21. [Music] I'm going to order this meeting this is a an additional meeting of the council as a district of Columbia I'm Phil Mendelson chairman of the council today is Tuesday June 13 2023 the time is 11 22 in the morning uh this meeting is being held in room 500 to council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building this is the 10th legislative meeting of council period 25. uh this meeting is being uh what we call hybrid and that there are several members who are participating virtually uh there's I want to say one order of business that's not technically correct and that is dealing with the final reading on the budget support Act and the reason why it's not technically correct is because not only do we have the budget support act but we also have the emergency version of the bill as well that's so that it can be effective right away as soon as the mayor signs it uh we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence if we could have silence in the chamber as well as those who are participating virtually foreign secretary would you please call the roll housewarmed by Adeline here councilmember bonds here councilmember Freeman yeah councilmember Gray yeah councilmember Henderson here let's remember Lewis George here let's remember McDuffie chairman mendelsohn president that's one minute down here Parker here councilmember Pinto councilmember Pinto councilmember Robert White present councilmember Treyon White councilmember Treyon White Mr chairmania thank you Madam Secretary uh we have um only a non-consens agenda and the uh first item is final reading and vote on Bill 25-202 entitled the fiscal year 2024 budget support Act of 2023. uh this bill was approved at first reading on May 16th and I appreciate the members of patients that rather than are bringing it up last week that we took additional time to perfect amendments that had been suggested by a number of members and all that's reflected in Amendment nature of a substitute that I circulated yesterday morning I circulated together with a six-page memo that explained most of the changes that are in the amendment nature of a substitute compared to the bill is adopted on first reading uh I didn't really for today highlight the uh significant changes between the first reading in ghost version and the amendment nature of a substitute um let me just say that uh besides the memo that what we tried to do was to get comments from members uh make some refinements based on comments from Members there are some additional subtitles that were not in the first reading I'm thinking for example uh the proposal from council member uh Louis George with regard to leftover money in the DCPS budget that will be spent first before the fy24 advance into FY 23 that's just one example of a new subtitle although that was adopted language similar to that was adopted as part of the local budget Act in our vote last week I'm going to move the amendment nature of a substitute and rather than having a vote on it at this time I'm going to um entertain amendments to the amendment nature of a substitute the First Amendment would be what I circulated yesterday which um concerns the Housing Authority Rehabilitation and maintenance fund which is uh actually reflected in the capital budget and therefore the amendment corrects where the funds will be deposited beginning in FY 2028 um instead of being in an operating fund uh it will be in the capital project where they're already budgeted as part of the Capital Improvements plan your memory was circulated yesterday I moved the amendment is there discussion on the amendment uh by a Voice vote all those in favor of the amendment say aye aye are there any no votes cinnamon please equal Mr President are you voting present on the amendment or are you being trying to catch up to where we are okay uh the amendment is approved unanimously with council member crayon white being recorded as present uh Madam Secretary as I sit around the days I see both council members pinto and uh Tran white present thank you Mr chairman um so the amendment is that amendment has approved unanimously uh the next Amendment uh councilmember Robert White thank you Mr chairman uh I really appreciate the work that you and councilmember McDuffie have done so far to improve the housing in downtown proposal to ensure the district is getting the outcomes we want to see downtown the proposal has passed and first reading would provide developers with a 20-year tax abatement a 10-year exemption from the uh from topa and removal of per source for both the Development and Construction phase of office to residential conversions downtown this would result in significant savings for developers in return the district would gain affordable housing units to help Revitalize downtown however in the past we have not always centered equity in times of financial hardship and the result has been increased displacement during recovery we need to learn from these mistakes as we address the problems of today and envision the future of the city that we want we all agree that affordable housing is critical to the future of our city my Amendment aims to increase affordable housing without reducing the viability of the overall package of incentives assessing the program's Effectiveness and viability depends on reducing the costs and risk to those who take projects down take on projects downtown expensive construction and Rising insurance rates have limited interest in converting downtown commercial properties to residential ones therefore we're offering incentives to mitigate these challenges maintaining a delicate balance between incentives and affordability adjustments is what my amendment has achieved to make a conversion project viable a yield on cost of 5.8 percent to six percent is needed my Amendment proposes a 5.8 percent yield on cost additionally I consulted an expert who worked on the initial proposal who confirmed that my Amendment works under my Amendment the current requirement that 15 of new units be affordable at 80 percent of the median family income will increase to 18 at 80 percent mfi this amendment on average will include roughly six additional affordable housing units per new residential building downtown while the percentages seem small the impact will be meaningful for families who have been living and working in the district for generations and can no longer afford to stay here we must Revitalize downtown and we must do it with their needs in mind it is crucial to note that the housing tax abatement alone is not enough to achieve an inclusive vision for downtown there is more work to be done and I'm committed to working with residents to understand their desires for downtown and to help make those aspirations a reality we must ensure that downtown remains accessible in particular to Residents who have been pushed out in the past this amendment represents a small but meaningful step forward my I move my amendment number one to the BSA again this will increase a bit the amount of affordable housing downtown without impacting the viability of this very important program to transform our downtown so I move amendment number one at this time thank you chairman uh thank you councilmember white um you said amendment number one which is what it's captioned is if you have subsequent amendments I think this is the only one from you one of one one of one is there discussion on the amendment yes Mr chairman councilmember McDuffie uh thank you Mr chairman uh I want to take this opportunity to to this way on this amendment a little bit uh both Robert White and I had a chance to review the affordable housing requirements for this housing in downtown tax abatement program in our respective committees and I want to acknowledge uh the work of my team on this as well as work of council member White's team uh on getting us to where we are today uh acknowledging where we are today I'm I'm weary of making um last minute changes to what I think is a very delicate balance that we struck after very careful analysis uh within our committees uh in in our committee on business and economic development we reviewed several pro forma statements for projects based on the options at the two affordability levels both sixty percent medium family income as well as 80 mfi offered by the tax abatement and based on reviewing the financial projects we found an opportunity to better balance those two levels so that one option was not substance substantially more advantages to developers than the other option in other words by moving from eight percent of units at sixty percent mfi as proposed by the mayor uh to ten percent of units at 60 mfi in the BSA we ensured that the option was not significantly more favorable than the other option at 15 of units at 80 percent mfi I noticed a lot of numbers but I think it Bears really putting this on the record I think this amendment while well-meaning again disturbs that balance based on our evaluation of the financial models it's not going to lead to more affordable housing units and I think that's the bottom line uh and instead almost certainly will lead to developers choosing the 10 of units at 60 mfi option or simply foregoing a project or the abatement in total that would lead to a different policy outcome for affordable units in downtown than the more balanced options that we pass on first reading in fact I think it's going to lead to fewer affordable units just at a different mfi level and I want you all to be mindful of that so I would ask you all to to think about the two versions think about this amendment and as I mentioned that first reading the office to residential conversion projects are challenging Endeavors that already face numerous headwinds will need to carefully Monitor and potentially make additional adjustments to this tax abatement program in the coming months and years as we see projects enrolled um I want you all to remember this year's BSA is already modifying the tax abatement program we passed initially last year another minute Mr chairman without objection and a final point I want to make is for you all to understand that not a single project applying for the abatement with the requirements that we set forth last year so what we did in committee and on first reading was attempt to incent the activity that I think we all want I think this amendment actually undermines the incentive so I would ask for patients as the district navigates an unprecedented Redevelopment of our downtown and not to disturb the delicate balance we're seeking to achieve and I think we have achieved already uh without this amendment so again don't want to be confrontational I think councilman white has put a lot of work into this but I think it's going to actually undermine the district's efforts to incent the type of activity that I think we all want thank you Mr thank you councilmember McDuffie if I could ask two questions of you councilmember McDuffie does three percent make all that much difference and the second question is if we did get it wrong by increasing it from 15 to 18 uh why can't we fix it later why isn't it good enough to fix it later