I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a 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 of the whole. This is an additional meeting as in it's not a regularly scheduled meeting. Today is Friday, August 1st, 2025. The time is 1:22 in the afternoon and we are meeting in room 500 the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. Uh this meeting is being televised on council channel cable television 13. It's also available on the council's website www.dcconsil.gov. Uh this meeting is following a meeting of the committee on business and economic development and this meeting will be followed by an additional legislative meeting of the council. Uh we have one item of business for this meeting and that is consideration of bill 26-288. Before we get there, we have to first determine whether we have a quorum. I believe there are several members who are participating virtually. Mr. Cash, would you call the role? Chairman Mendlesson >> present. >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Felder >> here. >> Council member Fman >> 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 White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. Uh thank you. As I said, we have one item for consideration. It's bill 26-288 entitled the Robert F. Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025. Uh this bill was sequentially referred first to the committee on business and economic development chair by council member McDuffy and then here to the committee of the whole as our process to when a bill's jointly referred the committee that is referring it first or has reported it out first. I'll pres make some presentation and then I will make more presentation unless you want me to make all the presentation. Are you asking me a question? >> Yeah. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, today, uh, marks a proud and hopeful moment for our city. Uh after months of public engagement, thoughtful negotiation, and hard work, uh the Committee on Business, and Economic Development has unanimously approved the deal to bring the Washington Commanders back home to Washington DC, uh to the RFK Stadium site where they belong. This legislation before ush is the result of countless hours of deliberation, listening to district residents, and engaging in meaningful conversations about what this site should represent. In late April of this year, the mayor unveiled a term sheet outlining a deal with the Washington Manders that would serve as the catalyst for redeveloping the RFK stadium site. Uh, as I mentioned earlier, uh there are areas where uh this deal fell short of what DC residents and DCbased small businesses deserved. But since that time, over the course of the last several weeks, uh I've worked along with uh the chairman and my other colleagues of the council to go negotiate a better deal uh for DC residents. One that delivers additional revenue, a robust community benefits agreement, more jobs, and stronger labor protections for our DC workers. Uh the feedback we heard directly from residents across the city uh has been positive. Uh the one consistent theme uh that has resonated across the community is that residents want the Washington Commanders back in Washington DC and back to their winning ways. Um as I've said earlier, I've said this from the very beginning, this is about more than simply building a football stadium. It's about really supporting people and building community. And I think that's where we've arrived with the deal that is before us today. Uh and so I'm excited about uh the bill that we have before us, all the hard work, late hours negotiations that have gone into providing uh much better uh agreements for District Columbia residents, for District Columbia workers, and for District Columbia small businesses. Uh and so uh I would ask uh that everybody uh support this bill that is before us today. And I want to thank all my council colleagues uh my team for the tireless efforts throughout this process. Uh this has truly been uh uh what I characterize as a collaborative under undertaking and I'm grateful for each of you. Without the partnership and the commitment uh this would not be possible today. So with that back to you chairman. Uh thank you uh council member McDuffy. Uh so we circulated the materials for today's meeting yesterday. Uh but we have what I call a deis print that we circulated a little while ago. The deis print is identical to the print that the committee on business and economic development um approved. The differences between what we circulated yesterday and the uh print before us is uh that there is incorporated uh provision regarding 20% equity participation and 20% development participation of certified business enterprises. Uh clarifies that no bonds may be issued or the proceeds of those bonds expended unless the development and financing agreement requirements have been met. I think earlier the the version yesterday simply said that no money could be spent as opposed to the proceeds from the bonds. It requires that the commanders construct the stadium using methods and materials consistent with the goal of obtaining version five lead platinum certification among other things. requires that the district department of transportation develop a traffic operations and parking plan uh develop it in consultation with the ANC's in W sixes and seven and with the developer and it clarifies the timelines for exemptions from the Anacostia waterfront environmental standards. Uh those are the changes from what I'm moving and what was circulated yesterday. And before I go further and before I forget, I move the print for uh approval by the committee. When this measure, this legislation was first presented to the council, um the provisions were that there would be a subsidy of $500 million for the construction of the stadium. That in addition, there would be uh subsidies or funding for the construction of two garages uh for a total cost of $356 million. And I will say because there was has been concern expressed about this whether there would be any cost overruns. The legislation makes clear I think this is a a bit of a change from the legislation has introduced but it's not a change from the term sheet that any overruns are the responsibility of the team and not the city. So our maximum upside as folks would say is $856 million in uh these subsidies. Uh and the council included in its budget approval earlier this week the uh funding uh of of these amounts to the extent that the funding is in either FY26 or in the um capital improvement plan the CIP the the six-year CIP uh and the debt service is covered as well. Uh when this was presented to the council, the the deal also included there would be a number of additional benefits for the team uh which included uh roughly I'm going to say roughly $1.5 million in taxes that either would go to the stadium or would be abated and then some additional uh benefits such as uh parking revenues. the um as Councilman McDuffy noted and unless there's objection I will continue and if there is objection I'll still continue. Um the um as was announced last week the team had agreed to a number of u uh changes what I would characterize as improvements for the deal with regard to the district government or the district taxpayer. So there will now will be a revenue sharing of parking revenues. Uh revenues, parking revenues from non-stadium event days will go to the city and that's estimated over 30 years to be about $260 million. Although I will note that the team's uh estimates are um about $430 million. So it's higher and we'll see. Uh in addition uh changes are that parking taxes will be imposed and go to the city and that most sales taxes uh will also come to the uh general fund. Um that would be sales taxes on general merchandise on food and beverages. Um, all of this totals about $674 million over 30 years or if you use the team's uh estimates about $744 million. In addition, what we have with the legislation is not just a reference to community benefits fund, which was in the term sheet, but actually $50 million that's referenced in the legislation uh that the team has offered. Uh in addition, and this is not with the team, but this is in the legislation that we've adopted with the budget, that we've restructured the debt financing, uh which will actually save taxpayers about $55 million. And and this is in the legislation, um that there will be about $600 million uh that will be set aside over 30 years for uh a transportation improvement fund. And I think this is a big deal. Um even though this is not coming from the team, uh this is in what is before us. There has been concern about transportation, what the impacts will be of um fans who are coming to the stadium or customers coming for events, but also whether there will need to be um improvements to Metro Rail, possibly Metro Bus. We don't know how much that will cost. Uh expanding the capacity of the stadium, Armory Stadium will surely cost millions, tens of millions of dollars. And if another um another rail station is necessary to be built, that will probably cost over hund00 million. So, we're setting aside creating creating this fund, transportation improvement fund, and setting aside a revenue stream which will total $600 million. As I said, I think that's a big deal. Um, the council's budget office did an economic impact analysis that concluded that the stadium project will accelerate the mixeduse development at the RFK campus by possibly 11 years. Um, that in addition, and this was part of the proposal originally, uh, that the project will create approximately 6,000 housing units, of which, uh, 1,800 will be affordable. And of the 1,800 and these numbers are estimates, but half will be at 30% or below AMI and half will be at 60% uh or below AMI. So that's affordable and deeply affordable affordable housing that is part of this package. The uh tax revenue to the city is over 30 years is estimated uh from the stadium as well as redevelopment of the entire campus at about $26.6 billion. Um since I announced uh changes that the team had agreed to last week, the team sent the council a letter. Uh and I'm just going to highlight a few of the points in here. The club will be responsible for all cost overruns for the stadium and parking uh parking lots. Uh and the club is also responsible for all stadium maintenance costs in excess of the stadium maintenance fund. And the maintenance fund is being funded by uh the uh if I remember correctly ticket tax uh ticket tax revenues. The club will plan construction and development of the stadium and mixeduse environment in a manner that allows the fields at RFK campus to remain open. Uh that the club will work with the district to evaluate the sighting of parking facilities, the parking garages and the club will pause the construction of the third parking garage after the initial garages are constructed to evaluate the need for that third parking garage facility. Uh I think this has been noted before. The club will build and operate the stadium to lead O plus M platinum standard and commits uh no to that standard. Um and I do think that's a big deal listening to the testimony at the hearing because this is the ongoing operations of the stadium and that it be sustainable environmentally friendly. The club will work with development partners in the district to provide justice involved individuals with meaningful job readiness and employment training programs. That's only some of what was in the um uh club's letter. Um the legislation that's before us also is different from the bill as originally introduced. And I should note that the bill as originally introduced was a subtitle in the budget support act. We pulled that out so that we have bill 26-288. We did have a hearing on the budget support act on June 18th. So that was the first opportunity for public to testify with regard to what's before us today. And then, as I think everyone knows, we had two days of hearings this week on the 28th and 29th, excuse me, the 29th and 30th, uh, where we had over 500 individuals who registered to testify. Um, and, uh, so those opportunities for public comment as well. uh changes since the bill was first introduced as part of the budget support act include um structuring that the uh next step in this process after the council approval is that there will be a development financing agreement DFA. That DFA will be submitted to the council for review but we will not be able to amend it. But there are a number of conditions that have to be included in that DFA and uh that is the way uh some of these abatements or changes to the abatements are being handled. Um as I noted um uh the district will be receiving uh parking revenue from non-stadium event days. Uh the commanders will be locating their sales office and senior leadership offices in the district. Um there is a development milestone chart with rent acceleration as a penalty if um development of the mixeduse parcels uh is delayed. Um and that's an important provision that a number of people testified to. What if the development never occurs? Well, I'm confident will occur, but we do have this milestone chart in the legislation with rent acceleration as a penalty, and that rent will be substantial. Um, I'd mentioned before the 20% equity participation and 20% development participation of CBES and also sets a 40% floor with a goal of 50% of the adjusted budget for the project in the