I'm calling to order this uh meeting. This is an additional meeting of the committee the whole of the council of the District of Columbia. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council and chair of the committee the whole. Today is Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026. The time is 20 12:22 in the afternoon. We are in room 500, the council chambers. The council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. This hearing is being televised, excuse me, this meeting is being televised on cable television channel 13 as well as on the council's website www.dcconsil.gov. Uh this is an additional committee. the whole meeting meaning it's not a regularly scheduled committee the whole meeting although we seem to have these additional meetings regularly and this will be followed by the regular monthly meeting of the legislative meeting of the council uh we begin our committee of the whole meetings figuring out if we have a quorum cash would you call the role >> chairman Mendelson >> present >> council member Allen >> here >> council member Bonds >> here >> council member Crawford >> here >> council member Felder >> present >> council member Freeman >> present >> councilmber Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. >> Council member Nado. >> Council member Nadau. Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trayon White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Thank you Mr. Cash. Uh we have um six measures for markup in the committee the whole and then we will um agendaize measures from other committees. Uh the first item for consideration in the committee the whole is a committee report. entitled the department of buildings illegal construction enforcement gaps deficiencies and recommendations. Uh this uh report was put together by the committee staff and the committee then held a hearing uh with the department of buildings and received uh uh testimony from members of the public. Uh and what we have before us is a refined version of that report. The um through the investigation by committee staff, the uh committee found that the department of buildings does not adequately train illegal construction inspectors before inspectors are sent to the field. The department is not adequately resourced to handle the volume of illegal construction complaints received by the public. The department has no process to refer licensed contractors to the department of licensing and consumer protection for engaging in illegal construction work. The department has no formal mechanism to track repeat offenders who engage in illegal construction work, and nearly half of all stop work orders analyzed by the committee lacked evidence of a follow-up inspection, raising questions about the department's ability to track compliance. Recommendations in the report include the department should develop a training curriculum for newly hired illegal construction inspectors. training that includes case studies and role play playing. The training curriculum should be developed based on a training needs assessment and discussions with current illegal construction inspectors. The inspectors are legal, but they inspect illegal construction. The department should cross train inspectors from other divisions or units to conduct illegal construction inspections. The mayor should increase the number of illegal construction inspectors at the Department of Buildings in the fisc year 2027 budget. The department should maintain its key performance indicator to complete 90% of illegal construction inspections within 7 days of receiving a complaint. The department systems should flag and prioritize any complaints where an inspection has not occurred within 7 days of receiving a complaint. The department should update its standard operating procedures to require the issuance of a stop work order for illegal construction complaints at sites with an active permit where an inspector has refused access to the site. This should apply as well to any third-party inspections. The department should establish a unique identification number for property owners and contractors within its system to enable inspectors to track construction activity for a single property owner or contractor, including active permits, stop work orders, and related information across multiple projects or properties. The department should require inspectors to conduct follow-up inspections of all unresolved illegal construction infractions. Pelop inspection should be conducted within a specific time frame after the service of a notice of infraction. The department should establish a protocol for verifying identities and addresses within its standard operating procedures so employees are consistent in which sources of information they use to examine and verify the identities and addresses of property owners. The department should establish a key performance indicator or service level agreement that measures the time between an initial inspection or the posting of an stopwork order and the service of a notice of infraction to the respondent. The department should establish a key performance indicator that sets a time a standard time frame for when non-responsive notices of infraction must be filed with the office of administrative hearings. The department should thoroughly review all notices of infraction, including the accuracy of any code citations before they are served on the respondent to ensure there are no deficiencies. The mayor should increase the number of administrative law judges and support staff at the office of administrative hearings in the fiscal year 2027 budget. The department should put in place mechanisms to better track office of administrative hearings uh to better track hearings at OAH and please. Additionally, the committee recommends that the department offer a response to please in all cases. The department should establish a process and standard operating procedure to refer non-compliant or repeat offenders with occupational licenses engaging in illegal construction in illegal construction work. Uh a procedure to refer to the department of licensing and consumer protection for further investigation and potential discipline. Any referrals should be clearly documented and reported by violation type in the department's strategic enforcement report. And the department should establish a standard operating procedure for conducting proactive illegal construction inspections. The procedure should outline how areas will be selected and how frequently proactive inspection blitzes will be conducted in a given year. I believe that's all of the recommendations that are in the report, which is 27 pages. I move the report for approval. Is there discussion on the report? >> I I'd only say Chairman Mendelson, thank you very much to you and your team for uh the great work in this area, not just this report, but the other things that you've done on the Department of Buildings recently. >> Uh thank you. If there's no uh council member Park, >> I will echo that praise. Uh Mr. Chairman, um illegal construction is a big issue in W five and so I'm happy to see this report. I do have one question, but uh what is clear from this report is that there needs to be more intentional training and focus on the part of uh DOB uh to address illegal construction that is popping up across the city. One thing that struck me is, Mr. chairman is that in order for the inspections to move forward, it seems like DOB has to receive a complaint um and I noted or just it was a thought that there isn't any mention of like proactive engagement or outreach from the agency to survey or inspect certain areas like a Carver Link in W 5 that is uh usual suspect for illegal construction and if that was something the committee considered andor that came up during your investigation Give me a second. Uh it's a fair point, uh council member Parker. Uh there is on page 26 discussion about proactive enforcement. Uh so it is touched on. It just wasn't in the uh summary that I had read. Uh but uh we can add it to the um committee action section as well that you brought this up. >> Yeah, I think that I I see it now. I think this is really important. I think this entire report is important and I'm hoping uh that the mayor will fund the agency to allow for there to be more robust engagement on illegal construction. So, thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Council Rebond. >> Um thank you, Chairman. Um and thank you very much for this report. Um, I'm looking forward to the next report that I hope will be produced by the Department of of Buildings because I think we need to take a look at properties across the city. Um, properties that um are occupied um thinking particularly about our rental properties and how our rental properties are aging. And it just seems to me we can get ahead of ourselves by looking at properties that have been in the inventory for 75 or longer years um so that we can make sure that they are safe and sanitary for our residents. Um I think we could take that proactive um a step forward. I know the issue has frequently been mentioned, well, we just don't have enough inspectors, but I think we have enough inspectors when we talk about service delivery for all of us who uh live in our community. So, I'd like to see that as one of the goals into the future, immediate future. >> Uh we'll include that in the um committee action. >> Thank you. Uh if there's nothing further, the council member Nidau, >> thank you, chairman. Um thank you to you and your team for this thorough report and and the action you're taking today. Um I wanted to highlight some recommendations in there for funding more administrative law judges and staffing at the office administrative office of administrative hearings. Um this is a constant issue. Um we update our laws but the fist never includes additional staffing at O and that's where we end up with backlogs. So it's something that we'll be raising in this year's um budget planning again this year with colleagues uh who have agencies that contribute a lot of cases to O. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. There's nothing further. The vote will be on the report. purposes to approve the report. I should say would leave the sta for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes hearing no nays. The eyes have it unanimously. I don't have to ask for clearance because this isn't going to be on the legislative agenda. The next measure for consideration is PR26-512 entitled Commission on Out of School Time Grants and Youth Outcomes Rohan Young Confirmation Resolution of 2026. The purpose of this resolution is to confirm the mayor's nomination of Mr. Rohan Young for appointment to the commission on out of schooltime grants and youth outcomes for a term to end November 7th, 2027. The commission is a public body composed of government agency representatives and key community stakeholder constituencies to develop a district-wide strategy for equitable access to highquality out of school time programs for district youth. The commission is also charged with facilitating inter agency planning and coordination. It targets grant making, evaluates data and considers the provision of training, capacity building and technical assistance to out of school time providers. The commission consists of no more than 21 members who represent key community stakeholder constituencies or our district agency administrative heads or their design. Specifically, six are specified agency heads or their design. the deputy mayor for education, the state superintendent of education, the DCPS chancellor, the executive director of the public charter school board, the department of parks and recreation director, the director of out of school time office within the DME. One is the designate of the chairperson of the council uh of the council committee of jurisdiction. uh and at least eight are non-governmental members appointed to three-year terms by the mayor after council confirmation which is what's before us. This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on January 27th of this year. The committee the whole held a public roundt on this nomination on February 27th. The committee received no testimony or comments in opposition. Uh without objection I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Once the report and hearing record are filed >> and madame budget director, this is a nomination confirmation. So there is no fiscal impact statement. Correct. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next item is bill 26-125. Give me a second. Uh I am going to um withdraw this today because we do not have a fiscal impact statement for it. So the next measure is bill 26-173 architect and engineer good Samaritan amendment act of 2026. Bill 26-173 would provide limited civil liability in certain cases to licensed architects and professional engineers who in good faith and without compensation render assistance at the scene of or in connection with a life-threatening emergency in the built environment at the direction or approval of a federal or district official during a period of a public emergency or within 90 days following the end of a public emergency. at the scene of a life-threatening emergency in the built environment. As shown in the relief efforts following hurricanes Katrina and Rita and September 11th terrorist attacks, architects and professional engineers expertise in assessing structural, mechanical, electrical, or other infrastructure can be invaluable to assisting federal, state, or local governments that may have limited resources during emergencies. It therefore becomes crucial that certain liability protections are established by state governments to provide immunity for architects and professional engineers during a declared emergency so that they can quickly volunteer their services without being deterred by liability concerns. Bill 26-173 addresses these liability concerns by providing legal protection to architects and engineers who voluntarily offer their expertise in emergency situations that affect the built environment, which includes human constructed surroundings that support human activities such as buildings, transport systems, and landscapes. To qualify for protection under the proposed legislation, professionals must be licensed and have completed the California Office of Emergency Services Safety Assessment Program training. The bill also takes further step of defining built environment as the um quote human constructed surroundings that support human activities including buildings, transport systems, and landscapes unquote. to ensure that the scope of the activities of these protected design professionals as well as the extent of liability protection is more easily understood. This legislation was introduced on March 10th, 2025 by council member Allen joined by looks like five other me members. The committee on business and economic development held a public hearing on the bill last December 3rd. And I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? Mr. Chair, council member Allen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and your staff for moving this bill to mark up today. The bill was originally referred as you said to the committee on business and economic development and a hearing was held late last year. Uh appreciate your willingness to move this bill quickly after it was reerred to the committee of the whole. I'll keep our remarks brief given you've just given a very helpful overview uh of the legislation and the committee report goes a lot more in depth. But I'll just underscore and put into perspective why this legislation is actually important. Back in 2023, I was approached by the DC chapter of the American Institute of Architects as well as numerous architects that run and operate local businesses here in the district. They asked for this legislation. They pointed to the Surfside condominium collapse in Florida. It was still fresh on people's mind and quite frankly made us realize that a situation like that could happen here in the district. The Surfside condo disaster was one situation, but we're also a region that has its fair share of natural disasters that depending on the impact can easily affect the built environment around us. Luckily, given that architects and engineers are trained in structural integrity, they are more than ready and capable of stepping up to the plate and assess and assessing in the time of need. So, I want to thank the DC chapter of the American Institute of Architects for their support and collaboration on this legislation as well as the trial lawyers for their perspective and guidance on making sure their limited liability language was appropriate. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and encourage all my colleagues support for this today. >> Uh, thank you, council member. Further discussion? Uh, the vote will be on the print with Lee for staff to make technical and conforming changes. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Vote will be on the report. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete >> once the report is filed? Madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next measure for markup is bill 26-308, the Jules Way Designation Act of 2026. This bill would symbolically designate 13th Street Northwest between Upshire Street and Allison Street as the Jewels Way. The location is in Ward 4. Uh this is symbolic naming which is for ceremonial purposes and is not in addition to or subordinate to any name. No, it is. It shall be in addition to and shall be subordinate to any name that is an official name. This ceremonial designation honors the Jewels, a pioneering all female vocal group formed by students at Roosevelt High School in the early 1960s. Originally performing as the impalas, then as the four jewels, and finally the jewels, members Sandra Beers or Bears, Grace Ruffen, Margie Clark, and Carrie Owens began singing together while attending Roosevelt High School and performing at Trinity AM Zion Church. The singers gained early recognition when legendary guitarist Bo Diddley recorded their first single in his Rhode Island Avenue Northeast home studio. In 1964, they recorded the Billboard charting single Opportunity. And in that same year, they were discovered by James Brown at the Apollo Theater, becoming his first all female backing group in the James Brown Review. After touring touring nationally, the group returned to the district and recorded additional singles before disbanding in 1968. The Jewels rei reunited briefly in 1985 and released an album entitled Loaded with Goodies. They have since been recognized for their contributions to the district's musical heritage and are featured in the PBS documentary, The Jewels, the Divas of DC Dooop. This designation recognizes this locally grown group's cultural impact and the historical significance of Roosevelt High School as a site of artistic and musical development in Ward 4. Placing the designation adjacent to Roosevelt High School ensures that students and community members will be reminded of the group's enduring legacy and the district's rich musical history. This legislation was introduced by Council Member Ado. Council member Janice Lewis George on June 26, 2025. The committee of the whole held a hearing on January 13th of this year and received no testimony or comments in opposition, but did get testimony from uh one of the members of the jewels. Uh maybe two of the members, maybe three of the members of the jewels, >> three surviving, >> the three surviving members. It was actually a nice hearing. Um so without objection, I move both the print and reports. We leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Council member Lewis George. >> Well, now the report attributed the introduction to a different member, but I caught that. Thank you, chair, and I'm glad this bill is moving forward um uh to designate the section of 13th Street between Upshire and Allison Street as the Jewels Way. Um the Jewels were a trailblazing trailblazing all female group uh formed by students at Roseville High School in the 1960s. Um yes, their story was actually actually just really uh not only fascinating but really inspiring. Um, originally they were known as the Impalas and then Sandra Bears, Grace Ruff and Margie Clark and Carrie Owens began singing together actually at Trinity AM Zion Church and gaining early support from legendary uh, guitarist Bo Diddley. Uh, they recorded their first single, I Need You So Much, in Bo Diddley's home studio on Rhode Island Avenue Northeast. Um, and they went on to record several singles with national labels, including the Billboard charting Opportunity in 1964. While the Jewels formally went their separate ways in 1968, uh, they left their mark on DC's musical heritage. Uh, they are featured in the award-winning PBS documentary, The Jewels, the Divas of Dooop. Um, this ceremonial street designation will honor their legacy and enduring influence on American music and DC's cultural history. Um, and it's my honor that this is happening, especially women's history month where we honor trailblazing women in our country, um, and as also in our city. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Lewis George. Is there further discussion? >> Uh, the vote will be on both the print and report for bill 26-308 with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. >> I. Are there any no votes? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the record is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Once the report and hearing record are filed. >> Madame budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The last item for markup in the committee is bill 26-365 entitled Lenora Baker Way Designation Act of 2026. This bill symbolically designates Third Street Southwest between I and M Streets as Lenora Baker Way. The location is in Ward 6. It's a symbolic naming for ceremonial purposes and is in addition to and subordinate to any name that is an official name. Lenora Baker was a longtime Southwest resident whose life reflected sustained community engagement during a period of significant social and economic challenges in the neighborhood. Miss Baker devoted herself to volunteer service at local schools including Amadon Bowen Elementary School, Jefferson Middle School Academy, and Richard Wright Public Charter School, and served as a deaconist and cook at Westminster Presbyterian Church. Miss Baker was widely known in the Southwest community for her role in preserving and celebrating African-American culinary traditions through church events and neighborhood gatherings. She also worked with the council's board six office to support programming at the southwest branch library and to advance community health initiatives. Symbolic designations such as this honor residents whose steady and sustained service strengthens neighborhood institutions and civic life. This designation acknowledges Miss Baker's contributions to Southwest and preserves her legacy within the community she served. this bill. >> This bill was introduced on September 23rd, 2025 by Council Member Allen and the committee as a whole held a public hearing on the bill on January 12th, 2026. Uh, the committee's received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation. Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? Council member Allen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just want to take a quick moment and uplift some of Lenora Baker's contributions to our Southwest community in W 6, given that due to when the hearing was held, there weren't able to be a lot of public witnesses providing testimony. Lenora Bellbell Baker was a mother of six. She lived in Greenle Gardens in Southwest adjacent to where the symbolic renaming would take place. In addition to the facts that you helped highlight within the committee report, Mr. Chairman, she was someone who was passionately devoted to her community, to her family, and she was frequently organizing job and health fairs and other community events across W 6 and Southwest and in coordination with the W 6 council office. also just kind of off her own block. You would constantly see her as a steady presence at the Southwest Branch Library and of course at Westminster. My staff and I worked with her a lot throughout the years until her passing in 2023. She is going to forever be remembered as someone who cared deeply about making sure that neighbors in Southwest were supported and had accesses to access to the resources that they needed. I also want to thank her family for initiating this effort and this process before ANC 6D as well as for ANC 6D's support for this renaming. Um in the interest, Mr. chairman of having a complete and accurate record. I do believe there was a inadvertent typo in the committee report that has a map that shows it as southeast rather than southwest. And so if I could just request that the committee report be updated to have the correct quadrant, I would appreciate that. Again, I'm sure it was just an inadvertent typo. As Ward 6 is the only ward that touches all four quadrants of our city, >> we'll have to fix that. Um it's the um the map. Oh, you're right. It does. Every street is southeast, >> but easily remedied right here. >> Well, actually, we have to redo the map, but um yes, the motion was to approve subject to technical conforming and editorial. >> I knew you and your team, Crackerjack team, would be able to fix that. So, thank you. >> Correct. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh thank you. Is there further discussion? Uh the vote will be on bill 26-365, both print report for staff. All those in favor say I. I. Are there any opposed? Hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam, general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Once the report and hearing record are filed, >> madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> No, there is not. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. We'll turn to consideration of measures from other committees. The first is PR26-229, Commission on Fashion, Arts, and Events, Tiara Brewer, Confirmation Resolution 2026, reported out of the Committee on Public Works and Operations by Council Member Brienne Nadau. Council Member Nadau. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PR26-229, the Commission on Fashion Arts and Events, Tiara Brewer Confirmation Resolution of 2025, confirms the reappoint of Miss Brewer to the Commission on Fashion Arts and Events for a term to end April 15, 2029. This resolution was introduced on June 13, 2025 and referred to the Committee on Public Works and Operations for consideration on June 17, 2025. The DC Commission on Fashion Arts and Events was established in 2008 to promote and support the fashion and beauty industry in the District of Columbia. Miss Brewer has over 10 years of fashion, retail, and corporate experience. Throughout her career, she styled high-profile individuals and worked for several Fortune 500 corporations. She has a wide range of experience in buying, branding, wardrobe styling, merchandising, and management. In her current role, Miss Burough provides oversight and supervision to more than 3,000 global products and projects. During her confirmation hearing, Miss Brewer demonstrated her interest in public service and shared her experience with local nonprofits and government agencies to support DC families, including Safe Passage and National Association for the Advancement of Returning Citizens. The Committee on Public Works and Operations concluded that Miss Brewer meets the qualifications for membership on the Commission on Fine Arts on Fashion Arts and Events. Therefore, we recommend her nomination and I request this measure to be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Thank you, Council Member Nido. Are there questions from members? Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam budget director, this is a confirmation. So there's no fiscal impact. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. There's no objection. The next two measures will be presented in block. They are both nominations to the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency. PR26-441, Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency, Heather Wellington, confirmation resolution of 2026, and PR26-442, Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency, Johans Fuller, confirmation resolution of 2026. both reported out of the committee on housing chaired by council member Robert White. Council member White. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um moving these two confirmations to the DC Housing Finance Agency or DCHFA board of directors and block, Heather Wellington and Johans Fuller have been nominated for reappointment to DC HFA's board where they would continue serving as chair and vice chair respectively. Miss Wellington brings over two decades of experience in commercial real estate development and management. And her expertise spans acquisition financing design and construction for complex mixeduse projects. She has demonstrated a strong commitment to collaboration and ethics. In her tenure as board chair, Mr. Fuller is a finance and real estate executive with deep roots in affordable housing and public sector leadership where he has overseen major capital projects and structured housing transactions that align with the community with community priorities. His experience as a banker, housing provider, and public official equips him to evaluate deals with from multiple perspectives and ensure accountability in every decision. I now move these resolutions. Uh, thank you, Council Member White. Are there questions from members? >> Madam general counsel, are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each? >> Yes. >> Madam budget director, these are confirmations and therefore no fiscal impact statement. >> Correct. >> Objection. These measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. There's no objection. And the next four measures will be presented in black. Their confirmations regarding the housing reduction trust fund. PR26-457 Housing Production Trust Fund Board. Steven Glaude confirmation resolution 2026. PR26-458 Housing Production Trust Fund Board. Sasha Gay Angus confirmation resolution 2026. PR26-459 Housing Reduction Trust Fund Board. Patrick McCanneni confirmation resolution of 2026 and PR26-477 Housing Production Trust Fund Board Stacy Bernbach confirmation resolution of 2026 all reported out of the committee on housing. Council member White. >> Uh thank you chairman. Uh moving the four housing production trust fund or HPTF board confirmations in block. Sasha Gay Angus, Patrick McCanneni, and Stacy uh Bernbach have been nominated to the HPTF board, and Steven Glaude has been nominated to serve as chair. Mr. Glaude is a seasoned leader with more than 35 years of experience in housing policy and advocacy. His career includes senior roles at HUD and the district government, where he managed billions in housing and community development programs. His collaborative approach and deep policy expertise will be invaluable as we navigate today's affordability challenges. Sasha Gay Angus brings more than 25 years of experience in affordable housing and community development. As president and CEO of Mana Inc., Miss Angus leads strategic efforts to deliver affordable housing, home ownership education, and resident services. Her prior roles at McCormack Baron Salazar and the Michaels Development Company involve managing multi-phase redevelopment projects and structuring complex financing packages for mixed income communities. Patrick Mcanini brings a developer perspective and extensive experience in affordable housing finance and policy. As development director at at Smers development company, he has managed projects totaling $867 apartments and $222 million in financing, leveraging tools like the uh like LITC tax exempt bonds and public loans. Stacy Baronbach is vice president of real estate development at Enterprise Community Development, where she oversees a pipeline of projects totaling over $400 million in 1,400 homes. Her career spans nonprofit and public sector roles, including underwriting millions in housing funds at DHCD and managing technical assistance programs at Lisk. I now move these resolutions. >> Thank you, Council Member. Are there questions from members? >> How long is the um how long are these appointments? >> Oh, um let's see. How long will be how long are they >> for uh uh >> how's it been HPTF like four years? >> I'm pretty sure it's four. Let me get back to you if I'm wrong on that. >> Okay. Thanks. >> There are no further questions. Madam general counsel, are these four measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each? >> Yes. >> Madam budget director, these are confirmations. No fiscal impact statements. Correct. >> Correct. >> Objection. These measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next two measures were reported out of the committee on youth affairs chaired by Council Member Parker. Bill 26-400 statutory neglect amendment act of 2026. Actually, this was sequentially referred. So, first first I think to council member to committee on judiciary and public safety. Am I correct? And then second. >> Thank you. Since these are councelor Parker's bills, I'll defer to him to uh speak first. >> Thank you, M. Hold on. So, what's before us is judiciary committee's print. Yes. Right. So, I got it wrong. It was sequentially referred first to committee on youth affairs and then to the committee on judiciary and public safety, but council member Pinto is yielding to council member Parker. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I also want to thank Council Member Pinto, chair of the council's committee on the judiciary and public safety for our committee's work on marking up this bill and advancing it. The Statutory Neglect Amendment Act of 2026 redefes the definition of a neglected child, separating abuse from abandonment, and importantly makes clear that poverty is not neglect or a reason to separate a child from their family. This bill makes several key provisions or revisions to the existing neglect code in order to reduce legal ambiguity and incorporate a focus on the state of the child and welfare findings. With these changes, CFSA and our courts will be able to conduct more finely tuned investigations and procedures which will reduce unnecessary family uh separations uh that often affect lower income families and families of color in the district. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Council Pendle, do you want to add anything? >> Uh yes. I just want to thank you, Council Member Parker, for your leadership on this bill. Um, and think it's really important that we do both at the same time, that we protect children from neglect and also ensure that we're not further harming children by removing them from their families um, who are in poverty when the parents are financially constrained but very willing and engaged caregivers. And it is a difficult balance and I appreciate your work and attention to these issues. Um, this bill, as you mentioned, consolidates, standardizes, and updates the statutory definition of neglect, adjusts the code language to promote a focus on the condition of the child rather than the condition of the parent, and eliminates the potential for racial and economic bias by establishing that co poverty itself cannot be the sole basis of find of a finding of neglect. Um, we adopted in committee the substantive changes of the committee on youth affairs, um, including changing the definitions of an unwilling caretaker, expanding the definition to capture cases where a parent may not yet have failed to meet the child's needs, but has expressed an intention of no longer wanting to meet those needs. Um, which will allow for earlier interventions and support for the child. our print only differs from the youth affairs print on technical grounds. Um, and so thank you again to your partnership and also want to thank the Children's Law Center and Office of the Attorney General for providing policy and technical expertise throughout the work on this bill. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Uh, are there questions for members? >> Council member Tran White. >> Uh, thank you uh to Council Member Parker. Um, can you give the rationale about adding back uh cannabis as a controlled substance to this bill? >> Yes. Um, thank you for that question. Um, as we mentioned in breakfast, um, there was a debate whether or not we should strike cannabis as a substance uh, if found at the birth of a child would constitute neglect. Uh quite frankly um I did not feel comfortable removing cannabis because the research is inconclusive there where there are some experts that say yes cannabis can be harmful if a mom injects it while pregnant while other research studies uh suggest it's not. I think it's something uh that we need to do more work on. We did consult DC health as well as an OBGYn that worked on our team and again the findings were just inconclusive. So, uh, we left it in the code. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, council member. Any other questions concerning this bill? >> Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a cost? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Bill 26-408 promoting parental engagement at DYRS amendment acted 2026 also sequentially referred first to the committee on youth affairs and then to the command on judiciary and public safety. Council member Pinto, do you want to present or defer to Council Member Parker? >> I'll similarly defer to Council Parker first. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you, Council Member Pinto, uh for her work on marking up this building, advancing it. This bill, like the one we just took up, were uh is a part of the committee on youth affairs uh care for youth policy package. And this bill requires that DRS contact parents of families uh for youth in its care at least every six months following the predispositional meeting. Ultimately, this bill seeks to ensure that there is routine and regular communication between the agency and parents. It is worth noting that we hear regularly from parent advocates and parents that they have little to no contact with the agency. However, the agency says routinely that they are in touch. This bill will provide the committee and the council a mechanism to verify those touch points with families as they are tasked with documenting uh their engagements with families at least every six months. I also think it's important to make clear that this is a flaw. In no ways are we suggesting or limiting DRS to only communicating with families every six months. Uh as well as this is something the agency should already be doing. Um this is not burdensome as they are already expected to document their communications with families. This is just mandating that they do so. Uh, finally, I will recognize that at the JPS markup, Council Member Bonds flagged additional requirements that I think have merit. Uh, she suggested that we should require the agency to document when a young person has a significant illness. And by significant illness, that could include uh contracting COVID or having to um have surgery of some sort. Uh we have had reports from families that uh they were not aware when their young person had a medical illness as well as council member Bang's flag that we should uh require the agency to communicate with parents when their young person is transported out of YSC or the youth services center. Uh we have agreed to work on that amendment between first and second vote. So while we are not prepared to move that vote or amendment today uh I do plan to move it before a second uh vote. And with that thank you Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> questions from members. Council member Pinto. >> Um, thank you, Council Member Parker, and I I agree with with everything he said. I will just add that, you know, we call DYRS for a reason, Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services and ensuring that there is active engagement with our parents or custodians um or adults in a young person's li life while they are in custody is very very important to ensuring the full rehabilitation and to ensure that the child is getting what they need while they are in custody and as they transition back into community um that there is not a gap. And so that regular communication is really important. Um and I also want to thank parent watch who does instrumental work at DRS and ensuring that parents are a part of the process in getting information back from DYRS that parents are asking for. Um which is is vital. Um and in agreement that there is more work and conversations we're having with Council Member Bonds and Council Member Parker. um to ensure that the reporting um is where it needs to be and so we look forward to working together on that before the next vote. Thank you. >> Thank you, council member. Questions from members? >> Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yeah. Yes, it does. >> Please do not get choked up over this bill. There are better bills to get choked up over. Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Thank you. >> It's a good thing, too. Um, without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Then next two three four measures were reported out of the committee on judiciary and public safety charted by council member Brook Pinto. PR26-404 chief medical examiner Francisco Diaz confirmation resolution of 2026. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This resolution would confirm the reappoint of Dr. Francisco Diaz as the chief medical examiner at the office of the chief medical examiner or OCME. The chief medical examiner oversees all of the AY's functions, which include forensic pathology, death investigation, and fatality management. Dr. Diaz has served as the chief medical examiner in the district since June of 2021 with prior positions of acting chief medical examiner from January to June of 21 and deputy chief medical examin examiner from June 2017 to June 21. In addition, Dr. Dr. Diaz has served as the interim director of the department of forensic science since 2023. With degrees in medicine from the technology institute of sto Domingo and anatomic pathology training at the Kanama Memorial Medical Center in Pennsylvania, Dr. Diaz possesses an impressive record of serving in clinical academic administrative advisory and leadership positions in Dc and other places around the country. He is currently licensed in Michigan Pennsylvania Ohio DC and the Dominican Republic, and is certified in anatomic pathology and forensic pathology. Dr. Diaz has led OCME very well and has served as a key partner in the district's public safety work, including responding to the devastating midair collision that occurred on January 29th, 2025 over the Ptoac River. The dedication of OCE and every public safety agency staff during this challenging incident demonstrated the crucial work of each agency in our larger public safety infrastructure and the important work that OCME does under Dr. Diaz's leadership. The response involved coordination across numerous agencies including OCME, MPD, fire and EMS, Virginia and Maryland emergency services and federal partners, highlighting the complexity of managing such a large-scale emergency incidents and DC's unique jurisdiction. The agency's robust accreditation and satisfaction of the majority of key performance metrics, careful budgeting, and full staffing under Dr. Diaz's leadership all justify our recommendation for approval. The committee reported favorably on his nomination and appreciate all of his important work. We recommend approval today. >> Thank you, council member. Are there questions for members? I believe I'm looking at general counsel somebody. I believe that this bill, this measure was deemed approved already. So >> I will not be uh putting it on the agenda, legislative agenda. >> So >> that's correct, Mr. Chairman. >> So we will move to the next item which is PR26-481, fire and emergency medical services department medical director Dr. Sha Morgan confirmation resolution 2026. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At long last, we come to this bill uh which removes the mandatory retirement age for MPD and fire and email. >> No, we're at the PR26-481. >> So, not at long last. >> No, that bill's going to have to wait longer. >> Oh, dang. You're right. I've been so excited about this bill for so long I skipped a page. Excuse me. Today, I am moving a resolution to confirm Dr. Shawn Morgan as the medical director of the fire and EMS fire and emergency medical services department. Medical director is vital to the effective operation of DC's fire and EMS department, ensuring that our EMTs are properly trained and deliver effective medical care. Additionally, the medical director assists the office of unified communications by providing guidance on re response plans and proper dispatches for different medical conditions. Dr. Sean Morgan has significant experience working as medical director in various jurisdictions including private EMS, hospital-based EMS, firebased EMS systems. He previously served as the assistant medical director for DC fire and EMS and is currently serving as the acting medical director. In his response to the committee, Dr. Morgan focused on the importance of meeting the community's needs and attracting and building paramedic talent locally given the nationwide paramedic shortage. As a W seven resident, Dr. Dr. Morgan earned his bachelor of science in mathematics from John's Hopkins University and his doctor of medicine from Georgetown School of Medicine. The committee reported favorably on his nomination and encourages approval today. >> Thank you, Council Member. Are there questions from members? >> Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete? Yes, it is. >> Madam budget directory, this is a confirmation. No fiscal impact statement. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. >> I feel like skipping 26358 and going to >> All right, I won't do that. >> To me, >> 26-358, First Responder Retention Efforts Amendment Act of 2026. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill removes the mandatory retirement age for MPD and fire and EMS. Fully staffing our local public safety agencies is critical to ensuring the safety and security of all of our communities. Recruitment and retention of first responders have proven to be a nationwide challenge and the District of Columbia is not immune to those challenges. As of midFebruary of this year, MPD had just 3,144 sworn members, the lowest sworn staffing level in 50 years. Fire and EMS continues to seek additional staffing, which is particularly important in paramedics. The First Responder Retention Efforts Amendment Act of 2026 would eliminate the mandatory retirement age, which is currently 60 years old, for both DC Fire and EMS and the Metropolitan Police Department. Current law requires that all who work for MPD and fire and EMS must have regular physical examinations performed for the police and fire clinic to ensure that all members can complete full duty physical performance standards. These standards will remain in place. So no matter the age of the member, that individual still has to pass all physical examinations. Eliminating this retirement age is a helpful tool to increase retention and to help with a continuity with those who have institutional knowledge, which is so important to pass on to newer recruits. Currently, there are 239 members of MPD and 93 members of fire and EMS who are between the ages of 55 and 60. While not all of these members will likely choose to stay on in their respective departments, eliminating this mandatory retirement age will allow those members who wish to the choice to stay on and can soften the blow of continuing retirement bubbles that will occur in the next several years. While removing the mandatory retirement age will not solve all of our staffing challenges at MPD and fire and EMS, it is one more step towards progress. I'm also committed to pursuing other legislative changes and want to remind members of how important it is to pass our drop bill uh which ensures that the district is an attractive place to be a first responder and as a reminder would allow our members to earn retirement benefits but still stay on the force. Um it is the most common um request I hear from members in fire and MS and MPD as something that they would support. Um it is currently in the committee of the whole and I appreciate all of your work and attention on that bill, Mr. Chairman. Uh so I ask my colleagues to support this today and thank you for everybody being a part of this journey with us as we awaited uh the fists and the uh CFO's stamp. Thank you. >> Thank you council member long last. Um did you just put a plug in for the drop act which is uh you're asking me a question? Questions are appropriate. It's pending in the committee the whole we're waiting for um I think we're waiting for the fifth as well as um >> the retirement board comments. So thank you for asking. Are there any other questions with regard to uh bill 26-358? >> Yes chairman council member San >> to you counciloman Pinto. I'm glad that uh it was emphasis on a physical. Uh do you know um based on your interactions with the agencies about what type of physicals are being examined for these officers? Is is there anything in addition to those who are older um that they will have to go through to ensure they are still able to do the job effectively? >> So uh my understanding is these physicals for both departments take place on an annualized basis. Um there will be no additional requirements if you're older under the assumption that regardless of what your age is, if you can pass the physical examination. Um you know, ju just like people in their 40s, there are people in their 60s or 70s who have varying levels of physical fitness. Um but it also includes vision testing um and physical kind of mobility and speed. Anything involving cognitive exams beyond physical? >> Let me triple check. I think the current physical exams are physical um exams through the police and fire clinic, but I will double check um after this cow to see if there's additional cognitive testing. And the reason why I'm asking is because my interactions uh with MPD even in younger officer facing so much trauma on a continuous basis. I'm concerned that wears on them and I know sometimes they request to go through some type of phys type of uh therapy, mental therapy, but I'm not sure. Just imagine the longer you own the department, the more that weighs on you beyond just your physical ability, your mental capacity to do the job effectively. Yeah, I think that's a great point and it's something that um has been negotiated as part of both contracts through the services available with um the police and fire clinic to make sure that there are not just physical professionals on site but that there are mental health professionals as well. Um but I will find out for you about any requirements of seeking such kind of cognitive review. >> Thank you council member Le. Thank you very much, chairman, and thank you to the chairwoman. Um, wondering, are we skirting with the issue of ageism by any chance? >> You know, I certainly think so. I think that it is um it is not appropriate to have a mandatory retirement age of 60 years old, which is, by the way, very young. um to say you have to be out of out of the department. These are jobs that uh we want different levels of experience. There's a lot that more of our senior officers have to offer to the department. Um they have institutional knowledge. They have life experience and we want a diversity on all metrics in our police department and our fire and EMS department. So, um I think that removing the retirement age is a step in the right direction to ensuring that we don't have ages policies baked into our departments. >> Thank you. Thank you very much, >> Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, two quick things. one, our police department and fire and EMS exists regionally and it's my understanding Maryland did something similar getting rid of their retirement age. I'm not sure about Virginia. Um and so I think this just ups our competitiveness uh regionally which is a good thing. Um secondly and you know I know we've taken a number of measures especially on the MPD front to address what is happening there. this attrition. Um, but it seems as though the attrition is still happening. And so, Council Member Pinto, I'm not sure if you have an update on where things stand or how this measure with others really is turning the tide. Um, but I just continue to worry that we're continuing to take steps in the right direction seemingly, but the problem still persists. >> Yeah. So, thank you. I think about it in terms of a timeline of a life cycle in that we have to do more to get more fire mass NMPD officers in the door. Then we have to do more to make sure that while they are working there um they have the benefits and things that they need. And then we have to make sure we're doing more for retention so that they don't retire or leave the department for another. And so those are kind of the three categories that I think about staffing in. and we've sought to address through legislation and budget investments a number of strategies in each of those categories. Um I will say there have not been the progress that we've seen in some of them. So for instance last year we sought to change the credit requirements under this assumption and we're seeing this across industries across the country that you don't necessarily need a college degree to be effective and successful in a lot of different fields. and why not have our officers um not have to have 60 college credits but can go through our police department training academy and earn the equivalent of 60. We had a debate as a body and we landed in a compromise which was that it was you had to have 45 credits you can get your final 15. We have seen zero new applicants through that proposal. So MPD is still telling us they would like the entirety waved which is what we've seen in surrounding jurisdictions. Um, similarly with the bonuses, you know, we passed bonuses for MPD and I hesitate to provide any sort of um, you know, hiring announcement for any of our other surrounding jurisdictions or federal agencies, but their bonuses and pay are totally different and much higher than what we're than what we have been offering. And so the benefits of those interventions have not been as strong as they could be um either from our local level or because we're competing in a different environment in our region and with the federal government. >> No, I appreciate that. Um and I'm closing chairman. I I guess my point is we are advancing point >> a number of worthy measures, but perhaps the adaptive problem could be MPD culture. I'm just throwing this out. And so I, you know, I just measure the actions we're taking with what is the real problem with why we're bleeding so many officers and firefighters and my hope is that we continue to press on those areas as well. >> Yeah, I I think that's a important point that it takes all of us. you know, we have a role as a legislative body and MPD has a role in the executive to make sure that the department is a um a great place to work. Um I I had another point but it lost I lost it so I'll >> Well, I want to thank Council Parker for the question because attrition is way down in MPD. The problem is that there are not uh applicants are also way down and that's not unique to MPD. That's across the country. Ever since the murder of George Floyd, the police profession has been highly criticized and is less popular. So recruitment is a struggle. It's especially a struggle in the district because we are competing with Secret Service which is offering a 50 or $75,000 hiring bonus. Park Service 50 or $75,000 hiring bonus, ICE, which I don't consider competition, uh, but other federal agencies that um are offering hiring bonuses far in excess of the $25,000 that we are offering. uh in testimony before the House Oversight Committee in September, the mayor and I, the attorney general, we also all suggested that maybe Congress could pitch in and help us with increasing the hiring bonus since it's their law enforcement agencies that are competing with this unfair advantage in terms of the hiring bonus. But it's the recruitment side where the challenge is, not the um retention side. And I just again want to thank you for the question. >> I remember my point. if I can just jump back in. Um, but I think you'll like this point, which is that the overtime issues I think are not only bad for our budget, but are bad for police department morale. We are spending the equivalent on overtime for officers as it would be to just hire 500 new officers. And so you can imagine officers working 12 or 14 hour shifts, sometimes back-toback shifts, and they are getting burned out and exhausted. And then we're having more retire. And then the officers who are left there are then having to do more and more shifts because these events are happening either way. We are the nation's capital. We have lots of events happening every single day that need coverage. And so it's especially important for us to make sure that we fill a lot of these positions because we're just going to continue spiraling in the wrong direction if we have more and more reliance on overtime. >> Thank you all. Uh I have three questions. Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Finally, bill 26-411, Child Fatality Review Committee Amendment Act of 2026. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill 26-411, the Child Fatality Review Committee Amendment Act 2026, introduced by Councelor Zachary Parker, would revise the composition of the Child Fatality Review Committee to include the chair of the council committee with oversight over the Child and Family Services Agency. The CFRC is a multi-disiplinary team of district residents, community based providers, child advocates, physicians, and government leaders who convene monthly to conduct retrospective reviews of child fatalities. The mission of CFRC is to reduce the number of preventable child fatalities in the District of Columbia through identifying, evaluating, and improving programs and systems responsible for protecting and serving the district's children and their families. Under current law, at least one member from a variety of public safety agencies shall be appointed by the mayor to serve as a member of the CFRC, as well as the council chairpersons with jurisdiction over judiciary and human services matters or their design. This bill amends that language by striking the phrase human services and inserting the phrase child and family services in its place so that instead it reads the council chairpersons with jurisdiction over judiciary and child and family matters or their design shall serve as committee members. I believe this change is both legally and pragmaticly pragmatically necessary. Uh and I'm encouraging my colleagues to support this bill today. Uh, thank you council member Pinto. Are there questions from members? Madam general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam budget director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. That concludes the business for this committee as a whole. Four minutes, five minutes. >> Well, four would be 135. Uh, so the time is 1:31 and we are journed. I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a regular meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. It's the 25th legislative meeting of council period 26. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council. Today is Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026. The time is 1:36 in the afternoon and we are in room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building. This meeting is being recorded and televised on cable television channel 13 and on the council's website www.dccconsil.gov. We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence, a moment for reflection, maybe to think about some of the stress and trauma that is happening in our country these days. Um, so if we could have a moment of silence uh in the chamber please. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Crawford >> here. Council member Felder >> present. >> Council member Freeman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. >> Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nado >> here. >> Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trayon White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Thank you madam secretary. We have the secretary's report of committee filings. I'm going to recognize the chair prom council member Bonds. >> Um thank you Mr. Chairman. I move to wave the reading of the secretar's report. >> It's been a motion to wave the reading. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We also have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. Again, I'll recognize council member Bond chair prom. >> And thank you, Mr. Chairman, again I move to wave the reading of the secretary's log of introductions and referrals. >> So a motion to wave the reading. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda? >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Allen, >> I'm I'm hoping to avoid a change in the consent agenda, but I had one quick question on it. Um, on the consent agenda for first reading, we have the schools first amendment act, which the uh committee report has not been filed yet. I know I brought this up at the committee as a whole. Legislation that I had authored related to how we help hold harmless school budgets when they're undergoing a swing into a 18-month temporary uh location while their school is being constructed. Um, I believe that in our conversations you believe the school's first amendment act is going to help incorporate the principles behind that hold harmless legislation and I want to make sure that could be included within the committee report before it's filed and confirm that's your takeaway as well and your intent. >> Uh, it is my intent. Uh and um I do believe that what we're doing with the um underlying bill uh addresses the problems that you were concerned about and we looked at specific schools and we saw that it was addressed. Uh so but we will reflect that in the report and I want to thank you for pressing on this issue. >> I appreciate that. Thank you very much. And therefore there's no need to remove this from the consent agenda. >> Thank you. Um are there any changes to the consent agenda? Uh, I'm going to remove on page two, item four under final reading, uh, bill 26-49, seasonal pricing and price gouging amendment acted 2026. The, um, print has not been engrossed yet. Uh, so that's 26-49 removed from consent. Um, >> is 26586 moved off consent? That's >> No, because I'm waiting for you to do that. Oh, I thought you were just gonna do it for me, but can I please move it off consent? >> Well, I could do it for you, but you asked to be recognized. Bill 26-586 on page four under um temp final reading on temporary legislations, a net zero modification. That's one you were speaking to, correct? >> Correct. >> Uh that's removed. Are there any other changes to the consent agenda? >> So, there are two items removed from the consent agenda. Bill 26-49 and bill 26-586. The consent agenda as amended is before us. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Uh bill 26-49 seasonal pricing and price gouging amendment act of 2026. Uh I'm move to postpone this to the next legislative meeting. If there's no objection, the motion will carry. It's postponed. So ordered. The next measure is bill 26-586 net zero modification and preservation temporary amendment act of 2026. Council member Lewis George. >> Uh thank you chairman. I requested this uh temporary be taken off the consent in order to just make a technical amendment. Um and so I move that amendment. Do you want to say a little bit more about what the amendment does? >> Well, I was just doing the procedural thing of moving it first. I will I will comment on it. This amendment simply clarifies the date on which covered projects with completed designs but have not been submitted to the green building advisory council also known as GBACK will be exempted exempted from satisfying net zero energy standards as set in the greener government buildings act GGBA. Uh as the bill currently sets the date as the day the act is enacted. This amendment sets the trigger date as March 1st, 2026. Uh the emergency bill was passed on February 1st and was transmitted to the mayor on February 24th. Uh the mayor's response is due on March 10th. This amendment preserves the intent and impact of the existing language by ensuring that projects that were designed be before the GGBA but already were prepared for went through Gback review are not exempted. Thus preserving any changes that were made to make the project screener and in compliance with the GGBA. You've moved the amendment. We have the amendment before us. There's no objection. The amendment will be accepted. Not hearing any objection. It is accepted. We have the bill as amended before us. Further discussion on the bill. Bill 26-586 as amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I >> it's a little anemic sounding. Are there any uh no votes? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. We will turn to the nonconsent agenda. >> Yes, council. >> If it's not too late, I want to vote present on this. I want to check and make sure that the archives is not somehow caught up in this. >> It is too late. Yeah. Right. Well, all right. I'll wait for the um second vote. >> Okay. Once the uh vote result is announced, it's too late. >> Um on the non-consent agenda, the first item is bill 26-221, MU Lambda Foundation, Inc. Real Property Tax Exemption Act of 2026. Um, I have received a statement of recusal from Council Member Zachary Parker, which I'm required to read. I, Zachary, Coun Zachary Parker, hereby provide notice of my recusal in the following matter before the council effective February 17, 2026. Bill 26-221 MU Lambda Foundation Inc. Property Tax Exemption Act of 2025. My decision to recuse arises from the following conflict. Potential conflict or appearance of conflict. I'm a duespaying member of Alphafi Alpha Fraternity Inc. and member of the MU Lambda chapter of the fraternity pursuant to rule one of the council of the District of Columbia code of official conduct. I'm recusing myself from any participation in the matter and will not attempt to influence the outcome of the matter because of the noted conflict, potential conflict or appearance of conflict. In the event I withdraw this recusal statement due to a change in circumstances allowing me to participate in the matter, I will promptly inform the council in writing signed by council member Parker. Not quite sure why I have to read the whole thing. At any rate, council member Parker has recused himself and I will note is absent from the chamber. Uh the bill was reported out of the committee the whole so I will so move it. So moved. Is there discussion? This is first reading on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing? None. The eyes have it. Um the eyes have it unanimously with of course council member Parker noted as absent and recused. The next measure on non-consent is 2607 Connecticut Avenue. uh that was not marked up in the committee the whole and so therefore is not on this agenda. And the next measure is increasing support for grandparent close relative caregivers act of 2025 bill 26-398. Council Parker. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I would like to move now. >> First you have to move the bill. So moved. >> And then uh the increasing support for grandparent close relative caregivers act of 2025 uh seeks to raise the subsidy aotment for recipients of the grandparent and close relative caregiver program uh through the child and family services agency. Um, it is worth noting that the subsidy amount has not been increased in quite some time and runs counter to the AY's stated goal of keeping as many children with families or close relatives as possible as the subsidy for the grandparent and close relative program uh is far less than the allotment for foster families. And so this uh amendment would increase that subsidy allotment. Um, and I acknowledge it comes with a significant fist. Uh, but that is a fight to have for another day. So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, council member. Uh, we have the amendment before us which was circulated and I believe linked on the agenda. Is there discussion on the amendment? If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is accepted. Um, we have the bill as amended. Is there further discussion? Um, the vote will be on bill 26-398 as amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. We will turn now to emergency legislation. The first measure is bodywn camera transparency for use of force and we have the emergency declaration which is PR26-563. Council member Pinto. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DC residents deserve transparency about what is happening with federal agents in our communities, especially when our MPD is on the scene. And my emergency bill today will deliver some of that needed transparency. As chairwoman for the committee on the judiciary and public safety, I have heard the resounding calls and concerns regarding the federal surge and ongoing coordination between MPD and federal law enforcement agencies, especially regarding immigration enforcement in our community. On December 4th, I held a hearing on public safety in the district where we heard from over 130 witnesses signed up to testify and share many stories and experiences with federal immigration authorities in their community. A primary concern raised was alleged coordination between MPD and federal immigration authorities. In response, I sent a letter to MPD, then Chief Smith, on December 18th, signed by all of our council colleagues, seeking information about how and to what extent MPD has been coordinating with and patrolling with federal law enforcement officers. The initial response did not directly answer our questions. While we did get some additional information from the performance oversight hearing that I sent to the agency and I asked Chief Carol these questions at a hearing last week, MPD still failed to provide answers to several questions that we had regarding data on federal officers and what and where they have been in our city. In just the past six months, we have had two that we know of, HSI officers, shoot at district residents, Philip Brown and Justin Nelson, when they were patrolling jointly with MPD officers. Even though MPD officers arrived at the scene in both of those instances, since they were not the ones to use force themselves, current law does not require a public release of that bodywn camera footage to the public or to the individuals themselves who were shot at. My emergency bill today makes a muchneeded change to increase transparency to the affected individuals and to the public. The bill requires the public release of MPD bodywn camera recordings of all officer involved deaths or serious use of force incidents that involve both MPD officers and other law enforcement officers when MPD is present as well as the names of all officers involved when available and a full description of the incident. Additionally, this bill requires that MPD's public database of BWC recordings includes the names of directly involved federal law enforcement officers as available. The same way we do and expect when there's an incident with our own >> Without objection, one minute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is the same way we expect the disclosure when an incident happens with our own law enforcement. I encourage our council to pass this bill so that those directly impacted and members of the public can get some of the answers we have been seeking. I also introduced a version of this bill on a permanent basis and plan to hold a hearing soon to ensure that these measures get codified into law. The permanent version also requires more collection of data at our roll calls to better understand which officers are where and how they are being deployed on our streets. This bill is one step in the direction of more transparency and information that district residents deserve, and I look forward to holding a hearing to consider additional measures for transparency and accountability on a permanent basis. More transparency will lead to more justice. >> Thank you, council member. Is there discussion on the declaration? Hearing none, the vote will be on the declaration. >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes. >> I'm also moving a technical amendment >> to the declaration or to the bill? >> To the bill. >> All right. Well, the bill's not before us yet. >> Okay. I just wanted you to know. >> I have it right here. >> Okay. >> Uh the vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. on the underlying bill. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the underlying bill and I'm also moving a technical amendment which I would like to accept as friendly if there are no objections. Um the amendment ensures that with the changes to this section of the code that MPD officers are not retroactively deemed to be out of compliance with the emergency law. Um, I do want to remind folks though that this emergency does apply retroactively to the footage that is available since August 1st, 2025. >> Uh, the amendment that you're moving is uh was circulated according to what I have at 12:16 p.m. So, all members should have it. >> I think it was 12:54. >> Just making sure you have the right one. Um, you mean you circulated it twice? >> No, we just Oh, yes. Okay. So, it's the one we circulated at 12:54. >> Never questioned the chair. Um, all right. So, it was circulated 1216. Uh, if so, all members should have it. If there's no objection, it will be accepted. >> Mr. Chairman, Council Member Parkin, >> I do have a question. Um, Council Member Pento, can you speak to the rationale for the uh amendment? It would strike me as odd that we would think there would be retro applicability to responsibility if we're just passing the bill today. >> Yeah. So, because the bill applies retroactively to August 1st, 2025 to make clear that if MPD has body warn camera footage of a serious use of force by a federal agent that they were on the scene at that they have to disclose it to the public. um we want to make sure that the other laws surrounding that review are not accidentally implicated. So right now um a officer if they have if a MPD officer is on the scene when a federal agent has engaged in a um serious use of force, the our MPD officer is permitted to review the footage before they write a report. So that review has already happened. So, because we're now saying you have to release it publicly, if we don't move this amendment, we would be inadvertently saying you're out of compliance with the fact that you released that you reviewed the footage six months ago, even though that was the law then. >> I hear that. I'm still not following. Um, and it just gives me pause that essentially we when I hear the amendment, it says we're saying an officer is not culpable for bad behavior. >> No, no, no, that's not that's not what it does. This is why I describe this as technical. Let me try to explain a different way. Right now, under current law, MPD officers can review the footage, >> yes, >> of a federal agent involved before they write their report. Okay. Because there have been these two incidents, MPD has already reviewed the footage and already wrote their report. So, we are now saying under the law that we're about to pass, I hope that that footage has to become publicly available. >> But if we don't also say that MPD officers were not out of compliance for reviewing the footage, >> but we couldn't possibly hold someone accountable for a law that didn't exist back in August. because we're providing making this law retroactive, it does create that risk. And so I think this >> for the record, I just want to state my concern um that uh if there were MPD officers responsible for stepping out of the bounds of MPD protocol laws or what have you, I don't want this amendment to be interpreted as a get out of jail free card. That's what I'm hearing you say. It's not the intent. uh but as the law is applied I want to make clear that that's not what is intended. So thank you uh for further discussion with regard to the amendment with regard to the amendment. Um if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection uh the amendment is accepted. We have the bill as amended before us. Uh, further discussion. Council member Robert White. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, from the beginning, my legislation, the full accountability, and arrest reporting, emergency amendment act of 2026 paired body warn camera transparency with documentation reform. Because accountability works best as a system, not in fragments. Residents don't experience these issues in silos. They experienced them as a chain of events. Who was present? Who what force was used and what was written down and what footage exists. Since council member uh Pinto's bill also amends the same bodywn camera statute and advancing two competing amendments to the same section of the code uh isn't workable. U my priority is ensuring transparency. I believe it would be cleaner to move one bill, but it is more important to keep the council moving together. Uh, so I plan on supporting Council Member Pinto's bill and remove the body warn camera section from my legislation, but I also want to be clear that documentation when federal officers uh shoot or otherwise use force is essential. Video tells part of the story. The written record tells the rest. Requiring the Metropolitan Police Department to document who was present, present, and whether force was used ensures that accountability does not depend solely on what is later released to the public. It ensures that there is a contemporaneous record, one that can be reviewed, investigated, and relied upon by our residents. Uh, accountability must continue to be our priority and our shared commitment, and I look forward to supporting this bill. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, >> thank you, Council Member White. Further on the bill, Council Member Trayon White. >> Yes. Uh thank you. I guess part of the issue I would have at breakfast was that um off uh federal officers are responding to local calls and in some instances are getting there before MPD officers. Um believe this bill is requiring that MPD document who is there. I guess asking how do we envision u holding MPD accountable for collecting those names? Uh, and at first I thought that uh, MPD rode along with federal officers, but to my understanding that has changed, but they're just responding their own. How do we keep them accountable? >> I think that's the second bill. Council member, >> that is that Robert's >> This is correct. That's council member Robert White's bill. This is just the body warn cameras. >> Okay. Uh, let's it stand. I'll just rephrase it later, but that's my concern. >> Okay. We'll ask it again when council member White >> Yes. >> Council member Robert White is before us. >> Um I'm just going to add my support for this. I think we're all supportive of this, but I think one of the um most important issues with regard to law enforcement is accountability and public trust. And the two go hand in hand. Um and if the public has a sense that there is not accountability uh and that um officers can do whatever they want to without any sort of identification then that trust is harmed if not destroyed. We've actually seen this in other states. So I think this idea of since we can't tell federal law enforcement what to do. this idea of using uh our own police who are required to carry c to have body warn cameras to um have that video footage available um is an important step toward accountability. Um since our officers are already required to have these cameras, this is not no extra work on their part. Um it's like um our being able to get accountability in an easy way. Um and it is very important uh there is nothing that is driving folks crazier maybe I shouldn't say nothing because there are a few things uh than uh officers in this uh this anonymity and what we've seen on a federal level is just lies. I mean I'm thinking about the um murder victims uh the murder victims in um Minneapolis, excuse me. um where the initial reports were how they had charged um law enfor the uh federal law enforcement officials and from the video that we were seen be we were able to see because of private citizens there was nothing farther from the truth. Um uh so this video footage is so valuable and um it will help with regard to accountability which in turn will help with trust which is critical to public safety in the District of Columbia. So I just wanted to say that if there's nothing further >> council member TR why this is second round for you. >> Yes. Um, in section two, uh line 47 of Councilman Pinto's bill, it does in fact, uh, talk about names of officers. Says the names and body war camera recordings of all Metropolitan Police officers as well as the names as available for all other law enforcement officers directly involved in the officer involved death or serious use of force. And so this does apply to this bill. So if I can get some clarity on that. Sure. Um, I would say this is consistent with our current law and our intention to expand it its coverage. So, right now under law, if MPD is involved in a death or a serious use of force, not only do they have to disclose the footage, but they also have to list all officers who were there as part of that incident. And so this language is just saying that similarly if there is a federal officer who is involved in serious use of force the footage has to be disclosed as do their names um if they were involved in the incident. >> I'll come back to it. Thank you. >> Thank you. There's nothing further. We have the bill as amended before us. All those in favor of the bill say I. I. Are there any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Council member Robert White, you have the full accountability and arrest reporting emergency declaration resolution of 2026 PR26-562. >> Uh thank you chairman. Uh, I want to start by thanking Free DC, Movie Meto, Migrante, the Families Not Feds Coalition, Migrant Solidarity, Mutual Aid, and the many community members who have advocated tirelessly for district residents and have worked with me to get this legislation to this point. You asked for leadership and today I believe 13 uh leaders will show up for you. I introduced this legislation with council members Lewis George, Nadau, Allen, Parker, Crawford, Felder, Council Member Trayon White, Senior, and Bonds because our city has been subject to sometimes violent intervention by the federal government that has put residents lives at risk. From federal officers shooting at Philip Brown's car to the murder of Julian Bailey by US Marshalss, our current laws aren't cutting it. Right now, we hold MPD officers to a standard of conduct and transparency, but don't apply those same rules to feds that are now actively policing our city. This bill bill says loud and clear, federal law enforcement can't harm district residents without transparency and appropriate consequences. When law enforcement exercises its most serious powers, arresting someone or using force, there must be a complete and accurate record of the officers present, whether local or federal, we should be doing everything possible to capture that information at a time at the time it happens, not trying to reconstruct it later because victims deserve justice. Now, someone might say this is just a uh documentation uh exercise that it doesn't really matter, but I want to read from the report of Julian Brown's incident. Again, federal officers fired multiple shots into the car of a father of three girls. And the arrest report says only on the listed date, time, and location, officers observed a white and colored Durango with heavily tinted windows bearing no front tag affixed to the front of the vehicle. Officers attempted a stop on the vehicle due to traffic violations at the time. S1, suspect one, disregarded and continued to flee from officers. During the course of S1 fleeing, S1 used the vehicle to ram another vehicle and attempted to flee. S1 was arrested and transported to sixth district for processing. It says nothing nothing about shots fired into this man's car. And I sat with his mother in my office as she cried and talked about the trauma that he faced, but not a word about it in the arrest report. So, when law enforcement exercises its powers, it is essential that they document things like this. This instance showed us what happens when feds aren't held accountable. A federal officer firing on someone in the district absolutely bears our responsibility. But the police reports don't at this point bear that out. This kind of cover up erodess public trust in law enforcement across the board and in government itself. Uh one minute, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, one minute. At last week's performance oversight hearing, we learned some deeply concerning things. MPD confirmed that they do not track federal arrests conducted in the district. They cannot tell us how often federal officers make arrests with MPD present and they cannot tell us how often force is used in those situations. When MPD admits that they don't track this data, we must step in. We cannot leave transparency, accountability, or public safety just up to chance. That's why our bill requires MPD to document the name, badge number, and agency of every officer present on the scene, including feds, for arrest reports, and probable cause affidavit, and requires the release of body cam footage, uh, as Council Member Pinto's bill now does when a federal officer commits a serious use of force captured on MPD body cameras. This is a question of civil rights, and this is the least that we can do. Other jurisdictions do the same. Uh my colleagues and I introduced this bill because our community showed up and argued and urge us to act. Uh I now move the full accountability and arrest reporting emergency declaration resolution. >> We have the bill before. Thank you, council member. Um actually we have the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the declaration? >> The vote will be on the declaration PR26-562. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill. Council member White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. I have two amendments. >> Move the bill. >> Uh so moved. >> The bill's before us. Council member White. >> Uh chairman, I have uh two amendments. Uh amendment one, uh I introduced at the request of the office of the attorney general. Uh, this amendment simply clarifies that the arrest reporting requirements established in section two are not intended to affect the outcome of individual cases. By specifying that non-compliance cannot be introduced or relied upon in civil or criminal proceedings, we ensure that these reporting standards function as a tool for improving internal documentation and transparency within in within MPD without creating evidentiary hurdles for ongoing prosecutions or litigation. I now move uh amendment one. >> Uh thank you. Is there uh discussion? If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. >> Hearing no objection. It is accepted. Uh council member White. >> Uh this time I move amendment two. Uh this amendment strikes section three of this emergency bill. After conversations with council member Pinto and her team and the rest of the council, I believe this is how we can put um make sure both of these provisions move forward collaboratively and with the support of the full council. Uh I agree that making these provisions retrospective uh is the right thing to do and is essential for cases like Philip Browns. Uh so I I thank my colleagues uh and uh now move amendment two. And is there discussion with regard to amendment two? If there's no objection, it will be accepted hearing. No objection, it is accepted. We have the bill as amended before us. Further disc further discussion, Council Member Pinto and then Lewis George. And my goodness, I look over on this side. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Council Member White. Um, I am happy to support this bill today which helps us take additional steps to provide transparency for the public about law enforcement activity in the District of Columbia. This emergency bill requires MPD officers to fully document who is present at an arrest, including our federal officers. As I previously mentioned, MPD failed to provide important answers to several questions I posed to them last week regarding data on federal officers and what they've been doing in our city. In the committee on the judiciary and public safety's performance oversight on MPD, I was disappointed to hear just how little data MPD is gathering when it comes to this federal coordination. This bill along with a BWC bill that just passed um will help together to begin providing more transparency into who our MPD officers are patrolling alongside by requiring some basic recording of this important information. As chair of the committee on judiciary and public safety, I look forward to continuing to review and identify other proposals to enhance transparency for DC residents and accountability moving forward on a permanent basis. um and know that we are together as as one body on this important action today. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Pinto, Council Member Lewis George. >> Uh thank you so much. I want to thank uh my colleague, Council Member Robert White, for his leadership um on this action. Um and thank you for the opportunity to speak in full support of the full accountability and arrest reporting emergency amendment act. Uh, one of the most important roles we hold is that of oversight of district agencies to ensure transparency and to hold these agencies accountable when they take part in actions that do not comply with the law. But we cannot perform our oversight in a black box. Uh the full accountability and arrest reporting act is a necessary common sense bill uh which would require MPD officers to document all law enforcement agents present at the scene when preparing an arrest report or probable cause affidate including federal agents in line with legislation passed in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Seattle. We have heard from thousands of constituents at hearings, over the phones, in our boxes, in our inboxes, in our hallways, demanding answers and transparency about district coordination with federal agencies. And rightly so. And here's the sad but honest truth. Many times we can't answer those questions because we are not being informed. And the victims of misconduct by federal agents cannot get the justice they deserve as a result. in October during an incident that involved both MPD and federal agents and a homeland security agent fired at least three shots into an ar in unarmed resident vehicle during a traffic stop. But initial MPD police report didn't mention the shooting because the officer wasn't instructed instructed not to include those details. And many of us had the experience of calling about an incident which both MPD and federal agents were present only to be told by MPD, sorry, we don't have that information. You'll have to call the federal agency involved. The federal administration is keeping the council and residents in the dark about its district task force operations. But that doesn't mean we should be a part of the obscation. If federal agents are a part of incidents that result in the arrest of district residents, then their presence should be known in arrest reports. The frightening stories we've heard in this council about federal overreach underscores the urgent need for us to pass the full accountability and arrest reporting emergency act today to ensure more transparency about what is occurring in our city under the federal task force. And that is the least we could be doing right now as my colleague has said. So, I thank you again to my colleague, Councilman Robert White, and to Free DC and all organizations for your tireless advocacy. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and I pray and hope for a free DC. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Lewis George, Council Member Crawford. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Council Member Robert White, and your team for your work on this legislation. I co-introduced this emergency bill as well as the permanent version of this legislation alongside more than half of my colleagues. When someone is arrested or when a federal law enforcement officer uses force against a civilian in the district, the public deserves clarity, not confusion. And I must say, I attended the performance oversight hearing on MPD last week and public witnesses and my colleagues and I expressed a lot of confusion about what is happening during arrests and local collaboration with federal law enforcement. Families deserve answers. Communities deserve transparency. So, our government has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement actions carried out in the district are fully documented and subject to real accountability. At a moment when the increased presence of federal law enforcement and joint operations with MPD have left many residents feeling uncertain and uneasy, we cannot ignore the strain on trust. Public safety is not just about enforcement. It is about people feeling protected, respected, and informed. That requires openness, clear documentation, and timely transparency. This legislation affirms that what happens in the district must be known in the in the district. It strengthens oversight and takes a meaningful step toward repairing trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. I want to thank the community organizations who worked in partnership with council member White's office to shape this bill. Free DC migrant solidarity mutual aid and moi ah moi mto migrante DC for grounding this effort in lived experience and community voice. My Spanish is a little rusty. I urge my colleagues to support this emergency measure. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Member Crawford. Council member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and thank you, Council Member Robert White, for your leadership on this measure, which I was proud to co-introduce. Uh, this emergency, as has been mentioned, seeks to bring overdue transparency to federal law enforcement engagements with district residents. As we have all witnessed in Minnesota, Los Angeles, and of course, the district, the use of force by federal agents against civilians has repeatedly proven to be faith, lethal, and unjustified. On numerous occasions, federal agents have attempted to explain their conduct by manufacturing stories about their engagement that do not hold up in court because they bear little resemblance to what others witnessed or recorded. I've been clear that this amounts to little more than gaslighting and we cannot be told one thing when we are seeing another thing with our own eyes. In October, after federal immigration agents shot Philip Brown, the US Department of Homeland Security claimed that Mr. Brown had made a quote unquote deliberate attempt to run officers down with his car. And federal officers charged him with the felony of fleeing law enforcement. But when Mr. Brown appeared in court a few days later. The government presented no evidence to support this claim. The judge observed that the federal agent had fired his weapon and quote for reasons that are completely unclear to me. And the case was dismissed. And let me be clear. We should all be alarmed that after repeated instances of what appears to be collaboration between our local police department and federal agents, shootings and killings that our MPD agency continues uh to fail at the commitment of transparency. This emergency will ensure that the district metropolitan police department officers help ensure that there is an accurate record. I'm going to say that one more time. an accurate record of federal law enforcement engagements with district residents. MPD officers will be required to document the present presence of federal officers, identify them or disclose whether they refuse to identify themselves, and release bodywn camera footage. I'm voting for this measure today because it is the right thing to do and because I don't trust Congress to stand up to the president and because we must do everything in our power to protect Philip Brown and other residents that we serve. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to voting for this matter. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Parker. Council Member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Council Robert White, for introducing this emergency. Simply put, there's nothing radical about transparency. Uh, that is exactly what this aims to do, and it's what's needed. I'll start by just sharing a story that from several months ago, something that took place in W 6 where MPD and ICE officers responded. Well, they didn't respond. They pulled over. Somebody who was just trying to deliver food. This person pulled over voluntarily, stopped their vehicle, and what I was told from residents was that an ICE officer tackled this person to the ground, perhaps broke their arms, and took them away. The only remedy I had to actually find out what happened was to request the body worn camera footage from MPD. And under DC law, I'm allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to share it publicly, but I'm allowed to watch it, talk to my constituents, and describe what I saw, which was an MPD officer in the driver's seat and an ICE officer in the passenger seat pulling over a delivery driver. And as he waited on his scooter, the ICE officer jumps out, tackles him to the ground, places him under arrest. The only way I was able to see it and verify what happened and then be able to help try to work towards accountability is because of that body warn camera footage from MPD. So these two emergencies that we are moving together, both of them have to go together. And I think they're very important because we both need body warn camera footage and we need this type of reporting which will make it public. They have to work together because a report, as we have seen illustrated, may not contain all the facts, but a video will help us be able to put our eyes on exactly what happened and help hold accountability. So, these two things are important for our city, for our residents, for our community. I'm grateful for the push to make sure that we actually are taking this action today. But I'll repeat again because I think we should all prepare ourselves uh that some will call an action like this radical. There is nothing radical about simple transparency and accountability in our city. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Council Member Allen. Uh, Council Member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's so much that has already been said already, but um, to Council Member Allen's point about what is radical versus not in terms of transparency, I think it's also important to remind the public that DC has had bodywn cameras for the better part of a decade. Um, and in 2015 there was a very large debate. Um, I wasn't here for that, but by this body in terms of determining whether or not it was in the public interest to provide that footage, to provide that information when an incident occurs, and we decided that it was. So it would be strange for us to now suggest that because of a federal law enforcement agent actually being present that somehow that absolves our police department of our values around transparency and accountability and releasing the information that already existed. So I appreciate both of these pieces of legislation that have um that has been introduced and that we're moving here today. I know that it is not a panacea. It uh is not complete and it is not perfect. It's actually a very small step to say what is your name, who was there and if there is a use of force incident that occurs, let us provide the video information of what took place so that we can all be operating from the same set of facts about a particular incident. Um but I definitely believe that this is a step forward. Um I did pull up the committee report from um the legislation that was done in 2015 and you know I offer this quote from actually former chief Kathleen Laneir as we kind of think about what is happening right now. She said quote public perception of policing is at a low point. Grand gestures are not going to change that perception. Police are going to need to restore trust one interaction at a time and I hope that the current MPD leadership keeps that in mind as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Henderson. Council Member Felder. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um you know, I want to commend uh my both my colleagues for introducing this emergency legislation. Um I won't be redundant because my other colleagues have hit a lot of points, but I will say that uh to date there's been three federal officer involved shootings in W 7. And as as a war seven council member, I'm outraged. Uh I think this legislation really helps to address uh transparency. You know, um if you are going to come in 7, as I said before, uh and in the District of Columbia and you're going to patrol our communities and you have every intent to be a bad actor, this is not the city for you. So with that being said, I appreciate the work of my colleagues in this legislation and I look forward to supporting it. >> Thank you, Council Member Felder. Further discussion? Council member Nidau. >> Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Um I'm pleased to speak in support of this emergency legislation. In January of this year, the Committee on Public Works and Operations, which I chair, released a report on potential human rights violations due to the federal government intrusion. The report was the result of hours of testimony from residents in October of last year and additional research by my team. The most significant finding based on the testimony and other information in the report is the tremendous loss of trust between residents and MPD that is developed as a result of collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. Despite vague assurances from the executive that MPD did not collaborate with federal law enforcement after the 30-day federal takeover of MPD ended, many residents were not and are not convinced. One recommendation in the report is that council should exhaust all means to require that federal law enforcement officers are subject to the same restrictions imposed on MPD officers and that they provide identification. Council doesn't have the legal authority to direct federal agents not to wear masks or to provide identification, but the council does have authority over MPD. And with this legislation, we're adding some transparency to the actions of federal law enforcement. and we're ensuring that MPD officers are not put into situations where they collaborate with and provide cover for federal law enforcement. This legislation is one step we are taking and um I hope it sets the department in motion to repair that breach of trust. >> Thank you, council member. Uh further discussion. Um so I spoke in support of the previous bill and I emphasized the importance of accountability and accountability leads to trust and the value of trust with um uh policing. Uh and that applies with this measure as well. But I want to speak to a different concern and that is that I have heard from some folks concerned that there could be some push back uh for the council proceeding with this legislation. uh but you know uh I think the issue here is one of I would characterize principle and the principle is what is best for public safety and what is best for public safety is accountability. It is knowing who is law enforcement and knowing how law enfor law enforcement behaves and when law enforcement is falsely accused of um um use of force that we know that and they're exonerated and when law enforcement is suspected of use of force, inappropriate use of force that we know that as well and can take steps toward accountability. And I think that's more important than being concerned that uh we may because we are a federal district be pushed back and uh made an example of or by folks who don't live in the city and don't represent the city and don't understand the city and aren't part of the community. When I chair judiciary, I understood uh or came to understand the value of what we call community policing. Police who are connected to community are the most effective and we get the most effective law enforcement. And that's what we're struggling with here as a council and with this legislation. And that would be my answer to those who say that here we go again, another one of those liberal cities. Well, this really public safety isn't about liberal it or conservative. It's about safety and it's about ensuring that law and order prevails. Uh when I say law and order, I mean that folks are treated according to due process and their rights and uh that um that folks can feel safe and are protected from violence rather than being the victims of state violence. Uh I feel like I'm rambling a little bit but I just wanted to make that point that um this is another important aspect of this that um here what we are saying and I know council members have thought about this is the principle of accountability and the importance of accountability. So at any rate if there's no further discussion council member Tran White. >> Uh thank you chairman. Um, for too long there has been situations where law enforcement have taken adverse action in the district and public trust has been an issue. I fully reflect on who was involved and what happened and I used to think that, you know, at some point we needed National Guard to help us out, but I feel like, as Dr. King said before, I've led my people into a burning house. And we uh I have not envisioned that we'll have DEA, FBI, you name it, ICE in our streets and with no accountability. The lack of documentation creates accountability gaps, especially in joint operations involving federal law enforcement. The emergency declaration makes it clear that transparency cannot stop at agency lines. If an arrest happens in the District of Columbia, if force is used in District of Columbia and if MPD officers are present, then the people of the District deserves a complete and accurate record. This legislation uh speaks to our communities having a sense of trust in law enforcement all across the board today in our communities for safety uh not to be mistreated or not to be misused in any in any form or fashion. So this legislation is not the end all solution to addressing public safety, but get gets a step forward to ensure that while federal officers are here, they are held accountable and our officers are also held accountable as well. So I want to thank uh Council Member Pinto and Council Member Rob White for uh coming together jointly to create legislation that moves a step closer to uh transparency. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. If there's no further discussion, we have the bill as amended. Remember, there were two amendments moved by council member Robert White that were accepted. Bill 26-614. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. No demonstrations in the chamber. Uh the next measure uh bill PR26-561 Arch Dascese of Washington Parish Real Property Deed Recordation and Transfer Tax Exemption Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2026. For more than a century, Catholic parish properties in the district have been acquired occupied operated maintained, and funded by individual parishes for exclusively religious, charitable, and related nonprofit purposes. At the time, many of these properties were acquired. District law did not permit Catholic parishes to incorporate or to hold legal title to real property. As a result, record title to approximately 92 parish properties across all eight wards of the district was placed in the name of the Archbishop of Washington. While the archbishop held record title, the individual parishes remain the equitable and beneficial owners of their respective properties. Modern nonprofit incorporation laws now allow Catholic parishes to be recognized as civil law entities capable of owning property in their own names. District parishes have formally incorporated and initiated efforts to retitle parish properties to reflect parish ownership. District law provides exemptions for deeds that supplement or confirm prior recorded deeds without additional consideration from transfer taxes and from recordation taxes. Despite these long-standing exemptions, efforts by the district Catholic parishes to record supplemental confirmatory deeds have been rejected, resulting in uncertainty regarding tax liability and placing parish properties at risk of incurring substantial real property transfer and recordation taxes. While time-consuming and costly administrative processes are pending, emergency legislation will prevent the acrual of unwarranted tax liabilities and avoid unnecessary administrative actions that are costly and timeconsuming. As long as the properties are not retitled, the parishes are unable to transact property matters in their own name and their ownership interests are unnecessarily denied and go unrecognized when interacting with third parties. I therefore move the declaration and which I am moving with council members Parker and Allen. Is there discussion on the declaration? The vote will be on the declaration PR26-561. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Uh the eyes have it unanimously. Uh I move the underlying bill 26-612. Is there discussion? Uh the agenda mentions a uh an amendment, but I'm not moving that. Uh if there's no further discussion on the bill, bill 26-612. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is rental housing registration data integrity emergency declaration resolution 2026. Council member Robert White. Thank you, chairman. In 2015, the council directed DHCD to build the rent registry to replace outdated paperbased system that could not track rent trends or support modern data-driven housing policy. Under the prior system, decades of filings were stored as static PDFs in Filenet, making rent history effectively inaccessible and unusable for enforcement or policymaking. To correct this, DHCD designed the rent registry to collect current rent in the prior two years of rent at registration, a one-time entry to finally establish a complete and reliable picture of the district's rental housing market. Today, the system is operational and accepting registrations, rent adjustments, tenant petitions, and tenant protected status res registrations. While the public facing portal is still being finalized, DHCD and the developer are actively addressing technical issues and expect to release additional features on a rolling basis every 2 weeks with full completion anticipated by late April. This emergency legislation largely mirrors the rental housing registration extension emergency amendment act of 2025 and clarifies DHCD's authority to collect three years of rent data from the exempt properties at registration. It also includes a narrow addition requiring exempt or market rate properties to report information on appliances, services, and facilities and utilities. Data that is already built into the system and cannot be removed without delay, redevelopment, and additional cost. The temporary version of this legislation expires on April 5th and DHCD has advised that extending these requirements is necessary to ensure continuity and preserve the functionality of the rent registry while the system rollout continues. Importantly, we're not seeking to rely on emergency legislation indefinitely. We're working with DHCD to advance permanent legislation, and this emergency measure fills the gap while that permanent fix moves forward. This legislation protects the integrity of the rent registry and ensures that the district can finally build the complete reliable rental housing database the council intended. I urge my colleagues to support this emergency legislation. I now move the rent the h the rent rental housing registration data integrity emergency declaration resolution 2026. >> Thank you council member White. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the declaration PR26-560. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill 26-610. Council member White. >> So moved. >> Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Oh, that was an email. I didn't hear anything on the bill. All those in favor say I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have unanimously. Uh we have four temporary bills. Uh 26-617 bodywn camera transparency for use of force temporary amendment act. Uh the temporary will be conformed to reflect the amendment to the emergency. The second is full accountability and arrest reporting temporary amendment act of 2026. The temporary will be conformed to reflect the two amendments to the emergency. The third is Arch Dascese of Washington Parish Real Property Deed Recordation and Transfer Tax Exemption Temporary Amendment Act. There was no amendment to that. And the fourth is rental housing registration data integrity temporary amendment act. There's no objection. All four in block. And I will say so moved. Is there discussion? on the four and general counsel, you've got it in terms of amendments. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh on the four, all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Sorry guys, but I think we're at the end of the meeting. the next um so the April April legislative meeting will actually be on March 31st and there will be a committee of the whole meeting in two weeks maybe an additional but don't count on it and the time is 2:39 p.m. And this meeting is adjourned. >> Some of these churches own a lot of hopper. They can't possibly be churching in all of it. Well, they