I'm calling to order this meeting.

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

I'm Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council.

Today is Tuesday, July 7th, 2026.

The time is 11:40 in the morning.

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

This meeting, I believe, is being uh streamed on Cable Television 13, and is also I think available, but will be um is being recorded and will be available forever in the future on uh the council's website, www.dccouncil.gov.

Uh this is an additional meeting.

That is, it's not our regularly scheduled monthly meeting.

It's also the 34th meeting of Council Period 26.

We have one item of business, although one is divided by, I think three.

That is we have the Budget Support Act final reading, as well as the emergency version of that and the emergency declaration, so we can consider this on an emergency basis.

And when I say emergency, that means it becomes effective as soon as the mayor signs it.

Uh and there are portions of the Budget Support Act that need to go into effect uh sooner than would otherwise occur with the congressional review period.

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

Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Councilmember Bonds.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Falder.

Present.

Councilmember Freeman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Here.

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Present.

Councilmember Nadell.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Present.

Councilmember Trayon White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

We only have a non-consent agenda.

And the first item is Bill 26-661, the fiscal year 2027 Budget Support Act of 2029.

We adopted this at first reading on June 9th.

This legislation, it's much more complicated than the budget.

And so rather than moving second reading last week with final reading on the budget, we are taking it up today.

Alakes substantive revisions as well as clarifying changes developed with the council's office of the budget director and the office of the general counsel, as well as working with the office of the chief financial officer and the executive.

The memo that was circulated yesterday with the amendment nature of a substitute, which is seven full pages, goes into detail with regard to most of the changes.

I would say all of the substantive changes.

Excuse me, uh Pinto, Councilmember Pinto.

Chairman Mendelson.

Oh.

Did I hear a noise?

Yes, that was me.

I have one that we just circulated.

Are you is that with you and Councilmember Pinto?

No, it's a different one.

Okay.

And I have one just circulated too.

And I have one as well pinned.

All right.

So I talked to the I don't have any.

I talked to I talked to every member or attempted to talk to every member on Friday and asked what amendments.

And I have to say what's coming in today is above and beyond what I was told on Friday.

I am going to start off with an oral amendment.

To um subtitle III, line 2589.

Um to strike the phrase 302 and insert the phrase 302A in its place.

That's pretty technical.

That's why I didn't circulate it.

Again, on line 1589, subtitle 2I to change the number 302 to the number 302A.

This has to do with provisions in the vacant to vibrant amendment act of 2025 that do not have a cost according to the Office of Revenue Analysis.

If there is no objection, this amendment will be accepted.

Mr.

Chairman, would you repeat the section again?

Yes.

And can you speak louder, Mr.

Chairman?

We can't hear you down here.

Yeah, let me.

It has to do to a reference with regard to citations, excuse me, section references.

This is subtitle 2i, line 1589, changing the number 302 to read 302A.

Anybody want me to repeat that again?

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

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

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

I want to note as well, this is not an amendment that in section uh title two subsection L on line 2533.

There is a PIN site that needs to be corrected.

And that's I'm told is technical, which is why I'm not moving it as an amendment, but noting it on the day as Councilmember Allen, you have amendments.

Yes, sir.

I'm going to move amendment number one first.

So it's currently drafted, subtitle 6-0 includes the mayor's proposal to increase the public inconvenience fee or the PIF apply to public space permits that result in temporary occupancy of public space.

To mitigate the impact of the PIF on utilities, the subtitle provides utilities a 60-day grace period before a PIF is applied.

However, even with this expanded grace period, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, DC Water, is concerned the PIF was going to impose new costs on the utility that we passed on to district ratepayers.

Specifically in a letter uh dated May 14th, DC Water cautioned that, quote, every dollar of PIF assessed against DC water is a direct pass-through cost borne entirely by district ratepayers through higher water and sewer bills.

DC water generates no profit and carries no discretionary budget to absorb these fees.

There is no alternative.

The fee ultimately comes out of the pockets of the same district council as the PIF is nominally designed to compensate for construction disruption, end quote.

Since the mayor had embedded the revenue raised by this increased PIF throughout the budget, it was unable to be removed fiscally in the budget.

And because the council has already approved the fiscal year 2027, local budget act of 2026, the council's ability to reduce the PIFs to be applied to DC Water is limited by the need to maintain a balanced budget across the four-year financial plan.

So this amendment would simply sunset the increased PIF for DC water beginning in FY31 outside the fiscal plan.

Instead of instead, beginning on October 1, 2030, DC water would only be subject to the PIF that is currently in place.

So by sunsetting the fee, the amendment limits the uh fiscal exposure and eliminates the future cost that could potentially be borne by ratepayers.

And it would ask if that be accepted as friendly, Mr.

Chairman, and so moved.

Is there discussion?

Yeah, question, Jim.

Councilmember Tryon White.

Um Yes, Councilmember Allen, uh know that we uh looking to sunset this cost on DC water ultimately uh affecting the rate of pay uh uh the rate of those who consume water.

But uh I guess my question was uh once we stop them from extended fees, how do we get a guarantee that the pay the rate payers uh rates will go down or stop going up?

I haven't heard that on the other side.

Yeah, thanks.

Great question.

So part of what uh DC water has to look at right now, they're in a rate case right now around all their overall costs.

So as they were going through that process, the increased PIF that the mayor proposed was not part of what they had been mapping out and considering.

So they're gonna have to figure out how to add that in to the overall rate structure.

By sunsetting this, what it would mean is that at the end of the fiscal plan, that PIF cost would no longer be there, which means it no longer gets passed to the ratepayers.

How to make sure DC Water is accountable for that is going to be oversight.

So how we make sure that we're putting oversight on that.

Uh but I think it's an important aspect to make sure that we are lowering that PIF cost, which would mean that with appropriate oversight, they're not passing on that cost or returning that back.

I just question if we can get anything in writing because I mean if we oversight happens in time after something happens.

So and it's after something already been done, you know.

So we ask some question about something that's happening already.

Um I'm concerned that you know, if we do sunset this, it doesn't have a good effect on the residents if we don't have anything right.

So if it didn't happen in right and it didn't happen.

Well, I mean, do I have it in writing that four years from now they'll ask him based on how do we ensure that ratepayers don't still incur these costs over time?

That's going to be our job.

So from an oversight perspective, looking at we have a DC water board that we vote to approve the mayor's nominations for that.

We have our oversight function.

So when the PIF costs that DC Water is having to pay go away four years from now, then it will be our job to make sure that the cost that will be passed on to ratepayers are no longer being assessed.

So I I don't have the crystal ball that's going to tell us exactly what's going to happen in four years, but I believe that's part of our oversight job is to make sure they are not passing on those costs.

And do you know the cost will be there?

Do you know if DC water has any uh pending rate increases now?

They do right now.

I'm just concerned about the rise in utility costs in the district, and we still haven't heard any reassurance that this is going to help the ratepayers in any way that are struggling just to stay in the district and keep their bills up.

Completely.

And that's part of what's driving this is to remove that PIF and sunsetting it so that those costs don't get passed on to ratepayers.

Yeah, but it could still go up based on these other rate increases that's pending.

Correct.

The costs are going up.

We're trying to limit this so that they don't go up even more.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you so much, Councilor Allen.

I just have a similar question.

Kind of zooming back without this amendment, what would happen to ratepayers if we were not to sunset the PIF?

So if we don't sunset it, then I think two things.

One, the DC water will have to continue passing on the mayor's PIF increase to ratepayers as they do their long-term financial planning.

And secondly, when DC water goes out to the bond market, which they'll do, for example, the summer, they have to show on their books an unknown financial liability that goes out beyond this fiscal plan.

And so to some degree, by sunsetting the PIF through this amendment, it also helps DC water when they go out to the bond market to show essentially a capped financial liability as they go out looking for bonding.

Got it.

Okay.

And is it your understanding that their plan is to do uh to look for more external financing so that ratepayers don't have to bear the brunt of increased costs?

In terms of overall costs, uh, I mean they will look for financing that essentially ratepayers, both residential and commercial, um, are paying.

They are very much trying to bring in federal dollars.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has rolled back a lot of Federal dollars that would have been available, so that makes everything a little bit harder.

Um if they are able to find private financial sources that they'll do that.

Um they've also done everything from looking at uh, for example, they're doing energy generation.

Uh so they're able to help offset costs by you know they have a huge solar installation, for example, down at Blue Plains.

Um, they have a lot of different ways that they're trying to help offset costs that are otherwise having to be passed on to ratepayers.

This PIF is just one more cost that is going to ratepayers that if we're able to sunset, we can at least control one part of what that cost is going to be.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Is there any further discussion regarding this?

Oh my.

Uh Councilmember uh Fruman.

Thank you very much.

Uh I I fully support this amendment.

I I do think that it can be a moment to step back and think about our propensity to impose fees.

And we impose fees in the utility context, we in the delivery context.

We we do it in a lot of different places, and it's a way in which we raise revenue, and it doesn't look like a tax.

But I think part of what this amendment is is a recognition that these fees end up getting passed on to our residents.

And so they kind of work as a tax.

So I would encourage that we be reluctant going forward to be imposing new fees like this.

I think we are going to have to take a hard look on a very candid revenue raiser, and I think that's the way to go.

But I think we we need to be careful because utility prices are going up, and they're not the they're not just going up because of fees that we impose.

But the fees that we impose contribute to what is a real problem area.

And this amendment's a recognition of that, but I think it's broader than that, and we should keep that in mind going forward.

