I think the room should sing Happy Birthday to Anthony Hood say e I'm calling to order this meeting we could have order in the chamber please I'm calling to order this meeting this is an additional meeting of the committee the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia I'm Phil Mendelson chair of the council and chair of the committee of the whole today is Tuesday March 5th 2024 the time is 1:43 in the afternoon this meeting is being held in room 500 the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building uh this meeting is also being broadcast on Council Channel cable 13 and it's also available on the council's website I think streaming on the council's website www.dc.gov I know that this meeting was scheduled to start at 11:00 uh so I will um I hope Mr St Graves is listening to me U offer some apology for our starting late uh members have been um talking about the issues that are on the agenda and identifying U many areas where we have um warm discussion uh with that um what we have today is we have the committee of the whole meeting we're marking up five bills we are agendize another five and then we will um adjourn the committee of the whole and start the legislative meeting uh I think with very little break maybe five minutes whatever it takes to set up and then move through the uh legislative meeting I suspect most people are here for the secur DC bill that is I believe the second Bill on non-consent so it'll be a few minutes before we get to that no it'll be more than a few minutes because the first bill will take a little debate um with regard to the committee of the whole we have to make sure we have a quorum Mr Cash would you call the role chairman Mendon council member Allen here council member bonds here council member fuman here council member gray council member Henderson here council member Lewis George here council member McDuffy here council member nidau here council member Parker here council member Pinto present council member Robert White presid council member trium pres Mr chairman you have a quum thank you Mr Cash the first bill for markup was Bill 25- 356 entitled the flood plane review Authority Amendment Act of 2024 this bill would repeal a section in the District of Columbia applications Insurance implementation act which was added to the to that act as a conforming amendment when we adopted the department of buildings of establishment act repealing this provision ensures that the critical Authority delegated to the director of the Department of energy and environment as part of the district's flood insurance program that that Authority is maintained the council approved this legislation as an emergency bill on June 29 2023 this was one of the conforming amendments that was added to a new section that was added as a new section um in the act the department buildings establishment act uh several months after that was adopted uh the executive alerted the committee that uh this section would have the unintended effect of stripping critical Authority from the Department of uh energy and environment thereby imperiling our status as a participating community in the National flood insurance program as a result the council approved the flood plane review Authority emergency Amendment Act of 2023 in July of 2023 as I said this bill what's before us would permanently repeal section 6B from that uh applications Insurance implementation act the print is the same as the bill as introduced uh yes we do have a flood planes and uh so it's important that we're part of the national program the bill was introduced at the request of the mayor on June 29th 2023 the committee of the whole held a public hearing on January 18th 2024 and uh uh the committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to this legislation uh I move the print with Le for staff to make Technical and conforming changes is there discussion hearing none uh by Voice vote uh all those in favor of the print say I I I I are there any no votes the print is approved unanimously I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion by Voice vote all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed uh the eyes have it unanimously mam General council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is mam secretary's the record complete once the report is f Adam 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 the next measure for markup is Bill 255-5323 uh this and the following three bills are symbolic designations the symbolic naming is for ceremonial purposes and shall be in addition to and subordinate to any name that is an official name Bill 2 5- 533 would symbolically designate Church Street between 15th and 16th streets Northwest as St Luke's way the location is in Ward 2 St Luke's Episcopal Church is home to the oldest African-American Episcopal congregation in the district St Luke's was established in 1873 by Reverend Dr Alexander crummel following the Civil War uh the church advocates for civil rights Liberation educational econom IC equity and Social Justice Reform the church will celebrate its 150th anniversary in the coming years designating signage on this street will serve tribute to the church community that has in that has endured at this location the bill was introduced by council member pinto and several other council members on October 3rd 2023 the committee of the whole held a hearing on December 15 2023 the committee's received no testimony your comments in opposition to the legislation I move the both the print and the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is their discussion the vote will be on the print and Report with leave for staff uh by Voice vote all those in favor say I I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any opposed the eyes have it unanimously mam General council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is madam secretary's the record complete once there is filed Madame budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does is there a fiscal impact there is not without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting the next measure for markup is Bill 255-5323 bill 25534 would symbolically designate the portion of the public alley system within Square 179 as Annie's way the location is in W two in 1948 George cus the son of Greek immigrants opened a beer joint on the corner of 17th and Church Streets Northwest the extensive bar was the main feature in the dark wood panel restaurant where guests from all walks of life were welcomed in a convivial atmosphere the restaurant was given the name Paramount Steak House at the time the neighborhood was more residential than today and there were many boarding houses with a mix of construction workers along with immigrants from Ireland Italy and Greece Mr cus sisters Sue Stouts and Annie Taylor helped run the Paramount Steak House their demeanor of acceptance soon made the restaurant a place where anyone from the community could feel comfortable and safe without being harassed or discriminated against the all female service staff most of whom were mothers provided guests with a home away from home in the 1960s Annie's name was added to the name becoming Annie's Paramount Steakhouse Annie by which the restaurant commonly is commonly known Annies uh witnessed the Civil Rights Riots of the 60s and the decline of 17th Street but remained committed to the neighborhood and the community bolstered by The Stonewall riots in New York City the local LGBT community claimed anes as their own in the 1970s uh brought mail servers for the first time and Annie's reputation continued to expand in 1985 Annie's Paramount Steakhouse moved a block up 17th Street to its current location Annie celebrated 75 years of service to the neighborhood in the community in 2023 in 2013 the council adopted legislation designating the portion of Church Street the original location of Annie's is Annie's way however signage was never erected at the location which makes me wonder why we passed that legislation it bill 25- 534 repeals the former designation as the community in anes prefers the name to name the alley adjac to its current location notably 17th Street fronting Annies is already named ceremonially for Frank camon an important figure in the lgbtq plus history in the district and in 2023 the council officially redesignated Swan Street two blocks north of anies for William dorsy Swan who was a pioneer of black drag queen in the district um this bill was introduced by council member pinto and co-introduced or and yes co-introduced by several other council members on October 3rd 2023 Committee of the whole held a hearing on December 15 2023 the Committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to the legislation without objection I mov both the print and Report with lead for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion the vote will be a Voice vote Yes counc member Pinto just want to speak briefly in favor of this legislation that I introduced and think it's really important that we honor Annie's Paramount steakhous for its many contributions to the district over the last 75 years um and has really become an an icon um for our community so thank you for you and your team partnership and advancing this bill looking forward to get this designation up uh thank you council member there's no further discussion uh the vote will be on both the print and Report with Lee for staff all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any no votes the eyes have it unanimously Madam General council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is mam secretary is the record complete the report is filed mam budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements uh yes it does is there a fiscal impact there is not without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting the next measure for markup is Bill 25- 535 Pastor John W Davis way designation Act of 2024 Bill 25- 535 would symbolically designate 14th Street Northwest between Galla and Hamilton streets as Pastor John W Davis way John W Davis was born in Gent Kentucky on April 7th 1922 Pastor Davis joined the ministry in 1972 he attended the Washington Baptist Seminary and graduated in 1977 serving as student council president for three years he graduated from the Liberty Bible College in Linburg Virginia in 1979 he obtained The Bachelor of Bible theology from the international Bible Institute and Seminary 1984 and in 1985 he was honored with the doctor of divinity he became the senior pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church in 1981 Pastor Davis taught weekly Bible study and held prayer service Faithfully Sunday school was a priority for him his ministry took him to hospitals nursing homes and prisons to visit and pray for others Pastor Davis passed away at the age of 99 making him one of the oldest active service P pastor in the region the street proposed for designation fronts Mount Zion Baptist Church at 14th in Gallatin streets Northwest designating signage on the street will serve as a reminder of Pastor Davis's dedication to the community next to the church he led for 40 years this legislation was introduced by council member Lewis George on October 3rd 2023 committee the whole held a public hearing on December 15 2023 committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to the legis ation without objection I move both the print and Report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion chairman council member Lewis Char yes very briefly just want to say thank you and your team for getting this um uh resolution done uh Pastor John Davis was a senior pastor at M Mount Zion Baptist Church um in Ward 4 from 1981 until his death on September 21st 20221 uh at the age of 99 years old he was still serving hard War for community and serving his church Community um as Pastor uh one thing that is noted is just that he welcomed everyone to his church uh specifically those who were may have been suffering from substance abuse issues he welcomed them into his church uh he also created a store in his church to feed the Homeless um and established so many programs for the Youth in our community um as a man of service of community a teacher a Mason a father a husband and a veteran um our work for is is is honored to honor John P Davis for his service um and this designation is just a small acknowledgement of the significant debt the district owes to the life and service of Pastor John Davis thank you thank you council member is there any further discussion hearing none again the vote will be on both the print Report with Le for staff all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any no votes the OD have it unanimously Madam General council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is madam secretary's the record complete once the report is filed mam budget director does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does is there a fiscal impact there is not the objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting the next and final measure for markup in the committee the whole is Bill 25559 entitled the blue and white marching machine machine way designation Act of 2024 bill 25559 would um symbolically designate a Street Northeast between North Carolina Avenue and 17th Street as blue and white marching machine way the location spans W 6 and seven and is near Eastern High School Eastern High School was established in 1890 Eastern has occupied its current building at 17th Street in East Capital Street since 1923 the school has long been a pillar of the community providing education and fostering a sense of Pride among its students the blue and white marching machine which is the school's marching band was officially formed in the mid 20th century and quickly gained reputation for its musical prowess and dynamic performances over the years the blue and white marching machine has become an integral part of Eastern High School's identity representing the school of various events parades and competitions the band has consistently demonstrated excellence in both music and marching earning accolades and championships throughout its history Beyond its musical achievements the blue and white marching machine has played a vital role in fostering a sense of community and camaraderie among Eastern High School students instilling discipline teamwork and a strong work ethic today the marching band continues to be a source of Pride for the school and the broader Washington Community show casing the talent and dedication of its students the committee print was amended to extend the boundaries of the dedication from North Carolina Avenue all the way to 17th Street where Eastern is located designating signage on this street will serve tribute to the hundreds of band members past present and future who have marched and practiced on these on these blocks on a street this bill was introduced on November 3rd 2023 by council members Vince gray and Charles Allen and joined by seven other council members the committee of the whole held a public hearing on the bill on December 15 2023 commit has received no testimony or comments and opposition to the legislation without objection I'll move both the print and Report would leave for staff to makes technical conforming and editorial changes is there discussion chair council member Allen thank you Mr chair um very excited about this and I know my W seven colleague is as well Eastern High School was located in w six for a long time until redistricting moved into w s but it is a special place to both Ward six and seven um and this stretch of roadway is where that the marching machine uh performs practices brings Community together um in music and celebration and I'm really excited about this as well as um appreciation for our anc's that also brought this to us and helped make sure that we pass this legislation so I know the whole Community is going to be excited about seeing this uh blue and white marching machine way designation and seeing those signs go up thank you Mr chair uh thank you council member Allen Is there further discussion council member gray and U welcomeing and saying thank you for the work that's been done make this happen I know we're all happy to see this uh coming to pass and uh I am delighted to be a part of it thank you very much um Mr [Music] chairman uh thank you council member gr there's no further discussion we have the um a print and Report before us with leave for staff all those in favor by Voice vote say I I I opposed I don't hear any no votes uh the eyes have it unanimously mam General council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is mam secretary is the record complete is filed Madame budget director does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements yes it does is there a cost there is not uh thank you without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting I will turn now to measures from other committees uh members will remember that uh we cannot debate with questions may be asked the first three measures were reported out of the committee on business and economic development chaired by council member R Kenan McDuffy the first is pr25 d520 people's Council Sandra mavu fry confirmation resolution of 2024 council member McDuffy thank you chairman PR 25520 would confirm the reappointment of Sandra mavu fry as people's Council for a term to end on June 13 2027 Miss matu Fry's current term expired in June of 2023 and she has been serving in a holdover capacity since that time you may recall that in December of last year the council passed emergency legislation extending the holdover period beyond the statutory 180 days which was due to expire in mid December to ensure that there was no vacancy in this position while the committee and the council took up this nomination resolution miss m Wy served as people's Council since 2011 she has capably led this office through significant changes in the energy and utility industry the committee received many letters of support on behalf uh of her continued leadership she's a member of the DC and Marilyn bars she is a graduate of how University in Antioch law school and a war five resident with that I moved that the resolution be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting thank you Council McDuffy are there questions from [Music] Members Madam General council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes it is madam secretary's record complete yes it is I'm supposed to ask the budget director but resolutions don't have required FES correct without objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting the next two if there's no objection will be considered together they are both confirmations related to the Washington Convention and Sports Authority board of directors pr25 d571 uh Brian Kenner confirmation resolution of 2024 and pr25 d572 alen bubis Confirmation resolution of 2024 council member McDuffy thank you chairman PR 25571 the Washington Convention and Sports Authority board of directors Brian Brian Kenner confirmation resolution 2023 will confirm the reappointment of Brian Kenner as a public member with experience in Economic Development the Washington conventions and Sports Authority Board of Directors for a term to end on May 16 2027 Miss Kenner has both private and public sector experience in economic development in this region he's currently the director of external Affairs for Amazon where he leads policy and Community engagement efforts for the company Nationwide before that Mr Kenner served as deputy mayor for planning and economic development for the District of colum District of Columbia under mayor Bowser who was initially appointed to the Washington Convention and Sports Authority board of directors in 2019 Mr kener received a Bachelor of Arts in biology from the University of Iowa and a masters in public policy from Harvard University he's a resident W one proposed resolution 25572 the Washington Convention and Sports Authority board of directors Alan buis confirmation resolution of 2023 will confirm the reappointment of Mr buis as a public member with experience in tourism for the was convention and Sports Authority Board of Directors for a term to end on May 16 2027 Mr buis operated Linens of the week which became one of the largest linen supply companies served in the hospitality industry he sold his business more than 10 years ago but remains active in the district's hospitality industry he has served as a member of the Washington Convention and Sports Authority board of directors since 2007 he is a Washington DC native and received his bachelor's degree in industrial management from Georgia Institute of Technology he is award I resident with that I uh would ask for support of the two resolutions and move uh those resolutions and ask to be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow thank you Council MC Duffy are there questions from Members mam General councel are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration yes they are I'm secretary uh are the records complete for each yes and fiscal impacts aren't required correct no objection these measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meetings the next two measures were reported out of the committee on transportation and the environment shared by council member Charles Allen if there's no objection no be considered together they both concern appointments to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority board directors PR 25567 would confirm Richard Jackson uh PR 2-56 uh is the Keith Anderson confirmation resolution council member Allen thank you Mr chairman as you noted I'm gonna be moving these two in Block the committee on transportation and the environment considered these proposed resolutions to name Richard Jackson the director of the Department of energy and environment or doee and deputy mayor of operations and infrastructure Keith Anderson in his private capacity as a DC resident to the DC water board of directors these measures were introduced at the request of the mayor on December 12th 2023 committee held a hearing on January 18th 2024 and these two proposed measures were unanimously approved by an additional meeting of the committee on February 14th DC water is governed by a board of directors of 11 principles and 11 alternate members six board members must be District residents appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent to the Council of those six one must be the doe director or a cabinet level officer but no more than four may be District employees or officials doe director Jackson is not to fill the an unexpired term to end on September 12th 2024 led by the departure of Tommy Wells director Jackson is highly qualified for the board having served at doee since 2008 and worked in various roles where he has interfaced with DC water on a host of issues and initiatives most recently serving on the DC flood task force and facilitating D's role in The District's lead pipe replacement efforts director Jackson is a retired Naval Submariner his extensive professional experience that is both timely and applicable to the work of DC water including hazardous waste and toxic substances management and Environmental Protection monitoring director Jackson will be able to apply his vast experience and expertise to this new board role as we work to make the anacosta river swimmable and all of our waterways cleaner and sustainable for years to come and deputy mayor for operations infrastructure Keith Anderson is nominated to fill an unexpired term to end on September 12 2027 as a principal member of the DC waterboard Mr Anderson will serve in this capacity as a DC resident rather than formally as a cabinet level District government official however like director Jackson Mr Anderson has the requisite expertise and experience to effectively serve on uh the DC uh waterboard having ay led the predecessor agency of doe as director from 2012 2014 in certain other capacities including chief of staff and deputy director of the energy Administration and chief of the energy affordability division deputy mayor Anderson has also served in several notable capacities including DPR and dgs and the as the interim deputy mayor for planning Economic Development Mr Anderson's experience creating leading and sustaining many of the district's environmental and sustainability programs during his tenure as doe director and as a former member of the DC Water Board of Directors makes him uniquely qualified as he is intimately familiar with the board's operations and its mandate Deputy Mayor Anderson has also served on many professional boards and committees including the principal staff committee for the US Environmental Protection agencies Chesapeake Bay program as its former chair the DC sustainable energy utility Advisory Board as former chair and the board of directors of the National Association of State energy officials so with that Mr chairman I ask these measures be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow thank you council member alen other questions from Members council member Lewis George uh thank you um one I wanted to say I've been impressed with Mr Jackson's leadership and willingness to creatively solve problems in the last two months um as the member of the committee on Transportation Environ me I look forward to continue to work closely with him and his team on protecting residents health and achieving the district climate goal um I also wanted to note um glad to support Mr Anderson who's a proud W for Resident during his confirmation hearing um one thing he said that stuck out was that the district's residents deserve the highest quality drinking water uh the cleanest rivers and the most effective utility providers in the world um as a member of the committee on Transportation envirment I look forward with with working with him to achieve those goals um as far as a question goes as we look forward to achieving a lead free DC um there as we know we still have lead pipes in our city and there's no acceptable amount of lead uh in our water especially as it relates to Children um uh chairman Allen I was wondering if you could speak to sort of both of these candidates commitment um to an accelerated leadfree DC and replacement of lead pipes thank you council member um I don't want to be in the position of speaking for them but as I have worked with them um I have found that both of them have understood their respective roles within the DC government and then the way in which DC water must move forward uh as my committee members know we also have legislation that we are looking to move forward later this spring uh that I think will bring even greater urgency to this and I full well expect to partner with DC water and these two members as new board members uh will have a role and responsibility to keep that accelerating uh to make that leadfree replacement across the city awesome thank you thank you council member further questions from Members mam general counsel are these two measures leading technically sufficient for our consideration yes they are M secretary's record complete yes M budget director no fiscal impact statements required because there resolutions correct no objection these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting uh that's going to conclude the business for this committee the whole meeting uh we will set up uh within five minutes 218 uh the time is 2:13 this meeting is adjourned I'm not I'm no and Andrew says he doesn't want to full yeah we have eight votes on the Safe [Music] Harbor there several people are just they don't want they do not want service Fe I'm calling to order this meeting this is a regular monthly meeting of the of the Council of the District of Columbia if we could have order in the chamber please we always like the enthusiasm uh but we need order in the chamber uh this is the 21st legislative meeting of council period 25 today is Tuesday March 5th 2024 the time is 2:22 in the afternoon and we are meeting in the council chambers I don't remember if I said that a minute ago room 500 uh the meeting is also being broadcast live on Council Channel 13 and on the council's website www.dc.gov uh we always begin our legislative meetings this is going to be a little bit of a challenge but we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence that's members on the de as well as in the audience uh for reflection Madam Secretary would you please call the role council member Allan here council member bonds here council member freuman present council member Gray here council member Henderson here council member L George here council member McDuffy here chairman Mendelson present council member nil here council member Parker here council member Pinto present council member Robert White present council member Tron white council member trayon white Mr chairman you have a quorum uh thank you m Madam Secretary uh we have the secretary's report of committee filings I'm going to recognize the chpo Tim council member McDuffy thank you Mr chairman I will move the wave the reading of the secretary's report it's been a motion to wave the reading of the secretary's report is there discussion on the motion to wave the reading all those in favor say I I I I are there any opposed I just have it unanimously we also have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals and I recognize it Trio Tim again Mr McDuffy I have I have a question about the um the secretary's report I don't know if you want to go first though um time please proceed Council madoo thank you Mr chairman um I am have a question about the referral for B25 d737 which is the general contractor licensing Amendment Act of 2024 it's referred to the committee of the whole but there is no indication in the bill what agency is implicated in the licensing mean which means it could be the department of buildings or the department of licensing and consumer protections it adds a new license category to chapter 28 of title 47 which is largely though not exclusively the purview of dlcp as an example the bill is introduced adds a new section after real estate licensing which is handled by dlcp so I asked that you would review that referral please uh yes we'll do that uh if you want to send a memo that would help but I understand what you're asking the bill was drafted by my staff so I have some familiarity with it and we work closely with the Department of buildings on it but that doesn't mean that I won't look at the referral thank you sir yes thank you councilor McDuffy yes thank you chairman I moved away this reading of the secretary's report of introductions it's been a motion to wave the reading of the report is there discussion uh by a Voice vote all those in favor of the motion to wave the reading uh say I I opposed uh the eyes have it unanimously give me just a moment here we're going to turn to the consent agenda in a moment are there any changes to the consent agenda I'm not hearing I'm not hearing I'm not seeing any changes to the consent agenda all right well uh we have the consent agenda before us with no changes or we'll have a roll call vote on that Council marado yes council member noo 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 Tron white yes council member trayon white votes yes counc member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member Freeman votes yes council member Gray that yes okay council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member LS George yes council member LS George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman mson yes chairman Mendon votes yes Mr chairman there are 13 yeses uh thank you Madam Secretary the consent agenda is approved unanimously uh we'll turn to the non-consent agenda and the first measure is the restaurant revitalization and dram shop clarification Amendment Act of 2024 Bill 25- 56 Council McDuffy thank you uh chairman as we uh consider this measure for its second and final vote I want to remind my colleagues why uh this restaurant rization legislation is so necessary um there's a narrative out there that the hospitality industry has bounced back in the district of Colombia with growth in revenues employment and sales tax collections but the reality of the situation is that different sectors of the hospitality industry have had different recoveries fol service