COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:28 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA COUNCILMAN ISAIAH THOMAS COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. RESOLUTION: 250955 - -
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing and public meeting of the Committee of the Whole regarding Resolution No. 6 250955. Mr. Christmas, will you please call the roll.
Present. Thank you. A quorum of the Committee is present and this hearing is now called to order, Mr. Christmas. Will you please read the title of the resolution.
Resolution 7 approving the 2025-2026 Housing Opportunities Made Easy (H.O.M.E.) Program Annual Program Statement and Budget, which addresses expenditures by various agencies in the first year of the H.O.M.E. Program.
We will now start with witnesses to testify on the resolution. I ask for Mr. Christmas to please call our first panel.
Would the Chief of Staff to the Mayor Tiffany Thurman please come forward.
Angela Brooks, Chief Housing and Urban Development Officer of the City of Philadelphia, and last but not least, Jesse Lawrence, Director of Planning and Development, City of Philadelphia.
Good morning. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning, Council President Johnson and members of City Council. My name is Tiffany Thurman. I serve as Chief of Staff to Mayor Cherelle Parker and I'm joined today by Chief Housing and Urban Development Officer Angela Brooks, Department of Planning and Development Director Jesse Lawrence and numerous other members of this Administration who have been working on the Housing Opportunities Made Easy Plan. E. Plan. E. Plan was first introduced with the Mayor's special address in March. And we will outline later in this testimony the changes we've made as a result of that review. The $800 million that we propose to borrow for this very ambitious and historic plan is a serious investment and this body has treated it as such. E. hearings City Council conducted this past spring, it was clear that there is widespread agreement that our city is facing a housing crisis. Philadelphia is short upwards of 17,000 housing units in many neighborhoods across the city and at least 21,000 existing units are in urgent need of repairs and preservation. At the same time, increasing home prices have put homeownership out of reach for many residents. And approximately, 50% of renters in this city are cost- burdened. E. Plan has been developed to address this crisis head-on and it requires bold investment in a wide array of programs that, in the simplest of terms, fall into two buckets. E. Plan creates innovative new programs that provide a proof of concept for what's possible in local housing policy. At the top of this list is the One Philadelphia mortgage, the One Philly mortgage, which will put homeownership within reach for more hard-working Philadelphians. The investment in this new program is significant, but the economic opportunity that comes with building equity in a home will pay dividends for those homeowners and the city as a whole for years and years to come. Meanwhile, we'll pilot other programs like facade improvement and curbside appeals at a smaller scale to demonstrate the value and impact of improving both homes and neighborhood blocks. E. Plan allocates most of the borrowed funds, 84% to existing high demand programs and housing production and preservation that thousands of Philadelphians have benefited from. This includes Basic Systems Home Repair, Adaptive Modifications, Turn the Key, Philly First Home, Eviction Diversion and others, each of which is important to continue to meet our housing needs now, as this wide array of new and existing programs are implemented. E. Plan has been to collect, track and report all of the measurable data. Long gone are the days where the city is making big investments and we don't know who benefits. In addition to tracking, the data and key metrics through Philly Stat 360, the Administration will be assessing the economic impact of these programs. E. Plan. E. is having the greatest possible impact for residents across the housing continuum spanning from low-income households to the workforce, housing that benefit our nurses, teachers and public safety officers. As we said before, we refuse to pit the have-nots against those that have-just-a-little. E. Plan, the data bears this out. It proves it. Based on our four-year projections across all funding sources for production and preservation, 68% of beneficiaries earn between 0 to 50% of the Area Median Income, AMI. 93% of beneficiaries earn under 80% AMI. 40% of beneficiaries who are in the deeply affordable category are between 0 to 30% AMI. These beneficiaries reflect our commitment to prioritizing families across income levels with real needs and in neighborhoods across the city. This includes the family with rent that consumes nearly half their income and is struggling to buy groceries and meet their basic necessities. This also includes the senior citizen on a fixed income who needs to make emergency repairs to their roof from caving -- and keep their roof from caving in.
And this includes as well the household with parents who work for the city, our colleagues, your staff who have child care expenses, medical bills and other costs that are keeping their first home just out of reach. E. Plan was designed to help each of these households and we refuse to let any of them slip through the cracks on our watch. Finally, and before we hear from Angela Brooks and our team about the Program Statement and Budget on the table today, let me stress how critical it is that we move swiftly on this resolution. We are running out of time to go to the market to borrow funds this calendar year and avoid any program disruption in the coming weeks. We have Rob Dubow, our Chief Financial Officer, that will be here today to answer any questions regarding that as well as our City Treasurer Jacqueline Dunn. Philadelphians deserve safe, quality, affordable housing and they need it now. Thank you. And now, we'll turn it over to Angela Brooks.
