I'm calling to order this meeting.

This is a regular meeting of the council of the District of Columbia.

It is our 33rd legislative meeting of council period 26.

There's also our regular meeting for the month of July.

I like pointing this out because today is June 30th.

In the afternoon, and we excuse me, 129 in the afternoon.

And we are in room 500 at the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson Building.

I'm Phil Mendelson, Chair of the Council.

We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence, a moment for reflection if we could have silence in the chamber and on the days.

Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Allen.

Here.

Councilmember Bonds.

Here.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Falder.

Present.

Councilmember Fruman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson.

Councilmember Lewis George?

Here.

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Nodeau?

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Councilmember Robert White.

And Councilmember Treyon White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quarter.

Thank you.

We have the Secretary's Report of Committee filings.

I'm going to recognize the Chair Pro Tem Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you, Chairman.

I move a motion to waive the reading of the committee reports.

So in a motion to waive the secretary's report of committee filings.

Is there discussion?

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We also have the secretary's report of introductions and referrals.

Again, I'll recognize the Chair Pro Tem.

Councilmember Anita Bonds.

And again, Chairman, I move a motion to waive the introduction and referrals of proposed legislation report.

So in a motion to waive the reading of the secretary's report.

Discussion.

On the motion to wave all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have unanimously.

We have the consent agenda.

There was one change made at the committee of the whole, which is on page three at the very top of the page.

First reading, it's Bill 26-422.

Removed from the consent agenda.

Are there any other changes to the consent agenda?

Hearing none, we have this the consent agenda as amended before us.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We will turn to Bill 26-422.

Glacier Licensing Standards and Certification Act of 2026.

Councilmember Nidau.

So moved, Mr.

Chairman.

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I ask that this be moved from consent because I wanted the ability to speak to it.

Um I asked some questions during the committee of the whole.

I'm not opposed to licensure in general.

I just moved uh several nominations for the board of pharmacy where all of those individuals are licensed.

But I did want to raise some concerns on the record in that glacier is not a profession or a field that is commonly licensed in the same way that electricians, plumbers, etc.

are it would require perhaps an examination, a certain number of hours in terms of apprenticeship, etc.

Um, but I wanted to highlight a concern that we should just be uh aware of in that even in the committee report it outlines there are about um 240 glaciers in our region, and only 60 of them are currently certified.

In this sort of very um interesting economic uh space that the district finds itself in.

I think we should be concerned when we are making decisions that put us in an outlier specifically from our regional partners, especially in the development space.

Um what I would want us to avoid is a situation where now we have developers who want to build in the district, and we say, great, here are the list of 20 people who are licensed.

These are the only ones who can do your particular glazing work, which is not a requirement that Maryland and Virginia would also have.

It does seem as though this is going to move forward, and so I do want to express that my hope is that when the Board of Trade is going through this process, of course, once it's funded and moves forward, is that there is a grandfathering uh 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.

Um, but also considering too other mechanisms which don't unnecessarily lock people out of the trade, like what is the amount, what is the fee to be licensed in the district?

Is it an annual certification versus something that is you have to be recertified every two to three years, etc.

Um, there are often good reasons to be pioneers, but I feel like in some cases with occupational licensing, we can sometimes overdo it in terms of requiring licensure and hoops uh for folks to jump through that unnecessarily make it much more difficult for someone to enter the trader profession over in the long haul.

Um, but I just wanted to be able to state that on the record.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Is there further discussion on the bill?

Councilmember Lewis George.

And Councilmember is up as well.

What's that?

Councilmember Fruman hand was up as well, just letting you know.

Um I introduced the Glazier Licensing Standards and Certification Act, uh, because glaziers do highly skilled glass and metal insulation work that affects the safety, quality, energy efficiency, and long-term performance of buildings across the district.

Uh, this is work that is especially important as the district strengthens our climate resiliency as we experience more and more 100 degree days in the future.

Uh glazers and steel and maintain the glass and metal systems that shape our buildings.

Their work affects how much injury a structure uses, how it withstands weather, and how safe it is for occupants, workers, and the public.

Uh, when this work is performed correctly by skilled workers, it helps the district meet our energy efficiency and climate readiness goals.

When it's not, dangerous incidents can occur, such as the accident at the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission building in Rockville, where a three by foot 15-foot acrylic panel fell from the 21st floor.

Had anyone been on the ground at that time, they would have been gravely injured or killed.

Unlike electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians, and other skilled trades, glazers in the district are not currently required to be licensed.

This bill closes that gap by creating a licensee framework for glaciers and glazing contractors, bringing this trade more in line with other construction professions where the district already requires standards, oversight, and accountability.

Not all glass installation work will require glazier work.

Contractors seek out glazers for high-rise work or other highly technical or complex installations because they know that it is a highly skilled work that requires highly trained experts in the field.

The license, this licensure will help contractors identify the tradespeople with the skills and expertise needed to perform this work.

I want to thank Councilmember Nadeau for the improvements her committee have made to this bill to ensure there are more pathways to licensure as well as IUPAT and iron workers for their recommendations to strengthen this bill, allowing the Board of Industrial Trades to consider and examine apprenticeship comparable experience or a combination of education experience keeps the core purpose of this bill intact while making it more flexible and workable.

I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chairman Mendelssohn.

Thank you.

Council members Lewis George and Councilmember Doe.

I fully support this bill.

