D.C. lawmakers have said for weeks that they are doing their due diligence on the $3.7 billion dollar deal, and expect to approve it - just not as fast as everyone wants.
A pressure campaign to push the D.C. Council to take faster action to approve the RFK Stadium redevelopment deal with the Washington Commanders is mounting, with a new group and a Republican congressman joining the effort.
D.C. lawmakers have said for weeks that they are doing their due diligence on the $3.7 billion dollar deal, which includes more than $1 billion in public funds, and they expect to approve a stadium -- just not as fast as the mayor or team or their allies may want. Lawmakers are looking for ways to either save taxpayers money, change certain arrangements -- such as with the parking revenue or rent -- or extract certain community benefits before holding a vote.
Still, while the council will hold public hearings on the stadium deal July 29 and 30, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) has yet to set a specific date for a vote on the proposal, fueling the continued pressure.
Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky), who led the House effort to give D.C. the RFK Stadium redevelopment opportunity, sent a letter to Mendelson on Thursday urging him to approve the deal no later than August after the D.C. Council separated the deal from the city budget process that is occurring this month. The council still took an initial vote Monday to approve $500 million in public funds to support stadium infrastructure as part of the budget, though the terms of the deal are expected to be debated separately.
"The Committee was disappointed to see the Council's vote on the stadium deal delayed, particularly given the significant economic benefits at stake and the clear mandate provided by federal legislation," Comer wrote to Mendelson. "The removal of the stadium's authorizing language from the D.C. budget has given cause for concern since it would unnecessarily delay the ultimate use of the 174 acres of currently underutilized federal property which the Act unlocked for revitalization."
Mendelson reacted to Comer's intervention on Friday, saying on WAMU's "Politics Hour with Kojo Nnamdi" that the letter surprised him. He said he was having productive conversations with the Commanders to work toward agreeing on terms of the deal that the council would vote to approve and that the council was moving with urgency.
"I have said over and over that the time when the council will act is when the Commanders and the council reach a deal" on amended terms, Mendelson said. "We have been working together -- I would say we have been working constructively. But I don't have a date at this point."
A spokesperson for the Commanders declined to comment.
Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) unveiled the multibillion dollar deal with the Commanders in April, a plan that includes not just a stadium but also retail space, an entertainment zone, park space and new housing, including affordable housing. D.C. would spend $500 million on stadium infrastructure that would be financed by a fee on businesses -- the same one that funded Nationals Park; the council voted to authorize those funds this week.
The city would also spend more than $350 million on parking garages, though would not get any of the revenue from them -- a recurring concern among lawmakers -- and would spend roughly $200 million on work related to utilities and a transit study.
Other lawmakers have told The Washington Post they have serious problems with the Commanders paying just $1 in rent to the city -- which is not the case for Nationals Park or Capital One Arena -- while others object to various sales tax exemptions in the deal. "My priority is to see if we can get a better deal for the city, for the taxpayer, and to do so as quickly as possible. It's not like time is irrelevant. It is relevant," Mendelson said on WAMU.
Later on Friday, Mendelson released an analysis of the deal commissioned by the council. The report, by the Robert Bobb Group -- headed by the former D.C. city administrator -- offered various recommendations, including a more direct return on investment, such as consideration of rent payments, parking taxes and sharing revenue from the parking garages; clearer expectations around who is responsible for certain maintenance and groundskeeping; and firmer guardrails to prevent unexpected cost overruns and construction delays.
"The proposed stadium deal is not inherently flawed -- but it is incompletely structured for a project of this scale, public profile, and timeline," Bobb wrote. He called the timeline "compressed and unforgiving," requiring extraordinary planning and coordination to execute the stadium by 2030, when Bowser and the Commanders want it open.
Bowser has repeatedly called on the council to vote on the terms she reached with the Commanders as soon as possible this month. She and team executives have said the construction timeline could be impacted by a delay in approval, which they have said could impact the city's bid for the 2031 Women's World Cup.
In an interview, Mendelson said the mayor's repeated public statements have "engendered anxiety," encouraged Comer's intervention and have needlessly suggested there is a risk the deal could collapse. "She claims to have a good relationship with Chairman Comer. She could call him and set him at ease," Mendelson said.
Spokespeople for Bowser did not directly address Mendelson's comments when asked for a response, but pointed to the mayor's comments on RFK on Thursday, when a reporter asked her if she was worried about any risk that the Commanders could abandon the D.C. deal for Maryland or Virginia. The deal she negotiated with the Commanders had an exclusivity clause that expired July 15, meaning the Commanders could, if they wanted, pursue a new stadium deal in another jurisdiction, starting from scratch.
That would be highly unlikely, considering the council has already approved funding and the team has significantly invested in exciting Commanders fans about their return to what the team has called its "spiritual home."
"We are now officially out of an exclusivity period, so all the associated risks are there," Bowser said, later adding: "The associated risk is that the deal doesn't happen, doesn't complete. ... The ball is in the council's court to approve the agreement. The Commanders are anxious. The council has to make moves -- that's what has to happen."
The council will be on recess in August, but voted this week to amend its rules to allow the Committee of the Whole -- which has oversight of the RFK deal and includes all council members -- to take votes during the recess. Mendelson said that will give the committee flexibility on RFK, though he acknowledged that for now, the next full legislative meeting where the D.C. Council could take a formal vote on legislation, including a final deal, is not until Sept. 17.
Opportunity DC, a pro-business group, launched the "RFK Now!" campaign Thursday to ramp up pressure on the council, while inviting people to sign up to testify in support of the deal at the July 29 hearing. Already, 398 people have signed up. Meanwhile, opponents of the stadium are lobbying for a ballot initiative that would block any lease for a stadium on the RFK campus -- an effort that faces hurdles given a debate about whether it would restrict how D.C. spends money, which an initiative can't do; the attorney general has said in an opinion the initiative is not permissible. The Board of Elections will take up the issue next month.
Even President Donald Trump has weighed in. Asked by a reporter on July 6 about the D.C. Council not yet approving the RFK Stadium deal, Trump said, "I don't blame them." He said he'd be willing to help out if needed.
"It's a very important piece of property," Trump said, adding that he thought it would be a great home for the new NFL stadium. "If they want to negotiate a little tough, that's okay with me."
Sam Fortier and Jenny Gathright contributed to this report.