I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a meeting of the committee of the whole of the council of the District of Columbia. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council and chair of the committee of the whole. This is an additional committee of the whole meeting meeting. It's not a regularly scheduled meeting. Uh, and this meeting will be followed by the regular legislative meeting of the council for the month of July. Today is Tuesday, July 1st, 2025. The time is 12:59 in the afternoon and we're meeting in room 500 at the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. Today's meeting of the committee the whole as well as the legislative meeting to follow are being broadcast on cable television channel 13 and also is available on the council's website www.dcounsel.gov. Uh we always begin our committee the whole meetings figuring out whether we have a quorum. Mr. Cash, would you call the role? Chairman Mendlesson present. Council member Allen here. Council member Bonds here. Council member Felder present. Council member Fman present. Council member Henderson here. Council member Lewis George here. Council member McDuffy here. Council member Nado here. Council member Parker here. Council member Pinto present. Council member White present. Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. Uh thank you Mr. Cash. We have two measures for markup in the committee the whole and then we have three measures four measures that were reported out of other committees. Uh the first measure which is for markup is bill 26-2261. I'll repeat that. Bill 26-261 fiscal year 2026 federal portion budget request act of 2025. I'm going to go over a little on the three minutes because I want to uh for the for the benefit of the public explain what we're doing here. Um, this legislation sets forth the district government's request to Congress for federal funding to support the district's budget for fiscal year 2026. It also requests funding for federal agencies that serve district residents and other entities. The district has had the authority to raise its own revenue since 1973. Prior to the enactment of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, however, a significant portion of the district's budget was comprised of an annual payment from the federal government to the district. This payment grew to approximately $660 million annually in the mid 1990s and constituted approximately 16%, that's one six, 16% of the district's total budget. With the 1997 revitalization act and because of the district's strong financial management, federal payments made exclusively to the district government have shrunk dramatically. Of the district's fiscal year 2026 operating budget as proposed by Mayor Bowser, the vast majority of the budget is raised locally through district taxes and fees or derived from other local sources. Most of the rest is federal formula spending that includes Medicaid and federal grants available to all jurisdictions and for which the federal government has no oversight responsibility unique to the district. Overall, between local gen locally raised revenues and these federal formula payments, approximately 99% of the district's budget is derived from local revenue and from federal formula grants not unique to the district. Less than 1% comes from the f from federal payments specifically requested for local programs or projects. Again, less than 1% compared to in the 1990s approximately 16%. The district can rely on a stable foundation of local funding even though it suffers from a constrained tax base. Our tax base is constrained in part because nearly half of the land in the district is federal or international and therefore taxexempt. The total foregone tax revenue on this property is estimated at $2.11 billion. That's annual foregone tax revenue because of exemptions due to the presence of the federal and international governments. The district is also prohibited by the home act from taxing income at its source. This so-called commuter tax prohibition not only deprivives the district of the power of other municipalities and states to tax income earned within their jurisdiction by non-residents. It also deprivives a res the district of tax revenues that would otherwise inure to it because DC residents who work in are taxed in other states can take a credit against the income tax they would otherwise pay to the district. Nevertheless, the district maintains a strong economic record supported by adherence to responsible financial management and fiscal discipline. This is evidenced by the minimal reliance on a federal payment. Uh and for example, our retirement funds and post-employment benefits combined are the best funded in the nation. The 1997 revitalization act um um has required that the district maintain two reserve funds uh an emergency reserve and a contingency reserve. However, the district has established two additional reserve funds, a cash flow reserve and a fiscal stabilization reserve. As of September 30th, 2024, the end of the last fiscal year, the funds in these reserves were equal to 52 days of operating costs. Uh, this legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on May 27th and the committee of the whole held a public hearing on this bill on June 18th of this year. I do want to go through most of the sections in the bill. So this bill is a request to Congress to provide the courts, the District of Columbia courts, $282 million76,000. Uh and this in a number of ways is in addition to what the president's request was. Um in addition, a federal payment for court services of $310.8 million. Excuse me. That's for uh the federal payment for court so court services and offender supervision agency Cosa for the public defender service $ 105 million. I'm rounding these numbers for the tuition assistance grant program $40 million for school improvement which is the three sectors DCPS to public charter schools and the voucher program federal voucher program $52.5 million. This is all what our request is. uh in this legislation uh for the early childhood educator fund, $5 million. This is the amount that we calculate uh necessary to supplement the salaries of eligible early childhood educators at child care facilities sponsored by federal agencies. Uh for the University of the District of Columbia, $9 million for improvements to research infrastructure. Uh for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, $ 8.2 million uh for the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure and the Judicial Nomination Commission, a total of $1 million. I'm rounding these dollars a little bit. Uh for the National Guard, this is just a portion, $600,000 for testing and treatment of HIV AIDS, $4 million for the emergency planning and security uh fund. Uh $71 million. This amount is more than twice the amount requested by the president and reflects the costs incurred through the district's provision of public safety at events related to the city's status as the nation's capital, including support requested by the Secret Service and carrying out protective duties and support to respond to terrorist threats or attacks in the region. Included in this request again of $71 million is reimbursement for estimated $11 million of the district spent securing the June 14th military parade commemorating the 250th anniversary of the US Army. uh for the DC uh water and sewer authority, $20 million to support the continued implementation of the combined sewer overflow long-term control plan. Uh for WADA, $158 million to provide capital support for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Uh in addition, the following sections are legislative language requests uh compensation for the chief financial officer to enable uh the council or maybe I should say the district government to increase the salary of the chief financial officer. I can't remember what down here I can't remember what it is now, but it's um below what it should be. And um the next section four is um just clarification with regard to um budget request act responsibilities in terms of the process. Uh section five if enacted would provide that withdrawals from contingency cash reserve fund greater than $500,000 must be approved by the council by resolution. Section six would authorize the district to collect sales tax on places such as the Smithsonian museum gift shops and government building cafeterias. Section seven would adjust the uh DC TAG program to allow grant recipients up to $15,000 a year and $75,000 a lifetime uh as tuition assistance grants. Uh section 8 would uh request Congress to amend the law to increase the number of seats on the board of elections to five from the current three. Section 9 uh changes the process if Congress were to adopt this for the appointment of judges to the um our superior court as well as the court of appeals. Essentially, when the president submits a nomination, the nomination would be deemed approved after, I believe it's 30 days, unless the Senate acts to the contrary. There's a section that requires the Bureau of Prisons to uh uh provide reports to us, including uh the in release dates for individuals. Section 11 uh asks Congress to adopt legislation that has previously been pending to um forgive the rent for the National Children's Museum in the Reagan building. Section 12 would allow the council to electronically transmit legislation to the House and Senate for congressional review. Sections 13 and 14 would require the public defender service and CEOs to submit their annual budget requests to the mayor and the council as well as to the president. Not that we would adopt them but it would enable us to better understand what their budgetary needs are. That is the quick summary of the print. Uh I move the print with leave for staff to make technical conform and conforming changes. Is there discussion? Council member Pinto. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for assembling this list. I just wanted to highlight um one item on here, which is the justice system. um not the justice system as we know it CE, but justice with an S, which is the database that all of our public safety partners use to collate a lot of the data that we've been talking about today and um to just have the basic functioning of our criminal justice system alive and well. So, I really just want to lift up how important it is to to get that funded and thank you for for including this here um through CJCC. Uh thank you. Uh any further with regard to this measure? Uh the vote will be on the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. All those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the report? All those in favor say I. I. I Are there any opposed? Uh, the eyes have it unanimously. Uh, Mr. Deputy, no. Uh, Madame General Counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Yes, it is. Mr. Deputy Secretary, or is the secretary here? Madam Secretary? Yes, sir. Madam Secretary, is the record complete once the report is filed? And madame budget director, madame deputy budget director, madame budget counsel, does the measure fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? Yes. Is there a fiscal impact? No. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh, the next measure for markup is bill 26-280 entitled the Reverend Dr. Judy Talbert Way Designation Act of 2025. This bill would symbolically designate Alabama Avenue Southeast between Hartford Street and Gainesville Street as Reverend Dr. Judy Talbert Way. Location is in Ward 8. It's a symbolic naming. for ceremonial purposes and shall be in addition to and subordinate to any name that is an official name. Judy Talbert was born in the district in September 1945. She attended Howard University and later the Washington Bible College. Reverend Dr. Talbert was the pastor of the Faith Tabernacle of Prayer in Southeast, a role she began serving in 1959. She was a pioneering preacher and community leader dedicating her time to helping at risk populations including the homeless returning citizens and persons living with HIV and AIDS. She was a co-chair of the governing ecclesiastical board of the tabernacle of prayer. Reverend Dr. Talbert was also an advocate on a number of fronts and serving as executive director of the reintegrating alternatives personal program, a nonprofit re-entry organization focusing on outreach to families affected by incarceration of loved ones. She also founded the Feed and Lead program which provided weekly food and clothing to needy families and shelters throughout the Washington area. Reverend Dr. Talbert also directed a fatherhood initiative program that councled custodial and non-custodial parents throughout the district. She served as president of the Joe Arthur Talbert Jr. Foundation founded in memory of her son to promote organ donor awareness and provide scholarships for young people to further their education. She was a member of Mayor Tony Williams faith advisory council and served on the presidential prayer breakfast committee for President Clinton. She also served as a member of President Obama's National AfricanAmerican Clergy Network. She passed away on August 19th, 2018. Reverend Dr. Talbert was an integral part of the Faith Tabernacle of Prayer, which is located along Alabama Avenue between Hartford Street and Gainesville, the street proposed, the street segment proposed for designation. This symbolic designation is a fitting way to honor her legacy of leadership in both the church and the community. This legislation was first introduced in July 2024 by then council member Trayon White. The committee of the whole held a hearing on December 19th, 2024. I reintroduced this measure on June 13th of this year. Uh without objection, I move both the print and report would leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the motion which is both the print and report with Leaf for staff? All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The U print and report are approved unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete once the report is filed? Madam budget director, Madam Budget Council, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? Yes, it does. Is there a fiscal impact? No. Um, without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the July 14th additional legislative meeting. We will turn now to measures from other committees. The first three are from the committee on transportation and the environment chaired by council member Charles Allen. Uh they are PR26-171 District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors Robert Hawkins confirmation resolution at 2025 PR26-173 District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors Dr. Jimmy Ortiz, confirmation resolution at 2025. NPR26-174, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, Dr. Alexander McFale, confirmation resolution at 2025. Not sure if I said this without objection, these will be presented in block. Council member Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And hearing no objection, I am moving all three in block. Proposed resolutions 26-171, 26-173, and 26-174 were introduced by you at the request of the mayor on April 9th, 2025. PR26-171 and PR26-174 would appoint Robert Hawkins and Dr. Alexander McFale, respectively, as alternative members of the DC Waterboard for terms to end September 12th, 2028. PR26-173 would appoint Dr. Jimmy Ortiz is an alternate member of the DC water board for a term to end September 16th, 2027. All nominees have confirmed to be fulfilling the remainder of existing four-year terms. The committee held a round table on all three resolutions on May 8th, 2025. Mr. Hawkins and Dr. McFale joined the round table and testified in person. Dr. Ortiz was unable to attend that round table in person, but met with me separately to discuss his qualifications for and interest in the position. Mr. Rob Hawkins currently serves as a senior adviser in Berlin Rosen's municipal lobbying practice. for that he was a partner and chair of the DC government relations practice at Nelson Mullins. Prior to entering the private sector, Mr. Hawkins held several positions with the district government from 2008 to 2017, including legislative and committee staff roles here at the council. Mr. Hawkins has extensive board experience, much of which is connected with the district government. He has served as a board member of the Anacostia bid commissioner at the commission on selection and tenure of administrative law judges. He's been a steering committee member for the DC affairs community at the DC bar. He has been a team lead for the mayor's coronavirus reopening committee. He's been the vice chair of the mayor's working group on jobs, wages, and benefits and the director of the DC Greens board. Mr. Hawkins earned his bachelors of arts from Virginia Tech and his jurist doctor from the University of Pittsburgh and he is a W3 resident. Dr. Jimmy Ortiz currently serves as the president and CT CEO of Zitro 360 Group LLC, which is an international governmental relations and educational consulting firm. Dr. Dr. Ortiz started his career at the United States Postal Service, beginning as a letter carrier on the night shift in New York City. Since then, he's held close to two dozen policy operational managerial and business development positions, including in New York, Puerto Rico, and Washington DC. In 2016, he was part of the US Postal Service operation delegation that reestablished direct mail exchanges between Cuba and the US. Most recently, he oversaw international relations for the United States Postal Service right here in the district. Dr. Ortiz serves as or has served as a member of several boards and advisory committees including the UPU Express Mail Service Cooperative Board, president of Prospanica DC, chair of two committees of the Postal Union of the Americas, Spain and Portugal, and the Advisory Board of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund 21 and Group O2. Dr. Cortiz earned his associate degree in accounting from the state university of New York, his bachelor of arts in industrial and governmental accounting from the city university of New York and his mers of science administration from central Michigan University and his PhD in international business administration from Universityad Phil Delitas. He is a w 6 resident. That brings us Dr. McFale. Dr. McFale worked at the World Bank for 33 years where he specialized in water sector lending operations infrastructure economics and public utility financing and management. After retiring from the World Bank in 2021, he served as an independent consultant for the water sector. Dr. McFale also served as a member of the board for six years in a prior term. During this previous tenure, he chaired the customer service committee and was a member of the operations and audit committees. As a board member, he regularly helped develop the utilities policies and procedures from strategic direction to promoting the procurement of minority and womenowned contractors. He also helped to guide the utilities over $2 billion 10-year capital program. While on the board, Dr. McFale initiated low-income bill assistance fund and led a board initiative to replace lead service lines. He serves as a board member for the Water Research Foundation and Asset Management Committee and the American Waterworks Association. Dr. McFale earned his bachelor's of science and business administration from Portland State University and both his bachelors of arts in social change and development and his PhD in environmental engineering from Johns Hopkins University. He is a W4 resident. I was very impressed with all the candidates during our roundt and our meetings based on their backgrounds and experience as well as their testimony during the round table. I'm supportive of all their nominations today and urge my colleagues to do the same. I should also note with these alternative member appointments only one district alternative seat remains vacant. Having a fully constituted DC water board is essential to the smooth operations of DC water and to ensure that DC representation is full. And I want to commend the executive for moving to fill these vacancies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I ask the nominees be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow. Uh, thank you, Council Member Allen. Are there questions from members? Madam general counsel, are these three measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Yes, they are. Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each? Yes, madame budget council, do the measures fiscal impact statements comply with council requirements? No fist is required because these are confirmations. Correct. Correct. Uh without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh, the last measure for agendaizing on this meeting is PR26-178, Real Property Tax Appeals Commission, Frank Sanders, Jr. Confirmation Resolution 2025, reported out of the Committee on Business and Economic Development, chaired by Council Member Kenya McDuffy. Council Member McDuffy. Thank you, Chairman. Uh on April 21st, 2025, uh Chairman Mendlesson introduced proposed resolution 26-178 at the request of the mayor. The resolution was referred to the committee on business and economic development on April 22nd, 2025. The committee held a public hearing on the resolution on June 17, 2025 and a markup on June 25th of this year. Uh, this proposed resolution would confirm the reappointment of Frank Sanders Jr. as commissioner of the Real Property Tax Appeals Commission for a term to end on April 30th, 2029. Mr. Sanders has a had a long career in the real estate industry in various roles. He has served on the commission since July of 2012 and has heard over 10,000 commercial residential cases. Mr. Sanders received a bachelor of business administration and finance from the Lyola University of Chicago and he is a ward 4 resident. With that, I move the resolution. Thank you, council member. Are there questions from members? Madame general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete? Yes, it is. Um, and Madame Budget Council, this is a confirmation. So, there is no fiscal impact statement. Correct. Objection. This measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. That's going to conclude the business for this committee, the whole meeting. Uh, we will start the legislative meeting. Nobody should disappear from the deis. We will start the legislative meeting in five minutes. The time is 124 p.m. and this meeting's adjourned. I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. It's our 11th legislative meeting of council period 26 and let me see I'm Phil Mendlesson, chair of the council. Today is Tuesday, July 1st, 2025. The time is 1:31 in the afternoon. We are meeting in room 500, the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. This meeting is we call it a hybrid meeting although I believe all the council members are present in person and this uh meeting is available to the public live on council channel cable television 13 as well as the council's website www.dcconsil.gov. Uh this is a regular uh monthly meeting of the council and we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence and a moment of reflection. I asked everyone in the chamber as well as on the deest respect a moment of silence. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? Council member Allen here. Council member Bonds here. Council member Felder present. Council member Freeman present. Council member Henderson here. Council member Lewis George here. Council member McDuffy here. Chairman Mendelson present. Council member Njo here. Council member Parker here. Council member Pinto present. Council member White present. Mr. Chairman Yavorn. Uh thank you Madam Secretary. Uh we have the consent agenda before us. I'm going to ask if there are any changes. But before I recognize anyone, I believe uh bill 26-204, safe passage training and school engagement amendment act will be removed. Council member Pinto, you have an amendment. Safe passage. Yes. So that'll be removed. And I'm also going to remove uh PR26-261 uniform college athlete name, image, and likeness congressional review emergency. Uh because uh council member White has recused himself on that. Are there any other changes? Council member Pinto, did you want to be recognized? Any other changes to consent agenda? Are there? I'm asking. All right, let me go to Council Member Lewis George. Thank you. U Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pull PR26247 and bill 26293 off of today's agenda. OGC has confirmed this DGS contract with DLR group does not require council approval at this time. Are there any other changes to the consent agenda? All right. I will I will review all of it. Uh so on page two at the top item B2 safe passage training and school engagement is removed from the consent agenda. Same page item D1 which is uniform college athlete name image or likeness. Both the declaration and the emergency amendment act are removed from consent. On page four. Council member Lewis George, make sure I've got this right. On page four, items two and three, PR26-247 and says here, bill 26-293. There's two. Yeah. Oh, uh, it's just that one measure, those the declaration and the emergency, correct? um is removed from consent. Well yeah. No, that can't be removed off the agenda until we get to it. Uh so that's PR26-247 and bill 26-293 are removed from consent. And that's it. There are no other changes to the consent agenda. The vote will be on the consent agenda as amended. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Madam Secretary, I forgot to do the reports. I was so excited. Uh I apologize to members. We took the consent agenda out of order. It's still legitimate. We still voted for it. Um, we'll go back to uh the secretary's report of committee reports and I'm going to recognize the chair prom council member McDuffy. Thank you, chairman. I would move to wave the reading of the secretary's report. It's been a motion to wave the reading of the report. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We also have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. Again, I'm going to recognize the chair prom council member McDuffy. And I will move to wave the reading of the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. So in a motion to wave the reading, is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. On page two, Bill 26-204, Safe Passage, Training, and School Engagement Amendment Act of 2025, bill 26-204. Council Member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm moving an amendment today to the Safe Passage Training and School Engagement Amendment Act 2025, which just makes technical corrections to the bill to amend the initial law that established the program at the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice's office. The engrossed version of the bill amended an unfunded portion of bill 24-66 which established a safe passage safe blocks program at the office of deputy mayor for education. But since that bill was passed, the council has since moved the safe passage safe blocks program from the deputy mayor for education's office into the deputy mayor for public safety and justice's office and established the safe passage program under DC law 25-50. um the office of the deputy mayor for public safety and justice establishment act of 2011. So that just makes a technical change to conform with the applicability. Uh we have the amendment before us. If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is accepted. We have the bill as amended. Further discussion. The vote will be on bill 26-204 as amended. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. The eyes have it unanimously. Uh, next is uniform college athlete name, image, or likeness. Congressional review emergency declaration resolution 2025. Uh I move the resolution. Uh this is on non-consent because council member Robert White has uh recused himself on the um earlier versions and so he has left the chamber. Uh I move the declaration. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. I. I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. I move the underlying bill, bill 26-306. Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Uh, the eyes have it unanimously. Council member White, you can come back. Uh, next on the agenda on page four is PR26-247 modification numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and 8 to contract number DCAM-20- AE-0019 with DLR group of DCPC approval and payment authorization emergency declaration resolution 2025. Council member Lewis George. Chairman, I would ask that these be removed from the agenda at this time. Withdrawn. Well, withdrawn. Uh, all right. So, uh, you are asking that this this be withdrawn which has the effect of withdrawing the um underlying bill. Uh, it is withdrawn. Thank you. That gets us to the non-consent agenda. The uh first measure on non-consent is bill 26-53 entitled vacant to vibrant amendment act of 2025. Um did I say bill 26-53 I circulated amendment nature of a substitute. So let's see first. So moved with regard to the bill and now I will move the amendment nature of a substitute. So moved. I will describe it briefly. Uh it makes uh several substantive changes to the bill. Uh first it uh contains language that we received from the District of Columbia Superior Court that uh makes changes to the will registry provisions. First, the amendment nature of a substitute or ANS clarifies that only district residents may deposit wills with the register of wills. Second, the ANS clarifies that a court-appointed guardian conservator guardian adidum or council may examine a testator's will only in circum circumstances such as when a testator is adjudicated incapacitated. Third, when a testator dies, the ANS requires register of wills to transfer a will to the county or state where the deedent is alleged to have lived at the time of death if the testator did not live in the District of Columbia at the time of death. Second, the bill deals with the reclassification of conversion projects. Under current law, commercial to residential conversion project may be reclassified from class 2 to class 1A when a new building permit has been issued. Developers have indicated that it may take months to a year or more to acquire a new building permit after demolition. The building is raised or an excavation takes place, which means the property will still be taxed at a higher rate. This negatively impacts project budgets. As such, the ANS adds additional permits, a raised permit, a demolition permit, a sheeting and shoring permit that may trigger reclassification. Additionally, the ANS clarifies that if the property is not put to predominantly residential use within 3 years of the issuance of a permit, the chief financial officer shall revoke the classification. Next, the ANS grants the office of the attorney general additional authority to decline to file a foreclosure complaint or to dismiss a pending complaint if the foreclosure would result in substantial personal and economic hardship. An interested party intends to reoccupy or rehabilitate the property within one year's time or proceeding with the foreclosure would not be in the interest of the district. If the office of the attorney general declines to file a complaint or dismisses a pending complaint, the ANS requires publication of a notice in the District of Columbia register. And then finally, the ANS revises the applicability provisions in the bill so that the provisions do not have a cost and uh may go in that so that the provisions that do not have a cost may go into effect upon the effective date of the bill. That's what the amendment nature of a substitute does. Uh I've already moved the amendment. Uh this legislation is comprehensive leg legislation or I could say this legislation comprehensively addresses multiple aspects of our uh the situation with vacant property in the district. Uh trying to address and mitigate some of the causes of properties becoming vacant to clarify the law with regard to what happens when a property is identified as vacant. and to give the district government some additional tools so that vacant properties can be more quickly moved back into usefulness. Uh as I said the amendment of substitute is before us. Is there any discussion? The vote will be on the amendment first. All those in favor say I. I I I. That was a little anemic but we'll live with that. Are there any opposed? Hearing no no nos. The eyes have it unanimously on the amendment nature of a substitute. We have the bill as amended before us. Is there discussion? Mr. Chairman. Yes. Council member White. Uh thank you uh chairman and and all the uh council members who co-inttroduced uh this bill. You and your team have have done really important and thoughtful work uh here. Vacant and blighted properties are a big problem in many DC neighborhoods. Uh, but the vacant to vibrant amendment act of 2025 will help keep homes and neighborhoods affordable and livable. Since 2000, DC has seen its stock of lowcost rentals cut in half from 70,600 units to 34,500 units. At least 87% of the city's rental units were built before 1978, making them at high risk for redevelopment and displacement. Meanwhile, the cost of new development is rising. Each affordable unit funded through the H housing production trust fund in 2022 costs over $530,000 more than the costs of many market rate luxury apartments. Preserving existing housing keeps people in their homes and keeps communities together. The city faces a steep budget deficit and we've seen before that digging out of a deficit like this this one can lead to displacement of longtime residents. My family and many others were swept out of DC during the last budget deficit. I don't want this to happen again, and preservation is one of our best and most coste effective tools to keep people in their neighborhoods as the city navigates this budget deficit. I prioritize preservation in the fiscal year 2026 uh budget and housing committee mandating that 30% of housing production trust fund dollars go to preservation and the committee voted unanimously to support these efforts. Now, vacant to vibrant also builds on this effort by reducing urban blight and prioritizing deeply affordable housing. It ensures that neighborhood revi revitalization is guided by the people who live there by empowering community-based organizations, land trusts, and nonprofits. This bill demonstrates how preservation and revitalization promotes inclusive, sustainable growth and remedies decades of disinvestment in marginalized neighborhoods. So, I thank you again for your work on this bill, and I look forward to voting in favor. Uh, thank you. Further discussion on the um on the bill as amended. Uh, the vote will be on the bill, bill 26-53 as amended. All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is bill 26-48 review of agency action clarification amendment act of 2025. And I have an amendment nature of substitute. I guess first I have to say with regard to the bill so moved. I have the amendment nature of a substitute. So moved. The amendment nature of a substitute was circulated yesterday. It's fairly simple. It almost entirely is focused on changing u the word regulations to read rules. The committee print used the terms rule and regulation interchangeably. Turns out that that's not quite how the administrative procedure act is written. For consistency and to avoid confusion, the amendment nature of a substitute replaces all reference references to regulations with references to rules quote unquote. Uh I think there's like one other minor grammatical clarification. Um that's the amendment in substitute. Uh is there discussion on the ANS? All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended before us. Is there discussion on the bill? Bill 26-48. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is disconnect amendment act to 2025 bill 26-73. So moved. Uh I have an a amendment that was circulated yesterday. Uh so moved. Uh the amendment uh restates section four of the bill. The amendment eliminates the negative fiscal impact statement enabling the bill to become law sooner. Uh it speaks to responsibilities of the office of the state superintendent of education or ASI and with this change the um bill will have no fiscal impact. Uh so I move already moved the amendment. Uh is there discussion? Yes, Council Member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I introduced this bill as the Heads Up Distraction Free Learning Amendment Act of 2025. Um, now known as the Disconnect Amendment Act to empower our students and our teachers to get the most from learning in school. And we've talked a lot about the last several weeks and months about how distracting these personal devices are to all of us, but in our classrooms, we need to be making sure that our our kids are learning and engaging with one another when they're at school, but not even in the classroom. And so that's um why I'm very excited to move forward with this bill today. We have come a long way from the initial introduced version and I really appreciate all of the collaboration from you and your team and DCPS and Superintendent Mitchell and charters um and really everyone in the education space um and the state board of education and again want to give a shout out to my ward 2 state board of education colleague Alistister Chang who's worked on this issue for a very long time. Um but the amendment today strikes the majority of the AIE requirements which I understand brings the fifth down to zero which is a good thing. Um my only concern here is that it strikes the requirement for ASI to monitor LEA compliance with the provisions of this bill. One of the main issues that I hear from teachers and school leaders who already have policies in place is that there's very little ability to ensure that students are actually following the policy. And we certainly don't want to creating new ways to punish students, which is why we included language in the original bill to prohibit that. Um, but I am concerned about removing the requirement for AIE to monitor compliance. Um, we we need AIE to step up and be very involved in the monitoriization. So, I I intend to work with you, Mr. chairman and Aussie over the next school year to ensure that we're doing our due diligence and equipping our schools with what they need to make this policy workable because AIE is very important player here and I don't want to be leaving all of this to our school communities without the support that they need. Um, thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you Council Member Pinto and I think it's a fair comment. Uh I'm comfortable with the amendment because I I think that ASI will still play a supervisory role and especially if we are asking questions of ASI. So but uh thank you for those comments. Any other discussion with regard to the amendment uh the vote will Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman Council Parker thank you I have a question and a comment. First the question um couldn't AI theoretically um absorb the cost that would be associated with the disconnect act if they really wanted to. I don't even know how to answer that. Um in other words this is created based on feedback from the agency. I don't know if you heard me. My answer was two buildings and two FTEEs. Um it is no secret amongst us that when an agency wants to wants or when the mayor wants a policy that we think has some burden um they're able because they want it to absorb the cost and when it's a proposal that comes from the council that there's a cost. Uh I think as I said to council Pinto that I think that um AI's role much of ASI's role can be absorbed and we'll see that they will do much of what is in this section. Thank you. I I will make a brief comment. I I just continue to worry that AI isn't serious about this policy. We've received this recommendation from the deputy mayor of education now a couple of years ago that we should advance this. I know council member Pinto worked closely with the executive in crafting her bill and step by step we've seen AI um sidestep its responsibility as the state education agency to implement and monitor this policy. Uh I will say hats off to DCPS for doing what AI refused to do which was move forward this coming school year with implementing school free or cell phone free classrooms. Um charters needed more time. the bill allows for that. I will associate myself with council member Pinto's comments that I am concerned that we're rolling out a policy that our state education agency will not monitor. Um, and to me that suggests that this will be a policy on paper only. Uh, which is essentially our cell phone policy now in schools. And so, uh, I don't support this. Not because uh I think you're making a rational judgment trying to get the fist down, but I think it lets AI off the hook in a way that we should hold them accountable to implementing uh this policy and ensuring it lives up to our desired outcome. Thank you. Uh thank you, Council Member Bonds. Um thank you, Chairman. Um, I just wanted to if we could put on the record how we suppose that ASI is going to monitor this provision, this policy. Do we have they given us any indication as to how they're going to do this task? Well, we know that the language of the bill is approved by the committee. Uh, Ashley said that it was going to cost that they would need an FTE. Um I believe that uh I I believe that this issue of cell phone usage by students in schools is an important aspect of effective education and that uh OIE will be aware as I think many others will be if a school is not implementing a policy or is not enforcing a policy. So I I think we will know and if it's really important to us we will ask the question at oversight hearings and as you know the committee has oversight hearings not just in February but throughout the year so there'll be opportunities. All right. I was just curious as to whether or not they had indicated there would be sort of monthly check-ins with the schools or are they actually going to visit the schools um at you know the time that the students are entering the schools to just see what is going on. I mean the this is a policy that is a very serious policy one that many of us believe in as it is on final reading and it passed the first reading. So I was just really curious if they had given us any indication one of how they're going to mitigate the costs and two what would they be doing that could give an indication that they would be monitoring the process. Well, let me just clarify that. Uh, so there are two parts to this policy, if you will. One is to have a policy, a written policy, and it's easy enough. You just check with the school or the LEA, and you find out whether they have a written policy, and you can look at it and see if it looks like it's reasonable. This has to do with uh students having access to cell phones during the school day. And then the the second part of this is whether the school's actually implementing it. And I think you can get a sense of that pretty quickly if you find out that all the kids are running around in school with their cell phones. So I I think as I said I think we're going to see that this is AI is playing a role. All right. Well that's the kind of response that I was looking for and I think that's the kind of response that the community is looking for. you know, how is this going to be done? So, thank you, chairman. Sure. I think I need to stop looking at one side of the day because everybody keeps raising their hands. Council member Henderson. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just a sort of brief comment on this. Um, we delayed this bill because we had eleas who said that they needed more time. Literally the day after we voted, the largest LEA said, "H, we're going to move forward next school year. We don't need more time. We don't need more money. And what we have now is a a piece of legislation that says that the state superintendent office is going to develop a model policy. Have they said anything about how there will be any sort of inter agency collaboration and and drafting that model policy since DCPS already has one? And usually, although the charters will not admit it, they usually model themselves after DCPS on a variety of different things when it comes um to some of those pieces. I just um I'm going to vote yes, but I I just feel like we need to stay for the record that I have a state education agency that is um essentially stonewalling on something that if DCPS can do it, I'm so unclear as to why everybody else needs more time. Yeah, I don't know that I agree with that characterization. Um, and I think that when we get to a model policy that we may find that DCPS will have to make some adjustments to theirs or maybe theirs will end up being the model policy. Uh, Council Member Henderson, you are no stranger to fiscal impact statements that um get in the way of legislation and this amendment seeks to get past that. I I can appreciate that. But also, you know, we had an agency who said they needed half of a FTE to uh issue waiverss. Like that's cute. Yeah. And I'm not quite sure what I'm not quite sure what a half an FE looks like, but anything further on the amendment. The vote will be on the amendment. All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. Uh, the eyes have it. Uh, we have the bill as amended. Uh, discuss. Oh, I have um I have an oral amendment since we just adopted that. Um, orally, I um am moving to delete the applicability section, which is section five. So that um this is no longer subject to appropriation. If there's no objection, that amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it's accepted. We have the bill as amended before us. So section four was amended. Section five was uh deleted or struck. There's no further discussion. The vote is on bill 26-73 is amended. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Mr. Chairman, please record me as no based on the amended change. Uh, Council Member Parker will be recorded as voting. No. The next bill is bill 26-189 residential tranquility amendment act of 2025. Council member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased that this bill was approved on first reading and ask my colleagues to support this meeting. I mean this bill on on second reading. Um it is a very limited tool to address a challenge of amplification of noise overnight in residential communities targeting a residence. It's very narrowly crafted um and I think is an important balanced approach to move forward. So, I ask my colleagues to support this measure today. Uh, Council Member Pence, I got a little distracted. You just moved the bill. Okay. Is there discussion on the bill? Uh, Mr. Chairman, I've circulated an amendment as well. Uh, Council Member Nadau and I um uh Thank you. going to pass it down. emailed it at 158 p.m. Yes. I thought it would be helpful to my colleagues to have a paper copy. Is that a problem, Madam Secretary? Okay. My apologies. I will collect the math for this to make sure they are recycled. Um, we did also circulate it electronically. Um, but given that this is slightly different than what we discussed at the breakfast, I wanted to make sure people had a chance to read it um, in their preferred way. So, um, this morning I raised an issue with my colleagues, uh, just generally about the way that we handle noise violations and how much work we've done in this body around noncriminal remedies for noise violations. Um, and I do think it's important that we take up this issue of um, amplified sound in residential areas. So, I am largely supportive of the underlying measure. The issue that I was trying to get at this morning was the the um ability for the police to arrest um and uh incarcerate someone for up to 90 days um under the legislation. Things being what they are, I'm not able to move an amendment today to strike that entire thing. But what I I thought would be um helpful to do today uh is to move this amendment. And the amendment clarifies that enforcement of any violations of the residential tranquility amendment act must follow procedures of an order to disperse with appropriate warnings before any arrests are made. Now, there is actually an ability to arrest if folks do not follow the residential if they follows follows if folks do not follow the order to disperse. It's worth noting. Um, but the point here is that there really does need to be a clear protocol that people have the opportunity to leave and receive that warning before any request occurs, hopefully diminishing any potential further harm that could come um from the measure that's before us. So, um, that is my that is my amendment. It is simply to ensure that a dispersal order is made before any arrests when implementing the Residential Tranquility Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you. We have the amendment before us. Uh, Council Member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you for your amendment, Council Member Nadau, and I appreciate the the thought that's gone into this. Um, I would say two things. One is this is not a new piece of the code that we're changing the 90-day period and police enforceability. That was the law. So, I just want everyone to be aware we are changing the the time limits that that applies to. This is not something new that we added around police involvement. Um, but second, most importantly to the to the amendment, it sounds and is very reasonable. It is already the law. So in the dispersal the first amendment dispersal code which is section 5-331.07 uh police handling response to first amendment assemblies require three clearly audible and understandable orders to disperse using an amplification system or device waiting at least two minutes between the issuance of each warning. So I would say while it's a fair point and absolutely police should give people an opportunity to disperse that is the law already um in a more stringent way and so I would argue that the amendment while well while intended is duplicative and u not necessary. Uh thank you further with regard to the amendment. Sure if that's okay Mr. Chairman two minutes. Um I appreciate that. Um, Council Member Pinto, one of the reasons that um that I felt it was important for us to amend your bill with this particular reference um is because um our analysis indicated that while the dispersal order is already law, um the legislation before us is not clear on whether it needs to be followed in these cases. And um additionally, they're in very different sections of the code. Um and the legislation before us has no reference to title 5. Um so this would be really to provide some more assurance to the public that this is absolutely required and also to give a very clear directive to MPD. Um just given some of the um uh potential misunderstanding there could be without us clarifying this as an amendment. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Council Member. Council member Fman. Uh, thank you very much, Chairman Mendlesson. Um, first of all, thank you very much, Council Member Pinto, for coming forward with this legislation. This is a really important problem and challenge. Um, we had situations where houses were targeted early in the morning. uh you know uh a lot of noise, a lot of threatening, menacing behavior, including when children were getting ready to go to school. And there are differences of opinion in this world. That's it's important that people be able to express them. But certain kinds of ways of doing it, including right at someone's home and when their children are in the house. Um, I think we need to act to protect against that and I'm very very grateful to you for your leadership in getting this to where it is today. I I am sympathetic to where council member Nadau is coming from. The language of the bill just talks about there's can be a fine or incarceration. It doesn't speak to a dispersal order intervening. And so I think adding that clarity, it may be that as a practical matter that was already what was happening, but on the face of the legislation, I don't think that was clear. And so I don't think it does any harm to the enforcement structure to clarify it in the bill. And I think it does help in making clear that what we're trying to do is avoid a certain co way of doing protesting, but we're not trying to limit people's right to have free speech. So, I support the amendment, but even more fundamentally, I support the underlying legislation. Uh, thank you, Council Member Fman. I think there was a hand up over here. Council member Parkland. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I'm against the underlying measure. I do appreciate Council Member Nado's effort to reduce the harm here. I would just repeat what I said earlier. I've been against this proposal when it was an emergency. I'm against it now. Um, at a time when we should all be concerned about attacks on free speech. Um, I I just worry that this moves us in the wrong direction. On top of that, as it was brought up this morning, there seems to be uh laws already on the books in the code that would allow MPD to target someone that repeatedly is targeting someone's residence with a amplified noise. And if it's a matter of engaging MPD, uh perhaps we should do that versus moving the needle here. The last thing I would just say uh again is the time barriers. And we talked about this as it relates to the juvenile curfew. I I I believe the the start time here is 7 p.m. Um, which may seem trivial. Uh, but I think there is a big difference from protesting in a residential area at 7:00 p.m. during the summer when it's still bright and people are still out and about versus 2 a.m. when a reasonable person is expected to be asleep. Um, and so what we do here is yes, you could protest. Yes, you could have free speech as long as you do it before 7:00. Um, and as long as you do it after a certain period of time. I I I continue to worry about the interpretation and the long-term effects of this. I in no way am um s suggesting nefarious intent. Uh but as I've shared with council member Pinto, I am concerned about how this might impact Washingtonians in the long run. So I'm concerned on underlying measure. I do support council member's attempt to make this better, but I would rather we not take this step again. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Council Member. Anything further on the amendment, Council Member Pinto? Thank you. Um, so I I totally hear my colleagues concerns and that's why we spent a lot of time with this bill, meeting with lots of different groups and constitutional lawyers and ACLU and OA and PCRC. We have a clock, two-minute clock. Yes, we do. Um, sorry, council. to get this language right. I do want to council Parker's point, you absolutely can continue to protest. This is just about amplified noise targeting a residents in a residential neighborhood overnight. It's a very very limited situation. Um but to the amendment's point and to council Ferman's point about um being clear in the language, the amendment actually requires less than the law currently requires. The law requires three warnings with two minutes apart. So, the amendment only requires one. So, while I appreciate the intent of the amendment, I don't think it's achieving what you're trying to do. Um, we have had this law in place since October, which gives us eight months of data to see how it has worked and there have been zero arrests because the police need this tool to say, "Hey everybody, time to disperse, time to move on." and that's exactly how it's been used, which should give people some comfort. The last thing I'll just say about council Fman's point to the amendment that it does no harm in addition to it actually being substantively less notice than the law currently requires. Part of what PDC does is clean up the inaccurate cross references that exist in our code due to, and this isn't anyone's fault, my my own doing as well, due to years of amendments to our code that cross reference different sections. And so part of PDC is clear cleaning things up so that there is clarity for the police, for OAG, for everybody else in the public about what the law is and is not. So I I do actually think there is a harm to add something uh to this in this manner that already exists in law. That's the type of complicated framework we don't want to continue on in our code. So, I ask my colleagues not to support this amendment today with due respect and appreciation for council NDO's intention and I'll certainly continue to work with the police to make sure they provide those warnings. Thank you, Council Member. The vote will be on the amendment. Uh, all those Mr. Chairman, I just I'm so sorry. I I was going to ask a question of the general counsel just to provide some clarity if that's okay. Uh, yes. Okay. Um, hold on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, madame general counsel, one of uh I want to just make sure this is clear so colleagues understand before voting on the amendment. Does the underlying measure specifically reference um section five that would I'm sorry, title five. What is the question? Does does the underlying measure specifically reference title five, which is where the um dispersement order is in the code? No, my understanding is it does not. Okay, that's helpful. And that is in fact why I wanted to move this amendment was because um I just didn't want there to be any misunderstanding for those on the ground implementing it. Um we have the uh amendment before us. Yes, Council Pluto. Um, I would just suggest that if the intention is to reference the like the the language doesn't reference a code section because first amendment assembly applies to it. It's the umbrella statute that applies. But if your intention is to reference it, then let's just reference it as opposed to create a new standard that's actually less notice than the law requires. Like I hear you on the reference point, but maybe it would be clearer just to reference directly the first amendment notice requirements as opposed to creating a new one. We have the amendment before us. All those in favor of the amendment say I. Mr. Chairman, I I I. All those opposed say no. No. No. No. All the nos have it. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, amendment failed. Chairman, I I said roll call over here. I would I was before the vote happened, I was trying to ask for a roll call vote. I thought it was going to be um Madam Secretary, it's too late. Obviously, I did not hear anyone ask for a roll call until after. In fact, I'm not sure I heard anyone. I I did jump in. I was waiting to be recognized. Well, if you want a roll call, don't ask be recognized. Say roll call. It matters. I was I was calling the vote, Mr. Parker. I was calling the vote. I'm not recognizing anybody after I call for the vote. And one has to request a roll call before the result is announced. We've been through this before. Mr. Chairman, I was saying roll call over here a couple times and I did not hear that. M secret So the amendment fails. Uh we have the bill before us. Is there further discussion on the bill? Uh I'm going to speak to the bill because of some comments that were made earlier. Um, I am very familiar with the protests that occurred in the Calama neighborhood for at least two years. This is Council Member Pinto's ward. She made some reference to it. These protests, my understanding, were similar to protests that have occurred in either W three or Ward four or maybe both wards where these protests were targeted at individuals homes. Now the issue here is not protests targeted at people's homes. It's the nature of those protests. Namely that there was amplified noise. Um now there was some some uh debate here. Well that the police have the ability other than this bill before us to be able to control the noise the level of noise. So, let me just say that with regard to in Calarama um as I went there at 7 in the morning, this bill is called residential tranquility because it's about maintaining some quiet in a neighborhood. Not complete, but some quiet. There were these speakers that were set on full volume that were just blasting noise. The people who had the speakers were not standing next to them. The people who had the speakers were actually many feet away. There were multiple speakers. I think there were two people that day when I was there. The police were there. Secret Service and MPD. and Secret Service and MPD were both quite clear that there was nothing they could do. This is before this bill was passed as an emergency. The level of noise as measured by the deathell reader on my phone was 128 dB at the source. Now harmful to human health is around 90 or 100. This was 128. And the decibb are logarithmic. So it's not like just 28 points more than 100. It's like exponentially louder and more harmful. And this level of noise could be heard blocks away, which is why residents in Calorama from all over Calama were complaining. And I suspect that's true in W three and in W 4 at those demonstrations. Now I'm thinking during CO there were protests at my house at the mayor's house and people came and this bill would not in any way alter that because this is about amplified noise. There would be 20, 30 people who would show up at my house, but they didn't set up a speaker across the street or rather set up a speaker in front of my house and then they would uh retire to across the street while this speaker was broadcasting at 130 dB. No, there were like 20 30 people and they were speaking, they were chanting, uh they were they were clearly making their presence known and what their feelings were with regard to issues before the council. This bill would not affect that. Those demonstrations could occur. But this bill is about some tranquility in the neighborhood. That my neighbors shouldn't be punished with loud noise because I happen to live in their street or that the mayor's neighbors shouldn't have to suffer because of amplified noise because the mayor lives on the street that she lives on. That's all this does is speak to the amplified noise and the hours. So I was there at 7 in the morning. What's wrong with demon? You know, world is awake at 7 in the morning. What's wrong with that? Well, people are having breakfast. Families are getting their kids ready for school or 700 p.m. What's wrong with that? Well, people are having dinner or the kids are trying to get ready for well trying to do their homework supposedly or getting ready for bed. That's why those hours and why it speaks to amplified noise and why it speaks to it being in a residential neighborhood because it disrupts the neighborhood, not just the individual. And this went on for two years or more in the area of the Chinese embassy. And the rest of the neighbors were like, "We have nothing to do with this. We can't even tell the Chinese what to do." So, I just want to say that's what this is about. The hours are about residential tranquility. This is not about shutting down demonstrations. This is not about protecting anybody like an elected official or an ambassador. This is just about having some residential tranquility. There's nothing further. Mr. Chairman, Council Member Nadau, uh, I move a motion to reconsider NDO amendment number one. Did you vote on the prevailing side? No. We, you know, there's no record of that vote and who voted how because it was a voice vote except that it was your amendment. So, I'm going to rule that out. Order. Huh? I Mr. Chairman, I Oh, I did not hear what your determination was there. What? Since we were all recorded on the prevailing side of a no vote, why why is someone not able to make a motion to reconsider? spending a lot of time on this and it would be easier for just to have a vote except for this. We have certain we have a process around a vote and if somebody wants a roll call they have to ask for it timely. I did not hear any request for a roll call vote. I there's a couple of seats between us but I asked twice for a roll call but I'm just trying to make sure I understand the motion to reconsider then what was the determination there? Council member Nado who is the mover of the motion um is could not have been on the prevailing side because she would have voted against her own amendment. I don't think so. But I thought since it was a voice vote because it was not recorded all of us are recorded as a note. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respectfully oppose the motion to reconsider. Mr. Sherman, Mr. So, we have the bill. Mr. Sherman. Yes. Council, I I wonder if there's a way out of the box here because I think Council Member Pinto, if I heard you right, was not supportive of the NDO amendment, but was receptive to a cross reference in the bill to the section on the first amendment dispersals. So if they accomplish the same thing, why don't how about a an oral amendment to include a reference to that first amendment dispersal requirements, which does not change the law from the way that I hear council member Pinto talking about it, but does achieve clarity and consistency. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I respond to that, Council Member Pinto? And thank you so much, Councelor Fman. I did I was receptive to that, but we've since checked in with general counsel and it would be too confusing because there are um different issues. There's the amplification targeting residents, but then there's also a projectile. And so to create new language that cross references a code section about warnings, it wouldn't make sense for the projectile section because you've already thrown the projectile onto someone's yard. And so you can't provide a warning that they can't have done that because they already did it. So that's why again we shouldn't be making these amendments to these complicated issues in this way. Um I'm happy to talk to anybody about this, but there is notice requirements already in the law for first amendment. Um the amendment here does not make sense, would be confusing and uninforceable and is duplicative and is actually less notice than the current law. So that's why I think it it failed and um I appreciate Mr. Chairman moving us to a vote on the bill. Um Mr. Chairman, I I'd like to challenge the ruling on the motion to reconsider. For the purpose of this rule, a council member who was present in voting on a question decided by voice vote shall be considered as having voted with the prevailing side on the question unless the council member had asked to be recorded as voting against the prevailing side or recorded as present. So, I would uh ask the general counsel to opine on whether or not the motion to reconsider was in order. Thank you. uh the general counsel generally does not make parliamentary rulings. So, it would be in order for you to um appeal the decision of the chair, and I could speak to that, but I would like to note we're spending an awful lot of time on this, and the reason why I'm dug in on the issue of uh that roll call is because, as we've gone through in the past, if somebody wants to request a roll call, you have to speak up and you have to speak up before the result is announced. And that did not happen. I understand there is a disagreement around that and you've made that point prior. So I don't think anybody intended to um challenge that point so much as they believe they were not heard. And so to rectify that I'd ask for um a challenge and we're spending a lot of time on this to go over I think it's a simple answer from the general counsel as to whether or not the ruling of the motion to reconsider is out of order. And then if you know if we can do the motion to reconsider then it'll be a quick roll call and we can move on. But if not fine. I'm just trying to make sure we have appropriate consideration of the measure. My reason for saying that it was not an order was that you were the one who moved to reconsider and you are the one who moved the amendment and the amendment failed. you could not have been on the prevailing side. I think that's rather common sense. There are some folks who figure out that you could vote against what you want to vote in order to be able to move to reconsider, but I'm certain that wasn't the case here. We have the bill before us. The vote will be on the bill, bill 26-189. All those in favor of the bill say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. Madam Secretary, you'll record Council Members Parker and Nadau is voting no. And the bill is approved. Uh we will turn now to Metropolitan Police Department Training Academy College Credit Opportunity Amendment Act of 2025, now known as Peace DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2025. Um, Council Member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, in March of this year, I introduced Peace DC, which is a comprehensive plan to continue the progress we've made to drive down crime and promote sustainable peace in the district. Building on the significant progress in crime reduction following last year's passage and implementation of the PDC Omnibus Amendment Act, which passed nearly unanimously by this body and appreciate all of our colleagues work in collaboration on it. We all deserve to live in peace and must continue to take meaningful and actionable steps forward to address the public safety concerns that we still have today in our city. Peace DC does several things. It streamlines the educational credit requirements for the Metropolitan Police Department as one additional way to bolster the officer staffing needs we have at the department. PSDC ensures that families of fire and emergency medical services personnel who pass away due to performance of duty injury or illnesses are eligible for the full survivor benefits that their families deserve. And lastly, PDC closes a gap in Second Chance Amendment Act of 2022 to ensure that individuals can seal their criminal records as the underlying legislation intended to do to truly get a second chance at housing, gainful employment, and other opportunities that they deserve in our community. PDC also makes permanent the rebuttable presumption for pre-trial detention when defendants are charged with crimes of violence. So everybody is clear without this extension today violent crimes like firstdegree sexual abuse which is rape, child sexual abuse, strangulation, aggravated assault, firstderee child cruelty, kidnapping and carjacking would no longer have the rebuttable presumption to be held before trial. Many, many, many months of research went into crafting this policy. I and I know all of our judges take very seriously the decision to ever hold an individual pre-trial. And that's why we made very modest changes to when the rebuttable presumption for pre-trial detention applies. Prior to these changes, there was already a rebuttable presumption for detention in certain circumstances. But I want to be very clear why the rebuttable presumption with these modest expansions made under secure DC and continued under peace DC are such an important tool. We can't only look at the language of the statute. You have to look at the case law surrounding this. Under Pope versus United States, the court found that absent a statutory presumption, and I'm quoting, the government's burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is subject to preventative detention cannot be satisfied simply by reference to the known facts regarding the crime of which the defendant has been accused. In other words, no matter how heinous the offense is, if there's no rebuttable presumption, then the judge cannot hold someone based only on the facts alone of the offense committed. So, when I say that judges told me they couldn't hold someone without this rebuttable presumption, it's because they were following the case law that they are bound by law to follow. It does not matter how you or I simply read the statute. The case law, as the lawyers here know, control how the statute is interpreted. The rebuttable presumption does not require a judge to detain any individual. The rebuttable presumption is not a heavy burden to rebut. The defendant must offer some credible evidence contrary to the statutory presumption that the judge must still make an independent finding that quote, "No combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of another person or the community." And DC court's case law has explicitly said that this is not a heavy burden to rebut. Which is why in many cases, even where the presumption applies, even when a prosecutor argues to hold somebody, it is overcome. Across the district, we continue to hear calls to make our communities safer and more peaceful. These measures today are not a panacea to the challenges that DC continues to face. But our public safety ecosystem is strengthened by these measures when taken together. That we're taking together today to empower our young people and support neighborhood harmony, to prevent violence, to support our public safety workforce, to drive down recidivism and support people with their criminal records and get those sealed. And so all of this in an ecosystem is important to move forward today. And so I appreciate the conversation and concerns of my colleagues and ask that you all support peace DC in its entirety today as we move forward and continuing to answer the calls of what district residents are asking for, which is peace and safety. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Give me just a second here. Um, I'm trying to sort through here. Um, Council Member Pinto, there is an amendment that you have that's listed on the agenda, although not linked. And then there's, I think, another amendment that you circulated today. Is that correct? Yes. Regarding clemency board. Oh, that's to the emergency. Mr. Chairman, yes. I only have one amendment to PTC today. The other amendment is in reference to the emergency. Okay, I understand. Um, all right. I have there are a number of amendments and this is the order in which you're going to be I'm going to recognize folks. Council member Pinto has an amendment uh which was circulated twice. So, Council Member Pinto, correct me if I'm wrong, but the version that we'll be considering is the one that circulated at 10:24 this morning. Correct. Then there's an amendment from Council Member Robert White, and I think he circulated it twice, and I believe the one that's before us will be the one that circulated at 9:44 a.m. Yes. And then Council Member Lewis George has an amendment and that was circulated at 10:19 this morning. Correct. And then Council Member McDuffy has an amendment and that was circulated at 1:19 this afternoon. We'll say yes. Uh, Council Member Pinto, your amendment is circulated at 10:24 this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so as I just discussed, one of the provisions of PTC deals with survivor benefits for firefighters um, who pass away due to something they were exposed to in the line of duty to make sure that their survivors can get the benefits that they deserve. And this amendment makes minor changes to this section of PCC. This is because after feedback from both fire and EMS and IAFF local 36, the committee understood that the look back period after retirement should be 5 years instead of two years because we don't want to unnecessarily exclude anybody who passes away due to a performance of duty injury that develops a few years later. And sadly, we see this, you know, with certain cancers, for instance. The amendment clarifies that if an individual dies as a result of any of the injuries and illnesses covered by the presumptive legislation, then that individual is eligible for the full survivor benefits, as was our intent of this bill, to bring the survivor benefits in line with the presumptive legislation. The amendment also clarifies that those who die due to a performance of duty incident, illness, or injury while still working for the department should of course continue to be included in those eligible for survivor benefits. And lastly, the amendment amends the applicability date to a align with the funding timeline. Um, so I I as the mover of the bill, I accept the amendment as friendly um and hope that it can be incorporated. Uh we have the amendment before us. Is there discussion regarding the amendment? Um the vote will be on the amendment. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? Sorry. Uh the amendment is approved unanimously. Council member Robert White. Uh thank you, Chairman. I want to uh start by thanking Council Member Pinto and her team for their work on uh the Peace DC Omnibus and her dedication to improving public safety. There are several things I support in this bill, including closing the gap in record sealing per uh record sealing and the Second Chance Amendment Act and expanding benefits for fire and EMS survivors. But I have serious concerns about making expanded pre-trial detention permanent. I hear people say they feel unsafe. I hear the concern that before the Prioritizing Public Safety Emergency Amendment Act or PPSSE and Secure DC, judges didn't have the tools to hold dangerous people before trial. That matters and we have an obligation to protect public safety. But we have to follow the facts and the data otherwise our actions are performative. So let's look at the data and the facts. the facts. The law says that even without a presumption, DC courts can hold people pre-trial under DC code section 23-1322 when a person is charged with a dangerous crime or a crime of violence uh is on papers or may flee or pose a danger. DC code 23-1325 further clarifies that uh with respect to people charged with murder. We look at case law when the underlying law is unclear here the underlying law is very clear factually before PPSC and secure DC judges could hold people before trial and the data show that they did. So let's look at the data. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council found that before PPSCE and Secure DC took effect, 52% of adult defendants were detained. So the notion that judges can't detain people is false. Judges were already holding people before trial more than half the time. Before PPSSE and Secure DC, only 6% of defendants charged with a violent crime were arrested while on pre-trial release. After secure DC, 3% were arrested. CJCC said these numbers are so small that we can't tell if expanded pre-trial detention works. There are too many other factors whose uh whether it's getting arrested, uh how prosecutors charge, how judges rule. So expanding the presumption assumes also that everyone has access to a competent defense and all of us know that that's not true. The bottom line is we don't have evidence that this works. So, let's talk about the impact of pre-trial detention on people. We know that people of color are more likely to be held in pre-trial detention. Black felony defendants are 25% more likely to be held than white defendants. We know that pre-trial detention is disruptive. When people are locked up, they often lose their jobs, lose their homes, lose access to their kids. And since black defendants are more likely to be held in pre-trial detention, they are more likely to plead guilty. Biases in pre-trial detention. Uh, one additional minute chairman. Without objection. Biases in pre-trial detention and sentencing make it 26% more likely that the average black person charged with a felony will go to prison. So, we know that pre-trial detention disproportionately harms black and minority communities. But how will this impact DC in the long term? Good question. Data from New York City, Philadelphia, Kentucky, and Miami show that any short-term gains from increased pre-trial detention are offset because pre-trial detention increases criminality and arrest in the long term. And locking up people pre-trial increases felony recidivism by 33%. And we do have citations for every one of these data points that I'm happy to share. So locking up more people in the short term means that they can will make things worse in the long term. The conclusion, as a member of the council, I am committed to doing everything in my power to make DC safe and get justice for victims. But what is clear here is one, judges could already detain defendants pre-trial before this law went into effect, and they were doing that. Two, we don't have evidence that pre-trial detention has lowered reoffence in DC. And three, data show that expanded pre-trial detention leads to long-term increase in crime overall. For those reasons, chairman, I move my amendment to strike the provisions of peace DC that would make expanded pre-trial detention from secure DC permanent. And I urge a yes vote. Uh, thank you, Council Member. Uh, Council Member Pinto, if you want to be recognized at this point. Sure. Um, thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Council Member White, um, for your comments. I I have to ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Um it removes carefully crafted policies that were developed after months of research and deliberation. I just want to make sure everyone's clear on what would happen if this amendment passes. If this amendment passes, our law would no longer treat firstdegree sexual abuse, rape, child sexual abuse, strangulation, first-degree child cruelty, or carjacking in parody with other similar violent offenses. This amendment passes, our law would no longer treat equally a homicide that was committed with a knife as a homicide committed with a firearm. If this amendment passes, a homicide with a firearm will be subject to a rebuttable presumption, but a homicide with a knife would not. Again, no judge is required to hold someone. It gives them the opportunity. If this amendment passes, our law would no longer require judges to write a written statement of reasons for a release when the defendant is released pre-trial, overcoming the presumption. If this amendment passes, our law would no longer allow judges the discretion to grant extensions uh which limit the efficiency of our judicial system. If this amendment passes, we'll go back to having a system that has two legal standards for making a decision about pre-trial detention with a lower standard for holding someone pre-trial for less serious offenses than we do have for murder and assault with the intent to kill while armed. That lack of parody was fixed with secure DC, but this amendment would take us back. We also have to acknowledge the very real reality that it's not just about the statute. It's about how the courts interpret the statute. That's the controlling law. Case law in the district without the presumption, no matter the facts in the case, the judge is not allowed to hold a defendant in jail for that reason alone, which is why I sought to make the changes in the first place. For juveniles, we're discussing a rebuttable presumption that can be overcome, but applies to dangerous crimes or crimes of violence while armed or having available a knife, pistol, firearm, murder, firstdegree sexual abuse, carjacking. Since I became the chair of this committee two and a half years ago, we've made tremendous strides together as a council, and I appreciate all of your partnership in that effort to make our city safer and more just. But the pres rebuttable presumption for pre-trial detention has been one of the tools, one of many, but one of the tools that we have deployed that across our criminal justice system, we are hearing feedback that it's been an effective tool. So why would we remove that tool? It's set to expire July 15th. I asked my colleagues not to support this amendment today to take us backwards. Council Lewis George, did you want to be recognized? Uh, I would like council Rob White to be recognized before me. Well, this would be second round for him. Okay, that's what the last person said. Two minutes. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I I I just want to say I appreciate uh Council Member Pinto's response. I If this council ever passed laws that indicate that to judges that they cannot hold people for heinous crimes, then we should amend those laws. and I commit to voting in support of those amendments, but I don't see that in the law anywhere. But that would be the appropriate response to the problem that you articulated. But I would also suggest that the data doesn't support what you're saying because before these laws passed, more than half the people charged with dangerous offenses were held, but you're suggesting that the law doesn't allow them didn't allow them to do that. So, I don't see how those two things could uh be clear. If we have to be incredibly judicious before we trample on people's liberties uh in the name of public safety particularly when we know that there are other ways to achieve the objectives that you had articulated and when there is no data whatsoever indicating that this is going to make us safer. We cannot cannot stomp on people's liberties particularly when we're doing so would be an unnecessary overreach. within my time. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Lewis George. Thank you. Um I want to speak in strong support of Council Member Robert White's um amendment. Um and I want to note that uh much of what he said is without repeating it is the points when we say some of the crimes out loud um it has the impact of making people feel like, oh, we're okay with those those type of crime. Um and I want to make clear that that is not the case. So when we say murder, robbery, rape, it sort of makes everybody go and then the reaction of the public is that, oh, the council doesn't care about those type of crimes. And I I just want to make clear that that is not true. And the action of doing that has the reverse action of making it seem like we're not taking these heinous crimes seriously. We absolutely are. What we are trying to take seriously as policymakers is using the data we have to make informed decisions as we move forward and my colleague has talked about that and and this has been sort of a thing that this country has said is essential right uh in the United States versus Solerno case the Supreme Court really actually said in our society liberty is the norm and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception And so we are in the land of carefully limiting that exception. And in doing so, it's therefore essential we consider the potential impacts and harm that a permanent expansion of this provision would create for DC residents, especially black and brown residents, and the pre-trial detentions are the carefully limited exception based on the evidence we have before us. In May 2025 analysis on secure DCC, the CJCC found that 1% or less of released defendants had a papered rear arrest for a crime of violence or dangerous uh crime. Uh it is true uh as well that they also said in that that we need we need to gather more data and so now everybody's sort of hopped up on well let's get the more data. I think as we look at trying to get more data that the decision we make is not well let's continue it. Uh the opposite should be we should be doing the opposite of let's not do this until we have the data. Um this bill provision be will have a longl lasting impact on people's lives and a rebuttable presumption may not be an explicit requirement to detain the defendant but it certainly stacks the deck in favor of deter detaining more black and brown people who haven't been convicted. And we know more people will be be detained at DC jail. Uh being held in jail for months while awaiting trial is an experience that has a long lasting impact on a person's life. While that person is jailed, their family is strained. Their job is lost. Their education is inter interrupted. When they come out, they could no longer have be in school. They could no longer have housing. The effects of those traumas last for ye years even if the person is eventually acquitted or charges are dropped. So as a society, we have tried this before, stacking the deck against people in the criminal legal system. It doesn't make us any safer. It doesn't advance the cause of justice. Mass incarceration is a disaster that we are trying to overcome today. Or so I thought. Thank you, Chairman. Uh further on Thank you, Council Member. Further on the amendment, Council Member Fman. Thank Thank you very much, Chairman Mendlesson. I mean, in some ways, we're all looking at the same CJCC data and we're seeing different things and it I honestly I see that before this the change in the presumption, we saw releases on the order of 55% of the cases where defendants were released in the case of a of a crime of violence and a little bit lower in the setting of a dangerous crime. and then it shifts down to 40% are released in the setting of a crime of violence and uh very little change actually in the setting of a dangerous crime. So the change that was affected by the introduction of the presumption just is not as big as either side is claiming here. And so that's one thing. The other thing is in terms of rearrest, the data shows a very modest decrease in the numbers of rearrest, but a decrease in the numbers of rearrest since the presumption was injected. To me, the data is on the specific issues just is not definitive at all. if it may show an increase in pre-trial detention on the order of 10 or 15%. What are those situations in which that's happening? I don't know what those are. But it also comes in a context where crime is down very significantly since we did this. And to what extent might there be a connection between that, the change in this presumption and the reduction in crime? I don't know the answer to that either, but I'm glad to see crime go down. That makes me think that I don't I'm not prepared to support the amendment and revert to where we were two years ago because also where we were two years ago was very high crime. But I also don't think that the case is definitively made with the data. So I don't want to make a permanent change that in that u installs this presumption. I want to be looking at this over time to see if it how it is operating. Uh but I my main point is that the the very you know passionate claims on both sides of how this changes the world. I don't think it's I don't think in in the individual cases where people are affected, I hear you. But in terms of the overall data, it just has not changed the world as dramatically as the way in which it's described. Thank you, council member. Um the vote will be on the amendment. This is I'd like to have a roll call. Chairman, going to request for a roll call. Madam Secretary, Council Member Fman on the amendment. 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. Chairman Mendelson, no. Chairman Mendelson votes no. 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 White, yes. Council member White votes yes. Council member Allen, no. Council member Allen votes no. Council member Bonds, no. Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Felder, no. Council member Felder votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are three yeses and nine nos. The amendment fails. Uh the next amendment is from council member Lewis George. Council member uh council member Lewis George. Um thank you chairman. Um today I'm introducing amendment to try to reduce some of the harmful impacts of an overly broad pre-child detention presumption that several of my colleagues um have raised. This amendment would amend section 5B of peace DC to specify that the rebuttal presumption of detention applies to persons who have been convicted of a crime of violence within the seven years prior to their arrest for the present charge offense. By narrowing the application of the pre-trial detention presumption, it would ensure the policy is focused on the population most at risk for recidivism, those who have committed a violence offense within the last seven years. This is based on data uh found by the US Department of Justice. uh and this analysis found that a person who has not been convicted of a violent offense within the past seven years is no more likely to recidivate than the uh general population. My hope is that by aligning PDC with data on recidivism, it reduces some of the harm that occurs from an overly broad application of the pre-trial detention presumption. Um and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve this bill by utilizing a more fair and balanced focus of of the pre-trial provision. So moved. Uh we have the amendment before us. Uh Council Member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate Councelor Lewis's George um efforts here. I I guess as I read this, I I think this is an even worse outcome than the Council Whites amendment because it t it makes it even more difficult than what the law was two years ago. Um, as we think about the balance here, I I just don't want us to forget the victims who we're also seeking to protect. And I and I hear you on the emotional nature of talking about what these crimes are, but that's the reality. We're we're we are talking about homicide and rape and child sexual abuse. That's not me trying to be hyperbolic. Those those are the the crimes that we're talking about. And so, um, I don't think that we should limit a judge's ability to hold somebody to if they were convicted of a charge seven years ago. Like when you think about what we're that that was part of the issue of the underlying law of why I tried to address this two years ago in the first place was because we were looking at cases of the these examples that we've gone over and judges didn't have the authority to hold unless to counselor White's point there there were some people held and that was usually when there were past convictions. So, some people were being held, but what we're trying to address is the serious charges before us to allow a judge to consider the facts and circumstances of those cases for a limited set, a subset of the most violent crimes. Um, and I don't think that we should go back to make it even more difficult than what it was 2 years ago when we were hearing uh and seeing and I looked at many many of these cases and walked through them with our judges that people were released for committing for be after being charged with some of these most violent offenses. So, I don't think this is the right approach. Um, I appreciate that what you're trying to do here. Um, but I I can't support this amendment today. Um, and as we talk about the disproportionate impacts of incarceration on people of color in the city, I also want us to remember that the vast majority of victims of homicides and gun crimes in DC are also black men. And we can't forget that fact. Thank you. further on the amendment. I I just want to correct for the record just that those many of those crimes this will be your second round. It's just a point of still be your second round. Okay. I just want to correct that many of the crimes that have been mentioned literally already had the presumption prior to this. I I know we keep saying it but it everyone keeps repeating the same thing like we weren't able to hold these people because of this. I'm like, all of those crimes literally already had the presumption. I'm I just can't repeat that enough. If we if you read the law, read the statute, those those presumptions already existed as it relates to the violent violent offenses and violent crimes. Meaning judges already had to consider the presumption against defendants as it as it relates to those most serious and violent crimes. Um uh further on the amendment, uh I had two questions. Uh, Council Member Lewis George, why did you pick seven and not, for example, five years? I I just based it on the Department of Justice's study that used that noted seven years. And Council Member Pinto, you started out your statement in opposition to this saying that this is worse than Council Member White's amendment, and I don't get that. Council member White proposed to get rid of the section entirely and this would keep the section although with this seven-year provision. Why is that worse? Because the law beforehand and and maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining this because I hear people saying we had the presumption for things like homicide with a gun. Okay, there was a presumption, but what we were seeing is that that almost always had to be coupled with another past conviction. And that's what that's the the reason that I sought to change this in the first place because what I believe judges should be considering is the charge before them and those facts around if the safety to the community can be insured. So to say, "Oh, well, you could only do it if there was also another charge 7 years ago." Under the the previous law, you could also do it if there was a charge 15 years ago. But to me, neither of those should be the dispositive factor. It should be consideration of the charge and the facts and circumstance for this subset of crimes of violence. Uh, thank you. Um, there appears to be no other debate on this. Council member Bonds. Um, thank you, Chairman. Um, I I want to ask um my colleague um Lewis George, is the thinking behind this that we need to set some parameters on those that have created or have been accused of prior offenses and convicted and who are now charged with this new charge. And the thinking is that seven years is that time frame because I would think that we would be more concerned about those that had committed an offense three years as opposed to seven years. Seven years is a long time. It's almost like putting an individual in jeopardy longer. I mean, that's just my reading. So, I'm just wondering about the seven the seven years. I was I'm trying to understand. No, no, I get what you're saying. Yeah. The notion. So, what we were trying to address is the what what I believe people were trying to address with this, which is they're thinking that person would be released and then commit another crime because that's what the what has been pushed out as the narrative, right? The even though the CJC report and the other facts don't align with that. So if that's the case then let's narrow to the number that department of justice and prevailing has said is the recidivate actual recidivate rate which is why we I took the the seven years. So that's I I'm trying to reduce harm by right sizing what what is stated as supposed to be the what we're trying to fix by doing this um moving forward with this leg legislation in the first place. Gotcha. Thank you. I I understand now. Thank you. Mr. Menderson, Council Member Parker, I have more of a question just to make sure I'm internalizing this correct. Uh, and Council Member Lewis George, thank you for this. Um, it's my understanding that, um, if one is convicted of a violent crime within seven years, then the rebuttable presumption would exist as is being proposed in underlying bill. However, if someone is facing a charge on their first conviction of a violent crime or they are being charged with a violent crime and it's beyond seven years since another charge, um it would revert to uh there not being rebuttable presumption. However, a judge still would have the discretion to hold them. Correct. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify those two things. So, I think I'm getting a little confused. Uh, I thought Council Lewis George, what you were intending with the amendment was to take what Council Member Pinto proposed, but then saying what if the if a person had a prior conviction, I'm not going to say this right. Um, and the prior conviction was more than seven years ago, then that wouldn't count. But this is actually a different approach. It's not taking what council member Pinto had. It's just saying that you have to essentially if you have to have had a prior Yeah. I'm not even quite sure what I want to what I'm asking here. It's not an overlay of seven years. It is a replacement with the seven years. Um so it's the overlay. It's overlay over the existing over the not the secure DC existing, the pre-existing. No, the from No, because of the underlying it's overlay of the existing. Mr. Chairman, I think what the confusion is is the secure DC language is going to expire July 15th. So if this amendment passes, it would amend the underlying statute and yes, it would be a replacement and it would be saying that in order for the presumption to apply, there has to have been a conviction of a crime of violence within the last seven years unrelated to the underlying charges. And to me, that's even more ownorous than the already ownerous law that was in place two years ago, which is why I don't support this. It's not unrelated to the current like where do you that that part is wrong that it's the unre it's unrelated to the current charge because they will still be able to consider the current but it says subsection C9 is amended as follows and then it says committed a crime of violence as follows. Okay. And then number two is the the robbery which we we also support. But then number two is if the person has not been convicted of a crime of violence within seven years prior to their arrest for the present charge. So I I mean frankly it's a public policy call of do you think that it should be dispositive if the person has been convicted of a crime of violence before the current charge that you're debating? No. And I would argue no. I think the judge should have discretion to consider the charge they're dealing with today. Even if it is your first homicide or rape or child sexual abuse. No, no, that's not your amendment. My amendment is to council's bill. And so it would not it wouldn't go into effect if PC PDC doesn't go into effect. So the underlying overlay would be to the PDC legislation. This is over. But the sevenyear piece would supplant the other expansions. I don't see that it's not supplanting. It's an overlay over the existing. Mr. Chairman, [Music] you want to say anything? Council member McDuffy, let I want to Can I ask a question, Council Member Lewis George? And I know we chatted briefly during the breakfast. Um, I want to be clear because what you are amending is what section of the code? It is not secure DC. Correct. Give me a second. [Music] And you might not actually be amending it. You might be overriding C9. And I'm not sure if that's your intention or not. Amending the language of PDC. I don't think so. Maybe. Well, you are amending PDC because you're amending 4, but you're amending 4B to amend DC code 23- 132C9. and you're rewriting C9. I'm amending section 5B of of peace DC to specify that the rebuttal presumption of detention applies to persons who have been convicted of a crime and violence within the seven years prior to the arrest for the present charged offense. Our section 4B is a fire section. I said 5B. He said 4B. No, in the amendment it says Oh, is it 4B? But then the other issue is that Mr. Chairman, if I may, section 4B of PTC deals with the firefighter's presumptive disability. And this is exactly why, with love and respect to all my colleagues, it is not responsible to make these amendments on the fly for something as serious as our criminal code. We didn't make this bill. We now whoever did theirs today did it on the did it on the fly, but my provision says 5B. That's the permanent amends 5B. The the permanent amends 5B, the emergency amends 4C, the emergency amends 4C. So it's the correct one. So you have to secure you have to other parts of security right now. Mr. Chairman, can I propose that we go to Council Member McDuffy, I guess, and Ferman. You guys have a bill together, a amendment together. And can we clarify with OGC because based on what we have in front of us, we were amending the permanent legislation and we did run this, we did the work yesterday and we did run this by all factors of the council administrative process. If there's no objection, we'll put this aside and go to council member McPe's amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have an objection. Um, I would ask that we move to a vote and keep going through the amendments because there we've got other amendments to deal with with this bill and I know colleagues are considering all these amendments kind of in relation to one another. Um, and so thank you. I would ask that we call a vote. Can you do it, Mr. Chairman? Um, council council member Allen to try to help give us time to get some clarity on this. Can I make a motion to table the amendment until after the body disposes and decides on Mr. McDuffy's amendment? Correct. There's no the motion that councelor Lewis George made, but I was just objecting to that motion. Okay, we'll have a vote on that motion. I mean, it's to put aside council member Lewis George's amendment while we take up Council Member McDuffy's amendment. I asked if there was no objection. There was an objection. We'll have a vote on that that. So, all those in favor of putting aside Council Member Lewis George's amendment while we take up Council Member McDuffy's amendment, say I. Opposed? No. The eyes have it. Council member McDuffy. Thank you, Chairman. Um I uh I raised concerns I guess a couple of years ago now about this move uh in terms of the pre-trial detention rebuttable resumption. In fact, I I with the support of this council asked that we make it temporary so that the CJCC uh could do a study. Uh in fact that study while not able to uh analyze and make conclusions about everything we had hoped uh that study has been the basis uh of comments made today on the day uh referenced by multiple council members and so to that point I think there is some utility in what the CJCC has previously done um but for those who are not aware I think it's important just that people understand a rebuttable presumption means that a person is presumed to be a danger to the community and held in jail before trial uh unless they can prove otherwise. And it completely shifts um that fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence and puts the burden uh on the individual who's charged. And I think it's just important for the public to understand how high the stakes are with what we're doing today. And so, um, I also want to recognize that while I understand the intent, uh, is to address serious violence offenses, um which I think every member of this council, uh intends to do everything we can to ensure that they are held accountable. There's still no data to prove that this action will actually make our city safer. And and there in lies the issue that I have. Um in fact, the CJCC study um found no evidence that expanded pre-trial detention reduces crime or improves public safety. I won't rehash everything that my colleagues have said. U we had a really long debate about this at the breakfast. Um but so I think it's important though just to state briefly that the courts and and our judges who to be clear are not elected by the people of Washington DC are appointed uh by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate when they feel up to the task. Um they have the tools necessary today to detain individuals. And so let me just skip to to the the meat of this amendment because I only have a few minute seconds left. Um the amendment that uh I am proposing along with my colleague uh W3 council member Fman would amend the Secure DC Act of 2024 to extend the expiration of the rebuttable resumption for pre-trial detention for crimes of violence for alleged juvenile and fault adult offenders from July 15, 2025 to December 31st, 2026. Importantly, it would also incorporate uh the provisions of PCT PCC that narrows the rebuttable presumption for adults to exclude robbery where the victim does not sustain physical injury and burglary in the second degree. Finally, the amendment would extend the existing reporting requirements on the efficacy of the rebuttable presumption criteria for both adults and juveniles for the criminal justice coordinating commission from May 7th of this year until September 30th of 2026. So they can actually get us the data that everybody I think here believes is necessary to understand whether this provision actually helps to make the District of Columbia safer. That to me is the fundamental question that we all should be asking. And before we make this permanent, we should know more definitively based on data and evidence whether that is the case. Today we cannot answer that question definitively. So I will move the amendment ch let's coun if that's okay. Chairman uh the amendment is before us. Council member Fman. Yes. Thank you very much. Uh I mean I think that it is interesting that we are co-introducers but we come from slightly different places on this which I think reflects the strength of the idea of doing this. I think that as I said before I think that data is inconclusive but to the extent that it shows anything it may show some efficacy here and so I am I I am not comfortable with saying okay we're going to get it rid of this at this point based on the things that we've seen including the significant reduction in crime in the period since we did this. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable saying I want to keep this in place permanently. I think we all would benefit from more information. Those of us who are who think this may be a tool that has been important and those who are more skeptical of that. Uh so I hope that we can get support for this amendment and we can gather the data and see what it shows. Right now, I do think that the temperature of this discussion gets very high very quickly, but what we're seeing is a shift in the frequency of pre-trial detention that is actually not enormous. And so, I think we'll see over time how this is being implemented and if it is having a positive or a negative effect. But for now, the district is safer today than it was before this. And so I think we should keep it in place. Council White and Zachary partner. Council member Robert White. Uh thank you, Chairman. Um the the the shift in the number of people being held pre-trial is maybe to some not enormous, but the shift in the tradition of our justice system is enormous. So the the the the presumption of innocence is not found in law. It's not in the constitution. It's not in federal law. It is a legal doctrine that has become the tradition of our justice system. So when we casually say we will just shift the burden to the people being charged who have not been convicted, that is a substantial shift. Now I will support this amendment, but I want us to be ready for something. One, when this comes back, the temperature will not be lower because this is still going to be a conversation about liberty. And two, it will still be inconclusive because if crime goes up, then some will say, well, it went up despite this, and so this didn't work. And if it goes down, some people will say, well, it went down despite this, so it so it doesn't work. But the the the data will be inconclusive as inconclusive as it is today. But we do know enough today to know that this is not working. So while we can kick this down the road a little bit, I want us to be very clear that when this comes back to us, this conversation will not be any different. The data will not be any more conclusive, but the imposition on liberty will be exactly the same. Council member Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Council Member White uh said it very well, actually. Uh we just had more than two hours of debate about the harms of pre-trial detention, and now we have an amendment before us that says, "Oh, but let's extend it for a year and a half." I It just seems inongruent to me. And either we're going to support the policy or we're not going to support the policy. But this is now, I think, our third time as a body kicking the can down the road. And I think perhaps it's because some of us don't want to take a vote. That said, I wrestle with this policy. I may be in the minority here, but I think if you have if there is ample evidence that you have committed a violent act, including homicide, including rape, including stabbing someone, perhaps you should not be on the street. And I I know I may take heat because of that. Uh, but I think we can name any number of examples of individuals who are no longer here because someone was not healed when they already showed a predisposition towards violent acts. I recently received a letter from a mom whose son was killed by two juveniles who were not held on pre-trial. Now, I know this is a one-off example, but it is an example of how up here this may be a matter of kicking the can down the road, but in practice, this has life and death implications for individuals. Um, I am one that I think we need to incarcerate fewer people. We need to move away from our carceral system. At the same time, when you commit a act of violence and cause harm, you need to be held accountable to it. So I allegedly, yes, when there's ample evidence that you've committed a violent act, um I think you need to be held accountable to it. So I just wanted to name that the inongruency of this debate is kind of striking to me. Um and I think as a body we need to choose one way or another whether or not we're going to extend permanently pre-trial detention or not. Thank you. Council Lewis. Yeah. Um so council McDuffy and council member Fman let me understand the effect of your amendment. One it would be extending this for a year and a half and then is there any data requirements attached to it or are those are we just leaving that up for grabs? So let me help me understand sort of what extending it a year are we adding any data requirements what is the in addition to just extending it what's the added proposal to this uh it it so it not only extends it uh until December 31st 2026 it also extends the underlying data requirement and if you all I think most of you all know that CJCC has some challenges given the short time frame to be able to collect and analyze data we we're going to be able to work with them out um to be able to get the data that they need um to be able to make a determination about this specific provision. Um and I let me just say quickly, I'm not I'm not looking for snaps. This is this is about people's liberty. This is about a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system and that is the presumption of innocence. Uh I I've actually sworn my hand to the constitution uh to uphold the laws of our city, but also uh as an attorney, a license of practice in DC. And so it's important to me uh that we do what we can to bend the ark of the universe more closer to justice. And I think we should know whether this helps or not and not just say we're going to get rid of it uh because it's been a certain amount of time. the crime has gone down o over the last couple of years. I can't say it's because of PCC, right? But we should we should be getting the data to understand whether our policies work or whether they don't work. And this is what this amendment would allow us to do. You can look at the historical data and just pick homicides. You'll see there have been years historically where homicides or other violent crime has gone up or has gone down. You can look at pick your city, USA, and you'll see similar trends, right? You can look at perhaps Baltimore right now where crime is going down like it's going down here. I don't think they they've added a pre-trial detention rebuttable presumption in order to make that happen. So I what I'm saying is if we can take the temperature down and let's be thoughtful about the policies that we're trying to put in place uh in order to make sure that uh they work and that we are uh getting um you know keeping our residents safe. So I I wanted to say that I'm sorry chairman. Thank you. But yes it does extend. I also I think council member Ferman also wanted to respond to the question specifically I think that it calls for a report by September 30th 2026. So you and so then in three months in advance of expiration there should be a report with more data. Now I take the points that others have raised that that data is people will argue that data in all different kinds of directions but it will be more data than we have today. So there will be more data come September 30th, 2026 and time to address it. And actually this is the kind of a thing where freestanding legislation with a hearing focused on this subject could be appropriate between now and then rather than doing it in this way and it creates the window for them. I agree with you. I think we all did. Um, Jim, she would council member Pinto. Thank you. Um, I want to thank Council Member McDuffy and Council Fman for moving this amendment. I I can live with the sunset. Um, but I what I want us to all be clear on is I I would love to have a study that analyzed the data. The CJCC issue is not because they didn't have enough time. It's because the courts and our prosecutor's office, which are, as you all know, is local and federal, don't collect this information and will not share with CJCC personally identifying information of defendants. So, I would love to work with you all and anybody who wants to craft what information we want, but we cannot just ask again CJCC to do a study that doesn't exist. like what what what information do you want to see? Because the way that we've crafted this last year set the study up for failure. They cannot do it. I go to those CJCC meetings every month and I am facing the brunt of it when all of our local and federal partners say, "Excuse me, Brooke, why are you all putting requirement after requirement on us without any guidance, without any funding?" So, I don't say that as a criticism. I say that as a let's I I would like to support your amendment about the sunset because I hear you people want some more information about moving forward in a permanent way, but I would like to move an oral amendment to strike the CJCC language so that we can work together whether it's as a BSA subtitle or a standalone bill. We cannot just which we did last year. We tried this last year and it didn't work. So we have to try something else and I can't do it alone. I I tried I tried mechanisms I can in how to structure the study but I I we can do that together but it can't be aligned in an amendment that just extends the applicability date of a study that we haven't defined. So if I could Mr. Chairman um you're not alone. I think we're all in this together. Uh we're all elected um to represent uh constituents across the District of Columbia and we all want to keep the city safe. So you're not alone in this. Uh when it comes to the CJCC, I would advise against striking the language and yet working together. Uh we're already in communication with them. I know you are constantly in communication with them. Um uh Council Member Freeman and I have already started talking a little bit about I think some of the challenges that the CC CJCC will be confronted with. Let me say this though, th those same federal partners in law enforcement in the courts, they have responsibilities, too. Whether or not they're elected officials in the District of Columbia, they have a responsibility. And I think they believe deeply in their partnership uh to keep our city safe. And so they should be more willing to provide that data that CJCC needs in order to do this evaluation because they also should want to know whether the policies that we're passing and that they're enforcing or interpreting are actually keeping residents safe. I think we're all in this together and it's going to be important that we work with the CJCC both to shape the language which we commit to doing with you um and anybody else on this desk who who would like to be uh participating in that but also working with our federal partners to share existing data that they already have um or should have in order to facilitate uh the evaluation that the CJCC would perform. So I I would I would advise against striking the language and just uh redouble our efforts in our commitment to working with CJCC to craft the appropriate language which we have time to do. Okay. Fair, fair enough. So I will take you up on that offer. Look forward to working together with you on crafting language for a study that provides guidance to them so we can as a body get the information that people want so we can make the best decision forward. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I can accept this amendment as friendly. Is there any further on the amendment? Uh the vote will be on the amendment. All those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? Mr. Chairman, please record me as president. Yes, we add this new change. Council member Parker, what did you say? Please record me as president. Uh the um amendment is approved unanimously uh with council member Parker marked as present. Uh Council Member Lewis George. Thank you chairman. Um with the passage of Council McDuffy and Fman's amendment because I don't want to taint the data that is being collected and I want that those years of data then I'm going to withdraw my amendment. But I do want to make clear for the record or let OGC make clear for the record that what we amended in our original language was the correct language to be amended and me and my staff didn't throw it together. We carefully did it, sent it to OGC and did our part. Don't play with me and my team as far as that goes. And so with that, I withdraw, but I will let OGC correct the record to make it let the record clear that we had the right subsection and we were correct in our writing. Thank you. Thank you. I was not paying attention. What did you say? Stop playing with me. I said ultimately I'm going to withdraw my amendment because amendment would essentially then taint the data that we are trying to collect. Right? We're trying to take the data we've had from years before. What we've what we've already done now and what we're going to do till now from the next year and a half to make a decision about pre-trial detention. I add in my section around the seven-year then that would sort of change the data subset and we would have a new year and a half versus subset and we'll be trying to compare this this period versus last period. So I think to keep the data clean I'm going to withdraw my amendment and and if we need to and I need to reintroduce it if we consider this permanently then I will do that. But I wanted to just make clear for the record that the amendment that was written and researched and done by my staff was written correctly in conjunction with OGC and was in fact the correct subsection we were supposed to be doing. And I didn't I wanted that record to be reflected so that no one plays with me and my team as it goes to the the the work and the efficacy of what we do and how we do it. Thank you. Bottom line is you withdrew the amendments if that's what you took from it. Yes, I don't believe there are any other amendments. So, we have the bill as amended before us. It was amended by council member Pinto's amendment which was the first we considered and council member McDuffy's amendment. Is there any further discussion on the bill? All those in favor of bill 26-187 as amended say I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The um next item on the agenda is council period 26 rule recess rules amendment resolution of 2025. Um, I move the resolution as circulated, but with lines 65 through 71, that's paragraph H, um, omitted from my motion. what this um resolution does. First of all, let me just say that we, as I've said before, we adopt our rules at the beginning of the council period, which was January of this year, and typically we amend the rules twice, that is before each recess. Um, what this resolution does is it allows the executive to transmit to the council during recess grant budget modifications to allow for the University of the District of Columbia to accept and spend any federal grants in fiscal year 2025. We've done this uh for a number of years. Second, it allows the committee the whole to hold a hearing on permanent legislation during the recess that satisfies the public hearing requirement that's contained in existing rule 5012. Third, it clarifies that the council may hold a legislative meeting during a period of recess. I believe we still have that ability, but this makes it clear without doubt. And then fourth, it makes conforming changes to the rules resulting from changes to the open meetings act adopted by the council earlier this year. The fir the uh first three provisions that I noted expire at the end of recess, that is on September 15, 2025. The resolution does not change the recess dates for 2025 uh which are July 15th through September 15th. Rules affecting or affected by recess remain in effect for to the extent they are not modified by the provisions of this resolution such as contracts, reprogramming resolutions, committee meetings, introduction of legislation and hearings. I do want to note with the um language that is um not that I circulated but is not part of this resolution. Um several things. First of all, it was never the intent to uh make any suggestion have any influence with regard to any election that is underway. Um and I think it's unfortunate that that's where the attention went. Uh second that um in looking at after the uh breakfast meeting this morning, I went and took another look at our rules and if the council were to um seek to have another ad hoc committee as I indicated uh I would prefer the route that um is in the rules which is that five members would have to request it and if there were to be an ad hoc committee it would be able it would not necess it would not be necessary that it um conduct a new investigation. which is what I had argued was um the principal reason. Uh I'm looking at 652 A6 which says consider the findings of any other investigation. Uh so I think that that uh there wouldn't be the necessity of spending uh hundreds of thousands of dollars for another investigation. Uh so um in my rereading of the rules I think that uh what we were trying to do can be done anyway and so that's why that's not part of this. Uh so as I said I move the resolution. Is there discussion Mr. Chairman? Council member Bonds. Um thank you. Um am I to understand that the provision that speaks to the expulsion has been removed from this um resolution? Yes, it was proposed rule 655B. Okay. Uh 655B by adding a new paragraph 3 that is being um omitted from what I'm moving. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion, Mr. Chairman? Uh, Council Member Fman, I I just want to thank you for for doing this. I know that your original intention in including that provision, I actually was quite sympathetic to it. We we who knows where this will go and we no one wants to put a thumb on the scale in any kind of way here, but we also do want to be sure that we don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars that we don't need to. So, I understand where you're coming from, but also I'm very grateful for you to you for stepping back. Uh, yes. I don't look at it as stepping back. I look at it as um realizing that I'm rereading the rules, it's not necessary. Rereading the rules, it's not I'm happy to have a longer discussion with you about why it's not necessary. All good. I'm glad I'm glad we are where we are. Uh the vote will be on what is PR26-260 the council period 26 recess rules amendment resolution of 2025. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. The eyes have it unanimously. Uh turning to emergency legislation. We have um African-American Civil War Museum Limited Grant making authority. The emergency declaration is PR26-257. Council member Nado. Thank you, Chair. I'm moving the emergency measures at the request of the deputy mayor for planning and economic development. Demped is temporarily grant temporary grant making authority to aid in the final build out of the African-American Civil War Museum. That law will expire mid July. Council member McDuffy is chair of his committee was kind enough to include a permanent version of this language in a proposed BSA subtitle, which I hope will be retained in the final budget support act. even if that permanent language passes this emergency and temporary extension is needed to avoid a gap in dem's grantmaking authority during a period when they plan to issue funds. Thank you. And with that I move the declaration. Uh thank you. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously on the underlying bill 26-301. So moved. Discussion. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. The eyes have unanimously. Uh we have the residential tranquility emergency de uh both the declaration and um underlying emergency amendment act PR26-258. Council member Pinto. So moved, Mr. Chairman. No, you have to say a little bit more than that. Oh, okay. Um, this is the emergency. Yes. Um, we're moving an emergency today so as to protect against a gap in the law. Um, because we want to make sure by the time permit passes and the mayor signs it and it goes for congressional review that the relief provided under the existing law uh is still available for residents. Um and without it, there would be a major disruption uh in late night or early morning amplified noise in residential communities targeting a residents using an amplification device which warrants an emergency. Um and I ask my colleagues to support the emergency measure today as they did with the underlying permanent. Is there discussion on the declaration? All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Chairman, please record me as voting no. Please record me as voting no as well. Uh the eyes have it and council members NDO and Parker will be recorded as voting no. Um we have the underlying bill 26-303. Council member Pinto. Um thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm moving PDC omnibus emergency no residential tranquility emergency amendment. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Discussion. All those in favor say I. Are there any opposed? Please record me as voting no. Ditto. Madam Secretary Ditto. Council uh the eyes have it and council members Nadau and Parker will be recorded as no. Uh the next measure is peace DC omnibus emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-259. Council member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we're moving the PDC Omnibus Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2025. Um, and the underlying emergency amendment act today to prevent a gap in the law that would be created if we don't move this emergency today. As we've discussed at length, PDC does several things. um extends the pre-trial presumption. Um extends survivor benefits to firefighters. Um make sure that we change the credit requirements for MPD officers. And so all of these things are emergencies to make sure they can be implemented right away. And so we don't have a gap in the law. um to also clarify and close the gap in the second chance amendment act to ensure individuals can can get their records sealed. So, um, I ask my colleagues to support this emergency today. And I do want to make clear that this emergency, we're moving with leave for general counsel to make any conforming edits to reflect the permanent bill. Um, except the changes to the fire and EMS presumptive disability section of the permanent bill and any other amendments that were passed today as part of the permanent bill to be reflected and mirrored in the emergency act. So, I ask my colleagues to support this emergency today. 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 26-304. Council member Pinto. So moved. Mr. Chairman. Two things. One is um you sort of spoke to this. Want to make sure general counsel is uh understands. So the bill will conform to themer the permanent bill in terms of the amendments that were made to the permanent bill. That's right. That is our general counsel. Is that clear? Yes, it is. and except for the amendments that we made to the fire and EMS presumptive disability because that section has a cost and so we can't apply those changes to the emergency um even though we passed them on a permanent basis but the other amendments that were made um from council Fman should be adopted in the emergency. So it conforms to the permit except with regard to the fire and EMS piece because that has a cost and members are clear. Um, Council Member Pinto, you had circulated an amendment and in your circulation, uh, this amendment would clarify that the Clemency Board Waiver Authority Temporary Amendment Act must undergo 60-day congressional review. Yes, this is a technical amendment that OGC asked us to move to correct a previous bill um passed by the council just to make sure that the language So are you moving this amendment? I'm moving this amendment. I heard that. So moved. So moved. If there's is there discussion without objection without objection the amendment will be accepted? Hearing no objection it is accepted. Further discussion. To be clear, what's before us is bill 26-304, the PTC Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act of 2025 conforms to the permanent bill except with regard to the provisions for fire and EMS disability. Also, there is an amendment that was just accepted with regard to the clemency board. All those in favor say I. I. Are there any are there any opposed? You guys have it unanimously. Uh streeteries. The next measure is streeter program endorsement extension in medical cannabis clarification. PR26-256 is a declaration. Council member McDuffy. Thank you chairman. Uh on December 3rd, 2024, the council enacted the street pro streetery program endorsement extension emergency amendment act of 2024 uh as well as the street program endorsement extension temporary amendment act of 2024 effective March 7th 2025 to allow licensed establishments that register with the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board to offer beer, wine, or spirits for sale on expanded outdoor space until July 31. 1st, 2025. Uh, and to clarify the geographic requirements for medical cannabis license holders and applicants, on April 30th of this year, the committee on business and economic development held a hearing on bill 26-157, the street program and protest process amendment act of 2025. And on May 2nd of this year, the District Department of Transportation uh in response to our hearing sent the Committee on Business and Economic Development a letter uh and release proposed rulemaking for the permanent street program. The permanent legislation must complete the legislative process. So, it's necessary that the provisions of this temporary legislation continue without interruption until the permanent legislation is in effect. With that, I move the declaration. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? Mr. Chairman, Council Member Henderson. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I just have a a question for Council Member McDuffy. Was at ANC meeting last night. Um, and uh, this particular community has pretty strong feelings in terms of streeteries and I guess also concerns that there hasn't necessarily been transparency about what happens next in the process. And so we're voting on this emergency today. Can you speak a little to when the permanent permanent will be done um with in terms of your conversations with DOT? Um I can get back to you in terms of when the permanent permanent will be done and I I mean I'd love to though clarify what concerns those constituents or advisory neighborhood commissioners have with respect to the transparency. That's part of the challenge that we've had. I know uh council member Allen uh as chair of the committee on transportation and I have chatted in the past about uh pushing the department of transportation to get the regs finally completed and then hearing that the regs were completed but were hung up at EOM. Uh and so uh after we had the hearing um in April, it was only shortly thereafter that we finally heard from the Department of Transportation uh with respect to their letter uh releasing the proposed rulemaking for the permanent treaty program. So I can uh get you some clarity on the permanent my thought is that we do it in September after recess. Um but but I'm happy to get you uh a little bit more information so you can share it with the commissioners. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Uh further with regard to the declaration. Uh we have the declaration before us. So all those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? I have it unanimously of the underlying bill 26-299. Council member McDuffy. So move discussion. All those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is uh juvenile curfew emergency declaration resolution of 2025 PR26-231. Council member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I first want to just say that the vast majority of young people in our city are doing amazing things and we thank them for all of their contributions to our city. Um, and we want to make sure that and we have to make sure that there's additional opportunities for programming, activities, sports and arts and other recreation activities for them throughout the summer months, especially throughout the summer months. Um, and when I started speaking about uh the trends that we've been seeing and with certain large groups of young people congregating and causing challenges with the mayor, um, one of the things we made very clear is we have to provide additional opportunities. And so I'm thrilled that that has been rolled out now in a comprehensive kind of summer calendar um, and weekend activities for late night hypes. Just last weekend, Kennedy Rec Center had one where almost 1500 kids came um with their families. So, that needs to continue. Um but over the last several months, we've also seen several instances pretty much every weekend where large groups of young people have been congregating and engaging in harmful and oftentimes criminal conduct um in multiple specific areas around the city. We've seen this especially in the Wararf Navy Yard and UT Street where multiple fights have broken out, robberies and assaults um in some cases shootings and stabbings have occurred. Last week multiple young people were injured um in Dupont Circle and UT Street. And while MPD has various methods to address this conduct, including enhanced enforcement of disturbances of the peace offenses, working with local businesses on signage relating to trespassing by unaccompanied minors and requests for restricted curfew in the warf, uh those tools have been limited and sometimes are happen when it's too late, when there's already dozens and dozens, sometimes hundreds of young people congregating. And now that we're in summer, when we know that incidents of violence and time tend to tick upward citywide, especially among our young people, we have to have some flexibility in our juvenile curfew to allow MPD to protect our kids and to protect the public. The legislation today would grant the mayor authority to extend the juvenile curfew hours throughout the district or in specific areas of DC 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. In the introduced version, the extended curfew hours could not be earlier than 7:00 p.m. or later than 6:00 a.m. And the extended curfew hours shall not apply to groups of three or fewer individuals. The curfew would apply to all juveniles ages under the age of 18. Um, currently the curfew only applies to juveniles under the age of 17. Additionally, in the summer, June, July, and August, well, now we're just in July. July and August, standard curfew hours would start at 11 p.m. Um, currently they're at 12 p.m. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 additional seconds? Without objection. Um, I worked very closely with the mayor and the chief of police and the deputy mayor for public safety and justice um to make several changes prior to the emergency legislation being filed around the you know number of ch children um that we're talking about the um hours and to ensure most importantly that as we're offering this tool to the police that we're also offering more activities available to our young people like late night hype which I mentioned um and to ensure that this information needs to be shared widely with the public. Um and we'll continue to do that through our social media platforms, but invite all of our colleagues to do so as well, so young people are aware of what uh free and exciting activities are available to them this summer. Um I move this bill and also am supporting an amendment um that Council Member Parker and I are moving and I'll let Council Parker speak to that amendment now. Uh, that would be out of order because we have the declaration before us. Oh, well, let me rephrase. I move the declaration. Uh, we have the declaration before us. Is there discussion, Mr. Chairman? Council member Parker, I would like uh to move an amendment to the under declaration. Say again. To the declaration. Sure. But no, I'll I'll hold off. God, they're anxious people. Mr. Chairman, on the declaration, actually on the declaration, Council Member Allen, thank you. Um, I'll be very brief, but I do want to make sure I note the fact that what we have, what was moved and filed versus what we'll will be amended that I do believe has the support of most the majority of the council. Um, I I do think what was introduced was one that was I I will say draconian. um looking at three kids from 700 p.m. that that's somehow going to be uh our target audience of what we're looking at here. So um had we not seen this amendment coming um I don't think I would be able to support the declaration. Knowing that folks have worked on and I appreciate councelor Parker introducing this a few days ago and then councelor Pinto working with him to be able to be a co- mover on this. I think that gives me confidence that it's it's landing in a much smarter place um and one that will actually be more effective but also work to limit unintended harms that could happen. So I just wanted to note that that we'll have a discussion in just a moment on the amendment as I know councelor Parker's eager to introduce but uh I think it's really important to note that because the supporting the resolution on the underlying bill would be something I have a problem with without knowing that this amendment's coming. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Allen. Further on the declaration, uh, Council Member Pinto, I had a couple of questions for you. So, what the underlying bill would do is, uh, change the curfew hour for right now, I believe it's like midnight or something to 11 p.m. And also would authorize these new extended juvenile curfew zones with even more restricted hours. What kind of data have we looked at to justify these changes? Um, so we've looked at an uptick in violent crime in certain areas. We've looked at uptick in uh reports from businesses in certain areas. So, for example, in Navyyard several weeks ago, um about 80 young people went into a business, jumped on all the tables, kicked people's food and drinks into their faces. Those were not things that all those young people were arrested for. So, we didn't just look at arrest data. We also looked at report data from our bids um and from uh calls for service to 911. Uh and some of those metrics are included in the emergency as things that the chief of police should consider in designating these zones um so that it is connected to an uptick in areas that we've seen increased violence. So you mentioned Navyyard and I think earlier at the breakfast you mentioned Dupont Circle. Do we have any other data? We've seen an uptick in these um the chief calls them melees uh which is a term to indicate kind of mischief um but a little more serious than mischief like you know problematic and sometimes criminal mischief. Um we've seen this most prevalently in the last two months in the warf Navyyard Ust Street um and DuPont Circle we saw over Pride weekend. Um and uh with the gu with regard to these extended juvenile curfew zones, uh what kind of guard rails are in play are there to um prevent uh issues of bias or racial profiling? Um, well, I think the the biggest guardrail is that it's only in place on an emergency basis for the summer. This is not a law that's going to continue forever. Um, and it's based on geographic limitations. So, it's not based on a police officer's um subjective view of a particular juvenile that they decide to interact with. It's if you're under the age of 18, just like we currently have in law, um after midnight on the weekends, um it just changes the hours and geographic limitation to say, "Hey, if the chief of police designates a certain area, she can do so starting as an earlier hour, which might be 8 or 9 or 10 depending on the circumstances, um into the early morning hours for the geographic area. But I think the fact that it's not open to subjectivity um it is an objective geographic limitation will uh limit that type of bias. Uh thank you. Um if there's no further discussion, the vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor of the declaration say I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill uh bill 26-286. Council member Vinto. Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move this bill and I'll allow Council Parker to speak to our amendment. Um Council Member Parker, the agenda lists two amendments from you and I think what you're going to move is what was circulated at 1:15 p.m. You have the floor. That is correct. you have the floor. Uh thank you. Uh I'm moving an amendment to B260286, uh the Juvenile Curfew Emergency Amendment Act of 2025, uh in recognition that a curfew is needed as a tool to address large crowds of youth who gather across the city um and pose potential risk to themselves, each other, and the public. Uh the purpose of the amendment is to reduce harm by targeting only the maximally harmful behavior. Um and it does that in several ways. One is uh a standard for reasonable notice of curfew violation. Uh while uh the underlying legislation noted uh the noticing of these curfew zones, there was no mention of how a young person uh might engage with law enforcement. And so the amendment before us now has that an officer, any officer uh has to give at least two verbal warnings to a young person who might uh be in this curfew zone. Uh it also changes the emergency curfew hours and the number of effective days. The underlying legislation um originally put forward 7 p.m. um that has been changed to 8:00 p.m. uh and to extend no longer than 6:00 a.m. the following day. And the number of effective days of these uh curfew zones has been reduced from 15 days to 4 days. Again, with the goal of minimizing harm and ensuring that we're still providing an effective tool to MPD and partners to quail what is happening across the city. Um and then the last thing um is the uh change to a number of juveniles that qualify as a violation of uh the curfew in these zoned areas. Um, my original amendment had this number at 10. We changed it to five. I appreciate council member Allen's input earlier. We are now landing at eight young people. Um, and again, the goal here is how do we provide MPD the tool needed while also minimizing harm. It was mentioned earlier a group of young people that are grabbing ice cream or leaving a basketball court u could have gotten caught up in the original language which had this at three young people in these curfew zones. Um and so I think we strike the right balance. I will just end by saying um you know this amendment we consulted uh the deputy mayor for public safety and just justice MPD as well as colleagues and I think we strike the right balance here. Uh but this is one tool uh that will span the course of the summer to get us to the other side of summer. But there are still more sustainable solutions that we have to be looking towards. I think the with the budget before us, we have ample opportunities. Uh two things that are top of mind for me is what happens on the back end and we talked about this a little bit earlier. when young people are picked up because of violations uh of uh to the curfew, they are taking to DRS or YSC uh the youth services center. Um and that is an agency and a center. Mr. Chairman, if I have one additional minute without objection. Uh that is an agency that needs a lot of support. Um, and uh, we need to be mindful that these tools and policies uh, that we're affording MPD come with consequences and it it means more young people could end up uh, in the crosshairs of our criminal justice system. And then the second um, is we need to continue expanding educational and recreational outlets uh, afforded to our young people. I appreciate that the mayor has rolled out her summer.dc.gov website. uh we need to socialize that for more families and communities to know what options are available to young people so that we are telling them what they can do versus merely telling them what they can't do. So with that uh I move the amendment alongside council member Pinto. Thank you. Uh we have the amendment before us discussion. Council member Bond. Thank you. Thank you very much chairman. Um to Mr. Parker, I was just curious about um you mentioned on page five line 122 um the let's see the section I guess this be I'm I'm curious as to these um warnings that would be issued to our young people uh audio warnings. How would we how would an officer know that they heard them? Because if I were in a group and you start telling me something, I'm running away. And I mean these this is the practicality of the situation I think we encounter. So, and this is just before you can be detained or arrested for violation. I'm just curious as to how you see this being implemented. Thank you. No, thank you for that question. I would say if one were to run away um in effect that's what we want uh to uh disperse these large crowds. Uh but it uh we are requiring MPD to give two audible warnings. Um and that was to ensure that there was a form of due process for young people so that they knew they were in violation of these curfew zones and that they could seek to a remedy. Uh we also uh require MPD to capture this engagement on body warn camera. Um and so we would be able to verify that an officer gave the warning and a young person either did or did not abide by it. Thank you very much for that answer. I wanted us to at least put on the record what we know will is likely to occur and how we would handle it. So, thank you very much. Uh, thank you, Council Member Bonds, Council Member Allen, and then Henderson. My hand was council George had her hand up for me. George, I can't keep up with this. All right. Council member Lewis George, then Council Member Allen, then Council Member Henderson, then Council Member McDuffy. Thank you. Um, I wanted to thank my colleague your hand either, Council Member Parker for um, what I think he has done to make some improvements here. Um, as well, um, I did want to make a note that I, uh, and and really shout out ANC, um, the new the new other ANC that now has two wards, uh, 68 uh, um, ANC worked really hard on this. Um and in fact their vice chair um uh Marquita Bryant did reach out to me to just talk about how much work she has been their community has been putting in. Um what she reached out to me for was she said to me, you know, I know you have DPR and I want to make sure um I want these things in place, but I would love it if um the extended curfew hours could also um you know, as much as DPR could um do the late night events at recreation centers while these curfews in place so that young people have a positive or a safe space to go. Um and she just wanted to know that that their community um wanted to make sure that it's a wholesome approach that there are positive activities for young people to go to like the DPR late night hype but other opportunities where other agencies feel like they can step in and also do the work. And so, um, I just wanted to note, um, and and thank the new, uh, 6 68, uh, ANC, we have a 3, 4G and war, so we understand that, um, but particularly vice chair Marquita Bryant, who, um, really just wanted me to communicate sort of the impetus of this came from what was happening in their community in Navyyard, um, and some of the work they put together on this. And so, um, wanted to just note that and let the commun the colleagues know that they are also seeking not just this type of intervention, but for every agency to step up and support our young people in a multitude of ways, not just, you know, singularly with the curfew. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Council Member Allen. Thank you very much. Um, and yes, ANC 68F, uh, which W six and W 8 share. Um, I also want to thank the commissioners from 68F, Commissioner Bryant, Commissioner Stragy, Commissioner Daniels, and and the others on the ANC. Um, I I've been involved with a lot of conversations with our ANC commissioners in 68F, with our leadership in the first district of NPD, with Commander Hall and his team, uh, with our business improvement districts, both the Capitol Riverfront bid and the Southwest bid, um, and a lot of neighbors, all trying to think through different solutions there. a a curfew has the risk of being an incredibly crude tool. And so that's why I think the amendment really helps us think about how to have an approach that is tailored. But I think we have to be careful that we are not implementing laws and swinging just to respond to the moment in a way that leaves us uh in in a much more difficult spot. Um, no one's going to excuse when a bunch of kids come in and as you the words I think I heard a melee or mischief. Um, but I'm pretty sure teenagers have been causing melee and mischief since there have been teenagers. But when we look at hundreds of young people that have gathered, that's a different thing and it does require response. But we want our response to be right. And so I really appreciate that we've had strong leadership from MPD, from our community to really try to think through how to balance this. The first version of this, three kids at 700 p.m. The sun doesn't go down for another hour and a half or two. Um, and three kids just walk into the library to the rec center. Like that. That to me was such an overreaction or overcorrection that I think it could do a lot of harm, which is why I'm glad that what we have in front of us moves it to 8:00 PM. I'd frankly be okay going a little bit later than that, but at least setting an 8:00 p.m. and at least 8 because once you get to a hundred, kind of to Council Bond's point about how do you make sure people actually hear it, MPD officials, when we've been in these meetings, once you get to 100 people, it's too late. like MPD is kind of forced into a space where they are having to react in a way that I don't think anybody wants to have uh that but it puts them where that is their only response by setting this at eight that is a smarter way where MPD or others are trying to intervene before it ever gets to 100 or 200 or very large groups. But we have to also recognize a curfew is not and should not be the only tool that we want to use here. um after we saw several weekends in the Navyyard for example um we have not had that happen for several weekends and that's because there have been really good intentional outreach and effort really smart ways to intervene we've partnered with the bids and their uh safe and clean teams who are out communicating identifying what's going on engaging folks so I think those are ways in which we've actually made progress on this and by only doing this as an emergency gives us time to take a look at it afterwards um I don't really see if I can have 60 more seconds Mr. Chairman, that objection. I don't really see how we're going to evaluate this though and so that gives me some pause of how are we evaluating whether these strategies work or not. Um I I am concerned and councelor Parker and I already talked about this. I am concerned about the capacity at YSC when the air conditioning's been out, which is fixed now. Doesn't say it's not going to go back out in a week. Um, if a young person's being picked up, they're going to YSC and we also, I think, have deeper problems. If that young person is just being turned right back over to a parent, and especially if we're talking about a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old, we got deeper questions and issues going on, uh, about why that young person is out at that time that would warrant us being able to solve this. So, I think that the amendment creates reasonable safeguards against unintended consequences and helps protect against a swing too far, but also does try to give the city some tools to be able to manage this. I just want us to be very careful that we don't view this as the only tool in the toolbox when we're trying to think about how to stop this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Council Member Allen. Council Member Henderson. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, a lot of people don't realize that we already have a curfew that exists. Um, I asked the deputy mayor for public safety and justice about some of the data of um, curfew pickups that have already existed and I got some reducted information and you know for the public who were suggesting that this is not necessarily an issue or um were sort of overblown. U, I just read off some of the ages of folks who've just been picked up in the last uh, 2 weeks and the times. Uh, a 13-year-old 1:00 a.m. A 12-year-old 1:00 a.m. A 14-year-old 1:00 a.m. UT Street. A 15-year-old 4:23 a.m. Chinatown Navyyard 14 U Street 16 U Street 16 14th Street 13 Georgia Avenue 15 Congress Heights like 3:00 a.m. Why are you out just I'm not entirely sure what you're doing at those particular times. But I think to your um colleagueu's point, I think we have to have a larger conversation about some of these particular issues and um where that kind of goes from there. I think the other thing that we have to keep in mind too, um and I want to bring up for colleagues is that while we're dealing with a DC issue, it's not always DC children who are engaging in some of these activities. Prince George's County has already done their curfew zones. Their hours will be different than ours. But what I want to caution us against is making the district now the spot to go because everyone else has basically said you can't come here. Um, and so we just have to sort of be mindful that we're not being an outlier. And I don't think that we are. I did feel like 7:00 was too early. I think 5:00 p.m. is too early, but you know, they've already made that decision um for the warf. There lots of activities for young people to do. But I also encourage communities to think outside the box in terms of how to create atmospheres and opportunities on your block, on your street um and um in order to engage young folks so that you know we don't have someone who's um not someone, hundreds of young people in the videos that we have seen um particularly around the US Street 14th Street area of late. Um, so I thank Council Member Parker for uh working with colleagues on the amendment as we made some adjustments on that front. Um, and uh I'll be voting yes today. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henderson. Further on the uh bill, Council Member White. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I want to thank um Council Member Parker for uh this amendment and for the underlying bill. Uh look, I I think the street lights is the is the right time. Uh we we we know the street light rule. Uh but but the there there are a couple things that that I think are important for us to consider here. First, um one, we have to do something. Uh if we don't, I think we will see federal intervention. And if our policies come from a place of care, I don't think the federal ones will. Um, and so we have to figure out how to turn the tide without causing significant harm to our young people. Uh, I I think we also have to be really thoughtful about uh how we engage parents when um young people miss the curfew. uh because it is worth some inquiry to the parents to understand uh if there are things that we can help with uh that will help them uh answer the question of why 10year-old 12year-old is uh out at Navyyard at at 1:00 a.m. So there's some work that we have to do here and and I I think we just have to be committed to it. Um but but I think unfortunately because of of some of the things that we've seen from some young people, far from the majority, but but a few young people have really ruined it for for the rest. Um and uh I know that there are some young people that are engaging other young people right now around some solutions. And I look forward to uh getting their recommendations on on what we do here. Um and encourage us to meet with some of these young people. and I'd be happy to help facilitate uh to get their thoughts on how we solve this this issue. Thank you, chairman. Uh thank you, Council Member. Any further council member Pinto? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I am happy to be moving this amendment today with Council Member Parker for all the reasons that have been articulated um about why some of these changes are are important. I do just want to highlight so everybody is aware that violating a curfew is not a crime. So it's not something that an arrest happens for. When MPD sees a young person like the um very sad examples um that council member Henderson went over. They pick up the young person and they try to take them home. If there is nobody home or they can't contact an adult, then that's when they take them to DRS until a parent or guardian can pick them up. And if it's a kid under 12 um then CFSA may be called um if there's a neglect issue there. So I just wanted to to rehighlight that for folks um in the public so that they know that while you need to honor the the curfew if it's set in place, it is not a crime and it's not an arrestable offense, but it is something that you'll you'll be taken home for and connected with your parent. Um, but thank you again to Council Member Parker uh for your collaboration on this and I hope all of our colleagues can support the emergency and the amendment today. Uh, thank you, Council Member. Is there anything further on the de on the bill? And this is the excuse me, on the amendment. Uh, the vote will be on the amendment. It was circulated by council members Parker and Pinto. All those in favor say I. I are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have unanimously. We have the bill as amended. Is there any further discussion on the bill as amended? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next three measures are revenue bond revenue bond. Uh the first is PR26-252 USBC economic development corporation revenue bonds project emergency declaration resolution 2025. Council member McDuffy. Thank you uh Chairman. On June 26, 2025, uh, you, Chairman Mendlesson, introduce the underlying measure at the request of the mayor. The measure would authorize and provide for the issuance, sale, and delivery in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $37.5 million to finance the purchase and transformation of space located at the former home of BET Studios located at 1900 W Place Northeast in W 5 along with the acquisition and transformation of 1301 W Street Northeast, 1235 W Street Northeast, and parcel CA1.7. 8 73. Uh it's a a 1.73 acre parking lot. Uh the renovated campus, including the additional properties, will become uh USBC's uh headquarters. The issuance of these bonds will create further economic development in W 5, Brentwood neighborhood of the District of Columbia. And with that, I would move the resolution. We have the declaration before us. Discussion. This is PR26-252. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The underlying resolution PR26-253. Council member McDuffy. So move. Discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is DC Housing Solutions, Inc. Revenue Bonds Project Emergency Decoration Resolution of 2025. Council Member McDuffy. Thank you, Chairman. On June 24th, 2025, Chairman Mendlesson introduced the underlying measure DC Housing Solutions, Inc. Revenue Bonds Project Emergency Approval Resolution of 2025 at the request of the mayor. It would authorize and provide for the issuance, sale, and delivery in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $700 million of District of Columbia revenue bonds in one or more series to authorize and provide for the loan of the proceeds of such bonds to assist DC Housing Solutions, Inc. in the financing, refinancing, or reimbursing of costs associated with affordable housing projects in the District of Columbia. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance, refinance, or reimburse costs associated with the renovation of 19 buildings consisting of approximately 3,500 housing units in seven of the district's eight wards. With that, I move the declaration. Thank you, Council McDuffy. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? Council member Ferman. Yes. Um I guess I have I mean this is big $700 million and uh 3500 units. And it's not I'm I'm in inclined to be supportive, but I'm curious what this is all about. And I mean one of the things that's out there is the idea that there would be co-developments and mixeduse projects on some of these kinds of sites. And I don't know if this is a question for council member McDuffy or council member White, but can someone provide a little bit of texture about what this $700 million would be used for? You'll have to do it. I can't. Council member McDuffy. Thank you, chairman. Um, I could go down the list of all the projects um that would be involved in this, but without going through all of them, I'll just give a an example. Um, The uh rental assistance demonstration program is something that's been ongoing at the housing authority for some time now and this is the vehicle that they have deployed to get the capital necessary to do a number of projects like uh Carol Apartments um with an address of 410 M Street Southeast where there's 60 units and these are these are again the housing authorities public housing uh units. Claridge Towers uh at 1221 M Street Northwest which is comprised of 343 units. Fort Lincoln at 3,400 Banaker Drive Northeast where there are 120 units. Harvard Towers at 1845 Harvard Street Northwest with 193 units. Um I'm going to sort of give just hop around a little bit so we can give you an example of some of the places uh of the seven wards that are represented in the number of uh projects that are represented. also included our James Apartments at 1425 in Street Northwest, 141 units. James Creek in Southwest 1244 First Street Southwest with 242 units in W 6. Uh Kentucky Courts might be familiar to some folks at 34013 Street Southeast, 118 units also in W 6. uh Lloyd Senior at 2125 4th Street Northwest 124 units in W one. So just a a sample all I think I said 19 projects in seven of our eight WS that uh stands to benefit from uh the bond that we're voting on right now. Uh, chairman, if I could just I've lost track of where I am. We were adjourned. I mean, I asked a question of council member McDuffy and perhaps council member White and Council Member White seems like he wants to chime in. So, he may, but I haven't recognized him yet. You're done, right? I'm done. All right. Council member Robert White. Uh, thank you, uh, Chairman and, um, Council Member Fman. Um just just a little bit uh more context here because it's a lot of money, but uh obviously I spoke earlier about the importance of preservation. Um the housing authority identified 19 uh communities that were uh in high need of rehabilitation. They're prioritizing seven of those. Um back of the envelope math uh per unit, this is about $200,000 per unit. So the the ultimate number is big but there are a lot of units here that are very much in need of uh repair. So so the idea excuse me the idea is rehabilitation of existing units not new developments on these sites. That's correct. Okay. Anything further on the declaration? The vote will be on the declaration PR26-242. All those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously on the underlying resolution PR26-243. Council member McDuffy. So move. Discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Inc. Revenue Bonds Project Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025. Council Member McDuffy. Thank you, Chairman. On June 25th of this year, Chairman Mendlesson introduced the underlying measure at the request of the mayor. It would authorize and provide for the issuance, sale, and delivery in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $88 million of District of Columbia revenue bonds in one or more series to authorize and provide for the loan of proceeds of such bonds to assist National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Inc. in the financing, refinancing, or reimbursing of costs associated with their property located at 7415th Street Northwest in W 2. Uh and I would move the declaration. Uh thank you. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? On the declaration, all those in favor say I. Are there any opposed? You guys have it unanimously. We have the underlying resolution PR26-251. Council member McDuffy. So move. Discussion. Council member Vanes. Thank you very much. um this address of 7 uh415th Street. What is in that address currently? Do we know what's in 7415? Yeah. What what is housed there? Uh I'm not sure exactly all the um the businesses or organizations there, but the NCRC is headquartered there. Okay. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Yes, of course. Okay. But I believe that there may be other businesses. Having uh been there before and visited with them, I'm pretty sure there are others, but it's it's their headquarters building, I believe. Chairman, Council Member White, um I I I I feel like I recall us doing a a revenue bond or tax exemption for NCRC maybe like five, six years ago. Um, how does this relate to that? And I apologize, this was so far down the agenda, I wasn't paying a lot of attention to it. Um, I I I recall us doing a tax abatement or a revenue bond for NCRC maybe five or six years ago, so I'm just not sure how the two correlate, but it seems like we're sending a lot of money to NCR. I'm not sure that they I do actually, now that you mentioned it, I do recall that as well. Um, because they there were some requirements that I remember we tacked on uh for them to utilize. I can't remember. I I'll have to look at it, but I don't know that the two are necessarily tethered together for the purpose of this bond. Uh but I'm happy to get uh updates on uh the progress uh on that. I don't remember whether it was I think it was a tax baitment on the building. I think that's right. And um but this is a bond which is different but I'm happy to get some updates and I don't I don't think the two are okay are um necessarily linked for the purpose of us considering the instant measure before us. If there's nothing further we have the approval resolution before us that's PR26-251. All those in favor say I. Uh are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. There are three temporary measures. Uh I'm going to try to move them in black. Uh bill 26-302 African-American Civil War Museum Limited Grant making authority temporary. Bill 26-305 peace DC omnibus temporary. and bill 26-300 streetery program endorsement extension and medical cannabis clarification temporary and to be clear with general counsel the peace DC omnibus temporary will conform to the emergency is that correct council member Pinto with regard to clemency and with regard to fire and EMS not being included yes that's correct and with regard to the amendments that were made to the permanent Right. Is that clear? General counsel. Yes. Hearing no objection. The three are moved in block discussion. The vote will be on the three temporaries. All those in favor say I. I. Oppo. Any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. I think that concludes our business. I'm trying to remember if there was anything else that had to be brought up. Nope. Um the agenda says our next legislative meeting was September 17th. We know that's not true. Our next uh legislative meeting will be on the budget on July 14th. And uh that's an additional meeting. So the agenda will be limited, but it will include the rental act assuming that that's marked up by the committee. There was also, I think, uh, something else that we moved marked up in committee to hold today. They will be on the July 14th agenda. The, uh, work session is tomorrow at 9:30. The time is 4:34 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.