Recording in progress.

I'm calling order this uh calling to order this meeting.

This is an additional meeting of the committee of the whole of the council of the District of Columbia.

I'm Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

Today is Tuesday, June 9th, 2026.

The time is 11.52 in the morning.

We are in room 500, the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building.

This meeting is being recorded.

It is being streamed as well, I believe, on TV Cable Channel 13, and on the council's website, www.dccouncil.gov.

This is an additional meeting, meaning it's not regularly scheduled, although actually rescheduled this meeting maybe three months ago.

This meeting will be followed by a legislative meeting, which will also be an additional meeting.

For the committee of the whole, we have two measures for markup.

They are the fiscal year 2027 Local Budget Act of 2026 and the fiscal year 2027 budget support act of 2026.

These two bills are the first of, I believe it's five bills that the mayor sent with regard to the budget.

We will also consider for final reading the fiscal year 2027 local budget act.

So this is today is the first of two votes on that.

On the 23rd, we will also consider a bill that's called the Federal Portion Budget Request Act.

And the second reading on the budget support act will not be in two weeks.

It will either be in three weeks or four weeks.

No, three weeks or five weeks.

That's the 20 the 30th or the 14th of July.

So I am a little disorganized here.

Yes.

Oh.

I'm so excited.

Um we have to see if we have a quorum of the members.

Uh Mr.

Cash, would you call the roll?

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Council Member Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Felder, Councilmember Freeman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Here.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Triam White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you.

So the first measure for consideration is Bill 26-6 659 entitled the fiscal year 2027 local budget act of 2026.

The top line message with regard to the what's before us today is revisions to the budget that the mayor proposed submitted to the council on April 14th.

The budget that we were presented was had hundreds of millions of dollars in critical programs like the Early Childhood Educator Pay Equity Fund, the Child Care Subsidy Program, Universal Paid Leave, Access to Justice, and Domestic Violence Programs, all of which were reduced substantially in the proposed budget.

The budget that I am proposing today, the committee print, restores for all of these programs without significant tax increases.

A vast majority of the money I'm using for these restorations comes from the decoupling revenues that the Chief Financial Officer would not recognize for the mayor's budget preparation, and also 150 million dollars from one of the four reserve funds that we have, the fiscal stabilization reserve.

More specifically with regard to highlights.

Straddling both, that is education and social services, is the early childhood educator pay equity fund, which restores the funding to $72 million, the FY26 level.

That had been in the proposed budget $60 million less.

For child care subsidy program, it eliminates the need for a weight for a freeze, enrollment freeze in fiscal years 2026 and 2027 by increasing funding in the program uh for FY27 by 39 million dollars for a total of 153 million dollars.

My notes here also speak to the supplemental, which is not before us today, but the supplemental, which in two weeks will add 10 million dollars for this program.

Uh bringing it to 150 million dollars for the current fiscal year.

This will allow approximately 8,450 children to be served on an average monthly basis.

That is an average of 8,450 children, and that is higher than the enrollment right now and is uh higher by hundreds, if not at least a thousand, by what the average enrollment was last year.

With regard to housing vouchers, the uh uh print that I have uh submitted that's before us, and I should say so moved, uh includes 173 million dollars over the financial plan at the Department of Human Services and the Department of the DC Housing Authority to support 469 vouchers uh at adequate level so that vouchers are not lost when they turn over, and 190 vouchers for families exiting rapid rehousing.

The um the mayor's proposed budget included no new vouchers and did not include enough funding to ensure that existing vouchers were adequately funded so that the public is clear what I'm saying is that there is a natural turnover in vouchers, people exit, and uh those vouchers then are supposed to be available to another individual or another family.

The budget that we were presented did not adequately fund any of the voucher program, and so as turnovers uh occurred, what was contemplated in the proposed budget was that those turnovers would be lost so that there would be adequate funding for the rest of the program.

We've restored all that, plus added 190 vouchers for families exiting rapid rehousing for a total of 500.

Well, my numbers here are a little different.

Uh I believe it's 569.

No, 659, 659 vouchers.

With regard to universal paid leave, uh what the mayor had proposed was that there would be no benefits for the private sector universal paid leave program in FY27, and that when the program resumed, that there would be a cap on the total payment, which is relative to an individual's income, but in any event could be no more than $1,000 a week under the mayor's proposal.

When we adopted the legislation in 2016, we had a $1,000 uh cap per week, but adjusted for inflation, which is right now $1,180, and the budget before us today has the cap at $1,100.

So it's $100 a week more than what the mayor proposed.

Plus, we unfreeze the FY27, plus we maintain or restore the inflationary index on that weekly cap, uh, plus we um restore some of the weeks so that um uh the paid leave for family will be a maximum of six weeks, for medical will be a maximum of ten weeks, and for individuals would be no, excuse me, for parental, would be a maximum of twelve weeks.

Uh, with regard to TANF, what is before us today in my motion, it delays the uh step down and the sanctions.

Step down in benefits and the sanctions delays it by another year.

With regard to the Alliance Healthcare Alliance, increases investments in health care by roughly $53.2 million, which includes removing the moratorium age for new alliance enrollees up to $138% of the federal poverty level.

There's a hundred million dollars added to the workforce investment account uh for collective bargaining agreements.

There was zero in FY 27.

With this, it will be 100 million.

In the area of public safety, um restores the funding in the Office of the attorney General to fund to provide funding for 58 currently filled positions that otherwise would have to be RIFT under the budget that we were given.

Uh access to justice is fully restored to the current fiscal year level, which is $31.8 million for the program.

So there'll be no change there.

That's an increase of, I believe it's $26, $27 million above what the mayor had submitted.

Victim Services add $6.1 million.

And there's $2.37 million in funding being added in the committee print to what the committees had done for recreation center operations.

This is uh additional to investments that council members Nadeau and Lewis George had recommended in their committee markups.

The print has 7.9 million dollars additional for the sustainable energy trust fund, along with the $2.2 million identified by Councilmember Charles Allen and committee.

There would be a total restoration of 10.1 million dollars.

I will look to see if we can increase this a little bit at second reading.

Unable to do that today.

The um mayor's proposed budget included a 17.9 million dollar sweep to the sustainable energy trust fund, which would have been used to support, which would, if not swept, would have been used to support uh programs like Solar for All, Healthy Homes, and the reboot, their rebate programs, adds a million dollars uh for to help with the uh compliance with the MS4 permit, includes in the capital budget $300 million for the necessary improvements at Stadium Armory Metro Station.

There was no money in the proposed budget for Stadium Armory Metro, even though we know that that will need to be capacity increased in time for the 2030 opening of the new stadium, and what I've circulated today adds 15 million dollars in funding for the public charter schools in the UPSFF budget.

This will not bring them to the equitable level with DCPS, but it is a substantial move.

In addition, and this was adopted in the committee of the whole several weeks ago.

Uh, there are close to 20 schools that will see some additional funding through the schools first in budgeting act.

And um, um I'm looking to see what other changes we made.

The UDC subsidy is increased by six million dollars.

The um experiential learning is funded at $500,000, educator wellness at $200,000.

There's $70,000 for the math task force recommendations, course data collection as $435,000 funding to Aussie to support the continued implementation of course data collection, which is necessary to support an early warning system, smooth credit transfers, and a digital backpack, $280,000 for the literacy task force recommendations, adult and family local education increase by $500,000 over what the mayor had proposed, community schools $2.4 million to fund another year of the community schools incentive grant cohorts, and we're going to look at this over the next year with the task force to see how the community schools can be better modeled.

St.

Coletta's additional funding of $2.7 million dollars.

This was adopted a couple of weeks ago, so St.

Coletta's should not think they're getting twice $2.7 million twice.

And uh the charter facilities allotment.

We struck the mayor's proposed subtitle that would have, I believe, eliminated any increase in the charters facilities allotment.

There's $200,000 in the budget for uh implementation of the drop act, which is legislation that is pending in the committee of the whole.

This is in the non departmental account, so that it will be available when we adopt that legislation.

And there's some additional funding at the Department of Buildings for the nuisance abatement fund as well as for inspectors.

And we are funding the Mold Act, Mold Legislation Act that we adopted several years ago that enables Department of Buildings to do mold inspections.

If members will allow me, I have a little bit more I want to say.

What this committee print has in it is using 150 million dollars in the fiscal in our in our budget reserves, it's the fiscal stabilization reserve.

We're using that for operating for on a one-year basis, a one-time basis.

The chief financial officer is very concerned about that, and I wanted to speak to that.

His uh concerns are essentially that uh this will remove liquidity from the district in 2028.

That's a couple years from now.

Uh I've had continued conversations with the chief financial officer both at public hearings and privately about what steps can be taken to better manage cash flow, because there are steps that can be taken to better manage cash flow, and what legislation would need to be adopted by the council to help with the chief financial officers' ability to access cash that the district government has.

The issue is entirely a cash issue, a liquidity issue.

It is not uh whether we are fiscally solvent, it is not whether we are overspending our budget, it's purely a matter of cash flow.

The way that uh the city's revenues come to come in to the treasury.

There is what we call a trough, a cash trough in February and August.

Real property tax revenues come in in September and in March, and income tax comes in in April.

So it's dealing with those troughs that is the chief financial officer's concern.

As I said, we believe that there are steps that can be taken to manage cash.

And don't mean by that a criticism, I mean that there are some practices that need to be looked at and changed so that we can better manage cash.

But that's not a reason for us to increase uh to bank more dollars, more cash in our reserves.

At the end of the fiscal year, last September 30th, we had the equivalent of 66 days.

I think it actually was 65 and a half days of cash in our reserves.

Our goal has been 60 days.

As I understand it, that's the best practice uh around the country is to have 60 days.

Most jurisdictions don't come close to 60 days, and um we have 66 days, so the reduction of 150 million dollars will bring that down to 62 days, not 60 but 62 days.

Um I will note that um Moody's, one of the three ratings agencies issued a report in April with regard to the district.

It revised its outlook from a negative to stable, which is a good thing, and then uh explained and I will read from part of their report.

The AA1 issuer rating reflects the district's overall financial and governance strengths, which offset current local economic weaknesses.

The district benefits from a highly educated workforce and above average income levels and has exemplary fiscal governance.

The district also has among the lowest pension liabilities of any large city and has prefunded its other post-employment benefits liability, which provides significant financial flexibility.

These strengths offset vulnerability to federal government downsizing and a weak commercial real estate market, which have led to declines in income sales and property tax collections.

The stable outlook reflects the district's very strong fiscal governance and prudent budget management that will mitigate federal policy uncertainty and offset expected softer revenue during the next year.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings, an upgrade of the U.S.

sovereign rating coupled with growing private sector employment that offsets losses in federal employment and bolsters the district's commercial real estate market.

I will translate a negative factor in our rating is the federal government.

Continuing with the report, factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings, federal budget actions such as entitlement cuts or revenue restrictions that materially weaken the district's economy or finances, and erosion of the district's strong financial management practices, particularly leading to budget imbalance or the available fund balance falling below 15% of revenue, inclusive of all cash reserves.

So what does that mean?

15%.

Well, at 60 days, if we had 60 days, we would be at 16 percent.

Not 15 but 16.

But the language here speaks to fund balance, which is more than our reserves.

And in fact, I believe our reserves are around $2.5 billion, and our fund balance as of September 30th was over 4 billion.

So in terms of the ratings agency's concerns, even with this draw of 150 million dollars, we are still very strong.

I will add this as well.

The budget that we are considering today is based on the February revenue estimate that the chief financial officer issued.

There will be a revised revenue estimate at the end of this month, but we have to budget based on the February 28 February 2026 revenue estimates.

Those revenue estimates show growth in the city's revenues in FY27, 28, 29, 20, and 2030.

Doesn't go beyond that.

So every year, except for the current fiscal year, the chief financial officer is projecting growth in our revenues.

And I want to emphasize that because there's been a lot of discussion about how we have to do these cuts because uh our revenues have dropped.

Well, our revenues are not growing as fast, but they are growing, and that's important.

But the revenue estimates in February also omitted the revenue from the changes we made in our tax law last declender, what many people refer to as decoupling.

That was omitted from the revenue estimates.

The budget that I've circulated today includes those revenues.

We worked with the office of the chief financial officer so that there's no question with our ability to do that.

It's roughly 274 million uh 274 million dollars.

If you add the 274 million dollars to what the chief financial officer estimated as the current year reserves are, in fact, is no decline in our revenues for the current fiscal year.

So our revenues are stable this year and growing in each subsequent year of the financial plan.

All of which is to highlight that the district financially is in a good position in spite of all of the talk by me and other members about cuts and trying to restore cuts and money being tight and this being a difficult budget.

Uh we are in a strong solid position.

So with that, I already moved the print.

It is before us, and I will recognize members as soon as I find my notes.

Who's in line?

Nobody, all right.

The vote will be up.

Uh there might be.

Councilmember Parker.

I'm recognized.

I think I'll do this side, this side, this side.

Is there somebody over here?

Are we going to amendment first or statement first?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I uh let me interrupt before you start because there's some questions here.

I'm happy if there's nothing, and we just go to the vote.

Uh I would prefer that um if there are statements that they're short, I know that there'll be some amendments.

Uh whatever one wants to do, I will recognize you.

Mr.

Chairman, clarifying question.

Yes.

Would it be possible to move amendments here and make the statements at the ledge meeting?

Uh whatever you want.

Okay.

So I'll focus on amendments just to keep it clean.

Uh so with that, Mr.

Chairman, I would.

Let me just say I would prefer amendments at the committee of the whole, not at the legislative meeting.

We're doing the markup now.

The amendments are in order.

There's a committee report that will reflect the amendment.

So I would prefer amendments are now.

Mr.

Parker, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I move uh Parker LBA amendment three.

It is worth noting.

Uh, there was a technical change, so I no longer will be moving Parker LBA amendment one.

Again, this is Parker LBA amendment three.

It was circulated this morning.

And this amendment sets the stage for an accompanying budget support act amendment that will preserve LGBTQIA plus funding in fiscal year 27.

In fiscal year 26, the budgets, the budget of the mayor's various offices of community fairs were consolidated, which unfortunately disrupted funding that had previously been dedicated to LGBTQ priorities.

Uh these LBA and BSA amendments, which were formulated in partnership with the LGBTQ plus coalition, will secure this funding stream from future interference by establishing a grant to a third-party community fund that will distribute the funds to individual providers.

By using the community fund, the district's LGBTQ coalition will also be in a position to more easily accept and leverage private donations, thereby multiplying the effect of the district's investment.

While the changes contemplated in this amendment only impact fiscal year 27 funds, the hope is that this will prove to be a sustainable model to protect LGBTQIA plus funding and priorities on a recurrent basis.

It is worth noting when the mayor's office of community affairs was consolidated, uh the dedicated grant funds uh isolated for the uh mayor's office of LGBTQ plus affairs uh only uh reach less than 50 percent of uh the identified funds.

Secondly, it is worth noting this is not new spending.

Uh this is merely protecting the dedicated funding that is already outlined in our budget.

And then I would also underscore that per the language of this amendment, uh the third party uh community fund would be required to expend uh no less than 90 percent of dedicated grant funds, and so all told this will unlock philanthropic dollars, but also preserve this very vital programming or grant funding uh for community organizations, persons, and priorities.

And so with that, Mr.

Chairman, I move the amendment.

Uh we have the amendment before us.

I think Mr.

Parker, you said it was circulated at 11 10 this morning, and it's labeled uh Parker Amendment number three concerning the Office of LGBTQ affairs.

Is there discussion on the amendment?

If there's no objection, it will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I also would like to move Parker LBA amendment two.

And I believe this was circulated yesterday.

This amendment funds the accompanying Parker BSA amendment too, which establishes a financial literacy pilot program that will provide a $50 weekly direct cash stipend for a fear for a period of 40 weeks to eligible students in participating schools in the District of Columbia.

This pilot program, which would leverage a public-private partnership, already exists as a current strategy that has proven uh successful uh since 2020 with high school students in both New Orleans and Indianapolis.

A randomized controlled trial of these students conducted in partnership with researchers from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and the University of Pennsylvania, showing promising results, including reduced financial hardship, enhanced financial capability, improved school to school attendance, and approved ability to meet basic needs.

The pilot will run through school year 2728 and will be implemented by a contracting organization selected by the Office of the State Superintendent Education or Aussie by May 1 of 2027.

This organization will submit a preliminary report by March 31st of 2028 and a final report by September 30th of 2028 to ASI and the DC council that evaluates the efficacy of the program, including the impact of direct cash transfers on student well-being attendance and financial literacy.

I would just note that while this may seem like a new funding approach, uh, we have long been working to battle chronic rates of truancy and absenteeism.

Uh, as uh there are ever present conversations about youth well-being and delinquency, it's important to note the connection between truancy and youth behaviors uh in delinquency.

And so this strategy uh that would be implemented in partnership with ASI will lead or allow the district to lead in this space, employing a new approach that has shown promise in other areas, and hopefully will continue to drive down rates of truancy and absenteeism.

Last thing I would just say is the Roots Foundation, a philanthropic group, is already leading a similar pilot program in some DC public schools.

Uh digital pioneers, uh public charter school, for instance, is one of those school communities, and it has been wildly successful.

So, with that, Mr.

Chairman, I move this amendment as well, Mr.

Chairman.

Before folks speak to it, let me just say that I will not be supporting this amendment.

I'll give reasons after we hear from other folks.

Councilmember Pinto, and then somebody else has to, Councilmember Henderson.

Oh, there's a lineup.

Give me a second.

Thank you.

And thank you, Councilman Parker.

I fully support what you're moving to do with this amendment and the goal behind getting more of our kids in school, and think that this is a sensible approach.

I do have concerns around the source of the funding for DYRS.

We have, as you know, major staffing challenges at DYRS and with kids who are in our care and custody, we have to make sure that we have sufficient adults on site who can keep them safe and who can keep staff safe.

And so, can you speak to how you anticipate the staffing changes in this amendment would, if at all, impact operations?

Thank you for that question.

Um, I too am concerned about staffing at DURS.

I would note that the challenges the agency continues to see is one of management and culture, as well as um exploitation of the agency's leave policies.

Uh, I'm hardened to know that we are addressing the leave policy through the budget.

Um, and I believe that will help uh as my committee continues to work with the agency on management and culture.

Uh, there are uh I believe 14 vacancies.

Uh they are YDRs and SYDRs, SYDRs are supervisory positions.

Um, so there are seven of those positions and seven YDR positions.

The agency has struggled to recruit and retain individuals.

We have no reason to believe that they will um uh fill all of those vacancies uh this year as they have not been able to do that in any recent year.

Uh we are only cutting two of the SYDR positions uh as we work with the agency, as I mentioned, to improve culture and climate as well as uh addressing the pressures created by the leave uh program.

So I hope that addresses it.

There's still a number of uh vacancies left that the agency will work to feel.

In fact, I was messaging with the director.

Uh I'm told that there are two individuals that are currently interviewing for SYDR positions.

Uh, and and so it's something we need to continue to work at.

Uh, but I believe staffing uh whether or not we keep these vacancies or not, are going to is going to continue to be a challenge for the agency for the foreseeable future.

Okay, thank you.

And Chairman Counselor Parker just mentioned this budget is addressing some of the leave issues that we've seen at DYRS.

Can you speak to that?

I'm sorry, should I ask it again?

He mentioned that this budget uh addresses some of the paid leave issues that we've seen for DYRS staffing.

Can you speak to that?

Well, there's a subtitle in the Budget Support Act.

The mayor requested that puts some guardrails on the paid leave program for DC government workers.

One of the reasons for that is to address the high rate some agencies are experiencing of absenteeism.

Whether how quickly that corrects the problem, whether it corrects to problem, I don't the subtitle, I don't know.

We'll find out.

Does that answer your question?

Um not entirely.

All right.

I'm not I guess let maybe maybe I can take a stab at it.

Yeah, how I guess why does this give you confidence?

Why does this BSA subdollar give you confidence around some of the staffing issues at DRS?

Um there are more than to my knowledge, there are more than 100 individuals out at any given time because they are layering or stacking leaves, leave policies, and we value people using their leave in an appropriate manner.

One of the challenges uh that the agency cited is that uh right now the status quo, a person only needs to notify the agency within an hour of their call time that they will not be showing up.

Uh the subtitle changes that it also changes the amount of time a new employee needs to work uh in order to accrue leave.

I believe it is now six months, and so it changes the culture, which now says you're hired today and you can call out next week.

Um, not to mention it reduces the number of relatives and loved ones one can identify to call out or use uh for leave.

Uh for instance, uh my cousin's grandmother is uh ill, and so I need to uh use leave.

I I don't mean to make light, uh, but with those guardrails, as the chairman put put it, I believe we will see a reduction in the number of individuals out at any given time.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Henderson.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I actually I just have a couple of questions for Councilmember Parker.

Um, so first I want to clarify that this amendment would be to fund the pilot not for school year 26-27, but for school year 27-28.

Is that accurate?

So I think it says that it requires applications to be posted on July 1st, 2027.

That's correct.

That is correct.

Okay, so um now that's almost a whole school year.

So then the question is what's happening in this upcoming school year with regard to this program, or is it still going on at Digital Pioneers for the upcoming school year?

Uh to my knowledge, the program at Digital Pioneers is separate.

It would still be going on during this time.

Um, should this pass, it would allow Aussie uh time to stand up a process to identify the participating schools, it would also allow whatever the third-party grant funder uh identify to raise additional dollars in this private uh public partnership.

Okay, so that was my second question.

So my understanding, my staff to speak with the representatives from Rooted Schools Foundation, and we were told that there were some philanthropic interests to further funding the study.

Your amendment um proposes 251,000 from the YDR positions.

How much does it actually cost to do this program over a school year?

It varies, and so I don't know if it's a specific cost, it could be dialed up or down, dialed down.

Um there is a rough estimate that we can get you per participating school per number of students.

Well, I think that let's say the philanthropic piece doesn't come through.

Then you have a pilot that is only 250,000.

It won't go too far.

Correct.

So I'm trying to, yes, um, you know, kind of where we're going on this.

Um, you know, I understand um the interest and desire in terms around chronic absenteeism.

Some of the data though that we've seen, while promising, isn't quite there yet, in terms of some of this.

And I mean, we'll get to that in sort of the BSA piece, but I am concerned that we're not necessarily putting some guardrails in terms of Aussie administering this program.

Like I want to believe that pilot programs can work, well, not want to believe that pilot programs can work.

I think we should evaluate the efficacy of pilot programs as opposed to just saying it's a pilot for pilot's sake.

And this doesn't necessarily establish a can a control group.

What are the payment conditions?

Is it $50 every week?

If only you showed up for three days, or do you have to show up every day in order to receive the funding?

I think those are very fair questions.

