Thank you, Council President. Thank you to the City for being here on what is such an incredibly important issue. I think you know I've been an advocate for the full 800 million since the beginning. I am so excited for Philadelphia. I am so excited for this investment that we are going to have in our neighborhoods, in our families. I really think we're at a transformative moment in Philadelphia with this amount of money that we've approved and that we will approve and how it will be invested. So I wanted to talk a little bit about tiers of funding. We have such great programs in Philadelphia already, between Basic Systems Repair, Built to Last, Adaptive Modifications, certainly the investment we're doing in Tangled Title, it is all essential work and I'm so proud of us that we've been doing it, that we want to continue doing it. But I think as we have this moment in time, this moment in time that really will jet Philadelphia into a place where we have every neighborhood, every household thriving, that we should prioritize where we are putting the money, at the minimum starting with our first allocation. I am not talking about the entire 800 million at this moment. I want to talk about this first 200 million, the first chance we have to make change here in Philadelphia; the first chance we have where we are just barely still the poorest large city in America; the first chance we have to make sure that we can cut other costs in the city of Philadelphia by making sure that people have housing and are not in our shelter systems, that have housing and are not in our prisons, that we can keep children with their families so they are not evicted, so we no 6 longer have to use DHS resources to go through a very arduous process of family reunification. We are on the cusp of this. We can do this and I am all in to help. But I wanted to talk about your thoughts again on the prioritization of who will get these benefits in the beginning, in the very, very beginning. I heard Jesse Lawrence say income is not a reflection of the need. And Chief Staff Thurman, you said prioritizing or limiting to lower AMI requires infrastructure we don't have. I wanted to dig down on that a little bit more. I know that folks who are applying for these programs are assessed based on their income of what they have, are they eligible or are they not. In the short period of time that we have to spend our first 200-plus million, let's do it with the infrastructure that we do have. We have systems that work. Let's make it happen. Let's meet the need where it is. We know we have waiting lists. We know that demand has exceeded these waiting lists. And when this press comes out of what this amazing investment will do, lifting the Mayor and her Administration, uplifting all of us up, when the word gets out, I can guarantee that people in those income brackets that didn't know the help was there, they will be able to come in for Eviction Prevention money, for Fresh Start money, they will line up. We can do this. I wanted to talk more about the infrastructure in capabilities that we might have and why if this is a city subsidy, there indeed is throughout the city we are going to have a city subsidy funded by the taxpayers, why can't we at least now have the focus on the lowest income people and codify that in this resolution? (Applause.)
We are not going to remain the second poorest city in this nation in the next decade in the years to come. We're also not going to remain in last place from an economic mobility perspective and we're thinking about that holistically. So we're thinking about those who are very low income. To just correct the record, really quick I did want to say that we did not say that income is not a factor. We said income is not the sole factor. So we're thinking about everyone, not just -- we're thinking about the people, unlike Angela's father, who doesn't have a daughter that can write a check. That's who we're thinking about and that's what this plan is built on. So I'll turn it over to Jesse now. But I did want to correct that as well as before I turn it over to Jesse, while we do have significant limitations in our infrastructure, not just with regards to H.O.M.E. but across the board, our systems are significantly outdated and they've been outdated long before we got here.
And of course as the former head of Human Relations you have experienced, Councilmember Landau, what those significant challenges are. What we're not going to do is to allow the constraints that we have with our infrastructure to prevent us from moving forward. And so, we are, you know, going back to something that the Council President said, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We will fix our infrastructure but we're not going to allow that to inhibit us from moving forward. I'll turn it now to Jesse.
Chief of Staff stole a little bit of my thunder, but it's okay. I just want to be clear about the fact that, you know, she's absolutely right. We are not saying that income is the only. It's just a limiting indicator, right. Just because you make over a certain amount doesn't necessarily reflect what your debt-to-income ratio is, what your disposable income above that number that you make is. And I think that we've been very clear about the fact that we want this to be as comprehensive as possible. This investment alone will be historically bigger than anything that this city has ever seen before. So even the 40% of those that would be -- the 40% of these funds that will be serving those at 30% and below, that's still more than any dedication of funds that we've ever had in the past. And even then, we have a significant amount of people, 63 -- excuse me, 68% of beneficiaries will be those between 0 to 50% of AMI. So the majority, a majority, more than 50% of those in these populations will be served by this plan. So I just want to make sure that's very clear. We might not be prioritizing the 30% but we certainly are serving that income band in ways that I think historically they have not been served in the past.
A couple of follow-up questions, if that's okay. Just to get a couple of other things on the record too, can you confirm that the Philadelphia Eviction Prevention Program, Right to Counsel and Rowhouse Prevention Project are fully funded for FY26 by the General Fund and therefore do not require any FY26 funding from H.O.M.E.? And if that's the case, can you confirm this funding will also be in the Administration's proposed FY27 General Fund budget to keep these essential programs going?
So I can confirm. So for PEPP, the Philadelphia Eviction Prevention Project, it's not just General Fund, but General Fund makes up the bulk of that program. There's some NPI funding as well as a little bit of CDBG money. That program is all in place and set, you know, allocated for FY26. Rowhouse Protection Project is currently funded with Housing Trust Funds and that is also continuing for FY26. We anticipate -- not only, I'll go back to PEPP. That program actually has a little bit more money than it did in FY25. So hopefully, we can expand again as we have been doing to provide right to counsel services in an additional zip code or two. We anticipate both of those programs being fully operational in FY27 as well.
Taking this opportunity, can you state for the record how many applications for the Fresh Start program you received this year once the budget was increased as a result of unused emergency rental assistance funding? How much was distributed and how much need remains?
So we'll have to get the exact figures on the amount of households that benefited from that program. But about $15 million was allocated in reallocated emergency rental assistance dollars. Fresh Start was the -- how should I put this -- driving force for that. However, due to the need to spend quickly, the vision for the Fresh Start program is to provide move-in cost, one-time payment of $1,000 plus three months of assistance to give someone a fresh start. Due to the requirements with the ERAP funding, we were able to actually take care of tenants arrears as well and it was a need to spend down so we did that at that time. The figures I have show that about million in emergency 14 rental assistance, because some of 15 the money went to admin, some went to a different program, is Fresh Start-related, but about half of that is for move-in costs and about the other half went to arrears. When we go forward with the H.O.M.E. Plan as we're conceiving it and from lessons learned, we intend for Fresh Start to focus fully on move-in costs and somebody moving into a new unit.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cindy Bass.
Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, almost afternoon. So just a couple of things I wanted to ask and I want to just go in a slightly different direction. And I wanted to ask about the 765 closings for Turn the Key that have happened thus far in 2025 that you mentioned earlier. Can you give us an idea of where they are broken down by Council District? Can you give us some idea? You know, is it happening all over? Are there some neighborhoods that are seeing more investment in Turn the Key versus others?
