COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:00 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO RESOLUTIONS 090890, 090891, 090892, 090893 and 090918 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the Resolution Nos. 090890, 090891, 090892, and 090893. MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 9 090890, appointing Stephanie Wall to the Board of Directors for the Old City Special Services District. Resolution 090891, appointing Arthur Holst to the Board of Directors for the Old City Special Services District. Resolution 090892, reappointing Sheryl Bar to the Board of Directors for the Old City Special Services District. And Resolution 090893, reappointing Harvey Spear to the Board of Directors for the Old City Special Services District. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Thank 3 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. you, Charlie. Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. I'm Cynthia Filo, President and CEO of the Old City District. To my left is Harvey Spear and then to his left is Arthur Holst.
Madam President, Councilman DiCicco and other members of Council, good morning. As I said before, I'm Cynthia Filo, the President and CEO of the Old City District, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present for your consideration these four members to the Old City District Board of Directors. I have testimony here today that I prepared for you, but I'd like to kindly go through it rather quickly, because I know you have a very full schedule today. 4 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. As I said, I have Harvey Spear and Arthur Holst here with me today. The other individuals for your consideration, Stephanie Wall and Sheryl Bar, were unable to attend today due to scheduling conflicts, but they send their apologies as well as happy holidays to all of you. As you know, the Old City District is a business improvement organization that has been doing great things for Old City since 1998. These individuals will help us continue to improve our neighborhood. Stephanie Wall is a Senior Vice-President with Wells Fargo-Wachovia Bank and is a Community Relations Executive. She's very excited to work as a Board member of the District. Wells Fargo-Wachovia has a presence spanning the block of Market Street from 4th to 5th Streets of Old City, and we look forward to Stephanie working with us. Sheryl Bar has been a Board member for the past number of years. She 5 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. heads our Marketing Committee. Through her efforts, she's brought together the District, the Old City Civic Association, Old City Arts Association and the Old City Business Collective to work as one to promote Old City. That task, in and of itself, is a feat. She is also a resident of the Old City area. Harvey Spear is also a current Board member. He owns E-Z Park Parking and Central Associates. Both have locations within Old City. He is the head of our Clean, Safe and Public Spaces Committee. Additionally, he has worked tirelessly to keep Old City safe from nuisance businesses by participating in the Old City District Task Force. Additionally, he is waiting to hear any moment when he becomes a grandfather for the first time.
So if he has to get out of here, please accept his apologies. 6 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Arthur Holst has been involved with the District since its inception. He has served on our Board and he's also served in positions of leadership on our Executive Board. He is coming back to our Board of Directors, and we really look forward to his assistance. He is the Business and Government Affairs Manager of the Philadelphia Water Department. He has also been the head of the Betsy Ross House in the past and has worked with many of you here as a Chief of Staff in City Council. All four of these individuals will work hard to fulfill the mission of the District to make Old City prosper. I thank you for your time today. Arthur, Harvey and I would be more than happy to answer any questions that any Councilpeople have. Thank you.
Thank you. So the two newly appointees 7 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. would be Stephanie Wall and Arthur Holst?
And Arthur Holst, that's correct. And then the reappointments are Harvey and Sheryl.
Great. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Certainly all of us know Harvey Spear and all of us thank them for their investment in the City, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention Arthur Holst and all the exciting, creative and well-thought-out information we have received from him over the years, and we do thank him.
Thank 8 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. you.
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Have a nice holiday and a happy new year, everyone.
You do the same. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Resolution 17 090918. MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 19 090918, approving the annual Program Statement and Budget for the expenditure of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Bond Proceeds for Fiscal Year 2010, and our first witness is Clarence Armbrister. (Witness approached witness 9 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. table.)
Good morning, Council President. How are you this morning?
Good morning, Council President Verna, other members of the Committee on the Whole. I am Clarence Armbrister, Chief of Staff to Mayor Michael Nutter, and I am here today to present the Nutter Administration's Fiscal Year 2010 Program Statement and Budget for the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, otherwise known as NTI. NTI was an effort started by former Mayor John Street in 2001 to 10 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. rebuild and restore Philadelphia's neighborhoods. Since its first bonds were issued in 2002, more than $259 million has been spent to demolish vacant and unsafe buildings, clean lots, repair and renovate housing, and acquire land and buildings for redevelopment. Eighty-seven million dollars was budgeted for land acquisition, 34 million of which has already been spent, with an additional $11 million legally committed. Two years ago, City Council appropriated funds for an audit of those land acquisition funds to determine how money had been spent to date and how much money remained for future property purchases. In the spring of 2008, the Nutter Administration joined Council's request for an audit. That summer, the City Controller's Office, with support from the accounting firm of WithumSmith+Brown, began to examine the accounting and property transaction records maintained by the Philadelphia 11 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Redevelopment Authority, the agency overseeing all acquisition and sales transactions. The Controller's Office issued its final report on October 14, 2009. The audit found that there was significant lack of oversight by the City on NTI land acquisition programs and that there were major accounting and reporting deficiencies at the RDA. Since last year, new leadership at the RDA has taken steps to resolve the issues raised by the City Controller. It has engaged WithumSmith+Brown to help develop an internal accounting and reporting system that will accurately and efficiently track all land purchases. Moving forward, the Nutter Administration wants to make sure the problems identified by the Controller never happen again. We are confident that once those new systems are in place, land acquisition can restart. The $45 million in land 12 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. acquisition bond funds remaining to be drawn down represents the largest line item in the Administration's proposed FY2010 budget. The remaining $13 million has been distributed among a number of worthy programs that should look familiar to Councilmembers. Given the success of these programs over time, we believe the proposed allocations to be the best use of remaining tax-exempt bond proceeds. We propose that tax-exempt money continue to fund programs such as Basic Systems Repair, or BSRP as it's often described, and Adoptive (sic) Modification, which have been so successful over the years. The dollars spent to date on BSRP have provided City homeowners with heating system replacement, plumbing and drainage system replacement, wiring, roof replacement and structural systems repairs. Weatherization costs of up to $2,000 per house are also covered, helping to lower heating and cooling costs for the homeowner. Thousands of 13 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. families have been helped through this program. The Adaptive Modification program has helped more than a thousand elderly homeowners stay in their houses. Currently, the program has a waiting list of more than 230 homeowners. Demolition and vacant property stabilization will also continue under this proposed budget, which allocates more than $3 million for these purposes. Finally, the Administration proposes a new initiative that would bring weatherization and other home repair dollars to those neighborhoods targeted in HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program, expanding the reach of this effort. Let me now move to the issue that is probably of greatest interest to City Councilmembers - land acquisition funds.
The original budget for land purchases was $89 million. That amount included $72 million in Qualified Redevelopment and taxable bond proceeds, 14 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. $10 million in Community Development Block Grants and $5 million in Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development funds. Over the years, money has been spent, interest on the bonds has been earned, and land sale proceeds and collected tax liens have been recycled back to the budget. In addition, some Councilmembers reallocated the monies available to spend in their district. 5 million remains un-obligated in the acquisition line, distributed among the Council district and City Significant budgets. The Controller's audit confirmed two things that I want to emphasize. First, the previous Administration spent down the most flexible pot of acquisition funds, the taxable bond funds. And, second, Qualified Redevelopment Bonds, or QRBs, are the major source of land acquisition funds that remain. 15 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Before I move on, let me quickly put some definition behind the sources of acquisition funding. QRBs can only be used in those areas of the City designated by City Council in 2005, and any property acquired using QRBs must ultimately be sold at fair market value. NTI has approximately $45 million remaining in QRB funds to be drawn down and spent. In sharp contrast, however, taxable bonds could be used anywhere and land acquired could be sold below fair market value. Fortunately, land sale proceeds and recycled liens enjoy the same flexibility as taxable bonds. 2 million in flexible monies existed. This figure includes funds reallocated from the Equitable Development Strategy program. Another source of NTI land acquisition funds was the Commonwealth. Two separate programs provided money - Community Development Block Grant, or 16 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. CDBG, and the Department of Community and Economic Development, or DCED. CDBG monies must be spent on fundable, eligible activities in accordance with federal regulations. Such activities may include affordable housing and community economic development that creates jobs for low-moderate income residents. The future use of land acquired with CDBG funds must comply with federal regulations. Ten million dollars in CDBG dollars remain. Land acquired with DCED funds must be used for specific affordable housing ventures that are approved by DCED. Therefore, DCED funds cannot be used for side yard acquisitions or to support individual commercial developments. The acquisition must be part of a strategic development reviewed and approved by DCED. 9 million left in DCED funds. Given the fact that very few 17 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. flexible dollars remain relative to QRB, I want to emphasize to all of you that the Nutter Administration is eager to identify additional flexible dollars for land acquisitions as you are. To do so, RDA staff is taking the following steps: Number one, the staff has spent the last six months examining the 1,500 properties for which a Declaration of Taking has been made to the Court. It has been determining which of these are located in QRB areas and whether CDBG or DCED funds could be used to make the required payments into Court. Preliminary work indicates that a significant amount of the more than $11 million owed to Court could be covered by these three sources. This means that not all of the remaining flexible dollars will be needed to fund acquisition commitments already made. RDA staff has also been reviewing all land acquisition expenses already funded using taxable bond 18 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. proceeds to see whether any of those might be reallocated to QRB bucket. The staff has made a preliminary assessment that approximately $3 million of these previous transactions might be QRB eligible, which would allow taxable dollars to be freed up.
