Committee Hearing, June 16, 2010

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 1:15 p.m. - - - RESOLUTION NO. 100379 - To examine the roles of the RDA and the Department of Public Property in improving housing in the City of Philadelphia. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jannie L. Blackwell, Chair William K. Greenlee, Vice Chair Darrell L. Clarke Curtis Jones, Jr. - - - 2 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Good afternoon. Thank you all for your patience. We will begin our resumed hearing from June 7th of Resolution 7 100379, and we will ask the clerk to read the entire resolution.

Resolution 100379, calling for public hearings before the City Council Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to examine the roles of the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property in improving housing in the City of Philadelphia. Whereas, the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property have the responsibility to work with the District Councilperson and Councilpersons at large to improve the City of Philadelphia; and Whereas, it is vitally important to have a clear, transparent process to accomplish these ends; and. 3 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Whereas, the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property are involved in the acquisition sitting and disposition of properties in our city; and Whereas, the Redevelopment Authority has the responsibility for condemnation in aid of redeveloping blighted neighborhoods in our city; and Whereas, there is much confusion with regard to the role of the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property to accomplish these goals; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Philadelphia that the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless hold public hearings to examine the roles of the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property in improving housing in the City of Philadelphia.

Thank 4 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you very much. We will begin this hearing by welcoming to the witness stand -- and thank you, Michael Sklaroff, for contacting us -- Steven Klein, Pat Gillespie, and anyone else from this group dealing with the Latter-Day Saints Church project that you would like to speak. (Witnesses come forward.)

Thank you very much. We thank you for being here today. We thank you for your commitment to this issue that is so very, very important to our city and to all of its citizens. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony. Thank you.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Steven Klein, and this is my associate Clay Chandler. And to my right --

Michael 5 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Sklaroff -- oh, Pat Gillespie.

I want to begin by thanking Councilwoman Blackwell and the members of this committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss our site at 17th and Vine Streets and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints' outstanding proposal to construct a temple and meeting house on the. Site it's unfortunate that we must take this committee's time to discuss how actions taken by the RDA have placed this $70 million project at risk. In the midst of this severe economic downturn, with limited new construction in the City, the LDS Church stands ready, willing, and able to proceed. Jobs will be created, tens of thousands of visitors will be attracted to the Parkway each year, and what is currently a parking lot will be turned into a magnificent and worthy addition to the Logan Square Neighborhood Association -- if the RDA would simply 6 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 process the application for this project. My organization, Logan Place Associates, purchased this property many years ago from Franklintown Corporation. Franklintown is unique: It's a privately-funded urban-renewal project; not one penny of public money is involved. We were chosen by Franklintown Corporation to be the redeveloper because of our financial standing, our success in residential development, and our ability to develop the site in accordance with the redevelopment proposal. We paid the full, fair-market value have, and have actively pursued development of this site. In May, 2009, the LDS Church approached us to acquire and develop this site. We concluded our negotiations with the LDS and signed an agreement of sale on August 10, 2009. The LDS Church then took several months to do their due diligence examinations, including 7 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 environmental, economic, and fiscal analysis, and the preparation of site studies and plans. Early in this process, church representatives began reaching out to various stakeholders in the community. Among others, they met with Councilman Darrell Clarke, whose district includes this site; and I want to take this opportunity to thank Councilman Clarke for his support and leadership on this project. They also met with the Logan Square Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Council. They reached out to Mayor Nutter, and a first meeting was scheduled with the Mayor for January 7th of this year. On Monday, December 21, 2009 -- that's December 21, 2009 -- I and my representatives met with Terry Gillen of the Redevelopment Authority to make a presentation about the church's temple project. We informed Ms. Gillen that the 8 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 church would spend approximately $70 million on construction, that it would create approximately 300 construction jobs and 240 permanent jobs. We let her know that the temple would draw tens of thousands of visitors to the City each year, and that many of these visitors would stay in the Philadelphia hotels and eat in Philadelphia restaurants. The ongoing benefit -- economic benefit to the City of the LDS Temple is projected at $20 million a year. This information is contained in an economic and fiscal impact analysis that was prepared for the church by former Commerce Director Steve Mullin of the Philadelphia firm eConsult. We asked Ms. Gillen to start the process of allowing the church to proceed with the project and to prepare the necessary documentation. We also informed Ms. Gillen at that meeting that representatives of the church were 9 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 scheduled to meet with the Mayor on January 7, 2007 -- January 7, 2007 -- just two-and-a-half weeks later. Given the obvious economic benefit to the City, we expected Ms. Gillen and the Redevelopment Authority to embrace this project. So imagine how shocked and surprised we were when the Redevelopment Authority filed a lawsuit attempting to take the property on Monday, December 28th, December 28th.

The suit was filed exactly one week after our meeting with Ms. Gillen and ten days before the Mayor's scheduled meeting with the LDS. The lawsuit was filed on the first business day following the Christmas holiday. We can only assume that the RDA rushed to torpedo the deal with the LDS Church, and, more form, to tie the Mayor's hands. As I stated before, representatives of the church have been very active in engaging various neighborhood, community, and City 10 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 stakeholders. The church has received the support of the Parkway Council and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood association sent a letter to City Council endorsing the project and testified on its behalf before a City Council Committee. At the same hearing, representatives of the Planning Commission endorsed the project. Most importantly, the members of City Council voted unanimously, to 14 nothing, to grant relief to the LDS 15 Church that they needed for the Parkway 16 height controls to allow for its proposed 17 spirals. Unfortunately, and in spite of the broad support this project has received from the community and City Council, the RDA continues to stand in the way. On May 10, 2010, we attended a meeting at the invitation of the RDA to resolve this matter. We were informed 11 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 that the RDA was working on a term sheet, and they would send it to us. As further evidence that the RDA's in no hurry to see the LDS project move forward, the term sheet didn't arrive until June the 4th, almost four weeks after our meeting. We wonder if the letter would have arrived even then, if not for a front-page article that ran that morning in the Inquirer about the lawsuit and how it was jeopardizing the LDS Temple project. Timing aside, it is obvious that the RDA still has no real interest in resolving the lawsuit since their settlement demands including paying them percent of the proceeds of the sale to 19 the LDS. 20 Had there been any attempt at 21 settling the lawsuit on the part of the 22 RDA, they would have looked at the 23 property next door to us at 16th and Vine 24 and said that they would treat us no 25 worse than they treated Grasso. The RDA 12 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 gave David Grasso and his company an 18-month extension for no money, with the option of an additional 12-month extension for $100,000. There is, however, a huge difference between Mr. Grasso's project and ours: We need no extensions; the LDS Church is ready, willing, and able to proceed now, and without one dollar of public money. I responded in a written letter to Ms. Gillen, stating that her demand was totally unacceptable. Furthermore, she was attempting to win a lawsuit that is without legal merit and should never have been filed. So here we are today, June 16th, in a city that desperately needs capital, jobs, and tourism, with a major project ready to go. The LDS Church is ready to spend $70 million, employ 300 construction workers, and bring in tens of thousands of visitors per year. Furthermore, we have the 13 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 approval of the local neighborhood associations and a 17-to-0 vote in City Council. And yet, I am forced to come here today to tell this mind-boggling story of how the RDA continues to obstruct this project because they either don't want it to happen or they only want it to happen after extracting an unwarranted and unprecedented monetary payment. I come here and humbly ask this committee to please ask the RDA to step aside and allow the LDS Church project to proceed. As their name implies, the Redevelopment Authority has an obligation and a mandate to support and encourage development in the City, and it's unconscionable that they continue in efforts clearly intended to scuttle a project that would be such a positive benefit to the City of Philadelphia.

Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell and the members of City Council 14 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 for your time and attention to this important issue. I am prepared to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. I'm sure that all here have heard your excellent testimony, and we're going to ask, after you finish your testimony, that Ms. Gillen come up to respond to those issues; they're glaring. $70 million? You know, no public money, the vote by Council, 300 jobs, 240 permanent jobs, and all that goes with it, all that it would bring. It is unconscionable that this project -- and this is a great example, a large example, of the problems we're having citywide. And so, we will certainly welcome the rest of the testimony and then open it up for questions and ask Ms. Gillen to come forward and be prepared to respond.

Thank you, Councilwoman. I'll be very, very brief 15 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 because I'd be interested in hearing the Director of the RDA explain that. It's kind of ironic in a city that was founded on religious freedoms and on having a decent place to worship comes before us this wonderful proposal to not only, quite honestly, put 300 guys to work, or girls, but to have a place in this city that will be another positive attraction about Philadelphia and consistent with the whole idea behind Philadelphia. It's a wonderful program. The idea that they're coming in, they have their own money. No one else has money; there's a paralysis in our industry because of the shortness of investment capital. Here comes a project that could -- that could create a synergy in that entire community. So anything and everything that you could do I know the building-trade unions would be very, very appreciative of. Thank you very much. 16 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Thank you very much. Councilman Greenlee, question?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the gentleman, maybe you could tell me -- I'm sure, with all this delay, the Church of the Latter-Day Saints have to be having some apprehension and concern. What have they expressed as far as -- I mean, is their patience running thin? I guess is the way I'm trying to get at it.

Well, I can't speak for the church, but I can speak for myself.

Mm-hmm.

I have heard from the church.

Right.

And they are getting impatient. They don't understand why this process has not moved forward. The City, under Councilman 17 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Clarke's leadership, has been excellent. They've received an excellent reception from the neighborhood associations and City Council, but they don't understand why the RDA continues to oppose this project, and they are getting impatient. They have said to me, quote: "We are starting to think about a Plan B outside the City."

