I wish we could vote for that for you tomorrow. 280 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 Okay? (Laughter and applause.)
...a terrible lack of affordable housing in the City of Philadelphia. $20 million won't cut it. I mean, it will take a lot more than just that. However, the economic reality of our situation in the City of Philadelphia is this: The General Fund is hemorrhaging. You all have talked for the past couple of weeks, maybe a month or so, about how we're going to balance tax cuts with changes in the provision of certain services. That being the case, the Administration -- And we've had these discussions with the advocates. The Administration can not in good conscience, given what's happening with the General Fund at this time, support having the transfer tax dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund. (Moans in the audience.) 281 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
Relative to what we do support, again, the one and a half million dollars is a given. It's mine and Pat's personal opinion that that one and a half million dollars ought to be matched with private dollars. As far as the recording fee is concerned, again, we are in lock-step there. Once the legislation is passed in Harrisburg we will, as strongly as you all, advocate for that recording fee to be dedicated specifically to -- the incremental increase in the recording fee to be dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund; in fact, all increases in the recording fee to go that way, to the extent that it does not hamstring that particular department in its ability to get stuff done. So, we have no problem with the recording fee. Now, there's some debate as to how much those... I call them three taken together: The NTI, the private match, and the recording fee, how much those three will generate. 282 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 I've heard, as far as the recording fee is concerned, that that could generate from $5 to $7 million in new monies for affordable housing. If you take that and -- Call it 7. Take that and add that to the 1.5 plus 1.5 or 3 million, then you're up to $10 million. What I would -- The point I would like to get across to, again, the Council and to the advocates is, again, we'd love to see the Housing Trust Fund be at $20 million. It may not get to that point on day one, in year one. Our hope is, our expectation is, as we continue to talk and discuss and look for new ways to fund it, we'll eventually get to $20 million and beyond. It just may not happen in this coming -- this upcoming fiscal year.
We were just given today responses to the March 29th hearing; invaluable information. And so, obviously, we haven't been 283 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 able to review it. We wish you would not do that, as much as we request it. And I'm more patient than everybody. This is my area of interest. But even I have my limit. How are residential development projects listed impacted by Year 30 Consolidated Plan? And the second part of that question is, given the current backlog of projects and the focus on the Year 30, why is there -- why are we talking about so many RFPs in Year 30 which is a different focus than in previous years?
We're focusing a lot on RFPs in this new plan under NTI between the Consolidated Plan and the NTI agenda, NTI budget. We're focusing on doing funding through new RFPs. Why are we doing it more so than in previous years?
The one RFP that we're 284 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 suggesting is in connection with the increase of $5 million per year to support acquisition. We were recommending that that money be allocated pursuant to an RFP process where we also look at whether the housing -- affordable rental housing or home ownership projects also can receive the funding commitment out of Community Development Block Grants. So we saw as an opportunity to link both acquisition dollars and the allocation of subsidy dollars to fully fund a project up front, as opposed to in a sequential type of a way.
Well, let me say, since you mentioned new units, new acquisition, that I have in my hand a copy of the letter from the Chief of Staff regarding $15 million that was to be available for land acquisition, and that we were to hear during this application. I will say as a matter of fact that applying for $5 million a year over the 285 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 next three years, depending on the Department of Community Economic Affairs, DCED, grant from the state is not acceptable. I would -- You know, $15 million. I want to make sure, because I've seen it in different ways between the NTI and CDBG plan. I want to make sure that the $15 million for projects already in the pipeline -- That was our discussion. That was the Administration's commitment, that we have $15 million for acquisition for emergencies or projects already in the pipeline. It wasn't for RFPs. It wasn't for any other use than for projects already hanging out there. That's why we had this need, because we had a commitment, made commitments in our communities. And then we were told in the middle of the road, no more money for acquisition. Therefore, we wanted to at least have the opportunity in some areas to 286 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 finish up projects that were already in the pipeline. So I want to make clear that this $15 million is there. That was the commitment. Here is my letter from Joyce Wilkerson. I'm absolutely very, very serious about this commitment.
As we discussed in that letter, Councilwoman Blackwell, the Administration agreed to investigate how we would fund an additional $15 million. As we discussed in our various meetings, one of the challenges of fully funding that $15 million solely out of bond proceeds is the impact that that has on the overall budget. Acquisition dollars, we tend to use taxable bonds or if we use tax exempt bonds, it's a qualified redevelopment bond. And the assumption is, if we were to add even 5 more million of -- $5 million in projects that would qualify for QRVs, as they're called, or taxable, it results in us having to cut out about $29 million -- 287 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
That's not what you told me at the last hearing. Let me make my position clear. As Finance Chair, as Chair of the Housing Neighborhood Development Homeless Committee, I will not support a budget where the Administration does not meet its commitment. I've said that to you every private meeting, and I say it to you publicly. You made a commitment. And in the spirit of that commitment, I expect the $15 million to be there. I won't vote for this, and I won't advocate that my colleagues do it. They can do whatever they choose, obviously. But I will not support a budget... I will not support the application being approved if you don't meet your commitment. I mean, we have to draw the line someplace. We have to assume that we act in good faith here. We were promised a $15 million acquisition for projects in the pipeline. And I expect somewhere between 288 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 today and tomorrow that that $15 million shows up. That's where I stand. I'm sorry that we have to draw -- be hard lined, but you've got to know that I'm as sincere to the people who put me here as you are to the Administration -- to the Mayor who assigned you. I've got a commitment. When I make a commitment to people, I expect to keep my word. And it can't be because you all change your mind or redraw plans. It's not acceptable. We have to assume -- We have to be honest about this. If you make a commitment, I expect you to keep it. My next question is, would you submit to Council --
I just to make a statement that I think Councilwoman Blackwell speaks for all members of City Council by the statement she just made. 289 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Would you submit to Council a copy of the scope of work for the Preservation Development Initiative, as referred to on of the third quarter report?
