Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Finance and Revenue DRAFT Committee Report 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Transcription

1 Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Finance and Revenue DRAFT Committee Report 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C To: From: All Councilmembers Jack Evans, Chairman Committee on Finance and Revenue Date:, 2014 Subject: Report on Bill 20-23, the Residential Real Property Equity and Transparency Amendment Act of The Committee on Finance and Revenue reports favorably on Bill 20-23, the Residential Real Property Equity and Transparency Amendment Act of 2013, and recommends its approval by the Council of the District of Columbia. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background, Purpose and Effect II. Legislative History III. Position of the Executive IV. Advisory Neighborhood Commission V. Summary of Testimony VI. Impact on Existing Law VII. Fiscal Impact Statement VIII. Section by Section Analysis IX. Committee Action X. Attachments I. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND EFFECT Bill 20-23, the Residential Real Property Equity and Transparency Act of 2013, was introduced by Councilmembers Jack Evans and David Grosso. The bill, as introduced, would have amended Title 47 of the District of Columbia Official Code to modify property tax delinquency and sale procedures to provide a more equitable and transparent process; expand pre-sale notice requirements; reduce the number of tax sales resulting from homeowner receipt of incomplete data regarding delinquencies or from disputes regarding property classification; permit homeowners to enter into installment agreements with the Office of Tax and Revenue to avoid tax sales; and provide equitable limitations on tax sale purchaser expenses that homeowners must pay in order to redeem their homes. A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1

2 On October 17, 2013, the Committee held a hearing on three bills. In addition to Bill 20-23, the Committee also heard testimony on Bill , the Senior Citizen Real Property Tax Relief Act of 2013 and Bill , the District Real Property Tax Sale Act of If not for hearing noticing deadlines, the Committee would also have listed the Mayor s bill, which is Bill , the Real Property Tax Sale Homeowner Protection Act of 2013, on the same hearing notice. The Committee has considered Bill along with the others on the hearing notice, however, and included this bill in the Committee s circulation of hearing materials. Attorney General Irv Nathan gave testimony on behalf of the executive on this and the other bills under consideration. Since the time of the hearing, the Committee convened a working group consisting of representatives of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Attorney General, Legal Counsel for the Elderly, and Crowell & Moring, who served as pro bono counsel to an alliance of stakeholders seeking reform in the tax sale process. The working group also solicited additional feedback from other interested stakeholders, such as the title insurance industry, tax sale purchasers, and members of the bar representing tax sale purchasers. B. BACKGROUND The tax sale process has had a long history, beginning well over a hundred years ago and operating without a major revision until I. Tax Sale Process Prior to the Tax Clarity Act of 2000 The tax sale process was enacted in the 19th century before many developments in the area of due process with respect to tax sales. The tax sale, when enacted over 100 years ago, was consistent with the majority of tax sale processes employed in other states. Under such processes as they were originally conceived, the government administrator (i.e. Mayor) would issue a tax deed to a purchaser without the former owner or any other party in interest ever having been afforded the opportunity to their day in court. As a result of notification concerns, the tax sale over time was made to comply with numerous notice requirements for property owners: notice before sale, notice before the redemption period expires, a second notice in the event the first notice is returned to OTR (Malone letter), and notices to all lien holders. Such notices were sent in the mail and often never reached the intended addressee. By the late 1990s, the combination of the antiquity of the tax sale process and the administrative burdens created by the new notice requirements created a nearly unworkable system for the District. The statutory due process requirements of the law at that time meant that in order for a tax deed to be valid, the government would have to demonstrate that it strictly complied with each of these notice requirements to the absolute letter of the law, including verification that the notice was mailed and providing a copy thereof. This, in effect, required the government to keep a file for every single property offered for sale or actually sold through the tax sale process, which meant at that time approximately 13,000 files, one for each property each year that received the first 2