I'm told that if there is no additional funding, this will cover about 125 students.

Again, it would not be exhaustive, but it's worth stressing that this is a pilot.

This is a very modest investment.

And I think by this modest investment, we would unlock philanthropic dollars that are already being uh infused in other cities at a time when the one approach that we are leveraging.

Uh this body, the council has decided not to accelerate it.

And so the status quo is um that we still are not moving the needle largely on Trent C.

While this may not solve the problem.

Dunbar did this.

Did you look at the data?

Yes.

What I'm saying is as a city, I was talking about the DHS pilot while we're not choosing to accelerate it.

Um so I think this is yet another opportunity we have as a district to employ another strategy for us to step back and say what are our options and what is working, and let's look at all of the data.

Thank you.

Councilmember Crawford.

Thank you.

And thank you, Councilmember Parker, for you and your team's work on this amendment.

Just a point of clarity is this intended to be a guaranteed income pilot for students or a financial literacy pilot.

Uh it is framed as a financial literacy pilot, and for participating students, they would receive the weekly stipend.

Does that mean they're learning about financial literacy or it is more but what's your goal for the pilot?

Yes, um, it is my understanding that the rooted uh the Roos Foundation does have a financial literacy component to their work with schools, as well as uh as they're you know, their work distilling this information down, uh that is a secondary goal at best.

The primary vehicle, though, is dispersing these funds to schools and using it as an opportunity to uh create a clinical trial of sorts to see how it's making an impact on school attendance, if that makes sense.

Yes, thank you.

I would not I I would not I would not qualify this as a guaranteed income in part because of the um, yeah, the agreements that are necessary.

So, for instance, if a young person is not showing up to school, they would not receive the stipend, for instance, uh councilmember Crown White.

Uh Chairman, my comment is not schools just be able to an amendment.

Uh Councilmember Bonds.

Um, thank you very much, Chairman.

Um, I'm very curious about your perspective.

Um council member uh Parker, when you say clinical trial to see the effects, you know, the students in the district school system have been um guinea pigs for many kinds of trials.

Um, and I'm I'm really concerned when I hear that.

Now, I thought perhaps this was designed to motivate the young people to attend the school, and that there would be an opportunity for them to learn a new skill when you say financial literacy.

But what I'm hearing, it's really just an opportunity to say to young people who have been out of school who dropped out, you know, who decided that school wasn't for them, that perhaps have come back into school to um be paid because they're back in school.

And I wonder is that what the intent is ultimately.

Thanks for the question.

Um the goal of this pilot is to better understand um uh well let me rephrase that.

It is to uh employ a new strategy to combat truancy and absenteeism.

Um it would provide a fifty dollar stipend uh for participating students on a weekly basis uh while in empowering them with um some financial literacy tools.

Um and it would mean that they would uh benefit from extended learning time.

Uh beyond that, uh what we're hoping to get out of this is a better understanding of whether or not this worked, what were the consequences of young people having extra cash, uh, but also how those young people can translate those financial literacy skills into um other means, if that makes sense.

And so again, I would just look at how this is working at Digital Pioneers and other cities, um, where it's showing positive results that participating students are more likely to show up to school.

Uh, they are more likely to use the the earn stipend in productive ways uh to pay for food, to pay for transportation, to help out their family put food on the table, while they are also deepening their understanding about how money works, opening bank accounts.

I hope that answers your question.

But the goal is ultimately uh as I see it to combat rates of absenteeism insurancy.

Thank you.

Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I I have uh Councilmember Parker not been to a meeting with students in at least five years where they have not said, we need to get paid.

And at first I told them that strikes me as odd, and then I thought more about it.

And I'm like, I started sweeping floors at a barbershop in junior high school and it worked ever since then because I also need to get paid.

I couldn't do anything if I didn't make the money or find the money.

So that's one thing.

Uh the second is we do have um a truancy problem.

So if we have a truancy problem and young people are giving us the keys to the kingdom, then then I think we want to listen.

Now, to my colleague's point, y we gotta sort of receive that data.

We don't do it and then keep doing it and keep doing it without evaluating it.

But but I do think we have to s evaluate it.

We have to try it.

Uh I have not dug into the data as deeply as I would have liked to before today.

Um, so I will see what data is out there between persons that can read.

I'm gonna support it today.

Um, but I also think we need to wrap our heads around uh a minimum uh amount so that we can assess the impact because it really is important that we listen to young people and try different things for truancy.

We we tend to be easier and quicker on the hammer, um, and a lot slower and more critical uh on the carrot.

So we're not talking about a ton of money here, um, but the upside is is pretty high.

So I wanna thank you for bringing this forward.

I think it's thoughtful and uh innovative, I think it's responsive to to young people.

Um I've had a lot of conversations with organizations like Black Swan Academy uh who have made recommendations similar to these.

Uh I recognize again, as adults, it strikes us as odd, but we're also talking to a different generation of of young people.

Um, you know, I think we have to listen to them because we used to be those young people saying, hey, these old folks don't listen to us.

Um now we're the old folks.

Um so as we consider the pilot, thank you.

I've wrapped my head around it.

Some of us.

Um I but I I do, as we consider the pilot, I want to make sure that we target the students and schools facing the greatest need first.

Uh one way to do that may be by raising the eligibility threshold for participating schools from 40% at risk enrollment to 70%.

If the available available funding is limited, I think we want to ensure that those dollars go first to the school serving the highest concentration of at risk students.

So can we work together between first and second reading on this?

I would love to.

And I I take your feedback to heart in terms of uh being selective and intentional about participating schools.

I would just also note to your point, it strikes uh some as odd that we would pay kids to go to school because after all, that's what they're supposed to do, although there is precedent for this.

Schools have done this, as I mentioned, Digital Pioneers is currently working with the Roots Foundation and within CFSA, for instance, uh they have a program where they are paying older youth within our child welfare system uh to go and finish school because they realize if we take the worry, the concern of having to earn money off the table, you're more likely to lean in and focus and get your diploma and live a better life.

So I just raise those as areas of precedent, and this is uh opportunity, a modest opportunity for us to get more data in hopes that we can really combat truancy here in the district.

Councilmember Freeman.

Uh thank you very much, and and thank you, Councilmember Parker, for coming forward with this.

I mean, it does accomplish a couple of important goals.

One on the financial literacy point.

I uh share Councilmember White's uh experience that I have been surprised how often young people talk to me about their desire to have that and truancy obviously a very very important thing.

Um I do worry though about the source of the funds.

We've had a round where there were cuts at DYRS and then restorations at DYRS, and I worry about staffing at DYRS, so that gives me some pause.

I also wonder if the program doesn't start until school year 28.

Why is the money need to be there in FY27?

Could we find a way to put the money in FY28, and then set Aussie up to do an RFP in advance of that, and the money would be waiting for the program.

I think in operation, that's what will happen, but we wouldn't then have to make any cuts at DYRS.

And I would happily join you in looking for FY28 dollars that could be placed there in order to enable that to happen.

But is there a way to square the circle where we don't have to make a cut at DYRS in the process?

Thank you for that.

Um the timeline piece, uh, as you know, the start of the fiscal year is October 1.

And so, if we were to fund it this year, the funds wouldn't be available to October 1 of 2026, which would be well after the start of the school year, and God knows how long it would take, especially with a new administration coming in to stand up a program and get the money out the door.

Um, and so by setting it for October 1 of 27, we allow that transition to happen and as well as give Aussie time to work with whatever the external partner is, as well as partnering with a local schools in terms of DRS.

Again, I get the concern.

Uh there are staffing challenges at DRS.

Whether or not we cut two SYDRs now is not going to change the picture.

Again, the main levers is around addressing the leave pressure, which we are doing in this budget.

Shout out to the chairman for preserving that change in the budget, uh, but also working on the culture and climate so that the agency can retain staff.

Uh I have been in touch with the director.

My team has looked at this a million uh ways.

I would not take the positions if I truly thought this was going to handicap the agency in any meaningful way.

Uh, transparently, the agency has struggled to recruit SYDRs.

Uh, they still have more than five vacancies.

I hope the two that they're currently interviewing for works out.

Um, and so I don't see the cut as anything challenging to long-term functions at DRS.

I mean, just I won't take too long, but if it doesn't start until October 1, 2027, wouldn't it work if the money were in FY28?

I mean, that starts on October 1, 2027.

But um the I think we're not accounting for the lead up time that would be necessary.

Um the money would be available per our budget, but then the money would need to be out of the door, there would need to be a partnership with the external grant.

There would need to be schools identified.

Um by funding it on October 1 of 27, it allows ASI that runway time so that they can hit the ground running at the very beginning of the school year for 27-28.

And this is what uh we've heard from ASI.

Um, and so we're trying to be mindful and intentional and thoughtful uh just with their time constraints, as well as acknowledging there will be a leadership change here in the government and any number of shakeups as a result.

So I'm gonna go uh back to explaining why I will not be supporting this and why I would ask colleagues to not support this, and there are a number of reasons.

Um the cut to DYRS, I think is problematic.

Uh the funding, uh the proposed funding is problematic, and the value of the program is not as compelling as we're being told.

Uh I would note that this was not on the priorities list when I asked members.

Um, and so this is I think this kind of falls within the category of nice nice to have rather than need to have.

It's not a lot of money.

On the other hand, uh, as I understand the amendment, it would provide Aussie with what it needs to issue the RFP and then also pay for the stipends.

Well, the stipends aren't going to get paid till FY28.

So the amount of this amendment that would go to the stipends is essentially a waste of money because it will not be spent in 27.

Because the stipends will not be paid in 27, they will be paid in fiscal year 28.

Um the committee of the whole, which has oversight over education, held several hearings.

We did get some testimony, not a lot, mostly from the Roots Foundation and some of the students who participate in it.

It's an interesting program, no question about that.

If the goal here is to understand the effectiveness of it, the pilot is already underway.

It's just that the Roots Foundation would like uh it to be larger.

With regard to the impact on truancy, I've spent many years trying to understand what we can do to um reduce truancy, improve attendance.

It's clear to me that what makes a difference is the culture in the school, not a program like this.

The reason why I say that is because a program like this involves voluntary compliance.

Kids who are absent are not being drafted into this program.

Rather, kids or families who want to participate in the stipend, participate.

Uh I'll again repeat that we did get testimony from some of the kids, and it was impressive.

It was impressive because of what they were doing with the money.

Actually, some of the, if I remember correctly, 15% of the stipend ends up going into savings.

So it's impressive, but that's not about truancy or attendance.

And it's the kids who are not volunteering for programs like this and are being absent that are the challenge, and this program doesn't reach them.

As for the cuts to DYRS, I know that that's I would say that's being glossed over.

Uh the fact is that the committee, and I support this, um, reduced the overtime budget.

Uh I think it was the only agency where the overtime budget was reduced.

Uh, vacancies are large, and I'm told that they are spending even more on overtime.

So I got a message from the uh mayor's budget uh office, and there's even more being spent on overtime.

So there's a concern just passing over that, or glossing over that and saying that the agency can afford that.

Um I think if anything, yeah, I mean if members like this idea, uh, if anything, that um this this amendment needs to be refined so that Aussie gets only the resources it would need in FY27, and then next year we would uh do the funding uh for FY28 when the stipends are paid, but instead we're gonna be cutting DYRS now with some risks, and we're gonna be putting money in Aussie for stipends that aren't going to be paid.

Uh so again, this is I think a nice to have, but not a need to have.

I wasn't on the priorities, and I would urge members not to support this.

Um, thanks.

I appreciate I don't know if this is because it's one of the first agenda items.

We're gonna have healthy debate on it.

Um I will say though, I I was struck by what Council Robert White talked about.

We have in many many instances when it comes to what do we do about young people move very quickly when it is an approach to say what can we do to um to crack down?

What is it that we can do to create a punitive approach?

We have a fairly modest proposal, to be honest, um to do exactly what I feel like we talked a lot about over the last couple of months of how do we help engage young people in a different way in a constructive way.

How do we help hear and listen to young people with an idea?

Um I I'll note sometimes when uh a modest budget item is something that we support, we call it just a haircut for an agency.

When it's something that we don't support, we call it a cut.

Um I would view this in the hair, the haircut, the trim category.

Um, it's not a sizable amount of funding, it seems to be responsive to what we've heard young people asking for, and how many times do we need to pilot something that we know is working?

So we see that examples like this in other cities and examples in our own city have positive impacts.

So there may be some space between first and second reading to work on some changes and alterations to that, but I'm gonna support you on this today.

And it sounds like you've got a willingness to work with some of the uh questions that got raised uh before second reading, but I'll support this today.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Councilmember Allen, and hopefully you'll work with uh the chairman and me on this.

I did want to just uh note two things.

One the data um for the results that we've seen so far.

Students who receive the cash transfers uh attended 1.23 more days of school uh in a semester.

Uh and while modest, those are promising results.

Students demonstrated notable self-control planning and positive engagement with money on average students in a control group miss uh five days of school compared to uh four days and the treatment group.

Uh, and the list goes on.

So the data suggests uh that this is in fact promising.

I would also just know it is a nice to have, but I want to underscore that we have talked as a body about truancy and absenteeism for every year that I've been on the council.

I would also note that for now three years, we have not made any significant movement on truancy and absenteeism.

I stand with the mayor who has proposed scaling the pilot DHS program.

We chose not to do that.

Okay, I get it.

We want more data.

What I'm offering is yet another strategy to address a long-standing issue that we know that we know is connected to juvenile delinquency.

Um, and so I can point to any number of investments in this budget that are nice to have.

So, I think this is connected to a long-standing member.

Your time's expired.

There's no further discussion.

Councilmember Trent.

I wasn't going to speak to this, but I want to take a few seconds.

Uh I would be supporting uh this bill today, partly because uh, you know, as I interact in the community with young people, uh, they're looking for the council for leadership because they often seem that we or the government demonize them and don't support them.

So when we hear their voices, they're crying out for us to do something.

We tend to find money for whatever else we need.

Well, when it's time to find money for our youth, we are going to fight and finding fine reasons not to support them.

Uh, this is a small amount of money for a 22 billion dollar budget.

Uh in fact, we didn't even increase the amount for summer job this year with this money.

And I think that heard the chairman say that we are uh in a great financial position.

Um, we need to be supporting our young people, which I'm sure we care about them.

We love them and we want them to be active and engaged.

Um we do have a transient problem.

Uh we do have an absentee problem.

If this moves the need of just a little bit, that could save a life.

And so uh I think that we have to stop talking about what we can't do is I'll talk more about what we can do to support our young people in the district.

Um, because we see what's happening uh as we talk about these curfew zones and all the talk about that.

That's political size, but our young people are crying out for support and it's our time to support them.

And this is a drop in the bucket.

We talk about what we can do to support them.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh thank you.

If there's no further discussion, the vote is on Councilmember Parker's amendment.

It's amendment number two, it was circulated yesterday, I believe at five o'clock.

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

No.

Uh the amendment fails.

It's not that we know that.

Mr.

Chairman, I only heard three no's.

Well, man, come on, man.

And it was only three.

I only heard three no's.

I heard more than that.

And I believe those no's were Fruman, Henderson, and you.

Based on my observations.

Okay, I heard more than that, but if members want to roll call, uh the uh Mr.

Cash, would you call the roll?

Councilmember Trayon White.

Yes, Councilmember Trayon White votes yes.

Chairman Mendelssohn.

No.

Chairman Mendelson votes no.

Councilmember Allen.

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

Councilmember Bonds.

No.

Councilmember Bonds votes no.

Councilmember Crawford.

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Councilmember Felder.

Yes.

Councilmember Felder votes yes.

Council Member Fruman.

No.

Councilmember Freeman votes no.

Councilmember Henderson.

No.

Councilmember Henderson votes no.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis George votes yes.

Council Member.

Yes.

Councilmember Doe votes yes.

Councilmember Parker.

Yes.

Councilmember Parker votes yes.

Councilmember Pinto.

Yes.

Council Pinto votes yes.

Councilmember Robert White?

Yes.

Councilman Robert White votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are nine yeses and four no's.

The amendment is approved.

Is there anything further, Councilmember Parker?

Thank you.

Yes, one more amendment.

I'm sorry.

That is it for the OBM.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I move Louis George LBA amendment number one, which was circulated at 12 33 PM today.

This amendment just restores 325,000 in one-time operating funds in the child and family services agency budget for the Brightwood Family Success Center.

The mayor's proposed budget eliminated CFC C FSA's funding for all nine family success centers.

I appreciate the work of the committee on youth affairs and the committee of the whole to restore funding for four of those centers.

Brightwood is the only family success center in uh ward four and in Northwest.

Um this funding will help uh Georgia Avenue Family Support Collaborative continue to provide vital resources and programs to vulnerable youth and families in Ward 4.

Uh when residents call the 211 warm line that we established for uh young people and their families.

Uh, they know uh district government must be ready and able to step up with the support and resources.

Um, and we can't do that with our our collaborative and family success centers.

So it asks uh for your support.

Thank you.

Uh we have the amendment before us.

Is there discussion?

If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted.

Department of Voice.

Hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted.

Anything further, Councilmember?

No, thank you.

Uh and uh thank you for discussing this with me before the meeting.

Um next is Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

First, first I want to congratulate you and your staff uh at the committee of the whole, the budget office, the Office officer general counsel, the officer of revenue Analysis, the CFO's office for all the work that was put into this.

Putting these budgets together is no small feat.

I think it's important to acknowledge the incredibly good and hard work that went into putting this project together.

Um, I want to thank you and all of the staff in particular that helped do this.

I also think, Mr.

Chairman, you led a fairly transparent process that pulled us together to look through what were shared priorities and try to really build the consensus around the council.

I think you heard that, and I think this budget reflects that, and so I really appreciate that.

At the risk of sound like a broken record, this budget was very difficult.

This is my 12th budget as a council member, and what was proposed to us by the mayor was perhaps the most weighted on the shoulders of those who've already have the least that I've seen in my tenure here.

We were faced with drastic cuts and decisions around cuts to programs and services that help our most vulnerable residents.

The framing around this proposed budget was we need to grow.

And I actually agree that that needed framing wholeheartedly.

Our economy is currently shifting with remote work and commercial office vacancies still dragging us down.

We're facing a federal government that is increasingly making erratic decisions, reducing its workforce numbers, eliminating critical funding streams that support vital programs.

The headwinds feel strong, but I they are not unsurmountable, and I'm confident in our city.

Spurring growth is how we help meet this challenge.

However, I think the executive chose to go down a path that does not grow our city and instead puts a budget forward that was balanced on the backs of those who are the most vulnerable.

And at the same time, ask nothing of someone like me or my family in a time like this.

Simply saying the word growth over and over is not the same thing as supporting it.

Eliminating support for child care that would deeply damage this sector of our economy that working parents need is the opposite of growth and would only make child care more scarce and more expensive.

Cutting supports for efforts like the DC Green Bank, which is one of the few bright spots that's actually spurring private capital investment and new housing development.

It's not a growth agenda.

Those are just two examples, but it highlights where the rhetoric has not matched what's actually in the proposed budget.

If I may be frank, the proposed budget felt more like triple-down economics approach to the budget.

You give incentives to those who have the means to invest and create growth, and at best, you hope the benefits are going to flow down and trickle down to those with the least.

I didn't buy it when we debated this approach nationally a couple of decades ago, and I certainly don't support that now.

We should not be pursuing growth at the expense of the working people and families in our city.

Rather, we need to grow while at the same time supporting working people and families.

Luckily, Mr.

Chairman, I think through your hard work, my colleagues' hard work, and everything we've put together, this FY27 budget is in a much, much better place, despite this still being yet another tough year for the environment and energy affordability funding.

First, I want to thank you and your team for the work to preserve and build on the Committee on Transportation and the Environment's work.

In total, the council is now adding 10.1 million dollars to the same to the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund in FY27 and 19.4 million across the financial plan.

That includes an $8 million enhancement to the DC sustainable energy utility for the next fiscal year.

These investments are going to have a huge return for residents in the form of energy cost savings, helping address the rising utility rates that are contributing to the unaffordability crisis across the district.

To better protect the district waterways, you've also added $7.9 million and 27.8 million of the financial plan, including 1.3 million in one-time funding to support compliance with the district's municipal separate sewer system or the MS4 permit on top of my committee's enhancements of over $7 million, which also includes restoring the bag fee funds that have been swept by the mayor.

The committee print also adds an additional $500,000 to the green bank for support on top of the $1.5 million that was identified to support the issuance of the district's first green bond, which is a key tool in using innovative financing to attract new capital and growth in housing in our city.

Your proposed budget also preserves critical enhancements of the committee that allocated, for example, the adult learner transit subsidy program to make sure that our adult learners can get to and from school, as well as funding that we identified to help implement new legislation such as the Tree Preservation Enhancement Amendment Act of 2025 and the Youth Advisory Council on Climate Change and Environmental Conservation Establishment Act of 2025.

Lastly, I want to thank you for your investments that fall outside of the committee's scope, but will continue to make a positive impact on the lives of DC residents.

Completely restoring our access to justice program, investing $39 million dollars in the child care subsidy to address spending pressures, even though it may not be enough to completely eliminate Aussie's need for a wait list, bringing back the pay equity fund at our FY26 approved levels, enhancing victim services line at OVSJG by 5.1 million dollars, completely striking the mayor's proposed subtitle that would limit liability against the district.

Restoring the universal paid leave benefits, the mayor proposed a cut, pushing the proposed TANF changes out, restoring all of our OAG paralegal and staff positions that were slated to be riffed, and putting back 100 million dollars in the workforce investment account so that unions who are literally at the bargaining table right now for the next CBAs are able to meaningfully negotiate pay increases.

On the capital budget, I'm very supportive of some of the investments that you've made in the CIP related to the RFK campus redevelopment project.

My committee added 2.2 million dollars to DOT's capital project to support planning and engineering of a more comprehensive crosstown bus service that could serve residents not just on game days but every day.

While DDOT has plans for connecting union station to the stadium, the additional funding expands the scope further east to at least Binning Road Metro Station and further west than just Union Station.

You've added 10 million dollars in FY26 and 300 million of the CIP for expanding the capacity of the Stadium Armory Metro Station.

While I disagree with Hamada's determination that construction of a new infill station at Binning in Oklahoma isn't feasible given the time we have, this funding is crucial to absolutely essential expansions and improvements at the Stadium Armory Station to handle demand on event days.

And as I repeatedly noted during the debate on the stadium deal, the existing station is too small, it is too old, and we will create a disastrous experience if we do not take urgent action.

That funding is a critical first step in ensuring our transit system is ready for game day.

Thank you for that impactful capital investment.

Before I conclude, Mr.

Chairman, I do want to address the proverbial elephant in the room, and that's the expectation that a lot of folks had of us when we were presented with this mayor's proposed budget around taxes and revenue raisers.

