>>> GOOD
MORNING, EVERYONE.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12,
2019 AND THE HOUSING, HEALTH,
ENERGY, AND WORKER RIGHTS
MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER.
I'M TERESA MOSQUEDA JOINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ AND
COSPONSOR OF THE LEGISLATION WE
WILL BE CONSIDERING FOR THE
FIRST PART OF TODAY' AGENDA.
WE'RE DIVIDING THE AGENDA INTO
TWO PARTS.
THE FIRST PART TODAY SON HOTEL
LEGISLATION.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE IN THE
PAST.
WE HAVE DONE OTHER BUSINESS
BEFORE GETTING TO HOTEL.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH HOTEL
FIRST.
I APPRECIATE YOU ALL COMING
BACK.
THE FIRST BILL WILL BE COUNCIL
BILL 11915555 RELATED TO MEDICAL
CARE.
THEN WE WILL REVISIT FINAL
CHANGES AND CONSIDER FINAL VOTE
FROM COMMITTEE ON 119557 WHICH
RELATES TO HOTEL EMPLOYEE SAFETY
PROTECTIONS.
PROTECTING EMPLOYEES FROM
INJURY.
AND THE PENALTY PAY THAT WE
TALKED ABOUT WITH THE LAST
COMMITTEE.
AND COUNCIL BILL 1199556 WHICH
RELATES TO EMPLOYEE JOB
RETENTION.
AFTER WE CONSIDER ALL FOUR OF
THOSE BILLS, THEN WE'LL GO TO
PART TWO WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF
ANYBODY IS HERE TO STAY FOR BUT
THAT RELATES TO THE MULTIFAMILY
TAX EXEMPTION AND WE WILL
ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT ON IT
AT 11:00.
I SEE ONE PERSON THAT
MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN TALKING
ABOUT MFTE.
IF IT'S JUST ONE PERSON AT THIS
POINT -- OKAY.
IS THERE -- I'M GOING TO ASK
THIS WHEN WE GET INTO PUBLIC
TESTIMONY, IF THERE IS SOMEBODY
THAT WANTED TO TALK ABOUT MFT, I
THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE A LOOT OF
PEOPLE, IF THERE ARE A LOT OF
FOLKS, WE WILL HOLD OVER
TESTIMONY SO WE DON'T DELAY OUR
CONVERSATION ON HOTEL WORKER
LEGISLATION.
THE GOAL IS TO GET OUT OF HERE
BY NOON.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIVE -- IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTION I WILL MOVE
TODAY'S AGENDA BE ADOPTED.
NO OBJECTION.
LET'S GET TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
WE HAVE A RELATIVELY SHORT LIST
COMPARED TO PREVIOUS DAYS.
SO INSTEAD OF A MINUTE, LET'S DO
A MINUTE AND A HALF.
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT TIME
ON THE CLOCK.
THE FIRST THREE PEOPLE THAT WE
HAVE ARE MARGARET DIDUNS, ALLEN
COLLINS, AND CHRISTY SMITH.
HI MARGARET.
WE'RE MOVING FAST HERE.
SORRY TO CATCH YOU OFF GUARD.
>> HI, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
MY NAME IS MARGARET.
>> JUST A SECOND.
LET ME MAKE SURE THAT MICROPHONE
IS ON FOR YOU AND THEN WE'LL
RESTART THE CLOCK.
AND AGAIN, IF FOLKS ARE COMING
IN TO TESTIFY, WE ARE STILL
TAKING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
IF YOU WANT TO SIGN UP, YOU'RE
WELCOME TO.
AND IS THE LITTLE GREEN BUTTON
ON ON THE MICROPHONE THERE?
ON THE STEM HERE?
OKAY, JUST --
>> PRESS THIS?
>> YEAH.
HELLO?
NOPE.
>> TRY AGAIN.
>> HELLO.
>> OH, THERE IT'S ON.
>> OKAY.
WE ARE GOOD TO GO.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
MARGARET.
>> SO I WORK WITH SCIU 775 AND
AS A UNION WE WANT TO APPLAUD
YOUR WORK ON THIS ISSUE TO
PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF
HOTEL WORKERS.
WE'RE STAUNCHLY COMMITTED TO
SUPPORTING THE ECONOMIC
STABILITY, HEALTH, AND WELL
BEING OF LOW WAGE WORKERS.
WE BELIEVE THAT ALL WORKERS
DESERVE THE RIGHT TO A SAFE
WORKING ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY
CAN WORK WITHOUT THE FEAR OF
INJURY OR HARASSMENT.
WE SUPPORT THE INITIATIVE THAT
VOTERS PASSED IN 2016 AND
BELIEVE THIS LEGISLATION SHOULD
BE AT LEAST AS STRONG.
WORKERS DESERVE TO BE PROTECT.
OUR HOME CARE MEMBERS EXPERIENCE
HIGH RATES OF HARASSMENT BECAUSE
THEY'RE ISOLATED IN THE HOME,
NOT UNLIKE HOTEL WORKERS.
WHEN COWORKERS AND MANAGERS ARE
NOT AROUND TO DISRUPT HARASSING
BEHAVIOR, OTHER MEASURES ARE
NEEDED TO ENSURE WORKER SAFETY.
WORKERS SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED
TO COMPLETE MORE WORK THAN CAN
BE DONE SAFERY.
OUR NURSING HOME MEMBERS
EXPERIENCE HIGH RATES OF
SPRAINS, BACK AND SHOULDER
INJURIES, AND CHRONIC PAIN.
HOUSE CLEANING IS A SIMILARLY
PHYSICALLY TAXING JOB BECAUSE OF
STAFFING ISSUES AND NO ONE
SHOULD BE PUSHED TO WORK AT A
PACE THAT CAUSES UNNECESSARY
STRESS.
THESE ARE CRUCIAL CHANGES FOR
THE CITY'S WORK FORCE AND WILL
PROMOTE GREATER RACIAL AND
GENDER EQUITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
AND COMMITMENT TO WORKERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MARGARET.
ALLEN COLLINS?
SUSTAINABLE LIVING.
OKAY.
WHY DON'T YOU GO ON UP?
I THINK WE HAVE VERY FEW FOLKS.
I'M SORRY TO COMPLICATE THINGS.
SO THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO --
IS IT'S EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO PUT IT IN
SECOND.
YOU KNOW HOW IT IS.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
>> MORNING.
>> I'M --
>> CAN YOU PULL THAT MICROPHONE
UP?
THERE YOU GO.
YOU'RE TALLER THAN --
>> MOST FOLKS.
IS IT ON?
>> YEAH.
>> ARE WE GOOD TO GO?
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE I'M ARLIN
COLLINS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF
THE SUSTAINABLE LIVING
INNOVATIONS.
WE'RE A SEATTLE FIRM.
OUR TECHNOLOGY HELPS US
CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS MORE
EFFICIENTLY, MORE QUICKLY AT
LESS COST THAN TRADITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION.
OUR TECHNOLOGY ENABLES US TO
DELIVER HIGH QUALITY ZERO NET
ENERGY BUILDING IN SEATTLE'S
URBAN CORE ON SMALL LOTS.
OUR BUSINESS MODEL AND COMPANY
VISION DIREC TEE COST SAVINGS
TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND CONSTRUCT MORE
UNITS FOR TENANTS THAT QUALIFY
FOR INCOME-RESTRICTED HOUSING.
WE HAVE A PIPELINE OF SIX
BUILDINGS WHICH DEDICATED 25% OF
EACH BUILDING TO MFTE, LOW
INCOME RENTERS.
WE WILL BE BREAKING GROUND THIS
YEAR ON THE WORLD'S FIRST ZERO
NET ENERGY HIGH-RISE IN
BELLTOWN.
WE RECEIVED HIGH PRAISE FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR
THIS BUILDING.
WE'RE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN
PROVIDING RENT RESTRICTED UNITS
AND WILL BE READY FOR TENANTS TO
MOVE IN IN 2020.
OUR BUSINESS MODEL RELIES ON THE
MFT PROGRAM SO WE CAN APPRECIATE
COUNCIL'S WORK TO PROVIDE
CERTAINTY FOR OUR PIPELINE
PROJECTS.
SINCE WE'RE CONSTRUCTING
HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IN HIGH-RISE
ZONES, WE BELIEVE WE CAN BE AN
ENGINE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE.
WE HAVE A LITTLE HANDOUT FOR
COUNCIL AND STAFF THAT SHOWS OUR
PROJECT PIPELINE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE IT AND LOOK TO
CHATTING MORE.
CHRISTY SMITH FOLLOWED BY
DEANNE, FOLLOWED BY ANNE.
>> MY NAME'S CHRISTY SMITH, AND
I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE
CROWN PLAZA HOTEL.
I'VE WORKED IN THE HOSPITALITY
INDUSTRY FOR OVER 35 YEARS AND
HAVE WORKED IN VARIOUS POSITIONS
IN HOTELS BEFORE BECOMING A
GENERAL MANAGER.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION FOR WEEKS.
WE'VE HEARD AND FELT ALIGNMENT
ON HEALTH CARE AROUND THIS TABLE
BETWEEN OUR INDUSTRY AND
COUNCILMEMBERS.
WHY ARE WE BACK HERE TODAY
TALKING ABOUT ARBITRARY CASH
EXPENDITURES INSTEAD OF QUALITY
OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE?
MY HOTEL PROVIDES HIGH QUALITY,
GOLD LEVEL INSURANCE TO ALL OF
OUR EMPLOYEES, WHICH I THOUGHT
WAS THE INTENT TO BEGIN WITH,
NOT THE COST OF THE COVERAGE.
WE HAVE ALSO BEEN TALKING ABOUT
WHAT AN APPROPRIATE PENALTY
SHOULD BE FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE
TO OFFER CLEANING ASSIGNMENTS
OVER THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WITH NO ADVANCE NOTICE,
OUTREACH, INPUT OR OPPORTUNITIES
FOR REVIEW DISCUSSION YOU
CHANGED THE UNDERLYING MAXIMUM
SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THIS IMPACTS THE ENTIRE
INDUSTRY.
NOT ONCE IN THIS TIME PERIOD HAS
THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION AT THE
COMMITTEE TABLE OR IN PUBLIC
COMMENT ABOUT CHANGING THE
SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WE'VE BEEN VERY SINCERE IN OUR
INTEREST TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND
HELP DEVELOP SOLUTIONS.
IT IS DISAPPOINTING THAT THE
SAME SINCERITY IS NOT SHARED BY
THIS COMMITTEE.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TIME AND
EFFORT MADE IN PROVIDING
THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK ON THIS
LEGISLATION.
AND WE ALL QUESTION WHAT WE HAVE
SPENT THE LAST 11 WEEKS DOING
AND ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED AT THE
LACK OF PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN
MADE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
DEANNE FOLLOWED BY ANNE.
>> I'M SHORTER, SORRY.
>> THAT'S OKAY.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS D ESHGANNE, I'M THE
HR MANAGER AT THE HILTON
SEATTLE.
I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THE
HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY MY ENTIRE
LIFE.
I STARTED OUT AS A ROOM
ATTENDANT AND WORKED MY WAY UP,
CORPORATE MANAGER AND NOW IN HR.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION FOR OVER TWO MONTHS
AND HEARD THE ALIGNMENT TWINE
THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY AND THE
úCOUNCIL COMMITTEE.
WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE
ARE HERE AGAIN TODAY TALKING
ABOUT ARBITRARY CASH
EXPENDITURES INSTEAD OF QUALITY
COVERAGE WHICH WE ALL THOUGHT
PROGRESS WAS BEING MADE.
WE'VE ALSO BEEN TALKING ABOUT
THE PENALTY PAY FOR SQUARE
FOOTAGE WHICH THERE WAS NO
ADVANCE NOTICE GIVEN US THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS.
WE'VE SEEN -- WE'VE BEEN SINCERE
ABOUT PROVIDING FEEDBACK FROM
OUR INDUSTRY TO COME UP WITH A
SOLUTION THAT WOULD BENEFIT
EVERYONE AND VERY DISAPPOINTED
WE WERE NOT GIVEN THAT
OPPORTUNITY.
WE ARE AN INDUSTRY THAT CARES
ABOUT THEIR WORKERS AND TAKE
THEIR SAFETY AND WELL BEING VERY
SERIOUSLY AS WE ALL KNOW IF IT
WASN'T FOR THEM WE WOULDN'T HAVE
A BUSINESS TO RUN.
WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER
ALL THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE
HEARD THESE PAST 11 WEEKS AS WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF
PROGRESS THAT IS BEING MADE.
>> THANK YOU.
ANNE, THEN FOLLOWED BY BILL
WISE, AND THEN MARK SUNBURG.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M ANNE, THE DIRECTOR OF SALES
AT THE HILTON SEATTLE.
I'VE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY OVER
35 YEAR IN A MULTITUDE OF
DIFFERENT ROLES, HOURLY AND
MANAGEMENT.
I FIND SOME OF THE TESTIMONY
I'VE HEARD IN THESE SESSIONS
DISMAYING.
IMPLYING THAT WE DO NOT VALUE
OUR TEAM MEMBERS, HOUSEKEEPERS
IN PARTICULAR.
IT'S JUST NOT TRUE.
THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MORE DUE DILIGENCE.
THERE ARE SO MANY BENEFITS WE
OFFER ALL OF OUR TEAM MEMBERS AS
AN INDUSTRY.
WE HAVE MANDATORY TRAINING ON
SAFETY, ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
WE HAVE TRAINING ON HARASSMENT,
DI VESHSTY, RESPECT IN THE
WORKPLACE.
THERE'S PROGRAMS LIKE TUITION
REIMBURSEMENT AND CONTINUING
EDUCATION THROUGH PLATFORMS LIKE
HILTON UNIVERSITY.
THESE BENEFITS ARE NOT UNIQUE TO
OUR HOTELS.
ALL OF THE HOTEL COMPANIES OFFER
THEM.
I KNOW NOT ONE HOTEL HERE IN THE
ROM WILL DISAGREE WHEN I SAY
BILL MARRIOTT SAID IT BEST.
IF YOU TAKE CARE OF YOUR TEAM,
THEY TAKE CARE OF YOUR GUESTS,
AND EVERYTHING ELSE TAKES CARE
OF ITSELF.
>> THANK YOU.
BILL WISE, MARK SUNBURG, AND
THEN AMANDA PARSONS.
GOOD MORNING, AGAIN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS BILL WISE, I'M THE
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE SILVER
CLOUD STADIUM HOTEL.
I'VE BEEN IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY
FOR 42 YEARS.
I STARTED AS A BUSBOY AND
DISHWASHER.
I'VE WORKED DIFFERENT JOBS FROM
HOUSEKEEPER TO DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS.
I'M A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT WE'VE
BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS FOR THE
LAST 11 WEEKS AND WE'VE GONE
HERE AND THERE AND WE'VE BEEN
PART OF THE PROCESS.
I FEEL LIKE THE COUNCIL HAS
BETRAYED THE PROCESS BY HAVING
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
JUST A SURPRISE TO US.
FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE
BEEN OPERATING ON THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE THAT'S BEEN AGREED UPON.
NOW WE'VE GOT THE LAST MINUTE TO
REDUCE IT EVEN FURTHER WITHOUT
DISCUSSION, WITHOUT STUDY,
WITHOUT ANYTHING.
IT'S GOING TO AFFECT OUR
BUSINESS AND HOW WE OPERATE.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO SPEND AT
LEAST AN HOUR AND A HALF TO SET
UP THE BOARDS EVERY SINGLE DAY.
NOW IT'S GOING TO PUT AN UNDUE
BURDEN ON OUR PEOPLE.
I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE
PENALTY AS WELL.
I MEAN, WE'VE GONE FROM ONE AND
A HALF TO THREE TIMES AND WE'VE
BEEN OPERATING UNDER THIS FOR
THE LONGEST TIME.
AND I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE
STILL GOING FORWARD WITH THAT.
MY LAST QUESTION IS WHY HAVE WE
BEEN HERE?
WHY HAVEN'T WE CONCENTRATED ON
MAYBE THE HOMELESS CRISIS AND
SPENT THIS TIME FOR THAT.
RIGHT NOW IT SEEMS LIKE THE
COUNCIL HAS A NONIMPARTIAL THIRD
PARTY DRIVING THIS TRAIN AND WE
DON'T APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MARK SUNBURG, AMANDA PARSONS,
AND THEN LEO LEVER.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS MARK SUNBURG AND I'M
THE OWNER OF IPM.
WE PROVIDE PARK SERVICES IN THE
CITY.
MY WIFE TRACY AND I HAVE OWNED
THE COMPANY FOR OVER 21 YEARS.
MY WIFE AND I.
WE LIVE IN SEATTLE.
OUR KIDS ARE EDUCATED IN
SEATTLE.
WE SHOP IN SEATTLE.
WE SUPPORT SEATTLE.
I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
RUNNING A HOTEL.
I JUST -- WE DON'T RUN HOTELS.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHY MY BUSINESS
IS GOING TO BE INCLUDED.
IT'S AN ANCILLARY BUSINESS.
RUNNING A SMALL BUSINESS IN THIS
CITY IS HARD.
AND HAVING LEGISLATION SUCH AS
THIS MAKES IT EVEN HARDER.
INCLUDING BUSINESSES LIKE MINE
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING SHOWS THAT
YOU REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT
IT TAKES TO OPERATE A BUSINESS
IN SEATTLE.
LAST WEEK YOU DECIDED TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE DEFINITION OF
AN ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHO IT
IMPACTS.
NOT ONLY IS THIS IRRESPONSIBLE,
BUT IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE TO LEAVE
THIS DEFINITION VAGUE AND LEFT
TO RULE MAKING.
THE RULE MAKING TO BE COVERED AT
A LATER TIME.
I ASK YOU GUYS REALLY RECONSIDER
INCLUDING ANCILLARY BUSINESSES.
I WOULD HOPE YOU TAKE THAT TO
HEART.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> AMANDA PARSONS, LEO LEVER,
AND MIKE BARNETT.
HELLO, AGAIN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS AMANDA.
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SAY
HOW ENCOURAGED I AM TO SEE THE
COUNCIL TAKING SWIFT ACTIONS ON
ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO
THEM.
ADJUSTING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
FROM 5,000 TO 4,500 WAS AMENDED
AND VOTED ON IN THE SAME MEETING
LAST WEEK.
