And just to kind of cap that conversation, I think that that's why the importance of things like housing counseling and making sure that we're --
-- you know, it's not just the repairs. It's the ability to be a homeowner, and making sure that prehousing counseling prepurchase also post- purchase as well. That's why we're making sure that those types of programs are empowered in this particular plan.
Well, I am a strong proponent of housing counseling as the first housing counselor for what was then Mt. Airy USA and now Mt. Airy CDC when I work with David Thomas way back when before he had gray hair -- well, I have gray hair. But I'm a strong supporter of housing counseling and again more money for those services I think will make a huge difference. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Mr. President. So most of my questions have been asked by my colleagues so it's good to know that we're on the same wave length. But I do want to follow up regarding the taxable bond that we will be issuing for this. And so, typically when a municipality issues a taxable bond it's deemed that there's no major public benefit. And particularly, a lot of these taxable bonds are issued when it's investor-led housing. And so, can you talk to us -- and it's typically when there is not a large public purpose. So can you talk to us about the role that the investors are going to play in I guess the implementation of the H.O.M.E. Initiative. Particularly, it was mentioned earlier that the unions will be investing in this. They have a vested interest in their memberships and their members working. And so, to Councilmember Bass' point majority of their members don't look like our communities. So can you just talk to us about what their role would be, right, because they're at the table as well making these decisions? So what is their role in making the these decisions on how to implement the H.O.M.E. process? And how will the City essentially -- how can the public trust that the City as a whole is making the decisions versus the investors making those decisions?
So, Councilmember, hopefully I heard your question correctly. There was little bit going on. But is your question how do we make sure that the City is monitoring the process of -- can you repeat your question? I'm sorry.
Essentially, it's how can the public, right, ensure that it is the City of Philadelphia, the City officials making the decisions versus the investors who are the unions making these decisions regarding the implementation of the H.O.M.E. program?
So, for instance, to be frank and transparent about this process, so let's say you had the Building Trades, right, and we have Turn the Key program, and some of the Turn the Key program depending on the threshold, some members may believe that those should be union contractors on the site versus non-union contractors on the site. And that's kind of been a back and forth regarding that process. So what Member Young is saying, if they're investing, right, in our projects how do we just make sure that the public interest is being addressed as opposed to them as being the investors driving the process? That's for clarity. I know our Mayor knows how to operate in that space but still for the record for the public that this is the case.
So two things I'll start with the question -- sorry, with the taxable bonds and how that process works. So what the bond investors will see is our plan for how we're going to use their funds. They don't get involved after that. It's not like after the bonds are issued they're calling us to say use this developer, do this project. Their whole role is just at the top to see what the general plan is. So long as we're consistent with the general plan, they don't get any more involved than that. So we would be the ones making the decisions. It's not those investors.
And I saw that we are -- and one of the programs is to identify approaches to reduce community opposition to I guess projects. I've been a zoning attorney. My very first zoning case I lost, right, because the community opposed it. It happens. It's a part of the process. But in our zoning through -- if you look at the cases in front of the Zoning Board, there more cases who are granted than denied by far. And so, why are we investing to educate the community to not be opposed to projects versus providing incentives for developers to develop in a more community-oriented way?
I support that because sometimes developers show up in our neighborhood with the perspective of, as the Mayor would say, I know what's best for you as well I've heard developers get up in the middle of Point Breeze and say, you should be happy that we're building.
Absolutely. You took the words right out of my mouth. And that's what we're guarding against because we don't believe that. And we certainly as an Administration will not perpetuate that type of thinking and leading. But John Mondlak will speak to that excellent question.
Yeah, it's a very good question. And I think that I'm going to just try to answer straight up and say that it is really to help folks understand that development isn't necessarily bad, like development can be beneficial. And I'm going to give you an example. So we've met with the RCOs on a number of times in the last couple months. We've had group meetings, breakout meetings, large meetings, small meetings. And one of the things that I've heard, and this sort of encapsulates it for me, it may not work for you, but I sort of got it a little bit better. We heard from some communities that didn't have necessarily commercial corridors nearby. And in the same meeting they were complaining about, oh, there's just too much development. And I think it really was about the size and scale of the development. I don't think it was about they don't want anything, but that was sort of the message is there's so much development, there shouldn't be any development. And at the same time in the same meeting there was communities around commercial corridors who were saying, how do we reduce the barriers to new housing opportunities, to smaller units, because people are getting priced out of our neighborhoods, and if we don't have SROs and smaller units, our commercial is going to die, like we need it. And so, I think part of this is trying to explain that, yes, we don't want things that are out of scale for your community. Nobody wants that. That's not good. But at the same time there are benefits to having new neighbors, to having new people, to support the commercial corridors that you all want to -- I live near a commercial corridor and I don't want it to die. I don't even think it's as good as it could be. But it takes housing, it takes people to achieve that.
And I agree with that. But what in the H.O.M.E. plan talks about comprehensive planning for neighborhoods, for communities to understand that process? I mean, we're talking about 30,000 homes. Philly is a city of vastly different neighborhoods. Where are we doing the comprehensive planning with community members so we can get an understanding of what their needs are, what their issues are as we move forward to develop these neighborhoods?
I just wanted to say that the whole process, the whole point of the RCO process is to engage neighbors and to have them say what they want. People shouldn't have to have things in their neighborhood that they don't want. And so, I feel like this is sort of like going around them and saying, like you just said we know what's best for you, we know what's best for your commercial corridor, your corridor is going to die if we don't do X, Y, and Z. I just think it's a very slippery slope that we're on by trying to say to the RCO, the folks who do turn out, we know better for what your needs are.
Certainly I don't understand how that was the takeaway because that is not what our process is. In fact, if that was our approach, there's no way we would have went and engaged RCOs. Rcos are a part of this plan. They've been, one, briefed on what our thinking is. They've also informed and helped to shape and influence the thinking. So it's not like we're coming to them saying, this is the plan, deal with it. Not at all. We have our RCOs that have been on our Advisory Councils leading up that were part of our transition team, Advisory Councils that were engaged all throughout Phase 1, and even now we have members who are on our advisory team. So nothing about our approach says we're going to go to communities and say we know what's best for you. In fact, we've gone on the record over and over again and also have demonstrated through our ongoing engagement in every community that the community is a part of this. There's no bringing them to the table at the last minute. That has never been our approach, but we can show that and demonstrate that through our actions. I think what John was talking about is an alignment on things like definition. So going and saying, okay, you're saying you don't want this but what is it that you don't want, is it that you don't want development or a certain type of development. I think that's where that improvement can come in and that's where that opportunity is even for our team. So not just hearing I don't want this, what is it about that thing that you don't want. I think that's where that clarity needs to come in and that's why that engagement is so important and ongoing. So we have, one, even before -- we made sure of course that we briefed Council first, right, because we're always going to do things decently and in order making sure that you all understand what the plan is. And then right after subsequent to those briefings, that's when we started saying, okay, our RCOs, okay, leaders, okay, community members, we heard what you said, we heard what you advised when we were in transition, we heard what you advised all throughout last year. Here's what we believe is the end product of that, right, here's the -- not end product, here's the proposal based on that, here's the initiative that we developed based on the feedback that we received from a broad array of constituency. Now, let's work together to implement it --
I was just going to say I hear everything that you're saying. But I still say if you are taking power away from the people, from the community who are making decisions, then that is problematic and that's what it sounds like to me. Any time we're saying that certain things are going to go around the RCO process, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if things are moving around the RCO process which moves the community members out of the conversation. That is not what this is supposed to be. I'm sorry, Mr. President.
Yes. And we demonstrated through even the 1000-unit carve-out what that could look like where it's not going around, it's changing the order of. So it's that engagement with Council more upfront to ensure that we're more efficient and we're optimizing our processes. It's that engagement of the community upfront. So what it is, is it's looking at our existing processes which is like 100 steps. And I think we show that through a document that we've made available to all members of Council and through this refine process, it's not carving out RCOs or community engagement. It's changing the order of. And that really was informed by what we're seeing happen in other cities. I don't know if Angela wants to add there.
Well, one, I just want to go to Councilmember Young's original question. So semantics matter. And so, we acknowledge that the wording might have been confusing. In one of the updates and what you got today has corrected that. So I just wanted to put on the record that we have acknowledged that and that is not the intent. I sat on my last Chicago zoning board meeting as a Commissioner in February. I've sat on the Seattle Planning Commission so I'm super sensitive to community engagement in that process, in that way as a person who serves. So that is certainly not something we're trying to circumvent. But the way I just said semantics matter, so does visualization. And so, sometimes people see a land use sign and they assume somebody could be doing a triplex and they assume they're doing a 20-unit development. And so, what we're saying is we need to be working with communities, working with District Councilmembers, working with all of the processes to help educate in that way of what people are talking about. And like Chief Thurman said, we are really working to find out what is it you don't want on the front end, because when we keep finding out things project-by- project, that's just not efficient way for us to work. That's not an efficient way to plan. And you're right, it has to be a comprehensive strategy and that's what we're working to get toward. But certainly, I want to make sure we are all clear that that is certainly just a semantic thing. That is not what we want anyone to walk away from. This Administration really -- I mean, we have a budget town hall once or twice a week. We clearly have an Administration that likes public engagement. Since I've been here I've been to the community more than I have ever in my x number of year career. So we are definitely an Administration that clearly believes in engagement and we would never circumvent that by any stretch. And so, how it works in other cities a lot of the times is there are community plans. And I'm not suggesting that's what we're doing, but that's what we've done. Those are the types of strategies that I'm sure DPD will be looking at and we're going to be looking to work with each of you on what you're doing in communities and proactively having those conversations. And so, that's what we mean by that and being more proactive versus reactive, which is how the planning systems just across the country typically were set up to work. And they haven't been updated in my lifetime and certainly not my career, so that's what we're referring to.
