The admonition of all those programs kind of creates that stability. I got one more and then I'm off of it, Mr. President. Kind of in that same spirit. Lastly, the Safe Healthy Homes package, folks may remember this was a year-long process. So we got the last two passed this past week. The first part actually was passed last year, back in June. The bill authorized an Anti-Displacement Fund. And we talked about this, I think, before, which was included in that first year of funding for H.O.M.E. The point of this fund is very specific and particularly important to the whole package that we were trying to do over the course of the year. It creates a backstop when a cease operations order comes down and leads to a tenant actually being displaced, and then it funds their relocation, because we do not believe that renters, when they have to be displaced, should bear the cost burden of finding relocation monies. That being said, when will the Anti-Displacement Fund be operational and how will I be able to direct our constituents to it?
So I think it still merits the conversation. I can't commit to a time so to speak right now on the spot. But I think that talking about it further would be more ideal at this point. But I can't commit to --
Can I get a point of information while we're at it in terms of that line of questioning.
Do you have in front of you the list of amendments that came from Council that was added to the H.O.M.E. plan, and can you give us an update on the status of the things that we amended to the H.O.M.E. plan?
Yeah, we definitely have that list. And I'll defer to Angela to speak a little bit more, but to answer your question properly. Excuse me. I believe -- I can't remember if we have year -- year one -- does year one have Anti-Displacement Fund? FreshStart. Yeah. So, I mean -- and my inclination is to lean on FreshStart as the tool there. But I'll let Angela talk a little bit further about where --
And Jessie, a point of information to be clear, the Anti-Displacement Fund, that was a part of --
And to further clarify for everyone -- Angela Brooks. The Anti-Displacement Fund, and I'm pulling it up now, was a part of several items in one bucket. So there's about five other things that are in that. I am currently pulling that up. John, did you come up to say -- address something? So while --
I actually came up to address a different question that's already answered. So --
I think it's important to recognize how it was a part of a larger --
And so, there are several things in that bucket, and I don't even remember which one it came under. But generally, to answer your question, we are in the process of going line by line through every of -- each one of the buckets in the H.O.M.E. budget and allocating how that'll be spent and when that's done. So when we do the follow up to Councilmember Gauthier, we can provide that for you in writing and kind of do a breakdown. So we can do that. And Councilmember Phillips, I can't promise that it'll be a one-pager, because what you asked for is a lot of information, but you will get something that has all of that in a shorter version than what you are used to getting.
Mr. President had a -- the request for the -- all the H.O.M.E. amendment pieces. So I just want to buttress his request. I understand it's part of a lot --
We submitted it, it was voted on, and then just the timeline that it actually become reality, that's all.
Yeah. And a lot of the changes that Council did was just increasing budget items that we already had. So we have already started having meetings. We met with Councilmember Gilmore- Richardson about the Wheels program. So working -- we are working on operationalizing that, and we're having individual meetings with councilmembers that specifically had those, just so we can get a little bit more background for those that are not intuitive. So we do want to make sure we are taking in some of the thoughts of the councilmembers on the why and the what they wanted to see in that. So those are happening.
I'm done, Mr. President. I was just wanting to say -- I just -- I have a particular interest in the -- in the Anti-Displacement Fund. So I do look forward --
Thank you. Councilmember Quetcy Lozada, Nina Ahmad, then Mark Squilla.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning. I guess my question -- I'm going to start off with Jessie. Do you believe that the public should have a say in how we use public land?
Okay. And do you -- and do you believe that the HUD AMI is not -- or doesn't speak to the realities of many people in our community?
Do you believe that the HUD -- the way that HUD determines a person's AMI, that it doesn't respond to the realities of some in our community?
I do believe that there is a misalignment between what the metro area designates as HUD numbers or HUD AMIs, based on US federal census data, whatever the case may be.
But do you believe that they speak to the realities of people on the ground?
Okay. And do you understand or do you believe that as a government, we should protect and respond to preventing gentrification in certain neighborhoods?
I do believe that, which is why I think the public conversation is in fact important to your point earlier.
Okay. And so, if you believe that, why do districts like mine continue to receive projects that don't respect community input, don't speak to the realities of our communities' AMI and will further gentrify neighborhoods and displace people. Why is that okay?
I believe that we have a mission and commitment to improve communities where we can with the activation of publicly owned land specifically. And I believe in aligning that particular effort with the tools in the -- in the toolbox that we have when it comes to the different programs that we have uplifted over time.
But do you believe that there are -- that every program doesn't believe -- belong in every neighborhood?
I do think that is -- you can't unilaterally apply programs across the city. And I do think that on a case-by-case basis, you do have to make some determinations about what's appropriate and what is in fact not appropriate.
So why do you all continue to ignore -- if you believe that, why do you all continue to ignore neighborhoods like mine that tell you that certain parts of your H.O.M.E. initiative do not work in neighborhoods where -- that have been quickly gentrified and have vastly displaced people that cannot afford programs like Turn the Key?
I wouldn't say that we have ignored that, because if we ignored that, we would have development within the 7th District that responds to Turn the Key. And we haven't seen that yet.
We haven't seen Turn the Key development take off in your particular district. If we're talking about your neighborhood and your district, I won't co-sign the fact that we're pushing people out because we haven't developed home ownership opportunities to Turn the Key in the 7th District just yet.