Yes. The Preservation Development Initiative is a project of the National Trust for Housing Preservation. It was... The City of Philadelphia was invited to submit a proposal which would use resources that the National Trust make available for the preservation of historic properties. That proposal includes about $50,000 in technical assistance funds which the City has to match. Secondly, it included that... So, like, as a part of the National Trust funds, access to things like revolving loan funds that they sponsor for development of historic properties, as well as, I believe, 290 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 a tax credit -- syndication of tax credits for historic properties. Those are still developer driven, so a developer would apply directly to the Housing Trust Fund to access those sources. The technical assistance component of the resources that are being allocated is the focus on how do we begin to look at strategies for the preservation of eminently dangerous buildings in areas where -- that are high with historic resources. Under the City proposal, we suggested focusing under, I think, three areas. One area of the City would include the Bellmont area; a second area, I believe, was Brewerytown; and the third area was Strawberry Mansion, as neighborhoods where we can apply their technical assistance resources.
And we can provide a copy of the actual proposal that we 291 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 submitted.
Thank you. It was stated several times in the Consolidated Plan that the City is anticipating funding from Department of Community and Economic Development to set off reductions in funding. I want to ask you about the Commonwealth's commitment. I was in a meeting last week with the representatives from the Governor's Office about our plan. Those representatives said that they were waiting for the Mayor to submit his list of priorities. I talked to the Mayor today and asked him about this list of priorities so that we may receive state funding. And I said I was happy to ask it at this hearing. And he said fine. And I do know that some of the projects that the City has requested that we're talking about are projects for Cambridge, projects for Tasker, Mill Creek, 292 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 the Croydon, and even $810,000 site improvement money around Mill Creek. Those I know are issues that the City was concerned about. And I know that for the -- to be seriously considered, they have to be in the top ten or from the -- on the Governor's list. So, I'm asking you what you know about that. The Mayor has said to feel free to raise that issue here.
He was one of the people in that meeting, yes. MS. McCOLLOCH: Deborah McColloch. The money of the project list that you were talking about is capital money from the state. The money that's in our Consolidated Plan is a different pot of money. Then the list of projects that was asked to be submitted goes to a different pot of money than the budget that's in our Consolidated Plan. 293 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
I can respond to the capital part. I can respond to the capital piece, not to the piece that's in the plan. Roughly three weeks ago Carl Green and I met with Mr. Siegel in Carl's office at the Housing Authority. At that meeting we discussed with Mr. Siegel, as a representative of the Governor's Office, what the City's priorities were in that. They included the PHA projects that you just reeled off, in addition to projects like Cecil B. Moore, what's going on in Brewerytown, several -- in Strawberry Mansion, several mixed income developments going on all over the City. I was unaware or if it was mentioned in the meeting, I didn't make mental note of it, but I was unaware that the Governor's Office was in fact waiting for something in writing from this office or the Mayor's Office, outlining what our 294 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 priorities are. I can assure you that once we leave these meetings, we'll jump right on that.
Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll ask two more questions, and then defer to my colleagues because I have several. On of the Consolidated Plan, the Administration anticipates a development of 1100 rental units. What are the actual numbers completed for '03 and what are anticipated for '04? MS. McCOLLOCH: We can provide the actual numbers for you. I don't have them with me at the hearing today, but we'll provide the production numbers for you.
Thank you very much. I will now defer, unless my colleagues are okay with me asking questions. Given the strong need for more 295 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 affordable housing within the City of Philadelphia, as is seen today, we want to talk a little bit about the percent set 5 asides for special needs housing. 6 Do we think giving so much talk 7 about poverty, about those with H.I.V. or 8 A.I.D.S., the mentally ill, the disabled, 9 homeless, that we should not perhaps raise 10 this level in special needs? 11 I remember many years ago when John 12 Kramer was here, when we started this, we 13 started the 20 percent set-asides. 14 But it looks like at this point, 15 given the great need in our City, that 16 maybe we need to consider raising that. 17 How feasible is that? And what would it 18 take to make that a reality? 19 Any of these questions, you can also 20 bring us a response tomorrow. We're happy to do that. Miss Minz.