So thank you very much.

Uh Councilmember Felder?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Councilwoman Pinto and uh asked my original question.

Uh, but Councilmember Allen, uh just wanted to note I appreciate your leadership on this.

By any chance, have you had an opportunity to talk with uh DC Water and are they supportive of this?

Uh what what will have those conversations been like, if any?

Um I think it would be fair.

I don't I don't want to speak on behalf of DC Water, but I'll say what I believe has been conveyed to me.

They are not supportive of the PIF overall.

They are supportive of this amendment, though, um, as feeling like it at least gives them a backstop at the end that it sunsets.

Uh thank you for that.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Allen, do we have a sense of the rate increase that ultimately is passed on to ratepayers?

Uh sorry, do you mean the entirety of what D.C.

Water is looking at this summer, or do you mean specific to the PIF?

I mean, if their argument is we must do this so we don't pass on an increase to ratepayers, the the natural question I have is what is that increase?

Uh I you know, I think councilmember Trayon White's question point to a certain skepticism that I shared, like do we really anticipate rates going down?

Um and as I look at this, part of the PIF is to ensure and incentivize DC water to move as efficiently and effectively as possible.

We're essentially taking that burden away from them because they're saying, well, we're gonna increase rates or have to increase rates for ratepayers, which I'm sensitive to.

Um so I'm just curious if there's a an amount or estimate of what that increase might be.

Um DC Water is currently debating, their board is debating a rate increase on every DC water ratepayer.

That is completely separate from the PIF.

So I want to be very clear.

We are looking at DC water, having to think about what are rate increases gonna be for DC water completely separate from this PIF.

This PIF was only introduced by the mayor in April, so they've only had what is that, two, three months uh that they've been looking at this.

So I don't know if they can with the accuracy of your bill, for example, say this is what the PIF is gonna reflect.

What they have been very clear about, though, is say any additional cost that we have to pay has to be borne by ratepayers.

So it is a cost that has to get passed on to ratepayers.

To be clear as well, the PIF does not save DC water any money.

The PIF will increase costs that DC water has to pay.

So I want to make sure that's clear as well.

Ultimately, I see it as it's an incentive measure to say let's not inconvenience district residents with your work, so as to not incur more fines or penalties, move as efficiently as possible.

Yes.

We're essentially saying, all right, we're going to sunset this X years down the line.

Um and again, I'm just kind of kicking the tires on the argument.

I'm skeptical.

So the nature of DC water infrastructure projects are that they will run longer than 60 days.

And so while the PIF, I think from a policy, purely policy perspective of saying we're gonna have a higher public convenience fee, but we don't assess it until after 60 days.

Whereas currently it's 30 days.

In my policy hat on, for a lot of projects, that probably makes sense.

We're incentivizing, get the work done, get it faster, get out of the public way, or else there's this higher fee.

The nature of many DC water projects are longer term projects.

And so you could say 60 days, you could say 90 days.

Probably won't matter because it's a long-term type of project.

So DC water will have to pay this fee in an increased way, which means it comes to ratepayers.

So by sunsetting it, the goal is, and to Councilmember White's point, oversight's gonna have to be what takes place here.

When that PIF after four years no longer is there, how do we make sure that that is no longer reflected in bills and we see your bills no longer pass on those PIF costs?

Thank you.

Councilmember Bonds.

Um thank you, Chairman, and thank you, uh, Mr.

Allen, for um this measure.

Um I to understand through this measure that it only speaks to this particular instance.

It does not speak to the future opportunities for rate increases.

All right, correct.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

I think any time we can um think about the public and think about how we can help them save dollars and cents, it's important, but this does not really speak to that at this point.

Thank you very much.

Uh I want to note that the amendment that is before us would reduce the fee starting in tw with the fall of 2030.

It's not increasing rates, it's actually trying to help ratepayers, even though it will be a few years from now.

I'm only saying that because a lot of the questions have focused on well, what are we doing about the cost of water and the effect on ratepayers?

This amendment is to some extent, in some way, helping, not hurting ratepayers.

I also want to note ratepayers, even though we care about all of our residents and all of our businesses, ratepayers is a broader base than just residents and businesses in the district.

I would also like to point out, because I had a long discussion with DC Water last week about this.

Uh they have a project, Clean Rivers, where they kind of set up shop and they're there for a couple years, and so the fee is going to cost them.

But they do a lot of other projects in the public space, and in my view, they can manage the timing of those projects.

And they don't have to be uh like digging up my block for 90 days.

Maybe they can do it in like 15 days.

Um so they have some ability other than Clean Rivers to be able to manage their way around this fee.

And the fee right now is it's less, but it starts after 30 days, and with what we have in the BSA, it starts after 60 days.

So just saying, if there's no objection, this amendment will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

Councilmember Allen, I think you had a second amendment.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Uh my amendment number two.

Um is currently drafted.

Subtitle IA would subject most independent agencies to telework policies approved by the mayor.

This amendment would specifically and limited exempt the Public Service Commission and the Office of People's Council from that requirement to implement a telework policy approved by the mayor, allowing them to maintain their current telework policies.

For background, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia and the Office of the People's Council for the District of Columbia are independent agencies with their own hiring and personnel authority, both have existing and robust telework policies that have been in place for the last several years.

And so I believe they have again as independent agencies with a personnel authority that is distinct from the mayor.

The PSC and OPC should be able to diverge from the mayor's workforce management practices.

Uh the committee has reviewed both organizations' current telework policies, uh, and they are very reasonable and have been in place for the last couple of years.

Uh and without objection, Mr.

Chairman would ask if you accept that as friendly.

Okay.

Hold on.

Uh we have the amendment before us.

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

I just want to ask a question.

Um, I think there have been a number of exemptions from this particular subtitle.

And so my question is what is the point of the subtitle now?

Like who's left?

Are you asking that of Councilmember Allen or me?

It's not a rhetorical one, but I don't uh who who was left?

OAG has been exempted, PSC.

Oh, it so who's left?

I'm just saying, like, should we should the subtitle just be stricken at this point?

Um who's left?

So there are a lot of independent agencies, a lot of independent agencies, and uh there is an addition or included in that, perhaps the largest of them all is the office of the chief financial officer.

They have a thousand over a thousand employees.

And there is a zoning commission.

Trying to think.

Umperty tax administration, tax appeals administration.

Um please don't ask me to try to list all of them from memory.

Board of Elections and Ethics.

Officer, the Inspector General.

I was shown a long list for a moment, and then it was taken away from me.

Did you have more?

Um is there further discussion on this amendment?

If there is no objection, the amendment will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

My order.

Um I want to thank Councilmember Parker for advocating on the uh pilot program.

Uh this amendment would increase the eligibility threshold for participating schools in the $50 week pilot program from 40 percent to 60 percent at-risk enrollment, helping to ensure the pilot's limited funding is directed to schools serving the highest concentrations of at-risk students.

Uh, I am happy to support this pilot.

Young people have been asking the council for a program like this, and this gives us the opportunity to evaluate whether a weekly stipend can improve uh financial literacy, student well-being, attendance, and academic achievement before considering a broader expansion.

I want to thank Councilmember Parker for working with me on this amendment, and I believe the uh 60 percent threshold is the right balance to maximize the impact of this pilot.

Um Mr.

Chairman, I I hope you will accept this as friendly.

Uh thank you.

Is there discussion from members?

Chairman.

Chairman.

Councilmember Tran White.

Uh yeah, uh, Councilmember Web White, how did you uh arrive at the 60 percent?

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

Uh, remember going from one number to 60.

What made you get to that mark?

I know it's used to maximize the money without spreading it to thin on So this is so that the schools that have uh it's such a small amount of money, and so we want to target it to the to the schools that have the most uh the biggest attendance issues.

Because if we're really gonna see how well this works, I I think it would be better to target it to the schools uh with the biggest um uh uh student absence issues.

Have there been anything you've seen uh that speaks to uh schools that stick out more or have been getting left out because it has been broadened you think it's gonna be too broad?

So the the schools with a higher uh absentee uh rate would be eligible under either, but this amendment narrows the number of schools so that it is the schools with the highest level of of of student absences that would be able to participate in the program as opposed to them applying and not being able to access the very limited amount of money.

Thank you.

Uh further on the amendment, Councilmember Parker.

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to uh thank Councilmember Robert White for this amendment.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

I fully support it.

Um and it will as he mentioned, ensure that we are covering more schools where more at-risk students are likely uh to have attendance issues.

Um so just wanted to acknowledge that this is a positive amendment for the $50 study.

Uh if there is no further discussion, if there's no objection, it will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

Uh Councilmember Lewis George.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh 10 years ago, we passed the DC Universal Pay Leave Amendment Act.

In the year since, thousands have utilized this benefit to care for themselves and for loved ones during critical illnesses.

It has helped to improve outcomes and reduce the catastrophic economic fallout that too many families have experienced without sufficient paid family leave.

The fiscal year 27 budget permanently reduces the family caregiving benefit from 12 weeks to six weeks and medical leave from 12 weeks to 10 weeks.

I'm moving this amendment, which has no cost to ensure that the maximum duration of leave under DC pay family leave program is fully restored at the end of the four-year financial plan to 12 weeks of medical leave and 12 weeks of family caregiving.

We made history 10 years ago.

And we made history again this year when DC became the only state program to have ever rolled back its program in the 25 years of state pay pay family and medical leave programs.

Both Maryland and Virginia will offer more paid medical leave and family caregiving leave than the district.

