an accelerated timeline but it isn't listed in the FY26 budget. Is this a mistake or -- and is this going to be updated? And if I could get relatively quick answers to those questions, I have a couple of quick questions on the wait list for H.O.M.E repair programs.
It's not a mistake. FY -- the Land Bank operational assessment is occurring now. So we're happy to provide additional information.
You asked us to go quick. And then for housing counseling, I'll go over to Dodds.
So this question came up in the previous round and I just want to clarify. The -- Mark Dodds, the Division of Housing and Community Development. Housing counseling. The additional money in the H.O.M.E bond is meant to replace the expiring CDBG-CV money.
So it essentially is keeping it level. That said, it came up before we certainly understand the importance of housing counseling. We're thinking about ways in which we might be able to support it differently. So, for instance, some activities around Eviction Diversion, that was previously funded by CDBG-CV as well. In this budget, it's included in the housing counseling line item, but it's perfectly possible for us to take some of that included in program delivery which would free up some funds for housing counseling. So we'd be happy to discuss that more and think about ways in which we could, you know --
Thank you so much. And then lastly, on H.O.M.E repairs, the data you provided shows that the adaptive mod wait list is actually bigger than I thought it was, and that's before the proposal to increase eligibility to 80 percent AMI. Adaptive mod is very important to me because these are our seniors that we're serving through this program. Our people with disabilities, people who are much more likely to be on fixed incomes and vulnerable to displacement. For that reason, clearing -- I think clearing this backlog should be a high priority for us. My estimate is that it will cost $15 million to help every one of these over 1,700 people on the AMP wait list. So, first, is that accurate by your calculations? And then what is your estimate on how much it would cost to clear out the 2,800 people currently on the wait list for Built to Last?
All right. Now, I can -- I can do your AMP. I don't know if I can do your Built to Last. But -- so for adaptive modification, I believe your number is very close to being accurate --
-- based on the information that you've been provided. The pace of getting to those folks is really tied to what we do to try to make sure that we're providing the right services. And that is an occupational therapist. So it's hard to find a large group of occupational therapists that can, you know, be on call, so to speak. So I've actually gone to a different approach where I have independent occupational therapist because I was using large companies at one time, they did not prioritize our people. So we're actively addressing those things a lot more aggressively than we did in the past. But it is still a challenge because we still have to sit down with the homeowner, understand what their conditions are, understand not only today but tomorrow. So when we're providing a solution, that solution is not only going to satisfy your need today but recognizing and projecting how your -- how your situation is going to progress, so to speak. So it is -- it's not the easiest program to administer. And, today, we're actually running across a few other problems related to tariffs and other things because some of that equipment is not coming through as readily as it used to.
I see. Thank you for that. I think my point is the issue with finding the therapists withstanding. I think we should really look at clearing out these wait list on programs that have shown to be not only popular, but great investments in terms of keeping people in the homes that they are already in and would love for us to think about that further. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council President.
Thank you. And just to follow up on that line of questioning, which I'm pretty sure we have a plan for it. But when -- in the event that this proposal moves forward and we have the additional funding to support those organizations, I mean those initiatives that already have wait lists and so forth, just give me an idea how we're going to integrate the new funding and wrapping up the backlog. And obviously they will continually be the priority, probably go to the top of the list, right? Just give me an idea of their smooth transition of integration which I'm -- that's sounds easier probably than it's said, but, for me, it's like, we got more money now. Let's just -- especially you with the requests, you know, them million dollars a week requests for a basic system H.O.M.E repair. So give us an idea how you're going to integrate all of them with the new funding to keep the ball moving forward.
All right. That's an interesting question but, you know, I'm not -- this is not new to me. So right now, and as we're speaking today, we're aggressively addressing that backlog. So we're looking at that backlog because, as I told you before, a lot of people fall out due to the fact that they don't return calls and things of that nature. And it actually impedes our ability to get to the people who have a true need. So we're actually addressing -- I'm actually increasing the frontline to address those -- to address that need so that we can reduce that backlog. Ideally, we want to get to people within six months. That is my ideal timeframe because, you know, some things do take time. Right now we're somewhere around 6 to 12 months. And the reason why we don't really want to go beyond that 12-month period because then we're going into another cycle where we're asking for income eligibility once again, and where your need -- your need didn't change but your income may have changed at the end of the day. So we're really just trying to get to people when they have that need. And it is a challenge. We certainly have enough contractors. I don't think that that's my challenge. I think the challenge really has been social security office and trying to determine eligibility. Those offices have been closed lately. Many of our clients who used to go into those offices now have to set up appointments. And those appointments are three months out. So we're actually looking at alternatives to identify eligibility because those things are impeding our ability to move fast. And we don't have all the answers at the moment, but we are looking at every opportunity there is to move this thing a lot quicker. Yes.