Well, we would certainly like to see it happen river to river, top to bottom in the city, but that's not the case right now. We are open to making sure that that happens. But historically and where we're presently seeing that activity are in South Philadelphia, the 1st and 2nd District specifically, Northern Liberties, kind of that area which is the 1st District. We're seeing some activity uptick in the 5th District as well. I do believe we have some approvals on deck and in the queue for the 8th District or at least some applications that we're processing. Specifically, there aren't any to a certain extent in the 3rd or maybe there are a few in the 3rd, but at this point there are concentrations of pockets. And obviously that really just follows where the inventory of land is. The bulk of our land, publicly- owned land, are in the 3rd, the 5th and the 7th Districts.
Okay. And so, I ask that because it seems as though -- well, let me just put it this way: It's very important to me as a District member that funds are equally divided by district, that these projects are equally divided by district. And so, I understand that in some areas there has been an ability to move faster maybe. And because there's been an ability to move faster, that's where the investment has been made, whether it's the 1st or the 2nd or, you know, in certain neighborhoods, Northern Liberties. But I think that it is incredibly important I think to all District members that we see an equal amount of investment throughout the entire city of Philadelphia. There is not one part of the city that I can think of that doesn't need a high level of investment. And so, we're counting on this project to make sure that that happens. And I don't know if we need to somehow codify that or amend that into law. But I think that it's very, very important that these investments are made throughout the entire city of Philadelphia.
Angel's sitting up here. You can speak to some of the things that have led us to where we are now.
So Angel Rodriguez. Just to clarify, we have RFPs and projects completed and in construction in the 1st District, the 2nd District, the 3rd District, the 4th District, the 5th District and we have approved applications in your District as well.
The 6th I think -- so just to talk about inventory, the Turn the Key program is predicated on having city-owned land. The 10th District I believe has two parcels and then the 6th District has very little. And by the way, that would be amenable to bundling it into an RFP.
And I would say that those two districts probably haven't -- and Councilmember Driscoll could correct me if I'm incorrect. I believe that those two districts have been heavily invested in by the City of Philadelphia during previous administrations. Historically, the Northeast has received larger amounts of investment by the City of Philadelphia. And so, I think that that's why you probably can take them off the table. But let's say if you take them off the table, for the others that don't see this level of investment that haven't had it, I think it's just incredibly important to make sure that we have an equal distribution of those projects throughout the entire city of Philadelphia. It can't just be in South Philly. It can't just be in Northern Liberties. It's got to be in Germantown. It's got to be in West Philadelphia. It's got to be in Councilmember Quetcy Lozada's District. It's got to be all over. So again, I don't know if that's something that we need to think about codifying in some way or legislating, amending the legislation to ensure that there is somewhat of a balance in terms of distribution. I'm going to move quickly because I heard the bell ring and I was just on my first question. But one thing I just want to mention is that it's incredibly frustrating as a member of Council that we fund sort of like these OIT and infrastructure programs that help us be able to manage and do the things that we need to do administratively. And then when we hear that we need a better waitlist management system so that we can overcome the operational challenges that are in front of us, it's a little bit frustrating because I've been hearing that for a very long time now. And the idea that we still don't have any sort of system that has any sort of flexibility to be able to navigate changes or programs that we want to do, it's incredibly frustrating and it feels like we've wasted a lot of money over the years.
It's equally as frustrating for us, Councilmember Bass. We are astounded by how outdated the technology and infrastructure is that we inherited just last year, which is why we are super charging and speeding up solutions like OPAL and ensuring that that solution is integrated into our systems in record time. We also have additional technological enhancements that are coming down the pipeline. We are not going to allow for bureaucracy to get in the way. I have sat at this table many of times and made promises, including with Philly Stat 360. And you said, well, who do I need to hold accountable. I said, the buck stops with me and that still stands today. So OIT is in my portfolio. CIO Melissa Scott Walker is doing a really good job --
-- with her team. We're moving as fast as we can. We're also thinking strategically about how we can move even faster with solutions and support from our procurement team looking at things like strategic sourcing. So we're thinking about it comprehensively. But just for the record, I want to be very clear we share your frustration, but we're not allowing that to be an excuse for why we cannot move forward.
Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Looking forward to these changes. And I should not put the blame solely in your lap because this has been administration after administration that has come and said we're going to fix the IT situation so that we can do this, that and the third and it just never happens. We waste a lot of money and I just don't understand why. But I don't want to get sidetracked on that point, but I just really wanted to make mention of that. But I really wanted to talk about minority development participation in Turn the Key, because we're spending an unprecedented amount of money. These are taxpayer dollars and we're spending it here on housing in Philadelphia. And this initiative, which was spearheaded by our Mayor, is the largest investment ever in housing. Am I correct in that?
Okay. And so, people ask me -- when I see folks and they ask me for help in my office, they're generally asking for two things. They're either asking for housing help or they're looking for employment. And housing is usually first, especially right now. So as we're rising to meet this moment and give people what they want, which I believe every member in this chamber wants to do, it's important to me that as we stabilize families, as we build up neighborhoods and at the same time we're investing in our communities, we're investing in small businesses, and particularly Black and Brown builders and developers. And I feel very passionate about this. And I'd like for you to give us some details. And we've talked about these kinds of things before. But I'd like for you to give us some details on what's been built and what the participation has looked like. And I know that there are some developers who have done great partnerships, you know, majority and minority developers working together. But specifically on minority development, I'm talking about Black and Brown development, can you give us an idea as to how those projects have been distributed? Because I referred Black and Brown developers to Turn the Key, and they've been turned away. And they have been told -- well, Angel, I saw that face. But let me just be clear, what they have been told is you don't qualify, you're not ready yet, you have to go through this program, you have to go through that program. And so, the startup to get involved in Turn the Key -- and of course, we don't want anyone who's not qualified and is not a builder, but people who have done considerable building in the city find themselves unable to get into the Turn the Key program and they feel like they've been going through hoops. And I've seen this before in the City of Philadelphia when we do development projects. I've seen this before so I know it's not something that is not possible. And I hear the bell. But I guess my question is how will we ensure that the inclusion of Black and Brown builders is finally a priority in the city with this project? Because as much as we're building community, we also have to build businesses. And Black and Brown people cannot continuously be on the outside as economic bystanders in their own communities. We want these new houses and we want to build them in our neighborhoods and we shouldn't be spending this amount of money without ensuring that that is going to happen. This can be transformative. I'm going to use the word that my colleague Rue Landau just mentioned. This is transformative. And so, how do we also make sure that we're including people who have historically been left out of these projects? And I get criticized all the time. I get criticized all the time because people say, just build, it doesn't matter who builds it. Oh, yes, it does. Oh, yes it does. It does matter to make sure that Black and Brown people have an opportunity to do the building in their own neighborhoods and have a say economically. So I'd like for you to just respond to that. (Applause.)
So Angel Rodriguez is going to take that question. There's a word that you used that I think is timely and befitting and it's transformation. And often times when we focus on equity, we stop right there. But true equity should, in its purest form, lead to transformation. And that's what we're looking at with this comprehensive plan. Angel is going to answer that question. But back to the question that you asked earlier around an equal distribution or even distribution across Council districts, that would further and deepen inequity, and that's what we want to move away from. And so, whether it's looking at Black and Brown developers that are working on these projects in realtime or looking at where the distribution of funds happen, we're applying an equity framework that will lead to true transformation, so that from an economic mobility perspective we're moving significantly from last place. But more specifically, Angel will talk about the real work that we're doing to ensure that Black and Brown contractors and developers are working on these projects across the city.
And I would like to follow up with you later. I don't want to take up all the time, but I would like to follow up with you later to get a sense of why you feel that having an equal distribution of projects throughout the city is somehow going to be inequitable, that this is not going to be, because I don't understand the logic behind it. So maybe you can help us understand because that doesn't resonate I don't think in my opinion.
I'll call on Angela Brooks to talk about the framework and why we are not looking at an equal distribution across Council Districts and why we're applying the equity framework.
Good afternoon or is it almost afternoon. So I think we talked about this a little when we met and just kind of talked through that. You know, I think one of the things when we talked about the equal distribution -- I'm not going to say technologically challenging given our last conversation. But the reality of it is particularly around Turn the Key, while it specifically -- it's where our public land is, other programs are going to be deployed. So when we're reaching out to you to talk through the 1000 disposition, we'll also be talking about our outreach plan. The Mayor has requested from us a robust marketing and outreach plan for H.O.M.E. specifically that will be deployed in every Council District. So I do want to stress that we do plan for citywide deployment of all of the programs to ensure people know about them, because too often we're hearing, oh, I didn't know about this program. PHDC already does a pretty amazing job with community engagement, but we're going to put it on steroids. So the housing fair we just had last month was really big and great, but we're going to continue to do that and expand our community outreach. And if ever you have any suggestions of people in your district that you feel like we're not touching, let us know. I mean, that is my sole job is kind of to be the face of H.O.M.E., the outreach person. So if you have people that you want us to talk to, I'm on a whole road show. I've been presenting all over, so feel free to reach out or have your staff reach out and we can do that, but the plan is to have a robust deployment of all kind of marketing throughout the city.
Need isn't evenly distributed across Council Districts. Poverty isn't equally distributed across Council Districts.
I beg to differ. I pretty much think every District Councilperson can point to a pocket of their district that needs a whole lot of help. So how does that connect to, you know, somehow being unfair to Black and Brown developers if --
No, absolutely not. In no way am I saying that that is unfair to Black and Brown developers. I was answering the question that you had asked earlier regarding the Council District.
But I'll turn it back over to Angela Brooks, who will answer the question specifically regarding Black and Brown developers.
But if I may add just kind of hearing what my Chief is saying here and what you're saying as well. A lot of what our work and momentum does is it follows where the land is, and a lot of where our inventory is, is a reflection of condemnations eminent domain from years and years and years ago. So I think that it is kind of a ripple effect. I do recognize what you're saying in making sure that every single district does merit some sort of intervention, for sure.
I hear you and I think that before decisions are made in terms of where land will be used for this program, that there has to be some conversation to say, you know, Councilwoman Bass, we've been to your district, there's no more land left, and then we release any expectation that you all are going to be doing Turn the Key in our program. But short of that, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the equal distribution of these projects. So there has to be some sort of a sign-off, if you will, that says, okay, there's nothing in this Council District so that's why we're not going to be operating here and the District Councilperson has to be in agreement. But for the remaining districts, there should be an equal distribution of this project, of the resources.
You want to respond, Angel, briefly to the Councilmember.
Certainly. I think I can provide a little bit more detail and technical issues on the distribution of Turn the Key. So when Turn the Key started, it's really a partnership between city and city agencies that have land developers who can actually get construction financing and banks, right. So a couple of issues. I want you to imagine a donut where development has happened around city-owned land. So you have comps, comparatives, so banks like to secure their loans, right. So the unique nature of Turn the Key is that you could have a donut where houses are selling for about 300,000 which is the average housing sales price in Philadelphia. We're capping that price at 280. We're requiring three bedrooms, two bath. And then with Turn the Key, we're buying that property down to 180. That secures the bank investment. That ensures the ability of the developer to get that loan but also ensures that, as we're approving buyers, they can go in there. So those are really market forces. So there have been times where we've been very successful, like, say, in the 2nd District where we've done a lot of RFPs and it's been very successful. And then there are certain parts of the district where the market hasn't caught up. The same with the 5th District, also in the 4th District. So part of it is really looking comprehensively at the district and where those comps are. So where you have comps, Turn the Key will succeed. If that isn't the case, then we need to look at a different type of model, right. So if I could answer on the minority developers. Just so we're aware, approximately 330 properties or project units have been awarded to minority developers. PHDC, when we started Turn the Key, started a minority developer program. We've had two cohorts. They've been very successful. We partner with UDA, the Urban Developers Association. They have a great partnership in the 3rd District where we have 7 developers working through that. 8 A lot of those 9 developers are getting through the 10 entitlement project issue, which is separate and apart from approving the land, and then it's how do you get your entitlements. The other thing we did at the same time when we started Turn the Key was we beefed up the Accelerator Fund. So the Accelerator Fund dealt with the pain point with minority developers where they couldn't come up with the equity portion, and they've done a great job of really underwriting those projects. So I wouldn't say that we haven't been working with minority developers. Actually -- and the public can see this in the next Land Bank board meeting we've actually diversified our -- because of the success and we just had a ribbon-cutting, I know Dawud Bey is in the audience, seeing that kind of success -- and he's a MDP graduate -- seeing that kind of success, a lot of other people have joined in. So you have to understand there are minority developers who want to do it but they are nervous about risk, because what people are missing about the Turn the Key program is that it is a leverage program. You have to be able to be creditworthy with banks to get construction financing. Where we're providing the subsidy is to the homebuyer. The homebuyer is getting that opportunity to buy their home. So we are doing a lot. Could we do more, yes. But I think having 330 of the 870, that's pretty good in terms of a percentage.
So I hear you and I know I'm over my time. And I saw Mr. Bey somewhere just come in a few minutes ago. And actually, he's the only single minority developer that I know of in the Turn the Key. And maybe I just don't know, but he's the only one -- I see you, Mo. I'm not counting you. Black and Brown --
But I say that to say when I see these projects, for the most part when you go onsite and you see the projects being built, you don't see Black and Brown people, period, and it's happening. And, Angel, listen, you can come out with me and we can go around and we can take a look around at some of these projects. So don't take my word for it. But let me go back and do my due diligence and I would like to provide in writing the documentation from the parties that have tried and reached out and I would like to bring them to the table with you all.
Sure. If I could respond. There are approximately 15 minority Black and Brown developers that are working with us, and I would differentiate around 15. And these are companies. These are --
Excuse me, Member Landau. Do you want to be acknowledged and then ask the question as a point of information under her time?
