Thank you. We have 370 BILL NO. 000344 Theresa Youngblood here to testify. Would you come forward. Is there anyone else here today who has not testified in this hearing and who would like to do so? If there is no one else -- all right. You may come up next. Please testify. They will be back, Councilwoman. You don't have to rush, they will be back. Sergeant at Arms, please. Thank you very much. Ms. Youngblood, would you identify yourself for the record and begin.
Theresa Youngblood. I am the Executive Director of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association.
Well, the City of Philadelphia should be commended for their overall production of affordable housing. There are communities in the Eastern North Philadelphia area that have been overlooked in this process. Specifically, the Northern Liberties neighborhood. 371 BILL NO. 000344 During the past ten years, the amount of public dollars spent on housing and economic development in the Eastern North Philadelphia area totaled $15,721,995. However, none of those funds have been directed to our neighborhood, which has had an active MAC and CDC for years and 10 years 8 respectively. 9 The population of Northern Liberties 10 is 3,000-plus residents and businesses in the area 11 bounded by Girard Avenue and Spring Garden Street, 12 the Delaware River and Sixth Street. 13 It is an ethnically diverse 14 neighborhood, with strong roots going back four to 15 six generations to the early Northern Liberties 16 settlers. 17 Economically Northern Liberties is 18 equally distinct with a median income of $29,386, 19 and 51 percent of its residents living at poverty 20 level or below. 21 However, unlike many communities, 22 residents are intermixed throughout the neighborhood 23 with people of dispaired economic, racial, 24 religious, and personal ideas and lifestyles living 25 right next door to each other. 372 BILL NO. 000344 The lack of coordinated city housing services and investment of public dollars in this community has perpetuated the blight on the community that began with the exodus of the manufacturing companies whose empty buildings now cast a shadow over the revitalization of our neighborhood. In the last decade we have been repeatedly told by OHCD agents to focus on housing initiatives, yet have not been given the wherewithal to accomplish that task. However, all around us other communities have had housing development projects funded every year. And if you turn to the attachment, you will see the area that we reside in is split between North Philadelphia and the Ludlow area, East and West Popular, New Kensington and Old Kensington. And Old Kensington really doesn't even exist; that's a part of us. We do not begrudge our neighbors their improvement. We do, however, expect balanced area development which will solidify the city as a whole. 373 BILL NO. 000344 For the past two years our neighborhood has had a rapidly growing and improving residential resurgence that bodes well for the future of the city. However, this interest has also brought speculators into the community who are now raising prices and pushing older and low-to-moderate-income residents out of the market and the neighborhood. If we are to mean our diversity and character, it is imperative that Northern Liberties have the ability to provide diverse housing opportunities for its lesser able residents. The NLNA has laid the groundwork for community planning and development through a preliminary master plan developed by city planning students from the University of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to do housing development without staffing or money. Volunteers can only do so much, and time is of the essence. According to the Fairmount Venture study and asset management approach to vacant land, there are a total of 379 vacant lots in the Northern 374 BILL NO. 000344 Liberties area. This accounts for acres out of a total area of 179 acres which comprises our neighborhood. The physical characteristics noted by Fairmount Ventures include a much older 19th century urban fabric with typical gap tooth vacant patterns. Larger vacant lots closer to I-95 and the Delaware River are the sites of former industries now demolished. Most lots in the community are not used productively. They are dumping grounds for abandoned autos, short dumping of construction debris, or general eyesores of overgrown weeds.
