Thank you. >> I'm trying to stall so that I have somebody who could um move to wave the reading of the reports. So yeah, so um we have the uh filing of committee reports, the secretary's report of committee filings. >> We have the secretary's report of committee filings. >> Mr. Chairman, I move to w the secretar's report and the log. >> Well, you can only do one at a time. Um, there's been a motion by council member Bonds, just in case anybody missed that, to wave the reading of the secretary's report of committee filings. Is there discussion on the motion? On the motion, all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? I have it unanimously. Um, uh, we have the reading of the secretary's log of introductions and referrals. Again, I'll recognize chair prom, council member Bonds. >> Thank you, chairman. And I move to wave the reading of the secretary's log of introductions and referrals. >> Is there a motion to wave the reading of the log? Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have unanimously. If there's no objection, the first three measures for markup in the committee the whole which are confirmations of nominations to the real property tax appeals commission will be moved in block. They are PR26-444, Real Property Tax Appeals Commission. Cliff Teen Jones confirmation resolution of 2026. PR26-445 Real Property Tax Appeals Commission May Chan Confirmation Resolution 2026. PR26-446 Real Property Tax Appeals Commission Trent Williams Confirmation Resolution of 2026. Hearing no objection, all three are moved together. The mission of the real property tax appeals commission is to conduct fair and impartial hearings on real property tax assessments for the citizens of the District of Columbia. That's citizens as well as businesses. The commission's objective is to ensure that an appellent real property is assessed at 100% of market value based on property similar in size and utility so that equitable tax burden is shared. The commission on real property tax appeals meets at least four times annually for administrative matters. Uh the commission also meets uh in panels to consider appeals uh throughout the year. The commission has um I believe it's two four six uh six members and then there are several hearing examiners who assist with regard to hearings. Um PR The purpose of PR26-444 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Cliffine Jones for reappoint as a full-time commissioner for a term to end April 30th, 2030. Uh Cliffine Jones is award for resident and she has actually served on the commission for a number of years. This is, as I said, a reappoint. The purpose of PR26-445 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of May Chan for reappointment as a full-time commissioner for a term to end April 30th, 2030. Miss Chan is award six resident and she also has served for a number of years on the commission. The purpose of PR26-446 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Trent Williams for reappoint to the tax commission um and as the full-time chairperson of the commission for a term to end April 30th, 2030. Uh this is a reappointment, but Mr. Williams was first appointed, if I remember correctly, uh right before the pandemic. So, not as long a tenure as um Cliffine Joan or May Chan. Uh each of these resolutions was introduced at the request of the mayor on December 4th, 2025 and the committee as a whole held a hearing or roundt on these nominations on February 3rd, 2026. The committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to any of these nominations. Without objection, I move the prints and reports for each with thee for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? >> The vote will be on the prints and reports for all three resolutions uh with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, are these three measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each >> once the reports and hearing records are filed. >> And madame budget director, these are nominations or confirmations and so therefore there's no fiscal impact or fiscal impact statement. Correct. >> Correct. Uh without objection, these three measures will be placed on the consent agenda for the March 3rd legislative meeting. There's no objection. The next two resolutions will be moved in block. They are both appointments, excuse me, uh confirmations of mayor's nomination for a reappointment of two members to the Washington Convention and Sports Authority Board of Directors. PR26-475 Washington Convention Sports Authority Board of Directors Julio J. Hatock Ortiz confirmation resolution of 2026 and PR26-476 Washington Convention Sports Authority Board of Directors Leif Dorms Joe confirmation resolution of 2026. The Washington Convention and Sports Authority otherwise known as Events DC is the official convention and sports authority for the district. Events DC generates economic and community benefits for the residents and businesses of the District of Columbia by creating premier event experiences in the nation's capital and through the promotion of Washington DC as a worldclass destination. Events DC's 12 member board of directors is comprised of local leaders from the district's business community who are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council with the exception of three exopicial members. Board members serve staggered four-year terms and represent specific business segments of the community. The purpose of PR26-475 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Julio J. Hatock Ortiz for reappoint as an individual with proven experience in tourism um for a term to end May 16th, 2030. Mr. Ortiz is a W six resident and he has served on the uh events DC board for a number of years and as I said this is for reappointment. The purpose of 26-476 is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Leif Dormstro as an individual with proven experience in municipal finance and as chairperson of the uh events TC board. Although the resolution does not actually say as chairman of the board. Mr. Dorm is a W3 resident and he has served on the board. I think this would be his first full term. If I'm wrong, this would be his second term. Um the committee the these both of these resolutions were introduced in December 9th of last year at the request of the mayor and the committee as a whole held a public roundt on these two on February 3rd 2026 and the committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to either nomination. Um, without objection, I move the uh both the prints and reports with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the motion? The vote will be on the print and reports for the two resolutions with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Um, madame general counsel, are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each >> once the reports and hearing records are filed. >> Madame budget director, these are confirmations and therefore no fiscal impact. Correct. >> Correct. >> Without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for the March 3rd legislative meeting. Uh, the next item on agenda is bill 26-173. The fiscal impact statement has not been received from the chief financial officer, so I am not moving that today. Give me a second. Um, so the next measure is bill 26-221 move Lambda Foundation Inc. Real Property Tax Exemption Act of 2026. Before I move anything, I'm going to recognize Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm requesting to recuse myself uh for the consideration of this measure. >> Right. I have no idea if you filed a statement and I'm not sure I care, but uh the record will reflect that you're recusing yourself. I think you are absenting yourself. I believe you're absenting yourself. All right. Um the purpose of bill 26-221 um is to amend uh title 47 of the which is a tax code to exempt from real property taxes to move Lambda Foundation House located at 2405 1st Street Northwest to exempt it from real property taxes for 30 years beginning October 1st, 2025 and ending September 30th, 2055. The tax exemption would be in effect so long as MOO Lambda Foundation, Inc. owns the property and the properties used for its charitable and educational purposes. The fiscal impact of this exemption was budgeted by the council last summer when we adopted the FY26 budget and financial plan. Uh the MU Lambda Foundation is a philanthropic arm of the Alpha Fi Alpha fraternity. The Mulanda chapter was chartered in the district in 1923. The foundation was established in 1994 and granted 501c3 status by the IRS in 1996. The foundation's headquarters are in the Bloomingdale neighborhood, uh which the foundation acquired in 1999. Rehabilitation of the property was completed in 2011. The property has been in operational home for the foundation's charitable activity since the rehabilitation was completed. This bill was introduced on April 3rd, 2025 by council members McDuffy and Parker and the Committee on Business and Economic Development held a public hearing on the measure on November 19th, 2025. I believe there was no testimony or comments in opposition to the legislation although I did not chair the hearing. Um and um there was something else I was going to say which I don't remember now. So um I move the print would leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the print with Lee for staff. All those in favor say I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. The other thing I was going to say which I probably should have said before the vote was my understanding is that there was a Taffa prepared and that Taffa did indicate that the tax exemption is not necessary. I will note that um this was funded by the council as part of the budget. Um the eyes had it had it unanimously general counsel. No, I have to do the report first. Um I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? >> The vote is on the report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. >> I. Are there any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Madame general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report is filed? >> Madame budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> That is the fiscal impact was covered in the budget. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the looking at general counsel non-consent agenda. because uh Mr. Parker is recusing himself. The non-consent agenda for the March 3rd legislative meeting. The next measure for markup is bill 26-327, Schools First Amendment Act of 2026, called the Schools First Amendment Act of 2026. The legislation amends how DC law 24-300, the school's first in budgeting amendment act of 2022 instructs the DCPS chancellor to construct the annual DCPS budget. Manage it in three respects. First, it requires that school budgets increase by the highest of the projected percentage increases in the foundation level of the uniform purpose student funding formula. the collectively bargain teacher salaries or the average position cost. Previously, schools first required budgets to increase by the larger the UPSFF increase or the collectively bargain teacher salary increase and did not consider changes to the average position cost. Second, the legislation no longer permits DCPS to reduce school budgets on the basis of eliminating school-based support personnel, which actually reflects what the practice has been, but clarifies the law in that regard. Third, it allows TCPS to reduce school budgets to account for a school or campus closure, including phase closures over multiple years. Um, as with schools first, the purpose of bill 26-327 is to provide stability to school budgets and school staff. The proposed changes in bill 26-327 along with adjustments to the committee's practices which are discussed in the committee report when evaluating DCPS's adherence to schools first. These changes will help provide additional stability and improve DCPS's accuracy uh when following school's first law uh in budget formulation. Um this bill was introduced on July 11th, 2025 and the committee as the whole held a public hearing on October 1st, 2025. I want to say that the committee staff has worked with DCPS to modify the legislation as introduced and to reflect either in the report or in the legislation um concerns that DCPS raised. Um I think with that I will move the report with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chairman, >> uh, Council Member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I appreciate the work of you and your staff on this bill. Um, I'd be remiss though if I didn't note that it's missing one thing and that is the inclusion of the hold harmless legislation that would go to help our public schools and their budgeting so that when they go into a swing space and there is predictably a decrease in enrollment, which then means a decrease in funding for the schools, which then means they typically have to lay off or lose a position or two only to return to a newly modernized school to great fanfare and celebration. and they see that enrollment rebound in the interim. However, they lose the educators, the people who've built the relationships with those students, with the school, with each other and colleagues, and the hold harmless legislation is one that would help make sure that we provide that continuity for that 12 to 18month period. uh during that um I know we're not at the legislative meeting so I hope that I can talk with you and we can keep working to include that in the first reading but for our school communities it's an important way that we are recognizing how valuable our educators and teachers are and not losing them in the short run of a move or a swing which does long-term and uh damage when they're no longer a part of that school community. So, um, I'm supporting this today and look forward to supporting it at first reading, but I also would like to work with you to include our hold harmless language, which was also a part of a hearing. >> Uh, thank you. Um, yes, and I recognize what the concern is um with schools like, for instance, Brent, which is going through modernization, that we don't want them to be disadvantaged. So, yes, I'm planning on discussing. In fact, I've asked my scheduler to see if we can meet this week. >> Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Someone over here wanted to be recognized. >> It was over here, Mr. Chairman. >> Council member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask, so I know at the October hearing there was significant push back from DCPS regarding the implementation of this bill and I, you know, in terms of the concerns about the school schools first and budgeting framework in general, I think we had this discussion a couple of years ago around when are the implications if ever that a school budget can be decreased. So um under this framework which in my view everything it's it only goes up it it can never go down unless the school is closed um do you have any concerns about the long-term implications of actually funding this piece of legislation? Um well actually the school's first formula does contemplate that it can go down. Um when there's been a significant change in enrollment um and with regard to DCPS um I hesitate because I don't want to mischaracterize I would say that they were much more supportive of schools first the school's first law at the hearing than they had been previously. They did raise a number of concerns and we have addressed each of those concerns either in the report or in the legislation. For example, one of the concerns they raised at the hearing was that when there is um through the school's first analysis, a change to a school's proposed budget of and I think it was $62 was one school. They said really there's much more work involved in making that change. They wanted in the law that um the uh it could change by let's say a thousand dollars. Um we didn't do that because we think that that's like automatically says you can reduce everybody's budget. But um the report speaks to that and says that the uh and and the report of course is language that future committees can look at says that the committee practice will be to um treat the minimus changes as not being required. So that's just one example of a concern that they raised. Um, I'm blanking at the moment on other concerns they raised, but as I said, we attempted to address each of them in either the legislation or in the report. >> Okay. Um, I also, you know, in the fiscal impact statement for this, it was kind of curious to me that the CFO would suggest that funds are completely sufficient when we are requiring that um the cost of the average teacher salary go up for inflation. No, we're not requiring >> that the increasing cost of a teacher salary be included in the budgetary calculation. Is that not accurate? >> Uh what this bill does is it says it includes in the formula um the it's it's a choice of three. The increase in the UPSF or the increase in the teachers contract or the increase in the average position cost. Now, I think you know this, most members probably don't, that DCPS has a calculation called average position cost, which is not what a teacher actually gets paid. It's an average. And a couple years ago, the average position cost went up by something like 17%. And you will remember that schools, school after school after school complained that their budget might be going up, but that their buying power went down substantially because of that increase. So, this fixes that. The average physician cost uh includes a number of what I would call add-ons that um I think actually we budget I've had this debate with my staff. I think we actually budget twice for it. Uh something like fingerprinting for teachers uh as part of a background check. Um most years the average position cost has gone up like two or 3%. The way the formula works is it's the highest of those three. So think about it. If the UPSF goes up, that means how much money the mayor is going to budget for schools. If UPSF goes up by 5%. Then the school system gets 5% more money. And what schools first says is, okay, well then the school's budgets go up by 5%. Um that's a choice the mayor makes. the um if the teachers contract goes up by let's say 3%. And let's say that's the highest of the three then um well the teachers are going to get paid more. So then the school's budget goes goes up uh by that amount and the average position cost as I said until a few years ago it wasn't an issue but when when it when it went up 17% what we saw was schools losing their buying power and that was very problematic. The purpose behind schools first is stability in the schools that schools can count on relatively the same budget from one year to the next. That was a long answer. >> It's fine. This is important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Anything further on this? Council member Bonds. >> Thank you, Chairman. I was just wondering in the implementation of the school's first um requirement is there collection of data that would indicate what happens when um let's say a school sort of downsizes or loses um a in instruction as it relates to young people's um test scores. Do we collect any of that kind of data that would tell us? >> Well, there is data on test scores by school. >> Um, I think your question is a little bit different. There's not a report that does an analysis of >> Yes. >> And I'm not quite sure what that would be because all schools first does is say that uh there is budget stability for a school. Well, I guess I'm I'm kind of stuck back where um Council Member Allen was. What happens when a school that's doing well then loses um instruction because the enrollment has gone down, but you still have young people that are in that classroom environment. And I'm just wondering if we have taken the time to do an analysis that would inform us as to the value of keeping good instruction in a school because ultimately our goal is to um increase the uh educational attainment of our >> students. >> Students. Yeah. >> Sure. Well, one of the ways to do that is to retain staff, to minimize turnover of staff. Um, what was happening before we had the school's first law in 2022 was that there was um higher turnover because uh schools were being told that they were going to have their budgets cut and so staff would leave the school. And uh that is happening to a much much less degree now. So there's more retention and retention correlates with academic achievement. >> All right. And so that sounds to me like there is some analysis that is in play. There is some data that is being collected that would um cause us to take this approach to the educational process. Uh yeah, I would add as well that um I'm hesitating only because I don't want to speak for the school system, but I think DCPS has become more accepting of this and the stability, the financial stability with schools. Uh certainly from um education activists in the community, we're hearing um much more positive feedback with regard to the budget stability. I mean, just think back of and the committee report mentions this uh in 2020 um uh for fiscal year 2024, DCPS presented a budget in which half of the school's budgets uh were reduced. >> Remember there was there was just huge blowback year after year after year and that has largely died down. Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to bring home the point that there is analysis that supports what we are doing and what we are doing as a government as it relates to our school system is um attempting to rightsize a school at the same time without creating harm to the student body or to what that school produces in the way of educated young people. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, chairman. >> Thank you. Um if there's no further discussion, the vote is on the print with leaf for staff make technical conforming changes. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. On the report, I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the report with leave for staff? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Madame general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? Once the report 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 the March 3rd legislative meeting. The next measure for markup is bill 26-371, closing of a portion of a public alley and establishment of a building restriction line in square 2319. So 22-02364, act of 2026. Bill 26-371 would close a portion of the public alley system in Square 2319 which is bounded by Utah Avenue, Northwest, Writtenhouse, 28th Street, and Nebraska Avenue. This is in Ward 4. The bill would also extend the existing building restriction line in lot 77 over the portion of the closed alley. According to the property owner, the closure would enable the beautifification of the closed portion of the public alley, which abuts the portion of the land formerly owned by the Episcopal Church for children that was recently purchased by Marray School and would also clarify title to the land. Uh reading from the report, the committee finds that the portion of the alley system in square 2319 as shown on the surveyor's plat for this so file is not necessary for alley purposes. This legislation was introduced on September 29th last year and the committee as a whole held a public hearing on January 13th, 2026. Uh as I recall, there was no testimony or comments in opposition. In fact, looking at the report, there were only government witnesses. Uh, I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? >> The vote will be on the print. All those in favor? >> You didn't look down. >> What's that? >> You didn't look down. >> I did not, but I looked down. I looked down right in front of me. Council Lewis Tudge. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, and thank you to the committee for marking up this moving this measure forward. Um, this legislation closed a small, what do we like to call ghost alley in square 2319 behind 50 5931 Utah Avenue Northwest. Um, the alley was deed to the district in 1934, but in the rough roughly 90 years since, it has never been used as a public right of way. Um, it has long been fenced in and function functionally absorbed into the surrounding yards with no realistic public purpose now or in the future. Um, closing this alley though solves a few practical problems all at once. Um, it will allow for buffering landscape between the nearby property and Marray school recently leased athletic field and clubhouse which will help preserve privacy for neighbors and the school. Um, it also clears up a title issue that has complicated property transactions because the alley's purpose and history have been unclear. And it resolves a zoning issue um, without this narrow strip included. this side this sideyard is non-compliant under district zoning requirements. So, incorporating it brings uh the site into compliance. Um finally, once this land is conveyed into private ownership, it will generate annual property tax revenue for the district. Converting an unused strip of public land into a taxable asset. Um this is a targeted