Recording in progress.

Good morning, everyone.

I would like to call to order this public hearing of the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.

I am Councilmember Brooke Pinto, representing Ward 2 and chairwoman of the committee.

The time is 9 54 AM on Wednesday, April 29th, 2026.

We are conducting this hearing in person in room 412 of the John A.

Wilson building and streaming virtually on the DC Council's website and YouTube and X at CM Brook Pinto.

Today the committee will continue its review of Mayor Bowser's proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and financial plan with a round of hearings on agency budgets.

Today we're discussing the Office of Unified Communications and the Metropolitan Police Department.

First, we're gonna hear from our public witnesses to discuss the Office of Unified Communications or OUC.

After we hear, and then we're gonna hear from our public witnesses to discuss MPD.

After we hear from all of our public witnesses for both agencies, we'll then turn to Director Heather McGaffin of OUC.

OUC is responsible for providing fast professional and cost-effective response to emergency and non-emergency calls in the district.

OUC was established in 2005 to combine the emergency 911, non-emergency and 311 call activities from the Metropolitan Police Department, fire and emergency medical services, and customer service operations.

The mayor's proposed FY27 operating budget provides OUC with approximately $60.2 million, which is a 4.5 million or 7% decrease from the FY26 approved budget.

Shifts a significant number of vacancy savings.

These are crucial and difficult jobs.

I am eager today to hear about how the proposed FY27 budget supports continued efforts to bolster our recruitment and retain our quality sworn officers for the department.

We must continue the successful efforts to drive down violent crime, like the one that we've seen, the overall decrease of 29% from 2024 to 2025, an overall 53% decrease we've seen over the last two years.

The proposed budget has an overall increase in funding for MPD, but no additional FTEs allocated, largely due to more accurately funding for overtime.

I look forward to hearing about how this funding will support the department's ongoing initiatives that continue to result in reduced levels of violent crime, support our staffing, and include a notable 43% decrease in homicides in 2026 so far compared to this time last year.

Concerningly, though, we've seen a 35% increase in assaults with a dangerous weapon, and we've seen increases in domestic violence cases.

It's also vital to ensure that MPD's facilities are properly maintained and updated to serve all corners of the district.

I look forward to asking interim chief Carol about the capital projects related to these efforts and how the financial plan supports the continued investments we need to pursue public safety.

I also want to note that we have had a particularly violent month, including children who were shot just last night.

And as we look at this budget, we have to ensure that all of our public safety agencies have the funding that they need to play their role in keeping everyone safe.

And so when we continue to push on the staffing levels at MPD, that is an important piece of the puzzle in ensuring that not only everyone can be safe, but we're also not overworking our officers, which then leads to burnout and then more overtime.

First, we're going to hear today from our public witnesses for OUC.

As a reminder, all of our public witnesses will have three minutes to present their testimony.

And for our virtual public witnesses, when I call your name as a reminder to please accept our invitation to join as a panelist.

All right, with that, uh we will turn to our public witnesses.

Lisa Abrams, Veronica Mosqueta, Chairperson Troopdi Patel, and Michaela Deming.

Welcome to you all.

And we will begin with Lisa Abrams, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Hotel Association of Washington, D.C.

Good morning, Chairperson Pinto and members and staff of the committee.

I'm Lisa Abrams, Vice President of Government Affairs of the Hotel Association Washington, D.C.

I'm here to testify in opposition to Title III, subtitle A of the fiscal year 2027 Budget Support Act, which is the Public Services Hotel Occupancy Fee Amendment Act of 2025.

This subtitle seeks to impose a tax upon all hotels of 80 cents per room or suite rental per night.

Hotels already contribute heftily to the district's coffers, including already paying into the E911 special purpose revenue fund with a tax on all of their landlines as well as for each cell phone that it has for their employees.

This is the fifth time that the mayor has proposed this tax on our industry, first in 2017, again in 2019, 2024, and 2025, and now this year.

The E911 special purpose revenue fund was created to help defray 911 technology and equipment costs for OUC.

However, the agency has continuously used the fund for non-technology purposes such as personnel, travel training, and contractual costs.

Moreover, the mayor's intent to have the monies for this additional tax deposited into the general fund to use for other purposes.

This clearly is not what the fund was created for.

It is also unreasonable to burden the hotel industry with a tax to support a government agency whose core function is not related to travel.

The proposed tax will have a significant impact on group bookings and make the district less less competitive against other destinations.

The hotel industry is one of the highest tax industries in the district by far.

Last fiscal year, at a tax rate of 15.95%, the hotel tax generated 408 million dollars.

This makes up 19.5% of all sales tax collections for the district.

Travelers to the city spend billions of dollars, creating a significant amount of tax revenue for the district.

We are at a crucial point in our political landscape where federal rhetoric and policies are creating barriers to travel to the district.

The city has experienced a downturn in tourism, and the city should be implementing policies that would attract visitors.

Attracting more visitors visitors means more visitor spending and more money for the district.

If the district wants to be the premier global convention tourism and special events destination, the taxes imposed on transient rentals should not be arbitrary.

This bed tax could serve to have a negative impact, causing decreased revenue for the city.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Veronica Muscoda, organizer D Crim Poverty DC.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Veronica Mosqueta, and I am here as co-founder of Seating Stories, an anchor organization of the D Crim Poverty Coalition.

I am here to urge the council to invest in a comprehensive non-police crisis response system that prioritizes care, dignity, and a public health overcarceral responses.

Decrim Poverty's core mission is to replace carceral systems with harm reduction oriented systems of care that promote the dignity, autonomy, and health of all people pushed to the margins in DC.

Personally, I come from a social work background, a direct service provider background.

Like I said, I'm a community organizer and I'm an active community member.

I have been on the front lines of crisis responses, crisis mental health crisis responses.

And what I can tell you is that police officers are often the default responders to mental health crises, despite not being trained clinicians or health professionals.

The consequences of this are that people with serious mental illness are almost 12 times more likely to experience police use of force.

One in four individuals with mental health conditions has a history of arrest.

Both of these exacerbate mental health symptoms and systemic inequality, especially for black and brown people in our city.

Redirecting funds toward crisis response teams for mental health crises and drugs and drug use will create real safety and a healthier city for us all.

We urge the DC council to direct funds toward evidence-based programs, not toward systems that incarcerate, traumatize, and harm community members.

Our coalition has data and recommendations to share on crisis response teams.

But I want to speak on how DC currents model overrelies on police due to a flawed 911 diversion system.

The research highlights that the ways that 911 operators classify en route calls determines outcomes on the ground.

In DC, 911 calls are not even tied to crisis response teams, so there isn't an opportunity to divert calls directly that would be better handled by CRTs instead of police.

We can see out of the 1.54 million calls to 911, only 870 were diverted to 988 last year.

The consequences of calling the wrong responder can be deadly and has been deadly, as was the case for Clifford Brooks, who was shot and killed during a mental health crisis in 2024.

Interactions with the police perpetuate trauma and what people experiencing mental health crises and their loved ones need as agency professional support and responsive and well-funded programs in their care.

Additionally, we need to follow the evidence and authorized 24-7 harm reduction centers that include safe consumption and drug checking programming.

This would offer people a safe place to receive life-saving services that are evidenced to help people access life-changing services while avoiding preventable overdose death.

When allocating resources, we need to invest in community-based, responsive, comprehensive, and harm reduction-centered models that give people agency over their bodies and their care plan.

In DC, several nonprofit organizations are well positioned to lead or partner in this work.

Grassroots organizations are connected to the community that will also support, and these groups already have trusted relationships and cultural competence that government systems lack.

DC has an opportunity to lead the nation in building a crisis response and harm reduction system that reflects our values.

Care over punishment, health over enforcement, and community over coercion.

Thank you very much.

Chairperson Troupti Patel, Commissioner from ANC2A.

Good morning, Chair Pinto, members of the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.

Thank you for holding this performance oversight hearing and for the opportunity to enter my testimony into the official record.

My name is Tripty Patel, and I'm a fourth term advisory neighborhood commissioner representing single member district 2A03 in the historic Foggy Bottom, and I serve as the chair of ANC2A.

I am testifying regarding the performance of the Metropolitan Police Department during 2025 and into 2026.

I want to be clear at the onset.

Effective policing depends not only on enforcement but on public trust, data, integrity, and accountability.

Over the past year, all three have been seriously tested.

A police department cannot function effectively when integrity is subordinated to optics.

As MPD moves forward under new leadership, this committee must assess whether reforms are structural or merely cosmetic.

These concerns are especially urgent given the scale of public investment.

Under the mayor's FY 2027 proposed budget, MPD is slated to receive approximately $688.5 million in gross funds, including roughly $674.5 million in local funds, representing a significant increase over prior years.

Let me be clear, Councilwoman.

The slogan you hear in the streets, no justice, no peace.

The venerable monk Biku Banakara broke it down.

He said that we wouldn't have to say that if communities actually felt a sense of peace.

Communities don't feel a sense of police with police there, because they're not protecting them, they're agitating them, they're harming them.

So to increase the funding to an instrument using my tax dollars where communities are harmed is not acceptable.

I call for a reallocation of services.

Critical core agencies at OUC, such as OUC and MPD have not been effective.

And it's been a real disappointment to see my tax dollars being used that way.

We already are occupied by the National Guard.

Once again, taxpayers are paying one over a million dollars a day to feel safe.

We don't feel safer in our city, if anything, we're just made to feel more unwanted in the place we call home.

And so I want to end that public safety is strongest when communities view police as legitimate partners, not unaccountable institutions.

Rebuilding trust will require honest data, independent independent verification, transparent discipline processes, and transparent and sustained engagement, especially in communities most impacted by both crime and policing.

In closing, I urge this committee and the council, the District of Columbia to demand the four things independent verification of crime data and reporting practices, clear accountability for misconduct and mismanagement, full transparency in complaint handling and discipline, and measurable budget linked progress toward rebuilding public trust.

Oversight is not anti-police.

It's pro-accountability, pro-transparency, and essential to effective public safety.

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

And I'd rather you allocate the funding to the Office of Attorney General for the divisions of worker rights and consumer protection.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Patel.

Michaela Deming, Policy Director, DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Thank you, Chair Pinto and staff for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Michaela Deming.

I'm the policy director with the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the federally recognized statewide coalition of domestic violence service providers here in DC that serve upwards of a thousand victims of domestic violence on any given day across all eight wards of the district.

We must sustain core programming and services for survivors of domestic violence and fill critical funding gaps for survivors and targeted communities.

Survivors need more resources and services, not less.

But proposed cuts to domestic violence and victim services reduce survivors' access to life-saving services and housing at a time, as you mentioned, when domestic violence homicides have spiked, despite violent crime and homicide dropping across DC.

The district cannot afford to abandon survivors and their families at this time.

Their lives depend on these essential services.

The mayor stated that funding for public safety must be preserved to keep up the overall progress to drive down crime citywide.

We urge council to do just that.

Restore the $6.3 million in cuts to domestic violence and victim services and OVSJG and DHS, and provide an additional $4.4 million over FY26 levels to sustain current services and fill critical gaps for survivors and targeted communities.

As federal policies continue to create concern for many and threaten the safety and stability of our most vulnerable communities, adequate local funding is necessary to fill critical gaps for our marginalized neighbors, including immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ plus individuals, unhoused individuals, those re entering from periods of incarceration in their families.

The broader social safety net is also a lifeline for survivors in crisis.

Yet the budget includes devastating cuts to child care subsidies and workers' pay, paid family leave and medical leave, SNAP and TANF benefits, legal representation, emergency rental assistance.

Removing the very resources necessary for domestic violence survivors and their families to become independent from their abusers puts lives at risk and undermines broader community safety.

In contrast, MPD sees a 15% larger budget in the mayor's proposal, an increase of over 89 million.

We could achieve greater community safety by preserving and investing that $89 million into $10 million for OBSJG victim services, $1.9 million to fill critical gaps for domestic violence services, $27.3 million for access to justice, $685,000 to restore cuts to the DHS line for domestic violence.

And we'd still have nearly 40 million dollars left over to fund more essential services, like restoring all of the cuts to DHS's economic security programs or restoring all the cuts to family services and homeless services in DHS.

We join the van request to fund victim services at 59.6 million and protect the entire OVSJG portfolio and stand in solidarity with a fair budget coalition, LGBTQ Plus budget coalition, the DC Justice Lab and their platforms.

Despite the recent press conference calling attention to increasing lethal domestic violence, no movement has been made to ensure all survivors have equal access to law enforcement.

DC Code Section 24-211.07 must be amended to protect victim and witness information from immigration enforcement threats.

Until that happens, immigrant and immigrant-looking survivors will continue to feel unsafe calling MPD or benefiting from any of the over half billion dollars their budget includes.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Deming.

Thank you all for your testimony.

Appreciate it.

We're going to call our next panel.

Gregory Pemberton, Joey Ferguson, Gregory Sakas, Ashley Anderson.

Great.

Welcome to you all.

Thank you.

We'll begin with Gregory Pemberton, president of the DC Police Union.

Thank you, Chair Chairwoman.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify as president of the D.C.

Police Union.

I speak on behalf of approximately 2,800 sworn police officers, detectives, and sergeants who serve this community as members of the Metropolitan Police Department.

I've been providing testimony in these hearings for years, highlighting the alarming decrease in staffing year over year and the exponential increases in overtime usage to make up for these shortages.

My testimony today is that the MPD remains in dire condition.

The mandatory overtime usage is beyond abusive.

Member stays off are regularly canceled with little or no notice, and unexpected holdovers have become the norm.

MPD facilities are in shameful disrepair with non-functional bathrooms, mold-infested locker rooms, and dilapidated buildings that endanger officer health and morale.

Compounding these issues, our fleet of vehicles and more specifically the lack of urgency at our repair shop is impeding our operations even further.

These vehicle shortages and availability issues directly impact response times, officer safety, and operational effectiveness across every district.

Staffing losses MPD have experienced have predictably continued.

In the past six years, the MPD has gone from 3,800 officers to 3,150.

Every year since 2019, the average net loss of sworn members is more than 100.

This fiscal year of the most recent reporting period, MPD continues to lose far more officers than it is hired.

The union believes the most pressing matter for the Council's awareness is that the CBA between the union and the city is set to expire in September.

The Council must consider potential wage increases for the officers as they are the most crucial aspect to increase staffing back to appropriate levels.

The way the MPD is forced to handle these critically low staffing numbers is through mandatory overtime assignments.

Since 2021, the department has regularly exceeded 1 million hours of overtime every year, with 2024 seeing 1.8 million hours.

2025 ended with more than 1.7 million hours.

And while data for FY26 is limited, they show similarly unsustainable levels early in the year.

Relying this heavily on overtime rather than hiring and retaining full-time officers cost the taxpayer tens of millions annually.

DC Police Union strongly supports the mayor's proposed FY27 MPD budget, significant enhancements for personnel services, overtime alignment, contractual services, fleet maintenance, and facility-related investments represent a critical and overdue step towards stabilizing our workforce.

Improving retention and addressing deplorable conditions in our members' face every day.

By fully funding these increases, the council could send a clear message that the district values its police officers and is committed to restoring the strength and readiness of the Metropolitan Police Department.

The union asks for the council to give deep consideration when making decisions that affect the ability to hire and retain our best employees, specifically legislation affecting employer rights, as well as budgetary decisions to support staffing, facility upgrades, and fleet modernization.

These issues are at the heart of MPD's ability to provide exceptional service to residents or visitors.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I welcome any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

Joey Ferguson, DFLOC DC.

Ms.

Joey, I'm a Ward 7 resident and proud Washingtonian.

I represent DFLOC DC, a growing collective of D.C.

I represent DFLOC DC, a growing collective of DC residents who are opposed to MPD's use of automatic license plate readers and similar surveillance technologies.

We are here today to vehemently oppose the expansion of this technology in our city.

The mayor's proposed budget slash slashes the kinds of basic services that keep Washingtonians safe in favor of paying private companies to spy on us on MPD's behalf.

ALPRs are street cameras that log your license plate as you drive by, whether you are suspected of a crime or not.

Flock logs this data in a searchable nationwide database that any Flock user can access, including federal agents.

DFLOC DC sees this practice for what it is.

Real-time, warrantless tracking of every driver in DC.

The proposal gives MPD an additional $7 million for contractual services, which includes the expansion of ALPRs.

And MPD forecast recently called for up to five million to expand Flock cameras in the downtown corridor.

It sounds like they're getting their wish while Washingtonians not only lose critical services, but also their privacy.

For example, the proposed budget cut 6.1 million from the school-based behavioral health program.

For what f or what about the 5.6 million cut from victim services or the 2.5 million from DC's youth homelessness system?

I could go on, but they only give me three minutes.

Why does the mayor and MPD insist on insist we divest from programs that address crime at its root so we can pay Flock safety for more ALPRs?

Maybe it's because the former chief information officer of MPD now works as strategic relations at Flock Safety, but I digress.

I have been a software developer for more than 10 years now.

There's a common phrase amongst tech companies that I've heard before move fast and break things.

I have unfortunately seen that recklessness come at all our expense, and Flock safety is no exception.

Their product, their products violate privacy rights, disregard the Fourth Amendment, and create a cr and create critical security risks for Washingtonians.

Not only is Flock's software riddled with vulnerabilities, but it also serves as a data pipeline leading straight to federal agencies like ICE and HSI.

We have no idea how frequently these agencies run searches on our data because MPD stopped responding to our FOIA request from last year.

In conclusion, we are demanding our tax dollars be used to help children, neighbors, and friends rather than spying on them.

Doing so will simultaneously restore community services, our privacy, and our rights.

I'm happy to answer questions, and I love this city.

And the occupation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gregory Sakas, public witness.

Hello, my name is Gregory.

And if you could turn your microphone on.

Hello, my name is Gregory Sakis.

I'm a Ward 7 resident, a member of DFLOC DC, and a fair budget coalition member.

As a heads up for anyone listening, this budget will kill people, and I'm gonna talk about it.

I am upset.

I am angry that we are continuing to over police DC residents when we know that it doesn't actually lead to anybody's safety.

I'm disappointed in our mayor and this council for year after year ignoring evidence that shows that taking care of our people through investment in social service programs is the most effective way to reduce crime and increase quality of life.

And I am deeply sad for all of those who will suffer and even lose their lives at the hands of this budget.

I'd like to use a moment of my time to honor on to honor all those who will be affected by this budget, including our unhoused neighbors who will continue to perish because they didn't have a safe place to sleep at night, for the children who are suffering because they don't have access to mental health services, for all those who will die of treatable afflictions because this budget will take away their health care, and for all the people who have been and will be killed at the hands of the Metropolitan Police Department in DC's safe and beautiful task force.

If I wasn't clear yet, I will lay it out.

This budget is an act of violence being committed by this government against its people.

Let me ask you what logical conclusions you would want me to make when we have massive cuts in our social safety net just to fund the violence of the Metropolitan Police Department.

What should I think about this government's priorities then?

What does it say about how the mayor in this council feels about our most vulnerable neighbors?

As I mentioned, I'm a member of our of DFLOC DC.

Flock is the perfect example of the kind of reckless police spending that in the end makes us all unsafe.

This kind of dragnet surveillance is nothing but dangerous.

If DC continues to fund companies like Flock, it is only a matter of time before there is direct violence as a result of this technology in DC.

There have already been cases of hacking, stalking, and other abuses of these cameras across the country.

Why are we allowing DC to suffer at the hands of this technology as well?

Surely we can find a better use for the five million dollars that is forecasted to be spent on more flock cameras.

Sources for everything that I'm saying are going to be included in my written testimony, including recommendations from Fair Budget on how we can adequate more adequately appropriate these funds, like using 100 million dollars from MBT over MPD overtime funds to fund ERAP.

Pinto, I highly recommend you read the full thing, especially if you still do not understand that funding schools and housing, not increase policing is how we keep our children safe.

I am begging you and your fellow council members to do your job and write a budget that prioritizes all the residents of DC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ashley Anderson, policy counsel of DC Justice Lab.

Good morning, Chairwoman Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Ashley Anderson, and I am a policy counsel at DC Justice Lab, and I'm also a resident of Ward 6.

Today I'm going to talk about the mayor's proposed budget for MPD, which includes substantial increases in funding for overtime, in addition to funding expanding surveillance technology.

Both are disconnected from an evidence-informed public safety approach.

The last nine months have shown that expanding law enforcement in a way that contradicts local evidence and crime transit actual public safety needs leads to higher costs without a public safety benefit, and more importantly, real life harms to residents.

The mayor's proposed budget increases the unchecked use of surveillance technology.

The proposed budget includes an increase of about $7 million across multiple bureaus to support various contractual obligations, including but not limited to CCTV camera maintenance and license plate readers.

The district has continued to fund and increase MPD surveillance technology without evaluating the encroachment into residence and visitors' privacy, meaningful interrogation of the utility and mixed uses of this technology, and without meaningful communication or engagement with concerns raised by community members.

And this is particularly concerning, given that at this year's performance oversight hearing, multiple people express worries about the district's use of surveillance technology by law enforcement and other jurisdictions have already sounded the alarm about its harms.

And it's even more concerning given that surveillance technologies are used more often where a majority of the residents are black.

In addition, MPD's pattern of overspending, especially on overtime, is a waste of resources.

The mayor's proposal allocates 81 million dollars for overtime, a substantial increase from 39 million for fiscal year 2026.

And their declaimer is quote while the agency works to use overtime judiciously, it is a critical and largely inequitable function of police work.

But it's contradictory to say that the agency is using this overtime judiciously when for years there have been a consistent increase in the use of overtime.

District leaders need to ask when our city diverts money to cover police overtime, what communities lose access to those funds?

And are we essentially subsidizing over policing at the expense of housing, violence prevention, or re-entry services?

And at what point does district leadership say that this isn't working, and instead use those funds to invest in community-led public safety solutions?

In partnership with nearly 30 organizations, DC Justice Lab produced a public safety agenda that shared what community members and expert demands.

This includes expanding and improving DC's non-law enforcement responses to people in behavioral health crises, authorizing and funding 24-7 harm reduction centers, and increasing funding for the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants.

To close, the district does not need to invest more resources in the policing and surveillance of our residents, but support social services and community-led public safety solutions.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for your testimony.

Rebecca Strauss, Talib Karim.

Talib Kareem, are you here?

Bill Mefford.

Sequenley Gray.

Frankie Sebron.

All right.

Welcome everyone.

We are going to begin with Rebecca Strauss, Director of Economic Initiatives, Federal City Council.

Um, thank you for having me, and I I wanted to thank you, Councilmember Pinto, for everything that you've done to make the city safer and your work on legislation in the past and also to fight for uh juvenile curfew zones really appreciated, something that my organization uh supports.

I would say about the budget, we generally support what Mayor Bowser has tried to do.

It's a really difficult budget year, you know that.

And difficult decisions must be made.

What I would say about the MPD budget is that it's not clear to us that there's going to be a lot of investment in dealing with the number one challenge facing the force, which is manpower.

And it's a very competitive environment right now for law enforcement, as you know.

A lot of federal agencies hiring up, offering extremely generous benefits, and in the suburbs as well.

And there's nothing really in the budget that is making the value proposition better for joining the MPD versus all the other law enforcement agencies.

And something that Chief Carroll brought up a lot was the state of facilities for police.

