>>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> PRESENT.
>> FOUR PRESENT.
FIVE PRESENT.
>> GREETINGS EVERYONE, THERE
ARE TWO ITEMS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
THE FIRST IS A PRESENTATION AND
DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S DRAFT LEGISLATION
REGARDING CAPS ON DELIVERY
FEES.
AND COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN WILL
BE JOINING US TO DISCUSS HIS
LEGISLATION, WHICH IS ALSO
RESPONDERRED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
HE CANNOT STAY FOR THE WHOLE
DISCUSSION HOWEVER.
THE SECOND ITEM IS OUR
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON
THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND RATE
PATH.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
SEEING NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA
IS ADOPTED.
WE'LL NOW MOVE INTO PUBLIC
COMMENT ON ITEMS LISTED ON THE
AGENDA.
LET'S ROLL THEM.
>> HELLO SEATTLE.
WE ARE THE EMERALD CITY.
THE CITY OF FLOWERS, AND THE
CITY OF GOODWILL, BUILT ON
INDIGENOUS LAND, THE
TRADITIONAL TERRITORY.
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
WELCOMES REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT
AND IS EAGER TO HEAR FROM
RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY.
YOU MY REGISTER TWO HOURS PRIOR
TO THE MEETING VIA THE SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE.
HERE'S SOME INFORMATION ABOUT
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEEDINGS.
SPEAKERS ARE CALLED UPON IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED
ON THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE.
EACH SPEAKER MUST CALL IN FROM
THE PHONE NUMBER THEY PROVIDED
WHEN THEY REGISTERED ONLINE,
AND USE THE MEETING ID AND PASS
CODE THAT WAS RECEIVED ON EMAIL
CONFIRMATION.
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL
CONFIRMATION, PLEASE CHECK YOUR
JUNK MAIL FOLDERS.
ONCE THE SPEAKER'S NAME IS
CALLED, THE SPEAKER'S
MICROPHONE WILL BE UNMUTED, AND
THE HOST WILL SAY, THE HOST
WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR
MICROPHONE.
THAT IS YOUR CUE TO SPEAK.
YOU MUST THEN PRESS STAR 6. YOU
WILL THEN HEAR A PROMPT OF YOU
ARE UNMUTED.
BE SURE YOUR PHONE IS UNMUTED
ON YOUR END, SO YOU WILL BE
HEARD.
AS A SPEAKER, YOU MUST SPEAK
YOUR NAME AND THE ITEM NUMBER
YOU ARE DRESSING.
A CHIME WILL BE GIVEN WHEN YOU
ARE 10 SECONDS LEFT OF YOUR
ALLOTTED TIME AS A GENTLE
REMINDER TO WRAP UP YOUR
COMMENTS.
AT THE END OF THE TIME, YOUR
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED, AND
THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE
PROVIDED THE CHANCE TO SPEAK.
JOIN US VIA THE SEATTLE CHANNEL
LIVE BROADCAST.
THE COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT
TO ELIMINATE PUBLIC COMMENT IF
THE SYSTEM IS BEING ABUSED, OR
IF THE PROCESS IMPEDES THE
COUNTY'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT
BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
ANY DISRUPTIVE LANGUAGE THAT IS
NOT FOCUSED ON A SPECIFIC TOPIC
AS SPECIFIED, AND COUNCIL RULES
MAY LEAD TO THE SPEAKER BEING
MUTED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
OUR HOPE IS TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE
DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL SAFETY
OUR ORDERLY CONSIDERATION OF
ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW OPEN AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH
THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRESS STAR 6
AFTER YOU HEAR THE PROMPT OF
"YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED."
THANK YOU SEATTLE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL START WITH OUR REMOTE
SPEAKERS, AND EVERYONE WILL
HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THE
ITEM TO WHICH YOU ARE SPEAKING.
LET'S SEE, WE'LL GIVE WITH
STEVE HOOPER, FOLLOWED BY ANNA
POWELL.
STEVE.
PRESS STAR 6. DO WE HAVE HIM?
ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.
>> I'M HERE.
SORRY COUNCILMEMBER, THERE WAS
A LITTLE BIT OF A TECHNICAL
DIFFICULTY THERE.
CHAIR NELSON, THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME TODAY.
MY NAME IS STEVE COOPER.
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE
SEATTLE RESTAURANT ALLIANCE,
AND SHARE THE SAME TITLE AT
ETHAN STOLL RESTAURANTS AS PART
OF MY DAY JOB.
I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE THIRD
PARTY DELIVERY LEGISLATION THAT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND
STRAUSS ARE PRESENTING TODAY.
AS I THINK, MANY ON THE COUNCIL
KNOW, THIS WAS A CRITICAL
LIFELINE FOR NEARLY EVERY
RESTAURANT GROUP ACROSS OUR
GREAT CITY THROUGH THE BULK OF
THE PANDEMIC WHEN RESTAURANTS
WERE FULLY SHUT DOWN.
HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT JUST ABOUT
THE PANDEMIC AND THE DELIVERY
OWNED WINDOW.
THERE IS A COMPLETE PRICING
POWER DISPARITY WHEN IT COMES
TO THIRD PARTY SERVICES, WHICH
EXISTEDer BEFORE THE PANDEMIC,
BUT THE PANDEMIC ALLOWED US TO
SEE IN VERY REAL TERMS.
THE RESULT OF THIS NEW KIND OF
BUSINESS MODEL WITH CUSTOMERS
DEMANDING DELIVERY HAS BEEN
THAT RESTAURANTS HAVE HAD TO
KIND OF CHANGE HOW THEY
OPERATE.
AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ONLY
A HANDFUL A PLAYERS IN THE
DELIVERY MARKET MEANS THEY CAN
CHARGE 30% OR GREATER IN MANY
AREAS FOR A FUNDAMENTAL SERVICE
THAT ALL SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCESS.
THE SECOND PART OF THE EQUATION
IS ONE OF EQUITY.
I KNOW THIS COUNCIL IS
COMPLETELY COMMITTED TO AN
EQUITABLE, AND JUST ECONOMIC
RECOVERY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE
LARGE THIRD PARTY DELIVERY
PLATFORMS ARE ABLE TO DO IS
PRICE DIFFERENTIATE BASED ON
THE SIZE OF THE BUSINESS.
RESTAURANT GROUPS LIKE MINE
ENJOY A VERY VERY STEEP
DISCOUNT ON THOSE DELIVERY
SERVICES, WHEREAS THOSE SMALL
MOM AND POP RESTAURANTS ARE
PAYING MANY TIMES WHAT A SMALL
RESTAURANT OURS WOULD BE PAYING
FOR.
THAT'S TAKING ADVANTAGE.
I ENCOURAGE THE CONSIDERATION
OF STRAUSS AND PEDERSEN'S
RESOLUTION, AND I THANK YOU FOR
EVERYONE'S TIME TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANNA
POWELL.
