Committee Hearing, October 19, 2006

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:15 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 060544, 060585, 060582, 060621, 060625, 060631, 060635 - - - 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 afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I am going to appoint Councilman DiCicco to serve on the Committee. To my left is Councilwoman Brown. To my immediate right is Councilman Kenney, and Councilman Clarke is just coming in. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060631. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 13 amending Chapter 14-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Entertainment District," by adding requirements for, among other things, transportation and parking management plans, adding provisions for temporary structures, providing for additional permitted uses, providing for long-term maintenance plans, creating additional signage controls and by making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions.

Thank 3 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. you. Who do we have here to testify? Good afternoon and welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify in favor of Bill No. 060631, which was introduced by Councilman DiCicco on September 20th of this year. This bill adds a number of technical amendments to the Commercial Entertainment District. The zoning designation that was written by the City Planning Commission in conjunction with the Law Department was enacted by City Council to regulate licensed gaming facilities in the City of Philadelphia. These amendments address several issues that were identified by community groups, gaming proponents and the City department subsequent to the enactment of the 4 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. original Commercial Entertainment District legislation. This bill would require that a transportation management plan be submitted by the applicant with their plan of development. This plan must include all details, such as internal and external circulation, a traffic and parking study, and assess the impacts of these businesses on roadway capacities and public transportation. These amendments will also require that a long-term maintenance plan for all of the facilities and improvements be included in with the submitted plan of development. Permitted uses would be amended to include off-track betting facilities, docks, health clubs and spas. These amendments limit the signage permitted on a roof or marquee to two accessory sign faces and a maximum of 300 square feet each. Bill No. 051028, which created 5 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. the Commercial Entertainment District, was considered and approved by the City Planning Commission at its meeting of November 22, 2005. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee, and thank you.

Are you going to testify, sir?

No. Kevin Greenberg from the Law Department, if you have any questions.

Fine. Thank you. I know that one of the amendments, 14-404, provides that the Planning Commission may approve an application for temporary facilities and related temporary structures. What type of facilities and structures are being considered?

Madam President, under state law, once these facilities have been approved by the Gaming Control 6 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Board, the operators have 18 months to get them up and running, and that's why legislation provides for temporary facilities. We don't know that the operators will do this, but they do have the flexibility of doing it.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

And, again, I apologize, because my voice is a mess. They're required to do it as part of Act 71. They need to have a temporary facility on site or in proximity to their site in order to get the slot machines running immediately.

The Councilman is correct. If in the absence of --

I'm sorry. Please identify yourself for the record.

Kevin Greenberg from the Law Department. The Councilman is correct. In the absence of the completed facility 7 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. being done in that 18-month period, they have to have a temporary facility. The temporary facilities are only allowed to be in existence for three years.

I think it has to be 1,200 machines also.

1,500.

1,500.

Councilman DiCicco, did you want to add anything to that? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 14 Councilman Kenney explained it. Thank you.

Section 14-406 (5)(b) relates to waterfront setbacks and amends this subsection to allow the Planning Commission to reduce the setback requirement if site specific conditions warrant the reduction. What might constitute a condition that would warrant such a reduction? 8 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Madam President, let me preface my comments by saying that we firmly believe that for any of the waterfront facilities, that they should provide a 50-foot setback from the river. However, I believe that it was one plan in particular that showed a feature that we thought was a rather nice feature that didn't comply with that particular provision of the legislation, and that was a feature that allowed one part of a finger pier to be connected to another part of a finger pier by a path or a bridge, if you will. On that plan, I believe that bridge was maybe to 17 feet in width, and it just seemed 18 unreasonable for that structure to be 19 required to be 50 feet in width, and to 20 the best of my recollection, that 21 generated this proposed amendment to 22 cover situations like that. 23

What 24 is the procedure that the Planning 25 Commission must follow before a waiver is 9 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. granted?

Madam President, any plan of development has to be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. We are going to review every aspect of that plan. That plan has to be reviewed by both the Planning Commission staff as well as the City Planning Commission requires consideration by the Planning Commission at one of its monthly meetings.

And after the Planning Commission acts on that plan, it then comes over here, Madam President, at which point Council would then also review it.

Thank you. Section 14-408, Off-Street Parking, the amendment to this section 22 removes the requirement that a traffic study be submitted. Is such a study presumed to be incorporated into the proposed amendments 10 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. to Section 14-403(3) relating to plan submission requirements?

Yes.

Yes?

That's all that amendment does, it just moves that requirement to a different section of legislation.

Okay.

And it expands it, too.

Thank you. Are there any questions by members of the Committee? (No response.)

Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing no one, thank you, gentlemen. 11 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would ask Ms. Murray to read the title of Bill No. 060544. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 8 approving the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Chester Avenue on the north, South 52nd Street on the east, the Amtrak right-of-way line on the south and South 61st Street and 62nd Street on the west, including the third amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan, which provide, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 30 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. 12 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon. I am Michael Koonce, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 11 060544, an amendment to the Southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Proposal and the third amendment of the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Plan for the Southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Area and the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 30 vacant structures and lots. These properties have been requested for acquisition by the Southwest Renewal Initiative, which is a multi-phase project proposed by three developers: Presbyterian Homes and Services, Board of City Trust and the Philadelphia Housing 13 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Development Corporation. The properties will be substantially rehabilitated and sold to low to moderate-income first-time home buyers. The purpose of these acquisitions is to facilitate a proposal which includes properties to be acquired under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, a strategy to rebuild Philadelphia's neighborhoods and thriving communities with clean and secure streets, recreational and cultural outlets and quality housing. Among the central goals of NTI are to eradicate blight caused by dangerous buildings, debris-filled lots, abandoned cars, litter and graffiti and to promote redevelopment through large-scale land assembly. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 24 060544 and first reading on October 26, 2006. 14 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Koonce. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding. I'm Director of Community Planning at the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 060544. This amended redevelopment proposal was approved by the Commission on May 18th of 2006, and this item is fully consistent with the Kingsessing Redevelopment Area plan amended by the Planning Commission in October of '02. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Koonce, are the properties to be acquired part of a larger development proposal or are these 15 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. properties scattered throughout the area? If so, I would like you to elaborate on the development of this project.

This is actually the second phase of a project that Council has already passed ordinances in support of in the past. I have Jennifer Lewis here, who could actually give you details of the project's past and current status.

That will be fine. Good afternoon.

Hello, Madam President. My name is Jennifer Lewis. I work for Sherrick Project Management. We are the project management firm for two of the developers involved in the Southwest Philadelphia Revitalization Initiative. That is the project that we are talking about and the properties that are currently under request for acquisition. This is a multi-developer 16 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. project that, as Mr. Koonce explained it, involves Presby Homes and Services, Board of City Trust and PHDC. It's a three-phase initiative. We have already completed the first phase of the initiative where 30 homes were rehabilitated. Of those homes, they sold for approximately between $50,000 and $60,000. So they've created a housing market out there in Southwest. We're moving on to our second phase now where there's another approximate ten homes to be developed that they're currently in the planning phases now of starting construction probably within the next few months, and this will be the third phase. So we're looking to be able to roll from our second phase into the third phase.

Thank you very much. Can you tell us what the total cost of funding to rehabilitate these vacant structures and lots will cost? 17 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Under the first phase, they cost approximately 140,000 to 160,000. So we did a combination of sources to fund that, between the Homeownership Rehabilitation Program, the home sales, as well as an additional subsidy that the developer would get, whether it be the Federal Home Loan Bank or DCED.

So what does that amount to?

So the total was somewhere about 140,000 to 160,000 for development. So the -- my math, I don't know if I can do it that quick. I worked with Presby on ten homes, so it was about 1.6 million.

And this phase, the total development costs will be approximately 4.8 million.

How much, sir?

The total development cost for this phase of 30 18 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. would be approximately 4.8 million.

Thank you. Mr. Koonce, I believe you received a fax from my office yesterday about 2125 South 60th Street.

Yes, I did.

It is my understanding that this property was purchased at sheriff's sale in April of 2006 by the adjacent property owner. I would like the RDA to defer the declaration of taking until further notice. I have been notified by the owner that if there is no redevelopment moving forward within a reasonable period of time, I will seek declaration of taking.

Agreed.

Thank you. I believe there are some people that would like to be recognized. Good afternoon, sir. Please 19 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. identify yourself -- Mr. Koonce, would you please stay. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Yes. My name is Abu Bakar Sadiki Dabo (ph). I'm the owner of the building that we're talking about, 2039 South Redfield Street. I've been residing in that building since 1991, until last year October 26th a fire caught my house.

You had a fire?

Yes, ma'am. And it's been under construction. Up to today it's been completed already. It's almost brand new and it was done through my mortgage company, and I have pictures inside of the building that's been reconstructed.

Mr. Koonce, have you seen the photos?

No, I haven't. 20 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. At least the rooms that these pictures represent are certainly up to City Code and RDA rehabilitation standards.

So at this time, we certainly will not consider this property.

Agreed. We will delete that from the declaration of taking.

Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming in.

You're welcome.

Do we have anyone else to testify? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Eddie Diggs and I'm here concerning the property at 2133 South Cecil Street. However, it should be 2131 South Cecil Street. I was sent two letters 21 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. concerning 2133, and that property has been sold by me. 2131 should be the one that's in question.

So you say 2133 has been sold?

Yes.

How recently?

Within the last two months. I did not receive anything on 2133 until I received this, except for the fact that they sent me a bill that it was going to be boarded up, and that was paid for. Taxes and everything was up to date on that property.

How long was the property vacant?

It's been vacant for a while.

Would you say a year to three years, five years?

Well, the property was reported like vagrant. People were 22 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. just moving in and out as they wanted to. It was reported as a drug house.

Who owned the property?

I do.

Oh, you own the property?

Yes. I did. I've sold it, the 33 that you have here. I'm here concerning 31. It should have been 2131 South Cecil.

3131, Mr. Koonce, I'm told is not on the list. Is it on your list?

No, it is not.

Well, what letter did you receive?

The letter I received is for 33.

Well, 33 was vacant for quite a while?

Is vacant as long as 31 was vacant, yes, up until it was sold. 23 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

So you don't live at 31?

31 is the one that the City took from me without my saying yes to it. I received a booklet with 33, and what it is, they were telling me that the things that I could -- who should have contacted me, things that could have been done. I was contacted back in 2004 concerning this. I did not receive a booklet with that, with this thousand dollars as an estimate compensation for the property. There were phone calls made periodically between myself and Mr. -- I hope I'm pronouncing this right -- Mr. Petro.

Petro.

Petro. I did not consent to this. I did not consent to the sale of it. To expedite time, I told him I sent -- there were e-mails sent and I said that I would sell them 2131 and 33 24 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. as a package deal for $5,000 -- I mean for $10,000. However, that was rejected. I received recently, September the 20th, that -- and it read, "An ordinance has been introduced to the City Council that would authorize the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia to acquire above-referenced property," which is the wrong address, 2133. I'm here to defend 2131, not 2133 because that has been sold, and, in fact, I even have the deed back -- the information back where the deed was transferred. So I don't --

Maybe I can help out.

Please.

Some clarity here. At some point I believe in 2003, 2131 came before this Committee and it was approved for acquisition for condemnation. We proceeded to condemn the property, and in 2004, we conveyed the property to Philadelphia Housing 25 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Development Corporation for rehab -- or for construction. I don't know whether PHDC has started the development of that property or not.

They have. They did.

It's finished? Okay. Then as part of Phase 3 of this development, we were asked to acquire 2133, which is adjacent to Mrs. Diggs' property and she owned it as she owned 2131 at the time we initiated the process. At some point, I think I believe she said in the last month or two, it was sold.

The last three months it started.

The last three months it was sold, but the last time we checked City records, the deed hadn't been recorded, which is why in September we sent Mrs. Diggs a letter inviting her 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. to the hearing, because we believed that she at that time was the owner of the property.

Of 33?

Of 33.

Yes, but it was sold before that. When I received the information from you concerning -- when I received this letter, I had in my hand where the deed had been recorded.

But 2131 has been acquired, conveyed to PHDC to develop. It's been developed and I assume is either sold or awaiting sale to a low to moderate-income homeowner.

The reason why I'm here --

Can you be clear, please? Are you more concerned about 2131 or 2133?

31. That's the reason why I came, even though the letter was for 2133.

2131 27 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. is what was taken in the past; am I correct? I believe that you have the right to just compensation on 2131 and I would suggest you work with the Redevelopment Authority.

The offer that they are making me, I'm not satisfied with that based on the fact that when they came to me, the only reason why I was notified that PHA was taking the house was, they were taking it -- that they were taking the property was, I called concerning the taxes on the property, and when I called concerning the taxes on the property, I was told by Mr. Petro that the property was no longer mine, that the Authority was taking the property.

How delinquent were you?

I was not delinquent in any way. I was up to date on everything on that property, the same as I am or was on 33. I was not delinquent on anything. All water bills 28 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. paid up. Everything was paid up, including the fact that they did in fact send me information for the taxes and I even paid the taxes. And they were making me an offer of $1,000. Then they came back with $1,500. Then they came back with $3,500. I don't understand.

I guess I'm being prompted to ask you again, how long was this property vacant?

It was vacant without vagrants for about -- I'm not sure. This is an estimate, a guess, but I was still paying taxes on it -- for approximately --

You're not answering the question.

For approximately -- I'm giving an estimate on it. For approximately, say, six years.

Would you consider the property to have been blighted? 29 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Not if I'm paying taxes on it.

Would you consider the property to have been blighted?

No, not if I'm paying taxes on it and I'm having it boarded up.

You could be paying taxes on a vacant lot.

No. I don't understand that. What we're looking at here is, if I were not paying taxes on it --

How much were your taxes?

$198.34, with an assessed value on the property for $7,500.

Would you say that the property was in good, fair or poor condition?

I would say it was in poor condition, because people kept 30 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. breaking into it.

So the property was really neglected?

It was not neglected. If I'm paying taxes on property, property is not neglected. If I'm having it continuously boarded up because the City is ordering me to do this, it is not neglect. It's the fact that I could not live in the house myself to protect it against the people in the area. The houses were reported as drug houses, and nothing was done about that.

Mr. Koonce, do you have any knowledge?

I don't really have any knowledge of the situation for the first property, but as we haven't concluded negotiations, if this is a valuation issue, we're quite willing to reopen negotiations to see if we can reach an amicable settlement.

Is that all right with you? 31 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

That's fine, sir. I appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

Yes, Madam President. My name is Richard Moore. I'm a real estate broker with Best City Homes. I'm here in regards to three properties: 6026 Greenway, 2012 South Salford Street and 2008 South Salford Street. These three properties are owned by Patrick McCrystal, Jr., and I have these properties under agreement of sale currently to an Olga Barker, who plans on rehabilitating them, and the settlement hasn't gone through because we got the letters.

You're not speaking into the microphone, 32 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. and I have people talking on either side of me. It's very difficult to hear you.

The three properties in question I currently have under agreement of sale with an Olga Barker, who plans on rehabilitating these properties, but we couldn't complete the transaction because we received these letters.

And I believe all of the three properties were delinquent in taxes?

Yes, they are delinquent on taxes.

And they had been vacant for quite a number of years?

Yes. They've been vacant for several years, yes.

So when do you think the prospective buyers will be rehabilitating these properties?

Well, she was planning on starting as soon as 33 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. settlement went through. It would probably take her about a year to 4 months to rehabilitate them. But I can't 5 do anything with this essential cloud 6 over the title. 7

Is it 8 going to be homeownership? 9

She's not sure 10 whether she's going to do rental or 11 homeownership yet. 12

13 Mr. Koonce, I think this is one thing 14 that I've been looking into. When people 15 get permits it seems like in this City, 16 the permits could last forever before you 17 take action. I would like to know if in 18 fact these were taken off, when would the prospective buyer start rehabilitation on the three properties, when would they go to get the necessary permits. I think there should be a period of time that we give people to do that. Otherwise, somebody else will be here, say, ten years from now, the house is still 34 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. standing, it will be vacant and somebody will say, Well, I bought that in 2006. However, I did get a permit and we are going to be doing the necessary rehabilitation. I think there should be a deadline. I really do. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know if Mr. Koonce was going to answer, but there is a program that allows, I think it was, two years that could be entered into an agreement between the homeowner or the property owner and the Redevelopment Authority whereby it gives them, I think it was, two years or two years from the date that the redevelopment of the area begins. Is that --

Right, but even under that program, we would still have to start the process over again. If you do not pass the bill allowing us to acquire these properties now, it starts 35 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. all over again. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me, but I think you can pass it and include those properties in, if I'm not mistaken. I'm trying to remember from when we did MLK. We entered into an agreement, with the understanding that the properties had to be rehabbed within a certain period of time.

Agreed, but I don't believe any of -- my point is, if they aren't rehabbed, there is no 14 enforcement in that agreement, unless the owner is willing to put a deed in escrow and we can break escrow if he runs past the time limit. We would have to go to court and it would be a longer process than recondemning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I was under the impression, as an example, if you pass this bill today that included these three properties that are in question, you keep them in that bill, they're part of the taking, and the 36 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. property owner then has two years to rehab those properties. If not, all bets are off, because you already have title.

That is absolutely correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which means if the trigger gets pulled immediately upon the taking today and they have two years, I think it's two years, if I recall --

Well, actually, I think it was two years for that particular development. Actually, we can make it six months, we can make it two years. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You can make it anything you want.

But I think in this case -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's like a good-faith effort on the part of the property owner who is claiming that they are intending to rehab it. If they don't, it's done, because Council had 37 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. already done its job by passing the legislation. Does that make sense? Is that accurate?

That's absolutely correct.

But, Mr. Koonce, couldn't the Redevelopment Authority take the properties and select his client as the developer?

We could do that also. We could acquire the properties and then we could enter into a redeveloper's agreement with his clients, and if they met all -- if they gave us approved plans or permits, they have permits, and they showed us the necessary level of financing, then we would just convey the properties to them, subject to them finishing the either rehab or new construction.

Sir, do you understand?

