COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON FISCAL STABILITY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 10, 2025 10:35 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON, CHAIR COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILWOMAN CINDY GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA
This is the public hearing of the Committee on Fiscal Stability and Intergovernmental Cooperation regarding Bill No. 13 251065 and Resolution No. 240886. Ms. Loughead, will you please call the roll and take attendance.
Present. Thank you. A quorum of this committee is present and this committee is now called to order. Ms. Loughead, will you please read the title of the bill 15 and resolution before the committee today.
Bill No. 18 251065, amending Bill No. 250568 (approved June 13, 2025), entitled An Ordinance Authorizing and approving the execution and delivery of a Service Agreement between The City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority relating to the financing of a Housing Opportunities Made Easy (H.O.M.E.) Plan which includes housing production and preservation, home affordability, homeowner and renter assistance, related contractor training and support, blight and vacant property reduction, urban beautification, neighborhood infrastructure, and other related programs; approving the issuance by the Authority of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness (including reimbursement obligations related to lines or letters of credit) in one or more series to finance or refinance such plan and authorizing and approving the obligation of The City of Philadelphia to pay in full when due the Service Fee and other amounts payable under the Service Agreement; authorizing certain City officers to take certain actions required to issue such bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness; covenanting that The City of Philadelphia will make necessary appropriations in each of the City s fiscal years to provide for, and will make timely payments of, the Service Fee and other amounts due under the Service Agreement; requiring an annual program statement and budget to be approved by Council, and other requirements; and authorizing and approving the Director of Finance of the City and other City officials to take other necessary or appropriate actions to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance; all under certain terms and conditions, in order to expand on the H.O.M.E programs and provide further process concerning spending, all under certain terms and conditions. Resolution 240886, authorizing the Committee on Fiscal Stability and Intergovernmental Cooperation to hold quarterly hearings that include monthly reporting requirements, to discuss the fiscal position and overarching social impact goals of the City, including and as related to the Five-Year Plan and the reporting requirements set forth in the Quarterly City Manager s Report ( QCMR ) and as submitted to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority ( PICA ).
Thank you, Ms. Loughead. This morning we will first hear testimony considering taking action on Bill No. 251065 regarding the H.O.M.E. Plan. After considering the H.O.M.E. bill, we will hear testimony on Resolution 23 No. 240886 to discuss the city's fiscal position. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. And thank you for your steady leadership throughout this entire process. E. program budget unanimously approved by the Committee of the Whole last week. Here are the facts: At the Mayor's request, we expanded eligibility for the City of Philadelphia's two most in-demand housing repair programs, Basic Systems Repair and Adaptive Modification for the first time ever, so that higher-income earners can take advantage of these popular services. In fact, City Council doubled the number of households that are eligible to participate in Basic Systems Repair and Adaptive Modification. So to hear people claim that this body is pitting higher-income folks against working families, it's really hard to tell if this is a misread of the facts or a deliberate attempt to misinform. C. 33, so I understand how many of our city employees are struggling every day to get by. Prioritizing Philadelphians earning 60% AMI or less means we are helping sanitation workers, public school teachers, city clerks, 311 operators and other full-time union employees as well as our seniors and neighbors with disabilities. These folks live in every single Council District. And in fact, middle neighborhoods have some of the highest enrollment numbers in Basic Systems Repair and Adaptive Modification under the current stricter income limits. Think about it this way, emergency room doctors must make tough calls to help a patient having a heart attack before someone with a broken bone, and none of us likes that. There's nothing worse than waiting hours and hours in an emergency room to be seen by a doctor, but we all do it anyway because this is the City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection and we understand that if our neighbor having a heart attack does not get help immediately, they may not make it. Philly's housing crisis is also an emergency. E. Plan budget needs to reflect this level of urgency. E. Plan budget originally transmitted to this body for consideration did not do that. E. funding to people making over $100,000 a year without a single guardrail to make sure those most in need would still be able to access essential programs. What would that have meant? Even more families sleeping on the street and taxpayers footing the bill for homeless services that cost substantially more than if we had made the critical repair that would have kept someone in their home and off the street in the first place. The cost to house a family of four in a homeless shelter is $84,500 annually. Foster care costs $45,000 a year per child, and this is before Trump cut $30 million in homelessness resources for our city. City Council is not playing politics with our amendment. We're doing what's right for every Philadelphian and making the tough call that recognizes that during the first phase of this multi-year $800 million investment, we need to make the fiscally and morally responsible choice to prioritize the 200,000 households in our city that are one rent increase or repair bill away from ending up homeless. The body has raised the same concerns in public and in private for several months, but we cannot negotiate with ourselves. And at the end of the day, the Home Rule Charter tasked City Council with the responsibility to steward taxpayers' hard-earned money. We gave the Administration every single appropriation and every single eligibility increase that they asked for. Council added an additional $80 million to cover their request as well as our amendments. But the Council, at least I hope the Council, will not be bullied into being a rubber stamp for a proposal that does not serve the needs of the most vulnerable people in our city. )
