I don't know what anything means.

They're on their way back.

You've got a quorum.

I'm calling to order this meeting.

This is a regular meeting of the legislative meeting of the Council of the District of Columbia.

It's the 29th legislative meeting of Council period 26.

Today is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026.

The time is 2 15 in the afternoon, and we are in room 500 at the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson Building.

This meeting is being broadcast on cable channel 13.

It's also available on the council's website, www.dccouncil.gov.

I'm Phil Mendelson, Chair of the Council, and we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence, a moment for uh reflection.

Madam Secretary, would you call the rule?

Councilmember Allen?

Here.

Councilmember Bonds here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Fowler.

Present.

Councilmember Freeman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Here.

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Nadeau?

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Robert White?

Present.

Councilmember Trayon White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

The Secretary's report of committee filings.

Uh I'm going to recognize the Chair Pro Tem, Councilmember Anita Bonds.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I waive the reading of the secretary's committee reports and filings.

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

Is there discussion on the motion?

On the motion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it.

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

Again, I'll recognize the Chairpro Tem, Councilmember Anita Bonds.

And again, Chairman, I waive the reading of the introduction and referrals of proposed legislation.

Is there discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That was very anemic.

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the consent agenda.

And before I recognize anybody, on page four, item 11, Bill 2657, Motor Vehicle Insurance Modernization Act is off of consent.

On page five, uh number 17 at the top, River East to Grandview Home Ownership Relief and Restoration Amendment Act.

Bill 26-545 is off of consent.

Councilmember Parker, are you here?

Do you still want uh the open meetings off of consent?

Um I'm gonna pull the amendment and so it can remain on consent.

Can our offer just a quick statement on it?

Not statement, but why I'm pulling it.

Uh not really.

Okay.

Find a way at some point.

I'm curious.

Um I intend to move it for markup uh soon.

The um on the same page at the bottom under proposed resolutions number three, PR 26-577 citizen review panel, Whitney Miller reappointment is off of consent.

Are there any other changes to the consent agenda?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Bill 26-126 off consent.

You have to tell me where that is.

That's the fair housing practices.

No.

Can we move that off consent?

Um, that is on page four number five, right?

Is that non consent?

Uh being moved to non-consent.

Where are they?

Um it was pointed out to me on page four items 12, 13, 14.

So I was about to pull a fast one, but not intentionally, and that was to uh have on consent three bills that didn't get marked up in the committee of the whole.

So that's Greenscourt, Harmony Park, and Rodney Wright, those did not go through committee the whole, and so therefore they should not be on the agenda.

And so they won't be on the agenda.

Other changes?

Yeah, the um is the open meetings clarification the temporary off.

No, that's on.

I would like it off consent so I can vote.

Thank you.

Okay.

Then I'll be able to give uh councilmember Parker his explanation.

Um are there any changes to the consent agenda?

Let me I'm gonna go through this very quickly.

On page one, no changes, page two, no changes, page three, no changes, page four.

Item five, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, off of consent.

Page five, number seventeen, off of consent.

Under final reading and temporary number two, off of consent.

Under proposed resolution is bottom of the page number three off of consent.

Page four, no changes, page I'm sorry, page that was page six, no changes, page seven, no changes.

Hearing no other changes to the consent agenda, the vote will be on the consent agenda as revised.

All those in favor say aye, aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Turning to page four.

The first item that was removed is Bill 26-126, Fair Housing Practices Amendment Act to 2026.

It was moved by the committee on housing, chaired by Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember White.

One moment, Chairman.

Uh I didn't know this was going to be pulled off consent, so did not have a statement.

Um can we come back to this one second?

Get my notes on that.

There's no objection, yes.

Thank you.

Uh the next measure is item 11 on that page, Bill 26-57, Motor Vehicle Insurance Modernization Act 2026.

So moved.

Discussion.

We're I moved to number 11.

Um, Bill 26-57.

All those in favor of the bill say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Chairman, please recall me vote no.

Councilmember Tran White will be recorded as voting no, and the ayes have it.

Um, are you ready yet?

Yes.

Okay, we're gonna go back into number five, Bill 26-126.

Fair housing practices amendment act.

Councilmember White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

This bill would prohibit housing providers from separately charging tenants for the utility charges approved by the housing accommodation for its common areas.

It would require that housing providers give notification to a tenant of any unpaid amounts owed to the housing provider within 45 days after vacating a rental unit.

The provider must also obtain evidence that the tenant was served with the notification at least 60 days prior to sending unpaid amounts to the debtor.

Uh this is to just help stabilize our our tenants.

Uh, I think I heard you say so.

So moved.

Uh, is there a discussion?

Uh the vote will be on bill the councilmember pinto.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Councilmember White for moving this bill, and I think a lot of tenants are very excited about this bill, given the utility charges that people are facing, especially in common areas, and thank you, Councilmember Allen, for introducing this bill.

I just had a question on one of the line items that we may need to just work together on between first and second reading.

But um, there is a requirement that the notice be provided to the tenant at their last known address, but in the event that the tenant no longer lives there, it seems that it would be impossible to reach them at that known address since they're no longer there.

And so it may just be additional language that we need to contemplate, um, to provide another avenue to try to reach a tenant that's not only leaning on a location that they no longer live in.

Councilmember White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Pento for raising this.

So uh the language section E1 uh says upon termination of a tenancy, the housing provider shall request a for forwarding mailing address or email address from the tenant for purposes of providing any notice upon uh notices required pursuant to this section.

So, one they can request an email address and uh second, the print requires the landlord to request a forwarding address uh from the tenant.

So, um, so so it shouldn't uh affect that at all.

Uh we will work with you and others between first and second reading to make sure if we need to tighten the language at all, we we can uh but shouldn't be necessary.

Okay, that's that's great.

And just so that the record is is clear for our uh legislative intention.

I'm referring to section two A that says within 45 days after termination of the tenancy, the housing provider shall notify the tenant in writing, either personally or by certified mail at the tenant's last known address of any alleged unpaid amounts due to the housing provider pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement.

So what I'm hearing is that it your intention is also to provide an avenue for email or other written communication that's not at that last known address.

Uh that's correct.

Great.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh anything further on this bill.

The vote will be on bill 26-126.

And this is uh first reading.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh going to page five number 17, Bill 26-545 River East to Grandview Homeownership Relief and Restoration Amendment Act to 2026.

Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um I want to um we have you know been through the saga um uh with with these residents over the past uh several years.

Uh I've brought some previous iterations to uh the council and uh the concern was the amount of money uh and uh but but still wanting to figure out a way to to help uh we have now come to uh a way to assist these residents that is budget neutral um through the HPAP uh program uh but still gives uh these residents who have been so extremely affected by uh failures that are not their own uh but have found a way to to help them that does not cause uh uh I think financial heartache for the city, but does give them a path, a realistic path uh to meaningful home ownership and intergenerational wealth uh in the future.

And so my my hope is that we as a body can uh vote today uh to assist these residents in a way that is budget neutral.

Um but um you know does not undo all of the harm they've been through, uh, but does put them in a position to own a home again.

So so move, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember White.

Is there discussion from members?

Councilmember Treyon White?

Yes.

Um today I'm pleased to co-introduce this bill along with Councilmember Raoul White and Janice Law's George.

Uh for years I've emphasized salt and cares, home ownership opportunities.

Home ownership is a way to create generational wealth and is a lost component of what many call the American dream.

For the River East at Grandview owners and residents, the dream became a reality, but then it was quickly, then it be quickly became a nightmare.

These are everyday people, a young mother raising children, a father who worked two jobs to save enough, a single hoping to leave something behind for a family.

They could have lived any any other war, but they chose to live in Ward 8, which they called home.

These residents are not what we asked them to do invest, put down routes and build generational wealth in their own communities.

They took classes, saved their money, followed the process and pursue the ownership the right way.

For them to suffer this kind of harm to no fault of their own.

I want to overemphasize that to no fault of their own is unconscionable.

They deserve to be made whole.

There has been a lot of measures taken to uh help them along the way.

So we don't want to give the notion that nothing has been done, uh, but we can do a lot more.

Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this measure today and hope that we can restore home ownership, home ownership for the residents that are left.

There are 30 residents that are not entered to homeownership again, so we want to help them to remain holding our city.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

Uh, I'm gonna speak uh to this.

So I think what happened to these residents was horrible.

Uh these were all lower income residents who, with government assistance, for the first time were able to buy their homes in a multi-unit complex.

And through no fault of their own, uh the construction was shoddy, the ground shifted, and the buildings became most of the buildings became unsafe.

Uh I was at the Vanguard several years ago in urging the council to provide some relief for these homeowners because it wasn't their fault.

Now to suggest that it was the government's fault, I think is wrong and inaccurate.

It was the construction, the shoddy construction, and I don't think you can blame inspectors for shoddy instruction construction, especially when that shoddy construction had to do with the um what was underground, that is the ground shifting.

Um the city jumped in, as I said initially at my urging with the council, and then council through subsequent actions.

Uh I would say one problem with how the city responded was that it was unplanned and it wasn't thought through, and so the city provided assistance in a number of different ways.

My challenge with this legislation is that this is once more coming back and offering additional assistance that's not uniform to every resident of that property.

There were 46 residents.

So we know this, that the city was able to negotiate with most of the lenders, not all, but most, something like 40 out of 46 to cancel their mortgages.

I mean, I've just never heard of that before.

So their financial liability was eliminated.

The government provided rental assistance, almost five million dollars in rental assistance over at least 15 months.

The city offered a $30,000 buyout to residents, or first preference for HPAP assistance.

The city offered $6,500 to each homeowner for moving assistance.

Um, but uh this legislation would say that's not enough.

The spreadsheet I have, which is a year old, June 5th last year, says that the total government assistance to date has been 14,275,000.

That's a lot of money for 46 units.

Especially when it's not the government's fault.

Some may say it is, but I would say it isn't.

And it was clear from the questions at the committee of the whole that a lot of members here think that this is not an isolated incident, that there are other buildings in the city that have been poorly constructed, and the residents' homeowners have been disadvantaged.

I'm thinking of a building on Georgia Avenue that sways in the wind because of uh how it was built.