Mm-hmm. And that wouldn't be to anybody's benefit, I would think.

No, it wouldn't.

Okay. One other question. When this land, during the years that it was not developed, were taxes being paid on it?

Oh, certainly. Certainly we paid taxes on it.

Mm-hmm. I just wanted that on the record. So there has been money paid -- so the fiscal -- or the financial responsibility has been kept up on this land. 18 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I just want to concur with the statements made with respects to the development of this site, how -- what I believe to be critical that we not only send a signal to the local community that we're serious about creating opportunities both as it relates to jobs but creating opportunities that, frankly speaking, will bring a significant development that will fit in with what is currently probably the most attractive institutional row, as we like to call it, the Museum Mile, along the Parkway, the renderings of the facility fit in. We purposely capped the height 19 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 limit to match the basilica's height limit 'cause we believe they're essentially religious bookends, so to speak. And this has been a project that as recent as last night we talked about. I went to the Logan Square Neighborhood Association meeting, and they actually had a picture of it in the presentation. And I have to say that as a result of this project, I actually know more about the members of the Latter-Day Saints than I ever thought I would know, you know -- (Laughter.)

-- 'cause there were certain stereotypes associated with the organization early on, and those people know about what people believed them to be. And I think the most significant issue that related to the elimination of some of the stereotypes is 20 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 when I had my first meeting with them and the person that walked in the door, who was the facilitator and, I later found out, very high up in the ranks was a gentleman that apparently -- and I didn't know him at the time -- that grew up three blocks from me over in the Raymond Rosen public housing. And I was quite amazed to see, needless to say, he was an African-American. And the history associated with his upbringing and for him to be a member of the Latter-Day Saints in an extremely high-ranking position, frankly speaking, was quite interesting to me. And their ability and willingness to meet with everybody in the community and the community support for what it is they talk about not only having a religious facility but having a museum attached that would be open and available, having a job-placement center that's open and available to all the 21 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 citizens of the City of Philadelphia, I was truly impressed with what they want to do. I think having such a presence will clearly create an opportunity for them to do more in the City, more than they're already doing, 'cause, apparently, they have a number of churches throughout the City. So I must say I'm equally as perplexed as you are, Mr. Klein, why we haven't put shovels in the ground. I want to say, as recent as last night, in a meeting with the Mayor, the Mayor told me several times that this was a project that was going to get done, and he gave me his commitment, and I take him at his word. So hopefully, within the foreseeable, future we will be in a position to put shovels in the ground, 'cause I do agree that in today's economic times, we need job opportunities in the worst way. 22 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 As it relates to those job opportunities, I want to say that the members of the Latter-Day Saints actually submitted, as a part of the legislation that authorized the construction, submitted a equal opportunity plan that had the most aggressive participation goals for minorities and females that we've ever passed in this Council. It actually, I believe, surpassed the Convention Center. And there is no public money in this document. So for that commitment to be made, it shows that these people are truly committed to the City. So having the Mayor's word, I'm hoping, and I believe, that this will get done. But we really need to move this as quickly as possible. So I'm assuming that there will be some follow-up conversations with the RDA. But we need to move this. And I agree with you: It has been definitely too long to move this project. 23 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Obviously, from the conversation we've heard today, and as one who has not been involved, it's obvious that this has gone on a long time with the community involvement we hear about and with you knowing about a museum and with all the OEO, the commitment for inclusion and across the board. If Lucien Blackwell were alive, he'd call it "a sweetheart deal," right, Pat?

It's the good ol' days.

Yes, yes, yes. So certainly, we are prepared to ask the Redevelopment Authority to come up. And the Mayor made his commitment. I heard him make that commitment; I was in the room at that 24 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 time. We have only one question, then: When? So we'll ask Ms. Gillen to come forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. So perhaps you can stay around, in case she has a question for you, to hear the response. (Ms. Gillen comes forward.)

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Councilwoman.

Please identify yourself for the record.

Sure. I'm Terry Gillen. I'm the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority.

Great. You have heard their testimony, you've heard Councilman Clarke's commitment, 25 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 verbal commitment, from the Mayor last evening. I was in the room when that commitment was made. So we'd like to know when.

Councilwoman, I'm more than happy to talk about this today. It is a project that's under negotiation. And it is the subject of a lawsuit, so there is -- there are many aspects of it that I'm not at liberty to discuss, but --

We merely asked about a timeline; we didn't ask for any details. We've heard all that we need to here at this point in this committee. We're not asking for all the -- to resolve any legal issues or the specifics of the contract. We are talking about a timeline as to when. If it's gone on this long, my goodness, who -- we can't afford to lose a $70 million project and all the jobs and all else that it creates and the ongoing money that it will create from 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 people visiting this site. We just need to know when. That's not asking for the whole issue of details of the agreement.

I understand, Councilwoman. And, unfortunately, I'm not in a position to give you a timeline today.

Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Gillen, I guess my -- if you heard my question, I asked about -- I call it "the patience level" of the Latter-Day Saints. Are you concerned that this project as -- and I won't get into what the legal thing is 'cause I probably won't understand it. Are you concerned that while this is going on that this project could be scuttled, that the Latter-Day Saints could decide it's easier to go to Montgomery County 'cause 27 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 they're not going to put me all -- you know, through all this. Is that a concern of the Redevelopment Authority or you personally?

I would remind you, Councilman, that the Mayor is the Chair of the RDA board, so I want folks to understand that this is the position of the Nutter Administration.

Okay.

There seems to be some, maybe, lack of clarity about that. So I just --

A lack of clarity about what?

About that -- this -- that the Redevelopment Authority is doing this somehow on its own or --

So you're saying it's not you; it's the Mayor.

I'm saying it is the Nutter Administration. 28 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Okay. Well --

I just wanted to clarify. So no, I don't have that concern. And the reason, Councilman, is that we have been in discussions with Mr. Klein and with the Latter-Day Saints throughout the process. I'm not prepared to give you details about that, I'm not prepared to talk about what the nature of those discussions are or where I think they're going to go or what the timeline is. But I can tell you that the Mayor supports this project, he is committed to figuring out a way to make it happen, and we have been in pretty active discussions with them over the last couple of months.

And you said that -- and Councilman Clarke said that the Mayor gave his commitment to get this done, but -- I'm trying to phrase 29 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 this. So you have -- you have no 4 concern about -- that this project could be lost.

I would never tell you on any deal -- I've done deals for 8 years -- that I have no concerns. 9

Mm-hmm. 10

Any deal can go 11 wrong for any variety of reasons. So no, 12 I don't want you to suggest that. 13

Okay. 14

But overall, all I 15 can tell you is that there are active 16 discussions going on. The Mayor is 17 committed to getting it done, the Chief 18 of Staff has been, you know, working on 19 this as well. 20

Mm-hmm.

And so, we -- we're -- we're working to try to get this to happen.

Okay. Well, would you say if something -- if 30 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 this does fall apart, that that sends a really bad message? Not just at this site, but in the whole city?

Councilman, I think there are a lot of policy considerations here. So this -- this is not a single action that we took with regard to a single project. I do want to say that back in September of '08, the Redevelopment Authority began to issue default letters on what is now probably more than fifty projects.

Mm-hmm.

And we did that for two reasons that I think are really important for the public to understand. The one is because we wanted to make sure that developers who had committed to develop projects were not allowing those parcels of land to sit vacant. We have a serious vacancy problem in the City of Philadelphia, and we've got to get them moving. 31 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 That policy has been hugely successful. Of the 59 letters that we've sent out today, we have had developers 5 complete projects, we've had 12 6 developers start construction, or commit 7 to starting destruction, and we've had 24 8 developers give vacant property back that 9 we can then put out into the -- into 10 other uses. 11 So overall, this has been a 12 successful policy, number one. 13 And, number two, the reason we 14 did it was because we wanted to make sure 15 that if are were any developers out there 16 who have benefited financially present speculating that the public shares in the financial benefits, and that's really been the reason for this policy. So I -- somehow I don't want people to think that we directed this at a particular project or -- and, in fact, we started the default process on this process long before the Latter-Day Saints even appeared on the scene. 32 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 So it is, as I said a overall, you know, successful policy that we've instigated. We do not believe that it's going to result in the loss of this project. We're committed to trying to get this project done, but we're committed to doing it in a way that the public gets its share of the benefits.

I understand the policy, but I guess -- and, you know, I know something about it; I don't live real far from there. It would -- it would seem that with the -- all the -- I guess my question would be: Are the benefits that has been talked about here part of this consideration -- the jobs, the minority participation, just the amount of money that's being spent here, and the site, which is a site that you want developed and the kind of development that it's going to be?

I'm --

Is that 33 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 all taken into account as far as when you're -- you're factoring in the policy?

Absolutely. And, in fact, we are required -- you know, our lawyers have been careful to make sure that we analyze every site on a case-by-case basis to show that there's a, you know, good, solid reason for the decision that we're making. And obviously, on this site, the benefits of this project are a consideration, no question. We are well aware of them.

Okay. Well, I -- I'm glad you have the confidence. I mean I think a lot of us have a lot of concern, and I think it's why City Council, you know, after the due diligence that was done, I think you know, from your activity now and others, that groups like Logan Square aren't easily pleased. They're friends of mine, but they have a lot of demands. And, you know, this Council isn't always easily 34 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 pleased. But I think this development answered questions of everybody. And I guess it is frustrating. And, again, I know you can't discuss all the -- all the legal things. But it's frustrating, and it seems like everybody else is onboard, and now we've run into this kind of -- since you can't talk about it, kind of almost mystery blockage. And it -- and, you know, I -- you know, I just don't get, and it I think a lot of don't get it. And I know you said you can't discuss it all, but, I mean, that's a problem, I think, for a lot of us, you know.