If we are to remain competitive, if we are to do right by DC's families, then we must write this wrong as soon as possible and ensure that the program is fully restored b beginning as October 1st of 2030.

With that, I move the amendment.

This is your amendment number one.

Amendment number one, correct.

Discussion.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you.

I am moving amendment number two.

Uh I'm moving this amendment to preserve the mayor's authority to establish a government-wide telework policy while clarifying that telework can still be negotiated through future collective bargaining agreements.

Uh this is an important clarification.

Telework is not just an administrative policy, it is a real workplace issue for employees and a meaningful part of labor negotiations.

For certain job types, negotiated telework policies allow managers and labor unions to collectively support employee recruitment, employee retention, and can even generate a cost savings.

The subtitle as drafted would only protect existing agreements and would prevent agencies from bargaining over telework in the future.

This amendment keeps the mayor's authority intact, but ensures that we are not unnecessarily taking an issue off the table in collective bargaining going forward.

With that, I move the amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis George.

Um has telework ever been part of collective bargaining negotiations?

And DC to awareness?

Yes.

And did that stop during COVID or what was the history there?

Do you know?

I don't know the full history to be able to.

But it it when I guess when was it part of negotiations?

I think it varies between which labor which unwho when bargaining was taking place between different unions.

Okay.

So this would be returning us to a policy that we used to have.

Reframe the re rephrase the question.

So I'm trying to understand how this would work in practice.

Um that if labor is negotiating a telework policy, is that something that they have done in the past?

Yes, we are preserving a policy that's in place.

Yes.

It's a pre we're preserving it.

I see.

Okay.

And the mayor's language removed that ability to negotiate around telework.

And this puts it back.

Yes.

Okay.

Um as we've discussed in a lot of different times this budget, there are many public safety agencies who have had significant challenges with staffing.

And so I'm just trying to understand how this would work in practice if telework became an issue that could not be resolved, what that would mean for our workforce who in certain agencies have to show up in person.

Well, they've been exempted through Charles' amendment that we accepted just a moment ago.

I thought that was just for OPC and um I thought they were the on the exemption list that Phil named.

Apologies.

I missed the first part of the question.

We're talking about which agencies would be exempted.

My understanding was your amendment was just for two agencies.

My earlier amendment was adding two public service commission and OPC exempting them from the subtitle.

Council Member Lewis George's amendment doesn't speak to agencies.

It speaks to uh organized or um unionized workers.

So whatever agency.

And what it says is notwithstanding the rest of the subtitle, if uh a union negotiates with the mayor and both sides agree on a telework policy that that would be allowed.

That's uh substitute for the language that's in the subtitle right now, which says that unions can't bargain.

Okay, so let's use an example of teachers.

Um if teachers wanted to bargain to have telework.

Telework two days a week.

That would now be on the table.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Now, as a practical matter, I can't quite see how a teacher will be teaching via teleworking.

Uh so I don't think that's actually gonna go very far.

Um but uh just that your example, yes, they could negotiate that.

That doesn't mean they would get it.

It may be that the union wants a five percent increase in their uh compensation, and so they're not gonna negotiate telework.

Or maybe they will agree to a zero increase in compensation, but get the telework.

But it would be bargained.

And presumably with bargaining, the mayor is representing her interests to the government's interests.

I will note if just to pick an extreme, if the um executive were to negotiate five days of telework and you don't have to come in any day in the month, uh the CBA has to come to the council for approval, and we may not uh agree with that.

We may not approve that contract.

Yeah.

But all this is about is allowing the ability to bargain.

Yeah.

I and I wanted just to note that it allows more flexibility from agency to agency.

Um and telework can also support recruitment and retention as well.

And so I and and helping address job vacancies, so I want to also note that it is an important tool that we utilize.

Okay.

I I guess I'm just uneasy and thinking uh uh about a lot of examples of staffing challenges that we're having and needing people to be in person.

And I know we've kind of made a lot of changes as was previously discussed with the amendment this budget to chip away at some of those changes, and many of those may be uh the right approach, but I I worry about adding this tool um in the context that we're finding ourselves in right now with staffing.

So I will just say, I mean, I think Councilmember Henderson hinted towards this earlier.

I mean, one of the issues with this subtitle altogether is that it was not a subtitle that we had a hearing on that we got feedback on, and so from a procedural aspect, you're right.

We're doing a lot of piecemeal things because we should technically be handling this in a hearing and getting feedback and doing the appropriate measures.

My amendment is seeks to um reduce some of the harm from the route that we are taking in this subtitle moving forward.

Councilman Brown.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I I'm in support of this uh uh amendment.

I also want to try to help clarify, not just I think for the diaspora for the public as well.

We're not adding anything here.

So from the examples of um a negotiated contract with the teachers or with a police union.

First off, they have existing contracts, so they're already grandfathered, but they conceivably could have bargained a telework policy uh for teachers or police officers.

It wouldn't make much sense to do that, but they could.

And I see your amendment as just saying for all of our of our labor, we would have just preserved the right to be able to negotiate.

I don't see any harm in making sure that parties can bring what they want to bring to the bargaining table to negotiate.

We will likely see practical decisions made.

Um my kid's fourth grade teacher isn't gonna be able to telework.

Um and so there's a there's a part of that that is just not a practical part of what would actually happen, but I don't that but that's what already exists, so we're not adding anything.

This is just ensuring that people can bargain for what they want to build a bargain for, and that's part of the collective bargaining process.

So I I support your effort here and your amendment because it's not adding anything, it's just maintaining the ability to bargain.

And I think that's a pretty core value uh that we want to have for our workers across the district.

Thank you.

If there's nothing further, um there's no objection.

The amendment will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted.

Uh Councilmember Lewis George.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um this is a small amendment, but means a big great deal toward four.

Um the Rock Reek Tennis Center holds professional tournaments that brings thousands of participants and fans and significant tax revenue to the district.

Um however, the center's ability to do so is jeopardized by its poor condition.

Um I've always supported the district doing its part to ensure these tournaments can continue.

Um I also share uh the unease of residents uh in 16th Street Heights and Crestrood with local dollars being used on a federal property.

Uh, that is why I've advocated for meaningful safeguards of district taxpayer dollars since the council first authorized money for this project last year.

I want to thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for adding language to the ANS that specifies the district taxpayer dollars allocated to the Rock Creek Tennis Center, can be used only on improvements that are necessary to bring the center into compliance with professional league standards.

This language addresses my previous concerns that we were sending uh using uh millions of dollars of federal property uh without controlling what it would be spent on, um, such as larger and different changes to the property that district taxpayers should not have to pay for.

Um my amendment creates an additional and important over oversight tool by requiring the deputy mayor for planning and economic development to provide quarterly updates to the public.

These updates must address the work being done to the tennis center, how completion of the work will impact residents and businesses in ANC 4E and the 16th Street Heights and Crestwood neighbors.

With my amendment and the language added in the ANS, I am confident that the repairs necessary to bring the Rock Reek Tennis Center into compliance with professional tournament standards, can be completed before the 2027 DC uh open, and that local dollars will be used transparently and only as intendant.

Mr.

Chairman, I ask that you and our colleagues accept this amendment as friendly, and with that I move the amendment.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Lewis George.

Um I want to emphasize what you just said, and that is that this is about bringing the stadium and the related uh facilities like the uh locker rooms and the bubble um what are I say into decent condition and also to ensure that uh the association of tennis professionals tours and women's tennis association tour uh are comfortable with this facility since uh they are very concerned, alarmed I would say, over its deteriorated condition.

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

Hearing no objection.

The amendment is accepted.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I am moving an amendment to strike Title II subtitle M, the inclusionary zoning third-party income verification amendment act from the Budget Support Act.

Uh while there are well documented challenges and delays in the administration of the inclusionary zoning program.

I am concerned that shifting income verification back to the private market, a method we've tried before could recreate problems we've already seen.

Uh when developers previously had this responsibilities, we heard stories of affordable units going to households that were not income eligible, as well as parts uh as well as reports of discriminator practices that prevented eligible residents from participating.

Um as DHCD noted in its in its letter, some property managers continue try to try to circumvent the existing process by going around the lottery system to place their preferred tenants in affordable units.

Our residents already face significant challenges navigating the affordable housing programs we have that operate in this way.

Finding available low-income housing tax credit units or getting on to wait list for project-based Section 8 housing is not straightforward for families seeking stable affordable homes.

Uh giving this authority could create simple simple barriers, similar barriers in the IZ program, but without the benefit of federal oversight to ensure compliance.

With that, I move the amendment.

Councilmember Robert White.

Thank you, Chairman, and uh thank you, Councilmember Lewis George for your amendment.

I I think we both recognize that there is there are problems with the IZE program.

Um we have units that need to be going as quickly as possible to uh people who need affordable units, and that's not happening uh because this budget wouldn't uh these changes would not go in effect until October, uh just two months before uh a new administration.

Um I think it makes sense to work together on this since we have the same goal.

So uh I support this amendment.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, you said you support the amendment.

Uh is there further discussion?

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

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

Um councilmember Felder Mr.

Chairman, can you come back to me?

Come back to you.

Uh Councilmember I don't know if I recognize Councilmember Pinto or Councilmember Crawford.

Um who wants to go for this one?

I'll I'll go ahead and then we can turn.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I'm pleased to offer this amendment today with Councilmember Crawford.

