Committee of the Whole - Regular Meeting

I'm calling to order this meeting. This is a regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Council of the District of Columbia. I am Phil Mendelson, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole. Today is Tuesday, July 14, 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.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 uh we will follow this committee the whole meeting with an additional that means not a regularly scheduled legislative meeting of the council uh we will begin our meeting by determining whether we have a quorum mr cash would you call the role chairman mendelsohn president councilmember allen here councilmember bonds

Here.

Council Member Crawford. Here. Council Member Felder. Present. Council Member Fruman.

Present.

Council Member Henderson. Here. Council Member Lewis-George. Here. Council Member Nadeau. Here. Council Member Parker. Here. Council Member Pinto. Present. Council Member Robert White. Council Member Robert White. Council Member Tran 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, Council Member 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. 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 it. Chair Pro Tem, Council Member Bonds.

And again, 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 waive the reading as a 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 as a whole. The first four are revenue bond project approvals. I think I will move them separately. The first is PR26-675, 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 issue and 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 and the print amends it to $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 2225 4th Street NW, 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 Rouge, 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 and 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 rebuilding 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 of Girard 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 501 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 Providence Group Bison Properties, Inc. and will not constitute a debt or liability to 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 24 at the request of the mayor. The committee as a whole held a public roundtable on the measure on May 14, 2026. The committee has received no comments or testimony in opposition to this resolution. I move both the print and report would leave for staff to make technical, conforming, and editorial changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the print report for PR 26 dash 6, 7, 5 with leave for staff all those in favor say aye aye are there any posed. Hearing none the eyes have it unanimously. I'm general counsels to measure legally technically sufficient for consideration yes it is. I'm secretaries to record complete once the report is filed.

And 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 second measure is PR26-676, St. Patrick's Episcopal Day School Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2026. PR26-676 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. Bonds will be used by St. Patrick's Episcopal Day School to 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 coeducational 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 PR26-676 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 the 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 Whitehaven Parkway Northwest. At the committee's hearing, the Chief Financial and Operations Officer for St. Patrick's Episcopal Day School asked the 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 economic development Davidson reviewed the financial feasibility of st. Patrick's Episcopal day school in connection with a proposed 35.5 million dollar revenue bond application and deemed the transaction to be financially feasible In addition, Bryant, Miller, and Olive determined that the applicant is a 501 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 to the district. Based on all the information and 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 in April 24th of this year Committee the whole held a public roundtable on May 14th on the measure and the committee's received no testimony or comments in opposition to this resolution I moved both print report and With leave for staff to make tactical conforming and editorial changes as our discussion The vote is on both the print report with leave for staff all those in favor say aye aye aye Are there any opposed? Hearing none the eyes have it unanimously the third measure is a Excuse me. 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. 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 as a whole is PR26-677, 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 and 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. Bunche 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, J.P. Morgan reviewed the financial feasibility of This project in connection with the proposed $175 million revenue bond application deemed the transaction to be financially feasible. In addition, Orrick, Harrington and Sutcliffe determined that the applicant is a 501 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 to 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 introduced at the request of the mayor on April 24th of this year. The committee as a whole held a public roundtable 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 26-6 7 7 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 PR26-678, entitled Harmony DC Public Charter Schools Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution 2026. which would authorize the issuance, sale, and delivery of tax-exempt revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $17 million. The bonds will be used by Harmony DC Public Charter School to develop a new campus at 2917 8th Street Northeast. Founded in 2014, Harmony DC Public Charter School is located in Ward 5 and serves children from pre-K-3 to fifth grade. Harmony DC 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 DC 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 and Economic Development, Masterson Advisors LLC reviewed the financial feasibility of Harmony DCPCS in connection with the proposed $17 million revenue bond application and deemed the transaction to be financially feasible. In addition, Orrick, Harrington, and Sutcliffe determined that the applicant is a 501 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 DCPCS and will not constitute a debt or liability to 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. The committee as a whole held a public roundtable on May 14th of this year. 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 of PR26-678 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.

