I'm calling to order this meeting. This is an additional meeting of the committee the whole of the council of the District of Columbia. I'm Phil Mendlesson, chair of the council and chair of the committee the whole. Today is Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. The time is 12:16 in the afternoon. We are room 500 at the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. This is an additional meeting, meaning not regularly scheduled, and this meeting will be followed by the regularly scheduled legislative meeting of the council. This meeting is being broadcast on uh cable channel 13 and is also available on the council's website, www.dcconsil.gov. We begin our committee of the whole meetings figuring out if we have a quorum. Mr. Cash, would you call the role? Chairman Mendelson present. Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Crawford >> here. >> Here. >> Council member Felder. >> Present. >> Council member Fman. >> Present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. Council member Nado here. >> Council member Parker here. Council member Pinto. Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trayon White present. >> Mr. Chairman you have a quorum. >> Thank you Mr. Cash. Uh the first there's several uh measures several is putting it loosely uh for markup in the committee the whole and the first is something like 12 nominations confirmation of 12 nominations to the commission on out of schooltime grants and youth outcomes PR26-460 to confirm the nomination of Stephanie Fu PR26-641 to confirm the nomination of Cibil Davis PR PR26-463 to confirm the nomination of Reginald Matthysse. PR26-464 to confirm the nomination of Matthew Hansen Hansen. PR26-465 to confirm the nomination of Leandro Traviso. PR26-466 to confirm the nomination of Le Levi Ecman. PR26-467 to confirm the nomination of Joanne Lamparter. PR26-468 to confirm the nomination of Janita Finley. PR26-469 to confirm the nomination of Danielle Schmutz. PR26-470 to confirm the nomination of Daniela Gonei Gioni and no two more. PR26-471 to confirm the nomination of Cambridge Warlith and PR26-472 to confirm the nomination of Ricardo Cooper. Uh there will be one report for all of these, but the um resolutions each need to be moved separately. The purpose of PR26-460 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Miss Stephanie Fu for appointment to the commission on out of schooltime grants and youth outcomes for a term to end November 7th, 2026. The purpose of PR 246-461 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Miss Cibil Davis for appointment to the commission to serve a term to end November 7th, 2026. The purpose of PR26-463 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Mr. Reginald Matthysse for a term to end November 7th, 2028. The purpose of PR26-464 is to confirm the mayor's nomination to reappoint Mr. Matthew Hansen to the commission on out of school time grants and youth outcomes to serve a term to end November 7th, 2026. The purpose of PR26-465 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Mr. Leandro Traviso for appointment to serve a term to end November 7th, 2028. The purpose of PR26-466 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Mr. Levi Ecman for a term to end November 7th, 2026. The purpose of PR26-467 is to confirm the reappoint of Miss Joanne Lamparder to the commission on out of schooltime grants and youth outcomes to serve a term to end November 7th 2028. Purpose of PR26-468 is to confirm Miss Janita Finley for a term to end November 7th, 2028. Purpose of PR26-469 is to confirm Miss Danielle Schmutz for a term to end November 7th, 2026. The purpose of PR26-470 is to confirm Dr. Daniela Bjioni for a term to end November 7th, 2026. The purpose of 26-471 is to confirm the mayor's nomination to Miss Cambridge Warlith uh for a term to end November 7th, 2026. And the purpose of PR26-472 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Mr. Ricardo Cooper for a term to end November 7th, 2026. The commission is a public body composed of government agency representatives and key community stakeholder constituencies to develop a district-wide strategy for equitable access to highquality out of schooltime programs for district youth. The commission al is also charged with facilitating inter agency planning and coordination. It targets grant making, evaluates data and considers the provision of training, capacity building and technical assistance to out of school time providers. The commission shall consist of no more than 21 members. Currently only 10 are serving who represent key community stakeholder constituencies or our district agency administrative heads or their design. Specifically, six are specified agency heads or their design which are the deputy mayor for education, the state superintendent of education, the DCPS chancellor, the executive director of the public charter school board, the department of parks and recreation director and the director of the out of schooltime office within the deputy mayor for education. In addition, one is a designate of the chairperson of the council of the council committee of jurisdiction and at least eight are non-governmental members appointed to three-year terms by the mayor after council confirmation. Uh the committee report, there's one report for all of these nominations and the committee report goes into more detail about each of the nominees. Uh these resolutions were introduced at the request of the mayor on December 9th, 2025. The committee as a whole held a public roundt on all of the nominations on January 16th, 2026. There was no testimony at the hearing in opposition to any of these nominees and the committees received no testimony or comments since then in opposition to any of these nominees. Without objection, I will move the resolutions in block with leaf for staff to make technical and conforming change. >> Mr. Chairman, >> give me just a second. >> There are 12 resolutions 460, 461, and 463 through 472 inclusive. Who has to be recognized? Council member Crawford >> for PR26-471 which is K on the agenda. I believe Miss Cambridge Warl Smith is a high school student. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to share why youth representation is important to have on this body. >> Which number was that? Hey 26-471 >> and I'm supportive. I just want to for the public to know that you've there is a high school student that will be on this commission. >> Yes. And this was the mayor's nomination. >> Um and at the hearing she presented uh there was no issue with her uh nomination. Um, she's an 11th grade student at Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart, fluent in Spanish, conversational and Mandarin, and has participated in global exchange programs, including an environmental sustainability initiative in Costa Rica. Her leadership experience includes serving on the Mikva Youth Council DC, the Safety and Justice Council, and DC SAFE, where she has worked on issues ranging from restorative justice to child exploitation prevention. She also interned with the office of the attorney general and senator Edward Marky and serves as a youth ambassador at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The report says more about her. This is more than I think many of us have done at least by the time we are in the 11th grade. Pretty impressive. Thank you. Further with with regard to the motion before says the 12 resolutions would leave for staff to make technical conforming changes. All those in favor say I. I. I thank >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Um I move the report and it's one report for all 12 with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there any discussion? >> All those in favor of the report with leave for staff say I. I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Questions. >> Um, madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Measures the 12 measures sufficient? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each >> once the report is filed? Madam budget director, these are confirmations. So there's no fiscal impact. So we are proceeding in compliance with council requirements. >> Correct. >> Without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next item for markup is bill 26-49 entitled seasonal pricing and price gouging amendment act of 2026. As introduced, bill 26-49 would make several changes to the district's price gouging law, including amending the definition of normal average retail price for vehicle rental companies and hotels to account for their use of seasonal pricing models. and clarifying that when the attorney general brings an action in superior court against a violator, the court must assess the maximum pen penalty if a violation is found. As amended, the bill would also simplify the definition of normal retail price. Make the declaration of a public emergency pursuant to title 7, chapter 23 of the DC official code in event that triggers a prohibition of price gouging. As amended, the bill clarifies that a person may charge consumers no more than normal retail price if the price increase is directly attributable to the increased cost of certain business expenses, prohibit the stockpiling of critical goods during an emergency, and allow the court to determine the most appropriate penalty for a violation of the prohibitions against price gouging and stockpiling. As a whole, the bill would make the district's price gouging law, which has never been substantially amended on a permanent basis since initially enacted in 1992, would make the district's price gouging law easier to understand and enforce. Given the district's experience during the CO 19 pandemic and the small but everpresent risk of new emergencies that may seriously affect the health and well-being of district residents, updating the district's price gouging law is imperative. The committee print for the bill does this in several ways, including by amending definitions in the law to make enforcement of the law easier, ensuring that rental car companies and hotels are not penalized for utilizing seasonal pricing models, making a public emergency an event under which price gouging would be prohibited, prohibiting stockpiling of critical resources, and setting appropriate penalties for a violation of the law. I didn't read that quite right. The prohibiting of stockpiling is also during a emergency. These changes will ensure that the district is better prepared to address price gouging and stockpiling behavior in the future. The legislation was introduced by me on January 13, 2025. There were earlier versions of this in previous council periods. The committee as a whole held a public hearing on the bill on November 19th, 2025. And as I recall, there was very little testimony, very little public comment on the bill. Um, with that, I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the print with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Vote will be on the report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Once the report is filed. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The last item for markup in the committee as a whole is bill 26-364 entitled Gardener Bishop Elementary School Redesation Act of 2026. The purpose of this legislation is to officially designate the school in this will mean a lot to everybody, lot 33 in square 792 as Gardener Bishop Elementary School. The school currently is named Brent Elementary School. It's located in Ward 6 at 301 North Carolina Avenue. This is an official naming that involves a designation of postal addresses and other changes in official databases. Gardener Bishop, after whom this school will be named, uh, as described by historians Chris Meyers, Ash, and George Derek Musgrove, in their landmark work, Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital, was a talker. Gardner Bishop moved to Washington DC in 1930 from North Carolina and soon after opened the BND Barber Shop at 15th and Ust Street. Mr. Bishop's shop became a hub for conversation and organizing. Quote, "For 35 cents, customers could get a haircut and an earful from a gruff, unrefined, tell it like it is owner." Mr. Bishop's activism began when his eldest daughter, Judine, enrolled at Brown Junior High in 1947. Brown was a segregated division 2 school for black students built for 783 pupils but crammed with over 1,700. Rather than integrate nearby underenrolled white schools, the school board imposed staggered schedules that gave black students only four and a half hours of instruction per day. as a lawsuit filed by the PTA to allow for the transfer of students to underenrolled schools. As that lawsuit worked its way through the courts, Brown Junior High School parents began to organize. Mr. Bishop became the face became the face of the ensuing Brown Parent Group for Equality of Educational Opportunities. That was the name of the group, Brown Parent Group for Equality of Educational Opportunities. He led a two-month school boycott beginning in December 1947, drawing media and congressional attention. However, the boycott was not producing meaningful change. Despite misgivings based on class differences, Mr. Bishop reached out to and ultimately partnered with civil rights attorney Charles Hamilton Houston. The relationship between Mr. Houston and Brown Jr. for high school parents soon catalyzed the formation of the consolidated parent group in 1948 to broaden the battle for educational equality districtwide. Mr. Bishop served as the president of the consolidated parent group provided much of the grassroots organizing to arrange pickets uh to arrange pickets to interface with the media to take depositions as Mr. Houston led the legal effort. Mr. Houston sickened and eventually died in 1950. He passed the legal work on to James Nebritt who convinced Mr. Bishop and the consolidated parent group to pursue a broader agenda, desegregation itself. In 1950, Mr. Bishop and parents attempted to enroll their students at the newly opened John Philips Soua Junior High, which was reserved for white students. When the school board refused the students entry, the group sued school board president Melvin C. Sharp leading to the US Supreme Court case Bowling v. Sharp decided in 1954 alongside Brown v. Board of Education. Bowling held that segregation in DC schools violated the fifth amendment's guarantee of due process, ending legal segregation in the district. Mr. Bishop continued to run his youth street shop until 1985 and remained a local touchstone for civic action. The decision to rename Brent Elementary School as Gardener Bishop as Gardener Bishop Elementary School reflects a deliberate values-driven process by the school community. Beginning in n in 2024, Brent Elementary School equity and inclusion group launched an 18-month campaign to select a namesake who better embodied the school's principles. And in that process they came up with gardener Bishop as the name. Naming the school uh as Gardener Bishop Elementary School is the result of robust community engagement and council discussion. Mr. Bishop's example teaches us all an invaluable lesson about the power of any individual to write social wrongs. For these reasons, the committee of the whole recommends the approval of bill 26-364, the Gardener Bishop Elementary School Reddesation Act of 2026, assuming this is approved. Bill was introduced by council member Allen on September 23rd, 2025. The committee as a whole held a hearing on January 13, 2026, and there was no testimony in opposition to the legislation. Uh, I move the print with Lee for staff to make technical conforming changes. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank you and your staff for moving very quickly and getting this bill to mark up today. The hearing on this legislation was actually just on January 13th, just three weeks ago. So, I very much appreciate the willingness to move quickly on this bill. I'll keep my comments brief as the committee report and your own comments there um did a great job of explaining the history of the school's current namesake and who we are naming the school about and for. It has been a very collaborative and community- centered process to rename the school. The future gardener Bishop Elementary School has a lot of exciting things for its future. Right now, the school community is currently swinging at Meyer Elementary School because its current facilities are being rebuilt and modernized. And we're all excited for the new building and what it can bring to the school community when it comes online for the start of the 2027 and 2028 school year. And I'm happy that we were able to seize on this modernization as an opportunity to re-evaluate and reassess the school's current namesake. This is the second time as the council member for W 6 that I've introduced and led a school redesation bill through the legislative process. First, Shirley Chisum Elementary School and now the soon to be Gardener Bishop Elementary School. Both of these school communities engage in a transparent good-faith collaborative and organic effort led by the school community itself to choose how it wants to redefine itself and lead itself into the future. As a policymaker, it's a beautiful thing to see. Even for those leading the effort, it's going to take a lot of effort and sustained advocacy. These two school communities never wavered in their commitment to have a collaborative and community- centered renaming process and their hard work has paid off. I've been very proud of the school leaders and students who have talked about why they wanted to go through this process and importantly why they believe Gardenner Bishop is the right name for their values in the community they represent. He was an important figure who led change to break down structural racism and segregation in DC public schools, taking action in community and in the courts. As we begin Black History Month, I couldn't be prouder. This is one of the first legislative acts that our council is taking. One student who testified at the hearing answered it best when I asked him what value he hopes to see embedded in the school culture as a result of the renaming. He thought for a moment and he replied that he felt inspired by Gardener Bishop because the central message he took away was that when you see something wrong, you do something about it. And if that's a lesson that every student attending Gardener Bishop takes away and puts into practice in their own lives, we're all going to be better for it. Before I conclude, I also want to give my thanks to the soon-to-be Bishop school community, the public witnesses who testified at the hearing, in particular Rachel Ferio, Cortavia Freeman, the school's PTA, and Andrew Pratt, who was one of the parent leaders in the renaming process, and Principal Lechnell, as well as DCPS for its support in allowing this process to take shape and flow the way that it did. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I encourage my colleagues support. >> Thank you, Council Member. Any further discussion? Yes, Council Member Crawford. >> Thank you, Chairperson. Uh chair, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the equity and inclusion group from the future Bishop Elementary School community that launched and led this process to select a new name for this school that embodies its values. Council member Allen, I'm just curious um from your perspective since you introduced the bill, what impact do you believe this renaming will have on parents who are considering sending their kids to the school and on students who are currently enrolled? >> I appreciate the question. I think I think the process will be a little bit like what we saw take place at Chisum Elementary where um the names sake of that school previously was John Tyler uh not somebody that we necessarily held up and uh and revered and told history about or taught about. What I've seen take place at Chisum is a school community that really understands who Shirley Chisum was and the importance that she brought and the values they want to embed in every classroom. I think that the way that I've seen the Brent community take a very similar approach is they didn't want to talk about who Robert Brent was and what he represented and his negative legacy in our city and instead they are very excited to and have already begun the process of talking about Gardenner Bishop and the actions that he took u the values that he put in place and I think I see that reflected in the hallways of the school and the conversations I hear and so I think parents will be very proud to to say that they go to Gardener Bishop and that they're sending their children there. And I think we're going to see children that bring that value and move it forward, which is what I think we all want. Thanks. >> Uh further with regard to the legislation, the vote will be on the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Uh I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Vote is on the report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. The um madam general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report is filed? Madame budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. We'll turn now to measures from other committees. There's no objection. The first two will be presented in block. They are nominations to the board of dietetics and nutrition. PR26-455 Board of Dietetics and Nutrition Kayla Smith Confirmation Resolution 2026 PR26-456 Board of Dietetics and Nutrition Rachel Gabrower Gabauer Confirmation Resolution 2026 Council Member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, PR26-455 nominates Kayla Smith to the board of dietetics and nutrition as a licensed dietitian member, filling a vacant seat for a term ending March 12th, 2028. Miss Smith has more than 10 years of experience in nutrition services across clinical care, diialysis settings, and long-term care with expertise in quality improvement, patient education, and regulatory compliance. She currently serves as strategic manager of nutrition services as Fresnes medical care overseeing nutrition for more than 20 dialysis facilities and home health and home therapy programs both in the district and across Maryland. Um she also manages a team supporting approximately 1300 patients. She previously served as a registered dietitian with US Renal Care and as the lead dietician at NMS Health Care, where she supported clinical nutrition care planning, audited dietary compliance, and ensured survey readiness and adherence to state and federal standards. Her background includes program development, menu planning, budget analysis, and quality management systems, tied to patient outcomes. She earned her bachelor's of science degree from Howard University, and she's award 7 resident. PR26-456 nominates Rachel Gabau to the board of dietetics and nutrition as a licensed dietitian member, filling a vacant seat for a term to end March 12th, 2027. Miss Gabauer has extensive experience in both inpatient and outpatient clinical nutrition, specializing in evidence-based care for eating disorders, gastational um uh conditions, and chronic disease management. She currently serves as the clinical director at Monteneito where she leads a multi multid-disciplinary team providing partial hospitalization treatment overseeing treatment plans clinical operations and staff development. She also serves in private practice as a dietitian with ter nutrition providing individualized counseling and intuitive eating disorder chronic disease as well as on general wellness. Um her prior experience was at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital as a clinical dietician. Uh she earned her um dual bachelor of science in um biology and nutritional sciences from the Pennsylvania State University and she is a ward 6 resident. I um we have some vacancies on this board. Um both of these members are or nominees rather are very qualified and eager to serve and I hope colleagues will support them. Thank you. >> Uh thank you council member. Are there questions from members? Madam general counsel, are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each? >> Yes. >> Madam budget director, these are confirmation. So there is no fiscal impact statement. So there's no fiscal impact. So we're complying with our rules. >> That was a yes. Uh without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Next is bill 26-156, PREP DC Act of 2026, reported out of the committee on health, chaired by council member Henderson. Council member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Prep Amendment Act of 2025 was introduced on February 28th, 2025 by council member Zachary Parker along with council members Allens, Bonds, Felder, Lewis, George, Nadau, Pinto, Robert White, and myself as co-introducers. Uh it was jointly referred to the committee on health and business and economic development. The Committee on Health held a public hearing on the bill on October 30th, 2025 and it passed it unanimously via markup in December. Um, following the reorganization of SEAB this January, the bill was solely referred to the Committee on Health. The District of Columbia has been fighting to prevent and treat HIV AIDS for over 40 years. At the height of the epidemic in the 80s and the n early uh 90s, hundreds of district residents lost their lives to this deadly disease each year. Even after effective antivirals for HIV were introduced in the United States, AIDS continued to be the leading cause of death among black women and men, as well as white men between the ages of 25 to 44 in 1998. Many residents could not access effective antivirals because of costs, stigma, and lack of awareness. By 2003, the district's annual rate of new AIDS cases was over 10 times the national average with the highest of any major American city. At the time, 9,375 individuals were living with AIDS in the district and there had been over 7,000 AIDS related deaths since 1984. In 2005, the CDC issued guidance uh for using postexposure prophylaxis, also known as PEP, to prevent new HIV cases in patients who had likely been exposed in non-oacccupational settings. To be effective, PEP must be administered within 72 hours of exposure. When administered correctly, it reduces HIV infections by 81%. In 2012, the FDA approved Tuvata, which is the first pre-exposure uh prophylaxis, al also known as PREP, for HIV. Trouvat is a daily pill that is extremely effective when taking as prescribed, but there are high barriers to adherence. More options for PREP have been introduced in the last several years. In 2021, the FDA approved uh a preditude and injectable prep given every two months. Then there was another one, a longer acting injectable prep um which is given twice yearly. I want to emphasize the importance of these new options. Injectable prep has a higher adherence rate than the pill form uh with one provider telling the committee that they have been able to effectively serve more patients particularly in black communities with the injectable prep. The introduction and use of PEP and PREP in the district has been critical to decrease the district's new HIV cases. In 2023, the district achieved a very important milestone. DC Health reported 192 new cases of HIV. This was the first time that the District of Columbia had less than 200 new cases per year of HIV since the 1990s. However, there are still over approximately 11,670 district residents living with HIV with the highest concentrations being in WS 5, 7, and 8. Young people 20 to 29 years old and black men and women are experiencing new HIV cases at disproportionately high rates. Um, Mr. Chairman, I just need a few more minutes. >> Without objection. >> Um, compared to the district's general population. At the same time, the federal government has cut over $4 million in the district's HIV and prevention STI prevention efforts in the last several years. And the district is being faced with difficult decisions about ceasing prevention programs that have been helping the district in this progress. With the landscape, it's more important than ever that we use every tool available. So, this legislation takes several critical steps to protect access to prep and PEP and to protect residents who are prescribed these medications from discrimination when seeking other forms. First, the committee print prohibits health insurers from using prescription information for HIV prevention medication to medically underwrite premiums for specific enroles. Second, it prohibits insurers from imposing cost sharing, requiring prior authorization, or imposing any medically unnecessary restrictions or delays for the coverage of HIV prevention services, including um at least one me uh regimen of prep and PEP. After working with advocates and community leaders over the last few days, council member Parkin and I do plan to offer an amendment at the legislative meeting that will expand this requirement to all formulations of prep approved by the FDA. Third, uh this committee print incorporates bill 26-101 removing barriers and reducing stigma to encourage HIV prevention. This legislation has been introduced the last two council periods by council member Pinto and prohibits discrimination by insurance carriers when issuing cancelling or renewing insurance based on an individual's prescribed HIV prevention treatment. Finally, the committee print establishes a special p a special purpose revenue fund uh for the DC health and wellness center which creates a non-lapsing fund um for them to be able to collect out-of- pocket payments and insurance reimbursements that would um the money will go back to operate the center. Um it's operated by DC health and it provides HIV and STI prevention services. This legislation is is good. Um, and uh, yeah, I request that this bill be placed on the non-consent agenda at today's legislative meeting so that council member Parker and I can move our amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member. Are there questions from members? >> Mr. Chairman, >> question. >> Question. I will save my statement for the legislative meeting, but um, as you can tell by the introductory statement by Council Member Henderson, this is a significant piece of legislation. That's it. Uh, I do have a question about the non-lapsing DC Health and Wellness uh, center fund to collect revenue from out-of- pocket cost um, and that money going back into uh, DC Health or uh, well affiliated clinics. Can you just elaborate on how DC Health plans to distribute that fund, determine how funds are to be dispersed and like how we as a council can monitor the use of