I'm calling to order this meeting.

This is a meeting of the Council of the District of Columbia.

It's the 32nd legislative meeting of Council Period 26.

It's also an additional meeting, meaning that it's not our regular monthly meeting.

That will be next Tuesday, the 30th.

We are, I'm Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council, and we are meeting in room 500, the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson Building.

And this meeting is being broadcast on cable television channel 13, as well as on the council's website, www.dccouncil.gov.

We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence if we could have silence in the chamber and on the dais and everywhere else.

Mr.

Assistant Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilman McCrawford.

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Here.

Council Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Nado.

Here.

Councilmember Parker?

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White?

Present.

Councilmember Treyon White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have the consent agenda.

Are there any changes to the consent agenda?

Hearing none.

The vote will be on the consent agenda as circulated.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

Turning to the non-consent agenda.

We will begin with the fiscal year 2027 Local Budget Act of 2026, Bill 26-659.

This is a final reading.

And I'll note now and if I remember for each of the budget bills, I'm moving these with leave for staff to make technical conforming and reconciling changes.

With the budget, there are a lot of lines and attributes and all kinds of detail.

And so it needs to be understood that uh budget staff has leave for that.

So moved.

There's an amendment nature of a substitute that I circulated yesterday.

And so I will at this time move that amendment nature of a substitute.

In addition, I have uh circulated four amendments, and I'm making that part of my motion.

The um I said four, but it's actually five.

I'm making the five amendments part of my motion.

So let me uh give a little bit more background.

The um amendment nature of a substitute for the local budget act.

Uh, the memo that was circulated yesterday goes into detail about changes.

That um that list of changes may not be um entirely complete, but it is mostly um representative of the changes, and I'm gonna mention some but not all of them now.

So there's some additions to the workforce investment account.

We had previously had a hundred million dollars for FY27.

This increases it a small amount.

Uh we restored some funding to the Department of Transportation for some uh vacancy savings that subsequently we were told was more than they would be able to handle.

Um we have added some money to the Department of General Services to maintain janitorial services in some buildings, as well as for school readiness, um, and um HVAC maintenance, uh we added 2.1 million dollars to the Board of Elections for uh election supporting the elections in FY27, increased by two million the uh sustainable energy trust fund, or the sustainable energy utility, there's some additional money in the Department of Behavioral Health for school-based mental health, uh a little additional money in the office of the state superintendent of education to provide some additional money uh for the pay equity program.

I think it's about 72 million, not 70 million at this point, but also some additional dollars for the literacy initiatives and for the math initiatives.

There was a math task force literacy task force, and this goes further with those recommendations, 1.4 million dollars to the Department of Corrections for the lead up lead out program, uh funding for the resale act, which has not been adopted by the council, but uh will not need to be adopted subject to appropriation, um the um some funding for this may be an Aussie as well, special education transportation for special Olympics, some additional dollars at uh DYRS, um, some additional dollars, and uh the also victim services justice grants.

I'm not going through all of them, just trying to hit some of the highlights.

Um I think I'll leave it there.

I'll be happy to answer questions.

The amendments that are part of my motion with the amendments of a substitute, amendment number one, uh funds in FTE uh at the ombudsperson for children to support increased oversight of juvenile justice facilities that house youth under the care of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services.

That's one FTE.

Amendment number two is um a small amount of money for two FTEs to restore funding for positions within the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Amendment number three is um, I will characterize it as somewhat technical to clarify the type of contracts for which the district is appropriating termination costs.

Amendment number four is the contingency list.

I'll come back to that in a second.

And amendment number five is a technical adjustment within the office of plannings budget, uh resigning reassigning recurring funding for the targeted homeowner grant program to the special local fund associated with the program.

Amendment number four is the contingency.

Uh I felt I hope members agree that yesterday's discussion was very helpful and constructive.

Um this amendment, the uh that's part of my motion is the if there are excess funds identified in the revenue estimates, June, September, and I believe December, that the first hundred and fifty million dollars of increase would go to restore uh funding in the fiscal stabilization reserve, and then thereafter, if there are recurring revenues, that um the first 9 million would go fund would be placed in non-departmental for transfer to the housing authority if needed for use in the event the federal emergency housing voucher program expires.

The next three million um at the would be placed in DHS for emergency rental assistance program.

The next two million would be placed at the Department of Uh DYRS for the credible messenger program, bringing that up to 4 million.

I should note that the previous uh amount three million for ERAP, brings that up to 10 million, and then the next 36 million and one time funds to the workforce investment account, um, so that there's less doubt about whether any CVAs that are negotiated next year could be funded.

In our discussion yesterday, we talked about the out years of the financial plan.

That's not part of this amendment because we are focusing on the FY27 budget.

On July 7th, when we take up the budget support act, that's when we will address the out years.

We'll have a similar amendment, but it will address the out years with regard to the financial plan.

So that is my motion to approve the amendment nature of a substitute with the five amendment sheets that I just mentioned and that were circulated earlier.

Is there a discussion on the motion?

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I was just sharing.

We didn't know what.

I didn't know we can move five amendments at once.

In all seriousness, I think what again you've done is pretty remarkable.

I do want to thank you publicly for your work with me in funding Special Olympics.

That was a gap that would just be unconscionable if we were not able to meet the need there, and I'm glad that we're able to do it.

I also think where we landed with the contingency list, uh, feels right.

These feels like must have as well as uh necessary uh services and programs should the funding be available to fund them.

I did want to offer remarks on your first amendment, which relates to the FTE fund the umbudsperson related to facilities oversight for DRS.

Um, and I would just share I plan to support this amendment today, but I want to take a moment to acknowledge that this is yet again uh in some ways the us kicking the can down the road.

And Mr.

Chairman, we've talked about this, and so this is more for the public record.

Uh the Road Act, which this body passed in late 2024 called for independent oversight of DRS, uh namely for eyes to be set on the number of facilities around the country where young people are placed.

Uh we never funded that part of the bill.

My committee in this budget process set aside $500,000 uh to do what advocates are demanding, which is to stand up independent oversight, and yet here we have an amendment for a mere 150,000 dollars on a one-term basis, a one-year basis.

Uh and I want to be clear, we need this oversight, and I challenge the suggestion that was made in the mayor's letter to the council a few weeks ago that oversight is merely the responsibility of the council.

Yes, that is true.

Uh, but when DRS was under federal receivership, uh the Jerry M consent decree mandated that there be independent oversight of the agency uh following the ruling on a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of youth uh who suffered unjustly in the district secured juvenile detention facilities.

I see the clock ticking, so I'm gonna shorten this.

But the point I want to make here is when we had the OIJJFO or the independent facilities oversight, we were able to have someone on the ground in the facilities every day around the clock, which is challenging for committee staff to do.

On top of that, as the Road Act mandated, uh, there is a need for us to better uh oversee what is happening with young people in different jurisdictions and states.

Uh not to mention uh there is also a need for more robust research and investigative reporting um on what's happening in our facilities.

I would just acknowledge that because of the OIJFO's work, uh, we were able to, Mr.

Chairman.

If I could have two extra minutes, and I'm gonna wrap up.

Uh because of the OIJF.

Yes.

Let's try one minute and without objection.

Okay.

Uh, because of the OIJJFO's work, we were able to identify that the fire systems at DRS uh were not working, um, and they have now been uh fixed.

Um, so what my point here is I am grateful that we will have this $150,000 for an FTE.

Uh, but it is a drop in the bucket, and again, it's kicking the can down the road.

We need to commit to more robust oversight for all of our agencies that are caging human beings.

Uh that includes on the adult system as well.

Um, and I just do not think we are uh taken seriously uh the conditions in these facilities.

I'll conclude with this.

Um, where we are focused now as a committee is on making sure that the agency properly and fully implements the Road Act, and I look forward to working with the uh OFC or the umbudsperson to ensure that we can hire someone uh to engage in the more robust and routine oversight that is needed at DRS.

So uh that is a longer rant than possible.

I want to end on a positive note, and again, thank you for your work on the budget.

