I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a meeting of the committee of the whole of the council of the District of Columbia. It's an additional meeting, meaning that it's not a regularly scheduled meeting of the committee of the whole. This meeting will be followed by a regular meeting, the regular monthly meeting of the council. um our regular Tuesday meeting, excuse me, our regular November meeting. Uh today is Tuesday, November 4th, 2025. The time is 12:44 in the afternoon. We're in room 500, the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson Building. This meeting is being covered on cable television channel 13 as well as on the council's website, www.dcconsil.gov. We begin our committee the whole meetings figuring out whether we have a quorum. Mr. Cash, would you call the role? >> Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Allen >> here. Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Felder. >> Council member Fman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. >> Council member McDuffy >> here. >> Council member Nado >> here. >> Council member Parker >> here. Council >> Pinto. Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trayon White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman of >> Thank you Mr. Cash. We have three measures for markup in the committee of the whole. I'll note we do the logs at the regular meeting. We do the logs at regular meetings and so that'll be at the legislative meeting. Uh the first of three measures to be marked up. These are all appointments by the council and the first is PR26-20 entitled Commission on Health Equity Dr. Simone C. Ellis appointment resolution of 2025. The purpose of this resolution is to appoint Dr. Ellis as a non- voting ward 8 community member of the commission on health equity to serve at the pleasure of the council. Dr. Ellis received her bachelor of arts and anthropology from Yale University. She then received her master of arts in medical sciences from Boston University and her doctor of medicine degree from Boston University School of Medicine. Dr. Ellis has served patients in the District of Columbia in a variety of capacities including serving many years as family medicine physician at Whitman Walker Health in Washington DC. Dr. Dr. Ellis also served in similar positions in Massachusetts and Connecticut, thereby extending her expertise in the importance of community health services and the effects of health disparities. Dr. Ellis has been recognized for her efforts in the field, receiving the best resident clinical award in 2018. In 2016, the council approved a subtitle in the fiscal year 2017 budget support act that established uh the commission on health equity. The purpose of the commission is to examine health equity issues in the district and to advise the department of health, the council, and the mayor on solutions to address health equities that exist in the district. The commission is required to meet at least once a quarter to share findings regarding health disparities that exist in each ward of the district. The commission consists of 17 members, nine of whom are voting members. Six of those are appointed by the mayor. three um three are appointed by the council. In addition, there are non- voting members. The three non- voting members appointed by the council must be community advisory members, one each from WS 5, 7, and 8. During the committee's public hearing or public roundt on Dr. Ellis, uh Dr. Ellis expressed her belief that the commission is engaged in important work for the district that it is that as a practicing physician she would be able to provide significant insight to the commission. She noted that in her practice she has worked with patients spanning all ages and socioeconomic categories. Dr. Ellis's desire to ensure the populations most affected by health disparities are fairly considered as the district creates I didn't say that right. Dr. Ellis's desire is to ensure that populations most affected by health disparities are fairly considered as a district creates and executes health related public policy. This legislation was introduced on January 3rd of this year and the committee the whole held a round table on October 20th of this year. The committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to Dr. Simone Ellis's appointment to the Health Equity Commission. Without objection, I'll move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the motion which is to approve both the report and the print with leave for staff? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Are there any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. 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, the fiscal impact, there is no fiscal impact statement because it's an appointment. Correct. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next measure for markup is PR26-80 entitled the corre corrections information council governing board and kichi taifa reappointment resolution of 2025. The purpose of this resolution is to reappoint Miss Taifa as a member of the District of Columbia corrections information council governing board for a two-year term ending December 7, 2026. Miss Taifa is a W4 resident in the district. She received her bachelor of arts from Howard University and a jurist doctorate from George Washington University Law School. After completing her law degree, Miss Taifa served as a staff attorney for the National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation. She has also served as public policy council for the Women's Legal Defense Fund, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, and as an adjunct professor at the American University Washington College of Law and the Howard University School of Law. Additionally, Miss Taifa served as advocacy director and senior policy analyst for the Open Society Foundations and Open Society Policy Center. In this role, Miss Taifa worked with federal criminal justice issues, including sentencing reform, prison reform, re-entry, and law enforcement accountability. Miss Taifa has also served as a commissioner and chair of the district's commission on human rights. Recently, Miss Taifa started a consulting firm, the Taifa group, which focuses on advancing justice. In addition, she founded and is convenor ameritus of the justice roundt, which is a coalition of advocacy groups advancing justice system reform. And she serves as a senior fellow for the center for justice at Columbia University. The District of Columbia Corrections Information Council was created by Congress in the 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act for the purpose of investigating generally the conditions of the District of Columbia sentenced felon population scattered throughout the Bureau of Prisons facilities following the closing of the Lorton Correctional Complex. The CIC, Correction Information Council, the CIC's role was expanded by the Jail Improvement Act of 2003, which requires the CIC to conduct inspections of local correctional facilities and mandates that the Department of Corrections provide access to members of the CIC at staff, designates, and agents for this purpose, including unmonitored interviews of inmates. In 2010, the council approved the Corrections Information Council Amendment Act, which restructured the CIC by creating the board and an independent executive director position and provided subordinate personnel. The 2010 act vested in the executive director several responsibilities that had been with the appointed members prior to the 2010 act. The executive director acts as the investigator as well as onbudsman looking at conditions, responding to complaints and making recommendations to the board. Role of the board is to provide advice and information to the director of the bureau of prisons and the director of the department of corrections regarding matters affecting District of Columbia inmates. In addition, the board is tasked with reviewing the findings of the executive director and making recommendations where appropriate regarding the conditions of confinement of District of Columbia inmates in Bureau Prisons or Department of Corrections custody. The board consists of five members, three appointed by the mayor, two by the council. And the council recently confirmed or excuse me, not confirmed, the council recently reappointed Miss Katherine Huffman as the other member. Uh, this resolution was introduced on February 18th of this year and the committee the whole held a public round table on October 14th of this year and the committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to this appointment. Is there dis uh without objection I move both to print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. I'm 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 madam budget director, there's no fiscal impact statement because it's a nomination. >> Correct. >> The objection. This measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The third and final measure for markup in the committee, the whole is PR 26-311 entitled the District of Columbia Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Commission. Dr. from Maria J. Danahghue, appointment resolution at 2025. The purpose of this resolution is to appoint Dr. as a member of the District of Columbia Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Commission to complete an un unexpired six-year term ending May 5th, 2029. Dr. Vala is award two resident. She received her Bachelor of Science and Biology and Psychology from Boston College. She went on to receive her PhD in molecular and cellular biology from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. She received her first assistant professorship in the department of neurobiology at Yale University. After Yale, she moved to the department of biology at Georgetown University, moving through the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor with tenure full professor, and since 2020, professor emeritus. Dr. Lea has held various leadership positions including director of Georgetown University's Howard Hughes Medical Institute University program, senior associate dean for faculty affairs and strategic planning at Georgetown and dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at the University of William and Mary in Williamsburg. Her many awards and accolades include the college of dean, the college deans academic council award for faculty excellence awarded by the deans academic council at Georgetown University [clears throat] and the Georgetown University's