Thank you, Chief Thurman. And good morning, Councilmembers. As stated, my name is Angela Brooks, Chief Housing and Urban Development Officer. The Annual Program Statement and Budget for year 1 of the H.O.M.E. Plan outlines months of spending for 11 the 27 new and existing programs 12 per the H.O.M.E. bond ordinance, Bill 250568. This is the first of four such Annual Budgets and Program Statements the Administration will prepare as a part of the housing plan. Before we shift into questions, I'd like to outline the changes from the budget originally shared on July 11, as several were made following input from the Council. Affordable housing Preservation and Production, we adjusted that from 40.3 million to 19.9 respectively, to 29.7 and 24.3 million, shifting more funding to H.O.M.E. preservation after taking into account recent information that we received around expected housing projects in 2026 and available NPI funding. Basic Systems Repair, we increased that from 33.5 million to 34.8 million, which will be supplemented by other funding sources, including the Housing Trust Fund, CDBG and NPI to reach an annual spending target of approximately $50 million per year. Built to Last, we increased that from 1 million to 8.5 million, adding to the available resources for home repairs in year 1. Eviction Diversion and Targeted Financial Assistance, we adjusted from 14.2 million to million maintaining current service levels. Philly First Home, we decreased that from 12.5 million to nearly 10.7 million as other funding was identified to support the program in year 1. Tangled Title prevention, we increased that from 1.9 million to 2.2 million to maintain current service levels while expanding the NAC pilot program. Turn the Key increased to 43.5 million in year 1, as existing funds have been spent on closings this year and to maintain the operation of other programs administered by PHDC, including BSRP. At this point, 8.2 million in NPI funds remains for Turn the Key, with an estimated 689 closings are estimated by the end of year 2026. An additional 43.5 million will ensure these affordable homes are completed. And lastly, a Wills program we created as a separate line item with 1.5 million allocated in year 1, adding resources to be proactive and prevent tangled titles. The total amount proposed for year 1 has increased to approximately 238 million, most of which is due to the important Turn the Key investment. As we stated before, most of the borrowed funds are for high-demand programs, several of which soon need additional funding to continue without disruption. At the same time, One Philly Mortgage will be created with an upfront $25 million investment, soon allowing more working Philadelphians to become homeowners. As a result, of these revisions the first Program Statement and Budget now includes more than a quarter of the total $800 million borrowing authorized for the next four years. But we believe it's important to aggressively tackle the housing crisis that's here now. Thank you again for the extensive discussion and feedback going back to the spring. We deeply value our partnership with you, Council President and this body. We look forward to your questions today. Thank you.
Just a couple brief ones. First of all, thank you for coming and providing testimony for the Budget Project Statement. I just have a couple brief questions. So just clarify, what's the original amount that you're borrowing for the first months and then the 5 additional amount we're borrowing 6 for Turn the Key? And then second, 7 how many units do we expect to be 8 built during this 12-month period? 9
Sorry. 10 The first question was -- can you 11 re-ask your question? 12
The first amount under the Project Budget Statement that was sent over and then the second amendment that was sent over?
So the first amount didn't have any -- my name is Jesse Lawrence. Thank you. The first amount that was listed in our first statement was $0 for Turn the Key. We have expanded that up to $43.5 million, and that is in response to the need to provide mortgages for what's in the pipeline and then also for us to reach that 1000 unit goal that we are putting forward in H.O.M.E. specifically.
So I just want to get clarity. So from the time of July 11th and even before July 11th when you started working to put the Budget Project Statement proposal together, at no point in time you took in consideration the need for the additional 43 million for Turn the Key and what else?
What we determined between the last time and this particular moment is that there was a shift in what year 1 bond year would be. Originally that was anticipated to be FY26, at the year's end of FY26. That's now shifted to a calendar year basis, and what we've understood to be the case between, one, understanding what exactly is still allotted for Turn the Key and NPI, but then also just knowing that there will be a six-month period after what the originally anticipated year-end would be was that there was no 8 funds dedicated specifically for what's in the pipeline and what we want to hit with our target. So because of those shifts, we've made some changes and we've presented that particular line item for this particular year 1 so that we can cover what's in the pipeline and what we have come forward.
Okay. And how many units do we expect to build, new units of housing during the 12-month period with this funding?
So in the first year we're expecting 2000 units to be built?
That's across all sources. But the first year we have at least 800 to get through in the pipeline as we --
Yes, sir. And if you want specifics, Angel is here to talk to those specifics.
For Turn the Key, for the calendar year -Angel Rodriguez. For the calendar year of '26 we expect to have 656 closings under Turn the Key.
And that's closings as opposed to brand new units built or that's a combination of both?
No, that's all brand -- Turn the Key is new construction, all new construction. So that would be 656. The total -- and let me just clarify. Closing out NPI, we would have another 109 closing. So the total just for H.O.M.E., that would be 656. Closing out NPI, that would be another 109. So the total number between the two funding sources would be 765 properties.
Okay. 675. That's it. Thank you. I have another question. In regards to the H.O.M.E. initiative and obviously I'm a supportor of it, members of Council are supportive in general as well, where are we at in terms of our partnership with the philanthropic communities as well as the unions regarding this particular initiative?
So we, Angela and I, will both answer the question. I'll start and then turn it over to my colleague Angela Brooks. We're in a really good place. So we are meeting actively with both the unions. We are in partnership with PHA as well as the philanthropic community. We're working with national philanthropic leaders as well as those who are regional and then local. We've been presenting the plan, keeping them abreast of where things land with City Council, and they're incredibly supportive of it. And we'll be making an announcement very soon.
And give me the role that PHA is going to play in helping us put units for low-income individuals. And I know a lot of times we talk about affordable housing and workforce housing and I have a special interest for those who need low-income housing.
And we share that interest. We've been working very closely with Kelvin Jeremiah. I'll turn it over now to my colleague Angela Brooks.
Thank you, Council President, for the question. Angela Brooks. We've been working in conjunction with the Philadelphia Housing Authority, as we mentioned in the spring. While they have their own separate plan, we find them to be complementary plans. We definitely look at them as a partner for some of those deeply affordable units that a lot of people are here to advocate for. We are a true believer in that as well. A lot of the H.O.M.E. Plan will support that of the funding for PHA. In fact, our homeless prevention line item, all of those things support the initiatives that PHA is implementing as well as at the same time we are doing our H.O.M.E. ops. It's our internal improvement plan of making government work better. And so, all of these things will help them move the needle very quickly as well. But we are allocating funds within the H.O.M.E. fund to support their acquisition fund and some of their shared housing goals.
Will their units count? When I say their, meaning PHA. Will their units count toward the 30,000 units or that's a separate track? If H.O.M.E. money is going toward -- and I know specific projects that you are supporting in terms of the H.O.M.E. initiative, but I'm speaking on a grander level -- on a general level, I'm sorry. Will those numbers count as a part of the overall or we just have two separate tracks?