so uh you know when I asked the the people who know this and the people who are in the industry three percent does make uh a lot of difference they they will tell you and I think uh maybe councilmember white I think he acknowledged this in the statement they will tell you that it just changes the numbers and so technically it's not that it doesn't work but if the design is for the government to incent activity that we want then we should not add um language that makes the incentive less attractive right and you may hear a little bit of this on the next amendment that comes up um we want people to convert vacant Office Buildings to residential that we can have a better mix downtown and so it does make all that that much difference uh according to the people who who are experts in the space and and what we don't want is to have two incentives or two levels and all they do is focus on one and we don't have balance to the affordability that we're able to track and then the result is also we have few affordable units the second piece is sure we can fix it next year but what we find ourselves next year chairman same nobody's applied for this incentive uh and the same name we sit here a year after initially proposing this and nobody's applied I'm going to reclaim my time councilmember Pinto thank you Mr chairman and I want to thank councilmember McDuffie and councilmember Whiteville for working hard on getting this balance right I think a couple of things that you both said have been interesting as I think about breaking back downtown and making it truly resilient I worry when I speak to people in the private sector who are interested in pursuing these types of projects and the options they have available to them in other states and in other regions many of those other states who have tried similar models that have had more and more layered on when it comes to affordability have had almost zero success those states that have had just incentives without a lot of conditions attached have had a lot of success so I think that this is how we have it currently without the amendment is an important demonstration of our values in the district that we want to incentivize this but we want to make sure that affordability is part of the equation but if we go too far in trying to pursue our other really important strategy of having more affordable housing in DC I really worry we're going to lose out on people pursuing these projects at all um and you know the other thing councilman Robert White said about displacement I think you've made a lot of really good points about this important issue over the last several months about as we're looking to bring new residents to DC and bringing more vibrancy to downtown we need to be thoughtful about how we do that and inclusive with how we do that um and these buildings that we're talking about are not where people are living currently there are vacant office buildings that are being unutilized or underutilized where people are not renewing their leases so bringing people at all is going to be really helpful to the vibrancy and the safety of downtown and in our continued effort to build more Supply and build more affordable housing so I would you know concur with council member McDuffie that these numbers were not you know thought up in thin air they were worked out with dozens and dozens of people to think about how far we could go with achieving our affordability goals in the district while still making these projects viable and so I also worry about these kind of last-minute amendments here and I guess let me ask one question if I may to council bar white which is for the three percent I know some of these um per sets have changed over the last several months but kind of what is your thinking about that three percent Edition not undermining the viability of these projects uh great question council member Pento um there I wanted to get as much affordable housing as as we can uh downtown uh that has to be a priority and so I work with some of the people who worked in the original proposal to understand where we had a little bit of cushion that we could still achieve uh the yield on costs that they were Desiring this amendment stays within the yield on costs uh that they are hoping to achieve so it does not I think disincentivize anybody but it does maximize the amount of affordable housing we can get without ignoring the fact that folks expect to make a certain amount of profit so there there's a lot of numbers floating around and I want to ask for a couple more um this idea of yield on cost and the and the balance uh I think you said that the yield on costs that folks are looking for is between 5.8 and 6 and this legislation lands at 5.8 but is there a difference between the scenarios what's the yield on costs at the 10 60 Ami and the yield on cost at the 18 80 Ami how did that does that compare to well the yield on costed 18 that or 15 at 80 Ami can do you have those numbers uh ten percent as uh at sixty percent Ami is I believe 5.8 yeah yield don't cost and the 18 at 80 Ami is also 5.8 I guess this question is councilmember white are we waiting for you to answer a question I'm not sure I have an answer five uh 10 at 60 am I and what I'm proposing um uh 18 at 80 Ami both of them are 5.8 it looks like uh councilmember McDuffie Also may have an answer to this question and if you're asking him yes I am asking him thank you so I'm gonna I'm gonna I want to say this in a way that just everybody understands this is not I I fully appreciate where councilman White is coming from and we've talked about this right here's a challenge if if what he's positive is that if you do 10 at 60 as was already proposed or you do what's in this amendment 18 affordable uh uh uh 18 of units at 80 Ami mfi you have the same yield what they originally wanted was six percent so so both of them are less than what the market wants in terms of a return so if you're getting the same return on both of those why would you do 18 of your units if you only need to do 60 I'm outside 10 percent and if you choose it to do uh 10 it's fewer of the units that you get out of the project so ultimately the districts gets fewer units right you get the same return that you get on 18 of your units why would you choose to do more uh Mr chairman one one more minute for one more question to Mr McDuffie well the answer's got to be within the minute okay so so uh councilmember McDuffie what was the return on the uh 15 at 80 Ami are you saying that that was a six percent return that that's it was yeah it was about six percent yeah so so the effect of it is that the old system incentivized 80 Ami this system actually which would result in more units um this system levels it and may result in fewer overall units but more 60s thank you thank you councilmember council member uh Treyon Mike yes thank you um and trying to understand this thank you uh councilman wife for clarity um about the other my question was about other levels of affordability and I did see six percent Ami um and that was 10 and I guess based on my preliminary calculations that's a household earning about eighty six thousand dollars a year and looking at the 80 Ami uh which would be at 18 is household earning households earning about 115 000 a year and that's the household I guess calculated average of four people uh I wanted to know because based on my conversation I do want I do want to say that I'm in favor of making sure our downtown is vibrant and it's it's uh being restored so we can get uh those taxes from there and continue our economic growth but I did hear a lot of uh conversation about those building is being non-convertible um and if someone can speak to that uh and I guess they're speaking to the office buildings trying to be converted into apartments and someone simply doesn't you know with the windows and bedrooms and bathrooms it's hard to convert those units to Apartments I don't know how far we got in that conversation and how we arrived here um that that's right council member uh White some some buildings as they exist now can't be converted uh because of the uh the size or distance between floor plates as you mentioned because of um the the number of Windows where they land on the Block so some buildings can be converted uh some would have to be demolished and reconstructed uh but there are many ways to sort of get at creating housing downtown many buildings that can be converted and we want to start that process so you are correct not all um commercial buildings can be converted to residential has there been analysis done about how many buildings will be converted uh what's the estimated revenues of these buildings uh how just just kind of a projection of what what does this uh Bill and Amendment do do for DC in the long relates to the taxes um without converting buildings the vacancy rate right now in commercial buildings is so high that it is creating a significant lag is going to continue the vacancy rate is going to continue because as leases expire folks aren't going to renew those leases so those buildings are in a lot of trouble if we don't make a turn downtown to start to get these buildings into productive use then that means that money is not coming into our tax rolls that vacant buildings are going to cause I think more vacant buildings and eventually a very dead downtown God just with the I got a few seconds left I just want to make sure that what we're doing is going heading in the right direction long term and I don't know if I heard that yet I think you have something Mr if I could just without it so I agree with councilmember Robert White just said I will say based on the numbers as we looked at them and the conversations that we've had with people in the development Community uh and I think the expectation is you get two to three of these maybe per year uh and that's if you can maximize the full abatement uh the reason I mentioned in my earlier statement that we haven't had one yet notwithstanding the fact that the abatement has been on the books for over a year uh it lends itself to the need to tweak it to try to do to better incent the activity we thought we achieved that balance within the committee and the first vote on the BSA and despite I think a well-meaning attempt by a council member Robert White to tweak it a little further I think it undermines the balance that we had struck either way you really can't predict it you know um and and frankly I'll tell you one of the places I'm looking at is Cavalry uh in Canada of all places because they seem to have put money in in their budget to really incent these conversions in fact they're getting three bedroom units uh they're getting a higher percentages of affordable and guess what to councilmember Pinto's earlier point they're not even mandating affordability levels or unit levels the market is so attractive to developers that the the municipality gets to select the projects at once without mandating the requirements and so um I think we're both attempting to to strike the appropriate balance and you know either way I think we're trying to move things forward uh councilmember