e e e e e e e e e e e e e I'm calling to order this meeting this is a regular meeting of the committee of the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia I'm Phil Mendelson chair of the council and chair of the committee of the whole today is Tuesday May 7th 2024 the time is 11:29 in the morning and this meeting is being held in the council chambers room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building this meeting will be followed by a regular monthly legislative meeting I misspoke at the beginning this is an additional meeting of the committee of the whole not a regular meeting the difference being that this is not our regular scheduled third Tuesday of the month meeting of the committee of the whole uh but this meeting will be followed by the regular legislative meeting for the month of May uh we have three items for or four items for markup in the committee of the whole two measures that were reported out of the housing committee for consideration and that is our business for this meeting we begin our committee the whole meetings with determining whether we have a quorum at least seven members present Mr Cash would you call the role chairman Mendelson pres council member Allen here council member bonds here council member fruman council member fruman council member gray council member gray council member Henderson here council member Lewis George here council member McDuffy here council member Nido here council member Parker here council member Pinto council member Pinto council member Robert White council member Robert White council member Tron white who is it Mr chairman you have a quum uh thank you Mr Cash so uh we have four items for markup the first is pr25 d500 which is entitled it's got a long title transfer of jurisdiction of lots 287 and 998 in square 5865 part of locks 981 and 982 in square 5865 part of parcel 240 over6 part of parcel 234 over 41 and a portion of reservation 421 s so 14-20 429 approval resolution of 2024 the this resolution would approve the transfer of jurisdiction of approximately 75283 Square ft of land from the United States General Services Administration and from the United States Park Service to the District of Columbia the transfer of jurisdiction is necessary for the completion of the substantial improvements to the i295 Malcolm X Avenue Southeast interchange related to the relocation of the Department of Homeland Security to the St Elizabeth's West Campus the Department of Homeland Security headquarters consolidation at St Elizabeth's final master plan was approved by the national capital Planning Commission in January 2009 The Plan called for a new access road and improvements to the Malcolm X Avenue inter change to accommodate increased traffic the preliminary design for the new access road and interchange improvements was approved by ncpc in June 2015 the preferred roadway alternative put forward by the GSA included the construction of six new Bridges miles of retaining wall and a shared use path along a portion of Interstate 295 as well as improvements to storm Water Management Systems Construction of The Interchange improvements began in the summer of 2018 construction was completed in February 2022 this legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of 17 Parcels of land from the general Services Administration and the National Park Service to the District of Columbia six of the parcels are currently under the jurisdiction of the GSA with the remainder under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service the parcels Encompass infrastructure areas that support the new melong Access Road ownership of the sites would remain with the Federal government but the district would maintain the storm water management and green infrastructure areas under the transfer agreement this legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on October 26th 2023 the committee of the whole held a public hearing on March 20th 2024 the committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation uh nor has it received comments from any advisory neighborhood commission uh I move the print with leave for staff to make Technical and conforming changes is there discussion the vote will be on the print with leave for staff all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed hearing none the eyes have it unanimously I move the report with LEF for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion all those in favor favor of the report with Leaf her staff say I I I'll try that again all those in favor say I I that wasn't much better all those opposed hearing none the report is approved unanimously ad General council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is Adam secretary is the record complete is filed and Madame budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does is a fiscal impact statement required on a resolution yes in this case and it's of no impact and funds are sufficient thank you uh without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting the next measure for markup is Bill 255-5611 in square 57 55 for Alley purposes so 22- 01599 act of 2024 this bill would dedicate lot 841 in square 5755 which is in w 8 for public alley purposes the dedication of lot 841 would widen an adjacent public alley from 20 feet to 24 feet thereby enabling the applicant for the dedication to build single family homes on Lots 839 and 840 which lot 841 the existing alley must be widened before the applicant can develop Lots 839 and 840 due to the zoning regulations that establish minimum alley record lot Frontage requirements and I will add this is off of the W Street Southeast this legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on November 7th 2023 Committee of the whole held a public hearing on this measure on March 20th 2024 thec anc8 voted unanimously to support the dedication of lot 84 841 and square 5755 and the committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to the legislation I move the print with leave for Steph to make Technical and conforming changes is there discussion on the print by Voice vote all those in favor of the print with Le for staff say I I I are there any opposed hearing none the eyes have it unanimously I move the report with leap for staff to make technical confirming and editorial changes is there discussion all those in favor this is the report say I hi hi I think one person said I twice and forc didn't say anything yeah I are there any opposed hearing none the eyes have it unanimously Madam general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is mam secretary is the record complete once the report is filed mam budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement conform comply with Council requirements yes it does and there's no fiscal correct without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting the third measure for markup is Bill 25669 entitled unlawful restrictions in land records Act of 2024 uh this bill makes two changes to the law first it establishes I think it actually makes more than two uh it establishes a process to allow homeowners and homeowner associations to remove unlawful RVE covenants from the land records pertaining to the real property the bill also declares any Covenant or deed restriction void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of the district if the Restriction was put in place prior to the adoption of the zoning act and if the Restriction would otherwise be permissible under regulations adopted pursuant to the zoning act the bill consists of primarily a uniform law recommended by the uniform law Commission and then in addition uh some Provisions that were in a bill introduced by council member fruman the uniform law contained in the committee print establishes a simple and uniform basis for characterizing the class of unlawful restrictions and land records to which the ACT applies restrictive covenants can offer valuable land use governance and are not necessarily unlawful the uniform act focuses on covenants that are in fact invalid or unlawful and limits application to those covenants in land records that are unlawful because they purport to restrict on the basis of Legally protected status or characteristics of person such as race or religion the uniform law also creates a mechanism for common interest communities such as Condominiums to remove unlawful restrictions not only in land records but in governing instruments for the community uniform law also addresses how land records containing unlawful restrictive covenants are treated in practice while on the surface the aim of the law is to remove or delete the offending records for a number of reasons excising the covenants would be impractical or have legal ramifications in response uniform law quote unquote removes the Covenant by allowing Property Owners to record an amendment to a land record to clearly eliminate the purportedly continuing effect of the title effect on the title in addition to the provisions of the uniform law the committee print adds a section that would wave any fees for releasing unlawful restri restriction from a deed or other governing document by an owner or common interest Community the committee print also includes a provision similar to Two Bills introduced in the council by council member fruman to declare a covenant restricting the building of Apartments as Avid in contrary to the public policy of the district if the Covenant predates the zoning Act and where the development would otherwise be allowed under the regulations promulgated pursuant to the zoning act this provision would apply to any property in the district that may be found to have such restrictive covenant this legislation uh is taken from three bills that were introduced on September 18 2023 by council member fruman and co-introduced by several council members and and the committee of the whole held a hearing on those bills bill 25-48 25481 and 25- 482 on December 8th 2023 Bill 25- 669 as introduced was introduced on January 12th 20124 and a public hearing was held on March 12 2024 as I said the committee print before us which is entitled or is um designated as Bill 25669 consists of that uniform law with some changes plus uh some Provisions taken from one of the bills introduced by council member fuman uh as I said the committee had a hearing two hearings and uh with regard to the uniform law there was no testimony and opposition to that legislation I moved the committee print would leave for staff to make technical conforming and make Technical and conforming changes is there discussion Mr chairman council member fman thank you very much thank you very much chairman mendleson and to the committee of the whole staff for all of the work um that you've done on this this issue especially Evan cash thank you Mr Cash um I I found out that there was a covenant on the house that I live in and that we raised our children in uh a number of years back and did a column in the Washington post about it it was a a shocking Revelation to me that uh that we had such a c on our house and I think addressing those historic covenants and becoming aware of them and then addressing them is a key part of building a better world and so I came forward with draft legislation on how to lift such covenants it turned out that the uniform law commission was already working on something similar and it it achieves the same goals I do think uh one of the one of the Innovations we had was the way wav of costs and the uniform law commission I think is going to take that on in the work that they're doing so I think this is an example of everybody working together to get to a shared goal the second piece is also critically important and I really want to thank you chairman mendleson for your work on this um there are covenants on certain properties that prohibit uh uh multif family housing in places where multif family housing has is a high priority and that the city through this policy and the zoning code and the comprehensive plan has determined that multif family housing makes sense in those settings what's done here is both limited and Broad what it's limited in the sense that the only covenants affected are those that predate the zoning code that is covenants that are close on 90 years old and so we've done a lot of thinking about what should go where since then and I don't think we should be bound by decisions made at least 90 years ago in some cases a 100 years ago and often driven by a desire for exclusion what's done is evenhanded it says that such covenants against multifam housing in a in a place where the zoning code now such very old covenants against uh multif family housing in a setting in which multif family housing is allowed now or are null and it applies that that the impetus for this started in Rock Creek West and partly in Chevy Chase DC but the but what the legislation does is Citywide in effect which I think is wise and helps us to achieve our goals not just in Rock Creek West but throughout the city so I'm very grateful to you chairman Mendelson for your work on this bill and look forward to supporting it and hope my colleagues will as well thank you coun fuman is there any further discussion a hearing none the vote will be on the print with Le for staff all those in favor say I I I I are there any opposed I hearing none the uh print is approved unanimously I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes was there discussion on the report by Voice vote all those in favor say I I oppos hearing Noone on the U report is approved unanimously General council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is madam secretary's direct complete once the report is filed Madam budget director does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting the fourth and final measure for markup in the committee the whole today is fisal is Bill 25- 786 fiscal year 2025 Federal portion budget request Act of 2024 uh this legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor along with a number of other measures all related to the fiscal year 2025 budget uh the the fiscal year 2025 Federal portion budget request act uh reflects the portion the budget for fiscal year 2025 that is made up of federal payments this legislation is treated the same way we used to treat all of our budget legislation that is comes before the council for a single reading uh is then given to the mayor then submitt it to Congress uh but uh Congress ultimately decides the Appropriations for the federal portion of the fiscal year 2025 budget of the district's fiscal 2025 operating budget as proposed by the mayor which she proposes to be$ 21.1 billion the vast majority $1 15.7 billion do is raised locally through District taxes and fees or derived from other local sources this means local dollars account for 74.2% of the district's total budget I'll repeat 74.2% is local funds are local dollars most of the rest $ 5.2 billion is federal formula spending that includes Medicaid and federal grants available to all jurisdictions and for which the federal government has no oversight responsibility unique to the district Federal formula spending accounts for 24.5% of the district's total budget overall approximately 99.2% of the district's budget is derived from local revenue and federal formula grants that are not unique to the district less than 1% % comes from federal payments specifically requested for local programs or projects this is quite different than in the 1990s before the revitalization act when the district received I think it was close to 20% of its budget as a federal payment um let me see I'm reading excerts from the report uh in addition to the Bill's request for federal payments to the district this budget request act set forth desired Federal funding to support in whole or in part other entities that serve District residents the courts the public defender service the criminal justice coordinating Council the National Guard two judicial commissions University of the District of Columbia DC water and the Washington metropolitan area transit authority the bill also seeks to strengthen local government and the district's economy through the provisions in sections 345 section three allows the mayor and the council to determine the chief financial off officer salary which Congress has failed to keep competitive section four strengthens the council's role in containing spending by ending the mayor's unilateral ability to spend contingency reserves section five enables the district to expand its sales tax base to include non-governmental retail sales on federal property such as