Om the message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Forty Million Dollars ($40,000,000.00) in the form of a grant, awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the City of Boston’s Chief Financial Officer/Collector Treasurer. This grant payment is made from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFRF) in the Treasury of the United States established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Pursuant to the requirements of ARPA, the grant payment would fund provisions of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such State, territory, or Tribal government due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year of the State, territory or Tribal government prior to the emergency, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed; yeas 12.
Arts and culture and early childhood stalking numbers 0504 Message In honor authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $40 million in the form of a grant awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the city of Boston's Chief Financial Officer. Collect the Treasury. This grant payment is made from the coronavirus, state and Local Fiscal Fiscal Recovery Fund. CEO f r. F in the Treasury of the United States, established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 A are paid pursuant to the requirements of a pay. The grant payment would fund provisions of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such state territorial tribal government due to the COVID 19 Public Health Emergency Relief relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal fiscal year of the state territorial tribal government prior to the emergency. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Council Board Chair of the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 Recovery Council. BLOCK You have the floor. So much, Mr. President, and I'm going to speak to these dockets in reverse order just because 504 is a little bit simpler. 504 is a docket. The American Rescue Plan Act makes provision for local governments to receive this funding directly, as Boston did, and to use some of it to just replace government revenues in places where revenues went down because of the pandemic. In Boston, that happened in particular in our departmental revenues and things like hotel excise taxes, meals, taxes, etc. there there's also a series of deferral provisions for a lot of those. So in in but in the budget books in the city produce, there's is sort of documentation of the ways in which those resources are off where they would have been without the pandemic. And so related to that provision, the city the mayor proposed this $40 million docket, which is actually there to balance on the revenue side, the budget that we were just discussing and voting on. And so it is it is an important docket to making sure that we actually meet the Commonwealth's obligation for the city of Boston to have a balanced budget for the fiscal year that starts in two days. And so because of that, I'm going to be moving out of committee and recommending passage. Um, and so I know we'll get to that vote in a moment. The other docket, it's 503 is the proposal from Mayor Wu for the expenditure of the rest of the ARPA. Funds that were sent to the city is general revenue and it's first 349.5 million. And as folks know, it came in at the same time as the budget. And the investments that are focused in this docket have been the subject of a lot of conversation, both in the budget process in which they came up again and again as, Oh, what, we're not doing our budget, but we're able to do that on our budget, etc. And then within our committee we've had eight hearings and five working sessions to hear from the public. My colleagues in the administration on this proposal, the largest part of the proposal, 206 of the $349.5 million is for housing and is then is subdivided into a number of sub dockets related to supportive housing to homeownership , a record 60 million investment in this docket, along with some other city funds in homeownership, creating housing on public land, something that's very near dear to me and just like a large number of things. And then another 150 is split between these categories of climate, arts and culture, economic inclusion, child care, a $15 million investment, and really having the city lead a real renovation of our child care system with an eye to trying to drive better reimbursement rates and policies in the state as the state takes that up in the coming session. Um, and so a lot of good things in here and as the council's held. Hearings on that. I think there's been a lot of things that have come to the fore that we've been talking about. At the same time, the feeling of the body, I think it's safe to say, was a sense of frustration that we had not had the opportunity as a council to formally talk about things that we'd like to do with this transformative money. Ahead of the proposal by the mayor side to utilize all 249.5. And so there were a lot of great ideas that councilors were also bringing to the table that were not included in the proposal as files. And so that's something that at our committee we've tried to make space for along the way. We started we in late April suggested that folks start filing dockets related to things that they'd like to see us talk about for ARPA. We noticed those dockets with a series of hearings on different topic areas. So, you know, a number of those were noticed and discussed. And then more recently, we also we also invited folks to file amendments and discuss those and in recent working sessions. Well doing that as the chair was also sort of talking to the administration about the question of whether the revenue support docket that they had kind of reserved for next fiscal year. So not the one that we're discussing that starts in two days, but the one a year from now, whether they really needed to be holding quite as much as they had proposed, not least because of sort of the the trends. When you look at how those departmental revenues and excise revenues have been recovering, I think that we're all super, super mindful of the fact that this recovery money