Well -- and I -- I understand your frustration. I think that's one reason that it's never good to try to negotiate these deals in public.

Well, the public wants answers from us, Terry.

I understand that, 35 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 I understand that.

Okay, all right. Thank you.

I find it unconscionable that you would sit here and tell us -- hold this up and even talk about the issue of vacancy, that you have to pull properties back. It is unconscionable that you could sit here and -- and delay this project who's providing $70 million, jobs, and all that the future can bring, all positive things, and tell us that you can't discuss it; not only that you can't discuss it, but can't give us a timeline, but you all are looking into it. How dare you come and insult us this way. It is unconscionable. I have here testimony from the Science Center. We know that it is the largest business of this kind in the country. They have a company that is the fastest-growing in the company, Energy 36 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Plus, that is in their building. They were just written up in the Philadelphia Business Journal. We have testimony from them on all that they do. It's the same kind of thing. They're a 501 corporation, they are. From 65 to 2,014 buildings have been created. I'll only say a few things about the -- that it's the largest and most successful urban research organization. Some 8,000 -- their programs have generated over 42,000 jobs in the city and region, they've contributed over million to this city 16 in taxes, and so on and so on and so 17 forth. 18 I'm only giving you a few of 19 the smaller details of this project in my 20 district. At least you can say that 21 that's in court, and that maybe wasn't so 22 obvious. But the unconscionable way that you could say that to reduce vacancy, you sent out 50-some letters. One of the 37 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 considerations is vacancy, and you take these back. It's just obviously unconscionable, obviously doesn't make sense, and obviously not true. You cannot insult our intelligence. We've been here too long, we've been here -- we've worked with these groups, we've worked with these organizations. We know our districts, we know what works. And to try to say that there is some reason -- and, you know, we're very, very, very upset. This is unacceptable. We will not take this as a committee. We have public hearings. You talk about not -- not having these discussions in public. We had to; we had no choice. I'm on the team. But when one's back is against the wall, when we have a stalemate when it comes to your department and when it comes -- related, it's spilled over into other departments because everything is stuck, projects don't move. Trying to 38 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 get anything done that makes sense doesn't happen, then we were forced to come to public hearings to try to move things forward, because we have to use what is at our disposal. And what we can do as Councilpeople and elected officials is have public hearings. We are here to straighten these areas out, to field. The Mayor told me last night the issue was communication, but there's no communication when you just say you can't talk about it and that you withdraw properties and pull them back from agencies and individuals and companies and institutions who obviously have the ability to buy, as has happened with the Church of the Latter-Day Saints. Your comments are absolutely unacceptable. This committee will not accept it, and we will move forwarded to what we have to do to change things if you continue to take us there. We need answers, we need 39 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 answers. These people aren't here and haven't taken off work in their busy schedules because they just want to be here, because they want to visit us. They see us. We are here because we need an answer to the stalemate that exists with regard to the Redevelopment Authority and related departments as they relate to you so that we can move our city forward. And we need answers, we need answers.

I need to know why the Science Center, we need to know why the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, we need to know why these departments, these projects, these companies, these institutions aren't moving. I mean, the shareholders in the Science Center or at Penn and Drexel and University of the Sciences, Temple, Thomas Jefferson University, I mean, you know, they have -- they have 8,000 full-time workers right on their campus. I don't understand why these 40 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 projects are stalled and we want an answer.

(No verbal response.)

So obviously, we won't get one. (Laughter.) Let me say so for all those who are here and who watched or were here at our last hearing, that we had Damon Jones from Bibleway, the reverend doctor. We had the Partnership CDC. And in Councilwoman Donna Miller's area, we had the Rays of Hope. We had these other churches, institutions, community leaders who were here and people that you said you would contact and work it out; all of them have said they haven't been contacted, they haven't been contacted. We are not here because we have nothing better to do. You said you would contact those people, you would work those things out, and we want you to respond to those issues that were raised 41 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 and those projects that were raised at our last hearing. We'd like you to do that. And let me note, while we're here, that we have a quorum: To my left, Councilman Bill Greenlee; to my right, Councilman Darrell Clarke, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, and Councilman Curtis Jones.

I'm happy to respond to the points that were raised in the hearing on June --

Before you proceed, Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up on a couple of issues with respects to Ms. Gillen's testimony on Latter-Day Saints facility. Ms. Gillen -- well, first of all, let me respond to Councilman Greenlee's question about whether or not there's the likelihood or a possibility 42 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 of the Latter-Day Saints selecting another location if this continues to drag on. In our meeting with the Mayor, that issue came up, and they told us that they had actually looked at a number of locations. The various locations were -- from a geographical standpoint in terms of actual constructing a building, there were a number of them. They came down to two desirable sites: One was in Valley Forge, and that's obviously not in the City of Philadelphia; and the other was the site that we're referencing today. And they told the Mayor at the time that this was their preferred site for a lot of different reasons because of the City, and they wanted to make a commitment to the City, and they wanted to have a presence beyond what they currently have in the City. But understanding the level of people that have been involved with this 43 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 and the fact that they have put themselves out on a limb -- I actually almost had an opportunity to meet the -- I believe it's called the apostle, who is, like, am I right, Mike? The apostle, who's like the international person? MIKE: (Inaudible, off-mic.)

Yeah. Well, this was the international. So, I mean, that was the level of seriousness. So -- and they continue to be concerned. So I say all that to say that at some point, there's going to be a time when they are going to just simply throw up their hands and say, We have to move to Valley Forge. And they have not said that, to their credit. They are committed, they want to be here. But I'm just concerned that the level -- the length of this deliberation is getting beyond even their patience. Ms. Gillen, you indicated that the policy with respects to issuing 44 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 default notices, which is one I actually -- and I said in a earlier hearing I actually don't think it's legal, but that's a discussion for another time, but I don't think you have the ability to take back a property that has been paid for with market value. In this particular case, it was -- it was taken by the Redevelopment Authority for another entity. So it wasn't like it was originally a Redevelopment Authority, but that's another issue for another day. You mentioned a number. Can you give me those numbers again, please?

Sure. Yeah. Of the default letters we've issued to date, which is 59 --

69.

59, 5-9, 59.

59, okay.

We've had 16 people complete their projects since after the default letter was -- 45 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Can you forward, through the Chair, the list of those 16?

Absolutely, absolutely.

Indicating the size and the scope; i.e., the cost of the projects, please.

Certainly. We've had begin construction or commit to 12 begin construction immediately.

Can you give me similar information on those also?

Absolutely, yeah, certainly. And then, we've had 19 developers agree that they had no ability 20 to do the project and to revert the 21 parcel back to the Redevelopment 22 Authority. 23

Had they 24 paid fair market value for those?

In some cases, 46 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 yes; and in many cases, no, or they paid nominal.

Okay. Can you give me, through the Chair, the specific information on the properties that were reverted to the Redevelopment Authority, those that were market value, those that were not -- were nominal.

Certainly.

And in terms of the process of the redistribution of those properties, the 24, what will be the process?

It will go through sort of the standard process that we will follow with vacant land, which is that we'll ask the Planning Commission to look at the parcel and give us their sense of what they think should happen with the parcel. So if it's on a commercial corridor, should it be commercial, if it's in a, you know, industrial area. So whatever. So we'll ask the Planning 47 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Commission to give us some advice on what we should do next; that would be the next step. And then, if we think that we should sell it, we can try to sell it, we can try to do an RFP, if we think it's the type of property that lends itself to an RFP. So, you know, we'll make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

And is that soley the staff of the RDA that makes those decisions? Is there public --

No. 16

Is there, like, any public process, or is there a process that, like, when those properties are disposed, it's done in a public way?

Oh, sure --

Or is it just simply --

Oh, yeah. Well --

-- you guys selling properties and a person buys it 48 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 and --

Well, it's not the staff of the RDA. I mean, we'll be working with the Planning Commission staff, so it's not us.

But the Planning Commission, is it a recommendation? I'm actually talking about the pure disposition of the property.

Well, we can't dispose of property without Council being involved. And so, what we said last week --

That's -- that's not -- that's not necessarily true.

Well, what we said last week pretty clearly was that we would come to you before we would make any disposition decisions. And we will do that.

Well, there was a commitment -- I just want to make 49 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 sure 'cause I want it on the record.

Yeah.

We're on the record now. That language is not in your contract.

I understand that, but we will do that.

So the language in the letter from the Mayor, because we wanted the Mayor to send a letter, 'cause he -- as you indicated earlier, he is the Chairman of the RDA Board. It's the understanding that the Redevelopment Authority on the disposition of those properties, or if 19 any change in plans in the other 20 properties, will come back to the 21 District Councilperson for those 22 properties. 23

Absolutely. 24

Okay, okay. I'm good. 50 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before I call on Councilwoman Miller -- and I gave a copy to the Mayor yesterday. We had a hearing on the 7th and on the 8th of property in my district move forward. And when the Mayor asked me what it was about, even after we had the hearing and you committed to not moving forward without our Councilmembers' input, as it's supposed to be with projects, you didn't. I have the document right here, where it's supposed to go to the board on June 8th. We had a hearing June 7th, and you were supposed to stop moving ahead on projects without our knowledge, since we have to be involved with zoning and so forth. And nothing changed.