I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A SIMILAR
SWIFT AMENDMENT TO THE FULL-TIME
STATUS AS CURRENTLY DEFINED.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFINE
FULL-TIME AS 30 HOURS PER
WORKWEEK BECAUSE NO SCHEDULE IS
WRITTEN BASED ON A CALENDAR
MONTH.
THIS IS A HUGE, HUGE COMPONENT
FOR THIS ORDINANCE.
HUGE.
THE INTENT TO PROVIDE CARE AND
THERE ARE MANY QUESTION THAT IS
NEED TO BE CLARIFIED BEFORE
MOVING FORWARD.
WHEN DOES AN EMPLOYEE BECOME
ENROLLED?
WHAT IS THE WAITING PERIOD?
IS IT THE SAME FOR NEW HIRES AND
EXISTING EMPLOYEES?
THERE NEEDS TO BE A WAITING
PERIOD TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO
SELECT THE PLAN THEY WANT.
WHAT ABOUT SEASONAL EMPLOYEES OR
EMPLOYEES WHO WORK ON CALL LIKE
BANQUET SERVERS.
IF THEY WORK 100 HOURS ONE MONTH
AND 40 HOURS NEXT DO THEY GAIN
COVERAGE AND LOSE THEN LOSE
COVERAGE.
IF AN EMPLOYEE WORKS 72 HOURS
BUT THEN RESIGNS OR MOVES
FORWARD, HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT?
THESE ARE VERY SEVERE QUESTIONS
THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED AND
IT'S A BIG SECTION THAT NEEDS
CLARIFICATION NOW NOT LATER.
LEAVING THIS RULE MAKING IS
IRRESPONSIBLE AND I ASK YOU TO
RECONSIDER.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MIKE BARNETT AND THEN STEVE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I ECHO THE 80 HOURS.
I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AROUND
THAT PIECE AND WOULD LOVE TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THAT BUT
WANT TO SPEND MY TIME THIS
MORNING TO TALK ABOUT THE HEALTH
CARE EXPENDITURES.
IN THE CASE OF THE HOTELS THAT I
WORK WITH, IT'S STILL AN IMMENSE
INCREASE OVER OUR CURRENT
EXPENDITURES.
OUR PLAN IS NOT A NATIONAL PLAN.
IT'S A SEATTLE PLAN.
IT'S GOLD.
IT'S COMPLIANT WITH I-124.
I TESTIFIED THAT THE AMOUNTS
WERE A GREAT INCREASE OVER THE
TOTAL COST OF THE PREMIUMS WE
CURRENTLY PAY, AND WHILE THERE
HAS BEEN A REDUCTION TO THESE
AMOUNTS AND IT'S STILL A LARGE
INCREASE FOR US.
IN OUR CASE, IT'S A 14% INCREASE
FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND CHILD
COMPONENT.
A 19% INCREASE FOR SPOUSE OR
DOMESTIC PARTNER.
21% INCREASE FOR FAMILY
COVERAGE.
AND A 51% INCREASE FOR SINGLE
COVERAGE.
THAT'S ON THE 2019 RATES WITHOUT
CONSIDERING THE INFLATION RATES.
WE'VE RECEIVED OUR INFLATIONARY
RATES FOR 2020 AND THEY'RE AT
6.5%.
SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
INFLATIONARY RATE THAT IS WE
MIGHT SEE AS PO POSED IN THE
LEGISLATION.
AND THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO
WIDEN THAT GAP.
I'VE LISTED THE PRICE THAT WE
PAY HERE AND I'LL LEAVE MY
WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR YOU SO YOU
CAN SEE THAT.
IN MY HISTORY IN HR, MEDICAL
PLANS HAVE NOT SEEN INCREASES
ANYWHERE NEAR THOSE AMOUNTS.
I MEAN, 51%, DOUBLE DIGITS IS A
LOT.
THE GOAL WITH I-124 WAS TO
PROVIDE QUALITY HEALTH CARE.
AND I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER
PUTTING BACK IN THE AMENDMENT
THAT YOU BROUGHT UP ON AUGUST
15th HERE IN THIS MEETING THAT
STATED IF A QUALITY HEALTH CARE
PLAN WAS IN PLACE FROM AN
EMPLOYER THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS
COMPLIANT.
AND I HAVE NOTES ON WHAT THAT
WAS FROM THAT MEETING HERE AS
WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU GETTING
THOSE NUMBERS FOR US.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
WE HAVE MIKE BARNETT, STEVE, AND
THEN MICHAEL CLARK.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> MORNING.
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN.
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
>> GOOD MORNING, I'M MIKE.
AND I WANT TO START BY SAYING I
HAVE ALL THE RESPECT IN THE
WORLD FOR WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL
IS TRYING TO DO.
HEALTH CARE IS THE SINGLE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR MY FAMILY
AND THE FAMILIES OF THOSE I WORK
WITH.
MY 2-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER HAS A
DISEASE CALLED CYSTIC FIBROSIS.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT'S
LIKE TO HAVE THIS DISEASE, I
BROUGHT THIS STRAW, FEEL FREE TO
BREATHE THROUGH IT FOR THE REST
OF YOUR LIFE.
SIGN UP FOR A LUNG TRANSPLANT IN
20 YEARS AND HOPE FOR A CURE
NOW.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE
CF.
THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE OF A CHRONIC
ILLNESS AT MY PROPERTY.
I HEAR PERSONAL STORIES OF
OTHERS EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THE BASIC HEALTH CARE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MODEL IS TO COLLECT
AS MUCH IN PREMIUMS AS POSSIBLE
AND PAY OUT AS LITTLE IN HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE AS POSSIBLE.
THAT'S THE POINT OF VIEW OF
ELIZABETH WARREN.
SHE SAID IT IN THE LAST
DEMOCRATIC DEBATE.
SHE'S RIGHT AND I AGREE WITH
HER.
I FEAR THAT THE QUALITY OF
COVERAGE FOR NOT JUST MY CHILD
BUT FOR THE CHILDREN OF NERVE
THIS ROOM AND THE PEOPLE THAT I
WORK WITH IS GOING TO BE
SACRIFICED.
SO I LEAVE YOU WITH TWO
QUESTIONS I IMPLORE YOU TO
CONSIDER.
ARE WE READY TO SACRIFICE
QUALITY COVERAGE TO PAD THE
POCKETS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES?
AND OLS RECENTLY RECEIVED
FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY OUTREACH
AND EDUCATION WHICH IS
FANTASTIC, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO
SHIFT JUST A LITTLE OF THAT TO
DO SOME RESEARCH ON HOW WE CAN
ACHIEVE QUALITY COVERAGE FOR
EVERYBODY IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
STEVE.
MICHAEL CLARK AND THEN JURGEN
OSWALD.
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME'S
STEVE.
AND I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER AT
THE GRAND HYATT OLIVE EIGHT.
I DON'T NEED A MINUTE AND A HALF
TO TALK ABOUT MY DISAPPOINT IN
THIS WHOLE SITUATION.
I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING
FOR IS THE COMMUNITY TO GET
INVOLVED IN DIFFERENT OPERATIONS
AND COMMUNICATING WHAT'S GOING
ON.
WHAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST 11
WEEKS IS REALLY A LACK OF
COLLABORATION, A LACK OF
UNDERSTANDING, A LACK OF ABILITY
TO LISTEN.
I FIND THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
IT'S A UNION ORGANIZING.
AND QUITE HONESTLY, THIS WHOLE
APPROACH HAS GONE BACKWARDS TIME
AND TIME AGAIN.
YOU WASTE A LOT OF IMPORTANT
PEOPLE'S TIME TRYING TO DO THE
RIGHT THING AND TRYING TO GET
THROUGH.
AND IT JUST HASN'T WORKED.
IT COULDN'T BE MORE
DISAPPOINTING.
YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON GOVERNANCE.
I THINK YOU HAVE MORE TO WORK
ABOUT PUTTING PANIC BUTTONS IN
EVERY CITIZEN'S HANDS, I WORRY
MORE ABOUT MY EMPLOYEES GETTING
TO MY HOTEL VIR SUS WHEN THEY'RE
IN THE HOTEL.
THIS IS A COMPLETE SHAM.
I COULDN'T BE MORE DISAPPOINTED.
AND IT REALLY IS A CRYING SHAME
BECAUSE HOSPITALITY IS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF SEATTLE'S
ECONOMY.
>> THANK YOU.
MICHAEL CLARK, OSWALD, AND THEN
CAITLIN ALCORN.
IF THERE ARE OTHER FOLKS HERE TO
TESTIFY, PLEASE SIGN UP.
IF WE COULD PUT ONE SIGN UP
SHEET ON THE OTHER PODIUM.
HELLO, AGAIN.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL CLARK.
I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE
RENAISSANCE SEATTLE HOTEL AND A
MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE HOTEL
ASSOCIATION BOARD.
WE'VE HEARD FROM DOZENS OF UNITE
HERE WORKERS OVER THE PAST 11
WEEKS ABOUT EXAMPLES OF
ISOLATION, DANGER, UNSAFE
WORKING CONDITIONS, AND HOW
IMPORTANT THAT ISSUE IS.
AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
UNDERSTAND WHY THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD NOT COVER THOSE WORKERS AS
WELL.
YOU KNOW, THAT COULD ALSO BE
EXTENDED TO SQUARE FOOTAGE.
YOU KNOW, WE RECENTLY HAD A
CHANGE WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY
FOR DISCUSSION.
IT WAS INTRODUCED LATE IN THE
LAST COMMITTEE MEETING AFTER
MANY FOLKS HAD EVEN DEPARTED.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
OFTEN CALCULATE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
INSTEAD OF USING SQUARE FOOTAGE
THEY USE NUMBER OF ROOMS.
IF THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS SO
IMPORTANT WHY DOESN'T IT APPLY
TO WORKERS COVERED UNDER CBS AS.
I JUST FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
I JUST DON'T GET WHAT IS
HAPPENING HERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARBITRARY
CASH EXPENDITURES AGAIN.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, YOU
INTRODUCED WHAT WE ALL THOUGHT
WAS REALLY GREAT.
WAS IT TWO COMMITTEE MEETINGS
AGO OR THE LAST ONE, I CAN'T
REMEMBER NOW.
WE THOUGHT THAT WAS SUCH
PROGRESS, AND NOW HERE WE ARE
AGAIN.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO
UNDERSTAND IT AND NOT HAVE A
VOICE IN ALL OF THAT.
AND THE 4,500 SQUARE FOOT
MINIMUM, TOO.
THAT'S GOING TO HAVE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES.
I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION CAUSED MY
HOTEL TO ELIMINATE TURN DOWN
SERVICE.
AND THAT ELIMINATED THREE
POSITIONS IN MY HOTEL.
SO THOSE JOBS WENT AWAY.
LUCKILY WE WERE ABLE TO REPLACE
THOSE INDIVIDUALS, BUT AT THE
SAME TIME, THOSE JOBS ARE GONE
FOREVER.
SO I THINK THAT JUST DOING THIS
WITHOUT MORE DISCUSSION OR STUDY
IS GOING HAVE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE THAT IS THE
COMMITTEE SHOULD REALLY
UNDERSTAND BEFORE THEY PROCEED.
>> MICHAEL, THANK YOU.
OSWALD, CAITLIN ALCORN.
AND THEN I'LL TAKE THE NEXT SIGN
IN SHEET IF IT'S AVAILABLE.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS.
I WORK AT THE HILTON.
ONE LAST CHANCE TO STRIKE A
BALANCED APPROACH.
YOU KNOW, THERE REALLY SEEM TO
BE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN OUR
INDUSTRY AND COUNCILMMBERS ON
HEALTH CARE.
LOTS OF PROGRESS WAS MADE, SO
WHY ARE WE BACK HERE TALKING
ABOUT ARBITRARY CASH
EXPENDITURES INSTEAD OF QUALITY
OF COVERAGE?
LAST WEEK OUT OF NOWHERE YOU
PASSED AN AMENDMENT WITH NO
ADVANCE NOTICE, NO STAKEHOLDER
OUTREACH OR INPUT, NO
OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVIEW OR
DISCUSSION TO CHANGE THE MAXIMUM
SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT 77% OF THE
VOTERS APPROVED.
SO WHY DO YOU OVERRIDE THE WILL
OF THE VOTERS?
YOU'VE COME UP WITH A DEFINITION
OF ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS THAT
KICKS MUCH OF YOUR WORK TO DO
RULE MAKING PROCESS TO DETERMINE
WHO'S COVERED.
ISN'T IT A BASIC ROLE OF A
COUNCILMEMBER TO DO THIS TYPE OF
WORK?
SO MY CURRENT SCORE IS A FOR
IDEALOGY AND F FOR COMPROMISE.
SO YOU HAVE THE TOWER CHANGE
THIS SCORE.
USE THAT POWER WISELY.
ONE LAST CHANCE.
I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF IDEALOGY
HERE.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA,
GONZALEZ, YOU'VE BEEN HIJACKING
THIS PROGRESS.
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO, YOU'RE
ALL BY YOURSELF, BUT IF YOU HAVE
HELP FROM OTHERS, YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY.
>> THANK YOU.
CAITLIN FOLLOWED BY STEPHAN
MORRIS.
HI, CAITLIN.
>> HI THERE.
MY NAME'S CAITLIN.
I'M A GRADUATE STUDENT AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
I STUDY LABOR ISSUES, SO I JUST
WANTED TO COME AND STATE MY
SUPPORT FOR THE COUNCIL BILL
EXTENDING ADDITIONAL LABOR
PROTECTIONS FOR HOTEL WORKERS.
I THINK SEATTLE VOTERS KIND OF
CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT
THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF SUCH
LEGISLATION WHEN THEY VOTED
OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF
INITIATIVE 124 THREE YEARS AGO.
I THINK ALL WORKERS DESERVE KIND
OF AS A MINIMUM THE RIGHT TO A
WORKING ENVIRONMENT THAT'S FREE
OF HARASSMENT, WORKING BEHIND
CLOSED DOORS IN PRIVATE ROOMS,
HOTEL WORKERS AT AT INCREASED
RISK OF HARASSMENT AND ARE IN
NEED OF ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS.
I THINK THIS COMMITTEE SHOWED
GREAT LEADERSHIP WHEN THEY
EXTENDED ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS
TO DOMESTIC WORKER WHO IS FACE
SIMILAR ISSUES AS HOTEL WORKERS.
I HOPE YOU DO IT AGAIN BY
EXTENDING PRODUCTIONS FOR LOW
WAGE HOTEL WORKERS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND LAST WE HAVE STEPHAN MORRIS.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING TO SOME VERY IMPORTANT
PEOPLE RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM
AND WHO HAVE COME TO SPEAK TO
YOU PREVIOUSLY WHICH IS THE
FOLKS WHO WORK IN HOTELS EVERY
DAY AND, YOU KNOW, EXPERIENCE
WITH THEIR OWN BODIES THE HARD
WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING AND
WHETHER IT COMES TO HEALTH CARE
OR WORKLOAD OR PROTECTIONS FROM
HARASSMENT.
I THINK THIS BILL IS AN
IMPORTANT AND BIG STEP IN THE
RIGHT DRISHGS TO PROTECT HOTEL
WORKERS.
NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
LEGISLATION BEFORE US AND
COMPARE TO THE INITIATIVE THAT
VOTERS PASSED IN 2016, I THINK A
LOT OF WORK HAS GONE INTO THE
LEGISLATION.
I THINK A LOT OF LISTENING HAS
HAPPENED.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOGS
OF WHO LOBBIED CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS ON THIS LEGISLATION, YOU
WILL SEE THAT A LOT OF FOLKS
FROM THE INDUSTRY HAVE ACTUALLY
SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING TO
FOLKS AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT
OF DIALOGUE.
AND I THINK THAT WHAT THE FOUR
PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT YOU
SEE HERE TODAY ARE THE RIGHT
BALANCE OF MOVING FORWARD AS YOU
WILL SEE RIGHT THERE THE CHANGE
ASKS ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
LIKE NOBODY SAYS THAT HERE.
BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY LIKE SOME
BIG STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BILL
TODAY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO MAKE
A DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF
THOUSANDS OF WORKERS IN OUR
CITY.
>> THANK YOU.
-- TO TESTIFY ON THE HOTEL
WORKER LEGISLATION OR WOULD LIKE
TO?
OKAY.
I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE MORE ASK.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WANTS
TO TALK ABOUT MFTE.
PLEASE COME ON UP AND WE'LL GET
YOU SIGNED IN AND THEN MOVE ON
TO HOTEL WORKER LEGISLATION.
AND I SEE SOME OF OUR BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION TRADE FOLKS IN THE
BACK.
MF TEXT OR JUST HERE TO OBSERVE?
OKAY, GREAT.
WELCOME.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M VALERIE.
I WORK AS AN ADVOCACY AND POLICY
MANAGER.
WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE
RENEWAL OF THE MFTE PROGRAM.
WE RECOGNIZE IT'S PRODUCED
THOUSANDS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN
SEATTLE.
WE ARE ENCOURAGED BY THIS
RECALIBRATION TO ENSURE THERE'S
THE GREATEST PUBLIC BENEFIT AND
WE AREN'T GIVING AWAY A HANDOUT.
WE DO NEED TO SUSTAIN THE LEVEL
OF PARTICIPATION THAT WE'VE BEEN
ABLE TO ACHIEVE IN THE CITY.
SO WE'RE ENCOURAGED BY THIS
REVISION OF THE PROGRAM AND WE'D
ALSO ENCOURAGE A LOT OF
COLLABORATION AND CALIBRATION
THAT WILL HAVE THE GREATEST
POSITIVE IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PRODUCTION IN OUR CITY.
THANKS.
>> EXCELLENT.
OKAY.
I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR
PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR THIS
MORNING.
I'M GOING TO LEAVE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY OPEN JUST IN CASE
ANYBODY DOES WANT TO TALK ABOUT
MFTE.
BUT LET'S HAVE YOU READ INTO THE
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE THROUGH
FOUR.
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE, 1195555 AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT
IN SEATTLE REQUIRING CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES TO MAKE REQUIRED
HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES TO OR
ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING
ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE FOR
BRIEFING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
VOTE.
COUNCIL BILL -- AGENDA ITEM TWO,
119556, RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT
IN SEATTLE FOR BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
AGENDA ITEM THREE, 11995 # 57.
RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT IN
SEATTLE REQUIRING CERTAIN
EMPLOYERS TO TAKE CERTAIN
ACTIONS TO PREVENT, PROTECT, AND
RESPOND TO VIOLENT OR HARASSING
CONDUCT BY GUESTS FOR BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
AND COUNCIL BILL 1199554 AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT
IN SEATTLE REQUIRING CERTAIN
EMPLOYERS TO LIMIT ROOM CLEANING
WORKLOADS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
FOR BRIEFING DISCUSSION AND
POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> OKAY.
WONDERFUL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE NEED OUR CENTRAL STAFF OUT
HERE.
SO IF WE COULD HAVE ONE MORE
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO, THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
AND WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE
FOLKS WHO ARE HERE TO TESTIFY OR
TO SPEAK TO THE HOTEL WORKER
LEGISLATION FROM CENTRAL STAFF
TO JOIN US.
I'LL GO GRAB THEM.
>> I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S
SOME FINAL PRINTING HAPPENING
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO
HEALTH CARE AS WE GET THE
MATERIAL THAT IS COME OUT HERE.
SO WHY DON'T WE REVIEW THE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS, FINAL
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED FOR THE OTHER THREE
BILLS BRIEFLY AND THEN WE WILL
RETURN TO HEALTH CARE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, DAN EDER,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO --
>> CAN YOU HELP US GET THE ITEMS
ON THE SCREEN HERE?
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE
UP FIRST, DAN?
>> WHY DON'T WE DO PROTECTIONS
AGAINST INJURY.
OKAY.
I APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMITTEE,
BUT STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO PULL
TOGETHER THE KIND OF MATRIX
HIGHLIGHTING THE CHANGES TO THE
PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE BILL
AS WE HAVE DONE IN PAST
ITERATIONS.
>> SO FOR THE VIEWING AUDIENCE,
PROTECTION AGAINST INJURY IS
COUNCIL BILL 119954.
AND THAT'S ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
>> THERE ARE, PULLING UP ON THE
SCREEN SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S
MOSTLY UNCHANGED.
I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THE
CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO
THIS ITERATION.
MOSTLY I WOULD CHARACTER RISE
THIS AS TECHNICAL CLEANUPS.
I'M GOING TO SKIP FORWARD IN
CASE THERE ARE ANY THING THAT IS
ARE NOT MERELY REFERENCE ERRORS
OR WORDS THAT ARE JUST
OVERSIGHTS AND MISSING AND HAVE
BEEN REPLACED OR PUNCTUATION.
>>> SO DAN, DOES THIS HAVE ANY
OF THE DEFINITIONAL CHANGES THAT
WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING FOR THE
OTHER BILLS?
SUCH AS ANCILLARY BUSINESS AND
HOTEL PURPOSE INCLUDED?
>> ANCILLARY BUSINESS IS
INCLUDED.
THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE
SUBSTITUTE BUT I BELIEVE THERE
IS -- OH, I'M SORRY.
NO.
WE'RE IN -- AM I LOOKING AT THE
RIGHT BILL?
PROTECTIONS AGAINST INJURY?
WHICH BILL DID YOU SAY WE WERE
TAKING UP.
>> YOU SAID WE WERE TAKING UP
COUNCIL BILL 119954.
>> SO THIS ONE HAS NO ANCILLARY
BUSINESS DEFINITION.
>> OKAY.
WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS?
>> THEY'RE EXCLUSIVELY MISSING
WORDS, CORRECTIONS TO INTERNAL
REFERENCES AND TYPOS.
SO THIS IS PURELY TECHNICAL.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM
OUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES ON THIS
BILL?
OKAY.
SO SEEING NONE, I THINK I WOULD
LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE
COMMITTEE CONSIDER COUNCIL BILL
119554 PROTECTING HOTEL
EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER CONVERSATION?
SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
OF MOVING COUNCIL BILL 119954 AS
AMENDED FROM COMMITTEE TO FULL
COUNCIL PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED?
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY.
THAT COUNCIL BILL WILL PASS OUT
OF THIS COMMITTEE WITH A VOTE OF
4-0.
FOR FULL COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION
ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16th I
BELIEVE.
AND COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO, DID
YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> SO, I HAVE A DEFINITION
REGARDING ANCILLARY BUSINESS.
>> I THINK THE NEXT BILL WE WILL
TAKE UP WE'LL GET TO THAT.
OKAY, GREAT.
SO DAN, THANKS.
PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT OTHER
BILL YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE.
THAT WAS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR
WHICH HAS BEEN READ INTO THE
RECORD AND THEN MOVED AND VOTED
OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.
WHICH BILL NOW?
>> THE JOB RETENTION BILL.
>> THAT'S COUNCIL BILL 119556
FOR THE VIEWING AUDIENCE.
IF WE COULD GET THAT PULLED UP.
AND THAT'S ITEM NUMBER TWO ON
OUR AGENDA TODAY.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT
THE CHANGES TO THIS BILL.
AS WITH THE PREVIOUS BILL, THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF PURELY TECHNICAL
CHANGES HERE, COMMAS, DASHES,
MAKING SURE THAT THE RIGHT
CITATION IS INCLUDED IN EACH
SECTION.
THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IS
THE ADDED DEFINITION OF HOTEL
PURPOSE WHICH CLARIFIES WHAT THE
HOTEL PURPOSE IS IN THE
DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESS.
SO TO REFRESH MEMORIES,
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS MEANS
ANY BIDS THAT ROUTINELY
CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL FOR
SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
HOTEL'S PURPOSE, LEASES OR
SUBLET SPACE AT THE SITE OF THE
HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL'S
PURPOSE, OR PROVIDES FOOD AND
BEVERAGES TO HOTEL GUESTS WITHIN
THE HOTEL PREMISES.
SO THERE'S THREE KINDS OF
BUSINESSES THAT CAN BE
CONSIDERED AN ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESS.
HOTEL'S PURPOSE ON PAGE FOUR IS
DEFINED TO MEAN SERVICES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL'S
PROVISION OF SHORT-TERM LODGING.
AND THEN IT SPECIFIES EXACTLY
WHAT KINDS OF SERVICES.
AND BEFORE I READ THESE
SERVICES, I'LL MENTION THEY COME
FROM THE INDUSTRY CODE
DEFINITION OF HOW TO DEFINE A
HOTEL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.
THOSE SERVICES INCLUDE FOOD OR
BEVERAGE SERVICES, RECREATIONAL
SERVICES, CONFERENCE ROOMS,
CONVENTION SERVICES, LAUNDRY
SERVICES, AND PARKING.
FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO LOOK
UP THE CODE IT IS 721110.
>> THANK YOU.
SO WE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AT THE
LAST MEETING.
THE CODE WERE READ INTO THE
RECORD THERE.
WE CIRCULATED THE NEXT CODE TO
OUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES FOR
REFERENCE AS WELL.
WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS AN
IMPORTANT COMPONENT AS WE'VE
HEARD FROM FOLKS THAT IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT
MORE CLARITY AROUND WHAT THE
HOTEL'S PURPOSE WAS ACCORDING TO
HOW THE INDUSTRY ALSO DEFINES IT
IN OTHER AREAS.
AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE AS WE
HAD OUR ANCILLARY BUSINESS
DEFINITION WHICH REFERENCES
HOTEL PURPOSE THAT WE WERE VERY
CLEAR HERE TO HELP GUIDE RULE
MAKING AND PROVIDE GREATER
CLARITY AT THE POINT OF THE
LEGISLATION ITSELF PASSING.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, DO YOU
HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD
DESCRIPTION.
>> OKAY.
AND I KNOW WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER
LANGUAGE, COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO,
YOU REFERENCED YOUR AMENDMENT
AROUND ANCILLARY BUSINESS.
BEFORE WE MOVE TO THAT, ON HOTEL
PURPOSE, DO FOLKS HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ON THE INCLUSION OF
THIS LANGUAGE?
OKAY.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE COUNCIL
RESPONDING TO THE FEEDBACK THAT
WE DID HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY
WHICH WAS TO HELP FURTHER DEFINE
THIS AREA.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THEM ONE
BY ONE.
AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A STRIKER
BILL.
SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS
CONSIDER THE STRIKER AS A WHOLE
AS IT COMES FORWARD.
BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON
TO ANCILLARY BUSINESS
DISCUSSION.
I THINK IT TIES IN.
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO HAS AN
AMENDMENT ON THAT ANCILLARY
BUSINESS.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT IF WE
CAN.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, MAY I SUGGEST
YOU WANT TO MOVE AND TAKE ACTION
ON THE SUBSTITUTE?
>> OH, OKAY, IS THIS REALLY THE
ONLY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THIS
LEGISLATION.
>> IT IS.
I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO'S AMENDMENT IS TO THE
SUBSTITUTE.
SO IF YOU HAVE THAT AS A NEW
BASE, IT'LL WORK OUT.
>> LET'S DO THIS.
I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDER AMENDED VERSION OF
119956.
I'M SORRY.
56?
CORRECT?
IT'S BEEN SECONDED TWICE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDED
COUNCIL BILL 119954 PLEASE SAY
AYE?
ANY OPPOSED, NONE, ANY
ABSTENTIONS NONE.
WITH A O VOTE OF 4-0, THE
COMMITTEE HAS PASSED THE
RETENTION BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITH THE GOAL TO BRING THIS
FORWARD TO FULL COMMITTEE ON
SEPTEMBER 16th.
AND NOW -- I'M SO SORRY.
CAN I BRING IT BACK?
>> BRING WHAT BACK?
>> BRING THAT BACK TO THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AMENDMENT
TO THE BILL.
>> MY APOLOGIES, I THOUGHT WE
WERE VOTING ON BRINGING THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL FORWARD.
>> YES, SO THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
HAS BEEN AMENDED.
WE WILL ENTERTAIN A POTENTIAL
AMENDMENT TO THE BILL, COUNCIL
BILL 1199556.
GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER IS A
WANT.
>> JUST A PROCESS CLARIFICATION,
I THINK.
YEAH, I THINK WHAT WE DID WAS
VOTED ON YOU SUBSTITUTING THE
AMENDED VERSION IN PLACE OF THE
OIGINAL.
BUT NOW YOU'RE OPENING THE
DISCUSSION.
>> SO WE HAVE AMENDED VERSION OF
COUNCIL BILL 1199556 ON WORKER
RETENTION, SPECIFIC TO WORKER
RETENTION, COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO
HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT I THINK IS
MIRRORING THE LANGUAGE IN OTHER
COMPONENTS OF THE PACKAGE IN
FRONT OF US, BUT WE WILL TAKE
THEM ONE AT A TIME.
THIS IS RELATED TO ANCILLARY
BUSINESS AND COUNCIL BILL
1199556 ON HOTEL W
RETENTION.
COUNCILMEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SPEAK TO IT?
>> I CAN SPEAK TO IT.
JUST BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO
ADDRESS A COMMENT FROM -- THAT
WAS HEARD THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT
ABOUT NOT CARING FOR -- THAT THE
COUNCIL SHOULD CARE FOR WHAT
PEOPLE GETTING TO THE HOTELS AND
NOT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE
ARE IN THE HOTEL.
I THINK IT'S -- IT WAS THAT
SENTIMENT THAT LED TO ELECTION
AND THE PASSAGE OF INITIATIVE
124.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A
COLLECTIVE DESIRE OF THE
COMMUNITY TO TRY TO CARE FOR THE
HOTEL WORKERS, WHICH IS WHY WE
ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO START MY
COMMENTS.
I COMMEND MY COLLEAGUES FOR THE
EXTENSIVE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
AND COUNTLESS HOURS PUT INTO
IMPROVING THIS LEGISLATION.
I THINK WE FOUND GOOD MIDDLE
GROUND IN MOST CASES AND THE
COLLECTIVE DESIRE OF
INTERPRETING VOTER INTENT.
THE ONE REMAINING ISSUE THAT I
HAVE AND I BRING FOR DISCUSSION
TODAY IS VOTER INTENT AND THE
DEFINITION OF AN ANCILLARY.
I SEE HOTEL SERVICES AS
INCLUDING FUNCTIONS LIKE
LAUNDRY, HOTEL SERVICES, AND
PARKING.
SERVICE THAT IS PRIMARILY ARE
FOR HOTEL GUESTS AND NOT THE
PUBLIC.
THE LINE FOR ME IS INCLUDING
RESTAURANTS AND OTHERS LEASES
SPACE FROM A HOTEL BUILDING.
I AM FOR HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AND
WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL INDUSTRIES
PROVIDING HEALTH CARE FOR
EMPLOYEES.
I DO NOT FEEL THIS LEGISLATION
THROUGH WHICH TO DO THAT AND I
DO NOT THINK IT'S NOT WHAT
VOTERS EXPECTED.
THE GOAL IN MY AMENDMENT IS TO
NARROW THE DEFINITION OF THE
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS.
I'VE INTRODUCED THE SAME
AMENDMENT FOR EACH BILL FOR
CONSISTENCY.
THE AMENDMENT REMOVES FOOD AND
BEVERAGE AND ENTITY THAT IS
SHARE AN ENTRANCE WITH THE
HOTEL.
IT ALSO AMENDS THE DEFINITION TO
INCLUDE ROOM SERVICES INSTEAD OF
FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES, WITH
THE INTENT OF ONLY INCLUDING
BUSINESSES LEASING OR SUBLEASING
FROM THE HOTEL ONLY IF THEY ARE
PROVIDING ROOM SERVICE TO
GUESTS.
THE GOAL IS TO INCLUDE
RESTAURANT BARS OWNED AND
OPERATED BY A HOTEL OR
CONTRACTING TO PROVIDE ROOM
SERVICE TO GETSS.
RESTAURANT AND BEV
COMPANIES.
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES FOR
CONSIDERATION AND FOR PASSAGE OF
THE AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO A
CONVERSATION WE HAD AT THE LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE WE HAD
TALKED ABOUT THE INTENT TOO MAKE
SURE THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
WORKING IN THE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY BUT ARE PART OF THE
HOTEL IN THAT THEY HAVE AN
ENTRANCE INTO THE HOTEL PREMISE
AND RECOGNIZING AS WE HEARD IN
PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT MANY
PEOPLE STILL WORK IN THE HOTEL
INDUSTRY, THEY GOT THEIR STARTS
IN RESTAURANTS AND BARS AND
COFFEE SHOPS.
ONE PERSON MENTIONED A BUSBOY,
FOR EXAMPLE.
THIS IS AN ELEMENT THAT MANY
PEOPLE ANTICIPATE WHEN THEY GO
TO A HOTEL TO HAVE A RESTAURANT,
BAR, COFFEE SHOP IF THERE IS AN
ENTRANCE INTO THAT HOTEL WE'VE
GONE FAR AWAY FROM THE INITIAL
DISCUSSION AROUND BEING CLOSE TO
OR PROXIMITY OR EVEN WITHIN THE
BUILDING PREM SIS.
I THINK THAT YOUR POINT IS WELL
TAKEN ABOUT MAKING SURE WE STAY
TRUE TO THE INTENT OF THE
INITIATIVE AND THE VOTERS' WILL.
WITH 77% OF THE VOTERS
SUPPORTING THE INITIATIVE AND
THAT INCLUDED THE ADDITION OF
RESTAURANTS AND FOOD AND
BEVERAGE SERVICES.
I THINK THAT OUR EXISTING
ANCILLARY BUSINESS DEFINITION
COUPLED WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE
THAT WE'VE INCLUDED FOR HOTEL
PURPOSE, I THINK GETS AT THAT
VALUE WE SHARE THAT WE ARE IN
LINE WITH THE VISION OF THE WILL
OF THE VOTERS.
BUT I THINK THAT OUR INITIAL
LANGUAGE THAT YOU SAW FROM THE
BEGINNING REALLY DOES MEET THAT
PURPOSE.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT
FORWARD.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TODAY BUT
WOULD WELCOME ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS.
OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT
FORWARD.
AND ALSO I DO HOPE THAT WITH THE
INCLUSION OF HOTEL PURPOSE FOLKS
FEEL THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT
WE'VE PULLED FROM THE CODE WHICH
TALKS ABOUT FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICE HELPS STAY IN LINE WITH
THAT SAME VALUE.
DID YOU WANT TO MOVE THE
AMENDMENT OR DO YOU -- WOULD YOU
LIKE TO RECONSIDER?
IT'S UP TO YOU.
>> MOVE THE AMENDMENT.
>> OKAY.
THE AMENDMENT'S BEEN MOVED.
HAS IT BEEN SECONDED?
I'LL SECOND FOR THE SAKE OF
DISCUSSION.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I'M NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING TO
RAISE THE ISSUES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> IF I MAY, JUST REALLY QUICKLY
ADD.
I THINK I ALSO AM UNABLE TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
I SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY
IN THE LAST COMMITTEE HEARING.
I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT
TO INCLUDE FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICES TO HOTEL GUESTS.
FIRST AND FOREMOST IT APPEARS AS
ONE OF THE SORT OF PART OF THE
DEFINITION OF THE CODE THAT
DEFINES HOTELS PURPOSE AND ALSO
THIS THE STATE STATUTES THAT
DEFINE HOTELS AND THE SERVICES
THEY PROVIDE.
BUT ALSO I THINK THIS AMENDMENT
IS -- IT IS NOT, IS NOT
REFLECTIVE OF THE REALITY OF HOW
HOTELS OFTENTIMES MARKET AND
TALK ABOUT FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON
SITE, ON PREMISES AS AN AMENITY
TO GUESTS.
SO IN JUST A SHORT, QUICK REVIEW
ON GOOGLE IF YOU GO AND LOOK AT
MANY OF THE LOCAL HOTELS HERE IN
DOWNTOWN, YOU'LL SEE THAT ONE OF
THE THINGS THEY DO UNDER THE
AMENITIES ON THEIR WEBSITE IS
LIST ALL OF THE FOOD AND
BEVERAGE OPPORTUNITIES AND
SERVICES.
SO RESTAURANTS, COFFEE SHOPS,
WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE THAT
ARE LOCATED ON SITE AS A DIRECT
SERVICE TO THE GUESTS WHO ARE
STAYING IN LODGING AT THAT
PARTICULAR HOTEL OR WHO MIGHT BE
THERE FOR A CONFERENCE.
AND SO I THINK THAT THERE IS A
DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE
BUSINESS MODEL AND THE CHOICE OF
SITING YOUR FOOD AND BEVERAGE
LOCATION IN A HOTEL THAT IS
FUELLED BY THE MOTIVATION OF
HAVING A BUILT-IN CUSTOMER BASE
THAT WILL SUP FORT BUSINESS
CHOICE FOR LOCATING WITH THE
HOTEL.