The greater U Street Parking Performance Zone or the parking zone encompasses two existing Main Streets areas, both the U Street Main Street and part of the Shaw Main Street.

The funding that's derived by the parking zone is significant as we discussed last vote.

And our local businesses are quite literally the driving force behind the funds that are generated from this parking zone.

And so I think it's important that we ensure some of the money that's generated through this these zones are set aside for our existing main streets or clean teams that support U Street and Shaw that are within the parking zone.

These grants will enhance cleanliness and safety along these corridors, attracting and maintaining more visitors and businesses while also serving residents and neighbors who come to enjoy these areas.

These neighborhoods within the parking zone should be prioritized with funding that's generated from parking revenue within the same zone.

There's also a small technical change that we're moving.

The word covered has been substituted for the word within for clarity, just to ensure that the revenue stays within the entirety of the parking zone.

I also just want to note this has been an issue that Councilmember Nadeau and I have worked on together for many years, given that these boundaries include businesses both in Ward 1 and in Ward 2.

And so I want to be as deferential as possible to the areas in Ward 1 that you were trying to establish here with the um with the parking zone in and of itself and almost all of that is maintained.

This amendment that Councilmember Crawford and I are moving today is just about 100,000 out of this million dollar fund set up for um placemaking purposes to ensure that the existing businesses in main streets that are already operating can have some money set aside to work on activities that maintain cleanliness and safety, um, which is frankly desperately needed in this area and along U Street.

So uh with that, I move the amendment.

I'll turn to Councilmember Crawford.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Crawford.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you to Councilmember Pinto and her team for working with my team and I on this amendment.

I expressed concerns about this subtitle when it was introduced and narrowly approved as an amendment at first reading.

And I did not support it because of issues raised by the community around the initial lack of engagement, potential future bid boundaries, and how funding could be shared with main street organizations.

With this amendment, as Councilmember Penzo said, we are making a targeted adjustment to ensure that the benefits of parking revenue are felt more directly by the corridors and neighborhoods where that revenue is generated.

My office has spoken with Shaw Main Street and ANC 1B, and we have heard their concerns about ensuring there is flexibility for potential U Street bid boundaries, and that Shaw is not left out of the investments connected to this parking zone.

This amendment responds to those concerns by clarifying the language referring to the area and making clear that both Shaw Main Street and the U Street Main Street or Clean Team should receive dedicated support for cleanliness and safety.

Again, I want to thank Councilmember Pinto for her partnership on this amendment as well as the community stakeholders who engaged with us on this issue.

And I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Thank you.

Further on this, Councilmember Nadeau.

Thank you, Chairman.

And I want to thank all my colleagues for working with us at first reading to get this passed.

What we have done in the BSA and the engrossed version is ensure that all of the revenue from the performance parking zone that has been generated will go to the Greater U Street area.

First of all, uh the engrossed version set aside a million dollars for the creation of a new place management entity, which we do expect to be a bid.

Although it could be the neighborhood management authority, we're keeping it open to see which one succeeds.

And the reason I say it that way is that for the past 20 years and longer, but since my time on the ANC, U Street has been trying so hard to create a bid to support the small businesses in the community there.

And there have been three or maybe four attempts at this.

And they just keep failing.

Because it's an area that is not just any commercial corridor, it's also a place that attracts nightlife.

It's a place that unfortunately over the years has had violence, there's a lot of trash.

There are all the things when you bring people together in a space like this.

So this amendment takes money away from that one million pot, unnecessarily, because the whole pot is actually more than three million dollars.

The rest of the um subtitle actually specifies that remaining balance shall be used solely for the following purposes within and immediately adjacent to the greater U Street Performance Parking Zone.

Place management initiatives, which I would argue very clearly would be main streets, public space maintenance, which our clean teams do, public safety initiatives, which the nightlife task force does and the clean teams do, transportation safety and public space improvements, which DDOT helps us with, and explicitly support for businesses, which of course is what our main streets are all about.

So I would argue that with this amendment, we are somewhat arbitrarily setting aside $50,000 for each main street.

Um, but I am not clear on what that money is going to do or why we need that specific amount.

Um what I think is a wiser approach, which is what we've done in the BSA, is to specify all of these uses for this area.

Um not name who's gonna get it now.

Because these may be organizations that have stepped up in the past week and said, I'll take $50,000, but there's a lot of work going on in the U Street Corridor, and I don't think we know who else might benefit from these funds.

So I uh I ask members not to support this amendment um mainly because these are already allowable uses and there is no need to undercut the work of creating a bid by taking 100,000 away from it.

By the way, that million dollars is not arbitrary.

That is the amount that the people working to establish the bid have said they need for startup costs, and that is why we set that um at that amount.

So thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh further on this, who hasn't spoken, Councilmember Allen?

Thanks.

I just had a question for Council Member Nadeau.

So my understanding is one of the concerns that have been expressed previously was around just ensuring that dollars used for the automated curbside management program would be restored and returned back to the PPZ fund.

Yes.

And the ANS reflects that as I understand it now.

So it's crystal clear.

Okay.

So if 100,000 were pulled out of said fund and now not used for automated curbside management, when, as the ANS does, ensures the funds get restored, it would be minus the 100,000 dollars because those have been diverted for a different purpose.

Is that correct?

Uh that's a good question.

I don't know the answer to it.

And I think that's another reason why we we probably shouldn't be tweaking it because we worked really hard with OGC and the budget office to make sure that those funds will get replenished appropriately.

Okay.

But yeah, my concern would be that um again, I'm not speaking to the intention here, uh, love our main streets and want to see them all supported, but that an unintended consequence here would be that we pull out a one-time fund, but then those dollars aren't being restored to the PPZ fund, which then doesn't allow it to do what legislatively it had been created to do.

So that just is a concern of mine that we actually end up diluting the fund and the effectiveness that it could have with this amendment, despite the good intentions, I think, of supporting our main streets.

Um I'm gonna support you on this one, Council Mernodeau.

Thanks.

Um, but appreciate it.

Thank you.

I do, I think thank you so much.

And you're reminding me of something else while I have the floor, which is that um, you know, both the U Street and Shaw Main Streets serve the Greater U Street area, but the Shaw Main Street actually covers a much larger area outside of the performance parking zone.

So I think that further complicates the issue because this money may only be spent within that boundary.

So uh Councilmember Pinto, second round.

Thank you.

And thanks for that discussion.

I I would say, Councilor Allen, to that point, the the reason in my view why it's so important that the funds be restored to the PPZ zone is because that's where the money is being generated from.

And so this is just circumventing that step to say 50,000 to each of these organizations is going to be set aside.

I mean this in no way is meant to undermine the establishment of a bid in U Street.

Um, we've had lots of discussions, Councilmember Nadeau, about the right boundaries for the bid and the needs of the area and the needs of the Ward 1 businesses and the Ward 2 businesses there, and I am uh a huge believer that a bid would be very, very helpful.

We have lots of locations in the city.

Ward two is a happy beneficiary of several, where we have coexisting main streets and bids.

We have this in DuPont Circle, the DuPont Circle Main Street and the DuPont Circle bid.

We have this in Georgetown, the Georgetown Main Street and the Georgetown bid.

In both of those contexts and neighborhoods, it is extremely helpful to have both of those entities overlay and um some have different boundaries and some help each other out with various needs, um, but they they serve different functions.

And so making sure that Shaw is not left behind and that U Street Main Streets is not left behind in the formation of any sort of new bid or new NMA, I think is really important, and that's why I and others have heard from so many of our local businesses over the last several weeks and months and years on this issue, is they want to benefit from changes to the neighborhood, but understandably they want to make sure that they can last long enough to see those benefits.

And that's where I think the main streets um and helping focus on cleanliness and safety is so important.

So this is a tiny fraction of the money that's going to be generated from this, and I asked my colleagues to support us on this so we can make sure that our Shaw Main Streets and our U Street Main Streets have the support that they need to continue the great work they do.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Bonds.

Um thank you very much, Chairman.

Um while I have not been a party to the conversations about the creation of this subtitle.

I'm very curious as to what would be the harm in both of the bids sharing a small amount of funding used saying that maybe three million dollars will be derived from these um new parking um costs to those who utilize the space.

So if that's the case, we're now talking about a hundred thousand dollars.

We're talking about two define groups or organizations within a community.

Seems to me at a time when we have very limited resources, and these resources are coming from those who partake of the activities in these areas.

To me, I don't see any harm in both organizations having a kitty to do the cleanup.

We all know when you have nightlife, there is a need for cleanup.

And so just curious as to what's the harm and why we having this kind of argument on the dies as if there is something wrong with how we spin a limited amount of resources.

Just curious, Chairman.

May I have another round?

My questions to um councilmember um okay.

Um well, thank you.

I I agree with you in that this is just a a need of the neighborhood.

I I think that the disagreement um may be around the authorized purposes of this fund.

And I actually don't think we're far apart.

Like all of all of these uses can and should proceed, and I believe will proceed if our amendment passes, um, which will just ensure that the existing main streets and businesses have some benefit, and that the other intentions and goals that council member Nadeau is trying to move forward for the neighborhood can be achieved as well.

And so I I believe everyone's goals can be met and will be met with passing this amendment.

If there's no further Oh, Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you very much, Chairman Mendelssohn.

I think this is a tricky one, but if I understand it correctly, much of Shaw Main Streets is inside of the performance parking area.

And so you do get a sense from folks in the Shaw Main Streets that they want to be a clear beneficiary of this.

And I can understand where that is coming from, honestly.