I don't believe that we should be raising taxes just for the sake of doing so.

That's never been my MO.

However, while you were able to restore a lot of the programs and substantially mitigate the harm of the mayor's proposed budget that it had in store for FY27, there is still an issue of our four-year financial plan being out of whack.

In fact, the hole that we were faced with for FY27 will be bigger for FY28 as the CFO continues to take a deeply conservative and dim view of revenue projections.

That means funding is slated to go away or be significantly reduced for all the programs that you were able to restore, plus the safe passages program, the UPSS, UPSFF, our out-of-time school grants, violence intervention programs, the alliance, and ERAP.

Our financial plan is still a massive problem.

We need to fix moving forward.

We're going to think creatively and urgently alongside a new mayoral administration and make sure choices are clear and we don't leave us in this position again next year.

Suffice to say, I think all of us have to take this problem very seriously going forward.

I do not want to be in a worse position next year with more programs in the chopping block.

It doesn't help our residents, it's deeply destabilizing to the communities and organizations that serve our city.

You stated your intention to hold hearings in the fall to consider proposals, but I think we've got to back that up with some willingness to take action as a council.

I don't want to have a hearing for the sake of a hearing.

I want to make sure that we actually don't kick the can down the road, but we've come up with a plan moving forward.

I appreciate Mr.

Chairman.

I have a couple of quick questions that I wanted to ask you that's uh around some capital shifts.

One.

Yeah.

So I'm looking at the clock, and I'm assuming that the clock wasn't started at zero.

I watched the clock for your comments, and I know it was around 20 minutes.

So I am assuming that I'm given a little grace here.

I'm also the chair of the committee presenting the budget.

Well, I at any rate, if there's no objection, ask your questions.

If I had trimmed back, I guess all the compliments I gave to you, I could have shared a little more time.

All right.

So one of the questions I have you're delaying the funding for a pedestrian and bike connection along East Capitol Street that the mayor had in to be ready for opening day of the stadium, pushing that back to FY 32, arguing that the Binning Road Bridge is going to provide the same pedestrian connection.

I have a hunch my Ward 7 colleagues going to speak to this, but at the committee level, we took a hard look at this.

The neighborhoods and communities that would be served by this along East Capitol Street essentially are locked any other way than getting in their car and driving.

And I think that this bridge is important.

Why are we trying to move it back to FY 32, which will mean that it is going to be outside the window of when we actually have the stadium built?

Uh a lot of that had to do with the um I'll say two things.

One is um the lack of record regarding it and second uh pressures on the capital budget.

As I think you know the capital budget is maxed out right now, but of course, there's time.

I'm not saying between now and second reading, although that is a does exist, but between now and FY next next year when we're back to deal with it.

Okay and move it up.

Um I'm happy to work with my Ward 7 colleague as well on this, but I and I'm sure he'll address it when he speaks, but it's something I'd like to continue working with you on because I I was convinced by our Ward 7 colleague that this is something the community has worked hard on.

Um it could be a critical link.

Um also are uh delaying the funding for the Suitland Park trail rehabilitation from FY29 to FY32.

The committee actually received a lot of testimony from witnesses that were excited about that new trail connection.

Why are we moving that back as well?

I think that was as well an issue of structuring the CIP so that we could afford everything.

Okay, I don't think there was anything substantive in that move.

Got it, okay.

Um and lastly, one of the um pieces where I think you're being responsive to what was in the mayor's errata letter, which had to do with moving some of the RFK campus transportation funds and spreading out from FY27 into FY 30, maybe it's more just putting on the record one of my concerns is that this is splitting funds up, one into DGS, one into Octo, and then some left with DDOT.

I think that that is going to decrease our ability to conduct oversight over hundreds of millions of dollars in this plan.

Um, and so I would like to see if we can work between first and second reading, both why are we moving and splitting this up, but also to make sure that we've got a plan for good oversight over the expenditures because we're talking about um almost 200 million dollars in roadway improvements, which traditionally would fall under a department of transportation, but now it seems to be moving into different spaces.

So if the question is would I work with you between now and second reading?

The short answer is yes, and the long answer is yes.

Uh I'm not as familiar with why that got split up.

I think it was being responsive to the mayor's errata letter.

Well, we're always responding to that.

You're very responsive to the errata letter.

Um, but I want to make sure it also makes sense for us.

So we would like to work with you that all right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I appreciate it.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh uh on cue.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh just want to echo uh the sentiments of my ward six colleague uh as it relates to um my disappointment to see that funding that was included and the mayor's proposed budget to fund a new pedestrian bridge that will connect the eastern and western part of the ward.

Um I've had a number of conversations with the director of DDOT, and I've expressed to her my desire as a council member to make sure that residents across all 28 neighborhoods and ward seven uh could easily access one another.

Uh this pedestrian bridge uh in my opinion will be a step in the right direction.

Uh under no circumstances can we continue to remove capital dollars outside of ward seven to fund other projects.

Uh so I look forward to working with you between first and second reading to figure out how we can uh restore the funding to make sure that our residents east and west have an opportunity to connect.

Uh so with that uh Mr.

Chairman, the floor is yours, but I wanted to note that on the record.

Mr.

Chairman, someone's all.

I'm sorry, were you asking uh thank you, Councilmember Felder?

Mr.

Chairman.

No, Councilmember Henderson's next.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, uh Councilmember Allen asked my question after his lengthy statement.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm missing something.

So I saved time.

You did there you go.

Is this what?

Well, we're still on the local budget act.

Members are free to make statements now.

But or at the legislative meeting.

Um usually they make them at the committee as a whole.

Members are free to ask questions.

There are Councilmember Fooman and then Councilmember Lewis George, you want to be recognized.

I'm doing questions.

But are we done with amendments?

Um we will all find out.

I was just reminded uh statements at the committee as a whole will be briefly summarized in the committee action.

Councilmember Fruman, did you want to be recognized?

Councilmember Felder, were you done?

No, I was just asking uh it fear of sounding like Admiral Stockdale.

Where are we?

Are we done with amendments and now we're to opening statements or we're doing openings a mix of amendments and opening statements?

The honest answers, I don't know.

I'm not aware of other amendments on the local budget act.

Uh but I will recognize members as they come to my attention, and uh maybe somebody will have an amendment.

I kind of hope not.

Councilmember Felder, were you done?

Yes, I have an amendment.

If it I think on the last amendment, if it makes sense, I can just go.

On the local budget act.

Yes.

Okay.

Oh.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, today I would like to move an amendment to relocate capital funds from the relocation of the comprehensive psychiatric emergency program to a new pool shell for the Kelly Miller pool in Ward 7.

Uh Kelly Miller pool closed in the summer of 2025 due to needed repairs, and there is not currently a DPR operating pool that service this community.

Currently, the pool needs a new pool shell prior to reopening.

The pool shell will cost 150,000.

Reopening the Kelly Miller pool will provide Ward 7 neighbors, particularly our young folks, with a great summer, with a great summer as well as the necessary resources to help uh cool them off and the increasing warm district summer.

Uh, without any action, this pool cannot reopen uh for summer of 2028 either.

Uh, furthermore, there are questions as it relates to the estimate needed for the CPEP program.

Uh, and if we are currently allotted within it, and if the current allotted amount is currently needed, we we know that due to the redevelopment of the RFK site, CPREP must relocate to a new location.

Uh, the Department of Behavior Health Plans to relocate CPREP to existing agency space located at um 35 K Street Northeast.

Now, while a new site has been identified, the department uh by the Department of General Services, uh, it has not yet begun with design of the new space, nor selected a contractor for the work.

Uh, despite this ten point eight million dollar investment, uh, it does not make sense to allocate funding to a project that does not yet have the need for it when a small diversion of funds can fill a gap in our community.

Uh so with that, Mr.

Chairman, um uh move the amendment.

Mr.

Chairman.

The uh amendment is before us, right?

You move the amendment.

I heard a voice to my right.

Councilmember Henderson.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh first I want to thank Councilmember Felder for looking for ways to expand access to recreation and safe spaces for our young people, especially in Ward 7.

However, I must oppose this amendment today.

Um, this amendment would reallocate 150,000 um from the relocation of the Department of Behavioral Health's comprehensive psychiatric emergency program, also known as CPEP, to the swimming pool replacement line to support the construction of a new pool shell at Kelly Miller.

While I certainly understand and appreciate the intent, um I think there are some questions about the estimate for the cost.

Uh this morning, I had a three-way call with the director of the Department of General Services and the director of the Department of Public Uh Parks and Recreation, and they estimate that the pool shell will cost approximately 1.5 million, not 150,000.

Uh meaning that this amendment would only small a portion of the project and would not be sufficient to complete the work.

At the same time, these funds are being taken from a project with a firm deadline.

Uh CPEP must vacate from its current location by June of 2027.

Um, that is in order for the RFK site preparation to continue on.

Um, they're literally going to be demolishing the building, and there will be a road through its current location.

Um, and right now the contractors are waiting for CPEP to move before being able to continue on.

Um DGS is already moving forward with the procurement.

They have plans to do the procurement this summer and the construction to begin in January of 27.

Um, I just want to underscore that uh and I a location has been identified.

This is not a new construction, it's a retrofit of an existing um building.

Any delay um would affect both the continuity of the critical psychiatric emergency service as well as the timeline for the broader RFK development project.

I would encourage members when considering future capital reallocations to consult uh with all of the committees necessary on the timeline of projects, funding needs, etc.

While design hasn't started yet, this is a project that it has to move.

And already 10 million is going to be stretching it for um this needed uh space for psychiatric emergencies.

Um so given the limited impact, sorry, the limited impact of this funding on the actual pool project that is being proposed here and the importance of keeping the CPAP location relocation, excuse me, on schedule.

Um, I do urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment today.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh yeah, I'll recognize you again, second round.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, while I appreciate the advocacy for the pool services and recreation in Ward 7, um, and appreciate the spirit from which my Ward 7 colleague is working on this.

Um, I I cannot support this.

Um, CPEF is moving from Ward 7 into Ward 6.

I'm not fighting that.

It's an absolutely essential service that has to be provided in our city.

It's important.

I've been critical that the mayor's team has not actually shared many plans with the community in the public.

So I think there's still a lot of work to be done to make sure that the community of where it's going to be cited understands how it will work.

How do we coordinate with community leaders with the ANC, but I I still believe I gotta fight for the full funding to be able to execute the operations of this new center on time and to do so effectively and successfully, I'm concerned about any removal of the funding that's in this right now.

Um so while I'd be happy to help support the efforts around um pool services from a different vehicle perhaps, I can't support this one today.

I want to encourage my colleagues not to support this amendment.

Uh further on the uh councilmember Parker.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I have a question about the FIS, but I would just say I have a general rule of thumb that I try to side with ward-based members on ward-based priorities.

Uh I remember Councilmember Fruman was moving money to a ward three school.

I supported that because I trusted his expertise.

Uh Councilmember Traon White was moving money for uh, I believe a ward eight, a pool or recenter.

I voted for that because I trusted his judgment side note, although I think I got dinged on uh advocacy group's ratings because I was investing in a ward eight project, but I digress.

Um I want to support this because I want to defer to my ward seven colleague, but I do have questions around the discrepancy.

What I'm hearing you say is you have a fist that says it costs 150,000.

I too heard from Director Freeman say it would cost 1.5 million.

So can you can we just square the cost differential in like what is the accurate amount?

Uh well, first and foremost, uh thank you, Councilmember Parker, and I appreciate your continued willingness to work uh with me as a award uh-based council member.

So the 150,000 that we're asking for will cover the shale, which will go towards opening up the pool.

Now, I wasn't purview to the conversations that you were maybe director uh Hunter or Freeman had this morning.

Now, that broader 1.5 million dollars will go towards broader renovations to the pool.

I think the reality is uh we have a community, uh one of our most vulnerable communities with no recreational activities available, which has been closed for a couple years, and there's individuals who are saying that the all pools across the district are open.

When the reality is in Ward 7, that is not the case.

And when we talk about activities for our young folks or the lack thereof, we can't pick and choose what we choose to support and what we choose not to support.

Furthermore, this is a step in the right direction.

Similar to uh the capital project that council member Allen pointed out in Ward 7.

Unfortunately, we have capital projects where we have funding for one year and it just magically disappears.

And then in the outer years, we supposed to get it back and we never get it back.

With that being said, uh as the council member, I think it's a new day and age, and we want to assure to our residents that now is the time to invest.

So that fraction of one point uh, I'm sorry, 150K will go in the right direction to open up the pool uh in us.

I hear that.

I agree with you.

Again, I'm there.

Are you willing to reach out to the director or have you reached out to the director?

Because again, what I'm hearing from the director is.

We spoke to DGS less than 45 minutes ago, and the money the the 150k that will go towards the sick shell, like we've been in conversations with them.

That 1.5 million dollars, that may be the cause for broader renovations to the pool, but that 150k will go towards opening.

And fixing the shell would therefore make the pool accessible for the public.

It will be a step in the right direction to make it uh operational.

Now, wait a minute.

That was a shift.

No, I mean, seriously.

With the shell, the pool can open.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, and and my team just confirmed that with DGS.

With the shell, the pool can open.

Uh Councilmember.

Oh my.

Um, Councilmember Lewis George and then Pinto.

Thank you.

Um, so I support the aim that Councilmember Felder is working towards, and I understand the issues that Councilmember Henderson has raised and agree that the source of the funding is the issue here.

Um I would ask that uh if you would be open to working with me between now and second reading to find a new source of funds.

Um, as facilities chair, I will do the work to work with DGS and DPR to help you find these funds for second reading.

Councilmember Pinto.

Oh, is that a uh I'll recognize you again.

Councilmember Pinto.

Well, thank you.

If it's all right with you, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to hear Council Member Felder's answer to that, because that may change my questions.

Uh uh, Councilwoman Um Lewis George, first and foremost, I appreciate you and always your willingness to work with me.

Thank you for your investments on the committee markup uh to Ward 7.

I would say it really depends on where that funding is coming from.

What I don't support is capital dollars being that our ward seven being reprogrammed to other capital projects in the ward.

Uh to me, that is Rob and Peter, the pay poll, my residents deserve better, and as a council member, I plan to give them that.

So, okay, I'll just put that aside for a second.

So, where is this discrepancy coming from?

From councilmember Henderson's review of the 150,000 setting a delay for the psychiatric facility versus what I'm hearing you say, which is that 150,000 will not yield the delay.

I'm not sure where the discrepancy is coming from.

What I can say is from my conversations with my team who has spoken with uh DGS is that that 150K will provide a shale to go towards opening the pool.

I think that uh any conversations which I'm happy to have with the directors of both agencies about that 1.5.

I think that's broader innovations.

And I look at it like this.

If you have a car and the ties flat, but your overall car needs improvements, uh you tackle the the tire first, which in this instance that will be the case with the pool shell, and then any broader repairs to the car uh you handle over time, which will be no difference than that 1.5 million dollars.

But what we have to be mindful of is continuing to delay these projects, especially when we talk about youth activations and making sure our young folks have the resources in their community so they won't have to go to places like Navy R, so they will feel safe and comfortable and have recreational activities, which I think this project uh supports.

But so you said to Councilmember Parker that if there's a new shell, the pool could be open.

Is 150,000 enough to make an entirely new shell?

Yes, that's what we've been told.

Councilor Henderson, could you help me under reconcile?

Like I said, I put two directors on three way because I didn't want any conversation about it, but if the replacement if the fix to the pool shell only cost $150,000, only $150,000, DPR and GGS would have done it already.

Because it's been what two years that seems negligible or not.

Also, I'm not aware of any pool renovation we've ever done in this city that only costs 1.5 million dollars.

Um but uh that being said, I, you know, Councilmember Lewis George has offered to help find the a different source of funds.

I know you didn't have a conversation with the Department of Behavioral Health around the status of their project and the importance of we gotta move CPEP to it's blocking another project from moving forward.

If this were a different project that were out in the out years, maybe.

So I'm gonna jump in here.

Councilmember Felder.

I want to be supportive of you.

We had a conversation last night.

I want to be supportive of you.

Uh it's clear to me that there's uneasiness on the part of some members uh about the source.

In addition, there's uneasiness by some members uh with regard to the amount.

Uh I think it's possible in the capital budget to look for another source if it's $150,000.

If it's more than that, to work with Councilmember Lewis George, who uh offered to help, so that we could uh find a way of doing this at second reading.

My read of the members is that nobody has a problem with the ward seven council member trying to get the ward seven pool at Kelly Miller, a fine ward seven school, fixed and open, and as soon as possible.

I have a sense that nobody has a problem with that, and so it is taking a little bit of time to find how we can do that, but not doing that by cutting the CPEB.

Which I think is a roundabout way of saying if you withdraw this, um there is a commitment from several members to work with you to get this funded at second reading.

Mr.

Chairman, I would just say this.

I think uh a couple things.

I appreciate uh I just want to put on the record rather that I'm a big supporter of C Prep, right?

It was in Ward 7, and um the whole notion about having conversations with agencies before reprogramming money, I support that.

It sounds good, but if that's the case, then you know, a number of my priorities, those conversations would have been had prior to the reprogramming of funds, so we can't pick and choose when we choose to have conversations with agencies and what we uh choose not to.

I would also like to say uh given that it is a relatively amount.

I'm sorry, given that the amount is relatively small compared to other capital projects, uh I just want to say that that is not always the case in terms of what an agency will fund and support and what they won't, especially if it's not being elevated.

That project has sat in vacant for two years, and I've talked to residents all the time about getting that back online.

And when I talk to folks from the agency, you know they didn't know about it.

So I don't want to belabor the point, Mr.

Chairman.

I will take you up on that.

And uh between first and secondary will work to continue to uh find the funding to get that pool back online, and I appreciate um all of my colleagues in this thoughtful discussion.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

All right, the amendment is withdrawn.

Um further on the um Local Budget act, chairman.

On the LBA, yes, Councilmember Trans.

I'll be brief.

Uh I was initially offering an amendment to the law enforcement cadet pathways expansion amendment act of 2026.

I knew there was a lengthy discussion with Councilmember Pinto about uh spending the cadet program beyond Washington, DC.

Um, I didn't support that totally.

I think that we have people here who want to work in our law enforcement, uh, but we also have to keep them committed.

We've noticed that we uh spending millions of dollars to train officers, and once they get training, they go to other federal local agencies, and we have the lowest amount of police officers in our MPD that we've had in years, and so uh I have an amendment.

Uh notice, Chairman, that you withdrew that amendment that Councilman Pinto um had forward.

Um so I guess I'll work with you and her off of my amendment was to her amendment, so and I was uh proposing to one uh take off the capital to age 24.

Um I think that we needed to do that, but also uh make a commitment for those who do go through all training to have to stay at least five years.

But I it was an amendment to the amendment, so I'll wait and work with you all to offer the second reading.

Okay.

And the local budget act, yes, Councilmember Pinto.

I just want to respond to that.

Um I was disappointed to see you remove the educational requirement changes to MPD as a BSA.

It is one of the number one things that MPD believes will help get more officers in the door, and as we face a 50-year staffing low, um, we should be considering additional ways to get more officers in the door as a reminder.

Changing the MPD education requirements does not change the fact that MPD officers would need to go through 18-month training at the best training academy in the country.

Um, and so I look forward to working with you, Councilmember White, and between first and second reading on your other ideas around MPD recruitment, um, and hope to work with other colleagues on this issue.

Thank you.

If there's I have questions.

Before I recognize you, let me repeat.

Uh we try to do the statements and amendments at the markup.

Um the statements to some extent will be summarized in the committee report.

So I have a hunch some folks are withholding, which is nice, but then that means that they're gonna want to speak at the legislative meeting, where the only record will be if anybody goes and digs up the tape.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Yeah, I had a few questions.

Um, first chairman, I wanted to briefly return to the issue of the immigrant teacher retention and visa support, which I raised at the Cal Markup.

Um, I know DCPS is facing significant delays in the H1B uh processing and has said it focused on educators already in the process and roughly 20 educators who are still currently in that pilot.

I understand DCPS did not spin down the funding uh because the count the council provided last year, and that additional funding may not make sense if there's not yet a workable structure to expand support.

Um I just wanted to see if you could speak to that decision for the public to understand, um, because this remains an issue I care deeply about, and I know others, and I hope to work with DCPS and the council to find a path to support more immigrant immigrant educators work moving forward.

Um so if you can speak to that, my second question uh was to briefly ask about um I saw one million in the fiscal year 27 for Capital Factory.

Um, and I wanted to know why that funding was needed and what specifically that money will support.

Um, and then I also see uh two million for uh Fords Theater, and I wanted to know what that was specifically uh will go to support.

And then my last question is on TANF.

Um, I understand that the three funding areas we had to confront here with TANF, many appear distinct, but in practice they are closely connected because the TANF cost of living adjustment is 2.9 percent, which remains below the inflation of um the district, which the district has experienced in in the recent years, and I think it's also worth remembering that the district only reinstated a meaningful TANF COLA in fiscal year 2017, which increased the average minute for a family of three from 441 in fiscal year 16 to 64 in fiscal year 19.

But I think we all can agree this increase was necessary it was necessary then, and that keeping up with inflation, inflation is just as necessary now, even more so.

And so I know the those increases were clearly important for maintaining support for low-income families, but they also require significant budget growth with TANF uh spending increasing by 15.3%.

Um so I guess given that history, Chairman, do you see opportunities between first and second reading to restore funding for the TANF COLA, and more broadly, how are you thinking about balancing the cost of the smaller adjustments today against the possibility of needing larger investments in future years to restore benefits purchasing power.

I hope you heard that.

Four four questions.

As I recall, that's fully funded, so they will continue to get the support to get to a green card.

Um there also are, I believe, teachers who are coming over from other countries, uh, but they're not on the green card path.

That's what the controversy has been about.

And given the expenses gone up, given that the expense has gone up, given that there are unfortunately just uh concerns around immigration these days, given that there are still, as I recall, teachers who are able to come here from abroad, just not with the green card um promise.

Uh that's why we did not uh put funding in the budget this year.

Uh with regard to um Fords that's been a request that's been uh in existence for years.

Uh they spent 50 million dollars on a new facility.

They like to point out that the council supported arena a few years ago to the tune of 6 million, um, Shakespeare to the tune of 10 million or more, maybe a decade ago.

Um out of the 50 million, this would be what, uh one percent of their project, but it does help them with fundraising uh from the private sector.

With regard to capital factory, I had to ask what that is.

I believe that's station DC, which is a innovative tech startup at Union Market.

Um they originally requested, I believe it was four million dollars.

We put, I believe two million in the budget last year.

Um they have reduced, they wanted four, if I remember correctly, four million over three years.

They've reduced that request, so this million would be maybe the last amount.

If not the last, then the next would be a half a million next year.