So I I'm really challenged here with um supporting this legislation when the city has already provided so much assistance.

Yes, it was characterized as budget neutral, but it is actually a cost to the city because uh these are HPAP loans that could go to others and that um will be turned into grants rather than um the uh usual HPAP loan.

Anyone else wish to speak on this councilmember from?

Thank you, Chairman Mendelssohn.

Uh I have to say that in earlier iterations when there has been talk about uh more support for these residents.

I've been reluctant, but I I support what we're what is proposed here.

A number of different questions have come up.

One is will it happen again?

I mean, there's no promise that this won't happen in other settings, but we're not seeing this as uh as a rampant phenomenon, and then will we be creating a precedent?

Every situation is very fact specific.

Here we have a particularly compelling uh set of folks who have been affected in a really important part of the city.

Um are we overdoing it for these folks?

You listed some dollar figures.

I think councilmember White was gonna jump in to refute that.

I think the things that we have done so far have been intended to avert the harm.

So the idea, yes, sounds extraordinary to cancel a mortgage, but to cancel a mortgage on a building that's collapsing that has no value, that's the most that can do is put you back where you were before the whole adventure happened.

To the extent we've done folks for things, done things for folks.

I think that they have been an effort to get them at least to where they were before they got involved in this whole thing.

I don't think we've gotten all the way there, but then the component that is part of this is to try to deliver on the promise of a path to home ownership and generational wealth building for these people to whom that promise had been made, and the promise of delivering something like that to folks in this community is a very important promise that we on this council are committed to.

It is not right to say there is no cost, the cost is way in the future with the forgiveness of the loans treating them as a grant.

It's real, but in the when you uh when you calculate the present value of the good that we are giving, it's pretty darn low.

And then there's the idea that this displaces other people from having access to HPAP.

We already did that.

The preference that is built into the law now gives these folks preference to HPAP.

We all agreed to that earlier, and so it's not changing that dynamic.

So it to me, this legislation, yes, it doesn't do the same for every person, but what it does is try creatively to deliver on the promise that was made to these folks that we're giving you a path to home ownership and generational wealth building, and in that way it is carefully tailored to accomplish the goal that the council had set out to achieve.

I fully support it.

Councilmember Bundes?

Thank you, Chairman.

Um I wanted to um and I appreciate the comments of my colleague Fruman, especially at this time.

I wanted to go um to um councilmember White and just query a little bit about the signed over quit quit claim.

I think it's 15 that have signed of the 46.

Does that mean those that have not signed will sign?

And can we uh make this deal final so that we are not at this place continuously?

And so that the families can move forward and our government can move forward?

Uh thank you, Councilmember Bonds.

Yeah, I would like them to move forward uh as well.

So remember these are 46 different households.

They like it's only 13 of us, and we are all over the place sometimes, right?

So they're not not all in the same place in the same situation.

I can't um guarantee you know who is gonna you know sign the the quick claim uh and who's not but that this will move it out of our hands so you know what what we can do is is help put people in a position to become homeowners again.

Uh I can't control the the other parts of their their negotiations, you know.

So some of them still have uh active mortgages and things.

So we're not getting into the transfers because that creates um a liability uh question uh that we are deliberately trying to stay out of, and we've been in discussion with OAG about and I liabilities.

I appreciate you know this government is built on choice.

We we talk about it all the time, but I am saying is it possible and does this arrangement that you're proposing give us closure on this deal with these families?

That's what I'm really hoping for, and would look forward to that type of legislation at this point.

When this situation began, I don't have to remind everyone.

Um I was the point at housing at the time, and what I suggested to the operating side of government is take care of this matter immediately, make the families whole, and here we are years later.

So I am saying, will this that you're proposing close the door so that the families will be situated so they can get on with their lives, and we at the government level will not have this issue before us again, whether it's dollars and cents or just um concern.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Bonds.

Uh I've been clear with the the residents that this is closure for us.

Um, they recognize this is not you know originally what they were hoping for, but this is this is where we are.

This is what we can get done.

They understand that the point of this is closure.

So this is not coming back before us.

All right, and and what I'm concerned with too is that the first trust has not been released for five of the households.

And so I'm we are we're talking about 46 households.

We only have an understanding of closure from 15 the way I way I see it, a way I'm seeing it this morning.

So I'm wondering how do we get the other households to also just end this and we all move forward come by uh thank you, council member bonds.

Um, that is not something the council can do.

The council can't do anything on uh the release of the first trust mortgages.

The uh our agencies have done a great job of getting most of those released.

Um that we can't control the mortgage companies and what's happening with them, but there's not but there's no role for the council there, and we so we did this this is it for us.

That's between them and the mortgage company.

This is it for us.

This is it for us, us being DC government.

D DC, I can't speak for the administration, I'm not part of administration.

This is it for the council.

All right, thank you very much.

Um further on the uh further on the bill.

Uh the vote will be on the bill bill 26-545.

All those in favor say aye, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

Can you please record me as voting present?

Uh and record me as voting no.

Uh the ayes have it.

Uh the bill is approved.

Um, the next measure is bill 26-633 open meetings Clarification Temporary amendment act of 2026.

Uh so moved.

Is there discussion?

On the bill, the vote will be on the bill.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Chairman, please record me as no.

Ms.

Chairman, record me as no.

Council members um who's George and Allen will be recorded as voting no.

The bill is approved.

The next measure is PR 26-577.

Citizen Review Panel, Whitney Miller reappointment resolution of 2026.

So moved.

I will note.

Purpose of that act was to reform the district's child protection law.

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

An outcome of the 2004 Act was to codify the establishment of the citizen review panel.

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

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

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

The council appoints seven members and designates the vice chair.

PR 26-577, which is before us reappoints Whitney Miller as one of the council appointments to the citizen review panel.

I think I already said so moved.

Is there discussion?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

So this is going to seem weird to folks, but I just want to explain for the record.

I don't have any personal grievances towards the particular nominee.

But a practice for at least the committee on health is any time we have a nominee that comes before us, we also, and it is a reappointment.

We do check the attendance record of that nominee to ensure that they participated.

And when we have nominees come before us, we do ask them to verbally say that they've discussed with the agency the time commitment and they have committed to doing so.

I have some concerns about the past attendance record for this particular nominee, and so uh I'm not going to support the nomination today.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

So let me say this.

I think the concern about attendance is important, and uh I try to have confirmation hearings on every nomination, whether it's a mayoral nomination or a council appointment.

And at those hearings I do ask if the uh appointee or the nominee uh has the time to commit, and the answer was yes.

Now after I became aware of your concern, council member, I did contact the um com the um panel, and uh this is what I was told.

This is what I was told that um Mr.

Miller attended regularly until a period this year where he had significant personal losses.

During that time he had to miss a few meetings, however, he kept us in the loop.

He has now been able to participate fully again.

He is a valuable member of the citizens review panel.

So those statements that he is now able to participate fully again, that he is a valuable member of the citizens review panel, and that he did miss some meetings, but it was due to uh significant personal losses as why I'm um have no hesitation with regard to moving this nomination.

If is there any further discussion, the vote will be on PR 26-577.

All those in favor say aye, aye.

Please record me as voting no.

Thank you.

Councilmember Henderson will be recorded as voting no, and the ayes have it.

I believe that completes everything until page eight of the agenda.

Uh so at page eight of the agenda, we have um the um final reading and vote on bill 26-371, closing of a portion of a public alley, and establishment of a public of a building restriction line in square 2319.

SO 22 02364, Act of 2026.

Uh so moved.

I understand that council member Lewis George has an amendment.

Uh yes, uh, Chairman.

I circulated amendment um on Monday, May 4th at a 308 p.m.

Uh and so I am moving uh an amendment to clarify the alley closure is conditioned condition on a purchase price of the district.

Uh when the underlying bill was moved, the expectation was the applicant and the department buildings would work together to determine an appropriate value for the portion of the district owned land.

Uh that process has since resulted in an agreed upon purchase price of $2,000.

This amendment simply reflects that agreement in the legislation, ensures the district is compensated and makes clear that the transfer will only occur once that payment is received.

With that, I move the amendment.

Is there any objection to this amendment?

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

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

So moved.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on bill 26-371 as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is Bill 26-461.

June now curfew amendment act of 2026.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you to my colleagues for all of the discussion and work on this bill.

I'm happy to see that this is coming before us for our second and final reading today.

As I have said many times previously, we as the council and all adults across our city have to have the best interests of our young people in mind as we create all of our policies.

We must ensure that our kids are engaged in positive activities to support their development and also work to prevent dangerous situations to protect our kids and to protect our community.

The youth curfew zones are just one limited, effective preventative tool to reduce the chances of our young people finding themselves in endangering situations.

I also want to clear up a question that came up last week, which is that these curfew zones do not require overtime of MPD, but without this tool, the chief noted that they would require much more last-minute overtime to divert resources as they attempt to respond to these situations.

I'm pleased.

This novel problem that places across the country are experiencing of late, these so-called teen takeovers, must similarly be met with new tools to respond.

It was noted earlier that we need to consider what our young people are experiencing when they're in one of these zones.

And I think that that is a fair point.

I also think it's important that we consider what it's like for young people who are in zones not engaged in dangerous situations or other adults in our community.

I'm grateful to my colleagues for engaging so much on this topic.

We must continue to listen to our young people to understand what types of programming and supports that they want to see from the city.

And I'll continue to promote the many legislative initiatives that I've introduced to support youth, such as expanding summer youth employment programs, opening rec centers and schools for additional hours, helping our young people find local jobs by partnering with our local businesses, and many of the bills that council member are in Councilor Lewis George's committee that she is working on now.

I encourage my colleagues to support this one tool today while we continue to have the important conversation about other initiatives.

We need to move forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember, Councilmember Tran White.

Yes, thank you.

As we continue to legislate about these curfew measures, even as amended, I firmative stand opposed, while I appreciate Councilmember's Crawford amendment that gave it a little bit more strength.

Even a late night hypes that we do across the district, there's still no plans to actively engage young people throughout the city.

Still curfew use is not a solution.

They are reaction.

And this council has an obligation to better than react.

The research is consistent.

Careful laws do not reduce crime.

