Chairperson mendelson: I'm calling to order this meeting,
regular meeting of the council of the district of columbia, our
33rd meeting of council period 2 6, and our regular council
meeting for the month of july. I like pointing that out because
today is june 30. The time is 12:29 in the
afternoon -- excuse me, 1:29 in the afternoon and we are in room
500 of the council buildings. I'm chair mendelson, chair of
the council. We always begin our legislative
meetings with a moment of silence and a moment for
reflection, if we could have silence in the chamber and on
the dais. Madam secretary would you please
call the roll? Councilmember allen: here.
juanita mary tillman white present.
ddot here. A. Litteri inc. Present.
diane k. Triplett alexander here.
dmoi here. Personal delivery device weight
limit present. P.a.v.e. Presence.
>> you have a quorum. Chairperson mendelson: we have
the secretary's report of filings and I will recognize the
chair. >> I move a motion to waive the
reading of the committee reports.
chairperson mendelson: motion to raise the reports of committee
filings. All those in favor of the motion
say aye. Any opposed?
hearing on the ayes have it unanimously.
we also have the introduction and referrals.
I will recognize the chair pro tem anita bonds.
councilmember bonds: I move a motion to waive the introduction
and referrals of proposed legislation report.
chairperson mendelson: motion to waive the reading of the
secretary's report discussion. On the motion to waive all those
in favor say aye. Any opposed?
the ayes have it unanimously. We have the consent agenda, one
change to the committee of the whole on page three at the very
top of the page item c, first reading bill 26-422, glazier
licensing standards and certification act of 2026 remove
from the consent agenda. Any other changes to the consent
agenda? Hearing on we have the consent
agenda as amended before us. All those in favor say aye.
any opposed? Hearing on the ayes have it
unanimously. We will turn to bill 26-422.
glazier licensing standards and certification act of 2026.
councilmember nadeau. Councilmember nadeau: so moved,
mr. Chairman. Chairperson mendelson: any
discussion? Councilmember henderson: I ask
this be moved from consent because I wanted the ability to
speak to it. I had questions during the
committee of the whole. I'm not opposed to licensure in
general I just moved several nominations for the board of
pharmacy where those individuals are licensed.
I wanted to raise concerns on the record in that glaziers is
not a profession or field commonly licensed in the same
way that electricians, plumbers, etc. Are.
it would require perhaps an examination, certain number of
hours in terms of apprenticeship, etc.
but I wanted to highlight a concern we should be aware of,
even in the committee reported outlines there are about 240
glaziers in our region and only 60 are currently certified.
in this very interesting economic space the district
finds itself in, I think we should be concerned when we are
making decisions that put us as an outlier especially from our
regional partners, especially in the development space.
what I would want us to avoid is a situation were now we have
developers who moved to build in the district and we say great,
here's the list of 20 people who are licensed, these are the only
ones that can do your glazing work, which is not a requirement
maryland and virginia would also have.
it does seem as though this will move forward so I want to
express that my hope is, that when the board of trade goes
through this process, once it is funded and moves forward is that
there is a grandfathering provision and process that
doesn't lock people out of this profession who have been doing
it for decades without licensure to be able to go forward but
also considering too other mechanisms which do not
unnecessarily lock people out of the trade like what is the
amount, the feed to be licensed in the district?
is it an annual certification versus something you have to be
certified every two to three years, etc.
there are often good reasons to be pioneers but I feel in some
cases with occupational licensing, we can sometimes
overdo it in terms of requiring licensure and hoops for folks to
jump through, that are necessarily make it much more
difficult for someone to enter the trade or profession over
long term. I wanted to state that on the
record. Thank you, mr. Chairman.
chairperson mendelson: thank you.
is there further discussion on the bill?
councilmember lewis george: councilmember frumin's hand was
up as well. I introduce the laser licensing
standards and certification act because glaziers do highly
skilled glass and metal work better next the safety, energy
efficiency and long-term performance of buildings across
the district. This is work that is especially
important as the district strengthens climate resiliency
as we experience more and more 100 degree days in the future.
glaziers maintain the glass and metal systems that shape our
buildings. There works affect how it
withstands the weather and how safe it is for the public.
when performed correctly by skilled workers it helps the
district meet climate readiness goals and efficiency goals.
when it is not, dangerous incidents can occur such as the
accident at the nuclear commission building in rockville
where a three by 15 foot acrylic panel fell from the 21st floor.
had anyone been on the ground at that time they would've been
gravely injured or killed. Unlike electricians, plumbers
and hvac technicians, glaziers in the district are not
currently required to be licensed.
this bill creates a licensee framework for glazing
contractors bringing this more in line with other construction
professions were the district already requires standards,
oversight and accountability. Not all glass installation work
will require glazier work. Contractors seek out glaziers
for high-rise work and other highly technical or complex
installations because they know it is highly trained area this
will help them identify tradespeople with the skills and
expertise needed to perform this work.
I want to thank councilmember nadeau for the worker committee
made to improving the bill to make sure there are more I will
-- ways to licensure. Allowing the board of industrial
trades to consider and examine apprenticeship, comparable
experience or combination of education experience keeps this
bill intact while making it more flexible and workable.
I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote yes.
thank you. Chairperson mendelson: thank
you. Councilmember frumin: thank you,
councilmembers. I fully support this bill.
I'm curious about the mechanics of how the timing will work.
councilmember henderson's concerns resonate with me.
is it funded in the fy27 budget? Has it been refunded or will it
have to be funded in the fy28 budget, meaning there is a long
runway? Councilmember nadeau: it hasn't
been funded. Councilmember frumin: and
councilmember lewis george, the license might be based on prior
experience or apprenticeship? There could be a vehicle, the
180 people who do not have a certification, but who have been
doing the work, one would hate to see them unnecessarily
blocked out. But there are mechanisms to deal
with that issue. Can you speak to what those
mechanisms are? Councilmember nadeau: the print
aloud's the board of industrial trades to grandfather existing
practitioners by taking their professional experience into
account when considering licensing requirements.
councilmember frumin: wonderful, thank you.
chairperson mendelson: are there further discussions?
councilmember henderson: I have additional questions.
I don't know if this is a question for councilmember
nadeau, but with regard to subject to appropriations, what
I've seen happen in the health field on we are adding a new
profession and we give the board a responsibility to develop the
scope of work then we tell them, hey, you also need to add a new
person to the board, often times boards will say, we are going to
wait until the mayor's team sends us a nomination for these
new people before we even consider the process for this
new profession because we want them to be part of the
conversation. I'm curious whether or not
perhaps on second reading you could do a bifurcated subject of
appropriation such that the new members to the board of trade
can be added -- I could definitely see this, we asked
this today and the new regulations do not get out for
three to four years if we don't put the members of the board on
earlier than the other piece. Does that make sense?
councilmember nadeau: yes, although it is a now not a then
problem in the sense the author of the bill will be there.
councilmember henderson: great. Councilmember nadeau: we could
do that at the second reading. I don't know that we need to.
I definitely get the concern because we have all lived it for
the past 12 years but that time is coming to an end.
chairperson mendelson: councilmember bonds.
councilmember bonds: think you very much chairman.
I want to thank councilwoman nadeau for this bill.
in particular, I'm almost always speaking out as it relates to
opportunities for d.c. Workers and again, that is what I'm
about to say. But I think this issue is about
safety and I think we have to be really concerned about that.
we have a number of large projects that we are going to
wrestle with and I want to make sure that whatever products we
produce, that they are safely done.
when we think about metal and glass, and we have what we call
these glass and chrome structures already in the city,
and we want to make sure as we move forward that the
individuals not only are trained but also can go through a
certification process, I'm very happy to support this bill
today. Chairperson mendelson: if there
was no further discussion the vote will be on bill 26-422.
all those in favor of the bill say aye.
any opposed? >> [indiscernible]
chairperson mendelson: the aye have it unanimously.
councilmember white will be recorded as presence.
the bill is approved. I will turn to the nonconsent
agenda. My understanding is the
amendment hasn't circulated yet on bill 26-224.
if there was no objection I will call that a little later in this
meeting. We will deal first with bill
26-494, accountancy practice amendment act of 2025.
councilmember nadeau. Councilmember nadeau: yes, ok.
earlier today at the committee of the whole I discuss the
benefits of the accountancy practice act which passed out of
committee with no substantive changes for what the mayor
introduced. Now I would like to move an
amendment and the nature of a substitute which still leaves
those accounting licensure pieces intact but adds two new
components germane to the underlying bill in that they
deal with business licensing matters the department of
licensing and public protection regulates.
my staff circulated this amendment on friday the 26th at
4:42 p.m. And we recirculated it yesterday with a minor change to
the notice but not the amendment itself.
first the ans would incorporate technically pro-business
administrative updates to provisions recently amended.
one of business and entrepreneur ship was funded.
the department of licensing and consumer protection recommended
these changes in the form of emergency and temporary
legislation which we already passed unanimously last year.
maybe the most noteworthy provision in the current
temporarily -- temporary bill was amendments to propose
entertainment establishments paired under the final version
neighbors could file an objection and a formal hearing
followed by decision from the mayor appeared the problem is
dlcp is not an agency that conducts hearings so we have
never allowed this version of the act to take effect and said
the mayor proposed letting anc's evaluate objections and submit
them which would be [indiscernible]
ultimately the buck stops with the mayor either way but this
leverages representatives to help the executive weigh the
pros and cons. The current temporary law in
this ans allows some types of businesses to continue receiving
licenses and let them renew licenses that expired more than
nine months in exchange for a fine rather than starting the
process over the vast majority of the provisions the
councilmember pinto introduced in 2021 and approved in 2022
would be left alone. There is one provision that did
not come from dlcp, it has to do with towing companies.
we require some courtesy and repair towing companies to
identify an impound lot when impounding is never part of
their business model and my ans would fix that.
without a movie amendment, substitute to 26-494 and urge
colleagues to support it. Thank you.
chairperson mendelson: you moved the amendment nature of the
substitute, correct? Councilmember nadeau: yes.
chairperson mendelson: is there discussion on the amendment?
the vote will be on the amendment nature of the tubs to
peer at all those in favor say aye.
are there any opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.
now we have the bill as amended. Is there discussion on the bill?
the vote is on bill 26-494 as amended.
all those of -- in favor say aye .
any opposed? Hearing none the ayes have it
, unanimously. We will turn to bill 26-430,
education code adjustments amendments act of 2026.
this is final reading. I circulated an amendment nature
of the substitute. We talked about this briefly at
breakfast. There are number of changes
throughout the engrossed version but there are also seven
sections that are newly added since this was brought up at the
breakfast. I will go over what they are
briefly. I don't think any of this is
controversial so section 4, lead exposure prevention, a new
section that aligns statutory language with other agencies and
eases administrative burden by making an annual report biannual
. Section six childcare bureau
,ans, repeals the childcare bureau which no longer exists.
it was expected to provide the district government with a
single administrative focused on childcare and has since been
subsumed within the division of early learning within osse.
section 17, green and sustainable schools, in early
2026 the u.s. Department of education paused its green
ribbon schools program, revise the language in the healthy
schools act to reflect that change and provide osse a means
to recognize school achievements and green initiatives.
moreover the lang which requires the environment -- language
provides a stipend and requires schools to participate because
funding has not been appropriated it has never been
appropriated for these. Section 21, new osse nonpublic
basement one time report. Ans removes the one-time
reporting requirement to review the process of appealing osse's
decision to deny, revoke or approve for chilled -- students
with disabilities. And issuing subpoenas, this
grants osse authority to issue ministries of subpoenas to
conduct enrollment and residency investigations.
it is limited to enrollment. Osse through its office of
enrollment registration is responsible for investigating
enrollment and residency matters but cannot compel production of
records during the investigative stage.
often delaying access to credible -- prickle
documentation. Section 22 course data
collection, osse has oversight responsibilities including
school performance, students with disabilities, state
academic standards. However osse cannot compel lea's
to share information about courses offered or taught.
this provision requires them to submit course offerings and
curriculum to osse upon request. Section 27, coronavirus
immunization regulations. Ans repeals the requirement osse
-- for license job developments staff.
the council repealed the requirement for students to be
immunized does not repealed the requirement that osse issue
these regulations. Those are the new provisions in
the amendment, nature of the substitute.
I move the amendment, is there discussion?
>> mr. Chairman. Chairperson mendelson:
councilmember parker. Councilmember parker: I agree,
much of what you conclude is not controversial but we did have a
conversation at the breakfast that I think is worth having on
the public record and that is simply to propose, not today but
in the near future granting osse the authority as our state
education authority or agency rather to be able to compel
information for alllea's. We are piecemealing and in
recent years have given osse authority over limited areas.
in this instance we are printing osse to request course data and
that may seem innocuous enough but it strikes me as odd that we
would not more fully empower our state education agency to work
with lea's. It is something I hope to work
with you perhaps this year or the near future not to undermine
lea autonomy and specifically this is of interest with our
charters. To empower osse to step into
that role as a state education agency.
there are areas like financial records, health records.
we heard from the mpd chief previously there are certain
background and criminal records they have struggled to get from
some of our lea's. It seems odd we would not be
moving toward a more empowered state education agency.
I support what we are doing today but hopefully we can work
together in the near future. Thank you.
chairperson mendelson: I think I will leave it rather than
responding and getting into it. Further discussion?
we have the amendment, nature of the substitute before us.
all those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
the ayes have it unanimously. We have the bill as amended.
is there further discussion? The vote is on bill 26-430 as
amended it all those in favor say aye.
any opposed? Hearing none the ayes have it
unanimously. Before we go to emergency
legislation, let's go back. That is how we move forward, we
go backwards, to item one on the nonconsent agenda which is the
resale act, bill 26-224, restricting agree just
--egregious scalping. Councilmember nadeau: thank you,
chairman. I have already spoken to the
bill today so for the purposes of the legislative meeting I
will say so moved. Chairperson mendelson: thank you
paired we have the bill before us.
I suspect I should recognize either councilmember allen or--
councilmember allen: I'm happy to go first.
I want to start off by thinking my colleague councilmember
nadeau and the team for moving this forward and the committee
on public works and operations. Committee print has some of the
strongest protections for concertgoers in the district.
the practice of selling speculative ticketed -- tickets,
tickets you don't even have because they have not gone on
sale yet, is prohibited. If you're in the practice of
scooping up tickets at the box office, please do not, you have
to obtain a 25,000 surety bond making sure concertgoers have
recourse for tickets that are fake or not delivered.
and the print requirement if you're going to list a ticket
for resale you have to disclose the original price you got it
for. Transparency is a great thing.
I introduce this bill to solve a problem that is made ticket
buying an experience that is inexpensive nightmare.
middlemen use bots and technology to scoop up large
swallows of tickets forcing you into the secondary market were
tickets will be up to 50 times higher than the original box
office price. When you get into a digital
queue, you're beaten to the purchase by a robot, not fellow
music fans per even chose not likely to sell out, if you
search for tickets most of the results are from secondhand
sellers, not the box office or this causes problems.
this is a numbers game where the resellers by as many tickets as
they can, mark them up and even if they only sell five at $1000
they have made a tidy profit. The rest of the tickets may even
go unused. If you have a situation where
people are priced out of tickets to a show, there are empty
seats. Second, you spend $1000 on a
ticket to see your favorite band, that is where your
spending goes. You are less likely to go to
other shows or go out to dinner before or after ,buy merch.
third, it makes our live music and theater a luxury good, just
one more thing being commodified.
music and culture is for all of us.
a thriving arts scene is essential to a thriving city.
artists want all to attend. The secondhand market turned it
on its head. It is not a hypothetical issue.
anthem's box office talked about how regularly fans showed up
with fake tickets. Hamilton said it was advertised
vip sections that don't exist. Bots are cannibalizing ticket
sales and they are losing tens of thousands of dollars to run
operations. Artist have said the price cap
makes the district a more attractive place to book a show
because they are tired of their fans getting ripped off and we
should be, too. The topic of how tickets prices
are set and manipulated is complex.
a ton of money is made by scalpers who understand coding
and ai, who do not live here or offer value or the risk of
putting on a show. If you put a cap on the profit
you change the math for them. Council member henderson and I
will have an amendment to protect folks that want to go to
a show, protect venues from predatory practices and maintain
strongest protections that came out of the committee.
three main areas, it restores the 10% price cap on reselling
tickets to provide immediate relief to concert and
theatergoers. Second, it narrows and clarifies
rulemaking to focus on predatory platform fees that drive costs
up and third it adds further protections against platforms
that use personal identifying information and surveillance
based pricing to discriminate because different people,
different costs and values depending on the data.
I want to thank councilmembers nadeau and henderson in their
teens for working with us on this amendment.
I ask my colleagues for support and I move the amendment and
hope to hear from councilmember henderson as well.
chairperson mendelson: thank you.
councilmember henderson: thank you.
I originally signed onto the resale act when it was
introduced because I believe the leader -- the district, is a
leader in superior entertainment experiences and move -- music
culture. I want our venues to thrive in
entertainers to choose the district, and fans to be able to
attend and enjoy all our venues without the unnecessary
heartbreak that comes from when tickets don't work out on the
secondary and resale market. I come at this not just from the
perspective as a lawmaker but a genuine fan.
there are countless stories of individuals who, they bought
tickets from a reese taylor, arrived -- resaler, arrived at
the venue excited, only for the ticket not to be eligible to be
scanned and the venue to tell them, so sorry, you bought a
fraudulent ticket and will not be able to atten today's
events. There are lots of other things
as well in this bill that have not been covered which is around
the all end pricing. Nothing more frustrating when
you're in line on ticketmaster and have an idea of what the
ticket is supposed to cost, only to beat out the bots to get
there and you hit check out, and you notice because of taxes and
fees and other things, pricing that was not upfront available
to you, you have now been priced out of the ability to even
afford the ticket. This legislation does not solve
all things. I repeat, this legislation does
not solve all things. It is dealing with the secondary
market. There are definitely issues with
the primary market that this bill does not touch, but I feel
like overtime we are able to have more conversations about
that such as dynamic pricing and other things.
I think the amendment before us today strikes the right balance.
it moves and some of the complicating factors around
primary that was included in the original committee print, and
also just some other things. One other piece I want to
mention that is a great thing about the resale act overall is
about the issue of speculative tickets.
this has come up a lot in sort of the sports context lately
around world cup where we are seeing lots of people who bought
tickets they bought flights,, they bought hotels, they did all
of these things only to arrive and the seller not actually have
the ticket available to them. We see this happening often,
even in the concert space of sellers offering for sale
tickets that are actually not available on the market and then
they are not able to deliver on those as well.
my support for this is about protecting our venues and the
fan experience at the end of the day so I hope colleagues can
support this amendment and the overall legislation going
forward. Thank you.
chairperson mendelson: so would one of you explain in a little
bit more detail what this amendment does?
councilmember allen: sure. We can do rock, paper, scissors
for it. I can briefly go through that.
first, it restores the price cap, which was initially in the
introduced version of the bill. What this does is put a 10% cap
on the resale of the ticket. Chairperson mendelson: secondary
market. Councilmember allen: secondary
market, that is number one. Chairperson mendelson: if I may
interrupt, to clarify, there could be additional fees.
we discussed this at breakfast. Do you want to explain that?
councilmember allen: sure. The bill sets a price cap at the
total cost of the initial ticket plus up to 10%.
it also permits a secondary ticket exchange to charge a fee
for the service of providing a marketplace for the resale of
the ticket provided the fee does not exceed 10% of the price of
the initial ticket. Chairperson mendelson: keep
going. Yes.
councilmember allen: councilmember henderson talked
about this, changes the amendment makes related to the
print version around the authority of the mayor to issue
rules related to fees. It narrows and clarifies that to
focus on the platform fees, not the venue fees.
so it is specific to the platform fees.
chairperson mendelson: and that is meant to address concern that
some venues raised they are affected by -- they are worried
they would be affected by the broader mayoral rulemaking
authority. Councilmember allen: correct.
in addition, in terms of what the committee had put forward in
terms of creating a regulatory regime around this, it allows
the mayor after a year to be able to come back and take a
look at that price cap. So we will evaluate, is it
working the way we wanted? Does it need to be adjusted in
some way? That is the changes as it
relates to the mayor's authority there.
and then it also focuses on prohibiting surveillance based
price discrimination. And so this is if all of us
wanted to go see a show right now and everybody login on the
same platform, is quite possible we will all get slightly
different prices based on that because there is a lot of data
mining, information that figures out who I am compared to you,
and the price reflects that. That is discrimination in price.
so it prohibits debt, which I think is a smart protection for
our primary marketplace as well. Chairperson mendelson: that is
both primary and secondary. Chairman alan -- councilmember
allen: yes but on the primary space more.
in a the applicable and because because there is linkage with
the clause. Chairperson mendelson:
councilmember nadeau. Councilmember nadeau: thank you,
I appreciate that, mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in the committee
of the whole, I am proud of the work we did in committee to
evaluate this bill and strengthen it to advance
consumer protection. We would add a new provision to
address high costs in the primary and secondary markets
including but not limited to the authority to resale prices, cap
ticket sales fees, and regulate f predatory pricing.
late last week, I heard feedback the rulemaking
provision and I had come in today expecting we would work on
that between first and second reading.
what I came to understand this morning from colleagues was that
there was interest in a more broad set of tweaks.
so, although I have reservations with instituting an immediate
secondary market cap without a similar ability to address the
skyrocketing primary prices in response, I do appreciate that
this amendment preserves flexibility in the price cap
itself so the district can be more responsive to address a
rapidly evolving market. I am also glad we can address
surveillance pricing in this amendment.
I do still hold concerns this does not provide the ability to
tackle other dynamic pricing strategies, but surveillance
pricing that discriminate against individuals is clearly
the most egregious, to borrow a word from the bill title.
despite my reservations, the other aspect of the amendment my
colleagues described will I believe make a positive
difference for consumers and the amount of material we agree on
is much greater than what we disagree on so I will be
supporting the amendment. Thank you, chairman.
chairperson mendelson: thank you.
councilmember trayon white. Councilmember white: thank you,
chairman. I have a question to get
something ready. I no one of the reasons was to
address the issue of price gouging, especially in the bo
markett where people are buying tickets and telling them for
higher prices. From these amendments we got
just now, how does it affect those who have tickets that are
reselling their personal tickets?
does it apply to all or just businesses or investors who are
doing this? Chairperson mendelson: who do
you want to answer that question?
councilmember white: whoever has the ability to answer.
chairperson mendelson: councilmember nadeau?
councilmember nadeau: we address that in the print itself by
including provisions that councilmember allen introduced
in the underlying bill. Councilmember white: I am still
not clear. Is it for everybody or just
large investors or businesses? Councilmember nadeau: so the
practice you are describing is called -- sorry, the word is
escaping me. It has been a long day.
the speculative purchasing where someone buys up a bunch of
tickets and then resells them. Councilmember white: yeah.
there is a difference between somebody buying 1000 tickets or
one or two tickets and reselling them.
I am trying to figure out the bill differentiation.
is this broad for everybody? I think charles --
councilmember and nad nadeau: y. My brain fizzled out.
>> I am going to sell my tickets to you.
we are able to have that personal exchange.
the price cap still applies. I cannot gouge you either for
that ticket. The biggest change you will see
is scalping used to be, you know, somebody stood outside a
venue with two, four tickets trying to sell them.
that is not how scalping works anymore.
what you see is these massive platforms have been built.
if you and I cannot go to the show anymore, I just want to
sell you my tickets, I don't have to register with dlcp or do
any of that type of stuff. If I am a business is getting
hundreds and hundreds of tickets and this is my business and I
have to be registered with dlcp and have to carry my
maturity bond, I have to make sure I am good on that.
the price cap is across the board but if I am buying a
bunch of tickets and reselling them come I would have to
register but it would not affect my ability to sell my two to
you. Councilmember white: got it.
what would trigger for them to report they are a business or
they purchased both tickets? Some purchase small amounts of
tickets and do the same thing. Councilmember allen: you have to
sell and this more than 50 tickets per year.
I have a show or a game I cannot go to and I sell them to you and
maybe next week I sell them to fill, that will not be 50 so I
don't have to register anything. But if I am more than 50, is a
business. Councilmember white: got you.
thank you. Councilmember allen: thanks.
chairperson mendelson: thank you, counsel number.
councilmember pinto. Councilmember pinto: thank you
so much councilmembers for working on this important issue.
I am in agreement that d.c. Is a world-class city and we need to
support our incredible venues and artists and preserve the
ability for our residents and fans to go see shows and for
people to come from around the country in the world to these
incredible venues. What we are doing today, we have
to be particularly mindful to. I appreciate the changes in the
amendment that councilmember allen and henderson have
circulated that kind of restore some of the initial language
from the bill. But I have a couple questions as
I just read this language and the rationale.
so, in section 2b, where it says in addition to the rules in
subsection a, the mayor is authorized the rules for the
service of providing the marketplace for the issuance or
sale of an initial ticket. My understanding from this
morning's discussion was the intention of the
amendment was to go back to the original intention of the bill
to regulate the secondary market as opposed to giving the mayor
authority to regulate fees on the primary market.
but this language seems just as concerning in that respect.
yet, please. Councilmember allen: sure.
through the chair, and I will turn to councilmember nadeau to
add on as well, this is specifically to the platform
fees. So not the venue fees.
so this allows the mayor to be able to take a look at platform
fees that are charged to the consumer.
it is not the fees of the venue they have to say I will host
this event. That was part of the original
bill, not including venue fees, so this is only focusing on the
platform fees, meaning the platform, the website, the
company taking the sale. Anything you wanted to add to
that, or did I described that correctly?
councilmember nadeau: the goal is we can go after the primary
market in a way that does not penalize local businesses
basically. Councilmember pinto: I guess I
don't see how this would not penalize local businesses if we
are saying the mayor could regulate prices on the primary
market, regardless of who is issuing the ticket.
councilmember nadeau: it is real specific.
we can look at it. Councilmember pinto: governing
the fees for the service of providing a marketplace for the
issuance or sale of an initial ticket.
councilmember nadeau: fees. Fees, right?
councilmember pinto: ok. So this is meant to be
addressing tack on fees after the ticket price.
I see. Thank you.
that is helpful. There is language on the
rationale that I just want to make sure I understand what this
is corresponding to. This is on page three of the
circulated amendment, the panel to the paragraph.
the amendment preserves the ability for the mayor to
regulate fees in the primary and secondary market, clarifies this
authority applies only to fees assessed by the part from stem
cells for providing a marketplace for the issuance
sale and resale of tickets. So is this again corresponding
to that previous language we just discussed just for fees?
got it. Councilmember allen: correct.
councilmember pinto: thank you very much.
chairperson mendelson: thank you, councilmember pinto.
councilmember parker. Councilmember parker: I'm sorry.
councilmember henderson was distracting me.
[laughter] chairperson mendelson: don't
keep blaming other members. Councilmember parker: thank you,
councilmembers. It seems like you all came to a
pretty common sense compromise that I think works.
I was proud to introduce the underlying measure.
I have a couple questions. On the amendment, sections b and
c, the 10% up sale. So if I resell a ticket, I can
resell it up to 10%. That makes sense.
then, c, if I exchange a ticket, I can charge an additional 10%.
so now we are talking about to 20%.
and I just want to make sure I am interpreting that the right
way that the additional 10% is cumulative.
I'm sorry. The question is, is the
additional 10% in section c cumulative so the
exchange price can be up to 20% of what the original ticket
price was? Councilmember allen: correct,
because you may have a situation where a part is charging a fee
so you want to be able to include all of that.
councilmember parker: that's when he percent must encompass
all fees or the venue the seller and whatever the price of the
ticket is? Councilmember allen: essentially
you who bought the ticket, what you paid for.
councilmember parker: two other things.
I note that councilmember nadeau to her credit in the committee
print was trying to regulate dynamic pricing.
so dynamic pricing is this idea that when I go to buy my beyonce
tickets, because we are all looking at the same time, the
price is going up and up and up. With this amendment, now there
is nothing dealing with dynamic pricing.
and so let me ask it this way. Are the venues we care about,
like the 930 club, concerned about dynamic pricing?
my guess would be no. It seems like the only people
that would be concerned about dynamic pricing would be these
big sellers like ticketmaster. And so the question would be,
why aren't we putting guardrails around that?
not to complicate the amendment. I am glad you all reached a
compromise, but that seems like one area we just did not touch.
I just want to go back to the numbers that I quoted from the
original complaint filed by the oag where retailers like
ticketmaster upsell anywhere from 24% to 44% and consumers
have paid more than $16 billion. I know that was not the original
intent of your underlying bill. I'm sorry, mr. Chairman, if I
can have more time. Chairperson mendelson: not much
more. There is an answer to come.
councilmember parker: councilmember allen, if you can
just speak to all of that. [laughter]
councilmember allen: thank you, councilmember, with all of your
additional time. One of my colleagues said early
on, let's be very clear, this bill is not all things for every
single problem in this marketplace.
so start there. Right?
the name of the bill is the resale act so it is focused --
when it was introduced it was focused on the secondary and
resale market. There were elements of the
primary marketplace that I think became a pressing issue, so you
see some of that inc. Here. I know that my colleagues
introduced some legislation trying to get at some of these
issues. So there are very likely to be
more types of things to look at this.
it did not include dynamic pricing in this.
I also think from a policy perspective, we used a dynamic
pricing and rationalized it in other policy spaces, so I don't
know. Like parking.
we used dynamic pricing for parking.
if you have ever taken a ride on uber, if you took a toll road,
we use dynamic pricing in a lot of ways.
councilmember parker: I hear you and I respect that and I know we
probably will not fix it now. I will throw it out there before
second reading. It would be great if we can
include that back into the provisions that he may hear in
the future make be able -- future might be able to
regulate. It sounds like there was a lot
of testimony about that, and I can tell you from experience it
is frustrating when I see the price of a concert jump by
hundreds of dollars simply because everyone is interested.
the only other thing I wanted to come to was enforcement.
I know I have raised this multiple times, but I want to
walk through this again. Maybe this is better geared
towards councilmember nadeau. Enforcement I am clear is
targeting bulks others. Let's say those -- bulk sellers,
let's say those selling thousands.
how will dlcp become aware of someone running afoul of these
provisions, and what actually is the consequence?
so I heard earlier they will receive a notice of infraction.
great. Are there fines?
is there a suspension of sorts? Can you speak to what the
penalty is for not following the law?
councilmember nadeau: yeah. And I actually will also just
speak to your prior question also for a second.
so, dynamic pricing includes prices that are both legitimate
-- that vary for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
the mayor would tackle those in the coming years through
rulemaking. What the amendment does instead
is focuses on the west obviously offensive form of dynamic
pricing which is called surveillance pricing.
that is what we were talking but earlier where prices are
tailored to individual consumers based on activity that can
correlate with demographics. That is in the amendment, which
I think is good. We will also in committee be
taking on surveillance pricing more broadly with councilmember
henderson's bill on this issue, which also pertains to
transportation, etc. Anyone who is selling over 50
tickets on the platforms will have to register.
so it is not just a big bulk. It is also sort of smaller bulk.
that is where we set the threshold.
councilmember parker: I'm sorry, if I could just jump in.
I am genuinely trying to understand.
how will dlcp know that councilmember allen is selling
100 tickets? He should be registering.
councilmember nadeau: I think I used the example earlier today
of short-term family housing. Right?
it has to be partnership between the regulatory agency and the
platforms and the public. It is not an easy answer.
councilmember parker: so they register.
and what happens? Councilmember nadeau: and then
-- ok, so they register. And then we know that they exist
and they will be selling. And then there are requirements
for the platforms to share expansive data, extensive data
with dlcp. Councilmember allen put money in
the budget to add staff to the department to assist with
monitoring all of this. So we are setting ourselves up
for success. And also, it will still take
work to ensure. Councilmember parker: got you.
one last follow-up question related to that.
is there anyway to hold the big ticket sellers accountable, like
ticketmaster, to not allow someone to gouge if we are
saying in the law you cannot sell for more than 20%?
it sounds like we are putting the onus on ourselves.
and I hear you. I guess my concern is we are
wrinkling and going through all of this -- wranglgiing and going
through all of this but I am not convinced we will catch all of
the bad actors. Councilmember nadeau: I think it
is honestly like anything else we do appear.
we have to constantly monitor and do oversight to make sure it
is properly followed. I certainly will be leaving
behind my book of tips and tricks when I leave this place,
but I think that, again, it has to be a combination of consumers
and the regulatory agency and the council working together to
ensure, and the platforms, to ensure it all gets implemented
with fidelity and what is intended here actually happens.
I mean, one of the reasons I had given the mayor such broad
regulatory authority was because we cannot anticipate everything.
ideally she would not have to come back to us every time to
catch up, to catch up with the industry.
and so maybe we should look at that, tweaking that for a second
reading. Because we did move pretty
quickly today to try to address everybody's concerns.
so, happy to talk more with folks.
chairperson mendelson: thank you, councilmember.
councilmember crawford. Councilmember crawford:
councilmember parker already asked the question I had on what
it affects, a cumulative 20% cap.
that is important for after the meeting.
thank you. Chairperson mendelson:
councilmember frumin. Councilmember frumin: thank you,
councilmembers. I think this is a good
compromise. Really happy to see we have
gotten to where we have gotten. I want to put a marker down on
dynamic pricing because I would be reluctant to say that should
just be designated as a rulemaking.
I think we want to hear testimony on that.
I think what is happening here is an effort to take the dollars
from big platform international companies that are getting large
fees and scalpers who are getting large profits and
bringing dollars back to the venues themselves.
I would want to hear from the venues because I would want to
understand how when the prices of the tickets go up, to
what extent the artists benefit from the higher revenue that
comes in. I don't know the answer to that,
but I would want to hear that. I would also want to hear from
venues about -- I am sure venues have some shows that are very
profitable and many shows that are not.
and they provide a setting for folks to come out and begin to
build a following. So I would not want to get too
far out there in choking off their access to revenue from
profitable shows because it may well be that they benefit from
that but others benefit from that as well.
I think it is sort of a complicated economic question,
and I would not want to immediately say send it to
rulemaking. I would want to hear from the
front line players on that. But on what we have accomplished
here today on what are the most egregious issues, I think a lot
to be proud of and very grateful to those who worked on it.
chairperson mendelson: thank you.
if there is no further discussion -- oh, I'm sorry,
councilmember pinto, second round.
councilmember pinto: I'm sorry, and I know you all worked out
this language but I am hearing from venues now about concerns
around these fees because they receive money from the fees even
if the ticket is being handled on a different platform.
working on a compromise, but it still feels like the initial
intention was really to focus on the secondary market and that a
potentially unanticipated consequence of even this
compromise language could be that our local venues get fewer
fees than they are currently getting.
and so I wanted to see how people would feel about
clarifying in section b that we are talking about the secondary
marketplace for the regulation of fees.
chairperson mendelson: I would urge that that language be
looked at between first and second reading.
let's get this bill engrossed and folks can over the next two
weeks take a look at what we have done and get feedback.
but I am also thinking if it is 10% on fees, I mean, as I
recall, you pay two dollars, maybe five dollars in fees per
ticket. It is way less than 10%.
so I am not even sure there is an issue here.
councilmember pinto: well, the 10% cap is for the secondary
market. My concern is that this language
authorizes the mayor to regulate fees even in the primary market.
no. I'm talking subsection b.
it does not say anything about 20%.
fees for service providing a marketplace for the issuance or
sale of an initial ticket. So if another platform is
selling a ticket for the 930 club and has some fees on it,
our venues are currently receiving some of those fees, is
my understanding. Chairperson mendelson: all
right. Well, your time has expired.
councilmember pinto: ok. So, great.
so I look forward to working with you all between first and
second reading to try to refocus on the secondary market.
thank you. Chairperson mendelson: if there
is no further discussion, the vote will be on the amendment
that was circulated by councilmembers henderson and
allen. On the amendment, all those in
favor say aye. Are there any opposed?
hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.
that was the amendment. Now we have the bill as amended
before us. Is there any further discussion?
on the bill as amended. So just I will repeat what I
said a moment ago. This is first reading.
and at the moment, it looks like second reading will be july 14.
our practice is the general counsel will engross the bill to
reflect the amendment and that will become available later this
week. And so everybody can look at it
and see if they are comfortable. On the bill as amended, all
those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?
hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.
we will turn to emergency measures.
the first is 26-753, the holdover period emergency
extension resolution. Councilmember allen.
councilmember allen: thank you, mr. Chairman.
ok. The public service commission of
the district of columbia, psc is led by the mayor with advice to
the council. The current commissioners, two
are set to expire today. Section 2c provides that "no
person shall serve in a hold of her capacity for longer than 180
days after the expiration of the term to which he or she was
appointed." officers appointed by the mayor
with advice and consent to the consul given their current terms
are set to expire today on june 30, there holdover period would
end on december 2, 2026. Energy costs in the district
have risen in the past year more than any other district.
psc needs new leadership to navigate the affordably crisis
and needs stability during the interim of administration
changes to ensure a quorum can be met and operations continue.
a new mayor will be inaugurated on january 2, 2027, and they
should determine who is best to lead in the coming years.
this emergency legislation would extend the holdover period from
180 days to 270 days, if actively adding 90 additional
days until march 27, 2027. Extending the holdover period
will allow commissioners to serve while the next mayor
determines the new nominees and the council can vote on those.
thank you, mr. Chair. Chairperson mendelson: we have
the declaration before us. Is there discussion on the
declaration? The vote will be on.
all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?
hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.
we have the underlying bill 26-715.
is there a discussion? The vote will be on bill 26-715.
all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?
hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.
the next measure is 26-751. Conference of policing and
justice reform technical emergency declaration resolution
2026. Councilmember allen: thank you,
mr. Chair. On december 20, 2022, congress
passed the act. Section 105 of the permanent law
which expands the jurisdiction of the office of police
complaints remains unfunded and has not yet taken effect.
instead, substantially similar provisions have been maintained
on emergency and temporary basis.
amending the expanding supports for the act of 2022 which is
d.c. Law 24-341, 14698. Section 4 of the leading
education access for reentry and necessary success passed on the
second reading on june 2, 2026. It clarifies the scope of
reporting requirements on a permanent basis moving forward
and has not yet been signed by the mayor.
in response, the council passed the reform technical emergency
act of 2025 which expired on january 28, 2026.
