1
00:00:14,366 --> 00:00:17,966
>> I'm going to order this meeting.

2
00:00:18,971 --> 00:00:24,430
this is an additional meeting of the council of the district of

3
00:00:24,430 --> 00:00:27,313
columbia. Today is tuesday, july 7, the

4
00:00:27,313 --> 00:00:32,510
time is 11:40 in the morning. We are in room 500.

5
00:00:32,510 --> 00:00:35,540
the council chamber of the johnny wilson building.

6
00:00:35,540 --> 00:00:38,658
this meeting I believe is being streamed on cable television 13

7
00:00:38,658 --> 00:00:45,164
and is also I think available but will be recorded and will be

8
00:00:45,164 --> 00:00:49,964
available in the future on the council website.

9
00:00:52,171 --> 00:00:58,477
this is an additional meeting. That is, it is not a regular the

10
00:00:58,477 --> 00:01:00,813
scheduled monthly meeting. It's also the 34th meeting of

11
00:01:00,813 --> 00:01:04,840
council 26. We have one item of business,

12
00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:07,850
over one divided by I think three.

13
00:01:07,850 --> 00:01:09,756
that is, we have the budget support act final reading as

14
00:01:09,756 --> 00:01:14,159
well as the emergency version of that in the emergency

15
00:01:14,159 --> 00:01:18,296
declaration, so we can consider this an emergency basis.

16
00:01:18,296 --> 00:01:20,233
and when I say emergency that means it becomes effective as

17
00:01:20,233 --> 00:01:26,238
soon as we sign it and there are portions that need to go into

18
00:01:26,238 --> 00:01:31,380
effect sooner than would otherwise occur with a

19
00:01:31,110 --> 00:01:34,780
congressional review period. We always begin our legislative

20
00:01:34,780 --> 00:01:36,716
meetings with a moment of silence.

21
00:01:36,716 --> 00:01:43,916
if we do have silence on the dais and then the chamber.

22
00:02:06,912 --> 00:02:10,149
madam secretary, would you please call the roll?

23
00:02:10,149 --> 00:02:14,949
[calling names] mr. Chairman, you have a quorum.

24
00:02:41,380 --> 00:02:44,980
chair mendelson: thank you, madam secretary.

25
00:02:45,751 --> 00:02:51,323
we only have a nonconsent agenda and the first item to fiscal

26
00:02:51,323 --> 00:02:54,323
year 2027 budget support act of 2029.

27
00:02:54,926 --> 00:02:59,165
we adopted this at first reading on june 9.

28
00:02:59,165 --> 00:03:02,868
this legislation is much more complicated the budget so rather

29
00:03:02,868 --> 00:03:06,538
than moving the second reading last week with final reading on

30
00:03:06,538 --> 00:03:09,575
the budget, we are taking it out today.

31
00:03:09,575 --> 00:03:11,944
it's a very lengthy and complex bill.

32
00:03:11,944 --> 00:03:15,310
I'm not going to explain everything that was in the bill

33
00:03:15,310 --> 00:03:17,167
on first reading. In fact I'm not going to explain

34
00:03:17,167 --> 00:03:20,767
in detail everything in the amendment.

35
00:03:22,972 --> 00:03:27,772
I believe yesterday morning, the amendment nature include

36
00:03:33,983 --> 00:03:36,510
citation in numbering corrections as well as other

37
00:03:36,510 --> 00:03:40,851
technical crafting changes. The amended substitute or ans

38
00:03:40,924 --> 00:03:44,661
also makes substantive revisions as well as clarifying changes

39
00:03:44,661 --> 00:03:50,599
with the budget director. As well as working with the

40
00:03:50,599 --> 00:03:55,938
office of the chief financial officer and the executive.

41
00:03:55,938 --> 00:04:01,938
the memo that was circulated yesterday which is seven full

42
00:04:02,812 --> 00:04:07,150
pages goes into detail with regard to most of the changes.

43
00:04:07,150 --> 00:04:13,555
I would say all of the substantive changes, so I'm not

44
00:04:13,555 --> 00:04:20,290
going to go through all of that. I move the amendment nature of

45
00:04:20,290 --> 00:04:26,290
the substitute and I'm happy to answer any questions or

46
00:04:27,360 --> 00:04:31,836
recognize folks and actually, I have an amendment.

47
00:04:35,911 --> 00:04:39,716
I will note that I'm aware of an amendment from councilmembers

48
00:04:39,716 --> 00:04:43,316
alan, white, louis george and brooke.

49
00:04:46,956 --> 00:04:49,956
excuse me, pinto, councilmember pinto.

50
00:04:52,762 --> 00:04:56,650
>> yes, that was me. I have one that we just

51
00:04:56,650 --> 00:04:59,650
circulated. It's a different one.

52
00:05:03,339 --> 00:05:07,539
>> and I have one as well pending.

53
00:05:09,445 --> 00:05:12,282
>> all right. >> I don't have any.

54
00:05:12,282 --> 00:05:18,882
[laughter] I talked to every member for attempted to talk to

55
00:05:19,210 --> 00:05:22,658
every member on friday and asked about amendments and I have to

56
00:05:22,658 --> 00:05:26,629
say what is coming in today is above and beyond what I was told

57
00:05:26,629 --> 00:05:29,765
on friday. I am going to start off with an

58
00:05:29,765 --> 00:05:33,965
oral amendment. Line 2589, to start the phrase

59
00:05:50,530 --> 00:05:54,853
302 and insert the phrase 302-a in its place.

60
00:05:56,125 --> 00:06:01,525
it's pretty technical, that's why I didn't circulate it.

61
00:06:02,198 --> 00:06:06,269
to change the number 302 to the number 302-a.

62
00:06:06,269 --> 00:06:12,408
this has to do with provisions in the vacant amendment act of

63
00:06:12,408 --> 00:06:18,408
2025 that do not have a cost. There's no objection, this

64
00:06:19,215 --> 00:06:24,150
amendment will be accepted. >> mr. Chairman, would you

65
00:06:24,353 --> 00:06:29,225
repeat the section again? >> and can you speak louder mr.

66
00:06:29,225 --> 00:06:30,920
chairman, we can't hear you down here.

67
00:06:30,920 --> 00:06:33,692
>> the amendment is to page 85, line 1589.

68
00:07:00,923 --> 00:07:04,827
it has to do to a reference with regard to citations -- excuse

69
00:07:04,827 --> 00:07:09,627
me, section references. This is subtitle 2-I line 1589,

70
00:07:19,542 --> 00:07:23,142
changing the number 302 to read 302-a.

71
00:07:25,948 --> 00:07:30,148
anybody want me to repeat that again?

72
00:07:30,219 --> 00:07:35,190
it's right there. If there's no objection, this

73
00:07:36,920 --> 00:07:40,290
amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

74
00:07:40,290 --> 00:07:44,320
accepted. I want to note as well this is

75
00:07:44,320 --> 00:07:51,832
not an amendment that in section on line 25-33, there is a pin

76
00:07:57,447 --> 00:08:02,718
site that needs to be corrected. And that I'm told is technical

77
00:08:02,718 --> 00:08:08,718
which is why I'm not moving it as an amendment.

78
00:08:11,270 --> 00:08:14,627
council member allen. >> it's currently drafted

79
00:08:23,773 --> 00:08:27,373
subtitle 6-o. To increase the public

80
00:08:30,946 --> 00:08:34,830
inconvenience fee applied to public space permits that result

81
00:08:34,830 --> 00:08:36,719
in temporary occupancy of public space.

82
00:08:36,719 --> 00:08:38,888
to mitigate the impact on utilities, the subtitle provides

83
00:08:38,888 --> 00:08:43,688
utilities paid 60 day grace period before is applied.

84
00:08:44,260 --> 00:08:49,832
however even with this expanded grace period, d.c. Water is

85
00:08:49,832 --> 00:08:54,503
concerned it would impose new costs in the utility

86
00:08:54,503 --> 00:08:56,372
specifically in a letter dated may 14.

87
00:08:56,372 --> 00:09:02,445
d.c. Water cautioned that every dollar assessed chicken d.c.

88
00:09:02,445 --> 00:09:03,580
water is a direct path through cost for ratepayer through

89
00:09:03,580 --> 00:09:07,984
higher water and sewer bills. D.c. Water carries new

90
00:09:07,984 --> 00:09:08,985
discretionary budget to beasties.

91
00:09:08,985 --> 00:09:12,388
there is no alternative. The ultimately comes out of

92
00:09:12,388 --> 00:09:15,992
pocket as it is not only designed to compensate for

93
00:09:15,992 --> 00:09:19,996
disruption. It is the mayor had embedded the

94
00:09:19,996 --> 00:09:22,131
revenue raised increase throughout the budget and was

95
00:09:22,131 --> 00:09:25,747
unable to remove and escalate the budget and get the kindle

96
00:09:25,747 --> 00:09:31,147
has already approved fiscal year 2027, the council ability to

97
00:09:31,753 --> 00:09:36,910
reduce them to maintain a balanced budget across the for

98
00:09:36,910 --> 00:09:38,160
your financial plan. So this amendment would simply

99
00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:44,760
sunset the increased pif for d.c. Water beginning in fy 31.

100
00:09:45,534 --> 00:09:48,771
instead, beginning on october 1, 2023, d.c. Water would only be

101
00:09:48,771 --> 00:09:55,371
subject to the pif. And I would ask if that the

102
00:10:04,510 --> 00:10:07,510
accepted as friendly. >> councilmember white.

103
00:10:08,790 --> 00:10:12,390
>> yes. Councilmember allen, I know that

104
00:10:15,263 --> 00:10:20,134
we are looking to sunset this cost on d.c. Water, ultimately

105
00:10:20,134 --> 00:10:27,142
affecting the rate of pay, the rate of those who consume water

106
00:10:27,142 --> 00:10:31,145
but I dislike question was once we stop them from extended fees,

107
00:10:31,145 --> 00:10:36,170
how do we get a guarantee that the ratepayers rates will go

108
00:10:36,170 --> 00:10:40,817
down or stop going up? >> thanks, great question.

109
00:10:45,126 --> 00:10:46,427
so part of what d.c. Water has to look at right now, the rate

110
00:10:46,427 --> 00:10:50,465
case right now around their overall cost.

111
00:10:50,465 --> 00:10:54,102
the increase that the mayor proposed was not part of what

112
00:10:54,102 --> 00:10:58,172
they had been mapping out. They are going to have to figure

113
00:10:58,172 --> 00:11:00,509
it had to add that into the overall rate structure.

114
00:11:00,509 --> 00:11:04,512
by sunsetting this, what that would mean is the end of the

115
00:11:04,512 --> 00:11:07,515
fiscal plan, that cost would no longer be there which means it

116
00:11:07,515 --> 00:11:10,151
no longer is passed to the rate players.

117
00:11:10,151 --> 00:11:16,123
how to make sure deepwater is accountable for that is going to

118
00:11:16,123 --> 00:11:20,923
be oversight. Which would mean they are not

119
00:11:22,129 --> 00:11:26,329
passing on that cost or returning that.

120
00:11:29,270 --> 00:11:33,470
>> is after something already has been done.

121
00:11:38,947 --> 00:11:41,683
I'm concerned if we do sunset this, it doesn't have a good

122
00:11:41,683 --> 00:11:48,283
effect on the residence. >> two I have it in writing that

123
00:11:52,930 --> 00:11:57,493
four years from now -- >> for oversight perspective, we

124
00:12:04,105 --> 00:12:07,175
have a d.c. Water board that we vote to approve the mayor's

125
00:12:07,175 --> 00:12:11,975
nominations for that. We have our oversight function

126
00:12:12,247 --> 00:12:17,510
so that when the cost that d.c. Water is having to pay go away,

127
00:12:17,510 --> 00:12:20,321
for years are now, it will be our job to make sure that the

128
00:12:20,321 --> 00:12:23,191
cost that will be passed on to ratepayers are no longer being

129
00:12:23,191 --> 00:12:27,195
assessed. I don't have a crystal ball that

130
00:12:27,195 --> 00:12:29,998
is going to tell us exactly what is going to happen but I believe

131
00:12:29,998 --> 00:12:32,802
that is part of our oversight job, to make sure they are not

132
00:12:32,802 --> 00:12:39,600
passing on those costs. >> you know if d.c. Water has

133
00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:44,406
any rate increases now that are due right now?

134
00:12:46,981 --> 00:12:48,616
I'm just concerned about the rising utility costs in the

135
00:12:48,616 --> 00:12:53,416
district. >> and that is part of what is

136
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:04,298
driving this to remove that pif and sunsetting it so that those

137
00:13:04,298 --> 00:13:06,340
costs don't get passed on to ratepayers.

138
00:13:06,340 --> 00:13:10,234
>> but it still can go up. >> correct.

139
00:13:11,172 --> 00:13:15,510
costs are going up. We are trying to limit this.

140
00:13:15,510 --> 00:13:21,510
>> thank you, mr. Chairman. I just have a similar question.

141
00:13:24,719 --> 00:13:29,591
zooming back without this amendment, what would happen to

142
00:13:29,591 --> 00:13:32,600
ratepayers if we were not to sunset the pif?

143
00:13:32,600 --> 00:13:35,996
>> if we don't sunset it, two things.

144
00:13:35,996 --> 00:13:43,196
once, d.c. Water will have to continue passing on the mayor's

145
00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:48,343
increase to ratepayers. Secondly, when d.c. Water goes

146
00:13:48,343 --> 00:13:52,480
out to the bond market which they will do in the summer, they

147
00:13:52,480 --> 00:13:56,150
have to show in the books and unknown financial liability that

148
00:13:56,150 --> 00:13:59,554
goes out beyond this fiscal plan.

149
00:13:59,554 --> 00:14:03,491
to some degree, by sunsetting it through this amendment, it also

150
00:14:03,491 --> 00:14:06,227
helps d.c. Water when they go out to the bond market to show

151
00:14:06,227 --> 00:14:10,364
essentially capped financial liability because they go out

152
00:14:10,364 --> 00:14:14,564
looking for funding. >> is that your understanding

153
00:14:16,104 --> 00:14:23,177
that their plan is to do, to look for more external financing

154
00:14:23,177 --> 00:14:26,177
? >> in terms of overall cost,

155
00:14:31,586 --> 00:14:35,457
they will look for financing that essentially ratepayers,

156
00:14:35,457 --> 00:14:39,570
both residential and commercial are paying.

157
00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:43,131
they are very much trying to bring in federal dollars.

158
00:14:43,131 --> 00:14:46,334
the trump administration's roll back a lot of federal dollars

159
00:14:46,334 --> 00:14:49,170
available, so that makes everything a little bit harder.

160
00:14:49,170 --> 00:14:51,940
they are able to find private financial sources that will do

161
00:14:51,940 --> 00:14:56,140
that. They are going to have offset

162
00:15:00,615 --> 00:15:03,952
cost, a huge solar installation down at blue plains.

163
00:15:03,952 --> 00:15:05,620
they have a lot of different ways they are trying to help

164
00:15:05,620 --> 00:15:09,924
offset costs that are otherwise being passed on to ratepayers.

165
00:15:09,924 --> 00:15:14,829
this is just one more cost that is going to ratepayers.

166
00:15:14,829 --> 00:15:19,290
we could at least control one part.

167
00:15:19,601 --> 00:15:23,801
>> is there any further discussion regarding this?

168
00:15:25,173 --> 00:15:28,173
>> I fully support this amendment.

169
00:15:31,820 --> 00:15:35,390
I do think that it can be a moment to step back and think

170
00:15:35,390 --> 00:15:41,730
about our propensity to impose fees, and we impose fees in the

171
00:15:41,730 --> 00:15:44,333
utility context, in the delivery context.

172
00:15:44,333 --> 00:15:46,268
we do it in a lot of different places and it is a way in which

173
00:15:46,268 --> 00:15:51,807
we raise revenue and it doesn't look like a tax, but part of

174
00:15:51,807 --> 00:15:56,780
what this amendment is is a recognition that these fees and

175
00:15:56,780 --> 00:15:59,548
that getting passed on to our residence, and so they kind of

176
00:15:59,548 --> 00:16:04,860
work as a tax. I would encourage that we be

177
00:16:04,860 --> 00:16:08,957
reluctant going forward to be imposing new fees like this.

178
00:16:08,957 --> 00:16:12,270
I think we are going to have to take a hard look on a very

179
00:16:12,270 --> 00:16:17,633
candid revenue raiser and I think that is the way to go, but

180
00:16:17,633 --> 00:16:21,700
I think we need to be careful because utility prices are going

181
00:16:21,700 --> 00:16:27,776
up and they're not just going up because of the fees that we

182
00:16:27,776 --> 00:16:32,114
impose, but the fees that we impose contribute to what is a

183
00:16:32,114 --> 00:16:35,784
real problem area, and this amendment is a recognition of

184
00:16:35,784 --> 00:16:38,787
that. But I think it is broader than

185
00:16:38,787 --> 00:16:41,557
that and we should keep that in mind when forward.

186
00:16:41,557 --> 00:16:45,157
>> councilmember felder. >> councilwoman pinto asked my

187
00:16:50,865 --> 00:16:53,736
original question but councilmember allen, I just want

188
00:16:53,736 --> 00:16:56,839
you to know that I appreciate your leadership on this.

189
00:16:56,839 --> 00:17:01,478
have you had an opportunity to talk with d.c. Water and are

190
00:17:01,478 --> 00:17:05,814
they supportive of this, what have those conversations been

191
00:17:05,814 --> 00:17:10,686
like if any? >> I don't want to speak on

192
00:17:10,686 --> 00:17:15,230
behalf of d.c. Water. I will say what I believe has

193
00:17:15,230 --> 00:17:16,892
been conveyed to me. They are not supportive of the

194
00:17:16,892 --> 00:17:20,295
pif overall. They are supportive of this

195
00:17:20,295 --> 00:17:25,367
amendment, though, as feeling like it at least gives them a

196
00:17:25,367 --> 00:17:29,271
backstop at the end that it sunsets.

197
00:17:29,271 --> 00:17:32,871
>> thank you for that. >> councilmember parker?

198
00:17:33,174 --> 00:17:38,980
>> councilmember allen, do we have a sense of the rate

199
00:17:38,980 --> 00:17:43,780
increase that ultimately is passed on to ratepayers?

200
00:17:46,555 --> 00:17:50,392
>> do you mean specific to the pif?

