And those acquisition dollars, delegated by District, was based upon the level of blight in the individual District. That's why District One, for 351 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 instance, got more money than did District Ten. There is -- There's -- There were more --
Right. Well, this is the... I mean, this was the baseline --
Some people got a million and a half; some people got two and a half; and then the larger ones got... Right. And I'm fine with that.
But I'm getting to the bottom -- the bottom -- the bottom box. The bottom box is what we call acquisitions. In other words, these were large-scale development projects over which the individual Council people had very little, if any... I shouldn't say say. But these were, for instance, in 352 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 District Five, there were a number of projects that provided for grants from HUD, for instance, the home ownership zone for Cecil B. Moore. We made -- The administration made the decision that a given District's individual allotment should not be affected by these otherwise large-scale developments. And so, we kind of dropped them below the line, and basically called them the Mayor's large acquisition zones.
To get to the question as to whether -- why there is a $2 million or how we'll deal with the $2 million shortfall there, recall, as Pat said a little bit earlier, the recycling agreement has now been signed, sealed and delivered. The recycling agreement provides that as we sell property for fair market value, those monies would be recycled and be made available for further acquisitions. Those monies would go into this pot, and that's how we're hoping to -- that's 353 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 how we expect to overcome the now $2 million shortfall. That, in addition to the fact that the --
Well, how much do you anticipate coming back in the next year or how much has come back?
In the next year? I can think of at least one specific deal, that in Brewerytown, that would yield somewhere around $750,000. But we don't have to worry about it necessarily next year because typically these acquisitions take a number of years -- may take a number of years to accomplish.
Let me understand that this. For the seven Districts that are listed here, and the respective dollar amounts, are you saying that there are identified projects that funding has already been allocated to --
Through the Chair, a list, by District, and line up the dollar amounts that lay out how that box was put together? And I guess I'm wondering, was there some time or a conversation -- I mean, maybe this is -- this was -- I don't know -- probably start showing up as a part of the e-mail traffic back and forth. I mean, did we miss an opportunity to have a discussion about any large-scale projects in either the Fourth, the Sixth or the Tenth? I'm just trying to understand 355 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 what the dashes are. So, why don't -- why don't -- why don't -- I mean...
Most of the large-scale projects were actually things in the pipeline, things like the Mill Creek Hope Six application, Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership, and acquisition zones in support of those that were approved by the Council.
So if there was a project that was moving along and had a funding gap, you're saying that dollars were drawn from this particular area to fill in the gap?
I mean, again, as you know, these development projects take some time to cue up. And there were a series of -- So, for example, the award of the Mill Creek Hope Six or the Cecil B. -- the completion of Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership or other larger development projects that we knew would yield about 50 units or more.
So you're saying in that situation we use the NTI dollars for acquisition purposes for a public 356 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 housing development?
In support of the... Yes. That was the City's contribution. Because often, under a number of housing programs, there usually are contributions by the City as well as the Public Housing Authority, sort of like matching funds, and leveraging. The more leverage you have, the -- you know, the more competitive you are in the national environment, when you're competing.
-- by District, by project, what the dollar amount was, what the leverage factor was or what the larger -- what the full cost of the project was?
Let's talk about, lastly, this budget has -- anticipates $1.5 million -- I guess this is on , again, for the Housing Trust 357 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 Fund?
Okay. Now, what are the terms and conditions? Have you talked about this already? Have I missed a lot of this conversation?
Yes. We did, in fact. But to get to your question, the term condition is that this be a matching grant, that the... In discussions with the housing -- affordable housing advocates, our expectation is that we will help them come up with the one and a half million dollar matching requirement that comes part and parcel with this one and a half million dollar investment by the City. Again, the logic behind that was that the Housing Trust Fund in our view -- the Housing Trust Fund should not be made up just of public dollars; that corporations, foundations, other folks who benefit from the City, either directly or indirectly, ought to contribute to the 358 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 Housing Trust Fund, not totally or completely or to the extent that the City does. But this one and a half million is hopefully going to be a relatively small part of what will hopefully become a much larger Housing Trust Fund.