these funds over time? Um, sure. So, >> and I'm sorry. It's worth noting that that was an addition by the committee to the bill. It wasn't part of the underlying bill. I think it's a good addition, but just have a question about how it's going to be executed. >> Sure. Um, so the DC Health and Wellness Center um has recently been authorized to start billing private insurance and Medicaid create. Um, but that funding would essentially just go back to the general fund. So, by creating an SPR, it creates sustainable funding stream for the critical work of the center. And that could be for anything. Um, and the amount of things that they do. Um, I visited um the Health and Wellness Center last year. Um, it's kind of tucked uh right off of New York Avenue if anybody is interested or need to schedule a visit. Um but for FY24 um 7,547 STI um testing clinic visits, they had 794 patients prescribed uh PREP from their site. 421 got PEP. Um and that was also sort of initiated out of there. Um the school-based health centers are also associated with this as well. So again, this allows for them to be able to just continue to provide service to services to individuals and they don't turn anyone away. >> Nice. Thank you. I I'm glad we're doing that. I think it will help make those programs more accessible and expand our reach and access at a time where the federal government is slashing efforts uh to ex um extend and expand uh HIV and aid pre prevention methods. So thank you for that. Thank you, council member. Are there questions from anyone else? >> Uh, madame general counsel, is the measure legal and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. Uh this measure will be placed on the non-consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. And finally, uh reported out of the committee on transportation and the environment PR26-360 Green Finance Authority Board, Edward Hubard, confirmation resolution 2026. Council member Allen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. PR26-360, the Green Finance Authority Board Edward Huard Confirmation Resolution of 2025 was introduced on October 24th, 2025 by you, Mr. Chairman, at the request of the mayor. The resolution confirms the reappointment of Edward Hubard as a voting member of the Green Finance Authority Board with financial project management or legal expertise in clean energy, clean infrastructure, clean transportation, storm water management, or green infrastructure for a term to end July 9th, 2028. For some quick background, the DC Green Finance Authority, also known as the DC Green Bank, was established in 2018. The bank offers innovative financing solutions for this purpose and focuses its investments on solar energy, greener and more efficient buildings, infrastructure resilience, and transportation electrification. DC Green Bank is governed by the Green Finance Authority Board consisting of 11 members. One of those members, sorry, of those members, four are non- voting and include representatives from various relevant agencies of the executive. The seven voting members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council and those seats on the board are reserved for members with expertise in clean energy, clean infrastructure, clean transportation, storm water management, or green infrastructure. Mr. Hubard has served on the green finance authority board since its foundation in 2019. In addition to his work on the board, Mr. Hubard has experience in energy and transportation policy. He's currently general counsel and vice president of the government affairs at the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry association representing the American ethanol industry where he has worked for over a decade. Before taking that position, Mr. Hubard was the legislative director for US Representative Alfred Arwin where he advised the member on energy and environmental policy related to the activities of the energy and commerce committee. Prior to that position, Mr. Hubard was an associate at Willoughby and Associates and at Scatteren Arps Slate Miger and Flum LLP. Mr. Hubard holds a JD from the Howard University School of Law and a BA in political science from the University of California at Los Angeles. Based on the experience noted above, the committee voted to approve Mr. Mr. Hubard's reappointment on the board at his January 20th additional meeting and I encourage my colleagues support of Mr. Hubard's renomination today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow. >> Thank you, Mr. John. Are there questions from members? Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. Madam budget director, this is a confirmation. No fiscal impact statement. >> Correct. >> Without objection. This measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh that's going to conclude the business of this committee as the whole. Um I usually say five minutes to transition to the legislative meeting, but it's always about seven or eight minutes. So, but that doesn't mean people should leave the chamber because they shouldn't. But, uh, we will start at 10:05. It's 12:57 p.m. and this meeting's adjourned. I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a legislative meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. the 24th legislative meeting of council period 26. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council and today is Tuesday uh February 3rd, 2026. The time is 10:05 in the afternoon and we are in room 500 the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. This meeting is being broadcast on cable channel 13 as well as on the council's website www.dccconsil.gov. This is a regular meeting of the council and we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. If we could have a moment of silence in the chamber. Madam Secretary, would you call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. Council member Crawford here. Council member Felder >> present. Council >> member Freeman >> present. Council member Council Member Henderson here. Council member Lewis George here. Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nado >> here. >> Council member Parker. Council member Parker. Council member Pinto. Council member Pinto. Council member Robert White. >> Present. >> Council member Trion White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Thank you madam secretary. We have the secretary's report of committee filings. I'm going to recognize the chair portam. Council member Anita Bonds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to wave the reading of the secretar's report. >> So, a motion to wave the reading of the secretary's report. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. Again, I'm going to recognize the chair prom council member Nita Bonds. >> Mr. Chairman, I move to wave the reading of the secretary's log of introductions and referrals. >> And a motion to wave the reading. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the consent agenda. And are there any changes to the consent agenda? >> Uh, chairman. Yes. Um I'd like to remove the uh juvenile curfew uh bill from consent. >> I believe that's on page three at the top of page three. >> Are there any other changes to the consent agenda? Uh hearing none. We have the consent agenda with one item removed. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> I. Are there any opposed? >> Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Just remembered we used to do all of these, Madam Secretary, by roll call when it was virtual. Gosh, those were great days. Um, turning to the Juvenile Curfew Congressional Review Emergency Declaration Resolution 2026 PR26-520. Council member Pinto. I have I'm going I'm going to move the uh declaration. Uh this is uh congressional review emergency to continue in place what the council has already adopted. So moved. discussion. The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Um, no. Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Please record me as voting no. >> Chairman, please record me as voting no. Please. >> Please record me as voting no. >> Uh, council member Pinto is present. Council member Pinto, how do you vote on the declaration? >> Council member Pinto, how do you vote on the declaration? >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. As you may have seen, I just reentered the room. What are we voting on? >> The Congressional Review Emergency Declaration. >> Yes. Um, Madam Secretary, I believe that the two/3s are Yes. Uh, the eyes have it on the declaration. Uh, we have the underlying bill before us. Council Pinto, do you want to move that? >> So moved. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. Is there discussion? Uh, the vote will be on bill 26-587. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any me voting no? Please record me as voting no. Chairman, >> please record me as voting no. Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Uh, the eyes have it with four members recorded as voting no. Madam Secretary, you got that? Uh the eyes have it. Turning to the non-consent agenda. Uh the first item is bill 26-159 Prep DC amendment act to 2026. Council member Henderson. >> Um thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh Council Member Parker and I circulated an amendment at 5:28 p.m. yesterday uh which makes three changes. First, the amendment addresses concerns um from advocates regarding the committee prints prohibition on cost sharing um for only one regiment of HIV treatment. In October of 2024, the US Department of um labor, Health, and Human Services, and Treasury issued guidance confirming that the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover all formulations of PREP currently approved by the FDA. If the federal government rolls back prep coverage in the future, uh this amendment will assure that the district maintains a strong prep coverage requirement consistent with the 2024 federal guidance while also allowing for future formularies uh covered by the FDA that they deem to be safe um and clinically effective. Second, the amendment also clarifies that insurers cannot impose cost sharing for either the initial or follow-up appointments for HIV prevention as advocates voice concerns that this was ambiguous in the print. Um though our intent had been for both to be covered. Finally, the amendment makes a technical correction by striking the phrase prior authorization from the definition of medically unnecessary restrictions because it is redundant uh with a prohibition on prior off um in other portions of the bill text. And without objection, I move that amendment. >> Uh we have the amendment before us. Is there discussion? Council member Pinto, are you wanting to be recognized? I have a comment on the bill, but we can discuss after we vote on the amendment. Okay. I have a question on the amendment. Um, at the breakfast, I asked if there was a fiscal impact. Do we get a fist on this? >> Um, there is no fist. There is. >> There's no fist as in there's no fiscal impact. >> Sorry, there is no fiscal impact. >> There there exists a fiscal impact statement, but it would reflect that there is no cost. >> Thank you. Uh, anything further with regard to the amendment on the amendment? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Yeah. I have unanimously the amendment is approved. We have the bill as amended before us. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I really want to thank you and congratulate you, Councelor Henderson, and councelor Parker for all of your leadership on this bill. It is incredibly important for the safety and health of our neighbors to have access to pre and postexposure prophylaxis medications, PREP or PEP to prevent HIV and AIDS without facing the huge cost burdens that these medications can provide. I also want to thank you, Council Member Henderson, for incorporating several provisions from my bill, the Removing Barriers and Reducing Stigma to Encourage HIV Prevention Amendment Act of 2025 into the final version of this bill. My bill prohibits discrimination by insurance carriers when issuing, cancelling, or renewing insurance based on an individual's prescribed use of HIV prevention treatment. And this is created to reduce disparities that we see in access to coverage for all individuals who might need this medication. PREP gives individuals the ability to protect themselves independently, particularly if they're unable to ensure condom use or are in a relationship with a partner of unknown or positive HIV status. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 1.2 million Americans are living with HIV with nearly 38,000 new diagnoses each year. When insurers deny, cancel, or raise rates for those using preventative care, it creates barriers that directly undermine efforts to end the HIV pandemic epidemic. Not to mention that it wrongly assigns risk to behavior that is inherently about preventing risks. Even small increases in out-of-pocket costs or administrative hurdles can and does lead to a significant decline in prep usage. I'm grateful to Council Member Henderson for including these and other changes to the bill, which makes this legislation stronger and more holistic. And as we wait for federal legislation like HR7189, Prep Access Act, to be passed, it's imperative that we work together as legislators in DC to close gaps that are inadvertently impactful to some of our most atrisisk neighbors. Thank you again to Council Member Hutter for your partnership in this important issue affecting our district families and communities and look forward to supporting this bill today. >> Uh thank you Council Member Pinto. Is there further discussion? Council member Parker. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm incredibly proud to see this bill approaching uh this critical step. Uh in February 2025, I introduced the Prep DC Act of 2025 and through the committee's work, it has been enhanced. Uh this legislation, among other things, will make access to prep uh accessible by making sure that health insurers don't use prescription information as a condition of eligibility or in premium rates. uh it will ensure that they don't prohibit in um or restrict or impose delays in prescribing drugs for the treatment of prevention of HIV and AIDS and it prohibits health insurers from imposing a deductible and co- insurance co-ayments or other cost sharing requirements for prep or PEP uh to prevent HIV and AIDS infections. And I would just say LGBTQ representation in our policymaking bodies matters not only because it ensures that voices of communities long marginalized are heard but because lived experiences shape effective and equitable law. Uh, as council member Henderson alluded to earlier, especially over this past week, but acutely the last few days, we have been talking with advocates, partners like Whitman Walker and others, making sure that we got this bill to uh the place that it is today. And I just want to acknowledge uh the many people that gave insight and input um and to thank them for their partnership here. Uh, as also was mentioned earlier, we have seen a lot of progress in the district with rates reaching a nearly 30-year low. Um, and this legislation will help again expand access to these life-saving me medications. Um, I will end by saying this bill is more than access to medicine. It is also about affirming the humanity of LGBTQ people, confronting stigma with action, and embedding these protections that are now accorded in the uh Affordable Care Act uh in local law. And the reason why that is important uh is because we know there are routine efforts to undermine Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act at the federal level. Um and we are safeguarding these protections here locally for district residents. So, I'll stop there. really excited to vote for this. Uh, and I want to thank Council Member Henderson for her work on part of the committee and making sure that we can get it across the finish line. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Parker. Further, we have the bill before us as amended. This is bill 26-159. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is soul of the city business improvement district amendment act of 2025 bill 26-421. This is on non-consent because council member Tran White and I have an amendment. Uh with regard to the bill, this is final reading. So moved. Uh with regard to the amendment which was circulated yesterday. Uh so moved. The amendment uh aligns the language in the permanent bill, that's what's before us, with the emergency legislation that was passed after an amendment in uh on January 6th. Since bid taxes are build prospectively, this change ensures that the bid can collect the April 1st, 2026 to September 30th, 2026 tax amounts that are build by the Office of Tax and Revenue that are build in March 26 and are March 2026 and are due March 31st, 2026. As I said, so moved. Um, Council Member Tran White, do you wish to say anything? >> Yes, chairman. briefly. I just want to thank you uh also former council member King McDuffy and my team for uh introducing and getting this bill move forward. I think that we are long overdue for some economic empowerment in the community and it gives the business community some support uh in our business corridor as we grow uh not just with the southern city bill but also the Anacostia bill was also extended through another bill. uh is long overdue in east of the Anacostia River and I look forward to the outcomes that businesses are will get support and the technical support they need to grow and stay as we encourage new business east of Anacostia River. So I want to thank you and those those all those who played a part in making sure this uh came to fruition and I encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on this today. >> Uh thank you. So is there further discussion on the amendment? On the amendment all those in favor say I. I >> I >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously on the bill as amended. Uh further discussion. All those in favor of the bill 26-421 as amended say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is Home Purchase Assistance for Transit Workers Amendment Act of 2025 Bill 26-98. Council Member Robert White. Uh thank you, Chairman. This bill introduced by Council Member Nadau expands the employer assisted housing program or EHAB to include public transit workers, those who operate and maintain Metro Bus, Metro Rail, Metro Access, and DC Street Car. These workers keep our city moving every day and deserve the chance to live in the communities they serve. At the last legislative meeting, it was noted the that remaining EHAP funds were used for HPAP down payments for employees. That is true, but it is not the intended function of EHAP. DHCD should manage EHAP HPAP and EHAP funds so that transfers aren't necessary because the council recognizes EHAP's importance in attracting and retaining a talented workforce. We should secure more funding for HPAP, not take EHAP funds away from applicants. Some have asked why include WAMA employees since they aren't district government employees. One reason, we already do something similar through the DC for me program, which provides housing assistance to WADA employees. This bill simply applies the same logic to EHAP for consistency and fairness. Helping transit workers live in the district strengthens our workforce and economy. I thank council member Nadau for her leadership and urge my colleagues to vote in favor. Thank you chairman. >> Uh thank you council member White. Uh this is on non consent because I voted against this at first reading and we'll vote against it today. Uh if I speak uh at any length um then I will provoke more debate which I'm not interested in doing. On the other hand, if I don't speak to it, then why is it that I'm voting no? So I will speak explain why I'm uh not supporting this. I do think there's a value to um home purchase assistance for transit workers just as I think there is a value to home purchase assistance to anyone who wishes to buy in the District of Columbia. And to be sure we have such a program and it's under that program that transit workers can benefit. Transit workers, however, are not DC government employees. And the program that's being amended to include this is for DC government employees. If there is money being unspent in the fund for um EHAP, employee housing assistance purchase, if there is money left over, either we should increase the benefits for for DC government workers, which is what the program is intended to benefit, or we should take that surplus money and put it into other housing programs such as home purchase assistance for anyone, including transit workers. This is not the right approach and that is why I'm not supporting this. If there's no further discussion, >> Mr. Chairman, >> see my prediction is true. Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you wanted to be brief, so I will be um we talked about this at length at the last legislative meeting. Um, I would be more sympathetic to that argument, however, except for the fact that we already allow EHAP to be eligible for people who are not district government employees. Our charter workers, teachers in our charter schools are eligible for EHAP. We made that choice because we substantially fund our charter schools and we believe that it's a good idea to have our teachers in both DC public schools and DC charter schools live here in the district. So, we've already made the policy choice that things that are significantly funded with DC public dollars that serve public goods but are not government workers are eligible for a program like this. So, for a metro agency, transit agency that we spend a billion dollars in every year, those are workers that I would love to have living here in the district when so many do not. So, um, I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if it was consistent with what we already do, but it's not. Um, I think we've made policy choices that use our public dollars to make sure that we are, um, allowing eligibility for our EHB program for critical workers in many sectors that we and the public significantly fund. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Oh, I am so tempted. If there's nothing for Council Member Pinto, >> thank you. just councelor Allen inspired me. Um I just want to say that I'm thrilled to support this this bill today. I want to thank Council Member White for for moving it. And as we think about all sorts of our public employees who do all sorts of um important and foundational work for the city, we also have programs that support efforts for our police and firefighters, many of whom do not live in the district either. And as we continue to try to make it more affordable to live here, we would love opportunities for all of our transit workers and our firefighters and our police officers to be able to live in DC. But I appreciate efforts to continue exposing all of those uh essential workers to the benefits of of our city. So, thank you. Uh the vote will be on um the uh on bill 26-98, but I am so tempted. Um the vote will be on 26-98. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? No. Please record me as voting no. >> Council member Bonds is voting no. >> Any DC employee? Uh, madam secretary record me and council member Bonds is voting no. This could come up for a third reading. Maybe you would have three no votes. Uh, so the measure is approved. Uh, the next item for consideration is PR26-521 entitled the budget enhancement information litigation authorization resolution of 2026. Uh what this legislation does is authorizes the council's office of general counsel to initiate, defend, intervene, participate, or take any other action in a matter in any court or tribunal on behalf of the council of the District of Columbia to assert the interest of the council to assert the interest of the council and obtaining certain agency budget enhancement requests that must be furnished to the council pursuant to DC code 47-318.05A. There are two important facts that I want to make in presenting this. The first is that we are an equal branch to the government. This is the legislative branch. The legislative branch is co-equal to the executive branch. The second point I want to make is that we alone of the two branches are the ones who appropriate the budget. We are the one the appropriators of the dollars for purposes of conducting performance oversight. As part of our consideration impending consideration of the fiscal year 2027 budget, council committees asked executive agencies to transmit copies of their fiscal year's 2025 and 2026 budget enhancement requests. Not FY27. I was wrong when earlier I said FY24, but the last two years. And maybe not every committee did, but I believe most committees did ask for this information. These requests, more commonly known as form B or form two requests, reflect district agent district agency's best assessments of their own budgetary needs and therefore constitute information that would be critically helpful to the council as it discharges its responsibilities as appropriator for the district. So, I did bring to the DEA several copies of examples of form B's. They're dated and they're also independent agencies. If anyone wants to see I have one here. I think there are two down there. Can you pass that down to council member Lewis George? Is somebody holding on to them down there? >> Yeah, >> pass them down. Somebody want to look at them. Uh those are examples and they provide important and useful information to council committees about agencies and what agencies think they need, their assessment of their budget needs. Um we I have those because those are either from independent agencies or you may notice like DC is from 2019. Um sometimes we have gotten them by mistake that is that the agency wasn't supposed to give them to us. Now, in response to uh the committees this year requesting this information, the Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs um fondly known as OPLA circulated a memorandum on January 6th to all deputy mayors and agency heads uh saying that these documents are not to be disclosed to the council. Quote, "This request asks for information that is protected from disclosure by the deliberative process and executive privileges." Unquote. Uh if there's no objection, additional time. Contrary to the executive's assertion, and a similar assertion was made in the mayor's letter today, neither of those privileges protects the agency budget requests at issue from the disclosure to the council. First, to the extent that these budget enhancement requests might otherwise be protected, that privilege was abregated when the council enacted DC official code 47-318.05A, 05A which I believe we enacted 20 years ago which directs the mayor in its amendment to it's part of the Freedom of Information Act which directs the mayor and the chief financial officer um they are required to transmit quote this is the statute actual copies not summaries of all agency budget enhancement requests including the form B for all district agencies unquote to provide those to the council with the proposed budget despite Despite the plain text of the law, the executive continues to decline to transmit budget enhancement requests to the council. Again, we are a co-equal branch of the government. Second, there's already been litigation over this. The executive's assertion that they are protected from disclosure by deliberative process and executive privileges was expressly rejected by the court. The they the executive lost in the trial court. They took it to the court of appeals. They lost in the court of appeals. After they lost in the court of appeals, I immediately wrote to the mayor and requested copies of the form B's and have yet to receive a response. The court of appeals expressly rejected the executive's claims of executive privilege and affirmed the trial court's order directing the executive to produce the formbbees and other agency budget request documents referenced in the plaintiff's foyer request. The plaintiff in that case, a nonprofit, has recently filed a motion against the executive for contempt to protect the council's ability to be fully informed when adopting budgets, especially as we approach the fiscal year 2027 budget season as we approach the impending budget council adoption of this authorization resolution is necessary. I want to reiterate, we have requested this information repeatedly. This is not the first time and I don't believe we should be like the Congress of the United States and sit by while the executive disregards what a court has ordered. We have repeatedly requested this. Every committee or most if not all committees requested these form B's this year as part of their agency oversight questions. This request was in the budget submission resolution that the council adopted unanimously last December as it was in the previous year's budget submission requirement or resolution. As I said last July, I wrote the mayor three times requesting these documents after the court of appeals decision. And at least the committee the whole has requested this information virtually every year as long as the current mayor has been mayor. So this is not new. Uh but we now have a court order, two court orders on our side here and this information is useful if not critical to each committee's consideration of their agency's budgets. So I move the um resolution PR26-521. Is there discussion? Council member Parker. >> Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that. I plan to support this for several reasons. One on principle. Um, you mentioned it and I just would reiterate that the council is a co-equal branch with our executive and in order for us to conduct oversight, we have to have uh the ability to request and receive information. On top of that, uh, it is the law. It is important to stress that this has already gone to court if I'm not mistaken. >> Yes, >> there's already been a ruling if I'm not mistaken. And the executive is not only saying to the council, we will not give up information. The executive is telling the courts, another co-e branch, we will not give up information. That is incredibly dangerous. And I think the association you made with what's happening at the federal level is astute. Uh, last thing I would just say for the purpose of our budget formulation, this information is also very valuable because I can't tell you how many times we've sat in hearings where a director will smile and say, "Yes, my budget is sufficient, although we're seeing that