So there are about 15 developers that have successfully gotten an application, right. I would also differentiate ownership, owning the company and actually working through the contracting and financing and then looking at the job force that's on the site. So what the Turn the Key program is focusing on is ownership, and it's really about the minority owners of the construction and development companies.
Excuse me. For a point of information, the Chair recognizes Rue Landau for a question she wanted to ask following up on Member Bass' line of questioning.
I would 9 have to get that to you. I think 10 we have about like 20, but I'd have 11 to follow up with you. 12
So I think 13 it's also important for us to 14 recognize, right, Councilmember, 15 that those Black and Brown firms that you're referencing that for whatever reason were denied, there are provisions within this plan to ensure that whatever those denials were that we can work with them, from bond you want to --
Bond, contracting, things like that. Things that have historically been barriers before.
We will definitely circle back in writing, but we do want to reflect here that we're thinking strategically about what those historic barriers have been and how this plan could help to address those barriers as well.
Yeah. Just to balance in terms of this approach, just say for the record the gap financing that's available for developers who historically haven't had an opportunity to participate and also talk about what's the dollar amount of investment in the minority developers program as well as the Accelerator Fund that goes to helping developers, so just state that for the record so folks will know.
I think we'll get the number on the actual MDP program itself, but I would like to call up David Langley to speak specifically about those numbers in the past, because what I do know is that 90% of the funds that have come through the Accelerator Fund have gone to Black and Brown developers. David.
Thanks, Jeff. I'm pleased to provide some of that information for you. While I can't speak for anything the Accelerator Fund does not touch within our portfolio, we have closed and committed $14.2 million worth of loans. of those 29 are 20 to Black- or Brown-owned firms. We 21 have a couple nonprofits in the 22 portfolio as well. 23 That covers over 100 24 units of Turn the Key development. of those transactions that I was talking about are specifically committed Turn the Key projects that have not gone through the full disposition process yet, but we have derisked those transactions for a senior lender to come in and make those loans and build those units. And as soon as the purchase development agreements come through for that, all of those units will be under construction. So it's been a long while building the pipeline and everything, we work very closely with both MDP as well as the Philly Rise, Black Squirrel Collective, the UDA cohort, all of these fantastic technical assistance programs that get Black- and Brown- owned businesses ready to do this kind of development work. And that's what we're focused on.
14.2 million in overall committed or closed financing. We don't exclusively do Turn the Key. So some of those are affordable rental projects, predev into low-income housing tax credit projects. We run the gamut, because our view is the city needs all kinds of quality affordable housing.
And 18 what percentage of that 14.2 went 19 to that 26? 20
The 21 overwhelming majority. I don't 22 have -- the nonprofit to be 23 financed -- 24
Let's say you got $100 million right. And you'll say, okay, well, there are applicants, 8 of which 4 were minority, 80% were minority 5 and got funding. But it's $100 6 million and they got 10 million and 7 the other 90 million went to, you 8 know. 9
I can 10 assure you it's nothing like that. We have a $330,000 pre dev loan into a low-income housing tax credit project that just got its tax credits. That's Pathways to Housing, which does excellent work. I would also encourage you, Councilwoman, if you have a developer who has spoken with you about this and has a project, whether it's Turn the Key or not, because we do affordable rental, we do affordable homeownership that's not Turn the Key subsidized, dlangley@phlfund.com, send them my way. I respond always within hours. We do our best to be responsive in that.
Thank you. 8 The Chair recognizes 9 Councilman Nicolas O'Rourke. 10
11 Thank you, Mr. President. And 12 thank you to the Administration for 13 being here today -- 14
18 Yes, sir, I will do just that. 19 Thank you, sir. Kind of picking up 20 where other members have already 21 spoken to or left off. I just want 22 to state that the current H.O.M.E. 23 Plan allocations I think in my and 24 other members' opinions try to do too many things and I know that that means it won't do any of them well enough to actually meet the moment. I think that you're contending that the spread equals wide impact, and I guess what we're wanting, at least myself, is that it will be wide but it won't be deep enough. And then we'll look back on the work after so many years, see that we spent a lot and then won't have the intended effect that I think that we all agree that we want. With the federal and state governments reining crisis after crisis on us, I do think that we need to rethink our strategy and we need to focus more attention on the most urgent need, the programs that keep homeowners and renters safe, healthy and in affordable homes. (Applause.)
Now, that does not mean that we're leaving anyone out to dry. It does mean addressing our housing shortage, where as Member Gauthier said, it most clearly exists at the deeply affordable level, and that includes both the have-nots and have-a-little-bits, and working to ensure that it is not a burden to remain housed in the city of Philadelphia. Maintaining home ownership levels is a worthwhile goal. Helping out as many kinds of Philadelphians as possible is always the task. But I look at the list of priorities prior to last night, and we see a plan in my opinion that's in need of a grounding orientation, a grounding orientation that is informed by those who are fighting to stay in their homes, organized to do so, those fighting for a community where their neighbor isn't priced out. Many of them are sitting in the chamber here today and I believe that they provide that orientation in spades. I think that theirs is the right hand to play at this time and I hope this hearing will actually help make that case to this body and the public that we probably represent. To that end, I'm actually concerned that we're on track to lose, I think we've already spoken at this, at least 12,000 deeply affordable units permanently in the next decade, probably twice that in years as 19 contracts with the federal 20 government expire without renewal. This is deeply affordable housing that will permanently vanish forever. And I want that to sink in for those who don't already know it until they process what that means. Talking about 3000 units in your district, Member Gauthier. 4000 units in yours, Member Young. 1600 in your district, Member Bass. 1700 in your district, Member Jones. Even in yours, Brother Squilla, we're looking at 1400 units on track to disappear before we're even halfway through paying off those bonds. So my first question is this and I heard the bill: What is the specific plan to preserve the roughly 12,000 units of affordable housing that are set to expire over the next decade? How much of the H.O.M.E. initiative is directly targeted toward preserving these 12,000 units of affordable housing that are set to expire over the next decade? (Applause.)
Good afternoon again. Mark Dodds. I just want to address the 12,000 count. It's a staggering number, no question about it. Many members know, in case you don't, we're planning to release an affordable housing directory, which will outline where those properties are, when their expiration dates come up. We're also adding features to that. It's an online web-based mapping application. There'll also be features to understand the market conditions of those properties so we can get a sense of the likelihood of them going market rate or remaining affordable. I think one thing -- not to discount your concerns, but I don't think we anticipate all of them to come offline. I think that we're trying to be proactive. We're actively engaging with the community. LISC convenes a preservation network. The city is an active participant in those meetings. And we are trying to be creative and strategic about where we put our resources. So much of this H.O.M.E. Plan is dedicated to preserving affordable units. But just to get back to that 12,000 figure, while it is alarming, while it is staggering, I don't anticipate all of those to come offline. We still need to dedicate resources towards it, but we need to be strategic about how we do that.