Well, tell me how that works, in the context of a bill 11 that would create the Housing Trust Fund and has as a provision that one of the sources of funding is, in fact, a million and a half dollars of NTI funds. That would sound like it's automatic or guaranteed. You've, by your testimony at least, placed a condition on it. The bill in front of us says that there's a million and a half dollars of NTI funding to support the Housing Trust Fund. What I hear you say is, we'll give you a million -- up to a million and a half but matching dollar for dollar. There's, I think, at least a technical conflict between those two concepts. 359 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
I do believe people were advocating that this -- this money not be conditioned first on raising the additional dollars. That's probably why the legislation is... is stated that way.
My expectation is if it is, in fact, the will of the Council that there not be --
If it is the expectation or the will of the Council that there not be that expectation or that prerequisite, then certainly the administration will be willing to entertain that.
Okay. Well, I mean, I'm not... That's, I mean, technically tomorrow. But I know there's been a lot of discussion today with regard to the Housing Trust Fund, and certainly the million and a half dollars. 360 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 But I think it should be clear as we go through this process, I mean, it either is or it is not.
It's either a guaranteed source of funding or it's a proposed source of funding which is different and conditional. But if you read the legislation, I think -- The way I'm reading it, at least, is -- it is a source of funding. It is a million and a half dollars, and makes no 15 reference to conditional. So, I mean, I just want to make sure that as we move through this, everybody is clear about, you know, how this is all...
Okay? Are you in any... I guess I could save this for... Madam Chair?
Will there be... At some point will there be other 361 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 administration witnesses with regard to the Housing Trust Fund? Or would it be this same group that's with us, having the pleasure of spending time with us today?
It would be the same group that we have the pleasure of spending time with today.
Okay. So, would a Housing Trust Fund question be in order?
Okay. What is your expectation, I guess, with regard to -- Strike that. The other sources of funding or another major source of funding is the... as I understand it, is the real estate transfer tax.
Proposed. What is the administration's position on that particular issue? 362 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
Again, I haven't seen the exact language. And I know in the course of the public testimony there has been discussions of how that could be done which doesn't have an adverse impact on the budget. But without my ability to, you know, see that language, confer with our Finance Director and Budget Director, it's hard to give a position. I mean, the major concern of the administration is, you know, the fiscal crisis and how that gets funded, particularly in light of everything else that we're struggling with these days. Again, we're -- You know, we are supportive of increasing the mortgage recordation fee, once the state authorizes that, and dedicate that to the Housing Trust Fund. And we believe that will generate somewhere between $5 to $7 million, so, you know -- Because that's a new resource of funds, specifically for that. But in terms 363 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 of diverting monies from the General Fund, that's problematic.
Are you aware -- during the course of our budget hearings this year, which I guess technically are not over, are you aware of any discussion that has taken place, either with Finance or the Budget Office, about use of real estate transfer tax proceeds, any particular percentage, and whether that's been calculated into either the FY '05 budget or the FY '05 to FY '09 five-year plan?
No, it has not been calculated. That's the problem. The existing budget did not include that. And in earlier meetings with the Coalition for Affordable Housing and the PACDC, the budget -- representatives from the Budget Office was there to again express the concern of the administration, that we simply not have the resources to fund that. So that's... And it's not included 364 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 in the five-year plan, to my knowledge, or the existing budget.
Two last questions. Has OHCD begun developing regulations in accordance with the proposed -- with -- in accordance with Bill 8 040594?
And lastly, and this may be a part of the regulation process. Who will actually decide --
Who will actually decide within this program who gets money?
The legislation has a recommended board structure. We've had discussions with, again, the advocates. And it is our stance that the majority -- We certainly would welcome members of the board from the advocacy and 365 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 CDC communities. But our stance is, given that most of these funds are public funds, then the majority of the board members ought to be folks from the public side of the table.
All right. Well, I understand that. But when I read through it, it is also clear that the board will not have the duty of reviewing or scoring individual proposals for funding. So, that's why I'm asking the question. Who will actually decide what projects get funded? If you look at Section 6, Number 2....
of the bill. MS. McCOLLOCH: Are you looking at it as introduced or as a proposed amendment? Just so we're looking at the same document.