development financing agreement. Um there is a preference in the legislation for CBEEs in WS seven and 8 and WS five and six are added to that. It's a 10% preference. The legislation clarifies that um the proceeds from bonds cannot be expended unless the development and financing agreement requirements have been met. The commanders will construct the stadium using methods and materials consistent with the goal of obtaining a lead platinum certification. And I already mentioned about the operation at a lead platinum status. Um a department of transportation uh traffic operations and parking plan. Um there is also in the legislation a waiver with regard to heritage trees. However, there would still be a fee that would have to be paid which will be substantial. And the legislation sets up a community benefits and community reinvestment fund uh as well as a community benefits oversight committee. I already mentioned the transportation improvement fund and there's a stadium maintenance fund for the maintenance, repair and capital improvements which is funded from excess stadium revenue funds and any costs above that are borne by the commanders. I think that's a fair description of the legislation before us. As I said, I'm moving the day of what I'm calling the day of print. The print that was circulated um this if I said this morning, I might be wrong. It might be shortly after noon. Uh so moved. Is there discussion? I'm happy if there's no construction and no no discussion. >> I have amendments. Uh should we move forward? >> You are recognized. Uh thank you, chairman. Um going to offer uh several amendments uh in hopes to make this make more sense for the District of Columbia. Um uh so I want to move amendment one, which would strike the tax exemption for personal seat licenses or PSLs. um for the the question I'm asking myself is is why should luxury seat fees get a tax break while everyday families pay full price here in the city? Uh this amendment ends a special deal that benefits big spenders at the expense of the public. Uh teams charge over $200,000 uh in order for a fan to purchase a ticket to the game. We are not taxing that while the city is in a financial deficit. We have schools, roads, and public services that need funding, and we're in a deficit. Uh so I'm suggesting that we not give up tax dollars just so someone can buy better stadium seats and keep public money where it needs to be. If the commanders want to offer premium seating, that's fine. Plenty of stadiums do that. Some of them tax it. Uh but they should pay their fair share just like the rest of us. This amendment sends a clear message. Stadium deal should work for the people, not just for VIPs and private interests. The stadium deal should not come with hidden giveaways. This amendment sets the right tone for our partnership with the commanders and for future development uh fair, responsible, and communityminded. So again, this is simply going to tax uh personal seat licenses like we tax everything else in this city. Uh I now move amendment one. The amendment is before us. I'm going to ask that members not support this. There's been quite a bit of discussion about this. I think they're called PSLs. Um I'll note two things. One is that um in discussions with the team over the last month. Uh we talked about the different types of abatements and taxes and revenues. And in the end, uh, what we did was we extracted $674 million, that's our estimate, $744 million, the team's estimate in revenue, whether it was taxes or parking revenues. Um, the choice was uh parking and sales, and it was not the personal seat licenses. That's just what the choice was. So, this amendment overlooks that. But I would add most stadiums do not tax the uh personal seat licenses and my understanding is that of the very few that do those tax revenues go into construction. They do not go to the city. Uh so um that that there two reasons why uh the PSLs are not being taxed. There are two reasons as I've just noted. Um the PSL is all about funding construction and that's why um they're handled or treated the way they are in uh with other stadiums. Again, I would ask members not to support this. Is there any other discussion? Uh Council Member Parker, I have a question. Um, it's my understanding if if we were hypothetically to tax these seat licenses, it would go towards construction. Obviously, the district is providing uh resources subsidies for construction. Um, I guess for council member White or maybe chairman, you could weigh in here. Hypothetically speaking, if this were to pass, how then do we reconfigure the district's investment for construction? Or is this suggesting that we should add these taxes on top of the district's uh already proposed subsidies? Does that make sense what I'm asking, >> Council Member White or Mr. Chairman? >> I'm I'm happy to respond. Uh, Council Member White. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Parker. So, yes, to your point, the city is putting in money for construction. So, uh, this could be seen as a way that we recoup, uh, our investment. Uh, as it stands right now, um, we over 30 years are going to bring in about, uh, 600 some odd um, million dollars. Uh, but we're putting in over a billion. So, this would reduce the loss of revenue on the district and uh specifically the money we're putting in for construction. This can help us uh repay that. >> Mr. White, did you say 600 million? >> The number has changed many times. So, whatever your number is, chairman, we can go with that. >> Well, I'm looking at the taffics about 10% of that. No, you you suggested that the city is now bringing in a certain number of millions of dollars because of the changes the council made. >> Yes, I that was that number was 674 million by our calculations 744 million by >> So whether it's 674 or 744, we're putting in 1.1 billion. So we're taking a loss um because of construction. Um, and I'm I'm just not seeing why the city would take a financial loss when and excuse, you know, excuse the tax. We um so I I don't want to take up council member Parker's time because I I will um take a second round. >> Anything further on this? >> Uh then second round, Council Member White. >> Um thank you, Chairman. I I want to remind us uh again that the city is in a financial deficit of about a billion dollars over the next three years. Uh we're going to put over a billion dollars into this and over 30 years we're going to get 674700 million back. Uh that is lopsided and so I'm suggesting that nobody no resident no other business gets to come into the city and treat taxes like an alikart menu and say we'll take this one but we won't take that one. that that's what we're doing here. Uh so I'm just saying we we should be consistent. We're not going to limit the team on how much they can charge for the personal seat licenses, but we would tax that like we tax everything else to, you know, cover the needs. When we don't do that, I will remind us we'll be in the budget next year talking about either what residents we're going to raise taxes on or what programs for residents we're going to cut. So instead of doing that to our residents, let's just tax things the way that we normally tax things. There's no further discussion. We have the amendment before us. I'd >> ask for a roll call vote. Chairman um Mr. Cash, would you call the Council Member Lewis George? >> No. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy, >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nado, >> yes. Councilman Nado votes yes. Council member Parker, >> no. >> Senator Parker votes no. Council member Pinto, >> no. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White, >> yes. >> Council member White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. >> Council member Felder, >> no. Council Felder votes no. Council member Freeman, >> no. >> Council Fman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Henderson votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are three yeses and nine nos. >> Hey, >> fails meeting. >> Thank you. >> To our plans. >> Council member Fman, you're not on mute. >> Nope. >> I'll just talk with my brother. >> Could have been worse. >> Council member White, I think you had four amendments. Number two, >> thank you, Chairman. Um, amendment number two would create a revenue sharing agreement between the team and the district. It would require that the district receive 10% of all gross sales receipts from commander events. Uh, the the question I asked myself is why should the city commit to funding over 26% of the development of the site while not receiving any portion of the true revenue? If the team profits, I believe the district should profit as well. The commanders are using public land and public money. It's only fair that the public gets something back in return. This amendment helps bring real dollars back to our neighborhoods. Money that can support schools, parks, transit, and public safety. A billion dollar franchise shouldn't get a fair ride uh while the district residents uh are not. If they're doing business here, they should contribute directly to the community that is supporting them. This revenue sharing plan turns stadium hype into lasting impact, making sure that DC benefits every time the commanders fill those seats. Taxes are a cost to the consumer. Revenue sharing is a cost to the team. At this time, I move amendment number two. Uh thank you, Council Member White. Uh I'm going to ask that members not support this. I'm going to start with a question which I hope gets a brief answer. Mr. White, did you discuss with the team this proposal uh or discuss with them the economics behind their construction of the stadium? >> Uh no chairman. Uh we were uh supposed to get a contact from the team yesterday. We didn't. Um and as you and the rest of the members know, we are moving at lightning speed on this. Um >> Okay. Well, I asked that because you did say in your remarks a moment ago that um the city should get something back in return, which is sort of overlooking that. Well, we're getting all the benefit of the economic development on the private parcels. We're getting uh tax revenue off of the stadium as well as the mixeduse parcels uh that we are getting over 30 years. What did I say at the beginning?$ 26.6 billion. So the city will be getting $26.6 billion to so to say we should be getting something back in return as if we're not getting anything. Uh I think is um a very unfair statement. In addition, uh you noted that 20% 26% of the development is being funded by the district. That would be the 500 million plus the 386 million. And my recollection is uh when looking at the comparative analysis in the Robert Bob report that that 26% was either low or it was uh like it was kind of um it was not at the high end in terms of public subsidies. It was at the low end of public subsidies. So I totally get that it sounds appealing to say well there should be revenue sharing but there is revenue sharing and the district's contribution is not extraordinary. Again I would ask members to not support this. Is there further on the amendment? >> Chairman Mendes. >> Council member Fman. >> Um thank you very much. Uh folks might eventually be puzzled because I'm going to be voting against these amendments and then I'm also going to vote against the bill as a whole. Um there have been a ton of conversations with the commanders about the economics of this deal. And for example, going back to the PSL, I mean, they pushed hard on the idea that um that that that was not the place that they agreed to provide revenue and they did it in other places. And the way and the CFO said about the PSL that they will be charging a market clearing price, which means any tax on it would ultimately come out of the balance of the revenue that they would get from the deal as a whole. Mr. Chairman, you talked about all the different benefits that we can get from this deal and a big one is the mixeduse development and the thing that becomes a snag for me is the accountability for delivering that mixeduse development. But I will talk about that later. I think there is a supermajority on the council to support this bill and I don't want to be a part of any kind of poison pill in uh contravention to the will of the broad the supermaajority of the council. But while I'm not voting for these amendments, I'm also not satisfied with this deal. >> Is there anything further on this amendment? >> Uh second round. >> Uh thank you chairman. Um the this is one of the biggest subsidies for a sports complex in in US history. Um and while you are correct chairman to talk about um taxes that the city uh will receive on the back end, those are taxes from the users. Uh we are helping to construct the stadium and the stadium is going to bring in profit to the team. we are a partner in building the stadium and I believe that we should be a partner and I'm only suggesting 10% um in the revenue as well. Uh I think that's basic fairness to taxpayers. I certainly don't think the team or any other business uh would settle for for less than that and and I think we've got to hold ourselves to a certain standard as well uh for the sake of our residents and for our finances. So I would ask members to support this. The vote will be on the amendment number two. All those in favor of the of the I have a roll call. Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Cash, would you call the role? >> Council McDuffy? >> No. >> Council McDuffy votes no. Chairman Medson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes no. Council member Nadau. Councilman Nado. >> That's true. >> Yes. >> Council Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker, >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto, >> no. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member White, >> yes. >> Council member White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> no. Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Felder votes no. >> Council member Fman, >> no. Council member Fman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George, >> yes. >> Council Lewis George votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are nine nos and three yeses. >> Thank you, Mr. Cash. The amendment fails. Uh, Council White, did you have a third amendment? >> Uh, yes, Chairman. Um, sorry pulling that up. Um, chairman, amendment three would implement stronger penalties if the team fails to deliver uh on their development commitments. Uh, the stadium is not the only thing that is to be developed here. Uh, and the city has some high needs, it would require the team to pay $2 million annually for every year that development goes beyond 2038. If the entire mixeduse development isn't substantially completed by 2042, the city will reclaim undeveloped land. If the team says they'll build housing, shops, and community spaces, they need to follow through and and we need to make sure for the sake of the city, that we don't just leave the land sitting empty for years. Uh there are cities in which this has happened decades later. The housing that was promised has not been developed. And we want to make sure uh we we don't end up on that same track. and if we do that we have some type of enforcement power which we don't now the amendment sets real deadlines with real consequences. If the team drags its feet they'll have to pay not to the taxpayers. Uh the people of DC are offering valuable land and support. This amendment makes sure we get something real in return not just any vague plans uh or future excuses. Without their this amendment there's no strong incentive for the team to finish the job. This keeps the heat on them to deliver what they promised on time, which is what I expect they'll do and I think all of us expect that they'll do. Um, and it gives us a chance to get the land back if things falter, which again is not what any of us want, but we have a an obligation to protect ourselves. Um, so I now move amendment three and would ask colleagues for uh support. >> Uh, thank you, council member. Uh uh here again I'm going to ask that members not support this. I will be voting against it and I ask that others vote against it as well. I do want to note that this issue of and I will call it penalties uh for not completing the development uh that that issue has been discussed extensively in the last few days. Uh it also was discussed in my discussions with the team earlier this month. Uh where we are is where we landed after careful and I would say difficult uh discussion uh very carefully crafted. Um let me just say that the language here that would be proposed to be struck uh says that the uh acceleration of rent uh shall not exceed five years. That would mean, first of all, that would mean like five years of there being late, which I just think is just beyond reasonable or beyond being able to reasonably expect that that could happen. But also, if I remember correctly, and I'm sort of looking at our budget director, I think the rent is estimated. It's not set forth. It'll have to be calculated, but I I seem to have in my mind that the rent's going to be over $10 million a year. So we're talking about already a penalty of like $50 million. So I think between that and the fact that it's clear that master developer of these mixeduse parcels, there's a lot of profit potential there, there is a lot of incentive to get this development done and done early. Uh so it is not correct to say and I'm quoting you there is no strong incentive for the team to complete the development. There is a strong incentive. So for all those reasons uh I ask that members not vote for this. Is there further on the amendment? >> U Mr. Chairman. Uh Council Member Lewis George then Fman Allen. >> Uh thank you chairman. Um I will be voting in favor of this amendment. I I think it is actually a reasonable amendment that colleagues should actually seriously consider. This is an accountability accountability mechanism our communities have been asking for for community members who have reached out on all sides of this. The one thing that has been across the board consistent is please whatever you do make sure there's some accountability in there because of the history of lack of accountability in development deals in the District of Columbia. What my colleague Councilman White is seeking to do is to give the community what they have been asking for and to cure some of the fears that they have around development and development deals. And so I think this is a reasonable ask and our discussions and I think it's a reasonable ask because in our discussions the commanders and the mayor have both said we're going to get started on this. We don't want to slow walk this. We have every reason to get this done. So I also think they have already shown an ability to not even have to get to the point where they face these penalties. So I don't think there should be any fear from putting this in and incentivizing because the hope from their our discussions is that we won't even get there. >> Um and that's the hope I think from all of us. So um I think developing this site and particularly the affordable housing on this site which has been the main discussion we have uh voices we've heard from community members as well must be a top priority this deal and I think this is accountability mechanism is a way for us to do that. So, I'm grateful for the work of my colleague, Council Member White, to ensure this development is treated as such, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. This is a reasonable no-brainer amendment in my opinion and makes this deal stronger and makes the community feel heard in asking for accountability measures, particularly as it relates to affordable housing. Thank you. >> Uh, Council Member Truman. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman Mendes. And as you know, I have spent a lot of time talking with the commanders about this very issue of accountability and frankly floated ideas that were far less dramatic than the ideas here. Um and they were rejected and uh and they were rejected and rejected on a with the statement that if you do this we'll walk away. I think accountability is very very important. I don't think the mechanism I think the mechanism here is more than they will bear but the spirit of it is absolutely right. Um I think it's a serious problem. I hear you that there are penalties that kick in in in the 2050s under the mechanisms that we have and yes they have an incentive to get this done unless they don't have an incentive to get this done. And in a deal like this, you don't rely on just trusting the the other partner. You have mechanisms in place to do it. I don't think that this mechanism is is can carry the day. But because of the lack of any willingness to commit to stronger accountability mechanisms than what is in place in the deal now, I'm going to vote against the deal as a whole. Uh, thank you, Council Member Fman. Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, one of the best parts of this whole project is actually the development of the sites other than the stadium. Um, and I know the lion share of the conversation is around the stadium, but we're not going to see our return on the investment on the stadium itself. It's the parcels around it that I think actually have a huge potential. And one of the things that I believe we've got to do is make sure that we have the accountability that those sites get delivered and those promises are delivered on. One of the benefits of why this can happen faster and hit these timelines and goals is that we're using a master developer model. So when I think about the ballpark, for example, which had individual ownership of lots of different sites all around it, >> it took longer because you've got individual properties that have to figure out their financing in each different project. ballpark's been open 20 years um and we are just now at a point where we actually are seeing almost all those parcels that have been built out. So I believe that under a master developer model this can actually get done faster. I think it's also something that Mr. Chairman, your changes moved us forward in the right direction, but I want the commanders and the mayor and others to hear I want to see us do better than where we are between now and second reading. I'm not convinced that this amendment's exactly right yet. So I'm not going to support this amendment today, but I think you're going to hear enough voices on this dis that want to see us continue to work on this between first and second reading to continue to make this better because that is one of the places where we can really deliver. And if we're talking about the benefits of having a master developer model that can move faster, the promises made have to be delivered and we need the safeguards that that happens. I think it's one of the smarter things that Virginia did when they did Amazon HQ2 was to build those type of metrics in. So, I think that Mr. Chairman, your changes moved it forward in a way that I'm I'm supporting, but I would like for us to work and work with commanders between now and second reading to see what more we can do because we need those protections. So, I'm not going to support the amendment today, but I do want to make it very clear. I hope and expect we will see some further improvement between first and second reading. >> And I'm happy to have those discussions. Council member Council Member Parker, you were next. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself with my colleagues statements. Um the council's budget office produced a report and an analysis that said for every year that the mixeduse development footprint is delayed runs a cost of about $150 million in loss revenue to the district. And so as has been mentioned, this is critically important. And I appreciate council member White pushing on this. I will say in our conversation as chairman in our more recent days, this has also been an issue I've raised. I am I'm not quite sure what the answer is or the the fix perfectly, but I it does strike me as odd and unacceptable that we would wait 20 plus years for a penalty uh to kick in. Um and I just think before a second vote, we need to do a lot better. Um again I think this is a reasonable uh and justifiable request to ensure that there is accountability on our partner to actually benefit and deliver on our commitment. So thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Council member Bonds. >> Um I just wanted to inquire from Mr. White is the understanding that if the your amendment were to pass um when the penalty kicks in, would that change some of the other terms of the agreement? >> Uh thank you, Council Member Bonds. Not that I can see. Just it just would change the current penalty. >> Mr. Chairman, do you agree it would not change any other parts of the agreement? >> Uh I would I don't I don't know that there's a clear answer there. Uh but I would add as well that this was an issue that uh was discussed extensively with the team not only when I was negotiating with them but over the last few days and it was part of the entire package if you will. Thank you. >> Is there any further discussion on the amendment? >> Chairman, >> uh, round two, Council White. >> Thank you, Chairman. I just want to clarify a couple things. One, what I'm hearing is the team is saying they'll have no problem meeting the deadline on housing, but they'll walk away if there's a penalty. And that makes me nervous. Um, should make all of us nervous. >> Who said that? uh who said they will walk away. >> That one of the council members just said that in discussions they said they would walk away if there was a a penalty. >> Um was that council member Fman because he was there was far more complex what those discussions were. >> Did you hear if you heard something different chairman your character m >> Mr. chairman with with proposals that were far more modest than this. That is absolutely what they said. >> So more modest than this and they will walk away and that that makes me uncomfortable. Uh chairman um makes me very uncomfortable. Um the the penalties right now uh for uh the public to understand um would be would not the team wouldn't have to pay the penalties until starting in 2049 or 2050. Um so I'd say those penalties aren't very real and the penalties for delay are capped at 5 years. So if it's delayed 6 years, 10 years, 20 years, there are no additional penalties, which means there's no incentive to move it along if it really does get stuck. Now, we have seen projects get stuck in this city for a long time. Um, and the thing that most people tell us they need in this city is more housing. And so if the team is saying they're going to deliver on time, um, and you chairman are saying you believe they're going to deliver on time, um, I I I just don't understand why we wouldn't memorialize that. um as opposed to, you know, hope and a very vague penalty that would happen 2530 years from now. Uh so I would I would ask uh for support for this amendment. Thank you, Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, Council Member Felder. >> Uh uh just a question for Council Member White. Uh, council member, um, could you walk me through how you came up with the penalty amount and then why did you push the penalty timeline so far out? >> Is that to me? >> No. Council member White, I I moved the penalty timeline up. The current penalty timeline is far out. It doesn't hit them until somewhere between 2049 and 2050. Uh I don't believe if the point of a penalty is to incentivize action, some threat of action 25 or 30 years from now is not a real threat. So I actually move it up. Uh I don't don't move it back. >> And how did you come up with the penalty amount? >> Um the penalty amount is I'm trying to remember. Uh the it's it we wanted something that was modest. So $2 million is modest. Um, again, we're moving at lightning speed. Um, and you know, I had a call I was expecting from the team yesterday that they didn't call. Um, so, you know, we worked as best we could in that scenario, but we tried to pick something that was modest and not outrageous. >> U, Mr. Chairman, can I just add for one thing? So the penalty the penalty kicks in after year 28 or the accelerated rent starts after year 28 which I think is likely to be 208. So failure the first failure would lead to an acceleration of market rent from 208 to 207 and then the second to 206. So the the penalties come in very far into the future under the current rubric. And the idea that there should be immediate penalties if there's a delay into the late 2030s uh strikes me as completely reasonable but rejected. And I'm heartened to hear other council members say this is a thing that should be worked on between first and second reading. The unwillingness to embrace any kind of accountability should deeply well not not any kind of accountability because they have some. It's just happens to be very weak. But to embrace strengthened accountability should be very troubling to everyone. Uh, this would be second round. Council member Parker. >> Thank you. Um, I would agree completely with my colleague, Council Member Fman. This is more of a question because I haven't been fully privy to all of the discussions in the last 48 hours outside of those pertaining to labor. Where do we stand with the commanders as it relates to this issue? Is it take it or leave it? Or is it we're going to work on this? Or is it some form of another option? Well, Council Member Allen sort of alluded to this and I said that uh I would of course be willing to discuss this further between now and second reading. um the the discussions I've had what I've tried to convey and I said this with regard to the earlier amendment is that what is before us is is a package that includes a lot of compromises. Mr. Parker, you were involved in some of those. >> Yes. >> Uh this is a complex proposal. The penalties are a piece of that complexity. Messing with it on the deis is very concerning to me because it undoes this package without the discussions, the the give and take and ensuring that this works for everybody. I can tell you that um the issue of penalties is fraught. I would say as well, I get the importance of it. I think that we all must reflect on how likely is it truly that this deal needs to be about penalties. I think this deal is about getting this development done and I think there are a lot of incentives for getting the development done, namely profit. And so this focus on penalties in a way is a bit uh of um self-inflicted I'll say friction self-inflicted um because it's focusing on the back end what doesn't happen um the the the the package that is before us says that the development is going to be done by 2040. That's 15 years from now. What happens if they miss that? But think about how long does it did it take the warf? How long has it taken any of these major projects? And this is much much larger. So, is this the end of the discussion? My recommendation is we vote this amendment down. Is that the end of the discussion? No. I assure you there will be more discussion and see if we can't get to a place where members are more comfortable but um I I think in fact part of the discussion was bonuses and bonuses for early delivery that's not even in here. I think it kind of ought to be in here. So what I'm trying to say it's much more complicated. It's fraught. Let's just kind of leave it alone for the moment and we will have another chance at this which was your question. Another is this the end of the discussion? >> Yeah, if I could just take 30 more seconds or so. Um that was a long response and so I I I don't have much time on the clock. I I just push back on the suggestion that we shouldn't be worried about accountability. Um especially when we talk about revenue and profit. this directly informs the district's profit from this deal. I too am concerned um if our partners in this are saying they are not willing to even have a discussion. So I'm hearing you say you're committed to talking about this between first and second vote. The question was have we received commitment from the commanders that they're willing to work on this? Um I think at least half the council it seems has raised questions about this both privately and are raising those questions here. So I think it's valid. I will say you know I'm not necessarily sold that this is the exact proposal before us. Uh but I do think this very quickly will become a sticking point. Um not because we're assuming bad faith but because we have to protect the interest of the district. And I think that is a a fair focal point for us to be drawing at this time. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Council member McDuffy. >> No, I appreciate my colleagues concerns and I think their concerns are fair. I think their concerns are fair. Um, I would ask that you not support this amendment today, though. Um, because of how much work has gone into getting this to this point, uh, there's been extensive negotiations over the course of the last several weeks. Um I think accountability of the developer, master developer, component developers u in all cases should exist in projects uh where district taxpayer dollars are involved and this this massive project is no different. But I do think u the extreme complexity of this project, the deal terms, the delicate balance that has been struck to get us to today means that we should not support these types of amendments on the fly on the day today. But it does not negate the issues raised by my colleagues about the importance of accountability. Um whether they think the accountability exists today, uh there is accountability in the in these terms, whether they think it should be stronger. Let's have the conversation between first and second read. I would ask my colleagues though not to support the amendment before us today. >> If there's no further discussion chairman, >> this would be third round. Mr. White, >> thank you chairman. I I'll be brief uh but it is important. You you mentioned bonuses and I do want to clarify that there is a bonus uh in this in my amendment for every year before December 31st, 2035 where the entire mixeduse development is substantially complete. The payment of market rate rent would be delayed by two years. uh so they would get discounted rent for a longer period of time. There is uh an incentive. The other thing that's really important to remember here is that what we're talking about is not hypothetical. Brooklyn still does not have the affordable housing they were promised in the deal with the Barlay Center 22 years ago. So I'm sure they hoped to um but they are just got hope right now. Um, so since the majority of council members seem to be concerned about this, the way we maintain our leverage for second reading is to put this in and then we walk it back if necessary. But if we go into second reading without this, then we don't have uh the leverage and we're going to end up at the same place that we ended up with today. Uh so again, I'd encourage uh members to support this because again, our residents are wanting not just a stadium, but housing and mixeduse development as well. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank you, council member. Uh, the vote is on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendments, >> like I have a roll call, please. Chairman. >> Mr. Cash, would you call the role? >> Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes no. Council member Nado. Council member Nado. >> Council Nadau, you're on mute. >> Yes. >> Council Nado votes yes. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> no. Council >> Pinto votes no. Council member White, >> yes. >> Council member White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> no. Council Allen votes no. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. Council member Felder votes no. Council member Fman, >> no. >> Council member Fman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George, >> yes. >> Council Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy, >> no. Council >> McDuffy votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are four yeses and eight nos. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Cash. The amendment fails. Uh, Council Member White, did you have one more? >> Uh, yes. One more amendment. Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, this amendment um addresses a significant concern I have about, uh, displacement due to the stadium. uh probably every member uh of this council has spoken about gentrification uh because DC is the second most gentrified uh place in this country uh which didn't happen by accident or overnight. Um this uh uh amendment would dedicate $10 million annually from the new revenue added to the general fund uh from revenue sharing with the team to preservation of and of affordable homes. Big new developments often lead to rising rents and displacement. This is a fact. This amendment makes sure that longtime residents aren't priced out of their own neighborhoods. It sets aside $10 million a year u from revenue to help preserve the homes and the people uh that people already live in. We know that rents are going to go up substantially. That will displace people and families. We can have a stadium and protect the community. This amendment makes sure that the benefits don't just go to uh the team and development, but to Washingtonians who call this area home. This is about protecting the heart of the city, which is the families, the seniors, the workers who have built and sustained these neighborhoods for generations. Instead of all of the money going straight to a luxury project, this amendment puts it to work preserving affordable housing to keep communities intact. U Mr. Chairman, I'm going to withdraw this amendment because the funding mechanism would have been in amendment two which failed. Uh so this is something I'm going to work on between first and second reading, but I think it would be uh irresponsible at the council to move forward with a stadium without addressing the inevitable gentrification. Thank you, chairman. >> Uh thank you, Mr. White. Um, in general discussion on the bill that we have before us, I want to note this. The issue of displacement has come up several times. I have suggested that this is not only a worthy issue, but it's also not an immediate issue. We're not going to see the stadium built until 2030. We're not going to see most of the uh uh development uh for until the ensuing decade. And so, we don't need to deal with this in 2025. this issue of displacement, but it's a serious issue and I suggest that there are proposals that ought to be introduced that go to the committee on business and economic development if they involve taxes which is one approach or housing then probably would be referred to the housing committee which you chair but I think this is something that requires a lot more thought than uh what was presented here. uh and when I see a lot more thought discussion some analysis what kind of displacement um how do we best deal with it is it because of rising values and rising values are not a bad thing but then again if somebody's low income and on a fixed income then let's figure out what that is and how best to address it if the existing tax code which does have tax relief for lowincome fixed income folks um I just want to make the point This is important. It's not necessary we do it as part of this bill and it requires it ought to get a lot more careful analysis and thought behind it. Any further discussion on the bill? >> Yes, Mr. >> Council member Parker, >> I have a question. There was another amendment that focused on revenue sharing. We didn't approve that. So, how then would we move forward with this? >> It's been withdrawn. >> Oh, he withdrew it. Oh, I missed that. I'm just down here in my own world. Um, well, I would just say uh I I agree that this is a worthy issue for us to focus on, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, if there's no further Yes, I hear I hear I hear. Um, all right. Council member Fman, you want to be recognized? >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Is this the time to speak generally to the bill as a whole? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. So I and I'm going to go longer than two minutes. I I apologize in advance. >> Well, you get three. >> Uh so I want it to be a yes. I thought it'd be a yes, but alas, I'm a no. Um and I expect that I'm in the minority and I want to congratulate my colleges, my colleagues for what's been accomplished to date. Chairman Mendlesson, you did a great job in improving the finances for this bill. Others on the council have done a great job improving other aspects, including around labor and the environment. The commanders have done a good job in clarifying a number of things that they've expressed orally and putting them in writing. A lot of progress has been made and I think folks have a lot to be proud of even if I'm not in a position where I can support it. The problem I have is on this accountability for the delivery of the mixeduse development. It is a very very important issue and just relying on the hope of parallel interests is not the way business deals work. It's not the way the commanders would would enter into an agreement where they are looking for an obligation from a counterparty. They want accountability if there isn't performance by their counterparty. The budget office has talked about that with the stadium, it's a $5 billion benefit to the district. Without a stadium, it's a $9 billion benefit to the district. I could live with that. I could live with that because a stadium could be the catalyzing investment. It could happen more quickly. We could get the mixed use more quickly. There is the intangible benefit of having the commanders here in the city. But a lot rides on the timely delivery of the mixeduse portion of the project. And the later that waits, the lo the smaller the benefit to the district. It is really really important that we have accountability for the timely delivery of that development. I've spent much of the last week seeking modest strengthening of the accountability mechanisms for late delivery. I have tried to work in mechanisms for rewards for early delivery. In the end, the commanders rejected those modest mechanisms and that is very very troubling. Not just substantively because they should be in there, but the the absolute rejection of uh accountability mechanisms that kick in earlier is troubling and should be troubling to all of us. I fully expect this bill to pass. I have no interest and as I voted on the different amendments showed no interest in seeking any kind of a poison pill, but given the lack of meaningful teeth for to ensure timely delivery, I'm a no on this bill. I am heartened to hear others talk about wanting to raise this and work it through between first and second reading. I think that is really important. We cannot just cross our fingers and hope it happens and count on shared interest. We need mechanisms to ensure the mixeduse development is delivered in a timely fashion. Thank you, Council Member Fman. Uh, Council Member Pinto, >> thank you so much, Chairman Mendelson and Chair McDuffy. And I want to congratulate both of you for the really outstanding work that has gone on as part of this project. Um, and congratulate the mayor and her team um, for what has been many, many years in the making to get us to today. um today that I hope people are really proud of um how much progress there's been and how much excitement this means. We talk a lot about um public private partnerships in the city and what that can really mean. And I think this is an example and has been an example of the partnership component being very very strong here to make sure that what is important to council members, what's important to the public, um what's important to the economic development perspective of the city is incorporated in this deal. And that's something that I'm very proud of. Um, we have heard from thousands of residents about what they want to see on their land to make this a truly once in a generational opportunity. Um, we heard from residents this week at our public hearing, um, from native Washingtonians who talked about, um, one one idea I really liked was from Reginald Matthysse who talked about this idea of an urban oasis for our young people. Um, in reference to the Sports Plex that's going to be built so that our young people have places to play. We heard from Sharita Whiting who talked about going to games at RFK with her family as a child and wanting to bring her son there. Now, um we heard stories after stories of people's both memories and visions for the future of how they can be a part of this deal, which um gives me a lot of inspiration and hope that this is going to be really um a joy for our city and for our community. We also heard concerns from some people about wanting to make sure that this deal benefits taxpayers. Um, and I'm proud of many of the commitments that we've secured in this deal. Um, to make sure that this is a magnet for economic development, housing, and jobs and resources. To make sure that there's affordable housing on this site. Um, to ensure that there's job opportunities for returning citizens or justice involved residents, not just to be part of the construction opportunities here, but all of the hospitality related jobs throughout the operations of the stadium. ensuring that the fields at RFK will be open to families um and that this is a true mixeduse development as well as that the district is generating more revenue through the parking uh taxes and sales taxes to ensure that everyone in the city is really benefiting. There's going to be no other football stadium in the country where you can look out and see the water and see the monument. Um and I think this is a really iconic moment for the city. um and something that we're all going to look back decades later um and be thrilled that we were a part of it. So, let's get this deal done. Let's vote yes on this uh deal today. And congratulations again to everybody who has been so part of this and most importantly to district residents who have waited long enough for this great news. And I'm thrilled to vote yes on this deal today. >> Thank you, Council Member Pinto. Council Member Felder. >> Uh thank you, Mr. chairman and good afternoon council colleagues. Uh kudos to each of you and members of your team for all the hard work uh that has gotten us to this point. You know, when I first took office to serve in the role as a war 7 council member uh just under eight months ago, I came in with a clear mission to fight for the residents of my ward and deliver on the kinds of transformational changes our community has long been promised but rarely received. Much like rookie quarterback Jay and Daniels who shocked the league last year with his grit and leadership and under estim and being underestimated. Trust me, I know that feeling too well. And just like it's Jada's job to bring the commanders a championship back to Washington, it's my job to bring the neighborhood serving amenities that my constituents so desperately deserve. And that's exactly why Bill 26-2088, the Robert Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025, sets into motion. But this bill isn't about it's much more than football in a stadium. It's about right writing the historic imbalance of investment across our city. It's about finally giving W 7 anchor it needs to drive economic growth, attract new businesses, create jobs, and instill pride in a community that has waited far long enough for a commitment of this magnitude. I've said this time and time again. For decades, Ward 7 has not received its fair share. But today, I want to do more than just restate the truth. Now, I want to speak directly to the moment at hand. This council has an obligation to do its due diligence. No one disputes that, but I I do question why that obligation suddenly becomes a barrier when it's time to invest east of the river. Here's the reality. Public dollars have backed major projects all across this city for years. stadiums, arenas, transit projects, and affordable housing developments. Yet, when War 7 finally has an opportunity to benefit the same level of investment, we're meet with hesitation, debate, and delay. I have a question. Would this be the case if the RFK redevelopment site was in another ward with a with a different zip code? It's important to note this as well. my predecessor, the Honorable Vincent C. Craig. When he was faced with serious health challenges, Ward 7's priorities were often overlooked. Its needs went in silence. Now, the same voices that were absent then are the loudest in opposition today. That's not leadership. That's bad politics. As the W and Ward 7 deserves better. Now, over the past several months, I've worked handinhand with residents through listening sessions, town halls, and neighborhood walks to ensure the deal reflects the hopes, concerns, and vision of the people who will be mostly impacted. And what's before us today is the result of that work. It's a deal rooted in community voice, community needs, and community power. We have a choice to make. We can let fear, politics, and misinformation stall this moment, or we can lead. We can show our residents and our and and future investors that were serious about inclusive growth and equitable development. So to my colleagues, I urge you all to vote in favor of this legislation and stand with W 7, not just in words, but in actions, and join me in delivering the kind of investments that every part of this city deserves. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I defer back to you. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Felder. Council Member Allen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, over the last few weeks, we have all suffered some strained sports references. Um, and I'm going to tell you right now, I'm not going to disappoint you. I am going to keep that trend going. Um, when this deal was given to us and came to the council, it was not on the one yard line. I don't even think it was in the red zone. Needed a lot of work. Whether it was diehard Commanders fans that would stop me in the grocery store or people that shared my skepticism about a stadium in the first place, they all universally said the deal that was sent to us wasn't good enough and they were counting on the council to make it better and to make it more fair. So, while I shared my skepticism frequently, I also shared how I believe this deal had to change and had how it had to get better. I don't think it's an understatement that this is one of the more consequential votes this body will make. So, my vote has hinged on major and significant changes, and I appreciate working with all of my colleagues, with the commander's leadership, with the mayor's team, and in particular, the residents of DC to outline where and how this had to change. So, let me spend a moment going through that. I said at the outset, we had to invest in Metro and not parking garages. This was one of the biggest faults I saw in the proposal that was put in front of us to build 8,000 parking spots and not put a dime into expanding Metro. Rarely do we have an opportunity to build the equivalent of a small city, but building for the future isn't focused on parking lots. It's not a debate that we that we have to expand and upgrade our metro system there. It's just a question of how. I pushed hard on this and we've made changes. The proposal in front of us now has a transit fund where excess RFK campus infrastructure funds up to $20 million annually are going to go into this fund to be used specifically to support public transit related improvements for the RFK campus, including Metro Rail and Metro Bus. We've also eliminated one of the garages of about 2,000 spots and the team is working to uh reorient the parking garages that will be built. When I look at how this is going to build for the future, heard a lot of people talk about how this is a once in a generation opportunity for the team. Well, it is a once in a generation opportunity for how we build and design the stadium and the accompanying parcels of land. The consequences of that decision are going to last for many generations and they will outlast every single person on this dis and every single person in this room. What's in front of us had several provisions that I insisted had to be included. The design, construction, and maintenance to a lead platinum version 5 standard. It's the most stringent set of green building requirements that came out this year. It's going to help us achieve our net zero and decarbonization goals. I want to thank the team for their commitment to design, build, and maintain to both lead BDC and OM platinum certifications. We're going to be proud to say that DC and the commanders will be national leaders on the environment and help set the pace for everybody else. Further, I've added protections now for the Anakashia River and storm water and environmental standards to safeguard waiverss and exemptions from DC law. It's one of the main reasons this site was selected in the first place on the shores of the river and adjacent to Kingman Island. This is crucial to meet our goals and standards to be a leader. Working families and labor peace. How many times have we heard people site the number of jobs that could be created here? One of the things that I needed to see were PLA's and labor peace agreements. This was a bright line for many of us and I've seen firsthand how we use this in major projects to protect highquality, well-paid jobs with rights. Getting those