deans award for excellence in teaching. [clears throat] The District of Columbia Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure was created by the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of July 1970. The mission of the commission is to preserve an independent and fair judiciary by making determinations concerning discipline, involuntary retirement, reappointment, and fitness of judges on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The commission has the authority to suspend a judge convicted of a felony under federal law or which would be a felony in the district. The commission may also remove a judge for willful misconduct in office, for willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties and for conduct prejuditial to the administration of justice or conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute. The commission also has the authority to retire a judge involuntarily if the commission determines that the judge suffers from a mental or physical disability which is or is likely to become permanent and which prevents or seriously interferes with the proper performance of duties. In addition, the commission may under appropriate circumstances publicly censure or reprimand a judge. The commission consists of seven members. One appointed by the president, two appointed by the mayor, one member appointed by the council who must be a non-awyer, one appointed by the chief judge of the US District Court, um, and two members appointed by the board of governors of the DC bar. As a clinician with a background in neuroscience and psychology, Dr. electless perspective will add value to and depth to the commission especially with regard to issues involving the mental health of judges. This resolution was introduced on September 22nd, 2025 and the committee the whole held a public roundt on October 20th, 2025 and the committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to this appointment. 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 Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I will be supporting Dr.'s nomination today and I wanted to take this opportunity to uplift this important agency that's not always getting the attention that it deserves. The Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, as we refer to it as CJDT, is an independent agency which is partially funded by local district dollars whose vital services include the review of complaints regarding judicial conduct, reviews of judicial fitness, and the reappoints for associate judges, and the appointments of reappoints for senior judges at the DC Superior Court and the DC Court of Appeals. And part of ensuring and maintaining our public safety in DC requires that our courts be fully benched with qualified judges. The work of this commission is crucial in preserving public safety and the rule of law in overseeing and evaluating judicial disabilities and tenure in the city. I'm happy to highlight that this agency recently appointed a new executive director, Mr. Moses Cook, and a new deputy executive director, Miss Katherine Bruno. And by filling the existing commission vacancies with this nomination, the agency will be in a good position to continue its essential work that is important both locally and federally that we continue to support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, thank you, council. Any other council members wish to speak? The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff to make uh technical conforming and editorial changes. All those in favor say I. 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 and hearing record are filed >> and madam budget director, there is no fiscal impact because it's a nomination or an appointment. >> Correct. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh we have no measures from reported out of other committees. We have no other business. Uh we will start the legislative meeting in 5 minutes. The time is 100 p.m. exactly and this meeting's adjourned. I am calling to order this meeting. This is a regular meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. This is our regular uh legislative meeting for the month of November and it is also the 18th legislative meeting of council period 26. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council. Today is Tuesday, November 4th, 2025. The time is 10:06 in the afternoon. We are meeting in the council chambers, room 500 of the Johnny Wilson building. This meeting is being uh broadcast on cable television channel 13 is also available on the council website www.dcconsil.gov. [clears throat] We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. It's uh an opportunity for reflection. So I would ask everyone in the chamber on the deis if you would please respect a moment of silence. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Felder >> present. >> Council member Freeman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. Council member Lewis George >> here. >> Council member McDuffy >> here. >> Chairman Medson >> present. >> Council member Nado >> here. Council member Parker >> here. Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> And council member Trayon White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh thank you, Madam Secretary. We have the secretar's report of committee filings. Yes. Secretary's log of committee filings. I'm going to recognize secret chair prom. >> Thank you chairman. I'll move to wave the reading of the secretary's log of committee filings. >> A motion to wave the reading of the log. Is there discussion on the motion? And all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. We have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. Again, I'm going to recognize it prom. >> I will 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. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda? I'm not hearing any. That's a good thing. All right. We have the consent agenda unchanged before us. All those in favor of the consent agenda say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. That gets us to page five of the agenda, the non consent agenda. Um the first item is early childhood educator pay scales amendment act of 2025. Uh so move the bill. There is an amendment that I circulated and the amendment is necessary to harmonize the repeal of the Early Childhood Educator Pay Equity Fund Establishment Act of 2021 and amendments to section 11B of the Daycare Policy Act of 1979 in this bill with amendments to the same laws in the fiscal year 2026 budget support act of 2025. So what we've done is we've taken I thought we did this with uh first reading but this completes it that is we've taken the entire um child equity educator pay equity early childhood educator pay equity law and we have now moved it to the daycare I think it's the daycare act an existing act everything is there everything's aligned that's what this amendment does. If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, it is accepted. We have the bill as amended. Is there discussion on the bill? As amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Turning to emergency legislation, we have uh green housing coordination emergency declaration resolution 2025 PR26-325. Council member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Um when I first introduced this legislation, many of you shared thoughtful suggestions on how it could be strengthened. I postponed the vote to collaborate and refine this bill. Uh based on that feedback over the past months I've worked closely with council members and staff and we have engaged advocates and industry partners and I want to thank everybody for their uh help and partnership on this um and for the constructive dialogue. That collaboration has produced a balanced forward-looking compromise. The green housing coordination emergency amendment act advances two core district goals. Delivering the affordable housing our residents urgently need and meeting our long-term climate commitments. This legislation proves that we don't have to choose between those priorities. We can and we must achieve both. Though this collective through this collective effort, we have developed a policy that positions DC as a national leader in green affordable housing while ensuring the standards remain financially and operationally feasible. Under this bill, all new affordable housing construction receiving district funds must meet Enterprise Green Communities Plus standards, be all electric, and install rooftop solar where whenever feasible. This approach strengthens our sustainability goals, reduces uncertainty and potential delays, and keeps affordable housing production moving, especially in a challenging construction and financing environment. It also advances our clean energy vision by applying ambitious standards that we can now meet now, ensuring meaningful progress rather than stalled projects as DOE and DOB work toward updating clean building regulations expected to begin taking effect in 2027. This bill serves as a thoughtful bridge providing clarity and consistency for housing for affordable housing pipelines while maintaining strong climate alignment. We must move this bill now so DCHA can issue bonds to begin renovations on 19 public housing complexes which are scheduled to start next month. Some colleagues were concerned that the the developers might still have to go to the uh GBAC to fulfill this board's solar requirements, but DCBO DO and DOB and GBAC members say this isn't the case. This bill gives them the flexibility they need. This is a measured, practical, and climate forward solution that strengthens our commitments and protects the residents who rely on affordable housing. It reflects the values of this council, collaboration innovation and delivering results for DC families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can continue building homes that are affordable, sustainable, and equitable, and keep Washington DC at the forefront of climate climate conscious housing policy. I now move the ANS Um, [clears throat] Mr. White, I blinked for a second. You move the declaration. The amendment would be to the underlying bill. Uh, we have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. The underlying bill, bill 26-374, Council Member White. >> So moved. >> And do you have an amendment? >> Oh. Um, yes. Um, so I just spoke to the uh ANS. Oh, I now I move the ANS. Uh, chairman. >> All right. We have the amendment nature of a substitute before us. Is there discussion on that? Council member Lewis