I'm calling to order this meeting.

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

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

Today is Tuesday, June 23rd, June 23rd, 2026 to times 11 28 in the morning.

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

This is a regular meeting of the committee of the whole.

We meet on the third, typically on the third Tuesday of the month.

We will follow this meeting with an additional meeting of the council.

Today is primarily budget day, although the committee of the whole has several other measures reported out of other committees that we will consider.

We always begin our committee of the whole meeting to figure out whether we have a quorum.

So Mr.

Cash, would you call the roll?

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Councilmember Felder, Council Member Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Louis George.

Councilmember Lewis George, Councilmember Nadaux.

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Councilmember Parker, Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Present.

Council Member Trainway.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Uh thank you.

Because this is a regular meeting of the committee of the whole, we have uh the Secretary's logs.

The first is the Secretary's report of committee filings.

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

Thank you, Chairman.

I waive the reading of the filing of the committee reports.

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

Is there discussion?

On the motion to waive the reading, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Next, we have the secretary's log of introductions and referrals.

Again, I'll recognize that Chair Pro Tem Councilmember Bonds.

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

So in a motion to waive the reading.

The vote will be on the motion to waive the reading.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have one measure from markup in the committee of the whole.

That's Bill 26-658 entitled Fiscal Year 2027 Federal Portion Budget Request Act of 2026.

I may take a little more than three minutes if there's no objection.

This legislation sets forth the district government's request to Congress for federal funding to support the district's budget for fiscal year 2027.

It also requests funding for federal agencies and other entities that serve district residents.

The district's annual budget is appropriated via local legislation.

That's the local budget act.

For fiscal year 2027, that uh legislation is Bill 26-659.

Uh, what I'm moving now is Bill 26-658.

Uh, further information on the district's fiscal year 2026 budget and financial plan will be set forth or is set forth in the committee's report on that legislation.

Um, in the local budget act, the council adopts a measure requesting a small number of federal payments.

The um bill 26-658, the fiscal year 2027 federal portion budget request act is that measure.

Uh Bill 26-658, the Federal Portion Budget Request Act, uh, includes two parts.

The first is the district government's request to Congress for appropriations for various district government agencies that are not funded by the council, such as the District of Columbia Courts and the Public Defender Service, as well as a limited number of programs unique to the district, such as the tuition assistance grants program and the school and school improvement funds.

The bill also includes requests for federal funding to reimburse the district government for costs associated with protecting the president and other federal officials, protecting the diplomatic corps, and ensuring order during First Amendment activities and other national events related to the federal government's presence here.

The second part of the bill includes proposed changes to federal law related to the district government's finances or operations, such as allowing the district government to increase the salary of its chief financial officer, requiring more transparency around the spending of contingency cash reserves and broadening the district sales tax base to include gift shops and cafeterias on federal property.

All of this is detailed in the report.

Prior to the enactment of the 1997 Revitalization Act, a significant portion of the district's budget was comprised of an annual payment from the federal government to the district.

This payment grew to approximately $660 million annually in the mid-1990s and constituted approximately 16% of the district's total budget.

With the Revitalization Act, and because of the district's strong financial management, federal payments made exclusively to the district government have shrunk dramatically.

Of the district's fiscal year 2027 operating budget as proposed by the mayor, the vast majority is raised locally through district taxes and fees or derived from other local sources.

Most of the rest is federal formula spending that includes Medicaid and federal grants available to all jurisdictions.

Compared to the 50 states, the district consistently has one of the lowest shares of federal funding relative to its total budget, ranking either 44th or 45th between 2023 and FY 2025.

Overall, approximately 99% of the district's budget is derived from local revenue and from federal formula grants not unique to the district.

Less than 1% comes from federal payments specifically requested for local programs or projects.

Of that 1%, a significant portion consists of federal reimbursements to district law enforcement and other agencies for performing public safety work at the request of or on behalf of the federal government.

As we know, the district's uh budget uh uh revenue sources are somewhat constrained.

Um it is constrained in part because compared to other municipalities and states, a significant portion of the property in the district is federal or international and therefore tax exempt.

The district also features a significant amount of tax-exempt educational and religious property.

The district also is prohibited by the Home Rule Act from taxing income at its source.