employment which the office of the Chief Financial Officer reported at 53,6 for December 20123 is still below the 56,500 jobs reported in late 2019 19 and while sales tax collections have recovered from restaurants year-over-year even the office of the Chief Financial Officer acknowledges a large part of that is likely due to inflation which ultimately strains restaurants and consumers I want to review some of the information from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics about the DC restaurant job market that I shared last month po service restaurant employment has dropped sharply between May and November 2023 full service restaurants and DC at 1,300 jobs a decline of 4.4% in the same six- month period in 2022 food service restaurant employment grew by 2,000 jobs a 7.5% increase looking at the same six months from May 2023 to November 2023 in the DC suburbs full service restaurant employment is rising the DC suburbs added 2,000 full service restaurant jobs an increase of nearly 3% what we do has consequences and I'm not talking about uh rest operators profits I'm talking about jobs the next bill we consider creates a Hospitality training program uh in DC jail because we know that not only do restaurants employ more women more people of color more res residents without a college degree than other sectors but it also employs more returning citizens what good would a training program be if our policies kill the very jobs that those returning Citizens need upon re-entry a few more numbers for you before I uh we move to a vote this is taken from a survey of DC restaurants and consumers last fall you'll hear some folks say restaurants just need to increase their prices well nearly all 96% of restaurants have increased prices since the outbreak of the pandemic by an average of 16% even after these increases 75% of restaurants are less profitable today than before the pandemic with the profitability down 34% restaurants reported that they were paying on average 25% more in wages I'm not going to get to the end of this statement because it's going to see see my three minutes a lot of time but I do want to say the bill that we're considering now doesn't fix everything it does not change how restaurants and consumers navigate service charges although I recognize that some amendments offered today may try to clarify aspects of that this bill did not take that up because the issues are complex uh just another without protection restaurants are struggling already to find business models that work for them after initiative 82 and post-pandemic shifts in consumer preferences and ultimately this matter needs to be resolved in a way that does not exacerbate the competitive disadvantage that exists between the district restaurants and those in nearby Maryland and Virginia and so I would ask um uh that we have support for this measure and I'm actually going to be moving an amendment today Mr chairman to require that actually no that's for the next bill so I would ask for support of the measure I know there's some amendments that our colleagues want to move uh we have the measure before us this would be the engrossed version uh council member fuman do you have an amendment thank you very much chairman Mendelson um my my goal in this process is to ensure that to the extent there are service charges it is very clear to the consumer the worker and the restaurant how they're being used and I think a very important component of that is so that the consumer will know how much of the service charges used to pay base costs and how much of the service charge is used for compensation over base cost over the applicable minimum wage I tried to map out a way to do this that I thought was fair and calibrated uh over time in the i82 context I think that I'll spare the audience the 10 minutes of description of all the mechanics of what I'd proposed but i' underscore what my goal was in this and I'm going to try to achieve that goal through the process of amendments that the other amendments that are be put forward to the legislation including trying to put off the day where we really consider how we structure these things to another day but for now I'm going to withdraw my Amendment and see where the discussion takes us and how we can get to a good Fair clear resolution on this question of service charges for all the players thank you uh thank you Council fuman uh there were um three amendments that I circulated uh the first amendment that I circulated um the first amendment that I circulated which says amendment number one uh would amend section 10A of the minimum wage revision act um by repealing that provision section 10A of the minimum wage Act This concerns a tip reporting portal it was required by the 2018 tip workers fairness Amendment act it has not been created by does despite pre repeated promises from does that it is forthcoming uh and it would soon be out of date because the tip minimum wage is going to go away uh so this amendment would repeal that provision I do want to note that what I circulated um simply said section 10A of the minimum wage act M minimum wage revision Act of 1992 DC law night 9248 DC official code 32-10 9.01 is hereby repealed in its entirety in general councel asked that it say add a new section 204 to read as follows and the citation would be to DC code 32-10 9.01 a that's fairly technical uh but that's part of my amendment I move the amendment is there discussion not hearing any uh by Voice vote all those in favor of the amendment say I I I are there any opposed not hearing any the amendment is unanimous do you need this uh the Second Amendment which is labeled amendment number two recirculated a little while ago because something was added to it um so what this amendment does is it creates a safe harbor it says that um it amends the licensing code title 47- 2908 um to say that a business license under this section May impose as a percentage of sales a service fee of not more than 20% provided that the type and amount of the service fee that may be charged is prominently disclosed to consumer by the following means one directing disclosing directly disclosing verbally or by sign language as appropriate the feed to a consumer before the consumer places an order two clearly and prominently disclosing the fee on all menus and on the business's website if there is a website and three clearly and prominently disclosing the fee on signage in the establishment reasonably visible upon entry to The Establishment the disclosure accurately describes the purposes of the fee including by explaining with specificity how the fee will be used or distributed including if applicable the proportion of the fee distributed to employees and the business use business uses business uses of any service fee collected from diners exclusively for the business uses any service fee collected from diners exclusively for the purposes disclosed what I circulated a little while ago adds a a new paragraph that speaks to because we hadn't thought of this uh where there may be for instance a banquet and therefore there is a contract and typically the service fee is more than 20% so the new language would be a business licensed under this section May impose a service fee of more than 25% when such fee is included as a term of a written contract negotiated between the business and a consumer for services including banquet services and there is a con conforming language that beginning says accept this provided in paragraph two and that paragraph two is for the um contracts uh so that's the amendment that I'm U moving uh this revised version was circulated a little while ago I um intentionally said 25% although what was circulated said 20% so I move that is there discussion Mr chairman um when is it appropriate to bring an oral amendment to that well let me recognize counil noo first thank you chairman okay um chairman I'm speaking today as the chair of the Committee on Public Works and operations which has oversight of consumer protection we sh this amendment is not simply a reference to the cppa it's a carve out I understand the problem this is trying to solve but on principle I think that a carve out of an entire section of the E of the economy for the consumer Protection Law sets a horrible precedent this language is inconsistent with the current guidance issued by the Office of the Attorney General restaurant patrons should have the same rights as any other consumers including understanding exactly what they're paying for I absolutely sympathize with businesses that are being challenged by lawsuits but this has long-term consequences to address what is a short-term legal gray area as one of our colleagues said earlier the ogag has the tools to go after restaurants for deceptive practices but if this amendment passes their ability to do that will be drastically reduced thank you Mr chairman I do not support this amendment I will I'll speak to that um later council member fuan thank you very much Mr chairman as you know um I think a very important element of this is that this disclosure not simply say that the the dollars are going to employees but say the extent to which those are base costs and the extent to which their compensation over and above the applicable minimum wage that's what the consumer wants to know that's important I think for the workers so I would propose an oral amendment to your your paragraph B um the disclosure accurately describes the purposes of the the fee including by expl explaining with specificity how the fee will be used or distributed including disclosing the portion of the fee used for base operating costs and the proportion distributed as as compensation above the applicable minimum wage and I I would hope that you would accept that Amendment as a friendly Amendment uh before I agree to it um what is your thinking with regard to the verbal disclosure so the the amendment that is the amendment that I moved requires three disclosures one directly ver disclosing verbally to the feed to the consumer before the consumer places an order so that comes from like the weight staff and then second prominently disclosing the fee on menus website and then um the fee on signage so is your expectation that the weight staff would go into this detail I I I think that if it is printed on the menu and it's on the website that that satisfies the clarity that I'm talking about uh I have no objection to this is there objection to council member Fan's Amendment not Mr chairman can you repeat what the request is is it to essentially strike the oral no disclosure no or it's what's just been circulated what's been circulated I council member fuman referred to it as oral Amendment I'll wave the piece of paper around so we realize said we actually have it written uh that would be the amendment and I'm saying I don't have an objection to this after council member fuman asked answered my question regarding what's expected of a server which I think was I sort of interpreted that as maybe the server referencing the menu pointing out service fee look at the menu okay uh I have a question so when we say uh explaining with specificity how the fee will be used um are we just merely talking about base wages versus restaurant operations or are we requesting a percentage breakdown as was being proposed before council member fman I I think to the extent that the the the restaurant is using it for two things for base wages and compensation above that being specific about it requires saying what percent is used for what and what percent is used for the other okay I also would uh council member Allen given what you said about would this be required in the oral um disclosure maybe the way to get at that would be to say that any written disclosure must specify these things that way it it's clear that it the the server doesn't have to go into that level of detail but it's there on the menu and the written disclosure and it's there on the website in the written disclosure yeah I don't feel like doing more drafting uh I think it's clear from um the discussion here and I would note council member Parker that proportion is a little bit looser than the word percentage but it's to get at like half of it's going to the server um so if there's no objection Mr chairman council member Allen not objecting I do I had just talk Council about this this language we're trying to create Clarity we're trying to create Clarity for our restaurants for the attorneys that may be involved any of the suits coming up so while our discussion here will create the legislative record that the intent is the written disclosure I would ask you to think should we just put the word written between the and disclosure just so that we create the clarity that I think will likely be needed there's no objection council member fuman all good thank you council member alen you're thinking faster than the rest of us speak for yourself well you didn't say anything so he'd already thought of it I'll accept an apology I'll take one too uh all right so the if there's no objection the amendment to the amendment is council member fruman's with the word written added so it's the written disclosure accurately describes the purposes of the fee um M Mr chairman um are we still on this amendment before I say it's accepted yes Council um I would like um to have a clear understanding for the public as to how this um process will be handled administratively as it relates to the accounting of the service charge as we've collectively been calling it and I'd like to hear from um council member fuman as to how that will be handled how so to the extent that that there was a challenge that a restaurant was not appropriately Distributing the the service charge dollars I think it would be pretty easy to verify because what you can do is you can figure out how much has the restaurant charged in service charges that's a thing that their books can push out pretty quickly and then how much have they paid over the applicable minimum wage to their employees and that will tell you the the proportion that is going to employees over the applicable minimum wage and you can see if the claim in the disclosure has been complied with and and so um the employee payout is what we are most concerned with in this amendment as opposed to the restauranter having the ability to use this service charge amount for any business expenses when under this amendment if the if the restaurant tour said all of the service charge is used for base costs then I as a consumer would know that's the case and that the the employees at the restaurant weren't getting any compensation above their minimum wage that would tell me what I wanted to do in terms of gratuiti um to the extent that the the restaurant tour is sharing that service charge with the employee they can spell it out and their employees can hold them to it counc B yes well thank you thank you thank you um if there's no OB ction Mr Ran's Amendment will be accepted it's accepted we have the amendment number two from me and council member pinto and bonds before us as amended Is there further uh yes there is further discussion council member Henderson um thank you Mr chairman um so this amendment is a little bit different than the amendment that um was proposed by you about a month ago it didn't include the cap on service fees at 20% prior um I know that we're going to have a larger convers well I was hoping that um colleagues would be interested in a larger conversation about service fees as opposed to putting it right here um I think for most people when you see a 20% service charge you assume that is automatic gratty you are not assuming that you are expected to tip on top of that one of my concerns with us um imposing a cap on service fees is that we are will have the feeling that we have already determined this is the end of conversation and so restaurants who don't currently have a 20% service charge might include it we don't know where that money is going and I feel like by doing this as an amendment without allowing for service workers um or restaurant owners to have an opportunity to publicly weigh in and build a record is a little bit um I think we might regret this in the future I think often people talk about it in terms of restaurants you sat down you had a meal but I've been to bars where I didn't order food I ordered a drink and then you get a 20% service charge on that and then people expect that you're going to tip on that and so your $113 cocktail has now balloon to $20 pretty much before you even had an opportunity to sort of determine the last bar I went to there was no predisclosure of a service charge before I went and ordered you know my rum and coke or whatever ever it was it just that's what you order I didn't ask for a menu I didn't need to so I think we I feel like I know the service charge issue is something that folks want to deal with I think 20% is high but if we're going to do it I feel like everybody needs to understand that the vast majority of people are not going to tip on top of 20% and everybody needs to be comfortable that we're essentially going to be phasing out tips if we do this and so with that I was okay with the Safe Harbor language but this addition of the cap on 20% unfortunately cannot support this amendment thank you council member Robert White uh thank you chairman and in a similar vein um when you go to a restaurant the price you pay for food is not the price you pay at a grocery store that's because you're already taking into account services uh salaries the cost of gas to get the food to the restaurant everything else um and when when people go out to eat they just want to know how much the food costs um and that's what we need reflected on the menu right now we are creating a Frankenstein of regulations on service fees sort of signage where that signage has to be what it has to look like the words on the menu what you have to tell people when they sit down uh how regulating how those fees can be used and this isn't the end of it we're going to have to keep regulating it um as opposed to just moving away from service fees and telling us how much the food costs uh this is not Clarity for restaurants this is not Clarity for consumers and by codifying this we really are making the practice of service fees permanent which is not the direction we should be going um so I I think this is the point at which we pump the brakes and say let's step back not just pass more and more regulations to try to fix the last ones because then we're going to do that again it it gets worse from here it gets more messy from here this is the point at which we pump the brakes and I think we've got to separate the service fees from the jam drram shop uh legislation uh for sake of uh restaurant owners for sake of customers who go to restaurants I think this is the point at which we say no we're not trying to make service fees permanent and and we start to roll this back so I would encourage us to take this part out of the Bill thank you chairman oh thank you council member council member Parker thank you Mr chairman I appreciate the concern over the appearance or in effect incentivizing restaurants to enact a service feed I would implore us to consider that without this addition of a service feed cap in effect what we are allowing restaurants to do is to imp apply any service fee at any amount um and I think an exchange for the benefit of exempting a portion of a restaurant sales by way of the service fee from their rent calculation a cap on service fees is fair uh there has been negotiation around what is the right number I would agree we should have more robust discussion around it uh I will tell you some within the Restaurant Association wanted it to be much higher than 20% and so that 20% number is in effect a compromise but I worry that if we strike this from this amendment and for some reason this doesn't pass today we could see some restaurants given that we're likely to pass the underlying measure apply service fees at 22% 25% and there will be no measure or method for us to stop that so I would encourage us to pass a cap and have more discussion around what is the right number if 20% doesn't all right system out check one two thank you um I want to just uh say this for the record as I think about initiative 82 and just the whole conversation about tip wage workers uh and and I got mixed reviews when I went to uh restaurants from management and workers and depending on what size restaurant I went to some people wanted to keep their tips because they were making more money and some people just wasn't getting equable wages I think that was the basis of this I think it's taken on a whole different nature as we think about the unintended consequences of these bills uh and I think that we want to one uh be clear with the consumers on what they what we are paying because I I I don't even know I I would rather for the money to go to the to the worker than to the business but as we know uh as the price of food goes up as uh restaurant owners have to uh pay workers Equitable wages which they by law supposed to been doing from day one um we we wouldn't even be here so I want to be supportive this of this chairman I I just want to know what have you been hearing from the businesses because it seems like they didn't agree with it they agree with it about this cap and would this cap uh be a tool to help them stay in business to continue thriving because you know all of our businesses especially our hotel and restaurant industry is under attack in the district and we want to keep them open no is it possible that you guys un check one two there we are thank you um so chairman what I wanted to know from you because I heard from representatives from the Restaurant Association that said they were uh not in support of this uh so just want to hear from you what are you hearing uh from them as we think about uh getting to our attended goal to make sure the services uh people are receiving equable wages but and also our businesses can stay open uh we've been working closely with uh representative of the Restaurant Association now the association doesn't represent every single restaurant in the city but it is the Industry Group for restaurants and uh the language here has been reviewed by them and is okay with them I wouldn't say that they're enthusiastic about it but um uh the cap the 20% cap was a number that was discussed with them and they're okay with that I added the amendment uh the change that is part of this amendment with the banquet where there's a written contract I want to emphasize where there's a written contract it's negotiated so that is 25% that was worked out with the Restaurant Association I did want to note that I got a text and say they we are good with this uh councilman white so all right thank you um I'm GNA speak to this in a minute but is there anyone else who wants to speak on this council member Allen thanks Mr chair um I had two questions actually to make sure I understand as I'm reading through this um the first is around service fee and setting the cap at 20% so I I'm not going to name which restaurants but in just the last week we've gone to two different restaurants where at the end as I got my bill one had a 4.95% fee the receipt did not say service fee it was a some type of operational fee uh it wasn't my taxes it wasn't the food but it was just about operational fee um and another had a 5% kind of search charge um is the intent and is it clear that the service fee in other words does a restaurant have to use the words service fee and no more than 20% or could a restaurant put in operational charge uh I think we've all seen receipts before that just say Wellness fee um is the intent that that is inclusive of all fees or is it only something list his service fee uh the intent is that it's inclusive of all fees but there's another way to get it that to answer your question and that is this amendment is a Safe Harbor restaurant complies with this then any suit against them would be dismissed immediately a suit for violating consumer protection Practices Act um so if um if they W if they really want to be careful they would probably name it a service fee but I would say the intent is it includes all fees okay um I think it's important because this is absolutely going to be impacting litigation that we are as clear as possible and that our legislative record is incredibly clear on this second question I have is around I guess what I'll say almost from a I think one of my colleagues talked about this from like a reasonableness side of this to say that the type and amount of service fee that may be charged is prominently to Consumers the following means directly disclosing verbally or by sign language and I might suggest do we mean American sign language as appropriate the fee then clearly and prominently on the menus and then clearly and prominently on uh uh entrance and their website if there's a website and their website so I understand if I sit down at a at a table I've got a menu and I have it in front of me and I guess it's not too much that the weight staff would say after they tell me about the specials for the day and by the way we have a 20% service fee um I do think there's probably a distinction though for folks and councelor Henderson talked about this like if you're going to a place where you're just purchasing a drink often times you're actually even look at a menu is the expectation that a bartender for every single Ser service they do they're going to have to say before they take your order and we have a 20% service fee well Mr an on your eighth drink you're probably they probably tell you for the eth but for the first yes that they the the staff would have to verbally in every order they take every first order yes every first order from a customer yes and do we think that is a is that a I don't know that I'm questioning is that a reasonable expectation that we think that that's something the staff's going to be able to do and how much when it's on that's why we have the other disclosures as well no but it's it's all of them right I realize that yes it's not or I gotta do all of them yeah so just like they ask me now they don't usually ask me this at a bar but they ask if I have any allergies yes so they would say and we have a we have a a service feed they could point to the sign the sign has to be prominently displayed that'd be an easy way to do it is to have at the bar Over the Bar a sign that says service fee it'll be used in the following ways and then the weight person says to you when you order a beer by the way we do have a service charge is explained on the signs disclosure made I I totally understand the in writing the signage on my menu on my website I I'm questioning if that's a a realistic expectation of every staff member for every order be it at the table or at a bar that they would be able to do that I don't I don't know if that's that as I said to council Tran white this leg ation this language in particular has been around I think since version one a month ago and the Restaurant Association has been okay with it the language here the bulk of this language on page one of this amendment was actually drafted by the attorney general or the Attorney General's office so um that's the disclosures that's why it's the three kinds of disclosure that's why we're making it clear that um the written dis closure has to be a bit more detailed that's why we're saying that there has to be signage I think it's pretty easy for a weight staff to Simply point to a sign and say we have a service charge that's the disclosure I um and I we're over our three minutes but I I am concerned about the staff being able to manage the verbal interaction every single time and in particular I'm thinking about like it's one thing when I go to a restaurant I sit at a table and I'm actually having a conversation with the the staff that's helping take my order right I would expect I get asked about the allergies everything else right Council white is favored so his mic is still working so uh I will say that I'm just concerned from like how manageable it would be for the staff to be able to to have that and and I'm I guess I can even draw a distinction between my table service and a different you know and I'm ordering a different space I'm just concerned from managing that expectation the written expectation I totally get on a menu on my website or a signage that's a lot to ask I think of the staff that gives me pause York C require I know I we're required to record our meetings so let me answer your question and then I think what I'm going to do is to recess while we get this technology fixed um I understand what you're saying I frankly think that the burden on weight staff is not that great because after a couple of customers it just becomes routine it's not a difficult disclosure in terms of the verbal disclosure um it's acceptable to the industry I don't know what else to say here I will add this that um I'm finding this amendment super interesting because I'm trying to negotiate people who hate fees and want more disclosure and want less disclosure and no fee and more fee and a caps and if there were in caps I support this if there no caps I would support this but I won't oppose won't support there our caps and it's just interesting so Mr chairman if I can ask one quick question I know as long as the microphone is going it is working for the objection as long as the microp working when I'm talking to a lot of my local my local restaurants and my smaller spaces um I think they are generally supportive of this amendment I will say that I I am hearing from them that that piece around they must disclose verbally to every order that that gives them cause and that is the from a just pure managing this perspective and I don't know if you're willing to take that piece out but that I think gives people pause especially a lot of our smaller businesses where it's just a handful of of employees and um I think that's that is just a concern of mine okay Mr chairman I don't think it'll work to take it out trust me there'll be some other folks who will then have objections so Mr chairman um is there anyone who has not spoken council member Parker so let me just say the next time the system crashes we're going to recess for about five or 10 minutes until then we'll keep going council member Parker I wanted to speak on council member Allen's point and I agree uh you will recall I brought up concerns over over the oral disclosure I support striking it um for the reasons he mentioned but it also strikes me that we accepted council member F fruman's Amendment which means that weight staff would have to orally disclose with specificity how the fee would would be used and so we're raising the bar for what would need to be clo disclosed Orly um and I think we clear a lot of this up by just striking that from the amendment altogether uh let me recognize council member council member Nido and then council member Robert White thank you chairman I just want to speak to the discussion about what oag has said on this I know you had indicated you worked closely with oag on the language that's before us today my understanding is that they concur with that however they do not support any cppa carveout they do not agree with the intent of this amendment for ogag to intervene in private litigation or defend private companies against lawsuits because it isn't something that they do for any industry thank you the language that I said was that the what I said was that the language on page one before my Amendment on Banquets and council member Fan's amendment was almost identical to what oag drafted I see Council Robert White uh thank you chairman I just want to reiterate that all the things we're trying to regulate here around service fees how much they can be where they have to be disclosed how they need to be disclosed um what they can be utilized for uh really is creating a mess and no um restaurant workers are going to get more tips because of this some will get less because see people will see a 20% uh service fee and they're going to say that's that's enough enough in addition to to my bill so there are so many downsides to this I strongly recommend that we vote no on this amendment and that we strike this provision of the bill so that we can clarify