I am calling to order this meeting.

This is a meeting of the council of the District of Columbia.

I am Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole, which is not relevant to this meeting.

Today is Tuesday, March 31st, 2026.

This is our regular monthly meeting that we would ordinarily have on the second, excuse me, the first Tuesday of April.

The time is 217 in the afternoon.

We are in room 500 of the Council Chambers of the Johnny Wilson building.

This uh meeting is being uh broadcast on cable channel 13 as well as on the council's website, www.dccouncil.gov.

We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence.

So I would ask that everyone in the chamber, as well as on the dais observe a moment of silence for reflection.

Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll and see if we have a quorum?

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Freeman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Here.

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Nadeau?

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Traon White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

We have the Secretary's Report of Committee filings.

I'm going to recognize the Chair Pro Tem.

Councilmember Anita Bonds.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I move to waive the reading of the Secretary's report.

So a motion to waive the Secretary's Report of Committee filings.

Is there discussion?

On the motion to waive the reading.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any no's?

Hearing none, the ayes have it.

We also have the Secretary's Report of Introductions and Referrals.

I will recognize the Chair Pro Tem Councilmember Anita Bonds.

Again, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And I move to waive the reading of the Secretary's log of introductions and referrals.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Councilmember Henderson.

I just want to flag for you that a couple of weeks ago my staff submitted every referral request that hasn't been dispensed with yet.

It was central sequentially referred to health, housing, and the committee of the whole.

And so I just want to flag that for you.

We sent that on March 16th.

Yes.

So I owe you a response to that.

Yes.

And so I will I will look at that.

Okay, thank you.

And I will look at that before the next uh log.

Uh anything else with regard to the Secretary's report.

The vote is on the motion to waive the reading of the Secretary's report of introductions and referrals.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

We have the consent agenda.

Are there any changes to the consent agenda?

Mr.

Chairman, I just want to make sure the record reflects that we are all here because there are several of us who are in a different part of the room.

I know, I know.

Okay, possibly.

Can you call the meeting?

That's for the second that's for the secretary to note.

Are there other changes?

Are there any changes to the consent agenda?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Traon White.

Yes, I would like to pull Barbara Jones' uh nomination so I can make comments to it.

Okay.

Uh further changes to the consent agenda.

Council Member Parker.

Um I am requesting that uh we remove Bill 26-408 promoting parental engagement at URS Amendment Act of 2026 because there is an amendment uh with councilmember bonds.

Where is it in the agenda?

On the version of the agenda I have, it's on their consent agenda.

It's bill 26-408?

Yes.

Right.

You should ask your staff to give you the uh version that was circulated revised uh yesterday at 6 43 p.m.

Okay, I don't have that.

And just to make sure also that mute to get it to you.

Uh the 26-221 Mu Lambda Foundation, because there is a request for recusal on that.

Uh give me just a second.

No, we can't.

You got approval 173.

I don't know what 173 is.

Okay.

Uh any other changes to the consent agenda?

Got everybody around here all agitated.

Uh I am going to remove from the consent agenda on page three number seven, which is Architect and Engineer Good Samaritan Amendment Act for purposes of an amendment.

Number eight, Jules Way Designation Act, because the uh print has not been engrossed.

Uh number nine, Lenora Baker way designation because the print has not been engrossed.

Are there any other changes?

Last call.

Mr.

Chairman.

Go over this.

Yes.

Mr.

Parker, did you want to be ready?

Uh, this isn't uh to the consent agenda, but would you entertain a request to other items up on the agenda?

Uh Mr.

Parker, we have on the floor right now the consent agenda.

Okay.

Any other matter is No, not to the consent agenda.

All right.

To summarize.

On page three of the agenda, Bill 26-173, Bill 26-308, Bill 26-365.

Those are numbers 78 and 9 are removed.

Also on page 3, number 13, which is Bill 26-221, is removed from the consent agenda.

Also, on page five, uh, under resolutions at the bottom of the page number two, which is uh the resolution PR 26-549 concerning Barbara Jones is removed.

Those are the only changes to the consent agenda.

We have the consent agenda as amended.

Um the vote is on that.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam Secretary, I believe all members are present.

Um I'm going to take up uh now uh Bill 26-173.

This is on page three.

It's Architect and Engineer Goods Samaritan Amendment Act of 2026.

There's an amendment that my office circulated at um 1211 today.

It is to add to the um professions that are included in this uh bill.

Uh the Office of Survey, uh no, excuse me, any surveyor.

Uh so the bill deals with limited civil liability for voluntary practice in the event of an emergency.

Uh I'm I'm greatly oversimplifying the legislation.

And added to that is um would be um voluntary practice of land surveying at the scene of life-threatening emergency in the built environment.

If there is no objection, the amendment will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, the amendment is accepted.

We have the bill as amended.

Is there discussion?

All those in favor of the bill is amended.

This is bill 26-173 say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed hearing none?

The ayes have it unanimously.

Um bills.

I guess I have to uh postpone the uh bills 26-308 and 26-365.

I move to postpone both bills to the next legislative meeting.

Is there discussion on the motion to postpone?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Uh hearing none, the measures, the two measures are postponed.

Uh the next measure is uh Bill 26-221da Foundation Inc.

Real Property Tax Exemption Act of 2026.

Uh I don't have a recusal statement to read, but uh we uh Councilmember Parker had recused himself at first reading.

This is final reading.

I see him exiting the chamber.

Uh I move the bill and um see if there's discussion.

All those in favor of the bill, Bill 26-221 say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously, and the secretary will re note will note that councilmember Parker is absent and recused.

On page five.

Uh we have PR 26-549.

District of Columbia State Athletics Commission, Barbara Jones confirmation resolution of 2026.

Uh so moved.

Uh I presented this at the um committee of the whole meeting.

This earlier, the resolution would confirm the mayor's nomination of Barbara Jones for appointment as a voting member of the District of Columbia State Athletics Commission for term to end November 16, 2028.

So moved.

Is there discussion?

Yes, Chairman.

Councilmember Tranmite.

Uh I want to thank uh Mayor Bowser for this nomination.

Uh Ms.

Barbara Jones uh to the DC State Athletic Commission.

Uh Ms.

Jones have been a strong advocate and supporter uh in Washington, D.C., a homegrown in Washington, D.C.

and supporter of state athletics and entertainment in DC for over two decades.

A lot of times we are uh thrust hard trying to find representatives from DC to represent the on these boards.

I believe that her wisdom, knowledge, and also her relationships will be imperative to advance in the mission of the State Athletic Commission.

I was just excited to see her name today because I know her hard work she's been doing since Mary and Burry's time, uh making uh the district stronger in so many different areas.

So when I saw this, I thought that I need to speak to this.

Uh and she's a ward a resident, but she's been doing a lot of work citywide and even across the country um work for different industries.

And so I want to want to second and it cares everyone's support, Ms.

Barbara Jones for her nomination to this board.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Is there further discussion?

Uh Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

We have a lot of very talented and passionate people uh in this city, and I I don't always see their names up for nominations, but uh as my colleague, Councilmember Treyon said, uh Barbara Jones is is is a special one uh here in DC.

So I was very excited to to see her name uh and very, very eager to support her.

She has been doing work in in the community, knows our community uh incredibly incredibly well uh and uh is is deeply committed to serving our city.

So I look forward to voting in favor of this nomination.

Um thank you um chairman and thank you to my colleagues who've already spoken to the I'll say the illustrious career of Ms.

Barbara Jones, who has been an activist, I would say for decades, and an activist for things that are good that are moving the city forward, and has been um really just someone that you can depend on to be at the forefront of many of the small scale um activities.

I know today looking at Free DC sitting in front of us.

Well, you know, before you were out there, Barbara was out there in the community, and you need to get to know her.

She's an exceptional person, and I'm just delighted that as my colleagues have said, that people from the community that have been rooted in the community and the activities of the community on a very small way, um, have an opportunity to serve in a very meaningful um manner and and inspiration for our young people in particular.

So I'm really excited about this and thank you.

Uh thank you.

Uh so we have the uh resolution before us, PR 26-549.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We'll turn now to uh page 7.

Uh non-consent agenda.

The first measure is Bill 26-125, entitled 2607 Connecticut Avenue Northwest and 411 Kansas Avenue Northwest Timeline Extension and Tax Forgiveness Act of 2026.

Um this is on non-consent because the TAFA was negative.

Uh I believe it was approved uh unanimously at first reading.

Um the um portion of the bill that deals with 2607 Connecticut Avenue would extend the 12 month requirement for certification of a nonprofit workforce housing property for the residential apartment building.

And would forgive and refund any tax assessor paid since January 2023.

The portion dealing with 411 Kansas Avenue uh essentially does the same thing, excusing for 111 Kansas Avenue from the recertification requirements to qualify as a nonprofit workforce housing property.

Uh both of these properties are owned by and operated by some, so others might eat.

So moved.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on bill 26-125.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

Um the next uh measure is closing of a portion of a public alley and establishment of a building restriction line in square 2319 SO 22-02364 act of 2026.

That's bill 26-371.