It's confusing. It will be two different tracks. Certainly, the ones that are going to be touched by H.O.M.E. money will count, but they will be separate and aside. And one of the important things we've continued to say is while we talk about the 30,000 produced and preserved, we anticipate that the market itself will create additional units by some of the work that we're doing, and that wouldn't be included in that. And when we're tracking it, we are going to have, as we've mentioned, we're going to have our tracking numbers on Philly Stat 360. We will be delineating both, but we'll be tracking both of those as well.
I guess I want to shape this conversation as well. I know we talked about making sure -- and it's my goal to make sure we don't go in this direction, but we're not going to pit the haves versus the have-nots, right. And so, I want to go back to some of my line of questioning during the same conversation I had before in the past. When we talk about the percentage of individuals that we're going to be supporting, right, that are above the criteria of most of the programs that we offer in the city of Philadelphia, give me a dollar amount of how much above that criteria requirement that we will allow individuals to participate in programs?
So I am trying to get to the chart that specifies the different dollar amounts and somebody can pick that up. But what I can say is that we're tracking -- we have experience in understanding of where the demand over a certain AMI band would be for these programs that we're trying to expand at this point. We have some historic experience in moving from 50% to 60% and seeing that that was a very small increase in intake. What we're obviously going to is from 60 to 100. We have experience in actually denying applications, probably a thousand applications since 2022, over a thousand at this point, for those who simply didn't qualify because they were over the 60% threshold, right.
Give me that number again just for the record.
Yes, sir. So what we do know is that the number does increase in terms of how many people probably will still -- but the number does increase in terms of how many people probably would still, but I think that a thousand is probably about 5% of what the overall application has been. So we anticipate anywhere between 5% to 10% of an increase once we elevate these income band levels or the -- I'm sorry, the income eligibility requirement, moving from 60% to 100%. We anticipate about 10% at most of an increase in applications.
And give me the application request for those below that particular number just for the record.
So you got 5500 that are those drastically in need and then 1000 individuals who are in need at a different income level, correct?
And I just want to have clarity on it. And obviously we talk about these things behind the scenes, but also want to be transparent in terms of as we go through this process how we move forward. At this time, I'm going to take a moment to -- give me an idea regarding how we're addressing rental assistance. The level of the budget that's directed toward those who are, I guess I wouldn't even say home poor because at the end of the day they don't even have a home, they're renters. So give me a perspective of the H.O.M.E. commitment to address this particular issue.
I'll call up our Director for Housing Community Development, but there are a number of different programs that exist prior to this and we'll continue on. And, Mark, you want to talk about what those mechanisms are.
Sure. Mark Dodds, Deputy Director of Division of Housing and Community Development. As Jesse mentioned, there are a few ways we're addressing that. The primary way is through our Eviction Diversion program. Eligible households receive substantial assistance through that program. The annual budget is roughly in the neighborhood of $30 million. This H.O.M.E. Plan enables us to keep the program operating at level stages. So we anticipate, you know, operating that as is. We will also be operating rental assistance through Fresh Start, which is a new program right now. It's currently on pause until H.O.M.E. dollars are available, but that will include move-in costs and up to three months of assistance for families who qualify. And there is also a program called PHL Housing Plus, which operates as more of a guaranteed income program. It's done in partnership with PHA and there is funding in the H.O.M.E. Plan to continue that program through the end of the fiscal year.
Do any of our initiatives actually support the landlord through the subsidy or go directly to the actual renter?
Yeah, great question. So Targeted Financial Assistance, that component of the Eviction Diversion program, those payments go directly to the landlord.
Okay. Chair now recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning to all of you. I wanted to start with a question that gets to how we envision the initiatives being 9 proposed -- to be funded in the 10 year H.O.M.E. budget. When you 11 envision target populations, not as 12 a whole for the initiative but for 13 each of the 26 programs that might 14 be funded, I want to hear more 15 about sort of those targets and 16 those priorities, if they exist. 17 And I ask because we all 18 know that there's a huge need for a 19 lot of these programs, and demand 20 is likely to go up, especially when 21 we start promoting that the 22 programs have higher income 23 eligibility than in the past. Most 24 programs, as listed in the legislation right now, just have the maximum income eligibility criteria next to them, which doesn't tell a complete story about where the true demand and need is. So can you talk about that? What are the target populations for the various programs that you'd like to be funded?
Sure. Mark Dodds again. I think we can start by saying that the AMIs for the vast majority of the programs that we intend to support with H.O.M.E. dollars are remaining the same. There are a few changes. However, historically, and I think this was mentioned in the testimony, we are currently serving through programs like BSRP and various other programs, though we may not necessarily target them, naturally the participants that are taking part in those programs, that are benefiting from those programs, are often times at or below 30% AMI, and the vast majority of participants are below 50 and then below 80. So we're seeing somewhere in the neighborhood of over two-thirds of current participants in our programs that are at or below 30% AMI.
Okay. So you think that naturally we'll just support the people who are most in need with those programs as opposed to codifying it or enshrining it in the legislation somehow? Will it just organically happen?
Based on past performance and the data that we've compiled, that's what we expect.
Okay. Your figures from the spring showed over 10,000 income eligible households still waiting to hear if their applications have been awarded yet for home repair assistance, and that's before we increase the income eligibility for that program and the Adaptive Modification program, which will more than double the number of eligible homeowners for these programs. We know there's a need out there across many income bands. I don't think that any of us would debate that. The issue is more can these already strained programs sustain all of the extra demand as they are currently structured. And so, I wanted to ask is this Administration willing to list priority AMI ranges for each relevant program in the resolution 22 so that those in most need will still be prioritized even as we expand the income eligibility guidelines? And especially, are we willing to do that for the programs where we already know that there is not enough funding to keep pace with even the current level of demand? (Applause.)