And why have you all -- why do you believe that we have not responded or have allowed for Turn the Key projects to take place in the 7th?
I do know that your constituency, specifically your representation, your constituency has very specific thoughts about how to develop and what to develop and what the cost to develop is, too. So, I mean, that's why we're in active conversations with the collective in your district to talk about what exactly the resources would be needed for them to take the lead to develop the other communities. Again, I -- we are not here to gentrify. We are here to reactivate land based on the tools we have in our toolbox of housing programming. And whether it's home ownership --
And you don't think that you haven't seen Turn the Key projects in my neighborhood because developers have not been respectful enough to come and appropriately respond to the needs of that neighborhood? Would you say that?
I would say that I know that developers have met with your constituency to talk about what they would like to do in your district.
But -- and you think that the -- that they have responded to the needs of that community through the program or the projects that they have offered my community? Is that what you're saying?
I think that it is responding to different elements of your community. Again, we are talking about a very large geography that has many, many different blocks in many, many different specifics that pertain to, you know, a case-by-case basis. I don't -- I respectfully push back on us unilaterally trying to develop the same type of housing throughout your entire district.
I would respectfully push back on you saying that you allow for my community to have a say in what they want to see in their neighborhood. Because every project that has come into the neighborhood, my community has been willing to sit down with the project person, and they have not been able to deliver what they need in their community. If there are reports that say that residents in my community make under 35,000, and you have a project that starts at a minimum of 45,000, then obviously you're not responding to the need of my community. And when you have developers or you send developers our way that feel that it is okay to lie to my community and come back four times without making a change in their proposal, it is a problem. And the public should be able to determine what they want to see in their neighborhood. And so, I'm trying to figure out how do we come to a place that is fiscally responsible, responds to the needs of the community and does not displace people that have generationally called neighborhoods home.
So to your point earlier, you asked if there was a connection between the census data that specifies what the HUD AMI is for the area, based on numbers that come from Washington versus what your average Philadelphian is. And if we point to Turn the Key in the work that it has done, it has served households at or below around 60 percent of AMI, which is where your average Philadelphian comes in. Even to dive down a little bit more deeper, at least 150 of the Turn the Key homes have been sold to those between 31 percent of AMI and 50 percent of AMI. So again, I think that it is unfair to generalize that we aren't taking consideration about where Turn the Key opportunities are coming, because those are all RFPs, those are all very specific locations in which there have been conversations with Council about where those RFPs are coming out. So under --
We can't even get to the point of having a conversation with -- about RFPs, because you all don't respect neighborhood. You don't respect what public -- you don't respect what the public wants to see and how we use public land. You all have to be willing to come to the table and have an honest conversation.
And that's not what has happened with your -- I'm going to say department division. It is not what has happened, right? The community consistently says, this is what we're looking for. This is what we need in order for us to stay in our neighborhoods. And you all continue to push back on it. You all continue to send people to meet with them that don't want to negotiate.
Then we're going to continue to be here because at the end of the day, I was sent here to protect my community.
I was sent here to not allow -- we have a responsibility not to allow people to be displaced in their neighborhoods.
We have a responsibility to keep people in their homes. We have a responsibility to make sure that people are not house broke.
Listen, we are actually talking about the same thing. We all -- we are all committed to the same exact thing. And I --
Yeah. But you all talk to us about, and what actually happens, what actually comes to the table are two different things. And that I think is my frustration. And I believe that that is my community's frustration as well. When you meet with the community and when you meet with us, you say, we understand, Councilmember. Yes, community, we understand you need affordable housing. Yes, we understand you live under -- with an income of under $45,000 a year. Yes, we understand you need affordable rentals, but when you all put proposals on the table, they speak completely the opposite. And so how are we supposed to take you serious?
There are very specific ways that we do business. There is the unsolicited route and there is the solicited route. The solicited route is the RFP process. The unsolicited route is just not RFP process. So again, we will not -- we will continue to work with you about that unsolicited process -- and both the RFP and the unsolicited process. But again, contrary to what you're providing here, I do want to just express that we have a billion -- nearly billion-dollar H.O.M.E. plan that is -- that is committed to providing housing for folks of all different income vans and all different neighborhoods. And even, you know, whether Turn the Key is something that's not prevalent in your particular district, there are tax credit projects that are prevalent in your district. So again, I just don't want to understate the commitment that this department has to promoting affordable housing throughout the entire city.
I would appreciate it if you were to show -- I'm willing to continue to work together, right?
I'm willing to continue to work together. But it has to be -- it has to be in a way that protects neighborhoods like mine.
I have more than one neighborhood that is being gentrified, and that is not going to --
Here's what I would like to do. And Jessie, I know you have to work with the Councilmember. And when this plan was brought to us for us to be supportive of us, to us to give up our Councilman prerogative, right? It was made; a commitment upfront that we would work lockstep together with the district council person, right? Not pushing stuff in front of the Land Bank, grabbing up support and opposition to the member. Because that's contrary to working with the member in good faith. That's just my personal opinion from being here, right? And I've always seen that even happen depending on where you're from and who you are, to just being quite frank. I think she's just saying, it was asked of us to give up our rights over a certain land -- I'm not even going to say our rights, but our ability to hold off on the disposition of land to work in partnership with the administration. And so -- and that's a good faith thing. Because we could have went the other way and just said, no, under no circumstances shall we not give up their right to dispose of land. And I think -- not I think, but I know for a fact with Member Lozada just saying through this process, she's looking for a level of good faith in trying to figure out a home that we may do for Turn the Key at this AMI, it may not be best for her immediate community. And I've been around Philadelphia long enough to know certain neighborhoods probably won't even be having a conversation.
