I'm according to order to this meeting.

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

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

Today is Tuesday, July 14th, 2026.

The time is 1210 in the afternoon.

We are in room 500 of the Council Chambers of the Johnny Wilson Building.

This meeting is being broadcast on cable television channel 13 as well as on the Council's website, www.dc.count, excuse me, www.dccouncil.gov.

This is a regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole.

That is, the Committee of the Whole meets regularly on the third Tuesday of each month, except in August.

We will follow this Committee of the Home meeting with an additional, that means not a regularly scheduled legislative meeting of the Council.

We will begin our meeting by determining whether we have a quorum.

Mr.

Cash, would you call the roll?

Chairman Mendelssohn.

Present.

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Here.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Here.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Robert White, Councilmember Trion White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have the Secretary's Report of Committee filings.

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

Thank you, Chairman.

I move the waiving of the reading of the committee reports, Secretary's Reports.

So in a motion to waive the reading of the report.

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.

We have the Secretary's log of introductions and referrals.

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

And again, um Chairman, I waive the reading of the Secretary's log of introductions and referrals.

So in a motion to waive the reading, is there discussion?

On the motion to wave the reading of the log.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have a number of measures for markup in the committee of the whole.

The first four are revenue bond project approvals.

I think I will move them separately.

The first is PR 26-675 entitled Provident Group Bison Properties Inc.

Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026.

Pursuant to the Home Rule Act, the Council is authorized to issue taxable and tax-exempt revenue bonds, notes, and other obligations to finance, refinance, or reimburse, and to assist in the financing, refinancing or reimbursing of or for capital projects and other undertakings on behalf of a qualified applicant, including capital projects or undertakings.

Quote unquote.

And to do so in several areas, including for capital projects in the area of elementary, secondary, and college and university facilities.

In accordance with the law, the district has long had an industrial revenue bond program to help nonprofits and other organizations finance capital improvements at lower rates.

In 1995, the council approved the Industrial Revenue Bond Forward Commitment Program Authorization Act to revise the Industrial Revenue Bond program process and to make it nimbler and more effective.

Under the current IRB process, the mayor is authorized, after council approval of a project approval resolution, such as what we have before us, to assist in financing, refinancing, and reimbursing costs of the development of eligible projects by approving the issuance sale and delivery of one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $850 million.

The law authorizes the mayor to prescribe details of the bond financing and closing documents and sets basic requirements for the payment of principal premium and any interest on the bonds.

Additionally, the law specifically states that the district is not liable for and has no obligation with respect to issuance or payment of the bonds.

In other words, the organization applying for the issuance of the bonds under the program must repay the bonds and any associated interest.

PR 26-675 would authorize the issuance sale and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $570 million.

It was introduced as $460 million in the print amends at $575 million.

The bonds will be used by Provident Group Bison Properties Inc.

to refund three existing bond issuance, fund acquisition from Howard University of long-term leasehold interest in the student dormitory at 225 4th Street Northwest, and to cover the cost of deferred maintenance and capital improvements at various Howard University student housing facilities.

Provident Resources Group is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Baton Rougeville, Louisiana, that focuses on developing and managing large-scale infrastructure projects that serve public needs, particularly in the area of education, health care, housing, and senior living.

Provident Resources Group partners with universities, hospitals, and government entities to finance, build, own, and operate facilities such as student housing, medical centers, and residential communities.

According to Provident Group Bison Properties, Inc.

and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning Economic Development, the bonds being authorized with this resolution will be used for three primary purposes.

First, the bonds will be used to refund three existing bond issuances issued pursuant to the Provident Group Bison Properties Inc.

Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2022.

Second, the bonds will be used to fund the acquisition from Howard University of long-term leasehold interest in the student dormitory at 2225 4th Street Northwest.

Third, the bonds will be used to cover the costs of deferred maintenance and capital improvements at various Howard University student housing facilities.

At the committee's hearing on this resolution, a representative of Provident Resources Group asked the council to increase the authorized bond amount to $575 million to account for increased refinancing, project deposit, underwriter and trustee fees, and debt service reserve fund costs.

Specifically, it was noted that costs for upgrading and rehabilitating the student dormitories have increased, and current market conditions make it imperative to restructure and refinance the bonds issued for Howard Manor and related debt of Provident Group Bruce Girrard Properties Inc.

to enable the project to be available to affiliates of Howard University.

Given this information, the committee print increases the authorized bond amount to $575 million.

According to information provided by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, Masterson Advisors LLC reviewed the financial feasibility in connection with the proposed $575 million revenue bond application and deemed the transaction to be financially feasible.

In addition, Tiber Hudson determined that the applicant is a 501c3 and that the project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the law, and that the project complies with the criteria for approval of a proposed financing transaction through the IRB program.

The bonds will be repaid solely by Provident Group Bison Properties Inc.

and will not constitute a debt or liability of the district.

Based on all the information that the committee staff has analyzed, the committee, assuming this is adopted, finds that the project will contribute to the health and education of residents of the district.

This resolution was introduced on April 24th at the request of the mayor.

The committee of the whole held a public round table on the measure on May 14, 2026.

The committees received no comments or testimony in opposition to this resolution.

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

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on the print and report for PR 26-675 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 the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report is filed.

And Madam Budget Director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

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

The second measure is PR 26-676, St.

Patrick's Episcopal Day School Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026.

PR 26-676 would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax-exempt revenue bonds notes or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $30.5 million.

The bonds will be used by St.

Patrick's Episcopal Day School to refinance refinance bonds and to support the development of a new middle school facility at $4700-4701 Whitehaven Parkway Northwest.

Founded in 1956 by St.

Patrick's Church in the basement of a townhouse, St.

Patrick's Episcopal Day School is an independent, co-educational Episcopal Day School for students from nursery age to eighth grade.

The school currently enrolls 507 students on two separate campuses located on 15 acres of land in the Georgetown area.

The two campuses consist of several independent facilities that include over 110,000 square feet of buildings.

These facilities include three science labs, three libraries, three art studios, four music rooms, a full gymnasium, and performance stage, a mini gym for the nursery class, three playgrounds, and an athletic playing field.

As introduced, the PR 26-676 would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $30.5 million.

According to St.

Patrick's Day School and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, the bonds will be used for two purposes.

First, the bonds will refinance the school series 2016 bonds, the proceeds of which were originally used to finance and refinance improvements to the school's separate campuses.

Second, the bonds will support their financing and refinancing of the acquisition improvement, expansion, equipping, furnishing, and development of a new middle school facility of approximately 30,000 square feet to be constructed on the school's main campus at 4700 slash 4701 White Haven Parkway Northwest.

At the committee's hearing, the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial and Operations Officer for St.

Patrick's Episcopal Day School asked Council to increase the authorized bond amount to $35.5 million due to the favorable response the school has received from potential lenders.

The school has always had a maximum projected debt amount of $35,500,000 for this project, but that total previously included $5 million of taxable debt.

Initial negotiations with lenders indicate a willingness to provide more tax exempt debt instead of taxable debt.

By increasing the bond amount, the school gains additional flexibility in how the total debt will be structured as it selects a lender.

Given this information, the committee print increases the authorized bond amount to $35.5 million.

According to information provided by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, Davidson reviewed the financial feasibility of St.

Patrick's Episcopal Day School in connection with the proposed $35.5 million revenue bond application and deemed the transaction to be financially feasible.

In addition, Bryant Miller and Olive determined that the applicant is a 501c3 and that the project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the law, and that the project complies with the criteria for approval of a proposed financing transaction through the IRB program.

The bonds will be repaid solely by St.

Patrick's Episcopal Day School and will not constitute a debt or liability of the district.

Based on all the information in the committee staff has analyzed, the committee, assuming this is adopted, finds that the project will contribute to the health and education of residents of the district.

This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on April 24th of this year.

The committee of the whole held a public round table on May 14th on the measure, and the committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to this resolution.

I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make tactical conforming and editorial changes as their discussion.

The vote is on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The third measure is Madam General Counsel.

Is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Once the report is filed, Madam Budget Director, does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes.

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

The third measure for markup in the committee of the whole is PR 26-677 entitled PRG Wonder Plaza Properties Inc.

Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026.

This resolution would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds notes or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $375 million.

The bonds will be used by Provident Resource Group to redevelop a $1.59 acre site at 2301 Georgia Avenue Northwest to create a new hub for student life at Howard University.

The redevelopment will include student housing, a health and wellness and recreation center, and ground floor retail and dining.

In addition, the bonds will be used to refinance existing indebtedness.

According to PRG Wonder Plaza and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning Economic Development, the bonds will be used for two purposes.

First, the bonds will be used for a mixed-use redevelopment of a 1.59 acre site located at 2301 Georgia Avenue Northwest that will act as a new hub for student life at Howard University.

The development will include student housing, a health and wellness and recreation center, and ground floor retail and dining.

Second, the bonds will be used to refinance existing indebtedness that was used to support the initial development costs for the Wonder Plaza project, as well as capital improvements to the Ralph J.

Bunch International Affairs Center located at 1805 7th Street Northwest.

According to information provided by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, JP Morgan reviewed the financial feasibility of this project in connection with the proposed $375 million revenue bond application and deemed the transaction to be financially feasible.

In addition, Oric, Harrington, and Sutcliffe determined that the applicant is a 501c3 and that the project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the DC law, and that the project complies with the criteria for approval of a proposed financing transaction through the IRB program.

The bonds will be repaid solely by PRG Wonder Plaza and will not constitute a debt or liability of the district.

Based on all the information, the committee staff has analyzed the committee, assuming this is approved, finds that the project will contribute to the health and education of residents of the district.

This resolution was reintroduced at the request of the mayor on April 24th of this year.

Committee of the whole held a public round table on May 14th, and the committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to this resolution.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those in favor of PR 26-677 say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

The ayes have it.

And unanimously.

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary is the record complete.

Once the report is filed.

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

Yes, it does.

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

The fourth revenue bonds resolution is PR 26-678 entitled Harmony DC Public Charter Schools Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026, which would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax exempt revenue bonds, notes or other obligations, and an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 17 million dollars.

The bonds will be used by Harmony D.C.

Public Charter School to develop a new campus at 2917 8th Street Northeast.

Founded in 2014, Harmony D.C.

Public Charter School is located in Ward 5 and serves children from pre-K3 to 5th grade.

Harmony D.C.

Public Charter School or PCS currently serves approximately 184 students with a student-to-teacher ratio of 9 to 1.

The school employs a total of 41 full-time staff members, including 19 teachers.

According to Harmony DCPCS and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, the bonds will be used for land and building acquisition, renovations, cost of bond issuance, and debt service reserve funds associated with the development of a new campus.

And that new campus is at 2917 8th Street Northeast.

Harmony D.C.

Public Charter School chose the site after a five-year period during which approximately 15 properties were evaluated.

The relocation was submitted in September 2025 as part of a long-term strategy to secure a permanent home for Harmony DC PCS, as the school currently leases the space at 62 T Street Northeast.

According to information provided by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning Economic Development, Masterson Advisors LLC reviewed the financial feasibility of Harmony DC PCS in connection with the proposed $17 million revenue bond application and deemed the transaction to be financially feasible.

In addition, Oric, Harrington, and Sutcliffe determined that the applicant is a 501c3 and that the project constitutes a permissible undertaking in accordance with the DC law, and that the project complies with the criteria for approval of a proposed financing transaction through the IRB program.

The bonds will be repaid solely by Harmony DC PCS and will not constitute a debt or liability of the district.

Based on all the information the committee staff has analyzed the committee, assuming this is adopted, finds that the project will contribute to the health and education of residents of the district.

This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on April 24th of this year.

Committee of the whole held a public round table on May 14th of this year.

Committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to this resolution.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and report of PR 26-678 with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

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

Yes, it is.

Once the report is filed.

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

Yes, it does.

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

Thank you.

The purpose of this resolution is to confirm the mayor's nomination for appointment of Mark Battle as a member of the University of the District of Columbia Board of Trustees for a four-year term to end May 15, 2030.

Mr.

Battle would be filling a vacant seat formerly held by Christopher Bell.

Mr.

Battle received his Bachelor of Arts in Print Journalism from the University of the District of Columbia and a jurisdictor from the Howard University.

He is a partner in at Taft, Stinius, and Hollister LLP at their Washington office with extensive experience as a general counsel and executive leader in the utility and infrastructure sectors.

Prior to his tenure at this firm, Mr.

Battle served as Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President of Government Affairs for DC Water, where he oversaw all legal, regulatory, and policy matters.

Earlier in his career, he held senior roles with Potomac Electric Power Company and included positions with the Global Law Firm, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Council of the District of Columbia, and the United States Congress.

UDC is both a historically black college and university and an urban land grant institution formed in 1975 from the merger of the District of Columbia Teachers College, the Washington Technical Institute, and the Federal City College.

UDC serves as the district's only public university.

UDC's mission is to provide an affordable post-secondary education to the district residents and to quote prepare students for immediate entry into the workforce, the next level of education, specialized employment opportunities, or lifelong learning, unquote.

In furtherance of this mission, a law school was added in 1996 and a community college was added in 2009.

UDC is governed by a board of trustees comprised of 15 members.

Of the 15, 11 are appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council.

Three are alumni from either the university or one of its predecessor institutions, and one is a full-time student elected by the UDC student body.

Each trustee, except for the student trustee, serves a five-year term, and each non-student trustee may serve two consecutive full terms.

During Mr.

Battle's testimony, he tested at the hearing round table that we held on this confirmation.

He described his experience advising boards and senior leaders across public serving institutions in his capacity as chief legal officer and general counsel to the DC to the Board of DC Water.

Mr.

Battle counseled executives on governance, risk, ethics, finance, and long-term strategy.

He also described his deep personal connection to U DC, where he graduated in 1999 with a bachelor's degree in print journalism.

This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on June 4th of this year.

The committee of the whole held a round table on the nomination on June 24th of this year.

The committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to this nomination, neither at the hearing nor in writing, nor from any advisory neighborhood commission.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

I do want to note, because this came up earlier today, the statute with regard to the University of the District of Columbia Board of Trustees is very clear and explicit.

It states that four of the 11 trustees appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council may be non-residents of the District of Columbia.

And I believe with Mr.

Battle, he will be the only non-resident appointed by the mayor.

Again, I move both the print and report with Lee for staff.

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you.

I am the one that brought up the residency.

I do want to just say at the outset, is my understanding that Mr.

Battle is more than qualified as a distinguished member of the DC Bar, as a member of the Alumni Association, and even a member of Alpha File for Fraternity Incorporated.

But I do want to personally be consistent in my long hill position that non-district residents should not take up space on district boards and positions of influence.

So I will be voting against the nomination, although I have great respect for Mr.

Battle and his resume.

And so I would also ask that this be put on non-consent.

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and report with lead for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any posed?

No.

Mr.

Parker will be reported as no.

And otherwise, the print and report are approved.

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

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

Yes, it does.

This matter would be placed on the non-consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting.

Mr.

Parker, when we get there, you might have to remind me.

Just because I don't.

No, I have it marked.

Okay.

The next measure for the next measure for markup by the committee of the whole is PR 26-744 entitled Board of Zoning Adjustment Robin Wells Confirmation Resolution of 2026.

This resolution was introduced.

God damn it.

Give me a second here.

About to read the wrong one.

Replacing Lorna John.

Robin Wells is a civil engineer and project management professional with more than a decade of experience in transportation planning, infrastructure design, construction, and capital program management.

She currently serves as a project director at Atkins Realis, where she provides oversight of DC Water's water supply program.

She previously served for more than eight years in several positions with the DC Department of Transportation, including the Street Lights Division Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Project Manager, and Transportation Planner.

In these roles, she managed complex infrastructure projects, multidisciplinary teams, stakeholder engagement, and project portfolios valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

She began her DDoS career reviewing development and zoning matters and preparing transportation recommendations on proposed projects.

She is a licensed professional engineer and a project management professional and holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Southern California, and she is a resident of Ward 7.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment is a creation of federal law.

The BZA is composed of a member of the National Capital Planning Commission or NCPC staff member, a rotating member of the zoning commission, and three members appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council.

Of the three members appointed by the mayor, each must have been a resident of the District of Columbia for at least three years immediately preceding his or her appointment, and at least one of those three members must own his or her home.

The terms of the three members appointed by the mayor are for three years.

During the round table on her nomination, Ms.

Wells discussed how her engineering transportation planning and project management experience would inform her service on the board.

She emphasized that zoning decisions have practical effects on traffic circulation, pedestrian access, loading, parking, stormwater management, public space, and neighboring properties, and stated that she would bring both technical rigor and an understanding of neighborhood concerns to the board's review of cases.

She identified fairness, transparency, predictability, and timely decision making as priorities and stressed the importance of applying the zoning regulations consistently while giving serious consideration to the technical record and the views of advisory neighborhood commissions.

This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on June 10th, and the committee of the whole held a public round table on her nomination on June 24th, and the committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to Ms.

Wells' nomination.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make tactical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and 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 the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

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

Yes, it does.

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

The next measure for markup in the committee of the whole is PR 26-746 Commission on the Arts and Humanities, Demetrius Butler confirmation resolution of 2026.

This resolution would confirm the mayor's nomination of Demetrius Butler for reappointment as a member of the Commission on Arts and Humanities for a term to end June 30, 2029.

Mr.

Butler is award 8 resident.

He is a native Washingtonian, graduated from Eastern High School.

He earned an associate of science degree from Test College of Technology.

Mr.

Butler is an art collector, creative director, cultural advocate, and talent developer who has spent more than two decades fostering emerging artists and curating art exhibitions in major cities throughout the United States and internationally.

He established Flea Market Gallery in the district to create a hub for the district's art, music, and fashion communities, and co-founded League OTO, an art and lifestyle collective that educates, empowers, and inspires emerging art collectors and creators while amplifying underrepresented artists.