You know, one of the things we talk about a lot, we've talked about in previous meetings with you as well, Councilmember Gauthier, and one of the problems with kind of -- I'm trying to think of how do I want to say it. I think the issue, first of all, the logistics behind it, so while we think it will naturally happen and we don't necessarily think this is something we have to necessarily focus on, the infrastructure in which to do that is it just doesn't exist for us as it stands. And so, when we started talking about how we could possibly implement that, we looked at the different ways we could do it, and currently our system doesn't allow for that. And that's just an honest answer. We physically cannot do it. The infrastructure to do so will take some time and that probably would be beyond year 1. Secondly, I think there's just a philosophical difference between some of the thought process on who it is we're serving. I think a lot of times these conversations make it sound like we're being Robin Hood and taking it from the rich and giving it, you know -- taking things from the poor for the rich. When, in fact, we're taking it from the police officer, the teacher, the city employee that we get on the elevator with who don't have it, the people who are cost-burdened. So when you start looking at the cost-burdened statistics throughout the city, we're recognizing that a lot of those people they might make 80% of AMI, but they really cannot maintain their homes, which is contributing to a lot of the blight that we're seeing. It isn't that we are necessarily focused on a big marketing campaign to people who make 100% AMI. We have a robust housing counseling system. Many of them are here today that will continue to work with and we will continue to work with those individuals who are the most vulnerable in the same ways that we always have and they will be the people that are mostly marketed to you. But the infrastructure in which we would add tiering would really add time to the waitlist, because then we'd have to implement that system that could allow us to do that. And when we're talking about waitlists and time, we don't want to expand and add on time for that.
Can I get a point of information. Just for clarity, explain just for the record what does that infrastructure look like. Just want to get an idea. The infrastructure that would take more than a year to put together and we don't want people to wait, just want to get an understanding of what that infrastructure looks like?
They're going to answer that question. You know, it could be in a very technical way, but to be very clear we all know, and we stated this during the hearing last when we were here months ago, that AMI while it's important, it's very important, it is only one factor and it doesn't tell a full story of what people are really experiencing. And so, when we're thinking about whether it's deeply affordable or affordable as an Administration, we've been really keen on not allowing any of our staff, any of our team to be pulled into that debate, because as an Administration we put together a plan that focuses on deeply affordable, that focuses on affordable, that focuses on people who are in need. So AMI is important, but we look at a number of factors beyond that. And, Council President, that's something that we stand by. And as the Mayor has said on the record time and again, even when she gave her opening budget address, we're not going to apologize for our stance because our approach ensures that everyone benefits, especially those who are in deep poverty and deep need. So I'll turn it over now to Jesse Lawrence to talk about the infrastructure and the more technical demands that it takes to get it up to speed in a year.
I just want to know what the infrastructure is. And then also, respectfully just as a body, right, we support the H.O.M.E. initiative. But also we recognize that even in shaping the H.O.M.E. initiative, because there's I think a partnership between the legislative branch and executive branch, but also our perspective and our views just as well should be noted and taken into consideration. And I don't think this body apologizes for the position that they're taking in terms of how we move forward. (Applause.)
And I say that respectfully. My conversation is really about the infrastructure. If we're saying that something like this really can't be done because it's going to take time and the time that it's going to take means we can't address the people who are in dire need right now, I just want to know what does that infrastructure look like, because I know that we have a very, very astute body of individuals on the Administration side, that if there's a will, there's a way to put something together in a very expediently and efficient manner. So I just want to understand what that infrastructure just will look like that would take us more than a year down the line before we can implement? That's all I'm just asking.
So it would require doing dual tier eligibility screening and verification process, which we don't currently do, additional administrative burden on applicants in terms of things we need. We'd have to have a more complex waitlist management system, which we don't have now. Potential -- and let's be clear, we're not saying that we would delay service at all. But what we're saying to implement AMI tiers would be a time-constraint. And if we wanted to do it to make the H.O.M.E. funds available, that would need to happen first. Potential delays in service delivery would just be while we navigate through those priority tiers. So the operational challenges, we're just being honest, could slow down the deployment of some of those critical housing needs while we implement those.
Thank you so much for that point of information. I just wanted to point out that if we start in what I would think is the most logical way, by clearing out the thousands of people who are already waiting who applied under the current eligibility guidelines, that would give us time to put in place the infrastructure that we need to prioritize folks who need our help the most. (Applause.)
Well, that would be the plan. So there's no 6 part of the plan that would say that new applicants would come before people on the waitlist. So I want to make sure we clarify that. And I want to just clarify because there seems to be some notion that new applicants would come before people on the waitlist, and that is not the plan nor has it ever been the plan, and we continue to clear the waitlist before new applicants for those existing programs would be applicants.
Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. I'm just pointing out that there's plenty of time to put in an infrastructure that prioritizes those who need our help the most. And like the Council President said, I fully trust the expertise in our city to be able to do that. I also wanted to ask about, you know, it seems like we're having a discussion that gives the picture that we might be disagreeing where there's no 9 disagreement. Do you all interpret prioritization as an exclusion of anyone over the AMIs of those who need the most help in the city? Do you think that prioritization means the same thing as excluding anyone over a particular AMI because that's certainly not what I am advocating for?
But before you say something, I just want to make it clear that I think we've stated that income is not a reflection of what the need is. You can be at very different income bands, but it does not necessarily reflect what the actual need for repairs are. We want to make sure that everybody that needs access to the repair resources that needs it gets it. So again, increasing the eligibility to a certain requirement doesn't necessarily mean that everybody without those needs will take advantage of those needs. But we don't operate on the indicator that income is the indicator for the need. We operate on the actual repair and scope to reflect what that need is.
I think that's where it's important to us that, Councilmember, especially as Chair of Housing that you understand that's where our stance is. And we know that you have been a champion early on of the H.O.M.E. Plan and of our approach and we appreciate that. I think ongoing conversations have revealed that there is I won't say a disconnect, but further clarification that's needed around what those factors are, as Jesse just clarified. I think that will then -- not I think. That is the reason why we've been very clear in saying that the focus is in its simplest form is to ensure that those who are experiencing deep need that, yes, they benefit from the plan as well as those that in its most simplistic form, as the Mayor says, those that have just a little bit that they benefit as well, when often times in the way our programs were originally designed those folks have not been able to benefit. And so, we talked about this in our testimony, but it's our police officers, our homicide detectives, our firefighters. We're looking at our budgeted positions, the number of vacancies that we have, what type of recruiting that we need to happen in order for those folks to work here and to live here and to be able to afford to live here in the city of Philadelphia. So when we're thinking holistically about this plan, that's what we're thinking about, our teachers, our social workers, the therapists. But I'll turn it over to Angela. I think that she had another point to answer your question.