common sense fix that clarifies ownership, supports neighborhoods compat the neighborhoods compatibility, and puts long unused land to productive use. So, I want to just thank you again, chairman, for moving this along. Um, and thank uh um members of the uh CHV Chvy Chase community um who have advocated for for this. Thank you. >> Thank you, council member. There's no further discussion. The vote will be on the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. We have the report. I move the report with Lee for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Uh all those in favor of the report with Lee for staff say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? Once the report is filed, >> madame budget director, does the measure physical impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today or for the March 3rd legislative meeting. Uh the last item for markup in the committee as a whole is bill 26-426, Holding Company System Amendment Act of 2026. Bill 26-426 would amend the holding company system act of 1993 to update the group capital calculation for the purpose of insurance for the purpose of insurance holding company system group solveny supervision and add a liquidity stress test for macro credential surveillance. It would also provide the DISBY the DISBY commissioner with additional authority over third parties in the event an insurer is in hazardous financial condition or placed in receiverhip. Bill 26-426 would incorporate the most recent National Association of Insurance Commissioners accreditation requirements. Uh in 2020, as part of its ongoing model law developmental activities, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners or NIC adopted revisions to the holding company law and revisions to the holding company law and regulation establishing group calculation filing requirements and liquidity stress stress test reporting to maintain compliance with the NIC's accreditation process. These revisions were required to be adopted by all US jurisdictions before January 1st, 2026. However, the committee understands that the NIC has credited the district with having advanced the bill through the legislative process before that deadline and passage now will not adversely affect DISBY's accreditation. This legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on October 8th, 2025. The Committee on Business and Economic Development held a public hearing on the measure on November 19th, 2025. And it appears from the committee report that there was no testimony or comments in opposition to the bill. 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? All those in favor say of the print. Say, did I just say I did the print? I already did the print. Um, all those in favor I'm moving. I lost track of myself here. I think we've already voted on the print. The vote is on the report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report is filed? >> Madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be on the consent agenda for the March 3rd legislative meeting. That completes the um measures for markup in the committee as a whole. Turning to measures from other committees from the committee on youth affairs. All of these measures are from the committee on youth affairs. uh PR26-358, Director of the Child and Family Services Agency, Tanya Torres, Trice, Confirmation Resolution 2025. Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this resolution advances the mayor's nomination of acting director Tanya Torres Trice to assume the permanent directorship of the Child and Family Services Agency. Miss Torres Trice is a licensed social worker with over 20 years of experience working on behalf of children and families. Her experience includes 17 years at CFSA, including as assistant deputy director and administrator for the office of youth empowerment and most recently as CFSA's chief of staff. In writing about her interests in the directorship, Miss Torres Trice shared that she is quote driven to lead CFSA to strengthen our community partnerships, address systemic issues, and ensure that every service decision is made with the child's and famil family's best interests in mind. End quote. Miss Taus Trice is also award five neighbor. Uh the committee found that Miss Torres Tric is significantly qualified for the role and recommends her approval or or approval of this confirmation. Uh thank you council member. Uh my understanding is that this was deemed approved on February 12th. So my question I think to the secretary or general counsel is do we agendaize this given that it's already been I mean I think there's a value to you presenting it today. I would suggest that we not agendaize it coun um madam secretary. >> Uh yes Mr. Mr. Chairman, no, it cannot be agendaized because the matter has been um passively approved, >> but the limbs will reflect the committee report. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Uh so I'm going to move on. The next measure which was reported out of the committee on youth affairs is bill 26-398 increasing support for grandparent and close relative caregivers act of 2025. Council member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill increases the grandparent and close relative caregiver subsidy to $38 a day in fiscal year 27 and adjusts for inflation annually thereafter. This bill was the result of numerous grandparents and close relative caregivers sharing with the committee about the significant costs they take on when they step up to take care of children in their home at a time of immense need. It is important to understand that the rate for these subsidies hasn't changed in roughly a decade. The current full subsidy payment without TANF benefit offsets is $24.79 per day for children younger than the age of 12 and $27.92 per day for children older than the age of 12. Given the everinccreasing uh cost for raising children in the district, this legislation uh seeks to address financial struggles headon for these kingare givers and bring it in line with the foster care subsidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Are there questions from members? >> Council member Lewis George. >> Thank you. Um, thank you for continuing the council's strong tradition of fully supporting the grandparent and close relative caregiver program with this bill. I wanted to ask about CFSA's implementation of the grandparent and caregivers subsidy eligibility expansion act of 2023 which um my committee funded in the fiscal year 24 budget support act. Late last year, CFSA informed both of our offices that since October 1st, 2024 that the agency was not offsetting SNAP and other listed benefits from determin determinations of eligibility um claiming they were unaware this change was made in the BSA. Um, last month CFSA said it was still deciding whether it was going to retroactively apply the offset to affected participants and applicants as the law required or if it would do so only moving forward. Can you share whether CFSA has decided to retro retroactively apply the offset to bring the agency in compliance with the law? Um, if they are retroactively applying the offset, has CFSA given a timeline for when that will be complete? Yeah, this came up at a recent oversight hearing and it is our understanding that they are not offsetting um the subsidies for anyone at this time and >> but are they and they are are they moving forward with the change >> it there was no commitment to offset moving forward and so one of the things that we were seeking to do with this legislation was to strike that requirement altogether >> that they must offset for the first 60 months of participation so that uh caregivers could maximize the subsidy benefit. >> So the the policy decision moving forward is that they won't be offsetting like SNAP and other listed benefits from determination eligibility. >> That's right. >> Wow. Okay. That's a that's a shift or a change. >> Okay. Um and I also wanted to I didn't get a chance to speak last time, but I want to say I um firmly support the decision for uh director Trice's appointment. I found working with her. She is an expert in the field and cares deeply about the community. I you didn't recognize me the last round. So, while I had this time, I was going to utilize that. Thank you. >> I will say that uh CFSA, while they have not endorsed this legislation, they have on the record said they support increasing the subsidy. It's a matter of funding. Um and this comes at a cost. Council member Crawford. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to supporting this legislation and of course I want to thank council member Parker for your leadership on this pack of bills. As I mentioned during the committee on youth affairs markup, I do continue to have concerns about the fiscal impact of this bill which will cost 6 million in fiscal year 20 to 26 and 25 million over the financial plan. I fully understand that we need to increase the subsidy because the rate hasn't changed in roughly a decade. And with CFSA expecting the number of participants to remain steady even after the changes made to this bill, I just want to name that I look forward to working with you, Council Member Parker, and members of uh the committee as we take up the budget to see if we could get more participants and maybe get the cost down. And I would like to give you the opportunity to respond here at Cal uh to those concerns. >> Yeah. Uh, I'm going to pull out the question there. Um, thank you. I will say two things. When we originally introduced this bill, it also included extending uh eligibility for families to the age of 21 years for their child. We struck that given the cost parameters and you're right, this comes at a significant price tag. Um and it will be a matter of making decisions in committee and as a council uh to see how we can fund this. I think it is worth noting it is the priority of our CFSA or our child and family services agency to keep as many children with their families. The research is clear children thrive and fare better when they are with loved ones and close relatives. However, when you look at the uh grandparent and close rel relative subsidy in comparison with the foster care subsidy, there is a significant disparity. And so what that says to me is our stated priority isn't in alignment with our funded laws. And so what this bill is seeking to do is to try to rightsize that. And you're absolutely right, it comes at a cost. And so I'm going to be looking forward to working with you in a budget to see how we can try to fund this. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Uh further questions? >> I have three. 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, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> And there's a fiscal impact? >> There is. uh as we just discussed 6 million in FY26 and 25 million over the plan. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the March 3rd legislative meeting. Bill 26-404 state pregnancy delivery and postpartum care for youth at DYRS amendment act of 2025. Council member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill requires that DRS uh make pregnancy testing available to youth upon admission to any DRS facility such as the youth services center and new beginnings as well as pregnancy testing when necessary for the prescription of certain medications. U the legislation sets the standard of care for DRS facilities to ensure timely, culturally responsive and comprehensive care for pregnant youth. These measures aim to fill a gap in health care protocols at DRS currently which have fallen short from national standards. Um it is unfortunate that this approach to healthcare has not been more intentional nor consistent at DS but the hope is that this bill will uh set the foundation for expectations for uh young women in the agency's care. Last thing I would just say u Mr. Chairman, this legislation brings our juvenile detention system in alignment with our adult detention system given that there was similar legislation passed uh for pregnancy protocols at the uh Department of Corrections, I believe two years ago. Thank you. >> Are there questions from members? Council member Bonds. >> Thank you, um Chairman, and to um Council Member Parker. just wondered um what is the funding that's required? >> Yeah. Uh fortunately um the fisk came back uh saying that there are sufficient funds for this bill. Uh it is worth noting that there is uh some protocols in place but they're disjointed and they're not applied evenly. Uh, one of the reasons that I was moved to introduce this is that the OIJJFO uh, found in a recent report that 12 youth were prescribed medications without any insight to whether or not they were pregnant and the medications would be harmful if they were in fact pregnant. Um, so to answer your question, there is zero cost for implementation and the agency has said they're committed to um, aligning with the goals of the bill. Good deal. Thank you. >> Any further questions? 