Recommendation to review a report on the Coronavirus Economic Relief Package for Long Beach families and small businesses and provide input and policy direction to staff on economic relief strategies for working families and small businesses impacted by the COVID-19 emergency, as more specifically detailed in such report.  (Citywide)
Okay. Motion carries as item 41. Thank you. We've had some requests to move up item 47. So if you can, Madam Clerk, can you please read item 47, please? Item 47 Report from Economic Development. Recommendation to review a report on the coronavirus economic relief package for Long Beach families and small businesses and provide input and policy direction to staff on economic relief strategies for working families and small businesses impacted by the COVID 19 emergency citywide. Okay. Great. So so go ahead. I know this is a long we have a very long staff reporting presentation, so I want to turn this over to staff to go ahead and go through a and it was a lengthy presentation. So I'm curious over to Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Keisler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to give some background on this item, and it's a really lengthy item. So rather than giving a full list after presentation, all the different issue areas, I'd like to give a summary of what this is and what it really kind of entails at a high level, and then really take some counsel direction about how much we want to address tonight and what issue areas. So the report is there. It's about 39 pages down report in addition to over 100 pages of all the different attachments. And so this was really an impetus for this was the council asking us on March 17th, right after we declared a fiscal emergency, to really focus on economic resiliency. And so we set up a unit in our emergency operations center headed up by Mr. Kaiser, and with the whole team really looking at the items that the council gave us, as well as a couple of others that came up after you had asked us to work on these items. And so we've organized that into 12 issue areas, and I will basically read the issue areas. Essentially. The first one is a review of supplemental sick leave policies. This is one of the 12 areas where we don't have city staff, have a recommendation, and we're looking for a policy direction from the council issue area to how to deal with TOTTY and revenue sharing and reviewing that and coming up with some plan. So we have a staff recommendation there about creating a hospitality recovery task force and developing strategies to essentially get our hotels full again as soon as we can lift the stay at home order issue Area three Lending Partnerships to prohibit Foreclosures or Home Mortgage Payments. And so we have two recommendations. They're about direction. A dedicated educational and marketing program and also working with our economic development and community development corporations in issue area for there was a request for a streamlined processes in partnership with the Economic Development Department. And so we have three recommendations there supporting contracts and expanding grant funding to do robust marketing and promotions and to develop a plan to improve the design of our online labor exchange program to really help match employers and workers. But Issue Area five had to do with emergency loan assistance. You took some actions regarding that tonight, and there's much more to go. So there's four different recommendations there about bringing on additional loan capacity for our small businesses. Issue Area six is partnership to safely assist people under sea quarantine. And working with our coronavirus relief fund is what we recommend. We currently have 31 grants out of over half a million dollars that's been raised and is in the hands of nonprofits to help people who are under self-quarantine. Issue Area seven is training on COVID 19 prevention for the tourism and restaurant industry. And we recommend doing this, continuing our public education efforts and what's in our health order, which is a very strong order to protect safety of our employers and employees and the public. Issue Area eight is worker recall and return. And so this is an area where the city of Los Angeles has done some work and the city of through the county of L.A. And so there are three different options here where you can, you know, go and do something that they've been moving forward. You can create kind of a rapid response, right? I'm sorry, rapid response strategy or you can do additional study. And so we don't have a recommendation on this area and are looking for policy direction, the same as with issue area nine. This is about worker retention and just cause termination. Again, this is an issue we've seen at the city of L.A. and the county of L.A. And so there are three options for you to consider there. And city staff not have a recommendation at this time. The last two areas, one is food and grocery service protections. The city has issued a very strong update to our health order. We did that on Friday and really addresses the conditions that grocery stores need to operate under to be safe for both the public and employees. Issue Area 11 is digital inclusion, and so there are two recommendations there to direct the manager to work on current digital inclusion roadmap process for economic relief programs, and getting access to the Internet for residents and businesses. And also to work with private partners to increase access to hardware, Internet access and literacy training. The last area is development relief, and we talked a little bit about that earlier tonight. You added a couple of additional items. But, you know, we have three different recommendations. They are about continuing to look at licenses, permits and fees for development that can be deferred or staggered to work with us to market the continuation of services through things like election. Chronic plant check and inspection services and to really create awareness of all the work that we are doing, even though our city hall is not open and then creating a marketing plan as a potential and reviewing the costs of creating that plan. So those are the 12 issue areas. As staff, we recommend that you either approve the staff recommendations or modify those and do that tonight, but then really spend your time on the three issue areas one, eight and nine, where there is no recommendation. Or alternatively, if you're not ready to take on all of that, defer the staff recommendations for a week and really give a direction on issue areas one, eight and nine, because those are the ones that we need policy direction on. And that concludes the report. John Kolko And Sue, you and others are here to answer questions as needed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Modica. I have folks that are queued up at this point to make their general comment. I just want to just add to the entire team, Mr. Modica and the team at Economic Development and Success on your team. You guys are obviously put in an enormous amount of work into this package. Obviously, I know there will be discussion tonight about where we go. I think overall, you guys are really looking at ways to ensure that we are really focused on bouncing back and reopening this economy that we know we have to do when it's when it's when we're ready, when it's safe to do so, while at the same time taking care of workers and our small businesses and making sure folks are protected. And so I just want to thank all of you for the incredible work. I think it's been impressive. I know that this issue was we had a great discussion. The council had a great discussion by the last meeting to direct the council to do all this work. And I want to thank all those members. But really just the product of that to just thank you. And I want to just I take this time I know that one thing has been very apparent to me is that in all the health orders and other directives that have been put out have been going out, you've all been really focused on making sure that we are protecting the public and protecting the workers in our essential businesses. And that's been pretty clear. And I think we we appreciate that. So I'm looking forward to that discussion tonight. And I certainly strongly support moving forward and making sure that we are doing everything we can to support our small businesses and the workers that are working, working hard to protect us now and those that will get back to work as well. So thank you, Mr. Kaiser, for you and your team's work. So I have asked council members and they asked. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank our staff for rising to the challenge and bringing these recommendations to council. I know a lot of work went into this, and the information that you've given us is incredibly comprehensive. It is becoming clear that dealing with the COVID 19 pandemic and its aftermath will be the defining challenge facing Long Beach for at least the next year or even beyond. And the city council has an absolute critical role to play in assisting our residents through this incredibly difficult time. I'm so grateful to have the support and partnership of each one of my colleagues as we work together to create the problem, to create solutions for the problems at hand. I also want to express our commitment to everything and to do everything in our power to make sure that the residents of Long Beach are, as they are , able to weather this crisis. It is something that we never imagined that we would go through. But now that we're going through that, we are coming together as a city and trying to find the best, best solutions together to continue moving Long Beach forward. With that being said, I'd like to make the following motion. I move two sets of staff recommendations and the economic relief package in the following issue areas Section two related to the D.O.T. incentive. Section three relating to the foreclosures and mortgage payments. Section four related to partnership with DVD. Section five related to emergency loan assistance programs. Section six related to partnership to assist people under self-quarantine. Section seven. Related to training Section 11 related to digital inclusion. And Section 12 related to development relief. Both are in session 189 and ten of the staff report related to this day grocery workers rights to return to work and worker retention policy staff made no recommendation and request further direction from the City Council. Therefore, in section one. Review of the supplemental city leave policy. I move we adopt option eight that all employees with more than 500 workers nationally provide a benefit method of supplemental COVID related pay, sick leave to full time worker and a pilot amount to support those working part time. Additionally include an opt out was that employers and employees have a collective bargaining agreement in place in section eight. Worker restraints. And recall aims as we adopt Option L. Women. Just 1/2. 1/2. Can I have everyone use their phones except for councilman's and their house please? Can everyone get their phones except for Councilwoman Zendejas? I have some people that are not muted. Everyone needs to meet their phones except for councilmembers and D.A.. Thank you. Councilwoman, go. Ahead. Thank you. I'm going to repeat back to me worker return and recall. I move that we adopt option e draft an ordinance requiring employees of hotels and janitorial companies of 25 employees or or more receive first right of refusal for workers to lay off as well as themselves as a result of the consequences. Once their employer begins the rehire process, which I'm hoping will be there, the benefits. Should. Be also active to March 1st. In Session nine. Worker retention and just cost termination. I move that we adopt often a draft in the ordinance requiring hospitality and janitorial companies of 25 employees or more to continue to employ the quiet company's employees for a set number of days upon the transfer of ownership of the business. The benefits should be retroactive to my first. Is Section ten Food and Grocery Service Protection. I move to request the city managers to work with the affected parties to explore ways to ease the burden on essential grocery workers by allowing special adjustments without restrictive vision to accommodate for workers. By allowing them to special adjustments and to accommodate for issues related to COVID 19, including but not limited to childcare needs and assisting family members in medical but basis that can be handled by an experienced workforce. Therefore, furthermore, ways to acquire an existing part time groceries and drug store workers are offered full time hours before new employees are hired. But if my motion. Okay. Let me let me just also before I go to the next speaker that the motion is made. Constable Richardson, you are our next. Before I go to Constable Richardson, I'm not sure compliments. And perhaps if you have that motion maybe prepared or kind of written out for that, maybe we also can make sure that city attorney gets a copy of that so that we can read it back and we have it all for the record as well. But while you're while you're looking at that, let me turn it over to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you. I'll start by thanking staff when we proposed this item a few weeks ago. The intent was to really leverage our local government to help drive the response to this emergency. This is something that we've said for a long time. We do have a role as leader in local leadership, and I believe that our residents are looking to us to help make sense of what's happening. And in fact, other communities, even, you know, Press Telegram likes the report Long Beach area. Now, other communities are looking at the Long Beach to see how we will help. These are the regions of decisions that we make with respect to this item will have a direct impact on thousands of working families in and around Long Beach. We started this process on economic relief. We gave direction to tackle housing and to make sure that folks we needed to shelter in place, have a roof over their heads. And we took care of that. Now, the next piece was we're taking care of the name is a bit more comprehensive. How do we make sure that we protect our small businesses, we protect our essential workers, we we protect our impacted industry. We know that their circumstances, fluids rapidly changing. It's a moving target. It requires engagement of many, many stakeholders and requires following the trends of what's happening across the nation and across the region. And that's exactly what's happened here. And that's why I want to start by thanking staff, namely John Kapler, our city attorney, our health department, for not only producing a 158 page response to our proposal in local league, the memo was clear. It was well researched, it was well-organized. But I also want to highlight that they didn't wait for this moment. They took action ahead of it in a language that most people would support on Friday, the looking for citizens in order to further protect the of workers on the front line. Like our grocery workers and our pharmacy workers. We're counting on these workers right now. And our health order stepped up in alignment with this motion. They stepped up to really take care of that. So tonight it comes and I want that councilmember really quick. Everyone else, their phones. I may have one other person. It's not on mute. Looks like it's if everyone else can meet their phones except for Councilmember Richardson. Thank you so much, Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, so, so, so. Tonight it's a night where we're taking steps to further protect while these working families are taking action on expanding additional health and economic protections. That's going to make a meaningful difference in the lives of working families across our city. I want to thank council members and Beyhive for stepping up. The freshman class is leading and I'm glad to see that in helping to lead this effort. This motion, as presented by all of that, has presented it represents all of that recommendation from incentives in emergency loans for businesses and distressed industries. It's a relief for homeowners and property owners, but most notably, it also supports the best options in front of us as it relates to protections for working families. We're expanding sick leave for workers impacted by the coronavirus, ensuring a right to return to work for those in the hardest hit industries. And we're further supporting essential workers on the front lines of this crisis with respect to the sick leave component of this motion. I support the motion. It limits companies to limit the sick leave provision to companies, 500 employees or more. Since the SAFER Act already established sick leave relief for employees of small businesses between 50 and 500. That makes sense to start it at 500 employees and above. Secondly, with respect to the recall component of this motion, I support this option as we focus on the long journey of recovery. We need to make sure that workers have an option to return to their jobs as early and as soon as possible. I'm glad to know there are cities already familiar with this policy, as we already have a similar policy on the books in our airport and our convention center. It makes sense that this protection is extended then to workers in the hospitality and janitorial industry. With respect to the retention component, we also have examples of this in our convention center, an airport. When a convention center concessionaires change, the hundreds of rank and file workers remain in place. This protection should be extended to a hotel and janitorial industries that we know are going to have a difficult time, difficult economic time over the next few years. So I strongly support this package and it's a result of the work of many of the many of the city council members on this line. I think it really represents strong leadership on behalf of Long Beach, and I think it's the right thing to do. So I strongly backing this most. Hey, there's a motion and a second. I understand you're sending over your motion over to the city attorney and the Court. Is that right? Just so we can were able to get access to it? Yep. Yes. Thank. We received a thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to staff for this incredibly comprehensive document. I reached out to John personally to thank him for putting this together. There's a few things I want to highlight that I really loved about this piece. The first was that I very much like the fact that the city attorney, what is able to weigh in? Because I think a lot of times we we don't know if we need an ordinance or a resolution. We don't know if something that we are thinking of policy wise will pass legal muster. So I really appreciated having the attorneys input on on this document and throughout the document. I also really appreciated that that did not take a policy position on a few of these items that, in my opinion, really are policy items. I think sometimes once staff gives the recommendation that kind of effective, the neutrality of the data and the neutrality of the research goes away. So I want to thank you, John, for making this an objective document that every council member could analyze objectively based on fact that information and I appreciate it, that I think I understand the motion that's on the floor. I want to thank Councilman Van De Hast for such a thorough job and presenting the motion. And I do want to highlight just a few questions in regard to item eight and nine. And I guess this would be a clash question. How are we defining the term, the quality? And so it's a two part question how in defining the term hospitality and why are these protections only for hospitality? And I guess we're adding janitorial employees. Are there other categories of employees throughout the city that we have considered and excluded from? How is it that these two entities were identified? Council member. So in terms of in terms of a definition, of course, that that something can it can include more or less depending on the policy direction of the council. Our understanding right now is that hospitality is referring specifically to hotels and hospitality workers, to hotel workers. So when it comes to janitorial, our understanding of that has to do with building maintenance and potentially other property services related to the maintenance of buildings themselves. And so if the Council has a different definition that deviates from from what I described, that would be direction to provide to our city attorney so that they understand the breadth and depth of your your definition. Okay. All right. And did you answer the question on why we limited to these industries? Yeah. Council