So she's saying, don't treat me no 17 different than we are in Bella Vista, than we are in Northeast, but we ain't Rittenhouse Square, afford me that same level of respect. And it may be agreements to disagreements, but the reality is that bill is not going anywhere.
So that doesn't get anything accomplished. And then the response will say, well, we're just doing what we supposed to do. No. So we all will make this process successful if we figure out some medium for us to work together. And councilmembers, specifically district councilmembers, deserve the right to chart the path for their own community, because they're the ones that's responsible to that community. And so, hopefully we can continue that dialogue and I'll be more active --
-- seeing how me and my team could be supportive of making sure what she wants to accomplish gets done.
Chair recognizes Councilmember Nina Ahmad, Squilla, Young and Brooks.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning still to all of you. My first question is to the Commerce Department. Thank you so much for being here. I want to really address the issue of very small businesses, the pop-up businesses, the ones that start up in a street corner to do proof of concept, right? And many big companies actually do a lot of pop-ups to test their products as well. But I'm talking about the really small, sort of cottage industry folks who are entrepreneurs trying to do this. They face significant hurdles, primarily navigating complex multi- agency permitting, sometimes 40 steps high -- and in addition to their high cost of so many things going on, I wanted to know in this money that was allocated for the BIRT exemption impact, the 38 to 43 million, is there a way to use some of that to support this permitting process and this -- all this barriers that these pop-up businesses experience to drive our economy? They can -- they can be significant in our economy. So if you would address that, please.
Sure. Thanks, Councilmember. Totally agree with you first of all, that we need to -- and Commerce is very committed to supporting businesses at every size and stage. And you're right, our local entrepreneurs are often, you know, tomorrow's employers. And so, we really want to support that; their creativity and their grit and determination to build a business. We are using some of the -- what we're calling -- under that Jumpstart investment, small business investment, to support very small businesses. We are working on making what -- the Catalyst Fund more -- it's currently -- small businesses are applying and are being awarded. We are working on sort of a new and improved version, a 2.0, if you will, that is going to make it even easier. What one of the -- some of the feedback we got was that the application asked the same of a bigger business and a small business. And it's like we need to make it a little easier and streamlined for the smaller businesses. And so, we are working on that. And you'll see that this summer. We also are just -- are in the process right now of doing a round of grants towards vending markets so that the markets can support their vendors. Understanding that that's -- you know, vending is one of those low barrier to entry type of businesses. And we want to support entrepreneurs that want to do that. And we are also looking to hire a -- one of our next hires in Commerce is going to be somebody really focused on vending markets and vendors. Also, our Open for Business initiative has tackled a few of the challenges around licenses and permits that are required to sort of streamline that process. And we actually just did -- this is somewhat related, so bear with me. We did a -- just did a project with ULI on the vending market technical assistance panel, where they bring in ULI's models. You know, they bring in experts from all over. And we looked at how can we do more, how can we support more of those opportunities. So there should be a report coming soon that we will be working with all of you on.
I look forward to that report. And more importantly, to convene these folks, these local small entrepreneurs who seem to be lost in the sauce basically. And so, I would have to -- happy to partner with you to amplify that, but we -- they don't hear about it. They don't know. So streamlining that, not just for them, for everybody is important, but particularly them. So I thank you for that.
Jessie -- sorry, Jessie. I was calling you Jessie. Just wanted an update on the Market East revival status. What is going on? How well are people being included? I know you have a committee, and I know we have a member on that, but we have no information, because at one point they were going to break everything down and then they reversed it. And it seems -- I know this is -- these are private entities. I just wanted to know how much oversight you have outside of zoning approvals. What else do we have in terms of watching what exactly is happening there?
So -- and thank you. I appreciate that question, Councilmember. So right now, we are -- as you alluded to, there is a committee that meets on, at this point, a kind of bimonthly basis, right? And much of the year has really been spent on just understanding what folks see when they look at Market East, what stands out to them as far as opportunities, things and assets that can be anchored. We -- it's really been a lot of foundational stage setting with a lot -- a lot of different information. Kind of how we got to where we are today, right? What we're at the process of doing right now is we're shifting into a big public engagement push right now, right? So there have been subcommittees broken up amongst those different committee members, things along the side -- along the lines of activation of land use, you know, also public safety being a critical thing there. But ultimately what this has all been kind of surmounting to is a very informed conversation about what economic development incentives would be needed to move something forward, right? So our target for the end of the year is to produce a report that packages such a thing. But what we're doing between now and then, the summer will be really dedicated toward engagement, round tables, bringing, you know, we -- outside of that committee -- outside of that advisory group, is what it's called. Outside of that advisory group, there have been a lot of different one-on-one stakeholder conversations with folks that aren't on that group. Property owners, civic representatives, so on and so forth, right? But as we're kind of pivoting at, literally as we speak, we are getting into the public engagement component, right? So we are making plans to have some sort of engagement hub on the corridor for folks to be able to see things like development scenarios, things that basically have stood out in the conversations and the subcommittees and round tables and focus groups. All of that information is being packaged as we speak, to be able to be presented in an engagement hub. And all that information is going to ultimately solidify a couple of different things. Well, prior to that we'll have the development scenarios, but we want that to funnel into a market study. So we're taking a temperature on what the market could sustain right now. And the real kind of stand by this that -- I stand by the fact that, you know, there have been iterations of a Market East, so to speak, a study, a report, so on and so forth. But the time that we're taking out is really to bring all this information in a post pandemic world, thinking about how people recreate differently, and thinking about how people shop differently. You know, it's a main street, but what's on this main street, right? Where's the opportunity for housing? How does this coincide with not just our comprehensive planning update but also the H.O.M.E. plan, right? It's all coming together as we speak. The community feedback, public engagement phase is where we're entering right now. The fall will be where it's all packaged up as we speak. So what -- we can have some sort of report by the end of the year.
