>> THE SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE
MEETING , TODAY IS WEDNESDAY,
NOVEMBER 15th 2023 AND THE
TIME IS 10:05 A.M. , I AM CHAIR
OF THE SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.
>> HERBOLD ?
>> HERE.
>> LEWIS ?
>> PRESENT.
>> MORALES?
>> PRESENT.
>> NELSON ?
>> PRESENT .
>> PEDERSEN ?
>> PRESENT .
>> SAWANT?
>> PRESENT .
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> PRESENT .
>> NINE PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING
IN DAY THREE OF THREE, FIRST
WAS A BRIEFING ON ALL OF THEM
IS RELATED TO THE 2024 BUDGET,
YESTERDAY WAS A VOTE ON ALL 121
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE 2024
CALENDAR YEAR BUDGET. SECOND
PART OF THE BIANNUAL BUDGET
PROCESS, TODAY FINALIZING OUR
CONVERSATION FOCUSING ON
LEGISLATION. MOSTLY , WE WILL
BE TALKING ABOUT ITEMS THAT
RELATE TO THE BUDGET GENERALLY
THAT DO NOT HAVE A 2024 IMPACT.
WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION
FROM CENTRAL STUFF , ITEM 28 ON
THE AGENDA, TO GET AN UPDATE
FROM THE WORKGROUP AND TO HEAR
ADDITIONAL BUDGET RELATED
LEGISLATION. THIS IS
LEGISLATION ACCORDING TO THE
BUDGET CALENDAR TIMELINE. THE
OTHER ITEM FOR DISCUSSION
TODAY AND VOTE IS 22, NETWORK
COMPANY THE ORDINATES AND
EIGHT AMENDMENTS CORRESPONDING.
INSTEAD OF TAKING ITEM 22
FIRST, I WILL ASK IT IS ADDED
TO THE AGENDA LAST SO WE CAN
CONCLUDE OUR DATE WITH A VOTE .
I WILL START WITH A BRIEFING
AND FOR INFORMATION SHARING
PURPOSES AND DISCUSSION , 28
WILL GO FIRST AND 22 WILL GO
LAST ON THE AGENDA. IF THERE IS
NO OBJECTION TO THE ORDERED
AGENDA, IT WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED I WANT TO
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR
HAVING THE SUSTAINABILITY TO
STICK WITH US FOR DAY THREE AS
WE THINK ABOUT BROADER IMPACTS
OF BUDGETARY LEGISLATION THAT
CAN HELP US CREATE GREATER
TRANSPARENCY AND ALLOW FOR
GREATER REVENUE SOURCES IN
SOME CASES. YESTERDAY, AGAIN,
WE SAID THERE WOULD BE A
CONVERSATION TODAY ON THE LAST
ITEM, 22, BUT MOST OF THE
AGENDA WILL BE FOCUSED ON THE
LEGISLATION , BUDGET RELATED
LEGISLATION NOT NECESSARILY TO
BALANCE THE 2024 BUDGET. WE
WILL START WITH THAT ITEM AND
HAVE CENTRAL STAFF WALKED US
THROUGH SOME PRESENTATIONS AND
LEGISLATION THAT CORRESPONDS
WITH THE BROADER CONCEPTS OF
LEGISLATION RELATED TO BUDGET
TRANSPARENCY AND OTHER POSSIBLE
REVENUE AND LEGISLATION THAT
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL REVENUE
STREAMS OR CHANGING REVENUE
STREAMS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.
ON THIS TRACKS TO ITEM, ITEM
28, THERE IS NO VOTE TODAY. WE
WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO
A BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION TODAY
AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THESE
ITEMS ON NOVEMBER 30th. AFTER
THE 30th OF NOVEMBER , WHERE
WE WILL CONSIDER ANY ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION AND
VOTE ON FINAL ITEMS, THOSE
ITEMS WILL BE SENT TO THE FULL
COUNCIL FOR A FINAL VOTE. I AM
EXCITED TO TURN IT OVER TO
CENTRAL STAFF. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR FLEXIBILITY. IF YOU COULD
GET US GOING ON ITEM 28 , THAT
WOULD BE FANTASTIC. MADAM CLERK
, DO YOU NEED TO READ ANYTHING
INTO THE RECORD?
>> WE DON'T BUT I CAN IF YOU
WOULD LIKE ME TO.
>> REED ITEM NUMBER 28.
>> I DID NOT SEE YOUR HAND ,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT .
>> NOT TO INTERRUPT BUT I WANT
TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW, I WILL
NEED TO LEAVE BEFORE NOON
BECAUSE OF UNAVOIDABLE REASONS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE HEADS UP.
I WILL DEFINITELY TRY TO KEEP
THAT IN MIND AS WE THINK ABOUT
THE POSSIBLE VOTES TODAY
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME VOTES
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE
YOU THERE. WE WILL STAY IN
TOUCH WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ABOUT
THE AGENDA. I KNOW YOU HAVE
BEEN UNDER THE WEATHER AND I
APPRECIATE YOU. MADAM CLERK,
LET'S READ ITEM 28 INTO THE
RECORD. WE WILL START OUR DAY.
>> UPDATE ON SEATTLE REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP OPTIONS
AND ADDITIONAL BUDGET RELATED
LEGISLATION , TRACT 2
LEGISLATION FOR BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU . I WILL TURN IT
OVER TO CENTRAL STAFF .
>> GOOD MORNING ,
COUNCILMEMBERS , FOR ITEM 28,
WE WILL BRIEF YOU ON SIX
ITEMS, FIRST , AN UPDATE ON THE
REVENUE STABILIZATION WORKGROUP
. AND THEN THERE WILL BE A
BRIEFING ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE
RELATED TO FISCAL TRANSPARENCY
AND THE BUDGET PROCESS . OUR
PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED WAGE
EQUITY POLICY AND A
PRESENTATION ON TWO BILLS , ONE
THAT WOULD REPEAL THE WATER TAX
AND ANOTHER IMPOSING A CAPITAL
GAINS TAX. I WILL NOTE, FOR
TWO, THREE, FOUR, THAT
LEGISLATION IS ATTACHED TO THE
DRAFT AND WE EXPECT THAT TO BE
INTRODUCED NEXT TUESDAY. ITEMS
TWO THROUGH SIX WILL CONTINUE
THAT DISCUSSION IN COMMITTEE ON
NOVEMBER 30th WHERE THERE IS
THE LEGISLATION THAT MAY BE
VOTED ON AT THAT DATE IF
COUNCILMEMBERS COMING OUT OF
THE DISCUSSIONS TODAY HAVE ANY
AMENDMENTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO
PROPOSE, ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX
ON THE SCREEN , WE ASK THAT YOU
LET CENTRAL STAFF KNOW ABOUT
YOUR MINUTE REQUEST BY 5:00
P.M. TOMORROW SO THAT WE CAN
PREPARE THOSE AMENDMENTS FOR
CONSIDERATION ON NOVEMBER 30th.
IS THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT
PROCESS ? IF NOT, I WILL MOVE
TO THE STABILIZATION WORKGROUP.
WE CAN MOVE ON. I WILL GO TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. TODAY, A BRIEF
UPDATE ON SOME WORK THAT CAME
OUT OF THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP. THIS
IS A FOLLOW-UP FROM A
PRESENTATION FROM OCTOBER 10th
, EXCUSE ME, AUGUST 10th AT THE
FINANCE AND HOUSING COMMITTEE.
AS PART OF THE 2022 ADOPTED
BUDGET, THE COUNCIL ADOPTED
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
FG2B1, WORKING WITH THE MAYOR
TO IDENTIFY OPTIONS FOR MAKING
THE TAX STRUCTURE IN SEATTLE
MORE EQUITABLE AND CREATING NEW
GENERAL REVENUE TO FUND CITY
PRIORITIES . AS THE
CONVERSATION EVOLVED, ABOUT
ADDRESSING THE PROJECTED
DEFICIT. THE STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT REQUEST THAT
THIS WORK INCLUDED A TASK
FORCE OF COMMUNITY EXPERTS TO
DEVELOP A REPORT WITH
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE OPTIONS.
NEXT SLIDE. THAT WORKGROUP
WAS FORMED IN OCTOBER OF 2022
IN RESPONSE TO THAT SLIDE THE
WORKGROUP INCLUDED 13 MEMBERS
AND TWO COCHAIRS . THE GROUP
MET NINE TIMES BETWEEN OCTOBER
OF 2022 AND AUGUST OF 2023.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION
ON BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING
THE PROBLEM AND, AFTER THE
INITIAL DISCUSSIONS, THAT LED
-- THAT INCLUDED REVENUE IN
60 NEW REVENUE IDEAS ,
WORKGROUP IDENTIFYING NINE
OPTIONS FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE.
CHAIR MOSQUEDA , IT LOOKS LIKE
I HAVE A QUESTION FROM
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON .
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON ?
>> I COULD BE CONFUSED BUT I
THOUGHT THAT THE SLIDE
CALLING FOR A REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP WAS IN
2021.
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS . LET ME
JUST DOUBLE CHECK. IT WAS
ADOPTED IN FALL OF 2021 AS
PART OF THE 2022 ANNUAL BUDGET.
>> OKAY.
>> FALL OF 2021 . WE ADOPT
THEM IN THE FALL PRIOR TO THE
YEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, AS I SAID, THE
WORKGROUP REVIEWED ABOUT 63
DIFFERENT REVENUE IDEAS AND
CREATED A SHORT LIST OF NINE
REVENUE OPTIONS FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL
AND THE MAYOR. THOSE NINE
OPTIONS ARE LISTED ON THE
SCREEN. THE FULL REPORT IS
POSTED TO THE AUGUST 10th
FINANCE AND HOUSING COMMITTEE
MEETING IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO
REVIEW THAT AGAIN. IF WE COULD
MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THE
FINAL REPORT WAS RELEASED IN
AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. THERE WAS
A BRIEFING ON AUGUST 10th AT
THE FINANCE AND HOUSING
COMMITTEE. AT THAT MEETING, WE
NOTED THAT THERE WERE A FEW
OPTIONS THAT THE GROUP
IDENTIFIED THAT WERE MOST
READY TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE
SHORTER TIMELINE . THAT
INCLUDED CHANGES TO THE
JUMPSTART TAX, INCREASING THE
RATES, THAT OPTION WAS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY AND THERE WAS A SMALL
ADJUSTMENT TO THOSE TAX RATES
AS PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY. TO INCREASE REVENUES
TO SUPPORT INVESTMENTS IN
SCHOOL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH, AND
A CITY LEVEL CAPITAL GAINS TAX
THAT WE ALREADY HAVE
LEGISLATION PREPARED AND THERE
WILL BE A BRIEFING ON A
PROPOSED CAPITAL GAINS TAX
LATER TODAY. THOSE TWO WERE
IDENTIFIED AS MOST READY TO BE
CONSIDERED ON A SHORTER
TIMELINE AND WE ALSO , AT THAT
POINT, THOUGHT OUR HIGH CEO PAY
RATIO TAX MAY BE THE OTHER
OPTION THAT IS TECHNICALLY MOST
READY TO PURSUE. AT THAT
MEETING, ON -- EXCUSE ME,
AUGUST 10th, CHAIR MOSQUEDA
ASKED CENTRAL STAFF TO BE
PREPARED FOR POTENTIAL
CONSIDERATION OF THOSE THREE
IDEAS , THE PAYROLL TAX,
CAPITAL GAINS, AND A HIGH CEO
PAY RATIO. WE BEGIN WORK ON
DEVELOPING A HIGH CEO PAY
RATIO TAX. THE OTHER TWO WERE
ALREADY DEVELOPED. MOVING ON
TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WE BEGAN
THE ANALYSIS TO TRY TO
UNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS FOR HOW
SEATTLE HIGH CEO PAY RATIO TAX
COULD BE OF LIMITED. WE LOOKED
AT OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE
LIMITED SIMILAR TAXES , THIS
PRIMARILY INCLUDED PORTLAND AND
SAN FRANCISCO AND WE LOOKED AT
THE DATA AVAILABLE TO IMPLEMENT
AND ADMINISTER THE TAX AND
UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL
AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT SUCH A
TAX COULD GENERATE . WHAT WE
LEARNED IS THAT THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT
THIS TAX COULD BE STRUCTURED
THAT BOTH IMPACT THE AMOUNT OF
REVENUE THAT COULD BE
GENERATED AND ALSO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITIES
AND WHAT LEGAL AUTHORITY WE
HAVE TO IMPLEMENT TAXES. WE
HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THREE WAYS
TO STRUCTURE A TAX. ONE WOULD
BE A TAX ON THE EXISTING
JUMPSTART PAYROLL EXPENSE TAX.
ANOTHER WOULD BE A NEW STANDARD
TAX THAT MAY BE STRUCTURED
SIMILAR TO THE PAYROLL TAX
BUT WITH A UNIQUE NEXUS TO
BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN SEATTLE.
IT WOULD BE A STANDALONE TAX .
OR ADAPTING OUR BNO TAX
SIMILAR TO PORTLAND AND SAN
FRANCISCO BUT THAT REQUIRES
SOME UNIQUE PROCESSES TO
WASHINGTON STATE AND THEY
REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT SLIDE. I WILL QUICKLY
SUMMARIZE WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IN
PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO.
PORTLAND APOSTATES PAY RATIO
IS A TAX AND APPLIES TO
PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES AND
IS A TAX ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE
BUSINESS TAX AMOUNT. BUSINESS
TAX RATE IS 2.6% OF ADJUSTED
NET INCOME OF A SIMILAR BUT
NOT EXACTLY LIKE OUR B&O TAX .
AND BUSINESSES THAT HAVE A
HIGH CEO TO MEDIUM
COMPENSATION RATIO OF 100 TO
ONE BUT LESS THAN 250 TO ONE,
THEY PAY A 50% SURTAX ON THE
BUSINESS TAX, AND THOSE WITH A
250 TO ONE RATIO PAY 25% TAX
SURTAX ON THEIR EXISTING
BUSINESS TAX RATE. WE HAVE NOT
BEEN ABLE TO NARROW IN ON A
RECENT REVENUE FORECAST FOR
THE PORTLAND TAX AND WE WILL
BE REACHING OUT TO THAT CITY .
INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR THE
SURTAX WAS BETWEEN $2 MILLION
AND $4 MILLION ANNUALLY WHEN
STRUCTURED LIKE A TAX. THE
SECOND EXAMPLE IS SAN
FRANCISCO, THERE'S IS LABELED
AN OVERPAID EXECUTIVE TAX.
THIS IS A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS
AND IT SCALES WITH THE
EXECUTIVE PAY RATIO . THE TABLE
ON THE RIGHT ON THE SLIDE
SHOWS THE DIFFERENT TIERS OF
HOW THAT TAX IS APPLIED. THE
RATIO OF THE COMPENSATION IS
LOOKING AT THE HIGHEST-PAID
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES AND MEDIUM
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. AGAIN,
THE RATES RANGE . THE MOST
RECENT BIANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASSUMED
THIS TAX WOULD GENERATE ABOUT
$100 MILLION ANNUALLY. TO
SUPPORT CITY SPENDING. THOSE
ARE TWO DIFFERENCES AND YOU
CAN SEE HOW ONE IS STRUCTURED
LIKE A SURTAX AND IN CERTAIN
WAYS WOULD BE SIMPLER TO
IMPLEMENT BECAUSE IT IS
BUILDING ON AN EXISTING TAX BUT
DOES NOT GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF REVENUE. THIS OTHER
TAX THAT IS A STANDALONE TAX
IS EXPECTED TO GENERATE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE. IF WE
COULD MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
GIVEN THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
WAYS THE TAX COULD BE
STRUCTURED , A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT POLICY CHOICES AND
SOME SIGNIFICANT WORK TO
UNDERSTAND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLEXITIES IN IMPLEMENTING
THESE TAXES, THERE HAS NOT
BEEN A DECISION ABOUT A
SPECIFIC STRATEGY TO PURSUE.
WE WILL CONTINUE EXPLORING
OPTIONS TO IMPLEMENT 8C ADDLED
-- SEATTLE HIGH CEO PAY RATIO
TAX. SHOULD A COUNCILMEMBER OR
THE MAYOR WISH TO PURSUE IT ,
THE CAPITAL GAINS PROPOSAL WE
CONSIDERED AT THE NOVEMBER 30th
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING WITH
THE FIRST BRIEFING LATER TODAY.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE NEXT COUNCIL AND THE
MAYOR TO CONSIDER AND PURSUE
OTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE
IDENTIFIED BY THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP OR
OTHER IDEAS THAT MAY EMERGE AS
WE DISCUSSED STRATEGIES TO
ADDRESS THE PROJECTED DEFICIT
IN 2025 AND BEYOND. THAT IS
ALL I HAVE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH . I
APPRECIATE THE OVERVIEW. THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING TO
COUNCILMEMBERS -- YOU CAN GO
BACK TO THE LAST SLIDE IF YOU
DON'T MIND. I WANT TO MAKE SOME
COMMENTS ON THIS AND I WILL LET
PEOPLE KNOW, AS I MAKE THESE
COMMENTS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE HAVE A CHANCE FOR THE FULL
COUNCIL TO SPEAK ABOUT ITEM
22, MY APOLOGIES, I DID NOT
KNOW WE DID NOT HAVE THE FULL
COUNCIL THIS AFTERNOON. PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN UNDER THE WEATHER AND
I WANT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
AFTER THIS GENERAL BRIEFING, I
WILL NOTE , WE WILL GO BACK TO
ITEM 22. THIS GIVES US A
CHANCE TO SETTLE IN TODAY. I
CAN OFFER SOME ADDITIONAL TIME
FOR US TO TAKE ON THE
DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PIECES WE
WILL WORK ON LATER IN THE DAY.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
'S HAND UP, BUT I WANT TO
MAKE A COMMENT, COLLEAGUES,
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE
PUT IN TO THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP. THE
FINANCE AND HOUSING COMMITTEE
DID HOLD A MEETING IN SEPTEMBER
TO READ THE REPORT. AS
CENTRAL STAFF HAS NOTED , BASED
ON THAT REPORT AND THE NINE
ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED IN THE
REPORT, ONLY THREE WE
TECHNICALLY HAD THE STATUTORY
CAPABILITY TO ADVANCE . SOME
MANY OF US MAY BE INTERESTED
IN. VACANCY TAX, OR A
PROGRESSIVE EXCISE TAX , SOME
OF THOSE TOOLS WE WOULD NEED
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO
ADVANCE. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAD ALREADY
BEEN PREPARING LEGISLATION ON
EXPANDING THE PROGRESSIVE
PAYROLL TAX, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT WHO BROUGHT FOR THE
LEGISLATION , THAT WAS USED AS
THE VEHICLE FOR THE AMENDMENT
YESTERDAY . WE KNEW WE HAD
LEGISLATION ALREADY IN THE
HOPPER FOR THAT ITEM. THANK
YOU , COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
FOR YOUR WORK IN ADVANCING A
POTENTIAL CAPITAL GAINS TAX.
HE HAS SPONSORED A
CORRESPONDING PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, A WATER FEE ,
CAPITAL GAINS PROPOSAL WAS
ALREADY IN THE HOPPER AND
BEING WORKED ON AS WELL. MY
FOCUS TURNED TO THE HIGH CEO
PAY RATIO TAX . I WANT TO THANK
CENTRAL STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK
YOU DID. WE LOOK AT VARIOUS
MODELS FROM CALIFORNIA AND
OREGON , TRY TO EMULATE OUR
WEST COAST PARTNERS AND ,
GIVEN THE TIMING OF WHEN WE
GOT THE REPORT , AND THE
UPCOMING BUDGET SESSION, WE
KNEW WE WANTED TO TRY TO SEE
HOW THESE COULD BE EXPEDITED
USING THE JUMPSTART
PROGRESSIVE PAYROLL TAX AS AN
ESSENTIAL VEHICLE. AS YOU
HEARD FROM THE ANALYSIS
PROVIDED, ONE OF THE
ASSUMPTIONS WAS, THE FASTEST
WAY WE CAN PUT TOGETHER A TAX
TO JUMPSTART THIS , FOR THOSE
PAYING ALREADY INTO JUMPSTART
AND HAD HIGH RATIOS FOR THEIR
CEO RELATIVE TO THE MEDIAN
WAGE WORKER IN THE COMPANY.
UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN THAT
INITIAL THRESHOLD IS VIEWED ,
IT LIMITS SEVERELY THE NUMBER
OF INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES THAT
WOULD BE AFFECTED JUMPSTART IS
AN INVESTMENT ON RELATIVELY
SMALL NUMBER OF CORPORATIONS.
THAT ONLY APPLIES TO THAT CEO
PAY RATIO TO JUST THOSE
CORPORATIONS. THE YIELD WAS
RELATIVELY SMALL. BY SMALL I
MEAN SINGLE DIGITS. $7.5
MILLION. THAT IS HARD NEWS TO
HAVE RECEIVED AT THE BEGINNING
OF THE WEEK LAST WEEK, EARLY IN
NOVEMBER, AND CHALLENGING
BECAUSE I HAD HOPED IT MANY OF
US HAVE EXPECTATIONS AND
ASSUMPTIONS THAT WOULD -- IT
WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER. IT IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO
CONTINUE EXPLORING OPTIONS
OPTIONS THAT JUST DON'T USE
JUMPSTART AS THE VEHICLE AND
START A NEW WITH EXPLORATION
OF A POLICY THAT WOULD ALLOW
FOR A CEO PAY RATIO TAX TO BE
GENERATED THAT WOULD BE MORE
SIMILAR TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS
IN SAN FRANCISCO OR PORTLAND.
A SINGLE DIGIT RETURN AT THIS
JUNCTURE DID NOT SEEM LIKE A
VIABLE OPTION AND I APPRECIATE
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK
THAT HAS GONE INTO THAT. I WANT
TO UNDERSCORE OUR ONGOING
INTEREST IN ENSURING THAT THERE
IS A SINCERE INTEREST IN
ADVANCING SOME OF THE OTHER
REVENUE STRATEGIES, THESE
STRATEGIES ON THE DOCKET, FOR
DISCUSSION DURING THE MONTH,
BECAUSE OF THE SEVERE CLIFF WE
ARE FACING. I WOULD ALSO NOTE ,
WHILE THE BUDGET RELATIVE TO
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET
DOES DECREASE THE GAP BETWEEN
EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE, WE
TALKED ABOUT RECEIVING AN
ANNUAL GAP BETWEEN EXPENSES
AND PROJECTED REVENUE IN THE
OUT YEAR AT ABOUT $247
MILLION, CURRENTLY COMING IN
AT $221, THE GAP, THAT WILL
BE SIGNIFICANT. I KNOW YOU
WILL KNOW THAT BUT I WANT TO
UNDERSCORE THE FINER POINT,
THAT IS NOT ANY ONE THING THAT
HAPPENED. IT IS A CUMULATION OF
INCREASED NEED , INCREASE
POPULATION, USE OF ONE-TIME
FEDERAL DOLLARS , USE OF
ONE-TIME CITY DOLLARS TO FUND
ONGOING NEEDS AN INCREASE IN
ESCALATING NEEDS IN OUR
COMMUNITY. IT INCLUDES A
DECLINE IN CERTAIN REVENUE
SOURCES. I WOULD POINT US TO
THE MATERIALS , THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP LOOKED
AT TO CONTINUE TO UNDERSTAND
THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM AND
THAT IS IN ADDITION TO
INCREASING NEEDS AND
POPULATION, WE DO HAVE AN
INCREASED RELIANCE ON THESE
SOURCES THAT ARE DWINDLING .
IT IS A CUMULATION OF VARIOUS
FACTORS LEADING US TO THIS
SITUATION. FINALLY, WE WILL
LATER TODAY TALK ABOUT THE
LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY
DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE SEATTLE CIVIL COUNCIL
CITY STAFF AND CITY BUDGET
OFFICE. THEY HAD A WORKGROUP
LAST YEAR . PART OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEING
CODIFIED INTO STATUTE AND
LEGISLATION WE ARE BRINGING
FORWARD . WITH YOUR SUPPORT, WE
HOPE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TO ADVANCE THESE TWO PIECES OF
LEGISLATION, ONE OF WHICH
REQUIRES US TO DAYLIGHT IN A
PROACTIVE WAY, THE FISCAL
OUTLOOK , THE FINANCIAL PLAN OF
THE CITY , IT USED TO BE
BURIED WITHIN A FOOTNOTE . IF
MY MEMORY SERVES, EARLY 2021 ,
I BELIEVE , WE RECEIVED A
REPORT THAT SAID , IF YOU LOOK
AT THE FOOTNOTE ON PAGE 650,
AND THEN 750, YOU WILL SEE THAT
THE SIX YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN,
THAT IS NOT A GREAT WAY TO
DEMONSTRATE THE PHYSICAL
HEALTH OF THE CITY. WHAT WE
WILL BE DOING THROUGH THE
FISCAL TRANSPARENCY LEGISLATION
IS IDENTIFYING SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ELEVATING
SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO SEE THE
FISCAL HEALTH OF THE CITY
YEAR-OVER-YEAR SO THIS
SCENARIO, UNPRECEDENTED GIVEN
THE PANDEMIC , THIS TYPE OF
SCENARIO IS EASIER TO IDENTIFY
MUCH FURTHER IN ADVANCE. WITH
THAT, I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF FOR THE WORK THEY'VE
DONE. IT IS HEARTBREAKING FOR
ME THAT THE NUMBERS CAME IN AS
LOW AS THEY DID BUT NOT THE
ONLY WAY TO HAVE A HIGH CEO
PAY RATIO TAX , GIVEN THE
STARK INCOME INEQUALITY GROWING
IN SEATTLE AND THE GROWING
NEEDS WE HAVE TO INVEST IN THE
BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
CREATES A WORKFORCE, CREATING
THE CORE GROUP , CREATING
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR
CORPORATIONS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
IT IS A GREAT NEXUS AND A GOOD
TIE IN FOR US TO CONTINUE TO
LOOK AT HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS
NOT A PUNITIVE MEASURE, BUT AS
A WAY TO CREATE A MORE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD AND BRING IN
SOME OF THOSE INVESTMENT
DOLLARS DIRECTLY INTO THE CITY
THAT MAKES THESE ENTITIES AND
INDIVIDUALS SO SUCCESSFUL.
THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE
AND CLEARLY I WISH THERE WAS A
CONVERSATION ON THAT ITEM. WITH
THAT, WE HAVE OTHER PIECES
THAT ARE READY FOR DISCUSSION
LATER THIS MONTH. ONE IS FROM
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PROACTIVE WORK IN
THIS REGARD AND WE WILL HAVE
MORE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE
TWO ITEMS YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD
AS WE PROGRESS IN OUR
CONVERSATION TODAY. I WILL
TURN IT OVER TO YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR
REMINDING US ABOUT FISCAL
TRANSPARENCY EFFORTS. YOU ARE
RIGHT, THOSE IMPORTANT
FINANCIAL PIECES ARE USUALLY
BURIED FAR BACK IN THE
APPENDICES OF THE BUDGET.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
AND WANTING TO LIFT THAT UP.