I am curious about the mechanics of how the timing's gonna work because Councilmember Henderson's concerns resonate with me.

Is this, is it funded in the FY27 budget?

Is it been prefunded or will it have to be funded in the FY28 budget?

Meaning there is a pretty long runway before it becomes implemented.

It hasn't been funded.

Okay.

And then uh councilmember Lewis George, you talked about, and maybe Councilmember Nadeau can speak to it, that the license might be based on prior experience or apprenticeship.

There could be a there could be a vehicle, the 180 people who don't have a certification but who have been doing the work one would hate to see them unnecessarily blocked out.

Yes.

But there's mechanisms to deal with that issue can you speak to what those mechanisms are the print allows the board of the industrial trades enough flexibility to effectively grandfather existing practitioners by taking their professional experience into account when determining initial licensing requirements.

All right wonderful thank you very much.

Are there uh further discussion Mr.

Chairman I just have additional question.

Yes Councilmember Henderson I guess I don't know if this is necessarily a question for Councilmember Nadeau but I guess that's the mover of this bill I will ask that question with regard to um subject to appropriation so what I have seen happen in sort of the health field when we're adding a new profession and we give a board a responsibility to develop out the scopes of work etc then we also tell them hey you also need to add a new person to the board oftentimes boards will say okay we're gonna wait until the mayor's team sends us a nomination for these new people until even 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 you all um perhaps on second reading would be willing to do a bifurcated subject to appropriations such that the new members to the board of trade can be added so that um I could definitely see this we pass this today and the new regulations don't 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 yeah although I think it's a now not a a then problem in the sense that like the author of the bill is going to be the mayor so cool yeah great I mean it we could do that at second reading I don't know that we need to I definitely get the concern because we've all lived it for the past 12 years but that that time is coming to an end so Councilmember Bonds.

Thank you thank you very much um chairman and I want to thank um uh councilwoman uh nadio for this bill um in particular you know usually I'm almost always um speaking out as it relates to opportunities for DC 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 are uh we're we're gonna wrestle with and I want to make sure that whatever products we produce that they are safely done and so 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 so I'm very happy to support this this bill today.

If there's no further discussion the vote will be on bill 26-422.

All those in favor of the bill say aye aye are there any opposed chairman fee for women present uh the ayes have it unanimously and council member trayon white will be recorded as present uh and the bill's approved first reading I will turn to the non-consent agenda my understanding is that the amendment hasn't circulated yet on bill 26-224.

So if there's no objection um I'll call that a little bit later in this meeting.

So we will deal first with bill 26-494, Accountancy Practice amendment act of 2025.

Councilmember nadeau.

Yes okay um so earlier today at the committee of the whole, I discussed the benefits of the accountancy Practice Act, which passed out of committee with no substantive changes from what the mayor had introduced.

Now I'd like to move an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which still leaves those accounting licensure pieces intact, but adds two new components.

These are germane to the underlying bill and that they deal with business licensing matters that the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection regulates.

My staff circulated this amendment on Friday the 26th at 442 p.m.

We recirculated it yesterday at 1144 a.m.

with a minor change to the notice, but not the amendment itself.

First, the ANS would incorporate some pretty technical, generally pro-business administrative updates to the provisions that were recently amended when the Business and Entrepreneurship Support to Thrive Amendment Act of 2021 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 temporary bill has to do with the resident objections to proposed entertainment establishments.

Under the final version of the best act, neighbors could file an objection and get a formal hearing at DLCP, followed by a decision from the mayor.

The problem with that is that DLCP is not an agency that conducts hearings.

So we've never allowed this version of the best act to fully take effect.

Instead, the mayor proposed letting ANCs evaluate these objections and submit them, which would be entitled to great weight.

Ultimately, the buck stops with the mayor, either way, but this way we're leveraging our existing neighborhood level representatives to help the executive weigh the pros and the cons.

The current temporary law and this ANS also allows some types of businesses to continue receiving four-year licenses.

And they let businesses renew licenses that have been expired for more than nine months in exchange for a fine rather than starting the process over.

The vast majority of the provisions that council member Pinto introduced in 2021 and the committee of the whole and the council approved in 2022 would be left alone.

Finally, there's one provision that didn't come from DLCP, has to do with towing companies.

Basically, 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.

So with that, I move the amendment in the nature of a substitute to bill 26-494 and urge colleagues to support it.

Thank you.

Can I just say you want me to do 105?

We have the amendment nature, you've moved the amendment nature of a substitute, correct?

Yes.

And we have that before us.

Is there discussion on the amendment?

The vote will be on the amendment nature of a substitute.

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

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 in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Um bill 26-430 education code adjustments amendment act to 2026.

So moved.

This is final reading.

I um circulated an amendment nature of substitute.

We talked about this briefly at the breakfast.

Um there are a number of changes throughout the engrossed version, but there also are uh seven sections that are newly added.

Uh, since this was brought up at the breakfast, I'll kind of go over what they are briefly.

I don't think any of this is controversial.

So section four led exposure prevention.

Um this is a new section that aligns our statutory language with current practices at the Department of Energy and the Environment and Aussie and eases the administrative burden by making an annual report biennial.

Section 6, Child Care Bureau, the ANS repeals the Child Care Bureau, which no longer exists.

The Child Care Bureau was expected to provide the district government with a single administrative unit focused on child care and has since been subsumed within the division of early learning within ASI.

Section 17 Green and Sustainable Schools.

In early 2026, the U.S.

Department of Education paused its green ribbon schools program.

The ANS revises the language in the Healthy Schools Act to reflect that change and provide ASEI a means to recognize school achievements in green and sustainable school initiatives.

Moreover, the language revises a requirement that ASI provide a stipend to teachers and grants to schools to participate in the environmental literacy leadership cadre.

Because funding has not been appropriated, has never been appropriated for these stipends and grants.

Section 22, authority to issue administrative subpoenas.

This grants ASI the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to conduct enrollment and residency investigations.

It's limited to enrollment and residency investigations.

ASI through its Office of Enrollment and Registration is responsible for investigating enrollment and residency matters, but cannot currently compel the production of records during the investigative stage, often delaying access to critical documentation.

Section 22, course data collection.

ASI has oversight responsibilities, including oversight of federal funds, school performance services for students with disabilities, state academic standards, and assessments.

However, ASI cannot currently compel LEAs to share information about courses offered or the curricula taught.

This provision requires LEAs to submit course offerings and curriculum to ASI upon request.

Section 27 coronavirus immunization regulations.

The ANS repeals a requirement that ASI issue regulations mandating COVID 19 vaccination for licensed child development facility staff.

The council repealed the requirement for students to be immunized, but has not yet repealed the requirement that ASI issue these regulations.

So those are the new provisions in the amendment nature of a substitute.

I move the amendment nature of a substitute.

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you.

I agree.

Much of what you have included here is non-controversial, but we did have a conversation at the breakfast that I think it's worth having on the public record.

And that's just simply to propose, not today, but in the near future, granting Aussie the authority as our state education authority or agency, rather, to be able to compel information from all LEAs.

I note here we are piecemealing and we have in recent years giving ASI authority over very limited areas.

In this instance, we are granting ASI to request course data.

And that may seem innocuous enough, but it just strikes me as odd that we would not more fully empower our state education agency to work with LEAs.

It is something I hope to work with you perhaps this year in the near future, not to undermine LEA autonomy.

And I think this is specifically of interest with our charters, but to more uh fulsome empower Aussie to step into that role as a state education agency.

There are any number of areas, whether it's financial records, health records.

We've heard uh from the MPD chief uh previously that there are certain background and criminal records uh that they have struggled to get from some of our LEAs, and again, it just seems odd that we would not be moving towards a more empowered state education agency.

So I support this, what we're doing today, but hopefully we can work together in the near future.

Thank you.

Um, I think I'll leave it rather than responding and getting into it.

I'll just leave it with that.

Uh further discussion.

So we have the amendment, nature of a substitute before us.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there 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.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

Um.

So before we go to emergency legislation, let's go back.

That's how we move forward as we go backwards to um item one on the non-consent agenda, which is uh the resale act.

Bill 26-224 restricting egregious scalping against live entertainment amendment act of 2026.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, I have already um spoken to the bill today, so for the purposes of the legislative meeting, I'll just say so moved.

Uh thank you.

Uh, we have the bill before us.

Uh I suspect I should recognize either Councilmember Allen or Councilmember Henderson.

Or both, probably.

I can't recognize you both.

How about anything?

I'm happy to go first and then hand it off to my colleague.

All right, Councilmember Allen.

All right.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

First, I want to start off by thanking my colleague, Councilman Nadeau and her team for moving this bill forward and out of the committee on public works and operations.

The committee print has some of the strongest consumer protections for concert and theater goers here in the district.

The practice of selling speculative tickets, tickets you do not actually have in your possession, because tickets have not even gone on sale yet, is completely prohibited.

If you're in the business of scooping up and reselling tickets from the box office, first off, please stop.

But second, you're now required to obtain a license from the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection and obtain a $25,000 surety bond, making sure consumers have recourse if tickets are fake or aren't delivered.

And lastly, I strongly support the committee's print requirement that if you're going to list a ticket for resale, you have to disclose the original price that you got it for.

Transparency is a great thing here.

I introduced this bill to help try to solve a problem that has made ticket buying an experience that is just an expensive nightmare.

Middlemen use bots and technology to scoop up large swaths of tickets, forcing you into the secondary market, where tickets will be two, three, ten, twenty, fifty times higher than the original box office price.

When you get in the digital queue for a ticket, you are being beaten to the purchase by robots, not by fellow music fans.

And even for shows that aren't likely to sell out, if you search for tickets right now, most of the results at the top are from secondhand sellers, not from the box office.

This causes a few problems.

First, because the profit can be so high, this is a numbers game, where the resellers buy as many tickets as they can, they mark them up, and even if they only sell five at $1,000, they've made a tidy profit.

The rest of the tickets might even go unused.

So if you somehow have a situation where people are priced out of tickets to a show with empty seats.

Second, if you spend a thousand dollars on a ticket to see your favorite band, that's where your spending goes.

You are likely to go to fewer shows, you're less likely to dine out before or after you're not gonna go buy the merch, and you won't pay inflated prices for a second show that you might be as excited about.

Third, it makes our live music and our theater a luxury good.

It's just one more thing being commodified.

Music and culture is for all of us.

A thriving art scene is essential to a healthy and interesting city.

Artists and venues set a price point for tickets they agree will ensure fans of all incomes can attend.

The second head market just turns out on Ted.

It's not a hypothetical issue here.

Anthem's box office managers publicly talked about how regularly fans show up with fake tickets.

