Good afternoon everyone. Sorry for the delay and thank you for waiting so patiently. I have been informed that we will start at 1:00 which is 10 minutes away. Um, so if anybody has to run to the restroom or anything, this is a great time to do so. So hopefully we will actually start close to the stated time. I'm calling to order this this meeting. This is an additional legislative meeting, meaning not a regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. It's the 13th legislative meeting of council period 26. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council. Today is Monday, July 28th, 2025. The time is 1:27 in the afternoon. We're in We are meeting in room 500, the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. I do want to apologize for our late start. There have been lots of conversations going on between members with regard to uh business today. Uh we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. If we could have uh silence in the chamber on the day of uh as a moment of reflection. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. Council member Felder >> present. >> Council member Fman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. Council member Lewis George >> here. Council member McDuffy >> here. >> Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nado here. Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. Council member White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh thank you. Uh we have the secretary's report of committee filings. I'm going to recognize the chair prom council member Kenya McDuffy. >> Thank you. I will move to wave the reading of the secretary's report. >> So a motion to weave to wave the reading of the secretary's report of committee filings. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? You guys have it unanimously. The agenda lists the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. However, there are no introductions during council recess and so we do not have that report. Uh we'll move to the consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda? Hearing none, the vote will be on the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We're on page two of the agenda and the first item of business is bill 26-164 known as the rental act rebalancing expectations for neighbors, tenants, and landlords. Bill 26-164. This is before us as a first reading. Council member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Uh, this vote on the rental Act is not about scoring political points. It's about solving DC's housing crisis for our residents. As chair of the Committee on Housing, I've worked tirelessly to improve this bill so that it balances the needs of tenants, landlords, and developers, ensuring fairness and affordability. Two weeks ago, on July 14th, the last minute motion delayed this vote. We were told the rental act was urgent, so we delivered. If we delay further, we risk stalling progress while DC residents suffer. Our housing crisis demands action, not delays. I've listened to tenants landlords developers and advocates through town halls, a marathon hearing, and countless meetings. The committee's ANS is a data-driven, equitable solution that works for DC, and it incorporates elements from a quarter of this body. Here's the deal. DC's housing market is in crisis. Apartment building permits plummeted from about 7,200 in 2022 to 1,200 in 2024, a decline of 80% in 2 years. And this isn't just a this isn't a regional problem. In 2023, DC issued only 1,500 of the region's 9600 apartment permits. That's our smallest year in a decade. While housing construction stalls as it has, renters, which is 70% of DC residents, pay the price. Higher rents mean displacement and financial strain. We hear this problem from our residents. The housing shortage hurts low-income renters the most. Doing nothing is not an option. The ANS tackles this crisis headon and will drive investments in new homes, preserve affordability, and ensure fairness. I've heard my colleagues concerns around public safety evictions. Violent crime in rental properties threatens entire communities. The ANS cuts the notice to vacate period for tenants charged with violent crimes from 30 to 10 days and requires courts to hold eviction hearings within 20 days. Public safety is a tenant issue. Our approach prioritizes public safety by swiftly addressing violent tenants while preserving tenants rights to a fair hearing. DC's eviction backlog, made worse by a 16% judicial vacancy, which will be 22% by the end of this year, is driving landlords and investors away. The mayor's proposal for a mandatory protective order in all eviction cases would worsen this backlog. It would trigger more hearings and motions, which means more delays. Right now, the Superior Court handles on average 272 eviction cases a month with just 13 judges, and they've warned that this could slow evictions, not speed them up. The council can't appoint judges, but the ANS cuts red tape. That's what we can do. Reduces eviction timelines and keeps DC's housing market viable. It reduces the pre-filing not notice period for non-payment cases from 30 days to 10 days and reduces the hearing sum summon period for 14 days. U may I have an additional minute? >> Without objection. >> Uh this aligns with Maryland and pre-COVID norms. It gives judges discretion to overlook technical diff uh deficiencies in eviction notices so that landlords don't always have to start over for minor errors, but judges can still throw cases out. And when tenants dispute rent due to housing code violations, they pay rent in escrow, ensuring fairness to landlords while allowing tenants to raise violations separately. TOPA's purpose, established in 1980, is to preserve affordability, prevent displacement, and empower tenants. Our reforms strengthen TOPA by promoting affordability, streamlining investments, and protecting tenants from exploitation, ensuring DC remains a city for renters, and that TOPA works as intended. We added a 15-year TOPA exemption for new buildings, which aligns with LITC compliance and stabilization periods and will help spur in spur investment in DC. Since 96% of TOPA transactions involve buildings over 50 years old, this 15-year exemption impacts less than 4% of cases, preserving tenants rights where they matter most. Buyers who sign a binding 20-year affordability covenant will be exempt from TOPA, ensuring long-term affordability at or below 80% AMI. This will create more affordable housing uh for tenants and help keep tenants from being being displaced. We also put guard rails around what tenants can assign rights for in order to prioritize affordable housing. The ANS allows tenants to negotiate for habitability improvements, energy upgrades, affordability, and relocation assistance, protecting tenants from predatory third parties while keeping rents affordable for future tenants. And I want to thank Council Member Fman for working with us on this. The ANS reforms the DCHA board, empowering public housing residents and strengthening oversight to deliver better outcomes for our most vulnerable renters. It creates a nine-member permanent board with diverse expertise, including two public housing resident elect members. It codifies an existing handbook for of protections for public housing residents, resident protections, eases annual retraining uh burdens for existing board members, and raises stipens to attract qualified members. DC's housing crisis demands action now. The rental act is not a silver bullet and is one of many things that we have to do, but it is a balanced data-driven step to increase housing supply, preserve affordability, and ensure fairness. to my colleagues. We have to reject the politics of delay and any amendment that would weaken this bill's ability to deliver housing. We need affordable housing in our city. We've made compromises to strengthen the bill and meet the and meet the moment. Let's put the people over any politics. Pass the committee's rental act uh today. and I encourage my uh colleagues to vote yes on this bill and thank all those who have worked uh in in support uh to get us where we are. Thank you, Chairman. >> Chairman, >> uh thank you, Council Member. >> Um Council Member White, um you have an amendment in a substitute. >> I'm sorry, Chairman. >> You have an amendment for a substitute? >> Uh yes. Um and what I most of what I've discussed um complies with the amendment and the nature of the substitute substitute. So I will offer that now. >> All right. So you said so moved. >> So moved. >> All right. We have the amendment nature of a substitute before us. Who has to be recognized? >> That was me. Chairman NDO. >> Council member Nidau. >> Thank you so much. Um, Council Member White, thank you for your tireless effort um to try to move us forward on on these incredibly challenging issues. Um, it is such a complex issue, both the evictions piece and the um the TOPA piece. And council member Pinto asked me a question at the last meeting um when I made a motion to postpone which was do you think um two weeks is enough to get this right? And at the time I said I don't know um you know when we get there in two weeks we might still have work to do. Um, and you know, I' I've spent the past several weeks um working with colleagues to try to help them understand the implications of the bill that's before us. There are still serious concerns about um covenants, affordable housing covenants. There's concerns about um cash buyouts. There's concerns about whether we've landed at the right number of years. There's concern of exemptions. And frankly the what I've come to realize is that most of our colleagues who are thoughtful and smart and like to approach things comprehensively just have not had time to think through the solutions here. We've got the RFK bill. Um we've got the budget before us which has not been an easy budget. And frankly, I think um if we could have a little more time with this um we can make sure that we're still addressing all the remaining concerns. Um so I'm just putting that out there. Um not making a motion at this time. >> Uh thank you, Council Member. Further, >> Council Member Lewis George. >> I am making a motion at this time. Um Mr. Chairman, I want to echo council's immensment appreciation for the amount of work council member White um and his staff have put into this legislation. Um I know it has been tireless and often thankless. Um but today I'm motioning to postpone debate and first vote on rental act until our next legislative meeting on September 17th. I think there is clearly uh still work to be done to reach consensus and I agree with my colleagues uh that uh my colleague that my colleagues have really not had time to process and understand this legislation which will make a huge impact on the day-to-day lives of our DC residents. Um I think that's clear from the sheer number of amendments being offered just today. Uh and with issues this complex, we need time to properly understand the legislation and proposed amendments. In addition, many of these drastic changes will also disproportionately affect W 8 renters and they deserve to have their voice represented in this body with so much on the line. >> And so you are moving to postpone till September >> September 17th as stated. >> Right. There's a motion to postpone to a time certain uh uh nove September 17th >> requesting a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman. uh which is debatable as to the time or date. Council member White. >> Um thank you, Chairman. Um it's the first I'm hearing uh about this, but it's been a pattern with this bill to be caught off guard. Um which is unfortunate uh because we've been working on this bill since the beginning of this year. Uh we have been transparent for months about uh not only the issues at stake, but what we're proposing. We brought everybody to the table. There are amendments in here from a quarter of this body. So for folks to say we haven't had enough time. Um respectfully uh colleagues, we going to vote on a budget that we had less time on. Uh right now there's an RFK vote scheduled for Friday that we've had less time on. What I said two weeks ago is what I'm going to say again. This issue will not get any easier. We can kick it down the road for a day, a week, a month. It won't get any easier. The issues in front of us are hard. That's where we are in the history of this city. They are hard. There's just no easy way out. Uh, another day, another week, another month. It will have consequences on people. It will have consequences on the city. It will not make this issue easier. Um, so I encourage my colleagues to vote against it. Let's deal with this today. Let's deal with the amendments. We have something on the table. We've continued to be collaborative and open. Um, and you know, look, it's it's just not going to get any easier. There are going to be amendments at the after recess. So um so I encourage colleagues to vote against the delay, another delay. Um and let's move forward with uh with the amendments. >> Uh thank you. Further on the motion to postpone, I'll just say that I'm not also not going to support this motion to postpone. uh if we vote today uh and there are still concerns uh we have uh over a month before second reading maybe even month and a half uh which is time to work out whatever remaining issues. I do want to commend that council member White uh with the amendment nature of a substitute has uh made substantial changes uh which the feedback I'm getting is to the good. If there's nothing further the vote will be on the motion. And Council Member Nadau, did you ask for a roll call? >> I did ask for a roll call, Mr. Chairman. And I just I do want to note that this motion is not supposed to be debatable, and we've now had several speeches on it. So, if we could be consistent with that, I'd appreciate it. >> Sure. It is debatable as to the uh >> Yes. But that's not what the debate was about sir. >> Okay. I think I was suggesting it was the wrong date, but Okay. Um, Madam Secretary, would you call the role? >> Council member Henderson. >> Um, no. Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George >> yes. >> Council member Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy. Council member McDuffy passes. Chairman Mendelson >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nadau yes. Council member Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto >> no. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White, >> no. >> Council member White votes no. Council member Allen, >> no. >> Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds, votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Freeman, >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Council member, sorry, Council Member McDuffy, >> uh, no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Mr. Mr. Chairman, there are two yeses and 10 nos. >> Uh the motion fails. Uh we have the amendment nature of a substitute before us and debate is in order. Um and um it would be in order for me to recognize council member Nidau or Lewis George. I understand you're pulling your amendment nature for substitutes. Do you have a different amendment if you want to make that motion now? >> I'm sorry, chairman. You're asking me to move my amendment? >> Um, >> yes. >> Uh, actually, Council Member Lewis George and I are going to withdraw it for today and, um, we will circulate it for second reading. Thank you. >> Uh, we have Council Member Fman's amendment. Uh thank you, Chairman Mendes. And I I have two amendments. Um my first amendment relates to the provisions uh that exempt topa transactions from TOPA for 15 years for new projects going forward, but also extends that 15-year period backward to buildings that have been constructed in the last 15 years. Um, I I heard from uh lots of developers about the concern that the idea that new buildings could be subject to TOPA discouraged a form of investment that was very important to have access to in order to construct new buildings. And that was the biggest rationale that there was a category of investment that came in supported a project through stabilization which takes a couple of years and then those investors got out and new investors came in that expected a lower rate of return. and that if we could not have access to those investors willing to take the greater risk upfront, then we couldn't get new projects started. That was the heart and soul of the concern that I heard about the effect of TOPA on our housing landscape. And I do have doubt that it is TOPA that is the key thing. it may be a thing that uh has an impact on our on new investment in our housing in the district. I think there's lots of other fundamental economic issues that are at work. But even if TOPA was having an effect on chilling investment going forward, I don't see why it is that we would apply the exemption going backward. Going forward, that would apply to new tenants who never had to rights. Going backwards, it would take to rights from a category of tenants who are in buildings that have been constructed in the last 15 years. So, it would alter the status quo and it wouldn't do anything to encourage new investment. So, my amendment would apply the 15-year exemption only prospectively, not applying retroactively, and I hope my colleagues can support it. >> Uh, thank you. The amendment is before us. Council member White, did you want to speak to it? >> Uh, yes. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate uh Council Member Fman's amendment. He and I spoken about this and we we we simply have a disagreement. Um there there is um you know a universe of people who invest in housing projects in DC and we need more housing otherwise housing is going to continue to get drastically more expensive. And when we have folks who um have invested in a building that's being stabilized and they're having difficulty getting out of that, then how are we going to ask them? How are they going to be able to put financing into the next affordable project? We have to build more housing. We have to build more affordable housing. There's not sort of an endless stream of investors. And so when if we want to get these permits back up again, the 80% drop in permits over the past few years, we've got to get the people who have some interest in investing in housing in DC, investing in housing in in DC. So um rather than creating a bifurcated system where uh a building that will stabilize next year um doesn't have the exemption that allows those investors to invest in the next housing project. Um but a housing project that starts next year won't have that issue. We create inconsistency uh unnecessarily. Um so I just want us to be conscious of the fact the data show that investment in housing has dropped precipitously in DC. That hurts our residents. That hurts affordability. That's the problem we have to fix. So I'm doing everything I believe is necessary and viable to fix that. Uh this is necessary and viable. Again, we need those people who invested in housing in DC that whose projects are going on right now. We need them to invest a year from now. Uh that's why we have the uh retroactive piece in this bill. Uh so I won't be supporting this amendment >> and would ask my colleague. >> Thank you, Chairman. >> Council member Lewis George. >> Thank you. Um I will be voting in favor of this amendment to address I think a fundamental flaw in the proposed new construction exemption for TOPA. has written the underlying uh legislation creates an exemption that applies retroactively to buildings already constructed, effectively stripping tenant rights from investments that have already been made. Uh that defies logic. If we want to create development incentives, those incentives should encourage future behavior, not reward past decisions at the expense of current tenants. This amendment aligns the new construction exemption with legislation this body has already passed to spur downtown development. It reduces the exemption period to 10 years or first sale and ensures it applies only to future projects. This creates a genuine incentive for developers while protecting the rights of tenants in existing buildings. The principle is straightforward. Incentives should drive future investment, not penalize tenants for decisions made before this policy existed. This amendment ensures that any new construction exemption functions as intended, as a development tool, not a tenant displacement mechanism. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting Council Member Fman in this common sense correction that maintains development incentives while preserving tenant protections in existing buildings. Thank you. >> Uh I'm going to speak up in um in opposition to the amendment in support of um the housing committee chair on this issue. Um the um on first blush I think this amendment is appealing to make it apply uh prospectively but when we think about what's at issue here it's about encouraging investment or reinvestment and having the 15 years for topa is encouraging an investment and to have it uh only apply prospectively uh fails to address existing projects where there may be investors who want to get out. Uh if we want to deal with investment for all of these buildings and we think that 15 years is the right number, then we want it to be prospective as well as retrospective. And that doesn't mean it goes back forever. It means that 15 years is 15 years from the date that that building um opened. We have 15 years because we think that's the right number for encouraging investment and allowing for investors to get out for the next generation of investors. And that applies whether the 15 years began a few years ago or whether it begins starting tomorrow. So this amendment would be contrary to that which is why I will not be supporting it. Further on the amendment >> chairman >> council member Nadau. >> Thank you chairman. >> So there's a lot of debate around what the right number is. Is it 25 years? Is it 15 years? Is it 10? Is it three? Nobody really knows the answer to that. The only data that we have right now is from the DC policy center that says 10 years is the right number. and the report from CNHED which says 10 years or less. That's not what Matt's talking about here. What we do know for sure is that if you make this retrospective, you make this go back in time, then tenants who have been living here who believe they have a certain right will all of a sudden not have that right anymore. So, we have to be okay with that. you we have to if we're voting I'm voting for Matt's amendment but if if this doesn't pass today this body is basically saying we're cool with taking away people's topa rights that they think they already have there's a lot in this bill there's a lot in Robert's bill that's going to help developers there's a lot uh I think we need to give this one to the tenants so I will be supporting this thank you >> uh thank you council do further on Uh, >> Mr. Chairman, >> council, who wants who has to be recognized? >> Uh, this council member Fman. >> Ah, I know you, Council Member Fman. >> Thank you very much. >> Actually, you would be second round. Can you >> I'll wait until finishes. >> Council member Henderson, did you want to be recognized? >> Um, yes, Mr. Chairman. I actually wanted to ask a clarifying question to Council Member Fman because he said something in his remarks that I think are different than as his amendment is written. Um, council member Ferman, you said something to the effect of um, prospective for 15 years and then retrospective for 15 years, but that's not what I see here. So, I just wanted to give you opportunity to clarify because I wonder for say for instance, if my building opened last year, I don't know if that is the same as a building that opened 10 years ago, if that makes sense. Does that >> Yeah. So I mean what what the bill the the ANS that Robert put forward gives an exemption for new construction 15 years going backwards uh going forwards and then for construction that has that uh was completed within the last 15 years. What I am saying is I'm good with an exemption from TOPA for buildings that are constru buildings for 15 years from the date of new construction going forward, but not for buildings that were constructed 10 years ago or one year ago that got uh certificates of occupancy already. >> Okay. >> I don't see why we would do that. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you. I think we're on second round and that would be um, Council Member Fman, if you want to go first. >> Sure. So, and I I hear uh, Chairman Mendelson, both you and and Chairman White have talked about encouraging reinvestment, and I understand where you're coming from that we want people who have invested in the past to invest again in the future. But here we have a class of people when you're talking about applying the exemption retroactively who made investments with clear understanding of the law that TOPA was going to apply. And it isn't that they cannot get out of those investments. They can get out of those investments. It may be that the presence of TOPA leads to some economic discount on the sales price of that building because the owners have to go through a TOPA process and that creates a burden. I don't want to kid you that it doesn't create a burden but that was built into their original investment. And what we do by exempting buildings going backwards is we give them a windfall. We say those were the rules that you thought you were going to operate under. We're gonna alleviate you. We're going to exempt you from those rules and we'll give you an economic windfall. But what we do at the same time is we take away the settled rights of the tenants in your building who when they moved in believed that they had to rights and now we're saying they don't. I don't think that's the way you encourage new investment going forward. Absolutely 100% let's encourage investment but we don't need to give a windfall to folks who built things with an expectation that too was going to apply at the expense of their tenants. >> Uh thank you council member White. >> Uh thank you um chairman. Um, so you know, I wish my colleague would call my name and then say there's a lot in here for developers. That's red meat. And what I'd rather do is just stick to the facts. So that's why I'm trying to be data driven and making sure that that's where we keep this. Here's the deal. 96% of TOPA transactions are on buildings 50 years old or older. So we're talking about somewhere south of 4%. Right? Let's keep that in into in perspective. The second is there is a difference in the timeline of you know sort of pulling money out of investment. These are not we're not talking about people who intended to own a building. We're talking about people investing in a project and after it's stabilized they pull out and decide am I going to invest in more housing in DC or not. This is about renters. So, let's not throw red meat. Like, let's talk about the consequence of not building housing as our population grows. Who's going to suffer that? Folks who are here who can't afford those higher rents. And we got to get serious about what it means. The difference in the timeline for TOPA versus non-topa is TOPA is on average about 330 days. Uh nontopa is 168 days. So, look, at the end of the day, we have a responsibility to make sure we're building affordable housing. We have a responsibility to make sure we are uh doing everything we can to stop rents from going up so high. And so, I one, I want to keep the debate like on the level. Let's talk about data. Let's talk about the issues. Uh but second, I also want to recall the reality that we are talking about a a sliver of of properties and the consequence of not doing what we need to do here means less investment in housing means less housing means rents go up and and so that's what it is. This is about the cost of rent. And we all hear over and over again from our residents that it costs too much to live here. Um and and I'll finish here. uh chairman, you know, if if there's somebody who invested in a building that was built 10 years ago and we're going to ask them to invest in a building that we need built next year, I want them to be able to put their money into that building because we got to build more housing. Thank you. >> Uh if there's no further discussion, the vote will be on the amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, can we have a roll call? >> Madam Secretary, would you call the role? >> Council Lewis George. >> Yes. Council member Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendlesson >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nadau yes. >> Council member Nado votes yes. Council member Parker >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto no. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White please. Please >> no. Somebody >> Please, >> please leave the chamber. Please leave the chamber. Please leave the chamber. Please leave the chamber. >> Please leave the chamber. Please leave the chamber. Please leave the chamber. Please leave the chamber. Please leave the chamber. >> Uh, Madam Secretary, you were in the middle of the roll call. Uh, and I think the last person you called was council member Pinto. >> Uh, yes. Council member Pinto voted no. Council member White, >> no. >> Council member White votes no. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, no. Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Fman, >> yes. Council member Fman, >> yes. >> Thank you. Council member Fman votes yes. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are four yeses and eight nos. >> The um amendment fails. Council member Fman, you had a second amendment. >> I do. Thank you very much, Chairman Mendes. Uh the the ANS includes a provision that exempts transactions with covenants for affordability of 20 years um from TOPA. And I I will say in my experience um we had a recent project in WI 3 where a purchaser came forward and they were going to uh place a covenant on the building and they were purchasing it through TOPA. And when I saw it I thought wow that's a great idea. And um and I was supportive of the idea. It went through the TOPA process and the tenants chose a different option. They chose a different developer because they felt that they were going to get a better arrangement and better investment through the other path without the covenant. And we see in some parts of the city a covenant on affordability up to 80% AMI might result in rents that are higher than the market rents in that part of the city. And so it wouldn't get anything for the tenants in those settings. Um instead they would be boxed out of the TOPA process which is a process that they can use to get significant improvements in their building uh and to forge a relationship with the new owner of the building. Part of the TOPA process is, you know, these are people who have lived, the tenants have lived in the building often for a long time. They have a deep stake in it. The existing owner is moving on and going to leave them with a new partner. and them having a voice in who that partner is going to be and how that relationship is going to be forged going forward is a great innovation of the district law and has actually led to a lot of great outcomes. I hear you that there are issues with TOPA and that it can create problems in some settings, but in the vast majority of settings, it's actually been very successful both in allowing for transactions to happen and for tenants to have buyin. Here, if you carve out for building subject to a covenant, I think you have challenges from a title perspective, you also disenfranchise tenants. And in many parts of the city, you're not doing anything in terms of managing the rents that folks are going to pay. I don't think we should have this exemption as part of the exemptions from TOPA. And I'm my amendment would strike the exemption from TOPA for buildings subject to a covenant of affordability. And I urge my colleagues to support it. >> Uh we have the amendment before us. Is there discussion? Council member Robert White. >> Uh thank you chairman and uh thank you council member uh Fman for uh your amendment. Uh I I won't be supporting this amendment. I encourage my colleagues not to. And here's why. First factually we're not boxing folks out of TOPA. Uh tenants will be able to uh negotiate for a number of things. But what I want us to do is is turn first to the language from the uh racial equity impact analysis from the council office. Uh they wrote, "Direct payments in exchange for top rights do not help preserve or create affordable housing for current or future black tenants or tenants of color. When tenants accept a one-time pay payment, they are trading away not just their chance at affordability, but also the opportunity to secure affordability for other residents who rent the the units uh after them. These agreements remove important tenant protections without creating any lasting affordability. in the long term, black tenants and other tenants of color benefit most when affordability is preserved. End quote. That's what we're trying to do here. Everybody we talk to, we represent says it costs too much to live in the city. So, if you have an opportunity to lock in a 20-year affordability covenant, you lock it in because that's what our residents need us to to do. um you know on the point of the fact that um in in some uh neighborhoods where 80% AMI is above the market rate the market will still keep rents below 80% AMI but having an affordability covenant ensures that as those rates go up as neighborhoods change and gentrify the affordability is still locked in for two decades. We we cannot cannot throw away the opportunities for long-term affordability in a city that is too expensive because we want a few people who live in a building to get paid for signing their top rights. That's just not fair to the city. So, um I would very much ask that we um uh uh vote no on this amendment. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member. Further discussion on the amendment. Council member Nado. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, and thank you to both colleagues. Um, I know, uh, Council Member White has worked tweaked this provision in his ANS, um, in response to some feedback, and I appreciate that. Um, I am supporting Council Member Freeman's amendment. One of the scenarios that I think of um, that comes to play here and and is not so uncommon or unusual is that someone might acquire a building that is a bit rundown, a bit dilapidated. Um, and you know, they may want to preserve that affordability. Um, they may also just, you know, not be that interested in what the tenants want. And in a scenario like that, you could have a a building changing hands, changing ownership and preserving the existing affordability, or even adding more, but not making any improvements, not listening to the tenants needs, not saying, "We're going to fix this building up or we're going to make sure there's a common space or we're going to make sure that um you know that the the issues that you've had with the building in the past are corrected." Um, and the reason that in this scenario that that wouldn't happen is because someone coming in and saying we're just going to keep this affordable or we're going to make it affordable doesn't actually have to come to the table with the tenants and ask what it is that they want. There's so few opportunities as as a renter to actually have a voice in what happens to the property you're living in. Um, TOPA is still really one of the only ways for that to occur. It's the only process in which tenants can come to the table and say, "Hey, you're going to be my new landlord. Here are the things that we want to change where the landlord actually has to listen where tenants come together and say, "This is what we want." It's not that I'm opposed to encouraging covenants or affordability, but those have to be they have to come through the process of TOPA. One of the one of the things that really speaks loudly to me um about the importance of this amendment is that um affordable housing developers support this. Affordable housing developers do not like what's in the underlying bill in the ANS and they are the ones they're the ones who who we need to build this. Um and I think that that matters. Um that's those are facts, right? Um, and so that's why I'm supporting this amendment and I thank Council Member Ferman for advancing it. >> Thank you, Council Member. Further, Council Member Lewis George. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, I'll be voting in favor of this amendment to re to remove the sweeping affordability covenant exemption from uh the rental act as amended. Um, as proposed, this exemption would create I what I think to be a massive loophole that undermines the very purpose of TOPA while providing no guarantee of producing more genuinely affordable housing. Um, any buyer could simply agree to maintain affordability that already exists at so many multif family properties across the district and completely bypass tenants rights regardless of whether that housing is actually affordable to those who need it most. And I want to be clear, TOPA is not just a tool for tenants to get money during the sale of their building. It is a tool to ensure that tenants are living in good conditions. It is a tool to ensure that tenants are living in safe communities. It is a tool to ensure that tenants are in comfortable homes. These are tenants whose buildings are already protected by affordability covenants, whose buildings are falling down around them because of lack of investment from the district. These tenants losing their leverage. they're losing their leverage in this moment that their landlord is attempting to exit a failing deal is just not the answer. And that is what this amendment uh would if this amendment doesn't happen would do with 80% of a AMI at 123,750 annually for a family of four. What qualifies as affordable under this framework remains far out of reach for working families living paycheck to paycheck. This exemption would essentially restrict to protections to only older higher income buildings while stripping rights from the very communities that rely on these protections uh most to get improvements and insurance for better treatment. Rather than spurring affordable housing production, this exemption will likely delay it as tenants file legal challenges to these transactions, creating the exact opposite of its intended effect. It introduces unnecessary legal complexity while removing tenant protections without justification. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that removes a poorly conceived exemption and ensures tenants at various income levels continuing have a seat at the table during the sale of their building. Thank you. >> Thank you, council member. Uh the there's no further discussion. The vote will be on one uh for the second round if that's okay. >> Round two. >> Thank you very much. So um and Chairman White, thank you very much for your response. on the buyouts question. I do think that you're addressing the buyouts question in your ANS and I support the approach that you've taken to the buyouts question. So I don't think that's what's at issue here. I do think this is a question about tenant agency. It's also uh and in I I gave an example of one building in Ward 3 where there had been a move to do a TOPA transaction that included a covenant for affordability and it was rejected by the tenants and they chose something else and in but there's another building actually in which the tenants chose the covenants approach and they had agency and they had agency to make sure that they had a partner who was appropriately capitalized so they could do the kinds of improvements that needed to be done in the building and they could have a relationship that started in a positive way. This way, if having the covenant exempts you from the TOPA process, perhaps it guarantees affordability over the longer term, but the TOPA process could do that as well, particularly where you've taken out the buyouts in the way that you have, but also making sure that you have a partner who's going to improve the building in the way that is critically important to those tenants. I've also heard from many many affordable housing providers and from the title association people that they have concerns about having a carveout for this and what kinds of legal issues that might create. I think this is a place where I hear you about the desire to have as much affordable housing as possible but I think we get there without this exemption and actually without this exemption we probably can get there more easily and cleanly. So I urge that my clients support this amendment. >> Uh thank you council member Fman. Uh the vote will be on >> Thank you. >> chairman. Um now there are many affordable housing providers I've spoken to who asked us to move this and so all of the affordable housing providers are not on the same page uh on this. If the issue is about partnership uh with residents, then I think there's room between first and second reading to work on that. But if and if the issue is about building conditions, then we got to talk to do because that's not that's not what TOPA was meant to be for, right? People should be able to live in habitable, beautiful buildings. That's that's not what TOPA is for. That's what Department of Buildings is for. That's what fines are for. Um people should be able to live in comfortable homes. There's no disagreement about that. Where the disagreement for me comes, and this is a strong disagreement, is that as the racial equity analysis said, what we are doing is trading a one-time payout to current residents for long-term affordability for 20 years. And in a city that is too expensive, that is not fair. That can't be our priority. our priority has to be affordability uh in this city. So uh I I'm again encouraging uh colleagues to to vote no. Thank you chairman. >> Thank you. The vote will be on >> and Mr. Chairman's second amendment. Did you ask for a roll call? >> I did. Thank you, >> Madam Secretary. >> Council member McDuffy, >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member, >> yes. >> Council member votes yes. Council member Parker, >> yes. Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> no. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White, >> no. >> Council member White votes no. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Fman, >> yes. >> Council member Freeman votes yes. Council member Henderson, >> yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George, >> yes. Council member Lewis George votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are six yeses and six nos. >> The amendment fails. Uh we have an amendment by Council Member Lewis George. >> Yep. Um thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh colleagues, today I'm introducing an amendment to the rental act as amended by council members White amendment in the nature of the substitute. Um and I want to be blunt about what's at stake. Last year, evictions in the district reached a 10-year high. Even with massive backlogs in DC Superior Court. Think about that. Despite court delays that should have slowed down evictions, we still saw record numbers of families losing their homes. Uh the rental act as amended today would make this crisis worse. It would gut the mandatory protections that ensure tenants get proper notice before eviction. Instead of requiring dismissal when landlords fail to provide proper notice, it would let judges decide, and I quote, weighing prejudice to all parties whether to excuse these violations. I want to be clear, we've been down this road before. In 2020, DCist and Spotlight DC, uh, for those feel free to Google while we're here, exposed a scandal that this body then felt compelled to urgently respond to. If you all remember, thousands of tenants were being evicted without ever knowing they had court dates. This was in 2020. Process servers were literally throwing notices in dumpsters instead of delivering them to tenants. If we recall, that investigation led to reforms requiring mandatory dismissal when proper notice isn't given. They force as a result they force landlords to actually serve tenants properly instead of taking shortcuts. It the current language slashes the notice period from 30 days to just 10 days. 10 days to understand your rights to understand the charges against you. Try to resolve try to resolve the issues before receiving a court summon. And with the later amendment shortening the period for court summons from 30 days to 14 days, we will be essentially cutting our noticing period for tenants being sued in landlord tenant court by more than half, taking the period from initial notice to hearing from its current 60 days down to just 24. My amendment seeks to strike the language that will weaken these protections. It preserves mandatory dismissal. I want to be clear. It preserves mandatory dismissal when landlords fail to provide proper notice. It keeps the 30-day notice period that gives tenants time to respond and rectify the sit situation. And it maintains the service requirements that ensures notice actually reaches tenants. Let me be clear about what judicial discretion mean. Really means when evictions are at a 10-ear high, it means more families on the street. It means more children changing schools in a year. It means more working people becoming homeless because they never got proper notice of their court date. And it means that already overburdened homelessness system once that one one that we are voting today to cut for the fiscal year will become even more extended as ever growing number of families and individuals seeking services that we are not adequately funded come into the pipeline. So we have a choice. We can stand with tenants who deserve basic due process protections or we can make it easier to evict families without proper notice and end up back where we were in 2020 on the news. When evictions are already at a record high, when families additional 30 seconds, when families are already struggling, we don't respond by making easier to kick people out of their homes. We respond by ensuring every tenant gets notice and time that they deserve before facing homelessness. This amendment does maintain the technical piece of the rental act that grants discretion when where appropriate with filing issues and technicalities. I urge you to support this amendment. Let's preserve the protections that work, not weaken them when families need the most. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Council Member Lewis George. Uh, Council Member White, did you want to speak to this? >> Um, thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank you, Council Member Lewis George, for your amendment. Um, want to um sort of discuss a little bit about how we got here. So, the notice period for non-payment cases, uh, from 30 days to 10 days um, and the summons period from 30 days to 14. Uh this uh gives tenants 10 days more than they had before COVID 19. Um we made a number of changes uh during the COVID 19 uh pandemic. Um and we are now just you know in a very different place than most other jurisdictions. Uh this language would put us in line with uh Maryland. Uh the other thing is this doesn't just allow deficient. So, you know, Council Member Lewis George, you you raised some examples that are good examples of people breaking the law. People shouldn't break the law. All right. Um, but if what it's important to understand is most of our landlords are not big businesses. They're sort of everyday folks. And if they file an eviction case, and I meet a lot of folks, you know, who don't know how they're going to pay their mortgage because they have tenants who haven't paid in a long time. um if they file and after they file, let's say their business license expires, can the court use their discretion to say, "Hey, you got to get this re-up before we can move this case," or do they need to throw it out? We're not saying the case is move forward. This language just says judges have discretion. Um and so judicial discretion here is not a bad thing. Uh it is what our courts need. The timeline is not outlandish. In fact, it's a more lenient timeline than what we had precoid. We did put some emergency things in place that weren't meant to be permanent. Um, we're not even moving it back there. So, um, hopefully this helps to explain to members how we got to where we are and where we are. And again, this would put us in line with timelines uh, in Maryland. Thank you, chairman. >> Uh, thank you, council member. further on the amendment. Uh I'm going to speak in opposition to the amendment. Uh this is a very um a very technical issue, but it actually has to do with a uh technicalities in the eviction proceeding. So right now, if there is the slightest technical violation, the court has no discretion. They have to dismiss the case. Uh that's a little too black and white, a little too hardlined. And what the committee print does or seeks to do is to give uh some flexibility to the court by saying may in its discretion dismiss. So if we stick with shall dismiss then uh if there's a technical violation the case has to be dismissed but that could be a technical violation from the most most most minor to something more significant. And I think it's smart to instead have discretion with the court who will look at the nature of the technical violation and how severe it is and will rule accordingly rather than to continue with this very black and white shall dismiss. So I appreciate the um perspective from which this amendment is being moved but I I don't think this is the right answer. There's nothing further on the amendment. We have the amendment before us. >> Chairman, >> I just want to I don't want to second round, but I did want to clarify one thing. There are two provisions in the committee print. One deals with noticing and the other other deals with filing. So, I think you're speaking to my amendment does not touch the filing issues. I want to be clear, which I think I said earlier. So, I just want to of course correct that. Um, and I'm also asking for a roll call. Thank you. Uh, Madame Secretary, there's a roll call request. >> Chairman Mendlesson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes no. Council member Nado, >> yes. >> Council member Nado votes yes. >> Council member Parker. >> Yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto. >> No. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White. >> No. >> Council member White votes no. Council member Allen, >> yes. Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Freeman >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Council member Henderson >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council Lewis George >> yes. >> Council Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy >> yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are five yeses and seven nos. >> The amendment fails. Uh we have an amendment that council member Bond circulated at 9:52 this morning. >> Um thank you very much um chairman on this. It was a what we considered a simple change um to strike the phase um vacant where a housing provider shall attach instead a housing provider would attach an incident report or an affidavit produced by the MPD, Department of Police that includes a factual assertion that the tenant or person occupying the unit committed a dangerous crime as defined in the DC code or a crime of violence again as defined in the code. So we were hoping that this would be accepted as a friendly amendment. In other words, clarifying what um could be the condition and how the um the notice of eviction would be presented particularly when a crime has been committed. So that was the nature of it and I'm not sure that the um ANS um maker is going to accept it. He >> can we work between first? >> We can we can definitely definitely Yeah. >> So are you moving it or you >> are you moving are you going to work between first and second? >> I wanted to put put the issue before the public. I mean that's the point but we will work to between this today and moving into the future we'll work on that. Um I thought it provided more clarity as to why an individual was receiving an eviction notice because of a criminal activity. So I will withdraw it for now. >> Uh thank you council member Bond. So the amendment is not before us. Uh is there further discussion on the amendment nature of a substitute. Uh hearing none. The vote will be on the amendment nature of a substitute which will then be followed by a vote on the bill as amended. On the amendment nature of a substitute, all those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? >> Please record me as no. Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Uh the amendment is approved. Uh so we have now the bill as amended. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Bill 26-164 as amended. All those in favor say I. I. hand was up. I'm so sorry. >> Sorry. >> My hand was up >> to speak. >> Yes. >> All right. >> It was Please. It was Thank you. >> I did not look. >> It helps if you speak up, Mr. Chairman. I did not look. Uh, Council Member Luth Jordan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I do want to start out by acknowledging my colleague, Council Member Rob White, and the staff of the housing committee. Uh, you have all been tasked with a very difficult job of making sense of a massive piece of legislation under immense pressure from all sides during an incredibly complicated budget process. Um, I want to recognize all the work that you've put in to get to this point. Uh, even as I take issue with the current content of this legislation. Um, when it was initially introduced, uh, the rehab rebalancing expectations for neighbors, tenants, and landlords act in February this year, um, I had my worries and I think today as we take our first vote after every amendment, I think we offered to improve this legislation many have rejected. I'm deeply concerned um, of where we are. I think we are gutting the very protections that ensure tenants actually receive notice before they lose their homes. Just four years ago, I think we we've learned that thousands of tenants in the city were being evicted without ever knowing they had court dates because process services were literally throwing notices in the dumpsters and delivering uh instead of delivering them. I think the council fixed that and I think throwing that away is a is an issue. Uh I also think that the entire required nose period before the actual court date decreases from 60 to 24 days. I think this will create massive upheaval and confusion for tenants facing one of the most challenging and destabilizing situations a family can face. But I also think it's going to back up the court system even more than y'all already are worried about. Um so uh I think it, you know, we're making it easier to evict people at exactly the wrong time. And I think with evictions that hit a 10-year high last year, even with Mayor Massacore backlogs, that should have slowed them down. And I think our response to that is just to make evictions faster and easier. I think we're setting up a crisis our homeless service system cannot handle, looking into a budget year so tight we wait putting families back into congregate shelter due to cuts and constraints. Where exactly do we think these newly evicted families will go? We are gutting the tenant opportunity to purchase act, a law that has worked successfully for nearly 50 years, albeit the changes that have been needed and necessary because of some of the changes. But I don't think a all right gutting of it is the answer to some of the real concerns that people have raised. I think creating these massive exemptions that will gut TOPA for countless properties. We don't even have a marginal understanding of how many tenants will lose access to TOPA by creating this new common category than exempting it. I think the bill also the new construction for 15 years even for projects already built. I think taking away rights from for investments already made. I'm glad that we were able to at least address those things. I want to say I think we have a chance to fix this before second reading. We are about to vote on a legislation that will accelerate evictions, weaken tenant protections, and create more homelessness. All while telling ourselves we're creating balance. This is not balance. This is abandonment. Um I will not vote for legislation that despite it state stated goal rebalances expectations and does nothing to ensure tenants, the people who live in the housing we have spent so much time discussing have less security, less power over their homes. and that insists in intention to tighten development timelines and spur investment while taking an approach that is almost guaranteed to do the opposite. Um I urge my colleagues to vote no and I look forward to hopefully working in second reading on a better iteration that puts the people of the district and our tenants first. Thank you. going to ask again that uh members in the audience refrain from shouting and exclaiming and otherwise disrupting the proceedings. There's nothing further on the bill. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I know this bill has gotten a lot of attention and had a lot of debate over the last really year. I I just wanted to add that we have a basic social construct that we have to abide by in this city to live peacefully with one another. And when people are harming one another, harassing one another, um not able to live peacefully in their home, you're violating the social construct that we have and that just can't stand. And so that that to me has always been what this is kind of about. um to make sure that we're fulfilling our obligation to ensure that our residents can live peacefully in in their home. Um and that goes with the non-payment of rent as well. And so I continue to believe we have to do more as a city to help people who um may need access to RAP or may need access to wraparound supports. and we have a a contractual obligation in the housing marketplace to pay our rent and that has to carry forward. So, um I want to thank Council Member White for all of the work that you have done on this bill. I know that has not been easy um with a lot of different perspectives here and a lot of challenging topics and so I thank you for for taking them on. Um and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Council Member Pinto. There's nothing further. We have the bill as amended before us, bill 26-164. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Please record me as no. >> Please record me as no. >> Madam Secretary, you'll record the two council members as voting no. >> Uh, and the measure is approved. First reading. Uh we will turn now to bill 26-260 fiscal year 2026 local budget act of 2025. Uh I am not going to go into much detail here uh to reiterate what we approved on first reading two weeks ago. Uh what is before us now is final reading. Uh yesterday I circulated an amendment nature of a substitute. I'm not going to go through all of that, but it did list a number of changes that are in the amendment nature of a substitute. Uh perhaps what I should do is move the amendment nature of a substitute. So moved. Uh just some of the changes are um $3.4 4 million in FY26 and $8.1 million across the financial plan within the department of energy and the environment's sustainable energy trust fund to establish funding for residential electrification. Uh $500,000 in recurring funds to Events DC to support activities related to the official sports capital of the United States Designation Act. $214,000 in recurring funds within the Department of Energy and the Environment's SETF, Sustainable Energy Trust Fund to establish funding for the implementation of clean energy building code. Um, a shift in funding from the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants to the Department of Aging and Community Living for a grant to legal counsel for the elderly. So that's not additional dollars, but a shift um on the capital budget uh to add as an explicit project the um project to maintain, improve, and modernize Nationals Park. That's $385 million. That was in first reading, but not as an explicit project. Similarly, $500 million to construct a new commander stadium. Uh this also was in the budget first reading, but now it is an explicit project. Um I had noted this before that the uh funding that the mayor had proposed for relative to the proposed stadium was in the budget unchanged uh that we approved on first reading. And as I just noted, the same is true with Nationals Park. That was an initiative from the council. Uh I do want to reflect for a second that one of the things that we're doing with the um the budget action uh this year and earlier this year is that the council is stepping up in a number of ways with regard to uh sports programming in the district. Uh I had mentioned a minute ago about um funding the uh fiscal impact for bill 26-119 official sports capital of the United States designation act. Uh earlier this year we funded money for Monumental Sports to stay and revitalize the arena downtown. Last December, we passed legislation with regard to uh a setting up a process for funding the uh improvements and modernization of the Nationals Baseball Park. And now that is funded in the capital budget at $385 million, a council initiative. Uh in addition, as we approved at first reading uh in the capital budget is, if I remember correctly, $9 million to modernize the um sports stadium center, the excuse me, the tennis center uh that's uh uh by Carter Baron. Uh so to continue that uh national event, tennis event in the district and then of course the uh funding for the RFK um to for rebuilding RFK as a football stadium. Uh these are all important uh sports initiatives that the council's either supporting or is initiating on its own. Uh, as I said, the memo that I circulated yesterday uh says more about what is in the amendment nature of a substitute. Uh, but as I said a minute ago, I move that amendment and I have an amendment to the amendment nature of a substitute and this was circulated yesterday and I'm going to speak to that for uh several minutes. Uh this amendment was circulated by me uh yesterday evening at 8:27 p.m. and it's linked on the agenda and um it deals with the appropriation of additional resources. um essentially uh removing $29.9 million from the budget that we approved first reading and putting it in a new category in the local budget act uh which is entitled appropriation of additional resources. Uh I am moving this amendment under duress because the chief financial officer has stated that without this amendment quote I cannot attest that the FY2026 budget and financial plan is in balance unquote. Therefore this amendment removes that is cuts 29,983,27 from the fiscal year 2026 budget before us for second reading. Without this amendment, the combined FY2025 supplemental and FY2026 budgets would have an unspent balance of over $214 million. I am hardpressed to see how leaving this amount, $214 million unspent, is quote unbalanced unquote. However, with this amendment, the unspent balance will be over $244 million. I repeat, $244 million as the chief financial officer demands. The home rule act states that the council is prohibited from approving any budget which would result in expenditures being made by the district government during any fiscal year in excess of all resources which the mayor now CFO estimates will be available from all funds available to the district for such fiscal year. The budgets before us today, which the CFO certified as balanced in May, are based on the February 2025 revenue estimate. And as I said, were certified as balanced. On June 27th, the CFO revised that estimate by stating that an additional $243.7 million is available. An additional $243.7 million. Now the CFO says those funds are not available. He says they are necessary to pay for overspending, unbudgeted expenditures and replenishing the contingency reserve. He has not itemized any of these amounts nor explained why the unbudgeted expenditures and reserve replenishment must occur this year. Moreover, in June, his office estimated that overspending was projected to be about $180 million, less than the $214 million we left available before this amendment. One of the primary responsibilities of the chief financial officer is to ensure that spending does not exceed an approved balanced budget. That has not happened. To compensate for this failure, the CFO is now directing the council how it may appropriate dollars. Despite the fact that the law does not give him that authority, the CFO is directing that we must leave $244 million available to him to cover overspending. He is directing that we leave $244 million available to him so that he can replenish the contingency reserve from which he has allowed expenditures to be made. Last year I had a similar disagreement with the CFO where he was requiring that we replenish another a different reserve fund. In that situation I obtained a formal legal opinion from our attorney general who stated that the CFO was exceeding his legal authority. quote, "Once the CFO provides his revenue estimates, his role in the budgeting process is limited to preparing the mayor's budget under her direction using his technical and human resources. Allowing the CFO to dictate that a certain fund be replenished would remove the local budget process from within the control of the mayor and the council and interfere with the locally elected officials decisions about how district government revenues should be spent. He does not have this authority. In some this amendment is being forced on the council. With or without this amendment, we are adopting a budget with an unspent balance of over $214 million. It is absurd to say this is unbalanced. But the greatest cause of this situation is overspending in violation of the anti-deficiency act and which the chief financial officer could and should control. And the second cause is the chief financial officer's desire to replenish reserves this year, which he does not have the authority to require and which is otherwise provided for in the law. I consider this acquiescence an erosion of our legislative authority which cannot stand. The amendment is before us. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chair, >> Council Member Lewis, George, and then Parker. >> Um, thank you, Chairman. Um, Chair Mson, I just want to say thank you for standing up for this council authority um in the face of an absolutely unacceptable situation. You have every right to be angry and I'm glad that you are. Um, and I am too and I think we should all be angry about what we're being forced to do by a non-elected administrator who lacks the authority to appropriate funds here today. We're being told to cut nearly 30 million from critical programs, affordable housing, childcare subsidies, emergency rental assistance, not because we don't have the money, but because the CFO is preventing us from using available funds to cover his illegal failure to control spending. This is about a fundamental authority of this council as the appropriating body. The CFO's job is to control spending within our approved budget and that didn't happen. And now the residents of the district will suffer the consequences. These programs are lifelines for district families and we're cutting them because of financial mismanagement. I'm voting for this amendment because I have to, but I think this situation is unacceptable. Uh and I hope that we continue to not accept things as they are. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I would just say on principle I agree with you completely uh that the council serves as the appropriating authority. Um I also think and we've talked about this at length that we need to take to heart if the CFO is saying uh he has concerns and about budgetary pressures. I think for me what this really caused the question is when will we as a government really get serious about spending and so yeah that might be odd for the guy that's talking about uh modestly raising uh taxes to talk about spending but I think I have not seen a real effort by any branch of our government. Now, the mayor will say, "Well, I cut spending." I would argue the mayor proposed a budget that cut vital programs for working-class Washingtonians. We did not see a a significant or serious effort to reduce the size of government, to reduce redundancies, to reduce ineffective agencies. In fact, there was an effort on this council to roll back the size of our government. And I won't use the expletative, but all craziness broke out. And I think it speaks to the fact that we aren't really serious as a body about getting our spending under control. In an amendment I will talk about in a little bit, uh I propose an independent expenditure and revenue commission that they would force us to grapple with the district's uh I would argue out of control spending um in order to get it under control. Again, I agree with you on principle. I think what the CFO is pointing to the subtext of it is we have to also be mindful of our spending and the spending pressures that come as a result uh of what this budget includes. And so all in all, I think this was a smart decision, albeit in duress. Uh but I think we will be stronger for it. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we're all in a position where we do not like the amendments you have in front of us, but we understand where where it's coming from and I think you have uh well articulated the principle and the concern that's in front of us. I I also think and I shared this with the CFO. I I think that you are correct on principle and I think that having the surplus funding identified as the appropriating body should allow us to be able to decide where those dollars should go. It would be a lot easier to be able to hear the CFO also say, I believe you can spend this and you can't spend that. If we saw the CFO actually stopping overspending in our agencies or even having those agencies follow the law. I'll just give one quick example that's not a budget buster, but it is meaningful for the residents who were counting on it. Last year, this council passed a law and legislation so that as the mayor shut down the DC circulator and sold off those assets, they were supposed to go into a fund that this body created to go help the workers who had all just lost their jobs. Those buses are now showing up in other jurisdictions, other transit systems around the country. And DOT says, "Sorry, not a dollar has been produced. We don't have any dollars in the funds." Where's the CFO's officers, their AFO to make sure those dollars when those assets were sold went to the place that legally they were supposed to go, it didn't happen. And so we're over a barrel and you've put together an amendment that I'll support. And I I share your frustration because it sure doesn't look like we have the CFO. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So you got to make sure that if you're going to treat one branch of government one way, you got to be able to treat them both the same way. And so we're frustrated. Um but Mr. Chair, I know you've worked hard at this and I'll support this amendment, but I share your frustration uh about what we're what we're in and the position that we're in. Thank you, Council Member Allen. Council member Bonds. >> Yes. Um, thank you very much, um, Chairman. Um, I just wanted to add my voice to, um, for the public's understanding that I see both sides of this argument. And I see both sides of the argument because while there is a principle involved, there is also a situation that is compounded by some of the legislation that we produce that compels the continuation of spending in certain categories. And I think it would be very refreshing if our government took a strong look at the programs, the services that are provided in each of the agencies. There are things called basic necessities, things that we say are so important for the residents of the city. And then there are things that we embellish, we add to and we um include in what government should do. And we have not taken the time to look at an agency and to discern just what is that of the work of the agency that must be done in order to keep our community whole, in order to address the needs of the community. Instead, we just continue to add to the pie. And here we are today saying, "Oh, we overspend." You're darn right we overspend. But at the same time, we probably don't spend enough in some categories where we we need to spend so that we can continue to preserve our communities. So, I just wanted to put that perspective out there and that's how I see this issue. Um, should we do something about it? Most definitely. And I think it goes beyond just making um a statement. Um you have put into the FY26 budget a process. I'm not sure that that's going to work because quite honestly um the process by which we get things done is through the electoral process. And so it's not like um the mayor can fire the the council and the council can fire the mayor. I mean, let's deal with the reality. So, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to add my voice to this discussion. >> Thank you, Council Member Bonds. Council Member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know a lot has already been said, but I I do feel like it's important to sort of say this on the record again. Every year since I've been a council member under this CFO, the rules change every budget. That's why couple months ago I had asked upfront, Mr. CFO, how are you going to treat the reconciliation bill? And no one had passed it in Congress, but I knew as hence a pattern that the rules would change midway. And here we have another situation here. Um, I understand for everyone that this is a very frustrating position to be in. Um, I think I've said before to borrow from someone else. Uh there's the policy, there's the law, and then there's the politics. And unfortunately, um where we are in the District of Columbia um having an independent CFO um and given our past history on spending, we can never be put in a position um where we are passing an unbalanced budget or it is the appearance of us passing an unbalanced budget um because that would be a fundamental threat to home rule um and our ability to govern overall. Um, and so we're having to make some decisions today. But, you know, to the overall point, we're here because of some overspending and also some decisions that have been made by the CFO. Um, a couple of years ago, we have one agency, Department of Human Services, that literally starts the year with a spending pressure. Starts the year with a spending pressure. Why was that? Because the CFO never made the mayor budget for the cost of living increases for TANF that were in law. But somehow that was okay. And so when we are we as we move forward in these questions around overspending, we really have to ask these questions of um is it a nice to have or is it a necessity? Um you know, council member Parker talked about earlier um you know, an effort by a colleague to make some adjustments and we still have to question, do I have an agency that needs 88 FTEEs to run one program? But nobody wanted to have that difficult conversation and I hope that now as we go into the next year we will be pushed in that direction to be able to do that. Um so I you know reducing these enhancements is not something that any of us should take lightly. Um but also neither is losing our ability to represent our constituents and self-govern. Um which is why I'll be supporting the amendment today. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council member Henderson. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Who's asking? >> Uh Council Member Fman. Uh thank you very very much chairman Mendelson. Um all the conversation about we as a government needing to deal with spending and get our expenditures in order second it. Um but this is a setting and I had a conversation with the CFO which was as contentious of a conversation as two pretty mildmannered people can have. Uh but he was wrong once. He was either wrong in May when he said everything balanced before we had $250 million new dollars or he's wrong now to say he needs the $250 million to balance the budget. It's just the there's something fundamental that is not right about what's happening here. There are different kinds of pressures. those pressures existed and have not changed in a significant way in the last two months. We should not be in this position. That said, I think what you're doing in response to the circumstance is appropriate. It's painful because there are things on your list that are being cut that all of us want to see uh restored. And that brings me to a question I have because my understanding is that what your amendment does is if there are additional dollars that turn up in the September revenue estimate, these cuts would be refunded in a cascading order. And I wonder how it is you came to the sep if that's the case how you came to the September revenue estimate as the peg because in cander I worry that the September revenue estimate is a number that we're going to get from the CFO and so we would still be seeding our appropriating authority to unappealable judgment call that the CFO would make in September. So, help me understand what is the trigger that would be used to refund the programs here and whether or not you had considered any other kinds of triggers that could be more objective or more in our control. I would like to answer your question succinctly and I think that's going to be a challenge for me. Um the uh September revenue estimates probably will show additional revenues because the impact negative impacts to our economy have not yet happened. Like for instance, remember earlier this year there was fear of a recession or even a local recession with job cuts and in fact what we've seen so far this year is that tax revenues have been increasing. However, um the September revenue well and I would add the September revenue estimates have to be more reflective of reality than any of the other estimates because the other estimates are purely projected projected through the remainder of the year. Well, the remainder of the year will be September 30th when the revenue estimates come out. Um, however, the if we simply say and the amendment does more than just simply say uh we'll rely on the September revenue estimates. Uh, and let me be clear, it's the combination of the June 30th revenue estimates plus the September revenue estimates. That would be the total revenue for the year. If we simply rely on that, the CFO will do in September what he did this month, which is to say, well, overspending may be higher, so I need to hold the money. You can't get to it. That's why this amendment does more. It also says the revenue estimates plus what the estimated overspending is as of November, I think it's November 14th, which is hate to say it, but the actual year end close of the books. Um, and so there he will have to make an estimate of what the overspending actually was. I can tell you that uh uh when I met with the CFO in several weeks ago, I said to him, $180 million is what you estimate the overspending is. Most recently, that is in the past week when he's been lobbying council members on this issue, he's been saying, "Well, the numbers will be higher." Uh actually um I think we're going to find it's closer to $180 million. Um and I just want to note that that's $180 million overspending on top of the $130 million in overspending that we have already been asked to fix through the supplemental budget. So that's a total of $310 million spent over what we budgeted last year when the mayor said that the budget she gave us was adequate. That's a long answer. Um I um would like to think that we will be able to shake loose the money that we're cutting, but I'm not going to guarantee that. Uh, but this amendment seeks to do more than just a revenue estimate. It seeks as well to tie it to the overspending. Okay, Mr. CFO, if you need it for overspending, show us the overspending. And if it if it's less than this $244 million plus whatever September brings in, then the rest goes to these programs. I hope that answers your question. >> Well, it it helps. Thank you very much. I mean it may be that we need to have a hearing with the CFO to look at where this all sits in the fall so that we can understand to the extent that he we he does not allow us to refund these cuts that we very very clearly as a body understand exactly why he's doing what he's doing on the record. >> Uh thank you. Is there anything further on the amend? Uh the vote will be on the amendment um which is the uh let me see um the appropriation of additional resources. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next amendment is from council members Felder and Bonds whom I recognizing. Council member Felder. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Chairman, at this time I'm going to withdraw my amendment and work with um the department of um sorry um to work with uh DC board of elections based on what I'm hearing. Uh so I've conduct the hearing. Uh so the amendment is withdrawn. Yes. Uh we have an amendment from council member Truman. Council member, >> thank you very much. Um so this amendment relates to school funding. Um when the school budgets came out, we reached out to all of the schools in the feeder systems touching uh W three to see where they stood in terms of their budgets. And all the schools but two told us they were good. Um they were very happy with the budgets that they received. They didn't feel like they got anything extra. uh but they felt like their needs had been fully met which was a giant relief for us. The two schools that had needs were deal felt like they needed a social worker and MacArthur High School um was losing its connected uh communities and schools staff person which they thought was very very important and on issues including truency. Uh and then the school's first in budgeting allocations came out and for the most part it left the schools in W 3 in the same position that they had been before. U couple of schools got more funding not deal not MacArthur. Um, one was Jackson Reed, which had told us that they didn't have needs and then they got over $700,000 through schools first in budgeting. So, as we did last year, uh, we went to Jackson Reed and asked, "Do you need these dollars or can they be deployed to other schools in the feeder system and related to Jackson Ree?" The initial comeback had been that they needed three teachers and an administrative aid. Um, but we wanted to make sure that that was vetted throughout the school and with the LSAT and had it been three teachers and the administrative aid, um, we would have had money to fund the positions at deal and at MacArthur. Um, but they eventually came back and they said they needed a fourth teacher and an administrative aid. And that didn't leave enough money to do both deal and MacArthur. And we consulted and determined that directing $75,000 from the Jackson Reed allocation to MacArthur would be the best use of those dollars. those that $75,000 will be matched by philanthropy. If we cannot do it, we will not get the $75,000 in philanthropy. With the $75,000, we can have the connected schools person at MacArthur, which will be very very helpful to MacArthur. And frankly, the success of MacArthur, Mr. Chairman, just another 30 seconds. Uh the success of MacArthur is very very soon to be John Thompson High School happily um is very very important to Jackson Reed. Jackson Reed, the full community is completely comfortable with doing this, enthusiastic about doing this, and I hope my colleagues will support me in moving $75,000 from the allocation to Jackson Reed over to MacArthur and the soontobe John Thompson High School. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Fman. We have the amendment before us. Uh, since this involves school funding, I should speak to this. Um, this amendment concerns a move of $75,000, which is not worth fighting over. However, there is the principle. So, when we went through this last year, I think the argument at least that I made and a few others was we shouldn't be doing this on award basis and we shouldn't be doing this every year. And so here we are again doing this and on award basis. Uh this will be very very problematic if the council starts getting into deciding what each school's funding should be and deferring to the ward member and moving money around. I appreciate, Council Member Fman, that you uh have been much more involved with schools than many other members and so you've presumably vetted this with Jackson Reed as well as John Thompson High School. uh but um just as a matter of precedent or principle uh our making these kinds of decisions is um very uh very problematic. Um, I will note as well that uh Jackson Reed on a per pupil basis is funded much less than other schools. Uh, in part because of its size, but also in part because it has enormous classes. It has classes that have I'm told some classes over 40 students in the class which is far higher than what the standard is which is why um if you if one looks at its student population and the contract ratio contract specified ratio of students to teachers Jackson Reed should be getting more money. Uh, so I will not be supporting this. Is there further on this amendment? >> U, Mr. Chairman, may I respond? >> Uh, nobody else is volunteering. It's yours. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, it it is the case that Jackson Reed is funded on a per pupil basis lower than than most schools. And actually, this is a thing, you know, that can be there can be a misperception on a per student basis. Actually the W3 schools tend to be uh funded on a lower basis. Some of that much of that is about economies of scale with very full schools. Another component of it is is in cander lower numbers of at risk students and in some cases lower numbers of special education and ELLL students. And looking at it on a per pupil basis, there are folks in W 3 who argue that there's an unfairness that there's a lower per pupil spending in W 3 than other places. But I don't think that's the that's compelling. We we need to meet the needs of all of our kids in all of our schools where they are. And if where it lands is that Jackson Reed on a per pupil basis gets less than another school in another part of the city with higher needs, so be it. You raised with me the question about class size. I specifically asked the principal and the LSAT to look at this issue of class size. I don't want very high class sizes. I actually think that is why they came back and said, "No, we need one more science teacher than we thought because that's our way of managing class size." And Jackson Reed did not believe they needed more before the school's first allocation. and they believe that their needs are fully met even if they forego the $75,000 which gets doubled by the use at MacArthur to meet a very important need on truency. And so it there is an idea that you know the last thing that you do is apply a formula which is what schools first does. But to me and this is a thing that we differ on I do think the last thing that you have to do in budgeting is exercise some human judgment and look at to to make sure that the formula landed you where it's accurately meeting the needs. And I do think there's a responsibility to do that. I know you don't want to do that. Council member, >> I thought the clock was descending, but it's ascending. >> But but I think the clock started before I got started, but I'll finish there. I hope that my colleagues can support me in this very modest move of dollars so that we can meet the needs of the kids at Macarthur High School. >> Is there further discussion? The amendment is before us. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? No. >> No. Uh, the eyes have it. Uh, the next amendment is by Council Member White. Um, Chairman, if you wouldn't mind taking this one out of order. I'm just trying to clear up one thing with the budget office. Excuse me. Um, if there's no objection, uh, the next amendment is by Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. So, I have an amendment to the LBA and the BSA. Can I go forward the LBA first? are the um the amendment that I believe you have to the BSA is uh has to do with revenue raising. >> Yes. >> Uh if the spending in the LBA, the local budget act is dependent on that, then you cannot >> I would need to do the BSA first. >> Correct. >> Got it. Okay. So, I will wait until we take up the BSA. >> Um All right. That puts pressure on Council Member Robert White. >> I mean I Let me do this since I've been recognized. Are you amendable to restarting the clock and I can give my statement? I think I'll resolve it anyway. >> Uh this would be your statement on the amendment nature of a substitute or a statement on an amendment you're moving that you haven't moved. >> The amendment I'm moving >> but you're not moving it. So, no, you can't speak to it. Okay, now you've confused me. You have to speak to what's on the floor. And at the moment, the only thing on the floor is the amendment nature of a substitute. >> Understood. I'm sorry. I thought you were calling for my amendment. A I thought you were calling for my amendment. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I think you moved on because I raised a question. I'm sorry. I'm glad somebody's chuckling. >> It's uh an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I would May I proceed? The the what is on the floor at the moment is the amendment nature of a substitute. I was about to recognize Council Member Robert White who had asked for more time. I had previously recognized you, but you said that your amendment has to do with spend revenues that are raised, but the revenues haven't been raised. So, you can't speak to how you're going to spend the money because you can't move that. >> Happy to give I'm happy to give Council Member White more time to speak to it um and then pull it. >> You've got a lot of sympathetic colleagues here who are telling me to let you do it. Council member White, how close are you to being ready? You said you are ready. Okay, we're going to go to council member White. Understood. Thank you. Circulated. If you want to add that to your list, >> please proceed. >> Uh, thank you, chairman. Uh, this amendment um is in line with the BSA amendment that I plan to move. uh it uh shortly and I've worked with DHCD to ensure it meets the city's needs. It would reallocate $10 million within the housing production trust fund from multifamily development to TOPA multif family critical repairs preservation to support permanent preservation financing. This is a strategic and responsible investment in the city's existing affordable housing. While production will be um will always be important, preservation is a faster and more cost-effective way to secure long-term affordability for low and moderate income residents, particularly amid the budget deficit that we are in. This amendment ensures that the district can preserve affordability where it already exists while continuing to plan for long-term production. And I urge you to support it. Uh I move the amendment. Chairman We have the amendment before us. Is there discussion on the amendment? >> Um Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a question uh to Council Member White for clarification purposes? Um, Council Member White, I just wanted to ask, so um, this is moving funding from the multifamily, uh, development production funding group to the TOPA multifamily critical repairs preservation funding group. Um, do you have some more details in terms of how DHCD currently allocates these various funding groups? I guess my question is um what would the total amount be on this for the critical repairs after this amendment is passed versus currently? >> Um so this is setting up a BSA amendment um that that I'm going to move momentarily. DHCD uh worked with me with us uh on this. They said we have to move this funding to do the um 30 million in preservation that I'm going to move through the BSA. So, uh working with DHD, they said that this funding has to be moved from one account to the other in order to set up the 30 million in preservation. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh further discussion. >> Uh can I ask a quick question? >> Yes, please. Council member Fman. Uh, council member White, it seems to me that 10 million was moved from the preservation fund in to to the H the housing production trust fund to do preservation. And then this is another 10 million and now the housing production trust fund is at 100 million when we when 10 million got moved over went up to 110, but then with the chairman Mendelson's amendment it went down to 100. So, it seems like there's 20 million set aside. How does that fund the 30% that would be in the BSA? I have to say I'm comfortable at 20 million, but less comfortable at 30 million in this year, but how explain again how that's going to work. >> Um the So, it's not going to be 30%, it'll be 30 million. Um, I I am The BSA is um it's 30 mil. Yeah, it's 30 million, not 30%. Um, so I don't know if that answers your question. I may need to pitch to the budget office for some assistance here. I'm trying to move per the uh working through DHCD in the budget office to make sure we're not messing things up. >> Yeah. So, I mean, I want to be supportive of you getting up to 20 million, but I'm more reluctant on the 30 million. So maybe so I want to vote for this but I'm not sure where I'm going to be at the BSA when we get to that part of the discussion. So maybe between now and the BSA somebody can can inform me. >> I'll l back with you um council member Fman. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh is there anything further on the amendment? So the amendment before us is from council member Robert White. >> I have a question. >> Council member Pinto. Um, Council Member White, how does this relate to the amendment from two weeks ago around housing preservation within the H TPF? >> Um, so we're we're trying to get the money in a place that gives the most flexibility for the agencies to do preservation. Uh, working with DHC, they said this is the pot that it it needs to be in for maximum flexibility. Um and then the other difference between now and two weeks ago is we were trying to make that 30% of the housing production trust fund. Uh which would be at um two weeks ago 110 million. This is just going to be 30 million. So it'll be less than 30%. >> And but then wasn't there a second amendment around preserving 10 million within the fund for preservation separate than their 30%. We were trying to add 10 million to housing uh production trust fund for preservation. Um and then dedicate 30% of that total 110 million to preservation. Um now we're trying to get another 10 million into the housing production trust fund um and allocate 30 million. Um so can't do the math but it'll be less than 30%. >> Okay. Thank you. We're going to proceed to a vote on this. We have the um amendment from C council member White. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. It is approved unanimously. Uh Council Member Bonds just circulated an amendment. Council member Bonds. >> Yes. Um thank you um Chairman. Um my amendment actually um does two things. One removes the $947,577 and $198,556 which was um moved to the Department of Public Works um and operations and infrastructure. So, we would like to move it back to the office of community relations and services in the um EOM. My rationale is um this amendment would restore funding um to the EOM. And why is this necessary? Because the uh mayor's office of clean city already is established in the EOM. Um this purpose of this office is to coordinate under the direction of the mayor all the various city agencies responsible for maintaining a clean city and that of course includes the department of health as well as the department of public works and several others. Um the reason that this office is under the executive office of the mayor rather than in a particular agency is to better coordinate the overall strategy. And I do not have to remind us all that we are as a government, as a community um considered um a area of the United States that um needs to um clean up and um make um our neighborhoods as well as our commercial areas. um very um exciting and interesting for our tourist trade as well as for our residents. In other words, there's a real need to pay close attention through community relations as well as educational campaigns to reduce litter, graffiti, etc. and of course rodents. And so, um, this is designed to, uh, remain the alignment of this, this important service with the mayor's overall strategy of community outreach. Thank you. >> Uh, we have the amendment before us, >> chairman, >> council member. Thank you so much, chairman. Um I was surprised to see this amendment. Um we had um worked with uh you, Mr. Chairman, to move the office of the clean city back to DPW, which of course is where it originally existed before being separated out. And unfortunately the move to have office of clean city independent has resulted in a lot of inefficiency um duplicative services and not a lot of communication. Um it is really important with the increased focus on corridor cleaning at DPW for there to be adequate support which um that office is is now set up to do under this BSA. Um there's, you know, an agreement that moving it under DPW is going to help with all of the new clean and clean corridor and other initiatives um that we've been um piloting and also making permanent. So I just ask that colleagues not support this amendment which directly impacts DPW and the Committee on Public Works and Operations. Thank you. Uh, further on the amendment. With great hesitation, I'm going to say I'm not going to support this amendment either. I respect Council Member Bonds and I'm not happy saying this, but um, this only came up today and in fact, this amendment circulated um, 24 minutes ago and this is not a very good way to be legislating. The fact of the matter is is that uh the positioning of the office of clean city is something that has been debated in the council or discussed in the council for the last several weeks if not back to our July 2nd uh work session. Um and so this is not new this this issue. Um and give me a second. Um, and so I', um, because we're going to have another amendment after this, which is also going to be be even more last minute. Uh, is there further on this? Council member Pinto, sorry, Council Member Bonds, can you just talk through what your intention here is in in this shift of like of what you think could be benefited by this shift? Well, the um clean city um the mayor's office of clean city has existed as such for a number of years and particularly in recent months there has been indication from the uh federal um interest that um the process of being responsive to cleaning up not just corridors but just a particular area um has has been at the forefront and I feel that the clean city the mayor's clean city office is best suited for the mayor's office because quite honestly they can respond more politically than we can within the operating agencies and that seems to be the one of the main purposes that we have the clean city um program in the mayor's office. >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you so much. I um I'll support you on this and I just want to add that I think that we can do much more as a city and thinking more broadly and more holistically even just from DPW around making sure that our city is clean, making sure that we're teaching our neighbors and our young people about our civic responsibility to keep a clean city. Um and so I hope that this office can continue their um their work and their kind of big picture thinking about how to implement that. Thank you. Thank you very much for that um comment because one of the things that the clean mayor's clean city office does is coordinate with other agencies beyond just DPW um including um our education public schools. So thank you house >> member Allen. Thank you Mr. Chair Chairman. Can I make a motion to close debate? rather than keep asking. >> It's a motion to close debate. If there's no objection, the motion to close debate will be accepted. Hearing no objection, >> chairman, that they allow somebody who hasn't spoken to speak, right? >> Yes, it does. >> So, the motion to close debate has been accepted. Council member um White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Uh, council member um Bonds, I I wasn't thinking about it in in these terms before you uh offered this amendment. I've used the Office of Clean Cities when I was president of my civic association to do neighborhood cleanups and consistently worked well, but I'm also sensitive to um what you're suggesting. You know, we we do have the federal government um starting to show up more in parts of our community, and I want to make sure we stay ahead of them. um with and the agency has uh the ability to respond quickly. So, let's say they know where they're we know they're about to deploy somewhere. I want to make sure we have an an office that can move quickly to get there. Uh so, I plan to support you on this and and appreciate your attention to this. >> You finished? >> I got it. Uh if there's nothing further, the vote will be on Council Member Bonds's amendment. All those in favor of the amendment say I. I. >> Those opposed. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. Please record me as no. >> Please record me as no. >> It might be better for a roll call. >> It's four. No. >> And Charles wasn't even >> All right. That was down here. >> That was just messed up. >> So, all those in favor say I. Uh >> opposed. >> The amendment fails. >> Thank you. >> Uh we have this amendment that uh Council Member Pinto circulated at 3:15. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am moving this amendment today with Council Member Parker. And I want to just note at the outset that this is a very hard amendment for me to move personally. Um, there are a lot of very important priorities that we have in our city and access to justice is one of my top priorities. It is a funding program that I've prioritized for many years. Um, it is where I targeted some of the funding when I proposed dissolving one of the agencies within the judiciary committee to make sure um that access to justice was prioritized in this funding cycle. Um, because the mayor's budget proposal took us back to prepandemic levels of about $10 million for access to justice. I continued to support funding for them as we move through the budget process, as the budget um came to you. And unfortunately where we are um with the revenue surplus, a lot of the money that we thought we had available to us is not available to us. And so as we look across all of the funding priorities of the city, there are almost all of our programs are getting cut that we believe in. Um, and I looked at the list of items that we had hoped to fund that are no longer being funded because of the the balancing issues of the CFO and believe deeply that we have to fund more support for our children. Um, there is a child subsidy program out of AIE that helps low-income families pay for child support and I think we have to restore that funding. Um the child tax credit is a lifeline to our families that is being negatively impacted by what's going on at the federal government and we have to implement that lifeline so that our families can afford to live here and to thrive. Um, our DNA testing, which is what right now is being outsourced, but can go on at our Department of Forensic Sciences, has no funding left in it for this year. So any evidence collection we need to do around DNA testing would be totally hampered. And so while there are a lot of things that I really want to fund in this year's budget, this amendment is really about staying focused on those things that I think we have to fund that are immovable priorities for our children and for public safety. Um and so that's why today I'm proposing this amendment um to continue the access to justice enhancement from the original 10 million to 20 million. Um, and then use that additional savings to fund the DNA testing at DFS, to fund child care subsidy at AIE, and to fund the child tax credit. Um, and I asked my colleagues that as we've all had to make a lot of extremely difficult choices this budget, this is yet another difficult choice that Council Parker and I are asking you all to make. um but one that I think is the appropriate path forward given how deep the the needs are here. I'll also just note lastly um that we're also proposing taking some of the money from destination DC um which is also a personal major priority of mine, something that I think is really important to the city. But again, as we weigh all of these equities, um that's where we we came out and and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment today. Um, Mr. Chairman, >> since this is an amendment to uh my motion, I'm going to speak to it first, but Council Member Pinto, I have a question. If I'm understanding this correctly, the funding that you're repurposing is coming from uh reducing access to justice by 10 10.1 million almost 10.2 $2 million. Um taking it looks like taking the outy years funding for the DC official sports capital bill and also um reducing uh the uh destination DC. Am I correct? >> Yes. >> Uh which is to say that uh none of this source is recurring. >> That's right. Just like your initial enhancement. >> Let me reclaim my time. Um, so I'm going to speak against this and I'm going to urge members to u not vote for this and I'm going to be a bit strong in my language here. I think that this amendment folks should be ashamed of this amendment. First of all, one of our most one of our most successful programs is the access to justice and this would cut it by $10.2 million. Access to justice may not be well understood by most people, but what it is is a program that funds civil legal services for poor indigent individuals. Folks who are in landlord tenant court being evicted who don't have a lawyer. And we know 92% of the folks in landlord tenant court do not have a lawyer. And if you do have a lawyer, the chances of you being evicted are much much less. But this would defund that. And there are other programs that also people need access to justice in order to get their benefits like federal benefits like SSI where one gets denied. How the hell do you deal with SSI when you get denied? Well, if you have access to a lawyer then maybe you can get the benefits which make a big difference in your life. Cutting access to justice is shameful if we do that. reducing uh the um um using this to fund the child tax credit. We all would like to see the child tax credit on a diet. I don't think so. On a one-time basis, no, that can't happen. You can't do a a uh a tax credit on a one-time basis. It has to be recurring funding. It has to be recurring funding. what we will see in the fall because we saw it this year because last year we adopted the child tax credit on a recurring basis at something like $15 million. Not a diet, not a slim trim diet. And what we saw was that the CFO and the mayor never moved to implement it. I'm sure that will happen this time. And with the next budget, of course, they propose to cut it to cut it. And that's what we're going to h see happen because we know there's going to be a supplemental budget this fall because of the federal tax cuts which we're going to have to which is going to unbalance us. So we're going to have to be back here and you know the child tax credit is going to be the first thing the mayor and the CFO are going to act. So this is just like a waste to put it in there for one time on a slimmed down super slim down basis. And then further some of these other cuts, destination DC, which was promised $27 million and with this we'll get what $4 million. I don't think that's the strongest argument for this. I think cutting access to justice is the strongest because it is the worst thing to do. I would urge members not to support this. Council member Allen, did you want to be recognized? >> I did, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um, I think that we often think of access to justice as funding lawyers in our city. It does, but what our access to justice program does is it builds it builds scaffolding around supporting all of our other programs that are impacted in this budget. I've heard a few people in in the last few hours as this as we've heard rumors about this amendment coming say, "Well, but other parts of the budget got a haircut." So, why shouldn't Access to Justice get a haircut? I'd argue it's exactly because of those cuts we're going to see to programs and services to vulnerable residents across DC. It's exactly why we need all these funds in access to justice. If this amendment passes, at least 13,000 DC residents are not going to get legal help when they need it most. They're not going to get legal help when they when they're victims of domestic violence. Tenants are not going to be able to get help when they're clinging to affordable housing. Individuals with disabilities who are seeking services that can keep them physically healthy. Elders at risk of fraud, abuse, instability. Families torn apart by conflict. Those are at great economic risk. Children who are physically unhealthy because of housing they live in will not have the attorneys that they need. This program almost exclusively funds FTEEs, positions, district workers who help devote their lives to serve low-income DC residents. A reduction of $10 million to our access to justice could translate to about 80 to 100 staff members who will no longer serve DC residents. 