members. So we're actually responding to the the original March 17th action, which describes specifically hospitality as the industry that you are concerned about. And so we were trying to stay within the parameters of the request. Oh, I see. Okay. And I'm sorry. He already said that to. As to the issue. First of all, I'd say issue number one, issue area number one. I notice that the city attorney indicated that if we were going to establish any sort of policy direction on this, there would be additional specifics that we would have to provide for the ordinance. And so my question is, the council comment, when they had have you looked at page eight of the memo and you have a recommendation on which of these specific should be included? Because if not, I'd like to I'd like to offer some friendly in regards to item number one. I'm sorry I was on you. I'd like to hear your friendly and. You hear me? Oh, yes. Yes, I can hear you. Okay. So we're looking for you. Looking through these documents or these suggestions, it says which employers would the ordinance apply to? I think we've answered that already with employers of 500 or more. I think that was in your motion. How we would be requested by employees of the second area. My amendment would be that the supplemental leave would be requested by employees in the same manner, but supplemental leave would otherwise be requested by employees of that organization. The next area is which need or reason the supplemental leave could be used for, I would say, for COVID related issues. Mm. Whether the ordinance would apply to employers that are closed or laid off employees as a result of COVID 19. I do not believe the ordinance should apply to employers or businesses that are closed or have had to lay off employees as a result of COVID 19. Or as related to the health orders. I don't believe the sick leave policies should apply to those organizations because those organizations are closed for the duration of just time anyway, and probably not in a position to offer a supplemental sick leave when they reopen. But that's that would be my friendly. So you can consider that. In regards to the applicable time period of the ordinance. My recommendation would be that this provision sunset 90 days after the governor has withdrawn the state of emergency or lifted the state of emergency. As to exemptions to the ordinance for health care provider, emergency responders or other essential employees. I defer to you on that. I don't know what your thoughts are. I have no amendment to offer on that. As to the exemption for specific businesses, my recommendation would be that my family would be that businesses with 25 or less employees should be exempt. From having to offer a sick leave. I do believe that's in there already. Council member it is. Okay. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Then we can forget about that one. Whether the ordinance can be waived by collective bargaining. I think you did include that threat. And then I asked that a previously provided sick time by employers. I defer to you on that. I don't have a friendly. Not so, but I do think we need to. You're the maker of the motion, and I do think we need to identify the parameters. So I've offered the friendlies on the ones that I believe should have some clarification and then the remaining ones I defer to Yuan and then the other friendly that I wanted to offer. And then I'll and then I'll leave it all with you is on item number eight. I was eight and nine. And just to clarify, item number nine or issue area number nine, that's only in the event of a bank robbery or subcontracting, correct? Issue area nine sub a sub a here. Yes. Okay. Perfect. I would like to offer issue area eight and nine that the sun set 90 days after the governor has withdrawn the state of emergency for the state of California. So those are my my family. And I would ask that you consider accepting them. And if not, if they're not inclined to accept them, then I would like to offer a substitute that incorporates all of the items that you've listed with the amendments that I've enumerated as the Sun. Thank you, Councilmember Price. I will definitely consider them. And I would also like to send the rest of the council on the item as well. Thank you. Okay. Well, with that then I'd like to go ahead and make the sub. Unfortunately, given our weird queuing structure. I'd like to make the stab that includes all of the items that council members and they have indicated, plus the enumerated specific areas that the city attorney asked us to provide direction on that I already articulated an item issue area one and issue areas eight and nine. Again, all of the provisions that council members and they have included should be included with a sunset of 90 days after the governor witnessed the order. Okay. I have. Nothing. Okay. That is a substitute motion. So that makes changes to the main motion. Charlie, have you did you just want to make sure we as we go? Charlie, did you make a note of those changes for the substitute motion that comes from in place made? Mr. City attorney this is probably thank you fair members of the council. I do have the answers to eight and nine. The good news is, Aaron, I think is also on the line and Gary Anderson. So a few. But the. The only change that I have or option made by the first district on a. Nominee. Is to the. 90 day sunset. Clause. It happened at that time. And I don't one, I know not. All of the party. Everyone. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on a second. Can everyone mute their phones, please? Except for the city attorney. And thank you. I just want to make sure the city attorney has the most of the substitute motion to that. We're going in order. So, Mr. City Attorney, any clarifications you needed from Councilman Price? Yes. Thank you. I do need or if possible. Councilmember Both of you have the amendments that you wanted to add to this motion, if you could send them to me. I didn't get to write them all down. To be honest with you, I was trying to follow you, but I. I couldn't follow you. No problem. And. And I had to. I was going off of reading the memo. I have no notes written down myself, so I'll just go through it real quick. Again, as to item number one on the specific areas that the city attorney asked us to provide further direction on going through the list as to which employers the ordinance will apply to, that's the first bullet point. It's already covered in council members and they have this motion, which is 500 or more, how the supplemental leave would be requested by employees. My recommendation is that supplemental leave would be requested by employees in the same manner that's established by that business. For the request of supplemental leave. For the reason for the supplemental leave. The leave must be the reason for the leave must be related to COVID related issues, whether the ordinance should apply to employers that are closed or laid off. My recommendation is that it should not apply to employer employers for businesses that are closed. Or have laid off employees as a result of COVID 19, and they're not operating right now to provide time. The applicable time period for the ordinance, I said 90 days from the date that the governor withdraws the state of emergency. I did not weigh in on exemptions for the ordinance for health care providers, emergency responders or other essential employees. I'm silent on that. Hopefully someone else on council wants to weigh in on that. More exemptions for specific businesses. I didn't realize there was one, but councilwoman said they had said security recommended authority in there for 25 businesses of 25 or less should be exempt. And whether the ordinance can be waived by collective bargaining that was already in Councilwoman Sandy House's motion, which was signed incorporating into my motion as well. And then the onset of previously provided sick time by employees and silent on that issue as well. So if council members want to augment my job by weighing in on the exemption, are the exemptions for the health care providers, etc., and offset then they can do that. But my motion is silent on those two issues. The rest of the issues, I believe, are covered either through my amendments or council members, and they have the main motion. Thank you. Thank you. Next step is Councilmember Austin. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Oh, thank you for the. Motion. On marriage. This is a real happening and a lot to unpack over a three week period of time when we were trying to do all we can to provide economic relief to working families and interpret legislation at the same time, which all the more reason it particularly about family growth, COVID relief, that seems to be more and more ambiguous when it comes to on benefits for employees. And I don't really I want to say that what I support most of what is on the floor. And I do think that it's important that we do so in a sense that honors and clarity for all involved. I mean, we all the money we're going to build on. I think a lot of what we are discussing today revolves around the retention or recall rate, which I believe is wearing off, considering we are dealing with some very uncertain and extraordinary circumstances on the basis of this opportunity to say that membership in unions has the most collective bargaining agreement, that while it would lay out in the Tennessee language a loophole right in so many of the collective bargaining agreements already have those and I believe was on the floor for the rest of on collective bargaining agreements. And already we are reminded of, but also from many of our unions involved. They're giving voice to to millions of hardworking Americans a future essential right now and to do what we can to help these families. I don't think we should lose sight of the long term economic impacts of this crisis on our local economies, on workers and on the employees employers. And they need to be in a good place to be able to continue to strive all of all interests. And I would like to ask our economic development director as well regarding just the quick question I have regarding the tax incentives that are already in place for working in terms of who qualifies for those, what is there a limit in terms of how big it is or how small businesses and whether or not what it is? What are the penalties that are not be imposed on? We take it from a