Thank you for funding Special Olympics and working with all of us to create a contingency list that gets us uh to where we need.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you.

Um I have to say, I'm not quite sure how I um structured this.

So I have the five amendments on the ANS.

I propose that we vote on that so that we then have one document before us.

I know there's some additional amendments, uh so then we'll let's vote on this and then take the additional amendments.

I also left out a few words in my remarks.

So if there are no objection, let's just have a vote on what's before us right now, the ANS and the five amendments, and then continue with additional amendments and some additional remarks from me.

I don't know why I'm looking at that, and I could look at the question.

I do have a quick question.

Quick question.

Sorry, on amendment one, um, and I believe my team reached out this morning, so I know this is late, uh, but we note that I believe the 150,000 is sent to the umbudsperson, uh as at FTE.

And is it possible to move that to NPS so that if they wanted to contract out for it versus hire someone that that might be possible?

I have no objection to that.

And if there's no objection from anyone, then that will be um accepted as part of this.

Thank you.

So the 150,000 in amendment number one will be NPS, not PS.

Um, so the vote will be on the ANS and the five amendments, and then we'll continue with additional um remarks from me and amendments.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Uh the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh I've sort of left out in my remarks.

Uh members know that we received a letter yesterday from the chief financial officer.

Uh I have sent a response to him, and uh I don't know if that's copies have been distributed, they're being distributed right now.

We look we believe in paper.

Uh so I'm just gonna read from part of this.

Um the CFO in his letter suggested it was imprudent for for us to uh use this budget uh to to use in this budget 150 million dollars in the reserves.

Um, it is not imprudent to leave almost 95 percent of the reserves untouched, especially when the reserves have never been higher and still will hold over two billion dollars, which is equal to maintaining sixty-two days of operating expenses.

Sixty-two days is above the uh government financial officers association or GFOA gold standard.

Moreover, our reserves are more than enough to satisfy Wall Street.

In its April rating action, Moody stated that their concern would arise if the district's available fund balance fell below 15% of revenue.

Our fund balance will remain comfortably above that threshold.

Um, it's my belief that the chief financial officer is attempting to impose a policy view.

Policy decisions are reserved under the Home Rule Act to the council and the Mayor.

The creation of two local reserve funds was a policy decision of the council.

The use of local reserve funds to support appropriations, which we have done several times in the past, was a policy decision of the council.

The level set in the law for the two local reserve funds also has been a policy set by the council.

The chief financial officer does not have the authority to now make a policy decision that even though we have used reserve funds in the past for appropriation, that this time the council may not use local reserves to support appropriations.

And again, the amount that is in this budget is small, less than 6% of the total reserve funds.

The need that the CFO has conveyed is liquidity, but it's liquidity in 2028.

Now I will note we had a hearing a couple months ago with the chief financial officer, and I asked then for a monthly cash flow analysis through 2028.

We still have not received it.

When I asked him in person last week, it was clear that they are unable to produce a monthly cash flow analysis through 2028.

Such an analysis would actually quantify what the need is in terms of liquidity in 2028.

We would then know the effect of numerous measures that are being taken or could be taken to address that need.

For instance, the chief financial officer right now is restructuring their approach to capital financing to reduce the impact on cash flow.

Included with our budget action today and with the BSA is a provision spreading pension payments over the year instead of one large payment made in the first month of the fiscal year.

The CFO has indicated that he's negotiating the timing of transit subsidy payments to WAMATA.

That will change cash flow.

And maybe I've mentioned this publicly, I'll mention it now.

We could change the timing of real property tax payments, which are made twice a year, right before they're made is when we have the lowest level of cash in our accounts.

And I want to emphasize this is a liquidity issue, not a balancing issue.

Without having that cash flow analysis through 2028, we are unable to know how much each of these measures I just itemized will reduce or even eliminate the liquidity problem in 2028.

And ultimately we did use uh money from I think it was fiscal stabilization two years ago.

The attorney general for the district issued an opinion that included that um that allowing the CFO, this is just one excerpt, allowing the CFO to dictate the funding level of the local reserves, quote, would remove the local budget process from within the control of the mayor and council and interfere with the locally elected officials' decisions about how district government resources should be spent, unquote.

So I think it would be fair for me to say that every council member is concerned that the district's cash flow is such that we don't have a point where we cannot pay our bills, not because of budget, but because of cash flow.

And I think it would be fair to say that members of the council are more than willing to adopt measures that would smooth or a moderate cash flow so that it is less volatile, and we have two years to do this until uh 2028.

Uh so that certainly is my commitment.

I think it is our commitment as well that liquidity is something that we absolutely want to ensure is not a problem, but that alleged problem in FY 2028 should not and cannot impede our ability to take a small amount from the 2.2 billion dollars in the local in the reserves for support of this budget.

So that was I wanted to just add that to my remarks.

I do at this point have an oral amendment I want to move, and then I'll recognize I believe Councilmember Henderson.

Um we have in the budget documents that were circulated, 21 million dollars for uh Park Morton redevelopment.

We uh placed it in um the wrong line, and so I'm looking at document that the budget office gave me, so this is in writing.

That we would uh take uh 21 million dollars from EBO.EB016C, Park Morton Redevelopment Initiative, and move that to EBO point EB 509 C point Bruce Monroe.

That's 21 million in FY27 and 21 million in FY28.

So those sums, there's no effect on the budget.

This is simply moving them from one line to another line.

I'll turn to council member Nadeau to see if um I got this right.

Well done.

It's perfect.

Uh so that's um one oral amendment.

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

Hearing no objection, it's accepted.

The second oral amendment is to adjust slightly funding for Johnson Middle School Athletic Field.

Uh and also to move it.

So it would be moved from AMO point SK 120 C Point Athletic Facilities Improvement.

Moved to AMO.JOH 37 C Point Johnson Middle School Renovation Modernization, and the amount is $1,080,000.

There's no objection, that will be accepted.

Councilmember Tran White, does that sound right to you?

Yes, sir.

Chairman, thank you for restoring that funding.

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

Hearing no objection, it's accepted.

The third is uh Garrison.

I don't have the project in front of me, but we had in the budget five hundred thousand dollars to improve the field at Garrison Elementary School.

I have to say we've gone back and forth on the amount.

We had a million dollars in first reading, maybe.

Uh, I was told it should only be 500,000.

So the documents have it at 500,000.

This morning I was informed it should be a million.

So my oral amendment is to increase it to a million with leave for the budget staff to make the appropriate adjustments to uh debt service if necessary from the slight plus up we did in workforce investment.

There's no objection.

Councilmember Pinto, does that work?

Yes, that's right.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chairman.

And if there's no objection, this amendment will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it's accepted.

Councilmember Henderson, you have an amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um today I this kind of feels a little deja vu, but here we are.

Uh today I'm moving an amendment uh to provide funding for the implementation of the open primary provisions approved by district voters through initiative 83.

Um in November of 2024, district voters overwhelmingly approved initiative 83 with 73% of the vote.

Since then, uh, the council has taken important steps to implement the ranked choice voting portion of that, and we saw that system successfully utilized in last week's primary election.

I do want to extend a congratulations and a thank you to the DC Board of Elections for their work on that rollout.

But initiative 383 was not solely about ranked choice voting, it also included provisions to allow independent voters to participate in primary elections.

Today, that portion of the initiative remains unfunded and therefore unimplemented.

The amendment before us would complete the work that the voters asked us to do.

Last year we did come close to funding these provisions, and my hope is today we can come together and continue this track record.

Approximately 85,000 district residents are registered independent voters.

They pay taxes, volunteer in communities, serve on advisory neighborhood commissions, coach youth sports, attend civic meetings, and contribute to every part of public life in every corner of our city.

We all have constituents who are federal employees and cannot affiliate with a particular political party.

We have neighbors who are judges, who are members of the military, journalists, or simply residents who have choice chosen not to join a party.

Regardless of the reason, they care deeply about the city and deserve a meaningful voice in shaping its future.

And district residents agree.

According to a recent poll, 68% of DC voters support allowing independent voters to participate in primary elections with a majority of support in every ward.

In a jurisdiction where one party dominates most elected offices, the primary election is often, not always, but often the election that matters most.

Excluding independent voters from that process means excluding them from a stage in the election where many of their most consequential decisions are effectively made.

Let's be clear about what this amendment does not do.

It does not take away anyone's right to vote.

It does not prevent party members from participating in their party's primary.

It does not require anyone to change their political beliefs.

It simply says that voters who choose not to affiliate with a political party should not be forced to do so in order to participate in a meaningful election.

We should not be telling our residents that the price to the price of admission to our democracy in the district is changing their voter registration.

Independent voters are not spectators, we are district residents, we are constituents, and we're governed by the same laws and we pay the same taxes and deserve the opportunity to choose the leaders who represent us.

I want to address very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, of the additional 30 seconds.

This funding source for this amendment to avoid any concern for my colleagues, this amendment takes $965,250 from the workforce investment account and spreads it across through fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 29.

In FY30, the remaining costs are funded through available unbudgeted resources in the financial plan.

Also, even with this amendment, there will still be approximately 105 million available today for the workforce investment account, which is 105 million more than that was available for this account 70 days ago.

So this modest investment will help us fulfill the will of the district voters and expand participation in our democracy.

I hope and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Is there discussion on the amendment?

Councilmember Bonds.

Yes, thank you very much.

And thanks to my colleague for um putting this issue before us yet again.

My question is about the cost, and I ask it because we thought the cost for ranked choice voting was I think 421,000, and we ended up adding 2.1 million, another 2.1 million is proposed today.

And of course, with the this does not include replacing the voting machines, which were antiquated 10 years old, not very efficient as we know from the primary.

So I just want us to look at this holistically.

What is it really gonna cost?

We do not have to put all the money that it will cost in today's budget, the 27, but have we really looked at that?

And I just hope, since I won't be here to chat with you in the future, um, that you're looking at it realistically as to what it will cost.

Um thank you for that uh question, Councilmember Bonds.

You're correct.

Um as you know though, we get the fists um from the agency that tells us what they believe is their best estimate at that time of how much it's gonna cost.

Um, the good news in this is that there's some additional time.

So any special election that would occur in 2027 would be a special election, and therefore everyone would have the opportunity to participate regardless of political party anyway.

Um, the larger cost for this hits in fiscal year 2028, when it would be a traditional election year.

Uh, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Pinto.

Oh, I don't know if Councilmember Bonds was done.

I was hoping to get some sense of update of costs because the Board of Elections has indicated, I guess, even in correspondence to you, that their thoughts and their plan about implementation of this part of the initiative would require separate um, I guess, information that they would have to disseminate.

And so I just want to make sure that we're talking real numbers for a change.

Yes, um, Councilmember Bonds, we got an updated fiscal impact statement from the Board of Elections yesterday.

They did add 50,000 um to their estimate, and so that is what's before us today includes that.

All right, and also just to note, um, this is separate and apart from the funding because you mentioned that around my understanding for the additional, well, new, not additional machines, which we included, I believe, at the first vote.

Um, or it's today.

Yeah, it's today.

No, we did not include the machines in the first vote.

Uh, the first vote we included 200, I mean, sorry, 2.1 million, which um was brought to us via the mayor's budget.

We included in today's what we're voting on another 2.1 million, which helps with the voter registration and all of that, and getting us through the general election.

So I'm just trying to make sure that we be realistic about it.

That's that's the point of my question.

But thank you very much.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Von.

Councilmember Pinto.

Hey, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, and thank you so much, Councilmember Henderson, for moving this amendment.

Um, you know, I think one of the most beautiful things about being an American is that we believe here that one person gets one vote.

And no matter what party you're in, no matter the differences you might have, agreement with your neighbor, um, that's the society that we live in, that we get to choose our own leadership.

Um, and increasing the enfranchisement of nearly 100,000 residents of our city who have traditionally been left out of the ability to participate in our primary process, is good for democracy.

Um it is good for the leaders that we're going to elected to the city.

Um, and I think it's a really important example to set nationwide.

Um, and as we continue to have partisan divides that can be very extreme in this nation.

I hope that our independents um participating in our primary process continue to or not continue to are able to participate now.

So I appreciate you moving this amendment.

Um, as you know, this is an amendment that I moved last year uh in the budget, and so hope that today we will be able to make this difference.

And I want to really congratulate the many organizers and leaders of ID3, and especially Lisa Rice and Brian Stragey who have just been working on this issue for many many years and have really pushed us to live up to our values in the district.

So congratulations to you all for the incredible work that you've engaged in for many years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Treon White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I want to thank you.

Um Councilmember Henderson.

Uh one of the things I am concerned about with this uh bill that will fund the primary portion of uh 83 is the uh taking them to taking the payments from the council's workforce investment accounts.

There has been a lot of talk about uh unions and negotiating salaries, and it looks like this is going to take uh 900 600, 965,250 from the council's work for investment fund for fiscal year 2027.

Um, which provide cost of living increase for our employees and was negotiated in good faith by our unions.

Then I think from what I'm saying, it further commits dollars from fixed year 2030, and we haven't even passed our fiscal year 2027 budget yet.

Um so I'm concerned about the funding source, quite honestly.

Um, so I'm just gonna digress with that.

Um workers need more pay, and I'm not sure if this is the right funding source, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh couple questions.

Uh first and foremost, uh Councilwoman Henderson, I do appreciate your leadership in uh uh on this matter.

It seems like this is deja vu.

We were just having this conversation last year around this time.

Uh could uh my first question is uh have you had an opportunity uh to talk to the party, uh the democratic party specifically how this may potentially water down the Democratic Party, or have there been any studies as it relates to the implications of open primaries?

Um well, Councilmember Felder, uh, choose my words here.

Um I believe the DC Democratic Prime uh party did file a lawsuit to stop not just this but the entire initiative, which that they were unsuccessful in terms of moving that forward in court, and so I do believe that that kind of exhausted that piece there.

Um I'll end there.

Um given that we recently had a a um election uh on uh under ranked choice voting, uh, and given that open primaries was another portion of what was put forth last year.

Have you had an opportunity to talk to DC Board of Elections about how uh implementing a new law would um how would that do they have the necessary resources based on them just recently going through ranked choice voting?

Uh like is there a lessons learned?

How will open primaries if passed be incorporated in the implementation of a new a new voting system?

Um, so as I said to Councilmember Bonds, we did have a conversation with Board of Elections yesterday to get the updated numbers.

So they did indicate that they would need additional resources, and and that's what we provided here.

Um but I what was saying this is that um if we're thinking about what happens in 2027, the DC Board of Elections was going to have to send every registered voter a ballot for elections that will take place next year anyway.

Um so really the big change would be around 2028.

Um, and I think this gives us leeway to both do the voter education that's necessary.

Um, but really the largest difference for the Board of Elections is just around now.

You guys send every well a mechanism to send everyone a ballot um who requests to participate in the Democratic primary.

Thank you.

I would also just like to go on the record uh as well uh to voice my concerns about the funding for this uh similar to last year.

I think we took money from full access, and I know councilwoman um I know there was an uh it was full access and another program that really impacts the needs specifically of Ward 7 and 8 residents.

I just want to be mindful of where the money is coming from to support this initiative.

So I don't support this, and I urge my colleagues not to do the same.

Mr.

Chairman, can I ask a question to the budget director?

Uh yes.

Um Madam Budget Director, does this small reduction in the workforce investment count make a material difference in our ability to meet our anticipated labor obligations?

Uh thank you for the question.

That's a judgment call, which might be a little bit unfair.

As you stated in your remarks, 70 days ago, there was zero in this account.

Um at first reading, there was 100 million in this account.

After your amendment, there will be uh 105.5 million in this account.

Um, you know, budgeting workforce investment is always uh an educated guess because we don't know what the cost of each of these uh CBAs are going to be.

Um, however, uh, you know, this is more than we had 14 days ago uh and again more than what was there uh 70 days ago.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Henderson, I'll point out that uh the contingency amendment that uh is in here now uh does have if the revenues if the revenue growth is sufficient that uh there would be 36 million up to 36 million more added to workforce investment.

And I appreciate that addition, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I do want to just say uh I spoke to several members over the weekend, and I said that if I had an issue with uh the source, I would ask that members would um uh be mindful.

I'll even say, add that they would support me in objecting to the source.

Uh, as councilmember Henderson said when she moved this, she had talked with me about this.

I don't have a problem with the source.

That doesn't mean I'll be voting for this.

In fact, I'll speak to it in a minute, but I don't have a problem with the source, so that's not an issue.

Um, next on the list is Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, knowing that I only have three minutes, um, I'm not gonna bury the lead.

I'm supporting this amendment today, and thank you, Councilmember Henderson, uh, for moving it.

Um, your in your opening comments uh you laid out very well why this is the right thing to do.

Um I'll add to it a conversation I had with somebody uh when I had some initial skepticism around independence voting in primaries, and they kind of laid it out for me really around how we spend our tax dollars.

And so in some jurisdictions, a political party holds their own primary process.

They fund it, that's how they select their political party nominees, and that moves forward.

Here, we spend millions and millions of your public tax dollars to hold a primary.

Um, of which a significant number of people cannot participate.

That was really compelling for me because if we're going to use our public tax dollars for an election, then it stands to reason you want to give everyone the opportunity to participate.

They don't have to, but we'll give them the opportunity.

So I wanted to add that as one more reason why I think this makes sense for our jurisdiction for DC.

Um this would take effect for 2028.

So I think the board should get a uh a lot of credit.

I think they did a phenomenal job.

Uh, and they really stepped up to the plate on a pretty compressed timeline to implement rank choice voting.

And I heard a lot of positive feedback from folks around how that worked, and think the board did a really great job in implementing that.

They'll have two years here to be able to implement this.

Um that also gives us the time to be able to use oversight to make sure that we are doing our job to make sure the board is both supported and any other laws or changes we need to make to make sure it can be in effect for 2028 makes sense.

So to that, I had two quick questions to Ms.

Henderson.

One is for I obviously as a Democrat who just won the Democratic primary to get access to the ballot.

I had to collect petitions and get signatures, and I had to toss out every registered independent that signed my petition, I had to toss out, could only accept the registered democrats.

Does this move make it so that if independents can vote in the primary that I might be a candidate on, they also were able to sign a petition for the ballot access for that primary?

Or is that an issue we need to work out between now and 2028?

Uh thank you for that question, Councilmember Allen.

So um the ballot initiative did not touch the petition process or change that in any particular way.

So as it stands right now, only members of the relative party would be allowed to sign the petition, and that's something that we could discuss at a future time.

Okay, I think that's something uh obviously we bring our oversight to this to look at between now and 2028.

The other question I had to do is right now about 60% or so of voters vote using their uh the ballot that comes in the mail, either by returning it by mail or using our ballot drop boxes.

So DC voters really, really like the ballots in the mail.

Um board of elections mails a physical ballot to every registered voter in the district, but that ballot they receive is based on their party registration.

Mr.

Chairman, if I just have 30 seconds to finish this question, without objection.

Thank you.

Um I don't believe DC law lays out yet, but again, this could be something we've got to address before 2028.

If a voter is an independent, wants to participate in a Democrat, Republican, Green Party primary, then they would be receiving an independent ballot in the mail.

Would they need to request it in advance?

Or is this another issue we need to probably work out between now and 2028 about how the board needs the guidance and instruction to be able to make sure people get their physical ballots the way they prefer?

Um thank you for the question, Councilmember Allen.

So this is a question of implementation.

Um the fifth for the ballot initiative indicates that the board of elections would create some sort of portal for unaffiliated voters to be able to say which ballot they prefer to receive because the way that this is designed, presumably they could vote in the Republican primary if that is something that they choose.

Um the FIS also notes that the board said that they could absorb the cost of that particular portal.

It might just be something that's already in their system, where you know you go in to check your voter registration and you can declare which um ballot that you will want to receive, but that that would be a further conversation we could have with the board of elections.

Um, and again, for all the elections that we know of in 2027, um, everyone will have the opportunity to vote.

So this isn't something that needs to be cleared up.

Right.

With a two-year on-ramp for 2028, I think we can tackle the implementation issues.

They're not a barrier we can't figure out how to get over.

Um, and that's a charge to us should this amendment pass today uh for the council to be able to hold the oversight and make adjustments or tweaks as necessary to have successful implementation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Allen.

Councilmember Crawford.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Henderson and your team for this for your work on this amendment and for the advocates that have continued to raise their voices in support, especially Lisa Rice and Commissioner Strady.

As one of the two independent members of this council, I believe it is important that the roughly 80,000 independent voters in the district have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the consequential elections that shape our city's future.

I have also heard from many voters who supported ranked choice voting but opposed semi-open primaries, and others who supported semi-open primaries but not ranked choice voting.

Combining multiple subjects into a single ballot measure made it difficult for voters to express their views on each proposal independently.

And I continue to hear from constituents today who do not support semi-open primaries today.

So for that reason, I would support aspects of pending permanent legislation that prevent multiple subjects from being combined into a single ballot initiative.

As always, implementation must be done thoughtfully.

My hope is that if this amendment passes today, this funding will help ensure that the board of elections has the resources necessary for voter education, registration updates, and election administration, so that any potential transition is clear, orderly, and accessible to the voters.

I wish I had more hard data on the effects of ranked choice voting and where we ended up, but obviously we will not know the full picture of what happened until the certification date.

So my hope is that the council in the future will update the law if needed if we ultimately learn that any of the initiative 83 changes to our elections unfairly benefits or marginalizes one group of people over another.

Thank you.

Further on the amendment.

Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you very much, Chairman Mendelson.

And thank you, Councilmember Henderson, for coming forward with this.

Thank you to the advocates for I 83 who pushed for this at every step along the way.

Uh I enthusiastically support this amendment.

I think it's really important to note, it's 73%, but let's just call it three-quarters of the electorate said do this.

And that is very important.

It is also one of the lessons of this last election is that rank choice voting seem to have worked pretty smoothly.

I mean, what we're not hearing is a ton of complaints, and actually we're seeing we saw the mechanics of it work quite smoothly.

So I think that should give us some confidence.

Also, in terms of independence voting in the primary, there's lots of prognostication about what impact that will have.

Will it pull the electorate to the left?

Will it pull the electorate to the right?

I think we have no idea.

And I actually think that what we saw in this last election, not necessarily directionally, but in terms of magnitude, shows that we have no idea what's going to happen in elections.

I mean, it was, I don't know that anybody predicted what we saw, and I don't think we can predict what will come from this in terms of impact on the electorate.

Could go left, could go right.

The one thing we do know is tens of thousands of DC residents who, for whatever reason, choose not to affiliate with the party, which is an increasing phenomenon, not just in Washington, DC, but in the country, will have their voices meaningfully heard in our elections, which is exactly what three quarters of our electorate said should happen in the referendum.

So I really hope we can push this over the finish line and enfise tens of thousands of DC voters.

Thank you for what you've brought forward.

Further on the amendment.

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson.

Um I don't need to repeat uh what's been said.

Just a couple points.

Uh, one to rehighlight that this is something that was passed by voters.

Um, and so even if we don't like the process, we can fix the process going forward, but we can't go back and undo it.

Uh the second piece is in DC, increasingly in this federal administration, there are people who are uh removing party affiliation just to keep their jobs, and and we have to be mindful of that.

Um last year, when this came up, there was a last-minute amendment to move money from somewhere that I had a uh concern about.

I appreciate Councilmember Henderson uh working with uh members and with the chairman to identify a place in the budget that won't have uh a substantial impact on a funding mechanism uh that that is needed.

So I look forward to voting in favor of this.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember White.

Councilmember Parker, thank you.