>> SPEAKER NELSON AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS
ANNA POWELL AND I'M THE
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MANAGER
FOR DOOR DASH IN THE NORTHWEST.
DOOR DASH KNOWS PRIVATE
CONTROLS LEAD TO HIGHER COSTS
FOR CUSTOMERS, FEWER ORDERS FOR
LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND FEWER
EARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR
DASHERS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE EAGER TO WORK
WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO FIND A
BETTER SOLUTION, THAT WON'T
HURT CONSUMERS AND WORKERS.
WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE
PANDEMIC IS NOT OVER,
RESTAURANTS CONTINUE TO REOPEN
AND RESTRICTIONS ON BUSINESSES
HAVE LIFTED.
SEATTLE RESTAURANTS OPTIONS
WHEN IT COMES TO SERVING THEIR
CUSTOMERS INCLUDING THROUGH OUR
NEW TIERED PRICING SYSTEM.
IN APRIL 2021, DOOR DASH
DEBUTED NEW PRICING PLANS THAT
GIVES SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED
RESTAURANTS THE ABILITY TO
CHOOSE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE
THEY WANT, WHICH INCLUDES A 15%
COMMISSION RATE, AND THE
FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE THEIR
PLAN WHATEVER THEY WANT.
DOOR DASH DOES NOT SUPPORT
PERMANENT PRICE CONTROLS, AND
WE KNOW IT IS IMPERATIVE TO GET
THE DETAILS OF THIS LEGISLATION
RIGHT AS TO NOT HURT THE VERY
RESTAURANTS YOU'RE TRYING TO
PROTECT.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU, TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT
WORKS FOR EVERYONE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE LAST SPEAKER THAT WE HAVE
ON OUR LIST IS DESTINY SUN.
IF ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU CAN SIGN UP,
USING THE LINK ON THE AGENDA.
DESTINY, WELCOME.
STAR 6.
OKAY, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU
AFTER OUR IN-PERSON COMMENT IF
YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
ONE MORE CHANCE RIGHT NOW
THOUGH.
PLEASE PRESS STAR 6. ALL RIGHT,
HANG TIGHT, WE'LL GET BACK TO
YOU.
OKAY, OUR FIRST AND ONLY IN-
PERSON COMMENTER IS ALEX
ZIMMERMAN.
PLEASE BEGIN.
>> OKAY.
>> SO SORRY.
>> LET'S MAKE SURE HIS MIC IS
ON, THEN START THE TIMER.
>> ZIEG HALE.
MY NAME A ALIC ZIMMERMAN AND
PLEASE SHOW MY FACE.
STUPID FACE, BUT IT'S MY FACE.
I COME TO SEATTLE LIGHT
COMMISSIONER EVERY TIME A
COUPLE YEARS AND GIVE MY
OPINION ABOUT MY BUSINESS AND
MONEY.
NOTHING POLITICAL.
THEY NEVER LISTEN TO ME.
NEVER.
NEVER!
IT'S DON'T HAVE SENSE BECAUSE
MANAGER, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE
APPROXIMATELY $400,000 SALARY.
SO FOR HER $400,000 SALARY,
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HIRING
SOMEBODY WHO'S SMART, NOT
STUPID.
YEAH.
SAME HAPPEN HERE, FOR EXAMPLE.
PEOPLE WHO COWER AT THE LIGHT,
SOMETIMES COWER PHD.
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SMART.
NO, NOTHING HAPPEN.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPEN
HERE FOR MANY YEARS, AND I COME
TO THIS PLACE 3,000 TIMES.
GUYS, WHEN YOU PAY $400,000
APPROXIMATELY $400,000 FOR A
MANAGER, OR YOU HAVE A PHD
YOU'RE FORCED TO BE KNOWN SO
VERY STUPID IN BUSINESS BECAUSE
I DON'T UNDERSTAND, AND I'M A
PROFESSIONAL, YOU KNOW WHAT
THIS MEAN.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHO'S THIS
FREAKING IDIOT WHO'S ACTING
LIKE A PSYCHOPATH AND STEALING
MONEY FROM US.
NOTHING CHANGE.
AND COUNSELOR WHO HAVE A PHD,
NOTHING CHANGE THIS TOO.
SO WHAT IS GOING ON.
THEY'VE FALLEN IN SEATTLE AND
FALLEN AND FALLEN.
TOTAL IN DEEP COVER RIGHT NOW.
YOU CANNOT STOP UNDER THIS,
BECAUSE YOU ARE CORRUPT BY
DEFINITION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
DESTINY SUN HAS JOINED THE LINE
AGAIN.
>> OKAY.
GO AHEAD, DESTINY, YOU'VE GOT
TWO MINUTES.
>> HI, THIS IS DESTINY SUND,
AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
THE SIOUX DELIVERY SERVICES.
CAPPING IS 15% AND MY
APOLOGIES.
I DO HAVE MY INFANT IN THE CAR,
AND SHE HAS CHOSEN THIS TIME TO
COMPLAIN.
I AM PULLED OVER, HOWEVER.
SO MY BUSINESS IS THE
CONFECTIONAL.
IT'S A SMALL BAKERY IN PIKE
PLACE MARKET, AND I WAS CLOSED
THE MAJORITY OF THE ROUGHEST
PART OF THE PANDEMIC.
AND FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES
TAKING 30% IS NOT AN OPTION FOR
ME.
SO IT GOES BACK TO 30%, I WON'T
BE ABLE TO USE THEM.
I'M CURRENTLY IN DEBT, LIKE
MANY BUSINESSES ARE, OVER
$150,000.
AND MY PROFITS ON ONE
CHEESECAKE ARE NOT 30%, SO IT'S
NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR ME TO USE A
FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE IF THEY
GO BACK.
I'VE TRIED TO NEGOTIATE WITH
THEM IN THE PAST, AND THEY JUST
WON'T NEGOTIATE WITH ME.
AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THEY WILL WITH LARGER
BUSINESSES, CHAINS, THAT SORT
OF THING.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT A
SMALL BUSINESS WITH ONE
LOCATION SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION
OF AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, BEING
ABLE TO NEGOTIATE.
I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE FOOD
DELIVERY PLATFORMS.
SO I JUST, I AM FOR KEEPING THE
15% CAP.
OKAY, I'LL SAVE EVERYBODY.
SORRY.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, DESTINY.
OKAY OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
IS NOW CLOSED.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM
ONE INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
REGULATIONS OF FOOD DELIVERY
PLATFORMS, ESTABLISHING
REQUIREMENTS FOR FOOD DELIVERY
PLATFORMS PROVIDING DELIVERY
SERVICES TO RESTAURANTS AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 7.30 OF THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> ALL RIGHT, I'LL JUST TEE
THIS OFF BRIEFLY.
THERE ARE OVER 4,000 ACTIVE
BUSINESS LICENSES FOR
RESTAURANTS AND OTHER
BUSINESSES IN THE FOOD
INDUSTRY, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE
HARDEST HIT WHEN THE PANDEMIC
BEGAN, AND MANY CAME TO RELY ON
DELIVERY SERVICES TO STAY
AFLOAT.