agreements was crucial to me and it had to get done. I appreciate the team and our labor leaders for working tirelessly over the last few days to land that commitment. We just had a long conversation around how we deliver on our housing promises. I do believe this is a space where we have to work between first and second reading. But this if if we are giving the land at this level of subsidy, I need to make sure that we see a deal that the developer couldn't come back for even more housing subsidies to help build that housing. That looks like double dipping to me. This proposal we now have in front of us helps make sure that won't happen. And if the development misses the completion dates, we're speeding up that timeline. And again, I think we can do more in that. And on the finances, while the district taxpayers on the hook for a very large subsidy, we needed to see a greater return. the changes that were made and what's in front of us now will bring back hundreds of millions of dollars more to the district to help make sure that we can pay for the things that we've got to do to deliver for our city. And lastly, with my W 6 council member hat on, this site has a very great relationship between W 7 and W 6. The site itself used to be in W 6, so I have a lot of familiarity around it. Parts of this area as you go around Congressional Cemetery and the access road along the river is Ward 6. So, while this is predominantly a W 7 project, W 6 is only a couple of blocks away and in fact is included. The fact that W 6 small businesses are now named in the prioritization goals for our CBEs, is a big win for our W six small businesses and I'm glad to see that in there. Protecting our nearby neighborhoods from traffic and parking, including on Sundays, which happens to be when we play games, is really important. The initial plan had 4,500 cars per hour being driven through the neighborhood. I appreciate that the commanders are working on making changes to that, but DOT has a responsibility and the model that we put in, I appreciate working with councelor Felder on this is the same model we've used around the ballpark and Audi field to protect neighbors with the traffic and with the parking to make sure it can be enforced. The community benefits project and the fund, W 6 will have a seat on that to make sure that W six voices are represented. Again, W 6 is just six blocks away from where the stadium is. And of course, as I talked about earlier, the fields, something I worked really hard to help create in the first place, has to be protected through construction. And after mobilizing thousands of neighbors and families to speak up on this, I appreciate the commanders making a commitment and making the plans to ensure the fields will be open and accessible throughout construction and making sure that's written into the deal. Those are important milestones, important pieces. It was why I pushed so hard with all of that in here and with the work I know that'll happen between first and second reading. I'm a yes vote today. But that is because we worked hard to get these into the agreement to make sure we have these protections and make sure this is a big deal for our city. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Boost George. >> Thank you, y'all. Uh, this is one of one of the hardest votes I've had to make as a daughter of the district. The aunties and uncles and cousins have called. My friends and former classmates have called. Community leaders and faith leaders and neighbors who I've known since I was knee high pulled me aside. Over 500 people testified at our hearing. Voices from every corner of this city. Thousands of emails. residents both supporting and opposing this deal, sharing their hopes, their fears, their demands for what this deal needed to include. And damn if all those voices didn't hit me right in the chest. As someone who grew up in this Burgundy and gold town, who knows what it feels like when development happens to us instead of for us, stadium deals naturally make my stomach turn because we've seen this movie before. Billionaire owners get richer. Communities get promises that never materialize. With a federal government hellbent on making this deal happen, we don't always get to choose the game. But we choose how we play it. So, we played it hard. We turned what started as a corporate welfare into something that actually put money into working people's pockets. Last night, the commanders agreed to both project labor agreements and labor peace agreements for the stadium, plus project labor agreements covering stadium, hotel, and additional hotel in the development and labor peace agreements covering stadium parking and a majority of all hotels. Council member Parker and I and others made it a demand and made it a reality. Because of it, our tax dollars are building this thing. Our people better be the ones getting paid good wages to build it. We will not let this moment be characterized by socialism for the rich and rugged capitalism for the poor. To quote Dr. King, I want to thank my colleagues who joined me through the night and for months refusing to accept the status quo proposal as adequate. Our persistence paid off for workers, for the environment, and for all district residents and fans. And there are real wins in this deal. Wins that weren't on the table when we started. Cost overruns. The commanders cover those. Returning citizens agreement for 15% hiring commit me commitment with wraparound services community benefits 50 million including a grocery subsidy for ward seven families and youth investment through a commander academy transportation a unused sports facility fee funds that will go towards metro expansion at stadium armory new stations and highway improvements environmental lead platinum construction with the Anacostia watershed protections plus we eliminated the parking tax abatement and ensured the team splits parking revenue with the district. I will be holding the mayor to her promise of building a new fire station as championed by our local firefighters and emergency services personnels at local 36. We must listen to the people in this city when we they speak up about their safety needs. And as chair of committee on facilities, I will be utilizing my oversight and budget authority over DGS and DPR to ensure the sports plex at RFK fulfills its potential to meet the true facility and pro programmatic needs of district residents. The commanders made promises. Now they need to keep them because this city, our city is putting serious money behind this project and we expect serious returns. Not charity, not crumbs. returns that match the investment our people are making. To the commander organization, DC is not a tax break or photo opportunity. You want to be a part of this city? Prove it. Hire our people. Build the affordable housing you promise. Support our small businesses. Show up for our communities. Not just on game days, but every day. And if you all think you can take you will take the investment and give us back empty promises. This is our city and we will in in your words raise hell. The work starts now and I feel the weight of this vote. Every commitment that needs to be kept. Every resident who's coming on these promises, counting on these promises to become reality, every risk we're taking with our public dollars. Every government official who supports this agreement is responsible for what happens next. And district residents must, and I know they will, hold us accountable if we fail them. if we fail to hold ourselves, the team, the developers to the commitments made to the residents of District Columbia. So, we move forward today. But remember that this is not over. We have second vote and we have years of accountability that comes from this. My commitment is to the people of the District of Columbia that we will continue to fight and we will continue to raise hell for what matters. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking everyone who helped us get to this moment, especially the commanders organization. I continue to believe they've worked diligently to move this deal forward. Today marks a pivotal milestone for the district and the future of the RFK site. What excites me most is the potential this redevelopment has to inspire and open doors for thousands of young people across the city. From the very beginning, I laid out a few key priorities that needed to be a part of this deal to earn my support. Those included strong educational programming, protection of current revenue generating programming at the RFK site, investments in DC parklands, and importantly, good union jobs for everyday Washingtonians. I'm proud to say the commanders have agreed to meet those expectations. Notably, they reversed course on blocking union jobs on the project and are now committed to a project labor agreement and labor peace agreement for the stadium and also for the hotels and mixed use space around it. That means real good jobs with real benefits for our residents. That's a big win. Still, we shouldn't forget that getting to this point took a fight because too often working people are left behind with while big corporations stand to gain the most. Let's be honest, our economy we live in has created a lot of opportunity, a whole lot of opportunity. But it hasn't always created fairness. When left unchecked, it tends to reward a few while leaving most of us struggling. So, what does this mean for the people in DC right now? It means the work isn't over. And that's why this moment matters. This is about more than a stadium. It's about setting a higher standard for how we grow, who benefits, and the kind of future we build together. The good news is when people organize, speak up, and demand better, things change. You, the people, spoke, and as a result, we saw real changes. Nearly $700 million in adjustments to the bottom line. Changes to parking, changes to environmental protections, changes that ensure the development includes a grocery store, apprenticeships for returning citizens, and real opportunities for black and brown owned businesses. There is now explicit references to benefits for wards 5, seven, and 8. And these communities will have a seat at the table directing the community benefits agreement that results from this deal. You helped craft a better deal when we were told it couldn't be done. And while there's still room for improvement, and I'm sure there will be discussions ahead of second vote, you've also made it clear you want the commanders to come home. So here we are. Growth matters, but what matters most is making sure the growth lifts everyone, not just some of us. Let this moment be a reminder. When the people lead, progress follows. And when we demand more, we get closer to the kind of city we all deserve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member Parker. Council Member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the outset, I voiced that I strongly believe that this deal could could and should be improved with respect to parking, transportation, labor protections, and additional revenue for the district. And together, along with my colleagues, as well as the hundreds who testified, the thousands who emailed, we've approved what we have before us today. First, I thought that the initial proposal of 8,000 parking spaces was too high given the stadium's location in our urban city with prime metro accessibility. Anyone who has attended a sports game or a large entertainment event in the district knows the easiest way to get in and out is either metro, walking, or some other two mo two- wheeled mode of transportation. We are already transit first oriented in that regard, and any new venue infrastructure in the city should reflect that mindset. We now have a commitment that reduces the overall number of parking garages that will be built on the campus prior to the stadium opening. This is a win with that commitment to reorient the parking garages. This will not preclude Wamada from moving forward perhaps with an infill station at Oklahoma Embidden Road should their studies show that this will be a value ad for the entire metro system. This is a win. We now have a $600 million transportation improvement fund for Metro Improvements to provide improvements at the existing stadium armory station and to contribute to the district share should a new station be built. This is a win in terms of labor protections. While the initial proposed deal had some, the council made it even stronger by securing commitments with the commanders to execute project labor agreement for the stadium site and a portion of the mixeduse development. They have also agreed to a labor peace agreement for the operations of the stadium and for the full service hotels. This is a win. When it came to adding additional revenues for the district, my approach was always about fairness with a eye towards what precedents we were setting, especially with our sports teams. The council was able to secure additional parking revenues to the tune of about 170 million, 112 million in parking taxes, 54 million in sales taxes on merchandise sold inside the stadium. That's in addition to the 248 million estimated in sales tax on food and beverages stole inside the stadium for a total of about 674 million over 30 years. This is more projected revenue than we had at the beginning of May. This is a win. In addition to all of this, we secured 50 million in community benefits