16 Generally smaller lots that are near 17 residential areas become illegal parking spots or 18 places to do auto repairs, which contribute to the 19 degradation of soil quality and pollutants in the stormwater system. In areas of the community that have been actively involved with greening projects, numerous vacant lots have become community gardens or private backyard green spaces. The success of these scattered 375 BILL NO. 000344 projects has been the catalyst for many resident to clean up and reclaim these lots in an unofficial manner until such time as they are able to permanently take ownership. Despite the large volume of vacant lots, our community has not received funding to transform these lots into revenue-generating properties, as has our neighboring communities. Additionally, large numbers of vacant industrial properties and lots have been permitted to create blight in this historic neighborhood, instead of being used for neighborhood-based rental production or home ownership initiatives, even though we are in the targeted area of the city's North Philadelphia Plan for neighborhood revitalization through home ownership development in Eastern North Philadelphia. Due to the number of vacant and/or aging residential and industrial properties and real estate speculation, there is an immediate need for the city and the community to begin comprehensive planning to address usage and development issues. While there is a good deal of commercial reuse activity in the community, many of 376 BILL NO. 000344 these proposed uses are not conducive to the residential stability of the area. There has also been a noticeable increase in the number of single-family properties being rezoned into multi-family rentals. While there is a need for safe, affordable rental properties, there is also a need to maintain the neighborhood's stability created through home ownership. Additionally, through funding of initiatives addressing open space planning, appropriate land use, ongoing vacant property land management, and community education and participation, there will be an increased impact on the local quality of life which will stabilize our community and improve the overall residential numbers of the city. In order to rectify the funding imbalance, the city must assist NACs and CDCs with long-range community planning, assess rental housing assistance needs, home rehab, preservation programs, and housing development financing issues. Existing neighborhood-based organizations need to be included in the process 377 BILL NO. 000344 through the issuance of new RFPs, staffing, and funding. Unallocated funds for housing counseling and development, neighborhood-based home ownership production and development, and neighborhood-based rental production are currently unavailable to the Northern Liberties NAC and CDC because we haven't had these programs in past years and there have been no new RFPs issued. And we do not have the capacity to establish these needed programs without funding and assistance. I ask you to please help Northern Liberties retain its diversity and unique community. It's been there for 320 years. We need an equitable distribution of city funds and services. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from the committee? All right. We have one more gentleman. Thank you very much for coming. Please identify yourself for the 378 BILL NO. 000344 record and proceed with your testimony. Thank you.
Good afternoon Councilwoman Blackwell, members of the committee. My name is Rick Sauer. I am the Director of the Philadelphia Association for Community Development Corporations, which is a citywide association of over 60 CDCs and other organizations working to revitalize neighborhoods here in the city. I have previously submitted written testimony before the hearing was held last week. I just wanted to make a few comments today based on some of the discussions that have taken place both last week as well as today. I think the committee members have presented a pretty effective argument that all of the city's neighborhoods have housing and community development needs. And clearly these needs do vary by neighborhood. And what's appropriate in one neighborhood may not be appropriate in another. We do need to have flexibility and we do need to have different strategies to address the needs. At the same time, we have heard a lot of discussion about how the city's overall low- and 379 BILL NO. 000344 moderate-income population is distributed around the city. And while it may be fairly evenly distributed overall, I think it is also clear that the severity of the need and the level of disinvestment that's happened over the last 40 years is not equally distributed across the city. It does vary greatly by neighborhood and by Councilmanic district. As a result, some neighborhoods do require a greater level of public investment in order to spur private investment and put neighborhoods back on the road to recovery. I think OHCD has provided a lot of support to CDCs in particular over the last several years who were taking a comprehensive approach and had a long-term commitment to revitalizing these neighborhoods. And while it is not their only activity, housing production does play a key role in this process and results in new risk benefits to neighborhoods, the residents living there, as well as the city overall. These projects put vacant land back 380 BILL NO. 000344 into productive use, they attract and spur private investment, they restore housing markets, they generate tax revenues for the city, create jobs, provide stable living environments, improve the quality of life overall, much needed activity. Given the limited pool of funds, which is due to a variety of factors that have been pointed out, whether it is the lack of funding from the federal or the state level of the city, the administrative costs the city pays by Community Development Block Grant Funds, or Section 108 repayments, there are a lot of difficult decisions that have to be made on how to divy up a small pool of resources. Does the city need to do more, a better job of preserving neighborhoods that are fairly stable? Of course they do. Just like we need to do more to address the significant needs in the lower income neighborhoods. The main limiting factor is a lack of resources. We have to do more, whether to garner additional public resources or use those to better leverage private sector resources. Another quick point or two that was 381 BILL NO. 000344 raised today. I think it is clear we also need to do more to support increased neighborhood planning, to develop plans in neighborhoods that don't currently have them, but as well as to update plans that do currently exist. And we also need to do a better job at integrating all those plans into a more comprehensive plan for the city overall. You can't just have a scattered-shot approach. Likewise, we do need a better process for deciding how scarce community development resources are allocated. But such a discussion needs to take place with a larger group of people that are involved in community development and that are living in the neighborhoods impacted. It can't happen overnight, in a short period of time. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for us to submit a consolidated plan to HUD.
So I want to urge the committee to release this ordinance without amendments today, so that we can the consolidated plan on and not delay the drawing down of federal community development resources. 382 BILL NO. 000344 Thank you.