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. The next measure for markup is PR26-741, entitled Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, Mark Battle Confirmation Resolution 2026. 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 Juris Doctor from the Howard University. He is a partner 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 a 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 its 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 at the hearing roundtable 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 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 UDC, 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 roundtable 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 would leave for staff. Is there a discussion?

Mr. Chairman?

Council Member 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, is a member of the Alumni Association, and even a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated. But I do want to personally be consistent in my long-held 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 leave for staff to make technical, conforming, and editorial changes. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Nay. 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 measure's fiscal impact statement comply with Council requirements?

Yes, it does.

This matter will 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 know, I haven't marked. OK. The next measure for markup by the committee to hold is PR26-744, entitled Board of Zoning Adjustment Robin Wells Confirmation Resolution of 2026. This resolution was introduced Give me a second here. About to read the wrong one. This resolution was introduced to request to the mayor. It would confirm the appointment of Robin Wells as a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment for the remainder of a three-year term to expire September 30, 2027, 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 D.C. Department of Transportation, including the Streetlights 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 DDOT 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 roundtable 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 advisor neighborhood commissions. This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on June 10th, and the committee as a whole held a public roundtable 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 would 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 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 PR26-746, Commission on the Arts and Humanities Demetrius Butler Confirmation Resolution 2026. This resolution would confirm the Mayor's nomination of Demetrius Butler for reappointment as a member of the Commission on the Arts and Humanities for a term to end June 30, 2029. Mr. Butler is a Ward 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 DC as a city recognized for its arts and culture, as well as its politics. 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 as a whole held a public roundtable on July 9th. The committee has received no testimony or comments in opposition to this nomination. Without objection, I move both the print and report would leave for staff to make technical, conforming, and editorial changes. Is there discussion?

Yes, Chairman.

Council Member Tranwhite.

I'm excited to vote yes today 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 parents in this field of arts, from working with the commanders to the clothing lines, It's just in the streets, creating platforms for youth to be able to express themselves in a healthy manner. So I'm excited to be joining the council, hopefully, in voting yes to nominate Mr. Demetrius Butler, also known as Saws, for the Office of Humanities Commission. Thank you.

Thank you, council member. Further discussion? The vote will be on both print and report with leave for staff. This is PR26-746. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously. Madam Federal 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 is PR26-747 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 Kruse for the remainder of an unexpired term to end February 24, 2030. The School Reform Act of 1995 gives 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. As an independent authorizer, the Public Charter School Board charters new schools through a comprehensive application review process and ensures public charter schools are held accountable for both academic and non-academic performance. The Public Charter School Board is currently the District of Columbia's sole charter school authorizer and now oversees 68 charter local education agencies with 134 campuses. Ana 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 in 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 advisory neighborhood 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 in Government and Politics, magna cum laude, with a concentration in environmental science and policy. This resolution was introduced at the request of the mayor on June 17th, and the committee as a whole held a public roundtable 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 report would 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 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.

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 is Bill 26-181, entitled Short-Term Disability Insurance Benefit Protection Clarification Amendment Act of 2026. This measure was sequentially referred first to the Committee on Health, shared by Council Member Christina Henderson, and then to the committee as a whole. I'm going to recognize Council Member 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 21, 2025 by Council Member Denise Lewis-George. and co-introduced by council members Allen, 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 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 2000 to ensure that this prohibition is enforceable by the district's insurance laws. At the hearing, DSBE 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, we're moving this permanent bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. And I will add, because I think this was the committee as a 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 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. 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 June 15. And you marked up the bill on July 8.

Yes.

And we're moving very quickly on this.

After five years, yes, sir.

Is there discussion from members? Council Member Lewis in charge.