council also passed the company hence of and justice reform
technical temporary amendment act of 2025 which is set to
expire on august 13, 2026, prior to the council's return from
legislative recess. This new round is necessary to
prevent a gap in the law between the expiration of the temporary
legislation and section 105. It is necessary to clarify the
scope of reporting requirements amended by the expanding reports
. With that, I move.
chairperson mendelson: thank you.
we have the declaration before us.
is there discussion? Councilmember henderson: mr.
chairman. Chairperson mendelson:
councilmember henderson. Councilmember henderson: we have
been voting on this on an emergency and temporary basis
fairly routinely at this point, so I am curious, what is the
permanent plan here? Chairperson mendelson: there is
a certain amount of finger-pointing going on.
councilmember henderson: I am not pointing a finger.
chairperson mendelson: I know you are not.
councilmember henderson: I am just asking.
chairperson mendelson: not sure I want to get into whose fingers
are pointing at who but this apparently has to do with a
provision that allegedly I had something to do with and that
has not been funded, so I think there is some belief I am
supposed to do something about this, which I am not fully
understanding. At least going to the next
round, maybe we will sort it out.
councilmember henderson: so, we do it one more time.
chairperson mendelson: I would prefer we do it many more times
until the person I think is responsible figures out how to
fund it. [laughter]
councilmember henderson: how much is this particular
provision? Chairperson mendelson: beats me.
councilmember henderson: [laughter]
so we don't know what we are fighting over?
chairperson mendelson: I am not sure fighting is the right word.
councilmember henderson: ok. I would just say for the record
-- chairperson mendelson: a
misunderstanding over it. Councilmember henderson:
nonetheless, in terms of the personal gripes between who is
responsible for what, etc., this is one of those situations where
we have already been critiqued from the hill in terms of doing
successive emergencies back to back that are permanent coming
into play. That is what I am asking what
the plan was if we are going to continue doing this on an
emergency basis or someone, however, no finger-pointing,
plans to actually fund the section so we no longer have to
do this. Chairperson mendelson: noted.
thank you. Councilmember henderson: ok.
chairperson mendelson: councilmember felder.
>> no, that was frumin. Councilmember frumin: thank you
very much. People get confused all the
time. [laughter]
I just want to echo the comment councilmember henderson made.
the mayor talks about this is the sixth time we have done this
on emergency basis. I don't understand why that
would be. I don't want to do a seventh
time. I don't get it.
so hopefully we can figure this out and not have to do it a
second time. We can't rely on emergencies in
this kind of way. We should not rely on
emergencies in this kind of way. Let's sort it out.
chairperson mendelson: further discussion on the declaration?
on the declaration, 26-751, all those in favor, say aye.
are there any opposed? Hearing none, the ayes have it
unanimously. On the underlying bill,
councilmember allen. Councilmember allen: enthusiasm,
mr. Chair. Chairperson mendelson:
discussion? The vote will be on 26-712.
all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?
hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.
the next measure is the safety extension emergency declaration
resolution 2026. Councilmember henderson.
councilmember henderson: thank you, mr. Chairman.
speaking of many emergencies, this measure would once again
extend the emergency legislation that has been effect since
december 2024. That permits a retail
establishment with a valid on premises class c or class d
retailer license or restaurant location that operates 24 hours
a day or operates at 3:00 a.m. At least two days a week to
refuse cash as a form of payment.
in order to comply with this exemption, the establishment
must display written notice to the public that the cash
payments are not accepted on the door of the establishment or on
its menu. A permanent measure is under
consideration in the committee on public works and operations.
it had a hearing on june 9, 2025.
while I hope the permanent would have been passed by now, it will
not in time as the current temporary would expire while we
are on recess, so that is why I am moving this today.
so moved, mr. Chairman. Chairperson mendelson: thank
you. Discussion?
councilmember henderson, you said this was a successive
emergency? Councilmember henderson: not by
choice, but yes. Chairperson mendelson: I will
just note for the record you and I talked about this I think a
couple weeks ago. I have been voting against this
consistently so I will be voting against it today.
it has been approved consistently.
is there further discussion? On the declaration, 26-750,
all those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?
please record me as voting no. The ayes have it.
on 26-710, councilmember henderson.
councilmember henderson: so moved.
chairperson mendelson: discussion?
on the bill -- >> can I speak?
I can withdraw. Chairperson mendelson:
councilmember bonds. Councilmember bonds: I move to
withdraw and because the measure, the permanent measure
is potentially coming. And the maker of this temporary
bill determined that my amendment was not friendly.
so if it is not friendly, I will wait for the permanent measure.
chairperson mendelson: ok. If there is no further
discussion, the vote will be on 26-710.
all of those in favor, say aye. Are there any opposed?
please record me as voting no. The ayes have it.
we have temporary bills. If there is no objection, we
will move the first two in block.
that is bill 26-726. , perhaps of policing and
justice reform temporary act 2026, 26-713.
hearing no objection, they are before us in blocked.
I will say so moved. Any discussion on those two
temporaries? All those in favor, say aye.
are there any opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.
26-711, entertainment establishments safety extension.
councilmember henderson. So moved?
councilmember henderson: so moved.
chairperson mendelson: discussion on this bill?
all those in favor say aye. ,almost did not make it.
are there any opposed? Please record me as voting no.
the ayes have it. The next legislative meeting
will be an additional meeting on july 14.
the agenda says 12:00. That time may actually be
earlier. We are thinking about 10:00.
yes on the 14th. Oh, I'm sorry.
the seventh. Let me start over.
the next legislative meeting on the agenda is july 14.
it is an additional meeting scheduled to start at noon.
they will in fact be a legislative meeting on july 7
where we are going to take up the budget support act.
and that will probably start at 10:00.
there being no further business, the time is 2:42 in the
afternoon, and this meeting is adjourned.
?