3 notice that their property would be offered at tax sale. Requiring OTR to maintain files and copies of all notices had created an undue and significant administrative burden for the tax administration at that time. This burden apparently resulted in the majority of tax deeds issued to purchasers being later deemed uninsurable and, subsequently, voided by the Superior Court. Moreover, this process frustrated tax sale purchasers who might have wished to renovate and rehabilitate purchased properties, as the purchasers could not improve the properties until approximately three years after the tax sale because if the deed is voided by the court, the benefit of the improvements is forfeited to the former owner (the purchaser must wait for the District to research the public record for parties in interest and, thereafter, institute a suit in court to validate the tax deed). The system also created a tremendous burden on the former owner, who would often not receive notice and had to subsequently file a complaint in the Superior Court to void the tax deed. This process required the former owner to incur significant legal expense which could have been avoided or minimized with assured notification in a court of law before a tax deed was ever issued because an owner, unaware of the tax indebtedness of the property, could have redeemed the property with the prompt and assured notification of the indebtedness in a court of law. This type of tax sale process had been abandoned in most jurisdictions by 2000 which had, instead, opted for a process requiring the foreclosure of the right of redemption in a court of law. The majority of states at the time determined that the court should order the issuance of tax deeds after assuring compliance with due process, as opposed to a government administrator, who may or may not be fully apprised of the requirements of due process, making the decision about whether or not to issue a deed challenging. II. The Tax Sale Process from 2000 to the Present In September 2000, Councilmember Jack Evans moved a comprehensive tax reform bill entitled the Tax Clarity Act of In addition to numerous changes in the law relating to sales tax, exempt organization, businesses and deregulated utilities, the bill made a number of changes relating to real property tax law. In this section of the bill, a process was created that differed significantly from the law of the 1990s in an attempt to assure notification to the owner and parties in interest (i.e., lien holders) before a tax deed is ever issued. The new law required that, before the tax sale, the owner would be sent a notice stating an amount due. If the owner timely paid the amount due, the property would not be offered for sale. As in Maryland, however, the law attempted to provide that this preliminary notice would not constitute a statutory due process step in the sale of the property. The provisions requiring notification and the opportunity to redeem the property before a tax deed would be issued were consistent with due process requirements of the time. The provisions were largely borrowed from the Maryland code with respect to 1 Bill , effective June 9,

4 notice requirements and the foreclosure process. As a safeguard for property owners under the new section, the Mayor was still authorized to cancel a sale in order to prevent an injustice to a property owner. In the new section, a property owner would be assured of due process by being afforded his or her day in court before any tax deed would be issued to the purchaser for the respective property. Under this section, the Superior Court would assure that the owner and the parties in interest were afforded an opportunity to redeem the property before a tax deed would ever be issued; in short, the Superior Court was designated as the arbiter of compliance with due process. The intent that that when the Superior Court ordered that a tax deed be issued if the owner or parties in interest chose not to redeem, the tax deed would be insurable and the new owner would be able to start rehabilitating and renovating the property. The provisions of this section expedited the entire tax sale process but maintained a 6-month waiting period before a suit to foreclose the right of redemption could be instituted, and notwithstanding the expiration of such waiting period the owner or party in interest could nevertheless redeem the property until the right of redemption had actually been foreclosed by the Superior Court. The section privatized many functions then performed by OTR (e.g. lien holder research for notification purposes). Such privatized functions were to be performed under the scrutiny of the Superior Court; and the delinquent owner would be liable for such costs as opposed to the taxpayers of the District. The section required that the foreclosure process begin within one year from the date of the tax sale, so that properties of owners who do not intend to redeem would be placed in the hands of new owners who would renovate and rehabilitate the properties. The section for the first time permitted the Mayor to sell properties for less than what was owing in a junk sale, so long as public notice was given and the property was sold to the highest bidder who did not own properties delinquent in tax. This provision was borrowed from a similar procedure in New Jersey used to combat nuisance properties and urban blight. The section provided that the tax sale purchaser would perform the search of the public record to determine the parties in interest, and the Superior Court would assure that such parties were properly notified of the suit to foreclose the right of redemption. If there was a dispute concerning the proper imposition of taxes on the property, the Superior Court was authorized to make adjustments so that the redeeming party only paid the correct amount due. The section anticipated for the first time that District agencies which assess special assessments and charges would have the ability to pursue delinquent owners through the means of an in personam lien. If the in personam avenue was abandoned, the agency could certify the taxes owing to OTR for collection in the tax sale as an alternative collection method. The new section assured the continuity of revolving funds for properties referred to tax sale by agencies such as DCRA by providing that after a property was redeemed or a tax deed issued, the agency may submit an accounting to OTR for disbursement from the General Fund to the revolving fund the amount collected through the tax sale that is attributable to the agency s special assessment or charge. 4