Thank you. I just want to make sure economic diversity is something that's kept in mind when we are planning what sorts of economic enterprises will go there. The small, the big, including how housing is done to have mixed use.
80/20 works in New York. It works. So let's see Philadelphia do that. So thank you so much.
Thank you. Councilmember Mark Squilla, then Councilmember Young and Councilmember, Minority leader, Kendra Brooks.
Thank you, Mr. President. Real quick, I have a couple -- well, I got many questions that I'll ask in a second. Where -- real quick, where do you stand with the citywide survey for the historic properties that was going to be looked at and done that we could do for as far as preservation and part of the task force -- historic task force recommendations. The city was proposing a survey. Do you know if that had started or if it's going to start?
I believe that has begun. I'm looking at a couple of deputies that might know, but we -- I don't know that it has started, but we can get back to you on a specific status update specifically for that effort.
Okay. Thank you. And also, that Neighborhood Economic Development, the NED, we understand that, you know, since the cost of the properties have increased, we're looking to see, would we be able to support an increase in grant level funding to support the work, given the challenges of increasing values of properties for this year?
Hi, Councilmember. So I'm sorry. Is the question -- is are we in -- how are we dealing with rising costs?
Yeah. Given Yvonne and I had to come up here, but yes, we have -- we have reallocated and we have increased the amount. I think we still advertise our grants as up to $500,000 for neighborhood economic development. But we do make a -- that's a -- that's a guideline, not a rule. And we make exceptions as needed. Again, the bigger our grants, the fewer we can do. And so, we are always trying to balance that issue.
And the answer would be -- so the question would also be, yes, can we give more? But then also are we looking to add more into the pot so that we can make it viable?
Thank you, Councilman Squilla. Yvonne Boye, Deputy Commerce Director. I'm glad you brought it up. I think we had -- most of the funding that we have that is available for the Neighborhood Economic Development grant is the CDBG federal funds, with its accompanying hurdles. I think we had a reduction in hard funds this year. And so, we do not have a resource to increase it by much. However, because of the Jumpstart, we are able to reallocate the funding a little bit so that other programs that were solely funded through CDBG can now be funded through the Jumpstart, right? And so, that has released a little bit more funding for us to use for this year. We also had the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative funding, which kind of supported it, but that is gone. And so, we've been able to increase the CDBG funding allocated this year to 3.3 million, which -- and it was usually just about 1.2 million.
However, it is federal funding and it comes with these accompanying hurdles.
Through this to increase the amount of the grants to do this?
Yes, we are able to do that. But basically, just because, you know, of the Jumpstart funding that we have, the allocations worked this year.
Okay. Thank you so much. And I'm going to go back to Adaptive Modification Program. Do we know if there's a current waiting list for the grants for Adapt Mod?
There is a current waiting list. Give me a minute and I can tell you specifically how much. And as he pulls it up, Councilmember, just clarification. We will still follow up with the Historical Commission survey, but I think what you're referring to is Treasure Philly, which was originally Broad and Erie, it has now moved to Frankford. It's a pilot phase right now, but we'll get you the clarity to get you the status update on that for sure.
It's not citywide at the moment, but we will -- we will break that down for you.
Current wait list for Adaptive Modification is just under 2000.
2000. And do we know how many of them are for handicap accessibility, of those 2000 to --
Physical accessibility to their -- to homes, to be able to access their homes?
If we could ask that for the -- if we could find out what that is and get that for the Chair. Because I think that's something too that we really need to look at. If people need to have access to their homes or access in their homes, how we can make sure that happens.
Yeah, I have to see whether or not even have that data. I can certainly tell you the numbers of folks that we are working with and the ones that we've completed. But some of the folks that have applied may not be answering that question because I don't know that we have a question that speaks to that.
Well, you would -- you know who's on the waiting list, right? The -- but you --
Thank you very much. Just want to spin the block real quick. Back to Jessie. I just was thinking about this process as well. The highest population of public land is in the 7th Councilmanic District and the 5th Councilmanic District. And I know we support our Mayor's H.O.M.E. Plan, that's why the majority of members voted the bill out, right? With some additions, but for the most part, the bill out. And I know she has a goal to rehab and produce 30,000 units. And so, it's really imperative that there's a good relationship between those two district members in order for our mayor to be successful throughout her term. And so, I was just sitting there thinking about how we establish that stronger partnership, but ultimately her success lies within those two district councilmembers, because ultimately if there are no partnerships, the bills just sit. If there is no input from the community, there's no way to progress to move forward. And we would like for her to be successful. First woman Mayor, large, big city of America. And so, we want to be supportive of that. And so that's something I just want to say. It's imperative that we figure that part out, particularly with those two members. I have significant development. Jamie has significant development. Them two have the largest, and I think yours as well. Point of information. I mean, you have? Point of information.