George. >> Uh, thank you, chairman. Um, I'm sporting the emergency legislation. Um, I think because we are we are up against a wall. Um, but I want to be clear, I don't think this is the acceptable fix. Um, I have doubts that it will do what we have been assured it will do. And those darts are informed by um my years chairing the committee on facilities and seeing projects go through the process set out by the green buildings advisory council GBAC. Um, a real solution, something that will endure without a need for an amendment. Um, we need quality housing for our people, which means we need a predictable environment for investors who fund its buildings. And we need legislation that will do this and not a sort of a temporary fix that kicks the can down the road. Um, standards are written in regulations for a reason and they they are flexible and need updating regularly. Um, and I think that's not how we legislate. We legislate for the framework. Those res regulations can be built on. Um, this emergency mandates the new construction adhere to the enterprise green community criteria, which is a malable third-party standard that will be revised within the coming year. Um, but this standard is already required in DHCD's uh regulations um when they are soliciting applications through the QAP. Um, those requirements are regulatory and they are meant to change as the needs of the district change. Um but today we're amending a law and that's problematic be because it means we'll be back here amending it as soon as the regulation change very very soon. Um I think fortunately this is not the end of the conversation. I would have liked for us to um make changes to the ANS today. Um, but my commitment is between now and the next legislative me meeting to work collaboratively with uh some of my colleagues and some of uh um the stakeholders I've been having conversation with who agree with me um that we need to uh introduce an emergency bill and some accompanying permanent legislation that fixes the problem long term and protect our residents. And so um I look forward to working with you all on that uh legislation. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank you, Council Member Lewis George. Um, further on the amendment nature of a substitute to council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to ask a couple of questions just for the purposes of having it on the record. I know we discussed it at the breakfast, but that's not a recorded um meeting. Um, so, Council Member White, we talked a little bit about this, but my understanding was that one of the reasons that we wanted to advance this was to um ensure that some of our affordable housing producers um avoided delays of GBACK reviews for particular exemptions. Um the ANS adds a new requirement for adding renewable energy systems um uh when more when half or more of the roof is being replaced for residential projects for the projects that I as we're advancing this emergency for. Are there any of those projects that would need to still go to the GBAC for this exemption or were they consulted to make sure that they are able to move forward? Uh thank you for the that uh question uh council member Henderson. Uh we did consult uh DOE, DOB and GBACK um who all agree that um projects should not need to go before or these uh roof projects should not need to go before GBACK because this language gives them the flexibility they need. >> Okay. Um, now I uh I guess my next question is what is our timeline on the permanent because what it sounds like is we're going to do uh an emergency today that's broad then a permanent that's narrow at some point in the future. Council member Lewis George alluded to an emergency um I guess in December that could be different than today. it. We've got some changing rules here that I don't think is good for anyone involved. And so, um, as the chair of the housing committee, what are you envisioning as the timeline here in terms of next steps? >> Uh, timeline is ASAP, but there are a lot of folks who have, um, thoughts on this, which is good. Um, and then it will change again in 2027. So, we're going to get the permit done as quickly as possible, but even then, it's only going to be good for uh, a short amount of time before the standards change again. But the goal here is to get the projects as energy efficient as possible between now and and 2027. So, we're going to try to leave no gap. >> Okay. Um, let me ask this, Council Member George. Is the emergency you're envisioning for next legislative meeting just going to remove everything we're doing today? I don't know if you've written it yet, but >> it is written already. Um it is creating more clarity. It's clarifying the ANS to make it more predictable for housing providers so that they can move forward. Um so not everything but just more narrow exemptions. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh thank you council member Henderson. Uh further on the amendment nature of a substitute. Council member Allen. >> Thank you Mr. chair. Um I want to thank Council Robert White and all of our colleagues that have worked collaboratively on this. Um I pushed back on this a couple of weeks ago on the previous version of this because we just don't have to pit housing preservation and creation against environmental protection. And in general, I think the ANS strikes a balance that is a big improvement over our current law. Uh I do believe however uh we'll be back here shortly continuing to work on this and and I think we will need to move towards permanent legislation and I look forward to working with councelor Lewis George as well on uh what she has referenced too. I mean the reality is that as we look at uh what is facing a lot of our of our homes Pepco bills uh are spiking due to regional grid issues and over reliance on fossil fuels. We've got Washington gas attempting to pass on massive infrastructure costs in the coming decades to an increasingly shrinking number of customers and net zero homes can insulate residents from the big cost swings to provide them and their children clean healthy air uh both inside and outside their homes. Investing on the front end and that's what this is investing is more than justified for everybody involved and we should work together to ensure these standards are feasible. Um, I also appreciate a lot of conversations I've had with some of our affordable housing providers over the last couple of weeks too, uh, of trying to make sure that we are building toward ambitious standards and also working so that we can deliver the projects and the housing that we absolutely need. The, um, the legislation today, I think, uh, moves us in that direction. And again, I appreciate the the movement from where we were a couple of weeks ago. I think we'll still have more work ahead of us. Uh, so I look forward to partnering and working with colleagues on this. At the end of the day, the decisions we make about new construction in particular will be decisions that stay with us for decades. Once that building is built, the decisions we make will be here for generations. And so, it's important that we have ambitious and high standards for that construction. And especially when we're using public dollars, we want to make sure that we are getting that investment back. And I remember still being struck by multiple conversations with many of my public housing leaders and residents in Ward 6 where the building stock that they have is so inefficient, so inefficient that the housing itself, the the dollars available are just being wasted on inefficient buildings and on energy costs that could otherwise be going back into providing dignified housing. And that's just a waste of tax dollars as well when we're not building smart on the front end to make sure that we have high quality dignified housing and be able to help manage costs uh along that way. So, uh I'm supporting the amendment today and again I want to thank Council Robert White for working with us for the last couple of weeks and I look forward to the continued conversations and move towards additional work and permanent legislation that will be necessary too. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Hold on a second. Uh thank you, Council Member Allen. Council member Bonds. Thank you very much. Um, chairman, I wanted to [clears throat] ask of my colleague if how do we how does the average resident look at a bill like this and come with a conclusion that the cost of going green affects their home? Have we thought about how we inform the public of the value of this kind of u proposal? >> Um, great question, Council Member Bonds. Yes. Uh, as most of us know, utility costs have been kicking our butts. It, uh, my gas bill is like a mortgage now. Um, and with green construction, it significantly, uh, lowers utility bills. Um, and so when we add that over months and over years, this is going to save our residents uh thousands of dollars, which they desperately need. Uh, in and their homes are going to be uh they're going to last longer. >> Thank you very much. >> Uh, further on the amendment nature of a substitute. The vote will be on the amendment nature of a substitute. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Hearing none. This ANS is approved unanimously. We now have a vote on the bill as amended. Discussion on the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26-299 first responder retention efforts emergency declaration resolution of 2025. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move to postpone this measure until the next legislative meeting. >> All right. There's a motion to postpone until next legislative meeting. Um discussion on the motion to postpone. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? >> The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is Juvenile Curfew Second Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2025. Council Member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I'm moving the Juvenile Curfew Second Emergency Amendment Act of 2025. This summer, the council passed emergency legislation which gave MPD and the executive the authority to extend the curfew to 17 year olds, start the curfew hours at 11 p.m. instead of midnight on weekends, and create specific juvenile curfew zones. Late in the spring and early summer, there were several instances of large gatherings of young people, especially we saw this at the Warf Navy Yard, New Street, and other places that resulted in assaults, injury, and robberies. And just last weekend, unfortunately, we again saw chaos break out after a large group of young people gathered in the Navyyard on Halloween night. Fights broke out and hundreds of officers were dispatched and five arrests were made. This weekend was yet another reminder of how important it is that we both invest in spaces and opportunities for all of our kids and that we empower the MPD chief to declare designated juvenile curfew zones when we have intel of planned fights. We understand that the vast majority of kids in our city are engaging in productive and safe activities. When the emergency legislation first went into place, it provided MPD a preventative tool that allowed them to prevent violence from happening in the first place. Throughout the 90-day period where this emergency was in place, MPD declared these designated curfew zones seven times and there were zero violations. and zero arrests. That's exactly how we want this tool to be used. Since the emergency legislation has expired on October 5th, however, there have already been several instances over the last month of these large gatherings, some of which have resulted in fights or injury. We've seen this in Navyyard, Gallery Place, Rhode Island Avenue, and elsewhere with these concerning incidents. According to MPD, these types of gatherings have become increasingly predictable with young people passing out flyers physically and online indicating that there will be a large gathering, sometimes referred to as a takeover of a specific place. Without this legislative mechanism, MPD has been unable to be as proactive as they were before, which puts a serious strain on already limited MPD resources. Last Thursday, my committee held a roundt to hear from the public and on MPD and the deputy mayor for public safety and justice about how the emergency went in practice over the 90 days that it was in place. It was extremely valuable to hear from many different perspectives, including from several young people themselves who came to testify. One of the main themes that I heard in that hearing is that we need to do more as a city to invest in spaces for our young people to be where they feel and are safe. And I completely agree. That's why I introduced a bill earlier this year called the expanding community access to safe and clean recreational space of 2025, which would require DPR and DCPS to expand community access to schools and recreational facilities in every ward on evenings and weekends outside of their normal hours, coupled with needed janitorial and security staffing, which was feedback that we heard from our schools and our rec centers. This bill is currently with the facilities committee and I'm so glad to hear that the committee will be holding a hearing on this bill on December 3rd. Thank you very much. While we continue to pursue efforts to ensure that all of our young people have the resources that they need and that they deserve in our city, MPD also must have this tool in their toolbox when it comes to preventing instances of large gatherings of our young people so that we can keep them and our communities safe. Mr. Chairman, I move the emergency declaration. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member. We have the declaration before us. Council Member Trayon White. Um, yes. I have a question. Chairman, during the hearing, I believe that both the chief police and deputy mayor public safety uh said the original uh legislation they did not agree with. What is different in this uh piece of legislation that they agree with or where did you land with this piece? >> Um I'm sorry. They said that they didn't agree with the legislation. >> Yes. >> Um so the chief and the deputy mayor are both supportive of this legislation. Um and you know are urging the council to pass it. It's the same language that we passed in the summer. So, it is 8:00 PM. Um, as early as 8:00 PM, the chief would be authorized to declare one of these zones for a specific area. It has to be eight or more young people gathering without supervision. Um, and then the 11 p.m. curfew would be consistent. Right now, it's 11:00 p.m. on weekdays, but 12:00 p.m. on weekends. And so, this would just make it 11:00 p.m. consistently uh throughout the week. So that's the same language we did this summer and it's the language that I'm moving today and the chief and the deputy mayor are both supportive and the mayor. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarity. Also there was some proposals from students at UDC. It was very different versions of a bill that ties into this. Um did any of this get incorporated into this legislation at all? The suggestions. So, I think there are a lot of great suggestions at the hearing by you and by our young people and others. As you know, for an emergency bill, we can't have any costs associated. Um, so a lot of those investments we're going to have to do through another vehicle. I mentioned my bill that's um in the facilities committee right now that expands access to rec spaces on nights and weekends. I hope uh we can get that bill passed and funded. Um, and I'll continue to support other measures to support activities for young people throughout the city. Some of those do have costs though and so can't be associated with this emergency. >> Gotcha. And I just want to reiterate this. I think that DC has a plethora of resources, smart people, um, activities, especially a budget that can provide safe and healthy spaces for youth to come socialize, be free, and have fun. I know we did the late night hypes, but I think that that in itself is not enough. I look at the space in which the young people gathered last week. It's a huge space. We can put a movie theater there. We can activate that with some of the fun mobiles, skate mobiles, uh fun wagon, uh rock climbing, and I think that we have not gone farther enough to address that. And I think this legislation uh doesn't go further enough about wraparound services to incorporate that. But I understand what you're trying to do. Um, just want to make sure we are thinking further ahead and being proactive instead of reactive. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you so much, Council Member. And I will just say I would love to work with you on all of those activations. I think those are great ideas. >> Thank you, Council Member Lewis George. >> Um, thank you. I want to thank the judiciary committee for holding the curfew hearing um and for those who came out, especially our youth who came out to testify and offered real solutions. um and many organizations who are on the ground. Um and I voted for this tool in the past, but as I've said since August, things have changed. Federal troops have been patrolling our city. My constituents call me every day overwhelmed and terrified by the increased law enforcement presence. This is why we cannot continue to implement tools or solutions that would increase surveillance and invite more policing of our kids. Right now in this moment, this city is occupied. Like, let's let's not mince words about it. It is occupied. And I think we are taking a huge risk with young lives by voting yes on a curfew right now. This morning, I asked if we could be sure there would be no federal involvement in enforcing the curfew, and the answer was no. Just this weekend, the entire country did watch as youth in DC were confronted and chased by the National Guard and Navyyard on Halloween night at approximately 6:30 p.m. And and now we are as a council responding not with care, not with support, not by funding safe spaces or investing in after school and weekend programming for our youth. We are instead expanding the youth curfew, creating more opportunity for our children to face the heavy hand of federal forces wearing military fatigues on our streets. And with this response, I think we are making a statement um that we will fund our enforcement uh mechanisms while continuing to make budget decisions that punish our kids for existing in public, especially kids with safe places with few safe places to go. I just don't understand right now why would we create more opportunity for federal law enforcement to target our communities when we don't even know the extent of their cooper cooperation right now with the Metropolitan Police Department. What I fear the most is the devastating impact if one of our young people is harmed or killed by one of these unlawful federal agencies during an enforcement effort. We have no power or oversight. I cannot tell my young people nor their families that they will be safe and that I as a council member can do anything about it. And we expose ourselves as a district in addition to that to litigation. We owe our kids real safety by investing in their lives, their homes, their education, their families. And I know every council member believes that on this day is um and everyone has introduced legislation and funding and have done things and will continue to do things. I believe all of us believe that. But I what I am fearful of is what we have seen on the ground, which is racial profiling that our young people are facing, especially our young black and brown youth and are experiencing every day. Um being targeted while traveling to and from school, on their way from sports practices, coming back from visits to aunts, uncles, and grandparents. And I think we owe ourselves in this moment to make a decision on whether we can do what we can do protect them. And I don't think expanding power right now is what we should be doing in our purview to protect them. So, I will be voting no and I thank you, >> Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the merits of the underlying bill notwithstanding, I just want to reiterate that we need a youth agenda. Like, we keep saying the same things. Young people don't have places to go. Young people don't have sufficient mental health resources. And I I think it's an opportunity for the council to work handinhand with the executive as the executive is likely preparing for their fiscical year 27 budget. I would like to see a robust suite of program offerings and outreach to our young people. A curfew cannot be the long-term solution to meet our young people's needs. I'm not suggesting that is what is being said. But when we only advance a curfew, it begs the question uh how are we expecting things to change? As I talk to young people, the two things I hear repeatedly uh that young people are saying they want and need are jobs and access to money and mental health support. Uh I think that is within our power uh to change and expand for our young