This so-called commuter tax prohibition not only deprives the district of the power other municipalities and other states have to tax income earned within their jurisdiction by non-residents, it also deprives the district of tax revenues that would otherwise inure to it because district residents who work and are taxed in another jurisdiction can take a credit against the income tax they would otherwise pay to the district.

In addition to its request for federal payments to the district and to the criminal justice agencies that were moved to the federal government in 1997 with the revitalization act, Bill 26-658 sets forth desired federal funding to support in whole or in part entities that serve district residents, such as the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, two judicial commissions, the District of Columbia National Guard, the University of District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the National Children's Museum.

This legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on April 14th of this year.

The committee of the whole held a public hearing on this bill and all of the budget bills that the mayor submitted.

We held that hearing on May 13th of this year.

Is there a discussion with regard to the print?

Councilmember Fruman.

I just have some questions.

Is this the time for that?

Yes.

If you see reporters, can you?

This would be the time.

Okay, great.

So looking at some of the numbers from FY26 and FY27, the dollars for the DC courts go, looks like it goes down from around $360 million to about $274 million.

The offender supervision agency from about $311 million to $277 million, and the DC public defender service from $59 million to $53 million.

That's the area where there seems to be significant reductions.

Can you help me understand what's happening there?

Have the cost of those functions gone down or what why are we seeing reductions on that scale in that area in that public safety area?

And then I have another question.

And for the courts, there are actually, I think three numbers, and if you add them up, that's more.

Okay.

And then for one.

I'll just add that the dollar figures in here.

We worked with the agencies, and so the dollar figures in this print are different than what the mayor submitted.

I think she generally follows the mayor's.

Excuse me, the president's budget for this bill, and uh we contact the agencies directly, and to the extent that they're willing to share a couple of them won't.

We use their numbers.

So all of the all of the relevant agencies feel like they will be held harmless by this request.

If Congress follows what we're requesting.

Okay, gotcha.

And then Wamada for FY26, I don't see a request, but for FY27, 158 million.

So I'm glad to see it, but can you explain what happened?

Give me a second.

What was the question again with UMada?

With Wamada, I don't see a request in FY26, but in FY28, I see 158 million.

Glad to see it, but just curious the genesis of that.

We have 162 million in there, 161 million 950,000.

For 27 or for 26?

For 27.

But that's a different number than the number I'm seeing, maybe a change from the from a draft I saw, but in FY26 last year, did we ask for a similar amount of money or did we not ask for money?

And if not, I think we asked for 158.

Um is that the PR funding?

Yes, for this is the PRIA funding that actually Congress has not adjusted since it was adopted 15 years ago at 150 million.

So we've attempted to adjust it for inflation.

So we went from 150 to 161 something.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other um questions or discussion with regard to this?

Uh the motion on the floor is um the print with leave for staff to make tactical conforming changes.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Uh the ayes have it unanimously.

No rock.

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

Is there discussion?

Um the report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

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

Yes, it is.

Is the record complete?

Wants the report as followed.

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

Yes, it does.

Uh this measure will be placed on the agenda.

I believe it's on non-consent.

Yes, it's on non-consent.

This measure will be placed on the agenda for today's legislative meeting.

Uh we'll turn now to uh measures.

Consideration of measures uh from other committees.

Uh, from the committee on housing.

Uh we have four measures.

Uh the committee is chaired by council member Robert White.

Uh, the first is PR 26-599.

Rent Administrator Lauren Pear, confirmation resolution of 2026.

Councilmember White.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Ms.

Lauren Pear has been renominated to serve as the district's rent administrator for a term ending in June of 2029.

Ms.

Pear has served the district for decades, and her leadership has guided the rental accommodations division through one of the most significant operational transitions in its history.

Over the past term, she led the design, launch, and implementation of the rent registry, the first comprehensive digital system for rent control administration in the district.

That work required not only technical expertise, but sustained collaboration across Octo, DOB, DLCP, and the Office of the Tenant Advocate, and countless housing providers and tenants.

In her testimony, Ms.

Pearr emphasized what comes next expanding outreach and technical assistance for both tenants and housing providers, strengthening compliance and enforcement tools, and modernizing forms, notices, and regulatory procedures so that our rent control system is easier to use and more transparent to the public.

