AN ORDINANCE approving and adopting the Master Labor Agreement negotiated by and between King County and the King County Coalition of Unions representing employees in the departments of adult and juvenile detention, community and human services, elections, executive services, judicial administration, information technology, natural resources and parks, permitting and environmental review, public defense, public health and transportation and the assessor, council, district court, superior court, sheriff's office and office of the prosecuting attorney; and establishing the effective date of the agreement.
Little more than four decades at the county. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate you offering your expertize here. All right. We will turn now to our second major item of today's meeting, and that is the proposed dates, items six and seven on the agenda, actually proposed ordinance 2018 0138 and 0178 pertaining to the Master Labor Agreement . We've had a number of intermediary briefings as this project has gone along and we had a first major briefing on the proposed legislation at the last committee of the hall. Heidi Piper is our central staffer who's been leading the work on this. And we also sent out an email, I think, to colleagues to try and facilitate today's review, because there are some 60 attachments. That we. Were seeking not to go through 60 attachments. We wanted members to be able to look at those and bring any of that they had questions on. So hopefully you all received the e-mail. I know you received the email. Hopefully you've had a chance to take a look at it and and have any questions answered. But we are going to go through the ones that are somewhat unique. Is that right, Heidi? Correct. The 12 substantive proposed append is very good. The other thing that I asked central staff to do and there was a handout here that Heidi helpfully prepared, was to look at our standing labor policies. And those are listed in a chart on the left with a description in the middle column and then ask, does the master labor agreement and its appendices comport with these policies ? So the there was some indication perhaps at the last minute that they were inactive or what was the word dormant. And I think we've learned they're not dormant and we want to make sure that we're following the adopted labor policies or if we're not, make sure that we're aware of that and make a decision. Heidi, thank you for your good work on this. Why don't you what have I messed up there? Oh, nothing. Well, that was the first. All right, why don't you go ahead? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Heidi, publisher, council staff. And as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, at the last meeting or the committee of the whole on April 18th, Council staff brief council members on proposed Ordinance 2018 0178 by providing overview of the substantive articles of the Master Labor Agreement or MLA and the proposed changes in the King County Code and Proposed Ordinance 2018 0138 that would require non represented King County employees to adhere to similar provisions in the MLA. In addition to the superseding and non superseding articles of the MLA and proposed ordinance 2018 0178. The MLA includes 60 appendices that represent the small table agreements negotiated individually, covering 85 bargaining units in the Coalition. So I will go ahead and brief the Committee on the 12 proposed ordinance or excuse me, proposed and appendices to the MLA that have substantive changes. And those can be found on page 45. And I will start with appendix three. Appendix three to the MLA represents 36 man. Jurors and supervisors and the Department of Public Defense. The proposed appendix would provide pay range increases for mitigation supervisors and auto stop increases for supervisor attorneys. And the fiscal impact of this appendix would be approximately $52,000. And is that per year or biennium? And over the term of the contract. Classification, the position classification, as I understand it, with the supervisors, they would receive two range increases for each year. So for 2018 and for 2019 and then the mitigation supervisors would receive two range increase and one of those years. Okay. Councilmember Lambert has an inquiry. Yes. Thank you. First of all, he said page 43. 45. Okay. And then also in the first section, because there's a lot of paperwork here. Back on page 29, Article two, there's no change on this. But yesterday we found out that the way our contract cities are contracted with the sheriff, that they have specific duties, number of officers, response times. You know, that's a violent unit, whatever units they want, as how they are handled in the city of the unincorporated area. It just number of officers we have left over. And one of the problems that we've had is that most of the cities do not have as long a military leave as what the county gives. And so when a person is assigned to a contract city, which is 56% of the county's sheriff's budget, they are moved into the unincorporated area budget, and that counts against the officers in the unincorporated area. So I am concerned that this is a cost that we are much well, I don't know that we are apparently over what the cities do, and that has an impact on the distribution of manpower in our sheriff's department. So I'd like to flag that and figure out how much over are we so that we