Um, there have been quite a number of startups that have started up there.

It's still in its first year, if I remember correctly, and uh so it's too soon to say.

But I mean, the other night I've sat with somebody who kind of graduated from station DC.

Um he is developing data center warehouses that will be offshore and will not require any electrical draw from any of our power generating stations.

This is the kind of innovative stuff.

May or may not work.

His business is located in DC.

So I actually talked to the deputy mayor, mentioned it to her the other day that we were doing this, and uh she was I think excited is the right word because it takes pressure off of the other funding that Dempad has.

So that's what that is, the million there.

The TANF COLA is 40 $6 million in the financial plan, and it has to be funded on a uh recurring basis.

Oh, it had to be reoccurring.

Yeah.

Now my impression is that uh the our committee on human services, chaired by council member Matt Freuman, uh has been doing a lot of uh work on TANF as well as some other issues, so that um I'm hopeful that we'll be in a better place with addressing TANF next year, since a lot of what we're doing is on a one-time basis.

Okay.

And then when and when you said the admin refused to spend it on support it as it relates to the H1 visa.

You're referring to DCPS.

Uh yeah, but I suspect that they had some support.

Okay, gotcha.

Thank you.

Those were my questions.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um people who've not been recognized, uh Mr.

Chairman, I have questions, not a stigma.

Well, supposedly we're on second round with some folks.

Um, Councilmember Parker, then Crawford, okay.

I'll try and make this quick.

Um, I know we talked offline, but I just want to put it on the record.

I do not see any funding for Special Olympics.

This is specialized transportations for the districts, uh, special needs students.

I believe right now the partnership between ASEAN Special Olympics funds, uh roughly 50 schools.

Um, and so it seemed like offline you were willing to work with me ahead of second vote to see if there's a possibility of securing funding, and I just want it to make sure that that was accurate.

You just wanted to pin me down on the record.

So um it depends.

I probably shouldn't put it this way, but it depends on whether your list keeps growing.

But I'd be happy to talk to you between now and the uh second reading.

My recollection is the amount that the advocates were advocating for was a half a million dollars.

It's also my recollection that at the hearing I pressed both Aussie and DCPS, and it was unresolved what support they were going to do.

Uh I think because it was unresolved, we didn't look for money there.

Okay, uh well, I look forward to working with you.

I would say if we don't fund this, that means thousands, literally thousands.

Okay, yes, questions, thousands of young people with special needs would not uh have the support, uh, and I think that's unacceptable.

I see a lot of um charter parents and educators in the room.

I know there's been a lot of discussion around charter funding, and I know you've made a lot of progress uh in terms of closing the gap.

Can you, with the changes you made, how much is uh funded for DCPS outside of the UPSF, or is if there is a better way of framing that question, can you just elaborate on how you close the gap?

Um so the um advocacy has listed three things.

Give me a second.

So the uh there are three components.

Healthy steps is one, and I learned last week that apparently that that program is supposed to be available to both sectors, even though the funding goes to DCPS, uh, because it goes to both sectors.

I don't think it's fair to have it to count it in the list of what's outside the um UPSFF.

However, I learned last week that the DCPS needs to be a much more flexible so that the charter schools can take advantage of that program.

The second component is impact.

And we passed legislation a couple years ago requiring that impact has to come back into the formula.

I think we passed, we must have passed it two years ago because at the time we had it would come back into the formula outside the financial plan.

Well, now outside the financial plan is inside the financial plan, it's FY29.

I think the mayor tried to repeal that, and uh I may be wrong, but I think she did.

And uh that was one of the changes in the print in the in the uh BSA is that impact has to come back into the formula in 29.

Uh the third component is maintenance, which is clearly contemplated to be for DCPS clearly contemplated to be funded inside the formula.

Uh, the mayor's proposal shifted 60 million outside to um make it uh equitable.

If you make it uh equitable, uh that that would cost us 60 million dollars.

Um, what I have with this print, as I said earlier, is 15 million dollars, and um there actually that had a positive impact in a negative way on individual DCPS schools.

Didn't change DCPS's budget, but it did um increase uh schools' first funding for I think maybe three or four schools.

So um the disparity at this point is 45 million dollars, and I'm hopeful that the next mayor will respect uh the equity between the sectors.

No, thank you for that.

And I just would underscore I do have two more quick questions.

Uh nearly 80 percent of Ward 5 students attend a charter school, and so I'm raising this up because it is an equity concern that as some of our charter schools receive less funding, that means many ward five students are receiving less uh funding for their learning.

Uh, and the same is true for Ward 7 and 8.

Yeah, but let's be clear it's not that they're receiving less funding as in they're getting a funding cut, it's that they're not getting the same increase that DCPS is getting.

Semantics.

Well, uh they're not being cut, but it's not fair.

It's not fair.

That's the headline.

It's not fair.

And we should be fair for all of our kids.

Um commission on arts.

I know that's uh within the committee of the whole.

Is there any parameters within what you did that would preclude the agency from funding out of district organizations or individuals?

Uh not in the legislation today.

Uh, but you know, I share your concern and uh so I'd be happy to work with you on that.

I've actually said to um a number of arts organizations that I would welcome ideas for how to get the commission to be uh how do I want to put this to fund on a better basis our arts organizations.

I would love to work with you, especially ahead of second vote.

Uh, just to you know, maybe this is just something I care about with finite resources, we should be funding district organizations, district residents, um, and while they are great artists and organizations in the region, we should be focused on district uh organizations.

Um, and then chairman.

Um I did note that you reverse one of the changes for DURS in terms of the bids or expanding bids um over the financial plan, but namely in the out years uh for YSE or the Youth Services Center and New Beginnings, the committee opted um not to uh expand bids because while overcrowding has been an issue with the agency, um we firmly believe that the strategy uh that would be most beneficial right now would be implementing the Road Act and accelerating placements and improving culture.

I want to know.

So you're over your time, so get to that.

And so my question would just be if you can elaborate on your rationale for why you reversed uh the decision of the committee, and I want to be clear with people.

What essentially this print does is it allows and makes room for us to incarcerate more youth three, four years from now, siding overcrowding today at a time when the agency has not fully committed to implementing the Road Act, although we're working with them on it.

And so I just would love to have insights on the conversations you're having and maybe some of the considerations you made.

So the executive got back to us.

You know, the executive pays attention to the committee markups, and they presented persuasive arguments for why expanding the capacity is necessary at both the YFC and at New Beginnings.

You know this, but that's why we did that.

I will say, you know this, Councilmember Parker.

The Road Act went through the committee as a whole.

Um I was the one who moved the legislation and it needs to be funded and implemented.

Um there's been a lot of resistance from DYRS, which I think is counterproductive, counterproductive because the Road Act very quickly, the Road Act is about requiring uh planning, prior planning for what we are doing with juveniles who are placed in DYRS's custody, uh, so that there is a greater likelihood of a better outcome for that uh youth.

Uh that's what the Road Act is, and uh DYRS needs to get on board um committed to implementing it.

Okay.

Uh for the sake of time, I'll leave it there, but thank you for entertaining my question.

I have a lineup.

Councilmember Crawford.

I have a statement if some of my other colleagues have questions, just to not be confused.

Well, I think some of their questions are turning into statements.

And the last one, which was brief, was I think six minutes over.

So, Councilmember Crawford, if you want to go now, or if you want me to come back to you, go now.

Yeah, okay, I'll go now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I want to start by thanking you, the budget office, the office of the general counsel, the office of the secretary, and all the staff across this building who have worked through a very difficult budget season.

I also want to thank my team for their hard work, long hours, and thoughtfulness throughout this process.

And most importantly, I want to thank the residents and advocates who showed up to the Wilson building, submitted testimony, made calls, sent emails, held rallies, and scheduled meetings with my team and I to advocate for the issues that matter most to all of you.

That work is critical.

The district is facing real fiscal pressures, and every committee has had to make hard choices with limited resources.

But in collaboration with each member of the council, Mr.

Chairman, you have worked to restore funding for social services, protect core services, and move us closer to a budget that reflects the needs of residents.

We made important investments in our young people in this budget, including funding to support school-based behavioral health and preserve the community-based provider model.

Thank you to Councilmember Henderson, as well as funding to expand DPR recreation hours and programs.

Thank you to Councilmember Lewis George for that as well.

I am also grateful that after continued advocacy from my office and others on the council and empower DC, this budget includes funding for mold abatement and inspections through the Department of Buildings.

It is vital that every resident is able to live in a home that is safe, healthy, and dignified.

No one should have to raise a family, care for a loved one, rest, recover, or build their life in a home where mold is harming their health.

I appreciate that we were reversed the proposed pause on the universal paid leave benefits.

Over the last few months, my team and I have heard from workers and advocates about the impact of this program and how it has impacted their lives, and workers should not have to choose between taking care for their health, caring for a loved one, or maintaining financial stability.

And in the areas of health care, I was also pleased to see the one-time funding for direct medical education, which helps strengthen our health care workforce and restore Medicaid cuts.

And I was also happy to see the reversal to the proposed medical cannabis sales tax increase, which is the right decision for patients, public health, and the regulated market.

We should not make it harder for residents to access medical cannabis or push them back to the unregulated sources.

I want to again commend the committee's work on the downtown building conversion support title.

In a moment when we need to bring more activity downtown and make better use of underused office space.

This subtitle makes important updates to the Office to Anything program while still being responsible with public dollars.

Thank you to Councilmember Fruman and Chairman Middleton for also incorporating my recommendation on clawback provisions, so improperly received tax benefits are returned.

I'm also glad to see.

Can I have one more minute?

Without objection.

Thank you.

I'm also glad to see abatement amounts reduced in tax years 27, 28, and 29 to better reflect current program demand.

Finally, I want to recognize the committee's support for our arts and cultural sector.

This budget restores funding for the commission on the arts and humanities, supports large capital grants, and invests in cultural institutions that contribute so much to the district's economy and identity.

I'm especially grateful that working together we were able to secure funding for Woolley Mammoth Theaters Capital Project while also supporting institutions like Ford's Theater and expanding access to music education.

The resale act is an area where I hope we can continue working before second reading, and I understand you're planning to fully restore this at second reading.

This bill is intended to protect residents and consumers from abusive ticket scalping practices.

So it's critical that we identify funding for it to be successful.

And again, the work doesn't stop here.

I look forward to continuing to work with all my colleagues to address remaining concerns before final reading to better serve district residents.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

First, I want to acknowledge the difficult fiscal challenges that the mayor faced in developing the proposed fiscal year 27 budget in an incredibly uncertain environment.

Slower revenue growth, economic uncertainty, and instability at the federal level have had a significant impact on the formulation of this budget, and I appreciate the seriousness of the task.

But the council also has a responsibility as well.

Our role is not simply to accept difficult choices as inevitable, but to carefully evaluate them and ask where restoration is necessary to preserve the things that make the district a place where people want to build their lives, raise their families, start a business, and remain invested in their communities.

The proposal before us today reflects that responsibility.

It recognizes that the fiscal constraints we are operating under while restoring key investments that shape residents' everyday experience of the city.

Child care that helps families stay here, investments that help keep our residents healthy, housing programs that provide stability, public spaces and services that strengthen quality of life and programs that make the district appealing and competitive.

But ultimately, growth and fiscal responsibility are not competing ideas.

If we want residents to stay, employers to invest, and families to see future here, we have to preserve the things that make the district a great place to call home.

And I do believe that this proposal moves us in the right direction.

For the Committee on Health, those values are reflected in significant investments that preserve access to care, strengthen our health care workforce, and protect many of our vulnerable residents.

I do appreciate the chairman's partnership in preserving several critical health care investments, including nearly 15 million for direct medical education, which will help train the next generation of doctors here in the district and keep our hospitals open and operating.

Restoring alliance eligibility and specialty care for low-income residents and maintaining healthy coverage for lawfully present residents despite federal policy changes.

This proposal also strengthens safety and care at St.

Elizabeth's hospital, restoring funding for the high need health care scholarship and professional loan repayment program.

I think I only had two minutes, Mr.

Chairman.

Can I get away?

Without objection.

Okay.

And advances key health priorities championed by the Committee on Health, including medical debt mitigation, school-based behavioral health, maternal and infant health, and healthy food access initiatives.

Beyond health, this proposal makes important investments to strengthen our social safety net and support families and young people, grow our economy, and protect the district's future.

It expands housing vouchers for families and individuals experiencing housing instability.

It fully funds the child care subsidy program, restores investments to the pay equity fund that support our early childhood educators, and maintains critical victim services for survivors of domestic violence.

It also invests in opportunity by maintaining the youth program at the public libraries and opening day funding for the Southeast Library.

We expand adult literacy and workforce training and increase recreation access for families and young people and seniors across the district.

At the same time, the proposal advances economic growth and fiscal stewardship.

It restores investments in small businesses and startups, advances tax proposals to support downtown revitalization and redevelopment of the former federal and Wamata owned sites, adopts some realistic overtime budgets that reflect a more honest approach to spending and service delivery, and it also supports the very important work of the Office of the Attorney General.

And importantly, this proposal protects key environmental and sustainability investments, including preserving the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund and supporting programs that help residents and businesses reduce their utility costs.

This proposal maintains essential supports for families and workers, positions that the district, which I believe positions the district as an attractive place to do business and grow our economy.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to thank you and your staff, the council budget office, the office of the budget director, our general counsel, the office of the secretary, and of course support services for the tremendous work that went into this proposal and our deliberations.

These hearings are not easy, and it takes all of us to do that work.

In a difficult fiscal environment, I believe this is a thoughtful, responsible budget that reflects our values, protects key investments, and puts positions the district to move forward with confidence, and I'm proud to support it today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Anderson.

Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

This year has forced the council to make some very difficult decisions.

We continued the social and health network that residents need, along with providing education, basic infrastructure services, and our government continues to build from the days of the pandemic.

We and the district have been saddled with how we address our flat economy, particularly given that we are a federal government town, and that has been very challenging.

And I want to thank you very much for the efforts that you have put forth to bring us to this point today.

From all accounts, including resources our government accumulated from years of savings, compounded interests, and so on.

We have pretty much exhausted preparation in this FY27 budget.

Henceforth, we are required to spend very judiciously.

The Committee on Executive Administration and Labor has worked to secure funding for critical initiatives serving seniors, elections, providing employment for our residents, enhance public trust and government accountability, and preserve vital economic and executive functions.

While we have very limited resources available to us to restore hundreds of millions that have been reduced from the budget.

The chairman has already informed me that the Board of Elections issue will be discussed between today's vote and the final vote a few weeks later.

But I will continue to advocate for the Board of Elections to make sure that we have sufficient funding for our 26 general election, including replacing outdated and ill-performing voting machines and repairs to the voter registration process.

Since this is my last budget season, I want to highlight some of the work of the committee that I chair, executive administration and labor.

I want to um show appreciation for the efforts of the lead agency, Seabury, Iona, and East River for their continuous service delivery systems that continue to improve the lives of our seniors through a variety of varied programs and activities.

Want to mention that reducing workforce training and jobs, I'm emphasizing the importance of bolstering pathways and opportunities for all district residents by moving the Workforce Investment Council to the Office of the City administrator and repurposing an existing position there to create a new senior workforce program analyst within the administrator's office.

By collaborating with the Workforce Investment Council, we align training opportunities to jobs and the new position in the city administrator's office.

May I continue?

Without objection.

Thank you.

We'll be responsible for conducting oversight across all district agency programs to centralize training to job opportunities.

Focusing on youth and individuals with multiple barriers to employment.

I'm pleased that our investment to the Career Ready Early Scholars Program administered by the Department of Employment Services has an enhancement, several enhancements, in fact, and I want to thank my colleagues, Councilwoman Henderson and Councilwoman Lewis George for their generous contributions.

I look forward to the additional resources that we have added to the school's budget to influence our students' continued proficiency climb during the next school year.

I am grateful for the increase in the career technical centers and look forward to our schools' earnest return to community schools programming.

I am encouraged, I am encouraged by the investment that we just made in the FY27 budget to combat truancy during our school year while recognizing that the ultimate solutions are not easy to come by.

Therefore, I'm intrigued by the truancy reduction pilot program that is designed to help older students return to the educational environment through perhaps programs like the STAY program.

But I resist the need to combat a clinical trial for effectiveness in light of testimony we received from the students that indicated a stipend would help in ways that amendments and things that we have included, like amenities such as transit, meals, child care, housing, assist contributing to their well-being.

I want to continue, but I know I'm running out of time, so I'll try to make this very quick and say I want to give a huge shout out to the University of the District of Columbia for its accredited master's in nursing program.

And finally, I want to add that the budget enhances the deutification arm of our DC government workforce through the Office of Employment through the Office of Employee Appeals, which will include a new in-house case tracking system that moves the electronic management system for all case documents throughout its life cycle and the public employee relations board for their support.

They will now have so that they can increase the hearing examiners and arbitrators to hold neutral hearings regarding union and collective bargaining matters.

In our budget, I'm glad that we are also advancing these technical centers.

I can't say enough about that, nor can I say enough about the adult learning transit subsidy program.

Thank you, Councilmember Charles Allen for increasing the monthly subsidies so that barriers to education for our adult learners are no longer exist.

Finally, I'm delighted that our government was able to maximize economic development programs that we already have in place.

Regrowing our economy is at a premium as we recover from loss of federal jobs and changing real estate environment and some loss of our residents that simply can no longer afford to live here.

I encouraged, I am encouraged by the $2.6 million and our one-time funding to support the Pathways program, which aims to reduce violence across the district.

I just wish we funded it at an even higher level because the need is certainly there.

We must have safe cities for our seniors, youth, families, and our businesses.

Everyone deserves a safe city.

And as the city growth returns, we have our sports economy to depend on.

We are working to expand domestic tourism, and every weekend we invite and sponsor more community festivals and activities to shore up our efforts and maximize the array of district programs already popular in the region and looking for savings and developing our government budget.

I believe there are opportunities for cutting program duplication and identifying waste.

We must continue to push the agencies to raise to rein in spending that provides few if not benefits to our residents.

It is time that we make this type of scrutiny a priority at the council.

And I look forward to my colleagues working to do just that.

And then again, in recognizing the chairman who has had this tough task in getting us to this point, I want to thank him for his continuing commitment.

As he told me a few days ago that in current and in coming months, he will discuss the um tax burdens that our residents face.

In other words, we can look forward to having at least one hearing where we will discuss taxes in the District of Columbia, and we'll have the community to enjoy that.

I appreciate the work of my committee members, my council staff, the secretary's budget, general counsel, IT and Support Service offices, and various agency leaders and personnel, labor and trade union representatives, business community, advocates, and residents who contribute throughout this budget process.

And I just want to say thank you.

I have gone too long, but thank you very much.

I thought I would take this opportunity to get my words in before it's too late.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Bonds.

Councilmember Robert White.

Thank you, Chairman.

I want to uh sincerely thank you and your team and the budget team for exemplary work.

This has been the most difficult budget year we faced in decades.

The constraints were real, the choices were hard, and we had to fight for every single dollar.

Through countless conversations, negotiations, and long hours, the council and staff have worked with stakeholders, advocates, and each other to reverse some of the most harmful proposed cuts and deliver a budget that reflects the needs of our residents by promoting affordability, stability, and opportunity in a time that is really a crossroads for our city.

I'm grateful to see the thoughtful work of each of my council colleagues reflected in this budget today.

I'm especially grateful that this budget preserves and advances many priorities that I have championed on behalf of working families, seniors, renters, homeowners, and young people across the district.

First, this budget makes a critical investment in housing stability by funding housing vouchers.

The additional 22 28.2 million dollars for vouchers will preserve our exiting uh housing voucher capacity, keep more than 1200 residents housed, and unlock nearly 500 additional housing placements next year.

And this funding puts us within reach of something many of us have been working toward for years, having enough housing subsidies available for every family exiting rapid rehousing.

For the first time, that goal is within sight.

Many of these people, young and old, families and kids, grandparents, would have to become homeless.

They deserve better than that.

And the council stepped up.

I thank you, Chairman, for recognizing the importance of this funding in Councilmember Fruman and the Committee on Human Services for your tireless work in partnership as well.

I'm also pleased that the budget maintains several investments made by the Committee on Housing.

These include 1.7 million dollars in security deposit assistance for voucher holders at the DC Housing Authority, helping families overcome one of the final barriers between getting assistance and securing housing, investments in the home purchase assistance program to help residents achieve home ownership, and the small buildings program, which helps small landlords keep their buildings in good conditions and still keep rent low.

It includes our proposed changes to speed up the city's inclusionary zoning or IZ program to increase affordable housing opportunities for residents.

And I'm grateful that the chairman included $500,000 for foreclosure prevention assistance for seniors through the remit program or reverse mortgage insurance and tax payment program, ensuring that longtime residents can remain in their homes and communities.

Beyond housing, I'm proud that the budget maintains the Committee on Housing's Investment and Youth Mentorship, allowing district government employees to serve as mentors to young people across our city.

Our youth have been calling for mentorship and connection, and we've listened.

It also provides annual support for the MLK Day Parade, protects tenants by capping pet rents and fees, restores critical funding, without objection.

Thank you.

Restores critical funding for access to justice, reverses harmful staffing cuts at the Office of the Attorney General, funds mold remediation, which is so important right now, and that is through the Department of Buildings, and invests in the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund.

There are also several areas we made real progress, even if our work isn't yet done.

I appreciate that the chairman has included a dedicated percentage for the preservation of housing within the housing production trust fund.

Last year, the council was skeptical when I said that the city needs to start prioritizing preservation as a policy matter.

This budget dedicates 15% of the HBTF to preservation in fiscal year 27.

While I continue to believe that this moment calls for something larger, like 30%, the inclusion of any preservation requirements represents real progress and growing recognition that preserving existing affordable housing must be a cornerstone of our housing strategy.

Similarly, while I have preferred would have preferred stronger protections for prospective condominium purchasers participating in HPAP, I look forward to building on that work through the Committee on Housing's broader homeownership agenda later this year.

I also want to acknowledge several critical investments that were restored in this budget while recognizing that many rely on one-time funding and will require continued attention in future years, and that we couldn't restore everything.

The budget provides one-time funding that should be that should eliminate the child care subsidy wait list, restores the pay equity fund to support early childhood educators, strengthens the workforce investment fund, preserves and expands paid family leave benefits, restores victim services grants, and supports the Credible Messenger Initiative.

It delays TANF sanctions, restores access to health care for thousands of alliance partnerships, supports the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagements workforce and family support programs, and provides funding for school-based behavioral health services.

These investments matter, they will improve lives.

Families will be able to access child care.

Workers will be able to take leave when they need it.

Educators will receive the compensation they deserve.

Residents will maintain access to health care, and young people will have greater access to behavioral health supports.

But we should be clear about the challenges ahead.