So the plan is to produce a report that analyzes the status of those houses. But there's not a particular plan as it stands right now. You're asking for the money right now to actually preserve those specific 12,000 units.
Yeah. The plan is to produce a tool that will allow us to get a better understanding of where those units are and their likelihood to go market rate and lose affordability. But the H.O.M.E. Plan itself --
When did you say -- I apologize. When did you say that that plan or that tool was going to be produced?
We're planning on a soft launch before the end of the year, meaning giving experts a chance to dig in, see that it matches what they're seeing on the ground and then a more formal launch at the beginning of the calendar year.
But we would have had to release the money to you prior to you actually producing that tool?
I heard the bell. I got another question. Is that all right, Mr. President?
I think -- we also wanted to respond to your comment around the plan will have a sprinkling, will not go deep enough.
I said that I think that -- and I acknowledge that it is wide. I want to acknowledge that it is a widespread. I think what I am understanding you ought to believe is that that wide will mean equal, like strong impact. And I'm suggesting that based off of how wide the spread is, I think the point that we're making is that it's not going to have a deep enough impact where the real issue, the crux of the issue really sits, which is that deeply affordable. And that's the reason why we're raising the point. It's not like we're not trying to argue about the have-nots and have-a-littles. The Mayor has made this point with emphasis from the beginning to yesterday. Got it. What we're suggesting is they both exist at the bottom of the ladder. And so, if we can focus a significant portion of funds towards there, I do think that we'll actually have a deep enough impact that we'll be proud of when the work is done.
I have a point of information. Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. And thank you to my colleague for bringing up this important issue. I just wanted to interject quickly. I appreciate knowing that the 12,000 housing units that are set to come out of compliance or lose their affordability over the next decade or so is high on your radar. As you all know, this is something I've championed in Council over the last several years. In fact, I brought you an opportunity recently to save 1000 of these units through the Neighborhood Restoration portfolio that is in my district and Councilmember Jones', and we partner together on the directory, which comes straight out of my legislation, the People's Preservation Package. So just quick, point of information. One, when I last talked to you about the Neighborhood Restorations portfolio, you suggested that before you could jump in with a strategy on these 1000 units you would need to complete the preservation plan that you're in the midst of. But I thought I heard you say just now that there is no plan. So, one, can you clarify whether there's a citywide plan to save these expiring units? And then secondly, if this is a high priority of the Administration, why was the Affordable Housing Preservation line item in your proposal significantly reduced between transmission and introduction when this is the main way that we would save these units? (Applause.)
There were lots of questions, so I'll start with Councilman O'Rourke. I think there's going to be some philosophical differences on the impact and how we're thinking about a housing continuum. And, you know, we can debate back and forth on whether or not focusing in gives bigger impact or if we're thinking about it as a leverage. And I continue to say that the H.O.M.E. Plan and any public investment is a tool to leverage for private investment. And so, what we are hoping is that with the investment of the H.O.M.E. Plan and the expanding of some of the other relationships we have, we can leverage some of them to address that as well as Cheryl Hill is here as well. There's significant work that the Office of Homeless Services is doing that will continue to support and be a complementary plan that will address some of that as well as well as what the Philadelphia Housing Authority is doing as well. And going to Councilmember Gauthier, and I think I was probably not in the meeting so I can't speak to the plan, but what I will say is --
Yeah. We'll bring Jesse up for that one. But I do want to just say that some of the expiring tax credits are going to go beyond the four years of this bond. And so, when we're thinking about that, I want to make sure we're putting the proper context on that because that'll be outside of the time of which we are spending this fund so -- oh, here's Jesse.
So you might be able to answer the other question. If this is a high priority of the Administration and the main tool that we're using to address the issue is the Affordable Housing Preservation line item, why was it significantly reduced?
Well, I mean, the number was reduced to the extent that it was because we had to make sure that we left room for some other requests, simple and plain. This comprehensive strategy, you know, we've been back and forth negotiating about where the demand -- excuse me, not the demand, but the certain numbers have been for certain programs. You already know this has been a very dynamic conversation. So for something that has historically been, you know, allocated as such but then had the most flexibility in terms of being able to provide funding for, you know, gap financing, whatever the case may be but then also, you know, there's also an acquisition fund specifically for being able to save these opportunities. But I think to your point earlier about maybe a lack of response specifically to the portfolio at hand, that is one portfolio in one location of the city. We did not want to make any preemptive decisions about committing funds to that when we know that that is a citywide need. So my position and our position was that it's too soon. We may not have a plan to roll out, but we certainly are strategizing to the point that we've shared earlier and that is why we are, you know, to the point that Mark made earlier. Yeah, and again I want to reiterate that H Prez and H Pro, those are the biggest line items. So for us to figure out where we need to move money and renegotiate those certain line items to be able to accommodate certain requests, we went to the biggest line items.
Okay. So there's no citywide plan for the preservation of expiring units?
I just want to add to the reduction. We also reduced based on the projected plan, LIHTC plans for 2026. So that was based off of a real number that we got in this process.
Thank you, Member Gauthier. I'll relax the time back to Councilman O'Rourke.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Chair Gauthier, for your emphasis on that. Let me just get my other question because I know there are other members that have some questions to ask. We do know that the greatest --
Can you speak to that microphone, that big voice you have, young man?
My apologies, good brother. Yes, indeed. We know that the greatest housing shortage is the 65,000 unit gap is for families making less than roughly $30,000 per year and only 2% of this plan goes exclusively to them. The Administration claims that 40% of this plan will go to those families. But frankly, the numbers that we've seen don't really show that, which is the reason why Member Gauthier, Member Landau, I think somebody else as well have been asking about why we can't simply codify it into law. If the intention is to serve those families, what's the problem with codifying it into law? I love and agree with the spirit of the prioritization, but projections are not actually protections. That's what the letter of the law is for. So are you opposed to codifying in law that 40% of the funds serve 30% of AMI? And if not -- I mean, if you are, why? (Applause.)
I want to be very clear. We are not in support of codifying it into law. That does not mean that we're not in support of deeply affordable and that is the position of the Administration and that won't change. Additionally, we're working very closely with PHA and that won't change either. We'll continue to work closely with PHA Kelvin Jeremiah as well as our counterparts in the state as well. To that end, I'll now turn it over to Angela to answer the second half of the question.
But why, Madam Chair -- I mean, Madam Chief, why? I understand what your position is. You're ten toes down on it. Copy. Why? It seems to me that if it is the intention, that is the spirit, there should be no barrier that would stop you from making that the law of the land. That's the whole point here was to be able to make these things real. And so, as opposed to -- and I think actually the Majority Leader mentioned earlier that if it ain't written, it ain't real. And so, I think it's worth getting on the record -- (Applause.)
You know, if you have a good reason on why other than because I said so, say that.