Not so much a question, Mr. Sauer. Thank you for coming in. Let me, one, assure you that no 8 matter what happens here today, I fully expect that this plan will be voted on next Thursday and be on its way to HUD. Secondly, I don't know what you have been told, but if there were any amendments to this plan, it will have no impact on the timetable by which the Council will consider it either today or next week. And I have heard from a number of people expressions of concern with regard to amendments. We are in a committee hearing process. Whatever comes out today is going to be on the calendar next week for second reading and final passage, regardless of whether there were amendments or not. So I don't know whether you were told that amendments might slow the process down. That 383 BILL NO. 000344 is absolutely not true.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Thank you very much. Mr. Kromer and Ms. Wilkerson, we welcome you back. Councilwoman Tasco, you had questions?
Thank you. Please proceed. After these questions, then I believe that should conclude this part of our hearing.
Last week I had an amendment that I did not offer formally, but I put it on the table for discussion for members of this committee. And you expressed some concerns about that amendment. My question to you was, all of the concerns that are raised not just locally, but 384 BILL NO. 000344 nationally, about this predatory lending. And I have been involved with Northwest Counseling, because it is in my district, in going around to various sites to hold educational seminars, cosponsored by Congressman Brady, to alert people to the fact that this predatory lending is going on and how our residents can protect themselves. Do you see your role in protecting the funds of the city that go to individuals from predatory lenders? Do you see that there is a role for your department?
All right. So what was your distress at offering an amendment to the legislation to offer that protection?
There are really a number of concerns that I have. And these concerns are shared by counseling agencies that are working as part of the city's program, including Northwest Counseling Service. First of all, most of the predatory lending that occurs does not take place in the realm of home mortgages; it occurs with respect to home 385 BILL NO. 000344 improvement loans --
That's not true. That's not true. This morning on Good Morning America, a woman was experiencing, they showed a story about how she had gone for a second home mortgage, and she was charged with a balloon payment up to 29 percent.
That's exactly my point. The city's program does not have any relationship to second mortgages. And, in fact, the consumer who testified at the hearing last week was testifying about her experience with a home improvement loan, with a second mortgage. The city's program does not currently involve second mortgages; it involves first mortgages. And, as I stated at the time of the hearing, there has been no evident of any instance in which predatory lending has been a problem for those mortgages that have been part of the city's program. Secondly, the concern was about the 386 BILL NO. 000344 lender regulation role that was proposed for OHCD through this amendment. It really would require a weekly monitoring of lender interest rates and a degree of oversight that would change OHCD's scope of responsibility significantly and require reorganization and significant administrative costs. The final concern I had was that this amendment was shown to me at the very last minute. And certainly it is Council's option to introduce amendments whenever Council feels it is appropriate. But that the ACORN organization had apparently not reviewed the proposal with others who had been very active in the fight against predatory lending for some time. And I believe that there was agreement at a followup meeting that occurred last week with ACORN representatives and other counselors that more discussion could be very productive. And I know a subsequent meeting took place a few days later. My commitment to ACORN has been to 387 BILL NO. 000344 continue working with ACORN and the other interested parties to produce an OHCD policy that would be published as part of the Year 46 consolidated plan that would reflect the mutual commitment of both OHCD, ACORN, and the other parties at interest here. And I think that is a realistic goal.
That's right. Well, I haven't heard a response from ACORN. But if they are up for it, I am ready to commit to that.
Well, what we are going to do is backtrack. We are going to introduce a resolution calling for hearings, so we will investigate. From that point we will determine what action we believe the city ought to take and then what department should take that action on this whole issue. 388 BILL NO. 000344 We believe you have some role. We'll certainly consult with you on that. But whenever there is an offer to reach out beyond what you presently do, there always seems to be this corralling, rounding up the troops and circling the wagons against any effort to provide services other than what you already provide. And that is what's causing some problems here with some of us on this committee. So thank you very much, Councilwoman.
Mr. Kromer, some of the testimony we heard earlier, and concerns about the plan and the timing, can you tell us, when did you apply for the extension of time in order to get this application into HUD?
I don't have the exact date, but perhaps I can get an estimate, if you will excuse me. The approximate date was June the 1st, the date when the city applied for that 389 BILL NO. 000344 extension.
Okay. So let me just make sure I have all the timelines straight. You applied for an extension of the time to get the application in to HUD before we ever had a hearing on it, the plan; is that correct?
So why is it that people are being told that we might possibly miss a deadline, since you had already anticipated that you needed an extension before Council ever heard the bill?
