Hey, Kevin, are you on the Zoom?

I am on the Zoom.

All right, give me a quick sec.

There we go.

Oh, sorry.

Five, four, three, two, one.

All good, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Kevin, I'm going to start if you're ready.

Start the webinar, and then you are good to go, sir.

Recording in progress.

Council member and chair of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Today is Wednesday, April twenty second, twenty twenty-six, and we are meeting both in room one twenty of the John A.

Wilson building and via the Zoom virtual platform.

The time is now three.gov backslash hearings until Wednesday, May sixth, twenty twenty-six.

DMV's proposed capital budget is 8.7 million, which is a 37.2% decrease from its FY26 approved capital budget of 13.8 million dollars.

The capital budget does not support any FDEs.

For any public witnesses who wish to submit written testimony, you can do so through the council's hearing management system at LIMS.dccouncil.gov backslash hearings until Wednesday, May 6th, 2026.

We are going to begin with our public witnesses, and I believe we have most people here in person.

We might have a couple that are online.

Um because I believe we can fit everybody on the table or online at the same time.

So I have Jackie Wright, who is the social justice manager at Foundry.

I have Taylor Bush, Georgetown Ministry Center, Joey Davis, president of AFGE Local 1975, Emily DeMarco, public witness, and Emmanuel Jackson Public Witness.

And so if the folks that are here in this room, if you can come grab a chair.

Sorry, Kate.

Kate Coventry, Director of Legislative Strategy, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

Okay.

Taylor Bush, we're sending a request for you to accept as a panelist.

So if you can do that, we'll add you on there.

Okay.

So we're going to go in the order in which we had called everyone's names.

So I've got Jackie Wright first who's joining us virtually, and then we'll move to Taylor Bush right after that.

So Jackie Wright, let me turn to you if you're ready.

I'm ready.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Um thank you, Councilmember Allen and members of the committee for allowing me to testify today.

I'm very sorry not to be there in person, but I'm dealing with a bit of a family emergency.

Nonetheless, I have some things I would like to say.

Um as you all probably know, I'm Jackie Wright.

I'm the Social Justice Program's manager at Foundry United Methodist, and I'm here on behalf of Foundry, the Washington Interfaith Network, and the almost 2400 DC residents that came to Foundry's ID ministry last year looking to obtain their viable documents.

And I'm testifying today because I am still deeply concerned about the welfare of those who are on the margins in our city and those who are most likely to lack the proper ID, and who are the very people who need it the most.

As I said back in February at the last hearing, one of the biggest obstacles to getting an ID right now for unhoused residents is providing proof of residency.

Although this is not directly a DMV responsibility, getting an ID is, and we have heard that part of the reason for the reduction in the social service proof of residency forms, which is what I'm here to talk about, was due to a request from the DMV to tighten up the process.

I'm not sure if that's true.

There seems to be a lot of um confusion and blame, you know, gaming around this, but that's what we've heard.

Um at the last hearing on February 12th, Councilmember Allen, you directed um Director Robinson to meet with our coalition and a representative from DHS.

Um, and despite multiple emails, it took until earlier today to get that meeting scheduled.

Um DMV and DHS wanted to do their own internal review before meeting with us, and that is their prerogative.

But it does not acknowledge that those of us who are working directly with these folks every week, face to face, hearing their stories.

It does not acknowledge that we might have valuable input that might be good to be offered up on the front end of this discussion.

So that was disappointing.

Again, to just frame the issue, DHS has cut the number of um authorized agencies that can provide this form by about two-thirds.

Of the 10 agencies listed on the DHOS website, only three are places where people can just walk up.

The other places are specific to youth or um the ready center or the outreach workers have them.

But there's only three that you can go up to knock on the door and get these forms.

And one of the big problems with that is that two of these three places are designated men's shelters.

Although women can go to one of these shelters to get a form, many do not feel comfortable doing so.

This feels discriminatory.

As we know, over half of women who are experiencing homelessness is it's due to domestic violence.

There's no safe place for these women, no women only shelters where this form can be accessed.

So some a woman who is unhoused due to domestic violence has to go to the downtown day center is her only option of even a mixed shelter day center to go to.

It's not acceptable.

And then of course, we're very concerned about what we're hearing from the administration in terms of clearing the streets this summer.

A crucial step to getting people housed is to get them an ID.

You need an ID to get housing, and you need proof of residency to get an ID.

Again, we're still still making this hardest for the people who need it the most.

So again, we are asking for the list of agencies who can uh distribute this form to be um expanded.

So for an example, someone's going to Catholic charities to get case management.

They should not have to go to yet another agency to get their proof of residency form.

It is hard enough for somebody struggling to get themselves to one provider, much less two.

Very repidal organizations, such as some Christhouse, Georgetown Ministries to name a few, should be able to distribute these forms.

We would love for these forms to be printed on regular paper instead of on triplicate.

Again, this is something we were hearing that the DMV is really wanting to stay with the triplicate form.

Love to hear why.

And low-hanging fruit, at least 311, the DMV website, the DMV tailers should have this information on hand to give people.

Right now, nobody seems to know.

So I just want to say that no matter what happens in these next few weeks with these hearings and with our meetings that we have scheduled.

We are we're not going anywhere.

We will continue to press the issue until we have change.

But also it needs to be equitable.

And we're we will not give up.

We are not going anywhere.

So I want to make sure everybody hears that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Wright.

Um in my time here, I've learned that uh hearings can act like deadlines.

So this morning is when the meeting finally got set.

You'd actually meet this morning.

You're saying that it's just a response to then actually set a date and a time.

Correct.

And what is the date and the time?

When's it meeting?

Um it is Wednesday the 29th at 3 p.m.

Which is the day before the DHS hearing, by the way.

Magic.

Come on, guys.

Like for two months, we can do better to get this conversation going.

All right.

Um, I'll come back with some questions.

But Taylor Bush, let me turn to you next.

Hi.

Um, first just thank you for taking the time to consider my request.

Um, my name is Taylor Bush, and I work at um Georgetown Ministry Center.

We're located in Ward 2.

Um, we're a nonprofit organization that provides um services to individuals experiencing homelessness.

We offer like basic services like showers, laundry, computer, um, phone access and assistance with uh vital documents.

Um, and for many of our guests, documents such as ID cards, birth certificates, social security cards are just essential for accessing services like housing, food assistance, mail, and employment.

Um previously we were able to assist our guests with obtaining IDs by providing those proof of residency forms.

However, um we're unable to do so, and we were denied access to those forms.

And for many of the guests we serve, um, including our long-term guests, they're really in need of those forms or the IDs in general, and um, as a service provider, this makes our job harder, and um, more importantly, our guests um lives significantly more challenging trying to navigate when and where they can obtain the proof of residency to secure an ID, and having a valid form of ID is so important, and often you need it again for housing assistance, you need it for employment, and you really need it for obtaining any other kind of vital documents as well.

And often you need it again for housing assistance, you need it for employment, and you really need it for obtaining any other kind of vital documents as well.

And for many of our guests, the challenge isn't not necessarily the financial challenge of obtaining ID, it's also just obtaining the residency portion.

Then DMB requires right now two proofs of residency, such as like a utility bill, a lease, or other official documents with the residency on it.

And that's just not obtainable when you're living outside.

And I've personally been able to assist guests in obtaining the proof of residency and supporting them going to the DMV as well.

And navigate navigating the DMV is already a difficult experience, and adding more barriers only makes it harder and creates unnecessary challenges.

It's important that requiring individuals to use.

And it's also, I'd like to highlight like a lot of our guests we see on a daily basis.

So it's really nice when I can tell Barbara that her mail is here or that Social Security, you have multiple mail pieces from Social Security.

It's just like really important to have that other connect with people, and a lot of times that's through mail, and using our location as a mailing address is really important for our guests that we see, especially on a daily basis.

So I just like to respectfully request.

We have the ability to continue supporting our guests through this process, and we urge that the DMV and the NDHS work together to kind of expand access for individuals without a permanent address, establishing newer requirements and expanding those accesses for people who don't have a permanent address, is what's needed.

Everybody deserves the right to have identification and to have those IDs is just a crucial first step and creating stability in people's lives.

So thank you.

Absolutely.

All right, thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Emily DeMarco.

And if you can push the button so the red light comes on.

Thank you.

There you go.

Good afternoon.

I wanted to thank the council for giving us this opportunity to speak.

My name is Emily DeMarco, and I am an ordained deacon in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

I currently serve at two congregations here in downtown DC, Luther Place Memorial Church, which is in Ward 2, and First Trinity Lutheran Church, which is in Ward 6.

I'm here today as a member of the Washington Interfaith Network WIN.

Both of the congregations that I serve have members of the unhoused community who worship with us, including a first Trinity member who I'll call Nicole.

I'll never forget one Sunday morning when Nicole came into my office, absolutely radiating with joy because she had finally been able to find an apartment.

Her smile was so infectious.

And she shared about how ready she was for this next step and how hopeful she was about her future.

And one of the main reasons that Nicole was able to experience that joy was because she had the documentation and the ID that was necessary for her to access the services that she needed.

Unfortunately, as we've already heard, this is not the case for many of our unhoused neighbors here in the District of Columbia.

As many of you know, Wynne has been working for months to address the difficulty that people are having in accessing the proof of residency form, which is sort of the gateway to getting an ID, which is itself the gateway to all of the other services that folks rely on.

Through August of last year, 31 providers were listed as being able to distribute that form.

But since November, the number is down to three.

Three for this entire city and all of the people here.

I think that's an unacceptably low number.

This is also an equity issue.

There is not a single sex place where women and femme people can go to receive this form as a walk-up.

Many of the parishioners that I work with from N Street Village have experienced with abuse and trauma and relationship abuse and trauma, and they really need that women-only space to feel safe.

So they're not going to go and seek out a space where they're not going to be safe.

We at WIN have been trying to work on this issue for months, and we've presented a variety of solutions, such as restoring the number of provider locations that can give the form, adopting a more streamlined form that's not the triplicate form and will cost less to print.

We look forward to working with the DMV staff and committee staff when implementing a solution so that it will be easier for our on-house neighbors to access those forms.

Thank you especially to Chair Allen for listening today, and I look forward to working together on this proof of residency issue so that more of our on-house neighbors can get that kind of joy that Nicole had.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Kate Coventry with DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

Chairperson Allen, thanks to you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Kate Coventry.

I'm the director of legislative strategy at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

DC FPI is a nonprofit organization that shapes racially just tax, budget, and policy decisions by centering black and brown communities in our research and analysis, community partnerships, and advocacy efforts to advance an anti-racist equitable future.

My testimony focuses on new roadblocks that people are experiencing homelessness face when trying to secure proof of residency document at social service agencies in order to obtain an up photo ID from the DMV.

In fiscal year 2026, the Department of Human Services reduced the number of locations at which people struggling with homelessness can validate the residency.

And there is evidence that this decision is harming DC's unhoused community and undermining progress that DC has made in ending homelessness among individuals, particularly improving voucher implementation and launching a second bridge housing program.

I want to flag that black residents bear the brunt of navigating homelessness and related ID access barriers.

Over 76% of unaccompanied adults counted in the district's 2025 point in time count were black.