It's difficult, 38 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. because essentially what you're doing, you're taking the properties and so he can't really sell the properties. That's the problem. Mr. McCrystal can't sell a property if the Redevelopment has already taken it today. It just makes things very complicated. If we could have a chance to talk about it maybe, but --

I think from his standpoint the issue is price. We can absolutely acquire the properties and we can pay you fair market value, but I don't know whether our ideas of fair market value would be the same, two different appraisers.

Well, we don't have any information on that yet, and that's the problem. You're taking the property now and then you're going to say, Well, we'll decide what we're going to pay you later. I mean, it's difficult to work like that.

Do you know what the value of the properties 39 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. are?

Currently he has them under agreement. I think the three of them are for 39,000 for the three of them.

So it's 13,000 per property?

Per property, correct.

Mr. Koonce.

I was trying to think if that was a fair valuation from our standpoint, and it just -- I don't remember properties in that area selling for 13,000 for vacant shells. I mean, I don't know the basis for saying that we could enter into negotiations that will be beneficial to our side. It seems much more expensive than we would normally pay in that area. We would agree to an appraisal. We would agree to let you review the appraisal. We would agree to let your 40 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. appraiser review our appraisal. We would discuss the valuation and make our best effort to come to some sort of terms to a resolution.

I could possibly talk to him and see if -- I hate sitting here negotiating in front of City Council, but possibly we choose an appraiser, you choose an appraiser, and they choose a neutral appraiser. That could be -- that's fair.

Or I will even agree -- we have quite a few appraisers. You could just look at our list and choose one of those, if you'd like.

Well, it has to be someone that's neutral. I mean, that's fair.

Okay. So then I think we can probably work this out. The bill could pass and we would start tomorrow to negotiate. Well, we would start tomorrow to get appraisers and negotiate. 41 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Let me ask you a question. Is the same person buying all three properties?

Yes.

So now we do have speculators coming into the area, I am sure, and we don't even know what they're proposing to develop. They could hold onto these properties until they end up falling, and I am saying to you that I think, Mr. Koonce, six months to get permits and start building, I think that's only fair.

That's if she buys it. She may not buy it because of this issue right now. So if she bought it --

If she's not buying it, then -- who owns the property?

Mr. McCrystal owns it right now. It's under agreement.

And it's tax delinquent?

Yes. So my 42 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. understanding is, if she buys it, she would have six months to rehabilitate the properties or start rehabilitation?

She would have six months to pull permits and start construction.

And start.

That's fine. That's fine. Okay.

And we'd like to see homeownership, please.

Okay. I don't know what her intent is, whether it's going to be homeownership or rental. I don't know that.

Well, that's what this program has been all about, homeownership in that community.

That's something I can't promise right now, but, I mean, the best I can do is --

I think if your client were so interested, 43 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. she should have been here personally.

Well, she unfortunately didn't know about this until recently. The letter was only sent September 20th. But I will convey that to her and I will talk to --

But she knew enough to get in touch with you and she had ample time for you to come in.

No. We got the letter in the office; that's why.

Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Hi. How are you? Do you know the buyer? I mean, is she local? Is she in Philadelphia?

She's a Philadelphia buyer. She does own other real estate in the area. She's never been tax delinquent. She doesn't speculate on real estate. She has no 25 vacant units. 44 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Okay. Well, she has a six-month period to get the permit, but until then, will she comply with Property Maintenance Codes and keep -- I don't know the neighborhood at all. I'm not familiar with that section of Philadelphia, but if there's grass and weeds and trash, she'll do that, she'll comply with getting it cleaned?

Yeah. She'll take care of -- she wants to settle as soon as possible so she can take care of the outside of the building before it gets too cold. So it's in her best interest to settle right away.

Okay. And as a previous owner -- well, you're still the owner. You're going to sell, correct?

I'm not the owner. I'm a real estate broker. I'm not the owner.

You're 45 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. the broker.

Right.

All right. Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

You will be in contact with Mr. Koonce?

Right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Flora Tillman. I am the sister of James L. Brooks. The house that is in concern is 2123 South Alden Street. We lived in it for years. The neighborhood had 25 become a little difficult for me. I was 46 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. going to work in a little car that my daughter gave me and I parked it on Woodland Avenue and went home and the next day I come out to go to work, they took the car and put it on a flat bed truck and went away. I come out to go to work another time and the lady told me, Ms. Flora, don't you see all that blood? I didn't see it. So when I came back from work -- I went on to work. When I came back from work, I seen it. She said, They shooting outside your door. So I was putting a new kitchen in, and the man advised me that we had outlived it. But I built a new kitchen anyway. It cost me $10,000. That's here or there. My brother died May the 19th. He left the property to my two daughters. In turn, we got the letter in September, too. They work. They asked me to come down here. Delinquent in tax. We were fixing up the house and someone broke out all the windows. So the City got in 47 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. contact with me and told me to board that up or I was going to, you know, get penalty for something. So I boarded it up. I was paying the taxes, but I didn't keep the receipts for it. But it is delinquent. But my daughters now told me to come and see what they can do to mend what they owe or what it was really about. So now I can go home and tell them what this is really about.

All right. In the event that you were not here for the previous testimony, and I don't mean to embarrass you in any way, but apparently your brother did not pay taxes for 12 years.

No. Well, I'm --

Well, we can give you the computer printout so that you could show it to your daughters. Further, how long was the house vacant? And now that your daughters have the property, what do they propose to do 48 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. with it?

That's what I need to go home and tell them what the lady told me so that they can tell me what they want to do.

All right. Do we have an extra copy of the computer printout?

Yes.

We'll be happy to give you a copy of the computer printout showing the years that the property taxes have not been paid and what is presently due.

Yes. Thank you.

You're welcome. And would you please be in touch with Mr. Koonce from the Redevelopment Authority?

Okay.

I would suggest you get his telephone number now so that once you talk to your daughters, you can notify him. 49 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Yes. Thank you.

You're welcome. Do we have anyone else to testify? Please approach the witness table. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Cheryl Graham.

My name is Andre Hicks.

And we're here in reference to the property at 200 South 60th Street.

2007 South 60th.

Is it 6 or 7?