Most recently, he helped launch Art on the Rise, an initiative focused on creating economic opportunities for emerging artists east of the Anacostia River.

He has served on the Commission since 2024.

The commission was established in 1975.

The Commission is now an independent agency within the district government and is designated by the National Endowment for the Arts as the State Arts Agency for the District of Columbia.

Its role is to evaluate and initiate actions on matters relating to the arts and humanities and to encourage programs and the development of programs that promote progress in the arts and humanities.

In addition, the mission of the commission is to provide grants, programs, and educational activities that encourage diverse artistic expression and learning opportunities so that all District of Columbia residents and visitors can experience the district's rich arts and humanities community.

Members of the Commission must be district residents, must have displayed an interest in or an ability in the arts and humanities, or must be active in the furtherance of the arts or humanities.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr.

Butler discussed his experience as an arts curator, gallery owner, advocate for emerging artists in the district.

He described his efforts to create opportunities for local artists through the Flea Market Gallery and Art on the Rise, emphasizing the importance of building platforms that connect artists with new audiences and markets.

Mr.

Butler also expressed his vision of expanding the visibility of the district's arts community by supporting public art, strengthening art districts, and promoting Washington, D.C.

as a city recognized for its arts and culture as well as its politics.

This resolution was first introduced in March 12, 2026.

It was withdrawn due to timing, not promptly reintroduced.

PR 26-746 was introduced at the request of the mayor on June 15th, and the Committee of the Whole held a public round table on July 9th.

The committees received no testimony or comments in opposition to this nomination.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there a discussion?

Yes, gentlemen.

Councilmember Tran White.

Um to confirm the nomination for Mr.

Demetrius Butler.

I know for a fact that he's been in the community for over two decades, offering programs to youth and young adults and also our uh parents in the in the field of arts from working with the commanders to the clothing lines, just in the streets, uh creating platforms to youth to express themselves and a healthy manage.

So I'm excited uh to be joining uh the council, hopefully in voting yes to nominee Mr.

Mitrias Butler, also known as Sauls for the Austrian Manning's Commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Further discussion.

The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff.

All those of this is PR 26-746.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Once the report and hearing record are filed, Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does.

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

The next measure for markup is PR 26-747 entitled the Public Charter School Board Anna K.

Smith confirmation resolution of 2026.

This resolution would confirm the mayor's nomination to appoint Anna K.

Smith as a member of the public charter school board, filling a vacant seat formerly held by Leah Crusi for the remainder of an unexpired term to end February 24th, 2030.

The School Reform Act of 1995 gave the district government the authority to start independent autonomous public schools, commonly known as public charter schools.

The law initially gave the authority to the Board of Education while also establishing the public charter school board.

Subsequently, the law was amended, and the State Board of Education no longer has chartering authority.

The seven-member public charter school board was created for the purpose of authorizing new charters, monitoring the operation and student academic progress of the schools under its purview, and ensuring that the public charter schools under its authority are in compliance with the terms of their charter and applicable federal and local laws.

Anna Smith is a Ward 6 resident with nearly two decades of experience spanning public sector leadership, nonprofit management, education policy, and workforce development.

She brings extensive expertise in aligning education workforce and employer strategies to expand opportunities for district residents.

She currently serves as principal and senior director at Education Strategy Group, where she leads a portfolio focused on improving career pathways and college and career readiness efforts for underserved populations.

In this role, she works closely with employers, policymakers, and education leaders to build integrated data-driven systems that strengthen economic mobility.

Ms.

Smith's commitment to public service extends beyond her professional experience.

She previously served as an advisor in commissioner for 1B and currently sits on her daughter's Public Charter School Board of Trustees.

She also volunteers as a lacrosse coach.

She's a graduate of the University of Maryland.

She holds a Bachelor of Arts and Government and Politics, Magna Cum Laudi with a concentration in environmental science and policy.

This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on June 17th, and the committee of the whole held a public round table on July 9th.

The committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to Ms.

Smith's appointment.

Without objection, I move both the print and report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on both the print and report with leave for staff to make tech with leave for staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

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

Yes, it is.

Once the report and hearing record are filed.

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

Yes, it does.

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

This measure was sequentially referred first to the Committee on Health, shared by Councilmember Christina Henderson and then to the committee as a whole.

I'm going to recognize Councilmember Henderson to present this bill.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Bill 26 181, the short-term disability insurance benefit protection clarification amendment act of 2026 was introduced on March 21st, 2025 by Councilmember Denise Lewis George and co-introduced by Councilmembers Alan, Nadeau, Parker, and Robert White.

The bill was originally referred to the Committee on Business and Economic Development and in March of 26 following the transfer of the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking to the Committee on Health.

It was re-referred sequentially to the Committee on Health and the Committee of the Whole.

The bill would permanently codify provisions that have been in effect through successive emergencies and temporary legislation since 2021.

The bill amends the Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act of 2016 to prohibit insurers from offsetting and reducing short-term disability and insurance benefits to benefit individuals based on estimated or actual paid leave benefits they may receive under the UPL program, regardless of which jurisdiction the policy was issued.

It also amends the insurance, trade, and economic development amendment act of 2000 to ensure that this prohibition is enforceable by the district's insurance laws.

At the hearing, Disby testified in support of the legislation, stating that they were already enforcing it under the temporary and emergency versions of the bill and would continue to enforce the permanent version.

Disby also noted that in the last five years, they had only received five complaints on short-term disability, but nonetheless, uh we're moving this permanent uh bill today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I will add, um, because I think this was the Committee of the Whole's purview, that the bill addresses a loophole in the district's Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act, which established a publicly administered paid leave program that to that provides eligible workers with wage replacement benefits during qualifying family medical parental or prenatal leave.

After implementation of the Universal Paid Leave Act, the council discovered that some private disability insurers were offsetting or reducing an individual's private short-term disability benefits based on the individual's actual or anticipated receipt of UPLA benefits.

By closing this loophole, the bill ensures that district residents, particularly district residents with a disability receive the full amount of benefits owed to them under the law.

Uh Councilmember Henderson, I don't think you gave the chronology, did you?

I mean, I did in the effect of when it was introduced.

I did not say when the hearing was held.

Hearing was held on um June 15th.

And you marked up the bill on July 8th.

Yes.

And we're moving very quickly on this.

After five years, yes, sir.

Is there discussion from members?

Councilmember Lewis George.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um, I was proud to introduce the short-term disability insurance benefit protection clarification amendment act of 2025.

Um, and I want to thank uh Chairperson Henderson, the Committee of Health for moving this bill forward as well as the Committee of the Whole.

Uh DC's paid family leave program has been a vital lifeline for families, um, allowing workers to welcome a new child, care for a loved one, and or take time to address serious illness without losing all of their income.

Um, not enough.

And so cancer patients for um example need on average six months away from work and without additional support that one that time away can push a family into debt, housing instability, or even bankruptcy.

This bill is especially important since changes in the fiscal year 27 budget mean that DC workers will see fewer weeks of benefits for caregiving and medical leave.

Many workers and employers pay for short-term disability insurance for exactly these situations.

Insurance companies should not be allowed to reduce those benefits simply because a worker also receives uh DC pay family leave.

Um workers deserve the full coverage that they and their employers pay for.

Um we have maintained this protection through emergency and temporary legislation.

Passing the permanent bill will provide lasting certainty and ensure uh that district families can access the financial support they need during some of the most difficult moments of their lives.

Um I uh thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Anything further on this uh so the vote is on the committee of the whole print, which I believe is identical to the committee on health print.

With leave for staff to make uh the moving the print would leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

I move the committee the whole report would leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes.

Is there discussion on the report?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

Yes, it is.

The record is complete from the Committee of Health, and the record will be complete from the Committee of the Whole once the report is filed.

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.

Thank you.

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

We will turn now to consideration of measures from other committees.

And the first is from the Committee on Human Services, chaired by Councilmember Matt Fruman.

PR 26-736, Hill East Phase 2, Bundle 2 disposition term sheet amendment approval resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

PR 26-736, the Hill East Phase 2 Bundle 2 disposition term sheet amendment approval resolution of 2026 was introduced by you, Mr.

Chairman, on behalf of the mayor on June 1, 2026, and referred to the Committee on Human Services on June 23rd, 2026.

It was then marked up by the Committee on Human Services June 25th, 2026.

Hill East, formerly known as Reservation 13, comprises 67 acres located between the eastern edge of the Capitol Hill neighborhood and the western shore of the Anacostia River.

Phase two, bundle two, located at 1900 Massachusetts Avenue Southeast, consists of approximately 6.3 acres and includes parcels C, E, and H and the streets parcel.

The Council previously passed the Hill East Phase 2 Bundle II surplus declaration and disposition approval act of 2022, which was accompanied by a term sheet executed by the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development and the developer R3 community partners LLC.

Under Section 10-801 of the DC Code, substantive changes to a term sheet must be submitted to the Council in a proposed resolution.

