I'm calling to order this meeting.

This is an additional meeting of the committee of the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia.

We will have a legislative meeting today, our regular legislative meeting for the first Tuesday of the month of May.

But we are having an additional meeting of the committee of the whole first.

And uh I will note that uh today is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026.

The time is 1243 in the afternoon.

We are in room 500 of the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson Building.

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

At this committee of the whole meeting, there are five measures on the agenda for markup in the committee of the whole.

We'll see how we get through those.

And then there are roughly nine measures that came out of other committees that will go to the committee of the whole so that they can get on the legislative meeting agenda for today.

We begin our committee of the home meetings figuring out whether we have a majority of members present.

Mr.

Stone, would you call the roll?

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Present.

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford?

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Fruman?

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Here.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Councilmember Parker.

Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Robert White.

Present.

Councilmember Trayon White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you.

The first measure for markup in the committee of the whole is Bill 26-57 entitled Motor Vehicle Insurance Modernization Act of 2026.

This bill 26-57 was introduced on January 13th by me.

It was a reintroduction from last council period.

The bill would increase the mandatory minimum motor vehicle insurance requirements for bodily injury, liability, property damage liability, and third-party liability coverage.

These requirements were last updated 40 years ago.

That is, they were last updated in 1986.

The new requirements are largely identical to Virginia.

Bill 26-57 also would require insurers to provide enhanced underinsured motor vehicle coverage under a passenger vehicle liability insurance policy, which an insured may choose to opt out of.

Last, the bill would increase the mandatory minimum motor vehicle insurance requirements for bodily injury liability, property damage liability, and third-party liability coverage by a set increment for each classification beginning on January 1st, 2037, and on January 1st, every 10 years thereafter.

I want to stress before I read further from the report, we have looked closely at our neighboring states, and where we are with this bill would put us the same as where Virginia is and has been for a couple of years.

And also again emphasize that it's been a long time since these mandatory minimum insurance requirements were updated.

The district's current motor vehicle insurance minimum statute is almost 40 years old.

It was last updated in March 1986.

According to a study conducted by the Hertz Corporation, the average cost of a new car ranged from 10,400 to 12,700.

As of early 2026, according to Cox Automotive, uh estimates of the average cost of a new vehicle as $49,300.

Just as the cost of motor vehicles has risen exponentially over the last 40 years, so too has the cost of maintaining and repairing those vehicles, as well as the cost associated with, unfortunately, the harm those vehicles can cause, including medical insurance premiums and hospital emergency room bills.

I believe I saw a statistic that because the cost of new cars is so much higher today, something like uh 20 percent of all um vehicle accidents result in a car being totaled.

That is that the policy is less than the uh value of the car because of the inflation of car values.

In a vehicle collision, a person may be injured and might need medical care, time off from work to recover, and more.

All the components of this recovery cost much more today than in 1986.

Yet the same 25,000, $50,000 minimum insurance policy applies today.

In 1986, this minimum coverage was adequate to cover the injury and damage caused in most vehicle accidents.

However, the current value of $25,000 from 1986 is $75,000 in March 2026, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And the current value of medical care is well over 117,000.

It is clear that the minimum coverage is not keeping pace with consumer price index, nor the actual cost of medical services.

Bill 26-57 also requires carriers to include enhanced underinsured motorist coverage, that is EUIM, enhanced uninsured motorist coverage, and all new and renewal policies in the district.

The bill also provides that consumers may opt out of this EUIM coverage if they choose.

The advantage of uh EUIM policy is that it has the potential to maximize a given victim's recovery because it enables the uh victim to stack uh coverage.

That is uh and UIM uninsured underinsured motorist, not enhanced, but underinsured, does not allow for stacking.

This legislation had a public hearing uh on December 18th, 2024.

Uh the bill was reintroduced on January 13, 2025.

It was re-referred from the Committee on Um Business and Economic Development in January, January 6th.

And the um and I'm today I am moving the uh print for markup for approval.

So I moved the print.

Uh I do want to make an oral amendment to the print that on pages one and six to strike the date January 1st, 2029, wherever it appears, and insert the date January 1st, 2037 in its place.

So the what I circulated yesterday would have the increase in the coverage.

So it's like an inflationary adjustment every 10 years.

It would have had it start in 2029, and with this amendment, which is part of my motion, it will start um on January 1st, 2037.

I will also note Yes, I said that's on both pages one and six.

Um what was I going to say?

Uh no, I don't remember.

Um that's part of um what I am moving.

Yes.

What I was also going to say is that uh to allow time for implementation, the uh new rates would go into effect, I believe it's October 1st, 2027.

I move the print with that change in the date.

Is there discussion?

Chairman.

Councilmember Tranwright.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I understand the intent of this bill.

I do want to note that we are considering this bill during the budget season where we have highlighted awareness of the district's affordability problems and dispersing uh safety nets that we are losing each and every day according to our potential budget.

Uh every dollar in DC residents' pockets increases value and is getting more scarce, especially for our working class and low-income residents in D.C.

D.C.

motor vehicle insurance premiums are already high.

I know it is for me.

In fact, they are most amongst the highest in the nation, frequently ranking top five and most expensive jurisdictions, jurisdictions.

Um district has too many drivers who are uninsured.

DC has one of the highest uninsured driver rates in the United States, ranking among the top three to five worst jurisdictions nationwide, with nearly 95 percent of drivers without insurance.

Beyond that, I do want to note that based on the ratio equity impact assessment given by the Council Office of Ratio Equity, um, black drivers are more likely to pay higher car insurance rates than white drivers, even with both drivers having the same exact driving conduct and same insurance policy due to insurance providers using non-driving criteria to calculate insurance premiums.

I watched something on social media the other day where a guy was moved to DC from California, I believe, and he was talking about how his insurance had risen just because he moved to D.C.