people. And I just would like to hear more discussion about that. I think the media and the comm and and a lot of the discussion across the city has latched on to this curfew and whether it passes or not the condition for many of our young people will be unchanged. And so this is a call to action for all of us and the executive. I've also shared this directly with the executive and by that I mean the mayor and her team uh for us to work together to really advance real solutions that are long-term and permanent for our young people. Thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Uh thank you council member. Council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, today we have a request from the chief of police. She's asking for a tool. Uh, we don't always say yes. A few months ago, she wanted a horsemounted unit and this council said, "No, we're going to reject that funding request." Um, I opposed this measure at prior legislative meetings because I felt like we didn't have enough information from the executive um about why it was necessary for us to have an extended curfew that goes into the winter. I also felt that successive emergencies by this council because we act so often on an emergency basis locked the public out of the ability to participate in the process and the ability for us to actually build a record in terms of why this was needed and what happened over the summer. Um but given the totality of the evidence of what's been happening in community as well as the judiciary committee's recent hearing on this matter, I will be supporting this legislation today. Yes, through back channels with community organizations, we were able to successfully thwart one of these so-called teen takeovers a couple of weeks ago. Um but in some ways it has become a little bit like whack-a-ole. To me though, that that speaks to a greater need for what my colleagues have talked about, which is a comprehensive strategy, including conversations with our regional partners on this issue. Even though the District of Columbia is the one that's on the national news, our neighbors in PG County and in Arlington and others are having this similar issue um with their teens. Any curfew is a mere tool, but it is not a complete solution. Just like drug-free zones don't solve our opioid crisis, simply blocking young people from commercial and entertainment corridors will not solve the issue of some of these young people who are and have been engaged in disruptive or illegal activities. Where do we want them to go? How do we want them to engage in community and socialize and learn how to become engaged citizens in community? They can't go to high school football games anymore by themselves. They probably won't be able to go to basketball games once basketball season starts by themselves. Pentagon City Mall says, "Nope, you can't come here." National Harbor said, "Nope, can't go there." The Warf has said, "Nope, we don't want you here." And while I'm grateful that the Department of Parks and Wreck has provided some activities for um young people, including on Halloween night, many of those events end at 8:00 p.m. on a Friday or a Saturday. Um, we go hard with late night hypes and other events in the summertime and then we assume it's not necessary during the school year, but here we are. At the hearing last week, I heard young people say that they were looking for an outlet. I heard several youth serving organizations say they need infrastructure and they need funding to support the young people who are in in their care. I also heard from businesses and community leaders talk about what the impact of the disruptive behavior has been on them. For the last few budgets, I've been asking the mayor to include additional funding to keep DCPS buildings open later and fund more true afterchool clubs outside of just relying on sports. My challenge to the executive is that when they come back for the permanent, because there was a permanent bill that was introduced yesterday, that there needs to be a plan. In fact, don't wait that long. Several agencies, including the deputy mayor's office, has funding available right now. You have grant funding available. I implore the executive to act. Um, and to council member Chayan White's point. Um, you know, the fact that we have a bunch of young people who are just gathering in a field, put something in the field um for them to do if you want it to be a more structured activity. Um, but the curfew is just a tool. It's not the solution and I'm sure it won't solve all of our particular issues here. It will be more like whack-a-ole if there isn't a strategy, but I certainly don't anticipate or expect that MPD should be the only one solving this problem. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Um I want to speak to uh directly to the the people of DC. Uh the people who call DC home. We have a real problem on our hands. uh our neighbors, our local businesses, and our youth deserve in response to that problem actions that will work. No one wants to live in a hot spot of crime and chaotic crowds. We also don't want to see dangerous teen gatherings as an appropriate venue for our youth. Not only is the safety of our community at stake, so is the safety of youth who are being targeted based on what they look like. With National Guard troops from red states harassing our neighbors, the Trump administration is taking a performative approach uh that we should not as a council replicate. I cannot in good conscience sell false hope that this action today will lead to much needed change. The proposal in front of us promises safety, but the mayor just imposed a curfew under existing authority. So, we don't need new legislation to address something that we already have the power to do. And worse, this proposal would establish an even later hours than what's legally allowed today. So, this won't address either the issues, events, or the press coverage that has alarmed us. And let's be honest about the racial impact of this proposal. Officers are stopping black youth at metro stations while white teens walk past them. All of us have seen these videos. Racial profiling of our youth does not build trust. In fact, it leads them to be less likely to engage with us and it breeds resentment. That will be our problem tomorrow. I know what it's like to be a young black teen targeted. That happened when I went to go when I was young and growing up here. It doesn't make you want to follow the rules. It makes you pull away. It makes you resent authority and social norms, not follow them. We should not punish conduct. Uh we should punish conduct, not presence. A blanket curfew diverts officers to stop and release encounters instead of focusing on the small number of people causing harm. We cannot lose our focus and simply punish everyone for the actions of a few. I'm voting no on this pro proposal because it will not make us safer. It is the easier political maneuver, but it just does not work and it is more of the same. I would vote for a curfew if it was applied equally across the board to everyone. Uh also um if it included the following precision policing on violent actors and organizers of dangerous meetups. If it created late night safe spaces and hotspots, gyms and recck centers uh with mentors with relatable experience that encouraged teens to engage. If it launched a universal mentorship program available to every student, which I've been working to get more support for. If it created a joint building trades union apprenticeship program with DC public schools so that these students understood that we heard them when they say they want to make money. If it expanded mental health availability to employ the masters and social work graduates from the UDC tuitionfree program I created. Uh one more minute >> without objection. >> Thank you. Um moreover curfews don't solve the problem. We have decades of data, including from our own Department of Justice, showing that curfews don't reduce juvenile crime. The Department of Justice found that past juvenile curfews in DC were quote not effective at reducing total juvenile arrests. It just shifted the issue elsewhere. In short, curfews shift the problem. They don't solve it. Chief Smith herself told us that incidents just move to different neighborhoods or earlier hours. We're changing where and when things happen, but not why they happen. We have a real problem on our hands that call for real safety solutions. This is not a real safety solution. It is telling people we're going to take an action. It is making them hope they're going to feel safer, but at the end of the day, it will not address the underlying issue, but it will make it worse. So, I responsibly cannot vote for it. Uh, thank you, chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member. I'm looking to see if anyone else wants to be recognized. Council member McDuffy. >> Thank you uh chairman. Um I want to thank Councilman Pinto for holding a round table last week and for all the uh thoughtful deliberation and debate that we're having today and have had on this issue uh for some weeks and months. Um at last Thursday's round table uh at the judiciary committee, we heard directly from young people and community members who are living the realities behind this conversation that we're having on this policy. And frankly, it's their voices that have stayed with me. Uh specifically, the voices of people like Joanna Hardy of Guns Down Friday. um and a young person from Ward 8 named Rashad who shared that he's lost seven friends to gun violence in the last several months and those friends were between the ages of 11 years old and 18 years old. seven friends. He spoke about his negative interactions with the police in Navyyard after curfew over the summer. However, because he sometimes has difficulty just getting home safely himself from school at night, uh he doesn't see the curfew as altogether a bad idea. Uh but he knows it's just not going to guarantee his safety or the safety of his friends. and uh existing efforts aren't always sufficient for Rashad and his friends who don't like to hang out at the neighborhood Rex because one of their friends was shot while leaving that very recreation center. And so we're left with, I think, a lingering question. How do we meet the urgent need to keep our young people safe while building the sorts of supports and the programs that we need for a more sustainable preventative solution? Uh on Halloween night, we saw uh the large gathering outside the Navyyard that my colleagues have