Tran white but I think what we've already done in the BSA better strikes the balance I think it councilmember councilmember bonds thank you chairman um I just wanted to I believe that my question has been answered I was concerned with the number of units that we can anticipate would um be realized through the this amendment of councilmember white and hearing that it may be two or three um additional units um causes me to pause because we are attempting to re- redesign downtown because we know it's no longer functioning as our commercial Corps and in doing so um it just causes me to pause and think that what is our goal is our goal to redevelop downtown in a manner where we will have yield of of Revenue through our taxes or is it that we're saying Um this can begin to be the place where we um put more affordability and and actually realize that so the question for me is are our taxes and our tax base and um I thank you very much both of you for your your comments you and Mr McDuffie um for providing some insight into this thank you very much chairman thank you councilmember Provence if uh there's no one else on first round yeah that's what we're going to do which is to be recognized Mr chairman chairman oh thank you come from renado thank you chairman um sorry to have to be joining virtually today but I have a sick kiddo at home um you know I I came today prepared to vote present on this amendment mainly because I disagree with the underlying aspect of the BSA and thus also with uh the amendment itself um because both of them are pertaining to a part of the mayor's incentive that also exempts the downtown from toppa however after this discussion today I feel compelled to support the amendment um I'm I'm somewhat Disturbed by the debate over whether three percent will tank the whole the whole downtown um I think it's great that we're creating a tax abatement I think there's a lot more we need to do to incent building housing downtown all of which is outlined in a report commissioned by this Council and and this housing chairman um and it's pretty clear and a lot of which we're not even touching with any of this so I am going to support this amendment today um and I will get into more later about the top of peace with my Amendment but I just wanted to put that on the record today thank you Mr chairman oh thank you uh on second round uh councilmember Robert White uh thank you Mr chairman um so this is a time where we have to think very critically as council member trayon white asks uh where we are going what's the what's the future of of downtown I think most most people acknowledge that downtown will not be five years from now what it was five years ago if we don't shift and change the uses of downtown it it will die and with it goes the revenues of our city so we have a clear and very important goal uh but this isn't the first time we've been in financial trouble as a city about 20 years ago we were in significant financial trouble and the city set itself on a path to get increased revenues but at the I think as at the expense of many existing residents so as we look again to stabilize our economy in the long term we have to at every Point ask how we can we maximize the opportunities for our residents that's what I'm seeking to do here there are 11 stalled building conversions downtown my understanding from the same folks who helped write the the mayor's uh proposal is that those properties need about a 5.4 percent yield on investment to move forward five point four percent the yield uh on on cost in my amendment is 5.8 percent um this to council member bonds's Point uh we are creating not three but closer to about six affordable units per building additional with this amendment that adds up over time we need every single unit we can get so if this amendment increases the amount of affordable housing without reducing the viability of downtown I think it's Our obligation to go in that direction I'm not going to do anything to risk uh the the future of downtown down but I'm going to do everything I can to maximize a return on the people who are here who are hoping that we're going to do everything we can um and so again the yield on cost and my amendment is higher than the yield on cost needed to unstick the stall conversion project downtown now so I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment thank you chairman uh thank you councilmember white councilmember treeon white yes chairman um to councilmember White's Point again I guess my continuous concern is about well where were these uh residents come from was the demographics of the residents and we're talking about affordability affordable for who um DC I remember just about six years six seven years ago DC uh wanted to create a DC to a million people it was all on the news it was at every press conference and we've seen actually a decrease in population um Navy yard is one of the communities added to Ward eight and I look at all the high-rises in their community and they are still not to capacity and so when we talk about additional housing I'm not sure you know and people earning between 80 and 120 000 a year where this population is going to come from um that's just my two cents on it I don't have enough information about DC's full vision to restore downtown and I want to be supportive but I have more questions than answers so I want to add that to the comments thank you Jim thank you councilmember if there's no further discussion could I just say Mr secondary on councilmember um McDuffie you know I I want to be clear I think in his effort to move this amendment just as in my effort as chair of the community of business Economic Development to tweak this within the committee uh both councilman Robert White and myself intend to try to address uh the challenges that we face with housing affordability in the Disco Columbia it is one of the most critical issues to maintaining the beautiful diversity that exists in the District of Columbia today um having been there doing those tough times having grown up in fact in the midst of uh control board and all the challenges um fortunate enough to be in a family that was able to stay here when so many families were displaced um the goal is to maximize the district's incentives to create as much affordable housing as possible I think this is a situation where it's really a tough call um and nobody can predict how many of these things are going to work my conversations with my team team and the experts in the field suggest that the way that we had structured this coming out of committee in the first vote of the BSA was the best way to maximize uh the incentive and I think this amendment just tweaks it a bit uh in the wrong direction but I think I think it's just yet another attempt to try to address the serious housing challenges that we're facing and so this is one of those situations I think folks just need to you know to vote their conscience and and I appreciate what folks will land on this I can't support it for the reasons that I've articulated because I think ultimately it will not yield more affordable housing as an incentive to the community that we want to make these conversions I think it will yield less ah thank you all right second round councilmember Freeman thank you very much Mr chairman I I have to say that I'm really grappling with this and I think it is about less than it somehow appears because the difference I mean on the one hand it takes away two tenths of a percentage in return on costs on one option and how big is that I I think will that have the effect of lowering investment or driving investment to the other option um that the 60 Ami option and I think that's where you get into it where it and you had said that folks are looking for 5.8 to 6 5.8 is the lowest six is the high end of that could that have a little bit more of an incentive to do more projects Maybe and then what will happen will we have fewer 80 Ami units under this scenario but more 60 but overall fewer and and that's both of those are bands for which there's high demand so I'm not sure that the world ends either way this comes out um for me I my attack in this budget process has been to try to support as aggressively as possible the return of downtown so my inclination is going to vote to be to vote against this amendment but I can't say it's you know I think I see it as a very close call thank you uh there's no further discussion uh the vote is on the amendment by councilmember Robert White all those in favor of the amendment say aye aye aye um uh roll Call's been requested Madam Secretary would you call the roll councilman Adele hi councilman Bernardo votes yes remember Parker aye councilmember Parker votes yes councilmember Pinto aye that's one more pencil votes yes councilmember Robert White yes that's under Robert White votes yes councilmember Treyon White yes as one matrion white votes yes comes remember Allen yes remember Alan votes yes councilmember bonds yes Transformer bonds folks yes remember Freeman no councilmember Freeman votes No councilmember Gray yes comes from the gray votes yes customer Henderson yes remember Henderson votes yes comes from Believers George yes comes from Louis George votes yes that's wrong with my Duffy no that's one by McDuffie votes no chairman Mendelson yes chairman mendelsohn votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two no's uh the amendment is approved uh councilmember Parker I believe you have two amendments yes um technically three but two are related one is to the emergency act um the First Amendment uh deals with um the commission or in school safety uh that we're creating and I want to thank you Mr chairman as well as the deputy mayor uh for working with me um on this I'm offering a friendly and simple amendment that preserves a key component of subtitle T of title four originally offered my amendment clarifies that one of the duties of that school safety commission that the deputy mayor for Education will help lead um and produce a report on the responsibilities could be assumed by a safety staff who are unarmed and who are neither law enforcement or security guards if we fail to incorporate this amendment there is a chance that the committee may not realize its potential to improve school safety in the district because it will be in Jeopardy of rehashing some of the same arguments around sros um rather than exploring other alternative options and so just to clarify it uh this amendment makes clear in the language of the BSA that for that school safety commission um the task force will be exploring options for non-law enforcement non-armed individuals uh they will work in concert with sros and school leadership teams on school safety teams uh but the key Point here is to emphasize an alternative to a law enforcement and without clarifying that language there is a chance um that what comes out of a commission may be a bit muddied I did work with the chairman on this um and and I am offering that language for the record and I I shared this previously um title for subtitle t uh and paragraph 4192 is amended to read as follows quote recommended Staffing