Why do I have another neck tie here? Oh, interesting. >> Are you ready? Are you ready? >> I'm calling to order this meeting. This is an additional 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 the whole. Today is Tuesday, October 7th, 2025. The time is 12:08 in the afternoon and we're having this meeting in the council chambers. That's room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building. We have this uh additional that is not our regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the committee the whole when we are done we will have our regular monthly legislative meeting that will immediately follow. We have I think it's seven measures for markup in the committee the whole and then three measures that were reported out of other committees. We begin our committee the whole meetings determining whether we have a quorum. Mr. Stone, would you please call the role? >> Chair Wilson, >> present. >> Chair uh Council Member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Felder. Council member Felder. Council member Freeman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. >> Council member McDuffy >> here. Council member Nado >> here. >> Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White present. >> Council member Trayon White >> present. >> Chairman you have a quorum. >> Uh thank you Mr. Stem. Um we have a number of measures for markup in the committee. The whole the first is PR26-200 citizen review panel Andrew Miller reappointment resolution of 2025. The purpose of this resolution is to reappoint Mr. Miller as a member of the Citizen Review panel for a term to end on April 11th, 2028. In 2004, the council approved the Child in Need of Protection Amendment Act. The purpose of this act was to reform the district's child protection law. One outcome of the act was to codify the establishment of the citizen review panel. The panel serves as an independent oversight body for the district's child welfare system to evaluate the district government agencies involved in child protection as well as services provided by vendors. The panel consists of 15 members, all of whom must be district residents. The mayor is required to appoint eight members of the panel and must designate the chairperson. The council appoints seven members to the panel and is required to designate the vice chair. The committee believes that Mr. Well, oh, hold on. The um Mr. Miller, Mr. Andrew Miller is a W seven resident. He currently serves as out of as a out of schooltime program coordinator with the District of Columbia Public Schools or DCPS where he provides oversight and monitoring to all out of school time programs in five DCPS elementary schools. Prior to that, Mr. Miller was the program director for Best Kids, Inc., where he handled a case load of 45 mentors mentors engaging in the district's foster care system. The resolution was introduced on May 12th of this year and the committee the whole held a round table on September 19th of this year. Received no testimony or comments in opposition. The committee assuming that this is approved today. The committee believes Mr. Miller's academic expertise in youth development and his experience working in and around the district's child welfare system continue to make him a valuable asset to the panel. The committee also appreciates Mr. Miller's interest in increasing mental health supports for children, emphasizing the point that the panel is designed to look for areas that need bolstering in terms of manpower and financial resources. For these reasons, the committee recommends council adoption of PR26-200. Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Uh Mr. Madame General Counel, >> I read what's on the card. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Once the report and hearing record are filed >> and Madame budget director, there would be no fiscal impact because this is an appointment. >> Correct. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The second measure for markup is PR26-224, the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council Governing Board, Katherine Aken Huffman Reappoint Resolution of 2025. The I did skip. I'll come back to it. The um District of Columbia Corrections Information Council was created by Congress in the 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act for the purpose of investigating generally the conditions of the District of Columbia sentenced felon population scattered throughout the Bureau of Prisons throughout the Bureau of Prison Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities following the closing of the Lorton Correctional Complex. the CIC or Correctional Information Council. The CIC's role was expanded by the Jail Improvement Act of 2003, which requires the CIC to conduct inspections of local correctional facilities as well and mandates that the Department of Corrections provide access to members of the CIC at staff, designates, and agents for this purpose, including unmonitored interview of inmates. The role of the board is to provide advice and information to the director of the Bureau of Prisons and the director of the Department of Corrections regarding matters affecting District of Columbombia inmates. The board consists of five members, three appointed by the mayor and two by the council of the District of Columbia. The mayor designates the chairperson of the board who is currently Charles Thornton. The purpose of PR26-224 is to reappoint Miss Huffman as a member of the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council Governing Board for a 2-year term ending December 7th, 2026. Miss Huffman is a W3 resident. Uh she clerked for the Federal Sixth Circuit Judge Martha Craig Dorree and then served as Soros Justice Fellow at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, Georgia. She also has worked at the Drug Policy Alliance and has served as a consultant to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. She is currently a principal at the Rabbin Group and she serves on the board of directors of the Justice Policy Institute and the Southern Center for Human Rights. Miss Huffman was first appointed to the board in May in May of 2012. Based on her contributions to the Corrections Information Council, her credentials and her experience, the committee, assuming this is approved, it recommends the reappoint of Miss Huffman to the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council Governing Board for a term to expire December 7, 2026. This resolution was introduced on June 11th of this year and a public roundt was held by the committee the whole on September 19th of this year and the committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to Miss Huffman's appointment. Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Again, the vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> The eyes have it unanimously. Madame general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report and hearing record are filed? And madam budget director, there's no fiscal impact uh because it's an appointment. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next measure, which should have been the prior measure, is PR26-223, the board of directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Tracy Haden Low Reappointment Resolution of 2025. The purpose of this resolution is to reappoint Dr. Tracy Heden Low as a principal member of the board of directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for a term to end June 30th, 2029. The Washington Metropolitanary Transit Authority or ROMA is a regional instrumentality that was created in 1967 through an interstate compact between the District of Columbia, the state of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia to plan, develop, finance, and operate a regional transportation system in the Washington metropolitan area. Pursuant to the compact, Wamata is governed by the Wamada Board. The purpose of the WOMA board is not only to govern WA but to develop policies and provide oversight for the management, maintenance, funding, and operation of the transportation system. The WMA board is comprised of eight principal directors who are voting members and eight alternate directors. The signitories to the compact, that is the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, plus the federal government, appoint two voting members and two non- voting members to the WUMA board. Dr. Low is a W3 resident. Currently, Dr. Low is a fellow at Brookings Metro at the Brookings Institution. Prior to that, she was a senior data scientist at the Center for Real Estate and Urban Analysis at the George Washington University and before that, director of research at the Rails to Trails Conservancy and program manager at the Transportation Alternatives Data Exchange. During the committee's public hearing on uh this reappoint nomination, Dr. Lo offered testimony on a variety of issues facing the Omada board, including implementation of the better bus network, engagement with the Washington Commander football team related to the construction of the new stadium and commercial development at the RFK campus and WA's capital construction budget. She also continued to express a commitment to ensuring that Metro provides the same level of service to writers of different racial and ethnic groups using a datadriven approach based on her interest, credentials, transit advocacy, and efforts during her first term. The committee, assuming this is approved, recommends the reappoint of Dr. Low to serve on the WA board. Moreover, Dr. Lo meets the requirements to serve on the WA board as she has demonstrated interest in public transportation and experience sufficient to represent the district well on the board. Beyond that, she continues to be a regular user of the services provided by Wamada. For these reasons, the committee recommends council adoption. This resolution was introduced on June 10th of this year and the committee of the whole held a public round table on September 19th of this year and received no testimony or comments in opposition. Without objection, I move both the print and report would leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chairman, >> uh, Council Member McDuffy, >> I could just uh wanted to to say that I've had the opportunity to know and and work with uh Dr. low for several years now and and could say without hesitation that she's been really an inviable resource um both for my office and and my committee on business and economic development which I chair u but more broadly the District of Columbia as a whole uh she's testified uh many times before uh the committee on business and economic development and always has offered what I think is very thoughtful and and datadriven insights on issues ranging from transit accessibility to regional economic development. I think she's done an incredible job representing our city on the WMA board and I think she brings a a deep understanding both the policy and operational challenges that come with governing a complex regional transit system uh and she approaches that work uh in my experience with integrity collaboration uh and a clear focus on effectiveness. So, I am very pleased to support her reappointment to Wamada and want to thank her for her commitment, her continued commitment to our city uh and to public transit and to Washington DC as a whole. >> Uh thank you, council member. There's no further discussion. The vote will be on both the print and report with Leaf for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report and hearing records are filed? >> And madam budget director, there's no fiscal impact or fiscal impact statement because this is an appointment. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh the next measure for markup is bill 26-127 entitled closing of a public alley in square 5624 so 17-21054 act of 2025. This bill would close a portion of a public alley that is unimproved in square 5624 uh between our street, nailer road, 24th place and ridge place all in southeast and in ward 8. The alley closure will enable Lee Montasauri Public Charter School to utilize the unimproved alley segment for outdoor programming that supports student >> development. Uh at the uh committee's public hearing on on the bill, a representative of the district's department of transportation testified that the department objects to the proposed alley closure until public access easement covering the driveway connection between Ridge Place and the remaining public alley is recorded. According to testimony from the land use uh council for the public charter school, Lee Monasuri was unaware of this request until June 24th. which I think was days before the hearing. And additionally, the condition would quote present a significant unanticipated financial burden for the school which has already completed construction and did not incorporate the costs or design implications of such an easement into its financing or planning." Given these realities, the committee requested a follow-up response from DOT. In a letter dated July 11th, the department withdrew this condition, noting, quote, "It is no longer DOT's position that this access is necessary to grant the proposed alley closure." Unquote. No other objections have been filed by district agencies or utilities given this to print does not contain any language that would condition the closure that would condition the closure on the satisfaction of any conditions in the SOAR orders file. The committee finds, assuming that this is adopted, the committee finds that the portion of the public alley in square 5624 abuing lots 166 and 145 is unnecessary for alley purposes. And I will note again, this is unimproved alley. The alley closure will enable Lee Monatory Public Charter School to utilize the unimproved alley segment for outdoor programming that supports student development. This legislation was introduced on February 14th of this year by council member Henderson and the committee the whole held a public hearing on July 3rd and other than the objection I noted it was withdrawn. Uh I'm unaware of any opposition to this legislation. Uh I move the print would leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to thank you for um moving this measure. Um I introduced this uh to address Lee Monasur's uh desire to turn this paper alley um that is in the middle of their campus into a play space for their growing student population. Um I understand that there was uh a witness who did testify in opposition expressing concerns about the safety of the paper alley now and in the future. And I certainly encourage school leaders to continue to maintain their relationships with neighbors um and ensure a safe development uh of the site throughout the next phase of um its project. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henderson. Uh, I was I had said there was no testimony or comments in opposition, but there was a little. You're right. Thank you. Any other discussion, >> Mr. Chairman? Council member Parker. >> I think this is a great example of how the council can collaborate to benefit residents. Um, it's not only that this parcel is unnecessary, it's unsafe for the young people there at Lee Monasuri. This originally was flagged by their W 5 campus. I recall tapping council member Henderson that kind of took the football down the field and then your committee had a hearing and is and we're voting on this. And so again, I think this is a great demonstration of how we're collaborating to make our school environment safe for all of our young people. And it's a win. Thank you. Uh anything anything further? The vote will be on the print with leaf for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it. I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the report? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> 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. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report is filed? >> And uh madame budget director, uh does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh the next measure for markup is uh bill 26-160 the closing of a culde-sac in square 4350 so 22-05506 act of 2025. This bill would close the Douglas Street Northeast Culdeac in square 4350 a budding lot six. The closure of the culde-sac will support the Washington Metropolitanary Transit Authorities's Bladingsburg bus garage reconstruction project, which will expand the number of parking spots for Metro buses from 260 to 290. Will create infrastructure to support Woman's zero emission bus transition plan and increase on-site employee parking from 100 to 400 spaces. Uh, a concern has been that has been raised about the closing of the culdesac is its impact on the operations of the Northeast Iron Works which is located at 2632 Douglas Street. Testimony submitted by Northeast Iron Works notes that the culde-sac is necessary for quote quote large commercial interstate truck deliveries being received by our business unquote. Specifically, Northeast Iron Works has been utilizing the culde-sac to receive deliveries by 62 foot plus wheelbased vehicles. Initially, WA planned to dedicate a portion of its property to create a public alley to address this issue. Hence, the introduced version of this legislation contemplated dedicating a portion of lot six for public alley purposes. However, after further conversation, the parties have agreed to create a private alley subject to a public access easement agreement between Roma and DOT. Uh, and so that is uh the status. I'm probably at second reading going to want to just maybe have that condition added to the print, but it is understood. I think I noted to members this morning briefly at the breakfast that um I've asked a DOT director to reach out directly to the uh president of the Northeast Iron Works um because he's still uneasy about this and uh so I probably will not move the emergency today. We'll move that at second reading when uh we know that everything is as they say copacetic. The committee, assuming that this is approved, the committee finds that the culde-sac is unnecessary for street purposes. The closuring closure of the culde-sac will support Wumato's Bladensburg bus garage reconstruction project, which has been under development for years and will provide critical updates to infrastructure for WA's bus fleet. And with this legislation, the easement will an easement will be provided that will ensure continuing operations of existing commercial businesses. This legislation was introduced on February 28th of this year by council member Parker. The committee as a whole held a public hearing on July 3rd, 2025. I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and uh conforming changes. Is there discussion? >> Chairman. >> Yes, council member M. >> Just briefly, I mentioned this in the breakfast, so I won't um belabor the issue. I do appreciate uh the thoughtfulness being uh given to this this matter around Northeast Iron Works and that you're going to make sure that uh DOT has weighed in about whether or not this this needs to happen or should happen. Um u I want to just recall uh some years ago that WA exercised imminent domain to shut down three businesses along that corridor uh against um those businesses wishes and obviously for a noble reason in terms of his expansion um for the facility along Bladesburg Road. But I I always think that when it comes to these types of decisions that infect residents and businesses and community uh they need to be done with the utmost consideration um for the impact that it's going to have on residents and those small businesses. So it sounds like that's what you all are doing uh in this instance. But I did want to note uh some of the challenges that residents and businesses have experienced in the past related to this particular project. >> Uh thank you for putting that on the record. Uh any further discussion on the uh print? The vote is on the print with leaf for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming editorial changes. Is there discussion on the vote will be on the report with leaf for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> 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. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report is filed? >> And madam director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh the next measure is 26-176, Early Childhood Educator Pay Skills Amendment Act of 2025. Uh I am not going to move that today. I intend to bring it back on October 21st. So the next measure after that is bill 26-216 closing of the former Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge right ofway on lot 817 in square 708 SO23-05325 act of 2025. Uh, this legislation was introduced on March 28th and would close a portion of the former Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge right ofway located on lot 817 in square 708 in ward 8. Um, this bill would close a portion of the rightway located in lot 817 in square 708. The closure of the right-of-way segment will facilitate construction of phase two of the riverfront PUD which includes a marina along the Anacostia River. As the right-ofway is located entirely on private property, the committee I'm reading from the report, the committee believes it is necessary to describe some of the history of this site and the reason why legislative action is being taken. In 1945, the owner of the property granted the district a right-of-way easement over the property for quote the construction, operation, and maintenance of unquote the original Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge. After the construction of the new Frederick Douglas of the new Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge, the easement was no longer necessary. As such, the owner of the district the owner and the district department of transportation recorded an easement release agreement in 2023 extinguishing the 1945 right-of-way easement. According to DOT, the extinguishment of the easement was not enough to effectuate the closing of the that's quote unquote closing of the former right-of-way. However, as a district inventoried the right of way as a public street due to the 1945 easement. I don't think I read that very well. According to DOT, the extinguishment of the easement was not enough to effectuate the closing of the former rightofway. Has the district inventoried the rightway as a public street due to the 19 the district had inventoried Well, because of this, DOT takes the position that legislative action is necessary. And there's a footnote that might be expanded in the report noting that while DOTT takes the position that this applicant must follow the procedures of a law that arguably do not apply to the subject property, the department on a number of occasions has recorded plats dedicating streets without council approval, even though the law is very clear that council approval is necessary. But we're glad that they're upholding the law in this case. even if arguably it doesn't apply. For well over a year before the introduction of this bill, which was introduced by me, not uh by the mayor, the committee and the applicant attempted to convince DOT that no legislative action was necessary. The street and alley closing and acquisition procedures act of 1982 defines a street as quote any public right of way recorded as a street, road, or highway in the records of the office of the surveyor unquote. The easement agreement and associated plat did not record this right of way as a street, road or highway with the office of the surveyor in any sense of the words. And the fact that the right of way was accidentally inventoried by the district as a public street does not mean it fits the legal definition of a street under the law. Despite the strength of these arguments, neither the applicant nor the committee could get DOT to change its position in lie of continuing to try to convince DOT to take a different position. Uh we've decided to take legislative action so that the owner may more quickly move forward because we do believe in trying to facilitate the construction development of housing and economic activity. Uh so um we have this legislation. The committee finds that the portion of the former Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge rightway located in lot 817 in square 708 is not necessary for street purposes. Accordingly, the committee recommends council approval of the committee print for bill 26-216. This legislation was introduced by me on March 28th of this year and the public hearing was held on July 3rd of this year and I don't believe we received any testimony or comments in opposition. Without objection, I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? Vote will be on the print with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. I. opposed. Uh the eyes have it unanimously. I move the report with Leers staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the report? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. >> Madam general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration. >> Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report is filed? >> Madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. That completes items for markup in the committee. The whole turn to measures reported out of other committees. The first is from the committee on health chaired by council member Henderson. BR26-240 Health Benefit Exchange Authority Executive Board of Board. Dr. Lacoandra Nesbbit, confirmation resolution of 2025. Council member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PR26-240 nominates Dr. Laandra Nesbet to the Health Benefit Exchange Authority Executive Board as a voting member for a term to end July 6, 2028. The executive board oversees the district's Affordable Care Act insurance marketplace administered by the Health Exchange Authority, also known as DC HealthLink. DC Health Link is rolling out uh new major health insurance option in January of 2026, the Healthy DC plan, which will provide a coverage option for approximately 25,000 residents who will no longer be eligible for DC Medicaid. Dr. Nesbet is a board-certified family physician with extensive experience in population health leadership. She served as the director of DC health um from 2015 to 2022 where she oversaw major public health initiatives and also led the district's co 19 response. She also served as the interim director for the department of behavioral health. In this capacity, she served as an exeicio member to the health exchange executive board. Prior to her service um in the district, she directed the Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness, where she led the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and efforts related to violence prevention. She is currently the associate dean for population health scientists and health equity and the bicesentennial endowed professor of medicine and health sciences at the George Washington University where she also directs the center for population health sciences and health equity. Dr. Nesbet earned her M. PH from Harvard University and her MD from Wayne State University and she is a Ward 4 resident. Uh we are grateful to Dr. Nesbbit for her decision to return to public service and we believe she'll be a valuable member of the board during this crucial time for the agency and I therefore move this nomination. >> Thank you, Council Member. Are there questions from members? >> Uh Madame General Counel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is your record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam budget director, this is a appointment, so there is no fiscal impact. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next two measures are from the committee on transportation and the environment, chaired by council member Charles Allen. The first is PR26-227, board of directors of the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission, Brad Belzac, confirmation resolution of 2025. Council member Allen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. PR26-227, the board of directors of the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission, Brad Belzac, confirmation resolution of 2025, was introduced by you at the request of the mayor on June 13, 2025. Referred to the committee on June 17, 2025, and the committee unanimously approved the resolution at an additional meeting on September 25th, 2025. PR26-227 would appoint Brad Belzac as an alternate member of the board of directors of the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission for a term to end February 9th, 2029, filling a vacancy left by the departure of a former appointee. The Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission was established through an interstate compact between the District of Maryland and Virginia and is governed by a board of six members with two principal members and one alternate member appointed by each jurisdiction. While the committee did not hold a formal roundt on the nomination, I did meet with the nominee on September 16th, 2025 along with committee staff and a member of the mayor's office of talent and appointments. Mr. Belzac is a security professional with over 22 years of experience in senior management, policy development, and operational leadership across the federal government, private sector, and international settings. Most recently, Mr. Belzac served as the senior vice president and chief of staff at the export import bank of the United States where he oversaw day-to-day operations of a 550 person workforce, managed process improvements through the integration of artificial intelligence and oversaw infrastructure and security upgrades. He's also served in other federal roles within the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Belzac also has extensive experience in the private sector holding various roles that include disaster management, security agreements, and financial investigation consulting. He holds a masterers of science and security and resiliency from Northeastern University and a bachelor of arts and political science from Elon University. He's an active member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and holds a certification as a certified fraud examiner. He is a W 2 resident. During my meeting with the nominee, Mr. Belzac explained that his career has focused on security and safety related issues, making service on the commission's board of directors a natural fit. During his recent service with the Biden administration, he managed several air traffic safety issues and worked with the National Transportation Safety Board and hopes to apply this experience with air traffic safety to his service on the commission. I will also add that I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Belzac in my former role as judiciary chair during which he was nominated to and serve in the Homeland Security Commission and I found his service there to be exemplary. Mr. Mr. Belzac's extensive experience in homeland security, transportation, safety policy, and organizational management makes him a very highly qualified individual to serve on the WMSC. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow. >> Thank you, Council Member Allen. Are there questions from members? >> Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. Uh, madame budget director, this is a appointment and so there is no fiscal impact. Correct. >> Correct. >> Uh, without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next item and last item is bill 26-66, Youth Advisory Council on Climate Change and Environmental Conservation Establishment Act of 2025. Council Member Allen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On January 17th, 2025, I introduced bill 26-66 along with council members Nadau, Robert White, Anita Bonds, Janice Lewis George, and Brook Pinto. The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and the Environment on February 4th, 2025, and the committee held a hearing on March 31st. The committee approved the bill unanimously in an additional meeting on September 25th, 2025. I'm proud to be moving this legislation today. It's founded on a simple but powerful truth. Our young people are not just tomorrow's leaders. They are already today's advocates. They deserve a seat at the tables where the district's climate and environmental policies are determined. Young people already have and will continue to inherit the consequences of our climate change policies more so than any adult in this room or any other city or state legislature. But too often, youth are left out without a venue through which they can influence the policies that will impact them and future generations. This bill changes that. Bill 25-66 establishes a youth climate council YCC consisting of 17 members to advise the mayor, the council, the department of energy and the environment, the commission on climate change and resiliency and other relevant entities on policies related to climate change mitigation and adaptation and its effects environmental conservation and green workforce development. The YCC will advise district officials and agencies on laws and policies and also have the opportunity to propose its own initiatives, collaborate with peers and community partners and publish its own findings and recommendations. Additionally, the YCCC will have the opportunity to formally appear before this committee once a year, but of course, we'd always welcome to testify on any legislation being considered by this committee. The YCC's membership includes nine members appointed by the mayor and eight members appointed by each ward council member and must be representative of the district's diversity, including the voices of young people from disadvantaged communities most affected by climate environmental inequities, such as those in WS 5, 7, and 8. The bill also allows YCCC members to receive a modest stipen both in recognition of their service and to ensure youth from all walks of life can fully participate. The council's office on racial equity noted in its racial equity impact assessment. This provision is a key component for success and the committee concurred in that finding. This legislation is about building intergenerational leadership to address the climate challenges ahead and with it we send a message that young people in the district are not on the sidelines. They are at the center of shaping a sustainable and resilient future. And although the YCC's recommendations will be advisory and not binding, they will be visible. They'll be heard. They'll be influential in shaping the district's response to the climate crisis, which will only worsen if we don't continue to act and to act when those voices are at the table. As the father of two passionate young children, I am proud to have authored the bill because I know that the impact can and will have, and I look forward to working with this body once it's up and running. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask the measure be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow. >> Thank you, Council Moren. Uh, we have the bill before us. Are there questions from members? >> I have one. >> Council member Mcda. >> Um, just curious. I think this is great and I look forward to voting in favor of it. Council moral. I'm curious is whether or not the the youth advisory council will have the opportunity to also take up environmental justice issues as a part of what they do. >> Absolutely. If you could, I'd love for you to elaborate because I know over the years we've had a number of environmental justice issues in certain parts of the district um where the council has not seemed to prioritize the ability to address some of the systemic environmental justice issues that historically have plagued communities of color in the District of Columbia. I know you have been an ally in some of this work, but I want to make sure that whatever we're doing here really calls that out and and and utilizes resources to address it. >> I No, I appreciate that and I I would agree with you. I think it's part of why by making sure that the composition of the YCC is as it is so that we have um specifically each ward council member uh appoints somebody as well as a very specific language here that it must be represented the district's diversity um including the voices of young people from disadvantaged communities most affected by climate change, environmental inequities and that environmental justice that you're speaking to in WS 5, 7, and 8. Um, and by giving these young people a formal platform and voice, I think is an important component to where it's not just a a group to gather and talk, but to actually testify on legislation and not just be reactive of waiting until there's legislation, but to be able to promote and push ideas up. And by partnering with our climate change commission that already exists, I think we'll help create a platform to be able to do that. But I see environmental justice absolutely as a core part of what they will help advocate and lift up in ways that perhaps the adults don't always do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you council member. Any other questions madame general counsel? Is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes it is. >> Madam secretary is the record complete? >> Yes it is. Uh, madame budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> And does it have a fiscal impact? >> It does. Of 132,000 in FY26 and 545,000 over the four-year plan. >> So basically 125,000 a year roughly >> because every good idea apparently has an FTE attached to it. >> At least it doesn't have two buildings. >> Uh, thank you. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. That's going to conclude the business of this uh committee the whole um six minutes. I don't know why I said six. The time is 12:51 p.m. We will start the legislative meeting in 6 minutes and this meeting is adjourned. Why did I say six minutes? I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a regular meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. It's also the 16th legislative meeting of council period 26. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council. Today is Tuesday, October 7th, 2025. The time is 12:58 in the afternoon. We're meeting in room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building and I believe this meeting is being livereamed on the council cable television 13 as well as council's website www.dcounsil.gov. Uh we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. If folks in the chamber could please observe a moment of silence for reflection. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. Council member Fowler >> present. >> Council member Fman >> present. Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council Lewis George >> here. >> Council member McDuffy >> here. >> Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nadau >> here. >> Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White. >> Council member Trayan White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh thank you Madam Secretary. We have the secretary's report of committee filings. I'm going to recognize the chair prom who might be a little rusty on this since I think you missed this at the September 17th meeting, but we'll try it today. >> No rust at all. I'm a rust free zone here. Um I'd like to move to wave the reading of the secretary's report. Chairman, >> is there a motion to wave the reading of the report? Is there discussion? Vote will be on the motion to wave the reading. Mr. Chairman, no, this is on the committee reports. Okay. Uh, all those in favor of the motion to wave the reading of the secretary's report of committee reports, committee filings, all say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the secretary's report of introductions, referrals. Again, I'll recognize the chair port, Mr. McDuffy. >> Now, we'll move to wave the reading of the secretary's report of introductions. >> Is there a motion to wave the reading? Council member Fman, did you want to be recognized? I I did. Thank you very much. I just wanted to make note that there is um the improving school attendance outcomes amendment act of 2025 that's on that log that is referred to the committee of the whole with comments from the committee on youth affairs. One of the things that that would do is send many referrals over to the Department of Human Services. And so I will be submitting a memo asking that it also be referred with comments from my committee, the committee on human services. >> Do you remember the bill number? >> Uh it is B26-42. >> 402. All right. And you'll submit a memo and I'll take it under advisory. Well, I'll look at it. >> We'll do. Thanks. Um, anything further with regard to the um, secretary's report of introductions and referrals? >> Mr. Chairman, Council Member Parker, >> I'll just say as the author of that legislation, I fully support that um and hope to collaborate between our committees. >> Thank you. Uh, the vote will be on the uh, motion to wave the reading. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. Are there any opposed hearing? None. Uh the eyes have it unanimously. We have the consent agenda. Before anybody volunteers, um removed from the consent agenda on page three, items one, two, three, four, five at the top of the page. That's final readings on Gallery Court. Judith Hume, Alfred Dudley, Henry Baker, and Marvin Slush. Those are um removed from consent and when we get to them I will um delay them because the reports have not been filed. Also on page three under first reading item C3 early childhood educator pay scales that was not marked up at the committee the whole so it should not be on the agenda at all. Just to say when we uh get to that I will not even bring it up. Are there any other changes to the consent agenda? >> Mr. Chairman, did you remove the pay equity schedules from the consent agenda? >> I just spoke to that. It was not marked up in the committee as a whole. >> Okay. >> Are there any other changes to the consent agenda? We have the consent agenda as revised. Vote will be on that. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Um, there's no objection. I'm going to move in block bills 26-139, 26165 26222 26234 26242 uh to be postponed to the next legislative meeting that could be additional or regular. If there's no objection, uh, the motion will carry. Hearing no objection, they're postponed to the next legislative meeting. That gets us to the non-consent agenda on page six. Uh the first measure is we're dealing with emergency legislation is juvenile curfew congressional review emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-300. Council member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One moment. So over the summer, the council passed emergency legislation which granted the mayor and the chief of police authority to institute juvenile curfew zones, extend standard curfew hours on weekends to 11 p.m. uh and to include 17-year-olds. This legislation was passed in response to in several instances uh large groups of young people engaging in harmful and oftentimes criminal conduct in several areas throughout the city including the warf Navyyard and Ust Street. That legislation granted the mayor authority to extend the juvenile curfew hours in DC or in specific areas when appropriate to protect public safety or to protect private property. A mayor's order extending the curfew hours could not take effect until at least 24 hours after the mayor's order is issued except in emergency circumstances. This legislation has turned out to be very successful without resulting in any arrests. In fact, MPD has reported that they experienced zero curfew violations during the extended curfew hours from 8 to 11 p.m. established in the juvenile curfew zones. There have also continued to be zero arrests for general cur ju juvenile curfew violations that were in effect before we we did this extension. When a young person is found to be in violation of a juvenile curfew, MPD takes the young person home. If no parent or guardian is home, then the individual be would be taken to a nearby precinct until a parent or guardian can come pick them up. Uh again, this is really meant as a preventative measure to make sure that we have tools to disrupt if there are um large groups of people congregating in a specific area that has been prone to challenges. Given its success, this emergency would extend the authority of the mayor and the chief to establish these zones, continue the curfew going into effect at 11 p.m. and continues to apply to 17year-olds. With that, I move the emergency declaration. >> Thank you, Council Member. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, more of a question to councelor Pinto. Um, I've I've supported uh the effort earlier this summer and then the extension you have here. One part that gives me a lot of pause though is around how are we evaluating the either perceived pros and cons. Um, I don't believe we've had a hearing on permanent legislation. So, I was going to ask you if you're planning as the chair of the committee to either hold a round table or hold a hearing so that we can get more feedback from the public around this. Again, both I I hear from people with both perceived pros and perceived cons. Um, but I think the ability to evaluate a measure like this would give myself at least more comfort uh in knowing what steps we're taking as well as a willingness to adjust based on the feedback we get. Sure. Thank you, Council Allen. I think that's a fair uh concern and and idea. Um, one of the ways that that I think about this is before we had this in place, there were several instances where once things had gotten a bit out of control in certain areas with large groups of young people and there was criminal conduct in one case and thinking there were weapons brought and and shooting. And by the time the police arrived, they had to pull so many resources um in one case 85 different officers from other postings to try to get the area uh resolved and quieted down. And in that evening, there were other shootings that night that there weren't officers to respond to. And so one of the things we're trying to be responsive to is how can we before an issue happens if we're hearing things especially on social media and the chief of police wants to designate a specific zone that we can do that proactively so we're not just responding to it. Um the other way that I track um and evaluate kind of progress is if there are any violations of the zone so we know that it's working as the chief and the mayor intended this to work. Um and so that those are other ways that we evaluate it. But I hear you on the the need to have some more public process. Um, and if the mayor wants to introduce a permanent bill, uh, we can certainly explore that as an option. Um, and and would make sure that there's a hearing process as a part of it. Um, I appreciate that and I I don't know if we'll see permanent legislation come down, but from the standpoint of the committee, are you looking to hold a round table to be able to take some of those evaluation steps you've just outlined and others to be able to give the public a chance to weigh in by holding a public round table on this? >> Um, I think that it's certainly something we can explore. I um this is extends it another couple of months and so I think it's conversation that I'll have with the chief as well to see if this is something that she believes should be extended on a permanent basis in which case of course we'll need to hear from the public. But as I said I I hear you on the concern and I will um speak to my team about it about our upcoming hearings this fall. >> Okay. I appreciate it. I know my time's up. I again as somebody who has supported this I believe it would be a good thing for us to be able to exercise our oversight and be able to hold a public round table on this to evaluate u again how it's working regardless of whe there's a permanent bill that comes down I think that's a good step for us to take you mr chair >> thank you council member uh council member Pinto you said couple of months but I think it's three months it's October November December am I correct >> is there further discussion >> Mr. chairman. >> Yes. >> By the way, >> Council Member Lewis, George, and then McDuffy. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. Um, I just had a question about just the expansion and what the impetus of some of the expansion was. I know it was um it was youth under 17. I'm correct. And now I was just wonder trying to understand why what I guess why the expansions what has what has changed that would make you make us want to expand the age uh at this time. >> I don't think it expands the age. >> It didn't. I thought it would. >> Yeah. So it does apply the curfew would apply to all youth under 18. And I thought previously it was currently applies only to youth under 17. Am I correct? That's a change. >> Yes. But there's no expansion today. This is the same language that we had in the July version. It was to make sure that >> youth who were 17 years old were included as youth because before it was being perceived as under 17. So it was only 16 year olds. So, we wanted to make sure 17 year olds, of which we still have many 17 year olds still in high school, of course, um that they'd be included. >> Okay, that's that's what I wanted to answer to. Um my only thing is uh I think um I know Charles is speaking to a um you know, a deep dive into the impact of this. I think um as a city, we've worked really hard to build real safety by investing in young people and community based solutions. And I think we have uh hard evidence that those tools work in our communities and expanding uh curfew powers in this way raises concerns especially given the recent federal actions in DC that have undermined our home rule. Um and I think with with that as someone who's supported before I think our circumstances have changed. Um and we've watched sort of as the federal administration uh coordination has had some instances of community members who have very much said there have been violations of our laws and in some cases um our laws and statements being used against us. And so my biggest fear is I'm afraid expanding and extending the provision will be used as a pretext uh to um target youth uh black and brown youth who are already currently being targeted in this moment. One thing that would be helpful, um, I think we've been doing federal coordination and it's very obvious, I think, uh, a news article came out that said we we admit we're doing federal coordination with MPD. Uh, one thing would that would help, uh, would be having an oversight hearing about the federal coordination of our Metropolitan Police Department, uh, and federal forces. That could help clear up this fear of this law being used as pretext, especially since it now can be extended for 30 days in certain, uh, areas. Um, so is there a plan to have a oversight hearing on federal coordination of the coordination that's happened between MPD and federal entities in a way that we could ask questions about uh whether youth how or how youth black and brown youth are being engaged? um because that would help clear up what I think is a very real fear now that expanding at this in this moment in time could lead our black young black and brown youth specifically uh on a path that that could destroy their futures. >> Yeah, thank you so much for raising that, Council Lewis George. I I agree that it is really important to make sure that we have an opportunity for the public to weigh in on their experiences um especially over the last couple of months. And so we will uh be working in the next couple of days and we'll certainly follow up with you on uh next steps there to make sure that there's opportunity for for public input. Um, I will say as it relates to this, I worry about not acting exposes our young people to more of the um, possibility for federal overreach because this is really a preventative protective measure to make sure that there's a tool in place so that we don't have groups of federal agents coming up on on groups of young people uh, in a way that will be counterproductive. So, I just want to make that point as it relates to this. But I I think you raise a very important um broader challenge that we need to continue uh doing oversight over and not just the oversight that I conduct every day uh with my team with MPD, but but also in a way that will invite uh the public into it and we'll allow for other members to ask questions on the record. So, we're we're exploring those options now and and we'll follow up with you. Thank you, council. I want to make the record clear. The emergency that is before us is identical to the emergency that we adopted in July, except this is a very important exception. It's different months. It's October, November, December. But in terms of age and in terms of hours, it's identical. In terms of these emergency or temporary zones, it's identical to the emergency that we adopted in July. >> I don't think so. 11 p.m. >> I see some confusion. >> Yeah, I think there's confusion because I I I don't think that's technically accurate, but I may be useful to ask Council Member Pinto because I think the age did change that was captured in what we're doing today versus what we did previously. Well, let's see. Over the weekend, >> this is the same. This should be the same language. It was 17 and the and that was really we viewed almost technical in that the record used to be the intention was to capture 17, but because it said under, so we just included 17, but that's the same thing we did in the July emergency and in today's emergency. >> So, this is different than the current law. There's a permanent statute. The permanent statute is different. But what we adopted in July, >> yeah, >> changed the age uh gave the chief additional or gave the chief authority with regard to temporary areas with more restrictive hours. Um exempted groups of under eight at certain times as I remember correctly and uh the age is different. But again, this is different than what the permanent law is, but it's identical to what we did in July, except with regard to the months. I think the months is substantive enough that that's why it's on non-consent, even though it's called a congressional review emergency. Next in the lineup is Council Member McDuffy. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, I'm going to support this today just to to to be clear, but I do have a couple questions. How how long has it been since we've done this measure? When did we originally do it? >> Um it went into effect the weekend after July 4th weekend. >> Okay. And and with this emergency will extend until when? >> Uh the end of December, I believe. 90 days from today. >> So So uh give or take six months, >> I guess. The end. Yeah. >> Okay. So, I here's my concern. Um, and the reason I'm going to support it because this is an emergency and and it puts the amount of time we've done this at give or take six months. But my concern is that the the most research or at least I say a good deal of the research that I've reviewed about juvenile curfews suggests that they do not reduce crime, youth crime or victimization. And at best the evidence is mixed on that point. I do appreciate though the experience that I think residents have had in the communities that have been most impacted by juvenile violence and uh some of the high-profile incidents that we've seen and having spoken to a number of residents who have been directly impacted who've lived in those communities uh directly or adjacent to those communities um is how they feel. They do feel safer. they haven't seen as many of the incidents in their community because of I think the curfew and I think that's important uh in our decision whether or not we do that today do or extend it today. What I would like to know, and I think this is why we need an evaluation, and I I don't think I could support another extension uh via emergency without a hearing and really some review of existing data around how effective this has been is because I get concerned about whether we're simply shifting or displacing some of these incidents to other parts of the city. Uh, I had an emergency meeting uh with uh high school football coaches just last night. Uh, and I called the meeting because of what I've been reading in the press about, you know, fights that are taking place at football games, whether or not they're on the football field or outside of the football field. Uh, games have been cancelled, homecomings have been cancelled, and I'm deeply concerned about that. And some of the things that coaches have raised is whether youth are meeting up at football games to vent their frustrations in places that otherwise would have been in areas that are now prohibited because of the curfew. Um, and I know that the times don't always align. These football games aren't at night uh or late at night. uh but I do raise it as an issue to understand whether or not we're simply displacing uh some of these incidents that had occurred in the curfew areas uh and are now occurring in other places. So I think we need some evidence. We need some data and I'd love to make sure that we do that before we do anything on a permanent basis. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Bonds, >> I just called you. >> I did not. Thank you, Chairman. Um, and thank you, um, Council Member Minto. I um you know I'm a big proponent of home rule and public safety and the fear of crime trying to handle all of that as we think about our community as well as wanting to make sure that our young people have as many opportunities as possible to grow and thrive and become, you know, full-fledg. pledge members of our community. So with that, it it just causes me to think about this legislation from the perspective of what is it that was going on in community that led to the design of it? And I'm asking that because I know there were a few highprofile in the media activities. one down in Navy Yard. Um, a group of teenagers um just sort of decimated the the I guess the the feeding that a family was having um literally turned over drinks and sort of like ran afterwards. So, I'm just wondering are we to put this piece of legislation in place? Do we have any indications in neighborhoods that young people out in groups of let's say two or more are just generating um difficult situations in the community? Just wondering and if so, would we be able to measure what precipitated the law against what is currently going on when we think about an extension? >> I know there's some others in line. I don't know if you want me to respond to everyone at the end. You >> have 40 seconds to respond. just >> okay. Um, so I think this is a a good point, Councilor Bonds, and and another important reason that as we do this or any measure with our young people, we also have to couple it with more programmatic opportunities um for our kids. The goal is not to council McDuffy's point to displace activity. Um, we need to be providing enriching opportunities for our young people. The incident that you mentioned I think is a very important point because not all of the issues were violent issues. Some of them were just very disruptive and you know we don't want the response to be that the three dozen kids who stood on the tables and kicked over everyone's food should be arrested. I don't think that's the right response but we do need a tool to say you can't be here any longer if you're going to engage in that behavior. And so this is kind of a way to to do that. So, those are some of the an incidents that did precipitate it. The other thing I'll just share anecdotally is I've been hearing from a lot of parents who've said that this has been really helpful to them to say to their kids like, "Hey, you have to get home by this hour. It's the law." Um, and that parents who who told me that they had kids who weren't listening to them before are now actually coming home for curfew. So, I'll just share that again as another kind of anecdotal thing I've been hearing from lots of parents around the city. Um, but again, this tool has only been used, I believe, in seven different limited sites. So, this is not a massive um like curfew zone throughout the city. It's it's seven specific sites that have been used in the last couple months. >> Thank you, Council Member Pinto. Council member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I uh I know we this is our first emergency. We've got lots of emergencies, but um I just want to get some clarification here. And I want to ask Council Member Pinto like are you eventually just going to is the intent to introduce a permanent bill? And I'm asking that because in July when we voted on the emergency only, you did not introduce a temporary because you said we're only doing it for the summer. And then we said, "Oh, nope. Let's keep going." But then general counsel says you can't introduce two uh backto-back emergencies, which is how we voted on this in September, which is now how we're voting on this now. And so I'm just trying to get clarity. Are we gonna are we gonna actually hold a hearing to allow for folks to talk about this or are we just going to keep doing emergencies every summer as though we didn't know what the plan was? >> Yeah, I mean, as I've said, I think that's a fair point. I um I don't know the answer to the question about the legislation because it it depends on how we're seeing this data play out throughout the fall. I am confident that it was an effective tool throughout the summer, which is why I want to extend it for the fall, but I don't know if that means we need to extend it on a permanent basis. I currently don't have a plan for a permanent bill. Um, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't a gap uh in the law because it had been effective, but that's certainly something that we could talk about if others would like to see this be explored as a permanent law, then I'm I'm happy to explore that. But that that's not currently my intention. >> Okay. and and it I don't necessarily know if that is what we need to do, but what I'm saying I do think it is unfair for our communities for us to do emergency after emergency and nobody gets to weigh in. When we voted on this in September, which was an amendment to the volunteer >> services >> services bill, one of the things that I expressed that we had heard from the community members was one of the reasons why it was successful, if you will, over the summer was because community organizations really, really worked to number one inform juveniles of what the zones were and also to deploy trusted adults to each of those areas in the times and questions to help young people who were in those areas move out of the area, you know, when the curfew was in effect. And they told us, "We don't have the resources to be able to continue to do that. We were we were focused on it for the months that we were in the summertime. We didn't have the um opportunity to keep doing that in the fall." And I'm just trying to anticipate like, are we going to get to February and we're going to be like, "Hey, we actually need to do another emergency because it's been working so well." when in fact we probably should just hold a hearing if we're gonna if we believe that a curfew is a good tool for MPD, then let's just say that and let's talk about it and have that debate um as opposed to kind of doing it in this ad hoc way that is getting a little confusing because even I had to sort of write down what the timeline was and how cuz I told my staff I was like we just voted on this in September. I'm confused why we're doing this again. So that's um all I'll kind of say on that and I'm over my time. >> Members time has expired. Council member Parker. >> Thank you. I just wanted to add my voice to this. I think it's important to remember that the mayor actually sent this bill down to the council. Um I know council member Pinto is getting a lot of questions and but um I do plan to support this. I also get the reservations and concerns that many have expressed, including advocates who I've had many conversations with. I have been persuaded that this has been an effective tool to disperse large groups of young people that have been gathering. And in many respects, it's I I view it as a proactive tool versus calling in MPD or others to respond or react after there's been a big brawl or after there has been an incident as as we are seeing play out at some of these DPS games. Uh not to call out one LEA over another. Um, I think it's also important to remember that we narrowed the bill at that was originally sent down from the mayor's office. And so now it's a shorter window. Um, and there are many provisions here that I think contributes to there being no young people detained, no young people arrested, no young people ending up at DRS. And in effect, it provides MPD an opportunity to say you cannot gather here in groups of 20, 30, 50. We don't have a lording law and I think some residents would challenge that and so what we in effect did over the summer was give MPD a tool and I just will lift up the concern that was also raised. We now have a federal occupation in our city. We have we should give no opportunity for ICE the DEA and others who certainly will not follow the guidelines that MPD will follow to interact with our young people. And so I am in favor of this second extension because I see it as a again another unique time period for the district where we cannot afford for large groups of young people to gather and potentially encounter federal officers that might lead to more harm. Last thing I would just say um I will likely not support another extension of this nor do I think we should explore a permanent bill. it seemed like a very specific tool for a specific period of time that's proven effective. Um, and I just think it's important for us to remember how we got to this point um, as we move forward. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Tran White. >> Uh, thank you. Um, as I look at this bill and the previous bills, uh, look at it early on, I guess in July, um, I know that youth are typically out in the community a lot in the summer months, um, in which we've seen these large gatherings. Um, but I'm unsure of what the effectiveness of this particular bill was. And I guess my some of my questions was I I heard that there has been zero arrest. I didn't know if this is a tool to create a deterrent to some degree. How are we measuring those deterrents as it relates to keeping um people safe, keeping youth active in the community, doing something constructive out of the way? Um, and I want to speak to even going back to Secure DC bill. I offered an amendment and I know this bill comes down from Mayor Bowser's office uh offered amendment to create a public safety plan and that has gotten ignored because if we had a real plan, a comprehensive plan, how to um increase public safety, we don't have to keep sticking things on the wall hoping they stick because every once in a while it's something new um as particular thing. And I just don't know the intended goal of this legislation in the long run. What are we really trying to accomplish by keep kicking this ball down the road? Um, and so I I'm also of the belief that we need a a hearing or a round table of some sort to hear from residents about what they feel and believe the effectiveness of this bill is and what's the end all solution to addressing uh public safety, especially with our youth and what are we doing on the other side of the narrative to create other uh alternatives to destructive behavior and create more constructive behavior in the communities in these different zones. phones and different um if you can respond to some of that. Um and I know it's not all on you, Councilman Pinto, but you've led this bill and offering to extend it again. >> Yeah. Well, thank you so much, Council White. I I um I think a few things. I think there are uh several different agencies and certainly something that we work on with the criminal justice coordinating council who have developed um more comprehensive public safety plans. Many of those reports uh have been provided for in secure DC. Some of them have come in and some of them are still being analyzed. Um, we work with all of our public safety agencies, but also our other agencies that I think play a really important role when it comes to public safety, like our schools, like our parks. Um, which is why we pushed to make sure that throughout the summer we had late night hype every single weekend for the first time in the city every Friday to provide opportunities for thousands in some of the cases of young people to gather and recreate and have fun um places to be in a in a safe manner. Um, so I think all of that work has to continue. It cannot be just one thing or the other. which is why I want to rehlight that this extension um is for for an emergency for another three months that you know was we initially did it for the first three months and now we're doing it for the for the next three months. Um, but if there is going to be a permanent consideration of this bill, which it sounds like there's kind of mixed opinions on, so I'm happy to speak with folks about it, then we absolutely need to do that in the normal course of business so that we can have a hearing um and and hear from people about other ideas that they have that would be effective. But this tool is really, as Councelor Parker said, really meant to be preventative, but it's also very limited. It is not a citywide um tool. It has been used in seven sites in very specific locations and I think it's been effective as one of the metrics being that there have been no arrests. >> Thank you. Thank you, council members. Council member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Council Member Pinto. So, um, it it's not clear at this point. It it seems that there's going to be a permanent bill considered. My guess is that another temporary or emergency wouldn't be requested in the dead of winter. So, it it seems inevitable that we have to answer the question as to whether we are to council member Henderson's point uh going to just keep doing this by emergency in warm weather months or hold a or develop a permanent bill. Um my my other concern is it we continue to hear from young people that they don't have enough to do and we always seem to have a response on enforcement but not consistently enough a response on um better alternatives that appeal to to them. So, I'm I'm not comfortable with um moving forward. Um the the question I have though is what is what what incidents and this speaks to Council Member Bons's question. What incidents have happened um recently that makes us say we need to extend the emergency? Well, I I think it's a little bit like proving a a negative. There have been several instances where the police have gotten word that there were something being planned on social media with large groups of people coming together, 60, 70, 80 kids in one area. And so, they've been able to use that and other inputs to say, "Hey, after 8:00 p.m., after 9:00 p.m., after 11:00 p.m., you can't you can't be in this area." Um, and it's worked to prevent what could have otherwise provided a problem. Um, and so again, I don't think like any of our solutions, I don't think this is the panacea to to solve all opportunities or enforcement challenges with our young people, but it is one tool that I think has been effective for three months. Um, and I'll also just say, you know, this conversation that we have a lot, as we should have a lot, is a team sport when it comes to what other things should the city be advancing when it comes to our young people, when it comes to new ideas we have. We are moving this one tool because it is a judiciary committee measure. But that does not mean that the things that we move out of the judiciary committee are the only things that we can be doing when it comes to this important topic of supporting our young people. So I uh agree that we should be doing more, but we've got to all kind of move forward in that direction. >> So I'm with I'm I'm with you on that. The um that that's why I've moved bills both for mentorship and trade and vocational education. Um if I could just get 30 more seconds for one clarifying question, chairman. Well, if it's 30 and there's no >> um does does the bill allow curfews anywhere in the city or specific places? >> It authorized the authorizes the chief um to declare a zone within a specific area. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. >> Thank you. >> Uh thank you. If there's no further discussion, we have the declaration before us PR26-300. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Mr. Chairman, >> can you report me as no? >> Mr. Chairman, can you report me as no? >> Thank Janice >> Robert. >> Yeah. May record as no. >> I have council members Henderson, Robert White, Tran White, and Janice Lewis George as being recorded as no. >> And Nidell Uh the uh declaration fails. The uh next measure is first responder retention efforts emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-299. Council member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, as we just started discuss this morning, um, we really need to make sure that our public safety agencies are fully staffed. Um, and recruitment and retention of our first responders has been a nationwide issue that we are still working on addressing to make sure that we can bring more officers to our force. Um, and DC Fire and EMS has many additional staffing issues, especially around paramedics. Um, I still believe we need to move forward to pass an emergency like this to get rid of the mandatory retirement age. So, not only are we making efforts to get more officers and firefighters and paramedics in the door, but that we can retain them and keep them on in their departments for longer. Um, but unfortunately, the CFO's office needs more time to do actuarial analysis. And so I'd like to make a motion to postpone this measure and the underlying emergency to the November 4th legislative meeting. >> Uh the motion is to postponed uh the measure until November 4th. Any discussion? Hearing none, the motion is granted. The next measure on the agenda is the fisc year 2026 income tax secure revenue bond general obligation bond and general obligation and income tax secure bond anticipation note issuance authorization emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR 26-322 and that is my measure Uh, this emergency legislation is necessary to ensure that the District of Columbia can issue bonds in a timely manner and take advantage of favorable market conditions to provide funding for or to reimburse the district for funds already expended on fiscal year 2026 capital projects approved and undertaken pursuant to the district's fiscal year 2026 budget and financial plan. So moved. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Any oppose? >> Yes, >> the eyes have it. The underlying resolution is approved. Okay. So moved on the underlying resolution PR26-323. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I. >> Any oppose? The eyes have it. Uh, the next measure is PR26-326 LITC rent stabilization exemption clarification emergency declaration resolution 2025. Uh, Council Member Robert White. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, colleagues, this emergency measure is about protecting the more than 11,000 affordable homes in nearly 100 buildings across the district and protecting the residents who live in them. For decades, since the passage of the rental housing act of 1985, the district has exempted federally and locally subsidized housing, including property subsidized both with 4% 9% uh LITC credits from rent stabilization. That framework has allowed us to build and preserve affordable housing while keeping those homes under strong federal rent limits tied to household income. But earlier this year, a court ruling overturned that long-standing practice. The court determined that Litech property should be subject to rent stabilization for the first time in nearly four decad 40 years. Four decades. The result is not just a legal technicality. It's a financial shock that could push many affordable housing properties into default. These properties are financed with a narrow profit margin and their rent structures were approved by lenders, investors, and the district under the assumption that the federal affordability rules, not local rent stabilization, applied. Defaults and foreclosures would mean instability and eviction for thousands of low and moderate income families. And at a broad level, it would weaken investor confidence in DC's affordable housing market at a time when we need every dollar to preserve and create housing. This bill restores clarity and stability for LITC properties. It aligns DC's statute with what has always been the council and the city's intent and remains um yeah, if we don't act, we will undermine one of our most important tools for affordable housing preservation. LITC helps us keep older buildings habitable and affordable. It's how we bring in private capital to support deeply affordable housing without new local tax dollars. This emergency measure ensures con continuity, stability, and fairness. It protects tenants, keeps affordable housing financially viable, and preserves confidence in the district's housing programs. I'll be introducing per a permanent version of this legislation in the weeks to come. Thank you. I encourage my colleagues to uh approve this me uh measure. Uh thank you, council member. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration which is PR26-326? All those in favor say I. >> Are there any opposed? On hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. On the underlying bill, bill 26-376. Council member White. >> So moved. >> Discussion uh on the bill. All those in favor, again, this is 26-376. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Uh, the eyes have it unanimously. Give me just a moment. I'm trying to work something out. Uh, sorry. Um the next measure is PR26-337 closing of a culde-sac in square 4350 SO22-05506 emergency declaration resolution of 2025. Uh I'm going to withdraw that today. Um and I'm going to bring it back at second reading on the permanent bill. So then the next measure after that is PR26-341 entertainment establishment employee safety extension emergency declaration resolution 2025. Council member Anderson. >> Um thank you Mr. Chairman. This measure would extend the emergency legislation currently in effect that permits a retail establishment with a valid on premises class C or class D retailer license or a restaurant location that operates 24 hours a day or operates at 3:00 a.m. at least 2 days a week to um to choose to refuse cash as a form of payment. In order to comply with the exemption, the establishment must display written conspicuous notice that to the public that cash payments are not accepted on the door of the establishment or on its menu. A permanent measure um has already held has already had a hearing in the committee on public works and is being prepared for markup. As you will recall, we introduced this measure due to the concerns expressed by some of our nightlife operators for safety of their employees at their establishments which may be open late. We also introduced this carveout because retail establishments that accept cash as a form of payment are more likely to be targeted for theft compared to establishments that do not have any cash on the premises. This measure uh balanced um unbanked uh individuals reliance on cash as a form of payment um to obtain necessary goods and services with the safety concerns of um those of particularly vulnerable businesses. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for colleagues to support this measure. Uh thank you council member. Is there uh discussion? I will just say for the record I did not support this earlier uh in the year and I will not be voting for it today. Uh the vote will be on PR26-341. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Please please record me as voting no. Are there any other nos? Uh, the eyes have it. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-394. Council member Henderson. >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Is there discussion? Uh, the vote on the bill. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Record me as voting no. Are there any other opposed? Uh, the odds have it. Uh, the next measure is PR26-340. Let our vows endure emergency declaration resolution 2025. Council member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, ladies and gentlemen, the federal government is shut down and uh we don't know when it's going to reopen. And since we are not a state, nor do we control our courts, um it has been impossible for individuals who wish to be married in the District of Columbia to do so currently under the status quo. This measure would allow for the mayor or her design to issue marriage licenses to couples who wish to marry during this federal government shutdown. Um this is the second time in many years that I have moved this measure. Um, and I believe the last time that it was also in effect was in 2019. Due to the federal government dysfunction and the lack of a permanent measure um, that grants the district government uh, this opportunity as a contingency plan, we are considering that in terms of doing that on a permanent basis. Um, so I I think we voted on this in 2023. I would certainly encourage um, colleagues to support this measure. I've already even just today had two couples um who emailed um wondering when this was going to be finalized as they have weddings planned in the next week or so. Um while we don't have the authority to help them continue on to have their weddings at Smithsonian institutions or federal places, I think this is the least we can do on the court side of things. Um I do have one particular request. I um would encourage the secretary and the general counsel to transmit this legislation to the executive as soon as possible um so that the mayor can move forward with announcing um to residents what the process will be especially as again there are some residents who are trying to get married next week. Um and with that I mean I can keep talking because the chairman is on the phone. Um let's talk about this government shutdown. But it's about healthcare, ladies and gentlemen. These healthcare tax credits, we've got 4,300 individuals and small businesses. >> Mhm. >> rely on the premium healthcare tax credits here in the District of Columbia. That's kind of whack. The last government shutdown was 35 days. I think it ended when 10 air traffic controllers decided they wanted to stay home. And so, I'm not suggesting to air traffic control that they do that, but we can move this forward if we're not going to go to day 36. Um, Mr. Chairman, I'm just rifting here. Seems that they're Oh, colleagues. Hi, Council Member Bernadell. Hey, how's it going? >> I've got 38 seconds. >> Hey, have you ever um officiated a wedding? >> I haven't, but I do think that that would be pretty fun. >> Yeah, it's pretty cool. And last time we had the love act in effect, um I got to do one right in this chamber, which was pretty cool. >> Oh, that's cool. Um, so you know, you don't actually have to have the mayoral authority to officiate a wedding. You can do it with the regular, you know, courts issued marriage license, but it, you know, it's one-stop shopping. Secretary of the city issues them and then get to come here and do the wedding. It's pretty awesome. >> Great. Mr. Allen, I've got three seconds. >> Without objection. Um, Councelor Henderson, yeah, you rightfully pointed out how much this is about healthcare. Um, and as the chair of the health committee, you know, we want to make sure, of course, uh, that people have access to their health care. My understanding is, maybe you can correct me from what you've learned as well. Um, if they do not extend the Obamacare uh, tax subsidies on health insurance, we're talking about people experiencing double, if not triple, the cost of their health care and their health insurance premiums. Um, I think it's insane that when the cost of everything is going up and working families out there need help, need support that we've got some members in the national federal legislature that don't want to try to solve that problem. But is that correct that what we'd be seeing is double, if not triple, quadruple the health care costs for working families in America? >> Yeah, we're definitely going to see um very high premium spikes. And frankly, we've already seen that in terms of the insurance rates that were just approved by the Department of Incurities, insurance and banking. Um, and you know, it also deals with the hospitals as well in terms of their payments. um which we have a lot of we have a number of safety net hospitals for whom provide uncompensated care in the emergency room and they expect to be reimbursed and it's quite unfortunate that the federal government would say we need to check the immigration status of the individuals who lives would be saved to determine whether or not a hospital needs >> I find that to be one of the most disingenuous arguments we see obviously because if somebody is sick we're going to take care of them but to bring it back to the gerineess of this we al also see of course um that sometimes individuals um have got to figure out which partner in a relationship might have uh better health insurance coverage. And so making sure that we have people's ability to legally get married uh might actually be the difference between their ability to stay insured, get access to health care, they need better vision and dental benefits, etc. Um so this legislation is critical to be able to provide that bridge and we did it before and we got to do it again. And I do think that it's unfair for people to suggest, well, if you want to get married, you should just go to Maryland and Virginia. That's rude. They want to get married here in the district. And frankly, they should be able to do so and it not be considered a non-insectional function. So, I really hope that colleagues will support the legislation today that we can move forward on and that the mayor can sign by the end of the week. >> And as an open advertisement, apparently we can conduct those officiate those services right here. >> Beautiful atrium downstairs. Great backdrop for a wedding ceremony. >> I think so. We can even leave the seal and flags up. >> Little ceremonial room. >> Yeah. >> Be good. >> Absolutely. >> You ready, Mr. Chairman? >> Council member Henderson, are you done? >> I feel like I got a lot off my chest. I'm good. >> All right, we have the uh declaration. This is PR26-340. There's no further discussion. Uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any no votes? I'm not hearing any no votes. The the eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-392. Council member Henderson. >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Um before we turn to the CREAC clarification emergency declaration, uh I would like a 10-minute recess. Uh so we're going to recess for 10 minutes and we will resume at uh 2:10. I'm reconvening this meeting. Uh, sorry for the pause. Um, the time is 2:29 p.m. The um, next item on the agenda is creak. I it would help if I put my glasses on. CREAC clarification emergency declaration regul resolution of 2025 PR26-335. Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know this is what everybody was waiting for. Um in 2009, the council passed the Water and Sewer Authority Equitable Ratemaking Amendment Act of 2008, which authorized DC Water to bill customers based on the amount of impervious surface on their property. Since then, DC Water has been assessing the Clean Rivers imperous area charge with a CREAC against property owners in the district. These charges in turn fund the upgrades to the district's combined sewer system in order to better prevent overflows during heavy rains that impair the region's water quality and health. This federally mandated project is known as the Clean Rivers Project. Two lawsuits before the DC Court of Appeals challenged DC Wat's authority to levy the CREAC against property owners who are not connected to the district's sewer system. However, the council did not intend to exempt property owners not connected to the sewer system from the CREAC. These properties can still contribute significantly to storm water runoff. Assessing the CREAC against owners of these properties for their contribution to storm water runoff more fairly spreads the burden of upgrading and maintaining the district sewer systems. Briefing in one of these appeals is scheduled to close in early November. To resolve any ambiguities regarding the council's intent, the council passed the CREAC clarification emergency and temporary amendment acts of 2024. Temporary legislation is set to expire on October 18th, 2025. This emergency legislation is therefore necessary to continue clarifying the council's following the expiration of the temporary legislation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I move the declaration. >> Thank you, Council Member Allen. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration PR26-235? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, Bill 26-384. Council member Allen. >> So move, Mr. Chair. Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is Office of District Waterways Management Establishment Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025 PR26-238. Council Member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On October 1st, 2024, this council adopted PR25-980 25 bill 25-976 and bill 25-977, a substantially similar emergency declaration and emergency temporary legislation concerning the office of the district waterways management in the department of energy and environment. The Office of District Waterways Management Establishment Act of 2022, which created the Office of District Waterways Management, includes a mandate for a waterways advisory commission to plan, promote, advocate for, and facilitate stakeholder cooperation for the diverse uses and access to the Anacostia and Ptoic Rivers, the Washington Channel, and adjacent properties. As DOE began its work in establishing the Office of District Waterways Management, the agency has requested some adjustments to the act to increase flexibility and streamline implementation. Specifically, the approved act outlines a one-year time frame for the commission to adopt an advisory plan and requires the plan to be updated at least every two years. The office's extensive market research indicated that a two-year time frame is more realistic for developing the initial advisory plan given the broad scope of topics, an engagement that will be necessary. Additionally, DOE also noted that a three-year frequency for updating the plan is more reasonable than two years so that ODWM, because we love our acronyms, can have more time to implement the plan before working with the commission to update it. Furthermore, the act dictates that the commission meet at least once a month, but current and potential exeicio commission members have consistently communicated that bimonthly meetings would work better, mainly because various agencies involved. Additionally, given the commission's large size, providing for bimonthly meetings with more frequent engagement is needed to allow for greater flexibility in coordinating schedules and thus ensure a more robust engagement. the prior emergency and temporary legislation we passed made those changes allowing the office to issue a report proposals in coordination with the office of contracting and procurement to pursue and secure a contract with a vendor to assist with the development of the first waterways advisory plan. The office informed the committee that it successfully identified a contractor and several subcontractors. Uh temporary legislation is set to expire on October 18th, 2025. Continued emergency legislation is necessary to permit the office of district waterways management staff continue its work under the more realistic parameters which continue to offer clarity to DOE its chosen contractor and other agencies serving in exeicio capacity to allow mayoral appointees to join the commission more expeditiously. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I move the declaration. >> Thank you, council member. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? >> The vote will be on the declaration PR26-338. All those in favor say I. I. I >> Are there any opposed? You guys have it unanimously on the underlying bill, bill 26-388. Council member Allen. >> So move, Mr. Chair. >> Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Oh, that was anemic. On the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26-333 Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Technical Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025. Council Member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. On December 20th, 2022, the council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. That permanent law went into effect on April 1st, 2023, superseding a series of emergency and temporary bills that implemented a suite of criminal justice reforms. And while most of the permanent law has been funded, section 105 of the permanent law, which expands the authority of the office of police complaints, remains unfunded and has not yet taken effect. Instead, similar provisions from the original emergency acts have been maintained through a new emergency package. There also existed a need to clarify the scope of reporting requirements amended by the expanding supports for crime victims amendment act of 2022. In response, on December 3rd, 2024, the council passed the conference of policing and justice reform technical and second emergency amendment act of 2024. The emergency legislation expired on April 3rd and on uh December 17th, 2024, sorry, on December 27th, 2024, the council also passed the comprehensive policing and justice reform technical second temporary amendment act of 2024 and that expires November 1st, 2025. This round of emergency and temporary legislation is now necessary to prevent a gap in the law between the expiration of the temporary legislation and the applicability date of section 105 of the permanent legislation. This round of emergency and temporary legislation is also necessary to clarify the scope of reporting requirements amended by the expanding supports for crime victims amendment act of 2022. With that, Mr. Chair, I move the deck. >> Thank you, council member. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion >> on the declaration PR26-333? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? You guys have it unanimously. the underlying bill, bill 26-381. Council member Allen. >> So moved, Mr. Chair. >> Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> On the bill, Bill 26-381. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh, the eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is green housing coordination emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-325. Council member White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. I'm going to move to postpone this bill so we can uh try to work with colleagues. We had a robust discussion uh this morning. Uh and I'd like to see if we can't uh hammer out some language in the next two weeks. postponing to the next legislative meeting. >> Yes. If there's no objection, it will be postponed to the next legislative meeting. Hearing no objection, it's postponed. The next measure is pre-arrest diversion task force recommendations emergency declaration resolution of 2025. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In secure DC, we established a pre-arrest diversion task force to identify best practices and make recommendations to implement pre-arrest diversion of certain misdemeanor offenses and for certain categories of people identified by the task force as being more appropriate for diversion. Pre-Rest a diversion can be a very important and effective tool to improve public safety by preventing low-level offenses and ensure that we're providing appropriate mental health and substance use treatment to support our residents. The task force was initially required to begin meeting within 3 months after the applicability date of secure DC and issue its initial recommendations within one year. However, due to staffing issues at the CJCC, the task force was not able to begin meeting until June of 2025. Emergency legislation is necessary to update the deadlines to accurately reflect feasible timelines for the task force with the initial recommendations due by July 31st, 2026. This bill also makes a small fix to our probate publication laws. Last year, the council passed the Strengthening Probate Administration Amendment Act of 2024, which proposed to modernize and update the legal and administrative processes and procedures around probate for the District of Columbia residents, estate lawyers, and estate lawyers consistent with the recommendations of the working group's 2022 report. One leftover correction to this important law involves what publications can be used for publishing notice. This legislation expands the permissible publications that can be used, including newspapers and legal periodicals. I want to thank Council Member Allen and his team as well as advocates for working with us on this piece of the bill as well. Um, and as we think about security and other uh pieces of legislation that we're moving forward, it's going to be continuously important to analyze all of the dynamics here when it comes to our prevention, our accountability, and our government coordination. Um, and this bill is another way that we uh balance out all of those important measures. With that, I move the emergency declaration. Uh we have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? This is PR26-339. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Move the underlying bill 26-390. Council member Pinto. >> I move the emergency. >> Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is language access rulemaking emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-324. Council member Nidau. >> Thank you, Chairman. The Office of Human Rights is responsible for implementing the provisions of the Language Access Act of 2004, including providing oversight and coordinating activities to ensure that oral and written translation services are available to individuals who are not proficient in English at covered entities identified by the mayor. Over the past year, as OHR undertook the extensive project of drafting amendments to the language access regulations, it came to light the agency did not in fact have the authority to do so. Emergency legislation is therefore necessary to ensure the mayor through OHR can promulgate and amend rules to allow for effective implementation of the language access act. The emergency measure is retroactive to June 19th, 2004, the date the act actually initially went into effect. With that, I move the emergency declaration. >> Is that it? >> Yeah, I moved it. >> So moved. >> I moved it. So moved. We have the uh declaration before us. Is there discussion? The vote will be on PR26-32 324. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. On the underlying bill, bill 26-372. Council member NDO. >> So moved. >> Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I >> I >> Are there any opposed? Uh, the eyes have it unanimously. Council member NDO, did you want to be recognized? >> Yes. Uh, chairman, at this time, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider the juvenile curfew congressional review emergency declaration resolution of 2025. >> Uh, there's been a motion to reconsider PR26-300. Uh I I don't know if that's debatable. I don't think anybody wants to be recognized. All those in favor of the motion to reconsider say I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the declaration is before us. Council member Pinto. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. I uh have heard a number of concerns and ideas from colleagues about how to ensure we're proceeding with the strongest policy and so I'm going to move to withdraw this measure today. Um but I intend to bring it back when we meet in two weeks um and plan to work with colleagues in the meantime. >> Yeah, I don't know that you move to withdraw. Um you're withdrawing it. All right. So it will um and your intention is to bring it back in two weeks. >> That's right. >> Okay. So the measure is withdrawn. We have um the next uh emergency proposal which is reading and vote on emergency legislation at the request of the executive medical cannabis conditional lensure extension emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-294. Council member McDuffy. Thank you, chairman. Uh, as of September 10th, 2025, the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration and the Metropolitan Police Department had sumearily closed and padlock 71 unlicensed can establish cannabis establishments. Uh these summary uh closures resulted in record-breaking sales increases for the legal medical cannabis market with over $5.4 million in retail sales to medical cannabis patients during the month of April 2025. Since January 1st, 2024, the number of operating licensed medical cannabis retailers has increased from 7 to 64, helping address this increased demand. As of September 10th of this year, there were eight operating cultivation centers as well as 10 cultivation centers approved to operate that APKA anticipates are likely to open in the near future. Nevertheless, to address the inventory needs of new retailers and feedback from prospective retailers that require uh to open and operate within current term of licenses is too difficult due to challenges businesses face raising capital, finding an appropriate facility for their businesses and building out their facility. There's a need to extend the term of conditional licenses. This legislation applies retroactively as of June 28th of this year, which is the first day conditional licenses began expiring. So moved. Chairman. >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Oh, great. Thank you. So we have the declaration. I was waiting for that. So we have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? The vote will be on PR26-294. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. On the underlying bill, bill 26-344. Council member McDuffy. >> So move. >> Uh discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I. Are there any are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is revised business licensing reform emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-312. Council member Nidau. >> Thank you chairman. This emergency measure makes important updates to the business and entrepreneurship support to thrive amendment act or best act which streamlines basic business licensing processes for new and existing businesses. At the time the best act was under consideration by the council in 2022. The council was also working on the bill to split up the now defunct Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. The Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, the implementing agency therefore didn't have an opportunity to weigh on the bill as an independent agency. As DLCP has prepared to implement the law, which is fully funded in FY26, several implementation challenges have come up based on the laws written. This emergency measure updates the legislation to ensure the best act is aligned with DLCP's new processes. Specifically, the bill amends the notice requirements for the issuance and renewal of licenses for theaters, cinemas, skating rinks, dance halls, exhibitions, lectures, and other entertainment venues. Reestablishes the four-year basic business license, allows the mayor to issue refunds for erroneously paid business license fees, and allows persons whose licenses have expired for more than nine months to renew their license upon paying a fine. Emergency legislation is necessary because DLCP began implementing its new category of licenses on October 1st and requires retroactive authority to ensure a smooth transition to its new licensing process. With that, I move the emergency declaration. >> Uh thank you, council member. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion >> on the uh >> Yes, council member Pinto. >> Hi. Thank you so much. I just want to thank council for moving this emergency um and express my enthusiasm that this bill after many years um is been fully funded and is implemented now. Um, this was one of the first bills that I wrote when I joined the council and it is um, already helping our businesses and I just wanted to share that I got a note from a small business over the weekend who was able to use the new licensing regime through the best act and saved them $600 on their initial um, application. And so this is what we need to continue doing more of in this city to make sure that our businesses can operate with cost-effective and intuitive measures um so they can do what what they do best. So thank you very much council member Nidau uh and look forward to supporting this today. >> Thank you council member. Further discussion on the declaration PR26-312. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously on the underlying bill, bill 26-362. >> So moved. >> Is there discussion? Uh, all those in favor of the bill say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh, the eyes have unanimously. Give me a second before we get to temporary. If there's no objection, I'm going to move the temporaries in block. Um I'm looking at page nine. So number one was withdrawn. So I'm not moving that. The LITC rent stabilization exemption clarification temporary as part of this motion in block. That's bill 26-377. Entertainment employee safety extension temporary bill 26-395. I'll include that even though I think I voted against the emergency. Uh bill 26-393 let our vows endure temporary and block including CREAC clarification temporary. That's bill 26-385. Bill 26-389, Office of District Waterways Management Establishment Temporary. Bill 26-382, Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Technical Temporary. Number eight was postponed. So that's not on the motion to move in block rearrest diversion task force recommendations temporary. That's bill 26-391 is in block. Bill 26-373 language access rulemaking temporary is included uh and the two by request of the mayor bill 26-345 medical cannabis conditional lensure extension temporary and bill 26-362 revised business licensing reform temporary all those which I think is eight are in this motion and block is there any issue with that the vote will be on those that I just enumerated. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure on the agenda is new business. The motion to reconsider. Uh I am not going to move that today. I'm going to hold the bill for another two weeks and bring it back on the 21st. Uh in the meantime, I intend to meet with the same group uh that I met with or who were in invited to be included uh last week. I'm thinking of Janice. Um so that is not before us today. That will conclude the business of the meeting. The time is 2:52 p.m. This meeting is adjourned.