Thank you, Chairman. I was proud to introduce the Short-Term Disability Insurance Benefit Protection Clarification Amendment Act of 2025. And I want to thank Chairperson Henderson and the Committee of Health for moving this bill forward, as well as the Committee of the Whole. DC's paid family leave program has been a vital lifeline for families, 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. 12 weeks is oftentimes not enough. And so cancer patients, for example, need on average six months away from work. And without additional support, 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 DC paid family leave. Workers deserve the full coverage that they and their employers paid for. We have maintained this protection through emergency and temporary legislation. Passing the permanent bill will provide lasting certainty and ensure that district families can access the financial support they need during some of the most difficult moments of their lives. I thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation.

Thank you, Councilmember. Anything further on this? 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 technical and conforming changes. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the ayes have it. Unanimously, I move the Committee of 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. Madam General Counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

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?

No, 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, BR26-736, Hill East Phase II, Bundle II, Disposition Term Sheet Amendment Approval Resolution of 2026. Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PR 26-736, the Hill East Phase II Bundle II 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 23, 2026. It was then marked up by the Committee on Human Services June 25, 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 II 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 rising 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. Any zoning review will happen after the approval of this resolution. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting.

Thank you, Council Member Fueman. Are there questions from members? Council Member Robert White and then Council Member Allen.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Council Member Fruman. For the public park, the district, I guess the developer was supposed to build it. Now the district is going to build it. Council Member 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?

And 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.

OK. And the parcels that we're going to retain, did you say that they're streets or a buildable parcel?

No, 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. I believe it's on the order of $30 million.

OK. So it sounds like we approved this in 2022. Construction costs were very high then. And I flagged that because I'm starting to see a trend of significant contract changes. And I worry about us setting a precedent of rising construction costs, right? Like after one person says it and it's 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. Thank you, Council Member.

Council Member Allen?

Thank you. Councilor Robert White asked the questions I had about 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's 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 the 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, we've also made a very sizable investment, obviously, in the property next door to this location, also called RFK Campus. 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. To Mr. Fruman, I was going to ask one question related to the transportation costs for the roadways. 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, that then makes us have to make choices about other roadway projects that we have to decide on?

CHRISTOPHER KREBS- My understanding is it's in the budget that we recently passed. So it's not new funding that we need to look for. It's funding that we've already approved. CHRISTOPHER KREBS- OK.

I mean, historically, there has always been a pot of funds that have existed for infrastructure in Hill East, because we've recognized everything from sewer and infrastructure and everything else that's going to have to be in that pot. So if that's what we're dipping into, I guess, essentially, It's fair. The dollars are there. But it also is a cost that is new that otherwise wasn't what the district was going to pay for when this decision was made. So it gives me pause. 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. But this is a very significant subsidy that would be added to the public tax dollar for a project. Thank you. Council Member Barnes.

Thank you very much, Chairman. 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 DDOT has?

It's in the Hill East CIP.

OK. So we already have it 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 $5.2 million.

No, the $5.2 million is also in the budget.

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

That's right. 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 1,000 plus new units at Hill East, 300 plus of which will be affordable.

All right. And so we're going to get 1,000 new residential units for, the city taking responsibility for building the park?

I mean, we were always going to 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, and we'll get other things as part of this. But yes, we're taking steps to unlock this so that it can proceed, and then we'll get those benefits.

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

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 benefit.

OK, so you're telling me that the developer has said, I'm not going to fulfill the commitment that I made, which is to build this park. At this point, that's the stalemate where we are.

Yeah, I mean, the developer was saying that if I have these additional burdens, 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're, through the amended term sheet, giving that relief.

Wow, so we don't really have an agreement for the services we thought we had, is what you're saying.

Yes, we've amended the term sheet.

Thank you.

Council Member Felder?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Councilwoman Feulman. Whoa, whoa, whoa, Councilwoman. I'm sorry, Councilmember Feulman. I'm sorry. I was looking at Councilwoman Bonds. For your leadership on this matter, as you articulately indicated earlier, the Hill East Phase II Bundle II project represents a major investment in Ward 7. When we talk about the redevelopment of RFK, which is significant, we cannot forget about the surrounding communities. When we talk about a time in the district where the rising cost of living is becoming extremely difficult, with these 1,000 units that will go online, will significantly help solve that burden, coupled with the other neighborhood serving amenities that residents across the Ward 7 desperately deserve. I fully support this project. This is not a reallocation of money. As previously indicated, there's already capital dollars in the budget that supports this development, which really demonstrates whether it's leaders at or other agencies on the executive side, thinking comprehensively as it relates to how everything is interconnected from the roles and making sure that the project has what it needs to 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 confident that by supporting this project, we prevent that from happening, coupled with we just cannot have a situation where there's just an RFK stadium and nothing else around it. That makes no sense. 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 costs will continue to go up. So now is the time. And I 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, Council Member. Council Member Tran White.

Thank you. I want to thank you, Council Member Frewman, and also Council Member Windell-Felder. Like Ward 7, Ward 8 has been on the back burner when it comes to investments from the city. We've seen money go everywhere. In fact, today I read that we're thinking about putting a $620 million roof on an outage 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. And also, this part of Ward 7 used to be a part of Ward 6. I think that 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 Ward 6, and all of DC and their surrounding region will be traveling here to put money and dollars into this community that will benefit us all as members of the council and also as a community. So I think we should support this and use any tools we have in our toolbox to make sure equity is included in our $22-plus billion budget. So I support this, and I want to thank everyone for working on this. Thank you.

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 counsels to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration.

Yes, it is.

I'm secretary's the record complete Yes, and I'm budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirement. Yes, it does Without objection this measure will be placed in 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's no objection Councilmember Pinto will be asked to present them in block. They are PR 26-6 for two Police complaints board Glen Marcus confirmation resolution of 2026 PR 26-6 for three and 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 PR26-695, Police Complaints Board, Peter Durkin, Confirmation Resolution of 2026. All reported out of the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, chaired by Councilmember Brooke Pinto. Councilmember Pinto.

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 Headley, Edward Sanders, and Peter Durkan, and reappoint Bobby Strang to the Police Complaints Board. Mr. Marcus would serve as the representative of Ward 3. Dr. Headley would serve as representative of Ward 6. Ms. Strang would serve as representative of Ward 7. Mr. Sanders is a representative of Ward 1. And Mr. Durkan is a representative of Ward 2. All five are highly qualified individuals who will contribute positively to the overall makeup of the Police Complaints Board. The board plays a critical role in the work of OPC, and it is vital that the board be properly staffed, especially in this time when we have seen a rise in police complaints. So moved, Mr. Chairman.

Are there questions from members? Madam General Counsel, 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 23, so that's not before us. So turning to item H, Bill 26-47, Funeral Services Modernization Amendment Act of 2026. This and the next 3 after came out of the committee on health chair by comes from the Christina Henderson customer anderson would you please present this measure.

Sure can Mister chairman. All right bill 26 dash for 7 the funeral services modernization of an act of 2026 was introduced by chairman Mendelsohn on behalf of the mayor on January 1320 25. 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 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 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 clear expectations for apprenticeship for apprentice seat for apprentices and licensees Overall, I believe that this legislation 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 ask that this bill be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting

Thank you, Councilmember Henderson. Questions from members. I have one question. Did you say it was introduced at the request of the mayor?

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

Correct. Sorry, I get confused often with her. Doesn't matter. Are there questions from other members? I have three, Madam General Counsel, 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.

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. Bill 26-427, Cybersecurity and Accountability Act of 2026. Council Member Henderson?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 8, 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 nonpublic 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 DSBE. And authorizing DSBE to conduct compliance examination of licensees and issue fines 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 moved, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Anderson. Are there questions from members? Madam General Counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration?