configurations of a school safety team including descriptions of possible responsibilities and hiring qualifications of school safety employees parentheses who are not law enforcement or security guards in parentheses Mr chairman that is the First Amendment and I would just one clarifying note I am also planning to offer an identical Amendment to the same subtitle in the budget support emergency Act oh thank you councilman Parker we have the amendment before us it's to line 2055. there are a lot of lines in this pill um and to be clear it's only that one paragraph that has the amendment uh councilmember Parker did discuss this with me I have no objection to it is there discussion on the amendment uh by Voice vote all those in favor say aye aye aye are there any opposed uh the amendment is approved unanimously a councilmember you had a second amendment sounds like we're talking about the Constitution you had an amendment number two which I think you called amendment number three it isn't uh amendment number two um just quick process question do I need no okay you circulated it this morning uh no you circulated circulated last night last night and then flight change uh this morning to clarify what you're amending yeah so uh I am offering a second amendment uh that will remove the 50 cap for the commission on the Arts and Humanities grants for organizations were operating budgets of 150 000 or less uh I know there has been a bit of a discussion around this um um and I am persuaded that such a cap uh would disproportionately and negatively impact small organizations uh startup organizations who deserve Equitable access to Government funding organizations like the capoeira spot or Rhode Island Avenue and Ward 5 benefit from grant funding from the commission on arts and and this amendment will now ensure that there are no caps on the support they and many other organizations across the city can receive as long as their budgets are 115 000 or less our close leadership of the commission on arts and chairman mendelsohn to address ballot Equity concerns raised about the cap for smaller groups while ensuring we still put the onus on organizations to develop strong fiscal responsibility what's more by maintaining the cap for organizations with larger budgets and by larger we're proposing those are groups with budgets of 115 000 and more we make sure that a finite amount of funding for Grants through the commission on Arts can spur creativity for more groups throughout the city while this amendment addresses one concern raised by the commissioner Arts there are others namely the confirmation of new members to the commission uh s has been discussed the delay a confirmation is due to the executive failing to cure errors in the nominating petition sent to the council and it is my understanding by the chairman that those errors have finally been fixed and the council will take up those nominations soon but as far as this amendment it would remove the 50 cap for Grants offered by the commissioner arts for organizations with a budget of less than a hundred and fifteen thousand dollars I want to thank councilmember Freeman uh for joining me in introducing this amendment and again thanks uh to Chairman Mendelson for working with me uh to meet the valid Equity concerns raised by the commission Arts thank you uh thank you councilman Parker councilmember Freeman yeah um I I want to thank councilman Parker for his leadership on this uh work and and chairman Mendelson for for your willingness to work on this and come to what I think is a really positive solution uh so that we can move forward and support this very important institution the commission on Arts and Humanities uh also Echo the thanks for the work that you chairman Mendelson have been doing to push forward on these appointments uh let's have a great year for the commission on Arts and Humanities and thank you for your leadership on this uh thank you councilmember Freeman uh before I recognize another council member let me say this um so councilmember Parker discussed this with me yesterday and uh I indicated that I'll accept this amendment I do believe fundamentally that non-profit organizations should not get grants that are greater than 50 percent of their budget I think this is a best practice I think many others believe this is a best practice when I say others I mean advisors to non-profits it protects for long-term sustainability because if they rely too much on one grantee or excuse me grantor for their budget uh then they are very vulnerable to anything that might happen regarding that One Singular Grand Tour uh and also I think the size of the grant relative to the budget reflexive capacity to operate nonetheless has customer Parker indicated I do see this as a compromise and uh so I will be supporting this councilmember Henderson um thank you Mr chairman I I can appreciate your comments although I um when this issue came up I was curious in terms of why we had a cap all together um we pay the staff over the Arts and Humanities commission a lot of money uh to mine um the bank if you will and um while there have been challenges in the past with the commission I did feel as though um they are the experts to be able to appropriately determine whether or not someone is um receiving too much or in a financial disarray that being said I did want to ask just a clarifying question to councilmember Parker in terms of um why 115 000 was selected as opposed to say a hundred and fifty thousand great question and so uh in discussion with uh leadership at the commission or Arts they had proposed 250 000 um and in an effort to strike a compromise I did have access to a list or a roster of the grants that they provided and so it was rough math of trying to average where the middle line was um and there were some organizations frankly that um we saw on the list that we thought uh should be uh included within that number I think if we were to go to the 150 000 uh mark um that's doable if you want to offer a friendly Amendment uh but uh 115 000 was uh just our effort to uh do the rough math given the roster of grants that were provided okay I haven't looked at the list so I'm not going to offer an amendment just to sort of we can share it with you to pick a number yeah I was curious in terms of how you got to 115. um thank you thank you member Parker is referring to um with the 115 it's roughly if I remember correctly about two-thirds of the grantees this year would still be eligible for Grants greater than 50 percent of their budget thank you Mr chairman if I could just to uh one point that you made uh I do believe uh this amendment strikes the balance of fiscal responsibility uh but also I think it's important for us to realize that not all organizations have Equitable access to funding through traditional means and so by removing this cap on smaller groups those with budgets less than 115 000 even if the grant exceeds 50 of their budget I I don't think it's fair to consider that poor money management or a lack of fiscal responsibility because we know there are some inequities in funding access for groups namely those led by black and brown folk namely those uh connected to Natives and art forms I shared the example uh yesterday with the chairman that I have a friend who's an artist and maybe they could uh start an organization with a budget of about five thousand dollars and it will be great for them to have seed funding to get off the ground to be able to Spur and engage in thoughtful art forms throughout the city so I'm really happy with the balance we struck and really again thank you for your partnership on this chairman oh thank you councilmember McDuffie thank you Mr chairman I want to thank um the both Mr Parker and you for for working this out uh and getting to a place that I could support I I will caution folks about this notion that smaller organizations shouldn't be so dependent on grants and suggests that we think about this there are a lot of organizations that are large by today's standards that once upon a time where small organizations that had government support these types of Grants are frequently leveraged to build capacity and that's precisely what we'd like to see happen with our Arts Community particularly when it comes to organizations run by black and brown resonance and are really utilizing their resources to support black and brown artists and so I think the work on the Arts commission is absolutely critical I'm happy that we have some new leadership there and Aaron Myers I really appreciate all the work that the chair of the board Reggie Van Lee has been doing and I appreciate the advocacy of people who are willing to say things that frequently are unpopular unlike Ron Moulton like core Masters Barry and and Natalie Hopkinson um in order to make sure that people in our position are informed about what's happening on the ground uh there are a lot of small organizations that with the support of the government one day hopefully will be larger Arts organizations and I think today's vote is precisely the type of vote that we need in order to continue to support those types of organizations because they are supporting the people and communities that for a long time have been marginalized so I look forward to supporting this amendment I appreciate you all working this out thank you councilmember councilmember Tran White oh thank you chairman uh for acknowledging me I want to give comment to this um I have a lot of mixed thoughts as relates to to this because uh as a former uh executive record of a non-profit who received uh monies from the Oxford Humanities commission it was very hard for me uh partly because our Grassroots organization I didn't have a lot of rich friends I didn't have uh access to prolific grant writers and so in the conversation early on how he got here was trying to create Equity as it relates to uh organizations who are smaller especially black and brown organizations in DC and east of the river organizations in DC uh historically we know that there has been money spent over the years uh for a lot of the larger predominantly white wealthy organizations who can use that money as leverage to then raise more money uh through donors and through uh philanthropic efforts um uh I'm concerned about the cap uh because the cap uh is a way to exclude people who don't have access to Capital and I think that grants uh is a way that the government supports local non-profit organizations do great work in the community um and I was excited to go to uh Martin Luther King library last year the commission's board meeting to learn how some of the money have been distributed to some of the smaller organizations uh only to come back now and to figure to try to hear that we're trying to restrain some of that being done we know that a lot of these large organizations are conglomerates when it comes to money they receive I remember doing a Jack Evans error uh all the money that's been funded to you know the Lincoln Theater the Ford Theater um the Kennedy Center and we never had a problem but now it seems like we're giving money to smaller organizations we're