Yes. Councilwoman, the Mayor shared that letter with me last night, and we both 51 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 agreed -- and I think he may have said that to you -- that that letter was probably the result of the RDA Board process running through its normal schedule. But rest assured that we have changed the way we've addressed these projects.

Well, we think that you all should have cared enough to review it, you know, before -- if you knew you were having a hearing today after our hearing, could not you have just picked up the phone or called, or somebody could have done something. But this just goes through the process and we're supposed to accept it. You know, I'm very disappointed. And the last thing I'll say before I call on Councilwoman Miller is that I told the Mayor we were disappointed. I have a right, as a District Councilperson, to be involved in the 52 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 fight for development in my district; that's what I'm elected to do. It's one of the things I like most about my job, trying to say neighborhoods change. And I told the Mayor I was very disappointed, or I asked him about calling the federal government, HUD, because I want Mill Creek Farm moved about three blocks. I got a map, we got a little map. About three blocks from its current site is another site close to Sulzberger School, for people who know the area. Next to it, where we can't build, because there's water underneath the Mill Creek, and it's much bigger than the land that the Mill Creek Farm is currently on. And we would transfer that, do a bit of a land swap, or some such similar arrangement, and take the Mill Creek Farm that's only weeds and dirt and debris all winter long is great. I support vegetables, I support feeding the 53 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 homeless; it's what's closest to my heart. I support all of that. But if we can have a block square of housing, move it three blocks away, and the community agrees, you all not only fought me, you go to HUD, and it put PHA in the position of saying that -- and it made it look like I'm on PHA Board and we are in some collusion. I'm trying to figure out anybody can be in collusion to help poor people get housing in a area that needs it. And, I mean, it's just unconscionable. And it put PHA in a position to say maybe I can't interact with Councilpeople if I'm -- if HUD is called and PHA is put in a position to say they're trying to do something that is against their mandate. It's unfair, it's wrong. I have to right to fight for housing in my area. I have a right, when I can have housing and a garden within three blocks I have a right to be able to say that, to 54 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 advocate for that, to fight for that, without somebody calling HUD to say we're doing something wrong. How can you -- and not just you and the Mayor, I don't understand how you can act as executive director and head of the board, I don't understand how you can fight the very arm that you need to help make everything move forward. It's absolutely unconscionable to me. Councilwoman Miller, who I'm calling on next, also had an issue where we -- we have to work with all agencies we can -- public, private, and otherwise, labor -- to get things to move forward, and why somebody would call HUD and say there's some issue involved when we're trying to do housing is unconscionable to me. Maybe you know why.

I'll just -- I know that you had a conversation with the Mayor and I think I'll just --

I sure 55 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 did.

And I'll just let that stand.

Yeah, yeah. Obviously, I didn't get any answer then. There's some policy as to farms. You know, I mean, it's just ridiculous. Councilwoman Miller.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to get clarity for the record. Earlier you made a statement that said these decisions are the Administration's decisions, and I think you meant not yours singularly; is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. But -- and I assume that you're talking about the RDA Board.

Yes.

Correct? Okay. 56 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 So -- but isn't it the role of staff to do whatever needs to be done and do the work and then make recommendations for the board to make decisions before they take action?

Sure.

So when you say "Administration," you mean the RDA Board and the staff at RDA.

It depends on the specific issue you're discussing.

Well, then who makes the -- who does the work and gives the recommendations to the board for action; is it you?

In some cases. And in some cases, it's other members of the senior staff.

Okay. But my point -- I guess for the record what I want the answer to is, when the RDA Board takes action -- 'cause they don't work for RDA; they're just board members. And I don't know that they're 57 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 there actually doing the work completing any tasks that helps them make decisions. I believe, as in other boards, the staff does all the work, and they make the decision to the board or the executive committee normally, and then decisions are made to take action, to take votes, et cetera. Who gives the board the information to make a decision?

Um --

Is it you only, or sometimes you and other staff members?

Sometimes it's me and sometimes it's other staff members.

Okay. So when you say "Administration," the Administration makes the decision, then you're including yourself.

Certainly, yes.

Okay, all right. That's all I wanted to know.

Okay. 58 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Councilman Jones.

Good afternoon, Ms. Gillen.

Good afternoon.

A while back, you started a process by which your staff and others were starting to put their arms around property acquisition and disposition in the City of Philadelphia. Please tell us where you are with that kind of study, because a lot of this frustration I'm hearing and heard at the prior hearing both from developers, both from Councilpeople, and both from people that are just trying to get housing, is that there is something wrong with this. And I don't want to believe that what is broken is sent from the 59 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Mayor. I don't want to believe that we are not getting the kind of cooperation that -- I mean, all my life, I ran for office so that I could make a difference. And then to be told that we can't do some of the things by way of property acquisition. I have a street called Market Street. And on Market Street, from 46th Street to 63rd Street, because of the el construction, we have 40 percent abandonment. We lost 50-plus family-owned businesses. And the only hope that we were telling the community and the Chairwoman long before I got there was that at the end of the day, we were going to transform this neighborhood based on this new infrastructure -- the City, the private sector, the community working together to do that. And it's been three years since I've been here. And I am equally frustrated with the lack of 60 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 ribbon-cutting, progress, job creation development. So if there is a study and if there is a master plan, please tell me where it is.

There is no master plan. But, as you know, we have been -- the Redevelopment Authority has been working with our sister agencies -- I would say there are seven or eight -- related City agencies that we have been working with to try to figure out how we can fix the broken system that we all knows exists. We have started to brief members of City Council. We've gotten in to some of you; in other cases, we were waiting until we -- until the budget's done. I think we did get in to you and gave you a little preview of how we're approaching the thinking on this. We have several working committees, some of which include members of City Council. We want to get more 61 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 City Council members involved in that process and to try to figure out how we might fix the system. It's going to require, I think, a lot of dialogue this summer because in order to fix the system, we'll have to really rethink a lot of the way we -- we do business in certain City agencies. And it's a very complicated process.

Well --

So I don't want to suggest that this is going to be simple or that we're going to roll out a magic plan this summer that's going to make everybody happy. I think what we've got is the beginning of a dialogue. And that's really -- you know, it's -- we're committed to keeping the dialogue going.

All right. Here's the thing we have to have two tracks. We have to have a track that -- I don't mind getting down the road on a donut tire to the gas station to know that I'm going to put a fixed tire on, 62 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 but we still have to make progress. And paralysis analysis is sometimes what the City and governments in general get. The people out in the business community, in the community are not working. They're not -- there's a job not happening on Market Street because there's not a construction project because we couldn't get acquisition dollars to get site control to do what we needed to do to get financing in a difficult, difficult banking, financing environment. The confidence -- I had a developer say to me the confidence to have faith that site acquisition would happen made him say it's so much easier to do it down the road. And that frustration, as we start to bring people to Philadelphia, to our respective districts and say there is a opportunity here. Yeah, there's a recession; yeah, you should take a risk and invest your capital here. They look 63 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 at us and say, You have a system that doesn't give my investors any belief that we can start on time and on time and build within budget because of that uncertainty. And so, the frustration that you hear often is because -- I just know there are other districts that have had, you know, other administrations where they've actually been able to point to projects that they helped bring online and bring to fruition. And it's difficult. There's a joke that I have all the Councilpeople sign a piece of pipe saying you have to get in line in the pipeline. And at first, it was funny. I mean, and I said, you know, I'm going to figure this system out. I've been in development, I've been on that side of the table. But this is getting increasingly frustrating. And I really don't want to believe that it is the 64 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 policy of this administration to analyze to a point where we are ineffective. And that's borderline where we are. And whatever it takes to fix this -- I don't want this hostile kind of interrogation. I'd rather build something, I'd rather cut a ribbon. But at the point where a Councilperson doesn't get answers, I mean, what's left to them but to have a hearing to bring this to a public forum. And I just get -- I just get saddened by the fact that we can't figure a way to move properties, to move projects, to put people to work.

Yeah. I -- I sense your frustration. I certainly share it. It's a -- you know, it's a tough time. And I just will make two points. One is, at the hearing last week, you did ask us to bring a list of the projects that the Redevelopment Authority has done in all Council 65 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Districts.

Mm-hmm.

I think you wanted to see your district.

Yes.

I shared that with the Chair. And so, I just want you to know that we did give that you information. And there are some projects getting done. There's no question it's not as many as any of us would like, but -- and you'll have to decide whether your district is getting as many as other districts, and I'll leave it up to you. I do want to make the point that I think we're all feeling that the NTI audit slowed everything down. And that is, again, as I said last week, not the fault of anyone in this room. But there's no question that the Controller's audit, which put NTI acquisitions on hold, meant that a lot of deals didn't get done while the audit was 66 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 going. I mean, as you know, that process has restarted. I think you're going to see us jump-starting a lot of acquisitions this summer. And I'm cautiously optimistic that things are going to improve the second half of this year.

Well, I'd like to share that optimism, but when we walked from 63rd and Market to 57th and Market, the community wasn't as optimistic. And if we don't start to show them some progress, I mean, I think their optimism will turn to pessimism; and from there, just throw their hands up. And I really think we have to do something. I understand audits, but this is the longest audit in the history of audits. And we have to, at some point, come to a conclusion that there was a financial defalcation or there wasn't. And if there wasn't, let's move on; if there was, let's deal with it. 67 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Yep.