He was a black guy.

Um I guess I have a few questions, Chairman, but beyond that, many residents are struggling with the rising cost of living, including food costs, utility calls, transportation costs, and also housing costs.

I am just trying to figure out what the healthy balance is for this bill as it relates to those drivers in D.C., because we create more and more laws that make D.C.

more unaffordable each and every day.

Uh well, let me just note, Councilmember, that the um RIA, the racial equity impact analysis said that um the uh bill will likely improve out-of-pocket cost outcomes for black residents, indigenous residents, and residents of color who maintain EUIM coverage.

So I I think you selected some aspect of it, but uh I would say that the racial equity impact analysis was much more positive than what you just said.

You said you had some questions?

Yes.

Um I understand this bill would increase coverage levels.

Is it accurate to say that a bill would more than double district's mandatory minimum of auto liability coverage?

And was there any consideration given to a more gradual increase?

Um it absolutely increases the um minimum requirements.

That is what I explained when I presented the bill.

Uh the um the current uh mandatory minimums which are uh were adopted in 1986 are 25,000 uh for any one person and 50,000 for all persons injured and $10,000 for property damage.

That includes the car, and with this bill it would go to $5120 for property damage.

If there's no objection, uh more time for the council member.

I was asking, is there consideration for more gradual increase?

Uh yes, we did look at that.

Um but this this bill is 40 years late.

So you you looked at it, but you didn't decide to go with these numbers to fix it.

Correct.

Okay.

These numbers are identical to Virginia.

Uh North Carolina as well, as well as several other states.

I have another question, Chairman.

Uh I do want to note that um uh research that was done by the uh American Association for Justice found that um the um premium increases, there will always be premium increases.

The premium increases in states that have increased their mandatory minimums have typically been smaller than what the national average increase is in premiums.

And also the research says that uh the states where they have increased their mandatory minimums, there's no evidence of increases in the number of uninsured drivers.

Uh other discussion on this bill?

Chairman, I don't have any more time.

I want to claim some of my topics.

Uh yes, if there is no objection.

Um thank you.

Uh the committee report states that studies considering relevant activities in several states have refuted the claim that this bill will increase premiums.

Different from what the RIA states, that research on the impacts of raising minimum insurance requirements on the cost of insurance is limited and mixed.

Nevertheless, it is reported that Wisconsin similarly doubled its insurance coverage requirement as a result, Wisconsin liability insurance premium premiums rose 9.9 percent in 2010 and one versus the 1.9 percent nationwide.

Um regarding the research on the impacts of raising minimum insurance requirements or the cost of insurance, the RIA states that for states with a premium increase, many range from less than 1 percent to up to 5 percent, which one state experiencing a 10 percent increase.

What in this bill keeps D DC from having a similar, if not more expensive rise to the premium cost that this bill is proposing?

I am sorry, say the last part again.

Um what in this bill keep D.C.

from facing very similar rises in costs at the as a result of this bill.

Well, I had seen what you mentioned about Wisconsin 15 years ago, and I would note that was 15 years ago.

Again, looking at this analysis by the American Association for Justice, the average annualized percentage change after raising minimums in states that raise minimums was about 4.43 percent.

And countrywide wide, the increase in rate was higher.

It was about 4.61 percent.

So I know that it is a talking point for the industry against uh the states with that are can have done this, that uh premiums are going to go up.

Uh premiums do go up, but um the research doesn't show that they will go up more than what the uh general average is.

Final comment.

This is according to the RIA about 30 percent of drivers are automatically have their coverage increase if this bill will pass.

And so I am concerned about this bill, Chairman.

Um, we don't know what the effect will be on premiums, except that we know the premiums go up every year, that the major factor affecting premiums is what the accident rate is in the jurisdiction that the insurance is covering.

So that's a more important factor.

But again, I look at this as a consumer protection matter, and that is that there are a whole lot of people who are driving around in the district with uh inadequate insurance coverage because of the fact that our mandatory minimums have not gone up since 1986.

1986.

So you could have bought a car for 12,000 in 1986, and today you would pay close to $50,000 for that car.

But the property damage coverage for your car would be only uh $10,000.

I think that's what I said it was.

$10,000.

Uh barely, I mean, not even keeping up with what the cost is.

So then that's why so many cars are totaled.

And when I say totaled, I mean that the um insurance company just simply takes the car, gives the maximum coverage, and uh then you have to figure out how you're gonna afford to pay for a new car or a new used car, because the rates have not kept up.

That's very, in my view, very um unfriendly to consumers.

Chairman.

Yes, Councilmember Lewis Straight.

Oh, it was Henderson first.

Uh Councilmember Henderson.

Um thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman.

Um, as the chair of the Committee on Health, I'm very well aware of the increasing costs of medical bills and how these costs can impact and um an automobile accident victim's life.

Um I believe it's vitally important for victims to have meaningfully amounts of insurance coverage, um, which covers both medical bills and also times off.

But I have heard from some residents similar in the same vein as Councilmember Traon White around um concerns about the increasing coverage minimums we'll have on insurance premiums.

Um I think you might have noted this in your statement, but it certainly was mentioned, I think in the committee report that DC would not be the only one who has sort of made this adjustment.

However, when our neighboring jurisdictions um increase their coverage, it was gradually phased in over time.

And I'm curious why um the committee decided not to go that route because it's been 40 years.

That's why.

So Virginia increased um, I think their rates were what our rates are, and they increased in two steps in 2021 and 2025.

Right.

So where we would be with this bill is where Virginia has been for two years.

North Carolina, I believe, did one phase, not incremental, and I think they did that a couple years ago.

So where we would be is where North Carolina is, and as I said, there are several other states.

I mean, uh I view this as catching up.

I don't view this as phasing in.