The issue that has been a concern in my office, that I have discussed with Council Members, has been the need to pass the bill 17 authorizing the submission of the plan to HUD prior to the summer recess. Because HUD has notified my office, as of this week, that if the plan is not received by August 15, then no funding will be available. So that is the concern that I have expressed to Council Members.
Well, I appreciate that. 390 BILL NO. 000344 The August deadline is not something you need for Philadelphia; that is the HUD regulation. But there has never been any danger of this application getting out before our legislative recess. Did someone tell you that?
Well, I have that 9 concern, and I wanted to be sure that Council and 10 others are aware of that concern for passage of the 11 bill. 12
And we have never 13 missed one of those deadlines, have we? 14
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Hearing none, we will now end our Public Hearing and enter into our stated committee meeting. 391 BILL NO. 000344 (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 392 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - Thursday, June 15, 2000 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Finance, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 000344 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL, Chair COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, Vice-Chair COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - 393 PUBLIC MEETING
Having said that, we are prepared to deal with amendments to Bill 344 that have been submitted by Councilman Nutter and for the accompanying discussion.
Madam Chair, if I might, there has been a revision based on some discussions with the Administration. I would like to hand those out at this time. As well as a copy of the current Philadelphia Code related to the Community Development Section, Title 21, which is primarily for the purpose of dealing with the CDBG application process.
Madam Chair, as the members get the copy of the amendments and the Philadelphia Code, what you will find is, the proposal is to amend the end of Section 8 of Bill 20 000344, with language which, for the most part, virtually mirrors the language that is currently in the Philadelphia Code, but adds in provisions for certain reports that are not only of a citywide nature, but also of a Council district nature.
Excuse me, Councilman. 394 PUBLIC MEETING Would you make sure that your aide gives Mr. Kromer and Ms. Wilkerson copies.
Councilman, can you tell us how this changes from those amendments that you circulated earlier today?
Sure. If you look at page -- although the pages are not numbered, but it is a three-page document on the amendments. If you look at the second page, the amendments that were circulated earlier, letter J did read, "A comprehensive and detailed neighborhood revitalization plan, paren, as plans by area within a Councilmanic District." If you look at the revised version, you will see there is new language added to the beginning of that sentence, such that it reads, "A general proposal for how the city will develop comprehensive and detailed neighborhood revitalization plans by neighborhood area." The reason for that change is, it even for me would be considered somewhat unrealistic for a 90-day period that the city would be able to come up with the level of detail and comprehensive 395 PUBLIC MEETING plans that we're asking for. And what we're essentially saying is, they should, though, in the 90-day period, be able to tell us or give us a general proposal of how they will come up with those plans. And that was done, I think I can say, and to correct the record, I think I can say that was done in concert or by agreement with the Administration. The next difference is, if you look at the original amendments that were offered on again, letter M, M as in Michael, that in the revised version has been deleted in its entirety, and then naturally the renumbering or relettering that goes with the deletion. The Administration would like to propose, and I have agreed, there is a definition on the third page, letter C, entitled A Direct Beneficiary. In a quick review of the Code, none of us could determine where that term was being utilized, although it is presently in the Philadelphia Code. And these amendments were drafted in an effort to mirror the Philadelphia 396 PUBLIC MEETING Code. And so, for these purposes, I would propose to delete the wording of letter C, but keep the letter, and insert the following language at the request of the Administration, which is a new letter C, which reads, a project or a -- quote, unquote, A project is one of a major program activity categories included in the CDBG consolidated plan. Now Ms. Wilkerson will allow me some discretion. I am going to a add some additional language, which I think she will not object to, "including but not limited to home ownership and housing preservation, homeless and special needs housing, and community economic development." It is a listing of the types of projects.
Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Kromer, you can feel free to approach the table.
It is Section 21 21-1103 of the Philadelphia Code is where these items are coming from. That's where they came from.
We will be happy to wait until you have had a chance to review it and tell us 397 PUBLIC MEETING what you think.
They are proposed to go in the bill. We are amending the bill, not the Code.
Sure. A, quote, unquote, project is one of the major program activity categories included in the CDBG consolidated plan, including, but not limited to home ownership and housing preservation, homeless and special needs housing, and community economic development.
The last item, Madam Chair, you asked me about differences. 398 PUBLIC MEETING
Is on . And this is the issue that we have had a significant amount of discussion about, which has to do with administrative costs.