is meant to be spent to help the people of Boston recover and help the city recover in a more equitable way and that the need is urgent. So throughout this ARPA process, we've really been balancing the fact that this the need is urgent. And now and all of these things are things that we should have spent money on yesterday. It feels like. And also, even though it's a lot of money, we've all spent it over ten times in our head. And at the same time, because it's a once in a generation kind of amount of money, we want to make sure that we're spending it well and that the that ten years from now we'll be talking about the things that we achieved because of ARPA. And so. Basically the administration ultimately said that they were willing to put most of that money that the 19.7 that they had saved for next year's revenue support in to collaboration with the council. And so there's a $17.7 million docket, which I'm not formally speaking to yet because the late file. So it will come. But I think folks have it on their desks already, which is which demonstrates their willingness to be collaborative with the council and include a huge number of council priorities in the city's ARPA proposal. Additionally, within the committee report, which I filed, there are a number of amendments to their proposal which spell out $12.3 million worth of funds within the three 49.5 that are going to be dedicated to specific council priorities that came up in the process, that sort of aligned with the subject areas that they had already, that they had already highlighted. And so the description of those changes for this docket is in the summary of legislation and amendments is on page two if people look at the committee report. But I'm just going to read them aloud so that people are aware it will be within this docket, dedicating at least $8 million in category affordable housing to creating a pathway to four to affordable homeownership for low and moderate income residents, including a new partnership with the Boston Housing Authority, dedicating at least 1.1 million within the category of affordable housing to support a new pilot model in the style of rapid rehousing to help returning citizens secure housing opportunities. So that's another exciting new pilot, 100,000 for the to expand the Peace Institute's work and sort of emergency housing for families for families victims of violence. A million. And here is for a study to figure out if there's somewhere to be land in south Boston to say veterans housing $1,000,000 within the category of behavioral health to support further behavioral health, capacity building and training for CBOs and city departments. $1,000,000 for supporting the recovery of restaurants and bars in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The city particularly focused on sort of folks who kind of missed the opportunities in a number of the programs that were available at the height of the pandemic. And then another million split between 350 in economic opportunity and inclusion. And 650 in arts and culture to support investment in and activation of an arts corridor in Roxbury. Those things collectively add up to the 12.3. That is within this three $49.5 million docket for council priorities. There's then, as I just mentioned, another 17.7 million folks have on their desk. And I'll speak to that when it's formally the right time, when it's the late file. But those two things collectively, obviously add up to $30 million that that reflect council priorities and integrating those into the proposal of how to use the remainder of ARPA . I just also want to draw folks quick attention to at the last page, the committee report. It says. Additionally, the amended version of the order adds language to specify the shared intention to support both worker cooperatives and sustainable pay increases in the childcare sector. Those are some of the kind of qualitative things that have come up in the discussion about this transformative $15 million investment in child care. And then and then just raising, you know, worker standards and making sure that we've got good, good standards across the board and in the areas that are being funded by that order. So that is the document for us. I know as Chair that it's a hard thing to figure out how to take action on something that feels as momentous as this does. And I have definitely felt acutely the fact that it is both too ambitious to do wrong and also too much to do slowly. Because the reality is that the lion's share of the funding is proposed for housing. People know that I come out of the affordable housing world working for the VHA. Unfortunately, housing development and especially building units as for example, 45 million of the 60 million in the homeownership will be doing takes time and has extended timelines. And this money all needs to be under contract by December 2024, which may seem soon, but is not on that type of timeline. And one of the things we heard was that the the annual kind of RFP process that kicks out our our housing resources and helps us let people know what's available. Usually hits in July. And so for for me as chair, it's been a fine balance of trying to figure out how to make sure that councilors have real fingerprints on this, which I think in this $30 million we do, recognizing also a lot of alignment with the other things of the administration have proposed and also making sure that we get these dollars out to our our communities and to all. The urgent needs in our communities because we hear about those every day. I want to acknowledge before you, the Florida colleagues, that, you know, the administration ended up taking a firm position that they did not want to use ARPA dollars to fund nonprofit infrastructure projects . So infrastructure that's going to be owned by private, nonprofit entities. And certainly as chair, that was not something that I'd heard from them early in this process. And I think a number of councilors and organizations brought really meritorious proposals forward to us. And those are not ultimately included in this, unlike the process that the public just was watching, the appropriation accept and expand orders cannot be overridden by the council. So this is a place where we and the mayor have to reach a point of agreement and collaboration. And I think with these two dockets, not completely, but in large part we're doing that today. And so I ask my colleagues to support passage of this. I'm grateful to the administration for filing the the late supplemental order. And I'll also be moving passage of that later in the meeting. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Council balked that she recognizes. Councilman here. Councilman, here. You have the floor. Thank you, Chair. I just need some clarity before I vote on anything. If you're saying that you're going to talk about something else later, I just. I'm just curious about. I know we spent a lot of time talking about very specific things. And and for the record, I'd like to make sure that the things that we have agreed upon are read into the record and that there is some sort of agreement on some of the things that we've been pushing for, because there tends to be this, you know, we didn't know that this was going to be the way it was when we were dealing with the interdepartmental conversation that the administration. So we you know, now it's like the administration switched it up, but we can't support nonprofits or like all of these, you know, changes, you know, give people a sense of kind of pause. So I just need some clarity and to get on the record that the things that I'm going to be voting on include the things that we talked about and we fought for. And I just need some assurance around that. And where where does that fall in this? Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Here. There's a question on the floor from council here. Council block, would you like to respond to this? I guess the question I have for you and the clerk is that if if it were acceptable to take out of order, the first lady file matter and have it formally read into the record, I would be delighted to do that. The only reason that I wasn't able to do that is because of the. Order of our. Procedure in that meeting. So I don't know if you. Not only. Was. I went to the hospital. 420. We'll do it after. Sorry. Mr. President, can I also clarify? I received from the messenger city messenger the committee report of the late file. Or do other people not have that on their table? You don't have your. Yeah. The $17.7 million docket. It's in the triple packet of late files. I haven't. Say that. We'll take a brief recess. Thank you, Mr.. That she recognizes. Counsel Bork. Counsel Bork, you have the floor and then I'll go back to counsel here. Thank you, Mr. President, just now that I think everybody has both items. I just want to clarify one more time, because we I know we discussed in the working session yesterday when we were talking about those two columns. Right. There's some so maybe it's procedurally helpful to know we're not allowed to amend the mayor's appropriation orders to be higher than the original number that was proposed. So the way that the 30 million is split is 12.3 of it is out of the 349.5 order that stock at 503 and 17.7 is out of this new late filed supplemental order. So the various council priorities are split between those two things. So if you're looking for something, you may find it in the list that I just read into the record from 503, or you may find it stipulated in the 17.7 order. So I just wanted to specify that for councilors, just to be clear that that's where everything is. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Look, the chair recognizes Councilor Baker was next. Counsel Baker, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Still some more than somewhat uncomfortable voting on this here today, after the day we've had still not totally square clear where a lot of things are going. I believe we could split this up into smaller buckets. Whatever, whatever has a priority, if it's a housing for our priority. We could be passed in 50 or 100 million today without a problem and be able to have this be a working sort of relationship here. With all that being said, I would like to offer an amendment to an amendment to trademark at 503 by reducing on what the only way that I could identify was on the Google document that came to me, which was line 20, massing cars, temporary low threshold shelter sites by 5 million, and adding 5 million in for the Georgia Tech field house. Just to be clear, that low threshold housing, that 16 million, we've already given them at least 5 million. Now for the low threshold housing, I think the number is is much higher than that. But what they've what they agree to is 5 million. And also the temporary low threshold housing is something that that community down there doesn't want. When we talk about we talk about decentralization and this this low threshold housing en masse. And Cass, make sure that that that issue that's going on down there is centralized down there for our entire lives. And in just for clarity, 5 million coming off the 206 million in housing brings that down to 201 million. A little bit of math. We just we just approved 70 million earlier in this mail, in this meeting, 70 million in grants from the feds for housing. So the 70 million plus the 201 million minus my 5 million, we're talking about $271 million here that that can potentially go through here today. So I'm going to and you all have the amendment in front of you pretty straightforward. 