Seattle City Council 53122

Thank you, son.

Good afternoon.

Today is May 31st at two o'clock and it's meeting of the Seattle City Council.

And will the Seattle City Council meeting please come to order?

It is two oh one and I'm Deborah Juarez.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council President Juarez.

Here.

Seven present.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry.

President at present as well.

Marguerite McLaughlin, Counselor mosquito is here right under the wire okay great now we can get started counselor mosquitoes here okay.

Marguerite McLaughlin, So we'll move on to our agenda to presentations i'm not aware of any presentations today next on our agenda is adoption.

Marguerite McLaughlin, Of the introduction and referral calendar there's no objection the introduction referral calendar will be adopted hearing and see no objection the introduction and referral calendar is indeed adopted.

Moving along on our agenda, we will move to the adoption of the consent calendar.

We will now consider the proposed consent calendar.

Are there any items that any council member would like to remove from today's consent calendar?

All right.

Hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?

Council member Herbold?

Yes.

Council member Lewis?

Council member Morales?

Yes.

Council member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council member Nelson?

Aye.

Council member Peterson?

Aye.

Council member Sawant?

Yes.

Council member Strauss?

Yes.

Council president Juarez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The consent calendar is adopted.

And will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes and the legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf.

Moving on to approval of the agenda.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing or seeing no objection, the agenda calendar is adopted.

All right.

So at this point, friends and colleagues, we'll move to the public comment period.

At this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda, introduction or referral calendar and the council's work program.

It remains a strong intent of the city council to have remote public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

However, as a reminder, The City Council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is no longer suitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and effectively.

Madam Clerk, I understand that we have 49 people signed up for public comment?

That's correct.

Great.

So our city clerk at this time, Amelia Sanchez, will moderate the general public comment period, and I will now hand it off to Madam Clerk to read the instructions.

Madam Clerk.

The public comment period for this meeting is up to 20 minutes and each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered to provide public comment on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when registered and use the ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

Please note, this is different from the general meeting list and line ID listed on the agenda.

If you do not receive an email confirmation- Thank you.

Please check your spam or junk mail folders.

Once a speaker's name is called, staff will unmute to the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that is their turn to speak and then the speaker must press star six to begin speaking.

Please begin speaking by saving your name and the item that you're addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once you hear that chime, we will ask that you begin to wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their public comment at the end of the allotted time provided, The speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via Seattle channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Our first speaker is Howard Gale.

Good afternoon.

Howard Gale with seattlestop.org commenting on our failed police accountability system.

Last week we marked the second anniversary of George Floyd's murder, a soul-shattering moment that seemed to shake local politicians from their complacency with the promises of real police accountability.

We have seen moments like this before.

In less than three weeks on June 18th will come the fifth anniversary of the SBD murder of Charlena Lyles, a pregnant mother of four young children.

Yes, the fifth anniversary, another soul-shattering moment that appeared to shake politicians awake and make the same hollow commitments to police accountability that were only to be recycled three years later after George Floyd.

We now know these expressions were hollow as they were fervent because SPD went on to kill Danny Rodriguez, Ryan Smith, Terry Kaver, Derek Hayden, and the person still unnamed on January 5th, all people suffering a mental health crisis while brandishing a knife.

This coming month, if you want to pay justice to the memory of Shalina Lyles, please act on those proclamations.

Our next speaker is Angie Gerald.

Hi, my name is Angie and I'm a small landlord in Ballard.

Please vote no on CB120325.

Seattle is losing too many small rental properties directly related to your ongoing tsunami of legislation.

As the director of UW Center for Real Estate Research pointed out in his letter to council, this approach will not yield quality data and is not recommended.

As central staff highlighted, this will require many new and ongoing costs at a time city departments are being asked to trim their budgets.

You funded a rental housing study and small landlord stakeholder group last fall that SBCI has been too overwhelmed to even get started on yet.

Numerous grassroots landlords have spoken in opposition only to be lambasted by the chair of the renter's rights committee who describes our constructive input as specious, making no sense, completely speculative and unfounded.

We are providing a dwindling number of Seattle's affordable missing middle rental housing options yet council continues to exclude us.

Please vote no, work holistically and collaboratively.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brian Rodriguez.

Hi, my name is Brian Rodriguez and I'm a Dasher based in Seattle.

I'm working to save enough to go back to school without having to depend on my parents and family.

All of us are going through a hard time right now, especially with the pandemic, rising gas prices, and inflation.

But dashing has made it possible to remain financially free, all while making it to class on time.

Not having to choose between my education and making money has made these uncertain times easier, and I want it to stay that way.

I stand before you today because I worry that the current payout proposal is problematic.

If we're trying to pass a proposal to help dashers, I'd want to know that our legislators have done everything necessary to make sure it actually does end up helping us, not hurting us.

I ask the city council to take more time to study pay up so that you better understand the consequences of the proposal before passing it.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Justin Heyer.

My name is Justin higher and I'm the director of government affairs for the same day delivery platform ships.

I'm calling to respectfully express our concerns with council bill 12 vote to 94 as drafted the ordinance risks, economic uncertainty for the local sharing economy, which is a crucial source of earning opportunities for thousands right here in Seattle.

This measure is being considered without and prior to any effort from the city to impact the, or to study the impacts, including the real possibility that it diminishes the flexible earning opportunities available to app-based workers.

as well as the number of delivery orders from local stores.

Flexibility is at the core of our effort-based approach at Shipt.

Many Shipt shoppers use our platform as a way to earn side income while ensuring they have time to pursue the things they value in life.

To this end, 75% of our shoppers choose to work less than 10 hours a week for Shipt, and the 1% who choose to work more than 40 hours a week earn, on average, more than $67,000 a year.

I think with the opportunity to respectfully express our concerns with this ordinance and explain a bit about our model, I would ask that you please heed the concerns brought up by the impacted companies as you consider this measure.

Thank you.

Our next caller is Anna Powell.

Hi.

My name is Anna Powell, and I represent DoorDash.

We are here today opposed to the pay-up ordinance.

DoorDash has supported minimum earning standards before.

But the pay-up proposal calculated at 189% of Seattle's minimum wage before TIF for an average delivery is just too high.

It will raise costs on customers by up to $5, reduce orders for merchants, and shrink earning opportunities for dashers.

This is a policy in search of a problem.

Dashers in Seattle already earn on average $28 an hour while on delivery.

Finally, DoorDash has heard from more than 16,000 of your constituents who have submitted letters asking you to halt the pay-up proposal and study its impact before passing it.

We ask that the council listen to these constituents as well as the numerous other who have weighed in on pay-ups asking for the council to pause and better understand the impacts of this proposal before passing it today.

Thank you.

Richard Colombera is our next speaker.

My name is Richard and I live in District 1. I am a personal chef and I've used Rover since 2018 to manage my sitting business on the side.

I have full control over my rates, which I believe are fair for the services I provide.

I want to share a comment today to express gratitude to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee for passing Amendments 2 and 3 On May 24th, these amendments protect me and other service providers from burdens burdensome regulations, which not reflect the type of service we provide and would not have benefited us.

I am relieved these amendments were passed and encourage you to vote yes to the bill as amended last week.

Thank you for understanding how this bill would have hurt pet sitters and responding to our calls to change it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Talisha Harold.

Hello, my name is Talisha Harold and I'm an Instacart shopper.

I'm testifying in support of the pay-up policy and ask that you pass it.

We gig workers do not desire an adversarial relationship with the gig companies.

We appreciate the opportunity they have provided and we share a common goal, serving the people of Seattle.

I'd love it if we lived in a world where businesses always did the right thing, but the reality is that gig companies will continue to pay the lowest amount possible unless you pass pay-up today.

We workers earn less than a minimum wage and exist off of tips.

Customers pay generous tips and fees and are unaware of how much they actually are contributing.

Grocery stores and restaurants pay when using the third-party app, but the gig companies don't pay.

They don't pay the Seattle minimum wage, $17.27, before tips.

It's the responsibility of gig companies to pay a fair wage before tips.

and to do so without raising weights for customers or businesses and without retaliating against workers.

I urge you to pass pay up today.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Charlotte Thistle.

I'm a homeowner who has provided affordable rental housing in my home for 15 years in Seattle and I'm leaving.

I'm leaving because the city of Seattle has taken a hostile stance to people like me who provide naturally affordable housing.

I'm going to sell my house and I'm going to move to Portland, Oregon.

Now Portland has rental regulations too, but their rules are a lot more reasonable and they have exemptions for homeowners, including homeowners with ADUs.

Alex Peterson's bill won't accomplish what it says it will.

As Council President Juarez pointed out, a University of Washington analyst testified this approach will not yield quality data.

It's just more red tape, bureaucratic hassle, and liability piled onto small housing providers who are already carrying the weight of a stunning 15 new pieces of legislation impacting us in just the last five years.

This bill won't promote affordable housing.

All it will do is appear to cater to tenants' interests without affecting any positive change.

Vote no.

Our next speaker is Brittany Jarnot.

Hi, my name is Brittany Jarnot, and I represent the Washington Technology Industry Association, a nonprofit comprised of over 1,100 member companies in Washington state.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Council Bill 120294. WTIA supports the need for app-based gig workers to make a livable wage Our members have provided you with evidence that their workers earn, on average, a wage of $25 to $30 an hour.

However, the proposed regulations, even in the amended form, will likely result in reduced demand for services in Seattle and reduced worker and local business earnings.

Without a thorough assessment of potential impacts across the city and county, we cannot support this legislation.

A statewide regulation would avoid creating winners and losers for both drivers and local businesses.

The legislation passed this year by the state legislature for transportation support companies demonstrates that this goal can be met without disrupting workers and local businesses.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brett Frank Looney.

Good afternoon.

For the record, Brett Frank Looney, third generation minority housing provider in District 2 and 3. Council Bill 120325 is another example of well-intentioned but ineffective and cumbersome policymaking.

Once again, an intensive policy without a collaborative approach with input from small housing providers.

This bill will not accomplish its goals and create more onerous regulation.

This is a blatant overreach of governmental power and, frankly, a bad approach.