uh this provision that is going to affect thousands of workers and tens of thousands of consumers uh this this is the point at which we take a better Direction chairman uh so I plan to vote no on this and and uh we'll work with my colleagues to make sure we strike this provision thank you um all right I think everybody who's asked to be recognized has been recognized uh I'm going to start with this I'm going to take my three minutes um if I were to move to strike or offer to strike the verbal would there be any objection to that are you speaking for the members uh because if there's no objection to it then I will um move to strike the verbal which is the I AI B1 AI there's no objection then it is struck uh the second thing I want to say is this um I kind of noted this a minute ago and that is there is an underlying of tension if you will in the discussion because there are some members who do not want a service charge at all and I don't know that theoretically that's a bad position but that's not what's before us and I think I said this in the breakfast if we want to go in that direction it's a much more complicated and complex discussion because we would basically have to ban service fees and what industries that does that affect and actually how does that affect the restaurant industry so without going there we're then dealing with this amendment this amendment is is intended to be a safe harbor nothing more it's meant to say that if a restaurant is providing disclosure about a fee if it wants to have a fee uh if it provides disclosure then it is immune from being accused of an unfair or deceptive trade practice that's all it does um the um I already spoke with regard to the attorney general council member Nido did add as well uh I think I'll leave it at that so if there's no further discussion we have the amendment before us uh by a Voice vote Mr chairman could we have a roll call vote please are you asking permission I would like to request a roll call vote Mr chairman um It's a Wonderful proposal I got you Mr chairman you do unfortunately yes I do this meeting is rough no it is thank you let me be clear before you call the RO uh the amendment we have before us is amendment number two at the bottom of the page where it talks about negotiated contracts instead of 20% it says 25% twoth thirds of the way down the page the paragraph that says B has been amended by council member fruman's Amendment which was amended by council member Allen's oral change suggestion and the paragraph that's B1 AI has been which is verbal disclosure has been struck so that's what's per for us a point of clarification chairman okay so if we pass this amendment then we are keeping service fees is that right I think that's getting into debate and not clarifying the amendment well if if the if if the amendment fails we have a path to not have Serv no we're in a roll call so I don't think we can go there point a Clarity chairman the clarification has to be concerning what you're voting on that's what we're trying to ask go for it I'm not sure we're voting on your Amendment yes or Matt's Amendment no Matt's Amendment council member Fan's amendment has been incorporated into the amendment number two uh please call the RO councilman Maron yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes counc member fan yes council member gray no council member gray votes no council member Henderson no council Henderson votes no council member Lis George no council member Lis George votes no council M McDuffy yes councilman McDuffy votes yes chairman mson yes chairman Mendon votes yes councilman NATO no council NATO votes no council member Parker yes council member Parker votes vot yes council member Pento yes council member Pento votes yes council member Robert White no council member Robert White VES no council member TR right no M TR right most no Mr chairman you have seven yeses and six and six NOS uh the amendment is approved the third amendment that I'm moving let me just a moment yeah the Third Amendment which I'm moving together with council member bonds and council member Pinto which was circulated yesterday it's very similar in fact it's identical to the amendment that I circulated a month ago what it would do is it would accelerate the implementation full implementation of initiative 82 which is scheduled to be implemented incrementally uh every year until July 1st 2027 this amendment would change that accelerated so that it's fully implemented July 1st 2025 the um I'm going to speak to some of the arguments against this but I want to say that the reason for this is that the restaurant industry as represented by the Restaurant Association has said it would be far easier for them if the Band-Aid is ripped off at once rather than this incremental torture of changes every year which requires adjustments to each restaurant's business model now I say that recognizing that I don't fully understand the economics of running a restaurant and my understanding is that most restaurants kind of do it differently from each other uh but generally there is a complaint that these incremental increases is very difficult for them so this would it would delay the increase this year but then next year 2025 it would be fully implemented as opposed to waiting another two years another benefit of this is that workers over the three years would get approximately $112,000 more in income um so those are the advantages that the workers would get $122,000 more it ends the pain of this incremental change in the economic model for each restaurant year after year until 2027 the biggest argument I have heard against against this and I will just put this UPF front I've said this over and over again is that folks who said they don't trust the council or more particularly they don't trust me and uh I don't know how many times I can say and I've have said it in writing that I will not support I would oppose any effort to repeal the initiative we've been through this twice the initiative has been adopted the issue here is accelerating it which is a good thing because I dare say that if I don't understand the economics I would say most people except for a restaurant tour don't understand the economics and the restaurant industry is represented by the Restaurant Association believes that this is advantageous to them even though it means $122,000 more per worker over the three-year period uh now I mentioned the trust issue I don't know what else I can say there the amendment I believe has the language specifically that um says that uh um to be clear I have no intent to restore the tip minimum wage in the future and would oppose any such Mischief that fight is over but the industry wants that end date to happen sooner that is in writing uh the other point I would make because I heard this discussion or said raised at our breakfast was that the legislative drafting uh you know this was an initiative we shouldn't amend the initiative um well legislative drafting by initiative is not and should not be Sacro San and I will cite as exhibit a medical marijuana which was adopted by an initiative and Rewritten by the council in 2010 or 2011 because it was not well written and I don't think anybody is complaining that we got it wrong other than of course we're trying to fix things in light of the Congressional writer um even this initiative 82 which had its start date as January 2023 we've already amended because we did not think that that start date being like what one month after the initiative was went through the approval process that the initiative um should start then so initiatives the purpose of the initiative was to eliminate the tip wage the the initiative proposed to do that by 2027 this amendment would accelerate that to 2025 I think that we the government have been have been a bit um we've been hard on the restaurant industry and if they want the Band-Aid ripped off and they want it ripped off in 20125 we should do that instead of continuing with a process that includes the service fees is just torture for everybody but you know I expect we'll have a roll call vote on this I'm inclined to do a Voice vote and the eyes will have it um so I expect there'll be a roll call vote and members can say whether they want to help restaurants and workers get $112,000 more Mr chair um why are you giving me that um so we'll have a vote and we'll see where people stand council member Allen thank you Mr chairman um and looking back on the the amendment we just did it's been a while since we had a good 76 vote so um I know the that alignment throw some people off looking at that one but on this one um Mr chairman I absolutely do take you at your word that you are not seeking to revisit that uh down the road and so I know you've said that and I know uh you want to make that emphatic you put it into the writing I just want to make sure for the record I do trust you on that I do not support this amendment though um we've talked about the restaurant industry and when I talk with a lot of my smaller operators my smaller businesses they do not agree with this they are hustling and working hard to be able to have this be spread out over the many years and from an operator perspective they believe that staging this out incrementally is tough for them already but they believe that is a way in which they will be able to survive and keep growing their businesses and so when I listen to my restaurant industry I do hear a variety of voices there are absolutely some restaurants that say let's go with this approach and they would rather do the one-ear delay and then bring the whole amount on but I think that our smaller businesses are the ones that are the most vulnerable to the the market pressures and they don't want this and so I don't support that I also think for our workers going A Year Without that increase is also something I don't hear from workers that they want so I'm listening to the voices I think of the workers and of many of the small businesses and operators that don't think this is the right approach so I am not going to support this amendment today but I do want to make clear because I can hear the passion and your voice I do believe you and take you at your word uh and I want to make sure that's clear but I don't think this amendment is the the right thing to do thank you Mr chair uh thank you for that uh further discussion council member Lewis George thank you chairman um I I do think we have to mention the initiative and I do think it's this is completely different from the initiative we did on marijuana um when in November 2022 when 74% of DC voters voted for the uh District Columbia tip credit elimination act 2022 also known as ini 82 people didn't just vote on to give tip workers the full minimum wage they also voted on a very clear timeline for the change to be implemented that was a part of convincing some people in the conversations that were happening people were like you know what actually I can get with this because of this timeline um and so moving up this timeline contradicts with the majority of DC voters approved through initiative 82 um and I think yet this this amendment despite being well-intentioned similarly imposes the council's will over what DC residents already approved and we should not go down that path again um it's also worth emphasizing that stakeholders are not United behind this idea that restaurant industry requested it but several restaurants have told me other council members have their restaurants and their Wards so it's different among the wards but have told us that it would hurt them and this um is supposed to help tip workers but tip workers have come to us and asked us not to pass this amendment and so let's stay the course on initiative 82 and continue supporting our chip workers and our restaurants it's not either or supporting both um supporting workers is supporting restaurants um I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and let's not go down the road again of overturning the will of the voters thank you thank you council member council member fruman thank you very much chairman mson um I to my initial reaction to the rip the bandaid off was concern about an effort to overturn i82 and I I completely accept all of your pledges that that's not a thing that we're going to do but since then I actually have I've heard from a bunch of restaurants who say please do this but I've also heard from a lot of restaurants saying please don't do this and a lot of workers saying please don't do this because of the Havoc it could create in the marketplace if if imposed too quickly part of what I was trying to do in my amendment was look at a way to buffer that but that's not going to happen but it's not about a trust issue it's about con it's about the fact that a timeline was created and if we go away from that timeline what's what will be the impact in the market and so I'm not I'm I can't support this amendment and hope that um that it won't go through I am I just will use this moment to say I'm G to have one more formal oral Amendment about taking out Section 102 in the bill but that'll come after we finish this Council thank you chairman just to reiterate the words of other colleagues moving up the timeline here literally undermines the will of the voters because the initiative pretty much was only a timeline the language voters saw in their ballot was 97 words long 49 of those words explain how it would gradually eliminate the credit if this amendment passes many businesses that would not survive a sudden increase would have no other choice but to close and I hope we aren't so naive to think that if we pass the bill with this amendment we won't immediately have the finger pointed back at Council when our smaller restaurants fail every minimum wage increase we've done or probably any minimum wage increase in the country has been phased in this is the best policy practice and there is no reason for this to be any different thank you chairman I do not support this amendment thank you council member Robert White uh thank you chairman um I I do also want to clarify as council member Allen had I I I completely believe that you uh don't have any intention of undoing the the will of the voters here um for for restaurants that want to accelerate the timeline they can do that um now uh I like some of my colleagues worry about the restaurants that cannot accelerate the timeline and I want to make sure we're not doing something that's going to harm uh smaller restaurants I I think this is a time of great pain for for restaurants I think they're they're trying to figure it out costs have gone up um and and many aren't able to survive this transition we have an obligation to make sure they can uh but it's all of them the small ones too um and I'm not convinced that the this change won't have a dire impact on our smaller restaurant so I won't be able to support it but for those that can accelerate the timeline uh I hope that they will thank you chairman uh thank you council member white there's no further discussion uh we have the amendment before us chairman I request a roll call vote please mam secretary would you call the RO council member Parker no council member Parker votes no council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White no council member Robert White votes no council member Tran white no council member Tran white votes no council member Allen NOP council member Allan votes no council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman no council member frean votes no council member gray oh council member gray no council member gray votes no thank you council member Henderson no council member Henderson votes no council member Lewis George no council member Lewis George votes no council member McDuffy council member McDuffy votes no chairman Mendon yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member n no council member n votes no okay so that's three NOS I'm running Mr chairman there are two NOS sorry two yeses no not correct sorry I'm running around today Mr chairman there are three S's and 10 NOS the amendment fails council member fuman did you have an amendment Mike that that was me that was not the microphone's fault my final amendment is to strike Section 102 of B uh 2556 beginning on page five line 93 through line 108 and what this is about about is that section of the bill creates has the has the the material about the rent calculation and the thing about that is it's not that I don't want to help restaurants it's I want to have rules of the road that before we we do something like this so under the way in which it sits now A restaurant could have a 20% service fee and keep all of it for the house not none of it going to the workers and why then should they get a change in their rent calculation we I think we should pull this out I think we should step back I think we should think about what kinds of rules of the road we want to have here before we give out benefits in the in this sort of way so I say take it out and we come back to this and revisit it I know it's council member White's night nightmare that we keep revisiting it but I think where we are right now we haven't solved it and we shouldn't include an incentive to begin imposing service charges so I'd ask that we take this section out CH uh give me just a moment please right record I was responding to Ma I was uh if we could come back to order here um let me say that uh apparently we're having some problems with the power to the audio and so I'm going to propose when we're done with this bill that we recess and that we go to 412 where apparently the power is more reliable so if we could have order please um council member fuman you presented your Amendment uh probably a few members have forgotten what you said maybe you want to take a minute to just summarize what you said and then council member McDuffy will be recognized okay thank you very much so the amendment is to strike Section 102 from the main Bill and that's the section of the bill that creates the carve out for the rent calculation for service fees and I think what that does and council member Parker actually alluded to this before is arguably creates an incentive for restaurants to begin imposing service fees which I don't think we should do at this point I'm all for finding ways to support restaurants and I actually could support as you may know from The Proposal I made exempting things from the rent calculation and frankly from sales tax if they followed rules of the road but we don't have rules of the road so I think until we have rules of the road I don't think we should be creating an incentive in the scenario that we have now A restaurant could have a 20% service charge and all of it go to base cost none of it to the workers and in a setting like that there's no rationale for keeping that out of the rent calculation so let's take that incentive out let's come back to this another day and try to figure out rules of the road around service charges council member McDuffy so so I would ask my colleagues not to support this amendment this amendment and this this whole discussion frankly about service charges is taken on a life of his own um and it was not what was intended when we crafted this bill uh this Revision in particular that he's seeking to strike with this amendment was designed to provide relief to restaurants um who are still struggling as a result of uh the pandemic and and other uh challenges within our local economy it does not incent and it's not intended to incent restaurants to start having service charges to be clear I don't like service charges just in case you were wondering this was intended to speak to situations where leases were in place pre pandemic it was designed to speak to situations where leases were ambiguous on the point and where pre-pandemic leases or existing leases were silent on this issue this provision would hold but if I if you are an owner of a a building and I'm a restaurant tour and I would like to have the service charges that I charge not including in the rents you can say no and you can negotiate to include the service charge or not so this is not designed to incent restaurant to start having service charges and I want to be clear about that this provision was designed to address uh situations where leases that have been negotiation negotiated did not speak to this issue it was designed to provide some relief to restaurants uh and I want I just wanted to make sure that we were not conflating the issues that we heard earlier around service charges which I think are important for us to discuss debate and at some point address perhaps even more than we did through the amendment but was not designed and I don't think it it is written in a way that should should incent restaurants to start using service charges so I would ask people my colleagues not to support this oral amendment can I can I just say you're not recognized yet council member Nido yes chairman um I just wanted to briefly uh offer my support for the amendment I don't have any additional remarks if nobody else wishes to be recognized second round counc thank you very much so the the rationale for why service charges would be exempt from the rent calculation is that when they were tips they weren't part of the rent calculation but now if none of the service charge is the equivalent of a tip then why why would we do that because it's just base cost so I think we if we have rules of the road about how much of it needs to be compensation above M the applicable minimum wage the rationale works but just as a blanket service charge that might all be used for costs I don't think it works so I think we need to get to rules of the road I'm I I don't know that there needs to be an enormous amount of debate on this we differ on it but that's that's the way that I see it council member Allen I mean yes council member Allen thank you Mr chairman um I am gonna encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment uh this is language that's been uh in the committee print so it was voted on by the full committee we've had first reading where we voted and approved this and now we're at the second and Final reading I think striking this language at this last hour um is not the right approach here I think we absolutely need to include this language in the legislation and if someone wants to introduce legislation to go before the committee to make further alterations all for it um this has also been I think one of the provisions that's been not well described out off the DI like this this is language that has been very focused on the least relationship between a restaurant and the and the building in which they are located um and so I think that um this is necessary and it is needed and I think the language strikes the right balance to be able to make sure that when we talk about the ways that restaurants operate in terms of what gets calculated as a part of their revenue for purposes of rent which feels like we go down a rabbit hole once we start kind of talking through that this is actually very narrow in its scope but it is Meaningful for the restaurants that have that relationship with their uh with their property with the property owner of where they're located um so I would really urge my colleagues not to support this amendment to keep the language in that the committee worked on this council's already voted on and if there are and it sounds like there will be future legislation to keep working on service charges and I think that would be an appropriate place to introduce legislation but there's been a lot of work done by the committee and this Council uh and I would strongly recommend we don't strike this at the last minute thank you Mr chair thank you council member if there's no further discussion we have the amendment before us uh by a Voice vote all those in favor of the amendment say I I I no no no I think Mr Chair by a Voice vote all those in favor of the amendment say I I opposed say no I don't know um the amendment fails we have the bill as amended before us that seems like a very long time ago Mr chairman council member n on the bill yes excuse me you would please allow me to okay Mr chairman pursuant to rule 349 I move to postpone the underlying measure of Bill 2-56 to the next regular legislative meeting on April 2nd the motion is debatable so if I could give some brief explanation if the intent of this bill is to give consumers and restaurants confidence and consistency I don't know how anyone who's listening to our conversation can have any kind of confidence we as a council need to sound confident first right now now we're drafting from the deis now if this motion passes I would also move an amendment to one of the emergency and temporary bills on today's agenda which I believe can be considered Germain that Amendment would add the drram shop and fair meals delivery language both of which do not have a fiscal impact it does seem there's consensus Among Us for these provisions and I want to recognize that there's a desire to get that done as soon as possible with that chairman I move to postpone the bill McDuffy uh I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment um and I I disagree with the characterization that we're legislating from the Das um the underlying amendment is actually something that the committee has worked on for nearly a year uh and I think uh that is something that should be noted and recognized by my colleagues this is not something that is happening on the Fly and even the Amendments that were um included earlier whether or not you're for or against them I believe had been brought up at the previous breakfast meeting uh and then move properly at this legislative meeting and so I think uh all those uh were properly considered uh today and and and propably properly voted on and so I I would encourage my colleagues that if there are additional issues that pertain to service fees that they would like to take up at a future date with a future Bill I'm open to one two three one two three and one two one two keep okay all right so I would there's my two one two one two one two two one2 M nice I know I I know where it's coming from but it was a little distractive um so sorry chairman it's actually chairman Pro it's coming from fourth it's a joke right I'll continue Bill yes yes so I'm GNA try this again um I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this particular um motion as this matter has been properly introduced discussed debated uh and the committee spent a significant amount of time on Crafting the underlying measure and even when it comes to the Amendments whether or not people were for or against them uh they were moved in proper fashion at least the ones that were Incorporated to the bill today so I would I would urge everybody to vote knowing this uh further on the motion to postpone uh I would I will concur with Council McDuffy who is the sponsor of the bill it came out of his committee uh that we not postpone it there's nothing further we'll have a vote on the motion to postpone all those in favor of the motion to postpone say I oppose say no no no uh the motion fails Mr chairman council member Nido it was council member Henderson oh I'm sorry council member Henderson I'm not looking um thank you I don't have an amendment I do want to ask a question for the record to council member McDuffy about the underlying bill um just for clarification so um there's Provisions in the legislation that deal with third party delivery um in terms of radius and um other restrictions um I I just want to I think I know what your intent is but I want to um ask you a question for the record in terms of whether or not council member McDuffy are you I'm listening okay multitest all right great um whether or not the restriction would prevent third party delivery um uh businesses from adjusting delivery services in times of emergency so for instance a blizzard um a hurricane uh an Insurrection would they still have to go uh it is it our intent to have flexibility there so that they don't still have to um deliver to the full radius in those times of emergency I appreciate the question I was actually going to address this I think when we brought up the emergency um measure but uh no the intent is to have flexibility it is it is um nothing this in the bill as intended restricts the delivery company from limiting availability when there is some sort of natural disas or other emergency thank you thank you Mr chairman uh thank you counc uh if there's nothing further uh we have the bill before us as amended and I'm thinking I guess we usually do roll call votes on Final readings so I'm looking at the assistant secretary the roll call vote is on the bill 25- 56 as amended council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray no council member gray votes no council member Henderson yesc Henderson votes yes council member LS George yes council member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes Council McDuffy votes yes chairman mson yes chairman mson votes yes council member R do yes Council R do votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pento yes council member Pento votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tron white yes council member TR votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes M Jim you have 12 yeses and one no uh the bill is approved uh we're going to recess long enough to move to 412 where we hope we have a more reliable sound system the time is 3:51 and we're recessed to Cil member gr can you comeand the zoom for me this is Marquez testing testing testing testing testing testing good afternoon everyone good afternoon everyone thank you for thank you for your patience and your understanding we are currently setting up room 120 for overflow I know it is pretty warm in here and if you'd like to go down to room 120 as an overflow room please do we are adding a few additional chairs but of course there additional chairs in here means additional bodies which means additional heat um so if you would like to go down to room 120 please do so the monitors will be on in room 120 as well and hopefully we are going to get started shortly great importantly the bread pleas isn't uh we are resuming this meeting just in case anybody's forgotten this is our regular legislative meeting for March the time is now 4:10 in the afternoon uh we have just completed our work on final reading of Bill 25- 56 and we will turn now to final reading on Bill 25- 345 the secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024 council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman today I am moving secure DC along with an amendment in the nature of a substitute the district has experienced a steep increase in crime and violence in 2023 we saw devastating 30 9% increase in violent crime and a 26% increase in crime overall in our city we saw 274 people lose their lives to homicide just last year the vast majority of these in gun violence residents are in fear across our city of carjacking thefts and falling victim to Crime this is not acceptable today the council has the opportunity to make the dis District safer and more secure with the passage of secure DC I am confident in the robust public engagement and collaborative effort that the committee undertook to get to this point and that secure DC will make residents visitors and businesses safer and more secure secur DC has over 100 different interventions in it things like methods to prevent Violence by creating grants for all of our commercial corridors by setting up a hospit ality training program in our DC jail that when folks come home they have the skills they need to be successful improving measures to hold perpetrators of crime accountable like having new gun violence offenses changing the definition of carjacking and giving judges more discretion to hold violent offenders before their trial methods to improve government coordination and services by creating an annual firearm tracing system by improving our 911 call center and data sharing not only within our local government agencies but between local and federal government this legislation was shaped and informed by thousands of residents and businesses across the city and by stakeholders and government Partners over during over a dozen hearings on all of the bills included in