[0:08] Chairperson mendelson: I'm calling to order this meeting,

[0:12] regular meeting of the council of the district of columbia, our

[0:15] 33rd meeting of council period 2 6, and our regular council

[0:21] meeting for the month of july. I like pointing that out because

[0:24] today is june 30. The time is 12:29 in the

[0:31] afternoon -- excuse me, 1:29 in the afternoon and we are in room

[0:36] 500 of the council buildings. I'm chair mendelson, chair of

[0:39] the council. We always begin our legislative

[0:43] meetings with a moment of silence and a moment for

[0:47] reflection, if we could have silence in the chamber and on

[0:49] the dais. Madam secretary would you please

[1:21] call the roll? Councilmember allen: here.

[1:29] juanita mary tillman white present.

[1:34] ddot here. A. Litteri inc. Present.

[1:39] diane k. Triplett alexander here.

[1:41] dmoi here. Personal delivery device weight

[1:43] limit present. P.a.v.e. Presence.

[1:52] >> you have a quorum. Chairperson mendelson: we have

[1:56] the secretary's report of filings and I will recognize the

[2:00] chair. >> I move a motion to waive the

[2:06] reading of the committee reports.

[2:07] chairperson mendelson: motion to raise the reports of committee

[2:11] filings. All those in favor of the motion

[2:16] say aye. Any opposed?

[2:19] hearing on the ayes have it unanimously.

[2:24] we also have the introduction and referrals.

[2:26] I will recognize the chair pro tem anita bonds.

[2:28] councilmember bonds: I move a motion to waive the introduction

[2:35] and referrals of proposed legislation report.

[2:36] chairperson mendelson: motion to waive the reading of the

[2:40] secretary's report discussion. On the motion to waive all those

[2:45] in favor say aye. Any opposed?

[2:49] the ayes have it unanimously. We have the consent agenda, one

[2:56] change to the committee of the whole on page three at the very

[2:58] top of the page item c, first reading bill 26-422, glazier

[3:06] licensing standards and certification act of 2026 remove

[3:09] from the consent agenda. Any other changes to the consent

[3:12] agenda? Hearing on we have the consent

[3:20] agenda as amended before us. All those in favor say aye.

[3:23] any opposed? Hearing on the ayes have it

[3:28] unanimously. We will turn to bill 26-422.

[3:34] glazier licensing standards and certification act of 2026.

[3:36] councilmember nadeau. Councilmember nadeau: so moved,

[3:39] mr. Chairman. Chairperson mendelson: any

[3:41] discussion? Councilmember henderson: I ask

[3:44] this be moved from consent because I wanted the ability to

[3:47] speak to it. I had questions during the

[3:51] committee of the whole. I'm not opposed to licensure in

[3:54] general I just moved several nominations for the board of

[3:59] pharmacy where those individuals are licensed.

[4:02] I wanted to raise concerns on the record in that glaziers is

[4:08] not a profession or field commonly licensed in the same

[4:10] way that electricians, plumbers, etc. Are.

[4:18] it would require perhaps an examination, certain number of

[4:21] hours in terms of apprenticeship, etc.

[4:24] but I wanted to highlight a concern we should be aware of,

[4:28] even in the committee reported outlines there are about 240

[4:33] glaziers in our region and only 60 are currently certified.

[4:39] in this very interesting economic space the district

[4:43] finds itself in, I think we should be concerned when we are

[4:47] making decisions that put us as an outlier especially from our

[4:51] regional partners, especially in the development space.

[4:57] what I would want us to avoid is a situation were now we have

[4:59] developers who moved to build in the district and we say great,

[5:02] here's the list of 20 people who are licensed, these are the only

[5:05] ones that can do your glazing work, which is not a requirement

[5:08] maryland and virginia would also have.

[5:11] it does seem as though this will move forward so I want to

[5:14] express that my hope is, that when the board of trade goes

[5:17] through this process, once it is funded and moves forward is that

[5:23] there is a grandfathering provision and process that

[5:26] doesn't lock people out of this profession who have been doing

[5:30] it for decades without licensure to be able to go forward but

[5:34] also considering too other mechanisms which do not

[5:39] unnecessarily lock people out of the trade like what is the

[5:42] amount, the feed to be licensed in the district?

[5:45] is it an annual certification versus something you have to be

[5:49] certified every two to three years, etc.

[5:57] there are often good reasons to be pioneers but I feel in some

[5:59] cases with occupational licensing, we can sometimes

[6:02] overdo it in terms of requiring licensure and hoops for folks to

[6:05] jump through, that are necessarily make it much more

[6:10] difficult for someone to enter the trade or profession over

[6:13] long term. I wanted to state that on the

[6:15] record. Thank you, mr. Chairman.

[6:18] chairperson mendelson: thank you.

[6:21] is there further discussion on the bill?

[6:24] councilmember lewis george: councilmember frumin's hand was

[6:31] up as well. I introduce the laser licensing

[6:35] standards and certification act because glaziers do highly

[6:38] skilled glass and metal work better next the safety, energy

[6:43] efficiency and long-term performance of buildings across

[6:44] the district. This is work that is especially

[6:48] important as the district strengthens climate resiliency

[6:51] as we experience more and more 100 degree days in the future.

[6:55] glaziers maintain the glass and metal systems that shape our

[6:57] buildings. There works affect how it

[7:05] withstands the weather and how safe it is for the public.

[7:08] when performed correctly by skilled workers it helps the

[7:10] district meet climate readiness goals and efficiency goals.

[7:14] when it is not, dangerous incidents can occur such as the

[7:19] accident at the nuclear commission building in rockville

[7:22] where a three by 15 foot acrylic panel fell from the 21st floor.

[7:26] had anyone been on the ground at that time they would've been

[7:28] gravely injured or killed. Unlike electricians, plumbers

[7:33] and hvac technicians, glaziers in the district are not

[7:36] currently required to be licensed.

[7:38] this bill creates a licensee framework for glazing

[7:42] contractors bringing this more in line with other construction

[7:45] professions were the district already requires standards,

[7:48] oversight and accountability. Not all glass installation work

[7:51] will require glazier work. Contractors seek out glaziers

[7:54] for high-rise work and other highly technical or complex

[7:58] installations because they know it is highly trained area this

[8:05] will help them identify tradespeople with the skills and

[8:08] expertise needed to perform this work.

[8:09] I want to thank councilmember nadeau for the worker committee

[8:15] made to improving the bill to make sure there are more I will

[8:18] -- ways to licensure. Allowing the board of industrial

[8:24] trades to consider and examine apprenticeship, comparable

[8:27] experience or combination of education experience keeps this

[8:31] bill intact while making it more flexible and workable.

[8:34] I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote yes.

[8:36] thank you. Chairperson mendelson: thank

[8:40] you. Councilmember frumin: thank you,

[8:44] councilmembers. I fully support this bill.

[8:52] I'm curious about the mechanics of how the timing will work.

[8:54] councilmember henderson's concerns resonate with me.

[9:00] is it funded in the fy27 budget? Has it been refunded or will it

[9:06] have to be funded in the fy28 budget, meaning there is a long

[9:12] runway? Councilmember nadeau: it hasn't

[9:16] been funded. Councilmember frumin: and

[9:19] councilmember lewis george, the license might be based on prior

[9:26] experience or apprenticeship? There could be a vehicle, the

[9:31] 180 people who do not have a certification, but who have been

[9:35] doing the work, one would hate to see them unnecessarily

[9:39] blocked out. But there are mechanisms to deal

[9:43] with that issue. Can you speak to what those

[9:45] mechanisms are? Councilmember nadeau: the print

[9:47] aloud's the board of industrial trades to grandfather existing

[9:52] practitioners by taking their professional experience into

[9:55] account when considering licensing requirements.

[9:56] councilmember frumin: wonderful, thank you.

[10:02] chairperson mendelson: are there further discussions?

[10:05] councilmember henderson: I have additional questions.

[10:09] I don't know if this is a question for councilmember

[10:11] nadeau, but with regard to subject to appropriations, what

[10:19] I've seen happen in the health field on we are adding a new

[10:23] profession and we give the board a responsibility to develop the

[10:27] scope of work then we tell them, hey, you also need to add a new

[10:31] person to the board, often times boards will say, we are going to

[10:35] wait until the mayor's team sends us a nomination for these

[10:41] new people before we even consider the process for this

[10:44] new profession because we want them to be part of the

[10:46] conversation. I'm curious whether or not

[10:52] perhaps on second reading you could do a bifurcated subject of

[10:56] appropriation such that the new members to the board of trade

[10:57] can be added -- I could definitely see this, we asked

[11:05] this today and the new regulations do not get out for

[11:08] three to four years if we don't put the members of the board on

[11:11] earlier than the other piece. Does that make sense?

[11:16] councilmember nadeau: yes, although it is a now not a then

[11:22] problem in the sense the author of the bill will be there.

[11:24] councilmember henderson: great. Councilmember nadeau: we could

[11:27] do that at the second reading. I don't know that we need to.

[11:32] I definitely get the concern because we have all lived it for

[11:34] the past 12 years but that time is coming to an end.

[11:41] chairperson mendelson: councilmember bonds.

[11:43] councilmember bonds: think you very much chairman.

[11:48] I want to thank councilwoman nadeau for this bill.

[11:54] in particular, I'm almost always speaking out as it relates to

[12:01] opportunities for d.c. Workers and again, that is what I'm

[12:07] about to say. But I think this issue is about

[12:13] safety and I think we have to be really concerned about that.

[12:17] we have a number of large projects that we are going to

[12:22] wrestle with and I want to make sure that whatever products we

[12:28] produce, that they are safely done.

[12:31] when we think about metal and glass, and we have what we call

[12:36] these glass and chrome structures already in the city,

[12:40] and we want to make sure as we move forward that the

[12:45] individuals not only are trained but also can go through a

[12:48] certification process, I'm very happy to support this bill

[12:53] today. Chairperson mendelson: if there

[12:58] was no further discussion the vote will be on bill 26-422.

[13:02] all those in favor of the bill say aye.

[13:06] any opposed? >> [indiscernible]

[13:12] chairperson mendelson: the aye have it unanimously.

[13:18] councilmember white will be recorded as presence.

[13:21] the bill is approved. I will turn to the nonconsent

[13:27] agenda. My understanding is the

[13:32] amendment hasn't circulated yet on bill 26-224.

[13:38] if there was no objection I will call that a little later in this

[13:40] meeting. We will deal first with bill

[13:44] 26-494, accountancy practice amendment act of 2025.

[13:49] councilmember nadeau. Councilmember nadeau: yes, ok.

[13:56] earlier today at the committee of the whole I discuss the

[13:59] benefits of the accountancy practice act which passed out of

[14:03] committee with no substantive changes for what the mayor

[14:06] introduced. Now I would like to move an

[14:10] amendment and the nature of a substitute which still leaves

[14:14] those accounting licensure pieces intact but adds two new

[14:18] components germane to the underlying bill in that they

[14:20] deal with business licensing matters the department of

[14:24] licensing and public protection regulates.

[14:26] my staff circulated this amendment on friday the 26th at

[14:29] 4:42 p.m. And we recirculated it yesterday with a minor change to

[14:35] the notice but not the amendment itself.

[14:37] first the ans would incorporate technically pro-business

[14:43] administrative updates to provisions recently amended.

[14:46] one of business and entrepreneur ship was funded.

[14:52] the department of licensing and consumer protection recommended

[14:55] these changes in the form of emergency and temporary

[14:58] legislation which we already passed unanimously last year.

[15:02] maybe the most noteworthy provision in the current

[15:05] temporarily -- temporary bill was amendments to propose

[15:10] entertainment establishments paired under the final version

[15:13] neighbors could file an objection and a formal hearing

[15:17] followed by decision from the mayor appeared the problem is

[15:19] dlcp is not an agency that conducts hearings so we have

[15:23] never allowed this version of the act to take effect and said

[15:26] the mayor proposed letting anc's evaluate objections and submit

[15:31] them which would be [indiscernible]

[15:35] ultimately the buck stops with the mayor either way but this

[15:40] leverages representatives to help the executive weigh the

[15:42] pros and cons. The current temporary law in

[15:44] this ans allows some types of businesses to continue receiving

[15:51] licenses and let them renew licenses that expired more than

[15:53] nine months in exchange for a fine rather than starting the

[15:58] process over the vast majority of the provisions the

[16:00] councilmember pinto introduced in 2021 and approved in 2022

[16:06] would be left alone. There is one provision that did

[16:08] not come from dlcp, it has to do with towing companies.

[16:13] we require some courtesy and repair towing companies to

[16:15] identify an impound lot when impounding is never part of

[16:19] their business model and my ans would fix that.

[16:22] without a movie amendment, substitute to 26-494 and urge

[16:28] colleagues to support it. Thank you.

[16:35] chairperson mendelson: you moved the amendment nature of the

[16:39] substitute, correct? Councilmember nadeau: yes.

[16:41] chairperson mendelson: is there discussion on the amendment?

[16:45] the vote will be on the amendment nature of the tubs to

[16:48] peer at all those in favor say aye.

[16:51] are there any opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

[16:57] now we have the bill as amended. Is there discussion on the bill?

[17:03] the vote is on bill 26-494 as amended.

[17:07] all those of -- in favor say aye .

[17:11] any opposed? Hearing none the ayes have it

[17:14] , unanimously. We will turn to bill 26-430,

[17:25] education code adjustments amendments act of 2026.

[17:27] this is final reading. I circulated an amendment nature

[17:35] of the substitute. We talked about this briefly at

[17:38] breakfast. There are number of changes

[17:43] throughout the engrossed version but there are also seven

[17:46] sections that are newly added since this was brought up at the

[17:51] breakfast. I will go over what they are

[17:53] briefly. I don't think any of this is

[17:56] controversial so section 4, lead exposure prevention, a new

[18:02] section that aligns statutory language with other agencies and

[18:07] eases administrative burden by making an annual report biannual

[18:12] . Section six childcare bureau

[18:15] ,ans, repeals the childcare bureau which no longer exists.

[18:19] it was expected to provide the district government with a

[18:23] single administrative focused on childcare and has since been

[18:25] subsumed within the division of early learning within osse.

[18:30] section 17, green and sustainable schools, in early

[18:35] 2026 the u.s. Department of education paused its green

[18:38] ribbon schools program, revise the language in the healthy

[18:43] schools act to reflect that change and provide osse a means

[18:48] to recognize school achievements and green initiatives.

[18:50] moreover the lang which requires the environment -- language

[18:57] provides a stipend and requires schools to participate because

[19:01] funding has not been appropriated it has never been

[19:03] appropriated for these. Section 21, new osse nonpublic

[19:11] basement one time report. Ans removes the one-time

[19:16] reporting requirement to review the process of appealing osse's

[19:20] decision to deny, revoke or approve for chilled -- students

[19:26] with disabilities. And issuing subpoenas, this

[19:31] grants osse authority to issue ministries of subpoenas to

[19:36] conduct enrollment and residency investigations.

[19:38] it is limited to enrollment. Osse through its office of

[19:46] enrollment registration is responsible for investigating

[19:49] enrollment and residency matters but cannot compel production of

[19:55] records during the investigative stage.

[19:56] often delaying access to credible -- prickle

[20:00] documentation. Section 22 course data

[20:02] collection, osse has oversight responsibilities including

[20:07] school performance, students with disabilities, state

[20:11] academic standards. However osse cannot compel lea's

[20:18] to share information about courses offered or taught.

[20:20] this provision requires them to submit course offerings and

[20:23] curriculum to osse upon request. Section 27, coronavirus

[20:29] immunization regulations. Ans repeals the requirement osse

[20:37] -- for license job developments staff.

[20:41] the council repealed the requirement for students to be

[20:44] immunized does not repealed the requirement that osse issue

[20:47] these regulations. Those are the new provisions in

[20:51] the amendment, nature of the substitute.

[20:55] I move the amendment, is there discussion?

[20:56] >> mr. Chairman. Chairperson mendelson:

[21:01] councilmember parker. Councilmember parker: I agree,

[21:04] much of what you conclude is not controversial but we did have a

[21:07] conversation at the breakfast that I think is worth having on

[21:10] the public record and that is simply to propose, not today but

[21:16] in the near future granting osse the authority as our state

[21:22] education authority or agency rather to be able to compel

[21:26] information for alllea's. We are piecemealing and in

[21:32] recent years have given osse authority over limited areas.

[21:36] in this instance we are printing osse to request course data and

[21:42] that may seem innocuous enough but it strikes me as odd that we

[21:48] would not more fully empower our state education agency to work

[21:52] with lea's. It is something I hope to work

[21:58] with you perhaps this year or the near future not to undermine

[22:01] lea autonomy and specifically this is of interest with our

[22:05] charters. To empower osse to step into

[22:10] that role as a state education agency.

[22:15] there are areas like financial records, health records.

[22:18] we heard from the mpd chief previously there are certain

[22:24] background and criminal records they have struggled to get from

[22:28] some of our lea's. It seems odd we would not be

[22:33] moving toward a more empowered state education agency.

[22:36] I support what we are doing today but hopefully we can work

[22:39] together in the near future. Thank you.

[22:41] chairperson mendelson: I think I will leave it rather than

[22:46] responding and getting into it. Further discussion?

[22:50] we have the amendment, nature of the substitute before us.

[22:53] all those in favor say aye. Any opposed?

[22:59] the ayes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended.

[23:06] is there further discussion? The vote is on bill 26-430 as

[23:08] amended it all those in favor say aye.

[23:11] any opposed? Hearing none the ayes have it

[23:14] unanimously. Before we go to emergency

[23:33] legislation, let's go back. That is how we move forward, we

[23:37] go backwards, to item one on the nonconsent agenda which is the

[23:43] resale act, bill 26-224, restricting agree just

[23:50] --egregious scalping. Councilmember nadeau: thank you,

[23:54] chairman. I have already spoken to the

[23:59] bill today so for the purposes of the legislative meeting I

[24:00] will say so moved. Chairperson mendelson: thank you

[24:07] paired we have the bill before us.

[24:09] I suspect I should recognize either councilmember allen or--

[24:19] councilmember allen: I'm happy to go first.

[24:23] I want to start off by thinking my colleague councilmember

[24:25] nadeau and the team for moving this forward and the committee

[24:29] on public works and operations. Committee print has some of the

[24:33] strongest protections for concertgoers in the district.

[24:36] the practice of selling speculative ticketed -- tickets,

[24:41] tickets you don't even have because they have not gone on

[24:43] sale yet, is prohibited. If you're in the practice of

[24:47] scooping up tickets at the box office, please do not, you have

[24:52] to obtain a 25,000 surety bond making sure concertgoers have

[24:58] recourse for tickets that are fake or not delivered.

[25:01] and the print requirement if you're going to list a ticket

[25:04] for resale you have to disclose the original price you got it

[25:05] for. Transparency is a great thing.

[25:09] I introduce this bill to solve a problem that is made ticket

[25:12] buying an experience that is inexpensive nightmare.

[25:16] middlemen use bots and technology to scoop up large

[25:19] swallows of tickets forcing you into the secondary market were

[25:23] tickets will be up to 50 times higher than the original box

[25:25] office price. When you get into a digital

[25:28] queue, you're beaten to the purchase by a robot, not fellow

[25:33] music fans per even chose not likely to sell out, if you

[25:35] search for tickets most of the results are from secondhand

[25:39] sellers, not the box office or this causes problems.

[25:43] this is a numbers game where the resellers by as many tickets as

[25:46] they can, mark them up and even if they only sell five at $1000

[25:50] they have made a tidy profit. The rest of the tickets may even

[25:52] go unused. If you have a situation where

[25:55] people are priced out of tickets to a show, there are empty

[25:57] seats. Second, you spend $1000 on a

[26:01] ticket to see your favorite band, that is where your

[26:04] spending goes. You are less likely to go to

[26:08] other shows or go out to dinner before or after ,buy merch.

[26:15] third, it makes our live music and theater a luxury good, just

[26:19] one more thing being commodified.

[26:20] music and culture is for all of us.

[26:22] a thriving arts scene is essential to a thriving city.

[26:28] artists want all to attend. The secondhand market turned it

[26:31] on its head. It is not a hypothetical issue.

[26:37] anthem's box office talked about how regularly fans showed up

[26:40] with fake tickets. Hamilton said it was advertised

[26:46] vip sections that don't exist. Bots are cannibalizing ticket

[26:50] sales and they are losing tens of thousands of dollars to run

[26:53] operations. Artist have said the price cap

[26:57] makes the district a more attractive place to book a show

[27:00] because they are tired of their fans getting ripped off and we

[27:02] should be, too. The topic of how tickets prices

[27:08] are set and manipulated is complex.

[27:11] a ton of money is made by scalpers who understand coding

[27:14] and ai, who do not live here or offer value or the risk of

[27:18] putting on a show. If you put a cap on the profit

[27:22] you change the math for them. Council member henderson and I

[27:27] will have an amendment to protect folks that want to go to

[27:31] a show, protect venues from predatory practices and maintain

[27:33] strongest protections that came out of the committee.

[27:37] three main areas, it restores the 10% price cap on reselling

[27:41] tickets to provide immediate relief to concert and

[27:42] theatergoers. Second, it narrows and clarifies

[27:46] rulemaking to focus on predatory platform fees that drive costs

[27:49] up and third it adds further protections against platforms

[27:53] that use personal identifying information and surveillance

[27:56] based pricing to discriminate because different people,

[27:58] different costs and values depending on the data.

[28:02] I want to thank councilmembers nadeau and henderson in their

[28:06] teens for working with us on this amendment.

[28:08] I ask my colleagues for support and I move the amendment and

[28:12] hope to hear from councilmember henderson as well.

[28:13] chairperson mendelson: thank you.

[28:15] councilmember henderson: thank you.

[28:19] I originally signed onto the resale act when it was

[28:22] introduced because I believe the leader -- the district, is a

[28:28] leader in superior entertainment experiences and move -- music

[28:31] culture. I want our venues to thrive in

[28:35] entertainers to choose the district, and fans to be able to

[28:39] attend and enjoy all our venues without the unnecessary

[28:44] heartbreak that comes from when tickets don't work out on the

[28:50] secondary and resale market. I come at this not just from the

[28:56] perspective as a lawmaker but a genuine fan.

[28:59] there are countless stories of individuals who, they bought

[29:03] tickets from a reese taylor, arrived -- resaler, arrived at

[29:08] the venue excited, only for the ticket not to be eligible to be

[29:12] scanned and the venue to tell them, so sorry, you bought a

[29:16] fraudulent ticket and will not be able to atten today's

[29:19] events. There are lots of other things

[29:21] as well in this bill that have not been covered which is around

[29:26] the all end pricing. Nothing more frustrating when

[29:32] you're in line on ticketmaster and have an idea of what the

[29:34] ticket is supposed to cost, only to beat out the bots to get

[29:39] there and you hit check out, and you notice because of taxes and

[29:43] fees and other things, pricing that was not upfront available

[29:47] to you, you have now been priced out of the ability to even

[29:51] afford the ticket. This legislation does not solve

[29:54] all things. I repeat, this legislation does

[29:58] not solve all things. It is dealing with the secondary

[30:01] market. There are definitely issues with

[30:03] the primary market that this bill does not touch, but I feel

[30:07] like overtime we are able to have more conversations about

[30:10] that such as dynamic pricing and other things.

[30:14] I think the amendment before us today strikes the right balance.

[30:17] it moves and some of the complicating factors around

[30:20] primary that was included in the original committee print, and

[30:24] also just some other things. One other piece I want to

[30:27] mention that is a great thing about the resale act overall is

[30:33] about the issue of speculative tickets.

[30:35] this has come up a lot in sort of the sports context lately

[30:39] around world cup where we are seeing lots of people who bought

[30:43] tickets they bought flights,, they bought hotels, they did all

[30:47] of these things only to arrive and the seller not actually have

[30:51] the ticket available to them. We see this happening often,

[30:56] even in the concert space of sellers offering for sale

[31:01] tickets that are actually not available on the market and then

[31:06] they are not able to deliver on those as well.

[31:08] my support for this is about protecting our venues and the

[31:14] fan experience at the end of the day so I hope colleagues can

[31:19] support this amendment and the overall legislation going

[31:20] forward. Thank you.

[31:21] chairperson mendelson: so would one of you explain in a little

[31:27] bit more detail what this amendment does?

[31:32] councilmember allen: sure. We can do rock, paper, scissors

[31:37] for it. I can briefly go through that.

[31:41] first, it restores the price cap, which was initially in the

[31:46] introduced version of the bill. What this does is put a 10% cap

[31:50] on the resale of the ticket. Chairperson mendelson: secondary

[31:52] market. Councilmember allen: secondary

[31:56] market, that is number one. Chairperson mendelson: if I may

[31:59] interrupt, to clarify, there could be additional fees.

[32:03] we discussed this at breakfast. Do you want to explain that?

[32:06] councilmember allen: sure. The bill sets a price cap at the

[32:12] total cost of the initial ticket plus up to 10%.

[32:15] it also permits a secondary ticket exchange to charge a fee

[32:18] for the service of providing a marketplace for the resale of

[32:20] the ticket provided the fee does not exceed 10% of the price of

[32:24] the initial ticket. Chairperson mendelson: keep

[32:27] going. Yes.

[32:29] councilmember allen: councilmember henderson talked

[32:34] about this, changes the amendment makes related to the

[32:38] print version around the authority of the mayor to issue

[32:42] rules related to fees. It narrows and clarifies that to

[32:47] focus on the platform fees, not the venue fees.

[32:52] so it is specific to the platform fees.

[32:54] chairperson mendelson: and that is meant to address concern that

[32:56] some venues raised they are affected by -- they are worried

[33:02] they would be affected by the broader mayoral rulemaking

[33:04] authority. Councilmember allen: correct.

[33:07] in addition, in terms of what the committee had put forward in

[33:14] terms of creating a regulatory regime around this, it allows

[33:16] the mayor after a year to be able to come back and take a

[33:19] look at that price cap. So we will evaluate, is it

[33:22] working the way we wanted? Does it need to be adjusted in

[33:25] some way? That is the changes as it

[33:27] relates to the mayor's authority there.

[33:31] and then it also focuses on prohibiting surveillance based

[33:35] price discrimination. And so this is if all of us

[33:39] wanted to go see a show right now and everybody login on the

[33:41] same platform, is quite possible we will all get slightly

[33:47] different prices based on that because there is a lot of data

[33:49] mining, information that figures out who I am compared to you,

[33:52] and the price reflects that. That is discrimination in price.

[33:57] so it prohibits debt, which I think is a smart protection for

[34:00] our primary marketplace as well. Chairperson mendelson: that is

[34:02] both primary and secondary. Chairman alan -- councilmember

[34:07] allen: yes but on the primary space more.

[34:12] in a the applicable and because because there is linkage with

[34:19] the clause. Chairperson mendelson:

[34:20] councilmember nadeau. Councilmember nadeau: thank you,

[34:25] I appreciate that, mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in the committee

[34:29] of the whole, I am proud of the work we did in committee to

[34:32] evaluate this bill and strengthen it to advance

[34:36] consumer protection. We would add a new provision to

[34:41] address high costs in the primary and secondary markets

[34:44] including but not limited to the authority to resale prices, cap

[34:48] ticket sales fees, and regulate f predatory pricing.

[34:54] late last week, I heard feedback the rulemaking

[34:58] provision and I had come in today expecting we would work on

[35:06] that between first and second reading.

[35:09] what I came to understand this morning from colleagues was that

[35:15] there was interest in a more broad set of tweaks.

[35:23] so, although I have reservations with instituting an immediate

[35:29] secondary market cap without a similar ability to address the

[35:33] skyrocketing primary prices in response, I do appreciate that

[35:37] this amendment preserves flexibility in the price cap

[35:41] itself so the district can be more responsive to address a

[35:43] rapidly evolving market. I am also glad we can address

[35:48] surveillance pricing in this amendment.

[35:50] I do still hold concerns this does not provide the ability to

[35:53] tackle other dynamic pricing strategies, but surveillance

[35:58] pricing that discriminate against individuals is clearly

[36:00] the most egregious, to borrow a word from the bill title.

[36:05] despite my reservations, the other aspect of the amendment my

[36:08] colleagues described will I believe make a positive

[36:10] difference for consumers and the amount of material we agree on

[36:14] is much greater than what we disagree on so I will be

[36:16] supporting the amendment. Thank you, chairman.

[36:18] chairperson mendelson: thank you.

[36:20] councilmember trayon white. Councilmember white: thank you,

[36:24] chairman. I have a question to get

[36:27] something ready. I no one of the reasons was to

[36:30] address the issue of price gouging, especially in the bo

[36:37] markett where people are buying tickets and telling them for

[36:40] higher prices. From these amendments we got

[36:43] just now, how does it affect those who have tickets that are

[36:47] reselling their personal tickets?

[36:49] does it apply to all or just businesses or investors who are

[36:54] doing this? Chairperson mendelson: who do

[37:00] you want to answer that question?

[37:03] councilmember white: whoever has the ability to answer.

[37:04] chairperson mendelson: councilmember nadeau?