The Hamilton has talked about how their tickets for sale right now advertised for VIP sections that don't even exist.

Theaters like Arena Stage and Ford's Theater have shared stories of bots and resellers cannibalizing their ticket sales and losing tens of thousands of dollars that they need to run their operations.

And when it comes to the changes we need to make, artists have said that the price cap makes the district a more attractive place to book a show and a tour, not less.

Because they are tired of seeing their own fans getting ripped off, and we should be too.

The broader topic of how ticket prices are set and manipulated is a complicated issue.

Well, that's a force today, is simple.

There's a ton of money being made by scalpers with an understanding of coding and AI who don't live here.

They don't work for the venue here, they don't offer any value or assume any risk in putting on a show.

If you put a cap on that profit, you're gonna change the math for them.

So after discussions with Councilman Nadeau earlier today, Councilman Henderson and I are moving an amendment today that will protect folks that want to go see a show, protect our amazing DC venues from these predatory practices while maintaining some of the strongest protections that came out of the committee.

In short, it has three main areas.

One, it restores the 10% price cap on reselling tickets to provide immediate relief to concert and theater goers.

Second, it narrows and clarifies the mayoral 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.

It gives different people different costs and values depending on the data that's been mined on them.

Again, I want to thank Counselor Nadeau and Councillor Henderson and their teams for working with us on this amendment.

I ask our colleagues to join us in support, and I move the amendment now and hope to hear from Councilmore Henderson as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmore Allen.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I originally signed on to the resale amendment act when it was introduced because I believe the leader, um, the leader, the district, is a leader in superior entertainment experiences and music culture.

Um, and I want our venues to thrive for entertainers to choose the district, but more importantly for fans to be able to attend and enjoy all of our venues without the unnecessary um heartbreak that comes from when tickets don't work out on the secondary and resale market.

Um I come at this from not just the perspective as a lawmaker, but also as a genuine fan.

Um, and there are countless stories of individuals who they bought tickets from a reseller, they arrived at the venue, they're very excited only to have the ticket scan or not actually be eligible to be scanned, and the venue have to now tell them we're so sorry.

Um you've bought a fraudulent ticket and you won't be able to attend today's event.

Um there are lots of other things as well that's in this bill that haven't actually been covered, which is around the all-in pricing.

Um, there's nothing more frustrating when you're in line on ticket mastery and you have an idea of what the ticket is supposed to cost, only to beat out the bots to get there, and then you hit checkout and you notice because of taxes and fees and other things that were pricing that was not upfront available to you, you have now been priced out of the ability to even afford the ticket.

Um this legislation does not solve all things.

I repeat, this legislation does not solve all things.

It is dealing with the secondary market.

Um, there are definitely issues with the primary market that this bill doesn't touch, but I feel like over time we're able to have more conversations about that, such as dynamic pricing and some other things.

I think the amendment before us today strikes the right balance, it removes some of the complicating factors around primary that was included in the original committee print, and also does some other things.

One other piece that I want to mention that is a great thing about the resale act overall is around this issue of speculative tickets.

Um, and this has come up a lot in sort of the sports context lately around World Cup, where we're seeing lots of people who they 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.

Um, and we have this, we see this happening often, even in the concert space of sellers offering for sale tickets that are actually not available on the market, um, and then they're not able to deliver on those as well.

So the the point of this, and I think that my support of this is around protecting our venues, but also protecting the fan experience at the end of the day.

So I hope that colleagues can um support this amendment and the overall legislation going forward.

Thank you.

So, would one of you, either Mr.

Allen or Ms.

Henderson, explain in a little bit more detail what this amendment does.

Sure.

We do rock, paper, scissors for it.

But yes, so I can briefly go through that.

So, first, uh it restores the price cap, which was initially in the introduced version of the bill.

So, what this does is put a 10% cap on the resale of a ticket.

Secondary market.

Secondary market.

That's number one.

If I may just interrupt, yes, please do.

And to clarify, there could be uh additional fees.

We discussed this at breakfast.

You want to explain that?

Sure.

So uh the bill sets a price cap for the resale of tickets to live events, the total cost of the initial ticket plus up to two 10%.

It also permits a secondary ticket exchange to charge a fee for the service of providing a marketplace for the resale of that ticket provided.

That fee does not exceed 10% of the total price of the initial ticket.

Does that help answer that?

Yep.

Okay.

All right.

Um, secondly, and I think Councilman Henderson talked about this.

From there are changes that this amendment makes related to the committee 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's specific to the platform fees.

And that's meant to address concern that some venues have raised that uh they are affected.

They're worried that they would be affected by the um broader mayoral rulemaking authority.

Correct.

It in addition, in terms of what the uh the committee had put forward in terms of creating a regulatory regime around this, it also does allow the mayor after a year to be able to come back and take a look at that price cap.

So we're able to help evaluate is it working the way that we wanted?

Does it need to be adjusted in some way?

So that's the changes as it relates to the mayor's uh authority there.

Um, 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 logged in on the same platform, it's quite possible we're all gonna get slightly different prices based on that because there's a lot of data mining, there's a lot of information that figures out who I am compared to you, and the price reflects that.

That is discrimination in price, and so it prohibits that, which I think is a really smart protection uh for our primary marketplace as well.

That's both primary and secondary.

Yes, but I believe it's what you see more in the primary space.

But yes.

And so those are the changes in that amendment.