It will push more mom-and-pop providers out of the market.

This permanent reduction is a direct reflection of the cues of policy decisions this council has made.

Do not let the chair of the renters' right committee misconstrued your debate.

This is a preliminary step in an attempt to pass rent control.

The chair should own this.

Rather than work with us, the chair of the Renters' Rights Committee will once again demonize small housing providers.

My input is not, quote, unfounded.

I'm a concerned constituent.

Rather than hurdle tax, council should work collaboratively with all stakeholders.

Small housing providers care about their tenants and their communities.

Again, we are asking to work with you to create effective policy solutions.

Please invite us to the table prior to advancing yet another policy that can ultimately further reduce quality affordable rentals in Seattle.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Jennifer LaKish, Our next speaker is Jennifer LaKish.

Jennifer you seem to be on mute if you can press star six.

Jennifer, we will come back to you at this point.

Oh, there you go, Jennifer.

Jennifer, we hear you.

Jennifer, please press star six one last time.

We did have you at a moment.

Dear city council members, my name is Jennifer Ligish and I'm a second generation housing provider.

I own and manage 15 housing units in the Queen Anne and Capitol Hill neighborhoods made up of single family homes and duplexes.

I'm a single woman who owns and manages these properties myself.

What you are asking for is not legal.

My leases are an agreement between my residents and myself.

Even if I had access to my residents' utility information, which I do not, they do not want this information or any data on their personal living habits and decisions given to the public or used in a study.

The amount they pay, the space they've chosen to rent, their utility usage, et cetera.

This is their private information and they have a right to it remaining private.

The fact that you say data will be analyzed by an unspecified school group is unsettling.

A professional policy organization is more experienced keeping private information safe and free of data leaks.

Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Magnolia Klee.

Hi, I'm Magnolia, and I'm a gig worker on TaskRabbit and I'm calling in support of the pay up campaign.

First of all, thank you, Councilmember Erbals, for sponsoring this ordinance and collaborating with workers to ensure that we're all protected.

All workers deserve a living wage, whether they're working in tech, medicine or the gig economy.

There are currently no protections in place in Seattle that ensure that gig workers are paid minimum wage, much less the living wage.

Therefore, Many workers providing vital services are paid far below what we should be.

Even before paying taxes and covering the cost of services like supplies and car maintenance, it's not nearly enough to pay rent and food in the city.

We're working overtime and putting ourselves in dangerous situations.

Meanwhile, apps like Uber, TaskRabbit, and Instacart are reporting huge profits, profits that should be coming to the workers in the form of decent wages.

We need city council to pass pay up now because my rent is due and I need to eat.

Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Tiffany Alvedrez.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tiffany Alvedrez, and I represent Instacart.

I'm commenting on Council Bill 120294. Instacart remains opposed to CB 120294, the payout legislation.

We've been involved in this process since Council Member Herwald shared her intent to introduce payout legislation 11 months ago.

Admittedly, the ordinance has come a long way since the beginning, but the proposal remains extremely problematic for everyone who counts on delivery platforms.

I've consistently shared that we expect an increase in cost for consumers, which in turn will mean a decrease in demand for the services offered on our platform and ultimately a decrease in earnings opportunities for shoppers.

Accessible grocery delivery is a necessity for countless unseen customers in Seattle.

While we appreciate the committee's adoption of several amendments last week, These amendments do not go far enough.

Grocery is different.

Shoppers on our platform deliver food and essentials to customers who are often unable to shop on their own for a variety of reasons, including lack of transportation, illness and disabilities and more.

This ordinance will have an unintended harmful consequence.

Our next speaker is Michelle Balzer.

Hi, thank you to Councilmember Herbold for sponsoring this bill and all the work that has gone into getting it where it is today.

We've seen all the workers share their experiences, what they need to be able to house, fed, and community involved.

This is a pivotal and exciting time for workers in the economy to finally be heard and supported.

It's huge.

Housing PF will set precedent countrywide in supporting workers and reclaiming some balance in these companies.

Seattle will be a leader and will be looked to as other cities inevitably pass similar policies.

PF needs to include Marketplace because we know all gig companies work.

They drag down pay because their model is quantity over quality.

They don't focus on insurance customers.

The workers and customers are nameless and faithless.

Over a year of discussions have laid the foundation for including all gig workers and not ensuring that pay floor and protection will only leave them more vulnerable to continued exploitation.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dee Johnson.

Hi there, my name is Deborah Johnson.

I live in Rainier Beach.

I'm here to request you vote now on CB120325.

I was a small landlord for 15 years, up until 2021 when I sold my final rental.

I've now invested into more balanced markets.

I'm also a real estate broker here in Seattle.

I had the largest influx of clients selling their investment properties last year, and they all stated concerns and frustrations over the city council's moratoriums, restrictions, laws, et cetera.

Out of my 38 sales last year, 14 were listings.

Of those listings, seven were small landlords getting away from the Seattle market.

All of those homes minus one sold to dual income buyers that will live in the home.

Seattle is losing small landlords and single-family homes due to ordinances like CB120325.

I urge you to vote no.

You are pushing small landlords out and renters are losing more affordable homes.

Do your research.

Include small landlords in conversations and resolutions before it's too late.

Our next caller is Bruce Becker.

I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I'm a small landlord.

And I'm calling in to encourage you to vote against the council bill that is asking, requiring housing providers to disclose numerous bits of information about their properties every six months.

Every six months is a tremendous burden for a small landlord like me, which means that I have to complete a report frequently and come up with all kinds of different bits of information.

about the property.

And what this does is it drives small landlords like me out.

The City of Seattle is losing thousands of rental units as a result.

And this is not really what works in the best interest of anyone.

You heard one landlord earlier today speaking about how there's a plan moved to sell property in Seattle out of state.

In the best interest of everyone please vote no against Council Bill 12325. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Shelby Hansen.

I'm Shelby, and I work for Rover, who creates a dog-eat-dog world for pet care workers.

When three council members kept us unprotected, second-class citizens being used by gig companies to line their pockets off the back of poor, disenfranchised, and disabled people, it was a smack in my face.

It's not the first time people with disabilities have not been treated with dignity or paid fairly.

Having disabilities did not mean we're allowed to be paid sub-minimum wages.

I hope the three council members who made the egregious mistake siding with the app to continue to oppress people with disabilities have it in their hearts to change their minds and not further persecute us.

All gig workers need to be included and pay up.

While dogs are insured, the Rover guarantee isn't extended to a pet sitting.

I was hurt badly and left with huge medical bills.

As a Seattle-based company, you would think Rover would treat Seattle workers better.

Thank you, Council Member Hobo, for supporting

Council President Juarez, that was our last speaker for the first 20 minutes allotted.

We have around 31 remaining public comment speakers at this time.

All right, so we will extend the public comment period for the remainder of the callers, one minute each.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Elizabeth Jackson.

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Jackson out of Seattle, Washington.

I'm at a Dasher.

I'm calling about payout.

I got diagnosed with cancer six years ago, liver.

And I told my doctor told me I couldn't work while I was a paramedic.

DoorDash came along six years ago.

I started working for them.

I'm the only one that works in my family since this epidemic.

If it wasn't for DoorDash, me and my family would be homeless.

The flexibility of this job gives me the opportunity to go to my doctor anytime he calls for my transplant.

I have to take blood work constantly.

I mean, I served my country.

I was a paramedic for 25 years.

I've saved lives all my life.

I couldn't just stop working.

With the opportunity at DoorDash, I've accomplished to keep me and my family in my home.

I can still work.

I can still see my doctor.

I don't do chemo and radiation.

I do this all straight, natural.

The grace of God, if I lose DoorDash, I don't know where I would be.

I really need this job.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kate Martin.

Kate, I see that you're on mute.

If you can press star six, please.

Kate, are you there?

Madam Clerk, maybe we can go to the next person to come back to Kate Martin.

Okay, our next speaker is Kimberly Wolf.

Kimberly Wolf.

You can press star six, please.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

To the caller who has cancer, I hope we pass this pay up because you're going to be even better off while still retaining your flexibility.

And it's those kinds of stories that we've heard so many times in crafting this legislation.

Council members, this is a chance that doesn't come around very often.

It's your chance to be for labor and for small business at the same time.

We gig workers are tens of thousands of small businesses trying to turn a profit.

And we're workers seeking basic protections.

The gig companies will tell you they can't afford it, or prices will go up, or we've already paid more than minimum, or it'll curtail flexibility, and this is the most laughable, the gig workers will get less work.

This is all complete hogwash, and I adjure you to not fall for the propaganda and misdirection.

Every gig worker who works 40 hours should be able to pay their basic bills.

No gig worker should be in a position to scrape by on sub-minimum wages while multi-billion dollar companies take advantage of vulnerable populations.

Please pass.

Our next speaker is Joel Kraft, and then we'll go back to Kate Martin.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Yes.

Hello, my name's Joelle Craft, and I work for Rover.

I'd like to thank my council member, Lisa Herbal, for bringing out this latest legislation.

Pay floor is critical.

They start us in poverty wages at Rover and then take a 25% cut of that entire amount.

If I add fees, customers will drop me because they're not expecting it.

The flexibility is critical.

As a disabled woman who is fast-tracked on disability, I need to know the location and not the area for the mileage.

I need to know the time that's allotted that the clients expect me to be there.

I need to get extra money for meds and all this other stuff, but it's all last minute.

And the reputation of the workers at Rover is on the line because they are getting such a bad reputation.

So don't throw us under the bus and know that this is not just about us, but the animals are being affected by Rover's policy.

We are humans, not resources to throw away.

Please.

We will go back to Kate Martin.

Kate Martin.

Kate, are you there?

Okay, well, let's just keep going and we'll just put Kate on the side to come back to her.

Okay, we are now at James Thomas.

Good morning.

Hello.

Hello.

Great.

Yes, thank you.

They're always willing to throw us under the bus.

You have to be super delusional to expect us to allow you an opportunity to steal more money from us as you've lately done in the past.

What?

You stole so much that you are now addicted to the thievery you did.