tourist oriented gift shops sections six and seven also make needed changes to federal law section 7 improves the DC tuition assistance grant program by increasing maximum Grant amounts in response to the rise in cost of college section section 7 facilitates continued operation of the National Children's Museum in downtown DC uh the federal payment under this the committee print the federal payment for the District of Columbia Court should be just under $360 million the federal payment for court services would be $310 million Federal payment for public Defender Services $105 million and I believe the bill also addresses an issue with regard to um that was recently in the news with regard to an appropriation this year the federal payment for Resident tuition support would be $40 million that's DC tag uh for school Improvement that's the three sector funding from Congress is 52.5 million Federal payment to the University of District of Columbia would be $10 million uh for for laboratory improvements at the UDC for the criminal justice coordinating Council which will be portion of their budget $2.5 million the judicial commissions would be $1,560 to the National Guard this would be a portion of their budget $600,000 to support the Major General David Worley District of Columbia National Guard retention and college Access program for federal payment for testing and treatment of HIV AIDS $5 million emergency planning and security costs which is a reimbursement to the Metropolitan Police Department for expenses incurred in providing Public Safety and events related to the status of the district as the nation's capital including support requested by the Secret Service in carrying out protective duties and support to respond to terrorist threats or attacks in the region as well as for the presidential inauguration that's $97 million to DC water $22.4 million which includes in part the uh um the uh combined sewer overflow long-term control plan I think they call that clean rivers fedal payment to wada $20 million this legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on April 2nd that's not what this says say it says on April 3rd and the committee of the whole held a public hearing on May 3rd with 172 Witnesses I move the if there's no objection I'll move both the print and the report together with leave for sta to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there a discussion Mr chairman council member Henderson thank you Mr chairman um I have an amendment to this bill that was circulated by my staff um at 10:57 this morning um I'm introducing this amendment to an include additional requests uh that Congress provide an additional Federal payment of 5 million to the district for the Early Childhood educator pay Equity Fund um not a lot of people realize that there are several Child Development Centers that are located in federal agency buildings in partnership with the general Services Administration um these uh centers are licensed by the Office of the State superintendent of education and as such those employees qualify for participation and the district's pay Equity Fund the federal government benefits from the pay Equity Fund in the way of higher educator salaries and lower child care costs for parents who are congressional employees members of Congress um and federal agency employees as we look to restore cuts um that are being proposed to the Early Childhood educator pay Equity Fund I believe it's only fair to ask that the federal government contribute in recognition of these benefits that District ta District taxpayers have been um making possible thus far I hope that you'll accept this amendment as friendly if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted heing no objection it is accepted thank you is there anything further with regard to the bill chairman yes council member Lewis George yes um I because I'm I'm this is going to be on the consent agenda um chairman I just wanted to note the DCT tag portion of this and how important it is um and ask you chairman isn't it true that the last time DCT Tech uh got a raise was in 19 99 uh and so students in the district have not seen an increase of this nature since 1999 when when college and university costs have gone up and having this change go from 10,000 to 15 uh th000 with the lifetime cap raising from 50 to 75,000 um would go to really supporting our young people and their ability to be able to go to college and afford College um and so would make uh this is something that many families have been asking for for a number of years here in the district um and and and rightfully so and so I think this is really important and what something that we should highlight and wanted to make sure you agree with that as well of course I agree with it this is a markup so if it's not limited to questions but uh I believe you're correct it uh it's been to decades since there were adjustments to the um what tag provides absolutely thank you thank you anything further on this bill hearing none the vote will be on both the print and Report with lead for staff all those in favor say I I I I opposed I hear no no votes uh the print and Report are approved unanimously M General council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is mam secretary is to record complete yes it is I'm sorry no it isn't once the report is filed well also we have to file the hearing record from last week's uh hearing and the record is open except for this bill for two weeks um Madam budget director does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does is there a fiscal impact on this there is not because it's just a request thank you uh without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting that concludes items for markup in the committee the whole we have two measures that were reported out of the committee on housing shared by council member Robert White uh they are both nomin confirmations of nominations by the mayor to the rental Housing Commission PR 25- 639 rental Housing Commission Adam R Hunter confirmation resolution of 2024 and PR 25- 663 rental Housing Commission Lisa M Gregory confirmation resolution of 202 24 counit uh thank you Mr chairman I want to make sure I'm doing these in the right order uh I think we're starting with Adam Hunter is that right yes okay um when landlords intended to have disputes over issues like rent uh increases and rent controlled buildings parties can take their claims to the rent administrator or the Department of Housing and Community Development or to the office of administrative hearings the losing party can then appeal the decision to the rental Housing Commission the commission serves as an independent appellate body for those cases and is comprised of two administrative judges and one chairperson judge Adam Hunter currently serves as the acting chairperson of the commission PR 25- 639 would officially appoint judge Hunter as chairperson for a term to end July 18th 2025 at the hearing on this his appointment judge Hunter testified to the committee on housing about his experience leading his own Law Firm for 11 years prior to joining the commission he described his firm work as similar to the daily tasks of leading the commission and shared that he has represented both landlords and tenants in o cases which provided him with a working knowledge of the cases over which he now presides judge Hunter's former business partner testified that judge Hunter's working Knowledge from those cases as well as his fiscal responsibility and organization skills make him best suit suited to lead the commission I appreciated these testimonies about Judge Hunter's skill sets as well as his goal to make the commission more userfriendly many parties represent themselves prosay in commission cases and judge Hunter shared that he intends to lead the Commission in creating resources understandable to the average reader including drafting clear opinions and making sure the commission's role makes sense to people I agree with this vision and believe judge Hunter Will Be an Effective leader I encourage the council to approve proposed resolu ution 25- 639 the rental Housing Commission Adam R Hunter confirmation resolution of 2024 without Council action this measure would be deemed disapproved on May 29th with that I move PR 25- 639 and request that it be placed on the consent agenda of the legislative meeting later today thank you counc white are there questions from members and this is limited to questions I have three Adam General councel is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is Adam secretary is the record complete yes it is madam budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does and there's no fiscal impact statement required for nominations correct but I'm required to ask the question uh thank you um without objection these two uh measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting that uh conclude oh shair what did I forget Lisa Gregory oh you only I moved him in I pres oh that's I heard Lisa Gregory I thought you got him out of order so my apologies but good thing you were listening to my statement closely was uh the the ne next measure you said you had a hearing on it you said you had a hearing we did yeah uh pr25 663 would confirm the reappointment of Lisa judge Lisa Gregory as a member of the commission for a term to end July 18th 2026 judge Lisa Gregory currently serves as an inactive commission member because her tenure and holdover period have expired judge Gregory however remains employed at the commission pending appointment and Confirmation at the hearing for her reappointment judge Gregory testified about the commission's accomplishments during her six-year tenure this included publishing a large revision of the district's Municipal res regulations to implement the rental Housing Act which is one of the pillars of the commission's work in her written materials judge Gregory described her 22-year legal background which has included work in the Constitutional law employment law civil rights contract compliance mediations and negotiations if reappointed judge Gregory said she would like to continue efficiently and fairly decided cases and to increase training opportunities for commission members I appreciated judge Gregory's emphasis on trainings particularly for judicial bodies responsible for decisions that directly impact the lives of District residents adjudication must be unbiased and fair and trainings can support objective decision-making I also found it helpful to hear more about her experience on the commission as a transition to an independent body for those reasons and because she meets all of the statutory requirements to serve on the commission I recommend that the council approve pr25 d663 the rental Housing Commission Lisa M Gregory confirmation resolution of 2024 without Council action this measure would be deemed disapproved on June 12th 2024 with that chairman I move PR 25- 663 and request that it be placed on the consent agenda of the legislative meeting later today uh thank you Council white I'm assuming there's no questions from Members um I don't know if the clearances were done for both so I'll ask general counsel is to measure legally text sufficient for our consideration yes it is Secretary's the record complete yes budget director yes thank you but it's not required um without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting council member may I conclude the meeting now you may chairman thank you there's no other business not that I'm actually asking the time is 122 pm and this meeting is adjourned e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e I'm calling to order this meeting this is a regular meeting of the Council of the District of Columbia I'm Phil Mendon chair of the council this is our 23rd legislative meeting of council period 25 today is May uh Tuesday May 7th 2024 the time is 12:42 in the afternoon this meeting is being held in room 500 at the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building I don't believe there are any members who are participating virtually today we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence before we do that I want to recognize council member Charles Allen thank you Mr chairman um I appreciate that and um I did want to just note unfortunate news but also appreciation of my colleagues um and the council um lost a a longtime member of the council Nate Bill who passed away last week um I want to thank my colleagues and as well as all of our Council staff that reached out to myself and our staff um and we um are still mourning obviously the passing of Mr Bell um Nate was born in DC um he was called to Public Service he worked here at the council uh not just for myself but for Council R Bond who I'm GNA turn to in just a second um but he also worked for mayor Bowser and is just uh was a remarkable person somebody that we absolutely loved working with who cared and loved deeply for his City and worked very hard to make a difference in our city every single day and so his passing uh is tragic and we're grieving that but I just wanted to appreciate my colleagues and all our community members whove reached out and I wanted to see uh because he worked for councel bonds for a very long time as well if councelor Bond wanted to to add anything counil BNS thank you very much um chairman and thank you um colleague um Allan um you know Nate Bell was a um warm and fuzzy kind of personality someone who um assured you that um the work would get done and that's what we all desire um in this world in fact and his um passing was too soon um I think of him as a young man in the prime of his life in fact we were saying to him you got to get those babies going you know what I mean having a having um some lineage there um he uh worked for me a few years ago um and left the council with the intention of going to the operating side of government um and that he would get on with raising this family and um then he came back he came back because he had this exciting opportunity to to serve again in this Arena he knew this Arena very well um coming from Bloomberg as a as a writer and so I'm sure as I embraced him that he was well embraced by council member Allen yes he will be missed and I must say when all is um understood about his early uh passing we have to remember that the mental health the um Health in general of our workers are just tantamount to moving forward in this world we are not um just Islands into ourselves we become family as we work together and we want to look out for each other to the best of our ability so we just have to be conscious of that and as um within my committee I have the um Department of Human Resources and one of the things things we want to do is to make sure that well living for the employees of the District of Columbia is um um e I'll say expounded throughout so that we all can um have a good and robust life within our offices and what we do so I went on a little bit longer went into too much detail perhaps but I think it's important that if we're going to talk about it let's talk about it and let's put it on the table because it affects each and every one of us so thank you very much chairman and thank you also colleag uh thank you Council V thank you council member Allen if we could have a moment of silence in the chamber please mam secretary um would you please call the role council member Allen here council member bonds here council member fuman here Council m m gray Council M gray council member Henderson here Council m l George here council member McDuffy here chairman Mendelson presid council member Nadel here council member Parker here council member Pinel present council member Robert White present council member Tran white pres Mr chairman you have a quum thank you Madam Secretary uh we have the secretary's report of committee filings I'm going to recognize the chair Pro Council McDuffy thank you chairman I'll move to wave the reading of the secretary's report motion to wave the reading of the report is there discussion and the motion to wave the reading all those in favor say I I I I opposed yeah I just have it unanimously we have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals again I'll recogniz the chair Port council member McDuffy I will move to wave the reading of the secretary's report of introductions a motion to wave the reading is Sir discussion on the motion to wave of the reading all those in favor say I I I I opposed guys have it unanimously we have the consent agenda before us ccil fuman you wanted to remove item F1 on page five that's right Mr chairman