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Budget director does if it 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 bill 26-4 4 4 food policy council procurement amendment act of 2026 councilmember Henderson I

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill 26-444, the Food Policy Council Procurement Amendment Act of 2026, was introduced on October 22, 2025 by Councilmember Zachary Parker. It was also co-introduced by myself, Council Members Fruman, Louis 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 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's 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 moved, Mr. Chairman. Well, not so moved. 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 FIS.

Are there questions from members? Yes.

I thought that was funny.

That worked. Madam General Counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for consideration? Yes, it is. I'll get to you. Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

I'll get to you. Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements?

Yes, it does. Is there a cost? There is, but it was funded in the 27 budget financial plan.

Thank you. Council Member Bonds, you had a question?

Yes, thank you, Chairman. And I was going to pose a statement in the form of a question. And the statement I wanted to make in the form of a question, is this not a better way of looking at food 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? I 100% agree with you, Councilmember Bonds. Right now, Every agency does food procurement on their own, and the way that the Office of Contract and Procurement is 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 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 McDuffie on December 15, 2025 as the Green Death Care Option Amendment Act of 2025. We changed 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.

Mr. Chairman? It's so quiet in here. Everybody's so serious.

Are you done?

It's a circle of life.

Are you done? Other questions from members?

Mr. Chairman.

Council Member Crawford.

I had the pleasure of working on this bill last year on the introduction, so thank you to Council Member 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, is there anything further that you'd like to share about the industry or the importance of this additional method of disposition?

Well, yes. Well, first off, cremation is not currently, 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. But when we're talking about environmental friendly options and how people are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, this is an option that we would be making available to folks. And I think also because this does not use 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 a podcast.

I do. Now, it will freak you out. Just a hair. Noble, look it up. Just listen to the trailer. You'll be in.

The trailer. If there are no further questions, Madam General Counsel, 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. 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. But Bill 26-244, the Micromobility Fire Safety Standards Act of 2025, was introduced on May 6, 2025 by myself, alongside Councilor Bonds, Fruman, 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 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 manufactured, 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. Other questions? Councilmember Henderson.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I do have one question for Councilmember Allen, although I voted for this, obviously, in committee. But I just want to take Councilmember Allen an opportunity to clarify, would this extend to the products electric bikes, et cetera, that are also purchased online because we know that there are a number of folks who are trying to get around in a variety of different ways and just wondering, 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 Counsel, 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.

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 of 2026. Councilmember Allen?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Bill 26-245 was introduced by myself alongside Councilors 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 what 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, Council Member Allen. Are there questions from members? Madam General Counsel, is this measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Budget director does the measures fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements yes, it does is there a cost there is not Objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting bill 26 5 4 8 Washington commanders motor vehicle identification tags amendment act 2026 councilmember Allen

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill 26-548 was introduced by former council member Kenya McDuffie on December 15, 2025, and referred to the committee on December 16, 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 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.

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 license 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 eight thousands 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 is it something you've discussed with the DMV director?

I don't have deep thoughts on this, no. 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, our plate that I thought would be a very quick design, the We Demand Statehood tag, ended up taking years, oddly enough, for them to design. Whereas I feel like we were working with DMV for the Purple Heart Plate, which we just recently approved, and are trying to actually get that done 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 have a conversation with DMV around, around the standardization of it, so that whether it be automated camera enforcement or others can have some level of consistency if we're seeing problems, we can look more into it.

OK. Thank you. I plan to support this and leave it on the consent agenda, but I hope the question of standardization can be addressed before we consider the next one of these new plates, whatever that may be. In particular, there's an awful design for the veterans plates where it's like, 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 regularly pulling over DC council members and being like, what is this plate you have? But just so people know, we're not the worst offender, but DC is actually more special plate designs than at least five other states. We have Anacostia 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. Council Member Crawford.