Also, in the conversation about it, so much of the emphasis is about U Street that one can understand how Shaw Main Streets would feel like this is money that comes in part from where we are, and yet all the conversation is about a different place.

And so I get that sensitivity.

I also, when I look at the dollars, the dollars for the bid in the text that exists are $800,000, and in the amended text, it's $900,000.

So it does seem like the support for a potential bid is there.

And then on the idea of why would you pick some institutions to benefit in the revised text.

And I $110% support it.

There is opening the door to a specific set aside to the African American Civil War Museum, which I think is right, but is another specific reference.

So it seems like this is a struggle over $50,000, which seems like why would we spend so much time on this?

And the fact that it's so hard, I guess also contributes, I think, to the sensitivity in the Shaw community about this.

So my inclination is to support this amendment.

I don't know where it will go.

It doesn't seem like the stakes should be that high.

And so I hope we can get this done.

Um Councilmember Nodeau, second round.

Yes, once again, I'm asking colleagues not to support this amendment.

As I began earlier, U Street has been trying to establish a bid for 20 years.

This amendment literally takes 10% of the funds from what the folks trying to form a bid said they need for their business plan.

Those aren't loose numbers.

It's what it takes to start it.

What I'm concerned about here is that together in the ANS, we have created a fund that actually supports all of the entities we're talking about today.

And by moving this amendment, we are now essentially creating drama around two specific entities completely unnecessarily.

I do have a question.

How is the $50,000 going to be spent by each entity?

Do we know that?

Because it's it's a lot of money for as a percentage for these entities' budgets.

That's to them to the mover.

The funding is authorized to be spent for the maintenance of cleanliness and safety within the zones, which are huge needs, and what we hear most regularly both from these organizations and from the businesses and the residents who are in these areas.

And we wanted per your initial formulation to include some flexibility around how those activities are defined because the needs are constantly evolving.

They are working on activities that are around cleanliness and safety, and what they currently have is simply insufficient to do what the neighborhoods need.

What's the current clean team budget?

For which organization for I don't have that number.

Okay.

Do you know what percentage of their budget in additional $50,000 would be?

Your time's expired.

I have a couple more questions if it's okay.

Um your second round.

So I have concerns because I don't think anybody knows exactly where this money is, how this money will be spent.

$50,000 is a huge enhancement for a clean team.

And I think we should be enhancing clean teams across the city for sure.

But what I would love to see is the language that we already have here allows a clean team or a main street to go to DSLBD and say, these are the blocks I want to expand to.

This is how much money I need.

We can already do that.

It's already in the law we passed.

Council Member.

Yes, I do have one more question.

Mr.

Chairman.

We're on the motion to close debate.

Okay.

You were over your time.

Motion to close debate.

Uh there's a motion to close debate.

I don't know that anybody else is on the list to be recognized.

Well, I just want to make sure.

All right.

So motion to close debate, the effect of which is that uh assuming it's approved that uh only those who have not spoken may speak and the maker of the motion.

All those in favor of the motion to close debate say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Yeah, I have unanimously.

Is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized?

Uh we have the amendment before us.

I'd like to request a roll call, please.

Councilmember Henderson.

Um Councilmember Henderson votes no.

Councilmember Lewis George.

No.

What?

Councilmember Lewis George votes no.

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Yes.

Chairman Mendelson votes yes.

Councilmember Nadeau?

No.

Councilmember Nadeau votes no.

Councilmember Parker?

No.

Councilmember Parker votes no.

Councilmember Pinto?

Yes.

Councilmember Pinto votes yes.

Councilmember Robert White?

No.

Councilmember Robert White votes no.

Councilmember Trayon White?

No.

Councilmember Trayon White votes no.

Councilmember Allen?

No.

Councilmember Allen votes no.

Councilmember Bonds?

Yes.

Councilmember Bonds votes yes.

Councilmember Crawford?

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Councilmember Felder?

Yes.

Councilmember Felder votes yes.

Councilmember Fruman?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are six yeses and seven no's.

Councilmember Pinto, I believe that was the only amendment you had.

That's right, Mr.

Chairman.

Next would be Councilmember Crawford, I believe you have an amendment.

Yes.

But before I get to my amendment, Mr.

Chairman, you reminded me to confirm a citation that should be a technical fix in the subtitle when I can cite to it for OGC.

I believe I noted that at the beginning.

That was the um Title II, subtitle LL.

Yes, to LL line 2533 fixed to pin site.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Which is the last time the council approved an extension of this project.

And I would also like to thank Councilmember Nadeau for supporting this amendment as friendly.

We have the amendment before us.

Is there discussion?

Yes, Chairman.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Thank you.

So Councilmember Crawford, we uh actually have one change that we think is important to make.

I'm sorry I didn't catch you.

This kind of transpired while we were sitting up here.

Um I'm a little concerned the amendment may imply to some that there's been a change in the plans here uh to the space that you and I both care about, um, which is not true.

And so I worry the language might be unnecessarily vague when there are clear plans.

Um so this update would specifically reference.

Um here, let me pass it down to you so you can see if you don't mind, friends.

Okay.

Um as approved by the zoning commission for the District of Columbia and zoning commission order sixteen-11 and in any subsequent applicable orders.

We think that addresses our concern.

The zone reference to the zoning order, I think is really important because that was where it was.

You know this, but yeah.

So if it's okay with you, I'd like to add that language.

And then I would encourage the chairman to accept it all as friendly.

Well, you're gonna have to repeat it.

Okay.

Um or other public uses to say as approved by the zoning commission.

For the District of Columbia in zoning commission order number sixteen eleven, and in any subsequent applicable orders.

And I have a couple paper copies.

Can I pass uh how do I get it to you guys?

Um can someone run this down to general counsel?

This strikes me as um unnecessarily wordy.

I think it's oh sorry.

I think it's the language that we need as approved by the zoning commission.

We kind of know who that is without saying for the District of Columbia.

Order number sixteen eleven and any subsequent, isn't that like are there are there further proceedings or why would we go there?

Um I think to cover our bases.

Well it's the it would be nice if this had been worked out earlier.

That's it reflects the language we used in the FY22 BSA.

In the what?

FY22 BSA.

As approved by the Zoning Commission for the District of Columbia in zoning order 1611 and any.

Councilmember Nadeau?

And in any subsequent applicable orders.

Was that the language?

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Nadeau, um, the uh FY22 uh Park Morton language also cited zoning order sixteen twelve.

You're not mentioning that.

Uh no.

I mean, I don't know the orders.

Why would you mention one and not the other?

Two different sites.

I don't know.

Yeah, it's not um it's not the same location.

It's two different orders.

Councilmember Crawford, this language was used before, even though it strikes me as unnecessarily wordy.

Do you have a problem with it?

I don't believe so.

I consulted with OGC.

Um I didn't have time to review it, so I will say that if there is no objection, then Councilmember Nadeau's oral amendment would be accepted to Councilmember Crawford's written amendment.

And I'll repeat the language.

So it would say including specified site use requirements for a park or other public uses as approved by the zoning commission for the District of Columbia in zoning order 1611 and in any subsequent applicable orders is extended to December 20, 2029.

Hearing no objection, that oral amendment is accepted.

We have the amendment written amendment um before us with that change.

If there is no objection, it will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

We're clear on that.

I'm looking at general counsel.

Councilmember Nadeau.

I withdraw my uh amendment to the teleworks subtitle.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I would like to move amendments one, two, and three in block, as they each make the same technical conforming corrections.

Specifically, each amendment updates the definition of certified business enterprise to ensure it remains consistent with existing DC law.

Uh the amendments apply to subtitle C workforce housing opportunity tax abatement, subtitle D, development of former federal properties and subtitle E Wamada joint development properties.

As we previously legislated as recently as this spring, uh CDE should be limited to only those businesses based in the district.

Uh, if we allow for the expanded definition, I fear that businesses can take advantage of the district C B E benefits.

Uh and Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, one more thing for the record.

We inadvertently circulated these as amendments to the engrossed version.

Uh and they should be uh or they should have been uh to the ANS.

I don't think there's any problem with that given since General Council is aware.

Yeah, we are.

It's substantively fine.

Um thank you.

Is there discussion?

If there is no objection, um these three amendments will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, they are accepted.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Councilmember Felder.

No, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

That's it.

Um I'm not aware of any other amendments.

Is there any other discussion?

Chairman.

Councilmember Trayon White?

Um, I have an amendment if it can be accepted as friendly for Councilmember Allen's amendment.

Um I can read it and circulate it.

That's to you.

And this is uh to ensure that as we consider uh the relief for DC water that it also relieves for the uh rate payers at the same time in this amendment, and I'll read it.

Uh amending section 225.1c1 of Title 24 of the district municipal regulations 24 DCMR 225.1c1 and is mending the sub subparagraph to read the following.

Beginning on October the first, 2020, any rate increases for water and sewer services that were a result of an increase in the public inconvenience fee set forth in public and subparagraph C on this per paragraph shall expire.

Um as amended by Councilmember Allen 1 will sunset the increase of PIF for D.C.

water begin October the first by providing DC water would only be subject to the PIF that's uh currently in place.

This amendment will ensure that rate increase passed on DC rate payers as a result of this increased PIF would also cease at the same time.

Discussion.

Councilmember Allen?

Um I I think, at least in the way that I am reading this, um.

I'm not sure that we're actually legally allowed to do this, because if I am reading this correctly, what it's doing is saying the council is directing the specific rate amounts for water and sewer services.