platform. We know that the. County council member asked, and so there were there were three questions there. The first question is that there are there are a number of different programs provided primarily by the Small Business Administration and through the Small Business Administration, loans that provide incentives for employers to retain their employees. So one example of that is the Paycheck Protection Program, which actually is establish the amount of that loan is established by multiplying the last month's payroll by two. 2.5 times. That's the maximum loan that they can receive. And then if 75% of the loan proceeds are actually spent on payroll for those those employees that they've retained, then they would the loan would become a forgivable grant. So that is a really big incentive for these employers. They can get loans up to $10 million, in fact, for larger companies who have sizable payroll. So it provides a really strong incentive for them to keep their employees on payroll as long as possible because they could then have that loan forgiven. Another tax credit that is part of the CARES Act allows for a 50% tax credit to the business in their next tax filing for retaining their their employees, which is another incentive. Outside of that two and a half month window. And then finally there there are programs that encourage the retaining of employees or rehiring of employees. If maybe they've been laid off, they give certain windows that if the employee was laid off or, you know, within the last month, they want to bring them back. Then they become eligible for some of these programs as well. So there's a couple of different incentives for the employers themselves to to retain or even rehire employees that may have been let go as a result of the initial business closure. Thank you for that. We still have a very important we that out there and understand that all stories and perhaps actions today will will help incentivize even some employers to move to the beneficiary form to the federal government. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure economic development department would be happy to assist on that. All right. That's sent home. I'm going to message on my colleague's home Internet here. There's been a lot of talk about moving people to their home. I would just say that whatever we do to make them also possible, because we think this is very doable and changing the norm on that. But first and foremost, we're here to serve our residents and to make sure that we are mitigating the impact of this. So hopefully making the lifetime process a little more commonplace. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up is Councilmember Garrincha. Thank you, Mayor. And I really appreciate. All the comments that have been made thus far. This is a very important issue, obviously, for working people, working families. And I want to thank John for the very thorough working on here. When it comes to a lot of things with a lot of research on this and based on the responses that he's given thus far, we really are committed to what's taking place not only locally, originally, but nationally as well. Thank you, Joe, for all the work you've been doing on this. It's really a very intensive and very informative for us, especially as we're trying to work our way through this map work, which they do have on their skin. Let's backtrack it a little bit. What is the data that we have? Essentially, this pandemic crisis begins in Long Beach. What's the big march? What is that? Yes, sir. March 4th was the start date of the eviction moratorium. So so that that's where we sort of began. Okay. That's a mortgage. Okay. And as they've been listening, they haven't heard anything as to. Indeed. I heard something about maybe it was correct, but not a date and just amending. So starting from when? For today or what will be the initiation date? Remember that subject? Yeah. Yeah, it came from the government. I guess you could. I, I that was, that was very symbolic. So what we referred to in the memo was 90 days because we were focusing in on the March 4th to May 31st window of the eviction moratorium that council took action on. So March, April, May are really the three months that we're focusing on for what we're calling the emergency relief period. We're also referring to those that 90 day period, because right now the existing health order is in place until March 15th. And from a business standpoint, when we talk to businesses about reopening that, even if on March 15th they're able to reopen businesses that have been closed, they would still need a ramp up period. Obviously, that month of May would be a very difficult month for revenue still. So we're talking about the real negative impacts of the public health and economic emergency between March, April and May. So in my mind, correct me if I'm wrong, that makes the 90 day window irrelevant at this point because more like you going to need that threat. And that's why I was asking before we're talking about a 90 day window. What is the initiation data that out to this meeting, to this package anyway whether that's at today's meeting is the first back to earth were final 90 days. So the. Oh. Yeah. So it's. Just. I'm sorry, sir. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. So there's two different things going on. There's one. The motion that's on the floor with the friendlies. There's also the the window that we were looking at with regard to, you know, the emergency declaration and the the the relief recommendations. So, yes, we would be looking at programs to cover employers, to cover employees and workers from the beginning of the declared emergency. And that's consistent a lot with what the federal government, the state government and some of the benefit programs, small business loan programs are also referring to. It's really the beginning of March through the end of May, when right now most of the emergency declarations are in place through mid-May to end May. Now, in terms of what we would the council is considering with regard to a sunset on some of the programs or policy recommendations, there's there's a range of some cities that we've looked at have said, you know, two weeks after the city health jurisdiction has declared the emergency over, some of them have said December 31st. In fact, a lot of the federal legislation says that the small business loans, tax credits and some of the other programs are actually in place until December 31st of this year, by the end of the year. And then, of course, the motion on the floor was 90 days after the state governor has has determined that the emergency has ended or the emergency period has ended. So it really is a question for the council, I think, to contemplate and provide policy direction to staff. Our job is more to provide you with an overview of what some of the other governmental agencies have done. Okay. If you don't, journalists are going to be. Okay. Any other question? I can't remember. But basically, I just want to say that I am not going to be supporting the service. I won't be seeking support for a reasonable approach. The questions that I got right now, it appears that it's very vague as to what we're looking at in terms of a sunset and I would more and war request that we probably have a timely update on this issue, whether it was 30 days from now, 60 days from now, whatever is appropriate. I think that is a more of a. Strategic clear to followers and having a definite name will be the sunset that anything that we do, whether it's before or after that we do within the next couple of weeks. It's important to me to know that the working families and our employees will matter with the industry again. Secondly, during this period, some of everything is, well, those individuals that we want to protect here. So I'm supporting the original motion with the time we're reporting back to the council as we moving forward. Okay. Thank you. Just to make sure Councilwoman Pryce, she made the substitute. I thought I heard a second on that, but I can't confirm who that was with who. Their second on and counts on the substitute motion by Councilwoman Pryce. I seconded. Again. The councilwoman manga. Okay. But I didn't speak. To the motion, sir, but I was left off of the speaking of second in motion. I have you have you queued up still in the queue here. So, Max, next up is Vice Mayor Andrew's. I've got Vice Mayor Andrews. I'm here. You know I think it's out the past and report you know that was quite a tough year for the man. A few things I would really like for us to focus on, because this is a crisis and there are frontline workers who are truly stepped up and will wholeheartedly work in every day to ensure that she has to stay super sanitized and clean. Most important, nobody should be working when they're sick for the fear of dismissal additional during this crisis. They certainly should be given all of the money should not be either or or delay going on in a certain industrial. Once an economy starts lifting back up. I think it is important to remember those who are loyal and and working hard to when the crisis began and gave those individuals an opportunity to come back first. Those are the ones that should be, you know, on the front line. We can reach an agreement tonight and children's rights to bring forward something that helps restore our city and livelihood. Thanks very much for being inside the border. Thank you. Okay. Next up, she is Councilwoman Christ and no government was Franklin Pierce. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank our staff for a very thorough staff report. I know it's already been said, but it's times like these that you guys really step up to the plate and demonstrate just how nimble we are. So congratulations on a job well done in getting us this report. I have a couple of comments to make. I will try to keep them brief. First of all, on the hospitality task force, as mentioned by Councilmember Jean de Haas, fully support that. I know right now that it's just those hospitality leaders. I would ask that staff, make sure that that includes people that are that work in the hospitality industry and work to support those those workers as well that also have to benefit from a thriving hospitality industry. And second, I wanted to clarify, as Councilmember Richardson mentioned, the recall and retention piece. These are policies that exist regardless of a crisis, and they exist regardless of bankruptcy. And so we know here in Long Beach and the second District, we've gone through many sales of our hotels in our downtown. And we know that often what can be the case? And can somebody mute? I can hear someone munching. Sorry. You guys it. Thank you. So we want to I guess somebody is not get it. But everyone needs their phone. Besides Councilmember Pearce, it looks like we have one or two lines that are not needed. Can everyone mute their phones except Councilmember Pierce? Thank you. Thank you. So getting to the worker retention piece, I think we have seen over time whenever new owners come in that the whole sub whole divisions of the hospitality industry have been let go and rehired. But I think it's important that we make sure that that this is something that is not just done with with bankruptcy or something that is specifically call that is covered. So the recall retention policy is something that's happened for, you know, over 15 years. It's something that we fully support and that I'd like to see continue to be strengthened with historic moments like these. We know that it's time for the government to step up and do the right thing and are very thoughtful and pragmatic about how things trickle down. So the comments made about sunsetting this and saying that it should be a donut for a certain number of days of the state emergency was lifted. We know that that emergency is lifted based not on economic stability, but it's based rather on health. And so it is important that employers have as long as they need to be able to bring back those employees. So we know that, you know, when a hotel might open up or a restaurant might open up, they might only open up. It's 50%. Black really. Quickly. Thank you. Hold on. Hold on. Okay, everybody on the line. I need everyone to mute their phones, please. There's clearly two people that are not muted in me, and I don't know if I don't know if it's a staff member that walked away from the phone. I don't know what's going on, but please, everyone mute their phones except for Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. Thank you. It definitely gets distracting when you're trying to think thoroughly through all your thoughts. So I wanted to say that on on the recall piece, it is important to make sure that that does not have a sunset because it might take two or three years. But it's also important to know that that the employees need to understand that if industry is back up, that the place that they worked for ten or 15 years is going to be in a position to hire them back. And so there's a lot about stability and making sure that workers know that there's going to be a job there for them whenever that time comes. So I would like. I would like to support to make a substitute substitute motion and support the original motion made by council member Van de Hoss. And I would like to include a 90 day report by our staff on the status of of these economic packages and where we're at. I think that everybody's done a really fantastic job, and I hope that we can move forward tonight with policies and processes that really help support not only our union members, but our nonunion neighbors and community members. Thank. But can I get a second on that substitute? Okay, hold on. There's I have a substitute substitute motion that the original motion made by council members and they have that ad they report back to council. I think I heard in 90 days. Can you guys meet your phones, please? Thank you. In 90 days. And that's a substitute seconded by Councilmember Richardson. I think. That was. Let me keep going. I still have a lot of books queued up. I get the right customer of yours. Yes. You got that right. Okay. The city attorney here, this is city attorney. I was wondering if these substitutes substitute motion there was some discussion by the council member that. The. The ending. Date for the main. Motions for items eight and nine. And I believe. You changed. Those dates or you want them to be not to have a sunset. Is that in your motion? And the original motion made by council members. And it did not include a sunset. Yeah. And I think that we need to have a little bit of discussion on that. I believe in order for the urgency and you're relating it to the COVID crisis, I think I heard you say it may be a year or maybe two years. I think you may need some sort of relationships to the COVID to do the urgency on an urgency ordinance to do that if you want to do a regular ordinance to. Do it forever or, you know. Without a sunset clause, we could do. That. It's certainly. Partly and a few. Months back. Go ahead. I believe that the original motion did not include the word emergency. This is not an American story or an. Accent. Urgency or not. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Let me get back to the speaker's list, but council member Mungo. Thank you. Mr. Parkin I'm not clear how the most recent motion could you tell me is different than the original motion. That's. That was what. I was asking. The way I understand the substitute substitute motion is the main motion and a report back in 90 days. Every 90 days. And so the council clarifies that we don't need that. Oh. Correct. That is the difference. And between this and the original. But. Okay. I have some clarifying questions. Mr. Chrysler, the report talks about seven companies that are over 500 employees. Councilman Mango, can you hold on 1/2? Can someone can you get me their phones? We have a lot of councilmembers who are trying to make their comments. And I just I feel like some phones are not needed. So please. Please meet your phones. Councilman Mango, go ahead. Thank you. There was. There were some differences in some of the ordinances that I've read related to the city of L.A., the county of L.A., the city of L.A. motion passed by the council, the city of L.A. directive from Mayor Garcetti. And so I just want to be clear. There were some back and forth about that, other jurisdictions that organizations have to have those 500 employees within the city limits. Mr. Parkin Is that how you see this or that? Any company with 500 employees anywhere in the world, if they have even five employees in Long Beach? They're connected to this. How do we where are we? And Councilmember, I'm going to ask Aaron McKinley if she's on the line to. Answer that question. Good evening. This is Aaron with the McKinley, with the city attorney's office there. That's just that you're describing, Councilman Mongo is actually the difference from the ordinance that was adopted by the L.A. City Council. They sought to have that ordinance apply. They were seeking to all the federal legislation and to apply to businesses with over 500 employees nationwide. When Mayor Garcetti adopted the ordinance, he altered that language in the application of that ordinance, and he changed it to 500 businesses with 500 employees inside of L.A. or and or 2000 employees nationwide. So that was something that was ultimately a policy decision for city council and for Mayor Garcetti and where I believe we would be seeking a policy determination from the city council tonight. So since every single motion has built on the original motion made by a couple moms and dads, I would like to ask Councilman Van de Haas , was your intent with those 500 employees within the city limits? That makes a lot of sense. 500 national. Oh, nationally. Okay. So even if they only have five employees locally, they would be required to do that. Yeah. So. Okay. So then my next question is there was some confusion and I thought that I got some clarification from Mr. Keisler, but I want to be sure that it's on the floor and open and in public that I'm not misunderstanding, but that if a company or a corporation, let's say a chain has a franchise and the franchise has 120 employees in the city of Long Beach, and that franchise is owned by a single business owner in the city of Long Beach. That would not apply to them, even though the corporation, which is made up of several smaller employees, has had more than 500. But as the city of L.A. did, they wrote in some language they have here, they pulled up. Let me see what it says. It says. It was made clear that franchise employees do not work for the parent company, and therefore these small businesses would not it would not apply to them. Is that your intent? Listen, they have come in and they have allowed them to cover those, both companies that have more than 500 employees. So. And yet nationally. Right. So in the case of, let's say a small but a small mom and pop fast food restaurant that has 120 employees and that owner only owns one mom and pop franchise, they would not be a part of that, though. The corporation is not headquartered here and it would not apply to them. Ben Council member Mungo We're talking about hospitality and janitorial. Company. Okay. Yeah. In my original thought of hospitality, I thought it included restaurants. So that helps a lot as well. Thank you. And then this has not been discussed yet. So, Councilwoman Pierce, I'd love to add a friendly that prioritizes local hire. Somehow there are going to be corporations and companies that maybe currently have, let's say, 600 employees. But when push comes to shove, they've taken some major hits. And maybe for the next five years, they're only going to have 500 employees. Is there any incentives we can offer that would prioritize Long Beach residents? Is that something you'd be open to in a friendly. The people that they're going to be rehiring are the people that worked for them originally. So the point is to make sure that people have access to their jobs back. In the hospital, that number might be 90% of people that were in hospitality industry are Long Beach residents. So but not only that, but I would say hotels are like that. So let's take an example. So let's say a hotel has 400 employees and over the next three years they only hire back 300 of them. Would there be an idea that of the 400 they have to choose from, we would want them to focus on local hire and that we hope that they would prioritize Long Beach residents instead of the 400, let's say only 50% were Long Beach residents. Wouldn't it be great if all the Long Beach residents were hired back first? Is that an incentive that we could have staff work on and bring back? I understand the intent behind it, and I think the intent of that is a great intent. As somebody who's