What they do is criminalize adolescents that supports the impact impact black and brown youth in our communities that already carry the heaviest burden of over policing.

We cannot claim to care about our young people while continue to treat their presence on the street as a threat.

Real public safety comes from addressing the root causes.

It's come from a village model, stable families, caring mentors, access to capital, quality education, and complete wraparound services.

We have had a divestment of youth services, not a real investment.

I had the privilege to attend the committee on youth affairs round table and youth center alternatives and team takeovers, which they don't even now like the term takeover.

And I want this body to hear what I heard.

Our young people are not asking for curfews.

They are being asking to be seen, they're asking to be heard, they asked for safe and fund spaces to express themselves and be cares again.

We have asked them what the problem was, and guess what?

They told us.

When we asked them what the solution looked like, they told us.

The question is whether we are listening.

When I chaired the committee on recreational library and youth affairs, I was intentional about going into community and centering youth voices in our hearings, even on the weekends, and they often spoke up.

And yet I look at the budget currently before this council.

I'm deeply troubled because our budget is a moral document.

It tells us what we care about and our values, and right now it's telling a story that investment in our young people is not our highest priority.

It is not fully funding the youth programming mental health service, even the bill that Robert White had.

I had a mental health bill, uh mentoring bill as well, or workforce development pipeline that could actually give youth access to careers and jobs and entrepreneurship.

We are being asked to pass careful expansion while the alternatives as we know remain unfunded.

Uh we need proactivity, not reactive.

This means fully equipping our youth on the front end by giving them what they need, and historically, we have given them less with more money.

You know, my rant about that.

We did more with a nine billion dollar budget than we are doing with a 22 billion dollar budget.

If we are not building a future for our youth, then who are we building it for?

With the best interest of our young people in mind and with urgency, this is a time that we must act.

This is part of a grand solution, but I contend that we have to and must do more.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember White.

Uh, further on the bill.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Should I speak to the amendments?

If you want.

Great.

Thank you.

All right, uh, Chairman, I have two amendments today.

The first amendment um would uh have the curfew law expire on December 31st, 2028.

I've made clear that I have grave concerns about the law that's before the council, and I hope that this can be accepted as a reasonable compromise proposal.

I've heard my colleagues talk about the myriad programs they plan to implement to support our youth.

Programs that are by far the better approach to supporting our teens and encouraging positive behavior.

I agree.

Let's do those things.

I also think it's important to put a sunset on this legislation to force urgency in getting these programs in place and provide an opportunity to evaluate the law's efficacy before any reauthorization that might take place.

I think this body should be embracing sunset provisions as a general matter in the interest of greater government oversight.

If this legislation is going to pass, let's at least make sure there's an end date so the district is forced to do work, do the work, and does not permanently shirk off responsibilities for real solutions.

If after two years there's evidence that this works and doesn't cause harm, the council will be welcome to take it up again.

But they should make that decision deliberatively based on evidence transparently and for the public to see.

So moved, Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Nidau, this uh adds a section, subsection D to section three.

This act will expire December 31st.

I'm just saying asking to be clear what we are voting on.

It was circulated yesterday at I believe 10 27 a.m.

Is that correct?

That sounds right, yes.

Okay.

Discussion.

Um I just have a clarifying question just to sunsets are how we got here in this conversation today, or in terms of the emergency.

Um this permanent bill is um amending an underlying bill.

Um, well, existing code, rather, language in terms of um that has existed since what 95 or something.

Um just I want to understand, I want the everybody to understand the fact.

So once this act, because I think Brian wrote it as this act will be sunset on December 31st, 2028.

The code would revert back to the 1995 version.

I guess it's more my question for the general counsel.

Uh, general counsel wants a few moments to look at that.

Okay.

Because I don't want people to think that the curfew goes away.

I think it just goes back to the previous language.

So my understanding is this new language.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh just uh refers to the new language.

Um say that one.

Is that what you said?

It only refers to the new language.

It only referred to the new language.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Pinto.

I think to Councilmember Henderson's, I don't know if it was your point, but your comment that we have been here many times because of these sunsets.

I think it would actually be a different conversation if the sunset proposal was about the entirety of the curfew.

But we were we would just be saying we don't want our local police department to be able to be nimble in a limited situation to respond to something happening.

I don't know why we would want to tie the hands of our local government to respond to a situation like this.

As a reminder, again, this is not a citywide curfew.

This is not a citywide authority.

Um, these zones are targeted, specific zones when MPD has specific information around violence.

Um I don't I'm not gonna be supporting this amendment today.

Um, and I will just actually I'll stop there.

Is there further discussion on this?

Councilmember Robert White?

Um, thank you, uh Chairman.

Thank you for this discussion.

So uh we hit upon something that is really important in this conversation.

Uh Councilmember Pinto just mentioned this allows the police to respond when their indications of violence.

None of us are talking about violence, right?

We're talking about youth gathering.

Um earlier in the breakfast meeting there was a uh comparison to riots.

We're talking about youth gatherings.

And when I sat here in this seat last week and listened to these young people talk about where they were showing up, why they were showing up, it just took me back to when I was a kid, right?

I went to go go's, and yeah, they were fights sometimes.

I didn't want to be anywhere near those fights.

Like these kids don't want to be anywhere near the violence.

So we have to be really careful about our rhetoric, but also be careful about how the rhetoric influences our thinking about what we're addressing.

We're not addressing violence.

We already have laws for that, right?

Those laws are already in place.

Those consequences are already in place.

What we're addressing is youth gatherings, kids coming together.

That is what this is, right?

That is what this is.

It's young people coming together.

And then the reason I support so fully, well, the reason I oppose the curfew, uh, but do support Councilmember Nadeau's amendment is because we continue to confuse the symptom with the cause.

If we don't want young people to gather in mass numbers in one place, then we have to respond to why they are doing that.

What is missing?

And when we institute curfews instead of doing what we need to do, then we let ourselves off the hook without helping these young people at all.

And the problem gets bigger.

The problem that they don't have anywhere to gather doesn't get addressed by us because we've swept them away in a curfew.

The issues with mental health don't get addressed by us because we've swept them away in a curfew.

So hold ourselves responsible.

We're talking about holding young people responsible.

Hold us responsible to figure out what's going on and what we need to do about it.

But one thing I know is that this ain't about riots.

This ain't about violence.

This is about young people gathering, and we have not started to touch young people gathering in this curfew legislation.

And so this is something I cannot support.

Thank you, Chairman.

But I do support the amendment.

Further on the amendment.

Oh, Councilmember Fruman, did you want to be recognized?

Uh sure.

I mean, I support the curfew.

I mean, I think that the curfew is a nimble response that is intended to be preventive.

And I think it is an important tool in this moment for the city to have.

So I I on the one hand, I think, well, if it's a good idea, why would you sunset it?

If it's going to be, why not do it permanently and not sunset it?

On the other hand, this has clearly triggered an enormous amount of controversy.

And so what is the harm in sunsetting it?

Because we as a council can look at the situation in two years and decide, no, this was an important tool.

Let's continue it.

So while I support the curfew, I will support this amendment.

I expect in two years I will support an extension of the curfew, but I have no uh I'll have to go through that work again and face the criticism for it at that time.

Uh, but I will support the amendment.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

So we have the amendment before us.

This is uh Councilmember Nadeau's amendment number one.

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

I those opposed say no, no, Mr.

Chairman.

Please recall me as the um amendment fails.

Huh?

What?

Gentlemen, can we get a roll call?

No.

Wait a minute.

I spoke.

I the amendment is approved.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, may I um speak to my second amendment?

Give me just a second.

I think I was gonna have to step in there.

Yeah, I'm doing it.

Uh Councilmember Nadeau, you have a second amendment.

I do, thank you.

Um, there were a few versions circulated, so just for clarity.

Um, the version that we are voting on at this time was circulated at 1255 p.m., 55.

Okay.

This amendment is crafted with harm reduction as a priority.

Um I have an amendment from you.

It says 253 p.m., you said 12.

253 is the same as uh 1255, it just includes the applicability clause.

You may use the 253 circulation as well.

So 1250 uh 253 p.m.

is the correct version.

It is.

Yes, okay.

Um, this amendment is crafted with harm reduction as a priority for our kids.

It would prevent police from bringing teens to a detention center or a carceral environment if they are detained solely for a curfew violation.

Handling cases that involve youth requires extra care and consideration.

MPD currently detains or arrests youth as a way of bringing them into compliance with curfew.

A child arrested for a curfew violation, which is not a crime, and not charged with any other status offenses or delinquent acts should not be at a secure detention facility or police stations for safety reasons.

MPD should make an effort to take those kids home, drop them off at a youth event, a drop-in center, or any other space safe space identified by the youth as a last resort.

If a minor's caretakers are unreachable and an officer has made a reasonable effort to transport the youth to a safe space, an officer may transfer the minor to care of CFSA.

To be clear, youth charged with actual crimes would still be transported to a detention center as current law provides.

Violation of curfew is a status-based offense, not a criminal violation.

All evidence suggests that exposing children to a carceral environment and treating them like criminals can lead to actual criminal behavior that negatively impacts youth families and our community.

To be clear, just to read this part of the amendment out.

It states if a person is not immediately a minor who violates this subchapter and subsequently detained by MPD shall be released within a reasonable time into the custody of the minor's parent, guardian, or an adult person acting in local parentis.

If such a person is not immediately available, the minor may be transported to the minor's residence.

Any youth programming event is established under section 3B of this chapter.

A 24-hour youth drop-in center, another safe location identified by the minor, or if none of the above options are viable, the minor is placed in the custody of the appropriate official at the child and family services agency.

With that, I move the amendment.

Let me see if Councilmember Pinto wants to speak and then I'll recognize you, Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And thank you, Counselor Nadeau.

I totally appreciate the intention of this amendment, but I cannot support it and want my colleagues to understand a little bit more of this context.

But again, I appreciate the intention behind the amendment to ensure that curfew violations are not carceral.

When we had our round table many months ago, then Chief Pamela Smith told us that sometimes they brought young people to YSC for curfew violations.

We then followed up with MPD about that since we understood that curfew violations are not criminal and therefore do not warrant arrests.