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, 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 the March 3rd legislative meeting. Bill 26-407, strengthening capacity and transparency at DYRS Amendment Act of 2025. Council member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill accomplishes three important goals. It requires regular reporting on youth demographics and incidents at DRS. Uh it defines recidivism and tasks the agency with publishing rates of recidivism in one, two, and three-year increments. And it directs the mayor uh to create an action plan to address systemic overcrowding at the youth services center uh within a 120 days of the bill's passage. In effect, this bill will ensure the council retains important juvenile data uh that was previously reported by the OIJJFO. A recent report revealed that 78% of youth who were committed and released from DRS facilities uh in 2023 were found to have later justice system involvement. Put differently. Nearly or more than 3/4ers of the young people that we are detaining are coming right back to the agency. Uh which is why we're hoping to get a better grasp of things with the reporting on recidivism. And then ultimately uh we want to address uh routine and systemic overcrowding at the agency as it is both dangerous uh but presents uh further complications for services being uh provided to young people in the care arrest. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Parker. Council member Henderson. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a couple of questions I wanted to ask. Um, Council Member Parker, the Office of the Independent Juvenile Justice Facilities Oversight, um, reports on daily population data, both at YSC as well as at New Beginnings. The agency is now, well, office rather, is now housed under the work of the DC auditor, which completes incident reports and safety reports. How is this bill not duplicative of their work? >> Um, great question. We did away as a council uh with the OIJJFO. Um through the work of the committee, we got DRS to agree informally to report some of the data metrics that the OIJJFO was reporting. Uh it is important to note that we did not fund the auditor components of the OIJJFO and so right now there is a handshake agreement uh in in us receiving this very valuable information. Um and part of this legislation is to require it even beyond the current leadership and the agreements that we have moving forward. So in if I'm forecasting forward because we're about to go through this next budget process, are we essentially saying that because DRS is going to be taking on these reportings in house that the independent juvenile justice facilities oversight work is no longer formally needed? >> Um the the office no longer exists. So it sunset it at the end of last fiscal year. there was a gap in time when there there wasn't reporting. Um given our oversight with the director and I want to give him kudos, he is willingly reporting many of the reports that the OIJJFO reported, but that is currently a handshake agreement. So with new leadership, a new mayor administration, they can say we're not going to share this. And these reports including incidents, population, etc. are vital for us to keep a grasp of what's happening. >> Let me change my question just a little bit. I think there was value in having an independent yes body sort of doing that work. Do you feel confident in that the agency that for which there is an incident is also going to accurately report on said incident about their agency? >> Um great question. I have full confidence um I have full confidence I have full confidence that DRS will attempt to accurately report information. I do think there's still a need and value to an independent oversight agency. Again, we didn't fund that as a council. I think it's important to remind people the auditor made it very clear that she did not want that function as part of her office. uh there is still a need and value to over independent oversight uh in addition to what the council is providing. Uh one of the things that I would just stress uh would be a value ad is oversight of the many facilities across the country where young people are being placed that that currently go uh without much probing. I'll just say that. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Council Member Parker. Uh, this bill uh requires uh public reporting on things like population incidents, recidivism, safety, and requires a um a plan to address overcrowding. Uh my understanding is that the administration opposed this bill citing capacity concerns and that there is a fiscal impact on the first year of more than a4 million and then like $658,000 over the financial plan. Are these things not being done right now? again uh you're you're pointing to a ongoing issue. Yes, the fist says that DRS needs extra FTE to do the stuff that they're already doing. Um you know, I think it is important to note that the director agreed to populate the the the data on the DRS website per the request of me and the committee. That agreement is temporary. uh with a new meril administration uh they may say we don't want numbers being reported publicly um and so that is why this is important I would also say part of the fist speaks to uh a contractor that the executive office would need to hire to create a plan to address overcrowding now again uh I don't think we need to hire someone to come up with a plan that should already exist uh today fortunately we are under capacity at YSC But for 88% of the last year, YSC was overcrowding and that 98 bed facility um there were more than two dozen more young people being stuffed and stashed in different places. So those are the two areas where the fist is reflecting a need for additional resources. >> Okay, I appreciate that's incredibly concerning that