SO I WAS NOT ON THE COUNCIL
WHEN THE 15% CAP WAS IMPOSED,
BUT IT'S NOW MY JOB TO SUPPORT
SMALL BUSINESS RECOVERY.
SO I AM HOSTING THIS ITEM IN
THIS COMMITTEE, AND I WILL TURN
IT OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, AND LET'S SEE, KARINA
BOLT IS ON CENTRAL STAFFING AND
WILL BE PRESENTING AS WELL.
ALL RIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN N NELSON.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING TIME TO
DISCUSS THIS SMALL BILL.
I APPRECIATE YOUR HEARING THIS
BILL TODAY AS A DRAFT ON THE
AGENDA, AND MAKING ROOM TO VOTE
ON THE BILL AS YOUR NEXT
COMMITTEE MEETING ON JULY 27,
BECAUSE WE ARE RACING TO BEAT
THE CLOCK TO GET THIS ADOPTED
SO THAT SEATTLE RESTAURANTS DO
NOT FALL OFF A FINANCIAL CLIFF
TO SUPPORT SEATTLE'S DIVERSE
RESTAURANTS AND COSPONSORING
THIS SMALL BUSINESS LEGISLATION
WITH COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS TO
MAKE PERMANENT THE 15% CAP ON
FEES, THAT THIRD PARTY DELIVERY
COMPANIES CAN CHARGE.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD ADD
FLEXIBILITY BY ENABLING A
RESTAURANT TO OPT-OUT OF THE
15% CAP, IF IT WANTS TO RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL SERVICES FROM THE
DELIVERY COMPANIES.
A SENSIBLE 15% CAP ON FEES WAS
ORIGINALLY ADOPTED AS PART OF
THE MAYOR'S CIVIL EMERGENCY
ORDER IN 2020, AND HAS BEEN
HELPING MANY LOCAL RESTAURANTS
SURVIVE THE PANDEMIC.
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, OUT OF
TOWN DELIVERY SERVICES WERE
CHARGING AS MUCH AS 15% ON EACH
FOOD DELIVERY ORDER.
OUR DIVERSE LOCAL RESTAURANTS
FACE A FINANCIAL CLIFF, UNLESS
WE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION.
LET'S ADOPT THIS LEGISLATION AS
SOON AS WE CAN, SO SEATTLE'S
DIVERSE LOCAL RESTAURANTS CAN
NOT ONLY SURVIVE, BUT ALSO
THRIVE IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
AND KARINA.
YOU'RE UP.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR NELSON.
I'M KARINA BOLL, I'M WITH
CENTRAL CITY STAFF.
AND I'M GOING TO PUT UP A
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
ALL RIGHT, CAN EVERYONE SEE
THAT?
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS MORNING, I'M
GOING TO PROVIDE SOME
BACKGROUND ON FOOD DELIVERY
SERVICES IN SEATTLE, AND ALSO
PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LEGISLATION THAT IS COSPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS THAT
WOULD PERMANENTLY CAP DELIVERY
SERVICE FEES.
THE POLICY OBJECTIVE OF THE
LEGISLATION WOULD BE TO REQUIRE
THROUGH DELIVERY PLATFORMS TO
ENGAGE AN AGREED UPON BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS WHEN OPERATING IN
SEATTLE TO PROTECT THE INTEREST
OF CONSUMERS AND RESTAURANTS.
AND THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT
GOAL WOULD BE TO AMEND EXISTING
REGULATIONS ON FOOD DELIVERY
PLATFORMS, THAT IS SS73.0.
AS A REMINDER, RIGHT NOW, FOOD
DELIVERY PLATFORMS ARE REQUIRED
TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
RESTAURANTS BEFORE THE FOOD
DELIVERY PLATFORMS OFFER PICKUP
AND DELIVERY SERVICES.
THAT BACKGROUND ON FOOD
DELIVERY SERVICES IS THAT
CONSUMER DEMAND FOR FOOD
DELIVERY SYSTEMS STEADILY
GROWING.
THAT GROWING DEMAND STARTED PRE-
PANDEMIC, BUT IT DID SHARPLY
ACCELERATE DURING THE
PANDEMIC.
FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS CHARGE
UP TO 30% OR MORE FOR THEIR
DELIVERY SERVICES.
ALTHOUGH MANY RESTAURANTS ARE
INTERESTED IN PROVIDING
DELIVERY TO THEIR CONSUMERS AND
CUSTOMERS, IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE
TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES IN
HOUSE, THEN FOOD DELIVERY
SERVICES HELP TO BRIDGE THAT
GAP, SO THEY HE CAN PROVIDE
THAT SERVICE.
RESTAURANTS DO HAVE NARROW
PROFIT MARGINS WITH 10% OR
LOWER.
WITH MORE NARROW PROFIT FLAT
FORMS.
RESTAURANTS HAVE NARROW PROFIT
MARGINS, YOU CAN DO THE MATH
AND UNDERSTAND THAT HIGH FEES
CAN EQUAL DRASTICALLY REDUCED
PROFITS.
AS RESTAURANTS ARE INCREASINGLY
RELYING ON FOOD DELIVERY, AND
CUSTOMERS EXPECT THIS KIND OF
SERVICE, IT CAN ADD TO
STRUGGLES TO STAY IN BUSINESS
FOR RESTAURANTS.
AND ALSO WAS NOTED IN PUBLIC
COMMENT, THERE ARE ABOUT THREE
MAJOR COMPANIES WHO ARE
OPERATING IN THE COUNTRY FOR
PROVIDING FOOD DELIVERY
SERVICES AND BECAUSE OF THIS
MARKETPLACE DOMINANCE,
RESTAURANTS DO HAVE LIMITED
BARGAINING POWER TO NEGOTIATE
FEWER FEES.
AS I MENTIONED, THE USE OF
DELIVERY SERVICES DID SHARPLY
ACCELERATE DURING THE PANDEMIC.
NOTING THE IMPACT OF THESE HIGH
DELIVERY FEES ON COMPANIES, THE
MAYOR ISSUED A CIVIL EMERGENCY
ORDER IN APRIL OF 2020, THAT
CAPPED ALL FEES FOR PLATFORM
DELIVERY SERVICES AT 15%.
A NUMBER OF MONTHS THEREAFTER
THE WASHINGTON GOVERNOR ISSUED
A PROCLAMATION FOR ACROSS THE
STATE TO HAVE A 15% ON JUST
DELIVERY FEES CAPPED, THEN AN
18% CAP ON ALL PLATFORM FEES,
ACROSS THE COUNTRY THERE WERE
NUMEROUS CITIES THAT WERE IN
STATES THAT HAVE THESE
EMERGENCY ORDERS CAPPING
DELIVERY SERVICE FEES.
IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR, THE
GOVERNOR RESCINDED THE STATE
PROCLAMATION IN ANTICIPATION OF
EASING RESTRICTIONS ON IN HOUSE
DINING THAT HAPPENED LATER THAT
MONTH.