I'm looking at the pink. That's all I have. 366 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 MS. McCOLLOCH: The pink is as introduced?
As it was introduced. I don't have any amendments. It says, the oversight board will not have the duty of reviewing and scoring individual proposals for funding. So my question is, who's going to decide?
Councilman, it was my expectation that the members -- that the oversight board would be the decision-making board.
That the day-to-day would be transpired through the staff of OHCD e
Okay. Then based on that answer, let me understand this: The budget will be whatever the budget is going to be, depending on what the funding sources are. What is the role of City Council in determining, one, what any fiscal year budget would be, as well as what, if any, 367 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 role would we have in helping to ensure that the dollars are at least spread around, in a way that seeks to address the variety of issues throughout the City? I'm not in any way, shape or form talking about just, you know, taking a budget and dividing it by ten. That is not... That would not be the case, and probably would not make a tremendous amount of sense. But if the board is not making those decisions, and the staff is assisting, then I really do need to understand who is deciding, and how will they decide, and upon what basis do they decide. And I mean, whether it's $20 million or $11 million or whatever the millions of dollars are, I mean, what is our role, as members of this body, and how do we participate in this?
Again, looking at the proposed legislation, I actually probably have a version that has -- that amends the one that you have. 368 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 MS. McCOLLOCH: I just want to make sure we're looking at the same document. Is the first sentence the section five? It says hereby establishing an oversight board --
Yes. MS. McCOLLOCH: -- which will be established per regulation promulgated by the Office of Housing and Community Development?
Yes. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay. I just want to make sure we're looking at the same one.
To my knowledge, that's the only document. MS. McCOLLOCH: This is what was introduced. And what was introduced says, we're going to create an oversight board together after this -- once this legislation is created. I think our expectation -- And this 369 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 is not necessarily what others would -- Our expectation is that we would create an oversight board with representatives of Council, with community advocates, with people from the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation --
Well. MS. McCOLLOCH: -- but the oversight board has as -- has -- does not have as its responsibility the decision making. The over sight board is reviewing the parameters, reviewing the set of activities to be included, and then the actual decisions about which developments receive funding, and so forth.
Well, I guess two things. One, how many members are on the board?
Doesn't say that. MS. McCOLLOCH: Doesn't say that. I know that's a different one.
Where would I find that. MS. McCOLLOCH: All of those details of how the oversight board would be established are not addressed in the legislation that is before you. It says that we'll figure that out. It says that an oversight --
Figure it out? MS. McCOLLOCH: -- oversight board will be established.
This is not our legislation. MS. McCOLLOCH: This is not our legislation, no. I'm just responding to what --
I think one of the things we're slightly at a disadvantage, because this legislation is not -- was, you 371 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 know, not solely developed by the administration. We've been having conversations where lots of ideas have been talked about, and things of that nature. So, I guess it's quiet on a number of those issues.
I understand that. But I mean, let's be clear here. Two members have introduced a piece of legislation. We scheduled it for a public hearing. You're here now in a public hearing. OHCD, at least, is being charged with developing regulations. They have a board that will have certain powers and duties. We do not know how many board members. There are no specific spots for anybody. It says they'll be appointed by the Mayor. So, when you're talking about public members, and... I mean, City employees, and community people, and private sector people, and... I mean, there are no 372 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 provisions for any of that. And so, I understand it may not be an administration bill. But I think that, under the circumstances, if we're in a public hearing and we're about... I mean, if there's possibility of taking action tomorrow, when the bill was advertised for, it would seem to me that we would want to have these answers; and we would certainly, if you're going to be involved in this at the level you're proposed to be involved in it, that you would have answers to these kinds of questions. I mean, I'm taking this seriously, and I think other people are taking it seriously. But I mean, I can't get a handle on how it operationally functions if you're not able to give us some of those answers. I mean, you're expected to develop regulations. It's just like... I mean, that's an official process. I mean, you have to send a document down to the Records Department. It is open for public review. 373 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 If someone asks a question about it or demands a hearing, you have to have a public hearing on regulations. So, I mean, I'm just trying to understand where we are.