I guess the the fourth would be that uh it amends the applicability clause because we funded it in the budget uh in the budget.

So there's language there to uh with the applicability clause.

Councilman.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

So as I mentioned in the committee of the whole, I am I'm proud of the work that we did in committee to evaluate this bill and strengthen it to advance consumer protection.

The print that we marked up in committee last week would add a new provision granting the mayor broad regulatory powers to address high costs in both the primary and secondary markets, including but not limited to the authority to limit resale prices, cap ticket sales fees, and regulate the use of um predatory pricing.

Um late last week I heard feedback that the rulemaking provision could be interpreted too broadly compared to what we were trying to accomplish.

So I had come in today expecting that we would work on that between first and second reading.

Um what I came to understand this morning from colleagues was that there was um interest in a more broad uh set of tweaks.

So although I have reservations with instituting an immediate secondary market cap without a similar ability to address skyrocketing private primary market prices in response, I do appreciate that this amendment preserves flexibility in the price cap itself so that the district can be more responsive to address um a rapidly evolving market.

I'm also glad that we can address surveillance pricing in this amendment.

I do still hold concerns that this doesn't provide the ability to tackle other dynamic pricing strategies, but surveillance pricing that discriminates against individuals is clearly the most egregious to borrow over from the bill title.

Um so despite my reservations, the other aspects of the amendment that 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.

Um so I will be supporting the amendment.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Nidau.

Councilmember Treyon might.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I guess uh I have a question just to get some clarity.

Uh no, one of the uh reasons was to uh address the issue of price gouging.

How does this affect those who have tickets that are reselling their personal tickets?

Does it apply to all of just the uh business businesses or investors who are doing this?

Who do you want to answer that question?

Uh whoever has the ability to answer.

Councilmember Nadeau?

Sure.

Um I we do address that in the print itself.

Um through well, by including um provisions that Councilmember Allen introduced in the underlying bill.

So I still don't have a I'm still not clear.

Is it is for everybody, or is this uh large investors or businesses, or is this for?

So the um practice that you're describing is called um, um sorry, the word is escaping me.

It's been a long day.

Um speculative, right?

The speculative purchasing where someone buys up a bunch of tickets and then um resells them.

Yeah, um I'm it's a difference between somebody buying a thousand tickets or one or two tickets reselling them.

Just trying to figure out this bill differentiates to two or is this broad for everybody.

Um I think Charles.

Yeah, go ahead, Charles.

Sorry.

My brain just like basically fizzled out right up here.

Um, I appreciate it.

It applies to everybody.

Let's talk, let's use an example.

Um, I've got two tickets to a show, I can't go, you want to go, and so I'm gonna sell my tickets to you.

Um, we were able to have that personal exchange.

The price cap still applies.

I can't gouge you um either for that ticket.

But what you'll the biggest change that you'll see is that scalping used to be, you know, uh somebody stood outside a venue, you know, with two, four tickets just trying to sell them, right?

That's not how scalping works anymore.

And what you see are these massive platforms that have been built that are scooping up the tickets.

So the difference would be if you and I I can't go to the show anymore and I just want to sell you my tickets and you go enjoy it, I don't have to register with DLCP, I don't have to do any of that type of stuff.

If I, however, am a business that is getting hundreds and hundreds of tickets and this is my business, then I have to be registered with DLCP, and I have to carry my surety bond.

I'm a business, and so I gotta make sure that I can make good on that.

So the price cap applies across the board, but the big distinction would be if I'm somebody who's purchasing a lot of tickets and reselling them, I have to register with DLCP.

But it wouldn't interfere with my ability to sell my two to you.

Got it.

And I guess a follow-up question would what would trigger them to report that they are a business or this is they are watching book tickets because some can purchase a lot of small amounts of tickets and do the same thing.

So you have to sell and list more than 50 tickets per year.

So my like, you know, got a show or a game I can't go to and I'm selling to you, and then maybe next week selling to Phil, like that's not gonna be 50.

So I'm not I'm not having to register anything.

But if I'm more than 50, I've I've it's a business.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Pinto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, and thank you so much, Councilmembers Nadeau and Alan and Henderson, for working on this important issue.

Um, and I'm in agreement that DC 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 and the world to these incredible venues.

Um, and so what we're doing here today, we have to be particularly mindful to.

Um, I appreciate the changes in the amendment um that Councilmember Allen and Henderson have circulated that kind of restore some of the initial initial language from the bill.

Um, 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 to promulgate rules governing the maximum fees for the service of providing a marketplace for the issuance or sale of an initial ticket.

Um my understanding from this morning's discussion was that the intention of the legislat 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.

Yeah, please.

Sure.

Through the chair, and I certainly turn to Councilman Dau to add on this 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's not the fees that a venue may have to say, I'm going to host this event, I'm going to host this.

And that was part of the original bill, was not including venue fees.

And so this is only focusing on the platform fees, meaning the um that the platform, the website, the uh the company that is taking the sale.

Councilman, do anything else you wanted to add to that, or did I describe that correctly?

No, I think I think that's right.

I mean, the goal is that we can go after the primary market in a way that doesn't penalize local businesses, basically.

I guess I would I don't see how this wouldn't penalize local businesses if we're saying the mayor could regulate prices on the primary market, regardless of who is issuing the ticket.

It doesn't say prices, it's real specific.

So we we can look at it.

It's governing the maximum fees for the service of providing a marketplace for the issuance or sale of an initial ticket.