And so um I don't know if we need to turn to General Counsel to ask around this, but I I understand the spirit in which it is being offered, but I don't believe we are able to actually set the rate for a specific map.

Well it doesn't set the rate, it expires with uh rate increases with our that was increased by this particular setting a rate.

So uh the language is beginning October 1st, 2030.

That's consistent with the amendment that uh Councilmember Allen moved earlier.

Any rate increases for water and sewer services?

I'll repeat any rate increases.

Uh that were a result of the increased public inconvenience fees set forth in subparagraph C of this paragraph shall expire.

Councilmember Allen, I grabbed the sheet from you.

Did you have anything more to say?

Uh no, it it it is not a disagreement around the spirit of what is trying to happen here.

That to me is again our oversight function to make sure that any rate from the mayor's PIF that is passed on to ratepayers when the PIF goes away is no longer present in a bill.

My issue is I just don't believe that legislatively we can write what the rate increase is.

As much as I would love to do that, uh I don't think that we can.

I'm sure D.C.

Water would love it if we are able to set their rates.

I would add that I think that there's a a certain amount of vagueness here.

Um, not so much in the writing, but um any rate increases that were a result of the increase in the public inconvenience fees.

So unless that were to be itemized as part of a rate making rate setting by DC water, I don't know how anybody would be able to figure out what is expiring.

I mean, I am assuming their rate increases are not too much different than public.

So we would talk about D.C.

water that there will be rate increases based on uh us adding this PIF.

So whatever those rate increases was speaks to the language.

Yes, but typically um, or I don't expect that DC water would say have a rate-making case where they would say the PIF is going up and therefore the rates are going up.

That's exactly what they said.

I would assume that there is a rate setting case right now, there will be a rate setting case in a few years, don't know when, and it will encompass much more in the way of the costs than just simply the PIF.

And I think, Mr.

Chairman, my point again is that as I read the statute, the powers that are delegated to the D.C.

Water and Sewer Board, water and sewer authority board are to set adjust levy rates, and that is not a power we have.

So I don't believe that we are able as well intentioned as this is, I just think the way that we get at this is gonna have to be through oversight of DC water.

We just legislatively I don't think can do this.

So essentially I asked the question earlier, how do we ensure um after we sunset this that the rate for the ratepayers sunset as well?

The answer response was we would have oversight.

I'm not sure what oversight is going to do after it's already been done.

So welcome you to come to one of our hearings.

We do oversight of DC water and other utilities, so that would be the oversight would be the work that we do in our committee on oversight for that, as well as obviously the DC representatives that sit on the DC water board themselves, which are appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council.

So I think we have multiple spaces where we can exert our oversight influence uh to ensure that when the PIF sunsets, those rates accrue to that are no longer reflected in ratepayers' bills.

But perhaps OGC can opine on if we're even able to take this up.

No, I think what you said, Councilmember Allen is correct.

And what?

Can you give a detailed?

No, we cannot.

We cannot set the rates.

Council cannot legislation.

Usually this is set in rational sunset and a bill.

But you're saying this says this is this the way this reads is that you are saying no other rate.

The rate itself shall expire.

So that is setting a rate.

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Parker?

Just on the merits of the argument.

The council many weeks ago said PEPCO cannot shut off people's service.

I just am challenging the assertion that this would be legally affecting a rate.

What I think Councilmember White is trying to do, and I don't want to speak for him, but what I'm interpreting it as if DC Water is making our argument that they are raising rates because of the PIF, then once the PIF goes away, they should be forced to one, acknowledge what the rate increase was and remove that increase.

I think on its merits, I don't know, I can't, I just saw the language, so I can't weigh in on how it's written, but I think it has merit.

Uh what I think is a uh interesting argument made by DC Water that they will have to raise rates, uh, which is uh in line with my questions earlier.

So I just am adding my two cents.

I think I get what Councilmember Trion White is trying to do, and I challenge the assertion that we wouldn't have the legal right to say you can't charge ratepayers uh for an increased rate the same way we banned PEPCO shutoffs a few weeks ago.

Is that a question?

No, just adding my two cents that uh I I don't know what we do after that, but uh maybe Councilmember Treyon White will rewrite the language or work with general counsel to rewrite it, not to prolong this.

But what I sense he's trying to do is to force DC Water to say what is the increase, if any, because of PIFs, and to hold them accountable to not passing those increases on to residents.

And I know uh we don't want to prolong the meeting, but I think if DC Water is arguing uh this point uh to push back on PIFs, I think it's it has merit.

Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman Councilmember Frown.

Thank you very much.

Uh I too get the spirit of what Councilmember Tran White is trying to do.

And and it is, I mean DC Water is saying that as night follows day, if we have to pay these fees, we need to pass them on to folks.

And I think that is a reality that the uh the point that in setting the rates, there is a look at all of the costs that DC Water has experienced, and then there is an effort to recoup those costs.

I wonder, and it may be semantics that doesn't make a difference, but I wonder if this language said that after 2030, uh that the sunset of the PIF needs to be taken into account in the establishment of the rates.

That is it it is a changed reality that could result in lower rates or a slower increase in 2030, but if it's gonna sunset and the goal is that that has a uh uh uh positive effect for ratepayers, can we say that it should be taken into account without saying what the specific rate change is?

I would expect that there's legislat that the legislation authorizes a look at a variety of things.

And so adding this to the list of things that might be looked at and setting the rates is different than setting the rates, or could be different than setting the rates.

Is there a path like that?

It doesn't say it's in three.

Yes, it's a general council.

So what is it amendment?

Other than that, it doesn't make it.

What was the question?

I'm sorry.

I'm answering other questions.

The question is is there a way to phrase it so that we are urging that the sunset of the PIF be taken into account in the establishment of the rate?

I would expect that there is a list of factors that are looked at in setting the rate in the first place.

And could we add this as a factor?

In that way, we're not setting the rate, but we are underscoring the reason why we're doing this, which is we want some relief on rates and we want it to be taken into account.

Yeah, so I'd have to take a look at the the regulation right now.

We're doing this on the fly.

I in all honesty, I think Councilmember Allen probably has the best strategy going forward, and that this needs to be addressed in oversight.

I just I don't have the regulations pulled up right in front of me to answer your question specifically.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna rule this out of order, and I'm gonna rule it out of order because um it would appear to be trying to set rates for the water and sewer authority, which I don't believe we have the authority to do.

Um rates can be set either explicitly or directly, as in the rate shall be X amount, or the rate could be set by saying you have to reduce the uh what you're you're charging.

As I noted before, there's a certain amount of vagueness here because I doubt that the water and sewer authority is going to have a rate setting case that is tied solely explicitly and only to the public inconvenience fee, which if I remember correctly is maybe a couple million dollars in cost a year for a hundreds of millions of dollar operation.

Uh so I I don't even uh but this gets at the issue of what the rates are, and I think that exceeds our authority, and uh so it is out of order.

Yes, Council.

I want to move to recess for a second and speak with general counsel to get this uh corrected.

Uh you make an assumptions, and I'm I spoke to DC water representatives today to say specifically that they were going to uh increase rates due to this PIF.

Um you're saying you don't think they are.

So if we can get a brief moment, I can speak to General Counsel to uh offer this amendment.

So motion to recess.

All those in favor of the motion to recess say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

No.

The motion fails.

Roll call, Chairman.

We don't know if this is the same.

The motion fails.

We don't even know what the road goal is.

I'm sorry, Mr.

White.

I and I'm not sure that I appreciate the chaos here.

So I did pause before I announced the result of the um voice vote.

So you know who the motion failed.

That's crazy.

Um the measures out of order.

Is there further discussion?

Okay, well, we have the amendment nature of a substitute as amended.

Um if there's no further discussion, the vote will be on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended.

Although it's not the ANS.

On the devoted will be on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended.

I'm sorry, I've got some questions and comments.

Councilmember Pinto.

Um, Mr.

Chairman.

Um thank you for all of your work on the BSA and your team and the budget office.

Um, and I think that this BSA does a lot of very important things around making workforce housing more possible, around TANF pass-throughs to um support working families, does a lot of things to uh ensure that as we still have more building vacancies downtown and in Southwest that we can generate more revenue through those transfers.

I do have a couple of questions and concerns.

Um, as you know, I'm very concerned about this delivery fee that has been placed in that I I worry is going to impact lots of families across the district who order groceries or who order deliveries.

Um I wasn't able to move an amendment today, um, I do hope that's something that the council can take up at a later date to ensure that we are not disadvantaging our residents who are trying to order food, especially who live in parts of the city without access to as many grocery stores.

Um I I just don't think that this is a responsible fee.

Um, so I want to make that clear for the record.

Um I also want to ask about um some of the construction projects in the pipeline.

So this is in reference to the gas ban that goes into effect in December of 2026.

Are you aware of uh how this would impact current projects in the pipeline that are scheduled to be built and if this would allow those to proceed?

Are you asking who are you asking?

You.

Me.

Okay, I'm happy to talk about it.

So I think your question deals with what I think of as the net zero subtitle.

Am I correct?

Yes.

I'm referring to the permit cutoff date.

That was so there's a um uh the mayor, this was in the mayor's introduced bill.

Uh I believe it came out of uh the Transportation and Environment Committee largely unchanged.

Uh there was a negotiation, if you will, between two members on the day as Councilmore Allen, Councilmember Lewis George.

They came up with the language that was approved first reading.