The goals and the issues are all the appropriate goals and issues. I mean, I don't have any issue with that. But in order to better understand it and be, you know, supportive, I mean, I think it is incumbent upon the administration, if you're going to participate in this, that, I mean, certain baseline questions have to be answered.
The draft that you have actually differs from the one that I'm looking at. Some amendments were drafted. And in fact, this is a black-line -- a red-line version which addresses some of the issues that you're talking about. Having said that --
Well, I 374 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 understand that, but I don't have it.
I know. Well, having said that, what you've basically charged us with is the responsibility between now and sometime tomorrow, before tomorrow's hearing, to come up with something more firm than what we have in front of us... what you have front of you.
Well, those are some of my thoughts. I mean, I would strongly encourage you to have conversations with the sponsors, and be in a better position to deal with these kinds of -- I mean, that's just -- I mean, I got to go pick up my daughter. I mean, we could be here for, like, a couple hours. So, I mean, once again, she has saved you guys, but... And you missed the meeting last Thursday which you're not off the hook for yet, but...
I'm sorry, sir. I was in a PHA board meeting and couldn't be torn away.
Hey, you know, 375 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 any excuse will do. So, this is a big issue. We received a lot of correspondence. There are a lot of people very serious about it. But I mean, if we're going to do this, I mean, we have to have our act together.
And I think, as urgent as the issue is, it is more important to do it right and have a comfort level than to just do it quickly because we think we need to do something. So, I mean, you've got -- I mean, you've got tons of time between now and the morning to work on it. I'll be calling all of you later on this evening. I have a few more questions.
Sooner we can finish the hearing, the quicker we can go ahead. (Laughter.)
You know, I've used that one a couple of times: As soon as you let me go, I'll be glad to work on 376 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 your problem. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Councilman, I wanted to say to my colleague, as also a member on the PHA board, that PHA pays for so much of its own. PHA doesn't really get a lot of money. They fight about social services. There was one point where they were putting in water pipes, and wanted the City to hold them harmless. So there are all kinds of issues as to PHA and lack of City funding therein. They're a part of NTI, and they're happy to be a part of it, as we all are. But nobody need think that the City's funding PHA. I wish we were funding them to some degree. Thank you. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown is next on board, and we'll call on her now. Councilwoman.
Thank you, 377 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 Madam Chair. First, let me thank my colleague, Councilman Nutter, who had to leave out for his interests, first of all, with regards to the Housing Trust Fund. And let me thank the administration for the work we've done so far around this issue, knowing that we still have some work to do; that it is what I call a work in progress. And Councilwoman Jannie and I clearly realize that the narrative and the language and the substance of the bill as presented still requires some work. So, let me assure you that we are prepared to do it the right way one time around, instead of rushing us through, to discover that we have loopholes, and not all of our i's dotted and all of our t's crossed. So I need to put that on the record. Let me move now to the couple of questions I had regarding the work that you do. First of all, last year City Council 378 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 made a decision to place $5 million in the CDBG funds for the Child Care Health and Safety Fund, you'll recall? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
Could you just give me an update at this juncture? That was a piece of work we worked on for many, many months, and was successful with City Council getting that through. So, could you give us an update, because those dollars, the Child Care Health and Safety Fund, was put into the CDBG pocket. MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes. The first $850,000 of that fund is... The funds have been put under contract to the Redevelopment Authority, and the Redevelopment Authority in turn is executing a contract with the Nonprofit Finance Fund.
Okay. That's what it's called now? MS. McCOLLOCH: And that is the entity that will actually hold the money 379 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 and disburse the grants. In will be grants offered of up to $50,000 to child care providers to make improvements to their properties, to either secure or maintain state licensing. So the sorts of repairs that could be made include roof repairs, accessibility modifications, new bathrooms, additions to the building, playground equipment, that sort of thing. And so, that -- the first, if you will, sort of pot of money is available and is going to be ready for people to start spending it.
When? MS. McCOLLOCH: I don't know if the contract's been executed yet with the RDA, but the RDA has prepared a contract, and it's being -- the final negotiations are being done now.
And do you have in place a plan on how you will get the word out that this is now ready, open to receive a request for those proposals? 380 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 MS. McCOLLOCH: I haven't worked that through with the folks of the Nonprofit Finance Fund, but we can certainly...