[37:07] councilmember nadeau: we address that in the print itself by

[37:12] including provisions that councilmember allen introduced

[37:16] in the underlying bill. Councilmember white: I am still

[37:18] not clear. Is it for everybody or just

[37:24] large investors or businesses? Councilmember nadeau: so the

[37:29] practice you are describing is called -- sorry, the word is

[37:34] escaping me. It has been a long day.

[37:37] the speculative purchasing where someone buys up a bunch of

[37:41] tickets and then resells them. Councilmember white: yeah.

[37:48] there is a difference between somebody buying 1000 tickets or

[37:51] one or two tickets and reselling them.

[37:54] I am trying to figure out the bill differentiation.

[37:56] is this broad for everybody? I think charles --

[38:02] councilmember and nad nadeau: y. My brain fizzled out.

[38:11] >> I am going to sell my tickets to you.

[38:15] we are able to have that personal exchange.

[38:18] the price cap still applies. I cannot gouge you either for

[38:21] that ticket. The biggest change you will see

[38:25] is scalping used to be, you know, somebody stood outside a

[38:29] venue with two, four tickets trying to sell them.

[38:34] that is not how scalping works anymore.

[38:36] what you see is these massive platforms have been built.

[38:40] if you and I cannot go to the show anymore, I just want to

[38:43] sell you my tickets, I don't have to register with dlcp or do

[38:47] any of that type of stuff. If I am a business is getting

[38:52] hundreds and hundreds of tickets and this is my business and I

[38:53] have to be registered with dlcp and have to carry my

[38:59] maturity bond, I have to make sure I am good on that.

[39:01] the price cap is across the board but if I am buying a

[39:07] bunch of tickets and reselling them come I would have to

[39:09] register but it would not affect my ability to sell my two to

[39:12] you. Councilmember white: got it.

[39:14] what would trigger for them to report they are a business or

[39:19] they purchased both tickets? Some purchase small amounts of

[39:23] tickets and do the same thing. Councilmember allen: you have to

[39:28] sell and this more than 50 tickets per year.

[39:30] I have a show or a game I cannot go to and I sell them to you and

[39:33] maybe next week I sell them to fill, that will not be 50 so I

[39:38] don't have to register anything. But if I am more than 50, is a

[39:41] business. Councilmember white: got you.

[39:43] thank you. Councilmember allen: thanks.

[39:45] chairperson mendelson: thank you, counsel number.

[39:48] councilmember pinto. Councilmember pinto: thank you

[39:52] so much councilmembers for working on this important issue.

[39:56] I am in agreement that d.c. Is a world-class city and we need to

[40:02] support our incredible venues and artists and preserve the

[40:06] ability for our residents and fans to go see shows and for

[40:09] people to come from around the country in the world to these

[40:12] incredible venues. What we are doing today, we have

[40:16] to be particularly mindful to. I appreciate the changes in the

[40:21] amendment that councilmember allen and henderson have

[40:25] circulated that kind of restore some of the initial language

[40:28] from the bill. But I have a couple questions as

[40:32] I just read this language and the rationale.

[40:39] so, in section 2b, where it says in addition to the rules in

[40:51] subsection a, the mayor is authorized the rules for the

[40:58] service of providing the marketplace for the issuance or

[41:03] sale of an initial ticket. My understanding from this

[41:06] morning's discussion was the intention of the

[41:09] amendment was to go back to the original intention of the bill

[41:16] to regulate the secondary market as opposed to giving the mayor

[41:22] authority to regulate fees on the primary market.

[41:24] but this language seems just as concerning in that respect.

[41:29] yet, please. Councilmember allen: sure.

[41:33] through the chair, and I will turn to councilmember nadeau to

[41:38] add on as well, this is specifically to the platform

[41:39] fees. So not the venue fees.

[41:43] so this allows the mayor to be able to take a look at platform

[41:46] fees that are charged to the consumer.

[41:49] it is not the fees of the venue they have to say I will host

[41:53] this event. That was part of the original

[41:57] bill, not including venue fees, so this is only focusing on the

[42:02] platform fees, meaning the platform, the website, the

[42:09] company taking the sale. Anything you wanted to add to

[42:16] that, or did I described that correctly?

[42:19] councilmember nadeau: the goal is we can go after the primary

[42:24] market in a way that does not penalize local businesses

[42:27] basically. Councilmember pinto: I guess I

[42:29] don't see how this would not penalize local businesses if we

[42:32] are saying the mayor could regulate prices on the primary

[42:37] market, regardless of who is issuing the ticket.

[42:42] councilmember nadeau: it is real specific.

[42:45] we can look at it. Councilmember pinto: governing

[42:49] the fees for the service of providing a marketplace for the

[42:52] issuance or sale of an initial ticket.

[42:54] councilmember nadeau: fees. Fees, right?

[42:58] councilmember pinto: ok. So this is meant to be

[43:03] addressing tack on fees after the ticket price.

[43:07] I see. Thank you.

[43:09] that is helpful. There is language on the

[43:15] rationale that I just want to make sure I understand what this

[43:19] is corresponding to. This is on page three of the

[43:23] circulated amendment, the panel to the paragraph.

[43:27] the amendment preserves the ability for the mayor to

[43:29] regulate fees in the primary and secondary market, clarifies this

[43:34] authority applies only to fees assessed by the part from stem

[43:37] cells for providing a marketplace for the issuance

[43:40] sale and resale of tickets. So is this again corresponding

[43:44] to that previous language we just discussed just for fees?

[43:47] got it. Councilmember allen: correct.

[43:49] councilmember pinto: thank you very much.

[43:52] chairperson mendelson: thank you, councilmember pinto.

[43:56] councilmember parker. Councilmember parker: I'm sorry.

[44:03] councilmember henderson was distracting me.

[44:05] [laughter] chairperson mendelson: don't

[44:08] keep blaming other members. Councilmember parker: thank you,

[44:11] councilmembers. It seems like you all came to a

[44:15] pretty common sense compromise that I think works.

[44:18] I was proud to introduce the underlying measure.

[44:23] I have a couple questions. On the amendment, sections b and

[44:28] c, the 10% up sale. So if I resell a ticket, I can

[44:36] resell it up to 10%. That makes sense.

[44:39] then, c, if I exchange a ticket, I can charge an additional 10%.

[44:47] so now we are talking about to 20%.

[44:52] and I just want to make sure I am interpreting that the right

[44:54] way that the additional 10% is cumulative.

[45:03] I'm sorry. The question is, is the

[45:08] additional 10% in section c cumulative so the

[45:16] exchange price can be up to 20% of what the original ticket

[45:18] price was? Councilmember allen: correct,

[45:23] because you may have a situation where a part is charging a fee

[45:25] so you want to be able to include all of that.

[45:26] councilmember parker: that's when he percent must encompass

[45:30] all fees or the venue the seller and whatever the price of the

[45:32] ticket is? Councilmember allen: essentially

[45:34] you who bought the ticket, what you paid for.

[45:36] councilmember parker: two other things.

[45:40] I note that councilmember nadeau to her credit in the committee

[45:45] print was trying to regulate dynamic pricing.

[45:48] so dynamic pricing is this idea that when I go to buy my beyonce

[45:53] tickets, because we are all looking at the same time, the

[45:56] price is going up and up and up. With this amendment, now there

[46:02] is nothing dealing with dynamic pricing.

[46:07] and so let me ask it this way. Are the venues we care about,

[46:12] like the 930 club, concerned about dynamic pricing?

[46:19] my guess would be no. It seems like the only people

[46:23] that would be concerned about dynamic pricing would be these

[46:27] big sellers like ticketmaster. And so the question would be,

[46:31] why aren't we putting guardrails around that?

[46:35] not to complicate the amendment. I am glad you all reached a

[46:39] compromise, but that seems like one area we just did not touch.

[46:43] I just want to go back to the numbers that I quoted from the

[46:48] original complaint filed by the oag where retailers like

[46:53] ticketmaster upsell anywhere from 24% to 44% and consumers

[47:00] have paid more than $16 billion. I know that was not the original

[47:06] intent of your underlying bill. I'm sorry, mr. Chairman, if I

[47:10] can have more time. Chairperson mendelson: not much

[47:12] more. There is an answer to come.

[47:16] councilmember parker: councilmember allen, if you can

[47:21] just speak to all of that. [laughter]

[47:25] councilmember allen: thank you, councilmember, with all of your

[47:29] additional time. One of my colleagues said early

[47:34] on, let's be very clear, this bill is not all things for every

[47:38] single problem in this marketplace.

[47:40] so start there. Right?

[47:43] the name of the bill is the resale act so it is focused --

[47:48] when it was introduced it was focused on the secondary and

[47:50] resale market. There were elements of the

[47:52] primary marketplace that I think became a pressing issue, so you

[47:57] see some of that inc. Here. I know that my colleagues

[48:01] introduced some legislation trying to get at some of these

[48:03] issues. So there are very likely to be

[48:06] more types of things to look at this.

[48:09] it did not include dynamic pricing in this.

[48:12] I also think from a policy perspective, we used a dynamic

[48:17] pricing and rationalized it in other policy spaces, so I don't

[48:20] know. Like parking.

[48:24] we used dynamic pricing for parking.

[48:27] if you have ever taken a ride on uber, if you took a toll road,

[48:31] we use dynamic pricing in a lot of ways.

[48:33] councilmember parker: I hear you and I respect that and I know we

[48:38] probably will not fix it now. I will throw it out there before

[48:41] second reading. It would be great if we can

[48:44] include that back into the provisions that he may hear in

[48:48] the future make be able -- future might be able to

[48:52] regulate. It sounds like there was a lot

[48:54] of testimony about that, and I can tell you from experience it

[48:59] is frustrating when I see the price of a concert jump by

[49:01] hundreds of dollars simply because everyone is interested.

[49:05] the only other thing I wanted to come to was enforcement.

[49:08] I know I have raised this multiple times, but I want to

[49:11] walk through this again. Maybe this is better geared

[49:14] towards councilmember nadeau. Enforcement I am clear is

[49:21] targeting bulks others. Let's say those -- bulk sellers,

[49:28] let's say those selling thousands.

[49:29] how will dlcp become aware of someone running afoul of these

[49:38] provisions, and what actually is the consequence?

[49:40] so I heard earlier they will receive a notice of infraction.

[49:45] great. Are there fines?

[49:51] is there a suspension of sorts? Can you speak to what the

[49:54] penalty is for not following the law?

[49:57] councilmember nadeau: yeah. And I actually will also just

[50:04] speak to your prior question also for a second.

[50:07] so, dynamic pricing includes prices that are both legitimate

[50:14] -- that vary for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons.

[50:20] the mayor would tackle those in the coming years through

[50:23] rulemaking. What the amendment does instead

[50:28] is focuses on the west obviously offensive form of dynamic

[50:30] pricing which is called surveillance pricing.

[50:32] that is what we were talking but earlier where prices are

[50:36] tailored to individual consumers based on activity that can

[50:38] correlate with demographics. That is in the amendment, which

[50:41] I think is good. We will also in committee be

[50:44] taking on surveillance pricing more broadly with councilmember

[50:50] henderson's bill on this issue, which also pertains to

[50:54] transportation, etc. Anyone who is selling over 50

[51:01] tickets on the platforms will have to register.

[51:05] so it is not just a big bulk. It is also sort of smaller bulk.

[51:11] that is where we set the threshold.

[51:11] councilmember parker: I'm sorry, if I could just jump in.

[51:16] I am genuinely trying to understand.

[51:17] how will dlcp know that councilmember allen is selling

[51:24] 100 tickets? He should be registering.

[51:27] councilmember nadeau: I think I used the example earlier today

[51:31] of short-term family housing. Right?

[51:35] it has to be partnership between the regulatory agency and the

[51:37] platforms and the public. It is not an easy answer.

[51:39] councilmember parker: so they register.

[51:42] and what happens? Councilmember nadeau: and then

[51:48] -- ok, so they register. And then we know that they exist

[51:54] and they will be selling. And then there are requirements

[52:00] for the platforms to share expansive data, extensive data

[52:02] with dlcp. Councilmember allen put money in

[52:07] the budget to add staff to the department to assist with

[52:12] monitoring all of this. So we are setting ourselves up

[52:16] for success. And also, it will still take

[52:21] work to ensure. Councilmember parker: got you.

[52:26] one last follow-up question related to that.

[52:29] is there anyway to hold the big ticket sellers accountable, like

[52:33] ticketmaster, to not allow someone to gouge if we are

[52:37] saying in the law you cannot sell for more than 20%?

[52:40] it sounds like we are putting the onus on ourselves.

[52:43] and I hear you. I guess my concern is we are

[52:47] wrinkling and going through all of this -- wranglgiing and going

[52:53] through all of this but I am not convinced we will catch all of

[52:55] the bad actors. Councilmember nadeau: I think it

[52:59] is honestly like anything else we do appear.

[53:01] we have to constantly monitor and do oversight to make sure it

[53:05] is properly followed. I certainly will be leaving

[53:09] behind my book of tips and tricks when I leave this place,

[53:13] but I think that, again, it has to be a combination of consumers

[53:22] and the regulatory agency and the council working together to

[53:24] ensure, and the platforms, to ensure it all gets implemented

[53:28] with fidelity and what is intended here actually happens.

[53:32] I mean, one of the reasons I had given the mayor such broad

[53:38] regulatory authority was because we cannot anticipate everything.

[53:41] ideally she would not have to come back to us every time to

[53:44] catch up, to catch up with the industry.

[53:49] and so maybe we should look at that, tweaking that for a second

[53:54] reading. Because we did move pretty

[53:56] quickly today to try to address everybody's concerns.

[54:00] so, happy to talk more with folks.

[54:00] chairperson mendelson: thank you, councilmember.

[54:03] councilmember crawford. Councilmember crawford:

[54:08] councilmember parker already asked the question I had on what

[54:13] it affects, a cumulative 20% cap.

[54:17] that is important for after the meeting.

[54:19] thank you. Chairperson mendelson:

[54:20] councilmember frumin. Councilmember frumin: thank you,

[54:25] councilmembers. I think this is a good

[54:27] compromise. Really happy to see we have

[54:30] gotten to where we have gotten. I want to put a marker down on

[54:35] dynamic pricing because I would be reluctant to say that should

[54:43] just be designated as a rulemaking.

[54:45] I think we want to hear testimony on that.

[54:48] I think what is happening here is an effort to take the dollars

[54:52] from big platform international companies that are getting large

[55:00] fees and scalpers who are getting large profits and

[55:02] bringing dollars back to the venues themselves.

