Okay, I see Councilman Chapman.

So it's 533, and I'm going to go ahead and officially call the meeting to order.

Our first order of business is to pass the minutes.

Councilman Chapman, would you mind making a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm going to move approval of the minutes around from the last meeting.

Okay.

There has been a motion and I'll second it.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All right, meeting minutes approved.

The next item of business is to welcome Councilman Chapman.

Welcome.

Our nearest member of the legislative committee.

Councilman Chapman, anything you want to say before we dive in?

Nope, looking forward to this.

Yeah.

That's it.

Okay, sounds good.

Next item, I'm going to turn it over to Dr.

Ginsberg for a budget update.

Welcome, Councilman Chapman to your first meeting.

And thank you, Mayor Gaskins, for this opportunity.

From the well, what this year would be the previous governor.

So Governor Glenn Youncan at the time in December released a budget.

What came out on this weekend were the approved the budget amendments that the House and the Senate were approving and actually two budgets.

There's a caboose budget for FY26, and then there's the biennial budget for FY27 and 28.

And the amendments came out on Sunday, and they've already, each chamber uh was required to approve the amendments from their chamber uh yesterday.

So uh we know what each chamber has in their budgets at this point, and I'm just gonna quickly walk through what made it through each chamber in their budgets pretty high level, but if you have any questions, please do ask me.

I'm gonna start with our requested city budget amendments, and I'm going to start with uh Freedom House accessibility, which were we had an ask in each chamber, one from Elizabeth Bennett Parker in the House and one from Senator uh Evan in the Senate.

And we requested $2 million for the Freedom House Museum for money that would allow the Office of Historic Alexandria to construct an elevator, providing access down to the basement where enslaved men were once held prior to being trafficked to the deep south.

Um the funding was also meant to uh help level the floors at um on the second level as well.

I see Sean's nodding his head, which means I'm getting it right.

Thank you.

Um so uh we did get a budget amendment in the Senate uh for one million dollars, and and then you uh you guys at um Office of Historic Alexander would be required to match that funding.

Um we didn't get a budget amendment in the House.

Uh and now we're gonna wait and we're not waiting we're working with our delegation and trying to determine who the conferees will be to make sure that we continue to push for that one million dollars and make sure that it's carried in the House as well, so that we can get it when it goes into conference.

Um the second budget amendment uh also carried by uh now Senator Elizabeth Bennett Parker, then delegate Elizabeth Bennett Parker, and then Senator Um Adam Evan was a work group on locally subsidized state employees.

Um the city requested the establishment of work group to examine the fiscal impacts associated with these locally subsidized locally subsidized state supported employees, which um includes employees in our sheriff's office or Commonwealth's attorney or circuit courts or state health department, really vital components of our city.

Um it cost the city about 41 miles, 41 million dollars a year from the city's budget to support those positions.

Um neither chamber included a work group, but there was a in the Senate bill um an amendment that contains language that require the Department of Planning and Budget to collect full-time salary data and employee counts of these state supported locally uh local, or they call them state supported local employees.

And I know that our uh city attorney's office will get mad at that, but they're the same thing.

Um so we're gonna make sure that we use that budget amendment uh if it stays in uh for some good evidence based policymaking in the future, because we'll have an underlying understanding of across the Commonwealth what the costs are and what the FTEs are associated with these uh locally subsidized state employees.

Um our third budget amendment was uh the Urban Area Security Initiative or UASI.

Um this was only carried for us in the House, and there is a budget amendment in the House.

We requested 2.2 million dollars per year each year for the biennium.

The House included an amendment for 3.2 million per year for FY2027 and FY2028.

Again, the Senate didn't have a budget amendment on this.

We're working with our uh regional counterparts to make sure that this stays in, then we do get some funding for UASI.

If you'll recall, this was national security related funding, uh regional funding.

Um I think, and I'm staring at Yon, I think that the that Alexandria's uh slice of it was about 750,000 each year.

Okay.

Great.

Um now uh I want to also highlight there was one budget amendment we certainly didn't ask for, but I do want to flag, and that is a budget amendment that got into the Senate bill.

And that is a budget amendment that would require a study uh to examine whether we should consolidate the uh transit systems in Northern Virginia.

So that would be the Alexandria City transit systems, the Fairfax Transit Systems and uh the Arlington transit systems.

This uh appears to be the brainchild of Senator Scott Surravel.

Um we are working on language that would make sure that the constituent localities associated with that proposed consolidation have a firm place in the conversation and that whatever gets into the report were uh would include our voices in that study.

So um I will be sending something around to you, Mayor Gaskins and um Councilman Chapman to make sure that you're good with the language that we would propose to amend that provision.

Um I'm gonna move on a little uh to K to 12 education, unless you have questions about those budget amendments.

Um I have two quick ones.

So the first, going back to the state supported employees.

I feel like this is a topic that has been in our package for a long time and has been a discussion in the commonwealth for a while.

What is, and I so I imagine a lot of data has been collected on this before.

What is the specific thing in the study that the state was asking for this time?

Like what's the data point that we're gonna get out of this that is supposed to help them make a decision?

So this would be broader.

A lot of the research studies have been very siloed in which components of the state subsidized state, like the locally subsidized state employees they've looked at, they've either like looked only exclusively at sheriffs, they've only looked exclusively at at different pieces.

This one would be a mere data collection and not even an analysis.

So it would be like a baseline collection of data on the FTEs and the costs affiliated in all of those agencies writ large, all of the ones that are subsidized.

So you'd have a good baseline um data source to start with to start asking questions and make good policies from there.

And is the timeline that it would be sort of complete?

I guess how quickly would it be completed in order for I think it's a once I I can go back and get back to you to make sure that I know the language.

I think it was a once a year count, but let me get back to you on that.

Thank you.

And then as it relates to the consolidation of the transit systems, beyond pushing for like language to get us involved, is there anything else that we can do?

I mean, like this would be a huge problem for us.

And I feel like we are the best performing out of all of those transit systems.

And so, I mean, is there a letter we can write?

Is there some way we can lean on our delegation?

Is there anything else we can do beyond just the submission of potential language?

I definitely flag for every member of our delegation to let them know that um that this isn't something that we would support uh consolidation in a realm.

Um their suggestion is like they they also completely understand that.

They know that Dash is um you know incomparable and is uh besting class across the commonwealth.

Um so uh they are with us and uh I I will keep them apprised.

There is a sort of um an unspoken, you you don't oppose a study rule.

Uh Sarah, go ahead.

Yeah, you're there too.

Um I would say I've um I had conversations with DRPT about this budget amendment.

And um the timeline of the budget amendment is I think sort of plays to our advantage in that it is a very short timeline for them to do what is a very big job.

And if what the goal of the study is is to validate the argument that these that these uh systems should be consolidated.

Um the timeline, the fact that this is not something that DRPT asked for, and the fact that these are like fairly well uh, you know, uh run and uh and operating systems does not lend itself to the likely outcome.

So what we are really trying to do is use this to our advantage and say, if what he is trying to do is is prove his narrative, instead, what we would like to do is memorialize that this does not prove the narrative.

Um so working with DRPT, you know, obviously if this is in the budget, we would reach reach out to DRPT and say, hey, like we would like to be involved, you know, let us know how we can be helpful, you know, do all those things, um, you know, engage the delegation.

But I I think that there's an there's an opportunity to sort of use this the way it's framed to our advantage and end up memorializing something that sort of takes the the the outcome off the table.

And and as uh our um our lovely Dash uh staff have taught me the reason why the the that our transit uh transit was created in the first place was because everything was Womata at a certain time and we as a community realized it wasn't serving our community and reminding people that that was the origin of these local transit systems at the in the first place that Wamata wasn't working for the localities might be really helpful for that to create this counter narrative as well.

Yeah I think that makes sense.

I want to make sure that I'm reconciling um what you and Ms.

Taylor said.

So the goal is not to try and get this out the goal is that I guess keeping it in but using it to get us at the table to then memorialize that it doesn't work.

Am I tracking this I mean think it's since it's only in one side like it still needs to be like accepted as something that both sides want.

So if it is going to be there um we would you know we think that that put it like drafting having it drafted in a way that sort of works to our advantage um is the best way um to approach it like you know like DRPT did not ask for this nobody is clamoring for this and it's not funded they gave them no money to do it.

Yeah I think um this is um one person who's very interested in this so we'll continue to to stay to stay on top of this but I think that's right uh hammering home the argument like using it to our advantage if it's stuck here but hammering home the argument we have our system for a reason because the rest didn't work and sorry and and one at least one member of our delegation noted noted that if our voice is in there saying like here's a problem and we are Dash and we are free service for our constituencies and that is a hard line for us that makes it much easier for them to stand up and say later like we oppose any and when they come back to the General Assembly with any sort of policy proposal we oppose it for this reason.

Thank you.

Okay, K through 12.

Yes so K through 12 um there uh under the House proposal uh the House and Senate proposals were different just to start there under the House proposal um the City of Alexander receive about 83 million in FY20 uh 7 and 81 million FY28 there uh they reflect rebenchmarking adjustments and uh in the the governor and the house proposals uh they provide a 2% salary increase each year for 2027 and 2028 the Senate would provide a 3% salary increase each year also unique in the House is that in the Caboose budget uh funding a lot of the funding is tied to the implementation of an FY2026 $1500 bonus um and the if you do provide the $1500 bonus that would unlock a one time 4.4 million statewide uh uh allocation of one-time flexible funding that you can use for any school related purpose alexandra's estimated allocation would be approximately 2.8 million in there um there's also funding to take to uh extend the commission that would look at uh the JLARC proposal from 2023 and also see if there's a reason to change the the local composite index and uh how we actually get our funding.

The Senate also has a similar proposal that would fund looks at the um at whether to change that funding structure.

In the Senate uh let me pull that up in the Senate again they have a 3% salary increase they have at-risk add-on funding they provide some money for special education which would be new um in the budget the Senate also includes 1.3 million dollar investment for the Joint subcommittee on elementary and secondary education um which would be looking at the JLARC study and then uh they have adjustments to per pupil infrastructure funding so slightly different in each side the one big thing I want to point out um when it comes to the House and the Senate about schools is the school construction funding.

Now both uh both the House and the Senate have provision have um vehicles that would uh allow for a referendum on a 1% sales tax increase to help fund school construction in the House that vehicle is a bill by delegate Rasul and that would allow for debt service reduction in that bill in the Senate it is in the budget and that does not have the provision that would allow for debt service reduction if that if we went through and had a referendum and we got that 1% sales tax added.

So we're working with our delegation and we're working with others to make sure and our regional partners to make sure that debt service remains in a part of the conversation when we're talking about the 1% uh sales tax uh addition for school construction uh I'm gonna stop there on schools and see if you guys have I see if you the legislative subcommittee has any questions.

Um they uh they have been working with us solidly to make sure that uh we are advocating very clearly that we need the debt service reduction um provision as well.

Uh and they so they support the bills.

They are when I was texting with the um their liaison, she was much more favorable of what the House had in it because of the flexibilities the house put in their language.

Um, but uh it didn't seem tragic on either side except for the debt service component on the 1% school construction legislation.

Okay, and for the other provisions, um, I heard you say per people.

So I think that sounds better for us than any other types of funding mechanisms that they tried to do in the past.

But do we have any concerns about how money would flow to the schools and any concerns about past formulas or ways that you know we have not benefited in the I mean the fun the funding formula has always been not great for the city of Alexandria?

Um, and that's why I think it's really important to look at the fact that they are still funding that joint subcommittee.

The joint subcommittee took up a bit of uh uh went on a bit of hiatus to look at the effects of the federal government.

That's what a lot of the staff was repurposed to look at the effects of the federal government changes, and now they're going back to make sure that they're looking at the JLARC study coming up with actionable recommendations and uh potential shifts to the funding structure there.

So that was really good news for us too.

Great.

Um Chapman, any on this one?

Okay, uh next topic.

Sure.

I was going to go to WAMATA next uh and transit funding more broadly.

And uh so um in when we started, and we actually had a meeting on this a couple of weeks ago, uh, when we were still hopeful there would be some bills that would actually change the tax structure and we would get sustainable funding for sustainable long-term funding for our transit systems across the Northern Virginia and the rest of the Commonwealth.

Um, those bills did not make it past crossover.

And so we are left with a uh more urgent need of a uh 153 million dollars uh WMATA funding gap for 2027.

Um Alexandria's uh slice of that 153 million is about 21 million dollars.

Um absent, so we we need to get some sort of operating state support.

I will say in the House bill, they say right out that it would be 150, they say 153 million for operating funds in 20 uh across the biennium.

So the House bill was very clear.

The Senate bill had something very different.

Uh the Senate bill proposed eliminating the sales tax related to data center purchases.

I it's been in the news a bit lately, that it would move from its original date of and uh original end date of 2035 and it would cease in 2027.

So that would actually increase the universe of things that get taxed to all of the things that the data centers buy to run their data centers.

So that the idea was to take a portion of that new proceed that you would get from those taxes and funnel it directly to WAMATA.

Um, and so they were gonna use that funding to only pay for capital funding for WAMATA.

So the Senate bill didn't actually have any operating funding in the budget for WAMATA, only capital funding from the taxes that they would remove from the data centers, and then they would also add uh a transient occupancy tax increase of one percent uh in the region that they would also use to fund WAMATA capital.

I'm gonna stop for a second.

And if you need me to repeat any of that very confusing language, I'm happy to do it because it took me a while to figure out what was happening in that bill.

Yes.

So I'm tracking in both cases, we're left on the hook with 21 million for operating.

That's that's correct.

But there's so not exactly the House bill.

If you put it across the biennium, it's uh from what I'm told, and I'm gonna stare at uh Hillary is on too, um, because Hillary and I walked through this as well.

Uh it would be an uh enough each year that we are paying the state is paying half and uh the locality is paying half each year.

So Hillary, I don't know if you want to get on and help me walk through this very confusing math.

Yeah.

Yes, what would be most helpful?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, Ms.

Orr, if you could frame it as what we owe for how many years, that would help me.

So we don't know what our FY28 ask is from WMATA, but right now our WAMATA bill for Alexandria is 71 million dollars.

So if if the House bill passes and we get half of it each year, it'd be about 10 million less that we would have to pay each year.

Does that make sense?

If it's 20 million total, it's spread over two years.

We would get about 10 million each year.

Would we be asked on top of so and that is for operating and capital?

That is for operating.

Okay.

So would we have an additional potential ask for capital?

And if so, do we have a sense of what that cost is?

So there was an estimated, and if I'm getting the numbers wrong, there was an estimated 134 or one, yeah, 134 million dollar capital need, but that didn't kick in until FY28.

So there was a little bit of time for the capital need uh when it came to the WAMATA ask.

So when these two proposals came out, everyone was a little bit in shock because actually nobody knew that the Senate was going to propose eliminating the data center tax.

I I don't know anybody who knew that that was coming.

So um it was a bit of a shock down in Richmond.

And um I it it it it prompted feelings.

So um there was a a meeting of the Northern Virginia transit uh stakeholders, and there was a suggested path forward.

And that was to come up with a new uh operating request, which was to ask for um this the exactly the 153 million spread across the the um biennium.

So 76.5 million each year, uh, which matches the house version, and then add on some funding asks for VRE and add on some funding asks for statewide transit, statewide transit would be about 47 million dollars each um each year of the biennium.

Um these would be new asks, uh they're not in any of the budgets.

So um it they it was referred to as a moonshot, but it might be one of the paths that we take forward.

Um on the capital need, there was suggested that um there might be a regional tax increase of about 1% that would bring in the money needed uh for some of that.

It would be uh it would remove the transient occupancy tax and propose a four point four five percent regional sales tax that would bring in uh the 136 million for WMAT um and 54 million for uh Nova local buses.

I can send this all to you in an email, which I will do.

Um, but the proposal there is a a way to make a counter proposal here.

Do you can send, I guess maybe like in a little chart to the full council?

That would be um I guess two follow up questions.

Previously, there was a proposal where some of this funding was coming from NBTA funds.

Is that still the case?

So the mechanism.

So the NBTC, um, from what I'm also learning here, and uh Josh and Hillary, if I'm getting this wrong, please let me know.

And uh NBTC gets uh tax funding as well, and then it has like a split where it gives uh some of the money uh directly to uh localities, and then there's a um a pot of money that the localities compete for in uh projects that have already been pre-approved for funding from them.

Um so then uh they the way that they're doing the data center uh tax is that normally because you're increasing the tax base, that tax would go directly to NBTC.

But since uh, but the just a flag, it's NBTA, not NBTC.

Oh, NBT.

Yeah, they're they're obnoxiously similar but very different uh transportation organizations.

Yes.

So NB, so it used to go to MVTA, thank you.

They used to go to MVTA directly as the tax, and then the Senate bill would actually forego it going directly to MVTA and move it over directly to WAMATA.

So they're not losing any money if you think about it in terms of what they're at right now.

They just wouldn't be getting the same tax base they were getting, uh, would be getting if that law didn't direct the funding directly to WAMATA.

Got it.

Um, I mean, both of these options are terrible for lack of a better word, but I guess we are where we are.

Um, something that I do want to flag, this isn't for today, but just once we finally get through all of this sessions, there are a lot of taxes, it sounds like that are being put on people.

You know, if we get the sales tax for the school, the transit occupancy tax that impacts tourism, there's just a lot of mini taxes that will be added up.

And so I think when you guys do your debrief of session, it would be helpful for the full council to hear like the totality of all of these other taxes that will be coming beyond, you know, the ones that we currently have.

Understood.

Yes.

Um, so I'm gonna I'm gonna move on from WAMATA if we're okay with that.

Um, unless you have further questions on the WAMATA funding.

Just that the House and Senate are very different.

We prefer what the House has in it, and although it's not ideal, it is something that gets us through this this fiscal year to next fiscal year.

Um, and we can try again next fiscal year for something more sustainable.

Yeah, I mean, I don't have any other questions.

It just would be like a comment on strategy.

I know you know everyone else up here is just as frustrated too.

Arlington, Fairfax Loud, and the rest of if it's helpful for us to all be doing some type of joint letter, joint communication.

Let's just think about strategically how the region moves together on this.

Also, um, I'm on MBTA.

I think Canic is in leadership on MBTA, MBTC, Sarah is past leadership on BRE.

So recognizing that we're all holding pretty strong leadership roles in each of these organizations.

We should also just be thinking about um if there's anything we can do to elevate that as well.

Absolutely.

Um it's a great flag.

Um I have been talking to our regional partners.

We are uh we are all going back and trying to see whether this proposal, this path ahead is something that we can all get behind.

So I will send that out to make sure it is in fact something we can um all support and then get behind and start lobbying on.

Uh one thing and one other thing I wanted to flag is that uh the House and Senate both propose a two percent annual salary increase for locally supported state employees again.

So that would add to those costs that we already talked about.

Uh and then in terms of other we I talked about other revenues the other night.

The only one that's really worth highlighting now is the cannabis tax that might that might come if that bill comes through, which again, I just want to say if if it does get enacted and there is a regulatory uh regulated cannabis structure, it actually doesn't bring in a lot of funding, at least for the first for the biennium.

So it's not a lot of revenue there.

Um and I think I think I'm gonna pause there unless you have other issues or concerns or questions about the budget or other areas that you'd like me to delve into a little bit further.

Okay.

Um so then let's pivot to specific bill highlights.

Um yeah, I'm gonna uh start off with faith in housing, which is something that we've really been talking a lot about um this General Assembly session.

Uh there is a House and a Senate bill.

The House bill is SB 388.

Uh it's uh by Senator McPike.

The bill would provide that zoning ordinances allow the by right development and construction of housing on property owned by religious organizations and qualifying nonprofits.

Um this bill in particular requires at least 60% of that housing uh be for affordable housing and let the housing remain affordable for at least 30 years.

I want to turn it over to Bonnie for a second to sort of walk through the negotiations that we had on the bill and where we stand, and then I can tell you uh where the bills are in the uh in the General Assembly at this point.

Good evening, everybody.

Um so since we last talked about this bill, I mean, I could highlight that um we've had some key amendments accepted into the bill, including that historic district authority is preserved, so we would be able to go through our typical VAR process.

We've also preserved archaeological and environmental compliance and ensured we could have deeper affordability than 80% AMI in the event that a project wants to come forward with even more affordable units.

And we also worked on some dimensional requirements in the bill.

Um, but the bill does still require us to approve these projects, the qualifying projects by right without a public hearing, they can't be denied.

And we also were not successful in getting language inserted that would allow us to adopt site-specific conditions.

Um so we can't necessarily fully uh mitigate the impacts of every proposed development.

Um for that reason, it's it's not the perfect bill, but I would say it's been greatly improved.

Um the big trade-off here is we get more affordable housing, but we lose local discussion over how and when to permit these projects.

That would be my big picture summary.

But we have had some success in amendment.

Um the Senate bill, that 388 bill has passed the House.

The House conformed uh the Senate bill to the House bill, and then the Senate promptly said uh rejected the version that the House sent back.

So they wanted their original bill, the one that we had negotiated, meaning that the bills are likely to go to conference.

We'll know a little bit more on Monday because uh the cognate bill, HB 1279 is up for consideration in this uh the Senate committee on local government Monday morning.

So we'll know where it's moving from them, but I see it probably going to conference.

Um, I will also highlight that both both bills have reenactment clauses on them, meaning that if those that reenactment clause stays in after it goes through conference, that bill has to go through another session and get passed in order to become law.

So it it would it would take another session if it remains on there.

Any questions on faith and housing.

No, just uh glad to hear the progress with our amendments being accepted.

Most of them, not all of them, but yeah, it's it's a much better bill now.

The major ones that we have.

And I I think we knew not all would be, but um that's progress from the last time we all connected.

Yep.

Thank you.

Um another one, we had a little bit of a heartbreak this morning on a bill SB 454.

It was another buy rate bill.

Um, as background, the bill uh as originally drafted would have required 75% of qualifying land.

And by qualifying land, I mean land where any commercial or any land area where there's uh commercial or residential, a commercial or industrial zoning uh would be qualified as the sort of universe of land, and then 75% of that land would be made by right.

And Paul and Bobby, if I'm just killing this, please let me know.

Um, but uh that bill was amended last late last night to 50%.

Uh there were still some problems with the bill as we had it drafted.

Um by problems I mean it didn't allow for uh some of the things we really find vital to our values in the city, um, uh including environmental protection, statutory uh and ordinance by environmental protections and other provisions.

Um I'm gonna hand it to Bonnie again so she can sort of walk through the negotiations that we had and I can tell you uh the path ahead again as well.

Okay, hello again.

Yes, the 50% it was an improvement, but the latest and the latest bill does protect historic districts.

So overall, this bill would be a significant shift in how we regulate or can't regulate multifamily housing around the city.

And Paul and I have talked at some length now about what the potential impact might be to us.

Um it does not, like Yigby does uh now does explicitly require compliance with federal, state, and local law, like the archaeological code or environmental codes and others.

Um similarly does not allow us to impose conditions to mitigate impacts.

Um really the discretion that we retain in this bill would be only that we can determine where the 50% of land area is that multi-family is permitted by right and where the 50% is where it we can still require a youth permit.

So Paul and his team could maybe work some magic to do an analysis of where this would potentially be okay and less okay in terms of um compatibility with our existing neighborhoods and form of development around the city.

But um, this one really uh is challenging from a uh local regulation perspective in that it limits us greatly um in terms of in terms of what we can um condition and control as the developments come through.

Stephanie, your hand is up.

Um so I wanted I wanted to share um this bill is extremely troubling from an economic development perspective.

Um as we've been talking, obviously, we need more commercial growth.

And this bill actually makes takes away and incentivize incentivizes residential development on commercial property.

And so there is a world where the sites that we need and want to be developed commercially would be taken away from our inventory because we're giving this um much more economically feasible type of use, the ability to take our property.

And I'm not saying that um as well thought out because I wasn't sure if I was gonna have a chance to weigh in here or or provide my uh my counsel.

Um, but I will say from an economic development perspective, our statewide organization is positioned against this bill completely.

Um, and I just think given the conversations we've been having literally just this week about our need to grow the commercial tax base, um, this could very definitely hamper those abilities.

So I just wanted to put that on the record as the economic developer, um, recognize that there are multiple things we're trying to balance here and giving up local authority certainly is a big one, but um practically this could be really, really challenging for us.

No, I I appreciate you sharing that.

And I I know I know we are an opposed to this.

Um I also know that most of Northern Virginia jurisdictions were opposed to this, and it's still reported out.

I guess what's the strategy now?

Is there a different perspective that we should be trying to?

I mean, hearing Ms.

Landrum speak, I'm thinking most of the conversations have been about are you for housing or are you not housing?

Like, is there another angle here that we should be trying to get some traction on this?

There was conversation, robust conversation today at um the hearing, and there was mention of the fact that this destroys removes a lot of the commercial base for localities that need to strike that balance between housing and commercial base.

And it wasn't compelling and there was actually a member who brought up the fact that Alexandria is leading the nation and converting um office space to housing and we didn't need a spec like we didn't need to be coerced with a good authority to do so.

And that was also uncompelling.

So it it passed out of committee but it passed by the skin of its teeth it passed out 11 to 10 the final vote there it was tallied wrong originally because somebody apparently got that fingers but um it ended up being 11 to 10.

And so it's cognate is up in the House on Monday and we will try again to uh bat the how uh to oppose the house version of the bill um Stephanie I don't know if your trade association is coming down for that but um please make sure they're aware that it is on the the docket on in the morning on Monday.

So we will try again we are making our um our delegation aware of the mechanizations as we go through the bill uh as you said mayor we are not alone in this all of the Northern Virginia delegations there was a a line up like a line all the way through the um the hearing room of localities in opposition to this bill including BML and Baco um and it it it it just didn't it it didn't work today.

I'm curious um it's my understanding most of our delegation voted for this um Juliet Pairing Lopez and uh EBP.

Can we share more on like what was the impetus for why they ultimately supported this I I think because we were still trying to get to yes on the bill and we were really close we had a series of conversations with with um the stakeholders throughout this for hours long and we thought we had a version of the bill that we had agreed on that would have worked for the city.

So we didn't we we didn't come out and like voice uh very big opposition because we thought we had a deal on the bill and then it came out that um that then that bill wasn't the bill that came out last night um and because over the weekend last weekend we thought we had a deal on it and then we didn't they came out with a different bill i Sarah I mean I I would note that we actually didn't weigh in on the House version that those three are voted on.

So we were working on the Senate version that's true.

Yeah maybe let's uh brainstorm something offline and figure out if there's any other um call mary that can be done on the fast forward here um given how problematic it is and I think brainstorming both with housing staff but also let's loop in Ms.

Landrum and I mean maybe there's another argument I'm missing right now if it wasn't business if it wasn't housing or whatever the other path might be let's figure out who has that third argument and see what we might be able to do there.

Like honestly it's a math problem at this point.

And I think if you look at the vote that was in CC and that's where you need to figure out like where the math maths is who like how how does it get to 51 in the house and it's it's a challenge right now.

So it's it's a math problem and it's not our delegation that we need that people need to be engaging with it's the folks like it's the it's other folks in the universe who should be an easier no and have fewer equities to balance if that um if that makes sense that does that um so that's the second buy right bill um I want to go oh I want to move on from something that was said to uh a small victory lap for the city um one of our legislative priorities was automated speed enforcement and we had a a real victory um if you'll recall we've been working for a couple of weeks to remove uh sovereign immunity language from the uh the automated speed enforcement bills that have been pending specifically uh delegate delaney's HB1220 um we uh worked diligently with the uh with the patron and their staff and we struck a deal and got good language in that uh creates accountability measures for um for localities and the camera companies they this the speed camera companies they contract with to run their programs um it's definitely a guide rails bill so it puts in more standards and reporting standards and requirements for signage um than are currently required but a lot of the things that they put in there as guardrails are a lot of things that Alexandria was already doing and implementing and from our APD the new requirements don't seem to be uh overly burdensome the other good news was that the language deal that we struck um removing the sovereign immunity language trickled down to a few other bills that actually do increase authority for us to put speed cameras in uh new places including one bill that's uh relegated specifically to planning district eight which is our planning district and it would allow for placement of speed cameras in certain qualifying high risk areas so um that's really good news for us um in terms of a a priority issue and making sure that we can continue to use our speed cameras and um the one provision

The other good news was that the language deal that we struck um removing the sovereign immunity language trickled down to a few other bills that actually do increase authority for us to put speed cameras in uh new places, including one bill that's uh relegated specifically to planning district eight, which is our planning district, and it would allow for placement of speed cameras in certain qualifying high-risk areas.

So that's really good news for us in terms of a priority issue and making sure that we can continue to use our speed cameras.

And um the one provision that came in there was that uh the funding that comes from those cameras is now specifically charged to go toward our vision zero efforts.

But uh, we worked with Hillary and her team to make sure that that definition of how we could spend that money was was broad in a way where um it was helpful for vision zero, even from a perspective of using it for public transit funding.

All right.

It's still it is sorry, I got distracted for a second, Mani.

Yeah.

Yes.

Well, then my daughter was swinging the hockey stick around here in the middle of the dangerous, but also still very cute.

Yes.

But yes, good win on that one.

Excellent.

Um, the final bill I want to walk through, it's a also cognate.

It's HB547 and SB731.

I actually want to throw it to um Josh to talk about these bills that would affect Dash.

Um he's been answering my questions all day today, many phone calls.

But um I'd like for him to talk a little bit about the effects, uh the potential effects of this bill, but uh we think it's not as terrible as we thought it was at the beginning of the day.

Uh go ahead, Josh.

Uh yes, that's right.

Um, thank you.

Um so I I think I've uh Madam Mayor, we've spoken about this before, but I don't believe Councilman Chapman is maybe as familiar with these bills.

But essentially what these are targeting is uh situations where public transit services are being contracted to a private provider.

And um I think the goal uh has always been with this bill to create a situation where the private providers of public transit services are being compensated in wages and benefits at an equivalent rate to a local government equivalent.

Um at the end of the day, the the short of it is that this creates a real challenge for Dash because Dash employees are not employees of the city, but we are also not a contracted service.

The bill is not written in a way that resolves that issue.

Um so there has been some language added to have a group put together to study this with DRPT.

Um and the implementation of it has been delayed to January one.

Um that provides a little bit of uh reassurance for us that we can continue to work on this to ensure that Dash is excluded from this.

But the potential impact of this is that it could create a runaway situation in regards to wages and benefits where local government equivalents are not available.

And as a result, we are now all of a sudden walking into a situation where wages are being determined, for example, in Alexandria by a Wamada bus operator, and we know that uh fundamentally those jobs are different.

Um, and the localities need to have the ability to work through and prioritize compensation and benefits uh in the ways that best suit us.

Alexandria is doing great at this.

Dash, we're very proud of our relationship.

Um, and we know that we are invested uh heavily in the collective bargaining process, and we believe that that is the place, the right place for these things to be resolved.

Um, but this bill potentially sets sets up a situation where that process gets bypassed, and there is now a state mandate, an unfunded state mandate that could significantly increase the cost of transportation services, not only in Alexandria but throughout the region.

So we're tracking it very closely.

It's it's changed a couple of times, but um it doesn't seem to be going away.

Uh that would be the easiest route.

Uh, or if we were specifically exempted, that would be preferable.

Um, but we are continuing to work uh with with various individuals to try to resolve this.

I've been working with the Senate patron and we'll go back to the House patron as well.

Um I uh they have said that it that is possible to amend it on the floor.

I haven't gotten a promise, just like just a statement that they have accepted a lot of requests for amendments.

I will continue to push and all of our delegation is aware of our concern on this bill and our request for exemption.

Mr.

Baker, will you be, I mean, in addition to their request, are you sending a letter or anything or what's that can be going down to testify?

Well, testimony's over.

What's the next step for you?

Um, acknowledging again that we're not opposed to bills that support labor and support um uh appropriate pay and and benefits for our workforce.

Um I'm not sure that there is much else that I'm able to do at this moment in time, but I'm gonna be right alongside Wendy as this kind of process moves through, providing that feedback and and offering solutions.

And we have provided some alternative language that we think would accomplish what they want to accomplish.

Um, but it doesn't seem to that there is an interest in doing that.

I will say the other thing is assuming this goes all the way through and as it is, as it's written, we have such a great relationship with DRPT that our intention is to step forward and say we need to be at the table as a part of the process in evaluating and understanding the impacts and helping to work through how to solve for unintended consequences of this bill.

And so I'm optimistic that that is a way to solve that, uh, even if it continues through in its current format.

Thanks, Josh.

Appreciate it.

Um did that answer your your your audio didn't come through.

I'm not sure if you had a follow-up question.

Oh no, I just said thank you.

Oh, okay, great.

Thanks.

Um that was the last bill on the list of things to go through.

I probably should have ended with the happy one.

So next time I know the order a little better.

Um I if there aren't any questions, I'm happy to throw it back to you, Mayor Gaskins and Councilman Chapman.

Like I said, maybe let's just strategize offline.

It feels to me like they're sorry.

Um it sounds to me like there are two or three very problematic and troublesome things right now from Wamada to this dash piece to the bill that we talked about previously, the other buy right bill.

So let's just figure out if there's anything else and what our strategy is.

I think whether that's you know, how we do we need to tap in, what's next, how we're coordinating with the rest of Northern Virginia, just let's make sure we're locked.

It's a small time frame and we're not gonna be able to have success on all things.

But I think if we prioritize um again, just figure out what we can do.

Sounds great.

Yeah, I would simply say, you know, dear what the mayor said.

I think we need to come up with a quick strategy, figure out who our best allies are to kind of attack some of these.

I'm going to immediately send you the language that we came up with on the um the budget amendment related to the transit uh the transit consolidation.

So as soon as we get off this call, you'll see that language.

I'll find at this time.

Um sad, I guess uh we can take a motion.

Oh, Ellie, put it to council.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Um that I can take a motion to adjourn.

All right.

Uh second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, everyone, have a good Friday.

Thank you for your time.

See you too.

Thank you.