Okay. So first of all, I'm not really sure where the numbers are because I keep hearing 20% for the projection, so I think there's a discredit. So we're acknowledging that 41% of the projections are going to 0 to 30 or we've not -- because that there's been a misnomer out there that only or 4 whatever number you guys have been 5 quoting, so I just want to make 6 sure we're all agreeing that 41% of 7 our projections are going to 0 to 8 30. That's kind of where we are 9 now. I had a question about that 10 as well. 11
12 Yeah. What I'm saying is I believe 13 there's this -- there's a 65,000 14 unit gap and it's for families 15 making less than $30,000 per year, 16 and that only 2% of this plan goes 17 to them exclusively and that you're 18 claiming that 40% of the plan 19 actually goes to those families? 20
Yes. So when you look at our production and preservation projection numbers, specifically we've got for 0 to 30 under production, we've got a total of 17,870 going to 0 and 30 exclusively over the four-year period. So that would be 41% of 30,000. So that is the number that we are working with based on the projections that we have for the H.O.M.E. Plan. We've got a projected 16,293 going to 30% to 50% affordable. We've got -- and these are going to total over 30,000. One of the things the Mayor has always said that 30,000 is what we are specifically focused on, but we project that there will be more impact. Workforce housing will be 7285. Workforce plus, which would be the 80 to 120 that many people are commenting on, is only 1600. So those are the numbers that we are projecting and that will be impacted by the H.O.M.E. Plan.
I did not hear a -- can someone talk to me about the why respectfully?
Again, from the very beginning we've said that we're not going to move into a trap where we have an argument regarding deeply affordable versus affordable and not even -- our commitment is to 41% for -- according to this plan here, which we're not deviating from, deeply affordable 41%, affordable 38%, workforce housing 17%. Why? Because when we're on the elevator with a Councilmember staffer who said to us, thank you for the plan that you have in place so now I can accept a promotion, that is only -- we're not talking about thousands and thousands of dollars, but they can accept the promotion and still qualify for the plan. And so, that's why. Because we have those people in mind, because we have our workforce in mind, because we're thinking about the teachers, the therapists, the police officers as well as folks like my grandfather who was in that that deeply affordable that would benefit from this as well because we're thinking -- why, because we're thinking about everyone and we refuse to be pulled into a trap or we're having an argument that really is moot to what we're talking about here today. We just won't do it.
In conclusion, Mr. President, the claims that the majority of program funding already prioritized under 50% AMI is based as I understand it on programs that are currently --
Member O'Rourke, speak into that microphone with your great voice you have.
Let me get that Pastor O'Rourke voice. Go ahead, bro.
The claim that the majority of program funding already prioritizes under 50% AMI is based on programs, as I understand it, that are currently kept around 60% AMI and which you're raising to 100% or 120%. And so, the question I have is why should we expect those numbers to remain constant?
I think Jesse mentioned it earlier when he referenced when BSRP went to 50 to 60, we only saw a small percentage gap. So we're basing our thoughts based off of past experience. But I think to your original question on why we don't want to codify it would just simply be because historically the numbers have shown that we meet those numbers regardless and at the end of the day, we want to have some level of flexibility as the need shifts and changes. And it's really that simple. It's not some nefarious thing that seems to be implied in this room. It's just a matter of this is how the programs work and we can work with the robust housing counseling agencies that we have --
Just respectfully, I don't think there's a nefarious approach --
I'm not necessarily talking about this side. But I think there's some thought that --
No, you just said in general in this room there's a nefarious approach --
I don't think it's people being nefarious respectfully. I just think they have a position like you. I've got a position.
No, I think people think we have a nefarious approach and just I'm saying we do not.
So my point is I don't think a member in this room thinks that the Administration has a nefarious --
-- perspective, which you are proposing. I just think that they have a right and an opinion on how they think this should be shaped --
-- based upon them voting for this piece of legislation that will allow the $800 million initiative to move forward. It's expressing -- (Applause.)
And I'm not saying that for, you know, to clap and all that. We're working in partnership so I'm not even getting into that part. But I do when I hear -- that's not where my members are coming from. No one here is thinking nefarious about the Administration's approach. They're just as passionate about H.O.M.E. as you are. We need to figure out what's the meeting of the minds. And then also when you say this is our approach and there's no other way to address this issue and this is our approach at this point, I just want to just say --
Hear me out respectfully. It was several members that did not want to relinquish their councilmanic prerogative for a thousand units to move forward. But yet in talking to them and talking about the bigger picture, members said, for the sake of the greater good, we want to relinquish that level of councilmanic prerogative for the greater good of making sure this program, which is a very historical investment, and obviously it's going to be a win-win for everyone. We just have to deal with the process. Because the people will win in the event that this moves forward because at the end of the day, we're addressing housing inequality here in the city of Philadelphia. So I just wanted to touch base on that part. Member O'Rourke and then we're going to take a five-minute break.
Thank you, Mr. President. I could not say it any better. There is not a nefarious intent. I mentioned in my opening line that I appreciate the spirit and agree with it. There is the spirit of the law and then there is the letter of the law. And as you come before the body that makes the law, we want to get into the law, the actual letter that says we're prioritizing XYZ people so that way we can be sure that it happens or at least for our due diligence, to the Council President's point, we can see our positions reflected and however this thing turns out in the long run, we can say we at least contended for this and this is what happened. If it's not in there, people will ask, well, why didn't y'all make sure that was in the writing. It's a thing that we've learned. So thank you, Mr. President, for clarifying that. Please do not read me as trying to be agitational for the sake of agitation or be reading you as nefarious. I do think that the project, it is exciting. I think I mentioned at the beginning we need to make the major investment. Ms. Thurman, you've mentioned several times that it's a housing crisis. That's why we're trying to meet this moment. I'm just asking the questions that I think are important to this body.
They are important. And we've seen how, you know, roughly 5% to 7% of those who have applied have been denied on BSRP and AMP alone. And so, what we want to ensure is that while this plan, as you described it is why, the word that we use is comprehensive. And I believe that when you say why, you mean comprehensive. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We want to make sure that we also can measure impact to the best degree possible. But to the comment around nefarious, we certainly understand and respect the body here and, Councilmember, in no way are we taking the intent of your question to be anything but you asking on behalf of the people that you serve.
I appreciate it. Thank you for the time that's been allotted, Mr. President.
Thank you very much. We're going to do a very, very quick five-minute recess. We still have another hearing that's coming on after this and I still have several members who didn't have a chance to ask the line of questioning. And so, can we do the five-minute recess and then come right back, Member Bass; is that okay?