The resolution before us today would authorize three specific amendments to the term sheet.

First, the district would now be responsible for constructing the public park on parcel E.

The park would be leased to the developer for up to 25 years.

A change from the prior 99-year ground lease, and the developer would be responsible for maintenance of the public park throughout the period of the ground lease.

Second, the streets parcel would be retained by the district, with the district responsible for its development and improvements with streets and sidewalks.

Finally, the period for substantial completion of each parcel would be extended from 30 months to 32 months following the start of construction.

These amendments are necessary to allow this project to move forward.

Tight capital and rise in construction costs have made it difficult for the developer to proceed under the original term sheet.

And the committee found the terms of this amendment to be appropriate and narrowly tailored.

There had been some conversation about whether or not there had been a PUD on this matter.

There had not.

With that, uh Mr.

Chairman, I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting.

Thank you, Councilmember Fruman.

Are there questions from members?

Councilmember Robert White and then Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Fruman.

For the public part, the district, I guess the developer was supposed to build it now, the district is going to build it.

Councilmember Fruman, do we know how much it's going to cost us to build the park and how much they're going to pay to lease it?

I actually I'll ask for the amount for the lease, but I actually think it's likely that it's the maintenance cost, and we are going to pay $5.2 million to develop the park.

Okay.

And the parcels that we're going to retain.

Did you say that there are streets or buildable parcel?

No, those those are the streets.

Does that mean that the district is going to take over the cost of building the streets from the developer?

Exactly.

Yes.

And that money is also built into the existing capital budget.

Okay.

I believe it's on the order of $30 million.

Okay.

So it sounds like we approved this in 2022 construction costs were very high then.

So in I flag that because I'm starting to see a trend of significant contract changes.

And I worry about us setting a precedent with of rising construction costs, right?

Like after one person says it and successful, everybody's going to say it.

And I've seen some really concerning attempts at contract changes come to the housing committee.

And so I want us to have our eyes wide open on this.

And I just do want to flag that I have some concerns here.

Thank you, Chairman.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you.

Council Robert White asked the questions I had about on the cost.

And so I think it's important for us to keep in mind.

I mean, this is a set of development parcels that for years we have been trying to move forward in Hill East.

So it is very important, I think, to the growth of the community and what I think the community desire has been to see this continued growth.

I do think we also have to be clear-eyed with the approximately $30 million shift to the district's ledger for transportation and building out streets and the $5 million for a park.

That is in essence around a $35 million subsidy that was not factored into the award when this was first come through.

I factor that on top of.

So we made a huge investment and are making one for a long time, right next door, which is increasing the value of these properties, and I think actually make them much more likely to succeed as well to see them move forward.

But it does give me pause that we are essentially bringing on about $35 million of subsidy that otherwise wasn't there as part of the project.

So you said that's approximately $30 million.

And is that currently budgeted in the capital budget for Hill East infrastructure costs, or would that be an additional funding that's going to come to the Department of Transportation, for example, uh that then makes us have to make choices about other roadway projects that we have to decide on?

My understanding is it's in the budget that we recently passed.

So it's not it's not new money, new funding that we need to look for.

It's funding that we have already approved.

Okay.

I mean, historically there has always been a pot of funds that have existed for infrastructure in Hill East, because we have recognized everything from sewer and infrastructure and everything else that's gonna have to be in that pot.

So if that if that's what we're dipping into, I guess essentially uh it's fair, the dollars are there.

Um, but it also is a cost that is new that otherwise wasn't what the district was gonna uh pay for when this decision was made.

So um it gives me pause.

Um it is an important project, so this is where we're wrestling with both we want to see this project move forward, it needs to move forward.

Um, but this is a very significant subsidy that would be added uh to the public tax dollar for a project.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bonds.

Um thank you very much, Chairman.

Um, to Mr.

Fruman, I want to understand this 30 million you are saying is already in the budget.

Is it in the budget for infrastructure for RFK, or is it in a general infrastructure budget that D DOT has uh it's in the the Hill East CIP.

Okay.

Okay.

So we already have it um accounted for.

In other words, it's already in the overall budget.

Right, it's already specifically accounted for.

So the only thing that we have to worry about today is this um 5.2 million.

No, the 5.2 million.

It's also in the budget.

Okay.

So it's just really the issue of the principle of the thing, uh, whether or not um the government uh takes over where a developer has indicated that they would assume responsibility for the benefits that they have received.

That's right.

There's there's a material change in the financial arrangement, and that's why it's an amended term sheet.

And we looked at that material change and thought it was justified, and that it is important to move forward with this project, which will bring to life a thousand plus new units at at least 300 plus of which will be affordable.

All right.

And so we're gonna get uh a thousand new uh residential units um for the city taking responsibility for building the park.

I mean, we were always gonna get those units.

It's that what we're doing is unlocking it so that it can move forward.

We'll also get a 243-room hotel, but and we'll get other things as part of this.

But yes, we're we're taking steps to unlock this so that it can proceed.

Okay, then we'll get those back.

And and what what is the benefit that we get from the city assuming the cost of building the park and maintaining the park?

Uh the the relieving that financial pressure on the developer allows the deal to be able to work financially so that it can go forward.

So that's the that's the benefit.

Okay, so you're telling me that the um developer has said I'm not going to fulfill the commitment that I made, which is to build this park.

I think at this point, that's the stalemate where we are.

Yeah, I mean the developer was saying that if I have these additional burdens on these burdens that I agreed to on me, that I will not be able to make this work financially, and so I need relief, and we are through the amended term sheet giving that relief.

Wow, so we don't really have an agreement for the services we thought we had.

What you're saying.

Yes, we've amended the term sheet.

Thank you.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And uh thank you, Councilwoman Fieldman.

Uh whoa, whoa, whoa, councilwoman.

I'm sorry.

Councilmember Feelman.

I'm sorry, I was looking at Councilwoman Bonds uh for your leadership on this matter.

Umly uh indicated earlier, the Hilly's phase two bundle uh two project represents a major investment in Ward 7.

When we talk about the redevelopment of RFK, which is um significant, we cannot forget about the surrounding communities.

Uh when we talk about a time in the district where the rising cost of living is uh becoming extremely difficult with these thousand units that will go online will significantly help solve that burden.

Uh couple with the other neighborhood serving amenities that residents across the ward seven desperately deserve.

I fully support this project.

Uh this is not a reallocation of money as previously indicated.

There's already capital dollars uh in the budget that supports this development, uh which really uh demonstrates uh whether it's leaders at DIMPA or other uh agencies on the executive side thinking comprehensively as it relates to how everything is interconnected from the roads and making sure that the project has what it needs to uh move forward.

What I fear is if this project does not move forward, then we have another situation in Ward 7 where a project was stalled, which means that neighbors will have to go outside their communities to have access to neighborhood serving amenities.

We cannot continue to be a ward that is filled only with residential.

We want grocery stores, we want hotels, we want sit-down restaurants.

And I am uh confident that by supporting this project, we prevent that from happening, coupled with we just cannot have uh a situation where there's just an RFK stadium and nothing else surrounded.

That makes no sense, right?

We have an economic engine, we have an anchor now, and now is the time to invest in neighborhoods that generate neighborhoods serving amenities, or as my council colleague Robert White indicated, will be a situation where calls will continue to go up.

So now is the time, and uh urge my council colleagues to support this as well.

Yesterday's price is not today's price, and I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Tran White.

Uh thank you.

I want to thank you, uh, Councilmember Fruman.

Um, and also Councilmember Wendell Fielder and War 7, like War 7, Ward 8, uh has been on the backbone when it comes to investments from the city.

Uh we've seen money go everywhere.

In fact, today I read that we're thinking about putting a $620 million roof of which on the Audi Stadium, at which $300 million will come from the DC government.

And I heard someone say this is a significant subsidy.

Well, it's really not.

We've done this everywhere else.

Um and also this part of World 7 used to be a part of War 6.

I think that we, when we talk about the spirit of equity and inclusion, we must make sure that as we think about those 85,000 residents who reside in Ward 7, even War 6, and all of DC and their surrounding region will be traveling here to put money in dollars into this community that will benefit us all as members of the of the council and also as a community.

So I think we should support this uh and use any tools we have in our toolbox to make sure equity is included in our 22 plus billion dollar budget.

So I support this and want to thank everyone for working on this.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

And I wasn't paying attention.

This should be questions only.

If there are no other questions, I have three for officers.

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

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

Yes, it does.

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

The next two four five measures are confirmations related to the police complaints board.

If there is no objection, Councilmember Pinto will be asked to present them in block.

They are PR 26-642.

Uh police complaints board Glenn Marcus confirmation resolution of 2026, PR 26-643.

Police complaints board Dr.

Andrea Headley, confirmation resolution of 2026.

PR 26-644, police complaints board Bobby Strang, confirmation resolution of 2026.

PR 26-645, police complaints board Edward Sanders, confirmation resolution of 2026, and PR 26-695, police complaints board Peter Durkin confirmation resolution of 2026.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And yes, I will speak to all five police complaints board nominees in block.