Seven.

I just purchased this property, I think it was, in July or August.

Of 50 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. '06?

Yes. I just got it over the summer. And my plans were to fix it up and to sell it. I paid $21,000 for it, and Ms. Graham, she's going to buy the property from me. So we just got this letter, so we came down, like, Okay, what's going on?

You bought it in July?

It was either July or August.

July of '06. And when did you get the permits to do the necessary rehab?

Well, I haven't done anything yet, except board it up, because I purchased the property and then I noticed all of the sudden windows are getting broken out. So I had a guy just go and board it all up for me. That's the only thing I've done so far. So I'm in the process of -- I didn't know that this was -- as soon as I got this, I'm 51 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. like, Yo, what's this going on? I haven't done anything yet.

And I was going to purchase the property from him, and then he told me he got this letter. So I tried to call and they gave me a phone number, and I spoke to someone, only got a first name of Tracy, trying to find out what was going on with the area. But I have since applied for a mortgage to purchase the property from him to rehab it and fix it up.

Are you tax delinquent?

He's only had it --

I'm talking to the gentleman that owns the property.

I just bought it.

Oh, you just bought it. So it was vacant?

Yes. I bought it vacant, yes. 52 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Was it tax delinquent at the time that you bought it?

No, I don't think it was delinquent. I'm not really sure. I gave my real estate person the power of attorney because I was out of the country at the time. So I had her get the property for me. I came back, I went and looked through it and everything.

Okay. So when do you propose to take any further action on this?

Well, right away, because like I said, I went out and, like I said, the windows got broken, so I had a guy board them all up. So now I'm working with Ms. Graham so that she can -- she said she would take it off my hands.

Ms. Graham, once you purchase it, how quickly will you --

Well, I was in the 53 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. process of applying for a mortgage until he got this letter that informed me that the City -- something is going to be happening with the property with the area. So I was just concerned. That's why I'm here today, to find out what's going on before I buy it and buy into something that's already ongoing.

I told her to hold off because I thought that this meant the City wanted to buy the property from me. That's what I thought it meant, and I didn't know that this was happening.

If you bought the property, when do you think you would start rehabilitating it?

As soon as I get it. I mean, I don't have a choice because I'm going to put a mortgage on the property, so part of the funds are going to be to rehab the property. So it's going to have to be done right away.

And you're going to live in the property? 54 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

My mom was going to live in there. I own other properties in the City. So she liked the house. She's familiar with the area, so I was going to purchase it with the additional funding from the mortgage company to rehab the property.

Mr. Koonce, what is your thoughts on this one?

I would think that giving her six to 12 months to pull permits and start construction would be reasonable. If not, we can proceed with condemnation. I don't exactly know what the developer's plans for beginning their construction are. That's why I put a window of six to 12 months. Twelve may be too long. I don't know.

Are you amenable to that?

Yes.

I'm talking to the prospective buyer. 55 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

I don't have a problem with that. I didn't know if he wanted to work something out with them.

Well, I'm not really clear on what this is. I only dealt with Ms. Graham, so I don't understand what -- if you could explain it to me.

This was a notice that there would be a Council hearing today for the purpose of passing an ordinance that would allow the Redevelopment Authority to acquire your property.

Buy it from me or take it?

Well, prior to filing a Declaration of Taking, which would ship the ownership automatically from you to the Authority, the Authority would send out an offer of what it thought was fair market value for the property. So, yes, we are prepared to make you an offer for the property, but 56 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. if the Authority and the owner don't agree on the value of the property, then we file and the issue of valuation goes to a Board of Realtors, who would determine what the fair value was.

Okay.

Did you get an opportunity to --

No. This is my first time meeting him. So does that mean we need to talk about -- so you're going to purchase the property from me, you mean, like instead of Ms. Graham?

No. The idea I think --

Excuse me. If you don't mind, I think the three of you could have the discussion after this hearing.

Okay.

And Mr. Koonce will take it from there. Thank you. Thank you very much for 57 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. coming in. I see someone else would like to testify. Please approach the witness table. Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. Ella Hawkins. The address is 2103 South 58th Street. It's my mother's property -- was my mother's property. She's deceased.

Okay. And the property has been vacant for sometime?

For about five years.

And have the taxes been current?

Yes.

They are current?

Yes.

What kind of condition would you say the house 58 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. is in? I mean, from the exterior, they don't look like they've been kept up to par at all. What kind of condition would you say this house is in?

Fair.

Fair. Have there been squatters in the property?

No. 12

Madam Chairperson, we had information from the owner next door that she complained of water damage to her property that emanated from the property at 2103 South 58th Street.

That is not possible. All the water in that building has been cut off ever since 2000. There's no water in the property. There's no gas on in the property, and I told Mrs. Gray about that.

And this is probably one of the more deteriorated properties on the entire list. 59 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Pardon me?

Of all of the properties that we are here to ask for permission today, this is one of the ones that are -- the shape of it, the condition has deteriorated more than the majority on the list have.

All right. Any questions of this witness? (No response.)

Is this the only vacant left on the block, Mr. Koonce?

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is. All the rest have been redone.

All right. Thank you for coming in to testify.

Okay. And?

What is it that you would like to see us do?

I want to sell the property. 60 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Have you attempted to sell it?

To one person, yes, but they couldn't get a mortgage.

We're actually willing to negotiate the sale prior to condemning. If we can't reach agreement on the sales price, then we can condemn. We're actually willing to start right away with negotiating the sale.

Do you understand that?

Yeah, I think so.

Very well. Do we have anyone else to testify? Please approach the witness table. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. I'm Mr. Ali Small.

And I'm Tracy 61 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Morrison.

You're going to have to pull the microphone closer to you, please.

I'm Tracy Morrison. We both live at 2110 South 60th Street, Philadelphia, PA. What's going on with that property, I couldn't stay there because my life was threatened there. Every time we go to fix it up, somebody break back in it, destroy it again. So that means I'm fixing up the same thing. I just got finished working on it.

I reside there also. We've had multiple problems at the place, threatened, burn the place up. They burned my van up.

Are you renting?