This is the result of the enduring legacies of structural and individualized racism, such as racist zoning and residential segregation, redlining, restrictive covenants, and practices barring federal employment that for years prohibited black families from equitably accessing the housing and employment markets.

Failing to fix this ID challenge could exacerbate existing racial inequities.

DC FBI asks this committee and the Committee on Human Services to urge the DMB and DHS to convene stakeholders on ways to improve this process.

And I do want to acknowledge that the DMB did reach out today to schedule a meeting.

And I just want to talk a little bit about why IDs are important.

A photo ID is required to access public benefits and it apply for most jobs and apartment leases.

It's an essential tool that can help residents access basic needs, economic opportunities, and in some cases, voting rights.

In order to attain a district ID, an individual needs to prove their identity and that they are a district resident.

Residents experiencing homelessness often struggle to prove residency because they don't have a lease or bill that confirms their address, which is part of the standard process that DMV uses to issue licenses and IDs.

Residents who are in a house can instead obtain a social service proof of residency form in which a homeless services provider confirms their homelessness and their DC residency there by allowing them to rebuild and access housing and economic sports.

Prior to this year, individuals could obtain this form from more than 30 homeless services agency, often allowing an individual to get the form from their existing service provider.

The district has now reduced the number to 11 locations, three adult day centers, four youth drop-in centers, and four homeless outreach providers, meaning most individuals will have to make a special trip to an agency with whom they do not have a relationship.

Two of the three adult day centers are located in men's shelters, and some women experiencing homelessness have reported they do not feel comfortable going into these locations.

The outreach providers are often on the street serving their own clients in the field, so they're not able to spend time at the agency service locations to serve other clients.

Individuals have reported that despite making trips to multiple providers, they have been unable to secure the form because providers have run out.

The district should monitor the current form distribution to make sure each social service agency has a sufficient supply so folks aren't making trips when there aren't any forms available, and they should add providers, particularly those that serve only women.

As part of this process, they should hold surveys, focus groups, or interviews with clients experience homelessness to gather feedback on how the new process is working and if needed ways to improve the process.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Next, we're gonna turn back online.

We have Joey Davis, president of AFGE Local 1975.

Good afternoon.

Are you able to hear me, Chairman Allen?

We can.

Good afternoon.

All right.

Uh good afternoon, uh, Chairperson Allen, members of the committee and fellow panelists.

My name is Joey Davis, and I am the president of AFGE Local 1975, probably representing frontline employees at the district department of motor vehicles, amongst other district agencies.

I want to be very clear about the issue in front of us today.

The district is currently considering a budget proposal that delays cost of living increases in fiscal year 2027, while Comp 1 and 2 employees have not even received a cost of living increase for fiscal year 2026, which began on October 1st, 2025.

So the question becomes how is the district claiming lack of resources for workers while administrative costs continue to grow?

Because the problem is not the workforce.

The problem is how the workforce is being managed.

If you look at the district's own budget documents across FY 2025 through the proposed FY 2027, you will see a consistent pattern.

Growth in administrative spending that far outpaces any measurable improvement in service delivery.

Within DMV specifically, executive administration funding has increased over recent budget cycles, both in dollars and in the number of positions allocated to management and oversight functions.

At the same time, frontline staffing levels have not seen the same level of investment, and service outcomes have not materially improved.

Residents are still dealing with long wait times.

Employees are still operating under strained conditions, and morale continues to decline.

So where is the return on that administrative investment?

Let me give you a concrete example for DMV.

Within DMV's structure, you have major program divisions like the Vehicle Services and Driver Services Administrations, each led by an administrator.

Underneath those administrators in the past few years, the agency has layered additional management roles, including operation managers.

That raises a very basic question.

What function is being performed at that level that was not already covered by existing leadership?

Because from where employees sit, the answer is not operational improvement.

In fact, it's having the opposite effect.

Instead, what we are seeing is duplication of authority, confusion in decision making, and an increase in top-down pressure that does not translate into better service for the public.

Employees are reporting that these additional layers of management are creating a more hostile and less stable work environment.

That is not leadership.

That is dysfunction.

And it is being funded by this council.

So again I ask: if the district needs to find savings, why are we looking at delaying compensation for frontline workers instead of addressing administrative bloat?

Even modest reductions at the management level would free up meaningful resources.

For example, eliminating or consolidating redundant operational management roles across major divisions could easily generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings annually when you factor in salary, benefits, and other overhead costs.

Expanding that approach across agencies where similar bloated structures exist quickly moves us into the millions of dollars.

That's real money, and it can be reinvested where it actually makes a difference.

In the workforce that delivers services to district residents every single day.

Let me be clear.

We're not asking for anything new.

We are asking the district to honor its current workforce.

Employees should not have to wait years for cost of living increases, while the cost of living itself has skyrocketed in the district.

And they should not be told there is no money while watching layers of management continue to expand above them.

Council has an opportunity here to correct course, to take a hard look at how agencies like the DMV are allocating their resources, to ask whether additional management positions are actually improving performance or simply adding cost.

And to ensure that when difficult budget decisions are made, they're not made on the backs of the very employees who literally keep this city running every day.

Because right now, that's exactly what's happening.

The district does not have a workforce cost problem.

It has a prioritization problem.

And until that is addressed, services will not improve, no matter how many new layers of management are added.

Even when DMV puts more people on the ground, the structure above them is so bloated and ineffective that it cancels out any real gains.

Thank you for your time today.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much, President Davis.

And next uh and last, our public witnesses.

Let me turn to Emmanuel Jackson.

Mr.

Jackson, good afternoon.

Uh if you push the button so the red light comes on, then we can hear you through the microphone.

And if you could maybe pull the mic so it points a little bit more toward the mic.

Okay.

Well, everyone came prepared today.

Everyone got speeches and everything.

I then knew that.

Um I mean so I guess I'll keep it short.

So I mean, my grievance with the DMV is very simple.

Is um I when I began my like my DMV journey, because I I wanted to get a drive-in's license.

So they said, oh, so um so I took to practice tests, it sucked.

It just repeats the same questions over and over again.

Then I that took the practice, and uh so I went in and thought, oh, the practice test online was good enough.

I went in, I failed, and I paid $10.

I paid to fail.

That's ridiculous.

Um then I start requesting for the DMV to offer me tutoring to help me pass the test.

Because you know, I have a learning disability.

I went to school for learning disabilities of like since I was since 2009, and now I'm like 25, so I've like a few years ago, I graduated like in 2020, and I was like, I need help um passing this permit test.

Um a year later, the D and V solved the issue and they gave me two days of not consecutive tutoring, and it was terrible conditions, it was like snow days, and I was walking there because I live close.

I failed a few times, but the days were really like far apart, and I couldn't maintain the information.

And also I could get my paperwork together.

So then I request to staff at the DMV.

They knew me, they called me, and I said, okay, can you guys do it?

I don't want to say better, but like really like better this time, but make it like three consecutive days instead of like two far apart days so I could better maintain the information.

And um short, they said no.

They they just said no.

And I was like, you but you did it before, just do it again.

And I was flexible, maybe like you gotta do like two months ahead of time so they could get their staff in order so they could um you know give me um training for the well, not tutoring for the permit test.

And um, so I'm I'm just here for tuning for the permit test.

And um hopefully um Charles Allen office could solve this and the D and B staff could solve it, they're saying right there.

I know one of them, I don't know, Marquis Bowles in the audience over there.

No?

He's in office.

Okay, I'll give him a call tomorrow.

I got his email, give him an email.

So hopefully they give me um three days of consecutive tutoring to help me pass the permit test.

I just qualify for I actually have a learner disability.

That means I'm a bad driver, just the study material needs to get updated, and that's all I'm here for.

And I and I guess that's it.

And hopefully you guys could solve it in a reasonable time.

Absolutely, thank you.

Well, you didn't prepare a speech, but you did a great job.

So thank you very much.

It helped us understand what the problem was and what you're what you're asking for.

That's what this is is about.

So thank you.

Um thanks to everybody for your testimony.

Let me just kind of run through a couple things briefly.

Uh Mr.

Jackson, I do appreciate you coming.

I know we met yesterday briefly, so I'm glad you're able to make it today to help tell your story so we can hear it, understand it.

Um I guess on one hand, I'm glad to hear the DMV made an effort.

Um that's I you know appreciate that and want to acknowledge that.

I hear your feedback trying to get back to the agency around what would work better for you.

And I hope uh and we can certainly ask later, but glad to hear I they're sitting here, so they're gonna hear that.

I can follow up with them to ask is there a way they can accommodate that?

Is there a way they could structure the the tutoring in a different way?

Um so I kind of I can hear both parts of this, right?

I appreciate that they took that effort and started setting up that type of of uh tutoring in classes, but I think your feedback's a helpful one as well to have it have the most impact.

So um the if this is your first hearing, once the public testifies, the agency then comes up, they testify, I ask them questions, and so I'll make sure I give the director a chance to respond to that and and what he may or may not be able to do uh to be responsive to that.

Yes, thank you.

Absolutely.

So thank you.

Um to uh uh Ms.

Wright and and uh coalition at rest.

Coalition, uh I appreciate the testimony.

I when you started, I was like, okay, so you're gonna tell me how this meeting went, uh, it's gonna be this is gonna be great.

And so I I am disappointed that uh only this morning do we now get the meeting set.

Um I I can't hold the DMV accountable for DHS locations, right?

And so um I want to be clear, I can't tell the DMV go fix a DHS form, right?

Um but I do want a DMV that's working in partnership with a sister agency to be able to help figure out how to solve the problem because you've articulated and what and and laid out well what the problem is.

Um my team had flagged for Council Mr.

Fruman the issues for since he has oversight over DHS.

So from a council perspective, trying to make sure that the oversight committee of DHS is aware of the issue as well, and we can circle back as well now that we have this meeting set um to see where they are.

I think it'd be helpful to have either my office or his office or both maybe join this meeting so that we can try to be helpful to get this thing over the finish line.

Um I I don't have a ton of questions around the process because you you've outlined it in hearings previous.

Uh I agree with you on all the issues you're you're raising.

And the identification is important.

Um preaching to the choir, but like that that's a really important part of this.

And I do believe there's some urgency around it.

You stressed it in February, but we don't exactly know what the federal administration is going to be doing this summer, but they have at least threatened that they are trying to go after any unhoused neighbor in DC and move them out, whatever that means to them.

Uh but we know it doesn't mean good things to us.

So uh having an ID is at least an important part both of either getting into housing, get into safe and stable spaces, um, and also I just don't want someone to be disappeared without any type of ID either.

So that is a crucial element, and that's why the urgency is there.

So I had questions like, you know, when was the last time you heard from DHS and DMV to get it scheduled?

We kind of went through that.

Um beyond expanding the access to the proof of residency form.

Are there any other recommendations that you believe the DMV should be exploring?

Again, there's the DHS side of this, which again I'm not I can't hold DMV responsible for that, but are there any other recommendations you have in it uh besides expanding access to that proof of residency form and maybe specifically for the DMV.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Allen.

Um I would be curious to know.

Um right now, for example, if somebody is housed but they are living with their couch surfing, or they are in a group home, um, a lot of times they end up with the same issue in terms of proof of residency.