The original language on this talked about a percent cap on 10 total Administration program management and program 11 delivery costs as a percentage of the use of CDBG 12 dollars. 13 The revision on has changed 14 that number from 20 percent to 25 percent. 15
On the top of the 17 third page. Item No. 3, in parentheses. 18 Proposes to change it from 20 percent 19 to 25 percent of the total CDBG dollars that could 20 be used for administration, program delivery, and program management costs.
Before they do, I was going to say, and the Administration has a 399 PUBLIC MEETING concern about that and proposed their own language, which is not percentage specific.
That's right. Mr. Kromer can give more specifics. The Administration is committed to reducing administrative costs. I articulated before, you know, our approach to doing that and are committed to being aggressive about that, to actually implementing, eliminating the duplication in this current year. The specific dollars, the specific percentages that are being proposed by Councilman Nutter are untenable. And I want to have Mr. Kromer talk a little bit about that. And then I will read through the language that we would prefer to have.
We haven't had an opportunity to analyze the administrative and program delivery categories to be able to evaluate the impact of implementing this recommendation, but I can make a couple of comments. One is that the performance of the program would drop significantly if a measure of this type were to be implemented, in part because 400 PUBLIC MEETING implementation would require cutting back on those staff that produce benefits for the City of Philadelphia, whether it be through processing loans or inspecting repair work and progress or other activities. Our performance would drop significantly. Secondly, a technical matter. The implementation of this measure would require layoffs of represented employees. And for each of the three housing agencies that I expect would be the focus of these layoffs, the layoff window for the current year has already passed, and so it would not be possible to implement layoffs that would affect the Year 16 program. 17
Now, I think the 18 assumption naturally -- or I am assuming that the 19 foundation of your statement is, you would have to 20 resort to these kinds of measures, potentially 21 draconian in nature, if you were not able to find 22 other funding to replace what you in this proposal 23 would, quote, unquote, lose as a result of a cap on 24 those three items of costs; is that the foundation 25 of your statement? 401 PUBLIC MEETING
I have already stated. The Administration's position, there is not General Fund money available. We fully support the thrust of trying to get more money out on the street for housing activity, support there being a very structured approach to trying to reduce administrative costs in particular, and would ask that Council entertain a more targeted and realistic goal-setting mechanism than the one that is proposed in the amendment before Council currently.
Secretary Wilkerson, do you have a proposal on what a goal could or should be?
Point of information. Are we able to determine now, have we done an financial impact study on this issue to identify what the costs are for pure administration of the program, and then the costs for program delivery, so that we can see what may be a reasonable target number? 402 PUBLIC MEETING You know, I would like to see that, and what that impact does to the department, before I vote on this amendment. I am not prepared to go that far right now, without knowing just what it does. But I understand what you are getting at, and I think they understand that we are very concerned about that. Again, I say that with the understanding that we get some action on this and that it doesn't -- we're not here next year talking about this. If I could convince you to ask them to do that for us, and give them a targeted deadline to have that information to us, I would be prepared to deal with that. But this is a little troublesome for me.
I understand. Mr. Kromer, is the response to Councilwoman Tasco's question probably primarily found on in the budget detail, when you talk about where the dollars are and as they are split up between administrative costs and program 403 PUBLIC MEETING delivery?
In a general way. But I think what really gets at the concern you raised is the wording of the proposed amendment, which calls for a very specific delineation of the admin and program delivery costs associated with each program category. So if the amendment were to be adopted with that language, then the analysis that you have asked for would be available within 90 days after the start of the fiscal year.
Let me ask this question: Purely on the administrative cost side, Mr. Kromer, I mean, as I think even the Councilwoman said, you have a benchmark or you have your baseline, and then where you are going from there. And are you able to talk about, again, what you would seek as a goal in that particular area? A goal is different from a pure absolute cap and cut. But a pathway to get to a particular place, and that you are working in that direction, and to set some parameters for yourself as we are having this discussion for what you would 404 PUBLIC MEETING potentially do to get to a particular place that is reasonable and not devastate a program? Nobody is looking to devastate programs.
Just by way of background, this statute, the federal statute, sets out a cap that I believe limits administrative I have costs to percent of the CDBG grant. 10 Philadelphia, this particular 11 application, has administrative costs, I believe, at 12 between 14 and 15 percent of the CDBG grant. 13 That is in the middle, you know, to 14 the low side, of where other major cities are with 15 their administrative costs. 16 I think what the Administration can 17 develop is a proposal to reduce its spending. Right 18 off the top of my head I cannot say that we can 19 reduce it by 5 percent within the coming year. 20 I think we can develop that kind of plan that reflects an assessment of how we are spending our administrative money, where it is that we can consolidate. We do plan on consolidating. And I can come back to you within 60 days with a structured plan for reducing 405 PUBLIC MEETING administrative costs across the CDBG-funded departments.