Okay. I would ask that you do that, because a number of child care providers will be looking for child care health and safety fund language or title. And now to know that it's being moved to the Nonprofit Finance Fund, they'll never make the connect. MS. McCOLLOCH: Right.
They'll never be able to connect the dots. MS. McCOLLOCH: Right.
So the way you announce that and the way you market it to the child care providers who really need and are awaiting this anxiously would be important. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay.
Okay? Secondly, I sent a letter to Mr. Hess in 381 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 January, indicating that... Well, the facts are that -- The question is around homeless prevention services. And the facts are that we spend about $750 per household to avert homelessness, yet a six-month stay in an emergency shelter for a family can run upwards of $21,000 plus. So, where are we with regards to homelessness prevention dollars? At what level will that be funded this year? And is that... First, let me ask you to answer the question.
Dana Minz. The Housing Homelessness Prevention Funding that OHCD administered several years ago was transferred to the Office of Emergency Shelter and Services in fiscal year '02. So OHCD no longer administers that funding or have any oversight in it. 382 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
Takes care of that. Some time ago I shared with members of the administration our interest in infusing the arts into NTI. Could you give us an update or share with us any level of success you may have had with regards to the recommendations in that white paper and how we as a City can remember arts and culture with regards to lots, et cetera.
I can start with some of the work that's -- that's taking place. This is Pat Smith -- that's taking place, in using the arts as part of the vacant land management initiative. I think one of the examples that's coming forth is what we've call Girard Crossing, where the Mural Arts Program is collaborating with the Horticultural Society and the developer in Brewerytown on a gateway treatment to that area, and a new 383 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 development, drawing on a variety of different sources. And I think that's a wonderful example of collaboration between different parts of government, and the arts playing a leading role.
It's called Girard Crossing which would be approximately around, I guess, 32nd, 33rd and Girard Avenue.
So it's sort of like the gateway into North Philadelphia, into Strawberry Mansion, into West Philadelphia, that whole area. In addition, the Mural Arts Program does work with the... in collaboration, using some of its resources to treat and do innovative treatments to vacant land, and on some of the lots where they're doing murals. So they've sort of, like, expanded 384 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 some of their programs, to include, you know, the arts as part of the land treatment. And in... I think another important piece is sort of like the work that the Village of the Arts and Humanity does in its work around vacant land treatment. And some of the ideas that they've come up with has been pretty -- I think people have applauded as innovations. So that's an area of blight removal. In housing development activities, I do believe there are some initiatives resolving artists' housing. MS. McCOLLOCH: Just to follow up on what Pat said about the Mural Arts program, for the '05 contract for the vacant land management, we've committed $50,000 specifically for Mural Arts to have murals painted in connection with the greening activities being carried out by Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. So we specifically said we want to support the Mural Arts Program with that in that 385 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 capacity. And then we're also supporting some artists' housing right now through the Coral Street Arts House.
Where's that? MS. McCOLLOCH: Which is in New Kensington.
Oh, okay. MS. McCOLLOCH: Coral Street, appropriately enough, which is a tax rental -- affordable rental development using tax -- low income housing tax credits.
Madam Chair, were you aware that $50,000 was slotted or allocated for mural arts?
Councilwoman, we had a discussion about trying to give NTI -- We had a discussion with everyone at the table about having a program that naturally allowed for fencing, greening and a mural, especially at corners, because it happens all the time and it makes all the difference. 386 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 And so, we asked that $50,000 be taken from NTI, to make them part of the agenda --
-- because in fact it is, but... And that we make it a formal program instead of always doing it, especially on corner lots. You green it, you fence it, and you do the mural. And so... And so it was suggested that Miss McColloch said that they could -- and Kevin Hanna said that they thought it would be more feasible to take the funding from CDBG than from NTI to put it in said program.
That's a segue to Philadelphia Green. Can you give me a progress report on the partnership with Philadelphia Green? Because my homework tells me that there's a proposed reduction in the contract from $4 million to $2. 387 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 And I'd be curious to know what ideas or discussions you've had, with regards to maintaining the lots long-term, two, five and ten years from now.