5 million from the low threshold that housing down on en masse and gas and replace that with 5 million for the Dorchester Field House, which we all had a hearing on. I know the administration says they don't want to build infrastructure for nonprofits but will just pound money into them. That'll be that'll be gone. And we'll say we're talking about in ten years, it's all going to be a distant memory. The only thing we're going to be able to look at is going to be this. I was so I'm looking for a second on that as the president. Thank thank you. Counsel Baker. Um. Mr. Clarke, do you want to read it into the record first or should we? Yeah, we're going to read it into the record. Yeah. Mr. Clarke, please read that into the record of. Councilor Frank David. Until they come to an end. 05033. NASCAR's temporary, so special, so to say, $5 million and $5 million for the Dorchester Fieldhouse. Is there a second? There is a second counsel firing second to Mr.. President, based on the people that are in the room here, I mean, we're going to should we wait till people come back in the room for this photo? Because one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Yeah. We'll wait for them to. Call somebody for. Us. We'll take we'll take a brief recess. Back in session. Please take your seat, everybody. Please take your seats, everybody. The the motion is properly before the body. And it has been second in at this time. Would anyone like to speak on this matter? Okay. The chair recognizes Councilor Borg Council book you of the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. If I could. Get city funding. Through the proper process to council Bakersfield house. I would I chaired the hearing that many folks attended. I thought it was compelling. I think despite the disagreement between people about the history of how the field house land was transferred or whatever, that there a really incredible vision there . And personally, as a private citizen, I hope to find opportunities to support it. I have received the clearest communication, including an informal letter which I read to the Council on Monday, that the mayor is not willing to support nonprofit infrastructure, including the field house. If this amendment goes on the three 49.5 docket, then that docket will be vetoed by the mayor. And also the mayor will not be signing the 17.7 supplemental. I if I sound tired, it's not actually because of the length of this meeting. It's because I've only slept between one and five in the morning the last two nights trying to get everybody stuff into these combined dockets. If people want to go back to the drawing board, and I understand that from Councilor Baker's perspective, it makes sense both because this item is not in it and because he doesn't think we should be moving on this money all at once. Anyways, if folks agree, fine. But I think people need to be aware of what that amendment vote is. And I also think and I say this with with due respect and affection for my colleague here, that there is a difference between supporting the field House and backing an amendment for the field House that is effectively a poison pill to the effort to try to achieve council and mayoral collaboration on ARPA. So that's where I am as the chair and I'll be voting in opposition to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Council chair recognizes Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker, you have the floor. I don't understand. Poison pill here. So if my 5 million gets in, it automatically gets gets vetoed from across the hall for no reason other than it's mine. So what am I supposed to do? People ask me to withdraw this here. You know, I've been disrespected through this thing here. In my opinion, a letter. A letter is. Is is read into the record, an informal record, because they say we can't build stuff. Without the money. You can't build stuff, put up the money. It's all going to be contracts. Not right. Not fair. I don't see us doing enough for our kids, for our teens, for people to get healthy after this after this pandemic. This is going to do that. There's three housing developments right around it. What are you waiting for? MAN Whoa! What are you waiting for? Veto it. I want to go put it over there and have her veto it. That's what I want. Veto the 350, because you're two stuck up. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to have the floor. Thank you, Councilor Baker. Wanna take a brief recess? We're back in session. Right. So. I mean. Okay. We're back in session. The chair at this time. The chair recognizes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker, thank you. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to withdraw the current motion and replace it. New language, please. And Alex has a new language called Castle. Baker is seeking to withdraw the previous amendment. Previous motion. He also provided a another motion that everyone should have now on their on their desk. Mr. Clarke, will you read that into the record, please? Motion of Councilor Frank Baker. Councilor Baker moves to amend Docket 0503 by reducing the Mayor's Office of Housing by $5 million and adding $5 million for the Dorchester Field House. The chair recognizes counsel Baker. Counsel Baker. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if this if this passes with this amendment in here, we would have still, as a body passed, $271 million that will go towards housing. Just today. That's with my $5 million amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Baker. Any discussion on this matter for my colleagues. We need a second on new. I'm sorry. We need a second on the language. Second on no language. The second is by Councilor Murphy. The chair recognizes Councilor Murphy. I mean, I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilman. Here. Councilman, here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I just think it's important for those who are watching for us to get some clarity in terms of my kind of what does that play here? Because I keep hearing if we do this, then this will happen. And if we don't do this, this will happen. So I need to have it really clearly laid out about what is at play and what is the impact of what is at play. Just so that we can all be clear, because there's a lot of fear tactics, there's a lot of uncertainty. There's a lot of ways you can do this and you can't do that. I need it all laid out and I need the truth. On the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman here. There's a question on the floor from councilman here on if we can explain the process a little. A little bit. Can I call on the chair council block? If you're able to give us a little bit of background information that might might be helpful to our colleagues. Sure. Well, I would just say I'm not a lawyer. And, you know, I think that the the question on the table, like in terms of what that's