[55:08] I would want to hear from the venues because I would want to

[55:11] understand how when the prices of the tickets go up, to

[55:18] what extent the artists benefit from the higher revenue that

[55:20] comes in. I don't know the answer to that,

[55:24] but I would want to hear that. I would also want to hear from

[55:28] venues about -- I am sure venues have some shows that are very

[55:36] profitable and many shows that are not.

[55:40] and they provide a setting for folks to come out and begin to

[55:47] build a following. So I would not want to get too

[55:51] far out there in choking off their access to revenue from

[55:56] profitable shows because it may well be that they benefit from

[56:02] that but others benefit from that as well.

[56:07] I think it is sort of a complicated economic question,

[56:11] and I would not want to immediately say send it to

[56:13] rulemaking. I would want to hear from the

[56:16] front line players on that. But on what we have accomplished

[56:20] here today on what are the most egregious issues, I think a lot

[56:26] to be proud of and very grateful to those who worked on it.

[56:31] chairperson mendelson: thank you.

[56:34] if there is no further discussion -- oh, I'm sorry,

[56:38] councilmember pinto, second round.

[56:40] councilmember pinto: I'm sorry, and I know you all worked out

[56:44] this language but I am hearing from venues now about concerns

[56:48] around these fees because they receive money from the fees even

[56:53] if the ticket is being handled on a different platform.

[57:01] working on a compromise, but it still feels like the initial

[57:06] intention was really to focus on the secondary market and that a

[57:13] potentially unanticipated consequence of even this

[57:18] compromise language could be that our local venues get fewer

[57:20] fees than they are currently getting.

[57:25] and so I wanted to see how people would feel about

[57:31] clarifying in section b that we are talking about the secondary

[57:38] marketplace for the regulation of fees.

[57:39] chairperson mendelson: I would urge that that language be

[57:44] looked at between first and second reading.

[57:46] let's get this bill engrossed and folks can over the next two

[57:49] weeks take a look at what we have done and get feedback.

[57:53] but I am also thinking if it is 10% on fees, I mean, as I

[57:59] recall, you pay two dollars, maybe five dollars in fees per

[58:04] ticket. It is way less than 10%.

[58:08] so I am not even sure there is an issue here.

[58:09] councilmember pinto: well, the 10% cap is for the secondary

[58:13] market. My concern is that this language

[58:19] authorizes the mayor to regulate fees even in the primary market.

[58:23] no. I'm talking subsection b.

[58:28] it does not say anything about 20%.

[58:31] fees for service providing a marketplace for the issuance or

[58:35] sale of an initial ticket. So if another platform is

[58:38] selling a ticket for the 930 club and has some fees on it,

[58:46] our venues are currently receiving some of those fees, is

[58:48] my understanding. Chairperson mendelson: all

[58:50] right. Well, your time has expired.

[58:53] councilmember pinto: ok. So, great.

[58:58] so I look forward to working with you all between first and

[59:00] second reading to try to refocus on the secondary market.

[59:05] thank you. Chairperson mendelson: if there

[59:07] is no further discussion, the vote will be on the amendment

[59:12] that was circulated by councilmembers henderson and

[59:14] allen. On the amendment, all those in

[59:16] favor say aye. Are there any opposed?

[59:21] hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

[59:24] that was the amendment. Now we have the bill as amended

[59:28] before us. Is there any further discussion?

[59:32] on the bill as amended. So just I will repeat what I

[59:37] said a moment ago. This is first reading.

[59:40] and at the moment, it looks like second reading will be july 14.

[59:44] our practice is the general counsel will engross the bill to

[59:48] reflect the amendment and that will become available later this

[59:51] week. And so everybody can look at it

[59:55] and see if they are comfortable. On the bill as amended, all

[1:00:00] those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?

[1:00:05] hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

[1:00:09] we will turn to emergency measures.

[1:00:16] the first is 26-753, the holdover period emergency

[1:00:22] extension resolution. Councilmember allen.

[1:00:26] councilmember allen: thank you, mr. Chairman.

[1:00:31] ok. The public service commission of

[1:00:36] the district of columbia, psc is led by the mayor with advice to

[1:00:44] the council. The current commissioners, two

[1:00:53] are set to expire today. Section 2c provides that "no

[1:00:57] person shall serve in a hold of her capacity for longer than 180

[1:01:01] days after the expiration of the term to which he or she was

[1:01:04] appointed." officers appointed by the mayor

[1:01:07] with advice and consent to the consul given their current terms

[1:01:10] are set to expire today on june 30, there holdover period would

[1:01:14] end on december 2, 2026. Energy costs in the district

[1:01:19] have risen in the past year more than any other district.

[1:01:28] psc needs new leadership to navigate the affordably crisis

[1:01:32] and needs stability during the interim of administration

[1:01:36] changes to ensure a quorum can be met and operations continue.

[1:01:39] a new mayor will be inaugurated on january 2, 2027, and they

[1:01:44] should determine who is best to lead in the coming years.

[1:01:48] this emergency legislation would extend the holdover period from

[1:01:52] 180 days to 270 days, if actively adding 90 additional

[1:01:55] days until march 27, 2027. Extending the holdover period

[1:02:00] will allow commissioners to serve while the next mayor

[1:02:01] determines the new nominees and the council can vote on those.

[1:02:05] thank you, mr. Chair. Chairperson mendelson: we have

[1:02:08] the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the

[1:02:11] declaration? The vote will be on.

[1:02:16] all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?

[1:02:20] hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

[1:02:24] we have the underlying bill 26-715.

[1:02:28] is there a discussion? The vote will be on bill 26-715.

[1:02:35] all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?

[1:02:39] hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

[1:02:42] the next measure is 26-751. Conference of policing and

[1:02:48] justice reform technical emergency declaration resolution

[1:02:50] 2026. Councilmember allen: thank you,

[1:02:52] mr. Chair. On december 20, 2022, congress

[1:02:57] passed the act. Section 105 of the permanent law

[1:03:03] which expands the jurisdiction of the office of police

[1:03:06] complaints remains unfunded and has not yet taken effect.

[1:03:09] instead, substantially similar provisions have been maintained

[1:03:12] on emergency and temporary basis.

[1:03:16] amending the expanding supports for the act of 2022 which is

[1:03:21] d.c. Law 24-341, 14698. Section 4 of the leading

[1:03:28] education access for reentry and necessary success passed on the

[1:03:33] second reading on june 2, 2026. It clarifies the scope of

[1:03:39] reporting requirements on a permanent basis moving forward

[1:03:42] and has not yet been signed by the mayor.

[1:03:44] in response, the council passed the reform technical emergency

[1:03:48] act of 2025 which expired on january 28, 2026.

[1:03:53] council also passed the company hence of and justice reform

[1:03:57] technical temporary amendment act of 2025 which is set to

[1:04:00] expire on august 13, 2026, prior to the council's return from

[1:04:04] legislative recess. This new round is necessary to

[1:04:08] prevent a gap in the law between the expiration of the temporary

[1:04:11] legislation and section 105. It is necessary to clarify the

[1:04:17] scope of reporting requirements amended by the expanding reports

[1:04:22] . With that, I move.

[1:04:24] chairperson mendelson: thank you.

[1:04:26] we have the declaration before us.

[1:04:28] is there discussion? Councilmember henderson: mr.

[1:04:31] chairman. Chairperson mendelson:

[1:04:32] councilmember henderson. Councilmember henderson: we have

[1:04:36] been voting on this on an emergency and temporary basis

[1:04:42] fairly routinely at this point, so I am curious, what is the

[1:04:45] permanent plan here? Chairperson mendelson: there is

[1:04:51] a certain amount of finger-pointing going on.