But analysis paralysis is not where we need to be. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. And let me know, 'cause I started working for the late Lucien Blackwell January 3, 1976. This is the worst I've seen it. Talk about -- we've had glitches in the system, we've had hearings. Generally our hearings -- I mean, we -- I had eight hearings at the close of the administration of former Mayor Street; that was to protect employees when they reorganized, but it wasn't at this level. We were trying to protect workers. It wasn't that we felt that everything stopped, to not -- to charge a senior citizen fair market value for a lot next door that she cleans and tries to keep neat for a block, to take a little plot of ground that somebody 68 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 plants flowers on and say you have to provide fair market value, and to make fair market value totally different, using different standards for different areas such that we all admit they're not fair, it's just -- it's just unconscionable. I've never seen it this bad. And as I said, we go public when are -- when we have no recourse. So we're not at all satisfied. We're going to -- we have one or two people left to testify; we'll ask you to stand by. And then we will finish our line of questioning, and that is after -- so after Councilwoman Miller speaks, we're going to ask Reverend Christian Buggs, who's in for Reverend Kenneth Porter, who's out of town, and Community Bible Deliverance Kingdom Ministries to come forward. Councilwoman Miller.

Okay. Two quick questions as follow-up from 69 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 last week. We need to get together and have a meeting, a follow-up meeting, regarding the Rays of Hope project, with all of the parties, with all of the parties that are involved. So I don't expect you to give me any dates and times today, but I need you to make that commitment to do --

And if she doesn't, we'll have another hearing just on getting a date.

Right. Okay, great. And, yeah, I just want to make a comment about the broken system. I guess the system's broke. I guess it depends on who's looking at it. I know that we were always able to acquire land and get projects moving. And I wasn't paying full attention to your response to Councilman Jones, and I do think you said something about we'll do something over the summer, 70 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 but I'd like to know -- you've looked at that system now for two years in terms of our acquisition NTI dollars, and we need to begin to wrap that up so that we can move forward with acquisitions and disposal of land. So how soon -- is that what you were making reference to when saying you'll be doing some work over the summer?

No. I was making -- I think Deborah McColloch's prepared to talk to you about the NTI schedule if you want that. No, I was referring to our looking at the overall vacant land system in the City and briefing Councilmembers over the summer and talking about ways that we can tweak the system.

Okay, okay. So Deborah is going to be the one to deal with the NTI acquisition dollars?

(Nods head.)

You know, 71 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 I think Councilmembers have been pretty patient and, you know, sat back and waited with the audit of audits to be completed so we could move forward with our projects. (Deborah McCulloch comes forward.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Good afternoon. I'm Deborah McCulloch, the Director of Housing. I'm not sure, Councilwoman, if you received a copy of the letter that the Mayor signed last week providing the acquisition timelines. I have another copy of it here for you today if you'd like to that.

I'd like to have that. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay.

I think you gave that out at a hearing. MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.

I think the Finance Committee hearing? 72 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.

Right. I'm not a member of that so I did not get a copy of that letter. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay.

Thank you. MS. McCOLLOCH: Here's a copy -- another copy of the same letter, and it outlines -- there are three different acquisition timelines listed in this letter: One is for properties that I'm calling "the old properties," which would be the previously-submitted list of acquisitions. A second is a timeline for properties that would be required for low-income housing tax-credit deals for which developers would want to submit in the next tax credit round. And the third is the timeline for what I'm calling "new properties," which are properties that are not needed 73 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 for the low-income housing tax credit round but are priorities that you would want to have submitted from your district. So in that paper that I just handed out, it lists the timeline for each of those three sets. And what I will be providing -- my commitment is to provide to you the follow-up to our meeting of last fall that follows up on some issues that were raised when we met last fall to discuss NTI and gives you again the list of property that we're calling the "old properties." My commitment is to submit that to you by the end of this week, by June 18th, and then for you to respond which properties from the old list you want us to pursue; if you have tax-credit properties, what those are; and then what the new properties are. So this -- the letter that was just distributed -- that was handed out 74 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 last week outlines the timeline for that.

Okay. So once we review the list and review what's the old, whether it still remains a priority or active, when will we begin to move -- MS. McCOLLOCH: Over the summer. Then once we get that list, you can see, if you look, for example, on the page for previously-submitted NTI acquisitions, that's what we're calling "the old ones." You would return the list to me by the end -- in two weeks' time, and that would authorize the RDA to then begin ordering appraisals, which is sort of the next step so that we can match budget resources with properties. And then the Interagency Review Team -- that's called IART -- will review all of the lists, make a set of recommendations to the Chief of Staff with the -- again, with the appraisals. Once we get the appraisals, we review the 75 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 budgets, we review them with you. I view this as an iterative process, where we get the budget, we come back to you and say, Here's the budget, this is what it's going to cost to acquire these properties. If there's enough money for what you want, we would move it forward; if not, we would talk to you about which ones do we want to drop, are these the ones we still want to do. We get that approval. Then we -- the steps are, it has to be back to the Redevelopment Authority Board, it has to go to the Planning Commission, and then it comes back to City Council. So our goal is to try to get the list back to Council in the fall --

Okay. MS. McCOLLOCH: -- when Council reconvenes in the fall.

Okay. And we'll do the new -- the old versus -- MS. McCOLLOCH: Right. 76 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

-- the new in two weeks, correct? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes, mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Okay, thank you. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Again, we appreciate Reverend Christian Buggs for Rev. Dr. Kenneth Porter and Community Bible Kingdom Ministries, would you come forward. (Witness comes forward.)

Thank you all for coming. Would the members of this fine church in the 3rd District stand, those who are here. (Church members stand.) Thank you all for coming. (Applause.) 77 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Thank you very much for taking time from your schedule. We appreciate your time. Reverend Buggs. REV. BUGGS: First of all, I'd like to take this time to express our appreciation for the time to Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell and the entire Councilmembers today for this opportunity for us to come before you to express our need as to what we want to accomplish here at Community Bible Deliverance Kingdom Ministries. Once again, my name is Christian Buggs. I am the head trustee and minister for Community Bible Deliverance, and I am here on behalf the Dr. Kenneth Porter, who is the founder and pastor of this particular church. This church has been located at 3951 Haverford Avenue for over 20 years. I have here, in this binder, over 43 pictures of the alleyway that is directly located behind our church. And 78 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 these are pictures that were not taken by a photographer outside of the ministry; they were taken by myself. And I can honestly say that when I stepped back there to take these pictures, it was as if I had walked into a third-world country. We also have here 169 petitions from the residents of the Mantua community and the surrounding neighborhood asking the City of Philadelphia to help us to proceed with the condemning process of these properties on Mt. Vernon Street and to make these mentioned properties available for redevelopment. Condemnation of these abandoned properties was requested over two years ago; and to no available. And since then have been used to the detriment of the community and to the detriment of the livelihood and the morale of this particular community. When I went into this, what I 79 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 have found, we have members here today and members also who have witnessed prostitution, drug abuse, alcohol abuse on a daily basis. And we're talking all day, every day, all night, every night. When I took these particular pictures that are located here -- and if any of the Councilmembers would like to see them, I would ask that you would look at those. I took these pictures on last Friday, between 12 noon and 12:45. And, honestly, I was appalled at the condition. These pictures only tell a partial story as to what is transpiring in this particular alleyway behind our church. During the time that I was there, I was in there for, like I said, between 12 and 12:45, two Philadelphia officers on foot patrol came into the alleyway, and they stayed for a few moments, and we were able to look at a few things, and they pretty much asked me what I was doing, and I told them I was 80 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 taking pictures for the church. And after they left, within five minutes after they left, a man and a woman arrived in broad daylight to only -- to do what I can only leave to your imagination. This has been a two-year process that we started -- like I say, we started this over two years ago, and we are now back to square one, and nothing has been done. What Dr. Porter, the church hierarchy, the members of Community Bible Deliverance and the Mantua community, what we want to do is, we want to build a building that will add to the community. Dr. Porter and the particular church has not made a five-year commitment, it has been not been a ten-year, it has not been a fifteen-year; it has been over a twenty-year condominium. We want to feed -- we have fed, we have clothed, and with the facility 81 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 that we would like to build, we will continue to feed and clothe people in this particular community. There are boarded-up houses that you can see in those pictures that have been broken into. And what we want to be done is that we want this credited to the community, and the community came together to stop the blight at this particular location. Once again, I also have the 169 signatures from the members of the particular community.

And all we want done is that something be started immediately that will allow us to bring something positive to this area. As Councilwoman Blackwell aptly stated earlier, what we want to do is, we want to add to the community. What is going on at these particular properties, even as we speak, is daily taking away from this community. Once again, we have members here. To my right, I have Lisa Bowers, 82 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 who is the secretary for the church, who has an office that backs up to this particular area, and she'll be able to testify to some of the things that she's heard and dealt with out there. And at this point, I can promise you that if this process is expedited, we will build an edifice that will add to the community for years to come. But at this point, that cannot go forward until these particular properties are condemned. And those pictures that I showed you were not taken three weeks ago, they were not taken a year ago; they were just taken this Friday, in broad daylight. And even as we speak, there are illicit sex acts, drug abuse, alcohol abuse going on as children play -- not 20 to 30 feet away, yards away. Even as we're having church on Tuesdays and Thursdays and every day that we church, we have to deal with this particular 83 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 thing. And what we want to do is -- Dr. Porter does not want to leave this area, but he wants to actually do all that he can to add to this. But we need the help of this particular committee to help us go forward.

