Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 16.60, relating to the payment of living wage to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
And 21 is an ordinance from the city, the office of the city attorney with the recommendation to declare the ordinance amending the municipal code relating to payment of living wages to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center. Read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Case? None. You know, there was. Actually a counselor. JOHNSON Well, thank you, vice mayor. I mean, I heard from some members of the community, some of the folks who are advocating for this, that there was some concern about definition of, I think, retail worker. And I don't know, I hadn't heard much more than that. But as you may hear from the state attorney's office, as that concern being addressed or some policy questions for the council to look at, or are you aware of this concern? Mr. President. Vice Mayor, members of the council with Councilmember Johnson. I have not been made aware of a specific concern regarding the definition of the concession worker. We did meet with some of the union groups that were in favor of this, and they had reviewed the language and had had no comments regarding that. So as of as we sit right now, I'm not aware of that. As an ordinance, if as adopted by the council, if there was a change that was desired by the council at a future date, it could be amended on a Tuesday to if there's clarification necessary. Okay. Well, certainly if there's anyone here in the audience who'd like to offer a clarification, I'm happy to hear it. If not, this will come before us in second reading. Is that correct? So if there is an issue, please voice that concern. I think the council has to make sure there's no ambiguity. Thank you, Constable O'Donnell. Yeah, I think the concern was to add retail that there was a concern. So this is first reading. So it would have to come back for a subsequent first reading or would this be a a non substantive change so that it would not come to that for a first reading and come back for a second reading? Vice Mayor Members of the Council. Councilmember O'Donnell. That that would be a substantive change. And so if you I think your options before you tonight are adopted as it is, we could continue the item if if there was direction to change it and bring it back to you for first reading at a later date. Or if you adopted it as it is, it would come back, I think, in two weeks to the next council meeting for second reading. And then at any time subsequent to that, it could be amended to a to add additional to retail workers if that was the desire of the council. That is my desire. So what I'll do is I'll. Make a motion to I do we have a motion currently we do make a substitute motion to add retail workers to the to the ordinance and city hall level for first reading. I believe next week we need to do it two weeks of I'm sorry, two. Weeks and we'll have to come back for first reading with that with that change of the retail component is that. That is correct. Okay. And Mr. Parking just so that we're we're clear are you understand what a comfortable bonus talking about as far as the convention work go to include the retail piece, correct? I yes, I believe. Okay. I understand that. Okay, great. So there's the we have a first and second on the substitute motion, which is Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell's motion. Councilmember DeLong. City attorney, could explain for me so which workers would be included under the new arrangement that weren't previously included. My understanding, we would expand the definition to not only include the concession worker, which would be the food and beverage individuals, but also those working in retail stores or shops at those two facilities. Okay. I guess the one concern I will mention is that, you know, we've we've kind of patted ourselves on the back with one of the accomplishments at the restaurant was that you get street pricing for the food, that you wouldn't pay any more at the airport than you would at a restaurant in Belmont or downtown. I would tell you, if we increase the cost of the operation, then that's going to change and the airport will become more like a standard airport where you pay a premium price. But we could certainly go in that direction. But that will be one of the downsides. Okay. So no other council comment on this. I had called for public comment, didn't hear any. So what the motion on the floor is, which is a substitute, is to have this come back in two weeks. Mr. City Attorney, with the change on the retail component. Please cast your vote on that motion. Motion carries nine votes. Moving on to the next item, we're going to do 13 and then go back to the regular agenda.