And I appreciate that. And if I heard and really understood what you said, you could at least agree to the concept that you would work toward a goal of a certain percentage, which is obviously different than setting a hard cap at the moment. But that, as a part of this process, you will agree to at least a goal of trying to get to a lower point?
Yes. That's right. We will work towards a goal. I can't give you anything more than just shooting from the hip until we actually go back and look and, you know, just really figure out how are we spending these moneys, where are there areas of savings. There probably are some. Any time you have this much money, there are ways of doing things more efficiently to generate savings. You know, we will go through that and come back with a specific plan for identifying areas where we can save, and what a goal lower than the current amount actually might be. 406 PUBLIC MEETING
The first component of these amendments talks about asking you to come back to us in 90 days with a variety of information. And couldn't we have that as a component of this longer list of items that we are expecting to get information back in 90 days, but talk about it, at least in this context, as a goal, and set that as what you are looking to get toward at least from a planning standpoint?
I agree that we can set, you know, as a goal moving forward establishing a goal. I can't say to you credibly that, you know, percent, 25; you know, I can't commit to 17 that. 18 I can commit that we will identify 19 specific percentages that we believe as an 20 Administration are reasonable in moving forward.
But even if we set a goal, I mean, if you could meet it, you tell us that you could. And if you couldn't, you would come back and tell us that you couldn't and why, I assume; right? 407 PUBLIC MEETING
You can always set a goal. Thank you. Those are the main points. And I could walk through all the rest, or where they came from. I know Councilwoman Tasco had some concern.
So then we are fine with then, just by way of review, with , with 2. Let me ask a question with regard to J. What is the Administration's position on J?
The Administration believes it can develop a proposal that articulates how we plan on conducting planning across the city. I think there is the understanding that within 90 days we can't plan in every neighborhood in the city. But we will have a strategy for actually undertaking a longer-term process of planning. I know parenthetically that it will require committing additional resources.
So then we are just to now , where, if my ears served me correctly, we won't include No. 3. And so we delete No. 3 --
Madam Chair, I would say we could keep the elements of No. 3 and take some elements out in accordance with the testimony that we heard. I could read, I think, into the record something that we might reach agreement on.
Yes, under 4. We are keeping the letter C, but defining "a project."
I think we are all in 409 PUBLIC MEETING accord. Again, to cap --
Let me read into the record what this hopefully new 3 could be, and see if the Administration will agree to that.
Madam Chair, and Ms. Wilkerson, at the top of 3, as that sentence starts, I would propose the following language, "It shall be the policy of the city that, beginning in CD Year and each CD year thereafter, the city 13 will consolidate administrative functions associated 14 with each agency participating in the CDBG program 15 in order to avoid duplication of services and reduce 16 administrative costs and seek to reach a goal of no 17 more than 10 percent of CDBG funds being used for 18 such administrative costs." 19
And I have no 20 expectation that we can cut our administrative costs 21 30 percent. 22
I thought the 23 previous testimony was your administrative costs are 24 presently at 15? 25
Right. And you want 410 PUBLIC MEETING to take them down to 10.
That was our discussion in the concept of goal setting. You are going to tell us whether you can or you can't, and why. But no one is going anywhere, no one is being laid off, and nothing is going to happen to anybody. By asking you to set that as a goal and tell us what you can do and what you can't do; that's all I am asking.
If Council adopts that, we will report back on our efforts.
Let me ask, what if the language said that it would be lower than it has been in previous years, with the goal of making it lower than it has been in previous years? Then the Administration doesn't have an amount, and we can still get where Councilman Nutter would like to go by having it lower than it's been. What do you think?
We could develop a plan so that Council can evaluate our efforts, so 411 PUBLIC MEETING that it is not simply an exercise of either hitting or missing a goal, but it actually provides Council with a mechanism for evaluating what it is that we have identified as potential areas of savings, and whether or not we in fact have a plan for trying to reach those savings. It may turn out to the actual number is not as critical as us having done a structured evaluation, identified real areas of opportunity and made true progress. And we could come back with a plan that shows that analysis.
So the problem with what was read, which, as you know, 90 percent of which is language that I got from you, was the add-on language about the 10 percent?