worked on local hire policies longer than my time on council, I think there are some legal questions with that. But again, the intent of this is to make sure that an employer hires back the people that originally worked for them. In most cases, they're going to hire back based on their seniority or some other mechanisms. I don't think it's appropriate for us to use this time now to do a local hire policy. We want to do a local hire policy for the entire city. Then I think that we you know, we've asked for that several times over the last several years. So I think just making sure that the employer has the opportunity to hire back those folks, if there's incentives that the staff wants to work on and legal questions and they can work on those and come back. But I don't want to include it in this measure. I want to make sure that we try to keep them simple and to the point so that these employers are not being burdened in the middle of this crisis. That's very disappointing. As a Long Beach resident and representative of so many Long Beach residents, I would have hoped that we would have wanted to make it a priority to at least to have staff bring it back and offer an incentive without the delay of requiring a council member to rate another agenda item. But I'll work with some other colleagues on that who feel that local hire is more important. I'm very disappointed that my family is not being considered at this time. I want to clarify that the intention is is a great intention. I think that as staff, you know, they they're doing a lot of these reports if they want to bring something back. I don't think that it needs to be, you know, a big issue. I want to make sure that we're not overcomplicating things for the for the businesses. So I think that that's the proposal that you have might violate the Fair Employment Act and some other things, which is why I want to just keep it out of this item is not to be rude, it's just to make sure that we're trying to follow appropriate measures. And in no way have I said that you were rude. I've just said that your priorities do not include the research necessary for staff to come back with an incentive to make sure Long Beach residents are at the top of their priority. And that's fine, but that's your priorities and that's understood. And unfortunately, I can't make a substitute substitute because the floor is full. Would you say since you're not open to a friendly a council member. I'm sorry, city attorney park in is that a possibility for a separation of a question to add in some research on a local higher priority. No, not at this time. The substitute. Substitute motion is on. On the floor. And the what you're trying to add is an additional component, which isn't a divide by the question. A divide the question consideration at this time. I would like you to go to only. 1/2. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I have to. Mr. Parkin, please. Go ahead. Yeah, let me, let me, let me. Mr. Parkin has the floor when I ask the question. So we're going to let Mr. Parkin continue before we keep going, and then we'll get the responsibility for Parkin. Thank you. There was a question on. The. Supplemental sick leave policy. And I think, Councilman Mongo, you are bringing up the 500 workers and your example. Of the. Franchised and then it switched. And I think there was some confusion there about it applying to hotel and janitorial companies. The sick leave does. Not apply as is broader right to the recall. And worker return, and recall applies to the hospitality and janitorial hotel. Industry. But the sick leave. Is a 500 or more national. So it seemed like. There may have been some confusion there and I was hoping that I could get some. Clarity on that issue. Yeah, I was confused as well. So I think that was when I was asking the question of Councilman Van de Haas because the. The concern I had was that if there's a company that has. A small satellite here. They may choose not to maintain that satellite at all, and those employees would go away completely. Especially when you have such small satellites as five or six employees. And so that's why I was hoping that Councilman Van de Haas would be open to some kind of exemption on that. But since the pause, it hurts. I understand, and I don't think they have any additional ability on that. Is that correct, Charlie? That is correct. Thank you. Okay. Well, I just want to say that I think it's important that we put workers first. And putting workers first is my my number one priority. And I also want to make sure I will accept your friendly. I will have to search on local higher and have it come back. I mean, local higher. The idea that they're to look at I don't know, local higher is not not true is something I fully support and I would love for self to be able to do more research. I hope it also includes legal research about what we as a city can be doing because obviously we'd like to do as much as possible. So. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate that. It's important that we have the opportunity to clarify our words and sometimes each other's perceptions of that. But the way that it is can can be misconstrued. So I appreciate that local I that they're going to try really to be included in this motion. Thank you. And thank you from the workers who really want to be hired first. They think that that matters. And not all organizations have a policy on who they will hire. And maybe even them just hearing this discussion will have them take a different look at the way that they roll out their programing. So that and let me just check through my notes really quickly. Is there a way to define the word national, Mr. Parkin and ensure that franchises are defined as a small company? Because those were the two components in the city side that kind of went back and forth and and scooped up some businesses. And then there was clarification needed. I'm going to ask Aaron again to. Discuss what the federal and I. Think the local jurisdictions are doing. With that issue. Councilor Mongo. I believe that you correctly stated how a lady has addressed this issue in relation to franchising and how that determination is made around what employees count toward that larger number of 500, or the threshold that would trigger any obligations under a supplemental sick leave policy. The Federal Government has taken that on in a slightly different manner, suggesting that some people that not not along the franchise lines, but have suggested that you can't break a workforce down by where folks are working. So if you have people working in satellite offices, but they report back to one umbrella corporation, then all those individuals would be counted toward understanding the number of employees, for example, in that corporation. And there is that additional guidance embedded in the Federal Families First Act. I think that the recommendation used on the language that you quoted out of L.A. generally aligns with the steps the federal government have taken. And again, that would be a policy determination for council. So you're saying and maybe I'll just use a name, a chain, so I can throw it out there so that we can all be looking at the same thing. So let's say McDonald's. McDonald's is a well-known franchise company or. Yeah, let's go to McDonald's. So McDonald's or the corporation has 70,000 employees, but there's a business owner in Long Beach who owns one McDonald's in the city of Long Beach, or even literally on two McDonald's, one in Long Beach and one in another city. But combined, they don't make 500. The policy direction that would come from the making of the current motion, which I guess I would put it to. Councilwoman Pierce, is your thought that they would be included in the 500 because they are part of a big corporation? Yes. Okay. So, Councilman Pearce, small businesses that have less than 500 employees when they are a franchise would be required to provide the additional two weeks of sick leave. So you have let's eat hamburgers. That is not a part of a national team that has 120 employees. I think a McDonald's that has 120 employees. And because it has a brand name McDonald's and they give 10% of their money to the McDonald's Corporation or whatever they give it, they actually have no idea. But a percentage then now they would be subject to something that their competitor teams or even Burger or any of these others that are not part of a national chain would be subject to. Is that your intent? Yes. Ooh. Okay. Um, I'd love to get some feedback from my colleagues because I worry about a lot of our our fast food workers and the employers. I've asked these workers have been on the front lines and serving us for weeks and weeks and weeks. I know that I've talked to some of the local owners, including Chick-Fil-A and others, even though they're working hard. Their costs have increased for sanitization. They've been giving generous packages to their employees and they've been keeping them on, even though revenue was down. And now to count them as an employer of 500 when they actually only have 100 employees is very, very scary for me. So I'm going to have to think again. I was 100% in support of the motion, but I don't know that I can be as supportive when these these oftentimes people who've risen from being afraid all the way to the. Top. To be put in a position to even lose their business over there. So I'll have to think about it some more. I'm sure there's more people killed that'll give me some time to listen. And then there is there any excuse for public comment? The public comment is all these comments. Oh, it's all you comment. People aren't able to. Okay. That's right. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Next up is Governor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So very lively conversation. Good questions on all sides. I want to I want to reiterate, and I think the you know, the angels in the details here, the point on sick days, I do believe that five fold it makes sense. There's already protections for them smaller for those smaller businesses. What we're talking about are people who are not already included in the 5500. So the question of franchises, they wouldn't necessarily fall under both of these. Are they going to fall under what's been provided for 50 to 500 or 500? But I think the city attorney understands that ten of where we're going. And I think over the process of after we get this direction, that'll be clarified a little bit. 500 does make that the impact is above the universe that's already covered under federal law. So however that is defined, that's what we know the intent here. People use the example of McDonald's. McDonald's should be including McDonald's is 500 more employees at the national company, thousands of people in our city. You know, I mean, hundreds of people in our city are employed by McDonald's. Those are the types of workers that are inside that are members of our community that need these protections. And I need somebody to meet their folks. But these are the people that we're talking about need those protections 500 above. This is a good thing. This is positive. I'm happy to support that. On the question about Long Beach versus, well, you know, seniority, I don't think this is a this is a either or. Seniority is a well-established principle. And a lot of folks lean on seniority. And frankly, those workers a lot of workers depend on seniority. You know, resonance is hard to pin down. I think studying it separately and being allowed to talk about a separate, you know, separate research on local hire have supported local hire in the past. Folks like, you know, past council members, Councilmember Andrew, people have supported local hires. I think that warrants some further, further discussion. But I think the intention of a motion that here is the motion of here just talked about the existing workforce that's here. So as we come into recovery, those workers who did nothing wrong on their own should have a first rate review refusal to come back to work. Right. We're not talking about splitting hairs. We're talking about if you simply lost your job, do this emergency. You get an opportunity, get your job back. And, you know, I'm happy to talk about, you know, work on additional items and other things that come back. But I think what's in front of us. I just want to refocus. This is a good thing. It's a good thing. I think we we have time to kind of work out details of folks. So I just want to say that I support the motion at the front of the substitutes us do motion. It takes into account all of the feedback that that we've received in Councilmember Councilwoman and they have this motion and allows for additional reporting and it includes for a separate report on a separate report on some of the local issues that are important to all of us. So I strongly support it and I think it's yeah, I strongly support it. I'd like to get to a vote that. Think I still have folks cued up. But I just want to clarify also for the attorney, the friendly that was made for the the substitute substantive motion by Cutler Pierce had a friendly on it that was accepted but also was accepted by the second hour of the motion, which I believe was Constable Richardson was the second year of that motion. So I'm assuming you also get to the friendly. Okay. All right. But the question that was asked for let me go back to this were councilman's in the house. Thank you. Thank you for the whole council, my colleagues. I know this is something that we are all very passionate about. I know that right now what we really need to focus is or I should say refocus, that what we're trying to do here today is to provide some relief for our residents who do work in these small businesses throughout the city, our large businesses. But we really that's the focus of today. And I think that, you know, we we need to move forward. And I really appreciate all the you know, all the families that have been made and even those that were not accepted, but also those that were. And I think it's time for us to move forward and and and call for a vote soon. Okay. Next step is customary, Rango. Thank you. Basically, I've moved away from this proposition that there's between us, and I'm very supportive of of where we're at. I think we've landed in the place where we needed to be from the beginning. The only other question that I have was regarding item 11, which is the the digital divide question. Staff Rose and their colleagues at Will West Long Beach. Their work has been in the dark when it comes to Internet access and opportunities. So I would ask what makes sure that our staff, direct staff to ensure that West Long Beach is included in this work and always seems to be a priority in looking at West Larrabee too. Last time I saw the the assets of where Internet is provided, West said, was the weather ocean that was black. So I just want to make sure that that is included as well. That's all. Okay. Thank you. Next up is Council Councilmember Austin. Thank you all. I appreciate the conversation. I just had a couple of clarifications on regarding the. In 90 days on one of the under storm regatta review every 90 days on the mental and emotional. I guess until we clarify that, we no longer need that review. Okay. But I can live with the review of the debate. I think that that's an art and that that that says I'm on the on the issue of cimabue and I would like to see this. Move it up for consideration. For the Council to understand that we need to have great flexibility with what we're dealing with on the economy changing as it moves as it has just in the last few weeks. So I'd like to think about on, I don't know, flexibility to modify policy on so that we are not out of whack in the region because this is a regional issue. I think it has been established at the moment in Northern Ireland and there will be some money around this that will, you know, out of our own. Our policy that I don't think should be much different than it was and dissipated around us so easily. I'm waiting to see what the county of Los Angeles, the board of Supervisors, among those in San Francisco to speak about reflexively here, because if they come back in and of itself, necessarily, it should come back on. I did have a question for. The Economic Development Department is. Uh. Uh. Uh, uh. To about eight private sector employers that have 500 or more employees in the city. There's only really if you exempt out the health care and other large employers, that goes down to really about two local employers that actually have more than 500 people in the city and are not a part of the exemption list. However, as I mentioned, if you expand the universe to any company, even if they only have one or two employees in Long Beach but have more than 500 nationally, that's going to be a different research project for us to go look at. And if this is not an emergency ordinance, as the city attorney has said, we would have plenty of time to go and do that research and come back when the city attorney brings back the language that they've recommended. So we could do that. And then in terms of enforcement, what this would wear, this would fall. And this is similar to the county and city of L.A. This would be a process handled by the courts. So what would happen is, is an employee who feels that they've been aggrieved or has a formal complaint, they would file that with the courts and then the employer would have to deal with it as a as a matter of the in the court system. So it really wouldn't be something that the city would be enforcing. And that's not how we've seen it presented in L.A. as well. I thank you for that clarification. I have no further questions. I would just say that I would like to make the most of the briefing consider whether or not this is the emergency item or not. Okay. I do thing I do a tumor speaker is on the on a list. I know that we're queuing up again. I just want to make one comment before we go back to the next couple speakers. I just want to add something that comes from Austin said, which I think is is important. And I think the word is positive. Patients about adopting a package tonight is that similar packages are being adopted in the county and in the city of Los Angeles as well. Yeah, I think I, I like the idea of reviewing what we presented regularly because I think we're all going to have to tweak things as we go to ensure that we are doing alignment with our other partners as we go. And so I think I don't know if whatever we adopt tonight, I think there's a certainly high possibility that in the weeks and months ahead there will be alignment or tweaks that will happen because all the other agencies are doing similar types of measures . And that's happened, by the way, with our health orders as well. I mean, we'll put out a health order. L.A. will put one out a few days later, and then I end up aligning a week or two later in the county. And so I think that some of this is feeling our way through and then trying to get, you know, adopting adopting a package and then trying to work with our partners to align those as we move forward. So I imagine some of that will happen. So I just wanted to highlight that piece of customer assistance comments that I think that part's going to be really important moving forward. But let me keep going on that on the speaker's list, Councilman Mongo. No. I'm sorry. Councilman Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. So I'm. I'm glad that Councilman Orson asked for clarification on the 90 day review. I know that the Federal Cares Act, I believe it has a sunset date in December. Is that correct? Does does anyone know? Does the city attorney know that? Aaron. I think I think the answer is yes, I think at the end. Of the year. Aaron, do you have that deep? Hi. Yes, thinking customer. Remember Price? Yes, it is sunset on December 31st, 2020. Okay, that sounds good. I mean, I like the idea of having a sunset, but if the rest of council is not inclined to support that, then I respect that. I think a 90 day review is a nice compromise, so I like that. Well, who knows where we'll be in 90 days? But hopefully, like the mayor just said, we're able to align ourselves a lot with the various moving parts all around. I do have a couple of I share a lot of the concerns that Councilman Mongo raised about independent franchise owners. If you're a franchise owner, you're no different than a small business except for the fact that you pay for support from the franchise to your business. But you're still a small business and it's very, very difficult to you still have all the same expenses that every other small business has. But you also have to pay the franchise for the rights to use their name and their practices and their marketing materials. So if you think about it and I'm I'm happy to support the