Thank you. Dana Minz, Director of Special Needs Housing. 296 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 The feasibility of increasing the set aside from to percent would be a 4 policy decision by the City. And it 5 becomes a requirement for any development. 6 The feasibility is that we have 7 experienced difficulties in developers 8 identifying a particular special need 9 population. 10 So oftentimes we are negotiating 11 with them which population they will 12 utilize and set the units aside for. 13 But we certainly would have to 14 mandate it. It becomes a condition of 15 their contract with us. And they have to 16 submit the plan prior to going to 17 construction for our approval. 18
I 19 understand, because this is how it started 20 initially when we did special needs. 21 And so we say that to all those 22 housing advocates who are still in the 23 room, that the possibility is there. 24 And I've been in meetings where 25 there's been a question about who applies 297 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 for some of this. And so, we have to work to the CDCs and other housing affordability and all other housing groups, that we have to work together because it's up to us if we want to increase those numbers. Thank you very much. On there is a very large discrepancy between the emergency shelter bed capacity and the proposed number of both transitional and permanent housing. What do we need to do to reduce this? You know, this is my... This is the area God gave me to work in, so I will always work with the homeless population. And albeit we do -- we do a lot in this area, I was surprised to read that the gap between the transitional, permanent housing and emergency shelter beds is so wide.
The number that's in the plan this year, there's a footnote at the bottom of the table that explains that that number represents the number of shelter 298 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 positions and slots that are available and the anticipated use as a result of turnover during the course of the fiscal year. In the past we simply would identify the shelter bed capacity. This year we're identifying the capacity plus the anticipated use because of turnover. So as a result of that, there is a much greater number and possibilities of use than in the transitional slots because we do not experience that same kind of turnover and transitional housing as we do in shelter.
He said repeat the answer, he said, please. Repeat that.
The number that's included in the Consolidated Plan for shelter usage includes the number of 299 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 shelter slots and the anticipated use as a result of turnover during the year. So you may have one or two or three households using the same shelter bed during the course of the fiscal year, which is different from transitional housing, where you may and oftentimes only have one household utilizing that transitional housing unit. That's different from how we reported the shelter bed usage in the past. We would usually just state the shelter capacity only, and didn't count the duplicate number of usage during the course of the year. So, we corrected for that this year.
How did that impact on the question raised by the Chair?
The differential is that in transitional housing you may have one household that utilizes a transitional housing slot for the entire fiscal year, so you're only counting that unit once; whereas, with shelter capacity, we have 300 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 households that utilize the shelter slot for four months, another family for maybe three months, and another family for the balance of the calendar year. You can count that for three times. So that makes up for the difference, and why you would have a larger number in shelter usage than you would have in transitional usage.
Couldn't the two years be put together in the same language so that we'd have a basis for comparison?
Possibly because this is an annual plan for only the 12 months fiscal year. We're attempting to provide information just based on a 12-month period of usage.
I think what the Councilman is saying -- and maybe you could write it and explain it in a clearer manner, because looking at the chart doesn't make clear that we're doing a better job because we're doing more in transitional housing than it would 301 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 indicate. It's not really clear. We don't really understand the answer, is what he's saying. I don't know what you mean either.
The tables that are in the Consolidated Plan, HUD asked us to identify the number of households that are being assisted in a housing unit. In shelter beds, you could have multiple households using that shelter unit during the fiscal year. In transitional housing you oftentimes only have one household being housed in the transitional slot. That's the distinction and the clarity we're trying to make, reporting households assisted, not just units available.
So you're saying emergency shelter are beds and transitional housing could be one family in a household.
Exactly, in an apartment unit, in a row home; whereas, the shelter 302 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 numbers are including shelters, multiple shelter, shelter beds, slots, et cetera. So there's a much larger number of shelter beds. And when you have multiple households that can utilize them over the fiscal year, your numbers are going to be much larger in that category than they would be in transitional housing. Is that helpful?
Yes, that's better. We're talking about... Obviously, Councilman, they...
Well, it's better but it doesn't answer your question. What's the benefit? MS. McCOLLOCH: Part of the issue is that we need to fill in the chart the way HUD tells us to use the chart. But we can add some additional text on page... Whatever page... on to explain it.
Let me ask another. I know we're being an average of 2400 shelter beds a day. Here we're saying for '04... If we 303 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 do 2400 a day, here we're saying emergency shelter beds for '04 were 12,969. That doesn't do it, does it? Doesn't add up; am I correct? We have permanent housing -- For '04, permanent housing, 225; transitional housing, 300. So, then transitional housing... Then we assume there's a 75 family gap between transitional and permanent, so they should move into permanent, right? And then emergency... I don't know. Then emergency shelter beds, if we do 2400 a day, I don't know how -- I don't know how the numbers really fit.
The number of shelter slots is the number that we request the capacity from OESS, the number of shelter slots that they fund with City funds, and also the number of shelter slots that are available privately that are not funded with the City, because the Consolidated Plan and HUD is asking us to identify all shelter capacity, whether City funded or 304 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 privately funded. So, the presumption is that a homeless person or a family could occupy that one shelter bed a number of times during the course of the year. That still counts as a household being assisted during the course of that fiscal year. So you could conceivably have four to six families or four to six individuals being assisted in that one shelter bed over the course of the year.
All right. Can we ask that when you do this, that it's spelled out like that?
Because there's no way we can figure any of that out, based on this chart on : There's been a lot of talk today and we will have more tomorrow about minority participation with the City's social service and behavioral health contracts. Does OHCD have minority participation goals, and how are they 305 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 reached, and who monitors them? How are we dealing with OHCD and those contracts?
I don't know that we have specific goals in behavioral health. But as far as the contracts entered into by OHCD, yes, we do have specific goals. And as I recall -- Well, first of all, those goals are monitored and administered by Vincent Coles. And as I recall... Again, this doesn't go specifically to mental health type services. But as I recall, I think there's a minimum percent minority 15 participation and several other goals 16 underneath that. 17 Those other specifics I can get to you.
Okay. How much of NTI's budget is allocated to marketing, and how do we do that or who does that?
For example, the marketing of the anti-predatory loan products, specifically that money has been 306 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 coming from a consortium of banks that are participating in the anti-predatory loan program, working with selected housing counseling agencies. We also... Donated to us by PNC Bank was marketing design services that came up with the Great City Great Rate, but that was donated design services. And Clear Channel donated, I think, billboard spaces for about 80 billboards throughout the City, to advertise the Philaloan three percent loan. And I understand in fiscal year '05 a new marketing campaign or slogan has been developed by PNC. In addition, as a result of the NTI partnership with Citizens Bank, Citizens Bank helped design and will contribute funds to market what we call the Don't Borrow Trouble Hot Line. That is a mockup of that ad. And we hope this fall when we hit home improvement season again, we'll be unveiling that as part of a media campaign. 307 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 Citizens is contributing approximately -- has committed to contribute approximately 30,000 per year for a five-year period, specifically for buying ad space and the like. And that's basically... I mean, the marketing resources that we draw on. OHCD historically has used things like the City's water bill, mailings, as well as other job -- not job fair... housing fairs and the like to market housing counseling services. I don't know if you want to add anything, Deborah. One other thing --
With regard to that, we want to make sure in all of that that minority firms are involved.
Historic preservation. There's historic property repair program listed on . I quote. It says, the City will work with the Preservation Alliance on the design and implementation of the program. 308 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 Our question is, should not this funding be administered by OHCD or PHDC, as with all other housing repair programs, with recommendations to the Historic Commission or the Preservation Alliance?
The intent of that language was just to make sure that we worked out and worked with and consulted with the preservation community on any design of a new program. It does not address actually who would administer that program. We really haven't gotten to that point. It could be administered by the Historic Commission or other -- OHCD, PHDC. But the intent was to say that we would work with the preservation community around what a program may look like.
Certainly, as you know, we have a task force dealing with this whole issue. And certainly we would like to be involved, and we're happy to assist in this regard. We've had one meeting, we will have one per month, and 309 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 then come back to the Council in September with recommendations about how to -- about how we think we should proceed. It's very interesting in the City that we have a -- we have a preservation program, but this preservation program is separate from zoning. And yet, you've got to go through -- And yet, the zoning refers you to them, and they go to zoning. And we've got some ways we do business that don't seem to all fit together under one structure. But we'll come back to you in September, after we have our three separate meetings with regard to those issues. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Councilwoman Blackwell?
Yes. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: May I respectfully ask if you have any additional questions for the Program Review Committee, or other members of Council, or if we may be excused?
With regard 310 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 to the Program Review Committee, does anyone else have any questions with regard to Program Review Committee? (No response.)
No. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll ask one more question, and then defer to Councilwoman Tasco. I guess Mr. Hanna, I should ask you. Why are we giving one point or allocating 1.5 million in HOPWA funds to the Track Program, and not directly to H.I.V./A.I.D.S. or H.I.V. or A.I.D.S. service providers? How do we direct this money? So many of these organizations provide a holistic menu of services on shoestring budgets, yet they have the expertise to deliver efficiently. Can you explain how you see us allocating those dollars?
I am Scott Wilds. Track has historically -- And as you are aware, it's an offshoot of TAG. Track has historically done the rental assistance, the largest rental assistance piece of arranging for housing vouchers for folks who have A.I.D.S., to be able to live in their own apartment. This is the thing that is the single thing that everyone wants, is their own place to live. And Track, because it's large, has developed this special expertise. They have the staff. And while we also support some smaller groups, we thought it was the most efficient way to get the most number of vouchers out on the street. We do hope that in the next year we'll cut in half the waiting list that exists right now. And Track is a large 312 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 part of that.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilds. Councilwoman Tasco.
Yes. Thank you very much. I just like for you to go back and explain to me the acquisition process because I missed the initial question, so I didn't understand your answer. And I just want to get...
I was just trying to get a clarification on the acquisition, additional acquisition dollars that are...
...being appropriated. And the other thing is, will it be done -- I know we had the meeting, but I can't remember. With this -- You said the money will be -- you will put out RFPs for 313 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 the expenditure. Just explain that whole thing to me again, will you?
I'll be happy to. We in the administration said we would make it -- we would look at how we can identify an additional $15 million to support acquisition. Right now the NTI bond program budget carries $74 million to support acquisition activities over five years. That was actually a $24 million increase over the $50 million that was initially provided. We... To make those additional resources available, without adversely affecting the whole bond program budget, the administration is proposing that we take this money that we get each year -- and this is the base level that we received historically for decades. I know there's been some discussion about increased resources coming, but we're not talking about that. 314 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 We're talking about the base which we've gotten historically of about $5 billion [sic] a year. And we use those to support acquisition going forward in '05, '07, and in... I mean '05, '06 and '07.