And the short answer to your question is, no, we don't think that prioritizing is any different. We don't think that. But it's the same the other way. Do you think that by expanding income eligibility that we're prioritizing people at higher? And I think the answer is no there either. So I think you're right, we're not in disagreement on that. But what we're saying is there is a wider need and there are so many people, I live this every single day with my father, who did what he was supposed to do. He retired, but he makes over all of the AMI programs that support him and he's fortunate that I can write a check to help supplement him. And those are the people that we are trying to address. Because when you drive through areas of Philadelphia and see blight and you see the preservation needs, a lot of them are people who just don't qualify for our programs, and our team is seeing that. I mean, Jesse talked about the numbers of people who were denied BSRP because they were just a little over the income. And so, we want to make sure that we are including everyone, and that's why we're expanding those income bands. And to your point, no, we don't think it's excluding anybody, which is why we're trying to be inclusive.
One last statement, CP, and I'll turn it back -- or, Council President, and I'll turn it back over to you?
I don't see what you're saying or proposing as an exclusion necessarily of people, you know, at some of the lowest levels of AMI. But I also don't see in my opinion it being fiscally responsible to open up programs to the middle class without any prioritization of people who but for the city's dollars are going to be on the streets. And we're not talking just about philosophy. We're talking about data. It is not a philosophical disagreement to say that people at certain levels of income in the second poorest city in the country have more needs than people in the middle class --
If I could just finish my statement please. And I also don't believe that it's enough to say we're organically going to help the people who need our help the most. If that is the intention, then we should codify that in the legislation and that's what I'm proposing. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
So again, we're looking at a number of factors. Yes, we're looking at AMI. Yes, we understand that this is the biggest -- the second biggest poor city in the nation. And when that article came out announcing that we were no longer in last place but we're second to last, I'm quoted in that article as saying that we're not celebrating that. Why are we not celebrating that? Because even beyond where we stand on being second or the last in terms of poverty, we're also looking at factors that make up economic mobility. And from an economic mobility perspective, we are in last place. This comprehensive data- driven plan, regardless of how it's framed, it is factual, it is public, it is on our website. This comprehensive data-driven plan focuses on economic mobility as well and that is incredibly important, because we're not just looking at today. We want to ensure that years from now that 9 people that live in Philadelphia 10 that maintain homeownership or become first-time homeowners, that they're not priced out of this market. And so, I'll turn it over now to Angela to respond further.
Thank you, Chief Thurman. I think one of the main points we want to just talk about is a lot of infrastructure is happening within the city to ensure that we are really doing workforce development. And one of the things we historically have seen from policyholders around a lot of our social programs with limits is that as we increase people's ability to achieve more in terms of workforce development, they suddenly are out of programs. I mean, we can think about -- several people I can think of in my life who really had to deny promotions or they had to not take the next job or wait a while so they could get help or they took that next job and suddenly they don't get the daycare assistance they need, and they're suddenly pitted against, oh, I have this better job but now I make 65% of the AMI and I don't get these resources that I need. And so, one of the things about expanding AMI is to really allow people to still get assistance they need because middle income when you look at AMI charts, again we're not talking about billionaires and millionaires. We're talking about a family of four at 80% of the income is $95,000. I'm sure if you guys do quick math, you know four people on $95,000 in this kind of environment where eggs are costing a lot isn't really enough to really sustain that. And so, if you want to encourage people, if you look back into -- particularly, I worked for a public housing authority for a really long time, the system and the barriers to exiting some of the programs there kept it so people didn't want to get that next job because they wouldn't have housing availability. So we want to make sure that we are supporting people as we grow through a lot of the workforce development and economic development strategies we have that they can still get the support they need to maintain their lifestyle and maintain their families and not slip back in. And so, when we're talking about why we're expanding AMIs, we're not just thinking about the people already at 80, but we're thinking about the people we are working to get to higher income bands and ensuring that they still have the support they need. And when we talk about the haves versus the have-a-little-bits, I think that sometimes gets missed because we want everybody to move up in the AMI band and we want to support them, and we're doing a lot of work within the city right now to ensure that we're creating programs to support their development and growth as well.
And that's the economic mobility framework that we're talking about. Just to correct the record, the waitlist is not 10,000. It is still 3700. And --
It's 5700. And I just want to establish the fact that we're working through that queue as we speak, you know. It remains a first-come first-serve program, which means we have to make sure that we get through this program queue before any of this is approved as we speak.
Thank you. Before I turn it over to my next member, I just had one more question in terms of the roll-out of Turn the Key. I want to get an idea of how we will work in partnership with District Councilmembers, right, and irregardless of what goes through the Land Bank, rather it's approved or not and even if it's approved, without the partnership of the actual District Councilmember in terms of shaping what gets built, project is not going to ever move forward. And so, how do we get to the point where, well, what's the strategy. And I know early on we were asked to do 1000 units, right, without wanting to do the traditional process, which we agreed to do because we wanted this process to be successful, what's the plan to strategize with that District member before it gets to that Land Bank process, right? And if the member -- so the member can have input, because I don't think nothing should come out of the Land Bank, just me personally, without the input from the District Councilmember, because at the end of the day it doesn't come back on anybody else regardless if a project is successful or not, it always comes back to that District Councilmember. So just give me an idea of what that strategy is going to be because we also want to have scenarios where projects do get through the Land Bank and somehow it gets out of Land Bank, and then it's like, well, Council was holding the process up and councilmanic prerogative, but we have a law. There's a law. We have a legal responsibility for the disposition of land. That's our legal right, not that whole councilmanic prerogative that the newspaper tries to make like it's some big boogeyman process. But the reality is that's our legal responsibility, a disposition of land, right. So what is the strategy to make sure as you do the 1000 units that there's active participation and conversation with that District Councilmember in partnership with anybody else so when it's time for it to move forward we won't have projects stalling?
