Licensing requirements could increase housing construction costs in D.C.

On December 17, 2025, Emilia Calma, Director of The Wilkes Initiative for Housing Policy, testified before the D.C. Council Committee on Public Works and Operations in opposition to B26-0422, the Glazier Licensing Standards and Certification Act of 2025. Her testimony emphasized that adding duplicative licensing requirements will increase housing costs and decrease construction jobs in the District. Read her complete testimony below or download a pdf copy.

Today, I am testifying in opposition to B26-0422, the Glazier Licensing Standards and Certification Act, as the bill would add new requirements and financial burdens for a small group of skilled specialty trade workers without a clear safety or quality problem that existing rules cannot address.  At a moment when the District should be reducing frictions in housing delivery and expanding access to high wage jobs, the bill moves in the opposite direction: it raises barriers to work, narrows labor supply, and increases costs that will inevitably land on the projects and residents.

1. The bill creates a licensing regime without evidence of a problem to solve

D.C. already regulates glazing work through contractor licensing under DLCP, and general contractors are accountable for the safety and performance of all subcontracted trades. The District has not identified systemic failures, nor has it demonstrated that project performance or public safety problems stem from a lack of individual glazier licensing.

Glaziers today are a high-skilled, high-wage trade:

• In 2024, D.C. glaziers earned a median of $76,320 per year—the fourth-highest pay for glaziers in the U.S., behind only Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Rhode Island.
• Their median hourly wage is $36.69, far above the national median for glaziers.
• The District’s glazing labor force is only about 240 employees (2023 estimate).¹

These are not low-wage, unregulated workers in need of protection. They are already a skilled, highly compensated, and comparatively small workforce. Licensing is typically justified where skill shortages or safety crises exist. Here, neither condition is present.

2. The bill risks shrinking an already constrained workforce

With only around 240 glaziers in D.C., even a modest administrative or credentialing barrier can have outsized effects on project delivery. The bill would require glaziers to obtain AGMT certification and complete a registered apprenticeship, and glazing contractors must employ at least three licensed glaziers to qualify for a business license. In practice, this could shrink the available workforce, delay projects, and increase construction costs.

Unlike larger trades, the glazier labor pool in D.C. is simply not large enough to absorb new administrative and training requirements without significant disruption. A licensing mandate will not create more glaziers; it will only restrict entry and mobility.

The bill imposes significant cost on glaziers, and evidence shows that adding certification requirements leads to years of lost work:

• Existing D.C. fees for glaziers are already significant: $655 for commercial, $442 for residential.² The bill adds an additional $260 license fee as well as the AGMT certification: a test whose requirements include 5 years of work experience, a testing fee of $1400 (which could increase every year once it is required), and a $600 re-certification fee.

• Residential glaziers in Maryland and Virginia lose 730 days of work on average due to licensing and certification requirements.³
• This requirement would make D.C. the most onerous place in the nation to work as a glazier.⁴

Glaziers will now have to acquire multiple licenses, increasing compliance costs. Those compliance burdens ultimately affect bid prices and project schedules.

3. The bill provides no clear benefit relative to its costs

If D.C. had demonstrated frequent failures in glazing installation, rising safety incidents, or evidence that untrained workers dominate the field, then a licensing mandate might be warranted. But none of that evidence has been provided.

Instead, the bill creates:

• Duplicative credentialing on top of existing contractor licenses,
• New fees layered over current BBL obligations,
• Workforce constraints in a small specialty trade,
• Implementation complexity that the industry will struggle to absorb without delays.

We share the Council’s commitment to safety, but additional licensing and certifications is not the only or the best tool. AGMT certification already exists as an optional credential that many contractors obtain, and projects can choose certified providers if they wish without forcing it on the entire industry. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Committee to decline to create a new glazier license.

1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) Tables. https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm
2. Knepper, L., Deyo, D., Sweetland, K., Tiezzi, J., & Mena, A. (2022, November 29). License to work . https://ij.org/report/license-to-work-3/
3. Ibid
4. New “state” considers Glazier Licensing. USGlass Magazine & USGNN News. (2025, October 13). https://www.usglassmag.com/new-state-considers-glazier-licensing/