talking about a cat and so uh you know I want to thank councilman Parker for trying to create a healthy compromise with the concerns to me that now we had this conversation talking about pulling money back from organizations don't have money and we've never had this conversation before we always as soon historically got millions and millions of dollars over over the years from the government we never talked about pulling back and so um this is where we are with this uh is my hope that we can give out more money to organizations through doing great work in the community especially those East Anacostia River without creating these stipulations because they simply need it they can't afford grant writers and staff to be efficient on programming without additional support and help uh thank you Jim thank you councilmember white councilmember Lewis George uh thank you chairman I want to thank my colleague uh councilmember Zachary Parker for his work on this um investing in arts and creativity should not be limited by who can and can't afford good fundraisers and we know because of pervasive uh and systemic racism black communities have less disposable income to invest in things like the Arts the work of the art commission is so important and critical and I think this amendment preserves Equitable granting opportunities by adjusting this cap and it allows the district to expand opportunities for small organizations and startups to secure funding with long-term with the long-term goal of these organizations becoming self-sustaining I think this is critical work I am grateful for both the leadership of the commission past and present and I look forward to seeing more District residents more DC natives more black and brown artists and organizations uplifted as we move forward in this direction and so I will be yes and I'm in full support of the work that we're going to do moving forward to make sure that we are supporting our artists in the district of all backgrounds um who continue to do critical work for us here in the District of Columbia thank you because remember Vons thank you chairman thank you chairman um I just wanted to add my voice of comment um to this important um determination that we apparently have made this compromise and I think it's certainly moves Us in the right direction um and I think we are addressing the issue of equity in our community um many of the um uh long-standing arts groups in the city they got their start at some point and they did it with a generous support from our government and so to read in the subtitle for the budget support act that this was an opportunity to focus on downsizing the amount of remittance to small and perhaps startup organizations and at the same time stipulate well we have to continue to give to the larger more prominent organizations didn't didn't fit well for me and so today we are moving in the right direction we are saying that Equity is a condition that we want to see uh universally throughout the district's utilization of its revenue and so I'm I'm excited and I'm happy and I think that our community will grow from this and will be successful from us so thank you for the compromise and thank you um councilmember Parker especially and of course chairman Mendelson for reaching this conclusion thank you thank you councilman councilmember Pinto thanks very much chairman mendelsohn and thank you councilmember Parker and councilmember Freeman for introducing this measure um I think many of our colleagues have made really helpful and important points today about the equity needs in our Arts community and I appreciate the Point councilman Trey on white just made about funding questions that sometimes aren't provided for larger organizations that are provided for for smaller ones I'm going to support this bill today I do just want to make the point though that I think it's important that we support all of our Arts organizations there are a lot of benefits of providing seed funding as councilor Parker talked about and making sure that we are empowering our artists and institutions that may be smaller to scale up and I think it's also important to support some of our larger institutions that have really been instrumental in bringing people to the District of Columbia in uh generating jobs for more artists across the city in generating training opportunities for young people and artists from all eight Wards um in getting people to come to the city to see a show that then may Inspire them to use our transportation system go to a restaurant um support other small businesses and so I think both are very important parts of the equation here that I hope the commission can continue to focus on both of those important goals thank you thank you councilmember Pinto councilmember Robert White uh thank you Mr chairman I want to uh thank my colleagues councilmember Parker and frumin uh and you chairman for working on this important Amendment um I'm mostly associating myself with comments of my colleagues at this point but I I think it is so important that smaller Arts organizations have the opportunity to get off the ground which can take some years and for those who come from communities with less access to Capital it can it can be even harder than than for some other folks but these smaller organizations it over time become feeders for larger institutions like the Kennedy Center and Woolly Mammoth and the Shakespeare theater for people who find their entry point into the Arts through these smaller organizations we want them to exist and to be able to grow and I think this amendment creates more of an opportunity for that to happen and therefore creates a richer City and a richer Arts community so I appreciate my colleagues working on this amendment and I look forward to supporting it thank you we have the amendment before um publicly acknowledge I think I was I was listing names of people who uh were responsible for getting to this point but I neglected to mention uh my ward 3 colleague uh Matt Freeman someone to do that publicly and knowledge which I think is a very important uh work on this as well uh especially given uh the war that he represents and I appreciate two Ward members coming together to to put us to this point today so thank you thank you you have the amendment before us all those in favor of the amendment say aye aye aye opposed uh the eyes have it unanimously uh councilmember Parker you had two amendments that was your second uh next uh councilmember Nadeau you had an amendment thank you chairman I'm introducing um my amendment number one to be 24-202 the fiscal year 2024 budget support Act of 2023. this amendment eliminates the 10-year exemption from the tenant opportunity to purchase act for properties granted a tax abatement for housing downtown I understand the reasoning behind the exemption this is an extraordinary time we need to do everything we can to encourage more housing downtown downtown [Music] to revive the tax base there and review but everything we can includes more than simply a topa exemption there are policies and actions we can pursue to facilitate growth downtown before we start poking holes in what I believe to be a sacrosanct right that has been established in DC code and in practice for something to be a right it cannot be selectively applied when it is convenient when we create an exemption here we open the door to an exemption there and another one and another one this exemption from topa is a line that once across cannot be undone topa has existed since 1980 and despite amendments over the years has remained resilient as a Bedrock component of tenant rights in the district as well as one of the most impactful means of establishing sustainable and affordable housing opportunities for residents who may not have been able to access them for some Tope is their white whale they've been looking for a way to get past it for ages a moment of weakness presented by the situation downtown is the best opportunity they've had to punch a hole in that wall before we've even passed the BSA we've been hearing proposals for how other projects can be exempt from toppa too if they pay into a certain fund provide a certain amount of affordability Etc I don't think it's being overly dramatic to say that if we pass this now toppa as a tenant right is more or less done for as far as investing in new housing downtown it'll continue to happen and there is more we can do to facilitate that we can drive housing production with changes to parking minimums zoning reform commercial vacancy consolidation and subsidies to name a few policies and actions named by the office to affordable housing task force report funded by council member Robert White it's important to note that as we're considering this first breach in the topa dam other jurisdictions are working to bolster their tenant purchase options San Francisco Berkeley and the City of Boston for example instead of giving Freer Reign to developers focused on markets only these jurisdictions are focusing on the idea of guaranteeing people tools that say stay contribute and be a part of this place rather than creating zones of housing where people will always be priced out and not get a fair shot at ownership where is the path to the middle class without it allowing the erosion of something we've established as a right isn't easily undone exempting certain housing from topa tears a hole in the fabric of tenant rights that can only be widened I hope you'll join me in pressing pause on this dangerous precedent and protecting what we have collectively agreed upon as an important tenant protection and right with that I move the amendment thank you chairman thank you councilor Nadeau a discussion on the amendment Mr chairman comes from McDuffie thank you Ike um once again this morning we're presented with an amendment that uh is well-intentioned um but likely will ruin any chances of our housing in downtown tax abatement actually achieving the results that we seek as a city I believe that toppa is an important part of our tenant rights laws and I think everybody on this body would agree with that I'm looking forward to the comprehensive report on top of that will be produced by cnsud uh to see how we can make toppa even more effective but contrary to what was floating out there when this amendment was initially circulated this and what we've done already in the BSA um it's not a blanket 10 or 15 year exemption from Topo requirements the proposed abatement contains a limited exemption from toppa for the first sale or transfer of a property as long as it happens within 10 years of the project completion what does that mean it means that is allowed a project to attract the necessary Capital to invest in converting the building because those Capital Partners know with certainty that they will be able to get their Capital back out of the project without long delays it is a One-Shot deal after the first sale topa returns is normal and continues throughout the life of the building but in the here now we cannot pretend like topa does not affect decisions on whether to invest in a district in this abatement serves as a