thank you very much are there any other changes to the consent agenda uh we have the consent agenda before us we'll do a roll call on this Madam Secretary council member Pinto yes council member Pino votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member Freeman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gra absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member L George yes council member L George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson council member Nell yes council member Nell votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendon votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and zero NOS the um consent agenda is approved unanimously we have um before us Bill 25- 781 local rent supplement program eligibility temporary Amendment Act of 20124 uh I moved this as an emergency at the last meeting last legislative meeting and it was approved um I thought unanimously maybe there was one no vote um and this is the temporary for second reading I was prepared to talk about this later in the agenda uh but this is somewhat related uh this Bill maintains the status quo that has been the law since July of 2022 when the council passed an emergency which the mayor signed I have to emphasize the mayor signed to make it easier for those who are homeless or those who are undocumented to get vouchers um that then they can use to apply for rental housing um I don't think this was clear at the breakfast but this is about getting vouchers this is not about actually getting into the units that's a separate application process and um this legislation simply removes barriers uh so that hom it will be easier for those who are homeless who do not have readily available identification documents like a birth certificate and those who are undocumented uh to be able to apply for a voucher um so I move the temporary sir discussion thank you Mr chairman um I I I voted against this bill in the first reading and and will be again I I hear you that this is an extension of the way in which we've operated for a while coming out of covid and a real strong desire to lower barriers and I I understand the impetus to lower barriers there is however a lot of issues around this program and one of the things this does is eliminate any control going in we talked at the breakfast about the challenges of providing services to folks once they're in the program and the fact the reality that services are voluntary and so we have lots of issues around that and then we also talked about challenges when a a resident may be causing very serious problems for other residents and the employees of the housing provider we need to take a hard look at this program and figure out how we can make it work for everyone including the other tenants who are in a building and so I'm reluctant to just keep the status quo in the way that you're talking about the status quo and that's why I will be that's why I voted against it last time and that's why I'll be voting against it this time I do hope there's been talk about permanent legislation to address these issues that should be a very high priority of this Council because we all want this program to work it's not working in the way in in many many cases it is working in a way that is terrific but there are cases where it's not working in a way that's terrific and if we want to maintain support for it we need to fix those issues and this is a part of that uh thank you council member I I don't want to belabor this but this again and I didn't make this clear at the breakfast this is about applying for a local rent supplement voucher it is not about applying for an apartment people who get a voucher then apply for an apartment so when there's concern rightfully with regard to challenges when residents are causing problems that's not this that's the subsequent step that is the rental apartment application this is about getting a voucher and making reducing or eliminating barriers to those who are homeless or who are undocumented to get a voucher I will add that there was a hearing on the permanent version of this law at the um at the housing Committee hearing last summer and the Housing Authority who's responsible for issuing these vouchers the Housing Authority did not raise the concerns that my colleague is Raising uh so I ask members support this if there's no further discussion council member Robert White uh thank you chairman I just want to clarify again this is this is temporary uh in nature the housing committee which I has a a permanent Bill introduced by the chairman uh that that we will mark up no one uh uh in the council and I think anywhere else in the government wants to see uh dangerous issues or people take advantage of a program uh we got objection from the mayor on this bill without any specificity any uh specific information about uh people or types of people they believe to uh be fraudulently engaging the program or any connection between people who uh um are self um testing uh and people who are causing issues in in vouchers so when we fix an issue let's make sure we're fixing a real issue uh I worry that we do things that play on people's fears um and when we have real underlying problems real underlying problems the administration is not providing wraparound services for people who have been chronically homeless that is causing resentment and push back unnecessarily real problem we're clearing homeless encampments without a real place for people to go and administration will say well they can just go in a shelter well talk to people choosing to live outside instead of in a shelter choosing it's not that they don't know their beds at the shelter they're choosing that so we have to fix the shelters we have to provide the wraparound Service uh and we will pass permanent legislation that closes any real gaps uh as we do that in the coming weeks I want to make sure that we continue what we have been doing uh as we move the permanent legislation which again we we'll do it in the coming week so I look forward to supporting this and appreciate your leadership on this Mr chairman thank you if there's no further discussion on the bill the vote is on the temporary Bill Bill 25781 all those in favor say I I I oppose no Madam Secretary please record council member fruman as voting no and the bill is approved that takes us to the non-consent agenda give me a moment to find the non-consented agenda um on page six uh the first measure is Bill 25- 469 revised project labor agreement cost threshold Amendment Act of 2024 this is for final reading it was reported out of the Committee on Public Works and operations um council member Nido so moved Mr chairman uh the bills before us counc noo you have an amendment uh yes did you want to do mine first yes okay the intent of this amendment is to mitigate the fiscal impact of Bill 25- 469 by excluding existing projects that are already in the CIP that costs between 50 and $75 million it's estimated there are five such projects with this amendment the new pla threshold will now only apply to any new projects that are not currently in the CIP it would also apply to any existing projects that are now projected to cost under 50 million that are subsequently modified to cost more than 50 million essentially it lowers the V by pushing out the applicability date it was circulated at 10:13 this morning um so moved uh thank you councilman noo uh Madame budget director uh you and I were discussing fiscal impact on this amendment if the this amendment is amended by deleting paragraph two and keeping paragraph one but removing the word first so that the amendment simply says this act shall apply to projects included in the capital Improvement plan for OS for fiscal year 26 to 2031 or for any period thereafter that that has a clean fiscal impact yes if there's no objection from members and and Council noo is okay I um orally modifying this to strike the word first no objection and to strike the paragraph number two which means of course that the number one is struck as well so that the amendment reads in its entirety this act shall apply to projects included in the capital Improvement plan proposed for fiscal year 2026 2020 2031 or for any period thereafter I'd say fiscal years but you can fix that and perhaps it should say and for any period thereafter I will gladly accept those changes ction that will that oral amendment is accepted no no Mr chair you open we're still have the amendment okay on the amendment is there any further discussion no what what what was just I thought you I heard you say something was accepted the whole bill was just I'm just trying no what we have before us is an amendment so Bill 25- 469 is before us counil nadoo moved an amendment my name is on it it revises the applicability section the applicability section shall read in its entirety this act shall apply to projects included in the capital Improvement plan for proposed fiscal years 2026 to 2031 and for any period thereafter period and the budget director has indicated that that would have a clean fiscal impact do we have that it was circulated AT3 a.m. an amended no no I understand I'm looking at the amendment but I'm talking about the fist yes the buget director has indicated that it has a clean fist do we have that orally orally we have it well what do the cost what does it how does it affect the cost the it the reason why it has a clean fiscal impact is because it uh does not apply to any current projects in the what the bill does is it changes the threshold from 75 to 50 million that change would not affect any of the projects which I estimators about five that are in the current fiscal the current CIP if those projects are subsequently changed then it would apply but that would be in a budget that comes to us next year well how many projects are we talking about we think it's about well how many are affected by five we think five and if those projects were to change in terms of the cost going up would they be affected by this only if we uh vote on it next year so I I know that the I think there was a letter by the mayor she sent uh that talked about the costs associated with this I haven't seen any costs um and and obviously I don't know if there's anybody better than than Jim bu off and the folks in our office um but I guess I'm just curious as what the analysis would would look like I can speak to that chairman yes counc do I saw the mayor's uh concerns as well and I do want to respond to that so thank you for raising it council member McDuffy um the mayor asserts that we are voting on this bill without knowing the full cost um and she said that because we're voting on it after she sent her budget down uh which we do pretty regularly on bills however uh we have been working diligently with the with O to update the fist um and they maintained the same cost for current projects and with this update Amendment we will ensure the fist is accurate and achievable I guess my my is did O provide us with a fist for us to see evaluate and and use to inform our vote on this amendment yeah so we know what the cost are well this amendment removes the cost allegedly okay Mr Mr chairman can I ask a question maybe we can call the question after Christina asked her question yeah I was going to accept it I mean okay who asked to be recognized well I raised my hand but I think you heard her voice there a mic on down there somebody down there want to be me counil m henders thank you um so I was at our last legislative meeting I raised questions about the cost and I just want to clarify that the amendment that you all because I think in The Breakfast you mentioned um this would not include the five projects that are currently in the CIP but then Mr chairman you just said but then if those projects are included in the cfp next year then they would need to be funded no that's not the so I guess my question is why are you amending it to say for the CIP for fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2031 as opposed to starting it with the CIP year that is currently outside the financial plan does that make sense uh I understand the question right so let me back up here unless coun nadoo you want to speak to this the Chief Financial Officer has issued a fiscal impact statement on the bill as came out of committee it says there's a fiscal impact of about 10% increase to the cost of each project personally I think he's wrong they this is like an urban myth that a pla because it requires among other things Davis bacon wages is therefore more expensive however a non-un job in this area requires Davis bacon wages so there really isn't a difference but there is this myth that it drives up the cost because unions are horrible and they cost more money nonetheless we live by fiscal impact statements so until the CFO changes his fiscal impact statement that is the cost that is that this bill is subject to appropriation the bill is reported out of committee is subject to appropriation until we add 10% to every project over between 50 and $75 million why do I say it that way because right now the law says that a pla is required on any project over 75 million I can't say definitively but I believe there are about five projects in the current CIP that are between 50 and $75 million and therefore affected by the bill as it came out of the committee what this amendment is intended to do is to exempt those five projects to exempt those five so next year when a new project comes along the mayor will have to fund this imaginary 10% cost I mean that's just bogus because they'll just estimate what the cost is which they would do anyway and it's not going to be 10% more but in any event she will for the new projects fund them what we've been struggling with is what if there is let's say a school modernization that is in the CI P for surprise $20 million I say surprise because we see this all the time and next year they come back and say oh it's going to cost $60 million we want this law to apply then now if there's a change order so project comes in at $45 million and the change order takes to 55 we don't want it to apply but I don't think it could anyway because a pla can't be applied retroactively a pla is a project labor agreement that for this project when it starts there will be Union contracts which by the way could be a non-union company that agrees that for the purposes of the project they will have a union their existing members could be a member of a union or they could bring in union members but either way non-union companies can participate so let me be clear what we're doing is we're exempting the existing CIP projects that would be affected by the committee print so that we don't have a fiscal impact but we're saying that new projects next year and thereafter would be covered and a substantial modification such as I described next year not now would be covered okay very crafty as I think we both know we have yet to ever see a modernization project that didn't have additional costs added in a future CIP not so sure about that I think the convention center came in under budget and on time and I think the South Capital Street came in under budget and on time National Stadium was very controversial but I think it might have come in under budget and on time those were all plas usually the city does a pretty good job when it negotiates a pla for a project you I also note just because you're looking at me that the president of the United States has said that for federal projects pla threshold is 35 million not 50 Council m n do do you anything I left out no I just I see there's a number of questions I want to make sure they're all about this amendment because if not we can dispense with it and move to the underlying measures and the other amendments before us good point so this amendment simply deals with the ability section to eliminate the fiscal impact there's no further on this amendment Mr chairman I had one quick question and it may be I mean I I'd like this to apply so if there's a project that is in the current CIP for FY 28 for example so it's off into the future right now this isn't applying to that but next year when there's a new CIP for fy20 6 through 32 what will that new entry in the CIP in a new CIP will it govern there as this is written if the project in next year is the same as this year then no as this is written if the project next year is changed increased then yes because because if the mayor's going to increase the cost of a project then she can factor in this purported cost from the pla I mean I guess I I support the underlying initiative I worry about a