Yes. I'm renting to own the property. I haven't been there a lot because I've been taking care of my elderly mom that's up in age, and I 62 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. lost my brother. He used to stay there with me about a year or so ago. So I work constantly trying to get money to get things together there at the property to get it resolved. It's been kind of difficult.

How long have you been living at this property?

Since '92.

You're telling me how unsafe the area is and we have photos here in that immediate area. The houses were in such deplorable condition before they were rehabbed that I don't think squatters would even want to go into them. And we have before and after photos, and what they did after in rehabbing them made the area much safer. The houses look absolutely beautiful. Every one of them have been sold, and we have families living in them, and they have homeownership. I don't think that we should be 63 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. allowing people to be having a property, having it vacant for any number of years, not paying taxes for years or so and 5 saying, But it's my property. Well, if 6 you live next door to that person, it's 7 their property, too, and they want to 8 live in that property in a safe and clean 9 manner. 10 I think that we really do 11 ourselves a great deal of injustice if we 12 do not allow the City to go forward to 13 rehab the properties that are on this 14 list and make the area a better place in 15 which to live. Now --

May I interject? I don't want to interrupt you. Respect. You say the taxes has not been paid in the property?

No. 21 Some of them. I said some of the properties.

Not this one here.

Some of them have not been paid for any number 64 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. of years, but I'm sure the property that you're living in, if L&I were to go out there, they would probably be able to make a list of three pages of violations.

Right. Well, I'm willing to address that.

I'm sorry?

I'm willing to address that and fix that up. It's not a problem. Just a little time, I'll take care of that. I was planning on doing it, but I was taking care of my mom, and she's a lot better now.

Well, I thought you said you were renting your place.

Yes, I am.

With the option to buy?

Yes.

When?

Well, my credit got bad because I just bought a van there a 65 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. few years ago and they burned that right after I bought it. So I had to pay that off.

And this happened probably in the neighborhood of the property that we're talking about?

Yes.

Oh, that's nice.

But we love the place.

Except that we don't want to make the area better. I just don't understand that.

Well, I have the finances to fix it up. I'm working and I'm planning on fixing it up before I retire. I work down the Postal Service, and I'm willing to fix it up. I love that place. I can get a lot of other places, but I love that place right there, because a lot of my family has 66 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. been there.

When will you be retiring?

We have been working on that place since we've been there. We put in brand new doors. Somebody came along, took it off. We put in brand new windows. Somebody come along, break it all up.

They do this here because I haven't been there, because I've been taking care of my mom.

So the house is actually vacant?

They threatened me out of that house.

No, it's not vacant.

They threatened you out of the house. You're saying that you lived with a relative because of some reason. So, in fact, nobody has been living at the house. 67 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

For the last two years nobody has actually been there.

I've been there in and out.

We've both been there in and out checking on the property. Every time we come down, we go -- we put a new bathroom in. Somebody breaks back into this house, destroy the bathroom I just put in there.

I have not been there constantly like I should because I've been taking care of my mom.

And I go there every week.

I've been taking care of my mom. And my mom is scared. She reads the paper and stuff like this and that to see what's going on. That's a very bad neighborhood, very bad area, and she's nervous that I'll be over there. But I tell my mom, This is my place, I love that place, I'm going to fix it up, but for you, I'll stay away 68 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. from there as I can. Now, my job is very demanding, so I really don't have that much time, but I run in there, I reside there when I can. But like I told her, I want to fix that place up. I want to live there. That's my home. That's what I plan on doing. Now, this notice came in the mail and I said, This is something that I have to address. If you give me a time frame or something like this to fix it up, if it's upsetting the City, I respect that.

It's not even your house yet.

No. 19

You're renting.

Yes, ma'am.

And you keep telling me about how you're fixing it up and how it's being destroyed, and I am saying to you that we 69 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. are in fact trying to do something to rehab that entire community and make it a better place in which to live.

I'm willing to do that with you. I'm willing to use my own funds to fix that up, because I love --

When would you be able to purchase this property?

Well, I'm planning to get a lawyer as we were speaking. Before I got the letter, a guy on my job has a lawyer. So I was getting one to get this resolved. I was planning on getting the place fixed up about the first part of next year working on it. Before I do that, I want to get a lawyer to speak about what my situation was, until I got this letter, and then I got really confused. I said let me address this first, see what's going on, because this is all new to me.

How much are they asking for the property? 70 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Well, at the time, it was 30,000.

What is it now?

I have no idea. I have to go ask them. I have to find out. I've just been working, taking care of my mom and just to make sure the place is all right at this time. But if this came up, I have to make this as an agenda. I have to take care of it right away.

The letter was not addressed to you, I'm assuming. It was addressed to the owner. Who is the owner?

Mr. Ronnie Page.

And where does he live?

I have no idea.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

That was my concern, too. If you haven't lived there in two years, does the owner still 71 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. consider you someone who is buying the property?

Yes.

Yes.

Are you paying rent?

Yes, I am.

Everything is current.

Not only am I just doing that, but I'm fixing the place up, too. I'm required to fix the place up.

But you're paying through a property manager or something? Because the Council President asked you where was the owner. You said you had no idea.

I have no idea. Well, I send my money to a real estate firm.

A real estate company?

Yes.

Are you 72 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. in the middle of the block, the end of the block?

I'm in the middle.

What Council President keeps saying is that we're in a situation where we are trying to fix neighborhoods up, and when you leave a property empty, vacant, it starts to cause problems on blocks. It causes problems to the neighbors, particularly if it's a rowhouse. So the goal is just to fix up the houses, and I don't think the City really cares who fixes it up. They just want to get it done, but you got to do it.

I understand that.

You can't leave a property vacant for two --

It won't be.

-- and five and ten years. Well, you said no 23 one has lived there basically for two years.

Yes. 73 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

And she comes to visit every week.

Yes.

So that's the Property Maintenance Code, things aren't being repaired, water damage occurs to the next-door neighbor's, mainly from rainwater, whether the plumbing is on or not.

My point is, it's not particularly vacant. She was speaking in front of me. It's not been vacant, because I go there three or four times a week. I go there and I reside in there. Okay? Now, as far as property damage, water damage, I fix the place up all the time. I just put a new roof on there a year ago, $1,500. I put brand new doors in.