Yes, that's how we're proposing to, you know, make up that $15 million is through the DCED grant to the City. The reason why we're suggesting that is that the type of bond financing that's used for acquisition activity is a more expensive type of debt. And therefore, if we were to issue additional taxable bonds, the impact could be us having to find about $20 million in cuts in the five-year budget. So, we didn't want to do that. So this was a good faith effort of our trying to meet the D [sic] for the increasing demand for acquisition, as well as, you know, maintaining the level of 315 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 commitment and the new programs that we wanted to fund out of the -- the bond proceeds. The other thing is, is that we have -- I know there was some testimony at the public portion regarding the recycling agreement. We're pleased to announce that we have finalized the recycling agreement. It's executed. That resources from the condemnation of tax delinquent properties will result in us being able to take those dollars, once they come back to the City, and then reprogram them for acquisition activities. We're also, wherever feasible, looking at the sale of property at fair market value, so that money can come back into the pot, because we realize that, you know, we want to try to sustain, you know, resources for acquisition activity because that's sort of like the first piece of money that -- that's sort of like the pre-condition for development, of course, is acquisition. 316 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
Thank you very much. Could I ask a couple of other questions, and then I'll be done, just because I told Mr. Hanna I wanted him to put this on the record, about Logan. One, what's happening in Logan, for the record, so that the constituents over there will have a sense of what's going on; and secondly, the -- hopefully accommodations for Lack, the Logan Assistance Corporation.
First of all, just to give you an update on what's happening at Logan, we have... we have engaged the services of TRF, redevelopment fund, to help us ascertain the best way to redevelop that site. TRF has issued a couple of RFPs, one for market study, the other for geo-technical studies; both, again, aimed at trying to figure out what can be, from a 317 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 geo-technical standpoint, built on the site, and then what's the highest and best use for the site, from a marketing standpoint. Those folks are actually out doing their work literally as we speak. I would expect that within the next -- probably within the next 30 days they ought to have a preliminary draft of their recommendations. From that we'll just kind of move forward. My expectation is that once we get that work back, we'll use that as a part of an RFP that will go out for developers who will, based upon those studies, come back and tell us how best or how they would propose to redevelop the cleared site. That's one thing. Relative specifically to Lack, the Logan...
...Assistance Corporation, we have committed to fund Logan's operations for another year, to the 318 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 tune of... What is it? $150,000, with the understanding that this will be the final year of our funding their operations, at least in this particular fashion. There are still a number of folks who need to be settled or whose relocation need to be settled. The Redevelopment Authority is currently negotiating with the individual who was at Lack who was responsible for that, in an effort to try to bring her on board. The expectation is, therefore, that the RDA will complete the settlements with those folks who need to be settled with. As has been discussed here and elsewhere, RDA needs another relocation specialist, simply because the sheer volume of work that's coming down the pike. And so, once that person finishes with her Logan responsibilities, then she'll be asked to complete work City wide. Our hope is that next year Lack will apply for either or both, either a housing 319 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 assistance corporation or a neighborhood assistance corporation, and that through those two means might be able to sustain itself as a liaison between the administration and the community, as an entity that actually provides information, much needed information, to the Logan community.
Before that question, if I might, Councilwoman Tasco, we have asked about global remediation, doing a study with borings in five areas. One is Councilwoman Tasco's area; one is mine; one in Darrell's; one in Rick Mariano's; and one in another area: For $300,000 to do a pilot study. Now you're saying you're putting out an RFP for global technical information. What about this issue that we've been asking about since last spring?
The specific program that I'm talking about at Logan is actually being funded by TRF. TRF was brought in -- It's on their own dime. TRF has 320 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 volunteered to pull together this stuff and to actually fund --
Well, the Councilwoman told me she's had funding waiting a long time that the City didn't take advantage of.
One of the proposals that have come to us is this method by consolidating the land, you know, because we have this subsidence program in the areas of the Council Districts that have been sited. And this one... We have been -- brought this proposal to do borings and do some --
Reverend Shine's group, to do a pilot effort, which could be helpful in addressing the subsidence issue in the City of Philadelphia.
Couple things. First of all, I'll speak. And I'll ask Mr. Wetzel 321 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 to speak. Reverend Shine approached the City to provide this particular service. The original proposal we determined to be way too expensive. In fact, it was something like to the tune of $110,000 per housing site or per parcel, to get a particular site ready for redevelopment. I understand from Councilwoman Blackwell that they've since revised that proposal, after we told them that it was too expensive. And towards that end, Mr. Wetzel informs me that we haven't seen the revised proposal. So if we could get a copy of that proposal, we'd be more than happy to take a look at it.
That's fine. We assume -- We brought it up for the last several meetings, but we'll make sure that you have a detailed proposal, if you don't have it. We're happy to do that because 322 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 they're talking only $300,000 for five sites.
Yeah. And just for clarification purposes, the program we're talking about in Logan is completely different from what we're talking about here because in Logan we're not talking about going in and doing borings and otherwise stabilizing what is now unstable land. What we're talking about in Logan is trying to determine the best way to develop what's there.
Okay. If the Councilwoman is satisfied with that, then I'm satisfied.