Staff is now examining each individual property sale more closely so that a more definite determination might be made. When it finishes this work, we will share the details with City Councilmembers. Just to repeat, the Nutter Administration is doing all that it can to identify these past land transactions where QRB dollars could be used. We realize that some Councilmembers have no 19 QRB areas in their districts, so the only way to provide them with acquisition funds is to free up flexible dollars. We are as eager to spend these funds as you are, and we want to do so in a thoughtful way that ensures every Councilmember has the opportunity to 19 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. bring economic revitalization to his or her district. My final point on the acquisition budget is this going forward: We all have to be more careful than our predecessors about how the more flexible acquisition dollars are spent. One of the reasons that the City got into this situation was a lack of coordination and policy oversight. As you know, that is why my office was designated to be the final point of contact on NTI and one of the reasons that we're working very closely with the Council Oversight Committee. Thank you for your time this morning. I'll be happy to take any questions you might have for me.
Thank you very much. Mr. Armbrister, from your testimony, I realize that staff has been examining properties for which a Declaration of Taking has been filed to 20 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. determine whether CDBG or DCED funds could be used to make the acquisitions and that they are reviewing all land acquisition expenses funded by taxable bond proceeds to determine whether any of those expenses might be reallocated to non-restricted uses. At this time, can you summarize the source of all funding that is clearly available for the acquisition of property that must be sold at fair market value?
I could tell you where we are to date, but pending the resolution of that analysis, it may change. I mean, so I can give you a number as to where we are as part of the Program Budget and Statement, but we are not in a position that we can tell you where the most flexible dollars are, because we haven't completed that analysis of the 1,500 properties.
Further, can you tell us of all funding that can clearly be used for the other 21 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. eligible purposes.
Again, I can give you where we currently stand, but subject to the analysis that's being done by the RDA, those numbers could change slightly depending on our ability to substitute properties out as I described in my testimony.
When do you anticipate that this information will be available in order for City Council to make an informed decision regarding the proposed budget?
Council President, I think that that analysis should be done certainly by the beginning of the new calendar year. So probably by the end of this month, first week of January.
Thank you. Has the City been placing liens on properties that have been demolished or stabilized with NTI funds? 22 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
I don't know, Council President. I know that that was an issue that was raised very recently, that we may have discovered that during the course of the demolitions, there may have been properties which might not have been liened. We are currently investigating that assertion.
If the properties have not been liened, what can we do about it, or is it too late?
We don't know. That's one of the other things that we're looking at as well, as to whether or not there is any reason that we can't go back and subsequently lien those properties. But that's something once we determine whether or not that assertion is correct, we'll also examine our ability to go back and lien those properties, if possible.
So we have no indication as to what the total value of properties have been or should have been liened? 23 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
At this point in time based on the assertion that was made, I can't say that we do. That's correct.
Do we have any indication as to how much money has been collected, how much may we still be able to collect?
Well, I know with respect to liens, in the Program Statement and Budget, we've identified both tax sales and recycled lien sales. I couldn't give you a breakout, but the combination of both of those that are in the Program Budget currently is about $4.5 million between tax sales and liened properties that have been recycled. But, again, not knowing whether or not the assertion about properties that may not have been liened is true, we will have to go back and make a determination as to whether or not that is exactly correct.
Mr. Armbrister, City Council was sent a 24 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. report dated February 22nd, 2008 that summarized NTI encapsulations by City Council district. Is it possible to have these properties listed by address so that it would be helpful to us in order for each Councilmember to determine the final disposition of these properties?
I don't know, but I could certainly find out. I'll check and find out if that's possible.
Because I know that I had made several requests for encapsulation. It took so long that by the time anybody got around to it, the property had to be demolished.
All right. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski. 25 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll have a number of questions, but I'll just be brief on -- I'll just ask a couple. I know a number of members have an interest in this and will be --
With respect to the bonds themselves, is there a timeline on when they must be spent?
With respect to the tax-exempt bonds, there's generally an expectation that they'll be 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. spent within a certain period of time, or if you don't have reasonable expectations about that, then you could subject them to losing their tax-exempt status.
I think with respect to the QRBs, my recollection is that it's maybe March of 2011, I believe, or something like that. I'll check. Yeah, it's March 2011.
The tax-exempt bonds I would expect have -- if they were issued around the same time, they should have a similar date.
I just 27 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. wanted to get some clarity on that. In your testimony in the last paragraph on the first page, you reference the remaining $13 million that are available and more flexible dollars. The tax-exempt money continues to fund programs such as Basic Systems Repair and Adaptive Mod. In the initial program, was there a formula associated with how much money, how much of the tax-exempt money, should go towards those programs? What I'm trying to get at, because the tax-exempt dollars are, from our perspective, dollars that can fix the problem, some of the problem, particularly the problems associated with those two Council districts that have no 20 QRB-eligible areas and a couple of other districts that have limited QRB dollars. So is it the proposal to spend all of the tax-exempt for these particular programs or a small portion? Because it's not quite clear. 28 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
In the Program Statement and Budget on, I guess it's Figure -- 5
It's . At , there are a number of proposed expenditures with respect to the tax-exempt bonds, many of which include the kind of programs that have been part and parcel of the NTI program. So, for example, there is $489,000 for retaining wall reconstruction, if I'm reading this correctly, another $925,000 for the employer -- no; the targeted -- the Employer-Assisted Housing program. It's hard to read. These don't have lines across them. So there are a number of uses 29 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. for the tax-exempt bond proceeds that have been proposed as part of the Program Statement and Budget, which total almost the $13 million that I described in my testimony.
-- my concern is that if we are targeting all of that money for those particular programs, it will limit our ability to fix the problem in those non-QRB-qualified areas.
It could. I mean, if you're saying could that be a source of funding --
I guess I'm asking the question. In terms of priorities, Council obviously has this 30 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. priority. Our priorities are fixing the problems associated with those areas that don't have QRB-qualified areas and those Council districts that have limited. And I guess from our perspective and, to some degree, our priorities are making sure that those Councilmembers are made whole based on the commitments from a dollar perspective, but, secondly, most importantly, the ability to spend those dollars. So if the thought is to spend all of the 13 million on programs that are worthy programs, but it will reduce dramatically the ability to fix the problem in those Council districts, where should the priority lie, from your perspective, the Administration?
Well, I think the Administration has proposed what we think is a balanced approach to at least continuing programs that have proven to be successful. We do note that the acquisition issue remains to be solved, 31 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. and what we're trying to do is expand the ability of all of us to have as much flexible taxable dollars and other resources as possible. So, I mean, we're going to have to find a balance somewhere between those two issues.
But don't you believe that the CDBG dollars can be used for those programs that were mentioned earlier?
Within the restrictions that CDBG and DCED, yes, it's very possible that those could be used, but, again --
So I guess my question is, why wouldn't we look at those possibilities for these programs as opposed to using all of the tax-exempt dollars for these programs to make these Council districts whole?
Give me one second. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question, Councilman? I'm sorry. 32 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Understanding -- and I'm not sure about the retaining wall, but most of the other proposals as it relates to these programs are CDBG eligible. So the thought would be that we may look at future CDBG dollars to address those particular issues, particularly since my understanding in both this calendar year and future calendar years it's anticipated that the Obama Administration will increase the Block Grant allocation to counties and cities and states across the country and focus on the tax-exempt to resolve the problem in those Council districts, because --
Well, there are limitations with respect to tax-exempt, your ability to use them for acquisition, which I assume you're aware of those limitations, our ability --
But you can't 33 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. use them for acquisition. The tax-exempt proceeds I don't think can be used for acquisition.
