See what I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a regular meeting of the committee of the whole of the council of the District of Columbia. If we could have quiet in the chamber, please. Uh today is Wednesday, September 17th, 2017. The time is 2:03 in the afternoon. We are in room 500 of the uh room 500 the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. Uh this is a regular committee, the whole meeting. will be followed by an additional legislative meeting. Uh this is also our first meeting since August 1st. Uh and so welcome back everyone. Uh we always begin our committee the whole meetings with a roll call to see if we have a quorum. Present. Mr. Cash. >> Chairman Mendlesson >> present. >> Council member Allen. >> Council Allen. Council member Bonds. >> Council member Bonds. Council member Felder. Council member Felder. Council member Fman. >> Present. Council member Henderson, Council Member Lewis George >> here, >> Council Member McDuffy, Council McDuffy, Council Nauv, Council Parker >> here, >> Council Pinto, >> present, >> Council Member Robert White, >> present, >> Council Trayon White, >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Cash. Uh we have the um secretary's report of committee filings since the chair prom is not here. I guess that's all follow on me. I never do this. Um uh I move the waving of the reading of the secretary's report. Is there discussion on the motion? I think I did that right. Uh all those in favor of waving the reading say I I >> opposed. The odds have unanimously. We have the uh secretary's log of introductions and referrals. >> Mr. Chairman, can we wave the reading of the secretary's log of introductions? >> Ah there's been a motion to wave the reading of the secretary's log. Is there discussion? Thank you. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. We have five bills for markup in the committee the whole uh the sixth bill Philip Reed Memorial Park. I'm not moving today there. We do not yet have the fiscal impact statement although I expected it will be favorable. The first bill is uh bill 26-139 gallery court designation act 2025. This bill would officially designate the public alley system in square 775 bounded by third and fourth streets northeast and K and I streets northeast officially designated as gallery court. The location is in ward 8 and official naming typically involves the designation of postal addresses and enables the placement of primary entrances to residences or offices. The impetus for this legislation is a development proposal. The name Gallery Court was chosen to honor the cultural and historical significance of an art gallery that has long been located along the alley in the square square 775. According to the developer, the gallery has contributed to the neighborhood's unique identity, serving as a symbol of the area's artistic and communal spirit. The naming process was rooted in community engagement with local residents and stakeholders participating in discussions to select a name that reflects the character and history of the block. the local ANC ANC6 voted to support the naming as Gallery Court uh where it was noted that the name was selected by a consensus of nearby residents. This legislation was introduced on February 25th of this year by council member Charles Allen and the committee the whole held a public hearing on July 3rd and the committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation. Without objection, I'll move both the print and the report together with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion >> on the bill? The vote on the bill and the print. Uh all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> That was very anemic, but I are there any no votes? Hearing no no votes. Uh the motion is approved unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, is the record complete? >> What's the report in the hearing? Record of file. >> Madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council uh requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> No objection. This measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The second bill is bill 26-165 entitled the Judith E. Human Memorial Bridge Designation Act of 2025. This was uh this bill would officially designate the bridge on Connecticut Avenue located between Devincure Place and Mcome Street as the Judith Ehuman Memorial Bridge. Judith Humeman was a pioneering disability rights activist whose work transformed national and international policy on accessibility, inclusion, and civil rights. Born in 1947 in Philadelphia and raised in Brooklyn, Miss Hume contracted polio at 18 months and used a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She was denied entry to kindergarten for being a quote fire hazard unquote and early experience that galvanized her lifelong advocacy. Miss Hume earned degrees from Long Island University in the University of California. She became the first wheelchair user to teach in New York City public schools after successfully suing the board of education. She co-founded Disabled in Action and the World Institute on Disability and played a central role in the passage and implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. She served in senior roles in the Clinton and Obama administrations, including as assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and as the first special adviser on international disability rights at the US Department of State. In 2007, she was appointed by Mayor Adrien Fenty as the first director of the DC Department of Disability Services. She lived for three decades in the Kennedy Warren apartment building in Cleveland Park where she was a beloved neighbor and community member. Kennedy Warren is adjacent to this bridge. She uh passed away on March 4th, 2023. This legislation was introduced on March 4th of this year. Um, give me just a second. It was introduced by Council Member Fman and co-introduced by Council Members Nadau, Bonds, Allen, and Robert White. committee. The whole held a public hearing on July 3rd and receive no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation. Without objection, I'll move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chairman, >> uh Mr. And I I want to thank the council on behalf of Judy Human's neighbors and also all of the folks in the disability community who came forward with this idea to honor her in her own neighborhood in this way. She's was an extraordinary person, a real leader on behalf of people who had been treated very very unfairly and bent the ark in their favor. And thank you to everybody for getting this done. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? The vote will be on both the print and report. Uh all those in fa with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Other are there any opposed? Uh hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, is the record complete? >> Once the report and hearing record are filed. >> Madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting. The third measure for markup is bill 26-22 entitled the Alfred Dudley Senior Way Designation Act to 2025. This bill would symbolically designate the 2900 block of Mills of Mills Avenue Northeast between Hamlin Place and Rhode Island Avenue as Alfred Dudley Senior Way. The location is in Ward Five. It's a symbolic naming for and that therefore for ceremonial purposes and shall be in addition to and subordinate to any name that is an official name. Alfred Dudley senior was born on March in March 1935 in Aurora, North Carolina. He passed away on May 21st 2023. Over the course of his illustrious life, Mr. Dudley served as a me as a mentor, educator, and entrepreneur who transformed the beauty industry in the District of Columbia and beyond. He was the president of Dudley beauty beauty college uh located at 2031 Rhode Island Avenue Northeast adjacent to the block proposed for designation. Through his leadership he mentored hundreds of cosmetologists, barbers and nail technicians, many of whom went on to become successful business owners. His legacy is one of empowerment, education, and community uplift. His contributions were recognized in 2006 when he received the outstanding individuals and organizations award for demonstrated leadership in business from the Washington DC chapter of the NAACP. The symbolic designation of this block will serve as a lasting tribute to his impact on the district and the beauty industry. This legislation was introduced on April 4th by council member Parker and the committee as the whole held a public hearing on July 3rd of this year and the committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation. Without objection, I move both print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Parker, >> thank you. Uh, I was honored to introduce the legislation for this designation honoring Alfred Dudley, Senior. Um, he leaves a tremendous legacy and the Dudley family. Uh, carries on that uh legacy through the Dudley Beauty College, which is an institution in W 5. Um, I think this serves as a reminder uh to many of all that is possible um and hopefully recognizes the thousands of lives Mr. Adidely changed and impacted. Thank you. >> Oh, thank you. Is there any further discussion? The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legal and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, is the record complete? Once the report and hearing record are filed. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting. The next measure for markup is bill 26-234 entitled the Henry E. Baker Alley Designation Act of 2025. This bill would officially designate the public alley system in square 2857 as a Henry E. acre Alley. This uh square square 2857 is bounded by Harvard Harvard Street and Sherman Avenue Northwest and Gerard Street and 11th Street. Uh the alley is located in Ward One. The um the impetus for this designation is a development proposal. The alley lot at 1016 Harvard Street cannot be developed without an official address, which in turn requires the alley to be named. The name Henry E. Baker Alley was selected to honor a pioneering African-American civil servant and historian of black innovation. The proposal received unanimous support from advisor neighbor commission 1A and was endorsed by a petition signed by a majority of abutting residents. Henry Edwin Baker, who lived from 1857 to 1928, was a lawyer, civil rights activist, and longtime examiner at the US Patent Office. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Baker undertook a groundbreaking effort to document African-American inventors, compiling a list that ultimately identified over 800 black patent holders. His work was a direct challenge to the racist myth that African-Americans lack creativity or technical skill. Baker's list was read into the congressional record in 1894 by representative George Washington Murray and later featured in web deo negro do's negro exhibit at the 1900 Paris exposition. Baker's research laid the foundation for future recognition of black inventors and remains a cornerstone of inclusive innovation history. This legislation was introduced on April 25th, 2025 by council member Nidau and the committee of the whole held a public hearing on July 3rd. The committees received no testimony or comments in opposition. Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> That was really anemic. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh, hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, is the record complete? Once the report and hearing record are filed. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting. The next measure for markup is bill 26-242 entitled the Marvin Slush Gross Way Designation Act of 2025. This bill would symbolically designate Sar Road Southeast in the Berry Farm neighborhood of W 8 as Marvin Slush Gross Way. The location is in Ward 8. Marvin Slush Gross was born on June 13th in 1982. Raised in the Berry Farm neighborhood. From a young age, he was known for his charisma, creativity, and deep love of go-go music. As a student at Anacostia High School, Mr. Gross began developing a distinctive dance style that fused elements of the Heihaw, a local dance popularized by the Junkyard Band with his own improvisational flare. This style quickly caught on among his peers who began referring to it as doing the slush. Uh his innovation gave rise to beat your feet, a uniquely DC dance form characterized by rapid footwork, expressive movement, and deep ties to go rhythms. Beat your feet became a cultural phenomenon in the late 1990s and early 2000s, spreading from school hallways and neighborhood block parties to national stages such as America's Best Dance Crew. Mr. Gross's influence helped shape a generation of dancers and contributed to the preservation and evolution of DC's homegrown cultural identity. Although his life was tragically cut short in July 2002, his legacy lives on through the continued work of dance crews like the Beat Your Feet Kings and artists such as Crazy Legs, who have carried the style to international audiences. His story's been documented in oral history, social media tributes, and cultural journalism. They credit him as the originator of the beat your feet dance. A petition on change.org gathered over 100 signatures in support of the designation, that is this bill, reflecting strong grassroots support from Berry Farm residents and the broader go-go community. This legislation was introduced on May 5th of this year by council members Robert White, Lewis George, and Nadau. And the committee the whole held a public hearing on July 3rd of this year and there's been no has received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation. Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Council member White, Robert White. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. Slush Gross had a tragically brief time on the go-go scene, but his dance style had a huge impact. He pioneered beat your feet and his moves caught fire. We've seen it on national television. and I've even seen myself and a couple of my colleagues try to beat our feet with mixed success. Council member Felder, um his friends and family still remember both his dancing and his generosity of spirit more than 20 years after his passing and I'm happy that the council is doing our part to honor his memory today. At a time when DC is in the national headlines for all the wrong reasons, let's take a moment to remember that we're fighting to prover preserve a city with a rich, deep tradition all our own. It's been my honor to work with Slush's sister, Taresha Locks, who has been pushing for this renaming and spoke to me personally at an advisory neighborhood commission 8C meeting. I want to also thank ANC8C which voted to recommend a renaming leading me to introduce this bill. I am very much looking forward to the street sign unveiling ceremony over at Berry Farm because I'm hoping Miss Locks will line up some great dancers. Uh I appreciate you and your team chairman helping to move this forward and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. >> Jim, thank you. Is there further council member Tranworth? >> Yes, I want to thank you. uh Council Member Robert White for introducing this bill. Uh I had that privilege and honor growing up around Mr. Gross Slush who had always had a lot of energy and bought DC alive wherever he went. Uh you know we he's from the Bur Farm community and that community was close to where I play little league football. I had the opportunity to party with him, not like him but with him. Um and his spirit and his energy lives on throughout the district. Even today, I've seen many programs getting youth uh involved, increasing their self-esteem, and allowing to express themselves in our community through his dances and his music. And so, I want to uh thank you, Councilman Robert White, and thank the family of Sluss for keeping his legacy alive. For those who don't know, uh Mr. Gross was a victim of homicide in this area. And so it's important that we memorialize and keep dreams and kids alive for our young people to know who they are and who's they are so they can freely express themselves in a safe learning and loving environment. So I want to thank you for this and I support this amendment. Uh thank you. Is there anything further on this legislation? We have both the print and report before us would leave for staff. All those in favor 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. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, is the record complete? >> Wants the report and hearing record of file. >> Madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting. As I mentioned before, the uh last measure I'm not moving today. So, that takes us to consideration of measures from other committees. We have one item. It's bill 26-119, official sports capital of the United States Designation Act of 2025. It was reported out of the Committee on Business and Economic Development, chaired by Council Member McDuffy. I do want to note this is a bill, not a resolution. Mr. McDuffy. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Uh this is a bill, not a resolution. Uh the bill uh um was referred by you to the committee on business and economic development. Um actually let me start over. I introduced the measure on February 6, 2025. It was referred by the chairman to the committee on business and economic development on February 18th, 2025. Uh and the committee held a public hearing on the matter on March 20th of this year. The committee uh also held a markup on the bill on July 11, 2025. The bill has introduced grants of SDC the authority to implement a plan to promote the district status as the official sports capital uh through the implementation and supportive initiatives that attract and retain major sporting events and conferences. implement strategies to increase and invest uh in engagement of youth programming and encourage partnerships with professional, collegiate, and amateur teams to engage uh residents across the district. Uh the committee print directs additional funding to event to support the solicitation and selection of a qualified organization to host marquee sporting events uh as well. And the committee on business and economic development uh funded this bill in the fiscal year 2026 budget. U with that I move the measure and ask that it be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. >> Thank you Councilman McDuffy. Are there questions? >> I have three. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Mr. Assistant 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 cost? uh we funded it in the uh FY26 budget of 500,000 a year. >> Thank you. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting. That's going to conclude the uh business of this committee. The whole we have a legislative meeting to follow. Take maybe five minutes to set up. And um let's say I'll start it as soon as we're ready to start it. And uh then the next legislative meeting following that will be October 7th. The time is 2:27 p.m. and this meeting's adjourned. I'm calling to order this meeting. This is an additional legislative meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. It's our 15th legislative meeting of council period 26. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council. Today is Wednesday, September 17th, 2025. The time is 2:30 in the afternoon. We are meeting in room 500. the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. Uh, this meeting is being broadcast on Council TV channel 13 cable television as well as on the council's website which is www.dcounsil.gov. We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence and I would ask that both members on the deis and those in the chamber would respect a moment of silence for reflection. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Felder >> present. >> Council member Fman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. Council member McDuffy. >> Council member McDuffy. Chairman Mendelson >> present. Council member Nadell >> here. >> Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trayon White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh thank you, Madam Secretary. Uh we have the consent agenda before us. Uh I'm aware of a couple of changes. One of them is on page two. At the bottom of the page, it's item six. The Philip Reed Memorial Park is removed from the agenda, not just removed from the consent agenda because it did not clear the committee the hole today. Also, I believe Council Member Robert White, you asked that on page three, item E1, that is Housing Authority Resident Empowerment Temporary Amendment Act be um removed from the consent agenda. >> Chairman, what did you remove from the consent agenda? >> Uh just a moment. Uh, what were you saying, Council Member White? >> I think you were moving something from the consent agenda. Is that accurate? >> I've just moved removed two items. >> I can't hear you. Just saying. >> I just removed two items from the consent agenda. >> Oh, which items, Jim? >> On page two, at the bottom of the page, uh, number six, Philip Reed Memorial Park. On page three, item E1, housing authority resident empowerment. >> Are there any other changes to the consent agenda? >> Yes, chair. >> Yes, council member White. Uh, I would like to move on page three, number two, juvenile curfew congressional review emergency declaration resolution 2025, u both of those bills, the declaration Uh, Council Member Pinto, >> that's fine. We can move it off consent. Um, but once we get to it on non-consent, I'm going to pull the CRA, but we can we can speak to it then. Okay. Um Okay. So, we have um I don't believe I'm hearing any other changes to the consent agenda. So, there are three items that have been removed. Philip Reed Memorial Park, Juvenile Curfew, Congressional Review Emergency, and Housing Authority Resident Empowerment Temporary. There are no other changes to the consent agenda. The vote will be on the motion to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Uh we'll turn now to um on page three, item D2, Juvenile Curfew Congressional Review Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm going to pull this congressional review emergency today. Excuse me. I'm going to postpone uh this until next legislative meeting, which is scheduled for Tuesday, October 7th, so we can vote on it then. Um, but we will be voting on the temporary version of this legislation later in today's agenda. Give me just a second. I'm not seeing anything. Uh there's a motion before us to postpone this to October 7th. Is there discussion on the motion to postpone? >> On the motion to postpone, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it. It's postponed to October 7th. Uh, we have um bill 26-334, Housing Authority Resident Empowerment Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. Council Member Robert White. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. The stabilization and reform board has brought a new level of professional expertise and collaboration to the work of the DC housing authority for more than two and a half years. Uh I'm proud of the work that that I've done along with others to make sure that we have seasoned professionals with specific expertise at the helm of the housing uh authority. And I'm grateful for their hard work and collaboration. Now that we're nearing the end of their term, it's time to get a permanent board in place. The rental act, a permanent bill that's on the agenda for later today, includes language to set up the eventual permanent structure of the DCHA board. It also gives a detailed road map for which current members will rotate off in what order over the next couple of years. Bill 26-334 is identical to the board provisions that are in the rental act that were in the rental act at first reading. Later today, I'll move an amendment in the nature of the substitute that updates the relevant provisions of the rental act, which means that this temporary version is both unnecessary and outdated. I'm therefore going to pull this bill by moving to postpone consideration indefinitely. Uh so move chair, >> there's a motion to postpone this uh measure indefinitely. Is there discussion? The motion, the vote will be on that motion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh, the eyes have it unanimously. Uh, we'll turn now to the non-consent agenda. On page four, the first measure is bill 26-164 entitled the rebalancing expectations for neighbors, tenants, and landlords rental act of 2025. Council member Robert White. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. You have all heard me say many times before that the city is in a housing and investment crisis. Apartment building permits plummeted more than 80% between 2022 and 2024 from 7,234 to 1,239. And in 2023, DC issued only 1,500 of the region's 9600 apartment permits, our smallest share in a decade. It's a steep drop in construction and a DCP specific failure. In a conversation with the deputy mayor for planning and economic development late last week, she informed me that all of the major lenders, the five major housing lenders have said that they are now redlining the District of Columbia, not um investing in housing in the city. This housing shortage drives up rent for Washingtonians who already can barely afford to hang on. And in DC, um 70% of our residents are renters. So this impacts a substantial portion of our residents. Meanwhile, many landlords are struggling and our courts can't keep up. DC has a severe eviction backlog. Right now, the Superior Court has just 13 judges and handling about 272 monthly eviction cases. By the end of this year, the judicial vacancy rate will go from 16% to 22%. So, the problem will get worse if if we do nothing. It is clear that something must give. The numbers tell a story, one that as chair of the committee on housing, I've seen unfolding firsthand. I've spent months talking to tenants, landlords, advocates, and developers about what the city needs. I've gone to landlord tenant court and watched tenants represent themselves because they don't have legal counsel and then get evicted. I've met with mom and pop landlords on the verge of bankruptcy because they can't evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in over a year. I've talked with developers who've told me that their firms no longer want to invest in DC because it takes too long. I've held town halls and listening sessions and gone to every single ward of this city. We're dealing with a lot of problems at the same time. Rent is too high. We don't have enough affordable housing. Our courts are clogged. We're building housing too slowly. And we're driving landlords and investors away, which raises the costs across the board. But we can't lose sight of the impact on real people. From the parents who have to choose between paying groceries and rent to the landlords at risk of losing their homes. These are big issues that deserve big solutions. Final passage of the committee's ANS today isn't a silver bullet or a quick fix, but it is a step uh one additional minute. Chairman, >> without objection. >> It is a step toward bringing fairness and stability to our housing market. But I'm not stopping there. This fall, I'll be working to hold slumlords accountable, improve Department of Buildings enforcement, lower the cost of utilities for tenants, and expand access to legal counsel for tenants facing eviction. This is the starting point, not the finish line. The ANS is largely the same as first reading. We made a few changes since then, mostly technical to tighten up the language. Under title two, we've added language to protect victims of domestic violence from wrongful eviction during the unex during the expedited public safety eviction process. In title four, we've closed a potential loophole for the limited investor entry and exit TOPA exemption. And in response to concerns from other council members, we've also added language to clarify that the affordability covenant exemption requires buyers to keep rents affordable for low-income households in exempted buildings. Like before, title 11 of the ANS ensures that DCHA puts residents first whenever a public housing property is converted to a new payment structure. They'll have to work with residents on relocation plans, include them on advisory teams, share clear schedules and updates, and hold community meetings before anything moves forward. They must replace every deeply affordable unit, set up a community fund, and guarantee every resident the right to come back when the work is done so that we don't continue breaking promises to residents. Title 11 also creates a nine-member permanent board with diverse expertise, including two public housing resident elect members to empower public housing residents and strengthen oversight. The mayor and I agree we need strong, capable DCHA board. We disagree on whether this means that public housing residents should choose their own board representatives or if the mayor should choose for them. They should choose who represents their perspective. Just because people live in public housing doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to speak for themselves. We're removing the provision requiring the mayor to solicit the public uh for board recommendations and publish a notice in the DC register at the request. This is at the request of the mayor. I urge the mayor to accept this compromise and move forward in partnership with the council. None of us is getting everything that we want. That's how this works. So, I thank the colleagues who have worked with me on the rental act. And I especially want to thank the tenants, advocates, landlords, and developers who have spoken up and spoken out about their experiences and help strengthen the bill. DC's housing crisis demands action. Right now, I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and reject any amendments that will weaken the bill's ability to deliver housing and provide relief for the city. Uh, chairman, I now move the amendment in the nature of the substitute. All right, we have the amendment nature of a substitute before us. I think what I'm going to do is have that pending and then we'll deal with amendments to the amendment nature of a substitute. So, uh, you, Council Member Robert White, are first up because you circulated an amendment yesterday, I believe, at like 4:48 p.m. >> I linked in the agenda. It's actually farther down on the agenda, but we're going to consider that now. >> Thank you. Um, then at this time, chairman, I move amendment one, which just makes technical corrections to section 403A and G to conform them to the ANS. Is there discussion on the amendment? Uh if there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted. Next up is Council Member Nadau. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh what I'm moving today along with Council Member Lewis George and you, Mr. chairman is an amendment to council member White's ANS. This ensures that all of the changes made to the eviction and DCHA titles remain in place. Rather, my amendment uh is is uh only to title 4, the section on TOPA. TOPA is the bedrock component of tenant rights in the District of Columbia. And yet, in recent years, it's become a lightning rod and a scapegoat to explain the drop in housing production here. After decades of surpassing the region, all while TOPA was in place and largely unchanged, the housing production challenges we face now are a lot more complex and cannot simply be ascribed to TOPA. And I'll be introducing separate legislation shortly to address some of the needs where it comes to production. It's possible to preserve tenants rights and maintain and even increase housing production. My proposed amendment will maximize the consistency and predictability of transactions, encourage new investment in the district's housing market, and preserve tenants ability to engage in good faith negotiations. The amendment would strike the exemption for the promise of affordability covenants uh exemptions. This provision lacks clear standards for several critical implementation issues. The current version still has administrative complexities that will create legal challenges and delay transactions. DHCD would have to monitor each covenant for 20-year periods to ensure their affordability remained intact. It's clear there is an interest um in removing the tenant consideration restrictions. Um there it's clear there's an interest in addressing buyouts that could exploit the tenant or the buyer. However, the current print will not solve this issue and will push buyouts outside of the formal process, leaving tenants without representation. Earlier today, I filed a permanent bill, the Tenant Buyout Agreement Transparency Amendment Act of 2025, which creates regulations for buyouts across the board to address the heart of this issue. It also tasks the rental housing commission with setting and regularly updating monetary caps. Uh, and I look forward to working with council member Robert White on that in the committee. The amendment modifies the definition of tenant. The current print requires a lease agreement to claim TOPA rights, which is a significant deviation in current standard practice and could easily leave tenants unable to exercise their TOPA rights with no clear recourse to challenge the exclusion. Um, it would reestablish the qualified purchaser program and tax exemption and make this section subject to appropriations. DHCD will certify qualified purchasers who have experience navigating the TOPA process and experience working with tenant organizations. A list of prevetted buyers will be shared with tenants and buildings purchased by qualified purchasers will be exempt from certain taxes. This will attract investment in the district and achieve better outcomes for everyone. And we restore the cooling off period which would require that tenants meet with a tenant support provider before assigning rights and aligns this time period with existing TOPA timelines. To be clear, this does not extend or add to any timelines and it is a critical component of recommendations from the council funded study on TOPA. Um, I want to thank council member Lewis George and you chairman for joining me in crafting this amendment today. Um, so moved. >> Well, thank you council NDO. Is there discussion? Council member Lewis George. >> Um, thank you chairman. I'm I'm proud to offer this amendment alongside you all. Um, let's talk about TOPA. Uh these changes to TOPA at the end of the day are about power. Who has it? Who loses it? And who gets written out of the process entirely. Uh it's for tenants in wards that will be most impacted by these changes, especially in neighborhoods that are rapidly gentrifying or those that are on the brink. Wards 5, seven, and 8. In this amendment, we do five things to try to balance power in our housing system. First, we bring back qualified purchasers and the tax incentive that supports them. Why? Because these are experienced, missiondriven developers who have shown again and again that they will work with tenants to preserve affordability and invest in communities. They don't treat too like a loophole or a delay tactic. They are our partners and we should be incentivizing their participation and investing in those who invest in our people. Second, we amend the definition of tenants to reflect the reality on the ground. In the district, tenants are not required to have written leases. That's the law. but has written too many longtime tenants, especially seniors, will be told that they don't qualify for TOPA because they can't find a piece of paper from 20 years ago. That's not right. If someone is paying rent in their name, if they've built that their life in that home, they are a tenant and they deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else. Third, we strike the so-called covenant exemption. Let's be honest about what this is. It's a promise to make some units affordable on paper at 80% of the area median income. That's 86,000 for a single adult. That's not affordable to the single mom working in in child care. It's not affordable to the cashier supporting her parents. And it's not an excuse to take away the rights of tenants to organize, negotiate, and choose their future. The study we the study we funded, the council funded confirmed that TOPA works, and this exe exemption undermines it for tenants. Fourth, we established a 45day cooling period. This gives tenants time, protected time to understand their rights and receive training from qualified trusted organizations. This was a key recommendation from the council funded study and it was supported by the very people on the ground who helped tenants navigate this process. Finally, we lift the restrictions on tenant negotiations. the original language as well in practice it pushed buyout conversations outside of the legal framework that gives tenants the most support is often the only moment when tenants have access to legal counsel without paying out of pocket when negotiations happen inside the process tenants are far more far more likely to receive fair compensation and binding agreements restricting those conversations only makes tenants more vulnerable not less taken together these amendments are about strengthening tenants rights and our affordable housing market, not weak weakening them. They're about putting power into the hands of the people who live in these buildings, regardless of income, race, or where they live. Our residents deserve to raise their families here and continuing to make up the fabric of our communities. We owe them more than promises. We owe them the policy that reflects their reality and supports their future. I urge my colleagues to support this package. Thank you very much. Uh, thank you, Council Member, Council Member Robert White. >> Uh, thank you very much, uh, Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues for for offering this this amendment. U, I I think the amendments are are well intended. Um, and if I was a tenant uh, in a unit, I would fully support it. But if I'm the next tenant in the unit or the tenant after that or the tenant after that, I'd be wondering why the council allowed somebody to let somebody get paid to keep their rent affordable at the expense of me and the next person and the next person in a city where housing affordability is one of the biggest issues for all of us. Here's the deal. When we allow a tenant to take a buyout in order to wave affordability for future tenants, that has a real cost on the city. This is a time where we spend on average over half a million dollars per affordable unit. We're throwing money at this problem. But here, we would create that problem. Again, well intended, but we create a housing affordability problem that will benefit one person but hurt generations of other people. We have a housing affordability problem and we spend a ton of money to build affordable housing. If a buyer comes in and says, "We agree to put an affordability covenant on a unit for decades. The price is going to go up and up and up without this uh covenant. We're going to put an affordability covenant on this for decades." that is in the interest of the city. But instead, we're going to say we want you to jump through all these loopholes. Most of the nonprofit housing providers can't afford to buy out the tenants or wait for 2 years to go through the TOPA process. So, we are shooting ourselves in the foot wondering why we have such an expensive city to live in. Um we this is um for the qualified purchaser tax incentive. You know, I I wonder why do qualified purchasers need a tax exemption as an incentive uh if we're already giving them a stamp of approval. Uh I I would think that that's enough. But more than that, again, in a time when our city is in a deficit, any tax exemption we give them is money that we're leaving on the table that could go toward developing more housing for people with lower incomes. Uh, finally, just the definition of the tenant. I want to be clear, the committee's ENS does give tenants who aren't on a written lease 15 days to provide proof of rent payment. So, if you've been living somewhere and paying rent, you show that to the judge, I don't think you're going to have a problem. I've sat in our landlord tenant court. Uh, so again, there are things that we're intending to do to help people, but if we play this out, we are hurting people. We're making the city less affordable and we have a responsibility to take seriously not just what happens tomorrow, but what happens a year from now, a decade from now, and a decade from now. So again, I would urge my colleagues to not support this amendment because it will make housing more affordable, more unaffordable. Thank you Chairman. >> Uh thank you, Council Member White. Further on the amendment, uh let me just say that uh I joined on the amendment because I think that it's different provisions are important and I respectfully disagree with my colleague. I think for example that um on the issue of covenants, I get the affordability argument but as uh somebody who went through uh TOPA u many many years ago, it was about stability. It was not about uh affordability. affordability is important but it was about stability and there are other tools in our law to uh promote uh affordability. So I think that's been the issue that's gotten the most attention and it's a question of whether we shift the priority here and I think we don't uh that we keep uh TOPA as TOPA which is a um a right or an opportunity I'll say an opportunity for all tenants for all tenants uh and that's why I support this amendment. If there's no further discussion on this, the vote will be on the amendment. >> Chair, I request the roll call. >> Madam Secretary, would you take the role? >> Council Council Member Bonds. >> We're voting on the amendment. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. All right. Um, no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman, >> yes. >> Council member Fman votes yes. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George, >> yes. >> Council Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy, >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendelson, >> yes. >> Chairman Mendelson votes yes. Council member Nadau, >> yes. >> Council member Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> no. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White, >> no. >> Council member Robert White votes no. Council member Trayon White, >> yes. >> Council member Trayon White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are eight yeses and five nos. >> The um the uh amendment is approved. Uh next on the list is Council Member Fman. >> Uh thank you very much, Chairman Mendes. Chairman Medicine, you can see I have four amendments. They're actually two amendments. We filed them before the ANS was available and then we revised them once the ANS was available. Given the vote on the last amendment, I'm withdrawing numbers one, two, and four. um uh one some of them because they're covered they covered the covenant issue which was covered by the last amendment and the other one because um uh it was filed before the ANS and the relevant one is the one filed after the ANS was on record. The heart of the amendment that I'm putting forward go is about the 15-year safe harbor from TOPA. And TOPA has become the object of a lot of blame for things happening in the housing market. TOPA creates some barriers in the housing market that to be sure, but the idea that this is the big problem, I I don't see it in the experience that we've seen in the world. What I did hear from developers over and over again is that it was difficult to get new investment in the district given the top requirements in this environment because people didn't want to see the class of investors that fund projects in the early stage were worried about having their money tied up and then having to go through a TOPA process and that creating a challenge. So the idea was let's create a safe harbor so that in the first in different versions 10 years 15 years 30 years of an investment TOPA would not apply and everyone would know that going in that TOPA wouldn't apply. So the initial investor who put up the riskiest money could get in and get out without having to be subject to TOPA and we could open up the channel of investment into the district in a new and important way. I get it. I support it. The idea that we would have a safe harbor of 15 years going forward, all for it. But the way in which the safe harbor works is it also applies to buildings built in the last 15 years. Buildings that have already been built. Buildings where the investment has already been made and in many cases recouped through the sale of the building by the investor early on. And those tenants when they moved in had TOPER rights and believe they had to rightites. Going forward, the new tenant knows I don't have to rights. But going backwards, they had to rights and now they're gone. So the amendment says that the 15 years applies prospectively, but doesn't apply backwards for the last 15 years to investments that have already been made and in buildings where the tenants already have to rightits. and I hope my colleagues will support it. >> Council member Robert. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Um I I I don't think it's being debated here that housing is built with investment. Like most of us just don't have the money in our pocket. You need investors. I don't think it's up for debate that there's a limited pool of investors. So, and it is also not up for debate that we're going to exempt for 15 years because we want that limited pool of investors to be able to invest in more affordable housing. So, to be consistent, right, there's a limited number of people investing. We know we need them to continue to invest. If you built a building last year, why would we not exempt you but exempt the person who builds the building tomorrow? Uh, it is inconsistent. either we want to fund affordable housing or we don't. And I would say we have got to fund affordable housing. I shared the data till I'm blue in the face. It's not happening right now, right? What's happening is not working. Um and and we just have to be serious about what happens is all we do is kind of, you know, dance around the edges and do the things that are fun. Like I don't want to move this bill. All right. This is terrible. But this is what we've got to do because there's a cost to the city when we don't do this. So, you know, my call to colleagues, vote no on this amendment. Like, let's do what we need to do rather than pushing further into a period where we are not building affordable housing in the city and asking ourselves, why is it that we keep pricing people out? Why is it that housing just keeps getting more expensive? Is because we refuse to do anything different. Know this stuff is not fun, but we've got to do it. So like let's stop playing around and tinkering. Let's do what we need to do so that we can move on to other things. Uh I'm frustrated. I want to be clear. I'm not frustrated at my colleagues, right? This is what we do. I'm frustrated at the state in which we are in the district. I'm frustrated because I know what it is to not be able to find a place that you can afford here. And I see because I'm here what it is about the decisions that we make every day that make the city more unaffordable. It's musical chairs, right? The person, the slowest person or the person with the least amount of money, the person with the least flexibility, that's who's going to run out of the chair. So, we got to build more chairs and we're not doing that right now. So, I'm going to ask uh colleagues to not support this amendment. Um I think we moved backwards with the last amendment. Um, but look, we've got to do what we got to do. So, I'm going ask colleagues to not support it. >> Uh, further on the amend on the amendment, Council Member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I was just moved by my colleague statements. Um, and I want to align myself with them and thank you, Council Member White, for articulating the importance of this moment. And I just want our city to be a leader when it comes to building affordable housing. It is the number one issue for DC residents across the city is accessing affordable housing. And there are things that we can do that are not going to change the entire system overnight. Um, but this bill gives us a step forward to empowering our partners to build more affordable housing and that's what we have to stay focused on if we want more of our residents to be able to afford to live here. So, thank you for articulating it so well. Um, and I am not supporting this amendment. >> Thank you, council member. Um, further on the amendment, >> Mr. Chairman, may I just respond very briefly? >> Second round. >> Second round, but a minute >> still. >> So, the question was why treat some an investment a year ago different than an investment a year from now? And the whole idea that we're trying to do is to encourage new investment. I'm 100% for encouraging new investment and but applying the exemption to investments that were already made doesn't do that and it takes away rights from the people who were there in place. Yes, we want to get more housing built. Let's create a safe harbor going forward, but it doesn't follow that you apply it backwards. >> Uh, thank you. Further on, >> Mr. Chairman, I know, >> council member Henderson, did you want to be >> I know you want to move on in on this, but I I just have to say it is not just about building new affordable housing. We do want investors to come purchase buildings where we have folks who have buildings that are currently up for sale. And so, I don't want this idea to be that TOPA is only about new construction. It's not it's about a buildings that already exist. But and also sort of the reality too uh conversations with the deputy mayor and others 20 years ago DC was hot to try right you wanted to be here you didn't want to be in rest in now because of regulatory changes and the environment here we have invi we are actively trying to compete and we are actively always compared to what does it take to build or sell properties in Maryland and Virginia And right now, if we had to rank the three of us, we are on the bottom. So, I I I I can appreciate the tension that we all have in terms of dealing with this, right? We want to protect affordability, but we also have to deal with the very real realities of we need investors to find us attractive again. We need investors to want to invest in the future of the district again. And so we have to unfortunately make some decisions that lead to them saying we are open for business. Come invest here. And so it's not just about building new for tomorrow. To council member Robert White's point, it's also about the folks that are here today. And we want to make sure that these properties don't stay in foreclosure forever, that they never have a buyer, that they go back to the banks. We already have that happening because of existing policies. So, unfortunately, I'm not going to support your amendment today because I feel like we just nibble around the edges with some of these issues, but we have to actually show that we are willing to make change to change the tide of what we are currently facing in this city right now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Further on, on the amendment, I'm going to add my words of opposition to the amendment. I agree with what Council Member White, Council Member Henderson, Council Member Pinto said. Um I want to note the following that uh 15 the 15 years is about attracting reinvest or attracting investment or reinvestment. This applies to new buildings all new buildings including those that have been built since 2010. Second, the overwhelming number of TOPA cases have been buildings that were built before 1978. So what this amendment attempts to help isn't even in the records with regard to TOPA. And third, that this amendment would be a step backward in terms of attracting investors. So, I will not be supporting it. There's nothing further on the amendment. Uh the vote will be on Council Member Fman's amendment. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> All those opposed. No. >> No. >> Um >> uh the amendment fails. Uh, next on the list, Council Member Bonds. >> Thank you, um, Chairman. Um, I'd like to take amendment two first, which is the TOPA 2 to four unit exemption. And let me start by saying it's imperative that we protect one of the greatest catalysts to wealth available to home own is home ownership. District residents who can obtain home ownership should not be stifled in their growth or disincentivized to further their investment in their city. And I'm speaking primarily of the single household, something that we all are familiar with, the row house that's owned by the elderly individual that has determined that I'd like to offer two neighbors an opportunity to live in my community. So what do they do? They build vertically. They add units onto their home. And they remain in their home by doing this. But what happens is when they need to leave their home, if they're included under TOPA, they have to buy out their renters. They can't buy them out because they have to go to nursing home. And so this is designed specifically to address those um individuals in our community that have used their life savings. It's their investment and they bothered to take what equity they had in their property, turn it into this now three, four level structure apartments, and they would like to have the opportunity to um divest, so to speak, and take the equity out of that property without having to pay their tenants, which is the custom when you're in a TOPA building. And so this would exempt those units, those really two to three, usually it's three units um that are created from the rowhouse that was once a single family home. So that's what this this is about. I can give you the data um to my colleagues um to indicate that of the 34671 um,000 units that we have 49 or less um dwelling units in it. Only 2,379 of these buildings contain four units or less. And um that's about 7% of the total um universe that's currently under TOPA. So I am requesting that my colleagues let's exclude these exempt these units from TOPA so that um our community can not only provide the rental needs. One one second more chairman >> without objection. >> Okay. can not only provide these rental units but also will help us to in because these units once you once you take your single family home and you improve it with three additional units going vertical. We know what that is. That means that all of a sudden you also are adding more money to the district government because there will be a higher property tax for you. Meanwhile, we're also providing um space. Usually, it's affordable units that are created through this process. And so, I'm saying it's it's a two-way street. We benefit from that as a community particularly in this housing market where we have a drift of need for housing for our people. So that's what I'm asking my colleagues to support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh Council Bond, so this is your amendment number two. >> Yes, number two. And um I want to note for members and for the record, you circulated two amendments yesterday at 4:07 p.m. You submitted a revised version of this amendment today at 2:55 p.m. >> Correct. The 255 is the one that I'm speaking to. >> Correct. So the 255 p.m. amendment is the one that is before us. >> Right. >> Is there further discussion with regard to the amendment? Council member Parker. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Bonds. I just wanted to clarify and make sure we had talked about at breakfast. Uh, well, I will say I think this amendment um has merit. Uh, one thing I'm concerned about and I raised earlier was ensuring that we're differentiating between those mom and pop landlords or folk who are trying to build wealth here in the district versus corporate landlords who just may happen to buy up two and three unit buildings. And so how do you distinguish that in your amendment? >> We have distinguished it in the U bill under H. It says um including single family dwellings and accessory dwelling units and is not owned in majority by a business corporation. So that excludes a business. It is exclusively a private enterprise individual. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Further on the amendment >> I I had a question. >> Yes, council member >> or I think it's counc or both I guess both of you chair housing. Did the topa study cover this these the smaller two to four units? If so, what did the topa study say? the um study done by uh CNHED, it it really it it mentions it and the figures actually were generated through the study, but there was no it at that time that they did the study last year. Yeah, last year they actually um could not find examples where it TOPA had been used for two to four units. So, >> thank you. >> Yes. Thank you, >> Council Member Parker. This would be second round. >> Yes. Sorry. I um I'm thinking about the same concern I just voiced uh Council Member Bonds, and it's dawning on me. Um we address through the language you we address corporations owning these properties. we don't necessarily address um let's say a resident who owns 10 of these threeunit buildings which I don't think is the spirit of what you're getting at which again I think has merit would you be open to adding language to also put a limit to how many of these properties would be exempt if someone owns multiple buildings with four or fewer units if that makes sense you address corporations I'm worried about So, the well-off resident who owns 10 buildings with four or fewer units also benefiting from this. >> Well, you're correct. It is not the intention to um include more than one unit really. >> One building, >> one building. Yes, it's very difficult. One dwelling unit, which is the vertical, the house as we all refer to it. And um that's the intention. It is not um but that is a consideration. Are you going to offer a oral um amendment for the amendment? >> And bear with me chairman. Um I am told by my team there is someone on the market now that owns dozens of uh buildings with three and four units and I wouldn't want that person necessarily to benefit from this. So on line a line H where you say that a corporation is not a majority owner. >> Yes. >> Uh I will offer um oral amendment that would say or uh a person or persons who owns uh two or more properties with four or or or less than five units. So essentially the cap would be that a person can own two properties with fewer than five units and still benefit from the exemption. >> What is the language again? >> In the end >> on line H, and I don't have it in front of me. I'm sorry. But at the end of that uh segment that council member Bonds read, it would say or >> I'm Yeah, give me one second. Yeah, >> sorry. So, in Council Member Barnes's amendment, section H for the purposes of this section, uh oh, she's defining um to just make it simpler um >> uh Mr. Parker, with all due respect, um this drafting on the DEIS is >> I know I'm just now seeing this amendment. Um, >> the last time we did this, I believe the bill back in the summer or maybe the spring, we had to come back and reconsider. >> I would ask that we move on to other amendments so I can work out the language with council member Bonds and come back to this if you're open to that. And it seems like council member Bonds is willing to work with me on it. >> Is that okay? um if you're willing to I think technically be putting it on the table and then taking it off when um we're done with the amendments. So if there's no objection, we could um set this amendment aside. It's sort of like putting it on the table and uh move on to the other amendments and then come back to this. But if if it's not ready by the time we're done, we're just going to move ahead. >> We we'll be ready. and you may have to remind me that uh we have to turn to this. >> Mr. Chairman, I object. >> Okay. >> C can I comment on this amendment? >> Yes. >> Yes. Coun. Um yes, Council White. >> Thank you. I I understand Council Member Parker's concern. I would be shocked if someone owns multiple buildings that's not in an LLC. Um I think they they have a fool for a lawyer. Um, so I would just check the example that's making you nervous. If if you can see if that is owned in a person's name as opposed to an LLC, I I'd be shocked. So it may not be necessary for special concern. >> So there was an objection to my saying if there's no objection, we could lay it aside, but you could move to table it and then move to unt uh at the end. You may or may not have the votes to untable it. I don't want to table an a colleagueu's amendment. Um >> perhaps you would withdraw and if there we discover there is a problem we can come back and make the adjustment. >> Yeah. I mean I I would just Yes. I I'm willing to do that. I would just say for the record, the the spirit behind this, I believe, is to look out for Washingtonians attempting to build wealth who happen to own buildings with uh fewer than uh five units. I think I agree with the spirit of that amendment. We don't want to uh incentivize or benefit corporations or those that are already doing well. So, I just want that on the record. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, we still have the amendment before us. Is there anything further on the amendment? Council member Allen and then Joe. >> Thanks. Um I as I listened to my at large colleague kind of walk through the the goal and the intent behind it, I think she laid out actually very good examples of where we're trying to think about strategically individuals who are trying to let their home be able to grow wealth for themselves or for their family members. Um the part that I I do want to share a concern with is that and I think the last exchange just kind of highlighted this. I can think of multiple properties in W 6 for example where they are two or three unit buildings um and it's one owner of multiple buildings. And so I I share the concern around like that's not who I think we're trying to say is is the same as the compelling example that was shared with us about wealth building for a family. I also think we'll see examples where a individual organizes the ownership of their property as an LLC and so that would also be a corporation. It feels like this idea has absolute merit and I'd love to explore it more. It also feels like this might best be suited for a permanent legislation where we actually have the benefit of a hearing to really tease out these types of issues. Um, and so I I say that because I I I don't feel like I can support the amendment, but I absolutely hear the compelling argument my colleague is making about why and what's behind trying to think about this idea. I would like to see us perhaps look at a permanent bill that we could actually tease this stuff out and make sure we get it right rather than doing oral amendments on the DAS at second readings. It just makes me nervous that we're going to have some unintended consequences from what I think is a very well-intentioned effort to try to u again my my colleague laid out some very specific and compelling uh examples but I would frankly urge us to think about this tackling this through a permanent bill and I'd be happy to to work with colleagues on that but that to me is a better approach on this one but I it is not without merit of trying to really think through how we address this. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Council Member Nidota. Do you want to be recognized? >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, uh, Council Member Bonds, thanks for moving this. I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you earlier today about the intent behind it. Um, so I could better understand what you were trying to get at. And I think that it's laudable. Um, I agree that we need to make some changes to the two to four unit properties under TOPA. Uh I think there is a lot of opportunity to streamline the procedures there. I don't support exempting them wholesale and this body made the move to exempt single family homes from TOPA several years ago after hours and hours and months and months of deliberation and determining that that was the course the body wanted to take. And and I didn't support that then. Um, but at least there was that level of deliberation over it uh before the decision was made. I I love the idea of taking this up in a permanent form. Um, I'm happy to work together on it. Um, we did start down this path a little bit this time to think through the the way to streamline TOPA for two to four units and I I'd be glad to work with anybody who wants to together um to bring that through the housing committee um with uh with Chairman White. So, um, thank you, chairman. >> Thank you, council member. Is there, uh, yes, council member approval. >> Uh, I want to second and third what council member Nadau and council member Allen said. I can think of scenarios where I definitely want to see an exemption in the 2 to four unit space. I can also think of scenarios that I wouldn't, but I don't know all of the different scenarios. And the way to really do this is not to have an amendment a day before the second vote on the rental act. I'm grateful to you for bringing this idea forward. I do think it's important. I do think we need to make changes, but they have to be more deliberative. And so I really think this is a topic for permanent legislation and a hearing as opposed to an amendment at this point in the process. >> Uh thank you. If there's nothing further, we have the amendment before us. The vote is on Council Member Bond's amendment number two, which was circulated today at around 2:55 p.m. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> I. >> Mr. Chairman, please, >> Mr. Chairman, please call the RO. >> Uh, there's been a request for the roll call. Command >> in the midst of a you already call for the vote. It's not in order to request a roll call once that the um result has been announced. >> Madam Secretary, please call the roles. >> Council member Felder, >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman, >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George, >> no. Council member Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy. Council member McDuffy votes yes. Chairman Mendelson >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nadau >> no. >> Council member Nadau votes no. Council member Parker >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto. >> Yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member Robert White. >> Yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon White. >> Yes. Council member Trayon White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> nope. >> Council member Allen votes no. And Council Member Bonds, >> yes. >> Council member Bonds votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are eight yeses and five nos. >> The amendment uh is approved. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Council Bonds, you had a second amendment. >> Yes. Um the second amendment um don't have it before me is regarding the DC housing authority stabilization and reform board of the commissioners that exist is a critical component as we know of our housing ego system and attention to its composition and operations remain at the forefront of our concern in this city. The council created this board in 2022 with the goal of ultimately improving the operations of the housing authority to increase agency effectiveness provided that the board has such a profound impact on the operations of the housing authority. We want to ensure that we have qualified and experienced board members and we have strong representation from those that are residents within our public housing uh ecosystem. My amendment would allow the citywide resident advisory board and the resident councils comprised of elected representatives and public housing residents to nominate candidates for two positions to what we call the star board, which is the overall um overarching body that makes decisions about the handling of funds and services to our public housing community. The mayor would then appoint from the proposed candidates the nominees that would be subject to the council review. That is the board will need a high level of expertise and insight into affordable housing policy, housing finance and agency operations. And in order to get that, we want to make sure that we have the composition that will address these issues um on a stable basis. The board, the star board is members serve for threeyear terms. The resident councils of the family facilities in public housing serve for two years. the resident council member who are elected from the senior building serve for two years. And so there could be a possibility where you're elected for two years um for your senior building and um if you want to be on the overarching the star board, you would not you would have to be renominated to to fill the three-year term. So that is one of the major considerations for saying let's look at this board holistically across the country. The governor of a state, Mr. Chairman, may I have one more minute? >> Without objection. >> Sorry. The governor of a state makes usually makes all of the appointments. And so this is a process that we're aiming to sort of um sort of change in the District of Columbia where instead of our governor/ mayor making all of the appointments, the appointments would come through a process and the process is one where the uh public housing community all of the residents would have an opportunity to put forth a list of names names of their um residents that would be for consideration. So in theory using this process, we may end up with not only public housing leadership and the senior buildings and the family buildings having a great input into the quality of living in public housing. But you would also have an additional um two individuals that would be appointed through this process from a list that's generated by the public housing community itself. So that's what this would do and um I'm encouraging my colleagues to support it. Um I think it has merit. Um we've had struggles in the past and this is a great opportunity to try and have a um cohesive steady hand that we are assured we'll always have public housing residents on it. So that's my proposal. >> Thank you. Council member Bonds. Is there discussion on this? Council member Robert White. >> Jim. Uh thank you chairman and uh thank you to my colleague for for offering this uh amendment. Uh yeah, I I uh I I take the housing authority uh very seriously cuz I took a lot of arrows when uh I felt like I was on an island uh trying to reshape the board with objections on every side and believe that we needed specific expertise so we could get away from this era where we had a lot of political appointments and a lot of factions and the board was just not doing a good job. uh we have come a very long way and we've been working well with making sure that we continue with people with expertise. The board has had residents on it and they've been doing very well. I believe they should continue to have residents. Now, as we did this, I didn't say my way or the highway. The chair of the board asked for certain changes to the permanent board structure. We made some changes. The mayor asked for changes and we made some of those changes. But I've been clear with the mayor, with the deputy mayor, and with the chair that this is a sticking point. Residents who live in public housing are going to know best what's happening there. And I don't want government officials, any of us, to be able to hand select the person that, you know, we think is going to, you know, say what we want them to say. I want residents to pick the person that they believe is going to say what needs to be said. Um, and so, so I think it is fair. Uh most jurisdictions do uh allow um residents to uh select someone or if not their council select someone and again the the mayor controls in this version of the board 78% of the appointments. Uh I think it is only fair that residents get to elect a couple of their own people. Uh so I see this as a matter of fairness and consistency with other boards uh uh around the country and uh I I would ask that uh colleagues u not support the amendment. Thank you, chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member. Uh, Council Member Trayon White. >> Yes. I had a question for you, Council Member Bonds. Well, I typically lean in the direction that, uh, residents who are appointed to this board should be selected by the residents. I didn't quite know how this empowers residents. if someone else is going to make the ultimate decision about who gets appointed to this board. Uh if you give me some clarity on how we are empowering residents with this >> um the the understanding I have is the public housing community of all residents would had an would have an opportunity to put forth names that would be sort of shortlist let's call it that would go forward. We I think the law stipulates that is being proposed. It stipulates there must be at least a certain number um but not more than another certain number. And that way we end up with a roster from which the mayor would be able to choose the individuals. Now in selecting the individuals um that's pretty much what happens today. But it happens differently. If you are the chairperson of the senior advisory group, you have a seat automatically on the board. If you are a member of the family um advisory group, you have a seat on the board. So, it's what I'm trying to do is to see how we can give public housing residents even more power. and that is to also have these two additional seats which would be come through the usual um boards and commissions confirmation process but instead of you or I who want to be on the board submitting our resume and saying we want to be on the board it is the public housing community that would filter so to speak would identify 10 let's say 10 or 15 individuals very suitable candidates that can serve and they do not necessarily have to be the current head of any other um group. So that's why I was thinking that in my head that's like okay we already have two one from the senior group one from the family group now we're going to have four. So that's what I was thinking. >> Thank you. Uh thank you council member Parker. >> Thank you. Um, I will say I'm I was a little torn about this one, but uh, one thing that I've heard repeatedly is that DCHA has made tremendous progress uh, since the reforms. Um, and one sticking point uh, for me is I think it's important to have a democratic voice in this process to have an elections that inform residents to serve on the board. It is my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the citywide resident advisory board, those are elected individuals. Is that correct? >> And so those elected individuals will create a list from which um two members will serve on the board. And a point of clarification now, are those two members from that resident advisory board or are those just two members writ large? They're coming up with a list of names of people to live within the housing authority generally or they have to come from that advisory council. >> It is my understanding they would be residents within that live in public housing. So it could be those that are currently at leadership level or it could be those that are not. And that's how I get to the number four as opposed to the current number two. So I'm trying to expand um the clout of the public housing residents to have a say on what happens with um in their ecosystem. >> I got it. So you're expanding the number of residents from two to four and you are creating a process by which those individuals will be nominated. >> Yes. Yes. >> You know um >> but I'm not expanding the number on the citywide board, this star board. >> I got it. >> Okay. >> I I would just say um I think the progress that DCHA has made has been notable. Um, and we should do everything we can to continue moving in the right direction. Um, I trust our partners at Dimped who say, uh, they have concerns that if we start messing with the formula here, um, by introducing politics, it could throw a wrench in the progress that DCHA has been able to make. At the same time, I think having a democratic process is important. I appreciate that there is at least an opportunity for elected representatives as part of this advisory board to still have a say and thereby the residents that voted for those members to still have a say. So, thank you uh Council Member Bonds. >> Thank you. >> Uh Council Member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Um so, two questions. Council Bonds, just to confirm your conversation with Council Parker, you said it wouldn't expand with citywide boards. So, are you proposing now that it would be four out of the nine members or >> Oh, no. No. I'm I'm thinking more about the overall null. It would still be two that would be on this citywide board. But currently what happens is if you are on the family board, um if you are on the senior board, usually the heads of those entities serve on this citywide board. So that's just two people. by having the public housing community to elect individuals. That's what you get. But what I'm suggesting is now we're saying the public housing community will formulate this overall list where they will generate let's say 10 candidates and from the 10 candidates they may be the head of the family buildings. They may be the head of the senior buildings or they may be other residents who live on the property, but they have at least we know two of those whatever is on this list of 10 or 15 would then go forward and be members of this so-called citywide star board. That's that's what I'm saying. So that gives you two additional public housing residents that have authority and can act with authority as it relates to um public housing. >> I see. Okay. Thank you for that. And then my second question is um as it relates to just the starboard component. Yes. >> And so Council Member White is proposing that two of the nine people be directly elected residents. and I see the value in making sure that we have resident perspective on the board. And then your amendment has those two same positions be appointed by the mayor. What What would you all think about splitting the difference and having one person be directly elected um who's a DCHA resident and then one person be appointed who's a DCHA resident? I haven't given it a a lot of thought. Um, I think we're kind of at this point thinking about I'm being honest about the nine positions. Um, I I guess I don't really have um any sense where that's going to change things, but I think that's a measure that it would be very interesting to hear from the public housing community how they feel about that. Um, one of the cons, one of the considerations that um, I think we have to give to having u, representation on the board in general is that the membership for the so-called star citywide body um, as is currently configured is a three-year membership and um, so I haven't given any thought to that. you want to know whether or not I can support that. I'm I'm assuming is what you had asked me about it previously. I had not um given any thought. I can confer with my colleague here and see what he thinks about that and we can can we put a pen in this um if we're going to confer here on the diets because there's another um um possibility that's trying to surface. But we're over our time here and >> I would note that sometimes these questions make me wonder if someone's moving toward an amendment. Uh it's better that somebody has an amendment and >> of course >> we start this process. >> Um next in line is Council Member Allen. >> Next in line is Council Member Allen. >> All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am kind of getting a kick out of the fact that as we're entering the second hour of the debate on the rental Act for its second reading and vote, um, folks that were complaining earlier today, how dare we consider changes at a second reading. Um, clearly we can do that. There's a reason we take two votes. Um, I I talked about this at our breakfast meeting. Um, but I I did want to note um I'm concerned that what we're the language I've heard of that that this amendment would give our public housing residents more say. Um the rental act that's in front of us would have public housing residents be able to select their representative on the star board directly. um moving to a panel of people that it's unclear how they would get selected to then be picked by the mayor to then go through a council confirmation is is not as direct as letting our residents have their voices. And when I I have talked with my public housing leadership in W 6, um they they oppose this amendment. They they think that it weakens their ability to have direct say onto the STAR board. So, um, I I'm going to listen to my public housing leadership and residents who've said this is not an amendment they support and not something they want because they want to be able to help select the representatives and their voice on the starboard directly and that's what's within the rental act that is actually underlying all of this and before us. So, um, for those reasons and listening to my W six public housing leadership, I'm not going to support this amendment today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member Lewis Church. >> Thanks. Um I wanted to legal aid uh also had reached out um just to talk about some of the issues with this amendment. Um and and some of the hard lines was that it really would actually erode DCHA resident input and continue what has been sort of an undue mayoral influence on the decisions over the star board. Um, I think it is crucial that people who are most invested and impacted by DCHA performance, which are public housing residents voucher holders, take positions of leadership in ensuring DCHA fulfill its mission to provide safe and affordable housing. Um, for years, DCHA residents advocated that the council form a more independent um, and tenant focused board of commissioners. I think the failure to develop an oversight board infrastructure that not only included DCH resident vote but centered the needs knowledge base and lived experience and expertise of residents is evidenced by sort of what has been decadesl long conditions of DCHA properties that's the T we not talking about let's talk about the DCHA properties uh and their conditions uh DCHA is is not a mayoral agency um yet since the inception of the star board. Uh, all of the mayor has nominated all voting members and all commissioner appointments that were previously independent of the mayor were removed. I think that's a that's a glaring conflict of interest and it's resulted in inadequate and really uh lackluster oversight and transparency and I think we have an ability to not make to make sure that we don't go down that road again. And so I would encourage my >> Did I run out of time or did it go off by itself? >> You're welcome to be done early. >> It was done. I just just didn't know if you it cut off. I didn't know if it was you chairman. >> I don't think it was. >> If it wasn't you, I I reserve I'm done. >> Thank you. Um is there anyone else on this amendment? Uh I will I will speak briefly that I do support this amendment. Uh the previous board that uh we changed a few years ago was very troubled and uh somewhat divisive and uh so we've been struggling with how we have public housing representation since then. It's not so simple as to say well this just says the mayor gets to appoint whoever she wants. There is in this amendment a process and the process is that there are between three and 10 individuals who are recommended public housing residents who are recommended by the resident councils or the citywide resident advisory board um that the mayor gets to choose from. So I'll leave it at that. It's a process that uh ensures that uh ensures that there is more thought in who is on the board but still uh will be residents. >> There's nothing further on the amendment. >> Chairman, I've raised my hand like 20 times. >> H please. >> Council member um I thought we were done. Council member Robert White. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh very quickly, look uh the ultimate question here is whether residents uh who live in public housing uh should select who represents them on the board that governs their homes. Um if any of us live there, how would we feel about this amendment? And I don't think that leaves a lot of question. Second issue here is loyalties. If the mayor appoints me, I'm going to have some loyalty, right? Just like if the council appoints me as opposed to my fellow residents. The third reason that this is important is because it's a matter of trust. It's not enough and I've had this conversation many times with our executive director who understands this very well. It's not enough to be doing good things. You need the residents to trust you. That's when you don't have that trust. That's where you get the discontent. Um and so this helps us to build the trust. Yes, the last board was dysfunctional, but we must be very clear that was across the board. That was not residents. And so it was dysfunctional, but we don't say the mayor can't appoint anybody else, right? That wouldn't be appropriate. So don't do that to the residents. Let them appoint the people that they believe best represent them. That's basic fairness. Thank you, chairman. >> Thank you, council member. Uh the vote will be on this amendment. It's amendment number one that was circulated by council member Bonds yesterday afternoon. on the amendment. All those >> we have a roll call. >> Uh Madam Secretary, would you call the role? >> Sorry. >> Council member Freeman, >> no. >> Council member Freeman, votes no. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson, votes no. Council member Lewis George, >> no. >> Council Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy, >> yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. Chairman Mendlesson, >> yes. >> Chairman Mendelson votes yes. Council member Nadau. >> Council member Badau votes no. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> no. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White, >> no. >> Council member Robert White votes no. Council member Trayon White, >> no. >> Council member Trayon White votes no. Council member Allen, >> no. >> Council member Allen votes no. >> Council member Bonds, yes. Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Felder. >> Yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are five yeses and eight nos. >> Uh thank you, Madam Secretary. The amendment fails. Uh next up on the list is me. Uh I circulated this amendment yesterday. Uh it has to do with protective orders. It um it uh re it requires that there has to be a protective order when there is a um a landlord tenant proceeding. Protective order as I think members know is a requirement that rent be paid into the registry of the court. So that the tenant and the reason why I think this amendment is important is because this ensures that the tenant keeps paying the rent even though the landlord will not receive the rent. And so the likelihood of the tenant falling into a rears or further falling farther falling farther behind in their rent uh is eliminated. Uh there is discretion for the court to adjust what the rent amount is. Uh and I think that is important. Uh I think that this coupled with the uh changes that are in the legislation before us today regarding TOPA and also what we did earlier this year with regard to RAP um will make significant difference in terms of uh helping with the um uh rental industry in the city. So I move the amendment. Is there discussion? The vote will be on this amendment. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Mr. Chairman, um, noticing the absence of a member, can we hold the vote open for a moment, please? >> Wendale. >> Wendell. >> Hey, Council Member Allen got up for a moment and thought you were going to make longer remarks. >> I'm trying to be a model for how we can move quickly through this meeting. >> Oh, Wendell's. Uh, so we have a two-minute rule and somebody's paying attention to the two minutes. >> I am. >> I know, but we've already like >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Pinto, >> just confirming which amendment we're discussing. >> Back amendment. Uh the vote is on the amendment that I'm moving that deals with protective orders. >> Great. Thank you. >> Uh Madame Secretary, uh you had asked for the eyes. Why don't you ask for the eyes again? >> Oh, you're right. I did. >> This wasn't the roll call. >> Quickly, all those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Uh thank you for that clarification. Next up on the list is eight. I believe council member Tran White. Thank you chairman. Uh speak on the rental act for a few. I'm going start with TOPA. The purpose of TOPA since 1980 was to preserve affordability, present displacement, and empower tenants. Uh this has been a very complicated bill since it inception. Uh is evident of it because we had I think I counted 15 amendments by several different council members. Unfortunately, several proision provisions of this bill raise significant concerns. The proposal as it stands will speed up evictions, eliminate key tenant protections, and exempt certain buildings from the tenant opportunity to purchase act. a law that for decades have given tenants a chance to buy their buildings or negotiate necess necessary uh repairs and house housing affordability clauses by weakening to the bill uh threat threatens to create a tool to preserve affordable housing and to accelerate evictions. It risk displacement of vulnerable residents of the town where our city can least afford it. These provisions undermine our top intended purpose of our top in which it was created for. We in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. Eviction in DC have surged. In fact, it it uh in 20 2024, we've had more eviction than we had in the last 10 years. The council's own racial equity warns that this act leaves far too many far too much power to the landlords in the courts. Two institutions with far more power and resources than the average tenant, particularly black and brown tenants in DC. It notes that speeding up evictions and removing tenant safeguards will likely intensify racial and economic disparities in housing stability. At the same time, funding for emergency rental assistance has been slashed, meaning that thousands of households who have might have been able to catch up on rent will not get that help. Drastically shortening eviction timelines without significant protections is a recipe for disaster. Preserving an affordable housing is not just about building new units. is about keeping people in their homes. Uh let's be clear that this bill was drafted by developers and investors and I think that we both have a responsibility to the residents and investors to build a healthy city. But I don't think this is intending is getting to it intended purpose. Uh TOPA is not the end all solution to inviting and welcoming investors uh to DC or or creating boundaries to there are some boundaries but it's just not in TOPA. While I share the goal of improving our housing system, we must find a balance and efficiency with fairness and equity for our residents. Uh I have two amendments which I'll share. Chairman, my first amendment to the rental act of 2025. This amendment restores a long pre-filing notice period for a non-payment of rent cases. In practice practical terms, it requires that a tenant who does not receive a prior notice of payment in the past 12 months be given 30 days. Uh the original bill of TOPA uh I'm sorry the original bill requires 30 days. It went down to 10 days. I just want to submit that all ten tenants are not the same and for firsttime tenants maybe going through a hardship. Um but it's we we're tear this particular amendment tears it in a two-tier approach which replaces the bills. Uh two minutes chairman >> members typically ask for one minute. >> I know I just have two If there's no objection to one minute. >> Thank you. This two-tier approach replaces the bill's current one-sizefits-all strategy of 10-day notice with section 301 of the bill would impose uniformity in all cases. Under the engross bill, the pre-filing notice for unpaid rent will be slashed from 30 days to 10 days. While a shorter notice might be help a landlord regain their unit a bit faster, applying a fat flat 10day deadline is in every situation can destabilize tenants. Uh this amendment is about giving a better balance and and basic fairness by giving the first delinquent tenant 30-day grace period. We are unduly we aren't unduly prolonging the process. We are recognized that good tenants can fall on hard times like any one of us. It is said that most people are two checks away from struggling to pay their rent or their mortgage. The intent of this bill is to maintain this bill's balance with tenant protections and a prompt resolution with general genuine payment issues. In summary, this this amendment balances tenants stability with landlords and address the chronic pay issues and chronic payment and avoid unnecessary evictions of tenants and displacement. Uh ask my colleagues to support this amendment and issue of fairness and housability for our residents. Uh, we have the amendment before us. Council member Robert White, did you want to speak to this? >> Uh, yes. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate, uh, Council Member Trayon White's uh, amendment. I want to clarify the the timeline. So, I'm voting no on this, and here's why. Um, prior to the CO 19 pandemic, uh, there were there was a zero day notice of intent. Now, we added 30 days. We created 30 days because of what was happening in our nation here. We're not recommending that we go back to zero. We're recommending that we go to 10, which would still put us in the upper limits of timelines in this region. Right now, we're way out of uh sync with everyone else. Uh after that, um you will still have uh 14 days to file a complaint and serve a summon. Then you would have the court hearing and judgment. Then you apply for writ of restitution which could take weeks. Then you have pre-eviction notice which is 21 days and that wouldn't change. Then you have to schedule the US marshalss uh to evict. So we are talking about a multi-step. It's not you know we're going from 30 days to zero. This is a multi-step process. Uh and this timeline only holds if you don't have a scheduling backlog in the courts. And we know that we have a severe scheduling backlog in the courts. So, we're trying to make a a a system that just, you know, works as it should. We're not trying to rush it, but but the system has to work. We can't rely on a broken system and say, you know, that that's working. It's it's not working now. So, I just want to be clear with colleagues that there are a lot of steps um and even what we're proposing now, this is more days for the notice of intent uh than we had prior to CO because that was zero prior to CO. So, um I I'm trying to fix a very broken system. It's not fun. Uh but but that's what we have to do right now. So I I urge colleagues to oppose it. >> Council member Lewis George. >> Um thank you uh chairman. I would like to uh support my colleague Trayawan's amendment. I think it is balanced. I actually introduced amendment coming up that um get takes the 10 back to 30 for everyone. I think what ch what uh council member White has introduced is a balanced approach and I hope my colleagues will view it as such. I think that um this amendment now is his amendment now is even more dire than it was when it was first introduced in July. Our residents, especially our immigrant residents, are terrified, struggling to leave home to make an income for their families while federal forces intimidate and terrorize workers going about their day. Residents have been taken off of our streets. Families are being torn apart. Breadwinners incarcerated, deported without notice. No time to plan. In Los Angeles, leaders are considering an eviction moratorum. And in DC, we are considering making eviction even easier. It's a stark difference. So, I'll begin being blunt about what is at stake. Last year, evictions in the district reached a 10-year high. Despite a backlog, we reached a 10-year high. Even with lengthy court delays that should have slowed evictions down, we still saw record numbers of families losing their homes. This won't change, and this will only get worse. more individuals and families will become homeless. And we have seen what federal forces do to unhoused residents of this district, criminalized terrorized incorporated all for not having the funds to pay DC's sky-high rents. Uh and without maintaining our eviction protections, we are dooming, I believe, countless more to to that same fate. In the same year, we couldn't even find funding for more permanent vouchers. Uh, I think the 10 years, 10 days is a minimal amount of time to get yourself together to face an eviction. And council member White is saying every tenant is not the same. Somebody might be facing this insecurity for the very first time. And to say you got 10 days to get it together, we can't even get our own selves together in 10 days. Be for real. But giving tenants, which is their livelihood, their housing, just 10 days to fight back, that in this moment in our city and in this country would be the wrong direction. And so I would urge my colleagues to support Council Member Trayon White's amendment because I do think it's a balanced approach and is necessary for such a time as this. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Lewis George. Is there further on the amendment? So, I just want to add uh to address council member Robert White's comment. This amendment only adds four days to the current notice period. So, it's not prolonging the eviction process. This amendment just gives grace for first time eviction cases. And I encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Council member Pinto, did you want to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I guess I just have a couple of questions. Uh first when we talk about the notice requirement and like the impact on people's lives, the the 10day notice is is notice before the filing happens, right? It's not it's not 10 days then you're evicted. Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. I just want to clarify that. And then to the other council member White, council member Robert White. Um, as we think about the appropriate timelines in place, can you speak to your thinking around uh changing the provisions for an scheduling an initial hearing at the court when it comes to eviction proceedings? >> Uh yes. So yeah, after the notice of intent, which is this amendment is talking about, then you have to file the complaint and serve the summons uh which you have 14 days. Then you have to schedule with the courts. That's where things get really sticky. Uh because you are coordinating the schedule of the judges who are already backed up uh plus the plaintiff side plus the defendant side. Uh so that just usually takes a long time. I don't remember the average number of days off hand though. >> Okay. And so what what is your thinking about providing a timeline by which those hearings need to take place? Uh >> good question. Um, we could provide a timeline. Uh, but it would only be on paper. It wouldn't be in reality. The the judges right now are meeting the most aggressive timeline they can. And I've spoken to the courts and they have indicated that they can't move faster than than they are moving. So, we could we could pass a law, but it won't have any impact whatsoever. >> Okay. Thank you for that. I do think this is a topic we should um continue discussing as a body. Um but appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh further on the amendment. Uh I am not going to support this amendment. I agree with Council Member Robert White and several other members who've spoken. Um this is the the eviction process is taking way way too long and we know that and this bill is one of the ways we're trying to address that. This before the pandemic this notice period was zero zero days with the legislation we have before us it will be 10 days. Um what the amendment does is to go back to 30 days if the tenant has not previously had a eviction proceeding within the preceding 12 months. May have in 13 months but not in 12. Um and that's just a step in the wrong direction in terms of speeding up our way too long eviction process. I assume nobody disputes that the eviction process takes way too long when it can be a year or longer in order to evict somebody for non-payment of rent. This the bill the law I mean the bill the print before us without the amendment doesn't affect due process because there still is notice before there is the court hearing and then of course there are all the procedures in the court. So this amendment, which I do not support, would be a step backwards in our trying to improve the landlord tenant process. So I agree with Council Member Robert White in opposing this amendment. Since nobody else had asked to be recognized, the vote will be on this amendment. >> Chair, the roll call. >> Madam Secretary, >> Council Member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council Lewis George, >> yes. >> Council Blues George votes yes. Council member McDuffy, >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nadau, >> yes. >> Council member Nado votes yes. Council member Parker, >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto. >> No. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White, >> no. >> Council member Robert White votes no. Council member Trayon 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 Felder. Council member Felder votes no. Council member Freeman, >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are three yeses and 10 nos. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Secretary. The amendment fails. Council member White. Trayon White, I believe you have a second amendment. >> Yes. Thank you, chairman. as uh the city changes drastically and DC become more unaffordable uh we have to ensure that those residents who are currently here stay here and reap the benefits of things like a potential RFK stadium which we will negotiate today. Uh this second amendment introduced a mandatory mediation process for eviction trial and all non-payment rental cases. It goal is to simply give landlords and tenants one more chance to resolve their disputes through a structure negotiation rather than going straight to the court. Um, which uh most residents don't uh are not experts in law or know how to defend themselves in court before a case or proceeding trial. I've personally recognized in several cases where the property manager and a tenant negotiated and came up with an agreement that both benefit both the benefited both parties. I think that we have to ensure we're doing all we can as legislators to put tools in people pockets cuz it cost more money for them to go into our homeless population, go through what used to be rapid rehousing through Virginia Williams to find them housing all over again. We can keep them stable in their homes. This also affects the children for those who have families because sometimes the children have to relocate from their school to another school and face even deeper housing securities that leads to more issues including health issues. Um, and so this is a this conflict underlines an eviction for payment and can be resolved if the two sides communicate under the right conditions. Whether it's by settling a realistic payment plan, fixing outstanding repair issues, connecting the tenant to rental assistance, or even mutually agreeing to move to a move out date that doesn't involve the trauma or forcible evictions. Mediation allows a trained natural mediator who can help the landlords and tenants negotiate an agreement that works for both parties. And sometimes it can happen between two parties. Uh and I will I'm introducing this amendment. I hope that everyone can support this amendment. Um thank you. >> Uh thank you council member White. Is there discussion? Council member Robert White, do you want to respond? >> Uh yeah, thank you chairman. Um I first have a a question for the mover of the amendment. who would do the mediation >> during the mediation the weedish uh they'll be we're looking at as a courtapp appointed mediator um someone to help or a uh organization that specializing in legal advice for tenants maybe the office of tenant advocates could set up something to assist these residents but something before they actually get to Um, is there a a a cost to the mediation? Uh, we have a fisk. Uh, but there's not a cost to this. What's a practice that's already exist in DC um that they have can go to mediation. We just trying to put the teeth in say the shell of mediation. >> I appreciate it. Um we I've met with u one of the groups that does mediation at the courts and and that's a preferred that's a thing that happens now. Um most most of the cases I see they're they're trying to figure out a resolution and so when I visit landlord tenant court there they're there are mediators there. I forget the name of the organization. I met with the head of the organization. So I would say this is something that's is happening now. Um, I I I don't I don't think it would be a good idea for us to mandate mediation in all cases because I don't think all cases are ripe for mediation just like any other type of case, but there are mediation options available now. So, I'd be happy to work with you to see if they need more funding or anything, but I have spoken to them and and a lot of that is happening now. So, I I I'll oppose the amendment, but I do appreciate the the sentiment because I think mediation is good when it can happen. Thank you, chairman. Uh thank you. Uh further on this amendment. Uh the vote will be on uh this amendment uh council member Tran White's amendment number two. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> Chairman, can you press a roll call? >> Madam Secretary, would you call the role? >> Council member Lewis George. >> No. Council Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy. >> No. Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nadau, >> no. >> Council member Nado votes no. >> Council member Parker, >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto, >> no. >> Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White, >> no. >> Council member Robert White votes no. Council member Trayon 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 Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Fman, >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. And Council Member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Mr. Chairman, there's one yes and 12 nos. >> Uh, the amendment fails. Uh, Council Member Lewis Church, I believe you had two amendments. >> I do. Uh, for the first amendment, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Council White, for incorporating so many thoughtful amendments into uh your legislation. Uh uh and I believe accepting this amendment as friendly, as I say with a smile. Um this amendment is just intended to ensure that survivors of domestic violence are not inadvertently harmed by an expedited eviction process based on um public safety concerns. So over the past several days, my office has engaged with long-standing advocates in this space to hear their concerns about the language related to public safety evictions. Uh building on the progress already reflected in Council Member White's amended legislation, I I introduced this amendment to strengthen our collective commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals and families by just explicitly naming the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disability Act, and the DC Human Rights Act. This amendment helps ensure the legal protections afforded to tenants remain front of mind for both housing providers pursuing public safety cases and judges reviewing them. I'm proud to have worked alongside passion advocates and my colleagues on the council to advance these protections and better safeguard our most vulnerable residents uh our survivors. Thank you. >> Uh thank you council member Large. Uh the amendment that you're moving which is your amendment number one was circulated today at 11:05. And the amendment is actually that which is either struck out or in bold. And I say that to make sure that if there's any variation in the rest of the language that's not part of your amendment presumably was a cut and paste and then just strike out in bold. Um we have the amendment before us. Is there discussion? Council member Robert White. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. I appreciate my colleague uh for moving this amendment. Uh, we worked with a coalition um who worked on this domestic violence piece that included bread for the city and others. Uh, we worked um this week to strengthen the language, but I believe Council Member Lewis George's language uh strengthens it even more. So, uh, I'd like to accept it as friendly. >> Uh, so if there's no objection, then the amendment will be accepted. >> Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question before? Um, so, you know, obviously I understand that um and I support the amendment's goal uh of providing some additional security assurances, especially for survivors of domestic violence. Um, and I'm glad to see that protections were invite um added to um Council Member uh Robert White's ANS. I want to ask on the record um about council council member Lewis George's amendment the language um because it not only um references the violence against women act but also expanded it to ADA the DC Human Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Um there was a example of a situation that happened in 2023. There was a southwest um in southwest it was an apartment unit where one person was killed and four people were injured um in an attempted robbery um essentially I I believe it was a drug deal that went arry. Um if one of the injured persons were on the lease um would the language in this bill create a defense to the public safety eviction that the landlord might try to bring in this particular case? My understanding based on how it was be written is no. Um, give me one sec. Okay. Yeah. The point is just to make sure the victim is being evicted is not being evicted for being a victim. Um, so it wouldn't that would not so the underlying action that led to you being injured could not be the reason why you are evicted if it's domestic violence. If it's only this is only applying to domestic violence. So yes, be clear. Okay. Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Henderson. Um, Council Member Robert White said he had no objection to this. So, I was asking if there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. >> Yes, chairman. Thank you. >> No, but I wasn't asking you. I was asking all the members. I already noted one individual cannot accept an amendment. It has to be the body. So, if there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. I'm hearing no objection. The amendment is accepted. >> Council member Lewis George, you had a uh second amendment. >> Uh yes, the second amendment was the reverting the notice to cure period back to 30 days from 10 days, but given that the measured version of that was rejected, I will be with uh my amendment at this time. >> You're not moving this one. >> That is correct. Chairman, >> uh, Council Member Parker, so earlier you were striving toward an oral amendment and, um, we put that aside. I think we completed the work on Council Member Bonds's amendment, which you were trying to amend. So, you now want to bring that back. >> That is correct. >> Uh, the floor is yours. >> Uh, thank you. Do, Mr. Chairman, do I have to formally motion to reconsider? >> I think so. I'm going to say I think so because you're amending that language and I think that's the clearest way for general counsel to handle this. >> Okay. Uh well, Mr. Chairman, I motion to reconsider council member Bonds's amendment two. All right. There's a request or motion to reconsider Council Bond's amendment number two. If there's no objection, we'll just proceed to that. Hearing no objection, so we have it back before us. Floor is yours. >> Oh, thank you. Um as as was discussed um the uh council member Bonds's amendment passed uh because many saw the merit behind exempting TOPA for what we are dubbing as mom and pop um dwellings. And uh this amendment would essentially uh preclude individuals that own more than two housing accommodations or two properties uh from that exemption. And so you will see the bolded text which adds on to what was approved in council member Bonsza's second amendment. So moved Mr. Chair Um, all right. So, Council Parker, I appreciate that you did write this out. Uh, what you are moving. So, we have Council Bonds's amendment back before us, and you were trying earlier to amend language in a paragraph that begins with H. And so what you're doing now is adding to that paragraph H the phrase or person who owns more than two housing accommodations in the district. >> That is correct. Yes, >> Mr. Chair. >> Uh just a moment. Um this is to Council Bonds's amendment. So let me ask Council Member Bonds if she has a view of this. >> I accept the um amendment as friendly. Thank you. >> Okay. But that I'm still going to have to ask members if they're okay. Council member Allen, >> I am okay with it. Uh I want to thank Councelor Parker for working with me on this because I think it it addresses the concern I had, which is that we could have an unintended consequence of um individuals or corporations that own multiple properties. And again, I think that councelor Bonds laid out very compelling reasons about why she was moving this. I think this really just helps make sure that that reason is what this legislation is aimed at. um and we don't have that unintended consequence of corporations or others that have multiple properties somehow moving that space. So, um this is going to move me from a no to a yes on Miss Bond's amendment. Uh and I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Uh so, if there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted. All right. So, where we are at this point is I believe there are no other amendments. Just a moment. Yes, I screwed up here. Um, so the amendment by Mr. Parker to Council Member Bond's amendment was accepted, but Council Member Bond's amendment had been reconsidered, so it's before us. So the vote now is on council member Bond's amendment number two as amended. There's no further discussion on that. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Chairman uh requesting a roll call. >> She's a special one. >> Council member McDuffy. >> Yes. >> Council member McDuffy votes yes. Chairman Mendlesson. >> Yes. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes yes. Council member Nado, no. Council member Nadau votes no. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member Robert White, >> yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon White, >> no. >> Council member Trayon White votes no. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> yes. >> Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Felder, >> yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman, >> yes. Council member Freeman votes yes. >> Council member Henderson, >> yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. And Council Member Lewis George, >> no. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 yeses and three nos. >> Uh, the amendment is approved. Let me just see where we are here. All right. So, where we are, so we've had a bunch of amendments. Presumably, there are no more amendments. Uh, so we have the amendment nature of a substitute as amended before us. There's no further discussion on that. The vote is on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended. All those in favor say I. Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Mr. Chairman, report me as vote no, please. >> Please record me as voting now. Council members Nidau, Lewis, George, and Tran White will be recorded as voting no. The amendment nature of a substitute is approved. We now have the bill as amended before us. Any further discussion? This vote is on the bill itself as amended. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Chairman, vote me record me as voting no please. I think that's uh >> the eyes have it. The next issue is I'm hopeful we can get through this in maybe about five minutes. >> People seem to misunderstand something. Yes. Council member Pinty, >> I would like to request if you're in the mood perhaps a three minute recess. >> Um, if there's >> So, there's been a a request for a recess. So, there's no such thing as three minutes, but we could try five minutes and maybe try five minutes because it is 4:30. So, let's uh try a uh till 4:35. Recess till 4:35. Get out. >> Perfect time to call it. expectations. >> I'm Gather the others will come. >> Uh we are reconvening uh this meeting. The time is 4:37. And the next item of business is the Robert F. Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025, Bill 26-288. Uh so moved. Uh I have an amendment nature of a substitute which I circulated yesterday. So moved. Um, I have an amendment sheet that uh I circulated yesterday and I think it was yesterday evening. Uh, but a revised version was circulated a little while ago. I don't have the time, but it was circulated a little while ago. I'm told it was circulated around 2 pm. So the amendment uh that I circulated that I'm moving now I'll say so moved um makes a change to the meaning of district event as a term. It changes uh the section of the bill that speaks to milestones for development changes the cap on uh acceleration from 5 years to 10 years. It uh revises the language with regard to lead construction. Lead is led. Uh and that language, this is the revised version. Um there are four paragraphs, one speaking to construction of the stadium, one to maintenance and operation of the stadium, one to construction of the commercial development, and the fourth to construction of the residential development. Uh they're different lead provisions but the language is similar in that uh using methods and materials in a manner feasibly consistent with the objective of version five lead or it could be gold or silver. That's all in the language here. Uh the next amendment or part of this amendment is two reporting requirements that the Department of Transportation know sooner than July 1st, 2032 in collaboration with the team shall submit a report to the council analyzing the need for a third parking garage. and the mayor in collaboration with the team no later than January 1st, 2028 shall produce a report to the council that includes a site survey feasibility study financial assessment for the inclusion of a new engine and ladder company. And then the last part of this amendment uh is clarification with regard to the transportation improvement fund that I'm going to um just read. Part of this shall be used to support public transit related improvements for the RFK campus, including Metro Bus, related infrastructure, metro rail stations and roadways, and investments to improve transportation access to the RFK campus, provided that any roadway improvements are directly related to the an improvement to public transit access on the RFK campus. I want to emphasize in particular because uh there's been quite a bit of discussion about this in the last uh couple of days that the lead language as I said is revised. There's been much discussion about shades of meaning depending on the wording. The commanders wanted to be clear that lead platinum certification must be a goal, not a requirement given the many important features of this state-of-the-art stadium, such as a transparent and translucent roof and open concourses. This amendment tries to honor that. Uh go however, goal is not included in the legislative language because a goal can mean many different things from wishful to full-on commitment. Instead, the legislative language is quote in a manner feasibly consistent with uh unquote. Importantly, the legislative language does not include the word certification. Features like open concourses and translucent or transparent roof may detract from the lead calculation, but be important features. Feasibility will reflect a variety of factors specific to an enclosed stadium project. The rational also rationale also speaks to the other changes that I've outlined. So that's the amendment that I'm moving now. Uh as with the rental act, I've moved the amendment nature of a substitute. We're now going to consider these other amendments. Uh so if there's no objection, this amendment will be accepted. Mr. Hearing, no objection, the amendment is Yes, council member Clark. >> Um, I I just wanted to bring up what we discussed at the breakfast and you asked me to remind you about the minor adjustment on line 50. I'm sorry, page 50 line. >> I'm sorry. >> Let let me deal with this and then I'll recognize you even though you're not in the order, but you did bring it up. So, if there's no objection, this amendment number one for me is accepted. Hearing no objection, it's accepted. Um, I have a second amendment, but I'll go to you, Mr. Parker, so we don't forget. And this was a I'm hoping you will accept it as friendly, a minor adjustment to your ANS page 50, line 818, which would simply add ANC 5D um after 6B. Um and this is related to the uh DOT uh working with ANC's uh in 7F7D 6A and 6B to develop a traffic operations and uh parking plan. So essentially that would include 5D. >> This was line 818. >> Yes. On page 50, I'm proposing we add 5D after 6B. ANC 5DB 5D as in dog 5D which in which covers uh Langston and Carver uh communities abuing the RFK site. >> Madam general counsel do you have that? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. If there's no objection that will be accepted. We're on a roll here. Uh I had a second amendment which I will move now and um it is uh on lines 1181 through 1184 section 20. I guess it's like paragraph 2. Strike the phrase the plaza district commercial parcel. Uh I'm not going to read the whole thing. This has to do with um exemption from zoning on uh the advice from general counsel's office. We um it does not look like we can uh exempt the commercial parcel from zoning requirements and um that actually had already been explained but somehow was inadvertently left out of the amendment nature of a substitute. So that's my amendment. If there's no objection, it will be accepted. What's line? >> 11 >> 1181. >> Hearing no objection. It is accepted. >> Uh the next amendment is from Council Member Felder. Council member Felder. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh today I am introducing what I believe to be a vital amendment to the Robert F. Kennedy Campus uh redevelopment act of 2025 that will specify additional uses of the community reinvestment fund. It will require that 2 million annually from excessive sports facility fees be diverted to the fund. Uh this amendment will provide a continuous stream of revenue to the fund and will directly benefit the district's most vulnerable residents, particularly communities east of the Anacostia River. The fund will support displacement prevention, blighted revitalization, housing stability, small and local businesses and community wealth programs and public house public health programs. Uh the investment outlined in the CBA are a strong start, but the impact in neighborhoods across wards 5, six, seven, and eight deserve more, and this amendment aims to ensure that. This amendment guarantees meaningful and sustainable investments will flow into communities most impacted by the RFK stadium redevelopment. Now, as we embrace this opportunity to bring the Washington Commanders home where they rightfully belong, it is also up to us to ensure that we do so in a way that is responsible, respectful, and beneficial to the communities that need the resources the most. And with that, I strongly urge my council colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you, Mr. Felder. So, um, you circulated an amendment yesterday at 6:56 p.m. and you circulated a revised version at 2:47 p.m. today. And it's that second version that's before us. >> Yes, sir. And uh this you believe addresses uh some concerns that the um budget office raised? >> Yes. >> Uh and as I understand it, it's simply a $2 million direction of funds from a revenue stream and um establishes appears to establish a special fund, the community reinvestment fund. >> Yes. Uh, I have no objection to this, but that's we'll see what other people think. Council member Parker. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, I want to commend Council Member Felder. I think, um, this amendment moves uh, an equitable solution to ensure the communities most impacted by this development uh, reap rewards. Uh, and those are certainly residents in W 7, but also surrounding areas including WS 8, five, and six. Um, and I think um, this has merit as has been the word of choice today. Uh, there was one question that came up earlier and I'm hoping uh, Council Member Felder will accept a friendly adjustment and that was around this community benefits oversight committee uh, which I think uh, he, Council Member McDuffy and others have been really thoughtful about how to construct it. It sounds like three members will come from Ward 7, one from WS five and six. the mayor will appoint people, the chairman will appoint people, and those individuals um by extension represent the interests of their communities. I think it's really important that those individuals have a a decision makingaking authority for how these funds are spent versus deimped. Obviously, they're going to work with demped, but since we're creating this advisory council or committee, I think we should give them decision-making authority over these funds. So, with that, I propose a friendly amendment to Council Member Felder's uh amendment. It's just a a choice of words so that we can make clear that this committee uh would make those decisions. >> I'm going to object to that >> and I've already flagged it for Council Member Fder. >> Okay. But I'm going to object to changing that uh committee on the community benefits fund. >> We're not changing the committee. It's just to make clear that this fund embedded in council member Felder's amendment, the committee that is already in the language of our deal, that committee has a say in how these funds are spent. >> Uh this is the first time hearing of it and this is very concerning to me because uh this needs to be thought through. may be perfectly fine, but um until this minute, my understanding is that that committee uh did not have decision-making authority, and now you're saying it should. >> Now, this doesn't affect the team, but um that is >> we did discuss this this morning at the breakfast. The question then that I would raise is we are creating this fund where we're sending millions of dollars. who decides how those funds are spent. By default, we would assume it's dimped as we discussed this morning. Um the advisory members from Ward 7, 8, 5, six should have a decision-making authority to say how the funds are spent. I don't know. Unfortunately, this is we're into the final reading and this is the first I'm hearing this. I am the manager of this bill and I don't mean that to mean that it's personal, but I'm the one who is responsible for vetting all the amendments and understanding how they interconnect. So, >> I understand that >> there's no money coming into this fund this year. I don't think there's any money coming into the fund next year. >> 2030 >> until when? 2030. No money coming into the fund till 2030. So, we have lots of time to think. >> I mean, arguably then we don't have to vote on this amendment right now if we use that logic. We did talk about this this morning. I have talked about it with council member Felder. It is my understanding, and council member Felder can speak for himself, but it's my understanding he's okay with it. I get the concern and reservation. I'm happy to take it up after this matter, but I just think it's really important if we're creating an advisory board. It shouldn't just be for show, especially if you're talking about members of our community coming from the most disadvantaged areas in the city. It should have meaning. >> Further on Mr. Felder's amendment, >> Mr. I had indicated that I would accept it without objection. >> Oh, you did. >> But to be clear, Mr. Chairman, so am I not allowed to make an adjustment to the amendment? >> Well, you didn't. >> You have the floor and you did not move anything. >> I am moving a oral amendment to line 20 of Council Member Felder's amendment. And if the general counsel could just give me a head nod to let me know if I'm good to proceed or somebody. Okay. Um, I would I am proposing after the sentence that ends with redevelopment, we would insert the words, "The use of these funds shall be determined by the majority of members from the community benefits oversight committee for the following purposes colon and then it proceeds as the language of the bill." I'll repeat that again. This is I am proposing hopefully friendly on line 20 that we would insert the words the use of these funds shall be determined by the majority of members from the community benefits oversight committee for the following purposes colon and then it would proceed as the amendment is uh already scripted. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? >> Uh, yes. >> So, that would refer to this stream of income flowing into the community reinvestment fund, but there's other streams of income because I'm I'm a little confused. Um, for the other streams of income, will those dollars be the use of those dollars be determined by a majority of the group? The intention here is for this one amendment for this specialty fund that council member Felder's uh amendment creates where we're pulling some 1.5% off of general funds to the district for dedicated use in WS 7, 8, 5, and six. This would just give those advisory members decision making authority in conjunction with deimped to determine how they're used. >> So they'd have decision making authority here but with the other incomes in revenue stream. >> We're only focused on this. No, I'm just trying to understand the landscape because because the the question is this this is somehow a big change from what the previous understanding is and the previous understanding from the other revenue stream is the group advisory or decisionm >> I'm not my focus here is on the amendment before us and earlier in the breakfast it was raised Who gets to decide how the millions of dollars in this fund which has merit which I support I think many people support the question is who gets to decide that is it deimped or is it the members of this advisory committee the language here would just specify that the members from ward seven wards eight ws five and six who would be thoughtfully selected would actually have decision-making authority that's it >> Mr. chairman. >> So, um there are a number of people who want to speak. The challenge here is that this is a substantive proposal that members are seeing for the first time has not been vetted. Um and you've moved the amendment, which is your right. Um but I'm going to be mindful that we may spend a whole lot of time discussing language and that is not the role. That's basically a committee function. So, we'll see how this discussion goes. But I tried to make the point earlier that how we can always revisit and we've got five years to do it, but we could always revisit because this this is not the last time we're going to be dealing with the the uh stadium. There'll be something that will require um uh us to facilitate and so we will have other opportunities to flesh this out. Um, I believe councilor McDuffy, who technically is a co-introducer on all this, wanted to speak. And then I heard Council Member Bonds, Pinto, and Allen, and Dreon White, Council Member McDuffy. Thank you, uh, Chairman. So, hopefully this helps Council Member Parker's consideration of um I think the reasonable adjustment he's attempting to make. the the language that was in the ANS um and frankly was in first reading had already given the mayor uh authorities to authority to administer the fund and it gave her the authority to designate someone um but it also gave room to be able to adjust that at some point later. The idea of the community benefits agreement in this measure was not to try to hash out every single item that ultimately will be in the community benefits agreement document. It was to provide a framework for us to allow for some of the broader types of things that would be included in the CDA. I think this is something that can be addressed more specifically later. And I I actually had a similar conversation with council member Fer too because he added deimp and and I was making sure that he understood what that the implications of that were were going to be. I don't have a problem with that. I'm going to support well I don't I don't have a problem with what he added and that we could take it out later if necessary and we still going to spend time after this vote actually hashing out what goes into the CBA. Right. So, so the component of of his amendment that adds the language around dimped is not as problematic to me and the board has the uh the authority to provide oversight and they will be substantive component of the CBA and how it gets administered and they will be selected uh in a way that I think is thoughtful. So, I I I wouldn't want to support what you're doing today. Um and and hopefully that you know there there's plenty of time for you to be able to talk with other members with the executive with other people in the community uh about what your concerns might be in terms of how it gets administered. I don't think we should do it from the day at this point though. >> Thank you. >> If it's okay I would just like to withdraw it with the agreement that we can work on this afterwards. Uh, that would be excellent because I think that where you're trying to go has merit but >> I didn't I didn't hear you, Mr. Chairman. >> I said that would be excellent. You did hear me. That would be excellent. I think the proposal you where you're trying to go has merit, but uh I'm having whispered in my ear a number of different uh questions. So, >> understood. >> So, we're back to Council Member Felder's amendment. If there's no Chair. >> Thank you, Chairman. I think I got my answer. As I was looking at um Council Member Felder's um amendment, it just struck me as to okay, we're talking about how what this how this money will be used, but who's going to disperse it? And so to me it felt like we didn't have a complete thought with just this amendment. So I see it fits within your ANS. But in fitting within your ANS, I agree with my colleague, Council Member McDuffy, that um I think it's going to be very hard for us today to deal with all of the details that we have in our head. And I'm hoping that we will uh put a pen in it enough so that one the concept we're accepting but the uh practical organization of this process is something that has to come later as you have mentioned over the next five years we probably will uh have to revisit um a few times. So that's my thought and you can tell me if I'm on target. Thank you. >> You're always on target. The um I'm still trying to see if we can just dispose of this by unanimous consent, but Council Member Trayon White, you want to be recognized? And then Council Member Robert White. >> Yes. I want to thank my colleague Wendell Felder for his diligence in this. I know he's been on the ground doing this work and having so many meetings in the community about how we can make this a more equitable bill for the entire DC. Uh I'm I'm torn uh only because today we're talking about, you know, investing into infrastructure for a state-of-the-art brand new facility which will bring the commanders to DC where we're talking about removing rights for TOPA in the same in the same day. And so I had an amendment uh that spoke to uh ensuring that residents when they hear from us that they know we care about uh all residents of DC including those who have particularly been left behind uh in this development process. And I don't put all this on the commanders to take care of all these things but I think that the community benefit agreement leads us in the right direction. So I want to thank you for that. I had a bill um but part of uh council member Felder's amendment speaks to part of my bill and so I spoke to him about offering a friendly amendment and I would like to move an oral amendment to council member Feld Felder's amendment in line 21 uh to insert utility assistance after the phrase rental assistance uh which people are in dying need of help from our city and we haven't gone far enough to reach out and and keep those residents here who are struggling. Uh so I'll ask this will be accepted as friendly uh to this amendment. >> Uh Council Member Felder, how do you feel about this? >> If there's no objection, this would be accepted. >> Uh hearing no objection, it's accepted. If there's no objection. Oh, sorry. Somebody else wanted to be recognized too. Council member Robert White. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. Uh, I would like to offer an oral amendment that extends the use case uh of the community reinvestment fund. I uh if it passes, I'd amend section 9 C3B by adding sub paragraph 5, which states $5 million in funding for home purchasing assistance for residents of the condominium owners of River East at Grand View. End quote. um this funding would be in a direct alignment of so many of the goals that are stated in the purpose of this fund uh by council member Felder and ensure that these residents uh can get back on the path to home ownership once again, which is something that most on the council have signaled support for. >> I am going to rule that out of order because that is a little too complicated for um an oral amendment. Chairman, this is less complicated than other uh amendments we debated. So I I I don't see how this is out of order. It is exactly in line with the language of this bill. The language >> So can you read the amendment back? >> See, that's the point really. Oral amendments >> oral amendments are disfavored. >> It is. >> And so when uh council member Parker moves an amendment that is maybe a dozen words, that's one thing. Uh but you have something that's a bit more substantive. It >> it is not. It is about a dozen words. The words are $5 million in funding for home purchasing assistance for residents of the condominium of River East at Grand View. That's it. Chairman, >> I'm putting that language in section 9 C3B. >> Mr. chairman. >> That would be after line 31. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, given that I haven't had an opportunity uh to review uh Council Members White's amendment, uh, Robert White's amendment, I'm going to reject the amendment. >> Um, you're not the only one. Um, >> yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm glad this is funny, but we are rejecting these residents over and over again. So, we we talk a good game, but when we have an opportunity to step up for them, we don't do it. Uh, and it is frustrating. If we're talking about displacement, we're talking about a fund for displacement. We have people who have been displaced and we have money coming in to cover it and we're talking about a dozen word oral amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, may I want to order want to ask a question? Uh yes, council. >> All right. Thank you. Um um to um council member Robert White, I want to know if you are speaking of council member Felder's amendment or are you speaking of the ANS? I'm trying to excuse me. I'm trying to follow along as to where you would want this language inserted. >> Thank you, Council Member Vos. This would be inserted into council member Felman of Felder's uh language that speaks of displacement prevention that for residents of W seven and eight and we are speaking here specifically of residents in ward 8 who have been displaced. >> I see. Thank you very much. Thank you chairman chairman. Um, so I'm going to I'm going to argue against this. Uh, first of all, the council has dealt with this issue at least once before. Council member White, you've moved this. Second of all, and I think more important is that um, as was indicated earlier when we were discussing uh, this that is Council Member Felder's amendment. Uh, the money in this fund doesn't kick in until 2030. I think that's correct. 2030. That's five years from now. all of the owners uh at River East Grand View will have been relocated by then. Um it also overlooks the fact that the amount of money that the city has put in to assist the uh residents at River East to Grand View. And I think what happened there is horrible, but it wasn't the city's fault. I'll be very clear about that. It was not the city's fault. But the amount of money that the city's put in there has already been in the millions. I want to say 17 million, but I might have that number wrong. I'm sort of trying to look at some mayor's people. I think it was about 17 million that we've already given the residents both in paying their rent for a couple years as well as in relocation assistance as well as for those who could or wanted to uh home purchase assistance. We've put millions of millions of dollars in. They are all either relocated or will be relocated within the next half a year. This fund is not available for another five years and that actually may be incorrect. It might be six years. The council has already gone over this a number of times and I have a hunch that my colleague would point out that the fund will generate 2 million a year and you're going to use two and a half years of the fund for this purpose. So I think that covers all the the issues with this. I think it's great that you're an advocate for those owners. Again, it's horrible what's happened to them, but this amendment isn't the way to do it. Further on this, Council Member Trayon White. >> Uh, thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the spirit of what you're trying to do, Council Member Robert White, for the residents of Rivy's Grand View, and I object to the narrative that the government had no fault in this. I think this particular project was funded by the government and it was approved through construction and now the building is uh falling apart which which is uh been evacuated and potentially can fall down the hill and uh kill people eventually if we don't do something drastically now and to say that they'll be housed in 5 years. We thought that four years ago and some of them are still not housed and so um I would support I don't know if this is the right fix but I think that we have to do something to ensure uh that we can u rehhouse these residents who are own homeowners all black individuals and most of them first-time home buyers and I and I would support this. It probably won't get very very far, but I just want to go on the record to say I appreciate the spirit of what you're trying to do, Councilman Ra White, and I know the residents uh do too, which are homeowners. Thank you. Uh further on this uh council member, um the vote will be on Council Member Robert White's oral amendment. The oral amendment is to add line 32. I believe it's at line 32, a sub sub paragraph V, 5 million in funding for home purchasing assistance for the residents of the condominium owners of River East at Grand View. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> No. >> Uh the amendment fails. Uh, we still have council member Felder's amendment before us. It would be nice if we could dispose of it before there any more oral amendments. If there's no objection to Council Member Felder's um amendment, it will be accepted. And again, this is the version that was circulated at 247 hearing. No objection. It is accepted. Uh we have three amendments from council member Tran White. >> Uh thank you chairman. Um this amendment focus on CBA enforcement while RFK stadium uh campus or campus provides the community benefit agreement oversight committee to monitor the implementation of the CBA. This bill does not grant enforcement authority for community bene for the community benefit agreement to any organization uh or government entity. Uh as talked about in the breakfast, I did offer this amendment to give OA a some teeth to this and I did agree to speak with them and I'll share what they wrote. Um they pretty much said that we do not have an inherent authority to enforce CBAs. They even looked back through some case law in which they didn't have authority to enforce CBAs and there are many types of CBAs. However, they did say with full transparency transparency that they do not support an amendment that give their office the express authority at this time stating that they got the bill yesterday. Um so with that being said, I'm going to withdraw this bill and try to figure out what we can do to ensure accountability and enforcement. Um, and I'm I'm still and in saying that before I close, I'm still perplexed because we don't know who's going to be on the council five years from now, 10 years from now, you even at OA a five or 10 years from now. So, uh, we just still have to make sure that down the road that this thing gets done, people get what we said that we going to get um through this deal. So, >> So, you're withdrawing number one? >> Number two. Okay, that was the one concerning the attorney general. >> Yep. >> Okay. Are you moving any other amendments? >> Um, yes. Amendment three. This amendment focus on youth uh youth athletes and a former coach in Washington DC for almost nine years. Uh it's disheartening how our young people have to uh scrape and pour just to get adequate uniforms to participate in sports. And every year, I know for me and probably countless of other city leaders, we get calls every year because a team or group of youth are traveling out of town with no money to travel. And I think this is uh a perfect fit for the commanders who who've historically had a heart to give back and serve our youth through sports. Um so this amendment will uh create a a line to ensure that youth can pay for travel, uniforms, and equipment necessary to take advantage of other opportunities for our youth. Uh this was an this amendment would include youth sports team support as an initiative that is promoted through the CBA is intended to allow our youth to be directly help. 30 more seconds chairman by the community benefit agreement pursuant to this bill. I do want to note that I did meet with members of the commanders which they agreed they agreed to this. Um there are other categories that we speak to other priorities in the city. Why not our children? So I offer this amendment. If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. This is your amendment number three. To add the phrase including youth sports team support hearing. No objection. It's accepted. Anything further? Council member White. I'm going to withdraw my first amendment because it was achieved through a friendly amendment through council member Felder. So, um I want to withdraw the amendment. That's all I have for today. >> Thank you, Council Member Robert White. Uh thank you, Chairman. Uh colleagues, the entire case for the stadium has been that it would speed up development on the RFK site. That was the one supposed advantage over mixeduse development. Let's be clear, as the schedule stands in the circulated ANS, the stadium will take almost as long as the mixeduse development. Any financial benefit is evaporating before our eyes. Right now, the accountability doesn't kick in until 2053. My 9-year-old daughter would be about my age by that time. That's absurd. My amendment says every year the team misses a deadline, they pay $10 million. No excuses, no waiting 30 years. It's based on the same market rate penalty the team has already agreed to, but structured so it actually matters. not just a rounding error to a billionaire corporation. Want to be clear, residents are putting up over a billion dollars for this project. So, what we're talking about here is a penalty of less than 1%. That's if you don't count the value of the land at all. The money goes into the district's general fund the following year. So, taxpayers don't carry the cost of those delays. Right now, the delays fall on DC taxpayers who are paying this billion dollars off the city's credit cards. We don't have this money in the bank account. The team has told us again and again that timely development is in their best interest. If that's true, then they should have no objection to being held to their word. And if it's not true, then the public deserves this protection. Ideally, the commanders never have to pay these fees. That's not what any one of us want. And they deliver in a timely manner that triggers the incentive rather than the fee. If we're going to subsidize this project, the very least we can do is demand accountability. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I now move amendment one and urge my colleagues to support. Thank you Chairman. >> Is there discussion? Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I want to speak against this amendment for for two reasons. One, as we think about aligned incentives here with the team, um, and making sure that all of these benchmarks are actually met, there are certain circumstances that could undermine that progress that are outside of the city or the team's control, like a global pandemic, uh, like a contractor not being true to their word. And so when we say we want to have the strongest public private partnership in our city's history, it's a partnership. It is not a finger wagging experience. It is coming together and determining how we can meet these shared goals, which is what this deal does. Um the second piece that I wanted to add that we haven't talked much about is while this is a huge corporation, they're also in the hospitality business. the sports experience is underlies all of the goals that we're trying to accomplish here. And so when we think about are they going to be incentivized to fill the storefronts with small businesses and restaurants or make sure that the housing goes up or make sure that the transportation needs are met. It's not just because it's in the deal. It's also because they are required to stay in business to have an excellent um sports fan and user experience. And so I just don't want that to get lost in the conversation about these enlightened incentives, which is another reason why in addition to the terms of the agreement um that have already been hashed out around all this gives me additional confidence that we're going to get the greatest transformation of this land that we can imagine. Um and I'm really excited about it. And so I think we should move forward with the deal as is that has already been negotiated um for many many months. Further on the amendment, >> Mr. Chairman, um, >> Council Member Fman, >> thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I I later will be putting forward an amendment on accountability. Um, but I won't be supporting this one. And one reason for it is I I fully understand the idea of immediacy of penalties, but a $10 million penalty thinking about the development timeline in year one, it calls for like 415,000 square feet. And if they deliver 200,000 square feet, should there be a one a $10 million penalty for falling that far behind that early? I I think whatever measures of accountability we have need to be closely calibrated to what's realistic for them and to keep them on track and from falling very far behind. But $10 million in year one may not it it doesn't seem proportional to me to what a breach would look like in that year. So, I won't be supporting this as much as I would like to see increased accountability. >> Thank you. If there's nothing more on this, the vote will be on Council Member White's um amendment number one. All those in favor say I. >> Uh opposed. No. No. >> Uh the eyes have it. >> Excuse me, I misspoke. The the amendment I misspoke. The amendment fails. >> Right. I'm feeling a little embarrassed here. Um, as I recall, I heard one I and a chorus of nos. The amendment fails. Council member White. Amendment number two. >> Uh thank you, chairman. Uh colleagues, this amendment is about protecting the district from the worst case scenario. The commanders have promised timely development. They've told us is in their best interest to build, not stall. If that's true, then they should have no concerns with this language. But if it's not true, if the land is still undeveloped 20 years after the stadium opens, 20 years after the stadium opens, that would be a disaster for this city. Decades lost, opportunities wasted, and the community once again left waiting. This amendment simply says if by 2050 the land is still not substantially developed, the district takes it back. This is not radical. It's responsible. Cities across the country have made the mistake of tying up public land with a single developer who drags their feet. And yes, DC has seen this before. When that happens, the people lose and the government has no leverage. We cannot afford to make that mistake here. We are in a budget deficit and we're committing billions of dollars in subsidies and giving up prime public land. The least we can do is make sure the land won't sitow for another two generations. This amendment ensures accountability and protects our residents from being locked into a failed deal. I urge you to support it. I move amendment two. >> We have the amendment before us. Is there discussion? >> Council member Lewis Burge. >> Hi, Chairman. Um, thank you. I will be voting in favor of this amendment. Um, and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. I think it's reasonable. I mean, in in regular DC terms, if they don't develop the land, run us our land back. That's all this says. I think it's by then if by 2050 the team has not made on good on its promise to substantially complete the mixeduse development which I don't think is going to happen but 20 years after the stadium opens and I think it only makes sense for the district to reclaim control of the undeveloped land so we could do something with it. I think this one is a clear and reasonable safeguard. I don't think anybody will have a issue um running into this because I think they will develop the land. So I think it offers the opportunity to ensure that the city retains leverage and can act in the public interest if promises go unfulfilled. I think it's really honestly a minimum we should expect when we are committing so much taxpayer money to this deal. So I think this is one where our colleagues should consider voting in favor of. Thank you. >> Uh thank you council member. further on the amendment. Uh the vote will be >> Can can I can I ask a question because I mean one of the things that's come up on this is if the team has invested a fair amount of money to develop all the infrastructure. So, and like thinking about the riverfront district where they may have to build kind of pedestal parking and then maybe they haven't built the buildings on top of it and we're in 2050 and the city take and they've done three quarters of it but a quarter of it not done and the city tries to takes a quarter because it hasn't been developed. Is there any need to compensate the commanders for the investment they made that created that made it ready for development? And how do how do you how do we deal with that? And how would that be different than eminent domain in that moment? >> Was that a question or a statement? Yeah, I mean the question is if we're there and we're saying we're clawing it back, is there there could be a situation in which they would say we're we're entitled to compensation for investments that we've made. How do you see that issue? How do you think we would deal with a claim of compensation at that point? >> U council member, >> thank you. Um the amendment language says undeveloped land. Um and uh again we're not talking about 2030, we're talking about 2050. Okay? Things have gone way off the rails if this isn't developed by 2050. Future council can negotiate with the team, but only if we have the leverage that we would put in the law now. So future council could walk it back. They could negotiate. And again, the language is only about undeveloped land. But if we remain silent on this, the city is stuck. We will not be able to get the land back. It will sit vacant. Again, this isn't isn't what any of us expect or want to happen, but we have to protect the interests of the city in case things go off the rails. >> So, I was going to kind of refrain from debate on this, but I'm going to point out a couple of things. One is I don't know what substantially complete means. Uh 90% 80% 70% more than 50%. I would I mean I get the 2050 is a long time from now but uh that's not a defined term and then um completely is undeveloped. So in response to your in response to your response to council member Fman's question um the campus is going to have a lot of infrastructure work done it done on it not just by the city but by the commanders or their partner. Uh so I think it's arguable that there'll be no land that will be undeveloped other than that issue of uh whether it's substantial or not. So your answer or the answer to council member Fman was well this is only undeveloped land but I'm not sure there's any undeveloped land. Two concepts substantially developed what does that mean? Second, undeveloped. There's probably no undevelopment land to take claw back if that's what the standard is. Um, we know that this amendment is problematic and I would urge that members not support this. Uh, anything further on this amendment? Yes, chairman. Uh, so the language in my amendment says for the purposes of this subsection, substantially complete means 95% of the square footage required. But more importantly, if we do end up in a situation where in 2050 a substantial portion is not developed, what do you suggest we do? >> I think this is a amendment in the search of a problem. That's what I think because I think there's every incentive for the team to have get this uh land besides the stadium developed. there is economic advantage to them for doing that and doing that as quickly as possible. So as I said I think this is a uh solution in search of a problem. Um I mentioned before that I think that I said not just I think this is problematic. What the team has said is that this is a proposal that actually will make it more difficult for them to attract investors. I can't speak to how difficult, but it is a concern. So, on the one hand, we're making this a bit more difficult. On the other hand, we're solving a problem that I don't think exists or will exist. I mean, I think the only way that we will see that the land isn't developed is if there's something that is major, like the country goes into a huge depression and there's no development or I don't know, there's an earthquake. Uh there's a >> and then who gets left holding the bag? >> We do. >> No, the city is not putting money into this. >> How long did it take us to develop Skyland? We had a commitment. >> Uh I don't think that's comparable. Skyland was an issue of economic interest. We could not attract a developer to the Skyland site. That's why we subsidized Skyland to the tune of about hund00 million. We're not doing that here. We are subsidizing the stadium, but we are not subsidizing the private development. And in fact, there is a developer who's ready and willing and interested, and that is the commanders. That's very different than Skyland. If there's nothing further on this u amendment to vote, >> council member. >> Yeah, I I appreciate this amendment being advanced by council member White because I have seen projects in my own ward that have not been developed or advanced the way promised and there really was no meaningful way to do anything about it. Um, I'm not going to rebut each of the things you said, but I do find it challenging to agree with you that this isn't a subsidy of public land or that Skyland isn't at all comparable. Um, and of course that was a pretty big burn for the community. So I I don't understand why anybody should be worried about a clawback 20 years from now if they intend to develop this in all due speed. So I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do and and we need to continue to create guard wells when we make investments of a billion dollars. So I will be voting to support it. >> Chairman uh Council McAfee. Um I I would I would urge members not to support it. Uh it might sound harmless, but I think we also have to be mindful uh that there are other documents beyond our vote on this bill that will be negotiated. Um and that uh should account for a scenario where uh in 2050 uh the land is left undeveloped. Uh there's yet to be negotiated but that but will be negotiated is the development and finance agreement. Uh the lease has to be executed. there there are documents that um are not a part of the bill that we're debating that will hold the developers accountable uh for the development of the land beyond even some of the penalties that we put in there already. I mean if they leave the land vacant then there's it's going to be taxed as vacant maybe even taxes blighted. So there are other tools um that will account for the scenario and so uh I don't I don't want people who are unfamiliar with uh development uh to think that this is the only tool we have to accomplish what uh has been uh suggested should happen if the developer does not complete the development by a date certain. there are things uh that will be accounted for in documents that will be executed subsequent to today. So I would urge members not to support this. Uh further on the amendment we uh council member Fman >> my apologies for second round. I am as a practical matter I really do have in mind the riverfront district which in order to develop it given that its location in the flood plane an a lot of infrastructure is going to have to be built. And so then what happens if half of that hasn't been developed and it gets clawed back? what kind of I promise you there would be a debate about compensation at that point and I think it would look like an eminent domain case where the city will always have the power to take land if it's not being used and has a reason why it thinks it needs to be used and so it does feel like one I'm very worried about lags in development come 2050 as I will speak to later but I I'm worried about the mechanics of this one and think that in the process of negotiating these other documents, perhaps there's a way to anticipate how compensation would be dealt with because compensation is just going to have to be a part of it if there's some sort of a clawback. So, I support the concept, but I won't be supporting the amendment. >> The um vote will be on the amendment. >> Ask for a roll call on this chairman. Madam Secretary, would you call the role? >> Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nadau, >> yes. >> Council member Nado votes yes. Council member Parker, >> no. >> Oh, no. >> Thank you. Council member Parker votes no. Council member Council Member Pinto, no. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White, >> yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon 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 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 member Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy, >> no. Council member McDuffy votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are four yeses and nine nos. I'm sorry. >> We'll see if I can get this right. Uh the amendment fails. Um Council Member Robert White. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um amendment four uh is simple. It adds a 4.25% parking tax ex um or it strikes a 4.25% 25% parking tax exemption on parking at the RFK campus with the revenue it would generate over $25 million over 30 years dedicated to the RFK anti-displacement fund. Why parking? Because the overwhelming majority of fans who will drive to the stadium are not district residents. They're coming from Maryland and Virginia. That means this amendment ensures that people who use our roads, create the traffic, and benefit from this project are also helping to offset the harm it causes. Specifically, the displacement pressures it places on nearby neighborhoods. This is not an undue burden. For a $180 parking fee, which aligns with the current Northwest Stadium price, this amounts to an extra $8. And yet across three decades, that small charge becomes a meaningful tool to preserve affordability for thousands of DC residents. If we're serious about protecting communities from displacement, then we need a funding stream to back it up. This amendment provides exactly that without asking more of the very residents who are at risk of losing their home. It is fair. It is modest. And it directly connects to the impact of this stadium to the protection of nearby neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to support it. Oh, I have to go back to amendment three. Uh, chairman, I apologize, >> but you're moving number four right now. >> Uh, yes. >> And again, this would impose a 4.25% tax. >> It would strike a 4.25% 25% tax exemption. >> Uh discussion on the amendment. >> Uh we'll have a vote on the amendment. >> As for roll call, Mr. Chairman, >> Madam Secretary's request for a roll call. >> Council member Nadau. Yes. Council member Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker, >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Council member Pinto, >> no. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White, >> yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon White, >> no. >> Council member Trayon White votes no. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Fman, >> no. Council member Freeman votes no. Council member Henderson, >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George, >> no. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy, >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendelson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are three yeses and 10 nos. >> Uh, the amendment fails. Council member um Robert White. >> Uh moving to amendment three. Look, we've heard over and over again that displacement is a problem. People say it all the time. It's a DC problem, not a commander's problem. That's what the team told me. But history tells us the opposite. A c across the country when stadiums go up in urban neighborhoods, longtime residents get pushed out. The data are clear. Areas around stadiums were once less affluent, more diverse, and deeply rooted. After the stadium comes, they become whiter, wealthier, and less accessible to the very communities that gave life to them. That's not speculation. It's what h it's what happens again and again. And unless we act, it will happen here. This amendment creates an RFK anti-displacement fund to protect affordability in the neighborhoods surrounding this project. The fund will focus on preserving existing affordable housing because preservation is more cost-effective than new construction and because our city has already lost half of its naturally affordable homes since the year 2000. If we do nothing, more of these units will be lost to dis disrepair or converted to luxury housing and residents who've lived here there for generations will be forced out. If we're calling this a historic investment, then let's make sure it invests in people, not just in concrete. Let's use this moment to stabilize communities, prevent displacement, and protect the affordability of thousands of units. This amendment doesn't just safeguard housing, it safeguards the history and culture of neighborhoods that built this city long before a stadium was in in the picture. I urge my colleagues to support it and I move amendment three at this time. Uh, thank you, Council Member. Discussion on the amendment. >> Council member White, uh, could you speak to, um, you mentioned communities adjacent to the stadium. Could you mention how did you determine, uh, the geographic proximity? >> Uh, we took an approximate guess of the economic reach and the impact that it would have on on rents. Is there a specific concern? Do you think it's too big or too small? Uh I just want to make sure it's accurate, it's appropriate. I think uh one of the things that we did uh in my amendment was we use census tracks so we could be targeted uh making sure we have the most impact to residents who need it. It just would have been helpful to know how did you go about with identifying the geography. Thank >> I appreciate. Would you like to add your census track as an amendment to this? Would that make you more comfortable? >> Uh no. Okay, >> Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, uh, Council Member White for this. Uh, as we mentioned before, I think this has merit and we should be doing everything we can, uh, to prevent the displacement of residents. Where I'm I'm trying to get clear where would the funding for the fund come from? Uh, there are two options. One is the parking tax that we are exempting the team from that this council just voted down. Uh the other would be what will be my next amendment which will be an increase to the community benefits agreement that is much smaller much smaller in proportion than other stadiums. >> Okay. So >> but this amendment to be clear though this amendment would create the fund. It would not this amendment doesn't fund it. Other amendments >> this is just about creating it. >> This would create it. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, further on the amendment, uh, the vote will be on a amendment. It's Council Member Robert writes amendment number three. >> Roll call vote, please. Chairman, >> chairman, can I ask a question before we take a >> uh, yes. Um so um we have lots of funds that are now floating here and I'm wondering if we can get clarity on what is the difference between the community reinvestment fund that we dispense with in the earlier amendments and an anti-displacement fund that council member Robert White is proposing now because it seems as though both are in similar goals but we're we're psych spinning off just for funds as opposed to perhaps in the future when we get to the process around the fund that is already created under council member Felder's amendment that perhaps the anti-displacement goals that you were trying to reach council member White can be achieved in that fund as opposed to creating a new fund. >> Um I'm happy to to speak to that. Um, council member Felder's amendment um allows us to use the existing community benefits agreement for some specific purposes. So, splitting the pie more ways. What I'm trying to do is expand the pie so that we are not competing anti-displacement against all the other things we're trying to do with the uh community benefits agreement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there's nothing further, I think Council Member White, you asked for a roll call. >> Yes. >> Seems to be everybody wants roll calls today. Um, Madam Secretary, would you call the role? The vote is on Council Member White's amendment number three. >> Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> no. Council member Pinto votes no. Council member Robert White, >> yes. Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon 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 Felder. 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 no. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy, >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. Chairman Mendlesson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. And Council Member Nadau, yes. Council member Nado votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are four yeses and nine nos. >> The amendment fails. Council member White, I believe you have two more. >> Uh, yes, Chairman. Uh, amendment five increases the community benefits agreement to $100 million. Right now, the district is putting more than $1.2 billion in direct subsidy to bring the commanders to DC. This is one of the largest public contributions to a stadium in the country. And yet, the CBA we're receiving in return is shockingly low compared to other recent stadium deals. If we're investing this much public money, then we must demand a meaningful investment back into the communities that will bear the impact of this project. A $100 million CBA is still not proportional, but it is a major improvement. It ensures that neighborhoods around the RFK site see real benefits, jobs, services, and resources that last beyond game day. Without this increase, we're giving a billion dollar franchise a historic subsidy and asking almost nothing for our residents in return. That is not a good deal. This amendment to make sure that the people of the District of Columbia share in the benefits, not just the costs. And I urge my colleagues to support it. I move amendment number five. Uh we have the amendment before us. Is there discussion? I want to note that this was an issue that was negotiated with the team. The $50 million that we have is more than what the team had initially offered. substantially more than what they had initially offered. But what I remember from the discussions was that the $50 million, which is what we have in the uh agreement right now, is more than has been extracted from any of the other teams in the city, baseball, soccer, uh monumental sports. Uh it's significantly more than any of the other teams. And I think that's an important point of comparison. What I recall as well because I remember putting this forward to the team is that there's when you ask for uh how much has been provided in other stadiums elsewhere, not in the city, you get different numbers in higher numbers. But actually that's misleading because that's sort of mixing philanthropy from the ownership group with the community benefits agreement which is what actually is at issue here. So the comparisons are not what they seem to be. And as I said, the comparison with the city is that this is the most generous. It was subject to negotiation. It is part of the entire economic package of the deal. Um so I would urge members not to support this. There's no further discussion. Uh, chairman, uh, I will only note, um, community benefits agreement in LA, 500 million. Uh, New York, New Jersey, 500 million. Um, that this this is not a big community benefits agreement. Period. >> Uh, the vote will be on Council Member White's amendment number five. All those in favor of the amendment say I. I >> oppose say no. No. >> The amendment fails on a voice vote. Um, you have one more amendment, council member. >> Yes, chairman. >> Uh, actually, uh, chairman, this was related to the displacement fund that the council did not approve. Uh, so I'm not going to move this amendment. All right. Thank you. That brings us to we have an amendment from Council Member Fman. Uh thank you, Chairman Mendlesson. A as the discussion of the various amendments so far has shown, I I'm reluctant to make major changes to this agreement between first and second vote. I think uh but one of the things that we talked about before first vote was accountability for delivery of the mixeduse development. And I think we were all many of us were very clear that this was a thing that we wanted to see strengthened. Um, I'm not comfortable with some of the things that have been proposed, but I tried to tailor something that increases accountability and I believe is fair to the team. So, what happened between first and second vote? One of the things is we found out that we're not exempt from zoning and so it's going to take one to three years longer to get the mixeduse development. Not anybody's fault. Happens. There was a change to the way in which the penalty for missing a benchmark would be applied. It had been fair market rent would apply one year earlier. Instead, it moved to fair market rent in proportion to the missed development would happen one year earlier. So, if there were 400,000 square feet that were required in a in a benchmark and the team delivered 200,000, they would only have a uh if fair market rent was 10 million, a $5 million penalty way out in the future. I I actually think that's reasonable, but it lowered accountability. And then in the process that you've worked on, we increased the number of years that rent could be advanced from five to 10. That does increase in accountability, but and here the numbers are not exact, but and council member White talked about 2050. I'll talk about 202. We would expect this development to be done around 2040. But what happens if they're in the late 2030s well behind and we I think having some penalty then could make sense. And then what happens in the 2040s if they're well behind and there's no longer any penalty of advanced rent there's no penalty at all. I think we should be having penalties. So, what I've structured, and I'm going to need a little more time, Mr. Chairman, um is in the late 2030s, if they are more than 30% behind, they would pay a $1 million penalty into the community benefits package. Starting in 2040 or around 2040. If they're more than 10% behind, they would pay a million dollars. If they're more than 20% behind, they would pay 2 million. If they're more than 30%, three million. Mr. Chairman, another minute. >> Uh, without objection. >> If they're if they're more than 40% behind, 4 million. If they're more than 50% behind 5 million, calibrated to the degree to which they are behind, and capped at $30 million. When we get to around 20 240, one of the things that the team says is we have a shared interest. We want to get this done as quickly as possible, but we can get to a place where they feel like we're not capturing the rents we want and so we want to slow development until we can fill these other buildings and then we can get higher rents for the buildings that are over the horizon. Well, we want them to be building in that environment because we get 30% affordable housing and we want rents to come down. We had a long discussion about we need to build more housing so the cost of housing comes down. So what I've tried to do here is calibrate something so that when we get into those out years the team has an incentive to push forward the penalties I believe are modest. the benefit goes to the community benefits agreement. I think this is fair and I think this helps us increase accountability in a way that's fair and I hope my colleagues can support it. >> Thank you, Council Member. The amendment is before us. Is there discussion on the amendment? Uh the vote will be on the amendment. Can we have a roll call? You know, I want to say something starky, but I shouldn't. Everyone's entitled to request a roll call. It's just we've had an awful lot of roll call votes today. [Music] >> Yeah, we like to hear the secretary's voice. Madam Secretary, would you please um call the role? Council member Pinszo no. Council member Pinszo votes no. Council member Robert White >> yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon 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 Felder >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. >> Council member Fman >> yes. Council member Freeman votes yes. Council member Henderson >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council member Lewis George >> no. >> Council member Lewis George votes no. Council member McDuffy >> no. >> Council member McDuffy votes no. >> Chairman Mendelson >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Benau. Council member Badau votes yes and council member Parker >> no. >> Council member Parker votes no. Mr. Chairman there are four yeses and nine nos. Uh >> the amendment fails. Um, as far as I know, that completes all the amendments that we have, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, Council Member Allen. >> You asked me to remind you. >> I did. Thank you. >> You have a letter you need to read. >> Yeah. Uh, so I should have done this at the beginning. Uh, we did receive an a letter that I would like the secretary to include with the record, meaning that it will be posted on limbs. This was a letter from the commanders this morning. It spoke to a couple of other issues that members had um talked about. This is I'm only going to read part of the letter uh with regard to heritage tree protection. We intend to protect as many of the heritage trees as possible, including all of the trees in the festival plaza, which is the land, I call it the median, on East Capitol Street in front of the armory, and commit to planting new trees on this land as part of the significant improvements being made to the site with new housing, retail, and commercial development streets, and open spaces. Additionally, we recognize the sensitive location of the RFK campus within the Anacostia River watershed and are committed to partnering with the district to deliver the 30% of open space on the campus as well as working collaboratively with all parties regarding the 30acre Anacostia Commons repairarian area within the site. In addition to the significant environmental commitments the commanders have already made, the team's goal is to operate at zero waste, including striving to divert all solid waste from landfill or incineration, similar to other stadiums such as MercedesBenz Stadium in Atlanta. Uh I'm not reading the opening and closing paragraphs. Uh but that is the substance and I'd like this included in the record on limbs. Uh, thank you for reminding me, Council Member Allen. Uh, is there anything further with regard to the amendment nature of a substitute? The vote will be on the amendment nature of a substitute and then assuming that passes on the bill as amended. On the amendment nature of a substitute, all those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh, >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting no. Madam Secretary, council members White and Nad will be recorded as voting no. The amendment nature of a substitute is approved on the bill as amended. If there's no further discussion, >> Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a comment because it had been my intention that if I could not strengthen the accountability measures that I would vote against the deal overall. But I actually was struck by things that Council Member Pinto said today. It's it's gonna happen. I think let's all get shouldertoshoulder and make this as great as it can be and try to use whatever tools we have to increase accountability. So, while I didn't get what I hoped for, uh, I'm going to vote in support of this bill. Yeah. Um, all right. If there's no further discussion, we have the bill >> as amended. Council member Allen. >> We're on the underlying, right? >> We're on the bill >> about to have the final vote, right? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Yeah. >> I'm gonna open the fun. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Until midnight. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, I I have long been clear that an NFL stadium alone is not a good investment for the city. It just didn't. Decades of experience and research have shown us that. But building 6,000 new homes, creating thousands of good paying jobs for DC residents, protecting our Anacostia River in Keman Island, expanding the number of youth sports fields facilities. Those are very good investments. and in expanding the central role transit's going to play in strengthening the environmental goals of the site. Now, we can talk about a bigger vision for the growth of our city and what this can mean for the next 50 years for the District of Columbia, not just on Sundays. I fought hard to make this deal better. I'm not going to shy away from that. I've gone to bat to reduce parking lots and increase public transit. If we're building a stadium, then I wanted to lead the country as the most sustainable and smartest building you can find, especially situated on the shores of the Anacostia River. to make sure we're building new homes. I needed to see stronger accountability to deliver for our city. And if we're building the equivalent of a small city, I fought to ensure it's going to have things the community needs, like a new firehouse to serve and respond. I'm proud to have worked with my W 7 colleague to make sure that there's a robust community benefits agreement for the neighborhoods already around the site. Delivering on that fight was important to me, and that is why I'm voting yes today. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your inclusion of many of my potential amendments into your ANS today. items that I believe are crucial to securing a deal as large and significant as this. Given district residents are about to provide the commanders with more than a billion dollars in taxpayer subsidy and provide them acres of waterfront land, we had to get this deal right. Ensuring the stadium is going to be built and operated toward the highest lead platinum standards. It's going to include the newest and strongest building standards to date. Ensuring spending of the for the new uh newly created transportation improvement fund. It's focused on investments like our metro rail, metro bus, and our public transportation. locking in that shared evaluation with DOT and the commanders of whether additional parking garages are needed. Protecting most of our oldest and largest trees on site with the team's new commitment, as you just read, preserving those heritage trees in the area along East Capitol Street and the Grand Plaza that's going to open up to this new stadium, securing a commitment from the team to work toward zero waste in stadium operations, and very importantly, again, requiring proactive planning and funding for a new fire station be built within this coming neighborhood. Fans of the team can rightly celebrate the return of the Commanders to the district as a major moment in our city's proud history. But football fan or not, every resident should be eager to see these 180 acres become DC's next big neighborhood and be a point of pride for what can be accomplished. Instead of overbuilding parking spots for eight home games, we're going to have the most transit friendly NFL stadium in the country. This stadium is going to set the new standard for how the US can build big, ambitious projects while meeting the moment on climate change. and it's poised to take advantage of DC's strong renewable energy marketplace. The deal creates goodaying union jobs and a strong community benefits agreement to ensure DC residents are ready to fill those jobs. It has stronger accountability measures, double what we had just a few weeks ago to ensure the team delivers on the housing with the same energy and focus that I know it's going to bring to the stadium. And this is a deal that delivers $800 million more back to residents over the next 30 years than that original deal that came to us. I want to thank the many, many, many residents who reached out to us and shared their views over the past nine months. I want to thank the Washington commanders for all of their hard work and the team with a lot of conversation and going back and forth. I want to thank the deputy mayor and the team from the mayor's office, the constant conversations and the work here working on these details that I believe help the council finalize a deal that I think DC residents can be proud of. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Allen. Council member McDuffy. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, I want to begin by uh thanking all the fans who have Yeah, you all have been steadfast in your advocacy that we bring the Washington commanders back home to Washington DC where they belong. and all your emails, all your social media posts, uh all your text messages uh did not go unnoticed and it is because of you uh that we are here today. I also want to thank uh the chairman who I've worked closely with um to get this deal where it needs to be, my colleagues, the office of the general counsel, the council's budget office, the secretary's office. There's a lot of work on the council's team uh that went into this, including uh the staff of the various council members. Uh there's not anybody on this desk who I haven't talked to one time or another or maybe 10 times uh over the course of the last several weeks to get to where we are today. Uh we have improved this deal uh I think dramatically uh since it was first introduced. Uh we've talked about a lot of it already today and so I won't go through every single detail. Um but I do think it's important to note um that uh you know we continue to work to strengthen the responsibility of the team to work with our certified business enterprises and our small business enterprises in District of Columbia. I know that is a huge deal uh for a lot of our businesses across the District of Columbia who looking to participate on this. Uh there going to be thousands of jobs. We made sure that organized labor is going to be well represented uh in the jobs that uh come out of this deal. U the ANS uh also is going to make sure that there's participation uh of the council in the process of drafting the certified uh the community benefits agreement. I know that's been a big deal uh for a number of members so that the community has a real voice uh in that process and the implementation. Uh the AMS also requires quarterly reports to the council around you know for source apprenticeships SB and CBE participation and compliance. Uh and I think all these improvements will really help to guarantee the implementation of this deal remains consistent with the wants and needs of the District of Columbia's residents uh who we always should center and prioritize in the work that we do. Um this deal was not done in a vacuum and I think it's important for everybody to know that. uh we heard a lot of the feedback that has come in uh over the course of the several months. I also want to thank uh the commanders, the team, the ownership uh for all their back and forth, the work negotiation. Uh it was not easy uh but I think we ended up at a place where we can all really be proud and I can't wait uh to cut the ribbon uh in 2030 and see them play back here in Washington DC. Uh but I'm hoping that we'll get to a Super Bowl well before then. Uh so thank you all. Paul, I appreciate it. And let's bring the commanders back home. >> Uh, thank you, council member. >> Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. >> That's what the last person said. >> Yes, sir. Uh well, I just want to profusely thank my council colleagues, uh members, uh from our government, uh the commanders, uh as well as the so many neighbors across the District of Columbia, but specifically in W 7 who have uh voiced their optimism, their concerns, uh to make sure that we get this right. Uh it is no secret that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Uh and since I've been a council member, I've said this repeatedly. Uh, ward 7 is the only ward in the District of Columbia that does not have an anchor. Uh, today I'm proud to say that today's vote will change that. Uh, and I look forward to continuing to work with, uh, stakeholders, my council colleagues, uh, that once the as the implementation starts, uh, we make sure that community members quality of life is not disrupted. So, I just want to thank everyone. >> Motion to close debate. >> Thank you. >> Second. Uh, if you're serious, we could do that. But the motion to close debate allows everyone who hasn't spoken to speak. And I'm guessing at this point that anybody >> it was a signal. >> I I do want to just say because I if there's some thank yous, I want to thank um on my staff, Christian Washington especially because he put in all the hours. Not to say that the others on my staff didn't and I want to thank them as well. general counsel. There were a couple people who got to spend their weekend again this weekend uh on that. So I want to thank that office counselor McDuffy because we were partners in crime throughout this the budget office and um if I just sing single out one person uh I would overlook that there were several who worked on different aspects of this including the economic impact analysis. Um, and I also want to thank the team because they were very responsive and worked with us. There are um, occasions when we have to work with folks and they're not very helpful or cooperative and that was not even close to the experience that we had that I had with the team. So, I want to thank them for that. I'll leave it at that. If there's no further discussion with the vote will be on the bill as amended. >> Mr. Chairman, I just want to add one thank you because I haven't heard it yet to the mayor and her team who have um really been instrumental in this process and securing the land transfer from Congress and this has been a very long process. So, I want to recognize all of the hard work of Mayor Bowser and her team as well um along the way. Thank you. I'm being reminded there were a couple of folks on Council McDuffy's staff. Um Donnie Crawford and >> Marissa Rose >> Marissa Rose who put in a lot of time as well. All right, the vote is on the final on the bill as amended. All those in favor, >> Mr. Chairman. >> I I >> I request a roll call vote. >> Yes. Um, Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> I know. >> All right. >> Council member Robert White, >> no. >> Council member Robert White votes no. Council member Trayon White, >> yes. >> Council member Trayon White votes yes. I'm going very slowly. A dramatic impact. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds. >> Yes indeedy. >> Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Felder. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Fman >> yes. >> Council member Fman votes yes. Council member Henderson. >> Yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George. Yes. >> Council member Lewis George votes yes. Council member McDuffy >> yes. Council member McDuffy votes yes. Chairman Mendelson >> yes. >> Chairman Mendelson votes yes. Council member Nado >> no. >> Council member Nado votes no. Council member Parker >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. And council member Pinto >> yes. Council member Pinto votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 yeses and two nos. Thank you. Um, thank you, Madam Secretary. The, uh, the bill is approved. Final reading. The, uh, next measure on the agenda is, um, Volunteer Services Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. Council Member Pinto. Earlier this summer, the council passed emergency legislation which granted the mayor and the chief of police to institute juvenile curfew zones, extend standard curfew hours to 11 p.m. and to include 17-year-olds in these zones. I'm sorry if I can ask everybody try to be quiet a little bit as you head out because we've got some more business to tend to. Thank you. This legislation was passed in response to large groups of young people engaging in harmful and oftentimes criminal activity in multiple areas of the city. A few of which we are seeing on a repeat basis like in the warf navy and street. That legislation granted the mayor authority to extend the juvenile curfew hours throughout the district uh or in specific areas of the district when appropriate to protect public safety or public or private property. A mayor's order extending the curfew hours could not take effect until at least 24 hours after the mayor's order is issued except in emergency circumstances. This legislation turned out to be very effective. Um it was a tool that was used in seven locations on each weekend um that it was in place for. MPD has experienced zero curfew violations during the extended curfew hours from 8 to 11 p.m. within those curfew zones. And that's exactly what we wanted to happen. We wanted to be a tool to say, hey, this is not a place where large groups of young people can be after hours. But we don't we just want that to mean they dissipate and go elsewhere or go in smaller groups. And that's exactly what has happened. Um given its success, I propose that we extend the authority uh to establish these curfew zones. With that, I move the amendment. >> So, you've moved the uh temporary and you've also moved the amendment and the amendment is the uh juvenile curfew bill. >> Say that last part again. And you've you've moved the temporary and you've moved the amendment which is the juvenile curfew bill. >> Yes, it is an amendment to the volunteer services clarification temporary act of 2025. >> All right, we have the amendment before us. Uh, Council Member Parker and then Lewis George and then Henderson. I have a clarifying question and I have a statement. But first for the clarifying question, I know we discussed earlier, council member Pinto, this maneuver will result in a gap. Can you just clarify uh the extent to which that gap will exist? >> Sure. Um so procedurally we have to move the temporary before we can move another emergency. And so we will be voting on the emergency bill at our next legislative meeting which is October 7th. The current emergency will expire on October 5th. And so usually it takes a day or two to get the emergencies up to the mayor to get signed. My hope and expectation is that there won't be a gap over the course of a weekend. So, so long as we pass it today, the temp today and the emergency October 7th and have the mayor sign it immediately, um hopefully there won't be any experience gap, but there'll be technically a few days of gap. >> Understood. And then for my statement, um I know there's a lot of feelings around this. Uh we have and my I've received a lot of impassioned uh testimony concerns from residents around creating a pipeline. uh to lock up our young people. Um what we know to be true is not one single district youth has been uh arrested uh due to these curfew zones. What they serve as is a necessary tool for MPD to disrupt um large groups of young people congregating in areas of the city. Um, and so that's one point I think we ought to stress. As the chairperson of the committee on youth affairs that has oversight of DRS, I can also confirm uh, and we have checked in on this repeatedly. There's not been one young person that has spent an extended period of time at DRS YSC in particular. The policy, how it works is that MPD asks young people to leave. If they don't leave, they then take them to their parents. if they can't contact a parent, they then go to a holding place often YSC uh until a parent can be reached. Even in those instances, there have been very few examples where a young person uh has ended up in a holding pattern, not detained, locked away at YSC uh but just hope held there until they are uh in touch with their parent. Why am I bringing all this up? People have very valid concerns, especially in the environment that we're in. I think it is really important, especially given the threats facing the district, the rhetoric and the threats coming from Congress, that we use every example and tool available to us to disrupt dangerous behavior and putting our young people in harm's way. So, I do plan to support this. Uh I welcome uh continued conversations with community advocates who have very valid concerns. I am just stressing that uh those concerns, albeit valid, are not playing out in reality. and this is in fact a tool to disrupt what we're seeing play out with our young people. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Lewis George. >> Uh thank you. Um and I appreciate Council Member Parker's remarks. Um I am of the um concern in my community is extra concern. Um, we have been taking the brunt of federal um, interactions in Ward 4, particularly, not to discount anybody else, but even just this morning, a school uh, Eio Haynes students coming to and from school uh, was faced with federal um, enforcement around them with with literally um, guns and uh, there are pictures everywhere. Um, because of that, for me, I'm not going to vote uh for this because I am very concerned that expanding and extending this provision will be used as a pretext uh to stop and detain or lock up more of our young black and brown residents and put them on a path that could likely destroy their futures. Um, I think we could argue whether it's happening on the ground in reality or not. I think it's the for us my I have a community grappled in fear um and students walking to or from school uh particularly um where their parents may not be able to walk with them because of their vulnerabilities. Uh so for me um that is the reason why I believe that uh this is a particular moment in time where I don't want to give federal law enforcement any pretext to cause harm to any of our black and brown youth or their families any more than the harm that has already been caused continuously and constantly even as of today. even for my community as every hour there is has been an instant. So, I appreciate you all your remarks here. I think we all have to find a balance. I only can speak to the the fear that my community is grappling with in this moment. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I can certainly appreciate um this summer or I guess at the start of the summer when we implemented this, there were a number of issues and things like that that were going on. One of my concerns about us quickly extending this curfew is because as council member Pinto noted, while there have been no arrests in these juvenile zones that have been established, part of that is because there have been community organizations who work with young people who have deployed teams to these areas each and every time we have set up these zones to try to tell young people it's time to get on the metro, it's time to go. And so while there has not actually been a young person who's been detained in the zone, there has been an evidence of a case where an adult who was trying to protect young people was detained and arrested in the zone. Um, and these community organizations are telling us that they don't have the resources at this moment to continue to deploy the same type of curfew teams that they have been doing well into the fall. And frankly, I think we, you know, we do one emergency and then we do it again, then we come back in the spring and do it again. Um, this is kind of happening in sort of perpetuity. Um, I understand for the communities where um, they have been asking for some particular help here. But I I just want to underscore that it hasn't just been because a young person read the press release and said, "Oh, there's a juvenile zone happening this weekend. let me not go down to the wararf or let me not go down to Navyyard. But there have been actual community organizations who have been dispensing information to young people to let them know and redirecting them when some of them don't know and find themselves in those areas. And so, um, I'm not going to be able to support this today for that very reason because I feel like with if I got all these organizations telling me they don't have the resources and we continue to do this now with additional federal agents and troops and all of these different things, I feel like we're we are creating a conflict here where we don't have the infrastructure to ensure that the young people remain safe and not in harm's way. Thank you. Council member uh Henderson, >> you just spoke. See, I I we're having too much fun down here. Uh Council Member Bonds, >> thank you very much, Chairman. I wanted to ask um Council Member Pinto um the time frame for this um curfew. Is this is it now 11:00 p.m. every night or what is the time frame? >> I think it's 11. >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. Um, so it makes it 11 p.m. on weekend days. It was 12:00 p.m. on weekend days, okay? >> And it's 11 p.m. on weekdays. So now it's just consistent 11 p.m. That's the only real change that's kind of in perpetuity. The other piece is just the authorization to declare a zone. And I would, you know, I'm I'm moved by hearing my colleagues talk about the the different reactions in the um community member group. I would love to hear more about that story because that was the first time I had heard that and that um sounds awful. I also think in this context, especially with the additional federal interference in our city, I'm so sorry, Council Vans, you're so you're so right. This is your time. Please go ahead. Well, thank you very kindly, Councilwoman. I, you know, I thought that the um time frame was 11 p.m. every night of the week now. And I guess as um a former very active parent, um I can see this as this is a safety measure for our young people. 11 PM every day. We're saying don't be in these zones. We're saying be close to home. I won't say what my dad would say when I was growing up and what I said to my kids, but when it's dark, you're inside the gate, okay? But I think this is a safety measure and I'm hoping that many will see it as a safety measure for our kids. Thank you, chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member Bonds. I think that concludes all the discussion on the amendment. The amendment is before us. This is Council Member Pinto's amendment to add the curfew language to the volunteer services clarification temporary amendment act. We'll remind folks that this will require a third reading on the Volunteer Services Clarification Temporary Amendment Act. On the amendment, Can we do the roll call? On the amendment >> on amendment I believe >> all those in favor say I. >> I >> Iman please record me as voting no. >> What's that? >> Please record me as voting no. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, please report record me as as voting no. >> Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Chairman, please record me as voting no. >> Just over here. just louder. >> My mic's not >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting now. >> Everyone's still on the record. >> Uh Madame Secretary, the um amendment is approved with council members Lewis, George, NTO, Robert White, Tran White, and Henderson being recorded as no. We have the bill as amended before us. Further discussion on the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is we're now on emergency legislation special education for young adults in the custody of the department of corrections. Second emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-296. Council member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDIDA, the district law, student age residents who are in DOC custody are entitled to receive special education and related services if they were previously identified as a student with a disability or had an individualized education plan. Since school year 2021 to 2022, the council has passed emergency and temporary legislation to designate DOC as the district agency responsible for providing these services with the understanding that DOC would contract Maya Angelou public charter schools to provide these needed services. The temporary legislation is currently in effect for school year 24 to 25. Therefore, emergency and temporary legislation is needed to extend the designation of DOC as the responsible agency for school year 2025 266 to ensure that DOC can continue its contract with Maya Angelou Public Charter Schools for the current school year while the permanent legislation moves through the legislative process. Legislation to permanently designate DOC as the agency responsible for providing a FAPE to youth in DOC custody was introduced with a hearing last council period and will be reintroduced soon. I will add that it is very important that we finalize this agreement and get it to the finish line um after we get through today. With that, I move the emergency declaration. >> Uh thank you, council member. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-348. Council member Pinto. >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Discussion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. The eyes have it unanimously. PR26-297, Community Health Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2025. Council Member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm moving this emergency to ensure that all district residents continue to have access to reliable and safe and effective immunizations as we head into respiratory disease season here in the District of Columbia and across the country. Vaccines are evidence-based, safe and extremely effective tools uh to protect the public from severe illness and death from infectious diseases. Even though certain populations like seniors, children's and those who are imu immuno compromised are more likely to become severely ill, a basic tenant of public health is that vaccines work best when everyone including healthy individuals are vaccinated. Alarmingly, in recent months, the federal government has moved away from scientific consensus and created uncertainty and confusion about the future of evidence-based federal vaccine recommendations. This has led to several large pharmacy chains announcing that they would not offer certain vaccines in some states including the district where local laws tie pharmacists ability to ad independently administer a vaccine to federal recommendations. With this bill, DC will join several states in making the regulatory changes necessary to protect residents access to safe and effective vaccines. This emergency will allow for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to administer vaccines recommended by a competent medical or public health organization as designated by the Department of Health. This could include, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, which have issued their own science-based vaccine recommendations for this fall. It also aligns um language in our consent for vaccines for minors law with this new standard. I want to note that although the emergency does not address insurance coverage for vaccines, the National Trade Group for Health Insurance Companies, also known as AHIP, um announced yesterday that they will continue to cover all currently recommended vaccines, including this year's COVID and flu vaccines through the end of 2026. Additionally, DC's Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking announced today that they are requiring DC plans to cover these vaccines with no cost sharing requirements. We applaud these decisions by both DISBY and the health plans which will ensure that vaccines remain affordable for our residents with private and public insurance. If the emergency is improved, I do urge our general counsel and secretar's office to expedite transmitting it as soon as possible to the mayor so that she can sign it by the end of the week. Our pharmacies are waiting for approval before they can stock and administer these critical vaccines. Right now, our residents are having to travel to Maryland. So, thank you and I encourage all of um my colleagues to approve this declaration and the underlying bill. So, move, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Henderson. Is there discussion on the declaration? >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Chair, Council Member Fman, and then Allen. >> Uh I I just want to thank Council Member Henderson for moving this. Uh I've heard from dozens of people who are facing confusion about where to go to get a vaccine and the barriers at localarmacies and it has been helpful to be able to say that today we were going to be voting on emergency legislation. So thank you very much for bringing this forward. >> Council member Allen. >> Thank you. Feels like RFK has had a large imprint on your dayto-day. Um the I was going to ask uh first I'll I'll echo what my colleague said. I appreciate that we're we're addressing this legislation today and doing so quickly. Um like I think probably a lot of us over the last week or so I've gotten a lot of parents reaching out just asking for guidance, asking what we're doing and so being able to point them to this which I hope this passes unanimously were able to to point them to this action. What I was going to ask if you could share a little bit more though about how our our parents and community members should should expect this to get rolled out and communicated. You talked about making sure that um and I agree we need to I I would love to have the chairman commit that we can transmit this to the mayor uh by the end of the day tomorrow so that on Friday it can be signed and start the wheels in motion that needs to happen. Um, but from a standpoint of making sure that we can communicate effectively to to the city, to our residents, to pharmacies, to providers, what are some of the wheels that have to be moving so that by next week people are able to uh have confidence in getting vaccines? >> Thanks for that question, Council Member Allen. So, like I said, the initial process obviously is for us to engross the bill and transmit it to the mayor's office. Uh I'm hopeful that the mayor will not take the full aotted time that she has before signing emergencies and that they move um very quickly. Um then uh after it's signed, the director of DC health will have to send a letter to all the pharmacies. Um luckily the director has already drafted this letter. So we're actually just waiting in terms of the signature from that standpoint. Um, and also I just want to say, um, we have already been communicating with our large pharmacy chains to let them know that this is what we were planning to do. So, we've had conversations with CVS. They've reviewed this legislation and feel like this is what they need in order to be able to move forward. So, everyone is anticipating us to sort of take action. Um, and so I'm very hopeful that the bureaucratic process does not slow us down and that by next week we're able to move forward. Um I will say um the ASIP uh the advisory committee on immunizations is meeting this week and so um while this is an emergency bill and and we do have a temporary we're going to introduce uh permanent legislation um but there might be some additional changes that need to be made in light of um some of the rumored changes that that new panel might decide to make in terms of other safe and effective critical vaccines. Thank you. That was perfect and thank you very much. And I feel like I I could see Opel just really excited to move this as fast as possible on their side. Um Mr. Chairman, I hope we can get this engrossed and transferred um over for signature. And um I think uh councelor Anderson, if there are ways in which um Deputy Mayor Turnage or others can also just help have the type of communication that all of us I know are probably having lots of community members reaching out and asking about this. So if there is um language we're all able to help promote and share, I think it'll be great. so we get the word out quickly. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Allen. Further on the declaration, we have the declaration before us. All those in favor say I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Please mark me as president. >> Uh the eyes have it. The it's approved unanimously with council member Tran White uh noted as present. >> Uh on the underlying bill, bill 26-350. Council member Henderson. >> So moved, Mr. Determined >> discussion um on the bill. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> Please mark me as present. >> The eyes have it unanimously. The bill is approved and council member White is noted as present. The next measure is PR26-298. Robert F. Kennedy campus redevelopment emergency declaration resolution of 2025. So moved and the underlying bill will be conformed to the permanent version that we've approved. Is there discussion on the declaration? I would explain the nape to what the bill's about, but I think we know. Uh I will say though that we want this implemented as quickly as possible so that there are no further delays with regard to the um moving forward with this project. There's no further discussion. The vote is on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. I >> I uh are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please report. >> Me too. >> Uh the eyes have it. Council members Robert White and NDO will be recorded as voting no. Uh on the underlying bill again uh so moved. The underlying bill will reflect all of the amendments that were approved on the uh permanent bill. discussion. Uh the vote is on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> No. >> I. >> I haven't asked for the nos yet. Are there any no votes? >> No. >> Uh I believe that's council members. >> White and the excuse me being recorded as no. Uh the eyes have it. Uh, first responder retention efforts emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-299. >> Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'd like to move to postpone this measure until the legislative meeting on October 7th. >> Uh, there's a motion to postpone, >> but I am introducing tonight a permanent version of this bill. Uh, so there's a motion to postpone this bill to October 7th. All those in favor of postponement to October 7th say yes or say I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh, we have working conditions. I'm about to use a horrible. Give me a second here. right hand. Sorry. The uh next measure, compensation and working conditions agreement between the District of Columbia government and the Fraternal Order of Police Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee Emergency Decoration Resolution 2025. Madam Secretary, what's the PR number? Do you know? It's PR26-301. Uh so moved. I'm moving this I think actually I'm moving this with council member Bonds at the request of the mayor. Uh this declaration authorizes uh consideration of the resolution to approve the uh collective bargaining agreement uh that covers I believe the last two years plus FY26. I think that's correct. Um I don't have the notice right in front of me even though I have it somewhere. I think the cost is approximately three a little over $300 million over the life of the financial plan. Uh it's a 13% increase in the pay as of October 1st. There's also a retroactive uh payment that will take a month or a little bit longer to process. The 13% is calculated as increases in 24 25 and 26. Those are years uh 24 25 and 26. But since we are uh at the verge of FY26 that's why it's 13% on the on October 1st and then a retroactive payment will be made. Um I think I'll leave it at that. Council member Bonds, do you want to add? >> Um, just want to reiterate what we had discussed previously during the breakfast and that is that the workforce fund is um loaded to take care of this cost. In other words, the funds are there with the anticipation that through arbitration there would be a decision in time for us to move um the um cost to or move the expenditures to the um police department members. Thank you chairman. >> Uh thank you council member. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. I'll move the underlying resolution which I believe is PR26-302. So moved. Uh is there discussion? Uh the vote would be on that. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26- 307 which is uh salary schedule changes for non-union uniform police officials of the Metropolitan Police Department emergency declaration resolution of 2025. So moved. This authorizes our um consideration of the next resolution which would approve a revised SCA salary schedule which means a pay increase for the non-union uniform police officials of the police department. Um these two measures, the one we just approved and this one before us now, uh go together to increase the pay that we're giving to Metro and Police Department. uh which is a good thing so that we remain competitive and uh do not hinder efforts to recruit more police since we know that our police levels are below what we want them to be. Is there discussion on the declaration? Council member Bonds, do you want to add anything? >> No. Um chairman, um I think the um cost is about 30 u million I believe >> over the financial Uh the vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Chairman, can you chairman? Can you record me as present? >> Uh the eyes have it unanimously and council member Lewis George will be recorded as present on the underlying resolution PR26-308. So moved. Is there discussion? The vote will be on that. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Mr. Chairman, please report me as president. >> The eyes have it unanimously and council member Lewis George will be recorded as present. Temporary legislation. If there's no objection, we'll move two of these in block. Special education for young adults in the custody of the Department of Corrections, Second Emergency Amendment Act. It says emergency, but it should say temporary. That's bill 26-349 and then Community Health Temporary Amendment Act of 2025, bill 26-351. Hearing no objection. Moved them both. They're both before us. Is there discussion? on the two temporary bills. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Remember present. >> The eyes have it unanimously and council member White will be recorded as present. That's going to conclude the business of this meeting. The next legislative meeting will be October 7th. That will be a Tuesday. I know that we're getting used to Wednesday meetings, even Friday meetings, but our next meeting will be on Tuesday, October 7th. And let me note, um, this is not a guarantee, but folks should not count on there being two legislative sessions a month. So, if you got stuff for later in October that you can move on October 7th, plan that. Just saying. There may still be an additional meeting, but that concludes the business. Thank you everyone. Welcome back from recess. The time is 6:44 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned. >> Thanks. Hopefully uh just a reminder you still plan to come let me know when I try. >> Oh, is that tonight? >> Yeah. Um, >> you said to the attorney what whether or not we'd be subject to shut Did he call you?