what's at stake. Council over here depends a little bit on how you read Section 17 of the charter, it appears. So if Section 17 of the charter applies, then it's possible for the mayor to to receive this and to disapprove in part of the appropriation and approve the rest of it. So that that would sort of that would allow the council to indicate support for Councilor Baker's idea and then send it across the fifth floor and see what happens. If you don't read 17 DE as applying to this and the reason that there's a question is because it's. It's a question of whether it discounts enough of that appropriation or if it's going to accept and expand because it's federal money. And I just don't I'm not legally able to answer that question. I think I think lawyers on both sides have been looking at that in the last 20 minutes. If it if 17 days doesn't apply, then we're in the situation that I described a minute ago, which is that there's no way except to do in like a rejection at whole. So I think that's like there's just genuine uncertainty. But I think that our council and the council is taking the position that that we could make this amendment from Councilor Baker and then the mayor's office would be able to the mayor would be able to to make, you know, any selected vetoes. I will say. It's I don't think. I yeah. I'm pretty confident that we haven't had any selective like vetoing of appropriations in the time that I've been on the council. I don't know Councilor Flaherty, who would have a considerably longer record. So so I would just say that this is not been a general practice. And to be honest, it isn't it's not really something that I love the idea of just bringing into practice, because I think as a council we like the idea that when we vote for an appropriation, sort of we're voting for the whole package and that the mayor that signs or doesn't sign the whole package. But I can't answer the question and I don't think anyone on the floor is going to be able to definitively answer the legal question of the interpretation of 17 D, but it's certainly possible the 17 D applies here and that therefore we could pass Councilor Baker's amendment and then the mayor could make a decision on that and the rest of the appropriation could go through. But I can't give you certainty. I'm not equipped to. Thank you, Mr. President. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? The chair recognizes Counsel Baker at this time. Counsel Baker you have the floor. So what was said to me, councilman here sounded like a threat, was it? If my 5 million get in there, the mayor across the hall was going to veto the 350. That doesn't seem like leadership to me. You're going to because I get something in this 350 million. And to speak to this point over here, we're never going to have this opportunity ever again. So we're never going to have 350 million in front of us ever again. This is our only time right here. We're looking to pass it like as quick as we possibly can. There's no rush to pass this here today. We could have cut this up into 100 million and housing 50 million in this. And we're dumping money into into into nonprofits all over the place. So I was threatened with this mayor going to veto 350 million because I got 5 million in there. And now the discussion is, Oh yeah, well, she'll be able to just veto it anyway. Should I feel happy today? Should I feel like I've been uplifted today? Should I feel like I'm part of this body or part of this city today? No. And this fieldhouse isn't for me. I'm not going to go there. This fieldhouse is for the kids that you all met here. You all met them. You all fell in love with them. That's who was. On the board to make sure that they had what they wanted in the fieldhouse sway. It cost $55 million. That's why we should be building this sort of infrastructure all around the city. Build this one here, and then you'll see what we need to build for infrastructure. Let's stop giving away contracts. 350 million basically in contracts all out the door. We're not building any city infrastructure. We're not we're not doing anything with it. That's a strong statement. We're not doing anything. We're doing plenty with it. But we're not going to be able to, like we say, look, back in ten years and look at the good we did. Nobody's going to remember anything. They don't pay attention to legislation. Don't pay attention where money goes. They pay attention to good services. We're looking to give good services to door Chisholm. Three housing developments around it. All black and brown kids in an opportunity zone. What's your problem? Thank you. Councilor Baker, the chair. Recognize this council? Our council, where you have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. I would just. I just rise to chair in both the chair and Councilor Baker's frustration about the process. I think that Councilor Baker did an incredible amount of work, held hearings where young people came and spoke to the council, gave similarly impassioned speeches about the impact that this feedback was going to have in his neighborhood and effectively moved a lot of the council that wasn't supportive of getting the field house to be supportive of the field house because of the incredible amount of work that he did to get last minute word that the mayor wasn't going to be supporting. That is incredibly is incredibly frustrating. And so I share in that frustration in terms of the process. With that said, I do think that it's disingenuous to say that this is for the young people after we. Councilor Baker effectively just took a vote to help kill an amendment that was supposed to be for youth jobs. And so, although I admire his spirit and I share his frustration with the process, we have had plenty of opportunities here to make sure that we're giving investing in young people. And Councilor Baker has not taken them. And so I think that that stance is a little bit disingenuous. However, that is not the reason why I won't be supporting this amendment. I won't be supporting this amendment because as the Chair of Housing and Community Development, I cannot make a case for removing $5 million from housing or the ARPA funds. We're in the middle of a housing crisis. We need all of this money. Low threshold housing is a proven evidence based practice that's going to help people move through addiction and into permanent housing. And so I just want to I just want to say that I'm not going to be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel to the chair recognizes counsel royal counsel of Royal U of the for you. President Flynn, I have a question which is mostly around the timing of. I know why we have a deadline for the city budget because at a certain point it goes into a 112. I have a question about whether or not there's an urgency to pass this today when we still don't have that, at least what I'm hearing concrete sort of legal analysis as to what this will do or if this can get sort of put off until the next meeting, when we can have a further analysis on this from corporation counsel, from our own counsel and do that. I don't know if there's an urgency that I'm not aware of, which I'm happy to hear sort of the details, too, as to why this has to go through today when I think a lot of folks here are trying to figure out exactly what is happening from a legal standpoint. So I think that's for the chair that. Thank you, counsel. Very fair question, but I don't have the answer to that. COUNSEL Royal, if any of my colleagues have any information on that, that might be helpful to the body. The chair recognizes a block. Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. So on that, I mean, one of the reasons that. One of the reasons that we're moving this today is because of the fact that the. That Council. Sorry, guys, I really am very tired. We're doing this today in part because, as I mentioned, a huge amount of the housing. Money. Money is housing. And there is a. Mayor's Office of Housing Annual RFP that goes out in July. And it's the way that they start the process of making housing funds available. And one of the reasons why the timeline of that is important, as opposed to just like, oh, it's up to August, etc., is because of the way that for affordable housing projects like local funds line up with state funds and federal funds and there's like a whole kind of cycle process. And if you miss a level, then you often have to wait a year because of how the timing is done. And so again, because the money has to be spent by 2024, like all the contracts have to be signed by then, has to be totally spent by 2026, but you have to have obligated every dollar by 24 . It's that that was one of the things that precipitated the ask. I know there are also some specific things because councilors have reached out to me about particular council priorities where the urgent need is now. I do just also want to say I like. I, I totally feel the impassioned, like sense for Councilor Baker about the field house. What I reject is the idea that the field house is the only real thing that we are talking about with the three, with the 349.5 and then the 17.7. I mean, we're talking about everything from the extension of the green jobs program that has just launched for us to, as I mentioned before, the creation of $45 million worth of home ownership units. The building of housing on public land actually adds a whole nother level from a time perspective to acquiring. I think you have to go through the whole process, right, of RFP and public process, etc. and then you try to spend the money to build housing. I just think like the child care, I mean, to me, child care is one of those things where there's of course something left at the end because every kid who gets touched by an investment in child care and every family where someone's able to hold a job because they're able to put their kid in affordable child care or off hours. Child care like council over here, champion is package like. That's all real. So I don't buy the idea that the field house is real and everything else is imaginary. And I just want to be really clear that the reason that we had to go to. The. Mayor's office and and ask them to reconsider making the harbor funds that are being held for next year's budget available to the council was because, frankly, there were so many real things in the original proposal that there wasn't sufficient appetite to get rid of them. And so what we've added are more real priorities, which again, I've just spent the last week hearing from all of you colleagues about the importance of and so I just it's I just want to say there are an enormous number of things that when we talk about a Green New Deal and we talk about, you know, transforming the city of Boston for the better after COVID, like the things that people get excited about, they want to see them become real. And what it's going to take is the money to actually be appropriated and start getting spent. And, you know, so I feel very strongly as well about the reality of the things in the appropriation today. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, counsel Buck. Councilman here. Did you have your chair? Because those on. The chair recognize this council. I'm here. And let me just say, before councilman here speaks, I can only have one person speaking at a time. And if you want to speak, raise your hand or hit the button and I will call on you. The chair recognizes. Councilman here. Councilman, here. You have the floor. Thank you. He realized my light was still on. But since you called on me, I'll use the time to just say something really quick. I think there's a lesson for us to learn in this entire process that I have come to see a reoccurring pattern. And for me, oftentimes I move on principle and process. And I think these two things. What I continue to see is we have a lot to grow from and learn from. As it relates to not just this conversation just overall. So I'm just going to consider this as fits and starts. Like we're all figuring things out and assuming the best intentions, right? Because it is what it is. But to what is the most frustrating for me and I'll just speak for myself is the the last minute switch ups and information that comes trickle down. And it seems like. It just makes it really hard for us to make informed decisions when we don't