I'm calling to order this meeting.

This is a regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Council of the District of Columbia.

I am Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

Today is Tuesday, April 21st, 2026.

The time is 1247 in the afternoon.

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

This meeting will be followed by an additional legislative meeting.

Additional is our word for what others might call a special meeting, meaning it's not one of our regular order legislative meetings.

At this committee of the whole, which is our regular committee of the whole, we will approve the committee uh the secretary's reports, mark up a number of measures that are in the committee of the whole, and then agendize a verb that we use in the council measures that were reported out of other committees.

We begin our oh, I should note this uh meeting and the following legislative meeting are being broadcast on uh cable television channel 13 and also are available, I think being streamed on Council, the Council's website, WW.dccouncil.gov.

We begin our committee of the whole meetings, figuring out whether we have a quorum.

Mr.

Cash, would you call the role?

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Councilmember Crawford, Councilmember Felder.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Here.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Present.

Councilmember Trion White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr.

Cash.

We have the Secretary's Report of Committee filings.

I'll recognize the Chairpro Tem.

Councilmember Anita Bonds.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

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

So in a motion to waive the reading of the report, is there discussion?

On the motion to wave all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the secretary's uh log of introductions and referrals.

Again, I'll recognize the Chairpro Tem.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

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

It's been a motion to waive the reading of the log.

I will note for members there are several requests for re-referral that I need to act on, and I will do that this week, and that also includes the Budget Support Act.

Is there discussion?

The motion is on uh waiving the reading of the Secretary's log of introductions and referrals.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have six measures for markup in the committee of the whole.

The first is PR 26-575 entitled Board of Directors of the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission, Brad Belzak appointment resolution of 2026.

On December 28th, 2016, the Council approved the Metro Safety Commission Interstate Compact Establishment Act.

The purpose of approving the compact was to allow the district to enter into an interstate compact with Maryland, Virginia to create the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission, which is a legally and financially independent safety authority to provide oversight over the Wamata Metro Rail system.

The Commission serves as the State Safety Oversight Agency for the Wamata Metro Rail system as required by federal law.

The Commission replaces what was the tri-state oversight committee, which previously served as the state safety oversight agency.

The Metro Safety Commission shall first have financial and legal independence from the Wamata Metroil system.

Second, review, approve, oversee and enforce the implementation of the Mamata Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.

Third, have an investigative and enforcement authority with respect to the safety of the Wamata Metroil system.

And fourth, audit the Wamada Metrorail system to ensure compliance with its safety plan.

In addition, the Commission will have the power to restrict, suspend, or prohibit rail service on all are part of the Wamada Metrorail system.

The mayor appoints one member and an alternate member by and with the advice and consent of the council.

The council has the authority to appoint a second member to the Metro Rail or Metro Safety Commission.

And that is what is before us now as a council appointment.

The purpose of PR 26-575 is for the Council to appoint Mr.

Brad Belzak as the council appointee to the Board of Directors of the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission for a four-year term to end February 9, 2030.

Mr.

Belzak earned a Bachelor of Science and Political Science from Elon University and a Master of Science degree in security and resiliency from Northeastern University.

He has extensive public policy experience related to security and risk assessment.

Among other roles, he has served as senior vice president and chief of staff at the Export Import Bank of the United States and as Director of Homeland Defense Integration in the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Policy at the United States Department of Defense.

From 2017 to 2021, Mr.

Belzak served as chairman of the district's Homeland Security Commission.

At the hearing that the committee held, Mr.

Belzac committed to prioritizing rigorous safety oversight and transparency and the strengthening of relationships between the Metro Safety Commission and WAMATA and other key stakeholders.

Reading from the report, the committee finds that Mr.

Belzac meets the requirements to serve as a member of the MSC board pursuant to Article 3B 9 of Section 2 of the Compact, as he has expertise in transit safety, transportation, and relevant engineering disciplines.

This resolution was introduced by me on March 13th, and the committee of the whole held a public round table on March 30th.

The committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to Mr.

Belzac's appointment.

Without objection, I'll move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

Again, the vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none.

The ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary is directed complete.

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

And because this is a appointment resolution, there is no fiscal impact statement.

Correct.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

The next measure for markup is PR 26-576 entitled Commission on the Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Laura Hankins Reappointment Resolution of 2026.

The purpose of this resolution is to reappoint Laura Hankins as a voting member of the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings for a three-year term to end April 30th, 2029.

Ms.

Hankins is award for resident of the District of Columbia, is currently general counsel at the District of Columbia Public Defender Service.

She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Brown University and a jurisdoctorate degree from Harvard University.

She began her career with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

However, she has spent the bulk of her legal career with the Public Defender Service, rising from a staff attorney to special counsel to the director to her current position as general counsel.

In 2001, the district established the Office of Administrative Hearings with the purpose of creating an independent agency to adjudicate administrative disputes and to centralize the hearing functions currently handled by a variety of district agencies.

The comprehensive administrative hearing system at the Office of Administrative Hearings was created to address the need to modernize and improve administrative adjudication in the district so that citizens and persons doing business in the district will consistently receive high-quality, fair, impartial, and efficient hearings and administrative litigation.

The Commission on the Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges at the Office of Administrative Hearings was also established in 2001 in the same legislation, and is charged with the mission to ensure the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified, efficient and effective core of administrative law judges at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

To fulfill this role, the Commission appoints, reappoints, disciplines, and removes all administrative law judges.

The Commission consists of three voting members appointed one each by the mayor, the council, and the chief judge of the Superior Court.

The voting members serve staggered three-year terms and select a chairperson from among themselves each fiscal year.

In addition, the commission is rounded out by two nonvoting exofficial members, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia and the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

All members serve without compensation.

Based on her impressive credentials, her dedication to public service, her understanding of indigent litigants, and her service on the commission.

The committee, assuming this is approved, recommends a reappointment of Ms.

Hankins to the Commission on selection and tenure of the administrative law judges at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

She will continue to be invaluable to the Commission's continued efforts to recruit and retain a well qualified, efficient and efficient and effective core of administrative law judges.

This resolution was introduced on March 16th of this year.

The committee of the whole held a public round table on March 30th of this year, and the committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to Ms.

Hankins' appointment.

Without objection, I'll move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

Madam Budget Director, this is an appointment resolution, so there is no fiscal impact statement, correct?

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

There is no objection, then next two resolutions, PR 26-577 and PR 26-578 will be considered together.

They both concern appointments or reappointments, rather, to the Citizen Review Panel.

PR 26-577 is the purpose of it is to reappoint Mr.

Whitney Miller as a member of the Citizen Review Panel for a term to end on April 11th, 2029, and the purpose of PR 26-578 is to reappoint Ms.

Carolyn Woods as a member of the Citizen Review Panel for a term to end on April 11th, 2029.

The Citizen Review Panel.

Let me see, in 2004, the Council approves the Child in Need of Protection Amendment Act.

The purpose of this act was to reform the district's child protection law.

More importantly, the goal of the council was to create a seamless and effective system for responding to any type of child mistreatment, whether child abandonment, abuse, or neglect.

An outcome of that act in 2004 was to qualify and codify the establishment of the Citizen Review Panel.

The panel serves as an independent oversight body for the district's child welfare system to evaluate the district government agencies involved in child protection as well as services provided by vendors.

The panel consists of 15 members, all of whom must be district residents.

The mayor is required to appoint eight members of the panel and must designate the chairperson.

The council appoints seven members of the panel and it designates the vice chairperson.

The panel is required to be broadly representative of the community and must include members who have expertise in the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect.

In addition, appointees to the panel should have a diversity of professional backgrounds and must be familiar with the child welfare system.

Mr.

Whitney Miller is award 5 resident.

He attended Strayer University in Alexandria, Virginia.

He is also a member of the Society for Human Resource Management and has been certified as trainer with that organization.

He currently serves as the human resource director at AIDS United, where he oversees and manages all human resource operations.

He's responsible for managing talent acquisition and conducting and analyzing employee employee engagement activities.

This is a reappointment resolution and a reading from the report.

The committee believes Mr.

Miller will continue to be an asset to the panel.

His family's firsthand experience with the district's child and family services agency informs his perspective on how the panel should operate to be most effective.

The committee also appreciates Mr.

Miller's outlook on the panel.

The let me see, Carolyn Woods is a Ward II resident.

She attended the University of Oregon and Eugene, Oregon, and Long Island University in Brooklyn.

She was from 2014 to 2022 a traditional licensed foster parent with the district's child and family services agency.

In that role role, she cared for children who were placed in her home.

The ages of children range from 18 months to 20 years of age.

She also served on the parent advisory committee during that time.

As I said, this is a reappointment resolution.

And reading from the report, the committee believes Ms.

Wood's direct experience as a foster parent in the District of Columbia continues to make her a valuable asset to the panel.

Committee also appreciates the enthusiasm that Ms.

Woods has about being an adoptive mother and her belief that all participants in the child welfare system have a voice in something unique to contribute.

Both of these resolutions were introduced on March 16th of this year, and the committee held a round table on their reappointment resolutions on March 30th of this year.

The committee received no testimony or comments in opposition to either of the nominees.

I move both the print and report for both PR 26-577 and PR 26-578 with leave for staff to make text call conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on the prints and reports for both of these resolutions.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Counsel, are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, they are.

Once the hearing record and reports are filed for each.

Madam Budget Director, these are confirmations or appointment resolutions, rather, and so there's no fiscal impact statement, correct?

Correct.

Without objection, both of these resolutions will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

This legislation amends the criminal background checks for the Protection of Children Act of 2004 to allow authorized covered youth services providers to independently perform background check functions and procedures for their applicants, employees, and volunteers.

The legislation provides the mayor with the authority to grant a non-governmental covered youth services provider the ability to independently conduct these background checks.