Correct. But I'm saying in those two Council districts that we're speaking of -- and I'm sure there will be questions by the members representing those areas -- that there are proposed uses for those dollars that are not acquisition related. So I'm saying, why wouldn't we just focus on fixing those issues where tax-exempt dollars would be eligible expenditures, fix those areas, those problems, based on the commitment to those Council districts and then proceed from that point? And obviously that's Council's perspective, because we want to resolve --
Understood. That's something we can certainly look at, but --
Instead of committing the 13 million to worthy programs but programs that don't address 34 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. those problems in those Council districts.
Right. Because the limitation on the use of those tax-exempt dollars is such that we can't use them for acquisition. But I understand your point in terms of trying to utilize the --
I'll be more specific. If there's a district that preferences to use the tax-exempt dollars on a publicly owned facility, which I understand is an eligible expense --
-- would it make sense to look at these tax-exempt dollars?
So the 13 million as it relates to the commitment to the worthy programs, again, I reiterate, is not set in stone in terms 35 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. of --
You asked what the Administration -- we propose that we use them in the way we did, but it's certainly something that the Council will have some say about how we utilize those funds. So I think that's a fair statement.
Okay. I won't beat a dead horse. One quick question and I'll move on, because I know the other members have questions. In terms of the flexibility in some of the bond dollars upon recycling, just for the record, it was our understanding, based on bond counsel's opinion, that QRB dollars that are recycled for various purposes have extremely flexible terms so that they could be spent in non-QRB-eligible areas; am I correct?
You mean once the sale proceeds -- once the proceeds 36 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. from the sale --
Yeah. They don't have the restrictions that the original proceeds have, that's correct.
So in an instance of a Council district that has limited areas -- and I, again, won't specify the Council district; I'm sure that Councilperson will do that -- that if there are QRB dollars spent in that particular area, the recycling agreement that I understand the Administration is supporting, those dollars can then be spent in other portions of the district that are not QRB?
One last question on this round. With respect to areas, QRBs must be used for market-rate purposes?
The properties 37 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. disposed have to be sold at fair market value, that's correct.
So if -- and I just want to get clarity, because I thought I heard something a little different. If a property is acquired, they must pay fair market value obviously to the owner of the property upon condemnation. If the property is then sold to an entity that will build, say, senior citizen housing and the senior citizen housing is obviously affordable, is restricted to affordable residents, therefore, low-income residents, that will lower the value of that property; am I correct?
If what you're saying, if there are restrictions that are placed on the redevelopment of the property that might affect its value, my understanding is those things can be taken into account with respect to determining the value of the property. 38 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
So because you were kind of -- your volume went down a little lower.
So the sale of the property can be reduced based on the reduced value of the property because of the restrictions on the sale?
Right. I state that -- I think we've gotten clarification from bond counsel that that is an appropriate analysis.
So the ability to fix that particular problem is lessened? Say if we wanted to swap out or if OHCD wanted to put additional subsidy to basically pay for the acquisition of the land, it would be diminished dramatically by virtue of the lower value of that property?
Well, obviously whether it's diminished dramatically or not is a function of the particular circumstances, but those 39 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. factors are taken into consideration in determining the value of the property, is my understanding based on information I've seen from bond counsel.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Madam President, I have some other questions, but I'll defer to other Councilmembers at this time.
Very well. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Armbrister.
Can you explain exactly what a Qualified Redevelopment area is and what determines that qualification?
I will do my best. I'm going to look to see if I have 40 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. any help, because I wasn't here when the original statute was written. But a Qualified Redevelopment area was established at the time that the original ordinance was established, and it, based on tax law restrictions and policy decisions that were made I guess by this Council, limited the areas in which those proceeds could be used. I think Terry Gillen has joined me at the table, who can give you a much more detailed explanation of what the Qualified Redevelopment Bond areas are.
Yeah. This is Terry Gillen. It's exactly what Clay just said, which is that in order to get the tax exemption from the IRS, the City agreed that it would limit its spending to certain essentially blighted areas, and that seemed to be the thinking behind the Administration and Council when it set up the QRB map. And so the City and Council designated what it considered 41 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. certain blighted neighborhoods that were eligible for this, and that was part of the terms on which the bonds were issued.
Well, it's interesting that it would be determined by blighted areas, because in my district, I have a lot of blighted areas that are not QRB qualified, and I'm just trying to figure out what makes an area QRB eligible and not.
Councilwoman, we would agree. We weren't here when the metric -- my recollection was there was some metric that was used to determine the areas. I'm not --
Back when it was originally done in 2002, I guess, when the ordinance was originally adopted. But as Terry said, once we made a commitment that we would issue the tax-exempt bonds based on those areas, we are held to that commitment. And so the 42 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. areas are what the areas are, and that was a policy determination that was made with the Council and the then-Administration at that time.
Okay. Well, one of the things that I guess we could do in City Council is to amend the ordinance to include whatever it is we need to to expand our QRB areas.
That may be one thing that you cannot do based on the tax-exempt nature of the bonds. We can't now, subsequent to the issuance of the bonds, go back and amend the area. So that's one of the limitations that we have, unfortunately, in this program.
All right. I still don't know what a QRB area is, but...
Well -- okay. I mean, it's basically, as Ms. Gillen said, it's based on some pre-determined policy decisions that were made by the Council and the then-Administration about 43 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. what was a blighted area, and in order to issue bonds to resolve blight pursuant to the tax-exempt -- if you wanted to get a tax-exempt financing, you had to commit to spend bond proceeds only in those areas that were identified at the time.
So those areas are maybe one of our areas in our district that we stated was a redevelopment area?
I don't know the actual criteria, but I think there was some metric that might have been used that had to do with the number of abandoned housing or things like that, but we can certainly go back and dig up the history and try to provide you with that.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman 44 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Armbrister, Councilman Clarke was having a question and answer with you that is still ongoing about districts that have been shorted by mistake, I hope --
-- in terms of the calculations. It's clear that a mistake was made. I'm not really concerned with who made it. I'm concerned with it being corrected. I don't think there's any question that the 10th District started with a million 850 approximately, 1.450 in land acquisition, 410 in -- what's the other one called?
The demolition and encapsulation. The 1.450, 250,000 was spent on 45 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. a project, a senior project, leaving a million two. That was the land acquisition money. You have and hopefully Redevelopment Authority has always had a copy of the Council resolution moving that money to the demolition side, getting it out of land acquisition from my district. So that was a million two. That money, when the report was done on land acquisition, showed that the money had been spent. It was not spent. That million two is still unspent. So I'm hoping that when a mistake was made, however it was made -- it's real money. It was real money assigned to the 10th District. It was not spent. When you're making your recommendation, you're making it thinking the money was spent. I understand that.
Let me finish. But once you realize that that 46 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. money wasn't spent, I don't know what other action the Mayor can take, because I know he's a fair person, than restore that money and redo your budget, because there was a mistake made, plain and simple. Then you go to the demolition/encapsulation money from the beginning --
I just want to make sure the record reflects what the Budget -- or the Program Statement reflects, is that there was certainly a reallocation made of those funds, that your land acquisition budget was reduced. I'm not aware, just as you are not aware, of any place that it says it was in fact spent someplace else, the $1.2 million that was moved. 47 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. What we do know is that of the proceeds that were spent for land acquisition, $13 million or thereabout, $11 million more than we had taxable funds for, were spent in that area.
I understand, but you would agree my money was not spent, my million two?
You think there's a question possibly that the million two was spent? Aren't we clear at least that it wasn't spent?
You guys have been working to make me whole for a month at least since you knew this and you don't know yet that it wasn't spent? 48 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
You still don't know that? Is there anybody here from the Redevelopment Authority?
Could I have them up here? Because I really want to know that at least the Redevelopment Authority knows that that million two was never spent in the 10th District. There's another smaller fund that the same question is going to be asked that, but the question was --
Spent, period. It was moved -- the money was moved by Council resolution. What I want to know, does the Redevelopment Authority believe that the money was spent or do they correctly know that it wasn't spent? Because I can 49 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. guarantee you, it wasn't spent.
Sure, Councilman. I mean, I'm just going to tell you that we are aware of your concern and we're looking at it. I can't tell you --
I've had assurances from the Mayor that everything has been in the ongoing process of being done to straighten this out. The easy part of it is that it wasn't spent. The Redevelopment Authority would have to 50 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. know if the money was spent in the 10th District. It wasn't spent. Can you at least agree on that today, one of you?
I'm not asking whether it was stolen or whether there was a mistake made or anything else.