very specific purpose we as a government are asking the private sector to do something that we believe is needed in our city which is converting vacant or obsolete Office Buildings in downtown to residential buildings it's really the reverse of most tax abatements we see on the council where someone comes to us with the project seeking help as I mentioned previously not a single project sought to use the tax abatement we passed last year for housing in downtown and it's pretty clear that means the incentive structure currently is off hence the work that we've done in committee and already approved on the first reading of the BSA it's been argued that because toppa is a right exempting certain housing from toppa and I quote from the Amendments rationale tears a hole in the fabric of tenants rights close quote the numerous exceptions exemptions and changes that were in the law from the start and that have been added as recently as a few years ago um I would employ my colleagues to reject this amendment and allow the balanced and reasonable limited top exemption to take effect as is so that we can incent more housing in downtown including affordable housing thank you councilmember further discussion council member Robert White and then Parker uh thank you Mr chairman and I want to thank my colleague council member Nadeau uh for this amendment um I won't be supporting it uh but but that's not an easy decision I want to talk a bit about why uh I think um councilmember and I and all of us on the council want to help tenants as much as possible uh what we're thinking through here uh are the processes um with respect to downtown right right now downtown is dying and if we don't make a turn uh that is going to have significant impacts on our city the resources that we are able to provide to communities and and what our city looks like uh for decades to come in an ideal scenario what I think most of us if not all of us want is housing antopa uh but all scenarios including this one are not ideal and I would say that housing uh is sort of more of a priority than toppa because there is no topa without housing if you talk to Residents about their biggest needs their biggest concerns uh the number one or two on that list for almost everyone you talk to is going to be housing we need more affordable housing the more housing we build downtown the more affordable housing we build downtown so I would say that at this time we have to prioritize housing we have to prioritize affordable housing the issue here with toppa that I don't like but I recognize as a difficult reality is that building housing takes Investments and when people are deciding what they are going to invest in they're looking at risks toppa comes with a significant risk because toppa takes about a year on average it will cost a lot of money so if folks start to say you know what I'm not going to invest in housing I'm going to just put my money in bonds or another investment that I see as more safe then know how housing gets built downtown which means no affordable housing gets built downtown so again this is not an ideal scenario but I do believe that we have got to prioritize housing the other thing I would say about a Tope exemption for the early years of a project is that toppa is an anti-displacement tool right now there aren't people downtown that we fear of displacement we need to create housing so that people have more housing options but there's not a fear in the near term with this exemption of displacement and toppa is at its root an anti-displacement Tool uh so it is difficult to not support this amendment but I won't be supporting it I also do want to recognize for the record that there is a fear that this is the camel's nose in the tent and I think that's a concern that we as accounts have to take very seriously and I don't want my vote on this to indicate um sort of uh a a willingness to create more topa exemptions in the future thank you chairman uh thank you councilmember councilmember Parker thank you Mr chairman I I wrestled with this this one uh for several reasons one I'm not convinced that Tope is working everywhere as intended uh there is one property in particular um that has been caught up in the topra process for several years uh as Things Fall Apart and the clock restarts and then it can significantly delay uh the development of a project and one of the things that inclines me not to support this amendment today is because I do think we have a very restricted exemption as has been discussed uh that this isn't a free-for-all this isn't a giveaway but it is to Spur the development of downtown for all the reasons that have already been discussed I would say as a member of the housing committee I welcome the opportunity uh for hearing on Tope in general as I think we do need to explore uh how Tope is operating not just downtown but across the city uh but again I I appreciate uh councilmember Nadeau's intentions here but I I'm just not persuaded that ensuring that we extend these incentives to bring downtown back will mean the end of Topo across the city and so for those reasons uh I will not be supporting this amendment uh but am a staunch supporter of topa rights to keep District residents in DC thank you thank you uh further on the amendment I believe it's George missions to be recognized Mr chairman uh councilmember Lewis George thank you chairman I guess I want to add my voice um uh an experience to this debate in support of preserving topa rights um I'm just a little worried we're falling for the same okie doke that was we fell for years ago uh when it related to toppa as related to single family residents where people you know said oh we need to do this um and there was a lot of one-off sort of uh ways in which it would be done and then they guaranteed displacement wasn't going to happen and then boom 12 000 more District black District residents were displaced um and so I just I'm grappling with it we're falling for the okie doke again about what investors are are and are not going to do as a result of it um in a given context uh I know the top of her for single-family residence was different but I I am very weary given the history for those who don't know I use topa uh to save my family when we were in when I was in school the owners have rented from years for years and tried to sell the home and we were able to um exert our topa rights and gain access to the negotiating table and make an offer for the house that allowed us to avoid displacement from our community a Miss rapid gentrification I remember that experience and I also remember when the when we made the decision to take away that opportunity uh toppa has given the same opportunity to thousands of others when their homes and apartment buildings are up for sale by promoting home ownership we promote stability and community in the district and for many topocry it's a Level Playing Field against wealthy developers who can pay cash for flip jobs this was my family experience experience so I know how important it is it can be to get that foot in the door and I think whether you're living Uptown in Brightwood park or in new downtown housing I believe all tenants deserve that equal access to opportunity as a homeowner similarly if home ownership is Out Of Reach tenants must still have a say in the future of their property management and must be allowed to assign their topa rights to a new company they believe will serve the best interests of building residents and you know I think we should be clear if developers downtown are no longer interested in operating in the apartments they built it should be tenants who have a first say in the future of their homes I think intensifying downtown housing should not be simply incentivizing real estate transactions for quick profit housing must be for people not profit and when we focus on our people and what is best for them and how we strengthen their stake in the community we will see thriving neighborhoods and if we are serious about revitalizing downtown we need the people who will be living there to be in to be invested respected and empowered and and that is what Tope is all about I think by eliminating Tope rights whether in a time-bound way or not we undercut the residents of the district we incentivize displacement and we create irreversible harm we've been here before we fell for the okie doke and black residents were displaced after we took away topa rights for single-family residents and now people are saying oh our neighborhoods are all identified and my children can't afford homes and well yeah you gave away dopa rights and so I I don't want us to fall for the okie dokie in in this conversation any longer I I think uh you know topa isn't just an anti-deplace displacement tool it's also a tool to allow tenants to eventually buy and own their homes and to empower tenants to address housing conditions and affordability in their building when their building goes up for sale and I I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to protect the rights of tenants and promote home ownership opportunities for families like mine that will soon call Downtown home I don't want us to do the fall for the okie doke again so I'm going to support my colleague in this amendment um uh as as we move forward thank you thank you councilmember there's no further discussion we have the amendment before us all those in favor of the amendment say aye Thurman I'd like to request a roll call please um secretary would you please call the roll that's one of a Parker no councilman Parker votes no councilmember Pinto no council member Pinto votes no house remember Robert White no councilmember Robert White both snow has remember Treyon White no councilman patrion might vote snow councilman Ballin no councilmember Allen votes no councilmember bonds no Transformer bonds vote snow councilmember Freeman no that's one more Freeman votes now councilmember Gray no comes from the gray votes no councilmember Henderson no comes from the Henderson votes now comes from Lewis George yes councilmember Lewis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie no councilman McDuffie votes no chairman Mendelson no chairman Mendelson votes no and councilman Bernadette yes Mr chairman there are two yeses 11 no's thank you ma'am secretary the amendment fails uh the next uh amendment is councilmember Allen thank you Mr chairman as of today in 2023 DC has experienced approximately twice as many deaths on our roadways as this time last year in 2022. generally residents are also frustrated that they're not seeing their City move quickly or urgently enough to prioritize safer streets to protect from dangerous driving these councils actually passed numerous laws to refocus DDOT and efforts to actually achieve the city's Vision zero goals but many of them sit unfunded and unimplemented that's why I was disappointed to see the amended budget sport act still does not include the complete subtitle that the committee on transportation and environment approved that rededicates excess automated traffic enforcement Revenue toward funding Traffic Safety legislation and infrastructure