The police complaints board was created by statute 1999 alongside the Office of Police Complaints.

PCB is composed of nine members, one of whom must be a member of MPD, while the other eight must have no current affiliation with any law enforcement agency.

All board members must be residents of the District of Columbia, and they serve staggered three-year terms without compensation.

These five nominations would confirm Glenn Marcus, Dr.

Andrea Hedley, Edward Sanders, and Peter Durkin, and reappoint Bobby Strang to the police complaints board.

Mr.

Marcus would serve as the representative of Ward 3, Dr.

Hadley would serve as representative of Ward 6.

Ms.

Strang, service representative of Ward 7, Mr.

Sanders is representative of Ward 1, and Mr.

Durkin is a representative of Ward 2.

All five are highly qualified individuals who will contribute positively to the overall makeup of the place complaints board.

The board plays a critical role in the work of the OPC, and it is vital that the Board be properly staffed, especially in this time when we have seen a rise in complace complaints.

So moved, Mr.

Chairman.

Are there questions from members?

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

Yes, they are.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each?

I'll take it.

Yes, they are.

Mr.

Assistant Secretary.

And 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 additional legislative meeting.

On the agenda, there is an item G, PR 26-633.

We actually moved that at the committee of the whole on June 23rd, so that's not before us.

So turning to item H, Bill 26-4-7.

Funeral Services Modernization Amendment Act of 2026.

This and the next three after came out of the Committee on Health, chaired by Councilmember Christina Henderson.

Councilmember Henderson, would you please present this measure?

Sure can, Mr.

Chairman.

All right.

Bill 26-4-7, the Funeral Services Modernization Amendment Act of 2026 was introduced by Chairman Mendelssohn on behalf of the mayor on January 13th, 2025 as the Funeral Directors Licensing Reform Amendment Act of 2025.

The bill was initially referred to the Committee on Business and Economic Development before being referred to the Committee on Health in February of this year following the transfer of the Board of Funeral Directors to the Committee on Health.

The district's funeral services regulatory act has remained largely unchanged for more than 40 years, even as funeral services profession has evolved significantly.

This legislation modernizes our licensing framework by creating separate licenses for funeral directors and embalmers by aligning licensure requirements with the actual duties performed by each profession so that we can ensure individuals receive the proper education training and examination requirements that are relevant to the work that they will actually perform.

The committee worked closely with the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection as well as the Board of Funeral Directors and members of funeral services industry to make several changes as to the bill as introduced, including maintaining the apprenticeship framework rather than replacing it with internships, broadening the recognition of accredited education programs approved by the U.S.

Department of Education, so long as it exists, and aligning the National Board of Examination Requirements with the distinct um competencies required for funeral directors and embalmers, removing an overly restrictive reciprocity requirement for experienced professionals moving to the district, and clarifying supervision requirements to better protect consumers while providing clearer expectations for apprenticeship for apprentices for apprentices and licensees.

Overall, I believe that this legislation uh moves the district in the right direction that several of our other jurisdictions across the country have already moved to.

And so, Mr.

Chairman, I um ask that this uh bill be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Henderson.

Um questions from members.

I have one question.

Did you say it was introduced at the request of the mayor?

Um that is what I have, but I do recall this was your bill without her.

Correct.

Sorry, I get confused often with her.

Um doesn't matter.

Um there questions from other members.

I have three Madam General Counsels to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Madam Assistant, no, Mr.

Mr.

Assistant Secretary.

Yes, it is.

And 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.

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

Bill 26-427, Cybersecurity and Accountability Act of 2026.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, Bill 26-427, the Cybersecurity and Accountability Act of 2026 was introduced.

I believe this one was introduced by you on behalf of the mayor on October 8th, 2025.

It was originally referred to the Committee on Business and Economic Development.

And following the transfer of the Department of Insurance Securities and Banking to the Committee on Health, it was re-referred.

The legislation is based on a model law adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in 2017 to establish standards for insurers and regulators to mitigate the adverse impact of cybersecurity breaches.

This bill improves the district's cybersecurity oversight for insurance companies by establishing standards for insurance companies to create and implement information security program, which includes administrative, technical, and fiscal safeguards to protect non-public information, requiring insurers to designate an official to manage and report cybersecurity events, requiring insurers to conduct risk assessments, requiring insurers to report cybersecurity breaches to Disby and authorizing Disby to conduct compliance examination of licensees and issue flies for noncompliance.

This did come to our attention based on a particular there was an insurance company that had a cybersecurity incident where they reported it to Maryland.

They did not report it to the district because it was not required, but Maryland did report it to us as a courtesy.

And so by passing this, hopefully we'll close the loophole on any reportings of cybersecurity events for insurance companies.

So move, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Henderson.

Are there questions from members?

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is not.

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

Bill 26 444, Food Policy Council Procurement Amendment Act 2026.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Bill 26 444, the Food Policy Council Procurement Amendment Act of 2026 was introduced on October 22nd, 2025 by Councilmember Zachary Parker.

It was also co-introduced by myself, Councilmembers Fruman, Lewis George, and Pinto.

It was referred to the Committee on Health.

This bill expands the authority of the Office of Food Policy to oversee food procurement in the district, which is critically important when you consider that the district spends over $62 million every year on food across multiple agencies.

This bill would specifically allow for OFP to advise food procuring agencies on improving their contracts, collaborate with the Office of Contract and Procurement to ensure that food service solicitations reach a wide audience of highly qualified prospective vendors, consolidate food purchasing data across agencies, and develop food, develop and maintain food procurement standards and templates to be used in all procurements.

This bill does cover all agencies that regularly purchase food, including schools, rec centers, correctional facilities, senior centers, and St.

Elizabeth's Hospital.

It would not include agencies that purchase food or beverages solely for vending machines or one-off catering for events.

The committee print also requires these agencies to share data on their food procurements with the Office of Food Policy to enable them to conduct analysis and make recommendations.

As a reminder for colleagues as well as for the public, the Office of Food Policy is currently located within the Office of Planning, but will be moving to DC Health on October 1 of this year.

So this implementation will take place within DC Health agency.

There are no additional costs associated with this bill given that the committee's FY27 budget did transfer the one required additional FTE to implement this legislation thanks to a transfer from Councilmember Parker, who is the author of this legislation.

So move, Mr.

Chairman.

Oh well, not so move.

I do ask for it to be on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting.

And you said the fiscal impact was taken care of because there's one FTE and not two buildings.

You know, sometimes I get a good fist.

Are there questions from members?

I thought that was funny.

Is the measures legally and technically sufficient for consideration?

Yes, it is.

I'll get to you.

Uh Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

I'll get to you.

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

Yes, it does.

Is there a cost?

There is, but it was funded in the 27 uh budget financial plan.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bonds, you had to a question.

Um, yes, thank you, Chairman.

And I was going to pose a statement in the form of a question.

Um, if I put it that way, probably statement I wanted to make in the form of a question.

Is this not a better way of looking at food um security throughout our government as opposed to leaving it to one agency to look at their process?

We're now doing a combination.

Does that make sense?

Uh I I 100% agree with you, Councilmember Bonds.

Uh, right now, every agency does food procurement on their own.

And the way that the Office of Contract and Procurement is um organized.

There's not just a food section, so we have no idea if we're getting the best price based on what Department of Corrections may be getting versus what um DACL may be getting versus maybe what DCPS is getting from the same vendors.

And so hopefully this will help streamline that process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Bonds.

We have Bill 26-547.

Did I already say that that was on the consent agenda?

No, I didn't.

So without objection, Bill 26-444, the Food Policy Council will be on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting.

Bill 26-547, posthumous care modernization amendment act of 2026.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Bill 26-547, the posthumous care modernization amendment act of 2026 was introduced by then Councilmember Kenya McDuppy on December 15th, 2025 in as the Green Death Care Option Amendment Act of 2025.

We change the name for a very good reason.

The bill was initially referred to the Committee on Business and Economic Development before being referred to the Committee on Health in March following the transfer of the board of funeral directors to this committee.

The legislation modernizes funeral services once again by authorizing alkaline hydrolysis, sometimes referred to as water cremation or aquamation, as an additional lawful method of disposition.

Alkaline hydrolysis is a well-established process that uses water, alkaline chemicals, heat, and pressure to accelerate the natural decomposition process.

This process offers environmental benefits by reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional cremation services.

At the end of the process, families receive remains in the same manner that they would traditional cremation.

More than 20 states, including Maryland, have already authorized this practice.

By authorizing alkaline hydrolysis, the district expands the range of dignified disposition options available to district residents while supporting innovation within the funeral services industry.

Yes.

I learned a lot from this particular hearing.

Ask me about cremation.

Oh, Mr.

Chairman.

It's so quiet in here.

Everything's so serious.

Are you done?

It's the circle of life.

Are you done?

Um there questions from members?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Crawford.

I had the pleasure of working on this bill last year on the introduction.

So thank you to Councilmember Henderson for moving it.

We've also talked a lot about the podcast Noble, which I recommend a lot of you listen if you like podcasts.