What are you going to reap from further delaying the payout policy for Rover and past Rabbits?

Oh, I know more billions for the truly undeserving, unneeding, greedy folk opposed to the most immediate needs of drivers who need more the most every succeeding day as prices on everyday living essentials are climbing higher and higher 24-7.

That's right.

Continue to push us to the edge of the proverbial black hole of debt and despair to make endless ends never meet.

Thank you, Lisa Herbal.

for helping us sustain this road that we travel on.

Good luck.

Our next speaker is Daniel Bannon.

Hi, my name is Daniel Bannon, speaking on behalf of the Rental Housing Association of Washington.

We represent over 5,000 small housing providers across the state, many of which are in Seattle, and I'm here today to urge you to vote no on CB120325.

This will put an unnecessary burden on every housing provider in the city to provide private information for the city's purposes.

According to a memo received by the city council, mandatory data gathering often results in inaccurate and unreliable data.

Furthermore, involving the city in private contracts between two consenting individuals is a violation of the privacy of both the housing provider and the resident.

Housing providers across the city have continually expressed a desire to work with the city to improve the market.

However, continuing to impose administrative burdens on housing providers is not going to help solve our housing crisis in any way.

Additionally, council members, RHA is concerned that this data will be used to push an anti-density agenda, and there are better ways to go about collecting data that involve partnering with the industry instead of mandatory participation.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Leif Gehring.

Good afternoon.

My name is Leif.

I am a former delivery driver for Uber Eats.

While scheduling freedom made the job strongly appealing for several years, I've decided that the drawbacks no longer make it worthwhile.

The standard fare was already low when I began in 2017, and it has effectively been cut with inflation.

Granted, Uber has recently been providing us with an extra $0.35 per trip to compensate for inflating fuel prices, but this gesture is not enough.

We need a real mileage cost accounted for, and the best way to do that is by basing mileage compensation on the IRS rate, not an arbitrary pay bump decided by Uber.

Even with this bump, many jobs would leave me with only $3 or $4 after 30 to 45 minutes.

Additionally, the exact trip, the exact tip amounts on Uber Eats are not visible until after the trip has completed, which means that I frequently have to guess if a trip is worthwhile, if a tip is worthwhile.

Requiring the tip to be visible on each trip would save drivers a lot of time with no negative consequences for Uber.

David O' And creating a pay standard wouldn't mean we no longer have to guess if we'll make enough to make a job worth it.

The pay up policy has gone through years of refinement based on the inputs of the very people it is meant to aid and it's time to make it into law.

Caroline Miller, Our next speaker is David Olman.

David Olman, Hi, my name is David.

I am a small business landlord.

I'm also disabled and The new laws that the city are passing are making it very difficult for myself or other small landlords from being able to have businesses here.

Please vote no on CB 120325 and keep protections for small business landlords such as myself.

Thank you.

Bye.

Council President Juarez, our next speaker has an interpreter, and our next speaker is Maher Nambes.

Thank you.

Were we going to let the interpreter?

So how are we going to do this?

I'm sorry.

I know we talked about this, Madam Clerk.

Can we confirm that Maher Nambes as well as the interpreter are available?

You see?

Que ningún niño se quede atrás fue aprobada con la finalidad de ayudar a los estudiantes a obtener mejores resultados académicos.

Ahora es la oportunidad que la ciudad de Seattle le demuestra a los trabajadores esenciales y a las compañías Geek Workers que nadie está por encima de la ley y que merecemos que esta ley nos proteja a todos.

Esta ley fue diseñada para protegernos No child left behind was approved

with the ultimate goal to help students achieve better academic results.

Now is the time for the city of Seattle to show essential workers and gig companies that no one is above the law and that we deserve to be protected by this law.

This law was designed to protect everyone and it's not fair that our Colleagues from TaskRabbit and Rover are left out from pay of legislation.

City Council members, we ask you to please protect all of us and to avoid loopholes so companies do not abuse their employees.

We need a pay of legislation to cover all essential workers.

Oops.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kyle Mitchell.

my name is kyle mitchell i'm a delivery partner for gopuff and i'm here to speak on behalf of passing the payout proposal the gig workers of seattle are heroes period as a delivery partner i can attest to the dangers that i take upon myself so that my customers your citizens do not have to these include traffic dangers such as unsafe streets due to inclement weather other drivers who exhibit extreme road rage drivers who think that they own the road and ignore traffic laws, or drivers who are not skilled enough to handle driving these streets and make poor choices such as taking a left turn from the right-hand lane of a three-lane road.

Then we get out of our vehicles to make our deliveries and are subject to the dangers of the people of this city.

There is a lot of desperation on the streets of Seattle.

Desperation causes people to do dangerous things.

And this is especially true when the sun goes down and we are But we have to constantly be aware of Seattle's nightlife.

Please pass this proposal and back the workers whose labor helps to keep your citizens safe.

Our labor is valuable.

The next speaker is Wei Lin.

Hi, you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Hi, this is .

So I'm working for the GOPOP as gig driver since 2020 .

When I started working on GOPOP, I have no idea what I'm facing.

I have to put 70 and 80 hours to work on the week to try to get by.

And each order only pays me $4.

And sometimes that doesn't even cover our gas.

It's a mild cost.

If this was just me fighting for this, it wouldn't have been really difficult.

But thousands of workers joined together and win this law.

And with the payout pass, we can finally have the security and make sure we can survive in this city.

So please, please listen to our voices and let this proposal pass.

Please.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Davis Obenga.

hello hello hello my name is davis obenga and i am a gig worker primarily with doordash as well as a member of the pay up campaign i want to first thank council member harvard for advocating for gig workers we appreciate your efforts currently gig workers in seattle are not making a living wage relative to the cost of living it's time for the city council to rise up to the times and enact a pay floor for us gig workers We are in the beginning of a recession.

The cost of living has gone up and the pay is not increasing.

We are still being paid less than minimum wage.

Today morning, I read a news report saying that DoorDash is removing the fuel subsidies that they enacted in order to help drivers pay for gas during the pandemic.

I found out that they are removing that extra charge, but they're still charging customers money to pay for the fuel subsidy.

This amounts to a pay cut in the middle of an economic recession.

We need the council members to...

Our next speaker is Carmen Figueroa.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

The payout policy has been written with the input of thousands of gig workers to be fair and equitable to all parties.

The payout policy takes the first few steps to recognize and respect a gig worker's humanity by demanding workers be paid a living wage.

Passing the payout policy will allow me to earn a wage in which I could thrive and flourish in society.

I am one of the thousands of people with hidden disabilities that depend on gig work to make a living.

I need and deserve to be paid on the living wage.

App companies have made millions off my labor and have no intentions of investing in me or any of their workers.

They are actively lobbying for the ability to force workers to work longer and more hours more frequently.

while keeping more and more of the profits for themselves.

I am trusting the council to pass the pay up policy with no loopholes for me and all the gig workers in Washington because we are not disposable and should not be exploited.

Thank you for your support.

Our next speaker is Jake Lindsey.

This is Jake from District 6. I've driven for these companies delivery companies since they first arrived in Seattle in 2015 when our pay was higher and our cost of living was lower.

I'm also a gig worker in other industries that are rapidly being gigified by these companies into dystopian legal relationships where the workers aren't guaranteed a minimum wage, labor rights, benefits, or on-the-job protections.

I urge the council to fill the loopholes backed by a mostly white wing of council members who have shamefully amended this legislation to let many of these companies off the hook.

These companies, like Rover, that do in theory allow us to set our own rates, in practice suppress platform search results of our services to customers if we don't follow the company's pricing guidance, which is to set our prices under minimum wage.

So the council's recent exclusion of thousands of subminimum wage workers amounts to stabbing us in the back when we're already being attacked by these companies from all sides.

We have an opportunity here to set progressive local labor standards for gig workers, other municipalities to replicate.

Let's build on the momentum of workers bravely organizing to rebuild a fighting labor movement.

Our next speaker is Brogan Thompson.

Yes, hello.

This is Brogan Thompson.

I'm a small housing provider in District 3. I have been for about 40 years.

I'm kind of on the fence on Council Bill 12325. Alex Peterson, Council Member, I've contacted you a number of times about wanting more data.

It seems like the City Council over the last few years have passed a dozen burdensome laws without enough study or research.

So I guess even, you know, Rio has some information.

You've got a lot of data.

I like the idea of partnering with the small housing providers like the Rental Housing Association.

So I guess I'm voiding to table it.

Maybe an amendment or something so you can be assured that it's proper data.

You guys have made a housing crisis into a housing chaos.

And I'm going to quit and I'm selling.

And that's all thanks to you.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Next speaker is Rich Morris.

Hi, this is Rich Morris on behalf of the Pay Up Campaign.

13 years ago, I had a stroke.

I currently work for DoorDash right now.

It's currently the only job I can do.

I need you to focus on the Pay Up Campaign to promote a more fair wage for everyone that's doing it.

Thank you for your time.

Bye.

Our next speaker is Michael Wolff.

Hi, my name is Michael Wolff.

I'm the executive director of Drive Forward, a nonprofit organization representing over 2,500 gig workers across Seattle and Washington state.

I'm here to ask that the council actually delay the vote on council bill 120294 to continue to do work on improving this legislation.

It's come a long way, but it is not quite ready.

Justin Fields , City of Boulder, We strongly believe that the current method by which pay standard is calculated result in a cap on earnings for gig workers at minimum wage and nothing more.

Justin Fields , City of Boulder, We propose a alternative method to calculate the standard that would allow the flexibility and earnings that drivers currently enjoy to continue.

Justin Fields , City of Boulder, We really urge the Council to slow down on this bill and not pass it yet and consider our proposal.

Additionally, we want to make sure that it's understood that we are ready to work on continuing to create a minimum earning standard for all gig workers, including those that have been excluded from this bill.

But we do believe that needs to be a separate piece of legislation for the marketplace network companies.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aaron Tosso.

Hello, my name is Aaron Toso, and I'm representing the Washington Coalition for Independent Work Committee.

Our coalition includes delivery network companies that provide critical services to our community.

Members of our coalition have long advocated for minimum earning standards for their industry, like those in California, and a proposed ballot measure in Massachusetts that would provide the same benefits for workers.

But this proposed legislation in Seattle pay up while well-intentioned is poorly drafted.

The Seattle City Council proposes increased costs without regard for consumers or for the impacts on small businesses and ultimately drivers themselves.

If costs for delivery services are arbitrarily driven out of reach for consumers through mandatory regulation, then everyone will be hurt, including the drivers who will lose work as consumers choose other options or simply forgo certain services.

It is disappointing that the Seattle City Council has rushed to new regulations on delivery services without studying what the economic impacts will be for small businesses and the drivers they claim to help.

We surveyed these drivers just this month and drivers who we can confirm are actually active on our platforms.

And even though that these regulations.

Our next speaker is Gordon Haggerty.

Gordon Haggerty, if you can press star six, please.

Hello, my name is Gordon Haggerty, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify today in opposition to CB120325.

I've been a housing provider in Seattle for over 50 years, and even though some on the council don't seem to believe that people like me exist let me assure you that we do even though we are currently seem to be an endangered minority you already know from your own rio data that seattle's rental housing supply is going in the wrong direction it's dwindling instead of growing and at a growing rate instead of spending money that you don't have to find out what you already know how about going to companies like zillow or redfin and contract with them to provide information that they already have about local rental markets from data that they already have.

I'm sure you will get good data from a much larger base than just real registrants.

I encourage you to really consider the fact that we are an endangered species and you need us.

Thank you.

Our next speaker just for our IT purposes is a duplicate.

And our next speaker will be calling on.

Brogan, have you spoken before?

Yes, I have.

I just signed up twice and you can strike me off.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Bye-bye.

Our next speaker is Devin Glaser.

Hi counsel.

My name is Devin Glazer.

I'm actually an attorney at the tenant law center here to speak in support of the rental registry ordinance.

I thank you for working on this bill and pushing it.

As a tenant's attorney, I speak daily to renters at the risk of eviction.

Oftentimes they're on a fixed income with a disability, social security, some other retirement, or they're working, but they haven't received a pay raise, perhaps for a gig company.

And rent keeps going up and they have no recourse.

We need much stronger rental protections in this town.

Um, it's, it's heartbreaking to talk to someone who's lived in their unit for, you know, five, 10, 15 years.

Um, and they can't afford rent increase and they end up on the street.

Um, these are very common sense, small steps.

I think we should take them.

The people complaining, saying they're small landlords, it's crocodile tears.

They can afford to give you some data.

Um, so we need this and we need a lot more because I can't, I can't handle seeing more of our long-term residents end up homeless because of unreasonable rent increases.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ryan Georgie.

Hi, my name is Ryan and I am a full-time gig worker doing DoorDash and Uber and Instacart and a couple others in Seattle.

And I'm firmly opposed to this thing.

I make very good money.

I can make anywhere from 26 to over $50 an hour sometimes doing this gig work.

And if this goes through, I think it's going to be a disaster for everyone.

It's hyperinflationary.

It's going to hurt restaurants.

Now, imagine if you're a restaurant and you're getting charged $4 more or $5 more for an order and you have to pass it on to the customer.

What are your customers going to do?

They're going to order food from out of Seattle and that's going to hurt Seattle businesses.

It's going to hurt votes for Seattle city council members.

Bad for everyone.

Okay.

and the there's been a rumor going around for dash are making plenty of money doordash lost 161 million dollars last quarter they lose every single year why do we want to hurt them you want to help them succeed so they can our next speaker is kate rubin

Hello, my name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the organizing director of the Seattle and a renter living in District 2. I'm calling in support of Council Bill 120325. There's already a massive imbalance of power between renters and landlords.

I just heard a small landlord refer to himself as an endangered minority, which is wildly disrespectful given that Black and Indigenous people of color are actually the ones being disproportionately displaced from Seattle.

We should know who we're giving thousands of dollars to for rent every month.

If the claim that affordable housing is provided by mom and pop landlords is accurate, how is providing the information to support that claim a burden?

We're talking about a few minutes out of their day twice per year.

They're not sharing any identifying information about their tenants.

The level of transparency that this ordinance would create is a small step towards leveling the playing field and preventing displacement.

Renters would be able to organize so much more easily with their neighbors and other folks who live in properties owned by the same landlord to work together to identify whether or not the landlord has a history of rent gouging, not making repairs in a timely manner, retaliation, discrimination, harassment, or intimidation.

Thank you.

Our next caller is BJ Last.

Hi, my name is BJ Last.

I'm a Ballard resident.

I'm calling in support of the pay-up proposal.

Also, pay-ups should cover all gig workers.

All gig workers deserve the right to at least minimum wage.

I'm really disappointed that council members Peterson, Nelson, and Lewis passed, you know, with the gig companies of their workers and excluded a bunch of gig workers from payout.

I guess it sort of proves the old adage, if you shoplift $7 of food from Target, you get arrested.

But if you steal millions from your workers, then governments will listen to you in drafting legislation to avoid paying workers in the future.

Our next speaker is Tiffany McCoy.

Hi, I'm Tiffany.

I'm the advocacy director at Real Change.

And I actually agree with the caller a couple ago that said we're going in the wrong direction for rental housing, but for a different reason.

We have a completely unregulated housing market.

And the folks that are selling are making a tremendous profit off of rental housing.

property that usually goes to tenants so we need to pass council member peterson's rental history rental price legislation also co-sponsored by morales and i also want to say that we need to not be carving out any workers it's your job as government to make sure that people are paid how what they deserve and you should be more worried about making sure that workers are making a living wage than you are about companies tension rising too much so let's re-get in touch with our priorities as a council and make sure to pass peterson and get rid of the loopholes in pay up our next caller is doug bambrick hello my name is doug bambrick i'm a housing provider in seattle and i

Uh, touched by some earlier phone calls, uh, that cancer survivor reminds me that we are in a, um, mayor declared state of emergency in this city.

Uh, homelessness is a real tough issue as our rising housing costs.

Um, council bill 1 2 0 3 2 5 was billed as a displacement, um, ordinance to gather information about displacement.

It was heard in the renters.

Um, rights committee where it's, it's assured to get one vote, perhaps two.

This is sadly my opinion.

I've read the ordinance.

It appears to be an attack on density.

I'm a resident of the Green Lake community.

I support urban villages.

We voted for it.

This is decided on my opinion.

I support Council Member Peterson's agenda or his right to speak.

But Queen Anne, Uptown, Admiral, Ballard, Green Lake, we love our density.

This is an attack on density.

And SDI said we cannot afford it.

It's a mess.

Our next speaker is David Haynes, and then we will go back to Kate Martin if she is available.

David Haynes.

Thank you, David Haynes, District 7. Sometimes small landlords are the worst.

They think they're entitled to pad the cost of their home, forcing renters to welfare subsidize their mortgage and lifestyle while never being professional.

One of my girlfriends was forced to carry buckets of water from the kitchen sink to the bathtub after working a full day for Kroger because the shower and bath pipes were filled with black and brown sludge.

Yet the landlord acts like a lazy person talking about he will get around to it when he gets around to it like an abusive husband.

And like he has more important things to do than taking care of real problems for renters he's ripping off.

Being abusive, unprofessional, while she's forced to be friendly because she lives in a different part of the house.

Yet the renter's rights committee doesn't protect renters from abusive landlords that overcharge for rundown rentals.

Only thing council is attempting is to make it seem small-time landlords are a benefit to community that, quite frankly, we could do without.

We simply need better choices in homes.

And no shady small-time landlords can pay their own mortgage instead of ripping off renters, being totally unprofessional, and not being held honest with renter protections.

This is more Big Bank Democrat punch-pulling.

Our last speaker present is Kate Morton.

Thank you for coming back and circling back to me.

I want to make two quick comments on two different topics.

As a small landlord, small housing provider, I think that this death of a thousand cuts to all of this legislation, the tsunami as it's referred to, has been just terrible for everybody.

I do think that you have to recognize that I'm able to provide affordable rents because I've owned my home since 1986. But I think you could quickly go to the King County Assessor and figure out when properties sell, rents go up.

You can't expect to see that when the properties have gone up 22%, you're going to see rents go up when those properties change owners.

So you might want to put that into your...

Carolyn Gallagher, Data bank that you can access that from the assessor and then, as far as this gig workers, you know, a third of Americans.

Carolyn Gallagher, I think we have to do no harm, first of all, and many of my relatives work for doordash and I just think you're hurting everyone with this legislation, so thank you for allowing me to make these.

Carolyn Gallagher, That is the end of our public comment list of present speakers.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We have reached the end of our list of callers.

So thank you, those of you that called in.

We heard each and every one of you regarding the two pieces of legislation before us today.

So the public comment period is now closed.

With that on our agenda, we will go down to committee reports.

So I understand that we have an item.

Our first item is from Council Member Sawant and Council Member Peterson from the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee.

So Madam Clerk, can you please read that item into the record?

Stapp, report of the sustainability and renters rights committee agenda and one council 120325 relating to housing and displacement mitigation.

Stapp, Expanding the information required for submission under the rental registration inspection ordinance for rental housing units require submission of rental housing related information.

Stapp, And amending chapter 22.2 14 of the Seattle in this book code, the committee recommends that the bill pass with a divided vote with Council members so want to Lewis and what Alice in favor and Council members Nelson and what is opposed.

Before we move on, I need to recognize that Council Member Lewis has joined us.

With that, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Council President Juarez.

Council Member Peterson is the prime sponsor of this legislation, so I will turn the floor over to him to introduce it.

I do have some comments, but I will wait until he has had a chance to introduce his bill.

Council Member Sawant, do you want to speak after Council Member Peterson?

And then we'll go into, okay.

Go ahead, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Chair Sawant.

Council President, may I move the bill?

Yes.

Okay, colleagues, I'd like to move passage of Council Bill 120325 on our agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

Council President Juarez, I'll go ahead and speak to it now.

Okay, thank you.

Again, thank you, Council President Juarez.

Thank you, Chair Sawant.

Colleagues, Council Bill 120325 will efficiently fill a longstanding gap in data collection and analysis for Seattle's rental housing inventory, which will generate several benefits, including key data needed to measure and prevent economic displacement of existing residents from our dynamic and growing city.

Seattle's Rental Housing Registration and Inspection Ordinance, RRIO, adopted several years ago already requires landlords to submit a list of their rental units.

And this bill would simply have property owners include that list along with rental rates, occupancy status, and square footage of each unit to a research university to compile and analyze this important data.

No personal information of the tenants would be provided.

For the past several years, our city government has lacked the level of detail needed to understand many details about Seattle's housing inventory, including the extent of affordable housing that's not subsidized, but still has below market rents, usually because that housing stock is older, what some refer to as naturally occurring affordable housing.

This legislation also follows through on our statement of legislative intent, OPCD004A001, that council adopted in November 2020. I understand that rental housing providers have had to absorb many changes and requirements over the past few years.

Yet, for us, time is running out for the simple yet vital data before we attempt to update the city's comprehensive plan that will serve as a foundation for future housing and land use policies.

The July 2019 report prepared for the City's Office of Planning and Community Development, OPCD, by the Urban Displacement Project, the University of California, titled Heightened Displacement Risk Indicators for the City of Seattle, states that a more granular and localized data set is needed to best meet the city's racial equity goals.

The Seattle market rate housing needs and supply analysis prepared for the city in 2021 stated that displacement can result from demolition of rental housing for redevelopment.

As I mentioned before, we adopted a statement of legislative intent in November 2020 that asked the executive to come back with a plan to address this data gap.

Unfortunately, the plan was not effective, merely suggesting that we hire a different private survey firm, which Dupre and Scott went out of business in 2018 Demonstrating that we probably should not be relying on private sector firm to collect data for a large city like Seattle that has dynamic changes going on with its policies.

So it's time for us to take additional steps such as requiring the data we need to mitigate and prevent displacement.

So the RRIO database already exists.

But receipt and analysis of the rental housing data will require the contracted research university to set up spreadsheets or a database to enter and sort the rental rates and other information.

I'm happy to address questions about cost.

I can touch on them briefly here, but I believe the figures in the fiscal note are very high estimates and they lack the cost effective rigor and reality of a competitive request for proposals process that will occur.

Also, we've seen the budgets of OPCD and STCI increase substantially from 2021 to 2022. During As part of the new bill that was introduced a few weeks ago, we did insert a sunset clause.

So for landlords concerned about the ongoing burden of providing a list of information that they would normally have for their own record keeping and tracking of rental revenues, this bill contains a sunset clause to end this process by December 2025. In other words, for those concerned about the bill, it's already been modified substantially by limiting the amount of time it's in effect.

While the first rounds of data may not be available for the executive departments to complete their initial draft of comprehensive planning materials, the data will be available for us, for city council members before any final decisions are made on the comp plan.

So happy to answer questions or turn it over to others.

Before I turn over to Council Member Sawant, does anyone have any questions or comments for Council Member Peterson before we let Council Member Sawant address it?

And then we'll move to Council Member Morales in a moment.

Okay, not seeing any.

Council Member Sawant, do you want to address this?

And then I believe Council Member Morales has a few items for us.

Thank you.

I support this bill and I thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing it forward.

It will be good to have more data about the rent landlords charge.

This bill simply requires landlords to disclose the rent that they charge so that policymakers can have accurate objective data.

So it is pretty ironic that in public comment, landlords have simultaneously claimed, both today and at the committee, they simultaneously claimed that they charge low rent and also objected to actually disclosing the rent they charge.

I don't buy the stated reasons by these landlords that they are opposed to collecting this data because it will be some sort of onerous burden.

It's not clear at all why it would be a burden to simply report the rent that you're already charging.

You're already doing the paperwork.

And I think it's really telling that the landlord lobby has turned out in opposition to this very straightforward and a bill that simply is about data collection.

It is not a commentary on rent in any way.

It's certainly not anything like rent control.

I think the reason is clear, more accurate and more complete data will help further confirm what every renter in Seattle and how every housing advocate in Seattle already knows.

Big landlords, and the predatory real estate markets are gouging renters with totally unconscionable rent hikes.

The cost of housing is being set by the greed of speculative banks, private equity funds, and rapacious property management corporations, rather than what it actually costs to house people.

So while the real estate barons make billions, Working people and the poor are increasingly price couched just to have a roof over their heads and are getting pushed into homelessness.

We need to strengthen all the aspects of renters' rights.

We also need strong citywide rent control and a big increase in taxes on the rich, like the Amazon tax that our movement won in 2020, to fund an increased expansion of publicly owned social housing.

This bill will...

simply stipulate that landlords have to provide information to the city about the rents that they are charging.

So I will vote yes on this legislation and I hope all council members also vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Does anyone have any questions for Council Member Sawant before we move on to Council Member Morales?

Okay, not seeing any.

Council Member Morales.

TAB, Good afternoon colleagues, thank you very much, Council President, I do have a couple of amendments, so I would like to first move amendment eight to Castle 1203 to five.

TAB, Both of these were distributed on Friday there a second.

I will grant you a second, Council Member Morales.

Thank you very much.

This amendment colleagues just adds a recital to state that the council intent with this is that this information would be public.

As we know, anything we do is public and the data itself, as many have said, is already publicly available.

I just want to cover our basis that stating that this coalition of publicly available information and its use by the city will ultimately be public either through public disclosure or via a data source like the seattle services portal so that is what we are trying to do with this thank you 30 comments for counselor morales regarding her amendment not seeing any will the clerk please call the roll on amendment a council member herbold yes council member lewis

Yes.

Thank you.

Council member Morales.

Yes.

Council member Moschetta.

Aye.

Council member Nelson.

No.

Council member Peterson.

No.

Council member Swant.

Yes.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

No.

Karen Hollweg, six in favor three opposed.

Karen Hollweg, Thank you, that was six in favor three opposed the motion carries and amendment a is adopted.

Karen Hollweg, let's move on councilor morales, I believe you have another amendment for us, please, I move to amend council bill 120325 as presented on amendment E, which was also distributed on Friday second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

So this amendment reflects some technical changes that we did receive a request for by SDCI, and it would do a couple of things.

The first is that it would set the start date for the legislation from the contract signing so that STCI has some time to kind of ramp up.

And it would also provide landlords some time to prepare for compliance of the legislation.

And then it also sets a sunset for all parts of this bill so that there's no ambiguity around enforcement of certain provisions versus others.

And that is what we have with this amendment.

Thank you, Councilor Morales.

Are there any questions or comments?

Councilor Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

I just I want to thank the collaboration with Councilor Morales and Councilor Sawant.

And this this This amendment does two different things.

I definitely support refining it so that the sunset clause is clearly in all the sections.

It will definitely make for a cleaner bill.

I am concerned a little bit with giving the department all that time because the first date when the rental information is due is in October, and we really want to get the information as soon as possible for the comprehensive plan.

I'll still support the bill if this amendment passes, but I'll be voting no on this amendment.

I just wanted to explain why, because I'm not sure the teeth exist to make sure that it's expeditiously contracted with the research university.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Peterson.

Is there anyone else before we move to a vote on the amendment?

Councillor Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that this amendment's being brought forward so that we could potentially work with the departments on some of the concerns that they have.

I will be supporting this amendment.

I still have some concerns on the underlying bill, so I'll make sure to chat about those after this implement vote, but I will be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

Okay, not, oh, Casper Herbold, I'm sorry.

Thanks.

I just want to flag, Casper Peterson, I think, addressed it in his comments, but just want to uplift a little bit more detail.

You know, in 2015, this was the first major comp plan that included what was called a displacement risk analysis.

And we have since that time used a displacement risk analysis for many of our land use decisions.

The displacement risk analysis was instrumental to Council's deliberations on the mandatory housing affordability rezones to try to minimize the likelihood that those rezones would sort of accelerate displacement.

Deryn Thomas, April 5 we all received a memo from the planning Commission on issues specific topics related to our next major COMP plan update and they wrote to us to say that we should make anti displacement policies, a focus of the comprehensive plan.

And we should do so to disrupt decades of inequitable growth patterns that led to the disproportionate displacement of BIPOC and low-income communities.

And that the major update to the comprehensive plan expected in 2024 needs to include not only anti-displacement policies as a central focus of the plan, but we should supplement knowledge shared by communities affected by displacement with improved data tracking of high displacement risk areas and the outcomes of policy actions.

And so I'm just lifting that up to say if we are going to be making a change to the date when this information is due, we we might be depriving ourselves of of useful data that will help us guide us in making some of the decisions around the major update.

So I am, for that reason, not inclined to support this amendment.

Thank you.

I have a question because I was looking at I just want to I'm going to address it to you because you brought up the anti displacement risk analysis.

That was like the heat map that we got that would say high opportunity or high displacement low.

Okay, great.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

It was high opportunity, low access, high displacement.

Okay, got it.

They did it citywide.

Okay, good.

So when we did those amendments to MHA, I remember us having to use those maps.

Okay, good.

Is there anyone else that would like to comment before we go to a vote on Amendment B?

All right.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I just want to respond.

I appreciate the comments.

I don't think anybody is as interested in anti-displacement work as I am, given the district that I represent.

So I certainly appreciate the comments.

This is really about trying to make sure that STCI has the capacity to do the work that we're asking them to do.

We know, I'm sure many of us here, about how sort of overtaxed they are and how the challenge that the department has with meeting some of the things that we're asking them to do.

So this isn't in any way an attempt to delay us getting access to really important information.

It's just a chance for us to make sure that the department is prepared to do what we're asking them to do.

So I urge your support, colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Council Member Morales, I think Council Member Herbold wasn't suggesting that you were trying to, I think we just, but making the point.

So thank you.

I'm going to thank everybody because that's what we do here.

Okay.

So with that, Madam Clerk, can we please call the roll on Council Member Morales' Amendment B?

Council Member Herbold?

No.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Moschetta?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

No.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Swant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

No.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Six in favor, three opposed.

The motion carries.

Oh, I thought it was 5-4.

That's correct, Council President Juarez.

It's five in favor, four opposed.

Oh, it's 5-4.

I'm sorry.

OK.

I thought you said 6-3.

That was last time.

OK.

So the motion carries, correct?

Correct.

OK.

So the motion carries, and Amendment B is adopted.

And the amended bill, we will move forward to now the amended bill that's in front of us.

And so Council Member Peterson, Marcella Maguire, or customers who want, which one of you will be discussing have any closing remarks before we go to a vote on that or then after that.

Marcella Maguire, My colleagues can also raise their hand if they want to speak to it.

James Meeker, I don't have any closing remarks.

Marcella Maguire, I don't either.

Marcella Maguire, Okay, Council members let's see let's start with Council member Nelson then Council member Morales.

Justice Patricia Guerrero, Well, I support the stated policy goals of preserving affordable housing and also prioritizing displacement prevention, as we deliberate on the COMP plan.

Justice Patricia Guerrero, But I don't support singling out a group of business owners to generate the data that will be using to make those decisions and that's what this legislation does to housing providers so i'll be voting no.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I just want to ask, I've been working with Council Member Peterson with this, on this legislation for some time.

So I would like to ask to be added as a co-sponsor and want to encourage support.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

I'm excited about the conversation about getting ready for the comp plan.

So I'll focus first on where I think that there's a shared common ground.

And that's a lot of excitement about the opportunity to address the housing needs in our city, both to develop new affordable housing units and to make sure that we're looking at displacement.

I think It's been well articulated already in this meeting and in previous meetings that the comp plan in front of us, both the community engagement this year, the policy development next year, and then the drafting of the policy in 2024 is a real, it's a huge opportunity to address the growing needs in our community and to also make sure that we're preventing displacement.

I think that there's a number of ways that we can currently get the data that was being sought here and really hope that we turn towards Some of the data that the director of the University of Washington Center for Real Estate Research has offered to us, they've offered to help a framework and community engagement strategies to work on getting some of the information that we might need on rental data collection and look forward to potentially working with them.

I also think that there's a huge opportunity for us to dig into the data that's currently being provided by the city and work with these external partners to really pull out from it additional information that might be needed.

My concern is the price tag still associated with this.

And thank you, Council Member Peterson, for speaking to the potential opportunity to drive down some of those costs.

And Council Member Morales, your amendment is trying to extend out the time frame, I think, may help with some of the costs.

But given that the departments have indicated via the central staff memo and the cost estimates in the fiscal note an estimated range of $2 million to $5 million in a year where we have many competing budget priorities, And a budget gap, as we've discussed, that we're going to be looking to close not just this year, but in the out years.

I want to make sure that we have a process to address the department's capacity concerns to implement a program with our existing staff, including staffing for compliance review and enforcement, customer support and communications, and IT upgrades to track.

the information that's being submitted.

I'm also interested in working to see what we can do to support the departments because they've stated a large amount of uncertainty for the amount of funding that will be needed and a hindrance in attracting qualified entry to contract with entities for the data collection.

And OPCD has also identified that there's issues with the bill's specification for the information property owners would provide and suggested various amendments that I don't see in the legislation in front of us.

Again, not being on the committee, appreciate the hard work that went into this, but at this point today, especially focused on the fiscal note and the other available data and external partners who I think can help us get some of the data that the legislative intent really speaks to.

I'm going to be voting no on this today and look forward to working with folks on that common ground that I started with.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

J.

So i'm going to share that I will not be supporting this bill today and I had a really good opportunity to talk to counselor peterson about what some of my concerns were.

J.

And obviously value the goals of looking at displacement and counselor herbal, thank you for bringing up what we were talking about in 215 and 224. with the comp plan and the anti-displacement and what tools we've already been using.

I guess for me, there's a lot of things.

I think some of this I spoke to in committee on May 20th.

I am concerned about the data.

I'm concerned about the third party possession.

I'm concerned that we have new data points.

I'm concerned what Council Member Mosqueda brought up about the budget implications and us not having a firm number about what the cost would be.

Someone threw out 2 million.

That's probably way at the high end, as Council Member Peterson shared with us earlier.

But I really am concerned about the city having additional and a burdensome new possession and production responsibilities of raw rent data pursuant to the Public Disclosure Act.

I don't know how much more we can place on OPCD and SDCI twice a year to bring forward this kind of broad data, because at the end of the day, the city will be responsible for the data, for the possession, for maintaining the data, for releasing the data.

There are no exceptions, obviously, again, under the Public Disclosure Act.

So at this juncture, in this form, I'm going to have to, unfortunately, not be able to be supportive today.

So with that, not seen any more.

Madam clerk, will you please call the role on the passage of the amended bill?

Council member Herbold?

Yes.

Council member Lewis?

Yes.

Council member Morales?

Yes.

Council member Mosqueda?

No.

Council member Nelson?

Nay.

Council member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

No.

Council Member Juarez?

No.

Five in favor, four opposed.

All right, the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the amended legislation on my behalf?

Moving on, we will go to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

The mighty Council Member Herbold.

Madam Clerk, can you please read item number two into the record?

Will do.

The report of the Public Safety and Human Services, agenda item two, Council Bill 120294, relating to app-based worker labor standards, establishing a compensation scheme for app-based workers with the minimum pay requirements and related standards for transparency and flexibility.

committee recommends the bill pass thank you councilman herbal thank you so much uh madam chair and um have some initial remarks here and i think we also have um do we have an amendment we do all right so i will with your um with your permission uh kick us off with my initial remarks thank you um so as we all know we live in a very expensive city and We also know that many app-based delivery workers earn below the minimum wage after expenses and tips are accounted for.

One platform that claims its workers receive $28 an hour after including tips and not accounting for expenses also has one of the highest numbers of employees on food stamps in all of Washington State and one of the highest numbers of employees on Medicaid in all of Washington State.

We know that app-based work is one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy with more and more workers turning to this type of work and not receiving the protections of basic labor standards.

The passage of this legislation today would help tens of thousands of delivery workers make ends meet while maintaining their flexibility.

This conversation has been almost a year in the making On June 9th, 2021, we held our first stakeholder meeting with since then a total of a dozen large stakeholder meetings followed by many additional one-on-one meetings.

I wanna thank the many participants in those efforts.

This has included representatives from DoorDash, Uber Eats, TaskRabbit, Rover, Instacart, GoPuff, SHIP, Seattle Restaurants United, workers and worker advocacy groups such as Drive Forward, Working Washington and the National Employment Law Project.

During last week's committee discussion, central staff walked us through 16 separate amendments.

The committee then voted and with one abstention and four votes in favor to recommend the bill to the full council today.

This is a testament to the hard work everyone has put into this process.

While we know there are still some app-based businesses that are concerned about the legislation, the fact is that, again, this is a very expensive city to live and work in, and if paying employees sub-minimum wage is the only way that businesses can sustain their model, there should be some consideration whether or not that business model really works.

We know that these businesses are making record revenues with DoorDash reported nearly $5 billion in revenue in 2021, up 69% over 2020. They also paid their CEO over $400 million in 2020. Uber Eats reported $5.8 billion in revenue for the fourth quarter of 2021, beating their own estimates.

And Instacart's 2021 revenue grew 10% year over year to $1.65 billion.

that company's valuation is 24 billion, up from almost 18 billion just a few months prior.

Given this, how is it that paying workers a minimum wage could be a threat to their business model?

Though I'm really disappointed that the legislation is passed out of committee protections for many app-based workers, let's remember that the legislation that council passed last June The Independent Contractors Protections Ordinance means that independent contractors that are not covered by today's bill will have access to information so that they can receive pre-contract disclosures, timely payment, and payment disclosures for services valued at $600 or more.

The Office of Labor Standards has been conducting the director's rule process this year for that bill.

And all of these protections will go into effect beginning September this year.

to the small businesses concerned about price increases.

We know that a lot of small businesses are strongly in favor of this legislation, like Seattle Restaurants United.

But for those who do still have concerns, do keep in mind that you are currently protected from price increases.

In April of 2020, the former mayor signed an emergency order that prevents app-based delivery companies from charging more than 15% of the purchase price of an order.

And I understand that council's working on drafting this policy as a council bill to extend that protection.

And I really look forward to supporting that incredibly important legislation.

Remember, every dollar in a low-wage worker's pocket adds $1.21 to the economy.

and investment in our local businesses.

And it leads to job creation, too.

Though as we heard today, the app-based platforms still have concerns, I do want to highlight the other alterations made to the bill on their request that I did support.

We reduced each of the associated cost factors, the associated time factor, and the associated mileage factor.

These are all inputs that resulted in reducing the minimum payment calculation as originally proposed.

We included a requirement that OLS, Office of Labor Standards, produce the notices of rights and translations, removing that burden from the company.

We included a requirement that allows network companies to take adverse action against a worker for fraud if that company has a fraud policy.

And we had changed the effective date of the ordinance from 12 months to 18 months.

Remember that the transportation network company legislation, dubbed fair share, was passed unanimously back in November 2019. The effective date for that legislation was January 1st, 2021. That gave them 13 months for rulemaking and for companies to adjust.

For pay up, we now have an effective date of 18 months after passage.

That's five months longer than fair share.

This gives the platforms more time to adjust, but also remember, it also means that the workers that we've been hearing from today will be waiting two years longer for the same kind of guarantees that TNC drivers are already receiving thanks to our legislation.

I have some closing remarks after hearing and a lot of thanks give, hopefully, after hearing the amendment.

But that's what I wanted to say for my opening remarks.

Thank you.

Right.

Remind me to come back to you, too, because I'll forget to do closing remarks.

Council Member Morales, I understand you have an amendment.

And even though it's labeled Amendment 17, I'm guessing it's 17 because 16 were in committee.

Okay.

I am not on that committee, so yes, but that is my understanding as well.

And I would like to move to amend Council Bill 120294 as presented on Amendment 17, which we did distribute before noon today.

Second.

Oh, you moved it, I second it.

It's been moved and seconded.