Well, you know, I think that not just for Logan, I mean, because there's surrounding areas; but, you know, to look at the prospect of a new way of stabilizing land is something that we ought to look at. In Washington, when they built the Reagan Building, they had to... I don't 323 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 know anything about this, so I just happened to see this building across the street. And I was told, oh, yeah. Let me tell you how they built this because it was -- Washington is on water, and how they had to go in and use this process to solidify the land under it and draw the water out. I don't know what. It sounds something like these guys wanted to do. So, for me, if they could do that and put a big stone building like this on that land, and we have houses sinking in Councilwoman Miller's District just across the boulevard, we have houses in Councilman Nutter's District sinking, it may be a way for to us identify a process to stabilize the land. That's what I...
Whether we use it in Logan or not, Logan is a perfect place to test it because you don't have to move anybody out, and you can take a spot and do it, you know, not the whole process, 324 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 not the whole land. But I'm just thinking in terms of looking at a new way of doing business.
No. And we would certainly agree; you're right. There are those types of sites sinking all over the City. And to the extent that we can discover or someone has discovered a new and innovative way to otherwise subsidize or restabilize those areas, I mean, we'll be more than all for it. And so, Councilwoman, if you would get us a copy or have them get us a copy, we'll certainly take a look at it.
I'm finished. Thank you. I have one last question, but I would defer to Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First I want to commend the Chair 325 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 for what I think has been one of the finest sessions I've ever attended in City Council, in which the legislative body seeks information and seeks to hold to account the administration with respect to its promises and with respect to its activities.
So I just wanted to state that. I've been very impressed, sitting here almost as an outsider over the last few hours.
And I think hearings like this do the City a great deal of credit. I wanted to express one opinion, more than a question, on the needs of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Seems to me if there's any way of taking some money from NTI and going through whatever legal field is necessary to deal with the problems of affordable housing. 326 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 When I came in, I made some kind of pointed remark that where the developers that we're talking about, the room would be crowded with Council members, with interest being shown in every phase, things would be described as time sensitive. But whenever it deals with human rights, suddenly there's all the time in the world, and any money contribution is carefully strained and reduced. It seems to me there could be nothing more urgent than the need of affordable housing for those of our citizens that are most vulnerable, those that are handicapped in some way, those special people that the Lord apparently anointed to do a great deal of extra suffering. And it seems to me that when we borrow $300 million for NTI and talk about transforming neighborhoods, one important neighborhood to transfer above all else would be a neighborhood composed of special people that need to have special needs; and 327 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 instead of doling out carefully a dollar here and a dollar there, we would go out of our way to make life more useful and more fruitful for the people that are so vulnerable. Incidentally, vulnerable people have achieved great things in the United States. They've made great contributions. They've put others to shame often. But I'm talking not of the skills and the abilities which everybody admits -- everybody who knows of them admits -- but of the humanitarian thing. It seems to me government has a real responsibility of dealing with those that are most vulnerable. And here we spend so much time talking about economic development and saying how urgent it is to concentrate on that, and we forget there are citizens here who need assistance of government. If they don't get it from government, they're going to get it from nobody. And I would like to see, and I 328 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 pledge to support the efforts of the coalition to get their $20 million clean and free, instead of getting a million and a half. (Applause and cheers.)
I just don't understand why we have to debate it and say, well, you know, we can't afford that money now. We have a fiscal problem. We always have fiscal problems when it comes to the needs of poor people or working people or handicapped people, or minorities or women. There you've got to worry about every single penny, to make sure you don't spend too much. But when it comes to developers, the approach seems to be, don't you need more money? We'll be glad to give it to you. So I'm hoping that the example that the Chair has set today in showing the Council's concern about the welfare of the people who need help the most is continued in the Council. And I pledge my extreme support. 329 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 And I look forward to the day... You know, I'm at an age when I can't look forward to too many years. But I would like, before I pass on from this earth, to have a feeling that this government has done everything it could to take care of those that need help. And that's what government is for. And I pledge to work in that direction unceasingly until we attain it. Thank you very much. (Applause and cheers.)
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you very much. We have questions from Councilman Nutter and Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Smith, just a couple hundred -- I mean, a couple questions. (Laughter.)
It's late in the day. , just kind of to start. 330 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
I'm sorry. Program statement and budget, FY '05 for NTI. Can you tell me -- I have to admit to you I didn't realize. We have five different side yard programs?
Yes. There are different side yard programs that run. And actually, I think Herb Wetzel might be able to go into more detail. There's programs that -- PHDC has a side yard program for a property that it has in its real estate. The Redevelopment Authority has a side yard program for property that was in its ownership. In addition, there's what's known as the City's Surplus, VPRC properties. Under Ordinance Number 1202-a, 331 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 properties can be disposed of as part of what's known as the small vacant lot abatement program. And there maybe one other that I'm missing right now.
Okay. Now, I know it was raised earlier, but I at least want to put on the record this issue with regard to the $15 million in additional 332 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 acquisition funding. Is it my understanding that this $15 million is to come from an annual grant fund from the state which is a $5 million per year grant?
Yes. The City has historically received about $5 million in the Department of Community Education -- In DCED per year. Historically we use that for Basic System Repair Program. And we're proposing that we take that $5 million allocation that we've gotten and put that to fund additional acquisitions.