5 The provisions of the section were designed to assure a constant and consistent revenue stream of real property tax collection by making the District competitive with surrounding jurisdictions such as Maryland, while also enhancing the opportunities for property owners to receive notice and redeem their real property even if it became the subject of a tax sale. The goal was that such competitiveness would attract increasing numbers of investors to the District who would pay the delinquent taxes on behalf of the properties sold in anticipation of the owner redeeming with the payment of an 18% interest rate. III. EXISTING REAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS In seeking to amend the tax sale process, and in addition to a review of the history of the tax sale laws, the Committee also took a comprehensive look at the legal landscape relating to real property tax law. Protections for senior citizens and all District residents are important policy objectives of the Committee. Some of those programs are as follows: o Year-over-year residential real property tax increases are generally capped at 10 percent but can be as low as 5 percent subject to income limitations, and Councilmember Evans has introduced legislation to lower the general cap to 5 percent increases per year; o A 50 percent tax reduction is available to senior citizens (65 years old and older) and disabled citizens, with household incomes below $125,000, who own at least 50 percent of the property. Additional legislation has been introduced that would fully waive real property taxes for residents over 75 years old who have owned a residence in the District for the 15 prior consecutive years; o Low-income seniors with a household income of less than $50,000 may also elect to defer all of their real property taxes, up to 25 percent of the property s value; o All homeowners received a homestead deduction of $69,100 from the assessed amount in 2013, indexed to inflation for subsequent years; o The Individual Income Tax Credit reduces the DC individual income tax liability of eligible homeowners and renters by up to $750, if the household total income is $20,000 or less; and o Lower income, Long-Term Homeowners Tax Credit is available to homeowners who have owned and occupied the property as their principal residence for at least the last seven consecutive years. The property must be receiving the Homestead Deduction and the total household income must not exceed the Household Income Limit Table listed in Section D on the Schedule L. This program effectively limits annual real property tax increases to 5 percent. IV. PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE COMMITTEE PRINT After reviewing the history of the current law, as well as the other protections for homeowners contained in other provisions of law, the Committee has recommended a number of additional protections for homeowners. First, the print would improve notice to property owners potentially impacted by 5

6 the tax sale. The committee print would require two pre-sale notices that will explain the implications of the tax sale in plain terms, as well as provide information about resources that may help the owner avoid sale. A post-sale notice will also be required to be mailed within 30 days of the sale. As an additional safeguard, purchasers are required to post a copy of the post-sale notice on the property at least 45 days before filing a foreclosure suit. The government will also be required to cancel sales involving owner-occupied property if notice is not provided. The government will further maintain broad discretion to cancel sales of other properties if the District fails to mail the required notices to the appropriate address. Secondly, the bill will create an ombudsman to assist affected homeowners. The bill creates a new Office of the Real Property Tax Ombudsman within the Office of the Mayor. The ombudsman is broadly empowered to directly assist owner-occupants facing foreclosure. The ombudsman will also work closely with legal aid providers, housing counseling services, and other DC agencies to ensure that property owners may access all available resources to help them avoid tax sale and foreclosure. A related Office of Tax Sale Review will consider applications from property owners to cancel tax sales where there are extenuating circumstances. Third, the print will increase the sale threshold. To ensure that no homes are lost due to very small tax debts, residential homes will not be sold unless the tax liability exceeds $2500. In addition, property owners may apply for a one-year forbearance from sale, which essentially works like an installment payment plan. The forbearance will be granted automatically to homestead properties owing less than $7,500, so long as they apply at least 30 days before the sale. The government will further have discretion to grant a forbearance in any other case. Fourth, the print will expand access to the existing tax deferral program for senior citizens by allowing seniors to defer past years taxes into the program, so long as those taxes would have been eligible for the program. This change will allow seniors who may have been unaware of the program to benefit from it even after they have already fallen behind thereby saving some of our most vulnerable residents from tax sale. In addition, the committee print will cap interest and attorneys fees. The committee print lowers the interest rate on past-due taxes from 18% to 12% and caps attorneys fees at $1500 plus expenses. Purchasers are protected by a safety valve provision allowing the Superior Court to grant additional expenses in complex or prolonged cases. The committee print will also require clean hands for purchasers. This provision will protect both property owners and the District by ensuring that tax sale purchasers are not delinquent in their property taxes in the District or elsewhere and have not been convicted of criminal behavior involving fraud, deceit, moral turpitude, or anticompetitive behavior. In addition, the committee print will eliminate the equity windfall to purchasers 6

7 by preserving much of the equity in the home for the original owner. The reforms included in Bill B20-23 are designed to ensure that no District resident loses his or her home to property tax foreclosure. In a worst case scenario where foreclosure still cannot be averted, the bill also ensures that the homeowner will not lose the accumulated equity that remains after the taxes and expenses of the suit are satisfied. Instead of giving the property to the purchaser outright, the Superior Court will order a trustee sale of the property so that the excess proceeds may be returned to the homeowner. Since many of the provisions of this bill implicate a very specialized area of the law, the Committee wishes to bring clarity to a few areas in case any questions arise as to the Committee s intent First, with regard to Sec. 2(a)(3), which creates a new section , it is the intent of the Committee that the Ombudsman have broad discretion to assist any and all such persons that he or she considers to be appropriate recipients of the Office s assistance. At a minimum, the Ombudsman will be expected to assist owner-occupants as well as any persons who may have an interest in the home they are occupying, even if such persons are not record owners. For example, the Committee is aware that a substantial number of property tax sales involve unprobated estate properties occupied by heirs but still in the name of the record owner. Secondly, with regard to Sec. 2(a)(22), which provides revisions to , the Committee wants to clarify that by codifying certain circumstances in which the Mayor is required to cancel a sale, the Committee does not intend to limit the existing broad discretion of the Mayor to cancel any other sale to prevent injustice. In particular, the provision requiring the cancellation of sales in which the Mayor fails to send the statutorily-required notices to owner-occupant properties is not intended to limit the Mayor s authority to cancel a sale of property that is not owner-occupied, if the Mayor finds that such cancellation is warranted because of a failure to send any of the notices required by or With regard to Sec. 2(a)(28), which provides revisions to , the Committee is aware of the D.C. Court of Appeals interpretation of in Rupsha 2007, LLC v. Kellum, 32 A.3d 402 (D.C. 2011). It is the Committee s intent that this provision continue to be interpreted in accordance with that decision. II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY January 8, 2013 January 8, 2013 January 18, 2013 Bill 20-23, the Residential Real Property Equity and Transparency Act of 2013 is introduced by Councilmembers Evans and Grosso. Bill 20-23, the Residential Real Property Equity and Transparency Act of 2013, is referred to the Committee on Finance and Revenue. Notice of Intent to Act on New Legislation for Bill is published in 7

8 the D.C. Register. 2 September 17, 2013 Bill , the District Real Property Tax Sale Act of 2013 is introduced by Councilmembers Evans, Grosso, Bowser, Alexander, Cheh, Bonds, Graham, McDuffie, Barry and Chairman Mendelson. September 17, 2013 Bill , the District Real Property Tax Sale Act of 2013 is referred to the Committee on Finance and Revenue. September 17, 2013 Bill , the Real Property Tax Sale homeowner Protection Act of 2013 is introduced by Chairman Mendelson at the Request of the Mayor. September 20, 2013 Notice of Intent to Act on New Legislation for Bill is published in 3. the D.C. Register September 20, 2013 Notice of public hearing on Bill and others, and other matters, 4 published in D.C. Register. September 27, 2013 Notice of Intent to Act on New Legislation for Bill is published in the D.C. Register 5. October 1, 2013 October 17, 2013, 2014 Bill , the Real Property Tax Sale homeowner Protection Act of 2013 is referred to the Committee on Finance and Revenue. Public hearing held on Bill 20-23, and other matters. Consideration and vote on Bill 20-23, and other matters, by the Committee on Finance and Revenue. III. POSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE See Summary of Testimony, below. IV. ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION The Committee did not receive comments from any Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. V. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY The Committee on Finance and Revenue held a public hearing on Bill and other 2 Page of the January 18, 2013 D.C. Register. 3 Page of the September 20, 2013 D.C. Register. 4 Page of the September 20, 2013 D.C. Register. 5 Page of the September 27, 2013 D.C. Register. 8

9 matters, on October 17, 2013, starting at 10:00 a.m. Chairman Evans presented an opening statement on the legislation: This hearing is noticed on three bills, which are Bill 20-23, the Residential Real Property Equity and Transparency Act of 2013 ; Bill , the Senior Citizen Real Property Tax Relief Act of 2013 ; and Bill , the District Real Property Tax Sale Act of If not for hearing noticing deadlines, I would also have listed the Mayor s bill, which is Bill , the Real Property Tax Sale Homeowner Protection Act of I will consider this proposal along with the others on the hearing notice, however, and I included this bill in my circulation of hearing materials. I am pleased that Attorney General Irv Nathan will be giving testimony on behalf of the executive on this and the other bills under consideration. This hearing is the culmination of many efforts I have undertaken to reform our real property taxation process in the District. Along with all of you, I was disturbed to read the series of stories in the Washington Post about seniors having their homes taken for small tax debts. I first learned of this type of problem about a year ago during an oversight hearing on another topic, and I worked with the AARP and others to introduce a comprehensive bill on the subject last October, which I will refer to as the omnibus bill. Due to the ending of Council Period 19, I re-introduced the bill in January. I also requested that the CFO constitute a residential real property task force, which has met several times already and will continue to meet periodically. Many of the recommendations of the task force have already been implemented, such as a recommendation for the District's tax office to affirmatively notify senior citizens if they may be eligible for additional real property tax credits they are not currently receiving. Further, the CFO and the Mayor have cancelled the recent tax sale of any property receiving the homestead tax credit. Specifically, the omnibus bill would place new requirements on our Chief Financial Officer to help prevent tax sales of our residents homes. As I said when I originally introduced this bill last year, our tax sale system has a disproportionate impact on elderly and economically disadvantaged residents, and this bill would help level the playing field in a number of important ways. Since my hearing last year, I have been working with the AARP and AT HOME the Alliance to Help Owners Maintain Equity to put forward a bill that will address a number of critical items and am re-introducing the bill this year. We are continuing to have dialogue on a number of the concepts in this bill, and I understand the AARP this morning will be making further suggestions on the preservation of equity piece that I raised in my emergency legislation in September. The omnibus bill would expand the types of notices and information requirements the CFO must provide to homeowners before a home is taken to a tax sale, and permit homeowners to enter into installment agreements with the government to avoid tax sales. The bill would also require additional notice after a tax sale so that a homeowner will know how to redeem his or her property, and provide equitable limits on the amounts of fees homeowners must pay to redeem their homes. In September, I introduced emergency legislation to supplement the omnibus bill in the 9

10 following ways: It froze any tax sale that has occurred of the home of a senior citizen, veteran, or disabled individual, retroactively to July It established a $2,000 threshold of taxes owed for any real property to go to a tax sale going forward. Further, the bill requires the District to pay the owner of record prior to the tax sale any amount received by the District at the tax sale in excess of the amount of taxes due to the District. Finally, the bill caps attorneys fees at $1,500. This bill, along with the more comprehensive bill I introduced earlier in the year, has begun to make the changes we need to ensure that our government is able to perform its responsibility to collect taxes while putting additional safeguards in place for our most vulnerable residents. The tax sale issue is only one piece of the puzzle, however. For many years, I have been advocating for changes in the real property tax system that will prevent home owners from reaching the tax sale process to begin with. For example, I was the lead advocate for capping the percentage increase for real property taxes at 10% per year, so that owners will have a more manageable tax bill even if the value of their home increases rapidly in a way that outpaces their ability to pay the taxes. Earlier this year, I introduced the Residential Real Property Tax Relief Act of 2013, which would cap the annual increase at 5% rather than 10%. It would also do away with the current minimum floor right now, all homeowners have to pay tax on at least of 40% of the assessed value of a home even if that results in an increase of more than 10% per year. I also moved legislation to expand the senior real property tax credit so that more seniors would be eligible for a lower property tax rate. Further, I worked with Councilmember Bonds to include language in my budget report advocating for further exemptions in real property taxes for seniors within certain income brackets, but this measure was unfortunately not adopted by the full Council. Thank you to everyone for being here this morning on such an important topic, and I will now recognize my colleagues for any opening statements they have. A video recording of the hearing can be viewed at oct.dc.gov. The following witnesses signed up to testify before the Committee, and copies of their testimony (if provided) can be found in Attachment C: Public Witnesses 1. Marie Drissel 2. Bill Lightfoot 3. Eric Payne 4. Theresa Bollech 5. Harold Johnson, Sr. 6. Amy Mix, AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly Managing Attorney 7. Fiona Druy, Iona Senior Services 8. Joanne Savage, AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly Senior Attorney 9. Chris Lamond, Thorn Run Partners 10