Yeah. I would just make sure in terms of the proposal -- and I'm going to give the time back to Member Young with the correction -- and I know it's all about semantics because, yes, this Administration has been out in the community right from day one, right. And so, I give credit where credit is due in terms of engaging folks and being out in the community and giving people a chance to question. And so, if that language has changed just for the record, and I read it early on, right, and I did pay attention to it just to make sure members have it just so it can be clarified and also, because this is such a robust initiative, right, to be quite frank in my mind in the event that members decide to do the pre-approval of units, probably the most important people more than the District Councilpeople are the community, because they will determine if you come back to this body or not, at least that's how I read it, and that's what we work for and it's not the other way around. And so, that would have to be key to any component, at least in my mind if anything would be pre approved in the 2nd in terms of how the members of my neighborhood and my constituency view this process and they feel embraced even more than myself. Because when I go home in my neighborhood where I grew up at, I will be the one who will have to address the issue. But I will say the Administration has been out and about. But in terms of the actual language though where folks will get, you know, how we will interpret it is how you present it.
Right, in plain language. And so, I want to divert the time back to Member Young and then we have to get ready for our break.
Thank you. And just really quick just a comment. I mean, I just -- earlier it was mentioned how some investors will collude together in certain neighborhoods. So I think we really need to incentivize those same developers to collude together to comprehensively plan to develop those neighborhoods together because it's just a hodgepodge of development when they are purchasing, particularly their private land and things like that. And so, we can come up with some funding to incentivize them to do more of a community development program, I think that it could be a win-win for everybody versus just saying that the opposition, the community opposes too many things. As someone who has represented developers, a handful, has represented business owners, has represented community groups against developers, right, so it's just a lot of misunderstanding in that development world. But I really think that because the developers have in the community's mind, they have the strength, they have all the tools necessary. We need to equip communities with those same tools to be on an equal footing with developers, but at the same time provide the developers with incentives again to be more community-oriented. So this is just a tidbit that I have. So thank you, Mr. President.
I really like that, Councilmember. I really do. And I'm thinking about ways that we can even improve that. I think a start to that was is our Advisory Council which we announced the day that the Mayor introduced Executive Order 3-25 earlier in the year. If you look at who makes up that Advisory Council, it's exactly what you're talking about, grassroots, grasstops developers and aspiring developers, Black and Brown people that are representative that substantiates our commitment to DEI -- as you raised earlier, Councilmember Landau -- and of course making sure that whether it's supplier diversity or workforce development, that's all represented there. But it doesn't mean that there's no room to do more. We can always do more and improve. And I think that's where the feedback from what Mayor Parker calls lived life experience is incredibly important to ensure that's encapsulated here in this plan as well.
And just to add we, again if we're highlighting things in the plan that speak directly to this, we plan and we will continue empowering our Neighborhood Advisory Committees throughout the city. Our local level partners are important to us, not just on Advisory Councils that come downtown to City Hall, but those that are actually in the community as well. I mean, it just solidifies the fact that we place a lot of importance on our community partners in the public participation process.
Thank you. Last question before we break, I just want to get an idea of how does the Administration see Council's role in this plan, right? Do we expect -- at least I would expect, but I wouldn't get an idea from you and the Administration, how do you see our role where you'll be coming back with statements, public statements for the public, just to show here's our progress? Here's the strides we're making, yearly progress reports, right, just to keep the public knowing what's going on, transparency, accountability. Where do you see Council's role in this, especially given the extent that you want to pre-authorize properties?
Absolutely. It's that accountability piece but also working together, having that synergy, that collaboration. And so, as you were talking I was thinking about PhillyStat360 and how when we had our five-year plan Councilmember Bass asked about what those recommendations were and what we'll be doing with it. And I said then and we delivered on that promise of ensuring that it wasn't just a paperweight. It wasn't just a nice, beautifully designed plan that no one looked at, but only referenced maybe years later like we're doing the 2018 plan. We wanted to make sure that it is a living, breathing document but also that it's actionable. So we took those recommendations from the City Departments, aligned with City Council made that public and now we're holding ourselves accountable. That accountability also starts here as well, right. Councilmembers are also holding us in our department, me, the Mayor's Office and our departments accountable to what we're doing to remove barriers and streamlining projects.
Would you be comfortable with program statements coming before Council every so often being approved?
-- but we have to also separate from the 360Stat. On our end we just have to be transparent for the record in terms of how we do business here representing our constituents.
Absolutely. Because those numbers on PhillyStat360 they're important, right. They show our transparency but it only tells part of the story, so I think that that accountability is absolutely necessary. So 100% when we talk about an administration that you can see, touch and feel, that's where that accountability comes in. So bring us back. We'll talk about what we've done with those 1000 units. What I don't want, what I don't want, on my first day in 2016 one of the projects that were brought into my lap was there, was Simons. I see Dr. Phillips stepped out for a moment, but Simons and other rec centers when I was here serving as Chief of Staff of Philadelphia Parks and Recreation. And I was astounded that when I returned to government under the Parker Administration that we were just doing a ribbon cutting there now eight-plus years later.
I think you're speaking to the sentiments of this body. And so, probably in Part 2, if we borrow, if we borrow $1 billion, $800 million, part of the question becomes, which members have been speaking about within our own meetings is, how do we spend this money --
-- in an appropriate amount of time in which to structure and how that money gets spent. I know we borrow a significant amount of money for Rebuild. We didn't have that infrastructure to actually expedite those projects and they're still in the pipeline, and I'm sure you're aware. So there's no secret amongst us. The question is, the million dollar question is in the event that this borrowing does take place, can we do this type of ramp up? Do we have the infrastructure to actually spend down an appropriate amount of time this level of funding?
Absolutely. And we have learned from that process both what went well, right, and what didn't go well, where those bottlenecks were to ensuring that we are not repeating that. We can't afford to because of the housing crisis that we substantiated earlier. And we do have that those numbers for you, Councilmember Landau, and we're happy to answer that when we go back through our next round. But when walking through there and seeing the walls falling down literally, right, as we were walking through --
Absolutely when we were walking there with you and seeing how people had to be temporarily displaced, they were still doing programs in every room 16 in that building although it was dangerous.
It shouldn't have taken eight years then. What will not happen is H.O.M.E. Will not take eight years.
That's why we're saying two to four years. Give us the money and we'll do it.
Okay. So when we come back we'd like to see what that structure looks like. I know PHD, a significant amount of funding is going to go through with that agency and get an idea of what that process looks like.
Thank you. At this time, we will reconvene at 2:30 p.m. Council will be at ease. (Council at ease.)
So we will now resume our Committee of the Whole. I'm going to ask for Jesse, Tiffany and your team to please join us back at the table. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
So for FY26 you are projecting $134 million spend, and we know that with most major housing programs as well as some of the Rebuilds it's going to take some time to get the money out the door. And so, I just want to get an idea of what's the plan and then I have a follow-up question. And I think it will probably be for Dave Thomas who's not here, but I'll wait. But I know from Basic Systems Repair we're talking about going to 100% AMI, which I know members were briefed on and had some concerns about. So I want to figure out how we can still protect those who are most vulnerable but also be supportive of that person who may miss the income deadline by maybe $100, $200, but still protecting the most vulnerable populations. So the first part is with the 134 million in FY26, just getting an idea of how you plan to spend down the money? And then also Basic Systems Repair going to 100% AMI and how we can make sure we're safeguarding those who are on a lower scale AMI-wise?
Just for clarification, Council President, are you asking about the FY26 DPD budget?
Yes -- I'm sorry. That's for the H.O.M.E. plan.
Oh, for the H.O.M.E. plan. Okay. I'm going to defer to Rob about the budget.
So the overall assumption about spending is existing programs will be spent evenly over the year, over the next couple of years. And the new programs will start in July of 2026 and they'll be about kind of half of what the typical year spending will be. And then they'll ramp up. So within about a year or so they'll get to their normal pace of spending.
Okay. Thank you. And a question regarding Basic Systems Repair going to 100% AMI, I do want to say just for the record, I want to be clear because I know I've heard this from time to time, we're not pitting the haves versus the have-nots with the question, but also as an agent of government we just want to make sure that the most vulnerable population is also protected as it relates to Basic Systems Repair. And we also want to support our constituents who may be $100 or $200 over the criteria and that they are supported as well.
So as indicated earlier, Council President, and just for the record I want to kind of give you maybe FY24 figures that would help determine or provide how many folks were actually served. Over 3000 households were served in FY25 with Basic Systems Repair. As we're earmarking the number to be served in our H.O.M.E. bond, it's more than double that. 60% of AMI, as indicated earlier, that is something that is mandated by the additional funding sources outside of H.O.M.E. plan. So we definitely have to make sure that we dedicate funds to that particular AMI regardless because that is restrictive money that restricts how we put it out and where we provide that service to. In essence adding on to this, we definitely want to concentrate on our 60% of AMI demographic there, but we are looking at it as the opportunity to expand because as you indicated and as I indicated earlier, there is a need beyond that 60% of AMI, right. We look at it as not necessarily that number that's reflecting what people have the availability to spend. You can easily be above that AMI, that particular AMI level and have, you know, be house poor -- like, you don't have the ability to spend money on emergency repairs. Again, going back to what we have to spend on eggs and school supplies and everything else that was part of that opening, that is an important factor in understanding how disposable income is shrinking, right. So we're definitely going to be very strategic about how we implement the use of those funds over that current limit right now, because we have data that reflects that there is a need --
Could you provide that data just for the record to say, hey, listen, based upon these programs we know that we've turned down this many individuals because they didn't meet the criteria? Do you have that data to provide that justifies the need to go to 100%?
We can qualify that data for you in a written way to just pretty much --
-- determine how many people and where people have been priced out. I think that is a good point --
And that will be helpful. And I've dealt with that under AVI. I have a constituency who wanted to be a part of -- it wasn't Homestead because everybody got Homestead. It was LOOP --
-- and also Senior Citizens Tax Freeze, right. And it might be a person who's an elder, who I was dealing with seniors because their pension was just a little high but at the same time they're still struggling just like everybody else. And so, just wanted to take a look at that.
And if I can, Council President, I also want to qualify again what I stated earlier that 60% as a result of being attached to the Housing Trust Fund, right, CDBG also has the ability to go up to 80% as well. So there is another kind of echelon for additional affordability, additional income bands to be able to address here. So again, we would stay within the parameters of what those existing funding sources are saying. And when we present that data to you about who has not been able to qualify as a result of the income levels, we can provide that information to you and make the determination or provide that information that says where people have been able to qualify at this particular AMI levels right now.
10, 11 years ago when the Mayor of course was in Harrisburg, she was the chief champion for LOOP in ensuring that it not only impacted her constituencies but as the head of the Delegation citywide, so that citywide focus didn't just start today. But I appreciate you talking about the LOOP program and prioritizing seniors. And that's actually the impetus for this approach here, ensuring that we're expanding our scope and scale to ensure that we're helping much more Philadelphians than we are currently. But we definitely can get you those numbers, not just of the people who are on the waitlist, but those who were turned down and priced out.
Yeah, that's the key, the ones who were turned down. Because if they're on the waitlist, that means they qualify. But if you're turned down, that means you don't qualify, correct?
I think also, you know, Jesse mentioned this earlier, through our One Front Door process, member or interested parties to all of these new benefits that are going to be expanded and those new, they will only have to complete one single application.
Exactly. And by streamlining that process, that will also help with our data tracking as well.
Awesome. The H.O.M.E. plan includes over 3 million to fund various research and analysis projects. One of those is for $150,000. So why would we borrow money for research projects when we can just take it out the General Fund? Why would we pay on a debt service for a research project?
And as we talked about, the program has $1 billion in funding so we have the borrowings and then we have things like Housing Trust Fund money, some of the federal money. So one of the things we'll do as we implement the program is figure out the right funding streams for each of the expenditures.
I'm getting ready to turn it over to my members. I want to get an idea, right, I know we're talking about pre-approving lists, right, for development of properties. And for me, there's no 15 investment in the Land Bank, which should be a critical part of this process, right. If we're going to spend down this money immediately, and the key vehicle which is the Land Bank we are doing, we're waiting a whole year to do operational assessment. Now, this is the actual organization that should hit the ground running. So I would think that if anything we're going to invest in is make the Land Bank scale up and staff and the whole technical team, because if members do decide to say, I'm going to pre-approve a thousand parcels of land, then I would think in order for us to hit the ground running, they want to do this 30,000 preservation or building of units, in this case building before I guess before we run again which is 2027, that's the commitment, the Land Bank really don't have a whole year in my mind because they're a critical part of this plan or aren't they?
No, they are a critical part of this plan. One of our approaches is around business process improvement. And using that model, we have to assess where's the best and highest use, right, so what that investment looks like. So we're doing that through an assessment. Not a year- long assessment with a bunch of people at the table and not really getting to any results. We have an RF --
So we have an RFP out right now for a strategic plan, making sure that the Land Bank has some clear guidance on where it should be activating properties and where it should look to activate the properties as well.
But that assessment is also looking at internally what that right structure is, right. And so, we're working with Angel. We have a number of significant vacancies --
We need another assessment to figure out if the Land Bank is up to -- I don't want to say up to par, but what are we doing an assessment of when this gentleman worked for the Land Bank -- well, he ran the Redevelopment Authority which is essentially the same thing until he created the Land Bank and got rid of Vacant Property Review Committee, right. An Angel, he's been around for a while. I know he know this process inside out. So I'm just trying to get an idea what is the outside assessment person going to come in to do to help us out?
And why wouldn't Greg at least -- well, why wouldn't he be doing it since he created the whole plan?
Well, we have processes in place internally where we can't just give a contract to --
I'm just trying to understand. Let me change it. Why wouldn't that be a part of the scope of work already for the Greg Heller group to do as a part of bringing somebody else out? I just think a whole year to do an assessment because it says a year, so you said we're not doing a whole lot, but it says operational assessment will take a year. So if it's going to take a year and we're trying to get the 30,000 units completed, well, we're already close to '27 when that year starts. So I'm just trying to get some clarity.
That's a great question. We're working on parallel tracks. So we have -- I forget the number of vacancies. I know that you have that and I'll give you that exact number in a moment --
No, no. The vacancies in the Land Bank in terms of staffing. So we have open positions that we have to fill. That's part one. That's on track one. On track two we know that assessment needs to happen so that we can improve our processes. That doesn't preclude current, you know, folks that we do business with from bidding on that opportunity, but we are not just going to give that to them. But they have -- you mentioned Greg, so I'll reference Greg Heller and Angel have substantiated that an assessment is needed. So based on their guidance, we're doing the assessment. But the assessment doesn't take away from our forward progress. What it's going to do is enhance it. But Jesse comes from that department. Actually, his role that he left vacant by accepting the current role that he's in right now is a role that we're looking to fill, that we're working with our Chief Human Relations Officer to fill right now. But in terms of the Land Bank assessment, I'll kick that over to Jesse to answer that question with more specificity.
And I'm just saying and I'm listening. The sense of urgency and how we have to spend this money because we're borrowing so much, I just don't personally think we have a year and I just think that the aggressiveness on getting someone -- because that's the key part that you're asking members to be supportive --
-- the assessment doesn't mean that the work doesn't start until the assessment is done. What assessment is going to do is help to inform our approach. We're not going to wait until the end, until the full assessment is completed to make those improvements. We're going to make them along the way. That's that iterative business process improvement model. But it doesn't mean that we're not going to do the assessment. The changes --
-- are going to happen along the way. And we've done that in other areas as well.
So possibly what could happen is in the process of let's say folks say, okay, we support the 100,000 units to get started, right. And what we start off with agreeing to may evolve or change based upon the outcome of the assessment because the assessment is coming in the middle of an actual agreement.
Okay. That's all. I just wanted to get some clarity on that. That's all.
Again, I think it is -- I do think the strategic plan that is currently out is important. We plan to enter into an agreement on or around this spring with a third party to look at what the Land Bank needs to do to position itself appropriately to respond to the acquisition and disposition of land, right. There was a hearing. There was a series of steps that were taken up until now to recognize that there's an issue navigating through the Land Bank at different points when it comes to the application process, understanding that a disposition policy that at this point was conceived over six years ago and enacted in 2020, could quite possibly not be something that is universally a fit for all the different types of applications here. So we recognize that there are barriers in the application process. And to Tiffany's point, to Chief of Staff Thurman's point, we do not want to wait for an organizational assessment to --
-- dedicate our time and effort into thinking about that. But I do recognize where you --
I'm supporting the plan, but I'm just going to keep it a bean. I just feel as though because this is such a huge initiative, we're talking about $1 billion that we've ever seen in the history of our city, that we probably should have already been hitting the ground running with those staff and the assessments even before now, because we're on a time clock that we're trying to accomplish, that I support the Mayor in accomplishing when her term is over with. So that's just my perspective. But, yes, we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. It's just very glaring when you see a budget based upon the Housing initiative and the organization that members are asking to give up some level of discretion when it comes to the pre-authorization of land. I would just think that some level of just in good faith, I got 10 new staff that's going to be already hired or at least in the budget to bring on. So by the time the summer comes, we just rocking and rolling.
I'm going to be very transparent with you. There's an underlying assumption there that we were ready to do that last year. The government that we walked into was not ready to do that last year. We had to lay the foundation first. And so, that's what we've done over the last year, first months. 2
Now, we're 5 ready. But what we don't also want 6 to do is do an assessment just like 7 other plans and they just sit there 8 and collect dust. We had to make 9 sure that we were ready. We're 10 ready now. We weren't ready then. 11
Okay. I was just trying to get some understanding --
-- of the process. And it is glaring that it's not funded as a part of this initial process in a delay of a year.
But also, just to be very clear on the record it's not going to take a year.
Okay. All right. Cool. The Acquisition Fund for the Land Bank, is that only restricted to sheriff sales or private property as well?
That would be giving the opportunity for the Land Bank to exercise some priority bid. The way it's written right now we look at it in a way where it does rely heavily on sheriff's sales.
On sheriff's sale. But will it have the ability to also go after private home development that may want to also turn over property to the City as it relates to the work that we're doing?
No, that was where I was going there. We didn't put this in there specifically earmarked just for sheriff's sale.
Could you update it just for the record so members of Council could have it?
Any description we do indicate how plentiful vacant land is here and we can make that correction to understand that it's not just priority bid at sheriff's sale. It is for the opportunity to acquire vacant land outside of sheriff's sale.
And I just want to say we really appreciate that kind of feedback. If there are components of any of these programs that aren't clear or need clarification and there are pieces that are important, please let us know because we want to make sure that the descriptions really represent the reality and the priorities of all parties involved.
Absolutely. Thank you very much, Greg. There's a significant investment in the Accelerator Fund, which I'm very supportive of making sure that Black and Brown developers have an opportunity to have a seat at the table because most of the time the usual suspects are building the City of Philadelphia. Do we have any data thus far based upon the initial $10 million that was invested in the Accelerator Fund, the actual outcomes, how many developers actually utilized the program, how many units that were actually built to show the actual need to continue -- I definitely think there's a need to continue investing in it. But just in transparency, what have we accomplished with the $10 million investment thus far?
Well, we're happy that that program is something that folks appreciate. It's a very valuable asset to the City of Philadelphia, and I see that David Langley is here to talk a little bit more about that data.