we need to hire somebody to figure out how to address an overcrowding issue that's years long. That that's really concerning. Thank you, chair, chairman. Thank you, council member Parker. >> Uh, thank you. I have one question. Um, council member, you said that the bill was um defines recidivism and then requires a report on data at one year, two-year, and threeyear. Um, how did you pick three-year? Why not let's say fiveyear? And did you do a comparison with other jurisdictions so that the data can be compared to other jurisdictions? I'm just kind of for example and I don't know if this is correct. Let's say that Maryland has data for one year, two year and fiveyear. If we're at three, we can't make a meaningful comparison. So, how did you come up with three? And did you look at other jurisdictions? >> Um the one, two, and threeyear metrics came in consultation with DRS leadership, the mayor's office, and the office of the attorney general. One of the issues we continue to run in and council member Pinto can also speak to this is everyone defines recidivism differently and uh you know at regionally but also here locally and so we also define what recidivism means for juveniles which essentially is that they are arrested for a new offense after being released from detention and we will track that on one two and threeyear uh metrics. That was the request of DRS leadership. We got the buyin from the OAG and those benchmarks were the agreed upon terms to >> Could you look at between now and first reading other jurisdictions and see if they have something beyond three years so make comparisons? >> Happy to. >> If there are no other questions. Um madame general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is. It is uh 234,000 in FY26 and 658,000 over the financial plan. >> Thank you. Uh without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the March 3rd legislative meeting. >> Mr. Chairman, I have a question. >> Yes. >> Before we vote, um and I'm happy to take this offline. If the is there a process for us to uh renegotiate the fist after we vote on it? >> Well, we're not voting on the fist. >> Well, meaning vote on this. >> Yeah. Go back to the OCFO and tell them why you think the fist should be lower. >> Got it. >> You could also work with the budget director. >> Yep. the budget director has some expertise or experience in trying to negotiate this. >> Uh, bill 26-49, empowering parents in CFSA Investigations Amendment Act of 2025. Council member Parker. >> Thank you. And I think this is the last one, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this bill requires the Child and Family Services Agency to make three notifications to caretakers during the initial phase of an investigation. inform caretakers of their right to counsel during legal proceedings, provide them with a list of available legal resources, and then alert them to the availability of the office of the embudsman for children as a resource for complaints. While the right to counsel during child welfare proceedings is already enshrined in DC law. The committee has received numerous reports that many parents are not aware of this right until proceedings begin. At that point, parents may have lost the opportunity to preserve evidence and fully participate in their defense. This bill promotes equitable outcomes in CFSA investigations by ensuring that parents immediately grasp the full scope of their rights and maintain access to a channel for complaints as soon as the process begins. With these requirements in place, parents can fully engage with the investigation process and respond to CFSA inquiries. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions from members? Council member Lewis, George. >> Thank you. Um, uh, Council Parker, some witnesses, some witness testimony indicated that this bill will guarantee the availability of representation when a CFSA investigation begins. Currently, a right to legal representation exists only during legal proceedings. Can you confirm this bill does not create a new right to legal representation during a CFSA investigation and keeps the existing right to counsel during legal proceedings? >> That is right. Um there was some advocacy to establish the right to counsel at the beginning of an investigation. Um the committee determined that that was not feasible and could have negative consequences on the capacity of the courts. And so this bill requires that CFSA notify parents that they are under investigation and then to share rights and resources with them. Uh their right to counsel would begin once the legal proceedings were to start. >> Legal proceedings. Okay. And then I know CFSA currently has information on legal resources available to families involved in the child welfare system, but families have often say the information is insufficient to understand all res sources available and how to utilize them. How would you assess CFSA's current list of legal resources? And does this bill require or has CFSA indicated they are open to changing the substance, format, or means of sharing legal resources? Yeah. Um, CFSA did uh express agreement to adapting their current brochure and information. Um, one of the things that we made a point to stress is that at the very beginning of the process, parents must be informed uh because there was a loose interpretation of the phrase at the beginning of the process. That could be weeks after it originally started. So we want it to be at the very beginning but also to ensure that um agencies and nonprofits that do this work pro bono are included and so that's also why it's important that we included the office of the embudsman so that parents had an avenue there to share their complaints but also get information to resources. >> Understood. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Any other questions 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, 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 the March 3rd legislative meeting. I hate to say it, but we're at the end of our agenda. Um, I know we could stay here longer. Uh I think a member is asking if I could move to recess instead. Uh so the next meeting is scheduled for March 3rd, 2026. The time is 2:05 p.m. and this meeting's adjourned. >> Then you can do a motion to consider