talked about. I mean, just really a lot of chaos and and in and fighting and National Park Service um I'm sorry, National Guard breaking up uh some of those fights. I've seen videos on social media where there were several fights. Uh the weekend prior there was the horrible violent carjacking and assault near 7th and Rhode Island Avenue Northwest involving a group of young people. Uh the recent incidents are really putting our young people's safety at risk, putting their safety at risk, and I'm deeply concerned about that. And it's also reinforcing how urgent it is that we protect them and ensure that everyone can feel safe in their own neighborhoods. I want to be very clear, another minute, chairman, >> without a protection. >> I want to be very clear. I do not believe an extended curfew is a permanent solution to what we're seeing. I don't um I think the research has shown that curfews um do not prevent violence and I think that the data is just mixed at best. Um and I don't think curfews can replace the real investments that we need to make in additional opportunities for our youth. uh investments in recreation, housing stability, mental health support, quality jobs, and trusting relationships between youth and adults in this city. Those are the things that ultimately keep young people safe. And uh I want to commend the important work that we're seeing from a host of agencies across the District of Columbia. I know one of the notable events that kept uh being mentioned throughout the hearing and in other places is DPR's summer late night hype. uh as well as the uh the office of neighborhood safety and engagement's violence intervention efforts. Really critical uh work that's already being done and uh perhaps needs to be expanded. Uh there also the community organizations like Gunown Friday that are doing phenomenal work as well. Um but ultimately there are children in our city who are out late at night because the places they're expected to return home are not safe and supportive. I'll just say this and and I'll end because the chairman is pushing the clock right here. There's Miss Hardy who runs Guns on Friday said something that that really stuck with me and it it struck a cord. She said that they started doing room makeovers after discovering that one of the children they were working with shared a home with six other kids, none of whom had beds and who all slept on the floor. So, we have to understand why some of these kids are out late at night because they don't want to go home. And until we address those underlying factors, those root causes, we're going to continue to find ourselves, looking for short-term solutions like curfews, uh, in an attempt to place law enforcement as the only solution to this problem. It is not. Thank you, chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member. Further discussion on this, Council Member Felder. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. Um I echo the sentiments of a lot of my colleagues. I want to commend uh Councilwoman uh Pinto for hosting last week's roundt uh discussion about the curfew. Uh as a fourth generation native Washingtonian. I understand the many necessitudes that our young folks go through just living in the District of Columbia. I think as city leaders, we have a responsibility uh to put measures in place that protects them. Uh we know with additional law enforcement officers who are not from the district uh patrolling the district that puts our young folks in harm's way and we got to make sure that we protect them. I once heard this quote um it really resonated with me from the director of DPRY Freeman. She said that we don't choose our young folks. Our young folks oftent times chooses us, but we have to show them that we care. And I've heard individuals like Council Member McDuffy as well as Council Member White uh and Councilwoman Pinto talk about the holistic approach that the district uh must undertake in partnership with uh various DC government agencies. Uh, and although this is not a long-term solution, I think it's a step into the right direction, especially as we continue to navigate these turbulent times. So, I will uh be supporting the extended curfew measure, and I hope my colleagues do the same. >> Uh, thank you, council member. Uh, if there's no further discussion, uh, the vote is on the declaration. All those in favor of the declaration say I. >> I. Okay. Are there any opposed? >> No. >> No. [clears throat] Mr. Chairman, can you please record me as no? >> Please record me as vote. No. >> Chairman. >> Chairman, please record me as voting. No. >> Same. >> I heard somebody say same. >> Yeah. >> Uh, the eyes have it. Uh, madam secretary, you'll record council members Lewis George, Robert White, Tran White, and NDO as voting no. And it meets to 2/3. Uh, so we have the underlying bill, bill 26-459. Council member Pinto. >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Discussion. Council member Pinto, I had a question for you. I should have brought this up earlier, but uh only just now focused on it. the um the more uh um what do we call it? The uh extension of the uh curfew. There are two provisions in here. One allowing the mayor to have this extended curfew for 4 days and the other the chief of police to have an extended curfew for 4 days. Uh they both say uh except as provided in subsection E. And for the chief, it says the chief may extend the duration of the designation of an extended juvenile curfew hours zone by 30 days. But for the mayor, it says um may extend um the time period provided that each such extension of the time period shall not exceed 30 days. So the literal reading of that is that it could be 4 days and then extended to 30 and then extended to 30 and then extended again to 30. Would you be opposed if it was um the mayor the language regarding the mayor was sim similar to that as the chief such as that the mayor's orders extending once the time period provided that such extension shall not exceed 30 days. So we want to our expectation is that this will almost always be declared by the chief as we saw over the period of 90 days the emergency was in place for it was only declared by the chief. Um I think it is also important as we have reviewed this language um thoroughly with OGC to ensure that it mirrors the language of the temp and the last emergency as we go to congressional review. I would be very nervous about making uh all due respect on the fly change because it could undermine that consistency that we're going for. So happy to have a larger conversation about that authority as we are going to be considering this again at a hearing on December 4th. But for today, I would ask and recommend that we stick with the language that we have that has been vetted that's gone through OGC that maintains consistency with the temp so that we don't have any confusions and issues that we need to come back for to amend this yet again in two weeks. So, I'd ask you to hold that idea for next time. >> Well, I'm not quite getting the argument of it having been vetted by um general counsel because uh the provision the parallel provisions are not parallel. The chief gets to renew it once for 30 days or excuse me to extend it once for 30 days. The mayor gets to extend it repeatedly for 30 days. Um, I'll hold off on it today, but the temporary, assuming the temporary is approved, I'll probably come back with this amendment on the temporary at second reading. I don't uh I think that you know this more um this extended curfew I think makes sense in limited circumstances. Uh I don't think it's at all comparable but I'll just remind everyone how we um did not like the possibility that the emergency that we experienced back in August, not the mayor's uh was one that we were afraid was going to get renewed. Um, so I think that it should only be renewable once or excuse me extended only once for 30 days and then has to start over. But I'll come back on second reading for the temporary. >> Okay, understood. And happy to work with you on that. And I'll just add to that point about extensions, how important it is that we in DC continue to locally handle our public safety challenges. um which is another thing that we're doing today and what is our responsibility and what we are best suited to do locally to ensure that we are safe in DC. >> Further discussion on the bill. The vote will council member Bonds. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, I believe that we just voted on the declaration. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And in the declaration, we um spoke to this nuance that you're now speaking to, right? And the nuance being that the chief declaration may be for a period of time, but the mayor may have to um continue to make a 30-day 30-day in the event of um let's say extreme situations. So, I don't see there being um a question about uh whether or not we need to make both provisions the same. I think the authorities would be different. the police chief's authority would be on a regular basis, but in the event there is an emergency um situation in the city, I would imagine that that would have to be declared by the mayor, I'm so I'm kind of asking a question about that. >> Well, I don't see this referenced at all in the declaration. >> Okay. And I think that we have um been saying that this more restrictive curfew would only be for 4 days. Well, actually there's language that allows it to be extended beyond 4 days. >> In the event of an real emergency, yes, that's how it would usually be used, I would think. >> Well, that's not the language. I I'll also just note that the mayor's authority that she used this weekend to declare an emergency, she only has that authority for 15 days, which is why it is limited and used in a limited fashion, which is another reason why I think this tool removing is important. Um, >> but more than four days. >> Yeah. Oh, thank you. the the more than four days piece is um I will just note it is a different thing but the drug-free zones that we instituted the most frequent concern that I receive about these zones on a weekly basis is that they are only in place for a short period of time. I think there were many concerns when we were moving that of would these be overutilized would these lead to all these concerns and the most regular concern that I hear is that there's not authority to extend them. So I just raised that as we think about this new tool that part of the idea is a nimleness to be able to respond to information that is coming in real time um as is happening