merrygoround because we're going to do this then the mayor next year is going to repeal it in the BSA not fund it in the CIP and then are we going to be in the same place so it's a challenge when hopefully the the kind of me ISM I'm getting in front of our myself well my guess is that the CFO will not certify um the 10% savings from checks because they're like it's just a madeup thing yes counc on the amendment Council Ron yes on the amendment um I just want to thank you for um trying to explain this change order in modernization projects I think it makes a difference um to to understand that concept um I would be interested in seeing um in in black and white what constitutes a change order and what is this other thing that you mentioned which could be um could in increase the cost so I'm pretty clear that this does change orders are outside the scope of this that's what I'm hoping thank you very much there's nothing further on the amendment I I wanted to ask a question about the actual fist that there there is a fist that the CFO provided correct correct what does that attribute the increased cost to because I understand that there's Davis bacon and you made the point that Davis bacon applies to to nonunion jobs as well but I understand there are costs that this CFO laid out that are not related to Davis bacon well there's this belief that a pla costs more because Union contracts cost more and because requiring Union work therefore limits the pool of applicants um I this is an issue that I've gone around and around with the CFO for a number of years because remember we did this legislation a few years ago at 75 million and had the same disagreement with the CFO then um I believe in this market it isn't restricting we didn't see that with the South Capital Street bridge that I'm aware of or with the Washington Convention Center the Nationals or any of the other pla that they uh the cost oh my God they came back to us the costs went up because we had a pla I've never heard a complaint about a pla other than when we deal with this legislation and then it is non-union shops who don't want to participate in a pla who object so that was a long answer U the CFO contends that Union work costs more and that it requiring um a pla limits the pool of applicants council member okay so if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted yes yes like an objection or yes like accepted all right uh on the amendment all those in favor of the amendment say I I I I opposed no the eyes have it the uh we have the bill as amended before us um the agenda which I've misplaced chairman there's an amendment from council member Parker that should be considered next thank you council member Parker thank you Mr chairman um I circulated an amendment last week it's pretty straightforward it seeks to address concerns raised at our last legislative meeting about uh the potential for negatively impacting the district cbes which none of us want to do uh specifically this requires PLA and those who contract under the pla to outline how the project will benefit cbes uh and to create a plan and thereafter specific Outreach uh for uh certain groups uh and disadvantaged communities including women uh um and I'm going to skip the the technical language but uh happy to talk more about it if there are any questions I do want a clarification um you circulated the Amendments linked to the agenda but then you recirculated today I think it was just to fix a typo yes it was a technical adjustment to address a typo a typo uh okay so substantively it's the same that's right councilor madoo Mr chairman I'd like to accept the amendment as friendly if there's no objection the amendment is accepted I did not say that with the correct tone being no objection the amendment is accepted uh council member Tran white you circulated an amendment yes um a circulate Amendment uh created some changes to my Amendment which I circulated in writing and email at 126 uh this amendment uh is amendment to d25 0469 to revise the project labor agreement cause threshold Amendment Act of 2023 the the new Amendment only includes an exemption from cbes from pla the DC Council Office General Council supports our Amendment as legal um and to council member Parker's point we do not want uh local businesses to uh be adversely affected uh I support and believe in unions I think believe unions have a a crucial role in training also employing residents I think historically in the district uh we have to do more to bring on DC residents when I ask Union Representatives about DC residents uh it's it's a lot of buriers meaning they can't find workers can't keep workers and I've been on a interviewing uh tour interviewing people from unions that work on the unions n DC and some of the same things occur themes occur meaning they say Mr White I'm in the union but the reality is I think because a job is coming up in our Ward I think I supposed to be on the job I get up on the backseat because people from out of town who have preference in the union come from out of town and take my job um and it's happening over and over again oh I have an issue with my employer I call my union but I'm not getting the adequate representation and there are good and bad stories but I'm hearing this type of story far too often in the district um and so I support uh our pla but I don't want to uh create issue where our uh cbes left out of the equation so this amendment attempts to exempt cbes um from uh the pla uh bill that's been presented pla Amendment that's been presented today with LA on threshold to $50 million oh thank you Council white Council n um thank you chairman um I cannot accept this amendment as friendly and I do not support it and while I appreciate council member White's instinct to strengthen project labor agreements and its support for residents unfortunately this amendment to exempt CBE from the pla law defeats the purpose of the bill to some extent which is to bolster our workers and provide them with Union level benefits and health care so they can provide for themselves and their families by allowing CBE exemptions we would harm workers and deny CBE employees the representation wages and benefits provided by a pla um the amendment's also not necessary there's no evidence that plas reduce or change the number of contractors who apply in fact studies show that plas do not have any impact on the number of contractors who apply a 2022 report found that plas do not have a statistically significant ific effect on the number of biders on a project another study also found that projects with plas attracted a similar number of biders and came in at a slightly lower price when compared to projects without pla in place the amendment would also deny CBE employees any pla protections while non-cb workers would be entitled to all the benefits and protections which is in direct conflict with pla requirements which state the project subject to the pla law shall bind all contractors engaged in construction on the construction process project to comply with the project labor agreement um therefore I have several concerns about this um I I certainly do understand the desire to get more DC workers in our labor unions and on these projects um I think it's worth reiterating in the First Source laws apply to these projects 51% of workers shall be DC residents um and and I do think that for those of us who want to see more DC residents in our labor unions the pla law combined with the First Source law really helps create that on-ramp because you have 51% of these DC residents on the project who then get to see what it's like to be part of a union and see if that's for them and hopefully continue on um I appreciate the way council member Parker's Bill tries to strike a balance um here with speaking to concerns that cbes have um and outlining how projects will benefit cbes as they move forward um and so for folks who are concerned about that particular issue um having accepted council member Parker's amendment is friendly I believe believe we have addressed that issue and the need for council member Tran White's Amendment uh no longer exists I I ask members not to support this amendment thank you Mr chairman thank you counc noo further on the bill council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman I have a question for council member white so you talked about part of your priority being exempting cbes from the effects of this bill would this exemption apply to all health and safety standards that cbes are required to follow under current pla or is it just limited to the threshold requirement uh of the bill that's a great question no it will not exempt them from uh the health and safety requirements that DC set for for all persons on construction projects it's just uh exempting from the $50 million threshold we're setting forward today for the DC based projects over 50 million thank you uh council member um MC Guffy thank you chairman um I want to thank council member Parker for moving his Amendment um and I had intended and was talking to uh Vicki and and folks in labor had intended to do a similar Amendment uh and so I was pleased to support uh the amendment that he offered um I I still have concerns though and and I plan to support council member White's Amendment today um because I I still haven't seen the evidence yet for inclusion of enough DC residents when there are plas especially uh DC minority residents black folks and communities that need and are deserving the jobs um I also believe we can do better as a city to ensure that on projects where we spend the most money the most District residents possible are included in those projects I think people need to work work now that's what I hear when I'm out and about and talking to folks who want jobs and need jobs uh they want good paying jobs they want the wages and they want the benefits and I understand the value of plas I understand the value of organized Labor uh if you've talked to me before you you've heard me say that I came up in the union household with a mom that uh was a a member of her Union in the federal government my dad was a local labor unit uh leader uh in DC government as electrician and I pay union dues myself as a letter carrier before going to college and so I know the value of earning living wage and having benefits but I think we uh have gaps in the current pla law that um at the expense of DC residents will favor uh people who are outside of the District of Columbia and that's a problem for me and i' I've asked and would like to work to be able to you know perhaps build up the capacity supply of workers for these various trades and construction um but until we are able to do that I think it's misguided to to lower the threshold because ultimately if you're harming cbes who are highend DC residents then what is the impact on our local economy what is the impact on these communities where uh these people who are working with cbes are employed and where they live and so I don't want to create a tension um but I think there is one that exists and I think we have to really solve for that uh and and to be clear I voted against the last Amendment because I didn't see a fiscal impact statement to better understand the cost there uh and that was important to me before voting in favor of it I don't think we understand the full cost of plas on District residents uh the impact on cbes I think the racial Equity impact is assessment talked about some of it but until it's clear to me uh I'm going to support this amendment that exempt CBS council member Parker and white thank you Mr chairman I just very quickly I I too want to acknowledge the concerns raised by council member white um we all want to ensure that District residents are first in line for these projects however we also want to make sure these projects and the contract that come from them are good paying jobs with sufficient protections um it is worth noting we just voted or accepted an amendment that would exempt the next four to five projects in the CIP um and so we have time to figure out and get to the root of the concerns that again I acknowledge are valid to a certain extent part of the conversations happening behind the scenes is how can we better coordinate with dgs does labor partners to ensure concerns raised by cbes are adequately addressed one concern that I've had I've heard is the the burden of investing in health plans and in retirement plans and the view that some may see um the requirements for pla as double dipping that to me is a very valid concern however exempting cbes from plas doesn't address that concern it doesn't also guarantee that more District residents are going to be afforded jobs and certainly not good paying jobs a part of what I'm getting at is our work is about effective oversight of both does and working across government and with our labor Partners to ensure we can secure this deal I hope we as a council will continue to uphold our commitment to good paying labor jobs because as I mentioned last time uh labor is the reason why we have a such a strong middle class here in the district and across our region and anyone that's promising you to say oh just exempt people from that law and everything's going to be okay I don't think it uh is backed by history last point I would just make is the Ria for the underlying Bill points out that uh the research is unclear around the negative impact to cbes and in fact history shows us that minority groups have fared better under pla projects for all those reasons I hope that uh we will continue to maintain our commitment to this bill uh with the Amendments that I believe move us towards the concerns that council member white uh have raised which again I acknowledge are valid uh but I think missed the mark in addressing the root causes that have been raised for that thank you thank you council member council member Robert White uh thank you chairman I want to thank my colleague for uh offering the uh this amendment um which I've discussed uh with them that I I won't be supporting uh I agree we want and need more DC residents uh on jobs um my concern the two primary concerns with this amendment one exempting cbes from plas doesn't get us there we know that because of First Source requirements um they're frequently uh we are frequently not uh meeting the requirements to hire DC residents and a large part of that is folks are saying they're not qualified DC resid well our unions have apprenticeship programs that uh train these folks um so that we will have I think fewer exemptions uh more DC residents um and I'm also willing to work with my colleagues and hopefully the administration to lean on labor to make sure we are getting DC residents uh on these projects because labor is going to ask of us and we have to ask of Labor uh as well uh the other concern I have about this amendment um is that it it creates loophole so a large out of-state company can create a CBE subsidiary and be Exempted uh from pla um this creates a circumstance where you still end up uh with fewer DC residents working on jobs fewer residents going through apprenticeship programs and as folks know I'm I'm very keyed in uh to to our trades it's one of the reasons that I recently introduced um a vocational education bill because it's time for a mass expansion of vocational education this is something our unions are doing and I work with labor to make sure they would be included uh in this work uh but if we want to see more DC residents working on projects that means we need more of them trained we want more of them trained it means we're funding that through unions that are doing the apprenticeship programs and it means that we are leaning on unions to say we expect when they're pla that they're going to be DC residents on these jobs uh so I I think there's a common concern uh disagreement about how we get here so I appreciate the am but I won't be supporting it thank you chairman uh thank you Council Council refan thank you very much chairman mson I I too am not supportive of the idea of a what I would call a sweeping exemption for CBS in this setting cbes can apply for the contracts in uh a pla context whether or not their Union or not they can but once in they're subject to the requirements of that pla and the question then becomes what is it about those requirements that may be an unfair burden on cbes and I think it this goes to something that council member Parker was talking about we should be looking at are there real things in that setting one possibility is the health care obligations if a CBE was providing health care and then