Thank you, Council President. Thank you so much for being with us today. I want to follow up on the line of questioning that Council President had as well as Councilmember Cindy Bass. I don't know when the word councilmanic prerogative became a dirty word or became a negative word, but I think that councilmanic prerogative, especially in districts like mine, are extremely important because if you know the district, you know that as a result of past development we have allowed for development by private developers that quickly displaced hundreds of families that called the 7th Council District home for generations. And so, I think that it's extremely important for Councilmembers to play a vital role in this entire process. You mentioned in nine of -- I have nine wards, nine political wards in the 7th Council District. Of those nine wards, five of them are home to residents who live with a 30% to 40% AMI. And to me, the H.O.M.E. initiative doesn't directly respond to them the way that I needed to respond to them. And so, I want for the record to -- and I've had this conversation with many of you before, I want to for the record state that Councilmember Lozada and the community-based organizations in my district are not against or opposed to the H.O.M.E. initiative or to the Turn the Key program. We need development that responds to the need of the people that live in our district, not just what private developers want to put in our district. And so, my question to you is if we know that private developers can't build what we need and we have very responsible, reliable, capable, community-based development organizations in districts like mine, why are we not identifying additional funds to be able to partner with them so that they give us what we need so that the development that they do doesn't take five to six, seven years but can be done as quickly as a private developer can do it if we support them with that funding? And it will ensure that communities or that development will be infinitely affordable. (Applause.)
So thank you for that question, Councilmember. I think that it's important to recognize that, one, I think you hit the nail on the head. We certainly recognize that as an ongoing conversation, a very important conversation too. The RCOs in your particular district have been folks that we have been aware of for a while on the land side, understanding that there are specific hurdles in their ability to develop, what you've just described. When it comes to the public sector and being able to access that land and those opportunities, we recognize that there are barriers within the application process, not because they are things that can't be understood. It's just hurdles that they can't quite clear, right. So I think that we're looking at the affordable housing preservation and production line items to be able to speak specifically to that, right, being able to minimize our reliance on everything I think you just described, on the federal side, the CDBG, because there's a level of uncertainty around that which I think heightens the need and the responsibility for us to be able to roll out what we're rolling out here. But I think that to do what you've just described requires the activation of that land, right. And that land that is held by the City of Philadelphia Land Bank and the respective entities that hold that land. There's a series of qualified app -- there's a series of requirements that allow them or require them to get to a threshold review, and that has been the biggest hurdle to your point about why it takes them so long to get through a process. Simply put, we have a process that basically says you have to have clear documentation of committed funds and that's not always the case. So I do recognize that that is a barrier. But I also recognize in your district that there is a dynamic where certain parts of your district or where the vacant land or where the market is and where the vacant holdings exist, a little bit more than others. So I think that we need to be very coordinated in how that goes, which is why I think that we certainly have been not necessarily standing by, but cognizant of the fact that there is a collective of our CEOs in your particular district that are all looking to do the same thing but in different ways, in different locations. So I recognize what you're saying, is that there needs to be some support but also want to recognize that there needs to be some support on the end user. And so, whether that's tenants or homeownership as well, we recognize that that's something that's needed there. So that's why we're trying to roll out this plan to be able to respond to everybody, whether it's homeowners or actual renters. In terms of developers, it takes a lot for them to achieve what they -- it takes a lot for them to do what they can do as far as responding to anything that's deeply affordable. And I think that there is a bit of -- I don't want to use the word incongruence, but I think that there needs to be some sort of compromise between what the product is that we're delivering or the ones that we've kind of modeled ourselves or prepared ourselves to deliver and what your constituency actually needs. I'm not debating that what you just described is not an issue, particularly in your district, because we recognize that. But we also want to make sure that we're doing it on a coordinated basis. So it's not just, you know, the residents themselves, but it's also making sure that the developers know what they're responding to and what they have to provide as a need. And that's the complicated part of this. I know that we've talked a lot about homeownership opportunities and Turn the Key and knowing that there's a lot of land in your district, but again it has to work. People are not going to build things to lose money, right.
So I think understanding that we've developed a model that's at a particular price point for particular constituents, which honestly Turn the Key is allowing for those that are anywhere between 50% to 60% of AMI, they're the ones -- I mean, we cap it at 100% and 80%, but the homebuyers are coming in at 56%, 57%, 58% of AMI. So there are people below that 60% mark that are homeowners. But I think in your particular district there's an even deeper need and I think that's where we need to get to. So I've recognized that. Happy to have continued conversation about that. You have a lot of land to activate and we're looking forward to doing that in a very coordinated effort.
I do have a lot of land to activate, and that is why it is important for me to continue the conversation with you all in leadership positions because I think that the conversations that are sometimes had with the staff level, with the people that actually do the work day-to-day, the information doesn't get to where it needs to get to as clearly and as effectively as it should, right. I think that -- in my opinion I don't think that the Land Bank works the way that it needs to work, right. I don't think that the follow-up in Land Bank is the way that it needs to be. And if we're looking to build 30,000 units, is Land Bank prepared to respond to this type of a project, right, with the staffing that they have, with the process that they have. Because my experience, and I think everybody has different experiences, right, you heard Councilmember Bass' earlier, my experience is that when you're dealing with Land Bank, it depends on who the developer is, right, where the applicant is and how quickly they move through a process. And when it is convenient, they follow the ordinance. And when it is not, they find loopholes in the ordinance to be able to continue certain projects forward. And so, it is because of that, that councilmanic prerogative is so important because I have a responsibility to protect the culture, the history and the identity of neighborhoods like mine who have seen a displacement as a result of development that was not intentionally thought out. And so, I need to know what are you all doing differently in the Land Bank to be able to ensure that there is a fair playing ground, right, and that those that can develop and respond to the need in certain districts are actually responded to?
So the timing of your question could not be better. When we were here last time we talked about the Land Bank assessment. We made a promise to the Council President that not only will we deliver that Land Bank assessment, but that it would be action oriented. And sometimes government makes promises and for a myriad of reasons, they're not able to keep it. And I'm honored to say here today that we've kept that promise. So we have an assessment that is finished. We have briefed the Mayor on it and we are adopting those recommendations. However, we also want to present that information to this body as well. And so, we are working closely with the Council President and his staff. And then beyond that, we will then roll it out to you all. Before we make any announcements on what we're doing and moving forward, we're going to be accountable to this body as we said. So we've already taken the first step with working closely and directly with Council President and his team in that assessment. We recognize and acknowledge exactly what you said about the real barriers and challenges with the Land Bank in its current form and that's why we did the assessment. And we have some real changes coming in short order, not down the pike, not six months from now or even three months from now, this year with the 50-plus days remaining in this year, probably less than 50 at this point. I'm going to ask Angel Rodriguez, the Executive Director of the Land Bank, to come up to talk a little bit about some of the findings and the legis -- not the legislation, but the assessment, some of the things we already knew. There were some revelatory moments in the assessment, the outcome of the assessment. In fact, some of the Council staff were engaged and surveyed in that assessment process. So Angel can walk through a little bit of that ahead of the briefing that we will formally provide to every member of this body.