What we learned was that MPD used to bring young people to their substations, but that was not sustainable because it required additional officers to staff those substations, which resulted in more overtime.

Additionally, MPD substations don't have the proper resources that our young people need.

They don't have cots, showers, food like the non-secure side that YSC has available.

YSC is also better equipped to provide services and referrals to young people and their parents and guardians.

While in conversations with MPD about this, they've communicated that the staff at YSC have much more experience interacting with young people and are much more knowledgeable about how to ensure that youth are connected with resources.

While the ideal situation is that a young person either walks home or is transported home, there is not always an available parent or guardian.

And therefore, we need to have a backup location that's in the best interest of the young person.

I also want to reiterate there are very few curfew violations each time that a curfew zone has been declared.

The law requires that when there are not imminent threats, MPD must give two verbal warnings to young people, telling them how to comply and at least one verbal warning if there even is an imminent threat.

Often young people disperse, break up into smaller groups, and therefore are compliant.

They're not violating the curfew when they're in a group of eight or fewer.

It's vital that our young people are given proper resources if they're a violation of the curfew, and MPD substations were not the best place to do that.

Just like CFSA, who we have reached out to, we have not gotten confirmation that they can handle this.

Their position is that they don't staff physically 24-7.

And so they would need to be called to go physically go down to the station to sit with a young person, which is going to cost extra resources.

And my understanding is this amendment is not subject to appropriation, and so therefore, if it's not funded, it would nullify the entirety of the curfew amendment.

So I cannot support this amendment today, and I would ask colleagues if you do support the juvenile curfew bill not to support it because this in effect would make it null.

Um you'll have to in turn, Councilmember Bonds.

Okay, um, thank you, Chairman.

Um I just wanted to ask the maker of the amendment if item A, B, C, and D could be eliminated, which are minors' residents, youth programming, and a 24-hour youth drop-off center safe location identified by the minor, and that we would focus on the young person going to the child and family services agency.

It just seems to me if we give um law enforcement many options of what they can do, it generates confusion.

Um it's a time constraint, um, usually when law enforcement is involved, and I just think that it makes it's clear, it's easier for everyone to know this is where you will go to pick up your child.

And so I was just wondering if you would um accept that as a friendly amendment to your amendment, Mr.

Chairman.

May I respond?

Yes, okay.

Um, thank you, uh Councilmember.

Um, putting the children in the custody of CFSA is the last resort, and uh it is a better resort than DYRS.

Um having spoken with CFSA today, um, they uh they let us know exactly what they think it would cost to implement this, and so the amendment is subject to appropriations, just like some other parts of the bill, which is what we do when we pass permanent bills, right?

We build the scaffolding around them and we fund them adequately.

So that to me is not a concern or a reason not to support the amendment today.

Oftentimes our amendments have a fiscal impact.

Um, but no, the preference is that either the minor would go home, that they would go to youth programming that is designed for exactly this purpose: a better place to be, a safer place to be, that they would go to one of the 24-hour youth drop-in centers.

There are a couple right now, and then another safe location identified the mine by the minor.

Perhaps that's you know the home of a friend, um, etc.

So if none of those options are above, that's when we would go to CFSA, and I believe that is the right course of action.

Hello.

Um, well, thank you.

I guess my thought was um we we cannot guarantee the safety of a young person that we might return to their residence.

We don't know if their parents are there or anyone who is considered um an individual who can care for the young person.

And then um the youth programming.

What does that really mean?

Um, how do we distinguish one program from the other?

And the 24-hour drop off center, that's just taking a lot for granted.

Again, how do we know?

May I just one minute?

Chairman, all right.

Um, how would we know that this is really, you know, a safe environment for this particular youth, and then uh safe location identified by the minor.

Well, you know, if I want to hang out, I'll tell you where I'd like to go with my friends.

So it may not necessarily be a safe um environment.

My my point is that we are we're leaving a lot to chance when our purpose is to make sure that our young people are safe, are in a safe environment.

We know that child and family services is that designated location within our government.

So that's why we're suggesting that.

So thank you very much.

Um thank you.

Councilmember Henderson.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, something that Councilmember Nadeau said earlier, I think does kind of call into question which version we're voting on, because there is one amendment that has an S2A clause, and then there's one that doesn't have an S2A clause.

So which one are we voting on?

It is subject to appropriations of 200,000 for two dedicated FTEs.

Okay.

So then that would be the 253.

Yeah, that would be the better one to use because it has the voice with it.

All right, yes.

Um my second question was just in terms of like logistics.

So let's say you have an MPD officer who's picked up a young person at I don't know, 12 30 in the in a.

They've called for the parent or guardian, and the parent or guardian will come pick up the young person, but this is saying that they could not do that meet point at a MPD district location based on this language?

Like they're not allowed to bring the young person there, so the meat has to be someplace else not there.

They cannot bring them to an MPD location.

Okay.

Then my second is just in terms of from a legal standpoint.

Once a young person is in the custody of MPD, let's say the, you know, we've been talking about older kids, but like let's say 13, because we have seen some 13-year-olds who have been out later.

Um is MPD legally allowed to just drop off a young person at a drop-in center, or would the officer have to stay until a parent or guardian arises to do that transfer?

This adds a new paragraph three, and it specifically says MPD is permitted to take them to the minors' residence to any youth programming event.

And just to clarify for council member bonds, this is defined under section 3B of this chapter.

Um a 24-hour youth drop-in center, those are those exist currently.

So think Sasha Bruce or its successor organization, Zoe's Doors, those are already 24-hour centers where youth can walk in any time.

So there's no reason MPD couldn't just drop them off.

Um and then the next one is another safe location identified by the minor, and then after that it would be um with CFSA.

Okay, I think there would be not all officers, but some would some officers would feel uncomfortable with the idea of just dropping off a young person at a location that they identified if there's not an adult there.

Yeah, I mean, nobody has to do that.

That is like we are trying to create some more options here, but I think there's some good government provided programming and facilities that are available before we get to the bottom of the list.

Thank you, Customer Henderson.

Were you done?

I would like some clarification on the fiscal impact.

So I'm looking at what was circulated at 253, and I'm not seeing any fiscal impact about 200,000 or two FTEs.

I do see a fiscal impact statement that's uh refers to uh what was circulated uh earlier, not this version.

So can you please explain what fiscal impact um and I don't see language in the amendment that says subject to appropriation?

Um Madam Budget Director, can you help me because I'm just also trying to comb through this?

Do you have the fiscal impact statement?

Yes, I do.

Um, so we uh issued a fiscal impact on this amendment, which said that the conclusion is this amendment may increase the cost in the fiscal impact statement for the underlying legislation, which found that funds are insufficient to implement the measure.

We did reach out to CFSA.

Uh they indicated that there would be a cost, they didn't know how much it would be.

Um it's good to hear that you did get an actual estimate.

Um but the but the fiscal impact does say that um, you know, it could have a cost.

It hasn't been determined at this time.

I know we were working with your staff on making sure that the applicability provision was correct, so that um this portion, your amendment would be um, just your amendment would be subject to appropriations, like other amendments have been to the bill, so that it wouldn't cost the entirety of the bill to be subject to appropriations, just the actual portions that have a cost.

Thank you.

And in our conversation, that was not exactly my question.

I'm sorry.

So uh part of my difficulty here is that there are three versions of this amendment.

There was a version circulated yesterday, there was a version circulated at 10 38, and there was a version circulated at 2 53 p.m.

Now I thought I heard Councilmember Henderson ask about the fiscal impact, and I thought I heard that the answer, which was not from the budget director, was two FTEs and a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Now, maybe I got that wrong, but I don't see that in writing anywhere here.

What I do see in writing is from the budget director referring to the version that circulated at 1027 according to the fiscal impact statement at 1027 a.m., which I'm assuming is the one that was circulated at 1038 a.m.

I don't know that there's a material difference between the 1038 version and the 253 version.

If I sound a little frustrated, it's because there are so many different versions.

But on top of that, that there was a statement about 200,000 and two FTEs, and I don't see that in writing.

So I would like clarification on that statement that there were a couple FTEs and a couple hundred thousand dollars, which is not what the budget director said.

Chairman, the budget director has issued a fiscal impact statement that seems to be legally sufficient for consideration of this bill.

The additional information that was provided to me by CFSA after the FIST was issued is that they suggest 200,000 for two dedicated FTEs to work on this program.

They also indicated at that time that they're open to working with us to narrow the scope of that, but at this time they wanted to play it safe and suggested that that would cover them should they need uh additional staffing.

All right, so your answer to Councilmember Henderson, there's nothing I don't mean anything that there's anything wrong in this, but your answer is based on what CFSA told you.

That's right.

That was my mistake.

Okay.

Thank you for having me.

I'm not saying there's a mistake, I just want that clarified.

Okay, seems we're good now.

Thank you.

Um next in the lineup is Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just wanted to level set, um, since January of this year, CFSA has had three kids brought to them in their custody as part of the MOU between them and uh YSC.

And so they have the mechanisms in place.

The issue is that they often don't have the young people overnight.

The young people tend to stay at YSC and then they're brought to CFSA at 5 30, 6 a.m.

when staff is there.

There are staff at CFSA overnight.

There's usually a social worker on call as well as a hotline uh caller, and sometimes they are dispatched.

CFSA, in my opinion, uh respectfully has within its authority uh the ability to rearrange staff personnel.

So this idea that they have no workers, they don't have the means to do it.

I just don't think uh aligns with the facts.

Um and most importantly, I think it's important to remember two facts.

One, YSC has routinely been overcrowded.

So every time we're talking about bringing more young people there, I think it poses a real issue and challenge.

This means we are bringing young people detained for curfew theoretically and intermixing them with young people in detention.

Now, DURS would say, well, we keep them separate.

Um, but again, when when the YSC is overcrowded, we know they are being creative and finding space, and it is not always possible to keep the young people separate.

Last thing I would just say, research is clear.

We ought to minimize interactions with young people and police, young people in detention.

So any effort to redirect young people from sitting at a police station, sitting in a police or a jail sill, sitting in a detention center, we ought to do that.

The research is abundantly clear there, and so I I plan to support this.

Uh I think we can figure out the mechanics of rerouting staff, adding uh revenue if necessary, uh, but I think the underlying point is to ensure that we can promote youth well-being and minimize the harm caused by more young people uh sitting in a detention center.

Thank you.

Councilmember Tran White.

Uh I was going to overemphasize the overcrowdedness at DYRS and also the insurmountable amount of violence that's there at the facility.

We've been to hearings over and over, over 60 staff members are out for being assaulted or involved in assault.

The overcrowdedness, I just don't think that's a good idea to sit young people for uh careful violation.

That concludes your statement.

Yes.

Uh Councilmember Fruman.

Uh I've had I've had a child dropped off at home and have had to go to the station to pick one up.

So uh I don't know.

Uh what as we're talking about this, the mechanics do worry me.

So, Councilmember Pinto, I think you said there this would only be triggered after there were two warnings to disperse.

And so then what happens, and you have this menu.

I think Councilmember Henderson talked about a situation where it was late at night and it was one person, but what happens in a setting where you have a dozen or two dozen kids and there's this menu of options to go to, and one of the options is the place that the youth designates, and so then how the police are now taking kids all potentially all around the city.

Then I worry about the mechanics of this and the dynamic in the moment after a youth has declined to disperse after two warnings that we're creating something that will be very difficult to execute in practice.

Uh further on the amendment, Councilmember Pinto.

I do just want to triple clarify about this this funding measure.

So if I understood the 253 version that we're voting on is limited, the amendment itself is subject to appropriations now.

Is that right?

Okay.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Um so I that's that's very helpful.

I I guess I just will say in response to this idea of the overcrowding, which is absolutely a big challenge.

Last month there were zero kids.

Right, Council Arnodeau, that was the number you said earlier this morning.

Zero kids.

Last three weeks there were zero kids, and the two weeks before there were six in one night, but I think that was the most they've had.

So I mean we are, yeah.

Talking about a very, very limited um number of kids, and they are not sitting in a jail cell.

They're not sitting in a jail cell.

They're going to the non-secure side of YSC.

And again, the best way for this not to happen is not to violate a curfew.

First, if it's just designated this zone, you don't have to show up to that one location.

You could go anywhere else in the entire city.

And second, if you still are violating the curfew in the one designated limited zone, police have to give two warnings before anything else can be done.

Um, so this idea that even if all of those things happened, we wouldn't have a process in place that that makes sense.

Um I worry about, and so I I can't support this amendment.

Uh Councilmember Parker, second round.

Um, I think the point that we're only talking about a handful of kids undermines this argument that what happens if we're talking about dozens of kids.

We're not talking about dozens of kids.

So I think that's important.

We're talking about at best two to three kids in a single night.

It's possible to take them home or any number of other places.

I also want to just lift up what I heard last week in the round table with young people.

I know what the law says in terms of protocol and process.

What I heard repeatedly is that's not their interaction with officers.

When there's only two young people, they're being stopped.

Uh, they are not being asked twice to leave.

They are being apprehended, detained, sometimes released.

And so I just challenge the assertion that oh, they're gonna be asked twice to move on, and then they get detained because I heard at least from three or four young people that that hasn't been their experience.

I think that's important for us the level set, the law versus how it's playing out, and it may just be important for us to reiterate with MPD what the expectations are for the youth curfew policy.

Um so I'm not gonna support this amendment.

I think we're overengineering, and I think that can become a problem here.

Um there are five members who have over the last month or so been consistent in not supporting the underlying curfew, and I see that this amendment, while it's intended to make to reduce or eliminate negative impacts on juveniles.

I think it's going to um just because of how complicated it is, is going to make it more difficult to enforce the curfew, which is designed to be limited, limited as to time, limited as to place, limited as to frequency, and uh so I think that this will have a negative effect on the efficacy of the curfew that uh majority of members have been supporting.

Uh so I would urge members not to support this amendment.

There's no further discussion.

I'd like to request a roll call vote, please.

Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Councilmember.

And the vote is on the amendment.

Councilmember Freeman?

No.

Councilmember Fruman votes no.

Councilmember Henderson.

No.

Councilmember Henderson votes no.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis George votes yes.

Chairman Mendelson.

No.

Chairman Mendelson votes no.

Councilmember Nadel?

Yes.

Councilmember Nodeau votes yes.

Councilmember Parker.

Yes.

Councilmember Parker votes yes.

Councilmember Pinto?

No.

Councilmember Pinto votes no.

Councilmember Robert White.

Yes.

Councilmember Robert White votes yes.

Councilmember Treyon White?

Yes.

Councilmember Treyon White votes yes.

Councilmember Allen?

Yes.

Councilmember Allen votes yes.

Councilmember Bonds.

No.

Councilmember Bonds votes no.

Councilmember Crawford?

Yes.

Councilmember Crawford votes yes.

Councilmember Falder?

No.

Councilmember Felder votes no.

Mr.

Chairman, there are seven yeses and six noes.

The amendment is approved.

Councilmember Parker, did you want to be recognized for an amendment?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I have an amendment that I would like to move now.

This amendment adds a new Section 3C that would require DPR to operate at least four recreation centers in at least four different wards between the hours of 3 p.m.

and 11 p.m.

on Fridays and Saturdays.

As with any legislative language, this one would be subject to appropriations.

But the gist of this is following that round table we had last week, there were a few recommendations that came out pretty clearly with DPR activity and engagement leading the pack.

We heard overwhelmingly from young people that they have found DPR recreational spaces uh positive and something that it is something they want to engage more in.

We have been in touch with DPR.

It is feasible to extend hours, but it will come with a cost.

Um, I am mindful that there are other efforts uh to augment and extend DPR programming, and I believe this would uh align and complement those efforts.

I think it's important for us to signal to our young people, uh, the nearly 50 young people that came out to testify that we hear you, uh, that we're taking action on the recommendation that I heard pretty directly and poignantly, that they want uh their voice heard in this matter as it relates to the curfew, and they want more positive outlets.

I also think it's important to stress that the curfew is a reactive tool.

Uh I don't, you know, there's no other way to paint it.

This is something that is truly proactive, that if we extend hours at DPR rec facilities, give our young people more positive structure, productive places to engage and recreate, there will be less of a need for them to congregate by the dozen or hundreds in places throughout the district.

So this amendment would authorize DPR to extend their hours to 11 PM on Fridays and Saturdays.

It adds in flexibility to allow them to determine which rec centers throughout the city uh in response to their needs, but also what trends they're seeing with young people, and I would hope my colleagues would support it.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Parker, this also had a couple of circulations.

Um I think the version, the last version was circulated at 1109 this morning.

Does that sound right?

Let's go with that.

Yes.

Well, okay.

Uh I'm waiting.

I'm waiting on my team to confirm the time.

Um, it's sort of important that we know which we're voting on.

Yes.

Uh it was circulated with the note.

Did it uh yes, that is correct.

Reflect technical changes.

Um, can you explain the fiscal impact?

Because I don't have the everything in front of me.

Is it clear that this is subject that this is subject to appropriations?

It's not making other provisions that are not subject to appropriations, subject to appropriations.

Um that is our understanding that this amendment itself would be subject to appropriations.

Um, you know, last I heard the budget team was still working with DPR to better understand the costs.

My understanding would be that uh DPR would have to employ anywhere from three to five FTs to be able to extend these hours.

There's also uh important to consider programming versus the extended hours, you know, zooming out of those particulars.

I think it we can find the resources, we can fund it, we can massage the language.

I think it is important for the underlying measure being the curfew to center the number one proposal we heard from our young people, which was to extend DPR programming.

And so I fully understand that we have to find funding for this, and we'll work with my colleague, Councilmember Lewis George and committee uh as well as others uh to make sure we can get it across the finish line.

Um let me look to the bill sponsor.

She's not asking to be recognized, Councilmember Lewis George.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um, so as chair of the committee with oversight over DPR, parks and recreation, I share the desire of my Councilmember Park, uh, Councilmember Parker and others to expand DPR hours, but I'm respectfully asking colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment and for councilmember Parker to let the ball that I have already had rolling roll.

Uh for over a year, my committee has been working closely with DPR and the executive office of the mayor on how to expand recreation center hours and programming specifically for the district's young people.

On November 20th, I held a hearing on DPR pools, including indoor and outdoor aquatics and programming such as swimming lessons and youth competitions.

On December 3rd, I held a hearing literally entitled recreational permitting hours of operation and programming, where the public DGS and DPR provided input on the related bills and those topics in general.

We've already seen evidence of progress from this oversight and engagement, and I made sure Director Freeman met with the young people who testified that uh about their several recommendations.

And during the hearing in the fall, I also requested DPR to formalize engagements with young people, so listening always results in action.

As a result of that, a few months later, on March 13th of this year, DPR held its first teen summit in Town Hall to learn from what the agency is and isn't doing well with youth programming.

Following what the young people said to us on March 13th, uh per my request, DPR and EOM are finalizing cost and implementation assessments for multiple proposals based on the various DPR related bills.

We will shortly know the true cost of expanding hours to DPR, DGS, and other agencies like DCPS for account accounting for staffing, custodial services, security, transportation, and programming.

I know several of you have been eager to see DPR bills move forward, and we took a very intentional approach to do fact-finding and oversight first and legislation and budgeting second.

My committee has never marked up legislation without knowing the bill would be funded because, on principle, I would never claim a win for words on a piece of paper that do not turn into tangible action.

And so, in addition, adjusting DPR's role in supporting our youth, I think should be done out of the context of juvenile justice and this curfew.

A curfew and recreation opportunities are on the opposite ends of the spectrum of how this government engages with its young people.

This would amendment wouldn't be wouldn't be germane uh without uh the amendment that Council McCrawford uh thoughtfully put forward, and the executive was willing to absorb those costs a current for the current DPR requirements.

Um, this amendment though dictates rigid hours, removes the flexibility flexibility DPR needs to respond to community needs, and may force DPR to use overtime, cut existing hours, or establish an expensive and complicated third shift, as DPR shared during our hearing about AROS of operation.

This amendment only addresses hours of operation, not programming, which is another issue without dedicated.

Can I have an additional minute, Chairman?

Thank you.

Without without dedicated funding.

I object, Mr.

Chairman.

Without dedicated funding and people for programming, more hours would just lead to empty rooms with lights on at a high cost.

Um, so again, I appreciate Councilmember Parker's efforts to support the young people of the district as I do and respectfully ask my colleagues to defer to the committee on facilities jurisdiction and work to expand DPRs and programming in our budget report.

And so I will say, as it will be released and voted on in less than two weeks, you will be able to see this.

Uh, there will be no delay in showing the council is listening to our youth who have been courageously showing up and rightfully demanding change.

Uh the upcoming DPR on the bus bill will address hours, programming fields, and facilities based on elements from Councilmember Pinto's Fairness and Use Negotiation for All Recreation Property Act, expanding community access to safe and clean recreational space, Councilmember Allen's B 260112, Department of Parks and Recreation Field Priority Access Amendment Act, as well as the Department of Recreation Hours Expansion Amendment Act, as well as Councilmember Henderson's planning actively recreation upkeep for neighborhood resources, the Parks and Rec Amendment Act that was those elements that require funding, such as hours, programming, and facilities will be addressed in the committee's budget markup, while other issues such as field prioritization and access will be left until after we are finished with the budget.

And if there are desire and available funds to make changes or additions to what the committee will do, I'd be happy to work with you all when the full budget is before us again in two weeks.

Thank you so much, Chairman.

I wanted to just feel get eliminate questions because people may have asked those questions.

So thank you.

Uh, before I recognize Councilmember Parkers or anyone else who wishes to speak first round, Councilmember Pinto.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I think that all of the discussion around the juvenile curfew this year has actually been a really important opportunity for us to come together on what our youth need, and it's clear that providing enriching opportunities for our young people is really paramount.

That's why I have introduced many, many bills on this subject this year.

I introduced the Teen Center Establishment Act of 2025 to establish four dedicated teen centers throughout the city that of act public access to schools and recommendations of youth councils, ideas that came directly from our young people.

I introduced the Youth Villages Grant Established Amendment Act to support community organizations to provide neighborhood level programming for teens based off of the senior village model, an idea that came from justice involved young people.

I introduced several bills in my Prosper DC plan to expand young people's access to financial opportunities, including a new app that will connect kids with paid jobs.

We're working with businesses and nonprofits to participate in these opportunities.

Also, my Bill, the Youth Banking Amendment Act to ensure that teens can open checking and savings accounts without parental consent.

I really appreciate Councilmember Lewis' George efforts to take many components of these bills, as well as my colleagues, Councilmember Allen's and Councilmore Henderson's bills to move forward through this committee process to ensure that these ideas are not just passed, as she noted, but funded and prioritized in this budget, which I've understand from all of us is a huge priority and should be a huge priority to also ensure that it can move forward and be implemented in a way that's going to be sustainable.

I am not attaching any of my bills to this youth curfew bill today, even though I believe that they are all excellent ideas.

And so I wanted to ask him about how he envisioned those bills being complimentary.

I'm sorry, what bills?

You mentioned earlier that you think all of those other bills that we've introduced that Council Lewis George is working on an omnibus can be done in a complimentary fashion to your amendment.

And so can you elaborate on that?

Yes.

So he may need some extra time to both answer my question and then make his own comment.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm happy to jump in.

Eager to jump in.

Well, why don't we just recognize you for two minutes?

If I'm and I say this respectfully.

I think this is more about territorialism than anything, that this is my turf, and and what I I would caution us from doing is making this a this is my turf, and that's your turf.

We should send a message now, because we had dozens of young people come with a direct request.

And it wasn't suggested, it wasn't a nice to have the young people in their testimony.

I'm happy to share it with you all.

Said, will you pass this amendment to extend DPR rec hours?

And I said yes.

So I'm keeping my word to it.

Uh two, in terms of the question, all of the measures that were mentioned, you know, and I must say, when I heard that the ball is rolling.

This morning, um, when I asked, when is the omnibus coming?

There was no date.

Now it's two weeks.

Now it's two weeks.

So that's great.

Respectfully, respectfully.

So I would just say, um, again, the point is to send a message to our young people and to attach their request to the underlying measure.

If we're talking about mechanics at DPR rec centers, programming extending hours, I think all of that is complimentary.

Us voting on this today sends a message.

It says, yes, we want to extend hours and in two weeks in the budget or thereafter, we can deal with this measure with everything else that requires funding.

Yes, it requires funding.

I'm willing to go to bat to find the funding, but again, this is in direct response.

This is in direct response to what young people requested at the hearing, and they said would prevent them from gathering at large numbers in these takeovers, and I think we have a responsibility to act on it.

Point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

Well, you said how is this complimentary to the other bills?

Yeah.

Well, I'm saying if you're talking about DPR programming, extending hours, mechanics and technical changes.

I think those are complementary measures that it sounds like the Committee on Facilities will take up.

Point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

Will those things work together?

I'm not I'm not understanding the confusion.

Why am I hearing points of order around the table?

Councilmember Henderson?

My point of order question.

Um, so as I understand the rules of the council to move an amendment, you have to have a fist and a legal sufficiency.

Does this amendment have a fist?

Because I don't no one has said how much it costs.

I'm assuming there's a there's a fifth from the budget office.

I don't have it.

That wasn't circulated, so that's my point of order.

We're discussing something that we are still waiting on the budget office.

So we're debating something that in order.

Again, again, Madam Budget Director.

That wasn't the budget.

The FIS has been signed, and I'm sure it's on our website.

Um we have a database of all of our FIS that we we post all of them online, and my apologies if we did not send it to you directly.

That was no shade.

I'm sorry.

I don't have it.

And Jen, can you tell us what the FIST is?

Uh excuse me.

The conclusion says this amendment will increase the costs in the fiscal impact statement for the underlying legislation, which found that funds are insufficient.

So uh and and it's it's um it's it's like the other one.

Um the cost for extending the operations have haven't been determined.

I mean, DPR still hasn't gotten back to us on the costs of Councilmember Crawford's amendments from two weeks ago.

So um we have not heard back from them on this either, but you know, there there will be some sort of cost.

But there is a fiscal impact statement to be issued on this amendment.

And I think uh councilmember bonds whispered in my ear that it was circulated by councilmember Parker's staff.

Does that sound correct?

That sounds correct.

Okay, um, so we're getting a little out of control here.

Um, Councilmember Parker spoke, Councilmember Lewis George spoke, Councilmember Pinto spoke, Councilmember Parker spoke a second time.

Anyone else in the lineup?

Councilmember Robert White.

I'm happy for us to just I have bills, and and I think my bill should be the ones that we move.

What's that?

Nothing, Chairman.

You want to um you want to take all the bills in your committee and attach to it?

I would I would.

No, so look, there was um one of the moments in uh councilmember Parker's round table last week that was helpful and impactful for me.

One of the members asked why young people tend to go to gallery place and uh Navy Yard, and the young person said because there's police there, it'll be safer.

And that was eye-opening to me.

They're looking for somewhere safe.

So council member Parker's amendment reflects to me what young people are telling us.

They want safe places to go, especially during the hours when they're most vulnerable.

Uh so keeping rec centers open later on Fridays and Saturdays to me seems like a practical step toward that need.

I am sure this can be you know absorbed into other bills that are moving and improved and expanded, but I don't see the point in waiting.

Um, like let's let's start and improve from there, but I don't think we should keep the young people waiting longer.

We have we have something on the table.

We can perfect it, improve it with other bills in the coming weeks.

But uh, but I I support this amendment, I think it's responsive to young people, and and I think that's something uh we've got to be focused on right now.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, and councilmember Parker, I appreciate your leadership with conducting last week's uh youth hearing.

Uh was quite informative.

Um I want to be supportive of this amendment, but just a quick question.

Uh listening to uh Councilwoman Lewis George's uh statement.

Something came to mind, and I just wanted to know have you had any additional conversations with the director of DPR and how will this impact their ability to operate?

Uh should all should DPRs wreck hours are extended.

Thanks for that question.

Yes, I did have a conversation with the director.

Uh I did not ask her to endorse this amendment because I think that would have been an appropriate.

But I did ask her about the feasibility, and it boils down to should it be funded, they can pull it off.

And so this will come with a cost.

And I think through this budget process, it's gonna be up to us to try to fund it.

I do want to also acknowledge the hard work of Councilmember Allen and Councilmember Pinto.

I think Councilmember Henderson Henderson's bill is a little different.

And so by no means am I saying I'm the only one trying to do this.

But in last week's hearing, the young people ask very specifically, can you add this amendment to the curfew discussion?

I said yes.

I'm following up on that.

What I'm offering is as the Committee on Facilities takes up this omnibus package or not.

Uh I'm willing to work with my colleagues.

I'm willing to work with Councilmember Lewis George to find the funding for this and/or other measures.

But I hope that answered your question.

No, I just want follow-up question.

I think the intent is well, which I truly support.

However, looking at the fiscal shows that the funding is insufficient.

How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, because we don't have, yeah.

DPR does not have the money currently to uh extend hours.

The estimate, and I emphasize the estimate is that they would need to hire roughly three FTEs per site to do this.

So if you're talking about four rec centers, that's at least 12 new FTEs, which we would need to find the money for.

That's with every other competing priority.

Uh, but that's the hard work that we have to do in the coming weeks through our budget process.

Uh thank you.

Um Councilmember Pinto, second round.

All right, that is interesting.

That's the first time I'm hearing that estimate, which I think would be about a million dollars for that number of FTEs.

Um, just in thinking about all the priorities we were talking about this morning, um, to just reconfirm again, Jen, that would be subject to appropriations, this one provision.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, I this is not actually about this amendment.

I just wanted to respond to something Councilmember Parker said earlier about the turf battle idea.

Um, because I I do think there's a really good message in there that like we should all be participating in all topics.

Absolutely.

Um, and I also think in our committee structures, the way that the council has um set up our committees and have committee chairs, we are we are responsible for owning the oversight, those relationships, the follow-up, and making sure that all of the great ideas from this body are actually implemented.

And so, you know, your point from earlier this morning that we are one team in this government, that should also apply to the people doing the hard work at DPR every single day who have concerns and ideas to make sure that these bills are effective.