uh there are cuts or reductions andor programs are being slashed." um and having access to this information could allow us to have better line in into sight where the experts think there actually needs to be enhancements versus uh the budget that comes down from the executive which is informed by many other things. So, for those three reasons, I plan to support this. Uh, but I hope that it would not come to the need for us to actually follow through on a suit. Um, and that there could be some sort of middle ground where the the law is actually followed here. But thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member. Council member Lewis George, did you ask to be recognized? Council member Truman. >> Is it to me? Okay. You're the only council member named Truman. >> I thought I heard Lewis George. Uh so I I actually am not going to support this. And um I get it that there is a lot of water under the bridge in terms of the law in 2006 and then the BSA title in 2022. And I get it that various council members supported this in those processes. I may have supported it indirectly in an umbrella of other things that were proposed in budget resolutions. It is not that I don't think these documents are interesting. You showed us the documents, some of the documents, they're super interesting. it is that I do think it's part of a deliberative process inside of the executive to allow for candid discussion inside of the executive in order to formulate the budget and that if we do this if we go down this route it's not that in the future we'll get these documents they won't exist and instead what will happen is a more cumbersome process for deliberation about the budget inside of the executive than exists today. And so I I don't want to do that. And I think it also kind of comes in a context of where we made significant changes to the open meetings rules because we believed that it was very important for us to be able to do deliberative work inside of the council and not in the public view. And so I I get it. I get it's the law. I get it's the documents would be useful, but I don't think that doing this will lead in the future to more meaningful information for us and I think it will result in a more difficult process for a future executive. So, I won't be supporting it. >> Uh, Council Member Felder, um, just want to echo uh, Matt's sentiments. I think they are spot on. uh having had worked for the executive, I understand the nuances that goes into budget formulation and how uh we have our internal process as a council, I think we should respect uh the internal process as the executive. Uh furthermore, uh while I think this bill, um the the principle and the premise of it is in good nature, I'm just thinking about mayors that may come in the future and the precedent that we're setting. And I also don't we're all one government and we need to learn to work together without having to put laws in place that will give the legislative body the authority to sue the executive body. That just doesn't make sense to me. So, I won't be supporting this bill either. >> Council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm uneasy about this particular um, resolution that we have in front of us. I'm going to ask the question. So, my understanding at least from what has already happened in terms of the judicial pieces, what is the meaningful impact of the council joining this? Is this somehow going to trigger the mayor complying? Is this going to change a judicial outcome in any way? Is this just to add strength to the judicial record? >> Uh, our general counsel has uh asked for this authorization to give our general counsel flexibility in proceeding forward. So I do not know whether that means somehow joining the Pralet case or something separate or as council member Parker suggested that by taking this next step that it puts more pressure on the executive to comply with the court orders. So the in a word it is flexibil flexibility for our general counsel. >> Okay. Um you know Mr. chairman that there are definitely times where uh we have to use the very extreme measure of of suing the executive. I think we tried we threatened that a couple of years ago with regard to SNAP >> snap. Yes. >> Um and I was right there with you on that. On this I'm a little um I feel like in some ways we have to not pick our battles but the ones that are actually meaningful in that. I'm not sure what we gather from the form B that we can't gather from honest conversations with directors around what are programs, what are needs, etc. To the point of a colleague around the deliberative process, I think the impact of this would be that again the documents just won't exist. They won't write it down. They'll maybe just have more in-person meetings or stack conversations or briefings or otherwise. Um and but I do feel like it's important to have that record. Um and so um I I won't be supporting this today. Thank you. >> Uh further with regard to this. So Council Member Pinto or I was about to respond to some of the comments. So, I'm a little bit shocked at um what I'm hearing some members say because what they're saying is that they're willing to exceed to an executive who wants to withhold information from the council. And to me, that's just shocking. As I said before, we are a co-equal branch. But with regard to the budget, which is what this is about, only the mayor can propose a budget and only the council can adopt a budget. And when we adopt a budget, we are the appropriators, not the executive. So we for instance had this disagreement with SNAP with the executive because we adopted we appropriated dollars for SNAP. The executive doesn't get to second guessess what we appropriate. But what we know and every member here should know this because every member's chaired a a committee during budget oversight at least once. Um what we know is that executive agencies withhold information from the council and information is is what I say is the lifeblood of the budget process. If information is withheld from us then what is being withheld from us is the ability to make an informed decision. Now there's no question you know somebody said well this is actually deliberative process. The court has said no. Not just the trial court said no but the court of appeals said no. General counsel circulated that opinion earlier. Deliberative process does not exist. The ability for the mayor after the budget is submitted to withhold this information is not protected. The court has said that. And as I said, information is vital. It's the lifeblood to our being able to appropriate. And yes, some agencies will be honest in the discussion. Council member Henderson, some agencies are honest with you. They may not be honest with you on everything, but when you read these form B's, you learn more about what their need is than just through a conversation. I'm sorry, but you just do. So, I have oversight over UDC a couple years ago. I remember there was an issue udc indicated that they could use for more money for a program. I said, well, can I have the form B, which explained to me in detail, necessary detail, what it was the program that they wanted. That's what the form B provides. And I don't believe that the these formal enhancement requests are going to go away. I just don't believe that. I think that that's I think that's a a false how do I want to say a false thought that somehow an agency wanting additional money and having an initiative or something that the council did that uh they think requires additional money. An initiative the agency comes up with an initiative that the council's come up with. They're going to want to explain why they need more money as part of the budget process. And we need to know that information. It's not deliberative. Even though you may think it is, but the court has said no. And I don't believe that these will go away. It's not precedent setting what we're doing because this has actually been the law since 2006. These requests have been over and over again. And this litigation, which involves a nonprofit, has been going on for at least four years. So, it's not something new. Yes, we need to work together, but in this instance, the executive has chosen not to work with us. Give us the documents. This is not us being the ones who aren't working together. It's the executive. Council member Pinto, did you still want to speak? >> Chairman, >> I'll recognize you in a minute, Mr. White. >> I I guess a few thoughts. One is with all due respect to our agency partners, we don't usually make decisions purely based off of an agency says they need more because we hear from pretty much all of our agencies that they need more every year because all of our agencies are an important part of our ecosystem and we might hear from our agencies they need a hundred new FTEEs for a new program that they want to start or a new initiative and then we all as a body consider that perspective. We hear from the public and we make budget decisions based off of investments that we want to make. Um, so I I'm not too persuaded by the argument that we need to know all of the specifics about what each agency asks for. With that being said, the law is the law. The law says that they have to turn over these documentation. And so I'm a believer that we all have to follow the law. Period. Um, so I'm going to support you on this today, but I do think it is worth revisiting the conversation about should this be the law. Um, because to council Fman's point, you know, there is some deliberative process here that we want to encourage between a functional government to make sure that conversations and recommendations between agencies and the executive are not limited so that they can then present their budget proposal to us and then we can make our decision decision. So, I just wanted to put that on the record because I do think this is come worth coming back to as a body to determine if it should be the law, but at the end of the day, it is currently the law and so therefore the law should be followed. >> Thank you, Council Member Tran White. >> Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I agree in some degree that we have always had communication issues trying to get stuff for administration. Um, and I just don't know if this is a preference of personality with this administration and the unintended consequence of I guess redefining that line going into a new administration coming up at some point and even down the road because once it's law, you know, law in the state for a long time. I just I'm kind of torn between uh getting what we need in a timely fashion, the communication. It hasn't been great, but I'm kind of hesitant on voting yes on this. I'm just kind of listen to the conversation and I'm also curious about the unintended consequence of it's going to have on new administrations coming down the line in the future. So just listen to the arguments. >> Okay. I'm not sure there's more I could add at least with regard to um the uh the last point that you made uh further on this. Council member Parker, >> just two quick things on this point of it being deliberative and um I just think it's important to refer back to what the courts have already decided. The court said it is not deliberative. The courts have already ruled and so I think it's mental gymnastics for us to kind of say, oh well maybe the executive doesn't really have to follow the law. I agree with Council Member Pinto. Whether or not we agree with the law, it is what it is today. And I think it would be a dangerous precedent for us to be saying anything counter to that. And the only other thing I would say in respect to future mayors, they too should follow the law. So it doesn't matter if it's this executive or a new executive, if it is the law, that is what it should be. So again, on principle alone, I would hope that the council would support this. Um, and if we don't agree with it, then we should take that up at another date. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you. If there's no further discussion, uh, the vote is on PR26-521. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. Chairman, >> record me as voting no, please. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as a no. He >> is voting no also. I missed somebody. Uh, was that council Lewis George? Council >> Henderson. Uh, the eyes have it. Uh, the next measure is a soul of the city business improvement district temporary amendment act of 2026. Uh, this is on non-consent because it's unnecessary and should be postponed indefinitely. Council member Tran White, do you want to make that motion or do you want me to move to postpone indefinitely? >> Uh, I can move to postpone indefinitely. So move. >> Uh, the motion is to postpone indefinitely. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any um opposed? hearing none. The uh motion to postpone indefinitely is approved. Uh the next measure is uh residential building permit classification emergency declaration resolution of 2026 PR26-515. Uh this legislation is renewing an emergency that was adopted a year ago. Uh in March 2025, the council approved a similar bill in response to a policy enacted at that time by the Office of Tax and Revenue. Uh whereby developers converting a commercial property to a residential property could not benefit from a change in tax classification from class 2 to class one until construction was quote 100 100% complete. and the building was quote in actual use unquote. The emergency act clarified that developers may have commercial to residential reclassified after a building permit has been issued to construct a new improvement or substantially re rehabilitate an existing improvement. Uh the emergency became applicable in April. Temporary legislation uh actually expired a week ago. Uh so there's a need to approve a new round of emergency uh legislation. A similar provision was included as permanent measure in the vacant to vibrant amendment act of 2025. Unfortunately those provisions are currently subject to appropriation because uh the bill uh is subject to appropriation. Uh the committee is working with the office of the chief financial officer to determine the cost of funding those provisions. In other words, we're trying to sort out um because there's no fiscal impact to this part, but it was included in a bill with a subject to appropriations. So, that's the status of the permanent. Meanwhile, the temporary is expired and we need to renew the emergency or the emergency and temporary. So, I move the declaration. Um there is an amendment uh that council NDO wants to move. Council NDO. >> Thank you, chairman. At this time, I'm moving an amendment to the emergency resolution, which is associated with an amendment to the underlying bill as well. This was circulated yesterday evening. These clarifying amendments are necessary to simplify the Office of Tax and Revenues implementation of one-time real property tax relief for debts owed on property owned by Avanti Real Estate Services LLC at 34214th Street Northwest. This tax relief was funded in the FY26 budget and authorized by emergency and temporary legislation council passed last year. OTR is ready to execute on that authority but raised concerns about ambiguous or unintentionally restrictive language in the bills as passed. We determined the simplest approach would be to strike that proviso language in full rather than trying to tweak further which we've been assured will avoid any further ambiguity or administrative burden on otr. I want to thank the chairman for working with me to incorporate this amendment. I now move the amendment. >> I'm sorry. We have the amendment before us. Is there discussion about the amendment? Um by voice vote. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Um, we have the declaration as amended. Further discussion on the declaration PR26-515. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-577. So moved. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Nidau, >> I move my amendment as well. >> May you? That's up to you. >> I said I move I move my amendment. >> We have Council Member Nadau's amendment before us. Is there discussion on the amendment? >> Uh on the amendment, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended. Further discussion on the bill. Bill 26-577 as amended. All those in favor say I. I >> I >> any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is short-term disability insurance benefit protection clarification emergency declaration resolution 2026. Council member Lewis George. >> Thank you, Chairman. I am reintroducing the emergency and temporary versions of the short-term disability insurance um benefit protection clarification amendment act in order to maintain a necessary protection for district families. um prohibiting insurance companies from using the universal pay leave fund as rationale to not pay out the short-term benefits DC workers and employers have paid into. Uh the current temporary act that is in place is set to expire at the end of the month and unfortunately the permanent version is still pending um in seal seabed and cow. Uh DC paid family leave has been a vital lifeline for families to be there to welcome newly arrived children to care for loved ones on their final moments or to take the time they need to care for themselves during a serious illness. Um but families often need more than just 12 weeks. Patients with breast cancer for instance require an average of 6 months of leave for treatment. When the medical or family leave is unpaid, it's economically destabilizing for families, often leading to debilitating debt and even bankruptcy and foreclosures. By requiring insurance companies to pay out the short-term disability benefit workers and their employers pay into, we can narrow that gap and ensure district families have access to more of the paid leave they need during a serious medical or family event. Um, I urge my colleagues to pass these measures so as to not create a coverage gap for families, allowing them to be there for their loved ones uh when they need it most. With that, I move the declaration. Uh, thank you. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? You guys have unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-573. Council member Lewis George. >> So moved. >> Is there discussion >> on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Parking enforcement modernization technical correction emergency declaration resolution 2026 PR26-516. Council member NDO. >> Thank you, Chairman. On December 17th, 2024, the council approved B25-435, the Fraudulent Vehicle Tag and Parking Enforcement Modernization Amendment Act of 2024. The law includes an overhaul of statutes that govern parking enforcement procedures and enhancements in the district's ability to enforce against vehicles that use fraudulent or obscured vehicle tags and prioritizes the immobilization empoundment of abandoned, identifiable, and dangerous vehicles. This law was then funded starting in FY26 through a combination of funds secured by the committee on public works and operations, committee on transportation, the environment, the committee of the whole. Thank you to Council Member Allen and to you, Chairman, for your support. However, there are two sections of the law that were funded but remain subject to appropriations. This legislation will ensure that all funded provisions are applicable. I plan to include identical language in permanent legislation being marked up by my committee, but I'm moving emergency and temporary measures today to allow for timely implementation of the law by DMB, DPW, and other agencies. With that, I move the declaration. >> We have the declaration before us. Is is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. I >> Are there any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-579. Council member Nidau, >> so moved. >> Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. It's getting a little weak. Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is Rhode Island Avenue Corridor Long-Term Lease Adjustment Emergency Decoration Resolution 2026 PR26-517. Council Member Parker. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am moving this emergency uh to authorize the deputy mayor for planning and economic development uh to issue grants to eligible businesses and commercial commercial property owners on Rhode Island Avenue. We passed this um allowance through our budget process. However, one of the uh criteria that we noted was that property owners needed a 10-year lease. In our discussions with Dimped, this isn't uh industry aligned with industry standards, and this isn't u most feasible or efficient. So this emergency uh reduces that eligibility term to 3 to 5 years in order for demped to administer those grants. The goal of this uh is an ongoing effort to reimagine and revitalize Rhode Island Avenue. And I want to thank Dimped, the office of planning um and many other entities for their partnership in this effort. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Parker. Is there discussion? We have the declaration before us PR26-517. All in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the underlying bill, bill 26-581. Council member Parker. Council member, >> still moved. >> Discussion. >> Vote will be on bill 26-581. All those in favor say I. I. I >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26-514, Friends of Wangari Gardens Grant Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2026. Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wari Gardens is a community garden located on DOT property bordered by Kenyan Street Northwest, Parkplace Northwest, and Irving Street Northwest. Uh the friends of Wangari Gardens is a nonprofit organization that has a memorandum of understanding with DOTT regarding the use of Wangari Gardens. Um and up until this point, they have been using a a water um uh fire hydrant rather uh to water plants and the garden itself. through the budget process again uh we were able to secure uh grant funding in the amount of $75,000 uh so that WARI Gardens or the Friends Wing Garden Gardens can work with DC water. I want to thank uh Council Member Nado for her leadership and partnership in making that possible. Um and this emergency is necessary to authorize DOT uh to actually extend the money uh because we could not give the money directly to DC water because they are independent financial authority. we have to authorize DOT uh to uh issue this grant. >> Thank you. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the declaration PR26-514. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have unanimously. Underlying bill is bill 26-575. Council member Parker. >> So moved. >> Discussion. Votes on bill 26-575. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26-519 net zero modification and preservation emergency declaration resolution 2026. Council member Lewis George. >> Uh thank you chairman. Uh colleagues, today I am introducing the net zero modification preservation emergencyment act of 2026. Um this legislation responds to a growing gap between the district's environmental laws and the practice realities of delivering capital projects and affordable housing. The bill is the result of months of research and engagement and is necessary for two straightforward uh reasons. First, as we enter the bud budget process, we need clarity on how capital projects will be funded. These include pools, recreation centers, fire stations, and other essential public facilities. For years, we have struggled to come to an understanding with the executive what it on what is needed to move our capital project forwards while meeting our high environmental standards, and we have an opportunity to avoid that situation once again this year. Uh this legislation provides the clarity needed so that the budget submitted this spring reflects the true cost of delivering capital projects in compliance with the district law which is I know something me and a number of my colleagues really want to happen so that they can answer their constituencies on projects delays or deliveries. Second, we need to ensure that affordable housing developers are operating under clear and consistent workable standards. This bill removes the on-site renewable energy requirement for affordable housing projects, not out of a lack of commitment, but from an understanding that these requirements, as written, are not workable for housing projects. As a result, these project projects will no longer need to seek review uh by the greener building advisory council, also known as the GBAC, for their solar usage. Under current law, feasibility determinations can only be made by GBACK uh based on how GBAC review functions for other types of projects, extending that process to all affordable housing uh de development raises. Uh without this change, GBAC will face an influx of affordable housing projects which will create slowdowns and bottleneck both for residential and non-residential projects. uh this uh this uh legislation uh actually provides clarity, relief and flexibility. Um and something that is important that we need to do at this moment with the Green Housing Coordination Act. Uh when the Green Housing Coordination Act was passed last fall, many of my colleagues asked me to bring an amendment making these exact changes included in this bill. At that time, I committed to introducing emergency legislation that addressed all components of our net zero energy standards, including housing. And today I am fulfilling that commitment. I cannot emphasize enough this council's commitment to climate resilience has not changed. But ambition standards alone are not enough. We are responsible for ensuring that those standards are workable and implemented as written. For years, the council has been forced to step in repeatedly appropriating additional resources to keep projects moving, resolving technical disputes that should have been addressed, though clear through clearer statutory direction, and passing emergency legislation to correct challenges in affordable housing delivery. We want to ensure that our standards are actually implemented. Chairman, can I have an additional 30 seconds, please? We want to ensure that our standards are actually implemented, which is not always happening currently. We need to pass this legislation to ensure that our environmental standards are within reach as well as upheld and implemented. Uh we are acting on an emergency basis because clarity is needed. Without it, projects will continue to stall. Costs will rise and housing and public facilities will be put at risk. Not because our standards are too ambitious, but because they are unclear and inconsistently applied. This legislation restores balance, protects affordable housing and capital project delivery, preserves environmental integrity, reaffirms the district law must be followed, and supports a budget process that reflects the true cost of public investment. With that, I move the declaration. >> Thank you, council member. Um, we have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration? The vote will be on PR26-519. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Uh, are there any no votes? Hearing none. The eyes have unanimously. We have the underlying bill. Council member Lewis George. >> So moved. >> Uh, and you have an amendment. Correct. I work. >> Let me see. I see he's looking. I have an amendment you circulated. I think that's your signature at 1219 today. Am I on the wrong bill? >> One minute. Am I right? >> Yes. If you're going by circulation, then I think Council Member Whites would go first. But yes, I do have an amendment. >> Well, as the author of the bill, I'm recognizing you first. >> Okay. Well, I'm moving an amendment to my emergency measure to strike the provision that ties exemption for affordable housing development to the effected date of the green building code. Under the filed version of this bill, these exemptions expired upon the adaptation of the NZE building code. However, the code's current satchel deadline of 123126 is one of the issues that remains outstanding to address in the permanent net zero reform bill. As such, covered residential projects should not be required to be designed under exemptions without knowing if and when those exemptive standards will apply again. So, I'm doing this to ensure certainty for providers who are designing projects now so that those designs are not subject to change later when our code is updated. With that, I move my amendment. >> Thank you. Now, is this somehow duplicating? Not duplicating, but so it's different than >> correct >> the other amendment. All right. So, we have your amendment before us. I think you said so moved. Is there discussion? >> I'm I'm sorry. Uh, Council Member Lis, can you just characterize again what do you >> It ties exemptions for affordable housing development to the effective date of the green building code. >> And what is that date? It makes it so that uh residential projects are not required to be designed under exemptions without knowing if and when those exempted standards will again apply. >> I believe that the update is later this year. Am I right? >> 12:31 26. >> That's later this year. >> Oh, >> yeah. Got it. Sometimes >> I be forgetting what year we're in. >> Correct. Council Parker, has that answered your question? Thank you. >> Uh further with regard to Council Member Lewis George's amendment, uh the vote will be on her amendment. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We also have an amendment from Council Member Robert White. Council member White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. I want to thank uh Council Member Lewis George for uh this bill, the the bulk of which I I support. When I chaired the public buildings committee, I did a lot of work uh I'm sorry, the government operations committee, I did a lot of work on greening our public buildings like uh Banaker and John Lewis, which were net zero. Um but my amendment has to do with something that's separate from this emergency but but attached to the emergency bill. Um just a couple months ago, the council passed emergency and temporary versions of my green housing coordination amendment act which are in effect now. Those versions included a carefully considered compromise on net zero energy requirements for residential and mixeduse construction projects receiving assistance from the housing production trust fund. That compromise was the result of extensive collaboration with affordable housing developers, environmental advocates, and council offices. This emergency legislation, part of it, would undo that compromise. It reverts back to more stringent standards that housing providers have said are not well suited for multif family residential construction. What we are hearing now from some affordable housing developers is that they are okay with the the language but the change in temporary law causes problems and they would prefer that we do any changes in a permanent. Uh some are still opposing it. We've also heard concerns from some environmental groups which are concerned about removing the on-site renewables. Uh this reversal will cause in confusion and whiplash for housing developers and could delay the delivery of affordable housing units at a time when residents urgently need them. The compromise we reached late last year was workable for all sides. It balanced our commitment to sustainability with the practical realities of housing development. And in the last year, we've done a lot of work to make sure we're attracting capital investment back into the district for housing. Uh the last thing we want to do is introduce unnecessary confusion in the housing marketplace. Uh so my amendment does not undo everything in the emergency legislation, uh which does add some thoughtful new emergency standards, but the permanent bill of this version is making its way through council now. Um, I held a hearing on the permanent version earlier this month, well last month, January, and it was co-referred to the committee on facilities chaired by council member Lewis George uh and other committees. That is where long-term changes on residential new construction should be debated. Uh, so this amendment preserves the compromise we reached just weeks ago and avoids unnecessary disruption. Um, and so I I move my amendment at this time. Chairman, >> we have Council Member White's amendment before us. Is there discussion? Council member Lewis George. >> Uh, thank you. Colleagues, I would ask you to vote no on this amendment to strike my bill's improved and consistent affordable housing provision. Um, I think there's been a lot of unnecessary confusion about what uh my bill does. So, let me be clear. The bill does not impose any impending Z requirements on affordable housing projects. Uh, in the words of the coalition, there are no new requirements or steps added, just relief and flexibility. The bill provides the relief and flexibility providers are asking for by doing the following. It exempts conservation compliance, so no ZEP score requirements. Um, it exempts obtainment requirements, so no expensive energy credits as DC grows our green grid. And most importantly, it exempts the on-site renewable generation based on feasibility. So developers can add as much solar as they can without having to go back to go through a GBACK feasibility determination for um and so uh in drafting this we had numerous conversations with various groups. Um and I want to remove doubt. GBAC review is required under the law which uses a feasibility trigger to determine solar requirements. This feasibly language is used in multiple places in the code and DCMR and triggers GBACK or agency review. If this if council member White amendment goes through, if developers of residential or non-residential products could determine feasibility for themselves, there would be no need for any outside review because developers could make the decision for themselves. If that was how the system actually worked, a feasibility requirement would not be needed in the law because the decision would be entirely at the discretion of the developer. But that is just not how the practice is working in process. Uh the coalition recognizes the GBACK review reality in the current law and they want to be able to rely on avoiding it while they are currently planning for funding timeline and designs of projects for the upcoming round of housing production trust fund funding. My bill without this amendment sets the stage for a clear permanent that does what our providers need and creates real certainty they have been asking for. If the amendment passes, the codification of third party standards that are currently being changed would remain. Providers want to keep third party standards in the regulations as they did when the current emergency law was passed. There was not consensus there then and there is consensus now. If this amendment passes, the additional and separate energy requirements in the housing production trust fund act would remain. Currently, the green buildings act includes a solar requirement, but the emergency language in the HBTFA does not. The HBTFA creates its own definition of an all electric standard that is different from the already established and understood electric standard in the Green Buildings Act. Under the amendment, providers would need to look at two different laws and understand separate standards to figure out all the requirements they have to follow. All environmental construction standards should be in the same place. Use the same definitions as they always were before the current emergency and would be again under my bill without this amendment. Legislating on emergency obviously is never ideal, but process should never get in the way. Um, can I have additional 30 seconds? Chairman, >> 30 seconds. >> But process should never get in the way of good and evidence-based public policy and drafting, especially when it need as urgent as it is here. Don't let the pro the the the process by the be the enemy of progress. Um and I would ask that you vote no. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Lewis George. Um I have some questions because I'm a little bit confused. Uh Council Member White, you're moving the amendment because um in part it would immediately enforce appendix Z standards. Correct. Looking at your rationale. Um yes, but I guess in language everybody can understand and moving the amendment to keep the law that we the compromise that we reached in place until we pass permanent legislation. >> Okay. But just on the appendix C, but now Council Lewis George, your amendment delayed that wouldn't happen. It delays applicability until um the revised standards are adopted, which is later this year. Am I right or wrong? >> Repeat your question. >> Don't make me repeat the question. Um >> like append. Okay, I want to let you repeat it. Appendix >> standards are immediately applicable. That is correct. >> But didn't your amendment uh delayed something till the end of the year? When my amendment passes, the bill is no longer tied. So, no appendix Z standards. There's the issue that Council Member White is concerned about would not apply until the new standards are adopted, which is by December 31st, 2026. Is that a correct reading? I may be wrong. I don't know. >> No, because our amendment struck that language. So no appendix Z standards are immediately implemented. The only statuto requirement is all electric. So then council member White, what what is if this was delayed? Am I right it was delayed? If it's delayed, then what what is applicable here? >> I I've not I can't say I fully digested Council Member Lewis George's most recent amendment. Uh what I have digested are the concerns of the industry and the administration. What the industry told me as recently as after our breakfast meeting this morning was that look, we have current buildings in design. When you change the rules, we have to go back and redesign. that costs money and creates confusion in real time. They said many of these recommendations may be good but do it in a permanent legislation because the whiplash causes confusion. It also increased cost. We also heard concerns from some environmental groups about removing the on-site renewables. Um so rather than do introduce confusion for part of this bill that is not necessary not part of the actual emergency my amendment keeps the status quo with respect to uh multif family housing. Okay, I'm looking at the written. So, do understand. I think everybody's confused by this. The amen Council Lewis George's amendment strikes language that would have required covered residential projects from meeting the energy conservation renewable energy requirements in the bill's updated net zero energy standard when the net net zero building code is adopted. So, if I'm understanding that correctly, her amendment exempts residential projects. So, your amendment, but I did ask her if it affects your amendment, and I think she said no. But your >> You asked if it doesn't overlap. >> Her amendment does not do what my amendment does. So, that was a question I understood you to be asking earlier. >> Mr. Chairman, >> can you can you save me? I was just going to name if if most of us are confused would it be better if we consider this at a future ledge meeting. The implication well I my only issue is that the budget is well we don't know I guess we have all types of budget problems I was asked to get this done in time for budget considerations which is why we worked hard over you know the holidays to do it was to to to get it done so that everyone going into budget was clear which is due and residential can't be laid because because people are designing they're doing their projects now and they don't want to be subject to solar requirements. So if we delay it and you're currently designing you don't know if you're going to be subject to solar or not be subject to solar right now. You don't know if you're going to have to go in front of the Gback or if you are going to have to go in front of the GPAC. And right now if it stands they will have to go in front of the Gback unnecessarily. >> I would just say I thought council member Crawford's suggestion was a worthy one. >> Council member, are you putting a motion out there? I will move a motion to postpone to the next legislative meeting. >> Second, >> Mr. Chairman, >> thank I'm trying to sort this out and motions are being made >> to sort for me, my little brain to figure this out. I think in my absence a motion was made to postpone to postpone to the next legislative meeting. >> Yes. >> I think a motion to postpone is debatable. >> Yes. >> Is there any debate on that? >> Yes. >> Yes. There's debate. >> Yes. but not the underlying question, just the motion. >> I'd like to be recognized. >> Yes, I'm being counseledled that the debate can be as to the motion itself, not the underlying bill. Council member Nidau, >> thank you. I'm so glad we figured that out. Um, so I definitely understand that this is complicated. Um, and specifically the residential piece, it it seemed like Council Member White's amendment to separate that out for now solved the issue. It it does seem like the rest of the work in Council Member Lewis George's amendment is timely and needs to move forward. So, uh, I guess what I'm saying is I don't think we should postpone the whole thing today. All right, Council Member uh Fman. >> Uh thank you very much. I I do get on the public buildings piece the urgency of doing it now. On the question of the the residential piece, part of what's been happening during the course of the day today, I think is that leaders in the affordable housing community have said pass Robert Council Member White's pass the bill and pass Robert Council member Robert White's amendment and it works from their perspective and the effect of it is on the residential side to step back to the rules that that council member White established a month or so back. Now, folks in in terms of delay, folks in the affordable housing community have been saying we need to sort this out and it may well be that we want to land where council member Lewis George is in a permanent, but let's do that in a permanent. So, I I think we should just get this done and pass Council Member White's amendment and move forward. >> Council member Lewis George, >> I was going to say, so the compromises in this bill were made in conjunction with each other, right? So, the residential and the non-residential. So, if we move agreements in residential, we are affecting the support for non-residential. Um this I I guess there's back and forth, but from the conversations I've had with both sides of providers and environmental groups, uh they've said they do not want these changes to like for us to they they don't want these changes to wait because they're in the process of creating designs and and buildings. I want to note that the permanent is in my committee. So the permanent is going to reflect what is in my amend the emergency amendment um which is it's going to be what's in the emergency right now. U just want to note it's out of the housing committee into the facilities committee. Um I think everyone supports the greater flexibility given and so I just don't think um there is a need for a delay here. I just I don't know what we're I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore at this point because it's like the only thing everybody's caught up on is like process like this process piece. But the benefit of moving forward with this benefits everybody on the residential and non-residential side. So, I don't know what delay would do in this moment except delay people's design and building um like what how I don't why would they want to design projects to a solar requirement and then be subject and then not be subject to that requirement. You get what I'm saying? Logically, why would you if if you are a provider, if you're a builder, why would you want to design your project to a solar requirement and then not be subject to that requirement later on? Um, it just doesn't make logical sense from any perspective. We're talking about flexibility, saving money, and creating some level of what is necessary here, which is some predictability. And we're talking about amending the putting it in the right code so there's no confusion, especially as people apply for housing production trust fund dollars. >> Council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask just a clarifying question. So, what I heard at the breakfast was that the permanent bill had been referred to multiple committees, not just the committee on facilities. I know the committee on housing had already held a hearing. Is there a third committee? I heard through >> committee. >> I have I believe there's actually two more, is it not? Committee on transportation and the environment and committee on the whole. Okay. Are all of the committee chairs in alignment? Uh, speaking for myself, no, because I have not looked at this bill and so I'm sitting here today confused. >> Okay. So, I um I can appreciate us trying to do this for both. I I came into this prepared to vote on the government side because we had already had that conversation with the executive and had sort of been prepped for this conversation around voting on the government exemption period. Um I think where we are running into an issue here and this is something that comes up quite often in terms of the business community or otherwise is how we use emergency and temporary legislation to create not intending but sometimes it creates whiplash. We voted on something >> a couple of months ago and now we're going to vote and change the rules today and then we may vote and change the rules 3 months from now. That part is the definition of chaos for business community groups