I admit that I've moved on this.

I originally voted against this when it came up last year.

And part of the reason is I'm a very proud Democrat.

I'm clear that the Democratic Party, for all of its issues that some may cite, um, has been a party to many folks that look like me.

And people that came before me that fought for the right to vote.

I think of people across the city like Councilmember Bonds and others that have worked to strengthen our Democratic Party.

Um, and I saw this effort as an attempt intentionally or unintentionally to weaken the Democratic Party.

I also worried, even though I wanted independence to weigh into an election, I worried or wondered, maybe as a better word, whether or not semi-open primaries was the right vehicle.

Were there other means that we could explore to both empower independence but also to respect uh and strengthen the Democratic Party?

I, you know, I will just say I've been most moved by the neighbors that I've had heartfelt conversations with, who, as Councilmember White alluded to have shared, I'm an independent because I can't register as a Democrat or Republican or what have you, or the independents that are just playing wack-amo uh because they're switch their party just to vote in election, then they switch back.

So for all of those reasons, because of the conversations I've had, I do plan to support this today.

Um and I just would say implementation matters, but I think this is also an opportunity for us as a district as a city to make perfect our own local democracy while we're fighting on a national level for statehood.

Um, and so I'll just leave it at that.

I want to thank councilmember Henderson for uh advancing this and everybody uh that has made this demand.

I know I said that was my last thing, but more than more than 200,000 residents, more than 200,000 district residents voted for this.

Um, and so I think we should respect the will of the voters.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh anyone else wish to speak on this?

Uh so I'd indicated earlier.

I don't have a problem with the source, and I did talk to members over the weekend and said to many of them if I have a problem with the source, please uh stand with me.

That's not my objection here.

So please anyone uh don't be confused about that.

Um I'm not gonna be voting for this.

I didn't vote for it last year.

Uh the thoughts that go through my mind are there are a couple.

One of them is that when our country was founded, the founding fathers did not think about parties, and we know that I think it was the third uh presidential election was all screwed up because parties had evolved and the constitution didn't contemplate parties.

And why do I mention that?

Because uh it's just um I want to say like human nature in politics that they're gonna be parties and people are gonna gravitate to parties.

So that's what we have.

And I realize that there's unhappiness within the Democratic Party with the Democratic Party, and there's unhappiness within the Republican Party, I think, with the Republican Party.

Um, but I just have a challenge in my mind with the idea that non-democrats would select who the Democratic candidate is.

Now I will acknowledge the arguments that are made about people who choose not to be Democrats and then therefore are disenfranchised.

They're not actually disenfranchised, but they're unable to vote in a Democratic primary.

But I think parties are about parties, and I think that Democrats should be selecting who their nominee is.

Republicans should be selecting who their nominees are and uh not uh non-democrats or non-republicans.

Uh so uh that's the reason behind how I will vote.

Since nobody else asks to be recognized, um, the vote will be on this amendment.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Mr.

Chairman, please report me as uh no.

And I'll be recorded as voting no.

Chairman for me is voting present.

Present.

Two no's, two presents, uh, and the eyes have it.

Um I believe there are no other amendments.

Pause, pausing too long.

Uh, the vote will be on bill 26-658.

Do I have that right?

No.

On bill 26-659, the local budget act of 2026 as amended.

The amendments consisted, if I remember correctly, of the amendment nature of a substitute.

There was moved with five amendments that I had.

There were oral amendments that I moved that are included here, and Councilmember Henderson's amendment that's included.

I believe that's everything.

All those in favor, this is final reading.

Mr.

Chairman, are you?

Can we make some remarks on the other?

If you're asking permission, I'll say no.

But uh, if you feel motivated.

Well, that's my last one.

Don't pull the heartstrings.

Councilmember Nidau.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Chairman.

I want to thank each and every committee chair for their initial contributions to this budget, as well as you, Chairman Mendelson and the budget office team for restoring a significant number of gaps that were present when we received this budget from the mayor.

We all know how bad this budget was.

We've talked about it, we've made it less bad.

Chairman, you've done a great job of filling those gaps.

In my final committee budget as council member, we were able to send funds to every other committee to help fill gaps in the safety net created by the mayor's proposal, including to support more people in temporary housing, to expand food access, wellness for seniors, and programming for teens.

We found ways to take small actions such as licensing and building code changes to affect big results, like building more housing and speeding up business and contracting issues.

And even more, the council as a whole plugged in many funding gaps and made numerous investments, such as adding millions in healthy food programs, increasing the availability of public restrooms across the district, restoring cuts to the Office of the Attorney General, lifting the age moratorium for new health care enrollees, restoring some equilibrium to the child care subsidy program, restoring the pay equity fund and access to justice.

We successfully averted the mayor's proposed step down in TANF benefits and work to restore some funds to the credible messengers and pathways programs, and much needed investments for ward one, including a million dollars in one-time funding for a grant to enable the Rosemount Center to purchase its building, $200,000 in one-time funding for grants to support the implementation of the Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant Vision Framework for public realm design, funding to support ongoing senior programming at the Vita Senior Center, more money to renovate the Parkview Recreation Center for Parks and Lower Georgia Avenue for the Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant Public Realm Design to implement the place-based substance use disorder outreach act and business grants to support pedestrian activity activation on the 18th.

In May, we were handed a budget that was balanced on the backs of our most vulnerable residents, a budget that asks nothing of our most fortunate residents.

And although the council has identified one-time funding to address many, though not all of the funding gaps, this budget still asks nothing of people who can afford more.

I proposed an amendment that would have implemented a small surtax on passive income, capital gains, and some other investments that require no work by the investor on the wealthiest of residents, making 400,000 or more.

The tax was estimated to raise close to 200 million in the first year and over a hundred million in subsequent years.

And I appreciate the chairman's commitment to continue this discussion of taxes and revenue with a public hearing in the fall because the next mayor will face a significant structural debt with the budget we're passing now.

I'll be introducing permanent legislation soon for a wealth proceeds tax so it can be given robust consideration, acknowledging that we tax earned income on people's labor significantly more than unearned income.

I will also ask for us to consider the tax and revenue commission establishment act, Mr.

Chairman.

May I have another minute?

A permanent bill I introduced last year and in the previous council period.

We're still operating in the shadow of a tax revision commission that failed to do its job, and for too long, this council has buried conversations about revenue and long-term financial stability.

If we keep suppressing legislation that proposes a better tax system, future councils will continue to have no choice but to try and address revenue short that falls through the budget process.

This is my last vote on a local budget act as a ward one council member.

Having now worked on 12 annual budgets, I can say with some experience that not only do the residents of the district deserve a more just tax system and social safety net, we all deserve a better way of doing business.

In closing, I want to thank the chairman and his team and the budget office for today's updated budget, which includes a huge win for Ward One that I have not previously mentioned today.

This capital plan fully funds an outstanding budget gap so we can finally break ground on the Bruce Monroe New Communities site.

We are more than a decade into this effort to deliver on promises to replace all public housing units at Park Morton, expand affordable housing options, and move forward a catalytic investment in Lower Georgia Avenue.

And with today's vote, we are fulfilling that promise.

And so I have very small gifts of appreciation for everybody on the dais today.

I'm going to pass these pencils down.

Can you tell us the value of those pencils for ethics or reasons?

These pencils say Bruce Monroe, make it pencil.

So thanks everybody for your forthcoming vote in support of these funds.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

All right, we don't need speeches from everyone.

Somehow that might be out of my control.

Councilmember Felger.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and good afternoon, everyone.

First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my council colleagues for your collaboration and dedication throughout this budget process.

I also want to recognize and thank the budget team and the incredible staff who support each member on this council.

Mr.

Chairman, I also want to thank you for your partnership throughout this process.

I will be remiss if I did not acknowledge that there were aspects of the budget after first reading that I was not fully satisfied with.

I appreciate your willingness to continue working collaboratively with me in my office between first and second reading to identify solutions and secure investments that will make a meaningful district, a meaningful difference across the district.

Thank you, sir.

This was undoubtedly one of the most challenging budget seasons many of us had to experience.

We entered this process facing significant fiscal constraints, ongoing economic uncertainty, and the reality that the district must continue to navigate federal interference in our local affairs.

These challenges require difficult conversations and difficult decisions.

Despite those challenges, I am pleased to share that between first and second reading, we were able to secure funding to reopen Kelly Miller pool.

I want to thank, I want to thank councilwoman uh Janice Lewis George for your continued support and partnership on making that investment happen.

We were also able to secure funding to support the planning and advance the goal line expansion from Union Station to uh Ben Road Station.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Allen, for your continued partnership and shared commitment to ensuring that equitable transportation investments happen throughout the district.

Furthermore, there have been many conversations over the last several months about our young people, particularly regarding takeovers and whether the district is making significant investments in youth engagement outside of programming administered uh through the DC Department of Parks and Recreation Centers, such as Late Night Height.

Uh, that is why I'm particularly pleased that we were able to fund the youth activation initiative, which will allow main street organizations and business improvement districts across the city to access additional resources to develop initiatives or rather innovative initiatives in the way that engage our young folks.

Speaking of main streets, one of one of the items in this year's budget that I'm most proud of is establishing a new main street along uh the Ben and Road corridor.

There are several other notable investments, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh one minute, please.

One minute.

Uh there are also several other notable investments included in this year's Local Budget Act that I will not discuss in great detail today.

However, I will simply note that they include investments in environmental initiatives, public green spaces, uh support for small and local businesses, additional resources to combat illegal dumping and improve cleanliness across Ward 7, and last but certainly certainly not least, uh strengthen and grow Ward 7's economy.

Uh this is the truth is that if we do not begin to make difficult decisions in the near future, uh we may very well find ourselves back in the same position next year, uh facing many of these same challenges.

Um, and that is why I believe that it is so important to increase conversations about uh fiscal accountability.

And with that, I will wrap this up, Mr.

Chairman, and say thank you again.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Tran White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I think that we all can agree that when we first got the budget in May, we faced some critical decisions.

Uh we saw some of the critical safety nets um that were in serious peril.

Um, and we saw how those who are working class and poor in the city were fighting just to stay and thrive in a fragile and growing city for Ward 8 and even citywide there are important wins and partial wins that I want to acknowledge today.

We've seen movement in our healthy food access including more than 1.4 million dollars in food access grants to Department of Health along with money for programs such as Produce Plus, grocery access, farmers market in nourish DC.

We say we are what we eat but it's important as a government we provide access to quality health care and healthy food options in ward eight and across the district we see movement in our school based behavior behavior health that include 1.6 million FY27 6.4 million for access to the financial plan to support school based behavior health program and $7.7 million for the program overall including I'm sorry $29.3 million for the program overall we see movement in our schools which is 2.4 million support community schools partnership we see movement in our adult literacy including 1.4 million for our Washington literacy center to support adult learners through an increase in adult transit subsidy from 70 to 100 per month we see improvement in our ward 8 business corridor where a lot of our small local minority business are struggling to stay in the district we put money to do that and also stay steadfast and increasing recreation opportunities open up three more recreation centers in ward eight I've seen movement on the utility assistance protection including several reversal sweeps of utilities assistance and layer poison prevention funds to help ensure those resources remain available for residents who need support um thank you chairman that we have supported uh funding uh two of our family success centers in ward eight Congress Heights and Belleville we see movement in supporting with more funding for the credible messengers including two million dollars support violence disrupting community based public safety work we see movement in our uh we thank you chairman we uh we had a recreation being built in ward eight that's proposed and what the gym was taken out of we oppose that uh adamantly and we don't see the purpose of having a record out a gym it just seems like you want to keep kids out so we restore that in this budget I want to thank you and my council colleagues for supporting that uh 1.5 million dollars to support early childhood education pay equity um to bring in the total to sixty one point five million um and there's a list of other things I would like to to hold to talk about as well but I think that we are not where we need to be but we're far from where we started in May and I want to thank uh the budget office our committee chairs uh my council colleagues and our staffers who do the hard work of lifting our budget up each and every day and to everyone who advocated for equity in this budget thank you chairman uh thank you councilmember councilmember from uh thank you very much chairman mendelson in April when we got this budget I would never have dreamed that we would get to where we are the mayor faced enormous challenges with hurdles out of her control she came forward with the best budget she could but she acknowledged in the moment the shortcomings of that budget in the two months that followed we have all looked for savings and ways to strengthen this budget and we have achieved a lot that restoring pay equity child care subsidy funding new vouchers protecting TANF funding the workforce accounts strengthening our libraries supporting the arts strengthening the department of buildings that's so critical acting in in support of our seniors providing health care insurance to folks who are on the who who need it and providing for medical education funding the SCTF the list goes on and on and on.

We have done a phenomenal job, and you have done a phenomenal job, Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Nadeau talked about a revenue raiser which might have fit into the mix here, but did not in this round.

And part of what she said was that this doing revenue raisers through the budget process is not the way you do it.

We need to have a hearing on revenue raisers.

We need to vet ideas around revenue raisers.

It's not that we cannot do it, it's that we need to do it right if we're gonna do it.

And Mr.

Chairman, again, thank you to you for agreeing to have a hearing on that topic so we can put ideas on the table.

Instead, the way in which we're uh part of the way in which we're achieving what we're achieving is by drawing from cash reserves.

And the CFO says that that is imprudent.

You address this before.

Um, and it is the CFO's job to tenaciously push for fiscal restraint and accountability.

I get it, but I actually think the way in which we are doing this is maximally thoughtful and prudent.

What has been set up is a solid budget that can be part of a soft landing as we're trying to find savings in this budget going forward, and we will again next year, but also it sets up the hearing in the fall after we've gotten the revenue estimates, after we have a sense of what the FY26 close is, to make a determination or to consider ideas about how we move forward.

It sets up our next mayor with the information based on those things to make decisions in what will be her most consequential first budget.

One minute, Mr.

Chairman.

Right now, it looks today like the FY26 close is gonna allow us to replenish the reserve.

We'll see, but every indication is that it will.

And if it does, then it really truly validates the approach that you have taken.

And meanwhile, uh the whole process sets up the next mayor as well as we possibly could.

So I wanna say I am incredibly grateful, uh Chairman Mendelson, to you and your team.

I am incredibly grateful to my team and all of the staff of the council for the work that has happened over the last 10 weeks.

We have really come up with something that we can all be very, very proud of, and I will very, very proudly vote for this budget.

Thank you for everything you've done, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Fruman.

So we have the bill as amended before us of the vote.

My hand was raised.

Oh, Councilmember, finally on this side of the day.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, after the first vote, I spoke more broadly about this budget, including the citywide investments and trade-offs and the challenges still before us.

Uh, today I want to speak directly to Ward 4 residents about what this budget delivers for our community and why these investments matter uh for the whole district.

Uh Ward 4 is a community that shows up for each other from Tacoma to Brightwood, from Shepherd Park to Riggs Park, and from Petworth to Chevy Chase.

Uh Warfare residents care deeply about this city, and they deserve a budget that reflects their needs and their values.

Um, it and for war for this budget includes some important wins.

Uh, it invests in our schools and school facilities, including modernization funding for Whittier Elementary School and LaSalle back as elementary school, and funding for the Shepherd Park Wanita E.

Thornton Library modernization.

These are long-needed investments in public facilities that serve for families every day.

It includes more than three million for summer 2026 school readiness work, helping make BCPS campuses uh make sure BCPS campuses are ready to welcome students, educators, and families back for the school year.

It also includes funding for career ready early scholars, which helps our young people explore career pathways earlier and build the skills they need for the future.

It invests in recreation and community spaces across Ward 4, including HVAC and roof replacement work at Chevy Chase Recreation Center, HVAC replacements at Riggs-Lassau Recreation Center, a community garden at Fort Stevens Recreation Center.

It also includes funding for many of the amenities that our community supports.

This budget has a targeted investments that includes rodent resistant litter cans at Emory Heights Recreation Center and Upshore Recreation Center.

Additional support for rodent resistant trash cans and a new building inspector at the Department of Buildings.

It also includes a greenhouse gas emission study to help the district better understand and reduce emissions as we plan for a healthier future.

I also am proud that this budget includes Ward Force specific investments in Tacoma Main Street and the Brightwood Family Success Center.

These are investments in local businesses, families, and community support systems that help neighborhoods thrive.

And importantly, this budget includes wins for workers and it provides $6.5 million and additional enhancement for the workforce investment account to support overdue pay increases for essential public sector workers, including firefighters and other workers who keep our city running.

It also fully funds the electrical and gas utility underground work wage act of 2024, extending prevailing wage protections to underground utility work performed by gas and electrical workers.

Public dollars and essential infrastructure work should support good jobs, reduce the risk of labor disruptions, and ensure high quality work for the district residents.

Thank you, Chairman, for working with me to get that done.

I do want to make clear to our constituents that our work is not done once we pass this part of the budget.

There is still work to important work to be done to ensure that out of state corporations that benefit from our resources and infrastructure are paying their share of taxes.

We cannot continue to kick the can down the road as more than two years after the tax revision commission publishes recommendation for a broader, more resilient tax base to protect against economic downturns and ensure future funding for high quality public services.

We cannot continue to rely on last-minute budget solutions to fund essential public programs.

I strongly support the chairman's decision to hold a fall hearing on a full array of choices, including Councilman Nadeau's and other people's provisions.

The people of the district deserve a full hearing of where they can weigh in on the options before us and where we can thoughtfully consider the proposals and make any needed adjustments based on their feedback.

So I look forward to hearing from district residents at the hearing later on in this fall.

This budget is not perfect.

No budget ever is.

There are still urgent needs in Ward 4 and across the district, and we will have to keep fighting for affordable housing, strong schools, safe streets, reliable basic services, and a government that works for every resident.

But today I'm proud that we were able to secure meaningful investments for Ward 4 while also protecting important citywide priorities.

I think these investments reflect the work of residents, advocates, workers, families, ANC commissioners, civic leaders, and community organizations who showed up, spoke up, and made clear that their neighborhoods and this city need city needs matter.

So thank you again, Chairman, Council colleagues, council budget staff, committee staff, my team, and everyone who worked really hard through this budget process.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis George, Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chairman.

And thank you for all of your work and partnership on this budget.

And thank you to everybody in the budget office and the office of general counsel and my team and all of my colleagues' teams.

This is a very intense process for the last couple of weeks, and so I really appreciate everybody's partnership.

As I mentioned at the first vote, DC is grappling with a shifting federal landscape, building vacancies, shifting uses in our downtown, and the rising cost of living that has become prohibitively expensive for so many of our residents.

The policies of this presidential administration on government layoffs, immigration policy, and tariffs have deeply hurt district residents and our economy.

And even while wages for district workers rise, families are feeling it with soaring costs at the grocery store and housing and their utility bills.

The increase in the poverty rate, particularly for black residents is especially troubling, and ensuring that we have a tightly woven safety net and robust opportunities to lift every resident out of poverty must continue to be a priority.

Our role on the council to put forth a budget is ever more important as we confront the urgent need to diversify our local economy and provide innovative economic opportunities for our residents while we maintain fiscal responsibility, ensure public safety for our residents and visitors, increase affordability for housing and child care, and support our seniors, young people, and residents most in need.

I am pleased for your partnership, Mr.

Chairman, to continue to support the workforce investment fund so we can pay our hardworking firefighters, union and non-union employees, additional money for the pay equity fund, $200,000 for the structured literacy training, additional $1.4 million for the lead up lead out program to support residents of the DC jail.

Over $800,000 for rat-proof trash cans, probably the number one concern I hear from residents in all eight wards.

So support is coming.

Restoration of FTEs at the Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services, that is so important to keep our kids who are in custody and staff there safe.

Additional funding to support our bids to activate space for our young people in particular.

I'm excited to see much of this funding become available even in the fiscal year supplemental budget so we can make sure that our kids have safe things to do this summer.

I will say, though, while the chairman has found hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these and other important programs, and I appreciate doing so while avoiding significant tax increases this year.

I continue to 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.

Reserves should be used for cash flow and emergencies, not for one-time funding of programming.

I'm glad to see some changes in the LBA that clarify the replenishment of the reserves moving forward for this year if we are in a budget surplus.

I know the chairman will have a hearing in the fall about different options for raising taxes.

Raising taxes while our economy is on such uneasy footing could very well backfire.

Having tremendous impacts on our businesses and our families.

I think it is very important in DC that we have a tax structure that is progressive, and we know that we have one of the most progressive tax structures in the entire nation.

And at the same time, encourages growth so we can generate jobs, keep businesses here, and bring new ones and help ensure that all of our families, all of our residents and our seniors can thrive.

We need both.

So I'll end there.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And there's a lot of work and conversation that we need to have around the BSA, which I look forward to having in the coming days.

We'll be voting for today's budget.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll be brief.

I want to thank the budget team as well as your team, Mr.

Chairman.

There's a lot of work that goes into preparing this budget.

And this year, like has been our said, it was a really challenging year.

A few committee highlights.

I'm thrilled that we were able to restore five of the nine family success centers that were cut.

Those include Bellevue, Carver Langston, Brightwood, Congress Heights, and Deanwood.

We restored Safe Shores as well as partially restored $2 million for Credible Messengers and funded the SOL Act, which will create a new permanency pathway for our older foster youth in Ward 5.

We secured 15 million additional dollars for the Langdon Park Recreation Center modernization and added policy language to ensure that project reflects the desires of residents.

We also added policy language for the Harry Thomas Recreation Center project for the same reason, added one million dollars to the New York Avenue Recreation Center to put it on the map for future modernization.

Thanks to the chairman's partnership, we were able to secure $7 million for a new HVAC system for Wheatley, which is long overdue.

Thanks to Councilmember Allen's partnership, we were able to safeguard the $6 million dollars for Wamada for Metro bus improvements to ensure that the C 63 and the D 36 are addressed and can support seniors in Ward 5.

We secured $150,000 to improve traffic safety with uh truck cameras.

We secured new retail grants uh for our major corridors, including Rhode Island Avenue and 12th Street in North East.

I want to give a shout out uh to the Brooklyn Neighborhood Um Civic Association for their partnership there.

And then last but not least, I'm really looking forward to working with the Office of Planning as we look towards the comp plan to ensure that once finally we're able to address the concentration of industrial land use in communities in wards five, seven, and eight.

Uh there's a lot to celebrate, uh, but I want to again thank uh the budget team, my team, and yours, Mr.

Chairman, uh, for all of your work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Parker.

Now, if there's no further, uh, we have the uh bill as amended before us.

That's bill 26-659, final reading as amended, all and with leave for staff to make technical conforming and reconciling changes.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh we'll turn now to the fiscal year 2027 Federal Portion Budget Request Act of 2026.

Bill 26-658.

I'm not sure why this is on non-consent.

It went through markup in the committee of the whole earlier today.

Uh, but in any event, uh so moved.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on bill 26-658.

I think again, with leave for staff to make technical conforming and reconciling changes, but I don't think they'll need to do that with this.

On bill 26-658, final reading, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Uh hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh we have uh bill 26-208 open meetings clarification amendment act of 2026.

So moved.

Uh I circulated an amendment.

I believe I circulated it last evening.

Uh, this amendment is not substantively different from what was approved at first reading.

Uh it um uh else how do I want to put it?

Clarifies the language in the amendment that council member Allen had moved and that was adopted.

Uh so uh I move the amendment, and if there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted.

Mr.

Chair.

Not objecting, but I have a question.

Yes, Councilmember Allen.

Thank you.

Didn't know if my hand was visible as I kept getting higher.

Um I agree, and for my colleagues that have been following this closely, the amendment in front of us is not substantive in nature.

It is um uh clarifying wordsmithing as it were.