And so I think that we need to reconcile both those points that yes, we are one government, yes, people can have great ideas and amendments and bills, even if it's outside of their jurisdiction, and the committee chair with jurisdiction is responsible for having a heightened degree of expertise to move these ideas forward to take them from idea to action and implementation.

Um, and that is why we have I think the committee structure in the first place.

If I could jump in in 20 seconds to answer the question.

Was there a question to you?

I heard one.

No, there wasn't.

Uh council member.

Louis George.

Yeah, actually.

Second round.

I just want to say there's no we're not disagreeing here on the concept of this at all.

Um, but the one thing is I we're tying this to what something that I think is carceral.

Uh so you're taking something to meet that is possible, right?

Because then at the end of the day, I'm I'm going to maintain my vote against what I believe this curfew is.

And then that would be also me actively voting against what I think also the youth are asking for and is very positive.

And then as we continue to legislate, I mean budget this, then I'll have to go back to the QNAW curfew as we make updates and changes and things to it, which means we'll keep bringing up the juvenile curfew instead of centering now what young people and youth want.

And so it's really just the nexus that it's has to be tied to this when I don't believe it needs to be tied to this.

So I think we agree on what needs to happen.

We just disagree on that this is the medium and the nexus for which it should and can happen.

And it's not really, and that's why it's not a and and I also want you to know like it's not about the territory piece of it.

It's just that we have spent our like literally mumps trying to figure out the transportation issue because when we let young people out at 11 p.m.

at night, they gotta get home, and our bus network doesn't run that way.

We've been trying to figure out custodial staff because that would mean extra hours for already underpaid workforce.

It will literally implicate a lot of other, you know, people and things of that nature.

So we just we want to do it thoughtfully, we want to get it right, um, and we want to do it with urgency, which is why we've been working really hard and in these next few weeks to just make sure the things that need to be and can be funded through this mechanism, it will get funded.

So again, I we we're not disagreeing.

The youth have shown up.

This is what they said.

They said it in March when DP when DPR had their town hall.

Um they came to our committee and said it when we talked about programming.

And so um, you know, I just I just wanted to be clear that it's really like none of it is about us, it's about just how do we do this, and if we want to keep bringing back up the youth curfew over and over again while we're when we're trying to do programming simultaneously, I don't think that's a good idea because this to me is rooted.

That is this thing, curfew is motion to close debate.

Why y'all beat me to it?

But I I was in the queue though.

But I had a question.

Is um should be closed debate.

Does that take precedence over the lineup?

Okay, so it's not that it's yeah, that's right.

It doesn't take presidents over the lineup, it just means those who are supposed to be.

No, he wasn't recognized.

Um, council I will add Councilmember Tranmite to the um lineup.

Councilmember, um, it was a motion to close debate.

So, motion to close the debate as for roll call.

That's a motion to close the debate.

Um, I misunderstood.

All right, uh, there's been a motion to close debate.

The effect of which is that uh anyone who has not spoken can speak, plus to make her the motion, um the vote on the motion to close debate.

Did you say you wanted a roll call on that?

I want a roll call on the amendment itself.

All right, well, we don't have that in front of us at the moment.

Um, on the motion to close debate, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

I'm not hearing any opposed.

Yeah, I just have it.

Um I have in the lineup, Councilmember Allen, who has not spoken before.

Thank you.

Um, on this amendment, my notes tell me I need to list 10 bills that I've introduced.

Um, I'm not gonna do that.

Um briefly on this, I absolutely understand the intent where my colleague is coming from, and I agree with that.

We are offering an amendment to the permanent bill, which will still have to go through a mayoral review, congressional review.

So the implementation of this could be.

I mean, Congress is gonna be out of session for a good bit.

So I think the implementation of this is gonna be out a little bit.

If I hear Counselor Lewis George outlining a suite of legislation that is going to be targeted and focused on DPR programming, youth programming and activities, and then you are also about to move that in alignment with a budget we're about to move, which will then help take place in our on October, and you're working with the agencies to actually get that whole package forward.

I appreciate where the amendment is coming from, but it sounds to me like we have a pretty comprehensive suite that is about to move through.

The Counselor Lewis George is also gonna pair with funding that will actually address any the fiscal impacts on that.

Um, so I again appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but it sounds like counselor Lewis George has a package that's about to move with funding that will go with it that will align.

So I, for that reason, I think I'm gonna support the approach using our budget process and the bills that sound like they're coming in the next couple of weeks and won't support this amendment, but that's not because I don't think the intent is where we're trying to go, but it sounds like a more robust package is about to come forward.

And that seems like the best way to help uh make sure that those additional activities and services for our young people across the city are taking place.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I maybe I'm annoying.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh Councilmember Crawford, I believe you've not spoken.

Thank you.

Uh, I miss what Councilmember Lewis George said earlier.

Your timeline for the permanent is two or three weeks for the omnibus.

No, for I am, yeah, I'm funding all the pieces.

Yeah, I'm going to be funding within our committee.

Okay.

The portions of all of these legislations that need to be done, and then we are work out the more difficult, like permitting later on.

Okay.

Okay.

But yes, within through our committee budget, we are funding large portions of what this what this represents in the other legislations.

Okay.

And then I already know the answer to this, but Councilmember Parker, I'm assuming there's no way you would withdraw your amendment before budget markups.

I mean, I'm just now here and we're moving a budget markup in two weeks.

So I told you that.

I asked this in the breakfast, and there was no date.

And now we have two weeks.

Um Councilmember Parker, you were asked a question.

You don't have the floor.

Councilmember Crawford has to.

The question was what?

I'm sorry.

Would you whether you would withdraw the amendment?

I believe that was the question.

Um I'm gonna model being a good colleague, and I'm happy to withdraw this.

Uh, I do want to say for the record though, I made a commitment to the young people that we would bring this up for a vote.

So my contingency in withdrawing it is that we can bring it up for vote and committee markups, so that the young people can have something to look at to say their demand on policy was actually followed through on by the council.

I think that's important.

The amendment is withdrawn.

Uh, is there any further discussion on the bill?

Let's be clear.

Um, the bill, final reading.

So it's what we approved at first reading, amended by councilmember Nadeau's two amendments.

That's where we are.

Is there any further discussion?

Yeah.

Hearing no.

Yeah, uh my hand was up, Chairman.

Sorry.

What's that?

My hand is up.

Yes, Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you so much.

This is on the bill as amended.

This is on the bill as amended.

Um I think we when we had a conversation earlier today uh about the curfew, uh, and there was some conversation between colleagues.

I think what people felt like the intent of the curfew was and what was being realized, what was actually happening on the ground were completely different.

And I don't think we can move forward on this without the context of the greater context of this moment.

And I say that to say that uh I remember in undergraduate studying the school to prison pipeline, and curfews came up, and I kept remember thinking, like, well, why were people why would people continue to do it if evidence showed that it wasn't effective and it didn't work and it led to incarceration?

And I remember reading about mass incarceration and how it happened, and all of these things always do happen in the larger context of what's happening nationally, and in this case, it is absolutely happening in the context of what we know is happening on the national level because we are seeing these things play out in other cities that are doing the same thing because of a response that the federal government has decided to do in many of our communities, and that is why I've always said this is not the right tool for this moment in time because as history judges this moment, which it will.

At the at the outweighed risk, at the outweigh of benefits that really were not tangible or real in actual practice.

And so I think we always have to remember that what we're seeing on the ground is actual armed troops and individuals from federal agencies instituting this right now, and we cannot separate those two things.

The intent and what's happening on the ground both have to be considered in how we vote on this today, because that is what the lived reality of our young people and our communities are.

Not the intent, but the reality of harm.

And we know the reality of harm that exists.

So what X, my colleagues, many of you I know who are also sociologists and anthropologists and understand history and have read books on mass incarceration and books on these things, to do vote on this in the context of how history will judge this moment and judge the federal occupation of city cities, especially Washington, DC, and not move forward in making this mistake that we know will be a mistake if especially if the harm that can be realized, like the risk of harm to young people and death without agents with agents and people who don't have the escalation training and tools that don't know our young people and are not under our oversight.

So I just want to reiterate that and encourage my colleagues to think about those things as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh further on the bill, or we can proceed to a vote.

The vote will be on bill 26-461 as amended.

All those in favor of the bill say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Chairman, please please record me as no.

Chairman, please record me as voted no.

And please record me as voting no.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, who is recorded as no.

Councilmember Robert White, Councilmember Trayon White, and Councilmember Parker.

And Councilmember Lewis George, please.

Wonderful.

And Councilmember Lewis George.

Final reading.

The next measure is Bill 26-227.

Give me just a second.

Give me a second.

We're having a slight IT problem, which is why we're paused.

So the next bill before us is Bill 26-227, one front door amendment act of 2026.

Um I will say so moved.

I know there's an amendment uh from Councilmembers Nado and Pinto.

Part of my difficulty is that my screen does not reflect Councilmember Nadeau who's online.

So I will have to be told if she wants to be recognized on her amendment.

Although she did say that uh councilmember Pinto would move the amendment.

So I said so moved to the bill.

I'll recognize Councilmember Pinto.

Great.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chairman.

And I want to thank you and your team for all of your work on this bill as well, and thank Councilmember Nadeau and your team for working so closely with me and my team on the amendment before us today.

As I relayed in first reading, this legislation is a great step forward in creating more multi-unit buildings in the district, especially in places where larger apartment buildings are not viable.

However, as the chairman of the committee on judiciary and public safety, safety is always number one for me and has to be grounded in all of our policy decisions.

We have to ensure the safety of all people who will live in these units is prioritized as well as the safety of our first responders and our firefighters.

This amendment keeps the policy goal of more affordable housing intact while also clarifying the intent behind this legislation is for smaller buildings to have a maximum of four units per floor or a commensurate commensurate square footage.

That way anyone who's in these units has a safe distance to cover in order to exit their building via stairwell, and congestion in any stairwell in the event of a fire or emergency is relieved.

This is one of the important concerns that's been raised by our first responders in the event of an emergency, and it's critical that these stairwells remain accessible to our first responders and safe for them and residents.