Go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Well, I did watch the committee over the weekend and it was disappointing to see workers on marketplace network companies get excluded from the policy at the last minute.

I do believe that we need to make sure that these workers are protected as well.

This amendment really expresses council intent to consider regulating marketplace network companies regarding minimum payment, flexibility, and transparency protections in separate legislation, no later than next summer, August 1st, 2023. I think it's important that we pass the pay up legislation today and continue moving forward on additional policies to protect workers in our city.

Because whether you get a job from an app or a want ad, work is work and every worker deserves basic rights like minimum wage.

So I am offering this amendment today in hopes that my colleagues will support it.

Thank you, Councilor Morales.

Are there any comments for Councilor Morales before we move to a vote on Amendment 17?

All right, not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment 17?

Council member Herbold?

Yes.

Council member Lewis?

Yes.

Council member Morales?

Yes.

Council member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council member Nelson?

Aye.

Council member Peterson?

No.

Council member Swant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Yes.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

All right.

That means that the motion carries and Amendment 17 is adopted.

And now the amended bill is before the council.

So with that, I will hand it back over to Council Member Herbold.

I was hoping to give closing remarks.

I don't know, particularly my co-sponsor, Councilmember Lewis might have some remarks as well.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I apologize.

Councilmember Lewis has his hand up too.

So who came?

I can't see.

Is it just Councilmember Lewis?

All right, Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Swann.

Thank you, Council President Juarez.

Appreciate the opportunity to briefly speak to this legislation and appreciate the partnership of Council Member Herbold in moving this forward.

This is the first in a series of measures to right-size long-standing inequities in our local economy that the introduction of gig work and app-based work has driven over the past decade of technological changes and shifts in our economy.

This legislation by no means is going to be the final word on this.

I appreciate the amendment brought by Council Member Morales putting a timeline for one aspect of future legislation, which will be looking at ways to create some level of certainty and regulation into how the marketplace apps conducted their work, but also several other pieces of legislation, including how deactivations work in this world and transparency and notice of how these pay standards impact folks who are in this gig economy.

As Council Member Morales just noted, A lot of this work increasingly is being driven not because it's new work or new types of jobs that people do, but because there are new ways to deliver them across varying business models.

This council previously moved to regulate the transportation network companies, Uber and Lyft, in that same vein.

Today we extend those regulations to delivery companies.

and soon we'll be considering other aspects in this economy and appreciate the work of Councilmember Herbold in bringing this together.

Very much appreciate the work of Camila Brown on my staff who has worked hand in hand with Alex Clardy in the Herbold office in the stakeholdering and bringing together folks.

appreciate the work and the stewardship of Working Washington in this area, as well as all of the partners from other organizations who have provided input, including representatives from the platforms and representatives from Drive Forward.

So this is the first step in continuing the mission to expand increasingly what the role and future of work is going to look like in the city of Seattle.

And I look forward to continuing this work

throughout this year and into next year and to continue to monitor this legislation as it goes into rulemaking so i appreciate the opportunity to speak to this and look forward to voting thank you um just so i make sure i got the role i got it correct i think customer sawant was next and then council member mosqueda and then council member morales and then council member nelson i'm going to write this down i apologize i kind of got it mixed up customer sawant

Thank you.

I voted yes on the amendment.

And of course, I support the legislation as a whole.

And I thank all the workers who spoke today and previously in public comment in support of legislation.

As a socialist, I have repeatedly explained in the past that big business under capitalism has enormous power and every victory of the workers movement that has been won comes under attack.

and is gradually chipped away when the movement ebbs.

The only alternative really is to fundamentally end the power that big business has to claw back every penny that workers have won and fight for global socialism.

Big business does not want to pay minimum wage, does not want to respect other worker rights.

And when we say big business is not an inanimate object, it is the billionaires, it's the multimillionaires, it's the very wealthy, the elite.

So they invent the notion of gig workers, so-called gig workers, independent contractors, and suddenly you have a whole section of the workforce where workers' rights regulations apparently do not apply.

The evolution of the gig industry is also linked in other ways to the fundamental nature of capitalism.

It is not only the reforms that have been won by workers are constantly under attack, which they are, but the gig industry also illustrates how, as the global capitalist system has gone deeper and deeper into a long-term crisis over the last decade, the billionaires and the multimillionaires have increasingly created more and more avenues to squeeze every last drop of blood from the global working class.

And that is why you see the evolution of such industries.

Now that the pay-up legislation would extend minimum wage protections to gig workers, at the last minute in committee, council members Peterson, Nelson, and Lewis passed an amendment to create a new legal fiction called so you know quote unquote marketplace network workers and no doubt more and more big businesses will redefine sorry marketplace network workers no doubt more and more big businesses will redefine themselves into that loophole really the city council should be reversing that loophole but that was not the amendment before us in the last vote i support this legislation to close the loophole in minimum wage protections created by the independent contractor's legal notion.

And I will support closing the marketplace network loophole too if council members want to do that.

The workers movement fights for better wages and that is essential.

And we also need to fight for socialism.

So we are not continually, the working class is not continually forced to fight for the right to survive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Council President.

And thanks again to Council Member Herbold and to Council Member Lewis, the co-sponsors of this legislation.

It's my...

my great privilege and pride to be able to support you in this legislation today and to continue to underscore for members of the public how long this process has been underway.

And to say that it's been coming for a long time is an understatement.

We knew that this type of legislation was needed for basic standards to protect gig workers and the concept of the pay up legislation and the campaign from community really got a lot of attention way back in 2019. And since then, gig workers, frontline workers, quote, essential workers and workers that we deem to be heroes have only since then, because of the pandemic, been put more in the spotlight in terms of the type of work they've done and more at risk to do the work that they do during this pandemic.

So I'm excited to support this legislation today and to recognize the many months, the years of hard work that went into this Erica Kaurudar, A piece of legislation and to really as well, thank the staff from the from the co sponsors Alex clarity and Camilla brown, I also want to thank central staff and name them by name.

Amy, Karina, and Jasmine.

I know that they have done a tremendous amount of work with specifically Office of Labor Standards, but many of the other departments as well to craft the legislation.

And I know, Council Member Herbold, you were saving your thank you, so I hope I'm not stepping on toes, but I know that they probably don't hear it enough.

So I do also really want to thank Sajal Parikh, my Chief of Staff, who has worked with these with the pieces of the piece of legislation in front of us through the various iterations and in close coordination with Alex and Camila, as well as members of the mayor's office and office of labor standards and the broad community, both the community of worker representatives, as well as industry representatives to further understand the implications of the bill in front of us.

So thanks to Sejal for the hard work that she did as well.

and digging into this legislation.

I will be as well voting yes, as I noted, but do want to underscore the significant reservations due to the amendments that were made in committee last week.

This legislation, it will still benefit thousands of workers.

That should be a moment where we all celebrate today.

But to be honest, we also need to at the same time recognize that the amendment that was passed in committee last week cuts out basic protections for thousands of other workers and sets a precedent that I hope will not replicate across this country.

And I appreciate the amendment that was brought forward today so that we can continue to work on this policy area.

We all know no policy is perfect, but when faced with the decisions, I think it's, you know, our belief and in my office that we always err on the side of listening to those who are on the front line, listening to those who have less power, listening to those who are in more vulnerable situations and with the lived experience of being deprioritized, whether it's on platforms or deprioritized in terms of funding and protections in state and federal law.

We need to continue to listen to those voices who have been on the front line, and we will not relinquish in our efforts to make sure that more workers are folded into these protections today.

I appreciate everyone who has continued to call in and offer robust testimony and to explain how separate policy for marketplace workers will impact them.

Looking forward to continuing this conversation throughout this year, as I know Council Member Herbold do have other pieces of legislation in the hopper and we'll look forward to the following conversations in 2023 as well as noted by the amendment.

And thanks as well for the committee members for your support for the amendment that we put forward.

Council Member Herbold and I put forward an amendment to make sure that we were looking at the implications for the budget this year and that we began a process of ensuring that there was additional conversations around drawing in revenue, especially in difficult budget years.

So I look forward to building on this legislation and to celebrating all that workers were able to accomplish today without letting our eyes off the end goal of getting more workers included as well.

So congratulations to everyone who has fought for pay up and thank you very much for all the work that you've done to incorporate so many different voices, ours included, and congratulations on the spin today.

Okay, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I am also excited for this legislation and the pieces that I know will be coming in subsequent weeks and months.

We know that there's over 40,000 workers in Seattle who depend on good work, particularly people with disabilities, people of color, immigrants, single parents, LGBTQ workers.

And these apps, while they do provide an opportunity for folks to find employment who might have challenges otherwise, they also shift all of the costs and all of the risk to workers and really leave them earning well below minimum wage after expenses.

We know that a recent report found Seattle gig workers are getting paid just $9.58 an hour.

92% of jobs pay less than minimum wage.

And we know that there has been an exploitation of a glaring loophole in our labor standards.

Simply calling workers independent contractors, these multi-billion dollar gig apps have been able to evade basic for protections and that's the problem that we're trying to solve here.

So the pay up policy that is up for vote today will close that loophole.

It will ensure basic protection for thousands of workers by ensuring that they are paid at least minimum wage with other basic protections, regardless of whether somebody is cleaning a house or delivering food.

That's the goal is to make sure that regardless of the kind of app that they're on, we are protecting workers.

and those who companies choose to call contract workers.

So I think it's an exciting day.

Seattle is leading the way by listening to gig workers, providing them what they need.

And these jobs, as I said, have the potential to be good paying jobs with important options for people who need flexibility.

I do think it's important that rather than pass fair pay costs onto consumers, These companies, some of which saw their revenue soar by close to 70%, as Council Member Herbold said, should themselves pay the true cost of labor out of their own pockets and stop the exploitive model from becoming the new norm.

I'm looking forward to supporting this, to supporting future legislation, and continuing this conversation over the next year.

I do want to thank my staff as well, Alexis Oliver and Deborah.

and Silvernail, who've been working on this with our colleagues and look forward to supporting.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I really like what you had to say.