subscribe, although I really wish Councilmember Pearce he would think about the independent franchisee because as I read the CFA, I think it talks about small business ownership and independent franchisees. Those are those are categories of people that I think we should be separating from big corporate right in general. I think we want to try to and encourage people to invest in businesses and whether they decide to invest into a franchise or any other business. We want to try to encourage small businesses. And so, you know, if you think about it, they're getting hit by, you know, by both sides. They're considered a small business in some regards and they're considered now a large business in this regard. And I would hope that when this comes back for first or second reading, we can maybe have that the the benefit of seeing what some of our partners are doing and maybe sitting with that thought a little bit in terms of our, you know, the UPS store owner or, you know, the all people are just regular business owners trying to make ends meet. And so I would hope that we would be able to opt out for those folks in terms of the sick leave provision. And I, I do want to highlight again that the city attorney specifically asked us for some direction on item one. And so the items that I included in my stuff. Um, Councilmember Pearce, is it your intention to move the motion forward without identifying some clarity on those items? And if that is the case, then the question would be to the city attorney, what do we do with that? There was clear on issue one the strictly policies. There was clarity on the original motion for option one for opt out for the employers with 500 more. Okay. So that's only one of the factors listed that you're. Providing any information on that. The other one. I don't have the original emotion right in front of me. Well, page eight has. Nine items that the city attorney said that they would like some I talk about a lot to me I'm saying. The City attorney. You have to believe that it's been sent to you by now. The original motion. Yes. We have. In front of us. Yes. Yeah. Let me let me let me let me go ahead. And, Mr. Turner, can you clarify what the original. I thought I heard that they were going to motion have some clarity on item one, but maybe I missed that. Can you can you review that? Yes. On item. One. The this review of supplemental SEC policies. That councilmember for the first. District moved that they had asked option a. All employers with more than. 500 workers nationally provide a benefit of 80 hours of supplemental COVID 19 related paid sick leave to full time workers and a pro-rated amount. Of those working first time who do not, for the employer. And employees, have a. Collective bargaining agreement that includes an item one. Okay. So, Councilwoman Pearce, would you be willing to consider an exemption for businesses of 50 or less? As I know the federal standard does that, but our ordinance wouldn't unless we included that language. So our ordinance is to. Supplement what the federal level did not do. So including. But you're asking for sick leave for 50 or less. That's your life? Yes. So do we not need to enumerate that? Is that already included? I guess I'm confused about that. And reading the it's under the other consideration language here. So I didn't think it would be included in ours. But if it is, then I guess that issues. No. It's not specifically included in Ari because we wanted to. I think that I think that I think the issue is moot. Right. I'm Mr. City attorney in my interpreting this. I'm going to ask Karen again to step in on this one. I think it is. So this the federal rate, the federal act that came out for the CARES Act supplemented the Families First Act and the Family First Act applied to businesses with 500 and less. And there were some considerations for small businesses that would be facing financial hardship by the implementation of the Act. That was later clarified that the DOL but the intention was to not have that federal action apply to businesses with more than 500 employees. With less than 500 employees. So the Federal Act applies to businesses with less than 500 employees. So the gap would be that you're looking to fill in for employee with 500 for employers with 500 or more employees, they are not covered by the Federal Families First Act. It's always because it's already been covered. Right? Right. I see what you're saying. I guess that's right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And what about the council member parents? Are you willing to consider anything about whether the ordinance should apply to employers that are closed or have laid off employees as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic? So. Like, they've had their non-essential business and they've had to close down. About William? Yeah. Somebody is there and they don't longer work there then. How does that employer supposed to pay them for sick leave? I think it's also a moot. Okay. And I'm seeing an employer that has already laid off employees expected to pay for their sick leave. Although many companies have furloughed employees. So assuming the company reopens, that employee will be resume their work. And if that's the case, that if the employers resume their work, then they should have to pay sick leave. But related to COVID issue. I mean, assuming the non-essential business opens up after the health orders are modified to allow the non-business non-essential business to open up, then we're operating in a period of post COVID emergency. So my question to you is, are you willing to it's really a small ask. It's just for these businesses that are closed, do they would they have to give sick leave for COVID related sick leave when they're closed? I don't think when they're close, they're expected to pay for strictly. I don't. Well, I understand that and heard that before. And so I'm trying to fully understand. If they've opened and covered, come back, then they should have to pay for sick leave. If there is an employee actively working. Yes. Okay. So I'm just reading the document and it has the city attorney's opinion and it says for us to consider whether the ordinance should apply to employers that are closed. So what you're saying is you've never heard that this would apply to employers that are closed. I'm just following up on this document. Can we provide some further direction there? Are you willing to do that? Thank you completely. Yes. Councilmember Pearson Price. But would it be helpful if some additional background was provided in relation to that item, to that comment? That would be very helpful. And the reason why I. I made the statement, but I hadn't heard of it before because I haven't. While it's in the memo, if the business is closed due to COVID, I don't think that there is a need for them to pay because they have not. They're not bringing in income if that business reopens. And at that time, they should be paying. That would be my interpretation. And I think the direction that that would make sense, that it wouldn't matter. Let's go ahead and hear some more clarification on that and then we'll continue. So please. That's on the position that the Department of Labor has taken in relation to the interpretation of the Family First Act. One of the audiences that was included in your packet was from the LA City Council, and initially the City Council wanted to remove that carve out that interpretation by the DOL and specifically include in the supplemental separate businesses that were closed as a result of COVID and and have them still have to comply with the act. That's part of the reason why that was included for consideration is that with 18 different municipalities taking a position that is different from the position that you're suggesting, Councilwoman Pearce, and the real world interpretation of the Family First Act. Perfect. So the way this motion is, if it's voted on tonight, it would be consistent with the federal interpretation. That's correct. Okay. Great. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. I mean, go back to now. I have council member Mungo. Great. With the clarification that the city attorney made, I actually don't think that it would be possible for the businesses to operate under the CARE Act, which have less than 500 employees. For example, I'll go back to Chick-Fil-A on the pay statement and the W-2. A person's employer is a person not to play, and so they would be covered under the CARE Act. And therefore, even if we move forward with the debate, that couple of shares that I had earlier, it wouldn't be possible because they can't be covered twice. So with that clarification, Councilwoman Pierce, since they're already covered under Care Act, because they're under the Care Act, considered a business of 20 of 500 or less in applying for those grants, and they can't be considered on both sides. Does that eliminate our discussion from earlier and put us on the same page? Clarify again for me. So it. I'm I'm franchisees. So franchisees actually are covered under the CARE Act or the supplemental policy already. And that issue area one is gap coverage. And so because there's only gap coverage. Franchisees are not currently in the gap. And so it would not apply to them because they're already. Covered in the CARE Act. It depends on the number of employees of that franchisee. So, I mean, that's. But if they are a single and have less than 500 in the CARE Act, and I guess that would be too. Okay, great. Well, then that removes those small local businesses and I think realigns with the intent so I can be supportive of the motion. Great. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead. I think there's been some consensus here around the motion. Let's to call the the motion here. I don't see any I just I have someone account number representative cued up again. Do we need to can we just vote or. We can vote? Okay. Local, please. Madam Clerk. Council. District one. I. Council. District two. I. Am. Council district three. I did see the. Council, district four, High Council, District five. A Supreme Council District six. US. Council District seven. High. Council District eight. High. Council District. 959. High. Motion Carries. Thank you, guys. We'll go on to the next item. So I'm going to do that for 1/2. The next I do, I'm going to try to move quickly through quickly. We have item 42, which is a COVID 19 funding item.