Uh my recollection, maybe I'm wrong as the amendment nature was substitute does not make any changes.

The mayor had proposed very simply extending or prolonging delaying.

We'll say delaying net zero for a year.

Uh the um version that went through first reading uh would delay the net zero law by a year, but many of the requirements for net zero are in the subtitle that is before us, uh which would explain why NATO um you've been approached with regard to uh I think the way you characterized it is the prohibition on uh gas.

It's not a complete prohibition, and the way I said it was way too oversimplified.

Um I think it's new construction for covered buildings and additions of over 10,000 square feet for certain buildings.

All right.

And it's a uh ban on gas for uh excuse me for um maybe I should know exactly what I'm talking about.

Yeah, but so I think um self-generating space heating and water heating.

And and maybe Councilmember Allen has an answer to this too, but and thank you for that.

I guess what I'm more wondering is if anyone has analyzed any projects that are currently in the pipeline, given this goes into effect so soon, um, and if that would affect any of our conversion projects, any of our housing projects, um, especially that are planned for downtown over the next six months.

Um I have not done that analysis, and I'm glad you mentioned Councilmember Allen, because I didn't want to answer your question to begin with.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Pinto.

Um I'm gonna take just one quick step back so everyone understands where we are.

So current law, current law states that if a new net zero construction code is not finalized by this year, the end of this calendar year, new construction or level three alterations must meet appendix Z.

The mayor had proposed was to delay that by one year.

The revised subtitle maintains the one-year delay for final net zero standard, but has two interim requirements beginning in 2027.

Buildings greater than 10,000 square feet, they would have no on-site combustion, and two, they can serve as much energy as they would under the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code, not appendix Z.

So that actually adds a lot of flexibility.

I'll keep in mind we have an entire process through the GBAC where construction is able to go through a GBAC process to get other exemptions.

We have plenty of examples of big projects and small projects that have gone through that successfully.

Green building advisor is so many acronyms.

Green Building Advisory Council.

So they are the ones who uh issue exemptions from that.

To the specific question, I think is what you're asking, which is but correct me if I didn't hear this correctly, that when does a permit, so if someone is applying for a construction or a level three alteration permit, what plu what applies?

It would be the construction code at the time of that.

So if a project is working right now through the permitting process, they're going through today's rules.

If they are if the if DOB does not have new codes by the end of the year, and they are in the permitting process and they're they're going through permitting next year under this set, then that's what would apply.

So it's the permit is tied to when their project is based on what the code is at the time.

Okay.

Thank you.

I guess I'm wondering though, if anybody has analyzed how many current projects are in the pipeline that would be impacted by the permitting um being set at this December 2026.

Because part of the discussion several months ago was around exempting some of the affordable housing projects, right?

Well, they're in permitting currently, then they're going under today's permitted rules.

And then if they are through a permitting process but they want to apply for a GVAC approved exemption, then they have that route to take as well.

So I uh I do not know the answer to the question of exactly how many projects have not begun permitting, but would begin permitting in January 2027 if DOB does not approve their construction codes in time, and then an interim standard is set.

That just feels like as an unknowable answer of to get to give it with the fidelity you're asking.

Okay, so if any project is currently in the pipeline and has already applied for a permit, the existing permitting rules would govern.

They are applying under the current permitting regime.

They are in the process.

Yeah, got it.

Okay, thank you very much.

Further discussion on the amendments of a substitute, Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I have three quick questions, I think non-controversial.

In subtitle EE, the Arts and Humanities Grants Amendment Act.

Um I just want to clear make sure I'm understanding the change that you made.

Can you tell me where?

Uh subtitle EE?

T E.

Oh, I'm uh in terms of page number?

Yeah.

I can find that for you.

Give me one second.

Well, let me ask the question while my team gets the page number.

Um my interpretation of this change is that if the council were to earmark funds for organization, that that would supplement whatever grants might be awarded by the arts commission versus them subtracting or supplanting those funds.

Is that was that the spirit behind that change?

Uh I'm page 124, I believe.

Uh yes, Councilmember Parker, your interpretation is the same as mine.

So, for example, right above that language, here's 100,000 to Levine Music, which I think you and Councilmember Fruman both uh advocated for.

Yes.

So they would get that grant, 100,000.

And then if they apply for general operating support grants or GOS grants, which all arts organizations do, um, they would be entitled to whatever that amount would be not offset by this $100,000 grant.

If they were apply to uh, I think they have a small cap uh grant program.

They applied for that, if they meet the criteria, they would get that without it being offset by this.

Um a variety of um grants.

The one that gets the most attention is the general operating support.

The intent of this language is to um the hundred thousand dollars to Levine would not reduce any of those other grant amounts to which they otherwise would get.

Understood.

And that's great.

Actually, I'm being told that the commission asked for this language.

That's great.

That's great.

So we're all on the same page.

Um I had another question for subtitle J about the DCPS Educator Evaluation and Performance Amendment Act.

Uh again, I'm getting at the intention here.

I'm clear on what you're aiming to do with the working group.

Hypothetically speaking, if the union, the teachers union were to uh bargain around, and I I believe they aren't allowed right now to bargain around the evaluation system, but if there were a proposed change by uh the union and the executive, is the spirit here that we would be waiting for the outcome of this working group before any proposed changes are made?

Or no.

Is it that and this uh councilmember Henderson brought this up before that we want to ensure that the new leadership of DCPS has kind of a roadmap of can you just elaborate uh the outcome that you're hoping from this working group?

Is it proposed changes?

Is it kind of handing off to the mayor or a new chancellor to say here's what we learned?

Is it to say we're not going to do anything but what our working group recommends?

Uh the intent behind this is not to delay anything else that might be discussed or negotiated.

Um it is but I'm also I have some skepticism that anything else in this area would happen.

The working group is supposed to complete its work by November 1st, 2027, so that's a little more than a year from now.

Councilmember Parker, you're well aware that there have been complaints with regard to the uh current evaluation system, which is known as impact uh in the DC public schools.

And the committee in developing the subtitle, maybe I should say before it came up with a subtitle, was getting kind of tired of all the criticism with no change or no apparent change.

And so the thinking here is well, then let us, the council, just get a sense of what a good evaluation system looks like, put that together as a recommendation, and then we'll go from there.

So if something comes up, then is that something you could envision the council legislating or is it more of a recommendation to the executive to deal with it?

It could be a recommendation to the executive.

Um it could be that uh the council will want to legislate on it.

I don't know.

Understood.

Instead of this just and I'm saying this as if I'm being critical, if I'm being critical, then it's really more of management, because these complaints, I mean, as you know, a American University did a uh study at the Chancellor's request a couple years ago, and I shouldn't say study evaluation that came back and said A that impact is enormously unpopular, and B is that there's some um racist outcomes, and or maybe I should say racially biased outcomes.

And um, so you know, there are these complaints and nothing's done about it.

So let's just figure out on our own, see if we can figure out on our own.

But we'd look good, and then based on that, we um could say to the mayor, do something, or to the chancellor, do something, or we do something.

Awesome.

I I do recall Chancellor Fairby committing to uh looking at and altering the uh evaluation system, and to my knowledge that never happened.

So to your point, these issues have existed for many years and um nothing has changed.

Um last one, um, and we've talked about this, and I don't want to go too far, but the Brad V Board or the uh the Board of Review for anti-vidence.

I thought we talked about that over the weekend, but okay.

Yes, no, no, no.

I'm not gonna go too far here.

But I do it brought up a question.

A board the board of a review for anti-deficient deficiency violations, essentially your change at new members, I believe the Office of the Attorney General.

What it brings up to me is it in my understanding, the board has never ruled that an agency is anti-deficient, because essentially money is just transferred uh to kind of cover overspending routinely.

And I know we have talked about agency overspending at length as a council.

And so if you could just speak to, in addition to just adding members, how you're hoping this board will actually help us get agency overspending under control?

Because right now it seems more performative than substantive.

That's not a criticism of your change, but it's more of a the existence of the board.

So it adds two members and also changes who is the chair of the board.

Or potentially changes who could be chair of the board.

If I remember correctly, right now the law specifies that the um chief financial office, one of the chief financial officers' appointments, it will be the chair, or that um the OCFO will designate the chair.

It's one or the other.

And so uh right now it is um a uh so uh associate uh chief financial officer who is the chair.

Um and it's a little bit like the Fox starting the henhouse in my view.

Um I mean, this government is used to this process where agency A overspends and agency B either was over budgeted or didn't spend, and so money from agency B is reprogrammed in October at the end of the fiscal year to agency A, and then voila, there's no overspending.

And so therefore there's no, it's a deficiency.

There's no deficiency.

And so therefore, Bradley doesn't do anything.

And uh we want to see I actually was the author of the underlying law, and the intent was that there would be much more aggressiveness on the part of the OCFO and the Brad V to uh police and go after overspending.

If you look at the law, it speaks to not just the agency director, but right down to program managers.

So there these are uh subtle changes, but increasing the board and changing who is the chair, I'm hopeful will result in much more aggressive work on the part of Brad V.

That just one quick follow-up there.

In theory, that even if there is a transfer to cover overspending, that the board would still go through its process to say said agency is out of compliance.

Yeah.

Understood.

Thank you.

Uh further on the uh substitute Councilmember Fruman, then Councilmember Bonds.

Uh thank you very much, Chairman Mendelson.

A couple of things.

Um on the Brad V, uh, really want to applaud the work that you have done on uh trying to police overspending.

I I also want to add a plug for the auditor.