improvements and I say rededicates because this Council already passed a law requiring that money generated by fines for Dangerous driving be reinvested in traffic safety improvements as we know the mayor proposed striking that law in her proposed BSA budget support act and use the ate Revenue to balance the budget while still leaving Key Traffic Safety legislation unfunded at a time when the district is frankly further away from its Vision zero goals than when it started eight years ago one of the most consistent themes the committee heard during our budget oversight hearing for DDOT was the anger and frustration that residents felt in response to the mayor ignoring the law and instead using ate funds to balance the budget folks were eager to see the impact of directing ate Revenue towards Investments that make our streets safer and more accessible now I'll be the first to admit this was a tough budget our decisions had to be made but dedicating ate Revenue to Traffic Safety Investments struck the correct balance in terms of how the district should approach ate Revenue we as a government need to be sensitive to the fact that many people believe that traffic cameras are all about Revenue instead of serving as a mechanism for providing accountability to people whose speed the fear is that if the goal of traffic cameras is to generate Revenue there's little incentive to design our roads in a way that discourages high speeds or change Behavior why because in that view more speeding means more Revenue when the mayor added more than 100 new automated traffic enforcement cameras but then swept away all the new Revenue to balance the budget it underscores the notion that ate enforcement is about the money and not about safety one of the few ways that we can combat this narrative is to create a clear Nexus between on the one hand Revenue raised from dangerous driving and on the other Investments to reduce that dangerous driving that's the balance the council struck two years ago and it's the balance I hope to restore with this amendment we also need a much better understanding and transparency around the district's ate program our committee recommended adding additional language this year requiring the CFO to send us monthly reports on cfo's latest ate Revenue projections the methodology employed to generate those projections the anticipated date by which any excess Revenue would be deposited the division zero fund this is going to allow the council to do rigorous oversight and to push DDOT to make critical investments in our Awards and in our communities when it comes in but we can't make that push if the money is disappearing into the general fund I'm grateful that that language has been preserved in the BSA Mr chairman if I have 60 more seconds without objection however the amendment today includes an additional requirement the CFO also report on the amount of actual Revenue deposited in the fund for the current fiscal Year's way actual revenues to pot will have the assortments in our city so the committee Council and especially the public need to know when that money gets I want to thank my colleagues that have added their names as co-introducers of this important Amendment councilors Henderson Lewis George Nadeau Freeman Parker and Robert White and with that Mr chairman I'd like to move the amendment thank you councilmember is there discussion on the amendment uh well I will speak and let me be clear I I'm not going to be supporting the amendment I also expect that I will be outvoted especially since there's seven members who uh signed on to the amendment but I want to explain my position for the record first I will say I agree that it is a bad look to use ate Revenue to balance the budget but this amendment does not really change that dynamic because it speaks to the revenue over the revenue um projected in the budget I do support automated traffic enforcement ate but I do not support over-reliance on ate I fear that we will get pushback from our constituents from residents once the ate program is fully expanded already I hear complaints about how unfriendly DC has become this amendment increases our Reliance on ate Revenue this amendment could be a false promise and I don't mean to spark debate here but the program is notorious for not meeting its Revenue projections I realize the CFO has certified the revenue projections but the program is notorious for not meeting its Revenue projections if the program does not raise over 299 million dollars in fy25 uh it will not provide any this amendment will not provide any money to Vision zero and if it does it won't be so much as to actually fund Vision zero Vision zero is an important initiative as well as program as well as policy and my belief is we should flat out budget it instead of relying on what I fear may be improbable projections based on a program that may incite a considerable pushback from residents when fully implemented my last point is that the mayor has shown a desire to sweep this fund that's why we are here not why we are here as a council but why we are here on this issue because the mayor swept it this year and I fear she will be likely to do it again so my point here was not so much to persuade anybody as to Simply State my reasons my concerns there's no further discussion the vote will be on the amendment all those in favor of the amendment uh say aye aye aye aye please record me as voting no Jim please present uh the amendment is approved is there anything further with regard to the budget support Act Mr chairman councilmember Henderson um thank you Mr chairman um and thanks to um the work of you your staff and the budget office has gone into preparing this budget support act for our consideration I wanted to speak directly to a key change that was included in the ANS that I want to make sure that wasn't overlooked regarding the subtitle on the cap on Medicaid Managed Care payments to hospitals um if folks recall this cap was originally conceived by the mayor with a very Lim they carve out for certain hospitals the committee on health advocated for and the chairman you funded an enhanced payment rate for two years similar to a carve out two Children's National Hospital this was to account for children's wholly different patient population than the district's other hospitals as our only independent only independent Pediatric Hospital in the region and for children's Unique Staffing model which unlike most hospitals means that children directly children's directly employs its Physicians these factors meant that the MCO cap disproportionately affected children such that the cuts and reimbursements for children's made up approximately half of the 11 million dollars in local savings that the ocfo said that this cap would result in the Department of Healthcare Finance expressed serious concerns with a proposal and after much deliberation and negotiation with the mayor and director Turnage we are removing the temporary enhanced rates for children's and replacing it with two forms of other assistance that we feel like will better support the district's Health Care system first children's will receive a one-time 2.1 million dollar Grant to support the Pediatric Services it provides to District residents second the mayor and the Department of Healthcare Finance have agreed to revise the reimbursement methodology for Physicians providing services in hospitals this long-awaited update to the position reimbursement will not only stabilize Medicaid payments to Children's but it will support Physicians across the District of Columbia this is a big deal so we are pleased that our work on this subtitle will result in a fair Medicaid reimbursement model for all of our district Physicians and our hospitals and so Mr chairman I want to thank you I want to thank your staff I want to thank the budget office staff as well for our work on this but I wanted to make sure that we explained what was happening here so folks didn't think that um uh children's was getting hosed in this process thank you guys thank you councilor I could have said that more eloquently but I didn't have that I think you've got your point across um I misspoke a moment ago what is before us now is the amendment nature of a substitute as amended and that's we are discussing councilmember Lewis George chairman I just um had a uh had a question I wanted to see if you could could you explain your thinking and conversations around uh moving the department of Sciences back to MPD um I just want to know sort of what negotiations should you work out with the executive on this matter um and what if any guarantees did you receive from them that the reality or the appearance of conflict of interest will not take evidence and attain our ability uh to bring uh viable cases uh nothing is being moved back to MPD in fact the mayor had proposed in the budget that crime scene services or crime scene search uh be moved to MPD and we reverse that both in the budget and in this BSA okay I thought I saw I thought there was an update to it as well but if not then I'm very happy thank you uh council member Parker very briefly I just wanted to co-sign uh thanks and appreciation uh for the Amendments uh for children's uh and so shout out to councilmember Henderson and her leadership um and thank you all for supporting this very important entity in Ward 5 that is not just a ward 5 hospital but is serving children across our region and its satellites are serving children in all parts of our city um and so making sure that we allotted for uh the relief that councilmember Henderson alluded to the 2.1 million dollar Grant uh the refi payment process will ensure that there aren't service Cuts I also just wanted to acknowledge uh the contributions to the MedStar Burn Center again thanks to councilmember Henderson's leadership uh that we were able to get through to ensure that the Washington Hospital Center in Ward 5 continues to provide top-notch service to District residents so thank you I appreciate that you're thinking of these as Ward 5 hospitals Mr Ward five council member uh council member Allen well considering both my children in ward 6 were born in a ward 5 Hospital uh I appreciate the collaboration across the lines um Mr chairman I want to thank you uh and your staff especially the council's budget office uh which works even more over time budget during a budget season than they do the rest of the year in particular I want to thank um Jim budoff and Phelps Joe wolf and the entire staff for all their hard work um I think that there are many many many elements uh within this ANS and within the budget support act in general that are supporting a lot of priorities that the committee on Transportation the environment put forward uh I think they allow us to be able to take direct action on Transportation Investments and improvements on climate on sustainability and I really appreciate the the work that's gone into that um I think we're making incredible Investments with our sustainable energy trust fund which is going to really pay dividends for all district residents but in particular low-income District residents