And I wonder if there is a way that the DMB could expand their list of acceptable proofs of residency that don't involve that uh social service proof of residency forms because the people get stuck in this loophole where they're not technically sleeping on the streets, but they don't have a permanent address either.

So that is a that is an area, and I I understand there is the certifier form, but it's not there's always somebody that the these systems do not the system is always um best for the average user.

And if you have somebody who is staying with um a relative, for example, who's in public who has a housing voucher, they cannot use that certifier form because they're not allowed to technically be staying with them.

So there's just a lot of these um situations that people do not fit into neatly one category.

So another thought would be just looking at those list of documents that are acceptable for proof of residency outside of the social service proof of residency form.

That's one thought.

Okay.

And I I feel like we've talked about that with the DMV before, and I I can appreciate uh, for example, someone staying uh in your example when they're not on the lease, but they're staying at a house.

Um public housing is a good example.

Um so technically, they're not supposed to be staying at the house if they're not on the lease.

That does put the DMV in a difficult spot to create an identific a legal identification listing an address of a space that someone is not on the lease or even it would create a violation for that leaseholder.

So I do acknowledge there there's some tricky, sticky spots to try to figure out.

I I think that a conversation uh now that it is going to happen with yourself and others who were kind of doing the work and kind of seeing the impact and seeing maybe the um I don't want to call them outliers, but some of the more unique cases, some of the cases where it doesn't fit neatly into a box, like you said.

I think that experience could be helpful for both DHS and for DMV to hear so that we can try to craft those solutions.

So this meeting has taken way too long to have happen, but I I am glad that it's there, and I I think most likely, uh and I'll talk to Councilman Fruin about it.

It may be that it just is beneficial to have somebody from each of our staff going to join the conversation to try to continue the urgency around it.

Um so we try to help some solutions.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Davis, uh a couple of questions I had for you.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Can you I want to make sure I understand what you were saying about the um the well you talked about the payments from the contract not being funded.

I think I heard you say comp ones funded, but you had a certain part of the of the workforce you represent that was not having a negotiated and approved contract be honored.

Maybe we didn't hear that correctly unless I gave you a chance to explain that for me.

If if I gave that impression, that was incorrect.

Um Comp 1 and 2's contract expired on September 30th of 2025 and the city delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed to the point where we are just now uh essentially in negotiations, uh six plus months after uh that cost of living increase should have been negotiated.

We're still working off the expired contract.

Um okay, that and that is a different thing than what I heard, which was that we weren't honoring um pay that needed to go as part of a negotiated contract.

So that that helps clarify that.

But I also agree with you.

Um it drives me nuts that we just keep letting these contracts expire and then we come around to them uh eventually, and it feels like it's more about when is it convenient for us to get around to negotiating these with a fiscal year budget plan than it is doing right by our workers?

Um you you talked a good deal about what you described as um redundancies, and you went as far as even saying bloat um around management.

Are you saying you believe there those are vacant positions being held, or are those positions that have individuals in them in other words?

When you tell me I think you need to be eliminating some positions, are you telling me you you believe that we need to eliminate some vacant positions, or are there individuals in those positions and you're saying we need to be eliminating those jobs?

I think it's a combination of both.

Uh for instance, right now, I believe DMV has a deputy director uh position open uh that's intended to oversee HR and a couple other functions.

Um that position I would say is is an unnecessary position given the number of administrative staff we already have.

The DMV has the same number of service centers now uh that it had in 2020, with the exception of Georgetown being temporarily closed, of course.

So it is our position uh that these intermediate managerial levels need to be eliminated.

Um if these individual administrators, such as the driver services administrator or vehicle services administrator, were able to effectively manage those locations for a number of years prior to bringing on new positions to layer between them and the service center managers, there's really no reason why they can't continue to perform those functions.

So it's very unclear to the union as well as to the employees as to what, for instance, um the driver services administrator, Marquise Miles, what he's doing compared to his operation manager Sean Watkins.

Um essentially, if you look at the management structure of DMV, which is far deeper than what is indicated on their organizational chart.

Uh if you transferred that to a public school, DC would have the lowest student teacher ratios in the country.

Um, for instance, the hearing examiners at adjudication services are all grade 13.

According to the DPM and applicable regulations, they require minimal supervision.

One individual supervised that staff uh for almost 20 years and did so without any real issues or problems creeping in.

That management has expanded as well to the point where we now have uh three supervisory hearing examiners, one who just left.

I don't know if we'll be filling that position or not.

Um essentially it's just a number of positions that perform redundant duties that don't need to be there.

Um so the offer is still available to to both this committee and any committee for an agency that we represent.

We're happy to sit down, specifically go over the actual budget, go over all of those uh different roles and so forth to highlight what we believe are redundant positions, um, simply as a cost saving mechanism as well as to cut out confusion that those positions have created.

Um oftentimes employees are told by those positions not to perform functions that they performed for 20 years as an example.

Um that has led to situations where people have been given a license uh without their eyes being retested.

It has led to situations where individuals with significant medical complications uh who may pass a driving test.

Um we don't have medical certifications from their medical providers indicating that their medical providers believe they should be operating a vehicle.

Um that's the type of confusion that has started to come into place because these positions in the intermediary area uh create new regulations on an almost daily basis and so forth.

And again, we're just interested in finding out what exactly they're doing to improve DMV services, uh, because as our position, they don't necessarily need to be there.

Um the vehicle services administrator oversees the processing center, the mailroom, the inspection station, and a couple of other programs like the interstate program.

That individual is overseeing those programs for five plus years minimum.

Um additionally, those programs are all located in the same building with the exception of the inspection station, which is next door.

Why do we need an operations manager to be an intermediary between essentially programs that you can just walk down the hall and knock on the door for if you have a question or a concern?

Okay.

All right.

Well, I appreciate you sharing those examples.

Um another topic I know we've talked about in years past hearings has been around safety for the employees um from some of our customers.

Um so I know we had worked around making sure the facilities were such that um if there was a a customer uh a resident coming in um in a belligerent way, there were protections for the workers.

I I remember asking maybe at the oversight hearing a couple of months ago if we feel like conditions had improved and some of the investments made at the in the building of facilities was having a positive impact, and my recollection is you you felt like it was having a positive impact.

Is that still holding true?

Not only on preventing potential workplace violence incidents, but really just on the morale of the staff, realizing that they have one additional layer of protection.

But here and again, we come to the operations managers for the vehicle service uh division, and there was an instance where um a legal instrument examiner was servicing a customer who didn't like the response and then proceeded to spit at that uh particular employee.

Luckily they do have those little shields up uh that protected the employee in that particular situation.

But as we well know, spitting at someone is an assault.

In DC, it's an offense uh that can be charged.

What happened with the operations manager in in that situation from from our investigation of it is that the operations manager took that that customer who just assaulted an employee and simply move them a couple windows down to be serviced.

So on that front, no, we have not made any strides.

Um physically, uh the additional barriers and security measures that are put in have been effective.

Uh, but then we run into issues like some of the guards uh that have been provided by protective services, which I understand to be a DGS issue, not necessarily DMV, so I am clear on that.

Um but they do things like leaving their loaded weapon in the employee lunchroom while they're somewhere else in the building.

So on that front, no, I don't think we've moved forward.

Okay.

Um I'm assuming you're not giving me a hypothetical uh in that instance.

What no, sir.

What uh how was that reported in terms of uh to a management superior like that's that's a very dangerous thing.

So in what way was there uh either from yourself or kind of through the employee network and channels to get a report like that?

Like that's unacceptable in DGS would need to know.

Again, that's not a DMV leadership issue, it's a DGS, but what what steps were taken in that case?

The employee in question, when it actually happened didn't form management.

Uh this happened at the Rhode Island Service Center.

The employee did inform management at that time.

Uh that security guard uh at this point in time is still located at that service center.

Um so I don't know the internal workings of what the agency did regarding that issue.

Uh but the union also informed administrators as well for our part in that process.

Okay.

And perhaps we can follow up after the hearing to find out, perhaps was a referral made to DGS.

I'd I would certainly want to make sure that DGS Protective Services is made aware of that action and that risk there.

So we we could follow up offline uh around if we need to know, for example, date, time, things like that.

So uh, Mr.

Davis, maybe we can follow up after the hearing on specifics like that.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I I appreciate it.

Um I don't think I have any other questions at this time, um, but appreciate the advocacy on behalf of your co-workers uh and colleagues.

We'll follow up with you afterwards uh as well in some additional details like that last example and some others that we need.

Chairman Allen.

Yep, absolutely.

Thank you very much.

And thanks to everybody from our public witnesses today.

Thank you.

All right.

We're next going to turn to our government witnesses.

We have the DMV director, Gabriel Robinson, who is here.

So, Director Robinson, we'll do is pull you up here.

Uh, we'll do our swearing in, then I'll turn it over to you to share your testimony.

If there's anybody from your team, of course, that you would like to bring up with you, please feel free to do that.

And then after you have a chance to provide your testimony, then we will turn to questions.

And if I can for anybody who's going to help answer questions, if they can raise their hand too.

Can you please raise your right hand?

Do you swear affirmative penalty of perjury?

The testimony you're about to give to the Committee on Transportation and the Environments, the Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you, Director.

All right.

Let me turn it over to you for your testimony, and good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Allen, members of the committee, committee staff.

I am Gabrielle Robinson, Director of the DC Department of Motor Vehicles.

On behalf of Mayor Mario Bowser, I would like to thank our customers, Chairperson Allen, this committee, and the rest of council for their support.

I also want to congratulate Mayor Bowser and her administration for their extraordinary leadership and continued efforts to revitalize the district.

I want to extend a special thank you to all my colleagues at DC DMV for their exceptional dedication and hard work.

Team DMV continues to provide outstanding customer service to district residents.

As I often say, we are truly saving lives every single day.

Mayor Bowser's proposed FY27 budget grow, DC, was formulated with three key considerations in mind.

How to drive growth in our economy to fund the services and programs residents count on, how to keep families in DC and attract new residents, and how to create business environment that draws new investments and create new jobs.

We're navigating a pivotal moment that demands more deliberate approach to growth.

The federal dollars that once expanded our programs in unprecedented ways have been exhausted, and the federal workforce reduction have introduced new pressures on our economy and commercial corridors.

That being said, it is important to be clear.

DC is still growing.

Revenues have slowed, but the city maintains a strong financial foundation on which we can build by making the kinds of strategic and targeted decisions that will allow DC to continue growing while delivering high quality services that our residents so often depend on.

The mayor's FY27 proposed budget supports DMV's mission to promote the safe operation of motor vehicles and public safety while providing outstanding customer service.

Annually, DC DMB serves approximately 650,000 licensed drivers and identification card holders in the district and 270,000 registered vehicle owners.

Each year, we collect ticket payments for more than four million tickets.

We interact with district residents and non-residents with an average of 3200 daily customer contacts, more than almost any other district government agency.

This fiscal year, excuse me, in fiscal year 2026 to date, we have met the needs of more than 180,000 customers across our four service center locations.

The agency has also processed and mail products generated from more than 270,000 transactions.

Additionally, we have conducted over 361,000 in-person online and mail hearings and over 11,000 virtual hearings.

In fiscal year 2025, we inspected more than 136,000 vehicles, including approximately 7,000 17,500 inspections conducted at our self-service OBD kiosk at the Tacoma Rec Center and more than 2,000 at Fort Staten.