So I want to conclude by again commending Council President Johnson for hearing your members and the public and making this a transparent process and fulfilling Council's role to make sure that any major investment undertaken by taxpayer dollars is fully thought- out and responsive to the public as well as fiscally responsible. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. And I'm glad my colleague raised the issue of doctors, doctors that needed to intervene on behalf of their patients. Part of being a doctor, you must take the Hippocratic Oath. And what that says is that in order to do good, you will do no harm. And sometimes our constituents are our patients and sometimes in an effort to help them, we do harm. And in this case, I think unintentionally, unintentionally we do harm. Please understand that I believe in ALICE, Asset Limited, Income Constrained and Employed, in other words, the working poor, the middle neighborhoods that you talk about, that if they do have a $400 home emergency, they cannot fix it because they're not eligible for the programs that we're talking about today. They don't get the tax breaks that the one-percenters get to be able to afford their home repairs. They just pay for everything and are eligible for very few things. And one of the things that we are going to discuss today is to what percentage should everybody benefit. Facts, I don't think in our calculations we include what we do for PHA. And in the calculus of who's in that line, who benefits from that line, that we have not put that into the calculus of where we are on this. I don't think we have done a good enough job of considering some of the state money that comes for poverty programs, again that ALICE middle income cannot apply for. So what they get to do is they get to pay for everything and never be eligible for any of those things. And we can do a better job of looking out for them. I remember -- I know all of my colleagues are sincere. I do not doubt your intentions. But I remember going out to Overbrook Park walking with the Mayor, I talk about this, knocking on a door, and a couple came to the door and they were shocked and said, it's the Mayor -- they didn't care it was me -- it's the Mayor, we're going to vote for you, and then next month we're going to move. And they were going to move because they could not afford the continuing repairs. The average age of properties in the City of Philadelphia is 83 years. So it's not if something is going to break. It's when something's going to break. We've all dealt with laterals, where we had to come up with a program to ensure to break -- because that will make you homeless if you can't absorb that $7,000 to fix it. Plenty of neighborhoods go through that every year. So what we need to do is try to make it as fair for as many people as possible. And I'm going to end on this: The people that are in line at PHDC aren't going to get bumped out by anybody new. The new eligibility people will have to get in line behind them, behind them, so they don't lose their place in line. But at least allow them to get in line. And we're going to have vigorous discussions about this. And I hope that at the end of the day -- (Applause.)
I hope that at the end of the day that we are thoughtful because all of us have to go back to those same neighborhoods, knock on those doors of that middle neighborhood area and say to them, we did our best for you. In straight conscious, we did our best for all people of Philadelphia. Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
Thank you, Council President. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, especially to Housing Committee Chair Jamie Gauthier and the many advocates who are here today and continue to come back time and time again. Philadelphia is stronger because so many of you continue to show and push us toward a fairer, more affordable city. Just wanted to dispel a couple of concepts that were raised just now by my colleague. The most important one is to say that from when we started this process, this process of $800 million where we're only talking about the first bit, the pot has grown since the beginning. So originally, there was a proposal from the Administration to do a certain amount. We asked for additions to it. Those additions were removed. The Admin asked for additions to it. There's been a mix-up ever since. The pot is larger now, so it includes all of the original requests plus more for both sides. I don't see a better win-win out there. Everybody is getting what they want here. And again, this is only the first allocation of $800 million. So I want to make that very, very, very clear. The second thing I want to say is that when we talk about the Housing Authority, PHA's waiting lists are often closed. Why are they closed? Because demand is higher than supply. We have so many low-income folks in Philadelphia who are eligible for PHA housing who can't get in because we don't have enough supply. Basic economics here, right. E. Plan, and let's get more people housed, let's get them to have affordable living no 7 matter where they are. Next myth: This proposal today is not going to not allow folks with higher income to get in line. In fact, it increases the eligibility criteria so that people will get in line. This proposal actually allows folks with higher-income levels to get Basic Systems Repair, Adaptive Modifications, a whole host of programs that they need to stay in their house. And the final thing I'll say -- well, I'll hold this part until the end. But I want to say, we're here today because Philadelphia is facing a housing crisis. We're no different than any big city in America. We have a housing crisis, but we're doing something about it. E. Plan, and their minds were blown. These are elected officials from around the country and some from other countries. They are blown away by the work that we are about to do for our transformational investment into making sure that everybody can have an affordable, safe, and healthy place to live here in Philadelphia, accessible as well. But everyone in this room wants to see resources delivered to residents who need them. I don't need to remind everyone, but I'm going to, that we are the second poorest big city in America and housing is eating the income of nearly a third of renters and 16% of homeowners. We are not delayed because of indecision. We are delayed because all of those decisions are valuable. But as a former housing lawyer and now Vice- Chair of the Housing Committee, I know firsthand that our lowest- income residents need this money as soon as possible. This $200-plus million investment needs to be felt fast and we need this transformation. City Council unanimously voted on the transformation we'd like to see, a transformation to reflect the true need for housing resources for Philadelphia. By expanding income eligibility for the city's two most in-demand home repair programs, which is one of Mayor Parker's biggest policy goals, we are prioritizing the people who need our help, the morally and fiscally responsible things to do that creates mobility for the entire city. We should applaud this effort. It is incredible. Philadelphia's Basic Systems Repair and Adaptive Home Modification, Shallow Rent subsidies, homelessness prevention and the wraparound services are already working. Let's keep them working and keep this progress moving forward. These programs are the difference between stability and crisis for more than 200,000 Philadelphia families.
As Councilmembers, we have a responsibility to reflect our commitment, our values, and people in this budget. Let's invest in a better Philadelphia for those who are relying on us. And I would end by suggesting that we do no harm as a Council body and as the City of Philadelphia when we are providing affordable housing to the folks who need it most. Thank you very much, Council President. )
Chair recognizes Councilmember Anthony Phillips.