Thank you, Reverend Buggs. We learned -- we've been out there with your church, doing cleanup activities, so we know about that area behind there. As of yesterday, Licenses and Inspections tells us that they're going to demolish them. So that's a start. And to -- on the third aspect of it, we will ask Ms. Gillen with regard to this too. We sent a letter two years ago regarding condemnation, but we haven't received a response with regard to condemnation of these properties for the church. Ms. Gillen is coming forward. 84 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Councilman Jones.

Just a quick question. Are there any occupied properties on this block?

One. REV. BUGGS: One.

One?

To our knowledge. REV. BUGGS: To our knowledge, it's one. But those pictures are coming behind four unoccupied properties.

And that one is a PHA house, so these are one of the kind of blocks that Councilwoman Miller fights for, where you try to get more PHA housing. But then, if we get in a position where we ask PHA to work with us and then they get approached by HUD, like PHA is in collusion. We're trying to find some entity who's able to move, because when we depend on the City, we're just stuck. Councilman Greenlee.

I'm 85 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 sorry. You partially answered my question, Madam Chair. I was just wondering who are the owners. Are these private owners? I understand one is PHA. Are the rest privately owned?

They're all privately owned.

They're all privately owned, okay, they're all private owned. REV. BUGGS: I just have a follow-up question. Now, I did hear that Licenses and Inspections is going to be coming out to do the cleanup in the back alleyway. When will that commence?

No, we've done that, we've done that. REV. BUGGS: Okay.

And the church has done that with you. REV. BUGGS: Okay.

L&I is 86 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 not going to seal it; they're going to demolish them. REV. BUGGS: They're going to demolish them.

They'll demolish them. REV. BUGGS: Okay. And do we know when that --

And we learned that as of yesterday. So they -- Sandy? (Councilwoman Blackwell confers with staffperson off the record.) So the order is in, the order is in to get them done, so we'll stay in touch with you 'cause L&I said they will tear them down. And so they're not -- so we won't look for them to be sealed; they said they're past that. REV. BUGGS: Okay.

They don't want to invest -- as old folks say, "spend good money after bad." They just 87 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 want -- they want them torn down. So we'll let Ms. Gillen comment with regard to our request for condemnation as of two years ago. We didn't get a response. REV. BUGGS: Okay. (Ms. Gillen comes forward.) REV. BUGGS: Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Terry Gillen. So I want to make sure I understand what you're asking, Councilwoman. So this -- can you tell me the name of this church again?

Yes. The name of this church is Community Bible Deliverance Kingdom Ministries.

Okay.

And they're, like, near 40th and Haverford, that area.

Okay. Did you 88 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 send a letter to the Redevelopment Authority two years ago asking --

Yes.

Okay. Do you know the date of that letter?

I didn't bring it, but we have it.

Okay. We'll dig it out, we'll find it, we'll get it.

Well, we can reissue it. Sandy has the file.

Yeah. And so, obviously, I'm not familiar with the details, but was it is your intention that we would use NTI money for this?

We didn't specify which funds.

Okay, all right. Well, all I can tell you is that we'll look into it. My assumption is that it was going to be paid for out of NTI and that that's been on hold, but now that NTI's back up and running -- 89 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

All right. We'll send you another copy.

-- we'll take a look at it.

Councilman Jones.

Yes. Ms. Gillen, in prior testimony in another hearing, you had made mention -- it might have been actually during the budget process -- that there is a demonstration program on marketable properties. Which districts were they in?

I'm sorry?

You made mention that there was a disposition demonstration project. And I may be characterizing it differently.

Right.

But I believe, if memory serves me correctly -- and I'll find out from transcripts, but it was in Councilman DiCicco's district and, I believe, maybe President Verna's 90 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 district; is that right?

Yeah. Well, I think there are two things going. One is that we did a broker's sale program, pilot program last year --

A pilot program; that's what it was.

-- in those two districts to see how the documents might work, how the system might work. We are interested in expanding that this year and taking that to a broader scale and including other Council Districts, so --

Terry, my issue with that is that we found a way to create what was necessary to move properties in those areas, which are -- without question, Center City, higher demographic, higher ability for marketable projects. But where government works best is to assist areas that don't have the private-sector spark -- 91 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Right.

-- to be able to have that investment there.

Yep.

That is the truly appropriate place --

Yep.

-- to spend CDBG dollars and/or dollars for -- by this government and quasi-publics to kind of create markets through private -- public investments to attract private investment.

Right.

And it seems to me that if we can find ways to be innovative and Center City and in South Philly and in parts of -- marketable parts of the City, that we should be just as creative in places like this, where -- when I looked at those pictures -- I don't know if you've seen them, but I've never seen anything like that. And if we can't figure a better 92 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 use for publicly-owned land than that, I just don't understand the rationale as how we can be innovative in one area but we can't figure out things in poor areas.

Well --

I just don't understand that.

Yeah. Well, let me just say we did ten properties just to test the system, so it was really a pretty small pilot program. I would love to pull your district into this, so I'm happy to hear you say that because, in fact, we would love to include the 4th going forward. And I would say the other thing that was the biggest surprise to us, we actually didn't focus on kind of Center City properties because they kind of sell anyway, but what we did -- what was a surprise to us was that people were willing to buy parcels that we didn't think would sell and that real estate brokers were able to sell parcels that we 93 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 thought were in very weak markets. And that was the pleasant surprise for us. So we're kind of excited about the possibility of expanding it. So I'm happy to work with you going forward.

I think that most District Councilwomen want in. We understand the 1st, the 2nd and the 5th were chosen because of their -- they're adjacent to Center City, and that was the issue, but I'm sure --

Well, Councilwoman, we did not have the 5th in our program. Now, there was a project that Public Property did, the Department of Public Property did, where they had the 5th in theirs. But in ours, we did not have the 5th. And I just want to clarify that.

So the 1st and 2nd got a double bubble, and 5th was included, and the rest of us, we just sit and go, Maybe, maybe, maybe, you know. 94 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 But we really would like to be -- we really would like inclusion. Councilwoman Miller.

Yes. Since your back up at the table, I'd also like to get some information or a date on when the RFP for NSP2 Nicetown will be -- you know, will be implemented. I know that NSP2's Grays Ferry was already out, so I'd like to know what's going on with Nicetown and I'd like to receive a written response to that.

Okay, we'll get you something.

Okay. Thank you.

We have placed that loose-leaf book with the photos in it and the petitions in it for you to see it. And then it's Reverend Buggs'.

Okay.

But 95 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you'll at least get a chance to see that while you're here.

Okay.

And we thank the church for coming. Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Gillen, quickly. And this is kind of a general question, although it's based on Reverend Buggs' testimony. Is there a usual, like what you would say, sort of target time that you would have? And I know every development, every issue is a little different. But, you know, the church has a plan for this land. Now, whatever happened -- the communication with Councilwoman Blackwell, you know, whatever happened there. But now it's -- the request is coming in. Do you have, like, sort of a target time where you think reasonably 96 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 the land should be turned over and development can start? Again, given that this plan meets certain requirements. You know, I'm just assuming that. But, again, not just on this one, but just generally. Because, obviously, we've heard the question of when a lot today.

Yeah.

And I'm just trying to think, is there a policy that we'd like to see this get started in such a time?

Councilman, when I came to the Redevelopment Authority, people -- outsiders complained to me a lot that the process was slow, and I spent a lot of time looking at it.

Mm-hmm.

And what I found is that the acquisition, disposition process within the Redevelopment Authority works relatively quickly. And by that, I'll say things can move within 97 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 six to twelve months as a rule -- with one exception. What I have found in many, many, many cases, I would say in the overwhelming majority of cases, when things don't move, it's because there's a financing issue.

Mm-hmm.

It's because there's either not enough money or the proper source of financing hasn't been identified for the project. So that would be the best answer I could give you.

So you're saying given everything sort of in place, six to twelve months; is that what you're --

That is correct.

Is that generally what you're saying?

That is correct. And I know that statement is going to come back and bite me someday, but I will 98 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 say that --

We don't remember all that stuff.

-- with lots of caveats, yes.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Any more questions on this particular issue or project? (No further questions.)

Thank you very much. We would like to ask Brian Kelly, Net CDC, if you are still here? Brian Kelly? (Brian Kelly comes forward).

Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for presenting your proposal. Thanks. Feel free to identify yourself for the record and continue with your testimony. 99 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Yes. My name is Brian Kelly, with Net CDC. I have submitted a few copies of testimony so you all have it. But if it please the Council, I will read it into the record.

Yes.