they were required somehow to have their workers come off of that healthc care and go on to a union health care plan you'd have to wonder about that but my understanding is in the vast majority of cases the way that it works is those un those workers have the opportunity to either stick with their health care plan if it's equivalent or go to the union plan and so we can address that kind of thing what happens when there are pension contributions and the pension contributions are associated with that worker but what happens if that worker doesn't invest in those eventually how do you deal with that sort of issue I think we should be looking at those kinds of issues to make sure we're not creating undue burdens for our cbes while we're expanding the universe of of workers who are subject to the protections of plas which will benefit all of our workers over time so it's not that our current system is perfect we can be focusing on how we refine it but in the meantime I'm fully supportive of expanding LA to uh contracts that go down to 60 million 50 million thank you Council fan council member P white for second round yes thank you uh I did want to make a comment I don't think that one bill or two bills or 10 bills fixes all of our issues as relates to employment and getting people to work in the district of Colombia so I don't think that narrative is a is a fair narrative in discussing um oppos positioning into this bill what I do know is that in practice uh we had a w company who uh applied to be on a w a project um and did not get the the when the when when when uh bid and as a result when I went and looked and further who did get it was a company from Sterling Virginia um who and I know the w a company because I often refer people to them because they have apprenticeship program in DC in w 8 that hires people from DC so in practice we are able to see um progress in DC residents getting hired personally because that's what I see myself I don't know who this uh starting Virginia Company is hiring um but and in that vain um and when I talked to a lot of the Union uh shops and I think they have great intentions I think they want to do a whole lot I just haven't seen where they mve the needle and doing more working de I ask you where's your apprenti program La Maryland upper maror Maryland what the amount of resource that they have they should have stronger apprenti programs that we all know about and supporting and filtering DC residents through and I just haven't seen that commitment in the last five years and so uh this is not a civil bullet this is just uh effort to have uh inclusion if that's what we're really trying to do and uh ensuring that not just our residents but our local businesses um and and we heard someone make a comment about CBE and as it's written CBE are independently own operating control by more than 50% owned operating controll DC based Enterprises or not for-profit businesses what are the requirements more than 50% of the employees must of the business are residents of DC the owners of more than 50% of the businesses Enterprises are res residents of DC I have 30 more seconds chairman uh no because this is second round you have two minutes so if you could just wind up quickly I never heard that in my life more than ass business second excluding bank accounts my point is that by law and that they are those who circumvent the law but by law these cbes have to establish uh a true commitment for 50% of more of their businesses including ownership in DC thank you council member uh I'm going to urge members to not support the amendment and I um associate myself with the remarks of council member Nido where she went through a number of reasons why this amendment is problematic I would like to add though that we have had project labor agreements on a number of projects over the decades in the district about which there has been no complaint and we've required a pla on every project over $75 million for a number of years including because I remember this was part of the fiscal impact St the hospital at St Elizabeth's no complaints I want to emphasize that the the experience with pla has not reflected the concerns and objections that have been raised in this discussion the concerns and objections that have been raised in this discussion I think fundamentally have at their root businesses that do not want Union work that's what this is about when I say this I mean the objections it's about I was talking a week ago with a CBE who I have a high regard for it does great work you don't like pla I said well why don't you uh just get your members to be your employees to be a union you said well they don't want to when I first ran for office I wanted a union printer I looked for a union shop in the district it was a two-person shop and they were a union so a small business can be a union a big business can be a union this is a choice whether they want to be a union or not now we have laws regarding First Source so when we talk about whether DC residents are hired that has nothing to do with plas that has to do with our First Source law so that issue is being conflated here improperly as same with the CBE requirement which is a requirement in the law all those requirements still pertain whether it's a pla or not but I don't recall complaints about South Capitol Street Bridge or the convention center or any of the schools that have cost over $75 million and have been plas I haven't heard those complaints other than when we have this kind of legislation before us where um then you organ businesses that really don't want to be Union come in and they give us all the reasons why this is horrible experience shows otherwise uh I do not support this amendment urge others not to support it if there's nothing further on the bill excuse me on the amendment uh the vote will be on uh council member Tran White's Amendment Mr chairman yes council member par second round very quickly uh it's more of comment I I just would encourage us not to dismiss the valid concerns that have been raised by council member white I plan to vote against his Amendment and I plan to support the underlying bill but I think he brings to the surface very valid concerns and I think we do a disservice to merely dismiss it as B for those opposed to unions thank you we have the amendment before that was not a pause to invite more debate yes Council McDuffy second round yeah just just briefly you know I think we would do well as a city to to Really address the issues and the attention that exists when it comes to these issues uh and and not to dismiss the the real legitimate concerns raised by our local small businesses um I support what organized labor is doing and attempting to do but we also cannot ignore the gaps and opportunity that exists within organized labor particularly as you get to some of the highing higher paying jobs within the construction trade um and we also must recognize uh as I understand it that Union representation is below the national average in DC and and ask ourselves why that is I think it does have something to do with you know not having as many opportunity to pursue the trades particularly inside of schools like used to be the case and I you know I'm one who had the benefit of a of a father who attended DC public schools and graduated from Bale Vocational High School uh and had a job when he finished as an electrician so you know we've got a ways to go in terms of trying to address these issues within uh the trades when it comes to construction and otherwise but we also have a ways to go to closing the racial wealth Gap and one of the primary ways that we do that is through entrepreneurship business creation and these cbes are trying to do that and if we are burdening them with additional cost were also costing small businesses and the community ultimately so I think Matt fan had a right I just wish that we would not vote in favor of this before we fix that issue thank you council member uh we have the amendment before us uh by voice for all those roll call chairman Madam Secretary would you call the road it's on council member TR whites council member Robert White no council member Robert White votes no council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen no council member Allen votes no council M bonds no council member bonds votes no council member fuman no council member fuman votes no council member gray is absent council member Henderson no council member Henderson votes no council member Le George no council member Lewis George votes no council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson no chairman Mendelson votes no council member noo no council member noo votes no council member Parker no council member Parker votes no council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes Mr chairman there are three yeses nine Nos and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the amendment fails uh we have the bill as amended before us is there any further discussion hearing none can we do a voice s on the bill yeah coun Bond said you want to be recognized yeah I do want to be recognized because I think um we are headed in the path of continuing what we always do and that is to um give um to limit the discussion in such a way that we disenfranchise uh part of our community and I think we have to while I'm in agreement with the action we just took I think we have to find a way very quickly to talk about um the divisions that we have and the divisions affect the neighborhoods I'm just going to be very honest with you and while I may be strongly Pro uh labor I'm also Pro all of our workers in our community so I think it's time that we come together and look a new uh we're looking a new at how we um I I guess sort of revise our economic um engines within the city and so what we're really talking about is money we're talking about who's going to be on first who's going to uh have the opportunity to work and how they're going to work and I'm telling you now if we do not include DC residents and I know how the how the union process works also am aware of what you know 51% means if we are not genuine about that we're not going to see the kind of return that we need we're talking about the people in DC they also deserve an opportunity to have a good life and that's all I wanted to say thank you Mr chairman thank you Council from rans Is there further with regard to the bill as amended uh by a Voice vote uh on the bill all those in favor of Bill 25469 is amended say I I opposed g m is present council member TR white will be marked as presid uh the bill is approved unanimously uh the next measure is Bill 25-19 healthy homes and residential electrification Amendment Act of 2024 again this is a final reading reported out of the committee on transportation and the environment council member Allen thank you very much Mr chairman I'm should I wait a minute sure why don't we give a little pause spe [Music] if we could have order in the chamber council member Allen you have the floor thank you very much Mr chairman I am excited that we are about to hold our final vote to pass the healthy homes act a bill that is critical to the district's efforts to mitigate climate change broadly and improve indoor air quality for about 30,000 households mostly our low and moderate income neighbors it fits into the district's broader framework of moving away from fossil fuel use to electrification they can be powered by Ren rebles and this bill in particular is focused on ensuring we don't leave any families or homes behind nearly a quarter of the district's energy energy generation comes from gas and almost half of the district's households rely on gas for home heating the combustion of natural gas releases harmful byproducts which can increase the odds of children developing a respiratory illness by about 20% and Asthma by about 42% the date is clear to meet our climate goals and to improve the health and wellness of District residents and to reduce the negative impacts on our environment the district must eliminate the use of fossil fuels and transition towards sustainable energy under this law doee will be required to complete 30,000 residential electrification upgrades for low-income households with interim benchmarks that increase over time so we're talking about high efficiency heat pumps electric appliances and more that are going to reduce energy usage and improve air quality and I want to be clear participation in this program is perfectly voluntary so I'll reiterate again nobody from the district government is going to come take your gas Appliance away unless you ask them to but if you're a low-income resident it can be done for free I want to thank the Sierra club's DC chapter Washington Interfaith Network the DC environmental Network Washington Interfaith Power and Light the chesap climate Action Network the NAACP DC chapter and the incredible community of environmental activists and residents that have helped ensure the DC residents and children especially are going to grow up in healthy homes finally I also would like to once again recognize the incredible work of Christopher Laskowski our late committee director who helped craft this bill along with so many others that I believe are going to materially improve lives of DC residents with that Mr chairman I move this for our final reading uh thank you council member Allan uh we have the bill before us uh there's an amendment from council member McDuffy yes uh thank you chairman and thank you council member Allan I am moving as was discussed earlier during our breakfast an amendment that would require the department of energy and environment to develop a plan outlining how they will provide a written estimate or explanation to each program recipient um and this explanation will detail the estimated difference in the annual energy cost between electrification and the recipient's current energy source obviously don't want this to be construed as not supporting the underlying benefits uh in the retrofits for more sustainable and healthy power source I just want the district to be upfront with its residents and customers who receiving this rest fit that there may be some uh cost changes to their utility bills and it's really make meant to make sure that there's a fully informed process that the OE will be laying out for residence and I hope it's going to mitigate some of the concerns my office have had uh about the cost for modern low-income residents to these changes and we did uh after discussion at breakfast this morning uh work with council member Allen and his team to uh modify the amendment striking uh part of the rationale uh and hopefully it'll be accepted as friendly I I don't have something in front of me so what is being accepted it was it was recirculated but essentially if you have the old version it strikes everything after the first two sentences so everything beginning with the United States energy information timec and Mr chairman I we just want to speak to it briefly then I'll accept it as friendly hold on second what time was it circula 11:15 14 14 okay so the amendment which is with regard to the rationale we should reflect the version that was circulated later which I assume that the it's the revised amendment that will be on limbs counc Allan thank you very much and I appreciate uh the work here um in conversations with the Department of energy environment the the type of information here that this amendment would require was part of what they're were intending to do so I don't they don't see any problem with adding that language in and I neither do I um I think it will be helpful and important we always obviously this is a voluntary program so people are going to be signing up to join it um so we want people to know obviously the benefits that they're about to receive from enrollment and transitioning away from fossil fuels and that education I think we'd all agree is critical and we want to have that um DC families are going to benefit from this uh right now the estimate is they will average about $372 in savings per year for that efficient electrification of their homes and the department of energy and environment estimates after their analysis that homes that uh participate in this will see a range from $210 savings per year to $667 uh dollar savings per year um you add on top of that Doe solar for all program and you're talking about $1,100 in savings that households will be able to benefit from and in addition by making this transition and this should be part of that uh uh summary that those participants are going to get is that they