Just whether it was spent in the 10th District. We still don't know that today?
So there could be a million two spent in my district that I wasn't aware of and the Redevelopment Authority is still checking? This four days of the Inquirer showing an abominable situation in our 51 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. criminal justice system, this is worse, because this was either spent or it wasn't. There's a whole lot of detail involved in those discussions about the DA's Office. This is, was the money spent in the 10th District or not. If the Redevelopment Authority doesn't know that today, we've got some real problems on our hands, because it's not like this came up today. I've been asking since the Mayor took office when this money could be spent. Consistent answer, which I understood, not until the audit is finished. Okay. Then the money disappeared. But it doesn't disappear. Someone made a mistake saying it had been spent. And we today, having hearings on NTI that I know the Mayor was very concerned about, the Administration was very concerned about, and I'm told everything is being done to make the 10th District whole, because it was clearly not spent, we still don't know. You can't not know if your 52 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. agency -- they either spent the money or they didn't. I can't -- I heard some bad things about the RDA. I didn't think that incompetence was one of them. I thought maybe people didn't think the service was good, a little slow, snowballing sometimes, but not incompetent in all those areas. Very competently doing or not doing those things. Just find out before the end of the day -- it doesn't take long -- whether the money was spent in the 10th District. Another discussion is how do we deal with it, but if you guys at RDA and in the Mayor's Office haven't yet determined that the money hasn't been spent -- because that's an absolute fact that it hasn't been spent. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars was spent before the money was reallocated, but nothing else was spent. Then there's a $400,000 pot of money from the very beginning. There was no changes had to 53 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. be made in my district, and there's a sheet of paper that shows -- and there's other places -- that 48,100-some dollars were spent for encapsulations. That money is also now apparently missing. It's 350, 60 thousand dollars. So you're talking about almost a million six. This is serious stuff. I don't know if this is where the integrity officers should be spending the integrity officers' time, but something is wrong here if the heads of these departments still don't know, having been put on notice -- I'm being generous saying only a month ago -- that this is inaccurate and they still don't know where the money went. It's not $10. It's almost a million six hundred thousand dollars. I don't -- I'm just beside myself. I did not expect this response at all, Mr. Armbrister. I thought --
-- we were 54 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. all clear that there was a mistake made.
Councilman, as you know, this audit was asked for by this Council because there were a lot of concerns and questions about how the program was being administered. We joined in that request at that time because we had similar concerns. It took the Controller a lot more time than any of us would have expected to try to get to produce an audit, and there was massive, massive record-keeping problems over at the RDA. So we can't tell you with a certainty every dollar was spent in which area. I didn't want to give you an incorrect answer about how those monies have actually been spent. What I do know, and if you'd let me, what we do know is that your 55 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. allocation was reduced by $1.2 million. Where those dollars were spent, I don't know. I don't know where those dollars were spent.
I don't care where they were spent for purposes of this discussion. I want you to at least know where they weren't spent. They weren't spent in the 10th District. Then you move on to another discussion about how to make the 10th District whole.
And we are trying to figure that out, Councilman. That's what we're trying to figure out.
But it is a basic competency to know whether the money was spent in the 10th District.
The hard part is to find out where it might have been spent.
And we agree 56 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. with that, and that's why we've been trying to work through the report.
But you still don't know that it wasn't spent in the 10th District. That's the absolute --
And that's a function of the poor record-keeping that was at the RDA, and we're working on that. We're working on it.
Well, how long does it take to find out that money wasn't spent? I thought a month, two months was enough time. How long do we need to find out that almost a million six was not spent in the 10th District? Because once you find that out, it really doesn't matter with the other. You find out a way to make it up and make it whole. It's like a capital budget. If a 57 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. capital budget for a district was somehow lost, we'd find it or we'd find, as long as there was other money around, ways to replace it. It isn't a question of where all this money was spent. It's where it wasn't spent. That's the simple discussion. It wasn't spent in the 10th District. Deborah McColloch knows it wasn't spent in the 10th District. They know -- she's up on everything. Herb Wetzel talks to them all the time. They know there's only been a couple discrete projects that were ever spent in the 10th District. This money was not part of it. Whether somebody moved it to the wrong place or not, that's correctable, but what's not even understandable is that you can't say today you know it wasn't spent in the 10th District. I'm just -- I'm beyond flabbergasted, because this is not something I'm springing on you today. I mean, if that's -- just give me a time 58 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. when you will know whether the money was spent in the 10th District. Could we ask Ms. McColloch to come up and just ask if she's aware --
-- of any money beyond the 250 and the 48 for -- 250 for the FOP retirement home on Byberry Road and the $48,000 for three encapsulations that were ever spent out of a million eight in the 10th Council District? (Witness approached witness table.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Good morning. I'm Deborah McColloch, Director of Housing. I agree, Councilman O'Neill, there were no funds spent on a housing development through OHCD other than the FOP senior center that we're familiar with and the -- whatever the number of encapsulations is. Those are the only 59 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. expenditures that I am aware of.
Okay. While I have you, though, could you answer a smaller question? Were liens placed on the encapsulations? MS. McCOLLOCH: I don't know the answer to that.
Could you check on that and see if the monies ever got back into the -- if the liens were ever -- MS. McCOLLOCH: I just don't know, but I'll check it.
Thank you. Well, I can tell you -- I don't know how long it's going to take, Mr. Armbrister, but I hope it's short, because this is not complicated. When you're talking about money that wasn't spent somewhere, it's a lot easier than trying to figure out where money was spent when there's 268 other million dollars out there that was spent. I understand that. But this is much 60 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. clearer, much more definable. And there are approximately 150,000 people, as far as I'm concerned, that are out a million six until this gets straightened out, and I know the Mayor would want that to be taken care of and for fairness to enter into this process, not just in terms of the fact that it's a clean audit and all that, but that we don't do anything, anything, there's no movement, there's not even a program that comes before this Council until we know whether there's really $13 million that we're talking about or 13 million less than a million six that the 10th District has to get back because somebody moved it to the wrong place, and that's the only reason there's 13 million today. It isn't complicated. It's just whether there's a will to do it, and I hope the will is there. I wish it were there prior to today at least to determine that the money hadn't been spent. I thought that was a given. 61 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Thank you.
Any date yet? I mean, I heard early January for one thing. Hopefully you can figure out by early January whether any money was spent in my district from NTI funds.
I know a little bit about my district. It wasn't spent.
Right. Along with all the other processes, it will be done hopefully in early January with --
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski. 62 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. I think quite a few of the District Councilpeople have the same problem. I'd like an explanation on Resolution 071011, which moved $1 million of acquisition funding to vacant property stabilization for the 6th District. But it was never acted upon and the money was never transferred to the appropriate budget, and yet the resolution was certified by the Chief Clerk over two years ago.
Councilwoman Krajewski, I think that that was something that was brought to our attention recently. It was not something that was picked up apparently in the audit either. So we just got that information. We're going to look into what happened with that transfer.
Yes, you will. 63 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. But we just got -- we were surprised by that as well. It wasn't picked up in the audit, as far as we could tell.
I have a question for the RDA. Is someone from the RDA here?
I have some questions regarding a lot the RDA acquired through NTI. It is located at 7234 Keystone Street. The lot is still owned by the RDA, according to City tax records, yet a private entity has fenced in and been storing equipment on the lot for the past three years. My understanding was that the lots would be sold to an interested party for $1. The benefit to the City was the real estate taxes that they would receive. 64 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Could you explain to me why the lot is still in RDA's name? Are we receiving taxes for the lot or is there a lease for it?
I can certainly find that out and I can get back to you by the end of today. I just don't know off the top of my head. 1734 Keystone?
Thank you, Madam President. I was actually just going to follow up on Councilman O'Neill's line of questioning with respect to the audit. I'm trying to get some clarity on it, because I think it should have been a relatively easy question to answer, particularly the part 65 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. about whether or not it was spent in the 10th District. Do you think this is an audit-related issue? Because I sat in on one of the audit meetings over in the Controller's Office and it was quite interesting. It was so meticulous that I actually got tired and I left, because it was like excruciating, frankly speaking. And the level of detail as it relates to the questions on every single dollar, and I'm trying to understand how -- I mean, there was actually some questions about something as low as like a thousand -- like $1,200, where did that money go. So it's just kind of amazing to me that -- was that in the --
My first response -- and I want to apologize to the Councilman for being somewhat maybe obstinate, but his question, as I understood it, his first question was where did that money go. I don't know where the 1.2 million -- 66 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
And I know. I know. So Deborah has knowledge, specific knowledge, that the money was not spent in your district. I did not have that specific knowledge. With respect to the 1.2 million, what we've been trying to do is trying to identify through sources where the money has actually been spent. We don't know where the $1.2 million that the Councilman --
But Deborah has confirmed that at least it wasn't spent in your district. So we do have that base of knowledge. And I don't know where the $1.2 million -- it is likely that it went to spend in some acquisition 67 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. in some other area.