Well, hello. And thank you to the panel for receiving my testimony. The issue of Public Property disposition is of great concern to the community development community and us in particular, as Community Development Corporation operating in north central Philadelphia, between Temple University and Temple Hospital. We're greatly concerned about the process undertaken by the Department of Public Property, which operates outside of the Vacant Parcel Review Committee process. Without a built-in right of reversion clause, if a buyer fails to make intended improvements within a specified time frame, the 100 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 process will further contribute to land speculation and negatively impact our communities. Although we understand the need to get properties off of the public books and back onto the tax rolls, it is equally important that these properties actually be developed. 22 annually for the right to keep a lot vacant, trash-strewn, and blighted; and $450 annually to keep strategic commercial buildings abandoned and awaiting City infrastructure investments so that they can cash in on increased property values. The small increase in revenue by getting these properties off the public books is more than offset by long-term costs to the City of large tracts of blighted land and buildings. The City Council, by 101 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 implementing recommendation of the Philadelphia Tax Reform -- oh, wait, wait, wait. I apologize. I'm reading... This will exponentially increase the cost of implementing strategic neighborhood plans in the future since, instead of working with the City to put vacant land to productive use, community development corporations like ours will be forced to pay large costs on speculated land. It would seem reasonable that when public property is sold, there would be some guarantee that the public good is achieved beyond just collecting the cash. Furthermore, since four different agencies principally control the public land in the City -- PHDC, PHA, RDA, and the Department of Public Property -- there are many cases in our target service area alone where adjacent properties are both publicly-owned but by different agencies. Without a coordinated disposition process, the City 102 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 runs risk of one agency selling a property that lies adjacent to other publicly-owned land. The sale of these properties in isolation ruins the opportunity to gain greater benefit from offering to sell all of these publicly-owned parcels in one single package. There's also limited public information about how the Department of Public Property's new disposition program operates. We recommend that Council receive and make public any written information regarding the process whereby citizens may compete for these properties. And then I would be remiss in my testimony if I did not mention the largest slumlord, absentee landlord in our community is the Philadelphia Housing Authority. I know that this Council hearing doesn't particularly pertain this to them, but it seems related that this 103 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 entity operates in a vacuum and with what I consider reckless abandon and utter disregard to the impact it has on the surrounding communities where its properties are located. I recognize that they have initiated several projects of a larger scale; however, with the scattered-site units, specifically the vacant lots and abandoned structures that plague our community, there does not seem to be any comprehensive plan or leverage over the agency to work within the City. They fail to engage community stakeholders in their development disposition plans and leave properties vacant for decades. " For an institution that controls so much City land and fails to 104 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES.

100379 pay taxes to the City, I would expect that the local city government would exert more control over the agency or, at a minimum, that PHA make itself more transparent. Along with our partner agency, Village of Arts and Humanities, we have identified several problem PHA properties that have been vacant since the mid-1990s, addresses: 2514 and 2516 North Alder Street. And despite approaching PHA for purchase over ten years ago, the request has been continuously refused. Meanwhile, our partner agency has borne the cost of sealing this property, and it has further deteriorated with several break-ins and fires over the years. Neighborhood residents are suffering due to PHA's bloated property rolls. However, if PHA simply packages up groups of its scattered-site properties for disposition, small organizations like our own, who have 105 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 shouldered the cost of PHA's negligence, would be shut out of the process by land speculators and developers who have deeper pockets and can scoop of up the larger packages. Once again, the average Philadelphian citizens will lose out as the bureaucracy mismanages assets for years and rashly makes decisions in the midst of crisis that work in contradiction to the best practices of community economic development. Additionally, the issue of side yards is important, which I know you mentioned earlier in previous testimony. Many residents have stepped in and taken responsibility for adjacent properties due to historic failure of the City to address vacancy problems. Under the guise of the $1 lot program, many residents were given verbal assurances that they would be able to purchase the lot for $1 as long as they maintained it. Now they're being told 106 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 everything will be at market-rate sales. I don't understand how the Council can penalize its proactive citizens that took the effort to maintain their communities at a time when the City was unable to. So we support Councilwoman Blackwell's request that the City Administration prepare and submit a written disposition policy for the Committee on Housing's review and, if necessary, a public hearing. Urban gardening agreements are also an important way that citizens without large financial resources help maintain large tracts of vacant land, add to the domestic economy, and promote food security. Community groups and senior citizens needs their agreements to legally enter the land because they do not have the funds to purchase the properties. Could not a review be conducted in the middle of winter, when there's no 107 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 gardening instead of a suspension beginning the start of this past growing season. I guess, lastly, in a community that is plagued by large tracts of vacant land such as our own, we recognize that this is a complicated process. We testify today to make sure that the disposition process by the Department of Public Property does not simply transfer publicly-vacant land from the City only to be added to the 25,000-plus vacant privately-held parcels that lie undeveloped and continue to burden our communities. We find this large volume of privately-held land to be the primary destabilizing factor in our communities, not to mention the large accrued real estate tax bills on the majority of these properties. We support a process that gives the City possibly through the RDA -- but, I guess, apparently through the testimony 108 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 today, maybe not -- the ability to put a maximum term of tack delinquency on real estate -- three years, for example -- before granting the ability to seize that property and put it under a developer development with someone else. This will also help to serve the same purpose of increasing public revenues.

We applaud Council's recent efforts to go after absentee holders of vacant property and feel that the repossession of property can begin with the over 25,000 privately-held vacant properties. This would help to make sure that our low-income and elderly populations are not an unsuspecting negative (indiscernible) of the legislation or action. Furthermore, since the entire discussion is couched within the rubric of raising City revenues, it seems worthwhile to mention the recommendations of the Tax Reform Commissions, whose final report was published in November of 109 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 2003. Recommendation suggests that the City shift toward land value taxation. According to the commission, land value taxation encourages maximizing land's potential, will encourage private investment in the City, and help reduce blight and abandonment. That's a quote from their report. This would appropriately shift the burden of taxation to the vacant property holders and off of homeowners, maximizing the benefit to the cornerstone of our stable communities -- the families of Philadelphia. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Thank you very much. Certainly we appreciate your testimony. I will talk to Councilman Clarke -- you can as well -- with regard to properties in North Philadelphia. I see that 2512, 14, and 16, we noted those. 110 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 And as a member of Council and the PHA Board, we're happy to -- the PHA Board meets, and you can testify there, or you can do it all through your Councilman, who will certainly let you know whether or not there are plans for that or just what the situation is or given the streets or property names -- property addresses, that is, to try to deal with this issue.

That would be great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

All right. I believe Ms. Gillen, we're back to the issues from this hearing and the last hearing that affect you, Public Property, and OHCD. We have a memo from Councilwoman Maria Quiñones-Sanchez, who's ill today and unable to be here. 111 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 And some of the issues she raises -- I won't read it. We did make a copy for the record, and we were asked that a copy of her memo be put on the record. But I will generally try to summarize a few questions and ask them, and they are as follows: What is the source of the policy to sell City properties at fair market value unless for City-funded affordable housing project? Is this in writing anywhere? She want to know if the fair market value issue is in writing anyplace.

I have to check. I think it is, but I will have to double-check that.

And she wants to know what happens in issues without strong market activity, low-income areas, do they get credit for sweat equity? And what happens to allow that to transfer properties? And who has 112 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 the authority to make those decisions?

And that is a conversation that we've been having with Councilwoman Quiñones-Sanchez. We're certainly aware that she wants to make that City policy. And I think we're -- not only we, but the Office of Housing and the Department of Public Property are talking to her and her staff about how such a policy might be implemented.

Well, certainly it affects us all. We all have low-income areas. Every district has well-to-do and those who are very, very low-income. And so, that affects us all, and we would like you to contact the Chair about that. Also, this is an issue that came up at the last hearing too, about allowing parcels that are in City -- that could belong to PHDC, RDA, Public Property, PHA, not selling off one in a bunch so that development can be 113 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 coordinated. And that is one of her issues. Is this being considered?

Yes, it is. It's one of the issues that we're working on.

And is NTI committed to bringing on more appraisers if we need them?

Yes.

'Cause that process has been so very, very slow. She asks questions with regard to Vacant Land Task Force, about internal policies from all of the agencies, including disposition procedures by April of 2010, according to the statements made by RDA at the February Vacant Property Task Force meeting. She wants to know the status of this database that was supposed to be produced.

She wants to know, I'm sorry, what, Councilwoman?

The 114 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 RDA testified that a list of available properties across all agencies would be publicly available online by the end of the year. However, there was already a commitment to not just list properties which should be available in a day or two but to create a compilation of internal policies from all agencies, including disposition procedures by last April, according to the statements made by RDA at the February task force meeting. What is the status of this database?

We do have an internal database. It's not up online, but we -- we have it available. So we have succeeded in getting that together. And I think what we're trying to do is work with Public Property and PHDC to figure out what the next step is, because we do have different procedures, as the Councilwoman notes, and we've got to get those procedures to work together 115 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 before we put a single list up online.

I've heard them talk for years about a land base, but we they ever seem to get any further with this coordination; we never get there.

Right.

And I don't understand why we can't. I mean, we're one city, you know.

Right.

I mean, we were at meetings all weekend with Africans and Caribbeans and with this Europa tribe at Odunde, where they represent 250 million people. Nigeria alone has 150 million people, and we can't deal with 1.4 to coordinate these activities. We don't understand that. She asks: Will the ultimate product of a working group repropose legislation or administrative policy changes to deal with disposition for specific uses and in neighborhoods if, 116 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 they could be assigned cost structures and a continuum to deal with this use of fair market value? She's asking, will ultimately the product of a working group be proposed legislation or administrative policy changes?

I don't know, we don't know that yet. It's likely to be one or the other, but I just don't know yet. We haven't done enough research.

Yeah. I have no idea. I don't understand any of these, for the most part, non-answers. What is the timeline for the issuance of a new written policy on urban garden agreements? Will this be submitted to Council for comment in advance?

I don't know; that would not be a question for the Redevelopment Authority.

It's okay. We're just going to introduce 117 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 legislation to deal with it. If we can't get it one way, we have a responsibility try to get it another. And that's just some of her concerns, but they're all being made a part of the record. Now, we would like to go back -- we made available to you some of the issues that came out of the transcript from last week's hearing. I already mentioned the 1300 block of North 52nd Street and Rev. Dr. Damon Jones, where you said you'll be happy -- "I'll be happy to look into it and get back to you quickly about it." So since none of these people were contacted, we ask you now, what is the resolve on that issue? And we did make this -- these questions to you available last evening.