One-time funding averts immediate harm, but it does not provide long-term certainty.

As we move forward, we must continue working to convert these investments into sustainable, recurring commitments so that families, providers, and community organizations are not forced to return year after year, wondering whether essential services will survive.

Finally, while I'm proud of the progress reflected in the budget, there's still more work to do.

We must continue to pursue funding to address the remaining gap for expiring federal emergency vouchers, continue strengthening our affordable housing preservation efforts, and build on the investments we are we have secured today.

Given the circumstances we faced, this budget represents real progress.

It protects residents, restores critical services, and demonstrates what is possible when the council works collaboratively to put district families first.

So I will again want to thank you, Chairman.

Want to thank my colleagues, committee staff, budget staff, advocates, service providers, residents, and very, very much want to thank my team who helped shape these investments.

And I look forward to supporting the budget at first reading.

Uh Chairman, I have two quick questions.

I wanted to do the statement on the first round, so I didn't get GIP for time.

First question is that I want to raise this.

Well, first of all, I don't think any member put it on the list, and so we didn't look at it very carefully.

But let me give me just a second.

Mr.

Chairman, right?

So what I'm being told is um that the cost of that would probably be what I was told was hundreds.

I assume that means hundreds of millions of dollars was not something we could afford.

It is a problem uh because the uh non-union have not seen a um other than step increases, have not seen an increase in their pay in five five budgets, while um union employees have received increases to the collective bargaining agreements.

So there is a problem there.

Um but we we it was not on the list to address the list, as a workforce investment fund.

No, the workforce investment doesn't well put in a hundred, but that's not I think there were two on the list.

Is that not right?

That's on the number two, yes.

All right, workforce investment.

Um the discussion about workforce investment has been to pay for the uh collective bargaining agreements that are being negotiated.

And that's what the money is expected to be used for.

Okay, and so you're saying that the unions that won't receive that won't have funding for pay increases are not in collective bargaining now.

Yeah, you said unions employees.

So we have non-union employees, of course, and we have union employees.

Union employees, um, one contract firefighters has uh gone to uh arbitration of the uh comp one and two, which is a very large compensation unit or units.

Um, the um compensation what do they call it?

The compensation um give me a second here.

The um they've only begun bargaining compensation, so that's not anywhere close to where firefighters is, and then there are several other collective bargaining units that are smaller, uh, and I don't know where they are in the bargaining process, but they're not as far as the firefighters.

Um, all the conversation that I recall with members with council members has been about workforce investment covering union contracts.

Okay, you and I had a conversation about this, but I also know you had a lot of conversations.

I just want to be clear.

I have had a lot of conversations.

So if you brought up non union, I don't recall.

No, it was it was union, but outside of firefighters, beyond firefighters.

Yes, all right.

So let me start again.

We put a hundred million dollars in the work when workforce compforce investment fund.

100 million dollars.

The mayor had for FI270.

There's some dollars that are in the workforce investment fund now, but my understanding is they've all been committed.

Uh some of that is to the teachers union contract, um, and some of that is for step increases for union employees.

That's workforce investment.

The discussion that I recall with members uh with regard to workforce investment was uh I'll say union motivated.

Uh I don't recall much discussion about non-union, and as I said a minute ago, non-union has not seen increases in five budgets.

That's what I was just told.

But to uh cover that could be a hundred million or more.

That's the state of play with regard to our workforce.

I'll leave it there.

Thank you, Chairman.

Did you have another question?

That's it.

Councilmember Tran, Mike.

Thank you, Chairman.

First, I want to thank uh you, Chairman, the budget office, our committee chairs, especially our staffers who do the heavy lifting.

Uh this is not an easy year for us as a city.

Uh things were uh hard, uh coming in, uh getting the budget from the mayor's office, and real fiscal limits and competing cross, competing costs across the city was something I've never seen to this magnitude on the council, and especially seeing a lot of our safety nets removed and our utility costs skyrocketing this year.

Uh for ward eight, there were important wins and partial wins.

I want to acknowledge.

Uh, we see that a healthy food access uh money was restored, school-based behavior health was restored, community schools were restored, adult literacy, utility assistance protections, uh also our family success centers.

I want to thank uh Councilman Parker, also you chairman, for that not all was restored, but at least two was restored once it got to the council.

Um, our gym at Douglas Wreck, we put money in the in the in the budget for recreation center to have a gym that was removed, but was also put back in in this in this investment, so want to thank you for that.

I want to be clear this budget year's shortfalls uh are critical for me and those we represent on this council because families are struggling to stay in the district.

I was disappointed to see that ERAP, the emergency rental assistance program was not uh increased on its budget.

I think last year it was eight million.

This year it was seven million, so that's a decrease in a million dollars, and I was there at the Department of Human Services when they opened back up.

And you must know that for two years straight, the portal opened and closed, open and closed without people having access to get a chance to get that assistance.

So, disappointed to see that wasn't uh funded uh to the magnitude it needed to be.

In the same year, we are putting what one point under undergird and 1.2 billion dollars for a stadium.

Well, I'm not against the stadium as a matter of priority with the money we do have, and which is our moral document.

Um, happy to see that we've also increased uh the vouchers, but not to the fullest extent.

I think there were noted to be 1400 vouchers in jeopardy, including about 500 federal vouchers of people who want to lose their vouchers this year, which means more families will come back into our homeless system.

Um, so we will have to rehouse them and help them stabilize all over again.

And most people are not looking for handout, but looking for a hand up from their government, which they pay taxes to.

So we have much work to be done.

Um I do know that we were uh advocating for ward eight tech hub.

We have a couple of nonprofits that's excellent work in tech.

Uh that are getting people jobs and equitable jobs with high than living wage in the district, and it's been critical for us not just to get average working paying jobs but real jobs and real careers and real entrepreneurship, and so we are still gonna work to do that.

Um there are a lot of businesses.

I want to say this chairman, hope you're listening, Chairman.

There are a lot of businesses in Ward 8 that are struggling.

Ask for more time, Chairman, if I may.

All right, thank you.

There are more businesses without a rejection struggling to stay alive in Ward 8.

I just want to note that we had a number of businesses that are struggling.

We've uh I know we've done a lot of work to keep the to bring the commanders to DC, I support that.

But some homegrown minority businesses have closed down, uh, and some very important businesses have closed down in ward eight.

I'm gonna name a few Walgreens closed down in ward eight, right?

Closed down at Ward Eight.

I think about 11 Starbucks closed down in Washington, DC.

Uh citations, it was a small business closed down in ward eight, good food Food Market closed down in ward eight, Union Town closed down at Ward Eight, Kitchen Savage, owner operated by Ward A business owner closed down a few months ago in Ward 8.

Um, and ADC moved.

Uh, we have a couple of other businesses on jeopardy of closing.

Grounded, uh Sabadillo's sweet tooth just closed about eight days ago.

Uh turning natural, and a constant organics in jeopardy of closing.

Well, while we have done a lot to right size this budget, I think that we can go a little further to ensure that those who live and work, worship, and play in D.C.

know that we value them in our city.

And I think that we have not done enough, Chairman.

And so I did want to uh pause for a moment to ask a few questions, Chairman, if I may.

Yes.

Yeah, so so Warday has more children than anywhere in Washington, DC, and over 40% of our children traveled out of way to get an education.

I did notice that DC School Connect bus services that help uh working class poor parents get their children to school every day, especially in a city that has predatory ticketing, and most who have lost their cars or high tickets they can't pay, get their kids to school.

What are we doing to ensure that we can uh fix that to ensure kids can get to school across the district?

Uh the mayor's proposed budget, as I remember, did not have any funding in it for uh DC uh Connect, and I believe that the committee with oversight with that program has urged that um it be revamped or moved.

Uh so there's not been any effort on the committee level to uh put the funding back in.

Uh I don't know that the program has been very well run.

Yeah, I know earlier in the conversation today we talked about Troncy and those not uh able to get to school, especially school on time, especially our younger kids who depend upon their parents to get them to school.

This was a critical resource that we uh I think the original budget was about eight million dollars.

Um now it's zeroed out.

Um so I think we need to be look at that and the unintended consequences it may have.

A second question was about the credible messengers program.

When we got the budget from the mayor, the budget went from six million to five hundred thousand.

And thank you, Chairman.

You restored it to two million, but these are individuals that stand in the gap, mentor, advocate and plug our highest risk youth into resources, housing, make sure they go into school, and then a lot of people are not only gonna lose their job, but a lot of young people gonna become disconnected about the from people who love and they lean on the most.

So I want to get your uh voice on this chairman about where we are with the credible messages program.

Uh the committee that has oversight uh put five hundred thousand dollars in the budget for credible messengers for fiscal year twenty-seven.

Uh what I presented today has two thousand, I said, uh has two million.

I misspoke.

500,000, uh what I have in there is two million for FY27.

In closing, Chairman, thank you for that.

It's my hope that we are able to keep working at it.

Um we have more money right now than we ever had in DC history, but we say we're broke and we don't have it.

It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of priority.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we can have equity in this budget to make our city uh maximize its potential.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh Councilmember Fruman.

Uh thank you, Chairman Mendelssohn, and and really thank you, Chairman Mendelssohn, because I think 56 days ago, when we got this budget, I don't think many of us imagined that we would be where we are today, where we've gone a long way to solving pay equity, the child care subsidy.

We've added significant numbers of vouchers, we've refunded access to justice, victim services, uh we've reversed a number of the cuts to TANF.

We've protected paid leave, we've restored funding for the Office of Attorney General, we've restored some funding for SCTF, and uh and made really strong improvements in the health care space.

It is a phenomenal achievement, and I really am grateful to you and your team for getting us from where we were to where we are.

So thank you for that.

Um, I will say that the mayor, there we have philosophical differences with the mayor on some issues, but she was in an even more difficult position.

So I don't want to fault the mayor as so strongly for where we started that she was in a box at that point, particularly given the position of the CFO.

And the position of the CFO is another one of the things that we have to have in mind as we're proceeding here.

And I think that's another place where it is almost artistry what you have done in this budget because the CFO is deeply concerned about cash flow issues.

He is deeply concerned about the financial plan, as are you.

And part of what you have done here through the contingency is addressed some of the concerns of the CFO to backfill any drawdown against the reserve and to fund things in the financial plan to address those issues.

And I really hope that he takes to heart what you've done, and we can get to a place where we are on the same page.

On top of that, I think it is fabulous that you have committed to have a hearing on revenue raisers in the fall, because we are gonna be we're in a dynamic situation where we will need to look at how we make sure we keep our cash reserve in place and we address the financial plan.

And I think what this budget does is says we intend to be very responsible about that while we are determined to meet the needs of district residents.

So I think this is it is a remarkable place we are in, and we have the chance to resolve some of our intergovernmental disputes through this process, and I hope we can do that.

I hope the CFO is listening, and I hope the CFO sees the way we've approached this so we can move forward constructively together.

Um I do have a couple of a comment and a couple of quick questions.

There are many things that have been accomplished here.

There's been some conversation about what gets funded outside of the UPSFF and what what's funded inside of the UPSF.

I would just urge, I am not going to object to what you are doing in this budget, but I do think we need a systematic look at how the sectors are funded.

And we shouldn't just reflexively say one is advantaged or disadvantaged, let's do it systematically and try to get to where there is a sense of equity of what is happening, and I urge you to be a part of that.

In the meantime, a couple of things that I have heard that haven't been raised by others, and some of the things that raised by others, credible messengers really want to second that.

Number of things that others have raised I want to second.

Um Destination DC came to me, and they were very concerned that they don't have funding in FY 27 to do the kind of outreach and promotion that they have been able to do in the past and that they will be able to do again in FY28 because the funding comes back.

Did you think about anything that we could do to strengthen destination DC in that period?

Uh, the black chamber has come to me, and there was an effort to get to parity between the black chamber and the Hispanic Chamber.

That was an increase for the Hispanic Chamber, but a pretty significant decrease for the Black Chamber.

Um, and was there any consideration of at least transitioning that to even if you're gonna get to parity not giving the Black Chamber as much of a haircut as it got?

And then this may not be a question for you, maybe a question for councilmember Allen, but um I have heard that a number, a significant number of positions at DDOT in the traffic safety and the crossing guard space have been cut, and including positions that are filled, and what uh on what basis are we doing that?

And is there any consideration of trying to reverse that?

So with that, I'll turn it back.

So these are questions you want answered.

Yeah, that's the nature of that.

So I was not I was not taking careful notes.

I got um black chamber and Charles.

Destination DC and uh and the D.

cuts.

So uh destination DC did meet with me maybe uh two months ago, and um uh I I'm I'm not sure what to say.

I thought that they were sufficiently funded.

Uh with regard to the black chamber came to my attention last week, that uh they thought that they were left out, but you're saying they got a cut.

Um, and I'm certainly willing to look at that between now and second reading.

Uh and uh the third, all I heard was Charles Allen.

So I'll look to Councilmember Allen.

It's a good choice, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, so uh Councilmember Fruman, the as we had discussed in some of our previous meetings.

The committee looked to long vacant positions.

And so when we looked, DDOT has typically held a large number of vacancies in the safety tech position because they have a lot of difficulty in hiring.

But we went back and looked, and some of these positions have been vacant for two and three years.

So as we did our scrub of agencies, we went to look at those vacant positions to then realize savings to help fund many of the priorities here.

The tables have been shared with us where that there was absolutely no positions that were not vacant.

They were all vacant.

Uh, but we're gonna continue to work with Joe Wolf and the budget office and with the agency if there's any discrepancy there.

But all the tables have been shared with us, did not show any filled positions, and in fact, they were long vacant positions.

Okay, great.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you'll work with them to make sure that's the case.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Fruman.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, and thank you to our colleagues, uh, for the progress made on this budget so far.

Uh, we've come a long way, but there's uh still significant gaps that exist.

I do want to start by naming some of the wins uh secured uh via uh the committee on youth affairs.

We were able to get the Seoul Act funded uh and passed.

This is legislation that will create a much needed new permanency pathway for older foster youth, and it was organically informed by young people with lived experience within our child welfare agency.

I want to give a shout out to Councilmember Popinto for helping us get that across the finish line.

We were able to partially restore funding for our family success centers.

Thank you for your work, Chairman, uh, as well as Councilmember Lewis George, we are now to number five uh in restoring those family success centers across wards four, five, seven, and eight.

Uh we also partially restored funding for credible messengers, which the mayor completely cut.

Uh in Ward 5, we secured funding and legislative language to ensure DPR can deliver Ward 5 recreation centers, including the Langdon Recreation Center modernization, Harry Thomas Rec Center modernization, and putting the New York Avenue rec center on the map for future modernization.

I want to note here that neighbors are growing increasingly frustrated with performative community engagement from district agencies.

The reason why we took this action was because despite many meetings, uh, what DPR was putting forward did not reflect the feedback that was shared by neighbors.

We also secured new DIMPAG grants uh for key retail corridors in Ward 5 along 12th Street and Rhode Island Avenue.

Shout out to Councilmember Fruman for his partnership in making that happen.

We made uh traffic safety investments along South Dakota Avenue and more thanks to Councilmember Allen for his partnership.

There are other wins from the budget overall, I want to highlight.

Uh despite the mayor's efforts to cut funding, uh, thanks to Councilmember Allen.

We preserved six million dollars for uh revised WAMATA changes that will impact routes in Ward 5, including the D 36 and C63 routes touching Edgewood and Fort Lincoln.

Uh, you, Mr.

Chairman were able to restore the cuts to the OAG, uh, making sure that they can continue their vital work.

There are still gaps, and I'm not gonna name all of them.

I think we've highlighted some of them, including the alliance uh, including behavioral mental health services that weren't fully restored, the charter school funding gap, uh the credible messenger gap, and more.

Zooming out, it is not lost on me.

And I see the clock ticking, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm gonna ask for more time.

It is not lost on me that the district is in a precarious position, as is the country.

Nationally, we are grappling with wealth inequality, mass incarceration on steroids now, where masked individuals are running through our communities, imprisoning people all while that's our politics are even more polarized, and these very same forces are at play in our local budget.

Unemployment rates remain at elevated levels, approaching an exceeding 10% in ward seven and eight.

Uh, the poverty rate is nearing a staggering 20% with an unconscionable 30% of district children living in poverty.

At the same time, we sat here last year and rejected what I believe will were reasonable and common sense revenue raising proposals.

One of the tax proposals I proposed last year, the franchise tax loopholes was railed against, but now I note it was quietly tucked in this year's budget, which begs the question was it a good idea last year, or was the pushback just part of a reactionary politics?

Another proposal I brought last year was about capital gains.

It's worth noting, I had a conversation with our CFO yesterday, and he I'm paraphrasing, but he noted capital gains are through the roof.

Rich people are doing well in the district.

This is all happening in a season of mass incarceration across our country and locally, we are seeing an expansion of bids at DRS while there's ever increasing rhetoric damning young black kids in the district.

This feeds into political polarization.

I want to just note and end here on a note of caution.

Uh by my count, this budget now includes more than 300 million dollars in one time spending, and still we have profound gaps.

Uh, it was alluded to that the CFO has raised concerns, and I think this body would do well to take those concerns to heart.

While on principle, I think we are in the right position.

Um I am concerned that we are running into a buzzall of sorts next year.

Even if the budget does not see material changes between now and second reading, the council is going to need to work on revenue.

I'm gonna say that one more time.

We're gonna need to work on revenue, or to evenly or more seriously address cutting back our spending across government.

Um, we've made progress.

I don't want to lose sight on that.

And chairman, I'll give you kudos where they are deserved.

You made possible what was impossible.

You were dealt a very bad hand, and I thank you for that.

So don't take my comments as criticism.

Uh, but I just am clear-eyed that we are heading towards a cliff, and I think we should have serious conversations about wealth inequality and about more people ending up incarcerated, um, and the challenges that we face.

And this idea that we can't even talk about raising revenue and have sensible discussions, is uh challenging.

So I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

I also I'll close by acknowledging my colleagues, council member bonds and the doe.

Uh there may be some others who will no longer be with us, uh, but I we do know uh you all won't be here, and I want to thank you for your years of service uh and your contributions to this body.

Uh so thank you.

Thank you.

So let me just note for the record nobody is dying.

There are two members who said that they will not that they're not running for reelection.

Um, but they will be here next year.

And we will be respectful of them, even though they may not be sitting on the dais.

Um, I also want to just say, because I don't know that I've said this on the dais today, but I will have a hearing this fall on revenue measures.

It will be invitation only, so it's not gonna be 200 people show up, but it will be um those who have expertise in the area of taxes, taxation, and um representatives of some of the groups that have been um uh outspoken and have looked at uh tax issues.

So I'm not looking at skewing by making an invitation only.

I'm not looking at skewing who will be testifying, um, and to look at all revenue measures.

So, if there's a bill pending, hint hint, or even if there isn't, um, a discussion, probably the hearing notice will list the different possible revenue measures so that people are invited to speak to it.

My interest is in hearing testimony about uh what the consequences would be.

Uh, consequences include how much revenue, but they also include whether there would be um, you know, what possible adverse effects there could be, uh, the benefits and the um and any challenges it would present.

So a full discussion.

And my thinking is this fall so that um both the council and the new mayor will be better.

Um, how do I put this?

Uh better um resourced with regard to uh this issue next year.

Mr.

Chairman.

No.

Councilmember uh Councilmember Felder is next.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and good afternoon, everyone.

Uh first and foremost, I would like to thank and commend the committee of the whole and my council colleagues for their hard work throughout this budget process.

I know this was a particularly challenging budget season, and we were forced to make some difficult decisions given the district's current fiscal constraints.

Uh, despite those challenges, I am pleased to support a budget that makes meaningful investments and programs and services that residents across the district rely on every single day.

I am exceptionally pleased that both the FY 2027 Local Budget Act and the Budget Support Act includes critical investments such as $14.5 million for TANF funding that serves as a lifeline for some of our most vulnerable residents.

I'm also pleased to see increased funding to support the access to justice initiative, the Washington Literacy Center, Pathways Program, the Alliance, housing vouchers, victim services, and maintaining staffing levels at the Office of the Attorney General.

These are the kind of investments that move the needle.

They strengthen our public safety ecosystem, support residents in need, and ensure that our city has the resources necessary to effectively serve and defend the district.

I'm also encouraged by the increased investments in the child care subsidy program in the pay equity fund.

However, based on my conversations with advocates and providers, I want to underscore that there remains an additional two million dollar need for the pay equity fund.

And by continuing to invest in these programs, we are not only helping families access child care, but also supporting the educators and caregivers who play such a critical role in our children's development.

Staying on the topic of education, I am pleased to see investments in both our traditional public schools and our public charter schools.

However, I look forward to working with my council colleagues between now and the secondary to address the remaining $6 million gap in the public charter school facilities allowance.

Um I am disappointed to see that there's no additional funding in uh restoring in ERAP rather, as well as uh Councilmember White alluded to this funding to support the DC Connect uh and the modest increase in the credible messenger fund.

Uh so I look forward to uh working with my colleagues also between first and secondary as well as and council member Fiuman spoke about this.

Just the cuts at DDAT specifically as it relates to the crossing guards and permitting staff.

Now, while I'm proud of these district-wide investments, Mr.

Chairman, more time, please.

Uh I also want to take a moment to highlight several important wins for Ward 7, investments that many residents, including myself, are particularly excited to see in this year's budget.

I'm proud that this budget includes funding to support educational and recreational opportunities on Cayman Island, continue investments in Letter Your Gardens, the revitalization of Butterfly Park, and the redesign of Triangle Park.

Ward 7 is home to the district's largest and most treasure grain spaces.

Protecting, preserving, and enhancing those spaces remains a top priority of mine.

These parks and open spaces play, or rather, help connect our neighborhoods, strengthen our communities, and improve quality of life for our residents.

Speaking of connectivity, I'm pleased to see continued investments in the East Capitol Street Pedestrian Bridge and the Ben and Row Bridge.

Other significant wins include continued investments in economic development, including the support of the redevelopment of RFK, Hill East, and Fletcher Johnson, as well as a TIFF to support the redevelopment at Northeast Heights and a tax abatement to advanced development in Deanwood.

Lastly, I'm pleased to see funding for St.

Colette's continue investment in the family success center.

Thank you, Councilmember Parker, for those investments and funding a newly established Main Street along Bennett Road.

Thank you, Councilwoman Bonds as well for your support and those efforts.

These are all significant strides for Ward 7.

And I'm grateful to my council colleagues, community partners, advocates, and residents who continue to champion these priorities and push for progress in our community.

While this budget represents a good start, I look forward to working with my council colleagues between now and the secondary to restore the funding that would go towards a new bridge connection that will help better connectivity eastern and western, or the eastern and western parts of the ward, fund RFK builds, the youth activation grant, and help support our rolling clean teams.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman, I want to thank you, and the floor is yours.