201
00:17:50,392 --> 00:17:56,640
>> if their argument is we must do this so we don't pass on

202
00:17:56,640 --> 00:18:00,200
increase to ratepayers, the natural question I have is what

203
00:18:00,200 --> 00:18:06,200
is that increase? I think the question points to a

204
00:18:06,541 --> 00:18:11,880
certain skepticism that I share. Do we really anticipate rates

205
00:18:11,880 --> 00:18:19,822
going down, and as I look at this, part of it is to ensure

206
00:18:19,822 --> 00:18:24,920
and incentivize d.c. Water to move as possible.

207
00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:28,163
we are essentially taking that burden away from them because we

208
00:18:28,163 --> 00:18:29,832
are saying we are going to increase rates or have to

209
00:18:29,832 --> 00:18:34,632
increase rates for ratepayers which I'm sensitive to.

210
00:18:36,105 --> 00:18:39,909
so I'm just curious if there is an amount or estimate of what

211
00:18:39,909 --> 00:18:45,309
that increase might be. >> d.c. Water is currently

212
00:18:48,850 --> 00:18:52,921
debating a rate increase on every d.c. Water ratepayer.

213
00:18:52,921 --> 00:18:56,959
that is completely separate from the pif.

214
00:18:56,959 --> 00:19:00,362
we are looking at d.c. Water thinking about what the rate

215
00:19:00,362 --> 00:19:04,200
increases going to be for d.c. Water completely separate from

216
00:19:04,200 --> 00:19:05,680
this. This was only introduced by the

217
00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:09,672
mayor in april, so they only had two or three months that they

218
00:19:09,672 --> 00:19:14,543
have been looking at this. So I don't know if they can,

219
00:19:14,543 --> 00:19:16,679
with the accuracy of your bill, for example, say this is what

220
00:19:16,679 --> 00:19:21,150
the pif is going to reflect. What they've been very clear

221
00:19:21,150 --> 00:19:24,686
about is that any additional cost we have to pay, it has to

222
00:19:24,686 --> 00:19:28,230
be burdened by ratepayers. So it is a cost that has to get

223
00:19:28,230 --> 00:19:32,930
passed on. To be clear, the pif does not

224
00:19:32,930 --> 00:19:36,310
save d.c. Water any money. It will increase costs that d.c.

225
00:19:36,310 --> 00:19:37,966
water has to pay, I want to make sure that's it's clear as well.

226
00:19:37,966 --> 00:19:42,437
>> ultimately I see it as an incentive measure to say let's

227
00:19:42,437 --> 00:19:46,442
not inconvenience district residents with your work.

228
00:19:46,442 --> 00:19:49,978
so as to not incur more fines or penalties, move as efficiently

229
00:19:49,978 --> 00:19:53,783
as possible. >> we are essentially saying we

230
00:19:53,783 --> 00:19:59,783
are going to sunset this x years down the line.

231
00:19:59,788 --> 00:20:02,524
and again, I'm just kind of kicking the tires on the

232
00:20:02,524 --> 00:20:03,259
argument. I'm skeptical.

233
00:20:03,259 --> 00:20:07,996
>> the nature of the projects are that they will run longer

234
00:20:07,996 --> 00:20:12,796
than 60 days. While the pif from purely a

235
00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:16,500
policy perspective, we are going to have a higher public

236
00:20:16,500 --> 00:20:21,143
inconvenience the but we don't assess it until after 60 days.

237
00:20:21,143 --> 00:20:25,147
with my policy hat on, for a lot of projects, that probably makes

238
00:20:25,147 --> 00:20:30,352
sense. Get it faster, get it out of the

239
00:20:30,352 --> 00:20:32,788
public way or else there is this higher fee.

240
00:20:32,788 --> 00:20:36,493
the nature of many projects are longer-term projects.

241
00:20:36,493 --> 00:20:39,828
you can say 60 days, you can say 90 days.

242
00:20:39,828 --> 00:20:43,310
it probably won't matter because it is a long-term type of

243
00:20:43,310 --> 00:20:45,340
project. D.c. Water will have to pay this

244
00:20:45,340 --> 00:20:47,303
fee which means it comes to ratepayers.

245
00:20:47,303 --> 00:20:52,173
so by sunsetting it, the goal is oversight is going to have to be

246
00:20:52,173 --> 00:20:57,379
what takes place here. When that pif after four years

247
00:20:57,379 --> 00:21:01,416
no longer is there, how do we make sure that is no longer

248
00:21:01,416 --> 00:21:05,787
reflected in your bills no longer pass on this costs?

249
00:21:05,787 --> 00:21:09,987
>> consomm number bonds. >> thank you, chairman, and

250
00:21:11,794 --> 00:21:15,994
thank you mr. Allen for this measure.

251
00:21:17,366 --> 00:21:24,720
and I to understand through this measure that it only speaks to

252
00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:27,142
this particular instance, it does not speak to the future

253
00:21:27,142 --> 00:21:29,542
opportunities for rate increases?

254
00:21:30,478 --> 00:21:33,478
>> correct. >> thank you very much.

255
00:21:36,218 --> 00:21:39,640
I think anytime we can think about the public and think about

256
00:21:39,640 --> 00:21:46,240
how we can help them save dollars is important, but this

257
00:21:47,716 --> 00:21:49,417
does not really speak to that at this point.

258
00:21:49,417 --> 00:21:55,417
thank you very much. Chair mendelson: I want to note

259
00:21:56,791 --> 00:22:03,131
that the amendment that is before us would reduce the fee

260
00:22:03,131 --> 00:22:05,466
starting in the fall of 2030.

261
00:22:05,466 --> 00:22:08,870
it's not increasing rates. It's actually trying to help

262
00:22:08,870 --> 00:22:12,730
ratepayers even though it will be a few years from now.

263
00:22:12,730 --> 00:22:15,543
I only say that because a lot of these questions that focused on

264
00:22:15,543 --> 00:22:19,547
well, what are we doing about the cost of water and the effect

265
00:22:19,547 --> 00:22:24,347
on ratepayers? This amendment is to some extent

266
00:22:24,352 --> 00:22:28,552
in some way helping, not hurting ratepayers.

267
00:22:30,959 --> 00:22:35,530
ratepayers, even though we care about all of our residents and

268
00:22:35,530 --> 00:22:39,701
businesses, ratepayers is broader than just residents and

269
00:22:39,701 --> 00:22:41,703
businesses in the district. I would also like to point out

270
00:22:41,703 --> 00:22:44,973
because I had a long discussion with d.c. Water last week about

271
00:22:44,973 --> 00:22:49,577
this, they have a project clean rivers where they kind of set up

272
00:22:49,577 --> 00:22:54,416
shop for a couple years and so the fee is going to cost them.

273
00:22:54,416 --> 00:22:58,386
but they do a lot of other projects in the public space and

274
00:22:58,386 --> 00:23:02,230
in my view, they can manage the timing of those projects.

275
00:23:02,230 --> 00:23:06,327
and they don't have to be digging up my flock for 90 days.

276
00:23:06,327 --> 00:23:12,667
maybe they can do it in 15 days. So they have some ability other

277
00:23:12,667 --> 00:23:16,671
than clean rivers to be able to manage their way around this.

278
00:23:16,671 --> 00:23:22,610
and the fee right now is less, but it starts after 30 days.

279
00:23:22,610 --> 00:23:27,849
and with what we have, it starts after 60 days.

280
00:23:27,849 --> 00:23:31,619
just saying. If there is no objection, this

281
00:23:31,619 --> 00:23:36,900
will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

282
00:23:36,900 --> 00:23:39,690
accepted. Councilmember allen, I think you

283
00:23:40,940 --> 00:23:44,294
have a second. >> number two is currently

284
00:23:47,350 --> 00:23:52,435
drafted, subtitle ia would suggest -- subject most --

285
00:23:58,579 --> 00:24:01,983
exempt the public service commission and office people

286
00:24:01,983 --> 00:24:04,519
counsel from that requirement into a telework policy allows

287
00:24:04,519 --> 00:24:06,120
them to maintain their current policies.

288
00:24:06,120 --> 00:24:10,391
the background in the district of columbia in the office of the

289
00:24:10,391 --> 00:24:12,327
people's council for the district of columbia are

290
00:24:12,327 --> 00:24:14,730
independent agencies with their own hiring authority.

291
00:24:14,730 --> 00:24:22,137
both have existing policy that a bit in place in the last several

292
00:24:22,137 --> 00:24:24,939
years, so they have independent agencies that are distinct from

293
00:24:24,939 --> 00:24:30,339
the mayor. They be able to divert from the

294
00:24:31,613 --> 00:24:34,281
workforce management practices. The committee has reviewed both

295
00:24:34,281 --> 00:24:36,170
organizations current telework policies and they are very

296
00:24:36,170 --> 00:24:37,752
reasonable and have been in place for the last couple of

297
00:24:37,752 --> 00:24:40,555
years. Without objection I would ask if

298
00:24:40,555 --> 00:24:46,555
you accept that as written. Chair mendelson: we have the

299
00:24:52,330 --> 00:24:54,902
amendment before us. Is there discussion?

300
00:24:54,902 --> 00:24:59,102
>> I just want to ask a question.

301
00:25:00,375 --> 00:25:04,112
I think they're up in a number of exemptions from this

302
00:25:04,112 --> 00:25:07,982
particular subtitle, and so my question is what is the point of

303
00:25:07,982 --> 00:25:11,582
the subtitle now? Like was left?

304
00:25:17,959 --> 00:25:22,364
>> are you asking that of councilmember allen, or me?

305
00:25:22,364 --> 00:25:25,964
>> it's not rhetorical, who is left?

306
00:25:26,234 --> 00:25:31,340
I missed saying. Should the subtitle just be

307
00:25:31,720 --> 00:25:36,770
stricken at this point? Chair mendelson: so there are a

308
00:25:36,770 --> 00:25:41,477
lot of independent agencies. And there is an addition,

309
00:25:43,952 --> 00:25:48,890
perhaps the largest of them all the office of the financial

310
00:25:48,890 --> 00:25:51,890
officer. They have over 1000 employees.

311
00:25:52,761 --> 00:25:55,997
and there is the zoning commission.

312
00:25:55,997 --> 00:26:00,797
I'm trying to think. We would tax administration.

313
00:26:09,411 --> 00:26:14,382
please don't ask me to try to list all of them from memory.

314
00:26:14,382 --> 00:26:20,382
board of elections and ethics. Office of the inspector general.

315
00:26:23,992 --> 00:26:26,461
I was shown a long list for a moment.

316
00:26:26,461 --> 00:26:31,861
did you have more? Is there further discussion on

317
00:26:32,660 --> 00:26:35,300
this amendment? If there is no objection the

318
00:26:35,300 --> 00:26:40,800
amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

319
00:26:40,800 --> 00:26:42,408
accepted. Councilmember robert white.

320
00:26:49,283 --> 00:26:54,830
>> thank you, chairman. I want to thank councilmember

321
00:27:02,300 --> 00:27:05,900
parker for advocating on the pilot program.

322
00:27:05,900 --> 00:27:08,360
this amendment would increase the eligibility threshold for

323
00:27:08,360 --> 00:27:13,436
participating schools in the pilot program from 40%-60% at

324
00:27:16,110 --> 00:27:18,779
risk enrollment, hoping to ensure that limited funding is

325
00:27:18,779 --> 00:27:20,582
directed to schools serving the highest concentrations of

326
00:27:20,582 --> 00:27:25,382
at-risk students. I'm happy to support this pilot.

327
00:27:25,586 --> 00:27:28,522
then people have been asking the council for a program like this

328
00:27:28,522 --> 00:27:32,126
and this gives us the opportunity to evaluate whether

329
00:27:32,126 --> 00:27:36,926
a stipend can improve financial literacy, student well-being,

330
00:27:38,199 --> 00:27:40,134
attendance and academic achievement for considering a

331
00:27:40,134 --> 00:27:43,471
broader expansion. I want to thank councilmember

332
00:27:43,471 --> 00:27:48,160
parker for this amendment and they believe the 60% threshold

333
00:27:48,160 --> 00:27:54,632
is the right balance to maximize the impact of this pilot.

334
00:27:54,632 --> 00:27:56,234
and mr. Chairman, I hope you will accept this.

335
00:27:56,234 --> 00:27:59,834
>> thank you. Is there discussion from

336
00:28:01,172 --> 00:28:05,372
members? >> how did you arrive at this

337
00:28:09,514 --> 00:28:13,714
60% mark? I remember going from one number

338
00:28:18,790 --> 00:28:22,990
to 60. What made you get to that.

339
00:28:24,196 --> 00:28:29,401
>> this is so that the schools, to such a small amount of money,

340
00:28:29,401 --> 00:28:37,801
and we want to target it to the schools that have the most I

341
00:28:38,543 --> 00:28:43,481
think it would bit better to targeted the schools with the

342
00:28:43,481 --> 00:28:48,281
biggest student absence issues. >> has given anything you've

343
00:28:48,320 --> 00:28:52,724
seen to schools that stick out more, or have been getting left

344
00:28:52,724 --> 00:28:57,863
out because you think it is going to be too broad?

345
00:28:57,863 --> 00:29:03,863
>> is schools with the higher absentee rate would be eligible

346
00:29:04,302 --> 00:29:08,502
under either. But this amendment narrows that

347
00:29:08,573 --> 00:29:11,643
so that the schools with the highest level of student

348
00:29:11,643 --> 00:29:18,784
absences have been able to bathe in the program as well as that

349
00:29:18,784 --> 00:29:20,185
line and not being able to access the very limited amount

350
00:29:20,185 --> 00:29:22,585
of money. >> thank you.

351
00:29:24,122 --> 00:29:25,992
chair mendelson: councilmember parker.

352
00:29:25,992 --> 00:29:31,392
>> I just wanted to thank councilmember robert white for

353
00:29:32,664 --> 00:29:34,933
this amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense,

354
00:29:34,933 --> 00:29:38,937
I fully support it and as he mentioned, it will ensure that

355
00:29:38,937 --> 00:29:43,800
we are covering more schools where more at risk students are

356
00:29:43,800 --> 00:29:45,977
likely to have attendance issues.

357
00:29:45,977 --> 00:29:47,879
so just wanted to acknowledge that this is a positive

358
00:29:47,879 --> 00:29:51,479
amendment. >> if there is no further

359
00:29:54,353 --> 00:29:59,153
discussion if no objection, it will be accepted.

360
00:29:59,191 --> 00:30:02,791
hearing no objection, it is accepted.

361
00:30:06,980 --> 00:30:09,980
councilmember lewis george. >> thank you.

362
00:30:10,369 --> 00:30:12,503
10 years ago we passed the universal paid leave amendment

363
00:30:12,503 --> 00:30:16,107
act. In the years since, thousands of

364
00:30:16,107 --> 00:30:20,111
utilize this benefit to care for themselves and for loved ones

365
00:30:20,111 --> 00:30:23,314
during critical illnesses. It has helped to improve

366
00:30:23,314 --> 00:30:25,716
outcomes and reduce the catastrophic economic fallout

367
00:30:25,716 --> 00:30:28,187
that too many families have experienced without sufficient

368
00:30:28,187 --> 00:30:32,570
paid family leave. The fiscal year 2027 budget

369
00:30:32,570 --> 00:30:34,525
permanently reduces the family caregiving benefit from 12 weeks

370
00:30:34,525 --> 00:30:38,330
to six weeks and medical leave from 12 weeks to 10 weeks.

371
00:30:38,330 --> 00:30:42,267
I'm hoping this amendment to ensure that the maximum duration

372
00:30:42,267 --> 00:30:45,804
of leave under d.c. Paid family leave program is fully restored

373
00:30:45,804 --> 00:30:49,207
at the end of the four-year financial plan to 12 weeks of

374
00:30:49,207 --> 00:30:51,977
medical leave and 12 weeks of family caregiving.

375
00:30:51,977 --> 00:30:55,880
we made history 10 years ago, and we made history again this

376
00:30:55,880 --> 00:31:00,218
year when d.c. Became the only state program to have ever

377
00:31:00,218 --> 00:31:03,823
rolled back its program in the 25 years of state fate pam and

378
00:31:03,823 --> 00:31:08,260
medical leave programs. Both maryland and virginia will

379
00:31:08,260 --> 00:31:11,830
offer more paid medical leave and family caregiving leave in

380
00:31:11,830 --> 00:31:14,766
the district. If we are to remain competitive,

381
00:31:14,766 --> 00:31:19,838
if we are to do right by d.c. Families, and we must write this

382
00:31:19,838 --> 00:31:24,776
prong as soon ensure that the program is fully restored

383
00:31:24,776 --> 00:31:29,576
beginning october 1 of 2030. >> we have the amendment before

384
00:31:36,540 --> 00:31:38,454
us. Is there discussion?

385
00:31:39,725 --> 00:31:43,325
this is amendment number one. Discussion?

386
00:31:45,163 --> 00:31:49,167
if there's no objection, it will be accepted.

387
00:31:49,167 --> 00:31:52,767
hearing no objection, it is accepted.

388
00:31:53,171 --> 00:31:57,371
>> thank you. I am moving amendment number

389
00:32:00,110 --> 00:32:01,479
two. I am moving this and then to

390
00:32:01,479 --> 00:32:04,150
preserve the mayor's authority to establish a government-white

391
00:32:04,150 --> 00:32:08,887
telework policy on clarifying that telework can still be

392
00:32:08,887 --> 00:32:12,487
negotiated for future collective bargaining agreements.

393
00:32:12,491 --> 00:32:14,959
this is an important clarification.

394
00:32:14,959 --> 00:32:19,163
telework is not just ended mr. And policy, it is a real

395
00:32:19,163 --> 00:32:20,899
workplace issue for employees and a meaningful part of labor

396
00:32:20,899 --> 00:32:25,360
negotiations. For certain jobs type -- job

397
00:32:25,360 --> 00:32:27,939
types, they allow managers and labor unions to collectively

398
00:32:27,939 --> 00:32:32,109
support employee recruitment, retention, and even generate a

399
00:32:32,109 --> 00:32:36,113
cost savings. The subtitle as drafted would

400
00:32:36,113 --> 00:32:38,513
only protect existing agreements.

401
00:32:39,517 --> 00:32:43,221
this amendment keeps the mayor's authority intact but ensure that

402
00:32:43,221 --> 00:32:45,723
we are not unnecessarily taking an issue off the table in

403
00:32:45,723 --> 00:32:47,792
collective bargaining going forward.

404
00:32:47,792 --> 00:32:54,392
with that, I move the amendment. Chair mendelson: we have the

405
00:32:56,133 --> 00:32:58,903
amendment before us. >> thank you.

406
00:32:58,903 --> 00:33:03,409
has telework ever been part of collective bargaining

407
00:33:03,409 --> 00:33:07,900
negotiations? To your note -- knowledge?

408
00:33:08,790 --> 00:33:11,679
>> yes. >> and did that stop during

409
00:33:12,830 --> 00:33:15,190
covid? >> I don't know the full

410
00:33:15,190 --> 00:33:19,219
history. >> but when was it part of?

411
00:33:23,695 --> 00:33:29,695
>> I think it varies between when bargaining was taking place

412
00:33:32,370 --> 00:33:34,437
between different unions. >> ok.

413
00:33:35,707 --> 00:33:44,107
so this would be returning us to the policy that we used to have.

414
00:33:45,150 --> 00:33:49,950
>> rephrase the question. >> I'm trying to understand how

415
00:33:50,187 --> 00:33:56,787
this would work in practice. That if labor is negotiating a

416
00:33:57,195 --> 00:34:00,280
telework policy, is that something they've done in the

417
00:34:00,280 --> 00:34:03,751
past? >> yes, we are preserving a

418
00:34:03,751 --> 00:34:05,819
policy that is in place, yes. We are preserving it.

419
00:34:05,819 --> 00:34:10,190
>> I see. And the mayor's language removed

420
00:34:14,194 --> 00:34:16,830
that ability to negotiate around telework.

421
00:34:16,830 --> 00:34:20,430
and this puts it back. >> yes.

422
00:34:20,501 --> 00:34:24,304
>> ok. As we've discussed in a lot of

423
00:34:24,304 --> 00:34:29,143
different times this budget, there are many public safety

424
00:34:29,143 --> 00:34:32,813
agencies who had significant challenges with staffing.

425
00:34:32,813 --> 00:34:36,250
I'm just trying to understand how this would work in practice

426
00:34:36,250 --> 00:34:42,250
if telework became an issue that could not be resolved.

427
00:34:42,256 --> 00:34:47,940
what that would mean for our workforce who in certain

428
00:34:47,940 --> 00:34:50,264
agencies have to show up in person.

429
00:34:50,264 --> 00:34:56,264
>> well, they've been exempted. That is an amendment that we

430
00:34:57,137 --> 00:35:00,908
accepted just a moment ago. >> I thought that was just for

431
00:35:00,908 --> 00:35:05,108
opc. >> I thought they were on the

432
00:35:05,745 --> 00:35:08,883
exemption list. >> apologies, I missed the first

433
00:35:08,883 --> 00:35:13,420
part of the question. >> my understanding was your

434
00:35:13,420 --> 00:35:17,200
amendment was just for two agencies.

435
00:35:23,597 --> 00:35:24,631
exempting them from the subtitle.

436
00:35:24,631 --> 00:35:27,631
>> this doesn't speak to agencies.

437
00:35:30,905 --> 00:35:35,105
it speaks to organized for unionized workers.

438
00:35:36,510 --> 00:35:42,316
and what it says is not withstanding the rest of the

439
00:35:42,316 --> 00:35:47,321
subtitle, if a union negotiates with the mayor and both sides

440
00:35:47,321 --> 00:35:51,524
agree on a telework policy, that that would be allowed.

441
00:35:51,524 --> 00:35:54,795
that's a substitute for the language in this subtitle right

442
00:35:54,795 --> 00:35:56,330
now which says that unions can't bargain.

443
00:35:56,330 --> 00:36:00,530
>> sold let's use an example of teachers.

444
00:36:00,934 --> 00:36:05,734
if teachers wanted to bargain to have --

445
00:36:07,273 --> 00:36:12,730
chair mendelson: telework. >> telework two days a week,

446
00:36:13,147 --> 00:36:17,518
that would now be on the table? Chair mendelson: yes.

447
00:36:17,518 --> 00:36:21,890
now as a practical matter, I can't quite see how a teacher

448
00:36:21,890 --> 00:36:25,760
would be teaching via telework, so I don't think that's actually

449
00:36:25,760 --> 00:36:32,166
going to go very far. But to use your example yes,

450
00:36:32,166 --> 00:36:33,634
they could negotiate that. That doesn't mean they would get

451
00:36:33,634 --> 00:36:37,834
it. Maybe that the union wants a 5%

452
00:36:38,238 --> 00:36:40,975
increase in their compensation, so they are not going to

453
00:36:40,975 --> 00:36:43,444
negotiate telework. Or maybe they will agree to zero

454
00:36:43,444 --> 00:36:47,440
increase in compensation but get telework.

455
00:36:47,647 --> 00:36:52,186
but it would be bargained and presumably with bargaining, the

456
00:36:52,186 --> 00:36:55,989
mayor is representing her interests, the government's

457
00:36:55,989 --> 00:37:00,789
interest. I would note, just to pick an

458
00:37:01,595 --> 00:37:04,398
extreme, if the executive were to negotiate five days of

459
00:37:04,398 --> 00:37:08,869
telework and you don't have to come in any day of the month,

460
00:37:08,869 --> 00:37:12,720
cba has to come to the council for approval and we would have

461
00:37:12,720 --> 00:37:17,472
to approve that. But all this is about is

462
00:37:19,279 --> 00:37:24,218
allowing the ability to bargain. >> and I want to just note that

463
00:37:24,218 --> 00:37:28,355
it allows more flexibility from agency to agency.

464
00:37:28,355 --> 00:37:32,920
and telework can also support recruitment and retention as

465
00:37:32,920 --> 00:37:34,961
well and helping address job vacancies.

466
00:37:34,961 --> 00:37:37,364
I would also note that it is an important tool that we utilize.

467
00:37:37,364 --> 00:37:41,564
>> ok. I guess I'm just uneasy in

468
00:37:43,102 --> 00:37:48,410
thinking about a lot of examples of staffing challenges that we

469
00:37:48,410 --> 00:37:54,314
are having and needing people to be in person, and I know we've

470
00:37:54,314 --> 00:37:57,351
kind of made a lot of changes since this was previously

471
00:37:57,351 --> 00:38:00,454
discussed to chip away at some of those changes.

472
00:38:00,454 --> 00:38:07,527
many of those may be the right approach, but I worry about

473
00:38:07,527 --> 00:38:14,727
adding this tool in the context we are finding ourselves in with

474
00:38:14,867 --> 00:38:19,670
staffing. >> I would just say, I think

475
00:38:19,272 --> 00:38:21,800
councilmember henderson hinted toward this earlier.

476
00:38:21,800 --> 00:38:25,110
one of the issues with this altogether is that it was not a

477
00:38:25,110 --> 00:38:28,382
subtitle that we had a hearing on, that we got feedback on.

478
00:38:28,382 --> 00:38:32,152
from the procedural aspect, we are doing a lot of piecemeal

479
00:38:32,152 --> 00:38:35,889
things because we should technically be handling this in

480
00:38:35,889 --> 00:38:41,889
a hearing and getting feedback. My amendment seeks to reduce

481
00:38:42,895 --> 00:38:48,168
some of the harm from the route that we are taking moving

482
00:38:48,168 --> 00:38:51,168
forward. >> thank you, mr. Chair.

483
00:38:52,472 --> 00:38:56,720
I'm in support of this amendment.

484
00:38:56,443 --> 00:39:03,850
I also want to try to clarify for the public as well, we are

485
00:39:03,850 --> 00:39:05,985
not adding anything here. From the examples of the

486
00:39:05,985 --> 00:39:11,385
negotiating contract with the teachers for the police union,

487
00:39:12,125 --> 00:39:14,660
first off, they have existing contracts so they are already

488
00:39:14,660 --> 00:39:18,260
grandfathered. But they conceivably could have

489
00:39:18,331 --> 00:39:22,602
bargained a telework policy for teachers or police officers.

490
00:39:22,602 --> 00:39:29,202
it wouldn't make much sense to do that, but they could.

491
00:39:29,776 --> 00:39:32,879
we want to just preserve the right to be able to negotiate.

492
00:39:32,879 --> 00:39:37,217
I don't see any harm in making sure that parties can bring what

493
00:39:37,217 --> 00:39:40,787
they want to bring to the bargaining table to negotiate.

494
00:39:40,787 --> 00:39:43,690
will likely see practical decisions made.

495
00:39:43,690 --> 00:39:49,900
my kid's fourth grade teacher isn't going to telework.

496
00:39:49,396 --> 00:39:54,367
so there is a part of that that is just a practical part of what

497
00:39:54,367 --> 00:39:57,370
would actually happen, but that is what already exists.

498
00:39:57,370 --> 00:40:00,507
we are not adding anything. This is just ensuring that

499
00:40:00,507 --> 00:40:03,777
people can bargain for what they want to bargain for, and that is

500
00:40:03,777 --> 00:40:06,213
part of the collective bargaining process.

501
00:40:06,213 --> 00:40:09,793
I support your effort here and your amendment because it is not

502
00:40:09,793 --> 00:40:12,620
adding anything, just maintaining the ability to

503
00:40:12,620 --> 00:40:15,799
bargain. And I think that is a pretty

504
00:40:15,799 --> 00:40:18,268
core value that we want to have for our workers across the

505
00:40:18,268 --> 00:40:20,268
district. Thank you.

506
00:40:20,671 --> 00:40:26,710
chair mendelson: if there's nothing further, if there's no

507
00:40:26,943 --> 00:40:30,543
objection, the amendment will be accepted.

508
00:40:34,785 --> 00:40:38,122
hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted.

509
00:40:38,122 --> 00:40:43,522
councilmember lewis george? >> this is a small amendment but

510
00:40:44,361 --> 00:40:50,634
it means a great deal toward t --o -- to ward iv.

511
00:40:50,634 --> 00:40:56,106
it holds tennis tournaments that bring significant tax revenue to

512
00:40:56,106 --> 00:40:59,176
the district. However the ability to do so is

513
00:40:59,176 --> 00:41:02,176
jeopardized by its core condition.

514
00:41:04,481 --> 00:41:05,583
and I always support at the district doing its part to

515
00:41:05,583 --> 00:41:06,650
ensure these tournaments can continue.

516
00:41:06,650 --> 00:41:12,650
I also share the unease of residents with local dollars

517
00:41:13,323 --> 00:41:15,926
being used on a federal property.

518
00:41:15,926 --> 00:41:20,230
that is why I've advocated for meaningful safeguards of

519
00:41:20,230 --> 00:41:22,599
taxpayer dollars since the council first authorized money

520
00:41:22,599 --> 00:41:26,670
for this project last year. I want to thank you for adding

521
00:41:26,670 --> 00:41:32,800
language to the ans that specifies the district taxpayer

522
00:41:32,800 --> 00:41:33,877
dollars allocated to the rock creek tennis center can be used

523
00:41:33,877 --> 00:41:39,877
only on improvements that are necessary to bring the center

524
00:41:39,950 --> 00:41:42,619
into compliance with professional league standards.

525
00:41:42,619 --> 00:41:45,389
this language addresses my previous concern that we were

526
00:41:45,389 --> 00:41:49,626
sending, using millions of dollars in federal property

527
00:41:49,626 --> 00:41:52,960
without controlled and what it would be spent on, such as

528
00:41:52,960 --> 00:41:56,433
larger and differences to the property that different

529
00:41:56,433 --> 00:41:58,502
taxpayers should not have to pay for.

530
00:41:58,502 --> 00:42:04,502
my amended creates oversight to provide quarterly updates to the

531
00:42:06,111 --> 00:42:09,711
public. These updates must address the

532
00:42:10,980 --> 00:42:15,586
work being done to the tennis center, a completion will impact

533
00:42:15,586 --> 00:42:19,186
residents and businesses in crestwood neighbors.

534
00:42:20,391 --> 00:42:24,610
with my amendment and the language adding the ans, I am

535
00:42:24,610 --> 00:42:26,396
confident the repairs necessary to bring the rock creek tennis

536
00:42:26,396 --> 00:42:28,599
center into compliance with professional tournament

537
00:42:28,599 --> 00:42:33,537
standards can be completed before the 2027 d.c. Open and

538
00:42:33,537 --> 00:42:35,872
that local dollars will be used transparently can only is

539
00:42:35,872 --> 00:42:39,543
intended. I ask that you and our

540
00:42:39,543 --> 00:42:41,478
colleagues accept this amendment as friendly and with that, I

541
00:42:41,478 --> 00:42:43,614
move the amendment. Chair mendelson: thank you.

542
00:42:43,614 --> 00:42:47,214
. I want to emphasize what you

543
00:42:48,850 --> 00:42:55,225
just said, and that is that this is about bringing the stadium

544
00:42:55,225 --> 00:43:00,164
and the related facilities like the locker rooms and the bubble

545
00:43:00,164 --> 00:43:06,102
into decent condition and also ensure that the association of

546
00:43:06,102 --> 00:43:10,902
tennis professionals tours and women's tennis association tour

547
00:43:11,908 --> 00:43:14,908
are comfortable with this facility.

548
00:43:21,985 --> 00:43:27,385
if there's no objection, this amendment will be accepted.

549
00:43:33,130 --> 00:43:37,930
councilmember lewis-george? >> I am moving them amendment to

550
00:43:39,335 --> 00:43:43,535
strike title ii third-party income verification amendment

551
00:43:43,874 --> 00:43:48,144
act from the budget support act. While there are well-documented

552
00:43:48,144 --> 00:43:53,544
challenges and delays in the inclusionary zoning program, I

553
00:43:54,150 --> 00:43:56,819
am concerned that shifting income verification back to the

554
00:43:56,819 --> 00:43:59,757
private market, a method we tried before could create

555
00:43:59,757 --> 00:44:03,359
problems we've already seen. When developers previously have

556
00:44:03,359 --> 00:44:07,898
this responsibility, we heard stories of units going to

557
00:44:07,898 --> 00:44:13,637
hassles that were not income eligible as well as reports of

558
00:44:13,637 --> 00:44:16,380
discriminate practices that prevented eligible residents

559
00:44:16,380 --> 00:44:20,238
from spitting. Some try to circumvent the

560
00:44:22,245 --> 00:44:27,645
existing process by going around the lottery system for

561
00:44:28,510 --> 00:44:32,851
affordable units. We have that operate in this

562
00:44:34,190 --> 00:44:36,393
way. Finding available low income

563
00:44:36,393 --> 00:44:43,593
housing, tax credit units are getting on to wait lists is not

564
00:44:43,733 --> 00:44:44,802
straightforward for families seeking stable, affordable

565
00:44:44,802 --> 00:44:47,537
homes. Getting this authority could

566
00:44:47,537 --> 00:44:52,937
create simple barriers but without the benefit of federal

567
00:44:55,120 --> 00:45:01,120
oversight to ensure compliance. I believe we should be investing

568
00:45:03,420 --> 00:45:04,555
in stronger monitoring compliance and administration to

569
00:45:04,555 --> 00:45:05,722
make the inclusionary zoning program more successful.

570
00:45:05,722 --> 00:45:08,159
not handing these responsibilities off with

571
00:45:08,159 --> 00:45:12,563
limited account ability. I look forward to working with

572
00:45:12,563 --> 00:45:17,100
councilmember robert white to identify a solution that

573
00:45:17,100 --> 00:45:20,838
improves the efficiency of the program while preserving strong

574
00:45:20,838 --> 00:45:24,307
oversight and ensuring the program remains fair, consistent

575
00:45:24,307 --> 00:45:26,844
and accessible to district residents.

576
00:45:26,844 --> 00:45:30,913
with that, I move the amendment. Chair mendelson: thank you, is

577
00:45:30,913 --> 00:45:34,513
there discussion? >> thank you, chairman, and

578
00:45:36,119 --> 00:45:39,122
thank you councilmember lewis george for your amendment.

579
00:45:39,122 --> 00:45:42,259
I think we both recognized that there are problems with the

580
00:45:42,259 --> 00:45:46,329
program. We have units that need to be

581
00:45:46,329 --> 00:45:52,329
going as quickly as possible and that is not happening.

582
00:45:53,970 --> 00:45:57,474
these changes would not go in effect until october, just two

583
00:45:57,474 --> 00:46:00,474
months before a new administration.

584
00:46:00,844 --> 00:46:04,147
I think it makes sense to work together on this since we have

585
00:46:04,147 --> 00:46:07,217
the same goals. Thank you, chairman.

586
00:46:07,217 --> 00:46:11,154
chair mendelson: you said you support the amendment.

587
00:46:11,154 --> 00:46:16,292
is there further discussion? If there's no objection, the

588
00:46:16,292 --> 00:46:21,692
amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

589
00:46:24,243 --> 00:46:26,243
accepted. Councilmember felder.

590
00:46:31,916 --> 00:46:35,516
>> mr. Chairman, can you come back?

591
00:46:36,550 --> 00:46:39,655
chair mendelson: come back to you?

592
00:46:42,728 --> 00:46:47,132
councilmember -- I don't know if I recognize councilmember pinto

593
00:46:47,132 --> 00:46:51,803
or crawford. Who wants to go for this one?

594
00:46:51,803 --> 00:46:55,403
>> algo ahead. Thank you, mr. Chairman.

595
00:46:59,678 --> 00:47:02,140
I'm pleased to offer amendment today with councilmember

596
00:47:02,140 --> 00:47:05,140
crawford. The greater parking performance

597
00:47:08,870 --> 00:47:10,356
zone or the parking zone encompasses two existing main

598
00:47:10,356 --> 00:47:15,156
street areas. The funding that is derived by

599
00:47:19,970 --> 00:47:24,169
the parking zone is significant as we discussed, and our local

600
00:47:24,169 --> 00:47:27,390
businesses are quite literally the driving force behind the

601
00:47:27,390 --> 00:47:31,710
funds that are generated from this parking zone.

602
00:47:31,710 --> 00:47:36,181
I think it's important that we ensure some of the money that is

603
00:47:36,181 --> 00:47:42,254
generated through the zones are set aside for our existing teams

604
00:47:42,254 --> 00:47:46,593
that support u-street and shah that are within the parking

605
00:47:46,593 --> 00:47:49,593
zone. These will enhance cleanliness

606
00:47:49,595 --> 00:47:52,397
and safety along these corridors, attracting and

607
00:47:52,397 --> 00:47:56,869
maintaining more visitors and businesses while also serving

608
00:47:56,869 --> 00:48:00,239
residents and neighbors who come to enjoy these areas.

609
00:48:00,239 --> 00:48:02,741
these neighborhoods within the parking zone should be

610
00:48:02,741 --> 00:48:07,541
prioritized with funding that is generated, parking revenue

611
00:48:08,146 --> 00:48:09,215
within the same zone. There's also a small technical

612
00:48:09,215 --> 00:48:13,585
change that we are moving. The word "covered" has been

613
00:48:13,585 --> 00:48:17,956
substituted for the word "within" just to ensure that the

614
00:48:17,956 --> 00:48:21,360
revenue stays within the entirety of the parking zone.

615
00:48:21,360 --> 00:48:27,699
I also just want to note this has been an issue that

616
00:48:27,699 --> 00:48:32,304
councilmember nadeau and I have worked on together for many

617
00:48:32,304 --> 00:48:35,507
years, given that these boundaries include businesses

618
00:48:35,507 --> 00:48:41,714
both in ward I and ward ii so I want to be as deferential as

619
00:48:41,714 --> 00:48:46,585
possible to the areas in ward I that you were trying to

620
00:48:46,585 --> 00:48:51,189
establish here with the parking zone in and of itself, and

621
00:48:51,189 --> 00:48:54,426
almost all of that is maintained.

622
00:48:54,426 --> 00:48:57,596
this amendment the councilmember crawford and I are moving today

623
00:48:57,596 --> 00:49:04,690
is just about $100,000 out of this million dollar fund set up

624
00:49:04,690 --> 00:49:07,338
for place making purposes to ensure that the existing

625
00:49:07,338 --> 00:49:10,675
businesses and main street that are already operating can have

626
00:49:10,675 --> 00:49:15,347
some money set aside to work on activities that maintain

627
00:49:15,347 --> 00:49:18,883
cleanliness and safety. What is frankly, desperately

628
00:49:18,883 --> 00:49:21,283
needed in this area.

629
00:49:26,358 --> 00:49:29,958
councilmember mendelson: thank you, councilmember pinto.

630
00:49:32,164 --> 00:49:35,164
consomm under -- councilmember crawford.

631
00:49:36,435 --> 00:49:38,637
councilmember crawford: thank you.

632
00:49:38,637 --> 00:49:41,973
thank you for working with my team on this amendment.

633
00:49:41,973 --> 00:49:45,977
I expressed concern about the subtitle when it was introduced

634
00:49:45,977 --> 00:49:48,713
at first reading, and I do not support it because of issues

635
00:49:48,713 --> 00:49:52,185
raised by the community around the initial lack of engagement,

636
00:49:52,185 --> 00:49:58,185
potential future bid boundaries, and how funding could be shared.

637
00:49:59,570 --> 00:50:02,194
with this amendment, we are making a targeted adjustment to

638
00:50:02,194 --> 00:50:04,864
make sure the benefits of parking revenue are felt more

639
00:50:04,864 --> 00:50:08,800
directly by the corridor's and neighborhoods where that brick

640
00:50:08,800 --> 00:50:12,136
-- revenue is generated. In my office has spoken with

641
00:50:12,136 --> 00:50:14,539
shaw main street and we have heard their concerns about

642
00:50:14,539 --> 00:50:18,610
ensuring there is flexibility for potential u street bid

643
00:50:18,610 --> 00:50:21,546
boundaries and that shaw is not left out of the investments

644
00:50:21,546 --> 00:50:25,150
connected to this parking zone. This amendment response to those

645
00:50:25,150 --> 00:50:27,352
concerns by clarifying the language referring to the area

646
00:50:27,352 --> 00:50:34,893
and making clear both sean main street and the u u street main

647
00:50:34,893 --> 00:50:38,970
street should receive dedicated support for cleanliness and

648
00:50:38,970 --> 00:50:40,299
safety. I want to think councilmember

649
00:50:40,299 --> 00:50:44,102
pinto for her partnership, and I urge my colleagues to support

650
00:50:44,102 --> 00:50:46,502
it. Councilmember mendelson: thank

651
00:50:48,306 --> 00:50:51,306
you. Anything further on this?

652
00:50:51,642 --> 00:50:55,913
councilmember nadeau? Council member naito: I want to

653
00:50:55,913 --> 00:50:59,184
thank all my colleagues for working with us on first reading

654
00:50:59,184 --> 00:51:06,384
to get this passed. What we have done in the bsa is

655
00:51:07,325 --> 00:51:11,129
ensure all the revenue from the performance parking zone that

656
00:51:11,129 --> 00:51:17,169
has been generated will go to the greater u street area.

657
00:51:17,169 --> 00:51:22,569
I am asking members not to support this amendment.

658
00:51:22,874 --> 00:51:28,146
first of all, the engrossed version sets aside $1 million

659
00:51:28,146 --> 00:51:33,151
for the creation of a new place management entity, which we do

660
00:51:33,151 --> 00:51:36,922
expect to be a bid, although it could be the neighborhood

661
00:51:36,922 --> 00:51:40,250
management authority. We are keeping it open to see

662
00:51:40,250 --> 00:51:44,290
which one succeeds. The reason I say it that way is,

663
00:51:44,290 --> 00:51:47,399
for the past 20 years -- and longer, but since my time on the

664
00:51:47,399 --> 00:51:53,304
anc, u street has been trying so hard to create a bid to support

665
00:51:53,304 --> 00:51:56,575
the small businesses in the community there.

666
00:51:56,575 --> 00:52:03,775
there have been three or maybe four attempts at this, and they

667
00:52:04,182 --> 00:52:08,186
just keep failing. One of the reasons I created the

668
00:52:08,186 --> 00:52:12,190
performance parking zone was to ensure that there would be

669
00:52:12,190 --> 00:52:17,929
funding available to get a place management entity, like this.

670
00:52:17,929 --> 00:52:23,334
come up and running, for u street once and for all.

671
00:52:23,334 --> 00:52:26,471
because it is an area that is not just any commercial

672
00:52:26,471 --> 00:52:27,946
corridor, it also attracts nightlife.

673
00:52:27,946 --> 00:52:32,284
it is a place that, unfortunately over the years,

674
00:52:32,284 --> 00:52:36,154
had had violence, there is a lot of trash -- there are all the

675
00:52:36,154 --> 00:52:40,192
things, when you bring people together in a space like this.

676
00:52:40,192 --> 00:52:45,970
this amendment takes money away from that $1 million pot

677
00:52:45,970 --> 00:52:48,667
unnecessarily, because the whole pot is actually more than $3

678
00:52:48,667 --> 00:52:52,267
million. The rest of the subtitle

679
00:52:55,140 --> 00:52:58,243
specifies that remaining balance shall be used solely for the

680
00:52:58,243 --> 00:53:03,643
following purposes within and immediately adjacent to the u

681
00:53:04,783 --> 00:53:08,119
street performance parking zone. Place management initiatives,

682
00:53:08,119 --> 00:53:12,424
which I would argue clearly would be main street's, space

683
00:53:12,424 --> 00:53:16,194
maintenance of which our clean teams do, public safety

684
00:53:16,194 --> 00:53:20,198
initiatives, which that nightlife task force does and

685
00:53:20,198 --> 00:53:26,798
clean teams do, and support for businesses, which is what our

686
00:53:29,408 --> 00:53:36,800
main streets are all about. I would argue that, we are

687
00:53:37,490 --> 00:53:41,153
somewhat arbitrarily setting aside $50,000 for each main

688
00:53:41,153 --> 00:53:44,189
street. But I am not clear on what that

689
00:53:44,189 --> 00:53:48,794
money is going to do or why we need that specific amount.

690
00:53:48,794 --> 00:53:51,496
what I think is a wiser approach, which is what we have

691
00:53:51,496 --> 00:53:59,896
done in the bsa, is to specify all these uses for this area and

692
00:54:02,574 --> 00:54:07,779
not name who is going to get it now.

693
00:54:07,779 --> 00:54:10,115
because these may be organizations that have stepped

694
00:54:10,115 --> 00:54:13,251
up in the past week and said I will take $50,000, but there is

695
00:54:13,251 --> 00:54:18,656
a lot of work going on in the u street corridor, and I do not

696
00:54:18,656 --> 00:54:23,394
think we know who else may benefit from these funds.

697
00:54:23,394 --> 00:54:28,794
so I asked members not to support this amendment.

698
00:54:28,933 --> 00:54:33,538
mainly because these are already allowable uses, and there is no

699
00:54:33,538 --> 00:54:36,700
need to undercut the work of creating a bid by taking

700
00:54:36,700 --> 00:54:40,945
$100,000 away from it. By the way, that $1 million is

701
00:54:40,945 --> 00:54:43,548
not arbitrary, that is the amount the people working to

702
00:54:43,548 --> 00:54:47,619
establish the bid have said they need for start up costs, and

703
00:54:47,619 --> 00:54:50,880
that is why we set that at that amount.

704
00:54:50,880 --> 00:54:54,288
thank you, mr. Chairman. Councilmember mendelson: further

705
00:54:54,693 --> 00:54:58,963
on this, who has not spoken? Councilmember allen?

706
00:54:58,963 --> 00:55:02,233
councilmember allen: I had a question for councilmember

707
00:55:02,233 --> 00:55:06,433
nadeau. My understanding is one of the

708
00:55:06,704 --> 00:55:11,504
concerns expressed previously was around just ensuring that

709
00:55:11,976 --> 00:55:15,980
dollars used for the curbside program would be restored and

710
00:55:15,980 --> 00:55:19,984
returned back to the ppz fund, and the ans reflects that?

711
00:55:19,984 --> 00:55:23,584
councilmember nadeau: yes. Councilmember allen: if $100,000

712
00:55:25,122 --> 00:55:31,462
were pulled out of said fund, and now not used for automated

713
00:55:31,462 --> 00:55:37,462
curbside management, when, as the ans does, ensures it gets

714
00:55:38,335 --> 00:55:41,272
injured, it would be -100,000 dollars, because it would be

715
00:55:41,272 --> 00:55:42,574
diverted for a different purpose?

716
00:55:42,574 --> 00:55:44,742
is that correct? Councilmember nadeau: that is a

717
00:55:44,742 --> 00:55:48,546
good question. I do not know the answer, and I

718
00:55:48,546 --> 00:55:53,751
think that is another reason why we should not be tweaking it,

719
00:55:53,751 --> 00:55:55,553
because we work hard with the budget office to make sure those

720
00:55:55,553 --> 00:55:59,156
friends -- funds would get replenished appropriately.

721
00:55:59,156 --> 00:56:03,962
councilmember allen: my concern would be -- I am not speaking to

722
00:56:03,962 --> 00:56:09,234
the attention -- intention here, but that an unintended

723
00:56:09,234 --> 00:56:12,704
consequence would be we pull out a one time fund, but then those

724
00:56:12,704 --> 00:56:16,775
dollars are not being restored to the ppz fund, which then does

725
00:56:16,775 --> 00:56:21,780
not allow it to do what it had been created to do.

726
00:56:21,780 --> 00:56:27,318
that is a concern of mine, that we end up diluting the fund and

727
00:56:27,318 --> 00:56:31,656
the effectiveness it has. So I will support you on this

728
00:56:31,656 --> 00:56:33,858
one, councilmember nadeau, but appreciate it.

729
00:56:33,858 --> 00:56:37,194
councilmember nadeau: thank you so much.

730
00:56:37,194 --> 00:56:40,198
you are reminding me of something else, while I have the

731
00:56:40,198 --> 00:56:46,798
floor, which is that both u street and shaw streets serve

732
00:56:47,939 --> 00:56:54,145
the greater u street, but sharp street covers a large area

733
00:56:54,145 --> 00:56:57,415
outside the performance parking zone, so that further

734
00:56:57,415 --> 00:57:00,151
complicates the issue, because this money may only be spent

735
00:57:00,151 --> 00:57:02,353
within that boundary. Councilmember mendelson:

736
00:57:02,353 --> 00:57:04,288
councilmember pinto, second round.

737
00:57:04,288 --> 00:57:07,492
councilmember pinto: thank you gave thanks for that discussion.

738
00:57:07,492 --> 00:57:12,164
councilmember allen, to that point, the reason why it is so

739
00:57:12,164 --> 00:57:18,903
important the funds be restored to the ppz zone is because that

740
00:57:18,903 --> 00:57:22,874
is where the money is being generated from.

741
00:57:22,874 --> 00:57:28,179
so this is circumventing that step, to say $50,000 to each of

742
00:57:28,179 --> 00:57:30,915
these organizations is going to be set aside.

743
00:57:30,915 --> 00:57:36,530
this, in now way, is meant to undermine the establishment of a

744
00:57:36,530 --> 00:57:41,453
bid in u street. We've had lots of discussions

745
00:57:42,193 --> 00:57:44,662
about the right boundaries for the bid and the needs of the

746
00:57:44,662 --> 00:57:51,135
area and the needs of the ward 1 and 2 businesses there, and I am

747
00:57:51,135 --> 00:57:54,272
a huge believer a bid would be very, very helpful.

748
00:57:54,272 --> 00:58:00,780
we have lots of locations in the city -- ward 2 is a happy

749
00:58:00,780 --> 00:58:01,812
beneficiary of several -- where we have coexisting main street

750
00:58:01,812 --> 00:58:06,612
and bids. We have this in dupont circle,

751
00:58:06,618 --> 00:58:11,418
in georgetown. In both of those contexts and

752
00:58:11,656 --> 00:58:15,260
neighborhoods, it is extremely helpful to have both of those

753
00:58:15,260 --> 00:58:18,860
entities overlay. And some have different

754
00:58:21,232 --> 00:58:23,368
boundaries and some help each other out with various needs,

755
00:58:23,368 --> 00:58:25,437
but they serve different functions.

756
00:58:25,437 --> 00:58:33,237
so making sure that shaw is not left behind and that u street

757
00:58:33,511 --> 00:58:35,714
main street is not left behind in the formation of any sort of

758
00:58:35,714 --> 00:58:41,521
new bid or new mna is really important, and that is why I and

759
00:58:41,521 --> 00:58:45,191
others have heard from so many of our local businesses over the

760
00:58:45,191 --> 00:58:48,928
last several weeks and months and years on this issue.

761
00:58:48,928 --> 00:58:52,332
they want to benefit from changes to the neighborhood but,

762
00:58:52,332 --> 00:58:55,680
understandably, they want to make sure that they can last

763
00:58:55,680 --> 00:58:57,370
long enough to see those benefits.

764
00:58:57,370 --> 00:59:02,676
that's where I think the main streets and having focus on

765
00:59:02,676 --> 00:59:05,412
cleanliness and safety is so important.

766
00:59:05,412 --> 00:59:07,948
so this is a tiny fraction of the money that is going to be

767
00:59:07,948 --> 00:59:11,617
generated from this. I ask my colleagues to support

768
00:59:11,617 --> 00:59:14,286
us on this so we can make sure that our shaw main street and

769
00:59:14,286 --> 00:59:18,359
our u street main street's have the support they need.

770
00:59:18,359 --> 00:59:20,393
councilmember mendelson: thank you.

771
00:59:20,393 --> 00:59:23,993
councilmember bonds. Councilmember bonds: thank you

772
00:59:24,970 --> 00:59:30,697
very much, chairman. While I have not been a party to

773
00:59:30,970 --> 00:59:36,109
the conversations about the creation of this subtitle, I am

774
00:59:36,109 --> 00:59:42,917
very curious as to what would be the harm in both of the bids

775
00:59:42,917 --> 00:59:46,517
sharing a small amount of funding?

776
00:59:48,121 --> 00:59:54,121
you are saying that maybe $3 million will be derived from

777
00:59:55,128 --> 01:00:01,128
these new parking costs to those who utilize the space.

778
01:00:01,968 --> 01:00:05,538
if that is the case, we are now talking about $100,000.

779
01:00:05,538 --> 01:00:12,138
we are talking about two defined groups or organizations within a

780
01:00:13,179 --> 01:00:17,160
community. Seems to me, at a time when we

781
01:00:17,160 --> 01:00:23,160
have very limited resources, and these resources are coming from

782
01:00:23,822 --> 01:00:30,422
those who partake of the activity in these areas, I do

783
01:00:30,696 --> 01:00:37,296
not see any harm in both organizations having a kitty to

784
01:00:37,904 --> 01:00:43,676
do the cleanup. We all know, when you have a

785
01:00:43,676 --> 01:00:45,912
nightlife, there is need for cleanup.

786
01:00:45,912 --> 01:00:49,516
what's the harm, and why are we having this kind of argument on

787
01:00:49,516 --> 01:00:55,321
the dais, as if there is something wrong with how we

788
01:00:55,321 --> 01:00:56,823
spend a limited amount of resources?

789
01:00:56,823 --> 01:01:01,230
just curious. >> may I have another round?

790
01:01:01,127 --> 01:01:05,927
councilmember bonds: my question is to councilmember pinto.

791
01:01:09,235 --> 01:01:12,235
>> ok. Councilmember pinto: thank you.

792
01:01:16,275 --> 01:01:22,715
I agree with you in that this is just a need of the neighborhood.

793
01:01:22,715 --> 01:01:27,920
I think the disagreement may be around the authorized purposes

794
01:01:27,920 --> 01:01:31,157
of this fund. I actually do not think we are

795
01:01:31,157 --> 01:01:35,962
far apart. All of these uses can and should

796
01:01:35,962 --> 01:01:40,566
proceed, and I believe will proceed if our amendment passes,

797
01:01:40,566 --> 01:01:43,704
which will just ensure the existing main streets and

798
01:01:43,704 --> 01:01:47,390
businesses have some benefit, and that the other intentions

799
01:01:47,390 --> 01:01:52,779
and goals that councilmember nadeau is trying to move forward

800
01:01:52,779 --> 01:01:55,581
for the neighbor can be achieved as well.

801
01:01:55,581 --> 01:01:58,384
I believe everyone's goals can be met and can be met with

802
01:01:58,384 --> 01:02:01,187
passing this amendment. Councilmember mendelson: if

803
01:02:01,187 --> 01:02:03,523
there is no further? Councilmember frumin.

804
01:02:03,523 --> 01:02:08,323
councilmember frumin: thank you very much, chairman mendelson.

805
01:02:11,731 --> 01:02:16,690
if I understand it correctly, much of shaw main street's is

806
01:02:16,690 --> 01:02:18,771
inside of the performance parking area.

807
01:02:18,771 --> 01:02:23,743
so you do get a sense, from folks in the shaw main street's,

808
01:02:23,743 --> 01:02:27,947
that they want to be a clear beneficiary of this, and I can

809
01:02:27,947 --> 01:02:32,147
understand where that is coming from, honestly.

810
01:02:32,285 --> 01:02:37,656
also, in the conversation about it, so much of the emphasis is

811
01:02:37,656 --> 01:02:43,362
about u street that one can understand how shaw main

812
01:02:43,362 --> 01:02:48,201
street's would feel like this is money that comes in part from

813
01:02:48,201 --> 01:02:51,570
where we are, yet all the conversation is about a

814
01:02:51,570 --> 01:02:55,170
different place. I get that sensitivity.

815
01:02:55,908 --> 01:03:00,980
also, when I look at the dollars, the dollars for the bid

816
01:03:00,980 --> 01:03:04,580
, in the text that exists, or $800,000.

817
01:03:04,850 --> 01:03:08,321
in the amended text, it is $900,000.

818
01:03:08,321 --> 01:03:14,327
so it does seem like the support for a potential bid is there.

819
01:03:14,327 --> 01:03:18,864
then on the idea of why would you pick some institutions to

820
01:03:18,864 --> 01:03:26,664
benefit, in the revised text -- and I 110% report it -- there is

821
01:03:27,607 --> 01:03:31,744
opening the door to a pacific set aside to the

822
01:03:31,744 --> 01:03:36,544
african-american civil museum, which I think is right.

823
01:03:37,500 --> 01:03:40,500
but is another specific reference.

824
01:03:40,353 --> 01:03:45,240
it seems like this is a struggle over $50,000, which seems like

825
01:03:45,240 --> 01:03:48,160
why would we spend so much time on this?

826
01:03:48,160 --> 01:03:53,166
and the fact that it is so hard, I guess, also contributes to the

827
01:03:53,166 --> 01:03:56,502
sensitivity in the shock community about this.

828
01:03:56,502 --> 01:03:58,905
my inclination is to support this amendment.

829
01:03:58,905 --> 01:04:01,975
I do not know where it will go. It does not seem like the stakes

830
01:04:01,975 --> 01:04:06,779
should be that high, so I hope you can get this done.

831
01:04:06,779 --> 01:04:08,981
councilmember mendelson: councilmember nadeau, second

832
01:04:08,981 --> 01:04:11,381
round. Councilmember nadeau: once

833
01:04:12,385 --> 01:04:14,854
again, I am asking colleagues not to support this amendment.

834
01:04:14,854 --> 01:04:20,726
as I began earlier, u street has been trying to establish a bid

835
01:04:20,726 --> 01:04:23,596
for 20 years. This amendment literally takes

836
01:04:23,596 --> 01:04:28,134
10% of the funds from what the folks trying to form a bid said

837
01:04:28,134 --> 01:04:30,737
they need for their business plan.

838
01:04:30,737 --> 01:04:35,407
those are not loose numbers. It is what it takes to start it.

839
01:04:35,407 --> 01:04:43,207
what I am concerned about here is that, together in the ans, we

840
01:04:46,432 --> 01:04:47,967
created a fund that actually supports all the entities we are

841
01:04:47,967 --> 01:04:53,967
talking about today, and by moving this amendment, we are

842
01:04:55,842 --> 01:05:00,642
now essentially creating drama around two specific entities,

843
01:05:00,713 --> 01:05:04,913
completely unnecessarily. I do have a question.

844
01:05:06,186 --> 01:05:09,989
how is the $50,000 going to be spent by each entity?

845
01:05:09,989 --> 01:05:15,128
we know that? It is a lot of money, as a

846
01:05:15,128 --> 01:05:18,128
percentage, for these entities' budgets.

847
01:05:19,265 --> 01:05:24,470
councilmember pinto: the funding is authorized to be spent for

848
01:05:24,470 --> 01:05:29,742
the maintenance of cleanliness and safety within the zones,

849
01:05:29,742 --> 01:05:35,742
which are huge needs. And what we hear most regularly,

850
01:05:36,820 --> 01:05:38,160
both in these organizations and the businesses and the residents

851
01:05:38,160 --> 01:05:44,657
who are in these areas. And we want it, per your initial

852
01:05:44,657 --> 01:05:49,457
formulation, to include some flexibility around how those

853
01:05:53,980 --> 01:05:54,701
activities are defined, because the needs are constantly

854
01:05:54,701 --> 01:05:58,504
evolving. That is what we are seeing from

855
01:05:58,504 --> 01:06:01,974
these main streets all the time. They are working on activities

856
01:06:01,974 --> 01:06:06,112
that are around cleanliness and safety, and what they currently

857
01:06:06,112 --> 01:06:07,246
have is insufficient to do what the neighborhoods need.

858
01:06:07,246 --> 01:06:10,383
councilmember nadeau: what is the current clean team budget?

859
01:06:10,383 --> 01:06:13,383
councilmember pinto: for which organization?

860
01:06:18,858 --> 01:06:22,528
I do not have that number. Councilmember nadeau: you know

861
01:06:22,528 --> 01:06:23,864
what percentage of the budget -- councilmember mendelson: your

862
01:06:23,864 --> 01:06:28,640
time's expired. Councilmember nadeau: I have a

863
01:06:28,134 --> 01:06:28,936
couple more questions, if it is ok?

864
01:06:28,936 --> 01:06:31,136
councilmember mendelson: your second round.

865
01:06:31,136 --> 01:06:35,942
councilmember nadeau: ok. I have concerns because I do not

866
01:06:35,942 --> 01:06:39,145
think anyone knows exactly how this money will be spent.

867
01:06:39,145 --> 01:06:42,148
$50,000 is a huge enhancement for a clean team.

868
01:06:42,148 --> 01:06:45,684
I think we should be enhancing clean teams across the city, for

869
01:06:45,684 --> 01:06:50,723
sure, but what I would love to see is the language we already

870
01:06:50,723 --> 01:06:55,561
have here allows a clean team for a main street to say these

871
01:06:55,561 --> 01:06:59,164
are the blocks I want to expand to, this is the money I need --

872
01:06:59,164 --> 01:07:00,899
councilmember mendelson: councilmember.

873
01:07:00,899 --> 01:07:04,103
councilmember nadeau: I have one more question --

874
01:07:04,103 --> 01:07:06,305
councilmember mendelson: you are over your time.

875
01:07:06,305 --> 01:07:10,243
>> motion to close debate. Councilmember mendelson: there

876
01:07:10,243 --> 01:07:13,579
is a motion to close debate. I do not think anyone else is on

877
01:07:13,579 --> 01:07:15,915
the list to be recognized. >> I just want to make sure.

878
01:07:15,915 --> 01:07:18,315
[laughter] councilmember mendelson: motion

879
01:07:18,384 --> 01:07:23,184
to close debate. Assuming it is approved, that

880
01:07:23,722 --> 01:07:26,125
only those who have not spoken may speak, and the maker of the

881
01:07:26,125 --> 01:07:29,929
motion. All those in favor of the motion

882
01:07:29,929 --> 01:07:31,664
to close debate say aye. >> ayes.

883
01:07:31,664 --> 01:07:35,864
councilmember mendelson: the ayes have it unanimously.

884
01:07:36,135 --> 01:07:39,272
is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized?

885
01:07:39,272 --> 01:07:42,875
we have the amendment before us. >> I would.

886
01:07:42,875 --> 01:07:43,676
like to request a roll call please.

887
01:07:43,676 --> 01:07:47,479
councilmember mendelson: madam secretary, would you call role?

888
01:07:47,479 --> 01:07:49,479
councilmember henderson? >> no.

889
01:07:53,353 --> 01:07:55,753
>> councilmember henderson votes no.

890
01:07:56,823 --> 01:08:01,230
councilmember lewis george. Councilmember lewis george: no.

891
01:08:03,796 --> 01:08:07,396
councilmember mendelson: yes. Councilmember nadeau: no.

892
01:08:09,902 --> 01:08:13,502
councilmember parker: no. Councilmember pinto: yes.

893
01:08:18,144 --> 01:08:22,944
councilmember robert white: no. Councilmember trayon white: no.

894
01:08:25,651 --> 01:08:29,251
councilmember allen: no. Councilmember bonds: yes.

895
01:08:35,228 --> 01:08:38,828
councilmember crawford: yes. Councilmember felder: yes.

896
01:08:41,668 --> 01:08:46,468
councilmember frumin: yes. >> mr. Chairman, there are six

897
01:08:48,140 --> 01:08:51,740
yeses and seven nos. Councilmember mendelson:

898
01:08:53,345 --> 01:08:55,948
vehement fails. Councilmember pinto, I believe

899
01:08:55,948 --> 01:08:57,750
that was the only amendment you had?

900
01:08:57,750 --> 01:09:01,350
councilmember pinto: that's right, mr. Chairman.

901
01:09:02,889 --> 01:09:07,890
councilmember mendelson: next would be, councilmember crawford

902
01:09:13,833 --> 01:09:14,700
, I believe you have an amendment?

903
01:09:14,700 --> 01:09:20,100
councilmember crawford: yes. Before I get to my amendment,

904
01:09:20,106 --> 01:09:22,420
mr. Chairman, you reminded me to confirm a citation that should

905
01:09:22,420 --> 01:09:24,578
be a technical fix in the subtitle?

906
01:09:24,578 --> 01:09:29,470
councilmember mendelson: I believe I noted that in the

907
01:09:29,470 --> 01:09:31,447
beginning. Councilmember crawford: title

908
01:09:32,319 --> 01:09:35,919
two, subtitle ll. Councilmember mendelson: 2-ll

909
01:09:37,290 --> 01:09:39,690
line 3. Councilmember crawford: yes,

910
01:09:41,127 --> 01:09:43,196
thank you. I will now move my amendment

911
01:09:43,196 --> 01:09:49,796
number one, which would make the language in the bruce munro

912
01:09:50,270 --> 01:09:52,538
subtitle consistent with the disposition extension language

913
01:09:52,538 --> 01:09:59,738
of d.c. Law 25-273, the last time a council approved an

914
01:10:01,547 --> 01:10:02,681
extension of this project. I would also like to thank

915
01:10:02,681 --> 01:10:06,281
councilmember nadeau for supporting this amendment.

916
01:10:06,819 --> 01:10:10,689
councilmember mendelson: we have the amended before us.

917
01:10:10,689 --> 01:10:14,289
is there discussion? Councilmember nadeau: yes,

918
01:10:14,694 --> 01:10:17,940
chairman. Councilmember crawford, we

919
01:10:18,300 --> 01:10:23,703
actually have one change we think is important to make.

920
01:10:23,703 --> 01:10:26,706
I am shy I did not catch you. This transpired while we were

921
01:10:26,706 --> 01:10:32,706
sitting up here. So I am a little concerned the

922
01:10:35,581 --> 01:10:38,718
amendment may imply, to some, there has been a change in the

923
01:10:38,718 --> 01:10:44,189
plans to the space you and I both care about, which is not

924
01:10:44,189 --> 01:10:47,327
true, so I worry the language might be unnecessarily vague,

925
01:10:47,327 --> 01:10:52,444
when there are clear plans. This update would specifically

926
01:10:52,444 --> 01:10:58,316
reference -- let me pass it down to you, so you can see.

927
01:10:58,316 --> 01:11:01,752
as approved by the zoning commission for the district of

928
01:11:01,752 --> 01:11:07,152
columbia and zoning commission order and in any subsequent

929
01:11:08,159 --> 01:11:11,428
applicable orders, we think that addresses our concern.

930
01:11:11,428 --> 01:11:14,832
the reference to the zoning order is really important,

931
01:11:14,832 --> 01:11:19,169
because that is -- if it is ok with you, I would like to add

932
01:11:19,169 --> 01:11:21,105
that language, then I would encourage the chairman to accept

933
01:11:21,105 --> 01:11:23,174
it. Councilmember mendelson: you

934
01:11:23,174 --> 01:11:28,513
will have to repeat it. After the phrase, after public

935
01:11:28,513 --> 01:11:30,449
uses is used by the zoning commission?

936
01:11:30,449 --> 01:11:34,986
councilmember nadeau: for the district of columbia, zoning

937
01:11:34,986 --> 01:11:39,457
commission order number 1611, and in any subsequent applicable

938
01:11:39,457 --> 01:11:43,657
orders. I have a couple paper copies.

939
01:11:45,630 --> 01:11:49,801
how do I get it to you guys? Can someone this -- run this

940
01:11:49,801 --> 01:11:52,201
down? Councilmember mendelson: this

941
01:11:52,870 --> 01:11:54,472
strikes me as unnecessarily wordy.

942
01:11:54,472 --> 01:11:57,207
>> I think it is the language we need.

943
01:11:57,207 --> 01:12:00,378
councilmember mendelson: as approved by the zoning

944
01:12:00,378 --> 01:12:04,681
commission. We kind of know who that is

945
01:12:04,681 --> 01:12:08,281
without further saying district of columbia.

946
01:12:08,686 --> 01:12:14,860
order 1611 and any further subsequent, isn't that, like --

947
01:12:18,696 --> 01:12:22,500
are there further proceedings? Why would we go there?

948
01:12:22,500 --> 01:12:27,900
>> I think to cover our bases. Councilmember mendelson: well,

949
01:12:28,600 --> 01:12:32,910
it's the -- it'd be nice if this had been

950
01:12:32,910 --> 01:12:37,582
worked out earlier. >> it reflects the language we

951
01:12:37,582 --> 01:12:40,118
use in the fy or two vsa. >> in the what?

952
01:12:40,118 --> 01:12:43,118
>> fy 22 vsa. Councilmember mendelson: as

953
01:12:46,858 --> 01:12:48,460
approved by the zoning commission for the district of

954
01:12:48,460 --> 01:12:52,660
columbia in zoning order 1611 and any --

955
01:12:55,466 --> 01:12:59,604
councilmember nadeau? Councilmember nadeau: and in any

956
01:12:59,604 --> 01:13:03,804
subsequent applicable orders. Councilmember mendelson: give me

957
01:13:19,824 --> 01:13:21,824
just a second.

958
01:14:49,313 --> 01:14:52,913
councilmember mendelson: councilmember nadeau, the fy 22

959
01:14:54,919 --> 01:14:58,522
park morton lang which also cited order 1612, you are

960
01:14:58,522 --> 01:15:00,124
mentioning that? Councilmember nadeau: no.

961
01:15:00,124 --> 01:15:02,593
councilmember mendelson: I don't know the orders.

962
01:15:02,593 --> 01:15:06,665
why would you mention one but not the other?

963
01:15:06,665 --> 01:15:09,133
councilmember nadeau: two different sites?

964
01:15:09,133 --> 01:15:12,133
councilmember mendelson: I don't know.

965
01:15:12,403 --> 01:15:16,440
councilmember nadeau: it's not the same location.

966
01:15:16,440 --> 01:15:20,400
it's two different orders. Councilmember mendelson:

967
01:15:21,345 --> 01:15:25,949
councilmember crawford, this language was used before, even

968
01:15:25,949 --> 01:15:28,152
though it strikes me as unnecessarily wordy.

969
01:15:28,152 --> 01:15:33,290
do you have a problem with it? Councilmember crawford: I don't

970
01:15:33,290 --> 01:15:34,559
believe so. I consulted with the ogc.

971
01:15:34,559 --> 01:15:38,496
I didn't have time to review it, so.

972
01:15:38,496 --> 01:15:43,434
councilmember mendelson: I will say, if there is no objection,

973
01:15:43,434 --> 01:15:47,105
councilmember nadeau's oral amendment would be accepted to

974
01:15:47,105 --> 01:15:49,505
councilmember crawford's written amendment.

975
01:15:50,842 --> 01:15:55,580
I will repeat the language. It would say, including

976
01:15:55,580 --> 01:15:58,782
specified site usage requirements for public parks

977
01:15:58,782 --> 01:16:03,254
and other uses has been approved by the zoning commission for the

978
01:16:03,254 --> 01:16:06,724
district of columbia in zoning order 1611 and any subsequent

979
01:16:06,724 --> 01:16:10,924
applicable orders. It is extended to december 2029.

980
01:16:12,563 --> 01:16:16,000
hearing no objection, that oral amendment is accepted.

981
01:16:16,000 --> 01:16:21,400
we have the amendment, written amendment, before us that

982
01:16:23,674 --> 01:16:27,874
change. If there is no objection, it

983
01:16:28,212 --> 01:16:33,120
will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is

984
01:16:33,351 --> 01:16:36,951
accepted. We are clear on that?

985
01:16:40,910 --> 01:16:44,891
I am looking at general counsel. Councilmember nadeau.

986
01:16:49,000 --> 01:16:54,400
councilmember nadeau: I withdraw my amendment to the telework

987
01:16:55,572 --> 01:16:57,572
subtitle. Councilmember mendelson:

988
01:16:59,242 --> 01:17:02,842
councilmember felder. Councilmember felder: thank you,

989
01:17:03,120 --> 01:17:04,322
mr. Chairman. I would like to move amendments

990
01:17:04,322 --> 01:17:10,322
1, 2, and 3 in block, as they each make that same technical

991
01:17:11,796 --> 01:17:13,798
conforming corrections. Specifically, each amendment

992
01:17:13,798 --> 01:17:18,536
updates the definition of certified business enterprise to

993
01:17:18,536 --> 01:17:23,341
ensure it remains consistent with existing d.c. Law.

994
01:17:23,341 --> 01:17:29,341
the mmn's apply to subtitle c, workforce housing, subtitle d,

995
01:17:32,149 --> 01:17:35,453
development of former federal properties, and subtitle e,

996
01:17:35,453 --> 01:17:40,253
wmata joint properties. As we recently legislated, cbd

997
01:17:45,562 --> 01:17:48,533
should be limited to only those businesses in the district.

998
01:17:48,533 --> 01:17:51,903
if we allow for the expanded definition, I fear businesses

999
01:17:51,903 --> 01:17:56,703
can take advantage of the district's cbd benefits.

1000
01:17:56,774 --> 01:18:00,779
and for the record, we inadvertently circulated these

1001
01:18:00,779 --> 01:18:04,482
as amendments to the in gross version, and they should have

1002
01:18:04,482 --> 01:18:09,282
been to the ans. Councilmember mendelson: I don't

1003
01:18:11,923 --> 01:18:14,993
think there is any problem with that, since general counsel is

1004
01:18:14,993 --> 01:18:17,393
aware. >> yes, we are.

1005
01:18:17,861 --> 01:18:20,865
councilmember felder: thank you. Councilmember mendelson: is

1006
01:18:20,865 --> 01:18:25,665
there discussion? If there is no objection, these

1007
01:18:26,537 --> 01:18:29,537
three amendments will be accepted.

1008
01:18:31,309 --> 01:18:33,478
hearing no objection, they are accepted.