Yes. We got them last evening, thanks.

Thank you. 118 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

We would like to pursue the suggestion that Councilman O'Neill made at the hearing; we think it has a lot of merit. And so, we would like to work with you and with Bibleway to try to think about how we might do a long-term lease that would get them the site control that they need so that they can move ahead with their project. And we'd like to move ahead with that.

So I assume immediately means immediately 'cause they haven't heard anything since our last hearing, and you said you'd get back to them.

I believe at our last hearing, we said we'd get back to you; and so, that's what we're doing today. But if you agree, we'll get back to them in the next week.

Okay. Now Partnership CDC. 119 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

Mm-hmm.

You said you would check on it to see where it is; and if it was ready to go, grant an extension. Can you tell me where we are with the Partnership CDC?

Yes, Councilwoman. We would like to pursue the avenue that we discussed with you. And Mike Koonce and I met with you last March. We'd like to move forward with the default but then to do a request for a proposal that Partnership could apply for. We think that would have two advantages: It would give Partnership the opportunity to engage in another partner, if they need, for capacity; but also, if we do our underwriting and we determine that there's not sufficient financing for the project, we can then go -- the Redevelopment Authority would then go to OHCD and see if we can identify other sources of funding to do this 120 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 project.

This was one of those projects where they had financing. And after they -- they were getting their licenses together. They had PHFA financing and then were told to get a partner. They got Walter Lomax. They did everything they were supposed to do, and then they were still told that -- they were threatened with the properties being taken back. This is another one of those -- it's small; it's not big like Latter-Day Saints or like the Science Center, but it's a small CDC, who was similarly treated poorly for only God knows why.

Well, we would -- we think there may not be sufficient financing, so we'd like to sit down and talk to them about the project.

Now, Ivan Supply Company. You said you weren't familiar with it and you were 121 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 going to look into that?

Yes, Councilwoman. The last contact that we had from them was in 2008, when they had contacted the Redevelopment Authority. We asked them for some information, and they did not supply the information that we asked them for back in 2008. So we're more than happy to go back to them and ask for that again. I'm not sure why they think the ball's in our court; we believe the ball's in their court. But we'd be happy to try to get the process moving.

We can follow up on that. Now, Councilwoman Miller, who just went to a meeting with one of the judges that we were invited to, a community meeting, mentioned a meeting date with regard to Rays of Hope.

I think Deb may want to provide information on that.

Thank 122 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you. (Deborah McColloch returns to witness table.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Deborah McColloch, Director of Housing. I believe, Councilwoman, that you received my response, the written response that I provided. Just to briefly summarize, there was a question about the City's condominium to this project, and I just -- I stated on the record and I have restated here in writing that the City remains committed to the Belfield Avenue development. Rays of Hope is planning to bring in a new developer to create some partnership or joint venture relationship that they're going to work through a company called Onion Flats to try to move the project forward. Rays of Hopes and Onion Flats need to work out a agreement which would spell out the responsibilities of each 123 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 entity. And then I believe that Onion Flats will be assuming the primary responsibility for acting as a developer. And as such, Onion Flats will have to submit all of the necessary documentation to the Redevelopment Authority to move the project to loan closing. There was also an issue raised at the last meeting about the question about the continuation of the HUD funding that's being provided through the Office of Supportive Housing, OSH. And I spoke with representatives there, and they confirmed that the HUD timeline, as it exists, allows HUD to de-obligate the funds, which means HUD could take the funds back but is not required to. Rays of Hope did not meet the benchmark requirements of the funding being awarded, so that HUD could take the funding back. But OSH is committed to this development and is prepared to make the case, if necessary, to HUD why the 124 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 commitment should stand. The real drop-dead date, which was discussed at the last hearing, is not this fall, but it is September 25, 2012. Statutorily, HUD will recapture the funds, by statute. There is no way to massage that date by September 25, 2012. So that is the drop-dead date that I believe Councilwoman Reed Miller was referring to. It's not September of this year; it's September a year from now. So we have the ability to get the funds under contract. But, as Ms. Gillen committed, we will meet with Miss Ali and her development partners and talk to them about what they need to do to move forward on the Rays of Hope development.

Thank you, Ms. McColloch. The next issue is RDA hiring. As you well know, Ms. Gillen, we mentioned Wayne King, and we talked about 125 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 the issue we have, many of us who've known him some years. We were told he 4 was demoted, taken his title, put in a 5 cubby, salary taken away, all of these 6 things, as one person we happen to hear 7 about, and Donna Miller mentioned him and 8 the larger issue on recruitment 9 process -- how many jobs you have, how 10 many positions have become available, and 11 how many folks have applied, and how 12 diverse that group is. 13

And we -- I did 14 hear Councilwoman's concerns about that. 15 I spoke to the Mayor about it yesterday, 16 and I know she raised it with the Mayor. 17 And we are going to need a few weeks to 18 get that data together because we've got 19 to go back into the HR files to try to 20 pull that information together. But we're committed to do that, so we will get that information to you.

Well, you know how diverse you are now and you know what your current numbers are, 126 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 correct? in terms of the --

I can tell you that. I don't know off the top of my head, but I can certainly get that to you immediately.

With regard to your own staff, your own agency, you have that information, I assume.

I do have it. I don't have it right with me, but I can get it.

Yes. I think you knew that we were going to ask that question today, and I don't think it's a big -- it's a shock. On every hearing, we ask about diversity, we ask about who works, how many people work, how diverse they are. And that is another issue that we don't understand why you didn't want to -- why you choose not to respond. It is another answer that is not -- that we don't accept. It's not acceptable that 127 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you can't tell us your diversity in your department. It obviously means -- it indicates to us there's some issue there, because we don't know why you couldn't come prepared to answer it at this hearing, given a notice from the 7th to the 16th. Another issue was with regard to the garden agreements. Maybe we talked about that, about Councilwoman Sanchez raising the issue of who would monitor these agreements to make sure that they were maintained. And you said that this would be done by the Office of Sustainability. I don't know what they -- who they are and what they do, no 19 disrespect intended.

Councilwoman, that was the Public Property Commissioner who said that, not me.

Yes, it was.

Yeah. 128 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379

So we'll let her respond to that. (Public Property Commissioner Joan Schlotterbeck comes forward.) COMM. SCHLOTTERBECK: The original idea was for --

Identify yourself for the record. COMM. SCHLOTTERBECK: Oh, I'm sorry. Public Property Commissioner Joan Schlotterbeck. Was to assist with making one process shorter by making the urban garden agreements not necessarily have to go through the VPRC process but have a direct license and partner up with Sustainability. It's safe to say that it's a better way of doing business if we coordinate every property issue, acquisition, and disposition into the policy that we've been taking about today. So I'm withdrawing any attempt 129 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 to, you know, do anything outside of the existing practice, which is through VPRC.

Thank you. COMM. SCHLOTTERBECK: You're very welcome.

Are there any questions from members of the committee about things I've left out? We've only kind of scratched the surface. All right. I'll make a statement now. As we plan as to what we're going to do moving forward, I'll make this statement. This goes to Ms. Gillen and my memo to my colleagues on this committee. The first item was a discussion of the redeveloper selection process. I'm sure you're familiar with Section 21 1709 of the Pennsylvania urban redevelopment law, which deals with the powers of the Redevelopment Authority. I will quote part of it, part K, that pertains to the matter in question: 130 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 "To sell, lease, or otherwise transfer any real property located outside a redevelopment area and subject to the approval by the local governing body, any real property located in a redevelopment area." The intent of the state legislature, when it created this section 10 of the law, was that the local governing bodies were to provide actual oversight of the disposition of the properties acquired by RDAs in redevelopment areas. It was not incidental oversight. In Philadelphia, the local legislative body is the City Council. And under the Charter, City Council has two forms of approval: ordinance and resolution. For many years, City Council approved redevelopment agreements by ordinance. Public hearings were held on each agreement. Developers like RDA and the community in which the project was located were invited to testify. Over 131 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 time, a strong working relationship developed between RDA and City Council. And based on a City Solicitor's opinion, City Council moved from ordinance 6 approval to approval by resolution. However, such a working relationship does not now exist, and we are not engaged in the process at the outset, and are projects moved to the RDA approval stage without our input or support. Under the state statute, we have an obligation to perform a certain level of due diligence before we cast a vote to approve a redeveloper's agreement. We can only perform this duty if we have an opportunity to meet the developer, understand what the developer is proposing, understand what impact the project might have on the community, and ask other questions that are pertinent to the project. Until this administration -- this is how we must be engaged with the 132 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Redevelopment Authority. You have a choice. You can engage us early in the process and move forward, knowing you have our support; or we can go back to approving redevelopment agreements by ordinance, which would compel the Redevelopment Authority and the developer to come before Council and testify on record regarding this project. The former is preferable to the latter, but if approval by ordinance is what it takes for us to allow this body to perform its duty under Pennsylvania redevelopment law, then that is what we are prepared to do. That concludes all that I have to say. Is there anyone else who would like to testify, make a statement, ask a question for the good and welfare of us all? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will recess this hearing subject 133 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 to the call of the Chair. That's because our time is up in this session. I'd love to come back and have this wonderful engagement with you next week, but since we recess tomorrow, unfortunately, we have to let it go. Thank you all very much. (Proceedings end at 3:20 p.m.) * * * 134 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Wednesday, June 16, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)