PRESENTLY, THE MAYOR'S CIVIL
EMERGENCY ORDER IS STILL IN
PLACE, BUT WILL EXPIRE UPON THE
IMPENDING TERMINATION OF THE
CIVIL EMERGENCY.
TRENDS OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
AS I SAID EARLIER ARE JUST
STATISTICS ON HOW FOOD DELIVERY
SERVICES HAVE GROWN THROUGH
PANDEMIC THROUGH NOW, AND
FURTHER GROWTH IS EXPECTED
THROUGH 2026.
FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS ARE
BECOMING A STANDARD OPERATION
WITH 77% OF RESTAURANTS, THIS
IS NATIONAL DATA, OFFERING
SERVICES THROUGH THESE
PLATFORMS AND BUSINESS
RESULTING FROM THESE PLATFORMS
FACILITATING DELIVERY IS 21 TO
30% OF CURRENT RESTAURANT
SALES.
RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO ADDRESS
THESE PROBLEMS, FOUR CITIES
HAVE ENACTED LAWS THAT
PERMANENTLY CAP DELIVERY
SERVICE FEES.
MINNEAPOLIS, NEW YORK CITY,
PHILADELPHIA, AND SAN
FRANCISCO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT PORTLAND IS
ALSO CONSIDERING A PERMANENT
CAP ON DELIVERY SERVICE FEES.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
PERMANENTLY CAP DELIVERY
SERVICE FEES.
IT IS SIMILAR TO THE EMERGENCY
ORDER, BUT DOES HAVE SOME
UNIQUE PROVISIONS.
THE FIRST IS THAT IT WOULD
CLARIFY THAT THERE MUST BE AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN A FOOD
DELIVERY PLATFORM AND A
RESTAURANT FOR ANY FEES RELATED
TO DELIVERY SERVICES.
SO THERE IS MUTUAL CONSENT.
THERE ARE NO SURPRISES.
NEXT FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
DELIVERY SERVICES FOR NO MORE
THAN 15% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE
OF EACH ORDER.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT IS THERE
WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR
RESTAURANTS TO OPT-OUT OF THE
FEE LIMITATIONS AND PAY HIGHER
FEES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
THERE WOULD BE CONDITIONS FOR
THAT OPT-OUT TO PASS LEGAL
MUSTER.
FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS WOULD
NEED TO OFFER A SERVICE PACKAGE
OPTION THAT INCLUDES DELIVERY
SERVICES FOR NO MORE THAN 50%
SO THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE AN
OPTION FOR RESTAURANTS TO PAY
NO IMPORTANT 15% FOR FOOD
DELIVERY.
FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS WOULD
NEED TO PROVIDE THIS OPTION
WITHOUT PENALTY TO THEIR
RESTAURANT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF
THEIR RESTAURANT'S WRITTEN
RECOVERY FOR IT.
THEN RESTAURANTS WOULD ONLY BE
ALLOWED TO CHARGE HIGHER FEES
FOR SERVICES IN ADDITION TO
DELIVERY SERVICES, WHICH BRINGS
US TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT ARE
DELIVERY SERVICES?
THE LEGISLATION PROVIDES A
DEFINITION THAT DELIVERY
SERVICES AT A MINIMUM WOULD
NEED TO INCLUDE LISTING THE
RESTAURANT, AND MAKING THE
RESTAURANT DISCOVERABLE ON THE
FOOD DELIVERY'S PLATFORM, AND
DELIVERY SERVICES WOULD NOT,
AND ALSO, I'M SORRY,
FACILITATE, OR PERFORM THE
DELIVERY OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE
ORDERS.
DELIVERY SERVICES WOULD NOT
INCLUDE OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED
BY FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS,
SUCH AS ADVERTISING SERVICES,
SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION,
BUSINESS ENGINE, OR CREDIT CARD
PROCESSING.
A QUICK NOTE THAT THE LANGUAGE
ON THE SLIDE IS NOT EXACTLY
TRACT THE LEGISLATION, SO THE
LEGISLATION DOES SAY THAT THE
RESTAURANT WOULD NEED TO BE
LISTED AND DISCOVERABLE ON THE
FOOD DELIVERY'S PLATFORM.
IT DOESN'T SPECIFY ALL
MODALITIES.
ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE THE SAME
ENFORCEMENT PROTOCOL AS EXISTS
FOR THE EXISTING REGULATIONS.
THE FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS,
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
DIVISION WOULD ENFORCE IT, THAT
DIVISION IS IN FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES WOULD
BE A CIVIL INFRACTION WITH A
MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $250 TO THE
FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORM.
EACH DAY A VIOLATION WOULD BE A
SEPARATE VIOLATION.
RESTAURANTS COULD ALSO HAVE A
SEPARATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
ANY PENALTY THAT IS COLLECTED
AND RETAINED BY THE CITY WOULD
BE PUT INTO AN ACCOUNT, IN A
GENERAL FUND THAT WOULD SUPPORT
OUTREACH AND EDUCATION TO
RESTAURANTS ON THE REGULATIONS.
SO THAT RESTAURANTS WOULD BE
AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
THE PACTIVE AFFECTIVE DATE
WOULD BE 30 DAYS AFTER THE
MAYOR APPROVES THE LEGISLATION.
THE IDEA IS THAT THE CURRENT
REGULATIONS WOULD STAY IN PLACE
AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.
THEN THE HOPE IS THAT IT THERE
WOULD BE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION
FROM THE END OF THE EMERGENCY
TO THESE PERMANENT CAPS.
NEXT STEPS IS THAT THE
LEGISLATION WOULD BE INTRODUCED
ON JULY 26th.
IT IS NOT YET INTRODUCED.
THIS IS JUST A DRAFT THAT WE'RE
DISCUSSING TODAY.
THIS COMMITTEE WOULD DISCUSS
AND POSSIBLY VOTE ON THE
LEGISLATION.
THEN COUNCIL COULD VOTE ON IT
AS EARLY AS AUGUST 2nd.
IF THERE WAS TO BE A SECOND
COMMITTEE MEETING TO CONSIDER
THE LEGISLATION, THE EARLIEST
COUNCIL VOTE WOULD BE AUGUST
16th.
THAT IS IT FOR MY PRESENTATION,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I AM GOING TO GIVE THE FLOOR TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AS
COSPONSOR.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR NELSON.
THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN FOR ALLOWING ME TO
COSPONSOR THIS LEGISLATION.
I'M COSPONSORING THIS 15% CAP
ON DELIVERY FEES THAT CAN BE
CHARGED TO RESTAURANTS SO THAT
OUR RESTAURANTS ARE ABLE TO
CONTINUE SURVIVING AND THRIVING
SO THAT RESIDENTS OF SEATTLE
ARE ABLE TO STILL ORDER TO GO
FROM THEIR HOME.
AND BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE
SANDWICH THAT THEY WANT, AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED A FEW TIMES, A
15% CAP ON DELIVERY FEES THAT
WAS CONNECTED TO THE COVID
STATE OF EMERGENCY.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS WE
CONTINUE TRANSITIONING OUT OF
THIS DEEP PART OF THE PANDEMIC,
THAT WE ARE ALSO ABLE TO KEEP
THIS PROTECTION THAT HAS WORKED
SO WELL.
I WANT TO THANK STEVE HOOPER AS
WELL FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
CHAIR NELSON, I THINK I'VE
SPOKEN TO YOU ABOUT THE
DIFFERENT CASE COUNSELING WE DO
IN BALLARD FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
HOMELESS, HOMELESS AND
CRIMINALLY INVOLVED, AND JUST
COMMITTING CRIMES.
THIS HAS A DIRECT IMPACT ON OUR
ECONOMIC VITALITY, OUR ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT, AND IT WAS STEVE
HOOPER WHO BROUGHT THIS, AND
STARTED WORKING WITH ME ON THIS
LAST DECEMBER.
STEVE, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR CONTINUING TO KEEP YOUR EYE
ON THE BALL ON THE THINGS THAT
RESTAURANTS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES NEED MOST.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
WE KNOW THAT MINNEAPOLIS, NEW
YORK, PHILADELPHIA, SAN
FRANCISCO, ALL HAVE ENACTED
LAWS THAT PERMANENTLY CAPPED
SERVICE DELIVERY FEES.
SO WE HAVE MODEL LEGISLATION TO
GO OFF OF, SO THAT WE'RE NOT
CAUGHT IN LITIGATION BETWEEN
SMALL BUSINESSES AND BIG
BUSINESSES, BECAUSE WE KNOW
THAT WE NEED BOTH TYPES OF
BUSINESSES TO HAVE A VERY
VIBRANT CITY AND ECONOMY.
SO THANK YOU CHAIR NELSON FOR
HAVING THIS IN COMMITTEE.
I WILL NEED TO EXCUSE MYSELF
FOR ANOTHER SPEAKING EVENT, AND
THEN I'LL BE RIGHT BACK.
>> THANK YOU.
I MISSPOKE WHEN I MENTIONED
THAT THIS MORNING, YOU WILL BE
BACK.
>> I AGREE.
THANKS CHAIR NELSON.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, DO
YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEFORE
WE OPEN IT UP TO COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS FROM OUR COLLEAGUES?
>> NO THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANKS SO MUCH, YEAH, I DO
HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
SO THE SLIDE 4 INCLUDES SOME
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
JUST WONDERING IF THE DATA
PROVIDED IS FOCUSED ON NATIONAL
NUMBERS OR A LOCAL STUDY.
AND ALSO JUST WANTING TO ASK
WHETHER OR NOT THE FOUR CITIES
IDENTIFIED HERE THAT HAVE
ENACTED LAWS TO CAP THE
DELIVERY SERVICE, WHETHER OR
NOT THAT'S LIMITED TO DELIVERY
FEES, OR THEY CONCLUDE ALL FEES
THAT AN APP BASED DELIVERY
COMPANY CAN CHARGE TO A
RESTAURANT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THOSE
QUESTIONS.
THE DATA THAT I PRESENTED IN
TODAY'S SLIDE SHOW IS NATIONAL
DATA.
I COULDN'T FIND SEATTLE
SPECIFIC DATA FOR THESE ITEMS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS SOME SPECIFIC
DATA IN THE ITEMS FOR
LEGISLATION, FOR EXAMPLE OPEN
TABLE WHICH IS A RESERVATION
SYSTEM ONLINE, THEY ARE
REPORTING THAT SEATTLE'S
BOOKINGS ARE LOWER AND THEY
HAVEN'T REBOUNDED AT THE SAME
RATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WHICH
IS INDICATING THAT PERHAPS MORE
CUSTOMERS ARE MAYBE STILL
ORDERING FROM THEIR RESTAURANT,
OR STILL EATING AT THE
RESTAURANT, BUT GETTING
TAKEOUT, OR DELIVERY, OR
PERHAPS IT'S THAT THERE'S FEWER
CUSTOMERS IN GENERAL, WHICH
AGAIN UNDERSCORES THAT
RESTAURANTS ARE STRUGGLING TO
STAY IN BUSINESS, AND COULD
NEED ASSISTANCE, AS THEY
NAVIGATE THE POST-PANDEMIC
WORLD.
ALSO, OUR HOSPITALITY
ASSOCIATION DID INDICATE, AND
THIS IS IN THE FINDINGS TOO,
THAT RESTAURANTS INCURRED
SUBSTANTIAL DEBT DURING THE
PANDEMIC, AND IT WILL TAKE A
NUMBER OF YEARS FOR THEM TO GET
BACK TO THE SAME STARTING PLACE
AS THEY WERE BEFORE.
AS FAR AS THE OTHER CITIES,
YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT DO
THEY, HOW DO THEY DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN ALL FEES AND THEN
DELIVERY SERVICE FEES?
AND SO OKAY, LET ME THINK ABOUT
TIS.
WELL I KNOW THAT NEW YORK CITY,
I BELIEVE CAPS ALL FEES AT 15%.
AND THEN THAT'S IT.
AND THERE'S NO OPT-OUT.
>> OUR EMERGENCY ORDER DID AS
WELL, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
OUR EMERGENCY ORDER CAPPED ALL
FEES.
THE STATE ORDER DISTINGUISHED
BETWEEN DELIVERY FEES AND THEN
OTHER FEES, 150% DELIVERY FEES.
ONLY ALLOWED TO CHARGE 3% FOR
OTHER FEES.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD JUST
HAVE THE 15% CAP ON DELIVERY
SERVICES.
SO IN SAN FRANCISCO, CURRENTLY,
THERE IS A 15% CAP ON ALL FEES.
IT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
DELIVERY AND OTHER FEES.
HOWEVER, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT
THAT IS MOVING THROUGH THEIR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RIGHT NOW,
THAT WOULD DEFINE CORE DELIVERY
SERVICES WITH A DEFINITION THAT
IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE
PROPOSED, WHICH IS DELIVERY
SERVICES ARE LISTING THE
RESTAURANT, AND ACTUALLY
PERFORMING THE DELIVERY.
THEN SAN FRANCISCO WOULD ALSO
HAVE A PROVISION WHERE THE CAPS
WOULDN'T APPLY TO FOOD DELIVERY
PLATFORMS THAT MET CERTAIN
CONDITIONS, PROVIDING THE 15%
OPTION, AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE
TO RESTAURANTS.
SO THAT IS DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN DELIVERY FEES AND OTHER
FEES.
MINNEAPOLIS AND PHILADELPHIA
BOTH DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
DELIVERY FEES AND MARKETING
FEES AS WELL, HAVING A FLAT CAP
ON DELIVERY SERVICES, AND THEN
ALLOWING EITHER RESTAURANTS TO
OPT-OUT, OR FOR THE CAP NOT TO
APPLY TO PLATFORMS, THAT AT
LEAST OFFER THAT 15% OPTION,
AND THEN THE PLATFORMS CAN
CHARGE MORE FOR ADDITIONAL
SERVICES.