For your leadership during this other another budget year.

Budgets are moral documents.

They show our residents who we will fight for, who we will protect, and who we are willing to leave behind.

When the council received this budget, it did not reflect the district that we fight for that I represent.

And without the values-driven and fiscally responsible diligence of this council, an immense amount of harm would have been done to the working people of this city.

It left child care subsidies in crisis with families on wait lists and providers facing uh reduced reimbursement rates.

Her budget left schools even more vulnerable to facilities issues and HVAC system failures, uh reduced reimbursement rates.

Her budget also left uh many of our families with major gaps uh in supports in housing and health care.

On TANF, the mayor proposed eliminating cost of living adjustments, increased sanctions, and move toward uh cutting off benefits for families that have received assistance for more than 60 months.

It moved forward with a cut in school-based behavior health redesigns that providers, schools, students, and families would have felt would be insufficient to support students' mental and emotional well-being.

Uh, it proposed an eighty-six percent cut to access to justice and slash critical capacity of the Office of Attorney General and cut funding to pathways at the Office of neighborhood and Safety and Engagement.

And the mayor once again swept tens of millions of dollars from the sustainable energy fund to pay the district's rising utility bills, severely hampering our ability to build a more resilient, more affordable DC through investments in programs that make sustainable growth possible.

Make no mistake, these cuts are drastic and destructive and are the difference between a budget that puts people first and one that abandons everyone but those who already have the most.

So this council restored 60 million to the pay equity fund, bringing the fiscal year 27 budget to $72 million.

We did so because pay equity is pay equity fund is rent.

It is groceries, it is whether an educator can keep doing the work they love in the city that they serve, and because it is a racial and economic justice issue as early childhood educators are overwhelmingly black and brown women, and for far too long, our city has access to care for our children while paying them poverty wages.

I am proud that this council said no to balancing the budget on their backs.

We added $39 million to help eliminate the wait list for the child care subsidies, stabilize providers, and protect access to child care.

We did so because child care is not optional.

It is what allows parents to work, children to thrive, and families to stay in the district.

A people first budget funds child care, a budget for working families funds child care, and that is what this council did.

We restored significant portions of the paid family leave program because care is something that we all require or even give.

And without it, health outcomes worsen and families struggle to get by.

Workers can now take the time they need to manage a health crisis or to provide care to a family member at their need or final moments.

We also restored funding for St.

Coletta, as this council has had to do year after year, the mayor's repeated budget cuts for St.

Coletta.

This support is essential for students and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and it should not have to be at risk every budget cycle.

We restore critical school investments, including $8.7 million for DCPS HVAC repairs and 2.6 for school readiness preventative maintenance.

We did so to reduce the number of classrooms with temperatures, temperatures that are too high or too cold with mold and pests with doors that do not lock, and school readiness is a safety issue, a health issue, a truancy issue, and a public safety issue.

It is a basic necessity for our kids learning all year round and our educators coming back to school next year.

We also restored 100 million to the workforce investment account, which supports employee pay increases and pending collective bargaining agreements.

That matters for workers across district government, including our firefighters who have been working without a current contract or cost of living increase.

APO First Budget honors the public servants who keep our city running and ensures that districts can meet its obligations to its workers.

Through my committee on facilities, we made historic investment in recreation expansion.

We didn't just fund keeping the lights on, we funded staffing, overtime programming, food and security, and custodial services.

Uh, and our young people, that things that our young people need to be engaged.

With my committee's 2.1 million enhancements supported by Councilmember Nadeau, an additional 234 from the committee of the whole, as well as Councilman Repento, 435,000.

This council has added over 38 more hours of week a week of additional for our supports for our young people.

We invested 1.4 million for the Washington Literacy Center because literacy is dignity, it is opportunity, it is being able to apply for a child, a job, help your child with homework, read a lease, and navigate the world with confidence.

We invested in housing vouchers, security deposit assistance, and foreclosure prevention for seniors through the remit program, and we invested 38.3 million to remove the health care alliance age moratorium for families at or below 138% federal poverty line and 900,000 for specialty care for alliance participants.

These investments mean more residents can stay housed, get care with dignity, and avoid being pushed into a crisis.

We delayed some of the most cruel cuts to TANF for another year by providing 14.8 million to ensure that families aren't subject to unreasonable sanctions or strict 60-month time limit.

More than half of TANN recipients are children.

And this delay means the difference between these have these kids having their most basic needs met and not met.

That delay matters.

But we cannot be back here next year debateing whether to take money from families living in deep poverty or job to make the safety net stronger or punish families for being poor.

We also protected school-based mental health by redirecting 5.4 million back to CBO grants and 700,000 to pause the redesign and maintain the community-based organization inclusive model.

Our young people need trusted adults, consistent services, and real support, not instability.

We restored 27.3 million back to access to justice, bringing the fiscal year 27 budget back to 31.8 million.

These dollars help residents facing eviction, domestic violence, foreclosure, debt collection, and other life-changing legal issues, get help before their home, their safety, or their stability.

We also restore cuts to the office attorney general, including 7.2 million to fill their staff positions for domestic worker employment rights, and so much more.

We restore 2.6 pathways at once because if we are serious about public safety, we have to be serious about prevention.

We cannot only show up after harm has happened, we have to invest in people before a crisis becomes.

These reservations and investments did not happen by accident.

They were only possible because this council and our incredible offices and our incredible staff were willing to use the tools available to us.

We decoupled from harmful federal tax changes, and we made the choice to use available reserves to prevent people harm.

This budget is also not perfect, but we did not accept the devastating cuts proposed by the mayor as inevitable.

These cuts would have hurt families, workers, educators, tenants, immigrants, and residents in crisis, and the council pushed back.

Despite the many investments this budget makes, we know that there's more for us to do between now and second reading.

Pay equity remains below the full need.

School-based behavior health is stabilized but not fully restored.

Some tandem changes are delayed but not permanently reversed.

And without a cost of living adjustment, we are setting up low-income families to fall even further behind.

Pay family leave and alliance are improved but not fully restored.

Even with the remaining gaps, I am proud that we fought the mayor's proposed balance this budget on the backs of residents who are already struggling.

We are striving to choose a different path, one that protects working families and our environment, keeps residents stable, and invests in the people who need us most.

So, Chairman, we have had conversations about the work that we're gonna do between now and second reading around paid family leave, around the Electrical Utility Underground Work Act that we planned on funding, and the work we are going to do to try to strengthen our safety nets.

Uh, but I want to be uh say that I am proud of the work that each of our council members did and the staff of this uh council uh who worked incredibly hard.

And because of that work, I am proud today to be voting yes on this budget.

Thank you.

This is a very clear.

There's a great council member, um, thank you, Councilmember, Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, and I want to thank you and your entire team and the budget office for this really Herculean effort that goes on every year of assembling the ANS and this budget process.

It is the culmination of thoughtful and intense hard work on behalf of district residents, and I deeply appreciate it.

I'll also want to thank the Office of General Counsel and everybody who works at the budget office, as well as every council office, including my own for all of their hard work this budget.

As I mentioned during my committee markup, the budget office makes the budget process even fun.

So appreciate that.

The district is grappling with a shifting federal landscape, building vacancies, shifting uses in our downtown, and the rising cost of living across the city.

The policies of this presidential administration on government layoffs, immigration policy, and tariffs have hurt district residents and our economy deeply.

Even while wages for district workers have risen, families are feeling the pinch with soaring costs at grocery stores and their utility bills and housing costs.

The increase in the poverty rate, particularly for black residents is especially troubling, and ensuring that we have a tightly woven safety net and a robust set of opportunities to lift our residents out of poverty must continue to be a priority.

Our role on the council is to put forth a budget that does these things is ever more important as we confront the urgent need to diversify and grow our local economy and provide innovative economic opportunities for district residents.

And we have to do these things while maintaining fiscal responsibility, ensuring public safety for all of our residents and visitors, increasing affordability for housing and child care, supporting our seniors, investing in education and opportunities for all of our young people and our residents most in need.

Together, we recognize that the district faces acute budgetary constraints this fiscal year.

Agencies across the government experienced dramatic cuts across the board in the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget, which has left extraordinary gaps and limited opportunities for committees to reallocate funding to fill those gaps.

While the chairman has found hundreds of millions of dollars to fill those needs, we must also continue to be prudent in our fiscal responsibility as we find ourselves in today's state of affairs.

I do have serious reservations about the use of our reserves and caution that the continued use of these funds in the future could prove perilous for the district.

I have similar concerns about tax proposals that have been floated at a time when the district's economy is on uneasy footing, including some of those tax proposals that are incorporated into this budget.

However, there is a path forward, and passing a budget today that is focused on housing affordability, public safety, and our families, seniors, and kids is critical for the city's success.

Public safety plays a pivotal role in bolstering DC's efforts to strengthen economic opportunity in light of these shifting landscapes that I spoke about.

And I want to thank the chairman for the restoration of a hundred million dollars in the workforce investment fund so that our firefighters and their families can get the pay increases that they deserve.

This funding needs to be prioritized and this contract needs to be finalized.

I also want to highlight that this budget makes important investments in our Metropolitan Police Department and the hard work that they put in every day to keep our communities safe.

I hope to work with you, Mr.

Chairman, and Councilmember Felder and Councilmember Treon White on a path forward between first and second reading.

We must ensure that we can recruit and retain officers and funding for an evaluation of the drop program so officers and firefighters can stay on the force longer while accessing retirement benefits is an essential next step in passing and implementing my drop bill.

This budget also includes investments in the Pathways Program at the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement that has helped quite literally put our residents on a path forward to making meaningful contributions to our communities, and that funding was crucial to be restored.

This budget also makes investments in justice and victim services.

I appreciate deeply the restoration of the access to justice funding and victim services grants, all of which fill a crucial role in providing resources to residents who face civil legal challenges and need assistance after becoming victims of crime.

These programs provide hope during a time of darkness for many residents, and I'm pleased to support them and see these investments in our budget.

Our Office of the Attorney General works to protect district residents and pursue justice every day, and I was glad to work with the chairman to restore funding for the 58 positions that serve this important mission.

I'm also pleased to see additional investments in the nonprofit security grants and look forward to working with you, Mr.

Chairman, on additional funding for our safe commercial corridors grants and the corrections information council funding.

Affordability is also an important hallmark of this budget with the restoration of the pay equity fund to ensure our educators receive meaningful pay, child care subsidies for our families, and investments in the housing production trust fund so we can continue to build housing that is accessible and keep district residents here at home in DC.

There's also needed funding included for a permit and zoning expediting position at the Department of Buildings that I identified funding for, and it's these positions at DOB that will be critical to removing red tape and accelerating the building of housing, especially as we approach the next comprehensive plan.

This budget also makes important investments in health care and education, and I appreciate the restoration and increased investments in some programs, including investments at St.

Coletta's to serve our children with disabilities.

And I look forward to working with you before second reading to identify additional needed funding for our charter schools, which serve so many of our families and students and still need additional support.

We must continue to uplift our kids, and I'm pleased to see and contribute to the investments in our kids that will keep our recreation centers open longer, provide additional programming for kids of all ages, funding for the Washington Literacy Center, expanded funding for the Stadium Armory Metro to ensure people can get to RFK.

And I appreciate the funding for the Kennedy Rec Center that does need additional funding to finish that project, which is important to provide opportunities for our kids and for safety in Shaw.

I will end there, Mr.

Chairman, but I look forward to working with you and our colleagues between first and second reading on a few of the outstanding gaps, and really appreciate your partnership in this budget and that of all of my colleagues.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Anyone else want to be recognized?

Then we have the bill, Bill 26-659 before us as amended.

Uh it's been a long time, so just to remind folks, there were two amendments that were adopted from Councilmember Parker and one from Councilmember Lewis George.

And I probably didn't say this when I moved it, but uh with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes.

Uh the vote will be on bill 26-659 as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh we have the report.

I move the report with staff with um leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes on the report.

Is there discussion?

All those in favor of the report say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary is to record complete.

Madam Budget Director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

The next measure is Bill 26-661, the fiscal year 2027 budget support act of 2026.

This is a um very complex document.

No, I can't find the report.

It has uh something like 140 subtitles.

I'm not going to begin to summarize any of them, so I will just say so moved.

Discussion on the budget support act.

Chairman, are you gonna go through amendments or do you want us to just ask to be recognized?

Uh I don't have a list of whose moving amendments, so I will recognize people in turn.

I am hopeful though that there will not be a lot of statements.

Well, I haven't made any yet, so I'm gonna save mine all for now if that's okay with you.

Okay, so do you want to be recognized first?

I would like to be recognized first.

Thank you.

Umst I will move the Nadeau Allen amendment number one to the BSA.

I'm moving this amendment along with Councilmember Allen.

It was first circulated yesterday at 1117 p.m.

with an updated draft shared at 1128 this morning.

It was originally paired with an LBA amendment, but we are withdrawing that amendment today since it'll need to be considered alongside the FY26 supplemental budget later this month.

The Greater U Street Performance Parking Zone was established in 2024 to enhance the quality of life in the U Street neighborhood by promoting more efficient use of public space, reducing traffic congestion and discouraging parking violations by establishing a demand-based pricing model.

The U Street Zone is similar to existing performance parking zones around the Capital One Arena and the ballpark.

This amendment advances the original goals of the performance parking zone by amending the allowable uses of the fund.

In addition to the transportation management goals of the parking zone, it was established to serve as a source of neighborhood based revenue to support place management, business support, and public safety initiatives in the Greater U Street corridor.

Accordingly, this amendment directs funds to direct support directly support the establishment of place management initiatives in the area covered by the zone, which may include the establishment of a new business improvement district.

These initiatives are further supported by the Neighborhood Management Authority Act of 2025, permanent legislation I introduced and look forward to advancing this council period in collaboration with Councilmember Allen and Councilmember Freeman.

The second component of this BSA amendment establishes the automated curbside management program at DDOT, supported by performance parking zone funds in FY26 and FY27.

An automated curbside management system aligns with the goals of the Greater U Street Performance Parking Zone, but because such a program would extend beyond the boundaries of the parking zone, an amendment to the allowed uses of the performance parking fund is necessary.

I'm happy to be able to work with Councilmember Allen and D DOT leadership to get this program off the ground.

It's worth noting that the U Street area and much of Ward 1 stands to benefit the most from improved curbside management since they're some of the most high demand curbs in the district as it is.

Thank you.

With that, I move the amendment.

Do you want to be recognized?

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, happy to move this alongside Councilman Nadeau to incorporate the subtitle, establishing the automated curbside management program within Department of Transportation.

I also want to thank the Department of Transportation who's excited about this and worked with us on this.

As we're all too familiar, managing our curbside spaces in the district is a persistent challenge.

Loading and unloading zones are often illegally occupied or obstructed by personal vehicles, forcing freight and delivery vehicles and drivers to double park in vehicle travel lanes.

Accountability for parking violations simply relies on a parking enforcement officer discovering a violation before that vehicle has a chance to move, which is hard to do sometimes.

Poor curbside management then leads to increased traffic congestion, noise, emissions as drivers circle the block trying to find available parking.

It also frustrates our residents, our businesses and delivery workers who rely on consistent access to that curbside space to make those deliveries happen.

Recently, several cities in the US, including Pittsburgh and Houston have launched programs that automate the management of that curbside space, particularly loading and unloading zones using an online billing system and automated license plate reader.

Think of this basically like easy pass for parking.

Inspired by the success of these programs, the subtitle would require DDOT to establish an automated curbside management system that uses technology to obtain and transmit real-time information on curbside use and automatically build drivers for the time spent to the curb.

The program will facilitate more seamless access to the curb.

It'll make parking easier, it'll reduce traffic congestion and will allow for more efficient deliveries.

We'd originally intended to move this subtitle during our committee markup, but we weren't able to identify the funding needed for initial implementation in FY26 and 27.

So I'm very grateful to Councilmember Nadeau for working with the committee to direct funding from the Performance Parking Zone Fund to help support this initiative.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and I encourage my colleagues to support this.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen.

Before I recognize other members, I don't know that I have an objection to this, but it did come to my attention that there may be some boundary issue on the eastern side.

And uh that is something that I will look at between first and second reading.

Well, so while I expect that this amendment will probably be adopted today, uh, there may be some changes with regard to the boundary.

Um with regard to the boundary uh at second reading uh on this amendment, anyone uh councilman repento.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I guess I have some questions for Councilman Bernadetteau, and I I would say there are some boundary issues.

Um, and this is something Councilman Bernadot and I have talked about and sought to work together on for several years.

Um I guess firstly, what are you thinking about the boundary of the bid establishment included in this language that would impact the U Street Main Street and the SHA main street?

Uh thanks for the question.

So we've worked together with the um SHA bid to I mean it's their boundaries, right?

They're the ones establishing the bid.

Um, the performance parking zone's been in place now for I think a year and a half.

Those boundaries were already established.

Um, and they are um mostly A and C 1B's boundaries, though on the boundary streets, they do include parts of Ward 2.

Um, but the bid itself, you know, hopefully it will come into fruition because it um the coexistence of the bid and the neighborhood management authority are is very important to both of them succeeding.

Um that is something that they determined.

So that map is theirs.

So it mirrors exactly the parking lot.

Um it doesn't.

I have the bid map.

The bid um so we don't have the bid before us.

I hope that the bid comes together and gets filed and does come before the council.

The performance parking zone is just kind of greater U Street, um, which creates revenue for the whole area.

Um I think once all the things are established, the main streets will get to work together with both of those establishments, but both U Street and Shaw overlap with both of the entities that are being proposed.

Has there been any engagement with the main streets businesses in Shaw about this proposal?

Um, the businesses themselves.

I mean, we talk about this everywhere I go.

Um, so I think it's pretty much out there now.

Um, the performance parking zone's been up and running for like a year and a half, so those signs went up a while ago.

Um, so this before us today, um, this is the existing performance parking zone.

This is the revenue that's been captured, this is us formalizing that that revenue goes to the area and also helping fund a program that DDOC couldn't find the funds for.

So yeah.

Well, thank you.

I I would say I I think the curbside piece is innovative and I really like that idea.

I do still have a lot of worries about how it would impact the existing main streets' boundaries, and I've gotten a lot of concerns over the last 12 hours from businesses in Shaw about how this would impact them.

And so I don't feel comfortable supporting this today and hope we can work together between first and second reading on something that may make sense for all of our businesses.

I want to kind of the previous ward discussion want to be deferential and supportive of what you want to do as it relates to the ward one businesses, but there are a lot of ward two businesses that have a lot of concerns about this, and so I just today though, like not when the performance parking zone got established a year and a half ago and all the signs went up and the program started happening.

Well, well, they they have said that they have not heard about this until the amendment was circulated about the new pieces of this, and so that's what I hope we can.

All right, to be clear, there's nothing new being established today except for DDOT's curbside program.

So let's talk about it.

But I think people might be a little confused, so we can talk about it.

Because there was language I thought in the circulation that said establishing a new bid boundary.

That's not happening in this amendment.

We know I I'll look at that language, but no, the bid is a separate initiative completely.

We don't establish the bid.

The bid does their thing, I mean, we do eventually, but they set their boundaries, they come to us.

But I accept your offer to work on this between first and second reading so that we can wrap up the discussion.

So I'm looking at the section B.

Thank you.

Um, where it says starting in fiscal year 28, $800,000 of the revenue from the fund will be distributed annually.

Yada yada, including bid taxes as defined in section three eight of the business improvement district act.

That references an eventual bid, but we're not establishing one.

We can't, this is not an establishment.

This is not what we are doing today.

So why set aside money for a bid that doesn't exist yet?

Well, we're optimistic that the bid that I think you helped get off the ground too, the SHA bid, which is now the Duke bid that was led by a number of Ward 2 businesses, will in fact be established.

If it doesn't exist, the money won't go there.

But we're not establishing a bid today.

We're not setting boundaries for a bid today.

We're just um making sure the performance parking money that has already come in is going where it needs to go.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Uh Councilmember Crawford.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I have quite a few questions.

Uh Councilmember Nadeau, does this amendment include any components of your neighborhood management authority bill?

Nope.

Okay.

I asked because when I served as committee director of CBED, Shaw Main Streets was not supportive of that bill.

So I reached out to them to get their thoughts on this amendment because I saw that included in part of the rationale.

And they said, similar to what the chairman said, that they believe extending the parking zone is a way of encroaching on the Shaw Main Streets area, as as I mentioned, the chairman said and Councilmember Pinto.

And they also believe that businesses and community members have not been consulted on the use of the proposed fund or its existence, and they recommend it splitting funds between the potential new bid and the Shaw and U Street main streets.

Can you just respond to that?

I think that's a great conversation to have when we have a hearing on the neighborhood management authority, but right now all we're doing is um is essentially saying this is where the funds that we've already collected are going.

Um there's no extension of the parking zone.

We haven't changed the boundaries at all.

Okay, and then on the actual amendment, it's the amendment repeals the curb loading zone management program.

Is that correct?

Um yes, and for any questions about the curb management program, I would defer to my colleague Charles Allen.

Okay, and then it's being replaced with an automated curbside management program.

What are the key differences between what exists today with the curb loading zone and what you're proposing?

Did you hear that?

I did.

You have to answer that.

That would be great.

Yeah, thanks.

Um, so the difference is that it moves to automated.

So one of the big differences that D dock currently has some curbside management pilot programs, but by using the technology that we've seen uh in Pittsburgh, Houston, and other cities, they've been able to dramatically reduce using an automated system.

That's the big difference, is automated, dramatically reduce double parking, uh increase the turnover so that more parking is available for people coming to businesses or for shorter stays for drivers who are coming in for um like uh food delivery, um, greater reliability that there will actually be a spot that's open to come in to grab that five-minute stop to run in and grab that food service to then make their delivery.

So um the key difference though is it is moving to an automated system is what DDOT's excited about.

Can you just explain to me how that works in practice?

Like I'm driving up to my favorite business, my park mobile expires.

Is it based on camera surveillance or something else?

Yeah, great good question.

So the way that it works in the other cities is that uh the best way to I find that people can kind of get their heads around it or people are familiar with an easy pass system where you set up a system where you link it to your account, you've got your little easy pass on the dashboard, so when you go through, you don't have to stop and actually pay a toll anymore, right?

So the idea behind this is that your car is registered, it's got the license plate, so that license plate reader knows that it's you, it's already linked to an account.

So when you're coming in, you don't have to go hunting with a pocket full of quarters to go find a meter.

You don't have to go try to find the green kiosk somewhere to load it up and then print out a little dash and then put it on your dashboard.

Um, it's just automated.

And so at Helsey will be able to register in that system and then use that automation to be able to just move it quickly.

I do have like one or two more questions.

Can I have additional time?

Without objection.

Okay.