And I know that the police union has called facilities deplorable.

Now, the mayor's budget does have money for public safety facilities, and that's important, but to my knowledge, there's no new money for actual police facilities.

And that's just going to be a growing problem.

So I encourage you to think about is there any more money that could go towards those priorities?

Um, because otherwise it's going to get worse.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill Mefford, executive director of the Festival Center.

Good morning.

Thanks for allowing me to testify.

Preparing for today, I've reflected on where we are at this moment in time.

In the 36 years I've spent in full-time Christian ministry, I have never had a more challenging year than this one.

Central reason for this is simple.

It's the constant threat of terror from the continued collaboration between MPD and ICE and the continued refusal of our elected leaders to hold either accountable.

So, but yet we continue not just to fund them, but to spend even more money.

Just seems like madness.

At the Festival Center, our primary concern is safety, and we know that safety comes from investment over enforcement.

So what does safety look like when we consider the budget before us?

I think it would include fully funding the domestic violence and victim services, fully funding paid family leave, fully funding all OEG programs to educate workers and domestic workers of their rights, replacing carceral systems with crisis response systems that emphasize care over punishment, fully funding the access to justice program, fully funding the emergency rental assistance program, increased funding for temporary assistance to needy families, unify and fund violence and eruption services, end encampment clearings while funding storage options, and the list goes on and on.

So how do we accomplish this?

Well, I'm so glad you asked that question.

In short, writing in the spending of NPD, who are getting a 15% increase from last year's budget, despite crime being at record lows and the departure and the department having vacancies that it cannot fill and losing 67 sworn officers last year.

The department is increasing staff pay and benefits by by 44 million dollars and is doubling its overtime budget from 40 million in 2025 to over 80 million this year.

That's the whole ball game.

The department has secured over a hundred million dollars to invest in surveillance systems, as my colleague uh mentioned and described before, and yet we are still in one of the most surveilled and heavily policed cities in the world.

Further areas of cutting include denying any overtime pay associated with collaborating with ICE, HSI, and other federal agencies harming DC residents.

That we would harm the very people who are causing terror, is beyond my understanding.

I urge you to also take a critical look at MPD signing bonuses and the amount of money being given to MPD officers for housing when housing for the most vulnerable is such an all-time low.

That's I'm gonna stop there because if we keep going, I'm gonna go over and I'm gonna get really frustrated.

But I I really want to encourage us and encourage you to provide to look at what real public safety is and not fund the same old tired, effective, and ineffective and failed programs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sequenley Gray.

Councilmember and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Sequinly Gray.

I am a native Washingtonian, a proud mother of four amazing young men and a community organizer with DC JOSP Justice.

I'm testifying today because I'm deeply concerned about the ways in which Metropolitan Police Department shows up in my community.

Having more police on the street does not create a safer DC.

Despite increased investments in policing communities, especially communities of color continue to experience harm, fear, and instability rather than safety.

There is a lack of transparency when incidents occur in our communities of color.

Families are often left without answers or accountability when it's when harm is done.

The lack of transparency erodes trust and deepens the divide between residents and those who are meant to serve them.

I am also concerned about MPD's collaboration with federal authorities, which has led to unlawful targeting, harassment, and arrest of DC residents of color.

This only adds to overpolicing and criminalization already experienced in our neighborhoods.

Recently, the approval of a youth curfew allows police to threaten and arrest young children as young as 12 years old.

At the same time, there has been a narrative that places that places blame solely on parents for what has been labeled teen takeovers, which while crucial social programs that families rely on continue to be cut.

The approach criminalizes our youth instead of investing in them.

We should be asking deeper questions.

Why are young people not going home after school?

Could it be due to unstable housing or housing conditions under under in under-resourced communities?

Why are they outside at night?

Are they avoiding circumstances at home that are beyond their control?

Why are they gathering in large numbers?

Could it be because their need for safe spaces, programming, and support has continually, continuously been underfunded?

Our youth are the future of our city.

They deserve to feel supported, valued, and safe, not surveillance and criminalized.

In our communities of color, we know when police are called or show up, situations often escalate rather than resolved.

This is why we say we keep us safe.

The public safety, true public safety comes from strong communities, not over policing.

At the same time, MPD continues to receive increased funding year after year.

Crucial programs that actually support safety and stability are being cut.

The access to justice program, which helps residents face facing eviction and unsafe housing conditions is being gutted.

Without a families are at greater risk of displacement and exploitation by landlords.

The Office of Attorney General Workers' Rights Outreach Program is being defunded.

The program plays a crucial role in educating workers about their rights and connecting them to legal support when they experience wage theft or workplace abuse.

Without it, many workers will not file complaints leading to deeper financial instability, potential housing loss, and increased reliance on already strained social services.

They are programs that truly keep our communities safe and stable.

Yet there are being that they are being cut while MPD continues to operate with over a half a billion dollar budget.

We have the resources to invest in real safety.

The question is if we have the we have the will to prioritize people over policing.

The committee specifically has the opportunity to fund programs like access to justice and the workers' rights program by taking very little funding from MPD's budget.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to answering any questions.

Thank you.

Frankie Sebron, Free DC, and Harriet's father's dreams.

My name is Frankie Seabron.

I'm a third generation Washingtonian, a mother of two children who attend DCPS.

Um today I'm here representing Free DC and Heritage Dreams.

In a year of quote unquote tough choices and supposedly unavoidable unavoidable cuts, the mayor is requesting 89 million more of our tax dollars for MPD.

If I do my job poorly, I don't get rewarded.

It seems that whether police do a good job or a bad job, the response is always give them more money.

Since the start of last year, all of us in DC have had a front row seat to the slow creep of authoritarianism in the Capitol.

As this committee was focused on establishing surveillance zones for DC's youth and paving paving the way for Trump with secure DC, we've seen MPD following Trump's lead.

We've seen them helping the Trump, the Trump regime to choke off home rule and inch their project forward.

We've seen our communities with this safe and safe and beautiful task force essentially beats hair rise.

And specifically when we talk about the youth and these curfew zones.

I myself sent my own 16-year-old to the DPR event.

They went inside, had a great time, but they were met with a line of police officers on either side when they were exiting.

That is not safety.

That is a bloated police budget.

And to sit behind a desk and sign paperwork that essentially leads to murdering of people is is you are complicit.

And so if budgets are moral documents, you have to put your values where you say they are.

If you say you want to represent DC and protect DC, do that with your actions and not just your words.

We've seen MPD reinstate officers convicted of murder and conspiracy and a slew of other things.

It's not fear mongering.

This is not hysteria, this is not vague.

We we've we've lived this.

DC is still occupied.

Meanwhile, the budget seeks to take away other things.

127 million from future pay increases for government workers, 95 million from universal paid leave, 60 million from child pay equity, 33 million from services and public safety programs, 4.5 million from youth engagement, 4 million from family and survivor support.

All of the things that we actually need to be safe to behold are social safety networks have been cut, and yet more money continues to go to things that we know do not work.

And let's not forget that this is happening as 46% of DC's wealth is held by less than half a percent of tax units.

Truth is, DC can address this budget deficit with progressive taxes.

322 million from a business business activity tax, up to 1774 million from raising capital gains tax, 121 million from a wealth proceeds tax, and that's just a start.

There is so much wealth in this city that is not paying its fair share.

But rather than address that gap, the mayor and y'all would rather cut services and give more money to an agency that continues to violate residents' rights, undercut DC's autonomy, and side against democracy at every turn.

Live up to your values, Brooke.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much for your testimony.

James Stroud, Tanya Golash Boza, Mr.

Rinkler, Fanny Gandhi.

And then Jataya Foster.

Or you know what?

We'll do it after.

Just it'll just be you on that panel, but it'll be okay.

Rather.

Okay, good idea.

All right.

James Troud, public witness.

I'm James Stroud, and I'm here to testify against the mayor's ridiculous MPD budget.

When the overall budget has shrunk by 4% and the federal government is aggressively cutting jobs, slashing social safety nets, and creating record-breaking government shutdowns, it makes zero sense for us to be increasing MPD's budget by 15% while so many live in precarity.

I think it's critical for us to invest in our social safety net to stop people from falling into homelessness, which is incredibly difficult to escape from and puts a strain on our city's resources.

Investing more in things like the emergency rental assistance program is not just the human thing to do, but also the financially responsible thing to do.

Between 2016 and 2024, MPD spent 41 million dollars on surveillance technology.

6.6 million of that went to Sound Thinking Incorporated, formerly ShotSpotter Incorporated, who provide technology they claim detects whether a gunshot was fired in an area in order to dispatch law enforcement.

A study of over 40,000 shot spotter dispatches in Chicago showed 86% of dispatches resulted in no crimes of any kind.

Other studies have shown that shot spotter is no impact on reducing crime.

Not only is Shot Spotter a waste of $500,000 a year, but the false alarms are a waste of police resources.

If we cancel shot spotter, we wouldn't be the first to do it.

Chicago, Charlotte, and San Antonio are just a few of the cities to have canceled ShotSpotter, while Atlanta, Portland, and Seattle outright rejected shot spotters junk signs.

And this is not just about ShotSpotter.

The council needs to be more critical of all of MPD's invasive surveillance technology like celebrate and automatic license plate readers.

Last year, MPD paid out 134 million dollars of overtime.

In the last 12 months of available data, MPD stopped over 77,000 people.

Meanwhile, NYPD made just 25,000 stops.

New York City has 12 times our population, but their police made three times fewer stops.

This practice is not only wasteful, but there's years of data in ACLU reports showing that these stops are incredibly discriminatory to black people.

NYPD went from making over 500,000 annual stops to just 11,000 in the span of two years after their use of stop and frisk was deemed unconstitutional.

In that time span, the murder rate and other types of crimes only decreased, showing that this racist, wasteful practice doesn't keep us safe.

Scaling down these incredibly excessive stops would reduce the workload of MPD officers and the bloated overtime spending.

One other ridiculous part of the budget is adding an extra person to an already bloated MPD communications team.

The budget calls for increasing the size of the comms team from 23 to 24.

For reference, NYPD has 10 times more officers than DC, and their comms team is less than four times bigger.

Chicago PD has four times more officers, and their comms team is just two times larger than ours.

Why are we hiring a PR person for the police in such a constrained budget?

How are PR people keeping us safe at all?

If anything, we should be cutting from here.

Invest in programs that support people through these rough times instead of institutions that lock people up and put them in vicious cycles of poverty and homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tanya Golash Boza, Public Witness.

Good morning, Chair Pinto.

My name is Dr.

Tanya Golash Bosa.

I was born and raised in Ward 4.

I'm a professor of sociology and the executive director of the University of California Washington Center.

I'm here to urge you not to increase the budget of the Metropolitan Police Department.

We do not need additional police officers.

We do not need to pay police officers overtime to pay the to patrol the streets.

I say this based on what I see every day in wards one and four, where I spend time walking on Kennedy Street, 14th Street, and Georgia Avenue.

What I see is nuisance policing, quality of life policing, police officers and federal agents harassing black and Latino residents over expired tags, temporary plates, tinted windows, open containers, and marijuana.

Not long ago, I saw a young black man get pulled over.

He had just bought an infinity from the dealership.

He had recently secured a job, saved his money, and bought himself a car.

He was on his way to pick up his daughter, thinking about how excited she would be to see the new car.

Then MPD pulled him over alongside a caravan of six federal agents, turning a traffic stop into an intimidating multi-agency scene.

It turned out the dealership had not properly registered the temporary plates.

That may have been the dealership's fault, but this young man paid the price.

His car was taken.

He had to go to the police station.

He had to navigate the costs, paperwork, lost time, and stress of getting his car back, and he had to figure out who was gonna pick up his daughter.

That is not public safety.

That is punishment.

I have seen multiple car impoundments in my neighborhood.

These are not responses to violence.

They are armed operations over registration issues.

They create fear, trauma, and financial strain.

They can mean losing the ability to get to work, take children to school, care for elders, and pay rent.

The people who have been targeted that I've witnessed on the street are exclusively black and Latino.

This is racial profiling.

It's also bad public safety policy.

The research does not support the claim that increasing police budgets makes cities safer.

A recent study of 61 large U.S.

cities found no significant association between police spendings and community firearm violence.

The research also shows that aggressive order maintenance policing, the kind focused on low-level disorder and minor violations does not reduce crime.

We have to be honest about what we are funding.

More money for MPD means more stops, more armed encounters, more opportunities for fatal encounters, and more chances for DC residents to be pulled into the criminal legal system because of poverty, race, or immigration status.

This does not make us safe.

Public safety is produced by housing, good jobs, strong schools, mental health care, violence interruption, youth programs, and stable families.

I urge the council to not increase the budget to end MPD participation and joint patrols, to require MPD to release stop data.

I know they you just passed the act, but they haven't released the data.

And also invest in violence prevention, housing, youth unemployment, youth employment, mental health care, and community-based safety.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ringler, Public Witman.

Hello.

Good morning, Ms.

Pinto.

Good morning.

This MPD budget reflects money that we desperately, desperately need elsewhere.

I'm just gonna run through a quick list, echoing many of my colleagues.

Sound thinking, $500,000, also formally known as ShotSpotter.

We've already spent $6.6 million on this.

Houston council last year decided to cancel a contract.

Let's cancel it.

Let's take that money back and spend it elsewhere.

As folks have said, it doesn't make us safer and it wastes MPD's time.

We're concerned about overtime.

Great.

Let's reduce what they're doing.

Flock cameras, we have a one to five million dollar contract pending.

Let's cut it.

It's invasive.

It doesn't help us.

Cell Brighton Pathfinder, more digital surveillance.

It's also an Israeli company.

These tools make everyone's data vulnerable.

Given MPD's relationship with federal agents, you weren't able to get any straight answers from their oversight hearing.

The best way to make sure that this data doesn't get in the hands of the federal government is to not collect it whatsoever.

In addition, um, Israel's committing genocide, and we should not be having contracts with Israeli companies.

Um the communications department.

The mayor's budget wildly calls for a 25th MPD communications staff member.

Um, in the time that we're cutting budgets for food, housing, and health care.

I'm gonna say we certainly need food, housing, and health care before they get number 25.

In fact, let's cut eight positions, go back to the 2024 rates where MPD had 16 staff members.

And finally, over time.

Fewer MPD's officers equal MPD doing less.

It does not mean fewer MPD officers does not mean MPD gets to run up 20, 30, 40 million in overtime.

We need to be serious.

When there's fewer teachers, those teachers don't get unlimited checks.

When there's fewer firefighters, those firefighters don't get unlimited checks.

MPD needs to really hear from council.

They don't have an infinite tap on money.

In fact, they have to stop.

And what's obscene is that we are taking you guys saying they have infinite tap because they have 40 million now, you're saying they get 80 next year.

It's wild that they get to spend that overtime up and then turn around and ask for more officers.

What needs to happen to make that balanced is they do less.

For example, stop and frisk, as my colleague just said.

Stop stopping people.

Great, you've just saved hundreds of hundreds of hours of MPD time.

Pull MPD out of schools.

We had legislation about that.

Great.

Um, stop participating in federal task forces.

How much are we paying for our MPD officers to collaborate with the feds?

You have the power, Councilmember Pinto, to say no, you will not get a single dollar to collaborate with the feds, and that's power that you have in your hands.

And now what do we do with all that money?

We just had a great list of all the things we are going to cut.

One, we're gonna fund emergency rental assistance program.

Because guess what?

If people are housed, there's fewer crimes happening.

Um we're gonna fund health care.

So many of my friends lost Medicaid on January 1st because DC dropped their Medicaid rates from 200% above poverty level to about 180.

That's obscene, and there's a gap.

Council added some programs, some funding, but there's a set of people in that gap that no longer have health care.

People, we need health care, mental illness.

We need non-MPD crisis response.

Um legal services, um, it's obscene that we're giving MPD more money to violate people's rights, and we're taking away the very lawyers that help those people when MPD violence is rights.

Programming for kids on curfews, you're saying that kids need more resources, and yet we're cutting DPR's budget.

Um, and finally, FOIA requests, we're supposed to have access to MPD's um disciplinary records, but that bill has never been funded.

Before we get a comms person, I want the legislation that we have saying that I should be able to FOIA MPD's officers to be funded.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Fanny Gandhi and Jatia Foster.

Hi.

All right, we will begin with Fanny Gandhi, public witness.

Good morning, all.

My name is Fanny Gandhi.

I'm a current second-year student law student at the UDC David A.

Clark School of Law.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the MPD's proposed budget and its relationship to the juvenile curfew policy.

There are many moments when policy sounds convincing convincing in theory but falls apart in practice.

The district's juvenile curfew is one of those moments.

In the committee markup, you, Councilmember Pentel, emphasized that no one has been arrested for violating curfew.

But that framing misses reality.

Even if young people are not formally charged with curfew violations, they're still being stopped, questioned, and arrested for related conduct.

These are unnecessary interactions with law enforcement that would not occur otherwise.

The harm is happening regardless of how it's labeled.

The logic behind the curfew is deceptively simple.

Fewer young people outside at night means fewer crimes involving young people.

As one critique explains, the assumption the assumption is that there won't be crimes involving juveniles if there are no juveniles.

But this reasoning ignores the root cause of youth crime.

Poverty, lack of opportunity, and a limited access to safe supportive environments.

A curfew does not solve these problems.

It merely pushes them out of sight.

More importantly, the curfew represents a poor use of public resources.

MPD's proposed budget increase increases by approximately 89 million dollars, with much of that increase being driven by personnel cost and a dramatic rate rise in overtime spending.

Enforcing curfew zones requires significant police presence at night, and the district is relying on overtime to sustain that presence.

This is a reactive approach, not a preventative one.

Rather than continuing to invest in strategy that has not produced meaningful results, the district should reconsider how these funds are allocated.

Redirecting even a portion of these resources towards prevention with real far greater benefits.

What young people in the city consistently point to is a lack of safe, accessible safe spaces to gather.

The problem is not simply that youth are outside, it's that they have nowhere else to go.

DC DC should invest in third spaces, community-centered environments outside of homes and schools where young people can build relationships, access access support, and spend time safely.

The Department of Parks and Recs Rec have already demonstrated the value of this approach through structured youth programming during school breaks.

Expanding these efforts, particularly during evening hours, would address the underlying conditions that gave rise to the gatherings and curfew gatherings that curfew seeks to control.

If the district is serious about reducing harm and improving public safety, it must move beyond policies that prioritize enforcement over investment.

The question is not to how to how to keep young people off the streets, but how to create a city where they have somewhere better to be.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Jataya Foster, public witness.

Good morning, Chairperson Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Jatai Foster, and I am in my second year of law school at the University of the District of Columbia, David A.

Clark School of Law.

And I'm here today to ask this committee a crucial question.

Why are we protecting economic convenience by criminalizing our youth?

Because that is exactly what the current juvenile curfew is doing when we implement curfew zones in Navy Yard, NOMA, and U Street Corridor.

The proposed increase in patrol funding is directly relevant to the juvenile curfew enforcement because patrol services are often the primary mechanism to enforce uh curfew policies.

Increased patrol capacity means the district is responding to young people through enforcement rather than engagement.

And this is why I urge the committee to reconsider the proposed $21.5 million increase for patrol services and instead direct those funds to a prevention by investing them in the youth and family engagement division, more commonly known as the YFED.

If the council were to reallocate the proposed increase to the YFED, the district would be able to accomplish the outcomes we say we want, which is the reduce of violence, the promote of community safety.

This allocation to YFED would strengthen relationships between young people and public safety systems.

Rather than expanding patrol capacity, the district should strengthen the infrastructure that prevents harm before it even occurs.

A $21.5 million investment in YFED could expand youth programming and increase violence prevention support and create a safe space and meaningful engagement opportunities for youth across the district.

So DC and this committee has a choice.

Continue funding responses centered on over policing and criminalization of the youth, or make deeper investments in prevention and youth development to ensure community safety.

And I respectfully ask this this committee to choose the former by redirecting the proposed $21.5 million increase in patrols to and and redirect them to the youth and family engagement division and demonstrate through this budget that prevention is a core public safety strategy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Thank you to all of our public witnesses who have joined us in person today.

Appreciate you all being here.

As a reminder, please accept your invitation to join as a panelist.

Jonah Goodman, Dave Stadter, Paula Edwards, Commissioner Paul Edwards, Ty Hobson Powell, Ohefa Anunuku, Caroline Pryor, Scott Goldstein, Devon Montgomery, John Payne, L'Oreal Hawkey.

Jonah Goodman, are you here?

Great.

Yes.

Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

Um three requests.

This is for Office of Unified Communications Today.

Um in 2025 OUC hearings, Chairperson Pinto, you mentioned that OUC does not have resources to investigate every OUC dispatch mistake they made.

Well, the mayor and director talked about how OUC now answers more calls in the first 15 seconds.

They don't mention that OUC continues to make significant dispatch errors.

And worse, that they're hiding this claim, saying they don't have the resources to investigate.

And worse, we know that individuals are seriously injured, potentially dying as life-saving help is sent to non-existent addresses or along wrong quadrants.

The problem is so pervasive.

I've been emailing this committee and Director McGaffin with numerous mistakes every week.

I've sent you all recordings of OUC dispatch traffic showing the mistake, reports sent to OUC OTA mistake, and OUC responding saying they've received the report.

Yet OUC investigates none of these, and this committee has done nothing about it.

February 13th sentence committee recording of AUCH error with eight minutes of lost time.

February 20, I sent the confirmation of the dispatch error of cardiac arrest that sent the wrong address, February 27th.

I send this committee recording of OUC dispatch error where they mishandle dispatch and loss 26 minutes every week.

There is one of these going on.

Chairperson Pinto in your 2025 OUC oversight hearing, you admitted that, quote, it's a matter of time and resources to investigate these issues.

And if you don't have the caller's phone number, even when you have a recording of the radio traffic from OUC make a mistake, the report with the time, the date, the location.

And OUC has confirmed that they have these reports.

This doesn't get investigated.

So asking for budget to give OEC the ability to actually investigate all these.

We know how pervasive this issue is.

So recommendation here get OUC resources or find resources outside of OUC to independently review the continuation of mistakes and what's happening so we can learn from them.

Second, request um funding for OUC to comply with laws around FOIA requests.

We know Councilmember Pinto have sent you multiple emails on this.

OUC denies FOIA requests, the mayor's office legal counsel comes back.

OUC refuses to talk with them.

MOLC sides with the people submit the FOIA requests.

OUC then denies it and says they won't report it.

We have that documentation, Councilman, I sent it to you, you have it, I have it.

And Director McGaffin said they cannot find it and they're not going to comply with the FOIA requests.

So looking for independent resources so that OUC can comply with FOIA requests.

And lastly, um, and again wait on time.

Just this is adjacent to it, but I know also Chief Technology Council.

Um, if we can ask them for funds, one of the things I'm running into with this committee a lot is council members having a lot of technical issues every time I ask why is there a mistake not being investigated?

I get answers that oh, the email is lost, they can't find it, council members can't understand a response.

I know this is never on the council members' fault, so let's get Octo to come in and help you understand in the committee members what's happening to your emails and why you can't respond to the issues of documented mistakes.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Dave Stadter, Saturn 911 Communications.

Good morning.

529 a.m.

last December 2nd.

Engine 11 to communications.

Did you get anybody on the call back?

No answer.

530.

Engine 11 of communications, no answer.

