I'm calling to order this meeting. This is an additional meeting of the committee of the whole of the council of the District of Columbia. I am Phil Mendelson, chair of the council and chair of the committee of the whole. Uh today is March 31st, 2026. The time is uh 18 in the afternoon. We're in room 500, the council chambers of the John A. Wilson building. Uh this meeting is being recorded. Uh it's available to the public on council cable t on cable channel 13. It's also available on the council's website www.dccounsel.gov. Uh that is to say that anybody who wants to watch this live is able to do so in I believe either of those uh platforms uh cable 13 or the council's website. And uh the meeting is being recorded so it's available anytime somebody wants to look it up. Um this is an additional meeting of the committee the whole uh we have I believe it's five or six measures for markup in the committee the whole and then roughly uh 10 measures that were reported out of other committees. This meeting will be followed by a legislative meeting which is our regular monthly meeting for the month of April. And if anybody says today's March 31st, that's correct. But this is our April regular meeting for the month of April. Uh we begin our committee the whole meetings determining 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 Crawford >> here. >> Council member Felder, >> present. >> Council member Fman, >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. >> Council member Nado >> here. Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. >> Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trey White >> present. >> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Uh thank you Mr. Cash. Of the first measure for markup in the committee as the whole is PR26-549 District of Columbia State Athletics Commission Barbara Jones confirmation resolution 2026. This resolution would confirm the mayor's nomination of Miss Barbara Jones to appointment as a voting member of the District of Columbia State Athletics Commission for term to end November 16th, 2028. Uh the District of Columbia State Athletics Commission was established as an independent agency in 2016 to oversee the function operations of the District of Columbia State Athletics Association. Also, it recommends changes to and annually approves the association's handbook. It establishes athletic appeals panels to hear appeals from LEA decisions related to participant eligibility and decisions of the state athletic association and issues final decisions of such panels. It advises the mayor the coun the It advises the mayor the office of the state superintendent of education and the council on matters related to intercolastic athletics and it recommends rules to regulate intercolastic athletics programs and competitions. The commission uh is consists of nine voting members who must be residents of the district and are appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council. There are also six exopicio non- voting members. Uh, Miss Barbara Jones is a resident of W 8, a proud Washington DC native. She brings decades of experience in public service, community advocacy, and leadership across both the public and private sectors. She has served in the served the district in numerous capacities, including more than 30 years with the Department of Human Services, where she recommended and executed operational improvements to enhance service delivery. She is also the president and CEO of Reservation 7, a long-standing member of the board of architecture, interior design, and landscape architecture. She has two bachelor of science degrees in public health administration and biology as well as a master of science and counseling, all from UDC. She has extensive record of community leadership. Um, she is nominated to be a voting member of the District of Columbia State Athletics Commission for the remainder of a term ending November 16th, 2028. This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on February 20th. The committee as a whole held a public roundt on March 13th and the committees received no testimony or comments comments in opposition to the nomination. Without objection, I move both the print and report with Lee for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on both the print 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 is filed >> and madame budget director, there would be no fiscal impact statement because it's a confirmation resolution. >> Correct. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The second measure on the agenda for markup is bill 26-57, Motor Vehicle Insurance Modernization Act of 2026. We do not have a fiscal impact statement um for that bill yet. Uh, OA's been preoccupied with other me the budget support act for the mayor. So, I'm not moving that today. So, the next measure after that is bill 26-227 entitled the one front door amendment act of 2026. Um what this bill does is it uh requires the promulgation of regulations amending the district's construction codes to allow for a single entrance or egress stairway to serve multif family residential properties up to six stories above grade lane. So we are all used to buildings with two entrance exits egress ingress two uh and this would allow for one Reading from the report, in 1938, New York City amended its building code to allow for the construction of single stair multif family buildings up to 75 ft high, provided that these structures complied with square footage and egress design requirements. Until the late 1970s, New York City was the only jurisdiction that allowed such buildings to be constructed. But circumstances in Seattle took a turn for the worse, leading policy makers down a similar road. In the early 1970s, the city of Seattle experienced a significant economic downturn. Um, and they amended their building code in 1977 to allow for construction of single stair multifamily buildings of any height. Uh, New York City 75 ft Seattle any height. Um the um history in this country of single stair reform is often adopted when jurisdictions face housing shortages, high construction costs that hindered development and affordability concerns. Um this is because single stair reform reduces construction costs. One estimate from a 2024 study in Boston suggests that staircs staircases cost roughly $200 to $500,000 each. require removing the requirement for two staircases could reduce costs by as much as 6 to 13% for constructing a multif family building. Uh single family stair reform enables development to occur on smaller lots. The current building code egress requirement makes it impossible to build mid-rise multifamily properties on narrower or irregularly shaped lots and single stair reform increases the rentable or sellable area. Multif family buildings have an average building efficiency ratio of 80 to 85%. Single stair properties could increase the building efficiency ratio by 10 to 15%. Um there was at the hearing some opposition expressed by the firefighters union. The committee um took those concern committee staff took those concerns um very seriously but could not find sufficient research or evidence to suggest that mid-rise single stair multif family buildings are any less safe. First, the committee could find no research confirming that occupants of a mid-rise single stair multif family building would be more likely to be exposed to combustion byproducts in any specific fire related scenario. This is un without objection. This is undoubtedly due in part to the strict fire safety requirements of codes which allow for the construction of mid-rise single stair family multifamily buildings. Second, whether occupants of a building primarily or exclusively use one staircase to evacuate depends on factors such as crowd flow, directions from building management and firefighters, and the location of the stairways relative to their units. If, for example, occupants are not directed to use a specific stairway during an evacuation or both stairways are equally accessible from their unit, the research suggests that occupants will likely attempt to use both stairways at roughly even rates. Finally, the committee notes that other fire safety requirements such as an automatic sprinkler system have been found to significantly reduce fire related deaths and injuries. According to the National Fire Protection Association, when sprinklers are present, the fire death rate is 90% lower and the fire injury rate is 32% lower when compared to reported fires in properties with no automatic extinguishing system. Dual egress requirements were put in place long before automatic sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, and other fire safety measures were. Uh in addition uh Pew Charitable Trust recently compared the rate of fire deaths in modern single stair buildings in New York City with other residential buildings in the city. Their analysis found that a total of three fire deaths have occurred in mid-rise single stair multifamily buildings since 2012 for a fire death rate of five per million occupant years of experience. This fire death rate is indistinguishable from the fire death rate of other residential buildings. And none of the fires in these mid-rise buildings could be attributed to to the building having a single egress stairway. The researchers also examined fire related fatalities in Seattle, finding that only one fire related fatality occurred in 2021 at what could possibly be described as a mid-rise single stair family multifamily building between 2012 and 2024. Um, an inspection of incident records and media reports did not indicate that the presence of just one stairway was a factor in the fatality. The print, the committee print includes revised language that the department must consider uh that the department must consider requirements to prevent the spread of fires and smoke in such multif family residential buildings including requiring the use of fireresist construction requiring the provision of adequate automatic fire sprinklers throughout the building. Additionally, the print includes a new consideration which is requirements that enable occupants to safely and quickly exit such a multif family residential building in emergency situations such as establishing a maximum travel distance from the exit or entry door of any dwelling unit. Uh setting square footage limits for any floor of the building and prohibiting dwelling unit doors from opening directly into an interior exit stairway. These the examples provided for both of these considerations are not meant to be all-incclusive but are drawn from codes and laws in other jurisdictions where the construction of midw midrise single stair multif family buildings is allowed. This legislation was introduced on April 11th last year by council member Brienne Nado and co-introduced with council members Pinto and Robert White. The committee as a whole held a public hearing on January 27th of this year and if I remember correctly the only significant opposition was from the firefighters union. Um with that I move the print would leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? >> Council member Pinto. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, and thank you to you and council member Nado for working on this important issue. And I think as we try to explore additional ways to be creative to build more housing and make it easier to do so, um, this bill will certainly help do that. I will say as chair of the judiciary and public safety committee, public safety and safety of every piece of legislation that we advance is always paramount. And um I've talked to many first responders who have some concerns with this legislation um particularly around fighting fires. And just to give a kind of specific example, if there's only one staircase, the concern would be in the event of an emergency or a fire, if everybody is leaving down the same staircase at the same time firefighters are trying to get up, that could create uh a bit of an issue. And so one of the solutions for that could be for example um exploring a fire escape on the exterior back of the building um to make sure that that ingress or egress is considered. And so I wanted to ask you and council member Nado if we could work together between first and second reading um to consider some of those safety concerns especially around the exterior fire exits. >> Uh of course and I indicated this earlier. I'd be I'm more than happy to sit down with you and talk through your concerns. >> Great. Thank you very much, >> Council Member Henderson. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I want to thank council member Nidau and yourself for moving forward on this legislation. Um I think for some people who have questions I would advise that they actually read the committee report um which is quite detailed and so I want to give a shout out to the committee or the whole staff who worked on this which it includes figures, pictures and things like that so people can have a deeper understanding. I do have um just one question for you Mr. Chairman. So, you know, as the bill was introduced, it was the um construction code coordinating board that would have been responsible for promulgating the regulations related to this. Um the mayor dissolved that entity and so the authority has now been delegated to the department of buildings. Do we feel confident that the department of buildings has the expertise to um develop the regulations in a timely fashion? regulations are hard for any agency, but these I would imagine are pretty technical in nature. >> I'm not sure how I want to answer that question. I think that this illusion of the uh that advisory board was a mistake um in part because I think that stakeholders should have a direct input in the promugation or development of um revisions to the code. Um the fact that there's a transition of course is going to lead some delay and as well we might see that with the uh transition of the who is mayor that that may as well delay uh rulem of so I can't say that I have confidence that we'll see rules adopted quickly. >> Okay. >> I don't think that's a reason to hold off on this. >> No no not at all. But it is, I think, an acknowledgement for the record that this is something we can't move forward without the rules and so it would behoove department of buildings if this is something that they are supporting to get it together. >> I agree. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I agree. Uh further on the bill, uh the vote is on the print with leave for staff. All those in all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote is on the report with leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. 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. It is uh 137,000 in the first year and 568,000 over the four-year plan. >> Thank you. Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh the next measure for markup is bill 26-396 entitled transfer and recregation tax appeals amendment act of 2026. Uh whenever someone sells or conveys real property in the district, the tax is applied to both the sale of or conveyance of the property and the official recording of a deed to transfer ownership of the property to a new owner. So it's a transfer and a recordation tax. Um the tax rates are the same for residential and commercial properties. In most cases, the taxes are calculated based on the sale price. Issues arise when consideration paid for a particular property is nominal. Um, according to the um, DCMR, nominal consideration means quote any price paid or any item exchanged in return for title to real property where it bears no reasonable resemblance to the fair market value of the real property unquote. If the consideration paid is less than 30% of the fair market value, then it is deemed to bear no resable resemblance to the fair market value of the property and therefore is considered nominal. While the regulations define fair market value as the quote estimated market value unquote, in practice, the recorder of deed simply uses the assessed value determined by the office of tax and revenue otr. This can result in significant tax liability and may result in buyers walking away from a transaction entirely. As an example, let's say commercial property sells for $25 million, but the assessed value is $100 million. And we're seeing that in today's market, deed transfer and recordation taxes on the assessed value of the property is $2.9 million, nearly 12% of the sale price. If the $25 million sale price is used to calculate these taxes, the tax bill drops to $725,000 or 2.9% of the sale price. A real world example of how this impacts tax liability can be explored with the sale of 616H Street Northwest. In 2024, this 660,000 ft property had an assessed value of 225.7 million, but was sold by a court-appointed receiver for $39 million, only 17% of the property's assessed value. Deed transfer and recordation taxes totaled $6.5 million. Had the sale price been used, the taxes would have totaled $1.131 million, a difference of $5.3 million in tax liability. This has significant implications for commercial office property sales in the district because assessed values for these properties have often lagged market values. Bill 26-396 would address this issue by authorizing transferers and transfer and transfers to appeal the fair market value used for the calculation of the transfer and recordreditdation taxes. Specifically, the print would enable transferers or transferes to file a petition for a first level appeal of the fair market value determination with the office of tax and revenue within 45 days after the transfer tax is imposed without objection. If otr declines to adjust the fair market value, the transferer or transfer e could file a second level appeal with the real property tax appeals commission within 45 days. If RIPAC declines to adjust the fair market value of the transfer, transfere could file a final third level appeal with the District of Columbia Superior Court. The committee print does not make any substantive changes to the legislation as introduced. Rather, the print makes minor technical edits so that the print conforms to the council's drafting standards. Uh this legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on October 3rd last year. The committee of the whole the committee on business and economic development held a public hearing on November 19th of last year. Bill was re-referred to the committee of the whole in January and uh I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? Uh the vote will be on the print with leave for staff. 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? The votes on the report would leave for staff. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> It was anemic. Are there any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam general counsel, is the measure legal and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> 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. >> Uh, without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next measure is bill 26-432 entitled Roland Fatty Taylor Way Designation Act of 2026. This bill would symbolically designate 62nd Street Northeast between Banks Street and Clay Street as Roland Fatty Taylor Way. Uh the location is in Ward 7. A symbolic naming is for ceremonial purposes and it shall be in addition to and subordinate to any name that is an official name. Roland Morris Fatty Taylor was born in the district. Uh he achieved national recognition as a professional basketball player in the American Basketball Association and the National Basketball Association. He attended Spinguard High School where he developed into one of the city's standout basketball players before continuing his collegiate career at Dodge City Community College and later at Lasal University. Following college, Taylor began his professional basketball career in 1969 with the Washington Capitals of the American Basketball Association. He later played for the Virginia Squires and the Denver Nuggets in the ABA before transition transitioning to a career in the NBA with the Buffalo Braves. During his professional career, Taylor earned a reputation as one of the league's premier defensive guards and was named to the ABA Alldefensive first team twice. He grew up in the East Capitol dwellings, public housing community in northeast Washington, where he first developed his basketball skills, playing on neighborhood playground courts that have long been a part of the district storied basketball culture. Like many district athletes of his era, Taylor honed his game on local courts before advancing to collegiate and professional basketball, becoming one of a number of native Washingtonians who have achieved success at the highest levels of the sport. Uh, this symbolic designation of Roland Fatty Taylor way in the community where Taylor spent his childhood and began developing his early basketball skills appropriately honors his achievements and recognizes a native Washingtonian whose athletic accomplishments brought distinction to the district. This legislation was introduced last October by then council member Kenya McDuffy. The committee as a whole held a hearing on January 13th and received no testimony or comments in opposition. Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on 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 hearing record and report filed. >> Madam budget director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> No. >> Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next item and the last item for markup in the committee the whole is bill 26-550 entitled Ralph J. Bunchway Designation Act of 2026. Uh this bill symbolically designates 15th Street Northeast between Jackson and Kernney Streets as Ralph J. Bunch Way. The location is W five and this is a symbolic naming. Uh Dr. Ralph Bunch, born in 1904, was a distinguished political scientist, diplomat, and scholar who became the first African-American to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, which he received in 1950 for his role in negotiating the 1949 Arab-Israeli Armistice Agreements. Bunch was widely recognized for his contributions to international diplomacy and for helping establish the foundations of the United Nations during its formative years. Before achieving international prominence, Mr. Bunch began his professional career in the district where he served as a professor at Howard University and founded the university's department of political science. From 1928 to 1941, he taught and conducted research at Howard, helping shape the st study of international relations and mentoring generations of students in the nation's capital. Ralph Bunch later served as a diplomat and mediator for the United Nations and was also active in the American civil rights movement. He publicly challenged racial segregation in the United States, including declining an offer from President Truman to serve as assistant secretary of state due to segregated housing conditions in Washington. the symbolic designation of Ralph Bunchway on the portion of 15th Street Northeast near the home and and the neighborhood where Bunch lived and and it's now a historic site appropriately honors his legacy and recognizes a distinguished scholar and diplomat whose contributions to international peace and civil rights reflect the values of the district. This legislation was introduced on December 15th last year by council member Parker. committee the whole held a public hearing on January 13th. Committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation. Without objection, I move both to print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Park, >> thank you. Uh I I want to thank your team for uh the work that they put into uh researching and documenting Ralph Bunch and his contributions. I would just also say this is yet another um example of the efforts that we are taking in W 5 to document uh African-Americans and their ties to the community. Um and I look forward to um uh in and around Brooklyn learning about Mr. Bunch's uh contributions. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Further discussion? The vote is on both the print and 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 hearing record and report are 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. >> Uh without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. We will turn now to consideration of measures from other committees. Uh the first uh looks like the first four were reported out of the committee on human services chaired by council member Matthew Fman. The first is bill 26-490 library ebook licensing fairness amendment act of 2026. Council member Fman. >> Thank you chairman Mendelson. Uh, bill 26490 was introduced by me along with council members Allen, Robert White, Pinto Nado Felder Lewis George Henderson, and Parker on November 17, 2025. It was then marked up by the Committee on Human Services on March 24th, 2026. This legislation will prohibit the District of Columbia Public Library or DCPL from entering into licensing agreements with ebook publishers that res restrict public access to electronic literary materials. The idea is to drive meaningful negotiation between publishers and the libraries. Publishers charge libraries between three and five times more for ebook and audiobook licenses than they do for physical books. At the same time, they restrict how many times licensed books can be lent out, how long the library is able to loan the material, and to whom the library can disclose purchase terms. These practices force DCPL to spend more taxpayer dollars to make fewer materials available to residents. As a result, patrons wait weeks, sometimes months, for new releases and popular titles. The library cannot absorb continually rising costs driven by publisher licensing terms. This bill addresses those unfair practices by prohibiting the license agreements that drive up costs and weight times. Notably, this legislation would only go into effect after at least 10 other jurisdictions with a combined population of at least 50 million people enact similar laws. This provision ensures that the district is part of a national strategy to ensure access to books while reducing the risk of legal challenge or market isolations. My ultimate goal with this legislation is to ensure that DCPL can access books on fair terms at the right price, enabling more residents to read the books they love. Access to information should not be cost prohibitive, and libraries must be able to meet the growing demand for digital materials. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask the measure be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member. Are there questions from members? >> Madame General Counel, 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. Uh if there's no objection, the library board of trustees, uh the three resolutions will be considered in block. BR26-488, Board of Library Trustees, Danella Brochington, confirmation resolution of 2026. PR26-565 Board of Library Trustees Holly Flood confirmation resolution at 2026 and PR26-566 Board of Library Trustees Christy C. Whitfield confirmation resolution at 2026. Council member Freeman. >> Uh thank you, Chairman Mendelson. Uh PR26-488 was introduced on December 16, 2025 by you at the request of the mayor and referred to the committee on human services on January 6, 2026. PR26-565 and PR26-566 were introduced on March 3rd, 2026 by you at the request of the mayor and referred to the committee on human services on March 17, 2026. All of these measures confirm nominees to the board of library trustees and were marked up by the committee on human services on March 24th, 2026. PR26-488 would confirm the reappoint of Danella Brockington to her second term ending January 5th, 2031. Miss Brochington, award 5 resident, was originally confirmed by the to the board in 2021 and currently serves as the chair of the board's finance and budget committee. Miss Brockington is a former vice president at several corporations including Lheed Martin, Xerox, and Condund where and where she served district customers for over 30 years. Miss Brochington currently serves on the board of directors for document systems, a minorityowned district businesses business, chairs the board of the Posi Foundation, and is a trustee of Clark University and is a board member of the recreation whis wish list committee. Her extensive professional and nonprofit experience makes her an asset to the board. PR26-565 would confirm the appointment of Holly Flood for a term ending January 5th, 2031. Miss Flood, a native Washingtonian, lifelong patron of DCPL and current Ward One resident, is a grants and corporate relations specialist at Christ House, an organization dedicated to providing compassionate medical respit care to district residents experiencing homelessness. Miss Flood previously held multiple positions at USID and was a member of the Peace Corps leading and managing programs across the globe in places like Paraguay, Sierra Leone, and Angola. Her service in the district and federal governments, her program management experience, and her grant writing ability make Miss Flood an excellent nominee to the board. PR26-56 would confirm the appointment of Christy C. Whitfield for a term ending January 5th 2029. Miss Whitfield is a W 5 resident and served as the director of the Department of Small and Local Business Development from 2017 to 2023. During her time at DSLBD, Miss Whitfield worked with DCPL to support the district small business community, expanding art all night and hosting District Connect, the District Connect Conference at MLK Memorial Library. Uh, one one minute, Mr. Chairman. >> Without objection. >> Uh, Miss Whitfield now serves as the chief impact officer and senior director for racial justice at the Nathan Cunningham's Cummings Foundation, an organization focused on partnering with social change organizations to formulate creative solutions to racial inequality and climate change. Based on her background, experience, and previous leadership in district government, I believe Miss Whitfield is a strong nominee to the board of library trustees. I will say that with three nominations coming forward, the board of library trustees was shorthanded and now we are ensuring that they have a full complement of trustees. So, this is a very, very positive thing. And to preempt any questions, all of the nominees have library cards. All of the nominees are uh enthusiastic consumers of the library services at their local libraries. With that, uh I ask these three measures be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. >> Thank you, Council Member Fman. Are there questions from any members? >> U Madame General Counsel, are these three measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each? >> Yes. >> And m Madam Budget Director, since these are confirmations, there's no fiscal impact statement. Correct. >> Correct. >> Without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. The next two measures, if there's no objection, will be considered in block. They are both uh confirmations regarding the Green Finance Authority Board. PR26-482 Green Finance Authority Board Monica Warren Jones confirmation resolution 2026 and PR26-483 Green Finance Authority Board Anthony Washington confirmation resolution 2026. I should have said these two plus the following two to come up were reported out of the committee on transportation and the environment chaired by council member Charles Allen. Council member Allen. >> Thank you very much Mr. Chair and just clarification for the agenda. I had bill 26-136, the special election, the office of delegate amendment act of 2026 ahead of us. Make sure we didn't skip it by accident. >> I skipped it by accident. We'll come back to it. >> Okay. All right. I know it's important, so just want to make sure we come back around to it. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I want to move both PR26-42 and 483 in block. You, Chairman Middlesson, introduce proposed resolutions 2642 and PR26-43 at the request of the mayor on December 15th, 2025. uh 42 and 483 respectively would reappoint Monica Warren Jones and Anthony Washington to the Green Finance Authority Board of Directors as individuals with experience in affordable housing or community development for terms to end on July 9th, 2029. The Green Finance Authority Board of Directors was created by the District of Columbia Green Finance Authority Establishment Act of 2017 to manage the Green Finance Authority commonly known as the DC Green Bank. The Green Bank was established to increase private investment in clean energy, clean transportation, clean water, storm water management, energy efficiency, water efficiency, and green infrastructure projects in the District of Columbia. The Green Bank focuses on increasing private investment in sustainable projects and programs by offering and promoting loans, loan guarantees, credit enhancements, bonds, and other financing mechanisms. The board is composed of 11 members, four non- voting, and seven voting members. The non- voting members are government officials, including the director of the department of energy and environment and the deputy mayor for planning and economic development. The voting members must be approved by the council and must include two members with experience in affordable housing or community development. Miss Monica Warren Jones is the director of strategic initiatives for the Enterprise Community Loan Fund, a community development finance institution. With more than 15 years of experience in real estate finance and development, Miss Warren Jones has generated more than $500 million in lending activity and more than $500 million of investment activity for the creation and preservation of more than 5,000 units of housing. Miss Warren Jones has led discussions on multif family finance and community development finance on behalf of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Department of Insurance Corporation, and a myriad of local government housing agencies to share best practices. Miss Warren Jones earned her MPA from Harvard University, an MBA from Boston College, and an undergraduate degree from Howard University. She is a W 6 resident. And Mr. Anthony Washington has served as vice president at Merchant Capital Corporation since 2020, where he is responsible for leading the origination of various multif family financing programs. Mr. Washington has spent over 25 years in commercial lending and has financed over $1 billion worth of multifamily transactions across Fanny May, Freddy Mack, and FHA platforms. He has served on various boards including the University of Maryland Smith School of Business Advisory Board. Mr. Washington holds a bachelor's of science in business administration from St. Francis University of Pennsylvania and a masterers of business administration from the University of Maryland College Park. He is a fifth generation Washingtonian and a ward 4 resident. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I'd ask that these resolutions be added to the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow. >> Thank you, Council Member Allen. Are there questions from members? Madam general counsel, is the measure are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each? >> Yes. >> And madame budget director, these are confirmations, so there's no fiscal impact statement. >> Correct. >> Objection. These measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. I'll take the next two from Council Member Allen, then I'll go back to Council Member Bonds. uh PR26-485 District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors Rakna Bhutani Bot Confirmation Resolution of 2026 and PR26-487 District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors Dr. Jimmy Ortiz confirmation resolution of 2026. Council Member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I'm going to be moving PR26-45 and 487 in block. Mr. Chairman, you introduced these measures at the request of the mayor on December 16th, 2025. They would reappoint Rakna Bhutani Bot and Dr. Jimmy Ortiz as principal and alternate members respectively to the DC Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors for a term to end September 12th, 2030. The DC Water and Sewer Authority Board or sorry authority also known as DC Water provides municipal water and sewer service to the entire district as well as parts of Maryland and Virginia. DC Water is governed by a board of directors consisting of 11 principles and 11 alternate members. Of those members, six are from the District of Columbia. No more than four of those six may be district government employees or officials. Four members are from Maryland, two from McGomery County, and two from Prince George's County. And one member represents Fairfax County, Virginia. The district's members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. Miss Rockna Bhutani Bot is a seasoned business and construction executive with more than two decades of experience managing large-scale commercial and government infrastructure projects. As a director at HRGM Corporation, a Washington DCbased government contractor, she's overseen a portfolio of projects exceeding $200 million, including the construction of schools, hospitals, and municipal facilities while supervising large teams of employees and subcontractors and leading initiatives in alternative energy and lead certified development. Miss Bot has served on the DC water board as a principal member since 2012. In the past, she is chair of the water quality and water services committee and currently serves as the chair of the retail water and sewer rates committee. Miss spot holds a bachelor's of science in business administration from Georgetown University and a masterers of business administration from the Horton School of the University of Pennsylvania. She is a lead accredited professional and licensed class A contractor in Virginia and she is a Ward 3 resident. Dr. Jimmy Ortiz currently serves as president and CEO of Zitro 360 Group LLC, which is an international government relations and educational consulting firm. Prior to founding this organization, he briefly oversaw global business for International Bridge and until 2024, he managed international relations for the US Postal Service in Washington DC. Dr. Ortiz started his career as a letter carrier on the night shift in New York City and has held numerous policy, operational, managerial, and business development positions in New York City, Puerto Rico, and the district. Dr. Dr. Ortiz serves or has served as a member of several boards and advisory committees including the UPU Express Mail Service Cooperative Board, president of Prospanica DC, the Postal Union of the Americas, Spain, and Portugal, and the Advisory Board of Hispanic Scholarship Fund DC, and Groupo2. He has served on the DC Water Board as an alternate since 2025. Dr. Dr. Ortiz earned his associate degree in accounting from the state university of New York, his bachelor's of arts and industrial and governmental accounting from the city university of New York and his master of science and administration from central Michigan University and his PhD in international business administration from university. He is a W six resident. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I'd like to ask these resolutions be added to the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Allen. Are there questions from members? Madam general counsel, are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each? >> Yes. >> Uh Madam Budget Director, these are confirmation, so there's no fiscal impact statement. >> Correct. >> Uh without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. I skipped bill 26-136, item E, uh, special election in the office of the delegate amendment act of 2026, reported out of the committee on executive administration and labor, chaired by council member Anita Bonds. Council member Bonds. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of bill 26-136, the special election in the office of delegate amendment act of 2025, is to conform district code to federal law regarding the timing of a special election for a vacancy in the office of DC delegate. The legislation clarifies that in the event the House Speaker declares more than 100 vacancies in the House of Representatives and there exist a vacancy in the office of delegate of the District of Columbia. The board of elections shall hold a special election for the office according to the timeline outlined by federal law. The board of elections would be required to hold a special election to fill a vacancy in the office of DC delegate within 49 days after the declaration by the speaker of the US House of Representatives. Cowardly DC law allows for between 70 and 174 days for a special election to be held following a vacancy. This bill will facilitate timing transition of power and ensure that the district will be represented of course on the national stage. So today I ask my colleagues to support this bill and thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you council Bonds. Are there questions from members? >> Madame general counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes it is. Madam Secretary, is director complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam general, 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. >> That's going to conclude the business of this meeting. I don't think I skipped anything. Um, we will start the legislative meeting in five minutes. with one minute grace. Um the time is 2:05. We'll start at 210. This meeting is adjourned. I am calling to order this meeting. This is a meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. I am Phil Mendlesson, chair of the council and chair of the committee the whole which is not relevant to this meeting. Um, today is Tuesday, March 31st, 2026. This is our regular monthly meeting that we would ordinarily have on the second, excuse me, the first Tuesday of April. The time is 21:17 in the afternoon. We are in room 500 of the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. This uh meeting is being uh broadcast on cable channel 13 as well as on the council's website www.dcconsil.gov. We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. I would ask that everyone in the chamber as well as on the deis observe a moment of silence for reflection. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role and see if we have a quorum? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. >> Council member Crawford here. Council member Felder. >> Council member Felder. >> Council member Freeman >> present. >> Council member Henderson. >> Council member Lewis George >> here. Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nadau >> here. Council Member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto, Council Member Pinto, Council Member Robert White, Council Member Robert White, 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. I'm going to recognize the chair pro Tim, Council Member Anita Bonds. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to wave the reading of the secretar's report. >> A motion to wave the secretary's report of committee filings. Is there discussion on the motion to wave the reading? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any nos hearing? None. The eyes have it. Uh we also have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. I will recognize the chair prom council member Nita Bonds. >> Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I move to wave the reading of the secretar's log of introductions and referrals. >> Been a motion to wave the reading of the log. Is there discussion? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Council member Henderson. >> Um I just want to flag for you that um a couple of weeks ago my staff submitted a re-referral request that hasn't been dispensed with yet. Uh yes, council member Henderson. Uh a memor memorandum from you with regard to a um re-referral a measure that is uh sequentially referred to I think health and committee as a whole and you asked for >> it was c sequentially referred to health housing and the committee of the whole. Um, yes. And so I just want to flag that for you. We sent that on March 16th. >> Yes. Uh, so I owe you a response to that. >> Yes. >> And so I will I will look at that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I will look at that before the next log. >> Uh, anything else with regard to the secretary's report? >> The vote is on the motion to wave the reading of the secretary's report of introductions and referrals. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it unanimously. We have the consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda? >> Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure the record reflects that we are all here because there are several of us who were in a different part of the room. >> I know. I >> you called the meeting. >> Uh that's for the sec that's for the secretary to note. Uh, are there other change are there any changes to the consent agenda? >> Council member Tran White. >> Yes. I would like to pull uh Baba Jones uh nomination so I can make comment to it. Okay. Uh, further changes to the consent agenda. Come. Mr. Chair Parker. >> Um, I am requesting that we remove bill 26-48 promoting parental engagement at DRS amendment act of 2026 because there is an amendment uh with council member Bonds. >> Where is it in the agenda? >> On the version of the agenda I have, it's on the consent agenda. >> It's bill 26-408. >> Yes. >> Right. You should ask your staff to give you the uh version that was circulated revised uh yesterday at 6:43 p.m. >> Okay. I don't have that. And just to make sure also that >> get it to you >> uh the 26-221 MU Lambda Foundation because there is a request for recusal on that. Uh give me just a second. Would you guys all stop it? >> No, we can't. You got to call 173. >> I don't know what 173 is. Okay. Uh, any other changes to the consent agenda? Everybody around here all agitated. Uh I am going to remove from the consent agenda on page three number seven which is architect and engineer good Samaritan amendment act for purposes of an amendment. Number eight Jules way designation act because the uh print has not been engrossed. Uh number nine Lenora Baker way designation because the print has not been engrossed. >> Are there any other changes? Last call. >> Mr. Let's go over this. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Parker, did you want to be ready? >> Uh, this isn't uh to the consent agenda, but would you entertain a request to other items up on the agenda? >> Uh, Mr. Parker, we have on the floor right now the consent agenda. Any other matter is >> No, not to the consent agenda. >> All right. to uh summarize on page three of the agenda, bill 26-173, bill 26-308, bill 26-365, those are number 78 and 9 are removed. Also on page three, number 13, which is bill 26-221 is removed from the consent agenda. Also on page five uh under resolutions at the bottom of the page number two which is uh the resolution PR26-549 concerning Barbara Jones is removed. Those are the only changes to the consent agenda. We have the consent agenda as um amended. Um the vote is on that. All those in favor say I. I >> I >> Are there any opposed hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Madam Secretary, I believe all members are present. Um, so I'm going to take up now bill 26-173. This is on page three. It's the Architect and Engineer Good Samaritan Amendment Act of 2026. There's an amendment that my office circulated at um 1211 today. It is to add to the um professions that are included in this uh bill uh the office of surve no excuse me any surveyor. Uh so the bill deals with limited civil liability for voluntary practice in the event of an emergency. Uh I'm I'm greatly oversimplifying the legislation. And added to that is um would be um voluntary practice of land surveying at the scene of life-threatening emergency in the built environment. If there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted. Hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted. We have the bill as amended. Is there discussion? All those in favor of the bill as amended. This is bill 26-173 say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Um, bills I guess I have to postpone the uh, bills 26-308 and 26-365. I move to postpone both bills to the next legislative meeting. Is there discussion on the motion to postpone? All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh hearing none, the measures, the two measures are postponed. Uh the next measure is uh bill 26-221 entitled MOU Lambda Foundation Inc. Real Property Tax Exemption Act of 2026. Uh I don't have a recusal statement to read, but uh we uh council member Parker had recused himself at first reading. This is final reading. I see him exiting the chamber. Uh I move the bill and um >> see if there's discussion. All those in favor of the bill bill 26-221 say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously and the secretary will renote will note that council member Parker is absent and recused. On page five, we have PR26-549, District of Columbia State Athletics Commission, Barbara Jones confirmation resolution of 2026. So moved. Uh I presented this at the um committee the whole meeting this earlier. The resolution would confirm the mayor's nomination of Barbara Jones for appointment as a voting member of the District of Columbia State Athletics Commission for term to end November 16th, 2028. So moved. Is there discussion? >> Yes, Jeremy. >> Council member Tran White. >> I want to thank uh Mayor Bowser for this nomination uh Miss Barber Jones uh to the DC State Athletic Commission. Uh Mr. Jones have been a strong advocate supporter uh in Washington DC, a homegrown in Washington DC and supporter of state athletics and entertainment in DC for over two decades. A lot of times we are uh thrust hard trying to find representatives from DC to represent on these boards. I believe that her wisdom, knowledge, and also her relationships will be imperative to advancing the mission of the state athletic commission. I was just excited to see her name today because I know her hard work she's been doing since Marian Bur's time uh making uh the district stronger in in so many different areas. So when I saw this I thought that I need to speak to this and she's a W resident but she's been doing a lot of work citywide and even across the country um work for and for different industries. So I want to second and encourage everyone to support Miss Barbara Jones for her nomination to this board. Thank you. Uh thank you. Is there further discussion? Uh Council Member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. We have a lot of very talented and passionate people uh in this city, and I I don't always see their names up for nominations, but uh as my colleague, Council Member Trayon said, uh Barbara Jones is is is a special one here in DC. So, I was very excited to to see her name uh and very very eager to support her. She has been doing work in in the community, knows our community uh incredibly well. uh and uh is is deeply committed to serving our city. So I look forward to voting in favor of this nomination. Um thank you um chairman and thank you to my colleagues who've already spoken to the I'll say the illustrious career of Miss Barbara Jones who has been an activist I would say for decades and an activist for things that are good that are moving the city forward and has been um really just someone that you can depend on to be at the forefront of many of the smallcale um activities. I know today looking at free DC sitting in front of us. Well, you know, before you were out there, Barbara was out there in the community and you need to get to know her. She's an exceptional person and I'm just delighted that as my colleagues have said that people from the community that have been rooted in the community and the activities of the community on a very small way um have an opportunity to serve in a very meaningful um manner and an inspiration for our young people in particular. So, I'm really excited about this and thank you. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, so we have the resolution before us PR26-549. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. We'll turn now to page seven, a non-consent agenda. The first measure is bill 26-125 entitled 2607 Connecticut Avenue Northwest and 411 Kansas Avenue Northwest timeline extension and tax forgiveness act of 2026. Um this is on non-consent because the TAPA was negative. Uh I believe it was approved unanimously at first reading. Um the um portion of the bill that deals with 2607 Connecticut Avenue would extend the 12-month requirement for certification of a nonprofit workforce housing property for the residential apartment building and would forgive and refund any tax assessor paid since January 2023. The portion dealing with 4111 Kansas Avenue essentially does the same thing, excusing 411 Kansas Avenue from the reertification requirements to qualify as a nonprofit workforce housing property. Uh both of these properties are owned by and operated by some so others might eat. So moved. Is there discussion? The vote will be on bill 26-125. All those in favor say I. >> I. Are there any opposed? The eyes have it unanimously. Um the next uh measure is closing of a portion of a public alley and establishment of a building restriction line in square 23192-02364 act of 2026. That's bill 26-371. Uh so moved. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the bill 26-371. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> The eyes hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is promoting parental engagement at DYRS Amendment Act of 2026 reported out of the committee on youth affairs. It's bill 26-48. Um discussion. >> Yes. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh I have a an amendment that I would like to move along with Council Member Bonds and Pinto. And that amendment would ensure that while the underlying measure requires DRS to maintain a log of efforts to contact parents and guardians for children in the care of the agency, uh this amendment would ensure that uh they notify parents if and when a young person shifts their placement as well as in instances where a young person may have an extreme medical emergency. Uh, it would also require that that log be made available to the council and to parents upon request. Are you moving the amendment? Uh, so moved. Is there discussion on the amendment? 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. >> Chairman, you you missed the amendment for the alley for the square 2319. >> Correct. You didn't move it. Do you want to >> That was purposeful because you ain't wanting there. >> I If you watch the tape, there was plenty of pause. If you want to move to reconsider, >> min this whole new agenda up. >> If you want to move to reconsider, >> I would. Yes, I will move to reconsider. >> It's been a um I feel like I have to fill in the blanks here. It's a motion to reconsider a bill 26-371. There's no objection. Um, the motion to reconsider will be accepted. And hearing no objection, Council Member Lewis George. >> Uh, yes, Chairman. Um, I I move my amendment. >> What's that? >> I move my amendment. >> Is that all you're going to say? >> No, I I was going to say more. I was just waiting for you to just acknowledge that piece. Thank you, chairman, for moving the legislation. The bill closes a long unused ghost alley in W4 that has never functioned as a public rightway and is needed is not needed for alley purposes, allowing the adjacent property owner to incorporate and improve the space, including for landscaping and buffering. At first reading, the Department of Buildings uh and the executive flagged that because the alley is district-owned, moving the bill forward without amendment could result in a transfer of public land without compensation. This amendment clarifies that fair market value must be paid to the district consistent with the understanding that the adjacent property owner is prepared to make that payment. Thank you. Um seizing on the last words that you said, I'm not aware that the property owner is prepared to make the payment and my understanding from staff is that the payment would be about $40,000. I would ask members not to support this amendment. Uh my understanding is that uh and this is based on a discussion earlier that the um wherever the impetus for this amendment comes from, it's argued that it has something to do with precedent. In fact, we have done this um a number of times before. Let me say more. The reason why I don't support this is because this is an alley closing for a piece of land that is 4t wide. It is about 200 ft long. It is not buildable. It's not developable. If we close this alley, then the land will be subject to taxation because it will now be privately owned. If we impose the requirement of this amendment, the chances, as explained to me, that the property owner is going to pay $40,000 for this 4ft wide strip of land is virtually non-existent. So, we will not get tax revenue. We will not get $40,000. There have been instances where there has been an alley closing where it's a larger piece of land and yes we have required that there be payment to the district. So um the committee and I would say the council is not unmindful that sometimes we would want to charge for the property owner who receives the land under the alley that's being closed. But here it is simply not practical. And what it will do is it will um essentially subvert any effectiveness of this legislation. We will close the alley subject to the property owner paying. The property owner will not pay $40,000 for a foot 4 foot wide strip of land and nothing will have been accomplished. Plus, we will not get the real property tax revenue. So, I would urge that members not support this amendment. I just want to note that we spoke to the individual this morning. My team spoke to him this morning and he has always been aware that it would require some compensation. Um I am doing this at because I believe the department of buildings is making a fair ask here that we don't set any precedent that that there is not compensation for public land no matter how large or small that land is and that person is and the individual is prepared to provide some level of compensation as a result. So again, this is at the request of an agency. We both co-oversight over Department of Building. Um, and I see their legal departments and their their director's point here of not um, setting a a precedent that um, we don't have some type of conversation when we give away public land, no matter how large or small that land is. >> All right. I I'm the chair of the committee that had marked up and is moving this legislation. I have received no such communication with regard to the property owner. So based on your representation that the property owner is willing to do this, I would like to ascertain that for myself. I don't know why that communication was not referred to the committee. So I'm going to move to postpone consideration of this bill >> so that we can find that out. >> Okay. So if there's no objection, this measure will be postponed uh postponed to the next uh legislative meeting. >> Uh we will turn now to emergency legislation uh the declaration PR26-585 uh arena safety conf conformity emergency declaration resolution of 2026. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I'm moving the Arena Safety Conformity Emergency Amendment Act of 2026, which is simple and just includes Capital One Arena and Care First Arena in the already existing prohibition on unauthorized entry onto a playing surface. Um, this behavior disrupts games and other fans who have paid to attend and enjoy, but most importantly presents significant safety risks to fans and players. There is already a prohibition in place at RFK Stadium, Nationals Park, and Audi Field. So, this emergency ensures that all rules are consistent across all of our professional sports venues. I ask my colleagues to approve this measure. Uh, thank you. Um, Council Member Pinto, is there discussion on the declaration, >> Council Member White? >> Yeah. >> Um, I apologize, Council Member Pinto. I missed what you were trying to do with this bill to make it even with other stadiums. >> So, most of our stadiums, there's a prohibition to run onto the court or field in the middle of the game. And I assume it was just an inadvertent gap in the law that excludes CareFirst Arena and Capital One Arena from that prohibition. And recently we had this happen at Cap One Arena where someone ran onto the court in the middle of a game. Um, which was obviously unsafe for the players. And so we looked into it and realized that we were also missing from the law that prohibition at Care First Arena. So we've included both of them in this. >> And what happens if they do? >> Um, it's a prohibition. It's a $300 fine. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there further discussion regarding the declaration? The vote will be on PR26-585. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill. Bill 26-634. Council member Pinto. So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Discussion on the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. The next measure is PR26-583 rate plan vacur interim protections emergency declaration resolution 2026. Council member Lewis George. >> Thank you chairman. Uh today I'm introducing some emergency amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this. Um let's be clear about where we are. Uh earlier this month the court of appeals vacated the public service commission's multi-year rate plan which has in part driven sharp increases in electric bills across the district. Now we've heard the argument that the court did not explicitly call these rates unjust or unreasonable and that this is somehow only a procedural hiccup. But that framing misses the point. What the court actually said is deeply concerning. Uh that the commission's decision was not supported by evidence, that its reasoning was conclusorary and unsubstantiated, and I quote, and that the court was left with no idea in quotations how key determinations were made. In fact, the court made clear it would have vacated their order on those grounds alone, even aside from the failure to hold a proper evidentiary hearing. That is not a minor administrative issue. That is a fundamental breakdown in the process that is supposed to protect rateayers in the district. And yet today, district residents are still being charged under those same vacated rates. Nearly a quarter of households are behind on their bills. We've seen thousands of disconnection notices and hundreds of families are already losing power. All while the legal validity of these rates remains unresolved. and the motions filed by the office of the people's council and the apartment and office of building association remained in obeyance with the public service commission. In February alone, hundreds of households had their electric shut off and tens of thousands received notices. Nearly a quarter of residents are currently already behind on their electric bills. Those numbers are likely will likely increase dramatically in the coming weeks as folks behind from January start to receive disconnections notices themselves. and the payment plan is simply not a feasible solution for families seeking seeing their bills skyrocket. This bill does not attempt to s settle the broader legal dispute. It does not determine what the correct rate should be. It does something much more immediate and necessary. It ensures that during this period of uncertainty, we do not allow residents to be disconnected from an essential service based on rates that the court has already said were not adequately inadequately justified. And it gives us as legislators 90 days to work toward an intervention that is sustainable. This is a temporary measure, a narrow one, a 90-day pause to give the commission time to do its job correctly and for all of us to work toward a lawful and fair outcome. Because at the end of the day, this is about the stability and basic dignity. No one in the District of Columbia should be should lose electricity while we are still figuring out whether the bills they receive were evenly properly justified in the first place. and far too many residents of residents for them this is not just a strain on their budgets it is a breaking point and we have to act to ensure that the families of the district remain stable with that I move the declaration >> uh we have the declaration before us is there discussion >> council right ban white >> is this a good time to comment on the bill >> well technically we have the declaration but I wait >> people do talk about the bill then. >> Mhm. >> Uh well, I'll talk about now then. Okay. So, I want to thank you uh council member Janice Lewis George for this bill. I wrote Pepco and the public service commission because this isn't abstracting policy for W 8 and across the district. Electric bills have been just too high. The rates have been rising exponentially and I've seen families shut off because of this. They can't absorb the increased cost of keeping their power on in the district. Um, I remember a meeting about three weeks ago, two council members talked about how their bill was skyrocketing. Um, and while I was in a meeting this morning, I think I got a call from Pepco. Let me verify that first, but I think it was Pepco. Polical residents are saying it's coming from broader PJM region, um, which is generating less electricity as a result and states in the region are receiving less energy. At the same time, electricity demands in the region is rapidly increasing due to these data centers. working families and residents do not have to endure the burdens of utility providers. Should not have to endure the utility providers burdens. Um because if they wanted to choose another supplier, we we couldn't. It's a monopoly on this industry. Uh families in war, they already carried some of the highest energy burdens in the district, paying a disproportionate share of the income just to keep the lights on. The DC Court of Appeals vacated the commission's approval of Pepco's multi-year rate plan, and that decision makes it clear that the process did not comply with the law. That means the rates that people are paying were approved unlawfully, and the harm from those unlawful rates have falling on the hottest residents. That's the working class people that keep DC going. Um, this is not just a regulatory issue, it's an economic justice issue. Seniors on fixed incomes, working families, small businesses can't absorb the temporary shocks that become permanent hardships. These burdens keep getting pushed back onto residents though higher bills and disconnections are consistently an issue. During the breakfast, I heard the back and forth between what we should and shouldn't do. Uh we are the body that's supposed to represent the people what they households already struggling. Cutting off electricity isn't accountability. It's punishment. It is create health a health and safety risk of those residents. Um, while this is not an end- all solution, I must be reminded uh to our colleagues that tens of thousands of residents have already received notices across the district. This emergency legislation is a necessary stop gap to prevent shut offs while the district depends upon the court to uh the court vacator and the reprimands to process the plays out. Um, and I think the court is in May uh the May the 22nd to figure this thing out. If the rate plan is in limbo, residents should not be exposed to the hardship consequences, especially disconnections during that uncertainty. We need real transparency. What's driving these increases, what PEPCO is doing to correct the internal and infrastructure issues, and why residents keep seeing bills climb higher and higher. Thank you, Chairman. Uh further further on the declaration. Council member Henderson, I'm sorry, actually, Council Member Allen was next on my site and then Council Member Henderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I was just going to be very brief on the deck. I'm going to I'll speak again once we get to the underlying measure about why this is so important and the crisis that everyone is facing. Um, I did wish to note for colleagues that if you check your inbox at 2:32 p.m. I circulated an amendment um with colleagues and so I believe it'll be accepted as friendly, but it's pending part of the conversation we had uh during our breakfast meeting about how to make sure that the the scope is tailored. So, just want to flag that for my colleagues um that I'll move that amendment on the underlying measure once we get there. But, uh fully in support of the declaration today. >> Thank you. Uh council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I spoke a little bit about this in the breakfast, but I I want to ask some questions for the record. Um, so, um, to council member Lewis George. So, one, the first question which I asked at the breakfast was around just confirming that this is both for residential and commercial properties. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. Um my other question was just in terms of um length of time. So um right now we have some information new from the PSC in terms of when the next evidentiary hearing is going to be held but we don't have a timeline in terms of how long it's going to take to resolve um I guess the new rates etc. How long are we prepared to continue? And and I'm I'm not asking that in sort of a sort of um way of it could be five months, it could be three months, it could be a year. How long are we going to say that a utility cannot be turned off while this is sort of pending is I I will note in other jurisdictions there are challenges that happen to their rate cases, but um this is this is creating a new precedent. >> I appreciate that question. um because we have uh information and confirmation that uh the um that May 22nd we will have some very clear answers. This is only intended for the 90 days because after May 22nd we will have a pathway or at least an understanding. So it's only intended for 90 days which is both reflected in the emergency and the temporary. Um and that uh is that is as far as we are going and that gives enough time for um all of the decisions to be made by May 22nd that will be necessary for us to understand whether there will be an interim rate or the current rate will stand or there will be a lower rate for residents. >> Okay. Um my understanding is that if a person enters payment plan your um utility cannot be turned off. Would this disincentivize individuals to actually do the payment plan process? Now, I think there's a difference in terms of someone who may owe $500 and someone who may owe $15,000 in terms of their unpaid utility bill. I think for those who owe $15,000, you need to enter a payment plan because regardless of what happens with the case, this isn't going to necessarily resolve your situation. Yeah, >> I think it's a great question and many of us support automatic enrollment and uh in fact council member Allen introduced legislation and we also had a hearing last Thursday on moving forward in that direction. and we got some push back but I'm hopeful that we will move forward on a permanent basis as a council for automatic enrollment because what we have found and what we hear from office of people council and others is there the amount the percentage of people who actually enroll but and who are eligible role there's such a stark difference there um our hope is that during this 90-day period that the education that needs to happen from both PSC and OPC will educate more residents to get on the payment plan um but this also offers the opportunity for people who have overpaid thus far, nobody will get their money back, unfortunately. But if the rates are changed, people will at least have those amounts credited to their account. So, future payments um will not be taking will be less and they won't have that money come out. And so, that's what we wanted to encompass with um this 90day. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh I do want to correct something. The uh language of the temporary reads and I quote the se this section shall sunset 90 days after the effective date of the rate plan vacur interim protections emergency amendment act of 2026. If the temporary is adopted then the effect is 180 days not 90 days. If I look at section C of um and I don't have it. I mean full. >> Well, I just read it and I'll read it again if you want me to. >> No, please don't. I don't appreciate your attitude today. I want you to reframe and bring it back to a better place. Um because it wasn't me who who up who who I guess created it. Um but um the language that we worked on with OGC uh the effect is 90 days. It is the effective date of 90 days and that is what we were told by general counsel. So you're next to general counsel. You can get clarification but we we created we weren't even planning on doing the temporary. We're doing it because procedurally we have to but the the plan is to and we made it clear that that that was our intent. Um and so uh based on our understanding from our conversation with GC um it it will sunset at the 90 days and runs adjacent to the emergency. So >> I appre I appreciate what you're saying. That's not the plain language. So the bill that I have in front of me, the temporary bill that I have in front of me is the bill that's linked to the agenda. And therefore, that is the temporary bill that we will be voting on. And the language says, and I read, quote, this section, >> you don't need to read it again. >> 90 days after the general counsel wants us to amend it, we can. We did this in conjunction with them. So general, again, general counsel sitting next to you, you can do that. I would also know that the temp can also be tabled at second reading. it never has to actually go into effect as you know procedurally as well. So we could also tabled it at second reading. So there's two options there. >> Um I'm not quite sure what to do with what you're saying. So madame general counsel I don't know that you've pulled the bill off of the um >> but my reading is that it is 90 days plus the emergency. And I'm not quite sure why we are arguing over this other than that the statement was made that this is only for 90 days and the >> well that because that's >> the documents before us that we're voting on sayund say 90 plus 90 >> it the language says it is 90 days from the effective date of emergency. So I don't understand what is confusing about that. We are on the deck. Mr. Chairman, I mean, since we're on the emergency deck right now, perhaps we could move on the emergency deck and if there needs to be any clarification on the temporary when that comes up, we could help clarify that language. I feel like we're a little stuck right now. >> We are. Uh, Council Member Parker, >> thank you. I I think it's just important to provide some context that since 2017, district rate payers have seen rates increase nearly 70%. And that those rates have been approved by the public service commission with little to no oversight by the council. Now, that's me offering that uh editorial piece there. And that brings us here today. I also want to acknowledge the work that the office of the people's council has done that led to the lawsuit that led to the overturning of the rates uh by the DC court of appeals. And so I think it's important to just level set the many players here at the table. Um and I think it's important for us uh to pause to take a step back to continue to apply pressure to the public service commission to actually do their jobs. At the same time, we provide some level of relief uh to district taxpayers or rateayers rather. Now, I am of the mind and we discussed this earlier that it is important that we narrow this uh so that there are guard rails. I'm I'm told that there are efforts to do that. Um and I look forward to hearing from the public service commission how they're going to move forward. Last thing I would just say, um, should this pass, uh, I imagine 90 days will come and go and people are still going to struggle to pay their, uh, Pepco bills and other utilities. Um, and so it is important that we as a body think more long-term, uh, for sustainable solutions to help district, uh, uh, pay rateayers. Uh, but I want to thank Council Member Lewis George for issuing this um and and meeting this moment uh which unfortunately we're here uh because the public service commission has failed uh to do what it's supposed to do. Thank you. Uh further on the uh bill uh I am not going to be supporting the declaration. Uh what the the effect of this legislation would be is to prevent enforcement uh where there is um a significant rearage uh of somebody's electric bill. It does not uh address the debt. It just simply prevents enforcement. Uh we went through this experience with the pandemic where we removed enforcement for both utility bills and for uh rent payments and we are still dealing with the after effects of that where there are people for example contacting my office owing thousands of dollars in Pepco bills or gas bills or even$10 to $20,000 in uh rent delinquencies. Uh there might have been an argument for our doing that during the pandemic. Um, I had asked at the breakfast what the average uh amount at issue here is, and I recognize that there will be many customers above the average and some below the average, but if I remember correctly, it was about $12 a month. Um, but in any event, this legislation will not prevent does not address the debt. It just simply prevents enforcement. So, I'm not sure what we're accomplishing and I think that's a it's a bad road for us to go on. So, I will not be supporting this. Uh, if there's nothing further, the vote will be on the declaration. >> I'm going to ask for a roll call. Thank you chairman. >> Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Trayon White, >> yes. >> Council member Trayon White votes yes. Council member Allen, >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds, >> no. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Crawford, >> no. >> Council member Crawford votes no. Council member Felder, >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Fman, >> uh, yes. >> Council member Fman votes yes. Council member Henderson, >> yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George, >> yes. >> Council member Lewis George votes yes. Chairman Mendlesson, >> no. >> Chairman Mendlesson votes no. Council member Nado, >> yes. >> Council member Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> yes. Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member Robert White, >> yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are nine yeses and four nos. >> The declaration is approved. Uh the underlying bill is bill 26-630. Council member Lewis George. >> So moved. >> Uh discussion on the bill. Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I know we had a little bit of discussion already on the deck, but I I did want to just try to help put it in scope as to the level of pain that is experienced in a very short amount of time. >> The amount of aarages, meaning the amount that people have been unable to pay of their Pepco bills went up by $6 million from December 2025 to January 2026. That's one month. $6 million. That is a 13% increase in the amount of rearages. So that's not just a whole bunch of people that just said maybe figure out how can I figure out how not to pay. That's a lot of people who just can't pay. It's a lot of people who are struggling to figure out how to meet this moment and figure out how to do this. Let me compound that with the court of appeals decision that vacated and remanded the PSSE approval of a rate hike that largely is the part of the 2025 and 2026 bills uh the people have seen. So what happens next is that the public service commission has to go back now and hold the evidentiary hearing that they should have held in the first place and now go through a process. last time around when they went through and had a hearing, not the full evidentiary hearing, but when they had a hearing, it was 5 months until they approved a rate case. So, from a when will this all get sorted out question, it's not going to be anytime soon. So, I think that it is right for us to take an action to try to help. If we have hundreds of people calling our offices asking for help, I think it means they need the help. And so, that's what I think this legislation is aiming to deliver. Now, part of our conversation was around how do we help fine-tune it in a way that we are um making sure that we can focus efforts on the people who really need the help and not unintentionally creating some disincentive for somebody who might owe 15 $20,000 and just hasn't been paying. We're really trying to target the households that have been feeling the pinch of this and how do we help get the help to them? So, the amendment that I have circulated at 232 and that I encourage uh my colleagues to support and I believe will be accepted as friendly um tries to get at this. It limits disconnections to cases where the household in question has a rear of more than $1,000. And the reason why we do that is that most households don't have $15,000 of a rearage. We're talking about the households that a couple hundred bucks makes a big difference about whether they can pay the bill, pay the rent, put food on the table. And that's where the emphasis of this is targeting. Um, and I think it's uh responsive to the conversation that we had earlier this morning. I think it helps tailor the help that we are trying to help provide in this interim. I do want to be clear with the public though, right? This is not a this is not debt forgiveness. This is just helping make sure that we don't turn off the power. So, I do think it's very important that we're clear to folks. This does not uh put money back in people's pockets from going, you know, reversing the rate increase. It does not eliminate overall debt, but it does help make sure that people can keep the power on um and that we avoid needless cut offs for people who are really feeling the pain, feeling the pinch and in the need right now. So, Mr. Chairman, I move that amendment and u ask if it'd be accepted as friendly. >> Mr. Chairman, >> um first asked if it would be accepted as friendly. >> It is accepted as friendly. Thank you. Well, >> thank you, Miss >> Actually, it's for me to ask if there's any objection to it. >> Sir, >> two people asked to be recognized. So, let me um turn to them. Council member Fman and then council member Vans. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um there was a lot of discussion at the breakfast and a concern about the idea that this might discourage people from getting into payment plans because if there's just a blanket forgiveness then what's the incentive to do that? I don't I worry about it creating that incentive. There's been some conversation about trying to tailor this to the specific thing, the rate increase in January that causes an issue. And there had been a discussion of one vehicle to do that that intrigued me. I have to say the $1,000 safe harbor is problematic to me. The $6 million figure, Council Member Allen, that you cited is a big number, but it's not different than the per customer number that the chairman referenced. There's 400,000 customers. $6 million is $15 a month. That doesn't add up to $1,000. So, I mean, we have to be careful. I I don't want anybody's power cut off. I want folks to enter into payment plans. I want to have support for that. But the kind of safe harbor that's talked about by this creates, in my opinion, a perverse incentive and can make the problem worse. And it isn't that whatever these costs are don't get paid by somebody. And it isn't that they necessarily get paid by Pepco, they get paid by everybody else. So, we need to have an incentive structure that works. And we should be talking about the numbers in the context of the $15 a month increase. That is what the what you reference when you say $6 million. So I won't be supporting the legislation as amended in this way. >> Council member Bonds. >> Um thank you chairman. Um, in reading the amendment, it sounds great in that we are putting an AR's amount of $1,000 to the measure because we all know that um when the uh power company says that the average increase is $12.50 a month, we know that that is um not even something that we can phantom. Um and so I'm going to support your amendment. Um council member um Allen. Thank you. >> Uh further on the amendment, Council Member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. I'm going to support the amendment and and also the uh underlying bill. You know what what I want to make sure isn't lost. Yes. uh we need to make sure people are are paying their bills and entering into payment agreements, but when we talk about incentivizing people to not pay bills, we also need to think about what we're doing to incentivize Pepco to find cheaper sources of power. Um because I'm with a whole lot of people that are getting bankrupt by my utility bills, right? Like when your utility and your mortgage cost the same thing, there is a problem. And right now, residents and businesses are paying rates that were not lawfully established. I firmly believe that means we should get our money back. Um, and and there has to be more pressure on Pepco, who is not showing up to hearings at the council, who is not uh raising rates legally, who's not willingly refunding that money. And so, we absolutely need residents to do their part, but we need Pepco to do their part, too. And there's not enough pressure on them. And so my hope is that this bill adds some pressure to them to say, "Look, if we don't want to eat these costs, then we had better find some alternative." Uh, between the um data centers that Virginia is raking in money for, we're paying that cost. Um, whatever deals Pepco is or is not making, we're paying that cost and we are completely vulnerable right now. So, I see this as a measure to protect residents from having their power cut off when they are paying rates that are not were not legally established. But I also see this bill as a message to Pepco that you need to do better because we can't afford this type of increase. If it's not checked now, none of us are going to have power very soon. Thank you, Chairman. >> Uh, thank you. Is there further on the amendment? Council member Henderson. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question for council member Allen just from an implementation standpoint I could appreciate that the amendment you all a a narrowing which I heard from the breakfast but from an implementation standpoint let's say your balance now exceeds $1,01 then what >> so legislation would allow Pepco to proceed >> okay >> so in the same way we do with other utilities these when I mean there's there's a dollar amount somewhere. So this is trying to be responsive to the conversation we had earlier to narrow so it sets a limit but you're right at 101 now they can initiate um incentive disconnection notice. >> Okay. Um I I mentioned this earlier as well my and I wrote it for the declaration because I do believe that there is a a challenge that we're in uh with the PSC not having followed a court of appeals saying you need to go back you need to do the hearing and then we're sort of in this in between. I am uneasy because I do feel like this is again setting up a precedent that if something happens with say DC water or Washington gas or any others we will come back and say while that's being worked out while there's a court case that's being litigated etc for however long that it takes to get the new rates in we will do this and I and I heard my colleague that the 90 days we'll get clarity in terms of that I want to say that for the record but I also feel like um we were here not that long ago doing this during the public health emergency where we never said no until it was too like we we we had to take money from the housing production trust fund to sort of pay off um a decision that we had made prior um in terms of rent um and so that is where my uneasiness with this is but I'm not going to stand in the way of of this particular amendment. Thank you. >> Uh is there anything further on this amendment? Council member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just would add again additional context. I am sensitive to the fact that the council should not intervene every time there is a court case with these utility rates, but this is a very unique circumstance where the court has rejected, invalidated, reversed a rate increase because of a lack of due process. I think that does warrant the council to weigh in um here in this circumstance. And just for numbers, more than 35% of district Pepco clients are in a rears. They're behind. Nearly I think the number is 109,000 customers would be covered if this emergency would go into effect. So just think about that. I do not believe for one second more than 100,000 people are not paying simply because they refuse to pay because they're trying to skirt the law, get by. It's because people are struggling. And we have seen unfortunately some um see record profits and we as I already mentioned we have not seen the level of oversight from this body uh that there should have been and so I think this is a responsible and an immediate response uh for 90 days that would allow us to know what direction the public service commission will take. So I look forward to supporting this amendment uh and the underlying miss uh uh measure. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, anything further on the amendment? Um, the vote will be on the amendment. All those in This is the amendment that council member Allen circulated. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> No. >> Do you want to be recorded as no? >> Yes. Record me as no. >> Who's Who's no? >> Me. >> Anderson. >> Madam Secretary, you will note me. That doesn't mean me. Somebody said me. Crawford, excuse me, Felder and Truman. Um the amendment is approved. We have the bill as amended before us. Uh, further discussion. Uh, I'm going to again speak against this. I think the amendment is an improvement, but I'm going to actually pick up on a remark that uh our colleague uh from W 5 made. The court disallowed the rate increase and so the council should weigh in. I could agree with that, but not this way. What we're doing is we're not dealing with the debt. What we're doing is we're simply saying the people don't have to pay um right away. We'd like them to, but they don't have to pay. I don't think that's an appropriate way for the council to weigh in. Uh I would like to think we've all become increasingly in increasingly sensitive to complaints about investors not wanting to invest in the district and businesses struggling with um getting investment capital. And I think that when we say well people you you can't enforce uh you can't enforce non-payment which is what we're doing. Although the amendment does mitigate that somewhat, I think that's just um not a good action for the district. I think that if we're concerned about the um uh folks ability or inability to pay that we need to address that head on rather than just saying Pepco you're going to increase your rarages and unless it's over a thousand gets to being over $1,000 there's nothing you can do about it. uh maybe for 90 days, but I don't know. We're still dealing with uh I mean my office gets uh requests for utility assistance where people owe thousands of thousands of dollars and rent in uh requests, rent assistance. So at any event, that's why I'm voting against this council member Lewis George and then if you want to go next and then council me. >> I just wanted to know two things. I'll be brief. First and foremost, I think um you know, we just can't shrug our shoulders after years of the PSA PSC improving extreme rate hikes, right? It's not just residents fault that the rates are what they are. There is some responsibility and fault that lies with us well as this body and we have to take some action as a result of that as we hear from our constituents who are struggling in this moment and this is us taking action. Now, there are permanent things that need to be done and the work is happening in the transportation environment committee to make those permanent changes as many of us were last week on Thursday uh actually doing real oversight work and I'm grateful for council member Allen who now has that commission who is now doing rightfully that oversight work and trying to get to a space where we can do that. I want to also note uh that this is not just impacting uh individuals. This is also impacting many of our small businesses. I've also heard from small businesses across the city who have said they are struggling to deal with these rate hikes as well and how it's impacting their business. So, it's not just individuals, but it's small businesses who we also are are are standing in the state for in this moment that don't deserve the level of rate hikes. Um, so I won't go back and forth on the issues the the the um courts people can go and actually read what the court said um which is is is evident and clear. And so I'd ask my colleagues to continue to support this very sensible step for this 90-day period. And so that when we get the information on May 22nd, we can figure out how we move forward, not only from a a temporary basis, but a permanent basis that can actually make this sustainable for residents every single day. And again, for some people, this may be a strain, but for many people, this is a breaking point. Do I pay my rent or do I pay my utilities? And neither one is a sustainable option. not having a roof over your head or my childare, right? This is not a sustainable option and many people rely on electricity for a number of things, medical needs, health needs. And so that can't be a real option. And so I want us to make that clear. Um and so I hope my colleagues will support this very sensible step um in trying to get some accountability and address the very rate the real rate hikes that people are feeling and and are struggling with at this moment. Thank you, >> Council Member Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've heard a couple times people saying, you know, people got to pay their bills. Here's the thing. They are paying. They're overpaying. Based on the court decision that vacated the rate increase, people have been overpaying. The trick is we actually don't know, and it's really hard to determine by exactly how much they have been overpaying. The most unfair outcome that we could have here is for someone to experience a disconnection based on the amount that they should have never paid to Pepco in the first place. That's what I think the heart of this legislation is trying to get to is to help protect that situation and those individuals. And if this conversation helps prompt the longer and bigger conversation we got to have about how do we create cleaner, faster, cheaper energy in our city to help control these costs. I'm glad everybody is paying attention to this now. I'm paying attention to this. I'm excited that I got oversight of the public service commission for the last seven weeks. Can't get it all done in seven weeks, but um there's a lot of work that we can do. And when we think about those data centers that are out in Lon County or wherever they are, um some of those county administrators out there, they're friends of ours, and when they talk about the ability to levy attack a tax against them to help pay for things in their city, that's great. Uh we can't do that. But part of what we're struggling with, part of what people pay struggle with is that that data center in Lowden County shows up on your bill. It absolutely does. It impacts our ability to afford energy in the district and people's ability to afford calling the district home. So, I encourage my colleagues to support this. Do not mistake it for a long-term solution. It is one way to try to create some short-term and immediate help, but for everybody coming on board to help work on the longerterm solutions, I um I welcome everybody into that fight. Thank you, >> Council Member Tran White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Uh just to reiterate uh according to the courts uh it is known that residents are overpaying Pepco. Uh the reasons for their increases have been noted to be to pay for infrastructure and supply increase in the spike in the data centers. Uh it's my belief that Pepco needs to restructure how to pay for it. Uh partly because as I look as of early 2024, the two the CEO of Pepco, Tyler Anthony, has a base salary of 685,000 with a total package of 200 I mean $2.5 million a year. Um and I look even further um to his parent company, Exelon. Oh man, they they they they doing it over there. Uh Calvin Calvin Butler, president CEO is making in his package 14.2 million a year. Jane Jones, uh, executive vice president and CFO, $3.5 million a year, according to their packets. Gail Littleton, former executive vice president and chief legal officer, $4.2 million a year. And this can increase based on stockholdings. David Glockner, $2.8 million a year. Michael Inosenzo, executive vice president and chief operating officer, $3.1 million a year. So, it sound like the taxpayers are bearing the brunt of these increases. If they want to do infrastructure or pay for these data centers, there needs to be some reorganizing out of the backs of our everyday residents trying to make a living in Washington DC. Thank you. >> Anything further on this bill? >> Council Robert White. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um it just very briefly uh we we know and it it's come more and more to people's attention that multi-year rate plans shift financial risk on to taxpayers while failing to include enough cost-saving incentives. And and that's why even before the court of appeals ruling that vacated Pepco's multi-year rate plan uh came down, I introduced the utility rates and ratemaking amendment act to put some common sense guardrails on multi-year rate plans and require the public service commission to hold utilities to higher standards that protect rate play payers. So this is a long-term solution to the issues that we're discussing today. And I just want to mention it because it's relevant uh as we as a body look into this issue and how we protect residents long term. Thank you chairman. >> Uh thank you council member. Further on the bill we have the bill as amended before us. >> Roll call. Thank you chairman. >> Um madam secretary I believe did you ask for a roll call? >> I did. Thank you. >> Madam secretary would you call the role? Vote is on the bill. >> Council member Allen. >> Yes. Council member Allen votes yes. Council member Bonds >> yes. >> Council member Bonds votes yes. Council member Crawford >> no. >> Council member Crawford votes no. Council member Felder >> no. >> Council member Felder votes no. Council member Freeman >> no. >> Council member Freeman votes no. Council member Henderson >> no. >> Council member Henderson votes no. Council Lewis George >> yes. >> Council member Lewis George votes yes. Chairman Mendelson >> no. >> Chairman Mendelson votes no. Council member Nado, >> yes. >> Council member Nado votes yes. >> Council member Parker, >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto, >> yes. >> Council member Pinto votes yes. Council member Robert White, >> yes. >> Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon White, >> yes. >> Council member Trayon White votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are eight yeses and five nos. The um the bill's approved. The uh next measure is um BR26-589 DC Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. Vince McConey confirmation emergency declaration resolution of 2026. Council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Mr. McConey withdrew his nomination yesterday, so I'm going to withdraw these measures from consideration. >> Uh the measures withdrawn. Uh the next measure then is um PR26-6 excuse me 26-564 Nationals ballpark amended and restated lease emergency declaration resolution of 2026. Uh so moved the um declaration will allow us to consider the um approval which is bill 26-620 of the uh lease. This is um this legislation provides for approval of an amended and restated lease agreement between the Washington National Stadium and Events DC for the Nationals Ballpark in accordance with the Ballpark Maintenance Act that we adopted in the fall of 2024. The Ballpark Maintenance Act, which is what we adopted in 2024, requires that the amended lease include a term extension through at least February 28th, 2020 204. The amended and restated lease agreement which is before us now for approval will keep the Nationals baseball club in the district through longer than the law requires. That is at least through the 20158 not 204 season. It also provides a dedicated stream of funding for the modernization and upkeep of the stadium. Events DC and Washington Nationals Baseball Club have engaged in extensive negotiations over a long period of time to reach agreement on the lease. With the council's approval of the lease, what's before us, both parties are now prepared to execute the document to keep Major League Baseball in the district for at least the next generation. Uh so, as I said, I'm so moved on the uh declaration. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Uh hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. We have the underlying bill, bill 26-620. So moved. Uh yes, so moved. And then I circulated an amendment nature of a substitute. Uh so I will move the amendment nature of a substitute which I circulated yesterday. It is um I want to say this respectfully a lot of technical changes that general counsel uh recommended uh which actually makes it conform with what the legislation is that we should be adopting. Uh so I have to move the amendment nature of a substitute. If there's no objection it will be accepted. Hearing no objection it's accepted. We have the bill as amended before us. discussion. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Allen, >> I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments. We had a longer discussion at the breakfast meeting, so I don't want to repeat all of that. Um, I just want to note how significant this is. Um, everybody remembers the drama, the back, the fourth, cap one, are they going, are they not? It is important to be able to help ensure the nationals are going to be here through 209. um to be able to not have to worry about that. If you go look at some of the other ballparks where Atlanta, for example, where the Braves uh they went out, they built a stadium and then 15 years later they up and decided let's go build another stadium somewhere else. To know that that is something that is locked in as well as to have clarity around who is responsible for what expenditures, what do the nationals have to spend on their portion of it, what does events DC and the district. I think this provides a lot of clarity. I think this also is probably not going to get nearly the fanfare uh that some of the other conversations have had over this past year, but I think it's a really big deal. Mr. Chairman, I know you've been very instrumental in helping move this project forward and getting to this. I want to thank the Nationals, yourself, the budget office, everybody that's had a hand in this events DC to make sure that we actually got this done and that uh for for the home opener on Friday uh as we welcome baseball back. Uh we've got this settled for decades to come. It's a big deal. I appreciate it and thank you. >> Wow. Thank you. And you said that far more eloquently than I did. Council member Robert White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Um I I echo what my colleague said. It it it doesn't seem to me like the stadium has been here as long as it has because I remember when we got got the team back and and going to see them at at RFK. Um then my first game at the new stadium was in the all the way back like there was a a fence behind me and then I became a council member. I got to go on the field. Um but but more more importantly um the the presence, right? We want our teams to be a presence in the city. And I've been able to take my kids and other kids onto the field. I've done opera in the outfield, movie nights uh there at the stadium and and g have gone to other events in addition to uh baseball and large concerts. And that predictability, as council member Allen said, is a good thing knowing that the team is going to be here. we're not going to be negotiating with, you know, some other jurisdiction in a bidding war about the team. Uh that's important in a time where we need folks who are going to anchor in DC uh right now. So I'm excited about this and u and look forward to voting in support of it. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you, Council Tran White. >> Uh thank you, Chairman. Well, I'm excited that we are looking forward to extending the opportunity to keep um baseball team here in the city. I don't know uh with confidence what we're doing with the money that's been put in the coffer to keep it up. Um because you talk about 30 years from now, you don't know what the stadium is going to look like in 30 years from now. Will we as the owner have to reinvest our own money to keep it up or is there money allocated now based on the moves made I guess two years ago to ensure there's a pot of money to keep the stadium vibrant in a place that's safe that people want to come to? We've seen what happened with FedEx. And so I guess my question or comment is about having money to sustain the stadium years from now as we talk about 30 years from now. The Ballpark Budget and Maintenance Amendment Act of 2024, which we adopted in the fall 2024, provides for revenues generated from activities at the stadium going into a fund, the ballpark maintenance fund, uh that are then available for capital improvements and maintenance of the facility. Uh so that is ongoing revenue that's available on an ongoing basis. uh and that therefore doesn't require any draws from the general fund. >> Question, has that fund started yet to fund that? Because it's my understanding we're still paying back debt on that fund. >> So, uh some of the revenue, so the ballpark maintenance fund will benefit from some of the revenues that are currently going into what's called the ballpark fee. And the ballpark fee was going to go away when um as a ballpark fee is going to go away when the bonds are paid off, which I don't remember if it's this year or next year. Um the mayor with the commanders repurposed some of that those revenue streams to um um go toward other sports stadium events, stadiums. I'm not sure. It wasn't the commanders. Uh and we then redirected some of it to go to the transportation fund related to the commander stadium. That was a long answer. In short, um you asked if the fund exists today for the ballpark maintenance. No, it will birth as soon as the bonds are paid off with some of the revenues that are currently going to the ballpark fee. >> Thank you. Further on this, Council Member Pinto. Um, >> I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for moving this bill forward and being such a steadfast supporter of the ballpark and the Nationals. And as we think about this budget and the future of our city and all of the important investments and worthwhile investments in our sports infrastructure, not only being so important for the teams and our athletes um and our fans to go and to our economy, but to our entire culture. And as we do that, I want to remind us all to continue um looking for opportunities to support our women's sports teams. um through this budget and beyond. But I'm so excited to support this measure today. Uh and thank you for moving it. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Pinto. Uh anything further on this, Council Member Bonds? >> Yes, thank you um very much um chairman. I just want to remind my colleagues that this um action that we are taking today is about the infrastructure. It's about the physical um plant. It does not include um any uh remittance that would go towards the team or to for salaries that is bore exclusively by um the team itself. So just want us to understand that because that was a question um that was posed some time ago. >> Thank you. If there's no further discussion, we have the bill bill 26-620 as amended which was that amendment nature of a substitute. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing? None. The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the next measure is juvenile curfew sunset emergency declaration resolution of 2026. Council member Pinto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have to ensure as a city that we are providing safe spaces and positive activities for young people. And we have to ensure that there are effective crimerevention tools in place like the limited tool of allowing for a earlier juvenile curfew in certain designated zones which have been in place for 8 months and have prevented juvenile crime um without leading to any more arrests which is exactly what we wanted this tool to be used for. It is unacceptable for our neighbors to face outbreaks of violence. It's unacceptable to put our young people in harm's way. And we've seen this in recent weeks in Navyyard, Hill East, and Ust Street in particular. The juvenile curfew allows the MPD chief to declare temporary juvenile curfew zones in designated areas. When MPD gets intel about planned so-called teen takeovers or other unsafe activities, sometimes planned fights, the department can determine where to designate these juvenile curfew zones as a preventative tool. Over the last eight months, 19 juvenile curfew zones have been declared and MPD reports that these zones have been successful in preventing dangerous activity and keeping young people and other surrounding neighbors safe. Without the juvenile curfew, there would be a strain on MPD resources pulling officers from other neighborhoods when needing to respond to one of these teen takeovers or other large gatherings of young people. I'll also note that is not a good outcome. When there is a large group of young people we already know they're going to be there and a fight breaks out and then we send dozens and dozens of officers to disperse the scene. That's when accidents happen. That's what we don't want to see. This emergency extension of the juvenile curfew is urgent for us to approve today. If we do not act, the temporary will expire on April 15th. DCPS will be in the middle of their spring break at that time and we are weeks away from the start of summer, a time when we know we usually see an increase in large gatherings of our young people. By replacing the sunset, as I've proposed in my emergency bill, these provisions for the juvenile curfew would remain in effect until September 25th, 2026. I want to be clear. I also believe we need to be investing in youth programming and making sure kids and teens have safe and enjoyable places to go throughout the city. It's why I've introduced multiple bills this year to address that need, like my bill to establish a teen center in every quadrant of the city, my bill to establish a youth villages program. Those bills are still awaiting hearings in other committees. And I'm pleased and grateful to see the mayor's announcements about enhanced programming for kids that will take place this spring and this summer as well. We have to do both. We're going to do both and we cannot stall when it comes to implementing effective preventative tools that will keep our neighbors safe. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this measure today. Uh, thank you, Council Member Pinto. Uh, is there discussion on this? Uh, I'm going to move to postpone consideration of this to uh the next legislative meeting. >> I would object to that, Mr. Chairman. Um, as I mentioned, there would be a gap in the law that would fall over spring break if we do not act today. A risk I do not think is wise to take. And the next legislative meeting set to be on April 21st, which would be after that time period. And so I think it's important that we vote on this measure today. >> Further discussion on the motion to postpone. Um the vote will be on the motion to postpone. All those all those um >> trying to take a roll call vote, please. >> What's that? >> You take a roll call vote. >> Sure. Madam Secretary. >> Council member Bonds. >> No. >> Council member Bonds votes no. Council member Crawford. >> Yes. >> Council member Crawford votes yes. Council member Felder. >> Yes. >> Council member Felder votes yes. Council member Freeman. Yes. >> Council member Freeman votes yes. Council member Henderson. >> Yes. >> Council member Henderson votes yes. Council member Lewis George. >> No. Council member Lewis George votes no. Chairman Mendelson >> yes. >> Chairman Mendelson votes yes. Council member Nadau >> yes. >> Council member Nadau votes yes. Council member Parker >> yes. >> Council member Parker votes yes. Council member Pinto >> no. >> Council member Pinto votes votes no. Council member Robert White >> yes. Council member Robert White votes yes. Council member Trayon White >> no. >> Council member Trayon White votes no. And Council Member Allen >> yes. >> Council member Allen votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are nine yeses and four nos. >> Uh the measure is postponed to the next legislative meeting. Uh we have proposed contract number CW128791 with HMEN Inc. Disapproval emergency declaration resolution of 2026 PR26-587. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The district's fire and emergency medical services department, also known as fire and EMS, responds 24/7 to an extremely high volume of calls. This means that our emergency vehicles are used with very high frequency, too. It's why a strategic system of maintenance and ordering is vital to ensure that our firefighters can respond in a timely and safe manner to all instances. And we have to prioritize maintaining the fleet that we have and ordering reliable new vehicles at regular intervals to ensure that we have the best fleet in the nation. There are several concerns with this contract before us today, including the cooperative agreement process, the quality of engines being procured from a firsttime vendor, and the quality of the apparatus itself. While the cooperative agreement model allows for more efficient ordering timelines, which is important, the district should use caution when making purchases from manufacturers for the first time and avoid bulk orders from vendors that are new to the district. This is the first proposed contract with HME, Inc. for the procurement of fire engines. This contract was decided on through a cooperative agreement, not a traditional competitive bid process. During my performance oversight hearing for fire and EMS in February, the union sounded the alarm about the concerns about making a big bulk purchase order of 18 engines with this contract being against best practice. Only two other major cities have received HME engines, Detroit and Cleveland. And in Detroit, we heard from the Detroit uh union um that the trucks were in very poor quality. It is vital that we're spending taxpayer dollars in a responsible manner. Um, and it's really important that with something as fundamental as our public safety and our fire department that we're listening to our firefighters who do this work every single day as the experts on the ground. And when they have concerns around quality and safety of the trucks, that raises a big red flag for me. And so I encourage my colleagues to join me in disapproving this contract for the reasons I outlined, to ensure the safety of our first responders, and to ensure the sound investment of taxpayer dollars in fire and EMS apparatus um so we can continue moving forward in the best interest of the District of Columbia of taxpayer dollars and of our firefighters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh >> thank you, Council Member Pinto. Uh discussion on the declaration The vote will be on the declaration. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> I. >> Chairman Mark is present. >> Mr. Chairman, Mark is present as well. Mr. Chairman, please record me as present as well. The uh eyes have it unanimously and the secretary will record council members Tran White uh Wendell Felder and Zachary Parker as present. We have the underlying resolution which is a disapproval resolution. Council member Pinto. >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Is there discussion? The vote will be on the disapproval resolution. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Again, Mr. Chairman, >> yeah, everybody speaks at once. Uh, Council Member Parker, you're present. Council member Trayon White, you're present. Council member Elder, did I hear you say you were present? >> Chairman, please mark me as present. The um council members Tran White, Wendell, Felder, Zachary Parker, and Robert White will be recorded as present and the um resolution is approved. Uh the next measure is uh PR26-584 open meetings clarification emergency declaration resolution of 2026. So moved. Um this uh resolution, the declaration enables consideration of the underlying bill which would maintain unchanged the status quo with regard to uh the open meetings act. Um it addresses gatherings of the council. It clarifies that the criminal justice coordinating council is exempt. And um it also though the um the underlying measure has a provision that would extend the um disclosure issue that uh we adopted on an emergency basis last year. This was disclosure. Um members will remember that the board of ethics and government accountability had added something like 50 boards and commissions to disclosure requirements. It stimulated a lot of objection from volunteer members of those uh boards and commissions. Uh we adopted legislation to postpone and I think it was postponed to April 15th. Um and uh this the underlying bill here will extend that to a October 17th which is when the temporary legislation will expire. I hope I haven't confused anyone by this. Uh as I indicated earlier to members and I'll say now in the record I will be moving the permanent bills for both open meetings and the disclosure uh before the recess. Uh so the um this will not continue indefinitely. Is there discussion? Council member Lewis George. >> Unfort Thank you, Chairman. Unfortunately, we are again being asked to make the government of the District of Columbia less trans a less transparent institution. Again, I must oppose that request because the bill is just as broad as it was a year ago. Uh I agree the unprecedented challenges facing the district require changes to be made uh to the opening meetings act, a core pillar of our dem democratic governance. Just as the measures in effect for the past year, this bill though exempts many more situations than necessary to give council members flexibilities to interact with each other. The council should be empowered to gather and discuss quickly urgent and dynamic situations. The necessity of which is becoming more and more frequent as our autonomy and dignity are under incessant attack. But we cannot effectively nor in good faith defend ourselves from such attacks if we are also making decisions for which the public cannot hold us to account. The text of any law is what matters above all else. Although the current emergency has not been used to hold a hearing on a bill that is closed to public yet the text allows that. Unfortunately, the current emergency has been used to excuse closed meeting uh closing council activities when the public should have a right to know what we are talking about and what we are saying. I want the 700,000 residents of districts to know your elected government should be transparent with you and open with you about what what's happening and what decisions are we making. And this body knows what it is doing when we are closing many more meetings more broadly than we should be. I hope that changes are made to the permanent bill that finally ensure the council activities are not closed when the principle of practicality, ethics, and transparent governance allow and demand they be open to residents of the District of Colombia that we are supposed to be serving in this moment. Looking forward, we must find what the status quo uh must find what the status quo lacks, a responsible balance between flexibility and transparency without favoring the former to the detriment of the latter. This government made decisions years ago uh to deal with open meetings for a very real reason. Uh because when we are open, it allows us to be more transparent, but it also allows us to move uh in a in a more ethical way. Um and allows the public to really receive the transparency it deserves from it elected officials. So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this harmful legislation. um and for us to really uphold our values as a democratic city, as a democracy of open and transparent government. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Council Lewis George. Further on the declaration, >> the vote will be the vote will be on the declaration. Uh all those in favor say I. I >> go sh one uh can can go in the dark. >> Uh are there any opposed? >> Uh no, please report me as no. Chairman, >> uh the eyes have it and council member Lewis George will be recorded as no. Uh I move the underlying uh bill. I will repeat that. Um I will uh move the permanent bills before the recess chairman. >> Can you call me as voting? No on that. I apologize. >> Um ordinarily I would say that you were too late but uh the secretary will record you as voting no. The underlying bills before us bill 26-632. Is there disc so moved? Is there discussion? >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Henderson. >> Mr. Chairman, um I share similar concerns um regarding sort of the broadness also the length of time that it's taken us to get to a permanent um bill on this. But I did also want to say for the record, as I mentioned in the breakfast, um I do have some concerns around some of the big pieces that were included in this. Um there for those watching at home, there was a a different bill not attached to open meetings that was attached to this piece of legislation. Um with regard to um disclosure requirements for boards and commissions, um there was a hearing on that permanent bill and I think there were some concerns that were raised which Mr. Chairman, you have said that will be addressed when we get there. Um, but I I I just want to say for the record that I'm um uncomfortable with this sort of being attached here. Um, and so I'm going to vote present on this because of that inclusion. >> Okay. I will just reiterate for the record that u on the disclosure piece the um um at the hearing there was a hearing. I don't know if I said it at the hearing, but clearly the bill that bill was introduced um was too broad and it needs to be refined and it will be refined. So I said that at the breakfast. I'm saying that now for the record. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm going to vote no on this measure like I did last time. Um, I do believe there are times when we need to get together in a closed setting when it comes to conversations about federal strategy or other things that I think absolutely warrant our ability to go into a closed session um, and have some of those conversations outside of official actions. Um, but I also don't think it's that hard for us to be able to convene vote to go into that closed session so there's a transparent record about when we are going into a close session and not. So, um, I hope that that'll be addressed as the permanent bill moves forward in a few months, but I can't support this emergency legislation today. Thank you. >> If there's no further discussion, >> Mr. Chairman, >> Council Member Ferman, >> and I want to underscore the comments from Council Member Henderson, both the open meetings bill and the changes for Bega are broader than I am comfortable with. We need to get to a place where we actually refine them and not just kick them down the kick the can down the road with emergency legislation. For now, I do believe we need this emergency legislation. So, I am going to support this emergency legislation, but I hope there can be a process with good consultation to get to permanent bills on both of these issues that all of us can feel more comfortable with. >> Uh, thank you. If there's no further discussion, we have the bill, bill 26-632. All those in favor say I. I. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as voting present. >> Just record me as no. That's >> Please record me as no. >> You get to >> um All right. Several people said they want to be recorded as no. Council member Allen. Council member Lewis George T. White. Council member Trayon White. Uh the odds odds have it. Um >> was present. >> We are turning now to reading and vote on emergency le >> I'm sorry present. >> I don't >> if she want to be present. >> Yeah. >> Council member Henderson had earlier said she wanted to be uh recorded as present. Madam Secretary, you've got that. The eyes have it. Uh, three people said uh we asked to be recorded as no and Council Member Henderson is recorded as present. Returning now to reading and vote on emergency legislation at the request of the executive, we have supporting local business enterprises emergency declaration resolution of 2026 PR26-559. Council member Felder. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move to postpone this legislation to the next legislative meeting. >> Uh, Council Member Felder's move to postpone to the next legislative meeting. If there's no objection, it will be postponed. Hearing no objection, it is uh postponed to the next legislative meeting. Uh we have temporary legislation. Uh Arena Safety Conformity Temporary Amendment Act of 2026. Council member Pinto. >> This is the same measure we discussed earlier. Um so moved. Is >> there discussion on the temporary? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Are there any opposed? Uh the eyes have it. Uh the next measure is rate plan vacur interim protections temporary amendment act of 2026. Council member Lewis George. >> So moved. >> Uh the measure is before us. Discussion. >> Council member Henderson. >> Um Mr. Chairman, uh, I just wanted to provide the opportunity for general counsel to clarify the timing of this particular temporary. Um, is the time concurrent with the emergency? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, it is a 90-day. >> It is. >> Thank you, >> Council Parker. >> That was my question. >> Okay. Um, yes. Uh, the, uh, my reading of it earlier was incorrect that it was 180 days. However, it does raise a question, why are we adopting a temporary that's identical to the emergency? Um, and the only reason for doing that would be then to maintain the option of uh either revising the temporary or going through another round of emergency and temporary because the effect of this is identical. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, was it not accurate or said earlier that general counsel said a temporary needed to be filed? >> Uh I don't want to speak for general counsel, but uh the reality is that if the temporary is is approved, uh then uh there's a second reading where it could be amended or it would allow for a a second round of emergency and temporary. >> There's no other reason for an identical temporary. >> Got it. So moved. >> We have the um temporary before us. So if there's no further disc, >> Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that I understand the landscape here. So there had to be a temporary that was put forward with the emergency, but if we vote down the temporary, we lock in the 90 days and the emergency still is valid. Is that correct? >> Um there are different theories on this. So bear with me here. >> Uh it is my belief that the council can pass successive emergencies but that at some point there has to be a temporary which goes to Congress for review. Uh I've had some discussions and I'll say disagreements with general counsel about this. Um it is has in the past it has been articulated by general counsel. I think I can speak for them on this that the and one has to move a temporary with the emergency if there is to be the ability to move a second round of emergency in temporary. There does not have to be a temporary with the emergency if the intent is that there's only 90 days. Um, for example, just to speak to the issue or the problem or the challenge when the ju juvenile curfew went through last year went through as an emergency without a temporary and then we were kind of stuck because of general counsel's belief that we couldn't move a second emergency because there hadn't been a temporary. So if we voted down the temporary, the emergency would still be valid, but we would have locked in the 90 days and it would take a separate independent action requiring nine votes to extend the period of uh yes under the >> general council believes that we can't do that uh because of case law. Uh I argue with general counsel, just so you know, and believe that we can do it as long as we send a temporary on the second round up to Congress. Okay. >> So, you know that I have a disagreement with general counsel. General counsel's view. So, um somebody down at that end of the day has invoked general counsel saying that this temporary was needed. The only reason it's needed is so that there's the ability for a second round of emergency intemp and I I don't think that's issue. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Not really. Uh the vote will be on the uh temporary bill 26-631. Uh I will note that it um conforms to the emergency. So whatever amendments were adopted on the emergency will be included in the temporary. Is that clear general counsel? >> Yes. >> Uh all those in favor of the u >> I'm sorry Mr. Chairman. >> I have a question but I would rather ask it. Um One second. >> I don't I support open meetings. This one. which doesn't >> Are we ready to vote? Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion to call the question? >> Uh, we're going to proceed to a vote. >> Um, the vote is on the temporary. All those in favor of the temporary say I. >> Wait, wait, wait. >> Are there any? >> I think there's some other conversation. >> No, no, we we put out we're going to it'll be tabled in the next meeting. taking a vote >> and so conversation is not in order during the vote. >> I've asked for the eyes. I am now asking for the nos. Are there any nos on the temporary? >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. >> Please record me as note, Mr. Chairman. >> Please, Mr. Chairman, please record me as no. >> Madam Secretary, and record me and can you repeat that back? >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, I have council member Pinto is no. Council member Crawford. Who else? >> Felder. >> Bonds. >> Felder. Bonds. Henderson. >> Uh, anyone else? >> Fuman. >> Broomman. >> Mr. Chairman, are you a no as well? >> Yes. >> Seven. One, two, three, four. There's seven nos. >> All right. I asked for a voice vote. Uh I um asked for the eyes asked for the nose. The following people asked to be recorded as voting no. Council members Pinto Crawford Felder Bonds Henderson, Fuman, and myself. That would be seven nos. The temporary fails. >> Mr. Chairman, so clarification, what impact, if any, does that have on the emergency? >> Uh, the emergency was approved. >> No. >> Uh, juvenile curfew is not in order because it was postponed. Open meetings. Um I move the open meetings clarification temporary amendment act. Uh discussion. >> Uh all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Anyone wishing to be recorded is no. >> Mr. Chairman, please record me as present. >> No. >> Please record Janice Le George's. No. >> All right. There seems to be a little change here. So, council members Allan, Lewis, George, and Tran White are recorded as no. And recorded as present are council members Henderson and >> Parker. >> Parker. >> I'm voting present on the temporary, >> which is what's under consideration. >> Uh, the measure is approved with three people recorded as no and two people recorded as present. >> And Madam Secretary, you have the names. >> Yes, Mr. chairman. >> Uh and uh supporting local business enterprises temporary is not in order because the emergency is postponed. Uh we have a motion to that gets us to new business. Thank you all of you who've been patient. Um, we have a motion to override mayoral veto of bill 26-614, full accountability and arrest reporting emergency amendment act to 2026. I believe there is a motion to override and then we vote on the measure. >> Yes. >> All right. Recognizing Council Member Robert White. >> Thank you, Chairman. When federal officers use force in the District of Columbia, victims and their families should not have to guess who was there, who used force, or what happened. Transparency should not be optional when someone's life is on the line. And this threat isn't theoretical. Federal officers recently shot at three black men in this city. Philip Brown, Julian Bailey, and Justin Nelson. That is how this bill arose. To address this, I worked with agencies and sent the bill to OAG and MPD. OAG provided recommendations which we adopted. MPD did not provide feedback. I also worked with colleagues and nine of us introduced the bill together. In the spirit of collegiality, I made a compromise to keep us together by separating out part of the bill. We then voted unanim unanimously to pass two bills as a package requiring disclosure of body warn camera footage and expanding reporting. These basic transparency requirements are not a huge lift and neither requires new systems, new training or new operations. MPD already documents the name, badge number, and agency of every law local law enforcement officer present on the scene for arrest reports and probable cause affidavit when an officer uses serious force. This bill simply requires MPD to document to the extent known at the time the same information for federal officers present. If they don't have the information, they can note it in the report. It's a small change with a tremendous impact. In Philip Brown's case, a federal officer fired his gun into his car multiple times with officers there. I thank God that his daughters were not in the car. Yet, the official record did not identify the federal officer involved or even note that Mr. Brown's car had been shot. I reviewed the hearing transcript for his preliminary court hearing. Neither the prosecutor nor defense attorney had access to the bodywn camera footage at the preliminary hearing, but the arrest report and probable cause affidavit were available. The documents that said nothing in this case. If these documents had included the federal officers who shot at Mr. Brown, how much easier would it have been for him to get justice? That's why one provision without the other doesn't get the job done. This was emergency legislation which would not have had to go to Congress, but was vetoed, inviting unnecessary federal attention. With this vote, we signal our commitment to leadership, to transparency, and to protecting people in this city. The families of Philip Brown, Julian Bailey, and Justice Nelson deserve no less. I want to thank my colleagues for their partnership and urge us to support as a body the motion to override the veto. Uh, I move the motion to override the mayor's veto of bill 26-6 uh14, the full accountability and arrest reporting emergency amendment act of 2026. So, we have the motion to override the veto before us. If it is approved, then we have the bill before us as I'm understanding it. And then if there any uh discussion regarding the bill, we can have that. Then discussion regarding the motion to override. The vote will be on the motion to override. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? >> Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We now have the underlying bill. Council member Robert White. >> So moved. Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, is there discussion? Uh, Council Member White, I'd mentioned earlier, I was going to ask you, um, the legislation, the bill says, um, that following an arrest, a member of Metropolitan Police Department shall include the following information to the extent known at the time. What do we expect of that? Is that a requirement? Like the officer has to go and ask everybody and is in trouble if he or she doesn't ask everybody. just asking for what your intent is behind this legislation. >> Yes, thank you chairman. Um, in working with agencies, there was a concern that officers might be short staffed or there be a situation where federal officers did not identify themselves. So, we included in the legislation uh that MPD document to the extent known at the time the officers present in their agencies. If they can't collect that, they simply put that in the police report that they were not able to to get that information. So you view that as giving uh some flexibility to the police officer. >> It it does >> and uh would enable an officer from not feeling compelled that he or she has to like um antagonize other officers at the scene. >> Uh that's right, chairman. Our officers don't have authority obviously over federal officers. So if they ask the officer's name and the federal officer says, "I'm not giving it to you." There's nothing our officer can do and I don't want to put them in that that situation or jeopardize in any prosecutions. >> Uh thank you for that. Uh is there any further discussion? Uh so we have the bill before us. Bill 26-614. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Are there any opposed? >> I >> uh hearing none opposed. Uh the eyes have it unanimously and the bill is approved. Uh that's going to uh conclude the business of this legislative meeting. Uh the next meeting of the committee the whole is uh scheduled for April 21st. The time is 4:11 p.m. and this meeting's adjourned.