and saved about 55 million by restructuring the debt financing. Overall, that's an estimated 779 million in improvements compared to where we started. It's a really big deal. We've upped the environmental standards, as you've heard, as well as are securing a pipeline for about 6,000 new housing units. As I approach the end of my remarks, I want to reiterate a point I made on Wednesday. The district has had a sluggish track record on progress on long on large economic development sites, whether it's progress on McMillan, progress on reservation 13, or in other areas of the city. It shows that it's really difficult for us to do this alone. We need a partner. We need private investment and we need an anchor in order for this to be successful. Today we have the opportunity really. Thank you. Today we have the opportunity to accelerate the mixeduse development of the campus by 11 years according to the council's own economic impact analysis. That's significant especially to the residents who live immediately around the RFK site or commute each and every day down East Capitol Street to see only a rusting dilapidated structure. I do believe that this is an opportunity for us to turn around our track record and really deliver. And for all of those reasons, I'll be voting in support of the bill today. I do want to quickly thank a few people who work behind the scenes on this. I do want to thank Chairman Mendlesson and Council McDuffy for their work and collaboration with members to improve what was turned to us. Um, working with 12 members is is not an easy order. Um, I'd also like to thank the team of drafters, uh, writing legislation and making sure the math maths is not always easy, especially when it comes immediately following another big piece of legislation like the budget. So, I do want to express thank yous to Jen Budof, Anne Phelps, Lauren Mendanza, Dan Golden, Donnie Crawford, and Christian Washington for their work. And finally, this is probably the only public time I'll get an opportunity to do this. I want to give a shout out to my former boss, Senator Chuck Schumer, and to Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia, who called up the RFK land transfer bill at 1 in the morning on the last day of the 2024 congressional session. Without statehood, allyship and co-conspirators are especially important, and I hope that the commanders are viewing this as an opportunity for them to get on the ride with us once again. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Henderson. Uh, Council Member White. >> Thank you, Chairman. Today, we're going to fund one of the largest corporate subsidies in history for sports arena. But just four days ago, we voted to cut programs that feed our kids and keep families housed. It doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't sit right that we don't have money for school buildings, but we have money for a stadium. It doesn't sit right that we don't have money to fix our police stations or fire stations, but we have money for a stadium. It doesn't sit right that we hit our limit for helping firsttime homeowners on Talbert Street and W 8 whose homes and futures collapse because of the city, but we have it for a stadium. Make it make sense. I have to ask, who is our commitment to? An investment is supposed to yield a return, but the council's own budget office says this deal will cost us billions of dollars over time. Not a return, a loss. Yes, the council improved the deal, cutting the projected loss by about $700 million, but let's be clear, we're still putting in over a billion, so we're choosing to lose less. Under this new deal, the city earned $674 million over 30 years. The team made $69 million last year alone. They make in one year what we're going to get back over three decades. The city's chief financial officer told us that the commanders don't need this subsidy to build the stadium, but our kids need it. Our families need it. The communities facing displacement as a result of the project need it. And the economists virtually every national study agrees that stadium subsidies are a bad deal every single time. The idea that DC can't get a stadium without giving away billions of dollars is just false. How can we say we don't have enough for our residents on Monday and then turn around and say we found a billion dollars for a billionaire franchise on Friday? I can't do it. It doesn't sit right with me. I'm a No. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member White. Council member Nidau. Thank you, chairman. From the start, I have opposed the use of taxpayer dollars to support a stadium for a private organization owned by billionaires that will make them billions of dollars. The more the deal is analyzed, the clearer it is that in a very rushed process with artificial deadlines, the city has negotiated a deal that will pay well for the team, but not for the district or its residents. What have we learned about this deal? We've learned from the chief financial officer that subsidies are not needed to make this private venture viable. We've learned that $4.4 billion we are being asked to spend on the stadium over 30 years will return only 1.3 billion to the city. We know that we could build an additional 5,000 housing units, nearly twice the number currently envisioned if not for the stadium and its many parking spaces. And we've learned that the financial return to the city on that housing would be more than it would be from a stadium. And still the deal's timeline for housing lack any teeth. In fact, of all the last minute concessions, the commanders refused to negotiate on meaningful guarantees for a housing timeline, which tells us all we need to know about the likelihood that housing development will occur on the timeline in the deal. The commanders really want to be in DC. Of course, they want to be here. The RFK site is likely one of the most prime locations in the country. metro accessible, lots of room by the water in a major city and media market in the nation's capital. Many people, including the mayor, worked very hard for years to secure DC control of this land. But the district has rushed in to give it all away all over again, negotiating as if we are some sort of backwater town that would be lucky to get anything and that we should take what we can get. The city does not owe it to this private organization to subsidize its profits with residents money and land giveaways. The team wants to be in DC and will do very well financially without handouts from the taxpayers. Over the past 36 hours, since the public hearing, some of my colleagues have successfully negotiated to make this deal better, speaking with team officials and fellow council members to ask for safeguards for the environment and labor. And I applaud them for those efforts and for making meaningful improvements to this deal. And if it passes, residents for many years to come can thank these colleagues for looking out for all of us. But we should not be forced into approving a multi-billion dollar deal that will lock in the future direction for a major part of the city and its economy for the next century or more in mere hours based on an artificial deadline set by the team and the mayor. It's a respon it's irresponsible and I'm a no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member. Thank you, Council Member Nado. Council member Bonds. >> Um, thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks also to, uh, Mr. McDuffy, who chairs, um, SEAB, as we affectionately call it, to my council colleagues and the ledge teams and the general counsel teams, and to Mayor Bowser, and to the commanders negotiating team, and I mentioned them along with the hundreds of the public. um and the subject matter experts, Labour, Sierra Club, Win um and family members and many others for your input in bringing this bill to this point today. Yes, we will be voting very soon on this the largest proposed private investment in the history of the district. We've had marathon hearings most recently two nights ago with 500 witnesses expressing their views on the deal along with the hundreds of emails, personal conversations and office visits by advocates pro and con. Again, I want to thank everyone who has had and given input on this very important deal that is before us. I want you to know that your comments did not fall on closed ears as you stress how important it is for the Wart 7 RFK site, which is in an area of our city that has historically lacked development to finally get massive investment and that you want a great deal if it is to be. I believe both of these conditions can be met through this deal. I am a believer in fact in the power of investment and this deal would represent the largest investment of private dollars in our city's history. While my colleagues have expressed concerns about different components of the deal and I if I can have an extra minute, I will need it to talk about my focus has been on tax revenue and jobs for DC residents. But my colleagues have also talked about the scope of the project labor agreement, the construction of parking, its locations, the number of spaces, the impact on the environment, remediation effects on the Anacostia River and Watershed, housing on the campus, affordable and deeply affordable DC acrewing tax dollars from various sales tax up to it's been suggested $26 billion. Rent um penalties if project deliveries are delayed. Contents of and total amounts of $50 million allocated for the community benefits agreement. Protections for the adjacent neighborhoods, traffic patterns allowing fans to get to the games and other events including national and international games and concerts. All of these points are critical to making a great deal that I believe is in this deal and it's the project that we deserve. Decades ago, I voted uh DC voted to build the baseball stadium while the city was under great duress. I was here and I watched the vote in this chamber. Today we have National Stadium and we have witnessed this is not something that's written in the books. We have witnessed the development that has occurred from that deal. So therefore it makes it easy for me to say that I am expecting no less from this deal if we move it forward today. It is important to in to stress that this is a deal that DC will control the destiny of the RFK campus. Let me remind my colleagues and the public that we do not own the land. The land was transferred to us via a bill that passed Congress and signed by President Joe Biden two weeks before he left office. I don't need to remind everyone that times are very different now. There is new leadership in our federal government, a new party controlling Congress and perhaps others across the country and region that may be waiting for us to not approve this deal so that they can take over. And trust me, if that happens, DC gets nothing. We can say goodbye to set aides for small and disadvantaged businesses or the 6,000 housing units that will come with the development, the grocery store fund, and set aids funding jobs for returning citizens. We can forget about the $50 million community fund that goes towards various initiatives that we say are very important that we value or about the plan to uh accommodate our youth through recreational use as well as workforce opportunity. And we certainly can forget about construction plans, accounting for environmental concerns and protecting the Anacostia Riverhed, guaranteeing protections from the long existing railroad crossings and the maintenance and open green spaces and parks during and after construction. And finally, we cannot afford to forego the estimated $26 billion revenue for this city that is in great need of revenue. Like many residents, I want the deal to be responsive to the concerns of DC residents. And for that reason, the elected government of the city has been at the negotiating table to determine the confines of this deal with the commanders and the National Football League. We don't want this to be a situation where the federal government steps in, takes over the project, and does what we would not desire. While we do not own the land, it was conveyed to us for 99 years. We cannot sell the parcels as some have suggested we should be doing. We can lease it and we can develop it. And developing it is what I am supporting today. And so I am here to make it clear. Yes, Anita is going to be voting for this development today. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member McDuffy. Thank you, chairman. Um, $3.7 billion dollars with a B. It is a huge investment for our city. Both the billion dollars that the District of Columbia is invested in this project and the 2.7 billion of private investment. It's historic. I think the the mayor referred to it as a BFD. I would I would rather not swear. And I I I'll call it a BBD. I think it's a big beautiful deal. It's a big beautiful deal because it supports our District of Columbia residents. It's a big beautiful deal because it supports our workers with good paying jobs. It's beautiful because it includes long negotiated hard-fought project labor agreements, labor peace agreements, considerations for traffic management, considerations for moving parking garages. It's beautiful because it keeps the fields at RFK open during the construction. It's beautiful because it addresses and makes stronger environmental protections. These things are things that we fought for as a council when we got this deal. And I'm proud that we were able to get here today. Frankly, as somebody who's been here my entire life, didn't always start out cheering for the team, to be honest with you. Um, but I attended the Super Bowl parades. I remember the winning ways. Uh, and I think it's time for us to get back to that right here in our nation's capital. I think this deal is important because it strengthens the opportunity for our residents and our small businesses to participate in the economic growth that is going to occur because the things that this council included makes for more inclusive prosperity. And that's what I'm fighting for in all that I do in this work as a council member. I didn't get everything that I wanted to put in this deal, but I will tell you working with my colleagues, the deal that we're voting on today, this bill, is a lot stronger for DC residents than it was when we first got it. And for that, I think we all can be proud. Sports is something that I think generates a lot of passions from people. It's something that I enjoyed doing growing up playing football and basketball. Uh it's something that my kids enjoy today and it's a lot of fun in games. But for a city like ours that's struggling to figure out how to expand our economy, it's not simply about dollars and cents. It really is about the ability to grow. And I think as a nation's capital, this investment that we're making today helps to cement what I've known for a while uh is that the District of Columbia is actually the sports capital of the United States. And as we think about where we are today and where we'll be when this stadium opens up, I think we all can be proud about the protections that we've included in this bill. That are going to include people who came down to advocate in the public during the public hearings. For the small business owners that reached out to my office and other offices. for the advocates who made suggestions and recommendations about how uh to make this better. But I also think it thinks about the people who didn't make their way down to the Wilson building. The folks who don't feel like folks are advocating for them. The folks who live in and around this community uh who don't feel like I have a voice. I think they can find something in this bill that is going to help to support them as our city uh continues to grow and thrive. And so I think we can all be proud even if you didn't get everything you wanted. And I want to say that I'm really proud of my colleagues and the way that we've handled this. It has not been easy. I know some people are probably annoyed with me with the amount of times that I called, but at the end of the day, I really appreciate the fight that you all have put in to get this bill to where it is today. And I wouldn't want to fight with any other colleagues. So, I really thank you for adding your input, your value to this conversation and to this legislation and I think today uh I am proud. It's one of the most proudest votes that I will make today in support of this bill. So, thank you. >> Uh thank you, council member. I think all the council members have spoken except for me other than when I introduced the legislation. Uh I want to speak briefly but take a different tack and that is um I'm going to I want to speak about what the council has done with regard to sports that it's not just about today's vote on the Washington commanders and I also want to put this in the context that over the last what six seven months we've been very focused on the fact that with the disruption that's occurring in the federal government and the effect on our economy that we need to be looking at other ways that we are promoting and growing our economy and there's talk about how sports is one way and I want to reflect on that. So just chronologically, if you go back a year and a half, in December of 2023, every council member co-sponsored legislation sending a signal to Monumental Sports that we wanted you in the district and that we were willing to put up $500 million to keep you in the district. And I think the signal that we the council sent, it was a unified government was important in monumental rethinking and deciding that it would stay and invest and grow in our downtown. Last December, with very little notice, this council passed legislation that said, "We are going to provide a mechanism for maintaining and modernizing and improving our baseball stadium so that the WA Washington Nationals baseball club will stay in the district. And in return for our investment, which actually is coming from receipts generated at the stadium, the Washington Nationals have agreed to a 20-year extension of their lease. With the budget that we adopted, we have in the capital budget $9 million to rehabilitate a renovate the tennis center which hosts every year the Mubadali city open which we could otherwise be losing because that facility has deteriorated in quality. I don't think there's been any substantial investment in it in 40 years or 50 years. Probably 40. But we want to keep tennis and grow tennis and for sure keep that open that tennis open. It's a worldclass open here in the District of Columbia. And we funded it with this year's budget or with the budget that we adopted this year and then today of course because this is where all the attention is with the Washington commanders that we want the commanders to come back to the district. We're willing we want to see and we support that investment. So it's not just about football. It's about sports. It's about looking at other ways that we can grow our economy in ways other than just relying on the federal government. And with and I don't think this has really been said do today, although it's public, and that is that with the commanders, there is a 30-year lease with 20-year renewal option for 20 up to 20 years of renewal. That's 50 years. So, this council has been committed to these major investments in major sports. I left out soccer, but that's because that was 10 years ago. Um because we think that's important to our economy. I do want to um thank various people. There were lots of negotiations that took place with the commanders and front and center of all that was uh besides my colleague uh Kenya McDuffy, Jen Budof, our budget director and Christian Washington on on my staff and Blaine Stum on the committee, the whole staff. I also want to thank Anne Phelps and Sam Roseny in our budget office for the work that they've done not only with the financial analysis and I'm probably leaving out a couple people but with other aspects of this proposal and then general counsel I'm going to leave out some folks but Dan Golden and Lauren Mendansa who took the lead with the legislation we have today. uh Evan Cash on the committee, the whole staff, Donnie Crawford on Kenya McDuffy's staff, he's responsible for thanking all of his folks. Um, but all these folks and a few others put in a lot of time uh that most people did not see and it was important. So, thank you to them. I think everybody has talked and so um it's time for a vote. The vote will be on bill 26-288 with leave for staff to make technical and conforming amendments. Mr. Turn the roll call. >> Mr. Cash, would you call the role? >> This is on the print and it's on the print that was circulated what I call the dis print. Council member Nado, >> no. >> Council member Nado votes no. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member White, >> no. >> Council member White votes no. Council member Allen, >> yes. Council >> member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> yes. Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Felder, >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman, >> no. >> Council member Fman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George, >> yes. >> Council Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy, >> yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. Chairman Mendlesson, >> yes. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are nine yeses and three nos. Uh, the odds have it. >> Uh, I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. uh and I want to note that uh the report is lacking discussion with regard to uh the changes that occurred in the last I'll say 24 hours with regard to labor the PLA's and the labor peace agreements. So that will be included in the report. Uh is there discussion on the motion? Uh the vote will be on the report with leap for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please uh record me as voting no. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Council member Nado. Council member Nado, not to volunteer you, but do you want to be recorded yes or no on the report? >> Oh, I I voted yes on the report. I have no qualm with the work your staff has done on the report. >> Thank you. Uh the report is approved. Uh this measure will be placed on the agenda for the additional legislative meeting to follow this meeting. That concludes the business of this con committee the whole we will start up the legislative meeting in five minutes. >> Oh, I forgot to do the clearances. Uh Mr. Assistant General Counsel Nicole's here. Ah, Madame General Counsel, is the measure legal and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Once the once the reports from both committees are filed. >> Uh, madame budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? Uh, >> one was issued. There is no negative fiscal impact. >> There's no negative. it's covered in the budget. Um, at this point I will say this will be placed on the agenda for today's additional legislative meeting which will start in about 5 minutes. The time is 3:22 p.m. and this meeting's ajourned. if members could uh reather on the deis please. Three four six, seven. We're missing one. I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a legislative meeting of the Council of the District of Columbia. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council. Today is Friday, August 1st, 2025. The time is 1:00 and the excuse me, the time is 3:28 p.m. We are meeting in room 500 at the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. Uh this uh meeting is being broadcast on council council TV channel cable 13 as well as on the council's website www.duccconsil.gov. Um this meeting is to is an additional meeting meaning it's not a regularly scheduled meeting of the council and we have one item of business on the agenda. But first, we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. Uh a moment for reflection. >> Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Felder >> present. >> Council member Fman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. Council member Lewis George >> here. Council member McDuffy >> here. >> Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nado >> here. >> Council member Parker. Council member Parker. Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member White >> present. Council Member Parker. Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Secretary. We have one item of business, but before we go there, I neglected in my thank yous that the committee the whole to thank the um all the work, the late night hours that our support services folks and also cable television folks put in. Uh they keep the lights on. Uh more importantly, they run our hearing so that the public is able to testify until midnight the other night. Um it's a lot of hours. So, thank you to support services and cable TV staff as well. We have bill 26-288, the Robert F. Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025. Uh this was reported out of the committee on business and economic development and then the committee of the whole this morning. Uh so moved. We have the print before us. Is there discussion, >> Mr. Chairman? >> Mr. McDuffy. >> Um, I also neglected to mention uh my staff and I want to make sure I do that on the record um because it was a joint effort to get us to where we are. And so I think it's important that I mention uh people like Donnie Crawford, Marissa Rose, Raniah Dinkens, Matthew Osagi, Arley Wright, Jonathan McNair, Brandy Calhoun, Assant Foster, Kelly Sislo, uh as well as uh Christian, Liliana, Cecilia, Chase, and all the folks who are part of team McDuffy who helped uh get this uh deal to a first vote. and uh I want to thank them for their work and their efforts uh as well as all the folks in the general counsel's office, support staff and secretary's office uh and everybody in the budget office who picked up the phone when my me and my team called them to try to get support uh to this point. So I want to thank everybody. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Uh any further discussion on the bill? We have bill 26-288, the committee print before us. All those in favor of the bill say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Uh, please record me as voting no, Mr. Chairman. >> Please record me. >> Please record me as voting no, Mr. Chairman. >> And please record me as voting no, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, three individuals have asked to be recorded as no. Council members White, Fuman, and NDO. Uh, the bill is approved. Um, the um I think it's the mayor's people over there who making all the noise. >> Yes. >> Um the next meeting of the council the next meeting of the council is uh September 17th. I believe that's a Wednesday. And uh with that, the time is 3:33 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.