22 seconds later.

Engine 11 to communications.

No answer.

532.

Engine 11 to communications, no answer.

14 seconds later.

Engine 11 to communications, no answer.

533.

Medic 21 to communications, no answer.

19 seconds later.

Engine 11 to communications, still no answer.

Seven times in four minutes, dispatchers didn't answer the radio during a cardiac arrest call.

Despite that fact, on April 14th, in her third response to you about this call, Heather McGaffin refused to admit that her dispatchers didn't answer the radio.

Now on the positive side, a call taker did a great job keeping the phone line open even after the caller, home alone, stopped responding.

But this crucial information wasn't relayed to fire an EMS until 19 minutes into the call.

So who does Director McGaffin blame?

Not her dispatchers.

Instead, she wrote, the call taker continued to update the dispatch notes, which were apparently not seen by FEMS.

So how could the firefighters and medics not see it?

Well, they were outside the apartment door doing their job, poised to break in.

What she didn't explain is why her dispatchers didn't see such an important message and then relay it to those crews.

After all, that's their job.

Despite these outrageous and unfortunately very common DC 911 mistakes, the director wrote to you appropriate action was taken by all involved OUC personnel.

And if that's not absurd enough, Director McGaffin also wrote, FEMS asked OUC for authorization to breach the door.

However, the agency does not make such decisions.

That just didn't happen.

There's no evidence of it.

It's fantasy.

If Ms.

McGaffin had listened to the radio traffic, she would have heard the officer of Engine 11 say, and I quote, I'm prepared to force entry, I'm ready to force entry.

We just want to make sure we're forcing entry into the correct department.

It's five months after an extremely budged, high priority medical call, and after three requests, you still can't get straight answers.

McGaffin's failure to take responsibility and instead point fingers, tells you all you need to know why the bill to give the DC fire and EMS medical directory, director authority over EMS protocols and quality assurance must pass.

As I wrap up, I beg you to ask Director McGaffin these questions.

What were dispatchers doing instead of answering the radio or reading and relaying the call taker's priority message?

Their cameras on the operations floor.

She can find that answer.

Where did McGaffin get the absurd absurd idea that firefighters ask for permission to breach the door?

And after district dogs, Director McGaffin said her staff better understands that fire and EMS aren't always in the unit reading their MDTs.

So why is the director putting an old fire and EMS to see these messages and is absorbing dispatchers of responsibility?

Please don't let her say she'll respond with responses in writing later.

Three chances in five months.

Time's up.

It's her job to know these answers.

If she doesn't, she should resign.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Paula Edwards.

Hello, Chair Pentel.

Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

I'm the ANC chair for Commission 4A and the Commissioner for ANC 4A01.

I would like to testify in opposition to any cuts to the OUC budget based on my constituents' feedback.

I do not have experience with the 911 system that other witnesses have, but I hardly think it would be improved by a budget cut.

My experience has mostly been with the 311 system.

My constituents seem to be satisfied with the 311 system overall, but are very critical of the way agencies use the system, specifically the way requests are closed without action.

Oops, sorry.

Um or explanation.

The majority of requests in my SMD are for DPW and DDOT.

I tracked repeated DDOT requests for one alley repair in my SMD back to 2016.

The requests were closed with no explanation, no indication that the defect had been cured or remediated for almost 10 years.

The alley continued to deteriorate until it was finally repaired this spring.

Director McGaffin and the OUC community outreach team have been very helpful to me in understanding the limitations and stresses on the system.

Similarly, DPW requests often involve the same addresses that are closed without correction or show repeated incidences of defect.

This methodology ensures that the system is overtaxed and hastens its deterioration and failure.

I hope we can invest more in improving agency responses and transparency and use of the 311 system and in helping constituents to understand how it works so that we do not destroy it.

Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Ty Hobson Powell, OHA Ananuku, ACLU DC.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

All right.

Hello, Chair Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Ajaifa Ananuko, and I present the following on behalf of ACLU DC.

It is more critical than ever that DC's limited resources are invested into public safety strategies that respond to the real needs of DC residents that center impacted communities and move away from carceral-centric strategies.

Strategies that decades of observation and research have shown, excuse me, strategies that decades of observation and research have made clear do not work, do not make the best use of resources, and certainly do not make communities safer.

My written testimony goes into the goes into detail about staffing and accountability at NPD and closing loopholes that allow NPD to exploit DC law to engage in immigration enforcement.

Today I will focus on how the district's response to concerns about youth behavior is setting up both young people and the proposed strategies for failure.

ACADC strongly urges the council to reverse course and reject the permanent youth curfew bill.

Over the past couple of years, multiple youth curfews have been implemented.

During this time, we have seen that these policies do not improve public safety and do not deter young people from congregating in large groups.

This is not an effective use of DC's budget when it can be used to support and uplift the district's youth.

What the curfew policies have done is provide an excuse for police to racially profile, harass, and provoke black youth who are the primary targets of enforcement.

MPD officers have been observed running after young people and stopping those trying to leave from getting on the metro.

Witnesses have recorded MPD officers forcefully grabbing young people, taunting and threatening them, and yelling aggressively while pointing pepper spray guns at them and adults trying to de-escalate.

It must also be noted that although MPD is not formally arresting young people in these zones, the experience of being placed and transported in a squat car, be it to their home or DYRS facility, can have the same traumatic impact.

There are many factors that influence young people's behavior.

These include the adolescent brain being hardwired for risk taking, economic instability, feeling unsafe, and wanting to belong.

Not only has research shown that addressing these factors is the best way to change youth behavior, young people have made clear that these are the areas in which they need support.

Young people have come before the council advocating for better access to mental health services, spaces to engage in activities, and viable employment opportunities.

The response from district leaders has been to invest disproportionately in criminalization.

While young people get cuts to funding, excuse me, while young people get cuts in funding to school-based behavioral health and recreation, police who are already ill-equipped to handle many of the public safety duties they are tasked with, including interacting with youth, get more resources and lower hiring standards.

To be clear, ACIDC is not suggesting that young people who cause harm should not be held accountable.

What we are saying is that the current approaches which over-emphasize punitive measures and cast too broad of a net have not been proven ineffective and more harmful to young people in their communities.

While curfew policies may be an easy strategy for attempting to control the movement of young people and might even make certain people feel more comfortable, they do not get at the root of the challenges young people in the communities are facing.

They tell young people, particularly black youth, that they do not belong in their own city and that their safety and well-being comes second to other people's comfort.

In order to make the best use of DC's tax dollars, ACLEDC implores the council to truly listen to young people at tomorrow's round table and to make policy decisions informed by their experiences and what evidence shows us to be affected.

Thank you, and I'm ready to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

That would be helpful.

Um Caroline Pryor, Director of Policy and Power Building, Empowered.

Hello, uh, good morning, Chairwoman Pinto and staff.

My name is Caroline Pryor.

I'm Director of Policy and Power Building at Empowered.

We'll do my best to keep to three minutes.

This year I've testified before your committee on multiple occasions to advocate against two intertwined issues, the youth curfew and MPD collaboration with federal agencies.

We have a disturbing contradiction consistently displayed in both this committee and the committee of the whole.

And I urge you to tune in tomorrow to Councilmember Parker's Heathrow Table to hear students echo in his committee what they have said here that youth curfew creates rather than prevents danger, and that we must invest in systems that empower them and their families instead, not in addition.

Today I also want to urge your committee to probe into the juvenile investigative response unit, which I suspect is the MPD unit, quote, investigating team takeovers.

Of deep concern is their collaboration with LEAs and individual schools mentioned several times in pre-hearing comments.

In what capacity is this unit working with schools?

What student records are they accessing?

What meaningful oversight is council enforcing over this unit to prevent overreach?

Each disclosure about this unit seems different from the last.

Their vague promotional literature seems at odds with Deputy Mayor Apea's description of their work.

Are they creating, quote, success plans for young people as the deputy mayor testified?

In what ways are schools expected to comply with this work or the unit's directives?

Many of our schools exist in neighborhoods where students are violently overpoliced and racially profiled, and where community members understand what's at stake.

Many of those that did trust law enforcement after the past year have reevaluated that mindset.

Students and teachers of history have already made connections in this committee between policies like the juvenile curfew and slave codes, between immigration raids and fascist nationalism.

In your committee, you control enormous quantities of funding.

Meanwhile, champs has been eliminated, school-based behavioral health has been slashed, DPR has lost millions.

Community schools has been zeroed out.

We've lost the child tax credit and millions of dollars from PANF.

But will Council Greenlight MPD's budget?

While social services languish, we cannot pump more and more funding into MPD without accountability for the harm it funds, not just for us adults, but for future generations too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Scott Goldstein, executive director in Power Ed.

Good morning.

I do the work I do because I feel a deep injustice and unfairness between the way I was able to experience childhood compared to the way young people have been treated in my adopted city where I've now lived most of my life.

Washington, D.C.

is full of amazing young people.

I had the incredible privilege to teach so many of them for a decade and maintain relationships with them since.

In the past year, especially this made me incredibly upset to hear the way young people are talked about, faced with efforts to control them rather than empower them to hold them accountable without ever having provided them what they need to thrive.

The word curfew originates from the French words curve, which literally means cover fire.

It comes from a time before artificial light when people still used campfires to stay up and talk before bedtime.

At the time when it was time to cover the fire, all would retreat home for their first sleep.

They would wake after four hours or so for their period of one to three hours of being awake before their second sleep.

But the relevant part here is what they did before the sleep, which is to be together.

Research finds that at this time, 80% of conversation during the day was about work, but 81% of conversation by the fire was about fun and brought deeper connection.

There's probably no time in life where we long for connection more than adolescents.

And we've jammed the lives of young people with long hours of school, followed by activities, followed by homework, and for many young people in DC, the need to care for younger siblings.

They see entire neighborhoods built up of restaurants that they could never afford, yoga studios, dozens of adult gyms, kayak rentals, wineries, and breweries.

The neighborhoods many of them live in have none of this.

But they also don't have the things that they want most.

A mall just to roam around and hang with friends, laser tag, teen dance clubs that are safe, fast casual spots like Chipotle, and on and on.

They want to be in connection with each other and have fun.

They want to do it safely.

Our kids are not looking to cause harm.

So when they jump on a bike share and ride through Navy Yard only to have police grab them and rip them off their bike for the crime of being black while riding a bike through town and then openly taunt them.

What message does this send to them?

We owe the residents of DC real safety and justice.

We do not have real safety when our plan for creating safety is banning people from a space.

We do not have safety if instead of creating the conditions for peace, working with parents, creating the needed programming, and working with community institutions with real trust with young people, we simply make it illegal to be in a group at a reasonable hour like 8 p.m.

This is a budget hearing, so this is what should happen with the MPD budget.

We should move funding from MPD signing bonuses, which have been ineffective budget policy, and prioritize pay for proactive justice staff from safe passage workers to educators and paraprofessionals and reinvest much of that in CBOs that can actually have relationships with young people and give them a sense of identity and togetherness, they need to be in safe and joyful in our city.

Working with the education cluster to prioritize deep investment and conflict resolution.

Two years ago, we brought a budget proposal for 250,000 and incredibly effective conflict resolution curriculum and teacher training to the council.

There wasn't money for that, but there's plenty of money for police signing bonuses and overtime.

We should transfer safe passage out of DMPSJ so it's not associated with MPD.

We should work to with the executive to increase the safe passage budget so safe passage workers can integrate into the school day full time.

We should fund the mentorship bill authored by Councilmember Robert White that passed and never received funding and work with DPR to dramatically expand programming both after school, late night, and weekends.

Our vision for public safety and justice can't be the absence of children in our streets.

It must be the presence of real peace, opportunity, and joy.

Children deserve their campfire.

You can budget to make it so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Devon Montgomery, fellow and DC Educator at Empower Ed.

Good morning, Chair President Penza.

My name is Devon Montgomery, and I'm the dean of students at a Harmony D.C.

Public Charter School and Empowered Fellow and a member of the Fair Budget Coalition.

The mission of MPD is to safeguard the district and protect its residents and visitors with the highest regard for the synthety of human life.

I challenge the council and this committee to help make this a reality by redirecting proposed funding from an already bloated MPB budget to protecting social safety nets that truly ensure justice for all.

I'm here today to ask this committee to fund proactive safety measures that invest in our communities rather than in the police department.

Safe passage, DPI youth programming, youth mentorship, and school-based behavioral health services are far more effective ways to approach public safety than implementing a juvenile care view.

Social safety nets served to reduce poverty, protect people from economic instability, improve health, improve employment outcomes, and increase overall well-being of all DC residents, ensuring a basic standard of living for those who cannot support themselves.

The proposed budget increases MPD funding from 599 million in FY26 to 688 million in FY27.

This increase of almost 90 million includes about 86 million in local funds and nearly 4 million in federal funds.

I would ask that MPD reach out for federal funding to secure the desired 86 million increase for overtown.

I believe that administration would be more than happy to foot the bill to secure the nation's capital as it celebrates its 250th anniversary.

We can all agree that every community is safer when residents are housing secure, food secure, economically stable, both physically and mentally healthy, well educated, and have safe spaces to congregate.

That 86 million in local funds dedicated to overtime can then be used to strengthen DC social safety net in a variety of ways.

Two million in FY27 for the youth mentorship through community engagement act passed without funding.

16.7 mil for DBH, 4 million to ASI and DPS for teacher retention fund, 3 million to DME increasing funding for OSC programming, 4.4 mil to ASI and DCPS for community schools, $6.1 million to DBH for School Base Behavioral Health through champs, $4 million invested in restructuring the safe passage under either ASI or OEG, $400,000 to ASI for educated wellness grants, $7 million to BHS for ERAP, $2.4 million to DHS for DCHA, permanent support housing vouchers, $1.25 million to DOH to build awarded community food hub, $20.5 million to DHS for temporary for TNF for the TA program, $5.48 million to DPR for site-based programming, and $5.6 million in DPR for recreational services and programming.

All of these social safety net programs add up to $82.58 million.

And there are a variety of other services that could also keep DC residents safe.

Resources and programming keep residents safe, not law enforcement.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my testimony.

Please review my written testimony for further elaborations.

Thank you.

John Payne, public witness.

I'm here today because I'm appalled.

I'm appalled that we are drastically cutting so many life-giving services to our city at the same time that we're giving MPD a 15% raise.

Instead of shoveling more tax dollars onto the burning refuse heap that is MPD, we should use that money to fund programs that truly keep us safe.

I'm gonna focus on two of those programs today.

It's non-police response to mental health and substance abuse crisis and ERAP.

DC has had a non-police emergency response program for years, but it's never been truly funded.

I cannot count the times that I have called for non-police response or just for an ambulance and gotten a cop instead.

Several years ago, there was a neighbor in crisis in the alley behind my house.

She was sitting down and thrashing around in the pavement, her arms swinging in the air wildly.

Neither my wife or I felt that we could reach her to try and see if she was okay and talk with her safely.

I called to get an ambulance, but before EMS could arrive, multiple MPD cars showed up instead.

I don't know what the officer said to her, but she ran away before the ambulance could get there.

There are sadly many more examples of this because we have not funded non-police response team to fully meet our city's needs.

And there are some obvious things that we can cut from MPD's bloated budget.

MPD invested millions in surveillance technology that does not work and gives our information over to ICE.

From 2016 to 2024, MPD has paid over 6.6 million to shop spotter to try and dispatch police to the sound of gunfire.

This is despite the fact that their contract to City Chicago and other major cities has been canceled after learning that 86% of their dispatches were not related to any crime at all.

We've spent another six million on Flock and Celebrate, despite the fact that the data from these companies goes to databases that's accessed by ICE and other agencies.

These tools do not make us safe.

They make our data vulnerable, and given MPD's relationship to federal agencies, the only way we guarantee that our data does not end up in the hands of ICE or the big beautiful task force is to not gather it in the first place.

Non-police emergency response and an emergency rental assistance program are the perfect places for this money.

The city is already investing in Narcan training and distribution sites as well as public health vending machines.

These types of non-police programs have helped significantly lower DC's overdose numbers.

We need to keep investing in non-police responses to mental health and substance abuse so that anyone in crisis can get assistance they need without interacting with law enforcement, without being harmed by a police officer or being put into the incarceral system.

Similarly, investments in the ERAP program will keep many of our neighbors from becoming unhoused.

Staying in their homes and apartments is what will keep people safe, not more police.

And this is especially true given that our unhoused neighbors are now being harassed and assaulted by MPD and the federal task force.

To close, the past year has shown an agonizing detail the problems that come with just shoveling money at MPD and expecting them to solve all of our problems.

Instead of rewarding violent thugs who want nothing more than to keep their jack boots on our neck, let's use this moment as an opportunity to spend our city's resources and our tax dollars on the things that truly matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

L'Oreal Hawk Bianca Paul Misano.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you all very much for your testimony.

I'm going to call the next group.

As a reminder, please accept your invitation to join as a panelist.

Jakia Carroll.

Janae Wilson.

Abel Amin.

Kimberly Clisby.

Christine Corey and Cheryl Kay.

We will begin with Jakia Carroll, public witness.

Okay.

Janae Wilson, Crisis Response Team Director from DC Safe.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Jenny Wilson and I'm the crisis response team director for DC Safe.

We value our long-standing partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department and recognize the critical role officers play in responding to domestic violence.

MPD officers are often the first point of contact for survivors in a moment of crisis.

And through officer referrals, more than 13,000 survivors have connected with DC Safe's crisis response fund in fiscal year 26.

Their participation in initiatives like the Lethality Assessment Project has strengthened coordination and improved safety outcomes.

We acknowledge the difficulty of their work and support fair compensation for officers.

However, this year's proposed budget raises important questions about whether our current approach is the most effective way to improve public safety.

The proposed increase, nearly 92 million more than last year, including a hundred percent increase in their overtime budget, continues a pattern of expanding investment in policing.

And at a time of tight budgets and limited city funds, we must ask is this trajectory producing better outcomes, particularly for victims of domestic violence.

DC has been successful in driving down community violence, and we applaud those efforts, but success did not come with policing alone.

Success came with investments across innovative programming and agencies.

One example is the multidisciplinary work we do with city agencies through the domestic violence systems review team.

We see every day that we cannot police our way out of domestic violence.

Officers are often responding to situations where underlying needs, housing, financial stability, access to services are beyond what policing alone can address.

Many officers recognize this and are frustrated by the limitations of their role.

These increases while we also see cuts in victim services, access to justice, DHS, and other social safety nets are troubling.

We see we are seeing an increasing severity of domestic violence cases, and we think MPD has a critical role.

But we must consider whether broader disinvestment in the social safety net is adding fuel to the fire.

When communities become more vulnerable, the risk of violence increases.

We must also acknowledge growing barriers to the trust between survivors and law enforcement.

Challenges around immigration enforcement and U visa certification are discouraging some survivors from coming forward.

I spoke with someone just this weekend who feared reporting the full extent of the violence he experienced to MPD because of their partner's status.

Trust is foundational to the public safety, but it will take time to rebuild.

Investments in strengthening entry points outside of the police, such as our crisis intervention center, developed with the support of OBSJG, provide relief in a critical moment.

We will continue encouraging the council and agencies within the public safety cluster to think about how to work smarter in a time of fiscal scarcity.

There are practical opportunities to strengthen MPD's response, including improvements in data collection, transparency, coordination, and communication.

These improvements have been discussed at length during past performance hearing testimony, but these are not solely resource issues.

They're also about prioritization.

As a council evaluates this budget, we urge a balanced approach.

Increased funding to MPD does not necessarily address root causes or system gaps.

We must consider whether continued increases are producing long sus long-standing and sustainable improvements.

Public safety requires a coordinated community-wide approach, like the high-risk domestic violence initiative.

While MPD is a critical partner, they cannot do this work alone.

Investment in social services and prevention are essential to reducing domestic violence and improving safety across the district.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering any questions.

Thank you.

Abel Amin, Policy Fellow, Fair Budget Coalition.

Thank you.

My name is Abella Menne.

I am a Ward 4 resident, and I also work at Fair Budget Coalition as the policy fellow.

And in preparation for the FY27 budget, Fair Budget Coalition has worked over the past year, as we do every year to develop a set of recommendations that ensure our communities have the resources and investments that they so justly deserve.

As it relates to MPD, our primary recommendation is for 100 million dollars to be reallocated from the MPD uh budget to DHS to fund the emergency rental assistance program.

Of course, instead of heeding this recommendation from DC residents, Mayor Bowser has proposed a $688 million budget for MPD that includes more than $89 million in additional funding compared to FY26.

Fair Budget Coalition calls on this committee to not only reverse the mayor's increased funding for MPD, but to also cut an additional 100 million dollars.

DC residents have made clear that they do not want or need more cops.

We need housing and care.

Housing security is an integral component of public safety.

Moreover, programs addressing housing insecurity and other investments in community building simply have much higher returns on investment than throwing money at the police.

This is exactly why we make the very reasonable recommendation of reallocating funds from MPD to fund ERAP.

I know from personal experience that ERAP is an important uh mechanism for preventing evictions, homelessness, and ensuring housing stability among community members with low income.

Nonetheless, uh, while MPD's budget has expanded year after year, the annual EREP budget has been slashed each year since the pandemic, uh, even while the eviction rate, housing and security generally, and rents have been on the rise.

The council should increase increase funding for EREP, and that money should be reallocated from the very hefty MPD budget for overtime as well as vacant and unfilled physicians.

I note also that the mayor has increased uh MPD's butt uh overtime budget alone by 42 million above the FY26 budget.

Like Trump, the mayor is disconnected from reality since this is an arbitrary and capricious increase in police overtime spending, which the council should reverse with no debate.

Investment in safety net programs like ERAP have a better chance of reducing harm and violence in our communities by providing DC residents with housing, real safety and care.

Uh because uh true community safety comes from investing in the people.

Uh, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Talib Karim, executive director of STEM for us.

Um Mr.

Mohamed, you're welcome to testify, but you cannot promote a political campaign in the Wilson building uh at this public hearing.

So if you're you want to testify, you need to take that background off of the screen.

With all the respect, I I am um a candidate for mayor.

I am uh you know, going to try to remove my um my background, but you know, you uh are promoting your political campaign every time you you know speak at this Diaz.

So I I don't think that it's um Mr.

Holland, I need to cut you off right there.

I need you to take your background.

I need you to take your background as somewhat I've just told you I'm gonna I'm working to try to take it off, uh council member.

But again, for you to try to silence what I say.

It's again unfortunately.

I'm not silencing what you say, but I'm gonna I'm gonna remove you.

I'm gonna remove you from the zoom.

Okay, so focus on that.

It's unconstitutional.

I'll come back to you if you're able to remove that from the screen.

Um Christine Corey, public witness.

Uh hello.

Uh so good morning.

My name is Christine Corey, and I was born in Ransdon, D.C.

I am here today to draw attention to the egregious amount of money that MPD allocates to surveillance technologies that put all of our privacy at risk and are not effective at reducing crime.

For example, between 2016 and 2024, uh MPD spent $6.6 million to Sound Thinking Inc., formerly ShotSpotter Inc., this technology is supposed to detect where shots are fired and dispatch officers to these locations, but has an extremely poor track record of accuracy.

Between 2019 and 2021 in Chicago, 86% of deployments by ShotSpotter turned up no report of any crime at all.

In total, the use of ShotSpotter there led to 40,000 data and employment deployments in a 21-month period.

In Houston, only 5% of the 4400 alerts in less than two years resulted in any arrest, which led the mayor to end the use of the technology, calling it a gimmick.

Unsurprisingly, given the lack of accuracy, research has shown no association between the use of this technology and reduced crime, nor any increased likelihood that crimes will be solved.

Not only is this technology expensive, but it also increases the burden on the neighborhoods it is present by causing excessive deployments of police when there is no crime.

Given that one of MPD's main expenditures is overtime, it seems unwise to invest millions of technology in a system that routinely and systematically wastes officers' time without making community safer.

Additionally, MPD spent $4 million on automated license plate readers technology between 2016 and 2024 and intends to spend between one and five million to expand Flock ALPR cameras in the downtown corridor.

Not only are these systems costly, they pose major privacy risks for DC residents.

These cameras are connected to a national network where law enforcement, including federal agencies, can query the data, and Flock has a track record of collaborating with ICE.

Since 2023, MPD has also spent over 1.7 million dollars to celebrate a surveillance company with contracts with ICE, namely on its Pathfinder AI software.

Pathfinder is used to analyze data extracted from phones to track locations, interpret slang encoded language, and analyze images and videos, including facial recognition data.

Access to this data allows MPD and their collaborators to identify and surveil anyone whose cell phone they had scraped, whether they had a legitimate reason to do so or not, as well as those in their proximity, putting DC residents' privacy at risk.

The safest communities are not the most surveilled communities.

They are the communities with the most resources.

We need to stop wanton spending on flashy technologies that invade our privacy and needlessly increase police presence.

We should instead redirect funds to our social safety net.

I do not have time to list all of the underfunded programs where this money would be better spent, but I will close by highlighting the emergency rental assistance program, which provides an important mechanism for preventing evictions and homelessness and providing housing stability for low-income community members.

Stable housing is one of many things that makes our community safer and more secure.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Taleb Kareem Mohammed, are we gonna follow the rules?

Madam Chair, I again I want to reject your position about me following rules.

I don't think you follow the rules as reported by uh you know some of the recent uh comments that you made about your opponent.

But I mean, you talking about me following rules.

Mr.

Mohammed, we show me a rule about first of all, show me a rule concerning uh political expression.

Okay, I'd I'd like to see that.

I'm gonna have a full time.

I'm gonna I'm not gonna let you testify if you're gonna continue on this way.

We treat every person with respect in this committee.

You are not allowed to promote a campaign.

We would welcome to hear your testimony on OUC or MPD, which are the topics of today's hearing.

I'd like to give you your time to do that now, if that's what you're here to talk about.

Well, I'm here to talk about it.

I reject your position.

I'm reject your uh attempting to uh again uh stifle my expression.

And if you're gonna allow me to testify, I'm happy to do so.

But I will not allow you to basically characterize what I'm doing as being uh against the rules.

And if you if there are rules that again suggest that a person can have a particular background, then like for you to show that to me.

I've never, again, I've worked for the council, I served as counsel to the mayor, and I know what you're saying is patently not true.

But I'm I'm happy to, you know, again be corrected if you if you have such rules.

Your time is is moving down.

Do you have any testimony you'd like to share?

Oh, hold on.

For excuse me, I would like to reclaim my full amount of time because we were talking about the rules.

I I told you a minute ago we were starting your testimony.

Please go ahead with your testimony.

Okay, if I can I be given the full amount of uh time because I I have my testimony that I'd like to give.

Uh we were talking about the rules concerning my background.

And I think that it would be again a disservice if the committee uh did not allow me the full amount of time to discuss my recommendations for MPD as opposed to discussing.

Please stop continuing this conversation.

Please go ahead with your testimony.

So will I be allowed to give my full test and ask my question?

You have taken more than double your time at this point.

I will allow you to go for three minutes, but please begin.

No, no problem.

Thank you very much.

Are you able to see me?

I mean, this makes sure.

I'm sorry, you've disabled my video.

Can you uh re-enable it?

We disabled your video because you would not take off your political background.

Please go ahead.

I'm not going to give you extra time again.

Please go ahead with your testimony.

Well, do respect.

I just asked you to turn back on my video so I could be seeing.

I I took down first of all the political background, as I told you I would.

But again, as I just told you, I think that what you're saying is is not legal as a lawyer and as a former counsel to this uh to this body of the uh DC council.

I know this to be a fact, but nevertheless, I am compliant with your request.

Can you please turn on the video so I can give my uh presentation as everybody else has been given an opportunity?

I'm still not able to do so.

Your video is on our screen.

We can see it.

All right.

Uh says great.

Thank you.

So as stated, my name is Talib Kareem Mohammed.

I'm the executive director for STEM for us.

I am a former counsel to the DC Council, former uh special counsel to the past mayor, former chief of staff to the largest DC government agency, and a former chief counsel for a member of the House Judistry Committee, which oversees both the department of justice as well as the district's application for statehood.

STEM for us is an organization that's dedicated to empowering our communities, particularly our youth, through providing quality relationships with mentors and increasing funding or advocating for increased funding uh for such uh particularly in the DC government.

Uh we are here to discuss the mayor's fiscal year 2027 growth DC budget, specifically the 674 674 million, 674.5 million allocation for MPD.

As STEM for us, we deeply believe that the districts the district should be a safe, affordable and free place to live.

We understand that residents, our seniors, our small businesses demand safety.

However, when we analyze the data in the 21.2 million dollar budget, we see critical misalignment.

We're investing heavily in a reactive system that closing cases, for example, uh, after the trauma has already occurred, while simultaneously gutting the preventive systems that stop violence before it starts.

This is not a blueprint for long-term safety, it's a blueprint for managing failure.

The data specifically in fiscal year 2027, the budget proposes um massive funding for recruitment and capital upgrades.

Um it slashes violence intervention uh intervention.

Um support is is basically gutted.

And the budget proposes a $55 million cut to victim services grants.

Um from a STIM for us perspective, you cannot police your way out of violence.

But you can invest in the types of preventative measures, such as strengthening parenting uh and addressing some of the underlying causes of violence within the home uh to prevent that violence from being uh spread outside the house.

Uh we would recommend reallocating funds to restore uh victim services, uh restore access uh to um tech prevention grants.

Uh and we believe that STEM for us would be partner, particularly in exciting our young people, particularly about ways that they can prevent violence using technology.

Uh the surveillance technology that is out there that is being again uh run by companies like Padlantier uh that are totally invasive uh and against our youth would be reversed by partnerships with young people to actually show them how technology can be a value-added partner, uh, both in keeping them safe, their families safe, and their community safe.

Uh, without any further ado, I'd like to again um make myself available for any questions that this committee might have.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

That concludes our public testimony for today.

Thank you to everybody for your time and your insights on these very important budgets.

Um, we are going to turn now to our government witnesses.

We'll be beginning with the Office of Unified Communications, where we'll hear from Director Heather McGaffin and anyone on her team who will be joining.

Hi, welcome to you all.

Heather McGaffin, Director, Office of Unified Communications.

Gavin Swartz Chief Information Officer.

Kim Ross Program Manager.

Excuse me, Douglas Kemp Agency Fiscal Officer.

Wonderful.

Well, welcome.

I'm going to swear everybody in who will be testifying.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony you're about to provide before this committee and the council of the District of Columbia is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Director McGuffin'd now like to invite you to make any opening statement.

Thank you.

Chairperson Pinto.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pintel, members of the committee, committee staff, and council members.

My name is Heather McGaffin, and I'm the proud director of the Office of Unified Communications.

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 a business environment that draws new investment and creates new jobs.

We are 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 reductions have introduced new pressures on our economy and commercial corridors.

That being said, it is important to be clear.

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 to grow while delivering the high quality services our residents depend on.

Grow DC acknowledges the economic realities we face by prioritizing the most critical investments needed to ensure that our city continues to be a place where people want to call home, visit, and do business in.

I'm immensely grateful to Mayor Bowser for providing OUC with the resources needed to execute its role at the highest level in providing efficient emergency and non-emergency communications and reliable access to city services and information.

I want to take a moment, like I always do, and recognize the employees of OUC who demonstrate their dedication to serving the public by answering the calls.

To put this commitment in perspective, last year our 911 call takers and dispatchers managed 1.4 million 911 calls and dispatched first responders from the Metropolitan Police Department and DC Fire and EMS approximately 90,000 times, making the DC 911 center one of the busiest in the country.

Historically, it continues to rank as one of the fourth busiest centers behind the large cities of New York, Chicago, and LA.

In addition to processing tens of thousands of non-emergency police reports, professionals at OUC provide life-saving care.

They provide first aid, CPR, and deliver babies.

And by hosting text to 911 sessions with thousands of callers, the entire OUC workforce understands the tremendous responsibility of this workload, and they take their role in helping to maintain safe, clean, and engaged communities across the city seriously.

Last year, our 311 customer service reps handled over 850,000 calls and facilitated the processing of nearly 900,000 city service requests in coordination with dozens of our DC government agency partners.

Additionally, our 311 social media team processed tens of thousands of requests posted on X.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the feedback we've received about the 311 mobile app and the web portal.

We understand how frustrating it is when the user experience does not meet expectations.

Since these issues were flagged, we've been collaborating with the developer on fixes.

And I want to assure you that updates are on the way.

In the meantime, if you're willing, we ask that you use and share our feedback form, which you can find on the bottom left corner of the 311 online portal or at 311.dc.gov.

So we can understand exactly what you're seeing.

This will help us conduct additional testing more thoroughly and make sure the updates truly solve the issues.

Patience and insight are appreciated and crucial to making improvements to the app and the web portal.

I'm also pleased to announce that we will invite a group of residents from across all eight wards to serve as beta testers of the enhanced platforms before launch.

Lastly, as always, you can submit a service request by calling 311, alerting us via X, or visiting the online portal at 311.dc.gov.

At OUC, we are committed to giving each resident and visitor the peace of mind that we are here when they need us most.

With investments in recruitment and retention, technology and training, we have achieved 97% of 911 calls being answered in 20 seconds or less.

This performance exceeds the National 911 call processing standard, which mandates that 90% of all 911 calls arriving at the PSAP shall be answered within 15 seconds.

Also, that 95% of the 911 calls should be answered within 20 seconds.

Notably, we also saw a 31% increase in the number of agency held records requests and are proud to share that we fulfilled 100% of them within legislative time frames.

In fiscal year 26, major investments were made in technology and capital projects for OUC.

It's important to note that the OUC's budget doesn't just fund 311 and 911 call processing and dispatch, but it also funds the radios, mobile data terminals, and other public safety communications tools used across the city by MPD and FEMS and other government agencies, including the upkeep of all 10 radio tower sites across the city.

This is an immense and necessary part of public safety that ultimately ensures a responder safety.

This project represents the critical capital investment Mayor Bowser made in public safety through the years that helps ensure long-term operational continuity and resilience for the district's emergency communications infrastructure.

This multi-phase project modernized and expanded the facility to fully support 911, 311, and the radio and mobile data computing operations, addressing urgent needs and mechanical systems, spatial planning, and technology infrastructure.

The project truly exemplifies the district's commitment to delivering resilient, modernized infrastructure for public safety operations by providing enhanced operation operational capacity, workforce flexibility, and technological infrastructure aligned with the evolving demands of first in class emergency communications.

The mayor's proposed FY27 budget for OUC enables us to meet the demand of a growing and thriving DC with the resources it needs to do just that.

The proposed operating budget for OUC for fiscal year 27 is $60,186,154, a 6.9% decrease from fiscal year 26 approved budget, and supports 413 FTEs.

Last year, the strategic investments made by Mayor Bowser and our workforce not only enabled OUC to reduce the speed of answer for 911 calls from 15 seconds to an average of four seconds, it also enabled the attainment of APCO's agency training program accreditation.

This accreditation confirms OUC's training program alliance with APCO's American national standards or ANSI and its curriculum materials and documentations, which meet rigorous nationally recognized benchmarks.

It also ensures our 911 professionals receive effective initial and ongoing training and certifications aligned with best practices so we deliver consistent, reliable, and professional service, especially as technology evolves and call volume increases.

Additionally, investments in the workforce allowed for pay parity for 311 and 911 employees whose salaries were disparate within the division, as well as an increased pay for 911 call takers so that they are now paid at a starting rate of $61,313, which is higher than their counterparts across the national capital region.

Funding the entry-level call taking position in this manner provides the means for us to build a solid foundation that allows for career ladder growth for the individual employee while remaining competitive in the in the region to attract and retain the best talent.

If you're interested in position, please go to careers.dc.gov and look for the telecommunications equipment operator position posting, which is live because we'd love to have you join our team.

The proposed FY27 budget includes 20.03 million dollars in operating funds to support 41 FTEs of the IT division and maintenance support and equipment costs for these different facets of the public safety system in the district.

Additionally, in fiscal year 27, the 9.44 million capital budget will fund uninterrupted power supply replacements at the Unified Communications Center, upgrades to the 311 service platform, computer-aided dispatch enhancements, deployment of 160 emergency communications consulates, replacement of 500 portable radios for DC government agencies, upgrades to radio tower sites across the city, and the replacement of aging fleet vehicles.

Additionally, the proposed 9.4 million in fiscal year 27 capital funding will be used to address several critical needs across our emergency communications and support infrastructure.

This funding will go towards replacing aging radio and dispatch equipment, upgrading our CAD system, and our 311 system platforms, making needed improvements to the electrical and communication system that keeps services running reliably.

It will also support the replacing fleet and system upgrades.

Together, these investments help maintain reliable service and strengthen the systems we we rely on each and every day.

To support the ongoing operating cost of public safety, including personnel and administration of 911 and the technology and infrastructure and interoperability, enabling 911 call handling and dispatch, the public services hotel occupancy fee amendment act of 2026 is also proposed in Grow DC.

Annual costs have outpaced 911 fee revenue collections since 2016, causing the agency to rely on the fund balance and an infusion of revenue from events DC to cover operating costs.

FY2027's budget fully depletes the fund balance and the annual shortfall in revenue versus expenditures and estimated to be $7 million.

The subtitle assesses an 80 cent per night fee for occupied hotel rooms.

It recognizes visitors to our city, use our emergency and non-emergency systems, and will fully close the $7 million gap without imposing the full burden on the residents of the district.

As we continue to welcome market numbers of visitors, not only will this fee help us to thrive as a world class city, but it will also ensure that we are able to continue to provide world class services as an agency.

OUC remains committed to being innovative, resilient, and steadfast in serving the residents and visitors of this incredible city.

We are proud our center is one other jurisdictions look to and reference when they're upgrading technology, implementing new programs, and collaborating about new ideas.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have at this time.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you very much, Director McGaffin.

And as always, want to thank you and everybody who works at OUC who is here today and who is hard at work in the agency because it never shuts down and is operating 24 7.

Appreciate all you do on behalf of the district.

Also as always today around staffing.

Because as we look at this budget, supporting our workforce and making sure that all of our agencies have the personnel that you need to carry out your mission is really paramount to our responsibility as a government.

And as I look at OUC's budget, I'm worried about what looks like a proposed reduction in FTEs and with staffing.

And so can you explain the kind of rationale there and what this would mean for personnel, jobs that you currently have, vacancies, and your ability to fulfill your mission?

Sure.

So currently we have 18 vacancies for customer service representatives on 311.

11 of those we're going to keep and we are hiring into that.

They are we are working through pay parity.

A lot of our customer service representatives came to us through DOES programs.

So we have been working with them over the last several weeks to do their resumes and things like that.

They'll be competing for a full-time job for the first time as part of the pay parity.

And then we will backpay them through October 5th, which was the first full pay period of this paycheck.

We've they know about this, we've been uh educating them on that.

And so we will be cutting seven positions.

We are doing that because folks are using the portal and the app more.

And so we are going to say folks, you mean residents.

Residents, I'm sorry, yes.

Uh residents and visitors are using the portal more, they're not calling as much.

So historically, we've had calls over a million to 311.

We're seeing high call volume during snowstorms, after snowstorms, when trash needs to be picked up or during slides, but on a day-to-day basis, most people are using the app, they're using the portal, they're talking to us on X, and we can take the seven people.

We're also going to be, we've also introduced an element of AI with Octo into 311 that has had really positive feedback.

So we are going to pilot uh with the residents that that I talked about with the beta testing group, an overnight AI solution where you wouldn't talk to anybody between the hours of 11 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

Most government agencies are closed.

If you do have an emergency situation, you're talking to a police non emergency dispatcher anyway, which is on the 911 side.

And so we are comfortable with those seven positions.

No one would be losing their job, they are vacant at this time, and we would still be hiring 11 people on, in addition to who we have.

Okay, and for the 11 positions, when are you expecting those to be filled?

We are working with DOES, um, Laheap, other programs throughout the city.

We've always used 311 as a uh program for returning citizens and things like that, um, a program to give people a second chance at a career and district government.

So we'll be working with our counterparts across the the government to fill those 11 positions.

So we don't have a timeline that we think.

June.

That's June.

June, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

And for the seven positions that are proposed to be cut, just to make sure I understand this, these will all be from 311 services.

Well, so there will be no call takers or dispatch positions reduced.

Correct.

We are not proposing any cuts to 911 at all.

Are there any technical support positions being reduced?

No.

The only other positions that are being reduced are in HR and the chief uh well, the chief of 911 operations.

And I I will say about the chief of 911 operations, when I got here, um there were shift supervisors, assistant shift supervisors, operations managers, a chief of 911 ops, a deputy director and director.

And what we have found over time and through some outside analysis is we just had too many people in supervisory and leadership roles, and things were getting lost.

So, what we have been able to do is take some of the funding that funded that chief of 911 operations role and make more of the assistant watch commander positions.

So now we're just taking this position off of our role.

So now we have on each shift four assistant watch commanders, two in call taking, one in police, one in fire, and a watch commander on each shift, two operations managers that report directly to the deputy director.

Um, it has really made things go more smoothly without a lot of layers of of supervision.

Can you say a little bit more about the AI advancements that you all are focused on?

Sure.

So we're using AI in a couple of different capacities.

One on 311, we're asking you what's going on.

Um you're telling us maybe it's parking.

Overnight, it's mostly parking.

Um, it's putting in the call for service and it's sending it directly to DPW's rapid response team for a response out.

If a person would like to talk to somebody, right now it's still transferring them over for a police dispatch.

So the 311 customer service representatives on average overnight together, there's two of them typically are taking about seven calls between them.

So they're they're not really doing a lot of work, and they're really happy and willing to go to a daytime uh shift.

So that's how we're using AI.

Again, if somebody calls and and needs to speak to somebody, they'll just push one and they'll go right over to the police not emergency line and the 911 call takers that are in the non-emergency role can help them and and give them assistance.

Um, and then of course, we're using AI for quality assurance on 311 and 911.

Okay, great.

And in the first example you used, how much cost savings are we anticipating over next fiscal year because of those developments?

I'm gonna have to consult here.

It's yeah, go ahead.

So, in terms of call savings, um, so it's the seven uh CSRs that will be reduced.

Um they start at a salary of probably 47,000, so uh seven by 47 approximately 300,000.

Okay.

Um expand those functionalities to other uses, and are you how are you considering to do that without replacing jobs, but to support the jobs that are already there?

So on 311, I I should also mention this.

Um when you call 311 now, and you say maybe I'm calling about a tree, an overgrown tree.

When you get to the customer service representative, and you've already said that what you're calling about, when they are answering your call, when they're being connected to you, there's um a screen that comes up that says, This is Heather, she's calling from this address, and she's calling about a tree, and here are all the resources you might need to answer her question more effectively.

She's calling from this address, and she's calling about a tree, and here are all the resources you might need to answer her question more effectively.

So we are using AI in that capacity on the 311 side.

So that they're not trying to find it themselves based on what the caller is telling the customer service representative.

It's giving them options of what resources on DC.gov they might be using or what resources and different platforms they might be using.

Great.

Thank you.

Um so there was a recent OIG report that I want to ask you about.

Um particularly it commented around leave usage that came out that identified absenteeism as a real operational risk at OUC.

The report indicated that 30% of scheduled shifts fell below minimum staffing requirements, and then FY 2024, OUC recorded 2,785 unscheduled leave instances and 1763 leave without pay instances.

What is this attributable to?

And do we have updated leave usage data for FY25 and 26?

Yes.

So the OIG report started collecting data in 2020 through 20, the first part of 2025.

One of the things that we did separate from that OIG report was a public safety exercise with with our other agencies in our cluster to look at uh PFL usage, FEMLA usage, sick leave usage, bereavement usage.

And we realized that we had people that had been out for thousands of hours on leave and were outside of their protected status.

And so we did a few things at the OUC to really drive down that those numbers, about 80% actually.

Um the first thing we did is we took an HR um specialist job and we designated that person as a FEMLA and ADA coordinator.

That's their only role.

They um work with folks to understand what PFL is, what FEMLA is, um, they stay on top of when a person goes out, when a person needs to come back, and and what return to work looks like.

We also contacted those people directly who had been out for long periods of time, some of them honestly for a year plus and said, we have to have a plan here.

You can't just be on the rolls.

How do we get you to come back?

Several people we were able to bring back in a real way, um, and some people we had to separate from the agency because there wasn't a path forward for them.

Um and so we were able to open those positions up.

And and so I'm happy to report that since doing that, those numbers of of shifts that are short are have drastically decreased.

And when I looked back in preparation uh for this conversation, um, what I found was most of the time it's just by one or two people, but that um in April, out of 64 shifts, only eight were short, and only one was short by two people, and the other seven were short by one.

So we've really made headway there.

Um, but it's really just holding people accountable and and having a plan, an individualized plan when people are not using protected leave in the way it was meant to be used.

And do you think this budget makes and takes any steps to protect those types of vulnerabilities going forward?

I do, and and I think one of the things that we what we have done as an agency, and I can certainly speak for for OUC because that's that's what I know, and that's what I'm where I'm the director of, is that if we start to see growing absences individually, we're really having conversations, we're really taking a holistic approach, bringing in supervisors, we're bringing in training, we're bringing in well our wellness coordinator to say, why aren't you coming to work?

Is there something we can do to help you?

Um and we have had success there too, because we found that maybe I'm not coming to work because it's a child care issue.

Maybe I'm not coming to work because I'm responsible to take care of somebody else, and I don't really know how to navigate this or um what what my rights are as an employee.

So we have a great working relationship with our union, we have a great uh wellness coordinator, and what I know is that when we started taking this holistic approach, we drove down numbers incredibly and increased productivity productivity incredibly.

Okay, and are you still using attendance incentives?

Yes, we are.

Um, this month actually was the first time we used it.

Um and we did that because we have more people, so it was the first time you used it.

So we um April's the first time we used it.

It was put into the budget for October.

Um, but because of the CA's order, we had to still get permission for bonuses.

Um and so we were able to do that.

But you were using it in FY25, right?

Yes, yes.

So I'm sorry, I should clarify that in this budget cycle.

Okay, attendance was really great throughout the holidays.

In January, attendance was good.

We started to see uh a shift in February, March it was back up.

Um as we're getting into the warmer months, um, people are starting to ask about the incentive, and so we're approaching it a little bit differently.

Um this month it was eight hundred dollars, May it might be a little bit more because we have more people.

Um, one of the recommendations that we took is it shouldn't always just be eight hundred dollars.

Um, maybe in months where it's really busy, we should um up that a little bit more.

And so those are things that we've taken into consideration.

Um, because come June, July, and August when we have a lot of events for the America 250 and and different things, um, it'll be really, really important that we have um people there all the time.

So um we are using it, it does seem to be helping, and um it's not just about showing up, it's about being on time and how much was budgeted for FY26 for those incentives 1.6 excuse me, a million fifty-six.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I want to recognize we've been joined by my at large colleague, Councilmember Christina Henderson, and I will turn to you now for a 10-minute round.

Thank you.

Thank you, um Chair Pinto.

Um, and good afternoon, director, um, to you and your team.

Um, I just have a few questions for you all.

Um, I want to follow up on a question that council member Pinto had asked about 311.

Um, you know, 311 is it's not for they're not first responders.

Uh they're not necessarily part of the public safety apparatus, and yet 311 is super important.

I just talking to someone today who says like they have to um uh put in a request to 311 literally every week about a particular trash can that has not been um picked up.

So um when I see your budget, knowing that people are now using the service more or maybe not, I'm not sure.

I'm gonna ask that question, but um eliminating 10 FTEs.

I'm curious why you all are confident that you'll still be able to keep up with um user demand um and uh also timeliness of responses.

Sure.

Uh good afternoon.

Um we've become really efficient on 311.

It um when I started here, we had really long hold times.

In fact, if you remember, we implemented the go-go music because people were complaining about the terrible hold music that they were sitting on forever, and and now they barely hear that.

Yeah, um people are also using the app more, they're using the portal more, and they're using X more.

Um and when they're using X, they're not just tagging us.

We want you to, but they're also tagging DPW, D dot, the responding agencies.

Um, and so I think the workflow, we've really perfected the workflow, and those we've cut back on our overnight.

People aren't calling at night like they were.

Okay.

Um they're just going to the app.

I mean, honestly, I worked there, I can't remember the last time I called 311, but I use that app a lot.

Yep.

So it's just a change in how people are interacting with us that's allowing for us to cut those positions and still feel confident about the service.

So, what what's the percentage breakdown in terms of method of how somebody reaches out to 311?

I don't have that offhand.

We can certainly get that to you, but I can't do is about um when I started here, I think we took 1.5 311 outpaced 911 on call volume.

So it was about 1.5 million calls.

And last year we took 800,000.

So people are really using the app more than the phone calls.

Yeah.

I mean, look, I think that the app and also social, although the agencies don't always like when I do that, but because I can include a picture so I could be as specific as humanly possible about what I'm talking about, I think that um helps a lot as opposed to when I just make a phone call and you kind of feel like it's out sort of in the ether, um, if you will.

But I know that some agencies have also made adjustments.

So for instance, at D dot, when we change all of the street lighting over to LED smart lighting, now you shouldn't be receiving 311 requests around street lights being out because there's an automatic going back to D dot around that needing to be um to to be fixed.

But okay, I understand um the change on there.

Um in terms of uh other things within the budget.

Um there's a 671,000 decrease in radio engineering.

Um now the budget books don't provide an explanation, so I'm curious.

Are we decreasing on the operations side and that'll be made up on the capital side?

Or was there an equipment refresh that we don't need in FY27?

So that reduction reflects a uh redistribution of costs to our partner agencies that um support the radio system maintenance contract.

Oh, we are uh doling out to other people.

So uh which agencies are um is it FEMS MPD?

So there's uh uh uh 21 agencies that uh supported by the radio system.

21 agencies okay.

So is I mean will it be executed via MOUs?

Yes.

Okay.

So citywide MOU.

Okay.

And so what we're seeing remaining is just the portion that you all would be responsible for.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I want to ask a question about overtime.

There's a whole hearing on overtime with the city administrator uh a little bit ago.

Um your OUC budget, um it is proposing oh no, I don't have that.

Yep, okay, 3.6 million for overtime for FY27.

Um, this would actually be less than um 2025.

How much are you guys how much have you spent to date on overtime this current year?

Uh year to date uh overtime is 2.1 million.

Okay.

Now this year you are budgeted for 2.7.

So let's see.

It's April.

We haven't reached the summer.

You're gonna exceed your budget.

So how do we feel confident about the proposal for 3.6 for next year?

With the our hiring plan, we're as we're bringing on more people.

I I will tell you the one thing that we did not plan for, but we have planned for moving forward, is we have two police dispatchers that are at the joint operation center every single day now.

We had never had that before August of 25.

So we you know, we staff that 24-7, that's four people every day.

At the beginning of that, it was over time until we got more dispatchers in place.

So as our um as we have been able to bring staff in, get call takers, dispatchers, and more supervisors in place.

Our day-to-day overtime is decreasing.

So special events overtime is really what we have budgeted for, and I think it'll start to level out because we always will have overtime like for July 4th.

Because those events the number of things that are going on in the city over the summer, you're gonna have overtime.

That's right.

Um, but I'm just trying to ensure that we're the whole point is we're we just need to be a bit more realistic.

Sure, right?

Obviously, I would want everybody to hire more because if you hired more, I wouldn't be paying all this overtime on all of these additional people in the absence of being able to do that.

But if you feel very confident in your hiring plan, I mean, where are we at in vacancies this current year?

So right now I have 24 TEO vacancies.

I have nine starting.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Nine one call taker.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Um, but I have nine starting on May 18th.

I have a second nine starting on June 15th.

I have six dispatcher vacancies because they were all pretty much promoted and zero supervisor vacancies.

Um so we have a um hiring uh position out for the six dispatchers, and we also have um a position out currently for 911 call takers.

Um and we've worked with DCHR that we've we have more positions out than we know will need because we're gonna promote people, and so it will just keep flowing.

But I also feel like the the nature of your work or the nature of the work that you're both call takers and dispatchers are doing.

Some people might feel gung-ho about it, and then they spend like a month and they're like, hmm, this is not for me.

And I would hate for you guys to have to essentially, I mean, you're gonna have to start from scratch, but to start the recruitment process all over again.

It might just be helpful to continuously for this type for certain roles, just have continuous recruitment and hiring because eventually someone is going to quit.

Like okay, yes, we want everybody to stay, but we just kind of know historically speaking that is just not the case.

Okay, so this is good.

I mean, in terms of making progress on um on the vacancy front.

Um, and I heard the um back and forth that you had with Councilmember Pento about the leave situation, so I'm not gonna um ask about that.

I am gonna ask though about the hotel sub hotel fee subtitle has reappeared from the dead.

Um now the SPR would essentially would in theory would be um allocated to OUC.

Um, but I recall um learning last year during your budget oversight hearing that the funds actually weren't going to your budget, they would go to the general fund and then allocate.

So, right, then they would allocate for the technology piece uh to cover the seven million dollars that we would need to keep the the fund gap.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna have but it would be specifically for tech.

That's right, next generation 911 is very expensive.

Yeah.

Um I don't have enough time to get another question off, and um I would be respectful.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you, Councilor Henderson.

We've also been joined by my Ward 3 colleague, Councilmember Matt Fruman.

I'll turn to you now for 10 minute round.

Uh thank you very much, Chairperson Pinto.

So I just want to understand some of the numbers that you just talked about.

So 24 vacancies, nine coming on in May, nine coming on in June, so 18, so then six vacancies in the call taker, and then six vacancies in the dispatcher.

So you could be down to 12 vacancies, which is congratulations.

That's a real accomplishment.

Yeah, it does raise the question that Councilmember Henderson was raising of okay, if we're there, we shouldn't have very high levels.

I hear about special events, but we shouldn't have very high levels if we're achieving our staffing goals, unless our staffing goals are not ambitious enough.

So are our staffing goals ambitious enough?

At this point in time, I'm really competent in them, council member, and and good afternoon.

Um I I'm really confident in them because not only are I confident in them, but with the incentive and how we're using it and how we've are really holding people accountable for coming to work and and the wellness programs that we've up.

Um people are coming, they're showing up on a pretty regular basis.

Um that was half the battle, honestly.

So you you feel like the wellness programs that you put in place have had an impact and are not just having the number of staff but having uh them come every day is up significantly.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

Um we passed legislation to allow former retired F FEMS and uh police to be able to be called to serve with you and not lose their retirement benefits.

What's the uptake from that look like?

Has that been successful?

Yes, highly successful for DC Fire and EMS employees.

I don't have anybody from Metropolitan Police Department that has uh come to work for us, but six uh DC Fire and EMS and two of our newest supervisors are retired uh battalion chief and captain.

Okay.

Um and then I think at budget oversight at performance oversight, we talked a little about AI and what role AI might play.

I wonder if you can talk a little bit about how the potential use of AI is fitting into this budget.

Yes.

So um the reduction of seven staff members uh specifically in 311.

We are going to be piloting AI overnight.

We don't take enough calls overnight in 311 to justify humans at this point.

Um we've talked to the overnight staff, they are uh really excited to to move to day work.

Um and so the calls that come in are for parking that can be done through automation uh using the AI tools that we have in place.

So we're gonna test that out.

And then we also are going to, there's always gonna be an option if you need to talk to a person that you can certainly get to a police non-emergency and talk to a call taker that that's on the 911 side, and of course, there will always be people there to take emergencies 24-7.

Um and so that's how this really plays into the budget.

Um it also is allowing us to uh do things like 100% of quality assurance without having to ask for additional FTEs.

Um it allows for us to use programming at half the cost of one FTE and get the results that literally are 50% more than what a person could could do.

So when you say that, you've looked at it, you've you've analyzed the data, and you're seeing that in fact that is happening, or is that an advertisement that this is what you could do?

No, this is what we're doing.

So I ran numbers this morning on the quality assurance just for 911.

In 20 in all of 2025, we uh were able to evaluate 35,000 911 calls.

We do quality assurance on 35,000 911 calls, um, which is not meeting the national standard of 2%.

Uh since we've implemented AI from January 1st until today, um, when I ran these numbers about two hours ago, the system has analyzed 90,761 call 911 calls, and it's given objective scores.

It doesn't know the person that took the call, it just knows do they ask the question, did they answer it?

Yes or no, and provided them with feedback on how they did with the call.

So three times as many calls already in four months than it did for the entire year last year with with quality assurance staff.

So it's it's proof of the okay.

Exciting.

Um three million dollar reduction in the supplemental, and it looks like it's related to FTs.

What's what is that about?

Is that because they're vacancies that you've yet to fill, and so the dollars weren't necessary, or what why why a 1.3 reduction here?

I mean, talk about that.

So it's a combination of two things.

Uh first eliminated positions for FY27.

Uh, they're currently vacant, so um that funding is part of the supplemental, as well as uh when we did the pay parity, as we went to execute the actual salaries there, folks would um our staff would increase to um it was um as it compared to the budget amount, there was a 260,000 dollar savings data.

So that coupled with the eliminated positions for 27 gives us the 1.3 million.

And leaves you in a place where you feel like your staffing is gonna is adequate and perhaps the support from AI helps you keep your staffing down, but you're able to do things leaner and meaner.

That's correct.

I'm very confident in that.

Okay.

I asked you about the uptake for the retirees from DC fire and emergency services and the police and fire and emergency services.

It sounds like significant uptake and fairly senior people.

One of the things that we hear about and chairperson Pinto has legislation on is the medical director position.

And I'm curious to get your view on what role the fire and EMS should play in the medical director position and the management of medical decisions that are happening inside of the agency.

They are the frontline folks delivering emergency medical care.

How are you seeing that issue?

Sure.

So obviously, we're two separate agencies.

I work very closely with with Chief Donnelly, but I very much work closely with all of the agencies that we support.

Um, Dr.

Morgan is a great partner, and he signs off on all of the response plans for medical.

Chief Donnelly signs off on all of the response plans for fire and rescue.

Chief Carroll signs off on all of them for um police and law enforcement responses.

The OUC should have its own medical director because we need someone to educate us to take the mental health crisis, the physical health crisis, and be able to educate to understand how 911 responding to an emergency of any kind looks different in the field than it looks sitting behind a console.

Responding to an emergency of any kind looks different in the field than it looks sitting behind a console.

And I always tell the story about how I've done both.

I was an EMT, I was an uh EMD, an emergency medical dispatcher.

I've delivered babies on the back of the ambulance, and I've given someone instructions over the phone, and it was a different experience on both sides.

And so just because you're an EMT and you must love saying that, but go ahead.

Just because you're an EMT and you know how to do something in the field, when you're walking a parent through how or someone how to deliver a baby and sometimes their own baby, just like one of our call takers did just a few weeks ago, is as you may have seen on the news.

It's very different.

You don't have the same resources.

Most people don't have an OB delivery kit in their hall closet.

You're using sheets, towels, shoestrings, and things like that.

And so having a medical director who really understands that and can be there to educate to come to our roll calls to do the things that we need them to do firsthand and work with Dr.

Morgan as the medical director to work with Dr.

Bazron on the mental health crisis uh responses.

That's what I'm looking for.

I'm looking for a partner.

Those folks will all still sign off on the response plans that we dispatch out.

I'm not looking to take that away from anybody.

Um but I think we need to have somebody in-house who can help to educate, certify, and make sure that we're staying up on all the things that we need to be staying up on so we can remain an accredited first-class 911 center.

All right.

Well, thank you for that.

And nicely done in that you used up all of my time, but I was already done with my question, so thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairperson Pinton.

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember Fruman.

Um, and I do just want to note on on this topic that you had raised this, and I think it's a fair concern around limitations of resources.

Um, and I think if we move forward in this in this way, providing an additional set of resources for an assistant, medical director, things to help out will be important.

Um, I also just want to note I have no problem with the word folks.

I just I just uh wanted to be clear if we're referring to residents calling in or your own staff.

Thank you.

But thank you.

Um back to the OIG report.

Um one of the things they talked about was the use of overtime.

What is the current rate of overtime spending that you're using in this fiscal year and what's the anticipated cost for overtime for FY27?

I'm gonna let Doug give you the numbers and then we'll talk about kind of how we're using it if that's what you're looking for.

Great.

Okay.

Year to date we are at uh 79% of the line item budget for overtime.

And average pay period, average overtime per pay period is about 52% above the budgeted rate.

But sorry, what are what are the budgeted rates?

The budgeted amount for overtime uh this year is uh 200, I'm sorry, two million six sixty-two.

And we're currently at about two point one million in terms of the expenditure year to date.

Okay, so two million sixty-two, like two million.

No, two million six hundred sixty two thousand.

Got it.

Is the budget?

Uh the year to date is uh two point one five seven million.

And the year to date year to date um expenditure, no, that that's you want the uh projected year in the projected year in, uh I believe is about 3.1.

3.1.

3.1.

Yes, 3.1.

And historically, how have we been on track with overtime actual spending versus projected projected?

Uh again, uh as far as the pay period, uh, we're averaging about 52% over uh the amount of the budgeted payroll per pay period for overtime.

A little bit higher this year than we have historically.

So, and and I a lot of that is because of these special events or needing extra people because of those special events.

If we have to um, like I said, we have the the two people that are at the jock every day, and so we we've taken that into account now.

Um and we have more police dispatchers that we've put through training, but also um any time there's a major event where we set the where we do the perimeter that we've kind of talked about where we might uh do a perimeter around the national mall, and FEMS has a special response that's just gonna go there, we have to give them a dispatcher for that because that's an extra dispatcher.

They're separate from the rest of FEMS dispatch.

We give them special MPD dispatchers for that, separate from what's at the jock.

They might go to the DRAC, but that's a third and fourth dispatcher.

Um and so that's what's driving that up.

I'm sorry, just before we get to the why, so I understand these numbers.

The 2.6 million projected for FY26, right?

But you said I'm sorry, 2.6 is the budget, 3.1 is the projected year in.

Okay, and then 2.1 is the actual.

Okay.

But that delta between the 2.1 and the 2.6, how do we reconcile that with the 52% overage for each pay period?

Um as far as the that is concerned, um because of the the number that we're over in terms of the monthly, I'm sorry, the the um pay period number.

Um that will that is is causing us to exceed the overtime.

And uh at this point, it's driving uh the cost.

And we're and maybe please let me let me ask this a different way.

Okay, so we're six months into the fiscal year.

Yes.

We have 2.6 million dollars budgeted, right, for overtime spending, but we've spent 2.1 million.

So we're under budget, right?

We're under budget currently, yes.

Okay, we're under budget by about half a million dollars.

Right.

Okay.

For 50% of the year expended.

But then, at the same separately, you're saying that within each pay period, we've been 50% over the amount of allocated budget.

So how are we both half a million dollars or $500,000 under the projected for the first half of the year and 52% over for each pay period?

Okay.

From that perspective, it the 50 per 52 percent that were over, if you extract that, extrapolate that for the year.

Okay, that would give us the projection of the 3.1 of overage.

As we are at the current position.

We've uh burned a lot of the overtime early and it's based on the amount and is it's it's yeah, it's a little difficult to explain from that standpoint.

Uh but the overtime that we are experiencing, it's an average based on the pay periods when you take the full number and extrapolate that over the number of pay periods.

Um Because at this point in the game, we should only be at 1.3 because our total is 2.6.

So for the year, we should be at Okay, there it is.

There it is.

Thank you.

Okay, so we are not under by 500,000.

We are over.

We're over.

Projected to be over by the total for the whole year.

But we're only halfway through the yeah.

But we're only halfway through the okay.

That was my miss.

Thank you.

That makes much more sense.

Um okay, so we're over where we are.

So looking back at the last several years, is that typical for this time of year?

It's a little more than where we usually are.

I think usually we're actuals or more than we're the actuals are a little more than what we usually are.

And right now, then getting into the qualitative piece of this, what do you attribute that to?

Kip just mentioned it, it's it's very true.

The snowstorm was a big one.

Um, because we staffed and then we you know, we use that overtime budget for people, we housed people there, so people were working longer when other folks couldn't get in and things like that.

That overtime that week alone was probably our biggest overtime budget pool sin in the three years that I've I've been here.

Wow.

I there we had like two weeks where um shifts were were really down because people got sick, and so um 19 of the 60 shifts were understaffed, so we had to pull in people for that, and and so I think it's just those types of things coupled with these special events that we just hadn't budgeted for when we made the 26 budget, but we certainly have taken into account in the 27 budget and and have the the staff for.

We have not used overtime for training um in this fiscal year.

Okay.

What happens if you run out of overtime spend?

Like you have a shift, there's an emergency, you need people, but you don't have any money left in the overtime budget.

What happens then?

We work with the executive to identify funds to make it happen, honestly, because we can't.

I mean, it's just a detriment to the whole city and the public safety ecosystem if we just don't bring people in to work the shifts.

Okay, so then in terms of bringing people in to work the ships who are currently planned and scheduled and paid to be there.

Um tell me a little bit more about our or your paid leave policy.

The this individual that you mentioned who had been out for a year, how does that happen?

So they were out, um, they were out leave without pay um was one of our biggest numbers, and that information was in that OIG report.

Um, you know, I'll come back.

They were bringing in doctor's notes, and so what we really had to do, um I I think previously trying to work with people to get a return to work, where now we're just really having to be stringent.

Um if if you can't come back, you have to have another alternative, and it can't be at the expense of the agency's performance.

Um, and and so that's kind of what was happening is is that I'll eventually come back, or I'll come back in a few months, or I've I've exhausted all my leave, and you know, I'll just go in a leave without pay status.

Um what is the authority to go on leave without pay for a year?

It's as people were bringing in doctor's notes and and you know, promises of of coming back, it was something that I think was a past practice that was being allowed.

Um and and quite frankly, maybe even being done in a vacuum or um you know, through workarounds of like I'm gonna come back next week.

Okay, great, you'll come back next week, and then next week comes, and then I have a different, you know, a different set of circumstances and things like that.

And so we really just had to get that under control.

Um and like I said, we we got to a point where once you look at it holistically, you really realize like this is a huge problem that is affecting not just one shift, it's affecting everybody, it's affecting the public safety system as a whole, and we've got to do something about this.

And so we really just um clamped down and said we're not doing this anymore, there will be no more leave without pay.

Um so you don't offer leave without pay at all at night.

None.

Okay, and what are the leave parameters for medical leave, parental leave for OUC?

So we follow the district's guidance from DCHR.

So the PFL, um the the 12 weeks of FEMA, the parental leave, things like that.

But outside of that, if you have leave that you have um accumulated that you can use, we're happy to let you use that.

Uh we do have a policy that only two people per shift can be off on scheduled leave.

So only two people from each shift on police, fire, and EMS, of course, call-outs are different if you call it on sick unscheduled leave.

Um, and then also if you're calling out on unscheduled leave, like sick leave and you don't have it, then we're holding you a wall, and you have to bring in a doctor's note, and we're putting you, we're referring you to the union um for attendance counseling.

And if it becomes problematic 40 hours of of AWOL, then we are separating you.

Um because it's just that important.

12 weeks of paid leave for different purposes.

Whatever purposes the the um DPM allows for, yes, whatever those purposes, however, that is done, because that's done through DCHR.

So however that's allowed.

Have you seen that done at OUC?

We have.

I have.

How many cases of that have you seen?

Numerous.

Uh probably too many to tell you uh right offhand, but I mean, we had there were some people that had like three and four different leave packets.

Um, and so really just getting to the bottom of it about like what is actually allowable or how did this this get to be.

What is your policy around use it or lose it for, or if at all, for accumulated leave, earned leave.

So we have people that are in use that have use it or lose it status.

Usually at the end of the summer around September, we start to tell supervisors, hey, you've got folks that or you have people that are gonna use leave or gonna either lose their leave if they don't use it.

It used to be the position of the agency that we would just ask for a rollover.

I we don't do that anymore.

Uh this is this will be the third year that I will say to employees, you're not rolling that leave over.

So please let's come up with a game plan so that you can use that leave.

Um, because there are some employees that have worked at OUC for 40 plus years and they have hundreds and hundreds of hours of leave because they um they get a lot of leave every pay period.

And so um we've gotten to a place after the pandemic where a lot of leave that wasn't used was allowed to be rolled, and it it just makes it hard to do day-to-day operations and really affects things.

So my goal and and what I I feel that I have done successfully is really just talk to people about what the expectation is.

This system doesn't work if you're not here.

So, how do we get you here?

And how do we make sure that you can still use your leave and the calls get answered or the calls get dispatched?

Um, and so we do not, I have not asked for uh rollover leave for use or lose.

What do you mean not have asked for?

You can ask DCHR to give exemptions and let people roll over their leave.

And I I have not done that for the last two years.

Every year it is use it or lose it.

That's correct.

And over the last two years that you've been implementing that new policy, have you seen staffing levels increase per shift as a result of that?

Yes, because I mean, people you've got to come to work.

I mean, um, we can get creative.

We can let people leave early, you know, if you want to leave early or use a couple hours here, a couple hours there.

Um, when things aren't as busy on an overnight shift, we'll let people do that so that they don't lose it.

They don't have to take the twelve hours in a chunk in an effort so that they don't lose it, but they know to use that leave first so that they don't lose it.

All right, so I'm glad you mentioned 12 hours.

Has there been any efforts over the last year to move the optionality for eight-hour shifts?

We've had the discussions, and people really like the 12 hours because it is the shift that offers them the every other weekend off.

Um there's not another shift out there that allows every other weekend off.

A lot of the shifts are sliding shifts, so they might get one full weekend every three to four months.

Um so we continue to ask people, uh, we continue to take the temperature on that.

Um, they see our conversations at this these hearings, and when I get back, they'll be like, please, we love the 12 hours.

Um we I'm always open to the discussions of eights and tens, um, and am often reminded that the tens didn't work previously when they had them, but certainly I'm always open to it.

What about a combo pilot of some people with an eight-hour shift and some people with a 12-hour shift or multiple shifts so that if you're on an eight-hour, you still get you know weekends off in time.

We can we can look at that.

The problem, I'll just be really transparent with you is what what happens is we have this workforce of uh everything is done by seniority at OUC.

So we have a workforce that has this like big divide in the middle, people that I've worked there for like 25 plus years, and people that have are newer probably five or less years.

The five or less years will always work Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, um, and have like Wednesday and Thursday off because they're lowest in seniority, and they're the bigger group who doesn't want they're the ones saying we don't want that because they want the weekends, they don't want the random Tuesday and Wednesday off.

So but I'm open to that.

I can certainly take that back and work with our union leadership to see what that looks like.

And again, like, you know, I I trust that you are having these conversations and that and you know that people are are telling you that.

I guess I would still say one, I have heard from other members who work at OUC about a concern about this, but two, it is just such a long time period to be sitting and be attentive and be fully focused on what you and I are in agreement with vital life or death work.

Um and so I'm totally sensitive to the reality that people want a weekend off.

Um that makes total sense.

But is there another way then to reshift it so that it's alternating, maybe smaller cohorts doing each shift on a rotating basis so that there's still access to that time off?

I just don't want to that I understand the weekend off concern, but it feels like there might be a resolution that still accommodates for that and recognizes that as human beings we want people to be attentive and handling this really, really important work, that asking them to do it for 12 hours at a time might not be the most sustainable.

Absolutely agree.

And coming in at five o'clock in the morning or 5 30 in the morning also, too.

So absolutely.

I get it.

Okay.

Um, I just feel as though we have had this conversation for several years, and it feels like it might not be the right answer, but I don't know that it feels like any action has actually been taken around trying something out that might lead to more attendance.

There's again, I'm really focused on the attendance and even these overtime costs, like in ways that we can reduce that.

So, you know, I think you know, earlier when we when staffing was critically low, it's really hard to staff an eight or 10 hour shift when you don't have staffing.

And so that was really a roadwalk there.

Um it's just seems like this is what what people like, like that's the feedback we're getting.

But what I can certainly do is make a commitment um to to work with with President Knox from our union, and um get a survey out, and we'll we'll gladly share that with you as oversight and say, here's what the people have said, and we'll propose um, you know, we'll propose some things and and look at the physical impact of that too.

Okay, yes, absolutely.

Okay, so one of the other pieces that the OIG reported was they said the agency lacks a comprehensive risk management framework.

What is your response to that?

And what are the costs of our current um quality assurance and risk management tools?

Yes, so we have a risk manager.

Um just gonna care.

Um the risk management, okay.

So right now, the um the risk management framework, the quality assurance and risk management, right now we this is what I was talking to council member Fruman about.

We were only able to do about 30,000 of our total quality assurance reviews on 911, and only about a about a third of what we were doing on 311.

So now that we have AI involved and we're doing 100%, the cost of that is about 1.8 million dollars.

Um, and the risk management activity is about 38,000.

The framework was around like the physical risks, and now what we can do with the with the AI system that we're using commscoach through GovWorks is provide our risk manager a comprehensive report to show like what the risk is.

So this morning I ran uh like a risk report based on all of the calls that we've taken.

And the risk was less than one percent that people are compliant, they're doing things, they we've been able to flag individuals who are struggling.

Um, and those are things that we weren't able to do when OIG ran their report because we weren't evaluating all of our calls.

So we've you know, we've provided OIG with what we have now with the reporting from the AI tool that we're using.

And so I think that we've helped to mitigate that and kind of build that framework out based on the feedback that we're getting from the tools that we have implemented.

Thank you.

Um technology and CAD reliability, how much does the capital budget for FY27 dedicate to replacing or upgrading the 911 and 311 hardware, software, radios, servers, other firewall needs for the infrastructure of the communications?

Okay, that is um one million 251,238 dollars.

So that is for um the upgrades to 911 and 311, and specifically uh the CAD system, um the 311 system, the the 311 upgrade, the 911 call routing dashboard, and the CAD on call upgrade, which will allow us to interconnect with the federal partners that we need to uh integrate with as well as like Womata, the folks that we take calls for, but then send out to um like US Park Police, think US Park Police if you're in a crash on the Rock Creek Parkway, we take that, we dispatch out FIMS, but not MPD, we send the call over to their dispatch so that they can send out park police officers, as well as um our neighbors.

Arlington 911 has just gone to uh the CAD, the on-call.

So we'll be able to see their calls and the dispatch, like as soon as we put it in or they put it in, it'll go instantaneously for the bridge responses.

Okay, great.

Um, and when are you anticipating that upgrade to be complete?

That is next year.

Next year.

In 207, it's in 27.

Right.

But do we know when?

So we actually have a meeting with our vendor next month to talk about roadmap for it.

So we have to look at the framework, how GAT is set up.

And so once we do that, so we have a meeting next month, and they would come up with a timeline to go with the upgrade.

Okay, but all of the money you need to carry out that upgrade is included in this budget.

Yes, okay.

Okay, it looks like OUC had some underspending across some of the programs and divisions last year.

Can you provide some clarity there of where from your numbers OUC has underspend and why you think that is?

So the a couple of things.

Uh first uh in FY25, there was a spending freeze.

Um also uh just the implementation of some contracts, uh technology contracts that are actually budgeted for FY26 that we're working on now.

So um those two items uh um made up for most of the under spending in FY25.

Okay, and which divisions were those in?

And technology.

Both and technology.

Uh yes.

I I think the other important thing too is I we're still as an industry suffering a little bit from supply chain issues.

Um especially now with the tariffs and and things happening around that.

Um so getting things in on time or when we had hoped we would get them in are being pushed out.

So and then now that they're coming in, it's costing more than it would have at how they come in.

Okay.

Then okay, that makes sense.

But uh sorry, you said that there are two divisions that you had underspending in, and then it was due to technology.

Are those technology divisions or sorry?

I misspoke, not two divisions, but two uh two um uh reasons why there was underspending was the in part the um freeze and then implementation of IT contracts.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um okay, so you were not anticipating that type of underspending next year.

Assuming Congress allows us to spend our own budget.

No, that's correct.

Okay.

And things cost more.

So okay, so our good old hotel occupancy fee has risen again.

Um talk to me about this fee and the special purpose revenue fund, how you've used those funds over the last year, um, and if the use of those funds are outpacing the revenue that you're yielding.

Why why you think this is important?

Sure.

So the OUC in Washington DC in this whole region has always been a leader in next generation 911.

Uh we we estimated just this week that since we've started talking about next gen in this region that Washington DC has spent about 10 million dollars.

I'm sorry, 50, 50 million dollars in 10 years on the planning, implementation, and upkeep of next generation 911.

We are at a point right now where we're on a regional ESI net, which is the core services that allows us to get location, transfer calls with location, all the things that people have come accustomed to here.

We the region is recompeting that right now.

The contract is coming up, and so we have to recompete that with the vendors.

We're gonna spend at least two million dollars to enter into a new contract in the initial year and probably two to five each year after that, just for the technology.

And we're at a place right now where we're we're getting down to zero.

And so if we don't do something, we're going to be in a place where we're going to be looking for money or having to make decisions between do we have people here to answer the call or do we have the technology to process the call?

Um, and that's where no 911 center ever wants to be.

So that's why it's really important to us.

That's why the 80 cents per night of occupied rooms is important.

Um I know that hotels pay a PBX, but they they don't pay it in a way that every phone is paying.

There, it's like it's it's an eight to one ratio.

So they're paying one fee for every eight rooms right now.

That's not sustainable.

Um I I don't know specifically about individual hotels in Washington, D.C., but nationwide hotels are starting to take phones out of the room because Carrie's law, which is a federal law, requires that 911 has to be able to be dialed directly from a hotel phone.

That um change over from having to push nine and then 911 to get an outside line is very, very expensive undertaking.

And so a lot of hotels are just taking the phones out so that they don't have to meet that law.

And so one of two things is gonna have to happen.

Um, you know, a couple things have to happen here.

Um folks are going to have to make these big fundamental changes to their um public exchange systems in the hotels so that they're carries law compliant, or they're gonna have to pay fines, or I think we do this because we have to be able to fund a 911 system.

Those are that's kind of where we're at, and that's where a lot of states are across the nation.

We haven't had an increase in our 911 fee in over 20 years, and we're we're standalone at this point.

Are you nervous about hotels as a result of this fee removing their phone lines and then that ultimately decreasing the amount available to you in the special purpose fund?

I am I am I'm I'm nervous about it because of the law, because as the law starts to get enforced, um, I I think they will start to remove those phones.

Um also as the FCC has ruled that copper lines can start to come out, people are going to start getting rid of their land lines.

Um because the FCC has just ruled that uh people who have the the old copper lines like the Verizon and ATT, those vendors, uh those providers or those um those telcos have been uh since March able to now send out letters to people uh letting them know that they they are either gonna have to switch to a cable provider like FIOS or Comcast or and then the landline that they're accustomed to is gonna be gone because it's just incredibly expensive to upkeep copper.

So how does the fund work or how will it change?

So the fund would change in that the hotels would have to remit 80 cents for every book tonight quarterly, just like the telephone companies have to remit to us on a quarterly basis based on the fees that they collect from the landlines.

We would put that into a fund.

We would use that fund first and foremost to pay for the technologies for next generation 911.

I know there's concern about there are allowable expenses through the FCC.

It does say that you can pay for personnel and things of those nature, but what we really see it as paying for is the technology piece.

Um it'll be enough to cover the technology at the OUC.

Is there a cap on the fund?

No, there's no cap.

What the FCC says is that if you divert funds, um, if you use funds for something that is not an allowable expense, then you become ineligible for federal grant funding.

The last time that we received federal grant funding was 2016.

That was the last time that they had federal grant funding for next generation I want one.

It was from Spectrum Sale.

So how much have you projected to generate from the 80 cent?

Seven it's about seven million annually.

About seven million.

But in theory, if more is generated, that would still all go to OUC for a set of permitted uses.

That's it should, correct.

Okay.

And without that seven million.

You wouldn't we're gonna have to find seven million somewhere to pay for the cost of next generation 91.

Because so we had a legacy 911 system in Washington DC, and then we moved to a next generation 911 system.

And at one point in time we had to keep both up because that was the rule that the FCC said you have to keep both up to make sure that if next gen doesn't take the call, the legacy system routes it to your center.

So we did that, and then we got to a point where we were able to get rid of legacy.

So the cost went down a little bit, but not a lot.

Now we have this next gen.

We can't go back to a legacy system because they're not supported.

Um was the provider that provided that and they don't provide 911 services anymore.

So it's not like we can trade in the new for something old that costs less.

We're we have what we have, and this is what it cost, and um so what happens if that fund is does not reach 7 million.

We'll have to find it from other sources.

We'll have to get it from the general fund, would would be the the crux of it.

I guess I mean, like I I'm always worried about the hotel tax as is because I think that we are not competitive where we need to be in the region, and especially for group bookings that is oftentimes cheaper and other locations.

We're missing out on a lot of that traffic here.

Um but separately, my concern for OUC and you all having the budget that you need.

Why not just budget through the general fund of what you need as opposed to relying on the special purpose fund that is a bit unpredictable?

Those are certainly conversations that that we can have, you know, with I I don't want to get ahead of the executive, but certainly conversations we can have.

But we each state has a special purpose fund.

Some fund it through a fee on phone, some fund it through um through a hotel occupancy tax.

So this is very common.

This is common.

This is this is common in areas where there's tourism.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, thank you, Director.

Um that concludes my questions for you today.

As always, I want to give you a chance if you want to highlight anything about the budget that we didn't get a chance to talk about or any closing thoughts.

Um, you know, I I would just say that our commitment remains to the residents and visitors of Washington DC, to the people who show up each and every day at the Office of Unified Communications to do good work for uh the public safety ecosystem.

And I'd just like to thank Mayor Bowser uh for her commitment to OUC, Deputy Mayor PIA, uh, Chief Carol and Chief Donnelly for their continued support.

Thank you to you, uh Councilmember Pinso to Aloy and to your staff for all their support.

Thank you all.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Mary Pakach, we appreciate you all and look forward to staying in close contact over the next couple of weeks as we uh move through this budget process.

We'll do thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

That concludes our uh portion of the hearing today discussing the Office of Unified Communications.

We are now turning to the Metropolitan Police Department or MPD, where we will hear from our interim chief of police, Jeffrey Carroll.

Where we will hear from our interim chief of police, Jeffrey Carroll.

Hi, everybody, welcome.

Um, if I can ask that everybody state their name and position for the record, please.

Start with you.

Uh good afternoon.

I'm Jeff Carroll Interim, Chief of Police Metropolitan Police Department.

Um, Dan Proud of that agency fiscal officer, Metropolitan Police Department.

Patricia Campbell, Director of Resource Accountability and PD.

Great.

Well, welcome to you all.

Thank you for being here.

Um, if I can ask that everybody turn their microphones on, we're going to swear everybody in.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony you're about to provide before this committee and the council of the District of Columbia is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Uh Carol, welcome, and I'd like to invite you to make any opening statement you have.

All right.

Well, thank you, Council Councilman Pinto.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jeff Carroll.

I'm the interim chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department.

I'm pleased to be here today to discuss MPD's budget for fiscal year 2027 or FY27.

I'm going to summarize my testimony to stay within the time limit, but the full testimony is available on our website at MPDC.dc.gov.

Mayor Bowser's steadfast commitment to public safety and to MPD is evident now in her 12th budget as it was in her first.

A safe city is essential to maintaining a strong DC, a principle that has guided Mayor Bowser's administration over the past 12 years.

At a time when difficult decisions are being made, I appreciate the mayor's budget ensures that MPD will be able to continue full operations, including recruiting and hiring new officers and deploying technology to help combat Nature crime.

First, I'll give you a brief overview of the budget.

MPD's FY27 operating budget provides funding of approximately $688 million, an increase of 14% from the approved FY26 budget.

As always, about nine out of every $10 in MPD's budget is for people, including salaries, benefits, and overtime.

Of the local budget, less than $2 million, or just one-third of one percent is not already committed to salaries, benefits, major contracts such as the police and fire clinic, and vital programmatic spending.

This fraction of a percent covers a wide variety of small but necessary operating expenditures, such as language access interpretation, translation, promotional testing, and subscriptions to legal databases.

In the mayor's FY27 budget, it supports MPD's mission with critical investments in people and crime fighting technology.

MPD's top priority remains its employees, especially hiring and retaining dedicated and talented sworn officers.

With 3,157 sworn members right now.

MPD sworn staffing continues to decline.

In the past five years, MPD sworn staffing is down the equivalent of two police districts, reaching the lowest level in more than 50 years.

The winning strategy will shift from a singular focus on recruitment to a holistic one on retention, wellness, job satisfaction, and workforce modernization.

MPD is focused on these issues for years, so there aren't many uh low-hanging food left the grab.

We have a nationally recognized recruiting and hiring program, and we are one of the first local agencies to offer a hiring bonus.

The FY27 budget continues to fund the hiring bonus along with short-term housing assistance for recruits moving into the city.

And Mayor Bowser's commitment to innovative technology helps keep pace with emerging crime trends and innovative criminals.

So what else can we do?

We know we can't outspend all the agencies that we're competing against.

Given that, we've looked at our top challenges and our competitive advantages to identify low or no cost proposals to broaden a recruiting pool.

The Budget Support Act, or BSA, includes includes proposals to support hiring and retention.

First, I urge the Council to reconsider the proposal from last year to allow new recruits to be hired with no college credits and earn the 60 college credits through an MPD partnership with an accredited college.

Frederick Community College has evaluated the MPD recruit training program and agreed to grant 41 credits for successful completion of her coursework.

Under the proposed program, FCC will provide 19 credits of classroom training at MPD for each cohort.

This change is absolutely essential because in this region, only MPD and Arlington County police still require college credits for new recruits.

This leaves MPD at a significant disadvantage in recruiting new officers.

Our proposal does not eliminate the college credit requirement, but it provides a different path for achieving it.

We appreciate that last year the council approved compromise legislation by reducing the prehiring requirement from 60 to 40 credits.

However, since then, we've not had any applicants applying under it.

One key reason is likely that most college students who drop out of school do so in the first academic year.

According to recent data, 22 percent of all first-time, full-time freshmen drop out of college.

This is more likely to impact first generation college students.

This proposal will give more young adults a fair shot while helping MPD to begin to rebuild its sworn force.

I urge the council to pass this amendment.

If the 60 college excuse me, if the 60 college credit requirement is one of the top hurdles in hiring, MPD's cadet program is one of our strengths.

The cadet program allows MPD to bring in young adults to earn a good salary for part-time work while completing college coursework at UDC.

The program provides not just a scholarship, but also life skills and lessons.

It can help keep young people on a positive path to success so they'll be able to still be eligible to be hired as a recruit by the time they reach the necessary age.

The BSA expands MPD's cadet eligibility.

While MPD may not be the only cadet program in the region, it is one of the most strongest and most established.

We can use this competitive advantage to recruit young adults graduating from high school in the region who may also want to become a police officer.

Our program harnesses that early interest in law enforcement and keeps them employed and engaged until they are eligible to apply to become recruits.

I recognize the cadet program has been by design a pathway for DC students and residents.

I agree that it is important for DC students to have top priority, but MPD has been authorized for 150 cadets for years, yet actual cadet staffing is consistently hovered around 120 to 130 cadets.

As we hire more cadets, others graduate and transition into recruits.

Under the proposal, DC residents would still have a hiring preference, but up to 25 slots could be filled by cadets from jurisdictions within the Metro Washington Council governments area.

We think this pool of applicants is a good prospect for the department and for the city.

While the proposals regarding college credit requirements and the cadet program would expand the hiring pool, it's also important to consider retention efforts.

MPD's strong pension plan is, on the one hand, helpful for recruitment, and on the other, it makes retirement a financially sound decision.

Swarm members are able to retire, collect their pension, and take another job or career.

MPD's long-standing senior police officer program has provided an option to allow members to apply to return to MPD after retirement at a rate of pay no more than the middle step of an officer's pay scale.

Through this program, MPD and the city have been able to retain trained and experienced members at a lower salary.

It's important to note MPD retains the description of whether to rehire the member.

Poor performers are not welcomed back.

Unfortunately, legislation passed by the Council in 2022 had what we think was an unintended impact on the program.

The Council codified MPD's practice by prohibiting hiring any swarm members who have previously committed serious misconduct to ensure that poor performers from other departments did not get a job with an MPD.

MPD supported this change as it was already our practice.

However, because our SPOs are rehired, members with serious misconduct in their history are no longer eligible.

This includes members who may have violated policy 10 or 20 years ago, but then have continued to serve MPD in the city very well after that.

The BSA would modify this prohibition for the SPO program.

They will be prohibited from being rehired only if a member received a suspension of 10 or more days in the five years prior to retirement.

To be clear, MPD would still maintain the discretion not to rehire someone as an FPO if they would not be a valuable member.

But the amendment would acknowledge that discipline has been the discipline is intended to be rehabilitative, and MPD is in a position to determine whether a retired MPD member can continue to have a positive impact.

Moving on from the staffing discussion, strategic investments in technology make our crime fighting efforts more effective and efficient.

Technology can be a forced multiplier, which is essential given our current staffing levels.

Mayor Bowser's FY27 budget continues to make strategic investments to make our communities safer.

CCTVs and license plate readers are proven technology that can provide real-time information to responding officers.

They support better investigations and prosecutions that ultimately decur crime and help inform the deployment of resources.

LPRs have been valuable in locating this in persons, carjacked vehicles, and vehicles used in violent crime.

MPD has been able to leverage these tools to even greater effect in our real-time crime center.

Their use has contributed to high closure rates for violent crime.

Closing cases is especially difficult for shootings in public space, which has long driven DC's violent crime.

For instance, there is rarely DNA in these cases, and it can be harder to identify any relationship between the victim and the suspect.

Increased use of cameras helps to bridge this gap.

Mayors Bowser's FY27 budget continues investment in this vital technology with 145 CCTVs and 50 LPRs.

In addition, the budget funds an expansion of MPD's drone program or the purchase of six indoor and eight outdoor drones.

The indoor drones are needed for use in barricades and other life safety missions.

The additional outdoor drones are needed to ensure equipment is available for operations and training, even when some are undergoing routine maintenance.

Lastly, the budget includes an annual planned investment in replacement vehicles with 240 marked and unmarked cruisers and 23 motorcycles and scooters.

In addition to the funding I've highlighted, the BSA includes a provision to support greater efficiency in handling fingerprinting and the FBI background checks.

This BSA provision will enable MPD to apply to the FBI for authority to contract with a channeler to address this challenge.

A channeler is an FBI approved private contractor that acts as a liaison to submit fingerprints to the FBI.

DC must be must be identified in the law enforcement categories of individuals subject to the background check, and the FBI must approve the legislation before MPD can contract with the channeler.

However, the FBI will not review proposed legislation or provide feedback unless it is enacted.

The language approved in the FY26 BSA was deemed insufficient by the FBI, underscoring the uncertainty of federal approval.

This proposed revision is informed by some feedback that the FBI did provide on the FY26 BSA.

Multiple agencies and industries have asked for this opportunity to help streamline their administrative processes.

Last week, the Committee of the Whole approved similar legislation, the Background Check Adjustment Amendment Act of 2025.

However, that bill focuses just on just one industry, background checks for entities providing services to children and youth.

I encourage the council to support the more expansive program provision in the BSA.

Lastly, I'd like to address the use of overtime, a significant cost driver in MPD's budget.

First, let me reassure the Council and our residents that I'm committed to being a trustworthy steward of DC resources.

Since being named interim chief, I've been working with my team to identify efficiencies in overtime usage while maintaining a positive public safety impact.

All overtime must be approved by a supervisor.

In addition, overtime has reviewed each pay period across the agency and by managers in each bureau.

There have been some initial successes with a 14% reduction, almost 50,000 hours in non court local overtime hours when compared to the same periods last year.

Drivers of local overtime correlate with historically low staffing.

MPD must be able to respond to calls for service while continuing proactive crime deterrent efforts and meeting the unique needs of the nation's capital.

Although the city has enjoyed a positive start to 2026 with historic lows and serious violent crime over the first three months, violent has ticked up in April.

Combating this upturn may require a local overtime.

Other factors, such as the continued prevalence of teen takeovers will also draw a line, will also draw on limited local resources.

In addition, as a country celebrates its 250th birthday, DC is expected to host numerous large-scale events, including a two week Grand Great America State Fair, the Grand Prix race, and more.

The district may be hosting record breaking crowds throughout the summer.

MPD will certainly need to use additional overtime to staff these events and maintain response to residents and a presence in our neighborhoods.

While most of this overtime will likely be reimbursed by Federal dollars, there may be some impact on local overtime.

Lastly, even if overtime decreases, the cost will increase in FY26.

This is the first year with a higher pay scale under a new collective bargaining agreement for sworn members.

The new pay scale incorporates a cumulative raise of 13 percent for FY24 through FY26.

In closing, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present Mayor Bowser's FY27 budget for MPD.

Like several recent years and recent years, the FY27 budget will require difficult choices.

This year started out very strong with levels of lower crime than DC has experienced since perhaps the 1960s.

However, the violence the past month has been a stark reminder that we still have far to go to ensure that all of our neighborhoods and residents are safe.

In short, we cannot take our foot off the gas.

The funding for MPD and the mayor's budget is critical so that we can continue the significant progress we've made.

A safe city makes all other progress possible.

Therefore, I strongly urge this committee and the council to fully fund MPD's FY27 budget.

Thank you.

Great.

Well, thank you very much, Chief Carroll and team.

Um and I want to thank everybody who works at MPD who's here today, and patrolling our streets and handling every position in a very difficult year and environment and appreciate all of your service to the district and in keeping everybody safe.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

Um I want to start with a discussion around staffing.

Um I appreciate that there's been a recognition in this budget that we need to focus on hiring and building back up our force that is now facing, as you mentioned, a 50-year staffing low.

How does this budget specifically focus on hiring so that it is not an inevitability of what you said in October or September of 2027 that we are still at 3,000 officers?

Yes.

So the budget supports hiring uh 216 FTEs.

It also maintains the hiring bonuses that we already have for our members.

Uh it maintains the housing allowance that we provide to new folks that join the department as well.

And it also fully funds the uh the police officer retention program, which helps to retain officers.

But outside of that, uh the real area I think that can open up the aperture is the uh the amendments in the budget support act.

Um, like I mentioned inside my testimony, uh, only MPD and Arlington County have the 60 college credit requirement.

So the proposal in the BSA is to allow folks to join the department with no credits, go through the academy, which opens up a wider pool of applicants than we currently have.

And this is a limitation, like I said, that we only we have in Arlington.

Even places like Montgomery County have lowered that.

So what it does is it only lowers it to come in, you still gain those credits and you still leave the police academy with the required 60 college credits.

So it is just another way to uh to actually get to that same goal of everyone having 60 credits before they leave the police academy actually hit the streets, but it opens up an applicant pool to an area that we have not been able to uh to touch in some time.

Okay.

And talk about what goes on at the police academy.

We have seen a change in requirements as a point of entry for some of our Federal agencies.

Um at the police account.

Sure.

So there's no change other than the initial entry into the to be hired into the credits.

There is no change to any of the other requirements.

So the same requirements in the police academy, fiscal requirements, educational requirements, are there, and actually they would get additional credits.

So they would finish the police academy, and there are still 19 credits they'd have to have to get to the 60.

So they receive received additional classes as a cohort from Frederick Community College before they actually graduate.

So they would actually spend about an extra month or so in the police academy to make sure they have all that.

So they go through all the regular things that police officers get as far as DC code, uh, you know, report writing, uh, driving emergency vehicles, firearms, and the different uh less than lethal weapons that we use, also how to interact with different types of community members, how to interact with juveniles, all the things that we do as far as first aid and those types of things, how they handle first men demonstrations, but on top of that, we would get additional coursework that would also support that.

So there is no lowering of any standards of the academy.

There is actually additional education that this would provide.

Great.

Thank you for that clarity.

Um losing a month of for let's start with FY 6.

Approximately 20 a month.

Okay.

So we're losing about 240 officers a year.

Yeah, we assume that we will lose about 240, 245 in a year.

Okay.

So you just said that this budget accounts for 216 new hires.

Yes, that's what we we believe this budget will support 216 new hires.

So if that level of attrition continues, this budget is still in the middle of the year.

There's still the numbers.

No, no, the numbers will go down.

No, it absolutely would.

And so that's why we talk so much about the budget support act and then need to open that aperture.

We believe we can fund, we'll be able to make up the difference if we are able to get more people in.

But we didn't want to come in with an unrealistic expectation.

If those those uh amendments aren't passed through there, we basically will sit in the same boat that we're in right now as far as the applicant pool uh of who's there.

So really passing that would allow us to go above that, but we didn't want to um you know underestimate what actually would be there.

So that's why it's so important for me with some of the provisions of the Budget Support Act, as well as the SPO portion of that where we talk about changing the requirements.

Before that requirement was put into place, uh we were maintaining a much higher number of senior police officers in the agency, and that year we had a had a big drop.

We have not really picked back up that number of senior police officers since then.

With SPO requirements, sure.

So the SBO requirement regarding the the serious misconduct.

So uh referenced it in the testimony.

So under the uh the comprehensive police and reform act, if you have any serious misconduct, you cannot be hired.

The unintended consequence with that is you could be an MPD officer who, you know, 28 years ago uh you had sustained serious misconduct.

Uh but for the prior 26 years since then, you've been a model employee, you've done great things, you've had no other reoccurrences.

However, currently the law does not does not allow us to rehire, because technically it's uh it's a hire that person back to as an MPD employee, so they can't be a senior police officer.

So every year we rehire our senior police officers.

The year that was enacted and came through, we had a big drop in senior police officers because of that new requirement.

So this legislation would it would still leave a requirement in there uh as it relates to serious misconduct.

Uh within the past five years, you cannot have a suspension of more than 10 days, and it still allows MPD to make the determination if the person should be an employee or not.

And that authority still lies with you?

Yes, exactly.

Still would lie with you under this proposal annual.

Exactly.

It would still lie with us.

However, if you did have a more than a 10-day suspension within the past five years, you would not be eligible to come back.

So it really addresses that concern of folks who, you know, more than five years ago may have had serious misconduct, it would allow them to apply.

It doesn't mean they would be hired, but it would allow them to be considered for the process.

And how many officers do you think that expanded authority for you would yield in the senior officer program?

A year, let's say.

Let me see if I I know the year that we uh that it got implemented, we had a fairly sizable drop in there in our SPO numbers.

I don't know if I have that number right on hand right now, but I can get back to you what it would look like.

But it's just a a rehired designation.

So it's these are officers who are already work at MPD, but they wouldn't be able to become senior officers.

So that's what happens now entirely from the department.

So it's back to the retention portion of it.

So we would be able to retain, because remember, to get our numbers up, we need not only to get new people in the door, but we need to retain uh the folks that we have now that's here.

So it's it's a two-fold uh system.

Are there any other ways that we can get more folks into the senior officer program?

Um I know there have been conversations about a drop program.

I don't know where at with that.

Uh I know that's another area that folks have interest in.

Um, you know, the things that we do right now as far as the police officer retention program, the educational incentives, both towards the end of their career and that period between three and eight years, um, that's been successful as well.

This budget does continue to uh to fund that as well.

So if we passed the portion of the BSA that did what we tried to do uh last year as part of our peace um DC bill, we tried to change these standards for the point of entry under recognition that a lot of people don't and will not have a college degree in a traditional way moving forward and that we want that training to go through the MPD Academy.

There were changes made to the bill as we went through the legislative process.

Um but if that passed in this budget and the spigot, so to speak, turned on to allow for more applicants, then where would we find the funding from to ensure that we can actually hire them if we've only accommodated for 216 officers and are losing 240?

Absolutely.

No, that's a great question.

So if we're able to bring in more officers, then we can start shifting that money from the overtime expenditures which have gone up to the new officers, which have a much lower salary.

Same thing with our senior police officer program.

An officer who's got 25 years on as an officer or maybe even a sergeant or whatever, they make a much higher salary than a senior police officer who comes in a mid-range of the officer scale.

So those are ways that getting new people in actually would try overtime would come down so the money can start to shift like that.

Okay.

You mentioned that actually I'm going to come back to that to make sure I can ask about something else.

So for overtime funding, um, you know, I appreciate the agency's uh effort to more accurate accurately reflect what the overtime needs will be, which I think has been misrepresented to some in the public that this is an increase in the budget when really it is an accurate reflect more accurate.

Of the projections that we have seen.

But I guess tell me about how decisions are made with overtime.

You mentioned that you found some efficiencies in overtime spending.

What were those efficiencies and what types of events warrant absolutely needed overtime versus events that may be able to be handled a different way without reliance on overtime?

Yeah, so the overtime is is a very complicated issue.

So there's certain things on overtime.

We talk about special events, uh, think about 5Ks, marathons, things like that.

Those are uh in most cases, unless it's you know like a July 4th or something, those are those are funded by whatever entity is putting that on.

So that's a reimbursable detail.

Um so of course that's overtime that's funded through them, members are paid that way.

Uh then you have other overtime that we are we have to handle.

Things like uh the president of the United States, when he moves, the vice president moves every day.

Uh those members aren't on duty, and that's incursion of overtime that comes with that.

Think to the uh the the correspondence center of this weekend, the staffing that we had on the outside of that, uh that's mandatory overtime that we have to staff to make sure that the perimeter of those things are uh are safe in coordination with the Secret Service.

There's overtime that's associated with that.

The same is true when the king's here in town.

The king is a high-level dignitary.

So in order to staff the motorcade routes with that, those are overtime that we have to staff.

So there's kind of that that bucket of overtime is over there.

Uh and then you have things like uh our different sporting venues.

So think about you know, NATS Park, uh, Capital One Arena, Audi Field, officers that provide enhanced visibility around on the outside of those facilities because the inside is handled by the organization.

Uh, but the city has an obligation on the outside of those areas to provide enhanced presence, traffic closures and controls.

You can think about the officers that help to get the uh the vehicles out of there at the end of the games and the end of the concerts and things like that.

So that's another you know area of overtime, we would say.

And then you have court, you know, when officers make an arrest, they have to go to court.

In many cases, unless the officer is assigned to work day work, um, a lot of times there's there's overtime that's incurred as it relates to going to court to testify as well as going to the DMV if there's DMV hearings that are related with that.

And then we have, you know, overtime is relate to just uh uh operational activities.

So what does that mean?

Uh maybe you have an arrest at the end of your shift.

Uh you can't just stop the arrest and go home.

You have to stay incur overtime to make sure the arrest is fully processed, the paperwork is completed and to move on like that.

Uh then we may have crime trends, right?

We may have an uptick in violent crime that may require additional uh resources to be deployed, maybe because we're low on staffing, uh, maybe because we've seen an uptick in crime in a specific area.

So we the watch commanders along then uh with the district commanders to look at that and they would use overtime to backfill to make sure we have the appropriate resources that are on the street, or to address and maybe an increase, for example, in violent crime inside an area.

So it's kind of a long answer, but there's different buckets that are looked at.

All overtime has to be approved by a supervisor beforehand.

Uh if overtime is used for an operational plan, like a thing like I just spoke about, whereas there maybe there's an increase in violent crime in the area, then the commanders would develop a plan of how they're gonna use that overtime to deploy those resources in that area, and then we would evaluate that to see is it something how long do we need to continue that?

Okay.

Oh, I thank you.

I'm gonna return to this.

Um, but we've been joined by my at-large colleague, Councilmember Robert White, um, and I will turn to you now for a 10-minute round.

Uh thank you very much, Chairperson uh Pinto uh Chief and uh Ms.

McGaffin.

Uh thank you for uh being with us today.

I'm currently chairing uh my own hearing, so I will uh be in and out.

Um and just uh want to touch on uh a couple of issues.

A constituent recently reached out after noticing what they believe may be a pattern involving their clients in one case, an individual stop near North Capitol Street and Rhode Island Avenue on March 2nd was arrested by MPD for an alleged uh expired tag, released from the second district station and then detained by ICE outside of the station in a second case on March 25th, and Uber driver stopped near children's hospital for speeding was arrested by MPD, held overnight, transported to DC Superior Court and later taken into ICE custody.

What policies govern MPD coordination or information sharing with Federal immigration authorities in situations like these?

Yeah.

So there I mean there's a law of DC code that discusses specifically what information we can and can't share.

Basically kind of it comes down to is once you are inside custody, uh you can't share any information as it relates to that on the MPD side.

Um the two instances that you referred to specifically, I'm not familiar with.

Um, but that's kind of the outline of what the law is.

So MPD does not engage in civil immigration enforcement.

We shouldn't uh we're not asking people we're prohibited by law from inquiring about their immigration status with that.

Is there a way for Federal immigration authorities to know uh whether someone that may be on their radar has been arrested or is being released from a police station?

I would imagine there's a way for them to know to to know uh when I say that you know when a person is arrested, they get booked and then it goes into uh the correction system.

I don't know what kind of visibility they have, but I do know, for example, when you get arrested, uh, you know, if you're held, you go from uh DOC custody to the U.S.

Marshals, which is obviously a Federal agency.

So there is information that in those systems, you get on the lockup list inside Superior Court, which is you know part of the Federal Government as well.

So there's definitely information that goes across those areas there.

Okay.

Um obviously we've seen, I know you've seen it as well, videos of of officers, uh well, one video of officers dragging uh two youth off bikes, uh, other videos of uh taunting uh youth at metro stations, which has raised questions among residents about whether these approaches um uh uh improve uh public safety, particularly with respect to to young people.

Uh some young people from Black Swan Academy told me that they need what they need most are trusted adult uh mentors, and the council passed uh the youth mentorship through a community engagement act in December of 2024.

And and and these concerns underscore why we need to identify funding in this budget to implement the solutions.

Young people themselves have requested.

So I'll be looking for opportunities in this budget uh to work with my colleagues uh to fund this and and other similar measures.

But while we work to fund these prevention strategies, the residents also deserve clarity about how youth are treated when multiple law enforcement agencies are present.

When federal officers are operating alongside MPD in areas with large youth gatherings, are they required to follow MPD's protocols for interacting with youth, including uh de-escalation standards?

So MPD policy does not apply to any any federal agency.

They're they're guided by whatever their home agency policies are.

Um so what does that mean?

That means if you work for the United States Marshall Service, you're bound by the policies of the Marshal Service.

They don't have to follow air, air rules and procedures.

Obviously, MPD officers that are assigned to the Metropolitan Police Department, uh they receive training as relates to juveniles and how to interact with them.

Uh and then, as you mentioned, there was uh you know an incident that gained some attention that investigated incident is being investigated uh as well.

Um if they are not required to follow the same protocols as MPD, do you think that runs the risk of um creating safety issues and and uh creating distrust with with our law enforcement?

I don't know if it runs the risk of that.

What I would say is most law enforcement agencies that I'm aware of do have a requirement to to de-escalate, but what their specific training is or what that looks like, I can't really comment on.

Um I do know, you know, what we've seen in a lot of these large-scale team takeovers are you know, a lot of a lot of folks that are out there, and it takes a lot of resources as you alluded to to try to get those things under control.

For us, the main thing is to let everyone, the young people, community members, folks that are out there being a safe environment to be out and enjoy the evening or the nighttime, whatever it may be, but that way everyone can be safe, the young people and the other folks that are out there in those different areas.

The the majority of young people in these large groups are not doing anything illegal uh aside from whether or not there may be a curfew in place, but when there are a couple that that may do something, um does that create a uh a safety issue uh for the city?

It definitely does.

I mean, unfortunately, we saw the incident where the the young person, yeah, juvenile discharge a firearm in the Navy Yard about last month when there was one of these large takeovers, another another young person juvenile was seen running from the scene, a firearm was recovered.

So, you know, things like that.

I mean, it puts the safety of all the young people and not just young people, but other adults and folks that are out there in those cases.

Uh as you mentioned, there is usually when there is issues, a small group of individuals that are there.

So that's why, even for example, with the emergency legislation and now the mayor's order as relates to curfew, there's so many uh things that are built into as relates to the size of the group to be in violation, uh the information that we need to designate the area, as well as the warnings that we give, because the goal is not to bring someone as a is in a curfew violator, it's to try to break the groups up so they're not so large to make it more manageable and to make sure it's safe for everyone now.

Obviously, if people are shooting guns off or carrying firearms or assaulting each other, then the appropriate police action needs to be taken.

But we want to make sure that everyone is safe in those areas.

Right.

And so, yeah, so even if there are a lot of young people, uh the few people doing very wrong things is still wrong.

With the federal officers, if the majority of them are doing something right, this incident with the federal law officer grabbing two young girls off the bite, was that wrong?

I think that that my understanding is that was not a federal officer, that's an MPD officer, and that's being investigated.

Okay.

Uh so we agree that's not okay.

Absolutely.

That's why we're investigating to see exactly what happened and look into that.

How many officers are being deployed uh to curfew zones?

So it depends.

Uh it depends on what information we have.

Uh so it depends on how many curfew zones we have.

And then if we don't have curview zones, we still deploy officers inside certain areas where we've seen uh issues at.

So what does that mean?

There's certain areas, for example, the Navy Yard uh where we see pretty much every weekend some some level of juvenile activity, uh, either based on on flyers that are posted online, a lot of these things go on social media and go around.

Uh so kind of the areas that we've seen have also kind of shifted sometimes too as we deploy resources in areas.

There's other areas where we start to see um the team takeovers happen.

Example would be the shift we saw over in NOMA and Alethe Tanner Park, we had issues that moved over there.

So putting resources in those areas that try to mitigate that, um, if we have a uh a juvenile curfew zone or not, um, it has been successful to help tamp down uh those things, but it does take a lot of resources.

Um and of course we have to have the ability to shift those resources because you know, uh since you know young people may see officers over here, they may go to another location, so we're gonna have to have the ability to shift those folks uh to address those issues.

So the the curfew zones have an impact on police coverage in other parts of the city?

No, that no, so we're staffing those with overtime, so it has an effect on our overtime usage, is what it really does.

Um and then we have to shift resources to address that.

So, for example, uh, you know, we're using overtime resources in the Navy Yard to have increased staffing over there because of what we're seeing inside that area with the uptick in visitation, more young people that are there in those time frames.

Okay.

Um the one issue I want to make sure I have time to get to, so let me go there now.

Um residents sometimes report to me that after a shooting or other violent incident, uh police response ends quickly while communities continue to deal with uh trauma and uh disruption.

I uh recently spoke with the families of uh Tayo Coates and Milo Young, uh the two children killed near a food truck uh during spring break.

Their families and community members said that they had received no outreach or support after facing what is unimaginable loss.

Uh after a violent incident occurs, what role does MPD or partner agencies play in coordinating uh with violence interruption, trauma services, community uh and family support?

Yeah, so on that aspect in those cases, especially in homicide cases, we have a victim support section within in their uh air homicide unit that does outreach and connects those families.

So I'll follow up and look and see what that looks like there.

Um also, you know, in those areas, we have put an increased presence over there, working with the violence interrupters to try to get information.

You know, we continue to investigate uh those those does uh intensely, and it's one of the highest priorities that we have.

So working with the community to get information with that, but also the deployment of resources and VIs in those areas is something that we work with the other agencies for, uh especially when we come to the juvenile area and pushing that out to for awareness, uh not only to our partner agencies, but to see what else they can do in those situations.

Thank you.

If we could work together on that and uh with my colleague, Councilmember Fell, there just you know, the impact on the other young people in the families there is is tough to process.

I I know you and your your team know about that.

Uh so thank you.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh thank you, Chairman, uh Chairferson Pinto.

Absolutely, and thank you so much for joining us.

Good luck in your hearing.

Um I think what that conversation lends itself to another area of the budget that is concerning around the cut of family services out of the one's office.

And so if we're reducing another agency's ability to provide those wraparound supports and grief counseling and funeral expenses, which is now cut across all of our agencies that um were supportive in that way, you know, a lot of people are gonna be relying on MPD to do even more.

And you know, needs to be, we're working to resolve in the budget.

Um, I do want to just clarify something about the conversation you just had with Councilmember White as it relates to the juvenile curfew.

Um without this tool, can you speak about what that would mean for the staffing strains and overtime strains in order to respond to the large team takeovers if you weren't able to say in this specific area we're going to use this as a preventative tool to have an earlier curfew?

Yeah, so more likely than not, what we'd have to do is we'd have to deploy even more resources in the area because then they would come to the area, and now we have the ability if they're in those zones to have them break into smaller groups, which are more manageable, or they can go outside the boundaries, it kind of thins out the crowd.

Uh but without that, we'd have more people.

So just like when we have a large crowd anywhere, maybe downtown or wherever, we need more resources and more officers and more folks to be out there to ensure that they can monitor the crowd, and if there are any issues or if a fight breaks out, they can immediately intercede so it doesn't turn into a complete melee.

Okay.

So if we don't have the juvenile curfew in place, we can expect more strain on officer staffing and overtime.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Um, just to make sure I have these these numbers again for FY 2027, we're anticipating that we can bring on 216 new recruits.

Based on our current uh requirements as far as the SPOs and with the um college requirement, yes.

Okay, and how about new cadets?

Uh so with that, we we think there will be about 20 cadet conversions into that.

Uh the cadet numbers, the cadet numbers really depends on how many roll over.

As I mentioned in my testimony, um, as we talked about the provision about the cadets, we hover in that area about 120 and one to 130 uh with the cadet numbers.

We're authorized up to 150.

That's why we're interested in put um in the expansion of it to the immediate area around the city to see if we can fill those additional 20 spots uh with other folks if we do not get to that level with folks from the city itself.

Um but the reason why it's kind of nuanced is you have some cadets that are in high school uh in their last year and they roll out.

You have some that are that are older that have you know joined the program but they don't have the credits, and then you have some that are kind of in that mid-range where they hit 21, they'll be able to come in officer.

So depending on where they're at as it relates to age and college credits, that's where kind of because some of them could have started inside high school and be done earlier and could theoretically be just about there to be 21.

In some cases, you have folks that are over 21, so they're not waiting to get to 21, they're just waiting to get the appropriate college credits.

So it comes back to kind of back to the conversation about the college credits.

Interesting.

But it's been a very steady pipeline.

Well, not I many roads lead to college credits, but it has been one of our best pipelines.

The cadet program has been as far as getting young people inside the door, you know, giving them a familiarity not only with the agency but how things work, but letting them get their education and rolling in.

Uh so it has been a very good pipeline for us.

So those 20 recruits expected are part of the 217?

Yes.

Yeah.

So right now we'll be willing estimated as 148 new recruits, 20 kid that can conversions, and potentially 48 senior officers is there.

That's our estimate, of course.

Things could change based on the BSA and what that would look like.

Okay.

And that does not include what hopefully will be an increase if drop is finally passed.

That's correct.

We wanted them to make our estimate as realistic as possible.

Okay.

Um back to overtime.

So last year, there was $39 million budgeted for overtime in FY26, the current year.

But the actual amount spent on overtime in FY25 was $95 million.

In the proposed FY27 budget, the mayor's allocated $81 million to overtime.

But you spoke about earlier that this year is going to be even more reliant on overtime because of all of these federal events.

And so while I appreciate this budget moves towards more accurate reflection, is it an accurate reflection?

Um I I do believe it's an accurate reflection, but you as you mentioned, there's a lot of variables that are in there, including we talk about the America 250 and the different funding sources.

So I'll let Dan talk a little bit about kind of what that breakdown looks like and kind of where we think that we will be at with that.

That would be great.

And as you do that, can you also talk about where the uh EPSF funding went to and how that changed our own local budget allocations with the increase in federal funding reimbursement?

Um sure.

So it can you clarify?

The fund that we usually get reimbursed from the federal government, that was usually about 50 million that we got 90 million dollars this year.

Correct.

Much of that hopefully will go to reimbursement of MPD expenses to cover federal.

But I'm curious exactly how much MPD received from that bucket of money and how that changed our local allocation of dollars that we had anticipated because we weren't sure we were going to get that money.