more and more in today's social media climate. >> Now I was happy to just say I would not move it today but since this discussion has extended I don't think it's parallel to refer to the drug-free zones. The drug-free zones are an anti-loitering statute and that is why they are limited in time. That's why they're limited in time because they're an anti-loitering statute. But I said I would not move this today. >> If there's no further discussion on the bill, >> bill 26-459, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Please record me as voting no. >> Please record me as voting no. Please report me as voting no. >> Please report me as voting no. >> Uh the same uh madam secretary the same as on the declaration. Uh and the eyes have it. The next measure is PR26-377 private vehicle for higher operator clarification emergency declaration resolution at 2025. Council member. >> Yes chairman. The D district has for higher vehicle laws for obvious and very important reasons. First and foremost, to keep drivers passenger drivers passengers safe. Drivers need to know, and often they do not, that they could be on the hook for significant costs if they're in a crash that damages their vehicle or causes injury to other passengers. Insurance companies will not cover damages from ride hailing trips unless they have appropriate commercial insurance. Passengers should expect that if they're in a crash that causes injury, they'll be covered, that there's comp there's a company to go to for reimbursement, and that there will be some accountability. They also should be confident their driver is safe and has the appropriate background checks. There are a host of other laws that require proper licensing of the driver and the dispatch, insurance, clear branding so they know whose car they're getting into, and more. And residents are right to have an expectation that all participants in the marketplace are abiding by the same rules. In the district, drivers have been offering vehicle forhire services without many of these protections. One company in particular has facilitated these services even as it has not registered with the district as a private vehicle for hire company. There's recently been an attempt to exploit ambiguity in the district's law governing for higher vehicles. In particular, the definition of a private for hire vehicle operator, a term that is a depend dependency for multiple other definitions. This emergency legislation is necessary to make the council's original intent of the law as clear as possible, clarifying that DFHV and the attorney general have consistently had authority to address the range of threats to passengers and driver safety caused by illegal for higher vehicle operators and companies. With that, I move the declaration. >> With that, I move the declaration. Yeah. >> Thank you, council member. Is there discussion on the declaration? Uh the vote will be on the declaration PR26-377. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. The underlying bill, bill 26-455. Council member NDO. >> So moved. >> Discussion. >> Um Mr. Chairman, >> council member Henderson. Um I just want to ask a couple of questions for the record if possible as a way to sort of elevate or amplify um for folks. So, council member Nadau, my understanding in terms of um the change that had been tried by the company um let's say for instance I am in a I I um use the app to get a driver um and that driver is to get into an accident that I'm now hurt. Um who would I go to for recourse? or even if it's not an accident, what if there was something harmful that happened while I was in that driver's vehicle? What hap who do I complain? >> Like an assault or the observance of a driver being inebriated, for example, >> any of those things. >> There's no one to go to. >> I'm sorry. >> There's no one to go to, >> right? Um, I think that what has been lost in this conversation and lost in some of the the emails and the rhetoric and otherwise is this the consumer safety and the consumer protection part of all of this. Um, which I think is super super important for folks to know. Um, I'm also concerned too that I don't know if individuals who are currently using the platform have received any sort of disclaimer or explanation around this new arrangement andor agreement. >> I don't know. Um although there was a time when people were logging into the app that they were be being given um a popup to email us. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh thank you, council member. Further on this, council member Trayon White and >> yes, I want to ask Council Member Manado a question as relates to insuranceances. Um, I've seen it going back and forth online in relates to this uh ride share company. Um, and some in support, some are not in support. uh what is your opinion on what could be done as far as insurance to better serve residents in District Columbia to make sure they are safe and in event of an accident that they are um made whole. >> Great question, council member. Thank you very much. So um if this company were to register as a for hire vehicle company as other companies in this jurisdiction have done then they would be subject to all of the restrictions requirements etc that this council already determined more than a decade ago are needed to keep passengers and drivers safe including adequate insurance background checks um and other protections. Until they do that, there is no way for our government to protect residents. I still got a minute left. Chairman, so are you saying uh that the current insuranceances are not sufficient enough to cover uh passengers in the case of accident? >> Absolutely. There are pending lawsuits right now for passengers who've been injured and in a in a ride share vehicle um that operates on this platform that um have no way to get their bills paid because um the drivers did not realize until the time of the accident that their personal vehicle insurance doesn't cover commercial use and they were never told that by the company. So now the driver can't get their vehicle fixed and the passenger certainly isn't going to be able to sue that driver to get their medical bills paid because of course our drivers are doing this so that they can make money to live um and they don't have money to pay out lawsuits. With a properly registered company, you'd have appropriate insurance and drivers would know what insurance they need as well to operate commercially. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member White. Council member Fman. Uh, thank you very much. Much of what I was going to say was addressed by that back and forth, but I mean this is fundamental. There is a question, should we regulate certain businesses and should we regulate ride share businesses? And the answer to that question is obvious that we have to protect the our passengers in ride share businesses. It would be utterly irresponsible for us to say, "Oh, that's the Wild West. let's have everybody do it however you want. >> This company which is, you know, proficient at generating emails, their fundamental argument is we could do this more cheaply if we were not regulated. Yeah duh. But we need you to be regulated. We need our residents to be protected. That's it. That's the fundamental responsibility of us as a council. We have to make clear you can't operate in this space on an unregulated basis where you're not protecting our residents and the passengers in our vehicles. So this is I hope a super easy one for everyone here. Thank you. >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> I think you already moved it. Is there anything further on the uh bill? >> Yeah, I have one last question. >> Second round. Council member Tran White. >> Yes. It's my understanding that this company went to court and the jur judge ordered they stay. Um and I know we've been trying for a while to restrict access to the app, but I um is my assumption based on this court ruling that they still are active. Is that accurate? Um >> uh they are still active under the stay. Um not because the judge disagreed with us but because the judge believed that there was enough ambiguity in the law on this particular point that it warranted the ability to appeal. Therefore today we shall eliminate that ambiguity. >> Amen. If there's no further discussion, we have the bill, bill 26-455. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26-376, Avanti Real Estate LLC Real Property Tax Relief Emergency Declaration Resolution 2025. Council member Nidau. This legislation was developed in partnership with Council Member McDuffy and the Office of Tax and Revenue to grant the chief financial officer the authority to issue funds that are already allocated in the FY26 budget for Real Property Tax Relief for Avanti Real Estate LLC. 377,000 was allocated, but this legislation is necessary to allow the CFO to issue those funds in this fiscal year. As this is a one-time expenditure, unless OCFO takes or needs more than the effective time of the temporary, I do not foresee this requiring another round of emergency legislation or a permanent bill. Thank you. And with that, I move the declaration. >> Thank you, Council Member. We have the declaration before us. Is there discussion? On the declaration, all those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. on the underlying bill, bill 26-453. Council member Nidau. >> So moved. >> Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is uh PR 20 6-375 food and friends property tax exemption emergency declaration resolution 2025. I think everyone on is so moved. I think everyone on the Davis is familiar with food and friends, the good work that they do. Uh they have been so good at serving the city that they uh actually become a player in the region and it's great that they are doing this out of the district. They have been exempt uh uh benefiting from a categorical tax exemption on the real property uh for years uh maybe even almost two decades. Um but there is some concern that that may now be an issue given some communications with the office of tax and revenue. Uh so to maintain the status quo this declaration and the underlying bill uh will maintain the tax exemption which is for if I remember correctly 97% of the value of the real property. Um there's no fiscal impact to this because as I said it's maintaining the status quo. So with that I move the declaration. Is there discussion? Council member Parker. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to team up with you to advance this um measure today. Uh food and friends is located in W 5. I'm saying that for the benefit of my W four colleague here. um and they do very important work and I just want to underscore that without us taking um this measure today food and friends won't be able to operate and I think the vital work that they do across the region but especially here in the district making sure that folks have food on the table ensuring that food folks not only have food but nutritious balanced meals is critically important and I think this is really important for us to advance today so thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Parker. Further on the declaration, Chair Henry. Mr. >> Chairman. >> Um, Mr. Chairman, I asked this in the breakfast, but I want to ask for the benefit of the record because I I don't think you mentioned it in your comments. So, Food and Friends had a tax exemption starting in 2006. I believe what we have before us is the exact same exemption that started then with the 973 uh sorry 97% of the property being taxexempt. Um did the exemption expire? >> Now you know the answer to that. >> I do. But again the breakfast is not on the record. So I'm trying to >> It was a good breakfast too. Um the um I I kind of touched on this that the um office of tax and revenue uh through some recent correspondence has caused some nervousness that they might revoke the exemption. I think that has to do with the fact that Food and Friends has grown, which we applaud, uh to a more of a regional uh provider. And the categorical uh categorical exemption uh applies to businesses who do I want to say their primary charitable work is the district. because there's a question about that. We're moving this legislation to maintain the taxexempt status exactly as it's been. Now, there'll be a permanent bill. Uh the 100% of the property I think is worthy of being taxexempt, but uh the 3% was because there was a billboard that no longer exists and we didn't want a fiscal impact to this bill. And um if we were to wait then there it's possible that we would have a disagreement with the chief financial officer or the OCFO um because miraculously these things get included in the revenue estimates even though the revenue estimates are not that granular. That's more of an answer than I think you were expecting. >> No, but I think that that's definitely helpful and I would just say for the record I'm a strong supporter of food and friends. Um, I will take this opportunity to give a little PSA. They always need volunteers, not just during Thanksgiving. Um, so I've I've gone I think colleagues have gone. Um, and yeah, I'll be supporting this today, but I thought we should say why we were doing a tax exemption that already exists. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Tran White. >> Yes. Real quick, Chairman, I just want to um say I'm in support of this tax exe exemption even though it's located in W five. We're trying to bring it to W 8. No, I'm just joking. Um, I was able to partner with them to deliver food in W 8 and I just think the work that they're doing is uh admirable and needed during this time of the full uncertainty that's happening across the district. Um, and so I I think that this is what we should be using our power to help our organizations like this that's in the business of service. Um, especially the residents that need us the most. So I'm happy to support this today. >> Uh thank you. Is there further discussion? Uh the vote will be on the declaration PR26-375. All those in favor say I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. I move the underlying bill 26-451. Is there discussion on the bill? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? hearing none. The eyes have unanimously. Uh the next measure is PR26-380 DC income and franchise tax conformity and revision emergency declaration resolution of 2025. So moved. Um, this legislation would decouple uh 13 provisions in the DC tax code from the federal tax code. Um, and on July 4th of this year, President Trump signed HR1, which uh we refer to as OB3 act. Signed it into law. The law contains approximately 84 tax related provisions that are coupled to the district or vice versa, the district is coupled to those 84 provisions. Since the district is a rolling conformity jurisdiction, uh the district's tax code is coupled with federal tax code unless specified in law, these tax provisions will automatically go into effect unless the council takes action. uh given that the emergency legislation would decouple 13 tax provisions from the OB3A and uh those are provisions that have a significant negative impact on the district's revenues, including provisions that would allow for no tax on overtime, an increased standard deduction, no tax on tips, a special depreciation allowance for qualified property, and a full expensing of domestic research and experimental expenditures. ers. It's necessary to decouple from these and other tax provisions in the OB3A on an emergency basis for three reasons. First, according to the estimates from the chief financial officer, tax provisions in the OB3A will reduce district revenues by roughly $95 million in fiscal year 2025, $567 million for the uh financial plan. I think actually those numbers are a little bit different. Uh the CFO has been revising his figures and I'm reading from the notice. I think the figures are a little bit higher now with the uh protracted federal government shutdown or projected revenue decline of nearly 2% from fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2026 and slow revenue growth projected thereafter. The district must be very thoughtful about how our revenues are expended. Uh second reason for this is um the council has not had adequate time to determine what if any tax provisions in OB3A should be adopted by the district. Moving this legislation on an emergency basis will give the council more time to thoughtfully analyze and consider the various tax provisions of the OB3A. Finally, several of these tax provisions such as the no tax on overtime and no tax on tips are retroactive to tax year 2025 or earlier. I think that's true as well with at least one of the business taxes. Um and uh so it's possible that there could be an economic hit right away if we don't act now. In addition, the Office of Tax and Revenue needs sufficient time to develop forms, guidance, etc. to effectuate any decoupling of these provisions in time for tax filing that begins after January 1st. So some of the OB3A provisions are retroactive and actually folks could file now that would have an economic hit and then uh for others we need the office of chief financial officer needs to be ready with forms by January 1st. So for all those reasons this needs to be acted on today. Uh with regard to the declaration so moved. Is there discussion? Council member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am moving an amendment to the declaration as part of a two-step amendment process. This is recommendation from our general counsel's office. Um, and the purpose of this amendment is to allow for expenditures to be tied to the decoupling. So, uh, this amendment that is being circulated on page two, line 44, it would read as follows. The revenue restored by decoupling when coupled with September 25 revenue estimates from the office of the chief financial officer also presents the council with an opportunity to revisit decisions about tax expenditures. Modifications to tax expenditures for tax year 25 need to be adopted immediately to ensure that the office of tax and revenue has sufficient time to prepare for the upcoming filing season. More consequential changes to take effect in tax year 26, such as the reestablishment of a child tax credit, need to be established in law for a longer period of time to ensure the office of the chief financial officer has time to prepare new tax forms and coordinate with tax preparation vendors to ensure the smooth integration of changes into direct filing systems. End quote. And the rationale here is that this amendment modifies the emergency declaration to explain why modifications to tax expenditures in tax year 25 and the child tax credit must be done on an emergency basis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Parker. Council member Henderson. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a longer statement on this later, but um I'm going to oppose this amendment. I'm also going to oppose the bill. Um, and part of that is because I think us doing tax policy on emergency in this way is crazy. Um, and I I can appreciate the underlying what we're trying to do, what we are trying to fund, but um, the emergency is that we needed to decouple from the impacts of the one big beautiful bill. There is not an emergency for us to do today for something that won't be applied until tax year 2026. we have time to do that through regular order. Um, and I know that this is going to pass and move on, but I I feel like it still needs to be stated. Um, that there's no debate, there's no conversation. And frankly, in four or five months, y'all going to be not y'all, some of you will be asking us to do even more taxes for other things because you have run out of money or you have spent money on things prior to us deciding what should be the priority list. So, I'm just going to say that. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Council Member Henderson. Council member Pinto. >> Oh, never mind. >> Um, >> second round council. >> Yes. Just for the record, I wanted to clarify uh two important points. We are uh amending on an emergency basis the underlying emergency regarding taxes, but also uh there is an amendment I look forward to move with nine of my colleagues and two of the matters do impact tax year 2025 and so I think that's important to distinguish for the record. Thank you. Uh I am uh I echo 100% the remarks of council member Henderson and uh I am going to save remarks with regard to the amendment to the bill uh for when that amendment comes to us um rather than now. But uh consistent with not supporting that amendment uh I will not be voting for this amendment. Further discussion council member Robert White. >> Uh thank you chairman. I'm I'm proud to co-introduce this amendment with council members uh Parker, Fman, Nadau, and Pinto. Look, the folks are watching every single day the system work for some people and not work for others. And for those of us fighting for the folks that it's not working for, every time we start talking about process and timing, folks are like, "That's why we keep losing,