1009
01:18:33,478 --> 01:18:36,482
councilmember felder: thank you, mr. Chairman.

1010
01:18:36,482 --> 01:18:39,284
councilmember mendelson: yes, councilmember felder?

1011
01:18:39,284 --> 01:18:41,886
councilmember felder: thank you, mr. Chairman.

1012
01:18:41,886 --> 01:18:45,486
that's it. Councilmember mendelson: I'm not

1013
01:18:45,556 --> 01:18:49,760
aware of any other amendments. Is there any other discussion?

1014
01:18:49,760 --> 01:18:52,160
councilmember trayon white: chairman.

1015
01:18:52,663 --> 01:18:57,463
my amendment is friendly for councilmember allen's amendment.

1016
01:19:00,471 --> 01:19:05,271
I can read it and circulate it. C1

1017
01:19:16,320 --> 01:19:22,160
and this is to ensure that as we consider the relief for d.c.

1018
01:19:22,160 --> 01:19:28,320
water, that there is also relief for the ratepayers at the same

1019
01:19:28,320 --> 01:19:31,320
time. I will read it.

1020
01:19:31,535 --> 01:19:34,535
amending section 225.1c1, municipal regulations.

1021
01:19:43,140 --> 01:19:47,151
amending the subparagraph to read the following -- beginning

1022
01:19:47,151 --> 01:19:52,551
in october 1, 2020, any rate increases for water and soil

1023
01:19:54,759 --> 01:19:57,161
services as a result of an increase of the public and

1024
01:19:57,161 --> 01:20:02,561
convenience fees set forward in subparagraph c shall expire.

1025
01:20:07,605 --> 01:20:14,805
one would sunset and the other would increase and would only be

1026
01:20:16,847 --> 01:20:20,985
in place to ensure the rate increase past onto the d.c.

1027
01:20:20,985 --> 01:20:25,785
ratepayers but also cease at the same time.

1028
01:20:26,858 --> 01:20:29,858
chair mendelson: discussion. Councilmember allen?

1029
01:20:31,863 --> 01:20:39,663
cm allen: I think at least in the way that I'm reading this

1030
01:20:41,873 --> 01:20:47,612
I'm not sure we are actually legally allowed to do this

1031
01:20:47,612 --> 01:20:51,150
because if I'm reading this correctly what it is saying is

1032
01:20:51,150 --> 01:20:56,921
that is directing the council -- saying that the council is

1033
01:20:56,921 --> 01:20:59,891
directing specific rates for water and sewer services.

1034
01:20:59,891 --> 01:21:04,929
I don't know if we need to turn to general counsel to ask around

1035
01:21:04,929 --> 01:21:06,365
this. I understand the spirit in which

1036
01:21:06,365 --> 01:21:09,501
it is being offered. I don't believe we are able to

1037
01:21:09,501 --> 01:21:15,501
actually set the rate. Chair mendelson: do you have the

1038
01:21:16,107 --> 01:21:20,907
language, general counsel? >> it doesn't set the rate.

1039
01:21:23,314 --> 01:21:25,250
it expires the rate increase that was increased by.

1040
01:21:25,250 --> 01:21:28,850
chair mendelson: beginning october 1, 2030, that is

1041
01:21:29,921 --> 01:21:35,600
consistent with the amendment, any rate increases for water and

1042
01:21:35,600 --> 01:21:41,600
sewer services, I repeat any rate increases that were a

1043
01:21:41,266 --> 01:21:46,400
result of the increase of the public and convenience fees set

1044
01:21:46,400 --> 01:21:50,804
forth in subparagraphc of this paragraph shall expire.

1045
01:21:53,945 --> 01:21:58,216
councilmember allen, did you have anything more to say?

1046
01:21:58,216 --> 01:22:02,954
cm allen: it's not a disagreement around the spirit,

1047
01:22:02,954 --> 01:22:07,958
it to me is our oversight function, to make sure that any

1048
01:22:07,958 --> 01:22:13,931
rate from the mayor is passed on to ratepayers when the pith goes

1049
01:22:13,931 --> 01:22:17,769
away is no longer present in a bill, my issue is I just don't

1050
01:22:17,769 --> 01:22:22,574
believe that legislatively we can write what the rate increase

1051
01:22:22,574 --> 01:22:26,577
is as much as I would love to do that, I don't think we can.

1052
01:22:26,577 --> 01:22:30,448
I'm sure d.c. Water would love it if we could set their rates.

1053
01:22:30,448 --> 01:22:35,319
chair mendelson: I would add that there was a certain amount

1054
01:22:35,319 --> 01:22:40,558
of vagueness here. Not so much in the writing, but

1055
01:22:40,558 --> 01:22:42,793
any rate increases that were a result of the increase in the

1056
01:22:42,793 --> 01:22:47,932
public and convenience fee, so unless that were to be itemized

1057
01:22:47,932 --> 01:22:51,803
as part of a ratesetting by d.c. Water, I don't know how anybody

1058
01:22:51,803 --> 01:22:56,574
would be able to figure out what is expiring.

1059
01:22:56,574 --> 01:23:01,412
I mean, I'm assuming the rate increases are not too much

1060
01:23:01,412 --> 01:23:04,883
different. Cm white: we were told by d.c.

1061
01:23:04,883 --> 01:23:07,819
water there would be rate increases based on us adding

1062
01:23:07,819 --> 01:23:12,190
this pith. So whatever those rate increases

1063
01:23:13,392 --> 01:23:17,763
were speaks to the language. Chair mendelson: yes, but

1064
01:23:17,763 --> 01:23:23,802
typically I don't know if d.c. Water would have a ratemaking

1065
01:23:23,802 --> 01:23:29,240
case where they would say that pif is going up and therefore

1066
01:23:29,240 --> 01:23:32,111
the rates are going up. Cm white: that's exactly what

1067
01:23:32,111 --> 01:23:35,347
they said. Chair mendelson: I'm assuming

1068
01:23:35,347 --> 01:23:38,250
there was a ratesetting case right now and there would be one

1069
01:23:38,250 --> 01:23:43,555
in a few years and it would encompass each more than just

1070
01:23:43,555 --> 01:23:48,955
the pif. Cm allen: and my point again is

1071
01:23:49,862 --> 01:23:53,531
that as I read the statute the powers delegated to the power

1072
01:23:53,531 --> 01:24:00,731
and water board are to set, just, and levy rates, and that

1073
01:24:01,341 --> 01:24:06,545
is not a power we have so I don't believe as well as the

1074
01:24:06,545 --> 01:24:13,353
intentioned as this is, the way we get after this, I don't think

1075
01:24:13,353 --> 01:24:18,824
we can do this. Cm allen: so how do we ensure

1076
01:24:18,824 --> 01:24:23,561
after we sunset this that the rates for the ratepayers sunset

1077
01:24:23,561 --> 01:24:29,702
as well, the answer was oversight and I'm not sure what

1078
01:24:29,702 --> 01:24:31,303
oversight can do if it is already done.

1079
01:24:31,303 --> 01:24:36,808
cm allen: and what we are hearing is we have oversight

1080
01:24:36,808 --> 01:24:39,111
over d.c. Water and other utilities, so the oversight

1081
01:24:39,111 --> 01:24:43,716
would be the work we do in our committee and oversight over

1082
01:24:43,716 --> 01:24:46,319
that, as well as the d.c. Representatives that sit on the

1083
01:24:46,319 --> 01:24:49,521
d.c. Water board themselves appointed by the mayor and the

1084
01:24:49,521 --> 01:24:55,327
council, so we have multiple spaces where we can exert our

1085
01:24:55,327 --> 01:24:58,430
oversight influence to ensure that when it sunsets, those

1086
01:24:58,430 --> 01:25:03,230
rates accrued to that are no longer reflected.

1087
01:25:05,204 --> 01:25:10,604
ogc can opine. >> what I think you said is

1088
01:25:10,609 --> 01:25:12,944
correct. Cm white: can you give details?

1089
01:25:12,944 --> 01:25:18,717
>> that we cannot set the rates. Cm white: do you view this as

1090
01:25:18,717 --> 01:25:19,819
setting rates are sunsetting a bill?

1091
01:25:19,819 --> 01:25:27,190
>> the way this reads is that you are saying no other rate,

1092
01:25:29,161 --> 01:25:34,633
the rate itself shall expire. So that is setting a rate.

1093
01:25:34,633 --> 01:25:37,633
>> mr. German? Chair mendelson: councilmember

1094
01:25:39,438 --> 01:25:42,509
parker? Cm parker: on the merits of the

1095
01:25:42,509 --> 01:25:49,109
argument, the council many weeks ago said pepco could not shut

1096
01:25:50,181 --> 01:25:54,381
off people service. I'm challenging the assertion

1097
01:25:55,120 --> 01:25:59,920
that this would be legally affecting a rate.

1098
01:26:00,859 --> 01:26:04,730
what I think councilmember white is trying to do and I don't want

1099
01:26:04,730 --> 01:26:08,401
to speak for him but what I'm interpreting it as, if d.c.

1100
01:26:08,401 --> 01:26:12,571
water is making an argument they are raising rates because of the

1101
01:26:12,571 --> 01:26:19,171
pif, pif goes away they should be forced to acknowledge what

1102
01:26:20,211 --> 01:26:21,947
the rate increase was and remove that increase.

1103
01:26:21,947 --> 01:26:24,349
on its merits, I just of the language so I can't wait in on

1104
01:26:24,349 --> 01:26:29,555
how it is written, but I think it has merit.

1105
01:26:29,555 --> 01:26:34,393
I also think the irony of this is it calls into question what I

1106
01:26:34,393 --> 01:26:42,193
think is that d.c. Water said they will have to raise rates.

1107
01:26:46,939 --> 01:26:49,509
I think I get what councilmember white is trying to do and I

1108
01:26:49,509 --> 01:26:53,412
challenge the assertion that he wouldn't have the legal right to

1109
01:26:53,412 --> 01:26:58,817
say you can't charge ratepayers for an increased rate the same

1110
01:26:58,817 --> 01:27:04,817
way we band pepco shut offs a few weeks ago.

1111
01:27:05,224 --> 01:27:11,224
>> is that a question? Cm parker: no, just adding my

1112
01:27:12,464 --> 01:27:17,200
two cents that I don't know what we do after that but maybe

1113
01:27:17,200 --> 01:27:19,337
councilmember white will rewrite the language or work with

1114
01:27:19,337 --> 01:27:22,341
general counsel to rewrite the language not to prolong this

1115
01:27:22,341 --> 01:27:25,544
what I sense he is trying to do is to force d.c. Water to say

1116
01:27:25,544 --> 01:27:32,284
what is the increase if any and to hold them accountable to not

1117
01:27:32,284 --> 01:27:36,722
passing those increases on to residents and I know we don't

1118
01:27:36,722 --> 01:27:40,959
want to prolong the meeting, but I think if d.c. Water is arguing

1119
01:27:40,959 --> 01:27:45,630
this point to push back, I think it has merit.

1120
01:27:45,630 --> 01:27:47,463
>> mr. German? Mr. Chairman?

1121
01:27:51,203 --> 01:27:53,603
chair mendelson: councilmember frumin.

1122
01:27:54,390 --> 01:27:59,579
cm frumin: I also get the spirit of what councilmember white is

1123
01:27:59,579 --> 01:28:06,179
trying to do. And it is, d.c. Water is saying

1124
01:28:06,518 --> 01:28:11,123
that if we have to pay these fees we need to pass them onto

1125
01:28:11,123 --> 01:28:15,323
folks. I think that is a reality.

1126
01:28:15,594 --> 01:28:20,465
that in setting the rates there is a look at all of the costs

1127
01:28:20,465 --> 01:28:24,137
d.c. Water has experienced and there is an effort to recoup

1128
01:28:24,137 --> 01:28:29,273
those costs. I wonder and it may be semantic

1129
01:28:29,273 --> 01:28:34,345
that doesn't make a difference, but I wonder if this language

1130
01:28:34,345 --> 01:28:41,545
said that after 2030 that the sunset of the pif needs to be

1131
01:28:51,363 --> 01:28:53,565
taken into account in the establishment of the rates.

1132
01:28:53,565 --> 01:29:00,906
it is a changed reality that could result in lower rates or a

1133
01:29:00,906 --> 01:29:08,106
slower increase in 2030, but if it is going to sunset and the

1134
01:29:08,814 --> 01:29:16,140
goal is that that has a positive effect for ratepayers, can we

1135
01:29:18,274 --> 01:29:22,411
say it should be taken into account without saying what the

1136
01:29:22,411 --> 01:29:27,150
specific rate change is? I would suspect that the

1137
01:29:27,150 --> 01:29:31,554
legislation authorizes a look at a variety of things so adding

1138
01:29:31,554 --> 01:29:38,426
this to the list of things or could be different than setting

1139
01:29:38,426 --> 01:29:42,626
the rates. Is there something like that?

1140
01:29:49,505 --> 01:29:55,505
>> what was the question? Cm frumin: the question is is

1141
01:29:56,845 --> 01:30:00,783
there a way to phrase that sows that we are urging the sunset be

1142
01:30:00,783 --> 01:30:06,183
taken into account in the establishment of the rate?

1143
01:30:08,524 --> 01:30:11,460
I would suspect there are a list of factors looked at in setting

1144
01:30:11,460 --> 01:30:15,464
the rate in the first place. In that way we are not setting

1145
01:30:15,464 --> 01:30:22,171
the rate but we are underscore why we are doing this because we

1146
01:30:22,171 --> 01:30:24,707
want some relief and we wanted to be taken into account.

1147
01:30:24,707 --> 01:30:32,213
>> I would have to take a look at the regulation, we are doing

1148
01:30:32,213 --> 01:30:36,518
this on the fly. I suggest this needs to be

1149
01:30:36,518 --> 01:30:39,687
looked at an oversight. I don't have the regulations in

1150
01:30:39,687 --> 01:30:40,690
front of me to look at this specifically.

1151
01:30:40,690 --> 01:30:44,694
chair mendelson: I'm going to roll this out of order because

1152
01:30:44,694 --> 01:30:48,964
it would appear to be trying to set rates for the water and

1153
01:30:48,964 --> 01:30:52,167
sewer authority, which I don't believe we have the authority to

1154
01:30:52,167 --> 01:30:56,367
do. The rates can be set either

1155
01:30:56,573 --> 01:31:01,843
explicitly or directly as in the rates shall be x amount or the

1156
01:31:01,843 --> 01:31:06,448
rate could be set by saying you have to reduce what you are

1157
01:31:06,448 --> 01:31:10,648
charging. There is a certain amount of

1158
01:31:11,121 --> 01:31:13,889
vagueness here because I doubt that the water and sewer

1159
01:31:13,889 --> 01:31:16,725
authority is going to have a ratesetting case that is going

1160
01:31:16,725 --> 01:31:20,396
to be tied solely, explicitly and only to the public and

1161
01:31:20,396 --> 01:31:25,200
convenience fee which is may be a couple million dollars in

1162
01:31:25,200 --> 01:31:30,600
costs for the hundreds of millions of dollar operation.

1163
01:31:32,107 --> 01:31:35,744
but this gets at the issue of what the rates are and I think

1164
01:31:35,744 --> 01:31:39,214
that exceeds our authority and thus this is out of order.

1165
01:31:39,214 --> 01:31:44,190
cm white: I'm going to move to recess for a second and speak

1166
01:31:44,190 --> 01:31:47,222
with general counsel to get this corrected.

1167
01:31:47,222 --> 01:31:50,759
you are making assumptions and I spoke to d.c. Water

1168
01:31:50,759 --> 01:31:53,763
representatives today that said specifically that they were

1169
01:31:53,763 --> 01:31:58,634
going to increase rates due to this pif and you are saying they

1170
01:31:58,634 --> 01:32:04,380
don't think they are. If we could recess for a moment

1171
01:32:04,380 --> 01:32:05,410
so I can speak to general counsel.

1172
01:32:05,410 --> 01:32:08,641
chair mendelson: a motion to recess.

1173
01:32:10,178 --> 01:32:15,578
all those in favor say aye? Opposed say no.

1174
01:32:17,186 --> 01:32:21,386
the motion fails. Cm white: roll call.

1175
01:32:21,724 --> 01:32:23,124
they don't even know what the rollcall was.

1176
01:32:23,124 --> 01:32:26,724
chair mendelson: I'm sorry, mr. White.

1177
01:32:28,330 --> 01:32:31,700
and I'm not sure I appreciate the chaos here.

1178
01:32:31,700 --> 01:32:34,869
cm white: so you know who voted on what.

1179
01:32:34,869 --> 01:32:36,739
chair mendelson: the motion failed.

1180
01:32:36,739 --> 01:32:42,139
cm white: that is crazy. Chair mendelson: is there

1181
01:32:42,145 --> 01:32:46,945
further discussion? Well, we have the amendment and

1182
01:32:49,751 --> 01:32:53,951
the nature of the substitute as amended.

1183
01:32:53,956 --> 01:32:56,250
if there is no further discussion the vote will be on

1184
01:32:56,250 --> 01:33:02,250
the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.

1185
01:33:07,336 --> 01:33:10,706
the voting will be on the amendment the nature of the

1186
01:33:10,706 --> 01:33:13,706
substitute as amended. Councilmember pinto.

1187
01:33:14,743 --> 01:33:20,143
cm pinto: ok, think is so much, mr. Chairman.

1188
01:33:23,919 --> 01:33:27,588
and thank you for all of your work on the bsa and your team

1189
01:33:27,588 --> 01:33:32,928
and the budget office and I think that this bsa does a lot

1190
01:33:32,928 --> 01:33:36,231
of very important things about making workforce housing more

1191
01:33:36,231 --> 01:33:40,431
pop -- possible. About pass-throughs to support

1192
01:33:41,137 --> 01:33:45,607
working families. It does a lot of things to

1193
01:33:45,607 --> 01:33:51,479
ensure that as we still have more building vacancies downtown

1194
01:33:51,479 --> 01:33:56,351
that we can generate more revenue through those transfers.

1195
01:33:56,351 --> 01:34:03,357
I do have a couple of questions and concerns, I'm very concerned

1196
01:34:03,357 --> 01:34:09,331
about this delivery fee that has been placed in that I worry is

1197
01:34:09,331 --> 01:34:14,836
going to impact lots of families across the district to order

1198
01:34:14,836 --> 01:34:17,836
groceries or who order deliveries.