It's a very interesting podcast about cremation or the lack thereof.

And my question is uh is there anything further that you'd like to share about the industry industry or the importance of this additional method of disposition?

Well, yes.

Well, first off, uh cremation is not currently um well, let me be clear.

We have no authorized licensed cremation services in the district.

If somebody's doing it under the record, please report them because that's a problem.

Um but uh, you know, when we're talking about environmental friendly options and how people uh are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, this is this is an option that we would be making available um to folks.

And um I think also because this does not use uh flame, there might be the option that some funeral homes in the district choose to begin offering cremation services through this method.

Also, the podcast was very interesting.

Like I said, I've been down a deep hole.

You recommend the podcast.

I do.

Now it will freak you out.

Just a hair.

Yes.

Noble.

Look it up.

Just listen to the trailer.

You'll be in.

The trailer.

After no further questions, um Madam General Council, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

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

Yes, it does.

Is there a fiscal impact?

There is not.

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

The next four measures were reported out of the committee on transportation and the environment, chaired by councilmember Allen.

The first is Bill 26-244, Micromobility Fire Safety Standards Act of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm not sure if this is going to be as interesting.

Uh the bill 26-244, the micromobility fire safety standards act of 2025 was introduced on May 6th, 2025 by myself alongside Council Mr.

Bonds, Freuman, Henderson, Pinto, and Robert White.

Micromobility devices provide residents and visitors with a safe, convenient, and sustainable alternative to motor vehicle use, and these devices have proven to be incredibly popular in the district, increasingly so.

Over the uh just six years, the distance traveled on shared micromobility devices rose by a factor of 10 from 1.6 million total miles in 2019 to 16.6 million miles in 2025.

But as demand for electric mobility devices has risen, so too have risks.

Unfortunately, not all micromobility devices are manufactured to a high standard, resulting in a serious safety risk.

The most dangerous of these product failures involves the lithium ion batteries that can experience a phenomenon known as a thermal runaway, which can result in smoke, fire, the emission of harmful gases, and even explosions.

Thankfully, several organizations have promulgated technical specifications or benchmarks for products or processes to improve the safety, reliability, and quality of those products or processes and minimize risks such as fire or electrical hazards.

Requiring microability products to adhere to these standards is a straightforward way to improve their quality to reduce the risk of a battery-related fire.

Accordingly, the committee print requires that any electric bicycles, electric mobility devices, or traction battery manufacture distributed sold leased or rented in the district to be certified to meet applicable safety standards.

The print also requires that a certification mark be displayed on each covered device to demonstrate to the public and agencies that products comply with the certification requirements and provides a narrow exemption for devices offered for rental through a shared fleet device program, provided the program provides documentation to DDOT demonstrating that their products do in fact comply.

The print also exempts secondhand sales from the requirement to display a certification mark.

I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for the additional legislative meeting to follow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there questions?

Councilmember Henderson.

Mr.

Chairman, um, yes, I do have one question uh for Councilmember Allen, although I voted for this obviously in committee, but I just wanted to take Councilmember Allen an opportunity to clarify.

Would this extend to the products, electric bikes, et cetera, that are also purchased online?

Um, because we know that there are a number of folks who are trying to get around in a variety of different ways.

Um just wondering.

Is it's not just for physical purchases in the district, but anything that is purchased?

Correct.

It is for anything that is manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, or rented in the district.

So yes.

Great.

Thank you.

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

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

Yes, it does.

And is there a cost?

There is not.

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

Bill 26-245, personal delivery device weight limit amendment act to 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Bill 26-245 is introduced by myself alongside Councilmers Henderson and Parker on May 6, 2025.

Demand for food delivery services such as DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub, Instacart have grown significantly in recent years.

The food delivery market in the United States has more than doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic when delivery services became an attractive option for residents who were ill, elderly, or simply preferred the convenience of home delivery.

And food delivery services remain very popular.

But greater demand for food delivery has led increasingly to crowded streets, raising concerns about safety and congestion.

An innovative solution that could help cities meet demand for food deliveries while reducing roadway congestion is personal delivery devices or PDDs.

These are small, semi-autonomous robots designed to transport deliveries short distances.

These devices have the potential to complete that last mile delivery and operate on sidewalks, taking cars off the roads, reducing emissions, and supporting our local businesses.

The committee print largely implements on a permanent basis with this council has already approved via emergency and temporary legislation, raising the district's current weight limit on personal delivery devices from 90 pounds to no more than 275 pounds, excluding the cargo.

The bill also allows the District Department of Transportation to establish a higher weight limit through public rulemaking.

As a quick point of comparison, over a dozen states now allow PDDs to weigh 500 pounds or more, significantly higher than DC's proposal, and several states also empower their departments of transportation to set a higher weight limit through rulemaking.

Increasing the weight limit for personal delivery devices will allow companies to deploy a wider range of PDD models and expand sustainable delivery options in the district.

I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for the additional legislative meeting to follow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen.

Are there questions from members?

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Is there a cost?

There is not.

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

Bill 26-548, Washington Commanders Motor Vehicle Identification Tags Amendment Act 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Bill 26-548 was introduced by former Councilmember Kenya McDuffie on December 15th, 2025, and referred to the committee on December 16th, 2025.

The committee print amends the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1937 to authorize the mayor to design and make available for issuance one or more Washington Commanders motor vehicle tags, otherwise known as a license plate, that demonstrate support for the National Football League's Washington commanders.

Residents would be required to pay a $25 application fee and a $20 annual display fee for a Washington Commander's license plate.

The mayor would be required to deposit any application and display fees received from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the issuance of a commander's tag into the state athletic activities programs and office fund.

The DC Athletic State Athletic Association manages the fund and uses the fund's resources to develop and support state athletic programs and competitions.

Importantly, as with all motor vehicle tags that display the logo or emblem of a professional sports team, including the other four team plates currently offered, the mayor will be required to work with the Washington commanders to obtain approval for the use of any trademark, work mark, or copyrighted material.

I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for the additional legislative meeting to follow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you.

Are there questions from members?

Chairman.

Councilmember Nadeau and then Crawford.

Thank you so much.

To be clear, my question has nothing to do with the Washington commanders.

It's just about licensed plates.

We've passed a lot of new special plate designs, and I have a concern about what I'm calling plate creep.

We've encountered this issue with DPW parking enforcement and the fraudulent tags we passed recently, the law we passed recently, which requires a directory and staff training on how to identify plate designs in all states.

However, there are now 8,000 special license plate designs in the United States.

So it's starting to pose a serious problem for law enforcement across the country and it makes it easier to pass off counterfeit tags.

And there are reports showing that high contrast plate backgrounds can create readability issues for automated enforcement.

Some states have standardized their special plate designs to address the problem.

For example, Maryland technically has hundreds of different plate designs, but the customizable area is limited to a three-inch square in the same location.

I'm concerned that DC's new full plate designs are headed in the wrong direction and will be increasingly against best practice.

So my question is to Councilmember Allen.

Do you have thoughts on this issue?

And it is some is it something you've discussed with the DMV director.

I don't have deep thoughts on this, no.

Um I I have spoken with the DMV director about sometimes the lag it takes for them to actually design a plate in some cases.

For example, uh our plate that was uh I thought would be a very quick design, the uh we demand statehood tag ended up taking years, oddly enough, for them to design.

Uh whereas I feel like um we were working with the DMV for the purple heart plate, which uh we just recently approved and are trying to actually get that done um quickly so that can be in place.

So the timing is one I've had more conversations around.

I think that the design elements are something we can continue to c have a conversation with DMV around around the standardization of it so that whether it be um uh automated camera enforcement or others can have some level of consistency if we're seeing problems, we can look more into it.

Okay, thank you.

Um I I'll I you know I plan to support this and leave it on the consent agenda, but I I hope the question of standardization can be addressed before we consider the next one of these new plates, whatever that may be.

Um, in particular, there's an awful design for the veterans plates where it's like it's I mean, they're really hard to read.

And I think I've raised in the past the council member plates are actually not scannable.

So now states that do license plate readers are like regularly pulling over DC council members and being like, what is this plate you have?

Um but just so people know, we're not the worst defender, but DC is actually more special plate designs than at least five other states.

We have Anacasia River commemorative, breast cancer awareness, DC veteran, DC woman veteran, disabled American veteran, pride lives here, Purple Heart, Washington Capitals, Washington Mystics, Washington Nationals, Wizards, We Demand Statehood, Veterans Specialty, Vision Zero, Bicycle Awareness, Council Tags, and now the commanders.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Crawford.

Thank you.

Um again, I had the pleasure of working on this last year, so thank you, Councilmember Allen, for advancing it.

I thought Councilmember Henderson asked a good question during the markup about how we design plates.

So if you would just share that for the public again, um, because I thought your answer was pretty robust at the markup.

I hope I can uh replicate that answer.

So um when it comes to the design for a professional team, for example, the DMV works with them because those are going to be trademarked uh logos for the team.

