(Photo by Eric Spiegel)

That the D.C. Council wants to pass a bill guaranteeing paid family and medical leave is not in question. The method of paying for and administering it, however, remains up in the air on the eve of the legislation’s final vote.

The Council voted 11-2 on first reading earlier this month to entitle nearly all D.C. workers to eight weeks of parental leave, six weeks to care for an ailing family member, and two weeks in the event of a personal illness. The system would be funded by a 0.62 percent payroll tax, to the tune of $246 million a year, and administered by the government. When employees take leave, their pay would come from the citywide pool.

Critical of raising taxes and creating a huge new city agency, Councilmembers Jack Evans and Mary Cheh said today that they are working on an alternative, known as an “employer mandate.” Rather than raise taxes and create a new government-managed system, the law would require all businesses with more than 70 employees to offer the same amount of paid leave—but self-administered as they see fit. Business with fewer employees would get $200 in tax credits, and could apply for additional funds under a “hardship petition.”

Evans and Cheh argued that the system would be much cheaper to administer at $40 million than the one the Council voted on last week. Without the payroll tax, though, it remains clear where the funds would come from.

The privatized system is favored by large businesses and universities for obvious reasons. Many of them already have programs or could easily modify them without having to pay a tax.

Evans summed the position up this morning at a media briefing as: “We’re doing it already and we think we can do it faster better and cheaper than the government can ever do.” Business groups in attendance gave a round of applause to his statement.

Paid leave advocates—many of whom have showed up en masse throughout the legislative process with stickers, babies, and red shirts to show their support—counter that small businesses would suffer. The payroll tax effectively offered businesses with fewer employees a subsidy, which would no longer be the case under the privatized system.

“The eleventh-hour employer mandate scheme presented this morning would make providing paid family leave financially impossible for all but the District’s largest businesses,” At-large Councilmember Elissa Silverman said in a statement. “It is a risky and volatile proposal, which has not been vetted in public debate.”

Evans said he believes that six councilmembers would vote for the employer mandate. While only he and Councilmember Yvette Alexander voted against the legislation on first reading, Ward 4’s Brandon Todd, Ward 8’s LaRuby May, and At-large Councilmember Anita Bonds all expressed qualms with the bill.

“But six is zero if you don’t have seven,” Evans said, referring to the majority on the Council that would be needed to pass the amendment.

For her part, Cheh said she would vote for the public system if it came down to that. “If this alternative doesn’t go, I’m going to vote for what’s on the table,” she said. “I don’t like getting it in the way that’s been proposed, I think this is a better way .. but at the end of the day, I’m committed to getting paid family leave.”

And should that be the case, the open question is what Mayor Muriel Bowser will do.

“My job will be to do what’s in the best interest of D.C. taxpayers and families,” Bowser said on the Kojo Nnamdi Show on Friday, when asked if she would veto the system as is. She’s repeatedly said that the bill isn’t in the city’s best interest because about two-thirds of the benefits are paid out to Virginia and Maryland residents who work in the District. The employer mandate system wouldn’t solve that issue, but it also doesn’t propose a new tax.

For more details, see our paid family leave explainer.