I hear you in terms of us needing to quote unquote catch up, but the impacts of a large increase at one time could be felt in a different way.

That's all I that's why I'm asking.

Yes, did we consider the phase in approach, recognizing that yes, it would be a change, um, especially since there wasn't, or at least I didn't see any sort of data that suggested what the estimate might be in terms of the premium increase to um a vehicle owner.

Um so I I get the concern.

Uh again, I'm looking at this report from the American Association for Justice and reading from it, despite the clear mismatch between legal minimums and real costs, raising coverage levels has often been met with warnings that premiums will soar or that more drivers will go uninsured.

The evidence tells a different story.

States that have updated their minimum limits in recent years have seen only modest premium adjustments, typically smaller than national averages.

Yes, but in the jurisdictions that have recently done it, they've done it phase.

That's all I'm asking.

Not all of them have done it in phase.

Okay.

All right.

Now, if you want, we certainly can talk about it between first and second reading.

Okay.

Um in terms of so normally when we make changes on other insurance um products, we provide a ramp up before it has to be law and enacted.

Do we do that here?

Yes, this doesn't become applicable until January, October 1st, 2027.

So that's more than a year from now.

Thank you.

And then the incremental adjust this adjustments would start 10 years after that.

So that we wouldn't have this ramp up issue anymore.

Ten years after 2027.

Yes.

So 2037, and I hesitate to say the years after that, but 2047, 2057, 2067.

Thank you.

I understand how math works.

Thanks.

I just had to feel the pain.

Um further on the bill.

Uh we have the print before us.

I have one short comment.

Uh Councilmember Crawford.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I worked on this bill in committee, and I believe you and your team seriously considered the feedback of the DC Insurance Federation, Disby, and the Trial Lawyers Association.

As you noted, the statute hasn't been updated since 1986, and that's actually before a lot of us on the dais were born.

So it's really important that we ensure that we are providing adequate protection to consumers.

That wasn't a shot, but I just want to.

But I just I just want to name that.

I just want to name that that is why this bill is so important.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

I actually, while some people are amused, I think you make the point in a very good way, which is that it 40 years is a long time.

We have the print before us.

Uh again, with that one change uh that the uh first increment is in 20 uh 37.

On the print.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

No.

Uh Councilmember Tran White will be recorded as no.

Um I will move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there a discussion?

On the report, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

No.

Councilmember Tran White will be recorded as voting no.

Is everybody here?

Um.

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

Yes, it is.

Uh, Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report and hearing our hearing record has not been filed.

I think that's what you said.

Actually, I have to correct myself.

It was filed for the Council Period 24 bill.

So once the report is filed.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is not.

Uh this measure will be placed.

Give me a second.

Well, Councilmember Tran White voted no.

So this will be placed on the uh non nonconsent agenda.

Actually, it's on the printed agenda under consent, but it will be treated as nonconsent for today's legislative meeting.

The um next three measures Greens Court, Harmony Park, and Rodney Wright.

Um, we do not have fiscal impact statements.

I learned that this morning, so I will not be moving those three.

Uh the third, no.

The fourth, no.

The fifth measure is uh PR 26 567, entitled Zoning Commission Anthony Hood confirmation resolution of 2026.

This the purpose of PR 26 567 is to confirm the mayor or mayor's nomination of Anthony Hood for reappointment as a member of the zoning commission.

The zoning commission is an independent, quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative body established by Congress in 1920.

The District of Columbia was one of the first jurisdictions in the United States to develop a comprehensive zoning ordinance after New York City.

Under the twenty 1920 zoning act, the zoning commission was authorized to divide the city into districts or zones to regulate land usage.

This consisted of three specific categories of zoning, building heights within zones, use districts such as residential, commercial, and industrial, and lot occupancy.

The zoning code was amended by the zoning act of 1938.

Uh there was another significant change with the reorganization act in 1967.

In 1990, the Council adopted the Office of Zoning Independence Act, creating the Office of Zoning as an independent agency.

The zoning commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters concerning zoning in the district.

Although there is a separate Board of Zoning Adjustment on which a rotating member of the zoning commission sits.

These include planned unit developments and campus plans of colleges and universities.

The zoning commission is responsible for implementing the land use element of the comprehensive plan, a plan that is proposed by the mayor and adopted by the council.

Anthony Hood currently serves as chairman of the zoning commission.

He's a native Washingtonian and a Ward 5 resident.

He has over nearly three decades of public service and leadership on the zoning commission, spanning multiple mayoral nominations.

He's played a central role in shaping the district's modern zoning framework through the first comprehensive rewrite and modernization of the zoning regulations in more than 60 years, as well as implementation of the district's inclusionary zoning policy and subsequent expansions designed to increase the production and distribution of affordable housing.

He has contributed to the approval of numerous projects incorporating significant affordable housing, including developments with deep affordability levels, senior housing and family-sized units, while also supporting the creation of specialized zoning districts and long-range planning efforts across the district.

Throughout his tenure, Anthony Hood has emphasized a deliberative and transparent decision-making process grounded in the comprehensive plan, the zoning regulations, and the evidentiary record.

He has underscored the importance of balancing growth, equity, and neighborhood impacts within the framework established by law, and has encouraged projects that incorporate meaningful and community benefits while advancing district wide housing and planning goals.

His experience also reflects a sustained focus on equity and community engagement and zoning decisions.

There's no objection, I'm almost done.

He has supported integrating racial equity considerations into the commission's review process, including encouraging the use of racial equity impact analyses to work and working with partner agencies to strengthen public engagement and outreach.

He's also advocated for continued evaluation and refinement of these tools to ensure that they meaningfully inform decision making and reflect community needs.

Anthony Hood has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to community service, having served for two decades as president of the Woodridge Civic Association.

He's also served on the Ward 5 redistricting committee.