Thank you, Council President. I just want to briefly say that while I really appreciate all of the advocacy of some of my colleagues here today around this proposed amendment, I do want to let people know that this proposed amendment is going to impact most likely more than 15,000 households in the 9th District. And a lot of these households have been residents, people living in their house since 1970, 1980. And these individuals have older housing stock, and they're not going to have the ability to access these funds. Only 10% of that funding is going to go towards them, while the 90% of the funding is going to go towards people making far less than them. These are working-class individuals making around $80,000 in a household, maybe $100,000 between two different people in a household. They need their roofs repaired, they need the bathrooms repaired, they need all types of things that are going on in their house repaired and we're going to be limiting them. And so, for me that's concerning. They are also great contributors to our tax base in the city and often times they've been left out of city programs because they make a few dollars over. And unfortunately, I think this is what this is about: It's about finding ways to make sure that individuals are working together and to assure that. So I just want to say thank you to our colleagues, but I just want to make sure that folks understand what's at stake. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Chair recognizes Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson.
Thank you, Council President. I wanted to pause just to thank you and all the members of Council for your very thoughtful, deliberative work throughout this process. I also wanted to thank the Administration as well for their continued work on the plan that they proposed before Council. I wanted to thank, in particular, my District colleague, who is my District member, where I also serve as the Ward Leader of the 52nd Ward, in referencing and ensuring that we make the process fair for as many people as possible. And in that spirit, I wanted to leave the definition as notated in the dictionary of the word negotiation. It's a discussion aimed at reaching an agreement. Thank you, Council President.
Thank you very much. Will Ms. Loughead please call the first panel.
Tiffany Thurman, Chief of Staff to Mayor Cherelle Parker; and Jessie Lawrence, Director of Planning and Development. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning, Council President Johnson. and members of City Council. My name is Tiffany Thurman and I'm Chief of Staff to Mayor Cherelle Parker. (Applause.)
I'm joined today by Department of Planning and Development Director Jessie Lawrence, President and CEO of the Philadelphia Housing and Development Corporation Dave Thomas, and numerous other members of this Administration who have been working on the Housing Opportunities Made Easy Plan. We're back in Council chambers today to testify on Bill 24 No. 251065, which will make changes to Bill No. 250568, approved June 12, 2025 in a way that mirrors changes made to Resolution No. 4 250955, otherwise known as the 2025-2026 Annual Program Statement and Budget. Those changes to the resolution were made last week during the Committee of the Whole meeting on December 2, 2025. First, I want to reiterate what I said about a month ago on November 12, 2025 during the Committee of the Whole hearing on Resolution No. 250955. E. Plan was first introduced with the Mayor's Special Housing Address in March of 2025. The $800 million we propose to borrow for this ambitious and historic plan is a serious investment, and this body has treated it as such since its initial approval June 2025. E. legislative package over the past few months and has agreed to several important changes requested by the legislative body. For example, the Parker Administration supported several significant changes that were made to Resolution No. 250955 on December 2, 2025, including the additional $42 million advocated for by several members of City Council and the Administration's proposed addition of Turn the Key funding that was approved. With regards to Bill No. 20 251065, the ordinance being heard today, the Parker Administration supports update to certain program descriptions so the language matches the descriptions and Resolution No. 250955. These program descriptions updates the necessary language because that language in the bond ordinance and the annual program statement and budget resolution do not match. Then bond resolution will not issue an opinion, which is required for the city to issue the initial $400 million in bonds. However, there is one sentence in Bill No. 251065 that the Parker Administration does not support in its current form. If this sentence is not amended, then we cannot and will not support this ordinance in its entirety. The sentence can be found in Section 19 2(b)(1), which reads in full: In connection with its approval of the annual program statement and budget, Council has the authority to establish the maximum Area Median Income qualification for any program or subprogram. The established AMI qualification can apply to all of the funding allocated to such program or percentage of funding allocated to such program. While we would prefer these two sentences to be removed from the ordinance entirely, we understand that it's not Council's desire. Therefore, we are proposing an amendment that will amend the second sentence to clarify that Council can establish AMI qualifications for programs or subprograms, but for no more than 60% of the funding for those programs or subprograms. The Administration is likewise requesting an amendment to Resolution No. E. funding shall be awarded to applicants equal to or less than 60% AMI. E. funding for BSRP and Adaptive Mod shall be awarded to applicants equal to or less than 60% AMI. By mandating that 90% of the funds must go to those under 60% of AMI, this language effectively caps the income eligibility requirements at 60% of AMI. From what we understand, Resolution No. 250955 is on the Final Passage Calendar in City Council session tomorrow. In addition to requesting it being amended, we are also requesting that it be held so that it can move simultaneously with this ordinance 21 being heard today. Holding the resolution 23 to move at the same time as the ordinance will help the process move more quickly and efficiently. If they are both approved at the same time, it removes the risk that one of them will change, therefore making them inconsistent with each other.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the resolution be held tomorrow to avoid the very situation we're currently facing here today, given we are making changes to the bond ordinance that was originally adopted by this body in June of 2025. Why is this amendment to the ordinance and the corresponding amendment to the resolution so important? E. Is actually an unprecedented $2 billion public investment to build, restore and preserve 30,000 homes in the City of Philadelphia. As everyone knows, this investment includes $800 million in bonds, with the first $400 million coming as soon as we get to the legislative finish line. The first annual program statement and budget outlines $277 million in spending, in BSRP and Adaptive Mod, these two programs together totaling about $50 million. Expanding the income eligibility requirements for those two programs is our opportunity to grow the pie and stop pitting the have-nots against those who have just a little. It's basic economics. By effectively limiting the income eligibility requirements for BSRP and Adaptive Mod at 60% of AMI, which is about $70,000 for a family of four, we will miss this opportunity. And that's reflected in the binders that we provided today to each member of Council. I want to further explain while raising the income eligibility requirements for those programs above 60% of AMI is so important to our Mayor and her Administration. As a District Councilmember, Mayor Parker personally witnessed how her constituents were harmed by such stringent income eligibility requirements. She has often said that her folks make a nickel over the income eligibility requirements. As we have mentioned before, we have also heard stories of residents declining that well- earned promotion or salary increase in order to be eligible for some of these programs. Equally important, boiling individuals down to just their income ignores the real-life lived experiences of everyday working-class Philadelphians, those Philadelphians that each of us in this room care about. We must also take into account debt-to-income factors. Consider a family of four where each parent is earning about $50,000 and they have two children while helping to take care of their own and even elder parents. These working parents are part of the sandwich generation, paying for elder care for their aging parents while also paying for child care and aftercare for their children. These parents are trying to keep up with their own mortgage, student loan debt and medical debt. This family can hardly be described as those with means. E. Plan aims to help this family with home repair grants, that does not mean that it will not help their elderly neighbor who is on a fixed income and at risk of homelessness if their roof caves in. E. Plan is a comprehensive plan to save our neighborhoods, to save our rowhomes and our residents across the entire city. But I didn't come here today just to give you anecdotes. I've also brought data. First, I must explain that AMI is an incredibly blunt tool that is used to determine income eligibility for certain programs. It considers just two factors: Factor 1, income; Factor 2, household size. We ran the numbers meticulously, using 2024 city employee income data, because the 2025 income data won't be available until 2026. And we looked at how many city employees would be deemed ineligible for these programs if the income cap is effectively set at 60% of AMI. C. 33 negotiations earlier this summer. That could be potentially up to 9000 households, an impact that none of us want to see here today. And while that statistic is staggering, if we assume a household of four, it's almost certain that many more city employees would actually be disqualified, and we don't want to be in the business of disqualifying city employees. This is because if any other income existed in that household in that example, even fewer employees would qualify. So let me break it down a little further.