Okay. What I did not understand about that is, since you're looking at FY '05, '06 and '07, how would you propose to use two years of future funding to support an acquisition program in FY '05?
No. We're saying each year, that what our proposal is is that we're -- aren't able to fund the whole $15 million FY '05, but that we would pledge 333 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 and dedicate and fund the $5 million as it comes each year from the state for acquisition. So there will be another $5 million in '06 and $5 million in '07. And that's how we reflected it in the budget when we talked about it.
Okay. I guess maybe what may have confused me about this is, I thought earlier this year there was a discussion about an additional $15 million being made available. This issue came up, I thought, during the course of the amendment to the FY '04 current year NTI program and budget. And I thought, I guess, when I heard about this $15 million, that it was the same as the earlier discussion about $15 million. So I assumed that it was $15 million hard cash for FY '05.
When -- When... In that letter that Councilwoman Blackwell referred to from Miss Wilkerson, we said the administration was willing to investigate 334 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 how we can identify additional $15 million to support for acquisition. When we ran the numbers and saw the impact, that if we were to try to fund it all out of bond proceeds, we'd also began to explore with the state the idea of us applying for and receiving their dollars to support acquisition going forward, to support -- to honor that commitment. That's how we're proposing to honor it.
Okay. With regard to demolition, based on the schedule that you're showing on in the same book, it appears that we will have spent through FY '05 $125 million in demolition.
Yes. That's what -- Based on the current budget, we are looking to -- re-budgeting about $46 million for residential in FY '05. That -- And that would bring us to a total of $125 million out of bond proceeds. 335 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
Our estimate is about 1600 under the targeted program, and then about another... budgeting for about another 200 as part of the City-Wide emergency curb-side work. So we're looking at 1800 is the estimated number for FY '05.
I was talking about for the whole program. The $125 million total will represent how many properties?
Oh, that would represent, based on the current average in costs that we've incurred to date, that would represent about... Just a second. That represents... Not including emergency curb side, that will represent about 3500, and is part of the targeted program. And then, I would say another close to 1200 as part of the emergency curb side for FY '03 to '04 and projected for '05.
All right. Well, when I did the math just on the 125, and your current estimate is $22,000 per property, I mean that came out to 5681. But you're telling me that it's 4700.
Right. But we also included in the budget number are the costs for what we call the OCIP program, the costs for things like the asbestos monitoring, for the targeted program.
No, no, no, no, no. The represents the actual cost of the 17 actual... We actually put that sheet in 18 the program thing. 19 The 2200 [sic] represents the actual 20 demolition costs and post treatments. And 21 then over and above that are things like 22 the asbestos monitoring, stuccoing for the last three years or two years plus next year, program management OCIP. And that brings you to a total of 125. 337 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
Well, it's testing my memory a little bit, but I seem to recall back in either '01, '02 when we started with the NTI program, wasn't the original goal, in terms of demolition, about 14,000 properties?
That was our projected goal. And it was... Yeah, at the time we unveiled it, the program in 2001. What we're looking at are the, you know, based on the current costs for the last couple of years, we're looking at a lower number.
A lower number than what our projected goal. I mean, we did state a goal. And that goal was, you know, derived at what we thought we could accomplish over a five-year period with the resources. We also had higher resources budgeted for demolition. Initially I think it was closer to $140 million. But as we 338 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 increased acquisition and also used some monies last year for other activities it, in fact, dropped to $117 million, and we're up to 125 now.
All right. So this represents about a third or so of the original goal.
Okay. It was either last year or the year before -- It was probably the year before; and we've talked about this -- Council set aside a million dollars for use in a pilot program for retaining walls, and a study to deal with alleys, driveways, curbs and sidewalks. At an earlier hearing during operating budget testimony, I think with the Streets Department, we asked -- a number of us, myself, and Councilwoman Tasco and others... Obviously, the Retaining Wall Pilot Program has started, and we're now in at least a Phase II of that, for which we're appreciative. 339 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 There was never, though, a report issued, with regard to the other issues. And the commitment, at least at the time, and the way even the amendment to the... It was either -- I guess it was the FY '03 budget done in FY '02. The way it was written clearly indicated that there would be a pilot program and some use of dollars for that, and then a report.
The way it was explained to us about a month or so ago was that the pilot program started, costs escalated, they used all the money or virtually all the money for the retaining wall program, and did not do the study. The problem with that, of course is, Council puts forward money with certain expectations. You can't just not do one of the things.
Well, what we did instead of paying for a study, is that based on work with the Streets Department, 340 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 and information that we were able to gather through a series of telephone conversations on best practices and other research we did, we did more of an in-house type of a study. And what we've done is, we've put that together. It's not final. But a draft of that study is that review of resources and strategies is -- I included in the gray folder. We thought it was a priority to make sure that we fully fund, you know, the costs of the retaining walls, since those were in eminently dangerous conditions, and began to look at, you know, internally using our own staff capacity about possible approaches to the issue of curbs and sidewalks. Again, we're still confronted with the cost issue. Other jurisdictions tend to -- if they do have resources, they tend to use dedicated resources like motor vehicle or fuel taxes or special assessments to fund 341 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 that type of activity. One of the things that we would like to work with Council on is how we might be able to use existing resources, through a variety of, you know, like grant and loan programs, working with homeowners, to organize a way to, if they make the repairs, that they can tap some existing resources. I mean, those are the kind of ideas and suggestions that we've come up with.