I've been thinking a lot about this too. And I'm sensitive to what Councilmember Lozada brought up. And it seems to me that the issue is that we are very skilled in one type of housing typology with our public land. We know how to do Turn the Key. We're comfortable with the developers that apply again and again. And so, it feels like we've gotten into the mode of that's what we are doing with our public land. And I talked to you all about this last year when you came to my office, we were talking about putting up the thousand parcels, and kind of giving you guys pre-approval, but even at that time I was asking you questions about what other housing typologies can we do, right? I don't -- I love Turn the Key. I'm doing a significant amount of them in my district, but I also don't think it's fair that that is the only product that we can reliably turn out. And that there's this public pressure for district councilmembers to move on Turn the Key with frankly the same developers that apply again and again and again. And they're just going across the city shopping. They're shopping at this point for where there's vacant land that they can continually do this model, whether they know our neighborhoods or not. So the charge I would put to you all is let's continue to do Turn the Key. It's awesome, but there needs to be more than one housing typology that we know how to fund and to deliver and that are tailored to the needs of our communities. And so, I kind of have talked to you guys about this before, but I truly think that that's the issue. Absolutely.
So I just -- if I may, everything you said, it still stands. There is absolutely a commitment to figure out other typologies that work, which is why we've made things like zoning changes to account for, or accept, or at least allow for things like duplexes in certain parts of the city, right? So we recognize that we need to set the stage to allow for different types of housing as well. Philadelphia, as you know, as everyone in here knows, is a predominantly row house city. And that is the predominant typology, which is why we are leveraging that. We also, in terms of public inventory, we don't have a lot of assemblages either, which is why the sheriff's sale process is so important, and jump starting that a year ago was really pivotal to making sure that we can in fact pivot to everything you've just described. So I don't want to dispute the fact that that is something that is still on the table. As we find these assemblages that are a little bit more opportune to diversify the housing type, that continues. And when it comes to the -- you know, the commitment to working with the -- this particular body on that -- the thousand properties, that still stands. That has not gone anywhere. We just haven't gotten to the point of briefing you all yet. Angela can talk a little bit more if we need to about the FUSE Fellow that has really dedicated the time and effort. To your point earlier about those applications that came in and were kind of discussed, and you know, the developers coming in, to be honest with you, that is a process that predates where we are when it comes to this special 1000-unit list, right? Excuse me, 1000 property list, right? We intend every -- we've recognized where the majority of those properties are on. It's the 3rd, it's the 5th and it's the 7th. And we know that even with this specialized process, there's still a part of the process that you still -- I mean, again, we call it repositioning the approvals process on the front end. There's still a tool or a step that we have to come to you to work with. So we certainly aren't trying to circumvent the process. We recognize that we're just repositioning it, and we know that can't happen without the conversations. We just want to make that very clear.
Can I have a point of information? Councilmember Quetcy Lozada.
I appreciate your words. I think that for many people, for some reason, this has become about a number. This has become about delivering a number, and we are forgetting that we are impacting people's lives. That we are -- that we -- that if we don't do this right, we are going to have an impact, a negative impact on neighborhoods, on communities. And so, can we stop -- let us move away from the number. If we get 30,000, if we get 50,000, if we get 100,000, great. Amen. But if we don't, then we all should be able to look back and say that we delivered housing for Philadelphia for people, safe, affordable, real, affordable houses for people. We can't say that we want people to choose Philadelphia if we are making it unaffordable for them to choose Philadelphia. And so, I just ask us to move away from looking at the number and the timeframe in which we all have to deliver this number. Let us think about the people and the children and the families that we will impact negatively if we don't do this right.
And I just actually want to also put on record that there is a component -- there's an important partner, just has not been mentioned just yet. PHA has that ability to dive into that deeper affordability that -- where we have to think a little bit more strategically or deeper about, right? So I just -- you know, I know -- I recognize what you just said about the numbers not being the guiding factor here, but I just want to recognize that they're in this just like the administration is in this, right? So when we talk about diversifying the housing types, we have a partner in PHA to think about that and the tools that they have at their, you know, disposal, things that we don't have. But I mean, just know that it's a coordinating effort. Again, we are leveraging in-fill opportunities because that is the predominance of our inventory. But I agree with you, it should not limit and it will not limit where we look at and how we consider housing going forward. Again, home ownership is key, but everyone is not supposed -- everyone is not supposed to be a homeowner. Everyone wants to be -- you know, everyone is not wanting to be a homeowner, excuse me, to get my word correct.
Point of information. Councilmember Cindy Bass.
Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I just wanted to say -- and I know that you all do great work and you're working really hard at this. But the idea that we should sort of look to PHA to do this particular component, you know, like if you're low to very low income, that somehow we should shift this over to PHA. But when we voted on these bills, we weren't told that -- yeah, you know what -- but you know what I'm saying.
When we -- when we were presented with these options through planning and through the city of Philadelphia, it was not, you know, we're going to do X, Y, and Z and PHA is going to do, you know, X, Y, and Z, we're going to focus on, you know, Turn the Key and they're going to focus on low income. It wasn't presented to us at all that way. So I just want to just be careful that that's not what we're suggesting, because right now it looks like Turn the Key is very much a one size fit all outfit. And if you ever get a one size fit all, it doesn't fit anybody. And so, the idea that we're doing one size fit all in North Philly, it doesn't work. So we have to go back to the drawing board and find a new tool that's going to work.