Um I had one question more to make sure that's on the record uh so there's not any misinterpretation.

So one of the elements of this clarifying amendment is that email messages are not considered meetings under the open meetings act.

I do want to make sure it's very clear for the record.

Your intent does not foreclose someone requesting those email exchanges through FOIA as long as they are um responsive to that FOIA request.

But just to clarify that for the record, removing that language is not an act of saying those email messages are not FOIAble if they were to be responsive to a FOIA request.

Uh your interpretation is correct.

This bill does not implicate uh the Freedom of Information Act.

Thank you.

Just want to make sure that was clear.

If there's no objection, uh the amendment that I circulated will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it's accepted.

Uh we have the bill as amended.

Uh is there discussion?

The vote will be on bill 26-208 as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as no.

Um present, Jim.

Please reform any voting no, Chairman.

Um Mr.

Assistant Secretary, Councilmembers Allen and Lewis George are recorded as no.

And Councilmember Tran-White is recorded as present.

Uh the ayes have it.

We will turn now to uh emergency legislation.

And the first item is uh bill.

Well, well actually, is the declaration, but uh this would be the uh bill twenty six-six six two fiscal year twenty twenty six revised local budget emergency act uh to get there we have to approve the declaration PR 26-640, so moved.

Uh I circulated an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I think I'll go over the um I am a nature of a substitute to the uh declaration.

Uh but I'll speak to what we're doing with the uh revised uh local budget act.

So this is what we call the supplemental, it's the revision to the current fiscal year 2026 local budget act.

The ANS was circulated yesterday.

Uh there are um reductions for overspending and vacancy savings across agencies, which are used to balance the budget and financial plan.

The largest of these reductions, uh which occurred over the weekend, is 22 million dollars from workforce investment account in FY26 to cover a spending pressure that was identified over the weekend um as a result of uh public charter schools, special education uh funding.

Uh all of that's consistent with the UPSF.

I'm not sure why that spending pressure was not identified earlier in this budget season, but it was.

Um I'm not going to go through all of the changes, but it includes 10 million dollars to the office of the state superintendent of education to fully address the child care subsidy spending pressure in FY26.

Uh there are additional dollars to the Department of Parks and Recreation to support the expansion of DPR hours and programs.

The uh there are additional dollars in the Department of General Services to support school readiness work this summer.

There are additional dollars to the Commission on Arts and Humanities so that they can restore the large capital grants program that was uh aborted with the Mayor's proposed budget.

Uh there's additional dollars to the Board of Elections to replace 450 express vote ballot marking devices.

I think we call those voting machines.

Um I had mentioned I think in connection with FY27, but there's some dollars apparently in FY26 related to the resale act.

Um those are just some of the highlights.

Uh so what I'm moving is the declaration PR 26-640, so we can get to the um the um the bill.

And I circulated amendment nature of a sub amendment nature of a substitute to the declaration.

So I have to move that uh so moved.

Is there discussion on the ANS?

Maybe I'll do this.

If there's no objection, the amendment nature of a substitute for the declaration will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

We have the declaration as amended.

Discussion vote.

All those in favor of the declaration say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the underlying bill, bill 26-662, which I just described.

So moved.

I circulate an amendment nature of a substitute, which I just described.

Is there discussion?

I do want to note I'm moving.

I'm moving um this measure uh with leave for staff to make technical conforming and reconciling changes.

Um let me see.

The amendment nature of a substitute.

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

Hearing no objection, it's accepted.

We have the bill as amended before us.

Further discussion?

Oh, I do have an amendment.

Give me a second.

Apparently I have two amendments.

So one of them I circulated yesterday, last evening.

It is to replace the chart in section six, capital project funding recisions and increases with the following.

And that is budget neutral.

The chart and the amendment nature of a substitute omitted the project adjustments that move budget between fund details and net to zero dollars.

These are highlighted in green.

If you have the color version for informational purposes in the circulation, the green will be removed in the final bill, so I guess we'll do a monochrome enrollment.

So I move this amendment number one.

Discussion.

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

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

What's my second amendment?

I have the place.

Yeah, I remember that.

Give me a second.

Give me just a second.

So I don't have the paperwork in front of me, but it was circulated yesterday.

So I had two amendments.

The first one has been accepted.

That was to the capital um the capital table in the bill.

This amendment is amendment number two.

It was circulated yesterday evening, and what it does is it uh clarifies that the non-lapsing sweeps in the amendment nature of a substitute are used in both FY26 and FI twenty-seven.

So so moved.

It's amendment number two.

It was circulated yesterday evening.

Is there discussion?

Hearing none.

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

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

So we have um we have the bill as amended.

This is bill twenty-six-six six two amended by the amendment nature of a substitute, amended by amendment number one, amended by amendment number two.

Is there any further discussion?

Um, all those in favor of the fiscal year twenty twenty-six revised local budget emergency act of twenty twenty-six say aye.

Aye.

Are there any no votes?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh the next measure, is um the um PR 26-639, fiscal year 2027, local budget emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

So moved.

Give me a second.

All right, my confusion is that the agenda doesn't list it.

There was an amendment nature of a substitute to the declaration, um, but I've circulated that yesterday.

So I've moved the declaration.

I am now moving the amendment nature of a substitute.

I apologize for the confusion.

Um moved on the amendment nature of a substitute.

This is to the declaration for PR 26-639.

Is there discussion?

What we're doing here is we are adopting the local budget act for FY27 on an emergency basis.

The local budget act, which we previously adopted at this meeting, has to go to Congress for the congressional review, so it's unlikely that it will be effective by the start of the fiscal year.

So we do this as an emergency version as well.

Is there discussion on the amendment nature of a substitute?

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

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

The vote will be on PR 26-639 as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

I move the underlying bill, Bill 26-660.

Give me a second.

We did in order because the mayor introduced the emergency.

Madam General Counsel, apparently I circulated an amendment nature of a substitute.

The reason why I'm not sure is because it's not listed on the agenda.

I don't know if I need to move the amendment nature of a substitute because I'm going to ask or say that my motion is that this would be conforming to the permanent, and I think that then encompasses everything.

That's correct.

Okay.

Are members clear on that?

The um fiscal year 2027 local budget emergency act that I'm moving conforms to the permanent version.

Bill 26-659, which we adopted earlier in this agenda, and which we amended in several ways.

In fact, many ways.

So the emergency conforms to that.

Any questions from members?

Hearing none.

Is there discussion?

Hearing none.

The vote is on bill twenty-six-six six zero.

Uh, conform to the permanent bill.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh we have um under temporary legislation, Bill 26-663.

Fiscal year 2026 revised local budget temporary act of twenty twenty-six.

So moved.

Um, Madam General Counsel, same question.

So there was an amendment in nature of a substitute, but my motion is that this conform to the emergency that we've just adopted.

Yep, that's correct.

Everyone clear, so we're only passing one version, but or one bill but three versions of it, or one version of three bills.

Something like they're all the same.

It's just one is emergency, one is temporary, and one is permanent.

So moved.

Discussion.

Assuming everyone knows what we're doing.

The vote is on bill twenty-six-six six three, conforming to the permanent.

Are there any opposed?

Uh the ayes have it unanimously.

Yes, I am, Mr.

Chairman.

All right.

And all of this, as I indicated earlier, was moved with leave for staff to make technical conforming and reconciling changes.

Uh there's no further business.

The council will have a regular meeting, it's regular monthly meeting on June 30th.

Uh we will have an additional legislative meeting on July 7th, where we will take up the Budget Support Act.

We will have an additional meeting on July 14th, where we will have our last meeting before the council recess.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Council.

Um, is the only thing on the July 7th agenda, the budget support act, at the moment, yes.

Because it's an additional meeting, um, I have the ability to keep things off, but uh if there was something like an emergency that came up, not any emergency, but like a real emergency.

Okay.

So I don't want to say that it's only that, but it's probably only that.

Anyway, you went back and forth.

Uh the time is one fifty-three, one fifty-three PM, and this meetings adjourned.