Yeah.

So our current forecast of what we think we'll need from EPSF and MPD and particularly MPD overtime uses the majority across the district.

I know FIRE uses some and I believe corrections.

It is it is getting close to 90.

So we we are having conversations with HCMA and others in terms of the, you know, those are the ones that manage it centrally with the CFO as well in terms of what we can do about that and potentially working with the mayor, because it's definitely America 250 alone, uh the Iran uh Middle East uh uh ramp up of of uh MPD resources is also going to EPSF.

So there's other um factors at play that haven't been there in the past.

So even though the 90 is a lot, um the vast majority of that is going to be MPD overtime.

Are there any other sources of money that the federal government could just directly pay for some of these security expenses that are due to federal government activities?

So in in my ideal world, we'd have a whole bunch of new MOAs because we have various task forces in place where we do have existing MOAs and don't become a reimbursable special purpose revenue.

Obviously, that takes time and more paperwork in agreement with these various federal entities, and it doesn't seem to have been the case so far in this uh uh current environment.

But you know, that would pave the way because we've had for years dozens of federal uh task forces uh and regional, and those work very well.

There's there's agreements in place, there's reimbursable rates in place and the special purpose revenue.

So it doesn't even get to EPSF or the need for another federal payment.

I do know anecdotally there are conversations uh from the CFO side and the mayor's side, I believe, directly with Congress to talk about a potential additional federal payment.

Federal payment would be great because there's not usually the same requirements as a grant with strings attached, if you will, um, because it's it's money we can utilize and have more flexibility, but I'm not aware of anything in writing to the at this point.

So is the only way the federal government ever really helpful in this regard is through this EPSF fund that we then apply for reimbursement to?

That's right.

Well, EP EPSF is is is easy in the in in it in a in a sense because it is it is it is reimbursable, but there are there are uh it's it's broader in its application and how we can use it.

Um it's just this year is is with America 250 and some of these other events, it's it's far beyond what we would normally need in a in a fiscal year.

Well, it feels like America's 250 is a perfect example of something that is unique and that's not accounted for in our annual budgeting that if there was ever a time for the federal government to directly pay for some of those security personnel costs, it would be the programming around the to me would be just like the inauguration.

So every four years we get an additional federal payment for the inauguration from from my standpoint, that would that would make sense.

Some similar size, similar scope.

But imagine if the inauguration was only once in every 250 years.

Yeah.

Exactly.

I mean, really.

Um so some of the inauguration expenses I thought were part of the EPSF reimbursement.

Yes, although the majority of it is is actually designated, it's similar, but it's actually accounted for separately as a separate paper agency.

So sometimes I think the numbers may be shown together, but they're actually separate.

And how much was that that separate fund received for the inauguration?

From LAT, I'd have to I don't have it right in front of me.

Okay, I'm just curious like about what the range would be.

It's in the tens of millions, yeah.

Okay.

And are those conversations going on now around setting up a similar funding structure for America's 250th?

As far as I'm aware right now, we're just looking at it in terms of EPSF.

So I think I think I do believe there's conversations at at higher levels of the CFO and the mayor in terms of trying to work with Congress on getting an additional federal payment.

I don't, we haven't, there's no structure or anything that's been set up to accommodate that.

Okay.

Well, Chief, you serve on the Safe and Beautiful Task Force, right?

Uh yeah, I do.

So is this something that you can ask them for?

Yeah, we can definitely bring up the conversation about it.

Um just to kind of give a little context though about task force and things like that.

The task force don't usually pay for all the officers.

They usually pay for task force uh expenses that are associated with that.

So think about officers, for example, that we have the server on the joint terrorism task force.

The FBI doesn't pay for their salaries, they pay for overtime that's associated with uh with the their duties with the FBI.

They pay for overtime that's associated with uh with the their duties with the FBI.

Uh they may provide a vehicle, but they don't pay their salary.

So it's just want to provide clarity.

It's not like they would pay for everything.

Yes, understood.

But I think if the recommendation came from the task force to ensure that expenses around America's 250th didn't come out of DC local overtime budget, but was separately allocated.

You know, the America 250 isn't although the task force has some visibility, it's not like rammed by the task force itself, but we definitely point taken.

Um I want to recognize we've been joined by my Ward 7 colleague, Councilmember Wendell Felder.

And I'll turn to you now for a 10-minute round.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Pinto.

Uh Chief, it's always good to see you uh as well as members of your senior leadership.

Uh just diving right in, Chief.

Uh, as you are aware, agencies across the district have seen a significant decrease in their budgets.

However, MPD has seen a significant increase in your budget.

Could you speak to how the increase in funds is helping to keep families across the district safe?

Sure.

So as we talked about, uh the a lot of the increase that we see in funds is really uh partially to make up for the uh the increase, what overtime we actually have been using to make sure we can keep the city safe, and also the increased um that came from the collective bargaining agreement that went into place last year that's now being put into this year's budget that the uh at least a 13 percent increase from FY24 through FY26.

So some of that is really pushing that up, uh the number up because of the collective bargaining agreement.

With that, what this budget allows us to do is to deploy officers across the city, not only for special events.

I know there's you know a lot of talk about America 250 and that kind of stuff, but I mean our number one priority is to keep crime down across the city and be across the communities and make sure we have the resources that we need across the city for that.

And may it be addressing, you know, concerns with young people inside certain areas or violent crime that's starting to tick up over in uh the 6th and 7th district.

We have to make sure that we have the appropriate resources, the officers that are out there.

You know, we talk about our budget, and I mentioned it earlier, kind of my introductory testimony.

There's such a small percentage of it that is not personal cost, the people that actually do the work and the things that we have to have out there.

That's what would drives you know 99 percent of our budget is that that cost, that salary that benefits the officers we have.

And we need those officers to be out inside those areas across the city.

As we continue to face the the short staffing that we have, as I mentioned, it's the lowest we've had in over 50 years, we have to supplement that with overtime.

That's that's the only way we can do it to make sure we have the resources that we need.

And of course, it does drive up the cost with that.

Now, Chief I see that um within your proposed budget, a little over 42 million is an increase in overtime.

How many officers could you get with that in the event that that money will go to officers, new officers rather?

Yeah, so I'll I'll let um Dan or Patricia kind of give you the number.

But what I'd say before we get there is um, you know, with the ability to get you know back to their budget support act, some of those provisions in there, providing the ability to get new people in the door, open up that new pool of applicants is really important because that would allow us to do just that, right?

Get new officers in the force that make a lower salary to take up the spots, and also we talk about you know work-life balance and the well-being of our members, bring down some of the hours that they have to spend uh, you know, working these details that we have, and also the other provision is we talk about the senior police officers, the ability to potentially bring in folks that have experience that have been deployed across the city that are currently prohibited based on that legislation to let them come back at a lower salary also provides us the ability to get more people up there.

And then Dan can kind of give you a number on the number itself.

Sure, yeah.

Theoretically that would hire about 500 officers.

You know, obviously you wouldn't see the savings in overtime in year one because they would have to go through the academy.

Um I will say the overtime budget though is a reflection of what they are actually spending, and and um even then it's gonna be tough to hit that mark.

Um and and as well as Chief Carroll mentioned earlier, actually getting those officers in the door is the harder part.

We we have FTEs.

We we're sitting currently on about an 18 percent vacancy savings rate.

So, you know, a healthy vacancy savings for an agency of the side is more like five percent.

So I don't think it's an issue of getting authority from our officers.

I think it's really more an issue of getting them in the door.

Because we we certainly have the budget for it from a financial perspective, it makes much more sense to hire an officer uh at $75,000 a year than pay an officer, an experienced officer at $85 an hour on overtime.

It's it's you know, they're all getting time and a half on overtime.

Thank you for that.

Now, uh Chief, I know that allowing officers to take advantage of overtime is a band-aid, isn't that the overall solution?

Could you speak to what's the long-term strategy to get more officers through the door and how does your budget reflect that?

I know you mentioned some of the uh language in the BSA, uh, but could you speak a little uh could you go into greater uh detail on what the long-term strategy consists of?

Sure.

So what the BSA does, the provision in there as far as uh allowing us to hire officers with no college credit when they come in the door, provide them with those credits through a cooperative agreement that we uh will establish with Frederick Community College, so they would get credits for going through the academy, and then before they leave the academy, they would stay additional month or so to pick up the additional 19 credits.

So when they graduate fully, they would have those 60 college credits.

So this would allow us to open up an applicant pool that we currently can't tap.

Uh right now in this region, us in Arlington County are the only agencies that are required require the college credit to come in the door.

I believe in July, Arlington County's starting salary is going to $90,000.

Um a big difference from our starting salary of you know just over $75,000.

So for us, this provision of the BSA would open up a new applicant pool.

Uh, you know, we tried last year when we got the the entrance number of credits down to 40.

Um, but we have not seen anyone who is in that that range where they need to make up just those 20 credits to get to 60.

So uh this new provision, if we can get this passed, would open up a whole new applicant pool that would really help to get people in the door.

Uh the other portion of the provision I mentioned before is the SPO uh portion of it, being able to take some of those folks that may have had serious misconduct 23 years ago but have been a stellar employee since then.

Right now, the legislation doesn't allow them to re to quote unquote rehire them or to bring them back as a senior police officer uh because of that prohibition, uh the amended language in the BSA would allow for folks that have not had any serious misconduct in the past five years of 10 days or more to be considered.

Doesn't mean we have to hire them, uh, but it would allow us to consider uh to bring them back.

So we kind of go back to not only the new hire piece, which is very important, but also retaining people to stop the uh the number of folks that we're seeing leave each year.

We have to look at something different.

There's no way we're gonna be able to compete with the hiring bonuses.

You know, right now Park Police is offering a $70,000 hiring bonus.

Now the Secret Service is offering a $75,000 hiring bonus.

We were one of the first uh agencies to offer a higher bonus.

We still provide that of $25,000, but we're never going to be able to continue to go up and up.

So we have to look at different strategies to really address and open up that applicant pool to get folks in here.

Chief, you make me feel like I'm in the wrong occupation.

Uh now I mentioned earlier that there was an overall increase in your budget.

Now, to be honest, I was a little disappointed to see that the data analytics and research um there was a reduction by 1.4 million dollars.

Now, Chief, could you speak to why is data and analytic capacity being reduced at a time when data-driven policies is critical?

Sure.

No, a great question.

I'm gonna let Dan answer that because some of this is just uh technical shifting in the budget.

Yeah, thanks, Councilman.

The majority of that, actually, all of that is uh 12 FTEs that were shifted out to special operations division and the crime anal analysts and investigative analysts.

So I would say it was more of a shifting around program.

It's a realignment from one bureau to another.

Okay.

Um, Chief, I was happy to see investments and capital improvements.

Uh could you speak to how those funds will help improve overall conditions uh in facilities across Ward Satan, which is comprised of the first district, the fifth district, and uh the sixth district?

Yeah, so one of the biggest ones that we have is actually on the capital project side isn't inside those wards, but it's actually inside our 70 headquarters renovation.

This is something that has been working on for many years.

Um at this point, it looks like we'll actually begin construction inside fiscal year 27.

So the design function, all that has been worked through by the end of this fiscal year, the design and permitting will be fully completed.

Uh the goal is to start construction of fiscal year 27, and then it should be completed in fiscal year 28.

Uh the 7th district is is probably the facility we have is in the worst condition uh that we have this time.

So that's a big impact inside of our 7th district uh to bring that up.

Also areas that we've been working on is the renovations of air detention centers inside of our district cell blocks to make sure to bring them up.

Um so we've renovated a couple of them.

Currently 40 and 5D are being renovated, 40 is almost complete.

5D is in progress.

Um so by the end of fiscal year 26, they should both be um completed.

Following that, we have to then still renovate the second district detention area and the third district detention area.

And so that's some of our renovations and projects, there's issues that we have.

Many of our facilities have more minor issues, I'd say plumbing issues, things like that.

So working with the team on small cap projects to work.

Sorry for interrupting you, Tief.

Sure.

I'm trying to get two questions in really quickly.

The first question, uh even though you saw increase in your budget, uh does this budget adequately keep residents safe from your opinion?

Yes, it does.

Yes, it does.

And if you if we're talking about public safety from an overall public safety ecosystem, when you look at programs like pathways, which is supposed to be the frontline defense uh with de-escalating neighborhood feuds.

Unfortunately, that program has seen a decrease in their budget.

My question, Chief, are you under the impression that maybe there's an opportunity to reprogram any additional funds that you may have to support other agencies that overall contribute to the work that your agency is doing?

Yeah, what I'd say is those agencies do a lot of good work, but the challenge is basically what we have right now with what appears to be an increase is really just right sizing of the overtime.

And it's actually last year the collective bargaining agreement was was passed, so 13 percent increase in salaries is really where you see a majority of that come to.

It's not extra money that we have.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, too.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Councilmember Felder.

We've also been joined by our Ward 1 colleague, Councilmember Brianna Doe.

And I'll turn to you now for a 10 minute round.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Hi, Chief.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

Um Chief, in FY26, MPD spent 41.6 million dollars on overtime.

Is that right?

Um Dan's gonna.

Yeah.

In terms of FY in FY26 in current year, yes.

And through Q2 through the end of March, that's correct.

Okay.

Okay.

In the mayor's FY27 proposed budget, the percentage of overtime pay increased by about $56.7 million.

Is that right?

It was an that's that's correct.

It was it's over the FY25 amount.

There was a $15 million one time that was eliminated, so that the net increase was closer to $42.

It got it.

Just the way it's reflected.

I yes, it's correct, but I I just wanted to clarify that.

That makes sense.

But it is like an 100% increase essentially.

Correct.

Okay.

So Chief, you testified that the agency is using overtime funds to staff and enforce the curfew.

Is that right?

Uh to deploy additional resources in the curfew areas and other areas where we've seen team gatherings.

That's correct.

And how much has been used, how much money has been used for overtime staffing on curfew enforcement during FY26?

Yeah, that's the same.

Ms.

Campbell can give you an idea.

Uh we approximately have about a thousand.

Um thus far, we've spent about a hundred and thirteen thousand dollars.

But that was only um as of the March 2021 pay period ending.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Chief, you also testified that overtime usage will increase if the permanent version of the curfew isn't passed.

Do I have that right?

Yeah, I believe we'd have to deploy more officers potentially.

Um why is that?

Because we don't have the ability to break them into smaller groups or have them go outside the zone areas, and we need to probably need to deploy more resources to monitor them while the large groups are there.

So it's just kind of like we would do for any any large uh crowd.

Right now, when we have the zones, we have the ability to, if they don't go into smaller groups to you know, give them warnings to break them into the groups that are less than nine, uh, or they of course they can go outside the boundary areas, which kind of spreads out those groups.

Um, but if you have more compact crowding, then you'd need more members to monitor that just to make sure that there aren't issues.

Got it.

Okay.

So it just to clarify the fiscal impact statement for the permanent bill states that MPD funds are sufficient with current resources to implement the bill.

That's correct.

Yes, that's correct.

And the resources to implement the bill, is that also overtime?

Uh yes, I'd say so the budget includes the overtime that we need.

We need the overtime to be able to uh to do what we need to do as the agency.

Okay.

Okay.

Um just uh some more questions about curfew enforcement.

Um minors are found to be in violation of the curfew, do officers arrest or detain the minor.

So if you're in violation of the curfew, it when I say it it depends, right?

So what curfew are we talking about?

We're talking about the citywide curfew that begins at 11 or 12.

That one, once the citywide curfew is in effect, if you're in violation, there are multiple exceptions.

For example, if you're out in front of your house or if you're uh with a parent, or if you're on a direction from an errand from a parent without stopping.

So there are there are many exceptions.

So what would happen initially if you're in the citywide curfew area, the officer would have to stop, talk to the individual, determine are they one of the exceptions to the regulations or not?

Let's just say, for example, they're not an exception to the regulation.

Um the officer can either take the young person home uh or if they couldn't take them home, they could take them to um um DYRS where they would stay and their parent would come pick them up.

We talk about the juvenile curfew zones, the ones that are you know designated areas, usually between eight and eleven.

In those cases, it's a little bit different.

Um so those are defined areas where we put signs up at um once that time comes if they're in violation.

And to be in violation, you have to have nine or more uh folks that are in violation that are in the group.

Um with that, you have to give two warnings if it's not an emergency situation, uh, and you know, letting them know that they're in violation of the curfew and they can break into smaller groups, so then they come in compliance with that, uh, or they could also go outside the areas of the boundary.

If it's an exit and circumstance, think like a fight or something, um, you give one warning, and then if they don't comply, they would be taken as a curfew violator.

So the same thing.

They would go to, you know, either go home to their parents or go to DYRS where their parent would come pick them up for curfew violation.

Um folks would only be arrested if they committed a criminal offense, you know, like like they rob somebody, had a firearm, something like that.

Okay.

So if they haven't committed a criminal offense, they're uh should and they haven't been arrested.

Should I assume that they are not handcuffed?

Uh they're a curfew violators, so they could be handcuffed, it depends on the situation.

Okay.

Are they read their Miranda rights when that occurs?

No, but people don't get read their Miranda rights.

It's like on TV, you see people get like get put in handcuffs and get red Miranda rights.

You're only a Mirandize if we're gonna ask custodial uh interrogation, we're gonna ask you questions about the crime that you committed.

Uh curfew violators aren't violating, aren't criminals like that.

So even in most cases, when you are arrested, no one reads you your Miranda rights on the scene.

That gets that happens if a detective is going to interview you, then you'd be mirandized.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's clear.

Um are they uh taken in the back of a police car when this occurs if they're being removed from this the area?

So we have uh curfew in truancy wagons, so that's what's usually used, and you've probably seen them out there kind of like passenger wagons, and it says curfew slash truancy um enforcement on the side of it, and that's what they're used to transport them in.

For those who are transported to YSC, are they processed there?

No, they're not arrested.

They're they're put inside beds until their parents come to get them, like they're given a place to stay.

Um so that way officers don't don't have to stay with them, they can go back out on the street.

Um that way they have the appropriate supervision while their parents are coming to get them.

So they're staying on the non-secure side?

Uh the specifics of of the actual facility, I I don't know.

I can't speak to that.

Okay.

Um what happens to the youth whose parents don't come to pick them up from YSC?

I mean, potentially if no parent ever came to pick them up, they would be turned over to child and family services in that case.

I don't know if that's ever happened or not, though.

Okay.

Does MPD have any data collected on the following um I guess you can just say yes or no?

Um number of arrests made during in these curfew zones?

Yes, we do.

How about the number of kids driven home by police officers?

We don't have that per se.

I think we have we have the number of curfew violators though, so that would mean they were either driven home or taken to uh curfew center.

We we have that.

Okay.

Um and then the number of kids held on detention after an arrest for a curfew violation.

I'm not quite sure what that means.

Um an arrest, how about an arrest in a curfew zone?

Yes, how yes, we have arrest in curfew zones.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And then uh would you have the number of kids identified as unhoused?

We don't generally ask about their housing status unless they were to volunteer that we don't, you know, we'd ask their address, their parents phone number, that kind of stuff.

So I don't think we'd have it on hand.

Do you know if you've ever returned children to a shelter?

I do not know.

That's something we we have the the curfew paperwork, so that's probably something we could probably find out, um, but I don't know.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um you uh we're just talking about uh with uh council member felder, um the cadet program and expanding the eligibility in the BSA.

Uh I think that's great.

Um in 2023 and 2025, I introduced legislation that would increase cadet pay from 35K to 60K because the cost of living is so high in DC and pay is so low.

And my bill also expanded eligibility up to age 33 from the current age of 24 with the goal of increasing the number of um applicants eligible.

Um what would you think about including some of that uh in the BSA as well?

Um I don't necessarily think I'm against it.

What I would say is I think, for example, raising the age to 33, I think we would probably do a much better service to those folks to remove the entry requirement of for the college credit and allow them to gain that that college credit because it really puts them on a track much faster and lets them actually become a police officer faster and make higher salaries.

So I think that that would be probably a better solution overall than raising the age to let folks to come into the program because you know you get 33, it's harder.

The ability to potentially be done and have the 60 credits in an abbreviated time, I think would be probably overall um beneficial to everybody.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

I appreciate your testimony.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um, Chief, I just want to re-clarify again that but for the curfew, it is your position that more money would be spent on overtime.

That's correct.

If and again, we're assuming that they continue with these these team takeovers uh to continue, yes, we'd have to deploy more officers to monitor the large crowds, however long they're there.

Okay.

I just don't want that to be misunderstood by anyone that yes, of course, it requires a deployment of officers, but fewer than would be required if you couldn't use this tool.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

I also want to clarify some a conversation you just had with Council Renado about handcuffs.

It was my understanding that if uh a young person was in a curfew zone and that was their only violation, they would not be handcuffed.

Again, it depends.

For example, if the young person, depending on how how they're saying how they're acting, they turn violent or something like that, there is the potential they could be handcuffed.

So it depends on the situation.

But in general, in violation of a zone.

Yeah, just in, yeah, well, if they're just in violation of the zone, we would try to gain compliance.

So the goal would be not even to bring them into curfew at all.

We try to have them leave the zone or break into smaller groups, but if we had to bring them in as a curfew violator.

Okay.

And if you had to bring them in, would they they would not be handcuffed?

Yeah, the goal would be not to handcuff them unless something precipitated that we had to.

Like use of violence or assaulting an officer.

Yeah, and then potentially it would change from a curfew violation to an arrest.

Okay.

But that's a different kind of category, right?

So if someone, if a young person is just in a zone violating a curfew zone, they're not handcuffed for that violation in and of itself.

In general, no.

I I don't want to give you absolutes, right?

Because there's always one-off situation that could happen, right?

Because, for example, you may stop a person and you may place them in handcuffs because you're not you're still investigating, right?

So you see that lots of times uh in regular investigations.

For example, we're in the area of cams, and for a robbery suspect, we see an individual who meets that lookout.

They could be a young person, they could be an old person, it doesn't really matter.

We may handcuff and detain them while we're investigating, we determine okay, a crime didn't didn't happen.

So that's why I don't I don't want to give you absolutes to say that under a zero circumstance ever depends on if they stop the young person because there's a potential of like a robbery in the area, they may stop them, they may handcuff them, they may determine they weren't involved in a robbery, but then they may determine they were a curfew violator.

So that would then have been a curfew violer in handcuffs.

So it depends.

Right.

But all the examples that you're using are for vi for other crimes.

Potentially, yes.

Solely if you're solely a curfew violator, in most cases, yes, you will not be handcuffed.

Okay, but again, all of the examples that you've used are not about sole curfew violators, right?

Well, that's because you may not know if they're a curfew violated first.

You understand what I'm saying?

Like you may not know if they were a curfew violator when you initially stop them or not.

Because the same thing if that you stop somebody and it turns out they're they're not a uh a young person, then they they wouldn't even be a curfew violator.

So in general, if you're just a curfew violator, no, you will not be handcuffed.

Okay.

Okay.

Um back to overtime.

Um the 14% reduction that you found in overtime efficiencies.

What were those efficiencies?

So I I wouldn't I wouldn't necessarily categorize them as efficiencies.

It's just more so looking at the programs that we have in the place and see are there places where we could reduce the numbers of officers that were working those, or were there some areas where we had operational plans where we could shift resources at?

Um, especially as we saw crime go down, you know, during the winter months.