SO IF SAN FRANCISCO'S AMENDMENT
GOES THROUGH, THEY WOULD ONLY
BE ONE CITY THAT DOESN'T
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DELIVERY
FEES AND MARKETING FEES.
THAT WILL BE NEW YORK.
>> THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR, ONE MORE FOLLOW-
UP, IF I COULD.
>> SURE, GO AHEAD,.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
TO CORRELATE WHAT MY BRAIN IS
TELLING ME HERE ON SLIDE FIVE
AROUND THE PROFIT MARGINS, AND
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING THE CAP TO
BE, IF PROFIT MARGINS ARE 10%,
OR LOWER AS INDICATED ON SLIDE
TWO, HOW ARE SMALL BUSINESSES
GOING TO AFFORD THE CAP OF 15%
OR MORE?
>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I THINK THAT IT UNDERSCORES
THAT PAYING FOR DELIVERY
SERVICES IS REALLY HARD FOR
RESTAURANTS.
AND IN SOME CASES, RESTAURANTS
MAY LOSE MONEY ON DELIVERY.
AND SO RESTAURANTS MAY WANT TO
CONTINUE OFFERING DELIVERY,
BECAUSE IT COULD HELP THE
RESTAURANT KEEP CUSTOMERS AND
GET NEW CUSTOMERS AND
EVENTUALLY WILL DINE IN HOUSE
WHERE THERE WON'T BE THIS ADDED
FEE TO HELP THEM PAY FOR THEIR
FOOD.
SO I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL
TAKEN THAT EVEN WITH THE 15%
CAP, THIS IS GOING TO LAND
HARD, OR COULD LAND HARD ON
RESTAURANTS.
BUT IN THE INTEREST OF
MAINTAINING A CUSTOMER BASE AND
HAVING CUSTOMERS STILL HAVE
ACCESS TO FOOD, THIS IS ONE WAY
TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION
FROM THAT, IS THIS A 15% CAP,
WE TALK ABOUT IT ON THE
DELIVERY, BUT IS THIS A 15% OF
THE PRICE OF THE FOOD OR IS THE
TAX AND WHATEVER TIP SOMEBODY
MIGHT HAVE GIVEN IN THE $2.50
HAZARD PAY FOR DRIVERS, IS THAT
ALL?
WHAT IS IT 50% OF?
>> 15% .
>> IT IS 15% OF THE PRICE OF
THE FOOD.
IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE TAXES,
FEES OR TIPS.
JUST THE MENU PRICE OF THE
FOOD.
>> OKAY.
AND RELATEDLY, HAS THERE BEEN
ANY, IN THE OLDEN DAYS,
RESTAURANTS IF THEY WANTED TO
DELIVER, DELIVER ON THEIR OWN.
IS THERE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT
SELF-DELIVERY OUT THERE.
>> I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND
INFORMATION ON SELF-DELIVERY.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS THAT
DELIVERY IS A TREMENDOUS PART
OF RESTAURANT SALES ACROSS THE
BOARD, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S
THINGS LIKE PIZZA DELIVERY,
WHICH HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A
VERY LONG TIME.
THERE'S A LOT OF PIZZA
DELIVERED, AND I THINK A LOT OF
PIZZA DELIVERY STAFF COULD BE
EMPLOYEES.
IN HOUSE DELIVERY.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THOSE STATS.
>> OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> MADAM CHAIR, I DO HAVE A
QUICK QUESTION.
I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT IN THE
BEGINNING.
WHEN COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN WAS
DISCUSSING THIS LEGISLATION, HE
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG,
THERE'S A SENSE OF URGENCY THAT
WE NEEDED TO DO IT SOON.
I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY
THAT WAS SO.
>> CHAIR, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO
IT.
THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ, IT'S
NICE TO SIT IN YOUR OLD SEAT
HERE.
>> YOU COULD HAVE USED MY
BLANKET, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
FINE.
>> THANK YOU.
THE URGENCY HERE IS THAT IT'S
CONNECTED TO THE STATE OF
EMERGENCY.
IF THE EMERGENCY IS TO END AT
ANYTIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE NOT A GAP FOR
THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION, SO
THAT SMALL BUSINESSES AND
RESTAURANTS AREN'T HAVING AN
UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR THOSE
MOMENTS BETWEEN A PERMANENT
LEGISLATION AND THE CIVIL
EMERGENCY ENDING.
>> THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK ANOTHER
QUESTION?
I WAS GOING TO ASK KARINA.
HAVE WE GOTTEN ANY INFORMATION
IN THE LAST TWO YEARS ABOUT
WHEN WE'VE BEEN DOING THE 15%
CAP THAT FROM ANY OF THE
RESTAURANTS OR HAVE WE BEEN
COLLECTING ANY DATA.
DID IT KIND OF TOUCH ON THAT?
MAYBE I MISHEARD THAT.
I'M SORRY.
>> ANECDOTALLY, WHAT I'VE HEARD
ABOUT THE 15% CAP IS FOOD
DELIVERY SERVICES ARE COMPLYING
WITH IT.
HAVEN'T HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT
IT BEING VIOLATED.
I HEARD THAT RESTAURANTS ARE
VERY APPRECIATIVE OF IT.
AND I CONTACTED SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS THE
DEPARTMENT THAT ENFORCES THE
EMERGENCY ORDER.
THEY DO NOT HAVE RECORDS OF ANY
REPORTS OF VIOLATION.
NOR DOES FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HAVE
ANY RECORDS OF COMPLAINTS FOR
THE EXISTING FOOD DELIVERY
PLATFORMS, REGULATIONS
REQUIRING THE AGREEMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS?
I HAVE A COUPLE.
HOW WOULD IT WORK?
I REMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ
ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE
CIVIL EMERGENCY, OR WHAT IS THE
REASON FOR URGENCY?
SO WOULD IT WORK THAT
RESTAURANTS HAVE TO RENEGOTIATE
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE
LEGISLATION SAYS OPT-OUT, AND
NOT OPT IN, SO WHAT ARE WE
ANTICIPATING FOR WHATEVER
EXISTING AGREEMENTS RESTAURANTS
HAVE WITH DELIVERY SERVICES.
>> YEAH, SO, THAT'S A GREAT
QUESTION.
THE LEGISLATION DOES SAY THAT
RESTAURANTS HAVE TO OPT-OUT,
WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN THIS
LEGISLATION GOES INTO EFFECT,
RESTAURANTS WON'T BE CHARGED
MORE THAN 15% FOR DELIVERY
SERVICES UNLESS THEY OPT-OUT,
AND RENEGOTIATE THEIR CONTRACT,
WHICH WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF
IF FOOD DELIVERY, BUT THEY HAVE
TO OPT IN, THEN THERE COULD BE
A BUMP IN THE IN-BETWEEN.