SO AGAIN, IN MY SEARCH OF THE
INTERNET IN MY OWN PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE OF VISITING HOTELS,
IT IS VERY OFTEN THE CASE THAT
HOTELS MARKET AND ADVERTISE AS A
HOTEL AMENITY TO GUESTS OR
CONVENTION GOERS WHO ARE USING
CONFERENCE ROOMS AT THE HOTEL,
THAT IN FACT THESE BUSINESSING
ARE A DIRECT HOTEL AMENITY TO
THE INDIVIDUALS FREQUENTING
THOSE HOTELS.
I THINK THE AVERAGE CHON PERSON
HAS VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING
WHAT THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
IS BETWEEN THE BUSINESSES IN THE
HOTELS AND THE HOTEL.
AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THROUGH THIS
REGULATION THAT THERE IS BENEFIT
THERE AND THIS IS A BUSINESS
MODEL THAT EXISTS AND THAT IN
THE EVENT THAT THE CHOICES ARE
MADE TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS WAY
THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO
COVER ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES
IN THIS CONTEXT.
NOW, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE FACT
WE'VE DEFINED HOTELS PURPOSE IN
A WAY THAT FURTHER REFINES AND
NARROWS THE COVERAGE OF
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES TO
REALLY CREATE THAT DIRECT
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TYPE OF
BUSINESS THAT IS -- AND THE
SERVICE THAT IS BEING PROVIDED
AND THE ACTUAL LOCATION.
AND I THINK THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE
TO ARRIVE AT A GOOD PLACE AS IT
RELATES TO THE UNAMENDED VERSION
OF ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES.
SO I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
OUR SUBSTITUTE VERSION FOR THOSE
REASONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
I WILL ALSO NOT BE SUPPORTING
THIS AMENDMENT.
AND I SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE THAT
EXISTS IN THE SUBSTITUTE VERSION
OF THE BILL THAT WE JUST TALKED
ABOUT.
FIRST OF ALL, JUST TO ECHO SOME
OF THE POINT THAT IS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN MADE BY YOURSELF
AND COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, THAT
THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF THE
ANCILLARY.
SO IT'S COMPLETELY CONSISTENT
WITH THAT.
SECONDLY, ALSO AS WAS STATED,
THE CUSTOMER BASE OF THE
RESTAURANT ON THE HOTEL PREMISES
ARE DERIVED FOR, YOU KNOW, TO A
GREAT EXTENT FROM THE CUSTOMER
BASE OF THE HOTEL ITSELF.
AND SO THERE'S A DIRECT
CORRELATION.
BUT I ALSO WANTED TO ADD ONE
MORE THING.
YOU KNOW, ONE MORE POINT.
I MEAN, IN LIGHT OF WHAT WAS
JUST STATED, ALSO THAT A LOT OF
MOST ORDINARY PEOPLE WILL NOT
KNOW WHAT THE CONTRACTUAL
AGREEMENTS ARE BETWEEN A
RESTAURANT BASED IN HOTEL
PREMISES AND THE HOTEL ITSELF.
AND A LOT HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF
THIS IDEA THAT WHILE THESE ARE
SMALL BUSINESSES AND YOU SHOULD
NOT BE INCLUDING THEM IN THE
DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY
BUSINESS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S
TRUE IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S NOT
LIKE A SMALL COFFEE SHOP IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT.
WE'LL HAVE THE WHERE WITH ALL TO
SET UP AT THE SHERATON.
THAT'S NOT HAPPENING.
WE HAVE TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT A TRADITION
A.M.
SMALL BUSINESS STRUGTOLOGY
GET BY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND
DOES NOT HAVE AN EXPENSIVE HOTEL
WITH AN UPPER CLASS CLIENTELE
THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY SORT OF
LEADING INTO YOUR RESTAURANT AS
A CUSTOMER BASE.
SO I THINK JUST MAKING A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT WE
TRADITIONALLY THINK OF AS SMALL
BUSINESS THAT IS ARE FINDING IT
HARD TO GET BY, WHICH IS TRUE,
AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOCATED
ON HOTEL PREMISES.
I THINK THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE
TYPES OF BUSINESSES WE ARE
LOOKING AT.
WITH THAT IN MIND, IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE FOOD
AND BEVERAGE AS PECT IN THE
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS
DEFINITION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO, ANY OTHER
COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO FOR A
VOTE?
>> YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I COMMEND MY
COLLEAGUES JUST FOR THE
EXTENSIVE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE
IN TRYING TO INTERPRET VOTER
INTENT.
WE'RE -- I'VE BEEN A PART OF A
FEW OF THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
WHERE I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO MY
BEST AS TO TRY TO BOTH INTERPRET
WHAT WE HEARD FROM VOTERS, THE
MESSAGING THAT WAS GIVEN TO
VOTERS, AND WHEN I HEAR THE
RESTAURANT OWNER THAT IS HAVE
COME BEFORE US, I TRY TO BE
MINDFUL OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
THEY PRICE OF DEMAND FOR
RESTAURANTS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO BOTH
BE INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHO WE'RE
IMPACTING AND THE INDUSTRIES
THAT WE'RE IMPACTING.
SO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> I WAS GOING TO RESPOND TO
THAT REALLY QUICKLY.
I DON'T WANT THIS VOTE TO BE
INTERPRETED ON THIS AMENDMENT AS
SOMEHOW WE HAVE DISREGARD FOR
THE RESTAURANT AND FOOD AND
BEVERAGE INDUSTRY.
THAT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM
THE CASE FOR ME PERSONALLY.
YOU KNOW, MY HUSBAND'S IN THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY.
HAS BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY FOR 20 YEARS.
WORKED HIS WAY UP FROM WASHING
DISHES TO NOW BEING A GENERAL
MANAGER AT A VERY POPULAR
RESTAURANT WHICH I WILL NOT
MENTION BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL WANT
RESERVATIONS.
BUT I TAKE REALLY SERIOUSLY THIS
INDUSTRY AND THE WORKERS IN THIS
INDUSTRY IN LARGE PART BECAUSE I
CONSIDER MY FAMILY TO BE PART OF
THAT INDUSTRY BY VIRTUE OF THE
TWO DECADES THAT MY OWN HUSBAND
HAS WORKED IN THIS INDUSTRY.
AN INDUSTRY THAT HE TRULY,
DEEPLY LOVES AND APPRECIATES AND
REALLY ENJOYS WORKING IN.
I SPENT A LOT OF MY TIME TALKING
TO WORKERS AND OWNERS IN THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY IN MY OWN
PERSONAL TIME BECAUSE OF THAT
CONNECTION.
AND I UNDERSTAND PROFOUNDLY HOW
IMPORTANT THIS INDUSTRY IS TO
OUR ECONOMY AND TO WORKERS.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WORKERS
IN THIS INDUSTRY REALLY DEEPLY
WANT TO BE TREATED WELL IN THE
WORK PLACE AND THEY WANT TO BE
GIVEN A FAIR SHAKE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO BE
RESILIENT AND SUCCESSFUL IN THIS
INDUSTRY.
THIS IS IN MY MIND NOT A CHOICE
BETWEEN WHETHER WE WANT TO
SUPPORT THE WORKERS OR WHETHER
WE WANT TO SUPPORT THE SERVICE
INDUSTRY.
IT'S AN ECOSYSTEM.
AND I THINK THAT THIS BILL AND
THE INTENTION OF THIS BILL AND
ALL OF THESE BILLS TOGETHER
REALLY IN MY MIND CREATES, YOU
KNOW, GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR
THAT RESILIENCE TO CONTINUE TO
OCCUR IN A WAY THAT REALLY
BEGINS THE PROCESS OF EQUALIZING
THE PLAYING FIELD FOR WORKERS
WHO ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTED BY A LACK OF
PROTECTIONS IN THIS SPACE.
SO I CONTINUE TO APPRECIATE THE
INTENT WITH WHICH YOU'RE
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD, BUT
I FEEL VERY STRONGLY FROM MY OWN
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT IT IS
RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THESE
INDUSTRIES DO RIGHT BY THEIR
EMPLOYEES.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY
DON'T, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I
THINK THAT THESE BILLS TOGETHER
ACCOMPLISH A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
FOR ALL TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE
SUCCESS AND SEE THE PRODUCT OF
THE HARD WORK THAT EVERYBODY IS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE SUCCESS OF
THAT SYSTEM.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER, FOR
YOUR ROBUST DISCUSSION ON THIS
AND AGAIN FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
-- GONZALEZ'S COMMENTS ALONG
WITH COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
SUMMARIZE MY SENTIMENT ON THIS
WHICH I MENTIONED EARLIER.
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT
FORWARD, BUT I AM OPTIMISTIC,
HOPEFUL, AND CONFIDENT THAT THE
LANGUAGE WE'VE INCLUDED IN
ESPECIALLY HOTEL PURPOSE ALONG
WITH THE ANCILLARY DEFINITION
GETS AT THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE
HOTEL AND THE INDUSTRIES THAT
ARE SERVING THE HOTEL.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, IF
THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
THAT WE CONSIDER AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE TO JOB RETENTION BILL
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDED DEFINITION PLEADS SAY
AYE.
ONE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
NONE.
THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS BY
A VOTE OF 1-3.
THAT MEANS WE DO HAVE THE
EXISTING UNDERLYING BILL THAT WE
HAVE AMENDED THAT WE ARE GOING
TO NOW VOTE OUT OF COMMITTEE.
THAT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER TWO,
COUNCIL BILL 119556 AS AMENDED
BY THIS COMMITTEE.
I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE MOVE
THE AMENDED COUNCIL BILL FROM
COMMITTEE TO FULL COUNCIL.
OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED?
NONE.
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
NONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO.
I KNOW YOU HAVE ANOTHER MEETING
YOU HAVE TO RUN TO.
THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING OUR
CITY WELL THERE AND BRINGING
THAT AMENDMENT FORWARD.
I WANT TO CONFIRM WITH HIM THAT
HE IS WANTING TO PULL THE -- THE
OTHER TWO AMENDMENTS GIVEN THE
VOTE?
DO YOU MIND?
THANK YOU BRIANNA, SORRY TO ASK
YOU TO DO THAT.
ONE MORE BILL TO CONSIDER BEFORE
A DISCUSSION ON THE HEALTH CARE
BILL.
I BELIEVE IT'S ITEM NUMBER
THREE.
IT'S COUNCIL BILL 119557 RELATED
TO SAFETY PROTECTIONS.
DAN OR CARINA ARE YOU ABLE TO
WALK US THROUGH THAT?
>> I'LL CONTINUE.
SO THIS BILL HAS A NUMBER OF
PURELY TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
AGAIN, DASHES, COMMAS, AND
MAKING SURE THAT THE WORDS IN A
COUPLE OF SITUATIONS ACCURATELY
REFLECT THE INTENT.
VERY MINIMAL TECHNICAL CHANGES.
THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IS
THE ADDITION OF A DEFINITION FOR
HOTEL'S PURPOSE, WHICH IS THE
SAME DEFINITION THAT IS IN JOB
RETENTION BILL AND THE ANCILLARY
HOTEL BUSINESS DEFINITION IS THE
SAME DEFINITION THAT'S IN THE
JOB RETENTION BILL AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY QUESTIONS?
I WANT TO SAY A QUICK THANK YOU.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
ENGAGEMENT ON THIS ISSUE
SPECIFIC TO HOTEL SAFETY
PROTECTONS.
I'M PARTICULARLY PROUD OF THE
POLICY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE IN LAST COMMITTEE THAT NO
LONGER ASK FOR THE HOTEL TO DO
AN INVESTIGATION, NO LONGER
QUOTE UNQUOTE BANS A GUEST BUT
STILL PROTECTS ALL THE WORKERS
IN THE HOTEL FROM ACCUSED
HARASSERS.
AND I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE
THAT WE HAVE CAREFULLY WORKED
WITH THE FOLKS AT THE KING
COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT AND
PREVENTION COALITION AND THE
PROSECUTORS, KING COUNTY
PROSECUTORS ALONG WITH THE FOLKS
HERE AT CENTRAL STAFF AND OUR
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, YOU ALL HAVE
HELPED TO MAKE THIS AT LEAST
INCLUDE SOME OF THE BASIC
PROTECTIONS WE'D LIKE TO SEE.
SO SOME OF THESE VULNERABLE
WORKERS DON'T END UP IN THE
SITUATIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM
THE BEGINNING OF THIS
DISCUSSION, PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL
TO COUNCIL.
SO I DO THINK THAT WHILE THE
POLICY CONTENT HAS CHANGED
SLIGHTLY, THE PROTECTIONS THAT
WE'VE INCLUDED ESPECIALLY WITH
SOME OF THE GUIDANCE FROM THE
ACLU, ONE AMERICA, REWALK, ET
CETERA HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL.
SO THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AND
AGAIN THANKS TO OUR TEAMS.
BRIANNA AND SAGEL, SAGEL SPENT
TIME CHECKING IN WITH
STAKEHOLDERS, SO THANKS FOR
MAKING THESE FINAL EDITS
POSSIBLE.
WE APPRECIATE THE CONTENT OF THE
BILL.
AS YOU HEARD FROM KARINA,
THERE'S NOT A TON OF SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES.
SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS
ON THIS SECTION ON HOTEL SAFETY?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE, I'D LIKE TO MOVE
THE COMMITTEE AMEND COUNCIL BILL
119957 BY SUBSTITUTING
INSTITUTION D8 FOR D5.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
OF COUNCIL BILL 119957 AMENDED
VERSION D5, I'M SORRY, AMENDED
VERSION D8.
PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED?
>> TOO MANY VERSIONS.
>> ANY OPPOSED?
NONE.
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
NONE.
WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND THE
COMMITTEE MOVE TO FULL COUNCIL
COUNCIL BILL 119957 AS RECOMMEND
FOR THE FULL CONSIDERATION ON
SEPTEMBER 16th.
EXCELLENT.
SO CENTRAL STAFF, THAT GETS US
THROUGH THE THREE BILLS THAT WE
HAD PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND
DISCUSSED.
AND BEFORE WE MOVE TO HEALTH
CARE, COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT,
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, I'D LIKE
TO TAKE A QUICK RECESS.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PRINTING IN
THE LAST 24 HOURS, AND I WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL OF OUR
MATERIALS SET UP FOR US TO GO
INTO THIS DISCUSSION.
AND ACCORDING TO THE CLERK, WE
ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE A RECESS.
FOLKS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE,
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STAY.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST A
15 MINUTES RECESS.
SO PLEASE DO STAY AND MAYBE
SOONER.
WE CAN COME BACK, LET ME GIVE A
SPECIFIC TIME.
10:20.
1:20 --
>> THAT WOULD BE A LONG RECESS.
>> AT 10:20 WE WILL RECONVENE.
CENTRAL STAFF, IF YOU COULD JOIN
US TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE
MATERIALS IN PLACE.
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, I APOLOGIZE
FOR THE DELAY.
WE'VE BEEN DRINKING FROM A FIRE
HOSE.
LET'S GET THE MATERIALS IN HAND
AND WE WILL KEEP THIS COMMITTEE
OPEN.
IT HAS NOT BEEN CLOSED OUT.
AND THE VIEWING AUDIENCE IS
WELCOME TO STAY.
WE'LL BE BACK AT 10:20.
THANK YOU.
>>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WELCOME BACK, EVERYONE.
IT IS 10:26.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING A SHORT
RECESS.
AND WITHOUT FURTHER ADO WE ARE
GOING TO CONSIDER THE HOTEL
WORKER LEGISLATION RELATED TO
HEALTH CARE.
DAN AND KARINA, YOU HAVE SOME
OPPORTUNITIES TO WALK US THROUGH
A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS ON THIS.
AND WE WILL GET INTO SOME OF THE
POLICY DETAILS.
AND I HAVE SOME COMMENTS
SPECIFIC TO HEALTH CARE AFTER
YOU WALK US THROUGH SOME OF THE
OVERARCHING AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN INCLUDED.
FOR THE VIEWING AUDIENCE, WE'RE
GOING TO BE LOOKING AT D4, WHICH
WAS POSTED TO THE AGENDA AS
WELL.
WE'RE GOING TO GET IT ON THE
SCREEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
KARINA, IF YOU WOULD BEGIN
WALKING US THROUGH THAT, THAT
WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
>> THANK YOU.
IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, TO MAKE SURE
I'M MEETING YOUR INTENT, I WAS
GOING TO GO THROUGH THE BILL AS
THE CHANGES APPEAR IN THE BILL.
>> I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT?
>> I WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH THE
BILL AND TALK ABOUT THE CHANGES
AS THEY APPEAR IN THE ORDER THAT
THEY APPEAR.
>> YEP, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
>> SO THE FIRST CHANGE IS IN THE
RECITAL SECTION, IT'S ADDING THE
WORD ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
RECOGNIZING THAT ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION TO PAY FOR HIGH
QUALITY AFFORDABLE HEALTH
COVERAGE CAN CREATE GREATER WORK
PLACE SATISFACTION AND HAS OTHER
BENEFITS AS WELL.
THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IS
ALSO REFLECTED IN THE INTENT
SECTION.
I'LL GET TO THAT IN A MOMENT.
IN THE DEFINITIONS, WE'RE
LOOKING NOW AT PAGE TWO.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEW
DEFINITIONS.
FIRST THE ADDITION OF ANCILLARY
HOTEL BUSINESS, WHICH WAS NOT
DEFINED WHEN THIS BILL WAS LAST
CONSIDERED.
THE DEFINITION THAT YOU SEE NOW
MATCHES THE SAME ONE THAT'S IN
JOB RETENTION AND SAFETY
PROTECTIONS.
MOVING ON.
ANNUAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD IS A
DEFINITION THAT IS ADDED TO HELP
CLARIFY THE MEANING OF
QUALIFYING LIFE EVENT.
THIS DEFINITION REFLECTS PRETTY
MUCH THE SAME LANGUAGE AS IS
SEEN IN THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT.
I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE GOING
ON.
IF FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE
LET ME KNOW.
ON PAGE THREE THERE'S A
DEFINITION OF COVERED EMPLOYER.
SIMPLY STATING THAT COVERED
EMPLOYER MEANS AN EMPLOYER WHO
MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR COVERAGE
IN THIS LAW.