Essentially, we are budgeting $2 million in the FY '05 budget out of General Funds to just continue the Greening Stabilization and Community Based Land Maintenance Program. In addition, we expect in FY '05 to receive in hand two HUD grants that we applied for in, I guess, '02 and '03 -- there's a little lag time -- to help augment some of those resources for greening activities. I think long term, again, would be -- and part of the work of PHS is working and involving community in, you know, the treatment of the vacant land and the maintenance of it. Their experience is showing that has the same impact, in terms of individuals being more caring of that land. It's the same effect that one often 388 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 sees, I think, with the fact that murals don't get graffitied; that when you do certain types of treatments, it -- it -- it -- it -- it creates a sense of hope in the community, communities take more ownership; and if you have land that has grass on it instead of rubble, it's easier to maintain, you know, and community groups and block associations can help us share the responsibility. Long term, clearly it has to be a shared responsibility. But the Mayor made it clear that it was not reasonable to expect on a volunteer basis for individual homeowners and block captains to take, you know, refrigerators and tires and other debris that, you know, would litter these lots. So it was getting us back to a manageable level, and where resources permit, improving the lot so it's easier to take care of, and also engaging communities in ongoing responsibility.
So have you 389 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 actually started that process?
Yes. A lot of the work they do is around educate -- what we call the volunteer education and engaging communities in that work.
So do you believe at some point it will be systemic? I mean, it's one thing to do it in an ad hoc kind of fashion. But if we want to see long-term impact, it requires systemic change.
Yes, it does, without a question. And we believe that we're off to a fairly good start with significant up front resources that were committed, just to get things to a manageable level. I mean, things have been so out of control, it's costing us a lot of resources just to get it to a manageable level. And then again, there's a number of volunteer organizations in neighborhoods that are stepping up to the plate. It's kind of like seeing us take the first step, 390 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 seeing us, the government, or the public sector take the first step makes it easier for people to say, I, too, can be involved, want to be involved, and so forth. MS. McCOLLOCH: And we're currently using CDBG funds. We're funding a study of vacant land management, precisely to try to address those sorts of issues: How do you maintain it over the long-term, what's the sustainability of it. And we're working with PHS now to work through some of those models, how can we do this on the long term. And so we're using some current year CDBG funds to support that.
Well, one thing's for certain, two for sure: We know that Philadelphia Green has done a stellar job in that type of initiative, and they become really the model for the City to look to because they've had some great level of success. One last question. One last question. 619 Elm Street Program is a 391 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 state grant. Give me the update on that, if you would. MS. McCOLLOCH: The Elm Street Program. We just submitted the application for Elm Street. There are planning grants, operational grants, and what they'll call neighborhood reinvestment grants of differing amounts, depending on what you're asking for. The list of areas for which we applied was submitted with my testimony this morning. Did you get a copy of that?
Yes. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay. So, the list of all the -- all the -- all the areas that we've applied for are attached to that testimony. And that's an application that we've submitted to the state. We are allowed to apply for up to a million dollars. We've applied for $935,000. So, we're just waiting now to hear back from the state.
Can you tell us how the lucky -- the neighborhoods that 392 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 were lucky enough to get selected, how did you arrive at those neighborhoods being the lucky ones? MS. McCOLLOCH: There was conversation with each Council representative.
Oh, okay. MS. McCOLLOCH: And essentially almost, with one exception, everything that was requested was submitted.
Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes my questioning, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. And Councilwoman, I apologize for not dealing with you on that issue, especially because it deals with arts and culture.
It's not a 393 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 problem at all. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it, because we've been having conversations about mural arts in other discussion circles.
Let me ask one final question, if I might. This will be my last question for the day. And that is, we've been talking about streamlining NTI and our acquisition and disposition process. And we've also been talking about condemnation. And I know I've asked these many questions many times from everybody in the state collectively and almost individually, about what we can do to shorten the time line. In terms of appraisals, can't we do one instead of two? I know I was told an answer. I just don't remember the answer. Can't we do one or only do two in certain circumstances and try to cut down that or end... In addition to that, does anybody 394 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 else have any other suggestions about what we can do to lower this condemnation time? As I've said before, we have private developers who will put money into the pot, into an escrow account or anywhere you want, but they need the ability to get properties deeded to them in a shorter amount of time.