Just a recommendation and I'll acknowledge Councilmember Jamie Gauthier for a point of information. Maybe on the federal piece, in terms of helping individuals through the process to determine if they're qualified or not, maybe engaging with a partnership with Congressman Dwight Evans or Congressman Brendan Boyle to maybe see if there's a way where -- because you're working collaboratively together, they may come up with a process with people specifically for the housing initiative, that they can work with social security administration to help streamline that process. Maybe.
Well, let me just say this. I think the fact that we're trying to utilize a more flexible resource has given me a lot more flexibility. So I'm not as tied to those same restrictive requirements.
So we're very much open to, you know, if you will, looking outside the box, so to speak. So we actually will come up with alternative solutions because we're not going to be handcuffed by what's going on at the federal level.
That's another form of resistance too, so thank you.
Absolutely. But I also want to say, you mentioned several of our congressional leaders, we're also working with our congressional delegation --
-- ensuring that they are informed about our H.O.M.E plan, what our initiatives are, and how we need their help now more than ever. So --
With -- you know, we talked about Robin Weissmann, but even beyond her.
Good. Good to hear that. Councilman Jamie Gauthier.
Quickly, I just wanted to put a finer point on this issue. So clearing out the backlog for incredibly popular effective programs makes a lot of sense and can give us some quick wins, but as we do that, we also have to do that within the context of our spending plan. If we're -- if, for instance, clearing up a backlog for BSRP or Adaptive Mod is going to take up the majority of our -- what we plan to be spending in any given year and we're dramatically increasing the amount of people that are eligible, then we have to think about that in terms of the money that we're allocating to these programs. So just wanted to make that point.
Absolutely. And I just want to, you know, end by saying, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. So absolutely agree with your point.
That's what's up. Listen, we thank you and thank you Tiffany, chief of staff and Rob Dubow and Jessie and a whole team as a whole for, one, following up on a callback and also just indulging us as we do our due diligence around this process. And, again, I know the spirit of this body is within line of the overall vision and mission regarding addressing the housing crisis and addressing the issue of housing and equality here in the city of Philadelphia. And so this is just another part of the process of us going through the details and making sure that we can figure out a way to do -- continue our partnership, I'll say that, in terms of addressing this very critically and important issue. So thank you for your time and we'll be in recess until 2:30. (Council at recess.)
Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, everyone. You've got to have that Jane Golden type of spirit, you know? We will continue our Committee of The Whole. ms. Loughead, will you please call the next panel? THE
So, Ms. Jane Golden, we want to thank you for being here. We thank you for your enthusiasm. We thank you for your leadership as we beautify -- as you beautify the city of Philadelphia, but also inspire and empower our young people. So with that being said, Jane, please begin your testimony.
Thank you. Good afternoon, President Johnson and members of City Council. I am Jane Golden, the Executive Director of the Mural Arts Program. I'm here to testify on behalf of our fiscal year 2026 budget for which the Mayor has allocated $3.7 million. I want to start with gratitude. Huge gratitude for all the support that we have received from the city over the years, particularly this past year as we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Anti-Graffiti Network and Mural Arts. With me today are the directors of three core departments, Restorative Justice, Damon McWhite, which works to improve public safety and reduce recidivism. The Porch Light Program, yay, which offers support -- which supports community mental health, and Art Education, which offers high quality out of school programs for our city's most vulnerable youth. And they will introduce themselves right now. Michelle.
Good afternoon, Council. My name is Michelle Nugent, and at 17, I was introduced to Mural Arts as a mural apprentice. Twenty years later, I'm proud to stand here as Mural Arts Director of Art Education, a living example of positive and lasting impact this organization and its art education programs has on our city.