It's actually 1.561, because there's two pots of money, and both of them disappeared. I'm still at zero right now and I should be at 1.561.
So the issue could be during the course of the audit, the exit audit, that that was not something that the auditor was looking for?
They couldn't tell us where that money went, right, with any specificity.
Did the 68 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. auditor not identify that or was it --
The reduction in the $1.2 million in the 10th Councilmanic District was something that was reflected in the audit.
To my knowledge. But I can check and see with the Controller. The Controller would probably be in the best position to answer that question.
No. I was deferring to -- 69 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Yes, Madam President. I do have a question for the leadership at RDA unrelated to this topic. Please. (Witness approached witness table.)
I've been trying to get a listing of toxic land sites in Philadelphia. I've reached to the Planning Commission, with no success. And then I was instructed to go to the Department of Commerce, with no success. Does RDA maintain an inventory of toxic land sites?
Not for the whole City. We certainly could tell you for RDA-owned properties. So I can give you that. 70 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
I can help you get that. Are you saying you're having trouble getting that for the whole City?
We can get that for you. And I assume you want PIDC sites as well?
I want to talk to you about what exactly you mean by "toxic land sites."
Do you mean Superfund sites? So we should talk about legally what you're looking for.
But we can 71 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. certainly help you.
Including those, however. And in instances where developers are building on toxic sites for residents and then they discover after the fact that it's indeed --
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
For Ms. Gillen too, if I could ask a quick question. Again, I get slightly off the top --
The lots that RDA have that they're looking to try 72 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. to sell for fair market value, is there a schedule? Do they inspect those or try to maintain them in the interim? Because every once a while, I think we all get complaints about RDA lots, trash filled, weeds, that kind of stuff. What program do they have? Do you try to maintain those?
In fact, we have an in-house maintenance shop that is made up of building trades workers that -- you know, laborers, carpenters mostly, but the other building trades that maintain our lots and do a lot of work, encapsulation and things on the buildings that we have. In fact, the RDA spends about a million and a half dollars -- 1.2 million -- 1.5 million a year on the maintenance shop, which is what we do on maintenance. We also do a little bit of work with the Horticultural Society on their Clean and Green program, which does some lot maintenance as well. Yeah. I mean, we are in a very 73 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. similar position as the City, which is that there's not enough money to do the level of maintenance that we all would like to do on these lots, but I think we try to respond to requests as we get them. But if you're hearing that we're not being responsive on a particular parcel, please let me know. We spend a lot of money on this, so if it's not getting done in a way that's at least adequate -- I'm not shooting for good in this economy, but I'm shooting for adequate and safe, is our standards -- I'd like to know.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. 74 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Obviously there's a lot of frustration around NTI, and I would be remiss if I did not go on the record and say how important the infusion of NTI was to districts like mine in the 7th Councilmanic District, allowing us to demolish and create affordable housing opportunities and redevelopment opportunities. And while I share my colleagues' frustration, I think what I'd like to hear from the Administration this morning is -- because it's easy to throw -- previous Administration folks were not here. I guess what I have yet to hear is an articulation of -- we're in this months between the audit, and the 20 initial response was, We need the audit 21 completed. Now we have the audit 22 completed. Now we've identified some 23 major issues, whether it's going back and 24 liening the demolition liens or all these other things. What I'd like to get a 75 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. sense from you that's very important to me is, is there the political will to fix this in whatever means necessary, including the swapping of QRBs with CDBG, and if so, what is a timeline? Because what I don't want to be is in a situation where we're doing the budget next year and we're in the same discussions. And how are we going to ensure that the distribution is done in a way that is fair for those Council folks who don't have money but, more importantly, allows us to move this issue forward? And I say that only because I know that the City is going to hold tight in their City Significant pot, and I really want to ascertain what is the political will to like bring this to some sort of resolution.
Councilwoman, the Administration has the political will to try to get this done. As you recall, shortly after we came into office, we joined in the Council's request to try to 76 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. figure this out. Unfortunately, it did take a long time. I think as the auditors, as the Administration got into what had happened at the RDA or, quite frankly, what did not happen at the RDA in terms of record-keeping, we were all kind of unpleasantly surprised at how poor things were run over there. That being said, I think we are prepared to go forward. I mean, that's why we tried to meet the deadline that was imposed that we -- a self-imposed deadline of trying to get you a Program Statement in 45 days. We're here today to discuss the priorities and the relative balances about how we allocate these funds. We've given you a preliminary indication of how those funds could be spent, and we have been working with the Council through the Oversight Committee, with Councilman Clarke and his staff and my staff trying to figure out ways, thinking of creative ways to expand the pot as much as we can, and we as an 77 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Administration are willing to listen to any rational, reasonable idea about how we can move this thing along. We want to get this money moving as quickly as you do.
So it will be fair to say that in the beginning four weeks, six weeks, we should have, one, is whatever legal opinions relate to the NTI situation but, more than that, a fair distribution of QRBs and exempt bonds?
Right, and the only limitation being the law. I mean, we obviously want to make sure we are in compliance with the law, but, I mean -- and there are certain things that we think are important, things that are reflected in the allocations of the Program Statement, the BSRP repair, but those are things that are open to discussion with the Council. If there are other priorities that you'd like us to look at and that we can agree to, 78 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that's fine.
What would you say are the three major impediments right now for us to bring this to a resolution?
Well, I think there are a couple. One is that there's a shortage of flexible dollars and the limitation that the QRBs can only be spent in those areas where there are QRBs. That's really the biggest limitation. But that being said, the staff is painstakingly going through those 1,500 properties trying to identify things that we can swap out. I think in my testimony we estimated that we might find as much as $3 million to that effect. And we're committed to doing that, to try to expand that pot as much as we can, and then to sit down with the Council and try to make a reasonable allocation of how we should use those monies across the various programs that 79 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. we have.
How much unspent CDBG money correlates with the years in NTI that we're looking at?
Are CDBG allocations for those years, how much of those years are unspent monies, not commitments, monies that could potentially be swapped out?
If I understand your question, what I indicated in my testimony is that there are about $10 million in CDBG monies that remain and there was about $2.9 million left in DCED monies that remain. Now --
My question is, was there anything that we spent in that year CDBG that correlates with our QRB zones that we could potentially swap?
I don't know. We can certainly look into that. I don't 80 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. know.
We still haven't figured that out? I mean, that was one of the bigger issues.
If I understand your question, you're trying to say if there are any unallocated CDBG monies unspent --
The spent money in QRB, what percentage of our QRB -- of our CDBG money was spent in a QRB zone that we might be able to swap out in projects?
I don't know, because that's where we have to look at the 1,500 projects individually. So that's what we're doing now. We've estimated that that might result in about $3 million.
So 81 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. you're saying when we come back to Council, you'll be prepared to give us what your recommendations are for the swaps?
Yeah. We continue to work. I think we should be done by the end of -- the beginning of the new year, that's correct.
In the interim, are there any projects that folks have on the pipeline that are being impacted by our inability to move this NTI money?
I would anticipate there may be. I don't know personally, but I could certainly ask. But the one other thing that we need to keep in mind, one of the conditions that the Controller made or recommended before we spent any money is 82 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that we have the systems in place to track it. We're not there yet. We should be there, again, by the end of the year, first part of the new year. What the RDA has been working with the consultant in doing is putting together an interim system to be able to track the money, and I think ultimately the Finance Director is supposed to sign off on that and then a longer-term project to really make sure that there are systems in place longer term to make sure that we can continue to spend the money. Our goal is to try to put this interim system in place so that we'll be in a position to spend money as early as the new year if we can get this approved.
If we're looking to create new systems, why would our handling of NTI be any different than our streamlining of the RDA process for purposes of development? I mean, you're saying that you need to come up with an interim process. 83 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
It's really a tracking. It's more of a financial accounting system, is really what I was talking about.
How is that going to be different from the traditional RDA system?
Well, quite frankly, the system that -- or the lack of system that was in place is evidence as one reason why we're sitting here today. There was no system as related to these funds. And because of all of the requirements, legal requirements, it's probably -- and I'm not at the RDA day to day, but it's probably a little different from what their normal funding cycles are. So they are developing a system to make sure that they can track this program and make sure the kind of problems that we're all suffering from now don't reoccur. So we're hopeful that that will be in place by early January.
Can I 84 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. get Terry to kind of articulate how she sees integrating the NTI tracking system with the traditional RDA tracking system?
Sure. Again, Terry Gillen. Yeah. We're doing the two things in parallel tracks. You are correct about that. The tracking system under the NTI program, there were two problems with it, I would say. One was that the tracking was done by project and not by parcel or not by address. So we've got to have a system -- so that was partly what slowed down the audit, right? Because auditors wanted to come in and check, say, every tenth parcel. Well, we don't track by parcel. So that's really the main reason that the audit took so long. So we've got to put a system in place that tracks by project. So Cecil B. Moore acquisition zone would be an example of a project, but also that tracks addresses. So it allocates the appraisal cost by address and things like 85 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that. The other thing that we've got to do is, we've got to put a system in place that ties in the work that the real estate folks do with the work that the fiscal folks do. Because until now, the real estate folks have really kind of driven the project budgets, and the fiscal folks haven't had any ability to say, Hey, you're over budget. That's how we got into this problem. So we're putting in a pretty simple -- it's really kind of an Excel-based system that will do that. At the same time, what you're talking about is, I would say, a more systemic rethinking of how we do the vacant land overall. Now, what we're doing, NTI will eventually have to tie into that, so when we put the permanent system in place, which will be an IT-based system, it will tie the two pieces together. But right now, as Clay said, we're really just trying to get an interim system in place 86 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that makes sure that we won't run into this problem again.
How is that system going to interface with Public Property around City-owned property?
It won't. All it does is, it just tracks NTI land acquisitions. Do you mean the larger system, how is the larger system --
We haven't figured that out yet. I mean, that's partly what we have to work on.
So how are we interacting -- for instance, if there are properties that are under Public Property that were NTI properties, I mean, how are we bringing those all in line if they're, for instance, in the portfolio of Public Property for the purposes of maintenance and appropriately liening some of these properties where we 87 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. might have done encapsulation or demolition?
Yeah. Well, right now it's literally by people talking to each other and e-mailing, and it's a very inefficient system. So, yes. I mean, Clay knows what we've got to do is have one entity be the gatekeeper that tracks not only Public Property's property but PHDC's property as well, and all three of us have got to have a single database, which is what I think the vision that you and some of the other members of the working team have started to put together.
And how is this interfacing with our decision for what land is being managed through our land management contract?
Oh, yeah, yeah, 88 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. yeah. That's a good question. I don't know. That's a good question. We have to -- I'd have to think about that and get back to you.
-- it will be a budgetary impact about what happens -- in my case, I have thousands of land, vacant land. So one of the great concerns is at what point is all of this going to come in line and who manages what. And I know that last year we made a decision because of budgetary to freeze all new land management remediation and just sustain ours, and I'm very concerned about what's going to be presented in next year's budget about some of that stuff, because that does impact -- I think the Councilman was talking about his lots and some of his stuff, and we're in near neighborhoods. That's a great concern, and it's impacted 89 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. by our inability to move some of these properties because of NTI. So I guess my issue is, this continues to cost us money. Every day we're not moving this costs us, and it's really hard for me -- and we had this conversation around departments not understanding that our inability to move and manage some of this stuff, it impacts L&I. So we're still paying for this. I mean, I know it's under a different budget, but it's still costing us money. So at what point does it not become more efficient to say, Let's just move some of this, even if we're not ready with a full system? Because Clean and Seal is $2,500. A land management remediation may be a thousand dollars a year. The land may be worth ten. Three years of doing this, we bought the land three times, and not to mention that it's not a tax-producing lot.
Right. I couldn't agree with you more, and I just want you 90 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. to know that when I went over to the RDA last year with the expectation that the audit would take six months, no one is less happy than I that this audit has taken longer. No one has pushed harder since getting to the RDA, as you know, to sell land and to get land out into the hands of whoever more than I have, precisely because the maintenance costs us money, but because it's not adding economic value. That's why we did the brokers sale pilot program, for example, this year, because we know that getting these properties out into the hands of investors is the only way we're going to get money in. One of the things that we're looking at, as you know, which is why we're looking at the Genesee County model, is, is there a way we can provide an incentive to do some of this by revolving some of the sale proceeds back into maintenance, right? I mean, in lots of other places, that's the way they pay 91 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. for maintenance. We don't do that in Philly, but that's part of the model that we're looking at. So we absolutely are on the same page on this.
I'm very concerned, because in the discussions with 3-1-1, we have a backlog of 800 vacant lots for clean-up, some sort of intervention. If we've cleaned the lot more than five times and we don't have a long-term strategy for that, that's problematic.
Because all we're doing is facilitating this process. So what I'd like to be able to have for the next budget discussion is a discussion around the backlog that we continue to have, because we don't have resources either in our Neighborhood Services Division and really a correlation between Neighborhood Services, our vacant lot land stabilization, our PHS contract, all of 92 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that so that we really can have a discussion, because all of those things should make these lands -- especially for the ones that are not in our pipeline, because my constituents don't care if the lot is City owned or not owned. In their minds, if we demolished it, we own it.
I really would like to see that for next time, because it is very frustrating, and it's hard to complain because I know we don't have the money, but we got to come up with a better mechanism for that.
Well, in Genesee County, they've found ways, right, by doing the taxes and penalties, by doing the bulk lien sales, which is something that we're looking into, by the way. I want you to know we're talking to Law and Revenue right now about doing that. So I think there are some creative ways we can get the resources. I don't agree that there can be no monies for this. 93 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Did we clarify whether PHS now can lien for their vacant land stabilization? I know that was a discussion back in 2008.
Are we liening for the vacant lot work that PHS is doing? We were talking about that as a way of creating a revolving fund.
It's not happening, but we can find out. (Witness approached witness table.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Deborah McColloch. I've been in several meetings with representatives of the Law Department and PHS and L&I trying to work through the legal process of how a lien can be assessed for work that PHS does. The issue is that because PHS is not the 94 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. City, the City can't place -- just can't place a lien the way it could if City employees were doing the cleaning. So we have been working on that, and it has not yet been finalized, but we're trying to work through to create a legal document of some sort, my word, not a legal word, cooperation agreement or something that would allow the City to place that lien on behalf of work that PHS has done. But we're not there yet, but we're working on it.
If we're managing the land and PHS is just providing the services, I can't understand. I mean, this is an important issue, because we've been doing this for so many years, and it has to be a mechanism for us to create that revolving door and a revolving fund for PHS to continue to do its work. MS. McCOLLOCH: I agree with you, and that's why we've been trying to work through what those legal impediments 95 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. are. So we've been working with the Law Department.
So this will be resolved for next year? Because I'm not going to be satisfied with your proposal, obviously, of our vacant land stabilization. So I just want folks to know that I've been trying to help you identify more money, and it's important that this gets settled by the end of the year for next year. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to ask the RDA some questions, but I'm going to leave it alone today. Mr. Armbrister, with respect to the Program Statement, what do you think Council's limitations are in terms of amending the Program Statement, particularly as it relates to the various 96 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. categories of funding? Right now I think Council, in working with the oversight component part of the Oversight Committee, we think we have some solutions once there's a bottom-line dollar number identified as to how to fix the problem. If Council said we think this money should be here, that money should be over there and we can resolve the issues with these non-QRB-qualified areas and amend the Program Statement to reflect those changes, what do you think our limitations are with respect to that in terms of categories of funds?
I'm not going to play lawyer and talk about what the limitations are. I hope we can work together to figure out exactly what either your suggestions are and something that really is a program that we can all support.
I hope so, too. 97 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
I don't want to talk about limitations. I just hope that we can work together to get something done.
I don't know. I really don't know. I'd have to -- I don't know.
All right. Okay. That's all I want to know. That's all. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman O'Neill.
Yes. Mr. Armbrister, I just want to -- first of all, I was tougher on Ms. Gillen than I should have been, because I really don't know that she was involved in the 98 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. oversight, lack of this oversight group doing its work, and I apologize. Because if you don't direct it from those meetings, no one is getting direction, because you're the only one there representing the Mayor, correct?