Fees.

Fees, right?

Okay, so this is meant to be to address the like tack-on fees after the ticket price.

I see.

Okay, thank you.

That is helpful.

And then there's language on the rationale that I just want to make sure I understand what this is corresponding to.

So this is on page three of the circulated um amendment at the penultimate paragraph, says the amendment preserves the ability for the mayor to regulate fees in the primary and secondary market, clarifies that this authority applies only to fees assessed by the platforms themselves for providing a marketplace for the issuance sale and resale of tickets.

So is this again corresponding to that previous language that we just discussed?

Just for fees.

Got it.

Okay.

Correct.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

Councilmember Parker.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh Councilmember Henderson was distracting me.

Um, thank you, Councilmember Alan Henderson and Nadeau.

It seems like you all came to a pretty common sense compromise that I think works, and I was proud to co-introduce the underlying measure.

I do have a couple of questions.

Um the amendment, sections B and C the 10% up sale.

So if I resell a ticket, I have I could resell it up to 10%.

That makes cle makes sense.

Then C, if I exchange a ticket, I can charge an additional 10%.

So now we're talking about up to 20%.

And I just want to make sure I'm 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, and so therefore that exchange price can be up to 20% of what the original ticket price was.

Correct.

Got it.

Because you may have a situation where a platform is also charging a fee, and so you want to be able to include all of that.

And that 20% must encompass all fees for the venue, the seller, and whatever the price of the ticket is.

Essentially, you as the person who bought the ticket, what you paid for it.

Okay, two other things.

And so dynamic pricing is this idea that when I go to buy my Beyonce tickets, because we're all looking at the same time, the price is going up and up and up and up.

And I with this amendment now there is nothing dealing with dynamic pricing.

And so let me ask it this way.

Are the venues that we care about, like the 930 club concerned about dynamic pricing?

And 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'm glad you all reached a compromise, but that seems like one area that we just did not touch.

And I just would go back to the numbers that I quoted from the original complaint filed by the OEG were retailers like Ticketmaster upsell from anywhere from 24% to 44%, and consumers have paid more than 16 billion dollars.

Now I know that wasn't the original intent of your underlying bill.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman, if I can have more time.

Not much more.

There's an answer to come, which is supposedly part of your time.

Councilmember Allen, if you could just speak to all of that.

Thank you, Councilmember, with all of your additional time.

So I think 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?

Um the name of the bill is the resale act, and so it is focused when this was introduced, it was focused on the secondary and the resale market.

There were elements of the primary marketplace that I think became a pressing issue, and so you see some of that incorporated here.

I know that my uh my colleagues introduced some legislation trying to get at some of these types of issues, and so there very likely could be more types of things to look at this.

We did not include dynamic pricing in this.

Um I also think from a policy perspective, we would probably want to look and we use dynamic pricing and we rationalize it in other policy spaces, and so I don't know if there's an over what uh parking parking.

We use dynamic pricing for parking.

Uh, if you've ever taken a ride on Uber, um, if you take a toll road, like we use dynamic pricing in a lot of different ways.

Uh and we I think that's part of our policy.

And I respect that.

I and I know we probably won't fix it now.

I just would throw out there before second reading.

It would be great if we can include that back into the provisions that the mayor in the future might be able to regulate.

Uh, it sounds like, and based on the committee print, there was a lot of testimony about that, and I could just tell you from experience, it is frustrating when I see the price of a concert jump by hundreds of dollars simply because everyone's interested.

The only other thing I wanted to come to was enforcement.

And I know I've raised this multiple times, but I just want to walk through this again, and maybe this is uh better geared towards councilmember Nadeau.

Um enforcement, I'm clear is targeting folk sellers, so let's say those selling thousands of tickets.

I'm clear on that.

What I'm not clear on is both how will DLCP become aware of someone running afoul of these provisions, and what actually is the consequence?

So I heard earlier they'll they will receive a notice of infraction, great, but are there fines?

Is there a suspension of sorts?

Can you just speak more to what the penalty is for not following the law?

Yeah.

And I actually will um also just speak to your prior question also for a second.

So dynamic pricing includes prices that vary for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons, and the committee print would have let the mayor tackle them all as needed in the years over the years to come through rulemaking.

What the amendment does instead is it focuses on the most obviously offensive form of dynamic pricing, which is called surveillance pricing.

That's what we were talking about earlier, where prices are tailored to individual consumers based on activity that can correlate with demographics.

So that is in the amendment, which I think is good.

Um we will also in committee be taking on surveillance pricing more broadly with um councilmember Henderson's bill on this issue, which um also pertains to transportation, etc.

Um, anyone who's selling over 50 tickets on the platforms is gonna have to register, so it's not just the big bulk, it's also sort of smaller bulk, but um that's where we set the threshold.

I'm sorry if I could just jump in.

Yeah, and I'm genuinely trying to understand this.

So, but how will DCPL DLCP know that council member Allen is selling 100 tickets and he should be registering?

I I mean, I think as I was I used the example earlier today of like short-term family housing, right?

It has to be a partnership between the regulatory agency and the platforms and the public, it's not an easy answer.

Um so they register, and then what happens?

And then um, okay, so they register, um, and then they we know that they exist and that they're reselling.

Um, and then there are, I mean, there are requirements for the platforms to share expansive data with extensive data with the LCP, and then council member Allen put money in the budget to add staff um 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 that there is one for one last follow-up question related to that.