can be more in line with our surrounding cities and not have that problem in the future. Mr. Chair, if I could jump in just a second. And to that point, Councilmember Lambert, where's that. Voice coming from? Oh, good. Okay. The body voice. That's The Wizard of Oz. Really? The two things I would point out about that is there are there are some unique there are some unique leaves and types of absences available to employees within the sheriff's department. And there are also specific provisions in the services contract between the county and the cities that delineate some of the items you just brought brought up . However, neither the sheriff's contract nor the contracts with the cities are a part of this ordinance that's in front of the council now. So we can certainly bookmark those items, but they're not impacted by this legislation. I don't understand how that could be possible. So the very reason that they are moving is because our contract gives more benefits. So I understand that as long as they stay within their benefits, it makes no difference. But when they go over the benefits of City X, because I don't want any cities calling me and saying, don't , don't use me as an example. So City X and then they end up coming into the unincorporated area budget. So that's this this provision is what causes that to happen? No, no, no, Councilmember. This provision applies just to the agreement between the county and the coalition of unions that are covered by this agreement. Which is not the sheriff's department, because they have their own office. Exactly. Which is not the sheriff's office and the items. I'm not saying that the items you're bringing up are not legitimate issues, but they're in two other places. They're in the sheriff's contract itself or in the contract between King County and the in the the cities that we contract with to provide. And we don't expect that the sheriff's office will ever sign onto this to a master agreement or because they are what's the word they are. Where you can go to court automatically. Interest arbitration. Trust arbitration because they're interest arbitration. They won't be signing a non interest arbitration contract. Correct. Okay. So as we look at those other contracts in the future, we need to take that into consideration because it is an issue that I didn't even realize until a couple of months ago. Okay. It's not an issue in this legislation or agreement. All right. Go ahead, Heidi. Okay. I think we were actually on page. Page. 45. 45. Okay. Moving on to appendix ten, which would represents 31 staff who work in King County Sheriff's Office as security. Green Earth. The proposed appendix would increase the P ranges of two position classifications to address internal equity concerns. This would have a approximately a $47,000 annual fiscal impact. Moving on to appendix 15 on page 46, it's the Joint Craft Council. Construction, Crafts and Labor Agreements. This appendix represents 191 employees and a number of construction craft bargaining unit working in the airport row services and facilities management divisions. Also, the construction craft bargaining units have negotiated additional provisions in addition to the MLA provisions that are described in Appendix 15. And I would like to draw your attention to on page 47, Appendix B to Appendix 15. It's for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 289. This proposed in the appendix would increase the premium for mechanics who hold either an American Welding Society or Washington Association building official certification. So that premium would increase from $1 to $2.17 to match the premium that the other bargaining units within this appendix will receive. Moving on to appendix 19 on page 48. This appendix represents 28. Dental assistants and dental hygienist employed by Public Health in Seattle, King County. This would provide for a range wage range adjustment for dental assistants to bring them up to the King County salary schedule due to the wage increase provisions in their current CBA or collective bargaining agreement. It was not aligned with the county's salary wage schedule, so this proposed appendix would bring them up to align with the county's salary, wage or wage schedule. Moving on to appendix 22 on page 49. This appendix represents nine court reporters. And I have to ask a question on page 49. Under the dental folks, what are what are, what are perplexing services? That is the great question. I will call on my colleague, Mr. Kim. Just a chance for some education here. I am Andrew Kim with counsel, central staff. This is you're proposing is is when they can find a patient to do procedures so that whenever they do a procedure and if they move that it won't injure the patient. So essentially when they use nitrous oxide or the nitrous oxide is not does not fully sedate the patient, they use a what's called the Papoose board. And it sounds like a bad day in the day. Yeah, it's mostly for it's mostly for for children. And they need a special training to to put those restraints on. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Ed, I don't know where you learned that, but. Wow. We may have to put Councilmember Lambert here. All right. Okay. So appendix 22 for the court reporters in the King County Superior Court. This appendix would increase the real time reporting premium for court reporters. Currently, the reporters receive a if they receive a courthouse test certification for real time reporting. They would receive two and a half percent over the current collective bargaining agreement, premium to a total of 5%. And then if they receive a national certification for real time reporting, they would receive an additional two and a half percent, totaling seven and a half percent in premium pay. The executive proposed or estimates this cost for implementing this will cost approximately $25,000. Moving on to appendix 36 at the bottom of 49 and carries over to page 50. This MLA or appendix represents five fire investigators who work in the King County Sheriff's Office. This would include an education incentive, incentive payment for fire investigators and based on the years of service. If you look on the on page 50, you'll see a table that shows the amount of years of service based on the degree attained and that dictates that the percentage of your premium that you would receive. The executive estimates this costs will be about, oh, to implement, this will be about $23,000. Moving on to appendix 38, which is also on page 50. This represents 74 employees that are legal administrative specialists in the Department of Judicial Administration. These would the appendix would increase the wage ranges for several classifications. This would result in approximately $238,000 in increased costs. Moving onto appendix 39 on page 51. This appendix represents 78 employees working in the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. This is also a would increase the ranges, salary ranges of a number of employees. And due to the executive conducting a wage rate market analysis for each of the positions in this bargaining unit, the estimated costs would be about 105,000. Moving on to appendix 48, this appendix represents 348 employees in the Department of Public Defense. This proposed appendix would increase wages for investigators and create a la auto stop increases for attorneys, and this would result in an estimated cost of $652,000. Which one was that? Appendix 48 for the Department of Defense. Property Defense. Get me on to appendix 49. Appendix 49 represents 44 employees in the Department of Community and Human Services. This appendix is. Going to back you up on the $650,000 items that per year. This is just for 2018. Okay. The cost for 2018. And then that's the new base. Yes. Yes, yes. Could. Could. I'd like to understand a little bit more about this. Is this for under our parity principle with the prosecutors, is there anybody here from that worked on this item? Yeah, I would defer to executives. I. Well, okay. Come come forward. Yeah. And Jenny, do you are you coming forward on this item. To the. Version? Okay. Good morning. Megan Peterson with the Office of Labor Relations. This was a pretty complex set of negotiations. It was very much overshadowed by the feeling of the bargaining unit, that there is a lack of parity. There is a both a code, an ordinance, as well as the court rules that establish the need for a public defense and the prosecutors to have parity. So, yes, this was one of the driving principles for these increases. I don't know about the court rules requiring compensation parity. I think they addressed staffing levels. Are you sure about that? I believe they are. It doesn't go into compensation, but it does talk about the need to look at parity. Councilmember Gossett and then Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that around about eight years ago, we had begun an effort to bring public defense of the parity with the prosecution attorneys office. And I'm surprised that we're just now getting to say investigators. What was the group of other investigators? An attorney. Yeah, but we had talked about investigators, secretaries and other support staff and public defense and were way behind prosecutors to get equity. And I hope this comes close to it. But I did have a question on an attorney. We are establishing a step increase system. Does the prosecuting attorneys have steps down? Yes. That's as a. Person. Yes. Oh, they have. Right. Yeah. And my colleague Mr. Railton did remind me that the 652,000 actually relates just to the investigators. So those are the increases related to the investigators pay. What we did with the with the actual attorneys is we opened a gateway to allow them to progress, but there is nobody actually waiting to that will be benefited by that in this contract cycle. So I guess to address your question, what about future contract? I just want to know, is it parody with the prosecuting attorney? Do they have steps? They do have steps. And then this will allow public defenders to have steps. They already had steps they want. What did we do? So we allow the the attorneys who are kind of bumping up against the senior ranks to move into a senior into the senior status and to be eligible for additional pay. But this in this contract, there are no individuals or no incumbents who will actually enjoy that benefit. So the 652,000 is just for the investigators. Okay. But what about the future? Will they be able to enjoy? Yes. That when they get high level. And do prosecutors already enjoy that opportunity? It's looking for here. Yeah. And there is I mean, this is a it's there's more to this issue. As you know, there are case limitations for the defenders, whereas the prosecutors at the senior level can, in theory, take on as much work as their upper management would like them to. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I also have some concerns on that. And, you know, when you are in upper management, you get paid a salary and you just do whatever work you need to do. And so the idea that, you know, Saturday work or, you know, coming in on standby gets, you know, several hours of pay, even if you're just on standby, that's a little much as far as I'm concerned. And on Ethics 36, which was when back where they were talking about the fire investigators, it showed what happens in year two, three and four, what happens in year five and beyond. I'm going to defer to Mr. Railton, who was actually the chief spokesperson on this contract for management. Okay. Bob Helton, Office of Labor Relations, Labor Relations Manager. This is the same education incentive that the Police Officer Guild enjoys, as well as most of the other commission staff, the sheriff's office, deputies, sergeants, captains, majors and chiefs. And so it doesn't increase beyond. In other words, there isn't additional increases, four more years of service. It caps out of four years of law enforcement service and whatever that percentage is for the particular degree that they have. And one of the reasons we looked at this for the fire investigators is because they are very specialized detectives, investigation investigating arson, and they work alongside the deputies and the CIA unit. So there is some commonality in terms of work, but they're under different collective bargaining agreements. So we felt that this was the right thing to do in terms of parity with their coworkers. It seems to me that the job classification there, because of what you just said, it's very specialized. They should have at least a degree, but probably a B.A. degree. And yet for a B.A. degree, which should be their basic start, we're going to pay them 4% more per year. I can get the master's degree paying more, maybe not 6% more, but I can get the master's degree and I can even well, not on them because that that in an investigation they don't speak lots of languages. But I just think that that by paying into a degree and a B.A. at those rates when it should be their base qualification is a little bit extravagant. So I don't feel comfortable with that. Just one minute. Thank you. Returning to the public defense addendum or appendix, Megan, you've now said twice that this was related to the workload and case requirements stipulated by the Supreme Court rules and the other rules. I have to confess to you, I am not understanding how I know what those rules are. I don't understand how they're related to these wizardry pieces and and step provisions and establishment of a committee. It doesn't seem to me it is related. It's it's the RCC, not the court rules. The rules of professional. Conduct that there is a reference. So we can get get back to you on that. But I do want to one key point that I want to make is we recognize that we are paying senior attorneys and DPD. You know, we're paying them more based on the fact that they're in a quasi management or lead role. And so one of the things we secured in these negotiations was a commitment to work with the union to better define what seniors do and to demarcate that seniors have additional duties. Because here in the county, you know, according to our labor policies, which this council has passed, we don't pay people more just for doing the same thing right over and over. And so our interest was to say, okay, if you're a senior, you're mentoring your coaching the new attorneys in court, you're providing briefings to staff, you're maybe working on policy projects. So I don't I do want that point to be made because we recognize that in order for seniors to be paid more, they need to be doing more. Okay. But the compensation here is for investigators. That's right. Okay. And the other pieces apply. The lawyers are the investigators. Yeah. Sorry. This is confusing the other pieces. When I was referencing parity and I'm happy to come back here to to get you information where where we look to in terms of authority for establishing parity. One of those sources is the our pieces. I thought it was council action when we established the Department of Public. It's that as well. That would be the first thing that we look to. Let me tie in appendix 16, the prosecuting attorney's association, since parity is tied to them as I read this on page 60. The Master Labor Agreement acknowledges that this agency, meaning the POW, has the authority to negotiate those issues separate and apart. Right. I'll give you a chance to look at it. So my question is, since we have a principle of parity in the Department of Public Defense, are our compensation and working conditions to extent parity applies to working conditions driven really by Prosecutor Söderberg and what he does with the with the prosecutors. So that was the position of the union in our negotiations with DPD. The county was taking the position that, yes, we consider that, but the jobs are different. So to some extent, it's an apples and oranges analogy. As I said, there are workload caseload limits for the public defenders that do not apply to the prosecutors. So let's say that prosecutor Soderberg is a senior deputy prosecuting attorney, $120,000. And we have a senior Department of Public Defense defender who's making 120,000. And prosecutor Soderberg says, well, I'm going to