He remains active in civic and neighborhood organizations.

In addition, he serves on the board of the Stoddard Baptist Home and is a lifelong member and deacon of the Greater First Baptist Church of Washington, D.C.

His extensive experience demonstrated commitment to public service and leadership support is continued service on the commission.

The resolution PR 26 567 was introduced at the request of the mayor in March 6, 2026.

Verissa Narouzi testified in support.

Calvin Hawkins, a former Prince George's County Council Chair testified in support.

Ra Amin and ANC Commissioner testified in support.

Gloria Hightower testified in support.

William Jordan.

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

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you.

I wanted to offer my support for this nomination.

There's been a lot of discussion around zoning and housing as of late.

And I was struck by several things in the hearing that you held on the nomination.

One, as you mentioned, in those who are supporting the nomination, Parisa Naru Rosie of Empowered DC, I thought stood out the most.

She testified how she originally opposed Mr.

Hood's nomination, but because of the work he's led around equity and how he's engaged her and others in the community, she is now supportive.

She did acknowledge that there are still shortcomings, but also acknowledge that it is above the zoning commission.

And that I think those are some of the conversations that are playing out.

So I think the work that he's done to win over detractors is noteworthy.

Two, I appreciated his response to the philosophical question I presented, which was speaking to this tension between buyright development and engaging the community.

There are some neighbors that feel as though there's a tendency for us to engage in more by right development.

And I appreciated how he leaned in on equity and the fact that we need to expand more housing and do more to speed up that process.

Even if at times that is opposed by neighbors in a certain part of the city.

And then lastly, I would just say, you know, on the topic of housing.

Um this is not uh a dig on Mr.

Hood, but I do want the zoning commission to implement a more serious equity framework.

I appreciate the focus.

I appreciate the dialogue.

Uh but what I got from the hearing and what I've heard from others is that oftentimes that focus on equity is more superficial or symbolic than actually having teeth.

All that together, uh, I believe we should, as a body, move forward with this nomination.

Uh, and I am enthusiastically uh supporting uh while also working with the Office of Planning and other entities uh to address the flum and address our housing shortage in the ways that we need to do as a city.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you.

Uh Councilmember Nidau.

Yes, Chairman.

I just want to thank you for answering my questions about the zoning commission earlier today, and I look forward to seeing how the commission moves forward in the coming years with some of the challenges our city faces.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I also want to speak in support of Mr.

Hood and appreciate all of the work that he has done leading the zoning commission.

I think it's actually pretty incredible how many roads lead to the zoning commission for things that we're trying to advance in our city around housing, around the ways people work, around how we manage space and uh help people move around the city.

Um so as we plan for the future of our city, the import of the zoning commission will continue to be really at the front, and I appreciate all the work Mr.

Hood has done to lead that effort.

Um there are several housing bills that we have contemplated moving that we can't legislate around because they really are zoning commission issues, um, like around encouraging more co-living spaces, for instance, or the allowance of building co-living spaces.

And so as we continue to explore ways to build more housing and build more affordable housing and allow for unique types of housing.

I know the zoning commission will continue to be an excellent partner on thinking about getting all of these balances right.

And so I'm eager to support his nomination today and thank Mr.

Hood for his service and look forward to continuing to all work together on those shared goals around housing.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bonds.

I'll make this very quick.

Um I too am joining my colleagues in support of this nomination.

Um Mr.

Hood has um had a very trying task over the years, and I find him to be very balanced and sometimes it's very difficult because as most of us know who have been engaged in development and community, um, there is always the pro and the con.

What I like about his approach is that he listens to both sides, and he tries to engage both sides in dialogue before he reaches a decision or an opinion or recommendation.

So I think he's the perfect um continued um appointment to this task.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Bonds, Councilmember Treyon White.

Uh thank you.

Uh today I will be supporting uh Mr.

Hood in his nomination.

I think that he has been a very thoughtful leader over the years.

We have not agreed on everything, but those things we did not agree upon.

We had a uh very good dialogue of where he landed and why he landed there in most instances.

Um so I respect a leader like that, uh, because we may not always agree on everything, but I think that he has been a uh a balancing force for both sides of the of our argument, and in most cases he's done uh a great job of leading us at the zone and commission, so I will be supportive of his nomination today.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll be very brief to uh echo the sentiments of a lot of my colleagues uh as it relates to the nomination of Mr.

Hood.

Uh I've found him to be very resourceful, uh a tremendous leader within his respective community.

Um, and I look forward to him continuing to serve on the uh board and and his insight uh especially on the various projects that come before his commission.

So I too will be supporting this nomination as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you.

There's no further discussion.

Uh we have the print and report before us uh we leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

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

Yes, it is.

One B.

Hearing record and reporter files.

Uh Madam Budget Director, this is a confirmation, so there is no fiscal impact statement.

Correct.

Um without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

That completes items for markup in the committee as a whole.

We'll turn to consideration of measures from other committees where members may ask questions, but debate would be left for the um legislative meeting.

And uh the first two measures were reported out reported out of the committee on public works and operations, chaired by Councilmember Brienne Nadeau.

Bill 26-174, enhancing consumer protection procedures amendment act to 2026.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Thank you very much.

All right.

There is a frustration among residents when businesses that are bad actors are not held accountable.

When a business repeatedly violates noise ordinances or operating hours or sells something, they are not allowed to sell, doesn't pass the DC health inspections, not give a refund.

They sometimes continue to operate, flouting laws and not paying fines.

This bill gives the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection the ability to go after bad actors and hold them accountable for violations.

The bill makes important updates to the Consumer Protection Procedures Act or CPPA, which was first passed in 1976 and protects consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices.

Both the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection and the Office of Attorney General play a critical role in enforcing the CPPA.