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

I support a minimum pay standard for delivery drivers, but I've always been concerned that setting the per delivery fee too high will lower demand, which could result in the unintended consequences of reducing drivers overall income.

as well as the revenue of small businesses like restaurants.

It could also disproportionately impact the most vulnerable customers who also tend to be low income and might not be able to afford the fee.

So I'm ambivalent about this legislation, but I'll be supporting it today because it's vastly improved from the bill that was introduced most significantly by Council Member Peterson's amendment, which I supported.

to remove marketplace companies from being covered by Working Washington's proposal because I believe their inclusion was an overreach.

It made no sense to me to regulate apps used by service providers who set their own rates and negotiate directly with the customers to provide things like home health care, child care, pet care, and help with household tasks.

just because those professionals use an app to reach some of their customers.

And plus, I just really hadn't seen convincing evidence that the majority of them make under the minimum wage.

So I ran as a pragmatist and quite frankly, this proposal has a long history and I believed it would pass.

So I submitted several amendments and collaborated with my colleagues to minimize its negative impacts.

Voting no would diminish their confidence that I can negotiate in good faith to improve future legislation, whatever it is.

And so, well, that's what pragmatism is, and I'll be voting yes today.

Great.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

And I like what you said, too.

So I'm going to be supporting this, and I'll tell you why I probably should tell everyone I like what they said.

but I'll say, I'll share with you why I'll be voting yes, but Council Member Morales and Council Member Nelson kind of hit the nail on the head for me.

We have been dealing with the gig economy, and I like what Council Morales said, and I've always felt this way.

To some degree, it is a very exploitive model, and until we answer the question about whether or not a gig worker is an employee or indeed a contract worker, and we haven't addressed that straight on for the labor and for this economy and the people that actually take on these jobs.

We're going to continually piecemealing being trying to how to decide this works when we have a gig economy.

I believe we're going in the right direction, that this is the shape of things to come.

because it's a labor issue and there's a surge about people who these are their jobs.

And I think it is unconscionable that the, and I'll just say that the bigger business companies have made billions of dollars during our pandemic.

And if that's what it took, and as you know, the pandemic has taught us many lessons.

If that's what it took for us to get here, for people to recognize how much money these companies are making on people who do not have to call them employees So what we have done as a city and a lot of other cities as well is taking it upon ourselves, as we should do as elected officials, to start deconstructing this economy and making sure that the people who are on the front lines, who we're delivering food, who are doing all those things, are compensated and are taken care of because that's our job at the end of the day as government officials is to make people's lives hopefully better.

So with that, Council Member Herbal, I'll hand it over to you to do closing remarks, and then we'll call on the clerk to call the roll.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate my colleagues' excitement for the vote that we're about to take.

In closing, I just want to read a couple sentences from the May 10th letter to council from the National Employment Law Project.

They start talking about the history of the minimum wage.

I quote, the New Deal legislation excluded domestic, agricultural, and tip workers from the wage protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

It systemically denied Black people and workers of color the ability to earn the wages guaranteed to workers in industries dominated by white workers.

And the legacy of this injustice continues today.

More recently, venture capitalists running app-based businesses deny workers the minimum pay and benefits that should be universal.

As the city council itself recognized, Black and Latinx workers comprise a disproportionate share of the 40,000 individuals performing app-based work in Seattle.

The fact that app-based workers are disproportionately immigrants and people of color reflects on the racialized exploitation within the app-based delivery and marketplace industry.

Indeed, the app-based gig economy writ large functions on occupational segregation.

Companies can get away with offering Poor quality, unsafe jobs where workers have virtually zero legal protections on the job because for so many workers, there is simply no alternative.

Far from offering economic opportunity, this business model deepens the desperation of underpaid Black, Latinx, and other workers of color who have been shunted to the bottom of the economy.

In closing, in addition to the stakeholder process I talked about earlier, the pay policy package has been discussed six times in a council committee, my council committee, since July of 2021. I am just so honored to have had the opportunity to work with this growing workers movement who are determined to not be left behind.

There's significant support for this legislation, including from the Seattle Restaurants United, a coalition of more than 240 small restaurant owners and operators, the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, One America, Puget Sound Sage, the Somali Community Services, Al Noor Islamic Community Center, El Centro de la Raza, Casa Latina, Asian Counseling and Referral Service, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, the National Employment Law Project, SCIU 775, SCIU 6, the Transit Riders Union, and the Labor Standards Advisory Commission.

We will continue our work with additional legislation to cover issues such as restaurant access, anti-discrimination, background checks, deactivation, and the creation of an advisory board.

And I will continue to work with all stakeholders on the development of these policies.

I want to thank council members and their staff, specifically my co-sponsor, Councilmember Lewis, and Camila Brown from his office.

I also want to thank the Office of Labor Standards, specifically Karim Levitas and Lane Middaw.

I want to recognize the hard work of Council Central staff, specifically Karina Bull, Amy Gore, and Jasmine Marwaha.

Finally, I want to thank Alex Clardy in my office.

His work has been the driving force for the development of this legislation, and I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart.

for his time, diligence, and attention to detail.

I hope we can vote yes on this really important legislation today.

Thank you.

Councilor Herbal, thank you for, I normally don't do a bunch of thanks, but I really want to thank you and your staff and central staff.

I know what it's like to get 16 amendments and try to accommodate and keep them all moving.

So thank you and thank you and your staff and Alex and central staff and all the folks that did what they did.

We got a running list of what the amendments were, which ones were passed, which people abstained, how people voted.

So thank you very much for this hard work.

Okay.

So with that, Madam Clerk.

Will you please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill?

Council member Herbold?

Yes.

Council member Lewis?

Yes.

Council member Morales?

Yes.

Council member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council member Nelson?

Aye.

Council member Peterson?

Yes.

Council member Salant?

Yes.

Council member Strauss?

Yes.

JoAnne Hanrahan- Council President Morris.

Yes.

JoAnne Hanrahan- Nine in favor, none opposed.

JoAnne Hanrahan- yay Thank you, the bill passes as amended and the Chair will sign it will the Clerk please fix my signature to the amended legislation, thank you.

Okay, moving on in our agenda to the adoption of other resolutions, there are no other resolutions for introduction and adoption today, so we will go to let's see.

Other business customer herbal understand you have a presentation for us today, you want to go ahead and take the floor.

Not a presentation just gathering signatures today i'm sorry not presentation or proclamation for for signatures correct.

Perfect.

Yes.

Okay, go ahead.

So my office circulated the Elder Abuse Awareness Day proclamation last Wednesday.

This is at the request of the Human Services Department and the mayor is concurring.

The proclamation recognizes Seattle's participation in the Seattle King County Elder Abuse Multidisciplinary Team to address cases involving elder abuse or neglect.

It calls upon the people of Seattle to increase awareness of elder abuse issues, support community connections for older people that reduce the likelihood of abuse, and learn the signs that abuse may be occurring.

If you are concerned about an elder you believe is being abused, you can find confidential and professional resources by calling 1-866-END-HARM.

Elder Abuse Awareness Day is on June 15th.

We're requesting signatures now to help the Human Services Department meet an early print deadline.

Many thanks to the Council President's Office for allowing us to not collect signatures at full council.

There's no presentation plan, but it will be shared broadly with community members in HSD's Aging and Disability Services Division.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I see Councilor Mosqueda has her hand up.

Oh, thank you.

I will wait until after the names are called if that is next for the proclamation, because I just have an announcement to make before we leave committee.

Oh, we're not.

Yeah, we got a ways to go, but you kind of had your hand up there.

So I thought you were going to thank some people, but we're good.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there any comments for Council Member Herbold regarding proclaiming June 15th, 2022 to be Elder Abuse Awareness Day in Seattle?

All right.

Not seeing any and not seeing any further discussion.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on who would like to affix their signature to this proclamation?

Council member Herbold?

Yes.

Council member Lewis?

Yes.

Council member Morales?

Yes.

Council member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council member Nelson?

Aye.

Council member Peterson?

Aye.

Council member Sawant?

Yes.

Council member Strauss?

Yes.

Council president Juarez?

Aye.

Nine signatures will be affixed to the proclamation.

Thank you.

Um, so I'm going to ask if there's any other business and then I believe Councilor Muscata has something, and then we're going to go into executive session.

Councilor Muscata.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Madam president and colleagues, uh, and to members of the public.

I just wanted to make sure that folks got the notice that the city clerk says just have just sent out as well.

Uh, we, uh, we're scheduled to have a finance and housing committee meeting tomorrow on June 1st at 9 30 AM.

That meeting is being rescheduled to Thursday.

June 9th at 2 p.m.

There will be information published about the agenda coming out here from the city clerk's office soon.

But just as by way of reminder, we'll have the Office of Housing Director appointment for Michael Winkler-Chin first up on the agenda.

Then we will have the Office of Housing, Race and Social Justice report, as well as the City Budgets Office Race and Social Justice report.

Again, that meeting is going to be June 9th at 2 p.m., So appreciate your flexibility, colleagues and members of the community.

If you were interested in participating or listening in to that committee meeting instead of tomorrow, June 1st, it will be on June 9th, Thursday, 2 p.m.

Thanks so much, Madam President.

And thanks to the clerks for their flexibility in sending that out.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilor Mosqueda.

So with that, hold up, don't anyone go anywhere.

So we are going to move into the executive session.

So let me read the statement first so we can get the time right.

We will now move into the executive session.

As presiding officer, I'm announcing that the Seattle City Council will now convene into executive session.

The purpose of the executive session is to discuss pending potential actual litigation.

Council's executive session is an opportunity for the council to discuss confidential legal matters with city attorneys as authorized by law.

A legal monitor from the city attorney's office is always present to ensure the council reserves questions of policy for open session.

I expect the time of the executive session to be at least 20 minutes total.

If the executive session is to be extended beyond the 20 minutes, I will announce the extension and the expected duration.

At the conclusion of this executive session, the city council meeting will be adjourned.

next regularly scheduled city council meeting is scheduled for monday i'm sorry tuesday june 7th at 2 o'clock p.m with that we will move into executive session you

you