get my folks raise it 125. Are we then, under the principle of parity on the defense side, obligated to raise RS 225? That's what I'm trying to stand, is what we've set up here. In terms of I would say when we're not obligated, we we will look at that and we we look at and and again, the Labor policies reference the market comparators. So one thing to keep in mind is that public defense in other jurisdictions is in a nonprofit model. So it's a again, it's sort of an apples to oranges comparison because in the nonprofit world, the wages tend to be lower. So we will we will consider everything. We will consider the budget and what we're able to pay. But just as one of our labor policies. Right. And just just because the prosecutor raises the pay doesn't mean that we're automatically going to be raising pay for the public defenders. Okay. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have sat on the other defense board for this state for, I think now like 16 years. So this is not a new topic to me. But with that hat on, different than his hat. But with that hat on, I look at the cost in comparable caseloads between surrounding counties, including Spokane County. And it is much more expensive to do a felony in King County than it is in our surrounding counties and Spokane, as the comparables is way more than other counties because they're not on comparable kinds of schedules. So when I have asked about why these numbers are disparate, I am told because our felonies are more complicated than other felonies. It would be fine if we were talking about Mars and Earth. But that's an odd comment that a felony in a neighboring county. To our north or to our south is so different from a felony in our county. And then I get told other things, too, which I won't get into. But I think that there's work that needs to be done here. And I have great concerns that we, per case, are paying a lot more than than potentially we would need to be in looking at that. And as Councilmember Garcia said earlier, he's completely correct that we did try very hard to to make sure that the parity between the prosecutor and the defense bar was obvious. And in so doing, I understand that we may have swung the other way where now that the prosecutor should be coming in and asking for parity with defense. The other one point that is really old. But we were told that we were not in parity because we were micromanaging the independent branches of the defense bar before we brought them in-house. And when they came in-house, they had more employees than we even knew they had. I submit that if I were micromanaging, if we were micromanaging, we would have known that there were more employees there and we were giving them money and parity all the time. Monica that used to work for us, decided not work for us after that formula was done. She worked that all out. But what happened was that the four different agencies rearranged the money after we gave it to them, and then we went to court and lost because of that. So there's a lot of history here and I think it's time to delve down again. And I think that's a really good idea that we do. So are you Councilmember Lambert? There's some issues around this provision. I think people would like more information. But in the interest of time today, let's move forward and work on that offline. That's great. Time to. Read. Appendix 49 on page 51. This email proposed appendix to the MLA represents 44 employees in the Department of Community Health Service, Human Services, and the appendix two would add a new shift premium for evening and nighttime shifts. The premium would be $0.75 per hour. The executive estimates this cost to be to implement this about a $34,000. Moving on to appendix 50, this is for represents 263 workers and the wastewater treatment division bargaining unit and also the person in the Department of Natural Resources. In part, the proposed appendix would. Offer professional license premiums for two four employees to receive $50 per month for each license. And it would also add two new license categories for specific classifications. So they would more employees would qualify for this premium since they have obtain those specific certifications and they anticipate it is going packed as about $23,000. Appendix 51 The last appendix for briefing today is for Teamsters Local 174. It represents 231 employees and various divisions. If I may draw your attention to page 54, a significant amount of the cost proposed for this appendix stems from a the solid waste division. Well, actually, there's been a memorandum of agreement that would allow for helper shifts to be added skill operators at the transfer stations. There will be eight hour helper shifts added and that would run from May 1st to Labor Day and except for. On peak season. 4th of July, Independence Day. And so the majority of the costs associated with this appendix will relate to that implementing that. Okay. I see we have a representative from the Teamsters here. A number of council members, I guess it was late last year. I'm losing track of time, met with some of our scale operators about concerns surrounding perhaps some gender equity issues. And we provisoire, I think, some money in the budget asking for a plan for kind of employee development and advancement. Does this appendix do anything with respect to implementing that plan or addressing those issues? My. Michael Gonzales, Teamsters Local 174. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Michael. Thank you for asking me to be here. Yes. This memo, you does actually address a lot of the issues that we have brought up as far as especially the present context, some of the issues with them being able to take lunches and breaks, especially during the peak season. Just so for some context, for the entire council, the school operators are a group of employees, mostly women, who are the ones at the very point of contact when ever a person of the public or a commercial driver comes in to the dump to, you know, get rid of garbage, wood, recycling, whatever it may be, they work normally either for eight or ten hour shifts. And when during peak season, if they don't have any help, they are working that shift by themselves and they are working not only the inbound when somebody comes in to pay, but the outbound when so when the personnel so I'm sorry, the inbound when they get their card and the outbound when they pay, which is probably about the length of the county. And if to give you context of this, on a week and day, they could go anywhere between depending upon the station, 4 to 800 customers and one day walking back and forth between the scale not being able to they take what's called intermediate breaks, but it's very hard to tell when those breaks are going to come. Usually they're at a customer with the mouth or food or, you know, they're hearing people honking while they're trying to take a bathroom break or something like that. So this was a I would say why they got to a point of contention, right? I mean, they felt that compared to the other work groups within the county, that they were not given the same amount of staffing to be able to have the same working conditions, working conditions and working with the opposite labor relations especially. I'd like to applaud Megan for helping us work through this issue. We were able to come up with a menu and a trial period to look and see if these issues can be addressed, especially during the peak season. We think with some other things in the contract and the other ways we've done some bedding that during the non peak season will be able to work some things out. But during the peak season we like to take a look at this and think it think it will help the issues. And have we commenced this pilot project now given that it's May 1st, third, second or third. Correct. The solid waste division has taken taking this very seriously. And they are they when they had recruited and got people in as far as I know it has. Yes. Started it's going to be starting this week. Wonderful. Thank you for your work on it, both of you. And really thank you to your members who had the courage to come forward and raise these issues and work for positive change. Don't thank. You. Proud of them. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right, Heidi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my staff report. There is an amendment to the proposed ordinance, one of the two, since we're hearing two ordinances today, and that's before you propose ordinance 2018 0178, which would approve the MLA. That amendment is on page 203 of your packet. And it replaces an incorrectly transmitted appendix 51. Correct. That's the one we were just, I think review. Correct. That's the one. I want to get that one right. Correct. And then on the ordinance 0138, it looks like there is a striking amendment which would make technical changes. Correct. Those are all staff requested. Correct. All right. What is the will of the body? Are members comfortable having had briefings, an opportunity to review this, to move it forward? Today, the full council in the ordinary schedule, I'm seeing nods and one shaking. No. So we will vote accordingly. I ask for a motion to put 2018 0178 before US Councilmember Gossett. So move the chair. For the Vice Chair Councilor calls. Would you be willing to move the amendment. A. Putting. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amendment number. One. All right. This is the putting in, correct? Appendix 51. All in favor Amendment one. Say I. I. I'll oppose Amendment One carries turning to the underlying ordinance as amended. Comments or questions. Councilmember Bell Duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been holding off for the appropriate time and hopefully this is it. So the overall accomplishment here is, is pretty big deal for King County. We have a lot of bargaining units and. Many, many collective bargaining agreements and the accomplishment of starting to streamline in a real way the provisions, the language around a lot of these practices, I think, can only really help. It'll help the employees and the managers understand how to implement, implement more correctly, to have people feel they're being treated fairly and for us to be more accurate and actually incorrect in how we implement. So I think this is a major accomplishment and I want to thank everybody involved for that. I want to ask in the spirit of continuous improvement and lean, which you reference in your materials. The primary objectives here are efficiency, equity, engagement in recruitment and advancing coalition bargaining. I would like to make sure that as we move forward into the next phase 20, 19, 2020 and onward into the future that we are checking back to make sure we're achieving those goals. I'm looking at the fiscal note. It