All right. And you're saying now that you're trying to respond to this particular provision with a document, repairing private infrastructure, options for maintaining curbs, sidewalks and driveways. Is that...
Yes, because we went ahead and just dedicated the dollars to the retaining wall repair.
All right. Well, I'd like to have an opportunity to go through that. And I won't --
It is a draft document, 342 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 and we would appreciate --
Yeah. Probably figured I was going to do that anyway, right.
Okay. I guess one of my last questions with regard to the NTI budget is, it appears... Well, that's actually not the last question; but, you know, I do that from time to time. It appears that FY '05 seems to mark a turning point in the program. Through FY '05 you will have approximately 12 and a half million dollars left of the $275 million which was... from the original budgets was 295, and then down to 275 spread out over five years. At year three of the program you will have at least either spent or allocated all but $12 million. 343 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 What happens in years four and five of the five-year program? And aren't you actually starting -- Aren't you running out of bond money? Don't you have to do another offering?
I'll take the second part first. Yes, I believe our total expenditures and under... is reaching -- I think we're about a hundred million dollars, approximately, that we have drawn down from the trustee, and for various commitments to date. It is the administration's hope and intention that we'll issue the second and final traunch [sic] which will represent about $133 million, depending on market conditions, by the end of this calendar year, to really begin working on that over the summer and in the early fall. With respect to other resources, again, what we've done is that we're at a point with the acquisition pipeline, that we did want to commit additional dollars to affordable rental development and some 344 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 other key programs out of the bond proceeds, including: Capitalizing the trust fund; sustaining, you know, a commitment to retaining walls, and the like. With respect to the demolition dollars because those are the dollars that help pay the debt service on this initiative, we would be looking to go back to the... allocating funds out of the General Fund to support demolition activities in FY '06 and '07. And the Budget Director under one of the budgets that I guess Council has before it in part of the five-year plan is including about $8 million in '06 and '07.
So we're going to fund... I mean, in essence are you saying that we're going back to the way we used to fund demolition prior to NTI, which is putting the money --
-- back in the L 345 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 & I's budget?
Well, all this money -- all the demolition money flows through the L & I budget. This will be $8 million in General Fund, as opposed to bond proceeds.
Okay. And with regard to the demolition, I know has all the percentages. Can you direct me to a page that shows, by Councilmanic District, how the $46 million gets divided up?
On page -- The next page, the following page, 23, that's where we put ranges, based on the projected number of demolitions by Council District, based on vacancy. And reason why we put ranges, this is, again, a budget number. You know, things can --
-- go up and down, but 346 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 that's where we break that out.
Right. Well, let me make sure I'm understanding that statement. When you say things go up and down, I mean, you've got $46 million on this page, you've got ten Districts, and the respective dollar amounts per District.
What do you mean when you say the numbers can go up and down?
Well, again, what we put in the budget, we said the approximate number of demolitions that we would hope to accomplish with, let's say, $6.2 million. So we put the range of 260 to 280.
And that number can vary, depending on the number of party wall treatments, things of that nature.
I understand. But the goal of that -- you're taking the first one -- if you only end up doing, you 347 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 know, 261 and there's money left over, would you say it's out of the $6.2, does it stay in that District?
Okay. And if for some reason you only end up doing 250 because costs go up, if they were to continue to go up, and you blow through 6.2, basically that's end of the line.
So, you at least -- I mean, so, just so we're clear because, you know, we had a little glitch in the system last year, whatever the figures are here, that's what they are. MS. smith: Yes. That's the ceiling.
And you move through the dollars however you move through them, and the market forces are 348 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 whatever the cost is. You knock down as many as you can knock down, as have been identified.
Mm-hmm. COUNCIMLAN NUTTER: But you at least keep what you have.
Okay. All right. Let's talk about the $15 million. And I know that there's all kinds of conversations going on with regard to the source, and all that. But let's for the moment suspend reality and say that we actually resolved that issue. How will you allocate the $15 million for acquisition?
Okay. I don't know if Mr. Hanna wants to talk about the RFP processes that we've contemplated to use to allocate the 15 million.
Only to say that what is contemplated is an RFP process. That would go part and parcel with a couple of other 349 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 RFPs that we typically issue in a given fiscal year.
That was our proposal. Councilwoman Blackwell has expressed --
Councilwoman Blackwell was expressing dissatisfaction with that proposed process.
So you might be re-thinking that. I think that might be a good idea. Let's talk about how you're going to deal with kind of the issue.
Yeah, . You have... This is for these acquisition zones and large scale development. First, you have a budget of $37 350 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 million. You have... If I'm reading this right, you've approved activities for acquisitions for $39 million. So you start with a deficit out of the box. Second, there are a couple of these -- or I guess technically that would be a few of these that have nothing. So I guess there's two questions, one, how you're going to deal with the $2 million deficit; and second, what happens if in one of those Districts where you have the little dash something comes up and there's a need for funding?
Let me explain the -- the -- the... You really need to take the last two boxes or rectangles together. That middle rectangle speaks to the allocation of acquisition dollars per District.