Why would you do that if it weren't your property?

Because my understanding, that was the agreement we 74 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. had, I fix it up. I'm supposed to be buying the property. So, like I said, I had to get some legal action to get it resolved. If I get a time limit on this here and get this fixed up, then I'll move with that.

Well, I think you ought to tell the owner that time is running out. Time is running out.

Madam Chairperson, I don't want to delay this, but we could also offer them two years of rental assistance if they have a valid lease once we acquire the property. So that would be a tenant benefit. We would also take care of the expenses for their moves for reconnecting utilities, things like that. And the other thing might be, if we acquired the property, we could also have the neighborhood group that's going to market the house work with them to see if they might want to become homeowners. And it seems like the asking price of a 75 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. new home would be considerably less than the 30,000 mortgage and the dollars that it would take to rehab this one.

That sounds real good. It sounds real good. Maybe this coming down here might benefit all of us in the City. You know what I'm saying? Because we love our block. We've been there a long time. We put a lot of spark in that block, but we have problems that come along in the family and whatever. I kind of help everybody. That's just the way I am.

We understand, and as I said, I think if you follow what Mr. Koonce is saying, you would be way ahead of the game and you wouldn't have to do any of the rehab, and I'm sure that once you retire, you're going to want to enjoy the property.

That sounds real good.

Well, talk to the gentleman there. 76 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Anybody else to testify on this bill? Please approach the table. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.

Madam President, I have to leave the Chamber. If I don't return before the end of the hearing, I'd like to be recorded as voting aye on all the bills before us. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

How are you doing? My name is Gudai Ping. I'm the cousin of him, Bin Sing. He's the owner of the 2850 Germantown Avenue, and I have --

I'm sorry. We couldn't hear you.

My name is Gudai Ping. I'm the cousin of -- he's the owner of 2850 Germantown Avenue. 77 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

That's the next bill. We're on another bill. We are going to hear that one next.

Oh, next? Okay.

Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

It's Bill No. 060544. Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 060585.

Bill No. 060585, an ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the West Fairhill/East Tioga/Hunting Park Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Wingohocking Street and Roosevelt Boulevard on the north, North 5th Street and North 6th Street on the east, Lehigh Avenue on the south and Broad Street and Venango Street on the west. 78 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.

Thank you. Mr. Koonce.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 060585, which is the second amendment to the redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the West Fairhill/East Tioga/Hunting Park Redevelopment Area and the West Fairhill/East Tioga/Hunting Park Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a total of parcels, 16 residential and 18 ten commercial structures. Ten of the 19 residential are occupied and five of the 20 commercial are occupied. These parcels 21 will be acquired for the Philadelphia 22 Housing Authority and combined with 47 23 other parcels previously approved for 24 acquisition. 25 The proposed development will 79 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. provide for up to 80 units of affordable rental housing. Off-street parking will be provided at the rear of each building, along with new streetscaping. In addition to rental housing, approximately 16,000 square feet of commercial space will be provided to integrate the development with the Germantown Avenue Retail District. A portion of acquisition funding will be provided by NTI. The Redevelopment Authority and PHA will enter into a cooperation agreement that will require PHA to pay any remaining costs associated with this acquisition. There are ten residential relocations and five commercial relocations as part of this amended redevelopment proposal. The total acquisition costs are approximately $1.8 million. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 80 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. 060585 and would also ask the suspension of Council rules to allow first reading on October 26, 2006.

Thank you very much. Mr. Redding.

Again, good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding, Director of Community Planning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission testifying in support of Bill No. 060585. The Planning Commission approved it on June 15th of '06, and this action is fully consistent with the redevelopment area plan for West Fairhill/East Tioga/Hunting Park that was approved by the Commission in January of 2004. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. Maurice John Houston 81 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. of behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Authority in support of Bill No. 060585. I'm going to talk briefly about the Warnock Street Phase 1 Project. It is an on-site development bounded by Germantown Avenue on the east to 2800 block of North 11th Street on the west to 1000 block of West Cambia Street on the north and the 1000 block of West Somerset on the south. The project will consist of 50 newly constructed affordable rental units comprised of one-bedroom, two-bedroom units, three-bedroom units and four-bedroom units, ranging approximately in size for the one-bedroom units from 673 square feet up to 1,401 square feet for the four-bedroom units. The project will be for families who are earning 50 percent or less of the area median income, and at least 20 percent of the units will be reserved for families earning 40 percent or less of AMI. Six units will be 82 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. accessible units and will be reserved for families earning percent or less. 4 The development will consist of 5 a mixture of walk-up units and townhomes. 6 Unit amenities include off-street parking 7 in the rear, central air conditioning, 8 washer and dryer hook-ups, vinyl tile and 9 carpeting and modern kitchen and electric 10 stoves and garbage disposals. 11 In addition to the creation of 12 new housing units, there will be the 13 possibility of some commercial space, 14 providing a new streetscape and 15 infrastructure improvements in the area, 16 including trees and new lighting. 17 All buildings will be stick 18 frame slab-on-grade with a combination of 19 brick, vinyl and stucco facades on the 20 exterior. Six of the units, again, will be handicap accessible and conform to the ADA requirements and Section 504 requirements. In conjunction with the residential development, PHA will 83 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. construct a 1,200-square-foot management office along Somerset Street between Germantown and Warnock, which will contain meeting rooms and a computer lab. The development will address the issues concerning the lack of costs in affordable rental units in the North Philadelphia community. The Philadelphia Housing Authority has designed a supportive service program to assist with the families that will be moving into these units to help move them to self-sufficiency. This project is ideally located, as it is accessible to a variety of educational, rental and transportational services. Germantown Avenue is a well-established commercial corridor that features groceries, eateries, drugstores, clothing stores and other service retail. Thank you.

Thank you very much. 84 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this particular development is similar to a number of developments that we've done recently where the area is extremely blighted, but there happens to be a few units within the site plan. More recently, we just developed the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone when there was approximately -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Koonce -- there were approximately 30 to 35 occupied residents in the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone and actually around two years ago we had a pretty testy public hearing when people got notices.

That's correct.

