Seattle City Council Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers’ Rights Committee 9/12/19


>>>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.>>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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *