[0:14] >> I'm going to order this meeting.

[0:18] this is an additional meeting of the council of the district of

[0:24] columbia. Today is tuesday, july 7, the

[0:27] time is 11:40 in the morning. We are in room 500.

[0:32] the council chamber of the johnny wilson building.

[0:35] this meeting I believe is being streamed on cable television 13

[0:38] and is also I think available but will be recorded and will be

[0:45] available in the future on the council website.

[0:52] this is an additional meeting. That is, it is not a regular the

[0:58] scheduled monthly meeting. It's also the 34th meeting of

[1:00] council 26. We have one item of business,

[1:04] over one divided by I think three.

[1:07] that is, we have the budget support act final reading as

[1:09] well as the emergency version of that in the emergency

[1:14] declaration, so we can consider this an emergency basis.

[1:18] and when I say emergency that means it becomes effective as

[1:20] soon as we sign it and there are portions that need to go into

[1:26] effect sooner than would otherwise occur with a

[1:31] congressional review period. We always begin our legislative

[1:34] meetings with a moment of silence.

[1:36] if we do have silence on the dais and then the chamber.

[2:06] madam secretary, would you please call the roll?

[2:10] [calling names] mr. Chairman, you have a quorum.

[2:41] chair mendelson: thank you, madam secretary.

[2:45] we only have a nonconsent agenda and the first item to fiscal

[2:51] year 2027 budget support act of 2029.

[2:54] we adopted this at first reading on june 9.

[2:59] this legislation is much more complicated the budget so rather

[3:02] than moving the second reading last week with final reading on

[3:06] the budget, we are taking it out today.

[3:09] it's a very lengthy and complex bill.

[3:11] I'm not going to explain everything that was in the bill

[3:15] on first reading. In fact I'm not going to explain

[3:17] in detail everything in the amendment.

[3:22] I believe yesterday morning, the amendment nature include

[3:33] citation in numbering corrections as well as other

[3:36] technical crafting changes. The amended substitute or ans

[3:40] also makes substantive revisions as well as clarifying changes

[3:44] with the budget director. As well as working with the

[3:50] office of the chief financial officer and the executive.

[3:55] the memo that was circulated yesterday which is seven full

[4:02] pages goes into detail with regard to most of the changes.

[4:07] I would say all of the substantive changes, so I'm not

[4:13] going to go through all of that. I move the amendment nature of

[4:20] the substitute and I'm happy to answer any questions or

[4:27] recognize folks and actually, I have an amendment.

[4:35] I will note that I'm aware of an amendment from councilmembers

[4:39] alan, white, louis george and brooke.

[4:46] excuse me, pinto, councilmember pinto.

[4:52] >> yes, that was me. I have one that we just

[4:56] circulated. It's a different one.

[5:03] >> and I have one as well pending.

[5:09] >> all right. >> I don't have any.

[5:12] [laughter] I talked to every member for attempted to talk to

[5:19] every member on friday and asked about amendments and I have to

[5:22] say what is coming in today is above and beyond what I was told

[5:26] on friday. I am going to start off with an

[5:29] oral amendment. Line 2589, to start the phrase

[5:50] 302 and insert the phrase 302-a in its place.

[5:56] it's pretty technical, that's why I didn't circulate it.

[6:02] to change the number 302 to the number 302-a.

[6:06] this has to do with provisions in the vacant amendment act of

[6:12] 2025 that do not have a cost. There's no objection, this

[6:19] amendment will be accepted. >> mr. Chairman, would you

[6:24] repeat the section again? >> and can you speak louder mr.

[6:29] chairman, we can't hear you down here.

[6:30] >> the amendment is to page 85, line 1589.

[7:00] it has to do to a reference with regard to citations -- excuse

[7:04] me, section references. This is subtitle 2-I line 1589,

[7:19] changing the number 302 to read 302-a.

[7:25] anybody want me to repeat that again?

[7:30] it's right there. If there's no objection, this

[7:36] amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

[7:40] accepted. I want to note as well this is

[7:44] not an amendment that in section on line 25-33, there is a pin

[7:57] site that needs to be corrected. And that I'm told is technical

[8:02] which is why I'm not moving it as an amendment.

[8:11] council member allen. >> it's currently drafted

[8:23] subtitle 6-o. To increase the public

[8:30] inconvenience fee applied to public space permits that result

[8:34] in temporary occupancy of public space.

[8:36] to mitigate the impact on utilities, the subtitle provides

[8:38] utilities paid 60 day grace period before is applied.

[8:44] however even with this expanded grace period, d.c. Water is

[8:49] concerned it would impose new costs in the utility

[8:54] specifically in a letter dated may 14.

[8:56] d.c. Water cautioned that every dollar assessed chicken d.c.

[9:02] water is a direct path through cost for ratepayer through

[9:03] higher water and sewer bills. D.c. Water carries new

[9:07] discretionary budget to beasties.

[9:08] there is no alternative. The ultimately comes out of

[9:12] pocket as it is not only designed to compensate for

[9:15] disruption. It is the mayor had embedded the

[9:19] revenue raised increase throughout the budget and was

[9:22] unable to remove and escalate the budget and get the kindle

[9:25] has already approved fiscal year 2027, the council ability to

[9:31] reduce them to maintain a balanced budget across the for

[9:36] your financial plan. So this amendment would simply

[9:38] sunset the increased pif for d.c. Water beginning in fy 31.

[9:45] instead, beginning on october 1, 2023, d.c. Water would only be

[9:48] subject to the pif. And I would ask if that the

[10:04] accepted as friendly. >> councilmember white.

[10:08] >> yes. Councilmember allen, I know that

[10:15] we are looking to sunset this cost on d.c. Water, ultimately

[10:20] affecting the rate of pay, the rate of those who consume water

[10:27] but I dislike question was once we stop them from extended fees,

[10:31] how do we get a guarantee that the ratepayers rates will go

[10:36] down or stop going up? >> thanks, great question.

[10:45] so part of what d.c. Water has to look at right now, the rate

[10:46] case right now around their overall cost.

[10:50] the increase that the mayor proposed was not part of what

[10:54] they had been mapping out. They are going to have to figure

[10:58] it had to add that into the overall rate structure.

[11:00] by sunsetting this, what that would mean is the end of the

[11:04] fiscal plan, that cost would no longer be there which means it

[11:07] no longer is passed to the rate players.

[11:10] how to make sure deepwater is accountable for that is going to

[11:16] be oversight. Which would mean they are not

[11:22] passing on that cost or returning that.

[11:29] >> is after something already has been done.

[11:38] I'm concerned if we do sunset this, it doesn't have a good

[11:41] effect on the residence. >> two I have it in writing that

[11:52] four years from now -- >> for oversight perspective, we

[12:04] have a d.c. Water board that we vote to approve the mayor's

[12:07] nominations for that. We have our oversight function

[12:12] so that when the cost that d.c. Water is having to pay go away,

[12:17] for years are now, it will be our job to make sure that the

[12:20] cost that will be passed on to ratepayers are no longer being

[12:23] assessed. I don't have a crystal ball that

[12:27] is going to tell us exactly what is going to happen but I believe

[12:29] that is part of our oversight job, to make sure they are not

[12:32] passing on those costs. >> you know if d.c. Water has

[12:39] any rate increases now that are due right now?

[12:46] I'm just concerned about the rising utility costs in the

[12:48] district. >> and that is part of what is

[12:59] driving this to remove that pif and sunsetting it so that those

[13:04] costs don't get passed on to ratepayers.

[13:06] >> but it still can go up. >> correct.

[13:11] costs are going up. We are trying to limit this.

[13:15] >> thank you, mr. Chairman. I just have a similar question.

[13:24] zooming back without this amendment, what would happen to

[13:29] ratepayers if we were not to sunset the pif?

[13:32] >> if we don't sunset it, two things.

[13:35] once, d.c. Water will have to continue passing on the mayor's

[13:44] increase to ratepayers. Secondly, when d.c. Water goes

[13:48] out to the bond market which they will do in the summer, they

[13:52] have to show in the books and unknown financial liability that

[13:56] goes out beyond this fiscal plan.

[13:59] to some degree, by sunsetting it through this amendment, it also

[14:03] helps d.c. Water when they go out to the bond market to show

[14:06] essentially capped financial liability because they go out

[14:10] looking for funding. >> is that your understanding

[14:16] that their plan is to do, to look for more external financing

[14:23] ? >> in terms of overall cost,

[14:31] they will look for financing that essentially ratepayers,

[14:35] both residential and commercial are paying.

[14:39] they are very much trying to bring in federal dollars.

[14:43] the trump administration's roll back a lot of federal dollars

[14:46] available, so that makes everything a little bit harder.

[14:49] they are able to find private financial sources that will do

[14:51] that. They are going to have offset

[15:00] cost, a huge solar installation down at blue plains.

[15:03] they have a lot of different ways they are trying to help

[15:05] offset costs that are otherwise being passed on to ratepayers.

[15:09] this is just one more cost that is going to ratepayers.

[15:14] we could at least control one part.

[15:19] >> is there any further discussion regarding this?

[15:25] >> I fully support this amendment.

[15:31] I do think that it can be a moment to step back and think

[15:35] about our propensity to impose fees, and we impose fees in the

[15:41] utility context, in the delivery context.

[15:44] we do it in a lot of different places and it is a way in which

[15:46] we raise revenue and it doesn't look like a tax, but part of

[15:51] what this amendment is is a recognition that these fees and

[15:56] that getting passed on to our residence, and so they kind of

[15:59] work as a tax. I would encourage that we be

[16:04] reluctant going forward to be imposing new fees like this.

[16:08] I think we are going to have to take a hard look on a very

[16:12] candid revenue raiser and I think that is the way to go, but

[16:17] I think we need to be careful because utility prices are going

[16:21] up and they're not just going up because of the fees that we

[16:27] impose, but the fees that we impose contribute to what is a

[16:32] real problem area, and this amendment is a recognition of

[16:35] that. But I think it is broader than

[16:38] that and we should keep that in mind when forward.

[16:41] >> councilmember felder. >> councilwoman pinto asked my

[16:50] original question but councilmember allen, I just want

[16:53] you to know that I appreciate your leadership on this.

[16:56] have you had an opportunity to talk with d.c. Water and are

[17:01] they supportive of this, what have those conversations been

[17:05] like if any? >> I don't want to speak on

[17:10] behalf of d.c. Water. I will say what I believe has

[17:15] been conveyed to me. They are not supportive of the

[17:16] pif overall. They are supportive of this

[17:20] amendment, though, as feeling like it at least gives them a

[17:25] backstop at the end that it sunsets.

[17:29] >> thank you for that. >> councilmember parker?

[17:33] >> councilmember allen, do we have a sense of the rate

[17:38] increase that ultimately is passed on to ratepayers?

[17:46] >> do you mean specific to the pif?

[17:50] >> if their argument is we must do this so we don't pass on

[17:56] increase to ratepayers, the natural question I have is what

[18:00] is that increase? I think the question points to a

[18:06] certain skepticism that I share. Do we really anticipate rates

[18:11] going down, and as I look at this, part of it is to ensure

[18:19] and incentivize d.c. Water to move as possible.

[18:24] we are essentially taking that burden away from them because we

[18:28] are saying we are going to increase rates or have to

[18:29] increase rates for ratepayers which I'm sensitive to.

[18:36] so I'm just curious if there is an amount or estimate of what

[18:39] that increase might be. >> d.c. Water is currently

[18:48] debating a rate increase on every d.c. Water ratepayer.

[18:52] that is completely separate from the pif.

[18:56] we are looking at d.c. Water thinking about what the rate

[19:00] increases going to be for d.c. Water completely separate from

[19:04] this. This was only introduced by the

[19:05] mayor in april, so they only had two or three months that they

[19:09] have been looking at this. So I don't know if they can,

[19:14] with the accuracy of your bill, for example, say this is what

[19:16] the pif is going to reflect. What they've been very clear

[19:21] about is that any additional cost we have to pay, it has to

[19:24] be burdened by ratepayers. So it is a cost that has to get

[19:28] passed on. To be clear, the pif does not

[19:32] save d.c. Water any money. It will increase costs that d.c.

[19:36] water has to pay, I want to make sure that's it's clear as well.

[19:37] >> ultimately I see it as an incentive measure to say let's

[19:42] not inconvenience district residents with your work.

[19:46] so as to not incur more fines or penalties, move as efficiently

[19:49] as possible. >> we are essentially saying we

[19:53] are going to sunset this x years down the line.

[19:59] and again, I'm just kind of kicking the tires on the

[20:02] argument. I'm skeptical.

[20:03] >> the nature of the projects are that they will run longer

[20:07] than 60 days. While the pif from purely a

[20:13] policy perspective, we are going to have a higher public

[20:16] inconvenience the but we don't assess it until after 60 days.

[20:21] with my policy hat on, for a lot of projects, that probably makes

[20:25] sense. Get it faster, get it out of the

[20:30] public way or else there is this higher fee.

[20:32] the nature of many projects are longer-term projects.

[20:36] you can say 60 days, you can say 90 days.

[20:39] it probably won't matter because it is a long-term type of

[20:43] project. D.c. Water will have to pay this

[20:45] fee which means it comes to ratepayers.

[20:47] so by sunsetting it, the goal is oversight is going to have to be

[20:52] what takes place here. When that pif after four years

[20:57] no longer is there, how do we make sure that is no longer

[21:01] reflected in your bills no longer pass on this costs?

[21:05] >> consomm number bonds. >> thank you, chairman, and

[21:11] thank you mr. Allen for this measure.

[21:17] and I to understand through this measure that it only speaks to

[21:24] this particular instance, it does not speak to the future

[21:27] opportunities for rate increases?

[21:30] >> correct. >> thank you very much.

[21:36] I think anytime we can think about the public and think about

[21:39] how we can help them save dollars is important, but this

[21:47] does not really speak to that at this point.

[21:49] thank you very much. Chair mendelson: I want to note

[21:56] that the amendment that is before us would reduce the fee

[22:03] starting in the fall of 2030.

[22:05] it's not increasing rates. It's actually trying to help

[22:08] ratepayers even though it will be a few years from now.

[22:12] I only say that because a lot of these questions that focused on

[22:15] well, what are we doing about the cost of water and the effect

[22:19] on ratepayers? This amendment is to some extent

[22:24] in some way helping, not hurting ratepayers.

[22:30] ratepayers, even though we care about all of our residents and

[22:35] businesses, ratepayers is broader than just residents and

[22:39] businesses in the district. I would also like to point out

[22:41] because I had a long discussion with d.c. Water last week about

[22:44] this, they have a project clean rivers where they kind of set up

[22:49] shop for a couple years and so the fee is going to cost them.

[22:54] but they do a lot of other projects in the public space and

[22:58] in my view, they can manage the timing of those projects.

[23:02] and they don't have to be digging up my flock for 90 days.

[23:06] maybe they can do it in 15 days. So they have some ability other

[23:12] than clean rivers to be able to manage their way around this.

[23:16] and the fee right now is less, but it starts after 30 days.

[23:22] and with what we have, it starts after 60 days.

[23:27] just saying. If there is no objection, this

[23:31] will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

[23:36] accepted. Councilmember allen, I think you

[23:40] have a second. >> number two is currently

[23:47] drafted, subtitle ia would suggest -- subject most --

[23:58] exempt the public service commission and office people

[24:01] counsel from that requirement into a telework policy allows

[24:04] them to maintain their current policies.

[24:06] the background in the district of columbia in the office of the

[24:10] people's council for the district of columbia are

[24:12] independent agencies with their own hiring authority.

[24:14] both have existing policy that a bit in place in the last several

[24:22] years, so they have independent agencies that are distinct from

[24:24] the mayor. They be able to divert from the

[24:31] workforce management practices. The committee has reviewed both

[24:34] organizations current telework policies and they are very

[24:36] reasonable and have been in place for the last couple of

[24:37] years. Without objection I would ask if

[24:40] you accept that as written. Chair mendelson: we have the

[24:52] amendment before us. Is there discussion?

[24:54] >> I just want to ask a question.

[25:00] I think they're up in a number of exemptions from this

[25:04] particular subtitle, and so my question is what is the point of

[25:07] the subtitle now? Like was left?

[25:17] >> are you asking that of councilmember allen, or me?

[25:22] >> it's not rhetorical, who is left?

[25:26] I missed saying. Should the subtitle just be

[25:31] stricken at this point? Chair mendelson: so there are a

[25:36] lot of independent agencies. And there is an addition,

[25:43] perhaps the largest of them all the office of the financial

[25:48] officer. They have over 1000 employees.

[25:52] and there is the zoning commission.

[25:55] I'm trying to think. We would tax administration.

[26:09] please don't ask me to try to list all of them from memory.

[26:14] board of elections and ethics. Office of the inspector general.

[26:23] I was shown a long list for a moment.

[26:26] did you have more? Is there further discussion on

[26:32] this amendment? If there is no objection the

[26:35] amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

[26:40] accepted. Councilmember robert white.

[26:49] >> thank you, chairman. I want to thank councilmember

[27:02] parker for advocating on the pilot program.

[27:05] this amendment would increase the eligibility threshold for

[27:08] participating schools in the pilot program from 40%-60% at

[27:16] risk enrollment, hoping to ensure that limited funding is

[27:18] directed to schools serving the highest concentrations of

[27:20] at-risk students. I'm happy to support this pilot.

[27:25] then people have been asking the council for a program like this

[27:28] and this gives us the opportunity to evaluate whether

[27:32] a stipend can improve financial literacy, student well-being,

[27:38] attendance and academic achievement for considering a

[27:40] broader expansion. I want to thank councilmember

[27:43] parker for this amendment and they believe the 60% threshold

[27:48] is the right balance to maximize the impact of this pilot.

[27:54] and mr. Chairman, I hope you will accept this.

[27:56] >> thank you. Is there discussion from

[28:01] members? >> how did you arrive at this

[28:09] 60% mark? I remember going from one number

[28:18] to 60. What made you get to that.

[28:24] >> this is so that the schools, to such a small amount of money,

[28:29] and we want to target it to the schools that have the most I

[28:38] think it would bit better to targeted the schools with the

[28:43] biggest student absence issues. >> has given anything you've

[28:48] seen to schools that stick out more, or have been getting left

[28:52] out because you think it is going to be too broad?

[28:57] >> is schools with the higher absentee rate would be eligible

[29:04] under either. But this amendment narrows that

[29:08] so that the schools with the highest level of student

[29:11] absences have been able to bathe in the program as well as that

[29:18] line and not being able to access the very limited amount

[29:20] of money. >> thank you.

[29:24] chair mendelson: councilmember parker.

[29:25] >> I just wanted to thank councilmember robert white for

[29:32] this amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense,

[29:34] I fully support it and as he mentioned, it will ensure that

[29:38] we are covering more schools where more at risk students are

[29:43] likely to have attendance issues.

[29:45] so just wanted to acknowledge that this is a positive

[29:47] amendment. >> if there is no further

[29:54] discussion if no objection, it will be accepted.

[29:59] hearing no objection, it is accepted.

[30:06] councilmember lewis george. >> thank you.

[30:10] 10 years ago we passed the universal paid leave amendment

[30:12] act. In the years since, thousands of

[30:16] utilize this benefit to care for themselves and for loved ones

[30:20] during critical illnesses. It has helped to improve

[30:23] outcomes and reduce the catastrophic economic fallout

[30:25] that too many families have experienced without sufficient

[30:28] paid family leave. The fiscal year 2027 budget

[30:32] permanently reduces the family caregiving benefit from 12 weeks

[30:34] to six weeks and medical leave from 12 weeks to 10 weeks.

[30:38] I'm hoping this amendment to ensure that the maximum duration

[30:42] of leave under d.c. Paid family leave program is fully restored

[30:45] at the end of the four-year financial plan to 12 weeks of

[30:49] medical leave and 12 weeks of family caregiving.

[30:51] we made history 10 years ago, and we made history again this

[30:55] year when d.c. Became the only state program to have ever

[31:00] rolled back its program in the 25 years of state fate pam and

[31:03] medical leave programs. Both maryland and virginia will

[31:08] offer more paid medical leave and family caregiving leave in

[31:11] the district. If we are to remain competitive,

[31:14] if we are to do right by d.c. Families, and we must write this

[31:19] prong as soon ensure that the program is fully restored

[31:24] beginning october 1 of 2030. >> we have the amendment before

[31:36] us. Is there discussion?

[31:39] this is amendment number one. Discussion?

[31:45] if there's no objection, it will be accepted.

[31:49] hearing no objection, it is accepted.

[31:53] >> thank you. I am moving amendment number

[32:00] two. I am moving this and then to

[32:01] preserve the mayor's authority to establish a government-white

[32:04] telework policy on clarifying that telework can still be

[32:08] negotiated for future collective bargaining agreements.

[32:12] this is an important clarification.

[32:14] telework is not just ended mr. And policy, it is a real

[32:19] workplace issue for employees and a meaningful part of labor

[32:20] negotiations. For certain jobs type -- job

[32:25] types, they allow managers and labor unions to collectively

[32:27] support employee recruitment, retention, and even generate a

[32:32] cost savings. The subtitle as drafted would

[32:36] only protect existing agreements.

[32:39] this amendment keeps the mayor's authority intact but ensure that

[32:43] we are not unnecessarily taking an issue off the table in

[32:45] collective bargaining going forward.

[32:47] with that, I move the amendment. Chair mendelson: we have the

[32:56] amendment before us. >> thank you.

[32:58] has telework ever been part of collective bargaining

[33:03] negotiations? To your note -- knowledge?

[33:08] >> yes. >> and did that stop during

[33:12] covid? >> I don't know the full

[33:15] history. >> but when was it part of?

[33:23] >> I think it varies between when bargaining was taking place

[33:32] between different unions. >> ok.

[33:35] so this would be returning us to the policy that we used to have.

[33:45] >> rephrase the question. >> I'm trying to understand how

[33:50] this would work in practice. That if labor is negotiating a

[33:57] telework policy, is that something they've done in the

[34:00] past? >> yes, we are preserving a

[34:03] policy that is in place, yes. We are preserving it.

[34:05] >> I see. And the mayor's language removed

[34:14] that ability to negotiate around telework.

[34:16] and this puts it back. >> yes.

[34:20] >> ok. As we've discussed in a lot of

[34:24] different times this budget, there are many public safety

[34:29] agencies who had significant challenges with staffing.

[34:32] I'm just trying to understand how this would work in practice

[34:36] if telework became an issue that could not be resolved.

[34:42] what that would mean for our workforce who in certain

[34:47] agencies have to show up in person.

[34:50] >> well, they've been exempted. That is an amendment that we

[34:57] accepted just a moment ago. >> I thought that was just for

[35:00] opc. >> I thought they were on the

[35:05] exemption list. >> apologies, I missed the first

[35:08] part of the question. >> my understanding was your

[35:13] amendment was just for two agencies.

[35:23] exempting them from the subtitle.

[35:24] >> this doesn't speak to agencies.

[35:30] it speaks to organized for unionized workers.

[35:36] and what it says is not withstanding the rest of the

[35:42] subtitle, if a union negotiates with the mayor and both sides

[35:47] agree on a telework policy, that that would be allowed.

[35:51] that's a substitute for the language in this subtitle right

[35:54] now which says that unions can't bargain.

[35:56] >> sold let's use an example of teachers.

[36:00] if teachers wanted to bargain to have --

[36:07] chair mendelson: telework. >> telework two days a week,

[36:13] that would now be on the table? Chair mendelson: yes.

[36:17] now as a practical matter, I can't quite see how a teacher

[36:21] would be teaching via telework, so I don't think that's actually

[36:25] going to go very far. But to use your example yes,

[36:32] they could negotiate that. That doesn't mean they would get

[36:33] it. Maybe that the union wants a 5%

[36:38] increase in their compensation, so they are not going to

[36:40] negotiate telework. Or maybe they will agree to zero

[36:43] increase in compensation but get telework.

[36:47] but it would be bargained and presumably with bargaining, the

[36:52] mayor is representing her interests, the government's

[36:55] interest. I would note, just to pick an

[37:01] extreme, if the executive were to negotiate five days of

[37:04] telework and you don't have to come in any day of the month,

[37:08] cba has to come to the council for approval and we would have

[37:12] to approve that. But all this is about is

[37:19] allowing the ability to bargain. >> and I want to just note that

[37:24] it allows more flexibility from agency to agency.

[37:28] and telework can also support recruitment and retention as

[37:32] well and helping address job vacancies.

[37:34] I would also note that it is an important tool that we utilize.

[37:37] >> ok. I guess I'm just uneasy in

[37:43] thinking about a lot of examples of staffing challenges that we

[37:48] are having and needing people to be in person, and I know we've

[37:54] kind of made a lot of changes since this was previously

[37:57] discussed to chip away at some of those changes.

[38:00] many of those may be the right approach, but I worry about

[38:07] adding this tool in the context we are finding ourselves in with

[38:14] staffing. >> I would just say, I think

[38:19] councilmember henderson hinted toward this earlier.

[38:21] one of the issues with this altogether is that it was not a

[38:25] subtitle that we had a hearing on, that we got feedback on.

[38:28] from the procedural aspect, we are doing a lot of piecemeal

[38:32] things because we should technically be handling this in

[38:35] a hearing and getting feedback. My amendment seeks to reduce

[38:42] some of the harm from the route that we are taking moving

[38:48] forward. >> thank you, mr. Chair.

[38:52] I'm in support of this amendment.

[38:56] I also want to try to clarify for the public as well, we are

[39:03] not adding anything here. From the examples of the

[39:05] negotiating contract with the teachers for the police union,

[39:12] first off, they have existing contracts so they are already

[39:14] grandfathered. But they conceivably could have

[39:18] bargained a telework policy for teachers or police officers.

[39:22] it wouldn't make much sense to do that, but they could.

[39:29] we want to just preserve the right to be able to negotiate.

[39:32] I don't see any harm in making sure that parties can bring what

[39:37] they want to bring to the bargaining table to negotiate.

[39:40] will likely see practical decisions made.

[39:43] my kid's fourth grade teacher isn't going to telework.

[39:49] so there is a part of that that is just a practical part of what

[39:54] would actually happen, but that is what already exists.

[39:57] we are not adding anything. This is just ensuring that

[40:00] people can bargain for what they want to bargain for, and that is

[40:03] part of the collective bargaining process.

[40:06] I support your effort here and your amendment because it is not

[40:09] adding anything, just maintaining the ability to

[40:12] bargain. And I think that is a pretty

[40:15] core value that we want to have for our workers across the

[40:18] district. Thank you.

[40:20] chair mendelson: if there's nothing further, if there's no

[40:26] objection, the amendment will be accepted.

[40:34] hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted.

[40:38] councilmember lewis george? >> this is a small amendment but

[40:44] it means a great deal toward t --o -- to ward iv.

[40:50] it holds tennis tournaments that bring significant tax revenue to

[40:56] the district. However the ability to do so is

[40:59] jeopardized by its core condition.

[41:04] and I always support at the district doing its part to

[41:05] ensure these tournaments can continue.

[41:06] I also share the unease of residents with local dollars

[41:13] being used on a federal property.

[41:15] that is why I've advocated for meaningful safeguards of

[41:20] taxpayer dollars since the council first authorized money

[41:22] for this project last year. I want to thank you for adding

[41:26] language to the ans that specifies the district taxpayer

[41:32] dollars allocated to the rock creek tennis center can be used

[41:33] only on improvements that are necessary to bring the center

[41:39] into compliance with professional league standards.

[41:42] this language addresses my previous concern that we were

[41:45] sending, using millions of dollars in federal property

[41:49] without controlled and what it would be spent on, such as

[41:52] larger and differences to the property that different

[41:56] taxpayers should not have to pay for.

[41:58] my amended creates oversight to provide quarterly updates to the

[42:06] public. These updates must address the

[42:10] work being done to the tennis center, a completion will impact

[42:15] residents and businesses in crestwood neighbors.

[42:20] with my amendment and the language adding the ans, I am

[42:24] confident the repairs necessary to bring the rock creek tennis

[42:26] center into compliance with professional tournament

[42:28] standards can be completed before the 2027 d.c. Open and

[42:33] that local dollars will be used transparently can only is

[42:35] intended. I ask that you and our

[42:39] colleagues accept this amendment as friendly and with that, I

[42:41] move the amendment. Chair mendelson: thank you.

[42:43] . I want to emphasize what you

[42:48] just said, and that is that this is about bringing the stadium

[42:55] and the related facilities like the locker rooms and the bubble

[43:00] into decent condition and also ensure that the association of

[43:06] tennis professionals tours and women's tennis association tour

[43:11] are comfortable with this facility.

[43:21] if there's no objection, this amendment will be accepted.

[43:33] councilmember lewis-george? >> I am moving them amendment to

[43:39] strike title ii third-party income verification amendment

[43:43] act from the budget support act. While there are well-documented

[43:48] challenges and delays in the inclusionary zoning program, I

[43:54] am concerned that shifting income verification back to the

[43:56] private market, a method we tried before could create

[43:59] problems we've already seen. When developers previously have

[44:03] this responsibility, we heard stories of units going to

[44:07] hassles that were not income eligible as well as reports of

[44:13] discriminate practices that prevented eligible residents

[44:16] from spitting. Some try to circumvent the

[44:22] existing process by going around the lottery system for

[44:28] affordable units. We have that operate in this

[44:34] way. Finding available low income

[44:36] housing, tax credit units are getting on to wait lists is not

[44:43] straightforward for families seeking stable, affordable

[44:44] homes. Getting this authority could

[44:47] create simple barriers but without the benefit of federal

[44:55] oversight to ensure compliance. I believe we should be investing

[45:03] in stronger monitoring compliance and administration to

[45:04] make the inclusionary zoning program more successful.

[45:05] not handing these responsibilities off with

[45:08] limited account ability. I look forward to working with

[45:12] councilmember robert white to identify a solution that

[45:17] improves the efficiency of the program while preserving strong

[45:20] oversight and ensuring the program remains fair, consistent

[45:24] and accessible to district residents.

[45:26] with that, I move the amendment. Chair mendelson: thank you, is

[45:30] there discussion? >> thank you, chairman, and

[45:36] thank you councilmember lewis george for your amendment.

[45:39] I think we both recognized that there are problems with the

[45:42] program. We have units that need to be

[45:46] going as quickly as possible and that is not happening.

[45:53] these changes would not go in effect until october, just two

[45:57] months before a new administration.

[46:00] I think it makes sense to work together on this since we have

[46:04] the same goals. Thank you, chairman.

[46:07] chair mendelson: you said you support the amendment.

[46:11] is there further discussion? If there's no objection, the

[46:16] amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

[46:24] accepted. Councilmember felder.

[46:31] >> mr. Chairman, can you come back?

[46:36] chair mendelson: come back to you?

[46:42] councilmember -- I don't know if I recognize councilmember pinto

[46:47] or crawford. Who wants to go for this one?

[46:51] >> algo ahead. Thank you, mr. Chairman.

[46:59] I'm pleased to offer amendment today with councilmember

[47:02] crawford. The greater parking performance

[47:08] zone or the parking zone encompasses two existing main

[47:10] street areas. The funding that is derived by

[47:19] the parking zone is significant as we discussed, and our local

[47:24] businesses are quite literally the driving force behind the

[47:27] funds that are generated from this parking zone.

[47:31] I think it's important that we ensure some of the money that is

[47:36] generated through the zones are set aside for our existing teams

[47:42] that support u-street and shah that are within the parking

[47:46] zone. These will enhance cleanliness

[47:49] and safety along these corridors, attracting and

[47:52] maintaining more visitors and businesses while also serving

[47:56] residents and neighbors who come to enjoy these areas.

[48:00] these neighborhoods within the parking zone should be

[48:02] prioritized with funding that is generated, parking revenue

[48:08] within the same zone. There's also a small technical

[48:09] change that we are moving. The word "covered" has been

[48:13] substituted for the word "within" just to ensure that the

[48:17] revenue stays within the entirety of the parking zone.

[48:21] I also just want to note this has been an issue that

[48:27] councilmember nadeau and I have worked on together for many

[48:32] years, given that these boundaries include businesses

[48:35] both in ward I and ward ii so I want to be as deferential as

[48:41] possible to the areas in ward I that you were trying to

[48:46] establish here with the parking zone in and of itself, and

[48:51] almost all of that is maintained.

[48:54] this amendment the councilmember crawford and I are moving today

[48:57] is just about $100,000 out of this million dollar fund set up

[49:04] for place making purposes to ensure that the existing

[49:07] businesses and main street that are already operating can have

[49:10] some money set aside to work on activities that maintain

[49:15] cleanliness and safety. What is frankly, desperately

[49:18] needed in this area.

[49:26] councilmember mendelson: thank you, councilmember pinto.

[49:32] consomm under -- councilmember crawford.

[49:36] councilmember crawford: thank you.

[49:38] thank you for working with my team on this amendment.

[49:41] I expressed concern about the subtitle when it was introduced

[49:45] at first reading, and I do not support it because of issues

[49:48] raised by the community around the initial lack of engagement,

[49:52] potential future bid boundaries, and how funding could be shared.

[49:59] with this amendment, we are making a targeted adjustment to

[50:02] make sure the benefits of parking revenue are felt more

[50:04] directly by the corridor's and neighborhoods where that brick

[50:08] -- revenue is generated. In my office has spoken with

[50:12] shaw main street and we have heard their concerns about

[50:14] ensuring there is flexibility for potential u street bid

[50:18] boundaries and that shaw is not left out of the investments

[50:21] connected to this parking zone. This amendment response to those

[50:25] concerns by clarifying the language referring to the area

[50:27] and making clear both sean main street and the u u street main

[50:34] street should receive dedicated support for cleanliness and

[50:38] safety. I want to think councilmember

[50:40] pinto for her partnership, and I urge my colleagues to support

[50:44] it. Councilmember mendelson: thank

[50:48] you. Anything further on this?

[50:51] councilmember nadeau? Council member naito: I want to

[50:55] thank all my colleagues for working with us on first reading

[50:59] to get this passed. What we have done in the bsa is

[51:07] ensure all the revenue from the performance parking zone that

[51:11] has been generated will go to the greater u street area.

[51:17] I am asking members not to support this amendment.

[51:22] first of all, the engrossed version sets aside $1 million

[51:28] for the creation of a new place management entity, which we do

[51:33] expect to be a bid, although it could be the neighborhood

[51:36] management authority. We are keeping it open to see

[51:40] which one succeeds. The reason I say it that way is,

[51:44] for the past 20 years -- and longer, but since my time on the

[51:47] anc, u street has been trying so hard to create a bid to support

[51:53] the small businesses in the community there.

[51:56] there have been three or maybe four attempts at this, and they

[52:04] just keep failing. One of the reasons I created the

[52:08] performance parking zone was to ensure that there would be

[52:12] funding available to get a place management entity, like this.

[52:17] come up and running, for u street once and for all.

[52:23] because it is an area that is not just any commercial

[52:26] corridor, it also attracts nightlife.

[52:27] it is a place that, unfortunately over the years,

[52:32] had had violence, there is a lot of trash -- there are all the

[52:36] things, when you bring people together in a space like this.

[52:40] this amendment takes money away from that $1 million pot

[52:45] unnecessarily, because the whole pot is actually more than $3

[52:48] million. The rest of the subtitle

[52:55] specifies that remaining balance shall be used solely for the

[52:58] following purposes within and immediately adjacent to the u

[53:04] street performance parking zone. Place management initiatives,

[53:08] which I would argue clearly would be main street's, space

[53:12] maintenance of which our clean teams do, public safety

[53:16] initiatives, which that nightlife task force does and

[53:20] clean teams do, and support for businesses, which is what our

[53:29] main streets are all about. I would argue that, we are

[53:37] somewhat arbitrarily setting aside $50,000 for each main

[53:41] street. But I am not clear on what that

[53:44] money is going to do or why we need that specific amount.

[53:48] what I think is a wiser approach, which is what we have

[53:51] done in the bsa, is to specify all these uses for this area and

[54:02] not name who is going to get it now.

[54:07] because these may be organizations that have stepped

[54:10] up in the past week and said I will take $50,000, but there is

[54:13] a lot of work going on in the u street corridor, and I do not

[54:18] think we know who else may benefit from these funds.

[54:23] so I asked members not to support this amendment.

[54:28] mainly because these are already allowable uses, and there is no

[54:33] need to undercut the work of creating a bid by taking

[54:36] $100,000 away from it. By the way, that $1 million is

[54:40] not arbitrary, that is the amount the people working to

[54:43] establish the bid have said they need for start up costs, and

[54:47] that is why we set that at that amount.

[54:50] thank you, mr. Chairman. Councilmember mendelson: further

[54:54] on this, who has not spoken? Councilmember allen?

[54:58] councilmember allen: I had a question for councilmember

[55:02] nadeau. My understanding is one of the

[55:06] concerns expressed previously was around just ensuring that

[55:11] dollars used for the curbside program would be restored and

[55:15] returned back to the ppz fund, and the ans reflects that?

[55:19] councilmember nadeau: yes. Councilmember allen: if $100,000

[55:25] were pulled out of said fund, and now not used for automated

[55:31] curbside management, when, as the ans does, ensures it gets

[55:38] injured, it would be -100,000 dollars, because it would be

[55:41] diverted for a different purpose?

[55:42] is that correct? Councilmember nadeau: that is a

[55:44] good question. I do not know the answer, and I

[55:48] think that is another reason why we should not be tweaking it,

[55:53] because we work hard with the budget office to make sure those

[55:55] friends -- funds would get replenished appropriately.

[55:59] councilmember allen: my concern would be -- I am not speaking to

[56:03] the attention -- intention here, but that an unintended

[56:09] consequence would be we pull out a one time fund, but then those

[56:12] dollars are not being restored to the ppz fund, which then does

[56:16] not allow it to do what it had been created to do.

[56:21] that is a concern of mine, that we end up diluting the fund and

[56:27] the effectiveness it has. So I will support you on this

[56:31] one, councilmember nadeau, but appreciate it.

[56:33] councilmember nadeau: thank you so much.

[56:37] you are reminding me of something else, while I have the

[56:40] floor, which is that both u street and shaw streets serve

[56:47] the greater u street, but sharp street covers a large area

[56:54] outside the performance parking zone, so that further

[56:57] complicates the issue, because this money may only be spent

[57:00] within that boundary. Councilmember mendelson:

[57:02] councilmember pinto, second round.

[57:04] councilmember pinto: thank you gave thanks for that discussion.

[57:07] councilmember allen, to that point, the reason why it is so

[57:12] important the funds be restored to the ppz zone is because that

[57:18] is where the money is being generated from.

[57:22] so this is circumventing that step, to say $50,000 to each of

[57:28] these organizations is going to be set aside.

[57:30] this, in now way, is meant to undermine the establishment of a

[57:36] bid in u street. We've had lots of discussions

[57:42] about the right boundaries for the bid and the needs of the

[57:44] area and the needs of the ward 1 and 2 businesses there, and I am

[57:51] a huge believer a bid would be very, very helpful.

[57:54] we have lots of locations in the city -- ward 2 is a happy

[58:00] beneficiary of several -- where we have coexisting main street

[58:01] and bids. We have this in dupont circle,

[58:06] in georgetown. In both of those contexts and

[58:11] neighborhoods, it is extremely helpful to have both of those

[58:15] entities overlay. And some have different

[58:21] boundaries and some help each other out with various needs,

[58:23] but they serve different functions.

[58:25] so making sure that shaw is not left behind and that u street

[58:33] main street is not left behind in the formation of any sort of

[58:35] new bid or new mna is really important, and that is why I and

[58:41] others have heard from so many of our local businesses over the

[58:45] last several weeks and months and years on this issue.

[58:48] they want to benefit from changes to the neighborhood but,

[58:52] understandably, they want to make sure that they can last

[58:55] long enough to see those benefits.

[58:57] that's where I think the main streets and having focus on

[59:02] cleanliness and safety is so important.

[59:05] so this is a tiny fraction of the money that is going to be

[59:07] generated from this. I ask my colleagues to support

[59:11] us on this so we can make sure that our shaw main street and

[59:14] our u street main street's have the support they need.

[59:18] councilmember mendelson: thank you.

[59:20] councilmember bonds. Councilmember bonds: thank you

[59:24] very much, chairman. While I have not been a party to

[59:30] the conversations about the creation of this subtitle, I am

[59:36] very curious as to what would be the harm in both of the bids

[59:42] sharing a small amount of funding?

[59:48] you are saying that maybe $3 million will be derived from

[59:55] these new parking costs to those who utilize the space.

[1:00:01] if that is the case, we are now talking about $100,000.

[1:00:05] we are talking about two defined groups or organizations within a

[1:00:13] community. Seems to me, at a time when we

[1:00:17] have very limited resources, and these resources are coming from

[1:00:23] those who partake of the activity in these areas, I do

[1:00:30] not see any harm in both organizations having a kitty to

[1:00:37] do the cleanup. We all know, when you have a

[1:00:43] nightlife, there is need for cleanup.

[1:00:45] what's the harm, and why are we having this kind of argument on

[1:00:49] the dais, as if there is something wrong with how we

[1:00:55] spend a limited amount of resources?

[1:00:56] just curious. >> may I have another round?

[1:01:01] councilmember bonds: my question is to councilmember pinto.

[1:01:09] >> ok. Councilmember pinto: thank you.

[1:01:16] I agree with you in that this is just a need of the neighborhood.

[1:01:22] I think the disagreement may be around the authorized purposes

[1:01:27] of this fund. I actually do not think we are

[1:01:31] far apart. All of these uses can and should

[1:01:35] proceed, and I believe will proceed if our amendment passes,

[1:01:40] which will just ensure the existing main streets and

[1:01:43] businesses have some benefit, and that the other intentions

[1:01:47] and goals that councilmember nadeau is trying to move forward

[1:01:52] for the neighbor can be achieved as well.

[1:01:55] I believe everyone's goals can be met and can be met with

[1:01:58] passing this amendment. Councilmember mendelson: if

[1:02:01] there is no further? Councilmember frumin.

[1:02:03] councilmember frumin: thank you very much, chairman mendelson.

[1:02:11] if I understand it correctly, much of shaw main street's is

[1:02:16] inside of the performance parking area.

[1:02:18] so you do get a sense, from folks in the shaw main street's,

[1:02:23] that they want to be a clear beneficiary of this, and I can

[1:02:27] understand where that is coming from, honestly.

[1:02:32] also, in the conversation about it, so much of the emphasis is

[1:02:37] about u street that one can understand how shaw main

[1:02:43] street's would feel like this is money that comes in part from

[1:02:48] where we are, yet all the conversation is about a

[1:02:51] different place. I get that sensitivity.

[1:02:55] also, when I look at the dollars, the dollars for the bid

[1:03:00] , in the text that exists, or $800,000.

[1:03:04] in the amended text, it is $900,000.

[1:03:08] so it does seem like the support for a potential bid is there.

[1:03:14] then on the idea of why would you pick some institutions to

[1:03:18] benefit, in the revised text -- and I 110% report it -- there is

[1:03:27] opening the door to a pacific set aside to the

[1:03:31] african-american civil museum, which I think is right.

[1:03:37] but is another specific reference.

[1:03:40] it seems like this is a struggle over $50,000, which seems like

[1:03:45] why would we spend so much time on this?

[1:03:48] and the fact that it is so hard, I guess, also contributes to the

[1:03:53] sensitivity in the shock community about this.

[1:03:56] my inclination is to support this amendment.

[1:03:58] I do not know where it will go. It does not seem like the stakes

[1:04:01] should be that high, so I hope you can get this done.

[1:04:06] councilmember mendelson: councilmember nadeau, second

[1:04:08] round. Councilmember nadeau: once

[1:04:12] again, I am asking colleagues not to support this amendment.

[1:04:14] as I began earlier, u street has been trying to establish a bid

[1:04:20] for 20 years. This amendment literally takes

[1:04:23] 10% of the funds from what the folks trying to form a bid said

[1:04:28] they need for their business plan.

[1:04:30] those are not loose numbers. It is what it takes to start it.

[1:04:35] what I am concerned about here is that, together in the ans, we

[1:04:46] created a fund that actually supports all the entities we are

[1:04:47] talking about today, and by moving this amendment, we are

[1:04:55] now essentially creating drama around two specific entities,

[1:05:00] completely unnecessarily. I do have a question.

[1:05:06] how is the $50,000 going to be spent by each entity?

[1:05:09] we know that? It is a lot of money, as a

[1:05:15] percentage, for these entities' budgets.

[1:05:19] councilmember pinto: the funding is authorized to be spent for

[1:05:24] the maintenance of cleanliness and safety within the zones,

[1:05:29] which are huge needs. And what we hear most regularly,

[1:05:36] both in these organizations and the businesses and the residents

[1:05:38] who are in these areas. And we want it, per your initial

[1:05:44] formulation, to include some flexibility around how those

[1:05:53] activities are defined, because the needs are constantly

[1:05:54] evolving. That is what we are seeing from

[1:05:58] these main streets all the time. They are working on activities

[1:06:01] that are around cleanliness and safety, and what they currently

[1:06:06] have is insufficient to do what the neighborhoods need.

[1:06:07] councilmember nadeau: what is the current clean team budget?

[1:06:10] councilmember pinto: for which organization?

[1:06:18] I do not have that number. Councilmember nadeau: you know

[1:06:22] what percentage of the budget -- councilmember mendelson: your

[1:06:23] time's expired. Councilmember nadeau: I have a

[1:06:28] couple more questions, if it is ok?

[1:06:28] councilmember mendelson: your second round.

[1:06:31] councilmember nadeau: ok. I have concerns because I do not

[1:06:35] think anyone knows exactly how this money will be spent.

[1:06:39] $50,000 is a huge enhancement for a clean team.

[1:06:42] I think we should be enhancing clean teams across the city, for

[1:06:45] sure, but what I would love to see is the language we already

[1:06:50] have here allows a clean team for a main street to say these

[1:06:55] are the blocks I want to expand to, this is the money I need --

[1:06:59] councilmember mendelson: councilmember.

[1:07:00] councilmember nadeau: I have one more question --

[1:07:04] councilmember mendelson: you are over your time.

[1:07:06] >> motion to close debate. Councilmember mendelson: there

[1:07:10] is a motion to close debate. I do not think anyone else is on

[1:07:13] the list to be recognized. >> I just want to make sure.

[1:07:15] [laughter] councilmember mendelson: motion

[1:07:18] to close debate. Assuming it is approved, that

[1:07:23] only those who have not spoken may speak, and the maker of the

[1:07:26] motion. All those in favor of the motion

[1:07:29] to close debate say aye. >> ayes.

[1:07:31] councilmember mendelson: the ayes have it unanimously.

[1:07:36] is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized?

[1:07:39] we have the amendment before us. >> I would.

[1:07:42] like to request a roll call please.

[1:07:43] councilmember mendelson: madam secretary, would you call role?

[1:07:47] councilmember henderson? >> no.

[1:07:53] >> councilmember henderson votes no.

[1:07:56] councilmember lewis george. Councilmember lewis george: no.

[1:08:03] councilmember mendelson: yes. Councilmember nadeau: no.

[1:08:09] councilmember parker: no. Councilmember pinto: yes.

[1:08:18] councilmember robert white: no. Councilmember trayon white: no.

[1:08:25] councilmember allen: no. Councilmember bonds: yes.

[1:08:35] councilmember crawford: yes. Councilmember felder: yes.

[1:08:41] councilmember frumin: yes. >> mr. Chairman, there are six

[1:08:48] yeses and seven nos. Councilmember mendelson:

[1:08:53] vehement fails. Councilmember pinto, I believe

[1:08:55] that was the only amendment you had?

[1:08:57] councilmember pinto: that's right, mr. Chairman.

[1:09:02] councilmember mendelson: next would be, councilmember crawford

[1:09:13] , I believe you have an amendment?

[1:09:14] councilmember crawford: yes. Before I get to my amendment,

[1:09:20] mr. Chairman, you reminded me to confirm a citation that should

[1:09:22] be a technical fix in the subtitle?

[1:09:24] councilmember mendelson: I believe I noted that in the

[1:09:29] beginning. Councilmember crawford: title

[1:09:32] two, subtitle ll. Councilmember mendelson: 2-ll

[1:09:37] line 3. Councilmember crawford: yes,

[1:09:41] thank you. I will now move my amendment

[1:09:43] number one, which would make the language in the bruce munro

[1:09:50] subtitle consistent with the disposition extension language

[1:09:52] of d.c. Law 25-273, the last time a council approved an

[1:10:01] extension of this project. I would also like to thank

[1:10:02] councilmember nadeau for supporting this amendment.

[1:10:06] councilmember mendelson: we have the amended before us.

[1:10:10] is there discussion? Councilmember nadeau: yes,

[1:10:14] chairman. Councilmember crawford, we

[1:10:18] actually have one change we think is important to make.

[1:10:23] I am shy I did not catch you. This transpired while we were

[1:10:26] sitting up here. So I am a little concerned the

[1:10:35] amendment may imply, to some, there has been a change in the

[1:10:38] plans to the space you and I both care about, which is not

[1:10:44] true, so I worry the language might be unnecessarily vague,

[1:10:47] when there are clear plans. This update would specifically

[1:10:52] reference -- let me pass it down to you, so you can see.

[1:10:58] as approved by the zoning commission for the district of

[1:11:01] columbia and zoning commission order and in any subsequent

[1:11:08] applicable orders, we think that addresses our concern.

[1:11:11] the reference to the zoning order is really important,

[1:11:14] because that is -- if it is ok with you, I would like to add

[1:11:19] that language, then I would encourage the chairman to accept

[1:11:21] it. Councilmember mendelson: you

[1:11:23] will have to repeat it. After the phrase, after public

[1:11:28] uses is used by the zoning commission?

[1:11:30] councilmember nadeau: for the district of columbia, zoning

[1:11:34] commission order number 1611, and in any subsequent applicable

[1:11:39] orders. I have a couple paper copies.

[1:11:45] how do I get it to you guys? Can someone this -- run this

[1:11:49] down? Councilmember mendelson: this

[1:11:52] strikes me as unnecessarily wordy.

[1:11:54] >> I think it is the language we need.

[1:11:57] councilmember mendelson: as approved by the zoning

[1:12:00] commission. We kind of know who that is

[1:12:04] without further saying district of columbia.

[1:12:08] order 1611 and any further subsequent, isn't that, like --

[1:12:18] are there further proceedings? Why would we go there?

[1:12:22] >> I think to cover our bases. Councilmember mendelson: well,

[1:12:28] it's the -- it'd be nice if this had been

[1:12:32] worked out earlier. >> it reflects the language we

[1:12:37] use in the fy or two vsa. >> in the what?

[1:12:40] >> fy 22 vsa. Councilmember mendelson: as

[1:12:46] approved by the zoning commission for the district of

[1:12:48] columbia in zoning order 1611 and any --

[1:12:55] councilmember nadeau? Councilmember nadeau: and in any

[1:12:59] subsequent applicable orders. Councilmember mendelson: give me

[1:13:19] just a second.

[1:14:49] councilmember mendelson: councilmember nadeau, the fy 22

[1:14:54] park morton lang which also cited order 1612, you are

[1:14:58] mentioning that? Councilmember nadeau: no.

[1:15:00] councilmember mendelson: I don't know the orders.

[1:15:02] why would you mention one but not the other?

[1:15:06] councilmember nadeau: two different sites?

[1:15:09] councilmember mendelson: I don't know.

[1:15:12] councilmember nadeau: it's not the same location.

[1:15:16] it's two different orders. Councilmember mendelson:

[1:15:21] councilmember crawford, this language was used before, even

[1:15:25] though it strikes me as unnecessarily wordy.

[1:15:28] do you have a problem with it? Councilmember crawford: I don't

[1:15:33] believe so. I consulted with the ogc.

[1:15:34] I didn't have time to review it, so.

[1:15:38] councilmember mendelson: I will say, if there is no objection,

[1:15:43] councilmember nadeau's oral amendment would be accepted to

[1:15:47] councilmember crawford's written amendment.

[1:15:50] I will repeat the language. It would say, including

[1:15:55] specified site usage requirements for public parks

[1:15:58] and other uses has been approved by the zoning commission for the

[1:16:03] district of columbia in zoning order 1611 and any subsequent

[1:16:06] applicable orders. It is extended to december 2029.

[1:16:12] hearing no objection, that oral amendment is accepted.

[1:16:16] we have the amendment, written amendment, before us that

[1:16:23] change. If there is no objection, it

[1:16:28] will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

[1:16:33] accepted. We are clear on that?

[1:16:40] I am looking at general counsel. Councilmember nadeau.

[1:16:49] councilmember nadeau: I withdraw my amendment to the telework

[1:16:55] subtitle. Councilmember mendelson:

[1:16:59] councilmember felder. Councilmember felder: thank you,

[1:17:03] mr. Chairman. I would like to move amendments

[1:17:04] 1, 2, and 3 in block, as they each make that same technical

[1:17:11] conforming corrections. Specifically, each amendment

[1:17:13] updates the definition of certified business enterprise to

[1:17:18] ensure it remains consistent with existing d.c. Law.

[1:17:23] the mmn's apply to subtitle c, workforce housing, subtitle d,

[1:17:32] development of former federal properties, and subtitle e,

[1:17:35] wmata joint properties. As we recently legislated, cbd

[1:17:45] should be limited to only those businesses in the district.

[1:17:48] if we allow for the expanded definition, I fear businesses

[1:17:51] can take advantage of the district's cbd benefits.

[1:17:56] and for the record, we inadvertently circulated these

[1:18:00] as amendments to the in gross version, and they should have

[1:18:04] been to the ans. Councilmember mendelson: I don't

[1:18:11] think there is any problem with that, since general counsel is

[1:18:14] aware. >> yes, we are.

[1:18:17] councilmember felder: thank you. Councilmember mendelson: is

[1:18:20] there discussion? If there is no objection, these

[1:18:26] three amendments will be accepted.

[1:18:31] hearing no objection, they are accepted.

[1:18:33] councilmember felder: thank you, mr. Chairman.

[1:18:36] councilmember mendelson: yes, councilmember felder?

[1:18:39] councilmember felder: thank you, mr. Chairman.

[1:18:41] that's it. Councilmember mendelson: I'm not

[1:18:45] aware of any other amendments. Is there any other discussion?

[1:18:49] councilmember trayon white: chairman.

[1:18:52] my amendment is friendly for councilmember allen's amendment.

[1:19:00] I can read it and circulate it. C1

[1:19:16] and this is to ensure that as we consider the relief for d.c.

[1:19:22] water, that there is also relief for the ratepayers at the same

[1:19:28] time. I will read it.

[1:19:31] amending section 225.1c1, municipal regulations.

[1:19:43] amending the subparagraph to read the following -- beginning

[1:19:47] in october 1, 2020, any rate increases for water and soil

[1:19:54] services as a result of an increase of the public and

[1:19:57] convenience fees set forward in subparagraph c shall expire.

[1:20:07] one would sunset and the other would increase and would only be

[1:20:16] in place to ensure the rate increase past onto the d.c.

[1:20:20] ratepayers but also cease at the same time.

[1:20:26] chair mendelson: discussion. Councilmember allen?

[1:20:31] cm allen: I think at least in the way that I'm reading this

[1:20:41] I'm not sure we are actually legally allowed to do this

[1:20:47] because if I'm reading this correctly what it is saying is

[1:20:51] that is directing the council -- saying that the council is

[1:20:56] directing specific rates for water and sewer services.

[1:20:59] I don't know if we need to turn to general counsel to ask around

[1:21:04] this. I understand the spirit in which

[1:21:06] it is being offered. I don't believe we are able to

[1:21:09] actually set the rate. Chair mendelson: do you have the

[1:21:16] language, general counsel? >> it doesn't set the rate.

[1:21:23] it expires the rate increase that was increased by.

[1:21:25] chair mendelson: beginning october 1, 2030, that is

[1:21:29] consistent with the amendment, any rate increases for water and

[1:21:35] sewer services, I repeat any rate increases that were a

[1:21:41] result of the increase of the public and convenience fees set

[1:21:46] forth in subparagraphc of this paragraph shall expire.

[1:21:53] councilmember allen, did you have anything more to say?

[1:21:58] cm allen: it's not a disagreement around the spirit,

[1:22:02] it to me is our oversight function, to make sure that any

[1:22:07] rate from the mayor is passed on to ratepayers when the pith goes

[1:22:13] away is no longer present in a bill, my issue is I just don't

[1:22:17] believe that legislatively we can write what the rate increase

[1:22:22] is as much as I would love to do that, I don't think we can.

[1:22:26] I'm sure d.c. Water would love it if we could set their rates.

[1:22:30] chair mendelson: I would add that there was a certain amount

[1:22:35] of vagueness here. Not so much in the writing, but

[1:22:40] any rate increases that were a result of the increase in the

[1:22:42] public and convenience fee, so unless that were to be itemized

[1:22:47] as part of a ratesetting by d.c. Water, I don't know how anybody

[1:22:51] would be able to figure out what is expiring.

[1:22:56] I mean, I'm assuming the rate increases are not too much

[1:23:01] different. Cm white: we were told by d.c.

[1:23:04] water there would be rate increases based on us adding

[1:23:07] this pith. So whatever those rate increases

[1:23:13] were speaks to the language. Chair mendelson: yes, but

[1:23:17] typically I don't know if d.c. Water would have a ratemaking

[1:23:23] case where they would say that pif is going up and therefore

[1:23:29] the rates are going up. Cm white: that's exactly what

[1:23:32] they said. Chair mendelson: I'm assuming

[1:23:35] there was a ratesetting case right now and there would be one

[1:23:38] in a few years and it would encompass each more than just

[1:23:43] the pif. Cm allen: and my point again is

[1:23:49] that as I read the statute the powers delegated to the power

[1:23:53] and water board are to set, just, and levy rates, and that

[1:24:01] is not a power we have so I don't believe as well as the

[1:24:06] intentioned as this is, the way we get after this, I don't think

[1:24:13] we can do this. Cm allen: so how do we ensure

[1:24:18] after we sunset this that the rates for the ratepayers sunset

[1:24:23] as well, the answer was oversight and I'm not sure what

[1:24:29] oversight can do if it is already done.

[1:24:31] cm allen: and what we are hearing is we have oversight

[1:24:36] over d.c. Water and other utilities, so the oversight

[1:24:39] would be the work we do in our committee and oversight over

[1:24:43] that, as well as the d.c. Representatives that sit on the

[1:24:46] d.c. Water board themselves appointed by the mayor and the

[1:24:49] council, so we have multiple spaces where we can exert our

[1:24:55] oversight influence to ensure that when it sunsets, those

[1:24:58] rates accrued to that are no longer reflected.

[1:25:05] ogc can opine. >> what I think you said is

[1:25:10] correct. Cm white: can you give details?

[1:25:12] >> that we cannot set the rates. Cm white: do you view this as

[1:25:18] setting rates are sunsetting a bill?

[1:25:19] >> the way this reads is that you are saying no other rate,

[1:25:29] the rate itself shall expire. So that is setting a rate.

[1:25:34] >> mr. German? Chair mendelson: councilmember

[1:25:39] parker? Cm parker: on the merits of the

[1:25:42] argument, the council many weeks ago said pepco could not shut

[1:25:50] off people service. I'm challenging the assertion

[1:25:55] that this would be legally affecting a rate.

[1:26:00] what I think councilmember white is trying to do and I don't want

[1:26:04] to speak for him but what I'm interpreting it as, if d.c.

[1:26:08] water is making an argument they are raising rates because of the

[1:26:12] pif, pif goes away they should be forced to acknowledge what

[1:26:20] the rate increase was and remove that increase.

[1:26:21] on its merits, I just of the language so I can't wait in on

[1:26:24] how it is written, but I think it has merit.

[1:26:29] I also think the irony of this is it calls into question what I

[1:26:34] think is that d.c. Water said they will have to raise rates.

[1:26:46] I think I get what councilmember white is trying to do and I

[1:26:49] challenge the assertion that he wouldn't have the legal right to

[1:26:53] say you can't charge ratepayers for an increased rate the same

[1:26:58] way we band pepco shut offs a few weeks ago.

[1:27:05] >> is that a question? Cm parker: no, just adding my

[1:27:12] two cents that I don't know what we do after that but maybe

[1:27:17] councilmember white will rewrite the language or work with

[1:27:19] general counsel to rewrite the language not to prolong this

[1:27:22] what I sense he is trying to do is to force d.c. Water to say

[1:27:25] what is the increase if any and to hold them accountable to not

[1:27:32] passing those increases on to residents and I know we don't

[1:27:36] want to prolong the meeting, but I think if d.c. Water is arguing

[1:27:40] this point to push back, I think it has merit.

[1:27:45] >> mr. German? Mr. Chairman?

[1:27:51] chair mendelson: councilmember frumin.

[1:27:54] cm frumin: I also get the spirit of what councilmember white is

[1:27:59] trying to do. And it is, d.c. Water is saying

[1:28:06] that if we have to pay these fees we need to pass them onto

[1:28:11] folks. I think that is a reality.

[1:28:15] that in setting the rates there is a look at all of the costs

[1:28:20] d.c. Water has experienced and there is an effort to recoup

[1:28:24] those costs. I wonder and it may be semantic

[1:28:29] that doesn't make a difference, but I wonder if this language

[1:28:34] said that after 2030 that the sunset of the pif needs to be

[1:28:51] taken into account in the establishment of the rates.

[1:28:53] it is a changed reality that could result in lower rates or a

[1:29:00] slower increase in 2030, but if it is going to sunset and the

[1:29:08] goal is that that has a positive effect for ratepayers, can we

[1:29:18] say it should be taken into account without saying what the

[1:29:22] specific rate change is? I would suspect that the

[1:29:27] legislation authorizes a look at a variety of things so adding

[1:29:31] this to the list of things or could be different than setting

[1:29:38] the rates. Is there something like that?

[1:29:49] >> what was the question? Cm frumin: the question is is

[1:29:56] there a way to phrase that sows that we are urging the sunset be

[1:30:00] taken into account in the establishment of the rate?

[1:30:08] I would suspect there are a list of factors looked at in setting

[1:30:11] the rate in the first place. In that way we are not setting

[1:30:15] the rate but we are underscore why we are doing this because we

[1:30:22] want some relief and we wanted to be taken into account.

[1:30:24] >> I would have to take a look at the regulation, we are doing

[1:30:32] this on the fly. I suggest this needs to be

[1:30:36] looked at an oversight. I don't have the regulations in

[1:30:39] front of me to look at this specifically.

[1:30:40] chair mendelson: I'm going to roll this out of order because

[1:30:44] it would appear to be trying to set rates for the water and

[1:30:48] sewer authority, which I don't believe we have the authority to

[1:30:52] do. The rates can be set either

[1:30:56] explicitly or directly as in the rates shall be x amount or the

[1:31:01] rate could be set by saying you have to reduce what you are

[1:31:06] charging. There is a certain amount of

[1:31:11] vagueness here because I doubt that the water and sewer

[1:31:13] authority is going to have a ratesetting case that is going

[1:31:16] to be tied solely, explicitly and only to the public and

[1:31:20] convenience fee which is may be a couple million dollars in

[1:31:25] costs for the hundreds of millions of dollar operation.

[1:31:32] but this gets at the issue of what the rates are and I think

[1:31:35] that exceeds our authority and thus this is out of order.

[1:31:39] cm white: I'm going to move to recess for a second and speak

[1:31:44] with general counsel to get this corrected.

[1:31:47] you are making assumptions and I spoke to d.c. Water

[1:31:50] representatives today that said specifically that they were

[1:31:53] going to increase rates due to this pif and you are saying they

[1:31:58] don't think they are. If we could recess for a moment

[1:32:04] so I can speak to general counsel.

[1:32:05] chair mendelson: a motion to recess.

[1:32:10] all those in favor say aye? Opposed say no.

[1:32:17] the motion fails. Cm white: roll call.

[1:32:21] they don't even know what the rollcall was.

[1:32:23] chair mendelson: I'm sorry, mr. White.

[1:32:28] and I'm not sure I appreciate the chaos here.

[1:32:31] cm white: so you know who voted on what.

[1:32:34] chair mendelson: the motion failed.

[1:32:36] cm white: that is crazy. Chair mendelson: is there

[1:32:42] further discussion? Well, we have the amendment and

[1:32:49] the nature of the substitute as amended.

[1:32:53] if there is no further discussion the vote will be on

[1:32:56] the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.

[1:33:07] the voting will be on the amendment the nature of the

[1:33:10] substitute as amended. Councilmember pinto.

[1:33:14] cm pinto: ok, think is so much, mr. Chairman.

[1:33:23] and thank you for all of your work on the bsa and your team

[1:33:27] and the budget office and I think that this bsa does a lot

[1:33:32] of very important things about making workforce housing more

[1:33:36] pop -- possible. About pass-throughs to support

[1:33:41] working families. It does a lot of things to

[1:33:45] ensure that as we still have more building vacancies downtown

[1:33:51] that we can generate more revenue through those transfers.

[1:33:56] I do have a couple of questions and concerns, I'm very concerned

[1:34:03] about this delivery fee that has been placed in that I worry is

[1:34:09] going to impact lots of families across the district to order

[1:34:14] groceries or who order deliveries.

[1:34:19] I do hope that something, that we are not disadvantaging our

[1:34:30] residents who are trying to order food who live in parts of

[1:34:34] the city without access to as many grocery stores.

[1:34:43] I also want to ask about some of the construction projects in the

[1:34:50] pipeline and this is in relation to the gas band that goes into

[1:34:57] effect december 2026. Are you aware of how this will

[1:35:01] impact current projects in the pipeline scheduled to be built

[1:35:07] and if this would allow those to proceed?

[1:35:16] chair mendelson: who are you asking?

[1:35:19] cm pinto: you. Chair mendelson: me?

[1:35:23] I'm happy to talk about it. What I think of as the net zero

[1:35:31] subtitle, am I correct? Cm pinto: yes.

[1:35:35] I'm referring to the permit cutoff date.

[1:35:39] chair mendelson: this was in the mayor's introduced bill.

[1:35:50] it came out of committee largely unchanged.

[1:35:55] there was a negotiation between two members between

[1:36:00] councilmember alan and councilmember lewis george that

[1:36:04] was approved. My recollection is the nature of

[1:36:10] the substitute does not make any changes.

[1:36:12] the mayor had proposed very simply extending or prolonging

[1:36:15] or delaying net 04 a year. The version would delay the net

[1:36:27] zero law by a year but many of the requirements are in the

[1:36:34] subtitle that is before us. You have been approached with

[1:36:42] regard to the way you characterized it is the

[1:36:46] prohibition of gas. It's not a complete prohibition

[1:36:51] and the way I said it was way too oversimplified.

[1:36:57] new construction for covered buildings and certain buildings.

[1:37:03] and it is a ban on gas, maybe I should know exactly what I'm

[1:37:11] talking about. I think it is self generating,

[1:37:19] space sitting -- heating and water heating.

[1:37:27] cm pinto: I guess I'm wondering if anyone has analyzed any

[1:37:32] projects currently in the pipeline given that this goes

[1:37:35] into effect any soon and if that would affect any of our

[1:37:40] conversion projects or housing projects especially that are

[1:37:42] planned for downtown. Chair mendelson: I have not done

[1:37:46] that analysis. >> current law states that if a

[1:38:00] new net zero construction code is not finalized by this year at

[1:38:03] the end of this calendar year new construction or level 3

[1:38:07] alterations must be appendix z. The mayor proposed delaying that

[1:38:14] by one year. The revised subtitle maintains

[1:38:15] the one-year delay for final net zero standard that has two

[1:38:22] interim requirements. They would have no on-site

[1:38:27] combustion. And that adds a lot of

[1:38:37] flexibility. Keep in mind that construction

[1:38:41] is able to go through a process to get other exemptions.

[1:38:48] bigs -- big projects and small projects have gone through that.

[1:38:53] green building advisory council. They are the ones who issue

[1:39:00] exemptions from that so the specific question if I heard

[1:39:05] this correctly is that if someone is applying for a

[1:39:14] construction for a level 3 alteration, what would apply?

[1:39:18] it would be the construction code at the time of that.

[1:39:22] if a project is working right now through the permitting

[1:39:25] process they are going through today's rules.

[1:39:30] if d.o.b. Does not have and they are in the permitting process,

[1:39:41] that is what would apply. The permit is tied to win their

[1:39:46] project is based on what the code is at the time.

[1:39:56] cm pinto: so I'm wondering if anybody has analyzed how many

[1:39:58] current projects are in the pipeline that would be impacted

[1:40:01] by the permitting being set this december 2026?

[1:40:10] part of the discussion several months ago was exempting the

[1:40:11] affordable housing projects. >> they are in permitting

[1:40:16] currently undergoing under today's permit rules and if they

[1:40:19] are through a permitting process but if they want to apply for

[1:40:22] the exemptions, they have that as well.

[1:40:27] I do not know the answer to the question of exactly how many

[1:40:31] projects have not begun permitting but would begin

[1:40:34] permitting in january 2027 if dod does not approve their

[1:40:39] construction codes in time and then an interim standard is set.

[1:40:45] it feels like an unknowable answer.

[1:40:48] cm pinto: so, if any project is currently in the pipeline and

[1:40:54] has already applied for a permit the existing permitting rules

[1:40:57] would govern. Cm allen: they are in the

[1:41:00] process. Cm pinto: got it.

[1:41:03] thank you very much. Chair mendelson: further

[1:41:06] discussion on the amendment? Councilmember parker.

[1:41:10] cm parker: thank you, mr. Chairman.

[1:41:12] I have three quick questions, I think noncontroversial.

[1:41:18] in subtitle ee I want to make sure I'm understanding the

[1:41:23] change that you made. Chair mendelson: can you tell me

[1:41:26] where? Cm parker: subtitle ee.

[1:41:32] in terms of page number? Chair mendelson: yes.

[1:41:34] cm parker: I can find that for you.

[1:41:38] give me one second but let me ask the question while my team

[1:41:40] gets the page number. My interpretation of this change

[1:41:45] is that if the council were two earmarked funds for organization

[1:41:52] , that that would supplement whatever grants might be awarded

[1:41:57] by the arts commission versus them subtracting or supplanting

[1:42:01] these funds. Was that the spirit behind that

[1:42:04] change? Page 124, I believe.

[1:42:21] chair mendelson: yes, your interpretation is the same as

[1:42:26] mine. For example right above that

[1:42:31] language is $100,000 would you both advocated for.

[1:42:37] so they would get that grant and then if they applied for general

[1:42:43] operating support grants, which all arts organizations do, they

[1:42:47] would be entitled to whatever that amount would be not offset

[1:42:51] by this $100,000 grant. I think they have a small cap of

[1:42:58] grant programs. If they applied to that, if they

[1:43:00] meet the criteria without being offset by this, there is a

[1:43:06] variety of grants. The one that gets the most

[1:43:10] attention was the general operating support.

[1:43:16] the $100,000 would not reduce any of those other grant amounts

[1:43:20] to which they otherwise would get.

[1:43:24] cm parker: understood and that's great.

[1:43:27] chair mendelson: actually I'm being understood that the

[1:43:31] commission asked for this language.

[1:43:32] cm parker: that's great. I had another question for

[1:43:36] subtitle j about the educator evaluation and performance

[1:43:43] amendment act. Again, I'm getting at the

[1:43:45] attention, I'm clear on what I'm aiming to do with the working

[1:43:49] group. If the teachers union work to

[1:43:55] bargain around, I believe they are allowed to bargain around

[1:44:03] the evaluation system. If there was a proposed change

[1:44:07] by the union and the executive, is this.

[1:44:12] here that we would be waiting for the outcome of this working

[1:44:16] group before proposed changes are made?

[1:44:18] chair mendelson: no. Cm parker: councilmember

[1:44:26] henderson brought this out before, that we want to ensure

[1:44:30] that the new leadership has a roadmap, can you elaborate on

[1:44:35] the outcome you're hoping from this working group?

[1:44:40] is a proposed changes? Is it handing off to the new

[1:44:44] mayor or chancellor to say here is what we learned?

[1:44:46] is it to say we are not going to do anything but what are group

[1:44:51] recommends? Chair mendelson: the intent

[1:44:54] behind this is to not delay anything else that might be

[1:44:57] discussed or negotiated. But I also have some skepticism

[1:45:03] that anything like that would happen.

[1:45:06] the working group is supposed to conclude its work by november 1,

[1:45:11] 2027, a little more than a year from now.

[1:45:14] councilmember parker you are well aware there have been

[1:45:17] complaints with regard to the current evaluation system in the

[1:45:24] d.c. Public schools and the committee and developing this

[1:45:36] subtitle was getting tired of all the criticism with no change

[1:45:39] or no apparent change. So the thinking here is s, the

[1:45:45] council, get a sense of what good evaluation system looks

[1:45:50] like, put that together as a recommendation, and we go from

[1:45:58] there. Cm parker: is that something you

[1:46:06] see legislating or is that a recommendation to the council?

[1:46:08] chair mendelson: it could be either, I don't know.

[1:46:11] cm parker: interesting. Chair mendelson: I'm saying this

[1:46:16] is if I'm being critical. It is truly more of management

[1:46:21] because these complaints, as you know, they did the study at the

[1:46:27] chancellor's request and I shouldn't say study, evaluation.

[1:46:30] they came back and said the impact as and are mostly

[1:46:35] unpopular and that there are some racist outcomes and maybe I

[1:46:40] should say racially biased outcomes.

[1:46:44] so there are these complaints and nothing is done about it, so

[1:46:46] let's just figure out on our own what would look good and then

[1:46:51] based on that we could say to the mayor or chancellor do

[1:47:00] something? Cm parker: awesome, I do recall

[1:47:07] the chancellor looking at or altering the evaluation system

[1:47:11] and to my knowledge that never happened, so these issues never

[1:47:16] have. Last one and we talked about

[1:47:22] this. The brad v. Board.

[1:47:29] chair mendelson: I thought we talked about that over the

[1:47:30] weekend, but ok. Cm pinto: I'm not going to go

[1:47:33] too far, but it brought up a question that the board for

[1:47:38] antideficiency violations, your change as new members, the

[1:47:45] office of the attorney general, it brings up to me that the

[1:47:51] board has never ruled that an agency's anti-deficient because

[1:47:56] essentially money is just transferred to kind of cover

[1:48:02] over-spending routinely and I know we have talked about agency

[1:48:05] overspending at length as the council.

[1:48:10] so if you could just speak to in addition to adding members, how

[1:48:14] are you hoping this board will actually help us get agency

[1:48:20] overspending under control? Right now it seems more

[1:48:22] performative than substantive. That's not a criticism of your

[1:48:30] change, it is more of the existence.

[1:48:32] chair mendelson: it adds to members and also changes or

[1:48:39] potentially changes to be sure, if I remember right, the law

[1:48:45] specifies that the chief financial office appointments,

[1:48:51] it will be that the cfo will designate the chair, one or the

[1:48:57] other. Right now it is the associate

[1:49:04] chief financial officer who is the chair and it is a little bit

[1:49:10] like the fox guarding the hen house in my view.

[1:49:15] and this government is used to this process where agency a

[1:49:19] over-spends and agency b was over budgeted or didn't spend,

[1:49:24] so money from agency b is reprogrammed at the end of the

[1:49:29] fiscal year two agency a and then there is no overspending.

[1:49:35] there is no deficiency. Therefore they don't do

[1:49:44] anything. This was the author of the

[1:49:50] underlying law and the intent was that there would be much

[1:49:55] more aggressiveness to police and go after overspending.

[1:50:06] it speaks to not just the agency director but right now to

[1:50:09] program managers. These are subtle changes, but

[1:50:15] increasing the board changes will hopefully result in much

[1:50:17] more aggressive work. Cm parker: even if there is a

[1:50:27] transfer to cover overspending, the board would still go through

[1:50:30] its process to say said agencies out of compliance.

[1:50:32] chair mendelson: yes. Cm parker: understood, thank

[1:50:35] you. Chair mendelson: further?

[1:50:41] councilmember frumin, then councilmember bonds.

[1:50:42] cm frumin: thank you very much. On the brad v., really want to

[1:50:51] applaud the work you have done on trying to police

[1:50:52] overspending. I also want to add a plug for

[1:50:56] the auditor. The auditor came to us for

[1:51:01] breakfast, talked to us about the tools we have two police

[1:51:06] this and support this. I think as we move and I think

[1:51:12] we are moving into an era where we will be policing spending

[1:51:16] much more closely. I think she should be applauded

[1:51:22] for the role she has played in this process, so I extend my

[1:51:27] gratitude. Back on the net zero and

[1:51:32] councilmember allen, we have a regime for district buildings

[1:51:39] and affordability. Now we have this regime.

[1:51:47] I just want to make sure I understand how this is going to

[1:51:48] operate for commercial building since it applies here.

[1:51:55] I do think we are going to need to come up with a new appendix

[1:52:02] and harmonize our approach. If a building applies for a

[1:52:07] permit before december 31 of this year, then they are

[1:52:12] governed by the existing regime and they may apply to gbac for

[1:52:20] relief if they want to include gas for a boiler or space heater

[1:52:24] or something like that, is that right?

[1:52:28] >> in the example you gave, that is correct.

[1:52:40] cm frumin: it is in statute next year that there can't be an

[1:52:53] exception, could someone get one in calendar year 27?

[1:52:58] cm allen: so, a couple of if's in the scenario, if the

[1:53:06] department of buildings does not publish what they are supposed

[1:53:08] to by the end of the calendar year, what we are adding is a

[1:53:11] lot more flexibility. We are laying out these two

[1:53:15] different pieces of flexibility. Specifically to the gbac, that

[1:53:22] is correct. It is essentially the body where

[1:53:26] they are getting a release valve .

[1:53:32] cm frumin: so in that setting of a new construction for an

[1:53:37] additional $10,000 in fees, if the permit for that goes in in

[1:53:43] february 2027, there is no safety valve there though there

[1:53:48] is today? Cm allen: no, they have the

[1:53:54] ability to go seek an exception. Cm frumin: even though it would

[1:54:00] be in the statute that there could not be such a thing?

[1:54:02] cm allen: that the -- that is the exact reason people seek an

[1:54:08] exemption today. Cm frumin: so they will be able

[1:54:11] to get a gbac extension? Cm allen: yes because the gbac

[1:54:20] process is in statute so if today they needed to go through

[1:54:22] an exemption today, they have the gbac in statute.

[1:54:31] same thing. It is in statute.

[1:54:36] cm frumin: and then sometime in 2027 let's come up with a

[1:54:42] harmonized theme. Cm allen: I'm game.

[1:54:45] thank you. Chair mendelson: councilmember

[1:54:49] bonds. Cm bonds: thank you very much,

[1:54:53] chairman, I wanted to go back to subtitle j on page 173 as it

[1:54:58] goes over to 174. My colleague was asking a couple

[1:55:04] of questions about this and I wanted to understand if on line

[1:55:11] 3052 you have fs a category of membership on this teacher's

[1:55:19] evaluation, performance working group.

[1:55:24] you have the state board of education.

[1:55:26] is that synonymous with there being a member of the public

[1:55:35] that is a participant or do we need to add a member of the

[1:55:41] public? Like a parent?

[1:55:50] chair mendelson: no, we don't need to add more people to this.

[1:56:01] cm bonds: well it's not about people, it's about parents and

[1:56:03] students. Chair mendelson: well people are

[1:56:06] the public. Cm bonds: it is about the

[1:56:09] interaction, what happens with their children?

[1:56:13] chair mendelson: I think we've got all the bases covered.

[1:56:20] in addition to the individuals. Cm bonds: they are all in the

[1:56:27] education arena. Chair mendelson: that might make

[1:56:30] some sense there would be people in training and education since

[1:56:35] this is about how to educate, that could be apparent.

[1:56:50] current or former school leaders.

[1:56:56] >> and all of them could be carrying a title.

[1:57:02] chair mendelson: not necessarily.

[1:57:02] cm bonds: a title for the organization they are

[1:57:06] representing and they are not representing the families that

[1:57:08] have students and most likely the mayor elect is agreeing.

[1:57:15] chair mendelson: researchers or academics, any one of these

[1:57:22] people and most of them are probably parents.

[1:57:27] and they includ a broad representation of stakeholders.

[1:57:33] I think we have the bases covered.

[1:57:35] this is meant to be a serious working group to look at how to

[1:57:40] best professionally evaluate teachers and other employees of

[1:57:46] dcps. Cm bonds: and surely we are not

[1:57:51] suggesting that a parent who has a student in the school system

[1:57:56] today would not be able to render a professional appearance

[1:58:03] or an appearance and an opinion of this professionally endowed,

[1:58:08] I just think we need to consider having someone who is not an

[1:58:15] educationally affiliated individual or background or

[1:58:21] practice, I think we would embellish the process if we had

[1:58:28] someone who sends their kids off to school or has sends their

[1:58:33] kids off to school on a regular basis.

[1:58:34] chair mendelson: I don't think you are hearing me.

[1:58:38] I suspect between the 14 and 15 people that several or not most

[1:58:42] of them will be parents. I suspect that of the 14 or 15

[1:58:46] that they will be mostly ordinary people, they will not

[1:58:50] be lofty people with lofty titles.

[1:58:52] I think we have the bases covered here with a wide variety

[1:58:56] of folks from different backgrounds and expertise.

[1:59:00] anything further? Cm bonds: no, not from me.

[1:59:06] >> one is the report due for the working group?

[1:59:09] chair mendelson: november 1, 2027.

[1:59:15] >> so, it would be due after next year's budget?

[1:59:20] chair mendelson: correct. Which is to give time -- this is

[1:59:30] a working group to help the council.

[1:59:33] the mayor will benefit because this will be a public report,

[1:59:39] but this is, after several years , as I discussed with

[1:59:44] councilmember parker, after many years of hearing complaints, we

[1:59:49] the council and the committee are going to try to figure out

[1:59:52] what does a good evaluation system look like?

[1:59:54] >> I understand your aim, I'm wondering if action is taken

[2:00:01] before and tears budget, before this report is due, will the

[2:00:06] council fall on process and stop any progress from happening for

[2:00:14] that? If in the new budget there is an

[2:00:19] evaluation system that has been negotiated with the union, that

[2:00:23] has been agreed upon between the executive and the union?

[2:00:28] chair mendelson: I think that is highly unlikely.

[2:00:33] sorry to interrupt. I think that is highly unlikely.

[2:00:37] the teacher's contract we approved a couple of years ago,

[2:00:40] it is not up for renewal for a couple of years.

[2:00:43] there would have to be an opening of negotiations, which

[2:00:47] is not scheduled. And if it were, if negotiations

[2:00:51] were to open, they probably wouldn't open until january or

[2:00:55] february at the earliest, which is not enough time to affect

[2:01:02] this evaluation. Actually as I'm speaking to you

[2:01:08] if the mayor wanted to move more quickly than the council, there

[2:01:12] is nothing to stop the mayor from moving more quickly.

[2:01:14] in terms of next year's budget, all that we have done with

[2:01:18] regard to impacting the budget is to fund the bonuses and this

[2:01:24] doesn't affect that. Cm lewis george: ok, thank you.

[2:01:29] chair mendelson: is there anything further on the

[2:01:33] amendment in the nature of a substitute?

[2:01:36] cm felder: mr. Chairman? Chair mendelson: councilmember

[2:01:40] felder. Cm felder: for the record I want

[2:01:44] to flag again my concerns as it relates to the access.

[2:01:54] I have specific concerns on how this proposal could increase

[2:01:59] calls for snap recipients, many of those who live in ward 7

[2:02:06] endboard eight, as well as individuals who may use delivery

[2:02:11] services for groceries and medication.

[2:02:17] it is my hope that we could later on work with colleagues.

[2:02:24] and the net zero subtitle and how that will increase utilities

[2:02:34] for its residents and making utilities more affordable in the

[2:02:39] long-run. I thing we have to be mindful of

[2:02:41] the implications of this. I want to go on record for that.

[2:02:45] chair mendelson: if there is nothing further, the vote is on

[2:02:50] the amendment nature of the substitute as amended.

[2:02:52] all those in favor say aye. Are there any opposed?

[2:02:57] the ayes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended.

[2:03:05] is there any further discussion? The vote will be on the bill as

[2:03:11] amended. All those in favor say aye?

[2:03:15] are there any opposed? Hearing on, the ayes have it

[2:03:20] unanimously. We have the budget support

[2:03:31] emergency declaration resolution , so moved.

[2:03:37] I circulated this with a memo. When we get to the underlying

[2:03:46] bill, assuming we get to the underlying bill, we better get

[2:03:48] to the underlying bill, I will ask that it can form to the

[2:03:54] amended version of the permanent bill.

[2:03:59] reading from the memo I circulated due to delayed

[2:04:03] transmission of the budget financial plan it is necessary

[2:04:05] to pass the bsa on an emergency basis to ensure the provisions

[2:04:14] are affected. In addition are several time

[2:04:18] sensitive provisions that must be in place prior to october 1,

[2:04:24] 2026, these are included in bill 26-661, that is the bsa.

[2:04:31] the emergency bill will make those time sensitive provisions

[2:04:37] prior to october 1. Other provisions will retain the

[2:04:43] applicability date provided in the permanent bill which said be

[2:04:47] enacted prior to october 1 to allow agencies and stakeholders

[2:04:51] to prepare for implementation. So what did I just say?

[2:04:56] the bsa is effective october 1 the affirmative version has to

[2:05:00] go to the hill for the 30 day layover.

[2:05:04] that layover may not be completed before october 1, so

[2:05:07] that his recent one for having an emergency.

[2:05:10] recent two is the provisions in the bsa are applicable as of

[2:05:14] october 1 unless specifically noted otherwise in the subtitle

[2:05:19] and there are some subtitles that have an earlier

[2:05:22] replicability date. So we need the emergency for

[2:05:25] that. And then third that we want

[2:05:31] everybody to know what is coming, so doing the emergency

[2:05:35] also helps in that regard. So for those reasons I move from

[2:05:40] declaration to discussion. The vote will be on the

[2:05:43] declaration of pr 26-758. All those in favor say aye.

[2:05:51] are there any opposed? Hearing none, the aye have it

[2:05:54] unanimously. Si move the underlying bill

[2:05:57] 26-724, with the emergency conforming with permanent --

[2:06:07] give me a second. Madam general counsel, are we

[2:06:16] clear on what I'm moving? >> yes.

[2:06:21] chair mendelson: is there discussion?

[2:06:24] the vote will be on bill 26-724 as amended to reflect the

[2:06:29] permanent bill, bill 26-661. All those in favor say aye.

[2:06:36] are there any opposed? Hearing none, the ayes have it

[2:06:41] unanimously. You know, at each of these

[2:06:45] budget meetings, votes, we think everybody.

[2:06:48] I don't want to thank everybody this time by name although I

[2:06:51] want to thank them all, but I do want to call out explicitly

[2:06:56] budget anne. [laughter]

[2:07:01] as distinguished from normal anne.

[2:07:05] and phelps. The office of revenue analysis,

[2:07:10] the office of general counsel, and my staff.

[2:07:14] not known as budget blaine. These folks really spent much

[2:07:22] more time than anybody else on this just so the public

[2:07:28] understands, it grew to 435 pages.

[2:07:35] our next meeting will be an additional meeting on july 14,

[2:07:40] scheduled to start at 12:00 noon.

[2:07:42] there will be a committee of the hole before then.

[2:07:45] the deadline for notices for next tuesday's meeting will be

[2:07:50] this thursday. The time is 1:48 p.m. And this

[2:07:58] meeting is adjourned. [gavel]

[2:07:59] ?

Thirty-Fourth (Additional) Legislative Meeting, Phil Mendelson, Chairman

Agenda

Transcript