Thank you. And I welcome the opportunity to discuss it. Thank you, Council President Johnson. So Dave Langley. I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Accelerator Fund. I have some of that data for you. Of the $10 million that had been initially invested partly in the form of a forgivable loan at 0% interest from the PRA and $1 million in grant funding, that's a loan loss reserve that enabled us to leverage $15 million in private capital. So we now have six lenders in our syndicate, including five traditional depository institutions and one mortgage guarantor who invested $1 million dollars in us as well. From that, we've committed or deployed a little over $11.5 million of that. We have credible pipeline for million. So we have pipeline that we cannot fund given the resources that we currently have that we would like to. The funds that I'm talking about in terms of the loans that have been committed or closed to date, that covers 178 units of housing. Of that, 146 are deed- restricted as affordable at an agreed-upon affordability level. And of the pipeline, we have another 14 transactions that have been approved at our board level but not yet closed. Those loans are almost entirely with two exceptions all Turn the Key Land Bank disposition deals, covering 82 units of Turn the Key housing affordable by, you know, as the deed restriction is written at 80% to 100% of AMI but with the Turn the Key buy-down effectively affordable at 50% to 60% of AMI or below depending on mortgage interest rates. So we've got more than -- I don't want to say we've got more than we can handle, but we've got a lot. And all of this pipeline can be funded if we have the resources.
Can you quantify the number of developers that have taken advantage of the program?
Yes. Of those transactions that I'm 16 talking about either closed and 17 deployed or committed, there's 24 18 developers, 22 of whom are Black- 19 or Brown-owned businesses and then 20 we have a couple nonprofits in the 21 portfolio as well. 22
Okay. Awesome. I think, 24 Jamie, how many did you have because you came and got 10 developer deals out of this, something like that?
Okay. Last question before I turn it over, and I think it's an excellent program, but just always good for transparency to show the data the program is actually working and we're addressing equity in terms of who gets to develop, because a lot of times it's the usual suspects that are coming to our office, and the individuals who really don't have an opportunity to participate because of capital are always shut out. And so, I think this is a great, robust program as long we continue showing how the numbers are benefiting those most in need. And the last part, I know we talked about the union component. At some point in time I know there will be an agreement. And obviously, Rob, we will want to see it in Council in terms of what that process looks like in terms of moving forward in terms of how we engage in that agreement in partnership with the various union bodies that are going to support this initiative.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the Chair of Housing Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier. Then Councilmember Kendra Brooks.
Thank you, Council President. Before I get into my questions, I want to quickly come back to the point of information around Basic Systems Repair. The spreadsheet shared this morning shows us that this proposal actually decreases funding for BSRP in FY26. The total figure is $25.5 million in FY26 compared to $32.5 million in FY25. This is for what is probably our most popular program that Dave Thomas said we have 7000 homeowners already waiting in line and we're proposing to probably more than double the number of eligible homeowners who can apply. So I just want to make sure that all of us hear that and that that's said on record.
8000. Thank you. Moving on to my questions. I have a similar concern about the Adaptive Modifications budget. We know that as of March Adaptive Mod had a 1700 person interest list and almost $14 million worth of repairs that haven't been initiated because it ran through its FY25 budget so quickly. And so, I think if Mayor Parker and City Council want quick wins to keep people in the homes they own, I would argue that clearing the Adaptive Mod waitlist is probably the best investment we could possibly make in FY26. When it comes to ways to reduce displacement risk for vulnerable communities, preserving homeownership and increasing economic opportunity for our small contractor base, it doesn't get much easier than this. So can this budget be increased to reflect that in your revised plan? And next, I love that there's funding in here for acquiring occupied multi-family housing because that continues a pilot that I helped start with an acquisition RFP from back in 2023. But $5 million across four years is such a small dollar amount that it can render this investment almost meaningless. We know from our previous RFP that we need at least 50,000 per unit to meaningfully extend affordability, sometimes a lot more than 50,000 per unit. So as proposed, this only gets us a couple dozen units per year at the most. This piece does not feel entirely thought through. And so, I wanted to ask what you all think about that? And if we can put more of an investment, something like $20 million per year in a way that would actually move the needle. Can you give us your thoughts on that as well?
So first, I'd like to back up and recognize that the funding for Basic Systems Repair the number that is represented on that spreadsheet doesn't include the NPI contribution to that. So that number that's dedicated to BSRP is actually higher last year. And again, understanding that there's a chance --
Well, it's higher this year with the contribution of H.O.M.E. funds than it was last year. I mean, I think you're quantifying the number that was dedicated in FY25, and that number should also include NPI as well.
Can you clarify that for the record and give us those comparisons?
Yes, we'll give you the breakdown. But I do know that we did not cut funding to BSRP. We'll give you the breakdown. We can definitely do that. Your next question was around Adaptive Modification Program looking to invest additional funds there.
We're definitely open to having that conversation about what that number looks like. And I think just to give you a sense of where the Adaptive Modification, that was $7 million invested last year and that yielded 382 homes. So we're looking to make sure that we are expanding that. We're making sure that that number increases based on current investment and proposed investment in this, in the H.O.M.E. plan.