Okay, so how I'm thinking about this is lately I've been hearing from a lot of residents about automated traffic enforcement and how they feel that that is predatory.

So I'm just trying to think about whether there's been any analysis on the impact to drivers, whether it would deter people from, you know, people who don't have an option to drive or not.

Um, whether it impacts their decision making, and um there was something else.

Hold on, hold on.

Whether it will affect access to commercial quarters at all.

Just how you're thinking about that, because I can't help but think about the conversation around traffic enforcement with the cameras.

So thank you.

So the question when we look at other cities and jurisdictions.

So for example, Pittsburgh, Houston, other cities, they've already been using this technology, and part of what it has shown is that the illegal double parking, for example, which is dangerous and we don't want to see that, is dramatically reduced.

The availability of that curbside space so that people can get to the curb to go to the restaurant, go support that business opens up because this parking is turning over more quickly.

The feedback from the businesses on those corridors is that they see more people and more customers and a greater reliability of there's parking when you there's parking there when you actually get there.

So the evaluations we've seen from other cities that have used the same technology has been one that it's improved congestion, supported the businesses, and the feedback from the businesses themselves are that it's been very positive for them.

Um so I'm happy to, especially if we're maybe having some sounds like maybe some conversations between first and second reading, could have um some of that evaluation shared with you so that they kind of get a feel for kind of how it's worked there and how obviously we hope for it to work here, and then D dot would obviously implement this in a pilot phase and kind of rule it out.

So we're evaluating as we go before we scale up.

Thank you.

That would be helpful.

Yeah.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Crawford.

Councilmember Fruman.

Uh, thank you very much.

So I'm trying to understand the mechanics of both of these things.

So on the performance on the bids/neighborhood uh what's the name of the legislation that you have going forward than the neighborhood support organization?

If the idea is these funds can go to an entity to match either bid taxes, is one of the things, or anything else.

Who who could be we're we're putting money in a pot for some future player to be named later?

I think both the bid and the legislation.

What kind of organization could qualify for these matching dollars?

Is there any limitation on them?

Um, okay.

So just maybe to back up a little bit.

The funds are already in there, they've been in there for a little while.

Um, we're just being more specific with how they're being spent in the future and in the present, but it's any place management activity for the qualified area.

So it could be any organization.

I mean that I hear you that the funds are there, but what's new is we're saying these funds can be used in a certain way, and it isn't very specific, but I mean, it could be matching for bid taxes for a bid that's yet to be formed.

It could be for the neighborhood entity that you've been advocating for, and there's legislation that you'd like to have a hearing on, it could be for that entity.

Could it be for other entities?

Um it is for any place management activity, yes, within the geographic boundaries.

So, yes.

Okay.

Absolutely.

So, okay, so I'm uh on the on the curb side management piece.

Uh councilmember Allen.

At the hearing.

Were there any concerns raised about that this initiative?

I mean, you had a hearing, but you haven't done a markup on that legislation yet, have you?

And I have heard concerns about somebody who's not registered who would pull into the space and get a ticket.

And so how do you deal with that?

How do you deal with data sharing?

What we're pre funding, well, I don't know, we're circumventing finalizing the legislation instead of finalizing the legislation, we're mandating it here.

What did D DOT say about the implementation of this program?

Yeah.

Thanks.

At the public hearing, uh, it was unanimous support.

So uh we heard from community, we heard from entities that actually run these programs, and from DDOT.

D dot is very supportive of this, they are excited about this, they think it will help them do their job to manage that curbside better.

Um, so the the feedback that we heard during the hearing process was all supportive.

All right, thank you very much.

Yeah, we're getting in on it.

Uh Councilmember Fooming, you're done?

Thank you, Councilmember Trian White?

Yes, it's a point of clarity.

Uh these uh particular spaces allocated for just a certain type of vehicle that you have to be registered at, and they all go ahead.

Uh no, um actually it's just it's like typical curbside parking, like you would and um any neighborhood uh commercial area.

Yeah, I guess.

Oh, and for zone there is loaning zone too, yeah.

What happens if a car is not registered?

Oh, that might be a DDOT question.

Yeah, sorry.

So the way so the way that D dot works that is that that individual just has the ability to then just pay.

So they so like if I'm uh let's say I'm out of town.

Let's say I'm a visitor from out of town and I come in.

Um I have the ability to just pay the way that we're probably familiar, maybe with like the park mobile, like where people do it from their phones, kind of have a familiarity with that process.

You'd have that ability to do that too.

I guess my concern is that we uh historically probably in the last decade or so have created different ways in which to park in a district or different rules, sometimes the signage is not right, sometimes the machines doesn't work, and businesses are adversely affected by those who want to patronize their businesses.

I'm hearing this across the city that I have a business here because of uh the new laws or new rules or bike lanes or cones in the street or artwork in the street, people can't patronize my business, and I'm just concerned that another mode of regulation may make it a patron goal across the river to patronize a business in a business in the district of Columbia, and we've seen some of that happen.

So I'm just concerned about that.

I definitely share the concerns around the businesses.

I think that's why both DDOT and I think myself are motivated by hearing the feedback from the businesses themselves and places where they've done this, that it actually has helped get people to them, and they've seen an increase in business, making it easier to be able to use that curve.

So that's why I think um because I think we share the exact same goal that we don't want to see that uh be a burden to the businesses.

But the feedback we hear is that it is a positive for the businesses.

Where are we here?

Does that mean it's already in place?

Because if it's positive, they're seeing positive results from an already working.

How do they how have they explained this positive this positive?

Yep, so the other the cities that have already implemented this.

Oh, other places, yeah.

So Pittsburgh, Houston, they like to drive there too.

Um so a lot of other cities have done this, and that's the feedback that they have shared.

Yeah, I get that, but a lot of these places are not DC.

So I mean, we we adopt a lot of things from other places and say it's gonna work in DC when you get here, it don't quite work.

And that's why D dot will pilot it to start, but the experience in all the cities is that it works.

Oh right.

Uh thank you, Councilmember White.

Uh Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um, this would be implemented through a vendor.

Yeah, okay.

Uh yeah, D DOT would implement with the vendor.

Okay, and who would um who would own the data?

Like would.

I don't think it speaks to that in like in the same way that the data from like an your Easy Pass system if you have one in your car.

I don't I don't know who owns your Easy Pass data or my Easy Pass data.

Okay.

Um and the other places you mention it's used this is used for um I guess like commercial zone parking.

Commercial corridors which includes curbside management of just customers you and me coming in to go to the restaurant but also loading and unloading zones which usually have a different uh demarcation.

Okay.

I think this is my last question.

And I think you spoke to us in your statement but I I missed the substance of it.

What's the benefit to this?

So we already as councilmember Trina White say we already have a lot of ways of pay so I can park I can just tap on my phone you know the the the code for where I am uh on park mobile and be done with it maybe it was council member crawford uh why add an additional vendor so because we have a lot of folks who will come in whenever there's a parking violation when I know it's not you but if somebody else goes in and doesn't pay right and then just takes up that spot the system we have relies on a limited number of parking enforcement officers that have they have to catch you in that act to be able to issue a citation and miss a lot of people what ends up happening is we have a lot of double parking on commercial corridors because those curbsides are blocked up so by creating a system that is easier and more efficient what ends up happening is people are moving through those parking spaces in a more efficient way which now means I'm having less double parking I have more curbside that's now actually available and so what the experience has been is that parking becomes more available more predictable and by using the automation the turnover is happening in a way that works to support those businesses that business is not being helped when everyone has to double park and stack up in a travel lane and park up the curbside for hours and hours when they're not actually going to that business so allowing us to be able to use that curbside more efficiently and manage it is good for our businesses which is I mean unless we want to unless you want to hire like a fleet of thousands of parking enforcement officers which I don't think we want to do this is one this is a smarter way to use that technology to be more efficient and make sure that our curb is working better for us.

So people would opt in correct in the same way you opt into easy pass.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks thank you councilmember white council member bonds.

Thank you very much chairman and um I guess to um councilmember Allen I want to understand are you suggesting that this system will give me a guaranteed spot parking spot along the curve if I want to go into a business.

I did not say that you get a guaranteed parking spot counselor bonds um as council member of course you get that little we get that little parking tag but um so you can guarantee something but what the experience has been is that you will see an increased likelihood that there is a spot there.

That's the experience of what it looks like there are no guarantees in life but you will see parking turnover faster and you'll have a greater likelihood of a parking space.

It I I hear I hear you but I think the public is interested in I can't guarantee them a parking spot either yeah the public is interested in having guaranteed parking to know that when they are trying to um access a merchant that they will have a place to park, and so I think whatever we are doing today should be focused on benefiting the public as opposed to you know trying new technology.

Um I really do, I believe that at this point.

Um technology is great, and we're being totally consumed by it.

However, I'm trying to understand the value to those in community that are looking for a place to park.

And you're you're not giving me a clear understanding that if I vote for this, that I am I am helping people have a place to park when they're attempting to go into this community.

Um you're saying it'll make it easier on um staff that writes tickets and that's not what I said, council member.

Well, indirectly, you're saying that you can't.

I didn't.

I literally said it's easier for the person looking together.

I was excited about this, it makes it easier.

Whatever their job is, okay?

And that's one of the things that they do.

So I'll say it clearly for you.

This improves the ability for you or others to get to a parking spot.

The feedback from businesses is that it is better and easier for them to have customers be able to reach them, and from a traffic congestion standpoint, it reduces double parking, which is blocking that travel lane that we don't want.

I can see it reducing double parking.

I agree with you on that, but I am still stuck on how does it really really benefit people who are trying to um go into a business and know that they'll have adequate parking to get to the business.

Thank you very much.

Easier to have a parking spot.

Expensive, Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um couple questions, and and council member uh feeling answer uh a couple of the questions that I had already, but um councilwoman and double or eiling, you can answer this.

Um why not uh do this by permanent legislation and have a public hearing that way you can uh hear directly from businesses who may be impacted sharing the subcommittee on local business uh development.

You know, we had a hearing, and it is it's a bill that has had a hearing, and I heard you say that DDAT was in response was supportive of this, and that confirmed that and during your hearing.

What was some of the feedback you've heard from businesses about this?

Yep, so it was a permanent bill is introduced, it has had a public hearing.

Public hearing was all in support of it, the choices that we have in front of us.

We could mark up the permanent bill, there are implementation costs, so that won't be funded till next year, so we can kick the can down for a year and a half, two years before you can make it have a uh take effect, or we use the amendment that we're looking at right now, which helps take that permanent bill that has had a public hearing that had clear unanimous support, including from the executive to be able to move it forward, and we have the funding vehicle so that we're able to start implementing it sooner.

Those are really the choices between us, um.

Have you considered I'm all for uh curves management, right?

Uh but I'm also mindful of how this can impact businesses, consumers, and I was looking at uh so I'm I'm all for that portion of the legislation.

The other part is possibly um giving revenue to U Street.

Have you guys thought about like breaking that breaking both components down into different pieces of legislation?

Could you ask that a different way?

Let me see.

Well, I there's not a if I understood correctly.

There's not there's nothing about Kirbside management that's creating a revenue stream specific to U Street.

Maybe I didn't hear the question correctly, though.

The legislation, correct me if I'm wrong will go towards supporting a future mainstream.

On U Street, am I correct?

So the funds, what we're doing today is allocating an existing existing funds.

Okay, thank you.

Any further discussion?

Please, God, no.

The vote will be on this amendment.

In case anybody forgot, it's amendment number one from council members.

All those in favor of the bill of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

No.

I mean, reasonable.

Me too.

Me too.

Um councilmember Tran White requested a roll call.

Um Mr.

Cash.

Would you call the rule?

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Yes.

Chairman Mendelson votes yes.

Councilmember Allen.

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

Councilmember Bonds.

No.

Councilmember Bonds votes no.

Councilmember Crawford.

No.

Councilmember Crawford votes no.

Councilmember Felder.

No.

Council Member Felder votes no.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman votes yes.

Councilmember Henderson.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson votes present.

Councilmember Louis George.

Yes.

Councilman's George votes yes.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Yes.

Councilmember Doe votes yes.

Councilmember Parker.

Yes.

Councilmember Parker votes yes.

Councilmember Pinto?

No.

Councilmember Pinto votes no.

Councilmember Robert White.

Yes.

Councilmember Robert White votes yes.

Councilmember Trayon White.

No.

Councilmore Trayon White votes no.

Mr.

Chairman, there are seven yeses, five no's, and one present.

Thank you.

Councilmember Nadeau, did you have um another amendment?

I do.

And if you don't mind, I'll give my remarks on the first reading now as a whole, just to get it out of the way, and then I won't speak again on the BSA.

Um but for that I might need a little extra time.

So this year we were handed a budget that was balanced on the backs of our most vulnerable residents.

Oh, can we reset the clock?

Thanks so much.

And today we're voting on a budget that does a great deal of repair, but only for one year.

And I'm gonna get to that in a minute.

But for now, I want to thank each and every committee chair for their initial contributions as well as the chairman and the budget office team for putting a budget forward today that restores a significant number of gaps.

It invests in healthy food programs, it increases the availability of public restrooms all throughout the district, it restores cuts to the attorney general's office, it lists the age moratorium for new health care enrollees and restores some equilibrium to the child care subsidy program, funds a portion of the pay equity fund, restores access to justice, averts the mayor's proposed step down and TANF benefits and restores some funds to credible messengers and pathways, but it also doesn't fully fund pay equity for early childhood educators.

Um it also doesn't fund new vouchers for unhoused residents or emergency vouchers, it doesn't fully restore the school-based behavioral health program or credible messengers or TANF COLAs, nor does it restore the housing production trust fund to 100 million or add any new funds for ERAP, leaving it at a measly $7 million.

Reminder that this was fully exhausted in a matter of hours this fiscal year.

So I want to emphasize that this budget puts a new mayor and a new council in a precarious situation.

The majority of the chairman's enhancements were made for one time only.

Funding council priorities on a one-time basis made sense when we knew we had a mayor who was going to sweep the funds for programs she didn't support.

But no matter the outcome next week, we'll have a new mayor and an actual fresh start in the new year.

This could have been an opportunity to make progress instead of funding the same things over and over again each year, but by using one-time funds, the new mayor and the new council will be right back where they started this year.

The chairman reminded us repeatedly throughout this budget process that when we fund programs with one time instead of recurring funds year after year, programs and residents are left in limbo.

This affects staff recruitment and retention, impacts their ability to adequately prepare or expand their services due to fluctuating funds and stops residents from being able to plan ahead or feel confident they'll receive services they rely on.

This is especially impactful when their social safety net programs like the pay equity fund.

There are several revenue proposals that were vetted and initially recommended by the now defunct tax revision commission that should be considered by this body.

And I look forward to further discussion of those in the recently announced revenue round table the chairman will convene this fall.

For now, I'm moving amendment my amendment two, which was circulated at 12 21 p.m.

today, and I'm actually going to hand out paper copies just in case that's helpful to people, because I'm going to kind of be reading out what's on there.

Um this amendment will address additional outstanding priorities in fiscal year 2027 if there are additional revenues certified in upcoming projections, and there's more left over after addressing the reserve account needs that your new raise revenue and local reserve subtitle is designed to cover.

And I'll note that I created this list based on the collaborative document we created as a group and also listening to colleagues over the past couple weeks and today.

So this would, if funds are available, increase the pay equity fund to up to 82.2 million.

It would increase funding to credible messengers up to 4 million, it would increase school-based behavioral health by number 5, another 5.4 million, would get the housing production trust fund up to 100 million, get ERAP up to 30 million, include cost of living adjustments for TANF, and about 250 vouchers worth of permanent supportive housing for individuals, make up for the federal government's cruel decision to discontinue emergency housing vouchers, and that takes us to the end of the list.

Now, I would have preferred to handle at least some of these additional priorities using additional revenue, but unfortunately we weren't able to get there today.

This contingency approach is the next best thing, and it makes it clear that we still have a lot of work to do.

With that, I move my amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Before I recognize other members, I'm going to speak to this.

I would ask, could other members not support this?

I would ask Councilmember Nadeau that you withdraw this amendment.

I have three reasons for not supporting this amendment.

The first is that it speaks to future revenue and it is not a collaborative approach with colleagues.

My second objection is that I don't agree with the amounts that you are plussing up for FY27.

And the third is that it doesn't fix the financial plan, which, as you just spoke to eloquently, needs to be fixed.

So let me give more detail.

And that would be a more collaborative approach.

Second, with regard to the amounts, the uh adding 22 million dollars for the pay equity fund actually would not be a total of 82 million, it would be a total of 94 million dollars.

Now, we arrived at 72 million dollars after a lot of discussion, and um so $94 million dollars is way more than is necessary, uh especially given that this would be one time.

Uh, with regard to the uh $5.4 million, and I'm just making the point that I don't agree with these amounts.

Uh, it was said at our work session a couple weeks ago that it is unlikely that this money would be spent.

With regard to um emergency rental assistance.

I know that members, some members have talked about how there needs to be additional dollars for emergency rental assistance.

Seems way more than uh what uh is necessary.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

There ought to be a discussion uh by members, and uh with regard to uh the TANF COLAs, um the one time addition of 5.5 million simply sets us up for a cut the following year, um and that's a problem.

But more importantly, what this amendment does is it actually sets back what is in the BSA subtitle right now with regard to addressing stability in the financial plan.

So what it does is it says that if there are additional revenue that uh after those uh additions I just went through, that rough that eighty-eight million dollars will go to um uh vouchers, additional vouchers.

So what will then be put off is trying to fix on a recurring basis the child care subsidy, trying to fix on a recurring basis to pay equity program, trying to fix on a recurring basis victim services, um trying to fix on a recurring basis medical education, and putting off trying to fix on a recurring basis the UPSFF for funding our schools.

Now, the um subtitle that's in the BSA right now says that if revenues on a recurring basis beginning in 28 are available in a sufficient amount, they will go first on recurring basis to child care subsidy, then pay equity, then victim services, then medical education, and then UPSF.

But before we even get there, what this amendment would do is set aside $88 million for additional vouchers.

No question, additional vouchers are needed.

It would also take out money for these other programs, as I said pay equity at $94 million, uh ERAP at $30 million.

I believe this needs to be collaboratively discussed among members, not voted on today, which is why I've asked that you uh not move this.

I asked you that before, uh when there was uh we had an opportunity to talk, uh, that you not move it today, that there's an opportunity to discuss this on a collaborative basis.

I know I'm over my time, but if if uh members will just allow, as I have said many times, and the other members have come to recognize, there is, in my view, this is my terminology, a structural problem with the financial plan, and that structural problem is that a lot of matters are being paid for on a one-time basis.

We can't afford to pay for them on a recurring basis.

If we were to raise taxes, we wouldn't raise taxes enough to be able to pay for those items on that need to be funded on a recurring basis.

Just pay equity, the child care subsidy uh medical education are probably over a hundred million dollars alone, and that doesn't cover the other items on a recurring basis.

The UPSFF, which is 187 million dollars, if we are to maintain it where it is, not increase it but maintain it where it is.

I would like to give the next mayor a financial plan that addresses that, and that is what we attempted to do in the BSA subtitle that this would amend and push back.

Now, maybe my proposal isn't the best.

Um I'm certainly open to it being refined, and I think we should do that on a collaborative basis, uh, but not with this amendment today that as far as I know has not been vetted with a majority of members.

It doesn't reflect a collective view on what we do with future revenue.

So again, I would ask either that this be voted down or that it be withdrawn.

Uh I saw some other hands.

Councilmember Pinto, did you have your hand up?

No.

Councilmember Fruman.

I didn't.

Yeah, you should you wanted to call on me because I'm gonna.

While in principle, I am very much for the idea of using some of the contingency for spending in FY27.

I align completely with you, Mr.

Chairman, on that this isn't the time or the way to do it.

I mean, there are things on this list that I would want on a contingency list.

There are other things and at levels that I'm not so sure.

There are things that are not here.

For example, one of the things that I'm sensitive about is the emergency housing vouchers, and is there some sort of a way to deal with that?

The way to do this is the way to do this is along the lines of what the chairman suggested, which is we all talk together about what are those things we would want to have on a contingency list and how far we want to go with the contingency list, given the also the dynamic with the financial plan.

So it's not that I oppose this idea and principle, but the way in which we do this needs to be more collaborative and needs to take into account all of the dynamics that we face.

So I also ask that it be withdrawn, and if it isn't withdrawn, I will be voting against it.

Councilmember Pinto.

Um thank you, Councilman.

I would say I think this is a great opening list for us to have a group discussion on and would echo my colleagues' sentiments that because this should be a group discussion about our shared priorities, um, it's one that should happen in a collaborative way throughout the process.

And so because there are so many important priorities on here, I know a lot of colleagues don't want to vote against these, but want to be part of the process to make sure that other priorities are included.

And so I would also ask that you withdraw this today so we can all work together before second reading.

Uh Councilmember Parker.

Thank you.

I I wanted uh two things.

One to thank Councilmember Nodeau.

What I think she's getting at is that there are still a number of cuts and gaps that we aren't really accounting for in this budget.

And so I welcome uh the idea of us having a conversation and registering that within the budget somehow.

I also remember we did that last year, and then the CFO kind of played us, and then the mayor never did what we included.

So if we are serious about it, we should really make sure it's included in the budget in a way that really has teeth.

I have a question though.

So, Chairman, it seems like your contingency list is connected to fiscal year 28.

Is that right?

Uh yes.

Um, so how will that work?

Because wouldn't we have another budget by then?

Trying to reserve the revenues now so that the next mayor, because this is reserving the revenues identified in the June, September, and December revenue estimates this year, so that then the financial plan is filled up, and the next mayor, instead of getting a uh a financial plan that she or he has to balance, um, um fill the cuts and so forth balance with the next budget, they get a financial plan that's been filled up, so to speak.

Because the alternative, if we didn't do this, those reserves could be withheld, or I guess I'm just trying to understand.

I could see if the contingency list was connected to 27, but we're talking a year out.

I think I get what you're trying to do, but I'm not fully understanding.

We would I think we would all like to fund some of these programs on a recurring basis.

Yes, instead of like pay equity on a one-time basis.

Um what I'm trying to do is to say that these additional these future revenues are reserved for the financial plan.

And in fact, uh what I identified, but this may not be the list as child care subsidy, pay equity, victim services, medic medical education, UPSFF.

So that then the financial plan given to the next mayor is filled up on to the extent it can be, is filled up on those accounts.

Instead of what we got this year, which because of what we adopted last year, what we got this year was we just started with a roughly a billion dollar deficiency.

I got it.

Um well, I um as I said, I welcome that conversation.

I think there were some learning points we had this year, just about some of the challenges that exist to us getting the money out the door, and so I'm hoping we can include that in our discussion as well.

So and I'm looking at, because I realize next Friday is I believe a holiday.