Let me briefly now describe DMV's proposed budget and projects for the coming fiscal year.

DMV's FY27 proposed budget operating budget is $70,781,225, which represents a 4% decrease from the 2026 approved operating budget of 73,756,978.

The proposed budget is comprised of $62,386,932 in local funds, $8,394,293 in special purpose revenue funds, DMV's FY27 capital budget of $8,685,000 is allocated for the continued modernization efforts underway for our licensing and registration system known as Destiny.

The ticketing processing system known as E TIM and an investment to develop in the development of a digital driver's license and identification card, also known as MDL or ID.

The FY27 budget proposed by the mayor invests or impacts the following DMV programs.

An increase in local funds budget of $757,000 across divisions to align salaries and fringe benefits with projected costs.

An additional $5.39 million in capital funds for the Destiny Modernization Project, which is expected to be released September 7th of 2027.

Continued investment of 1.68 million in capital funding for the limited modernization of the ticket processing and adjudication system known as ETIMS.

A new investment of 1.6 million is incorporated is to incorporate digital credentials into our existing system for driver's license and identification card production and issuance.

The end result will allow district residents to obtain a digital identification to upload to their smartphone.

Digital identification, also referred to as mobile driver's license, MDLs, digital credentials, mobile IDs, will be an additional product available to customers, and our standard tangible physical ID and driver's license will remain in production.

DC DMV increased transparency and communication by making it a priority to keep district residents informed of tickets they received with the establishment of the ticket alert system TAS public awareness campaign.

We promoted the benefit of tasks, such as providing real-time updates conveniently sent to a user's email or text message.

With this innovative service innovative service, district residents are able to receive alerts when a new ticket is issued to their registered vehicle tags before late penalties are applied to the ticket and before the vehicle becomes boot eligible.

In addition to receiving alerts for scheduled hearings or decision outcomes among other helpful notifications.

By the end of May of 2025, enrollment into this program had increased by more than 10%.

DC DMV had a 99% real ID compliance rate across all active drivers and identification cards at the start of the Federal Department of Homeland Security Enforcement Date of May 7, 2025.

Discompliance rate is one of the highest in the nation.

DMV worked closely with Okto for the much needed IT infrastructure and telecommunication upgrades to the DMV's headquarters located at 95 M Street Southwest, which serves as the nucleus for all DMV IT functions.

This upgrade included refreshing servers, switches, fiber optic cabling, and comprehensive fundamental elements or enhancements to ensure continuity of all DMV operations across all locations.

In FY26, DMV continues to produce marketing material to support ignition interlock device program.

The IID program outreach campaign is part of the DC government's coordinated approach to traffic safety and education and emphasize how DC DMV is committed to preventing impaired driving incidents in the District of Columbia.

DC DMV's IID program outreach campaign was launched September of 2025 with the deployment of outdoor ads across Washington metropolitan area, Wamada Metro Bus and Rail Cars.

DMV's final rulemaking for the Intelligence Speed Assist ISA program was approved on April 15th and will be published on May 1st in the DC Register.

The ISA is a device installed in a vehicle that will actively engage to ensure compliance with local speed limits and align with the STEAR Act.

The rules identify the requirements for enrollment, potential violations, and provider qualifications.

DMV hopes to have the first eligible participants in the program in the coming weeks.

In July of 2025, DMV fully implemented the no tickets on stolen vehicles and plate provisions of the STEAR Act.

Working with our ticket processing vendor, MPD, DDOT, and DPW, we have programmed a ticket processing system to automatically dismiss tickets to stolen vehicles and tags once we are notified by MPD.

In a continued effort to increase convenience to our customers, DMV has also expanded the available languages for the knowledge test to include nine new options as of December 2025.

In addition to the 15 languages currently available, district residents can now take the knowledge test in Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish, Danish, Indonesian, Dutch, Farsi, Italian, and Swedish.

On February 1st, 2026, DMV began offering customers an online disability placard renewal transaction, making it easier for customers to be serviced, many of whom are disabled or elderly.

By June of 2026, we plan to develop a process to allow customers to opt into a paper notification system, thus reducing waste and decreasing our environmental footprint.

By September of 2026, DMV will add videos to our mobile app to show customers how to complete specific transactions, reducing customer error and frustration.

We will also develop and implement the new vehicle point system, implement the tag manual or resource guide, and implement the driver safety curriculum by September 30th, 2027 in connection with the implementation of the Destiny Modernization Project.

In closing, the resources allocated to the DMV will play a critical role in helping the agency continue to provide services to district residents and all DMV customers.

The council and this committee are critical allies in this effort, and we appreciate your collaboration to ensure we operate effectively and efficiently.

We look forward to working together to grow DC this next fiscal year and beyond.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I can take any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, Director Robinson.

Appreciate that and your team.

Let me jump in with some good news.

So you talked about it.

So that is uh is great news and welcome news.

So thank you.

Um I think that's going to be something that a lot of residents take up, and I know you had worked on getting to a place where you felt the high degree of confidence in implementation of that as we watched some other states do that.

So I assume that, and I want to give you a chance to talk about it, some of the lessons learned.

I know as you worked with colleagues and peers and other DMVs from other states that have taken this step first.

Um I recall from our previous conversations, you wanted to make sure that we had confidence, obviously, uh, in how this would work for us.

What are some of the lessons that you felt like we learned from other other states that'll be applied here for the district's version?

Well, those lessons are still being learned.

First, I do want to thank the mayor for this investment and including this in the budget submission for the DMV.

We're excited about this initiative.

It's one of the number one questions I get when I'm out in the community and doing my job as the director of the DMV.

It is something that I'm proud to be working on along with my team and vendor partners.

I think there are a number of things that we're working with on the community.

In fact, I've already been in contact with Maryland director and the Virginia director on their efforts for a mobile driver's license.

But I also have access as a board member for American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators.

I have access to all DMV directors throughout the nation, many of which have already started this journey or have completed this journey of implementation.

So I look forward to working with the partners, our jurisdictional uh neighbors, our national uh friends, and uh Amber uh who tries who is the glue uh to kind of keep all of the DMV motor vehicle areas together.

So um we feel confident that this is the time uh to do it, and we're we're excited that the mayor has made this investment.

Absolutely, and that's in the capital budget, correct?

It's in the capital budget uh for the first year FY27.

There will be some recurring costs that we will see in out years in in local.

Got it.

Okay.

Um the staffing on this, so the position number 12316 information technology specialist.

So this employee descriptor in the section A doesn't include the notation MDL, which is now including the FY27 proposed schedule A.

So this was uh existing FTE that you repurposed to be able to work on the implementation of this?

Yes.

So I have repurposed one of my current vacancies because of the need to want to get moving uh on the project.

Uh I do fully anticipate uh in FY27 um that we will gain another FTE to replace the one that I have refurbished.

Um so that will be something that we would need to work on uh in the out year budget.

Um but I'm confident that um the strategy I've put in place uh allow us to get started uh on it as quickly as possible.

Um but yes, I have repurposed a position for FY26.

Got it.

But are you saying in the FY27 proposed budget, we see we will see a new FTE position?

Yes.

So as you know, it's in the capital budget.

So you don't really associate FTEs in the capital budget that are going to be recurring positions.

So the funding is there.

I do need to work with the administration to add the FTE because as I look at the number that they added, it does include some of the PS costs that I needed, but it's also included in that capital space.

So we do need to kind of do a little shifting uh to ensure that there is an identified additional one FTE to account for the additional dollars that the mayor has already proposed.

Um and then that position that I've repurposed can go back to where it came from.

Okay.

And what where did it come from?

I use one of my vacant hearing examiner positions.

Got it.

Okay.

Um all right, and then I think another uh positive, and you touched on this as well is the um what's my correct terminology?

My acronym, my TFAS, the um the automatic TAS.

TAS, not TFAS.

Yes.

We live in a world of acronyms.

We do ticket alert system.

All right, so our TICALERE system used to group by about 10 percent in terms of the people that enroll in it.

Yes.

Okay.

So we're we're very excited, and we do believe uh if you do drive in the district uh that you do consider enrolling into this program, you can visit our website at um www.dmv.dc.gov.

Um and uh under the um ticket services, you will see uh ticket alert in the drop-down box.

We do encourage you to consider enrolling uh if you have received at least one ticket in the past.

Um and you can get alerts.

So if you get a ticket, it will let you know hey, you have received a ticket.

It would tell you if you so choose these alerts, because all the alerts are optional that you can choose from.

You can choose from, hey, alert me before the ticket doubles.

Alert me, you know, before uh I'm boot eligible.

So there are alerts that you can choose from.

I myself have selected all of the alerts.

Um you don't get any I don't get any tickets often, but if I did, I want to know about it as soon as possible.

And so uh I do encourage the public to please consider the that service.

And again, over 150,000 uh enrollments in this, which I think is uh is impressive, it's good.

Uh I like you, I encourage folks to use that.

Um question around as we bring on new people enrolling.

What is the process look like for somebody?

Let's say they uh they move and who would ever do this?

But someone moves to Virginia, they set up residency in Virginia, and they get a driver's license in Virginia now.

Is there a unenrollment that takes place?

Is there an automatic conversation between the two DMVs?

Or do we does someone just kind of until they ever proactively opt out, they stay enrolled in the system?

So you have an account and you associate uh your tags to the account or your driver's license to the account.

So if you were to move, um you can be an out-of-state resident and gain one of these accounts.

So it's not um uh a DC resident only option.

So if you were to move, you can log into your account and you can update your information with your new tags or with your new uh driver's license.

I could still enroll in this.

Yes.

Uh okay, that's good.

Um if someone surrenders their tags, um, does it automatically update the system as well, or that still is really on the user, the enrollee?

The user does need to manage their account because again, there is uh the opportunity for non-residents to uh enroll, but we do want people to engage with their account uh and to uh to understand what options they've selected uh and to make updates.

I think it's important that you make updates um so that you are getting the most accurate information on your vehicles.

Got it.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna dig into the budget uh in just a moment.

I do want to uh give us a second to kind of run through some of the public testimony we heard, give you a chance to respond to that.

Um, you know, I appreciated Mr.

Jackson who came and talked about his experience, and uh as I mentioned, kind of on one hand, um very much appreciate DMV taking those efforts to create that type of tutoring.

Constructive feedback from him around what would work better, perhaps.

Want to give you a chance to respond about um what you think and if there's a way to to make that that kind of class work a little uh work a little bit more or more on consecutive days.

So thank you um for the question.

Yes, we've been engaged with Mr.

Jackson Jackson for a long time, and we've made a number of accommodations that have not been spoken of, and I'm not gonna go into all the details because the accommodations are very specific to an individual.

Um but we have made other accommodation other than the ones that was spoken of earlier today.

Um I do want to say um the course that we provided, Mr.

Jackson is the same boot camp course that you've heard me speak about when we have talked about working with our youth to get them more engaged and prepared before their exam.

But it's a generalized um uh material to to get you aware of how important it is, the the the responsibility of being a driver, your responsibility not only to keep yourself safe, but to keep the rest of your uh co-drivers on the road safe, um, to make sure you have a basic understanding of what to expect as you move down the process.

We also take some general um time to talk about some elements of the manual, but I would not call it a tutoring uh you know option.

It is a course that we already provide in general, and we thought it would be as an additional assistance to give him that course.

I would authorize giving the course again so that there's no gap in the two days.

Okay, I can likely do that, but it would be the same course, right?

Um it's not of course because I am very concerned about conflict of interest, right?

Because I can't be the provider of the test and the tutor per se.

General information, yes, you know, responsibilities, material, where to get material, where to get resources, all of which we have provided, both electronic and in writing for Mr.

Jackson.

Um we have already done those things.

Um we provided the general training that we do.

Wouldn't call it tutoring.

Tutoring is more intensive, right?

We're not doing intensive, because I can't give you the answers to the question.

That's that's not what we're going to do.

Um but I'm happy I understand his um point about the two-day training, because it is a two-day um boot camp.

Um that the two days um that we had previously arranged with him, you know, snow did come.

Uh he took the date, first date on January the 29th, uh, and then the second one uh in February, I believe February 17th.

So there was some time.

So perhaps we now that the weather is better, we offer the course again, same course, but with the two days back to back.

Um, you know, so uh that is something that I may be able to do, but it would not be a tailored tutoring course.

That's and that's fair.

I I think uh it might be the the word choice around tutoring versus course, but I hear your point about that.

Um but I appreciate you hearing that and looking to see if there's ways to kind of condense that time frame for the course.

That's good.

Um obviously we heard from Ms.

Wright and others.

I'm glad that a hearing, or sorry, not hearing, but a meeting is being set up.

Um, I feel like we've been talking about this for a while, so I am both frustrated that it's taken this long to get the meeting set.

Glad that it is set.

I also recognize you are the DMV.

Can I hold you responsible for DHS does?

It's a different agency.

Um I do think the conversation I hope leads to working with the DMV, that our partners at DHS will be able to help talk about what they can and cannot do, but then be able to hear from these stakeholders around any changes that we can make, whether it's availability of the form or uh or elsewhere.

Um I would like to ask to make sure that the invitation for the meeting be extended to Councilman Freeman and myself so we can try to help make sure we're supporting the conversation taking place, and it sounds like the date and time are set.

So is that something that you're able to make sure happens?

So I have a few things to say.

So I do agree that the meeting was recently set.

What I think has gotten mixed and uh lost in the conversation is the work that we have been doing.

We talked the the matter very seriously when we left here in mid-February.

My team heard a lot of things about, as you've already said, that was not my agency's responsibility.

However, we understand the role that we play.

We did not want to walk into a meeting not knowing anything about the processes that we were going to be asked to weigh in on.

So we have been meeting with DHS weekly since then to understand their process, to understand what are their pain points that might include us, you know, so that we could have a robust.

We wasn't making final decisions, but I needed a and my team needed a moment to learn what DHS does more intensively than we've ever been asked to do before so that we can have a meaningful role in the process.

So, although I understand the urgency surrounding the topic, I also want to give my team the recognition of the work that they have done behind the scenes because they have been working.

They have checked in with me to let me know what they've been learning, to let them know that, hey, where DHS may have thought DMV did not want them to do certain things.

We've made it clear that's not our position.

Um, but we needed to learn a number of things, agency to agency first.

Um, but we are committed to doing exactly what I said we would do in February.

It's gonna happen on the 29th.

Um I would ask that we have a meeting with the um advocates first, and if we can give your office a readout of that meeting, that would be my preference.

Uh and if we are at an impasse, then perhaps we consider a larger group meeting.

Okay.

Well, part of what I'm hearing you say is that this is not gonna be the first conversation when this meeting takes place.

I'm saying you're saying you've been having conversations with DHS.

Yes.

We've been talking to their associate director of homelessness.

Now forget his name, Anthony Anthony, um, on a regular basis, weekly to be exact.

That's good news, to be fair.

I don't think that was shared with advocates or with us.

So that's that's great information.

Glad to hear it.

I think that probably sets up the conversation that'll happen to be more constructive and hopefully move towards uh the type of different action points rather than kind of a first gathering.

I think to be fair to the advocates and others, I don't think they heard or knew that information.

So I appreciate you sharing it.

But that's that's good progress and good work.

Thank you.

All right.

Um to Mr.

Davis' testimony.

Um I did want to make sure I gave you a chance.

I'm I'm not gonna hold you individually responsible for Comp 1 Comp 2 contracts.

That is bigger than you.

Um, but I do believe the city, the district's got to get that done.

Um I did want to give you a chance.

I I try to make sure whether it was uh whether it's management or labor, give you a chance to respond to what you hear.

So want to give you a chance to respond to the concerns that he shared around either duplication, around management or mid-level management on the specifics of the other example around the DGS protective services.

We'll follow up offline because I don't know if we want to go to too many details on that.

Um, see what we can find out about that.

But always want to make sure I give you a chance to respond.

I mean, I I do appreciate um our union president um for facilitating his role.

However, I disagree with his characterization of the situation.

I want to make sure to give you a chance to I appreciate this moment and I'm gladly taking it.

Um first of all, I would say I meet as a suggestion from you, I believe about two years ago that we meet weekly or monthly with the union.

We met last Friday.

I would have loved to have had that opportunity to address these things with the union at that time.

In fact, we did bring up the budget, and I wanted to take a moment to give more insight to clarify things that I'm about to do now.

First of all, there's only one l level of management that have been added really in many years, and that is the operations manager that he is pointing to.

Um and um but that's really it.

Um now he did point to some supervisors at um the hearing examiner.

Yes, we did include some supervisors when we expanded the ATE program when we went from like a hundred and thirty-eight cameras to nearly five hundred, which means also my hearing examiner population ballooned as well to make it sure we can keep up with the over 300,000 hearings that we do.

And no one person cannot do that.

Um and so, yes, we expanded because the the city expanded, the service expanded.

Um, but um when you look at the hierarchy in the DMV, it is each location likely have a manager and a supervisor, and now an operations manager, and then the administrator, then the deputy, our chief of staff, and then the director.

Now, there are other back end services that uh he mentioned, but that's an expansion of collaboration between the administration and council when we created the stair act policies.

It required additional people.

We needed an ISA coordinator and analyst.

We did need uh ignition in a lock people.

We those positions came, those requirements by law came with the required resources to effectuate them.

So, yes, we have had some expansion, but we've also had an expansion of service, many of those services that are keeping the District of Columbia residents safer.

So I would love to point out other positions beyond the operations manager and the additional supervisors that adjudication services that are new that are outside of an additional workload that came from statute that required us to expand.

I will also say that the front line did expand at the same time.

We did receive new hearing examiners.

That's a frontline position in almost every one of those.

We received new LIE positions when we expanded services that were impact their job.

There was an expansion on the front line.

So if the union president would like for me to go through that with him or have a detailed question that I can answer without an audience, I'm happy to do just that.

And that we can use our meeting in a productive way to answer his questions.

Um with the other issue we did know about uh and it was a very serious issue for um uh gone to be left by one of our security officers in an employee bathroom, I believe it was.

Um, yes, serious.

We took immediate action uh as a management team.

We alerted DGS security team about the incident.

We asked for the immediate removal and reprimand of the officer for whatever they decided they do.

I didn't know what how to reprimand someone for doing that.

Um but we asked for an immediate removal from our location, which they did do.

Again, something I would have been happy to discuss with the union president at last Friday's or the month before meeting, um, which did not come up.

So I I want a partnership with our union.

I want us to have you know common goals and common uh you know opportunities.

And I understand that at times we may even have some adversarial moments, but that should not be the case always because I believe he and I have had some wins that he and I should be able to celebrate.

We've settled some grievances uh outside of PERB and outside of other areas that he and I came to a consensus and agreed and they asked for a dismissal, uh asked for a withdrawal.

These are things that we have worked together on collectively that I think we should also celebrate as opposed to airing out just the things that we are not they may not be happy about and not adding the context that these topics deserve.

Thank you.

You are welcome, and I always want to make sure I give you the chance to to be able to respond.

So thank you.

Um just one quick clarification on that, because I think what you said was a little bit different than what I heard Mr.

Davis say about if that DGS protective services worker is still on site.

It sounds like what your belief is from your management, that individual is not there anymore.

That officer should not be there, and if they are, they will be removed.

It is my understanding the officer is no longer there.

And I would have loved to have talked about this in either way with the president on last Friday's meeting.

Okay.

Well, we can follow up as well uh to follow that.

I appreciate you uh I take you at your word in terms of how serious you took that.

So thank you.

Um dig into some budget things now.

Um terms of overall FTEs, the details of the FY27 proposed budget, it has a 4% reduction overall, about $3 million, but does support an additional 5.9 FTEs.

Um, how are you able to increase the total number of FTEs even with a three million dollar reduction overall of the budget?

So those FTEs that you're seeing are corrections from previous years budget.

There's no net increase.

So let me explain.

Um if you look at the um line item for the two uh FTE's 2.1 positions in special purpose, it's 2.1 positions.

These are positions that already exist in our budget, but the FTE for some reason got dropped off in uh FY26 budget.

Um that is a lead legal uh lead motor vehicle inspector and a motor vehicle inspector.

There are no new people coming.

Uh is just a correction that needs to show for the actual bodies that we have in place.

Um for the three point, the three positions that you see are associated with another correction.

So for our cashiers at the Georgetown location, uh we received three cashiers from the OCFO for the Georgetown location.

We pay them via uh uh MOU for those for those FTEs.

However, in the budget, any time you have FTEs that report at another agency, they must be reflected in the agency where they worked, but noted where they come from, right?

So in FY26 budget, and you can see this, and if you go to the budget chapter for FY25, where it talks about usually on the last page of the budget where it talks about the interagency FTEs budgeted in this agency, but the employees are from other agencies.

It's usually the last page of the budget book if you want to refer there from last year.

You would see that there is no line item from the chief financial officer for the three cashiers for that year.

But we received the funding, so we still had the services because we just paid them through the MOU.

We still have the funding for the MOU for FY27, but in proper budgetary format, we needed to acknowledge the three people from the OCFO that work in the DMV.

So you would see a new line item that you don't see in FY26 budget that outlines the three positions for those three cashiers.

So it is just clean up work for all five of those positions.

There is a net zero position increase, although we do need to make the fix for the one MDL project manager, which we've already discussed.

Got it.

All right.

That is helpful then to outline that.

Um if the overall operating budget is reduced by four percent, FTEs, no change, except for the one that you're noting that you would like to see changed for that uh that one position.

Um was the agency given a mark of how much to reduce?

I was, but I can tell you the four percent is mostly, I can tell you mostly what it is.

It's mostly the one uh it's the one-time funding that we receive.

As you know, as one of the authors of the STERA Act, DMV have been receiving a lot of money for new programs that did not exist and in some cases hadn't existed anywhere else in the country, right?

So you you've had to help with the administration to fund these items.

A lot of that is one-time funding to stand these programs up.

So when you look at the budget, um most of the reduction that you're seeing is a removal of the one-time funding, of which in FY26 was about four three point five, three point seven to four million dollars.

When you remove all of that one-time funding out, you get the four percent reduction for the most part.

There are some shifts and changes here and there throughout the budget, but the main lion's share of that reduction is the one-time funding removal.

Got it.

All right.

So what was the mark then that was given in terms of the budget?

Well, I met my mark.

So the budget book uh would be I don't know exactly what my mark is that comes in our budget instructions, I guess that we get.

Um, but we met the mark that we were asked to um to meet.

And then the mayor's office will make the determination uh and budget team uh on decisions that we made to meet the market, either accept or deny.

Okay.

As in four four percent reduction was what they said was the mark.

No, I'm saying that the four percent reduction that you see on paper today is associated with the one-time rem funding removal.

If you look at the DMV's budget across, you know, from one year to one year outside of the one-time funding, we're pretty much flat in almost every category.

I agree.

That's what I see too.

Yes.

Okay.

Typically, we've seen other agencies be asked for up to a 14% mark of how to reduce their their agency budget by that.

So that's what I'm trying to understand if if we're the 4%.

I understand that where the 4% is coming from.

That makes sense.

So I can explain while it's pretty much difficult for the DMV to take a cut that size, right?

My lion's share of my budget.

You have to find an agency that says it's easy to take a 14% cut.

Well, uh, I mean, it's hard to find one of those agencies, but I can justify it in in I'm a people head heavy agency, PS costs, right?

I'm the DMV.

I serve people.

I also want to note long lines that the DMV does not exist.

So I that's another thing I wanted to address, but I forgot.

But uh in any case, um I'm a people heavy because I am the welcome team for anybody in the District of Columbia.

You're coming to the DMV.

If you're at least 15 and a half years old, you can come and likely will be coming to the DMV.

So I'm people heavy.

I need to have enough staff to be able to see every district resident that is at least 15 and a half years old, right?

There's other service agencies that exist, but they they have a certain population that they they service.

I service everybody uh if you are of that age.

So the lion's share of my budget, if I had to make a cut that big would be likely a reduction in workforce.

Um the administration has made the decision that we do not want to do that, because we feel like the services that the DMV provides to the public saving lives every day is critically important to what the people of the District of Columbia expect from this administration.

And so the decision has been made not to take such a deep cut at the DMV, understanding what the consequences of that really means, which is a reduction in workforce.

Okay, thanks.

Um I agree with you when I look across, you see kind of that flat funding like you're talking about.

Um one of the divisions, at least within the proposed budget, the adjudication services, it looks like what's being proposed is a 303,000 reduction and a loss of six FTEs.

Are those I guess one is that correct?

Are we reading that correctly?

And two, for those six FTEs, are those vacant positions or would they I'm assuming they would be vacant positions or are they filled positions?

There is no cut to my existing list of FTEs from the mayor's proposal.

Uh I'm happy to go through that uh with you a bit more, but there is no cut of six FTEs in our existing um budget.

Um I'll j I'll I can make sure we're working off the same same page.

I'm looking at page F one forty-two, and so what's in the proposed budget under the table KV zero four for anybody following along.

Under adjudication services department, it is the change from FY2026 is a reduction of six FTEs and a reduction of three hundred and three thousand dollars.

So can you give me the the table again?

Yep.

It's table KV zero.

So as I'm looking at this number for adjudication services, if you look at the line item immediately above it, there's a negative six above it.

That is a net out zero between the two.

So there is no change.

We may have moved some people around from one program of the other.

Hold on.

That's why we asked the questions.

Because all we get is this.

That's what the hearings are for is to ask that.

So it feels like you're coming in hot when we're just trying to ask some questions here.

All right.

Thank you.

So adjudication services department on the document in the what is filed with us says a loss of six FTEs.

Now if I go down one, then the driver services department does have plus six FTEs.

If what your answer is, Councilmember, we're moving six people from the driver services department over to the education services department, that's an acceptable answer.

But that's what we're looking at and acting with, and that's why we asked the questions in a hearing.

Thank you.

So is is that the $33,000 loss for adjudication services department seems also to be matched with a $117,000 reduction in the driver services department.

And then there is a vehicle services department increase of $318,000 for an overall reduction of $102,000.

That is correct.

So that is movement of funding again.

There is some movement.

So let me go to my So as you noted in the list that you're looking at, there is just movement from one program to the other to account for the movement of people and other things that is associated with them.

We did take some cut in adjudication on the ticket processing contract where we know that that contract has in some cases underperformed uh in terms of the number of tickets that are issued as individuals become more aware of the cameras.

So we did shave about 300 K off of the ticket processing uh contract in our process, which is also reflected in that net reduction of 100 K.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right.

I think that helps us make sense of that one and where those FTEs are moving, not a net overall plus or minus, it is a restructuring, might be one way to think of it, but it is a movement of those FTEs reflected into a different department.

Correct.

Okay.

Not department, but division, but you you know what I mean.

All right.

Um we look at the I know that the mayor has looked at a lot of agencies for vacancy sweeps.

So looking at vacancy positions.

When we go back and look at some of the hiring freezes that were put in place across district government, that ended up keeping many FTE positions vacant when I think agencies would otherwise like to have been able to have those hires and be able to bring those folks on board.

How many vacant FTEs are being swept overall in this budget?

So I did not have any sweep.

What I did have was an increase in my vacancy savings rate in my budget.

Um so our budget uh had a vacancy savings rate in FY 26 of about 2.8 percent, and in FY27, it's about four percent.

So it's not a sweep of positions, but I may have to keep a position vacant for a short period of time to make up the amount of vacancy savings I need to have such that um I still can keep those FTEs.

All right.

How many of our vacant positions have been vacant for more than one year?

I don't have that number in front of me, but I can provide that to you.

I can tell you about the number of vacancies that I have at the moment, but I don't have a date associated with how long that they've been vacant.

I know when you and I met in February, I had about 36 vacancies.

I am down to 25 as of today.

And of that 25, um, seven, we have made selections on eleven.

We are out either interviewing or they have been posted, and that leaves a net of seven that are pending recruitment out of the twenty-five.

Got it.

All right.

I also would say many of the ones that are currently vacant are the ones that we received new in the FY26 budget, meaning we received them all October 1, and we had to do some work in some of the cases, like write a brand new PD or or what have you that did not exist, which took some time, but many of those are in active recruitment.

Got it.

And we could follow up with this after the hearing, but it would be helpful for us to know how some positions are harder to fill in others.

Yes.

And how long they've been in that active recruitment is helpful helpful for us to understand what are some of those hardest to fill positions and which ones the benches deeper to be able to find somebody to recruit into that.

Okay.

One of the questions has to do with the current law, tickets that are issued by the Department of Four Hire Vehicles are adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Office of Administrative Hearings has been telling us, the council lately, they just don't have the capacity to adjudicate all the tickets they feel to be more appropriate for the DMV to be able to handle that since you adjudicate all the tickets.

Have they reached out to talk about this at all or uh Department of Four Hire Vehicles?

No.

We've not had a conversation on the topic other than years and years ago when they took on the responsibility, right?

They they have had this responsibility since likely before I became director.

Um they took over the administrative uh hearing function for for higher vehicle tickets.

In fact, at that same time, there were conversations about them taking over my entire adjudication operation because the law that created administrative hearings specifically says, you know, adjudication services should be done by the Office of Administrative Hearing.

Um so there were discussions many, many years ago that suggested they should take over all hearings.

That didn't quite pan out, um, but they did take the four higher vehicle hearings, and that's been many years ago.

I I would also agree that I do not have capacity to take on a new set of hearings because as you know, with the volume that I already have, which is very you know voluminous, um, you know, adding extra capacity on top of that um is not something I'm prepared to uh uh agree to um without a very substantive conversation.

Uh I think that's fair.

Um can you for the um to help refresh us when you talk about volume, how many under our current your current uh systems we're not talking about adding on something right now.

What does the volume of adjudications look like?

I don't know if that's annually or monthly, what the best way to break that down is.

So annually, there are over 4.2 million tickets that are issued.

And of that, we did a hearing, do hearings on about nearly 400,000 hearings that we are doing right now.

So to add anything to that is just a lot without resources space, which would become another thing for me.

I don't have space right now to even receive anyone, but that's an ancillary question after you know the decision is made where these tickets should be heard.

But yeah, my my capacity is not one where I would readily say it is something the DMB should do.

In fact, I would likely argue against it.

I'm not surprised, and I think it would be unfair to ask anybody to take anything on without the resources to do it.

We can also encourage OAH and DC for hired vehicles to reach out to the DMV and have those conversations directly.

My understanding is it's approximately 3,000 tickets annually, so from a volume perspective, it may not be that significant to the number that you have, but it's not nothing.

And so there would always be some type of workload impact uh that would come with that.

I I understand um these cases are likely more complex than the ones that I do now.

Um but I also would make the argument if the volume is so low that it should remain where it is.

But that's a conversation we can have.

Got it.

All right.

Um moments before we started this hearing today, we were handed some new information.

I'm gonna ask you questions around what you do know.

There may be elements that you may have received the this piece of paper roughly around the same time as I did, so there may be elements that you do not know.

But I was and what I mean by that is that you would need to get back to me on some answers.

Um the mayor apparently is proposing to eliminate in the FY26 supplemental budget, much of the Steer Act funding that we had put in the budget last year that we had approved and the positions.

When we talked at our February hearing, you had outlined many steps the DMV had already taken in good faith, um in your testimony that you gave.

You even identified steps that were being taken already, even though, and that's why I think this piece of paper came after you probably had that testimony written, because it defunds parts of the things that you even highlighted within your testimony about being done.

For example, the mayor's budget removes the funding for the STEAR Act provision that makes sure that if someone experiences their car being stolen, the work that was done already between MPD and DMV to have that ticket be rescinded.

Um the work that's gone into the point system to get dangerous drivers and immobilize them.

That funding is being removed, even though the DMV has actually taken a lot of steps to be able to help implement that.

And I'm gonna say they, because I really don't believe this is something that initiated with you, because you also talked about the work, and we talked about it at the performance oversight hearing, the work the DMV has done.

So I want you to hear me say that, and I'm choosing my words carefully there.

Why they would want to remove the funding from efforts that have made our streets safer, that have helped hold dangerous drivers accountable, and we've talked a lot, and you you have have tried to lead in this space that the DMV is part of a public safety agency of helping create safer spaces on our streets.

Whether you are walking, biking, driving, holding dangerous drivers accountable, and having safe operational vehicles is an important function of the DMV, and it benefits everybody.

So I was deeply frustrated of seeing this just moments before we stepped up.

Um in our February hearing, we talked specifically about some of the positions that you were already advertising for and hiring for.

We had a program coordinator, legal instrument examiners, hearing examiners, policy advisor, investigators.

In February, you had said selections were made.

Hirings were being made.

To then up-end hiring, I I I'm gonna assume, but I'm gonna give you a chance to respond here, this is somewhat absolutely new information could potentially have significant impacts on people that have already been hired or are in the process of being hired.

Um I I am shocked that the administration would do this moments before the hearing and try to defund these types of efforts.

Let me give you a chance to respond to that, because I I have a hunch based on the testimony that you'd submitted, this may have been a little bit of a uh something you had you had not had access to that information prior to around the same time I got it.

Thank you.

No, I am familiar um with this, and I do want to add some clarity um to it.

So what you're seeing in front of you, uh and I did get the piece of paper, but I'm familiar once I read it, I was I knew what it was.