And I just -- I completely agree with you. I just want to make sure that we are on the same page about PHA not being pigeonholed into just low-income opportunities because that's not all that they do. And we recognize that. I just wanted to make sure that we were recognizing that there was another partner in play.
I grew up in public housing, and the new -- the new PHA is not the old PHA.
No. Not no three stories with a deck. You're looking outside the back. No, I didn't grow up like that. No. 6
Thank you. Angela Brooks again. And I just want to make sure we haven't talked about -- and I think to Councilmember Gauthier's point and the other councilmembers, particularly you Councilmember Lozada, we are in the process of going through the vacant land strategy, that will be finalized soon. And that's where we will get a better idea of how we should be using our public land and having a real strategy. We will be having individual meetings with each district Councilmember, certainly with starting the ones that have the most vacant land, the legislation specifically for the special disposition process, which is not removing prerogative; it's just putting it on the front end. And to your point, Councilmember Lozada might make more sense because then the councilmanic decision is made before it comes to the Land Bank. But we are going to start having those meetings. We've briefed the Council technical staff, we're starting with you, Council President Johnson, and you will start seeing those. But the goal is within the H.O.M.E. plan to really address the full housing continuum from zero to a hundred, and to make sure -- well, really to any income level. And we do want to work with each of you as partners, the Office of Homeless Services, PHA, we want to be a partner and we want to look at how the H.O.M.E. funds are icing to really supplement all of the housing needs that we need in Philadelphia and not exclude anyone. And so, we look forward to working with all of you. Certainly, we have a lot of work to do in District 7. We recognize that and we look forward to working with you and continuing figuring out some of the hard work. This is not going to be easy. We're here for hard. We're easy to have -- we're here to have the hard conversations, and we look forward to working with you to come up with an equitable solution on what works. But that does mean things might have to look different, and we recognize that. But Turn the Key is not the only solution we're thinking of, but as far as the special disposition, we're limited to 1500 square feet. So that kind of really is either Turn the Key or a two-family type development.
Like, I know we have the modular proposal, right? Let's say the modular proposal goes through. How is those units going to be different than the typical Turn the Key unit?
That's actually one of the things that are -- you know, this -- that's a question that needs to be answered, right? We put this RFI out to understand, like, what folks that are on the operating side can match with the opportunity as they understand it here in Philadelphia, right? I think that we -- by nature, we defer to an infill opportunity, because again, that is what the prevalence of our inventory is. However, we know that there are several projects in the city that have been built on a multifamily basis on modular housing. So it is intended to be a flexible opportunity -- a flexible tool for building not just single- family opportunities, but for also some multifamily stuff. But I think that we want to understand if in fact, one, there's a competitive advantage that we can tap into for modular housing, whether that is, you know, building a site that -- or excuse me, building a facility that allows us to crank these modules out. What the reception for something like that would be in the market. How that is differentiated from grabbing these boxes and modules from, you know, rural PA or South Jersey, whatever the case may be. But there is a level of flexibility that comes with modular housing in terms of development, housing type -- housing development types.
Before I call our next member, I do remember when I was in Member Phillip's district, it was the 9th District, they called it middle neighborhood, right? And we had a town hall up there. And I remember constituents coming up and saying, can we also build -- can we consider building the one floor flat buildings? Because it was an older woman, she had seniors. She said, I don't have no children, right? And I don't need a two story or a three-story home. And could we take that in consideration as being a senior, I guess it's called a flat. I guess that's what it is. For us to maybe look at another different type of model for that type of individual who don't want to go -- our issue was going up and down the steps, I remember. And so, just having a one level unit was also beneficial for her. Just something to think about if we're talking about diversifying on what options are available.
Yeah. And also, one other thing that I want to make it clear is that, you know, as we understand those, the need for diversity types, I mean, we're talking -- we're home to a Center City that has probably one of the largest residential populations in anywhere else in the country, right? So, you know, the prevalence of housing in Center City is not the row house, right? So we certainly need to position ourselves. If we're talking about trying to get housing on the Market East, we have to figure out what that looks like, right? We have to be able to diversify that. We also talked about zoning earlier. You know, one thing that we have is, again, the duplex zoning, but we're also trying to push out the transit-oriented communities as well, right? Being able to incentivize the development of multifamily opportunities around transit centers. And, you know, that speaks to the elders who may not, you know, enter on the first floor, but could certainly enter through a lobby, get on the elevator and be in their flat. You know what I mean? So I think that, you know, we're trying to package this and kind of situate ourselves to be able to take advantage of several different options. By nature, again, it's a single-family opportunity that comes, that rises to the top, because it's the easiest. And if we're talking about expediency, we're going to the low hanging fruit, but we're also setting the stage and paving the way for things to be a little bit more different, diverse and responsive to -- if we're talking about a recruitment tool, everyone that moves to Philadelphia doesn't live side by side with people, everybody doesn't want to live or own a home. Some people do want apartments. So being able to allow for some zoning changes that allow for that to happen and incentivize that kind of development aspect on the developer instinct is important to us.
Thank you very much. I want to acknowledge the presence of Majority Leader, Katherine Gilmore- Richardson. And so, Member Young, Brooks, Richardson, then we get into our second round.