So, for example, if you see uh the Mystics or the Capitals uh who have a special tag, they've worked with the teams.

It is a it is the trademarked logo that's on that tag.

So I would expect this to be the the same.

Um, but it also allows an openness to be able to work with the team to have a slightly different design.

Um the design process, I think sometimes takes too long, um, but it does go through a review process and uh some degree of standardization.

I think to the conversation we were just having earlier, could always warrant kind of going back to look at what the standardization looks like so that we ensure the the plates um have a standardization in terms of the way in which they they go through different types of reading.

I hope that was robust enough.

Thank you.

Further questions.

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary's record complete.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Is there a cost?

There is not.

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

Bill 26-554, Commercial Drivers License Amendment Act of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The Department of Motor Vehicles or DMV registers commercial motor vehicles uh and issues commercial drivers licenses or CDLs of various classes and requires the operator of a commercial motor vehicle to hold a CDL.

As of 2025, approximately 8,500 district residents hold active CDLs, which are issued by the DMV and operate vehicles ranging from delivery trucks and buses to tractor trailers and tanker trucks.

The CDL system is governed by federal law and regulations, specifically the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 and is regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is organized under the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

States and local jurisdictions must maintain CDL programs that meet or exceed federal minimum standards to avoid losing federal highway funding.

The DMV must comply with federal CDL standards established in the Code of Federal Regulations, which cover testing requirements, endorsements, medical certifications, and disqualifying offenses.

The committee print updates our statutory references to federal laws governing commercial motor vehicles to ensure consistency with prevailing federal law and regulations.

The print also changes the district CDL disqualification parameters, aligns them with federal disqualification criteria set by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

These changes will ensure the council will not have to continually update the district CDL laws as federal laws and regulations change.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And I ask that this be put on the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Are there questions from members?

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

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

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

Yes, it does.

Is there a cost?

There is not.

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

There's no objection, the next two measures will be considered in block.

They both concern confirmations to the Board of Elections.

Those two plus the remainder of this agenda are measures that came out of the Committee on Executive Administration and Labor chaired by Councilmember Anita Bonds.

PR 26-692, District of Columbia Board of Elections, Gregory McCarthy confirmation resolution of 2026.

MPR 26-745, District of Columbia Board of Elections, Michael Wakefield, confirmation resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you, Chairman.

PR 26692, the Board of Elections, Gregory McCarthy, confirmation resolution of 2026 for a term to end July 7, 2029, filling a seat formally held by Gary Thompson.

Mr.

McCarthy is a resident award too.

Without any further action, this confirmation will be deemed disapproved by October 20th, 2026.

As we all know, the Board of Elections of the District of Columbia is an independent agency of the district government, and it is responsible for the administration of elections, ballot access, and voter registration.

It consists of three active board members, an executive director, a general counsel, and several support staff who run the day-to-day operations of the agency.

On July 8th, the committee voted unanimously in favor of Mr.

McCarthy's nomination to the Board of Elections.

He has extensive experience in public service, having previously served in the executive office of the mayor, the U.S.

Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget and the White House.

He also has served on several boards and commissions, including the Tax Revision Commission of the District and the Board of Trustees of the DC Public Library, the Historic Preservation Review Board, and Destination D.C.

He currently works as the Vice President for Community Engagement for the Washington National Baseball Club and serves on the board of the Capitol Riverfront Business Improvement District.

During our July 1 round table, Mr.

McCarthy expressed his goal for the board to assess matters such as rank choice voting, fair elections, and the referendum process.

He confirmed, if confirmed, his commitment is to act with impartiality and without regards to previous affiliations while emphasizing that the role of the board is to implement the decisions of the council without regard to a personal opinion.

Mr.

Michael Wakefield, PR 26745 confirmation resolution of 2026.

He has been nominated for a term to end July 7, 2029, and Mr.

Wakefield is a Ward 5 resident.

Without further action, this confirmation will be deemed disapproved on November 24, 2026.

On July the 8th, the committee unanimously voted in favor of Mr.

Wakefield's nomination to serve on the Board of Elections.

He is a veteran of the U.S.

Army and served in the Army Corps of Engineers, where he completed the Military Honors Program.

May I continue, Chairman?

Thank you.

And serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the U.S.

House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

He currently works as an attorney at Holland Knight, focusing on public policy and regulations.

During the round table, Mr.

Wakefield highlighted his knowledge of election law, his experience as an attorney, and his focus on preparing for November 2026 election.

When asked about how to inform the public about the semi-open primaries, Mr.

Wakefield emphasized the need for early voter education leading up to the 2028 primary and support for gathering additional data related to assessing gaps in voter education.

Mr.

Chairman, I move these for our consideration.

Can I move forward?

Are there questions from members?

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

Yes, they are.

Madam Budget Director, these are confirmations, so there would be no fiscal impact statement.

Correct.

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

PR 26705, Office of Employee Appeals, Lafayette Barnes Confirmation Resolution of 2026.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

PR 26705 nominates Mr.

Lafayette Bonds for an appointment to the Office of Employee Appeals, replacing the Honorable Arrington Dixon for the remainder of an unexpired term to end April 6, 2028.

The resolution would be deemed disapproved on October 20th, 2026 without any further action.

The Office of Employee Appeals, or commonly referred to as OEA, is an independent administrative adjudicatory agency consisting of five-member board that processes appeals filed by district government workforce.

On July 8th, the committee unanimously voted in favor of Mr.

Bonds' nomination to serve on the OEA.

He is president and CEO of Zulu Global Enterprise with over 20 years of public administration experience and has served almost five years as a member of the board of directors of the United Planning Organization, including most recently as the board chair.

He has served in senior executive and agency director positions working on organizational grant and resource management under four mayoral administrations in the district, including Mayors Anthony Williams, Adrian Finti, Vincent Gray, and Muriel Bowser.

Mr.

Barnes is a ward for a resident and an alumni of LaSalle University.

He received his Master of Science and Foreign Service from Georgetown University.

And during the round table, he emphasized his commitment to resolving employee relations matters in a confidential, equitable, and timely manner, and believes that his extensive leadership experience in district government, nonprofit governance, and employee employee relations has prepared him to serve on the OEA board.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to move that forward to our thank you, Councilmember Bonds.

Are there questions from members?

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary is the record complete.

Yes, it is.

Correct.

Objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting.

PR 26-737 Public Employee Relations Board Lee Clark confirmation resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Again, Mr.

Lee Clark has been nominated for a term ending December 12, 2028.

Mr.

Clark is a Ward 6 resident.

The confirmation resolution would be deemed disapproved on November 24, 2026 without any further action.

The public employee relations board, otherwise and commonly referred to as PERB, is an impartial quasi-judicial independent agency governed by a five-member board that resolves labor management disputes between the agencies of the district government and unionized agency employees.

The committee unanimously voted in favor of Mr.

Clark's nomination to serve on the PERB.

He is currently a senior attorney at the United States Government Accountability Office and progresses federal and local experience in labor relations, serving for the DC Office of Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining, DC Water and Sewer Authority, the National Labor Relations Board, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

With that, Mr.

Chairman would like to move his own.

Thank you, Councilmember Bonds.

Are there questions from members?

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

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, this is a confirmation, so there's no fiscal impact.

Correct.

No objection.

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

The next measure is Bill 26-436, fair initiatives and transparency to every resident amendment act of 2025.

Before we can consider it, he has to waive committee the whole rule 403B.

Councilmember Bonds, do you want to move to waive committee of the whole rule 403B?

Yes, thank you, sir.

So moved.

Is there discussion?

The votes on the waiver, all those in votes on the waiver.

All those in favor of the waiver say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

We have the bill before us.

Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

This is an opportunity for the district government to move a piece of legislation that will address some of the issues that the community has as it relates to the FAIR initiative process.

I will start with the fact that the single subject rule is for sure one of the most confusing issues when we talk about the initiative process.

In fact, we at the council ended up funding one part of one of our initiatives while not funding the other part of the initiative until a later date.

Voters have to make an all or nothing choice between the two ideas.

And that really has generated confusion, particularly when we have voted to support one part and not the other part.

In fact, 26 states have the initiative process, and of them, 16 have a rule using language similar to every initiative measure shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.

In fact, all of the states have to go to court for a final decision, and therefore there has been no difference.

It is not fair or advisable to allow a process such as that to continue to exist in the District of Columbia, and that is why we are presenting this piece of legislation.

Regarding fiscal impact summary, which is also a component of the bill.

While the physical impact statement is provided for initiatives, my bill requires a short summary of this to be included on the petition sheets and the ballot.

Council must consider the fiscal impact of any legislation it passes, then voters should be afforded the opportunity to have that information as well.

Therefore, if an initiative is going to mirror the legislative process, voters should know the physical impact.

We have heard from many witnesses that these initiatives about how these initiatives have affected their livelihood and their industries, particularly from elements of our business community.

We may support the general idea of an initiative until you realize just how much it will cost to implement the goal.

The goal is to provide voters with more information about the effect of these initiatives before they sign on to support and before they vote on them at the ballot box.

