NOTE: This article was updated at 3:46pm on Dec. 5 to correctly identify the council period.
Tuesday, Dec. 3 marked the D.C. Council’s second-to-last legislative meeting of Council Period 25.
That convening, and the Committee of the Whole meeting preceding it, started later than anticipated. This was due to spirited debate at the council breakfast about for-hire food delivery vehicles, juvenile recidivism and housing for pets, among other topics.
This edition of The Collins Council Report delves into a few pieces of legislation of consequence, all of which were voted on by all but one council member, elder statesman Vincent C. Gray, who’s approaching retirement.
NOTE: Be on the lookout for future reporting about legislation surrounding cashless retail.
Planning Ahead for the Next Budget Season
This past spring, during the shaping of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) cited her obligations to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, specifically replenishment of the District’s reserves, as the primary cause for her delayed submission of her budget proposal.
During the council breakfast preceding the Dec. 3 legislative meeting, Mendelson told colleagues that Bowser administration officials wanted to avoid a similar snafu next spring. Hours later, the council unanimously approved a set of measures that would push back the deadline for Bowser’s submission of her Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal by two weeks.
The bills, introduced by D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), sets the submission date at April 2, 2026 with Bowser scheduled to present her proposal to the entire council two days later. Despite some concerns about how the resolution would exacerbate spring break scheduling conflicts for council staffers who are parents, Mendelson said he wanted to prevent an equally damaging scenario.
“They missed a deadline this year and that was very problematic,” Mendelson said about the Bowser administration. “It’s very chaotic and unfair to everybody because we have to redo the schedule. That means the public has to learn the schedule again with less time to prepare.”
Mendelson Delays Second Vote on DYRS Accountability Legislation
Since the D.C. Council approved the Recidivism Reduction, Oversight, and Accountability for DYRS (ROAD) Act of 2024 on its first reading, debate around accountability for the D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services intensified, with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D), according to D.C. Council Chairman, threatening to veto the bill should the council pass it.
That’s why, during the council’s Dec. 3 legislative meeting, Mendelson announced he would postpone the second reading of the bill until Dec. 17, the council’s last legislative meeting for Council Period 25.
“I didn’t feel there was much effort on the other side of the table to find resolutions,” Mendelson said on the dais. “But several members said they would like for me to try for another two weeks to see if there could be some resolution of objections the mayor has raised.”
Mendelson assured his colleagues that the bill wouldn’t die.
“The mayor’s position is that there should be no deadline or timeframe, and DYRS could continue its practices,” he said. “ I don’t think that’s acceptable, and that’s not a bill I want to move forward.”
In its current form, The ROAD Act includes provisions requiring DYRS to develop and complete an individualized rehabilitation plan before a dispositional hearing, implement that plan within three days, and provide periodic updates. The agency would also be charged with providing services to youth in residential placement within 30 days.
In situations when a young person isn’t receiving recidivism-reducing services and placement, the law also allows for the modification of a disposition order every four months. A newly formed department within the Office of the D.C. Auditor (ODCA) would also provide permanent and independent oversight of DYRS.
DYRS Director Sam Abed, an opponent of the bill, criticized bill author, Attorney General Brian Schwalb, for not consulting DYRS before introducing it, via D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, to the council’s Committee of Whole and what was then the Committee of Recreation, Libraries and Youth Affairs.
“We want to put it out there that there’s nothing in the act that reduces recidivism,” Abed told The Informer. “No evidence-based strategies, no things that targets causes… workforce development… or any of the things that are connected to rehabilitation. It’s driven by deadlines.”
Abed pointed out that the legislation doesn’t address the dearth of local placement options. He also told The Informer that OAG placed too much of an onus on DYRS for lowering recidivism when OAG, in its role, often decides whether to divert juvenile offenders.
“When we set up a system with diversion opportunities without a program or moving the case forward, that leaves the community member who learned they can get away with crime,” Abed said. “We should’ve had a conversation, but this was the decision the OAG decided to make. If you want to do reform, you have to work with the system.”
During the council breakfast on Dec. 3, Mendelson alluded to an amendment that, in response to Abed’s concerns, explicitly dismisses any presumption of release for youth who hadn’t received an assessment within 30 days. For several minutes, council members explored other points of the legislation, including how to measure recidivism.
As D.C. Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), chair of the council’s Subcommittee on Libraries and Youth Affairs, told colleagues, DYRS pushed back against what they called OAG’s inflationary measurement of 92% that tabulated all contacts.
However, Parker said the 50% figure that he deemed more accurate was still too high, much higher than what the Bowser administration acknowledges. He expressed his confidence that DYRS would be able to meet deadlines with the ROAD Act moving up the predisposition process earlier in a young person’s detainment.
“There is a need to have a clear eyed view of DYRS,” Parker said. “The agency needs work. The goal of this legislation is to improve recidivism, which is upward of 50%. This bill gets at how we drive down recidivism and violent crime. Director Abed confirmed that if the agency had the proper staff, some of the goals embedded in the legislative mirror the directors’ goals to [then-committee chair] Trayon White.”
A Debate Rages on About How to Regulate For-Hire Food and Parcel Delivery Vehicles
During its additional Committee of the Whole meeting, the D.C. Council, in a 7-5-1 vote, struck down a measure to delay deliberation on the Carrier-for-Hire Oversight and Enforcement Act of 2024. The bill, introduced by D.C. Councilmembers Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) and Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1), permanently allows the Department of For-Hire Vehicles to issue citations against vehicles delivering food, beverages and parcels.
Several minutes later, during its legislative meeting, the council approved the legislation on its first reading by a 8-3-1-1 vote, with D.C. Councilmembers Kenyan McDuffie (I-At large), Trayon White (D-Ward 8) and Christina Henderson (I-At large) voting in opposition
D.C. Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) voted “present.”
This outcome came about despite McDuffie’s concerns about Nadeau’s overreach, as chair of the council’s Committee on Public Works and Operations, in shaping legislation that affects a constituency that he engages as chair of the council’s Committee of Business and Economic Development. Minutes earlier, Nadeau said she remained focused on a mission to reduce traffic fatalities.
“Some of the legislation is already in place through emergency,” Nadeau told The Informer. “The rest of it codifies things that companies are already doing. I don’t see it as a big change. I see it as my responsibility in ensuring we have the correct food delivery regulations.”
As Nadeau explained, a driver, in their capacity as a ride-share vehicle, skirts the Department of For-Hire Vehicles by turning off its ride-share sign before transitioning into their job as a food delivery driver.
That’s why tenets of the Carrier-for-Hire Oversight and Enforcement Act include: a data disclosure requirement more specific than what’s currently expected of for-hire vehicles; the establishment of delivery modes that place smaller, energy efficient delivery vehicles in a higher category; and a trade dress requirement to make food-delivery vehicles more identifiable to Department of For-Hire Vehicles employees.
Similarly worded emergency legislation that’s in effect until April 17, 2025 gives the Department of For-Hire Vehicles enforcement power over vehicles that double park, park in crosswalks, and obstruct bike lanes and driveways while delivering food, beverages and parcels in the District. In a 2023 letter to D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, Allen pointed out that the emergency legislation passed during this council period paved the way for nearly 500 instances when the Department of For-Hire Vehicles issued citations to food and parcel delivery vehicles.
During the council breakfast preceding the Dec. 3 legislative meeting, Allen looked at the legislation more broadly.
“We all want to see safe driving on our streets. I don’t care if you’re carrying a person, pizza or burger,” Allen said. “I like the innovation [but] it’s moving fast. These companies are not hiring workers with health benefits and protections… They naturally want to push back against rules and regulations, and push that on the gig workers.”
However, such an outlook didn’t deter Henderson from asking for a delay in the vote. She told The Informer that she, and other council colleagues who aren’t members of the council’s Committee on Public Works and Operations, didn’t have much time to explore the finer points of what she called impactful legislation.
“When you see these large pieces of legislation during the two last legislative sessions, you have to pay attention,” Henderson told The Informer. “We rush through very large bills then we need to do technical fixes because of unintended consequences. There’s already an emergency and temporary bill in place. I don’t see the harm in waiting.”
D.C. Councilmember Robert White Engages DHS on Two Fronts
The D.C. Council voted on bills that compel D.C. Department of Human Services (DHS) to facilitate a mentorship program for at-risk youth, and carve out space at a District homeless shelter for clients accompanied by a pet that’s not a service animal.
Ultimately, on their first reading, the council unanimously approved the Youth Mentorship through Community Engagement Act of 2024 and the Pets in Housing Amendment Act of 2024.
The Youth Mentorship through Community Engagement Act of 2024 establishes a youth mentorship and family engagement program, in which eligible D.C. government employees can participate as mentors and tutors while using a special kind of leave. Meanwhile, the Pets in Housing Amendment Act allows access to shelters for homeless residents who own a pet, limits the amount of fees and deposits a landlord can charge a prospective tenant who owns a pet, and prohibits restrictions on certain household pets, including pit bulls and rottweilers.
In speaking to his council colleagues about the Pets in Housing Amendment, At large Councilmember Robert White (D-At-Large) said that the bill would expand housing options to those who count among the most marginalized in the District.
“The Pets in Housing Act is for people who can’t afford exorbitant added fees to live with their pets,” White said during the council breakfast on Dec. 3. “Breed bans reinforce housing segregation and redlining. They have no basis in science. That’s why they’re banned by … just about every organization that knows dogs. Multiple states are moving to end this practice. This bill will put us on the trajectory to end breed bans in housing.”
The At-large council member also explained the utility of his youth mentorship bill, which is part of the Safer Today, Safer Tomorrow legislative package he introduced earlier this year.
“This program is unique with the design of fully trained mentors whose sole focus is the success of their mentees. While the community leave benefit is available to everyone, it requires approval,” he said. Youth overwhelmingly expressed a desire for more mentorship opportunities.”
As the council prepares for a second reading on both bills, questions linger about how the District will finance these programs. A fiscal impact statement submitted by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) on Nov. 21 said that there are insufficient funds in the FY 2025-2028 budget and financial plan to fund the Pets in Housing Amendment Act.
OCFO had a similar message for Youth Mentorship through Community Engagement Act of 2024, which is estimated to cost $8.4 million over four fiscal years.
During the council breakfast on Dec. 3, At large Councilmember White alluded to some apprehension on the part of DHS. The Informer unsuccessfully attempted to gather comment from the agency, but will be following the progress of these bills in the coming weeks.