Angel Rodriguez. So I'll just go right to the pain points. The plan I thought really to give kudos to Guidehouse. They did an excellent job in a brief period of time. I think Council and the Administration will find it to be a very helpful document. I thought it was very helpful to go to this process. I think the first pain point obviously were Land Bank's been level funded so that's been a recommendation. We started immediately addressing that predominantly. The second pain point was staffing. So prior to any net new fiscal year, money has been allocated. We have been hiring. I have been hiring senior development specialists. I did hire a new real estate director. They will be on board on December 15th. We've already been working to orient that person and bring them on board, so there you start with the ground running. I have two staff that have already started. We are hiring more clerks. We have posted for attorneys, one a senior attorney, and then a regular attorney has been posted. We have also posted for paralegals, because another pain point that was identified was deed transfers between agencies from the city to PRA to the Land Bank. That adds extra time even though you may have -- the board may have approved the project, Council may have approved the project, does not allow the project to move forward to get to settlement because title has not consolidated into the Land Bank. The other issue is our website. So that was identified. I'm happy to say that we have executed an agreement under PHDC to continue with our subcontractor, which did a great job on Turn the Key for the housing counseling. That's already committed and augmented, so we're going to be looking at a point of service issue. I've already met with OIT to assist us with also document retention and helping us actually create a system that's much more interactive. Our hope and goal is to mirror what we do with Turn the Key. So if a homebuyer comes in, starts the application, they can see where their application is. They can see what's missing with the application, how far they are from approval. So we will mirror that system and we've already started that work.
Additionally, we have a member of Guidehouse here to talk a little bit more about the Land Bank assessment.
Hi, everyone. Ali Mooney from Guidehouse. I'll just echo what Angel and Tiffany have said. We were able to complete the Land Bank assessment, which was brought up in these chambers by the Council President, and we worked very closely with the Land Bank and the Administration. We did a number of interviews to identify key pain points. In the process, we mapped out every single acquisition and disposition process in detail to be able to identify pain points and then make concrete recommendations. We have a list of short-term and long-term recommendations. The short-term recommendations or quick wins we believe can be accomplished within just a few weeks, from three to six weeks, and we are working with the Administration to move those forward.
And just to correct the record, we want to make sure there is, you know, that transmental between the two entities, or the three entities that Angel mentioned it does require support and legislation from this body. And so, we'll be talking about that further as we continue conversations with Council President and of course with members of Council. Thank you.
Okay. You mentioned a robust outreach plan for housing counseling. Can you talk a little bit more about the housing counseling plan and how it will respond to residents that are limited English proficient?
Apologies. Just point of clarification -- Angel Rodriguez. Is that PHDC's housing counseling or the housing counseling partners you're asking questions?
I think she's specifically referring to under the H.O.M.E. initiative and the rollout, how are we addressing housing counseling.
Sure. So currently we have approximately 24, housing counseling agencies 20 spread across the city. That gives 21 us a lot of coverage. I believe 22 we're one of the national leaders 23 in how much we focus on housing 24 counseling. In terms of the H.O.M.E. Plan, there's $2.85 million additional dollars allocated for housing counseling services. In large part, that money is meant to replace some federal funds that are drying up. But we are also thinking about programs such as One Philly Mortgage that will require more robust counseling services. And we --
What does mean? What are they going to do different than what they're doing now?
In that particular case, we will be implementing post purchase counseling, and that is something that only a few organizations currently do based on need and some other parameters, but that's one major change with One Philly Mortgage. And we also understand that with the magnitude of programs that we're rolling out, there will be a greater need for housing counseling services and we intend to meet that need.
You're welcome. Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones, then Councilmember Brooks and Councilmember Phillips.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I've been around long enough to listen to the various debates that we have in these chambers. Sometimes we debate because we have too little, too little revenue, too little money, too little programs to address a need. And then every now and then, like now, we argue because we have a surplus or a lot or an abundance of resources. We just like to debate and I guess that's a part of why we are elected. But what I want to emphasize is this is a good problem to have, that we're talking about resources that we haven't seen since NTI, that we actually are going to be able to solve some problems related to housing. And who goes first in line is the debate but let me make my case. I think that AMI in its formula is a flawed formula, that we are lumped in with Bucks, Montgomery, Delco to average the median incomes of people in Philadelphia which have to be adjusted one way or another. So I think at some point this Administration, along with this Council, need to ask Congress to make adjustments for cities of the first class. You can come up with all kinds of reasons, but to adjust it so that it makes sense for Philadelphia. So that's number one. Number two, yesterday was Veterans Day and I spent time at a memorial in Wynnefield in Kathy Gilmore's neighborhood. And one of the veterans was a postman. Another one was I think a school teacher and other different middle class activities but they all served our country. What I'm saying to you is that they would not be eligible under the current circumstances for home improvement programs. And you know I love Basic Systems Repair. My guy Dave Thomas works miracles every year. So they can't participate. I will go on further and say 74% of my district would not be eligible under the current levels of evaluation. I was there when the Mayor went door-to-door in the 34th Ward, which the part that we were in was Overbrook Park. And we knocked on the door. Couple came to the door and it was like the Price is Right. They were excited that the Mayor -- not me, they were surprised. They were surprised that the Mayor came to the door and they said, we're going to vote for you. We're going to vote for you in the election. However, we're getting ready to move. We're getting ready to move because we're not eligible for the home improvement programs that you offer. And it made me and the Mayor sad. And I don't want to claim that this is the reason why we are here at this point, but it's one of the reasons we are here. 74% of my district can't get help. 30,000 people moved to the suburbs, middle class, working class people. This goes back about four years, moved out of the city because they said I can get a better deal for school. I can rent this house. I can rent this house and not have that burden of having to fix everything all the time. I can get revenues in here. So we got to figure this out and we got to figure it out fairly, because I do not believe that the have-a-littles have to be in opposition to the have-nots. It's not or. It has to be and. So therefore, I'm asking you this: You're talking about increasing the application load, and I've sat on that side of the table before. How many inspectors does the city have for housing right now? How many estimators does the city have for housing right now? You're talking about more applications with less capacity?
No. 16 For housing units, you have to go out and see what the condition of the house is. You have to --
Our 9 backlog -- are you talking about in 10 time or how many people? I'm just 11 trying to figure out -- 12
Well, 15 it's anywhere between six to nine 16 months to get the work done. On 17 average it's about it's 6 to 12 18 months to get the work done. The 19 average turnaround time is nine months.
All right. My guy Dave Thomas does more with less than he should. I'm saying is there a plan to increase his capacity in anticipation of the increased demand for these programs?
The plan is to staff up some more and include more people to do that.
Dave would be able to give you those numbers, but we definitely recognize that there needs to be more than 19. We've dedicated a certain amount of funds for him to staff up to be able to respond to this, not just on the inspection side but on the intake side as well. But I think we are at a point where he has at least 10 positions to be able to fill at this point, but that is a good amount of what the dedication of funds for PHDC to do the work that they need to do is going to go specifically to be able to address what you've just described, inspection side, but also on the intake side for potential influx of applications.
And I do know that that was what we asked for in the FY26 budget, which was approved here. But you want to know the specific number. We will definitely get that to you in writing. Unfortunately, Dave is not here today. He could not make it today, but we definitely will get that information to you.
We have a point of information. Jamie Gauthier.