Under the bill, these private entities, which provide health, safety, and welfare services to children, must adhere to the same procedures, eligibility standards, and privacy protections currently required of district government.

Furthermore, the legislation authorizes both the mayor and the authorized providers to obtain consent from an individual to release their background check records to another jurisdiction, facilitating criminal history or traffic records, records checks elsewhere without the need for redundant processing.

Under the current law, to conduct background checks in the district, covered youth service providers must rely on the process laid out by the district government.

Currently a covered youth service provider works with their contracting or partnering government agency, which in turn uses the Metropolitan Police Department to conduct background checks of the covered youth service providers, applicants, employees, or volunteers.

He shared that in 2025, despite conducting more than 18,000 background checks, MPD completed 1880 percent.

Let me reread that.

MPD completed 80 percent of the checks in two weeks and 90 percent in three weeks.

However, as testified to by both Mr.

Chandler and public witnesses, Bill 26-419 would provide additional flexibility to covered youth services providers and may help realize efficiencies for the Metropolitan Police Department, including reducing the number of sworn officers who help conduct background checks.

The reading from the committee report, the committee notes that the implementation of this flexibility is contingent upon approval from the Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI.

But Mr.

Chandler, the MPD witness, expressed optimism that Bill 26-419 will meet Federal standards.

The committee would like to note that this legislation is intended to create a voluntary process for independently conducting criminal background checks, and that no entity should be forced to conduct their criminal background checks at their own expense.

Still reading from the report, the committee finds that the bill represents a modernization of the district's child protection infrastructure by allowing private providers to assume some of the administrative burden of criminal background checks.

The district can alleviate the workload on sworn MPD officers and reduce the logistical hurdles that currently hinder some covered youth services providers.

Because the bill maintains strict government oversight, requiring all private records to be submitted back to the mayor and upholding rigorous privacy standards.

The bill achieves these efficiencies without compromising the safety of the district's youth.

This bill was introduced on October 6th of 2025.

The committee as a whole held a hearing, a public hearing on February 13th of this year.

And I don't believe there was any testimony in opposition to the legislation.

I move the print with leave for staff to make tactical and conforming changes.

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Councilmember Henderson.

Just wanted to ask a clarifying question.

So it's my understanding that a similar measure was included in the 2026 Budget Support Act and it was deemed insufficient by the FBI in order for that part to be able to move forward.

Did the Bureau provide feedback regarding improvements to make it more appropriate?

Or basically, how do we know that this bill is not going to have the same trouble that the bill from last year had?

We think it will not have the same trouble because that was discussed explicitly with MPD.

Okay.

So MPD had those conversations and their feedback you believe will allow for this to be lost.

Now, first reading will be on May 5th, so there's time to double check this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Buns.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman.

I'm very pleased to see in Section 2.

Um the bill includes this additional language, which is including consent to satisfy a criminal history or traffic records check required by another jurisdiction.

We are caught in the middle of this region, and I think it's important that we have access to any issues that may have happened in surrounding jurisdictions.

So I'm very pleased that that's a part of this bill now.

Thank you.

Further on the print.

The vote is on the print with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any are there any no's nays?

No.

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes as their discussion.

The vote is on the report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report is filed.

Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is not.

The objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

The next item for markup is Bill 26-430, entitled the Education Code Adjustments Amendment Act of 2026.

This print is actually a combination of two bills, Bill 26-278, which was entitled Education Report Simplification Amendment Act of 2025.

The lead author was Councilmember Henderson, and Bill 26-430 Education Code Adjustments Amendment Act of 2025.

Both bills sought seek to amend reporting requirements, make technical corrections, and reduce administrative burdens across more than a dozen laws and sections of the DC Code, which are described in the report, and I'm not going to go through all of them.

The burden of reporting and data publishing requirements, which is what we often adopt in our legislation, must be weighed against the value of the information collected and presented.

It considered how the relevant information is used, actually considered how relevant the information was today, how it is used, and if the information could be presented without formal reporting.

Reporting requirements are burdensome for several reasons.

The collection of data can be burdensome on schools or grantees, such as the bullying report repealed by this bill in Section 3.

Reports also require review by agency leadership, which takes time and often delays the report itself as other pressing matters occupy their valuable time.

Consider Section 18, which instead of repealing a report, requires that ASI publish the report on its own website quarterly rather than submit that report to the council.

As the committee weighed each measure, it sought feedback from advocates, the executive agencies, and other councilmember offices with shared jurisdiction, such as the Committee on Health and the Committee on Public Works and Operations, which oversees the Office of the Commission on Human Rights.

The commentary throughout the report describes the nature of each amendment and its rationale.

Not included, and I mentioned this only because it's one of the more significant reports that had been proposed for elimination as the DCPS technology draft plan.

We were very intentional in requiring that a draft be submitted so that there can be comments before DCPS finalizes its technology plan each year.

Not any one of these measures will drastically reduce the workload of any government agency or lift the burden on a provider grantee or school.

However, the committee, and I'm reading from the report is hopeful that making efforts to de-duplicate it's an interesting word, to deduplicate, reduce and eliminate reporting and legislative requirements that make the execution of the district's laws more difficult, will yield efficiency so that district education agencies can focus on what really matters, serving students, families, and schools.

Bill 26-430 was introduced on October 14, 2025, and a com uh the committee of the whole held a public hearing on November 10th, 2025.

I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes.

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, and I appreciate that you are moving this legislation which incorporates the Education Report Simplification Amendment Act of 2025 that I introduced in April of last year, along with Councilmembers Bonds, Freeman, Lewis George, Nadeau, and have worked alongside you, Mr.

Chairman, to consolidate our similar legislation on behalf of the bill today.

I hope you all can hear me because I okay.

This bill reforms and reduces reporting requirements for our education agencies to alleviate the administrative burden and encourage efficiency.

I do believe that there are occasions where requiring agencies to publish reports and data can be a very useful strategy for us to be able to monitor the programmatic success and the impact of our legislation on agencies and students.

However, as we reflect on the data these mandates produce, it is equally important to monitor the utility of the continued requirements once it is clear that they have served their purpose.

Last summer, my office sorted through hundreds of mandated reporting requirements for the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, DC Public Schools, the State Board of Education, and the University of the District of Columbia, as well as the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education.

I think that the DME for years had been talking about these various reporting requirements, and I said kept saying, give me a list, give me a list.

And we did.

We looked at it.

Many of the mandates were duplicative.

They assign, they were assigned to defunct agencies and were no longer relevant to serve the current needs within the education ecosystem.

I think what we have here in terms of the committee print carefully reduces those outdated requirements and cleans up the code so that our expectations can be executed with clarity.

In our current budget environment, common sense solutions like these are critical to supporting our agency's success, and creating additional administrative capacity will provide our agencies with some flexibility to stretch their future dollars further by using their current resources more uh efficiently.

I believe this bill was an opportunity for us to work collaboratively with our education agencies and reflects a collective solution to significant administrative burdens.

While the final bill only addresses a few dozen requirements, I hope that this is the first step in a larger movement towards confronting some of the governmental efficiency barriers that many of our agencies have when we continue to tack on reporting requirements.

Mr.

Chairman, I did want to ask a question, and I'm not sure I'll direct it towards you, but I think it's really a question for the Secretary's office, which is whether in LIMS, which is the legislative management system, that it could be recorded in LIMS, that my original bill was incorporated into this bill that we're passing today, just so that the record could reflect that for in the future.

It will be clear in the report, but your question speaks to limbs, and I think the secretary has to answer that.

Okay.

Councilmember Henderson, not a problem at all.

We typically do that when we are informed of a bill being incorporated.

So we shall do that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Henderson.

Uh any further discussion regarding this bill.

The vote will be on the print with Lee for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes as or discussion.

The vote is on the report.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Madam General Council, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Once the report is filed.

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is not.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

That concludes uh items for markup in the committee whole.

We now have two pages of measures reported out of other committees.

One, two.

The first two are from the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, chaired by Councilmember Bopinto.

Uh the first is Bill 26-461 juvenile curfew amendment act of 2026.

I want to remind members that at the committee as a whole, with these measures, there can be questions, but not uh debate.

Uh councilmember Pinto, would you present this?

Sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So today we have before us the permanent version of the juvenile curfew emergency and the emergency and temporary version that the council passed several times since last July, and we recently passed out of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee unanimously.

We must ensure that our kids are engaged in positive activities to support their development.

And we all must ensure, and we have to be on the same page as adults in this city, that we have to prevent dangerous situations that can harm our young people.

The juvenile curfew is just one effective and preventative tool to reduce the chances of youth finding themselves in endangered situations while limiting police contact without increasing arrests.

It must also be coupled with meaningful expansions for youth programming and investments in our young people.

Over the last eight months, the tool to allow MPD to declare specific juvenile curfew zones and extend the applicability to 17-year-olds has proven to be successful in keeping youth residents, visitors, and others safe and preventing harm.

These so-called teen takeovers are a novel problem that have sprung up around the nation with the rise in use of social media.

MPD therefore must also have new tools to respond to these occurrences.

Curfew violations in the district do not result in arrests.

This is a pro proven true in the usage of these curfew zones over the last several months.

The only time that a young person would receive a violation would be if they refuse to disperse and comply with the curfew.

Additionally, I want to make it clear that the curfew zones themselves only apply to groups of eight or more unsupervised individuals under the age of 18.

Therefore, young people are still free and should enjoy all this city has to offer on weekends in all of our spaces in any place but for where these curfew zones are established for large groups of young people in a limited zone.

And this is really important because I think this has been miscommunicated as a citywide early curfew.

And so I want us all to be clear of this is a empowering the police to declare these limited zones when they have information around it.

I will continue to emphasize that a conversation about these youth zones must also be had alongside the need to have positive youth programming.

Youth programming is critical to ensuring our young people feel supported and have entertaining educational and fun activities to engage in as an alternative to potentially harmful gatherings.

Input from young people themselves is also vital to understanding exactly what types of activity are of most interesting.

Without objection.

I've heard from many DC parents who have expressed to me their support of these limited zones and a request that these come in conjunction with sufficient programming and with our youth well-being being front of mind.

I also want to say that some of the actions that we have seen from MPD officers, like the one this weekend, taking a young girl off her bike and the National Guard, preventing young people from entering Navy Yard is not the law and is not how this legislation should be implemented.

These instances are unacceptable, and these cases have been referred to the Office of Police Complaints.

I will continue to ensure that I use our oversight of MPD to ensure that these limited curfew zones are implemented properly and safely.

Again, lastly, these are just one tool in the broader conversation about how we as a city can ensure that our young people are safe and engaging in productive activities and behaviors.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure today.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Are there questions for the council member?

Councilmember Raver White.

Thank you, Chairman, and uh thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Um the April 16th mayor's order includes social media flyers advertising these teen takeovers starting at 2 p.m., 4 30 p.m.

and 5 p.m.

and 6 p.m., which are all hours before curfew zones would begin.

So if the curfew zones are just moving earlier in the day to avoid curfew enforcement, how will expanding the curfew authority uh prevent these gatherings?

So I would say one, the goal of the curfew is not to prevent gatherings of kids.

Kids can and should gather throughout the city, and most times that happens, it's done safely.

What has not been appropriate is when there have been gatherings late at night where there has been violence that has broken out.

Um part of the reason for that is not only is it so wrong to allow for any violence that our kids are getting harmed, but it also has an over-response from law enforcement that is then coming after the fact to disperse people.

So, as I've always said, this is not going to solve all challenges.

If there was a violent incident earlier in the day, this this curfew tool would not be the one to solve it.

Um because it is not expansive to say we're gonna never we're gonna authorize this at any time of day, I don't think that's a reason to not allow it for nighttime.

Um according to the the mayor's order, uh, despite MPD, the National Guard and other agencies being deployed, uh hundreds of juveniles still move through Navy Yard and Canal Park.

A few engaged in fights and property damages and disturbances.

Uh if that level of law enforcement presence and curfew authority didn't prevent the disorder that happened, what does this legislation do that would produce a different outcome?

So I guess I would say when there is ever a terrible instance of gun violence, our response is not let's get a do away with all of our gun laws because it didn't stop all violence.

That's not the response we say.

So this is not going to stop all instances of violence.

Certainly not.

I'm the first person to admit that.

But this is a tool that we need to allow MPD to be nimble on so that we can, as much as we are able to as a government, keep our kids safe.

The um I I saw a video of that you mentioned of the girls being pulled off the bikes while officers were monitoring for potential curfew violations.

Now, you mentioned they were reported to office of police complaints, but they don't have jurisdiction over the guard or any of the federal agency.

So this is concerning.

But if enforcing curfews results in situations where young people are physically grabbed in public spaces, do you think relying on police to patrol whether kids are violating curfews is making communities safer or creating more confrontations between officers and youth and federal agencies and youth.

So we'll which we'll get into a little bit later.

Councilmore Crawford has an ANS that provides some uh limitations around when that notice can be provided.

It's right now um within 30 minutes of the zone so that we don't have hours before someone saying you can't be in a zone later.

Again, I would say if we have an instance where a teacher engages in misconduct, we deal with that teacher.

We don't say we're not gonna have our kids go to school.

Um and so we cannot make policy based off of one instance.

We need to hold that person accountable, make sure they know what the rules are.

Um, and we all need to follow the law, including those of us in the government and including our law enforcement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Crayon White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Uh do thank you, uh, Councilmember Pinto.

I do remember uh we started talking about zones doing the secure DC uh bills.

Um I don't know what the result of those zones were.

We spent a lot of time and energy talking about it, legislating about it, putting resources behind it.

And I think we've been talking about these curfew zones since July 2025 when I remember.

What evidence do you see or have you heard that these zones are actually working for as intended purposes?

So the most persuasive evidence that I hear is from parents who have reached out to say thank you for giving up giving the police this tool because we have not been able to communicate effectively with our kids about where the what and where they cannot do.

Um that's that's been really um impactful to me.

There have been 19 zones declared and zero arrests made for a violation of a curfew zone, which is exactly what MPD said would happen when we passed them in July.

And so we look at that evidence.

Um we look at areas and ANCs who have asked in you know, some of our Ward 8 ANCs who have asked repeatedly to declare some of these zones um in their neighborhoods and want this authority to be continued.

Um we've seen additional opportunities for youth programming throughout the city, uh, which is our expectation will continue to be expanded throughout the spring and the summer.

And my hope is that this budget we can fund some of the other interventions that I've put forward, like around teen centers for our kids, uh like supporting the microgrants that we offer through the ones office so that our youth serving organizations can be a part of this process.

Um there are other grants through DEMPED, like the Family Destination Fund that I encourage people to look at uh to see how they can be a part of offering activities for kids.

And I think that's an important piece here is that there are lots of grants available for existing youth serving organizations should be applying to, so that as we hear from other ideas to support our kids that they're getting the resources that they need to do so.

So with that, um are you saying these zones, you feel like these zones have been working?

Yes.

I think the zones have been effective.

They have not stopped all of these instances, just like no one public safety tool is ever going to stop all crime or violence, but it is a tool that has been effective, which is why I think it is so important that we continue it.

I guess one last question.

Yes, Councilmember, how do you find define effective in preventing harm to kids?

I think when there is evidence that young people are planning on going to a specific spot and communicating about bringing guns and uh and fighting one another, and that that doesn't not happen, just like with any of our violence prevention or interruption efforts.

It's hard to quantify, but I define that as effective.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there further councilmember Lewis George for questions?

Yes, thank you.

Um I wanted to know what if any um evidence, not anecdotal, but empirical evidence has been provided by the executive or the committee uh to justify uh making this per um this a permanent tool utilized at this moment.

So a couple things I'd say.

Um one, we look at how the zones have been used over the last nine months, and they have been used as a preventative tool.

There have been no arrests for a violation of a curfew zone, um, which is exactly what MPD said they were gonna do it for, use it for.

Um, and I think the ability to be nimble is gonna be an ongoing challenge.

I don't want us and other colleagues have asked me not to come back here every three months having just an extension of the emergency.

The permanent version of the bill provides the authority and the flexibility for MPD to be able to use the information that they're getting to declare these limited zones in certain areas at our earlier time.

And I think that's important for our local or local police department to be able to have that tool.

Got it.

Outside of arrest, how many have you all counted how many officers, Office of Police complaints, complaints have been filed as a result of the curfews?

Because I've actually, we've heard also additionally from officers who are concerned about the complaints that are going in and their this undermining their them as professionals having to do this for their own public safety as a part of their job to induce public safety.

So are there any is there any data on how many complaints have now been placed against officers at the Office of Police complaints as a result of them having to enforce these juvenile curfews?

I don't have that number, but I'm happy to look into that.

We are the oh, is there any other jurisdiction who has these curfews who currently have national uh guard troops or other federal agencies enforcing their curfews?

Well, I I kind of view it a little bit differently.

I say because there are federal agents here, it is so important that we use preventative tools like this so that we don't have an over response from our federal agencies, which is what we saw when the curfew was not in place this fall, is that there were instances that the police knew about.

They could have declared the zone earlier, but they didn't have the authority to do so.

And then we saw an overresponse from the National Guard and federal agencies, which is where you saw those videos of people chasing kids around.

That's exactly what we want to avoid.

We want to know about something, we want to declare it a zone if it if it warrants it, so that we do not have that over response.

No other jurisdiction in the country is facing the threats that Washington, DC is.

And if we don't act now, I think it is we're putting our kids at risk.

Well, I my question, I think is um National Guard troops, I've witnessed them and I've seen videos of them.

They're the ones currently enforcing a law interrogating youth.

And I don't think any other jurisdiction that has this have has a curfew in place, has the threat of these individual troops uh interrogating their youth, um, which makes DC vastly different and puts our youth at greater risk because those National Guard troops are not, am I correct?

They are not under counsel or offices of police complaints um purview for us to investigate or do any um accountability if they do escalate on our youth.

I would say we still have um ability to make sure that our laws are being followed.

If there's any criminal allegations, those get goes those go through our MPD process and get referred for investigation.

Um, but it is not the traditional Office of Police Complaints that our officers are subject to, which is again why it's so important to try to limit the exposure as much as possible, which is what this is.

It's a preventative tool in areas that we know there are gonna be large gatherings going on if there's evidence that there could be violence or has been violence before.

Um what you're talking about is not about the zone.

That is just a reality of the circumstance we find ourselves in in the city at this moment, anywhere.

And that circumstance is a extenuating circumstance that should be considered before putting this permanently.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um further questions from members.

Uh I have three.

Madam General Counsel's measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Uh yes, it does.

Is there a cost?

Uh the uh the cost can be absorbed.

Uh thank you.

Um somebody with a sense of humor has a consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

Um I'm glad we're all amused.

Uh anyway, this uh measure will be on the non-consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

Uh the next measure is Bill 26-526, leading education access for re-entry and necessary success amendment act of 2025.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

When a young person becomes justice involved, it can disrupt many facets of their lives, including classroom instruction and learning environments.

And when a person with learning disabilities becomes justice involved, that disruption to education can be especially impactful when trying to regain classroom instruction.

It's important to acknowledge that every person, regardless of their circumstances, deserves an access to free quality education.

That's why I first introduced the leading education access for re-entry and necessary success amendment act back in 2023.