Yeah. And Jesse is going to take that question. And there was something that Councilmember Gauthier said earlier that of course I'm reflecting on and I appreciate, we don't take enough time to stop and say thank you. So first, I want to say thank you to the body for your support for the H.O.M.E. Plan and I genuinely mean that.
And especially to the District Councilmembers, thank you as well for entrusting us and saying yes to this new process. And to your point, right, we understand the legal binding that calls for adhering to councilmanic prerogative. We respect that. And so, thank you for agreeing to this process. I'm going to turn it over to Jesse now, but wanted to use this as an opportunity to say thank you because it's an innovative approach. It's different in the City of Philadelphia --
I'll provide a kind of high level of what we've harnessed from previous years as far as the proven track record of success for Turn the Key. Turn the Key does not rule out specifically in any area without the blessing of a Councilperson. So everything we do is in coordination with the Councilperson on top of very informed research that we do around marketing, making sure that -- not marketing in terms of issuing out the notice, but also just marketing in terms of where the market is sustained, this type of price point, this type of product and this type of development. Everything we do in Turn the Key is competitive at this point and everything that we would do on the horizon would remain to be competitive as tied to probably the 1000 property effort that we're tying toward. That's supposed to be tied directly to Turn the Key. Angela can talk about the FUSE fellow that we've onboarded for that specifically. And as she's doing it, I'd call up Angel to --
The 51% that can be affordable and the rest market rate, so that won't be a part of the 1000?
I think we are -- to fulfill this 1000 unit, 1000 property goal that we're establishing hopefully with Council, we want to make sure we set our guardrails on a competitive route. That way we can ensure that there's coordination between us and the Council body about this, the different districts and the geographic locations where this work is going. But again, Angela can talk to you about the FUSE fellow that we've onboarded, and Angel can talk about what we've done in the past and how that's mirroring what we're doing in our approach going forward.
Thank you, Jesse. So as you know, Council did approve pre-authorization for the 1000 lots. And so, we hadn't started that process, but last week we onboarded a FUSE fellow who will help us. She's in the room, Christine, will be working with each District Councilmember. So the whole thought in that is we will work with District Councilmembers to look at the vacant land that they have in their district, and we will select -- they will select with us the land that we will make available for that special disposition process, period. That wouldn't happen -- we can't do it without you. So we are going to work with each District Councilmember to identify what land they want to go in that special disposition process. They will also identify the community partners we need to meet with, and we're going to do all of that on the front end so when it does come to Council and go to the Land Bank, all of that work will have been done. So I think many of you in the spring saw our special disposition engagement process that we proposed. We plan on following that, but it doesn't happen without each District Councilmember first agreeing to not only which properties we're using, but what we would propose to be developed. Obviously, because of the 1500 square feet limit, it's probably going to be a Turn the Key house specifically, but maybe a District Councilmember wants to see a two-family home. So that will be a conversation we have with each District Councilmember in the coming really weeks, because we have somebody who will be solely focused on that and working with the Land Bank team.
I just had one question though, why a fellow and not just bring on an actual -
I wanted to ask that before. I didn't get a chance to when I first heard it. But just -- and I think fellows, because we have a whole group of them sitting behind me that does some great work, but I just want us to understand something of such magnitude that we're working on that a fellow was assigned to it as opposed to just hiring a staff member to actually do it?
We have full-time executive and senior staff that are working alongside of the fellow. The fellow has the opportunity to become a full-time employee. And this is an amazing partnership with FUSE. So please do not see this as a lack of urgency or importance.
Our structure is such that the fellow will work with and report to our senior executive staff.
A lot of my fellows been working on H.O.M.E. too, so if they looking at me cockeyed that's not the case. I was just wondering. That's all. And, Mr. Rodriguez. And then the Chair will recognize Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson. Mr. Rodriguez, did you want to do a brief response? But I think actually Angela really answered the question. Just making sure that as we move forward to get the 1000 units, which we all really aggressively want to get done, that there's engagement in terms of District members helping shape what that looks like in terms of development in their districts. That's all.
Angel Rodriguez. I totally agree with the strategy to go with RFP process. In the past that's worked really well. It's worked well in your district. It's working very well in the 5th District. It's where we get to sit down and really design the request for proposal, make sure the product that's being offered is what the Councilmember wants. And it's been quite successful in the 5th and also in the 2nd to the point that we've done plenty of -- a market number of RFPs and sold those. It's a bulwark of the Turn the Key product as well as in the 5th.
All right. Thank you very much. Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you to all of my Council colleagues for your robust engagement around the H.O.M.E. Plan and to all the members of Mayor Parker's team and the Administration and for all the work that you all have done, even back to the spring. Thank you very much. I am looking forward to continuing to discuss the signature housing initiative, the H.O.M.E. Plan. Housing, as you know, has emerged as one of our city's most urgent and pressing challenges, as far too many Philadelphians are struggling to find and keep stable and affordable housing. And we know that when you don't feel secure in your housing, it's hard to feel secure in any other area in your life, and that goes from your ability to care for your family, to your confidence in planning for your own future. And so, I recognize that this is a complicated issue, something that we need to tackle from every angle and I remain grateful to Mayor Parker and her Administration for working to take this holistic approach in solving our city's housing crisis. I want to especially talk about support of the initiatives that I have been proud to champion, which is the Tangled Title Prevention and Resolution program and also the Wills program. I'm saying the Wills program, Angela, because as we know the most affordable home is the one that you already have. And we also recognize that according to Pew, more than 10,000 Philadelphia homes worth more than $1.1 billion are trapped in tangled titles and deeds. And so, you all know my story. I know firsthand how stressful that process can be and how difficult it can be to navigate those challenging situations. And so, my goal is to ensure that we are providing Philadelphia residents with the tools to not only prevent tangled titles and deeds in the first place, but also to support those who are going through it. And so, these two programs will help build and preserve generational wealth because when we help families keep their homes, we are not just preserving their properties, we're preserving legacy, stability and the promise of a stronger, more vibrant Philadelphia for generations to come. And so, with that I leave you with one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite philosophers, and that's Jay Z. He said, "Generational wealth, that's the key. My parents didn't have much so the shift must start with me." And so, I'm hopeful that the shift starts with us. And so, with that I appreciate you providing the tangled title funding breakdown. I wanted to go through it on the record to ensure that we are on the same page about the funding and how it will be spent from each source. So I'll start with CDBG. According to the spreadsheet that you all shared on October 23, 2025, the Tangled Title program receives $100,000 in annual CDBG contributions; is that correct?