13,000 people will lose the lifeline they need to help. 80 to 100 people will lose their jobs. 200 district agencies and community organizations partner with our ATJ funded projects. They will lose those partner organizations they rely on to get the residents they serve legal help for. A cut like this will shutter programs that are embedded in our community and providing vital legal services. And while every single person on this dis supports a child tax credit, if this amendment passes, we are just giving money to the mayor to take. We're giving it to her. She's already told us this is not something she supports and she will not implement it. So if we do this, we are taking away the supports that residents need for our access to justice program and we are serving up millions for her to take in just a couple of months. I do not support this amendment and I urge my colleagues not to either. >> Council member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh again, I just would um reflect on our need to uh be serious about our spending. Uh in the same breath that some members say let's not raise revenue, they're also saying let's not cut anything as well. I just would encourage us and I really do appreciate the concern especially when we're talking about our most vulnerable residents, workingclass Washingtonians. My my push would be let's be consistent. Let's not pick and choose when we want to reference the interests of workingclass residents because on any number of issues we're talking about today on sometimes people are here and elsewhere. We talk about believing in the child tax credit. I really I I I take people to heart on that. And I want to be clear about this. The mayor in cutting and removing the child tax credit from the budget, which was fully funded, by the way, is a tax increase on Washingtonians. Every working family and child that would have benefited from the child tax credit is facing now a tax increase. So, in the same breath that some are saying, let's not raise taxes, the mayor already did it. By us not replacing the child tax credit, we are endorsing that tax increase. We say we care about low-income residents having access to legal representation. That is tremendously important. Those same low-income residents, those with children, are losing child care subsidies and benefits and per perhaps money to put food on their tables. Now, access to justice is funded at $31 million. That's a lot of money. We have seen so many programs zeroed out. What we are talking about is a reduction of some $10 million. Yes, that that is a significant reduction. Access to just justice preandemic was at $9 million. So, we are still seeing a time where that is doubled. Yes, it's reduction from $31 million, but in a budget where we have to make tough choices, yes, we're going to have to reduce spending. Again, I come back. This body has not proven itself serious about cutting spending. We can't have it both ways. We can't fund every pet project and at the same time say we're not going to raise revenue. We can't say we're not going to roll back things that are going to be beneficial to working residents while also saying well these working residents who are going to lose child care and potentially health care and SNAP benefits. That's okay. We can turn the other way. I would urge us to be consistent and be mindful that we have to make tough choices. I think going from 2000 or I'm sorry $9 million for access to justice in what year 2019 to now proposing roughly $20 million uh shows where we are and would allow us to extend a lifeline to families and children. It is a tough choice. I get it. Uh but if we're not serious about raising revenue, this is where we are. So I encourage residents or council members to support this. Thank you. Why? >> Because it's all tax exceptions. >> Chairman, Council Member Henderson, and Lewis George have hands up and Henderson was first to be clear. A part of the delay is as I'm sitting here, I'm getting additional amendments. I don't know if members realize this, but in the last 45 minutes, four amendments have been filed. Now, I don't think I can rule them out of order, but this is a little wacky that uh >> so is voting on a Monday >> dealing with amendments that are coming in at 3:32 and 3:41 and 3:15 and it's only 3:45. Council member Henderson, I believe you were next. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um uh I want to thank my colleagues for attempting to, I guess, try to resolve what is already a tough and sticky situation. And I reject the notion that asking any program to take a haircut is somehow to say that we don't support working folks being able to have legal representation or all of those other things. Um you know, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the your ANS and the work that you had to do there, but respectfully um colleagues did not have an opportunity to rank which order these um items go in in terms of if there are additional revenues, what happens next? And you know, I think the childcare subsidy is important, right? I think access to justice is important. And I I think having our department of forensic science being able to test DNA to solve crimes is also important as well. And so I just want to be mindful of the language to suggest that this amendment somehow is abandoning workingclass people when I think that our colleagues are trying to work in good faith to try to stretch the dollars especially as we're not choosing to cut in other um places. And so um I just want to kind of keep that at the forefront. Um, you know, one of the items that they are funding here in this again, childcare subsidy, which would require us to go back into a wait list, which frankly with the changes that are coming on the federal side in terms of reconciliation and work requirements, can't ask people get a job if they don't have any place for their kids to go. And so, we just have to sort of think about some of these um various pieces here. Um, lots of programs had to take a cut. And so I I um I'm going to support the amendment today and uh that's all I'm going to say. Thank you. >> Council member Lewis George, do you want to be recognized? >> Yes, chairman. Um you know, I think this is tough because pitting families and children against protecting resident civil rights is a false choice and I think we can and should do both. But there are more options than just taking invaluable resources to protect the civil rights of residents. Now more than ever, our constituents will need the protection of access to justice, especially in the light of the fact that the council has voted to roll back tenant protections, which will lead to more tenant evictions. I mean I mean we we literally just went down to 24 days. Um uh and so I you know and and domestic violence is an area that issue is going up. I mean we got to be real about that. The domestic violence issues in this city and in our region has gone up and and and and they deserve those survivors deserve our support. Uh and those who are protecting and fighting for those survivors deserve our support. So this is what I think. I think my colleagues both are valid in what their aims are and I think there is a way to do that. I would ask MPD to help with the DNA testing funding. I think we should ask EOM and the Metropolitan Police Department if they can assist with DNA test funding through their funding mechanisms. And I think Council Member Parker should move forward on his revenue raiser and we should fund child tax credit. So there's a solution. This doesn't have to be the choice. It's a false choice that we should not be making. Thank you. Again, I would ask for order in the chamber. I know folks don't like that. I appreciate the passions. However, we do need order in the chamber. It's really not right for certain council members to get applause and other council members to get booze or whatever. So, we could just clear the chamber. Further on, >> council member Pinto second round. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to first say that our domestic violence victims need all of this funding as well, which is funded through the victim services funding, which is a big priority for me in the committee and with the whole council, and we are not addressing that. We're not touching that funding. I will also say for domestic violence victims, it is fundamentally vital that they have access to DNA testing. That's how these cases are closed. Um, and there's currently, just so everyone's on the same page, no funding in the budget at all to do DNA testing in-house or to outsource it. So, without this change, we will not have that ability. I want to also make the point that the chairman's amendment removed $30 million of spending from the budget, but importantly, it made this funding conditional on the September revenue estimates. And so what council member Parker and I are proposing today does the same thing for the full restoration of the access to justice funding if the revenue estimates dictate that there is sufficient funding to do so. Um, there are about 180 families who will benefit from the child subsidy at AIE, which I just don't want to get lost in this debate as we think about making sure that we're supporting Washingtonians and their livelihoods. They need access to child care, and that's what we're funding here. Um, so I'm going to stop there. I think we've we've kind of laid out our our thinking here. Um, but I want to just again reiterate how much how difficult this is for me to move because of my consistent support for access to justice and want to continue supporting them. And I think that as we are proposing a doubling of their budget from what the mayor proposed at 10 million, we are proposing enhancing their budget by two to $20 million. So I just want to be really clear when we talk about the language of cutting or not. This is an enhancement of their budget twice of what the mayor proposed to $20 million, which I know people always need more, but I think as we're making a lot of hard choices, this is one that we'd propose. >> Uh, Council Member Parker, second or >> I I will be short uh or brief rather. I I I associate myself with Council Member Lewis George's comments in the sense that this is a false choice. I fully acknowledge that. Uh I would not like to be proposing a reduction to access to justice. Where we find ourselves in this process though after the mayor proposed her budget, after the chairman proposed his ANS following committee work, there are gaps. As was mentioned, the reduction of some $30 million leaves significant gaps, including with the child care subsidy. To be clear, if there is not funding identified, low-income families, likely moms, will not have the support via that program. There is no other attempt to fund it in this program or in this budget. As we've already discussed, the child tax credit has been zeroed out. This forensic piece is also really important. And so, yes, access to justice is essential, but we have to look at where we have buckets of money in front of us. Um, I just would also say, uh, chairman, I get the frustration of amendments flying at the last minute. I think some of that is a result of where we find ourselves with a budget vote being held on a Monday, um, and the rules being as they are. So, I I get that these are tough choices. Um, I just would again encourage us to be consistent across the board with the interest of working-class Washingtonians. Thank you. >> So, the challenge with amendments coming in at the last minute is that they haven't really been vetted even among colleagues. Um, a lot of amendments came in last night, a couple came in this morning, but getting amendments in the last hour really, I mean, nobody's had a chance to look at them, to discuss them. So, I've said this before, the 5,000, excuse me, the $5 million going to the child tax credit, as council member Allen noted, every member supports the child tax credit. An inadequately funded program is not going to be very successful. A program that the mayor almost certainly is going to repeal is not a good use of our dollars here. So, we can we can pitch a flag for the child tax credit, but we're all we're doing is to borrow the words from another council member is just giving the mayor $5 million. And this is one-time funding. It's not recurring. For the program to be successful, it has to be recurring. I was an introducer of the amplified sound mitigation bill. I would like to see that funded. I was able to fund it until the CFO said, "No, you have to cut $30 million." I made a judgment that if I have to make a choice between, let's say, Access to Justice and Amplified Sound, Amplified Sound can wait a year. We only adopted it last fall. If I may have to make a judgment between, let's say, the housing production trust fund or environmental programs or anything else, almost anything else, again, I would say amplified sound can wait a year, but no, that would be funded here. And the child care subsidy, I'm not going to argue against children, but what we did in the budget was we increased funding by $15 million for the child care subsidy. The mayor underfunded it. It's really on her that she underfunded it. But we inc then the gap was roughly 15 million. So we restored five million. Excuse me. We restored 15 million and then I put on the contingency list a third of that five million. So yeah, we could we could fund all that 100%. It'd be great to do that for the kids, but it's also great to support access to justice. Now, you know, it it it really is annoying to say, well, before the pandemic, access to justice got less less money. I think for the last two years, maybe the last three years, it's been getting 30 million. And actually, the need for access to justice is greater than 30 million, much greater than 30 million. So, in my view, I can't say this strongly enough, I said it very strongly before, the 30 million should not be reduced. And I don't know that any of the contingency money is going to get restored because the CFO is doing everything he can to thwart us and the next revenue estimate is going to be bad. But with this amendment, we're funding a bill we just adopted last fall. As good as it is, I co-introduced it. We're throwing five. We're just giving $5 million to the mayor. Just giving it to her. And I don't think that's a good choice to make with this amendment. >> I was second round. Council member Pinto was second round. Council member Parker was second round. Anybody else want to be second? >> Motion to close debate. >> Mr. Chairman, >> debate. >> I have a question. >> Council member Allen asked to be recognized. >> I think I heard someone else say it first, but I think Councelor Henderson was saying motion to close debate, but I was about to make the same motion to close debate. there a motion to close debate if there's >> I object to that. >> I object as well >> and I do have a question. >> A motion to close debate uh actually I think is not debatable and the effect of it is that anyone who has not spoken gets to speak. All those in favor of the motion to close debate say I >> I >> opposed. >> No. >> No. >> The eyes have it. Um who has not spoken? >> Question. >> I did. >> Uh if it's a question yes Mr. perk. >> Mr. Chairman, uh I do have like two or three questions. One, is there anything stopping the mayor from cutting access to justice in the budget? >> No. >> So presumably just >> No. No question. >> Well, I'm just making sure I'm comprehending your answer. >> So, is it accurate to say the same that way she could cut the child tax credit in one year, she could reduce access to justice? >> If you if you're asking my opinion, but we're getting into debate. I'm just >> I think it's less likely >> that she could do it. >> Correct. >> Second question. Um, have we not reduced RAP funding over the last several years? >> Yes. >> And yeah, that too was uh >> question. >> Say it again. >> Question. >> I'm making sure I'm comprehending. So that too, if I recall, was funded in double digits in the millions of dollars and we've justified reducing it in order to get spending under control and to rightsize other programming. What's the difference between our approach to RAP and access to justice outside of one having advocates leaning in in the building? >> Member Parker, you're really getting into debate now. I can give you what's the difference between five minute answer but I don't think that is in the context of questions when debate has been the council has voted to close debate anyone else who has not spoken >> I had a question >> well that was a genuine question >> I was wondering chairman given the debate that we're having having would you be willing to prioritize subsidy the childcare subsidy and RAP as the first two items on the contingent funding amendment. >> Uh, you mean an amendment to the contingent list? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Child tax credit at the end. >> I believe the contingent list was ranked largely in >> it's ranked. So, I'm asking you to move, >> right? And so I'm asking you to move the first two items to the childcare subsidy and RAP. >> Um I'm I haven't looked at it but I'm open to that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Questions? >> Um one question is to make sure that you saw that the amplified noise funding is all from destination DC. There is nothing coming from access to justice for amplified noise funding. All right, that was not a question. >> It was a question. Yes or no question? No, I think second question, Mr. Chairman, is about Council Lewis George's question. Um, I think that's an interesting idea. If you were to do that, can you also please add the child tax credit and the DNA funding to the top of the priority list? I'm open to changes there. I'm I'm being a little impatient here and that's not right. But the three people or four people who voted against closing debate are now extending debate by asking questions. I'm open to an amendment to reorder the um contingency list. I would suggest Council Member Lewis George maybe you give me, you know, let's kind of chat if we can here. Okay. >> There's no further discussion. We have the amendment before us. from council member Pinto and Parker. >> Mr. Chairman, >> council member Pinto. >> Um, thank you. I want to thank everybody for the debate on this. Coun Oh, council >> I have a process question. I'm sorry. Before uh so just on that amendment piece, when will we know what the order and sequence is of the contingency? Mr. Chairman, what I heard, I believe, was that you would work with Council Member Lewis George. >> Give me just a moment. Probably what would make the most sense is for us to take a brief recess. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I missed that. Give me just a second. I think that what I'm going to do is we will finish on this amendment and I sort of need somebody's attention here. I think what I'm going to do is finish on this amendment and then uh we'll take a brief recess like nobody leave the room or don't go further than the anti room. Council member Lewis George if you could like put together a list of how you would like to see share it with anybody you want to and during the recess we'll kind of go over the list but we need to get you know we are basically acting like a committee here with these last amendments and that is not a very good way to legislate. So, I think we need to um regain some order. Council member Pinto, >> I think that sounds like a good plan. I would just ask that if we're recessing to have this larger discussion about contingency budget that we should also recess the discussion on this amendment because it's a kind of part of the larger discussion. >> Thank you, Council Bonds. >> Uh Chairman Mendes, >> Council Member Fman, the one person not in the room. >> Thank you very much. So I I am a little puzzled on the process also because it sounds like I mean you have your contingency list of things that you cut out of the budget on first vote and that you would be restoring. But it also sounds now like people may wish to add things into that contingency list. >> No, that wasn't what was being suggested. Well, I thought that there was a reference to the child tax credit and to the forensic testing potentially going and I I I'm not sure that where I would want to be substantively on this, but procedurally it would worry me that we'd put things on the contingency list that weren't in the first vote, which would in effect reopen the whole conversation about the budget. then this hearing might bleed into uh tomorrow's hearing on RFK. So is is it a question of reordering the contingency list of the things that are on the contingency list or is it adding? >> My understanding from council member Lewis, George and Pinto was that uh we were talking about reordering the contingency list, the existing list. Okay. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. For clarification, but the child tax credit isn't on the existing list. >> The child tax credit is not on the existing list. >> So, would you be amendable to us adding that? The >> um if there's no objection, Can I find the clock? God damn it. There's no objection. We're going to try to take a 8 minute recess till 4:15. 8 minute till 4:15 and I will be in the anti- I'm going to call this back to order. I'm going to say this as much for ourselves as well as for the public. So, this is all looking very messy and I apologize for that. On the other hand, I think this is what happens when you're dealing with the dynamics of final reading on a budget that came to us two months late. Uh final reading on July 28th when we're dealing and to because of that final reading on July 28th, we're meeting on a Monday, not the usual Tuesday, so nothing gets circulated until the weekend, which is really hard on folks. Um, and then on top of that, we have uh the uh CFO um insisting that we had to uh that we could not spend even 60 million of the $243 million in additional revenues. And so those dynamics are why we are struggling here. I admit it looks messy. On the other hand, the legislative process, and this isn't I don't want to be glib or cliche, but the legislative process can be messy. We would rather work things out um and come here and be orderly than to come here and be messy. But that's what we're doing and we're struggling through this. Uh these are my notes. We have we have before us the uh amendment that Council Member Pinto and Council Member Parker moved and we were still working on that. I'll recognize Council Member Pinto in a second. And then we talked about um reordering the priorities. So after we deal with this amendment, I'll recognize council member Lewis George. I will recognize council member Lewis George uh to reorder the uh contingency. And then we have an amendment that council member Nado circulated. And then we have an amendment another amendment that council member Pinto circulated. I believe that's it. Pause. Silence. I believe that's it. Okay. So, that's the order. Uh, I'm going to recognize Council Member Pinto with regard to the amendment that is on the floor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I want to thank all my colleagues who participated in this debate. I think we've all heard the phrase a lot, budgets are about choices. And I think it is appropriate to lay out a different series of choices to grapple with and think about what we're prioritizing. Um, with the understanding that there's some reordering going on that we'll talk about in a moment with the contingency fee with not contingency fee with the contingency budget. Um, I'm going to pull the amendment uh that I was moving today with Council Member Parker. Uh, >> the amendment is withdrawn. Council member Lewis George. Council member Lewis George. I just told her I was going to recognize her next. >> I believe you're going to I'm recognizing you, Council Member Lewis George. I believe you're going to move to reorder the um contingency and we'll have to remember to do this in the BSA when we have that. I'm recognizing you >> moving. >> Yeah. >> Do you want me to state what your amendment is? >> Okay. All right. So we would be moving so changing so number one would be the would be to childcare subsidy program in fiscal year 2026. >> Thank you. >> Uh so the additional revenues shall be allocated as follows. Number one, uh the first 5.5 million onetime funds shall be located to the office of state super educ education to be spent on the childcare subsidy. Number two would be 1.5 onetime fund shall be allocated to the early childhood educator pay equity fund. Uh the next would be the 10 million of onetime fund shall be allocated to the housing production trust fund for TOPA/critical repairs. That's what the language was multif family in fiscal year 2026. Number four was the next 3.5 million onetime fund shall be allocated to the department of forensic science for in in-house DNA testing. The next 500,000 of reo reoccurring funds shall be allocated to department of healthcare finance and each of the fiscal years uh 26 27 28 29 to increase the Medicaid personal needs allowance. Number six is the the next two million of onetime funds shall be allocated to department of human services to be spent on the emergency rental assistance program in 2026. Uh >> can you repeat that last one? >> Yep. 2,950,715 of onetime fund shall be allocated to the department of human services to be spent on the mercy rental assistance program in fiscal year 2026. Seven would be the next 1 million and onetime fund shall be allocated to department of housing and community development to supplement its housing preservation fund in fiscal year 2026. and eight was the 1 million allocated one-time funds to be allocated to the District of Columbia public charter school board to be spent on lead pipe testing in charter schools in fiscal year 2026. And number nine was uh the next is the funding the893,863 of funds shall be allocated to repeal section 401 the amplified sound mitigation act of 2024 and 10 was the next 638,628 in funds shall be allocated to the metropolitan police department for housing incentives for for officers as uh as indicated. So that's everything that was in the current list just changed into this new order. >> Um that's slightly different than what we discussed earlier and that's not that I'm objecting to it but I didn't get it all. >> Which one? >> So >> I think we moved housing production trust fund up >> to number three >> to number three at the request of the housing. >> So I don't know if you can follow me here but I'm looking at the amendment earlier that was already adopted. So I'm looking in that order. HPTF is number three. >> Correct. >> Childcare subsidy is number one. >> Correct. >> Forensic science DNA testing is number >> four. >> Four. Emergency rental assistance is number six. Correct. Uh Medicaid personal needs allowance is number five. >> Correct. >> The early child educator pay equity is number >> two. >> Um amplified sound mitigation is number nine. >> Correct. >> Public charter school board lead testing is number eight. >> Correct. and DHCD for housing preservation is number seven. >> That's correct. >> And MPD housing incentives is number 10. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, actually the only change was moving uh HPTF up. Uh, number 10, council member Bonds asked me to repeat. Number 10 is um MPD housing incentives. It's $638,000. >> All right. So, if there's no objection, >> um, can I ask a question, please? >> Who's asking? Council member Nidau. >> Yes. Sorry. We had talked about adding the alliance. We're working on the BSA language. Um, I guess I just uh I need to wait until Council Member Lewis George's >> I'm sorry. >> Is it Can we still add the alliance in there? I'm working on the BSA language. I think Nico was going to put it above the MPD. >> Yeah. >> 21 million. >> Um, I'm okay if there's consensus. Consensus. I think that's a so what I said to you earlier, not to bog this down, but this was um how we're reallocating the $29 million, $30 million that the CFO is not letting us spend. Um, this would be adding to that and I'm not exactly sure how that would work. And That's why I resisted that when you suggested it earlier. So, I would rather that we did not do that because it it needs to be thought through in more detail than we can do right now. >> Do you want me to do it separately? In the past we've done something like you know should more revenue become available when that revenue becomes available it triggers the funding like we did with the excluded workers during co >> I'm aware the challenge here is that um it's not just additional revenue it's that the CFO is saying that there's overspending that has to go first and um It's a long list. I'm just asking that alliance is on it. >> Mr. Chairman, >> council member Fman. >> Yes, thank you very much. Um I I do think this is the kind of thing that council member is talking about is the kind of is a thing that we have done in the past and I I suspect many of us the the cuts to alliance is one of the things that troubles us the most and so the idea that it would be in the queue in the way that we've done in the past that if funding were be were to become available that it would be funded strikes me as a thing that appeals to me for what it's worth. >> All right, I appreciate that. So, but this is the issue. There were a lot of cuts to health health programs. I looked to the health committee with regard to prioritizing and trying to solve all that. This is coming from outside the health committee. I don't quite know how this works. >> I am a member of the health committee. We are working with the health committee on this. Council member Henderson says she doesn't have a problem with it. >> I don't know if this is the highest priority of all the things that are unfunded in health. >> Um Mr. Chairman, I there was a lot of unfunded things that got cut in terms of the health committee. Um I didn't raise this earlier because I thought we were only re prioritizing the list as existing. >> Correct. >> But again, we're talking about future revenues not yet known or realized. So, I'm I'm not in I'm not in opposition to us including this on this list, but I want everyone to have the expectations that it might not get there because I think there are what 12 other things ahead of it. But that's all >> I think it also risks that now other members are going to want to add to the list. >> Um what is the amount council >> 21 million? >> Council wants to add 21 >> to this contingency list >> to pay for >> the alliance. But the alliance is a big program like to be spent. >> Do you want to say that? You probably don't want to say that. See, this is the problem with Council Mando. I I know that what you're trying to do here is really in the best interest of a lot of individuals who are being hurt, but coming in at the last minute like this is Mr. Chairman, respectfully. Let me recognize council member or let me recognize the budget director. >> I'm not the one who came in at the last minute on any of this. And if what we just negotiated in the anti- room is not considered last minute, I asked for this at the same time as everybody else. >> U madam budget director. >> Uh yes. So I hear that we're going to be uh the request is to add 21 million to the alliance. Uh when we do these amendments, I have to budget where it's actually going in the alliance. So, what what is it supposed to be used for? >> Um, I am going to have that by the time we get to the BSA, but there's a specific thing that's been scored at 21. >> Okay. But I need Okay, I'm so sorry. >> It's been really challenging to I mean, this entire process, it's been really challenging to get answers on the alliance. >> Um Um, and I understand your frustration. >> No, it's okay. I'm just I just want to make sure that if the revenue is sufficient to implement the subtitle that we have it uh got it >> the proper attributes in so we'll get spent the way you want it to get spent. >> So this restores um this restores benefit packages for adults for FY26 21 million. >> Okay. Is that enough with as long as there's leave for you? >> Yes. 21,538,936. >> What is the amount again? >> $21,538,936. >> I'm going to repeat that. 21,538,936. And I would appreciate uh with leave for staff to uh yeah to make the uh technical conforming and reconciling changes so that um there is sufficient guidance for this to be implemented. >> Okay. >> Um Council Member NDO, I'm going to ask that you that this be you accept that this would be number 11 on the list. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So this is what we have before us. Council member Lewis George has moved an amendment. Council Nadau asked that the healthcare alliance be added to it. The amendment I'm working off of the amendment that I moved earlier because that is the list and council member Lewis George went through the order of the list. So, all we're doing here is just reordering that list and then adding the uh healthcare alliances number 11 in the amount of $21,538,936. Madame budget director, that enough for your needs >> as long as I get leave to make reconciling changes. Yes. >> Yes. And I didn't say this earlier, but the all of these um budget measures have to be with leaf for budget office to make technical conforming and reconciling changes. Even if I don't mention that on the subsequent bills. All right. If there's no objection, this will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it's accepted. Uh next is council member Nadau. You had an amendment. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've been informed that I do not need to move an amendment to the LBA. So, I will withdraw this and simply make my amendment to the BSA. Thank you. Uh so the last uh amendment is from Council Member Pinto which was circulated at 3:32 p.m. Council Member Pinto. >> All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully this will be an easy one. Just two weeks ago, we implemented the first half of initiative 83 um with a super majority of us. And this amendment just seeks to implement the other half of rank choice voting as was passed by 73% of DC voters to have semiopen primaries to allow independents to vote in our primary system. Um I think one of the most persuasive points I heard in the hearing about this um was from Commissioner Straggy who said we should be a Big 10 party. We are a Big 10 party. Um, I'm not allowed to talk too much about politics on the deis, so um, I'll be careful with my language here, but I think I can say that I'm a Democrat, um, and proud to be one. Um, and I think as we think about welcoming um, people into our party, that was a very persuasive point. Um, but most importantly, I um, want to make sure that the remainder of I 83 is implemented. this is the clear will of the voters. Um, and as I talked about two weeks ago when we were voting on the first piece of ID3, I think it is always difficult for politicians to regulate ourselves. And so I think that that is extremely relevant when it comes to ballot initiatives that are talking about how we deal with electoral politics or if there was a ballot initiative that talked about how we dealt with financial disclosures on this body for instance. um that is something that we should take really really seriously. And so um I'm proud to support ID3. Um I want to thank the many organizers and folks who have been a part of this effort for many years um that pass with resounding support in all eight wards um across the city. And so this amendment uh seeks to fund the rest of ID3 so we can implement semi-open primaries in the district. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, give me just a second. uh so council member Pinto, how are you proposing to so you're funding you're proposing to fund the initiative by cutting the funding for the Cherry Blossom Festival and victim services. >> Well, the victim services is $10,000 in FY2029, which is my intention to make that up. That's $10,000 out of a multi-million dollar budget. So, that's negligible. It was just in the last minute we had to take something from the outy years. Um the the funding is coming from the Cherry Blossoms Festival, which is another one that's very difficult personally for me to move. The Cherry Boston's Festival is in Ward 2. It is very important to me. It's important to downtown. We want to make sure that they're continued to be funded. Um, it takes part of their matching grant. So, it's just taking a portion of the Cherry Boston's funding that's no longer requiring a match. Um, and since it was a matching grant, the funds that we had to take were were smaller. So, we believe that this will be sufficient for the Cherry Boston Festival to continue their great operations, which we will continue to support. um but was the way that we found to fund this initiative and I want to remind colleagues how difficult that funding source is for me personally um but was trying to make sure that this wasn't something that was you know otherwise in your awards um or have another issue. So, putting aside one's views about whether there should be an open primary, I wish you had talked with me about this. The and and it's not just a small cut. It's cutting twothirds of the money we put in the budget for the Cherry Blossom Festival. The Cherry Blossom Festival attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors to the district. It is a big economic event and um I mean this just it it uh it's members can do the math for themselves but if I remember correctly we put 1.5 million in which we've done every year for many years and this cuts it by 60%. says that that economic activity is less important than funding this year, the open primaries. And again, I wish you had talked with me about this. I I'm not going to support this for two reasons. one uh because I don't support the open primary and and I'm a Democrat just saying and two because this really devastates the government support for the cherry blossom festival which is during the cherry blossom season is a really great event. So, but this catches me by surprise. It was circulated at 3:32 p.m. I don't think this is really an orderly way of doing business, but that's my view. Is there further discussion on this? >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, not going to leave Council Member Nadau, not Nadau, excuse me, Pinto, excuse me, long days. Um, Council Member Pinto, and and and so I I'm going to speak to this. Um, there are approximately 84,000 registered independents in the district um who currently don't have an opportunity to meaningfully engage in um our democratic process. And um I'll give I'll I'll borrow a comment from uh my colleague who for those of you who know Greek life. He would say, well, you know, the AKA's can't vote at the Delta convention. Um but I would also say that the Deltas pay for their convention and not all of the taxpayers, which I pay for a primary that I cannot participate in um as a registered independent. Um and so I think that this is an opportunity for us to open up further in terms of democracy. Um I know that um colleagues are have separated opinions in terms of the various pieces of initiative 83. Um but I would urge colleagues um to support this amendment. >> Uh further on the amendment, Council Member Lewis George. >> I have a question. I know we're not supposed to talk politics, but we're all in politics. So, we're all Democrats apparently. Yes, that's right. Except Christina is in a minute. >> I'm sorry. Um, that's not the point. Um what is making this >> this hard is because it's not hard but um I have been endlessly arguing with colleagues about I82 uh for weeks and everyone has said to me the will of the voters matters but and now we're here on 83 and the same colleagues who are okay with repealing 82 are fullthroating supporting 83 on the same principle of the will of the voters. So I just want to understand and reconcile how you all get to that point if anyone has an answer to that question. >> Were you asking for an answer right now? >> Yes. It's pertinent right now. >> Council member Pinto. >> Sure. Um, so I think that the distinction is around when initiatives regulate us because it is so unlikely that politicians in anybody local, federal, around the country regulate themselves. We see this in Congress and their inability to regulate themselves with investments. um we have done a little bit of a better job in DC with regulating ourselves with conflict of interest and ethics rules, but we have a long way to go. And so I think when the voters pass a ballot initiative that has to do with the electoral process, um that is very different. Similarly, if they passed a ballot initiative that said we can't have outside employment, I think that would be very different. Whereas if a ballot initiative passed that said DC cannot have any bike lanes, I think we would all overturn that very quickly thereafter. And so I um that to me is where the distinction is. I think you gave a very impassioned and I thought well articulated argument two weeks ago in support of part of I83 talking about the will of the voters and how you will always stand with the will of the voters. and I sat here next to you and I nodded along and I thought that was very well well addressed and to me that's the distinction. Um and I think you have been consistent with your view of supporting the will of the voters for initiatives and I don't know why this would be any different. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Felder. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, I'm moving my amendment from earlier. No, >> this is that's not in order now. >> There's an amendment on the floor. Do you wish to speak to Council Member Pinto's amendment >> later? Yes. >> Sorry. Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. What's that? >> Sorry about that. Is there any further discussion with regard to this amendment? Uh, second round. Council member Pinto. >> Um, I just wanted to say to your important points, Mr. Chairman, about how crucial it is to support the Cherry Blossoms Festival. Um, I'm a big supporter of cherry blossoms and I my expectation is that we will be able to work with Events DC to ensure that that funding can be restored and through other mechanisms because it is very important to the city. Um, and I won't give up my support and fight to make sure that that is fully funded. I think this is an issue of democracy. Um, and I'm proud to to support this change today and I ask my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. If there's no further discussion, the uh vote is on um the vote is on Council Member Pinto's amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, can I call a roll call vote please? >> Madam Secretary, >> Council Member Nado, >> yes. Council member Nado votes yes. Council member Parker, >> no. Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto, >> yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member White, >> no. >> Council member White votes no. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> no. Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Fman, >> yes. >> Council member Fman votes yes. >> Council member Henderson, >> yes. Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George >> present. >> Council member Lewis George will be recorded as present. Council member McDuffy >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendelson >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are five yeses, six nos, and one present. >> The amendment fails. Um, Council Member Felder, you wish to be recognized. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm moving. Um, I'm going to move forward with my amendment from earlier today. Uh, thank you for being recognized and good evening, council colleagues. Uh, back in 2024, 70% of district residents said that they wanted uh, rank choice voting and open primaries. Let me be clear, as an elected official, I will never stand in opposition to the will of the voters. My earlier no, my earlier no wasn't My earlier no wasn't about resisting change or the will of the people. It was about my concerns with rushing to move forward without doing our proper due diligence. That is why today I'm offering a measure that makes uh sure that we take a responsible step uh as we approach the full implementation of rank choice voting in the District of Columbia. Uh with that, I'm strongly uh asking that we conduct a formal needs assessment by the DC Department of Elections before rank choice voting is fully implemented to ensure that we get it right. The needs assessment will examine the full scope of what is required to effectively stand up a rank choice voting system here in the district. It will also require that the DC board of elections to submit a robust implementation plan. This includes developing a detailed education and outreach strategy, ballot redesign, assessing the needs of vendors, determining the true cost of implementation, having a clear implementation timeline, and leveraging lessons learned from jurisdictions that have already adopted rank choice voting. Cities and states such as New York City, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Alaska, and Maine have conducted uh assessments uh before launching rank choice voting. And we should follow their example because the truth is there is no one-sizefitit all approach to rank choice voting. what work in New York or San Francisco may not have will or not work in DC especially if we do not take the uh time to assess and adopt. So my measure should not be viewed as an attempt to obstruct the will of the voters. Uh it should be it is an effort to ensure we deliver on this with integrity, transparency and most importantly care. Furthermore, we have an obligation to approach this the same way we would any other major change or of policy uh that will have citywide implications and that is us doing our due diligence. Uh this amendment is a smart investment in our democracy. It sets the foundation in a phase fiscal responsible roll out that's grounded in real data and community engagement. The voters asks us to move forward with rank choice voting. And it is our job to make sure we do so responsibly, inclusively, and with the competence of our residents deserve. With that, I urge my council and colleagues to support this amendment. Uh not just the name of electoral reform, but in the name of getting it right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, >> give me just a second here. Who has to be recognized? >> I did, Mr. Chairman. >> Council member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, appreciate uh the remarks that were made by my colleague. Um, but I will say this. um kind of the joys of RCV. It it was before your time, but this was a bill um voter ownership integrity choice and equity amendment act of 2021. It was legislation that was introduced in 2021. It had a hearing. So, we actually have on the record the board of elections thoughts about whether or not they would be able to implement such a measure. Um, we also, the committee at the time who had elections asked for written responses on these things and the board of elections detailed a list of consideration and items that must be paid for in order for them to implement the legislation. They asked for an FTE. They needed funding to modify the ballot design and voting equipment to accommodate rank choice voting. Uh, procure compatible software from a thirdparty vendor and accurately tal tabulate results. um as well as funding for a comprehensive voter education campaign which your amendment would be taking funding from. We worked with the office of revenue analysis to obtain an updated fiscal impact statement less than two months ago. The revised fist moved up the implementation timeline to FY26 with the board of elections support. At no point did the Office of Revenue Analysis or the Board of Elections raise concerns that implementation for FY26 elections was infeasible or impossible. At first reading, we provided the board of elections with the funding to notify voters to provide the ongoing education. And that is the funding for which we identified to spend $400,000 to ask an agency to affirm its fists that it just gave us two months ago would be the very definition of wasting money. Voters are aware of rank choice voting. 73% of voters supported it. But I mean beyond that, I also feel like cuz I have a minute left. Sometimes we decide to do needs we do let's do a feasibility, let's do a needs assessment, let's do a working group, let's do a commission when we are trying to not do the thing that we already know that we need to do. And so I ask colleagues just in in in the realm of fiscal responsibility, do not ask give the board of elections $400,000 to internally assess something they just assessed because they will take that $400,000 and spend it on something completely different and I don't know what that might be. I urge my colleagues to vote now. >> Mr. Chairman, can I respond to that? Uh, not yet. Yeah. >> Uh, not yet. I'll recognize you again in a minute. >> I am going to ask though for order again in the audience and if folks cannot be quiet then I'm going to ask that security remove them. Council member Parker, you were next. >> Thank you. Um, I have more of a question. I I want to ask council member Fildder to characterize his discussions with the uh board of elections, but I will say, and I mentioned this when the vote originally came up, I am sympathetic to the need to conduct outreach to residents and educate voters about a change in our electoral systems. Uh that is something I've been consistent on. That is something that Ward Five residents like Bob King, Hazel Thomas, and many others have long been pushing for. It is worth noting they're against this policy. But um at the very least if we are going to move forward I have held the line that we must ensure that residents know how this works. That said uh council member Felder can you characterize what your discussions have been because what council member Henderson is raising is that we received a fist but now it seems like what you have been told is running counter to that and it will be helpful I think uh as we consider your amendment. Uh well, thank you, Council Member Parker. Uh just a couple things. So, um Councilwoman Henderson mentioned that a hearing was conducted back in 2021. We are in 2020 almost 2026, right? So, that's almost four years ago. With that being said, my recent conversations with DC Board of Elections have been uh hey, based based on uh I said, what is the cost estimate to implement rank choice voting by 2026? Their response was based on recent conversations with our vendors and increased cost uh their current estimate has gone up significantly. Uh with that uh I have no problem I have no problem if we're going to move forward with rank choice voting. However, I represent a community w 7 uh and some people would even consider W 8 with no representation here. If we're going to move forward with implementing the way we change our voting system, we got to do our due diligence. Uh, Council Member Parker mentioned this earlier and I want to echo those sentiments. When we as a legislative body are eager to move forward with something, then it's like, okay, let's move forward. Uh, but then when it's time to do our due diligence, specifically as this will impact our most marginalized community, then let's just move forward with this. Like, we can't have both of them. And I've never not one time said out with rank choice voting. My conversations with DC Board of Elections, they don't have a full implementation plan. They're looking at other jurisdictions who recently implemented rank choice voting to see how they are um uh how our how they are uh dealing with those voting uh changes. With that being said, we're the nation's capital. We should do the same thing. And in my last 15 seconds, thank you. That is really helpful. Um did you get a sense from board of elections that they were saying they cannot implement rank choice voting? >> They cannot they what they said was they don't know what they need to to fully set up rank choice voting and that's why the needs assessment is so important and the needs assessment would not come inhouse. The needs assessment will come from a third party vendor. Furthermore, uh I'll give another example. Uh San Francisco, which is similar to the same population of the district, they uh had a hund they had a million dollars for administrative costs. That's in-house for their board of elections to stand up rank choice voting. Uh New York spent $3 million for an administrative cost inhouse to stand up board of elections with the fence. That's no there's no money allocated with that which means that we don't know if DC board of elections have the personnel in house to fully stand up rank choice voting. So with that uh I'm asking us to do our due diligence to get it right now by just conducting the needs assessment. So I would strongly urge my council colleagues to get this right and support my amendment. >> And I'm over time Mr. Chairman just quick followup. When you say needs assessment, that's needs assessment of board the board of elections or is it a needs >> the needs assessment? DC board of election. I envision DC board of elections will hire a third party vendor to see what is needed for them to successfully see stand up choice voting which will cover education, outreach, ballot design, uh use other uh models from other jurisdictions, uh test the um voters's opinion. Do we fully understand and grasp what rank choice voting is and how that will impact our elections moving forward? >> Understood. Thank you. >> No, thank you. Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, back in 2021, November, so less than four years ago, um, when we held the hearing, I chaired that hearing. So, I directly spoke to the board of elections around this idea. And as any legislation, when we hold a hearing on it, we send it, we ask the board for their input. the board of elections. I think we passed something like a dozen different electoral reforms um in recent years when I chaired that committee and the board never once came to a hearing to say we like this or we don't like this. They are an implementation agency. So as we have ideas or legislation or proposals in front of them, they take a look to say this is what it will take to implement this. So that's what they did. So, when we ask, "Do we know what they're supposed to do or how to do it?" We actually asked them that previously, and they actually outlined a very in-depth plan of action of how to actually implement rank choice voting. Um, if you go back and look at the hearing as we did, which is the exact same staff that we have today, they outlined a communications plan, including in-person engagement, outreach, town hall meetings, utilizing print media. They talked about a messaging campaign, outlining a website where people would have explanatory documents, sample ballots, even hold mock elections online to get people used to how that would work. Doing communications that helps set expectations, making voters aware the results that first round result may not be available that first night, and helping set expectations for what voters are going to experience. They also outlined other examples of continued efforts to outreach to special populations, in particular seniors, to work on a robust print media plan because they want to make sure they address a digital divide. They outlined using sample ballots, demonstrating to voters what would cause a ballot to be invalidated, for example, and overall adjusting their outreach efforts to different demographic groups throughout the city to make sure that they were reaching every corner of our city, as well as talk about education around tabulation of results. I don't know why we would expect that the board of elections would have an implementation plan on paper when we just voted to fund this two weeks ago. Agencies don't put on in paper exactly what their implementation plan is going to be till we've actually even approved the funding. We This is the final vote on the budget. So, they have not actually had the funding formally approved yet. They need to know that funding is there to be able to start the preparations. But they have told us now on numerous occasions, here's how much it's going to cost. Here's what we're going to do. Here's how we're going to do it. So, I don't think it's accurate to say that they don't have a plan. So, if we're going to criticize them for not taking an action yet because we haven't actually finalized the budget, I don't think that's fair. The board has evaluated this. They've told us what it will take to implement it and they can do it. We just have to fund the final portion of this budget today to make sure they have the resources so that rank choice voting can move forward. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> If there's no council member, >> thank you very much, Chairman. Um given that the um board of elections is in my committee, I'd like to speak to this matter. having had conversations with them about how we would implement um I 83 and recognizing that much of what um Council Member Felder has shared with us is in fact where they are today. Um furthermore um there will be an increase. I mean there is an increase in everything. Cost of living has gone up. You know that we all know that. So to sit here and imply that we already have an operating plan is very misleading. We are going to have rank choice voting in the District of Colombia. It the public has spoken. The council has said yes. The question is how soon can we do it and how effectively can we do it and which of the many different ways that you can decide to do it will we choose and that's something that is debatable and it's debatable because it does take time. It cannot happen in three months. Already individuals who are planning to run in the year of 2026 have signed up for the fair elections program already it is in progress. So the question becomes, how do we in the District of Columbia be smart and get the program going as efficiently and as effectively as we can. I would ask my colleagues to side with um Council Member Felder on this. Let's see if we can't expedite whatever the information is that is put together. But we do need a plan. This is a whole new way of operating since um home rule 50 years. Most of you were not here because I know you were babies then, but some of us were here um 50 years ago and this is a different this is a different time and we're trying to get to that that point where we will have a new operating process for elections in the District of Columbia. And so if we want to do it right, let's give some time and energy to it and let's not poo poo or what is it? Throw the baby out with the wash. Thank you, chairman. Chairman, >> may I? >> Uh, yeah. Council member Nope. >> Round one for me. I'll just take six minutes for two. No, just kidding. Okay. So, um I really appreciate the conversation today because I know that this is a really important topic for many. Um you know, not only did the voters tell us this is what they wanted, um we did go through this legislative process already. So, the way it works around here is that we put the money in and then the board of elections does the work to get it implemented. Right. We've done a we have radically changed the way we run elections in the District of Columbia over the last five years. We have vote by mail. We have early voting. We have adapted and changed with the times to ensure the most accessible possible voting experience for all of our voters. Um, I actually have great faith in the board of elections that they can take what was passed into law through the ballot initiative and implement it. I also have faith that if they are struggling to do it, they will let us know. Um, I always try to take my colleagues in good faith. If you have to say it's not an obstruction, maybe there's a reason you have to say it. This is absolutely a delay for no reason. Um, I ask everyone here to reject this amendment and move forward with the implementation as funded at first reading. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Just a moment. Anyone else? First round. Do you want to note it's 5:35 p.m. Council member Felder, second round. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I I just want to say thank you. Uh, this is not saying that we don't trust them. This is saying that we want to make sure that they have the resources needed to fully implement the way we change if we were to move forward with changing our voting system. Furthermore, this is not a delay. This is what responsible leadership looks like. You got to do your due diligence. Furthermore, I just want to reemphasize the intent of this needs assessment. What it does is it allows um it provides access to the institution and is able to measure its readiness. Uh it also understands voters knowledge and public perception. Uh it creates access to equity uh as well as monitor impact. It determines a true cost and the resources needed to fully stand this up. And furthermore, it identifies best practices. So, I will not beat the dead horse. Uh we have an opportunity to get it right the first go round. Uh and I'm strongly urging my council colleagues to to support my amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, >> I recognize a second round, but I'll be done. >> I like it when people say they'll be brief. They usually take the full. >> You say brief. I said I'll be done, but >> go for it. >> Uh and I will also try to be brief as well. Uh look, the process for fiscal impact statements is one where we the legislature, we reach out to the OCFO. We provide what the legislation is. The OCFO reaches out to the agency and says to the agency, "Hey, this is what the legislature would like to do. How much is it going to cost?" And you know, for those of you who've been here with us this year, you know, I have issues with fisses, especially for me, cuz I always get two FTEEs at minimum for anything that I want to do. Um, so if the board of elections felt as though they needed additional funding like June 12th, which is when we received the updated fist, they would have said so. So I'm a bit concerned that um the board is perhaps just communicating to one colleague about their apprehension as opposed to if you have a formal concern about your inability to do this, then there are ways in which you can inform the legislature. um of that. But again, I would just push back sort of this idea. We're going to the the proposal before us is to spend $400,000 for a third party consultant to affirm the fists that we just got June 12th. I now I said I was going to be brief because so I'm not going to ask a question. I'm just ask rhetorically. is that did the $400,000 price tag come from the board of elections or did the $400,000 price tag be convenient enough to take exactly the amount of money necessary to ensure that implementation cannot um go forward. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and um I'm motioning to close debate. Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Chairman, just start just 30 seconds. I just want to say Council Member Felder, you've not been recognized. Um, there was a motion to close debate. Do we really need to go through this or can we just get to a vote? >> All right. So, what's before us is the amendment. All those in favor say, Mr. Chair. >> I say roll call, Mr. Chair, please. Madam Secretary, >> what do we >> The vote is on the amendment that was circulated by council members Felder and Bonds. Madam Secretary, >> Council Member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> no. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White, >> no. >> Council member White votes no. Council member Allen, >> no. >> Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds, >> yes. >> Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Felder, >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman, >> no. >> Council member Fman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George, >> no. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy, >> yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. Chairman Mendlesson, >> yes. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes yes. Councilwoman Nadau, >> no. >> Council member Bernado votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are five yeses and seven nos. >> The amendment fails. I think that concludes all of the amendments. Please. So, we have the bill as amended before us. Actually, we have the amendment nature of a substitute before us. Uh, so let me review very briefly. Uh what is before us is with lead for budget the budget office to make technical conforming and reconciling changes. >> Chairman, >> it is the amendment nature. >> Thank you. Skip my BSA amendment. >> We're not on the BSA. >> Okay. Sorry about that. There we go. That explains it. >> We have the amendment nature of a substitute. >> Move this thing along. >> Um there I'm not going to go through all the amendments, but there were several that were accepted or voted on or approved. And so they are all part of this amendment nature of a substitute. And that is what we are now going to vote on. After that vote, we then vote on the bill as amended on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as present. >> Uh, the eyes have it unanimously and Mr. Parker will be recorded as present. We have the bill as amended. If there's no further discussion on the bill, bill 26-260 with leave for state the budget office. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as president. >> The eyes have it unanimously and Mr. Parker will be recorded as present. Uh we will turn now to the bill 26-265 the fiscal year 2026 budget support act. So moved and I'm not going to repeat this every time but moved with leave for budget office to make technical conforming and reconciling changes that leave pertains to every budget measure that's before us today. Um the amendment nature uh the bill is before us. I have an amendment nature of a substitute that I circulated yesterday. I am not going to go through the six pages that list I'm going to say list most of the changes in the amendment nature of a substitute. Um so that is on the floor now. I am going to move the amendment that I circulated that's similar to the amendment that I moved to the local budget act which deals with the revised revenue funding. Uh this is the one that lists 1 through 10 the um funds that get paid if the funds that get expended if the additional re if the revenues and unders and overspending are such that there are sufficient funds. The language speaks for itself not how I'm characterizing it. We discussed this ad nauseium on the last on the local budget act. However, I'm looking at council member Lewis George. This motion which is this amendment which is captioned amendment number one is orally I'm saying orally amended to reflect the order and the additional alliance that was moved on the LBA. >> Correct. >> General counsel wherever you are. Um, is that clear that this amendment is with regard to the order of the list and the addition of the alliance the same as what we adopted on the LBA? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. And I think I hope everyone's clear on that. I think what I'll do is ask if there's no objection, this amendment will be accepted. >> It is accepted. I heard no objection. I have another amendment which was circulated 11:22 this morning and it is um an amendment to subtitle H of the budget support act concerning access to justice. Uh I'm not going to go through all of it. The amendment inserts language that was mistakenly omitted from the ANS. The addition is necessary to maintain the statutory purpose of the access to justice initiative and reflect all its components. The amendment also corrects two typographical errors. So I move that if there's no objection, it will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is accepted. Next on the list is the an amendment from council members Felder and Bonds regarding rank choice voting. Council member Felder, do you still want to move that? >> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, next on the list is Council Member White. um circulated last week regarding the HPTF. Council member White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. As you all know, the BSA amendment I introduced on July 14th would have dedicated 30% of the housing production trust fund to preservation annually. Uh but I've heard concerns and inputs from members and I've worked with DHCD on another solution. I was already planning to move an amendment to the BSA for a one-time dedication of HPTF funds to preservation. Uh based on today's changes to the budget, instead of the written BSA amendment I circulated last week, I'm moving an oral amendment to dedicate $20 million of the housing production trust fund to preservation in fiscal year 2026 along with any additional amount allocated uh to the trust fund pursuant to section 7262 B3 of the fisc year 2026 budget support act up to $30 million. The amendment also includes preference to support projects at risk of default of their housing preservation fund bridge loans which were distributed when it was easier to get permanent financing from the HPTF. Making this a preference rather than a requirement allows DHC the flexibility to respond to the market while working to protect our initial investment in these communities. You've already heard me spout off the numbers about why we need preservation, but I'll say them one more time because it's important. Since 2000, DC has lost about half of its lowcost rentals from about 70,600 units to 34,500 units. Each affordable unit funded through the trust fund in 2022 cost $530,000, more than many market rate luxury apartments. At least 82,000 DC residents or 12% are housing insecure. And despite the more than 1.7 billion dollars that we've invested in affordable housing since 2015, in the last 10 years, we still have a shortage of more than 37,000 units that are affordable and available to people with the lowest incomes. The data is clear. We have got to do something different. We are losing affordable housing more quickly than we are building it. Right now, Washington DC is the second most gentrified city in the nation. That's thousands of families, generations of Washingtonians who have been swept out of the city they know and love. And we have to let that sink in. Dedicating $20 million to preservation in FY26 is a step toward changing the narrative about what it means to be a Washingtonian. that families can grow here, thrive here, and stay here. And it's an opportunity for us as a council to demonstrate that we have the people's back, and that there's room in DC for all of us. This is about preserving affordable housing and lowering the cost of housing for residents. Thank you uh to Chairman Mendlesson, DHCD, uh all the members who gave feedback on the 14th. Uh and to the budget office for working with me on this. and I'll move the oral amendment and urge my colleague support. Thank you chairman. >> Uh thank you. We have the amendment before us. Is there discussion? Folks are quiet. All right. Then we will vote on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. Uh the vote is unanimous and the amendment is approved. Uh next is Council Member Parker. Are you moving your amendment? Yes, I'm moving Parker amendment one, the final version of which was circulated at 11:24 a.m. I've introduced this amendment to address the urgent need to protect our most vulnerable neighbors from harmful cuts in the current budget. This is about fighting for working-class Washingtonians as many of us have talked about today. This amendment reestablish this reestablishes the district child tax credit, funds 100 additional permanent supportive housing vouchers, fully funds CHAMPS, the district's only 247 uh mobile emergency unit for kids and teens, funds the auditor components of the road act so that we can accelerate placements at DRS and esta establishes an expenditure commission so we can get our spending under control as we talked about earlier. These funds would be made possible through a small graduated search charge from 1 to 3% on wealth generated income or capital gains to marginally offset tax advantages. But this would only be applied for those with significant amounts of wealth generated income. The capital gains tax rate is levied on any wealth generated income made from the sale of or the dividends from an asset in one given year, whether it's stocks or bonds or cryptocurrency. Wealth generated income like that this is taxed favorably on the federal level. For the highest incomes, work income is taxed at about 35 or 37% while wealth generated income is taxed only at 20%. This is a 15% advantage for wealthgenerated income. This is one of the many structural advantages and loopholes that allow billionaires to pay a lower effective tax rate than a teacher in our city. The deck is stacked against working-class Washingtonians and it is making our city less livable and less safe. Let's take different scenarios into consideration and for s for for the sake of time I will only give one. How would the word award five senior for instance with a $150,000 retirement portfolio be impacted? That senior would not be impacted at all. Retirement is exempted in my proposal as well as the sale of primary residences. Given rising wealth inequality and its detrimental effects on economic growth as well as the federal context of increasing these structural advantages of wealth, our city needs to do the fiscally responsible thing, rebalance our tax code in small ways to help make sure we are taking care of our most vulnerable residents. I have heard repeatedly from residents about their support for the proposal. Neighbors are clear. We must raise revenue and protect the district's safety net. Now, we had a robust discussion earlier today about how we didn't want to cut. And so, again, I come back to we have to choose something. We don't want to cut. We have to raise revenue. Um, Mr. Chairman, can I have more time? >> Without objection. >> I take seriously the concerns of some of my colleagues. One push back I have heard to these amendments is that it is not the time to raise taxes or that we should be looking to cut how we spend. My response is this is exactly the time to close structural loopholes that advantage the wealthy in our city and our country. Not only locally are we cutting critical lifelines in this current budget, we're seeing the same thing happen at the federal level. We have seen the greatest wealth transfer in modern history just happen a few weeks ago in this country. As I mentioned earlier, by removing the district child tax credit from the may from the budget, the mayor in effect raised taxes on working-class families. On top of that, this amendment funds an expenditure and revenue commission so that we can have a real conversation about responsible spending and revenue. What's more, it's worth noting that uh the CHAMPS proposal would ensure that we can fully fund that program that so many of our young people count on. Another push back I've heard is that we if we pose this in small searchcharge on capital gains then millionaires will leave DC and that will ultimately hurt us. On the contrary, the tax revision commission and the CFO's office both found that recent tax increases in the district did not I will repeat did not result in out migration. We also see in other jurisdiction Massachusetts, New York for example, that they have not seen out migration migration as a fact of recent tax increases. In in fact, Massachusetts now has more millionaires than they had before. Our neighbor also increased a search charge on capital gains. That is Maryland. Another more subtle push back is that the search charge will negatively impact DC's competitive competitiveness. It's been a long day and I would just say uh our tax rate is not the only way in which we are competitive. The quality of our schools, how we treat our neighbors, the quality of living, affordable housing, public safety are all ways we remain competitive. And Mr. Chairman, I'm wrapping up here. This search charge would hardly be a radical change for the small percentage of residents to whom it would apply. I want to stress that 99% of district residents would not be impacted by this search charge. 99% of residents would not be impacted. This is a small ask for those that have the most among us to give a little so that we can extend a lifeline to those in greatest need. I ask my colleagues to stand with me. The question among before us is how will we respond in this moment? And I hope that we'll be on the right side of history. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, council member your um proposal you spoke to the um capital gains but there's another tax increase or revenue aspect to this is there not with regard to the treatment of corporations >> said I didn't hear that last part >> there's another part to this your amendment which is uh the tax treatment of corporations >> not corporations in our discussion with the CFO's office um and we've had weeksl long discuss >> I'm not asking for a long Well, I know, but I'm giving you context. >> Simply capital gains. There's also uh >> it closes the loophole. So, these are not tax. >> However you want to characterize >> I'm trying to answer your question. >> I my question was there is also a revenue raiser from uh the tax treatment of corporations. >> Uh that is incorrect. What we do, we couple the capital gains proposal with closing a loophole that allows the wealthy to avoid taxes by passing that money through their businesses. This has been in discussion and thoughtful deliberation with the CFO's team >> businesses through businesses. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. That shows up on their franchise tax returns. >> That's correct. What this would do, >> Mr. Parker. I did not ask for you. >> I'm You answer Well, you didn't answer my question. I'm sorry. I'm sounding >> For the record, I will say every time I've spoken, you've overtalked me. So, I'm trying to answer your question respectfully. >> Yes. And my question was that there is an effect as well on business taxes to which you said no but in fact it would close a loophole on franchise tax returns which is a business tax. >> What it was doing was trying to clarify that this is >> I'm having a feeling you don't really want the answer to your question. >> I'm trying to answer you. I don't understand why I'm incorrect. >> It's simply changing the tax rate on capital gains. It's more than that which affects franchise which is business's franchise returns. >> Can I can I answer >> is that's a yes or no. >> Can I answer? >> Yes or no? >> Uh not quite is the answer. And that's why context is important in my discussion with the CFO's team. There is a level of uh volatility with how with volatility with how the wealthy move around their money >> to avoid taxes. >> I get that. >> And the discussion we had with the CFO's team was the wealthy sometimes pass their money through businesses to avoid taxes. We are not saying you can't do that. All we're saying is you can no longer offset your tax liability by passing it through business. So, we are not increasing taxes on businesses. We're addressing a loophole. That's that's a key. That's a key difference. >> I don't know that. And that's part of the problem with dealing with and so I I will take my three minutes now. >> I don't know that. And that's part of the challenge with doing tax policy as an amendment at second reading. I will add because I've heard this from other members and that is um maybe we do need to do some revenue measures but not today. Maybe when we have the supplemental in the fall. That's not to say I will support it then, but we we have reason to believe that because of the federal tax changes that we are going to see a loss of revenue to the city and we may have to address that or we may want to address it through revenue measures which would be a better time to consider this. Uh, as members know, I generally am not um enthusiastic about raising taxes and I think it is a mistake for us to do the do it today. Um, especially given uh what the horizon suggests in the fall or next year. Uh, so I will not be supporting this. Others on this amend and I was only a minute. others on this. Council member Lewis George. >> Thank you, Chairman. Trying to get my second win here. Okay. I I want to voice my strong support for Council Member Parker's amendment. Um while we've made meaningful improvements to to the budget, I think we cannot ignore that vulnerable residents still lack adequate support in the face of economic challenges and federal cuts to essential programs. Uh this amendment would make targeted investments that address critical gaps. Uh, it restores the child tax credit to help families in deep poverty, families who need the support most as they face rising costs and economic uncertainty. It funds permanent supportive housing vouchers for individuals experiencing homelessness and filling a significant gap since the current budget included includes no new vouchers. And it supports life-saving mobile health services that protect children and teens. the only crisis response teams team that actually addresses the unique needs of our young people. Uh the federal government is delivering massive tax cuts to the wealthiest households averaging 42,000 annually for the top 1%. This amendment creates a balanced approach that ensures we can continue investing in programs that reduce poverty support families while those benefiting most from federal policy changes contribute to our community's wellbeing. This is sound policy that other jurisdictions are pursuing um and not even as modestly as ours is proposed. Maryland just passed similar revenue measures to strengthen their child tax credit and protect essential services and I think we should be following that example. Council Council Parker, thank you for your thoughtful leadership in putting this amendment with our uh forward with our commitment to vulnerable residents. I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Is there further on the amendment, >> Mr. Chairman? Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I guess just a couple points I want to make on this. Um, one, we have to be strategic with our tax code locally versus our tax code federally. So, I hear this argument and agree with the argument that at the federal level, there are many, many loopholes in our tax code. One of them being that we're taxing capital gains at a very different rate than income taxes. There are some policy reasons for that to inspire investment and otherwise that can be debated, but there is a very big distinction between those numbers which can lead to wealthier residents paying a much smaller lower effective tax rate than middle class Americans. That should be debated. In DC, we don't have that problem. We have the same capital gains tax structure that follows and tracks our income tax structure. So I feel as though we're making an argument about something that should be considered at the federal level at the local level, which is not what we're here to do. We're not Congress. We are making laws for our city and that should follow our tax code. We have about 4,500 of our taxpayers in DC that are paying over 70% of all the capital gains taxes which is very different than the Massachusetts example cited which would dealt with income tax. And so looking at how that affected overall rates of residents is a different structure. Um ultimately I just believe as it relates to our tax code we have to be holistic. We cannot have these tack on tackon approaches. Um, I don't think it's responsible. I don't think it's the right path forward for our city. Um, and I think we have to be comprehensive when we're dealing with our tax code. So, I thank you for the discussion. Um, I tried to find other ways to fund these important shared priorities today. Um, but I cannot support yet another tax increase when we have appropriately the most progressive tax rate in the country. It's something I'm very proud of, but it is not a jurisdiction that we need to continue adding on taxes right now. >> Thank you, Council Member Pinto. Council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, normally in jurisdictions like ours, or I like to sometimes we think of ourselves as sort of the tri-state area, if you will. we're not a state, but we could be one day. Is that we try not to be out of line with our neighbors because our borders are so porous, right? Folks can hop from one jurisdiction to the other. Um, and that's a similar situation that other tri-state, right, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. Um, so that's why we look very closely to make sure that our sales taxes kind of unalign. Um, that our income taxes are not that different and and so on and so forth. This is one of the reasons that I'm apprehensive about this um piece of legislation is that even though Maryland has made this adjustment, Virginia has not. And we have already seen heard anecdotally or seen otherwise the number of individuals who are leaving the district to move to the suburbs of Virginia. There used to be a time where MLAN wasn't popping and now we got to compete with them for businesses and corporations who are choosing to locate in the DMV area. Um and I I just want to draw colleagues attention to a portion of um the fiscal impact statement from the CFO on this which um you know they have economists. It says, "If behavioral responses to the new sir charge are larger than the forecast here, there could be a significant downward impacts on revenue with severe repercussions to the district's tax base as a whole." Um, now I know for some folks they just sort of wave that off and just suggest that they're not going to leave. This is not going to be a big deal. It's a small change. Um, but I do think that at a time when we have lots of other moving parts going on, this is something for us to consider. On that same vein, I know that we're gonna have to come back in the fall to deal with some questions in terms of the tax code. Are we uncoupling um from some of the things that are currently coupled with the federal government that they did in terms of the reconciliation bill and otherwise? And so I would just suggest to my colleagues that if this is not something that moves forward today that there would be another opportunity to take a more holistic look at this while we are also looking at the tax code in general for other changes that we are going to have to make in um short order. Thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Uh thank you council Henderson. Further on the >> Menderson may >> council member Fman. >> Thank you very much. Um, I think this is obviously an area that's very sensitive and I think complicated. I think there was a comment about highincome people um paying a a heavy share of our taxes, but when you look at the data actually it is our middle inome folks who pay pay overall the highest percentage of their incomes in all the different forms of taxes. So, in an ideal world, we would push that down, but we aren't at a we we have the most progressive system, but we still have a higher tax burden on middle inome people than high income people. So, the idea that there might someday be an increase on the higher end, I think um we should stay open to that. There is the regional competitiveness issue. That's absolutely the case. As it stands, I believe we're a low tax jurisdiction compared to Maryland, but we are a higher tax jurisdiction compared to Virginia. What's the ramifications of that? We need to be thinking about that. There's been data about the number of folks who have left in the 150,000 and over category, but that's actually much of that is in the middle income zone where they're paying a higher percentage than people at a higher income. I really want to see what that movement data shows for folks at the highest level. I also want to see regionally the comparisons stop at 250,000. COG does comparisons and we are quite competitive regionally at 250,000. I don't know what it looks like at 500,000 or a million. I want to know that and I think we need to know that. We also I am uh sympathetic to the idea that we're going to have to come back in the fall and be thinking about these kinds of issues. And I think that is the right time to do it. that that for us to do a revenue raiser now I think makes it more awkward for us to revisit it and do a different revenue raiser in the fall and I think we should take that to heart. Also, we just went through a big debate about the 10 items on the list that we would fund first if we had new revenue come the fall because of the September revenue estimate. And now we're going to take these things that weren't on that list and lift them up over those other 10 things. It it feels chaotic to me under the circumstances. And it seems to me that the more responsible way to do this is to step back in the fall and look at what all of our priorities are and decide what to do on a revenue raiser. It's not that I would slam the door on a revenue raiser at any time, but I don't think this is the time. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Fman. If there's no further discussion, second round Council >> uh, and I'm looking forward to voting. I just want to respond quickly. I really truly appreciate my colleagues thoughtful deliberation and remarks. I've been uh, at this for a while, as many of you all know. I would just say in response to Council Member Fuman, the things that we are funding have already been funded. We're funding housing vouchers because they are critically important. We're funding the child tax credit, the single most effective anti-poverty program implemented in this country. We're funding the road act to accelerate placements at DRS because YSC is facing overcrowding. There are any number of issues. So I I just don't want to suggest that the things being funded here are not important and the things on that list are they're all important and we have to make tough choices. Uh to this argument that we have the most progressive system and so therefore we should be satisfied. I flip that and say we have the least regressive and we should keep pushing. The CFO's conservative scoring of this already accounts for the volatility that he talks about. If you look at the very small fraction of revenue he is suggesting this will raise I think we'll be more like Massachusetts where they see a significant outperformance of the projection. Uh it is worth noting the tax revision commission deliberated this at length and this made the chairman's mark because it was endorsed by the tax revision commission before it imploded. It's also worth noting I've spoken with several members of the Tax Revision Commission, including several of its more conservative members, and you know what I would say, their concerns don't necessarily match the concerns that I'm hearing up here in private to this argument about let's not do it now. I just will repeat uh there are any number of priorities before us, but with the federal government slashing SNAP benefits, Medicaid, and any number of cuts, now is absolutely the time. And in closing, uh, I just can't again ask my colleagues to stand with us. We have this opportunity before us and I think we'll be on the right side of history. >> Uh, thank you. Um, the vote will be on Council Member Parker's. >> Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote. >> Madam Secretary, would you call the role? The vote is on Mr. Parker's amendment. >> Council member Pinto, >> no. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White, >> yes. >> Council member White votes yes. >> Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Freeman, >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George, >> yes. >> Council member Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy, >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. No. Chairman Mendlesson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes no. Council member Nadau, >> yes. >> Council member Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Yeah. [Music] Madam Secretary, I believe the next person you were calling was Council Member Parker, and that's a yes. Council member Parker votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are five yeses and seven nos. >> Uh, the amendment fails. Uh, Council Member McDuffy. Thank you. Chairman, I'm moving amendment that has been circulated. Uh, and the amendment would give the executive authority to enter into an agreement with a wayfinding kiosk operator. The amendment as proposed would require the operator to share revenue from the kiosk with the District of Columbia, providing the city with much needed additional revenue. This amendment provides the council with an exciting opportunity to modernize the way visitors and residents alike engage with modern technology to improve our business corridors. The kiosk will serve as landmarks, drawing residents and visitors alike. Small and local businesses will receive a boost as business listings will be available in all the kiosks. Importantly, the kiosk can offer accessible information and navigation to essential social services throughout the district, including shelters, food assistance, and addiction recovery resources. We uh have received many letters of support from all walks of DC from restaurants to churches and others in the faith community expressing the resounding support of these kiosk in every ward of the district. Digital wayfinding is a powerful tool to steer foot traffic towards businesses that might otherwise have been overlooked by larger, more prominent businesses. These chaos leveled the playing field, giving our visitors an opportunity to truly explore what makes the District of Columbia unique. I also want to take this opportunity to spare any inaccurate notions around the amendment. First, uh a kiosk operator has not yet been selected. Any qualified operator will have the opportunity to engage in a formal RFP process. The kiosk will be subject to DOT review and NC engagement, ensuring they are installed safely and legally throughout the city. Finally, digital kiosk will have little conflict with bus shelter advertising despite some of the things that have been said. Bus shelter advertising is static in nature, focused primarily on long-term advertising campaigns. Digital kiosk, in contrast, requires specific technological features such as real-time data integration, digital infrastructure, and interactive software design. Both can actually bring in critical revenue to the district while serving different purposes. As exciting changes are happening downtown and throughout the District of Columbia, interactive wayfinding kiosk will only serve to elevate and support these important investments in our local economy. That's why this amendment has the full support of the District Columbia built bid council, Washington DC economic partnership, Greater Washington DC Black Chamber of Commerce, and a number of small and local businesses and cultural organizations throughout the District of Columbia, including places like the Historic Ben Chili Bowl in Ward One, the Museum Shop and Provos Restaurant in W 5, Anacostia Organics and the Go Museum in W 8, the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization in W 7, and others. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them, but I would encourage my colleagues to support this sorely needed amendment and we'll request a roll call vote. Thank you, Council Member McDuffy. Um, I'm going to speak first since this is an amendment to uh the bill that I'm moving. Uh, I am not supporting this and I would ask members not to support this and there are three reasons. The first is that this is essentially a discharge of an existing bill from the that has been sequentially referred to two committees and that is the appropriate uh process is for us to go through the committees to which the bill has been referred. Second, it's not really clear to me what this bill does as it has been revised. It authorizes the mayor to enter into a contract which the mayor already has authority to do. And third, uh, because it deals with signs, I want to remind members that signs is an issue that has gotten us into trouble over and over and over again and really ought to be handled very carefully rather than being an amendment at second reading on the budget support act. So again, I would urge members not to support this. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this? Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I do want to share a little bit of my my thoughts on this one. Um, when this came through the committee on economic development, um, I did express some concerns about it and it's largely because I think this is a proposal that would be better suited through the normal legislative process. Um, and there has been permanent measure that's been referred to to my committee, transportation, the environment. Um, some of the things that I do think are important for us to be able to outline like I do think the idea of digital kiosks hold actually a lot of potential and I think um my colleague outlined some of those positives that could happen from those. What I'm what I don't understand or what I think benefits by going through the full legislative process is helping us understand are we going are we entering to a master license agreement? Are we what are the parameters? because some of the initial legislation that we saw outline, for example, everything from where they can be placed, what the permitting process can look like. Um, and the amendment in front of us today talks about the district would raise revenue, but it doesn't tell us how much revenue it would raise, nor as the appropriating body here, where those funds would actually go. And if there are funds that could be raised from this, which again, think about this. We're talking about a kiosk in public space. The reason it has value is because it's in public space that we pay for and build. So, we'd want that revenue to be able to come in and be able to help figure out what do we want it to do? How do we help support that? Um, and where do we want it to go towards different city services? So, I I am concerned about that. Uh, and I'm certainly willing to work in our committee on the permanent legislation to help think through what this could look like and then work with my colleagues uh, in particular the author of this motion to think about what it would look like and where it should be ultimately structured. But I I just wanted to share with my colleagues a level of discomfort with this through the budget process rather than using it and moving through permanent legislation. Um, I think that would probably a better way to make sure that we evaluate how kiosks could be used, how we avoid cluttering, but we can also take advantage of an opportunity with new technology that could be coming in. So, I just wanted to share my thoughts with my colleagues on this. Thank you, >> Chairman. >> Council member Buns. >> Thank you very much, um, Chairman. And um I must say I I share some of um Council Member Allen's sentiments that this is, you know, we're using public space and when we use public space, we want to make sure that the resources are going to acrue to public needs. And as he was talking, I was thinking about some of that 10 priority contingency list and how could that be satisfied? But it's my understanding that this project could realize as much as I think 160 million on an annual basis um through the various ads that could be displayed um through the kiosk. Some of you have seen it already, perhaps down at the corner of 14th and East Street. Um, and it can be a real booster for tourism, I think, because you can look up almost anything that you're interested in. I think it would be a great uh economic engine for our community. I am very concerned with um understanding that it was assigned to two committees and the two committees haven't weighed in in the manner in which they um believe they should. So therefore, I I'm going to um I'm going to have to vote no on this, but otherwise I think it's a great and wonderful idea for our city. Thank you. Uh, C, Council Member Pinto, >> thank you. Um, I am excited to support this amendment today. I just uh wanted to add to the discussion as we think about the future of downtown and the future of the city. One of the things that I wanted us to do a better job of the city is laying out for residents and visitors what their options are. And so if somebody was walking down the street to have the ability to see where the closest bus stop is or have the ability to see what game is is um being played tonight or what theater shows are are running this weekend. I think it's just a great opportunity to continue to draw residents to experience all of the opportunities that we have in the city. Um and so that's part of the reason that I'm especially excited for this and what it could mean for a boon to downtown. Thank you. Council member Parker. Uh >> Mr. Chairman, um thank you. Uh Council Member McDuffy, can you um just elaborate on some of the benefits you foresee uh this opening the do door for? And then not to rehash old arguments. I've heard the process argument, but I'm trying to square like what's the argument against moving on this right now. So, I don't know if Chairman you want to weigh in there or Allan, but if uh Council Member McDuff, you could speak to the benefits that this would allow uh moving forward. >> Thank you, uh, Council Member Parker. Um, I I think it's one of the ways that we can have um another catalyst for growth in our local economy at a time, we certainly need it. We've been spending a lot of time u thinking about ways to cut funds, thinking about ways to raise revenue. Um what I think we all can agree on is that our local businesses need support. Um particularly those that around our downtown core that don't have the same uh support from uh the office for traffic that they used to have pre- pandemic nor that they've gotten since uh there've been the mandates to return to work. uh this could help drive uh people both tourists uh local domestic tourists uh as well as people who live here uh to businesses across the District of Columbia which is why it's gained so much support from small businesses. Uh and so I think it would be a boost for those small uh small local businesses that we all care uh and and care about and love. Um what what it's done in other places is helped to generate revenue in places like Miami and places like Houston, Atlanta. Uh there are places that have earned uh upwards of over $3 million in revenue. And for those who are worried about you know the public space uh while it would only go in the public space uh it will be subject to approval uh by and oversight by uh the executive including DOT uh there would be ANC engagement. Uh but in conversations that you talk to folks about this type of innovation, they actually want to see it. They know that it needs to be uh in areas in downtown and not just downtown. How many of you all have I talked to who said we want to support downtown? We know how catalytic it is. But the small businesses along business corridors in our wards like Provos, like MUCNBC around Rallen Avenue, like businesses in Anacostia and other parts of our our city, Pin Branch, they want to have the sort of support that drives uh people and and dollars to their businesses as well. And this is the type of thing uh that could do it in DC in the way that it's done in other places. Uh and it can be thoughtful uh and and I anticipated it would be something that is a major success for our city. there's really no reason that we need to wait. For those who were worried, um there this bill was originally introduced in April of 2024. Uh we had a hearing on this bill uh last year in 2024. There's been significant engagement, hence some of the modifications that we've seen and our ability to dispel concerns that have been raised uh by other signed operators. So I I don't think there's any reason to raise. Thank you. >> Uh were you also asking me I'll try to be brief. Um, so the there is potential a lot of benefit that could come out of this. But the first point I made was that this is essentially a discharge of a bill, bill 26-44 that's pending in two committees, two committees. And uh, that is problematic. As you know, I've told members that legislation that does not have a fiscal impact ought to be kept out. Now, you know, we don't do that uniformly, but here um um I think that applies. Um the the bill that is pending in the committees is robust. The amendment here is the the meat of the bill of the amendment is the mayor is authorized to enter into a contract with a provider of interactive wayfinding kiosks etc. I mean the mayor already has that authority and so to try to overcome objections because there have been objections. I got a text today from WA saying they're opposed to the bill to overcome the exe objections and I guess to try to maybe make it simple enough that maybe the committees don't object um it basically doesn't say anything. So this should go through regular order. >> Could I Mr. Chairman? >> That would be second round. >> Okay. I I think it's important though it it Riley really is more of a point of order than second round. You you said there have been objections to wad and perhaps there are but uh those same objections that they're raising today were raised a year ago a year ago and were properly and thoroughly dispelled. And I don't want to put anybody on the spot but but I think there there are folks who who actually brought those objections to me a year ago and we supplied them with the adequate information. um that refutes uh the claims that have been made by WADA and those claims being made by Wada are claims from their contractor who doesn't want competition. So, so I just want to make sure folks understand that. And the other thing it it has been referred to two committees, but when it was originally introduced, it was referred to one committee and once the chairman decided that he did had opposition, it got referred to two committees in this council period. So there was a hearing in a previous council period when it was only referred to the committee on business and economic development. Subsequently it got referred to two committees and I think we all can attest to uh some of the political maneuvering that happens when using the council process. And so I would ask my colleagues uh to support this bill and and note uh the opposition is largely procedural in nature and I don't have to list everything that we have in the budget that we're voting on today uh that uh perhaps is already in a permanent bill or is been referred to some other committee uh because we'd be here well into the night. So so please don't use that as a reason not to support uh this bill. >> Mr. Chairman, >> who's asking to be recognized? Council member Fman. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. So, help me understand. Um, it was referred to Cabbed and the transportation committee and we've heard from the chair of the transportation committee. I I'm interpreting what I heard as a commitment to try to move this forward relatively quickly. If that's not accurate, uh, council member Allen, correct me. Is there another committee that it is also referred to? Uh, the bill was sequentially referred to the um committee on transportation and the environment and then the committee on business and economic development. >> Mr. Chair, >> council member, just do you want to answer that >> through the chair since I think I heard councelor Freeman asking a question. Um it was referred first to transportation the environment. Uh my staff and I it's on our list to hold hearings in the fall. So we're about obviously to go into legislative recess. We haven't been able to hold hearings for the last couple months. Um but it is on our agenda to be able to hold a hearing in the fall >> and then once that process is done it would be ready to go as permanent legislation. So, I mean, if there's a new piece of information to me is a pledge by whatever committee the second committee is that they're going to turn to this because it does sound like a thing that would be important to get done. And I know that folks in my community have sought these kinds of kiosks in the past. And so, I want to get to where we can do this and do it right. I'm not going to support the amendment now, but I do uh really hope that this is a thing that we can get done this year. >> There's no further on this. Uh the vote will be on uh Mr. McDuffy's amendment and he asked for a roll call. Madam Secretary, >> Council Member White, >> yes. >> Council member White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> no. Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds. >> I'm sorry. Um, pass. >> Pass. Council member Bonds passes. Council member Felder. >> Yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Freeman. >> No. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Council member Henderson. >> Present. >> Council member Henderson will be recorded as present. Council member Lewis George. >> Yes. >> Council member Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy, >> yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. Chairman Mendlesson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes no. Council member Nado, no. Council member Nadau votes no. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> yes. Council member Bonds votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are seven yeses, four nos, and one present. Uh Henderson is present or pass. >> Uh the amendment is approved. Um Council Member Henderson, you had an amendment. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Give me just a second. Um Mr. Mr. Chairman uh so in the district restaurants cost of doing business has risen in sharply in recent years due to increased I would love to be able to finish my statement. Madam, madam, it is not appropriate for you to be disrupting the meeting. Madam, it is inappropriate for you to be disrupting the meeting. Madam, it is inappropriate for you to be disrupting the meeting. Council member Henderson. Council member Henderson. >> Thank you. Um, as I have spoken previously about my concerns regarding the shifts in federal policies such as tariffs and downsizing um, their workforce and the impact that we've had on our local economy, none of these factors were present when I 82 was passed. I've also spoken about my concerns about the success of some of our independently owned mom and pop type restaurants that are the lifeb blood of DC's food scene which do not have the capital backing of restaurants associated with large national chains or restaurants groups. That's why I partner with Council Member Allen on today's amendment. My goal in moving this amendment is to respect the spirit of 82, ensuring that workers are paired fairly uh receiving regular increases in wages they deserve but paced at a rate that is fair and manageable. Under the proposed amendment, the tip minimum wage would remain at 10 um until July 1st, 2026. Thereafter, the tip minimum wage would be tied to the minimum wage as a percentage starting at 56%, which is the current percentage of the $10 tip minimum overall of the overall minimum. M Mr. I would love to. >> Council member, you want to pause for a second? >> I'm sorry. >> Did you want to pause for a second? No, I I I want to get through it without thinking that somebody's going to rush up on this JS for my remarks. >> Well, um if there >> I just want to speak, that's all. >> If there are just a moment, council member, if there are further outbreaks, we can clear the chamber of folks who would like to be here. So, there is such a thing as allowing the process to proceed. And uh it is also um appropriate that when the council member is speaking that she's allowed to speak. Council member Henderson. Um okay. So uh July 1st, 2028 and through after there would be increases every two years. Under this model, we would still have one of the highest hit minimum wages in the country. To address concerns about paycheck transparency and wage theft that workers have raised, we propose requiring employers to clearly identify all sources of wages on their payubs, such as the service charges, ensuring that workers are aware of how their wages are calculated and whether they're correctly compensated. Additionally, we propose implementing a bayanal study of the tax data from restaurants and tip workers conducted by the OCFO which will provide neutral datadriven perspective on the industry's overall health and changes to the workers wages due to policy not just locally but also federally. This approach will provide an accurate comprehensive source of information through which we can evaluate the industry's health. This proposal was modeled after approaches in other jurisdictions. Um it did not come from external groups. We hear concerns from the proposal, from everyone involved. No one is happy 100% here. Um, we want workers to be able to have the annual wage growth and restaurants to be able to have a more manageable labor cost. And we think that this strikes the balance. Unfortunately, I'm out of time. Um, >> if you want additional time, >> no, I'm I'm done. But council member Allen also wanted to speak. >> Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleague Council Henderson for a partnership on this challenging amendment. Um, this has been a challenging issue on how to handle the implementation of the ballot initiative and phase out to minimum wage. Voters did speak overwhelmingly in passing initiative 82 during the 2022 general election. I also hear routinely how frustrating most residents find service fees and the cost of going out and dining. I also hear regularly from tipped workers on this. Some adamantly opposed to any change to I82 and want to see nothing short of the elimination of the tip minimum model as well as others that prefer the model as it once was and believe it has placed a cap on the amount of money they earn in a shift in a tipping culture. As a ward member, there's not an issue that I probably have heard more about lately from our small and local restaurants than the fast increase in cost of operations as every July the minimum wage increases and tens of thousands hundred thousands of dollars of cost to those businesses. Plenty of businesses, both longtime and newly open, tell me the math just doesn't work. And others say they're simply just not going to open up any more businesses here. Of course, at the same time, I have new restaurants that have opened in the last two years knowing the tip minimum is increasing and they're doing well. The data laid out by the council budget office doesn't show an industry in crisis during the last three years, but it does show one that's vulnerable, especially to a recession that's basically been forced upon the district by President Trump's reckless slashing of federal government. When this body voted two weeks ago to not repeal Initiative 82, it was done so with an acknowledgement something's going to have to give its second reading and second vote. This amendment is that compromise. It's a recognition that another steep increase in labor costs at this moment might change DC's wonderful and overwhelmingly local restaurant industry. While it slows the implementation down, it continues to close the gap between the tip minimum wage and the full minimum wage. It doesn't lower the tipped wage like was proposed two weeks ago. and it converts the tip minimum to a percentage rather than a fixed amount so that it can keep up with the annual inflation adjustments. Initiative 82 was a big change for our restaurant industry. There are a few states that have had an implementation of a phase out of the tip minimum wage in recent years. States like California that do not have a tip minimum wage have been this way for decades. A few other states that are opting to do so or just getting underway now or soon. I don't buy that initiative 82 is to blame for all the challenges that restaurants face. It is a famously tough business, but it is a part of it. At the same time, there are significant real headwinds facing our small local restaurants and as elected policy makers, we have to be able to step in and make modifications to implementation. I do believe that is our job. So, I do ask for my colleagues support recognizing this amendment will leave a lot of folks dissatisfied on both sides of this issue. But knowing this is a step that we can take that provides several years of stability and recognizes the second most likely outcome would be a repeal that I cannot accept. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Uh, thank you. credit is not that spirit you said two weeks ago. >> Why is it okay to disrupt the meeting like that? I'm not sure it's helpful at all. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Council member Parker, do you want do you want us to ch Do you want us to clear the chamber? >> Yeah. Council member Parker. Council member Parker, did you want to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you. Um there's a lot going on. Uh I appreciate the the effort to draw compromise. This this has been an issue that's been going on a while. Unlike some, I do take at face value that some or many of our restaurants are struggling financially. At the same time, um, as I said before, I struggle with undermining uh I82. I think there is a, you know, call me naive, but I think and thought there was a way for us to reach a compromise. I do applaud uh, my colleagues, Council Member Henderson and Allen for leading on this in the ways that you all have. There is one issue that I'm just trying to square. The I82 at at its core sought to over time bring the tipped wage I'm sorry uh the base wage for tipped workers up to the minimum wage. Your proposal phases it out at 75%. Can you justify like why are we doing that versus even if we concede let's do it much more slowly, why would we freeze at 75%. And would you be amendable to adjusting your amendment so that it continues to grow that eventually even if we concede uh that we should slow this down uh that it eventually gets to the full minimum wage? >> Um thank you for that question, Council Member Parker, where I'm assuming >> okay >> for either of you. >> Um thank you for that question. So I think um there there are two things in terms of trying to craft from a compromised piece. Um on one side um there was a strong feeling as though the tip credit needed to be preserved in some way and then on the other side it was the complete elimination of the tip credit. And so we felt that capping it at 75% was the result of um a compromise. That being said, as with anything when we're discussing um wages or minimum wage policy, etc., I don't anticipate that this is the forever and end all that we're never going to discuss um wage increases or minimum wage policy ever in the future. Um and so, you know, there's the federal policy in terms of no tax on tips. we have a a study that allows for us to be able to evaluate that and I anticipate that sometime in the future there would be another evaluation on this. >> Thank you. >> But I I don't want to speak for Council Member Allen. >> I think there's 40 more seconds. >> I I'll just add briefly to that as part of the um report that is also a part of this where the CFO will be doing a report every two years to help us analyze trends, wages. Uh part of that is actually to help put together more information about what would it look like to uh to fully eliminate minimum. >> So what I'm hearing you all say um is over time we can make tweaks or adjustments. Would you be amendable to not freezing it at 75% and if there's a need in the future to tweak it to do so that this grows slowly as you're suggesting but for it to continue rising towards the minimum wage. Um, well, I appreciate your proposal. Um, I think we have tried to um get this over the finish line today and I don't know if an additional amendment would yield us something different if that I'm trying to say that. Yeah, you got it. >> Uh, further on the amendment, Council Member Lewis George and Nen Pinto. >> Um, thank you, Chairman. Um, I want to speak in opposition to this amendment. Um, while I appreciate that my colleagues are attempting to address the pressures restaurant industry is experiencing in the face of failed uh, economics on the national level. Keeping workers at a subminimum wage and overturning the will of the voters is the wrong way to accomplish this. Despite all the protests that this is not about overturning initiative 82, that is exactly what this amendment would do. I 82 sought to end the indignity of a subminimum wage and bring these workers up to a living wage so they don't have to deal with learing customers or discrimination just to get their bills paid. This amendment will ensure these are permanent conditions of their work. This provision will also ensure that service fees plus tipping, which has been confusing for diners, will become a permanent fixture in DC restaurants. Despite a report from our own council budget office that shows robust restaurant growth since I82 was passed, my colleagues today are proposing that we keep these workers at a subminimum wage based on biased data from the restaurant lobby. And I want to take a moment to highlight why we should be deeply skeptical of casting aside hard data in favor of results from surveys circulated by by lobbyists. Last week, many of us received a report uh from the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington regarding 53 restaurants that said closed in 25 due to rising labor costs and regulatory uncertainty around initiative 82. But the restaurants listed, 13 were not full service, two closed in 24, one was located in Virginia, 10 closed because they were renovating or relocating, and 10 closed for other reasons such as losing their liquor license or owner illness. The it's the restaurant industry is an incredibly volatile industry. That has been true before and after I 82. It is a high res high-risisk venture, not for the faint of heart. We need to prioritize helping restaurants adapt rather than continuing to make sacrifices at the expense of the workers who keep DC's economy strong. It is not within our ability to remove all risk from the restaurant industry. Local restaurants have had two years to prepare for these increases. If restaurants need help adjusting, let's connect them with the numerous restaurants who actually have successfully implemented changes and are thriving. It feels like a groundhog day. Once again, we're asking to consider a confusing lastminute policy that would overturn Initiative 82. Ironically, after some of my colleagues spoke passionately about respecting the voters when it came to rank choice voting. Good policy cannot be created last minute or behind closed doors by permanently keeping the tip minimum wage below the minimum wage. The council will preserve a deeply biased, unpredictable system for restaurant workers. We have a responsibility to protect workers and the dignity and to respect the will of the voters. And so I'm urging my colleagues to reject this amendment. I have additional 30 seconds or I can just speak on second round. >> We could be >> Do we really need a second round? Um, Council Member Pinto. >> Okay, I'll speak on second round. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um so this is an issue that we have heard a lot about done a lot of work on over the last several years. Um and as Ward 2 h houses uh the majority of restaurants in the district and also the majority of workers in the district. I've heard a lot about this from a lot of different people. Um I guess I just wanted to comment on the idea of kind of ramping up the base wage. I continue to believe that the worst outcome is this type of middle ground uh option. I think we should either accept that we have a tipped minimum wage in DC, which is a different number, or just have one minimum wage. And so I I worry about these kind of um peace meal ideas of of going all the way up over time, which to me would be just as bad as the current status quo, which we're hearing from restaurants and workers. That is not sustainable. Um I will remind folks that several years ago, a few of us tried to go all the way up to the minimum wage and we only had a few colleagues support. Um, so while this amendment is not exactly the best case scenario in in my view, I do appreciate it and I think it is a good compromise and a path forward. Um, because we have to listen when we're hearing that it is an untenable situation for many of our small businesses and many of our workers. Um, and I think we have a responsibility to do so. So, I'm going to support this amendment today. Um, I know there are a lot of passionate feelings on this. I also don't think that the conversation should be done about how we can be a hospitable environment to our small businesses. Um, let's remember that restaurants for the most part are small businesses, many of whom are owned and operated by district residents. And I don't want that to be lost in this conversation um as we talk about labor costs and how to operate a small business in the in the city. So I hope that folks know that we care about this industry deeply. We want to see it thrive. It is good for the district when our hospitality industry thrives and we have to continue making steps in the right direction to ensure that the tens of thousands of jobs our hospitality establishments employ can be maintained. that we can maintain the cultural vibrancy that this provides and the opportunities for our small business owners. So, thank you very much, Council Member Henderson and Council Member Allen. Um, and I'll be supporting this amendment today. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Pinto. If there's Council Member Robert White. >> Um, thank you, Chairman. Um, I'm not going to be supporting this amendment today. Uh but I but I think we do have to wrap our heads around uh the emergency situation we're in. Now the reason I'm not supporting this today is cuz I feel like there was a bait and switch. You we were asked to pause for 90 days, say we were going to get data to help us understand the right direction, and with no more data, now we're being asked to to vote on something. And I I appreciate my colleagues looking for a compromise. Um I I just feel like we were told something else just a few weeks ago. Um and and that makes me uncomfortable and even a a sincere attempt to find a compromise leaves us again with this lastm minute compromise that we haven't really digested and understood. Um I I do I I don't see a scenario in which there's not some type of of compromise. Uh but I'd rather it be deliberate, thought through. Um and we have time to do that. So we're in a pause. Let's use this time to figure out what moving forward looks like. I think folks got to wrap their heads around on both sides of this the fact that there's going to be some compromise and we've got to figure out the best the best way to move forward. Um but again, um you know, don't tell me that we're going to pause for for 90 days, we're going to get data and then in the middle of that say no, let's go a different direction. I I don't think that's the right way to do it. Um so I'm not supporting uh this amendment today. Uh but I do appreciate my colleagues trying to figure out a compromise. Thank you, chairman. >> Uh thank you. If there's nothing >> uh I'm sorry I did I just do my >> Thank you. >> Um I I I want to appreciate the work that my colleagues have done here in drafting a compromise. I could debate the merits of various provisions and the impact positive or negative but and uh I think they'll have but this is the problem. The voters told us what they wanted when they voted overwhelmingly for I 82 twice and this is not it. When the council agreed to implement this I 82 ballot initiative. We agreed to following the implementation schedule voters approved in 2023. Restaurant workers and the organizations that represent them have been fighting this battle for wage protections for years and they shouldn't have to keep fighting it. And this council should not keep on telling the voters they don't know what's best for themselves. I understand the challenges that restaurants face and I am very sympathetic to them, but a compromise that tears away at the foundational elements of I82 is still a slap in the face to restaurant workers and voters. And that's why I will not support this amendment. Thank you, chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Council Nau. Um, the vote will be on the amendment. >> Chairman, I'm going to ask for roll call. >> Madam Secretary, would you call the role? To be clear, this is on the amendment that council members Henderson and Allen have proposed. >> Council member Allen, >> yes. Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds yes. Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Felder >> yes. >> Madam Secretary, please pause. Uh can we clear the chamber, please? Peace. What are you talking? [Music] on your hand. On your on your face. This budget will help people. >> I can tell Christmas. got on the council. It's unbelievable. >> No revenue raisers this year. Zero revenue raisers. Are you kidding me? >> Outrageous. Man, you're so weak. [Music] Madam Secretary, if you could resume the roll call. I believe you had called. Council members Allen and Bonds. >> Council member Felder. >> Yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman. >> No. >> Council member Fman votes no. Council member Henderson. >> Yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council Blue is George. >> No. Council Blue is George votes no. Council member McDuffy. >> He's honor. >> Council member McDuffy passes. Chairman Mendelson. >> Yes. >> Chairman Mendelson votes yes. Council member Nau >> no. >> Council member Nadau votes no. Council member Parker >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto. Yes. Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member White >> no. >> Council member White votes no. >> And Council Member McDuffy told somebody this morning I would vote yes. So I'm a yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are seven yeses and five nos. >> Uh the amendment is approved. Uh, count um, Council Member Pinto, you had an amendment uh, concerning Chinatown that you circulated last night at 10 p.m. >> Yes, I do. Um, hopefully this amendment will be smooth and quick. Um, this amendment addresses a couple of needs that we have simultaneously. It addresses the need for more activation downtown, availability of retail space for cultural assets in Chinatown, and additional resources for our long Chinatown long-term lease grant at Demped, which we started a couple years ago to support long-term leases for businesses and nonprofits that maintain or enhance the cultural heritage of Chinatown. Um we have what's called the office to anything abatement program in DC that's run out of demped and this is really under the concept that as we work to incentivize conversions both from office to housing there are also other uses for conversions that will be extremely productive for our city. Conversions to hotels to retail to recreation space for families. Um, and there w is a space currently located in Chinatown that was previously partially used for office space but is not eligible for the office anything abatement under current law. Um, and so this amendment ensures that the property is eligible to apply for the abatement. Demped would still review any application, assess the financial need, and determine whether the abatement should be awarded in line with the goals and priorities of the Office to Anything program. Um, but as we're doing this and are excited to welcome uh hopefully this new hotel to the area, I think we need to be really conscientious as a city. >> Just wait a moment. Okay, you all can hear me. Okay. Okay. So, we have a fantastic Chinatown community in DC. And as we work to incentivize more residents and businesses to come downtown, we also have to be very conscientious about preserving and protecting the legacy residents and businesses that are in Chinatown. And I worry without doing so, we could lose the fabric of what makes up Chinatown, which is um not only important for our existing residents and businesses there, but is a real cultural asset of our city. Um I've heard many concerns from the Chinatown community about the need for additional support for our legacy businesses and to prevent displacement. And so this subtitle also requires that if the if this project receive uh this subtitle also requires that if this project receives the office to anything tax abatement then the property owner must do a couple of things in return. It must lease at least one retail space to a business or nonprofit that maintains or enhances the cultural heritage of the Chinatown neighborhood. It also must excitingly operate an Asian market that is open to the public, something that has uh long been a need of the community. And doing so, it must consult with the Chinatown Revitalization Initiative, ANC2C, and residents of the Wallak House to identify products to sell in the market. And it must donate $300,000 to support the Chinatown long-term lease grant program at Demped. And this is a program that we started a couple years ago that's really important to make sure that we are supporting legacy businesses who may have challenges with their lease payments or other needs. And so I'm really excited about this amendment. I will say I think there is more work to be done um that I plan on working on in the fall to make sure that we can be really holistic and thoughtful about built preserving and building up our Chinatown neighborhoods. Um, but I hope my colleagues can support this amendment today as a step in the right direction to welcome this new hotel to the neighborhood, which will be a fantastic amenity and um require these additional preservation tactics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, thank you, council member. We have the amendment before us. Uh, is there discussion on the amendment? Council member Lewis George. >> Yeah. Um, council, I'm wondering, is it possible for us to wait to the fall for this only because since you've introduced it, um, we I received uh emails from um the solidarity network and they had a few concerns. I can ask you them and I hope you can resolve them. But if not, I think we I'm wondering if we can push it forward until we can get like and I had the ability to like actually evaluate it and talk to the residents and see where we should land. Um, one of the questions was sort of um about how you all landed on the 300,000 in the first year as the only financial support back to the community. Many feel that 300,000 will be eaten up pretty quickly and not really be enough for the community is what I received as feedback. Um the other question was why you are opting to expand office to anything to include this property considering the property in question is not sort of primarily an office building but rather home to legacy businesses and restaurants. Um, the other question that came up was, have you considered building in asurances to preserve legacy businesses currently in place and what do those insuranceances look like? um and sort of what kinds of conversations have you had with the community groups like the Safe Chinatown Solidarity Network to ensure that this is some that like what we have presented to us today sort of is a a amalgamation of what you've heard from several of those members of the Chinese community and of the Save Chinese Town Solitary Network that will help us move forward and and really be able to say that we are putting something together that actually will support them in the long term, not just in the short term. >> Sure. Um so yes, I have met with that group and met with many many groups over the past several years. Um and we also did a partnership with Georgetown University um to think through strategies to preserve Chinatown as they've done a lot of work uh with other Chinatowns across the country and got ideas from them as well. Um, so in terms of the $300,000 number, that lease program was initially funded several years ago at 125,000 total for the entire program and the funding was not all utilized. And so one of the pieces of feedback that I heard from the um the Save Chinatown group was that there needs to be more proactive um effort to teach legacy businesses about the options that are available to them. And that's why as part of an offshoot of the mayor's Chinatown Gallery Place task force, we've now started a Chinatown initiative, which is focused on education and preservation and and building up these businesses. And so the $300,000 number is over double of what the entirety of the fund was, which we think is going to be important coupled with the education to actually get the dollars at the door. In terms of this business, um, this hotel used to have some offices, so they don't fully qualify for the abatement because they also had housing. Um, but I think that the purpose of the abatement that we set up years ago as part of my bill, the recovery act, is to incentivize more productive uses of of buildings downtown. Um, there were two businesses there that are no longer there. Um, there's a lot of context I can share on that. Unfortunately, those businesses um are are leaving. They hadn't paid their rent in several years, but the landlord worked with them to um to kind of keep them on site for a couple of years. I do think that funds like this will be helpful so that legacy businesses can have more access to the amenities that we're trying to create in the future. Um and that's what the the fund that we're we're creating seeks to support. Um, the other asurances that we've secured from this hotel, they have two retail spaces. One of them will be required to be a a retail space that supports the cultural heritage of Chinatown and they're also required to build an Asian market, which is something the community's been calling for for uh many years. So, I would say like like most proposals that are actually implementable, it doesn't get any one group every single thing that they could ever want under the sun, but it gets us moving in the right direction in a way that I think will actually work and that we can build upon. >> I I appreciate your answer. Um maybe I'll just be present just cuz we just I just haven't had time because it was introduced today and then I got emails. So, I just want to make sure I do my due diligence um for that community. >> Uh thank you, Council Member. Council Member White. Uh thank you, Chairman. I I think I've had a similar uh experience as u Council Member Lewis George. I've had uh several Chinatown residents uh reach out and um uh inform me of their opposition and ask for more time to negotiate a CBA um and indicate that um ANC2C has not yet weighed in. So, I'd like to be supportive, but I've not had enough time to do due diligence on this and have gotten some opposition that I haven't been able to sort through. So, uh similar to Council Member Lewis George, I'm hoping this is something we could take up later. Um, so unfortunately it's not something we can take up later because this is an opportunity to have this hotel right now and they need to qualify for the abatement. I will say though, um, a couple things. One, in terms of the CBAs, usually they're negotiated in the city, um, and there's additional technical support, but they're not um, enforceable in the same way this is as law. And so this is an abatement that traditionally wouldn't have any kind of push back. Like it's part of Demped's eligibility program. We do things like this all the time. I don't think it would even be of conversation. But because I tried to go further and thinking about how we can use this opportunity to preserve and protect Chinatown now that folks are saying, "Wait a minute, we're not doing a hundred more things on top of that." Just feels a little wrong to me. Like I'm I'm taking this abatement opportunity and thinking about how to be thoughtful. And so we shouldn't then use that as to push back against any progress by saying let's do nothing. I think that's a just not the way to to go and also would undermine this new hotel coming to a block that has needed development and activity for decades. I'll note that this has to do with the um among other things the office to anything which is what we uh initially adopted in the budget support act a year or two ago. >> Right. >> Is there further on the amendment? Uh the vote will be on council member Pinto's amendment. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Uh chairman, please report me as present. Uh, chairman, please record me as president. >> Same for me, council member or chairman Mist. >> Uh, the eyes have it unanimously and council members Parker, Lewis, George, and White will be recorded as present. Uh the next is an amendment uh that was circulated by council member Allen this afternoon at 12:58. Um which I'll let him explain. Council member Allen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um all right. All right. I circulated an amendment earlier today that is modifying title 7 of the ANS that you had put forward. That ANS maintains language from the introduced version of the FY26 budget support act that would convert the fishing license fund, the air quality construction permits fund and the lead poisoning prevention fund fund from non-lapsing funds to lapsing funds. The committee has reason to believe that the conversion of these funds to non-lapsing may violate federal requirements and expose the district to litigation. This amendment eliminates provisions from the ANS converting these three funds to lapsing funds. If the amendment is approved, each fund would remain non-lapsing as provided under current law. Crucially, the amendment does not make any changes to the money being swept from these funds as described in title 7 subtitle one and would not unbalance the budget, but it would allow any other unallocated money within those funds to stay there instead of being directed into the general fund. This amendment also corrects a typo in the ANS related to the search charge to be imposed on electricity sales and deposit in the sustainable energy trust fund in FY27. The ANS states that the STF search charge on electricity sales in FY27 is 0.001664. The final digit four was added in error. Unless amended, the ANS would unnecessarily increase the search charge in FY27. The amendment corrects the figure to read 0.001666. 0001666. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment. >> Council member Allen, you sound like my credit card statement when I call to pay it by confirmation number. Um, Mr. Allen, reading the um rationale. There's a phrase, the committee has reason to believe that the conversion of these funds to non-lapsing may violate federal requirements. I think you mean lapsing. You want them to stay non-lapsing. >> Thank you. Yes, we have reason to believe that because when when the executive converted them to lapsing, we have now had more which we a policy decision we disagreed with. However, now we also have additional information that it would potentially expose the district um to liability that this move will help prevent. >> If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted. Uh next is council member Bonds. You had circulated an amendment, but the uh amendment uh failed at the local budget act having to do with clean city. So I assume you don't want to move the BSA. He's probably out of order. >> Um, council member Bonds whispered uh that she's withdrawing this. Council member Nidau, you have you circulated an amendment at 3:41 p.m. Um, which I believe is balanced. Uh, but I need you to explain this and move it and present it. >> Yes, chairman. I'm moving this amendment to make a netneutral adjustment to two tax abatements in Ward One. one of which was funded in the Cabbed committee budget but was removed at first reading. This amendment restores $377,000 for the retroactive property tax forgiveness for Avante Real Estate Services LLC located at 342114th Street. At the hearing on the bill, the OCFO's tax abatement financial analysis found that the retroactive exemption of all past unpaid tax liabilities is financially necessary for Avante real estate services to terminate the tax sale forclosure process and resulting loss of ownership of the property. The tax abatement financial analysis further found that Avante real estate can be expected to have sufficient net income available to pay the estimated annual real property taxes once the past due amounts are cleared and the tax sale for closure is terminated. Um so moved Mr. chairman. >> Uh and to be clear, the um this amendment is uh to cover retroactive property taxes, but it is not prospective. It is not an ongoing tax abatement. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Uh is there discussion? There's no objection. This will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is accepted. Council member Pinto, you had circulated an amendment dealing with um open primary. It failed and uh the local budget act failed. So, I assume you don't want to move it here. >> That's correct. Council member Nadau, I don't know if you circulated this, but you mentioned that you have an amendment regarding the subject to appropriations on initiative 83. >> Yes. Sorry. I'm moving a very small technical amendment to the subject, this is an oral amendment to the subject to appropriation subtitle. We worked with the budget office and general counsel today on this and we're asked to make sure this is in the record. So the technical correction can be made. Here it is. In section 7190, line 5119 should read, sections 2B1 and D shall apply upon the date of inclusion of its fiscal effect in a an approved budget and financial plan. >> Madam general counsel, you have that. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. >> And the effect of this is to remove this subject to appropriations clause. That's the effect. >> Yes. >> So, you all are clear. Everybody here is clear. Uh if there's no objection, it will be accepted. >> Council member Bonds, >> I have a question. given that the um I83 was on the ballot subject to appropriation. Are we therefore in any way changing the substance of the proposal? >> No. >> Thank you. This is rank shorts >> but not the open and >> not the open. >> This is just Frank. What other key was funded that was not included in this change? >> Uh if members are comfortable, this is accepted without objection. Uh, Council Member Lewis George. No, that's I'm trying to I'm working on a quip and I'm being very slow. So, um, all right. Hearing no objection, that's accepted. I believe that completes all of the amendments that uh were circulated or brought to my attention. I have to remember where we are is that um these have all been amendments to the amendment nature of a substitute which was moved with leave for the budget office to make textbook conforming and reconciling changes. That leave is applicable to all other budget measures that are coming up uh subsequently. The vote is on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Please record me as no. Chairman, >> please record me as no as well. >> Uh the amendment nature of a substitute as amended is approved. Uh we have the bill as amended. Bill 26-265. Further discussion on the bill as amended. All those in favor say I thought >> Yeah, I thought we were >> I'm sorry. is disc is there discussion on the BSA that what you're asking? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. God want us to >> Somebody was saying, "Come on, guys." And I sort of agreed. It is 7:20 p.m. We have a bunch more bills to consider. >> Okay. On the bill as amended, Council Member Lewis George. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um Oh, dang. Now I got to be ready. Um um I did want to speak to um you know no voting no on the obviously on the the overall budget given that there are so many things that we fought for in it um that are there. Um, I just think for me overall, I'm deeply disappointed that the council has rejected objective data and clear mandate from the voters to eliminate the tip wage. Um, and instead voted to keep hardworking restaurant service on a sub minimum wage permanently. And as I said in the chamber two weeks ago, I cannot vote in support of a budget that rolls back initiative 82. I've been clear on that and I'm consistent in staying on that. If a budget refle is a reflection of our values as a city, uh what does this say about whose interests come first before this body? Um while my colleagues and I have sought to address some of the gaps serious holes in our social safety net for the city's most vulnerable residents, still remain. Um I'm disappointed that the work of Champs, which provides mobile mental health for youth and teens, is still unfunded. I'm disappointed that only six out of 10 cure the street sites were funded and the program was moved from the attorney general's office to the one's office even though OAG is better equipped to run the program and have successfully administered for years. This is my fifth budget and for the first time this budget though funds it though the funds it allocates and leaves out as well the incomp reading than at first. That is not entirely our fault given the situation unnecessarily created by the local and federal government officials who were not elected by the residents of the District of Columbia. But if we are honest with ourselves, I think and hope we know we we could have done more even in light of the challenging circumstances we face. And while we made large enhancements that will reduce some of the harm that concur occurred under the initial proposal given to us from the mayor, we are also still allowing a great deal of harm to still occur. my colleague uh introduced a measure that would try to fund a child tax credit and we said no to that. We can't prevent every harm. I know that. And so our job is to make decisions on how to reduce as much harm as possible with the resources we have. I wish we made more of our decisions landed on the side of reducing harm or maintaining the status quo or increasing harm. And for these reasons, despite important improvements, I cannot in good conscious vote for a budget that does this much harm. Thank you, Mr. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member. Council member Felder. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has played an instrumental role in getting us through this challenging budget. In the interest of time, I will not go into great depth highlighting all of the budget wins. However, as a W 7 council member, I'm extremely proud of the investments that were poured in the W 7. Uh these investments span from uh areas of economic development, public safety, uh environmental justice, transportation, infrastructure, and education. Uh it is also important to know that our budget wins support our most vulnerable residents uh such as our seniors while creating more opportunities for our young folks in a year where we had to fight hard for every dollar. I'm proud of this council uh acknowledge the needs to rebalance the scales and invest in the community uh that has long been underserved. Now, I do want to take a moment to raise a few concerns that I believe deserve uh to go on the record as we move forward implementing the net zero construction code of 2027. Now, I support the district's climate goals. I believe in a more sustainable and resilient city. Uh, I want to make sure Ward 7 is a part of that in the future. But I also believe that we need to balance our environmental commitments with equity, affordability, and the practical realities that were faced. Uh, particularly when I think about how this these requirements might increase costs associated with development projects uh, like recreation centers or affordable housing in my ward and across the district. I want to put on the record that we as a council need to do more to understand the impact of this policy uh and how uh it will impact uh projects moving forward. I can't stress this enough, but I also strongly believe that us as a body, we really need to uh go back to doing our due diligence, not only so that it's clear regard regarding uh our responsibility, uh especially as we implement this new policy. So, uh with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Anything further on the budget support act? Council member Parker. >> Thank you, uh Mr. chairman. Um I I have mixed feelings, but I I first want to lead with deep appreciation for the folk behind the scenes and our budget office and our general counsel team, the folk at the CFO's office who I know I personally overworked in the last two weeks. Um there is a lot of work that goes into all of the amendments and moves that we made here today and I don't think they get enough attention or appreciation for the work they do. So, thank you. Um, I would also say I'm proud of any number of the things that are included in this budget. I won't go through and name them. Uh, but I appreciate the work that went into rightsizing the budget that we received originally. I think this budget that we're voting on um is better in any number of ways. Uh I also feel I have this uh lingering feeling as though moneyed interests continue to win out and I feel that at the federal level I feel it acutely at the local level. I don't uh blame people for making a living but I just continue to feel as though if you don't have the resources to have lobbyists in the Wilson building regularly you you are going to be on a chopping block. and we saw that routinely um with any number of programs and it's unfortunate. I also really am struggling with the refusal of our government uh to really look at the size of our government and the spending of our government. We have heard about spending from the mayor and the council and yet no one no one has advanced and approved uh a reduction of the size of our government. even when there was an agency put forward that had 80 plus FTEEs for one or two uh what some would say are successful programs. I'm not coming for anybody's job, but I just continue to find it hard that we continue to grow and expand and increase uh with two FTEEs for every proposal before us while we continue to put on the chopping block working folk across the district. I will say again, uh, if we want the district to be competitive, yes, tax rates is a part of that, but the quality of living, affordable housing, the quality of our schools, and how we invest in everyday Washingtonians is every bit a part of that. So, I don't think we figured that out. I appreciate the work that went into it. Uh, but it doesn't have to be this way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Uh if there's nothing further, we have the bill the uh bill 26-265 budget support act as amended before us. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as a no. >> Please record me as no as well, Mr. Chairman. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Parker. Please record me as no as well. Thank you. Uh the eyes have it and council members uh Lewis, George, and Parker recorded as voting no. Uh we are going to turn now at 7:28 p.m. to the emergencies uh volunteer services clarification emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-285. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I'm moving the Volunteer Services Clarification Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2025 and the accompanying emergency legislation. There's a need to amend the Volunteer Services Act of 1977 to clarify that the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, who we call OAG, has the authority to issue regulations governing the office of the Attorney General's use of volunteers. The VSA regulates volunteer services within district agencies and mandates that district agencies must issue rules regarding volunteer services. However, the VSA was enacted before the attorney general became an independently elected office. So, it does not explicitly authorize the AG to promulgate regulations governing the attorney general's use of volunteers. DCHR is due to issue recently recrafted rules regarding the VSA's implementation for district agencies that do not cover OAG given its status as an independent agency. Since the VSA also does not explicitly specify that OAG is authorized to issue rules regarding volunteer services without emergency legislation authorizing OA to issue its own rules. The agency will have unclear legal footing both under the VSA and the new DCHR rules to regulate volunteer services which would impact the agency's ability to manage volunteer services. These volunteers include attorneys and interns and they contribute important legal governmental policy investigatory research, mediation, and constituent services to the agency and to district residents. Volunteer work thus constitutes crucial support to the litigative and other work across OAG. This emergency clarifies that OAG is included under the VSSA and the emergency nature of this legislation is justified in order to prevent impacts on operations and delays to their various programs, divisions, and cases supported by volunteer work. I urge my colleagues to support this emergency measure today. I move the emergency declaration. Uh thank you. Okay, we have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. >> The underlying bill, bill 26-335. Council member Pinto, >> I move the emergency bill. >> Is there discussion? >> On the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have unanimously. Uh the next measure is PR26-284, Housing Authority Resident Empowerment Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025. Council Member White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. My goal with this emergency legislation is to get most of the DC Housing Authority provisions of the rental Act in place now. By acting now, we'll move we will we'll allow the mayor and DCHA leadership to start some appointment and election processes for next year. The legislation includes some reporting and training requirements, so it made sense to keep most of the title together here. There's one big piece of the rental acts DCHA title that I did not include in this emergency bill. The section setting out new rules for when DCHA pursues a public a federal public housing subsidy repositioning. that can wait for final passage of the rental act. The DCHA board is extremely important. DCHA is responsible for tens of thousands of lowerincome residents housing, and it owns a huge portfolio of valuable real estate. It needs a board that is independent, knowledgeable, and able to work through tough issues thoughtfully, deliberately, and timely. Prior to its current stabilization reform board, DCHA had a lot of problems, including that the board was bogged down in political squables. To craft a new permanent board, we took some proposals from the mayor, some ideas from the star board, such as a new financial expert, and some suggestions from the public and the former attorney general to improve the board's independence, such as elections for p public housing commissioners and professional experience thresholds for other commissioners. The mayor and starboard have argued that we um shouldn't uh have elections. Tenants argued that we should have uh elections uh and and we once did. This bill is a balanced solution that meets the needs of residents. If we approve the declaration and take up the bill, then I'll move an amendment in the nature of substitute that my team circulated on Friday morning. It conforms the bill to the rental act. uh ANS I moved earlier today to address some recommendations from the general counsel's office. Uh at this time I move the declaration. >> We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh we have the underlying bill 26-333. Council member White. >> So move chairman. >> And then you have an amendment nature of a substitute. >> Uh yes. >> The amendment of nature substitute is is really technical. It just uh conforms the bill to the rental act ans I moved earlier today. So no different need to move it. So, we have the ENS before us. Council member Henderson. Um, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I just have a quick question for Council Member White. Um, so we have the mayor's letter, um, which noted that she plans to veto this legislation if it's improved. I'm curious in terms of what's the timing pieces of the existing board structure and is there a gap or Yeah. Will there be a gap in terms of having an active board? Should um this not be approved. Uh there there's an emergency. We've already had to extend uh the the board's uh work. So there's an emergency in place. Um we would have to pass a new emergency, but it's we have I think a few more months before that. Uh when >> yeah I think it I think it expires in September. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Anything further on this? >> So what we have is the amendment nature of a substitute. If there's no objection, it will be accepted and then we'll have the bill as amended. Hearing no objection, the amendment nature of a substitute is accepted. We have the bill. Council member Pinto. >> Well, my answer to your question is kind of dependent on my question, which is part of the mayor's letter talks about a oh um >> talks about a concern with the pre-appointment process. Um, >> what was that? >> Can you speak to that, Council Member White, and kind of what why you think that this isn't going to cause those problems that she talks about >> for the for the resident elected commissioners versus like a advocate representative? >> Yeah, I I can't exactly follow some of the um objections. It there's just one major policy area where we fundamentally uh disagree and uh I spoke to the mayor about this some months ago. Um, I think we should allow public housing residents to elect their commissioners on the board and the mayor doesn't. Um, and it's it's pretty much that simple. Uh, it is doable. We did it before. Um, you know, it that's kind of it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, we have the bill as amended before us. Any further discussion? The vote will be on the bill as amended. Bill 26-333. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Please record me as voting no. >> Um the eyes have it. Uh the next measure is the fiscal year 2026 budget support emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-289. Uh due to the delayed transmission of the fiscical year 2026 budget and financial plan, it is necessary to pass the fiscical year 2026 budget support uh act of 2025 on an emergency basis to ensure the provisions are effective as of October 1, 2025. In addition, necessary for the budget are several time-sensitive legislative provisions that must be in place prior to the October 1, 2025 applicability date. These time-sensitive provisions are included in bill 26-265. >> The BSA the attached well the uh emergency will make those time-sensitive provisions applicable prior to October 1. The provisions in the emergency budget support act will retain the October one applicability datas provided in the permanent legislation but should be enacted prior to October 1st to allow agencies and stakeholders to prepare for implementation. Um I need to kind of cover a couple things for general counsel. Uh so well when we get to the underlying bill I that's where I'll have to cover things with general counsel. We're going to include all the amendments were previously adopted. I'm not sure if we have to make any distinctions with regard to applicability times. So, we'll get that answer in a moment. But before we can get there, we have to do the declaration. So, moved. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Council member Pinto. >> I just want to make sure our Chinatown BSA is incorporated into the >> Too soon to ask. It will be when we get to the bill. >> Okay. I'll ask then. Uh any further on the declaration? On the declaration. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> I have unanimous. >> Please record me as no. >> On the declaration. >> Yes. Please record me as no. >> Thank you. >> Please record me as no as well. Uh the declaration is approved. Uh council members Parker and Lewis George will be recorded as voting no. Uh I move the underlying bill 26-340. Now the um memo notice memo which I read from already speaks to different applicability dates. My motion, unless there's objection, includes all of the amendments that were made to the permanent version, which was bill 26-265. I do not know if there need to be different applicability dates. The overall applicability for the budget support act and therefore the emergency is the provisions are applicable as of October 1st. There are some subtitles that state specifically that there's an earlier applicability date and that is preserved in the emergency. And again, I will repeat that the amendments that we adopted, such as the Chinatown one, are included in my motion. And I think general counsel's clear on that. Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Please record me as no. >> Please record me as no. >> The eyes have it. and council members Parker and Lewis George will be recorded as no voting no. The next measure is PR26-286 Congress Cove Court Designation Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025. So moved. The purpose of the designation is to officially designate the public alley system within the square bounded by fourth and Atlantic streets southeast as Congress Cove Court. Permanent legislation implementing the official designation was adopted earlier in this meeting. Enacting the legislation on emergency basis will allow the applicant to obtain district agency approvals, including permits and utility location necessary for development of several residential units along the alley and to do so before the permanent legislation completes the 30-day congressional review period. In short, we have adopted a permanent version of this final reading today and this allows it to become effective sooner. Is there discussion on the declaration? The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. I move the underlying bill 26-337. Discussion. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? >> The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26-287 Elmore Friendship Court Designation Emergency Declaration Resolution. The purpose of this designation is to officially designate the public alley system uh within square 1084 as Elmore Friendship Court. I believe this is in W 7. Enacting the legislation on an emergency basis will allow the applicant to obtain district agency approvals, including permits and utility location necessary for redevelopment of an existing carriage house into a residential unit. In short, we've adopted the permanent version on final reading earlier today and this allows it to become effective sooner. Uh I don't know if I said so moved. So so moved on the declaration. Is there discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have unanimously. I move the underlying bill 26-338. Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is Reverend Dr. Judy Talbert way designation emergency declaration resolution 2025 BR26-288. Purpose of this designate of this legislation is to symbolically designate Alabama Avenue between Hartford and Gainesville Street Southeast as Reverend Dr. Judy Talbert Way. Permanent legislation uh was approved final reading earlier in this meeting. Enacting this legislation on an emergency basis will allow the Department of Transportation to work with the community to install signage prior to a community celebration of the life of Reverend Dr. Judy Talbert. I move the declaration. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? You guys have it unanimously? I move the underlying bill, Bill 26-239. Is there discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> You guys have it unanimously. >> The next measure is so we're now on emergencies um at the request of the mayor and there are two. The first is fiscal year 2026 local budget emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-210. So moved. Uh I had circulated an amendment nature of a substitute. So moved. Um this is the declaration. Uh let's go with the substitute the ANS first. Is there discussion? If there's no objection, the amendment nature of a substitute will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is accepted. We have the declaration as amended. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor? This is PR26-210 as amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh I move the underlying bill 26-262 I circulated an amendment nature of the substitute. So moved. Give me a second. Uh, I've moved the amendment nature of a substitute. Uh, I want to clarify that the my motion includes all of the amendments. I don't know how many there were to the local budget act that were approved earlier. That would be bill 26-260. So this is the emergency version of that so they can go into effect sooner. >> This one actually there's the supplemental. Okay. So my motion which is to approve the amendment nature of a substitute incorporates all of the amendments that were adopted earlier with regard to the local budget act on the amendment nature of a substitute. Is there discussion hearing? None. If there is no objection, the amendment the nature of a substitute including those amendments earlier adopted is accepted uh without objection. So we have the bill 26-262 as amended. Is there discussion? The vote will be on bill 26-262 as amended. All those fa in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is bill well actually the declaration PR26-211. Fiscal year 2025 revised local budget adjustment emergency declaration resolution 2025 I had circulated an amendment nature of a substitute I'll move that first and if there's no objection it will be accepted this is on the declaration the amendment nature of a substitute for the declaration hearing no objection it is accepted we have the declaration as amended. Is there discussion on the declaration PR26-211 as amended? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Yes. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-263. I had so moved. I had circulated an amendment nature of a substitute. So moved. >> Council member Nidau, I think you have an amendment. >> I do. I am moving this amendment circulated at 3:09 p.m. this afternoon to remove language that rescends $16.5 million from special purpose revenue funds from OCTO and FY2025. This recision is not necessary as it was included erroneously in the supplemental and would put the DCN net program in a severe deficit. The funds come from revenues collected from federal customers to whom DCNET is providing telecom services and are being spent as pass through contracts. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and you had circulated this um this afternoon >> 3:09 p.m. >> At 3:09 p.m. >> If you'd like a hard copy, I have one here. >> Manau, I have a hard. >> Thank you. >> Thank you from the offer. >> Uh, we have the amendment before us. If there's no objection, this will be accepted. It's accepted without objection. That was to the amendment nature of a substitute. Is there further discussion on the amendment nature of a substitute? All those in favor of the amendment nature of a substitute say I. >> I. Are there any opposed? The amen amended amendment in nature for a substitute is approved unanimously. We have the bill bill 26-263 as amended. Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it. The eyes have it unanimously. >> I I know it's very late, but I don't even re I don't know what u NATO's amendment was. >> Well, she explained it. >> Well, I barely heard her. She was speaking like this and I barely heard her. I'm very sorry, but if you just give me something in writing, thank you so much. Maybe I'll be better. Thank you. We're going to turn now to reading and vote on temporary legislation. Uh the first is uh actually if there's no objection, we'll move the two together. Bill 26-336, Volunteer Services. Actually, I'm not sure we can do that. Maybe we can. uh volunteer services clarification temporary amendment act of 2025 and bill 26-334 housing authority resident empowerment temporary amendment act of 2025 the latter includes the amendment nature of a substitute that was approved so the temporary will be the same as the emergency is that clear general counsel I'm moving quickly >> you need So, what's before us right now is the two temporary bills that are listed on page five of the agenda, volunteer services and housing authority resident empowerment. The latter reflects the amendment nature of a substitute that was approved earlier on the emergency. The vote will be on those two bills. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. only I had turned the page. The last measure is the fiscal year 2025 revised budget adjustment temporary act of 2025 bill 26-264. So moved and when this was approved a couple minutes ago there was an amendment nature of a substitute uh and there was an amendment from council member Nadau. There's no objection. Those two amendments are included in my motion. To be clear, what we will be voting on with one vote is bill 26-264 as amended by the amendment nature of a substitute and as amended by council member Nidau's amendment concerning Octo. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. And general counsel, can you record me as no on all budget related votes? >> It's a little late for that. >> No, we have to just like you. >> Thank you. >> It's a little late for that. >> Okay. >> Because those votes have already been >> record me as new on this. >> Okay. This is on the FY25 supplemental. >> This is supplemental. Thank you. Council member Parker, what is your wish? >> I voted no on the BSA. I think I missed the LBA. Uh, and I'm voting and I'm voting no. >> Before us right now is the revised FY25 budget, the supplemental budget. >> No, I understand. That's why I think I missed the LBA. >> Are you voting no on the revised 25 budget? >> Yes. and I would like to be recorded as no on the LBA and I believe I was captured as no on the BSA. >> Uh you can't go back on the vote. >> Understood. We're not doing that but understood. Thank you. >> All right. The uh bill 26-264 is amended is approved. That is going to conclude the business for this meeting. Uh there is a meeting we have to get the notice out for two on August 1st this Friday. Thank everyone for their patience. Uh I did not have a list with me to thank everyone on the staff. But >> chairman >> we we love the budget office. We love our own staffs and we thank all of them. Council member Bonds, you want to >> I I do. Um thank you um chairman and I I mean this um sincerely. This has been somewhat of a grueling but at the same time a very uh adventurous um budget season for us here on the dis and for all of the partners the various offices not just budget and general counsel and secretar's office and those that help us it and the support services but it's really been uh and of course our our security it's been um a very trying time and um I'm very thrilled that the uh wooden doors have withtood um some of the clamoring and what have you. But on a very serious note, um we we're not done yet. We're done with the budget for this season to some degree and then we'll move into the fall. But um my thanks goes out to everyone who's played a meaningful role. It has been tough. I hope that we love each other more. Um and um show it. Yes, ma'am. I do mean that. Um for all of us who are on this dis and you'll grow to understand it. And I can say that as I've said many times as one of the older members of this body that it's it's not easy being an elected official. No matter what people say, um they're your constituents, they're your friends, and they're your enemies. And they all come at you sometimes simultaneously, but you have to weather the storm. And that would be my advice to everyone. So, thank you, chairman. I know it's been tough. I know we pull you apart. Um but you you're made of that. You are made of what is it? Um putty. You know, silly silly putty. You know, you can be and we thank you for that. And that's what we need is a chairman who can do that. So, thank you very much and thanks to the mayor for putting up with us because she thinks that what she sends us is something that we love and are going to adore and follow. But, you know, it's all about negotiations when you're an elected official. And I know that she knows that that's what we do in order to make this process work. So, thank you to everyone who even bothered to give me a moment to say a few words, but thank you. And to my colleagues who may have left the dis, I still love you as you are. Thank you. >> Council member Bonds had the last word. The time is 8:00 p.m. and this meeting's adjourned.