Summary#

B26-0793 is the Modification Nos. M0008, M0009 and M0010 to Contract No. CW110323 with Tag-B Parking, LLC Approval and Payment Authorization Emergency Act of 2026. If it takes effect, it would approve three changes to an existing District contract and authorize payment for goods and services received or to be received. Its stated purpose is to approve the modifications and authorize payment; the bill does not state a broader goal.

• The Council approves modifications M0008, M0009 and M0010 to the District’s contract with Tag-B Parking, LLC.
• It authorizes payment for work under those modifications up to a total of $18,710,208.
• The approval applies notwithstanding the requirements of the cited District procurement law. The bill does not explain which requirements would otherwise apply to these modifications.
• This is a temporary emergency act: if it takes effect, it remains in force for no more than 90 days. The bill says it takes effect after mayoral approval, or after the Council overrides a veto.
• The bill passed the Council and was delivered to the Mayor. It is not yet in effect based on the status provided.

What it means for you#

• District government: If the act takes effect, it may pay Tag-B Parking, LLC for goods and services received and to be received under the three contract modifications, up to the authorized limit.
• Tag-B Parking, LLC: The bill authorizes payment under the modifications, but does not guarantee payment of the full limit.
• District residents and taxpayers: The bill does not directly change taxes, fees, parking rules, or eligibility for a public benefit. Its direct effect is on approval and payment under this contract.

Money#

The bill authorizes payment of up to $18,710,208; the actual amount to be paid is not stated.

• The bill adopts the Chief Financial Officer’s fiscal impact statement, but that statement’s figures are not included in the supplied material. No publicly available information.
• The bill does not say how much has already been paid, how much remains to be paid, or how the maximum is divided among the three modifications.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not describe the goods and services covered by the modifications or explain what each modification changes.
• It does not provide the contract’s earlier payment limit or the amount by which these modifications change it.
• The supplied material does not include the Chief Financial Officer’s fiscal impact statement.
• The bill does not explain which procurement requirements are set aside for these modifications or describe any review or oversight process.
• The bill’s emergency authority lasts no more than 90 days. The supplied text does not say what happens to payment authorization after that period.

Case for#

• The bill would give the District a clear authorization to pay for goods and services received and to be received under the approved modifications.
• A maximum payment amount gives the authorization a stated limit.
• Approving the modifications and payment could help the District carry out the contract as changed. This is an inference; the bill does not describe the work or the consequences of not approving it.

Case against#

• The Council would approve the modifications despite the cited procurement law’s requirements, but the bill does not explain why an exception is needed or what safeguards apply instead.
• The public cannot assess the value or necessity of the changes from this bill alone because it does not describe the work, the individual modifications, or the contract’s earlier payment limit.
• The authorized maximum is substantial, but the bill does not provide the fiscal impact figures or the expected amount actually to be paid.