Uh so moved.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on the bill 26-371.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

The ayes have hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is promoting parental engagement at DYRS Amendment Act of 2026.

Report it out of the Committee on Youth Affairs.

It's bill 26-408.

Um discussion.

Yes, uh, Mr.

Chairman, uh, I have uh an amendment that I would like to move along with Councilmember Bonds and Pinto.

And that amendment would ensure that while the underlying measure uh requires DRS to maintain a log of efforts to contact parents and guardians for children and the care of the agency.

Uh this amendment would ensure that uh they notify parents if and when a young person shifts their placement, as well as in instances where a young person may have an extreme medical emergency.

Uh it would also require that that log be made available to the council and to parents upon request.

Are you moving the amendment?

Uh so moved.

Is there discussion on the amendment?

If there is no objection, the amendment will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

We have the bill as amended.

Is there discussion on the bill as amended?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Turning to emergency legislation.

Chairman, you you missed the amendment for the alley for the square twenty twenty-three nineteen.

Correct.

You didn't move it.

Do you want to that was purposeful because you ain't wanting to?

I if you watch the tape, there was plenty of pause.

If you want to move to reconsider.

If you want to move to reconsider.

I would yes, I will move to reconsider.

It's been a um I feel like I have to fill in the blanks here.

So motion to reconsider a bill 26-371.

If there's no objection, um the motion to reconsider will be accepted.

And hearing no objection, Councilmember Lewis George.

Uh yes, Chairman.

Um I I move my amendment.

What's that?

I move my amendment.

Is that all you are going to say?

No.

I'm gonna I was gonna say more.

I was waiting for you to just acknowledge that piece.

Thank you, Chairman, for moving the legislation.

The bill closes a long unused ghost alley in War 4 that has never functioned as a public right of way and is needed, is not needed for alley purposes, allowing the adjacent property owner to incorporate and improve the space, including for landscaping and buffering.

At first reading, the Department of Buildings and the executive flag that because the alley is district-owned, moving the bill forward without amendment could result in a transfer of public land without compensation.

This amendment clarifies that fair market value must be paid to the district, consistent with the understanding that the adjacent property owner is prepared to make that payment.

Thank you.

Um seizing on the last words that you said, I'm not aware that the property owner is prepared to make the payment.

And my understanding from staff is that the payment would be about 40,000.

I would ask members not to support this amendment.

Uh my understanding is that uh, and this is based on the discussion earlier, that the um wherever the impetus for this amendment comes from, it's argued that it has something to do with precedent.

In fact, we have done this uh a number of times before.

Let me say more.

The reason why I don't support this is because this is an alley closing for a piece of land that is four feet wide.

It is about 200 feet long.

It is not buildable, it is not developable.

If we close this alley, then the land will be subject to taxation because it will now be privately owned.

If we impose the requirement of this amendment, the chances, as explained to me, that the property owner is going to pay 40,000 for this four-foot-wide strip of land is virtually non-existent.

So we will not get tax revenue.

We will not get 40,000.

There have been instances where there has been an alley closing where it's a larger piece of land, and yes, we have required that there be payment to the district.

So the committee and I would say the council is not unmindful that sometimes we would want to charge for the property owner who receives the land under the alley that's being closed.

But here it is simply not practical.

And what it will do is it will essentially subvert any effectiveness of this legislation.

We will close the alley, subject to the property owner paying.

The property owner will not pay 40,000 for a four-foot-wide strip of land, and nothing will have been accomplished.

Plus, we will not get the real property tax revenue.

So I would urge that members not support this amendment.

I just want to note that we spoke to the individual this morning.

My team spoke to him this morning, and he has always been aware that it would require some compensation.

Um I am doing this at the because I believe the Department of Buildings is making a fair ask here that we don't set any precedent that won't that there is not compensation for public land, no matter how large or small that land is, and that person is and the individual is prepared to provide some level of compensation as a result.

So again, this is at the request of an agency we both co-oversight over Department of Building.

Um and I see their legal departments and their their director's point here of not setting up a precedent that we don't have some type of conversation when we give away public land, no matter how large or small that land is.

All right.

I I'm the chair of the committee that it marked up and is moving this legislation.

I have received no such communication with regard to the property owner.

So based on your representation that the property owner is willing to do this, I would like to ascertain that for myself.

I don't know why that communication was not referred to the committee.

So I'm gonna move to postpone consideration of this bill so that we can find that out.

Okay.

So if there is no objection, this measure will be postponed.

Uh postponed to the next uh legislative meeting.

Uh we will turn now to emergency legislation.

Uh the declaration PR 26-585, uh arena safety conformity emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Today I'm moving the arena safety conformity emergency amendment act of 2026, which is simple and just includes Capital One Arena and Care First Arena in the already existing prohibition on unauthorized entry onto a playing surface.

This behavior disrupts games and other fans who have paid to attend and enjoy, but most importantly, presents a significant safety risks to fans and players.

There is already a prohibition in place at RFK Stadium, National Park, and Audi Field.

So this emergency ensures that all rules are consistent across all of our professional sports venues.

I asked my colleagues to approve this measure.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Is there discussion on the declaration?

Councilmember White?

I apologize, Councilmember Pinto.

I missed what you were trying to do with this bill to make it even with other stadiums.

So most of our stadiums, there's a prohibition to run onto the court or field in the middle of the game.

And I assume it was just an inadvertent gap in the law that excludes Care First Arena and Capital One Arena from that prohibition.

And recently we had this happen at Capwan Arena where someone ran onto the court in the middle of the game, which was obviously unsafe for the players.

And so we looked into it and realized that we were also missing from the law that prohibition at Care First Arena.

So we've included both of them in this.

And what happens if they do?

Um it's a prohibition, it's a $300 fine.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there further discussion regarding the declaration?

The vote will be on PR 26-585.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the underlying bill, Bill 26-634.

Councilmember Pinto.

So move, Mr.

Chairman.

Discussion.

On the bill.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is PR 26-583, rate plan, vacateur, interim protections, emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, today I'm introducing some emergency amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this.

Um let's be clear about where we are.

Uh earlier this month, the Court of Appeals vacated the Public Service Commission's multi-year rate plan, which has in part driven sharp increases in electric bills across the district.

Now we've heard the argument that the court did not explicitly call these rates unjust or unreasonable, and that this is somehow only a procedural hiccup.

But that framing misses the point.

What the court actually said is deeply concerning.

Uh that the commission's decision was not supported by evidence, that its reasoning was conclusory and unsubstantiated, and I quote, and that the court was left with no idea in quotations how key determinations were made.

In fact, the court made clear it would have vacated their order on those grounds alone, even aside from the failure to hold a proper evidentiary hearing.

That is not a minor administrative issue.

That is a fundamental breakdown in the process that is supposed to protect ratepayers in the district.

And yet today, district residents are still being charged under those same vacated rates.

Nearly a quarter of households are behind on their bills.

We've seen thousands of disconnection notices and hundreds of families are already losing power, all while the legal validity of these rates remains unresolved.

And the motions filed by the Office of the People's Council and the Apartment and Office of Building Association remain in abeyance with the public service commission.

In February alone, hundreds of households had their electric shut off and tens of thousands received notices.

Nearly a quarter of residents are currently already behind on their electric bills.

Those numbers are likely will likely increase dramatically in the coming weeks as folks behind from January start to receive disconnections notices themselves.

And a payment plan is simply not a feasible solution for families seeking seeing their bills skyrocket.

This bill does not attempt to settle the broader legal dispute.

It does not determine what the correct rate should be.

It does something much more immediate and necessary.

It ensures that during this period of uncertainty, we do not allow residents to be disconnected from an essential service based on rates that the court has already said were not adequately, inadequately justified.

And it gives us as legislators 90 days to work toward an intervention that is sustainable.

This is a temporary measure, a narrow one, a 90-day pause to give the commission time to do its job correctly, and for all of us to work toward a lawful and fair outcome.

Because at the end of the day, this is about the stability and basic dignity.

No one in the District of Columbia should be should lose electricity while we are still figuring out whether the bills they received were evenly properly justified in the first place.

And far too many residents of residents for them, this is not just a strain on their budgets.

It is a breaking point.

And we have to act to ensure that the families of the district remain stable.

With that, I move the declaration.

We have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion?

Councilmember Wright?

Pair and White?

This is a good time to comment on the bill.

Well, technically we have the declaration.

People do talk about the bill then.

Uh well, I'll talk about it now then.

Okay.

So I want to thank you, Councilmember Janice Lewis George for this bill.

I wrote PEPCO and the public service commission because this isn't abstract in policy for Ward 8 and across the district, election bills have been just too high.

The rates have been rising exponentially, and I've seen families shut off because of this.

They can't absorb the increased cost of keeping their power on in the district.

Two council members talked about how their bill uh was skyrocketed.

Um and while I was in the meeting this morning, I think I got a call from PEPCO, but let me verify that first of all.

I think it was PEPCO.

Part of the residents are seeing is coming from broader PJM region, um, which is generating less electricity as a result, and states in the region are receiving less energy.