will not be subject to the increased cost that project pipes will put in place which estimates about $1,000 dollar more per year in utility costs so all told by being able to eliminate the project pipes cost of about a$1 thousand increase per year and then the up to $1,000 doll in savings per year we're talking about real savings and costs for our families so I think due uh will be great to share that information with folks and this gives the opportunity to make sure doe will be able to share all of that with folks right up front uh so I appreciate that and Mr chairman I accept the amendment as friendly all right in order for it to be accepted there has to be no objection is there any objection to the amendment hearing none it's accepted uh further on the bill um we are going to vote on Bill 25- 119 as amended all those in favor say I I opposed the eyes have it unanimously the next measure the next measure on the agenda is uh temp final reading on temporary Bill Bill 25774 relief for River East at Grand View Condominium owners temporary Amendment Act of 2024 council member Robert White thank you Mr chairman in 2016 46 households bought condos at River East at Grand View many of these households were led by black women who became homeowners for the first time using the district's home purchase Assistance programs others were retirees recent graduates young couples veterans parents and parents to be these units were funded by a Department of Housing and community development loan to developers to build 46 affordable housing units on Talbert Street in W8 for ownership each followed the path they thought would help them and their kids lead better lives with more stability and financial growth in August of 2021 their dreams almost literally be Came Crashing Down the new owners were told their new building was on the brink of collapse so after years of saving up filling out paperwork and closing on their dream home they had just two weeks to evacuate since the evacuation almost 3 years ago River East at Grand View owners have worked diligently to untangle the tremendous Financial legal and emotional web they were thrown into it has been heartbreaking to watch in addition to the strain on families the disappointment of parents who had to tell their kids that they had to leave their new bedrooms this Saga has caused many residents severe depression and significant damage to their credit ratings my team has worked diligently with dhcd to help these families last month the council unanimously passed a mergency legislation to support River East at Grand hu homeowners at that time the administration had a few additional supports intended for the home for the owners that they needed more time to complete my team and the administration worked over the past month to get these across the Finish Line the first of these supports was tax relief this had a cost which the administration agreed to transfer but they needed more time to reprogram the money the ocfo finalized that reprogramming over the past few weeks so it was ready for second reading on the temporary legislation and our budget director confirmed this transfer at the council breakfast this morning the second relief was to give owners priority on weight list for other dhcd programs the current legislation says owners get priority on weight list for inclusion areas units over the past month dhcd and dmped worked with my team to finalize language that gives River East owners priority on more weight lists such as for affordable dwelling units and other dhcd funded properties lastly the Office of the Attorney General and the office of Tax and Revenue within the ocfo provided additional recommendations to make sure the specific language and citations in the bill met met the intent the amendment in the nature of substitute I'm moving today incorporates all of these changes I would also like to note that dhcd has already begun to implement the emergency measure from last month month they have drafted a contract for their work with NAA sent letters to owners about a rental option by May 1st by the May 1st deadline now 30 more seconds Mr chairman without objection and sent notice to the owners ahead of the May 15th deadline confirming that the mayor will relieve their existing hptf and hpap loans and the amount of that relief there's still a lot of work to do to make sure each owner has what they need to move forward but it's good to see this progress because of the Damage Done to these families and changes in the market including higher interest rates and more expensive housing this is not a perfect solution I hope this also is a flag to the administration to focus more on enforcement of the condition of housing with uh housing built with taxpayer money with that Mr chairman I want to thank my team particularly uh senior legislative Council Caitlyn kachalova for their work on this issue and I move the amendment in the nature of substitute to the relief for River East at Grand View Condominium owners temporary Amendment Act of 2024 uh thank you council member white so we have the amendment nature of a substitute before us is there a discussion yes chairman member Tran white I want to thank my colleague Robert White and him and the staff for his diligence um we uh simly work with you chairman menis to create some relief for these residents of which are all people of color of which most are first-time home buyers which are first struggling uh to stay in the district we know that what happened uh was was atrocity to their income but also to their family in stable living conditions many have moved away well moved out many have to shifted their kids from the current school to a new school depending on where they live but the reality is that DC has to take some ownership and correcting this wrong I think that we uh have taken some steps to sh up but we can do a whole lot more residents are crying out for equity and inclusion and theyve done the steps we asked them to do going to hpop going to our programs to our classes getting into a home but to show up that they have this something to come back home to we haven't quite figured that out yet and I think that we have to encourage not just our colleagues here of course but the executive branch to do more to underg ensure stability for these residents who uh we the power of money allocated them to stay where they are have been have ran out and even the money to keep their board vibe to communicate with each other to organize is also in Jeopardy and far as paying for legal fees and so I'm concerned I want to thank uh my Council colleague Robert White for this measure but again we have to do more to ensure that we can put some more protections around these residents and have something for them to come back home to thank you thank you council member further on the B the amendment nature for a substitute on the amendment nature of a substitute all those in favor say I I I I opposed uh it's approved unanimously we had the the bill is amended before us is there discussion and the bill is amended we'll have a Voice vote um all those in favor say I I I opposed yeah I have it unanimously uh the next measure we're now at emergency bills unlawful restrictions and land records declaration resolution of 2024 being moved by me and council member fuman this is the Declaration it is to enable consideration of the emergency bill which would put into effect more quickly the permanent bill that went through first reading earlier today this has to do with adopting the uniform law with regard to um um unenforceable covenants but also to uh um as a matter public policy render void uh any covenants to conflict with zoning and that predate the zoning Act of 1938 I move the Declaration discussion council member Bond um Mr chairman I just want to make sure that this is for the Cherry Chase Community or is this for any restrictive covenant because it's been brought to our attention that there are numerous restrictive covenants across the um the city uh I of course don't have the text in front of me but I believe the bill is identical to the permanent bill because that's what the notice says and the permanent Bill speaks to any Covenant that conflicts with zoning the zoning regulations and uh the Covenant was put in place before adoption of the 1938 zoning act all right so it's Citywide all right right thank you uh further on the Declaration um on v a roll call voll um we'll have a Voice vote on the Declaration all those in favor say I I oo are there any opposed the eyes have it unanimously uh the underlying bill so moved is there discussion Mr chairman I just I wanted to hear the date that you mentioned to to council member Bond I said 1938 oh okay you're gonna make me look yeah previously you had said 1938 when we were discuss so it applies to those before but not after correct yeah that's it correct the ideas is are two steps to the um uh avoiding one is that it conflicts with the zoning and second that it predates the zoning regulations so what would a person who has a restrictive covenant on their home after 1938 well now if it is a illegal Covenant such as a racial Covenant um then um there's a different provision in the bill that applies there that that Covenant is already I'm thinking like a racial Covenant and I have a hun you're thinking of a covenant that might have been put in place in let's say 1948 um that Covenant is unenforceable by um taste law and the uniform part of this bill says that you can file an amendment that would have the effect of excising it not literally excising it but excising it from the deed that's in the uniform part of the bill okay that answer your question it does it does I actually you make me go look at the report again I don't think you need to look so there are two parts to the bill the uniform law the uniform law was adopted by the uniform law Commission of which the district has membership that says hey there are these uh void uh these void covenants such as racial covenants religious covenants uh and there are people who want to get rid of them they don't want them in their deeds and the uniform law speaks to a process for doing that we not only are adopting the uniform law but adding a provision that says that you can record this document in the land records as an attachment to your deed at no cost um the second part of this bill comes from what council member fruman had introduced uh which speaks to these covenants that are not um void however they conflict with zoning and what the bill says is as a matter of policy the public policy in the district is that those covenants are not enforcable if one they conflict with zoning and two they predate the Covenant predates the zoning regulation the zoning Act of 1938 appreciate that background um I I'm one of the people in the distri of Clum my wife and I who happen to own a home that uh has a race Covenant on it um and and we'll be taking the steps that you all have outlined that we're voting on today to to get rid of it uh but it was a rally restrictive covenant put in place by several residents uh who owned homes on North Capital Street in the unit block of Evar Street back in 1946 that said that the parties mutually agree and promise that they shall ever should never be used that the property should never be used or occupied by or sold conveyed lease rented or given to Negroes or any person or persons of the Negro race or blood uh was part of the language reference in this RCI restrictive covenant that I dug up uh while doing some research so I appreciate that uh council member fuman uh introduced his measure and that the committee the whole under your leadership has worked to bring the to the for Council for vote and I am um definitely for support of it so I'm looking at the committee report the uniform law addresses how land records containing unlawful restrictive covenants are treated in practice so we're talking about for instance the Covenant you just read read while on the surface the aim of the law is to remove or delete the offending records for a number of reasons excising the covenants would be impractical or have legal ramifications in response the uniform law removes quote unquote removes the Covenant by allowing Property Owners to record an amendment to a land record to clearly eliminate any purportedly continuing effect on the title and then the committee print of the bill and therefore the emergency as well adds a section that would wave that waves any fees for releasing unlawful restriction from a deed or otherwise governing document by an owner anything further on the Declaration no we did the Declaration anything uh anything more on the bill voice vot on the bill bill 25- 809 all those yes I'm sorry this is Brooke can you record me as voting yes on the Declaration as well always a challenge um motion to reconsider yes Council n do just moved to reconsider the Declaration even though we're in the middle of the bill uh if there's no objection we'll reconsider the Declaration hearing no objection the Declaration is before us we will do the vote again unless there's discussion all those in favor of the Declaration say I I I I any opposed eyes have it unanimously Madame secretary are all the members present as well as virtually present counted okay I believe that's 12 members thank you very much uh the bill so moved the bills before us all those in favor of the bill that's Bill 25- 809 say I I I opposed yeah I have it unanimously this is work um all right all right we are now at Lafayette Elementary School grass field emergency declaration resolution of 2024 council member Lewis George thank you chairman um on Thursday I circulated emergency resolution uh concerning lower field at Lafayette Elementary School in W 4 uh this March uh with next to no notice given to the community uh dgs announced they would be replacing the field with artificial turf were nigging on the prior commitments to repair and maintain the existing natural grass field the Community was blindsided by De decision this this decision and has every right to be concerned uh dgs complied with DC statute by the Skin of Their Teeth only holding community meeting to discuss Turf after repeated insistence fromc 34g in my office a meeting which was held the same day they announced their decision to the public uh without any of their input these actions were called out byc 34g who issued two resolutions one in February and one in March demanding dgs live up to its commit M to community members uh since this decision was announced I've received an outpouring of concerns in the form of multiple meetings with community members constituent emails phone calls uh with the community andc Commissioners and a survey conducted by thec commission uh they have the right to be concerned artificial turf has been linked to Forever chemicals like pasas that POS serious health risks evidence has increasingly exposed the health risk of artificial turf and cities like Boston have gone so far far as to ban the insulation of any new artificial turf Citywide DJs has Justified their decision by denying the health and safety risk of artificial turf but these claims are not supported by scientific evidence according to the EPA the mo the more we learn about past chemicals the more we learn that certain PS can cause health risk even at very low levels there are physical concerns too there is evidence to show that certain injuries are more serious on surf builds such that every professional sports team in the district plays on a natural grass field worse yet these risk will disp disproportionately impact the kids who play on Lafayette field every day DJs used call savings as a part of their rationale but evidence calls this into question too uh the budget uh office fiscal impact statement made it clear that over the 4year financial plan a grass field is $300,000 cheaper than an artificial field additionally DJs is projections of needing to replace grass fields every two to three years are contradicted by the testimony we've heard from the sports field management association who have reported replacement being needed as rarely as once every 24 years when proper maintenance is done my measures will hold dgs to the commitments they've repeatly made uh and will uphold the overwhelming wishes of the community for a natural grass field we can't threaten our kids health by exposing them to toxic chemicals on a daily basis and while we aren't scientists so we will have to see how this evolves over time we are public servants who owe taay taxpayers a fair and transparent government response I urge you to vote in favor of this