1199
01:34:19,174 --> 01:34:25,774
I do hope that something, that we are not disadvantaging our

1200
01:34:30,253 --> 01:34:34,123
residents who are trying to order food who live in parts of

1201
01:34:34,123 --> 01:34:39,523
the city without access to as many grocery stores.

1202
01:34:43,999 --> 01:34:50,572
I also want to ask about some of the construction projects in the

1203
01:34:50,572 --> 01:34:57,120
pipeline and this is in relation to the gas band that goes into

1204
01:34:57,120 --> 01:35:01,850
effect december 2026. Are you aware of how this will

1205
01:35:01,850 --> 01:35:07,356
impact current projects in the pipeline scheduled to be built

1206
01:35:07,356 --> 01:35:12,156
and if this would allow those to proceed?

1207
01:35:16,640 --> 01:35:19,568
chair mendelson: who are you asking?

1208
01:35:19,568 --> 01:35:23,168
cm pinto: you. Chair mendelson: me?

1209
01:35:23,905 --> 01:35:31,458
I'm happy to talk about it. What I think of as the net zero

1210
01:35:31,458 --> 01:35:35,658
subtitle, am I correct? Cm pinto: yes.

1211
01:35:35,962 --> 01:35:39,866
I'm referring to the permit cutoff date.

1212
01:35:39,866 --> 01:35:45,266
chair mendelson: this was in the mayor's introduced bill.

1213
01:35:50,310 --> 01:35:54,510
it came out of committee largely unchanged.

1214
01:35:55,515 --> 01:36:00,315
there was a negotiation between two members between

1215
01:36:00,620 --> 01:36:04,225
councilmember alan and councilmember lewis george that

1216
01:36:04,225 --> 01:36:09,250
was approved. My recollection is the nature of

1217
01:36:10,296 --> 01:36:12,165
the substitute does not make any changes.

1218
01:36:12,165 --> 01:36:15,168
the mayor had proposed very simply extending or prolonging

1219
01:36:15,168 --> 01:36:21,768
or delaying net 04 a year. The version would delay the net

1220
01:36:27,448 --> 01:36:34,210
zero law by a year but many of the requirements are in the

1221
01:36:34,210 --> 01:36:40,210
subtitle that is before us. You have been approached with

1222
01:36:42,610 --> 01:36:46,833
regard to the way you characterized it is the

1223
01:36:46,833 --> 01:36:51,471
prohibition of gas. It's not a complete prohibition

1224
01:36:51,471 --> 01:36:57,471
and the way I said it was way too oversimplified.

1225
01:36:57,611 --> 01:37:02,411
new construction for covered buildings and certain buildings.

1226
01:37:03,950 --> 01:37:11,224
and it is a ban on gas, maybe I should know exactly what I'm

1227
01:37:11,224 --> 01:37:16,240
talking about. I think it is self generating,

1228
01:37:19,766 --> 01:37:23,966
space sitting -- heating and water heating.

1229
01:37:27,400 --> 01:37:32,646
cm pinto: I guess I'm wondering if anyone has analyzed any

1230
01:37:32,646 --> 01:37:35,848
projects currently in the pipeline given that this goes

1231
01:37:35,848 --> 01:37:40,186
into effect any soon and if that would affect any of our

1232
01:37:40,186 --> 01:37:42,456
conversion projects or housing projects especially that are

1233
01:37:42,456 --> 01:37:46,590
planned for downtown. Chair mendelson: I have not done

1234
01:37:46,590 --> 01:37:50,859
that analysis. >> current law states that if a

1235
01:38:00,540 --> 01:38:03,210
new net zero construction code is not finalized by this year at

1236
01:38:03,210 --> 01:38:07,880
the end of this calendar year new construction or level 3

1237
01:38:07,880 --> 01:38:13,880
alterations must be appendix z. The mayor proposed delaying that

1238
01:38:14,870 --> 01:38:15,889
by one year. The revised subtitle maintains

1239
01:38:15,889 --> 01:38:22,362
the one-year delay for final net zero standard that has two

1240
01:38:22,362 --> 01:38:26,562
interim requirements. They would have no on-site

1241
01:38:27,401 --> 01:38:31,601
combustion. And that adds a lot of

1242
01:38:37,430 --> 01:38:40,643
flexibility. Keep in mind that construction

1243
01:38:41,581 --> 01:38:48,210
is able to go through a process to get other exemptions.

1244
01:38:48,210 --> 01:38:53,226
bigs -- big projects and small projects have gone through that.

1245
01:38:53,226 --> 01:38:59,226
green building advisory council. They are the ones who issue

1246
01:39:00,533 --> 01:39:05,473
exemptions from that so the specific question if I heard

1247
01:39:05,473 --> 01:39:11,473
this correctly is that if someone is applying for a

1248
01:39:14,213 --> 01:39:18,752
construction for a level 3 alteration, what would apply?

1249
01:39:18,752 --> 01:39:22,522
it would be the construction code at the time of that.

1250
01:39:22,522 --> 01:39:25,226
if a project is working right now through the permitting

1251
01:39:25,226 --> 01:39:29,426
process they are going through today's rules.

1252
01:39:30,830 --> 01:39:39,230
if d.o.b. Does not have and they are in the permitting process,

1253
01:39:41,174 --> 01:39:46,512
that is what would apply. The permit is tied to win their

1254
01:39:46,512 --> 01:39:53,112
project is based on what the code is at the time.

1255
01:39:56,856 --> 01:39:58,191
cm pinto: so I'm wondering if anybody has analyzed how many

1256
01:39:58,191 --> 01:40:01,995
current projects are in the pipeline that would be impacted

1257
01:40:01,995 --> 01:40:06,195
by the permitting being set this december 2026?

1258
01:40:10,437 --> 01:40:11,605
part of the discussion several months ago was exempting the

1259
01:40:11,605 --> 01:40:15,805
affordable housing projects. >> they are in permitting

1260
01:40:16,342 --> 01:40:19,145
currently undergoing under today's permit rules and if they

1261
01:40:19,145 --> 01:40:22,148
are through a permitting process but if they want to apply for

1262
01:40:22,148 --> 01:40:26,348
the exemptions, they have that as well.

1263
01:40:27,587 --> 01:40:31,291
I do not know the answer to the question of exactly how many

1264
01:40:31,291 --> 01:40:34,628
projects have not begun permitting but would begin

1265
01:40:34,628 --> 01:40:39,980
permitting in january 2027 if dod does not approve their

1266
01:40:39,980 --> 01:40:45,138
construction codes in time and then an interim standard is set.

1267
01:40:45,138 --> 01:40:48,341
it feels like an unknowable answer.

1268
01:40:48,341 --> 01:40:54,547
cm pinto: so, if any project is currently in the pipeline and

1269
01:40:54,547 --> 01:40:57,451
has already applied for a permit the existing permitting rules

1270
01:40:57,451 --> 01:41:00,587
would govern. Cm allen: they are in the

1271
01:41:00,587 --> 01:41:03,255
process. Cm pinto: got it.

1272
01:41:03,255 --> 01:41:06,725
thank you very much. Chair mendelson: further

1273
01:41:06,725 --> 01:41:10,197
discussion on the amendment? Councilmember parker.

1274
01:41:10,197 --> 01:41:12,732
cm parker: thank you, mr. Chairman.

1275
01:41:12,732 --> 01:41:17,532
I have three quick questions, I think noncontroversial.

1276
01:41:18,400 --> 01:41:23,744
in subtitle ee I want to make sure I'm understanding the

1277
01:41:23,744 --> 01:41:26,212
change that you made. Chair mendelson: can you tell me

1278
01:41:26,212 --> 01:41:29,212
where? Cm parker: subtitle ee.

1279
01:41:32,152 --> 01:41:34,487
in terms of page number? Chair mendelson: yes.

1280
01:41:34,487 --> 01:41:38,134
cm parker: I can find that for you.

1281
01:41:38,134 --> 01:41:40,770
give me one second but let me ask the question while my team

1282
01:41:40,770 --> 01:41:45,574
gets the page number. My interpretation of this change

1283
01:41:45,574 --> 01:41:52,174
is that if the council were two earmarked funds for organization

1284
01:41:52,514 --> 01:41:57,453
, that that would supplement whatever grants might be awarded

1285
01:41:57,453 --> 01:42:01,791
by the arts commission versus them subtracting or supplanting

1286
01:42:01,791 --> 01:42:04,794
these funds. Was that the spirit behind that

1287
01:42:04,794 --> 01:42:07,194
change? Page 124, I believe.

1288
01:42:21,644 --> 01:42:26,815
chair mendelson: yes, your interpretation is the same as

1289
01:42:26,815 --> 01:42:30,415
mine. For example right above that

1290
01:42:31,220 --> 01:42:35,420
language is $100,000 would you both advocated for.

1291
01:42:37,427 --> 01:42:43,632
so they would get that grant and then if they applied for general

1292
01:42:43,632 --> 01:42:47,571
operating support grants, which all arts organizations do, they

1293
01:42:47,571 --> 01:42:51,241
would be entitled to whatever that amount would be not offset

1294
01:42:51,241 --> 01:42:57,841
by this $100,000 grant. I think they have a small cap of

1295
01:42:58,180 --> 01:43:00,583
grant programs. If they applied to that, if they

1296
01:43:00,583 --> 01:43:06,456
meet the criteria without being offset by this, there is a

1297
01:43:06,456 --> 01:43:10,927
variety of grants. The one that gets the most

1298
01:43:10,927 --> 01:43:14,527
attention was the general operating support.

1299
01:43:16,232 --> 01:43:20,470
the $100,000 would not reduce any of those other grant amounts

1300
01:43:20,470 --> 01:43:24,700
to which they otherwise would get.

1301
01:43:24,340 --> 01:43:27,760
cm parker: understood and that's great.

1302
01:43:27,760 --> 01:43:31,347
chair mendelson: actually I'm being understood that the

1303
01:43:31,347 --> 01:43:32,148
commission asked for this language.

1304
01:43:32,148 --> 01:43:36,485
cm parker: that's great. I had another question for

1305
01:43:36,485 --> 01:43:41,285
subtitle j about the educator evaluation and performance

1306
01:43:43,759 --> 01:43:45,940
amendment act. Again, I'm getting at the

1307
01:43:45,940 --> 01:43:49,499
attention, I'm clear on what I'm aiming to do with the working

1308
01:43:49,499 --> 01:43:53,699
group. If the teachers union work to

1309
01:43:55,305 --> 01:44:01,305
bargain around, I believe they are allowed to bargain around

1310
01:44:03,579 --> 01:44:07,583
the evaluation system. If there was a proposed change

1311
01:44:07,583 --> 01:44:12,254
by the union and the executive, is this.

1312
01:44:12,254 --> 01:44:16,460
here that we would be waiting for the outcome of this working

1313
01:44:16,460 --> 01:44:18,729
group before proposed changes are made?

1314
01:44:18,729 --> 01:44:22,329
chair mendelson: no. Cm parker: councilmember

1315
01:44:26,802 --> 01:44:30,539
henderson brought this out before, that we want to ensure

1316
01:44:30,539 --> 01:44:35,945
that the new leadership has a roadmap, can you elaborate on

1317
01:44:35,945 --> 01:44:40,182
the outcome you're hoping from this working group?

1318
01:44:40,182 --> 01:44:44,152
is a proposed changes? Is it handing off to the new

1319
01:44:44,152 --> 01:44:46,222
mayor or chancellor to say here is what we learned?

1320
01:44:46,222 --> 01:44:51,293
is it to say we are not going to do anything but what are group

1321
01:44:51,293 --> 01:44:54,293
recommends? Chair mendelson: the intent

1322
01:44:54,763 --> 01:44:57,433
behind this is to not delay anything else that might be

1323
01:44:57,433 --> 01:45:02,833
discussed or negotiated. But I also have some skepticism

1324
01:45:03,638 --> 01:45:06,910
that anything like that would happen.

1325
01:45:06,910 --> 01:45:11,947
the working group is supposed to conclude its work by november 1,

1326
01:45:11,947 --> 01:45:14,717
2027, a little more than a year from now.

1327
01:45:14,717 --> 01:45:17,454
councilmember parker you are well aware there have been

1328
01:45:17,454 --> 01:45:23,454
complaints with regard to the current evaluation system in the

1329
01:45:24,600 --> 01:45:30,600
d.c. Public schools and the committee and developing this

1330
01:45:36,739 --> 01:45:39,609
subtitle was getting tired of all the criticism with no change

1331
01:45:39,609 --> 01:45:45,749
or no apparent change. So the thinking here is s, the

1332
01:45:45,749 --> 01:45:50,252
council, get a sense of what good evaluation system looks

1333
01:45:50,252 --> 01:45:56,852
like, put that together as a recommendation, and we go from

1334
01:45:58,270 --> 01:46:02,227
there. Cm parker: is that something you

1335
01:46:06,301 --> 01:46:08,503
see legislating or is that a recommendation to the council?

1336
01:46:08,503 --> 01:46:11,307
chair mendelson: it could be either, I don't know.

1337
01:46:11,307 --> 01:46:16,107
cm parker: interesting. Chair mendelson: I'm saying this

1338
01:46:16,313 --> 01:46:21,116
is if I'm being critical. It is truly more of management

1339
01:46:21,116 --> 01:46:27,323
because these complaints, as you know, they did the study at the

1340
01:46:27,323 --> 01:46:30,126
chancellor's request and I shouldn't say study, evaluation.

1341
01:46:30,126 --> 01:46:35,598
they came back and said the impact as and are mostly

1342
01:46:35,598 --> 01:46:40,136
unpopular and that there are some racist outcomes and maybe I

1343
01:46:40,136 --> 01:46:43,136
should say racially biased outcomes.

1344
01:46:44,340 --> 01:46:46,943
so there are these complaints and nothing is done about it, so

1345
01:46:46,943 --> 01:46:51,948
let's just figure out on our own what would look good and then

1346
01:46:51,948 --> 01:46:59,148
based on that we could say to the mayor or chancellor do

1347
01:47:00,422 --> 01:47:04,622
something? Cm parker: awesome, I do recall

1348
01:47:07,696 --> 01:47:11,233
the chancellor looking at or altering the evaluation system

1349
01:47:11,233 --> 01:47:16,839
and to my knowledge that never happened, so these issues never

1350
01:47:16,839 --> 01:47:21,390
have. Last one and we talked about

1351
01:47:22,512 --> 01:47:25,512
this. The brad v. Board.

1352
01:47:29,618 --> 01:47:30,787
chair mendelson: I thought we talked about that over the

1353
01:47:30,787 --> 01:47:33,356
weekend, but ok. Cm pinto: I'm not going to go

1354
01:47:33,356 --> 01:47:38,128
too far, but it brought up a question that the board for

1355
01:47:38,128 --> 01:47:42,928
antideficiency violations, your change as new members, the

1356
01:47:45,468 --> 01:47:51,748
office of the attorney general, it brings up to me that the

1357
01:47:51,748 --> 01:47:56,487
board has never ruled that an agency's anti-deficient because

1358
01:47:56,487 --> 01:48:01,887
essentially money is just transferred to kind of cover

1359
01:48:02,159 --> 01:48:05,662
over-spending routinely and I know we have talked about agency

1360
01:48:05,662 --> 01:48:09,262
overspending at length as the council.

1361
01:48:10,567 --> 01:48:14,771
so if you could just speak to in addition to adding members, how

1362
01:48:14,771 --> 01:48:20,377
are you hoping this board will actually help us get agency

1363
01:48:20,377 --> 01:48:22,712
overspending under control? Right now it seems more

1364
01:48:22,712 --> 01:48:28,112
performative than substantive. That's not a criticism of your

1365
01:48:30,454 --> 01:48:32,288
change, it is more of the existence.

1366
01:48:32,288 --> 01:48:38,288
chair mendelson: it adds to members and also changes or

1367
01:48:39,463 --> 01:48:45,200
potentially changes to be sure, if I remember right, the law

1368
01:48:45,200 --> 01:48:49,202
specifies that the chief financial office appointments,

1369
01:48:51,207 --> 01:48:57,147
it will be that the cfo will designate the chair, one or the

1370
01:48:57,147 --> 01:49:01,347
other. Right now it is the associate

1371
01:49:04,354 --> 01:49:10,159
chief financial officer who is the chair and it is a little bit

1372
01:49:10,159 --> 01:49:15,132
like the fox guarding the hen house in my view.

1373
01:49:15,132 --> 01:49:19,870
and this government is used to this process where agency a

1374
01:49:19,870 --> 01:49:24,974
over-spends and agency b was over budgeted or didn't spend,

1375
01:49:24,974 --> 01:49:29,450
so money from agency b is reprogrammed at the end of the

1376
01:49:29,450 --> 01:49:35,520
fiscal year two agency a and then there is no overspending.

1377
01:49:35,520 --> 01:49:39,852
there is no deficiency. Therefore they don't do

1378
01:49:44,261 --> 01:49:48,461
anything. This was the author of the

1379
01:49:50,660 --> 01:49:55,472
underlying law and the intent was that there would be much

1380
01:49:55,472 --> 01:50:00,272
more aggressiveness to police and go after overspending.

1381
01:50:06,349 --> 01:50:09,952
it speaks to not just the agency director but right now to

1382
01:50:09,952 --> 01:50:14,152
program managers. These are subtle changes, but

1383
01:50:15,580 --> 01:50:17,761
increasing the board changes will hopefully result in much

1384
01:50:17,761 --> 01:50:23,761
more aggressive work. Cm parker: even if there is a

1385
01:50:27,370 --> 01:50:30,373
transfer to cover overspending, the board would still go through

1386
01:50:30,373 --> 01:50:32,242
its process to say said agencies out of compliance.

1387
01:50:32,242 --> 01:50:35,578
chair mendelson: yes. Cm parker: understood, thank

1388
01:50:35,578 --> 01:50:37,978
you. Chair mendelson: further?

1389
01:50:41,170 --> 01:50:42,520
councilmember frumin, then councilmember bonds.

1390
01:50:42,520 --> 01:50:49,852
cm frumin: thank you very much. On the brad v., really want to

1391
01:50:51,528 --> 01:50:52,528
applaud the work you have done on trying to police

1392
01:50:52,528 --> 01:50:56,265
overspending. I also want to add a plug for

1393
01:50:56,265 --> 01:51:01,650
the auditor. The auditor came to us for

1394
01:51:01,538 --> 01:51:06,443
breakfast, talked to us about the tools we have two police

1395
01:51:06,443 --> 01:51:12,810
this and support this. I think as we move and I think

1396
01:51:12,810 --> 01:51:16,353
we are moving into an era where we will be policing spending

1397
01:51:16,353 --> 01:51:21,753
much more closely. I think she should be applauded

1398
01:51:22,826 --> 01:51:27,965
for the role she has played in this process, so I extend my

1399
01:51:27,965 --> 01:51:32,350
gratitude. Back on the net zero and

1400
01:51:32,350 --> 01:51:37,435
councilmember allen, we have a regime for district buildings

1401
01:51:39,642 --> 01:51:43,842
and affordability. Now we have this regime.