comes out to about a total of 5 million in addition between the previous fiscal year and 2018 with 60 bargaining agreements. If you had done them all separately and added them all up, it's probably ballpark where you would have been. So I'm just guessing. But it's going to be nice to sort of make sure that we're keeping track of how we are capturing efficiencies by doing things this way that we can then use to provide service for the public. That's, I think, a key goal of having a more efficient labor relations for all of us. So I don't know if you could talk to that just a little bit. I really appreciate that comment because it's something that we are very cognizant. Is our overarching North Star goal in bargaining in coalition for a master labor agreement. I see this as a very much iterative process and getting the first master contract was, you know, 99% of the battle. And now that that's in place, we are socializing it with our unions, with our employees. We will continue to build on that success. One very real, very tangible efficiency and cost savings that the county has implemented in the last four years is bargaining and a total compensation methodology. So as opposed to the past, where benefits and wages were sort of siloed, we are making it very transparent with our workforce that we have to look at everything the county is paying for or the employee experience, and we have to cost that. So we're in that regard. We're better off now than we were even last year. You know, I think Denise and Michael could attest to that. When we talk to total compensation, we never we no longer see balking and eir roles at negotiations from the members. It's like, yeah, we get it. That's what most employers in the country do. Councilmember of the group. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I figure this is a big enough deal. Wanted to at least offer a few comments. I, I think what we have done, taking some of the credit for the good work you've done, I think is impressive, in part because we're working in a fiscal environment that's very challenging. You know, we're given the limitations on local governments, the ability to remain a generous and fair employer and to actually make these positive steps towards I know what the executive has touted as being the employer of the future to have what you just called the whole workplace experience stay modern, stay make sure we're a place that people want to continue to work and to do that in such a fiscally constrained environment and do it in partnership with the employee groups, and to reach resolution in and of itself as an accomplishment and to do it in a way that appears to be consistent with the policies we've adopted. It's it's kind of a funny role. We play it, you know, the ability to vote up or down, you know, sometimes I think it would be great if we could each negotiate each of the nine of us the things we like or don't like. But that would be utter chaos and I'm sure a violation of laws and processes. So recognizing that our responsibility is to vote it up or down, I, I think it's the obvious. The obvious course of action would be to approve it and not only prove it, but approve it with a sense of pride for the work that's been done. To reach the the agreement we have in such a difficult. Fiscal environment. Speaking as the budget chair, I'm very thankful. Thank you so much. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I am really excited that we have a master labor agreement. When we first talked about this, was it five years ago? Everybody was like, oh, this is like walking into a bomb territory. This is dangerous. So I'm really pleased that that we did it because they think it's the right thing to do. And like Councilmember LGT keeping track of how much easier it is to not be spending time all the time negotiating, but actually getting the work done and dealing with real problems. My concern is that there's going to be $5 million more, and I assume that's on top of steps that people will be getting. And we were just briefed last week that the county and the general fund will be $25 million deficit. And so now that number could go up to $30 million. And that concerns me. That's a huge number. And I see things popping up that I just don't like, like donning and doffing. A couple years ago, I didn't even know what donning and doffing was, but we pay for it every day. And, you know, giving signing bonuses, I had no idea that I was working for a baseball team or football team. You know, places where a B.A. or an AA degree should be the basics for getting hired. Now we're paying, you know, bonuses for. So I'm concerned by the scope creep of our pay scale in these categories. And so that is my one concern. But my overall concern that how long are we able to afford this? But I really like the format and I'm hoping that when we do the next contract that there won't be so many amendments. I think it was probably part of the wish list of getting this together. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions, Councilmember Gossett, or comment? Yes, thank you. It's just a comment and it follows along with the ones that you and councilwoman ideology and councilor of the Grove and Councilmember Lambert have made. And that is I'm really recognizing this as well. We have a human resources department, but I'm recognizing that it has special work that Labor Relations Office does because these are highly complex and challenging questions that we have and they impact dozens of a union. So to be able to sort it out, make some reasonable accommodations with our labor representatives and then be able to articulate what they mean is, you know, a monumental job and probably get a little more challenging even in the future. So I wanted to say to them that we definitely appreciate that the work that you do on behalf of our government and our residents of King County. I think, Mr. Gossett just returning to the economic issues, we have Labor policy on compensation, which directs the Executive to consider the following factors. Economic number one economic conditions include could. Inflation and deflation in the region. I think our inflation is ticking up in the region to revenue and cost forecast for the county customer. Lambert mentioned that we had a briefing council member of the committee on it and while there were some concerns there, I assume that the cost forecasts were incorporated into that budget. That presentation by Mr. Diver. Third, comparable work compensation and for the status of accounting reserves. The presentation indicated we were actually taking up our county reserves toward an 8% number, if I recall correctly, at least in the general fund. And this applies to not just the general fund, but also some of our utility funds, always division and and wastewater. And I don't think transients in here as transient tragedies as in the. Yes. Transit in there. Okay. So I guess my question is, in the staff analysis they indicated is unknown to council staff at this time, what are the executive considered the factors described in the compensation labor policy? So my question to the executive is did you consider these factors when negotiating the wage provisions of the appendices, which are the applicable provisions before us? Absolutely. Very good. All right. Thank you. I want to give if there are no further comments from my colleagues, I also want to thank everyone who worked on particularly Megan, you and your shop, but Denise Cobbs and Dustin Frederick, who brings a lot of expertize and years of experience as well and is who else I want to give you all of. Course, my quick comment. I'm sorry. I do not want the work of the ADR ADR office, especially with Polly Davis, to go unnoticed, especially within our caucus with 90 people on the bargaining unit, Denise and I, and with, you know, trying to get 90 people to decide whether the sky is blue sometimes can be a challenge. And she really put in a lot of work in her office, putting a lot of work, also helping the practice and get it done. So at least. Some alternative dispute resolution wasn't just between management and labor, but between labor and labor. But I think what they always saying was renegotiations both the negotiations happened between Labor's own members, but they were, they were incredible in helping us to reach that. And I just wanted to make sure that she and her office were recognized for that. Very good. So the 2018 0178 as amended is before us. Then the clerk will call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Banducci. Councilmember done by Councilmember Garcia. Councilmember Colwell. Councilmember Lambert and Councilmember McDermott. High Council Member of the Grove. Councilmember one right there. Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. The vote is eight eyes, no noes. Councilmember one right there. Excuse. All right. Because of the compensation issues related here, I would request that we expedite this to Monday's council meeting. If folks have a questions that don't get answered, we can have a one week courtesy delay, which is our tradition. But let's move this along. We'll turn now to ordinance 2018 0138, and I'd entertain a motion for to pass a recommendation on that one. If anybody wanted to move it. Councilmember up the grove was put up by Vegas. I think, Mr. Chairman, the proposed ordinance 2018 01784 giving a do pass recommendation. And Council member Cole Wells as our Vice Chair, would you be willing to move the striking amendment making technical changes? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that the striking amendments. In favor of the striking amendment making technical changes recommended by the staff say I opposed that Carrie's turn to the underlying ordinance. And we all said what we wanted to say on this package of legislation. Looks like we have the critical. Call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Duty. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett. I. Councilmember Colwell, Councilmember Lambert and councilmember McDermott. High Council member of the Grove, Councilmember Yvonne Wright Bauer. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the vote is seven eyes, no no's, councilmembers Balducci and Von. Right. They were excused. To be given a do pass recommendation. We will expedite ordinance 2018 0178 as well to Monday's calendar. We will have those on the regular calendar because this is a big deal and folks may want to talk about it. I want to thank my colleagues and executive staff and our representatives from Labor for helping us get through a pretty dense set of materials, pretty complex. It's quite a long process. And especially I want to thank Heidi five, Chuck and Pat Hamacher and your colleagues on our central staff for their great work. Anything further? Nothing. We're adjourned.