Okay. Thank you very much for verifying. And what are those funds spent on?
Okay. And can you just be more specific when you say legal services?
So tangled title contains generally speaking a legal aid component. So we partner with CLS, Senior Law, PLA and VIP to implement legal services and also estate planning and will services. So we've broadly couched that as the CDBG funding supporting legal services among those organizations.
Okay. Great. And for Housing Trust Fund, according to the spreadsheet that you also shared on October 23, 2025 the Tangled Title program receives 900,000 in annual Housing Trust Fund contributions; is that also correct?
So I think the sheet I have in front of me has around 750,000, 755.
Okay. So what are those funds being spent on?
So legal services, estate planning and some of that money goes directly to the Tangled Title Fund, allowing the homeowners or prospective homeowners to access assistance to secure the home.
Okay. And then I see 500,000 for estate planning and legal services; is that correct?
And if there's $900,000 available, why are we only allocating 755,000 total via HTF?
So maybe I need clarity. When you say there's 900 -- I think our numbers look a little different.
And so, that's why I'm doing this. Because we know we met and I know we have to have additional meetings, but it is very important to me that we get this on the record.
Because the allocations that I have that came directly from the Administration are stating 255,000 for the Tangled Title Fund; 500,000 for estate planning and legal services. But we know that there's 900,000 available. But the allocation is only 755,000. And I know that that may be a minuscule number to folks and something that we could change, but it's something that we talked about at the briefing. And you know that this issue, tangled titles, is personal to me. It is one of the reasons why so many families, particularly Black and Brown families, are losing their generational wealth and their properties and cannot sustain in the city any longer because they're not able to save these homes. And again, I know that the additional allocation would be helpful even if it's 145,000 difference that we're talking about, is going to be helpful to many more families.
Yeah. So I just want to be clear, there's a lot of figures in front of me on the sheet and I'm happy to work through those. We don't want to leave any money on the table for tangled title services or anything. So if that appears to be the case, we can certainly clear that up. The number that you just gave me, that 145, that may be indicative of a portion of the new increase in recording fees that allowed us to distribute money in two different ways. One is adding money directly to the Tangled Title Fund so more households can get tangled title assistance. The other is going to the Department of Records to a partner of ours in these efforts who is going to do some outreach work around that.
Right. And I do see that under outreach. And so, my only concern -- and, Mr. President, I'm more than happy to come back around because I have a few numbers that I need to get on the record, because this program in specific for me is extremely important. And so, I do see the 145,000 for Department of Records for transfer tax increase, but it was supposed to be the 900,000 total that was available. And so, I'll come back on the next round to clarify some of the General Fund dollars that are on the spreadsheet as well as the NPI as well as the transfer tax increase and also some of the other current budget recommendations.
I would love to. Okay. I'm going to continue to move on. So I'll go back to the General Fund. According to the spreadsheet that you shared on October 23rd, the Tangled Title program received 75,000 in annual General Fund contributions; is that correct? And what is it spent on?
To clarify, Councilmember Gilmore Richardson, I know that we've been working around the clock with Council President and his team. Our latest figures may not match because we recently shared new numbers and new spreadsheet in the negotiation process. And so, in full transparency if there is a disconnect, we do have the latest numbers sitting with the Council President. We also can respond in writing in short order to clarify any questions you may have regarding the tangled title. And it is very clear to us how important it is. I know we had a press conference just weeks ago. No, you couldn't make it, but it was because of your ongoing support and champion of that work and the work that's happening with Jim Leonard in partnership with Mayor Parker, under her leadership of course, that we got to where we are. And so, want to just also recognize that and acknowledge that on the record as well. I'll turn it back over to Mark, but did want to acknowledge that we've had a round of meetings and been in ongoing negotiations and talks with the Council President's office and spreadsheets going back and forth since October 23rd, but I'll turn it back over to Mark.
Sure. And I appreciate that work. Don't think that I discount it at all.