At the same time, electricity demands in the region is rapidly increasing due to these data centers.

Working families and residents do not have to endure the burdens of utility providers, should not have to endure the utility providers' burdens, um, because if they wanted to choose another supplier, we we couldn't.

It's a monopoly on this industry.

Uh families in what they already carry some of the highest energy burdens in the district, paying a disproportionate share of the income just to keep the lights on.

The DC Court of Appeals vacated the Commission's approval of PEPCO's multi-year rate plan, and that decision makes it clear that the process did not comply with the law.

That means the rates that people are paying were approved unlawfully, and the harm from those unlawful rates have fallen on the hardest residents.

That's the working class people that keep DC going.

Um this is not just a regulatory issue, it's an economic justice issue.

Singers on fixed incomes, working families, small businesses can't absorb the temporary shocks that become permanent hardships.

These burdens keep getting pushed back onto residents, though higher bills and disconnections are consistently an issue.

Doing the breath is a heard the back and forth between what we should and shouldn't do.

Uh, we are the body that's supposed to represent the people.

What the well households already struggling, cutting off electricity isn't accountability, it's punishment.

It is create health, a health and safety risk of those residents.

Um while this is not an end-all solution, I must be reminded uh to our colleagues that tens of thousands of residents have already received notices across the district.

This emergency legislation is a necessary stopgap to prevent shutoffs while the district depends upon the court to uh the court vacator and the reprimands to process the plays out.

Um I think the court is in May, uh the May the 22nd to figure this thing out.

If the rate plan is in limbo, residents should not be exposed to the hardship consequences, especially disconnections doing that uncertainty.

We need real transparency, what's driving these increases, what PEPCO is doing to correct the internal and infrastructure issues, and right while residents keep seeing bills climb higher and higher.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh further further on the declaration.

Councilmember Henderson.

I'm sorry, actually, Councilmember Allen was next on my sites, and then Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I was just gonna be very brief on the deck.

I'm gonna I'll speak again once we get to the underlying measure about why this is so important and the crisis that everyone is facing.

Um I do wish to note for colleagues that if you check your inbox at 232 p.m., I circulated an amendment with colleagues, and so I believe it will be accepted as friendly, but it's pending part of the conversation we had uh during our breakfast meeting about how to make sure that the scope is tailored.

So just want to flag that for my colleagues that I'll move that amendment on the underlying measure once we get there, but uh fully in support of the declaration today.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Henderson.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I spoke a little bit about this in the breakfast, but I want to ask some questions for the record.

Um to Councilmember Lewis George.

So one, the first question which I asked at the breakfast was around just confirming that this is both for residential and commercial properties.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Um my other question was just in terms of um length of time.

So right now we have some information new from the PSC in terms of when the next evidentiary hearing is going to be held, but we don't have a timeline in terms of how long it's going to take to resolve I guess the new rates, et cetera.

How long are we prepared to continue?

And I'm I'm not asking that in sort of a sort of way of it could be five months, it could be three months, it could be a year.

How long are we going to say that a utility cannot be turned off while this is sort of pending?

I will note in other jurisdictions there are challenges that happen to their rate cases, but um this is this is creating a new precedent.

I appreciate that question.

Um because we have uh information and confirmation that uh the um that May 22nd we will have some very clear answers.

This is only intended for the 90 days because after May 22nd, we will have a pathway or at least an understanding.

So it's only intended for 90 days, which is both reflected in the emergency and the temporary.

Um and that uh is that is as far as we are going, it that gives enough time for um all of the decisions to be made by May 22nd that will be necessary for us to understand whether there will be an interim rate or the current rate will stand or there will be a lower rate for residents.

Okay.

Um my understanding is that if a person enters payment plan, your um utility cannot be turned off.

Would this disincentivize individuals to actually do the payment plan process?

Now I think there is a difference in terms of someone who may owe $500 and someone who may owe $15,000 in terms of their unpaid utility bill.

I think for those who owe $15,000, you need to enter a payment plan because regardless of what happens with the case, this isn't gonna necessarily resolve your situation.

Yeah.

I think it's a great question.

And many of us support automatic enrollment and uh in fact, Councilmember Allen introduced legislation, and we also had a hearing last Thursday on moving forward in that direction.

We got some pushback, but I'm hopeful that we will move forward on a permanent basis as a council for automatic enrollment because what we have found and what we hear from Office of People Council and others is there the amount the percentage of people who actually enroll but and who are eligible to roll, there is such a stark difference there.

Um our hope is that during this 90-day period that the education that needs to happen from both PSC and OPC will educate more residents to get on the payment plan.

Um but this also offers the opportunity for people who have overpaid thus far.

Nobody will get their money back, unfortunately.

But if the rates are changed, people will at least have those amounts credited to their account.

So future payments um will not be taken, will be less and they won't have that money come out.

And so that's what we wanted to encompass with um this 90 day.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I do want to correct something.

The uh language of the temporary reads, and I quote, the section this section shall sunset 90 days after the effective date of the rate plan vacateur interim protections emergency amendment act of 2026.

If the temporary is adopted, then the effect is 180 days, not 90 days.

If I look at section C of um and I don't have it, I mean fully.

Well, I just read it.

And I'll read it again if you want me to.

No, please don't.

I don't appreciate your attitude today.

I want you to reframe and bring it back to a better place because it wasn't me who who up who who I guess created it.

Um but um the language that we worked on with OGC, uh, the effect is 90 days.

It is the effective date of 90 days, and that is what we were told by general counsel.

So you're next to general counsel, you can get clarification.

But we we created, we weren't even planning on doing the temporary, we're doing it because procedurally we have to.

But the the plan is to, and we made it clear that that that was our intent.

Um and so uh based on our understanding from our conversation with GC, um it it will sunset at the 90 days and runs adjacent to the emergency.

So I appreciate what you're saying.

That's not the plain language.

So the bill that I have in front of me, the temporary bill that I have in front of me is the bill that's linked to the agenda, and therefore that is the temporary bill that we will be voting on.

And the language says, and I read, quote, this section is a good thing.

You don't need to read it again.

90 days after the general council wants us to amend it, we can.

We did this in conjunction with them.

So general again, general counsel sitting next, so you can do that.

I would all also know that the temp can also be tabled at second reading.

It never has to actually go into effect as you know procedurally as well.

So we could also table it at second reading.

So there's two options there.

Um I'm not quite sure what to do with what you're saying.

So, Madam General Counsel, I don't know that you have pulled the bill off of the um but my reading is that it is 90 days plus the emergency.

And I'm not quite sure why we are arguing over this, other than that the statement was made that this is only for 90 days, and the Well that because that's the documents before us that we're voting on say a hundred say ninety plus ninety.

It the language says it is ninety days from the effective date of emergency, so I don't understand what is confusing about that.

We are on the deck.

Mr.

Chairman, I mean, since we're on the emergency deck right now, perhaps we could move on the emergency deck, and if there needs to be any clarification on the temporary, when that comes up, we could help clarify that language.

I feel like we're a little stuck right now.

We are.

Uh Councilmember Parker.

Thank you.

I I think it's just important to provide some context that since 2017, district ratepayers have seen rates increase nearly 70 percent.

And that those rates have been approved by the Public Service Commission with little to no oversight by the council.

Now that's me offering that uh editorial piece there.

And that brings us here today.

I also want to acknowledge the work that the Office of the People's Council has done that led to the lawsuit that led to the overturning of the rates uh by the DC Court of Appeals, and so I think it's important to just level set the many players here at the table.

Um I think it's important for us uh to pause to take a step back to continue to apply pressure to the public service commission to actually do their jobs.

At the same time, we provide some level of relief uh to district taxpayers or uh ratepayers rather.

Now, I am of the mind, and we discussed this earlier, that it is important that we narrow this uh so that there are guardrails.

I'm uh I'm told that there are efforts to do that.

Um and I look forward to hearing from the public service commission how they're going to move forward.

Last thing I would just say.

Um this pass, uh I imagine 90 days will come and go and people are still going to struggle to pay their uh PEPCO bills and other utilities.

Um so it is important that we as a body think more long-term uh for sustainable solutions to help district uh uh pay uh rate payers.

Uh but I want to thank Councilmember Lewis George for issuing this and and meeting this moment, uh, which unfortunately we're here uh because the public service commission has failed uh to do what it's supposed to do.

Thank you.

Uh further on the uh bill.

Uh I am not going to be supporting the declaration.

Uh what the the effect of this legislation would be is to prevent enforcement uh where there is um a significant arrearage uh of somebody's electric bill.

It does not uh address the debt, it just simply prevents enforcement.

Uh we went through this experience with the pandemic where we removed enforcement for both utility bills and for uh rent payments, and we are still dealing with the after-effects of that, where there are people, for example, contacting my office owing thousands of dollars in PEPCO bills or gas bills, or even ten to twenty thousand dollars in uh rent delinquencies.

Uh there might have been an argument for our doing that during the pandemic.

Um I had asked at the breakfast what the average uh amount at issue here is, and I recognize that there will be many customers above the average and some below the average, but if I remember correctly, it was about $12 a month.

Um but in any event, this legislation will not prevent, does not address the debt, it just simply prevents enforcement.

So I'm not sure what we're accomplishing, and I think that's a it's a bad uh road for us to go on.

So I will not be supporting this.

Uh if there's nothing further, the vote will be on the declaration.

And I'm gonna ask for a roll call, and thank you, Chairman.

Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Trayon White?

Yes.

Councilmember Trayon White votes yes.

Councilmember Allen.

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

Councilmember Bonds, no.

Councilmember Bonds votes no.

Councilmember Crawford?

No.

Councilmember Crawford votes no.

Councilmember Felder?

No.

Councilmember Felder votes no.

Councilmember Freuman.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman votes yes.

Councilmember Henderson?

Yes.

Councilmember Henderson votes yes.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis George votes yes.

Chairman Mendelssohn?

No.

Chairman Mendelssohn votes no.

Councilmember Nado.

Yes.

Councilmember Nodeau votes yes.

Councilmember Parker?

Yes.

Councilmember Parker votes yes.

Councilmember Pinto.

Yes.

Councilmember Pinto votes yes.

Councilmember Robert White?

Yes.

Councilmember Robert White votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are nine yeses and four no's.

The declaration is approved.

The underlying bill is Bill 26-630.

Councilmember Lewis George.

So moved.

Discussion on the bill.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I know we had a little bit of the discussion already on the deck, but I did want to just try to help put it in scope as to the level of pain that is experienced in a very short amount of time.

The amount of arrearages, meaning the amount that people have been unable to pay of their PEPCO bills went up by $6 million from December 2025 to January 2026.

That's one month.

$6 million.

That is a 13% increase in the amount of arrearages.

So that's not just a whole bunch of people that just said maybe figure out how can I figure out how not to pay?

That's a lot of people who just can't pay.

It's a lot of people who are struggling to figure out how to meet this moment and figure out how to do this.

Let me compound that with the Court of Appeals decision that vacated and remanded the PSC approval of a rate hike that largely is the part of the 2025 and 2026 bills that people have seen.

So what happens next is that the Public Service Commission has to go back now and hold the evidentiary hearing that they should have held in the first place and now go through a process.

Last time around, when they went through and had a hearing, not the full evidentiary hearing, but when they had a hearing, it was five months until they approved a rate case.

So from a when will this all get sorted out question?

It's not going to be any time soon.

So I think that it is right for us to take an action.

Should I help?

If we have hundreds of people calling our offices asking for help, I think it means they need the help.

And so that's what I think this legislation is aiming to deliver.

Now part of our conversation was around how do we help fine-tune it in a way that we are making sure that we can focus efforts on the people who really need the help and not unintentionally creating some disincentive for somebody who might owe $15,000, $20,000 and just hasn't been paying.

We're really trying to target the households that have been feeling the pinch of this, and how do we help get the help to them?

So the amendment that I have circulated at 232 and that I encourage my colleagues to support, and I believe will be accepted as friendly.

Um tries to get at this.

It limits disconnections to cases where the household in question has a rearage of more than $1,000.

And the reason why we do that is that most households don't have $15,000 of a rearage.

We're talking about the households that a couple of hundred bucks makes a big difference about whether they can pay the bill, pay the rent, put food on the table, and that's where the emphasis of this is targeting.

And I think it's uh responsive to the conversation that we had earlier this morning.

I think it helps tailor the help that we are trying to help provide in this interim.

I do want to be clear with the public, though, right?

This is not a this is not debt forgiveness.

This is just helping make sure that we don't turn off the power.

So I do think it is very important that we're clear to folks.

This does not uh put money back in people's pockets from going you know reversing the rate increase.

It does not eliminate overall debt, but it does help make sure that people can keep the power on and that we avoid needless cutoffs for people who are really feeling the pain, feeling the pinch and in the need right now.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I move that amendment and uh ask if it be accepted as friendly.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um first asked if it would be accepted as friendly.

It is accepted as friendly.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Ms.

Actually, it's for me to ask if there's any objection to it.

Um, ask away, sir.

Two people asked to be recognized.

So let me um turn to them.

Councilmember Fruman and then Councilmember Vaughn.

All right, thank you very much.

Um there was a lot of discussion at the breakfast and a concern about the idea that this might discourage people from getting into payment plans because if there's just a blanket forgiveness, then what's the incentive to do that?

I don't I worry about it creating that incentive.

There has been some conversation about trying to tailor this to the specific thing, the rate increase in January that causes an issue.

And there had been a discussion of one vehicle to do that that intrigued me.

I have to say the $1,000 safe harbor is problematic to me.

The $6 million figure, Councilmember Allen that you cited is a big number, but it's not different than the per customer number that the Chairman referenced.

There's 400,000 customers, $6 million is $15 a month.

That doesn't add up to $1,000.

So I mean we have to be careful I I don't want anybody's power cutoff.

I want folks to enter into payment plans.

I want to have support for that.

But the kind of safe harbor that's talked about by this creates, in my opinion, a perverse incentive and can make the problem worse.

And it isn't that whatever these costs are don't get paid by somebody and it isn't that they necessarily get paid by PEPCO.

They get paid by everybody else.

So we need to have an incentive structure that works and we should be talking about the numbers in the context of the $15 a month increase that is what the what you reference when you say six million dollars so I won't be supporting the legislation as amended in this way.

Councilmember Bond Thank you, Chairman.

In reading the amendment, it sounds great in that we are putting an arrears amount of $1,000 to the measure because we all know that when the power company says that the average increase is $12.50 a month, we know that that is not even something that we can phantom and so I'm going to support your amendment Councilmember Allen.

Thank you.

Further on the amendment, Councilmember Robert White.

Thank you, Chairman.

I'm going to support the amendment and and also the underlying bill.

You know what I want to make sure isn't lost yes we need to make sure people are paying their bills and entering into payment agreements but when we talk about incentivizing people to not pay bills, we also need to think about what we're doing to incentivize PEPCO to find cheaper sources of power because I'm with a whole lot of people that are getting bankrupt by my utility bills, right?

Like when your utility and your mortgage cost the same thing, there is a problem.

And right now residents and businesses are paying rates that were not lawfully established.

I firmly believe that means we should get our money back.

And there has to be more pressure on PEPCO who is not showing up to hearings at the council who is not raising rates legally who's not willingly refunding that money and so we absolutely need residents to do their part but we need PEPCO to do their part too and there's not enough pressure on them.

And so my hope is that this bill adds some pressure to them to say look if we don't want to eat these costs then we had better find some alternative between the data centers that Virginia is raking in money for, we're paying that cost.

Whatever deals PEPCO is or is not making, we're paying that cost and we are completely vulnerable right now.

So I see this as a measure to protect residents from having their power cut off when they are paying rates that are not were not legally established.

But I also see this bill as a message to PEPCO that you need to do better because we can't afford this type of increase.

If it's not checked now none of us are going to have power very soon.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Is there further on the amendment Councilmember Henderson?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman My question for Councilmember Allen, just from an implementation standpoint, I can appreciate that the amendment you all a narrowing which I heard from the breakfast but from an implementation standpoint, let's say your balance now exceeds $1,001, then what?

I think it could be $601.

So the legislation would allow PEPCO to proceed.

Okay.

So in the same way we do with other utilities when there's there's a dollar amount somewhere so this is trying to be responsive to the conversation we heard earlier to narrow, so it sets a limit.

But you're right.

At $1,01 now they can initiate um disconnection notice.

Okay.

I mentioned this earlier as well and I wrote it for the Declaration because I do believe that there is a a challenge that we're in with the PSC not having followed a Court of appeals saying you need to go back, you need to do the hearing and then we're sort of in this in between I am uneasy because I do feel like this is again setting up a precedent that if something happens with say DC Water or Washington gas or any others we will come back and say while that's being worked out, while there's a court case that's being litigated, et cetera, for however long that it takes to get the new rates in, we will do this.

I am uneasy because I do feel like this is again setting up a precedent that if something happens with, say, DC Water or Washington Gas or any others, we will come back and say, while that's being worked out, while there's a court case that's being litigated, et cetera, for however long that it takes to get the new rates in, we will do this.

And I and I heard my colleague that the 90 days will get clarity in terms of that.

I want to say that for the record, but I also feel like we were here not that long ago doing this during the public health emergency, where we never said no until it was too like we we had to take money from the Housing Production Trust Fund to sort of pay off a decision that we had made prior in terms of rent.

And so that is where my uneasiness with this is, but I'm not going to stand in the way of this particular amendment.

Thank you.

Is there anything further on this amendment?

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just would add again additional context.

I am sensitive to the fact that the council should not intervene every time there is a court case with these utility rates.

But this is a very unique circumstance where the court has rejected and validated, reversed a rate increase because of a lack of due process.

I think that does warrant the council to weigh in here in this circumstance.

And just for numbers, more than 35% of district PEPCO clients are in arrears.

They're behind.

Nearly, I think the number is 109,000 customers would be covered if this emergency would go into effect.

So just think about that.

I do not believe for one second more than 100,000 people are not paying simply because they refuse to pay because they're trying to skirt the law, get by.

It's because people are struggling.

And we have seen, unfortunately, some see record profits.

And we, as I already mentioned, we have not seen the level of oversight from this body that there should have been.

And so I think this is a responsible and an immediate response for 90 days that would allow us to know what direction the public service commission will take.

So I look forward to supporting this amendment and the underlying mission uh uh measure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh anything further on the amendment.

Um the vote will be on the amendment.

All those in this is the amendment that council member Allen circulated.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

No.

No.

Do you want to be recorded as no?

Yes, we're calling me as no.

Who's who's no?

Me.

Felder.

And Madam Secretary, you will note me.

That doesn't mean me.

Somebody said me, Crawford, excuse me, full Felder and Fruman.

Um the amendment is approved.

We have the bill as amended before us.

Uh further discussion.

Thank you.

Uh I'm going to again speak against this.

I think the amendment is an improvement.

But I'm going to actually pick up on a remark that uh our colleague uh from Ward 5 made.

The court does disallowed the rate increase, and so the council should weigh in.

I could agree with that, but not this way.

What we're doing is we're not dealing with the debt.

What we're doing is we're simply saying the people don't have to pay right away.

We'd like them to, but they don't have to pay.

I don't think that's an appropriate way for the council to weigh in.

Uh uh I would like to think we've all become increasingly inset increasingly sensitive to complaints about investors not wanting to invest in the district and businesses struggling with um getting investment capital.

And I think that when we say, well, people you you can't enforce uh you can't enforce nonpayment, uh which is what we're doing, although the amendment does mitigate that somewhat.

I think that's just um not a good action for the district.

I think that if we're concerned about the um uh folks' ability or inability to pay, that we need to address that head on rather than just saying PEPCO, you're gonna increase your reages, and unless it's over a thousand, gets to being over a thousand dollars, there's nothing you can do about it.

Um maybe for 90 days, but I don't know.

We're still dealing with uh, I mean, my office gets uh requests for utility assistance where people owe thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars, and rent rec in uh requests, rent assistance.

So at any event, that's why I'm voting against us.

Councilmember Lewis George, and then if you want to go next and then Councilmore.

I just wanted to note two things.

I'll be brief.

First and foremost, I think you know, we just can't shrug our shoulders after years of the PSA PSC improving extra extreme rate hikes, right?

It's not just residents' fault that the rates are what they are.

There is some responsibility and fault that lies with us well as this body, and we have to take some action as a result of that, as we hear from our constituents who are struggling in this moment, and this is us taking action.

Now, there are permanent things that need to be done, and the work is happening in the Transportation Environment Committee to make those permanent changes, as many of us were last week on Thursday, uh, actually doing real oversight work, and I'm grateful for Councilmember Allen, who now has that commission, who is now doing rightfully that oversight work and trying to get to a space where we can do that.

I want to also note uh that this is not just impacting uh individuals.

This is also impacting many of our small businesses.

I've also heard from small businesses across the city who have said they are struggling to deal with these rate hikes as well and how it's impacting their business.

So it's not just individuals, but it's small businesses who we also are are are standing in this D4 in this moment that don't deserve the level of rate hikes.

Um I won't go back and forth on the issues.

The the um courts, people can go and actually read what the court said, um, which is is is evident and clear.

And so I would ask my colleagues to continue to support this very sensible step for this 90-day period, and so that when we get the information on May 22nd, we can figure out how we move forward, not only from a uh temporary basis but a permanent basis that can actually make this sustainable for residents every single day.

And again, for some people, this may be a strain, but for many people, this is a breaking point.

Do I pay my rent or do I pay my utilities?

And neither one is a sustainable option, not having a roof over your head or my child care, right?

This is not a sustainable option.

And many people rely on electricity for a number of things, medical needs, health needs.

And so that can't be a real option.

And so I want us to make that clear.

Um, and so I hope my colleagues will support this very sensible step in trying to get some accountability and address the very rate, the real rate hikes that people are feeling and and are struggling with at this moment.

Thank you.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I heard a couple of times people saying, you know, people got to pay their bills.

Here's the thing.

They are paying.

They're overpaying.

Based on the court decision that vacated the rate increase, people have been overpaying.

The trick is we actually don't know, and it's really hard to determine by exactly how much they have been overpaying.

The most unfair outcome that we could have here is for someone to experience a disconnection based on the amount that they should have never paid to PEPCO in the first place.

That's what I think the heart of this legislation is trying to get to is to help protect that situation and those individuals.

And if this conversation helps prompt the longer and bigger conversation we got to have about how do we create cleaner, faster, cheaper energy in our city to help control these costs.

I'm glad everybody is paying attention to this now.

I'm paying attention to this.

I'm excited that I got oversight of the public service commission for the last seven weeks.

Can't get it all done in seven weeks.

But um, there's a lot of work that we can do.

And when we think about those data centers that are out in Loudoun County or wherever they are, um some of those county administrators out there, they're friends of ours, and when they talk about the ability to levy a tax against them to help pay for things in their city, that's great.

Uh we can't do that.

But part of what we're struggling with, part of what people pay struggle with, is that that data center in Loudon County shows up on your bill.

It absolutely does.

It impacts our ability to afford energy in the district and people's ability to afford calling the district home.

So I encourage my colleague to support this.

Do not mistake it for a long-term solution.

It is one way to try to create some short-term and immediate help.

But for everybody coming on board to help work on the longer-term solutions, I um I welcome everybody into that fight.

Thank you.

Councilmember Tran White.

Uh, thank you, Chairman.

Uh, just to reiterate, uh, according to the courts, uh, it is known that residents are overpaying PEPCO.

Uh the reasons for their increases have been noted to be to pay for infrastructure and supply increase and the spike in the data centers.

Uh uh is my belief that PEPCO needs to restructure how to pay for it.

Uh partly because as I look as of early 2024, the two the CEO of PEPCO, Tyler Anthony has a base salary of 685,000 with a total package of 200, to 2.5 million dollars a year.

When I look even further to its permanent, Exelon, oh man, they they they they don't it over there.

Uh Calvin Calvin Butler, President CEO, is making in his package 14.2 million dollars a year.

Gene Jones, uh executive vice president and CFO, $3.5 million a year, according to their pack is Gail Littleton, former executive vice president and chief legal officer, $4.2 million a year, and this can increase based on stock holdings.

David Glockner, $2.8 million a year.

Michael and Osinzo, executive vice president and chief operating officer, $3.1 million a year.

So it sounds like the taxpayers are bearing the brunt of these increases if they want to do infrastructure or pay for these data centers.

They need to decent reorganizing out at the backs of our everyday residents trying to make a living in Washington, D.C.

Thank you.

Anything further on this bill?

Councilmember Robert White.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um it just very briefly.

Uh we we know and it's come more and more to people's attention that multi-year rate plans shift financial risk on to taxpayers while failing to include enough cost-saving incentives.

And that's why even before the Court of Appeals ruling that vacated PEPCO's multi-year rate plan uh came down.

I introduced the utility rates and rate making amendment act to put some common sense guardrails on multi-year rate plans and require the public service commission to hold utilities to hire standards that protect rate player payers.

So this is a long-term solution to the issue that we're discussing today, and I just want to mention it because it is relevant uh as we as a body look into this issue and how we protect residents long term.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember further on the bill.

Uh we have the bill as amended for the call call.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um Madam Secretary, I believe did you ask for a roll call?

I did, thank you.

Uh Madam Secretary, would you call the rolls voted on the bill?

Councilmember Allen?

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

Councilmember Bonds?

Yes.

Councilmember Bonds votes yes.

Councilmember Crawford?

No.

Councilmember Crawford votes no.

Councilmember Felder?

No.

Councilmember Felder votes no.

Councilmember Fruman?

No.

Councilmember Freeman votes no.

Councilmember Henderson?

No.

Councilmember Henderson votes no.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis George votes yes.

Chairman Mendelson.

No.

Chairman Mendelssohn votes no.

Councilmember Nadell.

Yes.

Councilmember Nito votes yes.

Councilmember Parker.

Yes.

Councilmember Parker votes yes.

Councilmember Pinto.

Yes.

Councilmember Pinto votes yes.

Councilmember Robert White?

Yes.

Councilmember Robert White votes yes.

Councilmember Trayon White?

Yes.

Councilmember Trayon White votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are eight yeses and five no's The Um The Bill is approved.

The next measure is PR 26-589 DC Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, Vince McConey.

Confirmation emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

McConey withdrew his nomination yesterday, so I'm going to withdraw these measures from consideration.

The measure is withdrawn.

The next measure then is PR 26-6.

Excuse me, 26-564.

National ballpark amended and restated lease emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

So moved.

The um declaration will allow us to consider the um approval, which is Bill 26-620 of the lease.

This is this legislation provides for approval of an amended and restated lease agreement between the Washington National Stadium and events D.C.

for the National's ballpark in accordance with the ballpark maintenance act that we adopted in the fall of 2024.

The ballpark maintenance act, which is what we adopted in 2024, requires that the amended lease include a term extension through at least February 28th, 2020 2054.

The amended and restated lease agreement, which is before us now for approval, will keep the national baseball club in the district through longer than the law requires.

That is, at least to the 2058, not 2054 season.

It also provides a dedicated stream of funding for the modernization and upkeep of the stadium.

Events DC and Washington Nationals Baseball Club have engaged in extensive negotiations over a long period of time to reach agreement on the lease.

With the council's approval of the lease, what is before us, both parties are now prepared to execute the document to keep Major League Baseball in the district for at least the next generation.

So as I said, I'm so moved on the uh declaration.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on the declaration.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the underlying bill, Bill 26-620.

So moved.

Yes, so moved.

And then I circulated an amendment nature of a substitute.

So I will move the amendment nature of a substitute, which I circulated yesterday.

It is respectfully, a lot of technical changes that General Council recommended, which actually makes it conform with what the legislation is that we should be adopting.

So I have to move the amendment nature of a substitute.

If there's no objection, it will be accepted.

Hearing no objection, it's accepted.

We have the bill as amended before us.

Discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Allen.

I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments.

We had a longer discussion at the breakfast meeting, so I don't want to repeat all of that.

I just want to note how significant this is.

Everybody remembers the drama, the back, the fourth, cap one, are they going, or they're not.

It is important to be able to help ensure the nationals are going to be here through 2059.

To be able to not have to worry about that, if you could look at some of the other ballparks where Atlanta, for example, where the Braves went out, they built a stadium, and then 15 years later, they up and decided let's go build another stadium somewhere else, to know that that is something that is locked in, as well as to have clarity around who is responsible for what expenditures, what are the nationals have to spend on their portion of it, what is events D.C.

in the district.

I think this provides a lot of clarity.

I think this also is probably not going to get nearly the fanfare that some of the other conversations have had over this past year, but I think it's a really big deal.

Mr.

Chairman, I know you have been very instrumental in helping move this project forward and getting to this.

I want to thank the Nationals, yourself, the budget office, everybody that's had a hand in this, events D.C.

to make sure that we actually got this done, and that uh for the home opener on Friday, uh, as we welcome baseball back, uh, we've got this settled for decades to come.

It's a big deal.

I appreciate it, and thank you.

Uh, thank you.

And you said that far more eloquently than I did.

Uh Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um I I echo what my colleagues said.

And it it doesn't seem to me like the stadium has been here as long as it has, because I remember when we got got the team back and going to see them at RFK than my first game at the new stadium was in the all the way back, like there was a fence behind me.

And then I became a council member.

I got to go on the field.

Um, but but more more importantly, um the the presence, right?

We want our teams to be a presence in the city.

And I've been able to take my kids and other kids onto the field.

I've done opera in the outfield, movie nights uh there at the stadium, and gone have gone to other events in addition to uh baseball and large concerts.

And that predictability, as council member Allen said, is a good thing.

Knowing that the team is going to be here.

We're not going to be negotiating with, you know, uh some other jurisdiction and a bidding war about the team.

Uh that's important in a time where we need folks who are going to anchor in D.C.

Uh right now.

So I'm excited about this and uh and look forward to voting in support of it.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Councilmember Crayon White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Well, I'm excited that we uh looking forward to extending the opportunity to keep um baseball team here in the city.

I don't know uh with confidence what we are doing with the money that's being put in the call for to keep it up.

Um, because you talk about 30 years from now, we don't know what the stadium is going to look like in 30 years from now.

Will we, as the owner, have to reinvest our own money to keep it up, or is there money allocated now based on their moves made, I guess, two years ago to show there's a pot of money to keep the stadium vibrant and a place that's safe that people want to come to.

We've seen what happened with FedEx.

And so I guess my question or comment is about uh having money to sustain the stadium years from now, as we talk about 30 years from now.

The ballpark budget and maintenance amendment act of 2024, which we adopted in the fall of 2024, provides for revenues generated from activities at the stadium going into a fund, the ballpark maintenance fund, uh, that are then available for capital improvements and maintenance of the facility.

Uh so that is ongoing revenue that is available on an ongoing basis, uh, and that therefore doesn't require any draws from the general fund.

Question Has that fund started yet to fund that?

Because it's my understanding we're still paying back debt on that fund.

So some of the revenue, you know, so the ballpark maintenance fund will benefit from some of the revenues that are currently going into what's called the ballpark fee.

And the ballpark fee was going to go away when it's going to go away when the bonds are paid off, which I don't remember if it's this year or next year.

The mayor with the commanders repurposed some of that, those revenue streams to go toward other sports stadium events, stadiums.

I'm not sure it wasn't the commanders.

And we then redirected some of it to go to the transportation fund related to the commander's stadium.

That was a long answer.

In short, you asked if the fund exists today for the ballpark maintenance?

No.

It will birth.

As soon as the bonds are paid off with some of the revenues that are currently going to the ballpark fee.

Thank you.

Further on this, Councilmember Pinto.

I want to thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for moving this bill forward and being such a steadfast supporter of the ballpark and the nationals.

And as we think about this budget and the future of our city and all of the important investments and worthwhile investments in our sports infrastructure, not only being so important for the teams and our athletes and our fans to go and to our economy, but to our entire culture.

And as we do that, I want to remind us all to continue looking for opportunities to support our women's sports teams through this budget and beyond.

But I'm so excited to support this measure today and thank you for moving it.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Anything further on this, Councilmember Bonds?

Yes, thank you very much, Chairman.

I just want to remind my colleagues that this action that we are taking today is about the infrastructure.

It's about the physical plant.

It does not include any uh remittance that would go towards the team or to for salaries.

That is more exclusively by the team itself.

So just want us to understand that, because that was a question that was posed some time ago.

Thank you.

If there's no further discussion, we have the bill Bill 26-620 as amended, which was that amendment nature of a substitute.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is juvenile curfew sunset emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

We have to ensure as a city that we are providing safe spaces and positive activities for young people.

And we have to ensure that there are effective crime prevention tools in place, like the limited tool of allowing for an earlier juvenile curfew in certain designated zones, which have been in place for eight months and have prevented crime without leading to any more arrests, which is exactly what we wanted this tool to be used for.

It is unacceptable for our neighbors to face outbreaks of violence.

It's unacceptable to put our young people in harm's way.

And we've seen this in recent weeks in Navy Yard, Hell East, and U Street in particular.

The juvenile curfew allows the MPD chief to declare temporary juvenile curfew zones in designated areas.

When MPD gets intel about planned so-called team takeovers or other unsafe activities, sometimes planned fights.

The department can determine where to designate these juvenile curfew zones as a preventative tool.

Over the last eight months, 19 juvenile curfew zones have been declared.

And MPD reports that these zones have been successful in preventing dangerous activity and keeping young people and other surrounding neighbors safe.

Without the juvenile curfew, there would be a strain on MPD resources, pulling officers from other neighborhoods when needing to respond to one of these team takeovers or other large gatherings of young people.

I'll also note that is not a good outcome when there is a large group of young people we already know they're going to be there and a fight breaks out, and then we send dozens and dozens of officers to disperse the scene.

That's when accidents happen.

That's what we don't want to see.

This emergency extension of the juvenile curfew is urgent for us to approve today.

If we do not act, the temporary will expire on April 15th.

DCPS will be in the middle of their spring break at that time, and we are weeks away from the start of summer, a time when we know we usually see an increase in large gatherings of our young people.

By replacing the sunset, as I've proposed in my emergency bill, these provisions for the juvenile curfew would remain in effect until September 25th, 2026.

I want to be clear, I also believe we need to be investing in youth programming and making sure kids and teens have safe and enjoyable places to go throughout the city.

It's why I've introduced multiple bills this year to address that need, like my bill to establish a teen center in every quadrant of the city, my bill to establish a youth villages program.

Those bills are still awaiting hearings in other committees.

And I'm pleased and grateful to see the mayor's announcements about enhanced programming for kids that will take place this spring and this summer as well.

We have to do both.

We're going to do both, and we cannot stall when it comes to implementing effective preventative tools that will keep our neighbors safe.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this measure today.

Is there discussion on this?

I would object to that, Mr.

Chairman.

Um as I mentioned, there would be a gap in the law that would fall over spring break if we do not act today, a risk I do not think is wise to take.

And the next legislative meeting is set to be on April 21st, which would be after that time period.

And so I think it's important that we vote on this measure today.

Further discussion on the motion to postpone.

The vote will be on the motion to postpone.

All those um Mr.

Chairman, take a roll call vote, please.

What's that?

You take a roll call vote?

Sure.

Madam Secretary.

Councilmember Bonds.

No.

Councilmember Bonds votes no.

Councilmember Crawford.

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Councilmember Felder?

Yes.

Councilmember Felder votes yes.

Councilmember Fruman.

Yes.

Councilmember Fruman votes yes.

Councilmember Henderson?

Yes.

Councilmember Henderson votes yes.

Councilmember Lewis George?

No.

No.

Councilmember Lewis George votes no.

Chairman Mendelson.

Yes.

Chairman Mendelssohn votes yes.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Yes.

Councilmember Benado votes yes.

Councilmember Parker?

Yes.

Councilmember Parker votes yes.

Councilmember Pinto?

No.

Councilmember Pinto votes votes no.

Councilmember Robert White?

Yes.

Councilmember Robert White votes yes.

Councilmember Treyon White?

No.

Councilmember Treyon White votes no.

And Councilmember Allen.

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

Mr.

Chairman, there are nine yeses and four no's.

The measure is uh postponed to the next legislative meeting.

Uh we have proposed contract number CW 128791 with HME ink disapproval emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

PR 26-587, Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The district's fire and emergency medical services department, also known as FIRE and EMS, responds 24-7 to an extremely high volume of calls.

This means that our emergency vehicles are used with very high frequency, too.

It's why a strategic system of maintenance and ordering is vital to ensure that our firefighters can respond in a timely and safe manner to all instances.

And we have to prioritize maintaining the fleet that we have and ordering reliable new vehicles at regular intervals to ensure that we have the best fleet in the nation.

There are several concerns with this contract before us today, including the cooperative agreement process, the quality of engines being procured from a first-time vendor, and the quality of the apparatus itself.

While the cooperative agreement model allows for more efficient ordering timelines, which is important, the district should use caution when making purchases from manufacturers for the first time and avoid bulk orders from vendors that are new to the district.

This is the first proposed contract with HME Inc.

for the procurement of fire engines.

This contract was decided on through a cooperative agreement, not a traditional competitive bid process.

During my performance oversight hearing for Fire and EMS in February, the union sounded the alarm about the concerns about making a big bulk purchase order of 18 engines with this contract being against best practice.

Only two other major cities have received HME engines, Detroit and Cleveland.

And in Detroit, we heard from the Detroit union that the trucks were in very poor quality.

It is vital that we're spending taxpayer dollars in a responsible manner.

And it's really important that with something as fundamental as our public safety and our fire department, that we're listening to our firefighters who do this work every single day as the experts on the ground.

And when they have concerns around quality and safety of the trucks, that raises a big red flag for me.

And so I encourage my colleagues to join me in disapproving this contract for the reasons I outlined to ensure the safety of our first responders and to ensure the sound investment of taxpayer dollars in fire and EMS apparatus so we can continue moving forward in the best interest of the District of Columbia of taxpayer dollars and of our firefighters.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Discussion on the declaration.

The vote will be on the declaration.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Aye.

Chairman Markman is present.

Mr.

Chairman Markman is present as well.

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as present as well.

The uh ayes have it unanimously, and the Secretary will record Councilmembers Tran White, uh Wendell Felder, and Zachary Parker as present.

We have the underlying resolution, which is a disapproval resolution.

Councilmember Pinto.

So moved, Mr.

Chairman.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on the disapproval resolution.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Again, Mr.

Chairman, please record.

Yeah, everybody speaks at once.

Uh Councilmember Parker, you're present.

Councilmember Drayon White, you're present.

Councilmember Felder, did I hear you say you were present?

Chairman, please mark me, it's present.

The um Councilmembers Train White, uh Wendell Felder, Zach V Parker, and Robert White will be recorded as present.

And the um resolution is approved.

Uh the next measure is uh PR 26-584 open meetings clarification emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

So moved.

Um this uh resolution the declaration enables consideration of the underlying bill, which would maintain unchanged the status quo with regard to uh the open meetings act.

Um it addresses gatherings of the council.

It clarifies that the criminal justice coordinating council is exempt.

And um it also, though, the um the underlying measure has a provision that would extend the um disclosure issue that uh we adopted on an emergency basis last year.

This was disclosure um members will remember that the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability had added uh something like 50 boards and commissions to disclosure requirements.

It stimulated a lot of objection from the volunteer members of those uh boards and commissions.

Uh we adopted legislation to postpone, and I think it was postponed to April 15th.

Um this the underlying bill here will extend that to April October 17th, which is when the temporary legislation will expire.

I hope I haven't confused anyone by this.

Uh as I indicated earlier to members, and I'll say now on the record, I will be moving the permanent bills for both open meetings and the disclosure uh before the recess.

Uh so the um this will not continue indefinitely.

Is there discussion?

Councilmember Lewis George.

Uh unfortunate thank you, Chairman.

Unfortunately, we are again being asked to make the government of the District of Columbia less trans a less transparent institution.

Again, I must oppose that request because the bill is just as broad as it was a year ago.

I agree the unprecedented challenges facing the district require changes to be made to the opening meetings act, a core pillar of our democratic governance.

Just as the measures in effect for the past year, this bill, though, exempts many more situations than necessary to give council members flexibilities to interact with each other.

The council should be empowered to gather and discuss quickly urgent and dynamic situations, the set necessity of which is becoming more and more frequent as our autonomy and dignity are under an incessant attack.

But we cannot effectively, nor in good faith, defend ourselves from such attacks if we are also making this decisions for which the public cannot hold us to account.

The text of any law is what matters above all else.

Although the current emergency has not been used to hold a hearing on a bill that is closed to the public, yet the text allows that.

Unfortunately, the current emergency has been used to excuse closed meeting, uh closing council activities when the public should have a right to know what we are talking about and what we are saying.

I want the 700,000 residents of the districts to know your elected government should be transparent with you and open with you about what or what's happening and what decisions are we making.

And this body knows what it is doing when we are closing many more meetings more broadly than we should be.

I hope that changes are made to the permanent bill that finally ensure the council activities are not closed when the principle of practicality, ethics, and transparent governance allow and demand they be open to residents of the District of Columbia that we are supposed to be serving in this moment.

Looking forward, we must find what the status quo uh must find what the status quo lacks, a responsible balance between flexibility and transparency without favoring the former to the detriment of the latter.

This government made decisions years ago uh to uh deal with open meetings for a very real reason.

Uh because when we are open, it allows us to be more transparent, but it also allows us to move uh in a in a more ethical way and allows the public to really receive the transparency it deserves from his elected officials.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this harmful legislation and for us to really uphold our values as a democratic city as a democracy of open and transparent government.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Lewis George.

Uh, further on the declaration.

The vote will be the vote will be on the declaration.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh are there any opposed?

Uh no.

Please report me as no, Chairman.

Uh the ayes have it, and Councilmember Lewis George will be recorded as no.

Uh I move the underlying uh bill.

I will repeat that um I will uh move the permanent bills before the recession.

I will not be can you call me as well in no on that?

I apologize.

Um, but uh we the Secretary will record you as voting no.

The underlying bill is before us, Bill 26-632.

Is there discussion so moved?

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

Mr.

Chairman, um I share similar concerns um regarding sort of the broadness, also the length of time that it's taken us to get to a permanent um bill on this.

But I did also want to say for the record, as I mentioned in the breakfast, um, I do have some concerns around some of the bigger pieces that were included in this.

Um for those watching at home, there was a a different bill not attached to open meetings that was attached to this piece of legislation with regard to um disclosure requirements for boards and commissions.

Um there was a hearing on that permanent bill, and I think there were some concerns that were raised, which, Mr.

Chairman, you have said that will be adjusted when we get there.

Um, but I I just want to say for the record that I am um uncomfortable with this sort of being attached here.

Um and so I'm gonna vote present on this because of that inclusion.

Okay.

I will just reiterate for the record that uh on the disclosure piece.

The um uh at the hearing, there was a hearing.

I don't know if I said it at the hearing, but it clearly the bill that bill was introduced was too broad and it needs to be uh refined and it will be refined.

So I said that at the breakfast.

I'm saying that now for the record.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I'm going to vote no on this measure like I did last time.

Um I do believe there are times when we need to get together in a closed setting when it comes to conversations about Federal State or other things that I think absolutely warrant our ability to go into a closed session and have some of those conversations outside of official actions.

Um but I also don't think it's that hard for us to be able to convene, vote to go into that closed session so there is a transparent record about when we are going into a closed session and not.

So I hope that that will be addressed as the permanent bill moves forward in a few months, but I can't support this emergency legislation today.

Thank you.

There's no further discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Councilmember Fruman.

I I want to underscore the comments from Councilmember Henderson.

Both the open meetings bill and the changes for BAGA are broader than I am comfortable with.

We need to get to a place where we actually refine them and not just kick them down the kick the can down the road with emergency legislation.

For now, I do believe we need this emergency legislation.

So I am going to support this emergency legislation.

But I hope there can be a process with good consultation to get to permanent bills on both of these issues that all of us can feel more comfortable with.

Thank you.

If there is no further discussion, we have the bill, Bill 26-632.

All those in favor say aye.

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as voting present.

Just record me as no.

Please record me as no.

Can you get to that point?

Um several people said they want to be recorded as no.

Councilmember Allen.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Twitter.

Councilmember Treyon White.

The ayes have it.

It was present.

We are turning now to reading and vote on emergency leg.

I'm sorry.

I don't.

If she wanted to be present.

Yeah.

Councilmember Henderson had earlier said she wanted to be uh recorded as present.

Madam Secretary, you've got that.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

The ayes have it.

Uh three people said uh we asked to be recorded as no, and Councilmember Henderson is recorded as present.

Returning now to reading and vote on emergency legislation at the request of the executive, we have supporting local business enterprises emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

PR 26-559.

Councilmember Felder?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to move to postpone this legislation to the next legislative meeting.

Uh Councilmember Felder's move to postpone to the next legislative meeting.

If there is no objection, it will be postponed.

Hearing no objection.

It is uh postponed to the next legislative meeting.

Uh we have temporary legislation.

Uh arena safety conformity temporary amendment act of 2026, Councilmember Pinto.

This is the same measure we discussed earlier.

Um moved.

Is there discussion?

On the temporary, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Uh the ayes have it.

Uh the next measure is rate plan vacateur interim protections temporary amendment act of 2026.

Councilmember Lewis George?

So moved.

Uh the measures before us discussion.

Mr.

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

Um Mr.

Chairman, uh, I just wanted to provide the opportunity for General Counsel to clarify the timing of this particular temporary.

Um is the time concurrent with the emergency?

Yes.

Thank you.

So it is a 90-day.

It is.

Thank you.

Councilmember Parker?

That was my question.

Okay.

Um yes.

Uh the uh my reading of it earlier was incorrect, that it was 180 days.

However, it does raise a question: why are we adopting a temporary that's identical to the emergency?

Um the only reason for doing that would be then to maintain the option of uh either revising the temporary or going through another round of emergency and temporary.

Because the effect of this is identical requirement.

Mr.

Chairman, was it not accurate or said earlier that General Counsel said a temporary needed to be filed?

I don't want to speak for general counsel, but uh the reality is that if the temporary is approved, uh then uh there is a second reading where it could be amended, or it would allow for a a second round of emergency and temporary.

There's no other reason for an identical temporary.

So moved.

We have the um temporary before us.

If there's no further dispute, Mr.

Chairman, I just want to make sure that I understand the landscape here.

So there had to be a temporary that was put forward with the emergency, but if we vote down the temporary, we lock in the 90 days, and the emergency still is valid.

Is that correct?

Um there are different theories on this, so bear with me here.

Uh it is my belief that the council can pass successive emergencies, but that at some point there has to be a temporary which goes to Congress for review.

Uh I've had some discussions and I'll say disagreements with General Counsel about this.

Um in the past it has been articulated by General Counsel.

I think I can speak for them on this, that the an has to move a temporary with the emergency if there is to be the ability to move a second round of emergency in temporary.

There does not have to be a temporary with the emergency if the intent is that there's only 90 days.

Um for example, just to speak to the issue or the problem or the challenge.

When the juvenile curfew went through last year, went through as an emergency without a temporary, and then we were kind of stuck because of General Counsel's belief that we couldn't move a second emergency because there hadn't been a temporary.

So if we voted down the temporary, the emergency would still be valid, but we would have locked in the 90 days and it would take a separate independent action requiring nine votes to extend the period of the question.

Yes, and the general counsel believes that we can't do that uh because of case law.

Uh I argue with General Counsel, just so you know, and believe that we can do it as long as we send a uh temporary on the second round up to Congress.

Okay.

So you know that I have a disagreement with General Counsel.

General Counsel's view, so um somebody down at that end of the day is invoked general counsel saying that this temporary was needed.

The only reason it's needed is so that there's the ability for a second round of emergency in temp.

And I I don't think that's at issue.

Okay.

Thank you.

Not really.

Uh the vote will be on the uh temporary bill 26-631.

Uh I will note that it uh conforms to the emergency.

So whatever amendments were adopted on the emergency will be included in the temporary.

Is that clear, General Counsel?

Yes.

Uh all those in favor of the uh I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

I have a question, but I would rather ask it.

Um, one second.

I don't I support open meetings, so I think that's what we have to do.

Which doesn't look emergency.

I didn't look at ECT meetings.

I think it's a question.

Are we ready to vote?

Mr.

Chairman, can I make a motion to call the question?

Uh we're going to proceed to a vote.

Um, the vote is on the temporary.

All those in favor of the temporary say aye.

Wait, wait, wait.

Sorry.

I think are there any opposed?

I think there's some other conversations.

No.

No.

We we work it out.

We are going to it will be tabled in the next slide.

And so conversation is not in order during the vote.

I have asked for the ayes.

I am now asking for the no's.

Are there any no's on the temporary?

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as no.

Please record me as no, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman.

Please record me as no.

Madam Secretary, and record me.

And can you repeat that back?

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, I have Councilmember Pinto is no.

Councilmember Crawford.

Whom else?

Felder.

And Bonds.

Felder.

Bonds.

Henderson.

From anyone else?

Fruman.

Mr.

Chairman, are you a no as well?

Yes.

Seven.

One, two, three.

There are seven noes.

All right.

I asked for a voice vote.

Ask for the ayes.

Ask for the no's.

The following people asked to be recorded as voting no.

Councilmembers Pinto, Crawford, Felder, Bonds, Henderson, Fruman, and myself.

That would be seven no's.

The temporary fails.

Mr.

Chairman.

So clarification.

What impact, if any, does that have on the emergency?

The emergency was approved.

I move the open meetings clarification temporary amendment act.

Discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone wishing to be recorded as no?

Please record the question.

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as present.

Please record Janice Lewis George's no.

All right.

There seems to be a little change here.

So Councilmembers Allen, Lewis George, and Tran White are recorded as no and recorded as present.

Are Councilmembers Henderson and Parker?

Parker.

I'm voting present on the temporary.

Which is what's under consideration.

The measure is approved, with uh three people recorded as no and two people recorded as present.

And Madam Secretary, you have the names.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh and uh supporting local business enterprises temporary is not in order because the emergency is postponed.

Uh we have a motion to that gets us to new business.

Thank you, all of you who have been patient.

Um we have a motion to override mayoral veto of bill 26-614, full accountability and arrest reporting emergency amendment act of 2026.

I believe there is a motion to override and then we vote on the measure.

Yes.

All right.

Recognizing Councilmember Robert White.

Thank you, Chairman.

When federal officers use force in the District of Columbia, victims and their families should not have to guess who was there, who used force, or what happened.

Transparency should not be optional when someone's life is on the line.

And this threat isn't theoretical.

Federal officers recently shot at three black men in this city.

Philip Brown, Julian Bailey, and Justin Nelson.

That is how this bill arose.

To address this, I worked with agencies and sent the bill to OAG and MPD.

OAG provided recommendations, which we adopted.

I also worked with colleagues, and nine of us introduced the bill together.

In the spirit of collegiality, I made a compromise to keep us together by separating out part of the bill.

We then voted unanimously unanimously to pass two bills as a package, requiring disclosure of body one camera footage, and expanding reporting.

These basic transparency requirements are not a huge lift, and neither requires new systems, new training, or new operations.

MPD already documents the name, badge number, and agency of every law, local law enforcement officer present on the scene for arrest reports and probable cause affidavits when an officer uses serious force.

This bill simply requires MPD to document to the extent known at the time the same information for Federal officers present.

If they don't have the information, they can note it in the report.

It's a small change with a tremendous impact.

In Philip Brown's case, a Federal officer fired his gun into his car multiple times with officers there.

I thank God that his daughters were not in the car.

Yet the official record did not identify the Federal officer involved or even note that Mr.

Brown's car had been shot.

But the arrest report and probable cause affidavit were available.

The documents that said nothing in this case.

So we have the motion to override the veto before us.

If it is approved, then we have the bill before us.

And then if there are any uh discussion regarding the bill, we can have that then.

Discussion regarding the motion to override.

The vote will be on the motion to override.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We now have the underlying bill.

Councilmember Robert White.

So moved, Mr.

Chairman.

Is there discussion?

Councilmember White, I had mentioned earlier I was going to ask you.

The legislation, the bill says that following an arrest, a member of the Metropolitan Police Department shall include the following information to the extent known at the time.

What do we expect of that?

Is that a requirement like the officer has to go and ask everybody and is in trouble if he or she doesn't ask everybody?

Just asking for what your intent is behind this legislation.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman.

In working with agencies, there was a concern that officers might be short-staffed or there would be a situation where Federal officers did not identify themselves.

So we included in the legislation that MPD were document to the extent known at the time, the officers present in their agencies.

If they can't collect that, they simply put that in the police report that they were not able to get that information.

So you view that as giving some flexibility to the police officer.

It does.

And would enable an officer from not feeling compelled that he or she has to like antagonize other officers at the scene.

That's right, Chairman.

Our officers don't have authority, obviously, over Federal officers, so if they ask the officer's name and the Federal officer says I am not giving it to you, there's nothing our officer can do, and I don't want to put them in that situation or jeopardize it in any prosecutions.

Thank you for that.

Is there any further discussion?

So we have the bill before us.

Bill 26-614.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Aye.

Hearing none.

Opposed.

The ayes have it unanimously.

And the bill is approved.

That's going to conclude the business of this legislative meeting.

The next meeting of the committee as a whole is uh scheduled for April 21st.

The time is 411 p.m.

and this meeting is adjourned.