AND SO, RESTAURANTS WILL NEED
TO RENEGOTIATE THEIR CONTRACT
IF THEY WANT MORE THAN DELIVERY
SERVICES.
THEY WOULD NEED TO RENEGOTIATE,
AND SIGN UP, AND PAY FOR
ADDITIONAL SERVICES IF THAT'S
PART OF THE OFFER FROM THE FOOD
DELIVERY PLATFORMS.
I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION IN
THIS PRESENTATION, ALTHOUGH IT
WAS SHARED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT, THAT RIGHT NOW THE
THREE FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS
THAT DOMINATE THE MARKET,
MAKING UP ABOUT 96% OF ALL FOOD
DELIVERY PLATFORM SALES, ALL
OFFER DELIVERY SERVICES FOR
15%.
THERE'S A TIERED PLAN, WHERE IT
WOULD BE 15% FOR BASELINE
DELIVERY.
COULD GO UP TO 25 OR 30 FOR
ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD MAKE
SURE THAT TIERED PRICING PLANS
LIKE THAT DON'T EVER GO ABOVE
15%.
FOR THE BASELINE SERVICES FOR
DELIVERY.
>> SO PEOPLE COULD BUY OTHER
SERVICES, IF THEY WOULD HAVE
THE OPTION.
>> CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT SO -- IT'S HARD
FOR ME TO SEE YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS WITH THE REFLECTIONS.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE YOUR
HAND UP.
>> NO, I'M GOOD TO GO.
I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD.
THANK YOU COUNCIL CHAIR.
>> YOU MENTIONED KARINA, YOU
DID A COMPARISON AND YOU SPOKE
OF OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE DONE
THIS AND THERE ARE OTHER MODELS
THAT WE CAN GO WITH SOME WHICH
CARRY MORE LEGAL RISK THAN
OTHERS, SO I'LL BE LOOKING AT
THOSE ISSUES AND I KNOW THAT
YOU HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
ALSO WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO IF THERE AREN'T ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
ANYONE, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE ON.
I DIDN'T PUT IT TOGETHER THAT
THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION WOULD BE
INTRODUCED THE DAY BEFORE OUR
NEXT MEETING.
FOR SOME REASON I THOUGHT WE
MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE
TIME, AND WE KNOW FROM PAY UP
THAT THE PROPOSAL CHANGED
SIGNIFICANTLY BETWEEN THE FIRST
DISCUSSION THIS YEAR IN
COMMITTEE AND DISCUSSING THE
ACTUAL LEGISLATION.
LET'S CONTINUE THIS
CONVERSATION.
I'M JUST SAYING I HOPE FOR A
SECOND CONVERSATION AND VOTE ON
THE 27th, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
TALKING ABOUT THIS MORE AND
SEEING THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION
THAT IS FINAL.
>> CHAIR, IF I MAY.
>> SURE.
>> YOU RAISE A REALLY IMPORTANT
POINT HERE, WHERE PAY UP HAD A
LOT MORE TIME THAN IT NEEDED
FOR INTRODUCTION TO FINAL
PACKAGE.
THAT'S IN PART BECAUSE PAY UP
WAS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN
THE NATION.
WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THIS
LEGISLATION HAS ALREADY BEEN
TRIED AND TESTED IN MANY OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, AND WITH SAN
FRANCISCO IN PARTICULAR, THEY
HAD INITIALLY CRAFTED WITHOUT
THE OPT-OUT.
AND THAT CREATED A LOT OF
TENSION BETWEEN RESTAURANTS AND
THE DELIVERY SERVICES.
AND THEY HAVE SINCE GONE BACK
AND ADDED THEIR OPT-OUT, WHICH
HAS CREATED A MORE SEAMLESS,
AND IT'S ALLOWED FOR COALESCING
AROUND.
I ABSOLUTELY HEAR YOU THAT THE
SIMILARITY IS DELIVERY FEES,
AND THE DIFFERENCES ARE, PAY UP
WAS FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE
NATION AND THIS IS A TRIED AND
TESTED MODEL.
>> IT'S GOOD THAT WE DO HAVE
OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE DONE
THIS, THAT WE CAN FOLLOW BEST
PRACTICES.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
I'LL BE BACK IN JUST A MOMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM TWO
INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO,
RESOLUTION 32056.
A RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE
CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT ADOPTING
A 2023 TO 2028 STRATEGIC PLAN
UPDATE FOR THE CITY LIGHT
DEPARTMENT, AND ENDORSING THE
ASSOCIATED SIX YEAR RATE PATH
FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
VOTE.
P
>> OKAY, WILL THE PRESENTERS
PLEASE COME TO THE TABLE, WHILE
I KEY THIS OFF?
THIS IS THE SECOND DISCUSSION
OF SEATTLE LIGHT'S 2023-2028
STRATEGIC PLAN, WHICH SETS OFF
THE RATE PATH THAT WILL FOLLOW.
AND THIS IS NOT, WE ARE NOT
DISCUSSING AND POSSIBLY VOTING
ON A CHANGE OF THE RATE TODAY.
WE ARE SIMPLY DISCUSSING THE
STRATEGIC PLAN THAT IS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE RATE PATH
GOING FORWARD.
WE WILL BEGIN DISCUSSING THE
ACTUAL LEGISLATION TO CHANGE
THE RATES IN AUGUST.
OKAY.
CUTTING TO THE CHASE TO REMIND
FOLKS WHILE PEOPLE ARE
ASSEMBLING, AT A LAST
DISCUSSION, THE BOTTOM LINE FOR
RATE PAYERS IS THAT THE AVERAGE
ANIMAL RATE INCREASE WAS LAID
OUT, AND I BELIEVE THAT A SIX
YEAR AVERAGE WAS ABOUT 3.5%,
AND THE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
REVIEW PANEL HAS RECOMMENDED
ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN,
AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE RATE
PATH.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL LET OUR
PRESENTERS INTRODUCE
THEMSELVES, AND CONTINUE.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME'S
DEBRA SMITH AND I'M THE GENERAL
MANAGER OF SEATTLE CITY LIGHT,
AND I'M GRATEFUL TO BE HERE.
LAST TIME I WAS NOT ABLE TO BE
HERE FOR THE FULL ITEM, BUT
WE'RE HERE TODAY, AND LOOKING
FORWARD TO HEARING ANY
COMMENTS.
I DON'T THINK WE PLAN TO DO ANY
FULL PRESENTATION, SO WE'RE
JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY
REMAINING QUESTIONS THAT ANY
COUNCILMEMBER, OR YOUR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY HAVE, AND
HOPEFULLY BE PREPARED TO LOOK
FOR A POSITIVE VOTE.
SO TO MY LEFT --
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M KRISTY GRAINGER.
CITY LIGHT'S CHIEF OFFICER.
>> GOOD MORNING, I'M LEE
BARRECA, THE CITY LIGHT'S
MANAGER OF STRATEGIC PLANNING
AND PERFORMANCE.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING.