So that was beyond my knowledge, whether RDA was involved in not doing something that seemed to me to be obvious that was cleared up very quickly when Ms. McColloch came up. But I can't describe to you sufficiently how disappointed I am when you've had about a half dozen meetings, both formally and informally, of that group. I know that Mr. Wetzel and 99 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Mr. McPherson have made the very same suggestions to you face to face in those meetings that, first of all, you can determine -- "you," the Administration -- can determine very quickly whether the money was spent in the 10th District. Then you work backwards to the lack of reallocation or whatever the problem was that gave a district a zero balance that should have been at least on that particular page a million two. And I know you have someone there with you in those meetings that you delegate to, correct?
I don't want to call her up as a witness, but I 100 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. can assume that after those meetings, you never gave her an assignment or delegated an assignment to find out whether that money was spent in the 10th District.
Councilman, let me try to address this concern of yours. The question that you asked initially -- and I know you got off that question. Maybe I didn't get off the answer. But the question that you asked initially was whether, at least as I interpreted it, was whether we knew where the 1.2 million was spent. I understand that your budget for land acquisition was 1.5 -- $1.45 million, that there had been a reduction. Where the 1.25 million went, I don't know.
But you first have to make sure it wasn't spent 101 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. or it's really a meaningless exercise.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "spent." I think the 1.25 million probably was spent, and that's probably -- but it wasn't -- but then you changed the question to whether it's spent in your district, and I acknowledge, along with Ms. McColloch, that it is very likely that it wasn't spent in your district. But the $1.25 million that your budget was reduced by was probably spent somewhere. I don't know where it was spent.
Or it was never reallocated and that's why you have as much to reprogram that you think you have. And I know this has come up in meetings, too. I think the Administration has ignored the simple way of solving this, which is, one, was it spent. No, it wasn't spent. Two, then we don't have 13 point something or 14 point something million, we have 1.2 102 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. less, because it wasn't reallocated. That's all there -- this is very simple, if the Administration wants to do it. If the Administration doesn't want to do it, it is similar -- I can't think of a better analogy than finding out that one Council district through some error in the Finance Department had a million two less in their capital budget than they were supposed to have. It really doesn't matter where it went. As long as we have capital money available, we move it back and make sure that that million two is put back in that person's budget. This isn't complicated. There was no shady deal here with the Street Administration. Nothing. This is pure allocation/reallocation, not where the money was spent, because it doesn't matter where it was spent as long as it wasn't in my district. What matters is that you have the money, and the best answer is that it just wasn't reallocated, that's all, and that's why 103 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. you have a million two more than -- you think you have a million two than you actually have. There's another issue, and I'm going to give you a piece paper because --
-- on February 8th, the other money that's missing that has a zero balance actually has the $361,000 escrowed. This is out of the 410,000 for demolition and encapsulation. So in February of 2008, while we were all waiting for this audit to get rolling and get finished, there's a document that shows that this money was escrowed. They still can't find that. I would like you to keep the two numbers in mind, because we got to straighten out the whole thing, and I'm not sure that you're aware of the escrow. Has this come up in the meetings at all, the escrowed money on 104 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. the -- Mr. Wetzel or Mr. -- it has come up? So this document is not new to the Administration?
It's a report from the Administration. I'll share it with you. I can get another copy.
No, that's okay. This is a report from the Administration. I just really wanted to clarify that.
But it just shows that it was escrowed as of 2008. No money has been spent since then, so that should be really easy, because that's money that's been escrowed 105 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. for the 10th District. Out of the 410, it's split between demolition and encapsulation. The million two, I don't know an easier way of solving it, because it's the only logical way, is, one, it hasn't been spent --
-- in the 10th District. Two, we still have the money. The 10th District gets its money, that's all.
Councilman, the only thing I would modify by what you just stated is that we can't tell -- and I'm not -- we can't tell if we have the money. We don't know if that $1.2 million that was removed from your budget has in fact been spent someplace, and it, quite frankly, doesn't matter, but I --
It doesn't really matter, but that's the point, and if it was as easy as you've described it, 106 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. it wouldn't have taken the Controller and this accounting firm as long as it did to try to figure this out. There were no 5 records at RDA that they had to reconstruct. It is not as simple as you make it seem. The money was reduced from your budget. We don't know if it's been spent, because there were no records.
And I understand your point about whether it's spent in your district, but it's not as simple as saying that the money exists because it might have been spent someplace else. And if it was spent someplace else, that means that we have to go and find $1.2 million from another source, right?
I will bet you it was never reallocated. All it has 107 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. to do is be allocated. We're making this very complicated --
-- in order to get 13.3 or 14.8 or 17.2. There's different versions of what money is available.
And that's the point that I was trying to answer, because I don't know if it has been reallocated. I don't think it's quite that simple.
Well, we hadn't spent much time on the document I just gave you. How about the 361 that is not in the 1.2 but is still missing? Do you have any progress on that?
I don't know why you've been having all these meetings and telling me and others that we're doing everything we can, we're 108 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. working as hard as we can, and you have an assistant there that apparently isn't even given any work to do in these matters. I'm not saying she hasn't been given any work to do.
But you can't have an NTI program until you get this straightened out. So why are we asking, can you support the NTI program, when there's an essential part that is still -- I mean, there's other essential parts, I'm sure, but this is one that clearly has to be corrected. I don't know how --
Okay. I just heard best effort. I didn't hear best effort today. I've been hearing best effort for a long time. This is not best effort. This is worst effort, if anything, to not be able to come up with 109 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. these simple answers today when they've been brought up meeting after meeting. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. With regard of the disposition of RDA's properties or lots, do you agree that the District Councilperson should be in agreement with its use or reuse?
Do I agree if the District Councilperson should be in agreement?
With the disposition of lots or properties that are in RDA inventory.
I mean, my personal opinion would be that I think 110 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that the overall -- if there's an overall strategy that the City Administration and the Council has agreed to, as long as that strategy is being followed, they should be in harmony with each other, that the Councilperson and the Administration should be in agreement, as long as there's an identified strategy.
Well, I think my answer is hopefully it would be an agreed-upon strategy, both the Administration and with support of the Councilmembers agree to in terms of how we distribute, allocate what our long-term development plans are for particular areas of the City. Hopefully it wouldn't be an either/or.
I'll accept that for now. It's not the -- I don't -- it's not a complete answer, but I'll accept it for now until I decide how to rephrase my question. Thank you. 111 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of Council? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Armbrister. Is there anyone else here to testify on this? MR. McPHERSON: Yes. John Gallery, and then it will be Mr. James White. (Witness approached witness table.)