1402
01:51:47,617 --> 01:51:48,851
I just want to make sure I understand how this is going to

1403
01:51:48,851 --> 01:51:53,651
operate for commercial building since it applies here.

1404
01:51:55,250 --> 01:52:02,131
I do think we are going to need to come up with a new appendix

1405
01:52:02,131 --> 01:52:07,671
and harmonize our approach. If a building applies for a

1406
01:52:07,671 --> 01:52:12,742
permit before december 31 of this year, then they are

1407
01:52:12,742 --> 01:52:19,942
governed by the existing regime and they may apply to gbac for

1408
01:52:20,183 --> 01:52:24,954
relief if they want to include gas for a boiler or space heater

1409
01:52:24,954 --> 01:52:28,910
or something like that, is that right?

1410
01:52:28,910 --> 01:52:32,891
>> in the example you gave, that is correct.

1411
01:52:40,700 --> 01:52:47,870
cm frumin: it is in statute next year that there can't be an

1412
01:52:53,883 --> 01:52:58,254
exception, could someone get one in calendar year 27?

1413
01:52:58,254 --> 01:53:05,454
cm allen: so, a couple of if's in the scenario, if the

1414
01:53:06,262 --> 01:53:08,466
department of buildings does not publish what they are supposed

1415
01:53:08,466 --> 01:53:11,267
to by the end of the calendar year, what we are adding is a

1416
01:53:11,267 --> 01:53:15,538
lot more flexibility. We are laying out these two

1417
01:53:15,538 --> 01:53:20,938
different pieces of flexibility. Specifically to the gbac, that

1418
01:53:22,545 --> 01:53:26,820
is correct. It is essentially the body where

1419
01:53:26,820 --> 01:53:29,682
they are getting a release valve .

1420
01:53:32,489 --> 01:53:37,961
cm frumin: so in that setting of a new construction for an

1421
01:53:37,961 --> 01:53:43,633
additional $10,000 in fees, if the permit for that goes in in

1422
01:53:43,633 --> 01:53:48,171
february 2027, there is no safety valve there though there

1423
01:53:48,171 --> 01:53:52,971
is today? Cm allen: no, they have the

1424
01:53:54,898 --> 01:54:00,404
ability to go seek an exception. Cm frumin: even though it would

1425
01:54:00,404 --> 01:54:02,600
be in the statute that there could not be such a thing?

1426
01:54:02,600 --> 01:54:08,278
cm allen: that the -- that is the exact reason people seek an

1427
01:54:08,278 --> 01:54:11,682
exemption today. Cm frumin: so they will be able

1428
01:54:11,682 --> 01:54:18,282
to get a gbac extension? Cm allen: yes because the gbac

1429
01:54:20,357 --> 01:54:22,960
process is in statute so if today they needed to go through

1430
01:54:22,960 --> 01:54:28,360
an exemption today, they have the gbac in statute.

1431
01:54:31,968 --> 01:54:35,568
same thing. It is in statute.

1432
01:54:36,606 --> 01:54:42,379
cm frumin: and then sometime in 2027 let's come up with a

1433
01:54:42,379 --> 01:54:45,115
harmonized theme. Cm allen: I'm game.

1434
01:54:45,115 --> 01:54:48,115
thank you. Chair mendelson: councilmember

1435
01:54:49,654 --> 01:54:53,156
bonds. Cm bonds: thank you very much,

1436
01:54:53,156 --> 01:54:58,795
chairman, I wanted to go back to subtitle j on page 173 as it

1437
01:54:58,795 --> 01:55:04,195
goes over to 174. My colleague was asking a couple

1438
01:55:04,200 --> 01:55:11,274
of questions about this and I wanted to understand if on line

1439
01:55:11,274 --> 01:55:17,274
3052 you have fs a category of membership on this teacher's

1440
01:55:19,616 --> 01:55:22,160
evaluation, performance working group.

1441
01:55:24,154 --> 01:55:26,423
you have the state board of education.

1442
01:55:26,423 --> 01:55:33,230
is that synonymous with there being a member of the public

1443
01:55:35,499 --> 01:55:41,438
that is a participant or do we need to add a member of the

1444
01:55:41,438 --> 01:55:43,838
public? Like a parent?

1445
01:55:50,380 --> 01:55:57,580
chair mendelson: no, we don't need to add more people to this.

1446
01:56:01,570 --> 01:56:03,593
cm bonds: well it's not about people, it's about parents and

1447
01:56:03,593 --> 01:56:06,663
students. Chair mendelson: well people are

1448
01:56:06,663 --> 01:56:09,932
the public. Cm bonds: it is about the

1449
01:56:09,932 --> 01:56:13,532
interaction, what happens with their children?

1450
01:56:13,870 --> 01:56:19,870
chair mendelson: I think we've got all the bases covered.

1451
01:56:20,243 --> 01:56:27,443
in addition to the individuals. Cm bonds: they are all in the

1452
01:56:27,617 --> 01:56:30,820
education arena. Chair mendelson: that might make

1453
01:56:30,820 --> 01:56:35,224
some sense there would be people in training and education since

1454
01:56:35,224 --> 01:56:41,224
this is about how to educate, that could be apparent.

1455
01:56:50,874 --> 01:56:53,874
current or former school leaders.

1456
01:56:56,413 --> 01:57:01,813
>> and all of them could be carrying a title.

1457
01:57:02,520 --> 01:57:02,786
chair mendelson: not necessarily.

1458
01:57:02,786 --> 01:57:06,756
cm bonds: a title for the organization they are

1459
01:57:06,756 --> 01:57:08,458
representing and they are not representing the families that

1460
01:57:08,458 --> 01:57:14,458
have students and most likely the mayor elect is agreeing.

1461
01:57:15,365 --> 01:57:20,765
chair mendelson: researchers or academics, any one of these

1462
01:57:22,939 --> 01:57:27,430
people and most of them are probably parents.

1463
01:57:27,430 --> 01:57:31,843
and they includ a broad representation of stakeholders.

1464
01:57:33,183 --> 01:57:35,785
I think we have the bases covered.

1465
01:57:35,785 --> 01:57:40,423
this is meant to be a serious working group to look at how to

1466
01:57:40,423 --> 01:57:45,223
best professionally evaluate teachers and other employees of

1467
01:57:46,229 --> 01:57:51,290
dcps. Cm bonds: and surely we are not

1468
01:57:51,301 --> 01:57:56,172
suggesting that a parent who has a student in the school system

1469
01:57:56,172 --> 01:58:02,172
today would not be able to render a professional appearance

1470
01:58:03,379 --> 01:58:08,851
or an appearance and an opinion of this professionally endowed,

1471
01:58:08,851 --> 01:58:15,258
I just think we need to consider having someone who is not an

1472
01:58:15,258 --> 01:58:18,858
educationally affiliated individual or background or

1473
01:58:21,498 --> 01:58:28,980
practice, I think we would embellish the process if we had

1474
01:58:28,538 --> 01:58:33,800
someone who sends their kids off to school or has sends their

1475
01:58:33,800 --> 01:58:34,278
kids off to school on a regular basis.

1476
01:58:34,278 --> 01:58:38,214
chair mendelson: I don't think you are hearing me.

1477
01:58:38,214 --> 01:58:42,585
I suspect between the 14 and 15 people that several or not most

1478
01:58:42,585 --> 01:58:46,356
of them will be parents. I suspect that of the 14 or 15

1479
01:58:46,356 --> 01:58:50,161
that they will be mostly ordinary people, they will not

1480
01:58:50,161 --> 01:58:52,429
be lofty people with lofty titles.

1481
01:58:52,429 --> 01:58:56,299
I think we have the bases covered here with a wide variety

1482
01:58:56,299 --> 01:59:00,499
of folks from different backgrounds and expertise.

1483
01:59:00,670 --> 01:59:05,470
anything further? Cm bonds: no, not from me.

1484
01:59:06,177 --> 01:59:09,979
>> one is the report due for the working group?

1485
01:59:09,979 --> 01:59:11,979
chair mendelson: november 1, 2027.

1486
01:59:15,652 --> 01:59:20,656
>> so, it would be due after next year's budget?

1487
01:59:20,656 --> 01:59:27,256
chair mendelson: correct. Which is to give time -- this is

1488
01:59:30,000 --> 01:59:33,770
a working group to help the council.

1489
01:59:33,770 --> 01:59:39,275
the mayor will benefit because this will be a public report,

1490
01:59:39,275 --> 01:59:44,810
but this is, after several years , as I discussed with

1491
01:59:44,810 --> 01:59:49,481
councilmember parker, after many years of hearing complaints, we

1492
01:59:49,953 --> 01:59:52,756
the council and the committee are going to try to figure out

1493
01:59:52,756 --> 01:59:54,492
what does a good evaluation system look like?

1494
01:59:54,492 --> 02:00:00,492
>> I understand your aim, I'm wondering if action is taken

1495
02:00:01,231 --> 02:00:06,951
before and tears budget, before this report is due, will the

1496
02:00:06,951 --> 02:00:13,551
council fall on process and stop any progress from happening for

1497
02:00:14,726 --> 02:00:19,731
that? If in the new budget there is an

1498
02:00:19,731 --> 02:00:23,401
evaluation system that has been negotiated with the union, that

1499
02:00:23,401 --> 02:00:28,205
has been agreed upon between the executive and the union?

1500
02:00:28,205 --> 02:00:33,500
chair mendelson: I think that is highly unlikely.

1501
02:00:33,211 --> 02:00:37,382
sorry to interrupt. I think that is highly unlikely.

1502
02:00:37,382 --> 02:00:40,285
the teacher's contract we approved a couple of years ago,

1503
02:00:40,285 --> 02:00:43,188
it is not up for renewal for a couple of years.

1504
02:00:43,188 --> 02:00:47,225
there would have to be an opening of negotiations, which

1505
02:00:47,225 --> 02:00:51,763
is not scheduled. And if it were, if negotiations

1506
02:00:51,763 --> 02:00:55,967
were to open, they probably wouldn't open until january or

1507
02:00:55,967 --> 02:01:02,239
february at the earliest, which is not enough time to affect

1508
02:01:02,239 --> 02:01:07,390
this evaluation. Actually as I'm speaking to you

1509
02:01:08,112 --> 02:01:12,116
if the mayor wanted to move more quickly than the council, there

1510
02:01:12,116 --> 02:01:14,986
is nothing to stop the mayor from moving more quickly.

1511
02:01:14,986 --> 02:01:18,724
in terms of next year's budget, all that we have done with

1512
02:01:18,724 --> 02:01:24,196
regard to impacting the budget is to fund the bonuses and this

1513
02:01:24,196 --> 02:01:29,467
doesn't affect that. Cm lewis george: ok, thank you.

1514
02:01:29,467 --> 02:01:33,737
chair mendelson: is there anything further on the

1515
02:01:33,737 --> 02:01:36,607
amendment in the nature of a substitute?

1516
02:01:36,607 --> 02:01:40,807
cm felder: mr. Chairman? Chair mendelson: councilmember

1517
02:01:40,879 --> 02:01:44,415
felder. Cm felder: for the record I want

1518
02:01:44,415 --> 02:01:51,150
to flag again my concerns as it relates to the access.

1519
02:01:54,592 --> 02:01:59,496
I have specific concerns on how this proposal could increase

1520
02:01:59,496 --> 02:02:06,960
calls for snap recipients, many of those who live in ward 7

1521
02:02:06,104 --> 02:02:11,876
endboard eight, as well as individuals who may use delivery

1522
02:02:11,876 --> 02:02:14,876
services for groceries and medication.

1523
02:02:17,148 --> 02:02:24,288
it is my hope that we could later on work with colleagues.

1524
02:02:24,288 --> 02:02:30,888
and the net zero subtitle and how that will increase utilities

1525
02:02:34,265 --> 02:02:39,300
for its residents and making utilities more affordable in the

1526
02:02:39,300 --> 02:02:41,272
long-run. I thing we have to be mindful of

1527
02:02:41,272 --> 02:02:45,343
the implications of this. I want to go on record for that.

1528
02:02:45,343 --> 02:02:50,415
chair mendelson: if there is nothing further, the vote is on

1529
02:02:50,415 --> 02:02:52,617
the amendment nature of the substitute as amended.

1530
02:02:52,617 --> 02:02:57,155
all those in favor say aye. Are there any opposed?

1531
02:02:57,155 --> 02:03:03,755
the ayes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended.

1532
02:03:05,396 --> 02:03:11,370
is there any further discussion? The vote will be on the bill as

1533
02:03:11,370 --> 02:03:15,506
amended. All those in favor say aye?

1534
02:03:15,506 --> 02:03:20,778
are there any opposed? Hearing on, the ayes have it

1535
02:03:20,778 --> 02:03:24,378
unanimously. We have the budget support

1536
02:03:31,540 --> 02:03:34,540
emergency declaration resolution , so moved.

1537
02:03:37,261 --> 02:03:44,461
I circulated this with a memo. When we get to the underlying

1538
02:03:46,337 --> 02:03:48,273
bill, assuming we get to the underlying bill, we better get

1539
02:03:48,273 --> 02:03:54,879
to the underlying bill, I will ask that it can form to the

1540
02:03:54,879 --> 02:03:58,479
amended version of the permanent bill.

1541
02:03:59,384 --> 02:04:03,287
reading from the memo I circulated due to delayed

1542
02:04:03,287 --> 02:04:05,691
transmission of the budget financial plan it is necessary

1543
02:04:05,691 --> 02:04:12,891
to pass the bsa on an emergency basis to ensure the provisions

1544
02:04:14,499 --> 02:04:18,302
are affected. In addition are several time

1545
02:04:18,302 --> 02:04:24,241
sensitive provisions that must be in place prior to october 1,

1546
02:04:24,241 --> 02:04:30,241
2026, these are included in bill 26-661, that is the bsa.

1547
02:04:31,282 --> 02:04:36,682
the emergency bill will make those time sensitive provisions

1548
02:04:37,722 --> 02:04:42,522
prior to october 1. Other provisions will retain the

1549
02:04:43,461 --> 02:04:47,565
applicability date provided in the permanent bill which said be

1550
02:04:47,565 --> 02:04:51,869
enacted prior to october 1 to allow agencies and stakeholders

1551
02:04:51,869 --> 02:04:56,140
to prepare for implementation. So what did I just say?

1552
02:04:56,140 --> 02:05:00,780
the bsa is effective october 1 the affirmative version has to

1553
02:05:00,780 --> 02:05:04,148
go to the hill for the 30 day layover.

1554
02:05:04,148 --> 02:05:07,352
that layover may not be completed before october 1, so

1555
02:05:07,352 --> 02:05:10,421
that his recent one for having an emergency.

1556
02:05:10,421 --> 02:05:14,758
recent two is the provisions in the bsa are applicable as of

1557
02:05:14,758 --> 02:05:19,297
october 1 unless specifically noted otherwise in the subtitle

1558
02:05:19,297 --> 02:05:22,990
and there are some subtitles that have an earlier

1559
02:05:22,990 --> 02:05:25,302
replicability date. So we need the emergency for

1560
02:05:25,302 --> 02:05:29,502
that. And then third that we want

1561
02:05:31,575 --> 02:05:35,546
everybody to know what is coming, so doing the emergency

1562
02:05:35,546 --> 02:05:40,518
also helps in that regard. So for those reasons I move from

1563
02:05:40,518 --> 02:05:43,455
declaration to discussion. The vote will be on the

1564
02:05:43,455 --> 02:05:49,455
declaration of pr 26-758. All those in favor say aye.

1565
02:05:51,162 --> 02:05:54,665
are there any opposed? Hearing none, the aye have it

1566
02:05:54,665 --> 02:05:57,401
unanimously. Si move the underlying bill

1567
02:05:57,401 --> 02:06:02,201
26-724, with the emergency conforming with permanent --

1568
02:06:07,211 --> 02:06:12,611
give me a second. Madam general counsel, are we

1569
02:06:16,368 --> 02:06:19,968
clear on what I'm moving? >> yes.

1570
02:06:21,472 --> 02:06:24,472
chair mendelson: is there discussion?

1571
02:06:24,575 --> 02:06:29,580
the vote will be on bill 26-724 as amended to reflect the

1572
02:06:29,580 --> 02:06:35,580
permanent bill, bill 26-661. All those in favor say aye.

1573
02:06:36,253 --> 02:06:41,993
are there any opposed? Hearing none, the ayes have it

1574
02:06:41,993 --> 02:06:45,829
unanimously. You know, at each of these

1575
02:06:45,829 --> 02:06:48,832
budget meetings, votes, we think everybody.

1576
02:06:48,832 --> 02:06:51,801
I don't want to thank everybody this time by name although I

1577
02:06:51,801 --> 02:06:56,840
want to thank them all, but I do want to call out explicitly

1578
02:06:56,840 --> 02:06:58,840
budget anne. [laughter]

1579
02:07:01,311 --> 02:07:04,311
as distinguished from normal anne.

1580
02:07:05,716 --> 02:07:09,916
and phelps. The office of revenue analysis,

1581
02:07:10,988 --> 02:07:14,591
the office of general counsel, and my staff.

1582
02:07:14,591 --> 02:07:20,591
not known as budget blaine. These folks really spent much

1583
02:07:22,699 --> 02:07:28,505
more time than anybody else on this just so the public

1584
02:07:28,505 --> 02:07:31,505
understands, it grew to 435 pages.

1585
02:07:35,579 --> 02:07:40,500
our next meeting will be an additional meeting on july 14,

1586
02:07:40,500 --> 02:07:42,319
scheduled to start at 12:00 noon.

1587
02:07:42,319 --> 02:07:45,889
there will be a committee of the hole before then.

1588
02:07:45,889 --> 02:07:50,727
the deadline for notices for next tuesday's meeting will be

1589
02:07:50,727 --> 02:07:56,127
this thursday. The time is 1:48 p.m. And this

1590
02:07:58,936 --> 02:07:59,671
meeting is adjourned. [gavel]

1591
02:07:59,671 --> 02:08:01,671
?