And it also makes, may I continue?

Without objection.

Thank you.

It also makes sure that information is printed in 11-point font, not in six-point text or less.

That is difficult for voters to read.

And I re I am mentioning this because I've heard from so many individuals that said the type was so tiny.

Of course I signed on.

The theme was right, but I don't know what I what I actually signed on to.

I wasn't able to read it quickly, because given 10 seconds is what you get to read a matter that's before you on a petition form.

A signer often only has a few seconds to look at something before they sign it, and it needs to be easier to read.

So we look forward to the Board of Elections to make sure that the petition form contains information in a required font, and that's one of the proposals in this bill.

Then the issue of the circulator and proposer information.

Voters should know where these measures are coming from.

While the proposer is currently required to submit a copy of their verified statement of contributions, we are requiring the Board of Elections to post this filing on their website.

Also, we're requiring that the circulators indicate whether they are DC resident or a non-DC resident, and if they are a paid employee of the proposer of the measure.

This is a simple requirement that allows voters to understand the origin of these motors, these matters and how they are being financed.

And finally, the timeline.

Every one person who has a valid reason to challenge an initiative has a right to be heard in the courts.

And so with that, Mr.

Chairman, I um propose that we look closely at this measure.

Thank you.

So we have the this measure.

Let me say at the outset, my thinking is to um entertain questions.

There's an amendment that I circulated that would be in order if there's no objection and it deals with the definition of one subject, and to put this on the non-consent agenda for the September 22nd agenda.

So maybe we'll start with the amendment I circulated.

Um I discussed this at the breakfast.

I circulated it by email or Christian Washington and my staff did at 1019.

It would uh change the language with regard to uh what is meant by one subject instead of saying uh a measure addresses one subject if each of its provisions I'm gonna misread that.

For the purposes of this subsection, a measure addresses one subject if each of its provisions refers to an issue to the same subject matter to instead say for the purposes of this subsection, a measure addresses one subject if its provisions do not have to or more distinct and separate purposes.

And then there's a rationale that explains that.

Um my thinking is to get this in the hopper in the public domain, so to speak, um while the public and we all have a chance to look at the bill between now and uh September 22nd.

So if there's no objection, the amendment will be attached to the bill.

Hearing no objection, it's attached.

Now are there questions from members?

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Councilmember.

It might blend into a comment, but I I'm trying to understand where we are.

So I I think there had been some conversation at the breakfast about postponing this, and it seems like what you're saying is in effect postponing this because it won't go on the agenda for the legislative meeting today.

Instead, it will go on the meeting for September 22nd, which will give us time to more thoroughly think about all dimensions of this bill between now and September 22nd.

Correct.

And just so I understand.

I mean, one of the things that I think you said this morning was that there may be some utility in having an engrossed version, and will this give us an engrossed version?

It will not.

It will not.

What it will do is we will have the committee print, which is available on LIMS now, plus the amendment that was just accepted.

And uh in the meantime, as you know, there was discussion about uh Councilmember Bonds suggested she was going to uh work on an amendment nature of a substitute.

Okay.

So that's and so even in a in not objecting to your amendment, because I've seen a bunch of different choices for how to do single subject.

I think Councilmember Bonds has one that was also floated recently that I might slightly prefer to yours, but it's possible that in the ANS we would sort through that and that would come up on September 22nd.

So this is moving it forward, elevating it for public discussion, but also postponing it uh to September 22nd.

Is that an appropriate characterization?

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Parker.

Relatedly, what do we get from moving this through committee today?

Well, it's here by right.

No, I understand that.

But what I heard through the discussion this morning is that there's various uh levels of unease with the contents of the bill, but it seems as though we're moving it through committee as though we're endorsing it, even with your amendment.

No.

It doesn't.

Uh at the committee, all bills have to come through the committee as a whole.

The only bills that are endorsed by the committee of the whole, so to speak, to use your language are those which are marked up in the committee as a whole.

So all other measures.

But a bill couldn't get to a legislative meeting without going through the committee of the whole.

And so what is before us is that we are essentially greenlighting this to be on the legislative agenda in September.

Even though we don't have a commitment for the changes, we haven't seen the changes.

I don't even know if Councilmember Bonds agrees there should be changes.

And I don't mean to complicate this, but it does, it's curious that we're kind of pushing this through instead of just wholesale holding off until September when we can see the revised version.

Um I think I sort of appreciate what you're saying, but actually this is exactly the track that every bill follows.

What is unusual, but we do it often, is to have a bill come through committee of the whole and be agendized on the same day.

So every measure that's under part six of the agenda, every measure has come through the committee of the whole, I've asked a clearance questions, but then been agendized for today.

The normal process, uh what do we call it?

Normal order is that a bill comes here for agendizing at the committee as a whole and then is agendized for the next regular legislative meeting.

So there's nothing extraordinary happening here.

Other maybe extraordinary that we're acting actually in regular order rather than expedited order.

But we also know the bill that likely will come in September will be substantively different than the bill before us.

Um possible, but that's also not unusual.

I mean, how many times have we had amendments in the nature of a substitute?

And sometimes uh and we will oftentimes vote first reading, knowing that there will be an A in the second reading.

The Budget Support Act is an example.

Budget Support Act was approved first reading on July June 9th.

Knowing that there'd be an amendment nature of a substitute at second reading, which there was.

So there's nothing extraordinary there.

And there's nothing cute going on here.

Um and our options today with committee as a whole are actually limited.

The committee of the whole we don't vote on any of these bills.

So the um committee as a whole, we could recommit it.

Um we could table it or we agendize it, and it's here by right.

So thank you.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I might try to just say it a different way clearly for folks, which is we're not voting on this today.

I would not vote in support of it today because I have concerns about certain elements of it.

I do appreciate Councilor Bonds, the work to try to clarify our initiative laws around single subject matter.

I think that's important.

I appreciate and support uh the chairman's amendment on that language.

My concern with this legislation is that um it goes too far afield from focusing on that single subject matter to talking about um even DC residents that want to be able to be involved in a petition process have to go in person to go uh sign up, which they don't have to do today.

Um candidates and initiatives would treat it very differently.

So currently, if you are a candidate, you can hire people to collect signatures for you, and they don't have to wear a sticker or a badge, but then if it's an initiative, it does.

I'm curious about how that would be enforceable.

Um there's many elements around this that I think would actually um have a chilling effect on our ability to go through a proper ballot initiative process and for residents to do that.

The single subject matter is important, and I think that's the meat uh of what this legislation looks like.

So to make sure that I'm ending this with a question, um, I'll also to my colleagues' questions and make sure the intent is clear.

So there is no vote that is taken today.

There is no endorsement of the legislation as is today.

The legislation properly moves from a committee, comes through the committee of the whole, think of it like a clearance process to then be put on the legislative meeting.

That's correct.

The a little bit abnormal part, but it's also allowed is that it we're not having a first vote on it today, it's gonna be in September.

And Councillor Bonds, I believe the intent is, but just so we can explicitly say it, the intent is that you want to spend the time from now till that first reading in September.

You've heard the concerns and questions people have.

Your intention is to work with colleagues to build uh an ANS and an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which you would bring back in September in your effort to try to help iron out where you're hearing that concern from.

Do I have that correct?

Do you have that correct from the council member Allen?

You have that correct for me.

Um today, the goal was really to put it before this body so that we would be on notice that this is an item that uh we hope will come before us for a vote in uh September, a first vote in September.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So with with that, knowing that we're not voting, we're not endorsing, we're not making a statement or a judgment about it today, it's just a clearance for it to come in September.

I'm comfortable with it moving forward, and then look forward to working with colleagues uh before that first vote in September.

So thank you.

And and if you recall doing breakfast, I think I received about five different um thoughts on the proposed use of, as you said, the badges worn by the petition circulators.

Timing of the ballot initiative, whether it's used for any election or limited to general election ballot.

So we have a number of questions about the initiative process in in general.

And of course, we haven't even tackled the referendum process.

What I have found with this um agency in the committee is that we have many regulations which are generated by the board as the need may arrive.

And so what happens is we'll have an issue to arrive in the community, like this thing where an initiative has had more than one subject, and trying to sort through that.

So that's the nature of at least getting this matter before us as a committee of the whole so that we know that it is going to be coming forward for our review and decision later in the calendar year, I guess is the best way to put it.

Mr.

Chairman, not to belabor the point, but technically it could be tabled.

The bill could be tabled, and we could bring it up at a Cal meeting in October.

And I'm just simply making the point, and I'll let it go that it could be tabled, and we could have a Cal meeting in October if need be.

Yes, it is.

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

Yes, it does.

Does it have a cost?

Does not.

Oh this measure will be placed on the non-consent agenda for the September 22nd additional legislative meeting.

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

We have a legislative meeting to follow.

Um, you know, I don't know why I look at you, Mr.

Assistant Secretary, because you're just disapproving unless I say that we will start in one minute.

Um I say we will start the legislative meeting at 2.25.

And the time is 213, and this meeting is adjourned.