AND OF COURSE, ERIC McCONAGHY
FROM CENTRAL STAFF.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
I'M GLAD TO BE A PART OF THIS,
AND I WILL TUNE IN.
>> SO LAST TIME, THE STRATEGIC
PLAN LAID OUT MANY OF THE
INITIATIVES AND ONGOING WORK
THAT THE UTILITY IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR, AND IN THE INTERVENING
TIME, I BELIEVE THAT CITY LIGHT
HAS REACHED OUT TO
COUNCILMEMBERS, OR SOLICITED
QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE.
AGAIN, THIS IS A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE STRATEGIC PLAN,
AND RATE PATH, SO IF THERE ARE
NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM ANYONE -- I HAVE ONE.
AND IT IS SIMPLY, I THINK IT
WAS PAGE, I DON'T KNOW, 11 OF
THE ACTUAL STRATEGIC PLAN.
I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE COST
DRIVERS INCORPORATED INTO THE
RATE PATH IS INFLATION
INCREASES.
AND I THINK THAT THE ONE THAT'S
NOTED THERE IS 7.1% IN 2023 AND
THAT IS PARTIALLY TO ADJUST FOR
HIGHER 2021 AND 2022 INFLATION
THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY
EXPERIENCING.
MY SIMPLE QUESTION IS, THAT
AFTER THAT, FROM 2024, TO 2028,
AVERAGE INFLATION IS PROJECTED
TO BE 2.4.
AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE EXPERTS
IN OUR FORECASTING OFFICE AND
IN YOUR SHOP, YOU DO TOO.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK, IS
THAT REALISTIC?
>> VERY GOOD QUESTION, AND
CERTAINLY WITH THIS MORNING'S
NEWS ABOUT 9.1% INFLATION, AND
I'M BUSTING LAST MONTH'S RECORD
BREAKING NUMBERS OVER A 40 YEAR
BANKING NUMBERS, IT'S HARD TO
KNOW.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR
ON, AND WHAT WE'RE COMMITTED
TO, CHAIR, IS THAT WE INTEND TO
FLATTEN THE CURVE, AND I KNOW
WE ALL TALKED ABOUT THAT DURING
THE PANDEMIC.
BUT WE TALK ABOUT THAT
INTERNALLY, WITH RESPECT TO
RATE ACTIONS.
WE WANT SUBSEQUENT FUTURE RATE
OPTIONS TO LOOK LIKE COST OF
LIVING TYPES OF INCREASES THAT
OUR CUSTOMERS ARE EXPERIENCING
ELSEWHERE.
SO IN THE PLAN THAT WE BROUGHT
FORWARD LAST YEAR, BEFORE WE
HAD ALL OF THESE INFLATIONARY
MEASURES, WE HAVE BEEN MOVING
TOWARDS THAT POINT, AND WE HAVE
BEEN USING 3% AS A PLACE HOLDER
FOR WHAT TRADITIONALLY, CPI
INCREASES HAVE LOOKED LIKE.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE US TAKING A
COUPLE OF YEARS TO GET TO THOSE
KINDS MUCH INCREASES IN OUR
OUTER YEARS.
OUR INTENTION HAS NEVER BEEN TO
DO WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE,
WHICH IS TO PROJECT LOWER
INCREASES IN OUT YEARS, AND
COME FORWARD IN THE EARLY YEARS
HAVE BIG BUMPS.
UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THE
INFLATIONARY PRESSURES WE'RE
EXPERIENCING NOW, WE HAVE TO
MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT, AND IT KIND
OF LOOKS THAT WAY, AND I'LL BE
HONEST WITH YOU.
DO I BELIEVE 3%, OR THAT WE'LL
BE ABLE TO GET THERE, IT
DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS.
BUT AGAIN, THE COMMITMENT WE'VE
MADE, WHICH IS TO HOLD FUTURE
RATE ACTIONS CLOSE TO, OR
CONSISTENT WITH INFLATIONARY
PRESSURES THAT WE ARE GENERALLY
EXPERIENCING, THAT IS OUR
COMMITMENT, AND IT REMAINS OUR
COMMITMENT.
SO I'M HOPEFUL AS WE ALL ARE,
IN TALKING WITH FOLKS AROUND
SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS, THERE
SEEMS TO BE A SENSE THAT AT
LEAST THOSE PRESSURES WILL
HOPEFULLY FLATTEN OUT IN 2023.
SO WE DON'T EXPECT IT TO HAPPEN
BEFORE THEN, BUT WE EXPECT, IN
TALKS TO SOME OF THE GENERAL
PACIFIC, AND SOME OF THE FOLKS
THAT WE BUY A LOT OF COMMODITY
PRODUCTS FROM, MID-2023, OR SO,
WHICH WOULD BRING US BACK
HOPEFULLY TO MORE INFLATIONARY
TYPE NUMBERS IN 2024 AND
BEYOND.
SO I CAN'T READ THE FUTURE,
NONE OF US CAN.
BUT RBING SOME OF
THOSE INFLATIONARY PRESSURES,
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO,
AND OUR COMMITMENT REMAINS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW
ELASTIC OUR RATES ARE TO
INFLATION CHANGES.
YOU MENTIONED ANOTHER ONE.
SUPPLY CHAIN.
THERE'S ALSO CLIMATE CHANGES.
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, ET
CETERA.
>> WE HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT
PROJECT WORK AHEAD, THAT WE
INTEND TO TALK TO COUNCIL
ABOUT, IN THE COMING MONTHS,
UNDERGROUNDING IS ONE AREA
THAT'S A PRESSURE AREA.
IS IT FORT LAWTON.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE COST
ASSOCIATED.
THERE CONTINUES TO BE A LOT OF
UNCERTAINTY.
BUT OUR COMMITMENT CONTINUES TO
WORK WITH COUNCIL TO PRIORITIZE
UNFORESEEN EXPENDITURES OR
NEEDS, SO THAT ANY RATE IMPACT
ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE ARE FULLY
SUPPORTED BY COMMITTEE AND
COUNCIL.
>> AND MY COMMITTEE IS ALWAYS
OPEN FOR ANY REVISIONS.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
>> OKAY, SEEING NONE, I BELIEVE
THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO GO FORWARD
WITH THE VOTE.
I MOVE THAT RESOLUTION, LET'S
SEE, JUST A SECOND, LET ME GET
TO MY RESOLUTION 32056 BE
RECOMMENDED FOR PASSAGE AT FULL
COUNCIL.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR.
>> OKAY, THE BILL PASSES AND
WILL BE MOVED FOR A FINAL
CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK.
ALL RIGHT, THIS CONCLUDES THE
JULY 13th MEETING OF THE
ECONOMIC TECHNOLOGY AND CITY
LIGHT COMMITTEE.
OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING IS
SCHEDULED FOR JULY 27th AND
9:30.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER ISSUES OF
BUSINESS, THIS MEETING WILL
ADJOURN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YES?
>> NO, I SAID THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
MEETING ADJOURNED.
>> BYE BYE.
>> BYE.