And my bill ensures these agencies have the procedural tools necessary to protect consumers in the district.

This includes expanding OEG's authority and court proceedings to swiftly gather information and close a business and DLCP's power to issue cease and desist orders, suspend or revoke business licenses and summarily close businesses.

The bill expands substantive protections for consumers under the CPPA.

Similar to the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Act, this bill adds a new prohibition against abusive conduct or business practices that take advantage of consumers' lack of knowledge.

It also expands the CPPA to cover charitable solicitations and updates the definition of merchant to include companies that offer free services, including social media companies.

It also prohibits additional practices under the CPPA, including deceptive pricing and hidden fees and fraudulent business ownership disclosures.

In many of these cases, OEG had already successfully argued in court that these practices violate the CPPA, but explicitly named them in the code will reduce litigation time and allow DLCP to enforce these pieces as well.

The bill provides critical and long overdue updates to the district's consumer protection law that will hold businesses accountable and benefit consumers across TC.

Uh with that, I move the bill.

Thank you, Councilmember Nidou.

Are there questions from members Mr.

Chairman?

Uh Councilmember Parker.

Uh apologies, uh Councilmember Nadoa that I didn't bring this up in the breakfast.

I I support the bill, but it's more of a concern around DLCP's lack of enforcement, I would say.

And so the question I would have is what commitments or uh faith do you have that the agency will actually enforce this new power that they have?

Uh what I've seen from DLCP is that they seek to bring businesses into compliance.

Um and they are hesitant of leveraging their enforcement powers.

And so if you could just speak to what that might look like or how it might work for the agency to actually enact these enforcement powers.

Yeah, I mean, are there picture particular areas of enforcement that you've had that issue with?

Certainly.

Um, like flavor tobacco or companies that are selling products that we know are illegal.

Um DLCP has done any number of visits with my team in office.

Um, and I don't quite see them taking the next step of enforcement.

And in fact, in an oversight hearing, I've heard them say that their job is to bring companies into compliance.

And so again, it may be a philosophical difference, but um I just have observed that they are a bit hesitant of leveraging their enforcement authority.

Yeah, I it it so that's very helpful.

Thanks for the specifics.

So one uh one key piece of this is that it provides additional enforcement powers, including expanding the ability to close businesses that present health and safety threats or repeatedly defy the law.

I think this update was long overdue and really reflects some of the gaps in the law that didn't allow enforcement to go all the way to the point we need to see change.

So I I am hopeful that this will resolve your concern.

I think Chairman.

Councilmember Lewis George.

I just wanted to chime in on that point with Councilmember Parker that there is an issue not only with the tobacco shops, which is come up numerous times, where many of them have somehow become 24 hour overnight without any public approval, without any and they're like, oh, we're a grocer when they're across the street from Walmart and next door to Aldi.

So like what groceries are you providing next to Aldi and Walmart?

Um we've had that issue, and it's been enforcement.

Uh tobacco shops, then in in predatorily, I think in in certain neighborhoods, becoming 24 hours and then there's nothing there.

Uh, we've had issues with um illegally operating like uh uh car repair pop-ups that have not happened, um car shops that didn't park vehicles all over the neighborhood in and everywhere that are not supposed to be parked there.

Um I'm probably forgetting one, but yes, I think across the board, like Councilmember Parker is saying, we're hopeful with the passage of this law, DLCP will start to step up in enforcement across the board because a lot of the enforcement efforts that we are asking them to do are real life safety and health issue for many of our communities, um, and we would like to see them step up for our communities in that way.

Um we would like to see them step up for our communities in that way.

Yep, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And um I I think the renewed the ability to issue cease and desist orders, suspend or revoke business licenses, and summarily close businesses, I think is the key piece there for the issues that you're concerned about as well.

If there's no further I'll ask three questions, Madam General Council is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is.

It is uh 397,000 in uh fiscal year 26 and 3.2 million across the plan.

How much across the plan?

3.2 million.

Uh without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

Uh the next measure requires a waiver of community to whole rule 403B.

That's a filing requirement.

Um Councilmember Nidau, do you want to move a waiver of 403B?

Yes, so move Chairman.

Is there discussion?

Um maybe I'll just say if there's no objection, we will treat the motion as uh being adopted.

Hearing no objection, the waivers adopted.

Uh bill 26-249, nonprofit services preservation amendment act 2026.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Thank you, Chairman.

This bill clarifies and updates the nonprofit fair compensation act of 2020 to ensure that nonprofit organizations partnering with the district government are fairly and consistently reimbursed for the full cost of delivering vital services in our communities.

Nonprofits are indispensable partners in carrying out the district's mission from providing housing and food access to youth programming and health care.

Nonprofits deserve to be paid fairly for both their direct services and the behind-the-scenes support that makes those services possible.

While the 2020 law was meant to address the lack of payment for those indirect costs, it's not been fully implemented.

And as a result, nonprofits have had to make tough choices between providing their staff with adequate benefits and wages and maximizing the services they provide directly to the community.

Without payment for true costs, the nonprofits face a loss every time they accept a DC contract or grant.

This chronic underfunding can force nonprofits to cut staff or even close altogether.

Today's bill clarifies the district must compensate a nonprofit for indirect costs in addition to direct costs for services.

It increases the minimum indirect cost rate for nonprofits from 10% to 15%, matching the federal rate that went into effect in October 2024.

And it includes provisions to improve transparency and implementation, such as requiring clear, standardized contract language, regulations and guidance for agencies and grantees, and staff training on compliance.

Finally, this legislation establishes a nonprofit relief grant program to help eligible nonprofits cover funding gaps and indirect costs.

I firmly believe that by treating indirect costs as essential, not optional.

This legislation supports the long-term health of our nonprofit sector and ensures they can continue providing life-changing services without being financially penalized for doing so.