I think, could we -- because we can amend this later -- so what I am really trying to get at is the documentation so that we can come to some number; that's what I would like. 412 PUBLIC MEETING Once we get the study or whatever is necessary for us to review, then we can come to a number and we can amend this with that number at that time.
Well, I think under the circumstances, Councilwoman, the bulk of the language that I read earlier was language that the Administration had proposed. I mean, that language could be substituted on the front end of this particular section. The rest of it can stay. Because it doesn't cap their costs, it doesn't cost anybody anything, and I will take that language.
Let me note that all of this was only submitted at the hearing. So no one has had the benefit of, at least not the committee nor the Administration, of having any prior time to review or discuss it. So it also makes it rather difficult.
3, it shall be the policy of the city that beginning in CD Year and each CD 23 year thereafter, the City will consolidate 24 administrative functions associated with each agency 25 participating in the CDBG program in order to avoid 413 PUBLIC MEETING duplication of services and reduce administrative costs and seek to -- period. So that is the Administration's language.
And then we will come back with a plan for how it is that we intend to further reduce our administrative costs, consistent with the 90-day requirement, so that Council will have an opportunity to evaluate our efforts.
Thank you. I think then that we are ready. Councilman Nutter will have the pleasure of reading all of this into the formal record, and then we will be ready to vote. So the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for the purpose of reading revised amendments to Bill 344 into the record.
Thank you. 414 PUBLIC MEETING Madam Chair, I propose to Amend Section 8 in its entirety to read as follows: Section 8: The applications for CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG funding, which the Mayor and the Housing Director are authorized to file, shall be substantially that known as the Year Consolidated 8 Plan, which is approved and incorporated herein as 9 amended by this section. 10 The Chief Clerk of the Council shall 11 keep the Year 26 Consolidated Plan as amended by 12 this ordinance and the applications on file and make 13 them available for inspection and review by the 14 public. No later than 90 (90) days after the 15 beginning of fiscal year, the OHCD shall complete 16 and submit the following assessments, plans, reports 17 and documents for the Year 26 Consolidated Plan to 18 City Council in order for City Council to consider 19 such proposed assessments, plans, reports and 20 documents for approval by resolution as components 21 of the Year 26 Consolidated Plan. 22 Number 1, expenditure of CDBG program 23 funds shall be made only as specified in the annual 24 Community Development Plan (the CD Plan) or any CD 25 plan amendments properly adopted by Council in 415 PUBLIC MEETING compliance with the requirements of Title 21, Subsections 21-1105, parenthesis 3 and parenthesis 4, of the Philadelphia Code. CDBG program funds shall be allocated and spent in a manner to provide maximum benefit for the community development needs of low and moderate income persons and families throughout the city and residing in each councilmanic district in the city.
Number 2, the CD Plan shall be prepared by the Office of Housing and Community Development for the City of Philadelphia (OHCD) and shall contain the following elements: (a), a description of the geographic boundaries of each project OHCD intends to fund; (b), the comprehensive assessment of the community development needs of the low and moderate income population throughout the city and in each councilmanic district in the city, including the social, housing, neighborhood and economic characteristics of each area in which CDBG program funds are eligible to be spent and an enumeration of each neighborhood that will be affected or served by a project the city intends to fund; (c), and explanation of how low and moderate income residents and families in each area and 416 PUBLIC MEETING throughout the particular councilmanic district affected or served will benefit from each project; (d), an explanation of how minority residents and families in each area and throughout the particular councilmanic district affected or served will benefit from each project; (e), a detailed Housing Assistance Plan which shall contain an accurate analysis of the housing needs of low and moderate income households of each area and throughout the particular councilmanic district in which CDBG program funds are to be spent, and an explanation of how CDBG programs funds will be used to meet those needs; (f), the amount of money specifically allocated for each project; (g), an estimate of the total general program delivery, program management and administrative costs of the CD plan, and a detailed budget outlining the specific program departments or city-related agencies for each project including, but not limited to, the number of personnel and their job duties for each project; and, an explanation of how the activities of OHCD and any other city departments and city-related agencies in providing specific program delivery, program management, and administrative services 417 PUBLIC MEETING benefit low and moderate income persons in each project area and throughout each councilmanic district in the city; (h), an anti-displacement strategy including the program activities and specified measures the city will undertake to either prevent or alleviate the displacement of low and moderate income residents; (i), an assessment of the yearly needs of the homeless population in the city, and a list of public and private agencies that provide shelter to the homeless, including, for each sub agency, an estimate of the number of people provided for and the geographical area served by Council district, if applicable; (j), a general proposal for how the city will develop comprehensive and detailed neighborhood revitalization plans by neighborhood area within the councilmanic district describing the program and project activities which may be funded which will provide the maximum benefit in serving the community development needs of low and moderate income residents throughout the city and in each councilmanic district in the city, in accordance with the neighborhood revitalization the projects or activities which are eligible activities as provided in 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart C, as 418 PUBLIC MEETING amended, including but not limited to neighborhood revitalization activities such as; public infrastructure improvements; the acquisition, site preparation and disposition of land for mixed income housing development; home ownership assistance; economic development activities; and, job creation and retention programs; (d), an analysis and calculation of the number and percentage of city residents in each councilmanic district who are low and moderate income, and an analysis and calculation of the number of percentage of all low and moderate income city residents by councilmanic district; (l), a detailed listing of the funding amount and percentage of funds being utilized by category of all CDBG eligible programs and activities as provided for in CFR Part 570 Subpart C (eligible 18 activities) as amended, by councilmanic district; 19 and (m) a determination of the extent of housing 20 overcrowding and the age of housing throughout the 21 city and within each councilmanic district in the 22 city.