these measures today and thank you with that I move the emergency declaration resolution uh thank you council member Lewis George is there discussion on the uh declaration council member fuman thank you very much I I I want to thank council member Le George for coming forward with this resolution um I I want to be clear that from my perspective I don't think we should foreclose the idea of having artificial turf fields anywhere in the district at any time I do think Technologies around artificial turf fields have been evolving and the safety issues are changing all the time also there's a number of fields where um every time it rains where it's a natural grass field every time it rains it gets torn up and then it becomes dangerous in a different kind of way so I don't want to this vote to be perceived as a Prohibition or a step towards a Prohibition on on artificial turfs Fields RIT large I think we need to do a lot more thinking and talking before we would do something like that but in this particular context to me the issue is the process issue uh and the way in which this is been presented or not presented to the community a feda compy where there is such uniform concern about it I think we can't let the the administration go forward and just go ahead and put an artificial tur field here given the record that's happened here so far but I do want to be careful not to be suggesting that artificial turf firm fields are in and of themselves bad or there may not be places where they make a lot of sense thank you council member from uh I'm going to speak against the Declaration I had hoped that this matter would be put off and I reached out to the mayor but obviously that's not happened so there seem to be two arguments that are used in support of the Declaration first that this is what the community wants and second that there are health hazards uh let me speak to this latter first with regard to the health hazards um pasas has been around for decades uh according to the Centers for Disease Control and I'm looking at a fact sheet the PFS pfas fact sheet that's available online quote human health effects from exposure to low environmental levels of pasas are uncertain uh finding a me quote finding a measurable amount of pasas in serum that would be blood serum does not imply that the levels of past cause an adverse Health effect so yes there are some residents who are arguing rather uh forcefully that there are um serious health concerns but CDC does not agree uh and this is being researched if the concern is that the community doesn't want this which is a different argument I'm concerned that we would uh be in that the council would be spending its time figuring out an individual field and that um what is what the government is doing is suddenly going to be upended so the mayor sent me a text in which she said if the legislation passes we would have to Halt the project and negotiate change orders to convert from Turf to Grass now I'm looking at an email from um dgs to council member Lewis George it says that a turf field costs about $650,000 in the annual maintenance is $223,000 the natural grass costs about $250,000 that's $400,000 less the maintenance is $554,000 annually that's double however the useful life of the turf field is 10 years and for the grass is two to three years which means that in nine years it will have cost more than the turf field cost uh so the turf in the long term is the more economical approach and I often argue that we should be looking at what is the most efficient use of dollars and then I have this letter that was sent uh by both the chancellor of DCPS since DCPS is involved and dgs this field is heavily utilized the new field need needs to hold up to rigorous usage demands as the park is frequently used by DCPS for regular activities by DPR for organized events and by the community for grass fields best practice is to allow them time to recover however here this is impossible because the field is not fenced in to restrict access during the winter months in other words unless the grass fields are protected uh they will degrade quickly and need replacement and the mayor mentioned to me that one needs look no further than the Hearst Recreation field to see an example of where the uh grass has become basically a mud field so I would rather that this was put off for a month and worked out but that doesn't seem to be the case and uh the health effect is not so conclusive uh CDC doesn't recommend against pasas and uh the cost is in favor of what the executive is proposing and this will probably if the this is adopted this will probably be a mess in two years or three years so I won't be supporting it I went over my time but nobody objected council member Tran White did you want to be recognized yes um I guess my initial question to council member leis George is this uh going to affect all fields in the district or just this particular field that you're F it's just narly tailored to Lafayette pointer field all right thank you for that and follow question I was looking up an article that was in The Washington Post in March of 2024 um for the pabs and it's potential risk and I just want to read this real quick p ps dubbed whatever chemicals they did a analysis uh on a field of kids playing soccer in San Diego and during this analysis they took some results on the kids and I read it as such um Turf Advocates and other scientist say there's no reliable evidence showing that PAB and turf POS a risk opponents also say the sub synthetic Fields require less water than grass don't need pesticides and allow for more frequent competitive play without potholes mud pits and needing tending to as as other fields test results from this showed that they found two of the three players including penan daughter Emma came off the field with high amounts of pfas pabs on their on their hands than the other begin than beginning in practice so did Pani when the other players practice on the nrad the result was was mixed two of them had decreased in pf pabs while parvini was found to have more pabs uh the new soccer ball also had detectable amount of pabs before they were even used on the field and so there's been a lot of mixed reviews and conversations about this and in closing chairman I did reach out to try to get some information from dgs and they noted that there uh to my point this morning that councilman Murray Chay passed legislation to keep us from creating Fields with harmful chemicals and you know Fields have evolved over time we even took some Fields up um and so what I what I read is the the crumb rubber field infield is basically recycled Crush rubber from tires some groups claim to be hazardous uh but there has been no real proof of his hazardous material uh scientifically supporting the link from Rebel fields to cancer it is used all over the country and it's also used in the NFL and so I don't know what articles or evidence is fact at this moment and so I'm just trying to get more information and Clarity yeah thank you council member council member Parker thank you Mr chairman um I do have a couple of questions but first I would say I would be remiss if I didn't just acknowledge uh in W five we have legit chemical plants operating in parts of our Ward that community members are calling attention to so as we move forward I I do want us to just remain committed to this issue on behalf of residents across the city um for me as has been raised I have questions around the health impacts but I do think I do think there are process issues here that are very valid and Worth US leaning in on it is my understanding that dgs committed to this community the school community and the broader community that they would uh install grass uh it is also unclear the extent of dgs as and engagement with the community that there were required uh steps that they failed to take um and so I think on that point alone in addition to the fact that we say we give great weight toc's it is my understanding that all of the Commissioners in this area have weigh in to say uh that they do in fact want grass um my first question is around cost um and this may be better suited for our budget director given that this is an emergency the inherent suggestion is that there isn't a cost yet chairman you're referencing a letter from dgs and DCPS highlighting a significant cost can we just Square those two things I was not paying close attention um Square well I will repeat U the project is already fun and this is budget director budol uh can you can you uh justify explain speak to how you came up with um approving the emergency given that the chairman is citing significant cost pressures from DCPS and dgs uh yes when we do a fiscal impact we look at the cost Over a four-year period so the four-year financial plan and within the four-year financial plan the costs are roughly equivalent if not slightly less for a grass field um the chairman was referencing the long-term costs um of the upkeep in maintenance and eventual need for replacement or more regular replacement of the um grass fields but within the four-year financial plan um there are no additional costs got it I think that's an important Point uh I have full faith and confidence in our budget team and our budget director in particular and it is important to note that DCPS is pointing to costs over the life of this field versus the creation of the or the implementation of the field uh and then my second question um is around engagement and this is to council member leis George with dgs what engagement if any have you had with them more recently that this is now becoming a big fight uh between the council and the executive uh as of today to I'm sorry as of today I heard from from dgs today as of as about the issues that the executive has with this got it uh and I think that's another important point that if this was so very important important and Urgent uh DCPS and dgs should have reached out uh in advance um so thank you Mr chairman uh thank you council member further council member Allen thanks I just want to make a couple of quick comments I am going to support my my colleague um I do think though and I think I heard this from a couple of colleagues we do have artificial turf fields and um I think there's minces when they they are the right call to make um we've got uh especially with the newer generation of some of the uh turf fields um I believe they're using much more organic material uh environmentally sustainable and supportive material so I do think there are artificial turf fields that are not um a uh a health hazard and I do think there's a distinction between some of our initial turf fields that the city probably built and I think that's the reason why back in 2018 that uh crumb rubber was banned and things like that um so I do think there there's a value to that I I do think though hearing from ourc Commissioners council member and hearing from so many community members they clear really have a preference for this to be a grass field um listening to the budget numbers that a grass fields replaced every two to three years I've been the ward six council member for 10 I can't think of a field in Ward six that's been changed out every two to three years let alone maybe once um so I forgive me if I don't necessarily believe that's that's the real schedule that we see in real life um so I I would prefer if there was a way that the executive and the council the neighbors were able to work this out so that there was a um not having to vote on emergency legislation I I agree with the chairman um I it does give me some pause around having to use emergency legislation through the Council on a specific field that said I'm still going to support my w for colleague and ancs that have weighed in on this um and I I guess I would hope that it had been worked out in advance um to try to find some consensus around this um but I I also don't want our vote to be taken as one that is again the occasional times that an artificial field makes the most sense um there are times when a heavy utilized field an athletic field in particular needs to or can be better suited as artificial turf thank you Mr chair thank you customer alen further yes customer VN thank you very much um chairman um I certainly appreciate um that um my colleague is um speaking up for her community but my question is about this emergency process I know that we're um kneed deep into the budget process and so I just wonder how did this become the issue that it is today and whether or not this should have or could have been an issue let's say last month um which could better inform us as we're thinking about the budget we still have time of course to work on the budget but I'm just just curious about how how it's flowing thank you absolutely um as you know I I talked about this the ANC first did their first uh um resolution in February uh we have been trying to solve this issue since February February uh without having to move legislation since the decision was announced um as well uh dgs has largely refused to engage with us and has been sort of totally out of touch about it for the past week but also uh totally not engaging with the community and so when the meeting came to have a discussion with the community it wasn't a discussion it was a this is what we are going to do uh versus this is what let me hear what you would like us to do um that's how it evolved as this over time we funded this in last year so um the work is beginning which is what makes it an emergency because the work has started to begin on the upper field where we're dealing with the soil erosion um and so as the work is beginning uh right now um to have them started uh and put an artificial field in when the community hasn't settled on it is sort of why it's in an emergency space that that it's in and I I totally agree with your concerns and it would not be here if nego if the negotiations with the community with the anc's uh with the associations and myself had gone um appropriately and fruitfully as as it should have been thank you very much uh since this came up I'm going to speak to this so to minutes oh I you didn't give me my CH I what oh go ahead I didn't have a chance to re uh I didn't recognize myself I'm just going to speak for a minute so there were some questions on the um cost so this is the table I'm looking at that came from dgs it's an email from dgs the um installation cost of turf is $650,000 for natural grass $250,000 that's $400,000 less maintenance cost is $23,000 annually for Turf $54,000 annually for natural grass that's assuming that they actually do the maintenance correct the uh safety risks uh Turf is a heat island risk of injury on grass or must avoid use of pesticides risk of injury at risk of drought um the length length of useful life 10 years for Turf two to three years without closing in cooler months to let grass recover so I was wrong when I said two to three it's two to three years if it's not closed usable time throughout the year Turf is usable year round natural grass is usable April through maybe November because then it closes now there was a comment or question about contact so this was t a table that was sent by email on April 24th from dgs April 23rd from dgs to council member Lewis George's office the chancellor and the director of dgs wrote uh together to council member Lewis George on April 2nd and that's where I read earlier first this field is heavily utilized and so that speaks to um whether them context and then I called the mayor today and I read from her text that she says that the they would have to do a change order and um I know subsequently she called the council member any further you like look like you want second round council member Le George yeah just I want to make it quick because we we've been here for long enough um just a few things um I know you all spoke to the fact sheet I want to go Tiff for T here uh regarding that I just wanted to note that um the cdc's uh fact sheet is a year older EPA fact sheet is actually Environmental Protection agent is actually um more recent and that is the one uh that notes that we learn more about past because Sim uh past chemicals the more we can learn the certain PS can cause health risk at very low levels that is any that is why anything we can do to reduce P fads in water soil and air can have a meaningful impact on health I want to point out that Lafayette pointer is adjacent to rock Park uh which is uh our national park uh and we do have to be concerned about runoff concerns as it relates to uh our national park uh Rocky Park uh and the environmental