We wanted to get a sense of which type of city employees would be deemed ineligible for these programs if the income cap is effectively set at 60% of AMI. Again, while we don't have the household size of these employees, we can look at what the impact would be with an assumption of a household size of one and a household size of four, which is also reflected in the binders that we provided today. 9% of our city's Paralegals. 4% of Deputy Sheriffs. While we also use the 2024 city employee income data to get the number of impacted city employees by Council District, that information shows that the number of employees would effectively be disqualified by capping the income eligibility requirements at 60% instead of 100% of AMI, assuming both a household of and a household of 4. This data is attached to the printout of my testimony and should be on your desks. E. has been that living in Philadelphia is unaffordable for far too many, including our very own city employees, and we could not agree more. And that is why the Parker Administration opposes effectively limiting AMI eligibility to 60% which, if this ordinance passed without the requested amendments that I just outlined, it would in essence exclude far too many city employee households from assessing these housing programs. E. is not only a housing program. It's also a recruitment tool to attract and retain City of Philadelphia employees, but mandating that 90% of the funding must go to those under 60% of AMI impacts more than just -- that impacts more than just city employees. Let's take our teachers for example, who began their careers like my husband with a starting salary of $55,771. Likely, most student loan debt come along with it. At this salary, even a teacher living alone is still making more than 60% of AMI. In other words, the very teachers that we heard about just moments ago in opening testimony, that we all advocate for, would be making in that example a nickel over the income eligibility requirements with a significant debt weighing down on their shoulders. Just last year Elevate 215, a nonprofit organization based here in Philadelphia, surveyed 734 school teachers from both the district and charter schools. They found that 89% of all teachers had or currently have student loan debt, with more than just a quarter of those respondents having more than $50,000 in student loan debt. We have a duty to assist those teachers. We have a duty to assist those police dispatchers and officers. We have a duty to help the parole officers and laborers alike. A goal I believe that we all agree on. E. Plan creates those well overdue and tangible pathways to housing for both renters and homeowners. But this data shows that if we cap the income eligibility requirements at 60% instead of 100% of AMI, we will be in fact excluding the very working Philadelphians we all want to help, the ones that we are all advocating for and the ones that we hope to attain and attract to our great City of Philadelphia. E. Plan, specifically on Bill No. 251065. In conclusion, we respectfully request that the established AMI qualification language be removed entirely from the ordinance or that the requested amendment be adopted. Without one of these changes, the Parker Administration will not support this legislation. I welcome the Committee's questions. Thank you, Council President. (Background interruption.
We're not going to do that, y'all. This is just a spirited legislative discussion. And I thank you, Tiffany, for your very, very spirited and passionate testimony. And I hope we get to the point where in this City of Philadelphia, and you know I'm a partner in working with the Mayor and moving the City of Philadelphia forward, but I hope one day we get to the point where our city workers are getting paid and where they don't have to sign up for Basic Systems Repair. (Applause.)
I didn't acknowledge you yet. I didn't acknowledge you yet. I was just making my statement --
All right. I'm not even calling on you to respond at the moment. Okay?
Yes. Just wanted to note for the record that we agree with you.
I'm just letting you know. Okay? I just was responding. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Thank you, Council President. First, I think it's very important that we have this conversation in a fact-based way. We're talking about specifically two home repair programs and we are not lowering the AMI. The program, as it currently exists, is already restricted to AMI of 60% or under. At the Mayor's request, Council's amendment would raise these two programs to the middle class. We are not lowering anything. We have to be I think factual about the way that we're talking about it. (Applause.)