Is there any way to hold the big ticket sellers accountable like a ticket master to not allow someone to gouge if we are saying in the law you can't sell for more than 20%?

It sounds like we're putting the onus on ourselves, and I hear you.

I guess my concern is we're wrangling and going through all of this, but I'm not convinced, um, we will necessarily catch all of the bad actors.

I think it's honestly like anything else we do up here, that we have to constantly monitor and do oversight to make sure that it is properly followed.

Um, and I certainly will be leaving behind my my book of tips and tricks when I leave this place, but um 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 that it all gets implemented with fidelity and that um what's intended here actually happens.

I mean one of the reasons I had given the mayor such broad regulatory authority was because we can't anticipate everything, and ideally she wouldn't have to come back to us every time to catch up, right?

To catch up with the industry.

Um, and so maybe we should look at that, tweaking that for second reading, um, because we did move pretty quickly today, I think, to try to address everybody's concerns.

So happy to talk more with folks.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Council Member Crawford.

Uh Councilmember Parker already asked the question that I had on what is in effect a cumulative cap of 20%.

And I think that's important framing for the public after the meeting, too.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you, Chairman Mendels.

Thank you, Councilmembers Nadeau, Alan, and Henderson.

I think this is a good compromise.

Really happy to see that we've gotten to where we've gotten.

I do 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's 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 bring the dollars back to the venues themselves.

And I would want to hear from the venues because I wouldn't be, I would want to understand how when the prices of the tickets go up, to what extent do 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.

But also want to hear from venues about what I'm sure venues have lots of have some shows that are very profitable and many shows that are not.

And so I don't want to I wouldn't 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.

So I think that I think it's sort of a complicated economic question, and I wouldn't want to just immediately say send it to a rulemaking.

I would want to hear from the frontline 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.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Pinto, second round.

I'm sorry, and I know you all worked out this compromise language.

I'm just hearing from some of our 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.

And so I know you all are working on a compromise, but it 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're currently getting.

And so wanted to see how people would feel about clarifying in section B, that we're talking about the secondary marketplace for the regulation of fees.

I would urge that uh that language be looked at between first and second reading.

Let's get this bill engrossed and then folks can over the next two weeks take a look at what we've done and we can get feedback.

But I'm also thinking if it's 10% on fees, um, I mean, as I recall, you paid $2, maybe $5 in fees for a ticket.

Um that's well way less than 10%.

So I'm not even sure that there's an issue here.

Well, the 10% cap is for the secondary market, but my concern is that this language authorizes the mayor to regulate fees even in the primary market.

Yes.

No, I'm talking about subsection B.

It doesn't even 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.

All right.

Well, your time's expired.

Okay, so.

Great.

So I look forward to working with you all uh between first and second reading to try to refocus on the secondary market.

Thank you.

Uh if there's no further discussion, the vote will be on the uh amendment that was circulated by council members Henderson and Allen.

On the amendment, all those in favor say aye.

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.

Uh so just I will repeat what I said a moment ago.

Uh, this is first reading, and at the moment it looks like second reading will be July 14th.

Uh, our practices that uh general council will engross the bill to reflect the amendment, and that will become available later this week.

Yes.

And so everybody can look at it and see if they're comfortable.

On the bill, as amended, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We will turn to emergency measures.

Um the first is uh PR 26-753, public service commission holdover period extension, emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Um, the public service commission of the District of Columbia, the PSC is the district's energy and telecommunications regulator.

The PSC is led by three commissioners who are appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council.

The current commissioners are Chairman Emile C.

Thompson, Commissioners Ted Trayview Jr.

and Richard A.

Beverly.

Chairman Thompson and Commissioner Trabu's terms are set to expire today.

Section 2C of the confirmation act of 1978 provides that, quote, no person shall serve in a holdover capacity for longer than 180 days after the expiration of the term to which he or she was appointed, end quote.

For offices that are appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council.

Given that their current terms are set to expire today on June 30th, Chairman Thompson and Commissioner Trebu's holdover period would end on December 27th, 2026.

Over the last year, energy costs in the district have risen more than any other state in the country.

And as the district's energy utility regulator, the PSC has presided over the very cases that have allowed the rate increases to occur.

The PSC does need new leadership to navigate the utility affordability crisis that's taking place in the district, and at the same time needs stability during the interim of administration changes to ensure the quorum can be met and operations can continue.

A new mayor will be inaugurated on January 2nd, 2027, and they should be able to determine who's best qualified to lead the PSE for the next four years.

So we need to fill this gap in the calendar.

This emergency legislation would extend the holdover period from 180 days to 270 days, effectively adding 90 additional days until March 27, 2027.

Extending the holdover period will allow the current commissioners to continue to serve while the next mayor determines the new nominees and the council can consider and vote on those appointments.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I move the deck.

We have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion on the declaration?

The vote will be on PR 26-753.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have the underlying bill, Bill 26-715.

Councilmember Allen.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Is there discussion?

The vote will be on bill 26-715.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measures PR 26-751.

Comprehensive policing and justice reform technical emergency declaration resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Allen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

On December 20th, 2022, the Council passed the Conference of Policing and Justice Reform Act 2022.

While most of the permanent law went into effect on April 21, 2023, Section 105 of the permanent law, which expands the jurisdiction of the Office of Police Complaints, remains unfunded and has yet has not yet taken effect.