Thank you. Again, I had the pleasure of working on this last year, so thank you, Council Member Allen, for advancing it. I thought Council Member Henderson asked a good question during the markup about how we design plates. So if you would just share that for the public again, because I thought your answer was pretty robust at the markup.

I hope I can replicate that answer. So when it comes to the design for a professional team, for example, the DMV works with them because those are going to be trademarked logos for the team. So for example, if you see the Mystics or the Capitals who have a special tag, they've worked with the teams. It is the trademarked logo that's on that tag. So I would expect this to be the same. But it also allows an openness to be able to work with the team to have a slightly different design. The design process, I think, sometimes takes too long, but it does go through a review process and 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 plates have a standardization in terms of the way in which 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, is the record complete?

Yes, it is.

Madam Budget Director, does the measure's 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. Bill 26-554, Commercial Driver's License Amendment Act of 2026. Council Member Allen?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department of Motor Vehicles, or DMV, registers commercial motor vehicles and issues commercial driver's 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 US 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? General counsels to measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration. Yes, it is I'm secretary so record complete Madam budget director doesn't 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. NPR 26-745, District of Columbia Board of Elections, Michael Wakefield, confirmation resolution 2026. Council Member 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 of Ward 2. 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 8, 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 US 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 DC. He currently works as the Vice President for Community Engagement for the Washington Nationals Baseball Club and serves on the board of the Capitol Riverfront Business Improvement District. During our July 1 roundtable, Mr. McCarthy expressed his goal for the board to assess matters such as rank choice voting, fair elections, and the referendum process. 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 8, the committee unanimously voted in favor of Mr. Wakefield's nomination to serve on the Board of Elections. He is a veteran of the US 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 US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans Affairs. He currently works as an attorney at Holland and Knight, focusing on public policy and regulations. During the roundtable, 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?

Other questions from members? Madam General Counsel, are these two measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Yes, they are. Madam Secretary, is the record complete for each?

Yes.

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 26-705, Office of Employee Appeals, Lafayette Barnes, Confirmation Resolution of 2026. Council Member Barnes.

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 20, 2026, without any further action. The Office of Employee Appeals, or commonly referred to as OEA, is an independent administrative adjuratory 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 Fenty, Vincent Gray, and Muriel Bowser. Mr. Barnes is a ward resident and an alumni of LaSalle University. He received his Master of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University. And during the roundtable, 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 relations has prepared him to serve on the OEA board. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that forward to Aaron.

Thank you, Council Member Bonds. Are there questions from members? And general counsels to measure legally technically sufficient for consideration yes, it is now secretaries record complete And budget director this is a confirmation, so there's no fiscal impact correct Objection this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting PR 26-7 3 7 public employee relations board lee-clark confirmation resolution 2026 customer 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 Pegasus Federal and Local Experience in Labor Relations, serving for the D.C. Office of Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, the National Labor Relations Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move his name.

Thank you, Council Member Bonds. Are there questions from members? Madam General Counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? Yes, it is. Madam Secretary, is the record complete? Madam Budget Director, this is a confirmation, so there's no fiscal impact? Correct. Without 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 Lend Transparency to Every Resident Amendment Act of 2025. Before we can consider it, I ask to waive Committee the whole Rule 403B, Councilmember bonds. Do you want to move to waive? Commit the whole rule 403 B.

Yes.

Thank you, sir So moved is there discussion the votes on the waiver all those? puts on the waiver all those in favor of the waiver say 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. 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. The 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 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. 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 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 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 are 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 matters and how they are being financed. And finally, the timeline. The bill also adjusts timelines, changing from 10 days to 30 days, the time period in which someone may challenge a decision of the Board of Elections. And these measures require deliberation. Finally, in opposition to pausing with the courts, the law also has been changed to allow for a substantive review of the initiative measure in the courts. This should not have to be a class action that would require a threshold of challengers of 10 or 100 people in order to make it a court matter. 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 propose that we look closely at this measure.

Thank you. So we have this measure. Let me say at the outset, my thinking is to 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 22 agenda. Maybe we'll start with the amendment I circulated. I discussed this at the breakfast. I circulated it by email or Christian Washington on my staff did at 1019. It would change the language with regard to what is meant by one subject. Instead of saying a measure addresses one subject if each of its provisions

I'm going to misread that.

For the purposes of this subsection, a measure addresses one subject if each of its provisions refers to and is germane 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 are more distinct in separate purposes. And then there's rationale that explains that. My thinking is to get this in the hopper, in the public domain, so to speak, while the public and we all have a chance to look at the bill between now and September 22. 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, it might blend into a comment, but I'm trying to understand where we are. So 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 22, which will give us time to more thoroughly think about all dimensions of this bill between now and September 22. Correct. And just so I understand, 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?

No, 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... In the meantime, as you know, there was discussion about Council Member Bonds suggested she was going to work on an amendment nature of a substitute.

OK. And so even in not objecting to your amendment, because I've seen 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 to September 22nd. Is that an appropriate characterization? In effect, yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Council Member Parker.

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

Well, it's hereby right.

No, I understand that. But what I heard through the discussion this morning is that there's various 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. At the committee, all bills have to come through the committee as a whole. The only bills that are endorsed by the committee as a whole, so to speak, to use your language, are those which are marked up in the committee as a whole. So all other measures have to go through the committee.

But Abeel 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 green lighting 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'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.

I think I sort of appreciate what you're saying, but actually this is exactly the track that every bill follows. Unusual, but we do it often is to have a bill come through committee 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 the whole I've asked the clearance questions but then been agendized for today and The normal process, what do we call it, normal order, is that a bill comes here for agendizing at the Committee of the 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.

uh 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 ans second reading the budget support act is an example Budget Support Act was approved first reading on June 9, 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. And our options today with Committee of the Whole are actually limited. The Committee of the Whole, we don't vote on any of these bills. So the Committee of the Whole, we could recommit it. um uh 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 the chairman's amendment on that language. My concern with this legislation is it goes too far afield from focusing on that single subject matter to talking about even DC residents that want to be able to be involved in a petition process have to go in person to go sign up, which they don't have to do today. Candidates and initiatives would be treated 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 initiative, it does. I'm curious about how that would be enforceable. So there's many elements around this that I think would actually 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 of what this legislation looks like. Yeah, I don't know. To make sure that I'm ending this with a question, I'll also, to my colleagues' questions, to 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. The a little bit abnormal part, but it's also allowed, is that we're not having a first vote on it today. It's going to be in September. And Councilor 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 an ANS, 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?

Councilmember Allen, you have that correct from me. Today, the goal was really to put it before this body so that we would be on notice that this is an item that we hope will come before us for a vote in September, a first vote in September.

OK. Thank you very much. So 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 the clearance for it to come in September, I'm comfortable with it moving forward, and then look forward to working with colleagues before that first vote in September. So thank you.

And if you recall, during breakfast, I think I received about five different thoughts. 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 general. And of course, we haven't even tackled the referendum process. What I have found with this agency in the committee is that We have many regulations which are generated by the board as the need may arrive. But there are very few laws that really govern how this agency, the Board of Elections, actually operates. 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 then 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 year. The calendar year, I guess, is the best way to put it.

Thank you. I think later in the calendar year means September 22. Are there any further questions from members?

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. I'm just making the point that the presentation today feels to me as though we have to do this in order to consider it at the end of September. 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. But the bill before us, what I'm clear on, doesn't seem as though it would receive the votes from this body, yet we're giving it a necessary green light to be on the legislative agenda in September.

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

Yes, it is.

Madam Secretary, is the record complete? Second. Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? Yes, it does. Does it have a cost? It does not. 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. Oh, 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. I say we will start the legislative meeting at 2.25, and the time is 2.13, and this meeting is adjourned.