[1:04:52] councilmember henderson: I am not pointing a finger.

[1:04:54] chairperson mendelson: I know you are not.

[1:04:56] councilmember henderson: I am just asking.

[1:04:57] chairperson mendelson: not sure I want to get into whose fingers

[1:05:02] are pointing at who but this apparently has to do with a

[1:05:04] provision that allegedly I had something to do with and that

[1:05:08] has not been funded, so I think there is some belief I am

[1:05:12] supposed to do something about this, which I am not fully

[1:05:16] understanding. At least going to the next

[1:05:18] round, maybe we will sort it out.

[1:05:21] councilmember henderson: so, we do it one more time.

[1:05:25] chairperson mendelson: I would prefer we do it many more times

[1:05:30] until the person I think is responsible figures out how to

[1:05:32] fund it. [laughter]

[1:05:33] councilmember henderson: how much is this particular

[1:05:35] provision? Chairperson mendelson: beats me.

[1:05:38] councilmember henderson: [laughter]

[1:05:41] so we don't know what we are fighting over?

[1:05:44] chairperson mendelson: I am not sure fighting is the right word.

[1:05:47] councilmember henderson: ok. I would just say for the record

[1:05:51] -- chairperson mendelson: a

[1:05:53] misunderstanding over it. Councilmember henderson:

[1:05:56] nonetheless, in terms of the personal gripes between who is

[1:05:59] responsible for what, etc., this is one of those situations where

[1:06:03] we have already been critiqued from the hill in terms of doing

[1:06:08] successive emergencies back to back that are permanent coming

[1:06:11] into play. That is what I am asking what

[1:06:14] the plan was if we are going to continue doing this on an

[1:06:19] emergency basis or someone, however, no finger-pointing,

[1:06:23] plans to actually fund the section so we no longer have to

[1:06:25] do this. Chairperson mendelson: noted.

[1:06:32] thank you. Councilmember henderson: ok.

[1:06:38] chairperson mendelson: councilmember felder.

[1:06:40] >> no, that was frumin. Councilmember frumin: thank you

[1:06:48] very much. People get confused all the

[1:06:49] time. [laughter]

[1:06:52] I just want to echo the comment councilmember henderson made.

[1:06:56] the mayor talks about this is the sixth time we have done this

[1:07:00] on emergency basis. I don't understand why that

[1:07:03] would be. I don't want to do a seventh

[1:07:05] time. I don't get it.

[1:07:08] so hopefully we can figure this out and not have to do it a

[1:07:12] second time. We can't rely on emergencies in

[1:07:17] this kind of way. We should not rely on

[1:07:20] emergencies in this kind of way. Let's sort it out.

[1:07:25] chairperson mendelson: further discussion on the declaration?

[1:07:30] on the declaration, 26-751, all those in favor, say aye.

[1:07:35] are there any opposed? Hearing none, the ayes have it

[1:07:39] unanimously. On the underlying bill,

[1:07:44] councilmember allen. Councilmember allen: enthusiasm,

[1:07:47] mr. Chair. Chairperson mendelson:

[1:07:48] discussion? The vote will be on 26-712.

[1:07:52] all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?

[1:07:57] hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

[1:08:02] the next measure is the safety extension emergency declaration

[1:08:06] resolution 2026. Councilmember henderson.

[1:08:09] councilmember henderson: thank you, mr. Chairman.

[1:08:13] speaking of many emergencies, this measure would once again

[1:08:16] extend the emergency legislation that has been effect since

[1:08:19] december 2024. That permits a retail

[1:08:22] establishment with a valid on premises class c or class d

[1:08:25] retailer license or restaurant location that operates 24 hours

[1:08:30] a day or operates at 3:00 a.m. At least two days a week to

[1:08:35] refuse cash as a form of payment.

[1:08:36] in order to comply with this exemption, the establishment

[1:08:38] must display written notice to the public that the cash

[1:08:45] payments are not accepted on the door of the establishment or on

[1:08:48] its menu. A permanent measure is under

[1:08:52] consideration in the committee on public works and operations.

[1:08:54] it had a hearing on june 9, 2025.

[1:08:58] while I hope the permanent would have been passed by now, it will

[1:09:05] not in time as the current temporary would expire while we

[1:09:11] are on recess, so that is why I am moving this today.

[1:09:14] so moved, mr. Chairman. Chairperson mendelson: thank

[1:09:19] you. Discussion?

[1:09:20] councilmember henderson, you said this was a successive

[1:09:24] emergency? Councilmember henderson: not by

[1:09:27] choice, but yes. Chairperson mendelson: I will

[1:09:31] just note for the record you and I talked about this I think a

[1:09:36] couple weeks ago. I have been voting against this

[1:09:41] consistently so I will be voting against it today.

[1:09:44] it has been approved consistently.

[1:09:46] is there further discussion? On the declaration, 26-750,

[1:09:54] all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?

[1:09:57] please record me as voting no. The ayes have it.

[1:10:03] on 26-710, councilmember henderson.

[1:10:08] councilmember henderson: so moved.

[1:10:09] chairperson mendelson: discussion?

[1:10:12] on the bill -- >> can I speak?

[1:10:27] I can withdraw. Chairperson mendelson:

[1:10:29] councilmember bonds. Councilmember bonds: I move to

[1:10:33] withdraw and because the measure, the permanent measure

[1:10:36] is potentially coming. And the maker of this temporary

[1:10:41] bill determined that my amendment was not friendly.

[1:10:46] so if it is not friendly, I will wait for the permanent measure.

[1:10:49] chairperson mendelson: ok. If there is no further

[1:10:54] discussion, the vote will be on 26-710.

[1:10:57] all of those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?

[1:11:03] please record me as voting no. The ayes have it.

[1:11:12] we have temporary bills. If there is no objection, we

[1:11:19] will move the first two in block.

[1:11:21] that is bill 26-726. , perhaps of policing and

[1:11:31] justice reform temporary act 2026, 26-713.

[1:11:35] hearing no objection, they are before us in blocked.

[1:11:39] I will say so moved. Any discussion on those two

[1:11:42] temporaries? All those in favor, say aye.

[1:11:44] are there any opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

[1:11:50] 26-711, entertainment establishments safety extension.

[1:11:56] councilmember henderson. So moved?

[1:12:00] councilmember henderson: so moved.

[1:12:01] chairperson mendelson: discussion on this bill?

[1:12:05] all those in favor say aye. ,almost did not make it.

[1:12:14] are there any opposed? Please record me as voting no.

[1:12:18] the ayes have it. The next legislative meeting

[1:12:24] will be an additional meeting on july 14.

[1:12:27] the agenda says 12:00. That time may actually be

[1:12:30] earlier. We are thinking about 10:00.

[1:12:34] yes on the 14th. Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:12:39] the seventh. Let me start over.

[1:12:44] the next legislative meeting on the agenda is july 14.

[1:12:48] it is an additional meeting scheduled to start at noon.

[1:12:51] they will in fact be a legislative meeting on july 7

[1:12:55] where we are going to take up the budget support act.

[1:12:58] and that will probably start at 10:00.

[1:13:02] there being no further business, the time is 2:42 in the

[1:13:07] afternoon, and this meeting is adjourned.

[1:13:13] ?

Thirty-Third Legislative Meeting, Phil Mendelson, Chairman

Agenda

Transcript