have all of the facts in front of us. And I hope that we can all learn from from this journey. And I still say that while I do appreciate the explanation, it doesn't. I'm still stuck on how we got here to begin with. But I you don't have to go belabor the point. I just want to say for the record that I it still feels to me that this whole entire journey since we've entered this budgeting process , whether it be through the operating or whether it be through this, it just feels like the administration and the council. We've done our due diligence to find common ground. And it feels like sometimes when we get there the. Things switch up at the last minute, and that's frustrating and that's hard to build trust when you never know what you're walking into. So I just think as we continue to move forward in our journey here that, you know, either I ask better questions so I can be better informed, so I'll take ownership for that. But then I think that there's some work that everybody needs to do, including the administration, so that we can be set up for success in the next go round. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Somebody here, the chair recognizes counsel. Clarity. Counsel, clarity. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And obviously, through the through the chair to the original question, there's no time since sensitivity on it with respect to other than the the fees that go out. And we do have up until I think the 24th but through the chair, I just want to state has done tremendous work on it. I've served in that capacity the last two years and just to try to herd and pull things together and deal with the different priorities and personalities and also dealing with the administration. It's it's tough stuff. So she's done tremendous work, I believe, obviously, in in the field house and the generations of of young people and families that that will serve. And I do believe that that that that should be, I guess, serviced and funded and supported by ARPA funds. I think that's exactly what they're for and getting to a position of having things be shovel ready and to get those services, those support and wraparound services around kids and families is, is really what makes this job an exciting thing to do when you can transform lives, children, families, neighborhoods and so this field how speaks to that and I think that that was sort of the spirit the intense behind ARPA that said through the chair to the original question is I guess was the question is it possible to table this I guess is the question. And I think that that is true. And but I would also, as a courtesy through the chair to the to and through the President to the chair, given the time and effort that has gone into her work here. Just want to make sure that we sort of we're not disrespecting her in that process. But it is a fair ask. We meet again back here on July the 13th. There seems to be some concerns about this issue and some tension and uneasiness about whether they're supporting or not supporting and what does it mean and what does it mean? And then the lawyers, I don't want to see Adam stop doing the shifty swerving again. And clearly, I want Christine, our attorney, in the room, frankly, just so that we're getting a sort of a full focus on it. But if this is a situation where we need to maybe get the legal interpretation, that's a good purpose potentially for a table. Or if there's a push and pull of this, where as a legislative branch of city government, we do believe that the field house should be included in ARPA funding and we need some additional time to convince folks that that's appropriate. Or if folks just because we've been here now since noon and folks just want to kind of, you know, vote your conscience for all that. But I think the initial question was, is it time sensitive? The question is no, but there are some RFP dates that through the through the presence of the chair need to be need to be adhered to. But also the other question I thought I heard was, can we table this? Which was not sort of answered, but I don't want to speak for you, Mr. President, or the chair or the maker of the amendment. It's kind of not my space. We've got a measure of an amendment that's been seconded. You as the president, obviously as the chief parliamentarian here. And then we also have the chair of the committee, and then we actually have a legitimate ask from one of our colleagues. And so within that sort of happy to just offer advice on it, but I want to defer it to the folks that have spent the time and have put the effort into this process yet. Thank you, Counsel. Clarity. And it's a it's a fair question. It's a fair question that Counsel Arroyo also brought up as well is what what is the time frame of this? There was a question from you, counsel, clarity as to what would counsel a bake a table this until we get more advice, we get a better opinion , we get more information from our central staff, also from legal counsel, probably at the at the mayor's office. That was the question I believe you asked, counsel, clarity and counsel Arroyo asked. I'm going to call on counsel Counsel Baker But before I do that, I would like to call on counsel BORK if you want to address that , because I think you might have some information that might be helpful to the body. So that is. Thank you, Mr. President. What I would say is, in terms of order of operations, I think that Counselor Baker has an active and seconded amendment on the docket that I've been speaking to. I think we need to take a vote on that docket. I think that is depending on whether the amendment fails or passes. I could address the question of tabling, but I can't I don't feel like I can address the question of tabling a docket where. The. Where where it's not clear yet what docket we're talking about. It's either the one that was originally proposed or the one modified as by Councilor Baker. Okay. Thank you, Counsel. BLOCK I know I'm going to call on counsel. Baker Then I'm going to call on counsel. Arroyo After counsel. Baker You were next. I have no right to withdraw this. To withdraw this. I want to see a vote on this. Thank you. Counsel and Counsel Arroyo. That sort of answers the question. I was going to say if it was withdrawn to the table, but it sounds like that's been answered. So thank you, counsel. No further comments. No further questions. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The chair recognizes counsel to counsel. You have the floor. I withdraw my question. It was answered. Okay. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Counsel Fernandez. Innocent. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Chair, are you able to answer about tabling this at all? I'm sorry. I just. Yeah, I just want to. Give counsel back. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if Councilor Baker's amendment were to fail, then the docket would not face this legal question. So obviously, I would not be looking to table it if Counselor Baker's amendment were to succeed. Then the legal question would be on the table and then, like, you know, like consider tabling it. You might want to have further conversation the body. But but yes, that's why that's why I said it matters, because if the amendment fails, then there wouldn't be a legal reason to table it for two weeks. Thank you, counsel. It's it's my understanding in talking to the clerk that the only way it could be tabled is if Counsel Baker agreed to table it. His amendment. Yes. Yes. I saw that. No. You have the full council back? Yeah, I can see this. This doesn't get any. Better if this goes longer. This is my time right here. I want to see a vote on this. I've asked, you know, we should have had some sort of expression of of support on this. I had the hearing we had the hearing back in April. Four people have known this for four months. So this if this goes two weeks or whatever, it doesn't get any better from me. 5 million doesn't get in there. 2 million doesn't get in there. Nothing gets in there for me. So this is my time right here. Thank you. Counsel Baker. Counsel Carter is next. Counsel Cleta. And then I'm going to cut it off and we're going to we're going to take a vote. Counsel Clarity of the floor. Thank you. Council President Flynn Those that know me know that I love to prep and I love legal analysis. And so I would like to see a written response and interpretation from the mayor on Section 17. It sounds like Councilor Baker does not want that to happen. So with the information that is in front of me and the urgency of. The things that I have fought for. I love you, friends. I'm going to vote no. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Carter. Um, we're going to take. We're going to take a vote. I think we've done enough discussing of the matter. We're going to take a vote. Mr. Clerk. We're taking a vote on council. A baker's amendment, although all those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. Opposed. Well, Mr. Clarke, would you take a roll call vote, please? Roll call vote on amendment offered by Councilor Frank Baker. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker. Councilor Buck. Councilor Buck. Now. Councilor Braden. Councilor Braden. No. Councilor Coletta. No. Council Leader No. Councilor Fernandes. Sanderson. Yes. Councilor Fernandes Hanson. Yes. Council 30. Council for clarity. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor. No Council and no council. Illusion Council. The Regional Council and me here. Yeah. Council on me here. Yes. Councilor Murphy? Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Council world? Yes. Council World. Yes. The amendment of council. Baker has passed eight in the affirmative and five in the negative. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Thank you. So I get. We're honored to be here to. So what I. Did the chair recognize this council by our council? BLOCK you of the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, at this time, given the fact that my committee report has been amended, I am no longer seeking passage today. I will ask you to keep docket 503 in committee, and I just will note that I will also be seeking that the late file matter referred to earlier goes to the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 recovery. Thank you. So Council balked. We're not taking action on 0503 at this time. Is that right, Mr. Carter? Of. No, no, no. Not tried before as well as I have before. I'm still seeking. Passage. 00503. We'll be back in committee. Yes, for the clarification. Next president council take. Does so meaning when this comes back my amendments in there. Yes. The Council. Baker has a question that I'd like to ask the clerk if he would respond to. Well since the committee report was amended, but it will go back to committee and as amended to add the $5 million. So it's in now. Because it was voted 8 to 5. Look. The Chair recognizes counsel by counsel of the four. I would still like to seek passage of Docket 050 for seeing as as was mentioned earlier, that's the that's the 40 million that supports the budget that's already been passed and goes into effect on Friday. Counsel Bork is seeking passage of 0504 in a new draft. All those in favor say I'm. Sorry, Mr. President. Not in a new draft. Original draft? Counsel Bork is seeking passage docket 0504. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Mr. Carr, can you please take a roll call vote on docket 050 for roll call. Vote on docket 050 for Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Baker. I counsel Baker. I counsel. Yes. Yes. Counsel. Brief. Yes. Counsel Braden. Yes. Counselor Coletta. Counsel Coletta. Yes. Counsel Fernandez Sanderson. Yes. Counsel Fernandez Sanderson Yes. Counsel Clarity. Yes, of course. I heard it. Yes. Counsel thing. Yes. Counsel Flynn. Yes. Counsel of Counsel. Ah, yes. Counsel. Louisiana. Counsel who's in? Yes. Counsel me here. Counselor me here? Yes. Counselor Murphy. Counselor Murphy? Yes. And Counsel World? Yes. Counsel. Well, yes. Talking number 0504 has received a unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Carr. We're on to motions, orders and resolutions at this time. Docket 0503 will be sent back to the committee along with the motion that was passed. We're on slow motion orders and resolutions. Docket 0815 was withdrawn.