Referred to as learns.

Since then, the council has passed several iterations of learns on an emergency basis with the most recent temporary legislation set to expire in September 11th of this year.

Although the responsibility to provide special education services at the DC jail formally shifted to the Department of Corrections, under the emergency legislation, the council must enact permanent legislation to effectuate those changes.

This bill seeks to bridge the educational gaps for youth that we've seen in our correctional facilities in the past by ensuring that everyone maintains and can gain access to educational opportunities.

The bill has several components requiring DOC to be the oversight body responsible for choosing a qualified education contractor, requiring DOC to provide evaluations for students who are not previously evaluated for special ed services before their arrival, and this is a really important change to make sure no students are falling through the cracks.

Third, legislation strengthens the grievance process at DOC by establishing online grievance portal, and fourth, it incorporates other non-germane technical amendments.

The LEARNS Act is not only about education, it's about investing in the future of our young people.

And I encourage my colleagues to support this legit educate legislation today to ensure that there is not a gap in educational services being c being provided to our incarcerated population.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there questions from members?

Madam General Council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes it is.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Is there cost?

Yes.

Uh it is uh 7.7 million in FY27 and 26.7 over the four-year plan.

Yes.

Thank you.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

Uh the next measure was reported out of the Committee on Youth Affairs, chaired by Councilmember Zachary Parker.

Bill 26 399 entitled Support Opportunity Unity Legal Relationships Amendment Act of 2026.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you.

It was sequential, so I should note it also.

I guess first went to Committee on Judiciary and Public Affairs.

So I'll recognize Councilmember Pinto after you.

Mr.

Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Out of deference to my colleague who introduced this bill, I'll defer to him first.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto, and thank you, Chairman Mendelson.

Um B26-0399 does two main things.

One, it establishes and defines all elements of a sole family, uh, including a sole supporter and a sole caregiver, uh, which is essentially a care network for older young people within our child and family services agency.

And two, it sets the legal process for this for the creation of a sole family as a new legal permanency option for children involved with CFSA.

Uh this legislation, it is worth noting, was designed by young people involved with the Children's Law Center and Family and Youth Initiative, often referred to as Lex leaders.

Uh they brought uh issue that is routinely seen within CFSA, where more than 30% of older young people between the ages of 16 and 20 uh find the existing permanency options insufficient.

Either they are adopted or they age out of the system.

Some young people don't want to be adopted because of the consequences of that decision.

Oftentimes they are having to sever relationships with their birth families.

Um we've also heard that some of these young people would just prefer to age out uh because they would rather navigate uh the system on their own.

This legislation would create a new permanency option, creating new pathways for success for these older young people within CFSA.

Um, as I mentioned, it this bill creates a new uh soul family.

And the last thing I would just say is it's tailored specifically uh for older youth, unlike reunification or guardianship, which is a better fit uh for younger youth within the agency per CFSA.

Uh there are a number of differences between the markup that the Committee on Youth Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Service uh Safety Committee uh moved, and I will have a few questions for Councilmember Pinto on that.

But by and large, I would say this is a win for our young people within our foster agency where we are putting them on a pathway for uh success and well-being.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there questions for Councilmember Parker?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, uh Councilmember Parker.

I have a couple of uh clarifying questions about the legislation.

Um is the bill essentially codifying a current permanency practice, or is this a completely new function for CFSA?

This is a completely new function for the district's child and family services agency.

However, uh this has been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions.

Um and it is addressing a problem that, as I mentioned, we're seeing with older youth within the system.

Okay.

Um why is the motion to establish a sole family member sufficient to close a neglect case?

Does this occur within our foster or other foster youth placement pathways?

Like as it's currently written, if someone files a motion, that's sufficient enough to close the neglect case regardless of the outcome of said motion.

I um my team is going to have to get back to me on that.

What it is my understanding that this is by and large targeting young people already within the system.

They are they are they've been there for years.

Um and many young people are uh facing the choice of exploring adoption.

Some young people don't get adopted and therefore they age out.

This allows them to identify uh loved ones, neighbors, mentors to have legal uh rights uh to support them uh while they navigate uh the agency and age out.

And so that could look like a basketball coach.

It could look like a cousin.

Um it could be um a council member who uh takes a young person under their wings.

Right now, legally, uh those mentorship uh relationships would not have a legal status that the courts would uh recognize with this legislation, they would.

Okay.

Would a young person who is granted the sole family eligibility?

Sorry.

Would a young person who is granted a sole family, period.

Um, would their eligibility for other programs?

So like we have specific programs for young people who are in foster care and other types of arrangements.

Um, would their eligibility change because now they have a sole family?

Does that make sense?

Like, uh it does make sense and no.

Um I will let Councilmember Pinto talk about the changes her committee uh made.

Uh but no.

The the goal here is to provide a support as the young person is aging out of the system.

Uh my team is flagging that yes, the neglect case cases close when permanency is established, and that is a standard across the board.

And so if there's an open neglect case that has carrying on for years and a young person is adopted, uh, for instance, it would be closed today.

And the same is true with this legislation.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

Um, questions from members.

Uh my understanding, the print that's before us is the print that came out of uh the judiciary and public safety committee.

And uh because they were second in the sequential and councilmember Parker, you've made a several at least a couple references to changes by judiciary.

Councilmember Pinto, do you want to speak to that?

I you know, we worked very closely together on on the changes.

I think we're in agreement.

Most of them are technical in nature, um, just to make sure all the language was conforming, um, but still honoring the underlying intent.

And so I think both versions are aligned.

We are largely aligned.

Two areas I would just point out, um, and they are technical in nature.

Uh, when we received the legislation and by we, the committee on youth affairs, there was an attempt to clean up some of the language.

Uh, frankly, I thought the bill said so too much.

We received uh overwhelming feedback from the young people that they wanted it as it was delivered.

Um, and so I think you will see those reflections made.

There was also a disagreement between committees.

Uh the Committee on Youth Affairs included language around incumbent rights holder, which is clunky.

Um, and I believe the committee or JPS uh resulted in used in the language of a birth family.

What we were trying to do was to capture the rights of a grandparent or an aunt uh that is not necessarily the birth parent, but we know families are complex.

Um but again, that's more of a technical language difference.

But by and large, uh JPS uh honored many of the um changes made by the committee on youth affairs, but also the feedback received from the Lex leaders.

Uh thank you.

There is nothing further on this.

Um Madam General Counsel is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, is it does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is.

It is $385,000 in the current year and $2 million over the financial plan.

Current year being FY26.

Correct.

Um, what is before us is the print from the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.

Uh without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

The next uh two measures were reported out of the Committee on Housing chaired by Councilmember Robert White.

Uh the first is Bill 26-126 Fair Housing Practices Amendment Act to 2026.

Councilmember White.

Thank you, Chairman.

The Fair Housing Practices Amendment Act is directly responsive to residents who have experienced hidden, unpredictable, and exorbitant utility charges.

Often these charges don't reflect their usage, haven't been charged before, and it's unclear how they were calculated.

Often the charges are listed as common space fees, and in some cases, they reach hundreds of dollars.

These kinds of practices make it much harder for residents, especially middle and lower income residents, to budget and stay stably housed.

This bill establishes clear guardrails.

It prohibits landlords from separately charging tenants for utility costs associated with common spaces and vacant units.

Those are operational costs, and if they are passed on, they must be reflected in the base rent tenancy up front where they are transparent and predictable.

The bill also strengthens protections around alleged nonpayment by requiring timely notice, documentation, and an opportunity for tenants to dispute charges before they are sent to collections.

Tenants should know the full amount they will have they'll owe so they can make responsible decisions about what unit they can afford.

That ultimately benefits tenants and landlords alike.

I want to thank Councilmember Allen for authoring this bill, which was co-introduced by Councilmembers Henderson, Nadeau, Pinto, Bonds, Fruman, Lewis George, and Parker.

I also want to thank advocates, providers, and residents who share their experiences and expertise with us.

Recently, I introduced complementary utility building legislation of my own, the Transparent Rates and Utility Expenses Amendment Act or the True Act, and I look forward to working with my colleagues toward the shared goal of increasing transparency and shifting financial burdens off of residents.

And now fair housing practices is an essential component of our response to utility building reform and transparency.

Chairman, uh I'd like to uh defer to the introducer of the bill, Councilmember.

No, he's good.

Then, Chairman.

Thank you.

Uh are there questions from members?

Councilmember Allen?

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair, and thank you.

Councilmember White.

At the end of the day, uh I guess since we're in the Cal, so I've got to ask questions.

Um, is this going to make it more fair for our renters and tenants in DC to understand what fees they do and don't pay?

Uh thank you, Councilmember Allen.

This will make it more fair because we're not saying with this bill that landlords can't charge utility fees for common spaces.

What we're saying is they have to bake that into the underlying rent so that when you sign a lease and they say this is how much you're going to pay every month, you know how much you're going to pay every month.

So to borrow a phrase, the rent is the rent.

You're not going to have predatory fees tucked in a way that's unpredictable and unknown, but this is more fair, it is more transparent, and um it allows people, our renters, to be able to make more informed choices about where they choose to live and know up front what their costs are going to be and how to budget for that, correct?

Uh that is correct.

And uh interesting timing.

The Attorney General on his team uh just won, you know, a settlement law with other jurisdictions against uh ticket master in Live Nation.

Uh and what the Attorney General said is when you buy a ticket, the cost of the ticket should be the cost of the ticket.

It's the same here with RAM.

Yep.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much for moving this.

I appreciate the partnership on it, and I encourage my colleagues' support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh other questions from members.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Yes.

Um, thank you, Councilmember Allen, for introducing the legislation and to Councilmember Robert White for moving it through the committee.

I'm happy to see this bill move forward.

And do you have a quick question about the kind of fees that will be targeted?

Renters in DC deserve transparency, predictability, and basic fairness in how they are charged for their housing and utilities.

And yet for many residents in newer multifamily buildings, this is uh far from the reality.

Um I regularly hear from tenants who are confused or blindsided by what they are told they owe their landlord, whether it's unclear or fluctuating charges appearing on their monthly ledger and unexpected fees assessed after after they have moved out, or even collections notices that surface months or years after they vacated a unit.

I see this bill as a key step in protecting tenants from unfair eviction for nonpayment fees.

They they should not have been charged in the first place and providing the transparency they deserve.

Um Councilmember White or Alan, can you elaborate on the kind of fees you have identified as most common and most costly to tenants that this bill would address?

I will uh start and thank you.

So common space fees are vague and sometimes disguised under other names like uh amenity fee or operating expenses.

So tenants aren't always sure what they're being charged for and are left wondering why those things aren't covered by their base rent.

Uh the bill also tightens up existing law that says that landlords can't charge tenants for things they are obligated to provide uh like key fobs or separate fees for hot and cold water, which we have actually heard about.

Um that was already law, but we added specific examples to clarify that.

And if I I can just add to that as well.

I mean, part of what drove the introduction of this bill was hearing from our residents facing unpredictable, widely swinging common area utility fees to the tune of hundreds of dollars difference per month that were unpredictable that people could not budget for.

They knew what the rent was.

They had done their research, they signed the lease, they knew what their rent was, they were unable to plan for it, and we're talking hundreds of dollars of a swing month to month for common area utilities that they may or may not even used.

And it's that lack of transparency and lack of predictability determining the affordability of for a lot of our residents.

And so that's the that's where this legislation came from.

I'm really grateful for the residents that helped that, but that's exactly where we're trying to get fixed.

Thank you so much.

Does that conclude your questions?

Yes, I was I was just pointing to Councilmember Furman for you.

Councilmember Fruman.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Uh I want to understand how this fits with our rent stabilization laws.

So how if there's a building that's had a common area charge that's a rent stabilized building, so this year it had a common area charge, and then next year that common area charge has to be rolled into the base rent.

Does that count towards their allowable percentage increase next year?

How how does this a phenomenon in rent stabilized buildings?

And if it is, how do how is that being dealt with?

Um Councilmember Fruitman, let me get back to you uh on that.

I I have to to check how that would apply to uh rent control buildings.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

So no further questions.

Madam General Council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Is there a cost?

There is not.

The next measure is Bill 26-542.

Powering local utility guidance and housing act of 2026.

Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

The uh I introduced the Powering Local Utility Guidance and Housing Act alongside Councilmembers Nadeau, Alan Fruman, Pinto, and Traon White.

This measure takes on a specific and costly barrier to providing affordable housing in the district, which is the time it takes to secure utility clearances.

We hear it from developers, advocates, and agency partners all the time.

Utility coordination can delay projects for months or even years.

Those delays force redesigns, they drive up finance financing costs, postpone occupancy, and ultimately mean fewer affordable homes delivered.

Habitat for Humanity testified that every new construction project they've built in the last decade has faced delays tied to PEPCO, including a Ward 7 project that still lacks an approved design after years of attempts.

This bill creates a practical response.

It establishes a technical and design consulting team at DHCD to help qualifying affordable housing proposals, navigate utility design requirements, secure necessary inspections, coordinate disconnections, and track corrective actions.

It also requires coordination and data sharing agreements among DHCD, DOB, and OCTO, and the utility providers to ensure the transparency and access developers need to move forward efficiently.

Let me note plainly, we all understand the root cause of many of these delays lies with the utility companies themselves, not our agencies.

But while those issues will continue to be addressed, we still have a responsibility to improve what the district can control.

Communication, coordination, and predictability on our side of the process.

This is a targeted incremental improvement.

It won't fix every problem in the utility review system, but it will reduce unnecessary redesigns, provide clarity earlier in the development process, and prevents smaller projects from having to hire expensive private utility engineers just to get basic responses.

This is especially important when every week of delay threatens project viability, which means less housing, inefficient spending, and delaying unit availability.

So move, Mr.

Chairman.

Are there questions from members?

Madam General Council, is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is uh 1.1 million uh this year in 26 and 4.7 million over the planet.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

The next 10 measures were reported out of the Committee on Health, chaired by Councilmember Christina Henderson.

The first is PR 26-548, Board of Funeral Directors, Casey Martin, confirmation resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

PR 26 548 nominates Casey Martin for a reappointment to the board of funeral directors for a term to end March 1st, 2029.

Ms.

Martin serves as the manager and director of a funeral home that serves a variety of faiths, requiring expertise in multiple multiple burial traditions.

She has provided funeral services for 23 years in the district.

Additionally, Ms.

Martin is the founder of a floral company that provides clients with floral arrangements for burials, memorials, ceremonies, and non-related funeral events.

She is licensed to practice funeral directing in the district, Maryland, as well as Virginia.

Ms.

Martin earned her associates of applied science and mortuary science from Wright Point Community College, and she is a Ward 5 resident.

We had a really good hearing.

It was very interesting.

I know funeral directing is not very interesting to people, but it's a thing.

And uh in the next five years, approximately 55% of our funeral directors are going to be retiring.

So we need to actually encourage young people to think of this as a particular uh profession.

You'll be hearing more about that because we've got a licensing bill on that.

But um I hope we can improve Ms.

Martin.

She was great.

I appreciate that you enjoy and are fascinated with the Board of Funeral Directors.

Are there questions from members?

I have three.

Uh Madam General Council is to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Uh Madam Budget Director, as a confirmation, there is no fiscal impact statement, correct?

Correct.

Objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

If there is no objection, the next six measures will be considered in block.

They all concern confirmations for nominations to the Board of Nursing.

PR 26-552, Tiffany Simmons, PR 26-553, Patricia Howard Chittams, PR 26-554, Dr.

Camie Cooper or Cammy Cooper.

PR 26-555, Judy Brinkerhoff, PR 26-556, Dr.

Tyrus Ford, PR 26-557, Anne Ford.

So I said these are all confirmations to the Board of Nursing.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

PR 26-552 nominates Tiffany Simmons for a reappointment to the Board of Nursing for a term to end July 21st, 2029.

Ms.

Simmons is a psychiatric registered nurse licensed in the district and is a faculty member at Howard University, Chamberlain University, and the University of the District of Columbia.

She has over 19 years of experience at the George Washington University Hospital, Children's National Hospital, and St.

Elizabeth's Hospital.

She cares for persons suffering from serious psychiatric disorders.

Ms.

Simmons earned her Masters of Science in Nursing Education from Chamberlain College of Nursing, and she is a Ward 8 resident.

PR 26-553 nominates Patricia Howard Chittams to the Board of Nursing for a term to end July 21st, 2029.

Ms.

Howard Chittham's is a licensed adult jack adult geriatric care nurse practitioner in the district, currently practicing with the Washington Area Nurse Practitioners Group.

She has provided nursing services at Washington Hospital Center, Howard University Hospital, Hadley Hospital, and the Columbia Hospital for Women.

She also previously worked as a nurse within DC Public Schools.

In 2016, she was honored as the nurse administrator of the year by for the district by the National School Nurse Association.

And in 2018, she became a certified as a faith community health nurse at Children's National.

She earned her Master of Science in Nursing and Disaster Management from Bidedine University and an adult geriatric nurse practitioner postmaster's certificate from Maryville University at St.

Louis, and she is a Ward 7 resident.

PR 26-554 nominates Dr.

Cammy Cooper to the Board of Nursing for a term to end July 1st, 20 2028.

Excuse me.

Dr.

Cooper is a U.S.

Health Public Health Service Commander with 20 years of federal service.

She currently serves as the behavioral health and wellness officer at NOAA National Weather Service and the emotional wellness co-lead for the USPHS.

In 2025, she was inducted as a fellow into the American Academy of Nursing, one of the nursing's highest honors.

She runs a private uh psychiatric practice called Wellness Takes Fortitude and has taught at Washington Adventist University and American University.

She holds her doctorate of nursing practice from Du Cang University and is a board certified psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner and she is a Ward 4 resident.

PR 26 555 nominates Judy Brinkenhof to the Board of Nursing for the remainder of an unexpired term to end July 21st, 2028.

Ms.

Brinkenhoff is a registered nurse with over 50 years of clinical and executive health experience, including 22 22 years as a commissioned officer with the US Navy Corps and 25 years as a school nurse here in DC.

She holds a Masters of Science in Nursing from the University of Texas San Antonio and was recently confirmed to the DC statewide health coordinating uh council and she is a ward three resident.

PR 25 26 556 nominates Dr.

Tyrus Ford to the Board of Nursing for a remainder of an expired term to end July 21st, 2026, as well as for a subsequent term to end July 21st, 2029.

Dr.

Ford is a board certificated family nurse practitioner and a doctor of nurse practice specialing in primary care, HIP prevention.

Sorry, Mr.

Chairman, I've got a couple more.

Keep going.

Specializing in primary care, HIV prevention and treatment, and LGBTQ plus health.

He has over eight years of nursing experience across critical care, community health, and clinical leadership, and currently serves as a primary care nurse practitioner and HIV specialist at CCI Health Services and the medical director at Trust in the Journeys Wellness.

He is a Ward 7 resident.

And PR 26-557 nominates Anne Ford to the Board of Nursing for a term to end July 21st, 2029.

Ms.

Ford is a licensed practical nurse with over 40 years of diverse nursing experience.

While Ms.

Ford is retired, she currently holds part-time positions at LabCorps and MedStar Health.

Her experience spans pediatric health, home health services, and in home care for children with special needs.

In addition to her clinical background, Ms.

Ford has demonstrated a commitment to public service through her work on the Black Home Ownership Strike Force team and the Quality and Compliance Advisory Council.

Ms.

Ford earned her LPN from Margaret Murray Washington Career Center, and she's a Ward 7 resident.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to publicly thank all of these public servants for their willingness to serve.

We have a several professional health boards licensing commissions.

No one is paid for this work, but they're doing it on behalf of their workforce and district residents.

And I'll take my opportunity to do my PSA.

If anybody would like to serve, um, visit the mayor's office of talent and appointments because we still have a lot of vacancies and we need folks to do these licensing work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there questions concerning any of these measures?

Councilmember Parker, are you asking to be recognized?

Yes.

Just um, I was uh interested in um labor issues as it relates to nursing.

I know they are like unions and they are engaging with respective hospitals.

I know that is not the primary role or the role or function of the board of nurses as it's more of a regulatory body.

Uh, but in thinking strategically around how we can advance labor issues.

Does the board weigh in on, for instance, uh staffing regulations at a hospital, like how many patients you can have, et cetera, which are some of the things that often come up in these labor negotiations.

Um the board doesn't um weigh in on it for a specific hospital.

Uh so the board of nursing regulates the overall practice of nursing in the district, so scopes of practice and licensing in particular.

Um, I mean, they have the ability to comment on policies related to nursing staff ratios, but to my knowledge, they have not done so because that is a bit outside of their scope as it's not dealing specifically with the scope of practice of nursing.

Understood.

Uh thank you.

I know that's not uh directly related to these candidates, all of whom seem highly qualified.

I'm looking forward to supporting them.

I know as the chair of the committee on health, you've had a number of hearings, some of which have been deeply troubling on our institutions and some of the trends that we keep hearing about are labor concerns.

Um I'm just trying to think how can we strategically tackle those things uh through bodies like uh the board of nursing.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So no further questions.

Madam General Council, are these six measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, they are.

Madam Secretary, is your record complete for each?

Yes.

Madam Budget Director, these are confirmations, so there's no fiscal impact statements.

Correct.

Without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

Uh, next up from the Committee on Health is Bill 26-356 prenatal and postpartum remote patient monitoring clarification amendment act 2026.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I introduced Bill 26-356, the prenatal and post-partum remote patient monitoring clarification amendment act 2025 in September of 2025 with Council members Lewis George, Fruman, Nadeau, Parker, Pinto, and Robert White.

The bill amends the postpartum coverage expansion amendment act of 2020 to require that the Department of Health Care Finance cover remote patient monitoring for uh blood pressure and blood glucose levels of during pregnancy and up to 12 months post-partum.

The original version of this bill was uh broad broad and had a vague requirement that Department of Health Care Finance provide coverage to um uh deliver digital health interventions that are used directly to manage a patient's pregnancy.

Um despite being fully funded across the entire financial plan, Department of Healthcare and Finance never implemented the bill as opposed to seeking clarifying and refinement.

Tailor tailoring the language to specifically cover RPM was important because research shows that remote patient monitoring can improve maternal health by enabling early detection of complications, support better management of chronic conditions, and reduce preventable morbidity.

RPM is particularly effective in managing hypertension and improving postpartum blood pressure control.

This is critical in the district, where mothers with gestational hypertension and diabetes experience a significantly higher rate of preterm births compared to those without those conditions, and black mothers faced uh with highest preterm birth rates.

Department of Healthcare Finance explained that the original FISC cost estimate was insufficient to actually cover RPM for Medicaid and Alliance patients.

It did not include equipment costs.

Um the agency did admit that they, quote, dropped the ball on implementing this law, and that once they realized that the funds were insufficient, they did submit a budget enhancement to the city administrator and the mayor's budget director.

However, that enhancement was not approved.

This bill improves upon the original law by clearly defining the scope, um, specifically naming blood pressure and blood glucose monitoring, which have been identified by experts and um the agency as the most critical RPM interventions in addressing the maternal health crisis we have here in the DC.

The committee print did not make any substantive changes to the bill as introduced.

Um I do want to note um with regard to the RIA, just in case a colleague has a question.

Oh, okay, then I'll save my 36 seconds.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I hope that my colleagues approve this bill because it's great.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Lewis George for questions.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Member Councilmember Henderson.

I was uh proud to co-introduce and thank you uh this this legislation.

I think it's it's critical and necessary.

I had two questions.

The RIA cautioned that the there was a reduction of that the reduction of cover digital health treatments would likely have a negative impact on health outcomes for uh patients of color with Medicaid or DC healthcare alliance health insurance coverage.

I wanted you to um I I wasn't able to understand why uh the RIA came out on that conclusion.

So I was curious uh to what you were able to learn, if anything about that conclusion.

And then my second question is um is it correct that this amendment will make implementation possible on a much shorter timeline than the tra then waiting for the transforming mental health model by 2030?

Um yes, to answer your second question, yes, this would enable us to do this further.

Um for additional context, the Department of Health Care Finance is is receiving or has received a grant from the federal government around uh transforming maternal health.

Unfortunately, that won't go into effect until 2030.

Um so this would allow for us to move it further.

Um in terms of the RIA, uh the committee is disappointed that the council's Office on Racial Equity issued a likely negative RIA, which is a racial equity impact assessment that could compromise the progress of critical legislation like this to provide maternal health services.

Um I believe that there is a flaw in the RIA's assumptions, uh, which is that um they ignored that the 2020 law was never implemented and will not be implemented in the foreseeable future as currently written, and that was confirmed by the deputy mayor.

So as a result, providing RPM has been left up to the discretion of our Medicaid Managed Care organizations, only two of which are currently providing this voluntarily.

So in the conversations with the core, they basically said that they provided uh negative RIA because we are narrowing the scope, but they didn't acknowledge that the original bill was never introduced to begin with.

Um about it.

I found it funny, so then it made me laugh.

Thank you for that clarification.

No problem.

So if I understood you correctly, the this bill before us narrows the scope of a provision that has not been implemented.

Correct.

And by narrowing the scope in our conversations with Department of Health Care Finance, they can actually implement the bill.

But the core office is saying by us narrowing the scope, we're negatively impacting black mothers, even though they haven't been receiving this service to date.

Correct.

Um questions from anyone else?

Mr.

Chairman?

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you, uh Councilwoman Henderson, for your leadership uh in this matter.

Just a couple of questions.

Uh my first question: will this reimbursement cover the cost for the monitoring devices individuals may use for themselves, or will the professional review the data?

Um so the FIS does include the cost of the devices for um Medicaid and Alliance patients.

If if you're not within that realm, then that is between you and your private health insurance company on that front.

Um but also um in the way that the program is designed with remote patient monitoring, it's not as though someone can just sort of um uh volunteer or request this service.

It's usually based on health history.

So if you have a history of gestational diabetes or they believe that you're at risk for developing it, then um your doctor would essentially prescribe this as an intervention.

Thank you.

Uh my next question.

Why was the 12-month window chosen as the limit for postpartum monitoring?

Um so currently under Medicaid uh pregnant women are, and this is a uh well, federal, but also we expanded it on the local side, but um federal uh pregnant women are given 12 months postpartum coverage.

Um and so this is to align, but also um technically there are three trimesters, but we all know that there's four.

Well, not we all, I don't want to make assumptions, but for most women who of they know that there's a fourth trimester, and there are complications that can occur beyond just immediately after childbirth.

So 12 months of monitoring um would encourage encapsulate that time.

Uh thank you.

And then my final question, uh what is the CFO's projected annual cost uh for this expanded coverage?

Um Madam Budget Director.

I happen to have the FIS open in front of me.

That's great.

So uh there's a local cost and there's a federal cost.

The local cost is uh 1.3 million in 27 and 4 million over the plan.

The federal match, which is the 70 percent, is uh 2.55 million in 27 and 7.8 million over the plan.

Uh thank you, budget director.

Again, thank you.

Um Councilwoman Henderson for your leadership.

Thank you.

Any further questions from members?

Madam General Council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

And Madam Budget Director, is the measures fiscal impact statement?

Does it comply with council records?

It does.

Council requirements?

It does.

And you just said that the there is a fiscal impact.

Correct.

Uh without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

Uh the next measure also from the Committee on Health is medical debt mitigation amendment act of 2026, Bill 26-438.

Councilmember Henderson.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I introduced Bill 26-438, the Medical Debt Mitigation Act of 2025, along with Councilmembers Allen, Bonds, Louis George, Nadeau, Parker Pinto, and Robert White in October of 2025.

Nearly 90,000 district residents or 20 percent of all residents have unpaid medical bills.

Medical debt can have a significant negative impact on household, including bankruptcy, eviction, and food insecurity.

Medical debt can often cannot be avoided when it is caused by an acute illness or an unplanned medical procedure.

This bill takes critical steps to prevent medical debt and place guardrails on debt collection to protect patients.

First, it requires that certain health care facilities provide financial assistance to low-income patients, free pay uh free care for patients under 20 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and reduced care costs for patients between 200 and 500 percent of FPL.

Patients who qualify for reduced cost care will be able to enter payment plans with monthly installments not exceeding 3% of their monthly household income.

The committee print closely, excuse me, the committee.

We closely collaborated with the DC Hospital Association to develop a committee print that holds true to our intent to protect district residents from medical debt while being feasible for hospitals to implement.

For example, the committee print only requires facilities to provide financial assistance to patients in their primary service area, which includes zip codes where 75% of the patients reside.

This was in response to DCHA's concern that offering financial assistance to any patient can lead to the district hospitals becoming a destination for free and reduced cost care.

The committee print also limits financial assistance to medically necessary health services after the hospital association voiced concerns that um covering expensive elective procedures would drain the hospital resources.

In addition to taking steps to prevent medical debt, the bill does provide new protections for patients who do incur medical debt, including prohibiting health care providers from reporting medical debt to consumer reporting agencies, prohibiting wage garnishments and property liens to collect on medical debt, limiting medical debt interest rates to 3%, and limiting liens on financial awards or settlements that patients receive as a compensation for an injury.

Finally, the bill prohibits health care providers from assisting patients with completing applications for medical lending products and promoting medical lending products when a patient is under anesthesia or sedation being administered treatment or is in the treatment area.

The OCFO does um well, I'm sure Jen will get to that in terms of um the particular cost.

Um Councilmember Allen, uh, yep, two FTEs for this one.

Um but I want to sincerely thank uh SEDEC DC whose June 2025 report more than a band-aid systemic changes to protect DC residents from medical debt, which informed the drafting of this legislation.

Um, and I encourage my colleagues to enjoy me um in moving it forward to prevent medical debt for many district residents.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Henderson.

Are there questions from members?

Mr.

Crawford.

Um Councilmember Henderson, can you say a little bit more about where you landed on the definition of medically necessary health service?

Um yes.

Uh so there are several jurisdictions that have already um implemented this.

There was some debate back and forth over the definition of medically necessary.

We used um a definition from Illinois law, uh, which we felt um met the I think provided the appropriate parameters.

Did you want me to read it?

Let me No, that's fine.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Parker.

On that point.

There was opposition to where the committee landed, which I think the committee landed in the right spot, by the way.

Um can you just elaborate what the push was to define medically necessary as a question?

And if you I'm happy to jump in if you don't want to speak to it.

No, I'm trying to choose my words because we worked this out with the hospital association, but essentially they wanted to be able to have further input in, or they.

The hospitals wanted to be able to have further input in sort of defining what is medically necessary, which we felt was going to be both administratively burdensome and also quite subjective to a doctor's uh who may or may not have a financial interest.

Um to that latter point, the subjectivity, I think is the biggest threat and concern to this type of bill.

I you know, I was proud to co-intro it.

I'm glad where it landed.

I think this will go a long way to aiding um district residents and alleviating poverty.

People lose everything when they incur medical debt.

And I thought we're, with all due respect to the hospital association where they were pushing us to land, I thought was too broad, too subjective, and would undermine the goals of the underlying legislation.

So uh given that question, I just thought it was important to tie that in that.

Thank you.

Oh, um, just to clarify, because uh in case other colleagues have questions, um one of the things that the desire was to limit medically necessary to only services that were covered by Medicaid or Medicare.

And anybody who has or has used Medicare or Medicare, you know that there are a lot of things for which the federal government does not define as federal um medically necessary, even though us with common sense would.

Yes.

Um so Councilmember Felder.

Uh just one question.

Um, the OAG's office specifically around how they will enforce the ban on wage garnishment for those under 500 percent of the FPL.

Um yes, we work really closely with the Office of the Attorney General on um this particular piece of legislation.

Um, and they provided input to ensure that the enforcement would not just be in name only, but something that they can actually implement.

They're excited about it from a consumer protection standpoint.

Thank you.

Is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is.

It is uh 307,000 in 27 and 882,000 across the plan.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

The last item from the Committee on Health is uh Bill 26-463.

Judith Human Memorial Workers with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2026, Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I know y'all are talking here to me, but the Committee on Health has been working.

Um I'm really excited about this bill.

Bill 26-463, the Judith Human Memorial Workers with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2025 was introduced on November 3rd, 2025 by myself, Councilmembers Fruman, Adobe, Bonds, Pento, Robert White, Charles Allen, and Lewis George.

Um the bill is named after just disability rights activist Judith Human, um, who was also the first director of disability rights here in the district.

Um the bill amends the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982 to establish a Medicaid buy-in program, which would be titled the District Workers with Disabilities Program.

This program would enable employed individuals with disabilities who meet specific eligibility criteria to enroll in Medicaid and pay a monthly premium.

Although 48 states have an enacted Medicaid buy-in programs, the District of Columbia lags behind in providing this comprehensive coverage option for residents with disabilities.

Currently, aged blind, disabled individuals who earn more than $1,330 per month, or a two-person household earning more than $1,800 per month, are ineligible for Medicaid in the district.

This leads to disabled residents experiencing a benefits clift, a phenomenon in which modest increases to your income can result in the loss of critical public benefits, including Medicaid coverage and long-term services and supports.

As a result, individuals may decline promotions or higher paying employment opportunities just to be able to keep their health care.

This legislation would create a pathway for residents with disabilities to access a comprehensive array of services, including prescription drugs, personal care services, non-emergency medical transport, and assistive technology.

The committee print did make several changes to the bill as introduced, including removing the age limit to allow for older adults to participate in the program, especially given that Medicare does not cover long-term services or supports, nor does it cover things like hearing aids and dental services.

Additionally, the committee removed language restricting home and community-based service waiver recipients from enrolling in the program, as well as a host of other things.

The OCFO does estimate that this bill will have a particular cost.

This is one I want to continue to work with the Department of Healthcare Finance on.

Much of the cost is built up in an update that is needed to the District of Columbia Access System, also known as DCAS, which we've already paid hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars for this system.

And basically, they're saying it's going to take more millions to just sort of add this particular component to allow for them to receive payment.

So I look forward to continuing to work with the OCFO as well as healthcare finance on this.

And overall, advancing this legislation, I think it really could be a game changer for a lot of individuals in the district who are aging or disabled who want to be able to continue to work and live a fulsome life without losing access to the health care coverage.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Lewis George, you had a question.

Yes.

First, I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Henderson, for her leadership on this bill on the Judith Human Memorial Workers with Disabilities Amendment Act, a bill that helps rectify the indignity of Medicaid caps for disabled workers and honors the legacy of disability rights pioneer Judith Human.

As Chair of Facilities Committee, which oversees the Department on Disability Services, I hear frequently from DC's disability community about the poverty track created by Medicaid income caps, which are far lower for workers with disabilities.

This bill would enable any disabled worker can buy into Medicaid regardless of how much money they have or make basing the cost on the applicant's income.

I wanted to know how did you um work with impacted residents to ensure that access to Medicaid, which is both access to life-saving health care and access to home care and more would be in reach for people with disabilities across all income levels.

Thank you for that question, Councilmember Lewis George.

So we were very closely with disability rights groups in the district.

Probably some of the most impactful testimony that I've ever heard at a hearing was at that hearing to hear from residents who one gentleman who testified he's a professor at a university.

He's doing a great job.

They wanted him to take on more responsibility, and he couldn't.

He had to decline the promotion in order to be able to keep access to his Medicaid.

And there were others who sort of spoke about this as well.

I think the perception there's a weird perception out there around what Medicare covers and doesn't cover.

Thank you for that.

Judy Judith Human once said disability only becomes a tragedy when society fails to provide the things we need to lead our lives, job opportunities or barrier-free buildings.

And so we have more work to do, but I think this is an important step.

And I thank you, Councilmember Henderson, for helping to dismantle and an important barrier to employment and independence for DC's disabilities community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

No further questions.

Madam General Counsel is to measure legal and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Does it have a fiscal cost?

It does.

It has a net cost because there's a small revenue offset, but the net cost is $2.6 million in 27 42 point nine million over the plan, of which 1.8 excuse me, uh 782,000 is the local portion in 27, and uh it's 12.9 million local over the plan.

So local about 4 million a year in 28-29.

I mean, it actually ramps up its uh it's 5.4 million and 28 and 6.7 million and 29.

Um thank you.

Without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the May 5th legislative meeting.

The next measure is was reported uh sequentially out of the committee on human services, chaired by councilmember Matthew Freeman and the Committee on Facilities, chaired by Councilmember Janice Lewis George.

Uh I'll look to the surplus first.

Uh Councilmember Lewis George.

I think we had it set up so I would go first.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson.

B26-157, the Langston Slater Surplus Declaration and Disposition Approval Act of 2025 was introduced by you, Mr.

Chairman, on behalf of the mayor on February 28, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Facilities and the Committee on Business and Economic Development on March 4th, 2025.

It was then re-referred to the Committee on Facilities and the Committee on Human Services on March 3, 2026.

The legislation was marked up by facilities on March 19, 2026, and by human services on March 24th, 2026.

Bill 26-157 would declare a surplus and authorize the disposition of district-owned real property located at 33 to 45 P Street Northwest, known for tax purposes as Lot 0826 in Square 0615.

The property located in the Truxton Circle neighborhood is improved by two former elementary schools.

Slater Elementary was built in 1891 to educate black students and was named in honor of John Fox Slater, a philanthropist who supported education of formerly enslaved people following the Civil War.

It closed in 1975.

Langston Elementary was built in 1902 to alleviate overcrowding at the neighboring Slater Elementary and was named in honor of John Mercer Langston, a black abolitionist, first black congressman elected in Virginia, founding Dean of Howard University Law School, and first president of Virginia State University.

It closed in 1997.

Both buildings are currently vacant.

The planned development of this property would adaptively reuse the historic school buildings to deliver 40 mixed-income rental units, 60 percent of which would be affordable.

A new infill building would be constructed between the two existing buildings that would provide 12 mixed-income family-sized units for home ownership.

This for sale development will be 58 percent affordable.

A request for proposals was issued in 2020, and the project was awarded in 2022 to Lebanon Village at Langston Slater MD LLC.

It is the first project awarded through an equity RFP, which is intended to increase access to development opportunities for entities or organizations that are owned or majority controlled by individuals determined to be part of a socially disadvantaged population.

These historic properties have been vacant or underutilized for far too long, falling into serious disrepair.

The commun one more minute, Mr.

Chairman.

Without objection.

The community which supports the proposed development has been waiting for years for this project to proceed.