uh including a project I'm very excited about the pilot electrification program taking place in River Terrace and Deanwood neighborhoods in Ward 7. I do want to take just a quick moment and I might ask for an additional minute Mr chair um just to put my thoughts on the record about the department of forensic Sciences in the budget sport act as amended it reverses the mayor's reposed transfers of the public health lab to DC health and a crime scene Sciences division MPD those transfers would have been very detrimental to the agency in its work I want to thank you for restoring that today however the BSA does before us make one change that I don't agree with and I want to put that on the record the Judiciary Committee and then unanimously at the council had passed legislation to make our department of forensic Sciences an independent agency just a couple of months ago ANS in front of us turns back the clock and makes it subordinate to the mayor once again I just want to explain why I don't think that's the right course of action and why I think we as a body are going to be coming back to this in the future first the decision the Council made just six months ago was taken after years of extensive and thorough oversight over the department of forensic Sciences the agency's years of turmoil have revealed that DFS not just the director but the agency itself improperly understands its role in the criminal justice system and this is due to the politization of its work driven by a push to reduce crime that's the wrong frame through which to view the agency's mission DFS is not a so-called crime lab it's a science lab the executive's frame of one of Public Safety naturally and it should be but that frame is distorted when it applies to science it forces DFS to become uncomfortably close with law enforcement and the prosecution rather than remain neutral and science-based through no fault of their own their work becomes driven by the results based on catching the bad guys so I just want to remind my colleagues that what LEDs the agency's downfall it was absolutely not an isolated director-level decision to change the conclusion in one case analysis although that did happen multiple levels of management incorrectly tied evidence to someone accused of murder then tried to cover it up it was an agency-wide shift in the direction I described systemic mismanagement at all levels or quality assurance protocols little oversight all of which manifested through one case discovery of that impropriety then rippled through the agency deflating its polished outward appearance and revealing an agency that had inappropriately facilitate a culture of pressure to skirt constitutional requirements it needed to abide by and move the agency more toward Public Safety apparatus instead of the lab more broadly speaking we as policy makers we set the vision for those agencies and I think we can all agree we expect scientists to follow those scientific principles diligently and produce unbiased reliable and objective results reversing the agency's independence runs counter to that Vision regardless of who the mayor is at the moment because of this inevitable pull that happens second at the bill is reading we heard from the president of the Houston forensic Sciences Center the gold standard of forensic Labs across the country about what made the Houston forensic Sciences Center successful and a big reason was the lab's governing structure which completely removed it from the politics of Public Safety it gave it independent budget Authority and required it to work collaboratively with its stakeholders making the forensic sciences and public health laboratory independent of the mayor was intentionally structured around that best practice based on years of oversight and consideration of best practices lastly today's proposal to have the agency be supported to the mayor doesn't accomplish anything in the near term the bill which makes DFS independent remains unfunded and subject to Appropriations meaning that today at this moment DFS is already subordinate agency to the mayor that would only change if this Bill gets funded in future budgets and financial plans I don't see a compelling reason to reverse that course today I'm not proposing an amendment and I know this is an issue you care a lot about Mr chairman I hope that we continue to work on this going forward I think it's going to be something we have to because today's decision I think is going to lead us back to where we came from and so I'm concerned about it want to make sure that's on the record thank you Mr chairman uh thank you councilmember uh and yes we will continue to work on it uh the vote is going to be on the budget on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended so this isn't the final vote on the bill uh that will come in a minute so on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended all those in favor say aye aye are there any opposed of the amendment is approved unanimously is there anything further on the budget support act as amended uh we'll do a roll call vote on this Madam Secretary would you call the roll remember Pinto yes Robert White yes member Robert White votes yes councilmember Trey on white yes councilman betray on white boats yes comes remember Allen yes councilmember bonds yes yes remember Freeman votes yes councilmember Gray yes that's one of the gray votes yes councilmember Henderson yes customer Henderson votes yes George yes that's from Louis George votes yes councilmember McDuffie yes councilmember McDuffie votes yes chairman mendelton yes vote yeah because remember Joe votes yet that's remember Parker yes comes from a Parker votes yes Mr chairman there are 13 yeses thank you Madam Secretary the bill as amended is approved unanimously on Final reading I will turn now to emergency legislation uh we have the Declaration PR 25-267 for the budget support act I move that declaration uh I will explain briefly and I have no notes in front of me uh when we get to the emergency Bill itself I will clear with general counsel that uh the emergency bill reflects the Amendments that we've just approved uh with regard to the permanent um there are Provisions in the budget support act that we want effective right away that's why we're doing this as on an emergency basis just for the public emergency doesn't necessarily mean that there's an emergency like a fire it could just mean that we want it to become effective after a single reading if the mayor signs it uh without it having to undergo Congressional review and the emergency is in effect for only 90 days um there are some Provisions that we'll have earlier effective dates and so it's not consistent with regard to every subtitle that it's effective as of October 1st some of those subtitles and it says in the subtitle itself if it has an earlier effective date and so for example I believe the school Advance is effective July 1st uh that's pretty important so the schools can open for the next school year um and so this emergency enables that process to take place I move the Declaration which I said a minute ago I already moved is there discussion on the Declaration um secretary would you call the roll the vote is on the Declaration council member Robert White yes councilmember Robert whitefields yes councilmember Trey I'm white yes comes from patreon White votes yes councilmember Allen yes remember Allen votes yes councilmember bonds yes councilman Freeman yes councilmember Freeman votes yes councilmember Gray yes I'm from the gray volts yes councilmember Henderson yes councilmember Henderson votes Yes councilmember Lewis George yes that's what I believe it's George votes yes councilman McDuffie yes councilmember Duffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman mendels and votes yes yes councilmember Parker yes remember Parker votes yes and councilmember Pinto yes votes yes Mr chairman there are 13 yeses thank you Madam Secretary the declaration has approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 25-3 20 fiscal year 2024 budget support emergency Act of 2023 so moved and my motion includes all of the Amendments that were adopted to the permanent Bill uh so the emergency conforms in that regard to the uh permanent Madam general counsel and assistant general accounts uh is that clear enough for enrollment purposes yes it is thank you is there discussion by members uh since the emergency the declaration has approved unanimously we could do a Voice vote on the bill itself all those in favor say aye aye opposed uh the eyes have it unanimously uh before we adjourn I just want to note that adopting the budget support Act is the final step in our actions on the budget revising the fiscal year 2023 budget and adopting the fiscal year 20 2024 budgets on this legislation I'm going to leave something out here but among the highlights of what we've accomplished within the 24 and the financial plan we've added 26 million dollars added 230 permanent supportive housing vouchers created a dedicated funding stream and future maintenance we funded and restructured several initiatives to fulfill downtown recovery we restored funding Cuts related to victims especially domestic violence in both fiscal years 23 and 24. we funded 13 bills including decriminalizing Street vendors and the domestic workers employment rights act as well as the expanding access to fertility treatment which has gone through first reading we fixed the opioid sweep that had been made by the mayor we helped Children's Hospital we provided seed money for the burden Center we re-established 24-hour bus service we expanded the presumptive disability Health Care benefits for fire and EMS First Responders we restored the baby bonds program which is a long-term investment in Building Wealth for those born in poverty we added eight and a half million dollars to the University of the District of Columbia subsidy we laid down a marker to fund the supplemental nutrition assistance program snap and much more I want to thank so when we did first reading on the budget I thank those in the office of budget and planning but with regard to the budget support act it was a hell of a lot of work that was done by Deborah freeze and her team and this Chief Financial officers office of Revenue analysis did I say something inappropriate um the cfo's office of Revenue analysis who scored each subtitle in the budget support act and probably re-scored some of them multiple times I want to thank my staff Evan Cash playing stom Lakeisha Jordan Raleigh Lancaster Bijan Berlin and Christian Washington Who provided support as we developed the budget and now the budget support act I want to thank the staff in the office of the general counsel who reviewed all of the committee subtitles and all of the members amendments to the subtitles and all the new subtitles and I want to give a special thank you to Lauren mendonsa and Dan golden uh who had to put up with me personally I want to thank our budget office our budget director Jen Rudolph and her team and although some of these folks weren't as involved with the budget support act some of them were very