And one of the things that we did as a result of that -- and I think there were actually some other districts that were involved 85 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. in that initial taking -- we changed some of the regulations associated with the process and we actually embarked on a program where we gave individuals who had to be relocated first priority above and beyond the traditional first priority, and in that particular development, we were successful, and of those 10 individuals who chose to stay in the 11 neighborhood actually got the new units. 12 In this particular case, a few 13 of the occupied properties are owner 14 occupied. So in that particular 15 instance, there will not be an 16 opportunity for them to purchase one of 17 the units, because these units will be rental, but in discussions with the City, the Redevelopment Authority and OHCD and the Housing Authority, there's a commitment on the table if those individuals are interested in staying in that neighborhood in a rowhome, there will be publicly owned rowhomes that will be identified using the HRP program, the 86 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Homeownership Rehabilitation Program. We will commit to rehabbing a house for those individuals, assuming they qualify, or those individuals will be given an opportunity to have first preference on some of the new homeownership developments that we're building in the immediate area or if they choose any other areas throughout the district. At the end of the day, using that approach that we used on the Homeownership Zone, we've had a very successful program where, in my estimation, pretty much everybody was satisfied. I recall this one particular lady who was the most vocal at that hearing actually was the person who cut the ribbon at the new homes on Master Street, so she was pretty happy about the way things ended up. So in this particular case, we want to make sure that those individuals who are being asked to relocate have a one-on-one opportunity to talk with a 87 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. representative of the Redevelopment Authority and, of course, myself as their elected official to make sure that they end up in a better condition. This particular area hasn't had any substantial investment in a long, long time and I've been challenged by the local residents to get some additional development in that area. I think the last thing we did was North 11th Street, which is actually adjacent to this parcel, which is why this particular project made some sense, was done by a local community group, North Philadelphia Community Help, and that was about approximately 12 years ago. As a matter of fact, I think the Mayor was the Councilperson at the time. There hasn't been any investment in that neighborhood, so we are happy that the Philadelphia Housing Authority has agreed to come in and invest a substantial amount of money in getting this development and hopefully stimulate additional development in that 88 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. particular neighborhood. One of the more interesting components -- and I think we'll probably have somebody testify from the commercial corridor -- is that this particular development gives us an opportunity to also substantially rejuvenate the commercial corridor on its northern end, which is essentially a vacant block, with the exception of about four or five properties. So it's our hope that if this happens, we will stimulate some substantial development up in that area that has been much needed. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? Gentlemen, please approach the 89 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. witness table. Mr. Houston, I believe Councilwoman Miller has a question for you.

I do. What helps you make the decision to -- because this is, in a sense, building an additional PHA development, correct? It wasn't a former PHA site; am I not correct?

That's correct. This is a scattered site area that the Housing Authority is working closely with the other City agencies to develop and stimulate housing in that particular market. As Councilman Clarke stated earlier, there are other homeownership developments and rental developments in the surrounding area, and this was just logical to go in that particular area and stimulate new housing.

All right. I'm going to probably give you guys a call, because we need to get that 90 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. type of stimulation in the Eighth Council District. Thank you.

Mr. Koonce, I believe you indicated that NTI funds are being used for the acquisition of the properties. Can you tell us in what amount?

I'm not exactly sure. There was an allocation that remained, a Fifth District allocation amount that remained from previous acquisitions, but it wasn't enough to cover the acquisition, so PHA and RDA agreed to enter into a cooperation agreement, which would provide that PHA would cover the remainder. In other words, when the NTI funds ran out for the project, PHA would cover the remainder, and I seem to remember it would be something like three to one, but I don't remember the exact number. It was three PHA dollars for the one NTI dollar.

Thank 91 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. you.

Madam Chairwoman, PHA is putting $6.2 million into the project.

I'm sorry. I can't hear you.

The Philadelphia Housing Authority has committed to $6.2 million for housing funds on this project and we're also going in for low-income tax credits in the amount of $11.5 million.

I also heard about the commercial space to be provided for the development. Is there a developer for the properties? If so, what is the projected cost for the development and what is the projected completion date for this project?

Madam Chairwoman, a developer, it would be the Philadelphia Housing Authority at this point. We have not selected a construction manager at this time. 92 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. The total development cost for the project is approximately $17.8 million. We anticipate that the project will get started hopefully after the next round of tax credits. We are going in for tax credits this round, Madam Chairwoman.

Madam President.

Councilman Clarke.

With respect to the commercial portion of the development, the Housing Authority under their Charter is not authorized or, in our understanding, doesn't do commercial development. The thought was that on the Germantown Avenue portion of the development site, they were going to do a mid-rise development, residential development on Germantown, and the first floor would be made available. We're actually trying to get a local community development corporation to be responsible 93 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. for that first floor space so we can get some local tenants on the first floor portion of the development actually as a partner, is what we're talking about, if we can identify a development corporation that will enter into a partnership with the Housing Authority for that component.

Okay. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Gudai Ping. I'm the cousin -- my cousin is the owner of 2850 Germantown Avenue and he received this letter. I'm just translating. He want to find out what's going on with the building. The City is going to take over? Are they going to buy it, or what's going on?

Actually, we sent the letter to notify your cousin that the City was contemplating acquiring this 94 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. property for a specific project and it was sort of an invitation to come to the hearing if he or she had any questions or concerns. The process would be that we would have this hearing, and if the Committee approved the bill -- the bill 9 itself would actually or the ordinance 10 would actually allow the Redevelopment Authority to then make an offer for your property, and if the Redevelopment Authority and your cousin couldn't come to an amicable agreement, we would then file a Declaration of Taking for the property. At that point, the Redevelopment Authority would own the property and we would then have a Board of View hearing. You would present your evidence as to how much it's worth. The Redevelopment Authority would present their hearing, and then an arbiter, a board of three individuals called a Board of View, would determine what the true 95 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. value is. But at the point that we file 3 the Declaration of Taking, we would actually own the property. That's if this bill is reported out of Committee and approved at Council.

What type of approval are you trying to tell me?

If this bill that we're having a hearing on today passes Council, then we will probably proceed. And our time frame would probably be three months or so before we would be making you an offer.