and organizations. And so I'm actually with council member Nadau if we're all aligned on what the actual emergency which was for which is around the government projects. Let's do that. allow for the current temporary to remain in place as it pertains to residential and then allow for the committees or all four of the committee chairs here to get a line because the worst thing that would happen is that the end product 3 months from now looks different than what we vote on today. >> Thank you. >> Uh the only problem with that is that you didn't speak to the motion which >> No. So, my speaking to the motion is that while I appreciate what council member Crawford was trying to do here, I'm going to oppose postponing in hopes that we can move forward on Council Member Robert White's amendment. Thank you. >> Council member Parker, did you want to be recognized? >> Yes. I've kind of lost uh my train of thought as well as well as where we are in the debate. I'd support delaying this. It doesn't seem as though there is anything imminent. And if it's for budget deliberation, given all of the chaos with the federal government imploding our tax system, I have reason to believe there this extra two weeks is not going to derail things. I would say though it would be helpful if we could have a benchmark when we might expect the permanent. We keep alluding to this permanent, but for the bill to go through three additional committees, it just seems like a gauntlet that there's no guarantee there will be a permanent. And so what is then the consequence? We are passing an emergency. To council member Henderson's point, we have a temporary that's different and it just may expire if the permanent never comes, which I think is realistic given everything going on and that it has to go through three committees. So, um I don't know what I mean I'm saying that maybe you can consider re-referrals. Maybe there could be a joint hearing. I think it would be helpful for there to be a benchmark when that permanent bill would come forward. But I also support uh tableabling this for now. Thank you. >> So, I'm going to support the motion motion to postpone because I don't really understand what's going on and I'm not sure that other members enough other members understand what's going on. Even though the answer to my question was whether there was overlap between Council Member White's amendment and the amendment Council Member Lewis George moved earlier that we approved. I think there is overlap. I think they're both trying to deal with what the effect is on residential and it would be nice if that overlap got sorted out rather than our voting yes or no on Council Member Robert White's amendment. He feels somehow that what Council Member Lewis George has done is not adequate. I'm not sure I could say why. Um, so because this is confused, not that I want to have an additional meeting in two weeks, but we could have an additional meeting in two weeks. The motion is to postpone to the next legislative meeting whenever that is. And I think that would get us more comfortable with this. Um, and maybe there will actually be some conversation between several of the committee chairs. Council member Pinto, you always want to follow me. >> You're very inspiring, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I, uh, agree with Council Henderson that I don't think postponing this debate is going to be helpful here. Um, we all have a shared interest in ensuring that we can increase the supply of affordable housing in the city. that is vitally important to all of our goals to build more housing and to drive down cost of housing. Um, and one of the best ways we can do it is making sure these projects proceed. And one of the most consistent points of feedback that we hear as a hindrance to that is lack of consistency in regulation. And so kind of similar to our last debate, I think I substantively agree with councelor Lewis George that this might be the best place to go on the permanent. But to create a new standard today from what we did in the fall only then to be followed by a possibly third iteration in a couple of months, I think is the the worst of all outcomes when it comes to consistency. And so I don't think that we should postpone this debate today. I think we should support Council Member White's amendment um and then get back to our commitment for all of these four hearings to proceed. And I like council Parker's point about a possible re-referral or effort to streamline that process so that we can ensure that our rules are sensible and cost-effective and happening quickly so there can be some certainty in the market. The vote will be on the MO >> second round. I was >> I was just going to say this is on the delay. >> What's that? >> Well, this is on the motion. >> The motion to post, huh? >> Yeah. >> I was just going to say I mean I >> This is second round for you. >> I understand what round we on. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I just I mean I wanted to just say in general I if if folks need more time then I'm I'm willing to support a delay for more time. I but I want to be clear. Residential and non-residential projects will be delayed in having to get GBAC review which is the current standard right now. So they're going to get delayed because of the Gback review they would be subject to. Um, and that's just that like that's that's just the reality. So, whatever the standard is is going to make people subject to Gback review or not subject to Gback review. I think that's the difference here that people should keep in mind or be be aware of. >> Council member Robert White, I think this first round for you. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. Um, I'm not going to support support the motion to postpone because the the the emergency nature of this has to do with government buildings. I think there's broad consensus around that. Um, what we heard from the industry, the affordable housing builders is not, hey, we want you to come to a compromise. It is, hey, please don't keep changing the standards. Leave the one that's in place in place until you do the permanent. Um, that's the same thing the administration is asking us. We've also heard concerns from um some environmental groups. Delaying this just delays it. It It won't fix it. It won't change, you know, the the question that's in front of us, which is are we going to change again temporarily what we just changed temporarily, or are we going to say this is in place until we we do the permanent and work together to get the permanent done? That's what we need to do. Uh so that's what I recommend we do. Thank you chairman. Uh the vote will be on the motion to postpone to the next legislative meeting. All >> ask for a roll call. >> What's that? >> We can Can we roll call it? >> I don't want to be mad. >> Council member Pinto. >> No. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White. >> No. >> Council member Robert White votes no. Council member Trion White. >> Yes. Council member Trayon White votes yes. Council member Allen >> no. >> Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Crawford >> yes. >> Council member Crawford votes yes. Council member Felder >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Freeman >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Council member Henderson >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George >> yes. Council Lewis George votes yes. Chairman Mendlesson yes. >> Chairman Mendelson votes yes. Council member Nadau no. Council member Nadau votes no. And Council Member Parker >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are five yeses and eight nos. >> Uh the motion fails. Uh Council Member Robert White's amendment is before us. Is there further discussion on that? The vote will be on council member White's amendment. And >> I would also ask for a roll call here. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. >> Uh, yes. Council member Parker. >> Judge. Uh, Council Member White, if you could walk. Genuinely, I'm trying to understand this. So, we have your amendment is to default to the temporary that is already in place. If there isn't a permanent bill to come, let's say in the next year, then um then it reverts back to >> what exactly? >> We would need to pass another temporary. >> We would need to pass another temporary. And when does this temporary like expire? >> Mid midmay. >> Midmay. Okay. So if we don't pass an emergency dealing with residential that by midmay we would need to pass another temporary. >> Yeah. >> Uh in hopes that there isn't a gap. That's helpful. Um thank you. Thank you. >> Which would be the case if we pass a different temporary. >> Um I think there was a request for a roll call on it. >> Correct. So, the vote is on Council Member White's Excuse me. Council member Tran White, did you ask to be recognized? >> No, sir. >> All right. The vote will be on Council Member Robert White's amendment. >> Council Member Robert White. >> Yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trion White. >> Yes. >> Council member Trayon White votes yes. Council member Allen. >> Yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds. >> Yes. Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Crawford, >> yes. >> Council member Crawford votes yes. >> Council member Felder, >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Freeman, >> yes. >> Council member Freeman votes yes. Council member Henderson, >> yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George, >> no. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Chairman Mendelson, >> yes. >> Chairman Mendelson votes yes. Council member Nadau, >> yes. >> Council member Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker >> present. >> Council member Parker will be recorded as present. Council member Pinto >> yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 yeses, one no and one present. >> Uh the amendment is approved. Uh further discussion on the bill. >> Mr. Chairman clarification council member Parker. >> So with this amendment now the the changes that council member Lewis George are proposing are only for nonresidential properties. >> That's correct. >> For 90 days. Uh >> why do you say 90 days? There's a temporary that comes with >> and there's a temporary with the hope that there is a permanent to follow and that the status quo is existing through May and there will be another action necessary then if a permanent is not passed in time is that correct somebody I'm seeing okay thank you thank you Um, >> anyone else on the bill? >> All right, the vote will be on the bill as amended. There were two amendments that were adopted. All those in favor of the bill as amended say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the bill's approved unanimously. The next measure is steer clarification emergency declaration resolution 2026 PR26-518. Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On February 6th, 2024, the council passed the strengthening traffic enforcement education responsibility amendment act of 2024, otherwise known as the Steer Act, which among other things established an Intelligent Speed Assistance Program in the district. The program administered by the Department of Vehicles installs and monitors a driver's compliance with intelligent speed assistance systems if the driver was convicted of certain driving offenses. The Steer Act also modernized the district's existing ignition interlock device program. More specifically, the Steer Act amended sections 37 and 38 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act to modify the conditions under which the DMV may suspend or reinstate a driver's license or vehicle registration, respectively. Sections 37 and 38 as amended by the steer act worked together to establish driving offenses that require enrollment in the newly established intelligent speed assistance program as a condition of reinstatement. The new intelligent speed assistance program was funded during fiscal year 24 in the budget process and the DMV began working on regulations to implement the program. The updates to the ignition interlock device program were funded during the FY26 budget process. Though funding for implementation is not actually available to the DMV until FY27. When updating the Steer Acts applicability clause to reflect its funding status, the most recent BSA left sections 37 and 38 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act subject to appropriation since funding for the modernized ignition interlock device program was pending. However, since the DMV relies on section 37 and 38 to enroll drivers in the intelligence speed assistance program, and those key provisions are currently considered to be unfunded, the DMV has paused the launch of this program until the provisions are funded or substantially similar provisions go into effect to allow implementation of the intelligence speed assistance program to move forward. This emergency legislation modifies the applicability clause of the steer act to clarify the provision of the law as they are related to the intelligence speed assistance program. They are fully funded even though those same provisions remain subject to appropriations with respect to the district's current ignition interlock device program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I move the deck. >> Thank you, council member. Are there is there discussion? >> The vote will be on the declaration PR26-518. All those in favor say I. I. >> Chair mark is present. Jim. >> Uh, Madam Secretary, uh, Yark, Council Member Tran White is present and the, uh, vote is unanimous. The underlying bill, bill 26-583. Council member Allen. >> So move, Mr. >> Discussion. Vote will be on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Chairman, >> please remark me as present, please. Are there any no votes? Hearing none, Council Member Trayon White is marked as present. Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Uh we'll turn now to temporary legislation. There's no objection. We will move them. I'll move them in block. Residential permit. Residential building permit classification temporary amendment act. moving it, including the amendment that Councilman Nidau moved to the emergency, the short-term disability insurance benefit protection clarification temporary amendment act, parking enforcement modernization technical correction temporary amendment act, Rhode Island Avenue corridor long-term lease adjustment temporary amendment act, Friends of Wgari Gardens Grant Temporary Amendment Act, Netzero Modification and Preservation Temporary Amendment Act, including uding the two amendments that were adopted on the emergency and the steer clarification temporary amendment act. Madam general counsel, is that clear? >> Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. >> And members, are you all clear? I'm going to take silence to mean yes. Uh if there's no discussion, the vote will be on the seven temporaries. All those in favor say I. I >> I >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. That is going to conclude the business of this meeting. Um the next scheduled legislative meeting is March 3rd and there will be a committee the whole meeting in two weeks. The time is the time is 2:46 p.m. And this meeting is adjourned.