Um the auditor came to us for a breakfast, talked with us about the tools that we have to be policing this, has provided really important testimony and support on this.

Uh and so I think as we move, and I think we're moving into an era where we're gonna have to be policing spending much more closely.

I think uh she should be applauded for the role that she has played in this process.

So I extend my gratitude to uh Auditor Patterson.

Um back on the net zero, and Councilmember Allen, um, I mean we we're in a complicated world.

I think we have a regime for district buildings, we have a regime for affordable housing, and now we have this regime.

And just want to make sure I understand how this is gonna operate for commercial buildings as defined as applies here.

I I do think we are going to in the next year need to come up with a new appendix Z or whatever the appendix is and try to harmonize our approach here.

But if a building applies for a permit before December 31st of this year, then they're governed by the existing regime and they may apply to GBAC for relief if they want to include gas for a boiler or space heater or something like that.

Is that right?

As you yeah, in the example you gave, that is correct.

Okay.

And then next year, if somebody comes forward with a permit application in 2027, it's in statute that there can't be uh gas for a space heater or uh a boiler.

Could someone get a GBAC exception if it's written into the statute in calendar year 27?

So a couple of ifs in the scenario.

So if Department of Buildings does not publish what they're supposed to do by the end of this calendar year, what we're adding is a lot more flexibility.

So we are laying out these two these two different pieces and flexibility, but specifically to the GBAC, that is correct.

GBAC is essentially the entity, the body where there is uh think of it like a release valve.

Uh if projects want to offer and present for an exception, they are able to do that through that.

Yeah.

So in that setting of a new construction or an addition over 10,000 feet, if the permit for that goes in in February of 2027, there is no GBAC safety valve there, though there is today, the GBAC safety valve.

No?

No.

They they they have the ability to go seek an exemption.

If there, even though it will be in statute that there cannot be such a the stat the the BS.

That's the exact reason why people go seek an exemption today, because we have things that are in statute today, and they want to go get an exemption, so they go to GBAC.

So they so they will be able to get a GBAC exception in calendar year 27.

Yeah, because the GBAC process is in statute.

So today, if someone needed to go through a process for an exemption to the statute today, they have the GBAC in statute to go through that.

Uh in your hypothetical for January 2027, same thing.

It is in statute.

You have the GBAC in statute as an exemption.

All right.

And then sometime in 2027, let's come up with a harmonized scheme for all of our different kinds of buildings.

Um games.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

I wanted to go back to subtitle J on page 173 as it goes over to 174.

My colleague was asking a couple of questions about this, but I wanted to understand if on line 3052, you have F as a category of membership on this teacher's evaluation performance working group.

You have the State Board of Education.

Is that synonymous with there being a member of the public that would be a participant?

Because that is an elected position, or do we need to add a member of the public?

Like a parent.

Yeah.

No, we don't need to add uh more people to this.

I forget.

It's uh, it's not about people, it's about parents and students and public is people.

And people is the public.

The interaction and what happens with their children.

Yes.

So I think I think we've got all the bases covered.

Um addition to the chancellor, 12 individuals.

They're all in the education arena.

And it just seems to me parents might want to have a say.

Well, that might make some sense that there would be people who have some training in education since this is about how to evaluate educators.

So current or former educators, at least one of whom shall be submitted from a list chosen by the teachers union.

That could be a parent.

Current or former DCPS employees of and there are several other unions.

Those can be parents, probably are current or former school leaders, at least one of whom shall be chosen from a list submitted by the chancellor.

And all of them carry a title.

That's see, that's the point.

Not necessarily title for the organization they're representing.

And they're not representing the families that have students.

And looks like most likely mayor elect is agreeing with me on this matter.

Well, researchers are academics, uh, State Board of Education.

Um any one of these people, and most of them probably are parents.

Yes.

Um and uh they include a broad representation of stakeholders.

I think we have the basis covered.

But this is meant to be a serious working group to look at how to best professionally evaluate teachers and other employees of DCPS.

And surely we are not suggesting that a parent that who has a student in the school system today would not be able to render a professional appearance or an appearance and an opinion with this professionally in doubt group.

I just think we need to consider having someone who is not an educationally affiliated individual or background or practice.

I think we would embellish the process if we had someone who sends their kids off to school or has sent their kids off to school on a regular basis.

I don't think you're hearing me.

I suspect that between the 14 people or 15 people that several of them, if not most of them, will be parents.

I suspect that of the 14 or 15 people that they will be mostly ordinary people.

They will not be lofty people with lofty titles.

I think we have the basis covered here with a wide variety of folks from different backgrounds and expertise.

Anything further?

No, Mr.

Chairman, not for me.

When is the report?

When is the report due for this for the working group?

Yeah.

Uh November 1st, 2027.

So it would be due after next year's budget.

Correct.

Which is to give time.

This is a this is a working group to help the council.

The mayor will benefit because this will be a public report.

But this is after several years, as I discussed with Councilmember Parker, after not just several many years of hearing complaints, we, the council, we the committee are just going to try to figure out what does a good evaluation system look like.

I understand your aim.

I'm wondering if action is taken before in next year's budget, before this report is due.

Will the council then fall on process and stop any progress from happening before that.

So for example, if in the new budget there is an evaluation system that has been negotiated with the union that has been agreed upon between the executive and the union I think that's before November, which I think that's highly unlikely.

Sorry to interrupt.

Okay.

But I think that's highly unlikely.

The teacher's contract is set, we approved it a couple of years ago.

It's not up for renewal for a couple years.

So there would have to be an opening of negotiations, which is not scheduled.

And if it were to if the negotiations were to open, they probably wouldn't open until January at the earliest or February, which is not enough time to affect the this evaluation.

Although actually as I'm speaking to you if the mayor wanted to move more quickly than the council there's nothing to stop the mayor from moving more quickly than the council.

In terms of next year's budget, all that we have done with regard to impact in the budget is to fund the bonuses and this doesn't affect that act.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's why is there anything further on the amendment nature of a substitute?

Mr.

Chairman Councilmember Felder thank you.

Just you know for the record um I just want to flag again my concerns as it relates to the carry for hiring full access support amendment act.

I have specific concerns on how this proposal could increase calls for SNAP recipients, many of those who live in Ward 7 and 8 as well as individuals who may uh use delivery services specifically for groceries and medication.

So it's my hope that you know we could later on work with our colleagues to try to fix this.

And then lastly the net zero uh subtitle just possibly banning gas how that will increase utilities for residents and if we're focused on making utilities more affordable in the long run I I think that we have to be mindful of the implications of this.

I just wanted to go on record for that.

Thank you.

There's nothing further the vote is on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended.

All those in favor say aye aye are there any opposed hearing none the ayes have it unanimously that was the amendment nature of a substitute we have the bill as amended is there any further discussion.

The vote will be on the bill bill 26-661 as amended all those in favor say aye.

Aye are there any opposed hearing none the ayes have it unanimously we'll turn now to reading and vote on emergency legislation we have PR 26-758 fiscal year 2027 budget support emergency declaration resolution of 2026 so moved I uh circulated this uh with a memo uh when we get to the underlying bill assuming we get the underlying bill we'd better get to the underlying bill um I will ask that it conform to the um amended version uh the amended permanent bill um reading from the memo I circulated due to delayed transmission of the fiscal year 2027 budget and financial plan is necessary to pass the uh BSA on an emergency basis to ensure the provisions are effective as of October 1, 2026.

In addition, necessary for the budget are several time-sensitive legislative provisions that must be in place prior to October 1st 2026 applicability date these time sensitive provisions are included in Bill 26-661 that's the BSA the at the uh emergency bill will make those time sensitive provisions applicable prior to October 1st other provisions in the emergency BSA will retain the October 1st 2026 applicability date as provided in the permanent bill but should be enacted prior to October 1 to allow agencies and stakeholders to prepare for implementation.

So what did I just say?

The BSA, the permanent version is effective October 1st the permanent version has to go to the Hill for the 30 day layover.

That layover may not be completed before October 1st, so that's reason one for having an emergency.

Reason two is that all of the provisions in the BSA are applicable as uh as of October 1st, unless specifically noted otherwise in the subtitle.

And there are some subtitles that have an earlier applicability date.

So we need the emergency for that reason.

Um and then third, that the um we want everybody to know what's coming, so doing the emergency uh also helps in that regard.

So for those reasons I move the declaration.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on the declaration PR 26 758.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed hearing none?

The ayes have it unanimously.

I move the underlying bill, Bill 26 724, with the emergency conforming with the permanent.

Give me a second.

Are we clear on what I'm moving?

Yes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on bill twenty-six-seven two four.

Um as amended to reflect the permanent bill, Bill 26 661.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh I want to, you know, at each of these uh budget meetings votes, we thank everybody.

I don't want to thank everybody this time by name, although I want to thank them all implicitly, but I do want to call out explicitly budget and as distinguished from normal normal and Phelps.

Uh also the Office of Revenue Analysis, the Office of General Counsel, and Blaine Stum on my staff.

Who's not known as Budget Blaine?

Um, but these folks um really spend much, much more time than anybody else on this.

And just so the public understands, somehow the Budget Support Act grew to 435 pages.

Our next meeting will be an additional meeting on July 14th, scheduled to start at 12 o'clock noon.

There will be a committee of the whole before then.

The deadline for notices for next Tuesday's meeting will be this Thursday.

The time is 1.48 p.m.

and this meeting is adjourned.

Mr.

Chairman,