And the only reason why I couldn't make it that day was because I had to pick up my son from school. And I just want to put that on the record because my children come first --
But I need to put this on the record because I need to have assurances -- I need to have assurances that what we talk about and what we agree to and that our understanding while we're here on the record in this hearing is what we discussed. And so, it is important to me that I put this on the record, because I've been here long enough to understand that a lot of papers fly back and forth. But if it's not on the record and if it's not in writing, it does not exist. And so, I need to put all of this on the record. If you would just indulge me please so that I could get all of this out so that we're all on the same page. And I know you all care about this issue just as much as I do. But when I think about where we are as a city and the amount of sort of the middle class, lower middle class families that we are losing to the collar counties based on the census data, even the most recent census data that we have received, it showcases a situation where those folks, the have-nots with the have-a-littles that you talked about, have a little over, that those folks are fleeing to the collar counties because they have a little bit over, okay, and they're trying to get better housing and educational opportunities for their children and do a variety of different things. And so, then we're left with the situation in Philadelphia where we have those individuals who could potentially benefit from this program. And I'm not talking about just tangled titles. I'm talking about the H.O.M.E. Plan in general, stories that I've even seen in the paper of individuals who have moved to Philadelphia and they've been able to purchase homes with the housing programs that we have, but then we're not helping the folks who are here. And so, my concern is that we unintentionally create a circumstance where you have more higher-income individuals, individuals who can afford homes that may be over 3, 4, and 5 and 6 and $700,000, based on the data that even I received as Chair of Finance, with the type of residential mortgage lending that's happening across the city, that those folks can afford to stay here, and then we have a ton of folks who are in what we call the very, very low income population who will continue to have to depend on the social service net that we have created in Philadelphia. But yet we lose our middle class, which is the tax base that we have to depend upon to keep this city going. And so, that's why this issue is so important to me because many of those families who suffer with the tangled titles or deeds are families that can have generational wealth that they're just able to maintain if we just set up the programs in a way that they are allowed to take advantage of these opportunities, maintain their generational wealth, stay in the city of Philadelphia, be positive, contributing individuals to our tech space and help our what we call middle neighborhoods, which is a neighborhood that our former colleague and now Mayor Parker talked about, like in her district and Dr. Phillips' District in the 9th or like the district that I live in that Councilmember Jones represents in the 4th. And so, that's why this issue is important to me. And I never fully put all of that on the record so you all understand the full thinking about that but I felt the need to share that. So you understand why I need to get this on the record, why I'm committed to continuing to work with you all on this issue. But this is something that I think we have to focus on. Because you talk about Turn the Key, and I have one staffer that took advantage of Turn the Key. It's a great program. I'm excited for her. She's a first-time homebuyer, I'm thrilled. You talk about the One Philly Mortgage program and I'm sure I have questions about that later as well. But again, we want to make sure people who are here are able to take advantage of those programs.
Mr. President, I apologize. I needed to really put that on the record so they understood where I was coming from. Mr. President, if possible, may I ask for additional moments to ask the questions that I have?
Okay. Thank you very, very much, Mr. President. And so --
That's leadership, our leadership team. Go ahead, Majority Leader. (Applause.)
So according to the spreadsheet that you all shared on October 23rd, again, of 2025, the Tangled Title program receives $2,141,491 from NPI; is that correct? And what are the funds spent on?
Yeah. So I want to go back just real quick. The 900k, it looks like that is a combination of the two Housing Trust Fund subfunds, recording fee in the General Fund, as well as the 145. We just parsed it out as coming from the Records Department. So I believe all of that money is allocated. And then --
Okay. And then for the 75, did you want to go back to the 75,000? Do you have that one or you want me to keep going?
Also, that money goes directly to VIP. And I believe that goes directly into the Tangled Title Fund.
Right, Tangled Title Fund. Then why wouldn't that money be included on the spreadsheet of all the funds? You see what I mean, it's parsed out.
So traditionally, the NPI budget has contained 1.9 million for tangled title services. The figures that we've seen in contracts that we have with the agencies that I referenced earlier are a bit higher. I can't speak to exactly why they're higher, but I'm assuming that's because of unspent funding from prior years. I was just looking at the most -- we were just looking at the most recent budgets when we came up with that figure. And our intention with the H.O.M.E. bond is, as we discussed this, to make sure that we're not reducing any amount of tangled title funding.
So from my understanding, those funds will be spent on legal services, the Tangled Title Fund -- just pulling up everything here -- estate planning, the NAC program -- and also the NAC program?
Okay. When will the contracts under NPI end? And are there any opportunities for additional renewal?
I can't give you the exact date because there are so many contracts that support a number of different organizations. I think some are set to end at the end of the calendar year, but as long as there is funding available through NPI, H.O.M.E. bond we will continue to amend those contracts to extend them for time.
So if possible, can we just get a list of all those contract end dates and if there are opportunities for renewals and which NACs are currently receiving the funding for the pilot program. And I know there's one specifically in Councilman Young's District that's doing an excellent job. We've worked with them together as well. And how much you all receive -- I mean, how much they all, the NACs receive? And then if you all have evaluated the programs and how we could grow the investment there so there's a permanent additional support? And if you're ensuring that each zip code with the highest number of tangled titles has a NAC that is resourced to do the education and the connection to the legal service providers that we're funding?
So I can address a couple of those things. I may be missing some. But we currently fund three NACS to help with intake. They each receive $30,000 a piece through NPI funding. I believe we are, through the H.O.M.E. bond, looking to expand the number of NACs that we support. And I think that could go a couple different ways and we can have that conversation with you that could be bringing on seven or so new NACs. So upping that total from 3 to 10, it could be potentially increasing an allocation to an existing organization like you referenced who's doing a really good job.
And I have to interject here and say that the 10, I think in support of my District colleagues, is ensuring that they each have a representative of someone that can help with the tangled titles in their area. Okay.
I think we can take that into consideration, but we'll also need to look at where those organizations that might do that work are located and things like that.
Thank you. And I'll come back on the next round. Thank you very, very much, Council President.
Good. Thank you. Just for rather a point of information. I know we discussed this before behind the scenes in terms of going through this process. I think also it would be prudent to just provide the Majority Leader with like what the plan is going to be, the key NACs from your perspective that you think are probably the most qualified to carry out this initiative and then maybe we can go from there to kind of sign off on how best to move forward. But I know we did have a conversation in the past regarding how you will roll out what NACs you think has the capability, which ones you want to invest in. And so, if you could provide the Majority Leader with what you actually think the actual strategy is going to be. So it won't be this is what we think we want to do, but at least do a little extra homework and say from my analysis in doing this work in the past these are the key organizations that we're looking to invest in moving forward. At least that's how I would approach it, I think.
That sounds fair. One of the things we discussed is kind of train the trainer model where some of the higher-performing NACs could onboard some of the newer organizations that may not have experience. So things like that, we can spell that out in more detail.
Our Mayor is community-based from the ground up, grassroots. That's our style. That's the style that we've employed. So we absolutely are committed to providing a NAC strategy for you all.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Chair recognizes Councilmember Rue Landau.