MOVING ON TO PAGE FOUR.
THE DEFINITION FOR GOLD LEVEL
EQUIVALENT IS STRUCK BECAUSE IT
IS NO LONGER USED IN THIS
VERSION.
HEALTH COVERAGE ALSO ON THE SAME
PAGE HAS A DEFINITION.
HOTEL'S PURPOSE IS ADDED AGAIN,
REFLECTING THE SAME DEFINITION
OF HOTEL'S PURPOSE IN JOB
RETENTION AND SAFETY PROTECTIONS
PILLS.
HOURS IS ADD.
THIS DEFINITION ACTUALLY IS
ALREADY IN THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS RULES FOR INITIATIVE
124 14.25.
AND THIS DEFINITION IS HELPFUL
FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HOURS
THEY COUNT WHEN THEY'RE
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'VE WORKED AN AVERAGE OF 80
HOURS TO BE COVERED BY THIS LAW.
ON PAGE FIVE IS A DEFINITION OF
QUALIFYING LIFE EVENT.
IT IS MOVED TO BE IN
ALPHABETICAL ORDER FROM THE END
OF THE LIST TO HERE IN ITS
CORRECT ALPHABETICAL PLACEMENT.
THIS DEFINITION IS DIFFERENT
THAN THE LAST ONE IN THAT IT'S A
LITTLE MORE OPEN AND BROADER.
GIVES MORE LATITUDE FOR
QUALIFYING LIFE EVENT.
RATE OF INFLATION IS ADDED.
THIS RATE OF INFLATION IS THE
SAME DEFINITION THAT IS USED IN
úALL OF THE LABOR STANDARDS HERE
IN SEATTLE.
IT'S WHAT THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS USES TO INCREASE ITS
CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES EACH
YEAR.
SPECIAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD IS
DEFINED ON PAGE SIX.
AGAIN, REFLECTING LANGUAGE THAT
IS SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THAT'S ALL FOR DEFINITIONS.
MOVING TO PAGE SEVEN AND THE
INTENT.
AS I PREVIEWED IT IS CLARIFIED
THAT THE INTENT OF THIS LAW IS
TO PROVIDE ADDITION -- EMPLOYEES
ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY
AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE
THROUGH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
THAT'S A KEY TERM, ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION.
ON PAGE SEVEN, THERE ARE SOME
CLARIFICATIONS ON WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN AN EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WAIVE THEIR
COVERAGE BY THIS LAW AND THAT
WOULD HAPPEN IN A SITUATION
WHERE THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
HEALTH COVERAGE FROM ANOTHER
SOURCE THAN THEIR EMPLOYER AND
THEY WOULD RATHER MAINTAIN THAT
COVERAGE THAN BE COVERED BY THIS
LAW.
AND WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS
THAT IT CLARIFIES THAT WHEN AN
EMPLOYEE SAYS THAT THEY WISH NOT
TO BE COVERED BY THIS LAW, THE
EMPLOYER MUST OFFER THEM A
WAIVER FREE OF COERCION UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE
EMPLOYEE DOES HAVE ACCESS TO
THAT HIGH QUALITY AND AFFORDABLE
HEALTH COVERAGE FROM A DIFFERENT
SOURCE.
AND THAT THE EMPLOYER MUST OFFER
THE WAIVER ON A FORM ISSUED BY
THE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS
AND PROVIDE THE EMPLOYEE WITH
WRITTEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE
RIGHT THAT IS THEY ARE NO LONGER
GOING TO BE COVERED BY.
IT IS, I THINK, THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THIS IS
THAT THE EMPLOYER'S NOT REQUIRED
TO OBTAIN THE WAIVER.
INSTEAD THEY ARE OFFERING THAT
WAIVER TO THE EMPLOYEE.
MOVING ON.
THE NEXT ROUND OF SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES ARE ON PAGE TEN UNDER
14.28.OF 0.
REQUIRED HEALTH CARE
EXPENDITURES FOR COVERED
EMPLOYEES.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE UP FRONT
THE WAY THESE TRACKED CHANGES
SHOW UP CAN BE HARD TO FOLLOW.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH TRACKED
CHANGES, COMPUTERS DO WHACKY
THINGS.
I HAVE A CLEAN VERSION HERE I
MIGHT REFER TO AT CERTAIN TIMES.
SO MOST SIGNIFICANTLY IN SECTION
A ARE THE AMOUNTS OF THE
REQUIRED HEALTH CARE
EXPENDITURE.
WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THAT THESE
AMOUNTS ARE LOWER THAN WHAT WAS
VOTED ON LAST TIME.
LAST TIME THE AMOUNTS HAD A 20%
HAIR CUT FROM THE AMOUNTS THAT
WERE IN THE ORIGINAL BILL.
THESE AMOUNTS REFLECT A 25% HAIR
CUT OF THE AMOUNTS IN THE
ORIGINAL BILL.
SO IT GOES DOWN TO $420 FOR A
SINGLE EMPLOYEE.
$714 FOR AN EMPLOYEE WITH ONLY
DEPENDENTS.
$840 AN260.
ALSO IN SECTION B THE ORDINANCE
SAYS THAT COVERED EMPLOYERS HAVE
THE DISCRETION AS TO DECIDE HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS MONTHLY
REQUIRED HEALTH CARE
EXPENDITURE.
THE ORDINANCE ALREADY SETS FORTH
THAT THEY CAN DO IT THROUGH
CASH, ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION,
HEALTH CARE SERVICES MADE TO ON
THIS NOR HALF OF COVERED
EMPLOYEES.
AND IN NUMBER TWO, IT DID SAY
IT'S BEEN BROADENED.
SO IT'S NOT JUST HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS.
IT INCLUDES TAX FAVORED HEALTH
PROGRAMS.
THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES INCLUDED
IN THE LANGUAGE OF WHAT TAX
FAVORED HEALTH PROGRAMS COULD
BE.
THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF
REMOVED LANGUAGE UNDER NUMBER
THREE.
AND IF IT GOES ON TO PAGE 12 IT
BEGINS IF A COVERED EMPLOYER
MAKES ITS MONTHLY REQUIRED
HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES.
THIS LANGUAGE IS REFERENCING
SITUATIONS WHEN AN EMPLOYER IS
MAKING THEIR MONTHLY REQUIRED
HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURE THROUGH
AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN AND
THE PLAN HAS A WAITING PERIOD.
WHICH IS, OF COURSE, COMMON TO
MOST PLANS.
WHAT HAPPENS THEN WITH THE
EMPLOYEE'S COVERAGE UNDER THIS
LAW AND THE LOER'S REQUIREMENT
TO PROVIDE THAT MONTHLY PAYMENT
OF SOME KIND.
SO THIS JUST CLARIFIES THAT, THE
BASIC PREMISE OF IT IS THE SAME.
IF THERE'S A WAITING PERIOD, THE
EMPLOYEE IS NOT COVERED WITHIN
60 DAYS OF THE HIRE OR WITH THE
EXPIRATION OF THE WAITING
PERIOD.
NEXT ON PAGE 12 IS A SECTION
THAT, AGAIN, IS HARD TO READ.
BUT I'M GOING GO AHEAD AND LOOK
AT IT FROM THE ACCEPTED CHANGES
VERSION.
THIS IS A SITUATION IN D WHERE
AN EMPLOYER HAS MADE AN OFFER
FOR THE MONTHLY REQUIRED HEALTH
CARE EXPENDTURE THAT FULLY
SATISFIES ALL THE OBLIGATIONS OF
THE AMOUNT THAT NEEDS TO BE
REACHED AND THE EMPLOYER HAS
OFFERED A WAY OF PAYING THAT
AMOUNT TO THE EMPLOYEE THROUGH
ITS OWN DECISION TO DO IT
THROUGH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION,
TAX FAVORED HEALTH PLAN,
PROVIDING AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED
PLAN OR SOME COMBINATION OF
THOSE.
IF WHAT THE EMPLOYER'S OFFER
DOES DOES SATISFY ALL OF THOSE
REQUIREMENTS AND THE EMPLOYEE
DECLINES THAT OFFER, THEN THE
EMPLOYEE IS -- DOESN'T HAVE A
RIGHT TO GET THAT AMOUNT UNDER
THIS LAW.
AND THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO
OFFER A WAIVER THAT'S SIMILAR TO
THE OTHER WAIVER HAS A FORM
ISSUED BY OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS AND GIVE THE EMPLOYEE
WRITTEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE
RIGHTS THAT THEY ARE WAIVING.
AND OF COURSE, THE WAIVER MUST
BE FREE FROM COERCION AND UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY.
AFTER THIS I BELIEVE THAT MOST
OF THE CHANGES ARE TECHNICAL.
BUT DO WANT TO BRING ATTENTION
THAT THE REMOVAL OF AN EXEMPTION
FROM THE LAW IF AN EMPLOYER IS
OFFERING A GOLD LEVEL EQUIVALENT
HEALTH CARE PLAN.
THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE
LAST VERSION.
SO THE WAY THAT AN EMPLOYER
MIGHT NOT HAVE TO MAKE THIS
PAYMENT IS IF THE EMPLOYEE
DECLINES THE WAY THAT THE
EMPLOYER'S OFFERING THEIR
MONTHLY HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURE
OR IF THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY
THE LAW AT ALL BECAUSE THEY
RECEIVE COVERAGE FROM ANOTHER
SOURCE.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING
ELSE?
>> ONE MORE THING.
THIS IS IMPORTANT, I'M GLAD YOU
ASKED.
THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEN THIS WAS LAST PASSED, IT
WAS APRIL OF 2020 AND IT HAS
BEEN EXTENDED FOR ANCILLARY
HOTEL BUSINESSES WITH BETWEEN 50
AND 250 EMPLOYEE THAT IS
CONTRACT, LEASE, OR SUBLEASE
WITH THE HOTEL AS OF THE DATE OF
PASSAGE OF THIS LAW.
FOR THOSE EMPLOYERS, THIS WILL
TAKE EFFECT ON THE LATER OF JULY
1, 025.
OR THE EARLIEST ANNUAL OPEN
ENROLLMENT PERIOD AFTER JULY 1
OF 2025.
FOR ALL OTHER COVERED EMPLOYERS,
THIS LAW WILL GO INTO EFFECT ON
JULY 1, 2020 OR THE EARLIEST
ANNUAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD FOR
HEALTH COVERAGE AFTER THAT DATE.
SO THERE IS MORE TIME FOR
EMPLOYERS TO GET READY FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS LAW AND
FOR WORKERS TO KNOW THEIR
RIGHTS.
>> AND THAT'S IN HARMONY WITH
WHAT WE DID IN THE OTHER
LEGISLATION.
>> CORRECT.
>> WE WANTED TO HARMONIZE THAT
DATE.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION AND THEN
I'D LOVE TO OPEN IT UP TO
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES.
YOU MENTIONED THE 80 HOUR A WEEK
THRESHOLD.
I BELIEVE IT'S ON PAGE SEVEN OF
D4.
AND I'M NOT SEEING IT JUMP OUT
AT THE PAGE AT ME.
>> SURE.
IT'S AFTER LINE FIVE ON PAGE
SEVEN.
>> OKAY.
THANKS, DAN, FOR SCROLLING BACK
TO THAT.
SO WE DID HEAR SOME PUBLIC
COMMENT AROUND HOW 80 HOURS A
WEEK IS CALCULATED AND I KNOW WE
HAVE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN
THERE A REFERENCE TO RULE MAKING
AND DIRECTORS RULE.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT HOW THAT 80 HOUR A WEEK
THRESH -- SORRY, 80 HOUR
úTHRESHOLD COULD POTENTIALLY BE
CALCULATED BY THE FOLKS AT LABOR
STANDARDS.
ANY ADDITIONAL INSIGHT INTO HOW
THAT MAY BE COUNTED OR OPTIONS
THEY HAVE AS THEY LOOK AT THAT?
>> I BELIEVE THE THAT THE OFFICE
OF LABOR STANDARDS IS GOING TO
BE THE EXPERT ON HOW TO
CALCULATE THAT.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THEIR
RULES DO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
DAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO
ADD?
>> NO.
I THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE WAY 124 APPROACHED THE SAME
PROVISION TO DETERMINE WHO WAS
GOING TO BE COVERED.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE WERE RULES
FOR 124.
BUT I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY HOW THIS PARTICULAR ITEM
WAS TREATED.
>> OKAY.
SO I WOULD LOVE TO FOLLOW UP
WITH OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS
SO WE CAN ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS
THAT CAME UP TODAY AND PREVIOUS
DISCUSSIONS AROUND LABOR
STANDARDS LEGISLATION WHEN WE'VE
HAD SIMILAR TYPES OF
CALCULATIONS, OFFICE OF LABOR'S
STANDARDS HAVE OFTEN LOOKED AT
AN AVERAGE.
SO IF ONE MONTH SOMEBODY WORKS
75 HOURS AND ANOTHER MONTH 85
HOURS, IF THERE IS AN AVERAGE
THEY LOOK BACK UPON, THAT WOULD
BE HELPFUL TO KNOW.
I ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL
FOR US TO HAVE A SENSE OF OUR
INTENT.
I THINK OUR INTENT AS THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY AND
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN
TALKING TO US WANT TO ENSURE
SIMILAR COVERAGE.
SO SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS
CONVERSATIONS, WE JUST WANT
THERE TO BE CONTINUITY.
AND I THINK WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH
THE QUESTION AROUND CONTINUE
NEWT OF HOW THIS 80 HOUR
THRESHOLD IS APPLIED.
IT IS A VALID QUESTION THAT'S
BEEN ASKED, AND I WANT TO
ADDRESS IT AS IT COMES FORWARD
ON MONDAY.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.
THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE
IS IS THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENT
YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER
TODAY?
WE HAD INITIALLY THOUGHT ABOUT
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
I BELIEVE THOSE HAVE BEEN ALL
PULLED.
THIS WOULD BE THE CONTENT OF
WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY.
OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, YOU HAVE
BEEN GREAT ABOUT ARTICULATING
THE FACT THAT WE WOULDN'T BE IN
THIS SITUATION IF WE HAD
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.
AND WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS
SITUATION WHERE HEALTH CARE IS
BECOMING INCREASINGLY EXPENSIVE.
AND WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE
SITUATION WHERE EMPLOYEES ARE
HAVING TO BARGAIN.
IT SEEMS IT'S WOORT ELEVATING
THOSE POINTS AGAIN AS WE THINK
ABOUT FINAL PASSAGE OF THIS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON
THAT?
I THINK IT'S A POINT WELL TAKEN
AND SOME, FRANKLY, EMPLOYERS
HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED THAT IF WE
HAD A BETTER SYSTEM NATIONWIDE
OR AT THE STATE LEVEL, WE
POTENTIALLY WOULDN'T BE IN THIS
SITUATION.
I'D LOVE FOR YOU TO COMMENT ON
THAT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
I APPRECIATE YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOS CAY DA, INCLUDING THIS.
AS YOU SAID, WE'VE MADE THESE
POINTS BEFORE.
I BELIEVE ALL THREE OF US HAVE
MADE THOSE POINTS.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
REITERATE BECAUSE IF WE HAVE HAD
A REAL MEDICAID FOR ALL SYSTEM
IN THIS NATION THEN WE --
NEITHER EMPLOYERS NOR WORKER
WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THIS
WOULDN'T BE A TOPIC OF
CONVERSATION FOR EITHER OF US
BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE GUARANTEED
QUALITY HEALTH CARE REGARDLESS
OF WHERE YOU WORKED.
EVEN IF YOU WERE ON DISABILITY,
YOU WOULD HAVE HEALTH CARE NEEDS
GUARANTEED.
AND ESPECIALLY I THINK WE SHOULD
MENTION THE NEEDS OF WOMEN AND
THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY
THE TRANS COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
BUT I ALSO THINK THIS IS A GOOD
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ALSO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THE COMPANIES AND
THE EMPLOYERS WHO ARE MAYBE NOT
THRILLED ABOUT THIS TO KEEP IN
MIND THAT THE BEST WAY THAT YOU
CAN ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IS THE
SAME WAY THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING
TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, YOU KNOW,
IN THE MOVEMENTS, WHICH IS
FIGHTING FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL.
AND ULTIMATELY YOU ARE ALSO
GETTING SQUEEZED BY THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND THE
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND THE
ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM
IS TO UNITE ON THAT BASIS.
BUT IT CANNOT BE ON THE BACKS OF
WORKERS.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S
ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE
HAPPENING.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE BARE
MINIMUM THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL
SHOULD BE DOING IN OUR CITY TO
PROTECT OUR HOTEL WORKERS, SOME
OF THE MOST VULNERABLE WORKERS.
AND NO, YOU KNOW, BOOKS CAN BE
BALANCED ON THE BACKS OF
WORKERS.
AND IF THIS IS BURDENSOME WE
SHOULD MAYBE FOR SOME EMPLOYERS
IT ACTUALLY POINTS TOWARDS THE
NEED FOR US TO YOU NEAT TO
MEDICARE FOR ALL WHICH IS
URGENTLY NEEDED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE YOU RAISING THAT
POINT EARLIER, AND WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WAS INCLUDED AS
THE FRAMING OF THIS WE ARE
REALLY INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE
THAT IF THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY
OF GETTING EXTRA DOLLARS IN HAND
FOR PEOPLE TO POTENTIALLY
PURCHASE ON THE EXCHANGE, THAT'S
AN OPTION.
BUT THAT WE ALSO LOOK AT WHAT WE
CAN DO HOLISTICALLY ACROSS THE
STATE.
SOME FOLKS ARE IN VERY DEMANDING
POSITIONS HAVE ACCESS TO
COMPREHENSIVE CARE AND THAT THEY
HAVE THE MEANS TO PURCHASE IT.
THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT.
SPEAKING OF THE MEANS TO
PURCHASE IT.
HOPEFULLY GETTING THAT ELEMENT
OUT OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL AND AT THE STATE
AND NATIONAL LEVEL.
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL WE'LL HAVE
MORE CONVERSATIONS NEXT YEAR
ABOUT LOOKING AT WHAT SAN
FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES HAVE
DONE AROUND REGIONAL HEALTH PLAN
CONCEPTS AND LOOKING FORWARD TO
WORK WITH YOU ON THAT TOO TO SEE
WHAT WE CAN DO LOCALLY.
>> I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT, YEAH.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO SORT OF JUMP
IN WITH SOME PIECES HERE AND
THEN MAYBE CONCLUDE WITH SOME
THANK YOUS.
BUT I THINK FOLKS KNOW THAT THE
BILL THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US
HAS HAD TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
FEEDBACK AS YOU HEARD A LOT OF
PEOPLE HAVE PROVIDED US WITH
EDITS, DIRECT LINE ITEM EDITS,
CONCEPT EDITS.
WE'VE RECEIVED NUMEROUS CALLS
FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS A
WHOLE.
AND I TAKE TO HEART SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT
NOT ALL OF THOSE IDEAS BEING
INCORPORATED IN THIS LAST BILL.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A SINCERE
EFFORT TO INCLUDE FEEDBACK, AND
YOUR FEEDBACK HAS BEEN RECEIVED,
APPRECIATED, AND WHILE NOT ALL
OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE
DISCUSSED OVER THE LAST 11 WEEKS
HAS BEEN INCLUDED, IT HAS BEEN A
VERY VERY TREMENDOUS HONOR TO
WORK WITH ALL OF YOU AS YOU'VE
PROVIDED THAT FEEDBACK SPECIFIC
TO THE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION.
IT'S SOMETHING I KNOW WE ARE
INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE WORKS
WELL AND WE WILL CONTINUE
BETWEEN NOW AND MONDAY ON
GETTING ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK.
OUR INTENT IS TO REALLY MAKE
SURE THAT THE FOLKS WHO ARE
GOING WITH HOURS AND HOURS OF
WORKING WHETHERS THE WITHIN THE
RESTAURANT NEXT -- IN THE HOTEL
IN PROXIMITY TO THE HOTEL.
THE FOLKS WHO ARE PUTTING THEIR
BODIES ON THE LINE WITH MAKING
SURE WE HAVE ACCESS TO CLEAN AND
HEALTHY HOTELS, WE WANT THEM TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO
PURCHASE HIGH QUALITY HEALTH
CARE AND/OR HAVE IT OFFERED.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS AN
ATTEMPT TO TRY TO GET US AWAYS.
YOU HEARD STEPHAN MENTION THIS
IS A GOOD FIRST STEP.
YOU MENTIONED THIS WAS A GOOD
FIRST STEP.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO RUN THE
LANGUAGE HERE THROUGH
STAKEHOLDERS AND OTHERS BETWEEN
NOW AND MONDAY.
I'M DIETED ABOUT SOME OF THE
WORK WE HAVE DONE TO MAKE SURE
THAT THOSE ESPECIALLY WHO HAVE
HIGHER RATES OF INJURY IN COAL
MINERS AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO SEE A
DOCTOR, HAVE PREVENTIVE CARE AND
EMERGENCY CARE AS WELL.
I THINK WE ARE MOVING THE BALL
FORWARD.
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ALL OF THE
ELEMENTS WE'VE HEARD OVER THE
LAST FEW MONTHS, BUT I'M REALLY
APPRECIATIVE THAT FOLKS HAVE
ENGAGED WITH US, AND I HOPE WILL
CONTINUE TO AS WE FINALIZE THIS
PROCESS, AND PROBABLY MORE
IMPORTANTLY AS WE THINK ABOUT
RULE MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION
AND OVERVIEW.
THIS HAS BEEN A LABOR OF LOVE TO
GET THIS HEALTH CARE PIECE IN
FRONT OF YOU ALL TODAY.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK AND
JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY
APPRECIATION FOR ALL THOSE WHO
HAVE WRITTEN AND PROVIDED US
WITH CONTENT.
I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYBODY IS
SATISFIED WITH WHAT THEY SEE IN
FRONT OF THEM AND I ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT AND APPRECIATE THEIR PAST
WORK.
SO I'LL SAVE MY OTHER THANK YOUS
FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN PART
OF THAT LABOR OF LOVE IN A
MOMENT.
BUT WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ IF YOU
HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.
>> SURE.
I WANT TO QUICKLY ADDRESS A
QUICK TECHNICAL COMPONENT, WELL
NOT TECHNICAL, BUT A QUICK
COMPONENT IN TERM OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE
CONSIDERING TODAY THAT WE HEARD
SOME PUBLIC TESTIMONY ABOUT
CERTAINLY TODAY BUT ALSO IN
PREVIOUS HEARINGS THAT WE'VE HAD
IN THIS COMMITTEE.
AND ALSO HAVE RECEIVED
CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THIS,
PRIMARILY FROM EMPLOYERS.
AND THAT'S ON THE ISSUE OF OUR
DECISION TODAY TO REMOVE THE
LANGUAGE RELATED TO SPECIFYING A
SPECIFIC LEVEL OF HEALTH CARE
PLAN.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US
TO ARTICULATE THAT THE DECISION
THAT WE'RE MAKING TODAY AS
COSPONSORS AND AS SUPPORTERS OF
THE OVERALL EFFORT IN THIS
HEALTH CARE BILL ARE REALLY
DESIGNED TO AND ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
ORDINANCE WHICH IS TO IMPROVE
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
IT'S MY BELIEF THAT THESE
AMENDMENTS BRING THE ORDINANCE
WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF A SIMILAR
TYPE OF ORDINANCE THAT WE SAW
COME OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
REFERENCED THIS.
THAT'S THE HEALTHY SAN FRANCISCO
LAW WHICH SIMILAR TO THIS LAW,
THOUGH MORE BROADLY APPLICABLE,
APPLIED TO UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS
WITHIN SAN FRANCISCO WITH HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE.
AND THAT WAS, AGAIN, A FOCUS ON
THE ACCESS PIECE TO COVERAGE.
THAT LAW HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS
SINCE 2006 WHEN IT WAS FIRST
CONSIDERED AND PASSED BY THAT
CITY.
AND WAS CHALLENGED SUBSEQUENTLY
BY THEIR RESTAURANT INDUSTRY.
AND ULTIMATELY WAS UPHELD BY THE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
AND WE SIT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HERE IN
WASHINGTON STATE.
AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND
THAT THAT STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF
THE HEALTHY SAN FRANCISCO LAW
WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO MODEL
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL THIS TYPE OF
POLICY DECISION.
SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THIS -- THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THAT
PARTICULAR CASE.
DECLINED TO REVIEW THAT CASE.
AND AT LEAST IN THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, THAT STRUCTURE, THAT
ORDINANCE IS GOOD LAW.
AND I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT, THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WE'RE MAKING NOW AS REPRESENTED
IN THIS SUBSTITUTE BILL DO
CREATE A FEASIBLE FRAMEWORK TO
ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF
EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY
AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE
WHILE ALSO TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION AND BALANCING THE
REALITIES OF THE VARIOUS WAYS
THAT EMPLOYERS CAN COMPLY WITH
THE INTENT OF THE ORD NARNS AS
WELL AS ADDRESSING SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN THOSE
OPTIONS.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO THROUGH THOSE AMENDMENTS
REALLY CREATE THE BALANCE AND
THE CHOICE THAT IS NECESSARY TO
BE MORE ALIGNED WITH PRECEDENT
IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT THAT MAKES
ME FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH
PROCEEDING FORWARD WITH THIS
SUBSTITUTE VERSION.
SO I DIDN'T WANT TO MISS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO STATE FOR THE
RECORD AND FOR THE VIEWING
AUDIENCE THAT THAT IS SORT OF
THE INTENT AND THE MOTIVATION BY
WHICH WE AS POLICYMAKERS ARE
BEING GUIDED IS THIS PRECEDENT
IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT THAT REALLY
IS GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BOTH CONSIDER THIS AS A BILL BUT
ALSO DO IT IN A WAY THAT IT IS
COMPORTS WITH PREEXISTING
REGULATION IN THIS AREA.
I'LL JUS SORT OF TRANSITION
FROM BEING A WONKY LAWYER FOR A
MOMENT BACK INTO, YOU KNOW, THE
REAL ISSUES AT HAND.
I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH YOU
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA AND
SAWANT, ABOUT WHY WE FIND
OURSELVES HERE IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL BECAME
THE FIRST COUNCIL IN THE NATION
TO CONSIDER AND PASS RESOLUTION
IN SUPPORT OF CONGRESSWOMAN
PRAMILA JAYAPAL'S BILL THAT WAS
INTRODUCED AND WELL
OVERWHELMINGLY
SUPPORTED.
WE HEARD AT THE TIME HOW OUR
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS DEEPLY
BROKEN BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED FOR
PROFIT OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE
COMPANIES.
THE REALITY IS IN THIS COUNTRY
WE RELY ON OUR EMPLOYERS TO BE
THE PROVIDES OF HEALTH
INSURANCE AND YOUR HEALTH
INSURANCE AND YOUR HEALTH AND
YOUR LIVELIHOOD OF BOTH YOURSELF
AND YOUR FAMILY ARE LARGELY
DEPENDENT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU
HAVE A JOB.
AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT JOB IS
WITH AN EMPLOYER WHO IS BIG
ENOUGH AND LUCRATIVE ENOUGH TO
BE ABLE TO EVEN ACCESS THE VERY
EXPENSIVE PRODUCTS THAT ARE
OFFERED WITHIN THE HEALTH CARE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
THAT IS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION
FOR ALL OF US TO FIND OURSELVES
IN.
SO TO ME THIS ISN'T A
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT EMPLOYERS ARE, YOU KNOW,
WANTING TO SKIRT SOME SORT OF
SOCIAL COMPACT TO PROVIDE HEALTH
CARE.
I CONSISTENTLY HEAR FROM MANY
EMPLOYERS THAT THEY REALLY WISH
THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE MORE
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE.
AND SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO HERE IS THREAD THE NEEDLE
BETWEEN THE REALITIES OF WHAT WE
KNOW ARE THE CHALLENGES FOR
EMPLOYER-BASED PROVIDED HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE WITH THE REALITIES
OF WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE TO
FUNCTION IN THIS SOCIETY WITHOUT
ANY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AT ALL
IF YOU'RE A WORKER.
I -- THIS ISSUE IS EXTREMELY
PERSONAL TO ME.
I -- YOU SPENT MORE THAN 30% OF
MY LIFE WITHOUT ANY HEALTH CARE
INSURANCE BY VIRTUE OF, YOU
KNOW, NOT -- OF WORKING IN LOW
WAGE RETAIL INDUSTRIES.
I'VE WORKED IN HOTELS.
I'VE WORKED IN DEPARTMENT
STORES.
I'VE WORKED IN FAST FOOD.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO
HOPE AND PRAY THAT TODAY IS NOT
THE DAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
NEED HEALTH CARE.
AND I ALSO COME FROM A MIGRANT
FARM WORKER FAMILY.
AND IN MY FAMILY AS A MIGRANT
FARM WORKER, WE WERE ABSOLUTELY
CUT OUT OF ANY SORT OF HEALTH
CARE CONVERSATIONS FOR SURE.
AND WE WEREN'T COVERED BY MANY
LABOR PROTECTION LAWS EITHER.
AND I, AS I SIT HERE AND THINK
ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE
FACING, I THINK ABOUT MY MOTHER
WHO WORKED ALL HER LIFE AS A
MIGRANT FARM WORKER IN CENTRAL
WASHINGTON STATE.
AND HAD REALLY SEVERE HEALTH
CONDITIONS AND STILL DOES THAT
ARE TYPICAL FOR LOW-INCOME,
IMPOVR RISCHED COMMUNITIES.
SHE'S A HARD WORKING WOMAN.
SHE'S COMMITTED.
SHE BELIEVES IN PROVIDING FOR
HER FAMILY AND BEING A PRODUCT
OF A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF
SOCIETY.
AND SHE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL SHE
WAS 60.
AND UNTIL HER FOOD PROCESSING
PLANT WAS ORGANIZED BY TEAMSTERS
TO EVEN BE ABLE TO ACCESS A FEW
DAYS OF PAID VACATION AND HEALTH
CARE.
SHE WAS 60 YEARS OLD BEFORE SHE
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE
TO FEEL THAT SHE WASN'T IN A
POSITION TO BE STRESSED.
TO GO TO THE DOCTOR.
TO TAKE CARE OF HERSELF.
AND THAT IS UNFAIR.
AND IT'S NOT RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY
TO CORRECT THAT FOR THOUSANDS OF
WOMEN WHO ARE PRIMARILY
IMMIGRANT WOMEN WHO WORK IN THIS
CITY AND LABOR IN THIS CITY
OFTEN THYMES IN THE SHADOW,
INVISIBLE AND NOT BEING SEEN.
SO THIS IS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH.
IT'S ABOUT THE HEALTH OF OUR
FAMILIES.
IT'S ABOUT THE HEALTH OF WOMEN.
AND IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO DO WHAT
WE CAN, WHAT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO
DO IN THIS CITY WHERE WE CAN TO
REALLY CREATE A MORE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO
NEED IT THE MOST.
THOUGH I'M REALLY THRILLED THAT
WE'RE IN THIS POSITION TO BE
ABLE TO USE A LIMITED TOOL THAT
WE DO HAVE TO REALLY PROVIDE
THIS IMPORTANT RELIEF TO SO MANY
WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES TO BE
ABLE TO ACCESS THIS HEALTH CARE.
I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO
DO.
AND YOU KNOW, I REALLY SORT OF
AM GETTING EMOTIONAL BECAUSE I
DO THIS IN SORT OF THE SPIRIT OF
THE STRENGTH OF MY MOTHER AND
WOMEN LIKE MY MOTHER WHO I KNOW
OUTSIDE OF THIS CHAMBERS RIGHT
NOW ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS
MEET AND MAKE EVERYDAY
DECISIONS, THEY MAKE DECISIONS
EVERY DAY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
TO BE HEALTHY AND IT'S ALL BASED
ON FINANCES AND ECONOMICS.
AND I THINK WE ALL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER
BOTH INDUSTRY, EMPLOYERS, AND
WORKERS AND SAY THIS -- WE'RE
GOING TO STAND TOGETHER HERE AND
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I LOOK
FORWARD TO VOTING THIS OUT OF
COMMITTEE AND TO HAVING A BIGGER
CELEBRATION ON MONDAY.
>> THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT
STORY.
THANK YOU FOR GROUNDING US.
YES, YOU CAN APPLAUD IF YOU'D
LIKE TO.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT THAT OFF.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR GROUNDING US
IN THE INTENT BEHIND THIS
LEGISLATION.
I THINK YOU'VE BOTH ARTICULATED
WELL.
AND BY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WE
HELP TO ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE
LIKE THE STORY YOU SHARED ABOUT
YOUR MOM TO BE ABLE TO BE IN A
POSITION TO HAVE A HEALTHY LIFE
FROM THE BEGINNING AND NOT HAVE
TO WAIT UNTIL THEY'RE 60.
THE INTENT IS NOT TO ENGAGE IN A
GAME OF GOT YA.
THE INTENT IS NOT TO VILIFY ANY
ONE INDUSTRY OR ANY PERSON.
IT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING IN OUR
CITY ARE HEALTHY AND SAFE.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU BOTH
GROUNDING US IN THAT.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING
MORE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE
INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION ON
MONDAY BUT COULD NOT UNDERSCORE
MORE WHAT YOU POET JUST SHARED.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO SAY A QUICK THANK YOU
AS WELL TO DAN AND KARINA WHO
HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH US AS
WE'VE BEEN THINKING THROUGH THE
VARIOUS AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH DAN AND
KARINA, THE UNSUNG HEROES OF THE
DRAFTS, MULTIPLE DRAFTS AS
YOU'VE HEARD US TALK ABOUT
BEFORE.
AND FOR FOLKS WAITING FOR THOSE,
THERE'S MATERIALS STILL ON THE
TABLE YOU CAN GRAB.
REALLY, THIS HAS NOT BEEN
POSSIBLE WITHOUT YOU.
SO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING
IN THAT.
AND KARINA, THIS IS ONE OF YOUR
FIRST OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK WITH
THE COUNCIL ON LABOR STANDARDS
LEGISLATION IN YOUR NEW ROLE, SO
THANK YOU FOR JUMPING RIGHT IN
AND DAN FOR WORKING WITH US
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
AND YOUR ONGOING PATIENCE AND
WILLINGNESS, BOTH OF YOU TO
STICK WITH US AS WE TRY TO
INCORPORATE AS MUCH AMENDMENTS
AS POSSIBLE FROM THE COMMUNITY.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAYBE I'LL
READ THROUGH A LIST OF FOLKS WHO
I THINK HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL
IN HELPING US CRAFT THE
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF US.
ERIC CA FRANKLIN AND THE REST OF
THE FOLKS AT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE.
THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO
PROVIDE US WITH FEEDBACK.
I KNOW WE'LL PROBABLY CONTINUE
TO ENGAGE WITH YOU BETWEEN NOW
AND MONDAY.
SAGEL FROM MY OFFICE AND BRIANNA
FROM COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ'S
OFFICE FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP AND
THEIR WORK WITH VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS OVER SIX MONTHS.
IT'S BEEN MORE LIKE NINE TO A
YEAR.
YEAH, NINE MONTHS.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, THANK YOU
TO YOUR TEAM AS WELL.
TED HAS BEEN GREAT ENGAGING WITH
US.
AND YOU'VE BEEN HERE AT ALMOST
EVERY SINGLE MEETING.
SO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING
WITH US AND BEING A LEADER ON
BOTH THE ISSUES WE'RE TRYING TO
RAISE AND THE BROADER CONCEPTS.
AND WANT TO ALSO JAN,
JANINE.
JANEE.
I SEE YOU OUT THERE.
THANK YOU FOR ENGAGING WITH US
EARLY AS WELL AS FOLKS FROM THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE.
AND COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN
ENGAGED WITH US AT EVERY SINGLE
MEETING, ALLISON FROM BAGSHAH'S
OFFICE.
BRINDELL FROM JUAREZ'S OFFICE.
I ALREADY MENTIONED TED FROM
YOUR OFFICE.
ALEX FROM COUNCILMEMBER HER
BOLD'S OFFICE AND VIN FROM THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.
AND THEN OUR COMMUNICATION TAI
TEAM, DANA, STEPHANIE, AND
JOSEPH.
THERE'S BEEN COMMUNICATIONS BACK
AND FORTH ON THIS.
WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FOLKS
WHO HAVE BEEN TESTIFYING DAY
AFTER DAY ON THIS ISSUE, I KNOW
YOU ARE INDUSTRY EXPERTS AS WELL
AS WORKER EXPERTS FROM YOUR OWN
LIVED EXPERIENCE.