I have copies of my testimony here for the members. My name is John Gallery. I'm the Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. I will confess that I feel like a fly on an elephant in terms of the discussions you've been having, but I would like to draw your attention to one 112 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. of the programs that is funded by NTI, and I'd also like to ask you to consider increasing the funding for this program if there is an opportunity to reallocate money differently than what is in the budget proposed by Mayor Nutter. I'm just going to very briefly summarize my testimony. The Historic Property Repair program was established with NTI funds to provide a resource for low- and moderate-income homeowners whose properties are located in historic districts or listed on the Philadelphia Register, so that when those homeowners came before the Historical Commission to make repairs, they would have some financial assistance in making them equivalent to the standards which the Historical Commission applies. There is a million two hundred thousand dollars in the NTI budget for this program, and basically those funds have all been either spent or we have 113 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. contractors at work or we have commitments to homeowners that are in their final stages of approval. Needless to say, any additional amount of funding would be helpful, but I suggested a figure of $250,000, not being clear from the budget information how much was available for reallocation. I know you have other priorities, but this is an important strategic program and is practically the only program that helps low- and moderate-income homeowners who live in historic properties. To date, we've completed 52 properties. I included a sheet which has a few photographs on it. The photographs were just intended to show that we've been working with properties throughout the City of a different historical nature, from Girard Estates in South Philadelphia to elaborate Victorian houses in North Philadelphia or Italian eight houses in Germantown. Altogether, grants have been made in seven 114 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. councilmanic districts, so it is a program that works in multiple places, but it is limited to historic areas, which are also included on the map that I included in the program. A great many of the repairs that we make are addressed towards energy issues, repairing or replacing windows or other really critical elements such as roofs that are leaking, masonry that is leaking water, rebuilding of deteriorated porches and that nature. Again, I realize that there are many demands on the NTI funds that are still available, but I would appreciate if you would give consideration to the Historic Property Repair program as you look at the budget. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of Council? (No response.) 115 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Thank you so much for your testimony. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is James White, and he will be followed by John MacDonald. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. My name is James White. I am the Policy Coordinator at the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations. This afternoon I'm submitting testimony not only for myself, but for Mr. John MacDonald, one of our members longstanding and a member of our Board of Directors, who unfortunately had to leave, so his written testimony is also included in the folder alongside mine. PACDC, as you know, is a citywide association of more than 80 community development corporations and other organizations that have extensive 116 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. experience utilizing the City's housing and community development programs and systems. First, we would like to thank City Council and the Nutter Administration for your leadership and support for expanding funding for the Philadelphia Housing Trust Fund through Bill No. 090849 and the companion state-authorizing legislation, HB 1645. While the City's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative provided seed funding four years ago to help capitalize the Housing Trust Fund, this legislation allows the City to significantly expand ongoing dedicated funding for the Housing Trust Fund, enabling the City and its partners to more effectively address our housing and neighborhood revitalization needs. Of course, you can't build new houses or rehab existing ones without access to property, including the huge inventory of vacant and abandoned homes 117 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. and lots in Philadelphia. Thus, we are encouraged by the steps the Redevelopment Authority and the Office of Housing and Community Development are taking for much-needed reform to the City's process for acquisition and disposition, as well as looking forward to working along with the City and its partners in the creation of a Unified Land Bank to consolidate ownership of these properties as well as planning for their appropriate reuse and implementation of an equitable disposition policy. These are key steps in the process to achieve a more effective and efficient system. Such changes will minimize the length of time properties remain abandoned and the harm they do to our communities, while creating conditions to bring them back into productive use, reduce the high cost of dealing with these vacant properties and expand the City's revenues. At the same time the City 118 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. pursues these larger system changes, there are a couple of other key property acquisition issues that I would like to address this afternoon that need to be addressed as soon as possible. Due to delays in making "just compensation" payments into court and extinguishing outstanding liens on properties that have already been acquired, purchasers, especially CDCs and non-profit developers, are having difficulty obtaining title insurance for their properties and tax abatements and investment payments for new developments since they don't have clear title. And new homeowners continue to receive tax and water bills for old judgments against previous owners who didn't pay their bills. We urge the Administration to commence as soon as possible with the making of "just compensation" payments into court and extinguishing outstanding liens on properties that have already been acquired to ensure clear title. 119 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Given the amount of time the payment into court process takes, the City should also implement a workable interim solution to enable viable planned development projects to proceed and homeowners to be protected. In addition, now that the audit of the NTI acquisition activities have been finalized, we urge the City to unfreeze the property acquisition and disposition pipeline to enable proposed viable new developments to proceed by creating new uses of these resources that have been allocated to support acquisition.
Finally, we believe that putting in place policies and resources to promote equitable development to help ensure that long-term and lower-income residents benefit from neighborhood change needs to be a key part of the City's overall development strategy. This includes creating new housing opportunities for residents at all 120 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. incomes, as well as assisting existing homeowners who otherwise can't afford to maintain their homes. This later issue could be addressed in part through the proposed new Neighborhood Stabilization Targeted Basic Systems Repair program that would have the added benefit of reinforcing investments being made in rehabbing foreclosed homes. The City's strategy should also include utilizing publicly owned vacant and surplus property to strategically support the development of affordable housing and appropriate neighborhood economic development in appreciating neighborhoods, as well as other policies and strategies to help ensure mixed-income communities that can be sustained over time. We look forward to working with the City Council and the Administration to develop a more effective delivery system to facilitate the appropriate reuse of vacant and abandoned property in 121 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. a way that will strengthen the City's neighborhoods and address residents' housing and community development needs. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing no one, thank you again. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is John MacDonald.
You have his testimony. MacDonald had to leave. MR. McPHERSON: Okay. Thank you. Then our last witness is Susan Klein and Zach Lewis. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. I 122 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. have copies here. Thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Susan Klein. I am Director of Housing at the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging, PCA. PCA is designated as the area agency on aging in Philadelphia, and we plan, coordinate and fund services to over 100,000 older Philadelphians and people with disabilities each year. We provide a variety of programs and services, including information and referral, care at home, senior community centers, home repairs and modifications, adult daycare, volunteer programs, and legal and employment assistance, all with the goal of increasing the independence and quality of life of our consumers. The 2008 Public Health Management Corporation's community health survey found that there are approximately 249,000 people age 60 and above in the 123 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. City of Philadelphia. Approximately 78 percent of those are homeowners. And of these homeowners, about 81,000 are poor, and we're using 200 percent of poverty as the criteria for poor. The bottom line is that we have a great many seniors, both renters and homeowners, whose housing costs, design and conditions are creating major impediments to their health and safety. Philadelphia's seniors continue to be in desperate need of home repairs and modifications, affordable, accessible and appropriate rental units, and help through housing counseling for all housing issues. I'm here today specifically to express PCA's support for the $850,000 allocation in NTI funds for the Adaptive Modification program. This program, which is currently administered by the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, provides essential home modifications to the homes of low-income 124 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Philadelphians of all ages with disabilities. Overwhelmingly, seniors want to stay in their own homes and in their own communities where they are an integral part of the fabric of Philadelphia. By providing modifications such as exterior wheelchair lifts, first-floor half baths or interior stair glides, this program provides an essential service to maintain the quality of life and health for seniors and younger people with disabilities. This is an important program, and we have three suggestions to improve it. PHDC actually administers three programs that are essential to low-income seniors - the Adaptive Mod program, Basic Systems Repair program and Weatherization. The way to access these services is through their hotline number. Unfortunately, the wait time to speak to an intake worker one morning a few weeks ago was at least seven minutes, and this appears to be the norm. Now, seven 125 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. minutes is a very long time for a person who has arthritis or who has other health issues that make it difficult to hold a phone. We constantly hear complaints from our consumers that they're unable to reach a staff person. PCA requests that PHDC reexamine the intake process so it better addresses the needs of consumers. Certainly PHDC does not have, nor will never have, enough funds to address all the housing needs of applicants for their programs, but they can set up a system for better, more appropriate communications with the public. And the second point I wanted to make is for AMP, once people get onto the waiting list, 75 percent do not make it through the intake process. Roughly 50 percent of those applicants either do not come in or do not send someone in on their behalf to come to 1234 Market Street or are unable to do what is required to get a home visit. Another 25 126 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. percent of applicants don't make it through the process because they cannot provide the appropriate documentation or similar reasons. PHDC must work diligently to reach out to these applicants to assist them through the application process so that their disability or frailty or programmatic impediments do not hinder their ability to receive service.
A final point is that AMP installs exterior wheelchair lifts and stair glides, but does not provide repairs to this mechanical equipment after the three-year warranty period is over. PCA frequently receives calls from recipients of AMP service who do not have the means for repairs, so they're stuck inside their house, looking out at a broken wheelchair lift. Exterior wheelchair lifts are mechanical equipment and they will break down over time. AMP consumers usually have no source of funds to provide the lift repairs. AMP must 127 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. provide these repairs for people who cannot afford to make them. PCA strongly urges AMP to set aside a small amount of funds, up to $20,000 a year, to make repairs on lifts that are beyond the warranty. 5 million means there's a three-year waiting list for service even though 75 percent of the applicants have been lost through the intake process. The Philadelphia Corporation for Aging strongly supports the addition of $850,000 in NTI funds for AMP, which will reduce the waiting list by six months. I do want to mention that NTI funds and the Housing Trust funds are extremely important to this program. If you use CDBG funds, then you're required to address lead-based paint issues throughout the house, and when we had that program, it doubled the cost of the repairs, which means the waiting list instead of three years would be six 128 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. years. So thank you very much for this opportunity.
Thank you. Are there any comments or questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Hello. My name is Zachary Lewis and I work for Liberty Resources. I'm also a consumer there as well, and I wanted to piggyback on a couple of things Ms. Susan spoke about regarding adaptive technology and adaptive modifications. I just wanted to let everyone know that they're very important, because without them, people like myself, people with disabilities, are not able to access the community at all. Like she said, they may be able to sit on their porches 129 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. or through windows looking out at the world passing them by, and I just wanted to let everyone know that it's important to support that very much. Also, with regards to visitability, I think visitability is important and needs to be supported, because it allows people with disabilities such as myself to access other people's homes with regards to having no steps, no step entryways and doorways that are accessible, and bathrooms maybe like on the first floor that are accessible also. As an employee, I also come across a lot of people on a daily basis that continuously show -- that continuously call and let myself know that they need accessible, affordable housing, and with that access, like they need ways to get up and down their steps or get in and out of their house. So I just wanted to let you guys know that it's very important, if 130 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. you guys could take a look at that when allocating funds.
Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you. (Committee of the Whole recessed at 12:55 p.m.) - - - 131 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 16, 2009, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (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.)