Lastly, I do want to point out that this legislation is the first step towards implementation.

There's still a rulemaking process in which the code specifications will be determined by subject matter experts, and I look forward to continuing to stay engaged in that process to ensure that safety is paramount.

I asked my colleagues to support this amendment today that I am moving together with council member Nadeau.

Um this amendment was circulated yesterday, 1206.

Is that the correct version?

Yes, uh, if there's no objection, the amendment will be accepted.

I'm not hearing any objection.

So the amendment is accepted.

Is there further on the bill?

Discussion on the bill.

Bill 26-227 as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Yeah, we will turn to um reading and vote on proposed resolutions.

If there's no objection, I'll move the two contracts together.

That's PR 26-617 and PR 26-619.

I think I'm supposed to read the entire title.

Contract number CFOPD-20-C-014.

Extension approval payment.

And contract number CFOPD-17-C-009.

Extension approval and payment authorization approval resolution of 2026.

It doesn't really say a whole lot.

PR 26-617 would approve a multi-year extension of a contract with payment tech LLC, which provides merchant processing services on behalf of the District of Columbia's Office of Finance and Treasury.

The proposed contract dollar value to exercise option period 4 is not to exceed 10 million dollars in the period of performance is from May 19, 2026 to May 18th, 2028.

The second contract PR 26-619 would approve a multi-year extension of a contract with Fidelity Information Services LLC, which provides electronic benefit transfer services on behalf of the Office of Finance and Treasury for the Human Services Benefit Program managed by the Department of Human Services.

The proposed amount for option period two is 5.372 million dollars, and the period of performances from June 1, 2026 to May 31st, 2028.

Um together is there discussion.

The vote will be on both PR 26-617 and PR26-619.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Uh we'll turn now to reading and vote on emergency legislation.

Uh the first item was withdrawn in the office of the secretary, so it is not technically on the agenda.

So that we will turn to number two on page nine.

Certified business enterprise program compliance and enforcement support emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh good evening, everyone.

Uh in 2024, former council member and then chair of the Committee on Business and Economic Development, King and McDuffie introduced the Certified Business Enterprise Compliance and Enforcement Support Emergency Amendment Act of 2024.

The bill was introduced to strengthen the existing CBE bill and close loopholes.

Specifically, it required businesses applying for certification to be independently owned and operated.

It also amended minimum certified business enterprise performance requirements and a certified joint venture and establish uniform hearing procedures for enforcement actions.

And bill rather the bill passed and expired in 2025.

An identical emergency bill was put forward and passed.

Unfortunately, the bill expired on March 29th, 2026, leaving small businesses unprotected.

Today I'm putting forward a new emergency bill that is identical to the previous bills with an amendment that I'll speak to shortly, and it was circulated today at 2 22 p.m.

Specifically, I'm amending the bill to strike a citation to section 19 of the Office of Administrative Hearings Establishment Act of 2021.

Based on what we've learned this morning, the inclusion of section 19 has led to confusion about how to interpret the law, and so it is recommended that we reference the entire act instead of a specific section.

Aside from the technical change, the proposed emergency bill extends the provisions included in previous bills.

If the emergency bill does not pass, the agency will continue to be exposed to legal risk and bad actors will try to and take advantage of the loopholes in the law that this bill closes.

Although I'm putting forward this bill on an emergency basis, I am, or rather, I want to assure uh my council colleagues and the public that I will work with you guys to come up with a permanent version of the bill that keeps the provisions included in the emergency bill and adds additional provisions that I believe will further strengthen the CBE program.

I ask that my colleagues support this bill and I look forward to working with you all on a permanent bill.

Uh thank you.

I think I heard you say so moved.

So we have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion?

The vote would be on the declaration PR 26-646.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The ayes have it unanimously.

Uh, we have the underlying bill, bill 26-664.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I would like to move the same amendment to the temporary bill that was approved on the emergency bill.

Uh-huh.

So moved.

I'm sorry.

All right.

So let's be clear.

You just said so move to the bill.

Now I understand you have an amendment.

Yes.

And you're moving the amendment.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, just to be clear for the record.

I don't think you're actually removing section 19.

You're uh removing the reference to section 19.

That's the effect of the amendment.

So if a hearing is requested, OAH shall conduct the hearing pursuant to its processes.

That's the intent.

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

Hearing no objection, it is accepted.

We have the bill as amended.

Is there further discussion?

Chairman.

Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I want to thank Councilmember Felder for uh this bill and for introducing the amendment.

This amendment is a the amendment is a straightforward clarification that strengthens uh due process.

Section 19 was never intended to govern how hearings are conducted.

It addresses court review after the fact.

So keeping it tied to a hearing procedure to hearing procedures has created unnecessary confusion and open the door to arguments that can restrict parties' ability to fully present their case.

So by removing this section and relying on the broader statutory framework that actually governs OAH hearings.

The amendment restores clarity, and it ensures that all parties retain their full rights to present evidence and question witnesses without ambiguity being uh used to limit those rights.

Uh so with this technical uh fix, I I look forward to supporting the underlying bill.

Thank you, Chairman.

So we have the bill before us.

Is there any further discussion?

The vote is on bill 26-664 as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is PR 26-681.

Volunteer services clarification emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Pinto.

I'm sorry, is this 26681?

Volunteer Services Clarification Emergency Declaration.

Great.

Um, this bill really just enables lawyers at the attorney general's office to provide volunteer legal services.

So moved.

We have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion?

Councilmember Pinto.

This is um we've adopted this legislation before, have we not?

So this is just renewing the emergency and temporary.

PR 26-681.

All those in favor say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Aye.

Hearing no, no votes, the ayes have it unanimously.

The underlying bill is bill twenty-six-six seven two.

Councilmember Pinto.

So moved.

Thank you.

We have the bill before us.

Is there discussion?

On the bill, Bill 26-672.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any no votes?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is PR 26-682, strengthening probate administration emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Pinto.

Mr.

Chairman, I think we have to say together.

Microphone.

Sorry.

Thank you.

I'm moving this today together with Councilmember Allen.

Um, and I want to thank him and his team for all of your shared commitment to this important resolution and legislation.

This is really just to prevent a gap because the temporary legislation currently in place expires May 14th.

And so we need to re-up this emergency legislation until the permanent changes can become fixed.

Um, I want to defer to my colleague if you have any other pieces to add.

I don't, thank you very much.

So moved.

We have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on PR 26-682.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The underlying bill is Bill 26-674.

Councilmember Pinto.

So moved.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on Bill 26-674.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is PR 26-684.

TC water and sewer authority billing and disconnection clarification emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

This emergency helps continue the round of emergency and temporary legislation, maintaining provisions clarifying DC waters' ability to impose late fees for water service charges, as well as uh reporting to the council and OPC to prevent a gap while we wait for the imminent permanent to move forward.

With that, I move the deck, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

We have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on PR 26-684.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the underlying bill, Bill 26-679.

Councilmember Allen.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Is there discussion?

On the bill, Bill 26-679.

All those in favor say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is PR 26-683.

Personal delivery device weight limit.

Emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just like the last several measures, this extends a new round of emergencies and temporary legislation.

Need to prevent a gap in the law from the expiration of the temporary law and the upcoming passage of the permanent bill.

I move the deck, Mr.

Chair.

We have the declaration before us.

The vote will be on PR 26-683.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as voting no.

The secretary will record Councilmember Fruman is voting no.

The ayes have it.

That was on the declaration.

On the underlying bill, Bill 26-677.

Councilmember Allen.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on bill 26-677.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as voting no.

Secretary will record Councilmember Fooman is voting no.

The ayes have it.

The next measure is PR 26-685 reservoir district tax exemption emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, the reservoir district is a mixed use urban community that exemplifies the district's public private partnership model, right?

In Ward 5.

Um, currently the DC co provides a tax exemption for reservoir district parcels two and four are critical component of the project's financing.

The project's TAFA was structured using the 80% income limit category of the multifamily tax subsidy project income limits established annually by Hood.

And then February of this year, uh the inclusionary zoning rates uh were updated by DHCD, and they do not match with Hood's multifamily tax subsidy project income limits.

And so this uh emergency is necessary so that the project can continue to pencil out and move forward, and essentially it would allow uh the development there uh to be aligned to the hood rates using 80% income limit category of the multifamily tax subsidy project income limits, so moved.

Councilmember Parker, this has no fiscal impact beyond what we have previously approved.

That is correct.

That is correct.

We have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion?

Councilmember Pinto.

All right, Councilmember Parker, can you say a little bit more about why this project should have a different standard and what that means to other projects?

Yeah.

Um primarily because it predated the update uh from DHCD in February of this year, and so as the project was penciled out, the tax abatement that this body had already provided, uh, the development team there was based on those HUD rates.

Um, and DHCD's latest update does not align.

And so if we did not do this, that development project would not move forward.

And I'm sure that's not what anybody will want.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the underlying bill.

Bill 26 681.

So moved.

Discussion.

The vote will be on the bill.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We'll turn now to uh temporary.

Please listen carefully.

So if there's no objection, I'm gonna move in block.

Numbers two, three, four, five, and seven.

That's bill twenty-six-six six five certified business enterprise program compliance and enforcement support temporary amendment act as of twenty twenty-six.

The temporary will reflect the emergency as amended.

That's clear, madam general counsel.

Yes, it is, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh the second bill in this package is Bill 26-673, volunteer services clarification temporary amendment act of 2026.

The third is Bill 26-675 strengthening probate administration temporary amendment act of 2026.

The fourth is DC Water and Sewer Authority billing and disconnection clarification temporary amendment act of 2026.

That's Bill 26-680.

And then also included is Bill 26-682.

Reservoir District Tax Exemption Temporary Amendment Act of 2026.

Hearing no objection, uh I move those bills in block.

On those bills, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Bill 26-678, personal delivery device weight limit temporary amendment act of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

So loot.

Discussion.

On the bill, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Mr.

Chairman, please record me as voting no.

Adam Secretary record Councilmember Fooman is voting no.

And the ayes have it.

That is going to uh conclude this meeting.

I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, that the good times have come to an end.

Um the time is 428 p.m.

and this meeting is adjourned.