Olympia council refers Workers' Bill of Rights initiative to November ballot after split vote

Olympia — After extended public comment and a lengthy council debate, the Olympia City Council voted on July 21 to send a citizen-sponsored Workers' Bill of Rights initiative to the November general election rather than adopt it as a city ordinance.

The measure, which would raise the city minimum wage for certain employers, set rules for scheduling and require workplace safety planning for large employers, was certified sufficient by the Thurston County Auditor and brought before the council under state law. "The purpose of tonight's agenda item is for you to consider and take formal action on a resolution regarding a workers' bill of rights initiative ordinance," Assistant City Manager Stacy Ray told the council during the presentation.

Supporters and opponents packed public comment. Proponents said the measure would help local workers with unstable schedules and low pay; opponents — including small-business owners and representatives of the Washington Food Industry Association and the Washington Retail Association — said the ordinance as written could impose burdens on small businesses and nonprofits and urged the council to refer the measure to voters for further study.

The council considered two statutorily required options: adopt the initiative ordinance without changes or send it, without alteration, to a public vote. Council member Gilman moved to adopt the initiative as an ordinance, arguing the city should use available staff time to implement protections rather than go through a costly campaign. "This measure came to us with more than enough signatures to qualify for the ballot," Gilman said. The motion to adopt did not pass.

After Gilman's proposal failed, Council member Green moved to send the measure to the November ballot. That motion passed. Mayor Payne then explained procedural consequences to the public: once the measure is on the ballot, council and staff will be limited in how they respond publicly to inquiries and the city must pause the dedicated staff work on a separate policy analysis of the Bill of Rights that had been planned.

Stacy Ray summarized petition and timeline details during the council presentation: the county auditor certified the petition as sufficient on July 14; the auditor determined the minimum verified signatures required to be 5,788. Petition data presented to the council showed 13,764 signatures submitted by proponents, 12,118 examined, and 5,796 verified by the county.

Speakers reflected a range of perspectives. Will Calicoat, identified in public comment as "president for MultiCare Capital Medical Center," said hospitals were assessing the initiative's impacts and facing other rising costs, and urged placement on the ballot. Small-business owners and franchisees, including Nicole Budigan (restaurant owner) and Alex (last name provided in the transcript as) Keter (in-home care franchise owner), warned that the initiative's definitions (for example, how it classifies large, medium and small employers) and enforcement provisions could have unintended consequences for small employers and for services such as senior care.

Workers and labor representatives urged immediate adoption. "We gathered over 12,000 signatures on this initiative, an incredible feat in our small community," organizer April Miller said during public comment. Local union leaders and other speakers argued the measure would provide predictable schedules and higher pay, benefits they tied directly to housing stability and local economic circulation.

Stacy Ray also told the council that the initiative text requires the city to adopt rules and procedures to implement the ordinance within 120 days of its effective date, and that the city clerk and council must follow county deadlines should the council choose to send the initiative to the ballot. Council members noted additional questions remain about categorization of employers, interactions with state law, and how enforcement would be carried out if the ordinance became law.

With the council's vote to send the initiative to the ballot, the city will appoint "for" and "against" committees to prepare explanatory statements. City staff indicated the council will take formal action to appoint committee members at its next business meeting; the clerk asked that volunteers email the council by Friday, July 25. Council members and staff also warned that, while the measure is on the ballot, the city cannot use staff resources to lobby for or against it and will have to pause the separate, council-directed study and policy analysis that had been planned.

What happened next: the measure will appear on the November general election ballot. If voters approve it, the initiative's provisions — as written in the petition certified by the county — would take effect according to the dates and phase-ins specified in the text. If the council had adopted it tonight, the city would instead move directly into implementation rulemaking under the initiative language.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to adopt the initiative as an ordinance (moved by Council member Gilman): motion failed after council debate. - Motion to send the initiative to the November general election ballot (moved by Council member Green): motion passed; council instructed staff on next procedural steps.

The council will appoint members to the official "for" and "against" committees at its next business meeting and has indicated that staff will publish the presentation materials and petition details on the city website for public review prior to the August deadlines outlined by the Thurston County elections office.