23 Number 3, The use and expenditure of 24 any CD Year funds made available pursuant to any 25 budgetary reduction in the total combined program 419 PUBLIC MEETING delivery, program management and administrative costs of the Year Consolidated Plan as compared 4 to the CD Year 25 Consolidated Plan total combined 5 program delivery, program management and 6 administrative costs in compliance with this section 7 shall be used to fund a program for neighborhood 8 revitalization projects or activities which are 9 eligible activities as provided in 24 CFR Part 570, 10 Subpart C, as amended, including but not limited to 11 neighborhood revitalization activities, such as 12 public infrastructure improvements; the acquisition, 13 site preparation and distribution of land for mixed 14 income housing development; home ownership 15 assistance; economic development activities; and job 16 creation and retention programs which are subject to 17 approval by resolution of City Council. 18 Number 4, for purposes of this 19 section, the following phrases shall mean the 20 following: (a), A "low income person or resident" 21 is a person residing in the city having an annual 22 income of not more than 50 percent of the median 23 income for the standard metropolitan statistical 24 area of Philadelphia for a family of similar size, 25 as determined under the Housing and Community 420 PUBLIC MEETING Development Act of 1974, as amended; (b), a "moderate income person or resident" is a person residing in the city having an annual income of not more than 80 percent of the median income for the standard metropolitan statistical area of Philadelphia for a family of similar size, as determined under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; (c), "a project" is one of the major program activity categories included in the CDBG Consolidated Plan, including but not limited to home ownership and housing preservation, homeless and special needs housing, and community economic development; (d), a "neighborhood revitalization plan" is a plan proposed by the City Planning Commission and subsequently reviewed by the OHCD that outlines proposed revitalization projects and activities suitable for meeting the respective community development needs of the residents for a defined neighborhood area. Projects and activities shall be consistent with the provisions of CFR Part 570, 23 Subpart C, as amended, and shall be developed in 24 consultation with any community development corporation, community-based organization, nonprofit 421 PUBLIC MEETING or for-profit entity, public/private joint venture entity, or any other entity representing the residents of the proposed revitalization area. Those are all the amendments.
Let me ask you a question, since I got up from my chair. No. 3, as you read it, is that the No. 3 in its entirety on this second sheet?
I picked it up, if you look at the amendment, with the sentence that begins, "The use and expenditure of."
All right. Are there any other amendments to this bill? Because if there are, we can give them Councilman Nutter to read.
No. I am finished reading, Madam Chair. I am talked out. 422 PUBLIC MEETING
Any other comments or questions from the committee with regard to amendments to Bill No. 344?
Yes, Councilman Cohen. I move the adoption of these amendments. (Duly seconded.)
All right. It has been moved and seconded that the amendments as read into the record for Bill 344 be approved. All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it, and so it is carried. And I will ask that the bill as amended be reported out of committee with a suspension of the Rules and with a favorable recommendation. Councilwoman Tasco.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000344 be reported out of committee as amended with a favorable recommendation 423 PUBLIC MEETING and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to have the first reading at today's Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 344 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and also that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading on this day. All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it, and so we have now passed Bill 344 and now we are ready to go back to Council. President Verna, we are ready. Thank you all. Thank you for your patience and your work. Thank you. (Public Meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.) - - - 424 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, June 15, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: Committee on Finance _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR