>> I'm going to order this meeting.
this is an additional meeting of the council of the district of
columbia. Today is tuesday, july 7, the
time is 11:40 in the morning. We are in room 500.
the council chamber of the johnny wilson building.
this meeting I believe is being streamed on cable television 13
and is also I think available but will be recorded and will be
available in the future on the council website.
this is an additional meeting. That is, it is not a regular the
scheduled monthly meeting. It's also the 34th meeting of
council 26. We have one item of business,
over one divided by I think three.
that is, we have the budget support act final reading as
well as the emergency version of that in the emergency
declaration, so we can consider this an emergency basis.
and when I say emergency that means it becomes effective as
soon as we sign it and there are portions that need to go into
effect sooner than would otherwise occur with a
congressional review period. We always begin our legislative
meetings with a moment of silence.
if we do have silence on the dais and then the chamber.
madam secretary, would you please call the roll?
[calling names] mr. Chairman, you have a quorum.
chair mendelson: thank you, madam secretary.
we only have a nonconsent agenda and the first item to fiscal
year 2027 budget support act of 2029.
we adopted this at first reading on june 9.
this legislation is much more complicated the budget so rather
than moving the second reading last week with final reading on
the budget, we are taking it out today.
it's a very lengthy and complex bill.
I'm not going to explain everything that was in the bill
on first reading. In fact I'm not going to explain
in detail everything in the amendment.
I believe yesterday morning, the amendment nature include
citation in numbering corrections as well as other
technical crafting changes. The amended substitute or ans
also makes substantive revisions as well as clarifying changes
with the budget director. As well as working with the
office of the chief financial officer and the executive.
the memo that was circulated yesterday which is seven full
pages goes into detail with regard to most of the changes.
I would say all of the substantive changes, so I'm not
going to go through all of that. I move the amendment nature of
the substitute and I'm happy to answer any questions or
recognize folks and actually, I have an amendment.
I will note that I'm aware of an amendment from councilmembers
alan, white, louis george and brooke.
excuse me, pinto, councilmember pinto.
>> yes, that was me. I have one that we just
circulated. It's a different one.
>> and I have one as well pending.
>> all right. >> I don't have any.
[laughter] I talked to every member for attempted to talk to
every member on friday and asked about amendments and I have to
say what is coming in today is above and beyond what I was told
on friday. I am going to start off with an
oral amendment. Line 2589, to start the phrase
302 and insert the phrase 302-a in its place.
it's pretty technical, that's why I didn't circulate it.
to change the number 302 to the number 302-a.
this has to do with provisions in the vacant amendment act of
2025 that do not have a cost. There's no objection, this
amendment will be accepted. >> mr. Chairman, would you
repeat the section again? >> and can you speak louder mr.
chairman, we can't hear you down here.
>> the amendment is to page 85, line 1589.
it has to do to a reference with regard to citations -- excuse
me, section references. This is subtitle 2-I line 1589,
changing the number 302 to read 302-a.
anybody want me to repeat that again?
it's right there. If there's no objection, this
amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is
accepted. I want to note as well this is
not an amendment that in section on line 25-33, there is a pin
site that needs to be corrected. And that I'm told is technical
which is why I'm not moving it as an amendment.
council member allen. >> it's currently drafted
subtitle 6-o. To increase the public
inconvenience fee applied to public space permits that result
in temporary occupancy of public space.
to mitigate the impact on utilities, the subtitle provides
utilities paid 60 day grace period before is applied.
however even with this expanded grace period, d.c. Water is
concerned it would impose new costs in the utility
specifically in a letter dated may 14.
d.c. Water cautioned that every dollar assessed chicken d.c.
water is a direct path through cost for ratepayer through
higher water and sewer bills. D.c. Water carries new
discretionary budget to beasties.
there is no alternative. The ultimately comes out of
pocket as it is not only designed to compensate for
disruption. It is the mayor had embedded the
revenue raised increase throughout the budget and was
unable to remove and escalate the budget and get the kindle
has already approved fiscal year 2027, the council ability to
reduce them to maintain a balanced budget across the for
your financial plan. So this amendment would simply
sunset the increased pif for d.c. Water beginning in fy 31.
instead, beginning on october 1, 2023, d.c. Water would only be
subject to the pif. And I would ask if that the
accepted as friendly. >> councilmember white.
>> yes. Councilmember allen, I know that
we are looking to sunset this cost on d.c. Water, ultimately
affecting the rate of pay, the rate of those who consume water
but I dislike question was once we stop them from extended fees,
how do we get a guarantee that the ratepayers rates will go
down or stop going up? >> thanks, great question.
so part of what d.c. Water has to look at right now, the rate
case right now around their overall cost.
the increase that the mayor proposed was not part of what
they had been mapping out. They are going to have to figure
it had to add that into the overall rate structure.
by sunsetting this, what that would mean is the end of the
fiscal plan, that cost would no longer be there which means it
no longer is passed to the rate players.
how to make sure deepwater is accountable for that is going to
be oversight. Which would mean they are not
passing on that cost or returning that.
>> is after something already has been done.
I'm concerned if we do sunset this, it doesn't have a good
effect on the residence. >> two I have it in writing that
four years from now -- >> for oversight perspective, we
have a d.c. Water board that we vote to approve the mayor's
nominations for that. We have our oversight function
so that when the cost that d.c. Water is having to pay go away,
for years are now, it will be our job to make sure that the
cost that will be passed on to ratepayers are no longer being
assessed. I don't have a crystal ball that
is going to tell us exactly what is going to happen but I believe
that is part of our oversight job, to make sure they are not
passing on those costs. >> you know if d.c. Water has
any rate increases now that are due right now?
I'm just concerned about the rising utility costs in the
district. >> and that is part of what is
driving this to remove that pif and sunsetting it so that those
costs don't get passed on to ratepayers.
>> but it still can go up. >> correct.
costs are going up. We are trying to limit this.
>> thank you, mr. Chairman. I just have a similar question.
zooming back without this amendment, what would happen to
ratepayers if we were not to sunset the pif?
>> if we don't sunset it, two things.
once, d.c. Water will have to continue passing on the mayor's
increase to ratepayers. Secondly, when d.c. Water goes
out to the bond market which they will do in the summer, they
have to show in the books and unknown financial liability that
goes out beyond this fiscal plan.
to some degree, by sunsetting it through this amendment, it also
helps d.c. Water when they go out to the bond market to show
essentially capped financial liability because they go out
looking for funding. >> is that your understanding
that their plan is to do, to look for more external financing
? >> in terms of overall cost,
they will look for financing that essentially ratepayers,
both residential and commercial are paying.
they are very much trying to bring in federal dollars.
the trump administration's roll back a lot of federal dollars
available, so that makes everything a little bit harder.
they are able to find private financial sources that will do
that. They are going to have offset
cost, a huge solar installation down at blue plains.
they have a lot of different ways they are trying to help
offset costs that are otherwise being passed on to ratepayers.
this is just one more cost that is going to ratepayers.
we could at least control one part.
>> is there any further discussion regarding this?
>> I fully support this amendment.
I do think that it can be a moment to step back and think
about our propensity to impose fees, and we impose fees in the
utility context, in the delivery context.
we do it in a lot of different places and it is a way in which
we raise revenue and it doesn't look like a tax, but part of
what this amendment is is a recognition that these fees and
that getting passed on to our residence, and so they kind of
work as a tax. I would encourage that we be
reluctant going forward to be imposing new fees like this.
I think we are going to have to take a hard look on a very
candid revenue raiser and I think that is the way to go, but
I think we need to be careful because utility prices are going
up and they're not just going up because of the fees that we
impose, but the fees that we impose contribute to what is a
real problem area, and this amendment is a recognition of
that. But I think it is broader than
that and we should keep that in mind when forward.
>> councilmember felder. >> councilwoman pinto asked my
original question but councilmember allen, I just want
you to know that I appreciate your leadership on this.
have you had an opportunity to talk with d.c. Water and are
they supportive of this, what have those conversations been
like if any? >> I don't want to speak on
behalf of d.c. Water. I will say what I believe has
been conveyed to me. They are not supportive of the
pif overall. They are supportive of this
amendment, though, as feeling like it at least gives them a
backstop at the end that it sunsets.
>> thank you for that. >> councilmember parker?
>> councilmember allen, do we have a sense of the rate
increase that ultimately is passed on to ratepayers?
>> do you mean specific to the pif?
>> if their argument is we must do this so we don't pass on
increase to ratepayers, the natural question I have is what
is that increase? I think the question points to a
certain skepticism that I share. Do we really anticipate rates
going down, and as I look at this, part of it is to ensure
and incentivize d.c. Water to move as possible.
we are essentially taking that burden away from them because we
are saying we are going to increase rates or have to
increase rates for ratepayers which I'm sensitive to.
so I'm just curious if there is an amount or estimate of what
that increase might be. >> d.c. Water is currently
debating a rate increase on every d.c. Water ratepayer.
that is completely separate from the pif.
we are looking at d.c. Water thinking about what the rate
increases going to be for d.c. Water completely separate from
this. This was only introduced by the
mayor in april, so they only had two or three months that they
have been looking at this. So I don't know if they can,
with the accuracy of your bill, for example, say this is what
the pif is going to reflect. What they've been very clear
about is that any additional cost we have to pay, it has to
be burdened by ratepayers. So it is a cost that has to get
passed on. To be clear, the pif does not
save d.c. Water any money. It will increase costs that d.c.
water has to pay, I want to make sure that's it's clear as well.
>> ultimately I see it as an incentive measure to say let's
not inconvenience district residents with your work.
so as to not incur more fines or penalties, move as efficiently
as possible. >> we are essentially saying we
are going to sunset this x years down the line.
and again, I'm just kind of kicking the tires on the
argument. I'm skeptical.
>> the nature of the projects are that they will run longer
than 60 days. While the pif from purely a
policy perspective, we are going to have a higher public
inconvenience the but we don't assess it until after 60 days.
with my policy hat on, for a lot of projects, that probably makes
sense. Get it faster, get it out of the
public way or else there is this higher fee.
the nature of many projects are longer-term projects.
you can say 60 days, you can say 90 days.
it probably won't matter because it is a long-term type of
project. D.c. Water will have to pay this
fee which means it comes to ratepayers.
so by sunsetting it, the goal is oversight is going to have to be
what takes place here. When that pif after four years
no longer is there, how do we make sure that is no longer
reflected in your bills no longer pass on this costs?
>> consomm number bonds. >> thank you, chairman, and
thank you mr. Allen for this measure.
and I to understand through this measure that it only speaks to
this particular instance, it does not speak to the future
opportunities for rate increases?
>> correct. >> thank you very much.
I think anytime we can think about the public and think about
how we can help them save dollars is important, but this
does not really speak to that at this point.
thank you very much. Chair mendelson: I want to note
that the amendment that is before us would reduce the fee
starting in the fall of 2030.
it's not increasing rates. It's actually trying to help
ratepayers even though it will be a few years from now.
I only say that because a lot of these questions that focused on
well, what are we doing about the cost of water and the effect
on ratepayers? This amendment is to some extent
in some way helping, not hurting ratepayers.
ratepayers, even though we care about all of our residents and
businesses, ratepayers is broader than just residents and
businesses in the district. I would also like to point out
because I had a long discussion with d.c. Water last week about
this, they have a project clean rivers where they kind of set up
shop for a couple years and so the fee is going to cost them.
but they do a lot of other projects in the public space and
in my view, they can manage the timing of those projects.
and they don't have to be digging up my flock for 90 days.
maybe they can do it in 15 days. So they have some ability other
than clean rivers to be able to manage their way around this.
and the fee right now is less, but it starts after 30 days.
and with what we have, it starts after 60 days.
just saying. If there is no objection, this
will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is
accepted. Councilmember allen, I think you
have a second. >> number two is currently
drafted, subtitle ia would suggest -- subject most --
exempt the public service commission and office people
counsel from that requirement into a telework policy allows
them to maintain their current policies.
the background in the district of columbia in the office of the
people's council for the district of columbia are
independent agencies with their own hiring authority.
both have existing policy that a bit in place in the last several
years, so they have independent agencies that are distinct from
the mayor. They be able to divert from the
workforce management practices. The committee has reviewed both
organizations current telework policies and they are very
reasonable and have been in place for the last couple of
years. Without objection I would ask if
you accept that as written. Chair mendelson: we have the
amendment before us. Is there discussion?
>> I just want to ask a question.
I think they're up in a number of exemptions from this
particular subtitle, and so my question is what is the point of
the subtitle now? Like was left?
>> are you asking that of councilmember allen, or me?
>> it's not rhetorical, who is left?
I missed saying. Should the subtitle just be
stricken at this point? Chair mendelson: so there are a
lot of independent agencies. And there is an addition,
perhaps the largest of them all the office of the financial
officer. They have over 1000 employees.
and there is the zoning commission.
I'm trying to think. We would tax administration.
please don't ask me to try to list all of them from memory.
board of elections and ethics. Office of the inspector general.
I was shown a long list for a moment.
did you have more? Is there further discussion on
this amendment? If there is no objection the
amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is
accepted. Councilmember robert white.
>> thank you, chairman. I want to thank councilmember
parker for advocating on the pilot program.
this amendment would increase the eligibility threshold for
participating schools in the pilot program from 40%-60% at
risk enrollment, hoping to ensure that limited funding is
directed to schools serving the highest concentrations of
at-risk students. I'm happy to support this pilot.
then people have been asking the council for a program like this
and this gives us the opportunity to evaluate whether
a stipend can improve financial literacy, student well-being,
attendance and academic achievement for considering a
broader expansion. I want to thank councilmember
parker for this amendment and they believe the 60% threshold
is the right balance to maximize the impact of this pilot.
and mr. Chairman, I hope you will accept this.
>> thank you. Is there discussion from
members? >> how did you arrive at this
60% mark? I remember going from one number
to 60. What made you get to that.
>> this is so that the schools, to such a small amount of money,
and we want to target it to the schools that have the most I
think it would bit better to targeted the schools with the
biggest student absence issues. >> has given anything you've
seen to schools that stick out more, or have been getting left
out because you think it is going to be too broad?
>> is schools with the higher absentee rate would be eligible
under either. But this amendment narrows that
so that the schools with the highest level of student
absences have been able to bathe in the program as well as that
line and not being able to access the very limited amount
of money. >> thank you.
chair mendelson: councilmember parker.
>> I just wanted to thank councilmember robert white for
this amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense,
I fully support it and as he mentioned, it will ensure that
we are covering more schools where more at risk students are
likely to have attendance issues.
so just wanted to acknowledge that this is a positive
amendment. >> if there is no further
discussion if no objection, it will be accepted.
hearing no objection, it is accepted.
councilmember lewis george. >> thank you.
10 years ago we passed the universal paid leave amendment
act. In the years since, thousands of
utilize this benefit to care for themselves and for loved ones
during critical illnesses. It has helped to improve
outcomes and reduce the catastrophic economic fallout
that too many families have experienced without sufficient
paid family leave. The fiscal year 2027 budget
permanently reduces the family caregiving benefit from 12 weeks
to six weeks and medical leave from 12 weeks to 10 weeks.
I'm hoping this amendment to ensure that the maximum duration
of leave under d.c. Paid family leave program is fully restored
at the end of the four-year financial plan to 12 weeks of
medical leave and 12 weeks of family caregiving.
we made history 10 years ago, and we made history again this
year when d.c. Became the only state program to have ever
rolled back its program in the 25 years of state fate pam and
medical leave programs. Both maryland and virginia will
offer more paid medical leave and family caregiving leave in
the district. If we are to remain competitive,
if we are to do right by d.c. Families, and we must write this
prong as soon ensure that the program is fully restored
beginning october 1 of 2030. >> we have the amendment before
us. Is there discussion?
this is amendment number one. Discussion?
if there's no objection, it will be accepted.
hearing no objection, it is accepted.
>> thank you. I am moving amendment number
two. I am moving this and then to
preserve the mayor's authority to establish a government-white
telework policy on clarifying that telework can still be
negotiated for future collective bargaining agreements.
this is an important clarification.
telework is not just ended mr. And policy, it is a real
workplace issue for employees and a meaningful part of labor
negotiations. For certain jobs type -- job
types, they allow managers and labor unions to collectively
support employee recruitment, retention, and even generate a
cost savings. The subtitle as drafted would
only protect existing agreements.
this amendment keeps the mayor's authority intact but ensure that
we are not unnecessarily taking an issue off the table in
collective bargaining going forward.
with that, I move the amendment. Chair mendelson: we have the
amendment before us. >> thank you.
has telework ever been part of collective bargaining
negotiations? To your note -- knowledge?
>> yes. >> and did that stop during
covid? >> I don't know the full
history. >> but when was it part of?
>> I think it varies between when bargaining was taking place
between different unions. >> ok.
so this would be returning us to the policy that we used to have.
>> rephrase the question. >> I'm trying to understand how
this would work in practice. That if labor is negotiating a
telework policy, is that something they've done in the
past? >> yes, we are preserving a
policy that is in place, yes. We are preserving it.
>> I see. And the mayor's language removed
that ability to negotiate around telework.
and this puts it back. >> yes.
>> ok. As we've discussed in a lot of
different times this budget, there are many public safety
agencies who had significant challenges with staffing.
I'm just trying to understand how this would work in practice
if telework became an issue that could not be resolved.
what that would mean for our workforce who in certain
agencies have to show up in person.
>> well, they've been exempted. That is an amendment that we
accepted just a moment ago. >> I thought that was just for
opc. >> I thought they were on the
exemption list. >> apologies, I missed the first
part of the question. >> my understanding was your
amendment was just for two agencies.
exempting them from the subtitle.
>> this doesn't speak to agencies.
it speaks to organized for unionized workers.
and what it says is not withstanding the rest of the
subtitle, if a union negotiates with the mayor and both sides
agree on a telework policy, that that would be allowed.
that's a substitute for the language in this subtitle right
now which says that unions can't bargain.
>> sold let's use an example of teachers.
if teachers wanted to bargain to have --
chair mendelson: telework. >> telework two days a week,
that would now be on the table? Chair mendelson: yes.
now as a practical matter, I can't quite see how a teacher
would be teaching via telework, so I don't think that's actually
going to go very far. But to use your example yes,
they could negotiate that. That doesn't mean they would get
it. Maybe that the union wants a 5%
increase in their compensation, so they are not going to
negotiate telework. Or maybe they will agree to zero
increase in compensation but get telework.
but it would be bargained and presumably with bargaining, the
mayor is representing her interests, the government's
interest. I would note, just to pick an
extreme, if the executive were to negotiate five days of
telework and you don't have to come in any day of the month,
cba has to come to the council for approval and we would have
to approve that. But all this is about is
allowing the ability to bargain. >> and I want to just note that
it allows more flexibility from agency to agency.
and telework can also support recruitment and retention as
well and helping address job vacancies.
I would also note that it is an important tool that we utilize.
>> ok. I guess I'm just uneasy in
thinking about a lot of examples of staffing challenges that we
are having and needing people to be in person, and I know we've
kind of made a lot of changes since this was previously
discussed to chip away at some of those changes.
many of those may be the right approach, but I worry about
adding this tool in the context we are finding ourselves in with
staffing. >> I would just say, I think
councilmember henderson hinted toward this earlier.
one of the issues with this altogether is that it was not a
subtitle that we had a hearing on, that we got feedback on.
from the procedural aspect, we are doing a lot of piecemeal
things because we should technically be handling this in
a hearing and getting feedback. My amendment seeks to reduce
some of the harm from the route that we are taking moving
forward. >> thank you, mr. Chair.
I'm in support of this amendment.
I also want to try to clarify for the public as well, we are
not adding anything here. From the examples of the
negotiating contract with the teachers for the police union,
first off, they have existing contracts so they are already
grandfathered. But they conceivably could have
bargained a telework policy for teachers or police officers.
it wouldn't make much sense to do that, but they could.
we want to just preserve the right to be able to negotiate.
I don't see any harm in making sure that parties can bring what
they want to bring to the bargaining table to negotiate.
will likely see practical decisions made.
my kid's fourth grade teacher isn't going to telework.
so there is a part of that that is just a practical part of what
would actually happen, but that is what already exists.
we are not adding anything. This is just ensuring that
people can bargain for what they want to bargain for, and that is
part of the collective bargaining process.
I support your effort here and your amendment because it is not
adding anything, just maintaining the ability to
bargain. And I think that is a pretty
core value that we want to have for our workers across the
district. Thank you.
chair mendelson: if there's nothing further, if there's no
objection, the amendment will be accepted.
hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted.
councilmember lewis george? >> this is a small amendment but
it means a great deal toward t --o -- to ward iv.
it holds tennis tournaments that bring significant tax revenue to
the district. However the ability to do so is
jeopardized by its core condition.
and I always support at the district doing its part to
ensure these tournaments can continue.
I also share the unease of residents with local dollars
being used on a federal property.
that is why I've advocated for meaningful safeguards of
taxpayer dollars since the council first authorized money
for this project last year. I want to thank you for adding
language to the ans that specifies the district taxpayer
dollars allocated to the rock creek tennis center can be used
only on improvements that are necessary to bring the center
into compliance with professional league standards.
this language addresses my previous concern that we were
sending, using millions of dollars in federal property
without controlled and what it would be spent on, such as
larger and differences to the property that different
taxpayers should not have to pay for.
my amended creates oversight to provide quarterly updates to the
public. These updates must address the
work being done to the tennis center, a completion will impact
residents and businesses in crestwood neighbors.
with my amendment and the language adding the ans, I am
confident the repairs necessary to bring the rock creek tennis
center into compliance with professional tournament
standards can be completed before the 2027 d.c. Open and
that local dollars will be used transparently can only is
intended. I ask that you and our
colleagues accept this amendment as friendly and with that, I
move the amendment. Chair mendelson: thank you.
. I want to emphasize what you
just said, and that is that this is about bringing the stadium
and the related facilities like the locker rooms and the bubble
into decent condition and also ensure that the association of
tennis professionals tours and women's tennis association tour
are comfortable with this facility.
if there's no objection, this amendment will be accepted.
councilmember lewis-george? >> I am moving them amendment to
strike title ii third-party income verification amendment
act from the budget support act. While there are well-documented
challenges and delays in the inclusionary zoning program, I
am concerned that shifting income verification back to the
private market, a method we tried before could create
problems we've already seen. When developers previously have
this responsibility, we heard stories of units going to
hassles that were not income eligible as well as reports of
discriminate practices that prevented eligible residents
from spitting. Some try to circumvent the
existing process by going around the lottery system for
affordable units. We have that operate in this
way. Finding available low income
housing, tax credit units are getting on to wait lists is not
straightforward for families seeking stable, affordable
homes. Getting this authority could
create simple barriers but without the benefit of federal
oversight to ensure compliance. I believe we should be investing
in stronger monitoring compliance and administration to
make the inclusionary zoning program more successful.
not handing these responsibilities off with
limited account ability. I look forward to working with
councilmember robert white to identify a solution that
improves the efficiency of the program while preserving strong
oversight and ensuring the program remains fair, consistent
and accessible to district residents.
with that, I move the amendment. Chair mendelson: thank you, is
there discussion? >> thank you, chairman, and
thank you councilmember lewis george for your amendment.
I think we both recognized that there are problems with the
program. We have units that need to be
going as quickly as possible and that is not happening.
these changes would not go in effect until october, just two
months before a new administration.
I think it makes sense to work together on this since we have
the same goals. Thank you, chairman.
chair mendelson: you said you support the amendment.
is there further discussion? If there's no objection, the
amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is
accepted. Councilmember felder.
>> mr. Chairman, can you come back?
chair mendelson: come back to you?
councilmember -- I don't know if I recognize councilmember pinto
or crawford. Who wants to go for this one?
>> algo ahead. Thank you, mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased to offer amendment today with councilmember
crawford. The greater parking performance
zone or the parking zone encompasses two existing main
street areas. The funding that is derived by
the parking zone is significant as we discussed, and our local
businesses are quite literally the driving force behind the
funds that are generated from this parking zone.
I think it's important that we ensure some of the money that is
generated through the zones are set aside for our existing teams
that support u-street and shah that are within the parking
zone. These will enhance cleanliness
and safety along these corridors, attracting and
maintaining more visitors and businesses while also serving
residents and neighbors who come to enjoy these areas.
these neighborhoods within the parking zone should be
prioritized with funding that is generated, parking revenue
within the same zone. There's also a small technical
change that we are moving. The word "covered" has been
substituted for the word "within" just to ensure that the
revenue stays within the entirety of the parking zone.
I also just want to note this has been an issue that
councilmember nadeau and I have worked on together for many
years, given that these boundaries include businesses
both in ward I and ward ii so I want to be as deferential as
possible to the areas in ward I that you were trying to
establish here with the parking zone in and of itself, and
almost all of that is maintained.
this amendment the councilmember crawford and I are moving today
is just about $100,000 out of this million dollar fund set up
for place making purposes to ensure that the existing
businesses and main street that are already operating can have
some money set aside to work on activities that maintain
cleanliness and safety. What is frankly, desperately
needed in this area.
councilmember mendelson: thank you, councilmember pinto.
consomm under -- councilmember crawford.
councilmember crawford: thank you.
thank you for working with my team on this amendment.
I expressed concern about the subtitle when it was introduced
at first reading, and I do not support it because of issues
raised by the community around the initial lack of engagement,
potential future bid boundaries, and how funding could be shared.
with this amendment, we are making a targeted adjustment to
make sure the benefits of parking revenue are felt more
directly by the corridor's and neighborhoods where that brick
-- revenue is generated. In my office has spoken with
shaw main street and we have heard their concerns about
ensuring there is flexibility for potential u street bid
boundaries and that shaw is not left out of the investments
connected to this parking zone. This amendment response to those
concerns by clarifying the language referring to the area
and making clear both sean main street and the u u street main
street should receive dedicated support for cleanliness and
safety. I want to think councilmember
pinto for her partnership, and I urge my colleagues to support
it. Councilmember mendelson: thank
you. Anything further on this?
councilmember nadeau? Council member naito: I want to
thank all my colleagues for working with us on first reading
to get this passed. What we have done in the bsa is
ensure all the revenue from the performance parking zone that
has been generated will go to the greater u street area.
I am asking members not to support this amendment.
first of all, the engrossed version sets aside $1 million
for the creation of a new place management entity, which we do
expect to be a bid, although it could be the neighborhood
management authority. We are keeping it open to see
which one succeeds. The reason I say it that way is,
for the past 20 years -- and longer, but since my time on the
anc, u street has been trying so hard to create a bid to support
the small businesses in the community there.
there have been three or maybe four attempts at this, and they
just keep failing. One of the reasons I created the
performance parking zone was to ensure that there would be
funding available to get a place management entity, like this.
come up and running, for u street once and for all.
because it is an area that is not just any commercial
corridor, it also attracts nightlife.
it is a place that, unfortunately over the years,
had had violence, there is a lot of trash -- there are all the
things, when you bring people together in a space like this.
this amendment takes money away from that $1 million pot
unnecessarily, because the whole pot is actually more than $3
million. The rest of the subtitle
specifies that remaining balance shall be used solely for the
following purposes within and immediately adjacent to the u
street performance parking zone. Place management initiatives,
which I would argue clearly would be main street's, space
maintenance of which our clean teams do, public safety
initiatives, which that nightlife task force does and
clean teams do, and support for businesses, which is what our
main streets are all about. I would argue that, we are
somewhat arbitrarily setting aside $50,000 for each main
street. But I am not clear on what that
money is going to do or why we need that specific amount.
what I think is a wiser approach, which is what we have
done in the bsa, is to specify all these uses for this area and
not name who is going to get it now.
because these may be organizations that have stepped
up in the past week and said I will take $50,000, but there is
a lot of work going on in the u street corridor, and I do not
think we know who else may benefit from these funds.
so I asked members not to support this amendment.
mainly because these are already allowable uses, and there is no
need to undercut the work of creating a bid by taking
$100,000 away from it. By the way, that $1 million is
not arbitrary, that is the amount the people working to
establish the bid have said they need for start up costs, and
that is why we set that at that amount.
thank you, mr. Chairman. Councilmember mendelson: further
on this, who has not spoken? Councilmember allen?
councilmember allen: I had a question for councilmember
nadeau. My understanding is one of the
concerns expressed previously was around just ensuring that
dollars used for the curbside program would be restored and
returned back to the ppz fund, and the ans reflects that?
councilmember nadeau: yes. Councilmember allen: if $100,000
were pulled out of said fund, and now not used for automated
curbside management, when, as the ans does, ensures it gets
injured, it would be -100,000 dollars, because it would be
diverted for a different purpose?
is that correct? Councilmember nadeau: that is a
good question. I do not know the answer, and I
think that is another reason why we should not be tweaking it,
because we work hard with the budget office to make sure those
friends -- funds would get replenished appropriately.
councilmember allen: my concern would be -- I am not speaking to
the attention -- intention here, but that an unintended
consequence would be we pull out a one time fund, but then those
dollars are not being restored to the ppz fund, which then does
not allow it to do what it had been created to do.
that is a concern of mine, that we end up diluting the fund and
the effectiveness it has. So I will support you on this
one, councilmember nadeau, but appreciate it.
councilmember nadeau: thank you so much.
you are reminding me of something else, while I have the
floor, which is that both u street and shaw streets serve
the greater u street, but sharp street covers a large area
outside the performance parking zone, so that further
complicates the issue, because this money may only be spent
within that boundary. Councilmember mendelson:
councilmember pinto, second round.
councilmember pinto: thank you gave thanks for that discussion.
councilmember allen, to that point, the reason why it is so
important the funds be restored to the ppz zone is because that
is where the money is being generated from.
so this is circumventing that step, to say $50,000 to each of
these organizations is going to be set aside.
this, in now way, is meant to undermine the establishment of a
bid in u street. We've had lots of discussions
about the right boundaries for the bid and the needs of the
area and the needs of the ward 1 and 2 businesses there, and I am
a huge believer a bid would be very, very helpful.
we have lots of locations in the city -- ward 2 is a happy
beneficiary of several -- where we have coexisting main street
and bids. We have this in dupont circle,
in georgetown. In both of those contexts and
neighborhoods, it is extremely helpful to have both of those
entities overlay. And some have different
boundaries and some help each other out with various needs,
but they serve different functions.
so making sure that shaw is not left behind and that u street
main street is not left behind in the formation of any sort of
new bid or new mna is really important, and that is why I and
others have heard from so many of our local businesses over the
last several weeks and months and years on this issue.
they want to benefit from changes to the neighborhood but,
understandably, they want to make sure that they can last
long enough to see those benefits.
that's where I think the main streets and having focus on
cleanliness and safety is so important.
so this is a tiny fraction of the money that is going to be
generated from this. I ask my colleagues to support
us on this so we can make sure that our shaw main street and
our u street main street's have the support they need.
councilmember mendelson: thank you.
councilmember bonds. Councilmember bonds: thank you
very much, chairman. While I have not been a party to
the conversations about the creation of this subtitle, I am
very curious as to what would be the harm in both of the bids
sharing a small amount of funding?
you are saying that maybe $3 million will be derived from
these new parking costs to those who utilize the space.
if that is the case, we are now talking about $100,000.
we are talking about two defined groups or organizations within a
community. Seems to me, at a time when we
have very limited resources, and these resources are coming from
those who partake of the activity in these areas, I do
not see any harm in both organizations having a kitty to
do the cleanup. We all know, when you have a
nightlife, there is need for cleanup.
what's the harm, and why are we having this kind of argument on
the dais, as if there is something wrong with how we
spend a limited amount of resources?
just curious. >> may I have another round?
councilmember bonds: my question is to councilmember pinto.
>> ok. Councilmember pinto: thank you.
I agree with you in that this is just a need of the neighborhood.
I think the disagreement may be around the authorized purposes
of this fund. I actually do not think we are
far apart. All of these uses can and should
proceed, and I believe will proceed if our amendment passes,
which will just ensure the existing main streets and
businesses have some benefit, and that the other intentions
and goals that councilmember nadeau is trying to move forward
for the neighbor can be achieved as well.
I believe everyone's goals can be met and can be met with
passing this amendment. Councilmember mendelson: if
there is no further? Councilmember frumin.
councilmember frumin: thank you very much, chairman mendelson.
if I understand it correctly, much of shaw main street's is
inside of the performance parking area.
so you do get a sense, from folks in the shaw main street's,
that they want to be a clear beneficiary of this, and I can
understand where that is coming from, honestly.
also, in the conversation about it, so much of the emphasis is
about u street that one can understand how shaw main
street's would feel like this is money that comes in part from
where we are, yet all the conversation is about a
different place. I get that sensitivity.
also, when I look at the dollars, the dollars for the bid
, in the text that exists, or $800,000.
in the amended text, it is $900,000.
so it does seem like the support for a potential bid is there.
then on the idea of why would you pick some institutions to
benefit, in the revised text -- and I 110% report it -- there is
opening the door to a pacific set aside to the
african-american civil museum, which I think is right.
but is another specific reference.
it seems like this is a struggle over $50,000, which seems like
why would we spend so much time on this?
and the fact that it is so hard, I guess, also contributes to the
sensitivity in the shock community about this.
my inclination is to support this amendment.
I do not know where it will go. It does not seem like the stakes
should be that high, so I hope you can get this done.
councilmember mendelson: councilmember nadeau, second
round. Councilmember nadeau: once
again, I am asking colleagues not to support this amendment.
as I began earlier, u street has been trying to establish a bid
for 20 years. This amendment literally takes
10% of the funds from what the folks trying to form a bid said
they need for their business plan.
those are not loose numbers. It is what it takes to start it.
what I am concerned about here is that, together in the ans, we
created a fund that actually supports all the entities we are
talking about today, and by moving this amendment, we are
now essentially creating drama around two specific entities,
completely unnecessarily. I do have a question.
how is the $50,000 going to be spent by each entity?
we know that? It is a lot of money, as a
percentage, for these entities' budgets.
councilmember pinto: the funding is authorized to be spent for
the maintenance of cleanliness and safety within the zones,
which are huge needs. And what we hear most regularly,
both in these organizations and the businesses and the residents
who are in these areas. And we want it, per your initial
formulation, to include some flexibility around how those
activities are defined, because the needs are constantly
evolving. That is what we are seeing from
these main streets all the time. They are working on activities
that are around cleanliness and safety, and what they currently
have is insufficient to do what the neighborhoods need.
councilmember nadeau: what is the current clean team budget?
councilmember pinto: for which organization?
I do not have that number. Councilmember nadeau: you know
what percentage of the budget -- councilmember mendelson: your
time's expired. Councilmember nadeau: I have a
couple more questions, if it is ok?
councilmember mendelson: your second round.
councilmember nadeau: ok. I have concerns because I do not
think anyone knows exactly how this money will be spent.
$50,000 is a huge enhancement for a clean team.
I think we should be enhancing clean teams across the city, for
sure, but what I would love to see is the language we already
have here allows a clean team for a main street to say these
are the blocks I want to expand to, this is the money I need --
councilmember mendelson: councilmember.
councilmember nadeau: I have one more question --
councilmember mendelson: you are over your time.
>> motion to close debate. Councilmember mendelson: there
is a motion to close debate. I do not think anyone else is on
the list to be recognized. >> I just want to make sure.
[laughter] councilmember mendelson: motion
to close debate. Assuming it is approved, that
only those who have not spoken may speak, and the maker of the
motion. All those in favor of the motion
to close debate say aye. >> ayes.
councilmember mendelson: the ayes have it unanimously.
is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized?
we have the amendment before us. >> I would.
like to request a roll call please.
councilmember mendelson: madam secretary, would you call role?
councilmember henderson? >> no.
>> councilmember henderson votes no.
councilmember lewis george. Councilmember lewis george: no.
councilmember mendelson: yes. Councilmember nadeau: no.
councilmember parker: no. Councilmember pinto: yes.
councilmember robert white: no. Councilmember trayon white: no.
councilmember allen: no. Councilmember bonds: yes.
councilmember crawford: yes. Councilmember felder: yes.
councilmember frumin: yes. >> mr. Chairman, there are six
yeses and seven nos. Councilmember mendelson:
vehement fails. Councilmember pinto, I believe
that was the only amendment you had?
councilmember pinto: that's right, mr. Chairman.
councilmember mendelson: next would be, councilmember crawford
, I believe you have an amendment?
councilmember crawford: yes. Before I get to my amendment,
mr. Chairman, you reminded me to confirm a citation that should
be a technical fix in the subtitle?
councilmember mendelson: I believe I noted that in the
beginning. Councilmember crawford: title
two, subtitle ll. Councilmember mendelson: 2-ll
line 3. Councilmember crawford: yes,
thank you. I will now move my amendment
number one, which would make the language in the bruce munro
subtitle consistent with the disposition extension language
of d.c. Law 25-273, the last time a council approved an
extension of this project. I would also like to thank
councilmember nadeau for supporting this amendment.
councilmember mendelson: we have the amended before us.
is there discussion? Councilmember nadeau: yes,
chairman. Councilmember crawford, we
actually have one change we think is important to make.
I am shy I did not catch you. This transpired while we were
sitting up here. So I am a little concerned the
amendment may imply, to some, there has been a change in the
plans to the space you and I both care about, which is not
true, so I worry the language might be unnecessarily vague,
when there are clear plans. This update would specifically
reference -- let me pass it down to you, so you can see.
as approved by the zoning commission for the district of
columbia and zoning commission order and in any subsequent
applicable orders, we think that addresses our concern.
the reference to the zoning order is really important,
because that is -- if it is ok with you, I would like to add
that language, then I would encourage the chairman to accept
it. Councilmember mendelson: you
will have to repeat it. After the phrase, after public
uses is used by the zoning commission?
councilmember nadeau: for the district of columbia, zoning
commission order number 1611, and in any subsequent applicable
orders. I have a couple paper copies.
how do I get it to you guys? Can someone this -- run this
down? Councilmember mendelson: this
strikes me as unnecessarily wordy.
>> I think it is the language we need.
councilmember mendelson: as approved by the zoning
commission. We kind of know who that is
without further saying district of columbia.
order 1611 and any further subsequent, isn't that, like --
are there further proceedings? Why would we go there?
>> I think to cover our bases. Councilmember mendelson: well,
it's the -- it'd be nice if this had been
worked out earlier. >> it reflects the language we
use in the fy or two vsa. >> in the what?
>> fy 22 vsa. Councilmember mendelson: as
approved by the zoning commission for the district of
columbia in zoning order 1611 and any --
councilmember nadeau? Councilmember nadeau: and in any
subsequent applicable orders. Councilmember mendelson: give me
just a second.
councilmember mendelson: councilmember nadeau, the fy 22
park morton lang which also cited order 1612, you are
mentioning that? Councilmember nadeau: no.
councilmember mendelson: I don't know the orders.
why would you mention one but not the other?
councilmember nadeau: two different sites?
councilmember mendelson: I don't know.
councilmember nadeau: it's not the same location.
it's two different orders. Councilmember mendelson:
councilmember crawford, this language was used before, even
though it strikes me as unnecessarily wordy.
do you have a problem with it? Councilmember crawford: I don't
believe so. I consulted with the ogc.
I didn't have time to review it, so.
councilmember mendelson: I will say, if there is no objection,
councilmember nadeau's oral amendment would be accepted to
councilmember crawford's written amendment.
I will repeat the language. It would say, including
specified site usage requirements for public parks
and other uses has been approved by the zoning commission for the
district of columbia in zoning order 1611 and any subsequent
applicable orders. It is extended to december 2029.
hearing no objection, that oral amendment is accepted.
we have the amendment, written amendment, before us that
change. If there is no objection, it
will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is
accepted. We are clear on that?
I am looking at general counsel. Councilmember nadeau.
councilmember nadeau: I withdraw my amendment to the telework
subtitle. Councilmember mendelson:
councilmember felder. Councilmember felder: thank you,
mr. Chairman. I would like to move amendments
1, 2, and 3 in block, as they each make that same technical
conforming corrections. Specifically, each amendment
updates the definition of certified business enterprise to
ensure it remains consistent with existing d.c. Law.
the mmn's apply to subtitle c, workforce housing, subtitle d,
development of former federal properties, and subtitle e,
wmata joint properties. As we recently legislated, cbd
should be limited to only those businesses in the district.
if we allow for the expanded definition, I fear businesses
can take advantage of the district's cbd benefits.
and for the record, we inadvertently circulated these
as amendments to the in gross version, and they should have
been to the ans. Councilmember mendelson: I don't
think there is any problem with that, since general counsel is
aware. >> yes, we are.
councilmember felder: thank you. Councilmember mendelson: is
there discussion? If there is no objection, these
three amendments will be accepted.
hearing no objection, they are accepted.
councilmember felder: thank you, mr. Chairman.
councilmember mendelson: yes, councilmember felder?
councilmember felder: thank you, mr. Chairman.
that's it. Councilmember mendelson: I'm not
aware of any other amendments. Is there any other discussion?
councilmember trayon white: chairman.
my amendment is friendly for councilmember allen's amendment.
I can read it and circulate it. C1
and this is to ensure that as we consider the relief for d.c.
water, that there is also relief for the ratepayers at the same
time. I will read it.
amending section 225.1c1, municipal regulations.
amending the subparagraph to read the following -- beginning
in october 1, 2020, any rate increases for water and soil
services as a result of an increase of the public and
convenience fees set forward in subparagraph c shall expire.
one would sunset and the other would increase and would only be
in place to ensure the rate increase past onto the d.c.
ratepayers but also cease at the same time.
chair mendelson: discussion. Councilmember allen?
cm allen: I think at least in the way that I'm reading this
I'm not sure we are actually legally allowed to do this
because if I'm reading this correctly what it is saying is
that is directing the council -- saying that the council is
directing specific rates for water and sewer services.
I don't know if we need to turn to general counsel to ask around
this. I understand the spirit in which
it is being offered. I don't believe we are able to
actually set the rate. Chair mendelson: do you have the
language, general counsel? >> it doesn't set the rate.
it expires the rate increase that was increased by.
chair mendelson: beginning october 1, 2030, that is
consistent with the amendment, any rate increases for water and
sewer services, I repeat any rate increases that were a
result of the increase of the public and convenience fees set
forth in subparagraphc of this paragraph shall expire.
councilmember allen, did you have anything more to say?
cm allen: it's not a disagreement around the spirit,
it to me is our oversight function, to make sure that any
rate from the mayor is passed on to ratepayers when the pith goes
away is no longer present in a bill, my issue is I just don't
believe that legislatively we can write what the rate increase
is as much as I would love to do that, I don't think we can.
I'm sure d.c. Water would love it if we could set their rates.
chair mendelson: I would add that there was a certain amount
of vagueness here. Not so much in the writing, but
any rate increases that were a result of the increase in the
public and convenience fee, so unless that were to be itemized
as part of a ratesetting by d.c. Water, I don't know how anybody
would be able to figure out what is expiring.
I mean, I'm assuming the rate increases are not too much
different. Cm white: we were told by d.c.
water there would be rate increases based on us adding
this pith. So whatever those rate increases
were speaks to the language. Chair mendelson: yes, but
typically I don't know if d.c. Water would have a ratemaking
case where they would say that pif is going up and therefore
the rates are going up. Cm white: that's exactly what
they said. Chair mendelson: I'm assuming
there was a ratesetting case right now and there would be one
in a few years and it would encompass each more than just
the pif. Cm allen: and my point again is
that as I read the statute the powers delegated to the power
and water board are to set, just, and levy rates, and that
is not a power we have so I don't believe as well as the
intentioned as this is, the way we get after this, I don't think
we can do this. Cm allen: so how do we ensure
after we sunset this that the rates for the ratepayers sunset
as well, the answer was oversight and I'm not sure what
oversight can do if it is already done.
cm allen: and what we are hearing is we have oversight
over d.c. Water and other utilities, so the oversight
would be the work we do in our committee and oversight over
that, as well as the d.c. Representatives that sit on the
d.c. Water board themselves appointed by the mayor and the
council, so we have multiple spaces where we can exert our
oversight influence to ensure that when it sunsets, those
rates accrued to that are no longer reflected.
ogc can opine. >> what I think you said is
correct. Cm white: can you give details?
>> that we cannot set the rates. Cm white: do you view this as
setting rates are sunsetting a bill?
>> the way this reads is that you are saying no other rate,
the rate itself shall expire. So that is setting a rate.
>> mr. German? Chair mendelson: councilmember
parker? Cm parker: on the merits of the
argument, the council many weeks ago said pepco could not shut
off people service. I'm challenging the assertion
that this would be legally affecting a rate.
what I think councilmember white is trying to do and I don't want
to speak for him but what I'm interpreting it as, if d.c.
water is making an argument they are raising rates because of the
pif, pif goes away they should be forced to acknowledge what
the rate increase was and remove that increase.
on its merits, I just of the language so I can't wait in on
how it is written, but I think it has merit.
I also think the irony of this is it calls into question what I
think is that d.c. Water said they will have to raise rates.
I think I get what councilmember white is trying to do and I
challenge the assertion that he wouldn't have the legal right to
say you can't charge ratepayers for an increased rate the same
way we band pepco shut offs a few weeks ago.
>> is that a question? Cm parker: no, just adding my
two cents that I don't know what we do after that but maybe
councilmember white will rewrite the language or work with
general counsel to rewrite the language not to prolong this
what I sense he is trying to do is to force d.c. Water to say
what is the increase if any and to hold them accountable to not
passing those increases on to residents and I know we don't
want to prolong the meeting, but I think if d.c. Water is arguing
this point to push back, I think it has merit.
>> mr. German? Mr. Chairman?
chair mendelson: councilmember frumin.
cm frumin: I also get the spirit of what councilmember white is
trying to do. And it is, d.c. Water is saying
that if we have to pay these fees we need to pass them onto
folks. I think that is a reality.
that in setting the rates there is a look at all of the costs
d.c. Water has experienced and there is an effort to recoup
those costs. I wonder and it may be semantic
that doesn't make a difference, but I wonder if this language
said that after 2030 that the sunset of the pif needs to be
taken into account in the establishment of the rates.
it is a changed reality that could result in lower rates or a
slower increase in 2030, but if it is going to sunset and the
goal is that that has a positive effect for ratepayers, can we
say it should be taken into account without saying what the
specific rate change is? I would suspect that the
legislation authorizes a look at a variety of things so adding
this to the list of things or could be different than setting
the rates. Is there something like that?
>> what was the question? Cm frumin: the question is is
there a way to phrase that sows that we are urging the sunset be
taken into account in the establishment of the rate?
I would suspect there are a list of factors looked at in setting
the rate in the first place. In that way we are not setting
the rate but we are underscore why we are doing this because we
want some relief and we wanted to be taken into account.
>> I would have to take a look at the regulation, we are doing
this on the fly. I suggest this needs to be
looked at an oversight. I don't have the regulations in
front of me to look at this specifically.
chair mendelson: I'm going to roll this out of order because
it would appear to be trying to set rates for the water and
sewer authority, which I don't believe we have the authority to
do. The rates can be set either
explicitly or directly as in the rates shall be x amount or the
rate could be set by saying you have to reduce what you are
charging. There is a certain amount of
vagueness here because I doubt that the water and sewer
authority is going to have a ratesetting case that is going
to be tied solely, explicitly and only to the public and
convenience fee which is may be a couple million dollars in
costs for the hundreds of millions of dollar operation.
but this gets at the issue of what the rates are and I think
that exceeds our authority and thus this is out of order.
cm white: I'm going to move to recess for a second and speak
with general counsel to get this corrected.
you are making assumptions and I spoke to d.c. Water
representatives today that said specifically that they were
going to increase rates due to this pif and you are saying they
don't think they are. If we could recess for a moment
so I can speak to general counsel.
chair mendelson: a motion to recess.
all those in favor say aye? Opposed say no.
the motion fails. Cm white: roll call.
they don't even know what the rollcall was.
chair mendelson: I'm sorry, mr. White.
and I'm not sure I appreciate the chaos here.
cm white: so you know who voted on what.
chair mendelson: the motion failed.
cm white: that is crazy. Chair mendelson: is there
further discussion? Well, we have the amendment and
the nature of the substitute as amended.
if there is no further discussion the vote will be on
the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.
the voting will be on the amendment the nature of the
substitute as amended. Councilmember pinto.
cm pinto: ok, think is so much, mr. Chairman.
and thank you for all of your work on the bsa and your team
and the budget office and I think that this bsa does a lot
of very important things about making workforce housing more
pop -- possible. About pass-throughs to support
working families. It does a lot of things to
ensure that as we still have more building vacancies downtown
that we can generate more revenue through those transfers.
I do have a couple of questions and concerns, I'm very concerned
about this delivery fee that has been placed in that I worry is
going to impact lots of families across the district to order
groceries or who order deliveries.
I do hope that something, that we are not disadvantaging our
residents who are trying to order food who live in parts of
the city without access to as many grocery stores.
I also want to ask about some of the construction projects in the
pipeline and this is in relation to the gas band that goes into
effect december 2026. Are you aware of how this will
impact current projects in the pipeline scheduled to be built
and if this would allow those to proceed?
chair mendelson: who are you asking?
cm pinto: you. Chair mendelson: me?
I'm happy to talk about it. What I think of as the net zero
subtitle, am I correct? Cm pinto: yes.
I'm referring to the permit cutoff date.
chair mendelson: this was in the mayor's introduced bill.
it came out of committee largely unchanged.
there was a negotiation between two members between
councilmember alan and councilmember lewis george that
was approved. My recollection is the nature of
the substitute does not make any changes.
the mayor had proposed very simply extending or prolonging
or delaying net 04 a year. The version would delay the net
zero law by a year but many of the requirements are in the
subtitle that is before us. You have been approached with
regard to the way you characterized it is the
prohibition of gas. It's not a complete prohibition
and the way I said it was way too oversimplified.
new construction for covered buildings and certain buildings.
and it is a ban on gas, maybe I should know exactly what I'm
talking about. I think it is self generating,
space sitting -- heating and water heating.
cm pinto: I guess I'm wondering if anyone has analyzed any
projects currently in the pipeline given that this goes
into effect any soon and if that would affect any of our
conversion projects or housing projects especially that are
planned for downtown. Chair mendelson: I have not done
that analysis. >> current law states that if a
new net zero construction code is not finalized by this year at
the end of this calendar year new construction or level 3
alterations must be appendix z. The mayor proposed delaying that
by one year. The revised subtitle maintains
the one-year delay for final net zero standard that has two
interim requirements. They would have no on-site
combustion. And that adds a lot of
flexibility. Keep in mind that construction
is able to go through a process to get other exemptions.
bigs -- big projects and small projects have gone through that.
green building advisory council. They are the ones who issue
exemptions from that so the specific question if I heard
this correctly is that if someone is applying for a
construction for a level 3 alteration, what would apply?
it would be the construction code at the time of that.
if a project is working right now through the permitting
process they are going through today's rules.
if d.o.b. Does not have and they are in the permitting process,
that is what would apply. The permit is tied to win their
project is based on what the code is at the time.
cm pinto: so I'm wondering if anybody has analyzed how many
current projects are in the pipeline that would be impacted
by the permitting being set this december 2026?
part of the discussion several months ago was exempting the
affordable housing projects. >> they are in permitting
currently undergoing under today's permit rules and if they
are through a permitting process but if they want to apply for
the exemptions, they have that as well.
I do not know the answer to the question of exactly how many
projects have not begun permitting but would begin
permitting in january 2027 if dod does not approve their
construction codes in time and then an interim standard is set.
it feels like an unknowable answer.
cm pinto: so, if any project is currently in the pipeline and
has already applied for a permit the existing permitting rules
would govern. Cm allen: they are in the
process. Cm pinto: got it.
thank you very much. Chair mendelson: further
discussion on the amendment? Councilmember parker.
cm parker: thank you, mr. Chairman.
I have three quick questions, I think noncontroversial.
in subtitle ee I want to make sure I'm understanding the
change that you made. Chair mendelson: can you tell me
where? Cm parker: subtitle ee.
in terms of page number? Chair mendelson: yes.
cm parker: I can find that for you.
give me one second but let me ask the question while my team
gets the page number. My interpretation of this change
is that if the council were two earmarked funds for organization
, that that would supplement whatever grants might be awarded
by the arts commission versus them subtracting or supplanting
these funds. Was that the spirit behind that
change? Page 124, I believe.
chair mendelson: yes, your interpretation is the same as
mine. For example right above that
language is $100,000 would you both advocated for.
so they would get that grant and then if they applied for general
operating support grants, which all arts organizations do, they
would be entitled to whatever that amount would be not offset
by this $100,000 grant. I think they have a small cap of
grant programs. If they applied to that, if they
meet the criteria without being offset by this, there is a
variety of grants. The one that gets the most
attention was the general operating support.
the $100,000 would not reduce any of those other grant amounts
to which they otherwise would get.
cm parker: understood and that's great.
chair mendelson: actually I'm being understood that the
commission asked for this language.
cm parker: that's great. I had another question for
subtitle j about the educator evaluation and performance
amendment act. Again, I'm getting at the
attention, I'm clear on what I'm aiming to do with the working
group. If the teachers union work to
bargain around, I believe they are allowed to bargain around
the evaluation system. If there was a proposed change
by the union and the executive, is this.
here that we would be waiting for the outcome of this working
group before proposed changes are made?
chair mendelson: no. Cm parker: councilmember
henderson brought this out before, that we want to ensure
that the new leadership has a roadmap, can you elaborate on
the outcome you're hoping from this working group?
is a proposed changes? Is it handing off to the new
mayor or chancellor to say here is what we learned?
is it to say we are not going to do anything but what are group
recommends? Chair mendelson: the intent
behind this is to not delay anything else that might be
discussed or negotiated. But I also have some skepticism
that anything like that would happen.
the working group is supposed to conclude its work by november 1,
2027, a little more than a year from now.
councilmember parker you are well aware there have been
complaints with regard to the current evaluation system in the
d.c. Public schools and the committee and developing this
subtitle was getting tired of all the criticism with no change
or no apparent change. So the thinking here is s, the
council, get a sense of what good evaluation system looks
like, put that together as a recommendation, and we go from
there. Cm parker: is that something you
see legislating or is that a recommendation to the council?
chair mendelson: it could be either, I don't know.
cm parker: interesting. Chair mendelson: I'm saying this
is if I'm being critical. It is truly more of management
because these complaints, as you know, they did the study at the
chancellor's request and I shouldn't say study, evaluation.
they came back and said the impact as and are mostly
unpopular and that there are some racist outcomes and maybe I
should say racially biased outcomes.
so there are these complaints and nothing is done about it, so
let's just figure out on our own what would look good and then
based on that we could say to the mayor or chancellor do
something? Cm parker: awesome, I do recall
the chancellor looking at or altering the evaluation system
and to my knowledge that never happened, so these issues never
have. Last one and we talked about
this. The brad v. Board.
chair mendelson: I thought we talked about that over the
weekend, but ok. Cm pinto: I'm not going to go
too far, but it brought up a question that the board for
antideficiency violations, your change as new members, the
office of the attorney general, it brings up to me that the
board has never ruled that an agency's anti-deficient because
essentially money is just transferred to kind of cover
over-spending routinely and I know we have talked about agency
overspending at length as the council.
so if you could just speak to in addition to adding members, how
are you hoping this board will actually help us get agency
overspending under control? Right now it seems more
performative than substantive. That's not a criticism of your
change, it is more of the existence.
chair mendelson: it adds to members and also changes or
potentially changes to be sure, if I remember right, the law
specifies that the chief financial office appointments,
it will be that the cfo will designate the chair, one or the
other. Right now it is the associate
chief financial officer who is the chair and it is a little bit
like the fox guarding the hen house in my view.
and this government is used to this process where agency a
over-spends and agency b was over budgeted or didn't spend,
so money from agency b is reprogrammed at the end of the
fiscal year two agency a and then there is no overspending.
there is no deficiency. Therefore they don't do
anything. This was the author of the
underlying law and the intent was that there would be much
more aggressiveness to police and go after overspending.
it speaks to not just the agency director but right now to
program managers. These are subtle changes, but
increasing the board changes will hopefully result in much
more aggressive work. Cm parker: even if there is a
transfer to cover overspending, the board would still go through
its process to say said agencies out of compliance.
chair mendelson: yes. Cm parker: understood, thank
you. Chair mendelson: further?
councilmember frumin, then councilmember bonds.
cm frumin: thank you very much. On the brad v., really want to
applaud the work you have done on trying to police
overspending. I also want to add a plug for
the auditor. The auditor came to us for
breakfast, talked to us about the tools we have two police
this and support this. I think as we move and I think
we are moving into an era where we will be policing spending
much more closely. I think she should be applauded
for the role she has played in this process, so I extend my
gratitude. Back on the net zero and
councilmember allen, we have a regime for district buildings
and affordability. Now we have this regime.
I just want to make sure I understand how this is going to
operate for commercial building since it applies here.
I do think we are going to need to come up with a new appendix
and harmonize our approach. If a building applies for a
permit before december 31 of this year, then they are
governed by the existing regime and they may apply to gbac for
relief if they want to include gas for a boiler or space heater
or something like that, is that right?
>> in the example you gave, that is correct.
cm frumin: it is in statute next year that there can't be an
exception, could someone get one in calendar year 27?
cm allen: so, a couple of if's in the scenario, if the
department of buildings does not publish what they are supposed
to by the end of the calendar year, what we are adding is a
lot more flexibility. We are laying out these two
different pieces of flexibility. Specifically to the gbac, that
is correct. It is essentially the body where
they are getting a release valve .
cm frumin: so in that setting of a new construction for an
additional $10,000 in fees, if the permit for that goes in in
february 2027, there is no safety valve there though there
is today? Cm allen: no, they have the
ability to go seek an exception. Cm frumin: even though it would
be in the statute that there could not be such a thing?
cm allen: that the -- that is the exact reason people seek an
exemption today. Cm frumin: so they will be able
to get a gbac extension? Cm allen: yes because the gbac
process is in statute so if today they needed to go through
an exemption today, they have the gbac in statute.
same thing. It is in statute.
cm frumin: and then sometime in 2027 let's come up with a
harmonized theme. Cm allen: I'm game.
thank you. Chair mendelson: councilmember
bonds. Cm bonds: thank you very much,
chairman, I wanted to go back to subtitle j on page 173 as it
goes over to 174. My colleague was asking a couple
of questions about this and I wanted to understand if on line
3052 you have fs a category of membership on this teacher's
evaluation, performance working group.
you have the state board of education.
is that synonymous with there being a member of the public
that is a participant or do we need to add a member of the
public? Like a parent?
chair mendelson: no, we don't need to add more people to this.
cm bonds: well it's not about people, it's about parents and
students. Chair mendelson: well people are
the public. Cm bonds: it is about the
interaction, what happens with their children?
chair mendelson: I think we've got all the bases covered.
in addition to the individuals. Cm bonds: they are all in the
education arena. Chair mendelson: that might make
some sense there would be people in training and education since
this is about how to educate, that could be apparent.
current or former school leaders.
>> and all of them could be carrying a title.
chair mendelson: not necessarily.
cm bonds: a title for the organization they are
representing and they are not representing the families that
have students and most likely the mayor elect is agreeing.
chair mendelson: researchers or academics, any one of these
people and most of them are probably parents.
and they includ a broad representation of stakeholders.
I think we have the bases covered.
this is meant to be a serious working group to look at how to
best professionally evaluate teachers and other employees of
dcps. Cm bonds: and surely we are not
suggesting that a parent who has a student in the school system
today would not be able to render a professional appearance
or an appearance and an opinion of this professionally endowed,
I just think we need to consider having someone who is not an
educationally affiliated individual or background or
practice, I think we would embellish the process if we had
someone who sends their kids off to school or has sends their
kids off to school on a regular basis.
chair mendelson: I don't think you are hearing me.
I suspect between the 14 and 15 people that several or not most
of them will be parents. I suspect that of the 14 or 15
that they will be mostly ordinary people, they will not
be lofty people with lofty titles.
I think we have the bases covered here with a wide variety
of folks from different backgrounds and expertise.
anything further? Cm bonds: no, not from me.
>> one is the report due for the working group?
chair mendelson: november 1, 2027.
>> so, it would be due after next year's budget?
chair mendelson: correct. Which is to give time -- this is
a working group to help the council.
the mayor will benefit because this will be a public report,
but this is, after several years , as I discussed with
councilmember parker, after many years of hearing complaints, we
the council and the committee are going to try to figure out
what does a good evaluation system look like?
>> I understand your aim, I'm wondering if action is taken
before and tears budget, before this report is due, will the
council fall on process and stop any progress from happening for
that? If in the new budget there is an
evaluation system that has been negotiated with the union, that
has been agreed upon between the executive and the union?
chair mendelson: I think that is highly unlikely.
sorry to interrupt. I think that is highly unlikely.
the teacher's contract we approved a couple of years ago,
it is not up for renewal for a couple of years.
there would have to be an opening of negotiations, which
is not scheduled. And if it were, if negotiations
were to open, they probably wouldn't open until january or
february at the earliest, which is not enough time to affect
this evaluation. Actually as I'm speaking to you
if the mayor wanted to move more quickly than the council, there
is nothing to stop the mayor from moving more quickly.
in terms of next year's budget, all that we have done with
regard to impacting the budget is to fund the bonuses and this
doesn't affect that. Cm lewis george: ok, thank you.
chair mendelson: is there anything further on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute?
cm felder: mr. Chairman? Chair mendelson: councilmember
felder. Cm felder: for the record I want
to flag again my concerns as it relates to the access.
I have specific concerns on how this proposal could increase
calls for snap recipients, many of those who live in ward 7
endboard eight, as well as individuals who may use delivery
services for groceries and medication.
it is my hope that we could later on work with colleagues.
and the net zero subtitle and how that will increase utilities
for its residents and making utilities more affordable in the
long-run. I thing we have to be mindful of
the implications of this. I want to go on record for that.
chair mendelson: if there is nothing further, the vote is on
the amendment nature of the substitute as amended.
all those in favor say aye. Are there any opposed?
the ayes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended.
is there any further discussion? The vote will be on the bill as
amended. All those in favor say aye?
are there any opposed? Hearing on, the ayes have it
unanimously. We have the budget support
emergency declaration resolution , so moved.
I circulated this with a memo. When we get to the underlying
bill, assuming we get to the underlying bill, we better get
to the underlying bill, I will ask that it can form to the
amended version of the permanent bill.
reading from the memo I circulated due to delayed
transmission of the budget financial plan it is necessary
to pass the bsa on an emergency basis to ensure the provisions
are affected. In addition are several time
sensitive provisions that must be in place prior to october 1,
2026, these are included in bill 26-661, that is the bsa.
the emergency bill will make those time sensitive provisions
prior to october 1. Other provisions will retain the
applicability date provided in the permanent bill which said be
enacted prior to october 1 to allow agencies and stakeholders
to prepare for implementation. So what did I just say?
the bsa is effective october 1 the affirmative version has to
go to the hill for the 30 day layover.
that layover may not be completed before october 1, so
that his recent one for having an emergency.
recent two is the provisions in the bsa are applicable as of
october 1 unless specifically noted otherwise in the subtitle
and there are some subtitles that have an earlier
replicability date. So we need the emergency for
that. And then third that we want
everybody to know what is coming, so doing the emergency
also helps in that regard. So for those reasons I move from
declaration to discussion. The vote will be on the
declaration of pr 26-758. All those in favor say aye.
are there any opposed? Hearing none, the aye have it
unanimously. Si move the underlying bill
26-724, with the emergency conforming with permanent --
give me a second. Madam general counsel, are we
clear on what I'm moving? >> yes.
chair mendelson: is there discussion?
the vote will be on bill 26-724 as amended to reflect the
permanent bill, bill 26-661. All those in favor say aye.
are there any opposed? Hearing none, the ayes have it
unanimously. You know, at each of these
budget meetings, votes, we think everybody.
I don't want to thank everybody this time by name although I
want to thank them all, but I do want to call out explicitly
budget anne. [laughter]
as distinguished from normal anne.
and phelps. The office of revenue analysis,
the office of general counsel, and my staff.
not known as budget blaine. These folks really spent much
more time than anybody else on this just so the public
understands, it grew to 435 pages.
our next meeting will be an additional meeting on july 14,
scheduled to start at 12:00 noon.
there will be a committee of the hole before then.
the deadline for notices for next tuesday's meeting will be
this thursday. The time is 1:48 p.m. And this
meeting is adjourned. [gavel]
?