Thank you, Mr. President. My colleagues, kind of, you know, touched on many of the questions that I've had, but I have a direct question for the Housing and Planning Department. Do you support increasing the Turn the Key subsidy to $100,000?
So there is some thoughts that has been presented to us. I'd like to call up Angel Rodriguez to talk about the timeline associated with the thought process there. Right now, Turn the Key is --
It's okay, I don't need to hear from Angela on that, right? Because you just answered my question, right? Because if we got to have a timeline to think about it, the answer is no 4 to me. So we're going to go to my next question, because my time is limited.
Right? So my colleagues are talking about the Turn the Key and the different types of housing products that we could offer to our communities. And we have to think about the market for the people, right? And so, in Councilmember Lozada's district and parts of my district, Turn the Key products actually cause -- can create gentrification because of the number. And so, what we're asking for is to invest in the people, right? When I look through around my district and I see all these home ownership opportunities that were subsidized for the homeowner, I look at Yorktown, I look at the area that is near Tenth Memorial Church, through the all-home ownership opportunities that were subsidized for the people that were there, right? Nehemiah Homes, right? There were opportunities for home ownership that were subsidized for the people there. And so, we're asking like, if the market doesn't work, right, then it's up to government to create that subsidy, to push that subsidy in place so the people there can afford it, and the developer is still going to get their number at the end of the day, right? But if we invest in the people, we provide the people with that higher subsidy, that $100,000 subsidy, that can give them that opportunity to afford these houses. You won't get so much pushback from the community when we're trying to put these products out there. So we're -- we have $800-million, right? That's what the -- that's what the number that the community, the public hears when we talk about housing in the city of Philadelphia. They hear 800-million, right? And so --
Point of information, sir. They hear a billion --
Actually, 2-billion of the investment of the land --
Thank you. They hear that we're leveraging up to $2-billion, right? So I'm just curious on why we can't put that number, right? Why we got to have a meeting to have a meeting, to have a meeting to think about it, right? I mean, it is either, do we do or we don't. And I think that for investing in people in the city of Philadelphia and some of the neighborhoods that Councilmember Lozada represents, that I represent, that Councilmember Gauthier represents, having that higher number for the subsidy is that partnership we're asking for. It makes a huge difference in these projects. And at the end of the day, the developers who people like are going to get their number. They're going to meet their spread. They're going to meet their mark. So if we're -- if Council is asking for this, you know, this help, and this to be that -- our partnership, I don't think we need to have a meeting to have a meeting, to have a meeting to talk about it, right? It's like, all right, let's just increase it. We got a billion -- $2-billion, excuse me, right? Let's just -- let's just do it. Let's just do it. Let's stop the pushback. Let's stop organizing opposition against councilmembers, right? Because they're fighting for their communities, and let's just get it done and work together. I think that that's just -- that's a no-brainer if we want to be able to provide housing opportunities. Because you've already acknowledged that the AMIs don't work for real Philadelphians, right? You've acknowledged that. So let's increase that subsidy for real Philadelphians to have home ownership opportunities. Because, again, I'm -- I look around my district -- and you mentioned PHA. PHA Turn the Key houses actually cost more than the city's, right? So that don't really -- that's not -- that's not really a real option, right, when it comes to their home ownership stuff. So -- and you ask people in my district, they say PHA is the biggest slumlord too. So that's a different -- that's a different conversation, right? So I think that we, as the city, as Councilmember Bass alluded to, we shouldn't have to rely on other entities. We should just be able to do the work ourselves. We vote as a support, $2-billion worth of -- worth of work. And I think that the city -- if the administration wants to be a partner with us as councilmembers who represent individuals in our specific districts, who have specific living conditions that are only unique to them and their neighborhoods, then we should be -- we should work together to figure out how we can help those people living in their specific conditions, in their individual unique neighborhoods in the city. And that, you know, that's it, Mr. President.
Thank you very much. Chair recognizes Councilmember Kendra Brooks and Councilmember Katherine Gilmore-Richardson.
Thank you. This is for Commerce. I've asked this question directly to your office, and I have not received an answer, so I want to put this on record. One of the pieces of legislation that makes up an important protection for uncategorized workers in our city is Fair Workweek Bill. My understanding is that there has been ongoing discussions within Commerce and the administration about potential changes. I want to be clear; I'm not in favor of changing this law. Can you give me any updates on where we are in this process and what potential changes are being considered for Fair Workweek Law? I understand that there has been outreach to a number of labor unions about this law as well, and I would like to know what unions and worker advocacy organizations have you been consulting with on this potential change, and what is the state of the outreach?
Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Brooks. We have been having conversations. Commerce has been contacted for the past two -- probably going on two years now from some businesses, specific businesses, and some industries around challenges they have with the Fair Workweek laws. There's questions about -- you know, there's some -- there's things they would like to be made more clear. There are -- that -- there are changes that they want. Nothing has been promised or offered to them. Our team at Commerce has been meeting with them to gather information. This bill has been in -- it's been law for five years now, or is now -- are we now past five years? I think -- around that, right? So we see this as a good time, as good government, to, like, go and just revisit. Are there things that need to be tightened up? Are there things that need to be better explained? Are there things to be -- need to be cleared up? There are conversations, you are right, going on. The administration is having conversations both with the businesses and industries, as well as with labor groups. I don't have the names. I can't tell you right now, but I -- and I'm sorry if you said you've asked this and haven't gotten information. I think we can follow up and get you specifics of who has been talked to and what the current status is. No, bill has been drafted. There's -- this is all conversations at this point.
