Seattle City Council Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers Rights Committee 9/5/19


>>>GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2019. THE HOUSING, HEALTH AND WORKERS RIGHTS COMMITTEE COME TO ORDER. I AM COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST FEW MEETINGS, WE HAVE TWO SECTIONS OF THE AGENDA TODAY. THE FIRST SECTION WILL BE DEVOTED TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT. WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH BAKER TILLY ON THE OUTSIDE FINANCIAL AUDIT AND WE HAVE ABOUT 30 MINUTES FOR THAT ITEM. WE DO HAVE PUBLIC TEST MONEY FOR FOLKS WHO SIGNED IN TO TESTIFY ON THAT FIRST ITEM. I WILL DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE NAME IT, I THINK YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE SECOND ITEM WHICH IS THE HOTEL LEGISLATION. THE SECOND ITEM WE WILL BRING UP WILL BE RELATED TO THE HOTEL SAFETY PROTECTIONS. IT WILL BE RELATED TO EMPLOYEES BEING PROTECTED FROM INJURY ON THE JOB AT JOB RETENTION. THESE ARE THREE OF THE ORDINANCES THAT THE HOTEL SAFETY AND HEALTH CARE WORKERS RIGHTS PROTECTION ORDINANCE HAS CONSIDERED. THERE ARE FOUR COMPONENTS AS YOU KNOW. WE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING HEALTHCARE TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD FROM MANY OF YOU THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO WEIGH IN WITH US ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE HEALTHCARE SECTION. THAT WILL COME UP NEXT WEEK ON SEPTEMBER 16. WE WILL ALSO NOT BE VOTING ANY OF THE HOTEL LEGISLATON OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD FROM SOME OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS. WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION AND AS WE HAVE DONE IN PAST MEETINGS, WE WILL ATTEMPT TO TRY TO VOTE ON ANY AMENDMENTS IN COMMITTEE BUT NOT VOTE THEM OUT OF COMMITTEE. THAT WAY ALL OF THE LEGISLATION WILL STAY IN THIS COMMITTEE. WE WILL THEN TAKE UP THOSE THREE PIECES IN ADDITION TO HEALTHCARE. NEXT WEEK WITH THE INTENTION TO BUT THIS OUT NEXT WEEK. JUST TO REITERATE, AMENDMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED ON SAFETY PROTECTIONS, PROTECTING EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY, AND JOB RETENTION. THREE SECTION. WE WILL THEN HOLD THOSE BILLS IN COMMITTEE WITH THE INTENT TO BRING BACK HEALTHCARE NEXT WEEK. AND THOSE THREE BILLS WITH THE GOAL TO VOTE THEM OUT OF COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK. WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT ALL OF THE TESTIMONY YOU WANT WANT TO SHARE. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS KNOW THE PSA GOING INTO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE WILL HAVE AGAIN ANOTHER WEEK IS YOU ALL REQUESTED EMMA TO CONTINU TO PROVIDE US WITH FEEDBACK. >>>SO THE FIRST ITEM ON TODAY’S AGENDA IS, THE FIRST SECTION ON TODAY’S AGENDA IS RELATED TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT OUTSIDE FINANCIAL AUDIT, WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THOSE ITEMS. SPECIFICALLY. I DO HAVE FOUR PEOPLE SIGNED UP UNDER THE FIRST ITEM BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SECOND ONE. AND, DIANE, MICHAEL CLARK? YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HOTEL, CORRECT? I AM SEEING NOT’S. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT? OKAY. SO WHAT WE GO AHEAD AND GET INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. THAT WILL CLOSE LOOK TESTIMONY FOR THE FIRST SECTION ON SEATTLE CITY LIGHT’S. THE AUDIT. THAT WE WILL INVITE OUR GUESTS TO COME ON UP AS WE READ INTO THE RECORD ITEM NUMBER ONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. WE HAVE THE FIRST 30 MINUTES DEDICATED TO A SEATTLE CITY LIGHT AUDIT UPDATE. >>THE CITY LIGHT REPORT, FOR EVERYTHING ON DISCUSSION. >>OCCAM. INC. YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE. WHY DON’T YOU GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND WE WILL GET YOU TO YOUR PRESENTATION. ú>>GOOD MORNING. I AM MIKE SIMMONS, THE CONTROLLER FOR SEATTLE CITY LIGHT. >>KIRSTY GRANGER. I AM THE CFO OF SEATTLE CITY LIGHT. >>AARON WORTH MINUTE WITH BAKER TILLY. >>THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR COMING. YOU HAVE COME A DISTANCE TO BE HERE. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS ANNUAL AUDIT OF SEATTLE CITY LIGHT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND AS YOU KNOW, THE AUDIT IS CONDUCTED ANNUALLY. BY AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE AUDITOR. BAKER TILLY IS AN ACCOUNTING FIRM THAT IS CONDUCTING THIS YEAR’S AUDIT AND HAS WORKED WITH PREVIOUS AUDITS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TRACKING HOW THINGS ARE GOING AT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT FROM AN OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE. DO YOU WANT TO OPEN UP FROM COMMENTS ON SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ON THIS ISSUE? >>WE DO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THIS. I APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST IN LISTENING. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH. WHY DON’T WE GO AHEAD. >>AGAIN, MY NAME IS AARON WORTH MINUTE WITH A CRITELLI. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE 2018 FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT. THIS PRESENTATION, PART OF WHICH REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE SIMILAR TO FORMAT PRIOR YEARS. WHAT I WANT TO DO FIRST IS TELL YOU WHAT EXACTLY IS AN AUDIT? WHAT COMPRISES AN AUDIT. GO TO THE INTERNAL CONTROL COMMISSION AND GO THROUGH THE AUDITOR MEDICATION GOVERNANCE, WHICH ARE THE REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS WE NEED TO HAVE AS PART OF THE AUDIT PROCESS. AND THEN OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >>EXCELLENT. >>SO THIS YEAR, I WOULD SAY THE AUDIT WENT WELL. THIS YEAR, THERE WAS A NEW PEOPLESOFT IMPLEMENTATION WHICH CAUSES NEW WORK FOR THE AUDITORS AND FOR MANAGEMENT. YOU HAVE A NEW SYSTEM INTEGRATION, GETTING UP TO SPEED ON THOSE THINGS. I WOULD SAY THIS ACTUALLY, WE WERE PREPARING FOR ISSUES AND WE THINK THIS YEAR’S AUDIT WENT WELL. WE HAD FOUR WEEKS OF FIELDWORK CONDUCTED. ONE OF WHICH WAS PRELIMINARY FOR THE FALL. THEN WE CONDUCTED THREE WEEKS OF FINAL FIELDWORK IN THE SPRING. THE LAST DATE OF FIELDWORK WAS MARCH 29 AT A BIG THING TO NOTE IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ADJUSTING JOURNAL ENTRIES AS PART OF THIS YEAR’S AUDIT, WHICH IS ALWAYS GOOD. THE AUDIT WAS PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS. THE STANDARDS WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AS AUDITORS WHEN WE CONDUCT EVERY AUDIT. IN ADDITION, BECAUSE YOUR ENTITY AND THE CITY RECEIVES FEDERAL FUNDING, WE WERE REQUIRED TO ALSO CONDUCTOR AUDIT IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS. THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS WE HAVE RELATIVE TO DO CARE, SUPERVISION, CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, INDEPENDENCE AND QUALITY CONTROL. ARE AUDIT OBJECTIVE IS TO OBTAIN REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE FREE OF MATERIAL A STATEMENT AT THE END OF THIS OR’S AUDIT, PLEASE REPORT THAT YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE RECEIVD A MODIFIED OPINION. THAT IS ALSO KNOWN AS A CLEAN OPINION, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ASSURANCE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE AS AUDITORS. TAKING A LOOK AT THE AUDIT, IF WE WERE TO BREAK DOWN THE AUDIT INTO SEGMENTS, YOU WILL SEE WHERE WE SPENT OUR TIME, MOST OF OUR TIME. SO TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY 30% OF THE WORK THAT WE DO IS SPECIFIC TO INTERNAL CONTROLS. AND I.T. RELATED TO THOSE CONTROLS. THAT IS WHERE WE SPENT 30% OF OUR TIME. SO WHAT WE WILL ACTUALLY DO IS GO OUT AND DETERMINE WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PROCESSES AT CITY LIGHT? RECEIVABLES AND BILLING. WORK ORDERS. FIXED ASSETS. DISBURSEMENTS. EXPENDITURES. THINGS LIKE THAT. WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PROCESSES, DOCUMENT WHAT ARE THE REQUIRED INTERNAL CONTROLS, AND THEN WE WILL TEST TO MAKE SURE THAT, ARE THOSE INTERNAL CONTROLS PRISON FOR THE PROCESS? AND MORE PORTLY, ARE THEY EFFECTIVE IN WORKING? AND SITUATIONS WHERE THEY ARE, WE CAN PERFORM LESS SUBSTANTIVE TASKS. IF WE DO FIND A BOOK DONE IN CONTROLS OR A LACK OF INTERNAL CONTROLS, WE WOULD SPEND MORE AUDIT TIME DEVOTED TO THAT AREA. FOR 40% OF WHAT WE DO ARE, CONSISTS OF SUBSTANTIAL TEST. TAKE A LOOK AT CASH INVESTMENTS, TAKING A LOOK AT FAIR VALLEYS AND THOSE INVESTMENTS. TAKING A LOOK AT YOUR RECEIVABLES. THINGS TO THAT EXTENT. AND THE LAST 30% OF WHAT WE DO IS SPECIFIC TO AUDIT PLANNING. AND FINANCIAL REPORTING. TAKING A LOOK AT ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. LOOKING BELOW AT THE WORK PLAN, YOU WILL SEE AGAIN WE SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON I.T. INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BALANCE SHEET, FIXED ASSETS MAKE UP A MAJORITY OF YOUR BALANCE SHEET. FINANCIAL REPORTING, AGAIN, PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION. THIS LETS YOU KNOW WHERE EXACTLY DO WE SPEND OUR TIME RELATIVE TO THE AUDIT. TAKING A LOOK AT INTERNAL CONTROLS, I DO WANT TO STATES THAT WE GIVE AN AUDIT OPINION BASED ON YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. WE DO NOT PROVIDE AN OPINION ON INTERNAL CONTROLS. HOWEVER, AS WE CONDUCTOR AUDIT, WHEN WE IDENTIFIED MATERIAL WEAKNESSES IN CONTROLS, OR SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES RELATIVE TO CONTROLS, WE ARE REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE THOSE. AND ALSO CATEGORIZE THE SEVERITY OF THAT INTERNAL CONTROL DOWN. SO THE FIRST CATEGORY, IT WOULD BE A MATERIAL WEAKNESS. BASICALLY, WHAT THAT MEANS IS A LACK OF CONTROL OR A BREAKDOWN IN CONTROL RELATIVE THAT THERE COULD BE MORE THAN A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THE LACK OF CONTROL WOULD LEAD TO MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT IN YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT. PLEASE REPORT THAT WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY MATERIAL WEAKNESSES. THE SECOND CATEGORY IS A SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY WHICH IS LESS SEVERE THAN A TURTLE WEAKNESS. HOWEVER, IT IS ENOUGH TO WARRANT YOUR ATTENTION AS GOVERNANCE. SO THIS YEAR IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS STATE AUDITOR HAD ISSUED A POINT OF SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY ON CASH AND INVESTMENTS FROM A CITY PERSPECTIVE. SO ONE THING WE NEED TO KNOW AS A DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY, THE CITY DID HAVE INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER THE ACCOUNTING FINANCIAL STATEMENT PREPARATION FOR CASH AND INVESTMENTS RELATIVE TO A SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY IN THOSE CONTROLS. UNDERSTANDING A STATE AUDITOR HAS COMMUNICATED THAT, THE AUDIT MIGHT STILL BE IN PROGRESS. WE ARE HOPING TO ISSUE SOON BUT BECAUSE WE ARE A DEPARTMENT THE CITY TAKES CARE OF OUR CASH AND INVESTMENTS, WE NEED TO SHOW THE STATE AUDITOR POINT AS WELL, WHICH MIGHT INCLUDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THAT. MOVING ON TO OUR REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT, YOU WILL SEE YOUR STANDARD ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES, AUDIT AGAINST THOSE AND LET YOU KNOW IF WE HAD ANY FINDINGS. ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE CAPITALIZATION POLICY. ANOTHER ITEM TO POINT OUT ARE ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES. OFTENTIMES WE WILL HAVE GOVERNING BODIES OR USERS OF THOSE FINANCIALS ASK ABOUT, WHAT ARE THE MOST CONCERNING PARTS ABOUT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS? IS THERE SOMETHING TO VOTE ON, WHERE WOULD THAT BE WITHIN THE FINANCIALS? I OFTEN SAY OR ALMOST ALWAYS SAY IN EVERY INSTANCE IT PROBABLY HAS TO DO WITH AN ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES. WITHIN THE STATEMENTS, THERE ARE ESTIMATES FOR YOUR PENSION LIABILITY, FOR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES AND YOUR UNBILLED REVENUES. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION LIABILITY, SELF-INSURANCE. WHERE CERTAIN TIMES YOU WILL HAVE SPECIALISTS, SO FOR INSTANCE IF YOU TAKE A PENSION, YOU WILL HAVE AN ACTUARY DETERMINE WHAT THE LIABILITY IS AND YOU WILL PUT THAT WITHIN YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. WE AS AUDITORS NEED TO LOOK AT THE ACTUARY AND MAKE SURE IT IS COMPETENT. MAKE SURE THEY HAVE GOOD QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK. WE WILL REVIEW THE REPORTS AND FINDINGS AND USE THAT AND TEST YOUR LIABILITY. JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS IS, SO FOR INSTANCE, YOUR PENSION THE CITY LIGHT PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE CITY RETIREMENT LIABILITY WITH A 7.5% RATE IS 232 MILLION. BECAUSE THESE ESTIMATES ARE SO SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE VARIABLES USED TO CALCULATE THEM, ACCOUNTING GUIDANCE REQUIRES YOU TO SHOW BUT THIS LIABILITY WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS WITH 1% HIGHER IN THE DISCOUNT RATE AT 1% LOWER. SO IF WE DECREASED THAT DISCOUNT RATE TO 6.5%, YOUR LIABILITY WOULD INCREASE TO BE HUNDRED AND 33 MILLION. LIKEWISE, IF YOU MOVED IT THE OTHER WAY TO 8 1/2%, THAT LIABILITY WOULD MOVE DOWN TO $157 MILLION. SO AGAIN, THAT IS A PRETTY BIG SWING. SO CAN I SIT HERE TODAY AS HER AUDITOR AND SAY WITHOUT A DOUBT YOUR LIABILITY AS IT STANDS TODAY IS 232 MILLION? I CAN’T DO THAT BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT BETWEEN 147 AND 333 I WOULD SAY YES. THAT IS A REASONABLE DETERMINATION. A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF WHERE THE LIABILITY STANDS TODAY BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE. SO AGAIN, JUST KNOW WHAT ESTIMATES ARE WITHIN THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE MORE IMPORTANTLY, KNOW THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS ESTIMATES. >>SOME EVERYTHING ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS AND THE FINANCIAL AUDIT HERE, HOW ARE WE TO CATEGORIZE THE FINANCIAL ESTIMATES THAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT IN THE PRESS RELATED TO THE BILLING ESTIMATES THAT MANY OF THE CONSUMERS ARE DEALING WITH? THE OVERBILLING AND POTENTIAL SURPRISE BILLS THAT PEOPLE RECEIVED? I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS PROBABLY A DIFFERENT CATEGORY AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THE CONSUMER IS EXPERIENCING VERSUS THE ESTIMATES THAT CITY LIGHT IS ASSUMING. BUT HOW DOES THAT FACTOR INTO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS CATEGORIZED AS SOMETHING YOU ARE LOOKING AT OR OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE? >>SO THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. SO PART OF WHAT WE DO, WE ARE REQUIRED WHEN WE DIVIDED OPINION, WE PROVIDE IT ON A MATERIAL BASIS. WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE LOOK AT ALL THESE ESTIMATES AND WE DETERMINE, ARE THESE MATERIAL? WE LOOK AT THEM AS SUCH. WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, WE WOULD SEE IN THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE ACCOUNTS. ASSUMING THERE WAS A QUESTION ON RECORDED RECEIVABLES AND REVENUES. IF THERE WAS A QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT WILL BE PAID IN THE FUTURE, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THIS ALLOWANCE. WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND DETERMINE ITS REASONABLE BASED ON MANY FACTORS. PROBABILITY OF COLLECTIONS GOING FORWARD, LOOKING BACK, WHAT IS COLLECTIONS RATE THAN IN THE PAST? NOW, IF THERE WAS THE SYSTEM CONVERSION ALLOWED BACK THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME OVERBILLING’S. WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK TO SEE, OR THOSE MATERIAL IN NATURE? WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THOSE? UNDERSTANDING AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD NOT DEEM THOSE MATERIAL BUT MANAGEMENT IS DEFINITELY LOOKING AT THOSE. AND WE WOULD HAVE CONCERN IF WE SAW THAT THOSE WERE MATERIAL. BUT THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE ESTIMATE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE FEEL IT IS REASONABLE. IN RELATION TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT THE THRESHOLD IS FOR WHEN IT BECOMES MATERIAL. WE ARE JUST BEGINNING TO SCRATCH THE SURFACE ON THE TYPE OF OVERBILLING ESTIMATE THAT SOME CONSUMERS HAVE EXPERIENCED. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CLASS- ACTION LAWSUIT. WE HAVE AN AUDIT THAT HE AUDITOR OF THE CITY IS CONDUCTING. THEY WILL BE PRESENTING IN THE COMMITTEE AT THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MID YEAR TO LOOK INTO THESE ESTIMATES. SO COULD YOU MAYBE STAY IN TOUCH WITH US OR GET BACK TO US AT SOME POINT SOMETHING BECAUSE MATERIAL? >>ABSOLUTELY. A LOT OF TIMES WE GET QUESTIONS, WHAT IS MATERIAL? I WISH I COULD GIVE THE LATTER DEFINITION BUT THE BEST DEFINITION WE HAVE SEEN IS, IT WOULD BE AN AMOUNT THAT WOULD AFFECT THE DECISIONS BASED ON THE USERS OF THE FINANCIALS. I COULD TELL YOU, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR INCOME STATEMENT AND CHANGE YOUR OPERATING REVENUES BY ANNUAL OPERATING REVENUES BY 40 MILLION, COULD THAT CHANGE OR AFFECT THE DECISIONS OF THE USERS OF THE STATEMENTS? MY GUESS IS YES. THAT IS THE BEST MATERIAL. NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT THE BALANCE SHEET. YOU HAVE $1 BILLION IN ASSETS. THAT LET’S YOU DIDN’T RECORD OR MISSED RECORDING AN ASSET OF $2 MILLION, $1 BILLION WITH ASSETS. WOULD YOU VIEW THAT AS MATERIAL? MY ANSWER WOULD BE NO. I WOULDN’T CALL THAT MATERIAL. WHEN WE LOOK AT MATERIAL, WE WANT TO REALIZE THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS. THE QUANTITATIVE WHICH WE JUST SPELLED OUT BUT ALSO QUALITATIVE. BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE A SUPER LARGE DOLLAR AMOUNT RELATIVE TO A FIXED ASSET ADDITION. HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT YOU’RE DEALING WITH $1 BILLION OF ASSETS, YOU PROBABLY WOULDN’T THINK $2 MILLION IS MATERIAL TO THAT. BUT FOR THE INCOME STATEMENT, $2 MILLION OF REVENUE RELATIVE TO SYSTEM SALES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU MIGHT VIEW THAT AS MATERIAL. AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH THE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE. >>GOOD QUESTION THAT. >>AS PART OF THE AUDIT, IF WE HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTIES, WE WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE THIS. WE DID NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT THE FACULTIES AS PART OF THIS YEAR’S AUDIT. IF WE HAD ANY UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS, WE WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE THOSE AND AS SUCH, SIMILAR TO EVERY YEAR, WE DO HAVE A LISTING OF WAIVED ENTRIES THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED AS PART OF THAT REPRESENTATION LETTER. THIS RESULTS AGAIN, THIS CONCEPT OF MATERIALITY OFTENTIMES AS BOOKS ARE CLOSED, THE CLIENTS MAY HAVE A SMALL ENTRY THAT MIGHT COMES IN. THEY DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE SET OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR A MATERIAL SMALL ENTRY. WE AS AUDITORS NEED TO KEEP TRACK OF THOSE TO DETERMINE IF YOU HAD 12 OF THOSE, AND YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THEM ALL, WHAT WOULD THE EFFECT BE ALTOGETHER? IS THAT MATERIAL? AND YOURS WERE NOT. BUT WE DO NEED TO KNOW IS WE NEED TO KEEP A COLLECTION OF THOSE AND REPORT THOSE TO USE YOU CAN SEE WHAT THOSE AMOUNTS ARE. THEY WERE NOT MATERIAL. >>IF WE HAD ANY DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT, WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS THOSE. THIS IS DEFINITELY A YEAR-ROUND AUDIT PROCESS. WE WORK WITH MANAGEMENT CLOSELY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WHETHER IT IS DUE TO ACCOUNTING STANDARDS CHANGES, SYSTEM ISSUES, SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES. SO I THINK PART OF THE REASON YOU GET TO THE END OF THE AUDIT AND YOU DON’T HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, WE HAVE HAD THE THING THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. WE HAVE CONCERNS AND WE WILL TALK TO MANAGERS ABOUT THIS. IT CAN BE A PRETTY SEAMLESS AUDIT. IF WE HAD ANY OTHER FINDINGS OR ISSUES, CERTAINLY WE WOULD DISCLOSE THIS. I JUST KNOW THAT IF I DIDN’T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, THIS IS NOT BE THE FIRST TIME YOU FOLKS WOULD HEAR ABOUT IT. I WOULD WE TALKED YOU HAD OF TIMES TO HAVE THOSE DECISION. THERE SHOULD EVER BE A HUGE SURPRISE WHEN WE GET TO THIS MEETING. >>IF WE HAD ANY MATERIAL ADJUSTING JOURNAL ENTRIES, WE WILL DISCLOSE THIS. THERE WERE NO MATERIAL ADJUSTMENTS AS PART OF THIS YEAR’S AUDIT. MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS. ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE RECEIVED ARE THE MANAGEMENT REPS. WHAT THOSE ARE IS REPRESENTATIONS MANAGEMENT MAKES AS PART OF THE AUDIT PROCESS. THE REPRESENTATIONS ON ESTIMATES. THERE ARE REPRESENTATIONS ON FRAUD, INTERNAL CONTROLS. SPECIALISTS. THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IF YOU HAVE IT, I SUGGEST, TAKE SOME TIME TO TAKE LOOK AT THOSE REPRESENTATIONS. I WOULD SAY EVERY YEAR THAT IT GETS LONGER AS MANAGEMENT BECOMES MORE ACTIVE AND INVOLVED. IN THIS AUDIT PROCESS. AS THEY TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. >>IF MANAGEMENT HAD ANY CONSULTATIONS WITH ANY OTHER AUDIT FIRMS, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE NOTIFIED OF THAT. SOMETIMES I CAN ALSO BE KNOWN AS OPINION CHOPPING. BUT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY DISCUSSIONS THAT YOUR MANAGEMENT HAVE. INDEPENDENCE. INDEPENDENCE CONTINUES TO BE A LARGER FACTOR AS PART OF AUDITORS AND THE AUDIT WORK THAT WE DO. AS IT PERTAINS TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT, AND THE EMPLOYEES. LASTLY, WE WANT TO THANK THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL OF THE HELP THEY HAD. THIS YEAR WAS A BUSY YEAR. A HUGE GENERAL LEDGER IMPLEMENTATION. A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO THAT. TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING RUNNING. AND HAVING AN AUDIT CONDUCTED BUT WE APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK THEY DID. WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK FOR THE ORGANIZATION. AND WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU FOLKS HAVE. >>ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM SEATTLE CITY LIGHT? >>WE JUST THINK, WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH AKER TILLY. THEY BRING GOOD INSIGHT AND PROFESSIONALISM TO THIS. >>I DO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I GET INTO IT? >>JUST A QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. IN TERMS OF OUR BOND RATING AND OUR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND HOW WE ARE DOING AS AN INSTITUTION, DID YOU MAKE ANY CONCLUSIONS THERE? TRENDING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BASED ON THE SQUEAKING CLEAN AUDIT HERE? OR IS IT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE KIND OF THINGS YOU WOULD DO? >>SO GREAT QUESTION. THAT IS A LITTLE OUT OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE DO RELATIVE TO FINANCIAL HEALTH. BUT ONE THING I CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU IS HAVING AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH A CLEAN OPINION DEFINITELY GOES A LONG WAY. BUT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT THOSE RATING AGENCIES LOOK AT. THEY WILL LOOK AT DEPOSITION RELATIVE TO YOUR ASSETS. THEY LOOK AT, DO YOU KEEP YOUR RATES CURRENT? THEY LOOK AT MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS BUT THE FIRST STEP IN THAT IS HAVING ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDITED, WHICH DON’T INCLUDE ANY OFFICIAL STATEMENT. FOR SUBSEQUENT DEBT ISSUES. AND YOU HAVE A CLEAN OPINION. SO AGAIN, THAT DEFINITELY GOES A LONG WAY. THAT IS A GOOD FIRST STEP. >>THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS, YOU MENTIONED THE ESTIMATES THAT ARE BEING ASSUMED AT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT CURRENTLY, WITH THE CURRENT POLICY AROUND COLLECTIONS. THIS IS THE POLICY THAT WILL BE THE UPDATED SOON. WE IN MY OFFICE AS SEATTLE CITY LIGHT KNOWS, WE ARE LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE TO TRY TO GET AWAY FROM A COLLECTIONS POLICY WHEN THERE IS A DEBT ISSUE. WHEN PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO PAY ON A REGULAR BASIS TOWARD THAT DEBT. I WOULD LOVE FOR THERE TO BE DEBT FORGIVENESS IS SOME OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DONE. SO DOES THAT, WOULD THAT FACTOR IN THE FUTURE AUDITS YOU DO? OR DOES KNOWING THAT POLICY CHANGES ON THE HORIZON CHANGE ANY OF YOUR CONCLUSIONS HERE? >>SO YOU ARE RIGHT. NO UTILITY IS EXACTLY THE SAME RELATIVE TO THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. BUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS, WHAT WE WILL DO, ASSUMING THE POLICY CHANGES, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GO IN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE FOLLOWING YOUR POLICIES. OTHERWISE, THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION WE HAVE THAT WE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING POLICIES. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE WAY WE WOULD LOOK AT IT, WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR AND ALLOWANCE FOR THE ACCOUNTS AND HAVE A POLICY RELATED TO THE ESTIMATE. ANY CHANGES IN YOUR POLICY, WE WOULD THEN WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WORKED ITS WAY INTO OFFSETTING YOUR RECEIVABLE BALANCE WITH A VOLATILITY OF WHETHER IT WILL BE PAID OR WAIVED OR FORGIVEN. BUT WE WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ESTIMATE ON YOUR ALLOWANCE FOR THE ACCOUNTS. >>LAST YEAR WE HAD SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED ABOUT THE OVERRIDES IN THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS’S. THAT DOESN’T SEEM TO BE APPEARING TOO MUCH IN THE CONVERSATION TODAY. ANECDOTALLY, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS A COURSE CORRECTION ON SOME OF THOSE CAPITAL OVERRIDES? >>COULD YOU GIVE A LITTLE EXAMPLE OF WHAT OVERRIDES ARE? >>WE HAD SOME MAJOR PROJECTS THAT WE HAD TAKEN ON IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. SOME OF THOSE HAD SIGNIFICANT COST OVERRIDES. AND I AM WONDERING IF THAT WAS A FACTOR IN YOUR FINANCIALS. >>WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT IS CONTROLS. OTHER BUDGETS? THESE ARE ACTUAL. BUDGETS BE PERFORMED AFTER PROJECTS ARE DONE? THAT IS A CONTROL. AND INVESTIGATED. WHY WERE THE COST OVERRUNS? YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE VALID REASONS. ONE THING WE DO IS MAKE SURE, ARE THERE THINGS BEING COMPLETED? YES THERE ARE. IS THE ACTUAL BUDGET COMPARISON BEING LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED? IT IS. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, I THINK ANY OVERRUNS HAVE BEEN VALID AND HAVE SUPPORT FOR THEM. NOW, WE DON’T LOOK AT EVERY CASE AND INSTANCE BUT THE BIGGEST THING IS THAT THERE IS A CONTROL IN PLACE. THOSE VARIANCES ARE INVESTIGATED AND INVESTIGATED ON A TIMELY BASIS. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE BUDGET OVERRUNS FOR MANY DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU AS A GOVERNANCE, I WOULD JUST WANT TO SURE THAT, WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR THE OVERRUNS? DOES IT MAKE SENSE? DO YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THOSE? BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A QUESTION, IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH BUDGETING? DO WE NEED TO REEVALUATE HOW WE BUDGET? TRY TO FIGURE OUT SEEMS. IS THERE A CONSISTENT REASON WHY WE ARE OVER? AND IF SO, IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE ARE. BUT NOTHING CAME TO OUR ATTENTION OF NOTE. BEING A MATERIAL ISSUE BY ANY MEANS. BUT WE DO LOOK AT SOME OF THE CONTROLS AROUND THAT OVERALL. >>AND THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE MOVING FORWARD, JUST THIS WEEK WE PASSED A RESOLUTION, AN EFFORT IN FULL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO ALLOW FOR US TO ENTER INTO THE WESTERN MARKET. I KNOW THAT THIS IS A NEW MARKET FOR US. WE WILL BE LOOKING AT TREATING OUR ENERGY ACROSS THE WEST COAST. IT IS AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THE GREENER ENERGY PRODUCT OUT OF THE MARKET SO FEWER ENTITIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR ARE HAVING TO CONSUME CARBON EMITTING ENERGY. SO WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS. BUT WE ALSO KNOW WE NEED TO CLOSELY TRACK OUR PARTICIPATION IN THAT. NEXT YEAR, ASSUMING THAT WE WILL BE WORKING WITH YOU ALL AGAIN, WILL THIS BE AN ISSUE THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IN YOUR AUDIT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE WITHIN THE CONFINES? >>ABSOLUTELY. WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR OTHER AUDIT CLIENTS THAT ARE ALREADY DOING THESE TYPES OF THINGS, LIKE SACRAMENTO. AND EVEN IN THE TEXAS MARKET OR SOME OF THESE OTHER LARGER AREAS, WE SEE THIS ALL THE TIME. SO THE GOOD NEWS IS, WE DEFINITELY ARE EQUIPPED TO AUDIT THESE THINGS. CERTAINLY WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR DERIVATIVE POSITIONS THAT NEED TO BE RECORDED. KNOW. THIS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FOR THIS UPCOMING AUDIT. WE WOULD DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT IT, WE WOULD TESTED. AGAIN, WE WOULD GO RIGHT DOWN THE LINE. WHAT CONTROLS SHOULD BE IN PLACE? WHAT ARE THOSE CONTROLS? WE WILL TEST THIS. WE WILL SEE IF THERE’S ANY BREAKDOWN AND LASTLY, LET’S SAY THERE ARE DERIVATIVES, WE WILL MAKE SURE THEY ARE REPORTED AT FAIR VALUE WITHIN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE DISCLOSURES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PARTIES AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. BUT YES, IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A MAJOR POINT OF EMPHASIS FOR THIS UPCOMING AUDIT. >>EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS. SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE WANT TO EXTEND A HUGE AMOUNT OF APPRECIATION FOR YOUR WORK. WE KNOW YOU HAVE, PEER AND TRAVELED FOR THIS PRESENTATION. YOUR TEAM AS WELL HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK. THANKS TO YOU, SEATTLE CITY LIGHT FOR CONTINUING TO ENGAGE IN THIS TRANSPARENT AUDITING PROCESS AND WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO SHARING WITH YOU ANY FUTURE POLICIES AS IT RELATES TO COLLECTION CHANGES, ANY CHANGES TO THE BILLING ESTIMATES THAT MAY COME FROM THE CITY AUDITORS REPORT THAT WILL COME TO OUR COMMITTEE. WE BELIEVE IN FEBRUARY OF NEXT EAR.AND TO ENGAGE WITH YOU AS WE ENTER INTO THE WESTERN BALANCE MARKET. >>SOUNDS GREAT. >>I CAN’T SAY YOUR REPORT WAS EARTH SHATTERING BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR IN AN AUDIT. >>LESS IS MORE. >>THINK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH. WHEN WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR THE SECOND ITEM, SECOND SECTION OF THE AGENDA WHICH INCLUDES THREE ITEMS. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND I HAD A FEW PEOPLE ASK, HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW. WE REALLY WANT TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN HALF AN HOUR. WE HAVE EXACTLY 31 PEOPLE SIGNED UP. SO LET’S DO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON. AND RECOGNIZE THAT WE REALLY VALUE YOUR TIME AND YOUR COMMITMENT HERE IF YOU COULD STAY WITH HIM AT ONE MINUTE. WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. MUCH OF WHAT WE WILL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY, WE GET TO TALK ABOUT AGAIN NEXT THURSDAY. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE FOLKS IN THE ORDER THEY SIGNED UP HERE. AND VANDER HEY? DN’S WALLY? JURGEN OSWALD AND MICHAEL CLARK ARE THE FIRST FOUR PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO TESTIFY. WE WILL PUT A MINUTE ON THE TIMER HERE. AND JUST BY WAY OF REMINDER, SO WE ARE FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES, YOU WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THREE ITEMS ON TODAY’S AGENDA. HOTEL JOB RETENTION, DETECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY, AND HOTEL SAFETY PROTECTIONS. THESE ARE INCLUDED IN TODAY’S AGENDA AS ITEMS NUMBER TWO, THREE AND FOUR. CANCEL BUILT 119556, CONSTABLE 119554, AND COUNCIL BILL 119 557. ON TODAY’S AGENDA, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HEALTHCARE BUT I THINK IT WEAVED IN AND OUT AS PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE. LET’S KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER WEEK TO CONSIDER HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION AND IF YOU DO HAVE COMMENTS ON THESE THREE BILLS TODAY, IT WOULD BE VERY TIMELY. WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR SIGNING UP FIRST. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE, GOOD MORNING. >>I AM THE DIRECTOR OF SALES AT THE HILTON SEATTLE. I HAVE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY FOR 35 YEARS IN A VARIETY OF HOURLY MANAGEMENT ADDITIONS. THE PANIC BUTTON LEGISLATION UNDERSCORES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOTEL INDUSTRY TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR VALUED TEAM MEMBERS. THE LATEST DEFINITION WE HAVE SEEN, THE TERMINATION OF WHO IS COVERED AND WHO IS NOT, IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO PASS A LAW WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OR SPECIFICALLY SAYING WHO IT APPLIES TO. ADDITIONALLY, I URGE YOU TO LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT THE HOTEL INDUSTRY ALREADY HAS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. DIANE? HELLO, DIANE. >>GOOD MORNING. I NAME IS DIANE AND I AM THE MANAGER AT THE HILTON SEATTLE. I WORKED IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY MY ENTIRE LIFE. THE SAFETY OF OUR EMPLOYEES IS ALWAYS TOP PARITY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE SUPPORTED AND PROVIDED PANIC BUTTONS TO ALL OF OUR ASSOCIATES. EVERYONE IS CONCERNED ABOUT OVERTIME ALKYLATION, WHICH IS NOW THREE TIMES PAID FOR ADDITIONAL TIME SPENT. WHY ARE WE THE ONLY INDUSTRY BEING ATTACKED? WE HAVE ALL HEARD YOU SAY THAT THIS OVERTIME IS NECESSARY. BUT WHAT MAKES IT THREE TIMES MORE PAID TO ASSOCIATES SAFE? >>THANK YOU. IN THE PAST, YOU FOLKS ARE ALSO WELCOME TO COME BEHIND THE SECURITY FOLKS IF YOU DO WANT A DIFFERENT VIEW. I KNOW IT IS AWKWARD THERE. YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME BEHIND THE GATE HERE. YOU ARE WELCOME. >>THANK YOU. >>SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. >>NO WORRIES. MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JURGEN AND I WORK. OVERTIME, THE CALCULATION IS THREE TIMES THE HOURLY WAGE. WHY? WHAT MAKES THE HOTEL INDUSTRY SO DIFFERENT FROM OTHER INDUSTRIES? >>YOU ARE SELLING THIS ORDINANCE AS PART OF PROTECTING HOUSEKEEPERS. HOWEVER, YOU ARE ALSO RIPPING IN NON-HOTEL EMPLOYEE SMALL BUSINESSES. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HOUSEKEEPING. SO LET’S FINALLY REMOVE THOSE ANCILLARY BUSINESSES FROM THIS LEGISLATION. THE LATEST DEFINITION, IT LEAVES IT UP TO THE RULEMAKING PROCESS. IS IN IT IRRESPONSIBLE TO PASS A HALF-BAKED LAW? IF THAT IS THE CASE, LET’S NOT RUSH IT, PLEASE. BUT PLEASE BE DILIGENT AND CONTINUE TO WORK ON THESE ORDINANCES SO WE CAN REALLY GET A PRODUCT THAT MAKES IT GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. AND DOESN’T LEAVE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION. THAT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO RUSH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND MICHAEL CLARK? >>HELLO, MICHAEL. >>GOOD MORNING. >>MORNING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >>I AM MICHAEL CLARK AND I AM ALSO ON THE BOARD OF THE SEATTLE HOTEL ASSOCIATION. I’VE BEEN HERE BEFORE SO I WON’T REVIEW I 33 YEARS IN OUR INDUSTRY. I CAN TELL YOU THAT SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF EMPLOYEES IS A TOP READY FOR THE ASSOCIATION. FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE WELL- BEING OF EMPLOYEES WORKING IN MY HOTEL. IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MATTERS THIS. I CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERTIME CALCULATION NOW AT THREE TIMES FOR THE EXTRA TIME IS SPENT CLEANING. OR NOT MANDATING FOR ANOTHER POSITION IN OTHER INDUSTRIES, ANY OTHER BUSINESS. IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. AND I HAVE HEARD YOU SAY THAT IT IT IS NECESSARY FOR EMPLOYEE SAFETY BUT IF THAT IS SO CRITICAL, WHY AREN’T HOTELS WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS REQUIRED TO PAY THREE TIMES? IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. INTERPRETING THE VOTER APPROVED PROTECTION OF HOUSEKEEPERS TO EXTEND TO ARRANGE NONEMPLOYEE AND BUSINESSES DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. IT IS TIME TO LOOK AT THAT AND REMOVE THAT. AND THE LATEST DEFINITION WE HAVE SEEN LEAST THE DETERMINATION OF WHO IS COVERED AND WHO IS NOT UP TO THE WILL MAKING PROCESS. IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO PASS THAT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHO SPECIFICALLY IT APPLIES TO. YOU ARE WELCOME AT MY HOTEL ANY TIME IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO BULK UP UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DO. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>WELCOME COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ AS COSPONSOR OF THAT LEGISLATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. THE NEXT THREE PAPER ARE CHAD McKAY, MICHAEL HIRSCH, AND HOBART. >>FOLKS, IF YOU WANT TO LINE UP THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. >>GREAT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CHAD McKAY, I AM THE CEO OF HOSPITALITY, A FAMILY BUSINESS BASED OUT OF NORTHWEST. I’M HERE TODAY TO SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT THE ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES AND WHY INDEPENDENT GROUPS ARE BEING CAUGHT UP IN A WAR AGAINST THE HOTELS. I DON’T UNDERSTAND, HEALTHCARE IS GOING TO BE A COMPONENT OF THIS. OF WHY THE GAUCHO, WHICH IS 17 ROOMS, WHICH WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM LEGISLATION BUT THE RESTAURANT, L GAUCHO, WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION. I THINK IT IS POORLY WRITTEN. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY LOOKED AT. WE LOOK AT THE HEALTHCARE COMPONENTS, I KNOW THAT IS LATER. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WORKING 20 HOURS WITH FAMILY. ADDING $20,000 OF LABOR COST. ALMOST $20 PER HOUR FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES. THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE BURDEN. FINALLY, THE ACA, YOU ARE PUTTING US INTO A DISCRIMINATORY NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ACA. I DOING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ONE LOCATION DIFFERENT FROM ANOTHER. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAD. MICHAEL? >>FOLLOWED BY HOBART AND BRANDON. >>GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU. I REPRESENT THE FAMILY OWNERS OF 13 POINTS. AND SEE OWNERSHIP GROUP OF THE LODGE SPORTS GROW. WE HAVE TWO IMPACTED PROPERTIES AND I AM ASKING FOR A CONVERSATION, A DIALOGUE ABOUT THE ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS. THE LANGUAGE REMOVAL. I HAVE REACHED OUT AND ASKED FOR DIALOGUE. WE HAVE SERVED THE CITY FOR 53 YEARS. WE ARE NOT WORLDWIDE, WE ARE NOT NATIONWIDE. WE ARE LOCAL AND LONGTIME FAMILIES AND MYSTIFIED AS TO HOW A SAFETY INITIATIVE THAT BEGAN FOR HOTEL EMPLOYEES HAS NOW REACHED THIS POINT INTO APPARENTLY THE ONLY POOR DECISION THAT WAS MADE WITH THE LOCATION OF OUR BUSINESS. WITH THE IMPACT. HERE WITH THE HOTEL. THE HELLO LOCATION. I WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AS TO HOW TO REMOVE IT OR WHAT THE UNDERLYING GOAL IS AND INCLUDING US IN THAT. AND SEE HOW WE CAN HELP TO BE PARTNERS IN ACHIEVING THE CITY SCHOOLS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>HELLO. I AM AN OWNER OF A COMPANY CALLED A BMS. AUDIOVISUAL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS. WITH SUPPLIERS AND HOTELS. BEEN IN THE HOSPITALITY BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS IN SEATTLE. 25 YEARS. OUR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT HOTEL EMPLOYEES. WE ARE A SUPPLIER OF HOTELS. I DON’T SEE HOW THIS PARTICULAR EGISLATION INCLUDES ANCILLARY BUSINESS. WE ARE ALSO, I WOULD CONSIDER A SMALL BUSINESS. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR SMALL BUSINESS TO OPERATE IN SOME OF THESE PARAMETERS. I THINK IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AGAIN AS TO HOW ANCILLARY BUSINESS IS DIRECTLY IMPACTED IN THIS REGULAR LEGISLATION. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SO FOLLOWING ANNA, ONE A SECOND, BREANNA. AFTER YOU WILL BE JOHN, PAM, AND THEN DESIREE? I AM REALLY SORRY. YOU CAN ALL CORRECT ME WHEN YOU COME UP. >>THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DEANNA FOX. I AM THE DIRECTOR. >>WE WILL START YOUR TIME AGAIN. >>I AM THE HR DIRECTOR AT BMI HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT. WE EMPLOYED 200 PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE. THE ISSUE I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT TODAY IS THE ORDINANCE ADDRESSING SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITS AS WELL AS OVERTIME PAY IF WORKERS EXCEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE COUNCIL IS CLAIMING THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION IS TO INCREASE SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE FOR SEATTLE WORKERS. I BELIEVE IF THAT WERE TRULY THE INTENTION, THIS ALSO WOULD PROVIDE AN ORDINANCE THAT COVERED ALL SEATTLE WORKERS. THEIR ARM WORKERS IN SEATTLE CLEANING OFFICE BUILDINGS, MEDICAL FACILITIES, SCHOOLS, I WOULD ASK, WHY AREN’T THEY RECEIVING THE SAME PROTECTIONS? WHY ARE WE TARGETING ONE INDUSTRY? I WOULD ALSO ASK WHY ALL OF THESE EMPLOYEES HERE IN THE RED SHIRT, WHY AREN’T THEY RECEIVING THOSE SAME PROTECTIONS IF THE INTENTION IS TRULY TO PROVIDE PROTECTION OR INCREASE SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE FOR HOTEL WORKERS. WHY IS IT BEING EXEMPTED? >>THANK YOU. >>DON? JOHN? PAM AND THEN DESIREE. >>MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOHN AND I’M THE DIRECTOR OF THE RETAIL INDUSTRY OF SEATTLE. THE WRECK GRASSROOTS RENOVATION OF OVER 30 RETAILERS IN THE CITY. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE TO NARROW THE DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT DEFINITION STILL POTENTIALLY EXTEND THE ORDINANCE TO BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT CLOSELY RELATED TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE HOTEL. IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED. SPECIFICALLY, WE URGE THE COMMITTEE TO COMBINE CLAUSES ONE AND TWO WITH AN AND AND ELITE CLASS III RELATED TO RESTAURANTS. THIS CHANGE WOULD REDUCE THE INCENTIVE FOR RETAILERS TO RELOCATE TO NON-HOTEL SPACE WHILE STILL ACHIEVING THE GOAL OF IMPROVING HEALTHCARE FOR HOTEL WORKERS. WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE RATHER THAN RELY ON LESS EDITABLE RULEMAKING PROCESSES. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>WELCOME. DESIREE AND THEN SHEILA ORDONEZ AND BRIAN’S ON. >>HELLO. YOU GOT IT? MY NAME IS PAMELA HINCKLEY AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING OUR RESTAURANT, LOLA. WE RENT SPACE IN THE HOTEL. THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR CONTINUED EFFORT ON WORKER SAFETY. BUT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS STRUCTURED AND ASKED THE COMMITTEE TO RETHINK THE INTENT. MISS MOSQUEDA STATES IN HER AUGUST 20 NEWSLETTER THAT HOTEL WORKERS ARE SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE WORKERS. WE DISAGREE. OUR RESTAURANT TEAMS ARE EXPERIENCING DANGEROUS CONFLICTS ON THE CONDITIONS ON OUR SEATTLE STREETS EVERY DAY. WE HAVE OFFERED SELF-DEFENSE CLASSES, MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING, AND TRAININGS FROM THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE MID TO PROTECT OUR EMPLOYEES. AN ORDINANCE THAT JUST PROTECTS HOTEL WORKERS IS BIASED AND UNFAIR. WE ALSO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF INCLUDING THE ANCILLARY BUSINESSES IN THE LEGISLATION. THE BUSINESS THAT LOLA IS DRIVEN BY, BEING A COMMUNITY RESTAURANT, WITH LESS THAN 5% OF OUR REVENUE COMING FROM THE HOTEL. I WILL SAVE THE HEALTHCARE THING. >>THANK YOU. >>SHEILA, BRIAN AND NICOLE GRANT. >>HIGH. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS SHEILA AND I AM THE ASSISTANT INTEGER AT THE MEDITERRANEAN AND. I’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR HOTELS FOR OVER A DECADE. THAT GOES THE SAME FOR MY MOTHER, SISTER AND AUNT. THE COMPANY I WORK FOR EMMA REPRESENT, IT IS A GOOD WORKING PLACE WHERE WE ARE IN FAVOR OF HELP, LISTEN TO EACH EMPLOYEE. THEIR SAFETY IS OUR SAFETY. IT HAS, WE HAVE SUPPORTED, PROVIDING PANIC BUTTONS TO EMPLOYEES AS PART OF SAFETY. WE ARE A SMALL AND FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESS. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERTIME CALCULATION. THAT IS THREE TIMES PAY FOR THE ADDITIONAL TIME SPENT CLEANING. ABOUT THE WORKLOAD BEING CRITICAL TO THE HEALTH OF WORKERS. WHY ARE THEY ALLOWING TO BE WEIGHED AT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT? I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE EQUAL AND FAIR. THIS LEGISLATION STARTED SAYING IS THE ABOUT PROTECTING HOTEL HOUSEKEEPERS BUT IT HAS DEVELOPED AND IT SEEMS TO ME IN MY FAMILY THAT IT IS MORE ABOUT FORCING WORKERS TO JOINING A UNION. FOR SMALL BUSINESS, YOU’RE JEOPARDIZING THE RIGHT TO STAY IN BUSINESS. IF THE GOAL IS TO HELP HOTEL WORKERS, THIS IS NOT IT. THANK YOU. >>JUST BEFORE YOU, I THINK WE HAVE RYAN. EXCELLENT. AFTER NICOLE, IT WILL BE ANNIE. >>MY NAME IS BRIAN AND I HAVE BEEN IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY AND THE SEATTLE LIGHT FOR 30 ODD YEARS. THIS IS HOME. WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY. I COULD SAY THE SAME THINGS EVERYONE ELSE HAS HAD. THE LEGISLATION HAS BIG PROBLEMS. AND YOU GUYS KNOW THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES IT IS AS INVITATION TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT EVEN THAT THE COURTS ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT LATER. IT WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER. WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY. IF YOU SAT DOWN IN GOOD FAITH, OPEN-MINDED, WENT OVER THE PROBLEMS AND BRAINSTORMED TOGETHER FOR SOLUTIONS, WE COULD SPEND OUR TIME WITH OUR FAMILIES AND OUR COWORKERS, DOING REAL THINGS INSTEAD OF FIGHTING THE STUFF IN COURT OR SHOWING UP IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS WERE KNOWN OF US WANT TO BE. WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY HERE. THE FAMILIES I REPRESENT OR WORK FOR HAVE OWNED AND MAINTAINED PLACES. FOR 30 ODD YEARS. TO PROMOTE FROM WITHIN, IT IS A CAREER PATH FOR PEOPLE. THEY TAKE VERY GOOD CARE OF EMPLOYEES. IF YOU GUYS EVER WANT TO COME TALK TO US. OR SEE US OR LEARN ABOUT IT. I WISH YOU WOULD. THANK YOU. >>[APPLAUSE] >>THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBERS, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS LEGISLATION. IT HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK AND A LONG TIME. WE ACTUALLY SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE HERE DOING THIS RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE THE SAME NIGHT A HOTEL LOCAL, A GLEEFUL RACIST AND SEXIST WAS ELECTED TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WE ALSO PASSED JUST LAOIS THEM TO TAKE THESE CHANGES TO THIS INDUSTRY. SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN MORE POSITIVE INFORMATION. THERE HAS BEEN THE NEED TO COMMIT. THERE HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER POLICIES PAST IN OTHER AMERICAN CITIES. THERE HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE ATTACKS ON IMMIGRANTS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HAVE MADE IT CLEAR YOU NEED TO FIGHT FOR IMMIGRANT WORKERS IN NEW AND STRONG WAYS. SO I KNOW THE MULTIBILLION- DOLLAR HOTEL INDUSTRY HAS FOUGHT THIS POLICY AND DRUG IT THROUGH THE COURTS BUT THIS IS THE TIME TO PASS IT FOR THE WORKERS BECAUSE LIVES ARE AFFECTED. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. >>ANYWISE FOLLOWED BY DOUG. >>HELLO. I AM ANYWISE AND I AM THE LOGISTICS DIRECTOR AT MLK LIVER. PRIOR TO THAT, I WORKED IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY FOR 7 YEARS. DURING THAT TIME, I WORKED IN MANY DEPARTMENTS FROM THE FRONT DESK TO SALES TO HOUSEKEEPING. I WAS ACTUALLY NOT A HIRED HOUSEKEEPER BUT WAS ASKED TO WORK AS ONE BECAUSE WE WERE EXPERIENCING VERY HIGH TURNOVER IN THAT DEPARTMENT. DURING MY TIME AS A HOUSEKEEPER, I STRIPPED AND CLEANED UP THE 25 ROOMS AT A TIME. IT WAS STRENUOUS AND SOMETIMES PAINFUL WORK. I TOOK A LOT OF ADVIL DURING THAT TIME. THIS LEGISLATION STRENGTHENS THE WORKLOAD PROTECTIONS CONTAINED IN I 124 AND RANCHERS WORKERS HAVE AGENCY AND WORKING IN A SAFE PACE. IS ONLY SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT WILL BRING OVERDUE PROTECTIONS TO SOME OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE WORKERS BUT ALSO BRING JUSTICE TO THE 77% OF SEATTLE VOTERS WHO PASSED I 124 IN 2016. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE] >>>GOOD MORNING. I NAME IS KATIE CAROL AND I’M A MEMBER OF LABORERS LOCAL 242, A CONSTRUCTION UNION. I DAD WORKED CONSTRUCTION FOR 30 YEARS. HE ALSO WORKED AT THE COAL PLANT. HE HAS HAD TO NEED REPLACEMENT AT A HIP REPLACEMENT. THE PERSON WHO REPLACED HIM AT THE COAL PLANTS DIED IN A TRAGIC WORKPLACE ACCIDENT IN A CALL RUNOFF POND IN DECEMBER OF LAST. THAT WORKER WAS 28 YEARS OLD. AND YET, THE HOTEL HOUSEKEEPING INDUSTRY IS MORE DANGEROUS AND MORE PRONE TO INJURY THAN BOTH COAL MINING AND CONSTRUCTION. DANGEROUS WORK NECESSITATES THE HIGHEST SAFETY STANDARDS. ONE OF THE WAYS WE CAN LIMIT WORK LACE INJURY AND MAKE PLACES SAFER IS BY AND LAMENTING SAFETY STANDARDS THOSE CONTAINED IN AN INITIATIVE 124. HOTEL HOUSEKEEPERS ARE EVERY BIT AS DESERVING OF WORKPLACE SAFETY STANDARDS AS CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ARE. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >>IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL DO SOME INTERPRETATION? ARE YOU GUYS A GROUP? >>EXCELLENT. I’M SO SORRY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. >>HELLO. MY NAME, I AM FROM CHINA. I WAS A HOUSEKEEPER AT A HOTEL FOR YEARS. THE JOB IS VERY HARD ON MY BODY. BUT I WORK. THE MANAGER MAKES IT VERY HARD TO CLEAN THE ROOMS QUICKLY AND THEY MAKE US VERY STRESSED OUT. IN THE PEAK SUMMER SEASON, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE MANAGER FORCED US TO WORK SIX DAYS OVERTIME. I GOT ATTACKED ONE DAY. I WAS VERY DIZZY. I COULD NOT BREATHE. AND I COULD NOT STAND OVERTIME. IT GOT SO BAD. I I HAD TO GO ON MEDICAL LEAVE. IT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO HOUSEKEEPING WORK. ANYMORE. I WAS ABLE TO KEEP MY JOB AFTER ONE YEAR OF MEDICAL LEAVE. THEN THEY FIRED ME. PLEASE PASS THIS LAW. PLEASE, STRONGER HOUSEKEEPER WORK. PROTECT AND DON’T LET WHAT HAPPENED TO ME TO HAPPEN TO ANYBODY. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE] >>THE NEXT FOLKS ARE MAGGIE, JEREMIAH AND JACQUELINE. >>MAGGIE, WELCOME. >>THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS MAGGIE AND I WORKED IN HOSPITALTY FOR 10 YEARS. SOME OF IT AS A RESTAURANT SERVER IN A NONUNION MARRIOTT HOTEL. ONE NIGHT I WAS WORKING THE BACK SECTION OF THE RESTAURANT AND ONE OF MY TABLES WERE HIGH- PROFILE GUESTS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY AND HIS DAUGHTER CONGRESSWOMAN LIZ CHENEY. I ALSO HAD A TABLE OF TWO ALDERMEN WHO WERE DRINKING AND GETTING UNCOMFORTABLY TOUCHY. ONE ASKED FOR ME TO BLESS THE MEAL AND GRABBED MY HAND. KEPT REACHING OUT TO TOUCH MY ARMS AND WAIST WHEN I WAS SERVING THEM. THEY NOTICE THE CHENEY’S AND TRY TO CATCH THEIR ATTENTION SO OUR MANAGER CALLED SECURITY TO ESCORT THEM OUT OF THE RESTAURANT. ON THEIR WAY OUT, ONE PULLED ME INTO A SMOTHERING HUG IN FRONT OF ALL OF MY MANAGERS. I BROKE AWAY AND REST OF THE KITCHEN, SLAMMING THE DOOR. SAYING GROWS AND TRYING TO SHAKE OFF THE ACHY FEELING. RATHER THAN RISK UPSETTING THE GUEST’S, AND CALL HIM OUT, OUR SECURITY MANAGER FOLLOWED ME INTO THE KITCHEN AND REPRIMANDED ME, SAYING I HOPE YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT ME LIKE THAT. I FELT DISGUSTED, ASHAMED AND UNPROTECTED. WOMEN AND MEN WORKING IN SEATTLE’S HOTELS TELL ME STORIES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FAR WORSE THAN THIS. THAT THEY EXPERIENCE EVERY DAY IN THE CITY. THEY ARE EXPECTED TO BEAR THEIR SHAME AND SILENCE AND LIVE WITH THE FEAR THEY FEEL WHEN THEY SEE THE WRESTLERS WALK BACK INTO THE HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS. THIS ISN’T RIGHT. THE LEGISLATION YOU PASSED NEEDS TO PROTECT AS MANY WORKERS AS POSSIBLE IN THE CITY, INCLUDING RESTAURANT WORKERS. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAGGIE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BRAVERY. JEREMIAH. JACLYN. >>HELLO. GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS. I HAVE HEARD TALK OF FAMILY- OWNED BUSINESSES A NUMBER OF TIMES TODAY. I WANT TO BRING UP THAT THE WORKERS WHO OPERATE, THEY ALSO HAVE FAMILIES AND WE DESERVE QUALITY AND SAFETY HEALTHCARE. IN TIME TO BE WITH OUR FAMILIES AS WELL. WITHOUT OUR FAMILIES, WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO OFFER THE SAME QUALITY OF EMPLOYMENT TO THESE BUSINESSES. I WORKED AT THE EDGEWATER FOR 15 YEARS. 16 YEARS IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY. THE EDGEWATER IS OWNED BY THE NOBLE CORPORATION. I WORKED FOR ANOTHER NOBLE HOUSE IS THIS, THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT. THEY SAID CONTRACTED OUT THE RESTAURANT AND SERVICES. AS SUCH, THEY OFFERED MUCH LOWER IF NONE AT ALL, HEALTH INSURANCE OR BENEFITS AT ALL TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. SO I JUST THINK THE COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULD LOOK TO PREVENT THESE HOTELS FROM GIVING LOOPHOLES TO THE BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE THEIR RESTAURANTS. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JACLYN? WELCOME UP. HONG? >>GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I AM JACLYN WE. A RESIDENT OF BEACON HILL AND AN ALUMNI OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AND A BOARD MEMBER OF OCA PACIFIC AMERICANS ADVOCATES OF SEATTLE. WE ARE DEDICATED TO THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ADVANCEMENT OF ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICANS. WE SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF THREE BILLS AS PART OF A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION, WE ARE REFUSING TO HOST A CONFERENCE IN SEATTLE TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH HOTEL WORKERS. EVERYONE DESERVES A SAFE PLACE TO WORK AND ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. EVERYONE DESERVES A WORK ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT FEAR OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. WE HAVE HOTEL AND SERVICE WORKERS TAKING TIME ON THEIR DAY OFF TO TEST FIVE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A SAFE WORKPLACE. THESE WORKERS AND SURE THE CARE OF HOTEL GUESTS, AS WELL AS THAT OF THEIR OWN FAMILY. THEY ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE CITY’S ECONOMY AND DESERVE A SAFE WORKPLACE AND HEALTHCARE. WE HOPE TO SEE THE PAST OF ALL THREE BILLS. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STEPHAN? I THINK YOU’RE UP. DID I MISS SOMEONE? >>HONG. I’M SO SORRY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. AND THEN STEPHAN. >>WELCOME BACK. >>GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS HONG AND I AM A HOUSEKEEPER AT THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL. I WORKED THERE FOR 5 YEARS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT NATURE OF HOUSEKEEPERS. WE ARE PAID BY THE HOUR., THE ROOM, NOT THE HOUR. HOUSEKEEPERS ARE PAID BY THE NUMBER OF ROOMS. YOU NEED TO FINISH AND EIGHT HOURS. HOUSEKEEPERS WERE GIVEN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ROOMS PER DAY. AFTER THE HOUSEKEEPERS HAD INJURIES, LIKE MY COWORKER, SHE IS NOT RECOGNIZED FOR THE WORK INJURIES. THIS IS PERSONAL. IN THE HOUSEKEEPER LOST THEIR ABILITY TO GO BACK TO WORK. THIS IS THE REASON WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PASS IT. IT IS IMPORTANT. THAT IS THE PENALTY? SO EVERYBODY, WE CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. IF WE LOSE OUR ABILITY TO WORK. IT HURTS THE COMMITTED. EVERYBODY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY. THAT IS WHY I URGE EVER READY TO PASS IT IN THE PROTECTION LAW TO PROTECT OUR HOTEL WORKERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HONG. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>I NAME IS STEFAN WITH LOCAL EIGHT. FIRST I WANT TO THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR CONTINUING TO DIG IN AND MAKE SURE THIS LEGISLATION IS THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE LEGISLATION IT CAN BE TO PROTECT HOTEL HOUSEKEEPERS. YOU HEARD FROM DON EARLIER. SHE CAN NO LONGER WORK IN A HOTEL BECAUSE OF THE INJURIES THAT SHE HAS SUSTAINED OVER YEARS OF DOING THIS HOUSEKEEPING WORK. YOU HEARD FROM MAGGIE ABOUT HER EXPERIENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT ON THE JOB. SO THESE PROTECTIONS MEAN A LOT TO FOLKS IN REAL LIFE IN THEIR DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES. AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT YOU IN FINDING THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE LEGISLATION FOR HOUSEKEEPERS FOR RESTAURANT AND HOTEL WORKERS. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TODAY. WE ARE OPEN TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO PHASE IN SOME OF THESE PROTECTIONS FOR REALLY SMALL BUSINESSES WHO WILL NEED SOME TIME TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS. BUT OVERALL, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE HOTELS AND THE BUSINESSES THAT SERVE OUR HOTELS EVERY DAY CAN GO HOME TO THEIR FAMILY AND BE THERE FOR THEM AND BE SAFE AND HEALTHY. THANK YOU FOR ADVANCING THAT AGENDA. >>THANK YOU. >>I WAS LOOKING AROUND TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYBODY ELSE WHO INTENDED TO SIGN UP FOR THIS AND DIDN’T GET CALLED. >>HELLO, TERRY. WELCOME BACK. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS IT JUST LIKE WE GO AHEAD AND DO LINE UP AND WE WILL GET YOU SENT IT. SORRY IF I MISSED YOU. >>GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HAVING US TODAY. I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THIS MORNING. I NAME IS TERRY AND I AM THE OWNER OF A RESTAURANT LEASE IN THE SHERATON HOTEL. I HAVE NO EMPLOYEE CORRELAION WITH THE HOTEL. I HAVE, I AM A RESTAURANT ENTITY ON MY OWN. I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE ANCILLARY REVIEW YOU PLACED IN THIS LEGISLATION. WHEN I HEAR ALL THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WORK, I AGREE WITH THEM. A BETTER WORK ENVIRONMENT IS WHAT WE TRY TO PROVIDE TO EMPLOYEES. YOU HAVE TO REMOVE THIS ANCILLARY WORDING. AND YOU FOLLOW-UP. I FORGET HIS NAME. BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO TALK TO YOU AND HOW WE DO IT. WHY THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US. YOU ARE MISSING APPLES AND ORANGES. PLEASE REVIEW THIS AND REMOVE ANCILLARY FROM YOUR LEGISLATION. THOSE OTHER REPERCUSSIONS OF THOSE WORDS. >>THANK YOU. >>LAST CALL. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY WHO DIDN’T GET A CHANCE TO SIGN UP? OKAY. SEEING NOBODY JUMPING IN. THANK YOU FOR RAISING YOUR HAND. TERRY, WE WILL GET YOU SIGNED UP AND WE WILL GET YOUR NAME AS WELL. >>HELLO. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. DON’T MIND ME I AM SLIGHTLY SHY. SO I WORK FOR, I AM NEW TO THIS. BEAR WITH ME. I WORK FOR THE SEE SUITES AND I HAVE BEEN A HOUSEKEEPING BREAKFAST ATTENDANCE SINCE JULY OF LAST SUMMER. I LOVE SEEING MY GUEST HAPPY AND SMILE. IT IS GREAT WHEN THE GUESTS ARE HAPPY AND ENJOY THE FOOD AND SERVICES BUT FRUSTRATING WHEN I COME HOME AND MY FEET ARE ACHING AND MY BACK IS HURTING AND I AM TIRED. I DON’T HAVE TIME FOR MYSELF OR MY FAMILY. AND I HAD TO GET THE NEXT DAY AND HIT THE GROUND RUNNING. THE WORST TIME FOR MYSELF. MY HEALTH IS FADING AWAY. I JUST GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL THIS WEEK. BECAUSE I AM JUST SUPER STRESSED OUT BECAUSE OF THIS JOB. I GIVE 1000%. NOT 100. I GIVE MY BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS TO THIS PLACE. FOR THESE PEOPLE TO ACT LIKE THEY DON’T GIVE TWO CRAPS ABOUT ME AND I’M DEDICATING MY WHOLE EVERYTHING JUST GIVING THEM MY ALL HEART. I HAVE TO COME HOME WITH AN ACUTE BACK AND THEY TELL ME THEY DON’T CARE? THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE STRESSING ABOUT A SECOND JOB RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I AM FACING. BILLS ARE PILING. YOU KNOW, IT IS RIDICULOUS. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>ANYBODY COMING TO TESTIFY AGAIN TODAY? WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE WILL MOVE INTO ITEMS TWO, THREE AND FOUR ON THE AGENDA FOR FOLKS HERE TO RESENT. THANK YOU CENTRAL STAFF ARE BEING HERE. WHEN WE GO AHEAD AND HAVE YOU READ INTO THE RECORD ITEMS TWO, THREE AND FOUR. >>CONSTABLE 119556, AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT IN SEATTLE FOR DISCUSSION AND A POSSIBLE THAT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, 119554 AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO EMPLOYEES LIMITING ROOM CLEANING WAS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FOR DISCUSSION AND A POSSIBLE THAT. AND FINALLY, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CONSTABLE 119557. AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT IN SEATTLE, REQUIRING THEM TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS TO PRESENT, PREVENT HARASSING CONDUCT BY GET FOR A POSSIBLE VOTE. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CENTRAL STUFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD? >>KARINA BULL, CENTRAL STUFF. >>DAN, CENTRAL STUFF. >>EXCELLENT. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO AND COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU FOR BEING THERE FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY AS WELL. I DIDN’T GET A CHANCE TO RECOGNIZE YOU. I ALREADY THANKED THE OTHER TWO COUNCILMEMBERS. JUST A REMINDER FOR FOLKS AS WE GET TEED UP WITH SOME OF THE MATERIALS ON THE SCREEN FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THE VARIOUS MMS WE ARE CONSIDERING ON THESE THREE BELLS. THIS IS THE EIGHTH TIME THAT WE ARE HEARING THE HOTEL WORKER LEGISLATION IN THIS COMMITTEE. IT FEELS A LOT BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO. WE HAVE ALSO RESPONDED TO A LOT OF FOLKS ASKING US FOR ADDITIONAL TIME. WE ARE,AS YOU HEARD, DISCUSSING THE POSSIBLE BILLS TODAY AND WILL BE CONSIDERING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS ON THESE THREE PIECES OF LEGISLATION WITH THE INTENT TO AMEND THE UNDERLYING BILL AND KEEP IT IN COMMITTEE AND VOTED OUT NEXT THURSDAY ALONG WITH HEALTHCARE. WHICH WILL BE A ROBUST úDISCUSSION. BUT WE WANT TO TO MAKE SURE WE INCLUDED MUCH OF THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE HEARD FROM VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS AND DIVERSE, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT FOLKS KNOW THAT THEIR REQUESTS FOR BOTH THE LANGUAGE AND FOR ADDITIONAL TIME WAS HEARD AND INCORPORATED. WE ARE TODAY CONSIDERING THREE BELLS, SAFETY, INJURY AND WORKLOAD. AND RETENTION IN COMMITTEE. WILL BE TRACKING AS HE SAID, A HEALTHCARE CONVERSATION NEXT THURSDAY AND WE WILL WITH EVERY INTENT POSSIBLE GET THAT, AS HE SAW THE DRAFT LEGISLATION WAS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE. THREE WEEKS AGO NOW. AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, THAT WE GET THOSE SENT TO THE COMMITTEE FAR IN ADVANCE OF NEXT WEEK’S CONVERSATION. THE BILLS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US TODAY ARE PRESENT NOT OUR THOUGHTS, NOT CENTRAL STAFF’S THOUGHTS ON A WHIM BUT IT REPRESENTS MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD WITH STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS THE BOARD, INCLUDING COMING DIRECTLY FROM MANY OF YOU ON COUNSEL. I WANT TO THANK A HANDFUL OF FOLKS, ESPECIALLY STARTING WITH OUR CENTRAL STAFF WHO HAS BEEN DILIGENTLY ENGAGED WITH US ON COMMITTEE AND ON THE FULL COUNSEL IN TERMS OF OUR THOUGHTS AND DESIRES OF YOU HAVE RESEARCHED SOME OF THOSE. THEY HAVE COME DIRECTLY FROM STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. I WANT TO THINK IN A BOON AND JOHN LANE OF THE HOTEL MANAGERS AND RESTAURANTS WHO HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH US REGULARLY TO GET THIS POLICY FULLY THAT IT AND WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT BUT WE WILL KEEP MEETING WEEKLY. WE WANT TO FINISH AND THANK YOU TO THE TEAM AT UNITE FOR ENGAGING WITH US WEEKLY AS WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING NOT JUST HOW THIS LEGISLATION COMPARES TO INITIATIVE 124 BUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE A TO OTHER CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE PASSED SIMILAR LEGISLATION AND LEARNING FROM THOSE MUNICIPALITIES. WE WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WEEKLY AS WELL. WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS ALSO POINT OF DISAGREEMENT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP. AND WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS WHO HAVE HELPED TO PROVIDE YOU BOTH WITH FEEDBACK AS YOU ARE REPRESENTING A LARGE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. ALSO, AS IT RELATES TO SAFETY PROTECTIONS AND WORKLOAD, IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WITH THE KING COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE CENTER AND THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE. THEY HAVE BEEN HEAVILY ENGAGED WITH US AS WE THINK ABOUT SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS SO THAT NO ONE IS IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY ARE EXPERIENCING HARASSMENT OR ASSAULT, UNWANTED TOUCHING OR COMMENTS LIKE THE CONVERSATION WE HEARD TODAY IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. THAT WHEN THAT OCCURS, WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. THANK YOU TO THE KING COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE CENTER AND KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE. WE WANT TO THANK AS WELL THE ACLU WHO HAS BEEN ENGAGED WITH US OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND I BELIEVE IS SENDING AN UPDATED COMMUNICATION OUR WAY REGARDING SOME OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE PUT INTO PLACE WHEN AN INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED. HOW WE HANDLE THAT CURRENTLY AND HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS SUSPENDED. THEY HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUS TO WORK WITH AND WE APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS RAISED AND THAT THEY HAVE WORKED WITH US TO HELP ADDRESS WAYS TO MITIGATE THOSE CONCERNS AND PUT FORWARD ROBUST LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF YOUR. THANK YOU TO THE ACLU. I WANT TO THANK AS WELL ONE AMERICA AND THE REFUGEE WOMEN’S ALLIANCE FOR THEIR ENGAGEMENT WITH US AS WE THINK ABOUT WHO THESE WORKERS ARE AND COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO HAS BEEN GREAT ABOUT REMINDING US AS WELL OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES. THE EXPERIENCE WE HEARD FROM ANY OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE COME TO TESTIFY. A LOT OF THE WORKERS WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING OUR WOMEN. PEOPLE OF COLOR AND IMMIGRANTS. HAVING ONE AMERICA AND THE REFUGEE WOMEN’S ALLIANCE PROVIDING US WITH FEEDBACK HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL. I WILL SAVE ALL OF OUR ADDITIONAL THANK YOU’S FOR THE ROBUST NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE INVOLVED. INCLUDING THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WHO HAS BEEN HELPFUL WITH BEDDING VARIOUS LANGUAGE. I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP SO FOLKS KNEW HOW LARGE THE STAKEHOLDER ENAGEMENT HAS BEEN. IT HAS NOT BEEN ONE-SIDED OR JUST ONE TIME. IT IS BEEN ONGOING. WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT SOME OF THE PIECES THAT WE WILL CONSIDER TODAY ON THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS REFLECT THIS PERSPECTIVES WE HAVE HEARD FROM BOTH ACADEMICS AND COMMUNITY EXPERTS AND FOLKS ON THE GROUND. IT IS SO WITH THAT, I SEE THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. >>JUST TO HAVE A TRANSPARENT AND OPEN DIALOGUE, I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMENTS YOU HAVE MADE. THAT I KNOW THAT MANY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THIS TABLE HAVE BEEN WORKING FEVERISHLY TO NEGOTIATE OUTREACH, TO LISTEN TO AS MANY OPINIONS AS POSSIBLE. I STILL GET CORRESPONDENCE AND CALLS FROM, PARTICULARLY THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY, SAYING WE HAVE DONE AND AN ADEQUATE JOB. SO MAYBE YOU COULD REFUTE THAT OR RESPOND TO IT BECAUSE I GET THOSE CALLS AND I HAVE GOTTEN THEM AS EARLY AS TODAY. AND YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PLEASE EVERYONE. I HAVE BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT BUT ARE YOU CONFIDENT WITH THE LEVEL OF OUTREACH, LISTENING FOR EXAMPLE TO THE RESPONDENTS WHEN WE GET TO THE LETTER OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL THAT WE GOT. IT WAS, IT REFUTES WHAT YOU’RE SAYING A BIT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF OUTREACH. I HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT REMOVED FROM IT. I JUST DON’T KNOW. SO THAT IS NOT A GOTCHA KIND OF QUESTION BUT OPENLY TALK ABOUT THE POSITION OR THE OUTREACH THUS FAR? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>I APPRECIATE YOU RAISING THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT AS WE DO OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT, WE KNOW THAT IF THE CONVERSATION HAPPENS, IT DOESN’T EQUAL A BUY OFF. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IS HEARING YOU SUGGEST THAT. BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ENGAGING WITH A BROAD SET OF STAKEHOLDERS AS I MENTIONED, EVERYONE FROM UNITE HERE TO THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, WE ARE NOT JUST MEETING THE HOTEL INDUSTRY, THEY ALSO REPRESENT THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION AS WELL. THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY AS IT RELATES TO HOSPITALITY SERVICES. SO THAT IS NOT ALL- ENCOMPASSING. THERE’S NOT ONE PERSPECTIVE JUST LIKE THERE IS NOT ONE PERSPECTIVE ON LABOR PER SE. BUT WE HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE WRITTEN US WITH SOME FEEDBACK. SOME HAS BEEN RADICAL AT TIMES. WE HAVE TRIED TO WORK ON SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS AND I THINK WHAT YOU WILL SEE SPECIFICALLY TO SAFETY PROTECTIONS, WE HAVE INCORPORATED FEEDBACK FROM FOLKS LIKE THE ACLU WHO HAVE RAISED CONCERNS INITIALLY AND THEN WE HAVE TRIED TO INCLUDE SOME OF US. WHAT YOU WILL SEE AS WELL WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WE ARE CONSIDERING TODAY, AGAIN, I’M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY HAS BOUGHT IN BUT WHAT YOU WILL SEE FROM US TODAY IS AMENDED VERSION OF ANCILLARY BUSINESS FOR EXAMPLE SO THAT WE ARE BEING PRETTY NARROW IN THE DEFINITION OR MORE NARROW IN THE DEFINITION OF WHO IS BEING APPLIED TO. YOU WILL SEE AS WELL WE THINK ABOUT HEALTHCARE NEXT WEEK, WHO IS BEING INCORPORATED AND WHO IS NOT. IT IS SPECIFIC TO THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP AROUND PHASING IN SOME OF THESE PROTECTIONS. WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THAT YOU PROBABLY, WE WILL, I THINK YO WILL APPRECIATE. SO IT IS RELATED TO PHASING IN SOME OF THESE PROTECTIONS FOR OUR SMALLEST EMPLOYERS. SO THAT IS ONE PIECE I WOULD OFFER. COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES? >>I THINK YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING IT. I THINK THAT WHEN WE DO COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT OF SEE, REGARDLESS OF THE ISSUE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SATISFY EVERYONE. AND IT IS OFTEN THE CASE THAT THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE JUST SORT OF CAUGHT ON TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND MAY DISAGREE WITH THE POLICY DISCUSSION. ULTIMATE OUTCOME. THAT LEADS TO A FEELING THAT PERHAPS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WASN’T THERE. BUT IN THIS CASE, THE REALITY IS THAT THIS BILL, THIS INITIATIVE PASSED ORIGINALLY IN 2016. THERE WAS A LENGTHY RULEMAKING PROCESS WHERE A LOT OF VARIOUS SIZED BUSINESSES AND STAKEHOLDERS WERE INCLUDED FROM BOTH THE LABOR SIDE, WORKER SIDE AND THE BUSINESS SIDE. THEY THEN SORT OF ULTIMATELY LED TO THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AS YOU HEARD COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA MENTION. WE HAVE HAD A COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ROBUST PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS CHAMBER. WE SAW THAT AGAIN TODAY. AND WE CONTINUE TO ALSO RECEIVE A LOT OF INPUT VIA EMAIL AND PHONE CALLS FROM A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS. I CONSIDER ALL OF THAT TO BE ENGAGEMENT. AND DO FEEL WE ARE IN A PLACE NOW WITH THE SUBSTITUTE BILLS THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TODAY, AND AN ADDITIONAL SUBSTITUTE BILL WE WILL CONSIDER NEXT WEEK. I THINK AS SPONSORS OF THE BILL, WE HAVE MADE SOME REVOCATIONS THAT I THINK ARE REASONABLE TO THE ORIGINAL INITIATIVE THAT WAS PASSED IN 2016. I THINK A REFLECTIVE OF SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE HEARD THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AMONGST THE INDUSTRY. AND CONSISTENT AMONGST THE WORKER REPRESENTATIVES AND LABOR. THAT DOESN’T MEAN EVERYBODY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT HE MADE OUR BEST EFFORTS TO LISTEN AND BE RESPONSIVE IN THE PERIOD OF TIME WE HAVE ALLOTTED TO HAVE THIS IMPORTANT POLICY CONVERSATION ABOUT THESE WORKER PROTECTIONS. FOR ME, MY NORTHSTAR HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ULTIMATELY WE HAVE A SET OF BILLS THAT WILL PROTECT WORKERS AND THAT I STILL FILL IS A STRONG SET OF LABOR PROTECTIONS FOR THE SECTOR OF WORKERS. I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WITH A VERSION OF SUBSTITUTE BILLS WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY. >>THAT, PERHAPS SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS WE WOULD CONSIDER TODAY, HELPED SPEAK TO SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED AND IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND WALK THROUGH THESE. FOR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, WELCOME COUNCILMEMBER O’BRIEN FOR BEING HERE. IF, WHAT YOU GET FROM CENTRAL STAFF IS A HANDOUT ON EACH ONE OF THE BILLS WE ARE CONSIDERING. WE WILL START WITH THE HOTEL RETENTION LEGISLATION. EACH ONE OF OUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, DO WE HAVE THIS TABLE ALREADY? >>SO MAY I? JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR CHART THAT SAYS SUBSTITUTE BILL JOB RETENTION D4. THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE COUNCIL COLLEAGUES TO FOCUS ON WITH THIS, BUT WE WILL DO HIS HANDOUTS THE TABLE FOR EACH BILL SO THAT THE DOCUMENTS DON’T GET CONFUSED. BUT WE WILL SEE WITH THIS TABLE, IT IS A CONVERSATION SPECIFIC TO A SUBSTITUTE BILL, WE TRY TO INCORPORATE SOME FEEDBACK THAT MANY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AND I WILL SAVE MY THANK YOU’S FOR VARIOUS MEMBERS AND A MINUTE. BUT WE WILL ASK CENTRAL STAFF TO WALK US THROUGH BUT THE TABLE INCLUDES SO YOU CAN SEE BASICALLY WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO AN UNDERLYING BILL THAT HAS A TECHNICAL AND THESE TWO MAJOR POLICIES. THESE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDED. >>ALL RIGHT. SO AS THIS CHART SHOWS, THERE ARE FIVE CHANGES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED. THE FIRST CHANGE RELATES TO THE DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS. JUST TO GROUND EVERYONE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CONCEPT OF ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS, IT STARTED WITH INITIATIVE 24. WHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF HOTEL, IT ALSO INCLUDED CONTRACTED LEASED OR SUBLET PREMISES OPERATING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BUILDINGS PURPOSE. FOR THIS LEGISLATION, THERE WAS A NEW TERM THAT WAS USED TO DESCRIBE THIS KIND OF THIS. ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS. THAT IS WHAT THIS REVISION ADDRESSES. THERE WAS ORIGINALLY A DIFFERENT DEFINITION. DIFFERENT THAN 124. THIS VERSION D4 HAS A DEFINITION THAT IDENTIFIES THREE DISTINCT KINDS OF BUSINESSES. ONE, IT COULD BE A BUSINESS THAT ROUTINELY CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL’S PURPOSE. NUMBER TWO, IT COULD BE A BUSINESS THAT LEASES OR SUBLET SPACE AT THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL’S PURPOSE OR THREE, IT COULD BE A BUSINESS THAT PROVIDES FOOD AND BEVERAGES TO HOTEL GUESTS AND THE PUBLIC WITH AN ENTRANCE WITHIN THE HOTEL PREMISES. SOMETHING TO NOTE FOR THE FIRST TWO KINDS OF BUSINESSES IS THAT THEY ARE DEFINED BY THE HOTEL’S PURPOSE. JUST NOT DESCRIBED IN THE LEGISLATION. THE IDEA IS THAT THE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS COULD DEVELOP CLARIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE HOTEL PURPOSE IS. THROUGH A RULEMAKING PROCESS. >>THIS IS I THINK THE ONE THAT WE HAVE WORKED ON THE LONGEST AND THE HARDEST. I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THE GENTLEMAN WHO IS CURRENTLY LOOKING AT HIS CELL PHONE THAT THAT WE HAD NOT BEEN MEETING WITH HOTELS, I THINK WE HAVE. I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO PEOPLE REGULARLY ABOUT THIS. TRYING TO GET THIS IS RIGHT AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SOMETHING. COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, YOU AND I SPOKE ABOUT 5:00 AND SHORTLY AFTER THAT CONVERSATION, I DID GET AN EMAIL FROM THE HOTEL REPRESENTATIVE THAT ASKED US TO HAVE AND INSTEAD OF OARS IN THE LANGUAGE. SO THE IDEA IS THAT A BUSINESS THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL PURPOSES IS ACTUALLY ON SITE. SO THE CONCERN WAS IF WE HAVE THIS LANGUAGE IN WITHOUT SAYING AND LEASES OR SUBCONTRACTED SPACE THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL, THAT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT ANYBODY THAT DOES ANY WORK FOR THE HOTEL REGULARLY AND CONTRACTS IT WOULD BE INCLUDED RATHER THAN JUST FOCUSING ON THE HOTEL WORKERS. SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP TODAY, THAT WHERE WE HAVE NUMBER TWO, THAT IF IT WERE TO SAY ROUTINELY CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOTELS PURPOSE AND LEASES OR SUMMED CONTRACTS SPACE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL, THAT I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE ORGANIZATION.>>THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ONGOING ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR OFFICE. AND YOUR OFFICE HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL WAS TRYING TO BRING STORM AND BRING LANGUAGE. WE HAVE ALL BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY TO DO OUTREACH TO THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS THE BOARD TO THAT LANGUAGE. YOU AND I HAVE A SIMILAR GOAL HERE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING IN THIS AREA, IN THIS INDUSTRY, CAN, INCLUDING THE TYPE OF INDUSTRY THAT WAS MENTIONED WHERE SHE WAS WORKING IN A RESTAURANT AND INTIMIDATED AND HARASSED, THAT THOSE FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRY, IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY ACTUALLY HAVE THE PROTECTIONS. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DEFINITION WE ARE TRYING TO APPLY ACROSS VARIOUS PIECES OF LEGISLATION. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAD LANGUAGE THAT WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH APPLYING ACROSS THE BOARD. I THINK THAT ADDING AN AND DEFINITELY CHANGES THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND REALLY MAKES IT SOMETHING THAT I CAN’T SUPPORT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT NOT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH EVERY SINGLE WORD THERE, INCLUDING THAT BUT IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT ANYONE INDUSTRY IS HAPPY WITH IT. AT THE LANGUAGE YOU AND I WORKED ON, THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE CHART, IS WHAT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH. IT IS ALL ALIGNED WITH THE GOALS AND VALUES WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT. >>I APPRECIATE THAT. >>CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? >>I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I WASN’T SURE WHERE YOUR AND WENT? >>G4? >>THE WORD OR? >>>IF YOU’RE LOOKING AT THE CHART, IT WOULD SAY THAT ANY BUSINESS THAT ROUTINELY CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL’S PURPOSE AND LEASES OR SUBLET SPACE THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL. I BELIEVE THAT IT DEALS AND ADDRESSES WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE HOTELS. NOT JUST TODAY BUT PREVIOUSLY. AND I DON’T KNOW IF OUR CHEF IN THE HAT IS STILL HERE. BUT THE POINT WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE IS THAT IF IT IS AN ENTITY THAT IS JUST SUBLEASING SPACE, BUT THE EXAMPLE WE HAVE USED IS A STORY BILL COFFEE OUTSIDE OF THE ALEXIS HOTEL. IT DEFINITELY SUBCONTRACTS OR CONTACTS AND LEASES SPACE BUT IT IS PRIMARILY JUST LEASING SPACE. IT IS NOT PRIMARILY THERE FOR THE GUESTS. IT IS FOR ANYBODY. IT SERVES COFFEE TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY WALK BY THE STREET. I THINK WE HAVE DONE WELL TO ADDRESS THAT IN HERE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL PURPOSE. IT IS SIMPLY PROVIDING COFFEE TO PEOPLE IN THE STREET. THEY ARE LEASING IT. WITH THE CONCERN I HEARD LAST NIGHT WAS IF IT IS OFFERING FOOD AND BEVERAGES AND WITHIN THE HOTEL AND IT IS CLEARLY DESIGNED FOR BOTH PUBLIC AND THE HOTEL GUEST, THAT YOU WOULD WANT THE AND THERE TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS AT THE HOTEL SITE ITSELF. NOT CONTRACTING FOR WINDOW WASHING AS AN EXAMPLE. THERE IS NOT A LOCATION IN THERE WITHIN THE HOTEL. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE HAVE COME SO CLOSE HERE, WE HAVE COME SO FAR OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO ARRIVE AT THIS DEFINITION BUT I WANT TO CONTINUE TO JUST LISTEN TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE NEXT WEEK TO SEE IF WE COULD FINE-TUNE THIS A BIT. >>THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE IS WHAT I SHARED WITH THE VERY FOLKS YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU TALKED TO AFTER 5 PM. AT 9 AM YESTERDAY. WE ASKED FOR FEEDBACK AND THAT FEEDBACK WAS NOT OFFERED. I THINK THE EXAMPLE OF STORY BILL IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE THEY DO NOT HAVE AN ENTRANCE INTO THE HOTEL. I DON’T BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE EXAMPLE THAT WOULD NECESSARILY GET CAUGHT UP HERE. IT IS ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHERE BISCUIT IT AROUND THE CORNER WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION. THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US AS WE CONSIDERED LEGISLATION. >>THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THIS WAS GIVEN IN THE MORNING YESTERDAY. AND WE DID NOT HEAR THAT SPECIFIC FEEDBACK. I THINK AT THIS POINT, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND THEN I SEE YOU, MIKE O’BRIEN. >>SO AGAIN, I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR HAVING SO MANY MEETINGS. I KNOW YOU ARE WORKING. MANY PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARD ON THIS. I HAVE TRIED TO ATTEND AS MANY AS POSSIBLE. I EXPRESSED IN ONE OF THE EARLIER HEARINGS, MY CONCERN ABOUT JUST STEPPING BACK FROM IT. INCLUDING ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES PERIOD. I SAID I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND IT. BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, THAT SAFETY AND THE HEALTH CONCERNS OF HOTEL WORKERS, THAT ISSUE ABOUT BAD ACTORS COME UP BAD PATRONS, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I UNDERSTAND 124 THERE WAS INCLUSION ON INSULAR BUSINESSES. BUT THE ISSUE OF HARASSMENT AND BAD ERRORS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, THAT APPLIES TO THE HOTEL WORKERS. FOR THE ANCILLARY BUSINESSES IT IS ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE PIECE? CORRECT? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME KINDS OF BAD ACTS BY THE PATRONS. SO IS THE REASON WE ARE INCLUDING ANCILLARY BUSINESSES PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE HEALTHCARE TREND? TRYING TO INCLUDE AS MANY EMPLOYEES IN HEALTHCARE PIECE OF IT? OR ARE THEY SUBJECT TO THE SAME KINDS OF HARASSMENT AND MISCONDUCT THAT THE HOTEL WORKERS ARE? >>I CERTAINLY 2 FOR 2 THE SPONSORS OF THE SUBSTITUTE TO SPEAK TO THEIR INTENT. BUT I JUST, FOR CLARIFICATION, THE MATRIX THAT KARINA IS WALKING THROUGH IS WITH RESPECT TO THE JOB RETENTION BILL. WE ARE NOT YET UP TO EITHER THE HARASSMENT OR CONDUCT BILL THAT IS COMING LATER TODAY OR THE HEALTH AXIS TO MEDICAL CARE WHICH IS COMING NEXT WEEK. >>THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL. >>RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE JOB RETENTIO BILL. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOB RETENTION BILL. >>LET ME ASK MY QUESTION VERY SPECIFICALLY. WE ARE INCLUDING ANCILLARY BUSINESSES BECAUSE IT IS A CARRYOVER LANGUAGE FROM I-24 AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO? OR ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS? OR HARASSMENT? WHY ARE WE INCLUDING THEM? WHAT IS THE POLICY BEHIND IT? IS IT CARRYOVER LANGUAGE? BECAUSE I AM HEARING A LOT OF TESTAMENT ON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF HOTEL WORKERS. I AM IN ON THAT BUT I AM STRUGGLING WITH THE INCLUSION. I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ASKING ABOUT IT. BUT I AM TRYING TO SEE WHAT IS DRIVING THAT. IS IT THE HEALTHCARE PIECE? >>I MEAN, I THINK IT IS A YES AND. I THINK THESE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY NOW POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. I WOULDN’T SAY THE HEALTHCARE BILL IS THE DRIVER OF THESE DECISIONS. I WOULD THINK THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH OF THESE BILLS SEPARATELY, IDENTIFY WITH THE INTENT OF EACH OF THESE SEPARATE BILLS IS AND THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER, WHO SHOULD BE COVERED BY THESE PARTICULAR LABOR REGULATIONS. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER POLICY QUESTION WE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH ALL OTHER TYPES OF LABOR STANDARDS THE CITY HAS PASSED. BEFORE TODAY. SO WHEN THIS, IN THIS CONTEXT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT JOB RETENTION IN PARTICULAR. THERE WERE JOB RETENTION PROVISIONS IN AN INITIATIVE 124 ORIGINALLY. IT HAD INCLUDED ALL ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES REGARDLESS OF SIZE, TYPE OF BUSINESS, OR GEOGRAPHIC SPATIAL LOCATION. AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE NOW IS COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT DEFINITION WITHIN THE JOB RETENTION COMPONENTS THAT NARROWS THE SCOPE OF A ABILITY OF WHICH ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE HOTEL JOB RETENTION PORTION OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. SO THIS IS A POLICY DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO, DO WE BELIEVE IT IS A, IS IT FAIR TO HAVE JOB RETENTION COMPONENTS APPLY TO NOT JUST HOTELS BUT HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT ARE PROVIDING A HOTEL SERVICE TO HOTELS FOR HOTEL PURPOSES? WITH THE SAME JOB RETENTION PROTECTIONS. THAT IS THE POLICY QUESTION BEFORE US AND IS ONE OF THE COSPONSORS, I CAN SAY IT IS FAIR TO DO THAT. AND THAT IS WHAT IS REPRESENTED IN THIS NUCLEAR LEGISLATIVE BILL. >>COMES MEMBER O’BRIEN? >>I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW’S QUESTION. BETWEEN ONE AND TWO. FOR ME, THE CRITICAL PIECE ON THE JOB RETENTION BILL, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF OTHER BILLS. THERE IS NOT A PATH WHERE THE FOLKS CLEANING THE ROOMS, IF THEY ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE HOTEL, THEY GET TREATED ONE MY. BUT IF YOU SUBCONTRACT THE WORK THEY DON’T. THAT IS WHY THAT TYPE OF WORK, THEY DON’T HAVE AN OFFICE IN THE HOTEL. THEY DON’T RE-SPACE WORKERS THAT ARE CONTRACTED. THAT IS WHY I SUPPORT YOUR ANALYSIS, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, THAT UNDERMINES, UNDERLINES THE ATTEND OF THE BILL. >>IS A MEMBER O’BRIEN, SPEAK TO ME ABOUT WHAT PARTICULAR EFFORTS, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTING OUT THROUGH HOTEL CLEANING SERVICES. ARE THERE OTHER COMPANIES THAT YOU HAVE EITHER SPOKEN TO THAT ARE WORRIED THEY WON’T BE INCLUDED AND THEY SHOULDN’T BE? >>A LITTLE BIT, TO KARINA’S QUESTION ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES HOTEL SERVICES. I WOULD SAY THAT GENERALLY THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT I THINK A HOTEL PROVIDES, I DON’T KNOW WHEN I GO TO A HOTEL IF THE PERSON WHO CLEANS MY ROOM, THE PERSON WHO PARKS THE CAR, I DON’T USUALLY BRING A CAR TO A HOTEL, BUT IF THOSE WORKERS ARE GETTING AT PAYCHECK WITH THE NAME OF THE HOTEL ON IT OR IF THEY ARE A THIRD PARTY. BUT I THINK THOSE PEOPLE ARE WORKING FOR THE HOTEL. BY THE THAN INDIRECTLY. THEY SHOULD RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF THIS. THE FEAR WOULD BE THAT THERE ARE HOTELS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WANT TO TREAT EMPLOYEES REALLY WELL. AND THEY DO. BUT MEANS THAT SOMETIMES IT COSTS MORE TO DO THAT. IF THERE IS ANOTHER HOTEL COMPETING WITH THEM, TO AVOID THIS OR THAT, THEN THEY HAVE A RACE TO THE BOTTOM. I WANT TO PREVENT THAT. I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS CRAFTED AND IT ALLOWS FOR THE BISCUIT SITUATION TO HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY. I LOVE THAT WE GET TO SAY THAT ON THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE THAT IS THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS. IT ALLOWS THAT FLEXIBILITY WHICH IS DIFFERENT. IT STILL PROTECTS THE CORE WORKERS THAT I SEE. BUT YOU KNOW, WE ARE DRAWING A LINE SOMEWHERE. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, MICHAEL AT LEAST IN SETTING POLICY IS TO BE FAIRLY PERMISSIVE IN DRAWING THAT LINE TO CAPTURE AS MANY THE HOTEL WORKERS, WE MIGHT CATCH A FEW THINGS THAT WEREN’T INTENDED AND WE WILL TRY TO BE AS CLEVER AS WE CAN BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO DRAW THE LINE THE OTHER WAY WILL RELEASE A BUNCH OF WORKERS THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND DON’T. ONE OF THE REASONS, HOW MANY MEETINGS HAVE WE HAD? THERE’VE BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS GOING ON. WE ARE GETTING TO A POINT WHERE I WAS FEELING LIKE THE LINE IS BECOMING PRETTY CLEAR. IT IS PROBABLY NOT PERFECT BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE CLOSE TO AS GOOD AS WE CAN DO FOR NOW. >>COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ? >>I THINK ON THIS PARTICULAR DEFINITION, I FEEL LIKE I KEEP TRAVELING IN A TIME MACHINE BACKWARDS. I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER O’BRIEN , I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE DRAWN THE LINE AS CLOSE AND AFFINITIES AS WE CAN TO STILL GIVE ME THE SENSE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THIS BILL AND THE OTHER THREE BILLS THAT HAVE YET TO BE DISCUSSED ARE STILL PROVIDING THE STRONGEST PROTECTION THAT WE CAN TO THIS INDUSTRY OF WORKERS. AND SO I ALSO CANNOT SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF AND BETWEEN ONE AND TWO. I DO BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS OF REQUIRING COVERAGE OF BUSINESSES THAT BOTH CONTRACTS AND LEASE OR SUBLET SPACE OF THE SITE OF A HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL’S PURPOSE. THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE, THERE IS A WAY TO WORK AROUND THAT THAT WOULD CREATE A DYNAMIC IN MY MIND THAT WOULD MAKE IT ALL TOO EASY FOR HOTELS TO CONTRACT A LOT OF HOTEL SERVICES OUT WITH THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTORS. AND THEN NEVER SUBLEASE OR LEASE OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE THOSE THIRD-PARTY VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS WITH SPACE THE HOTEL IN ORDER TO AVOID COVERAGE OF THIS BODY OF LEGISLATION. I WORRY THAT IT IS SORT OF AN EXCEPTION THAT SWALLOWS THE RULE. SO I AM VERY WORRIED ABOUT THAT. FOR THAT REASON, I CAN’T SUPPORT THAT PARTICULAR PROPOSAL AS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW. THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY HERE AND KARINA, MAYBE YOU CAN TALK TO THIS A BIT. BUT WE DON’T HAVE A DEFINITION IN THE LEGISLATION WITH REGARD TO HOTELS PURPOSE BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE REFERENCES AVAILABLE IN THE RULEMAKING PROCESS THAT DEFINE HOTEL PURPOSES IN A MANNER THAT WOULD PERHAPS ALLAY SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW HAS ARTICULATED WITH REGARD TO THE EXAMPLE SHE PROVIDED AND SUPPORTS OF HER POTENTIAL ORAL AMENDMENT TO ADD AND AS IT RELATES TO THE TYPE OF BUSINESSES THAT WOULD BE REASONABLY CONSIDERED TO BE PROVIDING A HOTEL PURPOSE. SO WINDOW WASHING EXAMPLE IS THE EXAMPLE THAT COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW PROVIDED. MY READING IS SOME OF THE MIXED CODES AND DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING THE STATE STATUTE, WOULD NOT INCLUDE THAT TYPE OF A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS BEING REASONABLY RELATED TO A HOTEL PURPOSE. PERHAPS YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH AT THE TABLE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THE MIXED CODE AND OTHER POTENTIAL REFERENCES ALLOW US TO LOOK AT HOTEL PURPOSES. I’M NOT SAYING THAT WILL BE THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER BUT IT IS ILLUSTRATIVE AND INFORMATIVE TO AT LEAST MY RATIONALE AND THINKING. IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC AS WELL. >>I DON’T HAVE THOSE REFERENCES BEFORE ME BUT THINKING JUST BASED ON MEMORY OF THE NEXT INDUSTRY CODE, IT DEFINES A HOTEL AS A BUSINESS THAT PROVIDES SHORT-TERM LODGING ACCOMMODATIONS AND IT SAYS THAT THE HOTEL CAN ALSO PROVIDE A RANGE OF GUEST SERVICES. IT DISCREDITS EXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE GUEST SERVICES CAN BE. FOOD SERVICES, BEVERAGE SERVICES, SPA SERVICES, IT CAN GO ON AND PROVIDES A LONG LIST. TO MY MEMORY, IT DOESN’T INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE MAINTENANCE SERVICES, WHICH IS WHAT I AM HERE YOU SAY WITH WINDOW WASHING. IT IS WHAT I WAS HEARING COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ SAY WHICH WAS NOT FITTING WITHIN HER CONEPTUALIZATION OF WHAT I HOTEL PURPOSE IS. I DON’T OF THE STATE STATUTE BUT ONE CAN THINK ABOUT WHAT COMPRISES GUEST SERVICES. LET’S WAS OF SERVICES DIRECTLY BENEFIT THE GUEST. ONE MIGHT POSIT THAT WINDOW WASHING IS INDIRECT. THAT IS MORE OF A MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY. >>I WAS JUST WEDNESDAY, LOOKING UP THE MIXED CODE REALLY QUICKLY, IT TALKS ABOUT THIS INDUSTRY IN THE CONTEXT OF, THE FACT THAT THE INDUSTRY COMPRISES OF ESTABLISHMENT, SHORT-TERM LODGING, FACILITIES KNOWN AS HOTELS. AND THE MOTOR HOTELS, RESORT HOTELS, THE ESTABLISHMENT IN THE INDUSTRY MAY OFFER FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES, RECREATIONAL SERVICES, CONFERENCE ROOM AND CONVENTION SERVICES. LAUNDRY SERVICES, PARKING AND OTHER SERVICES. AGAIN, I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO REALLY RELY ON SOME OF THESE INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARD IN NATIONAL TO REALLY ADDRESS THE DRAGNET ARGUMENT THAT IS BEING MADE BY SOME FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRY IN TERMS OF TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT COULD OSTENSIBLY BE CAPTURED BY THIS DEFINITION. I HAVE NOT FOUND THAT TO BE PERSUASIVE BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE CODES ARE DEFINING THE HOTEL INDUSTRY AND HOTEL PURPOSE. AND IF I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK IT UP QUICKLY, I WILL ALSO LOOK AT THE RCW’S THAT DEFINE A LITTLE BIT’S WITH THE CONTEST AS WELL. THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. IT SORT OF ALIGNS WITH WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN THE MIXED CODES. >>GOOD NEWS. TWO PIECES OF GOOD NEWS. ONE IS ON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION ON RETENTION, WE ONLY HAVE A SUBSTITUTE BILL TO CONSIDER TODAY. THAT IS THE GOOD NEWS. WE DON’T HAVE MULTIPLE MEMBERS. THE OTHER PIECE OF GOOD NEWS IS THAT THIS IS PUBLICLY THAT MEATIEST OF THE CHANGES IN A SUBSTITUTE BILL. AND WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF THAT HAS HELPED ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND FOR US TO MOVE THROUGH SOME OF THE POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TWO OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO POTENTIALLY CONSIDER TODAY. I DO APPRECIATE WORKING WITH YOU AND YOU RAISING THAT. ANY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS? BEFORE WE MOVE ON? >>THANK YOU. I THINK THAT WE WILL END UP WITH A POSITION WHERE THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT QUITE HAPPY WITH THIS. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF GOING THROUGH IT, THAT I BELIEVE PROGRESS IS BEING MADE. AND COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, I APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION FROM THE INDUSTRY ITSELF. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. TO PROTECT WORKERS ACTUALLY IN THE HOTELS, WITHIN THE HOTELS. PROVIDING THE SERVICES. THAT IS CLEAR, WHEN WE GET INTO RULEMAKING, WE ARE FOCUSED ON CARING FOR THE WORKERS WITHIN THE HOTELS THAT ARE DOING THE WORK TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES TO THE GUEST’S. I THINK WE HAVE REACHED THAT EQUILIBRIUM. AT LEAST WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. I TOLD YOU LAST NIGHT THAT I WAS GRATEFUL THAT WE HAD, AS FAR AS WE HAD. I WILL SUPPORT YOU IN THAT. IF WE COULD MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR. THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE AND TRYING NOT TO EXTEND OUT BEYOND úTHE WALLS OF THE HOTEL. THAT CAN BE HANDLED IN RULEMAKING I BELIEVE. WE HAVE REACHED A COMPROMISE. >>THANK YOU. THIS CONVERSATION HAS BEEN HELPFUL FROM A LEGISLATIVE INTENT. >>COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO? >> I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY ADDRESS THE POINT BY COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL. LAST NIGHT I WAS READING JUST THE ORDINANCE INITIATIVE ITSELF. I WANTED TO USE THAT AS MY THOUGHT PROCESS IN TERMS OF GUIDING MY DECISION-MAKING THIS MORNING. IN IT, IT DOES STATE WHAT VOTERS SUPPORTED WAS, IT IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. THOSE WHO CLEAN ROOMS, CHANGE THE SHEETS AND DICE THE VEGETABLES. I SAY DICE THE VEGETABLES BECAUSE I WAS WRESTLING WITH HEARING THE CONCERNS OF RESTAURANTS. HOW WE, THE ANCILLARY BUSINESS TO FINISH IN ITSELF. IT IS WITH THAT IN MIND THAT I ALSO AM NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORTIVE OF INCLUDING THE AND AND FRONT OF THE ONE INTO. IT MIGHT BE WORTH EXPLORING THE AND WHERE THE THREE IS BECAUSE, SO WE DEFINE IT AS A HOTEL BUSINESS RESTAURANT. MORE SPECIFICALLY AND TARGETED, I THINK THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO HOW, ENTRANCE WITHIN THE HOTEL PREMISES. AND WHETHER HOTEL GUESTS AND THE PUBLIC. I AM HOPING TO THIS DISCUSSION, AS WE CONTINUE TO GO TO THE ANCILLARY BUSINESS DISCUSSION, THAT WE CAN CLARIFY WHAT THE INTEREST IS DEFINED AS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS STILL TO ME IF IT VAGUE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE CAN WITHSTAND BOTH THE LEGAL SCRUTINY THAT IS TO COME BUT ALSO THAT WE ARE INCLUSIVE OF AS MANY WORKERS AS POSSIBLE IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEAR BROADLY FROM COMMUNITIES AS WELL AS STAKEHOLDERS AND TRY TO BE AS CONSISTENT TO IT VOTERS APPROVED, MYSELF INCLUDED. WITH THAT IN MIND, I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PUT THAT OUT THERE. >>THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER OF WHAT WAS IN THE INITIATIVE AND FOR THOSE WHO DICE THE VEGETABLES, WE WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION. IT DOES SOUND LIKE, ESPECIALLY WITH COUNTRIES CLOSING COMMENTS, WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THE REST OF THE POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE SUBSTITUTE HERE. AND IT SPEAKS TO THE SMALLER BUSINESSES THAT YOU WILL SEE EXEMPTED. >>FOR THE RECORD, I WAS GOING TO COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW. I WAS SITTING HERE STRUGGLING WITH THE SEMICOLON. I PROBABLY HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS ABILITY TO DO RULEMAKING THAT ENCOMPASSES ALL OF THESE CONCERNS. I WOULD JUST, I HAVE TOLD YOU I HAVE SAID IT PRIVATELY AND PUBLICLY. IT IS BASED ON MY CONCERNS ABOUT DEFERRING ANY OF THIS. I ASKED EARLIER, WHO ARE THESE BUSINESSES? IT IS NOT WINDOW WASHING APPARENTLY. BUT WHAT, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASY TO COMPILE BUT APPARENTLY IT’S NOT. SO I COULD GET A GOOD LOOK AT WHAT THESE ANCILLARY BUSINESSES ARE. GERM ANCILLARY BUSINESSES, I’M THINKING OF RESTAURANTS. BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT INCLUDES. I WAS HOPING TO GET, DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK, A GOOD DESCRIPTION IFTHESE BUSINESSES ARE BEING AFFECTED. IS THE CORE PURPOSE. I WAS TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR IT. AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THIS, I’M HOPING WE CAN DEFER LESS TO RULEMAKING AND MORE LANGUAGE IN HERE TO SPECIFY WHAT THE INTENT IS. >>YOU HEARD, AS YOU HEARD, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COAST THAT COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES IS READING FROM. WE WILL WORK ON GETTING THAT CIRCULATED TO FOLKS IN THE NEXT WEEK. SO GREAT. >>COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN DEFINITION OF HOTEL PURPOSE IF THEY WISH TO DO SO. >>SO LET’S MOVE ON TO THIS. >>CHAIR, I WANT TO RESPOND TO COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO’S AND SOFT FLOODING OF THE IDEA OF ADDING AND AND BETWEEN NUMBER TWO NUMBER THREE. AND I COULD NOT SUPPORT THAT IS IF IT DOES COME FORWARD. AND THE REASON I CANNOT SUPPORTED IS, AGAIN, I AM GOING BACK IN A TIME MACHINE. ADDING AND AND TO ANCILLARY BUSINESSES WOULD LIMIT THIS PARTICULAR DEFINITION AND COVERAGE OF ALL OF THESE LAWS TO ONLY FOOD AND BEVERAGE WITNESSES. THAT IS HOW THE LANGUAGE WOULD READ. SO IT WOULD SAY, ANY BUSINESS THAT ROUTINELY CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL PURPOSE. LEASES OR SUBLETS AT THE SITE OF THE HOTEL PURPOSE. AND PROVIDES FOOD AND BEVERAGES TO HOTEL GUESTS WITHIN THE HOTEL PREMISES. SO THAT MEANS THAT ALL THREE OF THOSE FACTORS AND CRITERIA NEED TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR AN ANCILLARY BUSINESS TO BE COVERED, WHICH WOULD COMMIT THE DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY BUSINESS. AND THE COVERAGE OF THESE PROTECTIONS TO ANCILLARY BUSINESSES THAT ARE LIMITED TO THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY ONLY. FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD ONLY SUPPORT IN AND BETWEEN TWO AND THREE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS PROPOSED EVENTUALLY. >>SO I WOULD SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR ENGAGING WITH US ON THIS. I DO THINK THAT AS COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW HAS MENTIONED, WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN OUR CONVERSATIONS ON THIS. WE WILL SHARE WITH THE FULL COUNSEL THE RCW’S THAT THE FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRY HAVE DEFINED THEMSELVES. IT WILL BE AN ILLUSTRATIVE PART OF OUR CONVERSATION FOR NEXT WEEK. THIS IS REALLY AN EFFORT TO TRY TO WALK THE FINE LINE BETWEEN VARIOUS STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED AND TO IDENTIFY A STRATEGY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD SO WE FEEL WE ARE LIVING THESE VALUES WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF WHICH INDUSTRIES ARE INCLUDED. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ HAS SPOKEN OUT ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE WHY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS COMING TO OUR CITY BEHAVE WELL IN THEIR ROOMS AND HAVE THE SAME PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING THIS POLICY THAT WE WOULD EXPECT IN ANY CITY THAT OUR FRIENDS GO TO AS RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE. WE DON’T WANT PEOPLE COMING INTO THE CITY AND THINKING IT IS PART OF THE HOTEL, I CAN ACT AND BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS. WE WANT THIS TO BE VERY CLEAR IN TERMS OF OUR INTENTION TO PROTECT WORKERS IN THIS ARENA. AND SO I WILL ASK US TO GO AHEAD AND HERE THE REST OF THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN THE JOB RETENTION BILL BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO OTHER PIECES TO CONSIDER AND ONE OF THEM THAT I AM EXCITED FOR YOU TO HEAR ABOUT, THE COUNCIL RESIDENT IS ON THE SIZE OF THE EMPLOYEES. I THINK THAT WILL HELP ADVANCE THE CONVERSATION SPECIFIC TO SMALL BUSINESS. KARINA? >>AS YOU PREVIEWED THE NEXT REVISION REGARDS THE SIZE OF ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES COVERED BY THE LEGISLATION. THE SIZE WOULD BE INCREASED FROM THE BASELINE OR THRESHOLD OF 20 EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE TO 50 OR MORE EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE. OR BY CREATING AN EXEMPTION FOR ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE FEWER THAN 50 EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE. >>GOOD COMMENTS. QUESTIONS? >>I ASSUME THAT IS JUST A DIRECT RESULT OF LISTENING TO COMMUNITIES. LISTENING TO SMALL BUSINESSES AND REALIZING THERE IS A BALANCE OF TRYING TO COVER AS MANY EMPLOYEES BUT RECOGNIZE SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE STRUGGLES. >>THAT IS RIGHT. AND ALSO I THINK IT IS IN RECOGNITION OF US TRYING TO HAVE HARMONY ACROSS VARIOUS PIECES AS WELL. >>>>>THE NEXT REVISION IS REGARDING EMPLOYER RECORDS. IT DOESN’T ADD ANY RECORDS IN THIS LIST HOWEVER, IT DOES GIVE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS THE ABILITY TO ADD MORE RECORDS THEY FEEL ARE MATERIAL AND NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE TERMS OF THIS CHAPTER OF THIS LEGISLATION. RECOGNIZING THAT ALL RULEMAKING PROCESSES DO INVOLVE STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND GO THROUGH A COMMENT PERIOD AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? >>I AM SEEING ON. THE NEXT REVISION IS IN THE REMEDIES SECTION. AND THIS, IN THE REMEDIES SECTION, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PLACES WHERE IT IS REFERENCED THAT THE DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS SPECIFY THAT THE CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES CAN BE MADE, PAID TO THE AGREED PARTY, THE EMPLOYEE, RATHER THAN PAID TO THE CITY. THIS OFTEN HAPPENS ALREADY. MANY IN THE OFFICE OF THEY WERE STANDARDS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, THE LANGUAGE IN THE LAW ACTUALLY ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO IMPOSE THAT KIND OF PAYMENT OF THE CIVIL PENALTY AND FIND TO THE EMPLOYEE IN AN ORDER IF IT CAN’T BE SETTLED. AND IT APPEARS TWICE IN THE LEGISLATION AND IN ONE PLACE, IT SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR CAN DO THIS. IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY SPECIFY THAT ALL CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES ARE PAYABLE TO THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. IT DOESN’T ALIGN, THE TWO SENTENCES DON’T MATCH. SO IT SEEMS WISE TO REMOVE ALL SO THAT THEY MATCH AND IT ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO CALIBRATE THE ALLOCATION OF CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES. THE DIRECTOR DOESN’T HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THE PENALTIES AND FINES GO TO THE AGREED PARTY. IT COULD BE 50% GO TO THE CITY AND 50% TO THE AGREED PARTY. ONE OF THE REASONS IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOME OF THESE CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES GO TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN HARMED BY NONCOMPLIANCES THAT FOR SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, THERE IS NO MONETARY COMPENSATION TO THE EMPLOYEE IF IT IS NOT FOLLOWED. THERE IS NO NOTICE THAT AN EMPLOYER PUTS UP SAYING THAT úPOSSESSES ARE CHANGING HANDS, THEN THE EMPLOYEE DOESN’T GET ANYTHING FOR THAT. THE EMPLOYER CAN GET DINGED AND HAVE TO PLAY MONEY TO THE CITY BUT NOT THAT THE RIGHTS OF BEEN COMPROMISED. >>QUESTIONS? I AM SAYING NONE. >>I TOLD YOU I HAD GOOD NEWS. THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THE LEGISLATION. >>THE LAST REVISION IS REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE AND IT CREATES TWO EFFECTIVE DATES. THEY ARE BOTH FARTHER INTO THE FUTURE THAN THE LAST VERSION, WHICH WAS JANUARY 1, 2020. THE FIRST ONE CREATES A DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION FOR ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BETWEEN 50-250 EMPLOYEES. AND THE CONTRACT LEASE OR SUBLEASE WITH THE HOTEL AS OF THE DATE THAT THIS LEGISLATION PASSES. THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES WILL HAVE UNTIL JULY 1 OF 2025. TO BEGIN COMPLYING WITH THIS LAW. ALL OTHER BUSINESSES, INCLUDING THE VERY LARGE ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT DO A CONTRACT LEASE AND HAVE MORE THAN 250 EMPLOYEES, THE PROVISIONS WILL TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 1, 2020. >>MY UNDERSTANDING IS IS A MEMBER OF BRIAN AND PACHECO, YOU HAVE WORKED ON SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE. DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS? >>>>YOU’RE GIVING ME MORE CREDIT THAN I DESERVE BUT I APPRECIATE THIS ADDITION. I THINK IT, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS LEGISLATION WILL HAVE IMPACTS ON BUSINESSES, INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPACTS. AND FOR BUSINESSES THAT ARE INDEPENDENT AND OPERATING IN HOTELS AND ARE ACTUALLY SERVING A FUNCTION WE HAVE SEEN IN A HOTEL LIKE A RESTAURANT, GIVING THEM SOME TIME TO RENEGOTIATE THE LEASE OR RENEW A LEASE AND ALLOW FOR THEM TO FIGURE OUT THE COST IMPLICATIONS TO THE BUSINESS. AND THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I CAN IMAGINE SCENARIOS WHERE THEY MIGHT SAY HEY. I CAN’T PAY AND AS MUCH FOR RENT BECAUSE I AM SPENDING MORE ON MY EMPLOYEES NOW. AND THEY WOULD NEGOTIATE IT AT THE HOTEL. I THINK THAT IS INTENDANT CONSEQUENCE. HAVING, THIS IS ONLY FOR BUSINESSES THERE TODAY. BUSINESSES COMING, BE AWARE THAT THESE WILL BE IN PLAY. TO GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY. I APPRECIATE YOUR ENTHUSIASM. >>THANK YOU FOR RAISING IT. >>ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? >>DITTO. >>SHORT AND SWEET. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL RAISING THIS AS WELL. WE UNDERSTAND THERE MIGHT BE EXISTING CONTRACTS IN THE WORKS. WE DON’T INTEND TO TRY TO TELL FOLKS THEY NEED TO RENEGOTIATE THAT. I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE AMENDMENT THAT HAS COME FROM SMALLER BUSINESS PARTNERS AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. WE ARE HAPPY TO INCLUDE IT. THE CONCEPT WAS TRY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH YOU ALL IN ONE SUBSTITUTE FOR US TO CONSIDER TODAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE HOTEL JOB RETENTION BILL AS A PACKAGE? >>>OKAY. SEEING NONE. SO ALL RIGHT. >>I SHOULD MAKE AN OVERALL COMMENT. I DON’T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF ONE PART OF THE PROCESS. RELATIVE TO REMEDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS. THAT IS, THERE IS REALLY NO REMEDIATION PROCESS. NO MANDATORY REMEDIATION. IT IS VERY ADVERSARIAL. THE HEARING EXAMINER DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MANDATES WITHIN THE PURVIEW. I HAVE ASKED THE EXAMINER TO POSSIBLY CONSIDER LEGISLATION REQUIRING MEDIATION BECAUSE OFTEN, PARTICULARLY FOR SMALLER BUSINESSES, YOU HAVE TO SETTLE THIS AND SOMETIMES THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM AND IT IS VERY ADVERSARIAL. WE ARE TRYING TO SEE IF THERE’S REMEDIATION. I AM NOT SUGGESTING CHANGE BUT I WANT COUNCILMEMBERS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROCESS IS SOMETIMES UNNECESSARILY ADVERSARIAL WHEN ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. >>AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS. I THINK IT IS HELPFUL FOR YOU TO RAISE THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON THAT PROCESS OUTSIDE OF THIS DISCUSSION. I KNOW THAT THERE IS ONGOING WORK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE SO SEEING THAT AS A SEPARATE ELEMENTS OF THIS, AM I CORRECT? I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO CONSIDER VOTING ON THE SUBSTITUTE BILL HERE. AGAIN WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT THE BILL WILL REMAIN IN COMMITTEE AND WE WILL TAKE IT UP FOR A POTENTIAL FINAL ACTION ASKED THURSDAY. I AM SEEING NODS. THIS IS GOOD. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE CONSIDER AMENDING COUNCIL BILL 1195 56. IS THAT CORRECT? >>LET’S SEE. >>YES. >>119556. WITH THE SUBSTITUTE BILL, VERSION D. >>VERSION D4? >>I MOVED TO AMEND CONSTABLE 119556 BY SUBSTITUTING VERSION D 2 FOR VERSION D 4. ANY OPPOSED? NONE? ANY EXTENSIONS? >>I ABSTAIN. >>THE BILL IS AMENDED. BY A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH ONE ABSTENTION. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. LET’S MOVE TO THE THIRD AGENDA ITEM WHICH HAS BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD. THIS IS ALSO BILL 119554. >>AND FOR FOLKS FOLLOWING ALONG, WE HAVE A CHART ON THE SCREEN THAT IS SUBSTITUTE BILL PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY. BRIDGING D2 VERSUS PROPOSED VERSION D3. WE WILL BE WALKING THROUGH THE LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN VERSION D3 THAT WILL INCLUDE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS FOR US TO CONSIDER AS A SUBSTITUTE BILL. >>>THE CHAIR IS READY AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THE MATRIX. THE FIRST ISSUE, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY. THIS IS MERELY ABOUT HOUSEKEEPING AND IT SETS WORKLOAD LIMITS AND ESTABLISHES NEW RATES OF PAY FOR CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE HOUSECLEANERS ARE CLEANING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOTEL ROOMS THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF THAT MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE. >>THAT IS WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE SUBSTITUTE. YES. THERE IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT WILL FOLLOW. I WANT TO SPEAK TO IT AT THIS POINT. SO THERE ARE ALSO CHANGES THAT ARE CAPTURED IN THIS MATRIX. NONE OF THEM HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANCILLARY BUSINESSES BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE CAPTURED IN THE STILL. IT IS ALL ABOUT HOUSECLEANING NOT ABOUT THE OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PREMISES. WE ARE INVITING SERVICES, ETC. SO THE FIRST ROW, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH SECTION 1427 050 E. IT IS ON PAGE 6 OF THE BILL IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE BILL ITSELF. THIS ON 8-15, THIS COMMITTEE PASSED SOME LANGUAGE THAT CLARIFIED THAT WHEN HOUSECLEANING EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, WISH WAS ESTABLISHED AT 5000 FT.B2, THEY WOULD BE PAID FOR 3 TIMES THEIR REGULAR RATE OF PAY ONLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WAS SPENT ON THE FLOOR SPACE IN EXCESS OF THE 5000 FT.B2. THE CHANGE IN THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO CLARIFY AND BETTER ARTICULATE THE POLICY OBJECTIVE. THERE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A TEACHER. IT IS A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. AS I MENTIONED, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT THAT MIGHT BE OFFERED THAT COULD AFFECT THE SUBSTITUTE BUT THE SUBSTITUTE ITSELF IS SUPPOSED TO BE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE. >>IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE. >>ANY QUESTIONS ON RATE OF PAY? >>NO. >>THE ONE THING WE RAISED YESTERDAY WAS THE IDEA IS THAT IF YOU JUST WERE 5000 FT.B2, THAT IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SPACE IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO DO CLEANUP ON SPACE, BUT AT THE END OF THAT DAY, IF SOMEBODY SAYS, IF YOU NEED TO STAY FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS BECAUSE THERE ARE EXTRA ROOMS, YOU GET PAID TRIPLE TIME IF YOU WORK OVER AND ABOVE THE 5000 FT.B2. WE BROUGHT UP YESTERDAY, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA JUST STEPPED OUT, LET’S SAY THAT WE HAVE WORKED FIVE DAYS IN A ROW. DONE OUR 5000 FT.B2, BUT WE HAV AN OPT IN LIST. IT CAN BE AN ON-CALL LIST. ANYBODY CAN BE ON IT. IF AN EMPLOYER SAYS WE’VE GOT MORE ROOMS TO CLEAN, 70s ON VACATION OR SICK WHATEVER. IF YOU COME BACK IN ON THE SIXTH DAY, YOUR PAID TIME AND A HALF, NOT TRIPLE TIME. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OVERTIME. IN THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU AND I USED YESTERDAY. IT IS THAT IF SOMEBODY, AN INDIVIDUAL WORKS 5000 FT.B2 FOR 5 DAYS IN A ROW, BUT CHOOSES TO WORK A SIX DAY, BECAUSE THEY ARE ON AN OPT IN LIST. ON THE SIXTH DAY, THEY ARE PAID TIME AND A HALF. NOT TRIPLE TIME. >>SO LONG AS THEY ARE CLEANING UNDER 5000 OR UP TO 5000 FT.B2. I THINK THAT WOULD BE TRUE UNLESS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDES OTHER MULTIPLIERS. BUT THEY WOULD BE ON THE 5000 ON THE SIXTH DAY. >>THEY GET TRIPLE TIME. >>I WAS SO THANKFUL FOR YOUR QUESTION. YESTERDAY, IT MAY BE LOOK BACK INTO THIS. IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION CORRECTLY, I AM SORRY I HAD TO STEP OUT. YOU ARE CORRECT. ON THE SIXTH DAY, IF THEY ARE NOT WORKING MORE THAN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT, AND THE ACTUAL OVER TIME IF THEY ALREADY WORKED 40 HOURS THAT WEEK WOULD BE TIME IN HALF. JUST LIKE IT IS AT THE STATE LEVEL. THIS DOESN’T CHANGE ANY OF THE STATE-LEVEL POLICIES. I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. IT ALSO HELPS US. I’M NOT SURE IF COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT BUT IT HELPS US FRAME UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OVER TIME TRADITIONALLY. HAVE YOU WORKED MORE THAN 40 HOURS A WEEK? SO WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO CHANGE THAT OVERTIME POLICY. IT IS TIME AND A HALF IF YOU’VE WORKED MORE THAN 40 HOURS OF THE WEEK. YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT POLICY VERSUS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. >>I AM HAPPY TO CHIME IN HERE. SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT IN THIS PARTICULAR, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE TO REALLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OVERTIME AND WHAT I SEE AS THE POLICY GOAL, WHICH IS THE INCENTIVE TO ASSIGN EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS THAT HAVE NEGATIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS ON HOTEL WORKERS. AND SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED AS OVER TIME IN THE ORDINARY SENSE THAT, WHEN YOU DEFINE OVERTIME IN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. AND THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. SO THIS IS REALLY THE RATE OF PAY FOR PURPOSES OF CREATING A DISINCENTIVE TO ASSIGN EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS FOR AN OVERBURDENED SECTOR OF THE WORKFORCE. SO A WAY TO DO THAT, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND OTHER LABOR STANDARD LAWS, INCLUDING SECURE SCHEDULING AND OTHER AREAS, IS TO EFFECTIVELY COME UP WITH AN ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE OR MECHANISM TOOL IF YOU WILL THAT EFFECTIVELY WORKS AS A PENALTY IN THE EVENT THAT YOU DO EXCEED, IN THIS CASE THE 5000 SQUARE-FOOT ASSIGNMENT. SO WE ARE MAKING A POLICY DETERMINATION THAT THAT IS ONE THRESHOLD IN WHICH WE HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF 5000 WOULD RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THIS WORKFORCE. I WANT TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE CONVERSATION OF, THIS IS OVERTIME. YOU KNOW, THE BILL DOESN’T ACTUALLY SAY OVERTIME. THE ORIGINAL INITIATIVE DIDN’T SAY OVERTIME. IT HAS JUST BEEN SUBTLY CHARACTERIZED AS OVERTIME. WHAT I THINK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS, SHOULD THEIR BE AS A MATTER OF POLICY A FINANCIAL PENALTY OF SORTS TO THIS INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYERS FROM ASSIGNING EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS TO THIS PARTICULAR WORKFORCE. FOR ME THE ANSWER THAT QUESTION IS YES. THERE SHOULD BE. AND THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DO WE SET THOSE LOVERS TO CREATE AN EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE TO PRIORITIZE AND PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY. THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THIS WORKFORCE? THAT IS WHAT IS REPRESENTED HERE. WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION AFTER ADOPTION OF THE SUBSTITUTE BILL ABOUT WHETHER THE 5000 FT.B2 THRESHOLD IS SET AT THE RIGHT AREA, AS YOU JUST ALLUDED TO. 5000 FT.B2 IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. >>THAT IS A LOT OF WORK. >>A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND A DAY. WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION AFTER WE ARE DONE WITH THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE HAVE SET IT AT THE RIGHT LEVEL BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. >>THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO? >> I WAS GOING TO BUILD ON COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ’S POINT. LAST NIGHT , WE REREAD THE INITIATIVE, JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT VOTERS SEND US, DIRECTIVE TO DO. IT SAYS AGAIN, IT BEARS REPEATING. APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT HOTEL EMPLOYEES. I AM ENCOURAGED THAT THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES AND WE ARE THINKING ABOUT 5000. IS THAT, THAT IS A LOT OF SPACE. 5000 FT.B2. SO I AM ENCOURAGED TO SEE THE CONVERSATION CONTINUE. I WILL LEAVE IT THERE. >>A CONTEXT QUESTION AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME. THE 5000 FT.B2, THAT IS A HEAVY LOAD FOR A DAY? FOR A WORKER WORKING ONE DAY. THAT IS REALLY PUSHING THE LIMIT. THAT IS NOT TWO OR THREE DAYS. THAT IS MONDAY. CORRECT? >>THAT IS AN EIGHT HOUR SHIFT. SO THE OVERTIME PIECE THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IF THEY DO IT IN ONE DAY AT EIGHT HOURS, 5000 FEET, BOOM. IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE, TO COME OUT THAT WAY. IF THEY WORK TWO MORE HOURS, DOES THAT KICK IN? >>THAT IS OVERTIME LAWS. OVERTIME LAWS ARE TRIGGERED BASED ON A 40 HOUR WORK WEEK. IF YOU WORK 41 HOURS, YOU ARE NOW IN TIME AND HALF LAND. THIS LANGUAGE ONLY APPLIES IN THE EVENT THAT THE WORKLOAD ASSIGNED TO THE WORKER EXCEEDS 5000 FT.B2. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF TOTAL WEEKLY HOURS, WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO STATE LAW. >>LET ME KEEP GOING. THAT IS CERTAINLY HELPFUL. I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE. IF THEY WORK 85,000 FT.B2 IN ON DAY, EIGHT HOURS, BUT THEN ON DAY 2, SO IF THEY ARE ASKED TO WORK TWO MORE HOURS ON THAT MONDAY, LET’S SAY IT’S MONDAY- FIVE, THEY HAVE DONE 5000 FT.B2 SO THEY ARE TIRED. THEY COULD BE IN PAIN. BUT IF THEY WORK FOR 2 HOURS ON THAT DAY, WHAT ARE THEY PAID? >>IF DOING THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL HOURS ON MONDAY AFTER THEY HAVE CLEANED 5000 FT.B2 IF THEY CONTINUE TO PERFORM ROOM CLEANINGS, THEY WILL BE PAID THREE TIMES THE NORMAL HOURLY COMPENSATION FOR THOSE TWO HOURS. >>BUT WHAT IF THEY WORK SIX HOURS NEXT DAY THOUGH. I AM HEARING IT IS 40 HOURS FOR THE WEEK. IT IF THEY WORK, YOU DON’T KNOW IF THEY WORK 40 HOURS FOR THAT WEEK YET. >>>YOU CAN TO GIVE IT AS THE CLOCK RESETTING WITH EVERY EIGHT HOUR SHIFT. WITH EVERY WORKDAY. SO IF THEY WORKED 10 HOURS ON MONDAY, MAYBE THEY WILL GET PAID THREE TIMES THEIR HOURLY RATE FOR 2 HOURS. FOR CLEANINGS BEYOND 5000 FT.B2 TUESDAY, YOU START ALL OVER AGAIN. IF YOU GET TO SATURDAY, THEY ARE ON THE SIXTH SHIFT OF THE WEEK. THEY HAVE WORKED 40 HOURS, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. SATURDAY IS ALL OVERTIME. THEY WILL BE GETTING THEM IN A HALF FOR ALL HOURS THEY WORK ON SATURDAY IF ON SATURDAY THEY CLEANED 5000 FT.B2 FROM 8-4. AN THEN THEY CLEAN AN ADDITIONAL 2000 FT.B2 OVER TWO HOURS, THEY WILL BE PAID THREE TIMES THEIR OVERTIME RATE. SO IF THEY MAKE $20 PER HOUR, THEIR OVERTIME RATE WILL BE $120 FOR THE EXTRA TWO HOURS. >>>YOU DID THE MATH WAY FASTER. IT WILL BE $30 AN HOUR. THEY WOULD BE PAID THREE TIMES $30 AN HOUR. >>IF THEY DO, IN THE INDUSTRY, DO SOME DUE 5000 FT.B2 IN LESS THAN EIGHT HOURS? IS THAT A COMMON PRACTICE? >>CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >>SOME COULD DO 5000 FT.B2 HELLO IN LESS THAN EIGHT HOURS. >>CORRECT. SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT EMPLOYEE IF THEY DID IT IN SIX HOURS? FOR THOSE REMAINING TWO HOURS? ARE THEY COMPENSATED THREE TIMES? >>THEY CONTINUE TO CLEAN MORE THAN 5000 FT.B2, YES. THEY WILL BE COMPENSATED. ADDITIONALLY. THE IDEA THAT >>THREE TIMES? SO THE TRIGGER OF TRIPLE TIME IS 5000 FT.B2, REGARDLESS AS TO THE HOURS. >>COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES WAS SAYING IT WAS A SEPARATE ISSUE FOR OVERTIME. NOT A QUESTION OF HOW LONG, EXCEPT HOW LONG ARE YOU WORKING MORE THAN 5000 FT.B2. EVEN IF THAT IS ALL OF YOUR WORK. IF ALL OF IT IS DONE AND IN EIGHT HOUR DAY. >>ONE THING I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL, COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ IS CORRECT. THE TERMS WE USE MATTER. I THINK I HAVE USED OVERTIME FOR SHORTHAND WHEN IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY OVERTIME AT ALL. WHAT I AM TRYING TO PHRASE THIS IS INJURY PREVENTION PAY. IF YOU THINK OF INJURY PREVENTION PAY AS BEING THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT. THAT MEANS WE ARE PREVENTING INJURIES FROM OCCURRING BEYOND THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO DO WITH OVERTIME BECAUSE AS YOU TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING, IF PEOPLE WANT TO SIGN UP FOR OVERTIME, THERE IS A LIST THEY CAN ADD THEIR NAME TO. IF THEY GET CALLED IN FOR THE SIXTH DAY AND THERE WORKING MORE THAN 40 HOURS IN A WEEK, THEY WILL GET ONE AND HALF TIMES. THAT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE ON THAT SATURDAY THEY ARE COMING IN. THAT IS TRADITIONAL OVERTIME. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A VERY SPECIFIC INDUSTRY WHERE WE KNOW THAT THE MANUAL LABOR OF CLEANING ROOMS HAS LED TO HIGHER RATES OF BACK INJURY THEN COAL MINERS AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT LEVEL TO HELP PREVENT INJURY IN THE FUTURE AND HAVE A DISINCENTIVE FOR FOLKS. THE — >>I GET THE REASONS. I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICS. IF THEY WORK 5000 FT.B2 IN FIVE HOURS, THE NEXT THREE IS TO TIME. THAT IS THE POLICY. I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PLAYS OUT. >>I WILL BOTTOM LINE IT AGAIN. THIS IS NOT OVERTIME. TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN CONTEXT OF THE ATTACHING IT TO HOURS. WHAT HAVE BEEN MULTIPLIED THREE BY, IN THE EVENT THAT 5000 FT.B IS HIT IN TWO HOURS, AND FIVE HOURS, AND EIGHT HOURS, THE TRIGGER IS THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS BEING CLEANED. IT IS CALCULATED BASED ON ADDITIONAL HOURS IT TOOK TO CLEAN MORE THAN 5000 FT.B2. >>IF YOU REMEMBER INITIATIVE 124. THEY HAVE LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SEE IN OAKLAND AND LONG BEACH. THEY HAD AN INJURY PREVENTION PAY. I WILL USE THAT TERM. IT CALCULATED FOR THE ENTIRE DAY. WE HAD THAT ORIGINALLY TO GO BACK AND CALCULATE FOR THE ENTIRE DAY. OVER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT. NOT BECAUSE IT WAS OVERTIME BUT BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A DETERRENT FROM HAVING TO WORK THAT MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO OAKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE A 4000 FT.B2 LIMIT. IF YOU WORK MORE. IF YOU CLEAN MORE, THAT IS WHEN YOU’RE INJURY — >>THE MANAGEMENT OF HOTELS WILL CONFINE 5000. >>I JUST THINK IT MIGHT PLAY OUT THAT WAY. I’M ALL FOR, I DON’T WANT THEM WORKING MORE THAN 5000 IF AN EMPLOYER WANTS TO PAY FOR THAT. THAT IS FINE. BUT I AM TRYING TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THE WORKERS. THAT IS FINE. I NEED TO KNOW WHEN IT KICKS IN. BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES TO SEE HOW IT IS MANAGED. >>ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? I BELIEVE WE ARE ON THE FIRST BOX. IS THAT CORRECT? >>I THINK I CAN MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH AT LEAST THE REST OF THEM. SO THE SECOND ROW, 1427 110. THE EMPLOYEE RECORDS. THIS IS A TECHNICAL ERROR TO CATCH UP THE LIST OF RECORDS WITH THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WERE INSERTED IN THE PREVIOUS D2 VERSION THAT WAS PASSED ON 815. I DON’T THINK THERE IS SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES THAT I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE. THE THIRD ITEM, 1427 170 EIGHT. REMEDIES. KARINA ALREADY TALKED THROUGH THE PREVIOUS BILL, STRIKING THE WORD ALL. TO ALLOW THE CELEBRATION OF THE PENALTIES AND FINES, ALSO IN REMEDIES, THAT IS A CLERICAL ERROR WHERE WE DIDN’T NOTES THAT THE THREE TIMES, WHICH WAS INSERTED IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION, WE HAVE NOW MADE THAT CORRECTION. AND THE LAST ROW IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE, 1427 260. THIS CHANGES THE EFFECTIVE DATES FOR THE LEGISLATION TO JULY 1, 2020. IN LIEU OF WHAT HAD BEEN THERE PREVIOUSLY JANUARY 1, 2020. THAT WAS BASED ON INPUT FROM OLS WHO WERE TELLING US ABOUT THE REALISTIC TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO ESTABLISH DIRECTORS RULES. >>>ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I DO APPRECIATE THE MORE REALISTIC TIMEFRAME FOR WILL MAKING. ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD TODAY, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A PATTERN YOU’LL SEE IN THE VARIOUS PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT COME BEFORE US TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET THOSE RULES CORRECT. THAT THEY HEAR FROM STAKEHOLDERS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON VERSION D3 AS A WHOLE? COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW? >>ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE HERE, WE HAVE GOT JULY 1, 2025. >>250? WILL WE KEEP THAT JULY 1, 2025? >>THIS WILL BE JULY 1, 2020? >>SO IN THIS BILL, THERE ARE NO ANCILLARY BUSINESSES LARGE OR SMALL WHO ARE AFFECTED. SO FOR ALL EMPLOYERS, IT ENDS UP BEING THE SAME EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1, 2020. >>JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS PARTICULAR LAW APPLIES TO HOTELS. >>CORRECT. >>SO ONE CATEGORY OF EMPLOYER WITH AN EFFECTIVE DAYS. ONE SET OF PROTECTIONS. >>INC. YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL. >> I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SEE IF WE CAN MOVE TO AMEND THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 19554 BY SUBSTITUTING VERSION D2 FOR D3. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THIS BILL HAS BEEN AMENDED TO INCLUDE VERSION D3 AS ADOPTED AND WE WILL KEEP THIS IN COMMITTEE UNTIL NEXT WEEK. WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM. IT IS STILL IN OUR COMMITTEE. WE HAVE NOT MOVED TO ITEM 4 YET.>>CENTRAL STUFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WALK THROUGH>>THE AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE THAT MAXIMUM FLOOR SPACE AMOUNT TO 4500 SQUARE FEET. IN LIEU OF 5000 SQUARE FEET. IT WILL REDUCE THE THRESHOLD WHERE WORKERS BEGIN TO BE PAID.>>I JUST LOVE TO HEAR THE BACKGROUND ON THIS. IT’S THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE SEEN 4500 SINCE WE BEEN TALKING ABOUT 5000. TELL ME HOW IT MOVED WITHIN THE PAST 24 HOURS. >>THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, DID YOU WANT TO TEE UP A CONVERSATION AROUND THIS AND I WILL CHIME IN? >>SURE. I THINK WHAT I SPENT SOME TIME DOING IS GETTING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE OTHER TWO JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE LAWS IN THIS SPACE, THOSE PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE STRUCTURES, INCLUDING A 4000 SQUARE-FOOT THRESHOLD FOR THE, IN THAT CASE, TIME AND A HALF RATE OF PAY AND IN THAT CASE IT INCLUDES TIME AND HAVE PAY FOR THE ENTIRE HOURS AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE DELTA BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF HOURS, ADDITIONAL HOURS IT WOULD TAKE TO DO MORE THAN 4000 SQUARE FEET. WE WERE AT 5000 SQUARE FEET AT THE LAST TIME WE MET, AND I THINK THAT IN LOOKING AT THAT 4000 SQUARE-FOOT PRECEDENT THAT IS SET IN LONG BEACH AND OAKLAND AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT SOME ADDITIONAL DATA RELATED TO THE RATES OF INJURY AND THIS PARTICULAR INDUSTRY, I’VE BEEN PERSUADED TO END UP SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN 4,005,000. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF STATISTICS HERE RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, SO JUST TO START WITH, THERE HAS BEEN SOME ARTICLES WRITTEN ON THE NATIONAL AVERAGE HOTEL ROOM SIZES AND — BECAUSE THERE’S A LOT OF ACTIVITY HAPPENING IN HOTELS, SO THE AVERAGE HOTEL ROOM SIZE IS 330 SQUARE FEET. THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DONE BY THE CITY OF LONG BEACH IN 2018. HOTEL OPERATORS WITHIN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH INDICATED THAT HOUSEKEEPERS CURRENTLY CLEANED BETWEEN 13 TO 15 ROOMS PER SHIFT, DEPENDING ON THE ROOM SIZE AND WHETHER THE ROOMS CLASSIFY AS STAYOVER OR CHECKOUT. IF WE ASSUME BETWEEN AN AVERAGE OF 14 ROOMS PER DAY TIMES 330 SQUARE FEET, THAT’S ABOUT 4620 SQUARE FEET, AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT SAT WITH ME IN THE LAST 24 HOURS IN TERMS OF EVALUATING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THRESHOLD. IN ADDITION, THERE WAS A 2010 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE STUDY ON OCCUPATIONAL INJURY DISPARITIES IN THE U.S. HOTEL INDUSTRY THAT FOUND THE HOTEL EMPLOYEES HAVE HIGHER RATES OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND SUSTAIN MORE SEVERE INJURIES THAN MOST OTHER SERVICE WORKERS. THAT INJURY RATE WAS HIGHEST AMONGST HOUSEKEEPERS AT 7.9%. WHEN YOU — AND AMONGST HOUSEKEEPERS IS 10.6% RATE OF INJURY, WHICH IS A DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT. THE STUDY FOUND THAT HOTEL WORKERS WERE NEARLY 40 PERCENT MORE LIKELY TO BE INJURED ON THE JOB THEN ALL OTHER SERVICE SECTOR WORKERS, AND THE STUDY ALSO FOCUSED ON UNIONIZED HOTEL INDUSTRY AND CALLED OUT THE FACT THAT INJURY RATES WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER FOR A NONUNIONIZED FIELD IN THE EVENT OF THE EVALUATION OF THOSE INDUSTRIES. AGAIN, IN THIS STUDY, 98%, IT ALSO EMPHASIZED 98% OF HOUSEKEEPERS OF A TOTAL OF 12000 WERE FEMALE WITH 45% OF THOSE BEING FLAT, LATIN ACTS, AND 20% IDENTIFYING AS ASIAN. I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION, THAT THERE IS A HIGH RATE OF INJURY HERE. THE QUESTION IS AT WHAT THRESHOLD FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS SAFER IN THIS INDUSTRY THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY REDUCE THOSE INJURY RATES AS IDENTIFIED IN THAT 2010 STUDY. IN ADDITION, PUGET SOUND DID A SURVEY IN 2016 THAT IDENTIFY DATA FROM THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS SHOWING THE INJURY RATE FOR HOUSEKEEPING AS THE COUNCILMEMBER HAS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IS HIGHER THAN BOTH COAL MINING AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND THE PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEKEEPERS EXPERIENCING PAIN IS MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE PERCENTAGE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION THAT EXPERIENCES BACK PAIN. IMPACTS OF THESE INJURIES INCLUDE TROUBLE SLEEPING, CHRONIC PAIN, AND INTERFERENCE WITH DAILY ACTIVITIES. AGAIN, I THINK IF THE COURSE FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THERE A HIGHER RATE OF INDUSTRY HURT FOR THIS SECTOR WORKERS, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, YES. THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, WHERE DO WE SET THE THRESHOLD TO CREATE A SAFER WORK ENVIRONMENT AND BEGIN TO REDUCE THAT HIGHER INJURY RATES THAT WE SEE MANIFEST ITSELF WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR INDUSTRY. DOING THE MATH, THAT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION. THE SECOND QUESTION WAS THE MATH, AND THAT IS WHAT LED ME TO THE 330 SQUARE FOOT AVERAGE ROOM SIZE FOR SORT OF AN ASSUMPTION THAT ABOUT 14 ROOMS ARE CLEANED A DAY LEADING ME TO 4620, WHICH SUPPORTED MY POSITION AROUND 4500. >>SO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, WE ARE ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE PROTECT THE WORKERS. NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS. ONE THING I’M INTERESTED IN IS HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? IS IT 4500 OR 4620. SOMEBODY COMING OUT WITH ENGINEERING DESIGNING, DESIGN, THE ACTUAL DRAWINGS, IS SOMEONE IN THERE WITH A MEASURING TAPE? I DON’T WANT TO BE SILLY ABOUT THIS, BUT I ALSO DON’T WANT TO PUT US IN THE SITUATION WERE EITHER ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IS SAYING, IT REALLY WASN’T 4620. IT WAS 4500. YOU ARE NOT GETTING PAID EXTRA TODAY. I’D LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM ALL SIDES BEFORE I START MAKING THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS, WHETHER IT’S REDUCED BY 4500 OR 500. ONCE AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW IT’S GOING TO WORK OUT FUNCTIONALLY. WHO IS MAKING THOSE DECISIONS? >>I THINK THOSE CONCERNS EXIST REGARDLESS. I THINK THAT’S WHY WE HAVE — MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WILL BE UP TO THE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS IN THE RULEMAKING PROCESS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO HOW THAT’S GOING TO BE EVALUATED. WHETHER IT’S 10000 SQUARE FEET OR 100,000 SQUARE FEET OR ONE SQUARE FOOT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT SAME COMPLEXITY OF UNDERSTANDING WHO IS MAKING THE DETERMINATION. >>I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR, I JUST LIKE TO KNOW FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE WORKERS AND FROM THE HOTEL YEARS HOW THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, AND I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION TO REDUCE THIS 500 FEET. >>GREAT. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT. WAS I READING YOU CORRECTLY THAT YOU HAVE COMMENTS? >>SURE, I WILL GO FIRST. APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT. GIVEN THE FACT THAT I TRY TO CHECK IN WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AS WELL, THE ONLY THING I CAN REFERENCE FROM THIS IS JUST THE EXPERIENCE. NUMEROUS TIMES YOU LIVED EXPERIENCES. IT SHAPES YOUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. MY MOTHER, WHEN I FIRST SAW THE 5000 SQUARE FEET, MY MOTHER WAS A HOTEL WORKER, SO I THOUGHT, BOY, THAT’S A LOT OF SQUARE FEET. >>AND A LOT OF PATH ROOMS DEPENDING ON HOW MANY UNITS YOU ARE CLEANING.>>AND SO I AM ALL FOR MORE SQUARE FEET. I APPRECIATE THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT YOU’VE DONE, COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES. I’M OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH 4500 SQUARE FEET, JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT’S A LOT, AND I JUST KNOW THAT FIRSTHAND. >>SO I WANT TO THANK AS WELL THOSE HAVE DONE RESEARCH IN THE OFFICES AND WHO HELPED TO DREDGE UP THESE NUMBERS. WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN LONG BEACH AND IN OAKLAND, WE HAVE THE REFERENCES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODES HERE. WHAT YOU SEE IS OF ONE OF THE FIRST LINES IN THE LEGISLATION. HOTEL EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO CLEAN MORE ROOMS ACCOUNTING FOR 4000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE QUESTION FOR US WAS, WHY 4000 SQUARE FEET? WHEN WE DID THE RESEARCH AND THE DATA AS THE COUNCILMEMBER HAS POINTED TO AND SAID THAT THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS THAT ARE CLEANED ARE BETWEEN 13 TO 15 ROOMS, 13 ROOMS TIMES 330 SQUARE FEET IS 4290. AT 15 ROOMS AT 330 SQUARE FEET, IT WOULD BE 4950. SO IF OUR INTENT IS TO PREVENT INJURY, IF WE GO BACK TO THE TERMINOLOGY, THAT’S THE WHOLE REASON WE HAVE THREE TIMES PAY FOR INJURY PREVENTION PAY. WE WANT TO PREVENT WORKERS FROM GETTING TO THAT THRESHOLD. AT THE 5000 SQUARE-FOOT MARK, WE WOULDN’T ACTUALLY BE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM GETTING TO THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE THRESHOLD WHERE WE SEE INJURIES CREATED. >>WE HAVE SOME DATA ON THAT. 5000 SQUARE FEET, THAT’S WHEN INJURIES ARE MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR. >>I WILL DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT. AS WE THINK ABOUT THE AVERAGE NUMBERS OF ROOMS, THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL CAN BEAR GIVEN THE TYPE OF WORK THAT IS BEING CONDUCTED, IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE AVERAGE AMOUNT AND HOW MUCH MORE BEYOND THAT ARE PEOPLE BEING ASKED TO WORK. THAT’S WHY THE 13 TO 15 ROOMS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AS THE THRESHOLD RIGHT NOW, AND GIVEN THE NUMBER OF WORKERS THAT WE SEE WITH HIGH RATES OF BACK INJURIES IS OCCURRING BECAUSE OF THIS AVERAGE NUMBER, WE WANT TO SET THE THRESHOLD SLIGHTLY LOWER TO ACTUALLY PREVENT THOSE TYPES OF INJURIES. SO, COUNCILMEMBER — >>OF JUST GOING TO ADD, I THINK THAT’S WHY I WENT TO THE PROCESS OF ARTICULATING AND DESCRIBING THE 2010 STUDY, SO THAT THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE STUDY, WHICH IS A PEER-REVIEWED STUDY. THAT TALKS ABOUT WITH THE STATUS QUO IN THE INDUSTRY IS AS IT RELATES TO HIGHER RATES OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY FOR HOTEL WORKERS, AND WHEN YOU LAYER THAT PARTICULAR DATA WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAVE FROM THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DONE IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH IN ADDITION TO SOME INFORMATION RELATED TO JUST THAT NATIONAL AVERAGE HOTEL ROOM SIZE OF BEING 330 SQUARE FEET, I THINK YOU CAN DRAW THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF ROOMS CLEANED AND THE RATES OF INJURY AND, SPECIFICALLY, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS REPRESENTED BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ROOMS CLEANED, AND SO IN MY MIND WHEN I AM ABLE TO JUST SORT OF COBBLED THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION TOGETHER AND THEN DO THE MATH, THAT’S WHAT LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT 4500 WAS A MORE REASONABLE THRESHOLD TO CREATE A SHIFT IN THE STATUS QUO IN THE INDUSTRY THAT WOULD PROMOTE A LOWER RATE OF INJURY. YOU KNOW, I DON’T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL. I CAN’T DETERMINE WHETHER ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO MAGICALLY HAPPEN, AND NO ONE IS GOING TO EXPERIENCE RATE OF INJURY OR HAVE LESS RATES OF INJURY, BUT AS A POLICYMAKER, THIS IS THE BEST INFORMATION THAT I HAVE AVAILABLE TO ME RIGHT NOW THAT WILL ALLOW ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES FROM THE INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US IN THIS SPACE. >>THANK YOU. >>WE DON’T HAVE A DIRECT LONGITUDINAL STUDY SPECIFIC TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE THAT WOULD PROVIDE YOU — OR ME A CLEAR QUESTION AROUND THE DATA. >>THANK YOU. I’M APPRECIATIVE OF THAT, AND IT’S RECOGNIZED THAT THIS IS FORTHCOMING TODAY. IT’S THE FIRST TIME I’VE HEARD IT. I WANT TO TALK WITH THE FOLKS THAT ARE REPRESENTED IN THE HOTEL YEARS THEMSELVES, SO I WILL ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON HIS PART TODAY, BUT I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, WE ARE DOING THE BEST THAT WE CAN HEAR TRYING TO FIND A POINT WHERE PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED AND AT THE SAME TIME IF YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID ALL INJURIES, WE DON’T DO THIS WORK, RIGHT? SO WE WANT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT’S REASONABLE AND THAT WE CAN POINT TO AND SAY, YES, THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO END UP. SO I WILL WANT TO DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON IT, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT AND FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD AND WE WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT. >>THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER BAG SHOP. >>AND THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR TALKING ON THIS. I’M STILL GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. I WOULD LOVE TO AMEND THE SUBSTITUTE VERSION THAT WE JUST ADOPTED BY AMENDING SUBSTITUTE VERSION D WITH AMENDMENT TO. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? NINE. ONE. AMENDMENT TWO, VERSION D THREE HAS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0 WITH 1 ABSTENTION. WE WILL KEEP THIS LEGISLATION AS AMENDED IN OUR COMMITTEE FOR CONVERSATION NEXT THURSDAY AS WELL. GREAT. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM. FOLKS, WE ARE RUNNING ABOUT 10 MINUTES LATE. I’M WONDERING, CAN WE KEEP YOU HERE AS WE WALK THROUGH THIS NEXT ITEM? >>YES. >>ALL RIGHT. CENTRAL STAFF, THANK YOU FOR MOVING US ON FRONT TO THE LAST AND FINAL BILL FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE ONE SUBSTITUTE VERSION FOR US TO WALK THROUGH AND THEN THREE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS. >>THIS IS COUNSEL BILL 119557, HOTEL SAFETY PROTECTIONS. THIS IS VERSION D-5, WHICH HAS REVISIONS FROM THE LAST VERSION THAT WAS PASSED, DETHREE, ON AUGUST 15th. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REVISIONS HERE. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSION OF SOME OF THEM AT THE TABLE DURING THE JOB RETENTION ORDINANCE. FIRST, ANCILLARY TO HOTEL BUSINESS. THERE IS A REVISED DEFINITION THAT REFLECTS THE DAY SAME DEFINITION THAT WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED WHEN THE JOB RETENTION BILL WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE NEXT CHANGE REGARDS THE DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL INJURY. BODILY INJURY, BODILY HARM. THESE ARE TERMS THAT WERE IN THE DEFINITION OF VIOLENT OR HARASSING CONDUCT IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION. THOSE TERMS ARE NO LONGER IN THE REVISED DEFINITION OF VIOLENT OR HARASSING CONDUCT, SO THERE IS NO NEED TO DEFINE THEM, SO THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED. >>ON THIS WHEN I JUST WANT TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE KING COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE CENTER AND THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE FOR SOME OTHER HELPFUL FEEDBACK ON THE FRAMING AND THE LANGUAGE HERE. >>NEXT IS A REVISED DEFINITION FOR VIOLENT OR HARASSING CONDUCT, WHICH PROVIDES MORE DISTINCT PARAMETERS AROUND WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN, AND NOW TO DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT KIND OF CONDUCT. FOLKS WOULD LOOK TO THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF ASSAULT, HARASSMENT, SEXUAL CONTACT WITHOUT CONSENT. BOTH ARE DEFINED SEPARATELY AND INDECENT EXPOSURE. NEXT IS EMPLOYER COVERAGE. THIS, AGAIN, CREATES A DIFFERENT THRESHOLD NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES AND PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS LAW, THERE WAS A DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS. THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR COVERAGE. THIS VERSION CREATES A THRESHOLD OF 50 OR MORE EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE. NEXT REGARDS PANIC BUTTONS. THIS IS A SHIFT, AND PREVIOUSLY ALL EMPLOYERS, HOTEL EMPLOYERS, ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING PANIC BUTTONS. IN THIS VERSION, HOTEL EMPLOYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTLY PROVIDING PANIC BUTTONS TO HOTEL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO WORK IN A GUEST ROOM OR DELIVER ITEMS TO A GUEST ROOM. AS FAR AS ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES IS CONCERNED, HOTEL EMPLOYERS ARE PROVIDING ACCESS TO A PANIC BUTTON FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES. ONE MIGHT IMAGINE THERE IS A FOOD DELIVERY EMPLOYEE COMING. THEY GO TO THE FRONT DESK. THEY PICK UP THE PANIC BUTTON, AND THEN THEY GO TO THE ROOM. THE HOTEL EMPLOYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RESPONDING TO AN ACTIVATED PANIC BUTTON. AND ALL EMPLOYERS, ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS, AND HOTEL EMPLOYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT TAKING ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR ACTUALLY USING THE PANIC BUTTON. EVERYONE NEEDS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE. THERE IS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO DEFINE ADVERSE ACTIONS WHEN THOSE TYPES OF BEHAVIORS ARE PROHIBITED BY THE EMPLOYER. ALSO, FOR CCING WORK AND LEAVING THE AREA TO PERCEIVED DANGERS. CHANGES THAT ENCOURAGE USE OF THE PANIC BUTTON WITHOUT RETALIATION. >>DO I RECALL WE HAVE A LANGUAGE THAT SAYS WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT THESE ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE BUT THERE’S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT SOMEONE CARRY IT? >>CORRECT. IT IS PHRASED AS HOTEL EMPLOYERS SHALL PROVIDE ACCESS. >>SO AS LONG AS THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, THE HOTEL EMPLOYER HAS ON THEIR PART. IN THE ANCILLARY WROTE HOTEL BUSINESS ARE STILL KNOWING WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE TO GET A PANIC BUTTON. THAT IS, CERTAINLY, SOMETHING THAT ANCILLARY BUSINESSES WILL NEED TO DO. NEXT IS A REVISIO TO THE SIGNAGE PORTION OF THIS LAW. HOTELS ARE REQUIRED TO INSTALL A SIGN IN THE BACK OF GUEST ROOM DOORS ALERTING GUESTS TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THIS LAW. HOTELS HAVE ALREADY PUT UP A HOTEL OR PUT UP A SIGN THAT ALERTS GUESTS 21425. THIS LAW WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT CITATION. IT WILL BE 1426. THIS RECOGNIZES THAT HOTELS HAVE SPENT TIME, ENERGY, AND FUNDING ON INSTALLING THOSE LINES. IF THEY ALREADY HAVE A SIGN THAT REFERENCES 1425, INSTEAD OF 1426, THAT IS OKAY, PROVIDED THAT WHEN THE HOTEL GOES AND UPDATES THOSE SIGNS, THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT 1426 IS CITED ON IT. OKAY. NEXT REGARDS THE EMPLOYER’S REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP A POLICY AGAINST VIOLENT AND HARASSING CONDUCT BY GUESTS. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE EMPLOYER TO DISTRIBUTE THAT POLICY TO GUESTS UPON CHECK INS. THIS SIMPLY IDENTIFIES THAT THE DIRECTOR THROUGH RULEMAKING CAN IDENTIFY OTHER MEANS FOR THE EMPLOYER TO GIVE THE POLICY TO GUESTS AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN CHECK- IN, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT, IF A GUEST IS NOT INTERACTING WITH AN EMPLOYEE UPON CHECK IN, IF THERE’S ANOTHER METHOD OF DOING THAT. WE HAVE FIVE PAGES LEFT AND ABOUT A FEW MINUTES. >>WE ARE ALL EAGER TO GET THROUGH THIS. I KNOW THAT I’M HERE TILL 12:30. EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS FOR GUESTS WHO ARE ACCUSED OF VIOLENT AND HARASSING CONDUCT. EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS. THAT’S JUST THE LANGUAGE CHANGE. AT THE MINIMUM, EMPLOYERS PREVIOUSLY WERE REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE AND THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO NOT ASSIGN EMPLOYEES TO WORK IN THAT GUEST ROOM OR MAKE DELIVERIES TO THE GUEST ROOM, AND AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION THAT EMPLOYERS MAY ASSIGN EMPLOYEES TO ENTER A GUEST ROOM TO CONDUCT A SAFETY CHECK WITH SOME CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ONLY TAKE PLACE WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT KIND OF ROOM ENTRY. EMPLOYEES WOULD GO INTO THE ROOM FOR A SAFETY CHECK WOULD BE IN A TEAM, AND THEY COULD DECLINE THAT ASSIGNMENT IF THEY WANTED TO. >>I WANT TO TAKE A QUICK SECOND TO THINK THE HOTEL ASSOCIATION. WE WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY HAD THE FREEDOM AND FLEXIBILITY TO DO WELLNESS CHECKS. WE HEARD ONE EXAMPLE FOR INSTANCE CAME AFTER THE SHOOTING IN LAS VEGAS, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A PROVISION THAT IS CLEARLY CALLED OUT AND APPRECIATE THEIR ENGAGEMENT WITH US ON DRAFTING THIS AMENDMENT.>>NEXT REVISION IS FOR EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF GUEST MISCONDUCT. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION THAT THE EMPLOYER NEEDS TO REASSIGN THE EMPLOYEE TO A DIFFERENT WORK AREA, AND ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ADDS THAT THIS WOULD ONLY HAPPEN UPON THE EMPLOYEE’S REQUEST OR CONSENT TO EMPOWER THE EMPLOYEE TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE REASSIGNMENT PROCESS AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY REASSIGNMENT IS EQUIVALENT OR BETTER THAN WHERE THEY WERE ALREADY WORKING. SO, AGAIN, GOING TOWARD REDUCING RETALIATION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE. ALSO, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN THIS REASSIGNMENT. SOME WERE CHANGES. THERE IS A COPY OF THE NOTICE PROVIDED TO THE GUESTS, AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGES TO THAT SECTION ARE PURELY TECHNICAL. BUT WE ARE STILL ON THAT SECTION. OKAY. EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EMPLOYEES UP TO 16 HOURS OF PAID TIME. THERE’S NEW LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THAT THIS PAID TIME IS IN ADDITION TO ANY TIME THAT IS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO STATE LAWS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, OR STALKING. THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO PSS T AS WELL, WHICH INCORPORATES THAT PAID TIME. ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT PERMITS EMPLOYERS TO REQUIRE REASONABLE NOTICE OF AN EMPLOYEE’S INTENT TO TAKE THE PAID TIME, SO THEY ACTUALLY LET MANAGEMENT KNOW I AM TAKING THIS TIME RATHER THAN WHAT MIGHT BE INTERPRETED AS A NO CALL, NO SHOW. THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT INQUIRE ABOUT THE PAID TIME EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY ANY FORTHCOMING RULES AT OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS. THE LAST CHANGE IN THIS SECTION IS THAT OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS WILL ESTABLISH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH A PARTICULAR KIND OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO A COMMUNITY ADVOCATE. SO I WILL UNPACK THAT A BIT. FIRST, THE IDEA OF A COMMUNITY ADVOCATE WAS IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION AT THIS CALL TO SUPPORT ADVOCATE. IT HAS A NEW NAME THAT BETTER REFLECTS WITH THIS PERSON. COMMUNITY ADVOCATES ARE ALREADY KNOWN FOR PROVIDING CONFIDENTIAL SERVICES TO FOLKS THAT REACH OUT TO THEM. COMMUNITY ADVOCATE HELPS EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE AN ALLEGATION THAT MIGHT NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THE CRIME VICTIM ADVOCATE THAT’S REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW, AND THEY ALSO CAN HELP THE EMPLOYEE NAVIGATE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THIS PARTICULAR HOTEL LIST LOCATION. ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY-BASED VICTIMS ADVOCACY PROGRAM WITH CONFIDENTIAL ADVOCACY SERVICES TO GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY ADVOCATE 24/7. THIS HELPS SET THE CRITERIA FOR HOW OLS IS GOING TO MAKE THIS SERVICE AVAILABLE. UNDER THE NOTICE AND POSTING SECTION, THERE IS A NEW RIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT OLS POSTER ALSO INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO REPORT VIOLENT AND HARASSING CONDUCT BY GUESTS AND EMPLOYEES. SO A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. WE MADE SURE THAT IT WAS ADDED TO THE LIST OF NOTICE OF RIGHTS ON THE POSTER. NOTABLY ALSO, THERE IS THE REMOVAL OF RECORDS RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS OR INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE AND HARASSING CONDUCT BY GUESTS. THE RECORDS ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, FOCUSING ON THE EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE TO A SITUATION WHEN AN EMPLOYEE OR SOMEONE HAS REPORTED GUESTS MISCONDUCT. SO EMPLOYERS DO NEED TO KEEP A RECORD OF THE WRITTEN POLICY AGAINST VIOLENT AND HARASSING CONDUCT. EMPLOYERS NEED TO KEEP A RECORD OF THE WRITTEN NOTICE THAT IS PROVIDING TO THE GUEST AND TO THE EMPLOYEE WHEN CONDUCT IS REPORTED. LET’S SEE. THE STANDARD TERMS THAT THE OLS DIRECTOR CAN ISSUE RULES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL RECORDS TO HELP IMPLEMENT THE LAW. NOTABLY, SOMETHING THAT WAS ADDED LAST TIME, NOT MAKING SURE THAT EMPLOYERS KNEW THAT THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF A GUEST ALLEGED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS MISCONDUCT. THIS REVISION GOES FURTHER TO SAY THAT EMPLOYERS SHALL NOT INCLUDE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF GUESTS WHO HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS MISCONDUCT IN TERMS OF HOW THEY ARE KEEPING RECORDS TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LAW. AT LAST — >>I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT LISTS AND RETENTIONS OF RECORDS AND STUFF AND THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT CREATING LISTS. COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES. >>I THOUGHT YOU WERE — >>YES. I THINK WE HAVE COLLECTIVELY AS A GROUP DONE A LOT OF THINKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND I THINK THAT THE POLICY MOTIVATION HERE IS TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STAYING FOCUSED ON WHAT ACTIONS THE EMPLOYER HAS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW, AND SO I THINK THESE ARE REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS TO THE LANGUAGE TOO, AGAIN, STAY LASER FOCUSED ON WHAT THE EMPLOYER HAS DONE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE OF THE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE GUEST THAT WAS ACCUSED, AND SO REALLY I THINK WE STILL HAVE MAINTAINED THE INTEGRITY OF THE INTENT OF INITIATIVE 124 IN THE SPACE WHILE ALSO CREATING A REASONABLE PATHWAY FORWARD THAT WILL ALLAY OR HAS ALLAYED SOME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS THAT WERE BEING EXPRESSED BY THE ACLU OF WASHINGTON AND OTHERS AND I KNOW THAT ACLU OF WASHINGTON IS ENGAGED VERY CLOSELY WITH BOTH OF OUR OFFICES AND APPRECIATE STAFF TIME IN HAVING THOSE MANY CONVERSATIONS. WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE ACLU OF WASHINGTON REACTING TO AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK TO THIS SECTION IN PARTICULAR OF THE COUNCIL BILL AND WANTED TO JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO READ THE RELEVANT PARTS FROM THE ANIMAL WITH THE CHAIR’S PERMISSION. THEY WROTE, WE HAVE GREATLY APPRECIATED YOUR ONGOING ENGAGEMENT TO US TO PROVIDE AMENDMENTS BASED ON THE MOST RECENT DRAFT OF A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE SEEN. WE BELIEVE OUR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND ARE HAPPY TO SUPPORT PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE. THEY GO ON TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE COMPONENTS OF THE SUBSTITUTE BILL THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUESTS. IT IS DIRECTLY THE OUTLINES TO BEING STRICKEN IN THE SUBSTITUTE VERSION. I’M REALLY HAPPY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO BOTH STAY TRUE TO THE INTENT OF INITIATIVE 124 AND OUR COLLECTIVE INTENT TO PROTECT WORKERS IN THIS SPACE FROM THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR WHILE ALSO BALANCING THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A FULL VETTING OF POTENTIAL ALLEGATIONS. I’M REALLY HAPPY THAT WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO DIG IN AND I COMMEND YOU AND YOUR STAFF IN PARTICULAR FOR ALL OF THE TREMENDOUS WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO GET US HERE. >>THANK YOU. A HUGE APPRECIATION. VERY EXCITED TO SEE THIS. I WILL JUST READ ONE MORE LINE. WE APPLAUD THE COUNCIL’S RECOGNITION OF THE SERIOUS NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROTECTION AND HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF THE HOTEL WORKERS WHO ARE TYPICALLY WOMEN AND OFTEN PEOPLE OF COLOR. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT AND APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE, SO THAT’S A HUGE CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE AND THE FULL COUNCIL AS WELL, BECAUSE WE CONSTANTLY BEEN ENGAGED IN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE CAN GET TO OUR FAVORITE PHRASE. I REALLY APPRECIATE SENDING THIS CLARIFICATION OVER, SO THANK YOU FOR READING THAT. >>THE TIMING COULD NOT BE BETTER. >>TODAY. >>I KNOW YOU HAVE ONE MORE PAGE. >>YEAH. VERY QUICKLY, THERE IS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE SAYING THAT EMPLOYERS SHALL MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF ALL OF THESE RECORDS AND LIMIT ACCESS TO MANAGEMENT AND. >>RESOURCES STAFF. MOVING ON TO THE ENFORCEMENT SECTION. THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSION OF HOW THE DIRECTOR CAN SPECIFY THAT ANY AMOUN OF CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES ARE DUE TO THE PARTY RATHER THAN JUST TO THE CITY. THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS EDITED BACK IN REGARDING A CAP ON FINES THAT WAS TAKEN OUT IN THE LAST VERSION. NOW IT’S BACK. AS IS REFLECTIVE THROUGHOUT THIS LEGISLATION, THE PENALTIES HAVE BEEN DOUBLED. LAST, THE EFFECTIVE DATE REFLECTS THE SAME CONCEPT THAT HAPPENED WITH JOB RETENTION ORDINANCE WHERE THE DATE IS PUSHED FORWARD TO JULY 1st AND FOREMOST EMPLOYERS. THERE IS — EVEN FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE, EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 1, 2025 FOR ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BETWEEN 50 AND 250 EMPLOYEES AND THAT CONTRACT WITH THE HOTEL. >>SO THAT IS ALL OF THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL BILL 119557. THE SUGGESTION HERE WOULD BE THAT WE TAKE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THIS AND POTENTIALLY CONSIDER A VOTE ON THIS SUBSTITUTE VERSION. THERE IS POTENTIALLY THREE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE WOULD ENTERTAIN IF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE INTERESTED IN AMENDING THE STRIKER BILL. SO IF THERE — ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE SUBSTITUTE THAT WE’VE DESCRIBED IT TODAY? OKAY. SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, KARINA, FOR WALKING US THROUGH THAT AND CENTRAL STAFF FOR YOUR VERY COMPREHENSIVE MEMO ON THIS. AGAIN, THANKS TO THE STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING ACLU, ONE AMERICA, THE KING COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE CENTER AND KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE FOR SPECIFICALLY ENGAGING WITH US ON THIS LEGISLATION AND TO UNITE HERE AND THE HOTEL ASSOCIATION FOLKS WHO PROVIDED US WITH FEEDBACK AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 119557 BY SUBSTITUTING VERSION D-24 VERSION D-5 THAT WE JUST WALKED THROUGH. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? NONE. GREAT. SO THE UNDERLYING BILL HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY A VOTE OF 4-0. WE DO HAVE THREE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS. I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER BACK SHOT, THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN IS AN AMENDMENT FROM YOU. AMENDMENT TWO. ARE YOU STILL INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING THAT? >>I THINK THAT NOW WITH THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED WORD FROM ACLU THAT THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THE DIRECTION THAT WE ARE GOING, I THINK IT’S BEEN ADDRESSED. >>EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK TO CONTINUE TO ELEVATE THOSE ISSUES AS WELL, AND I’M REALLY HAPPY THAT WE GOT TO A RESOLUTION ON THE ISSUES YOU’VE BEEN CALLING OUT. THE NEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE IS AMENDMENT TO FROM COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE HANDED OUT COPIES OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT FIRST, OR WOULD YOU LIKE CENTRAL STAFF TO COMMENT? >>SURE. SO JUST GIVE IN, AGAIN, THE INTEREST OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO INTERPRET FROM WHAT VOTERS HAD GIVEN US, I JUST THOUGHT 14 DAYS, GIVING MORE FLEXIBILITY TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT’S BEEN IMPACTED AND AFFECTED BY AN INCIDENT WOULD NEED MORE TIME, WHETHER THAT’S TO CONSULT WITH AN ADVOCATE, AN ATTORNEY, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMETIMES SOME DAYS MAY BE DIFFICULT TO SEE SOMEONE. I WANTED TO EXPAND THAT TO INCLUDE 14 DAYS. >>AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS FORWARD FROM THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS AND THE EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT. WE KNOW THAT, AS YOU SAID, IT TAKES TIME FOR PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD AND SOMETIMES PROCESS WHAT’S HAPPENED TO THEM. THE AMENDED THAT YOU PROPOSED DOESN’T CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF HOURS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN TAKE TO ACCESS THE SERVICES, BUT THE TIME WINDOW IN WHICH THEY HAVE TO ACCESS IT. WE ARE KEEPING TRUE TO THAT 16 HOURS, BUT THEY CAN TAKE THAT TIME WITHIN TWO WEEKS. IS THAT CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>EXCELLENT. >>EXCELLENT. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THAT? COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES. >>THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT THAT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL TIME TO CLAIM THEIR 16 HOURS OF PAID TIME UNDER THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION. I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE 16 HOURS OF PAID TIME THAT ARE AWARDED UNDER THIS PARTICULAR COUNCIL BILL BUT WOULD NOT PREVENT OR PROHIBIT OR OTHERWISE RESTRICT OR LIMIT THE EMPLOYEE’S ABILITY TO STILL DO A POLICE REPORT CONTACT, COUNSELORS, CONTACT LAWYERS. THIS IS JUST RELATED TO THE. OF TIME IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO CLAIM THOSE 16 HOURS OF PAID TIME AS OPPOSED TO CHANGING ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS THAT THE EMPLOYEE MIGHT HAVE TO OTHERWISE PURSUE EITHER CRIMINAL OR CIVIL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HIM OR HER UNDER EXISTING STATE AND CITY LAWS. IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES. >>I THINK THE COUNCILMEMBER SAID SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT, AND I JUST NEED TO MAKE REALLY CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT CHANGING THOSE, AND SO IT’S NOT THAT IF YOU DON’T DO IT WITHIN TWO WEEKS YOU’VE LOST ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO YOU, IT’S ONLY AS IT RELATES TO THE 16 HOURS OF PAID TIME FOR THIS PARTICULAR BILL. >>CORRECT. AND SOMETIMES I FORGET THAT I’M IN A TABLE FULL OF ATTORNEYS. >>AT LEAST TWO. >>BUT, CORRECT. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY. >>EXCELLENT. I KNOW WE HAVE JUST A FEW MORE MINUTES UNTIL FOLKS HAVE TO DISAPPEAR. I’M GOING WITH YOU I THINK TO THE NEXT MEETING. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED REALLY HELPFUL FEEDBACK FROM THE EMPLOYER’S SIDE AS WELL, JUST LIKE WE DO A STICK AND SAFELY. IF ANY TIME IS BEING TAKEN TO ACCESS THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THIS SECTION THAT THEY PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO THE EMPLOYER SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW THEY NEED TO ADVISE THEIR EMPLOYER THAT THEY ARE TAKING THIS TIME. THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT AS WELL. >>’S GREAT. LET’S TALK A LITTLE ABOUT PROCESS HERE. LET’S ASSUME THE WORST HAPPENS. WE HAVE ANY LANGUAGE ANYWHERE IN OUR CURRENT LEGISLATION OR AMENDMENTS ABOUT ENCOURAGING THE EMPLOYEE TO TELL THE EMPLOYER IMMEDIATELY ABOUT WHAT’S GONE ON. WHERE ARE WE NOW WITH THAT LANGUAGE.>>THERE IS REASONABLE NOTICE THAT’S IN THE LEGISLATION NOW. IF I’M UNDERSTANDING QUESTION CORRECTLY. >>SOMETHING HORRIBLE HAPPENS TO AN EMPLOYEE, HOW ARE WE ENCOURAGING THAT REPORTING SO THAT THE EMPLOYEE EVER TELLS THE EMPLOYER AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED. >>, YOU WERE IN THE MEETING WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR NOTIFICATION AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHERE THAT’S AT? >>YET, THE BILL PROVIDES THAT THE EMPLOYER IS NOT ALLOWED TO ASK ABOUT OR INQUIRE INTO THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT KIND OF CONSULTATIONS THE EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE MADE WITH A SUPPORT PERSON OF ONE STRIPE OR ANOTHER. >>I’M SORRY.>>FOR THE TIME THAT THE INCIDENT HAPPENS, HOW ARE WE IN INDICATING TO LET THE EMPLOYEE LET THEM KNOW — LET THE EMPLOYER KNOW. >>WHERE AS THE EMPLOYER IS NOT ALLOWED TO ASK, THE EMPLOYEE IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE REASONABLE NOTICE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE TAKING THE 16 HOURS OF TIME OR UP TO THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. >>JUST ROLLED BACK TO THE INCIDENT ITSELF. SO SOMETHING HORRIBLE HAPPENS AT MIDNIGHT, HOW ARE WE ENCOURAGING THE EMPLOYEE TO LET THE EMPLOYER KNOW ABOUT THE INCIDENT ITSELF, NOT AFTERMATH AS FAR AS CONSULTATION OR GETTING ASSISTANCE BUT JUST TO LET THE EMPLOYER KNOW THAT SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED. >>I THINK THAT’S HELPED TO THE EMPLOYEE TO DECIDE. I THINK TO MY RECOLLECTION, THE BILL DOESN’T REQUIRE THAT SUCH NOTIFICATION HAPPENED.>>THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT WE CLARIFIED IN THE LEGISLATION SO THAT AN EMPLOYER DOES KNOW IF TOMORROW MORNING AT 8:00 A.M., THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE TWO HOURS TO CALL THE RESOURCE SUPPORT PERSON THAT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THEM THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS NOTIFICATION. THAT’S A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST. CAN YOU POINT TO US WHERE THAT’S AT IN THE LEGISLATION? >>I THINK I’VE HEARD THAT THE LANGUAGE IS REASONABLE NOTICE.>>365 DAYS AFTER THE EVENT, PROBABLY NOT REASONABLE, BUT I DON’T THINK THAT I’M HEARING FROM COUNCIL STAFF THAT THERE’S ANY OTHER LANGUAGE BESIDES REASONABLE NOTICE. >>THERE’S TWO REPORTS HERE. TWO KINDS OF NOTICE. THE FIRST KIND OF NOTICE IS TO THE EMPLOYER THAT THIS REALLY BAD THING HAPPENED, THE GUEST MISCONDUCT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, — >>AND THEN THERE IS THE PAID TIME. >>RIGHT. >>THERE IS NO LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME. THE NEXT NOTICE IS IF IT HAS BEEN REPORTED, THE NOTICE OF I WANT TO USE MY PAID TIME, AND SO WHAT’S BEEN ADDED TO THE LEGISLATION IS REASONABLE NOTICE. OLS CAN HELP DEFINE WHAT THAT IS, AND IT CAN SAVE TIME FOR A FOUNDATION FROM WHICH TO BUILD ON FOR THAT REASONABLE NOTICE. >>THAT WAS MY INTENT. WHEN WE PASSED INITIATIVE 1432 ON SICK AND SAFELY, WE HAD A ROBUST CONVERSATION WITH WORKER ADVOCATES AND BUSINESS ADVOCATES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT REASONABLE NOTICE WAS SO IF SOMEONE WAS TAKING SICK OR SAFE LEAVE, THERE WAS AMPLE NOTICE WHEN POSSIBLE. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT AN INCIDENT LIKE THIS OR GETTING SICK OR HAVING AN ACCIDENT, YOU DON’T OFTEN GET A HEADS UP, AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY, BUT THEY DID THAT IN RULEMAKING AT L&I AND OUR INTENT IS TO MIRROR THAT HERE. >>IS ON PAGE 10 OF THE BILL. IT’S UNDER SECTION 1426, SUBPARAGRAPH A AND ITEM NUMBER 5. EMPLOYERS MAY REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE REASONABLE NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE PAID TIME PROVIDED FOR IN THE RELEVANT SUBSECTION, BUT EMPLOYER SHALL MAKE NO INQUIRIES ABOUT THE UP TO 16 HOURS OF PAID TIME REFERENCED IN THAT SUBSECTION EXCEPT AS MAY BE PROVIDED IN RULES. >>THANK YOU FOR FINDING THAT FOR US. I’M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE HERE TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS AMENDMENT NO. 3.>>SECOND. >>ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING VERSION D-5 WITH AMENDMENT THREE. THAT AND THEN IT HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY A VOTE OF 4-0. COUNCIL MEMBER BACK SHOT, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I HAVE ONE MORE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS FINE IF YOU LEAVE. IT’S A HELPFUL AMENDMENT FOR SOME OF THE SMALLER BUSINESSES, AND I WILL BE IN OUR MEETING ROOM MOMENTARILY. COUNSEL, CENTRAL STAFF, WE HAVE ONE LAST AMENDMENT THAT COMES FROM COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES AND MYSELF ON THE IMPLEMENTATION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. DO WE HAVE THAT HANDED OUT AS WELL? OKAY. AND THIS IS RELATED TO THE EMPLOYER COVERAGE. CENTRAL STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THIS FOR US? >>YET, SO THERE IS TWO PLACES IN THIS BILL WHERE THE CEMENT WOULD BE SEEN. IT’S IN THE EMPLOYER COVERAGE SECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE SECTION. THE AMENDMENT WOULD COVER ALL ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES REGARDLESS OF EMPLOYEE SIZE BY REMOVING THE THRESHOLD COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF 50 OR MORE EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE, AND IT WOULD CREATE A SINGLE IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF JULY 1, 2020 BY REMOVING THE DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR CERTAIN ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES. SO THIS TAKES THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION BACK TO WHERE IT WAS IN D-3. >>SO IN MY PERSPECTIVE AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN, I WOULD CONSIDER THIS A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE DONE WAS BORROW THE LANGUAGE FROM THE PREVIOUS BILL WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR SOME OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AS IT RELATES TO RETENTION AND WE HAD COPIED AND PASTED IT WHEN WE ALL KNOW, AS COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO HAS MENTIONED, THAT EVERY EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE THSE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE LAW, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT PHASING IN THIS TYPE OF PROTECTION, WHETHER IT IS SOMEONE ACCESSING THE NEW 16 HOURS OR WHETHER IT’S THEIR ABILITY TO COME FORWARD AND EXPRESS WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM. WE THINK THAT THESE PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS IN TERMS OF SAFETY AND FREEDOM FROM HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION SHOULD BE IN PLACE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THAT? SO IT’S KIND OF A CLEANUP LEGISLATION, A CLEANUP AMENDMENT, I WOULD SAY. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THAT? >>NO, NO. >>OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION FROM STAFF I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE INCLUDE AMENDMENT FOUR. >>SECOND. >>ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING ON. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY I. >>OPPOSED? THAT GETS US THROUGH THE THIRD PIECE OF LEGISLATION. IT IS FOUR MINUTES AFTER 12:30. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL STAYING HERE. WE HAVE THESE THREE PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT HAVE BEEN AMENDED. THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED THE BASE FOR THOSE PIECES OF LEGISLATION. WE WILL KEEP THOSE IN COMMITTEE. WE WILL TAKE UP THE HEALTHCARE BILL IN ADDITION TO THESE THREE AFTER WE CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE HEALTHCARE BILL AND, IDEALLY, PASS THEM OUT AS A FULL PACKAGE. IT’S BEEN REALLY GREAT WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EMINENCE THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY, AND THANK YOU FOR THE COSPONSORSHIP OF THESE EFFORTS. WE WILL CONVENE AGAIN AT 9:00 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 19th, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL AGAIN SOON. >>THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO — >>I’M SORRY, CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING? I SAID SEPTEMBER 19th. I MEANT SEPTEMBER 12th. MY MISTAKE. >>THAT’S OKAY. WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUBLIC. WE HAD A CONVERSATION EARLIER TODAY WITH COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF IN WHICH WE INDICATED THE POSSIBILITY THAT FOR THAT SEPTEMBER 12th COMMITTEE HEARING THERE MIGHT BE SORT OF AN ALL NERVOUS CLEANUP BILL IF COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF HAS ENOUGH BANDWIDTH TO GET TO IT THAT WILL BE TECHNICAL IN NATURE THAT WILL FOCUS ON THINGS LIKE WORD CONSISTENCY, GRAMMAR, OTHER QUALITY CONTROL THINGS. I DON’T WANT FOLKS TO BE STARTLED IF THEY SEE SORT OF A NEW SET OF AMENDMENTS THAT THEY’VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE AND ARE WONDERIN IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE CHANGES THAT IT WOULD BE INTENDED TO BE JUST A TECHNICAL CLEANUP, MAKE SURE THAT THE QUALITY CONTROL HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE TIME FOCUSED ON THE SUBSTANTIVE POLICY ISSUES AND THEY WOULD RELATE TO THAT AND NOT AS MUCH TIME ON DOING THE ORDINARY QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS, SO JUST WANTED FOLKS TO BE AWARE THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING IF THERE IS TIME FROM COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF. DID I APPROPRIATELY CHARACTERIZE THAT? >>THANK YOU. SO WE WILL HAVE A LONG LIST OF THANK YOUSE AS WE GET INTO THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THOSE FOUR PIECES OF LEGISLATION. I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF YOU, AGAIN, AND SPECIFICALLY WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT OUR STAFF DOING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK. THANK YOU TO BREANNA THOMAS FROM YOUR STAFF, COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES FOR HER WORK ON THIS AS WELL, AND FOR ALL OF THE LAS WHO ARE ENGAGING WITH US AND YOUR OFFICE FOR WORKING WITH US ON THESE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CENTRAL STAFF, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU WORKING OVER THE NEXT WEEK WITH US ON VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS TO THE HEALTHCARE BILL AND IF THERE ARE ANY CLEANUP PIECES ON THESE PIECES BEFORE WE VOTE THEM OUT NEXT WEEK, I APPRECIATE THAT IN

Leave a Reply

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