concerns that come from the runoff uh in addition to the other concerns uh we're not scientist but everyone has agreed that everything they have read has said this is inconclusive we are not sure yet what we are sure about is that this field will be used by our children are most vulnerable residents here in the district so to say that we are unsure and unconcluded about something but move forward with the risk that our children are sort of the test of this I think is also uh a concern that we should would that should be considered here um as well um I you know I'm not going to go back and forth about the budget concerns because the numbers have have been have changed um I want to do I do want to speak to council member trayon White's uh issue um and I want to note that a few things is that uh the crumb rubber issue is sort of different from the community's concerns about Lafayette um but I do want to know in 2017 the district banned crumb rubber because of fears about its toxicity at the time ggs made the same argument about crumb rubber infield that they are now making about pz stating in a 2017 F fact sheet posted to their website that reports and studies on crumb rubber infield do not conclusively prove its harmful effects um so I just wanted to note that as well for the record um again uh that you know I ask that you stand with the community here um in our very real effort that we have already made for months to resolve this issue thank you there's no further discussion chairman that provoke counc Robert White and then council member Pinto uh thank you uh chairman and um I um when I chaired the committee on government operations there was a lot of desire for grass fields and a lot of opposition uh to Turf and artificial fields for for reasons that I most them I agree with one of the issues with grass fields though is that when there is very heavy rain um it turns to to mud and generally it has to dry pretty thoroughly uh before it can be played on or that mud like gets run over and hardened and the the field can be uh permanently destroyed uh there are also concerns about overuse of fields which diminish its ability to be used um so I I I I generally support this but but I'm wondering how uh how we should deal how you recommend we deal with these uh concerns council member Lis George House member what was the question I'm sorry I'm so sorry grass fields when when when they get a lot of rain get muddy and can't be used if they're used before they are completely dry the mud like bunches up it destroys the grass creates a lot of divots in the grass if the grass is overused it can be destroyed as well so one of the primary arguments uh when I share government operations was durability usability uh of fields um so what how do you balance the concerns about uh inability to use the field because of excess rain because of needing it to dry or because of overuse yeah you know I think there are uh trade-offs between artificial and N natural grass field while natural grass grass field needs time to rest in the winter actually artificial turf fields are less usable during the summer uh and the beginning and which is the beginning and the end of the AC year Academic Year because they are become extremely hot um so there's always going to be a trade-off there between the two um what I will say is that the community is well aware of the tradeoff of of in this instance and they have said we prefer the trade-off of natural grass versus the trade-offs presented by artificial turf oh thank you chairman I was just asking my remaining seconds it was a um desire expressed in the breakfast meeting to have a hearing on this more broadly uh so I hope there's something that we can do thank you chairman uh thank you council member council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman um and thank you so much council member leis George as a fellow ward council member I am very sympathetic to the fact that you've heard from so many in the Community about this and are trying to move forward in a way that advances their safety and and what they are asking for I guess as I contemplated this earlier um I was thinking about from a perspective of deference to my ward colleague and what your community wants I guess I'm curious from the perspective of our entire Matrix of field space If This Were to move forward and the contract would have to be rebid to figure out who's going to implement the grass and then maintain the grass would that have an impact on other playtime and kids and games that would have to happen at other fields um kind of in the surrounding areas and perhaps in other Wards I'm I'm unsure sort of as far as what what happened with the other fields and uh surrounding sort of the surrounding areas um the Lafayette point Winterfield is used uh by the school and by the Chevy Chase Hawthorne and barn Woods communities um and so during the school year um I'm not I honestly I'm not sure which what what that direct impact will be I just know that uh uh during the summer it's it's just open for a community um and right now that's when they're doing that's why right now they're working on soil erosion for uh the soil erosion project on the upper field um and why they were beginning the project now because it's the summer time and so they usually begin their projects uh um that are sort of seasonal sensitive at that time gotcha okay thank you for that context I guess I'm just thinking about other examples where we've had I think the field the field can be used if there's an issue with getting new grass it can be used in the meantime yeah Mr chairman uh somebody has to be recognized council member Henderson um thank you Mr chairman Mr I I sorry go ahead council member pentu sorry I thought we were just in the middle of a discussion still um so if the field can be used in the meantime then do we have any uh way of knowing like the level of frequency of Maintenance that would be required for grass versus Turf and if that would impact the ability to use the field ugs already has a maintenance schedule for the many natural grass fields that we have across the city which this isn't the only natural grass field we have across the city particularly not even in W for where we have Fort Stevens uh Recreation Center which is also a grass field um and multiple others and so it would just be on the same maintenance schedule as the rest of our fields are um dgs mows and manages Fields all all over town um on their own and so um whether they actually Implement their maintenance plans which I think other council members were alluding to I think it's a different question um but right now they have a maintenance plan and schedule for natural grass fields in our uh throughout the city thank you council member Henderson um thank you Mr chairman uh not trying to belabor I just trying to get to a resolution here um so I want to ask coun George is there um do you believe that with more conversation between dgs the executive and the community that there could be a resolution here without requiring us to vote on an emergency legislation on this particular matter well at this moment I mean the the executive has has dug in in a way that has not been open to sort of uh any change of thought or uh or Community opinion here the you know without going too much into conversations it's just uh the executive fundamentally disagrees with doesn't like natural grass fields I don't know a better way to put that um so I don't it's sort of either we are going to force on the community a decision that they that One Believes is best or we're going to listen to the community our taxpayers on what they would like to have in their community I think that's just a difference of of servant leadership styles um honestly so thank you council member Henderson um motion to close debate um close debate is there any objection to a motion to close debate hearing none right what about a motion to table for a month okay for the purpose of trying to all work together and accommodate this a motion the uh there was a motion to close debate I asked if there was any objection I heard no objection so debate was closed anyone who has not spoken can speak but council member Pinto you've already spoken so you can't speak and therefore you can't make the motion well my secondary motion was my form of objection so is there anyone who has not spoken oh to Christina's motion because I was second nobody objected to her motion oh oh yes okay great close got it I'm asking if there's anyone who has not spoken not hearing anyone stop it all right we have the bill we have the Declaration before us request the roll call please chairman Madam Secretary would you call the role vote wait a minute the vote is on the Declaration Adam secretary correct council member Tron white yes council member trayon white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes yes council member bonds no council member bonds votes no council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member leis George yes council member leis George votes yes council member McDuffy no council member McDuffy votes no chairman Mendelson no counc chairman Mendon votes no council member Nido yes council member Nido votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes Mr chairman there are nine yeses three Nos and one absent uh the Declaration is approved uh the we have the underlying Bill Bill 25- 807 council member Lewis George council members it's been moved is there discussion on the bill by Voice vote heard somebody say yes please um on the bill by Voice vote all those in favor say I I are there any opposed just a moment a conversation you want to be recorded as no um if nobody wants to be recorded as no then the eyes have it unanimously the eyes have it unanimously the uh so the Bill's approved the uh we have the temporary before that's fun um all right uh council member L charge I move the underlying emergency Amendment you're not paying attention the next measure on the agenda is Lafayette Elementary School Grassfield temporary Amendment Act of 20124 Bill 25- 808 council member Lewis George so moved discussion all those in favor council member Pinto did you want Beed I do um can I move to table the temporary for an additional month so we can try to work out with dgs what their concerns are there would be a motion to postpone for one month to the June 11th legislative meeting yes you can move that if you want I'd like to move that we have a motion to uh postpone to June 11th consideration is a temporary on the motion to postpone is there discussion all those in favor of the motion to postpone say I I opposed no uh the eyes have it unanimously Mr chairman Mr chairman yes counc rep I do believe I heard at least one objection um it was a Voice vote and uh it was approved I motion to postpone was approved I do believe it passed but just for accuracy's sake I don't know if it was unanimous I didn't say it was unanimous you did say it was UN I did yes yes maybe you're not paying attention I didn't hear that probably good I didn't hear that all right um Let me clarify the temp the motion to postpone the temporary was approved by Voice vote did anybody ask to be recorded v no counc member pran I know but I have to say it c f recorded as no uh we get to other business and I've been having such a good time that I'm not ready for this um the under new business is a motion to override the mayor veto of bill 25780 the bill is the local rent supplement program eligibility emergency Amendment Act of 2024 Bill 25- 780 um inter veto message mayor asserts that the self-certification process impunes that's her word the ability of the housing authority to do D to do due diligence on applicants I will note the Housing Authority testified on the permanent version of this bill last year they did not raise that concern the legislation allows for self-certification only and I'm reading from the stat the bill when an applicant cannot easily obtain verification documents quote unquote as we've seen and heard from countless stakeholders the process for obtaining verification documents particularly for homeless individuals can take months or even years allowing for self-certification in circumstances where these individuals do not have immediate access to required documentation ensures that they do not remain homeless due to bureaucratic processes I want to note that this bill is about getting a voucher it is not about going through the application process for a rental unit itself the mayor also claims that the law creates a security threat to District residents by precluding the Authority from considering prior arrests or convictions when determining eligibility again this is about the application for a voucher not the application for a rental unit this provision in the bill is meant to ensure the criminal records are not a barrier to getting people housed and the mayor in her veto message or at any other time has not cited any data statistics or even anecdotes to support the contention that this law impacts the safe sa of District residents and I would note further that this concern also was not raised by the Housing Authority now when the mayor uh first excuse me when the council first approved this legislation which was in July of 2022 the mayor actually signed the bill when the council renewed the emergency one year later the mayor wrote and I quote I would like to continue working with the council unquote on the underlying concerns however she has not so not only are the allegations in her veto letter um unsubstantiated but she has not worked with the council up with this in fact when the committee on housing had a hearing on the permanent V Bill last summer dhcd simply did not testify on the bill they testified on another bill but not this one um the Genesis of this legislation is to make it easier to remove barriers for those who are homeless and those who are undocumented to be able to apply for vouchers apply for vouchers subsequent to that assuming they get the voucher they would have to apply for a rental unit and there is a vetting process then so the mayor raises concerns that have not been raised before the mayor has not worked with the council either the committee on housing or with my office with regard to her concerns or how to improve the bill the permanent bill is in the committee on housing and will be reported out I think I can say before the recess and um the Housing Authority has not raised these concerns that the mayor is Raising in the name of the Housing Authority for all those reasons The veto is in my view not substantiated and should be overturned and that is my motion to override The veto further discussion on the motion all those in favor of of the motion to override the mayor Alito say I I that was weak all those opposed no the eyeses haveit does anybody want to be recorded as no yes council member from will be recorded as voting no uh the motion is approved Mr chairman yes please record me as presid council member Parker will be recorded as present um that will conclude the business for this meeting just a moment temporary [Music] General Council has pointed out to me that the motion to postpone that temporary was somewhat at odds with a rule but it could be construed as suspending the rule that requires the temporary has to move simultaneously with the um emergency uh my interpretation would be implicitly that that rule rule 413 was suspended um I want to note before we adjourn that um although the agenda States our next legisl meeting is June 11th the committee the whole will be meeting on May 29th to adopt its um committee print for the budget and the budget support Act and the council will have an additional meeting that same day uh to consider the budget support act and first reading on the local budget act the supplemental will be its second reading which I believe is June 12th and second reading on the budget support act will probably be shortly after June 12th Mr chairman does this mean that there will not be a committee of the whole meeting on May 21st no there will be a committee of the whole meeting on May 21st I think uh I misspoke that uh I uh a number of members will probably be at the icsc uh conference or coming back on the 21st so there probably will not be a committee the whole that day if there is need for an additional Committee of the whole before the 29th I'll consider it but otherwise we will our next Committee of the whole will be on May 29th uh thank you for catching me on that um if there's nothing else and I think there's nothing else time is 2:53 PM this meeting's adjured e e e e e for