Yeah. I would like for my staff to be considered as part of that conversation. Just like we've been working with eviction diversion program and the concerns that we had about another contentious piece of legislation that we passed. We've been working through those concerns directly with the landlords, big and small, to build a relationship, to make sure that we get on the -- what we get on the outside, or on the other side, is equitable for both parts of this conversation. So I would love to be a party of that conversation. My team would like to know what's going on, so we don't have to, you know, play this back-and-forth game around something that, you know, we fought very hard to get in the city. You know, people are benefiting from it. And I just want to make sure that we are working together to make sure we have the best possible outcome.
My next question is for Planning and Development. Did they -- when can we expect to hear more on this 20-year abatement and how it intersects with the H.O.M.E plan? And last year, as part of the discussion around the H.O.M.E initiatives, City Council authorized a revolving loan fund. And this fund would provide low-cost construction loans to build houses. I want to understand what are the barriers for implementation and what the administration's stance on implementation is.
So I would like to call up John Mondlak, who can give you the status of where we are on the tax abatement. We certainly announced it, I believe, at the end of last year. But what we also recognize is that there are some things that, you know, we're following the boundaries of the enabling legislation at the state level, trying to figure out how it can speak to Philadelphia specifically for development, but also just kind of within those guidelines. So, John, you want to provide some insight?
Sure. John Mondlak. I'm first deputy and chief of staff in the Department of Planning and Development. The -- we are hoping to share an ordinance 19 with Council very, very soon. I think conversations might already be in the works to be scheduled to have those. And at that point, we're going to have probably a more robust conversation. I might be able to answer some questions right now. I don't think that I can answer the revolving loan fund question.
Could you clarify on that? I'm sorry. Or maybe restate your question.
Yeah. I want to understand what are the barriers for the implementation, but -- and what is the stance on the -- on the implementation for -- yeah, just the barriers. What are the barriers to implementation around a revolving loan fund? Is it moving forward?
Well, I think what we've moved forward with is specifically funding the Accelerator Fund in that particular funding source for pre-development costs. That is something that has been a tool for a while now. Something that specifically is getting some funding from H.O.M.E. It is meant to do some bridge -- some gap financing, and bridging for the financing of development projects, specifically around pre-development costs. But, I mean, everything as far as loans, I mean, we're in the process of putting something like that together. I think we're still crafting what that could look like in terms of an actual loan fund.
Okay. And one other, is there currently a waiting list for adaptive modification programs grant? If so, how many households that included -- that include a person with a disability are on the waiting list to make their homes more accessible?
David Thomas, president, CEO, PHDC. I don't have those specific information, but I believe Councilmember Squilla asked, and I'm supposed to get that to you, so I'll make sure that you get a copy as well.
Thank you very much, Member Brooks. Chair recognizes Member Katherine Gilmore-Richardson.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you, colleagues. I'll start with Commerce, since you all are still there. First, thank you so very much to your teams. Let me start with our thank yous. Karen Fegley, Heloise Jettison, Anna Breece, Justine Bolkus, Ariana Ford, Michelle Gumbs. Thank you, Michelle Gumbs, Michelle Price, and Dawn Summerville. Thank you very much. And to everyone at the Commerce team, we appreciate each and every one of you. We know that the CTE Teacher Certification program lives and rests in Commerce's budget. And we know this is the first year I was able to receive a midyear report from the School District of Philadelphia relative to the impact of the program. And during the fall session, you know, we have only two schools; Temple University and Point Park University. Twenty-eight teachers have been assisted to receive their CTE certification. And also, we have 50 additional teachers for the spring. And we anticipate another 35 classes for coverage for this summer. And so I bring that up because I was able to be in the great Northeast in the 10th Council District this morning for a labor breakfast/union experience fair with our young people for National Apprenticeship Week. And I had so many teachers at Swenson come up to me to say thank you from the bottom of their hearts for the grant assistance -- teacher tuition assistance program that we've instituted. I know that in this proposed budget, that program is cut. And I wanted to put that on the record because, like I stated, so many teachers came up to me this morning. One teacher who he said he is almost 30. This is his 5th year with the district. He has three children under the age of five. And the program was of great help to him and to his family. So I wanted to put that on the record. If I can get a very brief response, because I must proceed to my questions for Planning and Housing.
Yes, Councilwoman. I mean, I -- we are all glad to hear the -- of those results. We all understand the importance of CTE teachers, especially as, again, we're building our, you know, our talent and our pipeline of students and ensuring that they're trained for the jobs that we have to offer in Philadelphia. So I'm glad to hear it's going well.
Thank you. Thank you very much. So I am going to be pushing for that. I'm saying that on the record to Council President and amongst my colleagues, as well as to Commerce and the administration. And that is a very important program for a pipeline for our young people in our CTE programs to get them trained for the jobs of the future. And so that'll be exceedingly important to me that we continue supporting that program, which, in turn, supports our teachers. I know that we have a focus on education in particular this year. And obviously, based on all of the proposals that we have received in this body, we know that education is our number one priority. And so, if that's the case, we must invest in our CTE teachers. Council President, I hear the bell. If you'll allow, may I just get questions on the record for Planning.