This legislation would enable much needed housing, including opportunities to build generational wealth, and would allow this site to again contribute to the vibrancy of the Truxton Circle neighborhood.

With that, Mr.

Chairman, I ask that the measure be placed on the consent agenda for the next legislative meeting.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you, Chairman.

This project will create 40 multifamily rental units and 12 for sale condominium units in Ward 5's Truxton Circle neighborhood.

60 percent of the multifamily rental units and 58 percent of the for sale condominium units will be affordable to families at various incomes levels.

It is supported by the surrounding community and has been championed by the ANC and Ward 5.

Councilmember Zachary Parker.

And this project will add density and affordable rental and home ownership units to an area of D.C.

that has changed rapidly in recent years.

The per unit cost of this project will be very high, over $500,000 per unit and require additional subsidy and tax relief from the district.

That cost is in no small due uh small part due to the high cost to preserve the historic site of the old Langston Slater, Langston and Slater schools themselves.

And despite the high cost to taxpayers through the free land subsidies and tax breaks, this development will only create five units that will be deeply affordable, and only 22 that will be accessible to folks making it at or under 50 percent of the median family income.

I do think a greater conversation is when the district provides land and subsidy to develop public land for housing.

We should be doing more to enable higher unit counts and deeper affordability.

And I don't think we we cannot really prioritize preserving historic facades over preserving the communities that are being pushed from uh the district.

When the need for affordable housing is high, when our options to subsidize building are limited, and when we are watching a housing crisis push more black and brown families from the district, we need to make sure that our public assets and resources are creating as much opportunity as possible and not sacrifice that opportunity in the name of historic preservation for historic preservation's sake.

Um the issue is much greater than any single project or development.

Um I have faith that the lengths and slater development will provide quality affordable homes for War 5 residents and homeownership opportunity for those who are typically unable to access it.

Um I think this deal will move the needle of affordable housing in the direction we need it to.

Um I do I just want us to look more closely at the system we have set up and why it costs so much to bill, what amounts to just a drop in the bucket relative to our housing needs as a city, especially when cost drivers do not benefit our residents for the long haul.

Otherwise, high cost deals that provide less benefit than they could will continue to be status quo, and the district will not meaningfully shift the balance of our housing systems to prioritize our residents first.

In short, the cost of this deal is only higher because of the historic preservation in the name of historic preservation, and I do think we need to start reconsidering those things so we can get more for our community as an overall as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there questions from members?

Councilmember Parker?

Thank you.

Um I do have a question, but I would say the Ward 5 community is super excited about this development and increasingly growing anxious as it's been a while.

Uh so today is welcome news that we're moving this forward.

Uh either Councilmember Fruman or Lewis George, do you have a sense of timing for next steps?

The last I heard from DIMPET was that they were waiting on council action.

Today is council action.

Um is there a sense of their timeline for actually breaking ground and delivering the development.

Uh I'll take a try at it.

And if Councilmember Lewis George wants to chime in, please do feel free.

Um I hear you about the excitement, and it has to be tempered a little because it's going to take a bit.

Um part of that is this step, which is the deal regarding the land is unable to be closed until the surplus and disposition legislation is passed.

But also there's building permits, there's HBRB processes.

So assuming approval in May, DemPed anticipates closing the deal by quarter two of FY 29.

And breaking ground in quarter three of FY29.

The benchmarks after this approval include developer submission of building and development concept plans to the historic preservation review board for review and approval, and subsequent to approval by HBRB, creation and submission of final architectural plans for district review and approval at schematic design development and construction phases and a plan completion of all of those steps, uh submission for a building permit to the Department of Buildings.

And so you can see things have to wait, partly because of historic preservation in order to get to those other processes.

Uh and it will take a while to work our way through all those things.

And I'll just add the extended time it takes to secure funding and permits is one of the reasons the Committee on Facilities agreed to extend the period of authorization for the mayor to dispose of the property from two years to three years.

Awesome.

Thank you both.

I will also just flag that uh neighbors routinely complain about maintenance of the property.

So as we are awaiting the development, I would love to work with both of your teams uh to just ensure it's uh in the best condition.

Thanks.

Uh thank you.

Uh further questions, Councilmember Crown White and then Bond.

Yes, thank you.

Uh to Councilmember Fruman.

Uh doing the disposition of this property uh was uh was this uh auctioned off to anyone?

How is this property being developed?

Because I heard you say it was formerly district property from schools.

Uh what was the process and uh I guess this property being developed and moved out of uh DC's ambitious.

So I I think the process was a relatively typical one in which the there was an RFP in this case it was an equity RFP, so it was focused on uh a particular group of potential developers, and then a selection was made.

I believe the selection was uh made in 2022.

Do you know for how much?

I do not know that, but I know you have commented before at the low price of these things.

And part of that is looking at the pro forma for the deal and determining what price can be borne for the deal to make sense and to deliver the level of affordable housing that is called for.

Here, this is going to be an expensive building to do and with high levels of affordability.

So while I don't have a price at my fingertips, it will be low, but in order for it to be able to be economically feasible to deliver this much affordable housing in this kind of context.

Yeah, well, if you can send that to me, that'll be helpful for me.

And you said this level, I know you said uh 40 multi-family multifamily units, um 60 percent, some are 60 percent AMI, some are 48 percent AMI.

Uh can you give us a rundown of what are those A uh or your medium income levels for this development project for the condos, I guess apartments and homes.

So I don't have the I will get you the price, I will also get you that breakdown of the different units.

I think there's a couple of different buildings here, but I think overall what you see is 60 percent of the units that are delivered will be affordable.

Yeah, uh I get what uh DC used afford affordable loosely.

And we also have 60 percent will be affordable at what level we have 128 percent affordable in DC.

I mean you can go above and beyond the average market rate and still deem it affordable in language, as well as the specificity of what I'm asking.

It gives me more clarity on what I'm moving for.

100 percent understand.

And you're totally right.

I w I don't have it at my fingertips.

I'll get to those AMI levels.

If I can weigh in, I can weigh in.

Um I for the first question, DIMPED received 10 responses to the RFP, just as far as when they did the RFP.

Uh there are uh with five units affordable to households earning up to 30 percent of the median in MFI median family income MFI, 12 units affordable to households earning up to 50 percent uh median family income, and seven units affordable to households earning up to 80 percent of the uh median family income.

That's for the um one part of the project, the for sale development will be 58 percent affordable with two units affordable to households earning up to 50 percent um median family income, and three units affordable affordable to households earning up to 60 percent of the median family income, and then two units available to households earning up to 80 percent of the median family income.

So that's out of how many for that section.

For the the for sale condos?

Yeah.

I believe out of I don't see the I'll get it to you.

But like that's seven.

I don't know how many columns they are total, two, three, and two.

Two units, three units, and two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Seven of twelve.

There's twelve for sale total, seven of twelve.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And I want to know that the project also serves as a steward for sustainable homeownership by providing supportive services managed by the uh Douglas Community Land Trust to affordable for sale units owners.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Bonus.

Um thank you, Chairman.

I'm just uh wondering if um Demped in particular and the um housing department are going to look more closely at these kinds of deals.

It just seems a little um out of um.

Well, there is a there is a concern when we talk about high levels of affordability and the expense to bill and what we are really saying, if if I heard you correctly, is that five of the units will be available to households at 30 percent AMI.

30 percent AMI is usually treated almost as having no income.

So that means we're going to subsidize the construction of those units.

And we also are going to require individuals that are at 30 percent AMI to occupy them.

And when they occupy them, there'll be no money flowing from the individuals because zero to 30 percent is treated as if there is no money coming from the household.

And so and I'm just pointing that out so that we all understand if we're going to create this structure or these structures, and we are required to follow historic preservation requirements.

It just seems to me there is a better way for us to do what is needed, and that is to make sure we house and give our lowest income residents an opportunity to live in the city, as opposed to putting them in a um historic preservation structure, which really the cost is it will be much higher than any other type of residential structure.

So I was just wondering if we can have some conversation with um DIMPED so that perhaps this kind of project doesn't come forth again for us to deliberate on, so that we get more units for those who are in need of housing, then fewer.

Thank you for that council council member bonds.

I think you go to a very big question, honestly, because there is a question of whether the best way to deliver housing for our lowest income residents is subsidy up front in the construction or subsidy ongoing in terms of uh rent supports.

And I I think we have taken an approach, but I do think you're right that it will make sense as we have fewer dollars that we look at what is the best way to deliver for our residents.

I I do think, I mean, I think in this case, this is a good project about which people nearby are very enthusiastic, and it brings back to life to historic buildings.

His historic preservation sometimes is can get beat up on, but it can also have real value.

These are his really serious historic buildings that I think we want to see preserved, and doing that means that the cost of construction will be higher.

We need to, with our eyes wide open, recognizing the costs and the trade-offs, decide whether we want to go down that path.

And we also have to go to the big question that I think you're asking, which is what's the best way to make sure that we're providing housing to our lowest income residents?

Is it a capital subsidy up front or is it an operational subsidy going forward?

That's a legitimate question that needs scrutiny.

Thank you.

The members' time is expired.

If there are no further questions, Madam General Counsel's measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is not.

Well, objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting on May 5th.

Uh, I want to be clear, the printed is before us is the print from the committee on human services.

Correct?

Madam General Counsel?

Yes.

That was a yes.

Uh that is going to conclude the business of this committee as a whole.

Uh we'll take about five minutes.

No.

To be honest, we'll take about 10 minutes before we start the legislative meeting.

Yeah.

I need to note that the committee as a whole has scheduled a hearing.

Uh um that's supposed to start at three.

It will start immediately following this.

It will start immediately following the following legislative meeting.

The time is 2 51 p.m.

and this committee, the whole meeting is adjourned.