Instead, substantially similar provisions have been maintained on an emergency and temporary basis.

There also existed a need to clarify the scope of mandatory reporting requirements, amending the expanding supports for crime victims amendment act of 2022, effective April 6, 2023, which is DC Law 24-341.

69 DCR 14698, while Section 4 of the leading education access for re-entry and necessary success, or the Learns Amendment Act is 2026, passed on the second reading on June 2nd, 2026.

The enrolled version of Bill 26-526 clarifies the scope of reporting requirements on a permanent basis moving forward and has not been signed yet by the mayor or completed congressional review.

In response to these issues, the council passed the conference of policing and justice reform technical emergency amendment act of 2025, which expired on January 28, 2026.

The council also passed the conference of policing and justice reform technical trend 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 of emergency and temporary legislation is now necessary to prevent a gap in the law between the expiration of the temporary legislation and the applicability date of section 105 of the permanent legislation.

This round of emergency and temporary legislation is also necessary to clarify the scope of reporting requirements amended by the expanding supports for crime victims amendment act of 2022.

With that, Mr.

Chairman, I move the deck.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen.

We have the declaration before us.

Is there discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilmember Henderson.

So Mr.

We have been voting on this on an emergency and temporary basis fairly routinely at this point.

And so I'm just curious what's the permanent plan here.

Well, there's a certain amount of finger pointing going on.

I'm not pointing a finger.

I know you're recording.

I'm 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 it hasn't been funded.

And uh so I think there's some belief that I'm supposed to do something about this, which I'm not fully understanding, so at least we're going to this next round, and maybe we'll sort it out.

So we do it one more time.

Well, I would prefer we do it many more times until the person I think is responsible figures out how to fund it.

How much is this particular provision?

Beats me.

So we don't know what we're fighting over.

I'm not sure fighting is the right word.

Okay.

Um I would just say for the record.

None the less, in terms of the personal gripes between of who is responsible for what, etc.

This is one of those situations where um we have already been critiqued from the hill in terms of doing successive emergencies back to back to back without a permanent coming into play.

And so that's why I'm asking what the plan was if we're going to be just continuing to do this on emergency basis, or if someone, whoever, no finger pointing, um, plans to actually fund the section so that we no longer have to do this.

Note uh-thank you.

Okay, Chairman Mendelson.

Councilmember Felder.

No, that was that was Fruman.

Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you very much.

Uh, people get us confused all the time.

Uh, uh I just want to I just want to echo the comment that Councilmember Henderson made.

The mayor's letter talks about this is the sixth time we've done this on emergency basis.

I don't understand why that would be.

I don't want to do a seventh time.

Like, I don't get it.

And so hopefully we can figure this out and not have to do it a seventh time, but we we can't rely on emergencies in this kind of way.

We shouldn't rely on emergencies in this kind of way.

Let's sort it out.

Further discussion on the declaration.

On the declaration, PR 26-751.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

On the underlying bill, Bill 26-712, Councilmember Allen.

So moved with enthusiasm, Mr.

Chair.

Uh discussion.

The vote will be on bill 26-712.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

The next measure is entertainment establishment employee safety extension emergency declaration resolution 2026.

Councilmember Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I know speaking of many emergencies, this measure would once again extend the emergency legislation that has been in effect since December of 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 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 and conspicuous conspicuous 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 9th, 2025.

And while I had hoped that that permanent would have been passed by now, it won't in time.

So that is why I'm moving this emergency today.

So move, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Discussion.

Councilmember Henderson, you said this was a successive emergency.

Not by choice, but yes.

No for the record, not uh you and I talked about this, I think a couple weeks ago.

So just I have been voting against this consistently, so I'll be voting against it today.

But it has been approved consistently.

Is there further discussion?

On the declaration, PR 26-750.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Please record me as voting no.

The ayes have it.

On the underlying bill, Bill 26-710.

Councilmember Henderson.

So moved, Mr.

Chairman.

Discussion.

On the bill.

Can I speak to well?

I can withdraw.

Councilmember Bonds.

I will withdraw it 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's not friendly, I'll wait for the permanent measure.

Okay.

If there's no further discussion, the vote will be on bill 26-710.

All those in favor say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Please record me as voting no.

The ayes have it.

We thought our measure votes.

If there's no objection, we'll move the first two in block.

Um, it's bill 26-716, public service commission holdover period extension, temporary amendment act 2026, and comprehensive policing and justice reform technical temporary amendment act of 2026, Bill 26-713.

Hearing no objection, there before us in block.

I'll say so moved.

Is there discussion?

On those two temporaries, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Ayes have it unanimously.

We have the uh bill 26-711.

Entertainment establishment employees safety extension, temporary amendment act 2026.

Councilmember Henderson.

So moved.

So moved.

Uh discussion.

On this bill, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Almost didn't make it.

Are there any opposed?

Yes.

Please record me as voting no.

The ayes have it.

Um the next legislative meeting will be an additional meeting on July 14th.

The agenda says 12 o'clock.

The time may actually be earlier.

We're thinking about 10 o'clock.

Yes, on the fourteenth.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, the seventh.

Let me start over.

The next legislative meeting on the agenda is July fourteenth.

It's an additional meeting.

It's scheduled to start at noon.

There will in fact be a legislative meeting on July seventh where we are going to take up the budget support act.

And that will probably start at ten.

There being no further business, the time is two forty-two in the afternoon, and this meeting's adjourned.