She also made clear that revitalizing interagency coordination is a top priority as the district continues to rely on accurate real-time rental data.

Ms.

Pear stands ready to carry forward the modernization work she has begun and to ensure the district's rent stabilization system remains fair, accessible, and reliable for years to come.

I move this nomination.

Thank you.

Are there questions from members?

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

Yes, it is.

Mr.

Assistant Secretary is the record complete.

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, this is a uh confirmation, so there would be no fiscal impact statement.

Correct.

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

The next measure is.

So if there's no objection, I'll ask Councilmember White to present them in block.

PR 26-632, Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency Steve Clinton, confirmation resolution of 2026.

PR26-633, Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency Edward Fisher, confirmation resolution of 2026, and PR 26-641, Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency Carrie Robinson, confirmation resolution of 2026.

Councilmember White.

Thank you, Chairman.

First, Ms.

Carrie Robinson has been nominated to the board for a term to end in June of 2028 and offers the board deep expertise in finance, real estate development, and community-centered investment with a finance background from Howard University and an MBA in real estate and innovation from Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management.

Ms.

Robinson has worked across financial analysis, portfolio management, and the development and acquisition of multifamily and hospitality assets.

In her testimony, she underscored the importance of aligning DCHFA's investments with community needs and applying disciplined financial review to keep projects viable, responsive, and sustainable.

Her combination of analytical skill and development expertise will strengthen the board's ability to evaluate increasingly complex financing proposals.

Next, Mr.

Steve Clinton has been nominated to the board for a term to end in June of 2028 and brings more than four decades of experience in housing finance, federal policy, and capital markets.

As DCHFA's former Chief Financial Officer, he understands the agency's financial operations and risk management structure from inside out.

His long tenure at Freddie Mac, spanning pricing, securitization, mortgage credit, and long term and large-scale operational oversight gives him a uniquely comprehensive view of the systems that underpin the affordable housing finance.

During his testimony, Mr.

Clinton stressed the importance of strong fiduciary oversight and responsible use of the district's limited tax exempt bonding capacity.

His background equips him to scrutinize the long-term financial implications of the projects before the board and to ensure the agency remains stable and accountable.

Finally, Mr.

Edward Fisher has been nominated to the board for a term to end in June of 2027.

He brings a perspective shaped by years of working in the intersection of government, community engagement, and real estate development, and by his own lived experience as a law lifelong district resident from Ward 7.

His leadership roles at the Fisher Group, American University, and the St.

Elizabeth's East Redevelopment demonstrate his ability to manage complex development projects, negotiate with diverse partners, and deliver community focused outcomes.

In his testimony, Mr.

Fisher spoke about keeping projects moving in the face of rising costs, ensuring that affordable housing reaches all awards, and approaching board oversight with practical, grounded judgment informed by years of hands on experience in public private development.

Taken together, Ms.

Robinson, Mr.

Clinton, and Mr.

Fisher represent a balanced and complementary set of strengths, financial acuity, policy, and capital markets experience, and community driven development expertise.

As a team, they bring comprehensive perspectives needed to evaluate transactions of whole transparency and help DC HFA continue delivering affordable housing opportunities across the district.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting all three nominations.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there questions from members?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Felder?

Uh just very briefly.

I too just want to uh speak to the nomination of uh Mr.

Fisher.

Uh I think it will be a tremendous asset uh to the uh Department of Housing Finance.

I've had the pleasure of working with him in a number of roles.

Uh his expertise, uh educational background, uh, will serve DC residents proudly.

So I just wanted uh to put that on the record.

Thank you.

I would like to remind members that uh when measures are coming from other committees, um, this time is for questions, not for statements or debate.

Uh, are there any other questions from members?

Uh, we have the three for us.

I have uh three questions.

Uh, yes, three questions.

Madam General Counsel.

Are these three measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, they are.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each?

Uh, excuse me, Mr.

Assistant Secretary.

Yes, they are.

Um, Madam Budget Directors, these are confirmations, so there wouldn't be a fiscal impact statement.

Correct.

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

That is going to conclude the uh this meeting of the committee as a whole.

Uh, we will take five minutes to set up for the additional legislative meeting.

So, ideally that will start at 11 55.

The time is 11 50 a.m.

in this meeting's adjourned.