11 10. Andrew Rosenberg, Thorn Run Partners 11. Lisa Hough, VP of State Government Relations for Encore Capital 12. Caitlin Cocilova, Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless 13. Frank Demarais, Vice President, Manna Inc. 14. Jenny Reed, Policy Director, DC Fiscal Policy Institute 15. GiGi Ransom 16. Dana M. Jones, President and CEO, United Planning Organization 17. Karen Hermann, Counsel, Crowell and Morring 18. James Williams 19. Marielle Macher, Skadden Fellow, Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs 20. Michael N. Russo, Jr., President, DC Land Title Association 21. Barbara Morgan 22. Sara E. Kropf, Law Office of Sara E. Kropf, PLLC 23. Gerry Dunphy, Dunphy Properties Inc. 24. Marian Siegel, Executive Director, Housing Counseling Services 25. Bill Black 26. James Loots, Law Offices of James Loots 27. Natalie Green 28. Campbell Johnson 29. Heidi Kenny, Kenny Law Group 30. Benjamin Thomas Government Witnesses 31. Steve Cordi, Director, Office of Tax and Revenue 32. Rob Farr, Director, Real Property Tax Administration, Office of Tax and Revenue 33. Irv Nathan, Attorney General VI. IMPACT ON EXISTING LAW The legislation amends Title 47 of the District of Columbia Official Code to establish the Office of the Real Property Tax Ombudsman, exclude from real property tax sales improved Class 1 properties on which the tax owed is less than $2,500, modify property tax delinquency and sale procedures, expand pre-sale notice requirements, require that copies of delinquency notices be provided to the Real Property Tax Ombudsman, permit homeowners to apply for a forbearance authorization from the Mayor to avoid tax sales, expand post-sale notice to homeowners to minimize costs associated with redemption, provide equitable limitations on tax sale purchaser expenses that a homeowner must pay to redeem a home, and to provide that homeowners be allowed to retain the equity in the property in the event of a failure to redeem. The legislation amends the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996 ( BID Act ) to change the rate of interest assessed on any outstanding business improvement district tax from 1½% to 1%; amends An Act To provide for the abatement of nuisances in the District of Columbia by the Commissioners of said District, and for other purposes to broaden the definition of owner; and amends the District of Columbia Deed Recordation Tax Act to exempt from 11

12 recordation tax a deed on property transferred to a named beneficiary of a revocable transfer on death deed under the Uniform Real Property Transfer of Death Act of 2012 upon the death of the grantor. VII. FISCAL IMPACT The Chief Financial Officer s fiscal impact statement of [], 2014 provides that [funds are not sufficient to implement the proposed legislation]. VIII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS Section 1 states the short title of the legislation. report. Section 2 makes a number of changes to the tax sale process as detailed elsewhere in the Section 3 amends the BID Act to change the statutory rate of interest to 1%. Section 4 clarifies the law relating to revocable trusts. Section 5 clarifies An Act To provide for the abatement of nuisances in the District of Columbia by the Commissioners of said District, and for other purposes, effective April 27, 2001 (D.C. Law ; D.C. Official Code (4 Section 6 clarifies name and address change procedures with regard to the Office of Tax and Revenue. Section 7 contains language adopting the fiscal impact statement. Section 8 contains the effective date clause. IX. COMMITTEE ACTION The Committee on Finance and Revenue convened at on, 2014, to consider and vote on Bill 20-23, and other matters. Chairman Evans recognized the presence of a quorum, consisting of himself and Councilmembers. Chairman Evans made brief opening remarks, and opened the floor for discussion. Chairman Evans then moved Bill 20-23, with leave for the Committee staff to make technical and conforming amendments. The members voted as follows: Report on Bill Committee Print on Bill

13 Chairman Evans Councilmember Barry Councilmember Bowser Councilmember Catania Councilmember Grosso Thus, the bill and accompanying report were {passed}, with a majority of Members present voting in the affirmative, with _ votes in support, _ votes against, and _ Members absent. The committee meeting adjourned at. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Bill as introduced. B. Public hearing notice for Bill C. Witness list and copies of testimony from the October 17, 2013 public hearing on Bill D. Fiscal impact statement. E. Legal sufficiency determination. F. Comparative print. G. Committee Print of Bill