Good morning everyone. Good morning. Um, our agenda today is different than our past work sessions. Jen sent this out last night. Um, I'm going to talk about our revenue estimates, some spending pressures, and there'll be some discussion. Then I want to go through subtitles. It would be useful for me if we discuss budget support act. And even though I have a list, um, I want as part of the conversation if they're budget subtitles that other folks have concerns about. Then I want to talk about councilwide priorities. I made a list. I don't know that the list is comprehensive. That is, there may be stuff or no not really budget stresses and uh so I wanted to start us off in uh with that content. So we all know that we got the revenue estimates got them last Friday and they show that the revenue estimates going out to the financial are flat. The CFO made no changes because there's enough uncertainty about the economic climate that he said when there's enough uncertainty no change. However, he did say that revenues this year are coming in at just under $244 million above what the um uh revenue projections were for on which the mayor based her budget proposals. And as we all know, we reacted by saying, "Oh gosh, that's $244 million." And I told folks that the CFO is not too enthusiastic. Uh, so that's what I want to go over. The CFO CFO has said that Jen and I have not met with him. We're going to do that. We're going to try to do that this week. But the CFO says don't spend this $244 million for four reasons. Spending pressures, unbudgeted expenses, the need to replenish um contingency draws, and costs associated with the congressional tax bill that's going through right now. So I think I'm going to talk about this in sort of reverse order and end with talking about spending pressures because when I looked at that yesterday I kind of my blood pressure went up. So there is a rough estimate from the budget right now that unless we decouple that uh the costs to the district in terms of revenue loss next year uh could be $36 million. Unless we decouple. Let's say yes. So there is um we we have in our tax law that we are coupled with many provisions maybe even most provisions of federal income tax law. Got it. And we do from time to time decouple various provisions. Um I would propose that we decouple but in any event uh this is good idea. You recommend coupling or decoupling? Decoup. Okay. Wouldn't be coupled. It's a good idea. Right. So we'll stay together. It's fine. The three are um three that I know of are auto loan deduction that we automatically move to provide that as a deduction on DC income tax unless we decouple. The cost to us is estimated $15.8 million. Increasing the standard deduction. Uh we are coupled on that and that would cost us $19.4 million. And there is an increased standard deduction for seniors. We don't have a cost estimate, but it's likely very small because it applies only for seniors with less than $75,000 income. That's unlikely that they're itemizing and therefore taking I know that's the standard deduction. So, um those total roughly $36 million. So, that's reason number four that the CFO gives for not touching the $243 million one-time surplus. Um, the second reason or the third reason, however you want to count this, is um the need to replenish reserves. Uh, Jenn and I went back and forth on this yesterday. It's not clear to me how much uh we need to do and in fact we don't have a clear picture of what the um draws have been. The federal portion budget request act that we uh adopted yesterday has a request that Congress change the home rule act so that the council approves draws over $500,000 from contingency reserves. The problem is this. The law says that when the mayor draws from contingency reserves, the council, this is my paraphrasing, the council has to then replenish the reserve the draws over the next two years. So last year there were draws and so in the supplemental this year as well as in the FY26 there are repayments to the continuous research for the trust. This is the mechanism for the mayor to spend what we haven't appropriated and the only check on this is whether the CFO says sorry this isn't eligible but I can tell you that over the years you look at some of these draws and um they are not what I would call unexpected or critically necessary or one time um and I I think some of the draws are also for um overspending to cover overspending. Um so like there was a small contingency draw this year for the board of elections the office of the mayor almost $600,000 that was this month. um Department of General Services $15.5 million bra. Most of them are ass seem to be settlements and judgments, but the office of the deputy mayor demped is $4.6 million. Uh the office of the tenant advocates that might be unexpected, but and that's actually they repaid that. Um MPD was $37 million. Um, DIYs is $3.5 million. Uh, Department of Homeland Security, excuse me, Department of Human Services is $54.8 million. These are draws from the um, contingency reserves. Excuse me, Phil. You're reading from a document. Do we have that? No, you don't. Okay. And it's doesn't really say if we get out. It sounds like it's adding over. I mean, if you're going to keep up and be a part I was just trying to know. So the draws this year, this is where I get in trouble because we don't according to this list, the draws were 1589 million of which they've repaid 10 million. Some of that is also repaid in the supplemental, but then we believe there have been additional draws since this list. This is of concern to me. Um, and this is because what the CFO is saying is that reason number two why we can't touch the $244 million is because there needs to be replenishment. Does this on all those you listed the CFO is the umpire calling balls and strikes and yes we approve that draw. Yep. and then comes back to us and tells us everything. Well, so traditionally, you know, we have always paid back contingency cash withdrawals through the year and flows. So, you know, the mayor does contingency cash withdrawals, repays back a portion of it through the supplemental, and then through the year end close, repays back all of it. The CFO's concern now is that the year- end closes have been getting tighter and tighter. um owned um is concerned with um the the district's resources being sufficient enough to do the year-end close, paying back uh you know uh o overspending um paying back bond escrow, paying back contingencies, doing the annual top offs that we always have to do for these funds and so on and so forth. So it's it's you know it's a concern that they have so you know for the past three years it's been getting tighter and tighter. What do you recommend we do to examine this further with the mayor Bill? Did you want to do some sort of round table on the overspending or have the auditor look at it? What are you thinking? I want to do two things neither of which help us with this budget. Sure. One of them is they have some hearings in the fall on agencies where there's overspending. This would not be an oversight hearing like let's talk about the Department of Human Services, but rather let's talk to the CFO and maybe the city administrator and the head of DHS probably a joint hearing. What do you do with spending pressures? Why do you have spending pressures? Why don't you tell us in in in June at the hearing that your budget was adequate for next year? Um what are you going to do differently? How are we going to control them? But so I think for I don't feel like all agencies on that list are kind of made in this. No, they're not. Right. So like MPD for instance, you know that some of the funding pressures come from events external to us like a birthday parade for instance, right? Where everybody now has to be some of which may be reimbured and some of which would be reimburseable. But I feel like for some of the other agencies perhaps some of those spending pressures are programmatic and we need to have that discussion around are there policy choices that we have made not us council but us as a government that are leading to these continual spending pressures and is that something that needs to be addressed as opposed to just continuing to draw down on contingency without plugging the problem. Well, I'm going to focus on spending pressures in Bein, but right now we're talking about the reserves and in particular replenishing contingency and these contingency draws. I do want to say though one other thing I left out, but you said what do I recommend? So hearings, individual hearings on agency budgets, that's kind of what I'm thinking and only those agencies are really overspending. Um, and the other is that we disapprove the reprogramming to come to us in October. That is probably has a huge effect because basically what we'll be doing is forcing agencies to be anti-deficient, excuse me, to be deficient. It's not that the district will be unbalanced. But you all know this. What happens is an agency a few years ago CPS overspends $20 million and uh name another agency healthcare finance didn't uh spend all the money it could have on Medicaid and so is there a reprogramming that DCPS and now DCPS can respect there's a board of anti-deficiency review that Jen is on. Do they actually meet? I have a meeting next week. Great timing. When is the last time they held anybody deficient? Don't work too hard. The answer is not. In fact, when BCPS had those 36 contracts and never came to us, yes, Brady, board of public, board of anticency review of violation. Yeah, Brady met and they said, "Oh, this is not our jurisdiction." I mean, Who's on the floor? There are five people. Uh Jen, the CFO, Angel is the chair. Hi. Uh the uh city administrator uh someone from the city administrator, somebody from the IG. Um but the reason why they said that the contracts were not a violation of anti-ficiency laws that there has to be a willful violation. Um, and you know, like like the CFO, so the CFO has to in order for the CFO to be responsible, they would have to knowingly approve a contract that wasn't um, isn't that the definition of So, well, so it was so it was referred to instead of the Brady. I mean, but but that was I mean a reflection of the law. So, no, I don't agree. they do a report and okay we're not gonna get this at any rate um we are going to try Jen's going to try to get more information I think on the contingency draw that fair for me to say yes we looked at this report it's not clear how much uh we think that they've been drawing substantially more since the supplemental came to us and so the CFO is saying that um to replenish the um these draws that we should not spend 244 millions. Budget draws don't equal 244 million. No. Okay. But so far we're up to maybe close to 200 million. All right. So the third reason is unbudgeted expenses and I mentioned this yesterday and um the unbudgeted expenses I think consist of this bond escrow the school dance the wata payment and the topping off of reserves. So let me kind of explain these and I'll probably get this a little messed up and in sort of reverse order. Topping off of reserve. So at least one of the reserves has a requirement that it has to be fully funded and it is fully funded as a percentage of our expenditures. Our expenditures go up every year and so therefore the amount that has to be in that return goes up. actually all of the reserves the amount that should be in the has to go out is each phone number is tied to how much a percentage of our spending um obviously since we ended last year at 52 days they don't all have to be have to be at 100%. But I believe at least one of them does. So actually the emergency and contingency both have a two-year repayment. I'm looking at this document right now that I'm printing out. We will be sending out everyone. Um it's it's called it's our cheat sheet that we have that it has the rules for every single preserve fund with the bar. So the two federal funds um if they're allocation they need to be paid paid back to 100% within two years of the So then we can argue with the CFO they don't have to be topped off but they will have to be paid back over the next two years. So that's part of the reason the CFO doesn't want us to spend at 244. The bond escrow does have to be fun. Yes, it is based on that year borrowing. So we borrow a billion dollars that have increase our escros to the bonds. That's not budgeted. The CFO wants to budget it. In any event he wants part of the year end spending pressures that these unbudgeted expenses the school advance and the mount payment um really I think one has to scratch their head when when you understand what this is. So our the budget for schools go up every year and we advance for schools because schools start in August work for that maybe starts in July. So there's an advance with charter and DCPS. The advance is calculated as a percentage of next year's budget which is higher than the current year budget and the current year budget is less and so there's a gap. You would think they could fix this but they don't. So it's an unbudgeted decision. I mean unbudgeted expense. So those are the unbudgeted expenses. We don't have a number associated with that do we? Yeah. And then last is the spending pressures. So um as I said, one of the things I want to do in October is ask all of you to join me in voting against this regional ramings. Um when we had a meeting with the CFO a couple weeks ago, um my takeaway was a reminder that the CFO treats or the OCFO, I'll put it that way, treats the budget as a guide, not as a limit. That's my impression. And so agencies are overspending. Well, they have to overspend. They have to let Then we have a spending pressure as opposed to no you can't do this. You guys have you said the OCFO does that consistent across the CFOs? Yeah. And it hasn't mattered so much because our revenues were higher than every year our revenues were higher. Remember one year the revenues were like over a billion higher dollars higher than that. less if we couldn't spend it ourselves. Well, that's true. Um but when you have when you have that then a lot of this um right it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. None of that that's like a rounding error with a billion dollars so far. Sure. So when we talked about someday recouping the money that Congress has prevented us from spending, if I recall correctly, we talked about a lot of these spending pressures really taking up whatever that is, what 400 million. Does that mean that we now could allocate that money to something? There's uh 212 million I believe that was move from 25 into 26. Um there were spending pressures that were addressed and so on and so forth anticipating that revenue becoming available. Yeah. So it's it's it's so I received yesterday a list of spending pressures. As I understand it, this is based on projections uh based on the FRPs. That's what quarterly reports are. Every agency has to file an FRP with um the Office of Budget and Planning. What does that stand for? Finan financial review plan say we use acronyms. Kathy Patterson in the past has written about this and been very critical because you look at an agency that's overspending and you look at their plan for how they're going to um rectify the overspending and the plan is either non-existent or garbage. Just saying at any rate the FRPS through March 31st, right? um lead to a projection of overspending this year of $43 million. How much? $43 million. No, that can't be. We can't have that. Wait, so that just basically means that we had agencies who started October with a spending pressure. Yes. Okay. Or a lack of discipline. Well, it it depends on the agency. I think some agencies I think are just not funded adequately. But I mean that comes up in the question of we've got agencies for whom they budgeted like $27,000 for overtime when they have currently spent 72 million. Right. Right. So like you have started the year with a spending pressure because of your hopes and dreams of only $27,000 in overtime. Yeah. And also but you're not being held to it. There's no discipline that across from an agency director when you ask them you know what happens if you need more throughout the year like this doesn't seem like enough they say uh you know if we actually exceed the spending there's going to be more bills like something along those lines right I've had that conversation multiple times over the years and it just seems like the attitude there is you know differently the budgets in the mayor's advocate for you. It depends on if you have a little differently as well though is that it's the gamesmanship of the budget where back to our infamous two FDs for everything. Um if you want to be able to make sure your agency is funding your mayoral priorities, then you're able to make sure you get that done. Just knowing you can draw on overtime and say, "Yep, well, we're going to get that. That's overspending, but we'll get that through contingency." But you don't face the same discipline or pressure the same way we would if we're trying to get something done. So there's a gamesmanship and brinksmanship that goes with it. May I ask which agencies are overspending as it relates to overtime because I'm under the impression it's primarily MPD. Bill, can I just clarify the $400 million? So there's Can I Can I get an answer to that, please? Okay. Thank you. Well, it's a little hard for me to identify all of them, but um uh DGS $2 million overtime. Um and this is overtime. Mhm. Um MPD 57 million for overtime. This is perfection. Yes. Um I'm trying to see here. Department of behavioral health 20 4.3 million overtime. I don't think that's a complete list. RS Department of Corrections. We get that spreadsheet that you're looking at. Yeah, they are they're these are preliminary numbers. I I will these numbers are from the FRPS which are public documents. These are preliminary numbers that I got from the OCFO. we will we will get information for you guys from from the FRPS and they they are published quarterly but I I just want to clarify the $400 million number now the $400 million number is are the projected pressures um there are about 50 million of it they have plans to solve internally they solve for 132 million of it through the supplemental. So this really leaves us with unresolved spending pressures of 184 million. So there is you know what the CFO anticipates are the full cadre the spending pressures throughout the government throughout the year. They do a number of different things in order you know to try to control it internally. um additional resources put towards these spending pressures but not a sufficient amount to solve them. And then what is currently projected um is this $183 million number. Um so that is that's the um as of today that's the number um that they expect. It will change once they get the third quarter piece which um I mean two days ago was the close of the quarter. It takes them a while to pull to pull the information together in in these reports. Um and you know these numbers will change but um they could get away. Yeah they definitely will go up. Yeah. Well there'll be some solve and that's important. So, I threw out the 400 number because I think that's the most shocking. Um, the amount that according to this is needed right now is 184 million. Still, it's 184 million that the CFO is saying that's why you can't spend the $244 million. Yes, I'm going to use 184 million. I'm going to use 184 to solve the overspending and another maybe 100 million for unbudgeted expenses. and he's already spent more than the 243 if he's going to do another correct and and we're in the whole what I want to emphasize here is that these are all spending decisions actions that were not made through the appropriation process. Yeah. Which which uh which branch of the government has the power of the purse? you know the answer to that the legislative branch increasingly doesn't seem that way. Well, that's the point I want to convey to you. But I also want to convey that there is a lot of um undisiplined as we and our financial our financial choices would be much easier. Again, I don't want to say that we are financially the statistical government is in financial trouble. We're not, but we have a budget before us and our financial choices are severely constrained because of these action. So, two things, we make it. If some of these things get resolved by the year end close, but we expect the year- end close to be smaller, how what is anticipated in terms of the year end close? How much will that of you just had you were over 280 million is the cavalry is the cavalry going to help us sum through the year and close? That's one question. And the second question is how much of this was clear when he certified the budget before he knew $240 million was coming. You want to answer that last one? Yeah. So I mean and this just something we did ask because there were projected spending pressures like for example let's do the department of human services they have projected spending pressures of 113 million for the year. Um they're going to solve about 33 million of it internally. They got 55 million through the supplemental, but they're going to be left with roughly $25 million spending pressure. What is it? Um 80 million is from rapid rehousing. Um I mean they knew about this when we received the budget, when we received the supplemental, you know, of course you know it was solved with supplemental. I mean you know the standard practice has been you know again that there are sufficient resources at the end of the year to there have been sufficient resources at the end of the year to fix these problems. Um why it's now becoming more apparent and more of a problem is that we don't have the same amount of resources. So it's what did we have last year at the end close to be worried about it was under 200. Yeah. And and remember it wasn't even sufficient to refill the reserves. So with that, you know, for before a couple two years ago, you know, we had, you know, we had sufficient amount to top off the reserves to refill contingency to backfill overspending and then have $500 million for PO and HBTF. Um, and it's not that. I mean we can we can pull I mean because this pull the numbers from the app for um you know what the year end um surpluses or the year end surplus may have been like there was a additional revenue because generally the CFO conservatively estimates the revenues and the September 30th revenue estimates he can't conservatively estimate what they are and so there was some additional revenues and then There was I'm going to say maybe it was like 100 million in surplus, right? Which is I mean it made every made him all of his folks nervous. That's like too close, right? Um yeah, it was like less than 1% uh like 46% I believe last year which is which is tight. I mean, so basically the um the revenue increases in the September estimates and then in the December estimates. So like all of the final realized revenue after the fiscal year ends has been like what's been um providing sufficient resources for us to get through these year closes. Let me just uh focus on Department of Human Services. And of course, this is, you know, I mean, it's complicated because they run programs that are important. Yes. A year ago, I said to Laura's Islander, I think we should just pause rapid rehousing. No new entrance. Sorry. Are you serious? He was he was convicted by molested char. Oh okay. Um, that was an OJ level response. A year ago, I said, I think we should pause new entrance into rapid rehousing. A year ago, they were going to exit, 1500. That's a policy decision that led to overspending. Oh, man. Laura's Islander came in and she said, "This is the end of the world. If you pause it, we've got to go forward." And we've got a number of strategies. We're not going to we're going to stay within the budget on this. We've got what are all the different you know what the different programs are that they have and so we have alternative programs will do that and we're going to exit these people. So they're over their projected pressure is $12.6 million. They took 32.6 million from contingency reserves. The supplemental has a $54.9 million uh payment which leaves them with 25.1 million. It's still overspending. Remember we put how many vouchers? 600 vouchers. And remember they said, "Oops, we did it wrong." Which was not correct because we didn't take that voucher money from DHS. But in any event, all that voucher money didn't get spent on vouchers, right? Where do you think it got spent? So yes, that's and then they asked the housing authority to bail them out. The $112.6 million spending pressure is primarily driven by $79.2 million in the family rehousing and stabilization program due to delayed exits. 32.2 million from increased shelter operations contract costs. $1.2 $2 million for unbudgeted summer EBT program. Of this 32.6 million has been resolved internally, leaving $80 million in unresolved pressure. So those are all programs that I would think should be all generally are supportive of. So, I think we have to figure out how to have this conversation with a reasonable amount of outrage, but also some honesty about places where when there's advocacy around it, we're going to be supporting that. So, if if you want to pause exits from rapid rehousing, there's going to be a budget pressure. I didn't want to pause exits. I wanted to do FA's union entrance into rapid rehousing. They got the population general so that they would then be able to rightsize all of them. Okay. Well, let's not have that conversation. That's a slightly different conversation. Well, yeah, but I do think we have to look at these programs in terms of are they being effective? So, and when I say effective, what do I mean by that? Um, I think most of us, at least it's my belief, did rapid rehousing and used to um get people out of their shelters, right? That's not what the program was designed for. That's great. No, the program was designed for short-term um stabilization, if you will, before you get back on your You've been in a shelter saying I mean, you enter through a not we can't solve this today. But I guess my point was like I think it would be um it'll be a much more fruitful conversation when we have these hearings if we can as a body discern between we can determine where there have been places where we've put policy pressures that might have also led to overspending because I think if it's just a how dare you overspend, we're not going to get anything out of this conversation. So that would be an opportunity for us. Let me give another example which is I this is kind of a third rail but met employees. Sure. So I could do some of the Dupont Circle farmers market during not farmers market the holiday market in December where the manager of the market had I think like 18 employees working full-time every day but MPD insisted that there would be at least two I think it was four police officers there 24 hours a day. I mean is that really the only way that we can provide security? Well, I can tell you like maybe a slightly different example that wouldn't be the way that we do special events. So, you know that I have been beating the drum about these deployable barriers that can replace heavy duty trucks at the end of each block because they're safer and cheaper and they don't require us using vehicles and people's overtime to shut down a street. That bill could save so much overtime. Yeah. But I see I see um drivers sitting in those trucks. That's what I'm saying. You don't need that. If you have if we use technology that is actually proven to be safe and by the way safer than a vehicle that has gasoline in it that could be rammed. Um we save overtime because nobody has to sit in that barrier. It's just a correct thing. So there are some policy reforms we could do. I think as a body if we can prioritize those to reduce overtime spending that would be MPD. that would also be DPW. Um, but there isn't a discipline around how do we find a cheaper way to accomplish what we want to accomplish never mind you. I mean, for some of you, you're in the meeting, too. We can't hear you sometimes. Yes, because you point in one direction all the time. get you a microphone. I don't know if there's more to be said with regard to um the spending pressures. I mean, I think that on the spending pressure convers should try to distill to discern again between what is personnel versus what is policy driven. some of it right I would imagine with DOC that's personnel that's not policy but then I think the questions are around like what are they really doing to increase hiring so you can reduce the use of overtime there's like 200 and something vacancies at DOC right now I think that's correct so wait around the corner they got promise this time right around the corner they're going to be able I mean, we've been hearing that for like this is right around the corner. So, yeah. So, plug in here. It's just hard to get. Last year, now I want to revive this. So, states under Democratic governance have done what's called financial performance reviews where they review the spending and operations from every agency. That is usually done and should be done by the chief executives. But if the chief executive won't do it, then we may have we have to look at the optimal force. uh Jenn and her team have been doing work to figure out how far we can go with this without the cooperation of the executive. But if we're serious about examining these spending pressures, understanding them, and the inefficiencies, we've got to get serious about the financial performance review. Like this is a thing that has been done. Like we're it's it addresses the issues we're complaining about, but it is going to require us to put some real pressure on the mayor. And if we're not going to do that when we're in a deficit with spending pressures and we're clearly making ineffect inefficient decisions, I'm just not sure when we do that. And if we're not going to take that step, then we're just not serious about this. We're going to keep going around in circles. I'm going to add though because of the way the conversation went when I mentioned the police and uh rapid rehousing, some of this is also on us. Yep. Yeah. 100%. Are there better ways to accomplish what we want? Like we all want homeless folks to unhoused folks to get housed and we're willing to support them getting housed even if it's on the city's expense, but there might be ways to do it. Yeah, for sure. I mean, rapid rehousing, whatever, you know, it it is used for folks exiting shelter. It's supposed to get people on their feet and a year later they're supposed to be ready to go on their own, it is a clear unequivocal failure. So if that's the case and it's leading to $80 million of overspending year-over-year, what do we do? Like that's on us and on the executive. We need new solutions in that space. I agree. And I think some of it's on us to press the executive. they sometimes assumptions aren't so obvious or so easy to to figure out. Um, but I feel like there's just been, this is a little harsh, but on the executive side, just laziness around fixing some of this because they just they get to overspend and they don't get held accountable for it. We fix it. Uh, and the way it's going to get fixed this year is the $244 million of additional revenues is not going to be available to us. We're going to fight for it, but that's their current plan for fixing it is that that money won't be available to us. No, I think that's right. And I was glad to hear you say we're going to fight for it. I don't know exactly. There's a lot of numbers lying around, but it has to be that we can have access to some of those dollars. I think in this budget, the executive is trying to do some things in the rapid rehousing space and they may they're probably not enough, but I think we need a a pretty big rethink about rapid rehousing. So, I wouldn't say they're not doing anything. I do think all of us are seeing this is a program that looked like it had promise but doesn't have the kind of promise that we thought it had and now we got to give it. So I'm going to move on budget support act. Do you think it would make sense to talk about revenue raisers now before we move on to the budget support act in the context of this discussion? I'm going to say no, but we could. Um, I was guessing we would probably get there when we were talking about uh citywide priorities. Okay, fine. So, I want to talk about sub BSA and I think the last couple years we didn't haven't really talked about BSA. So the way I want to structure this is I'm going to go through a number of subtitles uh where it would help or for me because I'm putting together the committee print that have feedback on these subtitles. Um I do not intend that the list I'm going through is exclusive. that is there may be some that uh others want to bring up and some of these subtitles could be I don't think it's a good idea. Do you all agree? And some of it could be well I'm not quite sure what to do. What do you all think? I'm going to start with this. when we met a couple weeks ago and I went through a list of subtitles that I think we should not move and I would say out of I think it was like 23 or 25 the agreement that like um 20 of them shouldn't be moved and pretty much the committees were consistent with that. I also said at that time that we are on a compressed schedule. First reading on the budget support act is in two weeks and our intent is second meeting is in four weeks from now. And um usually we take an extra two or three weeks on the budget support act. So please not let's not make the budget support act longer. Let's make it shorter. So the committees and their markups came up with an additional 39 Listen, we have to come up with an additional 39 subtext. Doesn't mean they're all bad. We're kind of going in the wrong direction making this more complicated. Right. One of the criteria, one of the criterion that I have not articulated very clearly is how complicated it is for budget counsel and general counsel to work on. just say uh so let me go through this is in order of the PSA not in order of easiest to hardest. So the first one I wanted to bring up was in title one government direction and support subtitle B which is community affairs amendment act which centralizes within the executive office of the mayor the grantmaking functions of the community affairs office. The committee on executive administration and labor recommended keeping this and adding a somewhat duplicative subtitle called cultural and community affairs offices consolidation act. I could start with asking an what you think or maybe ask Anita what you think. Why don't we start with you Anita? Yes. We need clarification here. Okay. On how to handle this. Um this let me just also add this affects a number of committees. Yes. because this is dealt with community offices. Yes. What we did is simply added the titles that um the new titles that have been identified within the EOM. In other words, the EOM the many offices are now um given a title where one group is working with culture culturally defined um neighborhoods. the other is working primarily with um service delivery. And so we just added that one that one title. In other words, it's the same. It's all of them together as is proposed in the BSA, but just adding that title so that it is defined. We got that information when we had our budget oversight with the um EOM and discovered that it's now three little groups groupings so to speak. But that that's all it was just really adding the culturally title to the group. I'll find it here. There's a question. Uh my interpretation from reading the BSA everything would stay the same. uh be housed in uh the the mayor's office of um community relations. Yeah. From from my understanding, it's just a title change, not a location change. Correct. Okay. Yeah. And when they submitted it, they did not um specify and maybe at the time that they did consolidation, they had not come up with the titles. But when we had the budget oversight um hearing, that's when we discovered they have three little groupings, so to speak, but all of them are together under the um Kima staff. So that was what we here to Can I take one Can I take a step back? Can someone help explain what the problem is that this is trying to solve? Because that's that's the part. I I just don't know. happy to tell you what was the outcome from our hearing and it seems that uh they pointed out a number of organizations, nonprofits in the community that have um been able to get maybe as many as four different um grants from different offices. Um I don't have my my document here, but it was very interesting. So I got the impression that it's really a way to manage their granting process. Apparently almost all of these entities have grant making ability. And so one nonprofit may get as many. I think one had gotten seven different um contracts or grants from this grouping of specialty um organizations and so whereas some others had not sort of trying to understand what's what's the problem? Well, the problem I I sense the problem is that they were feeling that some community-based organizations had taken advantage of having the opportunity to sort of like double and triple and four times dip into this this money. And so they wanted to spread it to more community organizations. That was the one major finding that they pointed out. But but also I think before the mayor's budget came out, many of us who had some of these organizations in their committees had been toying with are there efficiencies here through reorganization. So the mayor kind of stole our fire and did it in maybe a different way, but I think that the idea that there might be efficiencies would came up in a parallel. Yeah. And the the directors of the offices will remain. Um so there's really no organizational change except I believe they are planning to not fill some of the vacancies. you know, the staff vacancy. So, it's a consolidation recognizing that we all have to take a hit uh because we don't have the appropriate we don't have the funding we once had. So, that's it. And just my final question, uh from a grant making authority, would that shift to the chief of staff? Uh, it will still be a part of that unit that the chief of staff is supervising, but it will be um more where everyone gets to talk. Okay. All of the offices and they decide because um so everyone will have an this is the way it was explained to us. Uh all of the offices will have a say. So, in other words, if you were a nonprofit and you received 10,000 from uh Latino office and 5,000 from Asian office and uh maybe 5,000 from LGBTQ, you are now going to they'll look at your need holistically as it relates to the constituencies that you're trying to serve. But they're not looking to save any money. they would take that savings in that grant and just give a grant to somebody else. I I suspect, Bill, that is what will materialize. No, they did not say we're going to put a limit on the amount of granting that we do in the community. But I think that's going to be the outcome. Common sense says that if the complaint is that one um nonprofit has received seven different grants and it totals 150 uh,000. I'm pretty sure that that's not going to be the future for that particular organization. Um thanks for your work on this Anita. Um appreciate it. I think um generally not opposed to consolidation. One thing this body had done last year was create budget autonomy for the LGBTQ plus affairs office for a very specific reason types of grants they administer. Um they have housing vouchers. It's it's a little different than the other constituency offices. So we'd still like to work with the committee at a whole to um sure that can contained. What does that mean? Yeah. I'm not very familiar with this subtitle part or the reason why we're talking about it. Um if they are part of this consolidated they would not have separate making authority. So are you saying they should not be consolidated? Thank you. I would say that yeah I was gonna ask Anita what's her recommendation not to jump in Brienne but last year the push from advocates and many in the community was a concern that there wasn't enough transparency and the office was treated as a slush fund there not um and so by making it a standalone budget authority it provided a level of transparency um that was important both for the grants but also to ensure sure that members of the community were being supported. Um and so to the extent that the office can be kept separate from this consolidation, I think that would be important. Um what we had talked about prior was consolidating the uh racial and ethnic offices and leaving external the others if that makes sense. And that's the nature of the title change. Prior to the mayor's consolidation, what we had talked about was potentially consolidating the racial and ethnic offices under a community affairs umbrella and leaving out like um LGBTQ affairs, veteran affairs, the more specialty um offices so that it didn't appear or come off as though we just wanted LGBTQ to be by itself. Anyone else? Well, you help me understand, please. Do we have the authority to change the configuration of a um um executive or operations decision or can we just play with the budgets that they have? Um in this case, I think we can do whatever we want by act and that's what we have. All right. Well, I have no dog in the fight. You can do what you like. I want that to be clear. I'm going to turn to Amy. So, reconcile with subtitle. Do you feel like you're clear on what people are saying? And if you're not, how are you now, please? Not to put you on the spot. So let's see. So I understand what was intended to do. I think that nobody's mentioned um the move of the Orca office to the executive must actual agency. All these other offices were established as offices in the executive branch but don't specifically say agency. So there's not necessarily an issue with having the offices moved to the office of the deputy the mayor. However, or was established agency the money was moved to the mayor's office and our legislative was um um so or remains an issue. Um, so I need to know what people want to do with that. We need to know. So if we're going to move the money back and leave work as a stand um to the extent veterans affairs, LGBTQ affairs. Was there one other one that you mentioned? I'm sorry. Veterans Affairs, LGBTQ affairs. Orca. Well, so Veterans Affairs if you didn't say that. I did. Okay. Sorry. Definitely. So, uh I didn't know we in terms of collapsing the council von subtitle and the mayor subtitle. I can reconcile those two things. I just need to know we're going to have something to be as shortly because it's great. Thank you. Like a draft. Yeah, that would do what we're talking about. Yeah. Awesome. That I think our offices have been to each other. Is that what you want to I think so. So you're working on the subtitle things. We're working on it. Is it working? Yes. What would be the budget? What would be the budget? I think interesting would be separate. Bit of money would be something that I I learned a thing or two. Can we have some order here? You should It's an open question. Zachary asked what's order and I said it's an open question. Thank you. Zachary asked I think budget is separate from related but separate. Um Zachary I'm sorry. I think budget implications are separate. I think it's worth looking at the budget. We're consolidating. Maybe there's some savings here, but um this is just a reorganization. The impression I got was to make for instance LGBTQ a standalone office. It was going to come with a price tag, but it already is standalone. So the mayor took offices when she collapsed. The subtitle said she collapsed ran to support but what happened is she moved the budget for all of these offices into E. Yeah. Yeah. So, and in doing so, there may be some efficiencies that were taken because each of them had other components. I don't have all the That's right. I don't have a lot of access. She essentially took the savings and so we would have to replace I wanted I don't remember just doesn't do what they say it does. So, part of this is just calibration. But yeah, we can we Yeah, we can sort out the budget side. It sounds like Brienne is working on this subtitle and if it she isn't, she just got volunteered. Could you try though to get stuff to tomorrow? Yep. Tomorrow. Um, and if it's not too much trouble, would you inform me? I would appreciate it. We'd be delighted to. And if they're not already, um, staff I think staff have been talking to each other. Sir, I'm asking you to talk to me. I absolutely. Okay. Thank you. I could have missed this conversation, but are we just talking about re making the Office of LGBTQ affairs standalone or all the other mocha coming in? Um, we're talking about subtitle B of title one and go for the committee on executive administrative administration. um our labor recommendation for an additional subtype and that's what Brianna is working on I think to combine the two come up with one maybe a better subtype I'm going to make sure we send it around to all members since it implicates so many committees it does imple but everybody's interested in these offices I know so we will send it well I guess I I thought there some merit in the idea of combining any of these. Okay. Yeah, there's a couple that kind of need. They're a little different than we're going to move on. Yes. But there's concern specifically with some being combined, i.e. the LGBT in terms of the office of women's policy initiatives, which is the one that is in Yeah. Uh JPS. I'm I'm good with the combination. Did you ask me? You skipped over subtitle A. So you went through it. I want to come back to A. No, I did. We'll we'll get to it later. I have it under council live because there's cost to that. Okay. Just jump in there. They're five subtypes that have a financial cost. So, I'm going to bring those up. Fair enough. Uh the next subtitle is um title subtitle F of title one called district employee paid parental family medical leave. The subtitle changes the eligibility requirements and available benefits for the paid parental family and medical leave program for district government employees. It requires employment for at least 180 continual days. Requires 10-day written notice to agency with certain information and allows agency to deny. It removes grandparents and siblings from the list of family members. It reduces maximum leave from eight weeks per year to two. And it requires probationary employees to enter into a continuation of services agreement for at least 12 weeks postpaid leave. According to the CFO, many factors affect use of agency overtime, including vacancies and workload needs, and no overtime budget reductions have been estimated or incorporated into the proposed budget financial plan. At this time, the committee on executive administration and labor recommended this be struck. When we met June 10th, I recommended this be struck. There were a couple members who said no, they wanted us to keep this. So, it's still my view that we should strike this that it should be handled as a separate bill. Uh because getting into the issue of what are the right benefits, especially when there's no fiscal impact, is complicated. Besides the fact that I'm trying to keep stuff off the plate of staff, uh but there were members who wanted it kept. I will say agencies like DRS are hamstrung because a significant portion of employees are at any given time on leave and repeated leave, staff leave. Um, and as a result, it contributes to overtime expenses. Um, so I get the need for some agencies to kind of curtail what is happening. I agree with um on that point. Um, even in terms of I know there was some conversation earlier around like the definition of angry where you know we have folks who are taking lead for like the second cousin who that's great and also I don't think that's how we originally designed for that to be. So in the conversation about spending pressures, while there might not be a fiscal impact directly that the CFO is saying, there is a fiscal impact overall that we need to contend with at some point. Yes. So I think you might have been the two don't strike it when I recommended that intent. I let me recommend this because this is kind of broad and it gets into a lot of policy questions that I don't think we've really looked at. I could introduce this as a freestanding bill with a commitment from Anita that she will have a hearing early in the fall and move on this and then there could be a much fuller exploration of the benefits. In fact, we recommended that we strike this and we planning a hearing on it. We think it's pretty far reaching Charles the record clear. I mean, I guess that's what Anita is saying. That sounds like a right approach. I'll just my two cents on it. I do think there's room to fine-tune the definition of family. I do think yeah, we have seen some agencies where that needs to be deeply explored. Cutting it to two weeks though. I I think that's ridiculous. Um, so I think there's a lot of room around the conversation around how you define family, but I also want to be very careful like cutting to two weeks is wrong. So that's the approach. Well, the approach was really to deal with the issue of what constitutes family um and to think about our budget constraints. Um two weeks was not really we know that that's an induction but it might be the right um amount of time. What happens today? Um individuals will combine the various leaves that we have. Yes. um members who well some staff even here at the council have been able to do nine months and to hold their position. And so it just seemed that we need to be clear as to what this what this law is intended to do as opposed to what it can do. So, so it sounds like writing it and then your plan is that you so if I introduce it, you will have a hearing and move on to this. That is correct. All right. So, the next one I'm a question about that. Uh, does this have a this or would it be? No. So, it would be able to go into effect immediately if we pass them in full. If we pass it and let's say we were to reestablish, you know, maybe go to eight weeks um as opposed to two weeks, it would have a financial impact. Yeah. Right. Um sorry. Um I wanted to not that my support matters, but I think council von's approach makes a lot of sense there. I know the lot a lot of the conversation is focusing on the amount of leave left, but the subtitle as introduced by the mayor has several other very problematic provisions which includes um making an employee who is probationary who takes leave indebted to the district rather than requiring them to work a certain amount of time past that. There's provisions that um also it it's just this wide open the agency in good faith can deny leave and there's no sort of guard rails around that I'm just concerned from a policy perspective the writing is just like I know so to the extent that I mean so what I'm saying is if it were if it were to stay in I think there's a significant amount of policy decisions that can need to be made that and I'm just talking about who's going to do that in the bandwidth that we have in the time frame. So that's my first and the second concern if you're going to introduce it as a standalone. You might might want to tweak some of those things ahead of time just to frame. No, I probably won't tweak it. But that's take it raw. You probably won't leave it in. I just want to be clear. I saying that we need to bring this up is not to endorse what was written right as strong policy but to say that like I think we do have to address this particularly before FY27. Um and I wasn't implying it. I'm just trying to back up what was said about in terms of how much work has to be done to make it acceptable to the members. It's it's there are it isn't just like it's poorly drafted and I can fix that. It's like significant policy decisions and others. Yeah, it it really is pretty far reaching. I do want to add, you know, some agencies are better at enforcing this than others. So, it's not like uh DRS is helpless here. They have cultural problems 100%. And it's a hard job. I totally get that. But also, people are daming the system and there is not a recourse. That's what's great. [Music] We will be primarily because they are okay. We're gonna they are the 25 uh the next one. Um yes, campaign finance reform amendment act. Um, the committee on executive administration labor did not recommend striking. It removes this is an oversimplification. Rever removes covered contractor restrictions for contributions under the fair elections program. There's no fiscal impact. Um, I'm going to add here because some folks have suggested this to me. We could get additional revenue if we change the match from five to one to four to one or three to one. So I have this here to have a discussion with regard to the subtitle as well as whether we want to go whether there's an appetite to go any further with this. I would talk to recognize the same person. I stood to this when we had our first meeting. Um I do think this should be struck there. There is no fiscal impact to this. Um but a couple of things I think are really concerning. We have passed laws saying that people who have city contracts aren't able to make campaign contributions. So this would create two different systems so that city contractors under our traditional system can not give funds but in somehow under fair elections could which I think is wrong. I also think that this is if if we were to want to do this and revisit our campaign finance laws the budget is not the place to do it. It should be there's no fiscal impact. So this should be just like the last title subtitle we talked about. this should be standalone legislation that gets a hearing. Here are the pros and cons and weigh that out. Um I'm also though very concerned that when I I heard I think it was the mayor who said well but you know people will uh be able to small contributions and so it really doesn't matter right everybody who's run with fair elections when you talk to people trying to say give contributions you're focusing on that small dollar but let's say award race for example $50 becomes a $300 contribution using fair elections that does that does start to add up and then as a contractor I