YOU HAVE SHARED STORIES ON A
WEEKLY BASIS ALMOST ABOUT THE
NEED FOR THESE PROVISIONS AND
FROM THE INDUSTRY THE NEED TO
INKRORP RATE SOME OF THE EDITS.
ALL OF THOSE WERE NOT INCLUDED
FROM BOTH OF THE SHAKE HOLDER
PERSPECTIVE.
WE ARE HOPEFUL YOU HAVE SEEN
SOME OF THOSE COMPONENTS
INCLUDED AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE THIS
IS IMPLEMENTABLE AND THAT THE
GOALS, THE INTENT, AGAIN, IS
ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THIS
LEGISLATION.
SO FIRST, THANK YOU TO ANNA BOON
AND JOHN FROM THE SEATTLE
RESTAURANT ALLIANCE AND SEATTLE
HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION.
AND AS WELL AS LEAH AND TEDDY
WHO'VE BEEN PROVIDING US WITH
FEEDBACK.
I WANT TO THANK STEPHAN AND ABBY
FROM UNITE HERE FOR ADVOCATING
WITH US AND WHO'VE BEEN
ADVOCATING US TO MAKE THESE
CHANGES IN STATUTE HERE.
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO HEAR MORE FROM
YOUR MEMBERS ABOUT HOW THESE
POLICIES POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE
GOALS AND DESIRE THAT IS YOU
WANTED TO SEE.
SO THANK YOU FOR ENGAGING WITH
US.
AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND BOTH OF
THOSE STAKEHOLDERS, NOT
EVERYBODY IS SATISFIED WITH
EVERYTHING IN ALL OF THESE FOUR
PIECES AND DON'T WANT TO
INDICATE BY MY WAY OF SAYING MY
APPRECIATION FOR YOU ENGAGING
WITH US THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW,
BUY OFF ON ANY AND ALL OF THESE
PIECES.
BUT I KNOW A LOT OF YOU HAVE
SPENT A LOT OF TIME.
SO I WANT TO THANK YOU.
AND LAST WEEK WE THANKED THE
FOLKS WHO PROVIDED US WITH
FEEDBACK FROM THE SEXUAL ASSAULT
VICTIMS AND CRIME PREVENTION
PROGRAM.
I WANT TO THANK REBECCA JOHNSON,
BEN SANTOS FROM THE KING COUNTY
SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE CENTER
AND THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE.
ALLISON HOLCOMB AND ERICA
GONZALEZ FROM THE ACLU.
AND SIDMON AND TAMAR FROM THE
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND ELI
GOSS FROM ONE AMERICA.
MANAZ FROM REFUGEE WOMEN'S
ALLIANCE FOR ALL OF THEIR WORK
FOR US ON THE HOTEL SAFETY
PROTECTIONS.
AND I THINK I'M LEAVING A
MILLION PEOPLE OUT BECAUSE THIS
HAS BEEN A PROCESS THAT NOT ONLY
WE HAVE ENGAGED IN BUT THAT
FOLKS HAVE ENGAGED IN OVER RULE
MAKING WITH OLS WHEN YOU WERE
WORKING THERE KARINA ON ROLE
MAKING ITERATIONS.
I KNOW THAT WAS AN INTENSIVE
PROCESS AS WELL.
AND THE FOLK WHO IS DRAFTED
INITIATIVE 124.
IF I HAVE LEFT ANYBODY OUT, I
REALLY APOLOGIZE, AND WE WILL
HAVE A CHANCE TO AGAIN REVISIT
THE LEGISLATION, THE FOUR
COMPONENTS, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER
FRAMING CONCEPTS, POLICY
QUESTION THAT IS FOLKS HAVE, AND
REITERATE OUR THANK YOU ON
MONDAY THE 16th.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
OKAY.
CENTRAL STAFF, THANK YOU ONCE
AGAIN.
I STARTED WITH YOU, BUT I WANT
TO END WITH YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM YOWL
ALL?
OKAY.
YOU'VE DONE TREMENDOUS WORK.
SO YOU'VE BURNT THE MIDNIGHT
OIL.
>> LITERALLY.
>> ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
AND I'M GOING TO NOT SAY
ANYTHING ELSE TODAY BECAUSE MY
PREGNANCY HORMONES ARE OBVIOUSLY
EXTREMELY HIGH RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE
ALL OF THE SENTIMENTS THAT YOU
BOTH SHARED AND THE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HEARD.
SO WE KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT AN
EASY PROCESS.
IF IT WAS, IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY
BEEN DONE.
AND WE HAVE PUT THE WORK IN TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE FOUR PIECES
OF LEGISLATION ARE REFLECTIVE OF
THE GOALS THAT WE STARTED WITH
AND COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT,
PLEASE?
>> ACTUALLY, JUST I MEAN, FIRST
OF ALL I WANTED TO THANK YOU AND
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ AND YOUR
STAFF AND, OF COURSE, CENTRAL
STAFF.
ALSO A SPECIAL, I THINK, MENTION
OF UNITE HERE LOCAL EIGHT AND
ALL THE ORGANIZERS WITH UNITE
HERE LOCAL EIGHT.
AND ALSO THE MEMBERS, MANY OF
WHOM HAVE BEEN IN CITY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, SOME OF WHOM ARE HERE
TODAY, WHO NOT ONLY TAKE ON REAL
DIFFICULTIES IN THEIR OWN LIVES
IN TERMS OF ALL THE CONDITIONS
THAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED MANY
TIMES, BUT ON TOP OF THAT, THEY
CALL ON THE TASK OF ADVOCATING
NOT ONLY FOR THEMSELVES, BUT
EVERYBODY IN THE SITUATION.
ONE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO ADD
WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD
REITERATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
ALSO THERE'S BEEN A LOT SAID
THIS IS SECOND GUESSING VOTERS'
INTENT.
I WANTED TO STATE THAT VERY
CLEARLY THERE IS NO SECOND
GUESSING OF VOTERS' INTENT.
THE VOTERS' INTENT WAS VERY
CLEARLY TO MAKE SURE ALL HOTEL
WORKERS IN SEATTLE HAVE HEALTH
CARE.
AND ALL THE OTHER, YOU KNOW,
BENEFITS THAT WE NEED IN ORDER
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE A
DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANYTHING ELSE ON VOTER INTENT?
I WAS LIKE, YES.
ANYTHING ELSE?
OKAY.
SO THANK YOU FOR REITERATING
THAT IN THE CLOSING COMMENTS.
AND I THINK THAT MOVES US TO
FINAL CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL
BILL 119555.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO SUBSTITUTE
VERSION D2 FOR VERSION D4.
AND THAT'S AGAIN COUNCIL BILL
119555.
ARE THERE ANY ADIGGAL COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, ALL OF THOSE IN
FAVOR OF AMENDED VERSION OF
COUNCIL BILL 1199555.
SAY AYE.
WE HAVE NOW MOVED COUNCIL BILL
1199555 OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE TO
FULL COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION
ON SEPTEMBER 19th.
16th.
SEPTEMBER 16th.
TO REITERATE, ALL FOUR BILLS
HAVE NOW BEEN MOVED OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION ON
SEPTEMBER 16th.
THAT'S NEXT MONDAY.
THAT'S COUNCIL BILL 119555.
MEDICAL CARE 1199557.
SAFETY PROTECTIONS 1199554.
PROTECTION FROM INJURY AND
1199556 JOB RETENTION.
P WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU GUYS ON MONDAY TO
ADDRESS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTION
THAT IS CENTRAL STAFF.
THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN.
WE'LL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH YOU.
ALL FOUR BILLS HAVE MOVED OUT OF
THIS COMMITTEE AND I THANK YOU
ALL FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH US
AS WE'VE WORKED TO GET THESE
BILLS OUT OF OUR COMMITTEE AND
HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO EVERYBODY
WHO'S COME TO TESTIFY AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING MANY OF
YOU I AM SURE ON MONDAY.
AND WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE TO
OUR FINAL PIECE OF AGENDA.
IT'S ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
COUNCIL BILL 119615.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROPERTY TAX
EXEMPTION PROGRAM FOR BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION.
>> AND FOR FOLKS WHO ARE JOINING
US FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PLEASE
JOIN US AT THE TABLE AND LET'S
GO THROUGH A WALK THROUGH OF
MFTE.
I WANT TO, AGAIN, REITERATE THAT
WE KEPT OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THERE ARE FOLKS HERE WHO HAVE
SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON
FFTE NOW IS THE TIME TO LINE UP
AT THE MICROPHONE.
WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, PULLED THE
SIGN IN SHEET WHICH WE'LL PUT
BACK UP THERE.
AND WE'LL MAKE SURE TO GET YOU
SIGNED IN TO TESTIFY BEFORE YOU
GO COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, IT'S
BEEN AN HONOR AND PRIVILEGE AND
PLEASURE TO WORK WITH YOU ON THE
HOTEL WORKER LEGISLATION.
JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AS WE
HEAD OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE TO
FULL COUNCIL, APPRECIATE ALL OF
YOUR WORK AND TEN NASTY TO MAKE
TENACITY TO MAKE IT RIGHT.
I SEE A FEW FOLK THAT IS HAVE
SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY
ON MFTE.
WE HEARD FROM TWO FOLKS PRIOR TO
MOVING TO THIS AGENDA ITEM.
I SEE CHARLIE FROM MLK LABOR.
CHARLIE, I'M SORRY IF I SAID
YOUR LAST NAME RIGHT.
CHARLIE, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND
TESTIFY.
WE GIVE FOLKS A MINUTE AND A
HALF PRIOR SO IF YOU COULD TAKE
A MINUTE AND A HALF.
IF YOU'RE HERE TO TESTIFY ON
MFTE TOO WE'LL MAKE SURE TO GET
YOU IN.
>> I'M UP SNIRS.
>> YOU ARE, CHARLIE.
>> HI.
>> I'M CHARLIE.
I'M WITH THE KING COUNTY LABOR
COUNCIL.
AND WE REPRESENT MORE THAN 150
UNIONS AND MORE THAN 100,000
UNION WORKERS ACROSS KING
COUNTY.
AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION
BECAUSE IT REALLY CHECKS THE
BOXES FOR SO MUCH OF WHAT --
PROVIDES GOOD UNION JOBS TO
THOSE IN THE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES, FAMILY WAGE
JOBS THAT LIT PEOPLE UP IN AN
ECONOMY THAT'S STACKED AGAINST
WORKERS.
IT ALSO PROVIDES
INCOME-RESTRICTED HOUSING TO
WORKING PEOPLE IN SEATTLE WHO
MIGHT OTHERWISE NOT HAVE
SOMEWHERE TO LIVE IN THE CITY.
IT'S BEEN ONE OF THE MOST
EFFECTIVE TOOLS TO PROVIDE THIS
TYPE OF HOUSING.
IT HOUSES PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THE
WORK FORCE FROM EDUCATORS TO
HEALTH CARE WORKERS TO PUBLIC
SERVANTS.
AS A WHOLE, THE WORKERS LIVING
IN THESE UNITS MAKE ABOUT
ONE-THIRD OF MARKET RATE
RESIDENTS IN THE SAME UNIT.
SO IT PROVIDES TRUE MIXED INCOME
COMMUNITIES.
AND WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TWEAKED IN A
WAY THAT IMPACTS ITS VIABILITY.
WE'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO
RENEW THE PROGRAM WITHOUT
CHANGES TO THE AMI RESTRICTION
OR REDUCTIONS WHICH WOULD DELAY
HOUSING PROJECT THAT IS QUALIFY
FOR THIS INCENTIVE.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS
RIGHT FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE WHO
MIGHT OTHERWISE BE PRICED OUT OF
THE CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
AND OTHER FOLKS THAT HAVE SIGNED
UP TO TESTIFY, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR JOINING US.
AND WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE AND A
HALF ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU.
>> YES.
PEDRO.
THANK YOU AGAIN.
WITH THE CARPENTER'S UNION.
WE'RE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS.
WE FEEL THAT OUR COMMUNITIES ARE
GREATLY AFFECTED BY PEOPLE THAT
ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, ALLOWED A
RIGHT TO LIVE.
AND ALSO IT'S, YOU KNOW, AS WE
KNOW, OUR CITY IS GROWING AND
THAT'S WHAT THE GROWING PAINS
ARE.
BUT IF WE KEEP PUSHING THESE
FOLKS OUT AND NOT ALLOWING THEM
TO LIVE, THEY LIVE FURTHER AND
FURTHER AWAY WHICH THEN ADD TO
THE CONGESTION.
AGAIN IT CAUSES A PROBLEM.
BUT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THAT,
YOU KNOW, PUSHING THIS WOULD
HELP US GREATLY MONITOR THESE
DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY CREATE
THESE DEVELOPMENTS FOR THESE
FOLKS TO LIVE IN.
THEY ALSO GET A CHANCE TO HAVE A
LIVABLE WAGE ADDED TO THEIR
LIVING BECAUSE AS THE GENTLEMAN
BEFORE, SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT
BUILD THESE FACILITIES CAN'T
EVEN AFFORD TO LIVE THERE EVEN
THOUGH IT'S CALLED AFFORDABLE
LIVING.
SO WE'RE ADVOCATING -- WE THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AGAIN TOO.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, PEDRO.
THE LAST PERSON WE HAVE SIGNED
UP TO TESTIFY IS JESSE SCOTT
CANDLE.
>> MY NAME IS JESSE SCOTT CANDLE
WITH PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL
COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS.
ONE OF THE LARGEST PROBLEMS WE
SEE IN THESE MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IS PEACE
WORK.
YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO ADD SOME --
I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS, THE
MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION, BUT
WE NEED SOME STRONGER TEETH IN
IT FOR TRACKING THE PROJECTS.
MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE
ACTUALLY MAKING A LIVABLE WAGE
FOR THESE PROJECTS, CAN AFFORD
TO LIVE IN THEM, YOU KNOW.
I SEE A LOT OF PEACE WORK ON
THESE PROJECTS.
THERE'S NO REPORTING STRUCTURES.
SO WE ARE GIVING A HUGE TAX
EXEMPTION WITH NO TRACKING.
AND SO I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO
ADD SOMETHING IN THERE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK.
AND IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE
WHO'D LIKE TO TESTIFY ON MFTE?
THE MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION IN
OH, OKAY.
WELCOME.
STATE YOUR NAME AND I'LL SIGN
YOU IN.
I SEE NICOLE GRANT IS HERE.
>> YES, HELLO, NICOLE GRANT FROM
MLK LABOR.
AND THE COMMENTS I WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE
MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION WITH
AN EYE TOWARDS THE PRIORITIES OF
UNIONS LIKE MINE, THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, THE SEATTLE
BUILDING TRADE, AND OF COURSE
THE CARPENTERS HERE.
WE KNOW WE NEED HOUSING AND I
FEEL LIKE THE TAX EXEMPTION IS
FAIR.
AND IT'S STIMULATING TO OUR
GOALS OF GETTING, YOU KNOW, THAT
HOUSING THAT WE'RE EBASICALLY
DESPERATE FOR.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE A MECHANISM
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE BUILDING THE BUILDINGS ARE
NOT THEMSELVES IN POVERTY.
AND I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT
OUR BROTHERS HAVE SPOKE TO THAT
ISSUE TODAY IS VERY EFFECTIVE.
AND I APPRECIATE THEIR WORDS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NICOLE.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK TO MFTE?
OKAY, EXCELLENT.
I APPRECIATE YOU ALL STAYING FOR
FOLKS WHO TESTIFIED EARLIER ON
MFTE AND FOR THE PEOPLE WHO'VE
BEEN HERE FOR THE ENTIRE
MORNING.
AND FOR FOLKS WHO'VE BEEN
TRACKING THIS ISSUE.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ONE MORE
CONVERSATION NEXT WEEK ON
THURSDAY.
SO PERFECT TIMING TO HEAR SOME
OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE
RECEIVED ON TRACKING AND
ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DID WITH
THE CASE SITE AND WE HAVE ALSO
INCLUDED IN OTHER PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
SO PERFECT TIMING.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN KEEP
WORKING ON.
THAT WILL CLOSE OUT PUBLIC
COMMENT TODAY.
AND WE HAVE ALREADY READ INTO
THE RECORD ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SO
LET'S GO AHEAD AND WALK THROUGH
SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT YOU
HAVE.
IS THERE ANY PRESENTATION TODAY?
>> NOT TODAY.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
WELCOME TRACY.
IF YOU COULD START WITH
INTRODUCTIONS.
>> TRACI RATZLIFF.
>> ALY PENNUCCI.
>> JENNIFER LaBRECQUE.
>> SO WE ARE HERE TO HAVE YET
ANOTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
RENEWAL OF THE MULTIFAMILY
PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM.
THE COMMITTEE WAS BRIEFED ON
AUGUST 1st REGARDING THE
PROGRAM, IN PARTICULAR THE
MAYOR'S CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM.
TODAY ALY AND I INTEND TO WALK
THROUGH THE PROPOSED CHANGES
INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL BILL
119665 AS IT WAS INTRODUCED LAST
WEEK.
THOSE CHANGES WILL BE IN
ADDITION TO WHAT THE MAYOR HAD
PROPOSED IN TERMS OF CHANGES.
SO JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, KIND
OF PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE
TODAY, SO THE MFTE PROGRAM DOES
PROVIDE A 12-YEAR EXEMPTION FROM
PROPERTY TAXES FOR RENTAL AND
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECTS THAT
INCLUDE UNITS WITH SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS.
THOSE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS
VARY BY UNIT SIZE AND WHETHER
IT'S RENTAL OR FOR SALE HOUSING.
THE EXEMPTION DOES APPLY TO ALL
OF THE UNITS, AFFORDABLE AND
MARKET RATE AND RELATED SPACES
BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LAND OR
NONRESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS.
AS A RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHANGES
PROPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE, THOSE
KEY CHANGES INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING.
SO LANGUAGE WAS ADDED AS RELATES
TO THE AREA MEETING INCOME AND
RENTAL RATES AND SPECIFICALLY
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW
THOSE RATES TO DECREASE FROM
YEAR TO YEAR AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY THAT THEY CANNOT
INCREASE BY MORE THAN 4.5% FROM
YEAR TO YEAR.
THIS IS REALLY INTENDED TO
ADDRESS THE SIGNIFICANT
FLUCTUATIONS THAT WE HAVE SEEN
IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IN
PARTICULAR AROUND THE AREA TIED
TO THE RAT RACE THAT CAN BE
CHARGED FOR THE AFFORDABLE YUPS.
IT FELT APPROPRIATE TO PUT
BOUNDARIES ON INCREASES SO WE
WOULDN'T SEE THOSE KINDS OF
SIGNIFICANT FLUCTUATIONS BUT
ALSO PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE
LEVEL OF INCREASE AS INCREASES
DO OCCUR FOR THE OPERATION OF
HOUSING.
SO FELT LIKE IT WAS A BALANCED
PROPOSAL THAT CAME FROM THE
EXECUTIVE.
SO THAT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
COUNCIL BILL.
THE SECOND ADDITION WAS TO
SPECIFICALLY ADD AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING AS AN
ADDITIONAL PURPOSE OF THE TAX
EXEMPTION PROGRAM.
IN ADDITION TO KIND OF AMPLIFY
THAT, IT DOES REQUIRE PROJECT
DEVELOPERS TO IMPLEMENT AN
AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PLAN THAT
HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING.
THOSE PLANS WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE
AVAILABILITY OF THOSE AFFORDABLE
UNITS.
AND THAT IT BE PROVIDED TO ALL
INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF RACE,
ETHNICITY, GENDER, ET CETERA.
AND FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL WHO IS
MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE KNOW ABOUT
THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT
HOUSING.
ANOTHER CHANGE IS THAT THE
DEADLINE FOR SUBMIT TAL OF
COMPLETED APPLICATIONS HAS BEEN
CHANGED TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO
SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UP TO SIX
MONTHS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF A
PROJECT WHICH IS DOCUMENTED BY
THE ISSUE WANS OF A TESTIMONY
PAIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR
A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY.
THIS IS A CHANGE FROM WHAT'S
CURRENTLY REQUIRED.
SO THIS IS A BIG CHANGE IN TERMS
OF PROVIDING GREATER FLEXIBILITY
FOR PROJECTS TO COME IN TO THE
PROGRAM NOW SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO
COMPLETION VERSUS PRIOR TO
SUBMIT TAL OF TSUE WANS OF
THE ISSUEANCE.
THE PROGRAM IS GOING TO EXPIRE
IF WE DON'T EXTEND IT DECEMBER
30, TO 19.
NOW WE'LL HAVE ALY WALK THROUGH
THE CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE
PROPOSED BILL THAT WERE
SUGGESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE WE HAVE A CENTRAL
STAFF MEMO LINKED IN THE AGENDA.
AND THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION
AS WELL HAS BEEN LINKED IN THE
AGENDA.
ALY, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL IF WE
PUT THE MEMO ON THE SCREEN SO
FOLKS COULD WALK THROUGH THAT?
>> WE CAN DO THAT OR I CAN REFER
TO THE PAGE NUMBER IF PEOPLE ARE
FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME.
>> LET'S DO BOTH.
OKAY, WONDERFUL.
AND WE DO APPRECIATE, THANK YOU
TRACY FOR THE REMINDER THAT THIS
IS OUR SECOND DISCUSSION ON MFTE
AND THE FIRST DISCUSSION WAS ON
AUGUST 1st.
FOR FOLKS WHO MAY BE TRACKING
THIS AT HOME, WE WILL AGAIN
BRING THIS UP NEXT THURSDAY AT
9:00 A.M.
>> GREAT.
>> GO AHEAD ALY.
>> THE FOLLOWING CHANGES I'M
GOING TO DESCRIBE WERE
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
INCORPORATED INTO THE BILL PRIOR
TO INTRODUCTION.
THE FIRST CHANGE, AND I AM
STARTING FROM THE BOTTOM OF PAGE
THREE OF THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO
IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG, THE
FIRST CHANGE MODIFIED THE
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS FOR STUDIOS
AND ONE BEDROOMS BY REDUCING
FROM 65% OF AMI FOR STUDIOS TO
60%.
AND 75% OF ONE BEDROOMS TO 70%
OF AMI.
IT RETAINED THE CURRENT
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.
HOWEVER, OUR ANALYSIS SHOWED
THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
A MINOR REDUCTION IN THE
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS FOR STUDIOS
AND ONE BEDROOM UNITS WHILE
STILL PROVIDING A BENEFIT TO
DEVELOPERS BUT CONTINUING TO
SERVE HOUSEHOLDS AT A DEEPER
LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY.
IT'S WORTH NOTE THAT A HOUSEHOLD
IN 2018 AT 65% AMI, IF THEY
DIDN'T SEE THEIR INCOME CHANGE
THEY WOULD BE CLOSER TO 60% AMI
IN 2019.
THE SECOND MODIFICATION, AND I'M
NOW ON TO PAGE FOUR OF THE MEMO,
RELATES TO THE AFFORDABILITY
LEVELS FOR SMALL EFFICIENCY
DWELLING UNITS.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE INCREASES
THE AFFORDABILITY LEVEL FOR
BUILDINGS WHERE 100% OF THE
UNITS ARE FROM 450% TO 50%.
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO INPUT
WE'VE HEARD FROM DEVELOPERS WHO
HAVE SAID THAT THE 40% AMI
REQUIREMENT DIDN'T WORK FOR 100%
CIDU BUILDINGS.
SO WE OFTEN SEE BUILDINGS THAT
HAVE A MIX OF UNIT TYPES.
THOSE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE
REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED AT 40%
OF AMI.
THE THIRD CHANGE IS TO INCREASE
THE REQUIREMENT FOR HOW MANY TWO
PLUS BEDROOM UNITS MUST BE
PROVIDED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A
REDUCE SET ASIDE BY INCREASING
THE NUMBER FROM 4% OF THE UNITS
TO 8% OF THE UNITS.
IF THIS REQUIREMENT IS MET 20%
OF THE TOTAL UNITS IN A PROJECT
MUST MEET THE MFTE AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENTS.
WHEN LOOKING AT RECENT PROJECT
PARTICIPATION, WE FOUND THAT
OVER 80% OF PROJECTS
PARTICIPATING ARE PROVIDING MORE
THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF TWO
PLUS BEDROOM UNITS.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER STRATEGY TO
CONTINUE COUNCIL'S POLICY GOALS
OF ENCOURAGING MORE FAMILY SIZED
UNITS.
THE FOURTH CHANGE IS EXPANDING
OR REFINING THE LANGUAGE AROUND
THE COMPARABILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND THE
EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSAL FOR THE
PROGRAM HAD REQUIREMENTS IN
TERMS OF THE MIX AND
CONFIGURATION OF ALL UNITS.
IN A PROJECT, THE PROPOSED
CHANGE OR THE CHANGE
INCORPORATED IN THE BILL IS
INTRODUCED, JUST MADE THAT
LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO WHAT IS
REQUIRED FOR OTHER AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS LIKE THE MHA,
THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM THAT
INCLUDES A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON
THE NUMB PER AND SIZE OF
BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, ACCESS TO
AMENITIES, FUNCTION NALTY, AND
DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS IN THE
BUILDING.
AND THE FINAL CHANGE THAT WAS
INCORPORATED INTO THE BILL WOULD
BE TO REQUIRE THAT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING ANALYZE CHANGES IN THE
HOUSING MARKET WHEN THEY'RE
PREPARING THEIR ANNUAL REPORT.
IF THEY NOTICE CHANGE THAT IS
COULD IMPACT PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION OR COULD BETTER
IMPROVE THE PROGRAM TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON MODIFICATIONS
COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER.
THOSE WERE THE CHANGES
INCORPORATED INTO THE BILL AS
INTRODUCED.
ALSO ATTACHED IS A PROPOSED
SUBSTITUTE THAT INTRODUCES A FEW
PRIMARILY SORT OF TECHNICAL
CHANGES ON PAGE 38 OF THE BILL.
IT INCORPORATES SOME CHANGES TO
JUST REFINE HOW THE REQUIREMENT
FOR PAYING FEES TO COVER THE
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S COST WILL
BE HANDLED BY THE OFFICE.
ON PAGE TWO, A MODIFICATION IN
THE ANNUAL REPORTING TO LOOK AT
CHANGES TO STATE LAW.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME EFFORTS
RECENTLY TO TRY TO MAKE CHANGES
AT THE STATE LEVEL TO THE
PROGRAM.
AND AS THOSE OCCUR TO LOOK AT
OUR LOCAL PROGRAM AND MAKE SURE
THOSE ARE INCORPORATED.
AND ALSO TO COLLECT INFORMATION
ON THE DATA OF PEOPLE LIVING IN
THE UNITS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
ACHIEVING OUR GOALS.
THOSE WERE THE CHANGES COVERED
BY THE STAFF MEMO.
OTHER POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS WE'RE
IN DISCUSSION WITH, WE WILL
DISTRIBUTE AND PREPARE A MEMO
FOR DISCUSSION AT NEXT WEEK'S
MEETING.
>> WE BRIEFLY TALKED ABOUT THE
CASE SITE AND HOW WE'VE INCLUDED
SOME LANGUAGE LAST YEAR TRYING
TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE METRICS.
I THINK THAT TIES IN WITH THE
PUBLIC TESTIMONY WE HEARD TODAY.
WHILE IT IS NOT DIRECTLY
RELATED, I THINK IT'S A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE'VE TIED IN
SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING
BACK.
TRACY, I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU
ON THE SPOT, BUT I THINK I'M
PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, DO YOU
MIND REMINDING US WHAT WE
INCLUDED IN THE CASE?
>> THEY'RE NOT REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, THEY'RE
REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO
THAT PROJECT.
SO FOR THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.
THE CASE SITE IS A CITY-OWNED
PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS BEING
DEVELOPED BY PLYMOUTH HOUSING.
AND IT IS THE FIRST IN WHICH WE
WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE THEM ENTER
INTO AND I THINK THEY'VE
COMPLETED A COMMUNITY WORK FORCE
AGREEMENT THAT WOULD IMPOSE
PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS AS
WELL AS OTHERS.
IT'S MORE THAN REPORTING.
IT'S IMPOSING REQUIREMENTS ON
THAT PROJECT.
THE INTENT IS TO SEE WHAT ARE
THE IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF
PARTICULARLY COST BUT ALSO THE
EFFICIENCY OF DEVELOPING THAT
BUILDING BY IMPOSING THOSE
REQUIREMENTS.
IT IS APPLES TO ORANGES HERE IN
TERMS OF THAT ISSUE, BECAUSE
THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS THEY'RE
PROPOSING.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE LOOKING
AT IMPOSING THOSE ON THIS.
I THINK THAT PROJECT IS A TEST
CASE TO SEE WHAT ARE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF IMPOSING THOSE
REQUIREMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF HOUSING IN THE CITY WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF EXPAPTDING IT
BEYOND THAT ONE PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER.
I THINK IT SERVES AS A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF POTENTIAL CATEGORIES
OF LABOR STANDARDS WE COULD BE
LOOKING AT FOR REPORTING BACK
THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS
YOU HEARD SOME FOLKS TESTIFY TO
AND THE DESIRE TO SEE WHERE WE
STAND AS IT RELATES TO THOSE
CATEGORIES OF LABOR STANDARDS
AND FUTURE WORK ON MFTE.
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU
ALL AS WE THINK ABOUT THOSE
POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT
WE'VE HEARD TODAY AND FROM STAKE
HOLDERS PRIOR TO TODAY.
WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS WHO CAME
TO TESTIFY EARLIER AND JUST TO
REITERATE, I THINK OUR SUPPORT
FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE DOLLARS
THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO
INCENTIVIZING THE CREATION OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS TRULY DO RESULT
IN MORE FOLKS BEING ABLE TO
AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE CITY AND
THAT THE FOLKS BUILDING THOSE
UNITS ARE GETTING A LIVING WAGE,
PREVAILING WAGE IDEALLY THAT
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIVE IN
THE SAME UNITS THAT THEY'RE
BUILDING.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE EQUITY
ASPECTS OF USING THE PUBLIC
DOLLAR FOR PUBLIC GOOD.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE
FOR WHERE WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO
A TRUTH TEST ON HOW WELL WE'RE
EDOING HERE.
SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THERE'S THE RIGHT
BALANCE.
FOLKS HAVE TESTIFIED TODAY AND
PROVIDED US WITH PREVIOUS
FEEDBACK THAT THERE IS THE RIGHT
BALANCE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE
IT'S AN INCENTIVE AND THE
PRODUCT IS ABLE TO BE CREATED
AND THAT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS FOR US TODAY EXCEPT
FOR TO SAY THANK YOU FOR WALKING
US THROUGH THIS AGAIN.
COULD YOU REMIND US A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHEN YOU THINK THAT THOSE
IF WE HAVE A TIMELINE THAT WE'DD
LIKE TO OFFER TO OUR COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES SO THAT YOU ON
CENTRAL STAFF DON'T HAVE THE
RUSH OF AMENDMENTS THAT COME AT
YOU.
IF WE DID A DEADLINE BY THE END
OF THIS -- TODAY'S THURSDAY, I'M
SORRY.
IF THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THIS IN
COMMITTEE AGAIN FOR POSSIBLE
VOTE NEXT THURSDAY, WHAT WOULD
BE THE IDEAL TIMELINE FOR YOU
ALL?
>> THE IDEAL IN TERMS OF US
BEING ABLE TO CREATE THE
AMENDMENTS AND GET A MEMO OUT,
WHICH I THINK WE MAY DO A
SHORTER VERSION, PROBABLY BY END
OF DAY TOMORROW.
LATEST MONDAY MORNING.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TALK TO
YOUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES TO KIND
OF ELICIT ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES.
WE HAVE NOT AT THIS POINT HEARD
ANY CHANGES.
THAT COULD CHANGE AS WE GET
CLOSER TO ADOPTION AS IS SO
OFTEN THE CASE.
>> WE ARE GOING TO UNDERSCORE
YOUR FIRST DESIRE WHICH IS BY
END OF THE DAY TOMORROW, THAT'S
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13th.
PLEASE PROVIDE CENTRAL STAFF
WITH ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK.
THAT'S TRUE FOR OUR OFFER AS
WELL.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D
LIKE TO SHARE ON THIS?
>> I DON'T AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> WE WANT TO THANK THE
EXECUTIVE FOR SENDING DOWN THE
INITIAL LEGISLATION AND FOR
WORKING WITH US AS WELL.
AND OFFICE OF HOUSING AS WE'VE
BEEN CONSIDERING, THANK YOU.
AND ERIN WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD
AND SIT ON DOWN BECAUSE ERIN
HOUSE FROM OUR TEAM IN MY OFFICE
HAS BEEN WORKING WITH CENTRAL
STAFF WITH THE CHECKTIVE OFFICE
OF HOUSING AND STAKEHOLDERS TO
TRY TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS YOU'VE HEARD CENTRAL
STAFF WALK THROUGH.
AND THEN POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS
WE'RE ASKING FOLKS TO TURN IN BY
THE END OF TOMORROW.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE A TON OF
AMENDMENTS WHICH IS GREAT
BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE
DONE A GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO
INCORPORATE FEEDBACK EARLY.
BUT HAVING THE REQUEST OUT THERE
IS REALLY GOOD.
THAT WAY ON MONDAY WE CAN FOLLOW
UP WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT
TIMELINE'S BEEN ADHERED TO.
ERIN, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED
TO SHARE?
DON'T FEEL OBLIGATED, I JUST
WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK
YOU'VE DONE ON THIS.
WITH THAT, WE WILL PREPARE TO
LOOK AT AN UPDATED CENTRAL STAFF
MEMO ON POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO
THE UNDERLYING BILL EARLY NEXT
WEEK WITH THE ANTICIPATION OF
HAVING A DISCUSSION AND VOTE
NEXT THURSDAY.
BEFORE I GET INTO SORT OF WHAT
ELSE IS ON THE AGENDA, I WANT TO
TAKE A SECOND TO CUEVAS.
YOU HAVE BEEN AT THIS TABLE AND
MOVING US ALONG AND STAFFING THE
COMMITTEE THROUGHOUT THIS
PROCESS.
WE HAD A BIG DAY TODAY ON HOTEL
WORKER LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR FLEXIBILITY
SO WE CAN NOW CONSIDER THINGS
RELATED TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT.
YOUR WORK IS REALLY APPRECIATED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR STEWARDSHIP
AS WE GOT THROUGH THESE LAST FEW
MEETINGS.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM OUR COLLEAGUES, WE
ARE GOING TO RECONVENE ON
SEPTEMBER 19th AT 9:00 A.M.
AGAIN, 9:00 A.M.
IT'S A HALF
HOUR EARLIER THAN USUAL.
WE WILL START WITH A POTENTIAL
REPEAL OF THE INITIATIVE 124
WHICH WAS THE ACTUAL INITIATIVE
SITE ASSUMING WE GET THE FOUR
PIECES OF LEGISLATION PASSED ON
MONDAY.
THAT'LL BE A SMALL ITEM SO WE
CAN MOVE ON TO POSSIBLE VOTE,
DIRECTOR CONFIRMATION.
AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS TO EMILY
FOR HER NOMINATION FROM THE
EXECUTIVE AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
INTERVIEWING HER AND HEARING
MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES.
WE HAVE SENT OUT QUESTIONS FOR
COUNCIL COMMITTEE -- COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES TO ADD TO AND WE WILL
BE SHARING THOSE TOMORROW AT
NOON WITH MISS ALVARADO.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, GET THOSE
BACK TO ERIN HOUSE BEFORE THEN.
THE OTHER ITEMS INCLUDE THE
SEATTLE RENTAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PILOT, THE FIVE
SEATTLE AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS,
AND THE RACE AND SOCIAL
INITIATIVE REPORT.
THE FINAL MEETING OF THE
HOUSING, HEALTH, ENERGY, AND
WORKERS RIGHTS COMMITTEE WILL BE
ON A TUESDAY.
AND THASZ TUESDAY THE 24th AT
2:00 P.M.
WHERE WE WILL FOCUS ON
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT.
AND WE WILL WRAP UP OUR YEAR.
WITH THAT, THANK YOU ALL.
WE DID NOT MEAN TO DELAY THE
DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK THE
TIMING OF THIS VOTE ON NEXT
THURSDAY POTENTIALLY ON MFT GAVE
US MORE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM
THE COMMUNITY.
SO I'M GLAD THAT THAT WORKED OUT
WELL.
AND APPRECIATE YOU ALL.
WITH THAT, TODAY'S MEETING IS
ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.