Thank you.

And I ask for this place this to be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow.

Thank you, Councilmember Nodeau.

Are there questions from members?

Councilmember Crawford?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I spoke about this during our breakfast, but I just wanted to be in be sure to include it again on the record.

The fiscal impact statement concludes that this bill will cost 70 million over the financial plan.

I know Councilmember Nadeau that the committee considered this.

So I just want to ask you to speak to the FIS, how you consider this price tag in committee and the feasibility of finding future funding for this measure.

And then second, um, is this measure retroactive at all?

Thank you for the question.

The measure is not retroactive.

Um as folks will remember from the implementation of the 2020 bill, it came with a fiscal impact statement of zero dollars, which was puzzling for us at the time, but became uh the reason uh behind it became clearer during implementation when we found that um district agencies were telling nonprofits that they most certainly could have their federally negotiated indirect rates, they could just take it out of the entire grant budget, which of course was not the intent of the law.

Um correcting that, of course, does cost money, and um we believe this reflects the actual cost of implementing the law and is an honest assessment of what it takes to fairly compensate nonprofits.

Um truly believe that we can't be balancing our budget on the backs of the smallest organizations that are providing so many services in our community.

Um and although I'm not optimistic that we will find the full funding this year, um, some of that is grant funds uh that can be um added as time goes on.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

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

Yes, it is.

I hear a note.

Yes, it is.

Yes.

I'm stuck in Zoom land.

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Do you want us to call the police to unstick you?

Sure, thank you.

Here we go.

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

Yes, it does.

And what's the fiscal impact?

Yeah, as was discussed, uh $6.9 million in FY27 and $70.2 million through the plan.

Is that because the first year is partial year?

Because that's six million in the first year and seven to sixty-four million in the next three years.

Right.

Well, it it looks like the uh grant cost is uh 5.4 and then goes up, but for contracts, it's a smaller amount for 27.

That makes no sense.

But I mean, it it could be that you know as you know, contracts are renegotiated, um, the costs go up.

Okay.

Uh without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

If there is no objection, the next two for six measures which came out of the Committee on Housing.

All have a waiver request.

That's a waiver of committee, the whole rule 403B, which again is a filing deadline.

Um if there's no objection, I'll ask Councilmember Robert White to move the waiver for all five measures at once.

Um thank you, Chairman.

Yes, uh happy to move these in block.

No, no, no.

Move the waiver.

We move the waiver.

Uh yes, I move the waiver for these uh confirmation resolutions and block.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a motion to waive committee the whole rule 403B.

If there is no objection, we'll consider the motion approved.

Hearing no objection, it's approved.

All right.

If there is no objection, uh Councilmember White will present the four measures that are confirmations regarding the District of Columbia Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

That would be PR 26-537, confirming Christopher Murphy, PR 26-538, confirming Denise Blackson, PR 26-540, confirming Leroy Clay the Third.

Uh PR 26-42 confirming Raymond Skinner.

And PR 26-543 confirming Teresa Silla.

That looks like that's actually five measures.

Hearing no objection, uh, if you would present them in block.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

The DC Housing Authority or DCHA is central to the district's mission to provide safe, stable, and affordable housing.

And yet the last several years have brought intense scrutiny and upheaval for the agency.

We have seen improvement, but the agency still has a lot of work to do.

And the Board of Commissioners is there to oversee the work and keep the agency on track.

For the last several years, the Board has been operating as the temporary stabilization and reform board, or Star Board, which was created to stabilize the agency in a time of crisis.

We are now transitioning to the permanent board.

I believe these nominees are committed to continued improvement, and I've made clear to them that this moment calls for urgency and accountability.

The first nominee, Mr.

Christopher Murphy brings decades of experience with Federal Housing Regulation and Capital Projects.

This is particularly important as DCHA works to address long-standing capital needs.

The second is Ms.

Denise Blackson, who brings a central perspective of voucher holders and her dedication to resident engagement and community connection helps ensure the board remains accessible and accountable to the public.

Third, Mr.

LeRoy Clay III brings deep experience in government accounting and auditing, given the agency's ongoing financial challenges.

His expertise is critical to restoring confidence in DCHA's financial management.

Fourth, Mr.

Raymond Skinner brings decades of affordable housing experience and has chaired the temporary board for the past three years, and he has taken that responsibility seriously.

And finally, Ms.

Theresa Silla, who serves as the director of the interagency council on homelessness, sits at a critical intersection of our housing and homelessness systems.

Her perspective and commitment to resident inclusion are invaluable.

In their testimony, all five nominees express their commitment to continuing their service on the permanent board and to the residents who are at the center of this work.

As the agency's oversight body, the city needs this board to act with the urgency this moment demands.

And I look forward to working with them as the agency moves forward.

I move these five nominations in block.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there questions?

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

Yes, they are.

Madam Secretary, is your record complete for each?

Yes.

Madam Budget Director, these are confirmations, so there is no fiscal impact statement?

Correct.

Without objection, these measures will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

The next measure is Bill 26-545.

River East at Grandview Home Ownership Relief and Restoration Amendment Act of 2026.

Councilmember White.

Thank you, Chairman.

Oh, I have to move the waiver.

No, we moved the waiver for all of them.

Thank you.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the residents of River East at Grandview.

From the very beginning, they showed up.

They organized, they testified, they fought for each other, they were tireless and relentless in their advocacy, securing mortgage forgiveness, pushing the district to act, and refusing to let this issue fade away.

This bill exists because of them.

I also want to acknowledge the organizations that stood with them Empower D.C., the D.C.

Fiscal Policy Institute, and the Washington Interface Network, which have all endorsed this bill and have helped elevate what is at its core a question of fairness.

We have a responsibility today to decide what kind of city we are.

This bill asks a simple question.