Secure DC Public Safety walks in all eight Wards Community meetings and forums and count count L meetings throughout the city I worked closely with each of my colleagues throughout this process and leading up to today to make many improvements and compromises to the bill and I really appreciate all of your partnership and focus on these important issues we're at a really critical moment right now in our city and I believe that these interventions today are thoughtful balanced and sustainable this work does also not and today there is a lot more that we all need to continue staying focused on when it comes to Public Safety um and I look forward to continuing that work with all of you so today I will quickly go over the amendment in the nature of a substitute which includes minor clarifications uh and three substantive changes I'll discuss for a few of the changes I worked with council member McDuffy to address concerns and changes that were made during the first vote the ANS adds a requirement that one of the council's representatives on the sentencing commission be a person who has been a victim of crime of VI of a crime of violence and who has a background in victim's rights or services this is in line with what the American law Institute recommends for sentencing commission membership and it adds some additional diversity of viewpoints and balance to the commission second the ANS adds additional detail to the study on pre-trial detention I will say that I still disagree with the general princip of having these changes Sunset and I'm not convinced that it's possible to produce the high quality study that we need given the time constraints that the sunset Clause creates but I really appreciate council member McDuffy uh working with us to respond to some of these concerns about a study and think that these are important improvements to provide some parameters on what that study will look at and the last change I want to quickly highlight is the criminal justice coordinating Council information sharing provision this is in order to address address difficulties that the cjcc has had with accessing the data it needs to conduct a study on youth homicide that was one of the recommendations from the gun violence reduction strategic plan I want want to again thank all of my colleagues for their engagement on this bill um and those who worked with me on changes and improvements with that I move the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024 uh thank you council member Pinto we have the amendment nature of a substitute before us I'm going to go down the list of amendments and the First Amendment we're going to consider is from you council member Pinto amendment number one great thank you Mr chairman so today I am moving one Amendment um to the overall bill that I think is extremely important Pinto amendment number one this amendment adds an updated provision on DNA collection to the bill and I wanted to separate this out so we can have a discussion with colleagues um given this amendment was a version of this provision was struck last vote the evidence is clear that DNA collection is a critical tool to solving and preventing cases of violent crime the accuracy of DNA also allows it to be used in cases to exonerate those who are wrongfully accused DNA evidence is a good thing for accuracy DNA is especially critical in solving cases of sexual assault which often hinge on DNA evidence sexual assault affects everyone but it uniquely affects women women are 14 times more likely than men to be victims of rape or sexual assault there's no objection thank you I think that I'm gonna need a bit more time um women are for 14 times more likely than men to be victims of rape or sexual assault and when the victim of a sexual assault is an elderly woman her as salent is much more likely to be a stranger it is for these reasons that all 50 states and the District of Columbia currently require DNA collection for those who are convicted of certain crimes for the purposes of adding that evidence to the federal DNA database which is known as codus it's also why 31 States and the federal government required DNA collection prior to conviction in certain cases it's time for us to join the majority of states in using this evidence-based policy that according to extensive research will prevent violent crime in the district and we know this works when California enacted its pre-conviction DNA collection law the average number of monthly hits that they got which is a match that can lead to proving a crime went up 51% given that Those who commit rapes and other sexual assaults are more likely than others to be serial offenders and to commit other violent crimes the timing of this DNA evidence is really crucial to solving cases of sexual assault and preventing more sexual assaults in the future let me just share one example of how this provision will prevent violent crime and sexual assault in The District in 2012 an unidentified as salent raped a 26 six-year-old stranger at gunpoint in the district DNA evidence from the crime was entered into codus but no matches resulted and the case went unsolved in 2014 two years later A man was arrested and charged with an assault with a dangerous weapon he was released pre-trial and in 2015 while his trial was pending he raped an 11-year-old girl using the evidence from the 2015 rape the police discovered that this was the same man who had committed the 2012 rape if after being charged in 2014 with this violent assault MPD could have run this man's DNA profile through kodus they would have discovered that it was likely him who committed the 2012 rape and we could have prevented the subsequent rape I understand and I appreciate my colleagues concerns with the prior version of DNA collection that was amended out of the bill at first reading I was very disappointed that this provision was amended out um because I think it's important but I moved a I'm moving a compromise Amendment today um in response to those concerns about the overbreadth of this provision we can do this while decreasing crime and preventing crime increasing the closure rate and by ensuring individual privacy I'm almost done let me just explain the differences uh quickly so under the updated version I moving today DNA can only be collected for those charged with a dangerous crime a crime of violence or certain sexual abuse misdemeanors DNA cannot be collected or added to codus until after a person is charged and a judge is determined there's probable cause this amendment would not allow for the collection or analysis of someone who is just arrested they would have to be legitimately charged with an underlying qualifying offense and for anyone who is charged with a qualifying offense and whose charge is later dismissed acquitted vacated or pardoned the district is required to automatically expunge that person's DNA profile this amendment includes a provision which closes a loophole um to ensure that the district can do this testing post conviction as well with that I believe that this moderate expansion of DNA collection with every Safeguard in place impossible will allow for the protection of privacy and Ensure that we can close cases and support victims and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment today uh thank you council member Pinto we have the amendment before so that you go over a bit in time but I'm going to try to be stricter on time going forward is there discussion on the amendment Mr chairman council member McDuffy thank you Mr chairman I'm gonna try not to rehash the entire debate of first reading but I did discussed this with uh my colleagues at the breakfast this morning and as I said then I appreciate council member Pinto's efforts to improve uh this section of the bill uh but it's really still not in a place where I'm comfortable supporting it today according to um council member Pino this amendment would still allow approximately 6,000 individuals to have their DNA taken without ever having been convicted of a single crime in the hopes and I emphasize in the hopes that this change may help solve a crime and I'm not sure if juvenile charge with these crimes would be in the addition of the 6000 figure or not I want to be clear that the case that she cites is an egregious case any violent felony is traumatic for the victim it's horrible for the victim's family and frankly I think it's horrible for the community as well but when we talk about this provision let's talk about what it really means for people in DC what it means is that the expansion of DNA collection before conviction will burden almost exclusively black residents we all know that in DC despite only being 47% of the population almost 90% of arrestes are black residents so I want to be clear and I think we should just call a thing a thing adopting this provision is authorizing the mass collection of black people's DNA many of whom will never be convicted of the crime for which they were arrested in according to the ceny commission for example for assaults with a dangerous weapon about two-thirds of people arrested are charged but only 35% receive a conviction of any kind and only 6% are actually convicted of that offense or more serious offense to me I view this through the lens of civil rights and and and I'm not willing to vote against my conscience even despite the changes that have been made and I would argue it gets down to a fundamental truth of who we are as washingtonians As Americans are we allowed to search people solely because we think they may have done something wrong that's essentially where we're getting and as I said during first reading I believe a fundamental tenant of our criminal legal system is that we are all innocent until proven guilty I felt that way then I feel that way today I appreciate that there have been modifications made but I am going to vote respectfully against this amendment memb time has expired further on the amendment Council Lewis George uh thank you I appreciate Council McGuffy um sentiments um I want to ask about the practicality of this and when uh usao reached out I also asked them and I have not been able to get sort of answers um and I and I wonder if you were able to so the interim director for DFS uh testified at the agency performance oversite hearing last uh I guess two weeks ago now uh that it currently takes an average of 69 days to process sexual assault kits um nine days longer than the statutorily required 60 day um with this expansion I'm a concerned that actually what you're getting to is we should we need to do a lot about our sexual assault cases and take them very seriously in this city um all branches of government um need to take sexual assault seriously and I am wondering if we're going to be actually hurting our ability to prosecute sexual assault cases by adding and expanding right here um there's already a 1100 sample backlog at DFS for codus right now which they're trying to contract out to get done but if there's limited Contracting capacity how could that possibly keep up with sort of the bread of this provision sure thank you so much for the the question so um the backlog of rape kits and uh what's going on at DFS is going to be moved through in the next several months because of the re accreditation that moves us to the top of the line um and that we will continue to urge that needs to be a priority and sexual assault cases are often prioritized within the system to make sure that the evidence is collected what we're talking about today is totally different it's a totally different system it's a totally different collection this is a database that just collects a piece of the D DNA not your name not your race not your background a piece of identifying information that can just be used to compare to other pieces of identifying information to get matches um but it's a totally different system than our rape kits and the backlogs that they're dealing with and as far as the changes that you've made to the provision because we talked through some of these changes um what as far as at the when will the DNA collection be collected at this point so under this amendment the DNA would be collected after charging and after a judge has determined that there's probable cause to move forward with the case so at a prob at a probable cause hearing yes most likely okay no further questions thank you thank you councilor leis charge counc member Parker then for me thank you Mr chairman um at the first vote I supported the amendment striking the DNA collection provision in part because of concerns that it was too broad in part because of when the collection happened at that time the proposal was for DNA collection at arrest and since what the amendment we have now is that the DNA collection will happen after charging and after a probable cause hearing and and to me that is persuasive um I also keep in mind that we're talking about those charged with violent crimes and sexual assaults um and I am sensitive and sympathetic to the fact that we're there's a chance that a large number of people that will not be convicted may have their DNA collected on the flip side there are a number of cases that might be solved uh with this collection um this would bring DC in alignment with I think some 30 plus other states um and I I think the there's a level of thoughtfulness and Nuance here that with this amendment that is very different uh than the original so I do plan to support this amendment uh because I think it will support the district in um solving cases or closing cases the last thing I would say I asked a question during breakfast what separates the district's collection of DNA versus uh the federal governments the federal government collects DNA as I understand it at conviction and this would allow us to collect DNA after being charged and someone had a probable cause hearing and so that Gap there exists a number of individuals that may po pose harm uh to communities to young people both for violent crime and sexual assault issues uh that I think we should take very seriously and so I just wanted to go on record saying I think this strikes the right balance where I did not think the original Amendment did uh and I do plan to support it thank you thank you Council M Parker council member fuman uh thank you chairman medicon so I I'm curious what when does fingerprinting happen how is fingerprinting used and when our fingerprints uh gotten rid of if there's not been a conviction and then also can you talk about the procedure of how the DNA test is done physically how it's done and when how you how it would happen at the probable cause founding what's the mechanics of that sure thanks for that so um fingerprinting is done upon arrest at booking and it is never deleted or expunged so that's a current system so this is much more uh safeguarded than fingerprinting ever is you're arrested you get booked you get fingerprinted and it's always on record there um procedurally it's a little more complicated to do this at charging as opposed to at arrest because the person's already at the station and that's when the people are but again trying to strike a compromise um it will be a a swab of the inner cheek and that information is entered into the system codus immed immediately and again it's just a piece of the DNA that's um it's like a series of numbers it's not anything about your name or your background or your race or anything like that it's just a series of numbers um and it will be entered right away similarly if the case is acquitted or dropped the person's pardoned it's deleted right away um and will be the district's responsibility to expunge that information uh thank you councelor uh further on the uh Amendment Mr chairman uh two minutes second round thank you Mr chairman I I just I I don't want to be the dead horse but I I I really feel like this is not the right policy decision to address what the District of Colombia is facing in this moment and when I when I hear people say this is like a fingerprint it is not and this notion that it is used like a fingerprint for the purpose of identification it's not and we shouldn't kid ourselves to believe that it's going to be used for that purpose it's going to be used to investigate people who have been arrested but have not been convicted at that point I'm not suggesting that everybody who's arrested and then release are not guilty of the crime they've done what I'm saying is we have a criminal legal system with process for a reason we have rights that shouldn't be infringed on we have a system where a lot of people of color already feel is suspect because it targets them in a way that it doesn't certain other communities and when I hear that 31 other states have done this what how is it helping in the cities that look more like the District of Columbia for example Maryland has done this what has it done for crime in Baltimore what is it done for crime in Prince George's County how many cases do you this a questions Fairman how many cases do you expect will be solved in the District of Columbia as a result of doing this council member VTO so a couple things there I am not comparing it to a fingerprint it's much more accurate than a fingerprint um but I know it's a different process than a fingerprint of course it's a different process to to swab um the inside of someone's cheek than it is to take a fingerprint we have seen major reductions so I I talked about California when we see the hits this is only allowed to be used for a very particular reason this is not allowed to be used for other broader investigations this is only to see if there are matches in a system there are very intense safeguard guards around who can use this information and for what m m no your time isman please your time is expired she was answering my question though Mr chairman all I want to say expired you had that Mr McDuffy in Maryland Mr McDuffy you're out of order I'm sorry but the time limits are s you had three minutes for first round two minutes second round Mr McDuffy Is there further on the amendment uh if there's nothing further on the amendment we'll have a vote on that I have a roll call vote mrman M secretary council member council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes no no council member Allan yes council member Allan council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George no council member LS George votes no council member McDuffy no council member McDuffy votes no chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes Council M noo yes council member noo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes Mr chairman there are 10 yeses and three NOS uh thank you Madam Secretary the amendment is approved the next amendment is by council member Nido thank you Mr chairman in our ongoing efforts to increase Public Safety we must take a balanced approach that tackles the complex challenges inherent in law enforcement one of those challenges lies in closing cases especially homicides which demands our utmost detention and effort back in November I introduced the case closure and witness support Amendment Act of 2023 a robust step toward enhancing mpd's capability to solve more murder cases this legislation aims to bolster our efforts but not only increasing the reward amount for Witnesses who provide testimony and homicide cases but also initiating a comprehensive study to assess the effectiveness of witness assistant programs in the district today's Amendment marks the continuation of that effort representing the second component of my original bill with the closure rate for DC homicides lingering at a mere 45% it's evident that we need to do more to encourage witnesses to come forward and the district must provide them the necessary support when they do therefore I urge council member Pinto to Grant my permanent Bill a full hearing this year to delve deeper into the issue of DC's case closure rates my Amendment today is straightforward yet crucial it would launch a comprehensive study to evaluate the effectiveness of the district's existing witness assistance assistance programs the study will delve into various facets including an overview of current programs and operations in DC an evaluation of witness relocation success rates for Safety and Security an assessment of service overlaps or gaps the establishment of recommended performance metrics for improved coordination between local and federal agencies a review of national best practices and policy recommendations for funding and program enhancements I worked on Crafting the study in coordination with the US attorney's office which is on board with the study and solicited recommendations from the the mayor the study is essential and we need it first while they're already witness assistance resources and victim support programs in the district which are coordinated by the US attorney's office there is no existing law in the books that establishes the program or its goals and responsibilities as a result we currently have no way of knowing whether this critical Public Safety need is adequately resourced it's like trying to build a house without a blueprint you might have the materials but you're missing the structure second before investing in any multi- agency approach to witness assistance Services it's imperative that we base our decisions on thorough research aimed at bolstering our success rates so yes another study is indeed warranted unlike other states DC's lack of statehood imposes a much more complex and overlapping system of agencies and offices with over 30 law enforcement entities functioning within the city's confines delivering services in DC demands a heightened degree of coordination and communication surpassing what might be expected under typal typical circumstances by strengthening witness cooperation and thoroughly evaluating our witness assistance programs we're taking significant strides toward enhancing Public Safety and fostering trust in our justice system so to my colleagues I ask for your support for my Amendment um and I am hopeful that it may be accepted as friendly by our committee chair thank you Mr chairman thank you council member Nido council member Pinto thank you um I want to thank council member Nido for working with us on this and I appreciate your focus on our Witness Protection Program um a couple of things I'll say here one I want to be mindful of not overburdening cjcc cjcc is an incredibly lean important entity that we all rely on their partnership for especially with our local and federal unique structure um and so we need to be mindful of that um but my larger concern here is around privacy for our victims and making sure that our Witness Protection Program is protected and so any information that gets shared with the public about how that program works and operates could undermine witness safety and so I'd ask that we strike uh the end of Lines 49 through 53 of this amendment so that we can have cjcc submit a confidential report to the council um but I cannot stress enough to this body how important it is to keep that report confidential because if somebody comes forward and they are participating in our Witness Protection Program they need to have absolute assurance that their identity will be protected and that information about where they are will not be found by their perpetrators um and so if we can do an oral Amendment council member noo to strike everything after the word public on line 49 so we'd strike and a publicly available version which shall exclude all the way through the word subsection oh yes sorry um yes so let me just read this aloud so that we're clear so we'd be striking um so the it starts off the cjcc shall submit to the council a confidential version of the report which shall not be publicly available or disclosed to a member of the public comma then this is the part that you would strike and a publicly available version which shall exclude any information that may compromise the safety of any person currently or formerly served by witness relocation and Assistance programs or that would otherwise divulge information deemed confidential by any of the entities identified in sub paragraph a of this subsection that correct correct um in what uh so yes I think that's fine I just want to make sure is there you know if there are recommendations that we think are important to public discourse how would we then make that available after the fact what do you suggest well I think that there is no way to protect the sanctity of the program by sharing all the details of how the program works this is also a federal program that is run by doj which creates other problems with with this but in terms of how we share it with the public I think after the Council receives This Confidential report um we can have a conversation if there are changes that need to happen some of those may be legislative and if there are legislative changes that would absolutely be go through a public process but anything before that is is premature and I worry could undermine safety for Witnesses and for victims okay thank you I I do want to clarify one thing which is that the bill is about the network of agencies that provide provide services like Department of Human Services so this isn't about the federal program okay so you're agreeing coun do to striking that language beginning on line 49 with the words and a publicly available version yes I am agreeing to that if the chair will accept it as friendly Cil Pinto yes I will accept this amendment as friendly uh so if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted hearing no objection the amendment is accepted thank you the uh next Amendment there two is from council member Lewis George amendment number one uh thank you chairman at this time I'd like to move my circulated amendment number one um my Amendment would maintain a threshold for felony death that is currently in law which is 1,000 um it would also apply the same total felony threshold when someone commits multiple thefts within the six month period I want to be clear my Amendment does not weaken or change any new Provisions in Secure DC aimed at retail theft which has been falsely stated repeatedly uh by the executive or any of the penalties that we already have in place cure DC includes the new organized retail theft offense proposed by the mayor which my Amendment does not change in any way uh secure DC also increases penalties for repeat theft offenses to be charged as a felony when they have happen in a six-month period and the total f file value reaches the threshold that is still in the bill and remains unchanged DC also has a unique shoplifting charge that has its own penal penalties that can be applied to retail theft and in current law DC also has a felony theft offense with a mandatory minimum of one year in prison for anyone who has been convicted of death three or more times even if all three offenses were misdemeanors that is what is in current currently in law the only thing that my amend Amendment affects in is DC's General theft law which applies to all kinds of theft not just retail theft there are only two versions of theft in DC law right now felony theft which is punishable up to 10 years in prison and misdemeanor death which is punishable by up to six months in jail yes that's right felony theft is currently punished up to 20 times times more severely than Mr meor theft and DC you get the same conviction on your record whether you seal a $1,000 bicycle a $10,000 piece of jewelry or a $100,000 speed bow felony theft punishable by up to 10 years in prison it would be even more unfair to add a $500 iPhone or jacket to that list we should definitely hold these people accountable for these offenses but making them face multiple year years in prison is not the answer even when people are not sentenced severely they still face a felony record that will hurt their ability to get jobs housing and Advance their life after being released a felony record is particularly destructive to the lives of our young people who may lose the opportunity to go to college or build a career that brings much needed stability to their lives and their families this will in turn have a negative impact on our City's long-term safety and here's the key truth a lower felony threshold does not actually deter or decrease theft how do we know Pew Research Center conducted an analysis of 37 states that increased their thresholds for Fel theft and they did it they did three years before and three years after so the subgroup could be a even group and they found that the the change had no impact on property crime or l larsy r m so we have I would like more time chairman without objection you're the maker of the motion thank you um so that is that so we have data that has already been studied by 37 other states we also know lowering the fing thresold would also make DC an extreme outlier compared to nearly every other state if we look just in our own DMV our neighbors Maryland and Virginia have felony thresholds of, 1500 and 1,000 respectively if we look outside of of of our region right now only three states three states have felony thresholds of $500 or less States Nationwide are raising their threshold not lowering it there is no doubt that the theft is a real and Urgent problem in DC that is hurting both our residents and our businesses and we need to confront theft in a ways that are actually effective I'm talking about strategic enforcement from MPD which has already begun cracking down on retail Rings which is also included in the bill addressing underlying causes of theft including poverty snap addiction Family Support truancy and so many other things and ensuring usao brings charges when MPD makes arrest chairman I'm I'm wrapping up the last part is what's not working in our system the US attorney's offices only file charges for 54% of all theft cases half of all theft cases are dropped this creates a cycle where people caught committing theft face no accountability and are incentivized to keep doing it over and over again so our problem is not whether theft is prosecuted as a felony or DISD demeanor our problem is that theft is often just not prosecuted at all that is what we need to address not ramping up penalties in an excessive way some argue that we should raise penalty to entice prosecutors to bring charges La often but that is a an IR not a responsible way to legislate criminal penalties any logical practical person could agree to that that impacts the lives of so many people and there's no guarantee that it will actually work chairman um I will here's my final point the the punishment should fit the crime not be based on what is appealing to prosecutors there are hundreds of death cases in DC in in the 50099 range every year in 2022 there were more than 800 incid reports to imity in that in that range charging hundreds more de resid with felties for lower level nonviolence deeply hurt our communities and contribute to mass incarceration in District and it does not work I ask my colleague this amendment thank you we have a three minute rule you are the maker of the motion I gave you additional time but that's why I'm cutting you off you were now five and a half minutes do that for when they were talking about yeah but not double the time so nice try I liked what you said are there com a discussion regarding the amendment House member Pinto thank you Mr chairman thank you so much Council M Lewis George um for your thoughts on this I guess as I think about where we are right now with theft the status quo is not acceptable we have people um Ram sacking our stores we have people stealing items just off of people on the street um stealing bikes and scooters and there is often very little if any consequence for engaging in this Behavior some have suggested that this could be charged as burglary but not all thefts involve burglary stealing someone's $800 bike for example off of a bike rack is not burglary right now that would be a misdemeanor theft which a maximum 180 days in jail but in practice usually leads to zero because of the way that it's handled in some cases it's difficult to prove that someone had intent to steal at the time they entered a store and if prosecutors can't prove that intent then they cannot get a conviction for burglary this gives them another option it also sends a very clear message to the community that this conduct is unacceptable we have to make that very clear that theft is not acceptable in the district I also want to note that this is not about trying to put people behind bars for stealing a cell phone for 10 years that is an outrageous example and I agree that that's an outrageous example but the sentencing guidelines how they treat this offense is AR range much closer to one to two years for almost all offenders according to public data published by the DC sentencing commission the average theft one sentence is 13 months of confinement even for offenders who have two or three or more prior convictions this this this is what we're dealing with with the current range so I I think it's again important to zoom back from what the theory should be on sentencing versus what we're actually seeing in practice in the district which is an unacceptable rise in thefts um affecting all communities in all eight Wards affecting our businesses and leading to this perception that it is essentially okay because there will be no consequence if someone steals and I think we have to send a really strong message that that that status quo cannot be tolerated any longer um if we could have order in the audience please um I'm going to speak next um I think council member Lewis George got it right um the issue with theft and the trends that we're seeing in the district in my view are mostly influenced by the fact that the arrest rate or police closure rate for theft is 6.1% as to 2022 statistics which means that 94% of Thieves are not arrested if we want to deter or stop theft then maybe we need to arrest more people not maybe we do need to arrest more people uh if um and then uh council member Lewis George cited the um prosecution rate of a 56% which strikes me as high but just going with that that means that of the 6% who are arrested um almost half are not prosecuted that's what would make a difference there is unfortunately when it comes to Crime the tendency to demagogue and I'm not accusing anybody here at this day of demagoguing but there is a tendency to demagogue and say I have the solution to crime we're going to make mandatory sentences we're going to make longer sentences we're going to make everything a felony the research is clear those are not what actually reduces crime now um we increased the penalty to $1,000 in 2009 if we were to take the rate of inflation against that then it would be if we' indexed it and I don't recommend we index but if we had then it would be $1,400 not 500 so I think that this is the the going from a, to $500 I want to say is going backwards but more accurately it's not what's going to make a difference it is the arrest rate and the prosecution rate that's what will make a difference so we should not be changing the uh the um threshold for felony uh but uh leave it where it is council member Robert White uh thank you chairman I think you you said it well that there's no way to get around the fact uh that there are already consequences for uh for theft of any amount um changing the the threshold uh to increase the sentences uh for thefts of lesser amounts will not change uh the outcomes the only thing that will change the outcomes is if prosecutions happen and arrests happen uh there's nothing stopping that today um and so we have to be very careful as we are looking at real issues theft is a real issue none of us uh want to see the stores in our neighborhood the people in our neighborhood uh have have their items stolen uh from us the answer to that is not longer sentences the answer to that uh is enforcing what we have uh now so long as we have such gaps in our 911 call center uh underst Staffing in uh our crime lab and uh low prosecution rates we're going to continue to have an issue with crime none of that gets to sentences all of that happens before sentencing so that's where our Focus has to be and we have to be very careful as we're navigating a very real issue in our city that we fix the problems but don't create new ones thank you chairman uh thank you council member white council member fruman uh thank you chairman melson um chair chairwoman Pinto I'm going to be curious you said what the range was for misdemeanor convictions misdemeanor theft I'm going to be curious what the range is for the felony convictions but before you answer that I guess I'd observe um this is one that I've grappled with because there is a big issue of people out there and one of the things that drove this was organized retail theft where people where groups were going into stores and they were taking a lot of of products and then doing it over and over again and that really is an issue but actually listening to the way you described it it strikes me that would be burglary because if it's organized retail theft and they go in in with an organized intention to steal from that store I think that overcomes the thing that you're talking about the jacket I've had you we've all had folks who have had a jacket taken but when that happens somebody comes up and threatens the person and takes the jacket that's robbery so I I have my gut is the kinds of things that are an impetus for doing this are addressable in different ways and so that gives me pause on this I I guess I'd note also that in the mayor's original proposal I don't think she changed it I think she left it at a thousand and so I have I have reservations about this but I also am curious as a matter of impact if the range for the misdemeanor theft was I think you said something like 13 months what is it what does that mean in the felony theft sitting sure thanks for that so no the ranges I was talking about are for felonies for felony theft one we're seeing an average of 13 months so for uh misdemeanor the maximum is a 180 days but most often in practice we're seeing almost no jail time um or you know much smaller than that but the ranges that I was citing are for felony theft one um I hear you on the example of the burglary I you know I'll share another example that just came to me recently where an individual's bike was stolen and he wasn't present and it went through the regular process and he was essentially told there's nothing that we're going to be able to do because there's no real consequence attached to this um I also do want to just note because I know we point to usao often as needing to charge cases um usao charged last year around 900 theft one and two cases and they did this in the overwhelming majority of cases where they had sufficient evidence from the police to charge so we will continue working with usao and the police to ensure that arrests and prosecutions move forward but I did just want to cite that that they are moving forward um on many of the cases that most of the cases that they have evidence for um but this is just a continued Gap thank you council member further on the amendment or ready for vote I think we're ready for a vote um a Voice vote vot call please I'm secretary council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member trayon white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member Bond yes council member Bond votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member Gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George yes council member Lewis George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendon votes yes council member Nadel yes council member Nadel votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto no council member pin votes no Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one no our meetings are public but it is not appropriate for demonstrations and it is especially not appropriate to laugh at a member the vote was a 12 to1 the amendment is approved uh council member Lewis George thank you chairman um at this time I would like to move my revise amendment number two which was recirculated uh at 2:15 p.m. today uh my Amendment would focus and improve the anti-mass provision in order to one provide law enforcement an important tool for preventing serious crime and two ensure that it's not used to wrongfully stop and harass people wearing religious headgear or exercising their first amendment rights um there is no question that Rong gers are using mass to Target our communities um and evade accountability for their actions by concealing their identities uh my Amendment preserves the original intention of the anti-mass provision and makes several improvements to it uh first instead of applying this provision to multiple broad ambiguous categories of criminal and civil laws and behavior my Amendment specifically tar targets the cries that we're most concerned with robbery theft burglary carjackings threat to bodily harm shootings and all dangerous and violent crimes as written the bill applies to everything from jayw walking to civil disab obedience to Illegal parking and civil or criminal offense Under the Sun as well as vague intimidation uh we know exactly what we are trying to prevent with this provision so let's be specific and more focused uh in that regard uh secondly my Amendment removes subjective language targeting anyone who uh and quotes intimidates uh to another person instead uses objective language focusing on an intent to commit a crime uh when we give law enforcement additional power to stop people it should be based on an intent to commit specific offenses not whether someone perceives you as intimidating using subjective language isn't an open invitation for racial bias and for black children in our city to be targeted even if they have not done anything wrong um third my Amendment safeguards our first amendment rights to protest and prevent uh other unintended consequence unintended consequences um I'm thinking about protesters marching another massive women's March uh or another black lives matter protest or an immigrant rally do we want to give federal law enforcement agencies an open window to crack down on protesters who wear masks I think we can all agree the answer is no uh we don't have control over how our laws are interpreted by federal law enforcement so we actually have to be careful about what we give them power to do as a result um and finally uh this amendment would be more effective at confronting crime committed by those who wear mask in two key ways it would make it easier for MPD to justify Reasonable Suspicion to stop a person wearing a mask based on their intent to commit a crime um and it would remove the requirement that the individual being stopped be on public property because this would actually prevent officers from stopping someone with a mask and they're in the yard of someone's private home which we've all faced uh unfortunately in a privately owned retail store or Drivin car that is private property um I think a lot of the debate around security DC is framed wrongly in my opinion is whether we should weaken or strengthen parts of the bill um may have finished chairman but this is not that this simply makes the anti-mass provision more effective more protective of our civil liberties um and more focus on the crimes we are trying to address um and it builds on the good work that council member Pento and council member Henderson and others have already done to improve this provision for these re for these reasons I ask that my Amendment be accepted as friendly or supported by colleagues thank you council member Council M Pinto thank you Mr chairman um thank you very much Council M Lewis George for this amendment and and for working with us on it I really appreciate your perspective and in strengthening this language and making sure that it is crafted in a way that can be narrow and that can ensure that this tool U to prevent crime is used carefully and so I will be accepting this amendment as friendly if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted hearing no objection the amendment is accepted uh we will turn now to four amendments from council member Tron white number one Mr wri uh thank you chairman uh this first amendment amendment number one will move to strike section 14 which will remove the requirement that officers name be withheld from the public in adverse action proceedings I think that uh police officers are sworn in and not regular citizens and we have to be careful that we don't give the public a perception that we're not trying to be transparent about what's happening with our officers uh there are a number of issues in the district and across the country in which police officers have done wrong is not all of them but there are some and the public have a right to know who they are and their badge number so it is my desire to get uh support on this because it it why are we hiding these officers um if he or she is found not to be any doing any not doing any wrong doing that that should be advertised as well but it's bad public policy and we've gone came a long way about transparency through body War camera footage and it seems like to me we're dialing back this uh bill in general is heavy uh leaning towards uh law enforcement and I think that we have to create a balance by making sure that as we uh make D DC safer that we are transparent and open about what's happening with our officers councilman white uh you circulated amendments yesterday afternoon that are linked on the agenda my understanding is you recirculated this amendment at 1:38 this afternoon how is it different yeah but I don't see any difference in the bill it was just recirculated there's no difference in the bill chairman my staff tells me it's not different and you are saying you don't think it's different correct correct okay all right Council rinto so I really appreciate what council member white is saying and I believe believe that we have to have a transparent and accountable Police Department we know that it improves Community Trust and we have to have a mechanism to ensure that when officers violate the law when they abuse their privilege um of service and they violate public trust in some way there needs to be accountability period and we have a lot of accountability measures in the law whether it's body warn cameras whether it's uh public view of footage when there's serious use of force um and public databases for this foilable offenses we treat the police department completely different than we treat any other public agency in the city appropriately because police officers carry a gun and have a different set of responsibilities but with that said when it comes to their disciplinary matters within the department um I think that we need to consider their employment rights as well to suggest that they should go through a adverse action hearing those hearings are open to the public if there is a victim involved in that engagement the victim is notified when and where the hearing is but the public at large doesn't need to have access to the officer's name until there is a sustained allegation and I I think that in a balancing of trying to do a lot that we do and we should do for police transparency and accountability this is one way to also um honor employment rights we would never suggest for teachers for instance that anytime there's an allegation for a teacher that it's completely made public with their name and all their information this is a a way to be balanced about it and unfortunately I I cannot support this amendment today um thank you Mr chairman I I wanted to ask a question um in terms of council member Pinto so I believe that um uh the requirement that the officer name and information and there be a public notice we passed that a couple of years ago um when you go on the MPD site now for adverse action hearings um up until February they didn't publish the name and the badge number um but they have done so for the February and for the March hearings do you know why they changed their action even though this has technically been law uh for I think at least a year at this point so as far as I've been told it was an honest mistake um but they have now corrected it and have started to put their names in badge numbers online Okay um thank you counc council member Parker I want to thank uh council member white for moving this amendment as I've said before we are in this legislation maintaining accountability for residents and we ought to do it for MPD as well uh I am looking at an example of a calendar of adverse action hearings and if we were to remove the name and the badge number for one case all that would remain is on February 23rd this case involves a member who was engaged in a domestic Incident That's the extent of the information that is provided by removing the name and the badge number we create a significant barrier to informing the public around potential Mis officer misconduct um and it's unnecessary I would also just stress that there is no reason for this no one can tell us how this direct action removing the name and the badge number improves Public Safety uh what it seems to me and I'm I acknowledge that uh the police Union may have made this request Andor police uh uh Chief Smith may have made this request um if they can give more persuasive rationale why this is important and we should undermine transparency and the right of residents to know what is happen happening for our MPD Force then they should share it but up until this point we haven't received that so for that reason I do plan to support this amendment I hope the council supports this uh because it would be a a horrible signal to say we are increasing accountability for residents while decreasing accountability uh for MPD thank you uh second round um first round council member F thank you very much one one of the things chairwoman Pinter that I'm curious about is there was a conversation about there's a lot of different things that might be at these adverse action hearings and some of them might be more routine employment things where the Public's right to know does not seem as compelling where others could be misconduct use of force Etc and I think you've said that in those settings the name is is made public in a different avenue I I and I wonder I I find the argument that there's a class of things that it doesn't make sense to be disclosed make that makes sense to me but then there are other things where the public has a right to know and I don't know whether or not we' fully covered those things by the public disclosures in other contexts I wonder if you could speak to that sure so the adverse action hearings are when the proposed discipline is termination so the process to go to the hearing that is public the hearing itself is public as I said if there was anything that the officer did that involved a victim um the victim is notified when and where the hearing is um but that's what adverse action hearings are we do have you know the deputy mayor for Public Safety and Justice will share information publicly when there is serious use of force um all of the information about these cases are foilable so it's not that it's impossible to find the name in the badge number it's that and kind of going back to councilor Parker's Point too it's about the totality of what we're dealing with so when we talk about how we can improve Public Safety u i I understand that this seems a bit attenuated but we have a police department that is down over 500 officers and when we talk to officers about Recruitment and getting them in the door we have different requirements and protections in DC than most other places in the country many of those are great things because we want an accountable transparent police department and in the series of a hundred things if this is one way um to say hey we're not going to have a public shaming session for an officer before they have been proved to violated their policy and be terminated um we we have to get recruitment up and we have to this is one way that we can support our police department and make sure that the over 3,300 police officers know that we support their employment rights just like we do with every other public agency further on the amendment Jim second round oh council member BNS thank you um chairman I just wanted to clarify what I thought um council member Pento um just shared with us that the adverse action is when an officer is reviewed for termination there's a question on the floor oh I'm okay I'm so sorry could you please repeat I was just curious I thought I heard you say that adverse action is when an officer is reviewed for termination yes that's right all right and so the um documents that we're speaking of the website that we thought we had um includes additional concerns am I correct the document we're speaking when we what what we're talking about this particular provision that you're proposing is it about the verse action that is up for termination or is it other kinds of things that an officer may be accused of so for this particular Amendment it's adverse action for officers who are up for termination there are a number of ways that we get information from the police there's a public database there's foilable offenses there is a broadcast and sharing of video footage when there's serious use of force um the adverse action hearing process is a kind of similar to a employment dispute um to determine whether an office officer should be terminated um and that's the offenses that we're dealing with here all right and so to me that's very serious and so this um report um this manifestation of the names of individuals our officers that are of determination it just seems to me it does make sense for the public to have access to that now it could be that we could look at it from the perspective of whether or not the action is action that they have taken against um other members of the the city um meaning us the citizens or it could be that it's anything that they have done and that's what I'm trying to understand I'm trying to understand um what what could and should be our preview of having access to this information I know that um probably the the police Union is hoping that we have no access whatsoever and but I am thinking that it does make sense for us to know when an officer is accused of uh crime or action against community so that's what I'm trying to understand uh further on this amendment Parker you just look like 30 seconds I just want to point out 30 second clock I know the analogy has been made comparing officers to teachers and and uh that we should protect officers rights uh it's worth noting that officers are sworn uh to their role and have the uh Power to take one's life and so it is not far-fetched to say we should hold them to a higher standard uh I do not think it's persuasive to compare uh officer adverse action hearings to a teacher's disciplinary action so I just wanted to point that out and I agree with council member bonds that this information especially if we're considering termination is is exactly the the time that we should notify the public of such hearings thank you council member TR wait second round yes I just want to give some clarity uh of the seriousness of some of these offenses and so we I gather some of the uh hearing uh notices for adverse action from the one I was a to recover was from 2022 um and I'll start with some of the high ranking officials you have a lieutenant uh accused of mishandling of seeg property you have a lieutenant of stalking you have a sergeant missuse of PD email you have a sergeant DUI Sergeant DUI Sergeant AOL a sergeant assault you have uh a detective negligent dis discharge of a firearm and this is a six-page document of 210 offenses um and so these are serious things so I don't want the public to think that this these are light offenses there was a note that uh we don't if someone fell asleep on duty uh that shouldn't be public information yes it is I've sent videos to the Chief and sometimes the command of people sleeping on duty that's that's a serious offense and out of all these uh allegations there were only one on this document from 2022 that was an officer sleep on duty and that was a detective thank you thank you council member council member Robert White first round uh thank you chairman uh most most of the arguments have have been uh said at this point and so I want to clarify something that I think bogged us down for couple years and moved us further away from progress the notion that appropriate accountability for police is not anti- police um and I want to make sure residents are never put into this position where they feel like if they're asking for appropriate accountability for law enforcement officers that do have the the power to arrest and take someone's lives that that is somehow anti- police it it is not um lawyers if they are disciplined that is public uh if if if I have a a a bega issue that is public if I commit a civil penalty uh my name will be on the docket in public if I'm arrested in charge my name will be public and I think we're holding police to an appropriate standard uh for the roles and powers that they hold and I also just want to be clear that this is not anti- police this is proac accountability and I think uh police understand that as well uh so I'm going to speak briefly to this or maybe not briefly I've been struggling with this issue or Amendment uh as I've indicated to members I had discussed with council member Pinto several weeks ago a number of accountability provisions and there was some back and forth between us and we um uh council member uh Pinto made considerable changes to the bill since the committee print to ensure a police accountability provisions um but this was one where she and I agreed that um that this change would not be made and so Council Tran white comes forward with this and when I looked at it I looked at the statute the hearings are still public uh there's still a requirement that the subject of the hearing is uh is given in the publication uh but you know council member Parker makes a good point that when we um publish our agenda we don't publish the bill title without the bill number actually we don't publish the long title without the short title in the bill number um and it's not a secret what uh these these hearings um so all this about is just having a little bit more confusion or a veil over a public hearing which if you think about it is kind of stupid now my understanding is that the genus of this comes from the fop one of my favorite org organizations because they have stood in the way of accountability and so I'm just thinking as I'm listening to the debate there was an officer this was years ago it's like number one on my list he was caught drunk driving he was on the wrong side of the road in Fairfax County pulled over drunk co-ed in the seat next to him half naked the next day she says he assaulted her and the arbitration process that the fop negotiated was such that when the chief fired this police officer who's good for nothing because he has no credibility could never show up in a court the arbitrator ruled that the well the victim was uh the alleged victim was too drunk to be a credible witness and so the police officer could not be fired or looking at another issue that the fop has a hard time with and I might go over my time and I'll try not to um and that was the 90day statute of limitations that was taken out of this bill early on I think it was taken out before the committee print I don't remember remember but in any event so we did a little bit of research on this 90day statute limitation that is discipline has to be brought within the 90 days something that the union has insisted on and uh we found out that there was a police officer who was arrested I think he was convicted of burglary not in the district in in Maryland and because the discipline wasn't brought within 90 days he couldn't be fired a burglar there was another one a car thief he assisted a friend right assisted a friend with stealing a car from a lot and I think he was uh did he plead he plad guilty Chief wants to fire him the disciplinary process that the fop defends this cop and so he couldn't be fired or DV abusers you know um it's not uncommon unfortunately and uh the cop beats up his partner throws her down the steps that was one of them camp be fired um there was one police officer who the fop defended who had been convicted of dealing in stolen property this is the process that the fop wants and the fop wants this this not the amendment but this provision that says no we're not going to have the badge number and name which is inconsequential as I said because the the these hearings are public so it's really hard for me me to stand by where the deal that I had worked out earlier um because this is just too this is just too tough to swallow which is a long way of saying that I'll be supporting the amendment further on the um Amendment Mr chairman hi did you want to say something council member pint I I just wanted to note the list of offenses that Council M white uh red I mean there were a number of there that were particularly horrible there was also misuse of email regardless of whether it was a terrible offense or an employment offense um all of that information is public the hearing is public this is just about saying do we want everyone in the public to know Sam Smith did that before Sam Smith has had had the chance to defend himself and that is a council member Pinto you have the floor thank you um and and I just remind people to take into account again not the theory but the reality that we have a police department that is losing officers every month and year I know we all hear from residents across the city every single day I know you hear it like I do that people want more police in their communities this is is not this is not going to solve that this is not going to solve that problem alone but it is important to recognize in the totality of the environment that we're creating that it does affect people's desire to come and join our department thank you council member Pinto this is not a participatory process this is the public is watching the council as we struggle with these issues if there's nothing further on the amendment uh we'll have a roll call vote council member Tron white yes council member Tron white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member Vons yes council member bons votes yes council member Freeman council member fuman votes no council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member L George yes council member LS George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member Nell yes council member Nell votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto no council member Pinto votes no council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two NOS at the amendment is approved uh council member TR white yes thank you um I have my amendment number two before us that speaks of face covering and mask I believe that the portion of the bill that speaks to face coverings and mask was too broad uh contrary to public belief I believe that people should not be walking around with ski masks on their face unless they're skiing um and I I want to go on record to say uh want to digress because I think that council member Janice L George uh covered a lot of the bases um but so as a result I'm going to withdraw this measure today and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure we are addressing um the schem as provision uh thank you Council so amendment number two is withdrawn amendment number three thank you chairman my amendment number three speaks to uh the drug free zones I live in a quadrant of the city where drugs is prevalent and have been prevalent for a very long time and a lot of what happens in these drug free free zones are already illegal it's illegal to sell drugs it's it's illegal to smoke drugs in public uh and so this provision of the bill is greatly concerning because I'm concerned that primarily black people will be targeted in these zones and if we're really serious about creating uh Drug Free Zones and getting to the core issues then it should not just be MPD that's addressing these Drug Free Zones and so this portion of the legislation would include language that ensure that our interventions Outreach information includes employment and school and skill training uh from Department Employment Services mental health services Behavior Health Services addiction treatment services and programs and individuals in drug free zones we it's irresponsible to say we have Drug Free Zones and don't have dbh working with substitutes um police is not the end all solution to addressing crime and we don't deal with the underlying issues they'll just be trying to rest their way out of the problem and we know since from history that this is not a solution so I look forward to getting support of my colleagues on this [Music] amendment uh thank you council member white council member Pinto thank you um thank you council member white I think that you rais a really important point that we have to do better as a city to get services to people who need them particularly who have substance use disorder and um use of drugs this drug-free zone policy is a narrow tool there are a couple of spots in the city that have become real hot spots of crime of illegal activity of weapon sales um and this empowers with a lot of safeguards that I worked with with a lot of my colleagues and especially thank you to council member Henderson for coming up with a lot of really important ideas to make sure that we have notice to the public of where these zones are that we have notice to dbh and to our uh health care agencies so that they know that this is set up that we have notice to the council um in advance notice to the public these are set up for 1,000 square feet it's pretty small area for a period of only 120 hours which is five days so this is not a Citywide huge change in policy this is a narrow tool um and so I think to to add all these requirements here is not the right path and I'll also just suggest procedurally the amendment seeks to change the definition of drug free zones in adding these requirements um which will have a cost which would make it so that we wouldn't be able to implement this in the emergency that we're moving today um and so for all those reasons I would ask my colleagues not to support this amendment with the recognition that we should all continue to work together to provide much better service to Residents in need across the city thank you council member uh Madam budget director is there a fiscal impact on this uh Mr chairman yes there is uh we don't know exactly how much it will be just given the short amount of time we have to determine these things but um it will have a cost and the cost will be determined by The Entity or entities that will be doing the Outreach for um um within the future Drug Free Zone um and sort of you know the ex the uh sort of the extent of that Outreach whether it's just a poster or if it is um social workers dbh social workers does outreach things like that thank you uh discussion on the amendment council member Robert White uh thank you chairman I want to thank council member uh trayon White for offering this amendment I I just want to um reassert what council member trayon white said it is already illegal arrestable and prosecutable to do drugs or sell drugs in the city and we we have areas uh in the city where uh open air drug markets are taking place um and we have laws in the books right now that allow our officers and prosecutors to address that uh so the idea of creating um drug-free zones when the entire city already is a drug-free zone I believe doesn't solve the issue and what I worry about this amendment is I worry about a narrative from the mayor or others telling residents in neighborhoods where they are seeing these open a drug markets and are afraid to go to the store well we can't do anything because the council voted this down and that's just not true we have real issues in our city public safety issues uh drug use issues we have real issues in our city and we need to do more than send a message we need to do more than sort of pass measures that sound good but don't have the substance to do anything at the end of the day if 911 is not answering calls if we don't have enough people collecting evidence if prosecution rates are low none of this changes but if we start to fix those things if we fix 911 if we have enough people collecting evidence if prosecutors enforce what's on the laws now things turn around tomorrow uh and so I want to make sure we stay focused on what's broken where it's broken and who has accountability for the parts that are broken uh so I look forward to supporting this amendment thank you chairman thank you council member further on the amendment council member Lewis George thank you um I agree with Robert and I obviously agree with Tron um I do think that this uh piece of the legislation is probably going to face some constitutional challenges uh and I think as a council we leave it as it is um and let the chips fall where they may as it relates to what it's going to what's the result the court is going to uh come to in relation to this and so I I I fall on it for opposite reasons and I agree with council member Robert White and council member Tron white um but I think we let it stand as it is um on its face and and face the challenges that I think it's going that are going to naturally come so thank you uh thank you council member uh I want to note um as a question was asked to me um so there's a fiscal impact and the way this is written is it's not distinguishable from the rest of the language regarding the drug- free zone so the effect of this is that uh this would postpone putting off the drug- free zones which of course might be fine for folks who oppose the drug free zones but if the council thinks that we need to be or council members feel we need to be responsive to those who are looking for Action this will undercut the drug free zone as one of the tools in this bill uh in addition I would note that the language is somewhat vague it says which should so it would be um a drug free zone could only be in a in which the district government has previously targeted for intervention at least twice a week in the 30-day period before the drug free zone is declared by providing Outreach and information to individuals what exactly that means not clear in that area about employment and skill training services um and it goes on about Behavioral Health addiction treatment services and so forth so I think I have to agree with council member Pinto that the correct way to provide these Services is through the programs that provide these services and that this amendment as written would at best delay the um implementation of any drug- free zones um until the fiscal impact was resolved and it was published in the register funded by the council published in the register and even then it's not clear exactly what it means implementing it there's nothing further council member Tron white yes I have to disagree on that um some of these things already exist in agencies uh does has the employment van that goes into communities dbh has the van that goes into communities uh the the sad reality that I even heard from the chief of police say that we can't do everything that we need other agents to get to get involved and so when we legislate to and get them involved we saying not right now this not the time to do that I think that we have to put our our legislation where our mouth is if we say we want Draw Free Zones let's be intentional about what we want that drug free zone to look like not just arresting people but ensuring that uh if someone has an addiction problem that he or she gets treatment ensuring that uh we uh give an alternative to those persons outside selling drugs right and if we want to take something out their hand it's imperative we put something else in their hand DC has a plethora of resources but it's hard to reach those who are disengaged into government services so I do this thing for resource to the block I've been doing it for seven years and the amount of uh impact we have in these areas we go where people don't go at the times that people don't go and people are happy when the government shows up far too many times we're showing up after something happens so we're going to clear these zones it's imperative we intentional about getting all the government agencies to provide resources in those zones as well chairman and and we it's not a budget problem we've had we have more money right now in DC government than we have in DC history 20 billion ever and so it's about a matter of being intentional about how we spend our money if we say we really care about our residents and really want to address Public Safety thank you nothing further on the amendment uh we'll have um we seem to be doing roll call votes and all these we'll have a roll call vote and cerinto I'm sorry I I just want to be really clear because we talk talk about the the budget we're talking about passing this on an emergency basis that I hope we will do later today so that we could take effect of these Provisions that we all agreed on most of us agreed on a month ago um and so it will completely kill this intervention for right now and and I actually think moving forward because I I don't think that there would be this support from the executive to do this as intended and that was a very important part of my process not that there's full agreement with the mayor on everything at all but that we are working with all of our agencies so that every piece of the secur DC I can fully have confidence that will be implemented so we don't just pass legislation and not see it happen we can really uh own it and and see the Improvement and so I I ask my colleagues despite the very important point that Council white is making about Services needing to be improved to not support this amendment point point of clarity what's a point of clarity that mean you want to have third round and there's not a third round I gotta comment though chairman she spoke again that's my bill so I should be to speak one uh she spoke twice you've spoken twice um Madam Secretary call Clarity chairman I Gotta Give a response to that no you don't you've already spoken twice the council member spoke twice Madam Secretary please call the RO counc Allen NOC M Allen votes no council member bonds no council member bonds votes no council member fuman no council member fuman votes no council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson no council member Henderson votes no council member Lewis George no council member Lewis George votes no council member McDuffy no council member McDuffy votes no chairman m no chairman Mendon votes no council member Nido no council member Nido votes no council member Parker no council member Parker votes no council member Pinel no council member Pinto votes no council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member trayon white yes council member Tron white votes yes Mr chairman there are three yeses and 10 NOS uh thank you Madam Secretary the amendment fails the Fourth Amendment from you council member white yes thank you chairman uh amendment number four uh Bill b 25- 0345 uh speaks to uh the need to require the executive office of the mayor to develop a and publish a comprehensive safety plan uh I don't know about you what I've been talking about Public Safety in the district uh for over two decades and when I first came to the council uh the year before was 2016 in which council member uh McDuffy introduced the near act and people thought it was a joke wasn't funding it the media ran a narrative that DC is paying uh criminals not to commit crimes and you know what happened when we didn't address the issue it got it got worse over time and so there has always been a narrative that crime was down when I kept going to funerals each and every week time after time um and so every once in a while I see or attend a press conference about a new crime initiative but no real plan uh I remember I attended a press conference in 2019 about bam blocks addressing 152 blocks that were high-risk communities but I haven't heard nothing since um I went to the press conference about the curfew for the Youth I believe the mayor had a press conference was yesterday day before yesterday um and and I look even look at the report from the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform where gave some ex 16 good recommendations for some studies to cjtc and lvp um but that was in 2022 was 2024 I still don't know of those recommendations what is going to get incorporated into a plan and so is imperative that if we move forward with our city we need a real plan I I was here when we were in the pandemic and I saw when we took public safety series I mean the pandemic series we had meetings every day phone conferences coordinated service with all these government agencies uh calls every morning uh it was intense and as a result uh it made people feel like we were really doing something about it we've had a lackluster approach to addressing Public Safety and at the time we do uh it's highly uh criminalizing people and highly penalizing um and so if we want to address Public Safety we got to have a wraparound approach to address all aspects of Public Safety so this provision of the bill uh requires the mayor to come up with a real comprehensive plan to bring all these different moving pieces together on one plan that we can follow thank you thank you council member is there council member Pinto uh thank you Council white I umum I will note we have plans in the city we have a gun violence strategic plan we have Public Safety plans that need to be implemented we have um major challenges with implementing the advice and plans that have been promised ated that experts both in DC and across the country have worked on um with that said I I appreciate what my colleague is trying to do and and really focus the city and ensuring that we have a comprehensive Public Safety plan moving forward and so I will be accepting this amendment as friendly but it's only accepted if there's no objection is there any objection to the amendment uh hearing none it's accepted uh the next Amendment chairman maybe this is later in process uh can I offer an amendment to the amendment uh it's already been accepted okay uh well if I could just for the record I yes to add a time certain here so that it's not just floating in The Ether so it's a time in here chairman what is the time I'm sorry see a year after the legislation is enacted no one year the effective date okay secur thank you uh councilor McDuffy thank you Mr chairman um I'm mooving Amendment today that was previously circulated and I believe uh if without objection will be accepted by council member Pino as friendly um it will require that that the criminal justice coordinating Council submit a report to provide the mayor and the council an analysis of the prehearing detention for juveniles provision in the secur DC Omnibus Amendment act council member Pinto included the adult pre-trial analysis in the ANS but dues to the complex nature of the juvenile code um this is a separate study to ensure that cjcc has a proper legislative backing to conduct this particular analysis and so I want to thank council member P Turner staff for working with my team in coordination uh on this amendment so with that I would move the amendment uh the amendment is before coun M Pinto thank you councelor McDuffy and I appreciate uh your work on this and distinguishing the studies and I will be accepting this as friendly and it's not accepted until there's no objection is there any objection to the amendment hearing none it's accepted uh I think that completes all the Amendments that I'm aware of assuming there are no other amendments uh we have the bill before us is there discussion on the bill member fuman thank you very much chairman medison um this is the biggest challenge confronting the city and passions run very very high in all directions on it and here we are in the stretch run I want to take a moment you may agree with her on some things disagree with her on other things but the job that chairwoman Pinto has done on this listening to hundreds of people over months and trying to stitch together something around which there can be as broad a consensus as possible is extraordinary so thank you very much for everything that you've done important uh I realized I kind of screwed up we haven't voted on the amendment nature for substitute but why don't we go through we'll go through discussion on the bill overall and then uh do the vote on the amendment nature a substitute council member white were you looking to be recognized proceed uh thank you chairman as the council member fuman said this is uh not only an important bill Public Safety is the number one issue for virtually everybody in the city it's also a difficult issue uh and I want to thank my colleagues and thank council member Pinto uh for everyone's work on this this is not easy to figure out how we balance uh safety uh in our city and doing the right thing uh with issues of uh sort of historic discrimination and uh long before I was a a council member wearing a tie I was a young guy in DC streets who dress like my peers I remember what it was like to have people cross the street when I came by to lock their car doors uh to feel like the laws were not meant for for safety but uh to cause police interactions with people like me and now I'm on this side of the day it's trying to figure out what is the right thing to do in a time of a a public safety crisis um what is important for us in moments like this when people are scared and demanding uh that we do something we have to make sure that the something we do fixes what's broken and doesn't create other issues uh at the root of this problem no matter what this bill does if people don't get an answer when they call 911 if we don't have enough people collecting evidence if we don't prosecute crimes things don't change and that has to continue to be our understanding of what is happening uh here in our city and and where that accountability lies we also have to be careful about the issue of false hope uh there are a lot of things that we can do like drug-free zones uh that really don't change outcomes right right doing drugs in public is already illegal selling drugs is already illegal it comes back to the issue of enforcing the laws that are on the books now and I want to make sure uh we don't lose sight of that but beyond how we respond to Crime we need to think about how we are proactive to protect and prevent our young people from going down this road in the first place that's why I unveiled a series of bills that focuses on a massive expansion of vocational education for our young people so they can get into good paying careers getting more mentors and tutors into the lives of young people across the city and getting a better handle on treny uh not at the end of the school year but month by month school by school so that we can intervene and help keep our young people uh on the right track uh I want to I'm thank council member Pinto for uh including several Provisions for my uh whole of government response to Crime Bill uh in this bill I want to thank my colleagues for thoughtful amendments and uh I look forward to voting yes uh on this Bill thank you chairman thank you council member council member Tron white yes I want to thank you councilman Pinto for working on this bill uh I believe this bill is a small part of a greater solution to what's happening with Public Safety it has been neglected for far too long um and again there is no real plan and every month or every couple of weeks it's something new that we're trying to throw against the wall at is stick uh I was at the building blocks announcement I was at the public safety announcement I believe that if someone continues to break the law he or she should not be allowed to come back into Community without going through the process of uh restitution uh during time or just getting theirself together for lck of better words but I do want to note that this how this legislation started legislation started that people were going going to jail and coming home in the day that I in 2023 64% of those charged of violent crimes were detained now even the percentage that did not get detained uh they it needs it needs to be addressed uh that's what started the crime Bill I just don't want to forget how we got here right uh it is known that early in the late 80s late 90s early 80 late 90s early 80s late 90s that crack swept through all major cities especially black communities right and and when this happened uh a lot of men and women went to jail promly predominantly African-American and Hispanic uh and I remember reading a book by uh Gary web called Dark alliances and he talked about how the milit US military was involved in the guy Roberto Sal Salazar went to jail right and to see now that the the drugs got flood into our community and the solution was the 1994 crime Bill the lock them up and that has crippled our community I'm I'm a young well I consider myself young African-American male living in one of the poorest blackest parts of the city and I know it did for me in my community I grew up without a father none of my siblings had a father in our home and I look around at my friends and most of my friends didn't make it because our the absence of leadership in our community was incarceration incarcerated or dead uh I just want to say that we haven't done enough to address Public Safety in the city and I say this because I introduced the anti-discrimination unemployment for returning citizens act uh and it's sitting on the shelf I introduced uh recording exp sponsoring Bill B24 d0110 and is sitting on the shelf I introduced a 30-page public safety document in 2017 and is sitting on the shelf I inro introduced um a number of measures uh including building sick brain recreation centers in DC and we we have not done enough I look at how much money we spend in DS to lock a kid up we are spending almost 80 million a year one minute chairman without objection one minute and when I look at how much we spending for after school programs it's about $75 a day per child and if I look at the money we spent in the last five years he spent over $400 million to incarcerate our youth we look at the money to give them out lets and something healthy to do it's a drastic cont a drastic comparison of how we spend our money we put our money where our mouth is our budget is a more document I consider myself an expert on on Youth Development and I just know we have not done enough to ensure that we are caring for families and really doing what we need to do to turn Public Safety around prevention looks like stable families postive Role Models mentors access to Capital careers Jobs business ownership a great education um stable housing and real love for individuals who may not believe in themselves and good parenting we have to start holding ourselves and our kids accountable and we got to get the the village model back again we become to divided in our community and a house divide against your canot saying um and we really talking about Public Safety we need a public safety plan and until we get that we'll be here over and over again throwing something at the wall hoping this stick I want to thank you all for working on this bill and I hope we don't stop here we can do more to ensure real Public Safety in the district thank you thank you council member uh council member Parker uh thank you Mr chairman and I want to thank council member Pinto uh for shepherding the council through this lengthy process I know it's been a long time coming um and I will say while today's vote is incredibly important I regret that today's vote has been framed for residents as a Panacea for DC crime in some ways uh I know today is important and residents are desperate for Relief uh and today as council is acting even still and I will reiterate District government needs to do more to address the underlying causes of violence namely the economic disparities that exist in our city uh from economic policy to the obscene accumulation of wealth in DC where white households have 81 times the wealth of black households where there are less than five sit down restaurants East of the river where displacement of black washingtonians continue we through policy and practice have upheld A system that benefit some residents at the expense of some others uh and again and I know I'm preaching to the choir but if we want to get C serious about crime and violence in the city we must do a better job at addressing poverty um so I look forward to working with each of you uh to do just that and I would just end by encouraging us all to elevate the discourse surrounding Public Safety residents as I'm sure you all know are tired of the finger pointing and the deflecting um that goes for the executive as well um and today the council is acting and I think it is time we work together to address real solutions um and put the bickering and finger pointing behind us so again thank you council member Pento uh and I look forward to working with you all moving forward thank you C member Parker council member McDuffy thank you chairman uh and thank you again sincerely uh to council member Brook Pinto for your efforts um you know we're a legislative body and and we don't always agree on things but uh I I am I've been in the seat that you're sitting in now as chair of that committee on J Public Safety and I know that it's challenging to put together a bill with as many Provisions as you have and I think you and your team deserve recognition and credit for doing that um I want to restate that you know I said this during the the first vote there's no magic switch uh that gets flipped today even though we're passing this bill with nearly 100 Provisions um I think it's going to require a lot more uh or probably less new bills and actually more action within the community and action by the executive to implement uh not only the things that we are putting in place today um but the resources necessary for individuals and families and communities that have been struggling with cycles of generational poverty uh it is obviously root causes to a lot of what we are seeing this culture of violence that pervades our city it is incumbent upon uh leaders like the members of the council the mayor and other executive officials to make sure we are also addressing those root causes you have heard me say before I know I sound like a broken record but if you want to address crime and violence in our city or any City for that matter uh you have to have a couple things you've got to have accountability and opportunity accountability and enforcement is something that you see within this bill today you see beefing up of enforcement you see uh laws designed to address uh the use of guns the pervasive nature of guns in the District of Columbia but I hope we also are making sure that we are going to be beefing up the opportunities in communities across the District of Columbia making sure that the communities that have been plagued by violence for a very long time who don't need to read their headlines who don't need to read the papers to understand that violence is real and it affects C families in a way that um a lot of of us are are just not familiar with um I also want to just just mention that although there are a lot of Provisions in this bill we have to make sure that the perspectives of individuals who don't make it down to the Wilson building are reflected in the solutions I believe the real solutions to violence are of the community of the people who live in these neighborhoods and I believe that the focus on uh resources is a real one and that's one of the reasons why introduced the safe neighborhoods act uh Mr chairman if I can have an additional minute without objection one minute it's one of the reasons that I introduced the safe neighborhoods act uh which focuses on a couple things consolidating our violence prevention programs and better coordinating the work that is happening there so we can address crime uh as a epidemic which it really is in our city uh it also uh focuses on the retention and hiring of uh First Responders in law enforcement in particular we don't necessarily just need more police to show up in communities I think when police show up we would rather have police who are of these communities perhaps people who have gone to our schools perhaps police who attend church in the community perhaps police who have played Sports in the recreation centers throughout the District of Columbia people who are familiar with the culture that exists in our neighborhoods across the District of Columbia I think that is equally as important as we think about how we're going to make make our city safer and I hope that we can have a hearing on that bill and discuss the merits of it and how we can contribute to making our safe our neighborhoods a lot safer today than they are thank you council member council member Lewis George U thank you chairman um I want to acknowledge that this has been uh a high stakes debate in every shape of the form both publicly uh in the in the council at the council um but that's what this work is that's what legislative body does um we are supposed to debate vigorously we're supposed to share our perspectives uh everyone comes to this space differently we have Educators former prosecutors former civil rights attorneys economists um Youth Development professionals like councilman trayon white and so we supposed to come to this body and debate and talk about policies and do the work that we just did which is try to find a balance because we represent entire city of diverse backgrounds diverse perspectives and it's okay for us to show up as we are and who we are andone and nobody should apologize for that sort of showing up as you are and who you are and what you bring to this work uh and I think as we have looked to what many of the conversation has been I think for those of us who grew up here in this city this has been particularly traumatizing and triggering for different reasons um I think and and it's okay for us to acknowledge that displacement affected us um our our communities were destroyed and in a very real way our our Villages that council member trayon white talked about when they said it took a village I mean we really went through a lot as a city and so when we hear people sort of characterize in Mass sort of and talk about our city in such a Negative light when they don't understand sort of where we have been especially as black people in this city I think it's right for us to say we don't we agree that we have issues in this city but we don't agree with you saying like all black youth and DC are out of control and that's just because we experienced that when we were young black kids where people were like these DC kids they're out of control they don't care about anybody and the reality is the vast majority of our young kids in this city are doing so amazing they are doing amazing work they are bright they are brilliant um and I I just want to acknowledge that it it's it's okay for us to also highlight what we think and what we want to celebrate about our city that is a consant to who we are um and we have and we are more careful about how we talk about our city and our communities and our neighborhoods and our children because we knew what it was like when people talked about our neighborhoods our communities and our children in a negative light and we knew that we didn't want to we wanted to prove people wrong that out of DC could grow up to be council members and people who had the ability to make it so I I think it's important as we have these conversations to just respect that that factor of where people are coming from when we talk about and have these conversations um in that way um I want to thank can I have an additional minute chairman one minute without I want to thank um the work that was done uh the herlean task that the uh committee had to do that council member Pinto did um and we did a lot of a lot of hard work went into making amendments from all of my colleagues I want to thank my colleagues who all have contributed to what this legislation will be um I think what's important to note is like like my colleagues have said this won't be sort of a turnoff turn on light changes have been made here we uh have put this secure DC Bill forward um now we need work to happen we need the executive to execute the laws that we put forward uh we need accountability and we need prevention and we need intervention um and we need to make sure that we are creating safe spaces and safe places um for people and that people are not starving in our city which is a very real reality right now um and I always say James baldman quote where he says if I am starving you are in danger and so I'm saying to us stop starving our schools stop starving our students stop starving our community stop starving our and we will as a city grow and become safer and so um council member yes your additional minute has okay well I I just want to say this I am proud of the work that this Council has been able to do I hope like council member Parker said uh that we could stop with the finger pointing um we can start investing in communities and we can start really taking Public Safety seriously um as a as a community as the number one issue that it is for our community and we look at it and address it in a holistic manner thank you chairman thank you Council Allen thank you Mr chairman I want to thank by uh Begin by thanking my colleague Council pinto and her team for what is a big lift um as Mr McDuffy said I've sat in that same seat I know it's hard so a Kudos and appreciation to your team who also did it in the spirit of compromise and collaboration um with the changes that been made today I do believe we have a stronger bill in front of us on the whole I believe this is an urgent and responsive package to the unacceptable level of violence that we've seen in our city this past year although let's be very clear it's not the only solution and today's action must be paired with actions by the mayor let's have a 911 call center that picks up the phone a crime lab that can actually process evidence a gun violence prevention plan that's actually put in place it also requires the prosecutors to charge cases the courts to make wise decisions the DC jail and the Bureau of Prisons to have an actual plan when someone's coming home after incarceration and many more Partners have to act I was struck here in our breakfast meeting today that so much of our debate danced around the fact that for the most part the district already has tough laws on the books with strong penalties that deal with most crimes we're trying to build workarounds for arrests that aren't prosecuted systems that aren't working and federal agencies that just won't work with us just one small example in w six I got people that come home every day from the Federal Bureau of Prisons with zero notice to local agencies to help ensure their success and their return and in some cases that I'm aware of it is directly led to new crimes being committed new harm that being done to both a victim and a community that ends up being traumatized it also means for the vast majority of people coming home who are not a public safety risk they don't have a place to start to find stable housing a job Health Care Mental Health or even getting on Metro I do want to highlight a couple areas in this legislation that I think will have a direct impact on reducing violent crime once this law takes effect it's going to close a gap and strengthen and clarify DC's carjacking laws following the court of appeals earlier decision that did lead to several carjacking prosecu not being able to move forward I think that's a great example of identifying a gap within our laws and then taking action to change it it's going to make shooting reviews permanent and when we talk about a whole of government approach to prevent violence rather than just react to it it means coordination and focus it adds many of the increased gun penalties that this Council has passed multiple times including the previous criminal code revision that was blocked by Congress from becoming law and finally thank you councelor Pinto for including my legislation that expands our security camera program to now include interior cameras and other safety tools for our local businesses that have suffered a rash of burglaries I'm glad to see that we are also once again pushing to adopt a strategic Citywide plan on gun violence and violent crime that was something this Council and myself have pushed for many many times so I'm going to keep my fingers crossed this time it actually happens but this won't be and should not be the end of our efforts I know I'm working on legislation right now to get at one of those canaries in the coal mine for young people we're seriously addressing treny and absenteeism the city is not addressing or reaching those young people with sols I think we can make a lot of progress here on complex issues with Focus I have one more minute additional minute without objection I think we can make a lot of progress on complex issues with focus and a few Innovative legislative ideas but again the best laws on the books aren't going to make a change without the agencies and government actually implementing them I hope that DC residents know and trust that we have wrestled tremendously in an effort to try to get this right I'm grateful for so many neighbors that reached out to me saying we're counting on you to take action and we're Counting on you to get this right we all want to see crime go down significantly this bill is a serious commitment from the council to our residents that we take your safety seriously and that action is more productive than finger pointing and I hope that folks also recognize these are thorny and challenging issues to get right without creating inadvertent challenges down the road so I'm grateful for everybody on this Das for the healthy and Hearty and strong debate the compromise that was found and I'm looking forward to supporting this legislation today thank you council member Allen there's no one else I will make some comments um good advice um let me see council member Parker lamented that uh this bill has been framed for residents as a Panacea for crime and I want to pick up on that I think and I'm going to be a little harsh here that the mayor has passed a buck and misled the public that the solution to crime in the district is the council we have stepped up this legislation does provide additional tools colleagues have identified some of those it's important that we did that but there also has been throughout this debate comments made about for example the case closure rate in 20 22 the last year for which I've got statistics 46 only 46% of homicides were closed with an arrest only less than half 51.6% of rapes 20% of robberies 20 21% of burglary 6% of thefts 2.3% of Motor Vehicle theft now some of those crimes are hard to uh close with an arrest but we need to increase the case closure rate and the council doesn't do that the council doesn't hire the police the council doesn't supervise the police the council isn't the police our job among other things is to fund the police and we've done that contrary to some criticism that some folks continue to make we have not cut the police budget in years we have fully F we have done our job we have budgeted for Public Safety that is our job it's our job to do oversight we've done that oversight and in this case we have this legislation and we're moving forward with that but there need to be arrests if there aren't arrests I'm hesitating because my staff hates it when I say this so I'll use a different one theft 94% of Thieves got away with thievery because they didn't get arrested there needs to be higher incidents there if you look at arrest per police officer down over the last decade down significantly there fewer police officers so there ought to be actually more arrests per police officer but actually it's down and then there's been talk about the prosecution rate which primarily on the adult side in fact entirely on the adult side is the US attorney who was embarrassed last year when the Washington Post reported that 2third he was declining 2third of cases that were brought to him with an arrest if you don't prosecute 2third 66% of the arrests in that way too people are getting away with crime we don't we don't prosecute the council doesn't prosecute we don't supervise the prosecutor but it's very easy for the mayor to point fingers at the council and in fact she's indicated she's going to send another bill down instead of in my view stepping up with identifying resources that we will fund for the police to close cases and the other areas for long law enforcement that are under her control I just can't make that point enough and when I've made it in the past and the mayor was asked about this a year ago she said it was asinine asinine to talk about increasing the case closure rate or increasing the papering rate of cases I want to thank council member Pinto for her work on this I'm over my time I don't believe anybody else wants to be recognized um Madame secretary the oh I'm sorry council member Pinto final word thank you uh thank you very much so this has been a really a year-long process I was reminded that one year ago to the weekend was when my team and I held our three-day gun violence Roundtable um and it was so many of the ideas that I heard from residents from families from young people Educators seniors um across the city who have been clamoring for Change and clamoring for a safer City that we can all be be proud of and so that led to my introducing over one dozen bills uh mayor Bowser introduced two bills over one last spring and one this fall and our colleagues across the day has introduced bills and ideas and Provisions that all came together in this Omnibus legislation called secure DC um I think think that this legislative process is one that we should all be extremely proud of that incorporated not only working with all 13 of us um but working with thousands of stakeholders across the city with different perspectives um and experts from the city and around the country on a lot of these interventions there are a lot of things in Secure DC that don't always get uh the attention as others and so I want to just highlight a few things that I'm particularly enthusiastic about we're focusing on preventing crime and ending cycles of Violence by giving grants and supports to all of our commercial corridors in the city we're starting a new blue light pilot so that when people are waiting alone at a bus stop late at night they can have the support they need uh to have the incident be filmed and and call for a first responder we're starting a pre-arrest diversion task force to provide particular supports to people in need and who may have mental health issues or substance use issues we're starting a Hospitality training program in our DC jail to help set people up for Success when they come home and yes we are doing more to hold perpetrators of crime accountable we're creating new gun offenses to address the unacceptable rate of illegal firearms and gun violence in our city we're changing the definition of carjacking to respond to that emerging Trend we are changing retail theft so that we can pursue these organized cases of retail theft free trial detention so that judges can have the discretion to hold people who commit violent crimes accountable we are making major improvements to our government coordination improvements to our 911 call center an annual firearm tracing system so that we could see where all of these illegal guns are flowing from changes to our sentencing commission composition to reflect the broader perspective of viewpoints supports for our victims so that victims can have what they need in the supports following an attack we're making more Mr chairman may I have an additional minute please not objection additional minute thank you uh we have additional supports for police to ensure that they have the tools they need to do their jobs residents have been clamoring for change for improvements to Public Safety in the city today is a good day today is a step in the right direction um gaps that I'm hearing colleagues talk about in terms of police closing cases and prosecutors bringing cases many of those are filled in this legislation that's why their perspectives are so important in this process with that said the work is absolutely not over we have to do much more in this city to invest in our communities to make sure that young people have opportunities paid opportunities to put money in their pocket support our kids getting to school increase literacy um support our teachers we have major improvements we need in our Mental Health Care system and economic stability across our city there are real challenges we have in this city that deserve the same level of attention for us to make the long-term impact that we know we need and lastly I want to thank all of my colleagues again for your really thoughtful engagement in this process there were some amendments today um and I really think that where we are is a very strong Bill and is a stronger process uh we I also just want to thank our mayor um our attorney general our us attorney and the agencies across the city and residents who have worked with us every step of the way to make sure these are thoughtful ideas and that these ideas can be implemented as appropriate um so thank you again we have a responsibility to provide for the safety and well-being of our residents visitors and businesses in the city and I think today we lived up to that responsibility thank you thank you council member uh we have the amendment nature of a substitute as amended before us by a voice by a Voice vote all those in favor of the amendment nature of a substitute say I I I I opposed Please Mr pres Jim uh the eyes have it unanimously marked council member Tron white as present we have uh the bill as amended before us if there's no further discussion Madame secretary would you call the role council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fruman yes council member fan votes yes council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George yes council member Lewis George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member nadell yes council member Nel 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 Tran white present council member Tran white will be recorded as present council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one present thank you Madam Secretary the bill is approved unanimously with council member white marked as present uh we will turn now to uh Bill 25- 298 uh the audience would please please take the conversations outside the room um we will I would like to point out to members the time is 6:23 I'm hopeful that we can get through the rest of the agenda by 7:00 the next measure is first reading on Bill 25- 298 black lgbtq history preservation establishment Amendment Act of 2024 council member Nido so moved Mr chairman thank you there's an amendment that I circulated there's an amendment that I circulated uh that would clarify that the two members to be appointed by the council actually would be appointed by the chairman of the council and that um the representative from the commission on Arts and Humanities um will be the executive director of the commission or his or her design uh if there's no objection to the amendment it will be accepted I'm not hearing any objection to the amendment uh the amendment is accepted Mr chairman don't I have to accept the amendment you didn't object that's fine and the way uh unanimous consent is if anybody objects uh we have the bill as amended before us is there discussion R call uh we will have a Voice vote this is first reading on the bill all those in favor of Bill 25- 298 as amended say I I I are there any opposed it U I don't hear any no votes the bill is approv approved unanimously we have uh proposed resolutions pr25 d652 local rent supplement program contract number 2024 lrsp 03a with Florida Avenue Apartments LLC approval resolution of 2024 council member Robert White thank you chairman this legislation would approve a subsidy for all new affordable uh apartment building that will be associated with the Marshall Heights Community Development organization on Florida Avenue near the Noma gadet Metro the DC Housing Authority partners with other District agencies including the Department of Housing and Community Development to put out consolidated requests for proposals the agencies work together to evaluate affordable housing development and pres preservation proposals based on how well they align with various priorities and then assign various types of subsidies this project came out of the Fall 2021 Consolidated RFP process the Developers planning to build a 12-story building with 115 apartments and ground level retail space 58 Apartments would be reserved for housing making up to 30% of the median family income and the remaining 57 units would be for households making up to 50% the developer intends for 24 of the 115 units to be three bedroom units and another 30 units to be two bedrooms so this development would be a big help for low-income families today's contract is about the 30% mfi units dcha is agreeing to give an operating subsidy in the form of project-based voucher payments for all 58 of the extremely lowincome units for 15 years since this is a multi-year contract it requires our active approval under the home rule act if we took no action it would be be deemed disapproved on April 8th the Housing Authority tells us that they need it finalized this month um to avoid delaying the Project based on the material materials we've received this appears to be a worthwhile project I therefore move proposed resolution 25652 the local rent supplement program contract number 2024-25 thank you chairman thank you council member white is there discussion Mr chairman c m Allen just very briefly uh encourage my colleague support for this this Project's taking place in Ward six where we're going to be able to convert what's currently just a parking lot uh but a parking lot that is close to Metro that is close to grocery stores close to businesses close to Transit close to jobs and be able to turn it into meaningful affordable housing I'm in particularly really excited about the fact that there's multiple three-bedroom options within this um 24 of the units are going to be three bedrooms 30 of them are two bedrooms that's one of the things we struggle with is to provide two and three bedrooms when we're looking at affordable housing so um I'm excited about this project especially in an area where there is a lot of luxury housing that is being built being able to have a priority on working families and lower income homes being constructed is something we should all be uh very excited to support thank you thank you is there further discussion uh hearing none uh Voice vote uh we'll have a Voice vote on this on pr25 d652 all those in favor say I I are there any opposed I don't hear any opposed uh the eyes have it unanimously uh next is final reading and vote on temporary legislation streetery program extension temporary Amendment Act of 2023 Bill 25594 Council M McDuffy he Mr chairman I would like to move to postpone this measure indefinitely and a motion to postpone indefinitely is there a discussion by a Voice vote all those in favor say I I I opposed uh the eyes have it unanimously uh the next measure I think we can get done in a couple minutes if everybody votes yes pr25 d679 Alex I naly way designation emergency declaration resolution of 2024 we will be done by 7 o'clock um so I want to emphasize that the reason why I put on the agenda was to preserve the council's authority to designate streets and alleys without Congressional intervention I think that is very important I would say that is highly important and I would say I was a bit discouraged with the discussion this morning because others didn't share that sense of priority I will also note that contrary to what some folks said this is about making a statement about democracy and about democracy um I will also add that my staff informed me after the breakfast that some of the references appear to be actually Russian disinformation on the internet such as the alleged photo um of a Nazi salute uh so thank you very much Russia um I'm not going to prolong the meeting today with this measure so it is withdrawn the next measure is University of I don't want to read the whole thing PR 25- 618 UDC modifications number 1-4 of contract GF 2012- c-09 with Bailey's real estate Holdings LLC approval and payment authorization uh this legislation the Declaration would authorize our consideration of the emergency bill um which would retroactively approve three three option periods I three retroactively approved three option periods as well as the fourth which is the current period a contract that UDC has in the aggregate amount of almost $9 million um these are Services related to janitorial services at UDC facilities I move the Declaration is there discussion I will note also I said it was retroactive we did have a hearing uh even though it was retained we had a hearing um and uh the uh senior staff of the University came and apologize for the mishandling of this legislation there's no discussion or no further discussion uh because it's an emergency declaration the secretary will call the role counc M fuman yes council member Freeman votes yes council member gray yes Council m gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member leis George yes council member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendon votes yes council member noo yes council member noo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto is absent council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran White yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent the Declaration is approved unanimously the underlying bill bill 25673 so moved I circulated an amendment which I don't have in front of me but the amendment I'm going to describe as technical it's actually substantive in the eyes of the general councel but it's technical in the sense and that it clarifies what it is that we're approving uh which is the um uh four modifications which has the effect of approving the four the three option years uh so if there's no objection the amendment will be accepted it's accepted since I hear no objection we have the bill as amended is there discussion uh we'll do a Voice vote since the Declaration was approved unanimously all those in favor of Bill 25673 is amended say I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any opposition the bill is approved unanimously the next measure is PR 25674 rent stabilized housing inflation protection continuation emergency declaration resolution of 2024 council member Robert White thank you chairman last year inflation was through the roof which meant that renters and rent stabilized units saw the highest increase in rents since the program began 40 years ago we heard grave concerns from tenants who couldn't pay uh such a high increase and from landlords about the heightened costs needed to keep their buildings in good conditions for their tenants to prevent displacement and protect our existing stock of affordable housing in the district the council unanimously passed emergency legislation I proposed with the help of my colleagues to still allow increases but at a more reasonable level the council tried to pass that legislation before any increases took effect however because the executive said the legislation would cost money which vented the council from moving a measure on emergency we had to wait until we could fund it in our budget to pass the change ultimately the administration said said they could absorb the cost but by then some renters had already seen an almost 9% increase in their rents to make sure those impacted residents could benefit from the council's new protections we included a two-year cumulative cap that would capture those who already had a high increase these measures before us today continue those protections and make one technical update to the 2 year timeline to make sure the existing Pro protections align with dhcd and the rental housing commission's timeline for allowable increases this bill will not need to be made permanent as the protections were intended to last only for two years thank you again to the many residents business owners and support staff and Council colleagues who helped develop this legislation um I moved the rent stabilization housing inflation protection continuation emergency declaration resolution of 2024 thank you chairman thank you council member we have the Declaration before us is there a discussion we'll have a roll call vote on the resolution Madam Secretary council member gray yes council member gray votes yes council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes counc member Lis George yes counc member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman mson votes yes counc madoo yes counc votes yes counc M Parker yes coun member Parker votes yes council member Pinto is absent council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved unanimously the underlying Bill Bill 25- 717 so moved discussion Voice vote on Bill 25- 717 all those in favor say I I I oppos I do not hear any no votes the bill is approved unanimously PR 25- 678 I'm chewing something food delivery fees transparency emergency declaration resolution of TR 24 council [Music] member Allen Allen over here thank you Mr chairman on June 6 2023 the council passed the food delivery fees transparency temporary Amendment Act of 2023 as a reminder the temporary act restricts thirdparty meal delivery platforms from reducing a restaurant's placement within a given list of restaurants on a third party food delivery platform based on a level or percentage of commissions paid third partyy meal delivery platforms from reducing a restaurant's delivery radius based on level or percentage of commissions paid and thirdparty meal delivery services from limiting driver availability based on the level or percentage of commissions paid it is due to expire later this month on March 29th 2024 just a few short hours ago the council passed on Final reading the restaurant revitalization and dram shop clarification Amendment Act of 20124 the bill incorporates the provisions that were in the temporary act and will now go before the mayor for her signature the provisions of this emergency legislation are identical to the provisions in the restaurant rization and dram shop clarification Amendment Act of 2024 it will prevent a gap of the law as permanent legislation is now headed towards the mayor's desk thank you very much Mr chairman uh thank you council member alen discussion we have pr25 678 before us mam secretary would you call the role council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes Council Lis George yes council member L George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman mson votes yes council member nadoo yes counc Council madoo votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto is absent council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member Freeman yes council member Freeman votes yes council member gray counc gray thank you council member gray votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved unanimously the underlying Bill Bill 25725 council member Allen so mov Mr chairman discussion oh uh by roll call I'm Excuse me since the roll call was unanimous we'll do this by Voice vote all those in favor say I I I I are there any opposed eyes have unanimously streety program and endorsement deadline emergency declaration resolution of 2024 pr25 d675 council member McDuffy thank you Mr chairman the reopen Washington DC alcoholic beverage regul ation Amendment Act of 2022 allowed Alcoholic Beverage Control Board licensed establishments that registered with the board to offer beer wine or Spirits for sale on expanded outdoor space until December 31st 2023 the district Department of Transportation extended the street program deadline through December 31st 2024 to allow DT more time to develop regulations and guidelines needed to facilitate a permanent streety program and in December 2023 the council enacted legis which is likewise extended the streety program but did not clarify the deadlines by which specific lenses must pay their annual fees the December 2023 emergency will expire on March 20th 2024 it's necessary to amend current law to clarify that while most alcohol lenses are required to make their annual payment this year by April 1st 2024 the annual payment for taverns nightclubs and breweries is due on September 30th 2024 to avoid confusion as a result of having multiple deadlines and to ensure administrative efficiency and a customer friendly process it is necessary that new legislation that continues the streety program extension but that also clarifies that breweries taverns and nightclubs can pay their strey program fee for 2024 at the same time that their annual liquor license fees do be enacted so with that I move the me thank you council member we have the Declaration before us is there discussion yes council member TR white yes um I I don't want to seem in adversarial to this bill but for me uh it appears that we have done a number of things during the pandemic that has gotten far far beyond and as a result this is one of many things that's uh taken away from businesses as relates to ability to part um and I'm concerned that uh we have to give a real thought to how D dot is moving throughout the city um the way way they revitalizing our streets in the name of uh traffic safety measures um is not really causing the streets to be even safer so we have flower beds in the streets now uh artwork in the street now Street in the street now bike Lanes in the street now buses in the street now and as a result our businesses are suffering in the district and people just drive across the line in mland Virginia to pize our businesses um and we want to give uh our business the opportunity to have stuff outside um I just think that it's uh contradictory to us trying to support the businesses uh with taking away parking and ability to get to the business to stay and enjoy your meal thank you thank you council member Tran white further on the de declaration council member Penton um thank you councelor McDuffy for your continued focus on this I am like you read for the regulations to be promulgated thank you for that extensive speech if there's no further discussion we have the Declaration before us a roll call voted Madam Secretary council member leis George is absent uh council member McDuffy yes council member mcy votes yes chairman mson yes chairman mson votes yes council member noo yes M Nadel 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 Tran white no council member Tran white votes no council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds um yes counc member Bond votes yes council member Freeman yes council member Freeman votes yes council member Gray council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George Yes counc Lewis George votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses one no and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved we have the underlying Bill Bill 25- 719 Council McDuffy so move discussion since the um emergency was approved overwhelmingly we'll do a voice on the bill bill 25719 all those in favor say I I I opposed pan yes oppose yes no uh the vote so um the bill is approved with council member TR white marked as no two pages left litigation support Fund emergency declaration resolution of 2024 PR 25677 council member Pinto sorry Mr chairman one moment okay this legislation increases the limit on on the funds in the Office of the Attorney General's litigation support fund from 23.5 million to 27 million and increases the amount the office is authorized to spend on Public Safety initiatives from 9 million to 9.7 million in fiscal year 2024 ogag allocated $9 million for these Public Safety initiatives including the Cure the streets program oag also allocated 7.1 million for litigation support including ecovery expert Witnesses and transcripts ogag has faced higher spending this year on both Public Safety initiatives paid out of the fund and on litigation support costs with the recent Surge and violent crime in the district including youth crime in order to keep running these programs oag needs an increase in the support fund spending cap of 9.7 million in regards to litigation ogag has had higher litigation costs as a result of larger case loads and active litigation in cases that had been dormant due to covid-19 all of this will result in an operational shortfall of funding of $3.5 million for fiscal year 20124 if we do not act to address this shortfall the emergency legislation will increase the limit on the funds in the litigation support fund to 27 million and increase the amount ogag is authorized to spend on Public Safety to 9.7 million the additional funds will be available from amounts that ogag recovers themselves from successful litigation so so just to clarify this is money that they will recover from their litigation I move the Declaration thank you council member we have the Declaration before us is there [Music] discussion uh we have the um we have the Declaration before PR 25677 mam secretary please call the role Council McDuffy yes Council McDuffy votes yes chairman m yes chairman Mendon votes yes council member n yes council member n 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 Tron white yes council member trian white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member Bond no council member bonds votes no council member Freeman yes council member freman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Lewis George yes council member Lewis George votes yes Mr chairman there 11 yeses one no and one absent thank you Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved we have the underlying Bill Bill 25- 723 Council rinto I move the Bill thank than you the bill is before us is there discussion since the Declaration was approved with 11 yes votes we'll do a Voice vote on the bill all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed one bonds uh the bill is approved with council member bonds recorded as no if there's no objection we'll take item seven criminal justice coordinating Council and consider it later in the string of emergencies the next measure would be comprehensive policing and Justice Reform technical emergency declaration resolution of 2024 council member Allen thank you Mr chairman after the council first passed the comprehensive policing and Justice Reform second emergency Amendment act 2020 it has since maintained provisions of the law on emergency temporary basis until passage of a permanent December 20th 2022 the council passed that permanent Bill most of which went into effect on April 21st 2023 however Section 105 of the permanent law which expands the office of police complaints Authority was passed subject to Appropriations remains unfunded and still is not taken effect to prevent a gap in the law on June 6 2023 the council passed the comprehensive policing and Justice Reform technical temporary Amendment Act of 2023 that temporary law is set to expire on March 29th 2024 the second round of emergency legislation is now necessary to prevent a gap of the law between the expiration of the temp temporary law the applicability of the permanent bill I would note the request of general counsel in the budget office this emergency Bill also serves as the vehicle for a handful of technical corrections to the fy2 24 BSA that were not captured at enrollment with that I move the Declaration thank you council member Allen we have the Declaration before us is there discussion we'll have a roll call vote on uh PR 25-6 I'm sorry P 25- 681 chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes council member nadoo yes council member Nido votes yes council member Parker yes council member Parker votes yes council member Pinto yes council member Pino votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member Freeman yes council member freuman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Le George yes council member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent uh thank you Madam Secretary the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 25- 731 council member Allen so moved Mr chair is a discussion on the bill we'll do a Voice vote since the Declaration was approved unanimously on the bill 25- 731 all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any U no votes the bill is approved unanimously PR 25- 680 energy benchmarking reporting extension emergency declaration resolution of 2024 council member Allen thank you Mr chairman the clean energy DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018 established a building energy performance stand standards or beps program within the department of energy and environment the BS program requires privately and District owned buildings in the district to reduce their energy use and Emissions over time based on the property type and doe established building energy performance standards this program built on pre-existing requirements for buildings to Benchmark their energy use and reported to Doe by April 1st of each year the clean energy DC Omnibus also created be's task force to advise doe on the program's implementation one of the task force recommendations was to extend the deadline for submitting the third party verific report so as to stagger it from the benchmarking deadline arguing that quote completion of both benchmarking and verification by April 1st is challenging at the request of the executive this emergency Bill gives a buffer of 90 additional days to submit benchmarking and verification data while the mayor and the council work on introducing a permanent Bill reflecting the be's task force larger consensus recommendations thank you Mr chairman I move the deck thank you for remembering uh discussion council member Lewis George thank you um um I want to know I I will support this one-time 90day extension for building owners but I want to make clear that I support beeps and we need to and plan to enact permanent legislation to support its goals thank you further discussion there'll be a roll call vote on the Declaration PR 25- 680 counc madell all right yes council member n 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 Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes counc council member frean yes council member fan votes yes council member gray is absent counc member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member LS George yes council member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendon yes chairman Mendon votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 yeses and one absent the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 25729 council member Allen so moved Mr chairman is there discussion since the Declaration was approved to to nothing we'll do a Voice vote on Bill 25729 all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any no votes the eyes have it unanimously the next measure is PR 25683 which is secure DC Omnibus emergency declaration resolution of 2024 council member Pinto thank you Mr chairman we have a need to pass the bill that we just passed um on a permanent basis on an emergency basis as we have discussed extensively today the district is experiencing significant increases in crime and violent crime we saw the highest number of homicides in over two decades just last year um and so I really appreciate the shared recognition and conversation that we've had today of the need to act and act swiftly and so it is important that we Implement these interventions immediately of course we have some limitations on what we can do on an emergency basis limited to only those items that do not have a cost and so we have removed removed items from secure DC that have a cost and are moving today secure DC on an emergency basis so it can be implemented right away um I move the de ation uh thank you council member we have the Declaration before us is there discussion hearing none uh Madame secretary would you call the role the vote is on PR 25- 683 counc 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 Tron council member Tron white will be recorded as present council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member Bond votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes counc member LS George yes counc member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes Council M McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendon yes chairman Mendon votes yes Council M noo yes Council M nadoo votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses one absent and one present the um declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill council member Pinto um I move the emergency but I want to make sure that all of the Amendments that were adopted earlier today will be incorporated into the emergency that we're moving that don't have a cost all the Amendments that do not have a cost so let's go over that okay uh the amendment nature of a substitute as circulated I assume did had no additional had had no uh fiscal impact um the amendment by council member Pinto regarding DNA had no fiscal impact the um amendment by council member Nido regarding cjcc study had no fiscal impact the amendment by Lewis George regarding theft had no fiscal impact the amendment by Lewis George regarding masks had no fiscal impact the amendment by council member Tron white regarding badge and name for adverse action hearings had no fiscal impact just the amendment by council member white regarding a plan or crime reduction plan or something had no fiscal impact it did yes Mr chairman uh the Nido Amendment and the trayon white amendment number four both had costs it's also my understanding that the pre-trial Studies have a fiscal impact which which I haven't gotten to that one so Council mcduffy's Amendment which was the very last amend concern so the uh section of the of the bill that it amended was already subject to appropriation so um so that would not yes exactly so that would be excluded as well okay so let's be clear for General councel the emergency that we're considering will conform no the emergency that we're considering will be the same as what was circulated plus the amend the following amendments which is um Pinto amendment number one Lewis George amendments one and two trayon white Amendment one two and that's it Mr chairman we we have an amendment working in consultation with the budget office to incorporate all of the Amendments that we voted on today that don't have a cost into this emergency that we're moving so we could just vote on that amendment to make things easier I'm sorry no I you did not circulate a document that includes all the Amendments today you had circulated a document before the Amendments today so we've just gone over for general councel which amendments do not have a fiscal impact and those are the ones that will be included do I need to repeat those point of order not yet uh yes I understand and Jen and I have agreed that I'm going to send it uh for her to just have a quick look before I send it on to legislative Services okay coun McDuffy there sort of two two part one is I think can we not consider amendment number one from Council M Pinto separately before it's Incorporated yes we can I would prefer that we do it that way um and then I don't understand why that doesn't have a fist the the DNA collection it I so you're asking this is just going to prolong things and council member Pinto's amendment number one was approved on a a three vote Yes but is your right to ask that that not be included in the main motion and that's what you're asking yes but I a question well we'll get to the question when we get to the amendment okay take that to be his question I thought it was a question about cost I didn't I didn't hear him ask to remove it he voted against it I assume he does not want to be part of the main motion well there are amendments that I voted against but I'm still saying as a body we are approving and should approve on an emergency basis what we collectively decided today but I'm just answering councilor mcduffy's question on cost all right so what you are moving includes the Amendments I went through except for Pinto amendment number one which concern DNA Tes and uh General council's clear what is before us General council is clear what is before us just a moment impact clear what we are voting on what what council Pinto is moving that was on here over here all right all right I will start over council member Pinto is moving Bill 25735 rather than go through all the Amendments and vote on each one ordinarily we conform the emergency to the permanent Bill we are excluding any amendment that has a fiscal impact we are excluding council member nido's amendment that was adopted we are excluding council member Tron Whit's amendment that was adopted uh the second his amendment number four which was adopted we are excluding Council mcduffy's amendment that was adopted that's what was before us we are also excluding council member Pinto's Amendment regarding DNA because council member McDuffy wants that considered separately that's what's before us okay I'm now going to ask for discussion and I'm assuming that council member Pinto is going to move to have her amendment number one included that's right and as a reminder this is an amendment that we all have talked about at length and that was passed today on a 10 to three basis and so I ask that we don't prolong another debate on this and that we incorporate all of the Amendments that we as a body passed today that don't have a cost into the eer Mercy whether we supported them or didn't all right so the amendment is before us is there discussion on the amendment yeah I just had one question about the fist I just wanted to understand is it is that the cost going to be absorbed or there's no cost at all M budget director thank you um the fiscal Impact says that there's no cost to implement this provision because the mayor has the Authority but is not required to conduct the DNA collection he's not required to conduct the DNA yeah it must be a May oh so it's important as this is she doesn't have to do it so you want to reconsider the main Bill and we'll change May to sh yeah no I just want everybody to to understand that it's not required I'm happy to take the vote and it's 70 for the amendment is to add council member Pinto's amendment number one uh if there's no objection it will be added hearing no objection it's added no I object I want tell me no okay I I would appreciate if we'd move a little faster so um we will vote on council member Pinto's amendment number one which was the DNA testing all those in favor of the amendment say I I I opposed please record Miss vote no chairman record Council McDuffy is voting no the amendment is approved all right we now have the bill with all of the Amendments we've discussed anyone unclear what we're voting on no are we allowed to make comments are you allowed to make a comment yes see if we can prolong the meeting but don't feel the pressure I I I just want to say that um I want to note however that I disagree with ocfo when they originally determined last summer that expanding pre-trial detention would have no would have no budget impact uh and they have since revised that determination and so uh as we look forward I just want to note that there will be additional costs uh starting in October um and as I indicated there was a fiscal impact thank you all right if there's no further discussion on the bill everybody's clear what we're voting on General council's clear what we're voting on all those in favor of the uh Bill say I I I are there any opposed I don't hear any knows the bill is approved unanimously the next measure is opioid crisis and juvenile crime public emergencies extension authorization emergency declaration resolution 2024 pr25 d682 council member Pinto council member Henderson who's speaking to this um thank you Mr chairman uh the mayor's uh February 27th order declared a public emergency regarding opioid crisis and juvenile um crime crisises here in the district um granting District agencies the authority to expedite procurement and issue grants um to address both um with the district I'm going to speak a little bit more towards the opioid piece but the district is still facing an opioid crisis um having experienced 474 fatal overdoses between January and November 2023 surpassing the previous year's count um which is a little bit delayed because of the analysis from the office of the chief medical examiner as a member of the opioid abatement commission I contributed to a comprehensive set of recommendations that were submitted to the Department of Behavioral Health at the commission's February meeting unfortunately these recommendations were submitted one day before the expiration of the last Public Health Emergency um and dbh was only able to complete one contract for prevent for a prevention media campaign before the emergency expired however with with the new emergency declaration the deputy mayor for Health and Human Services and cluster agencies can expedite the the implementation of recommendations and utilize settlement and other available funds to address the crisis immediately this approach allows for both short-term interventions such as expanding youth treatment services and providing providing housing support and the continued development of long-term infrastructure projects to combat the opioid epidemic as chair of the committee on health and as a commission member I look forward to working with the executive to ensure that these funds that are available are used in an effective strategic transparent and responsible way to truly address the opioid crisis and improve the quality of life for all district residents um I will be offering a small oral Amendment to the temporary version of this measure to set an effective date for the expiration of the mayor's authorities under this emergency I'll now turn to council member Pinto can speak a little bit um towards the Juvenile Justice um components of the legislation council member Pinto thank you very much council member Henderson um I'll just add dyrs needs this Authority particularly for our juvenile crime crisis to expedite Contracting for shelter beds for youth who are in their care um and this Authority has already been used to the benefit of safety in the district over the last several months and so it's important that this emergency is extended for another several months um to ensure that we can keep District use safe is there discussion on the emergency and the Declaration hearing none we'll have a roll call vote on PR 25- 682 Madam Secretary council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member robbert white votes yes counc Tron White if you can come back to me council member Allan yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member Bond votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member Le George yes council member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson no chairman Mendelson votes no council nadoo yes Council nadoo votes yes council member Parker is absent council member Tran white yes council member Tran white votes yes Mr chairman there are 10 yeses one no and two absents the Declaration is approved on the underlying Bill Bill 25- 733 council member Henderson or so move Mr chairman you said so move did you also say you had an amendment oh no I have an amendment to the temporary okay discussion uh since the bill was uh excuse me the Declaration was approved with 10 votes I think we can do a voice vote on Bill 25- 733 all those in favor say I I I oppos say no no please record me as voting no the bill is approved the uh next measure is autonomous vehicle testing permit requirement emergency declaration resolution of 2024 PR 25669 council member Allen thank you very much Mr chairman the district Department of Transportation currently administers an autonomous vehicle testing program through which DT is required to create an application process for people to obtain an autonomous vehicle testing permit under current law a person cannot generally test or operate an autonomous vehicle on a district roadway without an autonomous vehicle testing permit there is is however an exception referred to in a law passed several years ago as the pre-existing testing period allowing a person to conduct an automatic V an autonomous vehicle testing anytime before DT makes an AV testing permit application available and up to 60 days after such application is made available doot is in the process of issuing rules to establish such an AV testing permit application and now seeks to narrow the exception currently established in law to better protect safety on the roadways specifically the legislation allows a person to conduct AV testing without a permit if one there is a test operator physically present in the vehicle two the person is otherwise in compliance with Federal and local laws and three person provides notice to dot before testing Begins the executive has introduced permanent legislation on this matter the committee will consider later this year this emergency measure is necessary to address the immediate safety risk presented by unpermitted AV testing being conducted without notice to DT and other minimum safeguards thank you Mr chairman and with that I move the Declaration thank you council member Allen is her discussion M secretary would you call the role the roles on pr25 just 669 counc member Robert White yes counc member Robert White votes yes counc member Tron white yes counc member Tron white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member bonds votes yes council member Freeman yes council member Freeman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes council member LS George yes council member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendelson yes chairman Mendelson votes yes Council present council member Nido will be recorded as present council member Parker is absent council member Pinto yes council member Pino votes yes Mr chairman there are 10 yeses two absent and one present the Declaration is approved unanimously we have the underlying Bill Bill 25708 Council M Allen move Mr chair sir discuss sh since the Declaration was approved by with 10 votes we'll do a Voice vote on Bill 25708 all those in favor say I I I I are there any opposed the uh bill is approved unanimously with council member Nido marked as present there's no objection we will move the following Temporaries in Block Mr chairman oh shoot uh Mr chairman yes this is okay I want to just clarify this was the amendment that one of the additional amendments that should have been incorporated into the security C emergency because it was in ours so just want to make sure and if that was properly incorporated then we don't need to take a separate vote on it but if it wasn't then we should move it as need to know whether it was in or not it's yours it was in our it was our amendment in our Amendment introduced and there was not a fiscal impact statement they would have out correct correct right yeah I delayed it and then forgot about it okay so this was was a bill that I spoke to earlier that is an extension of something that the council did last year which essentially authorizes the department of healthc care Finance to share information with cjcc about it's called a long longitudinal cohort analysis for individuals who perpetrated homicides so we can look at the trends of who they are to see how we can intervene earlier um it is a data sharing tool for cjcc our Hope was to include this in the secur DC permanent legislation and the emergency so I just want to double check if it's not Incorporated in the secure emergency that we just voted on then I could just move it as a separate emergency right now well can we sort this out because it's now 7:15 and the maker of the motion can't say well if it's in it either is or it isn't or you move it or you don't move it I understand with all due respect I wasn't expecting how we did the emergency to go through that list the way you did we had our own Amendment prepared so that's why I just want to double check that the way that it was done Incorporated this emergency so yeah so council member are you referring to the the um the amendment it was circulated at 106 pm today okay thank you for your patience everybody I apologize yeah I'm not feeling sorry but we did prepare a fist for that amendment that was circulated at 106 and it um said that funds are sufficient okay thank you so I would like to move this bill as an emergency I just explained the um intention for it it is a data sharing measure so that the Department of Healthcare Finance can share with the criminal justice coordinating Council information of perpetrators of homicide so we can look at repeat Trends this is something that the council did last year and we are seeking to extend this Authority on an emergency basis all right the Declaration is before us this is PR 25- 676 Is there further discussion General councel are you clear we are voting on pr25 676 okay and as unless there's discussion the secretary will call the role Madam Secretary please call the role council member trayan white yes council member Tran white votes yes council member Allen yes council member Allen votes yes council member bonds yes council member Bond votes yes council member fuman yes council member fuman votes yes council member gray is absent council member Henderson yes council member Henderson votes yes yes council member L George yes council member Le George votes yes council member McDuffy yes council member McDuffy votes yes chairman Mendon yes chairman mson votes yes council member nadell council member nadell votes yes council member Parker is absent council member Pinto yes council member Pinto votes yes council member Robert White yes council member Robert White votes yes Mr chairman there are 11 yeses and two absents the Declaration is approved unanimously the underlying Bill Bill 25- 721 Council from rinto so moved so discussion by Voice vote all those in favor of the bill say I opposed the bill is approved unanimously if there's no objection we will consider the following temporary bills please pay attention number two rent stabilized housing inflation protection continuation temporary number three food delivery fees transparency temporary Mr Number Four Mr chairman can I interrupt just for a moment to what we don't need number three on the agenda any longer since we passed the dram shop on permanent basis so if we'd like to strike one of our Temporaries I can help you get that one off the docket okay I will start over the list is number two rent stabilized housing inflation protection continuation number four Streeter program and endorsement deadline temporary number five yes um I'm a no on that one okay we'll take that off number five litigation support fund temporary Amendment act number six criminal justice coordinating Council information sharing is that necessary council member Pinto actually you don't know uh number seven compr necessary comprehensive policing and Justice Reform technical temporary number eight energy benchmarking reporting exension temporary um I don't believe we need number nine secure DC Omnibus because the emergency went through the emergency is different than the permanent but the permanent is pending so we don't need number nine and number 10 I believe council member Henderson you said you had an amendment Mr chairman I think you're hopefully right but given these are Criminal Law changes and are going to be subject to a 60-day congressional review period I think to be safe we should still include the temporary to ensure there's no Gap period that's true but the emergency will be in effect and the permanent will be pending so that would still allow you to do a congressional review emergency because permanent would be pending and theoretically the temporary and the permanent will go up to the hill at the same time yes and sit for the same 60 days as long as you have something pending and because I agree with you the 60 days may require that you need an emergency but the permanent will be the vehicle that allows you to do that I hear you I just if it's okay I I think it would just make me more comfortable to have a corresponding temporary to ensure there are no delays or gaps that's all right uh well we'll pull the temporary on second reading but if that makes you comfortable thank you all right so the I'm going to go by item numbers here and I left off um autonomous vehicle which would be included so one motion to approve number two number five number six number seven number eight number nine and number one autonomous vehicle and I just said that number number nine was temporary has to be changed to reflect the emergency are you you know with the the Amendments that were made that are not understood oh okay I didn't know you say conform so chairman I want to ask number nine be taking off if you're adding it you said you wasn't going to add it then you adding it would be quicker to just vote on these individually yeah right I move Bill 25718 rent stabilized housing inflation protection continuation temporary Amendment Act of 2024 is there discussion all those in favor say I I are there any opposed the eyes have it unanimously I move Streeter program and endorsement deadline temporary Amendment Act of 20124 Bill 25- 720 is there discussion Voice vote all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed no council member trayon white will be recorded as voting no I move Bill 25- 724 litigation support fund temporary Amendment Act of 2024 is there discussion all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed guys have it unanimously I move Bill 25-7 to two criminal justice coordinating Council information sharing temporary Amendment act 2024 is there discussion all those in favor say I I all those opposed the eyes have it unanimously I move Bill 25- 732 comprehensive policing and Justice Reform technical temporary Amendment Act of 2024 is there discussion all those in favor say I I opposed the eyes have it unanimously I move Bill 25- 730 energy benchmarking reporting extension temporary Amendment Act of 2024 is there discussion all those in favor say I I I I are there any opposed eyes have it unanimously I move Bill 25- 736 secure DC Omnibus temporary Amendment Act of 2024 is there discussion this bill will conform to the emergency all those in favor say I I I are there any opposed uh Jim m is present council member Tron white will be Mount uh marked as present the bill is approved first reading unanimously I move Bill 25734 opioid crisis and juvenile crime public emergencies extension authorization temporary Amendment Act of 2024 council member Henderson thank you Mr chairman um I'd like to offer a very brief oral Amendment to the opioid crisis assessing juvenile crime emergencies extension authorization temporary Amendment act to limit the term of the mayor's emergency procurement and Grant making Authority um I think many there are several colleagues who are not comfortable with the standard 225 days that's nearly 10 months um these contracts and grants must get out timely instead um uh I'm moving an amendment to set a um a date certain of September 17 2024 for the expiration of this measure um that would be the date of our first legislative meeting post recess um so the oral amendment is um to strike the text of section 5B and replace it with the phrase this act shall expire on September 17 2024 my staff has verified with the budget office and the general Council that this change um would not have a physical impact and there are no legal sufficiency languages or issues with this language so moved if you're contemplating that the council would act on the 17th it would not be enrolled on the 17th so you might want to see like uh the 18th 19th 20th no what we are contemplating is that this um hopefully would be unnecessary come September I fully understand that but you pick a date when the council meets so if for some reason we decide it is necessary there will be a gap so if you say like September 20th then that gives us time to act it's up to you I'm comfortable with letting it ride on September 17th all right if there's no objection hearing no objection Mr chairman can I just ask the 16th September oh I'm looking at 2025 never mind I withdraw my question if there's no objection it's accepted uh we have the temporary before as amended hearing no further discussion all those in favor say I I I opposed uh record me as voting no autonomous vehicle testing permit requirement temporary Amendment Act of 2024 bill 25709 so moved is there discussion all those in favor say I I oppos I guys have it unanimously the time is 7:29 p.m. this meeting is a Jour 73