The Council amendment would raise the income level substantially for the first time ever. It's important that that fact is acknowledged. I also wanted to say that the 10% number actually came from the Administration's testimony. When we were in these chambers a few weeks ago, the Administration testified that we expected a 10% increase in applications that would come from the higher income band that we raised these two programs to. It's actually in the transcript. So in response to the Council President expressing concern about receiving a flood of new demand that BSRP or Adaptive Modification could not support, Jessie Lawrence responded and I quote, "We anticipate about 10% at most of an increase in applications. Based on the Administration's own projections, City Council reserved 10% of these program budgets, $4.85 million in total, to these newly, newly eligible households earning between 60% and 100% of AMI." So the Council amendment is actually very responsive to the Administration's testimony and to your work and what you said at this table a few weeks ago. Reserving 90% of BSRP and Adaptive Modification funding for working and low-income applicants is necessary to ensure that increasing income eligibility does not come at the expense of those who need our help the most. Even within the middle neighborhoods that we're consistently talking about, we get some of our highest number of applications from people who already qualify under the current income restrictions. Not only that, we should also be clear that the bulk of the city's housing programs already serve these higher-income communities. (Applause.)
Before H.O.M.E. was ever a thing, 60% of the city's housing spending went towards households above 60% of AMI. Those programs that still serve these income bands do not change as a result of H.O.M.E. We are actually expanding the pot and making sure that we can serve the most vulnerable while also allowing applications from everyone. Alongside other funding sources that go towards housing, such as Federal CDBG and our Housing Trust Fund, there is plenty of funding to go around. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, Council President. My colleague touched on many of my points that I was going to say, because I think it's really important that we talk about the real reality of what has been proposed and what this negotiation has been about. I also want to say while we don't pay our lowest-paid city workers enough at all and we absolutely don't pay our wonderful teachers enough at all, there are federal programs that help teachers with their student loans, not something out of Donald Trump's eyes right now. I got to tell you, but the cuts are going to come across the board for everything. But there are programs out there. I just don't want us to talk about things that aren't true. You can get loan forgiveness. I was a legal aid lawyer. I was in a loan forgiveness program for a bit. And then the final thing to say is that the numbers were negotiated. We agreed to this and we are absolutely -- that was my point. We are not capping this at 60%. We are expanding it and we are expanding it to include more people. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Couple of questions, if I can. What did we receive in CDBG money over the last four years?
Mark can confirm that number for you, but I think it's about $50 some-odd million. I'll let Mark Dodds come up to speak to that a little bit more.
Can you get that for us? And then what I would ask the Administration is based on what your predictions are about AMI, who gets alienated where and what districts are heavily impacted by the exclusion?
Mark Dodds, Deputy Director, Division of Housing and Community Development. We receive approximately $40 million to $45 million in CDBG annually and that's been consistent --
So you don't have to answer this. But think about this, is the prospect of getting cut by No. 47 more likely or less likely today? So I believe that we are in the crosshairs of being cut in that regard. And if we are, what we're talking about, this 200 million, is our lifeboat. This is what we will have to work with to try to wait out what's going on in D.C. And say what you want, 30,000 people have voted with their feet to leave this city. Every one of the municipal contracts attempt to negotiate can I move. Police that used to live on my block are now packed up and moved to the suburbs. There's a reason for that. I'm not saying it's only housing. There's crime, there's education, but that trend we need to fight against in order to maintain a middle class that can pay the bills, that can support the municipal workers that pay the taxes. And we are shortsighted in that, that we ignore the fact that people are packing up and leaving our city. And we need to fight for them like we fight for all Philadelphians. I just don't -- I take a page from Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson. This is a negotiation. It ain't done. It ain't over until the fat lady sings and she ain't warmed up. All right. And I'm saying that. And I hope we will do so in good faith, that our leadership, the President, will go to the Second Floor, the Second Floor will come to the Fourth Floor, and figure this out. It's not going to happen in here right now. But if there's a sense of fairness that we're all looking out for all of Philadelphia, I think we can get past this. But what we're not going to do is just ignore the folk who are paying the bills. And if you could -- (Applause.)
If you can provide the President with maps of where the greatest lack of involvement based on these programs will be, I think that will be helpful in making an informed decision. Before we go striking things, we should know who it impacts, who it hurts. Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
Thank you. And I just want to provide some information and some clarity, just for the record. And I live in a very, very diverse neighborhood, South Philadelphia, gentrified neighborhood, right. There's a variety of different income levels in my neighborhood, and I still live there today. But also separate from this bond, just to be clear we have a $7 billion budget here in the City of Philadelphia. We have a $1.2 billion surplus, so there's this myth, right. It was a statement that we cannot fund separate from H.O.M.E., Basic Systems Repair or Adaptive Modification. It's the will of how we use our overall budget to support the program. And so, I just wanted to state that for the record. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad.
(Inaudible). And I don't want to call it sides, either, you know, opinions. This man, Dave Thomas, has to actually do what we're talking about. How many people are in the pool for applications? And how long is that wait? And before you answer, we have to make sure that we make him whole so that people on either side of the AMI are actually getting served in a way with increased demand, so that needs to be one of the things that we consider in the negotiations.
Thank you, Council President. Just want people to remember that we have a poverty issue plaguing Philadelphia, an intractable issue, even with the tiny little dip that happened to make us now 9th, not 10th. I need to make sure we are underscoring that bringing those who are 60% AMI and below that population, this will help them get to middle class. This is what we are trying to do to make sure that -- (Applause.)
-- we are giving people the opportunity to build their asset, their house, to create value in that house when you're fixing that house. They can then take a loan out against this to send their children to college if they need to. We are making sure this pathway to middle class is open to everyone. And for us to say that those people are not important in this conversation is deeply problematic. (Applause.)
And we must remember if Philadelphia has to thrive, everybody has to thrive. Thank you, Council President. (Applause.)
Thank you, Council President. I do want to say again that I think we have to be really careful with our language here. All Philadelphians pay bills. Many Philadelphians -- (Applause.)
Many Philadelphians are members of the sandwich generation regardless of their income. They're taking care of elders and they're taking care of young people, regardless of how they came into their lives. We have programs, Restore, Repair, Renew; Built to Last; Philly First Home. They're all focused on middle income. And this is simply expanding the pot for the great work that PHDC is already doing with its programs. We're putting more money in there and we're increasing the eligibility at the top line. There's really no other question here. We really need to make sure that we're being clear to the public so there's no 24 misconceptions. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Ms. Loughead, please call the next panel -- at this time, we will have public comment. Before we begin taking testimony regarding -- Chair recognizes Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke.
Thank you, Mr. President. I feel like the next discussion has happened, but I do want to get on the record on one thing. I know the panel is leaving now. I want to take a moment just to celebrate that one of the wins of this package of amendments that I am particularly excited about is funding for the Anti-Displacement Fund. (Applause.)
It's a win that wouldn't be possible without the organized tenants who are here today from Renters United, from Philly Thrive, West Southwest Rising and other organizations in the room, make some noise for yourselves. (Applause.)
These organized tenants and homeowners, both and, have shown up time and time and time again to advocate for themselves and for their neighbors. I want you to know that your presence here today reflects the depth of your commitment to safe, dignified, and healthy homes. So thank you for consistently making sacrifices required to participate in this process. Our city is stronger and safer because of your advocacy. I believe that what you are doing is what democracy looks like. (Applause.)
I also want to say that alongside with the advocates, the win would not be possible without members of Council's Housing Committee, Members Gauthier, Landau, Driscoll, Squilla, Bass, who unanimously supported this fund. (Applause.)
A lot was going on in my life at the point where that happened, and I think it's important for me to mention that Council passed this fund in June to support tenants displaced as a result of cease operations orders, and the Housing Committee pledged on record to fund this measure, and I'm appreciative to them for that. I'm thrilled to say that today the Housing Committee, the rest of Council and the Administration are following through on its promise because funding for the Anti-Displacement Fund was also included in the H.O.M.E. amendments passed out of committee last week, and it is up to us today to continue to follow through on that promise. So many people have come out to testify as part of these hearings, taking off work, finding childcare, stretching their own budgets because they care about having affordable, safe, and dignified housing. And it reminds me of the thousands of families who have been waiting years on the city's waitlist for programs we're talking about today, which brings me to really more of a rhetorical question that I don't necessarily need or really expect a real good answer to: What is exactly the problem that we're trying to solve for here? Because the facts to me seem pretty straightforward. The amendments are only for two programs out of dozens in Year out of of H.O.M.E. funding and will be reassessed in a year. Meanwhile, we still have thousands of families under 60% AMI waiting on a waitlist right now. These amendments simply guarantee that those already waiting in line get help and they get it first. Then next year we can reassess and we can re-evaluate where these funds are directed. And isn't that exactly what the Administration said it intended to do. What is the problem with making sure that we help people who have been waiting in line first and then re-evaluating next June. What is the issue with that? To me, this isn't about saying middle and higher-income households shouldn't get support, and we have repeated this time and time and time again. It is very -- and I said this before, it is very Trumpian to keep perpetuating a narrative that does not exist. (Applause.)
It's about clearing the backlog for families who have been waiting the longest and need help the most. We don't strengthen the middle by hollowing out the bottom, which is why we prioritize the poor. No one is suggesting that the middle should not get what they're getting. In fact, we're looking forward to doing that. Prioritizing in how we write policy, the poor will actually make us make real a prioritization for the poor and immeasurably and materially improve their lives for the working poor and working people every single day, which is what our office intends to do, and what I do believe this Housing Committee wants to do and what I believe this body will want to do. Thank you, Mr. President, for your time. (Applause.)
Two things can be true at the same time. One, we support -- this body has proven that we support the most needy first. This amendment doesn't move them out of line. This holds their place in line, but adds to people who want to get in line. And you may say, what's the difference in next year. Let it rain on your head through a leaky roof and you will understand how long that really is. There are -- (Applause.)
There are people in my district that suffer because they have a little too much, and the year that it would take to get in line to then make the wait might be the difference. I worked it out, and that is something I never told a lot of my colleagues. We have a waiting list, but the demographics of those people on that waiting list, it will astound you. People were waiting five years that were 90 years old to get their roof fixed, and we had to make a deal where we said anybody 90 years old shouldn't have to wait five years to get repairs. What I am saying to you is that time is relative. And if it's raining on your head, it is unbearable. And so, what I want to do, and you've been in those communities, I know you care about them, that is not what I'm saying -- and I don't want to be called Trumpian either -- but what I want to do is make as many people whole as we can get on this life raft. Because I believe sincerely that it's only a matter of time before we cut by No. 47. And so, as many people as we can get in line, as many people as we can reduce the line and get service, I'm for that. So we agree, we agree on that. It's just when people say we can wait until next year, that isn't me and you getting rained on. And so, we have to increase the urgency for them. Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
Thank you, Member Jones. Chair recognizes Councilmember Quetcy Lozada.
Thank you, Council President. Today we're talking about something that goes deeper than policy. We're talking about home, the place where safety, dignity and opportunity begins. When Mayor Parker introduced the H.O.M.E. Initiative, a $2 billion investment to repair, build and preserve 30,000 homes, many Philadelphians felt hopeful, including in my district, folks dealing with leaky roofs, unsafe wiring, and the constant despair or the constant fear of displacement, feeling unheard by the city. Saying we see you and we hear you and we're here to help you, but hope also brought a fair and necessary question, who gets it first, who gets it first. The Mayor's proposal expands eligibility up to 100% of Area Medium Income. And let's be clear, folks don't understand this. Folks on the ground, every day Philadelphians don't understand what does AMI mean and how does it impact me. To be clear, supporting middle-income and working families matter. We are not saying they don't deserve help or that they won't need it, but we are expanding the doors without -- but expanding the doors without setting clear priorities risk pushing low-income families, the ones with the most urgent needs, further back in line. (Applause.)
Council's amendments demand that 90% of first year repairs go directly to families earning 60% of AMI or below. That is the vast majority of the people who live in the 7th Council District. This is applicable to the majority of the residents in my district and the people who stopped by my office, exasperated due to living in unsafe homes, in constant fear of displacement and least likely to be heard. As a District Councilmember representing the have-nots and the have-less, I cannot ignore the people who keep this city going on the smallest paychecks. Taking care of the least of these first does not mean we stopped caring about everyone else. It means we start where the need is greatest and build from there. (Applause.)
I need to vote in the best interest of the people who sent me here to be the steward of their community, those who are often not heard. We can and we must support our middle and working-class neighbors, but justice requires that we first protect those who have the least, because prioritizing the lowest- income Philadelphians is not just fair. It is just. Thank you. (Applause.)
I think that there has to be -- Council Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson said it at the very beginning. This does not have to be a fight. This does not have to be a fight. This has to be a conversation about a program that is the city's program. We should be able to make all of the modifications and all of the amendments and all of the changes as we work through -- every program is not going to fit in every neighborhood 100%. I represent one of the poorest districts in the City of Philadelphia, where an assessor said to me that most of the people that live in the 7th Council District live 30% or below AMI. That is the reality. That is the reality. And if I am not careful, I will see in my district what has happened on the southern end, where there has been mass rapid displacement because things have not been thought through. The majority of the land is down there. Public land, a large number of public land is down there. If I'm not careful, if we start doing all of these things that the entire initiative calls for or the opportunity that's created, I can quickly displace people in other parts of the district or further displace people from that southern end of the district. I have to be very cautious. I have to be very careful, because people who have generationally lived there will not either be able to afford to live there and will have to move or they will not be able to buy there. And that's just not fair. It's just not fair for us to tell people that they can't live in the neighborhoods that they've generationally lived in because we've not done conscious development or because we've not created programs that protect them. (Applause.)
Chair recognizes Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke for a point of information.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just a point of information. Appreciating the remarks from the gentleman from the 4th Councilmanic District. I want to begin simply by saying one of the things that's been frustrating for me throughout the course of this has been not only myself but other members as we go out into the community, lifting up how proud, I mean, I don't think -- I don't think that's the wrong term of the fact that the Administration, that the Mayor has prioritized housing in this way. I was just there this weekend at the same time as she was visiting houses of worship, also having my own just for my office around just civic services and lifting up how great it is that this has been prioritized and really proud that it's being done. And so, you know, which makes the characterization about how the body is moving or has been moving about us a bit frustrating, so please forgive my passions if I sound a bit spicy today. But I did want to say that I am very clear, Mr. President, about the gentleman from the 4th District's points around time. As I mentioned last week when we passed these amendments out, that it is actually because of time that we are to prefer an option for the poor, that when you look at -- time, is money, right. And everybody doesn't have the same amount of time or the same amount of money. The people who have a little bit more money, even if it's a little bit more, have a little bit more time. They have the likelihood to coast on their reserves a smidge longer than the poor of the world who do not have as much time. And so, that is the reason why, in fact, that I contend that I feel principled in contending to prioritize the poor as eloquently as Member Lozada mentioned it, that it is the just thing to do when you're looking at the imbalance of who actually has the most time. You're right, I may have a little bit more time. I had a leaky wall last month when the (inaudible) guy came and put my painting into the plumbing pipe, so I got water out -- I was able to cover that and get that fixed. I am fully aware that those who do not make a councilman's salary do not have that time or resource to be able to make that happen. So -- (Applause.)
-- it's important for us to never lose sight of that in the midst of the fiery deliberations that we may have, if we want to see on the back end of it an actual, real prioritization of those who have a little bit, who have nothing, who are poor. And so, yes, I am clear about time. That's why we prioritize the poor in the first place. Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
Chair recognizes Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad. Then we will have public comment. COUNCILWOMAN AHMAD Thank you, Council President. I just wanted to reiterate what Councilmember Quetcy Lozada just said about shoring up these houses for those under the 60% AMI, because that is actually an anti-displacement method, right. Because what would happen if you let these homes deteriorate, inhabitable, guess what happens? They leave, those things become fallow and who sweeps them up? Greedy people waiting to pick up those spaces to build things that leave people out in the cold. So this effort to put resources in our lowest segment of our population, who are homeowners who need these things fixed, is about making sure they actually can stay in Philadelphia and they can appreciate all of the important things happening in Philadelphia. But if you take their homes away because they're inhabitable and you're opening this up to vultures waiting to swoop down on those, then we're going to have a very different Philadelphia that is not going to look like Philadelphia we have today. So I just wanted to reiterate that point, that this is an anti-displacement effort to make sure people can stay and live where they are. (Applause.)
To ensure that there is an opportunity for everyone here to be heard regarding public comment, ground rules have been established as follows: Your testimony should pertain to the bill listed on today's hearing agenda. Once your name is called, you will then have up to one minute to speak. In order to be fair to all those wishing to speak, I intend to hold faithfully to the one-minute limit. Once your allotted time has passed, you will be asked to conclude your remarks. I will now ask Ms. Loughead to please read the name of your first two speakers for public testimony.
Louis Olivo, Melissa Monts, followed by David Langlieb and Theresa Howell. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning, Councilmembers. My name is Melissa Monts and I am a proud member of One Pennsylvania. I am here today to thank this body for your vote last week, a vote that recognized the reality and urgency of Philadelphia's housing crisis by amending the H.O.M.E. budget to include 35 million in new funding for low-income renters and homeowners, which also includes the 4 million for the Right to Relocation Fund. Your vote acknowledged something profound, that deeply affordable housing is not a luxury service. It is a life-saving intervention. I know this firsthand. I once paid rent that was higher than my entire SSI check. I was displaced by L&I with 10 days' notice and later became sick in an Odin Properties apartment, which left me with pulmonary hypertension, heart failure and chronic respiratory failure. Unsafe housing is not just uncomfortable. It's dangerous. Families under 30% AMI include seniors on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, single parents and many of the workers who serve this city, crossing guards, clerks, laborers who fall between 30% to 60% AMI and still cannot afford a $200,000 Turn the Key home. When those at the bottom finally have safe, deeply affordable rental options, it opens and stabilizes the whole market, not just for the poorest, but for the working families across Philadelphia. I want to address something clearly and respectfully. Tomorrow's hearing is not whether we care. Council has already proven that you do. It is not about whether we agree. The unanimous vote showed unity. The question before us now is, will we stand by the decision already made for the families you already voted to protect. And I want to stop the story that deeply affordable housing means the have-nots are taking from the have-littles. We refuse to let Willie Lynch politics divide people who are struggling in different ways. We should be building ladders, not competing for the same rung. The Council vote acknowledged this simple truth: A staircase only works if there is a first step. Without deeply affordable units, there is no entry point, no mobility, no stability. So today I am not here to ask you to change course. I am here to ask you to stay the course, stand by your vote, stand by the families it protects, stand by the vision of Philadelphia where every resident, regardless of income, has a safe, healthy and truly affordable home. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Pardon me. Before you begin, sir, give me one moment. Thank you all so much for being here. I wanted to remind everyone that we do have an additional resolution that we need to review later in this hearing. We have a number of witnesses here and we would like to hear from you all. We appreciate you all coming today. I'm respectfully requesting that you please summarize and abbreviate your testimony to one minute. When you hear the timer, conclude your testimony so that we can hear from everyone. Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Louis Olivo. I'm a proud consumer of Liberty Resource. Years ago, Liberty Resource helped me transfer me out of the nursing home physically and back into the community. The experience changed my life -- the experience changed my life. And ever since then, I made it my mission to help make sure that other disability people can get back home too. I now help run the Wheelchair Repair program at Liberty Resource, supporting people who's really on mobility equipment, navigating their daily lives. Living in a nursing home facility was demonstrated for both my mental and physical health. Nobody should have to stay in an institution simply because they can't find an affordable, accessible place to live. Everyone deserves a place to call home and we cannot leave anyone behind. I come to Liberty Resource --
I apologize. I apologize for cutting you off. Please conclude your testimony. Thank you.
What I'm saying is it's very important for y'all to look at us as a disability and help us as much as you can because it's about us. Not nursing home, but living those living homes. (Applause.)
Theresa Howell and David Langlieb. They'll be followed by Nadia Graves and Lori Peterson. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Please state your name for the record and proceed with your abbreviated, summarized testimony.
Hi. Good morning. My name is Theresa Howell and I'm a renter in Frankford, a mother, grandmother, foster mother and a leader with One PA Renters United. I'm here to thank all of you on Council for amending this H.O.M.E. Plan to prioritize those who need it the most. As a lifelong Philadelphian, and I'm a single mother who was forced to live in unsafe housing due to negligent landlords. Over 350,000 people in this city make under $30,000 a year. That's one in three households. These are people who live in every Councilperson's district, and many of them go to work every day and work hard for their families but they make very little. We all know that the less you make, the harder you work -- the less you make, the harder you work. The cost of food and rent is constantly going up. I live in Frankford. In my district, we have the highest poverty rate in the city. We are supported -- what are we supposed to do, stay in poverty? We voted with our Councilmembers to stand for us. And we want to thank Councilmember Lozada for prioritizing us by fighting for low-income housing. Just below me in Norris Square, we have people who have lived there for generations who have been pushed out of their neighborhood because rent is up to $3,000 a month. You can uproot a tree of 100 years old, but the question becomes where do you put that tree. That tree has very deep roots. You can't just chop it down and move the tree, just like you can't allow families to be displaced from their neighborhoods. When the people who need it the most is going to be --
I apologize for cutting you off. Please summarize and conclude your testimony. Thank you.
To all Councilpeople, if you care about the people in your district, I implore you to vote for this amendment on the H.O.M.E. Plan that prioritizes us. Thank you. (Applause.)
State your name for the record. Proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. My name is Dave Langlieb. I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Accelerator Fund. And I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again to give testimony. I've testified previously with a focus on our borrowers and our commitment to scaling up emerging Black and Brown-owned development firms as well as nonprofits doing this critical work in the city. That really is half our mission. And I'm here today to speak very briefly about the other half, which is our approach to affordability. Our basic guidepost is for maximum affordability that maintains the economic viability of any given project. Like Mayor Parker and the Administration, we recognize that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to the city's housing problems. We need homeownership opportunities, but we also need quality, affordable rentals and we need it up and down the income distribution ladder, from the 20% AMI units we get out of LIHTC, which we are very, very happy to support, to the 60%, 80% AMI units that house a mix of moderate income families as well as housing choice voucher recipients. For starters, I would say every Turn the Key house that we finance or anybody else finances is effectively affordable at 50% to 60% of AMI, inclusive of the soft second mortgage from the city. Those metrics contemplate a $1200 to $1,300 a month mortgage on a new three bedroom home. And at pre-pandemic interest rates, those can be refi'd down to under $1,000 --
Please conclude your testimony. Thank you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your summarized testimony. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Lori Peterson and I'm a member of One PA Renters United, retired school crossing --
Hold on one moment, ma'am. Are you getting that?