Um when I first heard it, I was like, what do you mean?

But once I got the piece of paper, I understood exactly what it is.

This is the mayor's supplemental uh budget for FY26 that does have some impact on the DMV.

Um and so agencies were asked to look in our current budget and to see where we might be able to take some shavings off of some things for the FY26 budget.

So what you're seeing uh is me making a determination uh in that effort of places where I would shave off some of the funding for projects that I am working on this year, some now delayed, but um when you look at um say I'll take an example of the RPP fee increases, that project has completed.

We went live with the fees on March 29th of this year, but I had to you know add pressure uh to my vendors and contractors and team to do this for less money.

So the project is completed, but I think I received 450,000 for that line item.

I did it for 350,000.

So that line item is complete.

The same thing for the uh fee change that went along with um the RPP fee increases on the 29th of March.

All of that was done, but I you know had to really try to do more with less.

So the council did provide um money for those projects, and I, you know, in the effort to um be involved in this exercise for the supplemental, really had to do more with less.

Um the same is true for the vehicle point system and the implementation of the uh Steer Act implementation that's kind of labeled not that well, however, what that is was one-time funding that somehow made it into my budget for FY26 from the ISA implementation, which you know we are done with the implementation.

We're just waiting on some cleanup of the statute based on some changes in the BSA.

So I had 868 K from that implementation that I received in FY25 to build the ISA, but I got it again for some reason in FY26.

So I cut that out because I didn't need it for ISA uh anymore through this process.

But I still retain, other than for the vehicle point system, I retained the remainder of the two point, I want to say 2.3 million that council provided.

I did shave it by 200K to say I'm gonna push my team to do that project with less, but as the testimony says, you know, that has been pushed to 2027.

All right.

So it's a sweep of a total of 1.3 million dollars.

With yes, with eight eight hundred and sixty-eight K being the redundant one-time funding for the ISA implementation.

So that is the lion's share of it.

And then of course, 300 uh K I took off again in FY26 for the ticket processing contract, which is a 17 million dollar contract.

So it took a small haircut um for this exercise as well.

So it's like these many different programs took a small haircut to get to that larger total, but with the lion's share being a recurring one-time funding from the ISA program that I didn't need in FY26.

All right.

So are you saying all the elements that had been funded are moving forward?

Is anybody who do we have any anybody who's funded for a position all of a sudden um finding out that their position is not funded here?

Absolutely not.

So, like you said, my investigators, both of them have started.

Um they're part of this funding.

They are in-house, they are um you know, working.

So this is a haircut on a number of different programs to ensure that I participated in the exercise of the supplemental cut, but not to impact the program implementation other than the vehicle point system, there is a date change uh on that program, but not because of this haircut.

Okay.

So all the elements are still moving forward for implementation.

Absolutely.

The mayor and the administration believes in making sure that our roadways are safe and secure and the elements of the STERAC that has helped make that possible.

Uh we are happy to be a part of uh and continuing with those efforts.

All right.

So if we're moving all those forward, does that mean that the fiscal impact statement that we were provided last year where we had to go find the funding, so that was just inflated?

No.

Um I said I did more with less.

I had to go back and figure out different ways of doing things that would not ordinarily.

But you're not doing less.

I'm sorry.

You're not doing less.

I'm not doing less.

I'm doing more with less.

So how do I trust a fiscal impact next year?

Well, I think you do trust that because whenever we do fiscal impact, I have to do my best estimate of what it is it would cost.

In many cases, I don't have vendors hired.

I have to do some market research, and those totals can fluctuate.

Um, and I have to try to do some average and some other ways to come up with what I may have for a contract that doesn't exist.

And so um fiscal impact is a good um work that we've done, but we also know that whenever it is time to do it, a contract may at times come in a little less uh than what you anticipated.

All right.

And all this was discovered since our hearing in February.

No, um I don't know the process.

If we were able to do all the same things or do more with less, why why wasn't this when we asked the questions about it in February outlined?

Well, so the budget wasn't submitted.

So the mayor has not made any final decisions on the budget in February.

So I wasn't able to answer questions uh on decisions that may not have been finalized uh at that time.

So uh part of it, you told me $868,000 of funding you didn't need.

That was for the ISA program.

That was for funding for a program that we had stood up in FY 2025.

So I that is a question that I could have answered, but it uh I don't know if I was asked that question, but um it was part of the comp conversation that was being happened in the background.

All right.

That answer is not where I thought it was gonna go.

Um but I will we will find a way when fiscal impacts are given to us in the future, we're gonna find a little extra box that just says do more with less, and that'll help reduce the fiscal impact when we're needing to fund it.

Um so when do we anticipate launching the immobilization framework?

That'll be October one.

I'm sorry, say I didn't hear the question.

So the point system.

So that will be October 1, 2026?

2027.

So the date has changed for that program to coincide with the release of the Destiny Modernization process.

Uh to build this system out after we went back and we still meeting on this program and the build out of this program.

Uh I am unable to deliver this new program which we believe in and will do, but I am unable to deliver it in the amount of time that we initially contemplated.

So when did we discover that?

So after the performance oversight hearing, I think I discussed with you that we were still in conversations of trying to conceptualize how this will work.

We were still trying to figure out even what system this will live in because it does have an impact both on my destiny system and my E Tim's systems, which are incredibly complex systems, and one of the large questions we had to grapple with was which one of these systems is going to be the most impacted, which will also be where this system will need to live because they would that system would need to do the most work to make this occur.

Um and so in the continued conversations that we've had since the performance oversight hearing, um, we understand better now the things that we need to do in order for me to do this now, and we have decided it needs to happen inside of Destiny because that's where the largest impacts are going to be to make the system work.

Building out this new system that doesn't exist anywhere, which we believe in, but it still is a system that is being you know built uh from no examples that that we can work from.

Building that in the current Destiny system, which we know is about to transition away, and to build it in the new system so that it's still a functioning once we transition is just not feasible for my team to do.

So we have attached this program to the release of the Destiny Modernization Program so that they both go live at the same time.

All right.

So you've hired two investigators for this program that won't start until October 1, 2027.

So what in the world are two investigators hired for this specific program, funded for this specific program, they're hired.

What are they doing until October 1, 2027?

Well, I agree that this is not the best answer, is not what we anticipated to do.

I mean, I was anticipating that this would be something I can do quicker, um, but it is not um something that I can do quicker.

So, what are the two and we you've you've hired two investigators for it, so what are they doing?

So there is still work for the investigators to do.

Um what are they investigating for a year and a half for a program that doesn't exist?

I mean, every product at the DMV is ripe for fraud potential.

Um, and so um there is still an a lot of work for investigators to do, admittedly so that some of the work that we anticipated them to do would not start until the date that the program goes live.

So very valid question, and uh, you know, understand that point.

Um, but there is work to do that uh is not necessarily associated just with this program that investigators will still be able to do.

So they're gonna work for a year and a half on something else.

So you're just taking them to put them somewhere else in the agency.

Well, I will also say learning the DMV is no easy task.

And I think in order for an investigator to be truly effective, there is a large learning curve that an investigator and a half learning curve.

Well, I I agree.

Uh I'm saying some of the time.

I'm not suggesting that it would be the whole year and a half, but some of the time you're you ask what will they do, some of the time would be is to learn the new agency uh that they work in because they would be truly more effective as they do know their agency better.

And the other eight FTEs anyway.

The ones that are in that are in the process are being hiring, they're they're just gonna do other stuff for a year and a half.

So I don't have all of the positions in front of me that are associated with the vehicle point system, but I will say um we are in the process uh of hiring the vehicle point system uh coordinator who can help us with the program, stand it up from the ground up.

Um so we are in the process of hiring.

That's the same answer as last time, though.

When we said we're gonna do it in 20 October 1, 2026, and they're gonna get hired now, so they get the system ready to launch on October 1, 2026.

And you told me council member, that's what it takes.

But they're gonna spend a couple of months, they're gonna get ready in October 1, 2026.

Now we're rolling that out.

That was just in February.

Now they're we're still hiring them, but now they're gonna have a year and a half before we roll this out.

So those positions are not on boarded yet, right?

Um the investigators have.

They are on boarded, they are working.

Um, but the vehicle point system coordinator and the vehicle point system uh analyst, they are not uh on boarded.

Uh I think we're going through the recruitment process on both those positions.

Um it is my understanding and my position that the at least the vehicle coordinator can help us with the work necessary to build this system out.

Uh it is a truly complex process and system for us to build out.

I do believe the extra resource even before we go live will be necessary for that person to be effective.

Um perhaps the analysts uh is something that I can delay uh for a bit, but I would still recommend that they come on board before September 2027 uh date at some point to understand the process, the system, and if it's an external hire for some reason, um, then understand and learn the agency as well, but perhaps maybe not as soon as we were anticipating.

Um doesn't make any sense to me.

All right.

Um the ignition interlock upgrade is set for January 2027?

That is correct.

What is the chance that that's gonna get moved back?

Well, I'm not building a new program for the ignition interlock program, that program exists already.

The statute required that I make some changes to the program, like offering the hearing within a certain period of time.

It is forcing me to are asking me to do some things differently the way you know, but the program is not overhauled, is not um a true start over or rebuild like the vehicle point system, which is a complete build up from the ground.

So I don't have any concerns about making those changes when that time comes.

Okay.

Uh self-service kiosks.

I know we had talked about there was supposed to be one built out in ward seven.

Do we have that one built yet?

So we have a location that we are interested in.

Uh it's a lot of work that we need to do to make sure that it's feasible, like making sure we can get power to the site to make sure that we feel that it would be safe because this thing will be open 24-7, and where we put it, we want to make sure that people will feel comfortable with using it.

But we do have a place uh in mind uh and we're continuing to work with DGS to secure it.

Okay.

It's in Ward 7.

I feel like this may be the same answer we got last time, though.

It it's some work because we are trying to partner with some land that doesn't belong to the district.

No, that's where we were before when we were asked to remove it.

So we did remove it from the park service land.

I believe it was Kennelworth uh park.

We did remove the the kiosk from that location.

The new location is private property uh that we're looking at, but we feel like it has enough vehicle traffic that it would be convenient for district residents to use.

Um but it is private property, which means we got to get into agreement with a landlord uh and to make sure that they're comfortable with the space we need.

Would it inconvenience their foot traffic and their customers?

Um so they have some considerations that they want to make sure work for them as well.

So what's an approximate timeline for when that can be installed?

I would be happy to get back with the committee on that.

Um I don't have a date to provide you at this very moment.

All right.

Um let me move to the capital budget for a little bit.

Let's talk destiny.

I feel like we talk about destiny a lot.

Tired of talking about destiny.

All right.

It would add another nine the proposed budget would add another 9.5 million dollars to the project across FY27 and FY28.

That's new that's additional funding to what had already been established for the Destiny modernization, correct?

It's funding that was already contemplated for FY27.

So in FY27 capital plan, the 9.5 million was already comp contemplated.

The mayor is now releasing uh in her proposed budget um that funding, but across two fiscal years in FY27 and 28.

So that 9.5 million is across two years in the capital plan.

All right.

Help me understand.

Because it's we don't contemplate the budgets.

It's either in the budget or it's not.

So was the 9.8 million, is it new?

Is it an additional 9.8 million dollars in the capital budget?

So uh maybe I'm using the wrong word, but the the budget is a four-year plan.

Um and so the capital budget has out years, so whenever the FY26 budget was released, there was 9.5 for FY27, although that wasn't the budget that we were working on.

So it's not new that it was we knew it was coming.

Um it's new that it's now being released to us uh is is what I'm trying to say.

But I I agree with you.

I mean, it's either you have it or you don't, but it was in the capital plan.

That's what I'm trying to get to.

Okay.

So it was in the CIP.

Yes.

Okay.

So we are now exceeding about 60 million dollars in total for this project.

All right.

And now we're pushing back to October 2027.

Well, the initial uh date was we were if you look at my previous testimony, uh, we talk about that we were doing the the work to determine what the release date would be.

We said that we it was tentatively set for July.

I'm now at the weave now getting, we're getting closer, we're now setting a date certain, which is the September 7th date.

So it's about a month and a half off from what I had tentatively set um in all of the testimonies that I've given over the years.

Okay.

Um what are some of the milestones we have between now and then?

Like in other words, and what I'm getting at is as you're trying to measure and assess, are we on track for that date or not?

What are some of the key milestones that you see that help give you kind of a no-go no, uh go or no-go kind of decision point?

Sure.

So some of the big things that we are working on now, we currently we recently started casually testing the new system.

There's still some development that is happening, but the system is largely built to the point where we are now starting to do some casual testing, but we still have a lot of administrative things in the back.

So the things we focused on first were the transactions that the team would need in order to help the public.

But there's a lot of tools that management need in order to do our job.

That stuff is still being developed so that we can run reports, we can understand how the inventory is moving in and out of our facilities.

And um the financial piece still needs to be built because we are a huge revenue generating um agency.

So there's a huge financial impact on how the finance team from the OCFO's office would work with all of the finances of the DMV.

That have not been built yet.

So some of the key milestones is some of the administrative things now being built in the background in parallel while I have casual and eventually user testing from my actual DMV employees that I would pull on a team to go and test the actual transactions uh of the system, and that will be an exhaustive process.

Then we got to move to technology and hardware, because this system is moving from the mainframe to a web-based system.

And so DMV will effectively be off of the mainframe.

Um, and we are the biggest user of the mainframe today at Okto.

We will be off of the mainframe, and none of our systems will be mainframe um systems anymore.

So that means a number of our hardware and devices will all change with this modernization as well.

So we're now moving into hardware uh acceptance and what hardware will work for our location, will work for this new web-based system.

What will work in our facilities because our facilities didn't change, and so anything that we buy today will need to fit in our existing footprint uh in our service centers.

So we're now going through equipment uh reviews to figure out as we move down this journey and as we get closer to the date, what equipment.

So there's a number of milestones that we are tracking.

Uh I do feel like the September um date, we're going to make that date.

This will be released uh in FY27.

All right.

I'm familiar with what casual dating means.

What does casual testing sound like set milestones?

So casual testing is a high-level review.

Um it starts with some of my leadership going in and reviewing the system to start with.

Just ad hoc.

Just kind of go.

It's casual.

I mean, I I don't know the technical word, but there's two types of testing when you're testing big systems.

You start with a casual testing, which is very high level and general, but then you move into user acceptance testing, which is more intense.

And usually you have your subject matter experts in different areas of your operation that will go in and try to essentially break the system.

And that is exhaustive because when you look at DMV transactions, if I just talk about issuing the driver's license, there's probably 18 ways to issue a driver's license.

You know, if you you know have if you're a U.S.

citizen that's never been married, it's one set of things.

If you are an immigrant on this visa, it's a different set of things that the system will do.

There's different types of checks that it has to do.

So the testing is exhaustive, it is long, it takes time.

Uh and so we will move from casual testing to user accepting uh testing will be another milestone uh for us.

But we're still in casual testing.

I didn't I don't have the timeline in uh front of me.

Uh next month.

All right, so Katy UAT.

So user acceptance testing will start within the next month or so.

Okay.

For those like to me, those are clear milestone things, right?

Um is there a calendar that has been built out?

You may not have it at your fingertips, but is there a calendar somewhere that exists?

Yes.

With hard dates and times.

Yes.

This happens, this happens, this happens.

And that gives you, and that gets back to my first question, which was do you have a schedule by which you have points of assessment and milestones that tell you either we are on track for this delivery or things are starting to slide because we have not been able to meet that certain milestone?

Yes.

Okay.

I would appreciate because I feel like this is I mean, this has been a major, major project.

It takes time.

I would say the DMV letting the committee know we are here here, we're ticking off through our milestones.

That helps us know that we are staying on track.

Or conversely, if something was coming off track, we're able to help support work in partnership to make sure things are happening the way it needs to.

Can the DMV let us know as you reach these milestones?

We will come up with a process to inform the committee of the progress.

Thank you.

Um the other big system, of course, is our ticket processing system modernization.

You referenced that earlier as well.

Um looking back over time.

So in FY24, the mayor reduced the budget authority for this project by 17 million dollars.

Then in FY26, the mayor restored $3 million.

This budget proposes adding an additional 1.7 million dollars.

Well, this is an outstanding balance of $871,000 in FY26.

Looking at our FY26 dollars first.

Yes.

Um the the funding changed dramatically because the strategy had to change because of putting the contract out for bid, we were under the impression that we could potentially end up with a completely new vendor, which would mean there will be a lot more funding necessary to move a system of this size and importance to the city from one vendor to the next.

But when we only got the one bid, which is our current vendor, then we determined that it wasn't necessary that we would need the whole trunch of 17 million dollars for a system that I mean we're essentially we have today.

However, we did say that all since we've had the system for over 20 years now, that we needed there to be some modernizations to catch up with the needs that we have today.

And so the mayor did invest the 3.6, I believe, million in FY26 this year, uh, and we're meeting and doing the work with our vendor to do the updates and the enhancements to the current system to bring it up to speed for our needs that we have today.

So, yes, we are confident that we will spend the funding uh and the contract.

So we did sign a multi-year contract, which as you know, we did not have for ticket processing.

We were on a one-year to one year extension for nearly 13, 14 years because we had no vendor that would bid on our contract.

Well, now we have successfully secured a multi-year contract uh again with our current vendor, but with the modifications and enhancements that we've pointed out on top of the system, and so that's what the trunche of funding that you see, the additional 1.

Um 6 million in FY27 is the continuation, but that is uh as you can see in the plan, there is no additional funding outside of FY27 for that enhancement because it's a system that already exists.

Okay.

I mean, we've been at this for years.

You've been at this for years.

Part of this was OCP and their process.

I feel like we got that resolved eventually.

But you know, when we've asked about this, I feel like we've had, you know, we ask about this every every single year at oversight and budget.

Um part of what we've been told what you had said about the budgets in the previous years is that new requirements not initially contemplating the original scope of work have been added, and so that creates the delays, that creates more costs.

Do you see any additional changes between now and when this system is ultimately fully operational?

So there is no more scoping of this system.

We have a multi-year contract.

So we we're not anticipating any scope creep um in this process because we have a signed contract with the vendor a multi-year contract, which includes these modifications that I'm referring to.

So before we had a multi-year contract, and we were not getting bids on our or we were getting insufficient bids, should I say non-responsive is the word OCP we use.

Um we did have to um change the scope, rewrite our requirements a number of times to try to and you know invite companies to bid on our contract.

So we went through that process, but that period is over for us now as we now we we have a multi-year contract.

Okay.

Um remaining items before we wrap up.

Um we look at some of our FY26 programs and initiatives in the agency's performance oversight responses.

You noted several programs, projects, initiatives are in progress.

I just want to go through those to see where we are now.

The license plate resource guide.

So you know this is a program to be expected to be implemented September 30th, 2026.

So this year.

So that's part of the vehicle point system initiative.

So it is that whole program lease is moving to the new date.

Okay.

The paperless notification system you mentioned as of February of this year.

The program is currently in technical design phase, anticipated to be implemented by June 30, 2026.

We're still on track.

We're still on track.

Okay.

Um the agency had noted that the feasibility study for cameras and road test vehicles during FY25.

So it was trying to determine whether installations were warranted.

You mentioned action plan is underway.

Is there a copy of that report yet?

Has that report been completed?

So it's it is some groundwork that the team was doing to figure out if we wanted to put cameras in our vehicles, what would that look like?

So it's not an exhaustive report.

It is us trying to figure out what other jurisdictions are doing, um, trying to understand what options are out there for cameras.

Are there any legal liabilities that we need to be, you know, uh need to consider as we look at putting recording devices in the car for both our employees and the public who will be driving the vehicle during the test?

So it's all of those elements, but it's it's not a huge report.

It is an informing management of the things we need to consider before we can make a final decision.

Uh it's looking at this moment that we likely could put cameras in our vehicles that we own.

Uh, and if you wanted to use our vehicle for a road test, then you would have to sign some consent that it's going to be recorded, just like right now, they do have to sign an empty you know the district if they were to use our vehicle for the road test.

Um but some students who have trained in their parents' vehicle feel more comfortable taking a test in the car that they're likely to use whenever they get their learner's permit or their drivers, their full driver's license.

And so they really want to test in those vehicles.

That's where the big rub comes in is A, how would I put a camera in a car that I don't own and I have not seen before the day it arrives?

And then B, could I legally do that?

And what are some of the constraints that I would have?

So that's the rub that we're having a hard time getting around.

But in the interest of you know, trying to move this along, we may just move forward with our vehicles.

Uh and then uh, you know, continue to work on how I might be able to put something in someone else's owned vehicle uh if I can at all.

Okay.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Is that an approach you're gonna take this fiscal year?

I have not set a date on that.

Um I am referring to the information that I have been asking questions on about the this topic.

Also talking to my road test examiners.

I was just at their locations a couple weeks ago talking to them uh about the program.

So I'm familiar with the topic, but I have not set a date on when I will execute it, but I'm happy to inform the committee once we do.

Okay.

Are there costs that are included in your budget to be able to make that decision and implement it this year?

There's no added cost in my budget for this project.

Anything that I do, I will likely have to absorb.

Would you be able to absorb it?

Well, I don't think cameras are very costly these days.

Uh I think the technology has advanced such that we might be able to get something.

So that's part of the consideration I would have to take when determining a date.

If I can't absorb it, then I would have to move a date to a time where I can sufficiently request funding uh for it.

If it is something I think I can, then we can have a date that matches that option.

Okay.

Um then yes, if you we would like for you to let us know as you make a decision.

Um and obviously if you you're able to absorb the funds or not.

All right.

Um I don't think I have any other questions at this time.

We can certainly follow up with you for additional follow-up information as we go through this.

So I want to thank you for your testimony today, Director Robinson, as well as to our public witnesses that were here earlier.

This is going to conclude the committee's budget oversight hearing on the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The record for today's hearing is gonna close on Wednesday, May 6th, 2026, and the committee will accept written testimony through the council's hearing management system, which can be found on the council's website at Limbs.dccouncil.gov backslash hearings.

The next meeting of the committee will be on Monday, April 27th, at which time the committee will hold a budget oversight hearing for the district department of transportation, hearing from public witnesses.