So next Thursday morning uh members getting together to discuss this.

Okay, and I guess then the question of councilmember is are you willing to withdraw this in hopes that we can have that conversation?

Well, I might be, but I would like to hear where other people are on this, and I'm personally not at all available on Thursday the 18th.

So that's a bummer.

I mean, one of the things that I think is important to understand is that we've been having these meetings weekly.

Together, we've built this list.

The list of priorities even has rankings.

I haven't talked to every member before putting this list together specifically, but I talked to a number of members before putting this letter specifically, and everything on this list is something that was on the ranked list of priorities for this body.

Um, and thus this is as collaborative as anything else in the budget that the chairman might be doing.

Um the other point is that I mean we need to be real clear.

I'm not the one creating the fiscal cliff here.

The fiscal cliff is baked into this budget.

The fiscal cliff can only be resolved by generating new revenue, which this body is not apparently prepared to do today, or maybe this year at all.

That's okay.

There's 13 of us.

If we can't all get on the same page on that, there'll be a new body next year.

But this is something we can do today, and it's something we've done before, and it's honestly not that controversial, frankly.

I can do an oral amendment to fix this to 10.2 million for the pay equity fund, plusing it up to 82.

I could also cut the recurring items if that impacts the chairman's out years for our shared priorities.

But I do think we need to talk seriously about the one-time funds in FY27, and we might as well do it today, because these are all items that have been on many lists.

Our lists, the communities lists, prior years lists, none of this is new.

Um, I mean, there's literally no money in the budget right now to increase the housing production trust fund.

I mean, it is way under there's seven million dollars in the budget for ERAP.

Remember how fast that money went this year?

Literally the first day it was open, they had to close it.

So this is and I will remind folks, a contingency list only goes into effect if the money comes in.

So it might or might not happen, but it is an expression of the things that we said we wanted to fund, um, just as much as what the chairman put in the budget is an expression of the things that we said we wanted to fund.

So I would prefer that we vote on it today, even if it's slightly amended to address some of the chairman's concerns.

I'd be happy to do that right here.

I don't know if it's still my time.

I just respectfully I would say I hear that, I agree with that.

The sequence, for instance, personally, I would say, oh, it needs to be shipped.

I know I don't know if I would fund credible messengers above housing, for instance.

Um, so I do just think there needs to be a little bit more engagement, and maybe we could do that today, but to just make sure we get this to the right place.

That's all.

I do have a concern about whether or not we're all going to be available soon enough to do this because there is an election next week, which many of you are heavily engaged in, and after that election, there are a lot of things that are backlogs, and the kids get out of school on Wednesday, and for a lot of us a lot of us are dealing with the children being home.

Chairman, are you willing to agree to meet this week?

But Mr.

Chairman, I mean the second vote on the BSA.

I think is that you're talking about the 30th.

The second vote on the BSA is the.

I thought I thought earlier you said the second vote in the BSA was going to be the 30th or the 14th of July.

Oh, that's correct.

So there is to the 30th of June or to the 14th of July to resolve this.

It doesn't have to be done by the 23rd.

Give me just a moment.

So the correct answer is this, Councilmember Fruman.

If there is to be any spending in 27, and in Councilmember Nadaux's amendment, there is some, that would have to be in the Local Budget Act as well.

If we're only talking about spending in 28 and 29, that is the out years of the financial plan, then we could deal with that on the 30th or 14th, because that can be solely in the BSA.

This is one of those issues.

If they're spending in FY27, it has to be both in the LBA and the BSA.

So the um, I mean, we could meet this Friday.

My thinking was this there are um, I want to say half the council, I guess it's a little less than that, that are have a uh primary election next Tuesday, and so this week I was thinking was not good, and next Monday is not good, and next Tuesday is not good.

I could be available on Tuesday, but I don't think the candidates could be other candidates.

So uh that's why I was looking at, and I figured next Wednesday people are recovering, that's why I suggested Thursday or Friday.

If members are willing to do uh this Friday, that's a possibility.

This Friday don't work for me.

I just would say like all of our business throughout the year, I would recommend we deal with our scheduling, not on the record on the dais, and we can find a time over the next 10 days where we can all meet.

Well, that's that's a nice idea.

The problem is that uh in this in a sense, we're talking about a motion to postpone, which is uh debatable as to the time, and that's what we're doing is discussing the time.

Next Friday, I believe is the Juneteenth holiday.

Uh I'm available any one of these days.

But was Matt's question correct that this can be dealt with in the BSA?

If this contingency list speaks to FY27, it has to be in the LBA.

So it's in the LBA as a contingency.

What's that?

So it's in the LBA as a contingency.

If it's $27.

It's not in the LBA.

So the subtitle right now is not in the LBA because the subtitle that this amendment would amend speaks to revenues and recurring revenues that recur in 28, 29, 30.

That doesn't need to be addressed in the FY27 Local Budget Act.

However, the amendment speaks to revenues that are available in FY27.

They cannot be spent, they cannot be appropriated to the BSA.

It's not unusual that we will have a subtitle in the BSA that is also mirrored in the in the local budget act.

So in the cash reserve, that's not appropriated, that just stays put.

So that doesn't have to be in the LBA, but any spending in FY27 has to be in the LBA.

Mr.

Chairman.

So there's not a contingency provision in the local budget act right now.

But there is a the local budget act does speak to the hundred and fifty million.

Mr.

Chairman.

This is getting into the arcanery of drafting, and that's why I have to keep talking to budget council about this.

So the contingencies in the LBA.

The proposed spending proposed by this amendment is not in the LBA, but would have to be the contingency spending in the out years is not FY27 and therefore doesn't have to be in the local budget act for FY27, but it would just be in the BSA.

I hope that answers.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Councilmember Pinto.

I would propose that we do this meeting first thing Monday morning, Monday, June 22nd.

By then we will know what's able to be included in the LBA, so we'll be better sense, and all six of us on this side of the dias are available.

Now June 22nd is the day before the I'll have an accurate sense of what's included for second reading, so we'll know what the numbers are, and then we can come up with our list together as a group before circulation.

It would have to be an amendment.

It would have to be a amendment.

Yeah, we would have to circulate, but it could just be an amendment.

So it's uh what I'm being told is Councilmember Pinto, what I'm being told is that um we have to circulate on Monday the 22nd.

So it would not be in what we circulate, but it could be drafted as an amendment.

So if folks are okay with that, then the meeting would be on Monday morning the 22nd.

Mr.

Chairman.

I saw a light go on down here.

I'm looking down there.

Can I recognize Councilmember Anderson first?

Yep.

Councilmember Anderson.

Um I just at the fear of repeating myself from months ago when we did contingency lists before, I just want to caution folks is that um when we are making determinations now about what might be needed in six months, eight months, a year, it hampers the ability to respond to uncertainties and or changes, which is something we talked about when we were doing the decoupling, it was something we talked about otherwise as well.

Is that um you know we find a lot of things on one time and then we have to do these fire drills to make sure that we're able to hold on to things.

There, even I mean, Councilmember Nadeau has some recurring stuff on there.

There were some recurring priorities that we wanted to do in health, but we couldn't find the recurring dollars to do it.

We're gonna hope to like Medicaid buy-in.

We hope to do that in the future, and so I just want to folks to keep that in mind as we're having these conversations of we have no idea what's coming, but we know that we have some structural imbalance in the future, and if we lock ourselves or not, because we we did this once and none of it really got spent, but I I would just add that, but I'm open to the conversation with colleagues in the future on this.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Yep, okay.

So we have done it before.

We had a bad experience last year, but we haven't always had that experience.

We have funded things through contingency before.

Okay.

Um I'm willing to do this with everybody together on the 22nd.

Um, so I will post, I'm gonna move to postpone this till the 23rd, at which point um we can reconsider uh this or another version, or I can withdraw it if we have a different version incorporated.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, I have a question.

So if there's no objection, uh, it'll be postponed to the twenty-third.

Yes.

Wait, but before we vote, I have a question.

That meeting, because I think we're talking about two different fiscal years.

Councilmember Doe's contingency list applies to fiscal year 27.

Largely.

What you have is fiscal year 28.

When we go into a room, what is the expectation for which year would a contingency list apply to?

I think that's important to align over what we vote.

Well, I would argue for 28.

The amendment is 27 and the So the expectation is we're talking about a contingency list for 27.

We're talking about all the above.

Okay.

I would I would hope that we would look at the out years, but Councilmember Nadeau is asking that we look at 27.

I'm not taking that off the table.

So I don't know where we will be as a group.

I argued that this is should be a collaborative discussion, and collaboratively we'll figure out where we are.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, just give me just a second.

Mr.

Chairman.

So sometimes I like to think that I'm kind of in control of what's going on.

Um the lawyers are pointing out to me correctly, the BSA will not be before us on the 23rd.

However, the LBA will be.

We're good.

We will meet on the 22nd, because that's appropriate.

And we will decide whether we're doing anything contingency-wise for 27.

And if we do, then that would be moved on the 23rd as an amendment.

And we will decide that what we want to do with the out years, if anything.

And if we do, that would be an amendment, probably would be included in the amendment, the ANS for the budget support act on the 30th.

So postponing it doesn't quite work.

Withdrawing it does, doesn't actually change anything because you'll come back on the 23rd.

All right.

Are you ruling my um uh motion out of order or should I withdraw the motion?

Just withdraw the motion.

Okay, I withdraw the motion.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

But the understanding here is we're gonna meet on the 22nd in the morning, and uh we will decide.

Hopefully, we will reach an agreement.

I think we will.

And how to proceed with any additional revenues, um and whether that's FY27 or other years.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Herman, I move uh to withdraw my amendment number two, and I have some questions after that.

But you just withdrew it.

You don't have to move to withdraw it.

Um, thank God you're here as the parliamentarian chairman.

Councilmember Fruman wants to be recognized, but you have some questions first.

I do, and it's a on another subtitle.

Okay.

Well, I was gonna speak to go ahead.

This is a totally different topic, so if it makes sense for you to.

So, let me just close out because to council member Parker's question about what is that meeting on the 22nd?

I think the discussion on the 22nd is how much of the potential excess would we use in FY27 and how, and how much of it would we want to keep to address issues in the financial plan?

So it's it's about all of the years, and it's about how much emphasis we want to put on meeting needs in 27 as opposed to addressing long-term financial plan things, and where we are today, the budget office does its report, and the budget office did a report on where we are on tax revenues so far year to date, and we're well, we're ahead of where we were last year on tax revenues, and the budget is based on an amount that is below what we had last year.

So there is a good chance there will be a pot of money to be distributed.

The question is how much of it do we use in FY27 to meet urgent needs, and how much of it do we use over the financial plan to stabilize the financial plan?

Really important question.

Councilmember Nidot.

I think that for me, the primary conversation is about FY27.

Yeah.

Oh, sorry, it's my turn.

Sorry, I thought you were asking me another question.

Okay.

So back to the BSA writ large.

I have a question, a few questions on subtitle D, the Internet Gaming Revenue Fund Establishment Act of 2026.

D, what?

D D.

Yes, Internet Gaming Revenue Fund.

Does this subtitle generate new revenue?

My answer is no.

This came from the Committee on Human Services.

It sets up a fund.

There's legislation pending.

If the legislation is approved and the according to that legislation, whatever amount according to that legislation would go into the fund.

If the legislation is not approved, then probably in a year or two we repeal the fund.

Councilmember Fruman, is that correct?

Yeah, I mean, I I asked a similar question yesterday about is there any uh revenue associated with that subtitle that is being spent in this budget?

And the budget office told me no.

And I think that is the right place to be, that we are not tying our hands to an embrace of internet gaming at this point.

We are keeping the door open to the possibility, and there's gonna have to be a bigger conversation about this in the fall, because there are very mixed views on the council.

This doesn't tie our hands.

Thank you.

So my second question is: how is the creation of this fund germane to the budget, particularly when the underlying internet gaming legislation has not yet moved out of committee?

Councilmember Fruman?

Oh, I I was about to put it to you.

Um part of uh part of the idea behind this, and it's and this is you know, let the budget office people discuss this, but part of the idea of this was that if the internet gaming legislation resulted in revenue that was used in FY27, that it was important to have the fund established at this point.

But you use uh I'm not the expert on what's germane and what's not germane, but that was the idea behind the inclusion.

I can add a little bit more, because it was just explained to me.

Um, there's no money in the fund.

There's no money to go into the fund unless the um separate IGaming bills adopted, however, if the I gaming bill is adopted, then according to that bill, and it could change, it may look a little different, but money will go into this fund.

There's no authority to spend that money unless it's included in the LBA, which apparently it is.

So what we've created in the LBA is authority.

This may be confusing to some folks, but in the world of government budgeting, there are two parts.

There is the money and there is the authority.

There can be money without authority.

That's what happened last year when Congress uh in the continuing resolution took away our authority to spend that billion dollars.

We still had the billion dollars.

In this case, what we're doing is we're creating authority, but we don't have the money yet.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

So if the council does intend to establish this fund permanently through the legislation that's in committee, why wouldn't the provision to create that authority simply be included in the permanent bill rather than in the BSA now?

Because the budget authority has to be an appropriation act.

Okay.

Well, that said, I am actually going to move to strike subtitle D D, the Internet Gaming Revenue Fund Establishment Act of 2026 from the BSA.

All right, there's a motion to strike.

Subtitle D D, it actually has a little bit more to it.

Like I believe it is.

Title Two.

Help me here.

Yes, it's Title II Economic Development Regulation.

Subtitle D, Internet Gaming Regulation.

Request a roll call on this, Chair.

Um, Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just for the benefit of what we're about to vote on, I want to make sure.

So I have a question to make sure we're at least all clear, perhaps the public as well, about what it is are being asked.

Um please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of this.

I do not know, so if if I gaming comes before the full council is permanent legislation, I'm not sure how I'm gonna vote on it.

I don't like it, but I don't want to predetermine exactly how I'm gonna vote on that.

So I'm gonna park that over here for a second because what's in front of us is within the BSA, which is the creation of the fund.

Should the majority of the council decide they do want to move forward eye gaming, is the is the reason why the BSA language is necessary here because if revenue gets generated in FY27, you need the budget authority to be able to spend it that otherwise would not be a part of the permanent legislation.

I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly kind of what's at stake essentially within this vote.

So if we strike it, but then the majority of council does support IGaming, there is no budget authority for FY27.

Correct.

Okay.

So if we were to strike this, and if the majority of the council does end up passing I gaming, any 27 revenue is just going straight to the mayor, correct?

Or generally general fund essentially.

General fund.

And then in next year's budget, we could do something different, I guess.

Okay, all right.

It's clear as mud.

Got it.

Mr.

Chairman, Councilmember Felder.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I want to be sensitive uh to folks' position on iGaming, uh, but as I mentioned earlier, and as was discussed throughout uh today's deliberation, the district is in a precarious situation as it relates to being able to generate revenue.

This iGaming bill provides an innovative way uh to generate revenue coupled with legalizing and regulating internet gaming, which is already taking place in the District of Columbia.

Furthermore, when we talk about making sure that we have mechanisms in place to ensure the proper appropriation of legislative measures that we implement, uh we need to ensure that those dollars are going where they're intended to go versus being reverted back into the general fund.

Uh I plan to support eye gaming.

Uh, should uh we continue to have conversations uh during the fall, and what I don't want to do is limit us should this council choose to uh support eye gaming doing further public input and discussion.

So I will ask my council colleagues uh to vote against councilwoman Nadello's amendment and support this uh BSA to ensure that as the conversations to continue to take place uh that we have the proper uh mechanisms in place uh to support the legislation, should it become permanent.

Uh, further on this, Councilmember Parker, then Robert White.

I have a question similar to Councilmember Allen's.

I understand what the consequence is.

Should we not include the budget authority?

But assuming we do keep this in the budget authority, any fiscal year 27 revenue would go to that fund.

And the mayor would still have the authority to direct revenue from that fund, or no, it would be locked in that fund.

You can sweep the fund or he, she or he.

Sorry.

Mr.

Fruman is planning to legislation.

He won't miss the program.

And so then the funds are going to be spent because we're giving a budget.

Doesn't yeah, she could have legislation.

And the subtext to my question is.

What is different by us including the budget authority in the budget now versus doing so later?

Do you have an answer?

Go for it.

Councilmember Allen, do you have any thoughts on that?

Thank you, Council Parker.

Just a moment.

Never mind, Council Parker.

I'll walk over to you.

Uh Councilmember, what's your question?

The question was what would be different if we included the budget authority now versus later.

But I think I'm hearing that if we were to pass the bill, the underlying bill later, we could direct in said bill how the funding is directed, but the budget authority would allow us to do that essentially.

And I probably did not say that in the most articulate way, but I think I answer.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen, for answering my question.

Are you good?

I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you very much, Chairman Mendelson.

I think I mean the whole idea here is to maintain flexibility for the council.

There is a bona fide question of how we are going to come out on eye gaming.

I do think one way to think about I gaming is that it's a revenue source, but that is not the way that I want to think about eye gaming.

The legislation that's been put forward that Councilmember Felder came up with very sophisticated legislation that builds in the kinds of guardrails, builds in the protections.

Now there can be questions about oh, will it still result in more people doing eye gaming than they otherwise would?

What are the cost benefits here?

But the question is, it's not about getting new revenue, it is what's the right approach to a reality on the ground today.

And we we may differ on that.

I mean, we're we may we have to hash that out, but that's the way we should be thinking about it.

So preserving the ability to have that conversation and come to a decision, and if the decision is that it is a thing to make sense that makes sense to regulate in this space because it is a reality, and by regulating we can make it better, then we want to be in the position to execute on that in a way that benefits the district as much as possible.

It could also be that the decision is it isn't a thing we want to do.

But let's preserve our flexibility by leaving in the subtitle.

Further on the Councilmember Robert White.

Thank you, Chairman.

I want to make sure I'm I'm straight on this.

So the contingency list that we develop, if if we move ahead, if we do not strike this and we move ahead creating the fund, and iGaming passes, revenue from that would fund things on our contingency lists.

Is that correct?

No?

Only if we say so.

So the LBA gives authority to spend the legislation, if it passes, would direct how that money is spent.

Councilmember Fruman could have an epiphany and wake up in the morning and say, I'm gonna use all the eye gaming revenue to fund um the um the what?

The housing production trust fund, yeah.

But but we only direct spending in the budget.

So how how could that happen?

Because the language in the LBA permits that.

The exact language is something like um with authority to I need somebody to whisper in my ear.

Hey now.

Provided that all funds deposited in the funds, are available for expenditure without fiscal year limitation.

So then if we if we sh struck the language today, what would be the impact?

We it would just go to general.

So we can we can pass language today, we can amend it, but we can't pass it on.

So all the subtitle D D does is create what in my mind is like an empty shell, that will get filled if the iGaming legislation passes and will not get filled if the IGaming legislation doesn't pass.

Okay.

Thank you.

Looks like a second bite at the apple.

Councilmember Allen.

It'll be a short bite.

Um I think it was actually really really important that we helped understand, not just for us, but we're about to vote on, but for the public too, because I if we strike this, we can't go back in time to create budget authority.

So if there is revenue generated from this, then it just goes the general fund and reverse there.

I don't like eye gaming.

I don't know how if I'm gonna vote to support that.

But if I'm in the minority on the council on that, and the council does pass permanent legislation on this, I would want to see it be able to go to the things that we think are important.

So I am not gonna support the amendment to strike the BSA subtitle because I do think we need to at least have a vehicle that exists to have the dollars be spent in this fiscal year and on what we will ultimately decide, should an eye gaming permanent move forward.

I don't want, and I think this is probably for all colleagues here who may be wrestling with the iGaming issue like myself.

I don't want to vote on this BSA subtitle, striking it or not, to be interpreted as in support of or in opposition of the iGaming permanent.

Because I am splitting those things in my brain here because we need to be able to if it does pass, and if the majority of council is gonna pass that, I'd at least want the fund to make sure that those dollars can go to the things that we think will be impactful for our city, um, even if I do not like the funding source.

So I'm not gonna support I mean, yeah, I'm not gonna support the amendment to strike the subtitle, but that is not indication of how I will vote on a permanent eye gaming bill.

Thank you.

And I would note that I feel the same way, what Councilmember Allen just said.

I don't know where I'm gonna end up with the underlying bill, but I think leaving the subtitle in uh gives flexibility to the majority.

Should the majority want to um pursue the uh legislation, Councilmember Pinto.

With the current language of the subtitle, where is the money that could be generated from IGaming if passed, go towards?

The underlying bill, not the underlying bill.

The bill that's committed could the bill that is pending in Councilmember Fullman's committee, will direct how the money gets spent.

So we'll get to have a variation of this debate then.

But I guess just based off of Councillor Allen's point, you said something like I wanna be able to do to have a say in how that money is getting spent as opposed to it just going into the general fund.

So where is that money getting spent?

It will be decided when the iGaming bill is approved if it's approved.

Okay, we think of that in the establishment fund.

Okay, thank you.

So we're acting today, maybe, uh in the LBA language there that's already been approved and with this subtitle to give the flexibility should the committee and thereafter the full council, a majority, decide we want to go this route.

That's all it's us.

Is there anything further on this, Councilmember Bonds?

Um, Mr.

Chairman, I move that we close debate.

I don't know that anybody else wants to speak.

Oh, um, then this is not a good meeting about a level.

There's a motion to close debate.

Uh if there's no objection, the motion will be accepted.

All right.

Hearing no uh objection, the motion is accepted.

At this point, only on someone who has not spoken or the maker of the motion can speak.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I appreciate my colleagues engaging in robust dialogue on this issue and for the clarification that we have received on the um implications of leaving the subtitle or removing the subtitle.

Given that, I will withdraw my amendment.

And I look forward to having further discussion about this when the permanent bill moves forward.

The amendment is withdrawn.

Do you think further, Councilmember?

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I would like to move Parker Amendment 4 and Parker Amendment 2 in block if that's possible.

These are associated with the previously approved LBA amendments.

Parker Amendment 4 is associated with the um LGBTQ plus grant funding.

Parker Amendment 2 is associated.

I'm blanking.

It's been along there.

What do we do?

I think your numbering is off.

Financial literacy, yes.

Uh why don't you move them separately?

All right.

Uh I move Parker Amendment 4.

Uh again, um, I'm no longer moving what was originally circulated as Parker BSA Amendment 1, because again there was a change.

And this amendment is associated.

Sorry, this amendment is associated with the LGBTQ plus grant funding LBA amendment already passed.

So moved.

So moved.

Yes, I heard you.

This amendment, Councilmember Parker, was circulated by your staff at 11 10 this morning.

That is correct.

And uh this is entitled the LGBTQ Community Grant Amendment Act of 2026.

Is there discussion?

If there's no objection, it will be accepted.