When families do everything right, when they work, save, qualify, and buy a home through programs we created, and that promise literally collapses through no fault of their own.

What do we do next?

Do we step in during the crisis and then move on?

Or do we finish the job?

Because we have not finished the job for 46 families of the River East at Grandview.

Between 2017 and 2019, these families, almost all of them, first-time and first generation homeowners bought homes in Ward 8.

Those homes were more than a shelter.

They were a pathway to stability, equity, and generational wealth.

And then those homes begin to fail.

Huge cracks in the wall, floor shifting, water intrusion, and eventually families were told to evacuate because the building could collapse.

They lost their homes, but more than that, they lost their stability and their livelihoods.

They lost equity, they lost the foundation.

That makes homeownership work.

Now the district did step in, and that matter.

We provided rental assistance.

We helped stabilize families in a moment of crisis, but let's be honest about what we did not do.

We did not restore these families to the path of homeownership, and the market did not stand still while they waited.

Interest rates doubled.

Home prices increased more than 25 percent.

So these families were left forced back into the markets back into the market.

They weren't starting where they left off, they were starting from behind.

Today, more than half of those former homeowners still are not homeowners.

And many who are able to buy again are doing so under significant financial strain, paying more for less without the equity they should have been building all along.

That is the gap that we must address and that this bill addresses.

And it does does so in a way that is targeted, practical, and fiscally neutral.

For those who have not been able to repurchase, it allows HPAP to be used as a grant.

For those who did repurchase under worse conditions, it converts their HPAP loans into a grant.

For those who move forward without HPAP, it provides limited support to reduce the burden of those higher cost mortgages.

About 30 seconds, Chairman.

Without objection.

Lastly, it ensures that those who purchase inclusionary zoning units can get equity from that home and pass it and pass on the asset to their children after a 15-year affordability covenant which matches their original affordability covenant.

That is about equity.

Because when homeownership fails black families, families who were trying to build wealth in a system where that has never been easy, we cannot shrug and say we did enough.

We either stand with our constituents when they are in need or we don't.

We cannot undo what happened at on Talbot Street, but we can decide how we respond.

To my colleagues in 2024, many of us on this diet said that we were willing, we were committed to working uh together for the right solution to help these families.

This is that solution, and I am reminding us today of that promise.

And uh I would submit that doing nothing uh uh is not an option here.

Uh so I urge my colleagues to vote yes and uh move this.

I was gonna say your 30 seconds has expired.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um there questions from members?

Chairman, I have a comment what it is.

Comments or consent agenda.

Questions uh it's gonna be on non-consent.

All right.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Um I just member Henderson.

I'm sorry.

I said councilmember Henderson.

Okay.

Um I have a just a couple of questions I wanted to ask Councilmember Robert White on the record.

If um so um in your statement you talked about for those who are looking to repurchase a home, for those who decided they don't want to do home ownership again, what relief does this offer them, or is this only for those who are seeking to go down the home ownership route yet again?

Uh thank you, Councilmember Henderson.

We we have tried what I believe to be more perfect solutions.

Um there's no perfect solution here, so this would only help uh those who have purchased or uh will purchase before 2031.

2032.

So this also doesn't leave the window open indefinitely.

Uh this would expire, this authorization would expire in 2032, only for those who uh repurchase.

Okay.

Um does the bill have a sunset though?

2032.

Okay.

Um just to clarify for um let's say well, I I don't know whatever the particular makeup is in terms of the homeowners, but let's say someone did go down the route of purchasing another home, but they didn't use HPAP.

It's only for HPAP.

So uh going forward uh for for those limited families who have already purchased, it would give them uh some benefit on their current mortgage, uh but but not for anybody going forward.

Okay if they don't use HPAP.

Thank you.

If there are no further questions, Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you very much.

Um I want to um understand these um three points that the council member is making with this bill.

One, he says for residents who have already purchased a home with HPAP, the loan will be converted to a grant.

What is the total value of that grant?

Uh thank you, Councilmember Bonds.

The total value of the grant would be whatever the homeowner qualifies for under HPAP.

Uh does that make sense?

So if you are approved, whatever you get approved for for HPAP, it would be a grant as opposed to a loan.

All right.

So in looking at the um a table that list all of the re all of those who were living on this property, this condominium, um the HPAP shows 2.36 million dollars.

Is that the value of the HPAP original loan, or is that showing the amount of the HPAP converted to grant?

Uh thank you for that question.

So if all remaining residents from Talbot Street secured HPAP assistance in the next fiscal year, that total would be about 2.62.7 million.

So that would be like the maximum total, assuming all were applied and approved.

All right.

So would that include item two that you mentioned?

Residents who have not yet purchased, they will be offered HPAP in the form of a grant.

That's correct.

So that includes all HPAP.

Yes.

Um number three, uh, for residents who purchase IZ or ADUs, the affordability covenant for those units would be reduced to 15 years.

I'm trying to understand what the numbers are for that.

The there's no fiscal impact uh on on that.

Um this would so I couldn't tell you the numbers because there's no fiscal impact, but that 15-year affordability uh period matches the affordability period for their Talbot Street homes.

All right.

And so of the 40 46 um individuals, how many does it affect?

I'm trying to get a sense of the magnitude of the problem, quite honestly.

So out of the 46 households, 16 of them have uh purchased at this point.

So that leaves uh 30.

Uh I can't say that all 30 will uh want to be homeowners after this saga, uh, but the maximum amount would be 2.6 to 2.7 million.

All right.

And that's in total cost.

There's no fiscal impact because it's outside of the um uh uh fiscal period, the four-year period.

And is it is it talk to us about this um what what we're hearing and what we've been told is that the total government expenditure for these um 46 um individuals, households has been 14 million dollars.

So help us to understand if there is more resources that we are outlaying through your legislation or not.