My point is that even with the spending from last year we have a 1400-person interest list. We have a substantial amount of outstanding work. And so, it just goes back to the way that we're divvying up this money. And instead of making sort of major investments in programs that are really popular and that really work in a way that can get even more of an impact, we're spreading it out very thinly. So the question was to explain the rationale for that and to perhaps consider a different way of appropriating this money?
Yeah. Okay. Councilmember, I have the numbers right here thanks to Allie pulling it really quickly. So for Fiscal Year '26 it would be 5 million in proposed H.O.M.E. bond 6 funding; 13,906,000 in CDBG; 7 551,000 in Housing Trust Fund and 8 16 million in NPI, which brings it 9 to a total of 35,457,000 for BSRP in Fiscal Year '26.
You gave me the FY26 number. Can you give me the total number for FY25?
The spreadsheet that we have here doesn't have that, but we will get that to you. Absolutely. We will do that before we leave here.
I think the point is if we have 8000 people on the waitlist, if we're expanding AMI in a way that probably doubles the interest in the program, then the investment in the program needs to consider that or should consider that.
Yes, I think we agree. The challenge is that this is the case for a number of programs that are highly used and there's a lot of need for and there's limited funding. So I --
Well, 800 million can be a lot. It depends on how we divide it.
Yeah. I mean, I think we all agree that there is more need than there's funding available.
I think we also agreed before we went on break earlier that should Council come back with additional funds, we won't say no. We will be very grateful.
Somehow I doubt that will be on the table. But thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Thank you so much to our Chair of Housing --
I'm so sorry, Majority Leader. We do have the FY25 number that we promised to get to Councilmember Gauthier. May we state that for the record?
Sure. Please state that for the record and then I'll make a very quick announcement.
Thank you. Thank you all very much. And thank you to our Chair of Housing Councilmember Gauthier. Colleagues, as of this time we have seven members in the queue. We have a Committee on Appropriations hearing slated to begin at 4:00 p.m. I'm respectfully requesting that we all keep our questions to two minutes so that you can get all your questions on the record for a very quick and expeditious response. Thank you all so very much for the accommodation. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Brooks. COUNCILWOMAN. BROOKS: Thank you so more so much, Councilmember. I have a bunch of questions so I'll put them in writing and request them, but I have one I have to put on the record because it came directly from my Constituent Services Director around programming. It's about Built to Last. She said there are approximately 2000 people on the current waiting list. Will they be serviced before they reopen the application process? How many homes have been completed as of today? How many homeowners have complaints with contractors work? And will Built to Last receive sustained year-to-year funding through the H.O.M.E. Initiative? If not, why not? And will the Mayor's Office commit to finding some other source of sustaining the funding for Built to Last?
We do have Emily Schapira here from the Energy Authority to answer that question.
And, Councilmember, do you have any additional questions you'd like to get on the record while we're waiting for Emily?
The other one is about -- and I've asked this in before, but we saw New Orleans basically sweep away every person experiencing homelessness into a warehouse during the Super Bowl. Will you commit to refusing to warehouse people experiencing homelessness in the upcoming 2026 celebrations?
We will answer the 2026 question regarding homelessness. As soon as Emily Schapiro answers the question, we'll call up to Cheryl Hill. Thank you, ma'am.
Hi. Emily Schapira, CEO at the Philadelphia Energy Authority. Hey, everybody. Councilmember, we're not aware of any funding through this program for Built to Last, but we hope to talk to folks over time to figure that out. Right now we have completed about 237 homes. We have 430 homes in progress right now. So all of the funding that we've received from all sources, from City budget, from Whole Home Repair, from philanthropy and our own program revenue is all committed at this time. So we have no additional funding to take any of those 2800 homes off the waitlist.
Thank you so much. And what about contractors? Do you have a way to kind of figure out contractors that did not live up to the responsibilities around this program? And are people being made whole or are we eliminating from the service pool or up training?
Absolutely. We've had a handful of complaints around contractor issues. They have 100% been resolved and every customer is made whole, so we don't leave anybody without work done. And if that means we have to bring another contractor, we do that. COUNCILWOMAN. BROOKS: Thank you so much.
So the question is are we sweeping away or hiding people that are houseless in preparation for 2026. And the answer is very simple, no, we are not. But we have our Director of OHS that is here to answer that question more comprehensively.
Thank you, although I think your answer was very clear. We do not and will not hide anyone who is experiencing homelessness because they are all Philadelphians as well. What we are working on is making sure that our shelters have dignity, are clean, safe and sanitary for everyone who needs to use them and we will continue to do that. We're also working in partnership with various departments in the city of Atlanta to make sure that we have services and wraparound services and other housing support as well as some of the wellness ecosystem, we're just making sure that we also have those --
I got you. I followed where you were going with that. Can you specify where the money from homelessness prevention will go? The money just allocated, where exactly is it going?
Sure. So homeless prevention is about making sure that people do not experience homelessness. So in some cases, we're using it to help people pay back rent. We may help with security deposits or we also do some diversion to make sure that they are able to stay housed with family members. We also will sometimes if they're not Philadelphians make sure that they get to where they need to go through the Stranded Traveler program.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember Brooks. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Phillips.