e e e e e e I'm calling to order this meeting this is a regular meeting of the committee of the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia I'm Phil menson chair of the council and chair of the committee of the whole today is Tuesday March 19 20124 the time is 11:20 in the morning and this meeting is being held in the council chambers room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building although I believe several members are participating virtually this meeting is available to the public live over Council Channel 13 cable television and also on the council's website which is www.dc.gov uh we have only a commit the whole meeting today our next legislative meeting will be on Tuesday April 2nd uh we have two measures for markup in the commune of the whole and one other measure that's being reported out of a committee uh we begin our committee the whole meetings figuring out whether we actually have a quorum Mr Cash would you call the role chairman Mendelson pres council member Allen here council member Bond here council member fruman here council member gray here council member Henderson here council member L George here Council McDuffy here council member noo here council member Parker council member Parker council member member Pinto present council member Robert White present council member Tran white Tran white Mr chairman you have a uh thank you Mr Cash uh we have the filing the secretary's report of um the filing of committee reports I'm going to recognize the chair protim Council McDuffy thank you chairman I moved away with the reading of the secretary's report been a motion to wave the reading of the report which I think consists of one item um is there discussion on the motion to wave the reading all those in favor say I I I I that was anemic but we say are there any opposed oh the eyes have it unanimously we have the secretary's log of introductions and referrals uh again the chair protm Mr McDuffy move to wave the reading up the secretary's log of introductions and referrals a motion to wave the reading as her discussion on the motion to wave all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed the eyes have it unanimously we have two measures for markup in the committee the hold the first is pr25 d534 University of the District of Columbia revised compensation scale for UDC undergraduate and graduate students approval resolution of 2024 uh this was introduced at the request of the University last November the purpose of this resolution is to to approve the compensation scale for the UDC student workers in work study teaching assistant and other related capacities as introduced the resolution would approve wage increases for all graduate and undergraduate students employed by the university the sources of funds for the student wages are institutional and federal grants University currently utilizes a flat compensation structure whereby all students employed by the university receive minimum wage regardless of their position classification or capacity over the minimum wage rate utilized by the District of Columbia increased last July 1st from $160 to $17 and thus the university must adjust its salary scheduled to remain competitive and incentivize graduate students to seek employment on campus when their experience and maturity qualify them for job prospects with compensation above the minimum wage elsewhere also the university receives grants where the compensation May exceed the max from compensation on the compensation table for students and the university must comply with the requirements of the grant as I said this legislation was introduced on November 14th at the University's request the committee of the whole held a round table on this on February 12 committies received no testimony or comments and opposition there's no objection I move both the print Report with lead for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion I think we can do a voice vote on this all those in favor again this is on both the print and Report say I I I are there any posed um I hear no no votes the I have it unanimously the next measure before I get there I have three questions Madam General Council to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is Madam Secretary is the record complete Madam Secretary you were muted I just noticed that once the report and hearing record are files Madam budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does is there a fiscal the uh University can absorb the increased salaries no objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the April 2nd legislative meeting the next item for markup is PR 25- 613 child fatality Review Committee Patrina Jones jez appointment resolution of 2024 uh this resolution was introduced by me as a council appointment uh to appoint Miss Patrina Jones chz as a member of the child fatality Review Committee from the office of the utsman UDS person for children and this appointment is on an atwill basis so the uh child fatality Review Committee by Statute has a member from the office of the ud's person and the council makes that appointment and that's what this is uh just a month or two ago the council approved Miss Patrina Jones chz as the ud's person she'd been acting in that capacity since last May I believe um and as we did once before um I'm now proposing that we appoint the umit's person to be the uh representative to the chatal Review Committee Miss Jones chz is award two resident and uh she served as the first Chief Deputy UDS person and then as acting UDS person for children after the unexpected departure of the first UDS person and as I noted she currently serves the District of colum as the District of Columbia umut person for children I'm not going to go through all of the bio or explanation that's in the report since we just considered her a couple months ago the child fatality Review Committee was established in 2001 operates under the oversite of the office of the chief medical examiner the committee is composed of a minimum of 13 representatives from public agencies along with members from Federal Judicial and private agencies and eight Community Representatives the community representatives are meant to represent all District of Columbia Awards each member should have specialized knowledge in child development maternal and child health child abuse and neglect prevention intervention treatment or research so we did not have a hearing on this appointment but as I said we had a hearing on her qualifications to be the permanent ood's person and that was just a few months ago so without objection I move both to print Report with lead for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion chairman yes council member Le charge uh thank you chairman um Patrina Jones Jaz has been leading the office of the UDS person for children for a year now in an acting capacity for nine months and then as the unb unbs person following her confirmation in January which is in the uh um facilities and Family Service committee um it is clear she has done a phenomenal job thus far she is deeply knowledgeable about child welfare policies um and has years of professional experience in the child welfare system and a personal experience as a foster parent uh that is why I'm confident in her ability to actively and substantively contribute to the important work of the child fatality Review Committee uh the child fatality Comm uh Review Committee provides an opportunity for representatives of the Executive Branch the council and the courts and outside stakeholders to come together and reexamine situations when the district could have done something differently um buds person Jones jez will bringing in valuable perspective to the child fatality Review Committee and identifying what went wrong and what our government should do better in the future to prevent tragic and avoidable deaths of children in the District of Columbia uh she has my wholehearted support and I hope my colleagues will join me and you chairman thank you uh thank you is there any further discussion uh the vote will be on both print and report and we'll do a Voice vote on this um all those in favor this is on both print and Report uh all those in favor say I I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any no votes uh the eyes have it unanimously mam General council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is madam secretary's the record complete once is found Madam budget director does the measure fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirement yes it does probably because is not required correct as an appointment without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the April 2nd legislative meeting we have one measure for consideration from other committees and that is Bill 25119 healthy homes and residential electrification Amendment Act of 2024 reported out of the committee on transportation and the environment chaired by council member Charles Allen Mr Allen thank you very much Mr chairman I introduced Bill 25-19 the healing homes and residential electrification Amendment Act of 2024 along with council members fruman gray Lewis George noo Parker Pento and Robert White on February 2nd 2023 the bill was referred to the committee on Transportation in the environment on February 7th the committee held a hearing on the bill on May 9th and it was approved unanimously at a markup on March 4th 2024 following a re-referral that you made last week it is now before us today nearly a quarter of the district's energy generation comes from natural gas and almost half of our households rely on gas to heat their homes as we know gas is actually a fossil fuel that we burn in our homes and it's not as clean or as healthy as renewable energy sources like solar and wind in addition to the harms of harvesting and transporting gas drilling fracking and erosion the harmful effects of gas inside the home are staggering and when we're facing massive disparities in our city between childhood asthma air quality and even health indicators in our city it's time for us to take action using gas to cook releases harmful byproducts which can increase the odds of children developing respiratory illness by nearly 20% even unburnt natural gas poses health risk as it leaks from stoves and stoves of course aren't the only gas powered appliances to be concerned about there's hot water heaters furnaces dryers for example and the data is clear to meet our climate goals to improve health and wellness and to reduce the negative impacts on our environment we have to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels and transitions toward sustainable energy so how do we do it while balancing those impacts against other community needs like affordability and Equity the bill before us today creates a breathe easy program within the District of energy environment this new program will help low-income households seniors and working families in the district retrofit their homes away from fossil fuels and toward electricity these retrofits for low-income households have to be free for those residents any retrofits to moderate income households will be on a sliding scale determined by doee and because the district's clean energy economy must create more jobs for DC residents this new program will also have to provide training and education to retrofit contractors under this bill doe will have to complete 30,000 residential electrification retrofits for low-income households with interim benchmarks in 2027 2032 and 2037 that increase over time and now just to be clear since we've seen misinformation on this nationally what we're doing here is a voluntary program and so no we will not be coming into your home and taking your gas stove away unless you want us to and it's free before starting the retrofits doe will have to let the public know how they're going to work which appliances materials will be used and what the eligibility criteria will be and doe will have to keep the public informed about the program's implementation including how many they do each year the bill also includes protections for households who benefit from the program they won't be precluded from receiving other improvements provided by Doe or the DC agencies and the value of the benefits received will not be counted as income for tax purposes Mr chairman may have 30 more seconds without objection the healthy homes act will speed up our transition away from natural gas consumption and toward electrification this will improve the health and well-being of DC residents especially our children and it will reduce fossil fuels harmful effects on our environment Beyond simply incentivizing residential electrification retrofits the bill ensures that thousands of low and moderate income households will be able to participate in this transition at no cost before I conclude I also want to note this legislation has a clean fiscal impact statement and a positive racial Equity impact analysis I also want to thank several organizations who've been incredible Advocates and partners on this including the Sierra club's DC chapter Washington Interfaith Network Interfaith Power and Light the DC environmental Network the Chesapeake climate Action Network and the NAACP DC Branch we also had a very meaningful recognition of the committee's markup of the work of my late committee director Chris Laskowski on this bill and again just want to honor his leadership on this bill and the district's fight for climate change thank you very much Mr chairman I request this bill be added to the agenda for our next legislative meeting thank you Mr Allen are there questions from Members council member questions council member leis George okay um I co-introduced the healthy homes act because I know uh that it is necessary to meet the district climate goal and DC buildings contribute 75% of our energy use uh and 75% of our greenhouse gas pollution residential buildings account for 37% of the building sector's energy use and 32% of its greenhouse gas gas pollution 75% of all homes in DC currently use gas heat cooking or hot water uh the this bill is important not just because of what it will do but how it will do it uh we cannot leave behind homeowners or renters who cannot afford to do the switch and DC these homeowners are are and renters are overwhelmingly black and brown they don't deserve to be left with Stow that pollute their indoor air and contribute to their kids asthma we all deserve Clean Indoor Air the of gas is so widespread and so impactful that the only way to a achieve our climate goals is to help everyone move to Electric together um the racial Equity impact report was clear here that this is going to have a positive impact here uh in this city um I'm proud to be making this step forward um to making DC healthier and more Equitable and council member Allen would you fully agree with that statement I would agree with that and if I can give it a quick example um you know last year this Council funded a pilot program in River Terrace and Deanwood specifically to focus on Equity I think one of the things that we have tried to prioritize in taking climate action is putting Equity first in front of mind right and I think being able to focus on communities in W seven for example with this pilot program um is a really exciting way that we put that into action another part of this and you touched on this council member is um the way that the federal incentives are structured is that for many households who want to make a transition there are pretty sign significant rebates for being able to purchase for example electric heat pump or be able to do a lot of the electrification that works really well for the household that has the means and the money already to be able to upfront cost pay for that transition and then see the rebate on the back end for a working family a low-income household a senior on a fixed income that's simply not going to actually benefit them and the risk is if we don't take an action like this it's those households that will be left with the Legacy costs of all of the the built infrastructure and this is is why I think so many of these members also spoke against project pipes um it is our lower income households predominantly black and brown households will bear the brunt of those Legacy costs and this legislation affirmatively Works to to address that and make sure that low-income households are able to get free electrification um for moderate income households on a slightly scale council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman and congratulations and thank you council member Allen for all of your important work on this bill um you mentioned that this comes at no cost to District taxpayers can you elaborate a little bit on how this will be paid for and how the cost element will be absorbed in practice thanks yes so it is uh according to the fist it is fully funded uh through funds that are located at within the sustainable energy trust fund the setf which is administered through do okay and those funds already exist right from previous correct fees and things okay great thank you very much yep thank you thank you council member uh council member bonds yes thank you um chairman um Mr Allen could you please um help the public understand the finances in the bill you mentioned moderate income household meaning a household of total income greater than 80% but less than 150% of the medium family income can you give us some sort of numbers you know so that people can understand what that really means in dollars and cents um yes in terms of the way that the bill defines low income is 80% of Ami and below and again for moderate between 80 and 100 150% of Ami the actual dollar amount based is based on household size and that percentage I don't have that right in front of me about what the current Ami breakdown is per household size but I can make sure I get that for you and we can share that um to so that if you're asking for what is the actual dollar amount yes and usually when we um quote the dollar amount it is based on household of four and so I just wanted to give the public a sense of what these numbers might mean um as they're calculating that they want to be a part of the program so thank you agreed further questions from Members council member Robert White uh thank you chairman and uh thank you so much uh council member Allen for your leadership on this incredibly important bill that too often there is a tension between the things we need to do urgently to protect the environment uh and the cost uh on people who already have limited uh incomes and and see this as as yet another urgent priority the beauty for me of this bill is that we are creating incentives uh and where necessary the means to help people uh retrofit their homes in order to move from fossil fuels to clean energy that results uh in a cleaner uh atmosphere outside but also clean air inside the homes so this is so incredibly important one of the concerns that I expect to hear raised is from folks who have for uh decades used gas stoves who have a belief that their food will will cook differently uh council member Allen do you have thoughts on how we uh address that concern and and help people over time uh get on board with this important environmental shift um as somebody who has cooked on both Gas and Electric I I get it there's uh I give give gas credit they created a very strong connection to feeling like uh cooking with gas it's literally a branded statement cooking with gas um I think that part of that's education and part of that's also demonstration of what it looks like um coming up on April 6th uh that that Saturday April 6th in a couple of weeks and I would hope everybody shares the news about this over at the DC Armory there's going to be a uh healthy homes Fair where they're going to actually be demonstrating a lot of those electrical appliances they're going to have electric and induction ovens where things are cooked it helps kind of demystify for some folks as well as just let other people learn about them but you also will see more and more households where using an electric range or an induction oven is becoming much more commonplace I can think for example um the the woman who runs uh one of w 6's best kitchen shops uh Hills kitchen made the switch a couple years ago to an electric induction oven and they themselves are one of the biggest ambassadors they run a kitchen shop and they talk about what it looks like to cook and what it means to do that so I think some of that's just education because a lot of us that grew up cooking on gas um or still cook with gas it's just been part of what's in graininess so I think it'll take some time but that's also why the legislation speaks to the education components that go with it um and recognizing as well these changes aren't going to happen overnight that it's phased in but I think the legislation builds really strong benchmarks that we're reaching and achieving year after year thank you is there no further questions council member Parker thank you um and I will Echo much of what has been said uh I will be transparent in saying I have not been fully persuaded and I've been clear with Advocates about how we fully pay for this program and I know there's been some changes in the language of the bill from when it was introduced to now uh council member Allan can you uh answer two points and this uh is directly uh in relation to some of the concerns I've heard from residents who are now confused and are concerned that their gas bills will increase because of this policy one we say we've already funded it can you just make clear how much money has been set aside um in last year's budget to fund this and then two can you speak to the concerns that some neighbors have about Washington Gas indor others passing on the cost of this bill to them sure well there's nothing that Washington Gas would do to pass on the cost of this bill you may be talking about project pipes which is completely different that will increase costs for households uh certainly that that's completely separate from this legislation though uh Washington Gas and others would say and I'm not defending them but again I think neighbors are confused and concerned and I've heard from some and as I've said to uh Advocates the requirements that would call for the retrofitting of District properties as well as I know there was a a penalty or fee structure that was built in into the bill that has since been removed there there is language being shared with residents that your bill as a result of your gas bill as a result of this bill will increase and so I'm giving you the opportunity to kind of speak to that as there are residents that have heard that I'd be fascinated to see who's putting that out because that would be a 100% incorrect uh but so if someone's putting something like that out I hope you'll push back on that too uh given the fact that that's such a false statement um but the legislation this bill does not increase any household costs for gas again may be people who are misunderstanding clarification uh for the for dcha for instance this bill as I understand it would require uh the retrofitting of those properties is that accurate No it would not okay maybe I am misunderstanding that a part of this B would call for sh I think you're referring to the introduced version which uh back last year was looking at DC Housing Authority properties so that when a dcaa property goes through a renovation to make that change because we actually have a green buildings law that we believe actually requires that anyway that was no longer included in this bill that's already DC law so this is helpful so how much money has been set aside in last year's budget for this bill you're do you mean the setf yes so the so we say it's been fully funded I'm trying to get clear on how much money is sitting in a pot to pay for this bill so doee believes that they will be applying about $20 million over the fiscal plan to this project that going to be a combination of federal IRA funds they're coming in as well as dollars that come from the satf but there's no new money being charged no new money hitting households from this bill the actual point of the entire bill is to do it for free so those those households would receive all of this uh which is estimated about $30,000 value uh for free for households I'm over time but um this only applies to lower income households hous or household like yours or mine we're not going to be able to take advantage of this got it got it um if I could just for 60 more seconds chairman without objection again I do think there has been some uh confusing narratives around the cost of this bill part of this exchange was meant to allow for some of that to be cleared up um and I think this is an important step I also do think we should be cleare eyed about the cost not just for uh the implementation that has been spelled out here but for future steps that we need to take so again thank you council member Allen uh and to all that p and putting this together oh thank you if there are no further questions I have three m madame General council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is Madam Secretary is record complete yes it is U Madam budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements uh yes it does and there is no fiscal impact uh the cost of the bill will be covered through uh one federal grants and two um existing resources within the sustainable energy trust fund without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the April second legislative meeting uh that's the only item for Mark uh for only item from other committees to be considered uh before we adjourn I am going to give a lengthy statement regarding the status of our budget uh I would like to take a moment to explain the situation around our consideration of the budget for next fiscal year year as you know we were to receive the mayor's receive from the mayor her proposed budget for the fiscal year we were to receive it tomorrow by law the council cannot and may not consider a budget until the mayor has submitted a proposal that has not happened last November I introduced a fiscal year 2025 budget submission requirements resolution this happens every year the introduction proposed that the mayor submit the budget by March 20th 2024 the council adopted the resolution at its January 9th meeting and thereby required that the budget be submitted quote not later than March 20th 2024 unquote at no time did the mayor or her Administration object to the date in January the Chief Financial Officer stated that to actually submit the budget in writing and with all the agency chapters tables Etc he must have 10 days after pencils down to conduct the required due diligence to ensure that the budget and financial plan are balanced and including any necessary technical adjustments that the budget support act along with the local budget act are thoroughly reviewed for financial and legal sufficiency the documents required by the council are properly vetted and assembled and to ensure timely publication of the budget book on the web and or physical books at no time did either the mayor or Administration or the CFO ask that the submission date be changed the mayor began budget preparation last September that was over 7 months ago go of course some adjustments would have to be made as a result of the February Revenue estimates but those estimates were actually a positive surprise as they showed more Revenue growth than previously expected nevertheless as March 10th approached I was aware that the mayor's budget team was working feverishly and might not make the cfo's 10day pencils down deadline however I was led to believe that no later than Tuesday quote no later than Tuesday unquote meaning March 12th was the target last week came and went I was told that the iterative process between the executive and the ocfo was slow but on Thursday I was assured the pencils down would be Friday noon that has not happened in fact the mayor was still making changes on Sunday maybe even yesterday yesterday afternoon I wrote both the ocfo and the city administrator about this only the deputy CFO budget director responded and he wrote to say that pencils down could happen as soon as tomorrow meaning today this delay is 100% on the mayor it disregards the law it is an affront to the council as you know the budget office prepares a complex schedule to accommodate 11 committees holding three to six each budget hearings over a one-month period it's complicated because under the home rule act we have 70 days to act and we respect deadlines the schedule must work around religious holidays school spring break a major Economic Development conference and now the June 4th primary election all of that's tossed out which is unfair to the hundreds of public Witnesses who now must rearrange their own schedules and don't know how I've asked our budget director to prepare a new schedule but only after the mayor's pencil's down and the budget is finally with the ocfo separately separately there is an issue concerning the reserve funds on this I have with the executive as you know the government has four Reserve funds each has different requirements two are required by the home rule act the other two were established by the council in local law and are a reflection of the council's commitment to Good Financial Management the government financial Officers Association recommends that governments should always have reserves and that those reserves should be equal to two months or 60 days expenditures that is our policy as well last year for the first time since before the pandemic our reserves were at 51 days not 60 days we've been there before the fiscal fiscal stabilization Reserve which is one of the two local reserves is the lowest 12% funded as of last September 30th and the Chief Financial Officer is insisting that both the mayor and councel must find and spend $ that would mean $ fiscal stabilization Reserve is below full funding it shall be replenished to undesignated end ofe fund balance in other words year on Surplus that's the law in other words it is to be replenished through Surplus not through an appropriation at the end of the last fiscal year we had almost $1.6 billion dollar combined in the four Reserve funds 1.6 billion the CFO is insisting on roughly 1.8 billion that adversely affects our ability to restore or maintain programs necessary for the safety net social justice Public Safety core Municipal functions public education the elderly and so forth what is equally or more concerning is that the CFO goes on to justify his decision by arguing that he has quote the authority and responsibility to evaluate all aspects of the budget including its failure to replenish the reserve in order to determine whether the proposed budget is balanced financially sound and supportive of the district's Financial stability unquote I'm going to reread that with some emphasis he has the authority and responsibility to evaluate all aspects of the budget not just whether it's balanced including its failure to replenish the reserve in order to determine whether the proposed budget is not just balanced but also financially sound whatever that means and supportive of the district's Financial stability whatever that means this is very broad interpretation and subverts our Authority The council's Authority as appropriators think of it so last year he canceled the free bus program next year he could cancel other programs or maybe insist on firing agency directors because they mismanage their budgets both the city administrator and I have asked for compromise and I think that would be ideal it's good practice us to replenish our Reserves at 100% absolutely replenish our Reserves at 100% but the best course right now is to do what we did over the last decade essentially a payment plan over the next several years that brings the reserves back to full strength compromise is reasonable it is the best course but so far the CFO has said no and dug in so this is the current situation regarding the fiscal year 2025 budget which is due tomorrow tomorrow thank you there's no further business our next meeting regular meeting is Tuesday April 2nd 2024 time is 11:55 in the morning and this meeting is a