MAKE THEM MORE TRANSPARENT. I
KNOW WE WILL GET BACK TO THESE
OTHER ITEMS SOON. IN THIS NEXT
SLIDE, FOR THE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WATCHING
RIGHT NOW, AT THE EDGE OF THEIR
SEAT, I JUST WANT TO LET THEM
KNOW THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO
ELIMINATE A REGRESSIVE TAX AS
WE TRY TO BUILD A MORE
PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM. THERE
IS A PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE
REQUEST TAX ON THE DRINKING
WATER TO EVERYBODY I AM HOPING
THAT IS PART OF THE NEXT STEPS
BECAUSE I AM NOT SEEING IT
HERE. I DID NOT WANT PEOPLE TO
THINK WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING
ABOUT RAISING TAXES BUT
ELIMINATING ONE OF THE MOST
REGRESSIVE TAXES , THAT IS
SOMETHING I HAD ANNOUNCED ON
JUNE 7th. I THINK THERE IS A
POWERPOINT I SEE ON THE AGENDA
FOR THAT LATER TODAY. THAT IS
GOOD.
>> I WANTED TO SAY, THE REASON
WHY THAT IS NOT LISTED ON THE
NEXT STEPS HERE, THAT WAS NOT
AN OPTION OR ANYTHING THAT CAME
UP OF THAT REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP. JUST
TO BE CLEAR, YES, THAT IS PART
OF THE ITEMS WE ARE BREATHING
AND PART OF THE ONGOING
CONVERSATION , BUT IN TERMS OF
FOLLOW-UP ON THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION WORKGROUP, THAT
IS NOT QUITE IT IS NOT LISTED.
THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> THAT IS GOOD LITIGATION AS
WE TAKE A PAUSE ON THIS BECAUSE
I WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNOW
WE WILL COME BACK AND TALK
ABOUT ITEMS TWO, THREE, FOUR TO
FIVE , SIX, COME BACK TO NEXT
STEPS. WE WILL PAUSE AFTER THIS
GENERAL REVENUE STABILIZATION
WORKGROUP UPDATE AND GO TO ITEM
22. WE HAVE ONLY ONE ITEM ON
THE AGENDA, THAT IS ITEM 22
WHICH REQUIRES A VOTE, THE
REST IS A BRIEFING. APOLOGIES
FOR MOVING THINGS AROUND THIS
MORNING BUT THAT WOULD BE
IDEAL. IT IS GOOD TO GET
GROUNDING. AND COME BACK TO
THE LEGISLATIVE ITEMS.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> WHEN THIS IS AMENDMENT
DEADLINE FOR ITEMS TO BE
DISCUSSED TODAY, THAT IS
TOMORROW. SO, AM I
UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THE
CEO TAX IS NOT READY FOR ANY
KIND OF ACTION THIS YEAR? THAT
IS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT . THERE IS
NOT A BILL FOR A HIGH CEO
PAY. WE WANTED TO PROVIDE AN
UPDATE. IF THE COUNCIL WANTS
TO TAKE THAT UP, IT WOULD
HAPPEN IN 2024.
>> THE OTHER TWO POSSIBILITIES
, LET ME MAKE CLEAR FOR THE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
WATCHING THE SEATTLE CHANNEL,
THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT OF THE
REVENUE STABILIZATION WORKGROUP
DID NOT CALL FOR A NEW SOURCE
OF REVENUE, IT PRESENTED
OPTIONS BUT DID NOT RECOMMEND
THAT WE ADOPT ONE. SO, AM I
UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY , IT IS
POSSIBLE, WHEN WE ARE CALLING
FOR AMENDMENTS , THERE COULD BE
AN AMENDMENT TO THE INCREASE TO
THE P.E.T. THAT WAS VOTED ON
YESTERDAY, NOT $29, IT COULD GO
UP, A LIKELY SCENARIO , AND
PERHAPS WOULD BE CAPITAL GAINS,
WHICH IS ALSO ON THE TABLE,
THAT THE 2% COULD GO UP TO 3%
OR 5%? ARE THOSE AMENDMENTS WE
SHOULD BE ANTICIPATING BACK
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON , THE
CHANGE TO THE PAYROLL TAX RATES
WAS VOTED OUT , RECOMMENDED AND
VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY. WE ARE NOT
REQUESTING OR ACCEPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THAT LEGISLATION
FOR NOVEMBER 30th , THE VOTE
ALREADY HAPPENED ON THAT BILL.
IT WOULD BE FOR ANY OTHER BILL,
AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL
GAINS TAX, THAT COULD INCLUDE
ADJUSTING THOSE RATES, OR
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
POLICIES AND ITEMS TWO, THREE,
FOUR. THE DRAFT LEGISLATION IS
LINKED ON THE AGENDA TODAY FOR
ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX, ANY
AMENDMENTS TO THOSE LEGISLATION
PIECES , FOR THE PUBLIC, WE ARE
POSTING PUBLICLY AND AVAILABLE
FOR COUNCILMEMBER REVIEW ON
NOVEMBER 8th. THEY HAVE BEEN
OUT THERE FOR REVIEW FOR ABOUT
A WEEK AND THE DEADLINE
TOMORROW IS 5:00 P.M. TO LET
US KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. WE
HAVE A SHORT WEEK NEXT WEEK
FOR THE HOLIDAY AND TO HAVE
TIME TO DEVELOP THE AMENDMENT
AND GET THE OVERVIEW, WE NEED
THOSE IDEAL IDEAS BY CLOSE OF
BUSINESS TOMORROW.
>> I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN OUT FOR
A WEEK, I HAVE NOT FOCUSED ON
THAT. I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO
THE PRESENTATION TO SEE IF
THERE WAS ANYTHING I MAY WANT
TO FOCUS ON. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR THAT EXPLANATION I
APPRECIATE IT.
>> I CAN TALK MORE BROADLY
ABOUT ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX ON
THIS SLIDE. THEY HAVE ALL BEEN
POSTED ON THE AGENDA.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON GAVE ME
SOME IDEAS. WE WILL TALK MORE
ABOUT REVENUE IN A MOMENT. I
WOULD LIKE TO STOP AND SEE IF
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
ON THE REVENUE STABILIZATION
WORKGROUP. AND I WOULD OFFER
THAT NO ONE USED THE WORD
RECOMMENDED REVENUE SOURCES,
OR A RECOMMENDATION, THERE
WAS NOT ANYTHING IN THE
DOCUMENT THAT SAID THEY DON'T
RECOMMEND ANYTHING , IT WAS
JUST A LIST OF POSSIBLE REVENUE
APPROACHES. NINE WERE DISCUSSED
AFTER ANALYSIS, TRANSIT
RIDERS UNION , THEY HAVE AN
INCREDIBLE STAFF THAT DUG
THROUGH VARIOUS REVENUE STREAMS
, OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD,
NINE WERE MOVED FORWARD AS
POSSIBLE IDEAS WHICH SEEM TO
BE OF INTEREST TO THE GROUP,
AND THREE THAT HAD THE LEGAL
LIABILITY , STATUTORY
CAPABILITY TO POTENTIALLY
PROCEED. THAT IS WHY WE ARE
FOCUSED ON THOSE THREE BASED
ON THAT EARLIER PRESENTATION
AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND
WE REQUEST FROM CENTRAL STAFF.
WE WILL NOW GO TO ITEM 22.
MADAM CLERK, FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE RECORD, COULD YOU READ
THAT INTO THE RECORD .
>> AGENDA ITEM 22, BILL
120706, RELATING TO THE
REGULATION OF NETWORK COMPANIES
IMPOSING LICENSE AND FEE
REQUIREMENTS ON NETWORK
COMPANIES ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
6.700 TO THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE AND AMENDING SECTION
3.15.007 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH AND
WELCOME BACK. SORRY TO HAVE YOU
COME AND GO, BUT I WANT TO
ACCOMMODATE EVERYBODY HERE.
PEOPLE ARE UNDER THE WEATHER
AND WE WANT TO GET AS MANY
COUNCILMEMBERS IN ON THIS
CONVERSATION GIVEN IT IS THE
ONLY ITEM FOR A VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD , SHE BRIEFED US ON THE
BILL YESTERDAY. I THINK, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF GIVING THE ITEM
IN FRONT OF US, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE BILL
SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT?
>> SO MANY SCREENS. MY
APOLOGIES. I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE COUNCIL BILL 12.0706.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED AND THE LEGISLATION IS
IN FRONT OF US. THANK YOU FOR
BEING A SPONSOR OF THE
LEGISLATION, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD . WE HAVE EIGHT
AMENDMENTS TODAY , BEFORE I
TURN IT OVER TO CENTRAL STAFF
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
ORIENTATION TO THE BILL , AND
BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MINUTES,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER
COMMENTS AGAIN ?
>> ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS
NECESSARY LEGISLATION IN
ORDER TO SUPPORT THE OFFICE OF
LABOR STANDARDS IN ITS
ENFORCEMENT OF LEGISLATION
THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS BROKEN
GROUND IN PASSING. BOTH THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT ORDINANCE FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS AND WORKING FOR
NETWORK PLATFORMS , AND ALSO
LEGISLATION THAT IS A GUARD
AGAINST UNFAIR DEACTIVATION.
SOMETHING SOME PEOPLE CALL JUST
CAUSE DEACTIVATION. THIS
MONEY IS NECESSARY FOR OLS TO
ENFORCE THE LEGISLATION, THEY
ARE EMPOWERED BY THE
LEGISLATION THAT ENACTED THE
DEPARTMENT TO NOTIFY COUNCIL
INDEPENDENTLY OUTSIDE OF THE
EXECUTIVE AND THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE TO NOTIFY US
INDEPENDENTLY OF WHAT IT
RESOURCE NEEDS ARE, THE
CERTIFICATION MEMO THAT WE GET
BEFORE THE BUDGET PROCESS. THAT
IS EXERCISING OF THEIR
INDEPENDENT POWERS TO NOTIFY
THE COUNCIL OF WHAT IS
RESOURCE NEEDS ARE. THEY HAVE
BEEN CLEAR AND PERSISTENT IN
IDENTIFYING WHAT THE NEEDS ARE
, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED LETTERS
IN THE LAST FEW DAYS FROM
VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE
STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS AREA ,
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A UNIQUE
EXPERIENCE IN ASSISTING
WORKERS AND ENFORCING THESE
TYPES OF ORDINANCES. WE HAVE
HEARD FROM THE WASHINGTON
STATE BUDGET AND POLICY CENTER,
WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE WORKER
CENTER, THE WORKERS RIGHTS
CLINIC, WE HAVE HEARD FROM
PROFESSORS WHO HAVE STUDIED
THIS ISSUE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON. WE HAVE EVEN HEARD
FROM WORKPLACE JUSTICE LAB .
THEY ALL REFERRED TO THE FACT
THAT THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS IS ABLE TO ROBUSTLY
ENFORCE WORKERS RIGHTS
BECAUSE , NOT JUST BECAUSE OF
THE LEGISLATION WE PASSED , BUT
BECAUSE OF THE RESOURCES THAT
ARE PROVIDED TO THE OFFICE OF
LABOR STANDARDS TO HIRE
ADEQUATE STAFF , BUT ALSO TO
CONTRACT WITH TRUSTED
COMMUNITY PARTNERS WHO HAVE
THE SKILLS AND THE ABILITY ,
AND OUR TRUSTED BY WORKERS TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
DOING THIS WORK KNOW THEIR
RIGHTS. RUTGERS WORKPLACE
JUSTICE LAB REFERS TO THE
OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS TO
HAVE PROVEN ITSELF TO BE ONE
OF, AND I QUOTE , "IF NOT THE
MOST EFFECTIVE LOCAL AGENCIES
IN THE UNITED STATES." THEY GO
ON TO SAY THAT THE SUCCESS IS
DUE IN NO SMALL PART TO THEIR
ENDURING DEDICATION TO
PARTNERING WITH LOCAL
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
ON OUTREACH , EDUCATION, AND
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS. THEY HAVE
THIS PROVEN REPUTATION OF
ENSURING THAT DOLLARS THAT
WORKERS DESERVE GET INTO THE
POCKETS, AS WE PASSED NEW LAWS
TO PROTECT MORE WORKERS, WE
HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
CONTINUE TO BE ADEQUATELY
RESOURCED . WITH THAT, I WILL
PAUSE. I WILL HAVE MORE TO
SAY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
ENFORCING AND THE FUNDS TO
ENFORCE AS WE GO TO THE
AMENDMENT PROCESS. THANK YOU.
>> EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS OR DEBATE I WILL
TURN OVER TO KARINA. ANYTHING
TO ADD IN TERMS OF BASE
LEGISLATION?
>> FIRST OF ALL, GOOD MORNING,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, WE HAVE
HAD SEVERAL BRIEFINGS ON THIS
LEGISLATION AND I WOULD JUST
SAY, REMIND COUNCILMEMBERS
THAT IT WOULD ESTABLISH A FEE
TO RECOVER REGULATORY COSTS OF
TWO AT BASED WORKER LABOR
STANDARDS, THE DEACTIVATION
RIGHT LABOR STANDARD AND
MINIMUM PAYMENT LABOR STANDARD
, THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES WOULD
IMPLEMENT THE FEE AND ANY
REVENUE WOULD BE USED TO
RECOVER THE COST OF FAS AND OLS
WHAT IMPLEMENT THOSE TWO
LAWS. AS FAR AS THE EIGHT
AMENDMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION,
NONE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. ALL OF
THEM PASSED AND CAN BE LAYERED
INTO THE LEGISLATION. THAT
ABOUT COVERS IT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD , WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE?
>> ABSOLUTELY I WILL MOVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, THE
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE
THE FAS DIRECTOR TO
RECOMMEND A REDUCED FEE.
>> SECOND .
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
SPEAK .
>> THIS SPEAKS TO THE
RECOGNITION THAT MARKETPLACE
NETWORK COMPANIES ARE NOT
COVERED BY BOTH ORDINANCES AND
A RECOGNITION THAT THE CHARGE
TO NETWORK COMPANIES MAY NOT
ACCURATELY REFLECT THE COST TO
FULLY ENFORCE THE LAWS THEY
ARE COVERED BY. SO , AGAIN ,
THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT THE
REVENUE GENERATED BY BOTH
TYPES OF COMPANIES FOR 2024
OR 2025. THE RECOMMENDATION
WOULD NOT COME UNTIL 2026 WITH
THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD GIVE
FAS THE FLEXIBILITY TO BE
BASING THIS DECISION ON THE
ACTUAL DATE OF THEY RECEIVED
FROM OLS.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? I
THINK I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS
AMENDMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE. I
APOLOGIZE I DID NOT GET A
CHANCE TO ASK WHEN YOU ARE
BREATHING IT YESTERDAY. I AM
WORRIED IF WE ARE FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY FUNDING, AND THIS
WOULD POTENTIALLY REDUCE
FUNDING FOR MARKETPLACE NETWORK
COMPANIES IMPLEMENTATION AND
EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CAN
YOU SPEAK TO THAT CONCERN?
>> AGAIN , IT IS BASED ON THE
FACT THAT THE CURRENT
CONDITIONS FOR MARKETPLACE
COMPANIES IS, THERE IS ONLY
ONE OF THE TWO ORDINANCES THAT
THEY ARE HELD TO ADHERE TO.
MARKETPLACE NETWORK COMPANIES
ARE ONLY REGULATED BY THE
ORDINANCE RELATED TO
DEACTIVATION AND NOT MINIMUM
COMPENSATION.
>> ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? LET'S GO AHEAD AND
BRING THIS TO A VOTE. UNLESS
THERE ARE EDITABLE --
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> LEWIS?
>> YES.
>> MORALES?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN?
>> YES .
>> SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA ?
>> NO.
>> 5 IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED WITH
TWO ABSTAINING.
>> AMENDMENT ONE PASSES.
HAVING RECEIVED THE MAJORITY
VOTE, AMENDMENT ONE CARRIES AND
WILL BE ADDED TO COUNCIL BILL
120706. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN , WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO?
>> YES , THANK YOU, CHAIR. I
MOVE TO AMEND 120706 WITH
AMENDMENT 2.
>> SECOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO
AMENDMENT 2, VERSION 1?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
THIS AMENDMENT HAS A SIMILAR
UNDERPINNING AS THE FIRST
AMENDMENT . IT GOES FURTHER AND
WOULD ACCEPT MARKETPLACE
NETWORK COMPANIES FROM THE
ORDINANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
COVERED -- WE ARE NOT
REGULATING THEM FOR ALL THE
PREVIOUS ORDINANCES. BUT , IF
WE COULD HAVE STAFF GO THROUGH
IT , WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL ?
>> I APOLOGIZE, I SHOULD HAVE
DONE THAT BEFORE , HAVING YOU
MOVE THE AMENDMENT. I AM SORRY
ABOUT THAT. I WILL DO THAT
NEXT TIME, I WILL HAVE THEM
DESCRIBE THE AMENDMENT . SORRY
ABOUT THAT.
>> YES , AMENDMENT 2,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, WOULD EXEMPT
MARKETPLACE NETWORK COMPANIES
ENTIRELY FROM COVERAGE UNDER
THIS BILL. WHICH REFLECTS THE
FACT THAT THEY ARE ONLY
COVERED BY ONE OF THE TWO AT
BASED WORKER LABOR STANDARDS
THAT WOULD INCUR REGULATORY
COSTS AND THAT THE REVENUE
COULD BE USED TO SUPPORT. IF
THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS
FOR MARKETPLACE COMPANIES WOULD
BE COVERED BY NO ASPECT OF THE
BILL AND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO
COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE LICENSE
AND FEE REQUIREMENTS WHICH
MEANS THEIR PAYMENT OF THE $.10
FEE WOULD NOT EXIST AND THE
FEE REVENUE WOULD BE REDUCED
BY SOME AMOUNT, NOT CLEAR IF IT
WOULD MAKE AN IMPACT ON THE
AMOUNT OF FEE REVENUE COMING
IN, ABOUT FIVE TO SEVEN
MARKETPLACE NETWORK COMPANIES I
HAVE TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED.
IF THE REVENUE WERE NOT
SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO COVER ALL
COSTS, THE FAS DIRECTOR COULD
ADJUST THE FEE AFTER
DETERMINING WHAT WOULD BE
NECESSARY TO FULLY RECOVER
THOSE COSTS. I DID WANT TO
POINT OUT, BECAUSE THE
COMMITTEE JUST PASSED AMENDMENT
1 WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE FAS
DIRECTO TO RECOMMEND A REDUCED
FEE FOR MARKETPLACE COMPANY
THAT PROVISION COULD COEXIST
AND NOT CONFLICT WITH THIS
AMENDMENT IF THIS AMENDMENT
WERE PASSED. BECAUSE EVEN IF
MARKETPLACE NETWORK COMPANIES
ARE EXCEPTED FROM COVERAGE --
EXEMPTED FROM COVERAGE, THAT
DIRECTOR COULD RECOMMEND
ESTABLISHING A REDUCED FEE FOR
THOSE COMPANIES AND ANY
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROPOSE
THE REDUCED FEE COULD ALSO
REQUIRE COVERAGE OF MARKETPLACE
NETWORK COMPANIES. I THOUGHT
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO POINT
THAT OUT.
>> OKAY , COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN , IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
I BELIEVE CENTRAL STAFF
EXPLAINED IT VERY WELL. WE
SHOULD BE EXEMPTING THE MARKET
PLACE NETWORK COMPANIES ON THIS
BECAUSE THE PURPOSE IS TO RAISE
MONEY FROM THEIR TRANSACTIONS
TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS, BUT
THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY ALL OF
THESE LAWS, SO WHY ARE WE
PENALIZING THEM, COMPANIES LIKE
ROVER BASED IN SEATTLE, A
TOTALLY DIFFERENT BUSINESS
MODEL. I WOULD ENCOURAGE
COLLEAGUES TO EXEMPT THESE
BUSINESSES . IF WE NEED TO
ENSNARE THEM LATER, THAT COULD
BE LOOKED AT LATER. LET'S DO
AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH AND NOT
CAST TOO WIDE OF A NET BUT
UNFAIRLY CHARGING FEES TO A
COMPANY THAT ENFORCES LAWS
THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD .
>> THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT
AND THE SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT, I THINK THE
AMENDMENT THAT JUST PASSED
ADEQUATELY COVERS THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZES THAT
THERE SHOULD BE A
CONSIDERATION OF A REDUCED FEE
IN THE FUTURE. AND , BY
ELIMINATING THE FEE FROM
MARKETPLACE COMPANIES
ALTOGETHER WITHOUT POLICY-BASED
TO DO SO, THAT WOULD MEAN
CERTAIN APPS WOULD NOT PAY THE
FEE AND THAT REDUCES REVENUE
FOR OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS
AND COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS HELPING TO
ENFORCE , IN ORDER TO ENFORCE
THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND
EDUCATE WORKERS REGARDING THE
ORDINANCE THAT MARKETPLACE
COMPANIES DO HAVE TO ADHERE
TO. THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE
THERE ARE FUNDS TO ENFORCE THE
ORDINANCES AND MARKETPLACE
COMPANIES ARE COVERED BY THE
DEACTIVATION ORDINANCE . THERE
NEEDS TO BE MONEY TO COVER THAT
ENFORCEMENT . THANK YOU.
>> I WILL ADD MY SUPPORT TO
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS
NOTED AN UNDERSCORE THE FACT
THAT THE AMENDMENT PRIOR JUST
PASSED , AND IF THERE IS
CONCERN THE AMENDMENT PRIOR
WILL POTENTIALLY NOT ADDRESS
THOSE CONCERNS, AND I THINK
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT
TO KEEP IN THERE. WE HAVE
HEARD TESTIMONY FROM WORKERS
WORKING ON THESE PLATFORMS THAT
THEY HAVE ISSUES THEY WOULD
LIKE TO BE ADDRESSED. I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
PRESERVATION OF THIS AND WILL
BE VOTING NO ON AMENDMENT TWO.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> THIS ONE IS -- I AM
STRUGGLING WITH THIS. FIRST OF
ALL , IF MY AMENDMENT PASSES
TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF
THIS FEE TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE DEACTIVATION ORDINANCE ,
THAT SETTLES IT BECAUSE MARKET
PLACE COMPANIES ,
UNFORTUNATELY, ARE COVERED BY
THAT LEGISLATION. I START
THINKING, HOW WILL ELIMINATING
THE MARKETPLACE COMPANIES
FROM PUTTING INTO THIS POT OF
MONEY, HOW WILL THAT IMPACT THE
POTENTIAL RAISING OF THE FEE IN
FUTURE YEARS TO COVER THE
COSTS? HOW WILL THAT IMPACTED
OTHER COMPANIES ARE CORRECT IF
THERE ARE ONLY THREE OR FOUR,
NETWORK COMPANIES , BUT THERE
ARE MORE MARKETPLACE COMPANIES,
WHAT IS FAIR? WHO SHOULDERS
THE BURDER? THE POINT IS,
THIS IS DIFFICULT TO GAIN OUT
THE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS AND
I WILL ABSTAIN BECAUSE I NEED
TO BE THINKING ABOUT THE
IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WILL BE COMING LATER ON THIS
AGENDA. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU , COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS? WE WILL GO AHEAD AND
ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL
THE ROLE ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT TWO .
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> NO.
>> JUAREZ?
>> YES .
>> LEWIS ?
>> NO.
>> MORALES?
>> NO.
>> NELSON ?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> PEDERSEN ?
>> YES.
>> SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS ?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> TWO IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED,
ONE ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU . HAVING FAILED TO
RECEIVE THE MAJORITY VOTE, THE
AMENDMENT DOES NOT CARRY AND WE
WILL MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER THREE SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON CENTRAL
STAFF, DO YOU MIND EXPLAINING
THE AMENDMENT?
>> AMENDMENT THREE, SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, WOULD
RESTRICT THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS USE OF THE REVENUE TO
IMPLEMENT THE AT BASED WORKER
DEACTIVATION RIGHTS ORDINANCE
WHICH MEANS THAT, THEY WOULD BE
PROHIBITED TO USE THE REVENUE
TO IMPLEMENT THE AT BASED
WORKER MINIMUM PAYMENT
ORDINANCE AND ANY FUNDING TO
IMPLEMENT THAT ORDINANCE WOULD
NEED TO COME FROM OTHER SOURCES
OF REVENUE IN THE OLS BUSINESS
LICENSE TAX REVENUE AND ANY
RESOURCES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL
FUND. BEFORE THE OLS COULD
ADJUST THE FEE BY RULE IF
NECESSARY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> I MOVE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT THREE . IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> IN THE BEGINNING , THREE
AND FOUR ARE PRESENTED AS A
PACKAGE, OR THEY BOTH DEPEND
ON EACH OTHER. ANYWAY, GETTING
BACK TO THE OPENING COMMENTS OF
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , HER
COMMENTS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF ADEQUATELY RESOURCING OLS
CONFIRMS MY BELIEF THAT THE
IMPETUS FOR THIS LEGISLATION
IS TO ESTABLISH A DEDICATED
FUNDING SOURCE FOR OLS AND I
ALSO BELIEVE THAT CHARGING
BUSINESSES A FEE FOR EACH
TRANSACTION TO FUND ITS CORE
FUNCTIONS IS NOT A GREAT MODEL
TO A GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT
LIKE OLS. THE IDEA OF THIS ,
CHARGING BUSINESSES FOR DOING
BUSINESS TO FIND A GENERAL
FUND DEPARTMENT -- I AM
STRUGGLING WITH THAT ISSUE.
THIS LEGISLATION WAS ORIGINALLY
CONCEIVED AS A TAX THAT WOULD
GENERATE $2 MILLION TO THREE
MAIN DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT THE
DEACTIVATION ORDINANCE AND
ESTABLISH A RESERVE FUND TO
OLS TO USE ON DIFFERENT THINGS
. WHEN THE LEGISLATION CAME
BEFORE US , THE DEACTIVATION
ORDINANCE ITSELF, WE WERE
INFORMED THAT IT WOULD BE A
COSTLY NEW REGULATION TO
ENFORCE AND CENTRAL STAFF MEMO
ESTIMATED, I BELIEVE $1.1
MILLION PER YEAR, IT COULD
HAVE BEEN $1.3 MILLION PER
YEAR, BUT IT WOULD COME WITH
COST. THAT IS HOW WE CAME TO
BE DISCUSSING HOW ARE WE GOING
TO PAY FOR THE REGULATION. THIS
AMENDMENT THAT IS BEFORE YOU
NOW WOULD LIMIT USE OF THAT
FEE REVENUE COLLECTED TO
ENFORCE THE DEACTIVATION
ORDINANCE , AND NOT ENFORCEMENT
OF THE MINIMUM PAYMENT
ORDINANCE. IT DOES NOT PREVENT
OLS FROM IMPLEMENT IT OR
ENFORCING THE MINIMUM PAY
ORDINANCE BUT REFLECTS THE
REALITY THAT EXISTING RESOURCES
SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO
IMPLEMENT THAT ORDINANCE AND
OTHERS WHILE -- FOR WHICH OLS
IS RESPONSIBLE . TO OUR
KNOWLEDGE, OLS STAFFING HAS
NOT DECREASED DESPITE THE
AGENCY NO LONGER NEEDING TO
IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE TWO
MAJOR ORDINANCES . THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY
ORDINANCES, AND THOSE ARE THE
MINIMUM COMPENSATION ORDINANCE
AND THE DEACTIVATION RIGHTS
ORDINANCE. WHICH WERE
PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW STARTING
ON JANUARY 1st OF 2023. SOME
RESOURCES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY
DEDICATED TO ENFORCEMENT OF
THESE SIMILAR ORDINANCES CAN
BE REDIRECTED TOWARDS THE
ENFORCEMENT OF MINIMUM PAY
ORDINANCE WITHOUT NEEDING TO
INCLUDE CHARGING A FEE FOR
DEACTIVATION AND USING SOME OF
IT FOR MINIMUM PAY. ENSURING
THAT THE FEE IS NARROWLY
TAILORED TO MEET THE MOST
PRESSING NEEDS OF OLS IS GOOD
FOR SEATTLE FAMILIES AND SMALL
BUSINESSES , ENSURING THAT
CITY RESOURCES ARE BEING USED
EFFICIENTLY MEANS THAT FEES ON
PLATFORMS CAN BE LOWERED WHICH
IN TURN MEANS THE COST OF THESE
SERVICES CAN BE MORE AFFORDABLE
AND ACCESSIBLE. WE DID HEAR
IN PUBLIC COMMENT AND PUBLIC
HEARING THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT
THESE FEES WILL BE PASSED DOWN
ONTO THE CONSUMERS USING THESE
PLATFORMS. MANY PEOPLE HAVE
GROWN DEPENDENT ON THOSE
PLATFORMS. WE HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT HOW IT IS IMPACTING THE
CUSTOMER. THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
SUPPORTS LIMITING THE AT BASED
WORKER DEACTIVATION ORDINANCE .
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL
AMOUNT IN THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
THEY DO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS
GOING FORWARD AS A PACKAGE,
THESE TWO. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> THANK YOU. RECOMMENDATION
FOR THE SPONSORS DESCRIPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT. THERE ARE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AMENDMENT
. I HAVE HEARD THIS SUGGESTION
THAT STAFF ASSOCIATED WITH
ENFORCEMENT OF THE TNC
ORDINANCES COULD SIMPLY DO
THIS WORK, I WANT TO GIVE A
LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND
ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING SINCE
THE STATE WAS PREEMPTED FROM
ENFORCING THE TNC ORDINANCE
IN FAVOR OF THE STATE
ORDINANCE. IN 2022 , THE BUDGET
ADDED TWO FTEs FOR OLS TO
IMPLEMENT THE TNC ORDINANCE .
THE 2023 BUDGET ELIMINATED ONE
OF THE TWO POSITIONS. AT THE
TIME, OLS SAID THAT SINGLE
FTE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
LABOR STANDARDS AND THEY WOULD
HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY FOR
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS
SPECIFICALLY NAMED THE MINIMUM
PAYMENT ORDINANCES , ONE OF THE
PROJECTS THAT THE SINGLE FTE
WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO
COVER. IN 2023 , THE BUDGET
ADDED THREE FTEs TO OLS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM
PAYMENT ORDINANCE. WE DID WHAT
WE COULD IN 2023 , IN THE
BUDGET, BUT DID NOT MEET THE
REQUEST OF OLS IN THE
CERTIFICATION MEMO THEY
ACTUALLY, FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
THE MINIMUM PAYMENT ORDINANCE,
THEY FORECASTED THE NEED FOR
FIVE FTEs. OLS NOW ESTIMATES
NEEDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO
FULLY FUND A LIMITATION OF
THE MINIMUM PAYMENT ORDINANCE.
EVEN IF THE ONE FTE
ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THE
TNC ORDINANCE ONLY SIGNED ON
MINIMUM PAYMENT , OLS ESTIMATES
NEEDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING
AND AUTHORITY. ANOTHER SORT OF
PIECE OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHY
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TNC
ORDINANCES IS NOT IMMEDIATELY
TRANSFERABLE TO MINIMUM
PAYMENT, YOU KNOW, PART OF
THE ISSUE IS THE NUMBER OF
PLATFORMS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THERE ARE MORE PLATFORMS AND
MORE WORKERS COVERED BY
MINIMUM PAYMENT THAN UNDER
THE TNC ORDINANCE . HOPEFULLY
, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SCOPE
OF THE NEED FOR FTEs TO
ENFORCE IS LARGER. YOU CAN
TRANSFER -- YOU CANNOT
TRANSFER, JUST MOVE IT TO THE
NEW ORDINANCE, THERE IS A
DIFFERENT SCOPE OF WORK, THE
SCOPE OF WORK FOR MINIMUM
PAYMENT IS LARGER BECAUSE THERE
ARE MORE LIFEFORMS AND MORE
EMPLOYEES. -- PLATFORMS AND
MORE EMPLOYEES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON ?
>> IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME WE
PASS A REGULATION, DOESN'T
REQUIRE MORE STAFF AND
RESOURCES FLOW ? THE BOTTOM
LINE IS, WHY -- YOU KNOW --
WHY WASN'T MORE -- WHY WORK
MORE RESOURCES REQUESTED IN
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET TO
ADDRESS POTENTIAL STAFFING
NEEDS FOR ORDINANCES THAT WE
PASSED? THIS ABOUT THE FEE
CAME UP WITH TALKING ABOUT
DEACTIVATION AND IT SHOULD BE
-- ALL THE OTHER LAWS -- THEY
CAN BE ADEQUATELY STAFFED IN
DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT WE ARE
TRYING -- WE ARE CHARGING A
FEE IN THE CONTEXT, POLICY
CONTEXT, OF HAVING PASS ONE
ORDINANCE AND NOW SAYING, OKAY,
WE NEED TO PAY FOR STAFFING FOR
THESE OTHER ORDINANCES.
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING , I DON'T
FEEL LIKE I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY
WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT, THEY
CAN'T BE TRANSFERRED TO DOING
A DIFFERENT BODYWORK, WE NEED
TO GET INTO THAT MORE. IT IS A
LOT MORE CLEAR TO TALK ABOUT
WHAT THIS FEE WILL BE USED FOR
AND USED FOR THE LAW UNDER
WHICH THE IDEA OF CHARGING A
FEE CAME UP.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> THANK YOU. SO , JUST TO BE
CLEAR, OLS DID IDENTIFY A
RESOURCE NEED. NOT ONLY WHEN
WE WERE DELIVERING ON
DEACTIVATION, THEY ALSO
IDENTIFIED A RESOURCE NEED
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PASSAGE OF
MINIMUM PAYMENTS. THIS IS NOT
NEW TO DEACTIVATION. ALSO, I
WANT TO FLAG, AGAIN , IN 2023 ,
COUNCIL ADDED FUNDS TO OLS FOR
THE APPLE BASED WORKER MINIMUM
PAYMENT. THE MAYOR DID NOT
PROPOSE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
THAT OLS IMPLEMENTATION OF
MINIMUM PAYMENT AND THAT WAS
THE COUNCILS ACT TO THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET, AND I
AGREE , IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF
THERE WAS ADEQUATE FUNDING IN
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET.
THAT DOES NOT ALWAYS HAPPEN.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHY OLS HAS
THIS INDEPENDENT ABILITY ,
UNLIKE MOST EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS, THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS , THE
SEATTLE ARTS COMMISSION IS
ANOTHER ENTITY THAT HAS AN
INDEPENDENT ABILITY . THE
OFFICE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY , THEY ALL CAN
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTLY
TO US FOR ADDRESSING THEIR
RESOURCE NEEDS , PRECISELY
BECAUSE THEY ARE INDEPENDENT
AND BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR
FROM THEM OF WHAT THEIR NEEDS
ARE IN THOSE CASES THAT THERE
ISN'T SUFFICIENT FUNDING IN THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET. THAT
IS PART OF THE INDEPENDENT OF
THE AGENCY OF OLS. WHEN YOU
HEAR ME TALK ABOUT THE
SYNDICATION MEMO, THAT
CERTIFICATION MEMO IS THE
INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATION FROM
OLS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THEY ARE AUTHORIZED , UNDER
ORDINANCE , TO PROVIDE TO US
ON WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
FOR THEIR RESOURCE NEEDS.
THAT IS A HELPFUL MECHANISM
FOR US DURING OUR BUDGETING
TIME IN THOSE CASES WHERE
THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDING
IN THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET.
>> HOW MUCH DID WE ALLOCATE ? I
FORGOT IN 2023 WE GAVE MONEY TO
THE ENFORCEMENT OF MINIMUM PAY
STANDARDS . WHY DIDN'T THEY USE
THAT MONEY TO HIRE THE STAFF
THEY NEEDED?
>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING
TO EXPLAIN EARLIER, WE ONLY MET
THEM HALFWAY. WE FUNDED THREE
FTEs, THERE WAS ONE LEFTOVER
, THAT IS FOUR, THE FUNDING
INCLUDED , IN THIS FEE, WILL
MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE .
>> I WILL ASK CENTRAL STAFF TO
WEIGH IN, THE BUDGET WE
RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO OLS, A
4.5 VACANCY RATE WITHIN LABOR
STANDARDS, MEANING THEY HAD
FUNDING BUT WERE ASKED TO HOLD
BACK ON HIRING POSITIONS TO
KEEP THE DOLLARS IN POCKET
POTENTIALLY FOR USE IN LATER
YEARS. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT
A LITTLE BIT AS A REMINDER FOR
THE COUNCILMEMBERS?
>> YES , THE PROPOSED 2024
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS HAD A 4.5%
VACANCY RATE THAT WOULD
REQUIRE OLS TO HOLD AT LEAST
ONE VACANT INVESTIGATOR
POSITION OPEN SO THAT THE
OFFICE COULD USE THE FUNDING
ALLOCATED TOWARDS THAT POSITION
FOR PAYING SALARIES THAT ARE
ABOVE THE TYPICAL MIDPOINT USED
FOR BUDGETING . OLS HAS MANY
STAFF MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN
THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND
AT THE TOP OF THEIR STEP. OR
OTHERWISE HAVE SALARIES ABOVE
THE MIDPOINT. THERE WAS AN
AMENDMENT , TWO AMENDMENTS THAT
PASSED, ONE ON THE BALANCING
PACKAGE FROM THE CHAIR THAT
WOULD APPROPRIATE FUNDING TO
OLS SO THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
FILL THAT VACANT INVESTIGATOR
POSITION. THAT IS IN THE
CHAIR'S BALANCING PACKAGE.
THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET. THERE IS ALSO ABOUT
$500,000 FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
MINIMUM WORKER PAYMENT
ORDINANCE AND COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD INDICATED OLS
ESTIMATED THEY NEED ADDITIONAL
FUNDING TO HIRE TWO MORE
INVESTIGATE THIS AND THAT
ORDINANCE WOULD MAKE FUNDS
AVAILABLE FOR OUTREACH
CONTRACTS WITH COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS.
>> THAT IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE,
WHILE WE TRY TO BUILD BACK --
THERE IS CLEARLY FUNDING THAT
HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED AND THE
DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ASKED TO
HOLD BACK ON HIRING POSITIONS.
WE NEED BODIES . THAT IS AN
IMPORTANT ASPECT. I WANT TO
CLOSE THE DEBATE ON THIS,
COUNCILMEMBERS, IS THERE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE ? COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON?
>> LET'S KEEP IT SIMPLE. I
WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE FOCUS
ON ONE ORDINANCE, IT IS SO MUCH
MORE CLEAR WHAT THE NEEDS ARE
FOR. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF
THIS AMENDMENT .
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL
BE JOINING THE SPONSOR -- ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ?
>> I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
ENFORCING THE MINIMUM PAYMENT
ORDINANCE. WE HEARD FROM
STAKEHOLDERS LAST NIGHT OR
THIS MORNING , SPECIFICALLY THE
WASHINGTON BUDGET AND POLICY
CENTER, THEY WROTE US TO REMIND
US THAT WASHINGTON STATE IS
CONSISTENTLY RANKED IN THE
NUMBER ONE MOST UPSIDE DOWN
TAX CODE IN THE COUNTRY .
MEANING THAT LOW INCOME PEOPLE
PAY AN EFFECTIVE TAX RATE SIX
TIMES MORE THAN THE WEALTHIEST
WASHINGTONIANS. THE ADVOCACY
IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT ANY
ACTION AT ANY LEVEL ,
GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE VIEWED
THROUGH THE LENS OF WHAT IT
WILL MEAN FOR THE LOWEST INCOME
WASHINGTONIANS . AND THOSE WHO
HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BASED ON
RACE, IMMIGRATION STATUS, OR
IDENTITY. THAT SPEAKS DIRECTLY
TO THE IMPORTANCE OF ENFORCING
THE MINIMUM PAYMENT ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
MADAME CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROPE ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT THREE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> NO.
>> LEWIS ?
>> NO.
>> MORALES?
>> NO.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN ?
>> YES .
>> SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. THE
NEXT AMENDMENT , COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON , SHALL WE HAVE CENTRAL
STAFF SUMMARIZED THIS ITEM ,
YOU MENTIONED IT WAS SHARED
WITH THE ONE WE JUST VOTED ON .
CENTRAL STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW?
>> AMENDMENT FOUR WOULD REDUCE
THE FEE FOR NETWORK COMPANIES
FROM $.10 PER ONLINE ORDER TO
FIVE CENTS PER ONLINE ORDER.
IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY
1st OF 2025, CHANGING THE FEE
TO FIVE CENTS PER ONLINE ORDER
WOULD REDUCE ESTIMATED FEE
REVENUE TO $1.5 MILLION FOR
THAT YEAR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON ?
>> I MOVED AMENDMENT FOUR . IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> ONE MOMENT , PLEASE. JUST A
MOMENT, PLEASE.
>> WHILE WE WAIT, WE ARE
HALFWAY THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS,
AND OUR INTENT IS TO VOTE PRIOR
TO NOON, WE HAVE 40 MINUTES
LEFT. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON ?
DO YOU NEED ADDITIONAL TIME?
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
PATIENCE. THIS AMENDMENT HAS
TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF
THE FEE. BY REDUCING THE FEE TO
FIVE CENTS PER SERVICE
AMENDMENT , IT REDUCES THE RISK
THE INITIAL FEE RESULT IN
SUBSTANTIAL OVER COLLECTION.
AS THE FEE, THE CITY SHOULD NOT
BE COLLECTING MORE MONEY THAN
IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
SPECIFIC REGULATORY ACTIVITIES.
GIVEN THAT THE ESTIMATES OF AT
BAY SERVICES ARE BEING PROVIDED
BY THE CITY ARE MERE GUESSES
AND THE COUNCIL SHOULD ERR ON
ACCOUNT OF THE FEE STARTING LOW
BECAUSE IT COULD INCREASE IF
NOT ADEQUATE. NOTHING IS A DONE
DEAL BECAUSE THE DIRECTORS WILL
HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE OR
DECREASE AS NECESSARY. I THINK
STARTING OUT AT AN AMOUNT THAT
IS MORE PERHAPS CAUTIOUS
BECAUSE IT WILL IMPACT THE END
USERS OF THE SERVICES IS A
GOOD IDEA. AMENDMENT THREE
DID NOT PASS SO I WILL SKIP
THAT. THE POINT IS THAT, WE
NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT
THAT WE CAN'T JUST CREATE WHAT
WOULD END UP BEING , EVEN
THOUGH IT IS CALLED A FEE, A
RESERVE FUND TO BE USED FOR
THINGS WE ARE NOT APPROVING
RIGHT NOW. IT IS IMPORTANT . WE
NEED TO KEEP GOOD FAITH OF OUR
CONSUMERS , THE PEOPLE USING
THESE FEES, AND ALSO THE
COMPANIES THAT DELIVER GOODS
AND SERVICES TO PEOPLE THAT
NEED IT. A FIVE CENT FEE IS
MORE IN LINE WITH THE SCOPE OF
WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THEREFORE, AND WE DON'T KNOW
HOW MUCH IT WILL GENERATE IN
THE LONG RUN, LET'S START AT
FIVE AND THERE WILL BE , AS
AMENDMENT ONE NOTED, THERE WILL
BE ANALYSIS , NOT JUST ON WHO
GETS TO PAY THIS, BUT HOW MUCH
WE COLLECT . IS IT ENOUGH, TOO
MUCH? THEREFORE, WE SHOULD
START AT FIVE. THAT IS THE
RATIONALE BEHIND THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ ?
>> THANK YOU. MY HAND UP IS NOT
WORKING. IF WE REDUCE IT TO
FIVE CENTS , AND WE LOOK AT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT COMING UP WHERE
ONLY CITY COUNCIL COULD DO AN
INCREASE , WHAT WOULD BE THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? IS THAT
A PROBLEM? THEY KIND OF GO
TOGETHER.
>> I THINK THE ISSUE TO
CONSIDER IN ANALYSIS OF THE
AMENDMENTS, THE CITY DOES NOT
YET KNOW THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE
THE FEE WILL GENERATE. IF
REDUCING -- IF THE FEE IS
REDUCED TO FIVE CENTS AND IF
THAT BRINGS IN LESS REVENUE
THAN ANTICIPATED AND PERHAPS
NOT ENOUGH REVENUE TO COVER THE
REGULATORY NEEDS OF BOTH THE
ACTIVATIONS AND MINIMUM
PAYMENT, AND , IF THE AMENDMENT
WERE PASSED THAT THE ONLY
COUNCIL COULD INCREASE THE FEE
EVERY TWO YEARS , IT WOULD
DELAY AN INCREASE TO THE FEE
FOR TWO YEARS WHICH WOULD
RESULT IN THE CITY NOT
RECEIVING THE REVENUE A $.10
FEE WOULD BRING IN FOR TWO
YEARS.
>> FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> THANK YOU. I AM WONDERING
IF YOU COULD ALSO SPEAK TO THE
ISSUE THAT COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S AMENDMENT SEEKS TO
ADDRESS? I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN
A MEETING WITH THE NETWORK
PLATFORMS , IT EXPLAINED WHAT
I UNDERSTOOD THE POSITION OF
FAS TO BE, WHICH IS, THEY WILL
BE MONITORING CAREFULLY THE
COST TO ENFORCE THE
ORDINANCES. IF $.10 TURNS OUT
TO EXCEED THE COST TO ONE YEAR
, THOSE DOLLARS WILL CARRY OVER
INTO THE FUTURE YEAR AND THEY
CAN DIAL DOWN THE FEE. JUST
WONDERING IF YOU CAN CONFIRM MY
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW FAS WOULD
REACT TO A SCENARIO WHERE , AN
UNLIKELY SCENARIO, BUT ONE
WHERE $.10 WAS GENERATING MORE
THAN SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO
ENFORCE THE ORDINANCES ?
>> THE SCENARIO YOU PRESENTED
IS TRUE, THE FAS DIRECTOR
THROUGH RULE COULD VERY QUICKLY
REDUCE THE FEE TO -- IF THERE
IS MORE REVENUE THAN
ANTICIPATED, COULD REDUCE THE
FEE AND RAISE IT AGAIN ONCE
THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE
THE REVENUE AND CARRY IT
FORWARD TO A FUTURE YEAR.
SOMETHING UNKNOWN ABOUT THE
DEACTIVATION RIGHTS ORDINANCE,
EXACTLY WHAT THE VOLUME OF
WORK OR OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS WOULD BE. RIGHT NOW,
OLS IS ESTIMATING $1.13
MILLION OR SO IMPLEMENTATION ,
AS A REMINDER, THERE WAS $3.5
MILLION FOR THE DRIVERS
RESOURCE CENTER TO IMPLEMENT
THE TNC DEACTIVATION RIGHTS
ORDINANCE. IT COULD BE THAT
THE VOLUME OF INQUIRIES FOR THE
WORKER DEACTIVATION RATES FAR
EXCEED WHAT OLS IS ESTIMATING .
IF THERE IS MORE FEE REVENUE
THAN ANTICIPATED , COUNCIL
WOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE IF THE
REVENUE COULD BE APPROPRIATED
TO OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS TO
COVER UNANTICIPATED WORK. IF
THAT IS NOT THE CASE, THE
DIRECTOR COULD REDUCE THE FEE
BY RULE, WHICH CAN HAPPEN QUITE
QUICKLY BECAUSE RULES REQUIRE
A TWO WEEK NOTICE AND A COMMENT
PERIOD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> DIDN'T WE JUST VOTE ON --
I THINK IT WAS $900,000, OR
MAYBE $900,000 PLUS $500,000
TO GET GOING ON THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEACTIVATION
IN 2024 ? CAN YOU REMIND US
HOW THAT -- HOW THAT
AMENDMENT YESTERDAY THAT WE
PASSED RELATES TO THIS ?
BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT ALL OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT RIGHT NOW WILL NOT START
UNTIL 2025. BUT WE JUST
ALLOCATED A BUNCH OF MONEY FOR
ACTIONS AND WORK IN PREPARATION
FOR 2025 YESTERDAY. IT SEEMS
AS THOUGH SOME OF THE ANALYSIS
ABOUT , ALL RIGHT, DIGGING DOWN
INTO HOW MANY TRIPS ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT, WHAT ARE THE
ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE ARE
ACTUALLY GOING FORWARD AS WE
SET UP THE WHOLE THING ? WE
DON'T HAVE SOFTWARE YET. FAS
HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A LICENSING
PROGRAM. IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY
YOU WILL SET A FEE AND REDUCE
IT, AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT
MONEY? IT IS NOT REFUNDED. IT
JUST GOES SOMEPLACE. WE ARE
NOT TALKING ABOUT A COLLECTION
THAT WILL HAPPEN UNTIL 2025 ,
IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN.
>> GO AHEAD, CENTRAL STAFF .
>> THE AMENDMENT PASSED IN THE
BALANCING PACKAGE APPROPRIATED
$900,000 TO FAS, THAT WAS THE
UPFRONT FULL COST OF DEVELOPING
SOFTWARE THAT WILL BE
COMPLETED SOMETIME IN 2025.
ALSO, TO A TEMPORARY STAFF
MEMBER TO MANAGE THAT PROJECT.
$500,000 WAS APPROPRIATED TO
OLS TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE THE ACTIVE RIGHTS
ORDINANCE BEFORE IT GOES INTO
EFFECT IN JANUARY OF 2025. OLS
, IF THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES,
DOES A FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK
PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE GOING
INTO EFFECT TO HIRE AND PREP
STAFF MEMBERS AND DO OUTREACH
TO THE COMMUNITY, WORKERS AND
HIRING ENTITIES ABOUT THE
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE
NEW LABOR STANDARD. IN THIS
INSTANCE , OLS WILL RECEIVE
$500,000 AS PART OF THE
BUDGET AMENDMENT. THEY HAVE
FORECASTED THE NEED FOR MORE
MONEY TO IMPLEMENT THE
DEACTIVATION RIGHTS ORDINANCE.
WHEN THE FEE REVENUE BRINGS IN
MONEY FOR THE CITY TO USE FOR
DEACTIVATION RIGHTS, IF IT
BRINGS IN ENOUGH REVENUE, OLS
COULD GET THE FULL AMOUNT OF
WHAT THEY ESTIMATE IS NEEDED,
CLOSER TO THIS YEAR , FOR
2024, THEY WANTED $1.35 MILLION
AND AN OUTGOING YEARS THE
ANTICIPATED $1.13 MILLION , IN
2027, UP TO $1.56 MILLION PER
YEAR.
>> QUESTION ?
>> NO. IS IT KNOWN HOW MUCH
REVENUE IS GENERATED FROM
SETTLEMENTS ALSO USED FOR THE
CORE FUNCTIONS OF OLS ? IT DOES
NOT GET REIMBURSED TO WORKERS
IN THE COURSE OF ENFORCING OR
-- ENFORCING COMPLIANCE OF
OUR PREVIOUS LAWS?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD
THAT OLS BRINGS IN THROUGH
CIVIL PENALTIES THAT GO TO THE
CITY. WHAT I CAN SAY , ALL OF
THE PENALTY AMOUNTS GO TO THE
GENERAL FUND. FOR USE IN THE
GENERAL FUND, IT IS NOT
DESIGNATED TO BE USED BY OLS
AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF CIVIL
PENALTIES THAT THE OLS
ASSIGNS ARE ACTUALLY TURNED
OVER TO WORKERS . OLS CLOSES
OR RESOLVES MOST OF THE
INVESTIGATIONS THROUGH
SETTLEMENTS . OLS FIGURES OUT
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WOULD
BE OWED FOR A CIVIL PENALTY
AND ALMOST ALL OF THAT MONEY
USUALLY GOES TO THE WORKERS AND
THE DIRECTOR HAS THE DISCRETION
IN THE SETTLEMENT TERMS. IT
IS NOT RAISING MONEY THROUGH
SETTLEMENT, IT IS AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN OLS AND THE COMPANY
AND THE BUSINESS. OLS USUALLY
AWARDS MOST OF THE CIVIL
PENALTIES TO THE WORKER.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I DON'T
SEE ANYMORE HANDS. ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? SEEING
NONE, AMENDMENT ITEM NUMBER
FOUR. I WILL ALSO BE JOINING
THE SPONSOR OF THE LEGISLATION
AND VOTING NO. COULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 4?
>> HERBOLD ?
>> NO.
>> JUAREZ?
>> YES .
>> LEWIS ?
>> NO.
>> MORALES?
>> NO.
>> NELSON?
>> YES.
>> PEDERSEN ?
>> YES.
>> SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA ?
>> NO.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT DOES NOT CARRY. WE
WILL MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER FIVE , SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN .
CENTRAL STAFF, DO YOU MIND
SUMMARIZING AMENDMENT FIVE?
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, CHANGING THE
PROCEDURE FOR ADJUSTING THE
NETWORK COMPANY LICENSE FEE BY
ALLOWING OR REQUIRED THE FAS
DIRECTOR TO MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO AGGRESS TO INCREASE
THE FEE FOR TWO YEARS AND
COUNCIL ACTION WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO INCREASE THE FEE BY
ORDINANCE AND THE DIRECTOR
WOULD RETAIN THE ABILITY TO
MAKE ANY NECESSARY REDUCTION TO
THE FEE BY RULE.
>> THANK YOU MA'AM .
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE COUNCIL
BILL W AMENT COUNCIL BILL
120706 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 5.
>> SECOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
COLLEAGUES , THIS AMENDMENT
RETAINS THE AUTHORITY OF THE
FEE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. IT
SHOULD BE DONE BY ORDINANCE, BY
US, LIKE WE DO FOR OTHER FEES
THROUGHOUT THE CITY , WE
ROUTINELY HAVE THEM
TRANSPARENTLY PUT OUT ON THE
AGENDA AND HAVE IT DISCUSSED,
AND APPROVED BY US AFTER
DEBATE. THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE
SAME FEE TO GO THROUGH AN
ORDINANCE PROCESS. SECONDARILY
, RATHER THAN IT BEING AT
LEAST ANNUALLY, IT WOULD BE A
WIDE WITH OUR BUDGET PROCESS ,
EVERY TWO YEARS. THE MAIN
POINT IS TO RETAIN THAT
AUTHORITY AS THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS TO DECIDE WHAT THE
FEE IS EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMENTS ON THIS
ITEM ? COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> I WANT TO REINFORCE THE
POINT THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN MADE , COUNCIL DOES
APPROVE FEES, IN FACT , ONE OF
THE ITEMS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA
WE VOTED ON AT THE BEGINNING OF
THIS WHOLE PROCESS, A BUNCH OF
FEES FROM SDCI. I WANTED TO
SECOND THE COMMENT THAT
COUNCIL DOES THIS REGULARLY
FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> THANK YOU. A QUESTION FOR
CENTRAL STAFF, THERE ARE FEES
THAT COUNCIL IS AUTHORIZED TO
ADJUST. I BELIEVE THE PRACTICE
OF FAS, FOR THE FEES THEY TO
ADMINISTER, MY REGULATION --
RECOLLECTION IS THE AUTHORITY
ABOUT THE FEES IS GENERALLY
FAS. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT?
MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THERE
WAS CONCERN ABOUT LIMITING THE
FAS DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY IN
THIS AREA BECAUSE THE STANDARD
PRACTICE OF ALLOWING THE
DIRECTOR TO HAVE THAT
AUTHORITY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , MY
UNDERSTANDING , WITHOUT HAVING
FULLY RESEARCHED THE FEES FAS
IMPLEMENTS, FAS DIRECTOR
DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
ADJUST THOSE FEES BY RULE.
>> SO, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ,
AS A SPONSOR OF THE BILL, DOES
THAT INFORM YOUR VOTE ?
>> I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF
TAKING AWAY THE AUTHORITY THAT
FAS DIRECTOR CURRENTLY HAS TO
ADDRESS FEES.
>> OKAY. VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ?
>> THIS REVEALS A BIGGER
PROBLEM, THE CITY COUNCIL IS
THE ELECTED OFFICIAL, WE SHOULD
RETAIN THE AUTHORITY FOR THESE
FEES CHARGED EXTERNALLY, LIKE
WE DO FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS. I
AM NOT SURE WHY THE FAS
DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE SPECIAL
POWERS OVER THE ABILITY OF THE
CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE THESE
FEES. AS OF TODAY, FAS
DIRECTOR DOES NOT HAVE THIS
POWER, SO WE ARE NOT
OVERWRITING ANYTHING. WE
SHOULD LOOK INTO WHY THE FAS
DIRECTOR CAN UNILATERALLY DO
FEE ADJUSTMENTS WITHOUT
CHECKING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> I DON'T THINK YOU
MISSPOKE, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN , I WANT TO BE CLEAR,
THE COUNCIL CAN ADJUST FEES.
IT IS NOT LIKE THE FAS
DIRECTOR TAKES AWAY THE ABILITY
OF THE COUNCIL TO ADJUST FEES.
IT IS JUST THAT THE DIRECTOR
AS WELL HAS THE ABILITY TO
JUST FEES AND I WOULD NOT WANT
TO LIMIT THAT AUTHORITY. THE
COUNCIL HAS COME IN THE PAST,
IDENTIFIED FEES THAT THE
COUNCIL WAS CONCERN WAS NOT
ALIGNED WITH THE COST OF THE
REGULATION. A COUPLE YEARS AGO
I RECALL WORKING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER BURGESS ON A
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
ASKING FAS TO LOOK AT THE FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH CANNABIS
REGULATION ENFORCEMENT. AND
THEY DID AN ANALYSIS AND
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS
DUPLICATION WITH STATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THE FEES THAT
THE BUSINESSES WERE PAYING TO
THE STATE. AS A RESULT OF THE
COUNCIL FLAGGING THE NEED TO
TAKE A LOOK AT THE FEES, THEY
REDUCED THE FEES ON THE
SMALLEST BUSINESSES. IT IS A
SYSTEM THAT THE ELECTED
AUTHORITY CAN CERTAINLY STATE
HIS PREFERENCE OR DIRECT FAS
TO LOOK AT AN ISSUE MORE
CAREFULLY AND ADJUSTING THE
FEES. I WOULD NOT WANT TO TAKE
AWAY THE ABILITY OF FAS TO DO
THAT WORK.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ?
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING WE
BOTH HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
CHANGE THE FEE, THE GOOD PART
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT IS IT DOES
STILL GIVE FAS DIRECTOR THE
ABILITY TO LOWER THE FEE, IF
LOWERING THE FEET, THE DIRECTOR
COULD STILL DO THAT UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT. ONLY COUNCIL WOULD
BE THE ONE TO RAISE THE FEE SO
WE COULD HAVE A TRANSPARENT
PROCESS. THERE WAS A LOT OF
EFFORT WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO
COME UP WITH THESE AMOUNTS,
$.10. THAT SHOULD COME BACK TO
THE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, IF IT
WERE TO GO HIGHER IN THE
FUTURE. THANK YOU.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE, THE
SPONSOR OF THE LEGISLATION
NOTED, I WILL BE TURNING HER
AND ENCOURAGING A NO VOTE.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT FIVE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> NO.
>> JUAREZ?
>> YES .
>> LEWIS ?
>> NO.
>> MORALES?
>> NO.
>> NELSON ?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS ?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA ?
>> NO.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED
.
>> THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT
CARRY. AMENDMENT SIX.
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD . PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE
AMENDMENT .
>> AMENDMENT SIX WOULD MAKE
SIX REVISIONS TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY AND STREAMLINE
PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE.
IT WOULD CLARIFY REGULATORY
COSTS AND THE SCOPE AND
PURPOSE SECTION AND REMOVE THE
FAS DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY TO
SIGN THERE WERE COMPANIES TO A
MONTHLY OR ANNUAL PAYMENT
SCHEDULE MEANING THAT PAYMENTS
WOULD ONLY BE RECEIVED ON A
QUARTERLY BASIS. IT WOULD
REQUIRE OLS TO PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCE WHICH CONTRACTS WITH
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS ARE
FUNDED BY FEE REVENUE AND IT
WOULD ALSO REQUIRE OLS TO
CREATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR AWARDING A MONETARY
CONTRACT FUNDED BY FEE REVENUE
TO ENSURE THAT THOSE CONTRACTS
ARE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES
DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE. IT
WOULD REQUIRE THE FAS
DIRECTOR TO INCLUDE THE
REVENUES IN THE QUARTERLY
REPORTING TO COUNCIL AND
CLARIFY THE PENALTIES DO NOT
ACCRUE IF THE NETWORK COMPANY
ACHIEVES COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE
DATE REQUIRED ON THE FAS
DIRECTOR OF NOTICE VIOLATION.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD ?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX .
>> SECOND .
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD ?
>> THANK YOU, THAT WAS A GREAT
JOB CLARIFYING. ALL SIX ITEMS
IN THIS COMBINED AMENDMENT
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS I HAVE
HEARD FROM THE NETWORK
PLATFORM COMPANIES AND I THINK
IT DOES A REALLY GREAT JOB OF
CLARIFYING EXPECTATIONS OF THE
COUNCIL AS A RESULT -- RELATES
TO THE ABILITY OF THE FUNDS
TO BE USED SOLELY FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE TWO
ORDINANCES, AND LIMITING THE
PAYMENT SCHEDULE . AGAIN , THAT
WAS A REQUEST OF THE PLATFORM
COMPANIES. TO JUST MAKE SURE
THAT THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE WAS
QUARTERLY AND NOT A POSSIBLE
MONTHLY OR ANNUAL PAYMENT
SCHEDULE. THANK YOU.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? I WILL
BE JOINING THE SPONSOR IN
SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
SIX.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES .
>> LEWIS?
>> YES.
>> MORALES?
>> YES.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN?
>> YES .
>> SAWANT?
>> YES
>> STRAUSS ?
>> YES .
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE
OPPOSED.
>> UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION
PASSES . IT DOES CARRY AND WILL
BE INCLUDED IN THE BASE
LEGISLATION. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN , AMENDMENT NUMBER
SEVEN ? CENTRAL STAFF , PLEASE
DESCRIBE THIS .
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN WOULD
CLARIFY THE FAS DIRECTOR
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN TWO
WAYS , IT WOULD CLARIFY THAT
THE DIRECTOR MAY ONLY REQUIRE
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION FOR
LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND ALSO
CLARIFIED THAT THE DIRECTOR
MAY ADJUST THESE BY RULES BUT
OTHERWISE WOULD BE PROHIBITED
FROM ADJUSTING NETWORK COMPANY
OBLIGATIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THE
AMENDMENT ?
>> THANK YOU. I MOVED TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120706 WITH
AMENDMENT SEVEN .
>> SECOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR
MOVEMENT?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE SYMPATHY
SECONDS.
>> I AM OF STAINING THROUGH
MY SECOND.
>> COLLEAGUES UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT THE DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY
SO THEY ARE NOT CREATING
DIFFERENT AND NEW RULES BEYOND
SPECIFIED INTENT IN THE
ORDINANCE WE AS A LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH WOULD BE ENACTING. THIS
IS IMPORTANT CONSIDERING THE
EXTENSIVE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS .
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> NOT A SYMPATHY SECOND, I
INTEND TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF
THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE BEEN --
I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
-- COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
COULD YOU ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
HERE, I WILL STATE THEM,
COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT
PARTNERSHIPS WORK, FUNDAMENTAL
TO LABOR STANDARDS
INFRASTRUCTURE, IT HAS HELPED
IN FOUR PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS
AND CONTINUES TO PROVIDE
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH. IT IS
AN INDUSTRY THAT IS HARD TO DO
OUTREACH WITH LABOR STANDARDS
WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
TRADITIONAL AND A LOT OF WORK
IS NEEDED TO MAKE SURE WORKERS
GET INFORMATION THEY NEED JUST
LIKE THERE IS A NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT EMPLOYERS GET THE
INFORMATION THEY NEED. I SEE
THIS AS A WAY TO ENSURE
INFORMATION GETS OUT THERE
ABOUT RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES AND MAKING
SURE THERE IS INFORMATION
AVAILABLE. AM I SPEAKING TO
THE WRONG ONE?
>> YES.
>> TWO COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
AMENDMENTS. I WILL PAUSE AND
DOUBLE CHECK. NO OTHER COMMENTS
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN.
DID YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL
FEEDBACK ?
>> I DO NOT .
>> WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THE
CHAIR IS SUPPORTING -- EXCUSE
ME, THE SPONSOR OF THE BASE
LEGISLATION IS SUPPORTING THIS
ITEM , AND YOU HAVE ALREADY
HEARD FROM COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN . COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WANT TO SAY ? SORRY FOR THE
CONFUSION
>> NOTHING TO ADD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
OKAY , LET'S DO THIS . MADAM
CLERK , PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER SEVEN .
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> YES .
>> JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> LEWIS ?
>> NO.
>> MORALES?
>> NO.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN ?
>> YES.
>> SAWANT? COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT? COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER -- EXCUSE ME,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT? FOUR IN
FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> SORRY, I GOT DISCONNECTED,
I ABSTAINED.
>> FOUR IN WEBER, THREE
OPPOSED, TWO ABSTENTIONS.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN WILL BE
ADOPTED. MOVING ON TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT,
CENTRAL STAFF , WOULD YOU
PLEASE DESCRIBE AMENDMENT
NUMBER EIGHT ?
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN AND IT WOULD
ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS
ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACTS
THAT WOULD BE FUNDING BY FEE
REVENUE BY PROHIBITING THE
OFFICE FROM USING FEE REVENUE
TO CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS FOR
COMMUNITY-BASED ENFORCEMENT.
ALSO REQUIRING THE OFFICE TO
CONDUCT A COMPETITIVE
SOLICITATION AND SELECTION
PROCESS FOR ALL CONTRACTS
FUNDED BY FEE REVENUE
REGARDLESS OF THE VALUE OF SUCH
CONTRACTS WHICH WOULD MEAN
THAT THE CONTRACTS WOULD
REQUIRE A COMPETITIVE
INVITATION TO BID OR REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL.
>> THANK YOU. DESCRIBE
AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> I MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL 120706 WITH AMENDMENT
EIGHT.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, PLEASE GO AHEAD .
>> THANK YOU. FOR ME, THE MOST
IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THIS
AMENDMENT IS THE SECOND ONE YOU
ARE SEEING . I THINK IT IS A
GOOD PRACTICE FOR US TO HAVE AN
OPEN PROCESS IN AWARDING FUNDS
SO THAT ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- THAT THEY
GET A CHANCE TO RECEIVE THE
FUNDING . THAT IT IS NOT JUST A
DIRECT AWARD BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS BY THE DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR , SOLE-SOURCE OR
DIRECT GRANT , OR CONTRACT.
SO, BECAUSE I DO HERE CONCERNS
FROM THE CHAIR ABOUT THE
FIRST ITEM. I WOULD BE WILLING
TO DO AN ORAL AMENDMENT TO
STRIKE THAT FIRST PART SO THAT
WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE THE BEST
PRACTICE OF OPEN TRANSPARENT
PROCESS FOR SUCH CONTRACTS.
THANK YOU.
>> OPENED UP THE ORAL
AMENDMENT PROCESS. I WILL TAKE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE
GET INTO THAT POTENTIAL MOTION.
COUNCILMEMBER -- COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, JUAREZ .
>> I AM SO GLAD COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN BROUGHT THAT UP. MY
NOTES SAY , VERBAL AMENDMENT
MAY BE PERHAPS , BECAUSE I
WANTED TO SUPPORT THIS BUT HAD
A PROBLEM WITH THE FIRST PART ,
BECAUSE WE DO RELY SO MUCH ON
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ARE IN COMMUNITY AND THESE
GROUPS INFORM US , BESIDES
CITY DEPARTMENTS, WHAT IS
ACTUALLY GOING ON IN THE
COMMUNITY , ON THE GROUND, IN
LABOR PRACTICES, THAT IS HOW
MOST OF THESE VIOLATIONS ARE
FOUND , THROUGH COMMUNITY
GROUPS WHO COME TO OLS AND SAYS
THERE HAS BEEN WAGE THEFT,
WORKER THEFT, OVERTIME , AND WE
HAVE TO RELY ON THEM. I WAS
HOPING THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN , AND HE DID,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN IS
MOVING FOR A VERBAL AMENDMENT,
I WOULD SUPPORT THAT IF WE ALL
HONOR A VERBAL AMENDMENT TO
REMOVE ITEM NUMBER ONE AND
VOTED ON THE SECOND PART OF
THIS. I AM NOT SURE THE
PARLIAMENTARY THING BUT THAT IS
WHERE I AM AT.
>> I AM ASSUMING THERE ARE
ITEMS FROM OUR TEAM, I DID NOT
KNOW THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF
A VERBAL AMENDMENT AND I DON'T
KNOW IF CENTRAL STAFF HAS
TEXT. CAN I ASK CENTRAL STAFF
THE PATH. WE ONLY HAVE NINE
MINUTES UNTIL WE LOSE
COUNCILMEMBERS.
>> I DO HAVE THE AMENDMENT IN
FRONT OF ME. IT WOULD REQUIRE
CHANGING TWO SECTIONS THAT
COULD BE DONE QUICKLY IF THERE
IS AN INTEREST IN AMENDING IT
IN THIS COMMITTEE MEETING.
>> I WILL ASK THE SPONSOR OF
THE ORIGINAL BILL TO SPEAK TO
THAT. COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> THANK YOU. I AM OPEN TO THE
IDEA OF MOVING FORWARD WITH
ELEMENT 2 IN THIS AMENDMENT
IF WE'RE STRIKING THE SECTION
NUMBER 1. AND I WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT THERE IS NO
ONEROUS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH COMPETITIVE
BID PROCESS SEPARATE FROM THE
STANDARD RFP PROCESS ALREADY
IN PLACE. IF CENTRAL STAFF TO
CONFIRM, NO ONEROUS
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER
NUMBER TWO, BEYOND THE
STANDARD PROCESS, I WOULD BE
PREPARED TO SUPPORT A VERBAL
AMENDMENT. TO AMENDMENT
EIGHT, STRIKING ONE AND VOTING
IN FAVOR OF NUMBER TWO.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT I WAS
TRYING TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE
AND LISTEN AT THE SAME TIME, AS
FAR AS THE COMPETITIVE
SELECTION , OR SOLICITATION
PROCESS , WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN,
OLS WOULD HAVE TO DO THE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ANY
VALUE OF CONTRACT , IF OLS
WANTED TO CONTRACT WITH AN
ORGANIZATION FOR A SMALLER
AMOUNT, SUCH AS $50,000 OR
$25,000, WHICH MAY BE IN THE
RANGE OF WHAT THE CONTRACT
WITH SMALL ORGANIZATIONS FOR,
THEY WOULD NEED TO WAIT TO DO
THAT UNTIL THEY WERE PREPARED
TO DO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
BECAUSE THAT IS QUITE AN
EXTENSIVE PROCESS, THE WAY OLS
DOES IT, THEY FOLLOW ALL OF
THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE
REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO DO SO
AND I BELIEVE THEY HAVE
INTERVIEW PANELS. THEY HAVE AN
ENTIRE SYSTEM OR THE WAY THEY
DO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR THEIR COMMUNITY OUTREACH
AND EDUCATION FUNDS. I CANNOT
SAY HOW THEY WOULD CONDUCT THE
PROCESS FOR ALL OF THE FEE
REVENUE FUNDED CONTRACTS , BUT
IT DOES ADD ANOTHER LAYER OF
ADMINISTRATION TO THE WAY THAT
THEY WOULD CONTRACT WITH
ORGANIZATIONS. I CANNOT SAY TO
THE AMOUNT OF DELAY FOR THAT
BUT IT WOULD TAKE MORE TIME,
DEFINITELY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER -- COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, IS THAT AN OLD HAND?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ?
>> IT WAS BECAUSE OF HER
COMPELLING REMARKS ON THE ITEM
, I WANT TO MAKE THIS MOTION.
I CAN'T DO THE MOTION CORRECTLY
-- CAN DO THE MOTION
CORRECTLY. YOU CAN SEE HOW
MINIMAL THE AMENDMENT IS TO
BEGIN WITH. JUST A COUPLE OF
THINGS BEING FIXED. IN TERMS
OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS,
FAS HAS BEEN DOING THIS A LONG
TIME AND THEY HAVE BEEN AWARE
OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR A LONG
TIME , THIS IS A PART OF THEIR
PROCESS, PART OF THEIR
MACHINERY TO DO THIS. IN TERMS
OF THE TIMING OF THE FEES
GOING INTO EFFECT, CENTRAL
STAFF COULD REMIND ME, WHEN
THESE FEES GO INTO EFFECT?
>> THE FEE WOULD BE IN EFFECT
ON JANUARY 1st AND THE NETWORK
COMPANIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
START PAYING IT IN THE FOURTH
QUARTER OF -- JANUARY 1st OF
2025 AND COMPANIES WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO START PAYING IT IN
THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2025.
>> THAT IS MY POINT. THIS IS
WHAT FAS DOES A LOT OF . WHICH
IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE IT IS COMPETITIVE
AND GIVE ORGANIZATIONS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE FUNDING,
BECAUSE IMPLEMENTATION DATE IS
LATER, IT PROVIDES THE TIME.
>> WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> I AM SORRY. I AM HEARING
FROM THE EXECUTIVE THAT THE
LANGUAGE IN NUMBER TWO,
REFERENCING ANY SIZE IS
PROBLEMATIC. THAT MEANS , NO
MATTER WHAT THE FUNDS ARE FOR,
GOING OUT THE DOOR, EVEN
SMALL, $5000 GRANTS FOR MY
TRANSLATION SERVICES, THAT IS
PROBLEMATIC TO ADMINISTER. I
AM SORRY, I WAS HOPEFUL I COULD
SUPPORT THIS BUT I'M NOT.
>> I APPRECIATE THE CREATIVE
THINKING THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN , WE HAVE BEEN
DISCOURAGING HIS AMENDMENTS, I
WANT TO UNDERSCORE MY
APPRECIATION FOR YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO FIND THE COMMON
GROUND. GIVEN THAT WE DON'T
HAVE THE -- I WOULD PREFER TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH VOTING ON
YOUR COMMITMENT AS WRITTEN IN
AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT.
COLLEAGUES, THE MOTION IS STILL
IN FRONT OF US TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT. WITH
NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, I WILL
BE VOTING NO. I ENCOURAGE
OTHERS TO VOTE NO. PLEASE
CLOSE US OUT, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN .
>> THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION
. I DO WANT TO CAUTION AS, IF
WE GET TAX FROM THE EXECUTIVE
IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR
DELIBERATIONS, WE ARE
BASICALLY CEDING OUR AUTHORITY
TO ANOTHER BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT. WE ARE NOT
ALLOWING FOR BEST PRACTICE OF
A PROCESS TO ENABLE
ORGANIZATIONS. A DIRECT AWARD
OF $5000 TO AN ORGANIZATION FOR
TRANSLATION SERVICES IS
EXCLUDING OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
FROM PROVIDING THOSE SINGLE
SERVICES. THERE IS NOT AN OPEN
PROCESS. IT IS OKAY -- I AM
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT , IF WE
ARE GIVING TAX FROM THE
EXECUTIVE TRYING TO SWAY OUR
VOTES, I DON'T THINK THAT IS
GOOD PRACTICE FROM THE CITY
COUNCIL. THANK YOU.
>> I GENERALLY AGREE. I
APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL WHILE
SPEAKING WHILE OTHERS HAVE
RECEIVED TEXTS. APOLOGIES
FOR MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THERE
IS A DIVISION, I AGREE WITH THE
SEPARATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE
AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES, TRYING
TO PUT MORE OF THAT INTO
STATUTE AS WE WILL BE
DISCUSSING LATER. YOUR POINT
IS VERY WELL TAKEN. I STILL
HAVE CONCERNS, HOWEVER. COULD
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON
THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT EIGHT
.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES. SORRY, NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES .
>> LEWIS ?
>> NO .
>> MORALES?
>> NO.
>> NELSON ?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN ?
>> YES .
>> SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS?
>> NO . TO SHARE MOSQUEDA?
>> NO .
>> THREE IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT DOES NOT CARRY. WE
WILL GO ON TO THE BASE
LEGISLATION , SOME OF THESE
AMENDMENTS DID GET
>>> I APPRECIATE THE DIVERSITY
OF IDEAS BROUGHT FORWARD.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, PLEASE
CLOSE US OUT. FINAL TO FORGO
PRACTICE OF SPEECHIFYING ABOUT
SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION THAT
ONE SPONSORS IN ADVANCE OF THE
VOTE. I REALLY WANT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT TO VOTE ON
THIS LEGISLATION. WITH THAT, I
APPRECIATE YOUR CALLING FOR A
VOTE.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT?
COLLEAGUES, WE NOW HAVE THE
AMENDED ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF
US, AGENDA ITEM 22, COUNCIL
BILL 120706 AS AMENDED.
HEARING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS,
MADAME CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON COUNCIL BILL 120706 AS
AMENDED. COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD .
>> YES. COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL NUMBERLESS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> YES. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS .
>> YES. CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE BEEN -- AYE.
>> THANK YOU, THE MOTION
PASSES, THE BILL AS AMENDED
WILL BE SENT TO THE SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL VOTE.
OKAY. WE APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION AND DIALOGUE AND
POINTS WELL TAKEN ALL AROUND.
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK ON
THIS, WE APPRECIATE ALL OF IT ,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
SIGNALING THANK YOU EMOJI SO
THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANYTHING ON
YOUR END, KARINA ?
>> NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT WILL BE
EXCUSED THE REST OF THE
AFTERNOON. WITH NO OBJECTION,
EXCUSED THE REST OF THE
AFTERNOON. OKAY. IT IS MY
PREFERENCE WE CONTINUE ON WITH
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 28 , WE HAVE
ANOTHER HOUR HERE . I WANT TO
TAKE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE
ROOM TO MAKE SURE NO ONE
DESIRES TWO HOUR BREAK, WE
COULD RECONVENE AT 2:00 P.M.
BUT NOT EARLIER AS THE RULES
REQUIRE TO COME BACK AT THE
STATED TIME ON OUR AGENDA. WHAT
FOLKS LIKE TO CONTINUE THROUGH
AGENDA ITEM 22 OR HAVE AN
EXTENDED BREAK AT THIS
JUNCTURE? COUNCIL PRESIDENT ,
WHAT DO YOU THINK? I'M
THINKING WE SHOULD HAVE A
BREAK, WE HAVE EIGHT
AMENDMENTS, NOT EIGHT , I'M
SORRY, THE OTHER ITEMS. WITH
THAT BE OKAY. YEAH, THAT WOULD
BE FINE WITH ME. I WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE CAN KEEP FOLKS
UNTIL 5:00 . I THINK WE PLANNED
FOR THAT BUT I JUST WANTED TO
DOUBLE CHECK. I AM SEEING SOME
NODDING. IS ANYONE PLAYING
BINGO ? I KEEP SAYING THAT. WE
WILL DO THAT THEN IN VIEW OF
ESSENTIAL STAFF.
>> I'M CHECKING WITH MY TEAM, I
THINK THAT MEANS WE WILL RUN
THE COLLECTING WHICH WILL KEEP
STAFF HERE UNTIL 5:00 OR 5:00
-- BY:30 TO DO THAT, WE ARE
ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> WE ARE NOT TAKING ANY VOTE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE
AFTERNOON IS A BRIEFING, WE
HAVE SUMMARIZED THE REVISED
REPORT AND COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF DIRECTOR AS NOTED, I DO
WANT TO DEBATE ROBUST
DISCUSSION THE SECOND EVEN
THOUGH THERE IS NOT VOTES BUT
LOOK FORWARD TO THAT BRIEFING
AND WENT TO GET A CHANCE FOR
ALL THE SPONSORS TO DIVE INTO
THEIR ESSENTIAL PROPOSALS
BECAUSE WE WILL NOT BE
MEETING UNTIL AFTER THE
THANKSGIVING BREAK AND WE WILL
COME BACK ON THE 30th FOR VOTES
THEN. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU
ALL ARE INTERESTED IN TAKING
TWO HOUR BREAK AND WE WILL
RECONVENE AT 2:00 P.M. AND DIVE
INTO ALL THINGS BUDGET AND
REVENUE. THERE IS NO
OBJECTION. GOING ONCE, GOING
TWICE, SO BE IT, THE SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL SELECT BUDGET
COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE IN
RECESS UNTIL 2:00 P.M. HAVE A
GOOD EXTENDED BREAK AND THANK
YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR GOOD WORK
THIS MORNING.