Uh I'm sorry, Councilmember Bonds.

More resources beyond Yes, more money, yes.

So the Beyond the 14 million.

Okay.

I I don't um fully know where the 14 million came from, but he here's here's a breakdown of of what I know.

Um we have uh spent a little more than four million dollars in short-term rental assistance.

This is while the residents and the district held out hope for the residents to move back in.

Um that's about four or four point two million.

Then there's been 1.8 million dollars in HPAP loans.

That the administration includes that in the amount they gave you.

Um then there's $602,000 in direct assistance uh for long-term rent and moving assistance.

Uh this was for a small subset of of residents that were still in a difficult uh position because credit had been messed up in a number of other individual circumstances.

So that is the the breakdown of of what we've done at this point.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh if there are no further questions, Councilmember Parker and then Lewis George.

Um I wanted to pick up where Councilmember Bonds left off.

Uh and just at a high level, I think I like many people want to support these residents uh who are in a tough position.

Uh I'm looking at this table, and it seems like with all of the assistance to date, we're looking at 7.2 million dollars that we've dispersed.

Now that's counter the rhetoric that's out there that we aren't doing anything for these black residents east of the river, and I worry that some of that rhetoric may have been uh propagated by the council.

Um but I digress.

What we have before us is a number of people that we're saying if you apply for HPAP, it will turn into a grant.

I guess the the concern I have is if we are offering a reprieve for harm caused, it seems as though everyone is going to get a little bit of a different benefit.

Some people won't get anything because they're not applying for a home.

As you mentioned, Councilmember White, some people will get more money because they qualify for more money.

And why would we not just try to find uh a uniform grant if that's what we're trying to do to say everyone qualifies for this unified benefit versus what we have here?

And then my second question or concern I would have is uh it seems to me as though prioritizing these families for HPAP would essentially gen up that program for the foreseeable future.

Uh it seems like the total allotment, if I heard you correctly with council member bonds, is roughly north of two million dollars, which is what is allotted for the program.

Uh thank you.

So let me go in reverse order.

This will have no impact on the HPAP program, and and here is why.

These folks are competing with everybody else for HPAP.

So if they get approved, um theirs would be a grant instead of a loan.

Um If I could jump in really quickly, a follow-up question to that.

I know before we had voted on allowing them to have priority in the HPAP program.

Does that still apply here?

And if so, is that through 2032 as well?

This bill does not change their priority status.

So they would have priority.

So they do have priority because the administration uh I think rightfully so.

Through 2032, these residents would have priority.

Great.

But I just want to be clear-eyed that that would monopolize the HPAP program for the foreseeable future.

As as as I'm calculating the number, HPAP is $27 million.

The maximum this would be if all of them apply next fiscal year is 2.7 million.

2.7 million.

Yeah.

And then you're saying Councilmember.

I'm sorry.

If I could have one more minute.

He didn't answer.

One more question.

Well, no, he I'm sorry.

If Councilmember White could have one more minute to answer the question.

And it was more so about uniform benefit versus what seems to be individualized benefit depending on what they qualify for.

Thank you.

So I I tried a uniform benefit last year.

This is sort of the the lowest possible.

This is we're at the bone at this point.

I would love to do more.

I'd love to do a uniform benefit.

I don't think this body is going to get there.

So this was we get the the best we could could figure.

Okay.

Councilmember.

15 seconds.

This is going to be on non-consent.

I I I plan to support it.

I just invoicing concerns that I have.

And if we are going to subtract this from the HPAP program, I would encourage us to consider doing a uniform benefit via grant that we could subtract from the baseline so that all of these families can receive one uniform benefit versus uh this piecemeal approach.

But uh thank you, Councilmember White.

I know you've been at this a while.

I know it's not a perfect solution.

Um thank you, Chairman, for the extra time.

Councilmember Lewis George.

I don't want to belabor any more time.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councilmember Crawford.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember White, in your conversations with the executive, are you optimistic that we won't see other situations like this, particularly for first-time home buyers purchasing in Ward 7 and 8?

And how do we just work together to make sure this doesn't happen again?

Uh thank you for that question.

I I am not optimistic that this won't happen again.

Um and that's on us and the executive.

I mean, this is not the type of thing that should happen when uh I I don't want to get back into the debate around liability because we've moved on from there, and I don't want to drag folks back into that.

Um inspectors, right?

And so we are relying on the city.

When we purchase a home or when work is done, we are relying on the city uh when they say it's been done well and has been right for that to be the case.

Um and so I I um I don't agree with how this is played out with respect to liability, but no, I'm not confident that this won't happen again.

Because I've got no plan from the executive to explain how it won't happen again.

Councilmember White, I have a few questions.

Um The um homeowners at uh Grandview.

They received rental assistance, is that correct?

Yes.

For I believe 15 months at least.

Is that correct?

That's probably right.

And they also had their HPAP loans that they had received when they purchased those HPAP loans were forgiven.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And um they received uh moving assistance?

Is that correct?

That's right.

And uh they were offered all a $30,000 buyout?

Uh I don't think all of them were offered uh a buyout.

There was rental assistance given.

There were there were a number of offers, so this was a moving target for I think it was a choice.

A couple of years.

Did they could uh try to buy or they could take a buyout and in return the district would take title to the unit?

Um there was a bio conversation at at some point in this multi-year saga, yes.

And did the district also um negotiate with lenders so that most not a hundred percent, but most of the unit owners had their mortgages canceled?

Yes, they did.

Uh most uh the owners uh whose properties were worthless, literally worthless, did have their mortgages canceled.

Those are all the questions I had.

There's no other questions from members of the question.

Those are just questions or comments.

Questions.

This is committee of the whole.

Oh, I moved to put this on the consent agenda, Chairman.

I know you already said that.

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

Yes, it is.