My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority. With regards to the appraisal process, we are required to obtain a certified appraisal on the property that will be part of the condemnation process. We are also required to notice the owner that we're going to get an appraisal, and the owner has a right to be there when the appraiser's there, to walk through the property, et cetera. Lots of times the owner is not there, and especially, obviously, with vacant structures and vacant lots. We again send out another notice, 395 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 and there are times where we're called back. They basically have said, you know, the appraiser didn't contact me. We'll say, we have a letter from the appraiser to you. And they'll say, well, they didn't get in touch with me. They have an absolute right to be there, have the appraiser walk through the property with them. That generally causes the second one. Now, because of the volume of work -- when the Redevelopment Authority was doing 300 properties a year, the staff appraiser could go out and do budgetary appraisals. We're now looking... We're just about ready to order 400 more budgetary appraisals for acquisitions. The problem that we've run into, Councilwoman, is the number of available appraisers that do quality work. And we have about 15 appraisers that we're relying on right now. We have thousands of 396 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 appraisals to do. The real capacity right now with the appraisal community is about 2,000 parcels a year. Obviously, we did 5,300 in one year, in anticipation of being able to knock them out in the next year. But the fact is the real true capacity is about 2,000 a year. As we use these appraisers, we're now using them for an initial budgetary appraisal. In other words, our in-house appraiser, when we were doing 300 a year, could go out and do budget estimates for us. The fact is that our staff appraiser is focused on having to review the appraisals that come in for the purposes of condemnation, and certifying that those appraisals are accurate and are done appropriately. So, the real -- the real congestion that we have right now is the capacity of the appraisal community in this City to produce the number of appraisals. 397 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
So it's not having to do two. It's that you need two.
We have to do two now, simply because we always did an initial budgetary appraisal. That's not notifying the owner. That's going out and saying, it's approximately worth this much, with the full knowledge that we would have to go back and do a regular appraisal, notifying the owner, letting the owner walk through. So, what with we used to do for budgetary appraisals was use the in-house appraiser. That's no longer feasible to do that.
I don't know. One of these days every... You know, if we keep focusing on it, it's got to get better, this time line. And finally, before we adjourn, just one reminder to Mr. Hanna, that he's working on, you know, this lien sale: If I had to vote for whether or not we did a lien sale again, I'd vote against it or exempt my District. 398 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 On the other side, of course, it's easy on the other side, isn't it? Councilwoman Brown?
Yes, Madam Chair. I feel compelled to go on the record once again. I can speak for me confidently, and I think on this issue I can speak for you around the Housing Trust Fund. We've received a four-pager from the City Solicitor which clearly suggests to me --
Right. We should mention that. Ten minutes ago. Which clearly suggests to me that we're prepared to go down this road, but we have to go down this road in a way that's legal and correct. And so, I want to put on the record that we're committed to working with the housing advocates... (Applause.) 399 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04
...and the administration, to get this done in a way that is correct. So we have work to do. It has nothing to do with the administration and everything to do with Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.
Shall we then wait for an updated draft from your elective offices? How do you want to proceed?
We'll say that we'll verify that tomorrow. We'll talk with some members of that community tonight to see how they want to proceed, given recent facts that give some facts and raise some questions. So we'll have to confer with them.
Yes. I'll make it available. We just got it. And we'll make this available.
That's 400 Bill 040594 - 6/1/04 right; you were here. So at any rate...
...thank you for putting that on the record. And with no further questions, we will recess this hearing until 10:00 -- Is it 10:00? 9:00 a.m.? I would like it to be 9:00. Let me could double check. That means there must be another hearing. Recess until nine 9:30 tomorrow morning. There will be another hearing on Councilman Goode's bill, but I thought we were convening earlier than that. However, if it was advertised for 9:30, 9:30 it must be. We'll see you then and thank you all. (Applause.) (Hearing concluded at 5:00 p.m.) 401 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on June 1, 2004, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ Debra D. Whitehead _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)