think this is a back door to bundling where you're able to get people to say, "Everybody just chip in 20 bucks, 25 bucks. I'm going to take everybody out for drinks afterwards." But that $20 contribution times 10 times 5 starts to become very serious money. And I think it's it's wrong. So, uh, I think we have t taken a very strong and good stand on paytoplay and the way in which campaign finance runs. And so, I think this should be struck. If there is an an appetite to try to look at this, I would say it should be standalone legislation with a hearing where it can be fully vetted out and look at it that way. Yeah. I would just uh echo Charles's comments from the standpoint if we want to revamp fair elections or or campaign or finance laws in its entirety, then this should definitely be a standalone. I know there's things in fair elections that I would want to change. Uh yeah, I mean I a couple provisions. I think uh the the threshold should be higher, right? Some neighbors feel like it's a waste of taxpayers dollars uh to to have a lower threshold and especially if we're going to modify from a five to one maybe uh instead of three to one at 300. Yeah. contribute. So, uh, so I definitely think this should be a standalone to Charles's point. Yeah, we we actually put together legislation. Well, you're talking about my subtitles. Go right ahead. Sorry. Well, I was just gonna say I respectfully disagree [Music] about it, too. So, just really trying to tell you what our rationale was, why something is left in and something is not modified. The thought was um pretty much that this is while it's true that the contracting community can have undue or exert undue pressure, but the truth of the matter is we're talking about a small amount of money, right? And because of that, that's why we said just leave it in and let's see how this works because we know because of this law and other laws regarding uh campaign finance, everyone has suddenly decided we want the public to pay the dime of our campaigns. So we said, well, maybe we just leave it and maybe it's time to look at this and see what happens when a company can make a contribution. We said that it's a small amount of money already, the chairman and the mayor and the attorney general, they get $200. This is 250. Okay, I'm just, you know, just sort of playing it out. And on the other piece, if we talk about fair elections, we're really talking about can we afford five times. Um, most places it's three times, some places it's two times, but we chose five times. that we thought by saying I think one of the I think it's the school board $20 $20 times five does finally give you a contribution that you can spend for a mailer perhaps but my point is that we already have very low limits if we reduce the multiplication from five to three as an example we already have something drafted. We've talked to campaign finance. We have also been sort of shopping it around to look at what the impact would be. Bill knows it would raise maybe four million or more if we went to that level that we could use for um humankind as opposed to um expression of our opinion kind in our budget today. So that was the thought. I agree. No, I really appreciate that. I would I would just say a few things. one, I respectfully disagree uh with the characterization of the subtitle and I get why people may feel concern. I get it. Um at the same time, I think uh contractors span a wide range. And so for you to have a contract with the district in the amount of $5,000 versus you having a contract with the district in the amount of $5 million, I think that's two different things. And when running a campaign, I will speak for myself, it was frustrating if someone who has done business with the city was trying to do business with the city, even if it was in a very small amount, and let's say they're a community leader, they couldn't contribute to a campaign for that fact. What's more, I think there's also a provision, if I'm not mistaken, that says if you have given to a campaign, it will preclude you from seeking contracts for a period of time. That's right. Which again, I just think is unfair and I don't think really gets at the real concern that Charles and others may be speaking to, which is these uh big contract holders are swaying influence. Uh last thing I would just say in terms of adjusting the fair elections program, I would have pause uh because I think then you start to handicap the program and handicap the purpose which is to give everyday Washingtonians a fair shot at running a successful campaign. Um while I do think raising the threshold has merit and I think that could be compelling so we're not wasting as much money. Um I would just suggest us holding off from going from five to three although that would save money. Yeah. So on the change to to five to three I think I I don't think we should do that. I mean one of the things that's out there is independent expenditure is going through the roof. And so being able to be heard in an environment of independent expenditure, I really do think that it would it would disadvantage folks who were in the program and I don't think that's a good idea terms of raising the threshold. I I do think that maybe there are savings that could be could be achieved here. We have races where 20 people get in and they all get $100,000 because they've been able to raise a small amount and I think that's an issue that is actually not great for the system generally. So the idea that one might raise the threshold, I think it could be reasonable, but this is the kind of thing that should be the subject of a hearing and an extended discussion, not an 11th hour change around this table today. Patient that's not what the BSA subtitle that Anita's committee recommended says. So, but they injected Phil said and all putting that to the side because Phil's trying to strike subtitles. So, the idea that we're going to change the threshold on fair elections through the BSA after you just told us to cut subtitles. Well, no. I think he was open to, but I feel like for what Anita is trying to do here, and to Zachary's point, the definition of a contractor versus someone who runs a nonprofit organization who receives a grant, people don't necessarily know the difference. So, if my, I don't know, after school program gets a $10,000 grant, now I feel like I can't contribute $50 to Janice's campaign. Is that what we intended? Probably not. We wanted million dollar on earth, right? This is raising the threshold for which right now it says if you get anything from the government, you can't participate in donations. And so, one could argue, yes, let's have a hearing about this, but now we're going to go through an entire another year and a half before it's resolved. And I felt like what was written and what the committee was recommending was a reasonable change because it is a small change in my opinion um that allows for more people to participate and we're not talking about the large law today is4 million or more. It's not $10,000 $20,000. I don't think that's it is it's the law. I would just say during my during my campaign, if we could talk about that, I had to refund multiple people money because they were being threatened of losing their district contracts, which were well under $250,000. Now, that may have been an error. Well, that's not campaign finance. Can I just say that I find on the campaign trail, there are people who often use that our law as a shelter to say, "I'm so sorry. I can't give. I'm doing business." or their at- their attorney is telling them you can't. It's just all worthy things that say decision here to really flesh that out and get people Yeah. You know, I if I had my way, I would just um eliminate the dollar value and make it very clear that everyone who operates in the District of Columbia, everyone who lives in the District of Columbia should have the option to contribute to any race they want to contribute to. I think that is the fair approach. When we carve out um different communities, we are putting our thumb on the scale. Um I guess a couple of year a few years ago, I think the city made a big statement about wanting to end pay-to-play politics in politics. That was a value statement that the city that that came out. um that and that's and I I hear what Anita is trying to do. I'm just worried that because that was such a big moment here in the district of like how are we going to try to impat politics and that was because of some of the things that had been happening at the council to happen you know people being exful expelled all these things. there was a a a notion that we want to reform the we it was a moment for the the council to say look we want to reform our perception because of all the stuff that sort of muddied the council at that time and this was one of those things that made the public feel more sort of have more faith in us as a body again after some of the things that had occurred. Um, so I I'm I hear what you all I'm torn in that what what you all are saying, but I think because of because I'm torn and because it's a values question of where the public wants us to go, I do think we probably need to we we should have a hearing about it before acting here because then it's a shift in what the public may want to say or not say or continue to you I would say that's my that's where I'm at. I mean like I just wanted to point provide clarification uh to Janice's point. I think uh since the implementation of fair elections uh I think that it gives everyday neighbors an opportunity to participate in elections. I think people are satisfied with that. my recommendations and I just want to provide clarification. Uh if we are going to modify fair elections, I think that we should do it in a way uh that prevents individuals who run from wasting money. To Zach's point, Zach, I experience the same thing. I don't think that now is the opportunity to make changes to Matt's point at the 11th hour. If we're going to uh revamp our whole election process, then I think that uh it should be more thoughtful. Not saying that and which can include more lengthier conversations, not necessarily a strip of the BS. I mean, I agree. I agree with you. The question is whether we do it here as a body within the subtitle or if we want to wait and do a hearing and go through the public process. And I would say I would lean towards going through the public process. I don't disagree with you. There needs to be some change to fair elections. We need to do that. Um and uh it's it's a question of I if this nominal change is is okay for us to be doing. Um and it's a tough question to wrap with. Anything else on this? So are you agreeing with I thought he was keeping any of his recommen but Charles raised a question of if we made this change would that then now say contractors can donate to fair elections candidates but they can't donate to the traditional not or traditional true that's what that's what this would do and if that's the case then I think if everyone um except for the chairman's deciding on fair elections and he probably will do fair elections this year. It then captures any candidate. What do you mean? Well, I mean all in other words, everyone will be taking advantage of fair elections. So therefore, they will be able to take advantage of this subtitle if it remains. So um let me see three four six uh nine people have spoken and my tally is that there are four who would want the scrub and there four who want to keep it. I haven't seen I haven't seen everyone kind of did, but if you're tallying votes, well, I don't know that I really want to be tallying. Add me to the strike column, please. It should be. You know, you can add me to the column, too. You've made these, but can we just address that it should be par across traditional and fair elections. So, we're not creating remember this chairman who said at the very beginning like there's a fiscal impact, we're kicking it out. If it's complicated policy, we're kicking it out. We only have so much bandwidth to handle and fair election. A conversation alone says this should be a standalone conversation around changes or tweets. We're not in the It doesn't It doesn't strike changes. What was that, Jim? I said we're not in the position to make policy changes to this right now. I mean, I'm talking internally in the budget office and have to ban. Yes. Yeah. I think so. Then we can't do it because it's it's creating a two-tier system. I appreciate the input. I'm going to sleep on this one. My takeaway is that the council is very divided. There is a sentiment that we need to improve the fair elections. Um that does get more complicated real fast and more complicated than we have the ability to do. So what I'm going to be wrestling with is whether since we just leave it in as a feeling circle some feeling for that u just take it out and um u look at this as something has to be done with freestanding and I keep it and I ask that you in your your sleeping and thinking about this that you pay attention to the fact that almost all candidacies now a fair election. That's false. Sorry. That's a good point. Whenever I say you're gonna put a contract, sorry. So, but whatever. No one will do it anymore. I will say that. So, I I had tossed out the idea because there was some talk about this of changing the match. I'm certainly not going to leave that in with regard if if this stays in I'm not going to do that. Um, but I do want to just put out on the table that we're spending a lot of money on fair elections and um, that's money that's not available for other things and there's a balancing here. How much do we want to have fair elections? How much do we want to be cost of the fair elections fairction and is that balancing that with other things that we want to do? that nobody has to worry that that's going to show up and it's if this stays in and but anyway the takeaway here is that there um very much divided opinion. We're going to move on to if you have skipped over something should we shout if we want to talk about it or you just want to come to us at the end for things you didn't mention. No problem. Um, title two, economic development regulation, vending compliance and modernization. This 28page subtitle makes extensive changes to the law regulating public funding. Uh, when we met June 10th, I said, uh, we are too complicated. The committee to hold it markup recommended striking my affectionate name for Vance committee. quote revised revised this but strikes most of it which is fine but I wanted a little discussion here. You want to explain what you're keeping? Yeah. Um we kept key provisions that support the implementation of the current law including allowing DLCP to serve as a vending zone manager in Columbia Heights in Mount Pleasant. Also added some additional provisions in to help DLCP with implementation of the current law. We do plan to introduce the rest of the legislation soon so we can have a full hearing later this year. Okay. U this is an unfair question I'm going to ask, but Ann, do you feel like what we have from FO is um to work with? Yeah. Any issues from anybody we've discussed? Yes, we can get the rest of it done. the reframe. Um, all right. Next one. This is going to be enforcement ability. We'll have a we'll have a hearing. The next one, this volume um, title two, subtitle B, card game. This subtitle legalizes poker and blackjack and requires the office of lottery and gaming to regulate card gaming in the district. There's no additional revenue estimated as a result of this subtitle since it is unknown how many license seeds will operate nor if gaming activity will displace other existing taxable sales. When we met on June 10th, I said this um subtitle should be considered as a separate bill. The committee on business and economic development recommended striking the card games but keeps a provision that had no attention called the statute and also uses this section to make changes to games of skill. Uh so I think for me the issue is this um do we want to keep do we want to keep the statute of demand? Do we want to get rid of the statute of and and it sounds to me like is this changes to the games of skill or is this um new legislation regarding games of skill which would make me really hesitant. So I guess there for me there are two questions of skill after the ban. Most people probably have a clue what I'm talking about. We don't. Well, this is something that Ann Phelps came up with. Can somebody open the door? It's locked. Do you want to open this open? No. Uh, catch you. Um, I meant to bring my copy. The statute of stat. Yeah. So, how does it go? What subtitle is it? This is subtitle G. Subtitle two. The statute of No. Oh. Um, I don't have it's a section of the code. So, I can just read what I have. Yes. I don't have to explain it. You're sitting right beside it. Statue of Anne apparently dates back to Queen Anne. It was one of the laws of Maryland. When the district became its own jurisdiction, reinherited all the laws of Maryland. This got rewritten by Congress in 1963 and updated. What it does, it basically says that um if people are involved in gambling, the um the house cannot collect more than $25. And if the house collects more than $25, then somebody can file a suit in court. And if they win, they could get trouble damages and the district would get half of the that amount. That's sort of a real over simplification. Why? Um there is a law pending that was filed. Um um apparently that this has happened in other states, but there was something similar to this in Kentucky a few years ago. uh where there was a suit not over gambling but something related to that that was filed. Um Kentucky got I think the state got $100 million of the settlement. The um if you look at this as a money maker then there's a value to the district even though there's no fiscal impact associated with it. I've been lobbyed by both sides on this. Both sides that I respect. Uh, one side says, uh, this is really kind of stupid and if we going to legalize, uh, gambling, then then why would we have a $25 limitation? And if you want a $25 limitation, make it prospective. But, um, and the other side says this is really about consumer protection, that gambling can be addictive, and maybe $25 is too low, but that um, uh, this is a way that consumers can be protected. the sports betting companies came into the district knowing about this. We're not the only state or jurisdiction that has this statute. They they know about this. Um and so it's shouldn't be a surprise. Um I think that's a fair summation of both side uh consumer protection or we legalize sports cutting and this is kind of stupid to uh enclose this. The mayor recommended taking it out and no the mayor recommended repealing the stat. The committee I think recommends keeping the major provisions and that means the committee recommended um repealing how that speak essentially says that $25 section of rule that rule does not apply to all the elements of legalized to I don't think that was that money then go back to the house or would it go be taxable to the city the are taxable to the city question the statute and limitation. Yeah. Um what that would do is that if there's a court case, the um and there's a judgment or a settlement, the district would get half of that judgment or settlement. But would there only be a court case if the house maintained more than $25 or did the language of subtitle change that threshold? If a person loses $25 or more, they can sue or others can sue their lose 25 or more. Oh, we change that. But the um Yeah, that's right. It's the um it's everyone the thing we did a couple years ago um a relator and file suit. Wow. So you lose against that $50. Yeah. So planning on making money. I'm not tied to side income. So if you could um Yeah. Ken, do you want to experience? some we did. I wanted to explain the stat. You want to speak to uh sure. Um we thought it made sense the modif [Music] and and retreat uh the games of skill piece shared in there. eliminated the card games um portion of the subtitle um because it wasn't clear. There's some questions about whether or not it's even legal. Um and we we'll get to I guess next, but we kept the thing but it was less less concern as it was like that. Sorry. mean kept it as it relates to the statute of an or kept it in legalizing it? So we modified we kept the man's recommendation around the statute of an only for bingo. No no it's it's it's separate uh it's separate but it's all in it's all in the same sat but the poke and the blackjack we eliminated. I see. And what was your thinking about that distinction opening back up right keeping it? I mean it was it was a lot of people but not a lot but the people who did testify were concerned about it. Um we even talked to OG uh during d doing the uh budget here and they had concern about whether it was it wasn't clear whether it was it was table stuff like or physical locations or online. So it wasn't just clear what the intent was and they asked OG about the intent. They had questions about it. didn't seem like they were really consulted much on this. I guess I can see questions, but I'm just trying to understand what's the distinction between saying, you know, poker or other games of skill are not okay, but bingo is okay. Well, we were already doing bingo in the district one. Uh although it's not commercial, uh there was interest in doing bingo and it seemed like it was more thought out. It seemed like it was something that could be administerable today versus some of the questions that linger with blackjack and poker and require I think a standalone bit to talk to the executive about just because they're more complicated games or because the around it is I mean but in the first report written we don't know whether they intended for it to be physical poker blackjack or whether it was online and there's some questions about whether you can to do online. Uh and so that all came up with OG during the era and it wasn't even scored by CFO number one. I think it came together in terms of the B proposed budget probably is the change uh perspective or retroactive to what like the statue of an change perspective. Okay. You mean like for the opinion soon? Yes. I don't know how they probably make the case or argument for I don't think we voted for perspective. I don't think it's perspective. I'm sorry. I don't think it's retrospective. No, but it would be arguable in court. Yeah. If we make the change. I mean, any lawyer I imagine is going to speak to what we do and try to make a case if it helps their case. But it's not written in a way that that is retrospective. So, is there clarity around whether bingo has to be in person or can be online? Yeah. Okay. And for statute of land, we're saying it's not going to apply to certain things at all. Okay. And why not like why not just strike it completely or keep it completely? Um I guess it was written in a way that applies to the things that we actually do for meaning. Okay. So all the gambling mass legal will now be exempt from the statute. Yeah. And it does include um I believe this is written in a way that include things like we did not eat black. Yeah. So if we were to move forward with some of the stuff that she proposed but we struck um and I'm going to look at an n it would not such would not apply to those things either. Thank you. With regard to games of skill, do we currently legalize games of skill? Yes. So, this is just making some changes to existing Yes. law. I thought it was something new, but it's just changes. We already have not meology, but it's already developed. Okay. So what would be new is your recommendation. What is new is legalizing inperson commercial and changing the applicability of the statute of van so that it doesn't apply to the legalized betting that we legalize. That's correct. questions prospectively or rather than retroactively. It just is a statement. So then it would be argued that I'm sure the city would argue I don't know if the city's uh intervened the um probably the uh sports betting companies would argue that this is perspective. It doesn't apply to the suit and the um I don't even understand. It's written currently as amended by the committee that the exception to the $25 statute demand would be effective as of the effect that they expose wagering. So when when that was passed and with uh game of skills I think is when there skills. So I mean it is it is retroactive applicability but we do that. This is this is not a something new like in terms of 2018. Okay. So I stand correct. Um and the language that you have is workable. Do you have any significant issues with the language? No. No issues with the language is I'm gonna be you guys on this. No, I feel like a little more understanding of that. So, I'll do that my own time. Okay. The next it's also from business and economic development reservoir park tax exemption. This is in V subtitle. the real property tax exemption for 20 years with the real property and any improvements constructed thereon as parcel two west and parcel four within the reserv district and the only place that needs to be putting um tax exemptions or abatements in the budget support act it's outside the financial plan I'm always uneasy but they sometimes happen do we have any kind of a um exabatement analysis um 14. Yeah. outside. I know that it's still a tax incentive. What do you think? [Music] Um, do you know how much is [Music] okay? I'm going to keep moving. Okay. uh from Anita's committee collective bargaining uniformity amendment act 2025 requires established ground rules to begin the negotiations process for collective bargaining agreements requires collective bargaining agreements negotiated oh I think can't find it collective bargaining uniformity amendment act requires to establish ground rules to begin the negotiation ions process for collective bargaining agreements. Collective bargaining agreements negotiated outside of the mayor's personnel authority would still involve expenditure of public funds must allow the office of labor relationship complexed bargaining and to review the agreement prior to ratification. I understand there's no fiscal impact. I think since this is new, it ought to be freestanding and just look at the um have a hearing of develop a record and um have more public input into this. Um, let me let me just say the law already requires that um the bargaining units give notice to the office of labor relations and collective bargaining. And part of the law specifies that there will be will be ground rules. What we're doing is saying there shall be ground rules because um in theory the way the teams operate it's very difficult to do bargaining if you do not have or set ground rules at the beginning of the process. And frequently the lack thereof or the still preparation of ground rules is the rationale for a delay on moving forward with the negotiations. And this is designed to make it clear that let's follow the rules and the rules say the process is is laid out and let's do that so that we do not have the delays. If you recall you were have been constantly critical of the delays in the negotiations and we found this to be one of the most prevalent reasons for delays in negotiations. So that's why this is here. Does it um rise to the level of a uh public hearing? I would say no because it really affects the bargaining units um as opposed to the general public. But do we know that the bargaining units are okay with this? Um yes we do know they they already acknowledge that this is what they they should do that they are asked to do this. I'm not sure that answers my question. Well, WTU bargaining last year, they never had ground rules and they never had ground rules because management meaning the mayor OCG uh can constantly um put off or stood in the way of coming to agreement on the ground. Bill, if you if you don't want this in, just take it out. Okay, that's wearing. Okay, it affects the bargaining units. It does not affect our general population. I think we hold hearings when it affects our general population. We know that most of the bargaining unit members are not even DC residents, but if you don't like it and pick it up. Okay. Well, I'm going to say a little bit more here. the the collective bargaining process, the statute I would say is very carefully written and um the different terms in it or requirements in it are played by both sides seemingly to their advantage. very complex and to I'm uneasy about artist stepping in with the secretary chain without fully understanding what people thinking management put off agreeing to ground rules with WT WTU the teachers move for easily half a year if not a year and ultimately the only way that that agreement was reached was without having ground rules well this would be another way that one side This prevents the bargaining by requiring ground rules. I just don't know if the unions are okay with that. And there's also this provision that has ORCB involved even when it's a um outside the mayor's personnel authority. I'm not quite sure what that means. It just simply means that any negotiations that must take place with a bargaining unit and our government does require ground rules. That there should be ground rules that are developed and agreed to before they move forward. That's all that means. Did you want to say something? Oh, I was just to ask um the topic of Did you all end up striking subtitle about the retroactivity pay for unions who had uh negotiated their agreements after May 15th? No, we didn't we didn't address that. I do think that's something we should take up as a body that there are several unions who had been coming to the table for months and months in good and including fires local 36 and they the BSA subtitle says that they cannot get their retroactive pay when other unions can. Yeah. And I think we should strike that subtitle to make them at least eligible to pursue it. Uh that was my recommendation when we met intra raising an announcement. Think about other things coming out of the committee. Anything else on this? Um the next two am I from housing? Well, not for that. Thank the chair. He's not here at the moment. Um excellent. Uh, let's go to there's a subtitle recommended by judiciary violence interruption merger. That's on my list because I'm not quite sure what we're doing with it. I I'm happy to discuss it, but I was just about to use the restroom complete. So, it feels like that might be a longer discussion. Let's go. Let's deal with this. way to step out in the middle. I don't know. I think people are just Okay. Um they have to take Did you have other subtitle? What else you got? Well, I have there was one more I was going to bring up. There's the two from housing. There's violence interruptions. So, there are four on the list. And then any that anybody wants to bring up? I think you said that. Okay. Oh, we have Yeah, we have a few. You want us to jump in with some That's your list that you want to walk through and you're open up after that. Yeah. And then you're open. Yeah. You like to jump back to the ones that we wanted to bring up? Yeah, we'll prepare. Let me do the one that uh is new that I've not discussed with members. Didn't come out of committee remembering. Um I have talked to staff about crafting a subtitle that would have sanctions for late submission of the budget. Um I was going to say late late arrivals for meetings. No, late submission of the budget. And uh what I'm thinking of is uh that if so this this is what happens. Just to remind everyone we under the home rule act the council adopts a resolution in the fall usually in December that sets forth what we want for the budget mission the budget submission requirements resolution. And in that we set the date last December. Uh we talked to the executive and they said uh please don't have the budget submission on March 22nd or 25th when we usually do because we want more time. It's going to be a really tough budget. We want to have some more time. And so we agreed on April 2nd. Um I think that in the past we've consulted with them on the date and I think before this year we've always set a date of around the end of March like 20th the budget submission date but this year's you know they just blew it off by two months and um and it's not the first time but I'll say, right? We've never signed it that late, but they blew it off. And it's not the first time they've missed the deadines. Yeah, but it's the first time they miss like two months, but a unique set of circumstances. I was going to say like inated circumstances. Okay, the pencil's down even though the mayor sat in that seat and said she was done with the bud. Let me send a message. Thank you. Even though she sat in that seat and she said, "I was done with the budget last week and I don't know what you mean by pencils down." We got a letter a week later from it and said a week later pencils down. She did not finish her work on the May. Um and the supplemental was later than that. Um, no, I'm I'm quite serious about this that there need to be some sanctions because we can't do this again. The sanctions that I'm thinking of and the reason I'm putting this out here there would be um as long as there would be hiring freeze and freeze in the city administrator and the My committee currently I would really not be you have to affect the whole government just a part of the government. So just say freezes across the board if you want to if we're that powerful let us do that we can do that kind of policy. And I would just add um and I mentioned do that in single circumstances. I think we all peer what peers officials officials. Exactly. Like you know I think there's things that us as a body we the executive don't know what we're doing as a body and sometimes we don't know exactly what the executives doing. But I think it's a stretch or a reach to try to impose sanctions on the different branch of government. That's just my take on it. I mean the public they know what we're doing. They know what we're doing. I feel very strongly about this. The inconvenience to the public and the disadvantage to the council have been enormous by the twomon delay in the budget coming to us. And I feel very strongly, I would say I feel to the core that this could have been avoided, that the mayor did not take seriously our April 2nd deadline. We were promised it on April, No, we required it April 2nd. We were promised it a few days later. We were promised it a week later. We were promised it a week after that. I can't tell you how many different dates we were promised we would get it. And then when the mayor sat there and said she was done with the budget and a week or two later we get a letter from the mayor says not from the mayor from the CFO that says now she'll deal with the budget. Bill, but isn't that because Yeah, I get that. I'm just saying isn't that because of the federal government? No. And we were trying to No, I'm very clear on that. There was no contingency planning that I asked for in a meeting in the mayor's office with regard to the CR. no contingency planning until May with regard to the supplemental for this year and she was not done with the FY26 budget which was not affected by the CR. She was not done with that until May. Well, from my recollection it was because of Brooke making a suggestion to bring you said what I mean I hear you Phil. I'm just trying to know what suggestion I do. So I understand that when she said bring a C singleandedly working on the budget and I no so you know the idea for this came to me let me just say this isn't completely outrageous when it's outrageous at all by the way but uh somebody gave me an article from 10 years ago in California now there the situation was a little different we have a requirement a deadline and our deadline is we have to vote within 70 days we do in California they don't have that kind of deadline. And so there was written into the law, don't ask me how, that the legislators would not get paid for every day that they didn't have a budget. And they didn't get paid. I would just say, Phil, and then I'm done. Would you like it? I'm just playing devil's advocate. If the executive imposed sanctions on the council for some reason or another, um, if we agreed that we would do something by April 2nd, be an action. I just say okay I feel like we're like a fairly unique set of circumstances that were going on and I can appreciate the frustration particularly at the end in terms of they were working on one particular strategy that they thought was going to work and it didn't necessarily play out. But I think you're being kind there because the house isn't going to take this up. You knew that in Mark that the house wasn't going to take it off. That's one person's opinion. I think they based on their own sort of lobbying views around certain things. But what I'm saying is, you know, sanctions is an extraordinary step based on a no respect for I think pretty unique set of circumstances that we were faced this year. I think what the chairman is asking is how do we get compliance? Um we haven't had this like happen a year ago but but not by two months but they missed a deadline a year ago. And this is also a problem for the CFO. This is just like a big problem in the government because the CFO has to be able to process the budget and they don't know. It's like a moving target for them. They don't know when it's going to happen and it is really unfair to the public as well as the legislative branch. We don't know what our schedule is. So, what's the point of our even having a deadline if we're not going to be serious about wanting it enforced? And let me just remind you, it's not just that we're dealing with the budget in possibly August. I can clarify that in a second. It's not just that. It's that we have other legislation like the uh rental act. Robert was going to have a hearing after the budget in June. Most of us were going to have hearings after the budget in June. So, we didn't have hearings before the budget in April because we were going to have the budget then. It screwed up all of the committees. Oh yes. Look at the council business over the last three, four months. There's been very little that's come out of committees because of this delay on the on the budget. All of this has been screwed up. Everything has been screwed. We have to what we got to do going to have sanctions. So when we set a deadline we mean it. Yeah. I think that's law. That's what I'm Okay. So what exactly would [Laughter] came back in the room for their BSA subtitles. Yeah. Why this is a productive conversation and I think we should talk about enforcability with them to honor agreements moving forward. I don't think we should sanction our own government. Ridiculous right? We can't jump in. Yeah, please. Let's just I I think I give a little more grace than you do at what I think were very unique circumstances this spring. I think I do believe that there is supposed to be in a healthy government, there is a healthy tension that exists between co-le branches of government and executive and legislative branch. I'm concerned whenever it moves to an unhealthy tension, but I no one should pretend there's not supposed to be a healthy tension that exists. Um, we we do I mean I think sanctions are are not something that we should say no to. Like there's an idea around how do you help hold different branches of of government accountable. There's different ways. Maybe the word sanctions just feels hard, but there's different ways that you create consequence for different branches of government based on what they're supposed to do. I I think what you're hearing or that's what I'm hearing um is that there's a healthy debate that could be had around what would be the appropriate consequence. I do believe when we say the budget needs to come in, the budget needs to come in. And I agree with you, our workload and legislative workload, our hands have been tied for large part in terms of being able to hold hearings and do a lot of the work that we'd normally be doing. This would be a very heavy legislative time right now and that's lost which kicks everything into the fall which kicks everything towards next year. It it absolutely for the rest of our council period ripple effect this has a ripple effect that will impact everything that happens for the next year and a half. But I do think you're hearing some push back on perhaps it's the words of sanctions or what is the appropriate consequence. I don't think people would say there's no consequence to surviving law. And I don't think that we should say one branch of government just doesn't have to follow the law, but I do think there's maybe a healthy debate around what would be an appropriate consequence. I don't have a proposal on that, but I'm just trying to kind of hear the conversation and move it forward is that um it's I think you're hearing a strong reaction from the standpoint of calling it sanction and maybe there's a different way to think about consequences. So put it out. I appreciate the way you you phrased it and I put it out there because I'm open to suggestions. I have a suggestion. Um, and I will say I just got a note from the CFO's office that they're not 100% sure they can meet our timeline for the rental act mark up on the night. This is a consequence of the budget and that's a consequence of a big problem. Right. So, it's not nothing. Um, by the way, I needed to meet that deadline. But, um, but but but maybe maybe what it is because what we had here was conflicting stories about whether or not the budget was actually done and sent, what what the cause of the delay was. And I think having the mayor come to a hearing just to give a public statement on where the budget is, what the delay is so that we can all be on the same page. Even around this table, there's disagreement about why the budget was delayed. So certainly there's a lack of understanding from the public and whether it was necessary. So I I think that is a fair that's not a sanction. It's just you know public accounting and I think the mayor would want to avoid that. So it would incentivize I think you know information sharing and meeting the deadline. You lost what what part? You started out by acknowledging that there's a serious problem. Yes. And there's also a discomfort with sanctions. So what is short of a sanction but still moves us in the direction of getting the budget on time um or at least a public accounting of what's holding it up. So if the mayor doesn't meet the deadline, she should come before the council and just say what the what the issue is public and how much longer it's going to take. I don't I actually wouldn't completely delink this from the conversation you started with around are we an advisory body just kind of laying out a recommendation on a budget or are we laying out like we are the appropriators we are a colleal branch of government and if we don't want to treat ourselves like that that's one thing I guess but we're a co-le branch of government and so if we set out in our where we spent an hour on earlier of laying out the appropriations um everything from okay you can't now have your markup because the budget has been delayed here like these are consequences that we have to live with why are we not willing to think about what would a consequence be as a co-equal branch of government that we set the laws this is what the expectation is from our co-equal branch of government um I I can look at like I think all of us can probably do that in each of our committees we can look to examples where we pass a law we passed a budget that was supposed to be done and it wasn't done. Um, that to say that there's no consequence. Like what I hear people talking about is maybe it's the word sanction rubs people kind of the wrong way. Maybe what is the the degree of what that looks like, but I would be concerned if we're not at least thinking about we we were hired to write the laws. We write them. They're not followed. there's some kind of consequence for that. But there's probably a really healthy debate in range of perspectives of what should that look like to accomplish it. Something like that gave a suggestion. If there was something like that, something like what Robert's talking about of an explanation, a requirement of an explanation, because I actually think in this year, when Congress did what it did in March, the egg was so thoroughly scrambled, you could say, "Oh, they should go ahead and give us the budget based on the CR, which they then in the middle of March would have had to gone back and done a ton of things. They were not going to make April 2nd. They should they have waited to try to solve it once we got it through the Senate to see if the House would do it? It's a judgment call, but could be an explanation. I actually thought they were doing the right thing at the time. I just think this year the situation was so the idea that they would be sanctioned isn't right. The idea that we could have had better communication in that period. Yes. Last year we had a different issue because things were late last year, but that was because the the CFO's review period was done differently than had been done in the past and it slowed things down. again an explanation when you got towards the end of the process and whether it was pencils down or not pencils down ultimately we got an explanation of that which was the mayor said we finished we gave it to the CFO the CFO said yes she gave it to me but I look at it and may ask for corrections and she's not done until she's answered all of my corrections the idea we're frustrated did, but it doesn't mean that there was delay due to some sort of a nefarious purpose. This was in both cases that in all three cases, the delay off of April 2nd, the lack the the the final part of this year's budget and last year with the CFO there, it wasn't the mayor's choice to be to do it in the way that she did it to make us be later and later. It was a it was a very challenging set of situations and we I don't see sanction. I see explanation and communication. And Mr. Chairman, lastly, I won't beat the dead horse. I would just say and and Robert uh provided a suggestion in which we heard from the mayor. I think that she tried to do that by coming to in front of the council with the CFO and that's why I highlighted Brook's suggestion because you were saying one thing, the CFO was saying another thing and it appeared that the mayor was saying something different. So bringing all parties together. Furthermore, I think this is an overstretch or reach in authority considering we are a strong form of government. If this was Alexandria where the mayor report to their city council, that would be something completely different. But if either one of us was around, if either one of us around this table were mayor, it will be a just hearing that you're telling me the council, some a body that I work with, right, you're going to sanction me because you don't know what I know, right? I'm figuring things out. I'm not just sitting on my fingers. And to Christina's earlier point, we had a strategy. We were in a precarious situation as a council because we didn't want to we wanted to move swiftly and and get the CR matter fixed, but at the same time, we still wanted to we didn't know which way to move because of the lack of communication and coordination between the executive and the legisl legislative branch. So, all I'm saying is uh you know, I really think we should take those factors into consideration. Me personally, I do not support a sanction. Uh but I just wanted to let you know where I came from. I feel somewhat constrained because there are things that I want to say that I don't want to say in public. Wait is being set up in the room next door in case we're feeling blood sugar run low. There is food that's that's about to be ready. She doesn't want to say this yet. It's about to be ready. So, I'm not sure it's helpful if we just pause and then lower the temperature because I don't know that this is so much about I wouldn't worry about the temperature or the blood sugar. I I know more than I care to speak candidly about with regard to what happened over the last several months. I believe to the core that the mayor could have gotten us budget in April and possibly April 2nd. What makes you think that? No, please don't have it to answer that. We we accept that. We we accept that you know more and that there could have been a different set of results. We accept that. And we did get public explanations. And I don't buy the public explanations because I know what was happening. And what was happening was that our deadline of April 2nd was not taken seriously. It just wasn't. There were reasons why it couldn't be met. There were lots of reasons why it couldn't be met, but they weren't really good reasons. I don't know how else to say that without saying some things that I don't want to say publicly. And if if we agree to a date, we should adhere to that date. And if we can't make that date, because I was told on I'd have to go back and look at the correspondence. We knew they weren't going to make April 2nd because it was at 10 days beforehand that they had to be done and we knew they weren't done 10 days before that. I think I wrote a letter to the mayor about that. Um I wrote actually a number of letters. We had a meeting here with the mayor because of a letter that I wrote in May that I forget exactly how it was phrased, but it was like this just can't go on. And we then had a meeting and and she sat right in that chair and she what she said with regard to her being done was not consistent with what I was saying or what the CFO said. That's a fact. The CFO sent a letter a week later that said pencil's down on that date. A week later. this it didn't need to take two months and our deadline was not respected and it has totally messed us up. I have no problem with discussing with the executive the date. We discussed that date in December, maybe even in November and then stick to it. And there has to be, as Charles puts it, consequences if you don't. And it's not that I want to punish, it's that there needs to be some incentive to respect the date. So Zachary, if you don't meet the date, you can't get into your office or you won't get paid. In California, it was they don't get paid. I'm I'm open to some consequence, but I'm going to have a really hard time in December putting forth a resolution for us that sets a date if we're not serious about that date being set. Can I say something on this uh chairman? So, we're having a lot of conversations about frustration, whether it's uh overspending, uh inefficiency, the mayor missing deadlines, and kind of everybody gets worked up and then we're like, what are we going to do? And we're like, right. So, I mean, they at some point it's already happened like the lack of accountability and discipline just kind of sets in. And I I think we have to be grounded in where we are as a city. like this is not the time when year after year, decade after decade, money is just rolling in. We can, you know, kind of shoot from the hip, miss deadlines, have inefficient program. That's just not where the city is. And I think like our heads have got to be in the game where we are now. And if we're not willing to make some tough choices and hold agencies and the mayor accountable, then we have to expect this to continue and it will be bad for the city. So, I don't think this is about how we feel about the mayor or tough decisions we want to make. This is about things that we need to do to really tighten up the ship for the city because things are just not in a good place financially and they will spiral if we don't start to act differently. So, we got to figure out what the solution is, but we can't gripe about problems if we're not willing to do what's necessary to solve. Otherwise, let's just go you Committee has two subtitles you want to talk about. I'm open to suggestions on what the council, but I do think we have to set something for Are you talking about a budget delay or are you talking about when the law is not followed? Because other frustrations I'm hearing people talk about is like a different issue of when a law is passed and it's not followed versus a budget being delayed, which sounds like your bigger concern. I think they're all cut from the same cloth, but I'm only talking about the budget delay. I mean I there you were not here at the beginning but we talked about the overspending and the lack of any rigor with regard to complying with the uh budget. We adopted but we spend all this time adopting a budget and uh there seems to be great deal of disregard not just by the executive but also by the CFO. I spoke to that earlier. It's all of the same plot, but um this is consequences for missing the budget definition. So, let me just remind you, committees put off a lot of work on legislation that they could have done in the months of March and April and May because we were going to be dealing with the budget in April and May. Now that we're dealing with the budget committees are having a hard time dealing with legislative matters. So our schedule's been all messed up. On top of that, we have the RFK proposal and it's no surprise to anybody that the team has been and the mayor has been pushing really hard that we have to vote by next week, two weeks from now on that. Um, and that that would not be so much of a problem if we'd gotten the budget April 2nd. We would have lots of time to deal with RFK in the month of June in July. Very true. And we have the crime bill that we spent hours we spent hours on. Yeah. That we couldn't spend on the bud. And it's not a criticism. And we have TOPA that we're going to spend hours on that we won't be able to spend on. Yeah. Yeah. That's just I just want to remind you the nature of the beast. We are already saying it which is why and so I wasn't going to raise this because it sounds too obnoxious but that's why when the budget looked like it was going to be delayed I scheduled many hearings in April understanding that maybe we'd have to cancel them if we did get the budget but to keep the trains moving from our legislative perspective from our committee. Um, that's not to excuse the delay, but I just I don't want it to sound like I don't want it to sound like we were told no. We all stopped moving legislation. But I do think we should be falling from this. I think we hear you that there needs to be some guardrails in place to make sure that timelines are honored and I think everyone has spoken to their concerns and would move on. I propose a five minute break. Just have to get out one seconded. But okay, second. We want to take a quick break and is lunch ready? Yeah, it is. Okay. What's for lunch? Wait for today. Robert, I know with those Why don't we resume? There you go. It's a great idea. Um I there were few more subtitles on my list. Um the first two were new from the housing committee. uh HPTF preservation of affordable housing mandates that a minimum of 30% of HPTF project funds be used to support preservation efforts. There's no fiscal am impact. Um I'm hesitant about this one. The housing production trust fund is about the production of new units not preservation and in the path we have funded preservation separately. So this would be diluting the number of dollars available for housing production and you can get a presentation by budgeting separately for that. Good points. Um the housing production trust fund is for both production and preservation. The um DHC has not prioritized preservation. uh when the new director came in, I started working with her about the importance of preservation and they have slightly increased their preservation fund uh their use of HPTF funds for preservation um except for this fiscal year which is an outlier where they use virtually all of it for preservation, but there there's a little more clarity that it's uh important to to to put here. So the council has to make a h make housing preservation a policy priority. Um everybody knows we don't have enough affordable housing. The pace at which we are losing housing because we are not focusing on preservation far exceeds the pace in with which we are building new housing and the new housing costs a lot more. So between 2000 the year 2000 and now we've lost about half of our um affordable housing units from over 70,000 in 2000 to about 34,000 now. So we are losing affordable housing at a rapid pace. Um add to that the fact that 87% of apartment buildings in DC were built before 1978. So about 50 years or older. That means that the vast majority of our housing is old and needs to be repaired. And if we don't fund preservation, either the repair won't happen or the repairs are going to price out residents. Um we also don't have a lot of vacancy. So we don't have room to move. Our residential vacancy in DC is 6.1% compared to national average of 7.1 uh%. Add to that the fact that on average the new units we are building cost over half a million dollars uh half a million dollars each. Um so it is not a policy change for to use HPTF dollars for preservation. It is a change in policy priorities to prioritize. To your earlier point, chairman, we need to make sure we're running programs effectively. The most effective housing cost here is a focus on preservation. Uh, which is less sexy. Don't have a lot of ground breakings. You don't have a lot of ribbon cutting, but that's how we preserve affordability. So there's more work we have to do here in the rental act uh because we are very much at a crisis point um as we are not even producing as much uh housing. So um 2022 we had uh permits for 7,264 multif family units last year the last year that we have record for just over 1,200. So take the sharp drop in units that we're producing with the quick pace at which we are losing affordable units and we've got to do some things and those things are producing more and preserving more. Um the other thing along with this is our when we talk about citywide request we need to add $15 million to housing production trust fund because we need more both for preservation and production. Um but we must prioritize preservation. We haven't done it. We are suffering the consequences. So um that's on that. Happy to take HVAC separately. Well, why not do what we did last year and the year before we can put some dollars into housing preservation? I think last year or two years ago, we took we took money that the mayor had proposed for HPTF and we reduced that and then put it in the housing preservation fund. So, the housing preservation fund, which I did add a million dollars to because the mayor, I think he said, zeroed it out or didn't add anything to it. I can't remember off hand um doesn't have the same flexibility as uh preservation under the housing production trust fund. So that's a trade-off we can make. I mean we you know if you want to remove money from the trust fund and put it into the housing preservation fund, I don't think that's the right call. That is a that is a decision we could make. Um but I am suggesting unequivocally the council needs to shift the city to a presentation priority policy. Um I would also note that this is in line with what the coalition has been recommending for some time. Um but but they are right. So which now uh in 188 I think that I don't think I would disagree if the statement is that we need to make preservation a higher priority in production. We need more I would disagree with that. I think preservation is important but we need more units. Yeah. We need more units. Yeah. So, if we're losing units quicker than we can build them, that means if we need more units, we've got to focus on preparation. There's just no way around it. Linda, um I I don't honestly don't think we could be even having that conversation. I think we need to Right. It's it's right, not a either or. in these budget realities. Um, having talked with the coalition just yesterday, it seems to me like they're not they don't want to see a statutory change to the trust fund in the BFA. Although I think certainly we should be having a conversation about how do we get more preservation dollars where they need to go. I I support your other suggestion which would be if we need to if we need to do it this year, take some out and set it aside for preservation. you don't think that fund is the right place, let's figure it out. But if we could do that without making that statutory change and then let's go and figure out like let's have a bigger conversation about all the housing finance programs we have and if they're balanced uh to point uh I do agree that we need to focus on producing more affordable housing but Robert I do understand the focus on preservation. You mentioned that we lost half of our uh affordable housing stock over the last 20 years. Uh my question is did we lose the number of affordable housing because of defaults on the loans or uh did we lose our afford half of our affordable housing stock because we weren't uh maintaining and preserving the stock that we have among clear um I I can't say I I can't say off hand how we lost all of them half of our housing uh immediately. Um the what I can say is that again we already can and do use the trust fund for preservation. It just has not been a high priority. I am suggesting we need to build more housing and we need to preserve housing. But again, if we are taking a strict look in a tight budget to say to your point, chairman, we need more housing, if we are losing housing at a quicker pace than we are building it, then we have got to stop that bleed. So, I'm not suggesting we don't focus on building new. This is 30%, it's less than half. So, it's not swinging as far as it should, but it is starting to point us in the right direction without just kind of yanking us too quickly. But, you know, as we talk about citywide priorities, what I suggest is we add $15 million to the trust fund, but keep the 30% requirement uh for pre um uh preservation. The other thing I would say, the other uh issue with your recommendation, chairman, which again isn't a terrible one of just putting the money in the housing preservation fund is the housing preservation fund is strictly a loan. Whereas with the preservation funds and HBTF, it could be a loan or a grant. Um, and we need to maintain some flexibility. Um, yeah, I just I think the issue um for our community continues to be that we need more housing period. Um, and that is the impression across the country as a start. The issue Robert is talking about is very clear in that we do have old housing that many have lived in. We called it naturally affordable housing years ago. I don't know what it's called now. Yeah. But this naturally affordable housing was um renting at a a lower price point than the new housing. So it was preferred by many who are low income and moderate income naturally and that housing is deteriorating very quickly but it's all privatelyowned and I think we need a repair program that can help with the process. As you know with uh rent control units, we have a couple of provisions like um uh I forget the name of it, but one is gives the uh landlord the opportunity to do major repairs where the tenants pay almost all of it and landlord doesn't have to pay anything. Um, I'm just thinking we need something similar for these these buildings that have been considered naturally affordable. Perhaps we have a fund that does it one-third one-ird one-ird where tenants pay a third, landlord pays a third, and the government who fund that we can set up would be also entering into agreement with them on the housing production trust fund. It is true it's considered a grant and it's considered a grant because you get it for 30 years. After 30 years, no one knows who you are, where you are as far as the collection. We have over $400 million that we haven't been able to collect for a few years because it was given as way it works. you pay you pay back this loan after you begin to see um profits if you're and a lot of folk don't say they see profits for 15 years you know until they maybe have the property to actually change hands. Um so that's another part of our dilemma. How do we get that money? And we if we had that money, we could use it for um new housing and for ren helping with a renovation fund. Maybe when we get it, maybe we should put it in a renovation fund that would help with this naturally affordable housing. But then we got to think about what are we going to do with some of this housing that is 70 years old. Is it more cost effective to um demolish and put up something new? I mean, and if and if we do that, perhaps we can increase the number of units and therefore we can have more housing that is affordable. I think that instead of the I I'm gonna put it all out there. Instead of the I being 10%. It is it is time for us to at make it at least 20%. If you talk to any developer they will tell you that 20% they can handle that and we need to up the amount of required affordability in our projects. Zach, you want to do uh two quick questions. One, just a a general process of like how this works and I I guess I just don't understand it. So, would the idea of these grants for preservation be given out on an application basis for people to renovate or support existing affordability? Yeah. And again, uh already done. Yeah. But it's and is it the same idea that they are expected over time to pay it back? Yes. Got it. For the the loans, they are the the loans through the trust fund are long-term loans, which is better for residents. Um whereas with the preservation fund, those are short-term loans. So, you know, they they serve a purpose, but that's the reason we put 1 million in there, but we're saying 30% of of the house. What was it before the 30% change? It there's they just allowed to but they Oh, it was whatever they wanted. Whatever they wanted and and they were doing very little, the new director has been more open. So, she started to do more preservation, but just still not not a priority at all and it's it has to mean and not to open up and we can talk about this later, but I just know there is a lot of talk about other things. Uh some would argue the proposed changes there seeks to um protect affordability covenants. Like how is this related um in the grand scheme of protecting affordable covenants? Because I I take your point to heart that we've lost a lot. We want to maintain what we have. Uh, but it just seems I I guess what I'm getting at is I don't know if 30% is the right number. I take your word for it, but how does this all fit together towards getting us to a goal or do we not have that type of projection? So, what what what I'm doing is prioritizing uh affordability and doing that by focusing on both preservation and construction. So on the preservation side because the it unless we mandate it there will not be a policy shift to start to focus on preservation. 30% is the lowest possible I believe it like I we should go harder there but I think it would be too drastic. It would cause some Has there been any model say if we do 30% for 10 years it will get us go to these many units? Not exactly but but we have the data. So new construction is according to DHV oversight on average we spend $530 per unit for preservation 530,000 per per unit. Preservation is 300,000. Timeline for preservation is 6 to 18 months. Timeline for new build is 3 to 5 years. So, you're talking about both in terms of cost and speed, preservation is the win. But I also recognize as all of us do, we've got to keep producing housing. That's where some of the rental act stuff comes in. We have stopped producing housing. When you but our population is still growing and we have a low housing vacancy rate. So when you have a low housing vacancy rate, the population is growing and a substantial drop in new construction that means if we do nothing, rents will go up sharply. So I spent a lot of time and I don't want to get into too much rental stuff, but I spent a lot of time talking to the people who produce the housing saying open-ended, what do we need to do? Turns out I'm proposing we make a change to TOPA in the early years where it is virtually never used. I mean we're less than 4% of the time used in the first 15 years. That is to spur production and 70% of the housing production trust fund will be focused on production. Now preservation, we've got to also do that, which is where the 30% uh the house production trust fund focus on preservation comes in. So we're trying to do both in the best efficient data driven ways that can find Thanks. Um, yeah, I want to say I appreciate the committee's effort here and I I think I based on your explanation and I I wholeheartly agree that with Robert about you're marking 30% um of HPTF for preservation um the mayor used has used HPTF for production for years which is I think another reason and why we should focus on preservation as well is because I think it's a reason why so many tenants have not been able to make good use of their TOPA rights over the last several years. As we talk about TOPA, uh tenants who exercise their rights under TOPA often partner with developers who rely on HBTF funds to make good on promises made through development agreements. When HPTF is targeted solely at new productions, those really cannot be made good on and it leaves tenants to terrible housing conditions and puts developers in a spot where they can't actually improve those conditions. So for me, there's some there's some good developers out here that end up becoming what people might refer to unfortunately as slum lords, but to me it's because one of the reasons is because get the investment they need to preserve and stabilize affordable properties both naturally occurring rent stabilized and subsidized like LHTC. So, you know, in my opinion, building units does not really do anything to ensure that our current res residents are living in good conditions and making sure some of the HBTF uh has to go to preservation will actually help this. And so, I think that's an argument for us doing this as we're looking at TOPA and TOPA rights and sort of where we are. This is actually a step in a good direction. I think helps everyone on both sides. How can we do 5050 or flip it? Well, I mean, I think Robert said I need I think your argument is compelling. Yeah. I guess what I'm I'm not convinced or sure how we landed at 30%. Because it seems like maybe we should be doing 7030. Yo, if y'all I'm thinking about what I can come to this table with and not have people say, you know, let's throw this out because there, you know, there'd be a real problem if we don't make a policy shift. But I I think we start with 30 and then we you know look at what whether we do more next year. But but I also Yeah. So that's a good question. uh propose next to I just curious in terms of um because I'm not on your committee but were you socializing this with the multi-pen developers around so like we had one year where HPCF was severely reduced then we had another year where we had to use part of HPTF to pay for other things that was not production but in some ways just preservation right because of the number of uh places that had a rears. And so now this kind of seems like at least from what some of the multif family developers are saying is like another hint that yep it's 100 but it's not really 100. So I mean to the point that someone else may I'm not opposed to the part about preservation but you said the preservation fund doesn't have the same flexibilities. then why not add those flexibilities to that fund? Then it becomes the same as the preservation and housing deduction trust fund. So I mean we could do that but it I mean it it really is the same thing. So we could change the rules of the preservation fund but then we're going to have to get that money from somewhere. So yeah, but then I'm just essentially it sounds like you were wanting to combine the two anyway. No, it's it's already we're not changing any of the regulations around the trust fund. it's already eligible to be used for both preservation and production and is used for preservation and production. Now, if I'm a developer, then I don't like this change because I only want the money to be for production. If I'm a building owner, I love this change because I'm struggling on the preservation piece. So, you know, but both are important. How much is in HTTP housing cost? 100. Okay. Proposed money for the next year. Next year. Okay. We don't I don't know how much. Do you know how to question how much is in there? Yeah. Oh, for next year or now? Yeah. This year? I think it was 80 million. But they use all of it for preservation. They use all of it for preservation. Virtually all of it because the So yeah, not exactly preservation but but preservation. So the buildings that had gotten trust fund dollars in the past that were struggling to maintain their buildings because of unpaid rent, they got the trust fund money this year. Yeah. basically all. So, so that's my question and concern, I guess, is as I hear about the preservation need, I think that is very compelling and I I think it's good that you've been focused on preservation. I don't think it was talked about enough. Um but if there like in the case of the emergency in the housing market that we've had this year having the housing production trust fund as a backs stop to be able to say okay this is going to make sure that we don't lose these tens of thousands of units of affordable housing that I think would have been lost but for the intervention of the trust fund. Are we setting ourselves, are we tying our own hands behind our back to not give the trust fund that flexibility that if something like that were to happen next year, we've already essentially blocked 30% of the funding from being used for something that could be needed in an additional environment. So the they made a switch this year that I supported. you know, it's not ideal, but they were in ideal circumstances to use virtually all of the truck money for what I sort of preservation. They could do that again, but what they had not done outside of this year is ever prioritize in any real way preservation. There's been a slight uptick from very little to a little bit more uh in the use for preservation. As we continue to hear from building owners, we are struggling to maintain our properties. So we need to push preservation as a policy priority because they're not going to do it. So when you say it's kind of preservation kind would would you argue that the definition of how you're defining preservation in this 30% requirement would encompass what went on this year with stabilizing housing providers? Uh well I'm not changing the definition of preservation under HBTF. Uh I assume that it meets that definition otherwise they would have had to come to us to use the money as they did this year. But I mean is that your intention when you say 30% has to be preservation if next year the same thing happened again or the housing providers need to be stabilized. Would that go against the 30% threshold? Um I I'm not sure. Uh would it go against the 30% threshold? Um no. I think that would be in line with the the 30%. Um well I guess what I what I can't say off hand is how the trustman defines preservation. But how did you define preservation? I'm not changing the definition from the trust. So um I just have to refer back to the statute. Okay. So so sorry the the payments that went out in the last couple of months stabilized housing providers so we didn't lose those affordable units. The intention would be that that would count as preservation. I think that does count as preservation. That's that's not I don't I hope that's not what they keep doing because there are other preservation needs. That's not that's not the key priority. So I'm not trying to take away their flexibility to address an emergency. But what I am trying to do is uh have a 50 60 70 year old building be able to be restored without a sharp rise in the rents and the people like we have to do that and so we can't just yeah we can't keep throwing all our money at new buildings whether it's new construction or what they I think had to do this year which is kind of shore up buildings that were recently built. I really want us focused on those 50 60 70 year old buildings. I think that's a compelling argument. Robert, we get our money back if they get caught up in a go into a different settlement judgment. Anyone else? I think Robert makes a compelling argument. I agree with that. I can't tell you. Yeah. I'm not sure I agree, but I'll think about one. And I asked about a different cause and subtitle. Yes. Which what's your next? The next one was HBT. Uh probably HP. Okay. Mine was similar on EAP, too. So that's the third one. Um I got to do HPA and then EAP. Does that work? Yeah. All right. So, uh, as I'm sure a lot of you heard from constituents around this time last year, folks were pissed. Um, the agency changed the program. I mean, literally in the middle of the year, they switched from what was a first come, first serve model to a lottery. Um and changing in a middle year was disruptive, but now they want to keep the lottery. the realtors and home buyers, potential home buyers are all telling us this doesn't work because it's not predictable. So, if I'm in the market for a new home and I apply in early October, I know that I'm likely to get approved. And if I apply in July, I know I'm likely out of money. But the lottery system, you have no idea whether or not you're likely to be approved, which means you can't really be in the housing market. You know, you can't be in the home market. And so we worked with the realtors and all of them said please please go back uh to to to how it was. So we are requiring uh DHC to go back to how they operated the housing production trust fund uh historically. Um, we are allowing HPAP applicants who complete the housing counseling to remain eligible for in two years instead of just one year because if you go through it like why do you have to do it again the next year if you don't get when the fund runs out of money every year, right? Um, so it it streamlines that that process. Um, and we we're um adding some accountability and transparency requirements uh because that's just been important, you know, for us to know how long is it taking them to get applications through. We have two providers that run HPAP. I want to know for each of them, is there a difference in their timeline? Um, and that will help inform us as to whether or not there are other things we need to tighten up or whether we at any point need to look at different providers to run HPA because they have changed over time. Um, so that's you say more about what um when you said with the lottery it's hard to be in the market um and that you're trying to move away from the lottery system that they imposed because they were running out of money. No, they're going to run out of money regardless. Um, I'm moving away from the lottery process because if I want to buy a home, then what I'm going to do right now, what I'm going to do is I'm going to make sure I'm in the HPAP line at the beginning of October. And if I get in line and do everything I'm supposed to do, I'm going to get my letter of approval, which means I can go look for a house. And frankly, I could start looking for a house in August, September. Yeah. But and because it's first come, first serve, they're not going to run out of money in the first month. But the change they made last year abruptly without consulting any realtors uh or consumers is they changed it to a lottery. So you have no idea regardless of when you apply your likelihood of being selected. But isn't that fundamentally more fair? Like why should I be disadvantaged because I'm applying in March versus October? I think he talking about the unpredictability about Yeah, this is unpredict. Yeah. Why should I be because you could strategically everybody could say, you know what, let me let me line myself up. I know when the when the fund goes live at the beginning of the fiscal year. So, that's what I'm going to line up for, right? But but with a lottery process, like you can't even start looking for a house until you get approved. But then you're also on the clock because you will lose that funding. Um so so there's just the lottery is just it's too unpredictable. It's going to run out of money regardless. There going to be plenty of people who don't get the funding, but at least the way that it used to operate historically, you kind of knew when you weren't going to get the funding because it was based on right that the water is more fair. What Robert's saying is that not it's not predictable. Um because you're now making it that you're eligible for two years. If I apply in March, I could just be in line for October when it opens. Um that's I think it's different. The the housing council figured it out. It's the two years that related to how long you hold your because this is similar to RAS and Matt and I were talking about this. To me, I just I get it and why we would make this change, but I also worry that if you're at the end of the line, you're just out of luck. You get the chance to apply next year in the beginning of the year. But it's just with real estate, you don't know that you meet, you've got to have this predictability or and it's not like it's an easy process. Yeah. So, yeah. And let me clarify one thing. So, eligible, you can be elig you can be deemed of eligible. You've done all your stuff without being approved for funding. So, the eligibility lasts for two years, which to me makes me feel better. So if I am applying in March and we run out of money, I could be first in line in October the following year because I'm already eligible. Got it. Got it. But you don't get approved for money until you have purchase that is the focus, right? So, and the challenge is if you're trying to buy something and it's it's May and you're trying to close on a deal, the deal is going to be contingent on you getting your HPA money. But if you're if it's a lottery process, then you may not know until the next time there's a lot. So, the landlord's not going to hold it for you. But then, are we going to end with a wait list? a long wait list because then what will happen is people just get added on and added on over time. You know what I'm saying? So like the public housing wait it's only two years. So it's two years instead of one just because to make people go through I went through the h I didn't end up using h but I went through the entire I got you know being valid. Um but it it's arduous you know and then you have to go to like a training and all that. Okay. So, um the reason why I had this on my list to bring up here is because um the um there's an argument to be made since there's no fiscal impact. This should be freestanding with a public hearing and develop um this is a little bit more complicated. You're just you're describing because you're also eligibility. You're expanding eligibility to transfer workers as I understand it. No, that's for EHAP. But let me say on HPAP, um this is the reason this needs to be in the BSA is because the funding is going to become available at the beginning of the fiscal year and it has been made abundantly clear that this lottery process is not working. So when this funding comes out, we've got to have clear consistent rules. We can't keep like jerking people back and forth and we can't keep the process that everybody agrees except the agency just doesn't work. So your argument there is we got to have this in place before October 1st. Yeah. Yeah. I mean that's a logical my brain was saying yes saying yes to you but I was like oh yeah yeah so on the eop piece and let me say from the offset like I support public transit workers it's a retired public transit worker however comma adding public transit workers to eh without adding any additional money to the pot. We are going to have the same problem that we have HVAC when we increase the amount that someone can get and we never increase the overall pot of money. And so I want people to be cognizant of you're adding thousands of more employees in terms of eligibility and we didn't add any money to it. It's going to go much faster. So great point. We don't spend all that you have. So it's not like anything else. I mean this it's a legitimate concern and I raise the same concern. So I mean they do use EHAP to backfill HP when HP comes out but we don't we don't spend out there. I'm going to move back. Please are we being able to ask about other housing subs? Um, I had a question about the housing and downtown program about sort of why the housing committee kept provision allowing the mayor to have so much discretion over determining determining future designations. those questions. The housing and downtown program, it I was just wondering why you all kept the provision allowing the mayor to have so much discretion over determining future designations like those. I'm sorry. Can you can you speak up for the health answer? I didn't hear about it. So, we just we we can't with it right now. Can I speak to this? I think what we've seen over the last couple of years is that there has been a lot of interest in the program, but when there is a applicant that's just outside the boundary, we don't want to have to pet shouldn't have to come back here to like renegotiate and pass another bill when there is a project that could be building more units that is like just outside. So at least from my perspective of the slightly expanded eligibility um even if it means that it's just outside the traditional CBD is still aligned with the intention to bring more housing um and make sure that projects can pencil out. Um I'm going to move on. Um the last on my list is from judiciary the violence interruption merger. So I don't know where we are with this but my understanding is that subtitle remained in the report and so what are we doing? Okay. So um I have long believed that we should merge our violence interruption programs. Uh this was part of a bill that Kenyan introduced a year and a half ago that we had a hearing on. We also shared publicly as part of PCC an outline for how that would look. Had hearings on this. We've had lots of community meetings on this. So this is not a kind of new untested idea. Um as we were going through the committee process and evaluating both the OAG program and the once program um our committee felt like OAG was doing a better job um getting the money out the door. We met with the grantees the violence interruptors. There are a lot of concerns about uh ones with contracting with response with followth through and followup training. Um and so we decided initially that in merging them they should be given to cure the streets. The mayor's budget proposal had zeroed out cure the streets. Um so we proposed initially dissolving ones um sending the pathways money to NES committee to be managed out of DOES um and then having the violence interruption grants themselves all managed out of OAG. Um so that they're doing six sites now. We initially proposed giving them enough funding for 10. So it would be almost doubled. Um there was a lot of push back to that plan and every member of the judiciary committee asked me to reverse that. Um as did the mayor and the attorney general. Um and so we worked and thank you so much to the budget office um and with my team overnight to basically redo much of our budget that had dissolved once. Um, in terms of the BSA, the initial BSA had articulated what that merger would look like, um, and the dissolution of ones. So, we ultimately passed the budget. We struck that BSA. The only thing that remained as it relates to VI, the BSA, is that we had already transferred the pathways money to SEAL and Anita's committee markup had already passed. So, we couldn't go back in time and take that money back. But our intention as a committee was to reconstitute ones and get that money back once now that the budget is before all of us to put pathways back into wants. Well, my notes are that the subtitle is still alive. It was still in your report. We had to keep the part of the subtitle as it relates to pathways, but we struck the other language as it relates to the solution of wants and is not But what does the subtitle do? The subtitle transfers pathways to the committee of executive labor and we our intention is for that to come back into once in which case we would not need the subtitle to transfer money. Correct. But we we because Anita's committee markup had already passed when we changed this strategy. We had to keep the pathway shift in place. We were advised. So that's why we kept it there for in committee. But our intention, all of our committee members intention is for the pathways funding to be moved back into ones because when we dissolved ones in the initial draft, we legislatively placed pathways in DOEs to make sure that the program was protective. So that's why we had to keep the BS that part of the BSA. subtitle that is not necessary if assuming that we which I will do. Yes. Move pathways money back to wars. Correct. So there's no subtitle necessary with regard or contemplated with regard to violence interrupts or cure the streets. No subtitle. There's no subtitle right now. Now, we do have a signed agreement with the mayor about conditions at once uh set to improve and so that language exists in the signed agreement, but it could exist in BSA subtitle too. Um um appreciate um the challenge that Mr. Senate, the chair and and how nimble they had to be in working with the budget office to to get to a point where it was support for the committee's recommendations. But I guess my answer goes further though with respect to the violence programs. I think he said full engaged. He's like his ability to multitask. All I heard his right ear is better than his left. We're going to strike that one. I didn't hear a word. You said um you want to say it if it's a question to me. You want to say it again? Pathways needs to come back to one's office. probably get them back. But what has not been I don't think unless it's been accepted to our recommendations, the district committee's recommendation to vote. the issue with the attorney general and the six programs that the office administers through cure the streets which is essentially cure the violence model cure violence model there's six programs that they have the capacity to to continue to administer that they would want to continue to administer that they don't have the funding for that I'm asking that as council we prioritize restoring the funding for that those program to add to that. I I I would I would only I want to hear from the office of the general that they have the capacity and the ability to do more than the six that that they have requested and that they have identified that those sites are two sites that make sense for the program. Um I I haven't got down yet. Um and I would also um still lingering to me and I know this is is for me. I do think ultimately the hospital-based violence prevention and intervention programs need to reside with the Austin neighborhood safety. I don't think that day is today. And I think before that transition happens, there needs to be support in the community where these programs are being administered successfully today. And I think there's a process that perhaps um the committee did they hold hearings and work toward getting that sort of support. Um but I do think ultimately it should be housed program but right now I don't think it's the time to to do that without first um getting the buy in people who do the work. Is that the hospital based or the hospital based hospital right now? It is in New Or's office in New It doesn't need to be there yet. needs to be there ultimately and and I believe which what book said that the program should be merged. Yes. But it I think it needs to be done in a way that brings everybody along and ultimately to be candid. This really only works is when you have a willing executive who has bought into the market into reports with the level of fidelity the work that's happening. And when you see that as a case in different jurisdictions, pick your city where this work is. Baltimore Chicago Boston Oakland Richmond California. the evidence and the data say or can support that these programs work. Um, and we need that to be the case here. So, I appreciate that you did work agreement with the executive. I think it probably needs to go a little farther. Um, but I think it's a great starting point because my concern with with it resting with these programs being in the office attorney general despite the successes that they've had with their cure violence model is that they don't have the resources with all the sister agencies. So they do a good job of, you know, getting out in the streets, identifying those at the highest risk committed violence or being victims, intervening, getting them to put their guns down, but they struggle with appending them all, right? They don't even have an program for seats on the pathway program, right? And so, so that coordination needs to happen in the executive. Ultimately, this program should rest within the alternative safety engagement with a level of independence to be able to do the work without political interference. But also, and this is where I think it we got to be thoughtful to the council because having previously been a ward member, I know the pressure that we get to respond to violence and say we need to site here, here, and here. But I think we need to be more disciplined in how we follow the data on these programs. you need to have the data. Um yeah and and frankly it needs to be more of a measure with um what data is being collected, how it's impact and the training that occurs throughout across this program. So I think ultimately it should be merged um at the ultimate safety engagement. I think you need a greater commitment from the executive to um implement these programs as they were designed and until that point the work that's happening with care the streets needs to continue fully funded and the work that OBS is doing with the hospital base for funed working toward I think um if you want to um we've been talking about a merger for a number of years and that has been difficult and slowgoing. Some of that was related to um political uh problems between the previous attorney general and the executive just could not find their way to even having the conversation um to a lot of other structural challenges. I do want to respectfully push back. You've said it both publicly in the media and here that the committee asked you to do this. I'm willing to speak for myself. I did not ask for you to do this. This was your proposal. Um I I also don't think we should call this a merger because it's not. The funds aren't there for cure the streets. And so it's not a merger. To be fair, the mayor is the one who took the funding away from the attorney general and cure the streets. So that's not a recommendation that came from the committee. That is a realization that the mayor took those funds away and that we were stuck trying to figure that out. I think that we've got to that is a councilwide priority restoring the funds for cure the street. The pathways program now has $2 million less in it. I think that's not good. I think we've got to restore that. I argued this during the committee markup and I appreciate you saying it here too, Kenyan. The hospital-based violence intervention program should not be at the one's office. It needs to be at OBSJG, but we've heard from all the programs as well. Howard, Cedar Hill, everybody has already contacted us saying it needs to be at OBSJG. Um, so I think that there is still a lot of work to do. Probably that is separate in addition to the BSA. I know we're trying to focus just on the BSA, but I think this is one of those areas where I would wager you're going to hear from most of us if we talk about councilwide priorities. This is a really big one of making sure we find and restore the fun these different pieces. Um, but I also think we should stop using the phrasing merger right now because this this is not a merger. It doesn't have the funding associated with it. Um, but I think there's a huge value and need to continue here in the streets at the AG's office. Um, in the event that we make a determination that these two programs need to be closely examined in the public domain, I think might be where we should head. I think it's very complicated. We have programs in certain parts of the city that are working um that may or may not be funded at this moment. Um that's just my bird's eye view. Um I wanted to speak to the issue of the monies that came to the committee. Um, and I am very supportive of the violence interruption work that the so-called pathways crew was doing. And I think that they somewhat like it. But after the hearing, I want you all to know that a number of those who were in the audience came over to say, "Oh, great. So, we get to advance from violence interruption work to maybe getting a real job. They like the idea. I'm just sharing with you. Okay, that's uh that's all I'm doing. Um the idea was that they would have an opportunity to go into an apprenticeship. I'm not arguing for the money. I agree that the money should go back to whatever program you feel it should go to and all the good works that it does or doesn't do um at any given moment. My point is that whether we like it or not, these are individuals who do hard work and they are deserving of an opportunity to go beyond just violence interruption. we should keep that in mind and we should find a way for them to have an opportunity for a longstanding employment commitment so that they can get on with their lives. So that's the that's the point I wanted to put into the discussion on this matter. Um um I apologize for my reaction. Um it was it was it was when you say real jobs I was like oh no they're going to hear it but but you are right. I hear that from them too. they they want to move into other jobs, right? And I and I think that's important. Um and and I think we got to think about that. And the mental health aspect, that's another thing that I I hear from them um on what we do now. Um I'm trying to figure out how we pull these threats together because uh I agree with what I think um Kenyan said. I I think the cure the streets model is sort of proven. It's working. It does require the buyin from the executive, but hasn't and we need to merge the programs because it just doesn't make any logical sense to have two programs. But I haven't I haven't heard the AG fighting to keep them under his umbrella. I think they want to keep the cure model. So like, you know, the buyin from the executive is is tougher, but but how do we you know, how do we keep the cure model? um and consolidate the the two programs like it what would what would it take to to do that and is that in the realm of possibilities? I think there needs to be a real transition. Like I mean there has to be like we can't just do it. Like there has to be like a plan. Like yeah, we just need a real transition. There is a a plan. It has been socialized and circulated and something that we've worked on for over a year. I will say there were some sticking points with the plan that we couldn't get everybody to agreement on. One of them is that the attorney general uh would like to be basically in dual control of the program for a period of a year or two. I don't think that that makes sense in our system of of government. I think we need to rip the band-aid off. So like we've been talking about this as a city for seven years that we should merge these programs and I'm just presenting a proposal to do so. If that's not where people want to go, that's fine. But I'm not satisfied with where the status quo is. And so this is just an idea. This is a program that's important to everyone. And I am just one person and I'm trying to come up with something that could pass out of committee. I hear you Charles about um you know what what was asked and what not. Every committee member said that they would not support the committee report where how we had it. and I said the only way to do that is to put back together ones taking away all the enhancements that I had given because the budget office wouldn't certify anything else overnight. So I gave up most all of my other priorities to to do this. Um so that's what I mean when I say every judiciary committee asked me to to do this. Not that you all asked we don't want to support cure, but those were the options on the table and I I tried to make that clear to everybody. Um, so yes, I do think that a transition is going to be challenging. It's always going to be challenging, but we all I keep hearing everybody say even around this table right now, we need to merge the programs. We should merge the programs. So, let's merge the programs. Like, here's the program. What was it? Was it a dealbreaker? If if we have OAG like a part of it for the as a transition period, I think you said that was something I don't think that's a bad idea. Like so we wrote them into a transition team set to meet for uh two or three years that we have mayor, the attorney general, the chair of the judiciary committee and design that we all appoint. So like I could appoint someone who is a violence interrupt. Okay. Something like that. OG could employ someone who gets a cure grant like what someone could I guess we just need the things that the OG program does good. We need ones to start doing good right so the grant making the grant selection the grant criterias those were things OA a did really good and then they did good over like collecting um like requiring and collecting consistent data and things of that nature. So I understand why right to the memorandum with the mayor that we fund. Got it. All of that's written in the the adherence to an evidence-based model which could be cure but it doesn't have to be cure but it has to be evidence based which guys means from our perspective that I can't say excuse me ones you have to open a VI location in word two downtown they have to follow the data to Kenyon's point that's going to look different from our perspective too we have to specifically I just want to say that it's also Like and I'm not going to inflate tuition for this because I'm also guilty of doing but like it's also like every every business portal doesn't need a main street right it's very similar to that diagnose collect information and determine what best suits the challenges the content with the violence that we're seeing across the public because what might be the case for pep work may not be the case or langston terrorists or terrorists, right? And and to your point, if we don't have the data, we have to make sure that we get it. And then we also have to decide what you do in the interim to stem the violence that's occurring in different places. Now, I want to say this because I think it's very important. Two things. I don't believe that a violence interruption program should end within a prosecutor's office. Um these relationships and these programs are built on trust. And while the OAG has administered this program of level of success, ultimately it should not be housed in a law enforcement agency in the way that it is now. This was started back in 2018 as a pilot and it's still going on all these years later. and and I don't I don't want to speak for the attorney general, but I think he agrees that the program should not on a permanent basis be housed within the attorney general's office. Um, and I appreciate the efforts you've already made to put together an entity that can help with the transition. Um uh I think it's a matter of of like just really continuing the oversight and pushing the executive to get there maybe a little sooner than you like but taking the good pieces from what the work that the O is doing and the good pieces from the work the ones office because the pathways program is I think perhaps a blind spot within the office of neighborh engagement um as as I've said before it's not just a jobs program um it's a program that's about changing behavior of individuals who I mean without fail come to that program with a lot of trauma and not as much experience in the workforce and they get trauma informed counseling they get you know if they need it you know support transportation food um and they get subsidized employment with the goal of permanent yes right and so I just I thought it was worth saying that that the program should not be high but then to the train. I thank you everybody. Um I I did get a chance to talk to the attorney general yesterday about this and I think he is ready to let the cure program go to its transition. from I mean I think we can continue working out the finer details of what that looks like but um one of the things that I don't want to uh leave on the table here is that there were what 10 cur teams before this budget came to us and now six have been restored. No none have been restored. He cut four budget for zero. though, you know, I have a disagree with him that it was okay to cut those four teams, but also he never got any funding for them. He was always throwing it together, right? We may not need to restore all, but there is evidence of success and evidence of need for that wards one and four cure team that has been cut. Um it is currently very actively working to mitigate ongoing beefs in R2 wards beyond and um the mayor's budget effectively more than the resources to our two wards um by cutting that. So um because we all want peace and safety, I think that has to be a focus of whatever restoration we're doing. Um, and it is rooted in data and it is rooted in evidence and um, you know, I support I reluctantly support the idea of moving the cure program over to ones because I think that is probably what we need to do right now. I also support the idea of the creation of an independent entity. Um and I think that uh uh age needs to be with OBSJ for the time being pathways with um ones and I'm very grateful for the work that you're doing and planning to do on oversight as all this gets implemented because it's not easy um and uh we haven't had a willing partner and I think that's been a huge problem as others have said. So, I think it is going to continue to be on the council to get these programs implemented with fidelity um until we have a different mayor. Until what? We have a different mayor. Existent. So, yeah, I want to echo what um has been said because people keep being like we got to be clear. Ward members can't be just asking for it's like okay, first and foremost, ward members have asked for violence interruption. It has been based on data and based on facts and that's from being on the actual ground. Me and Brienne are being penalized because there are not that we don't have any Spanish speaking DIs in the network and so we don't have a provider who can provide the type of intervention that's necessary. But not that the intervention is not necessary, it's just that we have not expanded to Spanish speaking DIS. That does not mean that our programs are not worthy and we are not having the interconnected fights that we are having on the ground. It means that we need a provider to step up and actually recruit Spanish speaking BIS, right? And and that's on every side. Even MBD has said we need to get more Spanish speaking officers because we need more help in no. So I don't want I you know we're not just making up like oh ws one and four needed because it sounds good on paper. We're making it up because on the ground we are having the exact thing VIS were created for, which is when you're having violence based on crew neighborhood interactions that can be mitigated through what VIS have done on Kennedy Street. I it has happened where they've done ceasefires between neighboring crews that have not have not knock on wood been battling each other since VIS came in and did the ceasefires did the work they did and got them through pathways got them jobs. They are working in DC government all around right now. People who you would think could not have done that changed their life through pathways because they changed behaviors and attitudes of those individuals and got them really good government jobs and now they're doing great and we're and that's the work we want to be doing. So I just want to note that like we when we're fighting for additional like when people when board members are fighting for it, it is not like anecdotal. It's not like rhetoric. It's based. And what I've been when I asked like what's the data to say that the cure model no longer supports what's happening? They're like uh we don't have that data to provide. So we don't who's the attorney general. You had a lot of trouble getting it to Kennedy Street. Right. That's right. Years ago when it was Yeah. And I adored they had to be like and they had to be like we don't know if it's there and then everybody was like uh like I just so I want that to be the case. Let me be clear like I'm not challenging any about what their needs are because y'all are going to know before um I think members who are not the water member would know it. I guess question is whether specifically the cure violence model solution and that's what I'm saying knowing the definition of the cure violence model both from being at OG and doing that work being that work but like the actual definition that anyone can read online we're talking about crude and neighboring so if parkview and petworth are beefing that's the exact pure model that you all are talking about and that's the one that NPD actually appreciates the assistance of being able to do that. I'm not challenging that. Let me be clear. I'm not challenging what you all are are saying is needed. What I'm saying is the the entity that administers the program has a process where they do an analysis and make a determination appropriate. If they disagree, I would want to hear why they dis. That's all. Yeah, I will. And if they feel like that's not the appropriate solution, then tell me what is because the problem exists. Correct. Right. And it has to be mitigated. Absolutely. And so, so that's all I'm saying. And I think one of the challenges for us is that like we didn't see any Yeah. improvement until we got the cure team. Right. Even though ones had been on the ground for a while. Right. Right. No. So that for us is like that's the evidence. Well, I got a lot of thoughts about some of the things that one's doing in terms of that aspect of the Yeah, and that's part of it. But I'm going to push I think a lot of what people are talking about I I have made clear my concerns about ones and their operations. Um, but with where we are now, we have a five-page signed agreement with the mayor and a commitment from her to be much more involved in ones and her entire leadership team who we've been in regular communication with, especially over the last couple weeks on this issue. um have given me more confidence that the agency can see improvements going forward with their grant with their site selection with their with their grants with their adherence to a model with the followup with the resources people need. Um and you know that's that's the best I could do given the situation that we were in. So like when I still see some people have frustrations of like oh well ones isn't doing what they should be doing. I'm like I hear you. There was a solution for that that people didn't like so we made another one. So if people want to move forward again I like I want to support everybody and how we want to proceed. But in having studied this for several years now and in talking with really everyone across this this ecosystem, I do believe that it is safer, not just more efficient, but safer to have a merge program. And like I don't really understand this definition of ostata merger. Like we have increased funding for violence interruption. we only had so much funding to utilize. The definition of a merger doesn't mean funding is doubled. Like I'm proposing that we merge these programs under one agency. And if people don't want to go forward, that's fine. But I I ask you to look at all the research around it because I think it is safer to have one program. And we can continue the conversation about age. Like that's not the hill I need to die on. if I just I have heard over the last several months that there's been a gap in information flow between the HIPS operating out of the hospitals and I think there was maybe some people reaching out from the hospital versus head of the hospital or the grant recipients. I've had a lot of conversations over the last week and there's a lot of people thought all their funding was being cut. Not true. The HP funding is still absolutely going out the door, but under the theory that we should house all of our violence interruption program out of one agency so that we can better coordinate services for people who need them and prevent violence, which I know is all of our goal. I thought it was more responsible to do under one agency, but everyone disagrees with that. That that's fine. But that that was my thinking. All right. rather than that continue to relive all this. Um I'm at a point where other subtitles and I'm looking at Brian collected earlier. You've been asked now. There are five subtitles we haven't talked about that are on my list under spending. So I'm going to postpone if any of those. Can I this share related Gary? Just one comment on one on title three subtitle C which is the criminal codes reform commission. mayor tries to eliminate this every single year. Um I would just throw out one suggestion. I think we have found there's a lot of value actually having the expertise from this group that comes in whenever we have different things in front of us is on your list. Well, I'm going to suggest one way to solve this rather than try to find the money and then the mayor is going to defund it again next year. I think there should be a council. Let me just go there. Let me just click. So there are five subtitles that have funding attached. I don't know what it is. The first one is this in order. The first one is um rankings title one subtitle a limitations on liability against discretionary whatever. It has a $4 million a year recurring cost. I kind of have a sense that most members would like to see it struck. Yes. That's why I have it on the councilwide priorities list because it means we have to find $16 million. Well, we put a million dollars towards it. We raised the cap from 500750, but it absolutely agreed with the right policies to strike it entirely. Cap. Agreed. And we also found um 433,000 for the other subsets of the liability of the language of the subtitle. So that'll be a dent to your to your other four million. to see. Um, the second one that I have on the list here, striking title three subtitle a public services hotel occupants sense a night per room that the mayor keeps trying to do every year. That has a $7 million a year uh hit. Yes. So, can I just I love the idea to remove the tax, but the $7 million is right now funding OU. funding. It's the same way that the um the SCT is funding green program. No, but it is part of OU's budget operations. So, since they used that federal money, it has to be replaced. Yes, it would cost $7 million to eliminate because we would have to back back bill OU specifically. Okay. So long as OU will be protected, then I'm agree with you. Third is the strike also in subtitle three subtitle, excuse me, in title three, subtitle C, criminal code reform commit. Um, and I do have on my list, you try to put that under the council. You're already where my head is to put the entire commission or to put like a position. commission. Uh the $700,000 a week. So that's four people. I think that's four people. Yeah. No. Um because it's not legislative. Well, the current reform commission commission is looking at the law and making recommendations. is a law. That's kind of what we do. Person is looking at CFSA and dealing with complaints and my book court monitor. Not quite the same, but I totally get I think we were coming because it's the same idea that every year the mayor is cutting it, correct? Can we protect them in a way? the way to [Laughter] I hear you where in the council are we thinking about putting that probably um as an adjunct to the general council out of it all I think for five and and then The um the next one on the list like we said is uh title five subtitle K homeless services reform act. Some of that would be kept in the PSA but the part dealing with congregate care would be struck. This has no cost on the FY26 but it does cost 57 million worth of financial plan. Did I say something wrong? What are you keeping? So, we haven't done it yet. Would you propose to keep the You said you were going to strike just the congregate care part of the HS. What's the rest? Jen was Jen. She was ready. Almost 100. the the uh the proposal is to eliminate the congregate care provision. Um we understand that there are some costs out there that are attached to it. Oh that are not right. Exactly. So we know that the human services committee was definitely working on this dur the committee process. Um, we were trying to figure out the cost and we had heard the cost was like 20 million. We were trying to push that. That was that was the estimate from the agency. Correct. That was the estimate from that was the estimate from Okay. It was 20 million annually. Yes. Okay. Well, so it's on the list. So I misspoke. I looked at the fiscal impact statement for the subtitle which is 0 and 26 and 57 million over the rest of the financial terms and Jenn pointed out to me before we came in here that there other costs of savings however you want to put it associated with subtitle and the care part is just a piece of it so it would be less than the 57 million but that is now you want to speak to what else is in Um, I can speak to what I've done to it so far, which is the Committee on Human Services, um, had a subtitle that dealt with, um, case management and it amends the same section of the code, so I put it together. But in terms of what the mayor subtitle does other than the care, I defer to Dan because I haven't spent very much time in that one yet. Sorry, Dan. No, that's fine. So, um, beyond the provisions, congregate care and shelters, of which there are two. The first is allowing district residents to be placed in congregate settings where there's no non- congregate settings available. The second is allowing interim eligibility placements for everyone in congregate settings. The other piece of this, which was the original $57 million fix, was some provisions regarding rapid rehousing. So the BSA exits approximately 1167 families from FRSP on September 30th of this year and it ends benefits pending appeal and exits families after a year is a hard stop which realizes $19 million in savings I think in the first year and 57 over the top. So that would be the other part of this. After we got into the committee process, we found that on top of that $57 million to deal with the rapid rehousing provisions, it would cost another approximately $20 million a year to take out the congregate housing provision. So you're saying this understated thing? Yes. A lot of times it's if we're not allowed to provide congregate care, then we will need to extend an additional $20 million a year. So this is our safety battle. What I think what the human services committee was looking at and what we want to look at councilwide is if there if we have the ability to eliminate congregate care as a safety valve. I mean if it's $20 million a year I don't think we're going to be able to get there but we're working with um working to to see what we can figure out. Yeah. and we had worked on bigger kinds of ideas. So let's state together about how we might approach it. I my impression also was that we thought that Stan was in the process of pushing on the 20 million and it may not it may be that that number could come down. But so what I'm hearing is that the fiscal impact statement should have said 78 million and it's worse than that. It's $20 million a year. So that's it should have said 137. Matt very kindly included me in a conversation with the agency about this and I think the truth is that it may be a policy that we want to support just it's not a good idea to be amending the homeless services reform act in the BFA and this is a this is a piece of legislation that is when we last updated it we spent more than a year on um and many of us who were at the table today worked on that in committee and voted on it and brought it to the full council till it got to where it needed to be. Um so I I think whether or not moving to congregate care for families uh is the right way to move forward is something that needs to have a wholesome public discussion to not be done with the FA. So, none of that's to disagree with what I put out, which is to strike the congregate care portion of the homeless services for acting subtitle K. We would very much like to see you do that. It's just what's the cost associ about what you're doing with the subtitle. Okay. Thank you. And the fifth uh subtitle on my list is to strike title six subtitle I which is the project labor agreements. Uh and I don't know what that is. Uh I am told that five of the 10 projects are already u already have PLA not quite sure how but um 11 have already been bid and so this change would undercut yeah but like one of them bridge no contract on that I don't think a tree bridge no contract yet I think that's on the list but any of them Um whatever. Yes. Um explains. Um, so we've had in the law for maybe 10 years that project labor agreements, but that the projects in the capital budget over $75 million, I think it is, uh, would have to have a project labor agreement. A year or two ago, we amended that, we legislation. So there was projects in the CIP over $59. Um, is the mayor I don't mean to cast any shade but not uh fan of labor PLA's think that she can save money by going to hundred million. I think that's what it is. And that we will go back million in 2032 or something. My sense is that a majority members don't like what the mayor proposed. Um, the CFO said in the fist, it was kind of a funny if I remember correctly, that there is a cost, but then didn't say what the cost was because the uh or savings, but that so to undo the subtitle, then we would have to adjust various projects. That's my intent to talk to the CFO and make another run at saying that there should not be a fiscal impact. I think we do have some others. Try to find I have some more fun supporting information too. Uh, of the 11 projects she cites, five of them already have been bid out and awarded with PLA. So, I can't see how you would ever justify that that would be a difference in price. And the building trades are telling us that rebidding each of these projects without a PLA would cause substantial delays, create confusion among the contracting community, lead to lawsuits, and ultimately cost the city more money. If DC were to remove PLA requirements from contracts that had already been awarded, contractors could submit bid protests. And while a bid protest is pending, the performance of the contract is automatically stayed, resulting in delays. And if it's successful, the government will likely have to resolicit the bid for the project, resulting in further delay. Well, the CFO believes that the PLA adds 10% to the cost event. Um, I find that a little hard to believe for multiple reasons. Uh, for one thing, all projects have to pay according to Davis Bacon and the PLA doesn't increase that. Um, in addition, I think we all have come to realize the dollar value and the CIP associated with the project is get in trouble if I say this, be a little squishy. And uh, so% above what? Um and uh there's also this is from but the DFO is saying that that we would have to increase what's in the CIP for each project. That's not the same as the profit cost and it doesn't reflect that DGS does not value NP any of his projects and I don't I just don't I I've never been convinced that PLA's have to be more expensive. I I will say this though there and I support generally speaking PLA's but but I think we need to push and not just blanket accept that PLA's are necessarily better for the district and and understand who gets hired are these DC residents being hired at the union shop or is just a person up for the jobs and and what is it that's to prove if there aren't if they are not DC residents being fired on the I have some data for you on that. Is that something that's anybody else interested in? Is that something you're interested in? I'm sure Well, I think they're still require comply with things. They do, but that's new hires. Well, so only two projects have been completed under the PLA law. That's Theater Hill Regional Medical Center with 468 BC residents employed 107,000 apprenticeship hours. The goal was 15,000 but they exceeded it. Um 35% CBE requirement met and 29 local minority businesses earned over 117 million. The challenge not too sure that I've talked to them about that going and and sort of crafting because we wanted the PLA but we also want to not have our PLA create attention with our CB community. I think there's already thoughtfully that Yeah, it seems like they struck that balance with Cedar Hill. Well, I'm I'm I'm just saying that I I know the data for Cedar Hill is important. I've spoken to them about that and and I appreciate that and and I'm more than and I I think to the extent they've gotten it right with Cedar Hill could be a model for what like in other places. Great. Um but the challenge still though is is is the PLA law been in place for a little while. we just reduce the amount the thresh of it and it does create issues with our city that I would love for us to try to avoid um in the future and when it comes to the PLA I think you just need to be clear that priority are DC residents um when when it comes to there should be a level of accountability there as well equate to You care about I didn't hear the last few words because I because everybody's always PLA PLA but then are we asking who's getting hired together? We have some numbers. I have the numbers. I get it. I'm just making a point because I don't think I think that point is lost in these conversations and it's something that should not get lost in these conversations. You know what I'm going to send around there's a hiring fair. There's an apprenticeship fair going on right now too that you guys might want to push out to your lists because I think that is part of this conversation for the so folks can come out with their um membership. So, [Music] I actually was a union guy, too. And am she, I guess, but but but it's easy to make that claim and not care who the hell they're hiring. And I'm saying we should care about who the hell they're hiring. DC about they're serious about it. They should follow a model where they get it right. Yes. And train them up. Yes. Correct. Feelings. So, um, other subtitles. You were you were going so you were going through mine. So, well, I just um are we striking? I hold on. Bending. Okay. So, I 82 was next for me too. So you said you wanted to hear from members on what to do about IED2 and we haven't really talked about it for a while. This body did the pause the understanding that we were going to make a decision essentially now about what to do with that subtitle. I believe we should strike it and this is probably a good time to figure out where everybody is. I'm not planning on making today, but what I have said to some folks and I think I have said publicly is that before we get to the markup, I'm going to figure out where people are and then make a decision. The votes aren't there then questions on everything. Um maybe it's more of a process question for me. I thought part of why I supported pause was that there was going to be an effort to work on some kind of compromiseish land the plane type of language that was not a full repeal but that recognized realities that we're trying to work with a lot of our local businesses restaurants. So, in my mind at least, we weren't advancing in a repeal through the budget because there was an effort to find some type of compromise in these 90 days. If that's not happening, I guess that's good to know. But that that's at least what I thought was happening when we created the pause. That was also my understanding. I I would also say the standard it seems like we've been using today, uh, is that complex matters that deserve a hearing and full-on debate will be outside of the budget. this would strike me as odd that we would keep this in when it would have such significant implications. That said, I you know, as I mentioned before, I was attempting and emphasis on attempting to bring RAM W and union folk together. I'm still very much committed to bringing parties together. Uh I'm happy to share how all of that is going. Uh but there is an effort ongoing to come up with a compromise. I think if this was struck, which I support, we still would have ample time to do that before that October 1st deadline, which I think would give everybody time to analyze, engage, think thoughtfully to put forth a solution. Um, if it if it has any meaning. Um, the other day, earlier this week, I had a meeting with the pro and the con as it relates to I 82. And we left the meeting um really saying we had aired same arguments. Um we even had representation from the small restauranters as well as the large you know restauranters. Um the what what was really put on the table is an argument that there is wage theft and I asked so how are claims made and for those who want to keep I 82 they were saying that it's not about the um individual who feels they're suffering from wage theft to make a claim. It should be the management. And I said, well, the management is is taking advantage of the of the tip worker. So, how is that? Why would we expect the management to do that? And so, the whole idea is that they feel that the system that is set up to handle wage theft isn't reliable. like for instance that you do not have um uh Spanishspeaking um staff that can take the claims the claims uh very difficult to um the process is very difficult to understand this is so I'm just sharing with you what was the outcome of the meeting so it was more focused on wage theft than anything else which I was surprised about. Who else wants to rank represent? What type of for those seeking a compromise, what type of compromise would be of interest to you? differentation. Well, I I don't want to negotiate publicly. Um, but I think that's part of the I think it would have to include some timeline adjustment. We've essentially frozen the timeline. Um, and so there would need to be some adjustment to timeline or maintaining that. Ideally, I would love to see supports, enhancements for restaurants, um, as well as some benefits for workers. Um, I'm happy to work with folk. We do have a outline and draft of things. The goal was to try to see if we can have something that all sides would agree to. I will say, and maybe I'm getting too far ahead of myself, but my conversations with union partners, I think they recognize where things are and that there will likely need to be a timelined adjustment. That doesn't mean they love it, but I think they're realists about it. I I I think for a lot of the other issues we've discussed today, I found very persuasive and agree with a lot of the arguments that like some of these policy conversations should happen at a later date. I think with this, I think it is germanine to the budget. I think other investments that you may be thinking about as part of this, whether it's for restaurants or for workers or for funding is important to include in the budget. Um, and I also think it's important for certainty for the market that we're all on the same page of what our wages are here in the district, what our wages are for tip workers, for minimum wage workers um, and can kind of move forward um, as opposed to having this uncertainty uh, undermine the stability of our markets. It currently certainly until October had a lot of certain then there's certain day after October I mean this is what what worries me about this bill is you're going to count noses and you could get to a place if there's if it's 66 which it could be 66 and then you decide okay I'll leave it in and then an amendment to strike will fail 66 that we would overturn the will of the voters on a procedure like that. I think you need in order to do it through the budget, it should be pretty decisive. Yes. And I don't think that it's anywhere near pretty decisive right now. A repeal could happen in at any time. Doesn't have to happen budget. So to at a minimum leave time to try to come up with a solution between now and October. My idea of a solution and Zachary's idea of a solution could be very different. But if there was a pause that creates the opening to do that, to then do the pause and then do a particularly if the repeal is based on the mayor putting it in in a 66 tie on the council and that's not enough for an amendment to pull it out. Boy, that's not a good feeling to me. Not to mention how we framed our previous vote was in an effort to come up with a compromise solution and I didn't think this might be a bait and switch. This would feel like a vision bait and switch. I think that we've got to figure something out. I think I'm pretty close to Zach reading. Uh you know I think there there there's some clarity that we got to figure something out. There's got to be a compromise. Like anybody I think who's dug in I log here like I just don't think that's going to work. But we gave ourselves 90 days to figure it out. But but that was a month ago, right? That vote about so but I will say Ram in full transparency Ram W and the union agreed to come to the table. Ram W for whatever reason said they didn't want to come to the table. Well, that's not that's not what they said. Well, I will tell you my convers my conversations we if I can finish my conversation with Ram W and the union is that we had a date set and we were going to meet. Ram W said they didn't want to meet without Kenyan. Kenyan and I couldn't align until Ram W said we're not going to meet. I said, "Okay, I'm gonna meet with the union and restaurant folks." Then RAMW said, "Well, we don't want you to meet with restaurant folk without us." And we've continued to meet trying to be as respectful as possible. We do have an outline of a solution. I'm happy to circulate it and work with others. Can you align with Kenyon? I've been charged respectfully. alignment to take a vote on this and Robert and Charles aligned and with the understanding that we would work on something in the interim. Yeah. I think we were getting some data, right? Yeah. So, so that attempt is is all gone. Yep. I think you can appreciate it feels like if we're advancing a former field and we thought we were working towards that. you have not spoken about I've not said his name so what I am trying to do is work through um what what based on what the conversation that we had when we took this it's on the data I'm looking for data there is lots of data data only the strength of this industry so Okay. Ask the chair of the economic development committee, what is your view on the best path forward? I'm working through it and and what I'm waiting for is to hear back from 25 um from 25 said they don't want to meet unless it's in a collective meet. That's what they told me because as I was trying to meet with RAM W in the union, they said, "Well, Kenyan has reached out and tried to set up his own meeting and now they're saying, "Well, we're not going to meet." And I think we need to come together to try to They haven't said that. That's not what they said. Can we also be clear that Ram and Local 25 are not the only affected folks here? So if they don't want to go to the table, you don't get respectfully like their members and go through them. But it does sound like the BSA. So I also suggest we keep moving. that I work with everybody. To me, it sounds to me like there are people who want to meet, but of the shall we say the meeting of three, four different parties, the three or four don't want to meet with one of the people in that party. So then there's a different group of three or four parties. They don't get what I'm saying is that it sounds like there's some folks who don't want to be in the same room as some other folks. And I think you all have to figure out a way to get past that. Right. We need to strike in and we can figure that out by October 1st. Yeah. And for the folks who we're open to that compromise in favor of it. I'm going to have that conversation with those folks and and see if we can work with some sort of everybody can get behind. That's the intent and that's what I promised that in the budget. So Kenny and I would like to talk to you about it. I'm happy to talk to Well, when are we gonna talk? But look, this is not happening on the budget, right? So like that's said he wasn't going to negotiate publicly, but now every day he want he's not going to negotiate. It's hard to have conversations. It's hard to have conversations off the record. I just want everybody to be above board. If we're going to be above board what I voted against the pause. Yeah, that might be Oh, you want me to talk about the vot? Yeah, [Music] I mean you like myself to the meeting as well. So let me let me two things. First of all, Bridget's not being serious. If it's pulled out, I haven't made decisions, but if it is pulled out of the BSA and some folks are saying, well be considered as separate pre-spending legislation. Um, a bill could be introduced. Well, no, bill can't be introduced until September 15th. That's right. And then there and arguably there would have to be a hearing. We'd have to kind of fudge since there's not a hearing. I mean, you had a hearing on the 17th January and had a hearing on PSA on June 18. Maybe there have to be a hearing. The point is that we would go up against the postponement deadline. So if it gets pulled out, there's going to have to be a willingness to extend postpone. That's right. Because I think that postponement was until October 1st. So you're saying if you agree to postpone right now, you'll pull it out. No, I didn't say that. If I pull it up, it's got to be an agreement. But what Bill is bringing up raises a valid question of can come up with a solution that marked up and going by October 1st. So I'm saying what are some of those solutions? It is relative, but that's also we're not what we're here to meet about. We're meeting about the budget. It's in the BSA, but it shouldn't be in the BSA. People's perception, but I think the vast majority, right? Like I think the vast majority vast majority is like half. Not even close. Crazy. Stop playing. Raise your hand if you want to pulled out of the BSA. If you think it should be pulled out of BSA, I mean, let's come on. We got too many other things to do. Stop playing. Yes. Sorry. Sorry. You know how I get without food. Okay. I should continue. Can I still on me? How funny is that? Okay. Um, all right. The next one is the paid family leave subtitles. Uh, requesting that be stricken. Where is that? Um, uh, do you know the number? Okay. She's going to tell you the number. This one has no savings and it only changes the employer contributions. What's the subtext? She's pulling it up for us. She's the attorney. Is this the government program or the No, this is the universal I believe 4H subtitle H. Thank you, ma'am. 4 H. Yeah, it sounds like a uh club nonprofit. Yeah, we need to confirm. Yeah, if pulling it out would if I do not believe that it's a one for one match. Okay. So, we're trying to figure that out. Okay. Just just to put that out there. Okay. Um, subtitled two. No, let me say I think that's what Jen just said. We've been talking about it. Okay. Um, my inclination is to leave the fee at 75 cents. Not that I think it's wonderful that it went from 22 to 75 cents. Um, I think this three cent savings, I did have not heard anybody speak to it. I'm afraid I might now hear lots of people speak to it, but I don't think it really makes that much difference. So, leave it at 75 cents, not change benefits, but we have to kind of figure out whether that work. The benefits piece is pretty big. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, thank you for that. Thank you for examining it. Um, you struck the zoning decision appeals amendment act 2025 and I know council member Henderson had raised this last time we talked. Um, I actually think this is the kind of thing that could build more investor confidence in new housing construction rather than skateing tenant protections like we're doing in some conversations. So um you did this a few years ago with Nick McMillan. Christina has already said um, what did we're waiting for? It's a drum roll. It's a long drum roll here. No, that's it. I I think that we should leave it in. But if you are pulling it, are you you're going to do a hearing on it? No. Wait, what are we talking about? Decision appeals amendment act of 25. I'm not hearing a lot of me. No, I mean this is just from a policy standpoint. It's not like something we're getting lobbied on. I understand. Well, actually, I had a hearing with Department of Buildings. Yes. And I got testimony on this. And then the June 18th hearing, I got testimony on this. Um at the do hearing it was also the same day as office zoning. So I asked them for statistics. Uh there are a number of problems with that subtype. Right. The premise behind it is that these four cases are delaying development projects and as a result people aren't willing to invest and these projects are going away. The data doesn't support that at all. In the last five years there have been two appeals. Two. Okay. Two. and neither of them were successful in the court of appeal. What is a concern is how long the zoning commission has taken between its decision and issuing an order if I remember correctly is an average of I want to say 190 days might be 90 but I think it's no I think it's 90 an average of three months to come up with a final decision a written order um so the data is not there before the pandemic there were an increasing number of these appeals and the zoning committ mission was losing. Not often, but they never lose. And they lost like four times in two years. Uh, a couple of them were over McMillan, one of them was Brooks Tavern. Um, the orders were written horrible. What we did was we put resources, we the council put resources into the office of zoning so they could write these orders better. Yeah, I do remember that and I think that was a good and it's made a big difference. It has there are um I mean it's in the committee report and I'm inclined to run into the next and there no I mean you don't have to because I have actually familiarized myself with that but okay but the percentage has gone from like 37% of zoning orders were appealed to like 7% of zoning orders are appealed but more than that the way it was that subtitle was written it would exclude for example um as commissioners from being able to file an appeal. Um, and it would exclude some neighbors from being able to file an appeal or uh neighborhood associations from filing an appeal. And it also would make filing an appeal very difficult. So, you wouldn't be able to appeal based on, well, the zoning commission got it wrong with regard to the traffic analysis. You'd have to appeal showing that you were specifically and particularly harmed. Well, that's just all wrong. So, um, that that's why I think you're more passionate about this than I am. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna move on. I guess I I will just ask the question. Are you suggesting that there are no changes necessary to the appeals process? Correct. However, we put we in this budget, we have one more um attorney attorney to write decisions behind and um we also need to keep pushing for judges because the court of appeals has a 20% vacancy rate and um that slows everything down including land use appeals. Okay. Do you want us to talk about things that we've added in committee related to the BSA or do you want it? If I didn't bring it up, it's not an issue. It's only if somebody else brings it up and says, you know, Brienne, why'd you do this? Great. Then I'm finished. Thank you for your time. Christina, did you have any subtitles bring up? I'm not going around the table, but I thought earlier you No, I mean, I guess it's not really a BSA subtitle piece. um as it is around I guess it could fit in the citywide or councilwide priorities conversation or not. Okay. Which is we spent a lot of time talking about one initiative but we've never talked about the other one. That's pending. What initiative? Age people like to forget that one. Right. Christina what's y'all? I don't have a subtitle. um issue. Does anybody else has any subtitles? I did. Wait, are we not gonna talk about I83? Do you have a Okay. Um I it was title um one one F or I how you put it. I'm sorry. Say it again. Uh the paid family leave municipal. My recommendation there would be to stripes. That's subtitle. Uh I think came in late. Freeze name strike reserve current levels. And then I'm just going down my list. So you I think you said that was something you were already doing or no came in late to be fair. I think two different one. I have heard or what we're doing. Sorry. Let's move forward. You don't know. Can I have order please? Um, item one, subtitle F does employee paid parental family medical leave. What we discussed earlier is that I am going to introduce that subtitle as freestanding legislation and Anita will hold a hearing this fall. We talked about I thought you were talking about the different I am the government. what we talked about board uh 4 paid family leave private sector the recommendation we didn't really talk about well we didn't get to talk about in full you made a comment and then we move forward so I want to actually talk about it uh I think striking it would preserve the current levels of paid family leave benefits um for districts private sector workers the subtitle written would limit maximum weekly benefits for the most popular and utilized component of the universal paid leave. Um, a majority of parents drawing upon the universal paid leave program for parental leave receive benefits over 1,000 and would see a benefits cut under the subtitle as came out during um the budget oversight hearing from director um of uh DOES. The subtitle would also reduce the maximum number of eligible weeks for caregiving and medical leave. And so um I am suggesting that we strike this subtitle. Um what what we know is that I what I thought was true is that we uh that it it would have no cost. Um and we've I've heard we've heard business employers tell us that paid family leave will cost more if benefits are cut. um more than half the claimants again like I said utilize for rental we'll see a cut in benefits under the subtitle because more most more of them are have gotten over a thousand dollars um and my belief I thought was that this was one to one um and I just think it's important to note that small businesses small businesses would see a cut many make up the gap in benefit many make up the gap in benefits and would have to pay more under the subtitle so I my recommendation is to strike At the risk of repeating myself, Jen and I both said that we are looking at keeping the fee at 75 cents, but we don't know that it's a one for one. That is that if we restore it to 75 cents, all the benefits are restored. That's what we're looking at and that's what we're trying to do. So, you're not striking it, you're trying to make it, you're trying to make it. No, if if we are able to restore it to 75 cents then you will struck and if we can restore all the benefits then it would be struck. Okay. If we can't have to figure out what we do, but my guess is the gap is not very much. Got it. Did we discuss um 6H with zero energy? We didn't. Okay. Hold on a second. If that's the case and all of then I know. Thank you for allowing me to go through the subtitles. Oh, we did not. We did not. Would striking that uh have a financial impact on UPL? We don't know yet. Oh, we don't know. Got it. Um Oh, we didn't. Oh, I just had the next what it was worth. I I support striking the public change to the family program, although I support restricting it for governments. That's Did you strike the TN strike? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much for your work. Yeah. Anyone else on subject? Um this is like um and this may be a question for Kenz. I know with uh Destination BC there were concerns that money that that usually is slated for Destination BC was swept. Did you all as a committee fix that or change that? We didn't try that. Um two years ago 2023 we did an emergency to add uh a point onto the existing 14.95 tax for hotels that funded the arm and it generated more than uh destination has used that money to mark the district with some success. They've opened up additional international offices since she was um there to see all of it and use um a big chunk of it for economic development incentives and then send some of it to the general fund. It's varying amounts about the financial plan. Um and and ultimately though it's about $25 million a year and so we we do that restore uh the hotel tax. You talked about rolling that back. That's different. That's a she does that. She does it every single year. Couldn't we maintain that tax and use that for the reason why we're smart? with that be tied to it has to go to OU. I mean, I will just say in my conversations with Destination DC and that was it seems like we're getting a bang for our buck based on the work that they're doing. Um, and I think even from the deputy mayor, we've heard that tourism is increasing um, and revenues are being generated from tourism. So, it seems like it would be shortsighted for us to handicap some of the work that they're doing. I think that's right. I also think that there are challenges today that did not exist a few months ago, right? With all the issues around tariffs, all the back Canada The biggest challenge the destination needs to have seen when we have not been able to get back to preandemic levels is the international tourism that we had. Uh international tourists come and spend more money and that is still a challenge. Hence their efforts to to work even harder to try to bring some of that back. We've seen domestic tourism increase uh but we're still struggling around in natural tourism which I think is all the more reason to make sure we're investing in the marketing arm of um destination to to do that work so that we can continue the growth and brook um I I agree this is one that needs to get overturned and I committee what we'll do within committee I would say this rises to a councilwide priority um I think about it in a couple couple of veins one is from what destination DC needs to and has to do which is in the face of declining international tourism we have a choice we can either just kind of pull back from it and say well maybe once there's a somebody different in the white house we should restart this process or we have to work to work even harder to counter the narratives exist. We just hosted World Pride and yes, we faced a lot of federal headwinds in the process. We still had a very successful World Pride and we want that story to be told. We want international tourism, you know, to come here and I think if we don't do it, we just we fall further and further about it. So, we got to invest in that. Um, secondly, I think that if we were to approve this, I think it does great damage to the city, not just the mayor or us, just the city's willingness to come to the business community in an honest way since we just went through this where we we all agreed we're going to increase this tax. We agree it's going to go for this purpose. It actually was a lot of stakeholders coming together agreeing to a promise and then one year later that promise is being broken. It was a sunset. Yeah, I I think that it's uh I think it damages our ability to work with business community to say okay, we're all shaking hands and agreeing on something moving forward. The third thing is there are actually very many worthwhile things that this is being proposed to do. Um so I think there is an interest in us trying to find ways to make sure that many of these efforts and initiatives are being funded if the funding source is wrong. I will note one that I I know is a priority for council Pinto is the u kind of the plaza herbalist space, right? I would say that to me feels like something, Bill, we need to work to identify capital dollars for uh for the gallery place. Gallery Place kind of pl it's part of the downtown strategy. I think it's part of the downtown strategy. I think it makes sense. Um I think it's a capital dollar expenditure, not operating dollar. 8 million not as operating. Well, actually slightly above. Well, but I'll to me I remember a couple years back we did half by the ballpark right now. In that one, we put in $2.2 million. The private folks around it put in $3 million. So, we didn't pay the full freight on this. I don't think we should be paying full freight here, but we used capital dollars to make that investment. It created a curbless space that creates a really great pedestrian uh activity space. It's great for the businesses, great entryway. And I think that's the overall vision here as well. So I I want to be careful as we talk about this for our colleagues. There are investments here that I think we all support. It's just a funding source. And I certainly would say that's a capital expenditure, not an operating expenditure. And I'd love to see the private property owners chip in on it just like we did for that project. I have a sort of a tiresome view of our spending millions of dollars redoing streets when we think it started with fancy and then we fancy smart 10 15 20 years later we redo it again that's that's kind of what it looks like no it doesn't have to be that way um so I love that station DC and I think that it's very to be proactive about attracting tourism. Um, I didn't even like this hotel tax when it came a couple years ago and I know people were like, "Oh, well the the hotels are asking for it. It's going to benefit hotels." But I I didn't like it then. I I worried about taxing hotels then. But we are where we are. I think that on a comparative basis, the money that we spend or rather don't spend on business attraction in the city is setting us behind. So, I was very happy to see regardless of the source, an added investment in this budget and saying, "Okay, we're we're not just going to leave it to basically two people in the economic partnership. we're gonna have a serious focus and investment to go out and attract businesses here, which I think is just as important to the future of our economy as tourism is. Um, and so when I hear say the proposal is to fix it, I just want to make sure that we are adding or supporting funding for business. Yeah. But that's not what she did. No, she cut. But but to but I think what you heard saying and Charles saying is what the committee said. We appreciate the the what the mayor used the money to do in her economic in her in her economic center fund in her call strategy. You don't I don't and this is not what is saying but Charles and I are saying the source is primarily the TR the tourism recovery industry funds that we put in place a couple years ago but we said with sunset in 2027. So he the the proposals in there funded but identify a way to restore the money back to its intended purpose that the council agreed to. I could just say to that it I mean it's a different topic but it's kind of like the violence interruption debate of like I feel like we're talking a lot about okay we but we need to fix this and we need to add back this and I don't know how we're going to come up with everything like we haven't even gotten to the larger shared priorities right um and there are some choices that we have to make and maybe some differences on on where the budget was last year and I think this could be one them. I just want to make sure everybody's aware for the for the Chinatown um and downtown investments, these are the only two investments. 18 months we met with this Chinatown task force every month and there were a lot of sub meetings in between. episode several times a month really for 18 months and worked in this and there were dozens of different recommendations and the final top top for the whole group and for me is to make sure that fund the um these projects which is really aimed to draw tourists up from the mall up to downtown. So it's not just like okay it feels fancy to have a nicer plaza. The sidewalks are very narrow, the roads are very narrow. It's not a space where families can um kind of hang out. Um which is part of the vision and the and the point for downtown. So that's why I'm so excited about these investments whether they're capital or operating wherever the source comes from. I think is really really important to stay there. Otherwise, we miss this opportunity as the arena is being renovated to have a renewed space for families and residents and tourists of all ages to come be and enjoy and then hopefully support all of our businesses. So, I just want to say this about this is my view of it. Like you, Brooke, I was uneasy when the proposal was to increase this hotel tax. It was tempered. The mayor's proposal removes it being temporary. I said to her when I heard about this, I think that's a tax increase. She says that moving a sunset that everybody expects the tax will go down, but it's going to stay up that she claims that's not a tax increase. I think it is. Uh when I first heard about this idea, the idea was that well, it was sort of pitched this way that the TRD is projected to bring in 20 million a year. is bringing in 27 million a year. I think Kendy and you were at that meeting. We said we'll take the delta and use that for business attraction. That's not what the mayor proposed. She took the entire GR none of it. It's for destination VC. Gets rid of the sunset. Gets rid of takes all the money away from destination. And then how did she use the money? So we were told it was going to be for business attraction. Uh in fact the only money that she recommended for business attraction was at the economic partnership which was less than three million. I think the roughly 3 million paid on going into the general fund just going into the general fund and and then the rest of it is spent in other ways. Um, and uh, I find that just really disturbing that what we've done is what the mayor's proposed is to convert this tourism tax, temporary tourism tax into essentially a general fund revenue source. Um, and uh, I would like for us to figure out how we can get more business attraction, but it just wasn't in her proposal. and there needs I agree that governments will be doing more for business attraction and business retention. Um but things like uh things like uh I won't go to our growth agenda isn't a lot of that is not attracting business but tracking business around I'm sorry just wanted to ask about this provision that currently in that's currently in the BSA. Would this eliminate some of the um overseas um headquarters that we have established? Is that what it in practice? Yes. Okay. Well, then I think we ought to look at it in sincerely because we have what seven or eight different locations. It's really Yeah. um even um Norway if I'm not mistaken. You know what that those offices are helping to bring business? Well, so my question is yeah, how many tourists come from those neighborhoods? That ought to be a way for us to determine whether or not we need to keep the French office open versus the Norway office open. That's all I'm saying. And then the idea is if an office is closing then that money will go towards um this other approach that we think we're going to come up with as to how to increase tourism. My point is we only have a basket of some dollars and we've got to figure out how we're going to use those dollars and we always say that data is so important for any decision that we make. So if we have some data, let's look at the data and that can help us understand where we are flourishing and where we're not doing well and how we might use those dollars that growing and going to waste at the point this time or not producing what we what we want. We might use those dollars in in another in another manner. Well, if you want Elliot to come in here, he can talk your ear off on how the TRD has been. And if you want to talk about business attraction, can come in here and talk your ear off on what more we should be doing with business attraction. Well, we done that for some of the other issues we've discussed today. So, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just simply saying we ought to have a process and we can go around the table. We can be here till midnight talking about our opinions, our feelings, how it sounds. And I'm just suggesting if we're going to move the dial today, then we ought to have some data. That's all I'm saying in the lineup. And I think what I was going to say is responsive to what Anita said. Um I I think uh Destination DC like we do have data that that fund has worked that they have done well. So why we would not continue an investment that's working doesn't make sense to me but there is something we need to understand from destination DC. Um and this would be important for you to catch Phil because it impacts the city. So um NPR was reporting this morning probably not surprising to anybody but um international migration in the United States has decreased right? Yes. What impact is international is there a decrease in international travel? Um so we thank thank you. Thank you. So so we'll need to understand from uh destination DC you know if there's going to be a shift that frankly like this not going to be as wise an investment. But but the other thing somewhat related I want to flag for colleagues is the district's population has risen over the past several years because of international migration. Uh international migration is decreasing which means there's a decent chance our population will also decrease. So as we make budget decisions we also need to be mindful of the fact that we also may see u a population decrease. Right. There is specific money in the budget that the mayor proposed was the committee recommending keeping that in there for business attraction. What the committee was saying is we we need to be able to walk in two dump. We can do that. we should look at the source to be able to do all of it because as Charles pointed out um and again not to har place because great recommendations that came out of the committee not nearly enough of them got funded because of the budget situation we're in but except for us yeah except for this right so we want to keep this but but they did use capital funds to do this and there's a question sorry operating funds to do this and there's a question whether or not we can identify capital somewhere to be able to do this and not use um all operating funds to do this. But the other piece is just to be clear, there's money in the economic partnership that the plan may propose that he left most of. There's money in there for business attraction specifically earmarked for services to generate business attraction. That's 1.5 each year in the financial plan. There's money in there um for uh repositioning federal build buildings, but there's also money in there to um address some of the challenges with commercial office downtown. So, there's things that she proposed in the growth agenda that are specifically designed to do business attraction. Some of it um I imagine you'll say is long overdue, but but I wanted to make the point to say that it is in there. But we also need to be able to not let our foot off the gas with what Destination BC is doing in terms of marketing. And as my mom would say, we shouldn't be robbing people to take Paul when it comes to this work. And see your mother, she would say that. Um, and I think the tough thing is how do we identify the funds to restore the TRP while also doing the important work that would help to grow. And by or is it the view of the committee that it all needs to be restored in order for them to when I said to the man Phil mentioned when we first heard about the proposal it was why not take the right was about seven yeah um for some that is not 100% they proposed 100% and I think that I don't know why we're talking about TRD we Finishing up with subtitles. Are we done with subtitles? I have one other I I asked this question. Uh, this one is easy, I think. Um, the food policy council, which is in the office of planning and cow. Is that a subtitle? Well, I'm getting to it could be a subtitle. It doesn't exist, but it could a different category because we move got into move ideas. Okay. Go for it. Go for it. Okay. So the food policy council is my understanding is hiring um a procurement person to work with OCP uh to ensure that there is like food like adisement on food purchases for major agencies but they need the authority to do the work and so it seems like that would need to be an adjustment in a BS to give them the authority if I'm not following that because it's in the law for a while. So if they're telling you they need something else, we should talk. That is so the recommendation is for this. Yeah, let's fast. Look how fast that went. Yes, I'll send a note to my staff right now. What's our road map here? We're about to get into the fun conversation about council like priorities, right? which means that we haven't got any. So, are we staying or are we doing two? Well, I have a public safety meeting. It's trying to determine if I can pick up my children or someone else because you have to pick up around 5 or something. We could be going until about 6. I have a public four. Okay. We pushed off the Robert and I had something at 6 that we rescheduled, but it sounds like we should be done by 5:30. Well, we can go through councilwide priority 10 minutes, but just gonna run through what you would share what you have council because we're going to give you a list of 40 things, correct? So, this is kind of new and different. Um, but so people aren't going to want to stay, you know, six, seven, or eight. But, um, if people have to be somewhere by six, I wouldn't be surprised if we're done at like playing it close to that. Um, and we'll see how we feel after we're done with councilwide priorities. So um typically what happens is that after the committee markup, we do this work session. We go through all the committee stuff and I'm listening to folks and people come to me and I sort of have a list and then I work with the budget office and we try to identify dollars and then I sort of figure out how to spread that among the list and then Matt you'll come to me and you'll say but did you do peep and no it's not on my list let me see if I can put it on the list and in the end that ends up being the committee print. So, part of this process is that I develop a list and I'm about to hand it out. Um, and we'll see what people think and I'm guessing there'll be a few additions. Um, I do want to say this, this budget year is tight. So probably at this point in the budget process a year ago uh I was looking at maybe about 20 or $30 million that we had at the moment. At the moment this will change. I have $7.8 million in FY26. So um that doesn't mean I don't I can't think of some ways to try to make other things work. Um and in fact the biggest is the budget surplus for this year. Um, so I just want to this is again reminding folks where we started this meeting, which is that things are tight. There's a lot of overspending. We have $243 million that the CFO says we can't spend. The moment I have 7.8 million, I will argue for the 243.7. Um, all of this. Well, I will argue for all of that doesn't mean I'll get it. We didn't get it. Yes sir. Did your 78 include additions that had identified that they did not Yes. Yes. Most of the committees were very generous and left no money for the committee to hope. I had a portion set aside for you that I had to use in the curve. What? I just like you to know I had a large portion set aside to send to you, but I had to redo it in the curve of the too. I see like the $20 million until the CFO said I couldn't do it. But mine's a little different. And I had another 15 million until Jen said I couldn't do it. Like 50 or 60. Does everybody have one of these? The child tax credit. Oh, it's not because I didn't think that. That's right. But 15 million a year. Child tax. I know at least three or four members mentioned it. It wasn't my list. It my committee sent money for it. So that seven million at least that the committee well so I'm not quite sure how to structure this conversation. Um yeah tell us what this means. So maybe I'll just run through it quickly. Uh the first part uh the 4 million7,700,000 we talked about that already. that would be uh striking those different subtitles in the PSA and those figures are included in the figure at the bottom of 120 million but the the concrete housing yeah that number will change all these numbers okay but it's not what it's not listed here yeah it says uh zero okay I'm sorry because these are policy Um all right. Um so maybe I can put down the list really quickly. Uh the 19.4 million is to restore access to justice to the current year budget. The 5.4 million is what the attorney general was necessary for the street site. The $750,000 I don't know if the committee funded that. I put in a million. So then that if you did then that's funded. Um the um CJC Justice uh that 4,700,000 is over the financial plan. So that's not just one year. Um sorry. Uh I think it's operating, but that was also in the federal budget request letter. We're trying to 7.2 2 million is the figure I have for restoring cuts to victim services grants. It's not the total ask from the advocates. $700,000 which would be recurring is to restore the criminal code reform commission and move it under the council. 200,000 is fame but for the current year but the mayor zeroed them out this year. 2.6 million is tanniff child support at the attorney general. So there's tanniff at DHS but there's tanniff at the attorney general. 5.2 2 million is a figure I was given for dental coverage. It's basic health plan. Um I don't think I have anything else from health on here. Uh which is not on purpose. 420,000. Somebody told me Capillary Food Bank. This would be a federal match. There would be a federal match. Food assistance for formerly employed federal workers. Um $175,000. We do this every year to restore the suite from the real estate guarantee fund. I have 10 million for housing preservation fund. Um, even though Robert said after I typed this um million in um the 30 million uh $18 million from for add to energy trust fund that's the figure that IFC but other advocates have argued for maybe advocated for right um I didn't read committee report advocated for more at 15 um 3.5 million for the green finance bank 15 million childcare subsidy shortfall which I don't think is on anybody's list but Afie said that there's a shortfall um no you can move it to the 4 million increase pay equity fund above 70 million I have it here that doesn't mean I'm convinced we should do it 2.4 4 million community schools grants, 1 million lead testing for charter schools, $70,000, but this is recurring poll to the state board of education staff. 1.5 million uh annual grant to the cherry blossom festival 1,150,000 which doesn't have money to be able to do it. We always put money into events DC. Yeah. And then they add to you might be right. We could do that. 1.15 1,150,000 of the capital riverfront bid. It's a little different in the past where they asked for a little bit more than that for the two parks. Uh 600,000 for Jealous, which the city forgot about. Again, 4 million I have on here for Rosemound. I haven't discussed that to you. The fact that I have on the list doesn't mean it's going to happen. And $625,000 for council security assessments. That's our security. I don't see on here what his committee recommended in terms of hotel tax. Hotel tax is I believe that's your I thought your hotel tax was your OU tax. Yeah, I thought correct. I don't have that on spent a lot of time talking about it. So, right. Yeah. Okay. Right. That's what I mean. Make sure it's on the list. Well, um, yeah, I think I have I didn't have it on the list because I think there's some ways I want to talk with Kenyan about trying to restore some of the money for destination DC, but I can put it on the list. Making the list bigger and longer. That was my list. list. I don't understand how we had a conversation about council our priorities and a lot of things we discussed aren't weren't here and a lot of things we didn't discuss is on here. You mean that we discussed today? No. Uh like two meetings ago, I felt like like what when you had I forget everything that was on that list, but I felt like we had a short list of You forgot I forgot to him. Let me child tax. Yeah. Well, I forgot that baby bonds. Okay. Well, let me say this about baby bonds. Now, maybe I shouldn't interrupt, but the challenge with baby bonds is that they materialize in 18 years. We've had three years where the mayor has swept it different with babies than the problem with babies. We really want to cut something. I mean, I hate to say this because I've worked with Kenyon. This was Kenyon's idea. No, but I'm tired of I'm tired of putting the money in that the CFO won't spend, the mayor won't spend, and then the mayor cuts it. And all we're doing is therefore we actually have the problems. I like it. Savings. with you. Yeah, you should have. You missed your chance. Um, so I've added 15 million for child tax credit and 20 million for 20 million for what? Where's the last one you said? CRD. This is the the tourism recovery. We've got I don't know what 12 days to figure this out before we have to take the first vote. And so at some point either we going to have to take something off the list unless Phil you have a magic wand to produce $120 million overhead which I hope we have it from the CFO. But the CFO has proposed that the be ours and not the mayors and not his but also remember the this the 243 million is on top. Yeah. You could move it to 26, but that's it. There is a moratorum on spreading one-time money across the financial plan. A lot of the a lot of these are recurring costs. So, just remember that. So, this isn't just 120 million. It's, you know, could be a port. It's a portion of the tax score. And and Phil, I think it would have been helpful if this list is good, but like where is the money coming from? Like what are you moving to fund? Welcome to the budget. Yes. So as I said, develop a list of uses and I match that against what sources I found. At the moment I have 7.8 million. I have a couple of ideas like with the TRD where I think I can't get to 20 but I can get somewhere. Although maybe the final figure on the TRD is less than 20 million. I just you know it's an iterative process but I'm sharing with you all the list adding a couple things to the list. I haven't put the baby bonds on here. Um resting for a second. Don't Well, the baby B. I sound like I'm annoyed with you and I'm not. I'm annoyed with part life and part executive. You were annoyed with me with I think it was like 15 million a year times four. That's $60 million. We've done this every year. Cut something for $6 mill. And um then the mayor the next year takes it out of the budget. Make you feel better. I think Christina has one more thing to add. That's just some handsome and I'm ready to cut something off the list which groups came to the committee to ask about. They had a list of five actually 12 or six other priorities. We picked a different one and then they came to you with something which we didn't ask for but it made your list. Although other things we asked for didn't make your list as Don't take that personally. I'm not I'm not but I'm I'm also I recognize that you had the larger hearing so you heard feedback from folks and on other things but like this the 420,000 can be spent on other things because we did work on the committee in this area. It's not a lot, but it gets um a portion of saying go for it. So, you're saying um it's the 420,000. Yeah. Now, I would also say that um and I don't know if this was they don't like to call it a spending pressure, but it is a spending pressure um in some ways in terms of um the health benefit exchange has already exceeded the amount of money that they've had to pay the additional claims on IVF. So, they need an additional $4 million to be able to handle that. 4 million. Yes. They have healthy reserves, don't they? Yes. that reserves cannot be spent on benefits. We've gone round and round with them on some of those things. Okay, we're now at limbo for their idea. So um the treatment and we've received the claims. So like they've gotten the service and now insurance companies are trying to You're convinced that they have no way to make that up. Move money around and gone around and around and around with them. Christina, is this a 25 or 26? It could be either one. It it just needs to be paid in calendar year 25 and it's one time. So it's one time. No, but you said to be paid in October and November. Oh, in calendar year. Yeah, it just has to be paid in calendar year 25. Um, remind not on health. But I want to emphasize something that Dennis said, I'm really looking at this budget as FY26, not the financial plan. There's some things that are recurring like at the top of this page subtitles because that's the fist but like um uh the housing preservation fund one time um the Canadian schools grant ought to be multi-year one time written one time and um there's some frustration in my voice equity is supposed to travel this we cut we scrape find money we put it in the financial plan we're making a statement that not only did we support this plan but this proposal but we want it funded for four years and then the mayor speaks and done that I'm looking at Charles how much she swept in the environmental programs it's just not worth coming up with the money for multiple years when it's going to be swept there will be in the report a discussion about how many of these programs we want on a recurring basis and that um the fact that we're funding them on a a one-time basis is only a reflection of our experience year after year where we funded on a recurring basis and extends strong for sure your last point I don't the way I'm hearing that is drawing less of a of a distinction than perhaps we have in the past between one time and recurring funding. I want to make clear it doesn't mean a well she's going to sweep it so let's not repair it. I think what I'm hearing you say is the distinction between recurring one times. So I agree with that. Um I I guess two two points. One and I know you're not going to like this one but I think looking at this list and knowing that if we spend 15 minutes we can probably double list of things that are priorities. Um, as much as we don't necessarily like it, a day ticket recurring item like a public services hotel occupancy fee, this may not be the year that we undo that one. If it's $7 million and we're this strapped for funding, I would say while we can look at this and probably be able to fiddle off a few items, there's no way that we're not going to end up with a list of things that we cannot fund. And there is just we can keep slicing the pie different ways to try to shift one cut from another cut to another space. If we are not willing to even have a conversation about increasing the size of the pie, then all we're going to do is just keep moving around which gets cut and what comes up short. Um I think if we were disciplined and we come up with the three things that we think would make the most meaningful impact for our residents for life in DC and we come up with ways that we do add revenue raisers to this to increase the size of the pie. I have talked about this I think the last three times we've gotten together. I don't think that should be off the table. I want to be disciplined about it, strategic about it, not frivolous about it, but we are only going to get so far if it's just okay, I can cut from here, I can cut from here, and I can cut from here to keep trying to piece together because it is a very difficult budget. We saw Maryland was able to do this and was able to solve some of their problems. Yes, we see on the federal side, we got a whole bunch of people that are about to get a big tax cut. So, from a household neutrality perspective, there could be ways in which again we're strategic about it that could work to protect our residents. So, I just I don't think that should be off the table for the conversation. I do not have a I'm not putting a proposal on the table. I just don't think it should be off the table in the conversation. Take it off. I think we do have both. Um, one thing is the mayor's ara letter. Do we is that come through? Do we have an expectation and will she in that directing fund this but take it from here? We do not have an AA letter from the mayor. We do have a letter that they circulated earlier today. I have copies of it on their uh concerns with various committee actions but um we don't have an letter yet. Okay. And then not not on this list that I expect people will be raising or one thing that was to be in the mayor sat letter was an increase in RAP from the 5 million to something that looked like pre-COVID levels but RAP I don't hear and also there are folks who would like to see additional biomes and I see those things on this list and I'm curious if that conscious decision or vouchers about this one except she really is one press for individuals or families families families would be my expectation would be that that's the focus because we're going to have a lot of folks coming along the threat of rehousing and what are we going to do with them and many of those folks are spoken work, but hundreds of them are not spoken. So, how how is that going to get done with those for states? So, let me say something about um the mayor's letter that I've not seen. The mayor has no more access to money than we do at this point. I'm expecting that when we get the AR letter, there will be some genuine Aratas, you know, where they kind of screwed up. Um it was in line 13 when it should have been in line 17. But he is going to propose increases. And how are they funded? The sources will be committee cuts and the $243 million. There's not going to be any new money there. The letter at this point is meaningless. Mayor Mayors used to get the letter earlier in the process and it made sense because it was helpful. When they do it after committee markups, it's garbage at that point. Doesn't mean anything. Sorry to be blunt. Like there's there's no point in sending an ARA letter after committee markups. And it's never useful. It's sorry. I've been here long enough that there was a time when it was useful actually. They'd send an ARA letter like two weeks after a budget and actually was helpful. If they're not going to do that, they want to wait and see what you do in committee and then send an ARA letter. It's meaningless. Yeah. I think we should just forget about the AR letter. Right. I brought it up because it was brought up and I think that there there no secrets there. So the mayor is proposing to increase money for RAP. What's the source? And my guess is the source either specifically or implicitly is going to be $243 million or it's going to be some cut that is actually cut. But so I just want to remind us of the point we started with that the overspending by the mayor alone that the CFO approved is well in excess of the total of this. Right. And so what continues to happen is that the council's authority to direct spending for the city is um eroded both by the mayor and the CFO. And then they're saying, okay, the council cannot direct the spending because the mayor and the CFO have already directed and authorized it. And that just cannot be the case. Like that is not their legislative authority. That that's not the role of either office. and we we have to rein that back in. And so I think that we've got to put our foot down on this 243 million and move forward because they've got to start to figure out the problems on their end instead of putting all the spending issues on restricting our I agree. Can I go back to revenue raisers in a there's a way that we could do this by amendment. there's a way you could take ideas and include it in your proposal. I guess uh is it worth us discussing the best path for that? This is a free discussion at this point. So you're free to discuss what you want to know. Yeah. I mean I maybe what those of us who want to do the revenue raisers, we could put together some proposals that he wants to incorporate. We could do that. Would you be amendable to to that? I'm resistant to it. So, the discussion here is more useful. Wait, what do you know about you being able to use this money from the rep the 120 million? um because if he does get that approval, do people still want to raise revenue or if he has the approval to fund all these items plus child tax credit and a few other things would then do you not want to raise revenue? There's still some big stuff that's keep these are only one year difference in the change my some of the revenue is not just about this year though but then she'll steal it in the out right because that's one time money we recouping from the criticize this and then take taxes every year and then since we're the bad guys so I just reject I I hear what Brooke is asking I understand what you're asking obviously the whole purpose of revenue is to fund priorities. So if the priorities get funded then no raise tax less urgent than pressing but if we can't use the money I said last year I think it's urgent time revenue I do you raise taxes because the might we raise taxes I think I totally get that I just want to understand it back about 40 million talking about the need to raise revenue for these of AIDS. Yes. And um it on the list last month you mentioned how much is it? Um were you are you accepting additions while we're sitting around for priorities and great list here and then I know we want to talk about revenue but maybe it's easier to talk about revenue raisers once we have the full list together. There you go. Can we just go by everybody and say, "Is there anything on the list?" And then you just Yeah. Don't give an explanation. Just say what it is. Don't give us your Don't give the like tips for it. Just say it. Can we just do that? Uh yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Denise, we'll start with you. Dang, I know for you first. Okay. Um obviously a ad would be child tax credit. Um my other ad you you have most things on list. My other ad would be um lead pipe replacement making up the difference uh for that was not included to replace be able to replace more lead pipes. Um you have permanent supportive housing for single adults. SNAP is placement. Um it's a small amount. I'll give it to you. Uh it's not a small amount. I just it's a I'll give you the amount. It's a smaller amount. Um and then my only one and the only other thing was um you have cure sites for six and I am asking for an addition the to be fully fun cure as it was previously which I guess would be 10 sites because that's what the VI have communicated is the ass that's my list next Um it's Dina. Okay. So I mentioned the onetime cost for the IVF coverage. Um about a $1 million hole on HIV AIDS grants. We were able to do um about a million ourselves to HIV AIDS grants. Yeah. HIV prevention grants. Um I'm trying to be judicious on my list here. Um, we have one more change that we feel like is important on alliance, but we haven't gotten a score on that yet. So, I'm not um which would basically be um for beneficiaries who lose their coverage for administrative reasons, giving them the opportunity to reapply. But we're having some trouble getting um a number from O. Can you give a rough sense? Like you talking about 5,000 500 million? I honestly don't know. Um I'm I'm being honest. I honestly don't know. Um uh there is a portion of the um youth crisis response contract that got cut um from DBH. It's a one time of $594,000. What was that again? Youth crisis. Youth crisis response. Um, Chance is the contractor and then um the childcare subsidy that's on I think you already have that. Yep. And then um you have security and then the only other thing that wasn't on the list was um UDC needed um two FTEEs to be able to implement the um sexual assault bill. Okay. Remember what that was? for the two FTDs. Um, no I don't know the number of we can get that. Um, okay. Found you 400,000 because the victim services gap is 6.8 and what they need we we funded some of it in judiciary. Um, give me a second. You funded how much? 53 52.7 they need 59 they needed 58.4. So the delta they need is 6.8. So you funded 900,000. No, we different. I'm not I'm not talking about I'm talking about members if there are things okay so first I want to make sure that the LSF cap can be fixed the LSF the location support fund funds care the streets funds a lot of important things but most important I think is that it funds relativity which is how OG pursues litigation and discovery and $6 million. Uh OG is fun and the met with Brian I met with Brian on Monday and he said it just need an increase in authority. Yeah. It's all been fixed. Oh, it's been fixed. What? He said it all been fixed. It doesn't mean we don't have to do something. Are you aware that it's there to make sure that the language is the mayor did it at the beginning of the year. So it's it's more comp like the last couple years we raised the cap but it's more complicated this year for right now. Okay. Okay. Great. That means they could fund relativity 300. Yeah. 300,000. Yes. To increase the number of lines that can be replaced. Okay. So, so never mind on that. So, I'm I met I've found you 400 so far. Um, uh, I put DFS DNA testing on the list. That's 1.9 million. That also was in the federal request letter and we're working with some of the federal public safety partners for them to ask as well. But that is what DNA testing. are outsourcing all of it which is costing the district way too much money and it's just basic operations that they should do in why wouldn't that be um a net savings instead of an expense if we reduce contract and we increase the yeah that's a good point we can take another look at the at the numbers but it's expense like it's a big f the first year cost is high because it's a new system that they have to purchase Um, you need to Okay, we'll do one more, but it's one point. This is true for everybody. If you're looking at any researching anything, really try to get back to budget office tomorrow. Okay. That's really short, but Got you. Okay, no problem. Um, the amplified noise bill, it's 1.9 million. Sorry to be noise girl this week, but got to fund it, I think. Um, this is amplified noise. Is that the one that I moved? Yes, that's your the one that uh it's the one you introduced but Brienne moved out of committee. That different? Yes. Uh, ch child tax credit. Sorry, I was just adding to it. Definitely support that. Um, and then fresh starts is a provision from secure DC that improves the food service at DC jail and it's 5 million. How much? Five million. Chairman, the DFS issue is further exacerbated because it was something I wanted to fund anyways, but then the mayor cut the funding for the outsourcing. So they it would be a undermined our basic ability and the vacancy savings rate is so tight that they can't even hire. Yes, because that's the number. Um okay, that's it. Thank you so much for the other ones. Uh thanks. This is a great list. Um, one thing that I don't have a number for but want to get out there is funding is still needed to push back the August 2025 moratorium for new alliance enrollies. Sorry, say that again. The August 20 August 1st, 2025 new alliance enrollies over 2020 that basically nobody new is allowed on. Um, and that goes into effect the day we have the final vote on the budget. So if we can save that then people will continue to be able to enroll in alliance. Okay. Um we talked about cure the streets. I just want to flag that to add back that ward 14 team. It would be $1.2 million. Um I'd like to advocate for the restoration of RAP to the FY25 levels. uh which is about 19,000 no 20 21,000 more had million 21 million more she had 26 million in the FY25 budget that um was fully uh tapped out in 24 hours and the current budget has five um you're okay so um individual PSH PSH for individuals. I know the committee had the opportunity to focus on families. There's a need for 1,260 more individual vouchers for PSH. Um and I know the Committee on Human Services also working to try to do a subtitle for wider circles grant. Um, this is a grant that a lot of our offices work with them on to help people moving into housing as they're exiting homelessness and need furniture and other things. Uh, let's see what else. I'm sorry, did I give you an amount on that? No, I did not. One time of $250,000 250. Yes. Educator wellness grants. 350,000 needed is dedicated funding to ensure the program continues for the current grantees. 2 million for the educator retention fund. Uh 2.48 million for community schools. Is it on there? I'm sorry. Thank you. I missed that. And then for uh for the uh educator retention fund or the implementation of ballot initiative I83 $392,000 for rank choice voting for FY268,000 over the financial period 1.151 million for the semiopen primary in FY26 with 1.4 458 million over the financial period. What's a semi-open program? That is what the voters's ballot um voted on. So that that's what it was called and whole of I83. Correct. But I broke it down the fist. Took it from the fist. I broke it into the two parts in case there's I don't know in case you need to know the the two. And the 392 is for what? RCV rank choice voting. for FY26 1.15 is for the uh parameter. Yes, that those two numbers are just for the FY26. Do you want the financial plan numbers? Uh at the moment I mean Well, everyone's going to send this to me in an email. Correct. It's already in writing. I'm happy to send an email. Um and write things down correctly. Uh we funded almost all of the fraudulent vehicle tax legislation, but there's still a small need over the financial plan uh 973,000. Um and I'm not sure if you were thinking about funding Harmonious Living uh which I don't have a total number on in front of me, but I will send it to you. Um that is mostly it. I do have um a place I can point you to in our budget to find a couple mill but not like five. Okay. Thank you, Robert. Um appreciate the list you started with. uh uh educator wellness uh which is about 2.35 uh ERAP I I think we got to keep it at at least 8 million it uh so that would be an additional three um I don't see the limitations on liability on here but I feel like we discussed that so the top of the page okay all right oh there it is thank you um the uh Brooks said the litigation support fund uh I thought it was still 3.6 million short, but if it that's settled, then that's good. Okay, good. Um PSH uh vouchers, PSH vouchers. Um the uh MLK Day parade, which is 150,000. Um and then there's a a very small uh program uh that we're hoping to get um in with UDC with the Washington Music Conservancy. Um, I I I will email the number. It's a small number, but uh but I've been talking with President Eddington and the head of the Washington Music Conservancy. I'm sorry. And uh yeah, I didn't write down the last couple of things. I wrote 150,000. What was after that? Oh, Washington Music Conservancy at UDC. Yeah, maybe I didn't write that down because you didn't have an amount. I think you said 500. Uh, no. I said I I can't remember the amount off hand, but I will email it. It's mine. It's It's a very small number. Okay. So, people have talked about RAP. I talked a little bit about we have a whole bunch of people who are coming off of rapid rehousing solutions for them. It could be TAH, it could be PSH, it could be DC Flex, but some number of uh vouchers or other exit options for them. Storm water maintenance at DOE. Um I forget what the dollar figure is. I'll leave to Charles to let you know, but DOE got clobbered in restoring fertility. DOE generally is a high priority for me. Um the there's an initiative to try to get Casey trees set up so that they can help manage small parks that might be transferred by the park service. I think it's like a hundred $200,000. I think we talked a little bit about to me. Um I think there was an effort to restore 110,000 for the legal council for the elderly hotline. I think that's unimportant. That might not be fixed. I think it I don't think it did in the end, but let's try to get that fixed. Um the I83 stuff, I just want to add my voice to I think we should fund the I83 stuff. the child tax credit. I've had a little bit of back and forth with Zachary on this and the and the revenue raisers generally. One of the things is there has to be an interplay with what happens on the federal level. And that picture is just coming into focus, but there will be people who benefit on the federal level. Not there's the benefit that comes from the extension of the Trump tax cuts, but that's not a difference yeartoear. But there could be benefits that come from salt. There could be benefit ex expansion of the salt deduction. There could be benefits that come from expansions of the standard deduction. The idea that we might claw back some of that to fill gaps created by what the federal government pulls away from us, I think is worth thinking about on a child tax credit. The federal child tax credit is going to grow some. that the federal child tax credit skus to wealthier people and doesn't give full benefits to lower income people. So if we were going to do something on the child tax credit, I would want to see it focused on lower income folks to get everybody to a similar kind of benefit. So it's not as simple to me as just re-upping what we might have thought of last year. I could be for it, but I would want it to be properly complimentary to what happens at the federal level and that goes on the revenue raiser side generally. He's against it feels like we're taking the same size pie and just trying to slice it a lot more ways all of a sudden. Um I will just reup from the committee Pat real fast. Uh you've got on here obviously restoring more SCTF related to that the utility assistance programs that are partly funded through SETF and N DOE also cut on the federal side. We see um RFK Jr. has been trying to freeze light heap funding. It's a huge part of helping keep utilities on for folks in the summer and the winter. So all the more reason that the local and our version of support is going to be more important for that. Also throw in support for DC water utility assistance. Um on storm water absolutely we've got to restore more of that funding there. I will say how much I enjoyed reading the mayor's budget here. Um they apparently for the first time ever today are saying that uh the pot of funds that working with the budget office that RC identified had a bunch of leftover funds in a WA fund that we worked with Joe and the budget office and moved that uh in the committee they apparently a sudden today said oh wait we had plans for that money so um and I a letter that didn't come weeks ago that could have helped out with that they're now so when you read this letter and it says that the community somehow was cutting for water. Not so much. Um, but that's kind of fun to read. So, in a completely different correct, which they didn't and they didn't say, but it's not an letter, but it is their is their version. But no, it's not their version of saying, "Well, it's their version of saying we forgot to do this, but let's just find a way to try to blame somebody else." Um, I'll just echo Pure the Streets Pay equity fund. Christine already talked about Champs. I don't think it's gotten a lot of attention and I just want to note that. I think that's a really important part. The alliance has to be significant. Um, you've already have eliminated the caps on awards. So, I agree with that. Access to justice needs significantly. Uh, I'll just kind of leave it there. There's a really tiny thing if we're just kind of adding to a list. uh CJDT uh which is a lovely little teeny kind of baby agency within judiciary largely federally funded. They're underresourced and a little bit of local funds to help stabilize them would probably go a long way. They do a lot of paper and judges but again none of this can all get done have another conversation. Okay. Um I would say just very quickly about this letter uh the mayor suggests that we cut services for health and education services for DRS which is not accurate. Uh there was a delta between uh approved contracts and um line items for contract funds. Uh but more importantly uh they suggest that we added a $500,000 earmark to my Angelou. As we mentioned before, there has been a back and forth between BRS and um the C forever foundation myAngelou and not all the students at YSC have been receiving education services. And so that 500,000 is not uh um in any way to undermine the existing contract, but it is to hire more teachers and to ensure that every young person at YAC uh receives education. Just one additional thing there, Maya says that their contract sets for about 80 students to receive daily educational services. As you know, the population at YSC is well over 100. There's just not enough. That's why the 500,000 was afforded. Uh my list is short. Uh obviously I would say the child tax credit. I would uh agree with Matt. We've had some discussions um that we should complement and think about what's happening at the federal level prioritizing low and middle inome families. Uh I think we often forget about middle-income families uh and the ways in which they could also be supported. Uh but I think uh the child tax credit could be a way to address cuts to SNAP and other benefits. Um we need to fund and that's at $15 million although with these changes it could drop or increase likely. Uh I would say funding part of uh of the auditor positions for the road act which is really important. We did fund uh the road act via the committee. um we did not we or could not fund it via the auditor's office and it's my understanding that that is at 1.6 million um for fiscal year 26 and about 5.86 across the financial plan of plan uh 5.86 but that includes roughly 700,000 for fiscal year 25 which we really probably wouldn't be accounting for. So it's 1.68 68 for fiscal year 26, 1.7 for 27, 1.75 for 28. Um, and then everything else has been mentioned. I would just go back to the Office of LGBTQ affairs. There will be a price tag that comes with separating that out from that cluster. Uh, but I would just remind folk that this is what advocates and community members asked for last year. And I think if we can, we should try to prioritize for the sake of transparency. Um I Anita um mine is short and hopefully sweet in that we uh 110,000 to fund a position with the legal council for the elderly. It's their hotline attorney and that's it. We usually do it one time. If we could have some predictability so they would not have to worry. It would be great. Um, city administrator had given me a few FTEEs which I've used and I didn't get this one so I have to beg for money for this position now to fill this slot. I don't understand. And Matt mentioned this too. Um, legal council for the elderly is a isn't it? Well, yeah, it is. It is. So, is this a grant? It's a grant that we give them every year to Okay. Yeah. It's 110. 110. That's what they ask. That it that's it. Uh, window couple things. Um, just echoing the sentiments of some of my colleagues. Obviously, uh, TAN is really important to me and my constituents. Uh, E-Rack funding, uh, community schools, access to justice funds, and then last but not least, cure the streets. Um, stepping to my economic development uh, priorities, and we talked about this too Mr. Uh but just finding funding uh for Eastern Brains Boys and Girls Club uh if possible 1.5 million uh to help with infrastructure and then this um I'm sorry again 1.5 million for what? Uh infrastructure to get things moving for Eastern Brains Boys and Girls Club. I think he was telling me um a story about Stephen Spielberg. a movie predates me. But uh the brand new park that we have there, your memory, sir, there you go. The brand new playground there, which I got in the budget when it was war six. It used to be Spielberg Park because that's where Minority Report was filmed. Yes. See, thank you. We named it. And then uh Mr. Chairman, this is outside the financial plan, but a tax abatement we talked about for Parkside. I just want to put that back on your radar. Uh just looking forward to working with you uh for a tax abatement on Park. Thank you, sir. Well, the list has gotten longer. Um most um I would just add Northeast Heights is actually a war seven project. uh for years that project was supposed to incorporate a tip of approximately 20 million for the second phase that um was not in the mayor's budget and I would I would list that. Um I actually think this other thing put the onfield would would generate some revenue for the city. Um but I was just mentioning it as a priority and try to figure out this budget process if possible. not sure if it's possible, but name it because I know there's been some interest. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I had that Northeast Heights on my list, too. I just wanted to It's like a downtown Minnesota Avenue and Bennett across from the DGS. No, it's a development. What's the name for the commercial area around Benning and Minnesota? We talked about that. And it's how much what is that for for Northeast? Is it there has not been legislation and we'd love for the mayor to get att Have you are you putting together a bid for the Oklahoma Avenue area? No. Is that somebody mentioned that to you? Yeah, I I was thinking Yeah. Oh, okay. I'm not reached out to you about it, but that wasn't something that um we have proposed only in the budget, but it might be worth considering giving up. Yes. Not sure what to say. And whatever I say is probably not going to be um as carefully thought out as it should be. Um the list has gotten low. I feel like some of this is um more individual than what I would call councilwide. Um when we're talking about something like the child tax credit doing talking about a policy that everybody has been supportive in the past, I could call that councilwide. I don't know that I want to pick something else on the list be the opposite, but there's some things that I mean the list is very long and okay the answer could be well let's just raise revenues. Um so let's go there in a second. Um but I don't feel like we are prioritizing and I don't feel like we are uh exercising discipline. It's like this is just a long list. Got to start somewhere. You need to ask for a list. Yeah, start somewhere. people list. So, I'm I'm going to go the list, but folks are folks are adding to the list. I mean, I have a bunch of things that I didn't put on here and they're relatively small and I'm going to try to fund them with small adjustments within like some stuff in education that I'm going to try to fund within education. So I'm not looking to um you know the councilwide to fund them but um it's just a very long list and I can pick yeah I think you pick from what we heard several times you heard several times BSH several child credit some things are one time and some are recurring I know it might be hard to translate that list, but if we could translate the list, could you ask members to turn back in the list of their top three to five things on that list to pick from this? That would be a beautiful exercise. I like both. Why don't you ask me that to cut? I think that would be more representative. So, for instance, like I think some of those health priorities, I don't think they're as sexy as IRAP, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be a citywide priority. Correct. Right. And I just worry that if we go by just So, you know, it's interesting for you to say that. Does it make me listening to Christina Health Committee? He says, "You know, $4 million for HBX for benefits is more important than what I had on the list. You you prioritize." Uh, and that's helpful. Um, I think if the budget office is going to I don't know if you can put this list together tonight and circulate it and say everybody pick the top three or even top five. Well, we could volunteer. Somebody probably translate your list. Somebody already typed this up. Somebody said I lost that. Already have a list, but I need I I took notes as good as as much as I could, but I'm going to lose things in translation. So, I need you. I mean, some of these things I don't know what agency they're in. I I cannot what we just talked about. I do not have enough information to translate it into a list. If I don't have enough information, nobody has enough information to do it. So, I am I already have a list. I am happy to compile a councilwide list, but I will need everyone to email me. That can be tonight. That can be tomorrow by noon. Um, send me your list. That includes the units now. That includes the agency, the amount, whether it's recurring or not recurring, if it's positions, the number of positions. Um, there's a few items that we just sent out. Correct. The items that are all printed here, you have all that information. No, I need to I need to talk with Phil about that. Okay. This is Phil's but it's I mean but again we misunderstood. We didn't know this history this week. That's you were just adding to the um so I like your idea but I don't believe it's going to happen that people pick the top. You said three or five. So let's be generous and say top five. Pick five off the list. So we'll get a list out to everybody. in order to get the list out to everybody gets better input from people. Um, we're sending that just to Jen or both of you. Um, there's a lot of detail Jen needs, but I would say in order to send it to her by noon tomorrow, if you don't have all the information, like the number of FTEES, that's okay. But if we're going to go there, she will need more detail. But, um, I think that would be helpful, the top five. I will add as well, maybe this is going to get me in trouble, but you know, something like um $110,000 for the hotline. So, with all due respect, you said hotline, you didn't have an amount doesn't help me. You saidund,000. I don't remember that. Sorry. That's kind of doable. Um adding uh $20 million on a recurring basis to something is a lot more difficult. I was going to say I would actually recommend if you're going to go down that path, separate those like because if if you're making me look at gosh, what I like to restore access to justice in a major program is benefiting tens of thousands of people or a um yeah $110,000. Right. I'm going to view those things very differently and I'm gonna almost every time choose access to justice. So I think you're going to invite people to Well, this gives access, right? But what I'm saying is I don't want people to be drawn into I got to pick three. I'm going to pick the big thing and I miss out this other thing that's very impactful too which is actually very well then how about if we do this not to spend a lot of time on this but the top three of big big items and big items are different than small items would be under 300,000 and the top oh items under 400,000 no under 300 to use which list to make that determination okay we're going to first send our ideas to Jim by and she's gonna compile a list. Then we're going to go through the exercise. Yes. Let me So we'll refine that a little bit. So we'll do the top three or five of top three or five of small. Um I'm not small not meaning small impact. What is small? dollar. Look at the list and let's figure out what um I want to say a little bit more. We really ought to be thinking about that which is necessary rather than that which we want. That's a reminder. And another thing is we really need to think about um that which is recurring which is vulnerable to next year's cuts. So there's some things are just going to have to be recurring. If we want to strike subtitle a limitations and liability, we're going to have to strike it recurring because that's um something like uh it's bad for me to pick something. I'll say um the um uh preservation housing preservation uh make one time. It's just got to be one time. Why am I say anything that doesn't have to be recurrent should be one time. Correct. But then we Yes. In terms of strategy for you know using resources for something that might be cut in future years. But remember, if we fund something one time that we really want to be a permanent item, we are setting up spending pressures for future years. Just to put that on the table. I understand I I think with a lot of these things, we just need to fund them one time because it's sort of a game that we're playing now. But we do have to recognize that this is going to cause the same problems for us next year when we want to continue to fund these same items. So I would just ask that, you know, we're not going to be able sorry we're not going to be able to do everything. We really need to be able to choose what's most important um and fund that properly. I want to add to that. This is again why we've got to do more on the expenditure side, controlling the overspending, uh, as well as looking at seeing if we can find some efficiencies in spending. Um, that's the only way we're going to be able to fund some of this stuff on a recurring basis. Uh, so is there anything more to be said on councilwide priorities? Are the BSAs that you've recommended on the top of your list pretty safe to assume they'll be struck? Find the money, but I would say that's high on the list. It's not only at the top of the page, but it's high on the list. I think there's broad support for striking um the limitations and liability um the criminal code reform uh the congregate uh care with homeless services um PLA and I want to say hotel I heard what what Charles said on the hotel and I don't do if it's if we're in the priority outside of making choices. Okay. So, um I don't really want to bring up this conversation, but revenue raisers um a reason why I'm resistant to revenue raisers is because it's not like we haven't increased the cost of government. Cost of government went up last year. Last year alone, it went up a billion dollars. It's not like we don't have more money. It's we have more money and then we say we don't have enough. Last also I think every year we have raised taxes or in some way substantially raised revenue on the uh photo enforcement of $100 million. I think uh last year the mayor had $500 million in tax increase. Um not like we haven't raised taxes or raised them every year. Uh and I kind of and I I want to say to me it's like well let's just pay our way out of this problem. So instead of not overspending we're just going to raise more revenue. And there's one other thing and that is I think many of us feel even those who supported this feel burned by some of the tax increases we've done like in 2020. So we raised taxes in 2020 over my objection. um in order to pay for pay equity. How did that pay out? So um I mean some of it like the TRD the the tourism and recovery got but this is what happened. So but we were able I mean sure but at the same time we raised wages for people and it's a fight we're able to have now that we wouldn't have we wouldn't have the fight before. She no matter what we do, the mayor is gonna be against any type of revenue ra takes place be more than happy to take the money the very next year. You agreed and I said you felt burned. Yes. That doesn't mean that it's not worth it. Did we pay for the minimum wage for that too? The equity fund. um it also funded the which working families now are able to take home and keep more of their money at home and housing saying the truth that's all but if we didn't do the fight we wouldn't have any money to put back in the first place so we have to do this we're doing rate when we yeah we So, we both raised taxes last year. So, yes, thank you. I appreciate that. You talked about this earlier. The mayor has already proposed $90 million in new revenue in this budget. Good. She doesn't believe in raising taxes. It's not her letter. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. It's in her letter. Hiking fees and cut will harm res. Exactly. So I think there are a number of us who feel like we we just think there's a way to do it better and more favor than the way she has. And one of the things that I'm working on is is more structural changes around this so that we don't have this constant issue of you know was the money dedicated to a specific thing and then gets rolled back. So, I'm working on the business activity tax. Um, and actually just getting the ball rolling on it could be pretty simple. So, I'm talking about funding a few positions at OCFO and giving them a directive to figure out how to administer it. But that ultimately is going to lower taxes for businesses and raise 500 plus million dollars. Um and also the land valuation tax land value tax is another one that I'm working on that um is a fairly simple approach and could help us with our WADA funding decisions um and that could raise another 500 million. Now those are not immediate but if we're talking about being smarter about the way that we raise revenues getting the ball rolling on those in this budget I think is really important. I know there are others who are working on more immediate revenue and I don't want to steal anybody's thunder, but there's of ideas that we've been talking about fix these spending right now and help work through this list even further. So maybe I could pass the mic to someone else who wants to talk that happy to say uh we're actively looking at uh raising the search charge on capital gains which would be for uh very high income brackets. Um and so I'm not talking about the average middle inome person. I'm talking about a very well-off person that's making usually millions of dollars. um as well as uh reducing the ability for similarly wealthy individuals uh to itemize uh deductions on their taxes. Both of these I believe were considered and to varying degrees endorsed by the tax revision commission and to Brienne's point would provide immediate revenue uh to us which I would say complements what is happening at the federal level. these same individuals are receiving significant tax cuts. Um, and so it would provide a way for us to provide support for many of the programs that we care about while not overburdening uh the very wealthy city. Mr. Chairman, can I ask Zach a question? Yeah. Um, Zach, you mentioned you are in the process of looking at this. Do you have a number of like how many millionaires are in the city and if we were to impose uh this uh increase in taxes, how much that will generate? We actually are waiting to get it scored. So I don't have that number. Um, but I would say on the uh search charge of capital gains, I think it we're looking at 1% if you make between 501 to a million, 2% if you make over a million, and I think it tops off at 3%. Sorry, when you say if you make over a million, do you mean if that investment yields more than a million? Yes. Well, you're right. So, capital gains which comes from any number of things including selling stock or it could be uh selling a very valuable property. Uh there would be a very small percentage that would be recouped by the district. That what Maryland just did. It is what Maryland just did. And um Maryland was able to save many of their vital programs and they improved their triple bond rating. Well, they're they improved their bond rating um as a result. Okay. And these would be investments that took place in the district or that if you're a district resident and made an investment that you yielded the latter. It's the latter. And only capital gains instead of annual income. Yes. I'm looking at capital gains uh versus income. Okay. uh the itemized deduction uh reducing it I want to say uh from 7% to 5% it would be tied to income. So if you make over a certain income bracket you would only be able to itemize to a certain point on your taxes. Again we're talking about Did you mention income part for which one? Yeah. Uh I did for capital gains. No, you capital gains. I asked him, is this annual or is this only capital gains? Give me one second. And this is individual or merge like uh the itemized deduction. We're looking at uh we're again trying we're waiting for it to be scored, but we're trying to reduce the itemized deduction by 7.5%. For the capital gains d it would be I misspoke. It would be 1% uh if the gross income is between 350 and 500, 2% if it's between 501 and 1 million, and 3% over 1 million. Is this household a full? What do you mean? Like when is this? It's not. It's just based on the profit that one receives from selling. So if I'm selling if you know when you do your taxes actually if you're single you married. So if my household makes over let's say 500,000 are you looking at question? Yes. I believe it is single but I'm not sure. I'm going to ask is this based on household the individual based on the profit from the game? sad. I don't know. But let me get back to it's a little uh it is net capital gain and so my guess would be it would be for the household. Oh, that's a whole different I'm sorry. Go ahead. Is this the same or is this we copied from Maryland? Yes. So it's the same tax structure just because there have been a lot of different it is it is mirrored off of Maryland. The capital gains proposal is mirrored off of off of Maryland. The itemized deduction deduction proposal is from the tax provision commission. So while it's while you're waiting for it to get scored, if the tax revision commission looked at these things, were they tens of millions of dollars, millions of dollars, tens of millions or hundreds? Tens of millions. Tens of millions. Commission we're looking at also cumulative effect of what they propose. Yes. Right. And I I get concerned about conversations about raising taxes without the consideration of the cumulative effect that it has on individuals who might be asking themselves like what do I get in return? Yeah. Because they were I know the tax revision commission was really set on having a neutral proposal and that's again why I think us keeping in mind what's h happening at the federal government level in effect can balance out on that. I'm gonna say I'm really hard on that because taxpayers don't look at their tax burden uh that way. It's not that oh I'm saving um some money from the feds and therefore I'm going to pay I'm okay with paying more to the district. It's going to be either I'm paying more to the district than I did last year or it's going to be I'm paying more to the district than I would if I lived in Virginia or I changed to Florida. I mean they looked at because we went through this in 20 seconds. respect they I really I really that argument just really bothers me uh because it taxpayers just don't look at what their their total tax burden is. They look at what their DC burden is and they look at their DC burden relative to last year or relative to another jurisdiction where they compete. And in our case they're looking at how many towns we raise taxes most constituency. Right. Which will make me I'm going to throw out one other thing which nobody's brought up. We do have either the most progressive or the second most progressive tax structure. Progressive the most. Yeah. Is it completely progressive? No. Progressive means upper income people pay more as a percentage than lower income people. Is it completely progressive? No. Because we have a sales tax. rely on sales tax sales taxes regress but you look at the income tax and if for the year for years it's been the best in terms of progressivity in the country so um still have earners and I haven't heard the argument made so much this year as I did a couple years ago when you look at the total tax burden no it's not progress as progress it's not progressive but it is the most progressive of any jurisdiction. And if you look at just income tax, it is the most progressive. Um, we have progressivity in our real property tax because we now have the a different rate than the more expensive and we also have the homestead deduction and both of those make our real property tax somewhat progressive which is unusual for the states. Just saying. So just a few clarifications. It is based on individual not income. They're both uh they both were done in Maryland, we are talking what the two proposals I'm discussing are advantages afforded only to the very wealthy. And so while I take to heart your concern, I think this would not impact the average Washingtonian and individuals. If we're taxing 1% on capital gains, uh they very they will still be very wealthy at the end of it. keep in mind in the district. Yeah. So there's there's I mean I mean these same these same concerns were raised several years ago and we found that not only did the amount of millionaires increase in the district u that we recouped more money than we had anticipated routinely. Share that research. I'm happy to in in Massachusetts they raise taxes. Here where you first say what you said they say money in I think it was from the fiscal policy institute. I'm happy to share it. So you got is that not a valid source? I don't know to say that we did not see the outward migration that is always used as a threat. Uh I would I would use Massachusetts as another example. They raised taxes uh for both transportation and education services and they saw the numbers of millionaires in their state increase. New York raised taxes and they kind of so I shouldn't say this in a public meeting but the data I I would not I I would be a little suspect of the DCFBI data if you get that data from the tax revision commission. get that data from the OCFO. Oh, it is from the TRC. It is from the TRC. From the TRC, your TRC. Can we pull that? Yes. You know, just to get to Kenyon's point about sort of the cumulative and and Wendell's concern about flight. Also, if you look at the total tax burdens in the region here for a household of $250,000, we are lower than Maryland and we are lower than some of Northern Virginia and maybe like within a thousand dollars of the rest of Northern Virginia. So, the work that we've done has started to put us um on par, I guess, with Virginia. But, you know, we're the region is is pretty well aligned here. It's not like we're an outlier. And I don't think this would make us an outlier either, especially not with Maryland. I think that I think there is a 250. What about other uh Yeah, that's what that's what the studies that it stops at 250, which is a challenge. There is a straw that breaks the camel's back issue that exists. But in in Maryland, they just raise taxes. That that straw that breaks the camel's back is much more about Virginia. The tax burden in Virginia is lower on wealthy people. And we could lose people to Virginia. We could lose people to other places. But will we? And I hear you that people look at their tax burdens and they don't say, "Oh, you know, it didn't add up to being more net between the two. But I don't think there's the there's the stuff about the renewal of the Trump tax cuts which won't be a difference in people's tax bill for 24 to 25. That'll just keep it the same. I don't think there people are going to feel that. But there will be things that happen for wealthy people that brings down their federal tax bill. And part of that is savings that the federal government is making in order to cut services to us. And so the idea that in that context when we're talking about big cuts to TANF, to SNAP, to Medicaid, what do we should we recoup some of that? I think that's a very very legitimate conversation for us to be having. You're right. We have the most progressive system overall and it doesn't make sense to take this tax and this tax. It's overall tax burden and the overall tax burden peaks at 12% in the middle incomes and then it goes down from there. So a middle inome family is paying 12% of their income in overall taxes whereas folks making over a million are paying closer to 11%. Doesn't mean we should raise it forever on those folks. But even just to get to something that looked like a flat tax on middle and higher income people, there is some headwind. And if this may be a year to look at that and if I'm the W three council member I have to defend myself in front of lots of people but let's look at it. I'm less crazy about what I think of as cuter things on capital gains and things. I mean I would go straight to marginal income taxes to keep it simple. Yeah. You know, Matt, the thing is is that, and I've said this, I did that um this is not new for me. In my view, it's not to raise the top bracket higher, which we already raised and is already the highest. And I think we've raised it twice. It's not that. Why don't we lower the middle bracket so that instead of peaking at 12, they peak at 11 or peak at 10.5? We can't afford that. That's what we ought to do. You're suggesting literally the highest. Yeah, literally. You told us three of us. You want me to repeat what I said? Well, I thought you I must misheard. Matt said this roughly what he said that middle income peak at 12% and wealthy people peak at 11%. Yes. And I said, well, I think the answer is in my view, just from a tax policy perspective, is to lower that that middle below. We can't afford to do that. We're not even talking about that. Instead, what we're doing is we're talking about, well, we're going to raise Let me finish. We're talking about raising the tax on the wealthy people, the the ones who are paying 11%. um we've already raised their taxes and they and they still aren't paying more taxes than the middle income earners, but they are paying more taxes than anybody else in the region because we have the highest income tax rate, but a middle income earner in Washington is paying more effective taxes than the highest income earners. Yeah. So to your point, yes, because of sales tax. Yeah. But ideally, we would love to lower that middle income bracket. Yes. Stop. Period. End of paragraph. end of discussion. But that's not but we can do that. But actually on that middle income earner if you if you say middle income is 250,000 and it's at around 250 that you're at that number. Okay. At 250,000 the burden on that place else in the region. It's lower than Prince George's. It's lower than Montgomery and it's lower than most of the the near in Virginia. Still, we have raised the rates on the wealthiest people at least twice in the f last five years and we are in terms of our income tax the highest on the wealthiest people. We're already at the top and that that has to be a consideration as well. How does our capital gains compare? Well, you've done the research on that. Charles, can I be a little Charles? Do you want Can for you? Sure. I'm actually going to try to button up the conversation and move on. Well, then well, if you're going to button it up, then let me add my button. Okay, that would be great. Uh, so, um, what I was wondering, what we were exploring was a a revenue razor tied to high value homes. Um, a modest, small, modest, whichever word makes you feel better. Um, increase building on what we did during the budget budget last year. Um, obviously we're waiting to get the proposals for by OR. Um, by modest I mean for homes valued between 1.5 million and 2.5 million adjusts to $1 per $100. And then for homes valued at above 2.5 million adjust to uh $1.15 per uh $100. Um, what's the question? How much again? I just said for homes value between 1.5 and 2.5 or $24999 if that helps you adjust $1 per $100. Uh and for homes valued at at or above 2.5 million adjusts to $1.15 per $100. Um we haven't gotten score by but that's just something we're exploring. Charles um just recognize that it's 4:30 and we haven't even talked about committee budgets. Um, I actually think this is premature to have this conversation. Um, I No, let me finish. No, you want to talk specifics. Bill, let me finish. I think this is premature because this is a conversation about I want to raise this, I want to raise that. I think it's the wrong way to look at this. I think that we need to have the discipline to look through what are the actual gaps where we feel like we have significant and serious concern which is not going to be a list of 30 or 40 things. We have a Congress that is on the precipice of voting to do real harm but we do not yet know exactly what those impacts are going to be nor how they will actually change tax code which could influence this conversation one way or another. So, I have said I believe revenue raisers should be on the table because I think that we shouldn't shut down that conversation, but I don't hear yet in saying, well, I I'd raise this or I'd raise this or I'd raise this for what? And I think a better approach to do this would be that we can we create some shared vision around what is the what what is the gap? Where is the space that we feel like we deliver for our residents? let that drive the conversation about what would be an appropriate revenue raiser rather than going down rabbit holes of exactly which different household and this and that and the other. I don't think that's productive and so I think it's I just think we have it needs to be on the table. I think we have to go do both simultaneously. Isn't that what the list was for though? And that's what the list is. I don't think we're a list of 40. I mean I think the idea is that we got to figure out out of this list what would you say are the the things that are mission critical that we're trying to help fund. And so I just think this is an important conversation. I just think we're one or two steps ahead of where we need to be with that conversation. Now, Matt for a minute, he was buttoning down the conversation. I did just button it down. Yeah. I mean, I just I'll in the spirit of buttoning down. I think I think it is time to move on. I actually think it was very healthy to hear things that are on different people's minds. And I react just a little. And Janice, what you were talking about, I worry about a family of federal workers that live in a house that has a high value but are in a difficult time. So it's not that we're going to solve it, but it's that you know what's on people's minds. That's what this whole thing is about. No, but this is a process question. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that's why a discussion Janice and I brought up kids. Anybody else interest? So Matt, I know you have some ideas. It would be helpful to just know who's interested in talking about this as we're working on these proposals. I think everybody is interested in talking about. Yes. Okay. So I guess we will figure out a form to do that if we're not going to do it as a group. Well, we are doing a group. I agree with that. I think I was interesting to hear what's on people's minds. So would people support more discussions like this as a whole group? Yes. Focus solely on revenue raisers. Yeah. What is the whole certified? Okay. And we have a process for that. So we're going to send Yeah. List we already discussed. Yes. by noon tomorrow. I'm going to propose that we meet again next Tuesday at 9:30. It sounds like I'm ending this. I don't mean to sound that way. That we meet next Tuesday at 9:30. Um I'm not quite sure what that discussion will be, but we will talk and we can include and hopefully Brienne, Janice, and I can have things fleshed out by that point. And tomorrow at 11:00 am on Zoom, there's a conversation about raising taxes to invest in our communities and protect the social safety net. Who's hosting that? All in for DC, a tax system for justice, the fair budget coalition, Caser Mitchell, Nick Johnson, Benjamin Lynn, and Nick Allen. Zach, I would say if you could send the data that you're referring to the flight because it is not what I hear anecdotally on a basis with people who have multiple choices. Three points of that for DC, Massachusetts, and New York. Okay, I will send you that as well as New York and Massachusetts. I get it. But it's still the same talking point is used nationwide. People who have already left understood over the last couple years. I want to be sensitive to it so that we don't lose the ability generate funds that we're trying that's a fair consent. Okay. Um I think just to manage expectations I don't know if they track but they look at the aggreate amount of people earning above this income level and to say we are there or higher. So in effect it's able to provide a more granular migrated by income bracket that we can't yes it shouldn't just be in versus out I think that will help I'll share what I have but what I have is total based on income brackets and it exists So if you this year had 30 millionaires and next year you have 40 millionaires, some of those millionaires may have moved out but others. Right now the aggregate dos want to take a break before we go to committee. Anybody want to take a break before go to committee? Are they going through all? We'll see. And also I think Ben wants to talk about a couple things. So, if he doesn't, I'm still going to ask her to uh why don't we uh let's speak for 4:35. We'll just short break. Thank you Charlie. 35 critical DC [Music] was nickeling and diamond. All right. much joy in this room. We need to upighten it up. So, we'll get rid of lab. We're going to go out of order of this list. Um I'm not quite sure how we're doing this format. So, Robert is going to lead the way. he volunteered. So, we're going to start with how and I think these are in alphabetical favor. All right. Um, well, appreciate it. So, I'm going to be brief. The uh uh uh budget support subtitles were sort of the the biggest uh issues. Um, we I I spoke a lot about uh the prioritization of preservation. So, I don't want to repeat myself, but happy to answer any additional questions. We'll send people's data and uh citations that if you need for any of the things that I've mentioned. Um, with uh the FY26 budget, uh, what we did was focus on principles of affordability. So lowering costs to maintain housing affordability efficiency using taxpayer dollars efficiently to maximize return on uh investments. And so uh we did not cut anything from the mayor's proposal, which is one of the reasons that this will be brief. Uh but we did reallocate unspent funds from FY25 to restore or add funding to important programs. Um we also centered measurable impact uh and equity. So here are the key uh key changes obviously housing production trust fund which we mentioned earlier. Uh the policy prioritization on preservation um a councilwide request for $15 million for housing preservation. Um, we Sorry, I didn't realize we were going to do this. Uh, subtitles first, so I'm a little bit of out of order. Um, for we already talked about subtitles, didn't we? We did. So, that's why I'm just trying to get to our spending. Um, you're not working off of the sheet that we were given. So, it's because I only got it today. Thank you. Okay, there we go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we restored $1 million to the housing preservation fund uh for acquisition and bless you. Thank you. Uh critical repairs. The mayor had uh zeroed this out. This is short-term loans financing for uh repairs. Um uh for this we uh use uh unspent money as I mentioned earlier. Uh we put in $500,000 in the small buildings program. Uh this is for small landlords. These are grants or loans to small landlords. Uh so this brought the total for this fund to a little over $1.2 uh million. This is a very important program. We've heard a lot from small landlords uh that need uh support. Um, we increased funding for HPAP by $2 million. Um, I think the mayor had it at 25 and we put it at 27 million. HPAP. Thank you. Mayor was 27. We put it up to 29. Um, most of us already understand the importance of HPAP and know that this gets spent down every year. Um, we added $200,000 to the office of the tenant advocates emergency housing assistance program. Uh, that was actually I believe what the overspending the uh chairman pointed out earlier. Uh, this is a program so when people have an emergency housing need uh OTAA can help them but they're uh uh the need uh outstretches them. This is temporary uh relocation uh assistance. Um, we redirected the Office of Tenant Advocates funding from equipment to tenant court filing fees, making legal support, uh, more accessible. Uh, we modernized and expanded the financial and operational flexibility of the ONC, Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. Um, and we provided $300,000 to the committee on human services uh to fund the transgender youth workforce grant uh at DHS. I want to thank council member Parker for matching that amount. I actually think that's the only money we sent outside of the committee um because obviously this was a particularly tight uh budget year. So, um, outside of the BSA subtitles, not a lot of, uh, excitement. Just trying to get things, uh, as close to where they were the previous years, uh, as possible, but, not a lot of room to work with. So, that's that's the long and short of the House committee budget. And happy to answer any questions that folks have. Yeah. A couple things. One is you mentioned that our tenant advocate was to restore some money. they were on the contingency draw list of 250,000. That's what I was pointing out. So that was um almost certain from their emergency housing assistance program. So when there's emergency housing issue like let's say there's a fire or a landlord has a major issue that they have not fixed yet um they will the OTAA will relocate them temporarily but landlords have to repay that. That's all. Darn contingency draw this year FY25. You've added money in FY26. Yeah. Okay. Maybe I'm just a little confused. That's my fault. Um, you also said that the uh small housing provider grants 500,000 with the budget office has a million. So, we added 500,000 to bring them to a total of 1.2 2 million. Yeah, that's not what they have. All right, we'll work. They have that you put in 1 million. You only put in 500. That's 500 we got. We're getting closer to Zachary's list. We'll work through it with you. Okay. Um just to look at these featuring newer I'll use this opportunity to say at the top is sources. So the housing committee uh did budget reductions totaling $18 million in FY26 and they also took unbalance of 4.3 million for a total of 22.3 that's at the top of this table and then they transferred out 300,000 of the note that explained below uh that it was to uh committee on human services and then you look at your budget the uses budget expenditure So here it says a million for housing preservation, a million for small housing provider, 1.8 million for funding home purchase assistance. That's all at DHCD and then aptf 18 million. That's how you read this. I think actually when you start to look at it it's very useful. But will you follow up with regard to that discrepancy over this housing provider? Yes. Any question? Uh yeah, the mayor's letter complained about your changes. Hap will dilute Yeah, it will dilute the number of ribbon cutings. Uh yeah, but we talked about that already. I mean, preservation like there there's just really no choice there. So it would be irresponsible of us um and financially inefficient for us to not start to force say a uh preservation as a policy priority. And this is something I've worked on from an oversight standpoint for a number of years. You know, I do want to thank the agency director for moving in that direction, but we've got to go a lot further and the council is obviously going to have to take a lead there. But there's nothing more in housing. Oh, no. I thought Charles, I'm happy to go, but I definitely say trouble. Charles, Robert, you set the example. Great job. Follow up. Okay. Um, I'll do my best not to touch on BSA subtitles. Let me first actually start with this is going to address some of what uh was in that really fun letter a second ago. Um so within the committee we've talked a good bit about in our previous meetings um the agencies with the steepest cuts across all of government department energy environment cuts to DOT. So, the committee started in an absolutely massive hole uh to try to dig out of um we obviously were not able to put all of it back together again, but we did some. Let me just talk very briefly through something. The mayor's letter um it's a little bit baffling to me that all the challenges they've got in front of they want to focus on um it could be because they've people have just been so roundly critical of their proposals on DOE and DOT. um maybe they're just very sensitive, but um they we we looked at a lot of different fees of the DMV and DOT for registration and made adjustments. Um in several places, we actually reduced permit fees and I'll highlight that again because that somehow missed was missed in the mayor's letter. Reduced fees and costs for permits and registration. In some places, we increased. We actually found a disparity between residential and commercial permits and so we tried to rightsize that and then we did make some adjustments. For example, RPP for your $20,000 car goes up by $5. Um little bit of a sweet irony that um we see a complaint about that when the mayor also just increased bike share membership by $25, five times that uh per year. So, I don't think $5 on your $20,000 car is going to be a big deal, but it does help us kind of rightize and balance a lot of this. Um, we also I know for my Ward colleagues, if you're like me, you get complaints about how dumpsters sit out on streets forever and ever and ever. So, one of the things we found was that they charge just $75 for three months. Um, anybody who's doing a home construction project, you kind of want to like figure out when you're doing your dumpster and like get that in and out fast. So, we actually keep the $75. It'll be an escalated. So, the longer your dumpster is sitting in public space taking up the parking that all our other neighbors need, that price starts to go up. So, that over time, it just helps create an incentive. Get your work done. Don't leave the dumpster out there. Because I certainly get a lot of complaints from neighbors who they need that curbside parking, the dumpsters just line it up and not get used. So I think we kind of create an escalating piece over time. Sorry, can you talk a like how much does it escalate? Like if you're doing a renovation project for six months, does it go up every day or No, no, no. It's five months. So um it's still $75 for month one. Month two is 150. Month three and four 225. Month five $300. If you were doing a six-month renovation, you're probably talking a $500,000 project at that point. um we're talking $200, $300 per month for that dumpster. We also want to incentivize people to be more efficient with when you're using a dumpster. So, it keeps the $75 for the first month, but it just starts to step up as you continue to use that public space because there's obviously a cost to it because neighbors need to park there and you're taking up the space for everybody else. So, let me talk through part of what we did. Can I just I want to ask we charge for the streeteries particularly those that have been there and not used longterm over a year two years. Um we don't touch streeteries here. There was some of the streeteries that got started during the pandemic. I I have found at least and if you if you've got any please let me know. I found somewhere I think DOT actually forgot they were there and I had to get them out there. They actually removed like these concrete bunkers that were taken up parking spaces and things like that and they weren't being used by the restaurant. Yeah. Some of these I'm looking at are wooden structures and they're just beginning to deteriorate. They're not being Yeah. If you got if we can follow up afterwards, but if you let me know where you're seeing I'm happy to ask. Thank you. So part of what we have done let me talk about where where we tried to rightsize things. We able to find and identify the funding to help um fund implementation of the next phase of the steer act. So this is legislation that the council passed. Step one is where we had the attorney general now able to go after dangerous drivers not only in DC but in other jurisdictions. Step two looks at dangerous drivers now. We had repeated dangerous drivers. We'll be able to actually boot and tow those vehicles, but also be able to actually say if you're getting so many dangerous driving uh citations like this that you're going to be boot and towed, you take a safe driving class where you get your car back. Um because at the end of the day, what we want is we want our safer drivers. It also implements the part around the ignition interlock program. So if you remember a couple years ago after the Rock Creek Park crash, we also learned a lot about the breaks between the courts, the DMV, OAG about when someone has a conviction for a DUI and when they need to have their license removed. I know councilor Henderson worked a lot on this as well. Like this was something where we really found a lot of smart ways to modernize and improve the system of that communication. So this funds that so it'll take effect as well. We were able to even though DOE took the biggest hits. So the SETF, sustainable energy trust fund. So that is the fund that um is one of the main drivers for DOE and the work that they do. The mayor took $71 million out of it, which was just impossible to restore. Um she's moving 70 million of that just to pay DC's electricity bills in our government buildings, which is not at all what that fee is supposed to be for. Um also took about $2 million from Anacost River Cleanup Fund. That's what your bag bill. Of course, no one here pays the bag bill because you all bring reusable bags, but that's fairly small group. So, we were able to restore the funds there. Those go to a lot of our local nonprofits and school groups that actually do a lot of work on the Anacosta River. So, we're able to restore that. We prioritize that as well as getting additional funds back into the SCTf to help uh implement our healthy homes law that was passed here by the council. Um, we have been working with council NDO and the public works committee to help restore some of the storm water funding and kind of that work will continue. Um, let's see what else. We talked a good bit earlier about the green bank which was getting cut pretty significantly. We had this idea that we really explored which was could the green bank create essentially the district's first greening bond which would allow it to be more self-sufficient. we wouldn't have to be putting money into it, but we start to create this bonding piece. Working with the CFO, we really explored it, kick the tires on it. Um, it's not ready to roll out this year, but we do put $250,000 to green bank to spend this next year really working to build out the finances of what that could look like so that next year, my hope would be we actually can roll out this green bond idea, which I think will help set it on a much more sustainable path from a financing perspective. And I know I don't have to convince this group of how important the green bank is overall. Um on the DOT side of things, just a couple of quick things to highlight. We were able to restore a good amount of the bus priority funds. The mayor's uh budget actually reduced the amount of funding and then spread it out over a longer period of time, which meant fewer of our transit corridor projects were going to be happening. We're able to restore a good bit of that. Um, one of the things that it also does as the the street car is eliminated over the next two years, there is there was no plan to do anything on the H Street and Bidding Road corridor. And whatever is going to happen at the RFK campus, we know that getting there on H Street and Bidding Road is going to be really important. So, we put $250,000 in to start planning for the future of that corridor linking six and seven. um especially with an eye to how you going to move people in and out and close to RFK. So, I just want to highlight that that's in there and I know the transportation along Bennett Road is a priority uh for council felder too. Um we also are funding the plaza act. So, this is part of our efforts and I talk about the the pedestrianization of our corridors be it gallery what you call it gallery square. Gallery square. Okay. Um, Eastern Market, when we think about the downtown holiday market or we think about the Dupont Farmers Market, creating these types of spaces are great for our local businesses. They draw thousands of people out. They're great for our city. So, you all remember, of course, as we passed that law last year. This will help fund so we start pedestrianizing those spaces. Um, and one other piece, Bill, thank you very much. Uh some of the feedback we've gotten around buildings and meeting a lot of our net zero and batch requirements, everything else is that we need to have greater partnership with the department of buildings. So we actually fund a position, a senior position at the department of buildings to be able to have someone whose job it is to work with our buildings um to really make sure that they are meeting um the green building issues, work with the green building advisory council. That's a net zero compliance. Um those are the highlights and happy to answer any questions. So near the beginning you talked about some of the uses being like um restoring the Pacos fund in the bag fee which I don't see on this list but you didn't fund it through legislation. Where is it on this list? It's reflected in the ESA chapters out here. It just it's not labeled that way, but the one where you see the 1.89. Yeah. That's what that is. Okay. Because we had to move BSA language inside it. So when you talk about those new subtitles, some of those just have to be done to help. If you're a big contributor to the BSA and we want to thank you, we will send you a donation letter. You're very welcome. Very welcome. Um questions for members. Were other uses that or sources rather that you found fund all these things? Um, what were they rather? See, we well like there were FTE, there were vacant FTEEs, for example, the DMB that we swept those positions and then we gave them back to the DMV to help meet the SER requirements. So, they would have their FTEEs for that. That's one source uh that made up a good bit of it. Um, I mentioned the like the dumpster fees, the RPP vehicle permit. So, like for a smaller vehicle, which I have a lot of, we reduce that. But for the car like your cyber trucks, uh we increased their licenses by like 25 bucks, 50 bucks I think. Um but those are the different ink changes that were taking place because a significantly heavier vehicle does a lot more damage to our streets. They're fee to just drive on the roads or to for parking or so every vehicle gets registered. So when you think about you know your vehicle registration fee so the way the DMV does it is they break it down by the weight of your vehicle. So, for example, a vehicle that's 3500 lb or less, which you're going to think of as a smaller car, it's $70. Or a vehicle that is 6,000 pounds or more, so almost double that, it's $550. So, again, you're probably talking about a $40 to $50,000 purchase. So, I think it's important to keep that in context. But you go from a $70 for your smaller vehicle up to about 550 for your most heavy vehicle. So, these aren't that's just your registration delivery trucks. These are like these your passenger vehicles. Passenger heavy for commercial vehicles. We have a similar breakdown based on weight. So I'm just looking at the table here. So your absolute heaviest commercial vehicle, which is 8,000 lbs or greater, is $800. So our registration fees aren't astronomical when you think about how big these things are, but that's the breakdown. So, it ranges from $115 for your smaller commercial vehicle up to $800 for your biggest. Are you increasing those fees? Um, we're actually reducing them in some places. So, for your smallest vehicle, for commercial, for example, which if you think about this, this would be like um for a lot of your local businesses, they may have like a like one commercial vehicle that's like a small vehicle or a small truck that weighs less than 3500 lb. It goes from 125 today to 115. So, we're able to lower it down a little bit. But for your heaviest vehicle, the seven um the 250 now goes to 325. So, $7 increase if you're a 6,000lb vehicle. So, it changes. We're talking $75. So, we're not talking big dollars. But, those are the little adjustments that we made. We also found though that residential like passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles, they weren't lined up in the same way. So we kind of just took some time to rightize so it just made a little more logical flow as that went. Um the other piece I just wanted to to raise and this isn't just in regard to this committee but um I appreciate especially with transportation environment there are so many gaps so many issues to try to resolve. Um the deputy mayor for planning economic development is concerned and I had a long conversation with her the other day about this of she feels like a lot of their growth agenda has been removed from where we are now with the committees and so I just wanted to raise that to this group as we think about the combination of things in in this committee and in CBED and other things that we're thinking about um because each intervention we can debate and maybe some are the right ones and some are the wrong ones. But I would hate for the perception as we're trying to make sure that businesses stay here and are attracted that we're not leaning into the idea that we want to grow. And I just wanted to share that that it's come up in regards to a lot of the BSAs that have been struck. I'm just looking through this letter too. I don't know that I think that's I I think that's a healthy thing to talk about. I would hope people have a pretty healthy push back on that type of narrative as well though because when I look at at least in our context if we think a $25 on a commercial vehicle is somehow going to be harming a growth agenda but the executive completely eliminating the funding for the green bank which literally finances growth in our city. If we can't recognize a difference between those two things I think we got a problem and we're not really moving a growth agenda forward. um the complete slashing of things that actually help grow our city, at least in my committee's uh context is pretty stark and is absolutely not a growth agenda. It maybe is reflected in their vision in some other committees. Yeah, I think that's that's fair. I I think she was more referring to some of the building requirements. And I know we've had this debate for several years about about Beths, but I just want to make sure that in the next couple of days we're we're talking to those property owners about their ability to implement some of this because there's still a a big concern there. Um, and I think a lot of the property owners are going to the deputy mayor's office and so just want to make sure we're hearing that feedback loop. Um, as we think about what is what is workable as we try to keep also moving forward our environment to goals. Sure. U on the on the beeps piece. Um, it didn't come up in the BSA conversation we had earlier. So the mayor for the second year in a row tried to roll back a lot of the beeps requirements. Um it was pretty jarring to see this year because we actually worked with the mayor and all those building owners and we actually you all voted for it. We made a huge reform to our bets program which reflected a lot of compromise there. So to have them come back just a couple of months later and then say wait we just we know we all worked here on this but actually we don't want to do it. um we weren't going to move that forward. It didn't have support and we didn't hear that frankly heard other business owners and property owners who have made the investments that were like that's not fair like we did these things. I do think though that's why you see the senior manager position reflected of going to the department of buildings because I want a do that's going to work with and actually have technical expertise to be able to help property owners be able to manage through these things. Um, but there's nothing there's nothing that's not uh outside of the the rhetoric of it, there's nothing about our best law that will be anti-growth. It actually is really important to make sure that we are building our buildings the right way for the future. Good. Uh, great job. Um, we have a little language for the plaza that I tried to do last year but ran out of time. That's to allow for school streets. Is that amendable for what? For what? School streets, right? That was the black party at school. So, we funded that. We funded it. The black party. So, it was like an adversity issue. Okay. I think I think Okay. Um but better than that. Um, we ran out of time to get this certified, but we have $9 million of storm water funds from our food funds. Storm water. Excellent. I would like that. I would I think we will like that too because one of the challenges one of the problems that um the budget was put forward is we had multiple groups that actually went ahead and told us pretty straight up we will be suing the district because the district will be out of compliance with our MS4 permits all our federal EPA requirements. So we were going to be staring down a lot of of actual real expensive liability. Uh, so if we can work with group chairman and work together on that in the next week or two, I really appreciate it. That's great. Thank you. Does 9 million get you? That's pretty close actually from what they swapped over. Yeah. Yeah. 13. That's pretty pretty hefty. Sorry. Actually, um, open streets. What happened there? So, open streets, the DOT director said they only had about $600,000 that they put in for Open Streets, which was not going to fund like a full-size Open Streets. They said they might be able to do a small one next year. So, by taking the open streets funding and using it to fund the Plaza Act, we now move from one open street per year somewhere in the city to now moving towards three types of pedestrianizations and pauses like that. So, I think people are pretty excited about it because everyone loves our open streets. We just had one in W 6 finally had its first open street last weekend and it was act it was awesome. Dot did a phenomenal job on it. Um they they charged DOT an incredible amount that's over a million dollars just to host these things. And so, but we can use the money so much smarter and better by allowing us to actually have more of these types of spaces on a more permanent basis. And that's what the Plaza Act allows us to do. So I think once people realize the open streets are actually going to deliver more of that type of concept, I think people are pretty excited about it. Okay. So it'll find three plazas, three pedestrian zone and then we work with DOT and community to figure out what that zone looks like. It could be everything from literally like a holiday market type of idea like where you take that one block and really activate it in that space. It could be a longer type of corridor. We don't want to be overly prescriptive about what it is, but work with DOT community to think through how it works. And those are set to be permanent. What's that? Those are set to be permanent. It's not permanent 24 hours a day. It is a week. Yeah. It's like a minimum of 24 hours per week. I would I would use the phrase like semi-permanent. So if you think about spaces like um uh like an Easter market where like Saturday and Sunday every Saturday every Sunday it's closed down for a certain amount of time starting to get more in that space where you have these corridors that could either be permanently closed or it's the type of space that's more than like a block party where it's just every now and then it gets closed but there becomes a predictable pattern around it. Um so many other cities are doing this and they're just so far ahead of us. And what you see happen are it's huge support from local businesses. Um every business on these corridors are just seeing it's just driving people out which is great. It really activates a space. So it could be a full-time closure and and just for pedestrians or it could be the type of thing of a semi-permanence but it's a regular regularized type of idea. Yeah. Uh there were two things in the mayor's letter. One I thought was kind of precious. Uh nickel and dming district residents by once again increasing their taxes and fees. There is no need. This is really a choice. There's no need to increase the financial burden on our residents with fee increases to pay for council projects. Well, like I said, they seem to be a little sensitive because they they they've taken so much heat from their city around their proposed budget. Um I they seem to leave out the fact that actually we reduce a lot. They don't seem to note and say good job there. They only focus on one part of it. Now there was another one the elimination of funding for green infrastructure maintenance. Uh eliminated $5.8 million for green infrastructure maintenance that was erroneously loaded into the budget of the of Lamada. Right. So since we didn't never got an ARA letter um so working with the budget office we actually identified this fund of Lamada dollars that were available. So we worked with budget office to identify where we could fill several gaps of that. I guess they now feel like after the fact they would rather put those dollars somewhere else. So that's why they're seeing it that way. But um I don't recall seeing a letter. So sending it today after our committee markups just feels like they just kind of wanted to find a different way to spend the money. There's nothing else on Janice. Thank you. Um committee on facilities um the proposed uh budget the mayor included um had a $1.8 8 million reduction for the summer 2024 um blitz uh that we as you all know we do every summer starting uh next week. Uh we um things will be kicking off, you know, as the schools get ready for summer readiness. Uh this the committee plugged that back in and so we um made up the 1.8 million reduction so that uh DGS could be at full full capacity to be able to complete the summer project. So those are the things like the HVAC issues they address over the summer. Some of the security issues like locks and doors um and then ADA automatic doors, elevators, ramps, and things of that um nature. So we filled that gap from the reduction that was in the budget uh in the mayor's budget. Um we one of the problems has been sort of persistent waste management failure across the DPR facilities, you know, with overflowing trash and recycling uh um cans. This is largely due to the operational complexity from multiple agencies being involved with DGS handling recycling cans and DPW handling the black litter cans creating really unclear responsibilities. And so uh we did cut 633 and recurring operation funds from DJs solid waste management to transfer the responsibility to DPW um for recycling collection on DPR property. So now that there will be that efficiency there where DPW is now doing the job that DPW should have been doing should be doing um and does a good job job of doing across the the network. Um for DPR uh we added 166,000 in recurring operating funds for two DPR1 level maintenance positions. Um this is because DPR's massive portfolio is continuing to grow. their maintenance team. Right now, um only five FTE staff currently handle level one maintenance for what is 80 recreation centers, 36 pools and aquatic centers, 244 park sites, 20 dog parks, seven urban farms, and 38 community gardens. Uh therefore with such a large uh portfolio, I mean obviously we wouldn't do more, but adding to DPR level one maintenance positions to help out with um the maintenance issues across that very broad portfolio in conjunction with the work they do with DGS. Our hope is that you will see more um across the board. We will see improved at least work order input and response times um because there'll be more people to help do some of that work. Um, and so we won't see the sort of longer lag times we've seen in work orders at DPR sites. Um, so that's why we put that that there. Uh, Special Olympics, um, we added 85,000 one-time operating funds for DPR for the DC Special Olympics, as you all know. Uh, and this is a restoration, but you all know Special Olympics DC does and who they serve 2500 children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. and they do that at no cost to participants and which eliminates those financial barriers which is why that was um important. Um we did make a minimal cut to uh the sports flex uh RFK um of 12 million and we made this cut for two primary re reasons. um one the 89 million does not accurately represent the ultimate cost of the source source flex and all 89 million right is not needed now especially when there are uh we have these current uh capital improvements I want to say more here um when asked about this DPR is currently in just now in the process of completing market research with other jurisdictions with facilities of the same size trying to figure out indicating trying to get a full understanding of the scale and the cost of project and what it'll actually cost. Um, neither DPR nor DGS sort of uh because they're doing the research right now had an estimate about how much a facility would cost to operate once it's constructed. They are working on doing that research but did not have that cost there. Um, and really didn't have much information on the specifics regarding the price. Um, and we did ask for further providing of that information. that information just was not available. Um, in my opinion, uh, the minimal 12 million we got was us being very friendly and nice. Um, and I thought I would get a clap for that versus Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Um, I appreciate it. um given that all of the there's a there's a ton of question marks still outstanding for $89 million in capital funds to be placed without the full um scale of that being there being done. Um, I want to note that the 12 million is only a 13% reduction of the proposed fiscal year fiscal year 2025 budget. And I want to note that that money was taken and those capital investments were made in five, seven, and eight. And they were only small reductions. And so that money is going back to seven, five, and eight where those capital improvements will make a big difference in those communities and in projects that those communities have asked for as we look at equity in the city and how we use our capital dollars. you had a question. No, I just wanted to You don't want the word? I want all the award. Um Denise, I appreciate the work that your committee has done. Um, I just had a comment pertaining to uh you mentioned that your decision to take 12 million from the sports flex arena and ward 7 was uh dictated by not having enough information from DJs and DPR and they're doing the work. I'm not I'm not raging on them. They're doing the market work now to try to get us get a real estimate price for us. Right. So I asked that question. What would you say if in the event they present the data and the data shows that 89 million is needed andor uh 89 it costs more than $89 million to build this but they're not building it today is what I I mean yes that that's the response. It's not it's not being built today. the groundbreaking is not happening today. We know that. Um so it's this is not a not at all. This is a not now in a difficult budget year when we don't have exact plans. No, I appreciate that. And I only said that because a couple years ago a sports flex that was I think it called $60 million was put in the budget. Uh I think Mr. Chairman, you took it out the budget and uh you know just want to be mindful of of that, right? even though you still need more information. You know, yesterday's prices and today's price and you know with inflation uh construction, we just want to make sure we secure all $7. But I'm appreciative of that you have made my friend. Thank you. So when you said that the 89 million wasn't the correct cost, that's because they don't know what the correct cost. That's what you meant by that. Sorry, Mr. U uh Denise, I know you mentioned Lydia Gards, which I think you allocated 1.5. That's right. Y is there any other investments because you mentioned multiple investments. That's my interpretation. Yeah. Um let me go down further. I was going to go do some talk about the DDA stuff, but um investment wise, so net zero um as you all know uh there were some is what the agencies came to us and said the new community center at historic crumble in war 5 needed an additional 2.2 million in order to be able to be built to meet what meet the new to meet net zero standards. Um and for uh 2.6 6 million was needed for Fort Davis Recreation Center to be modernized in W 7. That was the additional amount that needed to be added to meet net zero requirements. Um, and then they needed an additional 5 million for the Congress Heights Recreation Center modernization in W 8. So, in addition to Letterer Park, which is what we we put 1 um 1.5 million in for W 7. In addition to that, we put an additional 2.6 million in for W 7 for the fourth ization um to be able to go forward. Um, we also added 579500 uh and 500,000 in capital funds for DPR's athletic field and park improvements project for field light replacement projects which one all of my wonderful colleagues have emailed me about uh lights at fields. Um, and many of our nonprofits who utilize those fields have also uh emailed us about um field safety nets. Another fun one that I get lots of emails from colleagues about nets being broken and being broken for years on years in. And so we put in 579 in capital funds for field safety net replacement projects to happen across um the district. Um and I already talked about safety net for fields but not for low-inccome people. Um and then I talked about letter. Um we did make transfers out again. We sent uh money to DCPL um 2 million in capital funds to the committee on human service for DCPL's general improvement fund and this would go to some of the facilities needs that they have um as well um work orders, small cap projects, things that were unable to be complete because of those cuts. Uh we also funded uh we sent 1.3 350 1.35 in one operating time funds to the committee on youth affairs for CFSA to fully fund safe shores another project that it is statutoily mandated taken out every year and every year we have to fund it. Um I want to pause there for a second. Yeah. So you fully funded safe shorts correct which the mayor fully eliminated. That's correct. You deserve a gold star. Thank you. Gold start it right. Um we sent 100,000 we sent 100,000 in one time operating funds to the committee on judiciary and public safety for OBSG's access to justice. We know that's a small tiny amount, but we just wanted we wanted to do something to reflect the the nec necessity there. uh 200,000 onetime funds to the committee on human services for TANIF um support services uh one time 350 in onetime funds to the committee on executive and labor for DACA's connector car program for uh seniors. Um Kyle, we sent 231 in uh,000 and some change to for two DO investigators. Um and this is to go support what we believe is to support our rental housing inspection program and do that vital work for proactive inspection uh for tenants. Um we spent money to uh PWO for the uh sweep inspectors. We uh two sweep inspectors. Um we did spend money to seal for Hattie Home Senior Wellness Center um in W 4. Um and then we sent um 1.2 to war five for Langden um elementary school as well. Those are not on the budget charts. This is their capital on the capital. There they are. But they're not on the sheet here. Okay. Um couple things on the sports cut. Oh, I'm sort of looking at you when brought it up. Um my understanding is mayor voted the entire 89 million in FY25 and voted uh 89. Yes, that's my recommend. Um and typically the way these projects work is that there's a planning period there's a planning period and then there's the uh funding and depending on how long it takes to build it could be two years. So that's usually like three years. So the earliest there would be planning would be next year and then it could be funded over the next couple years. And it's not unusual that we would um underfund the total project until we know what the full cost is when we get to the point of construction and that I'm aware of that. I just wanted to know what was the decision behind uh the reduction. Nonetheless, I'm Yeah, I appreciate the release. Well, it might get reduced a little bit more because there's plenty of time to come back. And is this your hands up in front of I appreciate the hands up. Two things from um the mayor's letter. Three things. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Um the mayor objected to reduction of funding for the development disability administration waiver. Facilities committee reduced 1.6 million in funding for the DDA waiver, also known as the home and community based services waiver administered by the department of disability services. This reduction will impact residents with disabilities receiving direct services and supports, reduce rates for providers, and require for the first time, this is bold and in italic, require for the first time implementation of a waiting list for people with intellectual developmental disabilities. It is also important to note that all these items would require the approval of a waiver amendment by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. Um, I'm going to let budget office weigh in, but I before they weigh in, I want to just say first of all, we our our committee added money into the DDA administration fee, which um it was a restoration. The mayor uh fiscal year 26 budget cut that fee by 50 50% um of the fiscal year 24 levels. And so we added money to the onetime operating funds for the administrative fee for DDA residential disability services. That means we are able to at least offer partial restoration to disability service providers um and their dedicated staff to be able to support people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. To get to the point the mayor said, I I am confident that this cut will not adversely affect waiver services in light of several indicators from the current and previous waiver years. First during DDS performance oversight hearing the agency stated the difference between the actual and budgeted expenditures for uh waiverss was about 5.5% for fiscal year 24. Um that means we are making a reduction of only about 1.4% in reduction. What that means in context in fiscal year 2022 actual spending has been exponentially lower than the approved budget. So, for example, relative to the food budget, actual expenditures were 14 million lower in fiscal year 20, 30.8 million lower in fiscal year 21, and 28 million lower in fiscal year 22, 9.2 million lower in fiscal year 23, and 3.3 million lower in fiscal year 24. So, I think our 1.6 million reduction is much less than DBA's projected underpinning there. Um and despite the budget being sort of revised down each fiscal year, I think uh this amount this this means the budget is based on waiverss available under the state rather than the active usage like many other programs. In other words, large cushion to prevent getting close to spending of the entire budget and we are only taking a little bit of stuffing out of that cushion and there's still plenty left there. Um I'm not saying for you to go look get it. I'm just saying there's still pretty there's plenty of cushion left there. Um, in addition to that, DDA's waiver budget increased by 20 In addition in fiscal year 25 and 26, this budget DDA's waiver budget increased by 20.6% while the committee's reduction accounts for only 1.4% of the proposed waiver budget. So, we are confident this small reduction will not diminish the availability of service to those people receiving waiver supports and services from BDA. again considering the 9% in waiverss increase for next year and budget officer anything else you want to add Janice I think you brought all the receipts so um I mean exactly what Janice said but also you know every single cut we made we verify with the office of budget and planning with the OCFO if we're not taking a service reduction we are asking if we can take this cut without an impact on services. We hear back from them that the cut can be taken without an impact on services. So, um you know, based on the historical understanding and our verification process, you know, we're we're we're comfortable with the action that the committee took. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to ask you this question and and Janice probably can answer it as well. Uh, not going back to the $89 million sports that the RF I got a point with this with the RFK. You took the money, you took the subtitle, you took that language out of the subtitle. You could preserve the funds in this budget. You don't look at the sports being a part of that uh overall development project. And I say that because one of your arguments for pushing the deal back was you need information and and then you mentioned that or the commanders has have recently said that any delays will delay their timeline. So I'm thinking about timeline for the development of that project and then if the if this sports plex isn't fully funded then that project as well. Uh the sports tax is not part of the deal with the command. It is part of the mayor's announced vision for the RFP camp. So um I don't I don't see the what you need to are discussing with the commanders or uh their ability to proceed because it's they're focused on the stadium and the two uh adjacent districts and plazas. They call them districts. Districts. Yeah. Thank you. Um, and this is Thank you, Phil. Thank you, city. This No problem. I understand. The mayor had a second objection. This one's longer if I read reductions to recreation opportunities for DC residents. The facilities committee cut $12 million from the new indoor yearround sports flex on the RFK campus and eliminated $2.9 million for funding a new Olympic size indoor heated pool at Carter Baron. The committee uses these funds to add $9.8 million for net zero changes to the Carmel School Recreation Center W 5 Recreation Center W 7 and the Congress Heights Recreation Center in W 8. For each of these recreation projects, the council's net zero requirements will result in delays to each project's timeline, additional costs to redesign each facility, and likely reductions in the amount of programming offered to meet these burdensome and extremely expensive requirements. In addition, the facilities committee is requiring DGS to use new mechanical system that have not been tested for their stability in the district and with no consideration for the increased costs of payments. I asked the council, I do think this is weak. I asked the council to sit down with my administration and discuss financially sustainable options for implementing the net zero program that reflect the right realities of complex buildings in site location. Don't we call that a public hearing process before we adopt a legis? Well, I for me this was me giving money back to the agency. They said, "Look, these charges are held up because of net zero." And so we said, "Okay, well why? What does that mean?" They said, "We need additional dollars to do the projects because of net zero." So I gave them additional dollars to do the projects because of net zero. So because they didn't budget on the front end, met the building requirements, I budgeted on the back end so that WS 5, seven, and eight could get the get the um what they deserve. Um as it relates to the aquatic pool, obviously I'm not against the aquatic pool. Again, this is another area Olympic the Olympic size pool which would indoor indoor Olympic size pool. I don't know. I think it was like is indoor outdoor because that's actually a good price for an indoor pool. I think it's outdoor. Excuse me. Eliminated $2.9 million of funding for a new Olympic size indoor heated pool at Carter Barrett. Okay. So, different than a press release. Um I wanted to address that. First of all, what this what this pool what happened with the funding here is that Walter Reed actually was supposed to get a DPR pool. Um, and this budget actually cuts the pool that was supposed to be at Walter Reed, which was going to be a DPR pool at Walter Reed. Um, and many people moved to the parks at Walter Reed excited about the fact that there would be a pool on campus. Um, what they did is did some digging initial work and found all right this it doesn't work in this particular area. like it's actually like the worst ground to try to build a pool and to try to do it. Um, so I'm not hating one of them for that. They just they just stumbled upon. So I think then this became a new idea. The issue with this idea is that part of Baron is still National Park Service land. There has not yet been any land transfer. There has not been the conversations of a land transfer negotiation. And so when we're in a tight budget year, we can't be planning for land that hasn't even been transferred to us right now. So it is again not a Are you looking for another gold star? I mean yes. So what so again this is a not at all. It's a not right now in this difficult budget year for a pool to to put that money towards something that has not a land that has not yet been transferred to us and plans that have not yet been. I'm happy again to work in the future once once if if and once we get a land transfer and Carter Baron land becomes somehow a part of the District of Columbia's land, then we can start doing all the wonderful work we're doing for RFP. We can start doing that wonderful work on Carter Baron and what that will look like for the community as a whole. Exactly. Anything else on facilities? Let's go to um Okay. and you will be followed by this year. Um, thanks. All right. So, in an effort to kind of make this go a little bit thicker, um, there were a lot of hits that were taken in the health committee, um, primarily due to major health programs that we fund, uh, which is Medicaid as well as the health alliance program. Um, some of these are also interactions of changes that we're trying to make on healthcare at the same time that there's a reconciliation bill that's being debated and discuss that will also make further changes. And so, while the committee was able to make some changes, I'm already anticipating that we'll need to come back and make adjustments depending on what's in the final final bill that they um eventually get around um funding or not. The biggest issue um regardless of what was happening in terms of um the reconciliation bill was that without any adjustments like if we just kept the status quo for all of Medicaid and for all of Alliance um we wouldn't have needed an additional $182 million in order to be able to just keep the status quo. Both of the programs um have had exponential growth over the last oh exponential spending growth over the last few years. that was just clearly outpacing um revenues, but we were able to make some um changes there. Um I'll So I'll just talk about the two big things. So one on Medicaid, um right now our eligibility for Medicaid, we are probably not the most generous, but one of the most generous in the country. So federally all states are required to cover up to 133% of the poverty federal poverty line. DC we cover up to 221% even beyond. Maryland doesn't do it. Virginia doesn't do it. That is the bulk of a lot of it's a policy choice that we make to try to make sure that as many people as possible can be covered but it is also a costly um policy choice that we have made as well. Um so one of the plans that the executive proposed was for anyone who is between 138% of the poverty line to 221%. Um and we will transfer you from Medicaid to another health insurance program which um is called the basic health plan although that's not what we need to call it in the end of the day. Um but it is a another insurance program through the health benefit exchange that on many things like primary care, preventative care, going to the emergency room. Um there is coverage but there are some differences. So the primary big ones is that the basic health plan does not cover vision and dental which is currently covered under Medicaid. Um and so we were unable to identify the 5.2 million that's estimated to add dental to the um BHP coverage. um federal law prevents health exchanges from offering vision coverage. So even if we wanted to identify funding for vision, it's not something that we would be able to offer on the exchange due to federal law. Uh so um that's a big one there. In terms of the alliance, we were able to roll back some of the anticipated changes that were coming down the pipe. um on that front. Um so for instance um the executive had proposed a um reinstituting the six months face-to-face reserfification requirement. Uh we had some conversations with the executive about that. We asked them to reforcast um the enrollment and we were able to take that um back. So that it now goes back to annual resurfification face to face. Uh no we were able to take face to face off for FY26 for everyone. Now we were not able to do that throughout the financial plan. Um, this is going to come back up again because in the federal reconciliation bill that was approved by the Senate, they add in a face they add in a six-month reertification requirement for Medicaid. And our biggest thing that we have decided, like we have always been doing is parody. So, we can't have a situation where on Alliance you uh can stay on continuously, but if you're on Medicaid, you have to reertify every six months. it just from a I mean we could but operationally there would be some um challenges on there. We were able to um add back in coverage for durable medical equipment. So durable medical equipment is like wheelchair uh if you need crutches, if you need a glucose monitor. Um the executive had proposed to cut that benefit and we added that back in for Alliance as well. Um the big thing um that we were unable to do is that um as Brienne noted so one there's a cap that starts on enrollment August 1 of um this year. So if you're not in Alliance by August 1st you cannot join. Um and then the other is the phasing out of adult coverage on alliance um in FY27. um we didn't have the funding to do that and then also we felt like there probably or may not I don't know what's going to happen on the fed side of some policy decisions that might inform whether or not that kind of moves forward. So those are on the two big health plans. Um we were also able to do a couple of other things. So um we funded four pieces of legislation that the council had previously passed um on um mental health crisis support and hospitalization. So that's FD12s, which was um a really big topic of conversation for us last year, the Child Behavioral Health uh dashboard. Um the Farmers Market Support Amendment Act and the Certificate of Me um improvement legislation that we passed earlier this year. Um and then as well as we have four other um subtitles that I'm happy to explain to folks, but don't need to necessarily go there. Um we added some funding in to um HIV prevention. So, one, I had mentioned that CDC had cut all of the funding that we had, so we added some money for that for the grants. We also operate a wellness center that does testing and otherwise, but their hours were pretty much while they're accessible to some people, they're not accessible to all because they're only open during normal business hours. So, we were able to add funding to be able to um expand their hours there. Um, let's see. 22. Oh, okay. Uh, behavioral health and substance use disorder. So, we did make some recommendations of funding to um be spent out of the opioid abatement fund to fund outreach grants for opioids that we currently have in existence in wards um one, five, six, seven, and eight. Um so that will continue for a year. Um, we did a drug surveillance program at the office of the chief medical examiner's office as well. Um, uh, behavioral health peer-to-peer. Um, and then we also funded the court urgent care clinic at DC Superior Court. Now, I want to bring this up because last year the committee had recurring funding to make funding for the court urgent care clinic permanent. Mr. chairman. Yeah, we funded by you turned it to onetime money. Oh, bad guy. No star person. So, when it became onetime money, the mayor cut it again even though we had gone through the work to fund it throughout the financial plan. And so, I just want to make that note. It's happened to me before. Yeah. Um, anyway, I'm happy to answer any questions for folks. Um, sometimes the way to fund things is take it from your colleague. Thank you, Christina. I feel like this is a particularly crazy health committee budget and thank you for all you did. I actually think not that I'm going to go crazy. We may have zeroed it out and then before uh first reading or second reading we realized because I vaguely remembered we thought it was funded and then um you're nodding your head. We thought it was funded. We took it out and then to put it back in we could only do it one time or else we were going to have to cut I don't know pay equity. made some Yeah. Um I you guys are probably getting emails from people. Uh I don't no one is satisfied in terms of the health piece, but we also the committee did not have the money to put all of Humpty Dumpty back together again. Um that being said, I would also add that at least on some of the Medicaid pieces, and we'll talk more about this later in the fall. Um, we've got some more oversight work to do around managed care and the amount of money that we're spending or not spending. Um, on that front, we had asked healthcare finance to run for us a list of how many people we were paying for who had never had a claim in three years. Meaning, you didn't go to the doctor, you didn't go to the pharmacy, you didn't go to the emergency room. So, either you could be incredibly healthy or you're not here. But we are paying for you every month as though you are. And there definitely needs to be some clean up around that on um 4,000. Wow. Wow. And when you think of the cost per member per month, yes, it's a month. Can you elaborate a little more on what you did on the FD12 issue? Um yeah, so we had passed um this bill last year um to improve um timelines and then also change in terms of uh who can do the evaluation for someone to be admitted. Um so we added funding for that. Oh, I guess going back to priorities, I didn't mention this, Mr. Chairman, but this is definitely probably Sorry. No, it's okay. Um, I had mentioned this before, but it didn't make the list, but um, there's some serious concerns around the funding for St. Elizabeth's hospitals, which is part of this FD12 conversation. Yes. um in the last three or to four years they have had some significant decreases in their budget but the population population is now back to pre- pandemic level but the demographics of the population have changed. There had been a time before where it was about 6040. So 60% of the population was coming from forensic cases. So like court ordered that you needed to be there and 40% were coming from the community. We're now at about nine over 90% of the individuals who are there or order. So there's a wait list if you're in the community and in need of you know inatient treatment in that way. But from a security standpoint um not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the unions who represent the workers there the hospital has not made the necessary adjustments to match what is happening dayto day. So they have um some of those spending from DBH are most certainly from nursing overtime because they're having a really difficult time hiring. Um and part of that is because there have been a number certainly an uptick in terms of um assaults on staff by patients in their care. Roughly how much money do we need? This is the part of the hard part, right? Because you ask an agency what you need and everybody's trying to be a good soldier and not answer the question. But think of St. Elizabeth's hospital. Many of you have either been there or seen it, right? Whole hospital. I think on average they have maybe a total of seven security on at any given shift both inside and outside of the hospital. So if something happens, you don't really have a lot of support there, which is a bit different. So, let's say if you have a patient um not patient, if you have um someone who's at DOC and they have something that happens healthwise that they have to be referred to, say MedStar Georgetown or MedStar Washington Hospital Center, um they have an officer with them the entire time that they are there. um just this how we do security is just very kind of um different there but they could use some additional supports um on that front. It's just been hard to nail them down on a number because I have an agency who doesn't admit that there's a problem. They put on the list though when you send it to but sorry I think we got a little sidetracked. So what does this do on the FD12 changes? uh it's it's a changing of timelines. It's a changing of it gives some more flexibility on um who can do the evaluation for the FD12. So those types of changes that we found were a hindrance in terms of somebody being able to like start the count and the process. This originally came about after the attack in the work by the scholars educator. Yeah. And I think we were finding out that the individual can only be healed for was it 48 hours, 72 hours. Um and so this allows for more flexibility in um to address the situation. We'll be doing the evaluation the hospital. So just if someone's called for service and the police show up, where is the decision point between the hospital eval versus the police taking them to? Well, currently if somebody were to call for a call of service for someone who's having a crisis, NPD would take them to one of the hospitals that take FD12 cases, they can be held for a certain amount of time in an evaluation begin and the determined the determination always happens on the hospital side of whether or not they continue. But so the the only change here in the process is what the hospital can make or what conditions the hospital can consider in making that evaluation. the length of time and the length of time and the length or how long this individual in question wasn't fit to stand trial which meant after 72 hours they were going to be released back to the streets right and um DBH and the hospital's hands were tied yeah it also allows for better training for folks to understand um sorry what was the last training So what what's now the time range of uh I would have to pull up the specific Okay. I mean you funded the bill basically. Yeah, we funed the bill that had not been implemented because Okay, I think I reread that bill to refresh because I I remember when we worked last Thank you. Anything else on health? Thank you. You're going to find the her dental issues? No, she said um HPS. Oh, dental's not on there. I thought it was the other side. You have to pay attention. Things move past you. Well, the um the complication with BHP is that number one, it has to be approved by HHS. I think last check the staff who still work on this still work at HHS but that changes by the week. Um the other thing is too they're evaluating with the actuarials now in terms of how much money is available versus how much additional money would be needed. And so we could say today from their estimates they believe that it's going to be $17 per member per month in order to add dental. But HBX can't say whether or not they actually need the additional 5.2 million or it could be a million or it could be something else. It's just I know that in talking in the community like Zach and I did a um a event together talking about this and I did one in 48. People who are currently on Medicaid, when you tell them, "We cannot tell you for certain that you're going to have dental or vision," they feel very differently about this transition because it's a benefit that they already currently have. The same with um some changes around like substance use um treatment as well, which isn't covered under BHP. So, we're trying to figure out how do we um make the program as robust as possible so it's not such a jarring change for folks because there will be a change, right? Like um right now on Medicaid, we don't have any co-pay. When you go to BHP, you might have a copay for a visit, but that could also change with reconciliation because the reconciliation bills would now introduce co-pays for Medicaid for everybody. So, I I say all that to say again, this won't be solved um at the end of July when we take the vote. We're going to have to come back because um right now this isn't contemplated to transition until January. Sorry, Will that work if we have to come back? What is What is that the supplemental budget in the fall? Yeah, I mean I I had always been operating well because the CFO never gave us a clear answer on how he was going to treat reconciliation for the purposes of this budget. I had always assumed that we were going to have to come back and do some sort of supplemental budget to make adjustments to align but we never got a definitive answer. Can we initiate that or does the mayor have to initiate that? I believe the mayor would have to initiate it. It's a a supplement. If we did find the funding, would it at least close the gap in dental coverage this year until we do broader changes? I mean, it would give a more assurance that the funding is there for dental. Yes. Okay. So, it's still maybe on your list. What's maybe on the list? Yeah, I just don't want dazzle to come off the list because in another health context there was another thing that's also a big priority if it can be funed. The list is going to be a long list but you already on the list is going to be prioritized. I was excited about dental until I was told about HBX. Then I got excited about HPX. Anything else on health? I can think of um so I think that is very important. Um okay, by the way, there was nothing in the mayor's letter about health. There were no choice or juicy or what other words? They tried but we clarified some things prior to that letter being distributed. We can do it. We can elaborate. Okay. Judiciary. Um as we talked about the biggest headline was that we merged the violence interruption programs under the office of neighborhood safety and engagement increase the funding for violence interruption grants. Um, as a reminder, we will need to fix the pathways shift to move that back under one's. Um, just for everyone's kind of awareness, ones has several divisions in it. There's the violence interruption grants. Then there's the pathways uh which is a training program um basically and a kind of life skills and there's different cohorts that happen throughout the year. Then there's family services which connect people to additional services after the initial um violence interruption is is made. And then there's agency operations. Those are the funding supports. We put back together that budget so they should have what they need to operate effectively once we move pathways back. Um we provided 12.3 million for access to justice. really glad to see that's on the list. A very stark drastic number to me was that access to justice last year served 40,000 district residents. Um so this is a very very important program. Uh we talked about the litigation support fund. So, we'll continue to work with the budget office and OAD to make sure that's resolved so that their cap is accommodated for um victim services 52.7 million. Uh Zach sent over funding to fund the part of the road act that requires a study for what a unified juvenile justice system looks like. Um so that is in there which is great. um almost $20 million for grants and supports for returning citizens and those at risk who are of becoming justice involved through OBSG. There's some capacity at MPD to hire additional staff to implement the Second Chance Amendment Act. I will note in order to do so, they need buyin from the courts and our other justice partners, uh which we don't yet have, but that's something that we're working on. Um, we funded MPD and staffing needs for all of our agencies that we've seen a lot of staffing challenges with MPD, DOC OU um, fire and EMS. provided an enhancement for the police and fire clinic for preventative medical services through our first responders, a pay raises for 911 and 301 call takers. Um $90 million for fire and EMS facilities and a new fireboat and firefighting safety gear. It's been really important. Um something that firefighters have been asking for for a long time, right? Team workers, new software for OU. um safe passage program. As a reminder, that's now run out of the deputy mayor for public safety and justice's office. We also funded uh part of PCC that we passed yesterday for safe passage training. um increase the amount for the TANF pass through. And thank you so much to Matt for finding this funding to send so that uh families can get more of the the funds that they are entitled to as opposed to going to the district. Uh we supported grants for the safe commercial corridors grants a program that we started two years ago that's been pretty successful in our commercial corridors to provide supplementary security. Um, we've provided $1 million for the safe and secure nonprofit grant. These are for nonprofits and religious organizations that have had Which was that again? 1 million. Last year we had 500,000. Um, this year the the need the we funded we funded a million. There's been 1.5 million in applications. Um, but we thought a doubling of last year's was appropriate. Um, and then we sent grants money for the public restrooms which we're really excited about. Okay. So, those are some of the main funding pieces. And then in terms of the BA subtitles, um, we talked about the lifting of the liability cap. So, we we tried to start that work. We couldn't find all 16 million. But just as a matter of fairness, I think it is very important that we as the lawmakers for the district when we're getting sued that we're not tilting the outcome to say we're not going to pay damages if we're at fault. That's just you put in 933. Yes, that's right. We put in 500,000 which is what it cost to raise the cap uh by4 million. Although we'd like the cap to be removed completely. The 433 was the other components of the subtitle which dealt with other tort liability reforms um like contributo negligence which we also thought was not fair to consumers. Um the hotel occupancy fee we kept in again because we wanted to make sure that OU has their funding. But if chairman you're able to remove that tax and fill OU funding that's great with me. um uh criminal code reform commission. We we maintained that strike. We weren't able to find the funding there. We struck the um detainer subtitle. Knows what I'm referring to there. One more time. The white subtitle. The sanctuary. Um and then we kept the wrapback program for grant for FPD. Those are big ticket items. Why 933? Why not 925 or 915? Because the subsections of the BSA title unrelated to the cap did other things with tort liability reform like added up to that and that and the exact amount that we got scored was $433,000. So we funded that and then we got scored raising the cap from 500,000 to 750,000 and that cost was 500,000. So that's what we funded but it we believe strongly came out at 933. Yes. So what's needed is to come up with three need 3.5 million or four million cost. Yeah. Am saying I'm right 4 million plus 933 is no but not think of the 433 is separate because that's not about the cap that's about other tort reforms that were included in the subtitle. Yeah but we're going to strike the entire subtitle right but 433 we do that recurring or just one time recurring. So the for the other subtitles we fund it all recurring. So you just have to worry about the cap which is 3.5 a year. Did we do the 3.5 a year and then you did five. So it's three. No, it's four. Sorry, it's a problem. Is the 433 part of the subtitle? Yes, 433 is part of the subtitle, but we did that on a recurring basis. They may change the dollar. Yeah, I got that. But it's a total cost of the subtitle is 4 million. The entire sub and we are striking the entire subtitle. I need to come up with four million. And if you came up with 933,000, then I have to come up with [Music] But I mean, the budget office can tell you if it's wrong. I don't I don't think of it quite like that. I think of it as we already struck the elements of the subtitle that have to do with tort reform, and we paid for all of it already. The only thing you have to worry about is the liability cap portion which we rate which is going to be 4 million a year but we already paid 500,000 so it's a $3.5 million right back we need that's all I need to know to sleep Subtitle cost $4 million. Restriking the subtitle. We have to come up with $4 million total. Period. Stop. End the paragraph. Okay. Right here. $4 million. So you've got if I'm going to get rid of it, I don't want to got rid of it. Find the money. with 4 million and you've contributed 933,000 which means Jen has to find 3 million 37,000 add it to the listion list you share questions thoughts guidance on what you want to do with the city's violent program I think we covered a lot of it during the Uh, well, you must have been well behaved because you didn't come up in the mayor's letter. Was that our bar? Silver star. You came up in the mayor's letter. I know. That's what I'm asking. Is that any anything in your Christmas stocking this year? Uh, any anybody else sharing? I mean, it's less a question. I just want to comment on the conversation that happened earlier to say I too have heard concerns about ones. I don't want to rehash that debate. Um but if we're sending the violence interruption programs there, we're sending pathways back. I think um we're putting a lot of faith in an agency that has not yet uh demonstrated a level of efficacy that we should want. So, I um I hope that the mayor's efforts and your oversight will improve things. So, can I ask a question? Like, how many FTEEs will be put back at? Every FTE. I think they have 88 total that includes contractors. No, I think that just includes the um the full-time staff at the agency. They have 88 full-time staff to operate two programs. That's the right number, right? We wouldn't want to look at that. That That is absolutely amazing. It's a lot. That's I was sort I'm like putting the two and two together. Right. There used to be the ones leadership academy. We moved that on. What are what are 88 people doing a lot of different question that I haven't been able to get in the last eight months which is one of the indicators which led to my thinking that we should dissolve the agency. Um there are several grant managers who are supposed to be reviewing the grants and the violence interruption. There's several people in the family services group. There's a there was 5.1 million in agency operations and agency leadership director. Um but it was important to colleagues that we not cut any positions and so I needed to get the budget out of committee. I mean I do have one question. I'm not on the committee so I don't ne I wasn't necessarily privy to those conversations but I I think there's one thing to get rid of something completely and there's another thing to give a haircut where it is is needed. um 88 FTEES to operate two programs. They're varying levels of success. Yeah. So% in terms of the haircut piece, it the the agency budget does take a haircut. So they had about 23 almost 24 million and we funded about 21 million but we shifted things around. So we worked with Jenny Reid and when because we had to put back together the agency kind of from scratch. Um and so we looked at each division with the understanding that jobs were didn't want to cut any jobs. Um and cut things that were not missionritical to each of those functions. Um, and then I added back more money to the violence interruption program because we understood that cure would probably no longer be in existence. And so we didn't want to go backwards on on that effort. And so that got us to a agency budget um of about 21 million. So they it almost three million cut dollar cut in the total budget of once that was mostly reflected in agency operations. Um some other contracts that we couldn't get a clear answer on what they were doing. Um and also with the inclusion of the hospital-based violence interruption program which was 2.1 million for the was significant haircuts taken from the agency of just want to know what 88 people are doing. I think she could use some of the ones at TE's over at the hospital doing a security. I would agree and it was it was part of the reason why I was saving some of that money savings for our councilwide effort to make sure I could be a good team player. But alas, we know where we landed. Go ahead. We're going to move on in a second. I know we've talked about restoring pure. We would then send that to one. Do we have a commitment or assurance? No. What's yours out of OG? I thought if we were to restore it, we would be sending it to once. We would still send it back to OG. Yeah. If if this body decides to fund Cure the Streets, it would be funding OAG's cure the streets program. Got it. And we would again have a dual system. I was under the impression that the OEG his endorsement to unify. I thought so too. And that was my impressionist would move over. will speak on his behalf. Understood. Well, the question if we do make that decision is do we have a commitment that the model will be adhered to at once? But it sounds like that may be a moot issue. The agreement that I have with the mayor that there will be a strict adherence to an evidence-based model of violence interruption, which doesn't have to be cure the streets. It could be another model. There are several models. Um, but it cannot be, okay, we just have a program in every ward and and see how things go. That's not going to fly anymore. Um, and so that's why we had this five-page agreement with the mayor. And I've had a lot of conversations with her and the city administrator and the deputy mayor about improvements that we need to see at the agency. And we kind of listed all those out. And that was all part of a public process over the last several months because we were always planning on merging the agencies. Anyways, keep moving. Paul, all right, get up. And Paul was a bad person. What? No gold star for Paul. Oh, sorry. I was like, a real person. Have to leave. And I'm just gonna walk around. We've been sitting for a while. No, it's two different things. [Music] Work hard and you'll achieve it. Thank you. All right. So, I'm gonna just do a quick set of highlights. Thank you. No problem. Okay. So, um genius touched on this, but we consolidated collection of farmer litter and cycling cans and DPW. Um litter cans are a really big topic in our committee and around the city. So, we spent a lot of time trying to get that right. Um we maintained and expanded the public works uh the sorry this public restroom program with help from many of our colleagues. Um we funded most of the fraudulent vehicle tag and parking enforcement modernization act. We um funded the fairness and human rights administration amendment act. So that's a new route to justice for individuals who experienced discrimination. We also tried really hard to look for places we could cut. Um we made substantial cuts and tried to generous to other committees to perhaps reduce the work the committee of the whole would have to do. That included um $750,000 for the committee on health to restore a council program for community navigators. uh $598,000 to the committee on transportation to support the vehicle infraction points system under the sphere act $394,000 to transportation environment to create a vehicle tag database for our fake tags bill 1.3 million in FY26 and since 6.4 4 million over the four-year financial plan to the committee on human services to save Tanic. $300,000 recurring to the committee on health for home visiting. $500,000 recurring for the office of the onbuds person for children. $200,000 for VA senior centers to the committee on uh administration and labor and $100,000 to the committee on facilities for um maintenance for the restrooms at Walter Pierce Park. Um we made the bad list for some of the cuts we made. I'm happy to talk about those and I also gave you a page um a couple pages to look at when you have a minute about the signed sweeping program. We really did a deep dive on how streets get cleaned in the District of Columbia. Um, and we made some big changes in the budget to create better policy for all of that work. We really do want um to have a clean city and we're going to do that. We have to be wise about where we put resources and staff and what technology we use. And the budget we received really didn't do that. It was confusing. There were lots of questions. there were things we could never get answers to. And in a budget environment like this, I I really felt it was important to be um bold in in cutting things that didn't have reasonable explanations for being funded. So that is what we did. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions. went up and I appreciate the work uh that the committee has done uh within your committee report. Um just a couple things you know I'm very grateful for thrown bathroom uh in wart 7 litter is a a big issue for me which is why I we've had conversations about supporting the bottle bill just some of that lit litter. Uh but I will say I was uh I know that we talked about this the other day just the clean city initiative uh that will get rid of uh 60 FTEES and seven and eight uh you know that program is very important and I just wanted to know um since our conversation I've been on some emails with you and the director it seems like he giving you the information uh that you needed. Would you I mean we will work with the chairman to try to restore this initiative or Oh, great question. Um you're talking about the clean cities. This seemed very exciting when it was first announced with a very large press event this spring. Um and you're right, we did get an email back director with a list in it. Unfortunately, we weren't still not able to verify what was in that email. So, um those were temporary positions and we still only have evidence of 18 to 20 of them being filled. Um so, we've got what's called a major corridor cleaning initiative. Um we have no maps of where the cleaning is happening despite repeated asks. Um they say they're funding eight temporary lowpaying positions. Now they're saying 60 are filled from last year, but they haven't shown us that. Um the budget office has gone over and over this. Um can't find them in the books. We can, like I said, only identify 20 the most. That clarification that we received via email did not actually address that. Um, so it's a challenge because you're being told, as is the public, that I'm putting jobs in W seven and eight, but I have to trust what we can verify. Um, the committee also used funding to supplement um staffing for existing commercial corridor printing teams, for river backs, for dead animal collection, for graffiti removal, for nuisance abatement, for litter collections, and for smart public compost bins. So for those who are really interested in clean neighborhoods and clean communities, that is where we decided to put the funds uh additional funds. Um, and what we do hope is that those individuals who are in temp positions right now that we could verify would move into those permanent jobs because what I think we want is for all the jobs we're creating to be good wages with benefits and permanency, not a job that is guaranteed to expire at the end of the fiscal year. So that's that's where we landed. I feel confident in that. I would say um like I said, I'm appreciative, but if my residents start looking through the committee report, as a matter of fact, I got a couple questions. They was like, "Well, I'm excited about the throne bathroom, which is uh 100k, but the reality is W seven is is is dirty. There's no robust about it." Yeah, litter is a big issue for me as a council member. W seven is a beautiful ward, right? I'm paraphrasing, right? I mean, yeah, I mean it's a very beautiful war, but litter is a is a big thing, right? And as we tend to beautify our ward, um this uh the the clean um the clean city initiative is really important. And then, you know, in the budget letter, we talked about uh expanding our clean teams and expanding areas along Eastern Avenue, Southern Avenue, Minnesota Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue. So for me, uh, I hear you, but it's like we're making a comparison between a throne bathroom for We're not actually. Can we Can I Let me Let me say it again. Would you be opposed to reprogramming the 100,000 that you did allocate to W 7 to clean things? Well, that's a different conversation or some of the FTEEs. I did fund a clean team adjustment for W seven last year. This year we we created some grant making authority to to give more money to clean teams. Um and in our budget because you know the clean teams are in Kenyon's budget. They're not in our budget. Yeah. And clean teams are not sorry to interrupt. Clean teams are not as simple as we want a clean team but we therefore will have I remember clean team there has to be a buyin from the business community. That's why TSOPG puts it together. What am I thinking of? Uh, Main Street. Oh, okay. Okay. But they always together. Doesn't the Main Street run the clean team? Not always. That's what you even even You're right. Clean teams are in King's Committee. What I'm asking is in the event that uh more you said you need additional information. It seems like we're running out of time and Mr. chairman, I want to be mindful, but let me just reiterate. Well, I'm I just want to say one more thing. Uh, what I'm saying is, would you be opposed? Would you support my recommendation, even though this is your committee instead of funding a a a grown bathroom to either use that repurpose that money to go towards hiring uh individuals from the um the clean city initiative in the event you get more information? Uh, that's what I'm asking. So, here's we can talk about that. Um, uh, the throne money is onetime money. I would I would not recommend using that for a job and it's maybe enough for one person if you were going to do a full-time position. The reason that I do not the reason that I do not there's no mistake here. The reason we don't have the information is because it doesn't exist. If it did, we would have it. This is a stunt. I got an email from the director of DPW on Thursday and within 15 minutes a reporter had called us about that email. That is not that is not in good faith. And in the leadup to that, we spent a great deal of time pouring through every document. And at the end of the day, all we could find were 18 people in jobs. And what we did was create permanent jobs for them, which I think is much better than temp jobs that are lowpaying. Now, to speak to And by the way, those jobs, they may be people from W 7, but they're not cleaning W 7. And that's why well I'll say this my experience with DPW they've been a good partner since I've taken office and I'm not here to refute you know what your conversations have been what I'm simply saying is being a council member of a ward that has historically uh been overlooked and underserved as it relates to litter. this is a priority and and I just wanted to know if you were open to reprogramming or by working with the chairman to either the information that they do that that they have given you which is 20 FTEES right would you be willing to fund those FTEES versus not funding any of them I did fund those okay so those are funded and in addition to that and this I think is more important to you right full time full time full time with benefits okay So, we also added um staffing for existing commercial corridor clean teams, for litter backs, for dead animal collection, for graffiti removal, for nuisance abatement, for litter collections, smart compost bins, and Jeanie sent us money for additional sweep staff. Uh yeah, just and for the maintenance. Well, they're going to go where they're needed. So, I assume you have issues that fall under these. So that I think is I mean I think that's the answer is that what we are trying to do is make the whole city cleaner by making the cleaning program work. Yes. But I I get that but think about it. The city that is less clean or least clean compared to other WS is W seven. So I'm just trying to figure out like you say special attention more special attention will be needed to w seven and eight. So that's what that's my argument not to refute your efforts or intentions but when I see this program cut given the population is w seven and eight that's kind of what I'm trying to focus how many queen teams do you have in seven that's the thing I think we have two and then my budget letter to you uh in in Kenyan I think we asked to exp expand five I'm sorry three new territories which is Southern Avenue, Eastern Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue. As a matter of fact, I think Nanny Halenber's as well. We trying to prime our award for development. So, I added $350,000 to clean teams. So, that may help. That's citywide or Yep. Yeah. Includes the W seven teams, which got a cut, right? Yep. I'm grateful. All I'm simply saying is and and that's why when I was looking at your report, it looks like only a $100,000 was given toward $100,000. I love being repetitive. I love you. So $100,000 doesn't get you a clean team. Unfortunately, I mean I know that investment I hear you. I mean I truly do believe that we are making invest. I'm very familiar with the issues there from all the oversight. Um, and uh, take a look at the handout that I gave you on the street sweeping because what it shows is huge gaps in W 7, which is what we're trying to fix with the new program. So, I just want to reiterate, we get close discussion. This is not personal. I just want to get I just get passionate about my You should, you know, we have all the Makers to be the best work. Well, I hope I was able to answer your question. You were. Thank you, thank you, uh, chair. Thank you. And I appreciate you raising the litter. I I don't dispute this. You know, maybe worse stuff is a problem across the city and it's bad. And so I appreciate your your efforts, Brienne. Quick uh question. Thank you for the consolidated consolidation of park litter and recycling. That's just been a mess for too many years. So this is common sense and I love it. Um but the um $394,000 for vehicle tag database license plate readers um that database is going to be national or just DC national. It's for the fake tag bill. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. All right. That's it. Thank you. Database of the designs not of individual. Oh yes. Sorry. Right. Right. So, this database that is going to be at the DMV helps um parking enforcement officers and others determine if a license plate is actually a real one because it gives you a directory of what they look like in every state. That'd be cool. Um I was just thinking about this as you're talking about the the letter investments. Do we do any like PSAs or education to our schools about our civic responsibility to not litter? No, I don't think so. I'll tell you though, our little kids are obsessed. It's probably the big kids where we're losing it, but the little kids are obsessed with litter cleanups if I The ones that I am exposed to or Yes. No, I think that's that's fair. and that those have usually been the most enthusiastic people showing up when we've done cleanup. So, I'm just thinking about like how can we start earlier in educating folks about the problems of litter and how we all have a responsibility to one another to about litter to all. So, we have an office of clean city, right, which hasn't been given much support. And one of the things that I'd like to do, although we probably don't have time this year, though we might push, is to actually move them from that Mocha cluster into DPW because a lot of what they're doing out in community is really just directing DPW resources to a spot. And if we had them integrated, they could be more of like the public engagement ROC. So, I think it was when Tony Williams was that he created this office of clean was there then and Vincent Spalding who was acting in W 7 was the first director of that for Queen City's coordinator. Oh, he had a lot of energy. I mean a lot of energy and he was pushing everybody and he was succeeded by Merrick Der. Oh, we know a lot of energy. He's still got a lot of energy too. Um, and since then there's been nobody there who's had that kind of and so it's like I don't know it feels like and I think she's got a lot of energy. She's come on some of our public safety walks and has even talked about like people who came with safety concerns and stuff intersection as having communities and picked up trash and been fantastic. I would add I think related to this is in my view the department of public works has no commitment really to either recycling or city oh I don't feel that way well I do that recycling that alleyway there should be a lot more public education about the need and value of recycling and generally I think the public thinks that the recycling that we put out when this goes to the landfill it does, but that's not CPW's fault. It's because it's a longer conversation, but single stream recycling is kind of a failure. Yes, but that's what all cities do. So, yes, recycling is a different conversation. I even just mean like people just walking down the street and leaving their chip bag just dropping their chip bag like that's a that's a psyche thing we can I we can work on that handed this out but you don't have a solution proposed for this we're working on it but I mean I think the point is redirecting resources I mean the budget that we received had um oh yes bottle bills part of the solution I don't mean to be criticizing not at all no um let me let me say more about that. So part of our plan part of the thing look the program that we um reallocated staff from is referred to as clean corridors consistently clean city and spring cleaning three different places more and better cleaning and that's why we are reorganizing where the cleaning people are throughout the budget and where we're funding things. Um, and we are going to be reworking the sign sweeping sign sweeping program so that it makes more sense. And we are getting Yeah. Thank you. sweepers up and down commercial corridors. We kind of have it backwards right now. We do the residential sweeping on blocks that have less trash and we do hand cleaning on the major corridors. So, and the hand cleaning seems to do better than the sweepers. So, there's a lot to to get to and this is a big area of um oversight for us, but you know, we we talked about this a couple meetings ago and um we checked and your block had only been swapped twice in 20 2024. Yeah. 2024 of this second and I believe they sent one after our meeting for your block, but um there's a lot of work to be done for sure. is um the handout on the sweeping is like sort of a download on what we're thinking about right now. Okay. Sorry, one more question. Um what happened to uh composting? Oh, great question. Um let me tell you all about that. So, we had um a very large contract in a weird place um that was also a weird amount and a weird combination of funding streams. And that contract was called TBD, TBD, TBD, which was weird. Um, and we asked and we asked and we asked and we asked and we asked and nobody would tell us what it was. So, we cut it because it's a tough budget year and I'm not going to let a multi-million dollar contract with recurring funds just sit there in my committee. Um, turns out the composting funds were within that. Um, so one of the things that we will do with the committee of the whole is restore those funds from unallocated funds in our committee that are there. Um, what' you say, Jen? It's almost enough. It's We need We need to restore 4.4. I think we have There's not Yeah. Well, that's that's a next year problem. Okay. But I think that um is 4.4 how much was in FY25 or how much was proposed in the mayor's 26? That is how much is proposed for 26. So that would be the 12,000 households. Gotcha. Okay. I guess 4 million is FY26 curbside composting. Y this is a as you know super popular program. I totally hear you on like that on purpose. Yeah. Um you know here's my my thinking on this is like I don't regret making bold choices. It's very hard to do collaborative budgeting without transparency from our partners and um you know I think people expect a certain thing from me and perhaps sometimes uh I get played because they know what I'm going to do. So, I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but the fact that we asked and we asked and we asked and we asked and after we marked up the budd budget, we found out and then it became a whole thing. So, you know, but we have we'll be fine. We're going to restore it. We have the funds. You cut, right? Cut TV. This is I mean this is something that happens every year with multiple committees. We can only make decisions as good as the information that is provided to us. And if the information isn't provided to us correctly, then that's right. Otherwise, I was going to put it back. That's right. So, I'm going over the mayor's letter. Oh, I haven't read it yet. You talked about curbside composting elimination of 60 build FPS who work on the clean quarters initiative. The committee proposes to fire 60 Department of Public Works workers dedicated to cleaning our main corridors, removing graffiti, and evading the illegal dumping as part of the quarters initiative. Unless corrected, DPW notify these 50 employees, the majority of whom are work seven residents council cutting their jobs. That's what I was just discussing with Wendell. We've only been able to identify 18 people. Did you cut? No, we didn't cut those because we we actually converted the 80 firm positions to 20 full-time. So, everybody gets a full-time job. Uh elimination of all household hazardous waste collections. Committee eliminated all funding for household hazardous waste drop off. This means residents will not be able to dispose of household hazardous waste in FY26. How much did she say that was? inside that was in the TBD contract apparently which by the way was under the executive administration budget plan composting in the past had been under um office waste diversion I'm not sure where has placed had been so it may be that we need that's 300k so um we'll work with you to restore that um adding new requirements for DPW without sufficient staff or equipment public works and operations committee accepted a transfer of $633,000 and added nine FTEUs to shift Department of Parks and Recreation Recycling Collection from the Department of General Services to DPW. While this is well intention, the funding is not sufficient for DPW to take over this function. They also added $43,000 for 250 new public litter and recycling cans. the field to provide any additional staff or resources for TBW to collect these new cans. Unless this is corrected by properly funding these new requirements, DPW will not be able to undertake them. Goes on elimination of capital funding needed to maintain path while upgrades are being performed. The committee eliminated $3.6 million of capital funds for the current pass system, which is the main contracting system all district government vendors use to submit invoices and get paid and district agencies use to manage their contracts. Without this funding, the pass system is at high risk of a failure that will impact the timely payment of our benefits. Yeah. So, well, also those cans, by the way, are meant to replace existing ones with newer and better because people are always complaining about them. Um, the PAS program uh is being modernized. We're very excited about that. There was a lot of money for maintenance in a several different places and ultimately we went over it and uh we left a million dollars for system maintenance which is the we talked about that with OCP in their hearing. Um, the project project is chugging along, but it's a lot of the money that we took was for an add-on here and an add-on there for when it's fully developed, and it's not fully developed. It was all labeled as maintenance, but it wasn't all maintenance. Eliminates nine vacant positions in the school connect program. Other voters and operations committee eliminated nine recently vacated positions at the department of for higher vehicles that drive school connect routes. Department for higher vehicles is starting recruitment for the upcoming school year and without these positions the agency will need to cut the number of school connect routes for our students. Uh I you know what cutting vacancies is fair game at any time especially in a tight budget here. Um, with the park collection piece, that money is going to two full collection teams and we funded the corresponding new trucks and according to the data we found, there's 145 recycling cans in parks total. Um, so I'm feel pretty good about that. Well, also this is moving the collection from from Department of Parks and Rep to uh DPW or from DGS to DPW. Yep. Because right now, if you need a trash can emptied in a park, uh it's or a recycling can, it's kind of a mystery as to when that's going to happen and who's going to do it. It doesn't make any sense that the public has to wonder. There's no answer for why it is the way it is. Like we both committees ask multiple different ways. So you want it all one. Yeah. So some of you know where I live. I live kind of corner to Peter Bug. Peter Bug has a big Peterbug has a couple of city trash cans in front of his place. Absolutely. Uh well it's at the intersection. So there's Okay. Yeah. Speaker Bug have extra fans. He does. Carry on. Carry on. So, one can gets picked up by the Department of Parks and Recre or DPS and the other can gets picked up by um DPW. Really? Yeah. So, the truck comes out, picks up one but not the other. Then the truck comes different one but not the other. I do. Right. Yeah. Yeah. That's what it is. We didn't fix schools. Schools is not picking this up. This is at the curb. Well, that's weird. We should definitely look into that. Um, and the other thing is that the school connect positions were also vacant in their um FY26 schedule A, which is usually an indicator that they're not planning to fill them. So, I think there may be some creative license in the letter on that. I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead. Oh, I just had one last thing and I'm really sorry to even bring it up again. And my team would tell me not to do this because they have told me several times how amazing your team has been on working on this issue. I just need to say one more time with my Word two hat on that we have had a really big problem with the street vendors. um some of whom are amazing and some of whom are not permitted, not licensed and will not move when the LCP says you can't be here and DLCP says we have no enforcement ability and MPD says we can't go and some of them have gone really late night and are lining up at 1:00 a.m. 2 a.m. 3:00 a.m. and causing other problems and other safety challenges. So I really was excited to see this in the BSA. totally respect they're going to move as a as standalone legislation. I just I think you and I have a slight difference of opinion about the MPD involvement here. And so I'm just raising this against the group. This is probably going to come up when it comes to the council and again with my W two hat on like it the current system has not been able it's not been operational from my perspective. We're going to work on this together. I just want to make a point that I think is important for all of us, which is this is the second time they have put like a manifesto around street vending in the BSA. The first time we took it out and we said, "Send us the bill. We'll work on it." They said they'd send us the bill. They said they'd send us the bill. They said they'd send us the bill. Then they sent an emergency to you, right, instead. And appreciate you working with us on that. and understanding that that wasn't the right way to move it. Um, and then lo and behold, it's in the BSA again. All we're asking for is for them to send the bill to us or to send it down. And so instead, what we're doing is taking it out of the BSA BSA and introducing it ourselves. I don't know why they keep doing this, but it's hard to work this way. And it makes it harder to solve your problem. It also makes it harder to solve their problem. There's plenty of things in there we're happy to do. There were even some we were happy to do on emergency, right? But this isn't collaborative. So now we're stuck doing this and it's been delayed because of it. But we will do it. I promise it'll work out fine. Okay. Okay. We're going to move on. I I do want to just if I could just add a little something about some vending a problem that we may um have had a couple of questions about vending office. the constituent services staff been working on it. What we discovered is that uh one of our agencies um has actually followed some of the vending vehicles into other parts of the region and they have done that because some of these trucks have thousands of dollars of tickets. And I admire the fact that we took that step. And I think that it requires more than just us talking to each other's time to talk to some of the agencies. And I would suggest that we really get on top of this because we're talking about they estimate more than 400 more than $400,000 and for one truck and they believe that they have tracked more than $2 million worth. Is it a food truck, Mia? It's of course it's a food truck. Food trucks that do. Yeah. So, if we're talking about vending, to me, that's a part of it and some someone who's involved in that needs to get on top of it. Yeah. We've asked the agency to repeat it. We've repeatedly asked them to send us their bill on um towing and they haven't. So, we'll just figure it out when this when we when we introduce this thing because it's an easy fix, but they have to send us these bills. These are just staffers. You know how staffers throughout our government talk to each other? So, staffers talking to staff. No, I mean I think legislatively it's an easy fix. I hear you. The agency's willing to work with us. Okay, we have three committees left and it is I have to write 7 p.m. All right, I'm going to go for the land speed record. Let's see how I can do. Um, so this sheet is really very very helpful. um sources. You can see that we had around $18 million in reductions and about uh 3.7 million in transfers in in FY26. The transfers in go down. Um it all of it goes down in out years. Uh the the budget reductions, stale vacancies, there's probably four categories. stale vacancies. Um, another is if you look at the office of cable television, you'll see that there's some additions there, but those are really moving things around to get to transparency. So, they also show up as as reductions up above. On the the truency pilot, uh, the agency had contemplated 49 FTEES. They've done five schools with an authorization that moved around between 12 and 17, but an actual staff that moved around between 7 and 9 and they did five schools. They went up to 49 in terms of I think it was 49 in terms of authorized FTEES. We reduced that. Council member Parker wanted to make sure that there was enough there so that we could double the number of schools and include middle schools and funded five, but there's a reduction from the baseline that the mayor had started with. And then another very big thing that we did was uh creating efficiency and case word case management when someone is both on uh in rapid rehousing and tanniff and has case workers in both. rely on the case workers from uh from TANF. I think that's an idea chairman Mendes that you've raised in the past. All of those things ultimately no push back from the mayor and no push back turns up in the mayor's in the mayor's letter. What did we do with those dollars? One thing is uh the mayor suspended cost of living increases for TANF and began imposing increase sanctions for non-compliance with certain requirements under TANF. We suspended those things each for a year. Um but for the COLA uh that has costs throughout the financial plan. for the sanctions. It just has costs and you see it there uh in FY 26. Um this is a thing that we're going to have to be coming back to some of the rethinking about some of these big programs is going to be important and going to be important the context of what the feds do. But postponing the harm so that we have the opportunity to look at this and figure out what's the best approach. We were very pleased to be able to do that. We also put some money in in order to try to improve the grant administration system. Um we also and this often with help from colleagues uh we restored funding for domestic violence grants. We restored funding for workforce development grant. Again, Council Member Parker, Council Member White contributed to both of those things. uh uh and uh restored funding for transitional housing for homeless youth in FY26. On the library side, um there were big cuts in the libraries and the number of hours was going to go from 61 to 40 hours a week. The the budget for circulation went from 4.78 million to 3.78 million. um we were able with help from others to restore the funding for staff so that we could maintain library hours. Um one of the things that I think is a blue gray area right now is that there had been a message I think council member Allen was going to help us to make sure that the southeast library was fully funded. message came back from the mayor they're going to cover that through an arada whether or not that is fully I I I want to see how that plane lands little bit worried about it because so you didn't cover that I don't believe that we covered all elements of that because we were relying on something else and we'll have to see how that plan lands I asked council member Allen when he was here and he said it it I think I think that's a thing we got to keep an eye on um on Sir Gilly. You're going to have to bring that to my attention because my guess is the mayor's letter. The funding will be reversing a committee cut or it will be the 243 million. So, let's we have to follow up on that. Um the circulation uh the we are we had 4.78 million for circulation. Other similarsized library systems have six eight plus million for circulation. Eir the ebooks are very expensive. There's a very high demand. People wait 50 days for books going. We took it we were able to take it up to close to 5.5 million. Still low for a library system of our size but getting better. Again, thank you to council member Henderson for that. Um and then uh and and then the work that we did on TANF. Thank you uh Council Member Nado very very helpful in allowing that to happen. Um I think that covers the things that happened in our community and our committee and the transfers in transfers out. Uh we were proud to be able to help JPS on this TANF pass through the child support pass through. The district has limited if if you have a family that is benefiting from TANF and there's child support that goes to that family. The cap had been $150 a month per child that would pass through to the family and the rest would be used to defer the cost of TANF. There's an authorization to be able to do $200 a month. Many places do that. We do not now. We will do the full $200 a month. And that will put dollars in the pockets of families with real needs. Um, we we were able to uh add some funding for a clean team in Friendship Heights. Friendship Heights is a a is an area that it requires a lot of attention and has a ton of potential. We were pleased to be able to do that. We sent money to all of the main streets. Council member Nidau asked me, "Is that just the word three main streets?" No, it's all of the main streets. I think there's a big Thank you. There's a big focus on downtown, 100% for the big focus on downtown, but we have to be attentive to all of our communities around the city. Um, similarly, we were able to add money for the villages. Um, and again, not just villages in W 3, but villages across the city. Also, super pleased to see $100,000 added. I think Anita added for ward for pilots of ward seven villages which I think is a very very important thing. Is that sorry is that through the collaborative or is that for a new w seven village? There's two of them. Is that through the village collaborative that's run out of w 7 or is that through the new for a new w seven village? It's for a new w seven village. Yeah, they do not have one. And then uh and then we were able to send a a little uh $250,000 to Iona Senior Services, which does a dementia navigators program that is a citywide program assisting families with a member with Alzheimer's. I think Anita again complemented that with money for the Sibly program. this this Alzheimer's community is a growing community. Some kind of effort to be helpful to folks really really important. We also sent a little bit of money to SABED to try to support uh addressing a tax abatement issue for so others might need where this is a little bit of a complicated one which we may talk about at some point because not to uh tip cards too much but there may be a little bit of money in that pot that isn't needed ultimately for this purpose and is money that I would encourage you to take and use for something else. And with that, uh, also super grateful to the committee on facilities for the general improvements dollars for the libraries maintenance generally for our schools, for our park, for our recreation centers, and for our libraries. Really, really important and very grateful to Janice for that. What was the money that you said might be not be necessary? So, so others might eat um started a project in W three and and assumed and this happens happened with some other entities in some other places and expected to be getting a tax abatement and that was built into the financing for the project. But the tax abatement didn't kick in until they because they they had not achieved a level of occupancy by the by a certain time they didn't qualify for the tax abatement. They and some others Kenyon worked on this were in the same situation and an effort was made to have the tax abatement apply going forward even though they didn't qualify in the moment and so that had a certain cost. We had set out for that tax abatement to apply all the way back to when they would have first applied and we may need to pursue that through legislation in the fall. But there's there may be $500,000 that's set aside to fund that legislation if we can get it through. But it may well be that we could that they could only benefit from 300,000. So, there would be $200,000 that's sitting there that doesn't have a name on it. And I'll follow up with questions for any members. Capture my second. Where do we land with RAP? on. We didn't do anything on REP because again this goes into the mayor's assurances there and at our at the budget at the hearing I asked are you going to fix Southeast Library and are you going to fix RAP through fix to meaning bring it to precoid levels that's 8 million in uh in nominal dollars but actually if you were going to and to capture the rate of inflation should be a higher number to get you to real dollars but I think they were talking about bringing it to eight I don't know I haven't seen the letter from what is it now five five yeah so and I brought this up earlier may be one of those things where is do additional dollars need to be provided and to what extent will the mayor come forward with a solution on this they said they were going to but as Phil said, where where might they take it from? I think we got to we got to see and that's on your list if it's not resolved rap. Um and we'll see where members are with priorities. If the issue is trying to find 3 million, which is what you had said, that's one thing. If the issue is to find 21 million, that's something else. I got you. Okay. And I would add that I think listening to you Matt, over the last few months, I found to have a better a better realization that EVAP is mostly about rental assistance, not rent subsidy into a rent. Well, we we pass legislation. I should Yeah. And I I just think all the great work that Robert's doing around the housing system and kind of rightsizing some of it is very very important. One second. Oh, sorry. Sorry for interrupting. If anybody parked on Pennsylvania Avenue, they are towing cars. That's why I left out. So, um, step four. So, if anybody here parked on Pennsylvania Avenue, please go take. Sorry for interrupting, but the tow tickets are a lot. I should do something. For what it's worth, there are no more cars out front. Never took it all to this. Anything else regard human services? Um just to finish my thought, uh I think with all the reforms that Robert is doing are really really important that we also have to balance that with an expansion of RAP for those people who are in emergencies and like I don't think we could do one without the other. Um but thank you great budget. I know it's a very difficult one. Um but appreciate all the things you did and again thank you for and I'll pray this to Dan. Oh wait, sorry. I have one more library question. Sorry. Yeah. Um, I haven't had a chance to re discuss this with Brienne, so I want to make sure we're aligned, but there's a area on the W one, W 2 border. Um, that is a library desert kind of in North Dupont Street area and we've talked about for many years building a library. DLCP came back, I mean DCPL came back and said it, we really can't accommodate a new library there. demand is down. And so one of the things that we had been exploring together over the last couple years was maybe it could be a location for more of a kiosk service, but because of all the change in library hours, it didn't seem possible in this budget. So, I just want to put that on your radar um for a possibility of kiosk at that 161 17 East Street location or in the general neighborhood because like a commons model if possible even would can look at that. The libraries are very concerned about overextending the theory system is stretched. So then Janice will tell you stories. Um, but that may be the next model where it's different kind of let's talk about it. Yeah. And I think in their analysis because we paid for that study at that location. They like I think we've given up on a full library. That's a major concession for us. But this is in the police and fire station that's being redeveloped on be on on street again. Police, fire, kiosk, housing. They kind of mentioned without saying a common could work here and I was like did you mean to say a common and they were like I mean it's kind of the same thing. So like we should talk about it but we're not there yet in terms of the money anyway. The project is anything else on human services. Yeah. Um Matt, thank you and your team for all of your work. One one question um on uh the committee uh made a change to FRSP case management uh to only make it um available to households that don't receive TANF. Uh, and I think the theory is that people who receive TAN have received some case management, but I thought that case management is more directed at income and not sort of other things that folks uh may need like home visits, domestic violence intervention, other Yeah. You know, I may may let Dan speak to this, but this is the thing. This is an idea that has been out there for a while about not having duplicative case management. Now, it may be that there are some things that some of the case managers are doing that is different, but the bigger thing that we hear is folks who feel overburdened that they have multiple case managers that they have to deal with while they're trying to move forward with their lives. And the the rapid rehousing case management is also an element of it is to try to increase incomes. And we when we talked about rapid rehousing before, I mean it is a failure. It just isn't happening where incomes are going up. They're actually maybe on average going down. So this is a thing that hasn't been working and it almost creates a headwind because of additional burdens on families with multiple case managers. But Dan if you want to do I think that's essentially accurate and we had several conversations manager in the subtitles and they shared various areas provide a holistic wrap around case management. We found that most of those services were provided elsewhere in district. So our focus of our oversight going forward will be connecting people to resources outside of the HHS more efficiently. Thank you. Anything else on human service youth affairs? Great. Um I'll try and be with the mayor efficient. Uh there were three general themes um for the committee which was to reduce the number of youth entering our welfare system and uh our criminal justice system to deepen care and rehabilitation for those in those uh relative systems and to support re-entry. So with that for CFSA uh we provided a one-time $200,000 enhancement uh to support retaining social workers. It's been a ongoing issue with the agency. This is a effort for them to provide incentives to employees. Um, thanks to a transfer from the committee on facil facilities, we were able to restore $1.35 million for safe shores. Um, I know we heard from the executive that CFSA could absorb this work. In our conversations with the agency, it is clear they are not prepared to absorb uh the safe shores related work. Um although they said they could be ready in future years, but that still says they're not ready right now. Uh we also provided a $200,000 uh investment for CFSA to restore a funding gap of about uh a federal funding gap uh for home visiting services. Uh we also partially restored funding for the office of the embudsman thanks to a transfer from the committee on public works and operations. Um we reduced them by roughly two FTEEs. Uh one FTE uh they were trying to hire one FT they will lose. Um we and for DRS um we rightsize their educational programming. I know that's one thing that the mayor mentions in her letter. I will just say um there's been ongoing back and forth between DRS and Maya Angelou. uh they have not had a renewed contract. My Angelou has made very clear that their contract states that they are to support 80 youth. Again, we have over a hundred youth at any given time at YSC. What I saw with my own eyes were young people with packets um that they couldn't read and engage with and they are not receiving educational services. So, instead of waiting for DRS to finally come to the table, we put in the budget a $500,000 enhancement which will hire three more instructors. uh provide uh retroactive pay for those instructors uh and relative pay to other educators in the ecosystem and to support the purchasing of additional technology like whiteboards. Um I'm happy is that that's sufficient? That is sufficient. Um the debate is between DRS and myAngelou. So we just gave myangel what they said they needed and we were we were persuaded that they do in fact need more fts to deal with the overcrowding issues at YS. Um we fully fund the road act. Uh there is discrepancy there. I will say I I work closely with deputy mayor AIA. Um the fist said that the road act calls for two FTs. We gave them four FTs. director said they needed eight FTs to pull off uh the road act which I don't buy. Uh we did seek a compromise. I will say uh in conversations with the director he signaled that four will do. Um but I think formally they the agency is still saying they need more FTS but we do meet the threshold of the two FTs that the fiscal um and we establish a new pilot program uh to support youth exiting uh DRS and so one of the things we've heard from youth directly as we've engaged with them is that there are issues with credit transfers to their schools. there's issues with them getting uh employment. Uh sometimes uh the home that they came from is not a safe place. And so we're hoping that this pilot can be scaled in future years and it will provide case management support to young people leaving uh DRS in hopes that we can drive down recidivism. Um and uh we also uh funded a pilot uh thanks to a transfer uh from Anita's committee uh that will establish uh a pre-apprenticeship program to give more hands-on skill-based uh programming for young people at new beginnings uh to put them on the right path. So if you are seeing we were trying to deepen educational programming uh workforce development programming as well as uh general engagement. I will stop there. I will just to speak to the mayor's letter. Uh she talks about cuts uh to healthc care operations educational services at DRS. Uh in actuality uh the reductions that we made there was similar to what Brienne said. uh they had contracted budgeted line items and what actually was spent from those line items and we took the delta uh because the agency was not able to justify the discrepancy between uh what was budgeted versus what was actually cited on the contract. Happy to give examples. So for instance um in education uh and again um they budgeted $7.8 8 million yet they only allotted $7.1 million. We reduced that line item and actually gave Maya Angelou the money so that they could hire the teachers. Um I'll give you another example. Um sorry uh if I look at um shelter and group homes, they budgeted 6.6 million. um but they actually can only provide documentation for 4.68 million. We didn't take all of it, but we did reduce some of those line items. The last thing working with the council budget office, there were reductions uh for CFSA. Uh so when the mayor says in her letter uh that we reduce 900,000 from room and board and 150,000 from child placements in actuality um the aotted money and the increase year-to-year was significantly over what was being spent by the agency. So um to give you an example for room and board at CFSA for fiscal year 24 they had aotted 10.1 mill or 10.2 2 million. Uh the actual spending was more uh 11.9 million. Then it jumps fiscal year 25 approved to 16.5 million which is uh 39% increase. And their actual spending for fiscal year 25 is only 9.1 million. So uh we reduce those line items in conjunction with the council budget office. I'll stop there. uh but I'll end by saying the investments we made in other committees as well as the investments we made in the committee was all around a theme of supporting youth uh rehabilitation and wellness question I was going to ask you about the mayor's letter but you addressed it yes we we stand by we stand by our investment what' you salon. Um, but I am really I don't know. No more ad that time of day. Um, okay. Two questions. One for the Maya Angelou contract. I may have misheard you, but it sounded like you said you didn't have an arrangement with them and so we gave him a $500,000 enhancement. I just want to make sure that there's coordination between the doc arrangement that we have with my Angelo because some of the students that that contract set to cover are young people that may be going to IRS facilities and part of that we have legislation on it called the learns act but we also had anou with the executive on it so we should just touch base to make happy to um Maya has an ongoing contract with URS. Uh they have been in prolonged contract negotiations. Um and I made a judgment call that I thought it was unacceptable that students languish uh without educational services while they figure this out. And so we forced their hand and said we're going to invest in additional teachers so all young people at YC could get direct educational services. Again, I want to reiterate what I saw uh and what Maya attests is happening is that in several of the units, namely the new girl units, they are receiving packets. Uh at the end of the day, someone picks up the packet. If they turn in five packets for the week, they get a bag of chips at the end of the week. And that is the extent of their educational programming. I think we can all agree that's unacceptable. Um and that is no criticism of Maya. they are literally saying we literally just don't have enough people in the facility to provide the direct construction that is needed. Um so the 500,000 uh allows for the hiring of three additional FTEES um right sizing of salaries and additional technology like whiteboards uh for those teachers. Okay. Uh great. That's very disturbing. Um, so let's talk about that. But yeah, I'm happy to make sure there's alignment between and then the pilot program for youth coming out. Can you speak a little bit more about that? How much you're funding and how many you think it'll serve? Which pilot? Uh, for the um kids coming out of detention. Yes. Um, so that pilot is run through DRS and I believe we funded it at 500,000 or 650,000. Um, and it's going to be a grant program. Um, and the goal is for whoever manages that contract to provide case management support, uh, to connect youth to school, connect them to employment, and to make sure that they don't have run-ins with the law. Those are themes that we've heard repeatedly that when young people are discharged, not only has BRS before the road act not done a great job with exit planning, there's literally no ecosystem of support for them. Um, and I'll use education as an example. uh many young people talk about how they struggle even to get their credits transferred from DRS to the school from the school to DRS which then means they often don't go truency they drop out they then end up right back at D so we're hoping that with effective data uh we can scale this over time as a means of driving death for citizen that sounds great and DRS is thrilled about this pilot by the way and I'm happy to support in any way I can I will just say one of The things that has been uh of concern to me in as we think a lot about the justice involved youth amendment acts part of peace and and trying to connect kids is the followup needed. Yes. That it feels like it may be better to focus on a smaller group of kids even if it was only 20 to make sure that it was very intensive followup like almost on a daily basis as opposed to serving a 100 kids with light followup. Yes. with less impacts. I think that's exactly the idea that we would deal with a small cohort of young people and then track those three buckets but also are they uh returning to DRS for having runins with the law. Question you mentioned 500,000 to hire three FTEEs. Uh yes. with those freees. Would those pack would the package now go away? Would the what go away? Package. Oh, would the package go away? Yes. Yeah. I mean, keep in mind this investment won't hit until October. Um, but yes, Maya is clearly saying they need more FTS to be able to provide direct instruction. It's also worth noting that when we think of educators, DC has some of the highest paid educators. That is not true for these contracted educators that are working in DURS. They are receiving they are being paid significantly less which is also part of what that $500,000 is seeking to do. So there's paid parity uh between them and other educators. Thank you. There's nothing else you on this on. Um, well, I I just want to say to my my neighbor, I had no idea that you had $2 million that you could transfer out when you were asking me for a measly 300,000. Well we didn't. No, no, no. He didn't have Sunny. No, in all serious, in all seriousness, um, some of those investments came at the last minute. We did make judgments. We also sent a million to the committee of the whole for an investment in the child tax credit, which is directly connected to youth wellness. Um, so your investment was needed and appreciated. I don't know when I read two million went out of your committee to other things and all youth related. So these weren't like these weren't pet projects. These were youth related. I appreciate that he sent some money to the committee hall. He's got a big when I look at he didn't even have child tax credit on his list. And I look at the committee on executive administration and labor. All we got was in FY27 $173. [Laughter] Yeah. Can I go I go next? Yes. All right. Okay. That's okay. Um committee on executive administration and labor. Um the changes from the proposed FY26 include only two agencies received enhancement. I will not speak of the third agency which we've all discussed here which is DOES um and the department of uh DOEES receive money which will be reversed in time for our first um budget vote on the 14th. So I will reverse your staff is talking with the budget office um or we will talk with the office to make sure that it gets to its proper location. Well, that's the pathway you're talking about. Of course. Yeah, that's why it's not really any longer. We pretty much said it's not in this committee any longer. So the two um agencies that received the enhancement uh one that's um the department on aging and community living dle as it's affectionately referred to um as you can see it u received enhancements that veto senior center which is small amount that's to augment the existing um plans that They propose for expansion of their membership. They have a wait list of about 60 seniors to bring into their it's really a day center for seniors more than anything else. And so we thought we would try one time to add any dollars that we we came about. We also added money for um two um senior villages to be located within Ward 7, one in the southeast quadrant, the other in the northeast. And then we of course added money for um the senior companion program. Um, this is a program that is really housed at the University of District of Columbia in the gat gontology department and it is a respit care program where seniors work with other seniors, spend a few hours a day and they receive a stipen of $450 an hour for approximately four hours of attention. um throughout the day. It's a very popular program. They have more than 500 already participating citywide and they have a weight list of 350 to join the program. So, we want to try and expand it so that it's reaching um I'll say east of the river communities in particular because we have a few that participate there but not nearly as many as could benefit from the program. Um then we added um $200,000 as mentioned the club memory program which is um organized through Sibly Hospital and that's to deal with the growing number of seniors that are facing Alzheimer's. In fact, statistics say that if you are 80 years of age and if you are a person of color and you have not shown signs of failing to have dementia, you know, progressing, then you have a good chance of not having to would not be suffering from Alzheimer's. If you have symptoms, which is a growing number of seniors across the city that are showing this um um condition, we just thought that it would be worthwhile to really try and keep the club memory program going. And we hope that next year or through generosity of the cow that we might be able to put even more money into this program. Then um we um transferred um or we received monies from human services for the dementia care navigator program uh this serves approximately 100 people with severe dementia. Now this program although it is um housed by and at um Iona it really does a tremendous amount of work in wards five and w eight u with the populations there. Uh let's see anything else you'd be interested in. And then we transferred in um we received a transfer in of course for the senior villages uh monies in for the connector card program that is a very popular program for seniors. It gives them up to $100 uh a month where they can use all modes of public transportation. Um $100 if your income is 12,000 or less. If your income is, let's say, 26,000, you get $30 a month. But seniors love it and they feel like they're getting a benefit from their government. They too have a weight list. They currently have about 600 enrolled and they have a weight weight list of 350 um individuals. So any additional funds that we get, we were thinking would be wise to use in this regard. Then um department uh I'm sorry, the office of employee appeals. Um they had one um um senior administrative assistant position that they really needed to fill. They've been waiting a couple of years to fill this. As you can imagine, more and more applications are coming in from the various agencies. So that's what this is about. Also, we insisted that the staff had not had a training program in two years and so we just added um training uh monies for this uh position. So that is pretty much it. Now, we received money transferred in from the committee on facilities um human services um committee and the committee um on um and public works. Almost said judiciary public works. And we did send money to uh the health health committee for HIV prevention activities and to um the cow so that we can embellish the institute on gerontology program and of course um we sent money to the uh youth affairs committee for their apprenticeship pilot program. So that concludes I think all of any great interest in would be in this commit. Sorry, I'm losing my voice. Sorry. Questions? No questions. Are we getting tired? We just have one. All right. I'm going to be somewhere between um a star. I think it's 20. Thank you. May the whole you all were there at the markup. We funded the board of trustees charter board of trustees training amendment act. We funded the school improvement amendment act. We added five FTEEs to the department of buildings. Some of that was with uh transfer in. uh two charter schools have relinquished their charters and uh so we redirected that money some to DCPS and some to charters so that's what the charter entries are we uh funded schools that were not budgeted up to the amount under schools first in budgeting and so most of the entries on these three pages are schools first in budgeting one for each school no they were funded did it souls first in budgeting didn't come back to that um we funded the um current cohort in the H1 visa program I don't think we uh funded beyond that and we funded three people for the new heights program this is the uh working with girls who are pregnant or young mothers DCPS thought that that could be handled by the school as somebody pointed out I think at markup How does the school even know that somebody may be pregnant later in that every year? So, um we uh also have $50,000 in the office of no in non-EP departmental uh for a feasibility study on the dual language middle school either east side of W six or east of the river. We took money from uh seabed for the historic burial grounds. assignment of talking about whether we really of our priorities whe that's one we want to do but in any event we have that in here at the office of planning and we um 400,000 for the research practice partnership I think we put 600,000 in this year uh we did funding for the DC futures program for at least the people who are currently this is a good program and the city has twice been cutting it back last year and this here the students who are in course of two or four years. So we restore that for them. We do a one-time enhancement to the office of zoning so they can write their orders and that is what we did. Two minutes 36 seconds to do schools to do and hence after school first. You really want me to go through the list? Thomas Elementary School, Burville Academy, Children Elementary School, Null, Coolage Key, Military Road, Duke Ellington, Dadia Stevens, Kramer, Cruzdale, Anacostia. That's because I've somehow not seen the school. Blue, Lafayette, Langden, Malcolm X, Powell, Shirley Chisum Tacoma Lucy Moore, McFarland, River Terrace, King Elementary School, Stoddard, Jackson Reed, Dunbar. So this this is the issue with school out walls because I know I was contacted maybe by your office. The principal made the decision to cut those positions. that's on the principle and we have to be thinking more about holding principles accountable or responsible for decisions rather than our second guessing or I normally would agree with you except if you're a principal of a school and you have to cut two positions I understand the thinking of let's focus on a core curriculum they they cut an arts position and a language position or sorry theater and language which perhaps is better than cutting math and English but we the students als also need Peter. And I'm not so sure that he had to cut two positions. Now I I could look at it more closely. I think it's that he chose to fill other positions and to do that he cut these two. He didn't get a cut. I don't have the dollars in front of me, but he didn't get a cut. Schools first. He got an increase. There are 117 schools in DCPS and there are roughly 20 schools on the list that didn't get funded at schools first. So the school though was the only one I know of that um got funded according to schools first and there's some complaint about the uh personnel decisions and everything I've heard that's on the principal not a funded I don't think it's because it's the fault of schools first I just think that the need of the students still warrants a theater end every school needs more resources the princip principal decides the principal because remember we went through this last year without walls but last year as I recall walls didn't get as like a lot of didn't get enough funding anything else on committee the whole literacy BSA all set uh literacy uh I think we have a subtitle and it's um okay for third grade I don't remember? I don't remember because it's um it's birthday. It wasn't on the list. Great. Thanks. Been glad for what you did on the state athletics. Great job. Gold star. I don't take gold stars. I give them a gold star. What comes next, Mr. Chairman? Oh, we're done. I'm going to recommend that we uh meet on Tuesday at 11. At 11. This coming Tuesday at 11. 9:30. Interesting. No. No. 9:30. 9. I misspoke. Next Tuesday. This coming Tuesday. It's like July 12th. 9:30, not 9. It's July. Wait, don't we have a breakfast that day anymore at 9? No. Well, it's there's a legacy. It's the admin. It's just a regular due date. No. So, no regular much better. Our next lunch meeting is July 14th. And guess what? We're going to vote on July 14th. RFK. Are we voting? No. RFK on the 14th. On the 14th. We voting on it. Yeah, we're going to vote on I'm sorry, Bill. We don't know what it's going to be, but we're going to vote on Lendel. Wait, um the retention plan and wellness grants where what's the status of that in the budget? No, I'm off the clock now. You're not I was waiting. I was doing quick presentation and so give me a quick answer. Give me a quick answer. Um the honest answer is it's on the list, but there were other um there were other needs or requests that um we thought were a higher priority. So like we did the experiential learning uh communities and schools is on my list. Now I know empower ed has that but there really hasn't been the kind um really hasn't been kind of I have to sit down with the ed staff again we have a little bit of money in the we can move around within the education cluster paper thing but I'm looking at the fun first and then see what's left over I didn't want to say you miss Yes. Oh, yes. She's the king of